aaaaaand once again, the Israeli -slashy slash the American who put these clips and commentary together's-position. Anyway, the issue for sure is not dead; worth a reminder-
I've been researching about the mindset of Ben-Gurion during the few decades before the creation of the state. In the early days, of course peace for all was the goal, and it seemed possible. Restraint and dialogue was the policy. When Hitler was rising in Europe, and the Arabs in Palestine were rioting, Ben-Gurion made a major shift in Zionist policy. Then it became clear to him that inherent to making peace with the Arabs was to heed their demands, halt immigration, forgo the idea of a Jewish majority and a Jewish state. In his mind, this was equivalent to giving up on the Jews suffering in Europe. The policy could no longer be peace before everything else. Above all, people were no longer responsive to talk-if Britain's reaction to Hitler and the Arab demonstrations told him anything, its that action moves people, people respond to strength. Yes, he understood Arab grievances, but at this point (late 1930's), Zionism could no longer afford to be a movement of absolute morality, but of relative morality. To him, the suffering of the European Jews by far outweighed Arab suffering, and the Jews had to be saved at whatever cost. From that point on, Ben-Gurion's logic was to create a Jewish national home--not only a safe-haven for the Jews, but a strong Jewish majority presence in Palestine which could not be denied--not by the Arabs, and not by the British--and when this was the case, the Arabs, in their own self interest, will be more willing to create peace with the strong power instead of working to prevent it from existing (how'd that work out?)
Ben-Gurion, with his policy of action, might, and relative morality, lead the Yishuv into wars which put Israel on the map, and laid a basis for a new Israeli identity.
I'm not sure much has changed today in Israeli policy. Of course Israel wants peace, everyone wants peace. But when Peres says "peace" I interpret that as "relative peace." Is Israel willing to work toward peace with the Palestinians before their own peace is achieved? Is it really ready to talk to Hamas (skerrrrt! ok, ok, if you don't like that, I'll say "Palestinians" instead, but Hamas exists as a powerful representative force, and if they are willing to talk, Israel needs to make a serious choice, and it has that choice) in order to come to some sort of agreement, listening to its grievances and make efforts to address them?
Peres says that it was a war of no choice, that the choice was peace and Israel is for peace. Maybe Israel needs to reevaluate what peace means to them, what it might mean for the Palestinian people, and how a new, broader and mutual idea of peace might be implemented--and how it might open up other options to deal with the roots of violence (or "disturbances" as they once were referred to) before violence boils over. If people on both sides are stuck on their own terms of relative peace, then are they limiting themselves to the decisions they argue are, in a way, out of their hands?
I don't like picking on Israel. And I don't mean to here. If one should get anything out of speeches like this one it is the passion, the care, the commitment the man has for his people, and the belief that the best choices were made under the toughest conditions. If Israel saw another way that would work out to their benefit, I like to believe that they would take that route. But they do not see another way-- and neither do the Palestinians. This is where people need to pick up the pieces again... the shattered optimism and open mindedness from Oslo, and start reaching out for a new kind of peace.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Monday, February 9, 2009
Last week I went on a field trip to Jerusalem with my Conflict Resolution class. below are my notes from some of the meetings we had with a UN officer, a think tank guy, and Gershon Baskin from IPCRI.
UNSCO is a branch of the UN which works to help build the institutions of the Palestinian Authority with the prospect of creating a state. It assists governments to fulfill UN resolutions. It has offices in Jerusalem and Ramallah, but its main office is in Gaza city. It represents the Secretary General in the region. It also works to increase peace relations between Israel, the Palestinian Territories, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt.
Jonathan Lincoln, the man who spoke with us, is a "Regional Affairs Officer," who deals with the political relationship UNSCO has with Israel, basically an adviser. His job is to improve relations between the two, but despite all the problems, he said that on the ground, the two entities have pretty good working relations.
UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency) is the second largest employer of Palestinians after the Palestinian Authority.
