One of the funniest lines I’ve ever heard was Tony Blair speaking about democratic Israel and secular Palestine. It’s not even just that an utterly failed prime minister takes it upon himself to lecture the oldest nation on earth. Blair’s own country is a monarchy, and non-secular at that. That’s true: in Britain, like in many other European countries church and state are not fully separated. In a Christian monarchy, a Jewish commoner is not equal to the queen, nor are the Jews equal to Christians, because state holidays and symbolism are Christian and budgeting favors Christian organizations. Blair nevertheless argues that Israel must provide her Muslim residents with full equality.
Blair’s role as arbiter is absurd. Jews do not want an arbiter to begin with. After millennia of persecution, we don’t care whether the solution we want is just, we just want it. Moreover, Blair cannot possibly arbitrate our conflict with the Arabs because of self-interest—as if real conflicts could be arbitrated at all. Britain consistently takes a pro-Arab position in foreign policy. British economic interests lie with oil-producing Muslims. British strategic partnerships are with Arab countries. Britain sought to prevent the Israeli state from coming into being, and has seldom opposed the UN’s anti-Semitic resolutions.
The Quartet’s moralizing attempts are obscene. The United States comfortably exists on land it took from slaughtered Native Indians, even their far-left liberals do not argue for returning the land to its rightful owners the Indians. How is the administration of the Occupied United States concerned with the Israeli “occupation” of a tiny strip of land alongside an unimportant river? Both the United States and Britain retain colonial possessions against the islanders’ will. France lost its colonies despite making every effort to maintain them, and cannot in good faith argue against the Israeli “occupation.” Russia occupies Japanese (the Kuril Islands), German (Koenigsberg), and until recently, Polish and Romanian territories, as well as many other ethnically distinct regions. The UN, another member of the Quartet, has no problem with the world’s many monarchies, nationalist regimes, atrocious governments, border wars, and ethnic persecutions, but has become obsessed over Israeli issues.
Is there an arbiter acceptable to Israel? The defeatist Israeli establishment accepted even the most biased arbiter, the Quartet. A Jewish government would have rejected any arbiter because we want the land rather than justice for the Arabs; let the Americans restore justice to their Native Indians first. But an impartial arbiter is impossible to find: since Arabs are more numerous than Jews, more important strategically, and possess oil, any governmental arbiter would favor them. A non-governmental arbiter inherently lacks the power of enforcement, and does not command the respect associated with power in international relations.
The Quartet is just a new name for the Evian Conference.