The politics of humanitarianism

http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/feeds/ap/2006/03/30/ap2634853.html
I know I have written about Arabs, Palestinians, and Israelis numerous times before...it is an area that for me is full of sadness. There really is no right answer at this point. People are so blinded with generations of resentment, anger, bitterness, grudges that they cannot even see truth anymore...nor are they interested in finding truth. Peace is no option because nobody is willing to discuss it. In fact, there does not even exist a language that allows peace.
What I mean is for peace to be a possibility, words have to exist that allow that possibility. I don't mean words like "Okay, we will quit fighting". I mean words like "The nation of Israel" and "The nation of Palestine". Until those words exist it is not reasonable, indeed not even possible for there to be peace. We live in a time when people on both sides refuse to admit reality.
"We will not put our sons in prison, for political membership or resisting (Israeli) occupation, because occupation is the reason for the problem," he said.
At some point reality needs to be admitted to. Israel took their basic borders by force, it is true...just as it is true that between the McMahon-Husayn correspondence and the White Papers between 1918 and 1941 they had a belief it was legitimate activity that would be backed by Britain, France, and probably the U.N.
As a side note, Husayn has at times been spelled Hussein. Just sayin...
When did Israel expand their borders most recently? If I recall correctly, it was during the 7 Days War. A war in which they were attacked by people trying to wipe them off the face of the earth. Literally. Is war considered a legitimate means of expanding borders? Well, it was in World War I...World War II...the Korean War...the Vietnam War...The Balkans War...so we see that in the twentieth century, yes, yes it was...both before and after the 7 Days War.
Was the creation of Israel "right"? That is a muddy waters question with no right answer. It cracks me up that some people are trying to determine the timing and size of the Solomonic and Davidic kingdoms...from 1000 BC! Some are trying to determine if they existed, others what the extent of their borders were...in order to "legitimize" or declare illegitimate the state today!
Accusations have flown that Yasser Arafat allowed the secret destruction of ancient walls so no "proof" of Solomon could be found. For me all this is irrelevant and, to be honest, a bit nonsensical. But for many people the letigimacy of a modern state rests on the reality of an ancient state and what its borders were. This is land that has changed hands numerous times...Babylonians, Assyrians, Persians, Romans, Germanic tribes, Arab tribes, Crusaders,Spanish, Egyptians...all have swept over the land, possessed it, ruled it, lost it. Why would who was there 3000 years ago really matter?
Because some people, themselves in existence solely by dint of successful conquests, say that is what matters. There is no State of Israel. Until they admit the legitimacy of Israel, there can be no possibility for peace...just as so long as the Palestinian leadership is considered (and, to be honest, acts like) to be nothing but a terrorist organization, there can be no olive branch offered by the Israelis.
For as long as I can remember the demand has been for them to pull back from the West Bank. Now their "unilateral decision to pull back from the West Bank" has been called an act of war by those who have been demanding just that.
Yeah, a lot of innocent people are caught in the middle here. The soon to be devastating situation of starvation that will face them is tragic. And unavoidable.
I have talked quite a lot recently about the politics of presentation. Naming a controversy puts you a long way towards winning the public relations war.
Zahar reiterated Hamas' stance that it would only abide by agreements it considered in the Palestinians' best interest. "Why do we have to preserve these agreements frozen or mummified and then worship them?" he asked.
An interesting point. However, it would irrevocably lead to a breakdown of epic proportions if people were to follow this on a global scale. Remove the aid packages to many third world countries (and how long before that phrase is looked at as condescending and offensive...actually, looking at it now, off the cuff I kind of think it IS) and they fall flat into famine and plague. But it WOULD be in the best interest of the U.S., Canada, Britain to do so. For ourselves. Not for the world as a whole.
As much as I hate to admit it, sometimes compromising firmly held, cherished beliefs is the right way to go. Yes, even in politics. Especially in politics. And until Hamas is ready to do so, there is sadly, tragicly, truly no possibility of peace.