Peace in Middle
East: The Hard Choices
By Abubakr G. Shaikh
Westerville, Ohio
Any unilateral decision to
draw a permanent Israeli border will never be
acceptable either to the Palestinians or the world.
For a viable solution and lasting peace in the
Middle East, the inclusiveness of the Palestinian
Authority is essential in any negotiated settlement.
History testifies that parties to a conflict achieve
complete, permanent and satisfactory solution
by breaking the ice, giving up the hard stand,
and initiating a dialogue with the adversary.
Several examples can be cited in this context:
South Africa, Rwanda, Bosnia, East Timor, Sudan,
Kenya, Somalia, Singapore-Malaysia, Egypt-Jordan
–Israel. Success was achieved by involving
all parties in the dispute to sit, talk over and
hammer out a workable solution.
The victory of Hamas at the polls makes it difficult
to adopt such an approach for resolving the Middle
East conflict.
Did Mr. Olmert really make a strategic mistake
by allowing Hamas to participate in the parliamentary
elections in the occupied areas without any pre-conditions
or acceptance of existing agreements? Or was it
a prejudged decision to pursue unilaterism? Mr.
Abbas committed a greater blunder by allowing
Hamas to take part in the elections without changing
its hard-line policy or extracting any promise
of honoring the agreements that the Palestinian
Authority had signed with Israel.
After the Hamas success in the local elections,
there should have been no doubts of Hamas ability
to cause the upset in the parliamentary elections.
Abbas failed as a leader by turning a blind eye
to Fatah's unpopularity and by grossly miscalculating
the political atmosphere at home resulting from
years of hopelessness and disenchantment from
the continued stalemate in the impoverished living
conditions of his people with no hope of change
in sight. Mr. Abbas failed to realize the frustration
of his people and swing in the national mood .
He took a big gamble by leading a disgruntled,
undisciplined and divided party against a well-disciplined
and organized Hamas. The defeat was imminent!
Fatah deserved the defeat, firstly by failing
to reform the party by addressing widespread corruption,
refusing to expel the corrupt old guards, dealing
with unemployment, uniting the party, and enforcing
discipline. The last straw was adhering to the
list of candidates chosen by the public through
the primaries instead of imposing the party's
own choice .This produced wide uproar and further
division in the party which resulted in divided
votes since more than one Fatah candidate was
contesting for a single seat. Mr. Abbas failed
as a leader to deal with the situation whereas
Hamas leaders were united in their ranks and maintained
strict command and discipline. Hamas success was
mainly the result of their social programs and
the divided votes of Fatah.
Mr. Sharon's policies also contributed to Fatah's
defeat in the national elections following his
unilateral withdrawal from Gaza without the involvement
of Fatah. If the withdrawal were worked out through
discussions and agreements, president Abbas would
have enjoyed a face-saving situation and would
have very likely won the elections. Israel would
then have found a moderate and reliable partner
to negotiate a lasting settlement. It was a deliberate
blow by Mr. Sharon to discredit Mr. Abbas.
He knew well that he had effectively disabled
the Palestinian security forces’ ability
to combat various armed groups by directly attacking
their check-posts, police stations and security
infrastructures. It was wrong to expect Mr. Abbas
to disarm the militants with a depleted security
force. It is a fact that the security forces are
scantily armed with not enough rifles for every
one and insufficient number of bullets. There
would surely been a civil war if Abbas had taken
action against the militants. Indeed, Hamas is
well armed and could openly resist the security
forces. They did attack a police station to free
a Hamas militant and killed some members of the
force, including the former security chief, in
broad daylight.
Hamas has legitimately emerged as a political
force through the democratic process and the world
community expects it to act responsibly. With
authority comes responsibility. An elected political
party must not have a militant agenda against
a neighboring country. Israel is a reality, a
democratic country of long standing, created by
the United Nations and a UN member state recognized
by the world. To deny its existence is to deny
the existence of the sun and moon. It is a meaningless
approach especially in view of the fact that three
major parties to the dispute - Palestinian Authority,
Egypt and Jordan – have formally recognized
Israel and have diplomatic relations with it.
It is futile to challenge Israel's existence.
Indeed the Palestinians would have benefited immensely
if the Muslim countries had recognized Israel
and established trade and economic ties with the
country. They could have used their influence
and put pressure on Israel to negotiate a just
solution with the Palestinian people.
The Islamic world should follow president Musharaf''s
lead who demonstrated commendable courage by opening
a dialogue with Israel on the request of president
Abbas. Both Hamas and Israel should learn lessons
from the success of historical decisions - Hamas
from the non-violent freedom movements of India
and South Africa and Israel from the peaceful
resolutions of outstanding conflicts achieved
through dialogue and agreement between adversaries
.
How could Hamas government's representative take
a UN seat with a hate agenda? Hamas in fact has
limited choices: living harmoniously with the
civilized world community or side-lined and isolated
causing more misery and disappointment in the
nation. Its hard-line policies will give Israel
the excuse to isolate Palestinians and impose
its own borders on them. How can Hamas or any
sane person expect Israel to sit with a government
that doesn't recognize its existence and vows
to destroy it?. The hard choice for Hamas is to
transform from an extremist sectarian party into
a mature political party, changing its manifesto
of hate and violence, recognizing Israel, sitting
with its government and negotiating a settlement
.The dilemma for the elected Hamas government
is that it can't any longer engage in attacks
inside Israel or put a blind eye on cross -border
violence which will now be considered state-sponsored
terrorism.
Israel, on its part, should accept the Arab initiative
which is based on justice, without laying pre-conditions
to its acceptance. This proposal has universal
approval and is strongly supported by the UN too.
Most importantly, Israel must stop making claims
on Arab lands, including Golan Heights and Sheba
Farms to end the dispute permanently with all
its neighbors instead of pursuing a policy of
extending its territory by land grabbing, enlarging
settlements and uprooting the Arabs from their
homes. The argument of "God-given land "
does not really hold much ground in the present-day
world order. By the same token North and South
America, Australia and New Zealand were bestowed
by God to the natives .The people of Israel and
the political leaders have realized this truth
and have changed the course of their policies
and politics. The credit for this also goes to
President Bush who floated the idea of the two
nations theory - two independent countries living
side by side. The land grabbing policy will never
lead to any long-term and permanent peace settlement.
Let alone the Palestinians and Arab nations, the
entire Muslim world, which is not a direct party
to the dispute, will never reconcile with the
Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem, which is
an important part of their faith. Disenchantment
leads to frustration and ultimately to violence.
Israel will never find peace by imposing unilateral
decisions. You cannot fight the will of the people
for long.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
