Read These Remarks by Novelist David Grossman about Israel
For anyone who cares about Israel and who shares a progressive politics, there are no more stirring words than those spoken by novelist David Grossman at the 11th memorial rally for slain Israeli Prime Minister Yizhak Rabin that was held on Saturday night in Tel Aviv.100,000 were in attendance. They can be read here: Haaretz.
Grossman, who was the sole speaker at the rally, aside from Rabin's daughter, Dahlia, along with some of Israel's top performers, gave the Israeli left back its voice, if only for one night. By any measure, since the disappointment of the center-left gov't under Ehud Olmert and Labor's Amir Peretz--someone for whom many on the left, including leading novelists--had so much hope, the left has lost its voice. But Grossman's remarks offer a way back. He speaks from deep love for Israel, but deep concern. And he challenged the current Israeli leadership to seriously propose peace. His challenge should be echoed by the party that wins the Congress on Tuesday-and the Bush Administration should push for the same.
Here is an excerpt: "Any reasonable person in Israel, and I will say in Palestine too, knows exactly the outline of a possible solution to the conflict between the two peoples. Any reasonable person here and over there knows deep in their heart the difference between dreams and the heart's desire, between what is possible and what is not possible by the conclusion of negotiations. Anyone who does not know, who refuses to acknowledge this, is already not a partner, be he Jew or Arab, is entrapped in his hermetic fanaticism, and is therefore not a partner. Let us take a look at those who are meant to be our partners. The Palestinians have elected Hamas to lead them, Hamas who refuses to negotiate with us, refuses even to recognize us. What can be done in such a position? Keep strangling them more and more, keep mowing down hundreds of Palestinians in Gaza, most of whom are innocent civilians like us? Kill them and get killed for all eternity? Turn to the Palestinians, Mr. Olmert, address them over the heads of Hamas, appeal to their moderates, those who like you and I oppose Hamas and its ways, turn to the Palestinian people, speak to their deep grief and wounds, acknowledge their ongoing suffering. Nothing would be taken away from you or Israel's standing in future negotiations. Our hearts will only open up to one another slightly, and this has a tremendous power, the power of a force majeur. The power of simple human compassion, particularly in this a state of deadlock and dread. Just once, look at them not through the sights of a gun, and not behind a closed roadblock. You will see there a people that is tortured no less than us. An oppressed, occupied people bereft of hope. Certainly, the Palestinians are also to blame for the impasse, certainly they played their role in the failure of the peace process. But take a look at them from a different perspective, not only at the radicals in their midst, not only at those who share interests with our own radicals. Take a look at the overwhelming majority of this miserable people, whose fate is entangled with our own, whether we like it or not. Go to the Palestinians, Mr. Olmert, do not search all the time for reasons for not to talk to them. You backed down on the unilateral convergence, and that's a good thing, but do not leave a vacuum. It will be occupied instantly with violence, destruction. Talk to them, make them an offer their moderates can accept. They argue far more than we are shown in the media. Make them an offer so that they are forced to choose whether they accept it, or whether they prefer to remain hostage to fanatical Islam. Approach them with the bravest and most serious plan Israel can offer. With the offer than any reasonable Palestinian and Israeli knows is the boundary of their refusal and our concession. There is no time. Should you delay, in a short while we will look back with longing at the amateur Palestinian terror. We will hit our heads and yell at our failure to exercise all of our mental flexibility, all of the Israeli ingenuity to uproot our enemies from their self-entrapment. We have no choice and they have no choice. And a peace of no choice should be approached with the same determination and creativity as one approaches a war of no choice. And those who believe we do have a choice, or that time is on our side do not comprehend the deeply dangerous processes already in motion. Maybe, Mr. Prime Minister, you need to be reminded, that if an Arab leader is sending a peace signal, be it the slightest and most hesitant, you must accept it, you must test immediately its sincerity and seriousness. You do not have the moral right not to respond. You owe it to those whom you would ask to sacrifice their lives should another war break out. Therefore, if President Assad says that Syria wants peace, even if you don't believe him, and we are all suspicious of him, you must offer to meet him that same day. Don't wait a single day..."
Jo-Ann: is there a site that posts the entire speech?
Grossman hits the nail on the head: It's the incapacity to put oneself in the other's shoes, even for a minute, that's the root of all evil.
November 5, 2006 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a link to the full text of Grossman's blistering speech:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/784034.html
November 5, 2006 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, lally!
