Hewitt takes Greenwald to task for an overly optimistic view of Hamas.
. . . my optimism is based on the fact that human beings have pretty universal characteristics. And there have been parties who looked to be completely fanatically devoted to one another’s destruction who have been able to achieve peaceful resolutions, even though they long swore that they never would. You know, you look at warring factions in Ireland and the Balkans, and even in the Middle East, and you see parties that have long sworn to destroy one another now living side by side in peace as a result of the diplomatic process. So are there elements in Hamas who are so religiously radicalized that they will never, ever accept a solution that recognizes Israel’s right to exist? I’m sure that’s true, and I’m sure there are lots of Israelis, right wing religious figures who will never accept the Palestinians’ right to have a state in the West Bank or Gaza. There’s American Evangelicals who never will. But I think that what you do is you focus on the more reasonable parties, and you marginalize and render impotent those extremists who continue to object. And that’s how you get security and peace for Israel and for its neighbors.I think they sort of talk past each other in this section, in part because Hewitt isn't willing to see a distinction between Hamas and the Palestinian people.
And Hewitt also adheres to the set in stone black and white mentality that makes up a lot of Conservatoids. If someone is evil, they are evil; there's not much to be done about it. If you believe that than you don't put a lot of stock in "hey if you blow up Palestinian buildings you might make Palestinians more likely to listen to radicals like Hamas." If they are going to be terrorists, than that's what will happen.
No comments:
Post a Comment