Foxfyre wrote:Advocate wrote:George hasn't been right about anything. E.g., he says that, following the '67 war, Israel had a chance to solve all the problems of the Pals. Sure, it is just like the USA, following its initial military victory in Iraq, has solved of the latter's problems. The Pals are, and have always been, dedicated to the destruction of Israel.
George is right that Israel could have done it better back then. There is no question about that any more than there is any question that we would have avoided a lot of grief in Iraq had we gone about that more intelligently in the early going. Coulda woulda shoulda, however, is great for message board banter, but doesn't get it done in real life. Hindsight is 20 20 and all that.
Since that time, however, Israel has sometimes resisted, but has most often agreed to do the right thing if the Palestinian leaders would agree to live in peace with Israel. Arafat agreed and then undercut his own agreement and continued terrorist activities. Hamas and Hezbollah have rewarded every 'right' action by Israel with more terrorist attacks.
Where George--I'm only picking on George as he (plus at times Revel) is the only pro-Palestinian voice attempting to be reasonable here
--where George is wrong is in inference that it is now all Israel's responsibility to fix the problem and the Palestinians and those arming the Palestinian terrorists have no responsibility for that whatsoever.
I see no way for Israel to accept that responsibility without putting their own citizens, both Jew and Arab, at high risk for more terrorist attacks.
The Palestinian leaders need to recognize Israel and stop terrorist attacks. At this time Israel is not mistreating anybody who isn't bombing and shelling them. We have to deal with what is instead of attempting to argue from the point of what once was.
A refreshingly reasonable post from Foxfire (and I am not attempting to imply that this is unusual for her - quite the contrary).
I fully agree that the Palestinians themselves have moral and political responsibilities to concede the same tolerance to Israelis as they demand for themselves - and that in many areas they have persistently failed to meet those responsibilities.
For those on both sides of this dispute who wish to find, in the actions of the other side, an acceptable rationalization for their own continued bad behavior, there is ample material. This, however, is merely a formula for continued, perpetual dispute, oppression and suffering.
Those who say that they will do justice "if only...." are not speaking seriously. This is particularly true for Zionists who proclaim that peace can readily be found "if only the Palestinians will recognize our right to exist", and in the next breath proclaim their committment to a permanently Jewish state of greater Israel. The same can be said for Palestinian extremists who demand justice and at the same time call for the destruction of "the Zionist Entity".
The truth is that risks will truly be required for both parties if peace is to be found. (Consider the fates of some of the peacemakers, including Israeli PM Rabin) Before one is dissuaded by this he should consider the obvious fact that considerable risk exists for both parties today. In the case of Israel this may not be so apparent, but the simple fact is that the demographic future is not at all favorable to them and this might well be their best opportunity to begin the process.
I believe the former situation in Northern Ireland provides many useful analogies to the situation in Israel/Palestine today. It too involved a long-standing sectarian dispute involving long-term residents and others who immigrated there (some 300 years ago) and who saw themselves as a somewhat beseiged and "special" people, while utterly dominating the political and economic life of the country. The analogy extends to to neighbors (the Republic of Ireland in this case) who were sympathetic to the disaffected minority, and to the powerful patron (in this case the UK) that protected the dominating "special" community. The analogy extends too to the demography, as the former Protestant/Calvanist majority in Northern Ireland saw itself (in the 1980s) rapidly becoming a minority.
It is interesting to note that peace came only after (1) The Irish Republic renounced the revolutionary IRA; (2) The UK abandoned its former implicit committment to continued Protestant domination, and finally undertook the extremely difficult task of combatting the revolutionaries on both sides while attempting to create the political foundations for peace; (3) The people of Northern Ireland (both Catholic and Protestant) finally realized that peace and accomodation was far better than the continued struggle in pursuit of the illusion of dominance; and lastly (4) that all parties rejected the remaining revolutionaries on both sides of the dispute who bombed and killed out of habit and whose stature was based on continued conflict and not peace.
The lesson of history may well be that the analogous events in the Middle east must also occur if peace is to be found there as well.