So, its an intense relationship. But ultimately, these organizations are in the region at the request of Israel. The humanitarian assistance it gets from the UN is very important to them. He mentioned that Israel bent over backwards to show cooperation with the UN during the war in Gaza. In many ways, the UN takes on Israeli's burden of responsibility for the people on the land that it occupies through its great humanitarian assistance.
There is now even encouragement for Israelis to work within the UN-- IDF unites serving in peace keeping missions abroad?
On the recent events in Gaza:
Israel has security control over all the territory and access to territory. the UN must work with them on a daily basis.
2005:
Since disengagement, despite the agreement about relatively free movement of people, imports and exports, this never was fully implemented, while rocket fire from Gaza into Israel was ongoing. In actuality, there was a tightening of the regime of controlling imports and exports.
2006:
Hamas elected. increased restrictions from Israel, refusal from donors to support Hamas
2007:
civil strife between the PA and Hamas in Gaza, Hamas ejects PA from Gaza. These brings more restrictions on goods and supplies. Getting food and medicine in at this point was difficult to bring in, but not impossible. At times there were full closures.
UNWRA- a massive food distribution program.
Because the economy as deteriorated due to the extreme restrictions, most families find it difficult to find food for family. 80% of families in Gaza are supported by food aid from UNWRA. 60% of schools in Gaza are UN schools.
One huge problem is outdated sewage systems... there have been drownings, no joke. Israel controls the import of pipes, because they could be used to make rockets.
Cement has not been allowed into Gaza since 2006. How can Gaza be rebuilt without these resources? UN projects such as removing rubble from former Israeli settlements cannot even be accomplished because the machines needed to do the work could also be used by Hamas to develop its own infrastructure.
2008:
It was hard for the UN before the war, but the war definitely complicated matters. Once the goods got in, how do you move them around while the fighting is happening?
- the plan for this was modeled on what happened in the 2006 Lebanon war. The UN coordinated the movements of its aid trucks with Israelis using Israeli monitoring systems. They actually sat in the same room with Israeli intelligence people and watched the trucks move through the territory so as to avoid accidental fire on them. This is one example of how Israel has to cooperate with the UN.
the UN's plan for 3 phases of recovery:
1) immediate humanitarian aid. This means food and medicine
2) early recovery- infrastructure. This means sewage projects, electricity, schools, etc.
3) reconstruction.
The further the UN moves through these stages, the more political its work becomes. The more it seems like the UN is providing aid to Hamas, the bigger problem Israel has with the UN intervening. In Israel's eyes, the UN has always favored Arab or Muslim populations. Then, throw in all the politics of the rest of the world and the tight rope the UN must walk becomes quite clear.
The UN is told what to do by a number of bodies.
Security council resolution 1860: calling for a durable and sustainable ceasefire. There must be a change on the ground where there are no rockets, and no restrictions. This is incombant on the political situation. The UN has stated support for a two state solution, so all of its work is aimed at this goal; but the immedate goal is Palestinian unity. clearly the next move that needs to be made for any subsequent progress. But how much control would Hamas have?
The UN building attacks:
the Israeli ministers immediately expressed regret to the Secretary General. An investigation is beginning. But we were reminded that the UN has offices in the most intense areas around the world. These kinds of tragedies happen all the time, it is a part of the job.
There are 9500 employees in Gaza, with lots of space for storage. The head quarters were badly damaged, but over all, operations would surely pick up again soon.
The Tunnels:
There is a thriving tunnel movement. almost anything can be moved in like cement, cash.
-The money that exists in Gazan banks is theoretical. There are no actual bills in the banks. Hamas is paying its people in the Euros it gets through the tunnels from Egypt!
After the operation, Hamas was back on the streets controlling traffic, paying people, getting goods. Israel limits what the UN can bring in so that Hamas wont benefit, but Hamas can basically get what it wants anyway, through the tunnels.
