Both Gates of Vienna and Neo-neocon finds a great deal of strangly redundant nuance in Guardian Senior correspondent Jonathan Steele’s suggestion that Europeans use the “recent Hamas victory as a chance for Europe to try its more nuanced approach to the Middle East conflict.”
I’ve touched a bit on this myself — the idea that Europe has not been heading this “peace process” for years now while relying on a US imprimatur to lend their “diplomatic” efforts weight is risible [in fact, Bush has often been chided and demonized for his unwillingness to deal with ostensible terror groups, including Arafat’s PLO and now Hamas], and the effects of the European engagement method, one often joined-in by various US administrations) are now plain to see: a grievance culture in the Palestian “refugee camps,” wherein an air of entitlement and cultural superiority grown lazy on the narrative of its own oppression by an evil Zionist occupation (one that has been provided consistent international cover by a western socialist press that turned hostile to Israel the moment its military power grew in accordance with its rethinking of the socialist kibbutz culture in favor of joining a potentially burgeoning global economy) is ascendant, and has proven valuable to the region’s other autocrats as a kind of violent car crash consistenly rubbernecked by the world press, distracting them from larger problems. That is, the Europeans, for all their haughty nuance, have been played like flimsy-stringed fiddles by a determined fundamentalist/nationalist alliance who has had as its goal from day one the extermination of he Jewish state.
Which is why Steele’s suggestion that the Hamas election is finally time for the Europeans to shine is like the old Jim Kaat headscratcher that he was often happy to give up a grand slam, because doing so emptied the bases and gave him a fresh start.
But I digress. Here’s neo-neocon’s take:
Steele is so nuanced he is practically insane. That’s not a word I ordinarily use (“insane,” that is, not “nuanced”), and of course it’s hyperbole.
But I can think of no better one to describe how out of touch this man is with reality. Either that, or he doesn’t actually believe a word he says, and merely trusts that his readership is totally out of touch with reality.
Either way, I have a question: why is this man senior foreign correspondent at a major newspaper? Surely even a leftist/liberal rag such as the Guardian could find a journalist who advances their arguments and positions with more finesse and believability than this:
If Europe, weak though its power may currently be, wants to have an independent role in the Middle East, clearly different from the manipulative US approach, it is vital to go on funding the PA regardless of the Hamas presence in government. Nor should the EU fall back on the cynical hope that Hamas will be as corrupt as Fatah, and so lose support. You cannot use European taxpayers’ money to strengthen Palestinian institutions while privately wanting reforms to fail. Hamas should be encouraged in aiming to be more honest than its predecessors.
Above all, Europe should not get hung up on the wrong issues, like armed resistance and the “war on terror”. Murdering a Palestinian politician by a long-range attack that is bound also to kill innocent civilians is morally and legally no better than a suicide bomb on a bus. Hamas’s refusal to give formal recognition of Israel’s right to exist should also not be seen by Europe as an urgent problem. History and international politics do not march in tidy simultaneous steps.
Almost every sentence in these two short paragraphs shows a naivete (at best) and a wrongheaded illogic (at worst), plus a subtext of such profound hostility to Israel and joy at the Hamas victory that it is, quite simply, stunning.
“Hamas should be encouraged in aiming to be more honest than its predecessors.” I wonder how Steele proposes to reinforce that honesty; strangely enough, he’s mum on the subject. I think the construction of the sentence is also interesting; note he writes “encouraged in aiming” to be more honest, not in actually becoming more honest. Perhaps Steele would be satisfied with the mouthing of good intentions by Hamas.
It’s clear that Steele’s main interest is in sticking it to those dreadful Americans, and in showing that Europe knows so much better how to handle these matters. Along the way, he seems to have a great respect for (and trust of) the Hamas leaders he’s interviewed.
Perhaps. Or perhaps he simply maintains a de facto faith in the intellectual, diplomatic, and foreign policy supremacy of the Europeans.
Which—given that insanity is often defined by repeating the same failed actions over and over and expecting different results—means that perhaps the use of “insane” was ever more apt that was initially allowed.
Read the rest here.
Related: “Rice to Press for Isolation of Hamas-led Government”
Hmmm.
Frankly it sounds like that swamp castle schtick in Monty Python’s Holy Grail.
“Let’s not get hung up on who kill who…”
Bizzare.
It seems like we are unknown participants in a great study: The premise? How many Israeli citizens can be killed, while we pretend to get closer to recognizing their plight? Every time Israel lives up to an agreement item, and the Palistinians do not, we reset the field from there.
