Are we looking at the Palestinian Israeli conflict in the wrong way? Americans typically think, if those Palestinians would just stop the violence, there'd be peace. Or Israel has extended it's hand in peace, but Palestinians respond with violence. Or Israelis have made concessions, now it's Palestinians' turn. I'm not even sure what concessions people are talking about. Maybe they're as mythical as that saying- 'land without people for people with no land' or 'Arabs left voluntarily in 1948 and 1967', Israel=David vs Palestinians=Goliath, 'there is no such thing as Palestinians' etc.
Should we be looking at it like: Palestinians have already made a huge concession in being forced off all but ~20% of their land into the least developed areas without being consulted by (or negotiated with) the British or the UN, now it's Israel's turn to make the "concession" of complying with the organizations and laws that gave them what they have- to welcome refugees back home, withdraw to pre-1967 borders or create one secular democratic state for all, etc.
I myself have at times resorted to the rather diplomatic stance of what a conundrum, both sides have blood on thier hands, what an impasse, but really, Israel has never really held up their end of the "bargain", the "bargain" for which Palestinians were never even consulted- and still aren't (Camp David, for one).
"In Palestine we do not propose to go through the form of consulting the
wishesof the present inhabitants.... Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or
bad, is rooted in age-long tradition, in present needs, in future hopes,
of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs
who now inhabit that ancient land." Lord Balfour in a memorandum to Lord
Curzon, his successor at the Foreign Office on 11 August 1919
From Day 1 'pre-Israel' disregarded British immigration laws set for the area, smuggled weapons during various truces while Arabs were embargoed, planned to take UN partitioned Arab cities while Arab armies didn't set foot in UN partitioned Israel, organized terrorist groups, carried out massacres and other terrorist and ethnic cleansing operations. Ironically, in fact, the US has been best friends with some of these terrorist leaders and militants- Begin, Rabin, Shamir, Sharon, Ben-Gurion to name a few, and yet we won't so much as talk to Hamas. Are we afraid that rewarding Hamas for terror will result in a state like Israel that has a blank check to inflict harm at will? Also ironic is to choose Israel over other places for the Jewish state, them complain about being surrounded by "enemies", the original inhabitants.
This is even aside from today's violations of law and war crimes Israel is involved in- collective punishment, settlements, extra-judicial assassinations, house demolition, mass arrests, political prisoners, psuedo-trials, checkpoints, blockades, denial of permits for no reason, prevention and disruption of medical care and schoooling and life in general.
This is kind of long, but the situation can be confusing. I guess I just want to know if anyone (else) thinks we Americans have been thinking about this all wrong or have begun our history lesson too far in the present?
