Insomma

The Arab-Israeli Conflict

After 60 years of conflict, peace will be hard to come by. Undoubtedly, Israel has made many mistakes that have exacerbated the situation but the main problem has always been an Arab world lack of desire for peace and the absence of a reliable Palestinian counterpart that could guarantee the implementation of a peace treaty. For the first thirty years the Arab world refused to accept the UN partition resolution and concentrated on trying to find a way to get rid of Israel. It kept the Palestinians in refugee camps and used their plight to further its goals, both international and internal. Hatred of Israel was a convenient whipping boy to compensate for authoritarian regimes and lack of economic progress. After the Yom Kippur War, Egypt and Jordan came to the conclusion that a cold peace with Israel was more advantageous; however, they encouraged - Egypt in particular - anti-Israeli street sentiment. As for the Gulf states, they pulled back from outright confrontation and financed terrorist groups on condition that they refrain from acts of terrorism within their borders. Like the USA created the Afghan monster, so the Sunni Arab Kingdoms created the Islamic Fundamentalist monster. There can be no doubt that the ultimate goal of Al Qaeda is to overthrow the existing Arab regimes and substitute them with Fundamentalist ones that strictly observe Sharia. Furthermore, the minority Shiite sect, lead by non-Arab Iran, is another major threat to all the Sunni governments; that is why these regimes talk with a bifurcated tongue: officially - for street consumption - they are critical of Israel and of its forceful reactions to Palestinian terrorism. but privately they hope that Israel will succeed in doing away with Hamas and with Hezbollah, both common enemies. Immediate and long-term ceasefires, as well as a permanent peace treaty, depend exclusively on the Arab world. Were it unanimously - or almost - prepared to withdraw all support from terrorist groups and tell the Palestinians that they can count on economic and political backing only if they are willing to forgo terrorism and accept the two-state solution, hostilities would cease immediately and all efforts could be concentrated on peace and reconstruction. As for the argument being made about disproportionate response is bogus. This is not a matter of tit for tat but, rather, a matter of trying to put an end to the shelling of Israeli cities and towns near the Gaza strip and, should Israel have resorted to directing thousands of shells on Gaza, in view of the strip's population density, thousands of civilians would have been killed instead of a few hundred people, most of them Hamas terrorists. This, of course, would be welcomed by Hamas since they care only about their political agenda and consider Palestinian civilians ass an expendable commodity. Finally, the humanitarian issue, while very real, is the fault of Hamas. Had they not engaged in terrorism the border with Israel would be open and, had they used their tunnel to Egypt to bring in medicines, food and other supplies rather than weapons, there wouldn't be a humanitarian issue. The present situation reminds me of the mischievous little boy who keeps throwing pebbles at a bigger boy and, when the latter beats him up, runs to hide behind his mother's skirt crying that the bully is picking on him.

The King Has No Clothes

For almost 30 years all those who believed in peace and the two-state solution - Israeli and Palestinian moderates as well as Western governments - tried continually to achieve this goal. Arafat was offered and refused at Camp David terms that, although not perfect, came pretty close to satisfy many of the demands of both sides. His subsequent calling of the latest Intifada and the rise of Hamas have made obvious what a discerning eye should have seen long ago: the king has no clothes and no peaceful solution can be achieved when one side - or both - aren't strong enough to contain their fanatics and to impose an agreement. Peace between Israel and the Palestinians has never been more unlikely yet, a solution has to be found. For years I was deluded by the thought that both sides had too much to gain from peace to fail to negotiate it, eventually. Now I am convinced that we must find a different solution to pacify the area and I can see only one: a return to the pre-1967 situation, albeit with some territorial adjustments. Th West Bank should be returned to Jordan and Gaza to Egypt. A Palestinian state has never existed and, in any case, is economically unfeasible. Why would Jordan and Egypt agree to take over such troubled spots? Why should they pull the hot potato out of the fire for Israel? The reasons are numerous. Every country likes to expand, they would get great financial support from the United States and Europe, who have much vested interest in peace in the region, they could cooperate with Israel to provide much employment for the inhabitants of those areas and to develop in these territories both agriculture and industry and, finally, they would find it much easier than Israel to suppress terrorism and secure the borders. An agreement between Israel and Syria with regard to the Golan Heights would make it a win-win for everyone, except for  Iran and for the extremists on both sides. The time has come for dealing with reality rather than with wishful thinking and the sooner steps will be taken in this direction the better. The window for the creation of a Palestinian state has gone and there is no point in dragging out this mirage.

