Where I stand

I never cease to be amazed by how the discussion of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Authority has dominated the opinion section of The Daily. I can't think of any single issue that has received as much attention as this one, especially in recent months.

Often, however, as both sides get caught up in a letter-to-the-editor debate over what happened in a particular location at a specific time, the overall perspective of the sides gets lost. For my final article, I would like to explain my overall perspective.

On the most fundamental level, this is not conflict between right and wrong. Instead, it is a tragic conflict between two legitimate national movements with competing territorial claims, and at times fundamentally conflicting needs. It is not a conflict between evildoer and evil's victim, it is not a conflict between colonizer and colonized. Both sides can justify their claim to the land and argue passionately for their cause.

Both sides have committed injustice against the other, and both have been the victim of injustice at the hand of the other. Both sides have their extremists, and both have their hatemongers. After 50 years of conflict, both have blood on their hands, and anyone wishing to focus only on one side's transgressions, while for political purposes ignoring completely those on the other side, would have plenty of ammunition to do so.

If the above is not tragic enough, the following is: The solution to the conflict, which has claimed and marred so many lives, is well-known - and has been since before the first shots were fired. It is simple enough: two states.

Under the two-state solution, both sides will achieve their underlying needs for independence and freedom, and both will compromise some of their most basic desires. For the Jewish people, there will be no return to many of the great cities of Judea, the ancient Jewish kingdom. For the Palestinian people, there will be no right of return for Palestinian refugees to Israel, a move that would demographically destroy the Jewish state.

So if all the above is true, if on the most basic level both sides' claims are justified, if both sides have extremists and have committed injustices, then why do I stand with Israel? I stand with Israel because in key moments of history there have been opportunities to avoid further bloodshed and implement a two-state solution. In those key instances, the Israeli leadership accepted. And in those key instances, the Arab leadership rejected the proposals, walked away, and responded with violence and terrorism. This was true of the U.N. partition plan of 1947; this was true of the Camp David talks and the Clinton Proposals in 2000.

I stand with Israel because there is something fundamentally wrong with walking into a 12-year-old girl's birthday party and attacking the guests with a machine gun and grenades, as Yasser Arafat's Fatah faction did. Surely, civilians are killed on both sides, and there definitely have been instances in which Israeli soldiers should have exercised more caution. But let us be clear: Only one side is targeting civilians, and there is no justification for it - certainly not an occupation that the occupier offered to end.

For these reasons, I stand with Israel. I believe that the long-term strategic goal of the state of Israel should remain a two-state solution, but I stand with Israel's right to defend her citizens, and I stand with the right of the Israeli people to live independently and free of terrorism. For these reasons, I stand with Israel.

Ron Kamara is president of the Husky Israel Public Affairs Committee. Opinions expressed here are his own.