Excellent points, Richard. One school of thought grants that resolution of international land disputes should start 'somewhere way back when' that conveniently grants control to themselves. Taken to its natural conclusion, this would mean (for believers) God should cede the Garden of Eden to Adam and Eve, and we'd work our way forward from there.
I'm of the camp that one should start with the most recent legislation and go back further only if necessary to a previous step, in pursuit of a resolution both sides can live with.
In the Israel/Palestine dispute, that first step is the Oslo accords. If Palestine was never prepared to let that be a foundation for an agreement and preferred some prior standard, they should not have signed on at Oslo. By doing so, they negated their own prior claims to a degree.
The current US administration and the previous one, utilizing diplomatic language, continually grants each of the parties there and throughout the Middle East, room to rise to the occasion and act, via compromise, politically, to settle the dispute. The article about what Zinni and others said Sunday is a perfect example: "The really disturbing part of this, of course, is that there are a lot of places he could go in the Arab world if he were looking for support and sustenance or for help in moving the peace process forward," Cheney told Fox News Sunday.
Message 16967919
However, it seems that the PA has never signed on to the general consensus that politics is the art of compromise, and instead sees politics as the art of delaying compromise until you can figure out a way to achieve 100% of your goals, by all means necessary.
So the US has rightfully, imo, moved to a position of non-diplomacy with Arafat, as Zinni's specific and pointed comments indicate. Most media accounts indicate Arafat is finding no succor within Arab governments that have traditionally provided it, nor elsewhere. Perhaps he is getting some help from Iran, Iraq, China and France, but it is proving ineffective thus far because none are prepared to break the anti-terrorist coalition's stance, and the arms shipment from Iran provided the smoking gun needed to overcome the coalition stance.
Were Israel as brutal as its enemies claim, they certainly could do as the Rwandans and Cambodians, et al did and simply massacre their way to a resolution independent of any humanity towards the Palestinian peoples. That's not to say that individual soldiers never lose their cool under fire, and that there are no rogue individuals in the bunch... for that reason, occasionally, a civilian may actually be targeted. But that occurs in all armies and Israel has also launched investigations to rein in those excesses, as civil nations properly do.
It is terribly difficult to assess the dividing line between military and civilian in any case. Consider Vietnam where many South Vietnamese, including women, were NVA sympathizers willing to transport arms or shoot US soldiers in the back. Likewise in Afghanistan, where in Pashtun regions, even now there are frequent reports of Pashtuns hiding Taliban warriors. Are those Pashtun civilians innocents who count as collateral casualties when the bombs come?
I think Israel and the US are pretty pragmatic. Should a settlement be possible, I believe both expect militant pockets to remain that will inflict some damage from time to time. They are asking for, and have every valid reason to ask for, the Palestinian people to assemble a government that is committed to order, that will not sponsor the militants, and that will work to limit the damage of the militants.
Should that ever occur, I think the Israelis have well demonstrated a willingness to resolve narrower issues politically, over time. There is no logical reason anyone should expect the Israelis to leave the region, or even to negotiate with a government that cannot even successfully maintain a convincing pretense of playing the compromise game. Arafat has played the pretense game past the point of convincing anyone any more; his choices are now pretty black and white since he blew the grey. He must fight Israel openly (a can't win option), fight his own (ditto) or simply bow out.
It appears he's chosen to stall the last choice as long as he can, perhaps hoping some other extremists (Al Qaida? Iraq?) will do something to distract attention from his base long enough to come up with a fourth option.
To a large degree, I suspect this is the real reason for so much anti-Iraq sabre-rattling in the current administration. It keeps Hussein from initiating any direct or indirect aid to the PLO.
I well expect Hamas and others to step up their assaults as a result, utilizing women, children and who knows? Babies in baby carriages? to keep the conflict going. All acts of desperation from the losing side, that loses not because of history, but because they prefer shooting themselves in the foot (and gut) to maintain the principle of "self-extermination if the Israelis unreasonably refuse to volunteer to be exterminated."
History can color it any way it wants based on centuries-old claims, but most species adapt or perish. African American slaves in the US adapted and resisted over many decades to achieve independence, economic opportunity and rough parity. I don't see much to indicate the Palestinians would have to struggle nearly as long to achieve same; most recent polls indicate the majority of Israelis would grant 90% of their aims in return for a cessation of physical attacks.
Perhaps there is not much of a moral high ground in the conflict that all can agree on. But there is a pragmatic high ground, and the Palestinian government seems to have lost its grip on reality, if nothing else.
They have offered nothing of substance but war, suicide, hypocrisy, deceit, intransigence, begging, and now operate under delusions. People elsewhere in the world get institutionalized or go homeless for acting that way.
I operate under perhaps a delusion that some Palestinians are not at all like that, and that they simply have a corrupt government that they cannot yet find an alternative for, for whatever reason. I wish them success, and peace. |
