That is a rational formulation, but also a most unlikely one.
Why? It appears to em that if the Palestinians quit attacking the Israelis, Israel will quit attacking them. And I believe history has shown the converse is not true for the very reason you mention:
A lot of Palestinians believe, rightly, wrongly, and for whatever reason, that they are at war and that terrorism and intifadeh are the only weapons they have. I’m also not sure that all the Palestinians want the Israelis to leave them alone. I suspect that there are people in the Palestinian leadership who believe that the Israelis can be provoked into retaliatory measures extreme enough to endanger American support, and that this is one of Israel’s most vulnerable points.
The Palestinian argument seems to be likely asking daddy to wallop your brother because he hit you back.
It was a fight between people who lived on some land and people who wanted to control that land. Not unlike the fight between the Israelites and the Philistines.
Come now. Highly simplistic. It was THAT PARTICULAR PIECE OF REAL ESTATE and its historical and religious associations they wanted. Uganda would not do.
the special position the Jewish faith has in the prevailing mythology of the West, not because it is unique, or even particularly severe.
As one of the other respondents pointed out, there are many other strains that feed into American political thought and their originators sometimes get little respect or consideration. Think "France".
We were talking about the first half of the century, when the oil that had been discovered in the region was firmly in the hands of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. The Arab states had nothing. Most of the ones we know didn’t even exist.
And we are talking of a time when Israelis-to-be were BUYING land- -commercial deals- -not stealing it. You may argue superior economic power versus primitive feudalistic societies all you want, the fact remains that they did not steal it. They bought it from willing sellers.
The way you are presenting matters appears to me to put all the blame for the current situation on the Israelis. It is hardly that clear cut for me. I'd call it a 50-50 split on blame at this point. The only question worth discussing is how to fix matters- -if they can be fixed without a bloodbath.
Not at all, but what do you think would happen if they were buying up land in Silicon Valley with currencies of enormous value (imagine spending dollars or euros in Bangladesh or Vietnam) and flooding it with immigrants, with the avowed intention of establishing a sovereign state “as Asian as England is English”.
I'd say all except the "soverign state" has happened. When I moved into my current neighborhood in Silicon Valley 20 years ago, it was definitely predominantly Caucasian. Now we are a minority; the majority is Asian (I am including East Indian in "Asian"). When I sometimes here a Causcasian neighbor gripe (which is quite unusual), I remind them that they are lucky; it could be some other group of non-Causasians. These people work, pay their taxes, obey the law, don't deal drugs, and keep up their properties.
To get any perspective on the conflict you have to look at the fundamental problem: the establishment of a Jewish State in a region with an existing and prevalently non-Jewish population was not a goal that could be achieved without violence.
And to get perspective on THAT, you need to go back to Nazi Germany. "Never Again!" was a fully understandable reaction on their part. |
