What's Possible

Submitted by K.H. Ahmed (United States), Jun 9, 2009 at 10:20

First, I wouldn't classify the opening remark as "ad hominem" I would prefer snide with slightly humorous intentions, but then I was never a great comedian. However Doc, after re-reading his remarks I see no mention of Jews stealing the land from Palestinians. But before we go there - I do not believe in any such thing as Palestinians or an original Palestinian state. Nor do I accept the idea that god gave the land to Israel.

What I believe and what I believe Mr. Obama expressed is that unless everyone gets their head out of the past there will be no solution to the issue facing the two parties. The problem with the argument you put forth almost either side could take. Jews have lived there continuously for 3000years, okay so haven't Arabs or Palestinians, or Moabites, persons of various and too many tribes to mention. You can't make the argument based on whose daddy got there first - it's a no winner. As a descendent of the most barbaric people on earth, (the Turks) I would point out our own difficulties of coming to grips with the Kurds an ethnic group within our own population.

Both sides in that dispute keep arguing about past grievances instead of trying to figure a way out of their self created mess. This reductionism to tribalism and historic animosities gets no one anywhere. Should the "Palestinians" be part of Jordan - historically and probably as the easiest solution I would agree. Will it happen, not a chance, the historical momentum is for a Palestinian state and all the screaming and pointing out past grievances is not going to change that - the WORLD not Obama is getting sick of hearing the moaning and complaining coming from both sides - the world wants an end to it.

Britain, France the League of Nations everyone in the Middle East has a legitimate beef against them, that however does not change the problem we face today. You have too many grievances for anyone to respond too – some of them real some of them perceived. Yet none of these grievances contribute anything to the solution of the problem, nor do they have any relevancy to Mr. Obama's speech. Again Mr. Obama from my reading merely re-stated everyone's grievances and basically said, "get over it". Yours is no more the real history of the Middle East then my ancestors whom you breezily insult. That is the fundamental problem of the area people refuse to "get over it" and find an answer to the problem.

Half of the complaints you have about Obama have no relationship to what the man actually said - they are implied problems because he showed recognition of how both parties felt. He did not pick a side other than to say that the bond between the United States and the State of Israel was unbreakable. You on the other hand seem to be continuously suckered into this "neo-con" drivel and their politically driven agenda. When you should be concerned about what is best for Israel.

I would suggest you re-read the speech and that if you love Israel as much as you profess -that you apply your obvious intellectual talents to helping those of us who want some kind of future for Israel and the Arabs to be possible. Hating history is not a way to the future. Buying into an ideology of hate is like joining your enemy's camp. You want what is impossible to get – I want Israel to survive because it is best for the Middle East for the world – I want an agreement between the parties because it is the only way Israel can survive.

There are those who want a greater Israel to pave the way for the second coming. There are those that want a greater Israel because it increases their power in the Middle East. There are even those who want a greater Israel to humiliate the Arabs and reduce the influence of Islam. I want Israel to survive as a homeland for the Jews and as a beacon to the Arabs of what modernization can bring. What you want is impossible. What I want and what I believe President Obama wants is possible.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".