UN relationship with Hamas:
The Palestinian Authority are the legitimate governing body for both the West Bank and Gaza. but Hamas is defacto authority, and therefore must be dealt with. The UN has contacts with Hamas, but not at the highest political level. In order to operate, for movement or security, they must. The relationship with the high Hamas officals is "the prerogative of the Secretary General" (a phrase Lincoln loved to use :-)) and right now, he wants to keep relations (or lack or realtions) with the high Hamas leaders the way they are now.
The offical Peace Process:
Annapolis affirmed America's primacy in the quartet. Right now everyone is waiting for a new Israeli government- will they want to continue the talks? We are also waiting for the Palestinain response to the new government. If both sides are willing to continue, then we will have final status negotiations taking place at the same time as the small, immediate issues as outlined by the Quartet's Road Map.
THe UN is not neutral, but impartial. It is pro-two state solution, and recognizes the West Bank ans Gaza as occupied by Israel.
After our meeting at the UN, we went to meet with a think tank fellow, Dr. Bashir Bashir. He presented us with his paper about the politics of reconciliation in the context of the state, the Jewish majority and Palestinian minority.
Nation state building projects that took place after WWII involved politics that were wrapped in nationalism, giving priority of certain groups over others. Bashir argues that for minorities, to say they have citizenship is not enough; in these situations it is not enough to guarantee individual rights, but governments must also find a way to gaunantee communal rights. In specific western societies in which groups within the society have experienced extreme injustices, he calls for a "politics of reconciliation."
Israel immediately adopted a very assimilative notion of shaping identity, with a very strong notion of nationalism which is inherently exclusionist. Palestinains do not fit within the ethnic requirements, and therefore are left out of defining what is important for the country. The Middle Eastern Jews also had to assimilate, as well, to adopt a European value system.
Collective rights include things like a unique education system, unique way of taking care of land, etc.
In order to move from a legacy of historical injustice toward individual and collective justice, several things need to happen:
1) recognition of the fact that Palestinians in Israel have a different experience fo history. This history needs to challenge the hegemony's narrative.
2) the state needs to acknowledge this group is suffering from injustices. This is linked to the concept of taking responsibility- the injustice is not accidental. Although designating responsibility is difficult in immigration countries, like the USA or Israel, its not individual responsibility but governmental responsibility.
3) it's not enough to recognize and take responsibility but also to act. States need to apologize sincerely. In recent polls, this symbolic gesture is far more important to Palestinians and their world supporters than financial assistance. Some can argue, though, that programs for restorative justice are also needed (like for infrastructure, commemorative holidays)
-This does not promote revenge or victimhood.
-This is equally forward looking as backward. Dealing with the past allows actors to move away from it. This method is a way to move away from exclusionary past to inclusive future.
There is a need for different terminology. The "Jewish State" as been a failure. It needs to become a country were citizenship is not defined by race or ethnicity. The national native Arab minority needs to be recognized.
A Bi-National State: both rocognized as two equal national groups in one state. Is this utopian?
5 years before the civil rights movement happened in the US, no one would have anticipated it. One year before the collapse of apartheid, no one would have believed you.
This way, the right to national determination is given to all. It is not calling for people to abandon collectivities, but to lose the vulgar national sentiments which can lead to ethnic cleansing. The Jewish nation project is blood and religion based. The Palestinian movement is not built on blood, it is happy to include Jews.
*The de facto reality in Israel: This land is a bi-national reality already. Given a bird's eye view, looking at Jerusalem neighborhoods, looking at the WB and it's settlers- more than 1/2 million if you include East Jerusalem, other mixed cities like Jaffa-- Arabs and Jews are already living amongst each other.
With this system, you will more seriously and immediately come to conclusions about how to protect both communities.
