...according to the Guardian (of course). In this editorial they insist that Israel is the side that must make all of the concessions, despite the fact that the Palestinians have never moved an inch from any of their positions since the end of the 1967 war; the only change is that Israel is now occupying "Palestine", referring to lands that were occupied by Jordan and Egypt prior to the war. The Arabs didn't complain until Israel took the land.
Think for a momentwhat would have happened if Israel had immediately returned the lands it captured in 1967? Do you think that would have brought an end to the hostilities? Do you think that Jordan and Egypt would have established a state of Palestine in Gaza and Judea and Samaria? If you answer "yes", I have a bridge for sale...
Neither side is entitled to use the others' violence as an alibi for its own, but Israel, with the preponderance of power, is better placed to reflect on the folly, even in narrow terms of self-interest, of perpetuating this vicious cycle.
Israel has demonstrated time and again that it is willing to work with the Palestinians towards peace; the transformation of the PLO into the PA could not have happened without the consent and blessing of Israel. The self-rule in Gaza and significant portions of the West Bank (which has ended due to the continuous suicide bombings) would not have happened without Israeli cooperation. Israel's actions have been largely reactive, rather than proactive; every time there is a lull in bombings, the Israelis pull out and let the PA run things.
The "targeted killings" of Palestinian militants - and innocent passers-by - were described as exceptional two years ago: now they have become routine.
They sure as hell are better than the random murders caused by Islamokazis blowing themselves up in discotheques and pizzerias. Would the Guardian prefer that the Israelis start emulating the barbarism of the terrorists?
Instead of deterring Palestinian terrorism they have encouraged it to the point where even many Israelis believe that it is being done by their government to sabotage the peace process.
I think there are fewer Israelis that hold this view than there are European newspaper editors, with their extreme anti-Israel bias. There are a few Israeli appeasement groups out there, but they are far outweighed by those who are tired of European support for Islamofascism.
A related story is this AP story, entitled "Israel threatens to Kill Militant Leaders". I applaud Israel's decision, which is overdue and entirely justified. Of course, the Euro-weenies will have their panties in a bunch over the action, but they have never expressed support of any action Israel has taken, unless it is acquiescence to one Arab demand or another.
The decision to kill leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad was made in a meeting of Israel's security Cabinet earlier this week, in response to a Hamas suicide bombing that killed 20 people, security officials said. "As far as we are concerned, anyone who is in the Hamas leadership is a fair target," one official said on condition of anonymity.
Most people believe that the Mossad keeps track of most of the leaders of the various terrorist groups operating in Israel and in the territories it administers. A blitzkrieg-type action, in which the leaders are rapidly eliminated, has the potential to irreperably disrupt the activities of the groups. Yes, there would be plenty of volunteers eager to replace them, but planned actions would be disrupted, contacts with foreign governments hostile to Israel would be terminated, knowledge of activities would be eliminated, and access to funding would be hampered. Meanwhile, a clampdown on foreign activity in the territories would serve to prevent the reestablishment of such ties.
Expect the UN to enter another resolution condemning Israel, an activity they do with mind-numbing regularity. After all, the UN has only once issued any condemnation of Arab actions against Israel, and it was ignored. (I am speaking of the resolution passed when Egypt closed the Suez canal to ships carrying cargo to or from Israel in 1951).
posted on August 22, 2003 04:07 PM
What a giveaway:
"Neither side is entitled to use the others' violence as an alibi for its own..."
That's the pacifist ethos, isn't it? The position that, no matter what anyone might do to you, for you to defend yourself by force would still be morally wrong? The position that deeds the world and everything in it to those who are willing to use force?
"The meek do inherit the earth, but they tend to inherit very small plots, about six feet by three." -- Robert A. Heinlein.