John Keegan is predicting another Lebanon war in a few months. The guy is a serious war lover who's salivating at the prospect of more bloodshed, so there might be some wishful thinking on his part. But he might also be right.
November 5, 2006 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm curious to ask a question to all the people who think that Grossman is correct in his prescription on what the Israeli government should do.
Take this statement:
Let's assume that the Olmert government takes this advice and puts a generous deal on the table. Let's assume also that the deal is as generous as the final offer made by Ehud Barak to Yasir Arafat in January 2001. Let's even assume that it's as generous as the Geneva Accord that was publicized a few years later. Keep in mind that both of these offers are far beyond what the Israeli electorate, in its current mood, would sign off on. But never mind that for the sake of argument.
What should the Israelis demand in return for these far-reaching concessions (assuming that Israelis are negotiating an actual DEAL, and not just abject surrender). Wouldn't it seem reasonable that the MINIMUM Israel should demand would be a renunciation of all Palestinian claims, now and in the future, on Israel? Wouldn't it seem reasonable that Israel should demand an absolute crackdown on violent groups that attack Israelis?
So here's the question: what would lead you to believe that the Palestinians WOULD offer a total renunciation of claims? To the best of my knowledge, not even the most dovish of Palestinians speaks of this. i could be wrong, but I don't think anyone has even begun to lay the groundwork for the considerable shift in public opinion that this would entail. Secondly, what would lead you to believe that the Palestinians COULD offer to crack down on violent groups? Arafat repeatedly offered this during the Oslo process and - surprise! - broke his word. How could Israel trust that terrorists wouldn't be just let out when the time was right, the way they were under Arafat? But let's assume the PA has the best of intentions. What about it's sheer ability to fight the terrorists? Right now, the IDF is engaged in operations throughout the Gaza Strip, hunting down these mobile missile launch crews that are able to fire off rockets into southern Israel. Despite their best efforts, so far the IDF has been unable to stamp out the missile launches, and they continue, every day. If the IDF can't end the missile launches, what makes anyone think the Palestinian Authority could end them, even if they wanted to, which would be unclear at best.
No matter which way you look at it, the dream of a negotiated peace that ends the conflict and allows both Israelis and Palestinians to get on with their lives, is exceedingly unlikely to come to pass in any conceivable timeframe. Try as I might, I just cannot imagine the Palestinians taking the necessary steps to enable a true peace. There simply isn't any precedent.
What is so exasperating is how the old left and now, I guess, the revived left never addresses these questions head on. We are meant to believe that it is up to the Israelis, never the Palestinians, to make the generous offer. We are meant to believe that a generous offer would so entice the "moderates" in Palestinian society that they would rise up and throw off the yoke of Islamic fundamentalism that threatens them, as if the attitudes of Hamas are some foreign implant, smothering the true pacific nature of the Palestinians.
In most long-running arguments, the issue often boils down to two positions that are both logically coherent, but based on different sets of assumptions. But the Arab-Israeli conflict seems to defy this pattern. Even on it's own terms, the leftist position on Israel doesn't make any sense. How exactly is peace supposed to happen? Sketch it out for me. What, other than simple blind hope, are people banking on here?
November 5, 2006 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember that all conflicts -- especially colonial ones -- eventually come to an end. This one will. If the do-nothing types like yourself have their way, Israel will be the loser -- in more ways than one.
Just as Bush will be remembered for ending the American "century," the Israelis who think like you, if they have their way, will be remembered for losing their country. They have 20 years to get it right. Then it'll be over.
You stand warned.
November 5, 2006 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Previous comment addressed to BradtheDad, not to Jo-Ann.
November 5, 2006 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Islamic fundamentalism has little to do with the problem.
The problem is that one group of people stole another's land -- not a particularly unusual act in the history of mankind -- and the latter wants it back -- not a particularly unusual desire to have, either.
But what have we, citizens of the United States of America, to do with either of these peoples or their dispute?
November 5, 2006 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brad - I will give you my perspective on the issues you raised.
(1) Yes, I believe a peace treaty with clearly defined borders can be enforced. However, because of the animosity on both sides it will require International troops for 10-15 years to patrol the borders until a sense of aquiescence and a new rythmn of life sets in.
(2) I believe a fair and just peace would be acceptable to the majority of citizens on both sides. For example, I have heard arabs say that offering Israel 95% of the pre-1967 territory(the reverse of Camp David) would be acceptable. So the territorial issues can be defined as 95% to 105% of the 67 borders. This is manageable.
