Tuesday, July 18, 2006

No Peace for the Middle East

In my post yesterday about the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and other portions of the Middle East, I mentioned that the reason for the conflict was straightforward enough; Israel's enemies wish her and her people dead.

This morning Dennis Prager expresses a similar opinion in his piece "The Middle East Conflict is Hard to Solve but Easy to Explain". Here are excerpts, but please read the whole thing:
The Middle East conflict is difficult to solve, but it is among the simplest conflicts in history to understand.

The Arab and other Muslim enemies of Israel (for the easily confused, this does not mean every Arab or every Muslim) want Israel destroyed. That is why there is a Middle East conflict. Everything else is commentary.

Israel's enemies regularly announce the reason for the conflict...all want the Jewish state annihilated.

In 1947-48, the Arab states tried to destroy the tiny Jewish state formed by the United Nations partition plan. In 1967, Egypt, Syria and Jordan tried to destroy Israel in what became known as the Six-Day War. All of this took place before Israel occupied one millimeter of Palestinian land and before there was a single Jewish settler in the West Bank.

Two months after the Six-Day War of June 5-10, 1967, the Arab countries convened in Khartoum, Sudan, and announced on Sept. 1, 1967, their famous "Three NOs" to Israel: "No peace, No recognition, No negotiations."

As a lifelong liberal critic of Israeli policies, the New York Times foreign affairs columnist Thomas Friedman wrote just two weeks ago: "The Palestinians could have a state on the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem tomorrow, if they and the Arab League clearly recognized Israel, normalized relations and renounced violence. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know Israel today."
Prager goes on to remind us that Clinton had tried to broker a deal between Israel and the Palestinians. Remember that deal? Israel offered 97% of the West Bank and even some of its own land in exchange for peace? It wasn't enough. Why? Because that's not really what they want. They want Israel gone from the face of the earth.

Perhaps if Israel said, "If we agree to cease to exist as a nation and most of us leave the area, will you leave us alone?", then they could have "peace". For the illogical, I assert that this is an unreasonable position and that one cannot reason with the unreason-able. Whatever else has happened, this hatred of Israel is the root of the problem. And that's why there is no peace in the Middle East.

Related posts:
Land for Peace Works Wonders (Not)
Meanwhile, in the Middle East
Gaza and Chemical Weapons


At 7/18/2006 8:45 AM, Blogger ColossusHube said...

Another great post, AV. Prager is dead on the money, here.

At 7/18/2006 2:26 PM, Anonymous Andy said...

I am a big proponent of acknowledging the complexity of the Middle East situation, but this core truth should not be left out of any discussion or plan involving the region.

At 7/18/2006 3:18 PM, Blogger Duffy said...

Sadly, only a war will solve the situation. Any Palestinian politican knows that signing a peace deal with Israel is signing his death warrant. Just ask Sadat.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home