NEWSPAPER COLUMNS
 ¶ Most Recent
¶ Miscellany
|
COMMENTARY
January 6, 2007
Jaw-jaw chronicles
If Winston Churchill is still loitering in the uplands of Purgatory (I have no particular information about such things), I wonder if he has had a chance to reconsider his famous dictum that, “To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.”Verily, it is odd that so many of my most disagreeable leftwing correspondents begin their attacks on me with this cliché, which they consider the most self-evident proposition in politics. Do they realize they are quoting Sir Winston? Surely they could find a similarly pacific line, from the many articulate pronouncements of the Rt. Hon. Neville. Yes, gentle reader, this is going to be another of my warmongering columns. Today’s point of departure is the meeting at Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt between the Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, and the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert. I have diligently read all the diplomatic effusions generated by that brief encounter, and I defy anyone to find a single point of substance that was decided, or even discussed. Except, the People’s Daily website in Beijing, asserts that the two leaders may have agreed to further meetings -- on the basis of information I cannot find elsewhere. Now, Churchill’s dictum might apply if there were any present danger of a war between Israel and Egypt. But by the current standards of the region, that is among the least likely things to happen. No: Mr Mubarak was (reportedly) trying to broker peaceful arrangements between Israel and the Palestinians. Odd, because the war currently raging is between two factions of the Palestinians, and the Israelis can do little but wait for one of the scorpions to finish eating the other. Mr Mubarak himself -- a charming and intelligent man, and only an authoritarian despot, or “moderate” as we say in diplomatic parlance -- looked ill-at-ease in the press conference. It was as if he himself was asking the question, “What am I doing here?” One almost wanted to cry out, “It is okay, Hosni: you are having ‘talks’.” It is hard to know what anyone can do, but watch, as one reflects on such events as the big, radical Muslim parade through Nazareth in Israel that marked Christmas. Nazareth, like Bethlehem, is one of those ancient Christian towns that has recently ceased to have a Christian majority, and from all reports, the purpose of this huge demonstration was to intimidate the Christians who remain. Being able to do this well within the boundaries of the State of Israel, added a poignant touch. I consider this relevant because, any possibility for genuine peace in the region must necessarily include provisions that would grant Christians (and Jews, and Zoroastrians for that matter) “quiet lives and daughters with curls”. But with whom could the targets of such demonstrations, or any government that represents them, possibly negotiate? Mr Mubarak himself -- I mentioned he is intelligent? -- perfectly realizes he has nothing to negotiate with. He has no control over either Palestinian faction, and when he tries to uphold the significant peace agreement signed with Israel by his predecessor, Anwar Sadat, he faces Egyptian public opinion that has long since rejected the principles it enunciates. For whether a neighbouring government does or doesn’t sign a piece of paper with Israel, the non-acceptance of Israel’s right to exist remains a fact of life throughout the Arab Muslim world. It is under just such conditions, that the truly percipient observer must conclude that there is nothing to talk about. Instead, there are any number of things to be done, to the purpose of securing whatever frontiers can be secured, and keeping the worst enemies of civilization in a state of hounded confusion. This, more or less, has been the Western strategy, from President Bush down, and while it offers unsatisfying overall results, it can at least create a few sunlit meadows here and there, where the possibility of peaceful coexistence might eventually gain some traction. Churchill’s dictum applied with some force to a vastly different historical situation, wherein the conflicts were between organized and disciplined European states. And it is true, in such a case, that talking -- about almost anything at all -- is preferable to dropping bombs on one another. Moreover, whether or not the signatory of a peace agreement delivered on its terms, that signatory at least had the power to deliver. This is not what pertains today, across the Middle East, where old-fashioned European-style diplomacy is about as idle a pursuit as one could imagine. David Warren
© Ottawa Citizen
|
Top