August 10, 2006
Perhaps, a glimmer
An interesting piece today in Ha'aretz by Imad Shakur, a former Arafat advisor and member of the Palestinian Revolutionary Council. He makes some provocative points about Israel becoming a more "normal" country because it has "lost" a war yet survives as a state.
Whether or not he is right as to the military balance remains to be seen. But at the end of the piece, he includes a crucial statement:
The objective truth is the strength and existence of the Palestinian people, who agreed to the formula of two states for two peoples, since that is the beginning of the formula. It ends with real sustainable peace.This formula of "two states for two peoples" is crucial. It is what Arafat rejected at Camp David and Taba, insisting on the "right of return" of Palestinian refugees and their descendants to pre-1967 Israel, which would have swamped Israel demographically. Essentially, Arafat wanted two states for one people.
The touchstone to peace is whether enough Israelis and Palestinians endorse the formula that Shakur espouses and is enshrined in the People's Voice Accord, which remains the only possible peace plan. This article seems to indicate that another prominent Palestinian figure is. That is good news.
It's not much, but nowadays, we take what we can get.
Strikes me as just a bit premature to declare this war "lost" already. Maybe a bit of wishful thinking?
Posted by: Brett Bellmore at August 10, 2006 01:46 PMHistory is important; in 1973 both the Egyptians and Syrians did much better than the Hezbollah is doing now. Hezbollah’s success is not collapsing by hiding behind their own kids preventing Israelis from walking straight to the Litani.
Peace will come the day the Shakurs stop living in fictional reality.
Posted by: shmuel at August 10, 2006 08:21 PMWhy yes, history is important.
Perhaps it might be instructive for Mr. Zasloff and some of the commenters here to look at a little bit of it:
India (Britain)
Algeria (France)
Vietnam (France,United States),
Afghanistan (Russia)
etc.,etc., ad nauseum.
Hell, lets throw in a little Sun Tzu, just for fun:
"Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy;
Next best is to disrupt his alliances;
The next best is to attack his army.
The worst policy is to attack cities. Attack cities only when there is no alternative."
Isn't it wonderful that Olmert and Bush are such great warrior/historians?
I mean, what could possibly go wrong with these guys at the helm of our respective ships of state?
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
