|
|||
You could see this coming in how it was reported. At first, "The nascent ceasefire in the Middle East appears to be gaining strength." And Arafat was "committed to fulfilling all the agreements related to a cease-fire." But there was trouble in the wind, and "a fragile Mideast cease-fire, brokered last week, holds despite fresh incidents of violence." Hopes became "clouded". Then the truce was "close to collapse" and "troubled". A US ambassador blamed both sides for "undermining" the peace process. And now they're not even mentioning it any longer in the news coverage. There was no "truce". There was never a truce. There isn't any "peace process". The problem is that there are enough people on both sides who don't want peace that one won't be coming anytime soon. The status quo there is low level warfare and this will continue for the forseeable future. It's a shame. Every once in a while someone outside will talk both sides into a "cease fire" and both sides will agree simply because neither will want to look like the bad guy internationally. But violence will again catch fire and will again burn. There can be no peace until the underlying conflict of interests between the two sides is dealt with. The reason that the sides are fighting is that they both think there's something worth fighting about. Until that changes, they'll keep fighting, and the bodies will continue to pile up. And no amount of pious pontification about "peace" by outsiders will change that. Peace is a by-product, not a goal in itself. Peace happens when no-one wants to fight. The goal is resolution of the problem of land and freedom of movement and self-government for the Palestinians. (discuss) |
|||
