This is a wonderful article, as usual, but I remember Golda Meir's definition of the problem: (It's because) Egypt and Syria and the other Arab countries refuse to acquiesce to our existence. Therefore there can be no compromise. They say we must be dead. And we say we want to be alive. Between life and death, I don’t know of a compromis…
This is a wonderful article, as usual, but I remember Golda Meir's definition of the problem: (It's because) Egypt and Syria and the other Arab countries refuse to acquiesce to our existence. Therefore there can be no compromise. They say we must be dead. And we say we want to be alive. Between life and death, I don’t know of a compromise. And that’s why we have no choice.”
This is the problem with declaring war on a heavily armed neighbour; your people die, no matter how young they are. My sympathy in this is with the people of Gaza who are paying for the stupidity of Hamas in this instance, but I'm afraid there can be no peace until our Golda can be proved wrong.
"Egypt and Syria and the other Arab countries refuse to acquiesce to our existence. "
Yeah, one of the problems with the brutality of Israel's response (and behaviour prior to October 7th) is that it's difficult to focus on any of the other aspects of the conflict. Would Palestinians "acquiesce to Israel's existence" without the blockade and the land theft? According to the UN resolution I mentioned to Tom, yes they would. It's Netanyahu who refuses to accept the 1967 borders.
There's no doubt that there are people in the region who want Israel wiped from the map. But it's difficult to get an understanding of what's driving that, or how much support they have in this aim, when Israel is doing so many things wrong. There's a difference between acquiescing to Isreal's existence and acquiescing to Israel's dominance.
But Egypt, Syria, and Jordan *have* all acquiesced to Israel's existence. The external military threat Israel faces bears no resemblance to that faced by Golda Meir's Israel in the 1960s.
I'm not quite sure what point you are making here, but if you are suggesting that Egypt et al's acquiescence in the past holds out hope for Hamas's now, then I agree that we should not despair, but I think you are being a tad sanguine.
No, my point is that the external existential threat that Israel faced in '67 or '73 doesn't exist today. Egypt/Jordan/Syria isn't going to launch a surprise attack against a nuclear armed Israel in 2024.
This is a wonderful article, as usual, but I remember Golda Meir's definition of the problem: (It's because) Egypt and Syria and the other Arab countries refuse to acquiesce to our existence. Therefore there can be no compromise. They say we must be dead. And we say we want to be alive. Between life and death, I don’t know of a compromise. And that’s why we have no choice.”
This is the problem with declaring war on a heavily armed neighbour; your people die, no matter how young they are. My sympathy in this is with the people of Gaza who are paying for the stupidity of Hamas in this instance, but I'm afraid there can be no peace until our Golda can be proved wrong.
"Egypt and Syria and the other Arab countries refuse to acquiesce to our existence. "
Yeah, one of the problems with the brutality of Israel's response (and behaviour prior to October 7th) is that it's difficult to focus on any of the other aspects of the conflict. Would Palestinians "acquiesce to Israel's existence" without the blockade and the land theft? According to the UN resolution I mentioned to Tom, yes they would. It's Netanyahu who refuses to accept the 1967 borders.
There's no doubt that there are people in the region who want Israel wiped from the map. But it's difficult to get an understanding of what's driving that, or how much support they have in this aim, when Israel is doing so many things wrong. There's a difference between acquiescing to Isreal's existence and acquiescing to Israel's dominance.
But Egypt, Syria, and Jordan *have* all acquiesced to Israel's existence. The external military threat Israel faces bears no resemblance to that faced by Golda Meir's Israel in the 1960s.
I'm not quite sure what point you are making here, but if you are suggesting that Egypt et al's acquiescence in the past holds out hope for Hamas's now, then I agree that we should not despair, but I think you are being a tad sanguine.
No, my point is that the external existential threat that Israel faced in '67 or '73 doesn't exist today. Egypt/Jordan/Syria isn't going to launch a surprise attack against a nuclear armed Israel in 2024.