Netanyahu's vision of Palestine doesn't quite match the world's vision. Netanyahu, basically, envisions a Palestine that is left defenceless against its enemies. Yet Israel possess the right to bear arms. How can that be possible?
Can you imagine a state that is NOT allowed to defend itself against its enemies? Imagine in the 70s, Pakistan agreed to a state of Bangladesh, but without the right to defend itself? Essentially, Bangladesh would then be a puppet state, obliged to the whims and demands of stronger states that possess weaponry. We, Bangladeshis, would never stand for a ridiculous bargain as that. We would (and we did) demand self-autonomy and right to bear arms against any forms of foreign aggression.
Many news pundits termed Netanyahu's vision as a ghetto in place for a Palestinian state, and I have to agree. What would have been Israel's reaction if Palestine had decreed that Israel should be de-militarized? No nation can exist without having the rights to bear arms.
Probably due to pressure from Obama, Netanyahu agreed to recognize the necessity of a two-state existence; however, his interpretations will incite more displeasure and annoyance than positivity. Already pro-Palestine pundits are interpreting Netanyahu's policy speech has a impediment for the successful solution of the Palestine-Israel conflict. Already, his speech is generating ill fervour.
If Israel, indeed, wants a peace deal with Palestine that will encompass a two-state solution, then they must cease placing hypocritical and irrational bargaining chips on the table.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment