 |
       |
 |
JVP News Roundup, August 12, 2007 In the new edition of the London Review of Books, there is a pair of articles, however, which, when taken together, give a fairly rounded view of the situation as it stands now in Israel and the Palestinian Territories. Making them perhaps more valuable and credible, the article criticizing Israel is written by a Jewish former executive director of the American Jewish Congress, Henry Siegman; while the article criticizing the Palestinians is written by an American of Palestinian ancestry, Prof. Rashid Khalidi.In "Shared Irresponsibility," Khalidi draws careful attention to the actions of both Fatah and Hamas in creating the split that exists now in the Palestinian political body and which finds its expression in a geographical split between the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Khalidi shines a glaring light on the lack of strategy and the inherent contradictions in the actions of Hamas since entering the 2006 elections. As Uri Avnery pointed out in his latest piece, "Oslo Revisited," the Palestinians find themselves in a position that is extremely out of the ordinary. They are trying to set up the trappings of a government while still being under occupation, so that government has, ultimately, no real power, only that which is granted it by the occupying power. While Mahmoud Abbas, as leader of Fatah, has not had the political support necessary to stop attacks on Israel, he has clearly, for better or worse, chosen the path of politics over that of armed resistance. His new Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad, has essentially re-defined resistance for his government as non-violent. Hamas has made no such choice. Rather than address the issues that led to Fatah losing its once absolute hold on the top spot in Palestinian politics, they worked to undermine the outcome of the 2006 election, with the support of Israel and the US in a clear expression by all three of contempt for the democratic process. In the end, both Fatah and Hamas have made an already desperate situation for Palestinians much worse. Israel, as the far more powerful party, has far more potential to change this situation than the Palestinians do. Khalidi does not miss this point, but Siegman emphasizes it. But the most important point Siegman makes is about the political impetus for Israel to withdraw from the West Bank. In the Palestinian Territories Meanwhile, the war of words continues. Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh accused Fatah of plotting to "get rid of Hamas." This was echoed by Hamas leader in exile Khaled Meshal. Meanwhile, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer admonished Mahmoud Abbas to maintain his exclusion of Hamas and continue to avoid all discussions with them. For his part, Abbas reiterated that he would not talk with Hamas until they returned control of Gaza to the PA, which, at this point, would essentially mean Hamas would abandon all power as they are outside the new PA structure. Tensions in Gaza between Fatah and Hamas are continuing, as Hamas arrested 20 Fatah members this week. There has been a good deal of speculation that a bomb thrown at a major security building in Gaza was hurled in response to these arrests. The drawn out issue of Palestinians who were trapped at the Egyptian border when Hamas took over in Gaza is drawing to a close. At least the vast majority of the people who had been stranded have gotten back into Gaza by going through Israel rather than through the Rafah crossing. There are, however, conflicting reports about whether or not some are still stuck in Egypt. Israel had been handing out lists of people approved to travel, and Hamas members were afraid that they would be arrested if they went through Israel. This report states that the Hamas people remain in Egypt, while other reports state that all those trapped have returned, or even specifically that the Hamas members have come back to Gaza. The situation in Gaza remains desperate, but it is encouraging, at least, that mainstream American media have been reporting on it. Diplomacy Norway, the first country to open diplomatic relations with the Hamas government, was reported to have withdrawn those contacts. But, in fact, while it will no longer deal with Hamas on the ministerial level, Norway has stated that envoys will still be permitted to meet with Hamas officials, and that it was not cutting off all contacts. While this meets with some displeasure in Israel, the US and Europe, it is a course many would be wise to follow. In the wake of a recent announcement by the US that it was prepared to ignore India's nuclear arsenal, Israel has also strengthened its military ties with India. This is likely connected to the increasing concern over the Pakistani government's ability to hold on to power for much longer, but it also is another step in a long-term and ongoing strengthening of ties between India and Israel. The biggest change now is that the US is much more warm to this idea. Finally, one has to wonder exactly what it is Mahmoud Abbas is thinking as he prepares to sit down with Ehud Olmert and discuss the creation of a Palestinian state. There will clearly be backlash among Palestinians if he continues to exclude Gaza. Given all the other issues surrounding these talks, it is highly unlikely that he is going to get much of a deal from Israel. It's more likely he will be offered something he can't possibly accept and will end up back in the same boat as his predecessor, Arafat. Presumably, Abbas, knowing his own lack of popularity, is simply acting out of desperation to deliver the one thing that can legitimize his rule, a viable Palestinian state. In Israel With all the lofty talk about "final status deals," the man who made the Palestinians the "Generous Offer" made it clear that he does not expect any major deals with the Palestinians "anytime soon." Perhaps one might argue that Barak was simply being realistic about the situation as it stands. But his estimate of when it would be possible is "three to five years", which is the amount of time he estimates it will take Israel to develop a missile defense system. Of course it is reasonable for Israel, and certainly an Israeli Minister of Defense, to be concerned about protecting Israeli citizens from missile attacks. But one has to note the cavalier way Barak simply treats as natural that millions of people can be held without their rights, and in a starving economy, to protect that security. While we would argue that Israel's security needs are better served by granting freedom to and respecting the human and civil rights of the Palestinians, it is precisely this attitude--that the rights of Israelis are more important than the rights of Palestinians--that fuels this conflict and that all of us, whatever our political views, should agree is unacceptable. Meanwhile, the US has come up short in their support of Israel's military. While committing to an increase in aid over the next ten years, the US found itself short in 2007, due to the huge expense of occupying Iraq. It gives one hope that perhaps both countries will some day realize that occupation is a costly bit of adventurism, and if they can't see the moral cost of it, perhaps they can see the dollar cost. Finally, there is the issue of Israeli soldiers refusing orders to evacuate settlement "outposts" in Hebron. This, of course, raises some philosophical questions as to when one supports refusal and when one does not. The peace movement obviously rejoiced when soldiers refused to serve in the Occupied Territories, and, indeed, most of us only wish more would do so. But then how does one deal with soldiers who refuse to take actions against other Jews or because, to them, the abandonment of "Jewish land" in the Occupied Territories is simply immoral? Israel, of course, tolerates neither, as no country would. But just as anti-Occupation refusal scared the Israeli right as to what would happen in more soldiers took up that attitude, so should this, right-wing brand of refusal concern the peace movement. If these, most radical, and smallest of outposts provokes refusal, what will happen when and if major withdrawals from the West Bank come about? The West Bank is not Gaza. A response to this refusal will be necessary. More Articles of Interest Israel mulls removal of roadblocks in West Bank Japanese FM to launch Israel-PA-Jordan project Israel pleased with UN statement on Lebanon The road to peace runs through Jerusalem VIEW: Bush's flawed Middle East peace planThe latest on the blogs Muzzlewatch Barak Wants Professor Fired For Nasty Words to IDF OfficerVictory for campaign to shut down Arabic culture school: principal quits over t-shirt brouhahaWalt and Mearsheimer censored: Chicago Council on Global Affairs cancels talkCambridge U. Press Agrees to Destroy Book on Terrorism in Response to Libel ClaimThe Third Way Getting Past Blame: Present Realities and How To Move ForwardThe JNF Bill-A BackgrounderIt's The Settlements, Stupid!Help Defeat Legalized Discrimination In Israel"The Israel Lobby" in Perspective |
