Sunday, October 26, 2003
Fences And Fairness (washingtonpost.com)
The usually sensible Jim Hoagland joins the chorus against the path of the security fence as well as Israel's targeted killings.
I skip straight to the finish:
Well, actually, it just may, if you don't want to keep fighting forever. It's certainly what we did with Japan and Germany at the conclusion of World War 2. "Unconditional Surrender" was as much about not having to fight the same war a thrid time as it was about a temporary halt to hostilities. And that was in a conflict where the direct stakes to America were far lower than they are to Israelis in their war.
I skip up a sentence:
The conflict, brought about through Arab choices, is what has made the Palestinians a people. Ending it, one way or another, should be everyone's business, not affirming any particular people's self-actualization. Further Sharon has responsibility to the Israeli people. To the non-Israeli Palestinians he has as much responsibility as Truman had to the citizens of Japan and Germany. Any responsibility felt is purely owing to enlightened self-interest. Nothing more.
He referred to the "Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas)"
He also spoke about including Ariel as a land grab?
I don't understand this considering Taba included Ariel? So are we now saying that the Israelis should get less than Taba's land agreement because Arafat turned it down on the issue of the "Refugees" and that the Temple Mount "never existed"?
However, on the issue of it confiscating Palestinian farms and ruining them, and cantonizing certain Palestinians, its a fair point. The question then becomes is Sharon doing this purposely and with reckless abandon, or are they carefully making tough choices that they have to make?
Depending on who you talk to you'll of course get different answers to that question.
Mike