topic by
VisionScrubber
6/27/2002 (9:37) |
|
Palestine needs new leadership - and so does Israel
If anyone had any doubts that Palestine needs new leadership, Arafat's approving statement of Bush's speech should have cleared that up. Add to that their ridiculous insistence that the United States be the one to provide a solution, in the same breath they acknowledge that it is the United States who arms and unconditionally supports Israel. The rickety old Arafat is so desperate he even tried to offer up the refugees' right of return last week.
Right of return is not Israel's or America's to take away, nor Arafat's to surrender.
It is time for the Palestinians to do what that professor whose name I can't remember suggested. He was in the news briefly for saying he would gladly run aganist Arafat in an election, but he made too much sense for the war's vested interests. When asked in a TV interview, well what about Israel, do you want it to exist, his answer was, hey, that's up to Israel. My focus will be on bringing the refugees home to Palestine. The Israelis can stay or go as they choose, my concern is Palestine.
The PA has not been honest with either the international community or the Palestinian people. The Palestinian people want a sovereign state, not a provisional state, not a pretend state, not a sort of state as Barak advocates, that would only have the powers Israel says they can have. They are people, and they want their country. With all the things countries have, including secure borders controlled by them, not a foreign power, ditto water, and guess what? They want security too. You hear a lot about security for Israel, does America not think Palestinians want security?
Get off the one-note dirge about suicide bombers for a minute. How many times have we heard that Israel has a right to defend itself? As long as no one is also mentioning that Palestine also has that right, there is no point in making any kind of plan. As long as Palestinian security forces who try to defend their towns against invading tanks are lumped together with teenagers who blow themselves up at lunch counters, as long as the message is: any resistance, even verbal, to Israeli occupation and aggression is terrorism, there is not really anything to talk about.
It is fine to talk about an end to attacks against Israeli civilians, in fact, many Palestinians are talking about that. But it is only a valid point if you also talk about Israeli attacks against Palestinian civilians. And save that lame old crap about how it is so very different because Israel is not 'targeting' civilians. Right. That's why they send tanks into residential areas and open fire. So Islamic Jihad can say the same thing, you know, that lunch counter is frequented by soldiers, civilians were not the target and we regret any collateral damage.
Neither the Palestinian leadership nor the Israeli leadership wants peace. Sharon's policies have caused the deaths of hundreds of Israelis. The Palestinian 'incitement' that Bush dutifully condemned has nothing on the 'Death to Arabs' caterwauling in the Israeli press.
Clearly, bulldozing peoples' houses and spraying toddlers with shrapnel has not proved effective in increasing Israeli security nor decreasing suicide attacks.
If Israel wanted to make a point, how about getting the hell out of Palestine, settlers included, give Palestine its money and its water rights, and some tanks and F16s of their own and stay home and mind their own business.
THEN if Palestinians invade Israel they've got a case.
Sharon has let the Israeli people down. He should be replaced by someone who is just a little less adept at giving credence to those who say the whole conflict is intentionally maintained by arms manufacturers.
|
|