Kind of weird having 4 posts in a row, the last 2 were afterthoughts, but I stumbled across this earlier and thought it should be posted. It's an excerpt from an article on
www.opinionjournal.com, which is basically the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal.
"The White House still cannot bring itself to admit the true nature of the aggression against Israel. It still tends to treat the regional crisis as "a conflict of two people over one land" that can be resolved by the creation of a Palestinian state. According to this view, since Jews and Arabs both lay claim to the same territory of Israel-Palestine, some division of the territory between will bring about a peaceful resolution. This is the assumption behind the "road map" the president presented at the recent meetings in Egypt and Jordan, inviting the Palestinians to halt their terror and Israel to withdraw some of its settlements from the disputed lands.
Unfortunately, the Arab war against Israel is no more a territorial conflict than was al Qaeda's strike against America, and it can no more be resolved by the "road map" than anti-Americanism could be appeased by ceding part of the U.S. to an Islamist enclave. From the moment in 1947 when Jewish leaders accepted and Arab rulers rejected the U.N. partition plan of Palestine, the Arab-Israeli conflict bore no further likeness to more conventional territorial struggles. Arab rulers defied the U.N. charter by denying the legitimacy of a member state. Arab countries refused to acknowledge the existence of a single Jewish land. Arab rulers did not object to Israel because it rendered the Palestinians homeless. Rather, they ensured that the Palestinians should remain homeless so that they could organize their politics around opposition to Israel.
At any point during the past 55 years, Arab governments could have helped the Palestinian Arabs settle down to a decent life. They could have created the infrastructure of an autonomous Palestine on the West Bank of the Jordan and the Gaza territory that Egypt controlled until 1967, or encouraged the resettlement of Palestinians in Jordan, which constitutes the lion's share of the original mandate of Palestine. Rather than fund the Palestine Liberation Organization to foment terror against Israel they could have endowed Palestinian schools of architecture, engineering, medicine and law. What Israel did for its refugees from Arab lands, Arabs could have done much more sumptuously for the Palestinians displaced by the same conflict. Instead, Arab rulers cultivated generations of refugees in order to justify their ongoing campaign against the "usurper."
At this point, I don't think Israel should be pushed for any more concessions to the arabs. Peace could happen tomorrow if only the arabs would accept it (Palestinians included). The ball is in their court (also the Palestinians) to show that they are serious about peace. Let them use their autonomy to make a society based on life instead of death. When it is clearly evident that they actually want peace, then peace will be made. At this time such talk will only keep the dreams of destroying Israel alive (which the Oslo process seems to have resurrected when you look at the terrorism statistics and public opinion polls). There needs to be a fundamental re-evaluation of the nature of this conflict.
And Sun-Tzu, Zionism is the political movement for Jewish statehood. I think very strongly that there should be a Jewish state, and that such a state is probably the most legitimate and necessary state created in history. I think the crusades, pogroms, blood libels, Inquisition, Holocaust, etc. have proven beyond all doubt that Jews need their own country where they can defend themselves. If you don't see this then something is wrong either with your brain or your heart. The reason I didn't say "I'm a Zionist" before is because it isn't something I've been politically involved in, and also I am not Israeli. I am not trying to deceive anyone, if that is what you think.