Did Neville Chamberlain get op-ed

Did Neville Chamberlain get op-ed pieces published after he failed to deliver “peace in our time?” Probably not. But Shimon Peres does, and here he delivers a typically fatuous product. Nearly every sentence invites dissection, but perhaps the most foolish is this: “The chance that the [Palestinians] will cooperate with us [in putting a stop to terrorism] is remote unless they can identify a vested interest in such cooperation, namely a political horizon.” Peres fails to note that the Palestinians had a vested political interest in such cooperation for years, namely keeping the likes of Peres himself in power — politicians who were hell-bent on giving the Palestinians nearly everything they asked for. Yet this wasn’t enough to promote Palestinian “cooperation.” On the other hand, Peres’ most foolish sentence might be this: “I have discussed this matter of late with high-profile Palestinian leaders and was given the impression that they were prepared to undertake this three-pronged endeavor [Peres’ latest “roads to peace”]. Then there is Peres’ impassioned finale: “The pace [to resolution of the conflict] must be stepped up and a solution found that is acceptable to most countries of the world, and to the greater part of the Israeli and Palestinian populations: two enlightened states one alongside the other, in a Middle East whose economic achievements surmount the causes of strife.” This man is delusional. Is Dr. Krauthammer in the house?

Responses

Books to read from Power Line