Cease fire

I hate to be pushed into a hard line position but I fear that the proposed cease fire, wrongly pushed by the United States and accepted by Israel, will prove to be disastrous. I have no problem with the claim Hezbollah will make to have stood up successfully to Israel's might: as Tom Friedman suggested, it is the morning after the morning after that really counts and, soon enough the Lebanese, and other moderate Arabs, will ask themselves whether the destruction of Lebanon was worth the little or nothing they obtained. Today Nasrallah is a hero: tomorrow he may find that many more Lebanese then before will be eager to see Hezbollah disarmed and his power diminished. However, this conflict started over the abduction, from Israeli territory, of two Israeli soldiers and if, as reported in today's New York Times, the Israeli government accepts a cease fire that does not return them immediately, I fear that there is a good chance that Likud will succeed in creeping back to power. The lack of an in-depth ground attack on Hezbollah and failure to bring back the abducted soldiers without a major prisoner exchange may well convince the Israeli public that only Likud can be entrusted with the country's defense. This would derail any additional withdrawals, unilateral or not, and will set back the peace process with the Palestinians at least by a decade. Without the unconditional return of the two abducted soldiers there should be no cease fire. Other sources seem to indicate that the unconditional return of the soldiers is part of the proposed deal: I hope that the New York Time was wrong and that this is true.

The Usual Suspects

The usual suspects are saying the usual things. Syrian and Lebanese officials complain about Israel's military operation, totally ignoring that the crisis was started by Hezbollah's kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers within Israel and the raining of hundreds of Katusha and other rockets into Northern Israel. The Europeans, even the British now, are distraught by the civilian casualties in Lebanon. Former and latter are asking for an immediate cease-fire. This is magical thinking that ignores reality. As Ms. Rice clearly stated, not destroying Hezbollah's power in Southern Lebanon would only postpone the crises that would, undoubtedly, rekindle within an few months. Do the Syrian and the Lebanese really believe that they can strike at Israel and then call foul and ask the world to restrain Israel's response, thus solidifying their position? Kofi Annan (is he still there after his son's involvement in the food for oil scandal?) asks why Israel is striking at civilian infrastructure. Is he that stupid or is he just in bad faith? Lebanon has allowed Hezbollah to become part of the country's fabric and it isn't Israel's fault that these cowards hide among the civilian population instead of keeping well apart from it and allowing Israel to target them without causing collateral damage (fat chance). The policy has always been to sacrifice innocents (particularly children) for media exposure and for trying to get the support of those who are easily impressed (and understandably so) by tragedy. But one mustn't forget who caused the tragedy, trying to insure that there would be tragedy so as to elicit sympathy. Isn't is strange that the Europeans and Kofi Annan are so upset by the death of a few hundred Lebanese (some of them, undoubtedly Hezbollah) while they witnessed in almost total silence, for years, the murder and rape of hundreds of thousand in Darfur. My heart goes out to all the non-Hezbollah civilians who have and are suffering. I grieve for the Lebanese victims just as I grieve for the Israeli ones. Nonetheless, as I have said before, if you lie down with dogs you wake up with fleas. The Lebanese government cannot allow armed terrorist militias to control it's border with Israel, using Southern Lebanon as a base from where to attack Israel, and expect not to suffer the consequences. Lebanese civilians cannot expect to allow armed terrorist to live among them and expect to be safe when these terrorists targeted. Did they really have no choice? I do not believe it. They always have sympathized (and still do) with Hezbollah and now they are facing the consequences. If I abet a crime, I cannot expect immunity from prosecution. Finally, I would like to see the "surgical" and "restrained" response Italy or France would have if terrorists were to attack, respectively, Sud Tyrol from Austria or Alsace from Germany. We have seen what France was capable of in Algeria... There can be no cease fire until Hezbollah is militarily defeated in Southern Lebanon. A diplomatic solution can only come thereafter and it will have to include full Lebanese (or armed international) control of the Israeli border. And this solution will promise some stability only if the international community succeeds in detaching Sunni, secular Syria from Shiite Iran. Finally, one cannot disregard totally Edward Luttwak's suggestion that Syria should be invited back into Lebanon (a non-viable political entity) on condition that it disarm Hezbollah and place it's army to patrol the border with Israel: in thirty three years of cease fire there hasn't been a single incident on the Israel-Syria border.   

Starving Gaza

I fail to understand why the starvation a few thousand (or tens of thousand) inhabitants of Gaza should disturb the European left more that the murder and rape of hundreds of thousand in Darfur. Since both are Muslim, maybe the Gazans are just not dark enough to matter. Personally, I find both situations highly disturbing and I don't see how the inevitable pictures of malnourished children will help the Israeli cause or psyche. Maybe it was not very smart of the inhabitants of Gaza and of the West Bank, sick of Fatah's corruption, to vote-in an extremist, Islamic party that represents a minority view, but stupidity (especially when bred by desperation) is not a crime and children shouldn't go hungry and/or stay sick because of their parents mistakes. Starvation and lack of medical care will only radicalize a desperate Palestinian population. I don't want to suggest that we should help in any way Hamas , an unrepentant terrorist organization. I think the West should do unto them what they did unto Fatah: open and man help centers that will provide directly food, medical care and clothing to the people of Gaza and of the West Bank, without using Hamas, or the present Palestinian government, as intermediaries. Should Hamas refuse this arrangement, this fact should be well publicized throughout the Territories so that they may shoulder the full responsibility for the suffering of those they are supposed to take care of.

Know Thy Enemy

The Bush administration (they have proven amply their propensity for blundering) and the Israelis (with every passing year their strategy seems to get worse) are plotting, apparently, to starve out the Palestinians, hoping to force a new election that will return Fatah to power. What an ill-conceived plan this is. Firstly, it is bound to fail since the Arab oil countries, Russia, China and Europe (at least the French) will finance the Hamas-lead Palestinian Authority. Secondly, what 'genius' wants Fatah back? They are corrupt and impotent and any agreement with them will be untenable without support from Hamas. The best we can hope for is a ceasefire that will last one or more decades and that, maybe, with time and through the inevitable need for cooperation dictated by proximity, by the necessity to share water and electricity and by some hard-to-avoid cultural mixing, will abut, eventually, in a peace treaty. The best way to forestall Hamas violence is by keeping them in power. To expect them lay down their arms and recognize the legitimacy of Israel right now is unrealistic. Israel should pull out of all West Bank areas where Arabs live, it should finish the wall and it should hope that Hamas will, indeed, succeed in creating jobs, raising self-esteem and promoting some prosperity for the Palestinians. Once they will have enough to loose they will want peace and will elect officials that will strive towards attaining this goal. Should they stay belligerent, kill democracy and attack their neighboring state, Israel will know how to deal with them and, in such an instance, it wouldn't be oppressing an occupied people but, rather, it would be defending itself from attacks by another sovereign state. Fatah has failed and cannot be resuscitated; give Hamas a chance.

Should Hamas Be Given a Chance?

It is tempting to believe that, having been voted into power, Hamas should be given a chance. Faced with the need to reconcile ideology and the every day needs of the population that elected it, it is likely that Hamas will have no choice but to become more pragmatic if it wishes to stay in power. Furthermore, were the USA, Europe and Israel to cut off all funds, Hamas's animosity towards them would increase and it would seek to make ends meet with the support of Iran. However, I don't see how Hamas could be more extreme than having as its goal Israel's destruction and, faced with the Sunni Palestinians beeing drawn into Iran's Shiite camp, Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni states would have no choice but to take upon themselves the financial burden of the Gaza and the West Bank. Nonetheless, the West cannot afford to compromise by helping Hamas while it still embraces terrorism and seeks the dustruction of Israel. Ignoring these extreme positions would only be a sign of encourgement, just as the Allies's lack of a proper response to Hitler's decision to rearm Germany signalled to him that he could occupy Austria, Bohemia and then Poland without consequence. If Palestine wishes to be accepted into the community of nations it needs to behave responsibly and it is Hamas that must comromise by renouncing violence and the destruction of Israel. I hope that the responsibility of government will mellow Hamas and that, eventually, it will curb its belligerance in order to negotiate a permanent cease-fire, if not peace. In the meantime, the West must refuse to deal with this terrorist organization and Israel should proceed with total disengagement in the West Bank, go about strengthening its economy and strike back ruthlessly if and when attacked.

