An oversimplification, but true

Submitted by andrew freedman (United States), Sep 10, 2003 at 13:55

The proposal offered is an oversimplification, but is completely true. The problem is that the Israelis wants something more than the Arabs. the simple reality is that the strongest thing israel can do is walk away. walk away from "peace negotiations". peace has been negotiated, and agreed upon. realistically there is nothing to negotiate, other than plans to build infrastructure and joint economic development projects. that is what should have followed oslo. all of this talk of territory and nationalism is nonsense and fluff to prolong the turning of the knife in the back of israel.

will nations cut off relatios with israel? of course. will the palestinians declare an independent state? perhaps, but what difference would it make. it has no structure. would other nations recognize a nation of palestine? absolutely, and it would in no way affect israel. would america cut off aid? perhaps, partially. and it would be the best thing for israel. they would fight a war to win realizing they do not have resources to waste, much as they did in 1967. israel would stop playing to CNN and BBC, but would answer to its citizens.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".