If you care about Israel or Palestine, here is some must-see TV.
The link below is to a a video that features a debate-discussion between Palestinian diplomat Saib Ariqat and an Israeli TV reporter:
It tells, perhaps, the whole story about what is going so wrong over in this region.
To me, it boils down to one word:
intransigence.
By both sides.
Both sides repeat their very emotional arguments. Although they are civil, you can feel the enormous tension. (You can assume that many of the arguments made by the Israeli journalist represent the government's position.)
The Palestinians need to hear the words "67 borders with land swaps", and "stopping settlements" - otherwise there is no trust. The Israelis have to hear "Jewish state", or there is no trust.
I firmly believe that the people of both countries would be willing to trade intransigence for peace. Just ask them..well, they've already been asked and they said so (see my earlier post).
Yes, Israelis would like to see the status quo changed. If we say to them "You can increase your prosperity, as from now on you would have to pay less taxes (less defense spending) and thus have even more economic freedom and security", wouldn't they take it?
Yes, Palestinians want out of their poverty and political isolation. If we say to them "You can have a free country that is world-accepted and your children can have a better future", wouldn't they take it?
So what is everyone waiting for?
The Answer: The leaders - who think only from their narrow nationalistic perspective.
The Answer: The leaders - who think only from their narrow nationalistic perspective.
With that comes the problem of the allowance of mainstream media to showcase the extreme viewpoints without adequate rebuttal time for the moderates (see my NY Times letter of September 2006). We see the flotillas and riots, not the people working behind the scenes for reconciliation. For every segment that displays the negative, why not interview someone like Dr. Abuelaish?
President Obama, unlike his predecessor, is, from day one, attempting to get each side to moderate their views. For this he is being told that he is not a "friend".
President Obama, unlike his predecessor, is, from day one, attempting to get each side to moderate their views. For this he is being told that he is not a "friend".
"J Street" and "Peace Now" does some good, but we need a unified, grass-roots multi-national, multi-religious movement that can overcome purely nationalistic ones. If someone can point me to them, please reply to this post.
Thanks for reading.
P.S. My senator, Ben Cardin, wants Congress to state that they oppose the move by the Palestinians at the UN in September. I also believe that the Palestinian Government is making a mistake (it will only increase the intransigence) but if Cardin adds to the bill a call for a stop of Israeli settlements, a call for full (yes, repeated) Palestinian recognition of a Jewish state, and an agreement based on 1967-with-land-swaps, I would gladly support it. In its present form it is one-sided and does nothing for peace (which I assume Cardin really wants). I want everything to be win-win. (BTW: J Street supports the UN move - I differ with J Street)