(3) I think you underestimate the Palestinian population. If they perceive that they have a just peace, they will support whatever efforts are neccesary to sustain that peace. Hamas as a military factor will slowly disappear. Of course, International troops will help the fledgling government and populace to make rocket firing disappear.
(4) Oslo failed for many reasons - not all on the shoulders of Arafat. I was in Israel a lot during that period and you have to remember that there were 2 fatal flaws to Oslo. No International backing and enforcement and no limitations on settlement expansion. During this period Bibi especially supported major settlement expansion and my relatives responded with avengence. To the Palestinian eyes, Oslo was nothing more than a game.
(5) No doubt a Palestinian renunciation of future claims on Israel would not be 100% of the population. BUT, a very significant majority would make such a renunciation. The passage of time would slowly take care of the rest.
(6) I also believe that any lasting settlement with the Palestinians must be tied into an overall settlement with Lebanon and Syria and signed off on by all the Arab countries. You then have an alignment of players and power that have an incentive to keep the peace.
Brad, you have two parties in this struggle who both have giant chips on their shoulders. Neither one trusts the other and they both claim victim status. If the dynamics are not altered by strong ourside pressure on both sides, the hatred will continue to grow and then Israel will truly face an existential threat. Long term, with WMD proliferation, 300 millions arabs will eventually "get" the 4.5 million Jews in Israel. It's inevitable unless the dynamics are fundementally changed.
I put the onus of responsibility on Israel's shoulders because they are the ones who will ultimately suffer. The Palestinians and 300 million arabs are NOT going away nor can they be exterminated. Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan are a heartbeat away from Islamist governments. Unless the tension is eased in the immediate future, the inevitable will happen. Israel can be the economic engine that drives the entire Mideast to decent prosperity. Israel must become NEEDED by arabs. Israel can either hold onto a few more dunams of land for a decade or two more, or become extinct. That is her choice and her destiny.
November 6, 2006 5:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
In response to Ellen:
Your history seems a touch hazy. You speak as if there were no Jews in Palestine prior to 1947, and that they just walked in and took over. (Whether you believe it was a violent takeover you don't specify, though by claiming they stole the land one can guess.)
I wonder, how do you feel for the Palestinian people (Jews and Arabs alike) that were kicked off their lands with the British Mandate of 1920. After Reso. 181 in 1947, the Jews in Israel had less than 10% of the land they had from the original mandate in 1920. Hardly a steal.
And while Islamic fundamentalism may not technically be part of the problem, Islamic radicalism is, as is radicalism of all strains. Like when Hamas, or Iran, or al Qaeda, etc. call for "death to Israel", "death to America" because we don't subscribe to what they see as the only possible system of government: theocratical rule in the name of Allah. As does Jewish radicalism, inflaming tensions in Gaza and the West Bank by right wing settlers claiming the land was given them by God. As does U.S. Republican radicalism, the effects of which we are all too aware.
Your final question astounds me. What do we have to do with this dispute? How about trying to stop people from needlessly killing one another. While we have our own problems in this area, as well as many other places in the world (for which we, regrettably, don't seem to show as much interest), that doesn't render life there any less valuable or worth saving.
November 6, 2006 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't doubt your sincerity, but your answer seems an exact illustration of what I was talking about. It's essentially argument by assertion. You believe the Palestinians would be able to renounce claims against Israel because....because, you believe it. There isn't a shred of evidence, but you believe it anyway.
Furthermore, you, like so many others, continue to push the line that the dispute is about land and borders. Give the Palestinians enough land, and they'll be satisfied. Under this reading, it is the Israeli settlers who are the obstacles to peace. If only they could be removed from the calculus, peace will be possible. Unfortunately, there's not a shred of evidence for this either. There is, however, lots of evidence that while it is convenient for the Palestinians to portray the conflict as about land and borders, in fact the thing they care about more than anything is what happens to the people who left what is now Israel in 1948. The Palestinians are exceedingly unlikely to agree to a final peace without a right of return of the refugees, something on which Israelis are virtually unanimous in rejecting. There have been various proposals floated in recent years proposing various compensation schemes for the refugees, but none of them have ever gone anywhere. This is the fundamental reason why the optimistic case for peace is so hard to make. In order to renounce future claims on Israel, a Palestinian leader will have to "sell out" the refugees. These people have been told for 60 years that they won't be forgotten. No Arab leader has ever told them they need to get real and accept that they won't be returning to their former homes.
