|
Foreign Policy |
Where rivals are entrenched in their rigid ideological and political stance, a fresh perspective is needed. I am no different than many others who are worried by the local and international implications of the ongoing Israeli - Palestinian conflict. However, I do try to make a difference through modest contributions to the continuous efforts towards achieving peace in the region.
Click here to view my Middle East Blog
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
| David Martin Abrahams |
|
|
Israel/Palestine Conflict Management Comes First (Part-1)
|
By David Martin Abrahams
Dec 14, 2009
The US Administration is planning to send its special envoy, George Mitchell, back to the Middle East for talks with Israeli and Palestinian leaders on ways of reviving the peace process.
However, there is no reason to believe that Mitchell, who has visited the Middle East at least seven times since President Barack Obama entered the White House, would be able to achieve a breakthrough during his new tour.
At best, Mitchell would be able to bring the two sides back to the negotiating table, especially if he and the Obama Administration resort to pressure and threats.
More than 15 years after the signing of the Oslo Accords between Israel and the PLO, the prospects of achieving a comprehensive peace settlement remain as remote as ever. And that is mostly because of the failure of the Palestinians to create proper institutions, good government and infrastructure for a new state.
Following the signing of the Oslo Accords, the international community gave Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority billions of dollars with the hope that they would invest them in building infrastructure and a good economy for the Palestinians. But a lot of this money went into secret Swiss bank accounts or to support the shopping sprees of Arafat's wife, Suha, and thousands of cronies and loyalists.
By depriving his people of the fruits of peace, Arafat radicalized Palestinian society. Many Palestinians woke up one morning and started asking about the missing billions of dollars and why they were not benefiting from the peace process.
Yet there is another reason why Palestinians were radicalized after the beginning of the Oslo process: incitement. The international community gave Arafat money to open a TV and radio station, which he used to incite against his Jewish peace partners and even against the West that was funding him and his authority.
The financial corruption and anti-Israel incitement drove a majority of disillusioned Palestinians into the open arms of Hamas. Hamas became so strong that when it finally challenged Arafat's successors and cronies in a free parliamentary election in 2006, it won.
Hamas won that vote mainly because its representatives ran under the banner of Change and Reform. A year later, Hamas's militias and supporters managed to drive Arafat's men out of the Gaza Strip.
Since then, the Palestinians have been living with two separate mini states: an Islamic regime in the Gaza Strip run by Hamas and funded by Iran's dictators and a US-backed powerless government run by Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah in the West Bank.
These two entities have been at war with each other for the past four years. Had it not been for Israel's presence between the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Hamas and Fatah would be launching rockets and suicide bombers at each other. Ironically, it's Israel's presence there that is preventing Palestinians from killing Palestinians.
These divisions and the continued power struggle between Fatah and Hamas mean that there is no real partner for peace or any other deal on the Palestinian side. Who is Israel supposed to give a state to Hamas? Fatah? The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine? Or maybe the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine?
And even if Israel were to sign a peace agreement with Mahmoud Abbas, where exactly is he supposed to implement the accord? Abbas has been kicked out of the Gaza Strip, has limited control over the West Bank and has lost much of his credibility among Palestinians, largely due to his failure to reform his corruption-riddled Fatah faction.
Even if the Fatah-Hamas power struggle is resolved, who said that a majority of Palestinians are prepared for peace with Israel? A peace agreement with Israel means that the Palestinians would have to make some concessions. At this stage, it doesn't appear that any Palestinian would accept a deal that does not meet all the demands of the Palestinian leadership.
Thanks to Fatah and Hamas, Palestinian society has been radicalized to a point where the talk about the slightest concession to Israel is often associated with treason. Sadly, the Palestinians have raised an entire generation on glorification of suicide bombers and anti-Semitism.
Therefore it is unrealistic these days to talk about achieving real peace in the Middle East. The US Administration should start searching for better alternatives, such as conflict management. Why not focus on security arrangements and improving the living conditions of the Palestinians before talking about a peace agreement? Why not focus on ending violence and bloodshed? Why not focus on ending incitement and indoctrination?
Achieving some of these goals will undoubtedly have a moderating effect not only on Palestinians, but also on the Israeli public. And once things calm down and the violence stops, then we can start talking about reaching a peace agreement between Israel and Palestine.
|
|