Later on in the day we stopped at the IPRCI office for a talk with Gershon Baskin. If anyone is interested, I highly recommend reading this article on the subject he wrote a few days after our meeting:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304731246&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
By the way, I am a little obsessed with this man. He seems to know everyone important, and is truly righteous, determined, and inspiring. Read this article to learn about his meetings with Hamas leadership before the war, coming to some sort of an agreement to back channel talks, and how the Israeli government rejected the proposal- 10 days before cast lead.
If peace is possible, it is well known by all. Are we in the final days of a 100 year war?
This is the most researched conflict ever. It is also the most negotiated conflict. All possible solutions have been put on the table.
At least since the first Intifada, this has been an us and them issue. 7 main issues must be resolved in an agreement (refugees, right of return, borders, Jerusalem, settlements, security, water) Without this, there can be no peace.
There is a triangle of peace plans which are used in formal peace negotiations:
1) The clinton parameters (2000)
2) The envoy for peace in the EU (2001)
3) The Geneva accords
The basic outline for peace which is agreed upon by most people:
-2 states
-Jerusalem as a shared capital
-for the Old City, several models are possible, but it would basically stand as it is today, shared.
-refugees: a symbolic number would be allowed back to Israel, with most remaining as they are, hopefully gaining citizenship from their host country
- the division within the Palestinian house must be dealt with
The main problem in negotiations have been domestic politics issues. The relations with Palestinains has never really come to the table, no strategic discussions have occured in any Israel Government. Israel has always put itself in crisis management, instead.
Was the operation in Gaza really a "war of no choice," as it was portrayed? Is Israel constantly putting itself in a constant war of no choice?
It handed Gaza to Hamas without any agreed relationship allowing Hamas to claim victory.
Livni has had 100 meetings over the past year with the former PA Prime Minister and now lead Palestinian negotiator. If so, then why have they not been able to come to any conclusions?
Has Israel fallen in love with negotiations?
Livni has talked about a peace process, but when you look at what all the candidates have actually done- there is really no differnece between them.
The logic of Annapolis was that while we cannot make progress in Gaza, we can in the WB. Over the past year, the PA has implemented almost all of its obligations (the biggest one to repress Palestinian violence-in the WB- which it did fairly well. Did anyone else notice that there weren't really protest against Israel coming out of the WB during the Op?), while Israel has implemented none (withdrawing and freezing settlement expansion within WB).
-The idea was to show Gaza that they have options. By building the credibility of Fatah, the PA, and Abbas the people of Gaza might have felt like they had somewhere else to turn. But as Israel has not worked towards removing settlements, and instead waged war in Gaza, all this didn't go as well as planned.
Hamas:
leadership is organized into a consensus council made up of about 30 people. It is not based on a majority/minority dicision process. membership is secretive, each member knows some but not all members. In this way, there is not a leader, but leaders. This works to their advantage in some ways- you can't kill all the leaders, and if you do kill leaders, it doesn't necessarily affect everyone. In other ways, it's not so efficiently organized, fragmented. There is no figurehead for the masses to look up to, and much of the party's power comes from extreme force and violence followed by small acts of support.
So my day moved from two-state solution, to bi-national solution, to a 100 year war in which all actors understand and generally agree on the path to resolution. All together it was kind of a bash Israel outing... first from an organization which is trying to work hard to be impartial and work with both sides, second from an an Arab scholar whose job is to think in terms of theory not practice, and third from a man who truly loves Israel but not what its doing. Where do I stand? well as always, somewhere in the middle, back and forth, outside trying to live within and understand; happy that this is not my personal reality, yet realizing that this is very real, reflects many struggles in the world, and in my opinion approaching it with an attitude of hope and emotional investment is important for anyone who is interested in setting precedents for transforming violent conflict into peaceful relations around the world.
UNSCO is a branch of the UN which works to help build the institutions of the Palestinian Authority with the prospect of creating a state. It assists governments to fulfill UN resolutions. It has offices in Jerusalem and Ramallah, but its main office is in Gaza city. It represents the Secretary General in the region. It also works to increase peace relations between Israel, the Palestinian Territories, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt.