Contrast that with the Israeli side. Before the current impasse, Ariel Sharon repeatedly warned the Israeli public that "painful choices" would be needed. Olmert ran on a platform of explicitly promising to abandon land. The Israeli public has known for decades that the dream of a "Greater Israel" may be hopeless and that land will need to be given up. And remember, the West Bank is the very heart of the Jewish biblical patrimony, so it's not a trivial issue.
November 6, 2006 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Just as Bush will be remembered for ending the American "century," the Israelis who think like you, if they have their way, will be remembered for losing their country. They have 20 years to get it right. Then it'll be over.
You stand warned."
Thank you for the warning, noblesseobige. Let me reciprocate: when "it is over" and Israel goes, millions of Iranians, Lebanese, Syrians and Palestinians will be going too. If you care about them, you'll do whatever you can to destroy Hamas and Hezbollah so that productive two-state talks, and a permanent cease-fire in Lebanon, can proceed.
November 6, 2006 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
A few details:
Between the two world wars the number of Jewish colonists in Palestine rose from 70,000 to about 700,000. Jewish villages increased from 50 to 250. With respect to the Arabic-speaking Muslim and Christian inhabitants of Palestine, the ratio between them and the Jews had decreased from ten to one in 1918 to about two to one in 1938.
The British White Paper of 1939, which sharply restricted Jewish immigration, was vigorously resisted by the Jews. Illegal (mmigration was promoted on a large scale.
Under one agreement, Balfour I think, there was to be a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and under no circumstances was there to be a Jewish State.
November 6, 2006 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
To "destroy" Hezbollah would mean to destroy the Lebanese Shiites. Ain't going to happen.
I'm all in favor of 2-state talks and a peace treaty with Lebanon. Too bad Grossman seems the only one left in Israel who thinks likewise.
November 6, 2006 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Palestinians are exceedingly unlikely to agree to a final peace without a right of return . . . to their former homes.
"Their former homes"?
And all this time I thought Israel was "A Land without People for a People without Land."
All these Palestinians! Wonder where they came from. Must have been spontaneous generation or maybe, the fevered dreams of a mad mullah.
November 6, 2006 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that my arguments are assertions, but so are yours. There is no evidence on either side. I can point to many reasons why prior peace negotiations have failed as well as many reasons military actions have failed. As with everything in life, failure is not proof or promise of anything except a particular effort.
The Palestinians want a state and one that is viable and they will not give up until it becomes a reality (I know, another assertion). Here is another assertion, from what I can tell based on conversations, the refugees can be successfully bribed to move only to the Palestinian state. I don't know whether the amount is $10k/person or $50k but some number will work and for peace - well worth the price.
"Painful compromises" need to be defined and debated in Israel BEFORE negotiations begin. Otherwise, the final treaty will be demonized and ultimately defeated in the Knesset. It's time for both sides to show their cards and get working.
November 6, 2006 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sage - I agree that your scenerio is the probable result of the current course. Israel will be destroyed by nuclear bombs and in revenge so will a couple hundred million arabs in retaliatory strikes. If you really care about Israel's future why not get the settlers back behind the green line and then productive two-state talks and a permanent cease fire, can proceed.
November 6, 2006 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that my arguments are assertions, but so are yours. There is no evidence on either side.
I don't see how you can argue that. We have evidence from the ten years or so of negotiation between 1991 and 2001. During that time, but especially towards the end of that period, you had a period where the concessions all liberals want Israel to make were on the table and then finally offered. If there were evidence that the Palestinians were ready for peace and to make their own painful concessions, wouldn't you have expected to see some evidence of it during that period? Yet throughout that time, despite the fact that there were negotiations going on, you still had incitement, not to mention duplicity, on the part of the Palestinian Authority.
The issue that I keep coming back to is that during the period of negotiations in the late 1990s, not once did the Palestinians put a deal on the table and say this is what we need to end the conflict. All the initiative, all the plans, all the momentum, whatever it was, came from the Israelis or the Americans. During the Camp David summit in 2000 and then in the Taba negotiations at the beginning of 2001, not once did Arafat or his advisors counter an Israeli offer with an offer of their own. Their entire negotiation strategy consisted of rejecting offers Israel put on the table. That says to me that it wasn't a true negotiation. They weren't approaching the talks in good faith. It was, to be blunt about it, a farce.
