reply by
Jews in denial........
9/1/2002 (8:49) |
|
I'm just going to tell you the flat-out truth, people.
Now that the mask of peace is off, we can see Israel for what it has really been all along; a colony created out of conquered land. The problem is that it came into being in a period that saw the end of colonization. And while it was recognized and legitimized by the United Nations, its fundamentally colonial nature did not change: it displayed the same conqueror's arrogance towards the Palestinians that it did towards its neighbours. Because of its overbearing attitude and its reliance on open-ended American military and diplomatic support, it has always been perceived as a western outpost forcibly planted in the Middle East to secure western political and economic goals.
No matter how good the relations between colonialists and subjugated people, there comes a point in time when the latter decide to throw off the yoke and gain independence. Most ex-colonies have received external material and moral support in their struggle, but in the case of Israel, the true nature of the conflict was blurred by the Zionist claim to Palestine on mythical and religious grounds. Add to this European and American guilt over the genocide of Jews committed by the Nazis, and it is easy to see why the rights of the victims have been largely overlooked in the West.
David Hirst, probably the most well-informed and perceptive journalist writing about the Middle East today, wrote in a recent issue of the Guardian: '...the risk is... that sooner or later the success it [Israel] has achieved will be challenged and, in the end, instead of being the exception in the annals of European colonialism, it will suffer the same fate as all the rest.' He goes on to quote Rami Khouri, a Jordanian columnist as writing that the longer the intifada continues, 'the more self-evident it becomes that the underlying policy of colonial occupation - outdated, counter-productive, morally and politically rejected by the entire world - is unsustainable and nearing its end.'
The current low-intensity guerilla warfare being waged by the Palestinians does not present a military challenge to the mighty Israeli war machine. Instead, it erodes its image abroad, and its morale at home. As the contradictions between Israel's need to be accepted and recognized by its neighbours and its insatiable appetite for Palestinian land become more apparent, any acceptable peace accord recedes into the realm of the impossible. Even if Arafat were to sell out his people and accept whatever the Israelis offer him, this would not result in a lasting settlement.
There is now a broad consensus that a viable Palestinian state must emerge with its capital in Jerusalem. Anything short of this is a non-starter. The problem is that the majority of Israelis, encouraged by successive governments to think that their might would automatically result in security, settlements and legitimacy, are not prepared to accept an agreement based on equality with, and respect for, the Palestinians. With the typically colonial and racist attitude of superiority and arrogance, they remain confident that their firepower and the unlimited American support they enjoy will prevail.
This easy confidence is reminiscent of French and British attitudes towards their colonies and their subjects: until the very end, Europeans could not come to terms with the intensity of the feelings their subjects harboured. The Colonel Blimps sat in their clubs, nursing their chota pegs, complaining about the ingratitude of the natives, until they had to pack their bags and go home. Now, the Raj lives on only in romantic movies and books. How long before the Israeli venture meets the same fate?
|
|