I can't understand why people are so excited about the Annapolis Peace Conference. Mahmoud Abbas can't deliver a peace deal because the Palestinians can't even make peace with Palestinians. All the Care Bear Stares in the world can't dispel the 100,000 Hamas protesters who hit the streets of Gaza to protest the peace meeting. From the Times:
A Hamas protester in Gaza, Asma al-Fayoumi, 17, said: “There is a division among Palestinians. There are those after food, life, those that are materialistic, like Abbas, and there are those like us who are seeking life after death.” The large turnout in Gaza pleased her. “There are those who still enjoy good conscience,” she said.
Yeah, Israel's going to make peace with people who would rather die than co-exist with the Zionist entity. Good luck with that.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
My peace plan for the Israeli-Palestinian dispute:
GIVE WAR A CHANCE.
Let the two sides fight it out, for years (heck, decades) if need be. When at least one side has been bled white, and lacks sufficient will or manpower to continue fighting, they'll accept even a Carthaginian peace. And that peace will endure, since everyone who wants to die for their country/religion/ethnic group/tribe/etc. will have done so.
Uh...that's not what the young lady said. It sounded more akin to "lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven..." than "blow yourself up and get your 72 virgins". I respect you Rod but I increasingly find your reading of Muslims both unreliable and uncharitable.
MI, I completely agree, though it does sound trite doesn't it? Could lead to immediate knee-jerk accusations of war-mongering and the like. But there is a good logic to it. Think about it. What piece of land in the world today has NOT changed hands at one point or another as a result of war? Not one inch of land doesn't have a group of people that can claim that if not for _that_ war, it would still be theirs, and thus they should be entitled to it. So let them duke it out. Israel is an artificial state in that it was imposed and was not evolutionarily decided, so let them fight it out and win it outright and it'll be the end of this discussion. Of course, it's not a fair fight because foreign forces are strongly backing and arming one side, and there'd be world war III if there were any question of Israel losing due to reciprocate support for Israel's opponent. So here we are, stuck. Indeed, let's go, give war a chance. One rule: no nukes. That's cheating. Let's go, it's time. I'm sorry, but all the talk in the world won't help.
Also, O'Reilly and pals accused Clinton of doing the whole camp david charade for the sake of winning a peace prize and for his own legacy. Well now Bush is doing the same thing at Annapolis. Yet I hear nothing from the cabal.
Ms. Asma al-Fayoumi said:
“There is a division among Palestinians. There are those after food, life, those that are materialistic, like Abbas, and there are those like us who are seeking life after death.”
She's almost right, with just a minor change to her quote:
“There is a division among Palestinians. There are those after food, life, those that are materialistic, like Abbas, and there are those like us who are seeking death.”
Israel is an artificial state in that it was imposed and was not evolutionarily decided, so let them fight it out and win it outright and it'll be the end of this discussion. Of course, it's not a fair fight because foreign forces are strongly backing and arming one side, and there'd be world war III if there were any question of Israel losing due to reciprocate support for Israel's opponent. So here we are, stuck. Indeed, let's go, give war a chance. One rule: no nukes. That's cheating.
Well, there were the wars in '48-49, '56, '67, & '73. But the US and USSR weren't about to let their children bloody each other up, and therefore imposed restraint.
As for foreign interference: if we were to seriously pursue this policy, we should also cut off all financial support to Israel. We allow arms sales, but to both sides, and on a "cash and carry" basis. Formally, we'd be neutral, and confine our interference to diplomatic finger-wagging. If Israel starts losing, we tell AIPAC's lobbyists to visit the front lines instead of haunting Capitol Hill, or simply to pound sand. And vice versa.
As for nukes, yes, Israel has them, but even discounting Pakistan & Iran, I figure that probable foreign support for the Palestinians would still make this a fair fight (more or less). I also suspect Israel would probably hold off on using nukes unless the IDF started flailing; IIRC, that's what happened in the '73 war.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.