Just when I thought I had the Huffington Post editorial position nailed down, they surprise me all over again. See, I was sure that they were against American military interventions, in the Middle East or anywhere else. They had Michael Moore recently demand that "all troops come home." They have Tom Englehardt whose entire life is apparently based around criticizing American military decisions, and of course Sharmine Narwani's lovely opinions on the subject.
The last time we encountered Faisal Abbas, editor in chief of Al Arabiya English, he was bending over backwards to "prove" that Israel is not a democracy because one soldier did something out of line. Since then he has actually done a decent job writing about a variety of different subjects until yesterday when he has officially made a request for more American (not merely Western) interventions in the Middle East.
Unsurprisingly, he starts with Israel and the Palestinians, complete with the usual request for a "balanced" foreign policy, before going too far and showing his ignorance:
"based exclusively on the fact that Israel (a country which was established based on a U.N. resolution) leads the way in disobeying U.N. resolutions."You can't "disobey" UN resolutions. The UN doesn't call on Israel to do anything. They issue opinions about what Israel does (as well as what the Palestinians do) but Israel is under no obligation to do as they ask. And considering the "Zionism is racism" resolution, as well as the usual balance, it says more about the UN than Israel.
Furthermore, why is American required to "base" their foreign policy "exclusively" on what the United Dictatorships have to say? I kind of like the idea of basing our foreign policy on the fact that Israel is an ally who shares our values while the Palestinians are the kind of people who support stabbing babies and who danced in the streets on 9/11. But apparently Mr. Abbas isn't such a big fan of common sense approaches.
After taking a shot at the "incredibly powerful Israeli lobby" and fawning over the "moderate Palestinian leadership" versus the "incredibly stubborn Israeli government" (time to buy a dictionary I think), Abbas returns to the classic Great Anti-Zionist Strawman: That Israeli settlements are "demolishing all efforts to orchestrate a final peace treaty." But rather than taking that final step and telling President Obama what he must do, Abbas simply moves on. Sure, it's easy to talk about peace but how exactly does he think it will happen? Is he willing to demand that the "moderate" Palestinian leadership give up land? How about Jerusalem? How about the "right of return?" Anything at all? If he isn't even willing to ask the Palestinians to do anything, why isn't he asking the same from President Obama?
But this is all besides the point, because Syria is really what I wanted to discuss, as it is the next section of Abbas' article:
"The Middle East requires the same Commander-in-Chief which managed to rid the world of al-Qaeda's leadership.
"It is well-known that whilst uprising in the above mentioned countries were successful, the revolution in Syria turned into an ugly bloodbath as the Assad Regime sought to crush the aspirations (and bones) of all those who dreamt [sic] of a democratic nation.
"The death toll stands at 60,000 lives with hundreds of thousands of refugees displaced between neighboring countries.
"Yet, President Obama's second inauguration speech doesn't send comforting messages as to how he intends to move on the U.S. foreign policy front..."He then proceeds to spend the rest of the article talking about how President Obama may emulate Eisenhower in the second term, consolidating America's power rather than projecting it.
Mr. Abbas considers this to be a bad thing. Because Syria needs his (by which we mean "our") help.
So I ask you this: Why is America obligated to help in Syria? Unlike Israel and Egypt, Syria is not our ally and there is little indicating that the rebels fighting Assad would be friends with America, no matter what Mr. Abbas has to say about it.
Why does Saudi Arabia do something about it? They have money, they have soldiers, they have toys of war. Why doesn't Arab League do something about it? They seem more than willing to unite in violence when Jewish people are concerned, or their precious Palestinians. Hey, why doesn't your precious UN do something about it?
Whatever you want to do, leave America out of the situation. The Huffington Posters scream every day about how America "fights wars for Israel," despite a complete lack of facts backing up that claim. I guess we shall see how the Huffington Posters feel about yet another military intervention in the Middle East. I'm guessing since it comes from someone who isn't white or non-Muslim, they will be completely on board.