by Raphael Israeli
Like its US patron, Israel has specialized in making all the possible (and impossible) errors in approaching its Arab neighbors. Hence the permanent impasses Israel drives itself into, at times when it follows the American example and other times when it is left to create its own pace. In either case, neither the US nor Israel seem to be able to learn from their mistakes in order to avoid their repetition, the underlying assumption being that if we entertain honesty in the negotiations and state our good intentions, so will the Arab party.
So, the hurried Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 generated the Second Lebanese War in 2006; the far-reaching concessions to Arafat at Camp David in 2000 produced the Second Intifadah and the Israel Arabs' revolt in Israel Proper; the unilateral retreat from Gaza in 2005 brought about the Hamas takeover of the Palestinian people in 2006 ;and then the second Lebanese War in 2006 precipitated the HIzbullah-Hamas-Iran rule over the Gaza Strip.
All this is happening while we are captive of the unfounded distinction between "moderate" PLO and "extremist" Hamas, at the same time that Abu Mazen has never retracted his denial of the Sho'ah, has remained true to the PLO Charter which does not recognize the right of self-determination for the Jewish people, and has allowed his Al-Aqsa brigades, which report to the PLO, to commit half the terrorist activities against Israel in the past few years. We have convicted Marwan Barghouti, one of the chiefs of that "moderate" PLO and imprisoned him precisely because he ordered many horrendous murders of Israelis.
All this while, Palestinian media and textbooks have continued to spread hatred against Israel and the Jews, but we pursued our transfers of arms to Abu Mazen, allowed American training and arms supplies to PLO forces, the same forces which had on more than one occasion turned their weapons against Israel. Worse of all, we have maintained the misplaced appellation of "Moderates" to those people. The supreme test of Abu Mazen was the day Gilead Shalit was kidnapped and incarcerated in the Gaza Strip. At the time, had Abu Mazen had the political will to do so, he had enough power to overwhelm the Hamas kidnappers, to search for Shalit door to door and to return him home, eliminate the rocket launching against Israel and defuse the tension along the border. Instead, he joined the Hamas demanding a price for the release of that innocent victim of Hamas politics. But his "moderate" image was not tarnished the least, since both Israel and the West continued falsely to crown him with the crown of a worthy partner.
Between these two terrorist organizations (Hamas and the PLO) the latter is not necessarily better for Israel. For under our sponsorship he became the darling of Europe and the US, and though his troops pursued terrorism without relent, we were prevented from retaliating lest "moderate" Abu Mazen be weakened or lost his tenuous grip on power. The fact that he never lifted a finger against terror even when he was capable of doing so, except when his own power was in danger, only lent prominence to the impotence of his rule, something which won him the attribute of a "hologram", or a virtual entity. Israel had to exercise restraint over many months and years in the face of continued terror and shelling of rockets from the very spots it had abandoned during the irresponsible retreat from Gaza, and no solution was seen in sight.
Now that the Hamas has taken over in Gaza, there are no longer any holy cows that can curb Israeli retaliation. Therefore, if Hamas does not internalize its responsibility for the life of its citizens and pursues terrorism, to which Israel will have to respond harshly, at the very least no one will reproach Israel for exercizing "excessive force", or for hurting the chances of a peace negotiation. Therefore, it is incomprehensible, once again, why should Israel rush to align itself with the US and Europe and declare that it would support "moderate" Abu Mazen and remove all obstacles before him. This is a blunt interference in Palestinian affairs. They have chosen Hamas in a free election, and they have to bear the consequences of their choice.
Now a new Palestinian entity has been established in Gaza, by the very people who won the majority in the last elections. We should wish it all the best and recognize it as the so much coveted Palestinian state, and pledge to cooperate with it, open our borders to goods and labor, and good neighborly relations in general, as long as the Palestinians return Shalit, cease the bombings and acts of terror against Israel and put an end to weapon smuggling. It is not our business what sort of regime they have, as long as they conduct themselves as peaceful and cooperative neighbors. Then, our argument with the Palestinians is only about the borders of their country, not its coming into being. But if they should misbehave, then an Israeli total siege ought to bring them to terms. Then Abu Mazen and his corrupt staff would become redundant and we would not have to negotiate a third Palestinian state (after Jordan and Gaza).
Olmert's recent visit to the White House does not alter this picture in any fundamental way. Both he and Bush are weak and limping ducks whose time has revolved, and who still desperately cling to the Palestinian "peace process" only because they have little else to show. But wipping this dead horse is not likely to revive him
Raphael Israeli
Raphael Israeli is a Professor of Islamic History at Hebrew University, Jerusalem
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment