- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Can you disagree without being disagreeable, Xanthro?
No, if someone is a Jew Hater, I will continue to be disagreeable.
Xanthro: "It wasn't a political disaster for Israel."
You curiously omitted the following from your narrative. As explained by Israeli historian Benny Morris in "Righteous Victims - A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001":
I'm fully aware of all the negative connections as well.
What truly matters is that the entire nature of the relationship between the two groups changed because of the 1982 Lebanon campaign.
Israel no longer insists that all the West Bank and Gaza be part of Israel, and the PLO no longer insists that all of Israel be part of Palestine.
A two state solution is now a workable solution.
Both sides now agree with the goal, it's the details that require work.
Previously, even the goal itself wasn't agreed upon.
That is a huge change.
Xanthro: "Israel will be very lucky if this Gaza conflict ends up like the Lebanon conflict in 1982."
God I hope not. By analogy, and as Gary correctly put it, "Qaida-like groups would flourish."
-- Publicola
Such groups will always flourish, and have little to do with Israel.
What matters is that Hamas has shown itself somewhat competent at actual civil leadership. It would likely do a better job running Palestine than the PA or the PLO.
If like in 1982, Hamas understands that they can't military defeat Israel, and that a two-state solution is the only possible outcome, then Israel gains, because it has another entity to peace talks.
If the PLO ran the West Bank and Gaza as competently as Hamas has run Gaza over the last year, Palestine would already be a State.
Note, I'm also well aware of the violence that Hamas has committed in Gaza, but the point is they have shown an actual interest in Governing.
