| |
|
The topic abstract here is most certainly emotionally loaded.
Of course, this issue tends to inspire such sentiments on both sides of the fence. Pragmatically, no one is about to rhetorically lay to waste their antagonists, in this situation, as both sides are absolutely certain that they are correct. There are plenty of variations in thoughts about what should be done about the current state of affairs, but the certainty, regardless of the action it inspires, enflames those on the other half of the court to the extent of total irrationality.
Historically, this all did begin with an occupation, and an occupation is still underway. The Isrealis are correct in asserting that assault on innocent civilians is unnacceptable conduct even in a time of war -- unfortunately, they themselves indulge in such strategic temptations.
I thoroughly believe, however, that the first steps in productive peace talks must begin with the cessation of occupational activities on the part of the Isreali armed forces. Until this is done no Palestinian, however militant, will believe that the Isrealis are interested in a true and lasting peace. To them, this occupation is the war, and the extremist elements will only reflect the position of the less extreme (that Isreal should be made to halt) until the principal concern is addressed -- that Palestinian civilians are being pushed out of their homes and into refugee camps every day.
While it cannot be argued that the approach certain Palestinians have chosen for accomplishing this end is counterproductive to the goal being sought, these extremities of behaviour are not entirely unexpected. They also should not be used as a get-out-of-jail-free card for equivelent response. We cannot ignore the injustices perpretated by one simply because they are perpetrated by the other.
Realistically, however, if the world wants the movement responsible for generating suicide bombers to lose it's steam, the cause that fires the movement must be deflated.
It requires no strategic sacrifice on the part of Isreal to cease the present occupational activities. While I'm no authority, I would venture that further violence on the part of the Palestinians would be quite sporadic for some time, and room could be made for negotiation as regards reclamation of territories and habitations in Jeruselum.
In other words, practically, Isreal must make the first step. You can't take anything more from the Palestinians. You cannot threaten them. You cannot make them stop. They are desperate and single-minded. Their suicide bombers are sometimes educated, politically aware and motivated individuals. Genocide or racial cleansing will be necessary in order to halt the violence prior to Isreal budging. These are facts. We're not dealing with a force that can be economically pressured into submission -- nor morally, nor violently.
If Isreal fails to offer this concession, Isreal is accepting a course of action that amounts to, by logical sequence, racial cleansing at best and genocide at the most horrific. So, while Isreal has little to gain in the way of chips weighed against the Palestinians through such a maneuver, it has much to gain in the way of peace with the Palestinians, and indeed must opt for a concession in order to prevent far greater atrocity.
The will of the people will ultimately drive or undermine the militant Palestinians. The will of the people is first for safety from further displacement and cruelty, and secondly for peace. Presently, the people are so frightened and enraged -- reminded every day of the wrongs they collectively remember by fresh stones thrown -- that the militants have carte blanche to "do whatever it takes". This situation, however, need not be perpetuated. A small sacrifice on the part of a powerful country could go a very, very long way here.
Unfortunately, Isreal feels they require the land being occupied and the economic power being seized both to ensure future growth, and to accomodate the Right of Return. Before Isreal will budge, they must be convinced that these two imperatives can be met under a peace agreement necessitating an immediate cessation of occupation in Palestinian territories.
The road to peace, in this case, requires both sides seeing beyond the fog of war. If peace can be acheived, the Palestinians can be fruitful and free without threatening their neighbors, and the Isrealis can insure further growth by cooperating with the Palestinians. We know how to convince the Palestinians that a better way is possible. We know who's on top, in a military sense. Isreal, then, must be convinced to lay grudges aside and take the first step towards a lasting peace. |
|
|
