In view of the up-coming peace talks in the US, hopes are high in some, yet scepticism too for others. David Brog wrote a brilliant article on 'War and Peace' in view of these talks.
What makes me hopeful is that I believe Netanyahu is the right man for the job - he's commited to peace, yet stands firm on Israel's rights of existence and self-determination: Israel must remain an independent Jewish state.
What makes he sceptical is the ideology that has been driving Arab leaders even before the birth of the Jewish state in 1948 - not just radical terrorist groups but heads of states! It's not just the wars fought against Israel for no other reason than her mere existence - water, settlements, war crimes, occupation etc, are simply cheap excuses for war and terror - but the constant rejection of Arab leaders to recognise Israel and agree to a genuine peace. Even when the then Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered virtually everything the Palestinains demanded at the Camp David negotiations in 2000/2001 - i.e., Jerusalem, Temple Mount, 95% of the West Bank, all of Gaza and $30 billion compensation - Araft rejected the deal. Even when Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia urged Arafat to take the deal and blamed him for the deaths that followed the rejection and the Intifada, Arafat still remained commited to the hateful PLO mission to liberate Palestine, that is, all of the Land. Arafat couldn't but reject peace deals as his own people would have killed him - so, what was the point? Well, as has been said, Arafat spoke of peace in English and of war in Arabic. This sums up his attitude and the attitude of his successors, even when they are considered 'moderate': they seek to please the West with lip-service, while they are actively pursuing their destructive agenda on the ground.
How can we explain that rejection of 2000? The only reasonable answer is this: the Arab leadership is dedicated to the anti-Israel ideology that seeks her destruction. They simply don't want a Jewish State, hence they are against the Two-State Solution, which they have rejected no less than three times before Camp David. So, how can one expect Abbas to sign a genuine peace treaty? The historical background mentioned in brief above must be kept in mind, for, as Alan Dershowitz rightly states, 'it is impossible to understand the conflict in the Middle East without accepting the reality that from the very beginning the strategy of the Arab leadership has been to eliminate the existence of any Jewish state, and indeed any substantial Jewish population, in what is now Israel' (The Case for Israel, pg. 7). Dershowitz is also right in stating that 'when the Palestinian leaders want their own state more than the destruction of the Jewish state, we will finally be able to achieve the two-state solution that is best for all' (ibid., pg. x). Our hope is that such a leader will arise, but the present climate with Israel's hostile neighbours makes such a reality rather unlikely. As long as such radicalised governments such as Iran, Syria and at times Lebanon and Egypt strengthen the Palestinians with either weapons oir ideology or both, peace seems a long way off. Sometimes I fear that the oppostunities for peace have been missed in the past and that the radicalisation of Muslim nations have increased to an extent that there is no way back... but then, we shouldn't be all too negtaive and pessimisstic, as Israel's leaders have been such brilliant negotiators throughout history and their God has kept them alive and flourishing in the worst of circumstances! Shalom
What makes me hopeful is that I believe Netanyahu is the right man for the job - he's commited to peace, yet stands firm on Israel's rights of existence and self-determination: Israel must remain an independent Jewish state.
What makes he sceptical is the ideology that has been driving Arab leaders even before the birth of the Jewish state in 1948 - not just radical terrorist groups but heads of states! It's not just the wars fought against Israel for no other reason than her mere existence - water, settlements, war crimes, occupation etc, are simply cheap excuses for war and terror - but the constant rejection of Arab leaders to recognise Israel and agree to a genuine peace. Even when the then Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered virtually everything the Palestinains demanded at the Camp David negotiations in 2000/2001 - i.e., Jerusalem, Temple Mount, 95% of the West Bank, all of Gaza and $30 billion compensation - Araft rejected the deal. Even when Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia urged Arafat to take the deal and blamed him for the deaths that followed the rejection and the Intifada, Arafat still remained commited to the hateful PLO mission to liberate Palestine, that is, all of the Land. Arafat couldn't but reject peace deals as his own people would have killed him - so, what was the point? Well, as has been said, Arafat spoke of peace in English and of war in Arabic. This sums up his attitude and the attitude of his successors, even when they are considered 'moderate': they seek to please the West with lip-service, while they are actively pursuing their destructive agenda on the ground.
How can we explain that rejection of 2000? The only reasonable answer is this: the Arab leadership is dedicated to the anti-Israel ideology that seeks her destruction. They simply don't want a Jewish State, hence they are against the Two-State Solution, which they have rejected no less than three times before Camp David. So, how can one expect Abbas to sign a genuine peace treaty? The historical background mentioned in brief above must be kept in mind, for, as Alan Dershowitz rightly states, 'it is impossible to understand the conflict in the Middle East without accepting the reality that from the very beginning the strategy of the Arab leadership has been to eliminate the existence of any Jewish state, and indeed any substantial Jewish population, in what is now Israel' (The Case for Israel, pg. 7). Dershowitz is also right in stating that 'when the Palestinian leaders want their own state more than the destruction of the Jewish state, we will finally be able to achieve the two-state solution that is best for all' (ibid., pg. x). Our hope is that such a leader will arise, but the present climate with Israel's hostile neighbours makes such a reality rather unlikely. As long as such radicalised governments such as Iran, Syria and at times Lebanon and Egypt strengthen the Palestinians with either weapons oir ideology or both, peace seems a long way off. Sometimes I fear that the oppostunities for peace have been missed in the past and that the radicalisation of Muslim nations have increased to an extent that there is no way back... but then, we shouldn't be all too negtaive and pessimisstic, as Israel's leaders have been such brilliant negotiators throughout history and their God has kept them alive and flourishing in the worst of circumstances! Shalom
No comments:
Post a Comment