Israel, the bride, was so hopeful for her future.
She had suffered terrible abuse in the home of her former partner, Europe. Her neighbours eventually learned of the Holocaust, and although reluctant to offer their own homes for her to stay and recuperate, the Allies did find her a place with Palestinians - tenants in a property that had been acquired by them in 1917.
So, with British help, the courtship and shotgun wedding of Israelis and Palestinians began in earnest from 1940 to 1948.
However, while Israel was moving into the Palestinian home, it became evident that cracks were developing in the arrangement. Palestinians were losing a lot of room and their complaints were falling on deaf ears. Israel wasn't going to let anyone tell her what to do and no one was going to abuse her again.
So, one day in 1948 to everyone's surprise, she pre-emptively told the property manager, the British, that she was breaking-off her relationship with the Palestinians and was also taking over the property from the British. She called it the State of Israel.
Fast forward to 2009; more than 60 years have passed since the fateful wedding ceremony. The Palestinians are still there, albeit in the basement and the attic, while Israel has the run of the place.
However, the behaviour between the two towards each other has become increasingly acrimonious.
Both have agreed they need a divorce. And, although the Palestinians had no involvement in the abuse Israel suffered at the hands of Europeans, its effects have resulted in her not accepting the Palestinians to live along side her, even though they've been long-term tenants there.
As in any divorce, the details have become irrelevant. It doesn't matter who did what to whom or who hurt whom more.
The best interests of the children - the future - must be the priority. And, in order for each party to go its separate way, there must be a fair and equitable division of the marital property.
To date, these two haven't been able to settle their dispute in the court of public opinion. The complication is that the self-appointed judge overseeing the matter, the U.S., has been providing welfare cheques to Israel since 1948.
Israel now has one of the most powerful armed forces in the world and one of the few with nuclear arms, although she doesn't like to talk about that.
The evidence is clear that she is neither weak nor helpless, and all the while she continues to receive financial aid.
Furthermore, past justices have hurt resolution efforts by allowing Israel to drag her feet on dividing the marital property (the two-state solution) while Israel continues to buy more stuff to put in the house (developments in the Occupied Territories) and build more rooms (the Settlements).
This situation only increases the acrimony between the parties. And as the two hurl accusations at one another, it is the children who quietly suffer the most.
The good news is a new justice named Obama has been appointed the case. There is hope that he will finally put the best interests of the children first. But to make a difference, he cannot take sides or show favouritism.
The judge must, for starters, stop providing those welfare cheques to Israel if she continues to drag her feet and refuses to share the marital property. This would show, both Israel and the Palestinians, that this judge is serious about settling the matter while he is on the case.
It has dragged on for too long and too many children have been affected. Unfortunately, they've grown up learning only to continue in their parents' increasingly acrimonious behaviour towards each other.
The risk here is that without significant progress, there is a strong likelihood that the acrimony will only escalate to unprecedented levels.
Hopefully, with the marital property fairly divided in a two-state solution, the future of all our children can finally be one that includes peace in the Middle East.
Naveed Majid is a consulting engineer who lives and works in Fredericton. He can be reached at naveed@nb.sympatico.ca.
To the Editor:
Perhaps it is appropriate that at this time of the year, when our Christian friends dream of a mythical Santa Claus flying from his magical toy shop at the North Pole, The Daily Gleaner published the opinion piece penned by Navid Majeed. Quite frankly, I am more inclined to believe in Santa Claus than in his utterly nonsensical recitation of the history of the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Space to reply is limited, but here are just a few inconvenient truths to the contrary:
I could go on (and on) but one should get the point. Shame on Mr. Majeed for his terribly distorted view of history, and shame on The Daily Gleaner for publishing it. Please let your readers know when you would like to facilitate an honest and open debate about this very difficult issue.
- Israel is the ancestral home of the Jewish people.
- The modern State of Israel was not created unilaterally by Jews, and it was not created in response to the atrocity of the Holocaust but by a partition plan adopted by the United Nations. The Jews in Palestine accepted the plan but the Arabs in Palestine rejected it, following which armies from 6 Arab countries invaded Israel.
- What about foreign aid to the Palestinian? The billions and billions of aid that has been paid to Palestinians primarily by the Europeans and the Americans (estimated to be some $10 billion in the last few years alone) has largely been stolen by the corrupt Palestinian leadership (see “Arafat, Yassir” for example) or used to fund terrorism – it certainly has not been used to improve the lot of the ordinary Palestinian.
- The constant reference to “children” is especially deceitful. The Palestinian leadership have a well-documented history of teaching their children a steady diet of anti-Semitism that would make even Hitler blush.
- Danielle Pletka: The Right Sanctions Can Still Stop Iran - WSJ.com
- Pajamas Media » But We Can Still Trust Ahmadinejad on Nuke Talks, Right?
- Faster, Please! » The Iranian Time Bombs
- Faster, Please! » The Ironies of History: From Pearl Harbor to Iran
- Rumble in Iran – by Ryan Mauro | FrontPage Magazine
- Pajamas Media » Military Mutiny in Iran?
- A media gone carbon-cuckoo
- Vindicating climate change skeptics | Salim Mansur | Columnists | Comment | Ottawa Sun
- Pajamas Media » Climategate: One Must Ignore 200 Years of Observations to Believe in AGW
- CTV News | AP: Climate science not faked, but not pretty
















7. Re the Muslims objection to bomb sniffing dogs, Muslims find dogs almost as abhorent as pigs which they consider unclean. In light of diversity sensitivity, those Muslims who object to this kind of search can be given the choice of being strip searched ( Soviet style) {which goes something like "bend over and open wide and I don't mean smile for the camera"}. Shudder.
ReplyDelete