Reality Check

I'm not surprised that Hamas won the elections, defeating Fatah. Although two thirds of Palestinians favor the two-state solution and, after almost 60 years, long for peace and a normal way of life, Fatah's history of corruption and inability to make headway was bound to result in electoral defeat. Nor am I displeased with the electoral results. It was obvious that Fatah didn't have the power to deliver peace and negotiating with them led and could lead nowhere. With Hamas, Israel knows where it stands and Hamas can deliver on any agreement it negotiates although, in the near term, it is unlikely that it will be willing to arrive to a compromise solution. What can Hamas do? Internally, it will, hopefully, greatly reduce corruption and while governing the territories in a more orderly, efficient and responsible manner. Failing to do so would result in its early demise. Externally, Hamas can choose between two paths. The first is confrontational: no dealing with Israeal and continued violence. This path is unlikely to work. The territories depend on Israel for their electricity, their sewage, their water and many other essential services; refusing to deal with Israel would result in total paralysis, immediately followed by street discontent and demise of the ruling party. I would guess that, in order to solidify its hold on power, Hamas will have no choice but to curb violence and deal with Israel on a daily basis. It will not sit down to negotiate, since it is unlikely to renounce the one-state solution and since Israel will not negotiate with it until it does. What are Israel's choices? Obviously, it cannot negotiate with an organization whose ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel. It could maintain the status quo and continue to face violence, at least in the occupied territories; however, the wiser choice would be to pull out unilaterally from most of the West Bank, allowing the de facto creation of a Palestinian State. It should not grant land or air corridors between Gaza and the West Bank; it should stop occupying all areas with Arab population, while keeping all the major settlements around Jerusalem and the whole of Jerusalem; it should pull back from the Jordan River and let the Palestinians have a State of their own (in the West Bank and Gaza) where they wouldn't need to cross Israeli check points in order to move about. Not having to keep under occupation and to police a hostile population would greatly ease Israel's burden and allow the return to a more normal way of life. Palestinian attacks could no longer be viewd as freedom fighting; they would be a declaration (or resumption) of war by one sovreign state against another and, as such, they could be answered ruthlessly and with full force while incurring less criticism. If Israelis and Palestinians will have no choice but to live side by side and cooperate on numerous planes, chances are that, after one or two generations, reason would prevail, the Palestinian government would decide it can live with a two-state solution and a permanent peace agreement could be within reach. I remember, as a kid, the visceral hatred Italians felt towards Jugoslavs because of Trieste; it is likely thet Jugoslavs felt the same way about Italians. Yet, eventually, they sat down, compromised and signed a lasting peace agreement thanks to which today they live peacefully and in frienship. What could make things worst and slow down the process would be a strong showing by Likud and Bibi Netanyahu in Israel's end-of-March elections. Staying in the territories and enlarging the settlements would be the worst possible scenario and the mindless ignoramuses voting for Bibi out of fear of Hamas and a misguided belief that a government lead by him could provide better security would only ensure less security, further violence and bloodshed and financial and social instability.

