We’d like to take a moment and vent to our readers, who will likely feel like venting themselves. For years, we – and others – have been screaming that the Palestinians have no interest in peace and it doesn’t matter what the Israelis offer (unless the offer includes mass suicide).
Now this from Lital Shemesh, via the Jewish Times:
I participated in the Dialogue for Peace Project for young Israelis and Palestinians who are politically involved in various frameworks. The project’s objective was to identify tomorrow’s leaders and bring them closer today, with the aim of bringing peace at some future time.
The project involved meetings every few weeks and a concluding seminar in Turkey.
On the third day of the seminar after we had become acquainted, had removed barriers, and split helpings of rachat Lukum [a halva-like almond Arab delicacy] as though there was never a partition wall between us, we began to touch upon many subjects which were painful for both sides. The Palestinians spoke of roadblocks and the IDF soldiers in the territories, while the Israeli side spoke of constant fear, murderous terrorist attacks, and rockets from Gaza.
The Israeli side, which included representatives from right and left, tried to understand the Palestinians’ vision of the end of the strife– “Let’s talk business.” The Israelis delved to understand how we can end the age-old, painful conflict. What red lines are they willing to be flexible on? What resolution will satisfy their aspirations? Where do they envision the future borders of the Palestinian State which they so crave?
We were shocked to discover that not a single one of them spoke of a Palestinian State, or to be more precise, of a two-state solution.
They spoke of one state – their state. They spoke of ruling Jaffa, Tel Aviv, Akko, Haifa, and the pain of the Nakba [lit. the tragedy – the establishment of the State of Israel]. There was no future for them. Only the past. “There is no legitimacy for Jews to live next to us” – this was their main message. “Firs t, let them pay for what they perpetrated.”
Winston Churchill once wrote:
One day President Roosevelt told me that he was asking publicly for suggestions about what the war should be called. I said at once, “The Unnecessary War.” There never was a war more easy to stop than that which has just wrecked what was left of the world from the previous struggle.
Churchill warned of the Nazis and was dismissed by his countrymen as a crazy extremist from the lunatic fringe. That was before his warnings bore out. Had the been heeded, when he issued them, WWII would have been… unnecessary?
That leads us to how Shemesh closes his article about the three day meeting between young Israelis and Palestinians:
I arrived at the seminar with high hopes, and I return home with difficult feelings and despair. Something about the narrative of the two sides is different from the core. How can we return to the negotiating table when the Israeli side speaks of two states and the Palestinian side speaks of liberating Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea? How can peace ever take root in a platform which grants legitimacy to terrorism?
When western civilization is ultimately plunged into war with Islam, an honest assessment will be that it was unnecessary. One of the reasons for that is the delusions people like Shemesh have before coming face to face with the reality those delusions suppress.
The silver lining? Well, the old adage that the first step to solving a problem is admitting you have one comes to mind.