"Peace" is possible, but not with war-makers

Submitted by Rick (United States), Apr 29, 2010 at 17:41

It does't seem that there is a remote possibility of a Jewish state ever having an Islamic state as a peaceful neighbor. Arab nations continually war against each other for countless reasons - religious sects, oil wells, extremism, liberal politics. Egypt is internally threatened by an extremist, Palestinian supported, Islamic Jihad party; Iraq is imploding with internal, neighbor-against-neighbor hatred; Al Qaeda and the Taliban are eating away at the internal organs of Pakistan; Iran's oily tentacles are controlling Lebanon and Gaza, and pumping iron to Syria; Yemen is infiltrating and threatening Saudi Arabia, on and on it goes; and even today, Lebanon prepares for war against Israel under the zany pretext of "resistance." Resistance?

One needs to ask whether the term "peace," in the Western, civilized sense, is part of the nature of Islam. The Koran is a declared recipe for war against infidels. It's entire purpose is not to produce "peace," but to war against Jews and Christians, their infidels: "Be not friend with Christian or Jew" it proclaims. The Muslim Bible itself, its Koran, is used by Jihadists to justify terror, or any other barbaric atrocities they can devise.

Arafat's official promise to Clinton that he would rewrite his Charter, was completely ignored, and their meeting became a pretext for renewed Jihad, their Intifada. Arafat's Peace Prize was the civilized world's unappreciated gift, a peace offering. One wonders if Arafat used it as a door stop instead. Even today, the Pals aren't interested in exchanging hundreds of terrorist prisoners for one Israeli soldier, kidnapped illegally, clear-as-day proof of how much they value Palestinian lives. How much less do they value thos of Israelis?

So it would seem that the easiest way (relative to other options,) to create a true "peace" with the Palestinians, is to have complete physical, economic, and social separation, to the extent possible. If they share water or other geographical necessities, then representatives can meet. This kind of sealing off may seem impossible, considering Jerusalem and other existing border issues, but it could be stated as a unilateral and official policy goal, as the only way known to enforce "peace."

Timetables can be set. Lines drawn. Declarations made - possibly as a direct counterpart to their Charter, and a direct result of. That kind of direct linkage creates a black and white image: warmakers against peace defenders. Their Charter becomes the key rationale for permanent separation; their incitement of their children, training of terrorists, and missile attacks and suicide belt factories, become the prime de facto evidence that "peace" in the Western sense is impossible.

Let the Palestinians fight among themselves. It will soon become their own civil war of Jihadis vs. the people who want true "peace." Let them decide. They wrote their Charter; they produced and proudly hang their Palestinian flags, which excludes Israel. Their textbooks are war rationales for their children, a form of "literacy." They can destroy those writings. But it should be their choice.

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".