Sun Blogs
Read The Whole Thing
Email: 
Share: 
Left, Right or Wrong?
September 24, 2007 - 12:00amThis week Dr. Hanan Ashrawi, a former member of the Palestinian government and a respected authority on Palestinian affairs, spoke at Cornell for her third time. The premise of her speech was that the Palestinians desire peace, the Israeli “occupation” has denied them peace, and it is in everybody’s interest to see peace come to the Middle East. However, it is not in the interest of everyone to have stability in this region and while Israel certainly deserves some of the blame, an end to the “occupation” is only a part of the puzzle.
The continuous war between Israel and the Palestinians is actually a unifying force in the Middle East. Ashrawi pointed out that many nations and leaders, including the likes of Saddam Hussein, exploit this conflict. The reason for this is that the struggle between Palestine and Israel is historically one of the only things that unites both the Sunni and Shia sects of Islam. Whenever the leader of a nation in the Middle East needs to unite and quiet his people, he refers to the Palestinian/Israeli battle. We do not need to look further than Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who used the success of Hezbollah against Israel as a way to quell anti-Iranian sentiment in the region. As much as we might not like to admit it, at this point in time it is the leaders of nations who control the Middle East, not the people. It is in these leaders’ interests to maintain a state of tension and hostility.
This brings me to Israel. Certainly Israel’s policies have been flawed. The “occupation,” although it has been scaled down recently, has done little except to inflame passions on both sides. The construction of walls to enclose Israel and isolate the surrounding Gaza Strip and West Bank is not an effective means of preventing attacks and it too has done little to put out the fire. Israel’s recent threat of cutting off electricity to the Gaza Strip does not help the situation either. Israel must be held accountable for its actions and should not get an automatic pass on everything simply because it is an ally of the United States. However, Israel is in a very tough spot and it is naïve to say that Israeli negotiations with Hamas will lead to peace.
The Palestinian people elected Hamas in a relatively free and fair election. It is true that Hamas provides many services to the poor people of Palestine, and in some ways, it has helped them. Nonetheless, in the long run it will hurt Palestinians much more than it helps them. Hamas is a terrorist organization. There is no way around it. It has imprisoned and murdered numerous innocent people, is responsible for repeated missile attacks on Israel, and does not even recognize the existence of Israel. These policies are what Ashrawi calls Hamas’ “political agenda.” Hamas has shown no sign of reform. Yet for the time being, Hamas is here to stay. The question is how Israel should deal with this. As mentioned previously, Israel needs to change some of its ways. But how can Israel participate in a serious negotiation with an organization that does not even recognize Israel’s existence? Furthermore, even assuming an agreement can be reached, how could Israel be assured that Hamas would not only abide by it, but that other nations such as Iran and other groups such as Hezbollah would allow it to happen?
In order for peace to be achieved, both Israel and the Palestinians need to change. The first step is for the Palestinian people to force Hamas to change or to vote it out of power. The existence of Israel needs to be recognized and the terrorism needs to cease. At the same time, Israel needs to tear down the walls and remove its troops from Palestinian lands. Israel is the wealthier and arguably more powerful nation and therefore needs to take the leading role. However, the ball is in the court of the Palestinian people. If Hamas continues to get elected and does not reform its “political agenda,” it is unlikely that we will see peace any time soon.
"Israel is the wealthier and
"Israel is the wealthier and arguably more powerful nation and therefore needs to take the leading role."
I'm sorry, I was under the impression that Israel was already doing that, having agreed to the Oslo Accords and offering the Palestinians the West Bank and Gaza in 2000. How did the Palestinians respond to these gestures? With campaigns of terror that killed hundreds of Israelis. This necessitated the security wall, checkpoints, and Israeli military presence in Judea and Samaria. The complete Israeli withdrawal from Gaza was met with constant rocket fire by Palestinian terrorists at nearby Israeli towns. Why should Israel supply utilities to an entity that is actively dedicated to its destruction? What other nation in the world would be held to this standard? Removing troops from Judea and Samaria would result in a situation 100 times worse than the Gaza rocket fire. Israel's major population centers and its airport would be in range of rocket fire and suicide attacks would increase dramatically. The IDF's raid of a terrorist cell in Nablus last week prevented a major suicide attack in Tel Aviv over Yom Kippur.
I would like to clarify my
I would like to clarify my point about Israel taking the leading role because it seems to have been misinterpreted. It is imperative for Israel to remain strong. Israel faces hostility throughout the Middle East and certainly it should not tear down all of the walls today, withdraw all of its troops tomorrow and become a lame duck in the Middle East. However, there needs to be at least recognition of mistakes made in the past. It is true that Israel's withdrawal from Gaza resulted in terrible and unforgivable attacks on Israel. However, would Israel be safer if it stayed in Gaza? Would there be more stability in the region? I went on to say that the ball is in the court of the Palestinian people. What this means is that the Palestinians need to do something about Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist organization and needs to be dealt with. The peace process that I was talking about is two fold. First, Hamas needs to seriously change or be voted out of office. Once this happens, serious negotiations can occur. I acknowledge that Israel needs to remain strong in order to survive. The onus is on Hamas and the Palestinians. Yet, we need to recognize that concessions on both sides will need to be made if there will ever be stability.
"However, would Israel be
"However, would Israel be safer if it stayed in Gaza? Would there be more stability in the region? "
Arguably yes, for at least there would be a constant IDF presence in Gaza, which would make it much easier to stop the constant Qassam fire (nine Qassams fired so far today) directed at Sderot and other neighboring towns.
"Yet, we need to recognize that concessions on both sides will need to be made if there will ever be stability."
Israeli concessions have been met time and again with violence from the Palestinians. Olmert recently released scores of Fatah terrorists and granted amnesty to hundreds of others as a "goodwill gesture" towards Abbas. The terrorists who were granted amnesty have not changed their ways; in fact, two senior Fatah terrorists who had been granted amnesty were caught last week by the IDF planning to carry out a suicide attack inside Israel. Once these men were arrested, Olmert promptly released them because it might jeopardize the amnesty agreement! I don't think you can make a bigger concession than releasing would-be murderers who were caught in the act, yet these idiotic gestures will do nothing to make Israel more secure.
Not that the Israeli government will ever take such a hard-line stance (Olmert will no doubt try to give away the entire country for a piece of paper at the "peace" conference in November), but Israel should make no more concessions until the Palestinians come close to fulfilling even one of the obligations under the numerous peace agreements they've agreed to since Oslo.