My friend and favorite hostile character witness, BB, responded to today's post of my American News piece on the Gaza troubles. I will respond here rather than on the comments page of my Keloland site. BB opens with this:
Such strong opinions from one who is so ignorant as to be absurd! There is so much wrong with your post that it is hard to know where to begin. Apparently you have never heard of the Golan Heights. The Israelis took control of it from Syria during the Six Day War and Syria has been attempting to get it back ever since. Actually if you simply would read current events you would know that the Israelis and the Syrians have been close to brokering a deal lately for the Golan. Peace for land.
BB: you shouldn't call me ignorant even if you think I am. After all, I don't call you stupid for writing that. You are responding, I am sure, to this in my post:
[A] peace agreement between Israel and Syria is not in the cards. This is because Israel has nothing comparable to the Sinai that Syria wants. But one can imagine such an agreement. If someone could offer Syria something it did want badly enough, the Syrian government would at least be able to hold up its end of the bargain.
I did not mention the Golan Heights primarily for reasons of space, which is severely limited in American News columns. I would, however, draw your attention to the words highlighted above. If you had been a little less strident and a bit more thoughtful, you might have anticipated what my argument would be.
Let's review: Israel captures the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights in the 1967 war (along with the West Bank and the Old City of Jerusalem). In 1979 Jimmy Carter brokers peace between Egypt and Israel, and the Israelis give the Sinai back. That's twelve years. I conclude from this that Egypt was genuinely willing to trade peace for land. Well, now it's forty-one years after the 1967 war, and still no peace between Israel and Syria. During those four decades, there have been lots of negotiations. I seem to recall James Baker talking about Hafez Assad's "bathroom diplomacy." He wouldn't let you break up a meeting to pee. That would have been in 1990, I think. At any rate that's four decades of no deal. I conclude from this fact that, however much the Syrians want the Golan Heights, they aren't willing to cut a deal to get it. Am I going too fast for you, BB?
Now I could be wrong. I am well aware that the Syrians and Israelis are currently talking about the possibility of a deal. The terms seem to be that the Israeli's are willing to withdraw militarily but insist on keeping a security post on the ridge line. The Syrians are okay with that. The sticking point is the eastern border of the Sea of Galilee, upon which Israel is dependent for fresh water.
Maybe the clouds are about to part, and peace angels sing, as you seem to believe. But there was exactly the same kind of talk, with identical terms, at the end of Bill Clinton's administration. And I suspect that Syria's car bomb diplomacy in Lebanon suggests a certain kind of political culture. I don't think they will really feel they own the Golan until Israel is in smoking ruins. Call me jaded, call me the man from Missouri, but I will believe it when I see it. If I do, I will cheerfully admit that I was wrong. But my comments were not made out of ignorance. They came from knowing the history all too well. This is fun, so I go on:
Hamas is a local grass roots organization that won the election due more to splits amongst Fatah as well as corruption in Fatah. I agree that Hamas rhetoric is strident but Israel is also to blame too since they in no way wish to engage with Hamas.
A "grass roots organization," you say. Makes them sound like Greenpeace! Those thousands of missiles launched from Gaza into Israel were more than "strident rhetoric." I acknowledged that Israel isn't innocent, but they don't have to make penitence for "not wishing to engage with Hamas." Hamas wants them to die. Period. I agree with what you say about Fatah, but Fatah's willingness to negotiate in good faith didn't do them any good in the election.
The wall was ostensibly built in the West Bank to stop the suicide bombings but in reality is used to control the population. Israeli policy is to make life so miserable for the Palestinians that they will want to leave.
Yeah, and I open an umbrella ostensibly because it's raining. Before the wall, waves of suicide bombers blowing themselves up in nightclubs and buses; after the wall, no suicide bombers. Do you really need an ulterior motive for building it? Israeli policy has made life miserable for the Gaza Palestinians because Hamas has used every outlet to the world to import weapons shoot them at Israel.
Oddly enough, after all your complaints, you agree with me on the bottom line.
I do agree that there will be no peace in the Middle East. I can think of no solution that would be acceptable to all parties concerned. The best deal the Palestinians could have gotten was in 1948 with the UN mandate...too bad nobody ever asked them....
Yes. That was my point. Somehow I reached the truth in spite of my ignorance. I would point out that the existence of the State of Israel is the only reason that a Palestinian state is a real possibility. The obstacles to a coherent Palestinian state are awesome, but Gaza could have been the kernel of one. If the Palestinians were capable of making peace with Israel, that would have determined Israeli elections. Some deal would have been cut. But Hamas turned the first Palestinian controlled territory into a launch pad, neglecting all other necessities of state.
The Palestinian territories and southern Lebanon are ungoverned. They are crawling with death. From time to time Israel will be forced to clean them out. I see no alternative to this cycle in the near future.
Recent Comments