« we'll see about that | Main | watch football fans as they dive from the 14th floor »

July 06, 2006



I always find it breathtaking to hear moderate pro-Israelis bleat piously about a 'two-state solution', as if the IDF hadn't spent the last five years systematically destroying the physical and social infrastructure which would have made a Palestinian state viable in the near future. I could understand (while vehemently disagreeing) if they felt this destruction was justified in the name of anti-terrorism, but they barely seem to acknowledge that it has happened at all, or its implications.


Sad though I feel for the Palestinians we have to face the fact that under the late (and non-lamented) Arafat - millionaire-deceiver - terror groups were allowed to blossom and flourish on their territory - NINETEEN of them!
Consider this. To keep the sore suppurating is the aim of these groupings not only to perpetuate the conflicts with Israel but to escalate hatred of the allegedly decadent and wicked Western world.
Had they, instead, dedicated themselves to accepting Israel as well as absorbing a few agrarian lessons from their "enemies", the desert could have been made fruitful, the economy would have stabilised in turn, which would have attracted investment. Had such a course been followed the Palestinians could by this time have been enjoying a peaceful life free from attack with a decent standard of living.
Sadly, they voted in a terror group, Hamas, to rule their country. This, I though - very briefly - was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for them to become a responsible adult political force, adopting a peaceful, progressive attitude.
It wasn't a hope I nurtured for long. Within days of Ghaza being returned, Hamas was using the territory to fire its rockets into Israel.
Then there was the tunnelling exercise. Hardly acceptable behaviour - particularly when you then abduct soldiers.
The Hamas "negotiation" was clearly ludicrous - "we'll return a couple of abductees in exchange for all the terrorist in your prisons."
It was a totally unrealistic proposal. We all know Israel could never agree to such a trade-off.
As the reportage flourished, Damascus and Teheran - the paymasters - had Hezbollah mimic the abduction behaviour to escalata an already festering situation.
Not surprisingly the Israelis - as Hezbollah knew all too well - hit back.
Politicians like Kim Howells make frequent accusations of Israel's "disproportionate response." What exactly is "disproportionate" in a war situation? What alternatives did the Israelis have with a stubborn, determinedly aggressive Hezbollah?
I'm certain that without exception we all empathise with those unfortunate people who have been shelled and dispossessed of their homes in Lebanon. (Ditto in Israel). Certainly the terror axis has aroused a "sympathy vote" in this distressing conflict as is natural when we see innocent suffering in this way. But we should not forget that the cynical creators of this mayhem were Hezbollah/Hamas,well aware of how the situation would worsen and how the suffering of the Lebanese would earn the sympathy vote. They made doubly certain of this by basing themselves deliberately in residential areas...a cowardly move, giving their flag an added significance - it's yellow!
What solution can you put forward? An immediate cease-fire? Of course - but who would police the terrorists' side of any "deal"? Peace is the antithesis of their pilosophy.
Let us not lose sight of the fact that in Hezbollah one is not negotiating with a
military force acting for its government. Worse - they chose to launch inaugurate and continue to wage war using the territory of OTHERS on which to do so.That is unforgiveable.
The simple, quick way to end the hideous mess - force Hezbollah to pack its military hardware, gather is troops and get OUT of Lebanese territory. They caused the problem. They can resolve it this way.

The comments to this entry are closed.

friends blogs


Blog powered by Typepad

my former home