Wednesday, June 24, 2015

How to exacerbate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - Clifford D. May



by Clifford D. May

Based on this experience, most Israelis fear that withdrawal from the West Bank would be ‎disastrous. The power vacuum left behind soon would be filled by Hamas or the Islamic State or ‎an al-Qaida affiliate or Hezbollah, Iran's Lebanon-based foreign legion. ‎

From the Judean Hills in the West Bank, all of Israel's major population centers could be targeted ‎with mortars that no missile defense system can knock out. Israel would strike back with ‎predictable consequences. ‎

The peace process between Israelis and Palestinians has ground to a halt. ‎What should American and European leaders do? Try not to make the situation worse.‎

That will be a challenge. Many in the West believe that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is relatively ‎easy to solve -- certainly not on a par with the much bloodier wars being waged by Sunni and ‎Shia jihadis in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, etc. ‎

The Palestinians say they want a state of their own. They should have one in Gaza and the West ‎Bank (territories Israel captured from Egypt and Jordan respectively at the end of a defensive ‎war in 1967). The Israelis want security within recognized borders. Have the international ‎community promise them that. If Israelis and Palestinians can't work this out on their own, ‎impose a two-state solution. It's a tempting approach. Let me explain why it's dead wrong. 

Ten years ago this summer, then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon decided to test the hypothesis that ‎Israelis could trade land for peace. He ordered the evacuation of all Israelis from Gaza -- ‎forcibly removing those who refused to quietly pack up and leave. ‎

He hoped Gaza would thereafter become a peaceful place whose leaders would focus on ‎economic development, education and health care. If that happened, the argument for Israeli ‎withdrawal from the West Bank would become compelling. But, he believed, if Gaza instead ‎became a base for attacks on Israelis, they would be able to strike back hard -- with the ‎understanding and support of the international community.‎

Recall what followed: In 2007, Fatah and Hamas, the two major Palestinian political factions, ‎went to war with one another other in Gaza. Fatah, led by Palestinian Authority President ‎Mahmoud Abbas, was the loser. Hamas soon began firing missiles -- thousands of them -- at ‎Israeli villages. That led to wars with Israel in 2008 and 2012. Then, last summer, on top of ‎missile attacks came the revelation that Hamas was building tunnels designed to infiltrate ‎terrorists into Israel for the purpose of mass murder and hostage-taking. The result was an Israeli ‎invasion of Gaza and 50 days of war.‎

And Sharon, it turns out, was wrong: Despite the fact that Israel was attacked and, as Gen. ‎Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, put it, went to "extraordinary lengths to ‎prevent civilian casualties," many in the West -- including in a U.N. report issued this week -- ‎blame Israel at least as much as Hamas for the death and destruction suffered by the people of ‎Gaza last summer. ‎

Based on this experience, most Israelis fear that withdrawal from the West Bank would be ‎disastrous. The power vacuum left behind soon would be filled by Hamas or the Islamic State or ‎an al-Qaida affiliate or Hezbollah, Iran's Lebanon-based foreign legion. ‎

From the Judean Hills in the West Bank, all of Israel's major population centers could be targeted ‎with mortars that no missile defense system can knock out. Israel would strike back with ‎predictable consequences. ‎

All of which brings us to this: Over the weekend, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius visited ‎Jerusalem and Ramallah, the de facto Palestinian capital, where he discussed a resolution he is ‎eager to advance in the U.N. Security Council. It would call for the immediate renewal of talks ‎between Israelis and Palestinians and set a time frame of about 18 months for them to reach a ‎permanent agreement based on the 1967 lines and with Jerusalem as a shared capital. ‎

If, by the deadline, no agreement is reached, Western governments would recognize a Palestinian ‎state. Is it possible Fabius does not realize that would give Abbas a strong incentive not ‎to compromise?‎

Even if, through some miracle, the 80-year-old PA president did come to terms with Israel, what ‎would be the result? He was elected to a four-year term 10 years ago. Hamas doesn't recognize ‎his authority. It's likely that his successor -- whoever that may be and however he may come to ‎power -- won't either. ‎

Knowing this, should Israelis really be expected to make concessions that will endanger the lives ‎of their children? In the past, American presidents, Republican and Democratic alike, have ‎blocked such actions in the U.N. Security Council. But President Barack Obama is threatening to break ‎with that tradition. There is speculation that he's actually encouraging the French to take this ‎step.‎

The glib reply: "Something needs to be done!" But perceived urgency is not the same as smart ‎policy. How about this: Concentrate on incremental improvements. With barbarians chopping ‎heads just over the border, joint Palestinian-Israeli security programs should be quietly expanded. ‎Instead of promoting boycotts against Israel, push for Palestinian-Israeli economic cooperation, ‎with Israelis providing more and better jobs for Palestinians in the West Bank. In the absence of ‎such cooperation, a Palestinian state will inevitably end up a failed state and a ward of the ‎international community indefinitely. ‎

Even Gaza presents an opportunity for modest gains. At the moment, Hamas appears to be going ‎out of its way not to provoke another conflict. Its forces have been moving against Islamic State ‎sympathizers. Israelis should be encouraged to reward such behavior.‎

Such a cautious approach could save and improve lives -- Palestinian and Israeli alike. No one ‎will win a Nobel Prize and former enemies won't be seen hugging and mugging for the cameras ‎on the White House lawn. What we might see, however, are Israelis and Palestinians learning that ‎peaceful coexistence is possible and, for those who don't yet know it, desirable. At the very ‎least, Western leaders would not be making matters worse.‎


Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a ‎columnist for The Washington Times.

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=12969

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

No comments:

Post a Comment