What Tony Should Say

Diplomacy and the truth are not necessarily incompatible

A resolute demeanor. Your words should match it, Mr. Secretary…

---

So last week, Claire Berlinski (and if you don’t subscribe to The Cosmopolitan Globalist, shame on you) directed my attention to this article by Dan Perry. “The useful idiots of global Jihadism” correctly deplores those Westerners, mostly progressives and leftists, whose support for the Palestinian cause leads them to make excuses for or even cheer on Islamofacist death cults like Hamas. Perry writes:

Hamas opposes any accommodation with Israel and seeks its destruction—that is the meaning of “from the river to the sea”—and its imams have spoken of war to the finish with all Jews based on genocidal interpretations of Islam. Thus it has devoted huge efforts to preventing a two-state solution for Palestine. Preventing—not furthering.

So true.

In a comment to Claire, I seconded this observation, and expressed a certain vexation that the United States Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, was still talking about the two-state solution despite it being obvious that Hamas has for the foreseeable future blown up any possibility of establishing an independent Palestinian state. She responded as follows:

It has indeed blown that vision to bits. But every other vision is unacceptable, too. I don’t think Blinken has much choice but to keep saying, “two-state solution.” Everyone knows it won’t happen (at least not anytime soon), but what’s he supposed to say: “Eternal subjugation of the Palestinians?” “Ethnic cleansing?” Saying “two-state solution” at least articulates a goal, however distant it is.

Now I always think twice before disagreeing with Claire Berlinski and here she makes a reasonable point. But I remain ill content with Mr. Blinken’s rhetoric: Articulating a goal whose realization is unlikely to be witnessed by anybody over the age of fifty strikes me as diplomatic malpractice. It raises false hopes, e.g. among the Palestinians, who may persuade themselves that the United States will put pressure on Israel to make big concessions. Or it may signal to Israelis that US support for their country is really not that staunch. In short, advocating for something that can’t happen is more likely than not to stir up false hopes, plausible fears, annoyance, skepticism, and distrust. That, to me, is not a model of good diplomatic practice.

So what should Secretary Blinken be saying? Here’s my suggestion:

This is the wrong moment to be talking about the future. The Hamas attack on Israel has changed everything, and until the war now underway comes to an end there’s no point in discussing a final settlement of the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While Hamas is holding the Palestinians of Gaza hostage, it’s impossible to ascertain their genuine views. Once they’ve been liberated and have an opportunity to speak freely about their hopes and fears for the future, we may begin to discern a way forward toward a lasting peace, and at that time the United States will be prepared to take part in the work necessary to secure that objective. But first things first.

Yes, I know, anything along that line is likely to send the “anti-Zionist,” i.e. antisemitic, Western Left into a frenzy of hate and hysteria. Any number of pro-Hamas journalists, such as the Washinton Post’s despicable Karen Attiah, will collapse onto their fainting couches. Representative Rashida Tlaib will toss a blood clot. Jew-bashing NGOs will go to Red Alert.

Good. Let them. We need to see such institutions, groups, and individuals for exactly what and who they are. We need to be reminded of their Orwellian character: a river-to-sea hate group calling itself Human Rights Watch, an antisemitic campus mob calling itself Students for Justice in Palestine.

I suppose this makes it obvious that I’d never fit in with the mandarins of Foggy Bottom, for whom empty words and sly rationalizations signify the acme of sophistication. And I’m willing to concede that in some circumstances, empty words and sly rationalizations may serve certain diplomatic purposes. Sometimes, indeed, it’s advisable to smooth things over, skip past awkward realities, kick the can down the road.

 But please—not just now. There’s too much at stake.