You essentially have two butt-headed stubborn and aggressive cultures in direct conflict over land.
To a point, I agree with you. But handled correctly, and an olive branch handed out to the moderate Palestinians, and I'd wager even they will see the wisdom of cooperation over confrontation.
The Palestinians might have been "oppressed" by virtue of having been abandoned by their former Jordanian rulers, but right now they are in even a worse state than they were last year. Now the Israels are back in their cities, and will continue to "revisit" them every time they attempt to inflict violence upon the Israelis.
They may be butt-headed (both sides), but both respect the use of force. After all, it worked for King Hussein when he went into the Palestinian refugee camps in 1970 and destroyed Arafat's ability to undermine that kingdom's sovereignty. And it worked when the Israelis went into Lebanon to destroy the PLO's infrastructure there.
One must remember that Arafat only was able to muster sufficient strength to confront the Israelis over the past several years ONLY because the Israeli voluntarily departed from their populated areas. Now they have shown they will do the job Arafat kept promising, and failed, to do.
The wildcard is Lebanon and whether Syria and Hezbollah have any desire to "mix it up" with the Israelis... Which, given the willingness of Israelis to use massive force, is hopefully unlikely.
But I do concur that unless the Israelis follow Churchillian policies (defiance in defeat, magnaminous in victory), they will let this opportunity for peace slip away.
Btw, someone posted an article comparing this to the Irish struggle. They could learn much from the way in which Churchill attempted to settle that matter.. He was bitterly determined to fight against violent struggle, but was quite conciliatory to peaceful negotiations. Unfortunately, violence destroyed the resolution he was trying to arrive at.
Hawk |
