Kind of complex isn't it?
That two peoples have been tossed into this situation through no real fault of their own demands concentrated and genuine international assistance in bringing involved parties to the negotiating table. We'll never get anywhere if either side claims the moral high ground and digs in. There is plenty of blame to go around, this is true, all the way around the world that is. While Israel has been heavy handed of late, I for the life of me can't understand why anyone would actually demand that Israel participate in anymore land for peace deals. Someone from the Palestinian side always manages to sabatoge the treaty and vice versa. And, so the world must get involved, there is simply no way these two entities will come to terms unless they are forced to. I can't place all the blame on one side or the other, so much has transpired that it is moot now anyway. All that is important is finding a way for them to live with each other equitably, that will never happen without strong intervention. And in that endeavour, Carter's book doesn't help the situation at all.
I am also very concerned that this talk eminating from Ahmadinejad casting doubt as to the historical facts of the holacaust is incredibly starting to gain traction. With the recent conference over the last couple of days on that exact topic, I'm beginning to get concerned that a wave of anitsemitism might actually resurface. Let that happen and then see what follows. I tell you, it's shaping up to be a real throw down over there all things considerd.
Complexity Equals Clarity
Bill and Rock,
I would simply say that if you are seeing the complexity of this issue, you are seeing it with greater clarity than most.
Best
Tom
And where might the Palestinians be headed, time now?
Are Hamas and Fatah going to duke it out (reference an alleged assasination attempt on Haniya yesterday) ?
Jimmy Carter vs. Jimmy Carter
16 December Boston Globe editorial - Jimmy Carter vs. Jimmy Carter.
Quote:
Harry Truman famously said that if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. By refusing Brandeis's invitation to take part in a debate about his new book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," former president
Jimmy Carter is saying that he can't take the heat -- after giving his book a controversial title and boasting of a desire to be provocative.
Some of the fury Carter has provoked is so overwrought that it appears to confirm his own overstated contention that any criticism of Israel is treated like heresy by the mainstream media. But it is precisely because of the hyperbole of his critics, and the seriousness of the issues he wants to raise, that Carter should agree to debate that inveterate defender of Israel,
Alan Dershowitz.
At the least, Carter should welcome a chance to defend his deliberate choice of the emotionally charged word, "apartheid," in his title. In one of the text's three references to apartheid, Carter quotes an unnamed "prominent Israeli" saying, "I am afraid that we are moving toward a government like that of South Africa, with a dual society of Jewish rulers and Arab subjects with few rights of citizenship. The West Bank is not worth it."...
If he were to accept a genuine debate about his use of the word "apartheid," Carter would probably have to admit he was being irresponsibly provocative. The rest of his brief for Mideast peace hardly differs from the consensus of rational Israelis, Palestinians, and Americans. Carter is an orthodox peacenik posing as a heretic. Maybe that's the real reason he has declined to debate.