a quote from someone on another website:
. . . the Zionist-controlled government sees the conflict as being in its interest. Especially since it controls the occupied territories, and makes claims to the disputed territory as its own. Settlements are built and expanded all the while no peace negotiation is underway, with the full knowledge that these settlements will become leverage in any eventual negotiation.
got me thinking (again). there is (at least some) truth in this. it's not the entire story of course, and obviously it's no sure thing that hamas would have changed its stance, or become marginalized, or not gained significant power to begin with if israel had more earnestly (at least in my perception) pursued peace negotiations in the last couple of decades, but we'll never know, right? because the israeli government has (mostly) pursued a hard line approach over that time period-- although a series of negotiation efforts were made in the '90s to the early 2000's (see next post below).
some people no doubt feel that a harder line is appropriate going forward, and obviously it's easy for me to sit here 10,000 miles away and criticize. but meanwhile, nothing gets resolved. no negotiation, nothing.
i try not to take sides in this conflict, i really do. but i think we should all be aware of a basic shift in israel's political leadership since the '90s--- dominated by a fundamental p.o.v. that
trading land for peace is no longer an acceptable option for the negotiation table (what remains of it).
----------------------------------------------------
here's a quick review of u.n. resolutions (among others) applicable to the conflict:
1) u.n. resolution # 242: main purpose: to call for israel to cease its occupation of land taken in the 1967 war.
2) u.n. resolutions # 468, 469, 608, 636, 641, 681, 694, 726 and 794 among others, condemning israel's deportation of palestinians.
3) u.n. resolution # 446, which condemned israeli
settlement building on occupied territory. (u.s. abstained from this vote).
4) a proposed u.n. resolution earlier this year to declare israeli
settlement building in the occupied territories illegal, and order a stop to their construction. the
u.s. vetoed this resolution in the 2/18/11 vote.
----------------------------------------------------
http://newsblaze.com/story/201001130957 ... story.html (from Jan. 2010):
again, keep in mind the rise of
neo-conservatism since the 1990s. this movement has its roots deep in the israeli hard right- wing political movement. we saw fairly dramatic evidence of this with the bush administration's iraq policy.
What motivated these (neo-con) advocates of war with a country that never attacked the U.S. and posed little threat (iraq) is the subject of a new book, "The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East," by Stephen J. Sniegoski, Ph.D.
The book examines the close relationship of the American neoconservatives and the Israeli Likudnik right . . . . During the l990s the neoconservatives were quite open about their goal of war in the Middle East. Sniegoski cites a l996 paper entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy For Securing The Realm," published by an Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Included in the study group that prepared the report were people who later loomed large in the Bush administration's war policy - Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser.
The paper stated that Netanyahu should "make a clean break" with the Oslo peace process and reassert Israel's claim to the West Bank . . . . And the study urged Israel to abandon any thought of trading land for peace with the Palestinians.
so yes,
this conflict affects MANY situations and people around the world.
as always, i think a lot of the troubling phenomena surrounding middle eastern geopolitics are intertwined to a degree. it can be somewhat misleading, or short-sighted to compartmentalize these various issues too much.