Friday, October 19, 2007
Activist: Peace is the key to the life of human beings. When a person enjoys peace, he feels safe, becomes productive, and begins to think and develop.
Second activist: There is nothing wrong with having two states – a Palestinian state and an Israeli one. The reality is that the Israelis have a state and we don't.
Third activist: In my opinion, peace serves us more than anyone else. Of course, I support peace, no matter what. After all, we are all human beings. True, we suffer from occupation and oppression. This activity is by people who believe in peace, and believe we have a right to have an independent state, and to have the 1967 borders and Jerusalem. I don't see any reason why this shouldn't happen.
Reporter: These groups are also active on the streets. There, the volunteers try to persuade citizens to sign a document containing several clauses...
Although I commented cynically on this, and I still think the effort is naive, nor do I think the Arabs "deserve" Jerusalem (though that doesn't mean some accommodation can't or shouldn't be made), there is something to this. I certainly wouldn't work against the idea of the thing per se. There's also a good lesson in who did work against it. Good post at Harry's place: PACBI is the Enemy of the Palestinian and Israeli People
If they can't get that, they're happy to see generation after generation, slaughtering each other.
The boycott movement's main target is moderate Palestinians and Israelis. If they compromisers and conciliators succeed, they lose.
That is why the boycott movement is the enemy of the Palestinian and Israeli peoples.
And this is also why this scum must be fought politically wherever we encounter them - in our unions, in the media, and in the street - until they are defeated.
Also see: Engage: PACBI seeks 'genuine peace' by boycotting a peace concert - Mira Vogel
Sol - they may be naive; but they are moving in a far more productive direction than that chosen by most "peace" activists. I do not know that there is a win / win scenario - but if such a thing were possible, it would be very worthwhile to pursue it.
So long as "no matter what" includes 1967 borders and Jerusalem.
It's a shame to watch this video, with all these earnest, well-meaning people, all the while knowing how the event ended: canceled on the Arab side because of "security concerns."
It's even sadder when you hear that they had the support of thousands of Palestinians. I guess the more radical and the more violent will always have the upper hand, and they'll use their better position to make it worse for everyone.
Will, those other "peace" activists you mention are, of course, not really activists for peace. They're activists supporting the hardline Arab one-state solution. They're looking to help defeat Israel, not make peace with it. Only, they can pass for peace activists because the world sees them standing up to Israeli soldiers.
"So long as "no matter what" includes 1967 borders and Jerusalem."
Yeah, that's part of that "naive" thing, although you have to wonder how deep those demands actually run in this type of person, and how much they just say that because it's socially acceptable...and what would be required to tip that scale a bit.
Why do people expect something different from the Palestinian/Israeli issue?
Have they forgotten Khartoum's 3 NOs,
the Arab League's behaviour over the past years, and the Global Jihad (Thailand, Phillipines,Nigeria and so on?
Will there be "peace activitists" marching on Kassam rocket factories to disrupt their manufacture and deployment?