Jonathan Lincoln, the man who spoke with us, is a "Regional Affairs Officer," who deals with the political relationship UNSCO has with Israel, basically an adviser. His job is to improve relations between the two, but despite all the problems, he said that on the ground, the two entities have pretty good working relations.
UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency) is the second largest employer of Palestinians after the Palestinian Authority.
So, its an intense relationship. But ultimately, these organizations are in the region at the request of Israel. The humanitarian assistance it gets from the UN is very important to them. He mentioned that Israel bent over backwards to show cooperation with the UN during the war in Gaza. In many ways, the UN takes on Israeli's burden of responsibility for the people on the land that it occupies through its great humanitarian assistance.
There is now even encouragement for Israelis to work within the UN-- IDF unites serving in peace keeping missions abroad?
On the recent events in Gaza:
Israel has security control over all the territory and access to territory. the UN must work with them on a daily basis.
2005:
Since disengagement, despite the agreement about relatively free movement of people, imports and exports, this never was fully implemented, while rocket fire from Gaza into Israel was ongoing. In actuality, there was a tightening of the regime of controlling imports and exports.
2006:
Hamas elected. increased restrictions from Israel, refusal from donors to support Hamas
2007:
civil strife between the PA and Hamas in Gaza, Hamas ejects PA from Gaza. These brings more restrictions on goods and supplies. Getting food and medicine in at this point was difficult to bring in, but not impossible. At times there were full closures.
UNWRA- a massive food distribution program.
Because the economy as deteriorated due to the extreme restrictions, most families find it difficult to find food for family. 80% of families in Gaza are supported by food aid from UNWRA. 60% of schools in Gaza are UN schools.
One huge problem is outdated sewage systems... there have been drownings, no joke. Israel controls the import of pipes, because they could be used to make rockets.
Cement has not been allowed into Gaza since 2006. How can Gaza be rebuilt without these resources? UN projects such as removing rubble from former Israeli settlements cannot even be accomplished because the machines needed to do the work could also be used by Hamas to develop its own infrastructure.
2008:
It was hard for the UN before the war, but the war definitely complicated matters. Once the goods got in, how do you move them around while the fighting is happening?
- the plan for this was modeled on what happened in the 2006 Lebanon war. The UN coordinated the movements of its aid trucks with Israelis using Israeli monitoring systems. They actually sat in the same room with Israeli intelligence people and watched the trucks move through the territory so as to avoid accidental fire on them. This is one example of how Israel has to cooperate with the UN.
the UN's plan for 3 phases of recovery:
1) immediate humanitarian aid. This means food and medicine
2) early recovery- infrastructure. This means sewage projects, electricity, schools, etc.
3) reconstruction.
The further the UN moves through these stages, the more political its work becomes. The more it seems like the UN is providing aid to Hamas, the bigger problem Israel has with the UN intervening. In Israel's eyes, the UN has always favored Arab or Muslim populations. Then, throw in all the politics of the rest of the world and the tight rope the UN must walk becomes quite clear.
The UN is told what to do by a number of bodies.
Security council resolution 1860: calling for a durable and sustainable ceasefire. There must be a change on the ground where there are no rockets, and no restrictions. This is incombant on the political situation. The UN has stated support for a two state solution, so all of its work is aimed at this goal; but the immedate goal is Palestinian unity. clearly the next move that needs to be made for any subsequent progress. But how much control would Hamas have?
The UN building attacks:
the Israeli ministers immediately expressed regret to the Secretary General. An investigation is beginning. But we were reminded that the UN has offices in the most intense areas around the world. These kinds of tragedies happen all the time, it is a part of the job.
There are 9500 employees in Gaza, with lots of space for storage. The head quarters were badly damaged, but over all, operations would surely pick up again soon.
The Tunnels:
There is a thriving tunnel movement. almost anything can be moved in like cement, cash.