But that was in a period when relations between Israel and the Palestinians were infinitely better than they are now. How can anyone argue that the Israeli government could even sell a deal with the Palestinians to the people, even if one were on offer? How can anyone argue that the Palestinians are MORE ready to be serious about peace negotiations than they were before?
The best you can say is that if Israel puts a deal on the table that is perceived as serious by the international community, and the Palestinians reject it, then maybe some of the heat will be taken off Israel. Maybe, but not likely. More likely, liberals and Europeans will claim that this or that aspect of the offer is insufficient and how could the Palestinians be expected to accept such an insult and blah, blah, blah.
It's time for both sides to show their cards and get working.
I always find it interesting when someone spends a good chunk of time arguing what Israel has to do and then adds as an afterthought that BOTH sides need to do something. It's like you need to pay lip service to the idea that both sides have a responsibility to promote peace, but only one side gets your full attention when it comes to specifics.
I think it is up to the Palestinians to break the pattern. They are the ones who need to demonstrate that they want change. They are the ones who are responsible for the current mess and they are the ones who should be making a move to clean it up. What does that mean? Well perhaps a few speeches by Abbas saying he understands the fears of ordinary Israelis. Perhaps he could deign to set foot in Israel and talk directly to Israelis. It would be nice, but chances are he's become even more irrelevant than he is now.
November 6, 2006 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I ran the Zoo, this is what I would do: Tell Israel that after 60 days, we will reduce the aid we send by 1 million per day for every day they remain in land that is not theirs. Once they were back inside their borders... stolen land anyway, I would start rebuilding Palestine and forcing Israel to pay damages wherever they can be documented. I would force them to get rid of their illegal nuclear weapons or we would impose the most strict sanctions imaginable, including attack and occupation if not followed.
If the US treated every nation in an identical way, terrorism would be over. Terrorism can be laid directly at the feet of israel and the US. There is no difference between Palestinians and the Minutemen of our revolutionary war. The only suprise is, Israel treating them the way they do, they don't kill more. What choice do unarmed people have against unjust opressors?
November 6, 2006 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Talk to them, make them an offer their moderates can accept."
What an ill-informed, prissy piece of tripe. Olmert already tried to go over the heads of Hamas with the PA President and the plebisite on the "Prisoners' Document." When the PAP pushed the election Hamas turned up the terror and rocket attacks to put the kibosh on it. Just like how Arafat stoked the 2000 intifada to kibosh elections everyone was saying he was going to lose. Hamas has decided to go off the Saudi payroll for Syria and Iran so peace is even further away.
This speech could have recognized that and suggested something more to be done. It did not, which shows wishy-washy versions of "progressive" blame Israel firstism trump reality.
Get over it. Hamas and many others see you as sub-human. Nothing might change until the next election, if it occurs, and Hamas is kicked out.
November 6, 2006 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no alternative to making offers that may not be accepted, save more of the same. What's to lose?
Easy to say it's up to the other guy, as long as you are willing to not complain about the current situation. If you want an improvement, I see no way forward save talking, with or without hope. Well, I guess you could try genocide, but that's harder than most think.
It doesn't matter whether Israel has offered Palestinians the Garden of Eden; if they aren't buying you need to sweeten the deal. Your understandable but not helpful attitude of "we have been more reasonable and generous so it's up to the others" is exactly why only outside pressure will change anything.
November 6, 2006 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brad, I was in Israel about a dozen times during the Olso stage. Settlement expansion was going gangbusters and the Palestinians looked at the dragged out negotiations and realized that interim arrangements would soon result in their stranglation by the settlers. Did Arafat make mistakes at Camp David - yes but you have to admit that Israel has for decades resisted giving up the west bank.
If Arafat had offered Israel 95% of the pre-1967 land what do you think Barak would have done at Camp David? Probably the same thing as Arafat - consider the negotiations non serious. Either Israel gives up all the land or offers remuneration and other concessions which provide mutual advantages or peace will never come. Taba came close and I think if Clinton had another year in office, he could have closed the deal. Another assertion.
Brad - If you think there was incitement on just the arab side during the Oslo negotiations then you were not in the settlements like I was. Incitement and animosity was just as great on the Israeli side. Israel keeps negotiating like every little point is a big deal - the Palestinians have to drag each and every little concession out of us. Israel would be very happy to sign an unjust and unequal treaty with the Palestinians - even if they realized that it's basic unfairness would cause it to fall apart. Israel thinks only about tomorrow when it is 50 -100 years down the road that is important.
