I partially agree with it. It sums up the current situation, but in an effort to simplify history, glosses over the fact that the Zionists were always so to speak, pragmatic visionaries; they bought their land, they didn't conquer it, most of them hewed to a position of restraint in the face of the Arab Revolt because they wanted to develop a modus vivendi with their Arab neighbors, and they accepted a partition without Jerusalem in 1947, not at all what they had hoped for (particularly as Jerusalem has had a Jewish plurality or majority since the eighteenth century). This is pragmatism, not intransigence.
The Arab position, which imo is religious at bottom and thus extremely intransigent, was simpler -- no Jewish State, period. The Palestinians have pursued a course of ruinous maximalism at every opportunity for the last century. People thought that they might have turned a corner at Oslo, but as soon as the PA got its land, they reverted to form.
However, I agree it's likely to get worse before it gets better, and in the worst way, slowly and by stages. Israel is held back by the US and given a green light for one day only after each particularly heinous outrage. I thought Hamas would have to kill hundreds of Israelis in one go to make it all-out war, but the symbolism of blowing up a Passover Seder acted as a doubling cube. But, then, it's not all-out war yet as Arafat is still safe.
There needs to be a secret diplomatic plan for an Israeli withdrawal followed by a Nato(?)/Jordanian occupation. First, the Israelis must ruthlessly kill all of Arafat's thugs they can get their hands on, and then Arafat himself, before they withdraw. This would be followed by huge public condemnation and equally great private relief. |
