Bradford DeLong wrote: > >Judging the conflict sofar, I'd say it is a situation where because > >of the lack > >of a regular well established and well armed force backed up by the > >international community, (wich would make it possible to establish an armed > >'peace') Palestinians reverted to guerilla warefare a long time ago. They seem > >to adhere to the motto that if you cannot win right away or at least force a > >stand off by using a strike force, stick to demoralizing the enemy. After all > >it did work for the Vietnamese and other guerillas as well.... > > > >I wonder what Israelis expected during all these years of conflict. Maybe they > >naively expected Palestinians to simply roll over and die? I guess that it > >didn't work out that way. > > > >The whole conflict actually reminds me of this metaphor: If you drive a wild > >cat into a corner, in order to escape and regain it's freedom it'll bite and > >scratch you any way it can. And call me 'apologist for the Palestinians' or > >not. I can actually sympathise with that point of view. > > > >Sonja > > Why can't you sympathize with the point of view that what the > Israelis naively expected of the Palestinians was that they would > abide by the terms of the Oslo Agreement--that the PA abandon terror > as a tactic, that Israel in return allow the PA to start building up > its governmental infrastructure and authority, that everyone be nice > and build confidence in each other's good intentions, and that people > then *negotiate* over exactly where the border is going to be, and > exactly what the security arrangements for Israel will be? > > <snipped 'stuffing' to the above question>
Who ever said I don't? See that is the problem with most of this discussion. If I say I can sympathise with the current situation of the Palestinians (sec) than a lot of listees in the heat of the fight assume I must be and always have been against Israel and all it stands for. At current I see the Israelies as being off base, way off base. Never mind the past. That also is the whole trouble with the past. Lots of things have happened. Bad and good on both sides of this conflict. And no one wants to make a fresh start because of the past. I strongly think that the current politics of Ariel Sharon (with Arafat as the opponent) can only result in more fear and more hatred on both sides. I mean what good will come of destroying the total infrastructure of the Palestinians? Teaching will go on. But *what* will be tought? And what will be learned? I'm afraid it'll be more hatred and fear. I'm not so sure that's what this region needs right now. The forces of peace (and most amazingly there are still those who still believe in peace on both sides) are way too feable and too unorganised with no chance to ever succeed as long as Sharon and Arafat are in place. They are the old ones, with hatred and contempt for each other rooted very deep inside them. I seriously think that what Sharon has done in the past few weeks by using the Israeli army the way he did, is to seriously damage another generation of (Israeli and Palestinian) children and damn them to another generation long period of violence and hatred. And that is a crime there is no excuse for. > And anyone who writes about the Israeli-Palestinian screw up without > acknowledging that the current Prime Minister of Israel hopes that > someday, somehow, the Palestinian population will simply vanish and > there will be only Israel from the river to the sea is an "apologist" > of a different sort. Thank you for that statement. > We are drifting toward a regional war using weapons of mass > destruction that will leave between three and thirty million dead. > Apologists--either for Sharon's policy of creeping annexation of the > West Bank, or for Arafat's policy of fitting adolescent girls with > dynamite belts--who use language implying that these policies are > justifiable and necessary elements of some "freedom struggle" are > profoundly unhelpful. Just for the record saying someone is an apologist, especially in an Israeli-Palestinian context, in Europe, can be seen as a crime equal to mass murder or child molesting. Maybe you should be a bit more carefull about your wording in a community with Europeans present. I feel that actions as taken at present in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict are neither necessary nor justifiable, but on a certain level they are understandable. It's all greys..... :o) > Metaphors that carry the message that we should > think of the blowing of human beings at a passover seder into tiny > bits the same way we think of the small scratches inflicted by a cat > that fears being eaten by you are also profoundly unhelpful. I was actually more thinking along the lines of big and furious wild cats, like tigers and lions...... not really pussycats. :o) Sorry. Sonja