I put the onus on Israel because we are the greedy ones. We want more land and we have the power to take it and we have. We never wanted a safe haven for Jews - we wanted to recreate the land of the great Jewish Kings of the Torah, regardless of who got in the way. Well, that desire and goal is going to bite us in the ass, as it did numerous times in our history.
November 6, 2006 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hamas and many others see you as sub-human.
No they don't! They see Israelis as thieves and bullies -- mortally dangerous bullies.
As to everyone else, Hamas has never shown much interest, at all.
November 6, 2006 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
"As to everyone else, Hamas has never shown much interest, at all."
I hereby award my first, ever, V(irtual)4 to this comment.
November 6, 2006 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I take a different attitude towards the status quo. I don't buy the notion that if Israel does nothing then it's putting itself in mortal danger. Or rather, I don't think that the danger to Israel appreciably increases if the status quo remains. It's a hard thing to say, because the status quo is clearly bad. But it may also be the least bad option.
Furthermore, I don't think there is any way that Israel can offer enough to appease the forces that want it gone. I don't think that Israel can offer enough to get a deal done with the Palestinians in any conceivable time frame. It has to be remembered that Israel is a democracy and if a government offered what liberals want it to offer, it would collapse. No question about it.
What it boils to is you can't negotiate with people who want you dead. To do so is to increase the danger because of the perception of weakness. The liberal assumption that reasonableness on the part of Israelis will be met by reasonableness on the part of Palestinians is just - there is no other word for it - nonsense.
If the Palestinians in fact do not want Israel gone, but want to live in peace - which is contrary to all available evidence - then let them put an offer on the table that Israel can react to. As I've said before, not once have the Palestinians EVER put an offer on the table saying this is what we need to end the conflict. Never.
I also disagree that "we are the greedy ones" who want to recreate the biblical kingdom and so on. That may have been true at one point but I think that ship has sailed. The center of Israeli opinion now is that the three big Jewish population centers in the West Bank need to stay Israeli but that the rest can be given to the Arabs. If there were a reasonable, believable, enforceable Arab offer of peace, Israel would have no problem offering up the vast majority of the West Bank. But no one in Israel is holding their breath.
November 7, 2006 4:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Israel isn't a democracy, Israel is a theocracy. They may use proportional representation as a method of administering their country, but as long as certain rights are accorded to those of the state religion and not to others, it is not a democracy.
The Israelis wish the Palestinians dead with the same fervor and hatred as the Palestinians wish the Israelis dead. They don't negotiate because it is a sign of weakness, they don't negotiate because their hatred for each other is so overwhelming that both sides have chosen attrition as their means of settlement.
November 7, 2006 6:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
in answer to noblesseoblige's post-the entire speech was posted on the haaretz website -www.haaretz.com-and I believe, on Americans for Peace Now's website--www.peacenow.org.
Jo-Ann
November 7, 2006 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Suffice it to say: you have no idea what you're talking about.
November 7, 2006 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
No one denies that Jews existed in historical Palestine. The problem is that Zionists deny that Palestinians exist and have resorted to driving out hundreds of thousands of them. Until that injustice is addressed there can be no peace, and this has nothing to do with 'radical islam' etc.
November 7, 2006 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Radicalism is indeed a part of this. What are Hamas & Hezbollah but Islamic radicals who deny Israel's existence? Or did you forget that part?
As I mentioned, Jewish radicals (by the way, Zionists do not constitute the majority of Israelis) also carry some burden of blame as well. There is no disputing that radicalism in multiple forms is a part of this - it's all over the news all the time.
And anyone who throws this conflict squarely on the shoulders of Israel without admitting the responsibility of the Palestinians as well is only watching the conflict with one eye open. It's because of that sort of close-mindedness that peace has not been achieved.
November 8, 2006 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? Where the f**** did you get that idea?
November 8, 2006 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you believe that most Israelis are Zionists? They would prefer to live in a society that is closed off from everyone except Jews, or in which Jews rule the rest of the citizenry, instead of living in a peaceful society, where people actually get along with one another? If that's your belief then you are clearly speaking from limited knowledge of Israelis.
And apparently civility is not a concept you are familiar with, pretending to "curse" at someone with whom you have never conversed. What, exactly, does "f****" mean? I don't know any expletives in the English language that are five letters starting with 'f'.
Fudge? Flack?
November 9, 2006 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink