Are you sure you want to delete this post?
I just read a speech by the ambassador from Israel. It was forwarded to me by a phone and email correspondent and almost lifelong (quite long) friend. Speech delivered to the U. N. General Assembly in November, 2014 by Ron Posner. It can be looked up -- too long for me to post here.
Israel is discriminated against. The Arabs have prevened 2 states. The Arabs have perpetrated the violence, etc. Jews would have coexisted at least, probably have provided synergy for both sides. Rather than the one side (Arabs) provoking (and worse) destruction and death. Yet the other nations of the world condemn Israel’s retaliations for Arab provocation and murder.
An impressive speech. Yes, so many valid points, pointings to the invalid discriminatory differentials that exist.
But there's a perspective that should be considered perhaps beneath the bottom-line of "equanimity of existence".
I've used this example more than once before.
A great incursion of native Americans comes into the Metro Boston region and starts to overtake and occupy and assert their "right of return". They'd be slaughtered in an application of an addendum Manifest Destiny the U. S. would assert. We're here. You're invading. There's a statute of limitations of the right of return -- even just a century and a half or less ago.
So 1500 years the hiatus?
What if, stretching actuality to make the point of the actual dys-systemic involved beyond "Right of" . . . what if some tribe or group or even hominid insurgence streamed into Israel and started taking over land asserted to be Israel's by "right of" -- but the entrants were there first and millennia ago doesn't count because . . . right of return !?!?!?!?!?
Appeals to reason and fairness no matter how eloquent the presentation and comprehensive the points made, won't work any more than such polemics would quell the fury of those in Wellesley or Billerica or Wrentham or wherever should the Native Americans come crowding in to crowd the invaders out.
Something must be done. Not said.
Saddam, our proxy vs. Islamic expansionism, our weaponry depot in Iraq (kind of a co-op with Israel for our military presence). How the tide turned against his essentially secular and Westernized administration (notwithstanding the recognition of its brutality as a regime -- but aren't so many over there and even elsewhere??)
We "took down" a whole country.
And we can't, with a coalition (now recognized for their own defense vs. ISIS) of other Mid-East nation . . .we can't "take out the sect/schism/fraction-frenziests killing Jews?)
Or is there purpose in our reticence?