« Minimum Wage Hypocrisy | Main | Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™ »

Suppose they gave a peace and nobody came?

This morning's Boston Globe has a column that said that it was long past time for the United States to once again "be a partner for peace in the Middle East." The gist of the piece is that the US must push for more negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis, with an eye towards a "real" peace agreement.

I find myself astonished. But then I remember that I'm reading the Boston Globe, and I am disappointed with myself.

As of right now, this pretty much sums up how things stand vis-a-vis Israel and Palestine:

  • The duly elected Palestinian government is dominated by Hamas, an officially-recognized terrorist organization that has killed thousands of innocents, including not a few Americans. As such, it is illegal for the United States to have any negotiations with them.
  • Hamas has for years refused to recognize Israel's existence, but its legal right to exist. They have moderated their stance slightly, and now say that they recognize its existence -- but only in the furtherance of saying that it must be destroyed.
  • Hamas is currently holding a kidnapped Israeli soldier, and recently wanted to exchange proof that he is still alive for hundreds of Palestinians imprisoned in Israel.
  • Hamas is currently living under a "cease fire" with Israel, but it's a most unusual one -- there are still rockets being fired daily into Israel, but those apparently don't count. A "Palestinian cease fire" seems to be defined as "you don't shoot back."

There's an old cliche' that says "suppose they gave a war and nobody came." I tend to think mathematically, so I immediately constructed a matrix to work that one out.

Suppose they gave a war and nobody came: peace.
Suppose they gave a war and everybody came: war.
Suppose they gave a war and only one side came: slaughter.

To my way of thinking, those alternatives are arranged in a descending order of preference. Peace is the best choice, but it is not guaranteed. If one side is intent on a fight, the best alternative is for the other to fight back and try to dissuade the aggressor from winning.

Because we've seen far, far too many times what happens when those intent on conquest are met with those who are not interested in fighting back.

Fortunately, the Israelis aren't overly interested in being slaughtered. They've demonstrated time and time again that they are willing to discuss peace, to make genuine concessions, to live beside their neighbors. That's far more than the Palestinians have ever done -- whenever given the chance, they have willingly chosen to fight, to attack, to slaughter.

Two old quotations out of the Middle East come to mind:

"If the Palestinians were to lay down their weapons, there would be no more war. If the Israelis were to lay down their weapons, there would be no more Israel."

"There will be no peace until the Palestinians love their children more than they hate the Israelis."


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Suppose they gave a peace and nobody came?:

» The Thunder Run linked with Web Reconnaissance for 01/12/2007

Comments (12)

you hit the nail on the hea... (Below threshold)

you hit the nail on the head Jay T...to bad they cant see the forrest for the bushs...opps...trees

"If the Palestinians wer... (Below threshold)

"If the Palestinians were to lay down their weapons, there would be no more war. If the Israelis were to lay down their weapons, there would be no more Israel."

And most of the rest of the world would be equally satisfied by either result.

you'd be satisfied if there... (Below threshold)

you'd be satisfied if there was no more Israel?

can one imagine the outrage if a conservative would say we'd be satisfied if there were no more liberals?

You cannot negotiate with p... (Below threshold)

You cannot negotiate with people who have absolutely no intention of changing their minds. The Arab fanatics (Hamas and their ilk) will NEVER accept Israel's (U.N. given) right to exist. And Israel will never cease to defend itself, nor should they.

Hamas and Hezbollah are not legitimate (or rational) representatives of the Arab people.

Gianni - I'd be happy if there were no more NUTBAR liberals - but rational, intelligent liberals are a different story. I have always subscribed to the theory that, for our Republic to function at its optimum, BOTH POINTS OF VIEW must be heard. But the hysterical name-calling on either side is contraproductive (not to mention annoying as hell).

Once upon a time Israel pro... (Below threshold)

Once upon a time Israel promoted and financed Hamas as THE counter-weight to the PLO. Using latent anti-jewish guerillas against anti-zionist terrorists was bound to produce blowback. I say we stay out of the way. No? Then open direct talks.

Those who want to be "partn... (Below threshold)

Those who want to be "partners" in the "peace process" have no desire for actual peace at all. It's the "process" they believe is the end, in and of itself.

If this were not so, they would not persist in attempting to "negotiate" away property and lives which are not theirs to give with people who have repeatedly and consistently declared and demonstrated they will not concede anything in any "negotiation," and that any promise they make will be broken without hesitation.

BryanD,And within 2 ... (Below threshold)

And within 2 years of Hamas' founding, Israel outlawed them and imprisioned its founder.
When Hamas was a charitible organization, Israel did indeed support them to act as a foil against Arrafat and the PLO. When Hamas took up arms and turned terrorist, Israel treated them accordingly.
Learn some history son.

SCSIwuzzy: Hamas was used b... (Below threshold)

SCSIwuzzy: Hamas was used by the Likud government to divide and conquer the Palestinians by the appeal of religion vs socialism. That specific appeal in a culture-war milieu tends not to encourage moderation. Immoderate muslims are now being termed Islamists and terror-enablers, and suprise! they don't buy the Isaac-on-the-alter bit. It was ISMAEL on that alter and the kikes are trying to steal the Arabs' destiny. It's factually wrong but too bad. It's a RELIGIOUS thing now. (Brains optional)

SCSI: AND the "when" in you... (Below threshold)

SCSI: AND the "when" in your penultimate sentence is my point.

Then you have no point, Bry... (Below threshold)

Then you have no point, Bryan. Trying to blame Israel for Hamas because they supported them as an aid group and alternative to active terrorist is bullshit.
Par for the course for you, really.

SCSIwuzzy: An "aid group" d... (Below threshold)

SCSIwuzzy: An "aid group" descended from the Muslim Brotherhood put into the Israeli body politic by Israel itself. Inside its own borders! Muslims! The 180 proof kind!

Too many people search for ... (Below threshold)

Too many people search for the simple answers, which is why the Globe trots this crap out.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy