Well, carranza2, I'll respond to you, just this once, mostly to tell you that in order to have an effective discourse, you have to meet your opponents arguments, not arguments which you make up for your opponent. Failing that, there's little sense in continuing.
If Israel did not exist, then Hizbollah would not exist, ergo, fewer dead Israelis.
NO. If Israel did not steal or rob land by force, THEN Hizbollah would either not exist at all, or exist in an immensely smaller form. This problem is faced by all colonial expansionist countries. They don't have to stop existing, just stop existing on STOLEN LAND. Quite a difference, no?
What do you do with the fact that Israel negotiated in good faith with Arafat, but was faced with Arafat's volte face and walk-out?
What I do is first point out that you got your "fact" backwards. It wasn't Arafat who rejected the Oslo Agreements. Israeli right wing was opposed to it from even before the negotiations started - in fact, they were opposed to even the first contacts - Netanyahu and others are on record about that, and in fact came to power and obliterated the OA. It was killed not by Arafat, but by the Israeli right wing. As to the Barak situation - I addressed it in another post:
"Arafat was given an ultimatum by Barak - something he could not accept. Arafat was not the guilty party here - Barak tried to stampede Arafat into accepting less than pre-67 borders with unacceptable conditions on Jerusalem. Arafat had NO CHOICE, but to reject this deal - if nothing else, the Palestinian people would not have accepted it. Immediately following that, Barak took a series of measures that intensely escalated the conflict [basically in a gamble that if Arafat would not give in, he should be replaced by someone who would - a serious miscalculation showing a lack of understanding - the alternative to Arafat is not some Quisling who'd sign anything, but someone who has the credibility to DELIVER a deal to the Palestinian people]. So there were missteps on both sides here, Arafat should have resisted playing to the gallery, and Barak should have followed up with more dialogue instead of trying to protect his right flank against the likes of Sharon."
Btw. we are so inundated with Israeli propaganda, that it is useful to actually go back and do some research. You'd find a lot of interesting information which puts the whole Arafat-Barak debacle in the proper perspective. I strongly recommend: rather than take MY word for it, or Nadine-Debka, or anyone on this thread RESEARCH IT ON YOUR OWN.
What do you do with the armed terrorist groups who do not think that Israel should exist at all? Dismiss them out of hand? Prohibit Israel from defending itself against them? How do you take into account these groups' views? Surely you don't suggest that they ought to be ignored by any responsible Israeli leader.
First, you make sure that you're not creating more such groups and fuelling them by unjust policies that radicalize and recruit such people. This means you have to give up your addiction to stealing land. Second, you make sure you have the majorities on your side: the majority of the Palestinian population, world opinion and legitimacy. That will allow you to isolate the groups, and enlist the Palestinian society and authorities in fighting agianst the true haters-extremists... both were possible: polls repeatedly showed strong support early in the OA process by Palestinian society for Israel's right to exits in pre-67 borders, and Israel's security services worked very effectively together with the PA to clamp down on the extremists.
So, you get fewer terrorists, and terror groups, and you get more tools against them. And in the legitimacy of your borders (pre-67), you can defend yourself rightfully, strongly, and with full world support.
The hard reality is that Israel, unfortunately, has to have something to trade in exchange for peace unless, of course, you are so naive as to think that a withdrawal to pre-1967 borders will magically result in peace
What did Britain or any colonial power have "to trade" in exchange for peace in colonial lands? It wasn't their land. They had to withdraw, period. Israel is a colonial power. They must withdraw. So happens, that I think Israel has something very good to trade - they can be an economic boon for Palestine and a lot of the ME for that matter. It is in everyone's interest to make business, not make war. More trade, less war. Arabs know it. Israelis know it. They must just remove the extremists veto power over the process. To do that, Israel must unconditionally give back the stolen lands. That removes a huge recruiting tool for the terrorists, and allows moderates (including Arab states such as Egypt) to get down to the business of building and trading instead of bombing and hating.
The situation is complex carranza2, and we all benefit by looking at the reality and examining all assumptions rather than just accepting propaganda at face value - whatever its source. So, I don't ask you to take anything I or anyone else say at face value - do your research. Good luck. |
