There is no conceivable way to force either the Israelis, nor the Palestinians, into a reckless, unstable and doomed-to-fail peace process right now.
The reason everyone thinks the international community is pushing for this now is to counter Iran. The logic is that if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is solved, the Palestinians would not be able to fall into Iran's sphere of influence, plus militant groups would have to disarm.
This is a ridiculous assumption. Firstly, Hizbullah is first beyond all else a Lebanese political party. The political benefits it received after instigating last summer's war with Israel were immense - even though it could be argued they squandered them with the last few months of power-grabbing in Lebanon. Hizbullah uses Israel as its reason for being, and persists with the myth of the Israeli threat to maintain its weapons arsenals, all the while ignoring the idea of handing complete military autonomy and monopoly over to the Lebanese army like in a normal one-military country.
Secondly, Hamas is just as concerned with power. The gun battles with Fatah are over more than relations with Israel. It also is unique in that it is a religious nationalist movement. Its reason of being would be the creation of an Islamesque state in the West Bank and Gaza. Hamas is also a political party, just as much as Hizbullah. It will not disarm.
Thirdly, that is not the reason. The real real is that the international community thinks there is a balance of force. Remember the logic that pushed the United States and Soviet Union to make arms reduction agreements in the 70s. The idea was they were evenly matched powers that could not win a war against the other. That is the idea here. It is based on a myth, that the Israeli military is weak.
This misperception of weakness makes it appear to the Arab World that Israel is vulnerable. It is not. Using the wrong war plan is not a sign that there is a paper tiger in the Middle East.
Israel has allowed the United States to set a lot in terms of the boundaries of the game. The reality is that Israel would incur no benefit from Palestinian independence right now. The West Bank is an economic disaster, while there are no words to describe Gaza. Militarization and anti-Israeli sentiment is too ingrained in Palestinian society for the Israelis to trust a Palestinian state, nor have the will to extend full independence to one after the failure of the Oslo Accords.
The two sides are again on the verge of war. The second Gaza war in one year could be just days away. How could anyone speak of a final peace treaty in such a hostile environment?
Israel has been under siege since its inception, and the virtually unconditional withdrawal from the West Bank plus the uprooting of 80,000 Jewish settlers, would be a horribly encouraging precedent to anti-Israel terrorist organizations and states. Creating a smaller playing field for itself by giving away more land so hastily and so recklessly will only force Israel to strengthen its military and have to act against outside threats with a more limited scope of options.
A peace process at this juncture will only make matters worse. Remember, the lack of an independent Palestinian state is not causing the violence, it is the lack of Israeli security that got the Israelis to hold their ground in the West Bank in the first place.
2 comments:
Hey Joshua
1- Since you badger me about it, read your piece over, you have a few typos.
2- I'd like to remind you what you are saying. "The reality is that Israel would incur no benefit from Palestinian independence right now." First off, should we wait till its beneficial for us to give people citizenship? Something needs to be done. There are people sitting in a place with no government, no formal rights, nor laws. It is morally repugnant to say its not in my interested and thus I will let things fester. That being said, how is it in Israel's best interests to leave things be? Perhaps the current paths towards peace are not conducive to much. However, Peace is always beneficial. I don't see this status quo in Israel's benefit either.
3- "Remember, the lack of an independent Palestinian state is not causing the violence." It may not be the sole cause, but it is defiantly a cause. By saying that it is irrelevant to the violence, you are, in a very real sense, subscribing to the notion that the Palestinian people's sole purpose is to eradicate Israel. That statement is a often used tactic to deny any Palestinian claim towards statehood.
Hey Gil,
1 - Gil, the only misspelling I have is "Islamesque," which is obviously not an established word. The only other typo I have is where I repeat the word "real" in the middle of the piece. That is one typo.
2 - You talk in circles on this point, mostly because you assume so much by your analysis of what I am saying.
"Perhaps the current paths towards peace are not conducive to much."
EXACTLY: That is the point of this paper. I never say Palestinians should or should not have independence, merely that "Israel would incur no benefit from Palestinian independence right now." Everything else I am about to say in regards to this point you thought you made is irrelevant, because the rest of the point is inherently irrelevant
Citizenship does not equal independence. Are you insinuating that Palestinians should have Israeli citizenship? If you are fantastic, by never discuss the idea in this piece - only you do.
Secondly, they do have a government. That government is the Palestinian Authority. It does maintain control over certain areas. I am pretty sure they have laws, it just so happens their government is corrupt and or self-infatuated.
It is morally repugnant to say that I am saying nothing should be done when I say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of the sort. I am not following your logic at all. I am saying MERELY, that this PARTICULAR THING should NOT be done.
As to the idea of waiting until it is beneficial to give Palestinians either “citizenship” (which you said) or “independence” (which I had said and you interpreted as “citizenship”), which are two different things and I do not know which one you are referring to, YES. Israel should not go down the course of letting an enemy ship leave its harbors if it is going to turn into a liability. It goes against all common sense.
You say it is morally repugnant to not let things fester. Is it not against common sense to create for yourself a security problem? The entire reason Israel is in the West Bank is based on security issues, lest you forget.
3 - First off, your logic is totally farcical. I never say that 'the lack of an independent state' is irrelevant. Your entire point that that particular idea inherently subscribes to the “notion that the Palestinian people's sole purpose is to eradicate Israel” is ridiculous.
Even if I had said it were irrelevant in regards to the root causes of the violence, it makes no comprehensible sense to automatically and virtually arbitrarily connect it to the notion that the Palestinian people's sole purpose is to eradicate Israel.” It only expresses the idea that it is not the root cause of the violence. That does not necessitate that “the Palestinian people's sole purpose is to eradicate Israel.” Anyone who would infer that form such little evidence in that regard would be incapable of making a standing argument on this topic.
Secondly, I do not conclude it is irrelevant in regards to the “violence.” I never say that. I say the root cause of the problems today is Israel’s lack of security. You went off on a tangent about nothing in this regard.
Post a Comment