The Importance of Failed Polemic

Gideon Levy had an Op-Ed yesterday in Ha'aretz designed, I suppose, to expose the war-like nature of the Zionist entity. The title is "The importance of a failed summit" and the Annapolis summit's usefulness, according to Levy, consists of demonstrating "who aspires toward peace and, more important, who flees from it as if from fire." He does not so much argue his case as argue by decree. "The terror card cannot be played again," he decrees, "because the terror has abated." How's that?

Qassams landing on Sderot and a childish assassination attempt are not a reason to evade the peace process. This low level of terror will, unfortunately, continue to accompany Israeli-Palestinian relations for years to come. We must learn to live with it, and above all recognize that it will not stop in the absence of an agreement that will put an end to the occupation.

Or in the presence of one either? Isn't that what he meant by "years to come"? We also learn in this editorial that "Israel can no longer continue to mouth slogans about security" and that "another excuse that no longer washes is the 'no partner' one." Read the rest for the non-arguments he offers in support of these points, if you have the stomach for it. He concludes:

All the cards will be shown at Annapolis, and that is no small thing. The world will see and judge, Israelis will see and decide: Do we genuinely want peace?

I guess we now know who "flees from" peace. Does that mean the Palestinian side is the one that "aspires towards Peace"? Don't even "childish" assassination attempts contradict claims to peaceful aspirations? The appearance of this in the "Israeli New York Times" means that somebody was expected to take it seriously. That's pretty frightening.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Tags: Israel, Palestinians, leftists