Israel/Palestine Conflict (Discussion Topic - May 4, 2006)
IIF Discussion: "The Israeli/Palestinian Conflict: The Elections Are Over; What Now?"; guest moderator: The Hon. John H. Kelly, formerly U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon and Assistant Secretary of State for the Near East and South Asia.
posted by IIF BlogMeister @ 1:23 PM
3 comments
3 Comments:
Amb. Kelly is obviously extremely experienced and well-informed on the Israeli/Palestinian matter. However, I was VERY FRUSTRATED with Kelly's discussion. He has been trained to take such a "balanced" view on all matters that he's incapable of expressing a critical opinion.
For example - when a questioner referred to the practice of Palestinian children being taught that Jews are lower than pigs and monkeys, he didn't respond with an acknowledgement of outrage. Instead, he points out that there have been Israelis who have used loudspeakers to pipe objectionable speeches across to the Palestinian side. I just don't see how he could equate shouting random propaganda the systematic indoctrination of a society's small children with hateful fiction.
Another example - When asked how Israel can be held equally responsible for a lack of negotiating progress when the other side (the Palestians) refuse to even acknowledge the right of the one side (Israel) to exist, Kelly references the Palestinians 1993 Oslo Accord acknowledgement. Well, that's absurd. A recognition of Israel that was begrudgingly acknowledged over a decade ago is not even remotely acknowledged today. Israel is continually asked to negotiate with a ghost.
I think the State Dept trains its people to work so hard at seeing all sides that it renders otherwise brilliant people incapable of making rational judgments. Kelly has this problem. John Endicott has this problem. All of these former State Dept folks who moderate for us just can't come out and make a rational opinionated statement.
Amb. Kelly correctly pointed out that there is propaganda on both sides. I do not know how to measure quantity of propaganda, but it is all reprehensible.
Concerning the right to exist, that is also a thornier question than what you portray. Israel does exist, but Palestine as a state does not - in spite of the original 1948 UN resolution.
I thought Amb. Kelly did an excellent job with Serge's question about the Camp David negotiations. He pointed out that the proposal was not as favorable to the Palestinians as many people think, because of the "apartheid roads".
While I agree with Rick that there is often an dangerous tendency to be over cautious and to "collect all the facts" and "hear the other side out," I think that the entrenched nature of the positions on both sides of this issue and the very difficult challange to get factions on either side to see the compromises others make is the more problematic issue. There are folks on both sides that will in prinicipal newer acknowledge the other, either because of enourmous personal suffering and loss experienced, religious fundamentalism, or simply deep seated hatred.
I think that it is incredibly difficult to play facilitating role in this situtation. It is often a challenge to discuss the Israel-Palistinian problem without getting entangled in a single passionate perspective represented by one participant in a discussion. At times like these it is important to provide "counter perspectives" and that does not necessarily mean that one does not ave a strong opinion about the validity of a perspective as the one Rick describes.
Post a Comment
<< Home