Malconstant wrote:Ahh, Is there any chance one of you would have a good source to point to for this? I've done plenty of casual reading on the papers and never picked up a whiff of that particular spin. I don't know any better to argue with that, but it's incongruent with all I've learned from reading up on it, and that's pretty dang important in my own little narrative of the events the papers.
I linked to Ha'aretz for my arguments.
In my cartoon interpretation of things, Israeli leadership has been unreasonable/uncompromising dicks regarding any sustainable solution other than total victory (1 state solution and it's Israel, and the Palestinians can find somewhere else to live). Palestine is in a much weaker situation socio-economically, and their leadership has been much more willing to try and accept sustainable two-state solutions as being ultimately necessary. Meanwhile my cartoon has the Israeli populace being more reasonable people trying to do their thing, while the Palestinian populace feels totally beaten down, victimized, and finds ideas of the most guerilla/suicide bomber/David vs. Goliath type resistance to be the only compelling response. In their cartoon eyes, the Israelis will never accept a sustainable solution for the Palestinians, and so they will offer resistance with everything they have, which pretty much includes their people and rocks, trying to gain sympathy by getting their children harmed in conflict. And because of this cartoon populace, the cartoon Palestinian leadership can't afford to appear as though they are actively seeking compromise from a knowingly weakened position, because that's not what the cartoon people want to see, and they'd get voted out for someone with stronger resistance-based rhetoric, as they are, after all, a democracy.
It's not a good thing, what the Palestinian people are doing, it's an awful awful thing. But in my cartoon narrative it's a perfectly expected human response to the perception of being taken advantage of and persistently aggressed on by a vastly stronger power. After 60 years of this, it's perfectly reasonable to feel helpless and desperate, and to find ideas of grassroots resistance to be compelling.
I find this cartoon of a narrative to be far more compelling to me in the face of the papers and everything I've read about the conflict, than a cartoon of "the Israelis really want a sustainable solution for the Palestinians, and the only way to do this is to periodically take away more of their land to expand on until they stop trying to put up grassroots/guerilla resistance. Once they stop then we can have peace."
So is there some compelling reading which should inspire me to change my cartoon of this narrative?
Edit: Ninja'd! I'll read up on that.
Israel has actually made plenty of offers for a two-state solution, an the official stance of the government for at least two decades has been one of a two-state solution. You can look at camp david, Taba, the Olmert offer etc. All of them offer Palestine at least 96% of the amount of land they'd have under the armistice lines, and all of these offers displace thousands of Jews and involve a great deal of land loss for Israel. The Palestinians, however, have refused any concessions at all: they so far have only been willing to accept everything up to the '49 armistice lines with west
Jerusalem and the "return" of 5 million Palestinians to Israel. This would mean the destruction of Israel, which would make sense, as that's the stated goal of the majority of the Palestinians.
It's not really fair to say that Palestinian terrorism has been a response to Israeli oppression. The Palestinians have been attacking the Jews for about a century now, before there was even an Israel. The PLO was founded three years before the six-day war with the intention of destroying Israel. In fact, Palestinian terrorism has always increased the more control they'd been given. After the Oslo Accords, Palestinian terrorism rates more than quadrupled. After Israel withdrew from Gaza, the elected body there immediately declared war on Israel and started launching rockets.
Also, al-Jazeera probably isn't the best source if you want an unbiased viewpoint (or at least complete coverage). They don't even try to keep their opinions separate from their reporting when it comes to Israel and Palestine. Wikipedia often has arguments from both sides with a report on what the international consensus is and full context for everything, though you'll want to watch out for some of the articles in which the neutrality is disputed. Ha'aretz usually has good coverage: their plain news articles tend to be unbiased (though overall they lean a bit further to the left than I'd like.)