For example, he explains that the two "parties" are "unable to overcome the repercussions of the second Intifadah." As a consequence, the Palestinian territories have become "unruly" and the Israelis "scarred" Well, we can't be sure of what he means by unruly, though we know that they have ceaselessly attacked Israel. And he prefers to call the Israelis scarred, as if they have received permanent damage that has distorted their ability to understand and accommodate to the Palestinians. More reasonably, I think, the Israelis have figured out that the Palestinians aren't to be trusted. Surely, Yasser Arafat's sudden departure from Camp David then followed by the Intifadah underscores that point. If the Palestinians truly want peace, all they need to do is stop shooting. The Gaza Strip, unilaterally handed over to the Palestinians, continues to be a source of rockets into Israel with consequent retaliation. Scarred? I think not. Pissed off? Of course.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Article Type:||Letter to the editor|
|Date:||Mar 1, 2006|
|Previous Article:||Humanist profile: Daniel C. Dennett (1942-present) 2004 Humanist of the Year.|
|Next Article:||Christians don't own values.|