Carter on Israel
I've become a bit fond of Jimmy Carter recently, but his new book does alarm me. Titled Palestine Peace Not Apartheid the book basically makes out Israel to be a bunch of un-diplomatic goons who cause their own problems as well as otehr people's problems.
My basic observation, one that I share with Ariel Sharon, is that Israel has had great diplomatic success negotiong with real contries. Israel might not be having a love-fest with Egypt and Jordan, but they aren't going at each others' throats all the time. This gives us a hint that maybe problems with peaceful negotiations with Lebanon and the Palestinians are problems on the Lebanese and Palestinian end, a thought supported by the fact that one harbors and one is run by a serious terrorist organization bent on Israel's destruction.
How can we blame Israel for that? If the only diplomatic choice their enemies give is to eliminate themselves, I don't see why that's Israel's problem. Carter, of course, would tell you otherwise. His opinion is that the Palestinians, at least, are upset only from the occupations since 1967 and if they'd been given back their land they would have been perfectly happy and nobody would want to destroy Israel now. I have some doubts about this. The occupied land was not "Palestinian territory" before the occupations, it was land that belonged to Egypt, Jordan, and so on. If Israel hadn't occupied the area I don't see what reason those countries would have had to form a "Palestinian state" because most of the purpose of that is to throw Israel off the land.
Also, the Palestinian people need to bear some of the blame for electing Hamas as their leadership. It's not just Israel's fault because Israel opresses the Palestinians so the Palestinians only want to be free of that by voting for the people who give them the most help. If the Palestinian people had wanted a more peaceful solution then they could elect it. Looking back, Hamas might or might not have arisen initially because of the occupations. But the Arab-Israel fights are ancient (see the Bible on Issac and Ishmael) and so I really don't see such a group never arising if Israel keeps to themselves. Why would the simple re-colonizing of the land designated for Israel by the UN in the 1940s have ultimately been more peaceful? I have doubts.
So clearly Carter and I have a major point of disagreement. Diplomacy is nice. It's also a two-way street.
My basic observation, one that I share with Ariel Sharon, is that Israel has had great diplomatic success negotiong with real contries. Israel might not be having a love-fest with Egypt and Jordan, but they aren't going at each others' throats all the time. This gives us a hint that maybe problems with peaceful negotiations with Lebanon and the Palestinians are problems on the Lebanese and Palestinian end, a thought supported by the fact that one harbors and one is run by a serious terrorist organization bent on Israel's destruction.
How can we blame Israel for that? If the only diplomatic choice their enemies give is to eliminate themselves, I don't see why that's Israel's problem. Carter, of course, would tell you otherwise. His opinion is that the Palestinians, at least, are upset only from the occupations since 1967 and if they'd been given back their land they would have been perfectly happy and nobody would want to destroy Israel now. I have some doubts about this. The occupied land was not "Palestinian territory" before the occupations, it was land that belonged to Egypt, Jordan, and so on. If Israel hadn't occupied the area I don't see what reason those countries would have had to form a "Palestinian state" because most of the purpose of that is to throw Israel off the land.
Also, the Palestinian people need to bear some of the blame for electing Hamas as their leadership. It's not just Israel's fault because Israel opresses the Palestinians so the Palestinians only want to be free of that by voting for the people who give them the most help. If the Palestinian people had wanted a more peaceful solution then they could elect it. Looking back, Hamas might or might not have arisen initially because of the occupations. But the Arab-Israel fights are ancient (see the Bible on Issac and Ishmael) and so I really don't see such a group never arising if Israel keeps to themselves. Why would the simple re-colonizing of the land designated for Israel by the UN in the 1940s have ultimately been more peaceful? I have doubts.
So clearly Carter and I have a major point of disagreement. Diplomacy is nice. It's also a two-way street.
posted by Nate at
20:39
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home