Sharon, Iselistine and Palreal, and thinking outside of the box.
THE BOX TRAP -
...One of the things that I noticed in the conversations on this thread is that there are mostly caught in the box. I.E. they all try to justify one side on the basis of the actions of the other side. So let me try and take you outside of the box...
...First - there is no sense in trying to justify a wrong action as a response to another wrong action. Two wrongs don't make a right. Israel was wrong to invade the West Bank and terrorize the civilian population. That the suicide bombers were wrong to terrorize the Israeli population doesn't make it right. And the Israeli attacks on the Security apparatus doesn't make the suicide bombers right. And back and back and back.
...What we have here is what is known as a cycle of violence. Each side spots a wrong done by the other side and chooses to respond with greater violence. Who responds with greater violence....
...The end result is that the initial disappointment from a failed peace negotiation coupled with and in-your-face visit to Temple Dome by Sharon and his security forces has led to more than a thousand deaths, considerable property destruction, and an errosion of security for all sides concerned. Does anybody here see the sense in this progression? Does anybody here think that the blame for this progression lies only with one side?
THE SHARON BOX -
...I pick on Sharon because 1) he has been, IMO, been the most persistent escalator of the current conflict. 2) Israel is in the position of strength and thus has the greater burden of responsibility for doing the right thing and 3) is more strongly represented on this board.
...The first sin of Sharon was the in-your-face at Temple Dome. Which produced the predictable backlash. Which, I believe, is what Sharon wanted. Sharon was then able to exploit the subsequent "see - they don't want peace, Barak was a fool, we need a strong leader - me". That is how Sharon got himself elected.
...The second sin was his appearance on US TV right after 9-11. "See - now you know what we have to deal with, Arafat is a terrorist, death to all terrorists". That was a calculated effort to build his case for going after Arafat. Sharon's agenda was clear back in September. And he has not veered from that course since.
...The third sin was the campaign against the Palestinian security forces. Bomb them, tell them that they need to crack down more. Bomb them and tell them to crack down more.... Ironicaly (or not) the bombing cause several imprisoned terrorist to get free. Great political spin but absolutely counterproductive.
...The fourth sin was to go into the West Bank. Taking out a few low-tech bomb factories is a temporary measure at best. Taking out a few terrorists pales in comparison to the number of new recruits that he just created.
...The fifth sin is the hard line - "we will not negotiate with Arafat". Everyone knows that, as long as that condition is on the table, there will be no negotiations.
...Every step of the way Sharon has taken a position designed to enrage and polarize the Palestinians while feeding the Israelis false reassurances "We will crush them..."...Bottom line - where the conflict is now is, IMO, exactly where Sharon wanted it to be.
...Which is not to say that Arafat's hands are clean. I have no doubt that they are not. But he is not the one in the driver's seat.
...Anyway that ought to be enough to get the debate going (or you can just write me off as someone who is not only out of the box but out of his mind ;-). |