-The money that exists in Gazan banks is theoretical. There are no actual bills in the banks. Hamas is paying its people in the Euros it gets through the tunnels from Egypt!
After the operation, Hamas was back on the streets controlling traffic, paying people, getting goods. Israel limits what the UN can bring in so that Hamas wont benefit, but Hamas can basically get what it wants anyway, through the tunnels.
UN relationship with Hamas:
The Palestinian Authority are the legitimate governing body for both the West Bank and Gaza. but Hamas is defacto authority, and therefore must be dealt with. The UN has contacts with Hamas, but not at the highest political level. In order to operate, for movement or security, they must. The relationship with the high Hamas officals is "the prerogative of the Secretary General" (a phrase Lincoln loved to use :-)) and right now, he wants to keep relations (or lack or realtions) with the high Hamas leaders the way they are now.
The offical Peace Process:
Annapolis affirmed America's primacy in the quartet. Right now everyone is waiting for a new Israeli government- will they want to continue the talks? We are also waiting for the Palestinain response to the new government. If both sides are willing to continue, then we will have final status negotiations taking place at the same time as the small, immediate issues as outlined by the Quartet's Road Map.
THe UN is not neutral, but impartial. It is pro-two state solution, and recognizes the West Bank ans Gaza as occupied by Israel.
After our meeting at the UN, we went to meet with a think tank fellow, Dr. Bashir Bashir. He presented us with his paper about the politics of reconciliation in the context of the state, the Jewish majority and Palestinian minority.
Nation state building projects that took place after WWII involved politics that were wrapped in nationalism, giving priority of certain groups over others. Bashir argues that for minorities, to say they have citizenship is not enough; in these situations it is not enough to guarantee individual rights, but governments must also find a way to gaunantee communal rights. In specific western societies in which groups within the society have experienced extreme injustices, he calls for a "politics of reconciliation."
Israel immediately adopted a very assimilative notion of shaping identity, with a very strong notion of nationalism which is inherently exclusionist. Palestinains do not fit within the ethnic requirements, and therefore are left out of defining what is important for the country. The Middle Eastern Jews also had to assimilate, as well, to adopt a European value system.
Collective rights include things like a unique education system, unique way of taking care of land, etc.
In order to move from a legacy of historical injustice toward individual and collective justice, several things need to happen:
1) recognition of the fact that Palestinians in Israel have a different experience fo history. This history needs to challenge the hegemony's narrative.
2) the state needs to acknowledge this group is suffering from injustices. This is linked to the concept of taking responsibility- the injustice is not accidental. Although designating responsibility is difficult in immigration countries, like the USA or Israel, its not individual responsibility but governmental responsibility.
3) it's not enough to recognize and take responsibility but also to act. States need to apologize sincerely. In recent polls, this symbolic gesture is far more important to Palestinians and their world supporters than financial assistance. Some can argue, though, that programs for restorative justice are also needed (like for infrastructure, commemorative holidays)
-This does not promote revenge or victimhood.
-This is equally forward looking as backward. Dealing with the past allows actors to move away from it. This method is a way to move away from exclusionary past to inclusive future.
There is a need for different terminology. The "Jewish State" as been a failure. It needs to become a country were citizenship is not defined by race or ethnicity. The national native Arab minority needs to be recognized.
A Bi-National State: both rocognized as two equal national groups in one state. Is this utopian?
5 years before the civil rights movement happened in the US, no one would have anticipated it. One year before the collapse of apartheid, no one would have believed you.
This way, the right to national determination is given to all. It is not calling for people to abandon collectivities, but to lose the vulgar national sentiments which can lead to ethnic cleansing. The Jewish nation project is blood and religion based. The Palestinian movement is not built on blood, it is happy to include Jews.
*The de facto reality in Israel: This land is a bi-national reality already. Given a bird's eye view, looking at Jerusalem neighborhoods, looking at the WB and it's settlers- more than 1/2 million if you include East Jerusalem, other mixed cities like Jaffa-- Arabs and Jews are already living amongst each other.
