7 years ago
Anonymous
I think her point was well-taken and that you are offended in part because you misinterpret it. I also think that she is mistaken that negotiations for Palestinian statehood will not begin until that day, and I presume you are offended by that, but I think it is a position taken in fear rather than arrogance. I think she was trying to say that two states can only co-exist when neither refers to the creation of the other as a "nakba". When they both respect each other's right to exist. As the article you cite mentions, it is our view as Jews that using the word "nakba" to refer to the creation of the state of Israel is meant to undermine its legitimacy, that it's hard to negotiate peace with someone who believes your country should not exist. I don't think such statements would be coming from any Israeli leader if the Palestinians had not elected Hamas, and had stuck with a government willing to accept a two-state solution. I agree with you 100% that no one can dictate the narratives of the Jewish people or of the Palestinians. I don't think that's what Livni was trying to do, though. I think she was trying to point out that these narratives are often distorted in ways that discourage peace between two nations, one Jewish and one Palestinian. One day, if the two narratives merge based on historical facts, which do not make either side heroes or villains, there will be true peace. Boomerang said it succinctly above, if you don't want to read this long post. And I like Mark's answer below. Having 2 birthday parties would be a lot better than a birthday party and a nakba, whether the card says 181, 242, or anything similar. Mookie K, below, also has it just right, in my opinion.
0
