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. |
<< Home