I wanted to share a statement made in a recent column by Caroline Glick, in the Jerusalem Post.
She is a right-winger, dead set against a Palestinian state or any giveback of land by Israel in the West Bank (she was also against the Gaza pullout) because she is of the opinion that the Palestinians would simply use any new land or especially a new state as a launching point from which to increase their capacity to attack Israel and kill Israelis. She sometimes is a bit, well, frothing at the mouth about these things, and, I think, has not fully thought through where Israel's settlement policy has taken it.
She also called on the Olmert government to resign before the Lebanon War was even over, and was as furious at Olmert's conduct of the war as I was (which is very furious indeed).
Anyway, she recently summed up why I am against a resumption of peace talks with the Palestinians far better than I have or could. In a just world, the following words would be remembered for the ages as a perfect summary of our times:
"But Fatah (the main Palestinian governing party, once headed by Arafat, now headed by Abbas) is a dead horse. Even if it were to sign a peace deal with Israel - and really meant to keep it - the deal would be a dead letter because the Palestinian people themselves want neither peace with Israel nor Fatah."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1228728255154&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
She is lock down right. It pains me to write this, because I want to believe in what's best in people. And many Palestinians DO want some form of peace. But not the people with the guns, and not a huge majority of the people, who could try and shout down the people with the guns (at least in some parts of the world). And I've hated Israeli occupation and settlement policies for 25 years. But not only are serious talks with Abbas profoundly unwise for precisely the reasons stated by Caroline Glick, but its difficult for me to see how that changes in coming years.
My friends (to borrow a phrase from a defeated presidential candidate) the middle east is much more likely to end up in conflagration in the next 5-10 years than a global peace settlement. Israel has to line up for its share of the blame, but the Palestinians have painted themselves into such a corner at this point that even if Israel wanted to adopt my policies (give back all the damn land, pull out all the settlers and be done with it), the Palestinians wouldn't be in any position to accept it and become tolerable neighbors.
Its a very sad situation for all concerned, and likely to grow sadder and sadder as Iran arms.
The FHQ+ Electoral College Projection (10/30/24)
3 weeks ago
1 comment:
I'm not the expert that you are, but I agree that conflagration is more likely than peace. In fact, I don't ever expect there to be peace. Two peoples believe they have a right to the same land, and will never find a way to compromise. A good example is the Dome of the Rock/Temple Mount issue. It's one of the holiests places in both Islam and Judaism. How does one resolve that? Add in all the hate that has festered, and I just don't see there ever being a permanent peace. Maybe periods of quiet, but those will only be temporary. Eventually, fighting will erupt again. I have no idea what the solution is, or if a reasonable one even exists.
Post a Comment