Everybody keeps bringing up, "The Problem is the Settlements," but seem to forget that Arab hatred and terror against Israel was unrelenting before 1967, even though there were no Jewish "settlements" on the West Bank. This issue is the one they can beat the Israeli's over the head with at the moment. If it is conceded, there is every reason to believe the Arabs will simply move their pieces up the board and start attacking Israel on another issue. This is exactly what happened after the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon. Violence went up, not down.
I still believe the Algerian scenario, as devastatingly sad as it is, is the governing one.
You keep bringing this one up, and we have not discussed it. As I recall, this is Judt's argument, from his articles in "The New York Review of Books." Let's take a look at the structural differences.
You had a population mixed together in Algeria, where the Algerian Terrorists could easily "Swim" with the other Arab "fish," and were hard to identify. There was no way the settlers could wall themselves off from the terrorists. That is not the case in the Palestine/Israel situation.
The people in charge of the fighting on the French side were living in France, across the sea, and did not face the daily terror. They only wanted a "Way out." The Israelis are in exactly the opposite situation. Makes for a huge difference in motivation.
The settlers in Algeria came from France and had the choice of moving back to France. The Israelis have no place to move.
I think we are discussing an "Apples and Oranges" situation. |
