The 1947 partition
Ziad Asali candidly acknowledges that “[t]he Palestinian people have paid, yet again, an incalculable price for the decisions of their leaders,” (“The Palestinian plight,” Op-Ed, Monday). However, his column suffers from an unwarranted notion of moral equivalence and a highly skewed version of history.
Mr. Asali refers to “the fact that Israel occupies Palestinian land.” He should have stated that, before the Israeli occupation, this was not “Palestinian land.” From 1948 to 1967, Egypt occupied Gaza and Jordan occupied the West Bank. Neither Arab nation created a Palestinian state on the Egyptian and Jordanian land.
Moreover, had it not been for one of the “incalculable prices” the Palestinians paid for the decisions of Arab leaders, Gaza and the West Bank would have actually become “Palestinian land.” The 1947 U.N. Partition Resolution provided for the creation of an Arab state and a Jewish state. The Jews accepted partition; the Arabs did not. Instead, they sought to slay the state of Israel at its very birth.
Mr. Asali, speaking of the “plight” of the Palestinians, ignores the fact that, prior to the second intifada, Palestinians in Gaza and on the West Bank lived better than they had under Egyptian and Jordanian occupation.
The Palestinians initiated the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism in scornful rejection of the generous peace initiative created by President Clinton and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak in 2000-01, under which they would have had a Palestinian state in all of Gaza and more than 90 percent of the West Bank, with a capital in East Jerusalem.
Checkpoints, other security measures and a “plight” didn’t just happen. They occurred because Palestinian terror killed and threatened the lives of the Israelis, and, like every nation, Israel has the right and obligation to protect its people.
Let’s be real
In Wesley Pruden’s column “No time to go wobbly, George,” (Pruden on Politics, yesterday), he refers to an account in the Politico, a Washington political journal, that says the president should be approached regarding a pardon for I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby. According to Mr. Pruden’s column, the Politico says the “realists” in the White House should keep the approach “warm and fuzzy, about how hard prison for Scooter would be on his family.”
It seems that the “realists” used this approach on illegal immigration and it spread to the Senate the people are poor and hardworking, so they are entitled to citizenship and all the rights and privileges which flow there from. Thus, the American taxpayer has a responsibility to pay billions for the educational, medical and social welfare benefits of those who would violate our sovereignty and territorial integrity, encouraged by the government of Mexico. The American people want to preserve our security while President Bush wants to be warm and fuzzy and erase our southern border. Mr. Libby may yet have a chance if the “realists” use the “warm and fuzzy” approach. Just ask the illegal-alien lobby.
JOSEPH R. FARRELL