|
(Yes, I know, but I feel that the dysphony is called for in this case.) In this instance, let us look at Virulent Memes, the web site of Graham Freeman. Now, let it be said that, although Freeman appears wrong and wrong-headed, he's not nearly as bad as the pseudonymous coward "Eric Blair". Moreover, whilst lefty bloggers (and non-bloggers) keep screaming for "alternative ideas", they generally don't have any; Freeman does. Again, I think it wrong and wrong-headed, but he has been courageous enough to put it forth it public. Let us look at his idea for solving the Middle East problem:
- Send UN Peacekeepers into the occupied territories. Now, of course, in the past UN peacekeepers have shown themselves from useless (as in the Sinai in 1967, where Nasser's frown was sufficient to send them scurrying, and in Srebenica in 1995) to vicious thugs themselves (as in the Balkans in the late 1990's). Therefore, we should consider in this connection:
Next, he suggests:
- Hold a conference, with a view to the Arab neighbours (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Egypt) acknowledging Israel's right to exist, and correspondingly with Israel acknowledging Palestine's right to exist. I think that a formal declaration by Jordan and Egypt acknowledging Palestine's right to exist (and, of course, "exist" must mean "exist in peace", and "peace" does not mean "constantly punctuated by terrorist attacks) should also be made, as it was these nations that occupied the territory allocated to a Republic of Palestine in 1948. We might also give consideration to an only partial success; e.g., what if Egypt and Jordan acknowledge the Israeli right of existence, but Syria and Palestine does not (the Lebanese government is generally acknowledged to be a mere puppet of Syria). Shall we exclude Syria and Palestine from whatever benefits the conference may agree upon? This question is particularly significant in the light of Arafat's repeated betrayal of the Oslo "peace process". Finally, Freeman calls for:
- Guaranteeing the various faiths right of access to their particular holy sites. And perhaps, at worst, demarcate an international zone around the city of Jerusalem, removing it from the jurisdiction from any existing state. What guarantee does Freeman suggest? And, if this guarantee is violated by any of the parties to it (e.g., the Jordanians' refusal to allow Jewish access to the "Wailing Wall" between 1948 and 1967), what penalties would be appropriate? (For the moment, I ignore that fact that not all "holy sites" are in or even near Jerusalem.) Freeman has, as I have said, advanced some concrete ideas. Now, let us extend and further define those ideas, reifying what we want to see, to avoid vague and unrealistic expectations. As Netcomments is currently down (although I know that Jonty is working on the business problems), I particularly welcome comments by e-mail on this. John "Akatsukami" Braue Thursday, April 11, 2002 |
|