Contact Me

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Stalemate...is that the best we can do?

People make fun of PC terms like vertically challenged, domestic engineer and the like, but equally ridiculous descriptions are common and completely acceptable when talking about Israel.

Israeli- Palestinian stalemate
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8083107.stm

Funny how when Israel refuses to comply with international law and gets caught, they are in a 'stalemate'. When Palestinians refuse to give up internationally recognized rights and continue to fight for them, they are terrorists, stubborn, missing "opportunities", etc. But, this whole thing is steeped in double standards. Hamas is a terrorist organization and we shun them and starve Palestinians because of it, yet we have embrace(d) and revere(d) current Israeli terrorists like the FM Avigdor Lieberman and past ones like Sharon, Rabin, Shamir, Begin, Ben-Gurion and the like. Israel can elect whomever they want, be it a terrorist or whomever; Palestinian elections don't count unless the US and Israel like the results. It makes sense to let Israel handle Palestinian affairs and life, but it didn't make sense to let Hitler control the fate of the Jews. Israel talks about a demographic and security threat rather than the Palestinian population, with virtually no consequences; when Jews and African Americans are spoken of like this we think Holocaust, hatred, bigotry, racism, ethnic cleansing, Nazis, KKK, and other abhorrent nouns, but Israel is assumed innocent even in the face of hard evidence to the contrary. Israel is thrust upon the Middle East without consulting the inhabitants and is given 55% of the land (and why they complain about enemies on every side when they chose to sit a bunch of Europeans in that spot is yet another mystery), then takes 80%, then all, ignores UN resolutions 194 and 242 (except the part that gives it legitimacy), builds settlements, walls, violates international law, is involved in ethnic cleansing and yet the onus is still always somehow on Palestinians to make concessions. What exactly do they have left to concede, even if one were to convince ones self that this were anywhere near just or fair?

And can someone please explain why Palestinians are the problem when Jews and Arabs traded, talked, made agreements and generally coexisted in harmony up until the point where the Zionist experiment moved to the Middle East ~1945??

Palestinians want the right to return (and a state) to where they were expelled from in 1945-1948 in all of historic Palestine. Jews believe they have been refugees for 2000 years and want a Jewish state in all of Palestine. Palestinians have to concede that the European Jews aren't going back home, though that may be the fair solution. Jews must concede that Palestinian refugees have the right to return to their family homelands their national aspirations are as valid as Jews'. Since both groups want all of the land, they should all share one secular state to ensure the rights of all are respected.

The Jewish state idea. One might say that this is another Jewish concession in a secular state, but when keeping a Jewish majority trumps democracy and human rights and is maintained by policies resembling ethnic cleansing, you've got to ask yourself how fair, feasible, and legal this is. We're not talking about saving a native population from demise, here. We're talking about massive immigration of a people with a different culture on a mission to squeeze out the native (non-Jewish) population.


Oh well. Time to go back to the real world. Forget history, human rights, justice, etc. What UN? Amnesty Who? Still building settlements? Here's another $3 million.

When are those Palestinians going to demilitarize so there'll be peace?

***
While reading a book, The Lemon Tree, I was alerted to this response to "Barak's generous offer":
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15502

No comments:

Post a Comment