If there is one thing that the anti-Zionist section of the Huffington Post bloggers' stable is good at, it's whining. And as anyone who has worked with large amounts of small children know, the more people who whine the more effective they are. The last thing we heard from the Huffington Post Whiners Brigade was on
the subject of the "flotilla massacre" and before that they closed ranks to
defend Helen Thomas.
This time we have three veteran whiners:
James Zogby,
Daoud Kuttab, and
Mark Levine, all whining about America's granting of warplanes to Israel as an incentive for them to continue a settlement freeze. The only thing that varies between them is the language: Kuttab calls it a "bribe," and uses the term eleven times in the course of his article. Levine tries to depict the exchange as a victory by Israel over America, "have no doubt about it, the US and Israel might be close "allies," but Obama is being treated as little better than an opponent to be vanquished rather than a patron to be respected."
perhaps to try to speak to the nationalistic pride of the HPers? Ha! Zogby on the other hand starts by pretending that he just doesn't understand why America is doing this, but then makes it clear that he totally does understand and doesn't like it.
So for the purposes of this article, I'll take a look at all three articles at once, seeing as how three members of the WB all say the same thing, as I will demonstrate. Let's get started. First talking point, that America shouldn't be giving the planes:
Kuttab: "The danger in this latest American bribe is that it comes not as a reward for progress in talks, but as an incentive to the Netanyahu government to agree to stop [building]."
Levine: "Despite the immense power disparity in the American's favor, it's not hard to figure out why the Israelis continuously win such lopsided victories, most recently in the agreement of the Americans to provided yet more billions of dollars worth of advanced fighter jets in return for another limited (read: illusionary) settlement freeze."
Zogby: "It also makes no sense that the U.S. is offering incentives, on a grand scale, to Israel for a mere three month freeze."
Well fellas, let me answer that one for you. What they all didn't bother to mention is that Israel
did freeze settlements not merely for three months but for ten months, and they didn't expect to receive anything in return from America. They
did expect the Palestinians to reciprocate and move toward peace, but the PA dragged their feet until time ran out. Neither of these inconvenient details appeared in the Whiners' Brigade articles, not even to dismiss it as a "not really real freeze."
Now that the ten month whatever-it-is is over, however, Israel's government is suspicious of doing it again. They have lost political capital to the point where the government is
in danger of collapsing. Which is not entirely surprising: They gained nothing, and lost something, the last time they did what America asked. They will not do it for free again, no matter how much our local bloggers complain about it.
Let's use a metaphor: President Obama ordered a bailout to the tune of hundred of billions of dollars to help America's business get back on track.
It was unpopular with quite a few sections of the population, no question, but the President convinced the Congress that it was the right thing to do. And now some businesses like
General Motors are back up and running, perhaps due to that decision.
Obama certainly believes so. But now let's imagine that Congress paid the money, suffered the lumps, and suffered
practically no success for their effort. No significant companies recovered thanks to the government's work and the voters fumed. Would Congress be so willing to do the same thing again, even if they paid less money? Or would they want something in return? This happens all the time in American politics, and now it is happening in regards to foreign relations.
It is not an isolated thing.
Ah, but the whiners brigade are ready for this point too! You see, they say, Israel should keep sacrificing and keep bending over backwards to please America (and the Palestinians) not because it will move the peace talks forward but because it is "the right thing to do."
Kuttab: "[Building settlements is] considered illegal by the entire international community, including the US."
Zogby: "If settlement construction is "illegitimate" then what are we talking about?"
We see this weak-sauce argument all the time among the Huffington Post talkbackers, so I can't say I am surprised to see it here. What America and President Obama have come to understand is that settlements matter a
lot to a not insignificant number of Israel's voters, and the rest of them don't much like the idea of giving something for nothing either. So Kuttab and Zogby can either complain about this or face that reality and work through it. We know what Mr. Kuttab's fellow Palestinians prefer to do, but I was expecting better from him. Like I said, it's not unusual for nations to be offered an incentive to continue to make unpopular decisions at home for the sake of another nation. That doesn't make it a "bribe," Mr. Kuttab.
And of course, the Palestinians should also be cracking down on terror groups, end the indoctrination of their children to hate Jews and Israel, and recognize Israel as a Jewish state. And they shouldn't need to ask for something in return for doing it, because it is the right thing to do. And yet I do not see Mr. Kuttab or Mr. Zogby complaining about it. I say this not as a deflection but to point out the hypocrisy of not only the whiners brigade but a great many people who criticize Israel unilaterally on this topic.
