In many countries some particular person has become, for whatever the causes and reasons, the conscience of the nation. Given their role as the communicator of unrecognized, denied and forgotten truths, such persons are often given by critical outsiders a privileged role in judging controversial issues. It is precisely for that reason why we must subject them, too, for critical examination: do they argue for their views by using true relevant reasons, do they infer correctly? In this case, it boils down to question. Does Levy provide a convincing criterion for judging his crushing thesis on Israeli rejectionism? Much as I would love to be in a position to dismiss Levys argument as rhetorical hype and exaggeration, I cannot do that as the issue of settlements is a very convincing criterion for judging the Israeli policies and attitudes - and the result of such an examination is dire indeed. In Levys own words: The single most overwhelming item of evidence of Israel’s rejection of peace is, of course, the settlements project. From the dawn of its existence, there has never been a more reliable or more precise litmus test for Israel’s true intentions than this particular enterprise. In plain words: The builders of settlements want to consolidate the occupation, and those who want to consolidate the occupation do not want peace. That’s the whole story in a nutshell. haaretz/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-peace-conference/1.601112
Posted on: Sat, 05 Jul 2014 09:24:22 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015