God bless you, but above you’re the one presenting things from one perspective, vis-a-vis the Second Intifada’s roots!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jonathan, I’m glad we see eye on the basic premise. I respectfully disagree – I wouldn’t call my dismay at our failure to lead effectively “finger-pointing.” But I understand that, like all issues related to tribe, people tend to see things from an AvB perspective, and that’s only human. But that, to me, is why it’s so important to change the rules of the game.

I have no problem with this view, but to be fair you’ve tried to entrap us, by starting with the “finger pointing”

As it happens, this all fits very comfortably within the parameters of the original argument. One of the problems with this conflict – perhaps the most entrenched obstacle to mutual understanding – is that each side can always find provocations on the part of the other, to reference as justification for their respective vengeances and other responses.

We are intrinsically tribal, so indeed, we actively SEEK such justifications. Clearly, neither Jews nor Arabs are intrinsically evil; therefore, we must accept at some point that, as our very own Albert Einstein said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing twice and expecting a different result.” We must learn sooner, rather than later, that the paradigm itself is at fault, that Jews and Arabs under the current system both have incentives to fight, and that, as agents of peace and righteousness, it is our job to pull both sides back from the brink.

I hold Israel to a higher standard here, or rather to a leadership role; because not only is Israel supposed to represent me and my interests, but any sane observer can see that Israel is endowed with far greater resources and the ability to restructure the conflict, whereas the PA has about as much power over it’s region as the Detroit City Council has over Metro Detroit (and I’ve lived in Metro Detroit).

I don’t think god calls us to point fingers and delay. Peace is an urgent commandment and a key facet of who we are. All of this “but they started it!” talk doesn’t really help anything.

No provocation?

From the July 2000 Camp David talks.

“Yossi Ginnosar, who pleaded for more flexibility, was told by Arafat that Jews had no right to the Temple Mount because the ‘real’ Temple was in Nablus. Without mentioning the alternative location, Erekat expressed his own doubts about the ‘imagined Temple’ during a dinner conversation. On one occasion, an angry President Clinton hotly protested that the Holy Basin was also important to Jews and Christians.”

Doomed to Failure?
The Politics and Intelligence of the Oslo Peace Process, by Ophira Seliktar, pp. 156-157

I wasn’t going to comment on your initial Sharon comment, because I think it is not essential to your larger point.

But, your response leads me to think you might place great importance on Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount.

So, first, your memories are probably a bit foggy because it was one of the saddest days of your life, but Sharon stood outside of the al-Asqa Mosque when he went up to the Temple Mount, and not the Dome of the Rock (this had all been coordinated with the PA beforehand.)

I’m not sure if Wikipedia’s opinions are the most authoritative interpretation of history, but here is a Marwan Barghouti quote from the very same Wikipedia entry:

“I knew that the end of September was the last period (of time) before the explosion, but when Sharon reached the al-Aqsa Mosque, this was the most appropriate moment for the outbreak of the intifada….The night prior to Sharon’s visit, I participated in a panel on a local television station and I seized the opportunity to call on the public to go to the al-Aqsa Mosque in the morning, for it was not possible that Sharon would reach al-Haram al-Sharif just so, and walk away peacefully. I finished and went to al-Aqsa in the morning….We tried to create clashes without success because of the differences of opinion that emerged with others in the al-Aqsa compound at the time….After Sharon left, I remained for two hours in the presence of other people, we discussed the manner of response and how it was possible to react in all the cities (bilad) and not just in Jerusalem. We contacted all (the Palestinian) factions.”
www.jcpa.org/art/brief1-16.htm

(JCPA is obviously a political think tank, but their translations are not challenged–this quote came from an Arabic newspaper interview.)

And, here is an excerpt from a speech by a PA official on the matter:www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-SY8JxyUQA

(It’s put out by Palestinian Media Watch, which is obviously not an objective news agency, but their translations are never questioned.)

And this seems to be a common theme around here–which irks me for one key point:

In November 1947 there was a deal on the table to partition the land between the River and the Sea into two distinct nation-states, one for the Jews and one for the Arabs.

The Jews accepted that plan and the Arabs rejected it. The Jewish-Arab war then began in earnest in December 1947!

The invasion of five neighboring armies occurred in May 1948, after the British left and the Jews declared independence.

The one little fact, that the Jews accepted partition in November 1947 and the Arabs rejected it, throws a monkey wrench into certain historical framing.

On the other hand, I realize that none of these points are especially germane to your overall argument, and I wish you well on your conference blogging.