Leave Behind The Settlers Who Won't Go

Sunday, February 20, 2005

I know: democracy is all about pluralism, dialogue and compromise. But what is pluralism when one faction talks to God and despises all others? What dialogue can there be with someone who knows to be right and has no intention of questioning his beliefs? How can there be compromise with those who will not give one inch? The choice is between letting a minority dictate or taking whatever steps necessary to impose the wish of the majority. When a minority uses the democratic process to undermine democracy steps need to be taken to foil them.
This is today's situation in Israel, where fanatics, with God on their side, will go to any extent to colonize all of Gaza and the West Bank: and to Hell with the Palestinian Arabs.
The road the Israeli government seems to have chosen to pull out of Gaza involves convincing as many settlers as possible to leave with a very generous resettlement compensation. Many, however, will have to be dragged out bodily with great play on all TV stations and not before trying to assassinate Sharon and other proponents of withdrawal.
There is another possible road. It may seem too cruel and, consequently, it may not be a viable option; nonetheless, it may be the simplest solution. It would entail announcing that on June 30th, by midnight, all Israeli troops will have pulled out of Gaza and whoever stays behind is on his own. Israel may have its own quotient of kamikazes but my guess is that, faced with being left defenseless among a sea of Palestinian Arabs, very few fanatics would chose to die rather than pull back. It may be a dangerous game of chicken but, at times there are no alternatives.

# posted by alex : 2:42 PM

Terrorist Or freedom Fighter?

Tuesday, November 16, 2004

The world in general and the left-leaning EEC in particular seem to have a problem with the definition of the word "terrorist"; they tend to confuse it with "freedom fighter", not recognizing that the difference is great, especially when it comes to moral grounding.
A "freedom fighter" is a combatant who wishes to free his country from oppression, be it foreign or internal, and does so by attacking those forces - military and/or police - that perpetrate the oppression. He is, usually, very courageous.
A "terrorist" is someone who, rather than put his life at great risk by operating like a "freedom fighter", tries to overturn a foreign occupation or an oppressive government by terrorising the population at large through the random killing of innocent civilians, including old people, women and children. Lately this has been done by cowardly brainwashing one's own innocent youth into blowing themselves up in the midst of other innocents. Has anyone heard of a Hammas leader chosing to become a suicide bomber? They are all cowards.
The former deserve our respect, whether or not we agree with them. The latter deserve our contempt and life in prison, even if we share their ideals.
As long as Europe remains unable, or unwilling, to differentiate between the two it cannot expect to be an impartial broker between Israelis and Palestinians. This is unfortunate since Europe and Israel should be natural partners and continued unrest in the Middle East can only make unrest and terror the Middle East's main export to Europe. Successive United States govrnments have been accused of being pro-Israel, mainly because they have made such a differentiation and have refused to pressure Israel into a treaty with the Palestinians in the face of continued and relentless terrorist activity.
Terrorism has only played into the hands of Israeli hardliners, giving them excellent reasons for refusing the two-state solution.
The lack of European 'clarity' has manifested itself also in its attitude towards Arafat. Europeans tend to see him, mainly, as a hero and to put him on a pedestal.
Arafat has been, without doubt, the 'Father' of the "Palestinian People"; before him there was no "Palestinian People", only Arab residents (or ex-residents) of Palestine. The last thing the neighboring Arab countries wanted was a Palestinian State and, without the Six-Day War, the West Bank would be an integral part of Jordan and Gaza of Egypt.
But Arafat has always been, to his death-bed, also a convinced terrorist, incapable of shedding his fatigues for the statesman's suit. The World must respect what he has done for his people but feel contempt for his having persevered with his methods once peace had become a possibility. History will remember him for his failures more than for his achievements since his legacy is one of hatred, that will be overcome only by the passing of numerous generations.
The after-Arafat offers many encouraging possibilities but both sides must step back from confrontation and decide to fight for peace.
The Palestinians must curb terrorism and achieve the kind of unity that will give assurances that a Peace Traty will be respected. The Israelis must make the territorial sacrifices that are sine qua non. As for the 'right of return' and/or compensation, they are out of the question; many more Jews were uprooted from Arab countries than Palestinians from present-day Isreal and they left behind much greater wealth that the Palestinians have.
The first move in the right direction should be Israel's. It should free Mustafa Barghouti, who appears to be the Palestinian leader of choice to succeed Arafat; he doesn't belong to the corrupt 'Old Guard' and he favors peace. At present, he is serving multiple life sentences in an Israeli prison for the murder of a number of Israelis; however, it appears that he was not involved personally in their death or its planning.
This would be a great gesture and would go a long way towards generating goodwill, rather than creating a new charismatic martyr. For the sake of peace, two sides must always be willing to overlook past wrongs. Let's hope that the next few years will bring, finally, a merger of Shalom and Salam.

# posted by alex : 3:45 PM