Reply #13: Well, if people don't want advice, they don't; but in a global society that's what they will get [View All]

[LeftishBrit]

Britain gets advice from other countries all the time, on the basis of their experiences and perspectives. Some of it is valid; some of it isn't.

I have frequently encountered the 'you don't live in Israel, you have no right to comment' from Israelis in response to criticism. In my experience, it's far commoner than any sort of accusation of antisemitism. I suppose you should expect that sort of thing from Israeli isolationists. What is odd here, is that an American, who makes a living by commenting on the Middle East, should be using the same argument. If he really thinks that Israel should be left to its own devices and that external comment is arrogant, what is he doing 'watching the Middle East' and writing opinion pieces about it?

As regards the content of the article, it is standard 'peace is impossible; it's wrong even to try' argument by the hawks:

'The idea that engagement with Iran would work has already proven wrong.

--The idea that the United States could successfully engage Syria in a set of mutual compromises has already proven wrong.

--The idea that an Obama charm offensive would bring higher levels of Arab support has already proven wrong. And that's just in six months!'

Yes, 'just in six months'. So if it doesn't work instantly, that means you shouldn't even bother trying. I'm glad that the Northern Ireland negotiators had a different attitude. That took years.


'Finally, if someone doesn't understand that the barrier to peace is the Palestinians and not Israel, any advice they give Israel is going to be worthless.'

How about considering the possibility that the 'barrier' is created by both sides???? Arguments that imply that one side is perfect and the other is entirely villainous are generally wrong, whether from the likes of Barry Rubin, or from the likes of Counterpunch.