How close can we get to actually demanding that Palestinians keep their promisses, without penalizing them for failure to do so?
Things the Lefty British, French (all), Germans (all)–which is what Steele means by “European”–understand better than we uncultured cowboys:
1. Soccer (No, I will NOT call it football, especially THIS week.)
2. The “nuance” of ignoring totalitarian dictatorships’ stated aims. (Rhineland reoccupation or nuclear freeze anyone?)
3. The “nuance” of ignoring the stated positions of terrorist organizations or, for that matter, presidents of certain islamic republics. (“Looking Glass, NORAD. Confidence is high,” anyone?)
Number 1 is just a lefty plot to bore us all to death; Think of the Super Bowl as an innoculation.
Numbers 2 and 3 are the real danger. Of course, I’m just another unsophisticated cowboy who takes Hamas at its word.
Europeans do have a
n eternal love affair withvery nuanced understanding of genocidal politics.Is there anywhere on the continent you can stand that isn’t just a couple shovelfuls of dirt above a recently filled mass grave for undesirables?If the whole of American politics were
merely a polite veneer over legally forbidden but covertly all-defining narratives of racial purificationas nuanced as theirs, we’d supportmaking Israel a heap of Jew bones with a plaque on topPalestinian democracy, too.And by “BöZ,” I meant “BoZ” w/ an umlaut, but Jeff hates me.
In some sense, the Palestinians are the Darrell Strawberry of international politics. Surely they’ll shape up if we just give them a 274th chance…
So much of what Europeans consider “diplomacy” comes from the days when war between nations was simply a parlor game played by the inbred monarchs of the various kingdoms of the continent. Back then, the goal of war wasn’t about destroying one’s enemy, it was about getting your enemy to do what you wanted them to do. And besides, if you destroyed them, who would you play with next year? That’s no fun. And that’s why, when a true aggressor comes along, Europe descends into catastrophe. They simply don’t “get” aggressors, because to an aggressor, “nuance” is an opportunity.
yours/
peter.
So if the Europeans are wrong to try to “engage” with Hamas, then what is right?
What is the correct solution to the Palestinian problem?
No fair positing short-term, temporary stop-gap solutions. What’s a real, long-term solution?
You have the wrong premise. There is nothing wrong with engagement itself if the parties are both acting in good faith. It is not a good move to engage with terrorist states as if they are simply other citizens of the world running other legitimate governments, particularly one with the express purpose of wiping Israel of the map.
Finish building the wall, isolate them as a terrorist state, and allow the people of “Palestine” to decide that having Hamas in power—and having an agenda that revolves around killing Jews and “taking back” lands that weren’t yours to begin with—has consequences beyond some frowny European diplomat occasionally wagging his finger at you. Which is tough for him, you see, because he really does wish to understand your kind.
In short. You treat them luck fucking adults. And adults who are into genocide should be ostracized and, in some cases, preemptively prevented from carrying out their stated agendas.
Yes! Europe must stand up and pour billions of billions of Euros in Palestine! That’s exactly what a socialist megastate staggering under the burdens of its own failed social engineering needs! Go get ‘em, guys!
Hey! Jim Kaat was a central figure in the Cardinals World Championship of 1983.
Solution? Hah! I don’t know if there’s a real solution, but how about now Israel treats every terrorist attack as an act of war and bombs the hell out of whatever looks funny? Pound the paleostinians back to the Stone Age.
The logic puts the cart before the horse.
“If Europe, weak though its power may currently be, wants to have an independent role in the Middle East, clearly….blah, blah, blah, support Hamas”
Exactly the wrong tactic. If Europe is weak then only preparing a credible military force will give it any standing in the Middle East. And what does playing along with Hamas do except fund the same old chaos and murder?
It sounds like the old diplomatic illusion: the visiting dignitary gets off the airplane, walks the red carpet, inspects an honor guard, and concludes they like us, honor us, and we have influence. Then he goes home and the thugs spend his billion Euros killing their rivals and spitting at the donor until time to request more cash for another year.
The Palestians are really in a fix. There is no economy and they are ruled by murderers. They chose this bunch to replace a similar bunch who couldn’t even murder effectively.
I wish good luck to any decent people who are keeping their head down. They are in a 50 year nightmare, going for 60, and I see no solution.
Europe has had almost no influence on the Middle East because their approach is that everything can be solved by talking. So they start by saying something like “Surely you chaps would like to do what we tell you, seeing how smart we Europeans are”.
They are always baffled when this doesn’t work, and tend to blame it on the inability of non-Europeans to understand nuance.