naivete...
Funny how naive people can be. Or stupid. Or blind. Or all three (like Bush...[sorry, couldn't resist that, but he also has to have evil in his description]).
Arutz 7 has an interesting photo essay about a Peace Now anti "occupation" protest and a counter protest by Women in Green (holding really cool placards that said things like "Rabbi Kahane was right..."). I noticed one picture of the back of a man's t-shirt that says, in Hebrew "Tov Shalom Me'Eretz Yisrael Ha'Shleima - Peace Is Better Than a Whole [unbroken] Eretz Yisrael" - in other words, better to give land away and have peace than keep it and have terrorism rampant.
I find it fascinating these people actually believe the Palestinians would actually be satisfied with pre-1967 borders. First of all, there was no peace before 1967. Israel was in a state of constant alert and officially at war with pretty much the entire Arab World. Second, the Palestinians have stated, at every possible opportunity, at least in Arabic that they want all of Israel and the Jews out of the entire country (though they sing a completely different tune in English). Even a "moderate" like Abbas has still never taken out of the PLO charter that they are aiming for the destruction of Israel, despite numerous demands by Israel and US over the last decade and a half that they do so (don't forget, Abbas is the one who funded the infamous Munich Massacre at the 1972 Olympics and was already then a high ranking member of the PLO; for more info, go here).
But I guess ignorance, in the case of Shalom Achshav Activists, really is bliss.
It's interesting to note that Shalom (peace) and Shalem (complete/whole) have the same Hebrew three letter root: Shin, Lamed, Mem. Do they really thing without a whole, complete Eretz Yisrael "Shleima" there would "Shalom," peace? How can one exist without the other?
On the other hand, if the Jewish Nation can't be at peace with itself, if even Orthodox Jews can't be at peace with one another, how can the Land of the Jewish People be at peace?
2 comments:
I noticed one picture of the back of a man's t-shirt that says, in Hebrew "Tov Shalom Me'Eretz Yisrael Ha'Shleima - Peace Is Better Than a Whole [unbroken] Eretz Yisrael" - in other words, better to give land away and have peace than keep it and have terrorism rampant.
I'm not sure I understand the problem with this slogan. If giving away land actually could guarantee an end to the killing, would you support it? Or would you prefer having "every square inch" of Yesha? And if so, why stop there? Technically, we're supposedly entitled to all of David and Solomon's kingdom. Shall we go invade Lebanon and Jordan to reclaim what's rightfully ours?
I think that if there was an actual guarantee that giving the Palestinians land could bring peace, a lot of people would support it. Human lives for a hill? That's a no-brainer for me.
For ideological purists, esp. Religious Zionists, even the suggestion of relinquishing Eretz Israel is blasphemy. But for pragmatists, the question is not whether land for peace is an acceptable idea or not but whether the scenario itself realistic. My sense is that they could give a shit about Yesha. The problem is that after so many lost chances, many people no longer believe that the Palestinians want independent statehood as much as they do the destruction of Israel.
It's interesting to note that Shalom (peace) and Shalem (complete/whole) have the same Hebrew three letter root: Shin, Lamed, Mem. Do they really thing without a whole, complete Eretz Yisrael "Shleima" there would "Shalom," peace? How can one exist without the other?
Well, if there was a disciplined and serious Palestinian leadership committed to peace, then presumably a land-for-peace deal could work. The problem is not that shalom is contingent on shleima, but that this leadership does not exist. The Shalom-Shleima has got nothing to do with it. I'm surprised you see a contradiction here.
I find it fascinating these people actually believe the Palestinians would actually be satisfied with pre-1967 borders.
Some of it may be naitivte. However I suspect that it's a combination of long-term pragmatism plus optimism. There are only three options when it comes to Israel:
A- The continued status quo of occupation, which I don't believe is sustainable, particularly given the ongoing Palestinian (and Israeli Arab) birthrate. Eventually it will result in a binational state, and be the end of Israel's Jewish character. I don't think most people want that.
B- An official policy of apartheid and/or expulsion of Arabs from the land. Besides the ethical questions involved (ethnic cleansing?) I honestly can't see most people or parties supporting this, either on a ethical level or from concerns of what it would do to Israel's image, so unless the right makes a giant gain, there's no way the left and center will go along with this.
C- That leaves some permutation of a Two-state-solution. If you determine that this is the best and most potentially successful option, then the focus turns to how you can implement it. As I wrote here, Fatah has A LOT of problems. But you don't have to be a Gadol or a Prophet to know that A, Hamas is a lot worse, and B, that if there's ANY group from which a serious (and potentially influential) peace camp is going to emerge from in Palestinian politics, it's going to be within the secular, pragmatic, intellectual sphere of the Palestinians, which at this stage is dominated by Fatah.
"I think that if there was an actual guarantee that giving the Palestinians land could bring peace, a lot of people would support it. "
That's what the Oslo Accords were supposed to be. When Ehud Barak pretty much offered Arafat nearly everything Arafat wanted, Arafat essentially told him to go to hell and started this current, never-ending Intifada. This is, in the end, Arafat's legacy.
Even a guarantee won't "guarantee" peace with the governing body of the Palestinians. Even with Fatah. Remember, they still haven't taken the point about destroying Israel out of their charter. This is "moderate" Fatah I'm talking about, not Hamas.
And after nearly 15 years of "legitimate" government, and over forty years of of PLO terrorism in general, with their only real desire being to murder Jews, what makes you think they will ever have a legitimate government? Especially after the last generation or more of brainwashing their kids into believing how evil Jews are...
And it's nice to be both pragmatic and optimistic, but it's also dangerous with these people. Remember, one of their iron conditions is "the right of return" of millions of Arabs, which would flood Israel and basically destroy it as a Jewish State. This is the goal, not a "Two-State Solution."
Post a Comment