With this system, you will more seriously and immediately come to conclusions about how to protect both communities.
Later on in the day we stopped at the IPRCI office for a talk with Gershon Baskin. If anyone is interested, I highly recommend reading this article on the subject he wrote a few days after our meeting:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304731246&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
By the way, I am a little obsessed with this man. He seems to know everyone important, and is truly righteous, determined, and inspiring. Read this article to learn about his meetings with Hamas leadership before the war, coming to some sort of an agreement to back channel talks, and how the Israeli government rejected the proposal- 10 days before cast lead.
If peace is possible, it is well known by all. Are we in the final days of a 100 year war?
This is the most researched conflict ever. It is also the most negotiated conflict. All possible solutions have been put on the table.
At least since the first Intifada, this has been an us and them issue. 7 main issues must be resolved in an agreement (refugees, right of return, borders, Jerusalem, settlements, security, water) Without this, there can be no peace.
There is a triangle of peace plans which are used in formal peace negotiations:
1) The clinton parameters (2000)
2) The envoy for peace in the EU (2001)
3) The Geneva accords
The basic outline for peace which is agreed upon by most people:
-2 states
-Jerusalem as a shared capital
-for the Old City, several models are possible, but it would basically stand as it is today, shared.
-refugees: a symbolic number would be allowed back to Israel, with most remaining as they are, hopefully gaining citizenship from their host country
- the division within the Palestinian house must be dealt with
The main problem in negotiations have been domestic politics issues. The relations with Palestinains has never really come to the table, no strategic discussions have occured in any Israel Government. Israel has always put itself in crisis management, instead.
Was the operation in Gaza really a "war of no choice," as it was portrayed? Is Israel constantly putting itself in a constant war of no choice?
It handed Gaza to Hamas without any agreed relationship allowing Hamas to claim victory.
Livni has had 100 meetings over the past year with the former PA Prime Minister and now lead Palestinian negotiator. If so, then why have they not been able to come to any conclusions?
Has Israel fallen in love with negotiations?
Livni has talked about a peace process, but when you look at what all the candidates have actually done- there is really no differnece between them.
The logic of Annapolis was that while we cannot make progress in Gaza, we can in the WB. Over the past year, the PA has implemented almost all of its obligations (the biggest one to repress Palestinian violence-in the WB- which it did fairly well. Did anyone else notice that there weren't really protest against Israel coming out of the WB during the Op?), while Israel has implemented none (withdrawing and freezing settlement expansion within WB).
-The idea was to show Gaza that they have options. By building the credibility of Fatah, the PA, and Abbas the people of Gaza might have felt like they had somewhere else to turn. But as Israel has not worked towards removing settlements, and instead waged war in Gaza, all this didn't go as well as planned.
Hamas:
leadership is organized into a consensus council made up of about 30 people. It is not based on a majority/minority dicision process. membership is secretive, each member knows some but not all members. In this way, there is not a leader, but leaders. This works to their advantage in some ways- you can't kill all the leaders, and if you do kill leaders, it doesn't necessarily affect everyone. In other ways, it's not so efficiently organized, fragmented. There is no figurehead for the masses to look up to, and much of the party's power comes from extreme force and violence followed by small acts of support.
So my day moved from two-state solution, to bi-national solution, to a 100 year war in which all actors understand and generally agree on the path to resolution. All together it was kind of a bash Israel outing... first from an organization which is trying to work hard to be impartial and work with both sides, second from an an Arab scholar whose job is to think in terms of theory not practice, and third from a man who truly loves Israel but not what its doing. Where do I stand? well as always, somewhere in the middle, back and forth, outside trying to live within and understand; happy that this is not my personal reality, yet realizing that this is very real, reflects many struggles in the world, and in my opinion approaching it with an attitude of hope and emotional investment is important for anyone who is interested in setting precedents for transforming violent conflict into peaceful relations around the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)