Israeli Extremism

What to do about Israel?

Things are still SNAFU in the Middle East. If you do not know what SNAFU means I am not going to educate you. Go search Google or something. Let's just say things are coming to a head in Israel. Like a pimple that needs to be squeezed, I am going to apply some pressure to rid the body of what ails us in the hope that eventual healing might result.

(See here) where the Associated Press reports on a piece that appears on MSNBC that reports on what is going on in Israel.

( See here) a Haaretz piece that further reports on the goings on in the Middle East. I am going to lift a quote from this piece. I am going to attempt to delicately balance where I stand on the issue of Israel. I am not going to satisfy either side on this issue. I am going to attempt to become the fulcrum upon which both sides, if they are reasonable, can find a balance. I am going to engage in criticism of Ehud Olmert because I think he stands closest to my position and only attempt to get him to fall in line behind me so that I can support him as he attempts to thwart the goals of his opponents. I will attempt to expose the weakness of his "We're only victims." argument and try to expose the truth. If he wants my support, he is going to have to "change his evil ways" and compromise himself.

As the Haaretz piece reports:
"No one who is involved in terrorism is immune," said Olmert. "Israel will not
be subject to a timetable regarding its operations in Gaza."
OK Ehud, you are going to engage in conduct that many of us would describe as unacceptable. Personally, I would describe this conduct as probably being necessary, but I could be wrong. You have the power to prove this conduct MUST happen if you were only willing to exercise your power as Prime Minister of the Israeli Knesset.

What am I talking about? Olmert is not stopping the cancerous spread of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory. If he stopped this spread WITHOUT EXCUSE, his "No one who is involved in terrorism is immune" argument would fall upon fertile soil. If the nation he leads did everything necessary to obtain a reasonable settlement, his cries that heavy handed action is required would be proven as fact. However, as long as he allows the settlements to expand and incite violence some of us are going to argue the actions of the Palestinians are justified.

Personally, I do not think the resistance of Hamas will cease with he stop of the expansion of the settlements, however I am willing to put my beliefs to the test. I insist that the expansions, which incite resistance, stops. After the cancerous spread of the settlements, which incites violent resistance, stops, and the resistance does not fade, I am willing to POUND the continuing resistance into submission.

But for me to agree to the pounding, first Israel must show, through actions, that they will be willing to abide by the results of negotiations. Until the cancerous spread of settlements is halted, I say the Palestinians have a right to resort to violence to stop this spread.

Once the spread of settlements stop, I am willing to agree to the pounding of our opponents into submission. But until we agree to stop being hypocrites I am going to insist the Palestinians have the right to resist.

Do I make myself clear?


Post a Comment

<< Home