Political correctness can cut both ways.  When it discourages the perpetuation of racial or ethnic stereotypes, it is an unequivocal positive.  But, when it unfairly assigns relative guilt, it is an unmistakable negative.  That is the case in the workplace when the crude, crass, and tactless are frequently confused with the illegal.  And, for many years, it has also been the case with respect to the Middle East, where the the world community and so-called intellectual class have found moral equivalence in the Israel-Arab conflict.

In the face of what arguably appears to be endless provocation and inexhaustible intransigence, why is Israel consistently ridiculed by the chattering class, not to mention virtually all governments whose country's initials are not U.S.?  On some level, it's perfectly understandable.  Those who wield power, and Israel is its region's dominant military force, should be held to a higher standard.  That is a legitimate and necessary means of curbing abuses, or at least shining a light on them.  When it comes to Israel, though, there seems to be so much more.

After one objectively examines the long and tragic history of the Middle East, and particularly the conflict between the Jews and Arabs, it is difficult to conclude anything other than the preponderance of the blame lies with Arab leadership.  By no means should that indicate Israel is without fault.  They are.  Time and time again, though, the Palestinians have walked away from peace, whether it was the 1948 U.N.-crafted two-state solution, or the Clinton initiative with Yassar Arafat and Ehud Barak.  A lesser, but more recent example is the situation in Gaza.  In September of 2005, Israel withdrew completely from the Gaza Strip, leaving the Palestinians with complete administrative authority.  Rather than using that opportunity to improve the lot of their people via programs to upgrade infrastructure, schools, and social institutions, they instead chose to further their radical agenda.  At almost every turn they've elected to make hate, mayhem, and victimization their sine qua non.  The world stands ready to recognize Palestinian independence, yet, elements of their leadership opts for intolerance and the vile rhetoric of genocide.  They consistently pursue conflict over compromise; one state over two.

Despite much effort, it is difficult to find a responsible justification for the Palestinian strategy of wanton attacks on innocent civilians and a propensity for purposely putting their own people in harms way.  Perhaps, if the land at the center of the dispute was clearly, definitively, and unfairly taken from them, and they had no other recourse, one might find some twisted rationalization for their campaign of violence and track record of unyielding inflexibility, but subsequent to any balanced assessment, the most pro-Palestinian conclusion possible, in my view, is that ownership rights are ambiguous.  To even reach that conclusion, one has to set aside multiple decrees by the international community and its representative body, the U.N., not to mention a chain of ownership favoring the Hebrew people that dates back to roughly 1800 B.C. when the region was first settled.  No doubt there have been periods in the nearly 4,000 year history of the area when Arab peoples have predominated. but there have been just as many if not more where Hebrews have flourished.

Given that checkered and uncertain history, would not the rational course of action be compromise? 

Of course it would.

So, why do so many who are so smart regularly condemn Israel's efforts to reactively rather than proactively eradicate the terrorism that so threatens its people and its existence, and choose to ignore the Palestinian leadership's ruthless intimidation and unwillingness to compromise?  The charitable view, which I hope is the case, is because it is important to look out for the less fortunate and hold the feet of the powerful to the fire.  Unfortunately, that has only emboldened radicals and legitimized, in some eyes, their irrational actions and goals; thereby postponing any genuine and lasting peace.

It is an understatement to say the situation is complex.  As such, it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions on a case by case basis.  Israel has made ill-advised decisions along the way and overstepped its bounds on multiple occasions.  It is certainly just and appropriate to criticize them when they have done so.  My comments, however, are aimed at those, who after looking at the totality of the circumstances, see an equivalence between Israeli and Palestinian actions.  With those people I respectfully disagree.

Let's hope that 2009 brings with it a new beginning in the Middle East so that the Israeli people can live free from terror, and the impoverished and oppressed Palestinians can find capable leadership, gain independence, and begin to build a productive, peaceful society.