Today's "Our View" editorial says "Palestinian refusal to repudiate murder speaks volumes."
It sure does. The punch line:
... a Hamas spokesman defended the bombing by saying Palestinians had the right to defend themselves.
By blowing up people in a restaurant? This is a defense of the indefensible.
A Democratic former senator feels differently, however. South Dakota's James George Abourezk dubs Hamas "freedom fighters" and discusses the "evils of Zionism":
To stop the occupation, one must put an end to the incentives provided to Israel that keep them occupying. Those incentives are the financial and political support provided to that occupation by the United States Congress and president, and the radical Zionists throughout the country. When American taxpayers' money stops flowing to Israel, Israel will stop the occupation and pull back inside the 1967 borders, which will put an end to the conflict there. I am realistic enough to know that, because the Congress is pretty much reliant on money from radical Zionists, stopping the flow of American taxpayers' money to Israel will not come soon. But the sooner it does end, the sooner the violence will stop.
Terrorism does not exist in a vacuum. It does not come from thin air. It is a result of people who believe that their lives cannot be improved by occupation and that there is nothing left for them to do except to commit acts of terrorism.
... the U.S. government designates resistance fighters – such as Hizbollah and Hamas – in the Middle East as terrorists if Israel asks us to do so. That makes it easier to propagandize against the resistance when they are labeled as such. In the Arab world such groups are seen as freedom fighters, resisting an illegal occupation.
How 'bout all that "resistance" to the "illegal occupation" of [UN] Palestinian-designated lands (West Bank and Gaza, particularly) when Jordan and Egypt nabbed 'em in 1948? No, you see, it was the Jews that had to be expunged from the area -- and it is THIS desire that has been at work for over 50 years. Until the Palestinians and other Arab states rectify this desire -- and take real steps to prove it -- then essentially nothing is going to change.
As Alan Dershowitz said recently (my emphasis):
There was a two-state solution proposed by the United Nations in 1948, and if the Palestinians had accepted what the Israelis accepted, a small non-contiguous state with "Bantustans" ... and instead had not invaded, and if the Egyptians had not occupied the Gaza, something that nobody complained about-it was literally a prison for 20 years-and if the Jordanians hadn't occupied the West Bank-literally a prison for 20 years, and had the situation gone forward as it was supposed to go forward in '48, we would not be here. We would have a two-state solution. But, what happened is, it's clear that the Palestinian and Arab leadership was more interested in destroying the nascent, Jewish state of Israel than in establishing a Palestinian state. That is simply the truth, and there is no way to deny that. And no amount of rhetoric can undercut that reality.Posted by Hube at April 19, 2006 04:35 PM | TrackBack