Michael's Letter

A very insightful email on the current conflict... refer to the previous post for context. Posted at 0200 April 2, 2002.

Well, its 1am and I'm looking at 21 emails, but for the first time I'm actually glad I got them all. I am not in the habit of discussing such things via email (preferring personal conversation), nonetheless it seems too late to close this discussion and so I will throw my opinion out there. I am Jewish, and for the past week this is the only thing I've been hearing about. It was discussed at Passover dinner, my relative's birthday and every other family function I've attended recently. Outside of Kuwait economic policy this is the only thing on my mind and like the rest of you I am saddened by the current events. It seems that peace is impossible as long as leaders like Sharon and Arafat persist, neither interested in peace and neither serving his people. Sharon's response is unjustified, fruitless and logically pointless given the history of the conflict. However, if there were similar bombings in the US I think the people of this country would react at least, if not more violently against their perceived attackers and therefore are not in a position to question such a reaction, they would do the same in a knee-jerk response any day. The question should not be about the destructiveness of Sharon, that is self evident. The question is "what is Israel to do?" I hear criticism all the time, I criticize Israel myself, but what is Israel to do? Certainly not massacre and oppress Palestinians, undermining Arafat, but what instead can force a change in the current environment? Unfortunately in the history of the conflict the current violence is not shocking or surprising. I saw Israel's atrocities being recounted in someone's email; we all know the PLO's list is no shorter. There is no point in this type of debate since we all know that no side in the conflict is innocent. What should be brought out is a realistic appraisal of the situation. Arafat does not want peace, if you study the history of negotiations he always specifically demands concessions that are obvious deal breakers and therefore destroy agreements. His tactics are focused on short, interim measures instead of anything that will bring a long term resolution to the situation. The PLO began its career by serving not the Palestinians in the occupied territories but those who emigrated outside and almost completely forgot about their cause while they were exiled in Lebanon. Unfortunately, I have yet to see it do anything for the people it claims to represent. As for Sharon, I think he is the direct result of how the Palestinians treated Barakh. Instead of taking the PM's moderate stand, concessions, willingness to truly achieve peace and working with him to end the conflict, his stance was viewed as a weakness, taken advantage of and attacked. So, while I do not justify Sharon's actions, I feel the Palestinians have only themselves to thank for getting him into power. The columns email-ed by Dan are concerning, but one should be objective when reading him. Passionate descriptions and personal accounts easily give way to exagerration, misunderstanding and lies. While the writing is not propaganda (I lived in the USSR and I know propaganda when I see it), the motives of the people writing and those emailing this around should be questioned. I have no doubt that questionable military behavior is going on, but this is the brutality of war, we focus on the Israeli's while deep inside we all know that if the Palestinians had the military advantage they would do the exact thing. Also, do not jump so quickly at Ted. While I disagree with him to some extend, I am sure he had reasons for saying what he did and as someone who has worked with him for quite sometime I assure you he is not a racist, nor is he a single-minded conservative. Please respect his opinion no matter how provocative it may seem. Wish I could say more, but I don't want to make this long email even longer. Hopefully this discussion will continue. Michael K.