So opponents of peace between Israel and Palestine have launched a full-court press to derail talks between Bibi Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas. Hamas has promised a wave of attacks. Iran is sponsoring rallies calling for the demise of Israel. Settlers are swearing to renew construction throughout the West Bank.
Here's a thought: How about we not give them what they want? I know the idea of not giving into the demands of radicals is all novel and bleeding-heart, but maybe it's worth a try? Just saying.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
In the absence of a policy which undermines those you mention, there will be no peace, whether such people are ignored or not and whether or not there is a document called a peace treaty.
Sooner or later, the world's patience with the purveyors of terror will have to come to an end or there is no real benefit for Israelis, apart from some sort of transient spiritual enlightenment, or the West in resolving the dispute.
Sooner or later, the world's patience with the purveyors of terror will have to come to an end
Except all governments, even our, have used some form of "terror" to achieve goals. "Terror" is in the eyes of the beholder. We are still suffering the results of our foreign policy decisions in Latin American, which some view as "terrorism". No, I'm not "anti-American", I just want to point this out.
Ver Word: makewr
sonicfrog,
You write: "Except all governments, even our, have used some form of 'terror' to achieve goals. ..."
Whether or not what you write above is the case, the issue here is those who would use terrorism and other such means to render any peace treaty between Palestinian Arabs and Israelis into a worthless document. Somehow, whatever the US or other countries may have done in, say, Latin America (or elsewhere), does not render meaningless the concerns I have raised.
Which is to say, your comment evades, rather than addresses, the issues at hand.
No, it doesn't. Though terrorism doesn't work on a global scale, say, the goals of Al-Qaeda to destroy the west, they work wonders at the local level... Palestine, Afghanistan, Somalia, Syria, China, etc. etc. The world will not lose its patience with terrorism, because too many of the worlds governments use it successfully as a tool to achieve the desired goals. Why lose patience with something... when it works?
sonicfrog,
The point I am making is that, for the Israelis, if the terror campaign against them continues whether they enter into peace treaties or not, they have little incentive to enter into treaties.
I have no idea how your point remotely relates to mine. It is true that countries will pressure each other and that people will continue to be killed by terrorists. However, the Israelis are, like any other people, interested in what happens to Israelis, first and foremost. And, the question for Israelis is whether they benefit more from reaching an accord with Palestinian Arabs or not doing so. The answer is not all that obvious so long as the world does nothing about the terror directed against Israel.
Or maybe Israeli leaders have determined that the casualties from rocket attacks or what-have-you are ultimately minor next to the gain of land and resources through settlement. Judging by the subsidies doled out to settlers, they must be doing something of value (even if it's just forming a strong voting bloc).
Joe,
The rockets do not really relate to the presence of settlers, unless you call those living in Tel Aviv settlers. Read the Hamas covenant before you say silly things. The document is meant in earnest.
You mean the covenant has no relation at all to the preceding twenty years of occupation and settlements? Come on, that doesn't even pass the laugh test. And criticism of Hamas is perfectly possible without resorting to the whitewashing of history. At least you realize that "the world" (and I do mean the entire international community, including the U.S. and Israel itself) does see the connection, but the crucial next step here is considering that when it's your opinion against the world, maybe it's your opinion that bears some rethinking.
But I'm not really interested in rehashing all your old arguments about "Arab eliminationists," so (as usual) you can take the last word on that point. And sadly, I do believe you are right that the Israeli leadership sees insufficient reason to reach an agreement. But it's not about "knowing" there can't be "real peace." As a matter of realpolitik it's simple: Israel already holds all the cards. The sad fact about governments is that they're perfectly willing to trade the lives of their own citizens -- "the cost of doing business," to say nothing of the externalities that are the lives of non-citizens -- for land, resources, and internal political support. (I don't pretend this isn't also true of Arab governments, but we in the U.S. have never pretended that any of those governments presided over magical unicorn miracle Book of Revelations countries.)
I don't even know why I'm asking this of someone who thinks the peace process is completely pointless, but do you really see no connection between that charter and the preceding twenty years of occupation and settlement? A connection that you correctly acknowledge is taken as a given by "the world" (including the U.S. and even the Israeli government)?
Post a Comment