What I presented was one account of how the Palestinians see the situation. There are obviously many more perspectives. The point is that some understanding must be reached by both parties which allows a reasonable chance for peace. Nothing gets accomplished by war except to cause enough grief that the parties finally decide to seriously try to work out a solution for peace. If we get sucked into a war over this situation, it will be a net loss for us - no matter who "wins". That is my reflection on the matter.
Hmm... this sounds too close to "Can't we all just get along?"
As a member of the US Armed Forces, I expected more from you. Would that have been your reflection on Japan and Germany, circa 1945?
The sad truth of wars is that they end when one of the sides is beaten so bad that it abandons hope of winning. As an example, I give you Germany and Japan, countries that were devastated by war.
Unfortunately, this is a lesson that the Israelis cannot learn through time. If you think about it, ideas like "Thou shalt not kill" and "Love thy neighbor" (which are seen quite reasonable these days) were actually radical revolutionary ideas when they were introduced. As a devout Christian, you should know where those ideas come from.
The humanity of the Jews has imprisoned them. The command to "Be the light to the rest of the world" prevents them from the very cruelty they are being accused of. And their humanity to this point has prevented them from dealing the crushing defeat to their adversaries to get them to abandon hope of winning. Each time they were poised to finish the job, someone saved the Arab's butts. In 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973... even in 1982, either the USSR or the USA talk them into letting the "nice arabs" off the hook. And what do they get for it??? The snake heals, rearms and attacks again.
Well, my view is that there is no more room for any understanding. One side or the other must achieve a crushing victory in order to readjust the thinking on the other side. After nearly getting obliterated in 1973, Anwar Sadat "got it". And viola... instant peace with Israel, they even got their Sinai back.
I understand you're looking for "reasonable" Palestinian perspectives. However I'd simply suggest to you that at this point only one party is ready to seriously negotiate peace. Maybe if Arafat is replaced, thing would change, surely his people have experienced their share of grief. But I fear that nothing short of total defeat on the ground (which is politically impossible at this time) will bring the Palestinians to the peace table with any level of sincerity.
I understand you're looking for "reasonable" Palestinian perspectives. However I'd simply suggest to you that at this point only one party is ready to seriously negotiate peace. Maybe if Arafat is replaced, thing would change, surely his people have experienced their share of grief. But I fear that nothing short of total defeat on the ground (which is politically impossible at this time) will bring the Palestinians to the peace table with any level of sincerity.
You hit on the answer there but still don't grasp that you did. Let me help clarify what you said by croppping off the flab:
"War causes enough grief so that the parties finally decide to seriously work out a solution for peace."
This is a little clearer. The term 'peace process' is just another phrase for 'perpetual war,' a war which, like an elephant in the dining room, isn't spoken of by its name but is instead called a 'disagreement.' Note that unlike an endless and inconclusive 'peace process' where people get continuously picked off by the side with the most hatred, while the other side is repeatedly forced to respond with pinpricks of 'meassured response,' to which the first side in turn responds claiming it is avenging the deaths of its martyrs- in open war, there is an END. Peace can be obtained with war, precisely because war knocks can sense into people, or can make one side moot.
It isn't pretty, but it WORKS.
It worked in Japan after World War 2 for example. It worked with Hitler's Germany. It worked between the US and Britain in our early years. The nonsense that war does not 'solve anything' is just that. Nonsense. It does solve some things.
It would be nice if people didn't have to resort to force to stay alive. It would be nice if a 'peaceful' solution was possible in every case.
But please tell me where Hitler would have compromised with Poland? tell me what room there was to compromise with his desire to kill EVERY Jew? The Jews and the Gypsies tried compromise. They permitted themselves to be shut up in ghettos. They permitted themselves to be loaded onto cattle cars to 'go to the country to work.' Their property became German property, their businesses became state owned. Some even tried to leave. But there was no compromise with that insatiable desire of evil men to kill and the unbelievable willingness of others to look the other way or even offer excuses for the murder- the Jews couldn't compromise enough to satisfy the Nazis.
The same thing goes for Stalin's victims, or for Red China's, or Pol Pot's. There was no compromise to be had.
So let's rephrase your statement for even more clarity:
"War causes enough grief so that the one or more sides decides that surrendering and living with the consequences is preferable to continuing the fight. "