#80 Musings Beyond the Bunker (Tuesday July 6)
Good morning!
My musings about some untruths underpinning some views of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and making a proposed solution brought a lot of commentary. Here are a couple of such commentaries, without editorial comment. My further thoughts on this subject will be in a future Musing.
David Lash:
I’m adamant that in order for anything constructive to happen in the Middle East the world stage must understand the history of the region and the conflict. Sadly, too few are aware. Your analysis of the historical focal points is right-on, important, well-said, well summarized, perfect. And I love the idea of a confederation but I am just not sure that negotiating it would be any easier than negotiating a two-state solution. I don’t quite understand why the toughest issues would be more apt to be solved in a confederation context than an independence context. But well worth a try.
How about this -- Israel establishes borders and unilaterally declares an independent Palestinian state. Israel and the developed world contribute a lot of money to help establish stability. A couple of obvious problems -- the settlements will be as difficult an issue for Israel as for Palestine, the corruption in the PA will make the monetary contributions somewhat problematic. If there are terrorist attacks inside Israel and/or rockets launched from Gaza, then those would be considered, by international law and hopefully by the international community, as acts of war. But the creation of an independent state would be accomplished. While I don’t really believe that a state will satisfy the Palestinians, while history teaches us that they want more than that, it is the only way to even to try to achieve peace in the region. So why not just do it?
Mark Schwartz:
A two state solution for Arabs in Israel and Jordan was purposed by the UN in 1947 and unanimously rejected by all Arab countries. The statement that Yasser Arafat and the Palestinians “Never Miss an Opportunity to Miss an Opportunity for Peace” could not be truer.
My takeaway is while a two-state solution is what the U.S. and Israel want, it is, sadly, not what the Palestinian leadership wants; however, it may be what the Palestinian people want.
Whether you are the leadership of Hamas or the PLO, what you want is terrorism or capitalism but not a peaceful co-existence for you people. The Palestinian people have been exploited as pawns by Hamas who only want to get rich from terrorism funded by Iran and Qatar. The PLO’s Yasser Arafat died a billionaire having squandered aid for the Palestinians into his own Swiss bank accounts.
A peaceful solution is not possible when only one side wants it. The problem is not Israel, the problem is the negotiating team on the other side—they are only in it for their personal aggrandizement. Until the Palestinian people can elect leaders who want peace and not personal wealth, the status quo will remain.
Murad Siam:
In my personal view, until all the Abrahamic/Monotheistic faiths - all of three of them - respect one another and stop trying to erase each other based on dictates that go back - literally - thousands of years.... We will remain in hateful trouble. For the record , I respect Abraham and all of his lineage... all of them.
We all have basic human and civil rights which we should all honor and defend- here in America and in Bilad Al Sham aka Israel/Palestine and the entire world, which as we know was not created by humans.
But you know all of that !
Again, I’ll comment later. In the meantime, other ideas are welcome!
Have a good day,
Glenn
From the archives: