Quote:
Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx
Well that sounds like you're arguing in favor of a double standard imposed on Israel's role in a two way war, because you hold them to the standards of a Westernized nation. Okay. The problem with that is it's a war that Israel has reluctantly taken part in, and the truth is, they weren't all that Westernized even 20 years ago....
|
Well, sure I am, at least in one respect. I'm talking about their conflict with the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank primarily, which is the intifada. For anybody else that's reading this, intifada is not the same as jihad. It roughly translates to something like "separation," not war. The intifada was not a product of the larger Arab world... not even Yassir Arafat. If it was a war at the beginning, it was as much a war against Palestinians against themselves as it was against Israel's occupation.
Once Arafat got involved, however, a larger war that had been pretty much diffused since Israel's (and our) first foray into Lebanon began to re-ignite. Arafat's refusal to accept any deal that recognized Israel's right to exist was rooted largely in his self-proclaimed leadership position over ALL the people pf Palestine, including those displaced by Israel's existence that were and are living in the refugee camps in Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine. The refugees wanted their homeland back, and that could not happen as long as Israel continued to be.
For Arafat to claim ownership of the intifada, he finally had to recognize Israel as something other than "the Zionist Entity." The intifada actually softened his position. The intifada shook Israel awake to the realities of their occupation of the Palestinian territories and the settlement mentality of some of their people. The Gazans and West Bankers divorced themselves from Israel. They had become Israeli Palestinians, much as their parents had once been Jordanian or Egyptian Palestinians, and they rejected that.
While it was once true that the Palestinians weren't really a people themselves, the intifada changed that. Without the intifada, there would never have been peace, in my opinion. Once the Gazans and West Bankers became self-aware and unified into a real Palestinian community, the two-state solution became a reality for both Israel and the Arab world, and we are now on the doorstep of that transition to peace.
Now, Israel is also involved in a jihad, just as we are now. That's a different thing altogether, though it does affect the roadmap to peace between Israel and Palestine. I believe they can and should be treated as two separate things, and not doing so only muddies the waters of an already murky discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx
...and still today, they are a melting pot that hasn't melted so cohesively, and add to this the fact that the majority of their citizens do not come from Western socities.
|
The same can be said of Japan, yet Japan is a Westernized nation and it too is held to a higher standard than, say, North Korea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx
I doubt this changes who you feel deserves the majority of burdern for peace. The problem with the notion of peace, and the suggestion that Israel can do or say anything to provide peace, is it disregards the history and the truth about these Arab people in question, which we now call Palestinians. They have had many opportunities to coexist, and that's about as much as Israel can offer them, right? What do you think would appease Israel's enemies realistically?
|
The reality as I stated it above. The peace process is messy, but it is still alive. Let me ask you, what are the chances for peace down any other path?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx
I don't think there's a shortage of debate on the topic so much as a shortage of honest and INFORMED debate.....neither of which Carter offers up with his book. I'm sure if we counted up the many threads in this forum concerning Israel it would be a disproportionate number, and that's all fine.... but it's a complex topic and it's easy to be tripped up in the rhetoric. If the information comes from someone like Carter, who spends his time as a humanitarian, then it shouldn't be biased, nor should it be malicious. That serves no good purpose - not even in bettering the Palestinian Arabs.
|
He's no humanitarian. He's an egalitarian and an altruist that has always rejected reality and sought to attain his goals for the world through unrealistic and dishonest means.
Other than that, I agree with that last bit entirely.