Give Peace a Chance.
I can't say I remember the last time I saw such a stunning contrast in the same publication.
First we have Mahmoud al-Zahar, who has praised ex-president Jimmy Carter for trying to find some common ground between Israel and Hamas.
al-Zahar's biggest flaw in his argument is that he's associating the state of Israel with being criminal. Considering the history of Israel, as well as that of Hamas, there are enough accusations for all sides. Annexing Jerusalem is probably the most controversial and difficult of al-Zahar's conditions for peace; and honestly, considering that the Jewish people consider Jerusalem to be more holy than than Muslim people, I don't believe that Israel is obligated to give it up.
However, none of this excuses the WashPost from outright attacking al-Zahar:
I'm not sure if the WashPost Editorial Board even read the article. It writes that al-Zahar's piece was "dripping with hatred for Israel," trying to make a connection between the country and the Jewish people. But if that's true, then why did he write that "Sixty-five years ago, the courageous Jews of the Warsaw ghetto rose in defense of their people?"
Also this sentence pretty much conveys al-Zahar's feelings:
On the sruface it may seem like a harsh statement, but look at the words his uses to describe the corruption: Zionism, nationalism and apartheid. These aren't words you associate with a religion as much as a state or country. Al-Zahar's statement is the equivalent of accusing the Religious Right for corrupting Christianity, with the notable exception that the RR hasn't created their own nation and/or run other religious groups and sect out of it (yet). To al-Zahar, the problem isn't the Jewish people; it's the territory they occupy. As I mentioned before, Jews rank the Holy Land #1, and Muslims rank it #3, but that's still a high ranking. This isn't like Rwanda or Darfur; it's a land dispute.
This is an argument that has existed for generations (who owns claim to Jerusalem?) and the most current resolution isn't something he approves of. From a historical perspective, that's rational. From a political perspective, al-Zahar is just going to have to deal with reality. Again, I don't think Israel should hand over Jerusalem, but they (and the Post) should not dismiss a political leader as a terrorist, especially when both sides of the conflict have blood on their hands.
What Jimmy Carter has done would have probably gotten a political official from Israel or Hamas killed. Until tensions lower to the point where these factions feel more comfortable conversing than fighting, people like Jimmy Carter will be necessary to bridge the gap.
Let's give Carter's effort the benefit of the doubt. Let's give peace a chance.
First we have Mahmoud al-Zahar, who has praised ex-president Jimmy Carter for trying to find some common ground between Israel and Hamas.
GAZA -- President Jimmy Carter's sensible plan to visit the Hamas leadership this week brings honesty and pragmatism to the Middle East while underscoring the fact that American policy has reached its dead end. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice acts as if a few alterations here and there would make the hideous straitjacket of apartheid fit better. While Rice persuades Israeli occupation forces to cut a few dozen meaningless roadblocks from among the more than 500 West Bank control points, these forces simultaneously choke off fuel supplies to Gaza; blockade its 1.5 million people; approve illegal housing projects on West Bank land; and attack Gaza City with F-16s, killing men, women and children. Sadly, this is "business as usual" for
the Palestinians...
al-Zahar's biggest flaw in his argument is that he's associating the state of Israel with being criminal. Considering the history of Israel, as well as that of Hamas, there are enough accusations for all sides. Annexing Jerusalem is probably the most controversial and difficult of al-Zahar's conditions for peace; and honestly, considering that the Jewish people consider Jerusalem to be more holy than than Muslim people, I don't believe that Israel is obligated to give it up.
However, none of this excuses the WashPost from outright attacking al-Zahar:
ON THE OPPOSITE page today we publish an article by the "foreign minister" of Hamas, Mahmoud al-Zahar, that drips with hatred for Israel, and with praise for former president Jimmy Carter. We believe Mr. Zahar's words are worth publishing because they provide some clarity about the group he helps to lead, a group that Mr. Carter contends is worthy of being included in the Middle East peace process. Mr. Carter himself is holding what appears to be a series of meetings with Hamas leaders during a tour of the Middle East. He met one militant in the West Bank town of Ramallah on Tuesday and was reportedly planning to meet Mr. Zahar in Cairo today before traveling to Damascus for an appointment with Khaled Meshal, Hamas's top leader...
I'm not sure if the WashPost Editorial Board even read the article. It writes that al-Zahar's piece was "dripping with hatred for Israel," trying to make a connection between the country and the Jewish people. But if that's true, then why did he write that "Sixty-five years ago, the courageous Jews of the Warsaw ghetto rose in defense of their people?"
Also this sentence pretty much conveys al-Zahar's feelings:
Judaism -- which gave so much to human culture in the contributions of its ancient lawgivers and modern proponents of tikkun olam -- has corrupted itself in the detour into Zionism, nationalism and apartheid.
On the sruface it may seem like a harsh statement, but look at the words his uses to describe the corruption: Zionism, nationalism and apartheid. These aren't words you associate with a religion as much as a state or country. Al-Zahar's statement is the equivalent of accusing the Religious Right for corrupting Christianity, with the notable exception that the RR hasn't created their own nation and/or run other religious groups and sect out of it (yet). To al-Zahar, the problem isn't the Jewish people; it's the territory they occupy. As I mentioned before, Jews rank the Holy Land #1, and Muslims rank it #3, but that's still a high ranking. This isn't like Rwanda or Darfur; it's a land dispute.
This is an argument that has existed for generations (who owns claim to Jerusalem?) and the most current resolution isn't something he approves of. From a historical perspective, that's rational. From a political perspective, al-Zahar is just going to have to deal with reality. Again, I don't think Israel should hand over Jerusalem, but they (and the Post) should not dismiss a political leader as a terrorist, especially when both sides of the conflict have blood on their hands.
What Jimmy Carter has done would have probably gotten a political official from Israel or Hamas killed. Until tensions lower to the point where these factions feel more comfortable conversing than fighting, people like Jimmy Carter will be necessary to bridge the gap.
Let's give Carter's effort the benefit of the doubt. Let's give peace a chance.
Comments