< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://bokertov.typepad.com/ btb/" >

Thursday, May 15, 2003

"Sharon and settlements"
An editorial in today's Washington Post queries if Sharon is "backing away from his previously stated willingness to reach a compromise with Palestinians that would include giving up some of those settlements." The editors recommend that "If Mr. Sharon doesn't clarify his position on settlements before he arrives in this country, President Bush should insist that he publicly do so when he gets here."

The fog of equivalence spread on the "negotiating" table is amazing to me. On the one hand, brutal and murderous attacks on civilians -- on the other hand, construction of housing for Jews. It would be interesting to compare the numbers of editorials written on each of the two. I would wager that at least three times as many outraged editorials have been written about stopping the threat of Jewish homes, than have been written calling for an end to terrorist attacks.

And why do so many sit still and silent when it is discussed that no Jews must live in the terrortories? I thought much of the world had grown beyond the notion that certain peoples could be barred from living certain places. Not something usually endorsed by the US, or its left-wingers, concerned non-racist humanitarians all. Israel, of course, must abide Arabs in its midst, with full citizenship and all rights. If it weren't so hideous, it would be funny: just think how the world would go nuts if the shoe were on the other foot, if it were demanded that Arab houses in Israel (and the Arab families in them) constituted a threat to peace, and therefore their "settlements" must be "removed," or at least "frozen."

The application of such a "double standard," and the fact that so few can see it, is simply mind-boggling.