I will take advantage of Ariel Sharon's pre-death condition to make a few unkind remarks about him that I might forbear from saying after he's died.
He and Arafat are a pair, representing permanently opposed positions of the past, and it's time to move on. Both got concerned with their "legacy" in recent years; for Arafat, that meant worrying how he'll be remembered among Palestinians and thus selling them short; for Sharon, it meant a change in tactics to try to keep at bay the enemies of Zionist Israel, by separating Israel more effectively from its neighbors. The sad fact for both is the their tactics will instead ensure the opposite of their goals: Arafat will be the guy who failed to get a Palestinian state, and Sharon's Wall will further entrench the territorial, political, social, moral and economic chaos of the area, and thus provide very poor security. As apartheid proved in South Africa.
Arafat showed himself to be one of the tiny men of history by blowing his people's best opportunity in modern history--in the late days of the Clinton administration, spurning Ehud Barak's generous offer package. Similarly, here are the three things for which I will never forgive Sharon:
1) During Israel's invasion of Beirut, turning over security at the Palestinian refugee camps over to the Christian militia (with thousands massacred in an easily foreseeable disaster); 2) incitement to riot by making a point of challenging the Muslims on the Temple on the Mount in Jerusalem, the immediate cause of the second intifada (I know he had the right to do it, but was it the smart thing to do?) 3) and most controversially, making Sharon's Wall into a reality.
I give Sharon grudging credit for the Gaza withdrawal. He was sensible enough to recognize the futility of the situation in Gaza, as, I believe, he finally did with his '80's pet, the Lebanon invasion. I don't think either "strategic withdrawal" represented a real gesture toward peace, just pulling back to what he and his Cabinet determined, with no other power weighing in noticeably, to be "defensible borders".
Like Pat Robertson, "God told me" Sharon's health problems were divine retribution, but my version is that it's for Sharon's Wall, not the Gaza withdrawal. That Wall is not a peacemaker, unless one is extremely myopic. It suggests an obvious rallying cry, borrowed and modified from Ronald Reagan: "Mr. Prime Minister, tear down that wall."
I seem to like 2-parters when it comes to the dualistic Palestinian issue (see the derivatively-titled "Revenge and Insecurity, or Kill Arik, Part 2" on this site's archives: http://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2005_02_01_chinshihtang_archive.html). Now, instead of merely bashing, I will propose something positive, even if a
HIGHLY UNORTHODOX, SECULAR HUMANISTIC, LONG-TERM VISION:
Peace will come to that area, not ever through a "2-state solution", but through mutual recognition:
a) the Palestinians need to recognize that the Israelis have brought positive change to the area and have the potential to bring much more still (thus, they are much more than "an occupying power to be thrown into the sea" or whatever); and
b) the religious Zionists need to recognize that Palestinian Arabs also have a right to live in the area, free from coercion and ghetto-ization. Somehow, I would think at least that the Jews of the Diaspora could understand that.
In this sense, the Israeli Arab minority population has a critical viewpoint which needs to be respected and nurtured. My understanding of the demographics is that the group is indeed growing in relation to Israeli society in general, and I consider that one of the most hopeful signals for the long-term.
From a political science point of view, if you asked me: I'd advocate a loose federation as a form of government to consider for the area, with representation levels guaranteed for Jews (perhaps by Reform/Conservative/Orthodox), Arabs, and any other significant minority groups in Palestine. Jerusalem should be an "open city" with permanent United Nations presence--I recommend the Security Council be physically located there! Economic freedoms to own, sell, and develop land should be protected for all--local community boards should control development, and the federation should provide for the common defense, currency, raising revenue, etc., in a loose federal government (actually, something like the new constitution of Iraq!)
I understand that it may take 50 years or more for the conditions to emerge for a stable solution; however, I believe that will be a true basis for a permanent peace. That's what must be pursued. That's how bad I think the short-term prospects look in both countries.
Strategic Application of the "HUSH LTV" Above to Current Domestic Political Calculations:
The new (Peres-less) Labor is the best way to advance the cause of ultimate peace. I sense they are feeling their way toward an aspiration to be a postmodernist state in the European sense, peace with their neighbors being a necessary obstacle along the path toward a general program of regional development. It's workable if they stick to it and get the security guarantees (from Europe and the U.S.) they should be able to get in return. I'm not sure that their sincere dedication to a negotiated two-state solution is right, but I do think it can lead to a closing for the "Chain of Violence" show, after a run of some five years for that farcical tragedy.
Despite my unequivocal preference for Labor, I am grateful for the continuation of Sharon's nascent Kadima party, because it splits the current center from right (on the all-important war vs. peace spectrum--see below). This could actually break the veto power the Israeli religious right has on Israeli policy at some point.
As for the Palestinian elections, key elements are driven by Israeli domestic considerations--whether Israel will allow voting in Jerusalem, whether Israel will allow Hamas to receive the votes and the representation their support might draw in a fully democratic outcome. The man heading the list for Al Fatah--the traditional PLO party of Arafat--is running out of an Israeli prison. These things lead me to believe that these peoples' fates are too deeply intertwined to be thinking of separation as the solution.
Tactically, the way toward peace is to marginalize the extremists at both ends of the war issue (Likud and Hamas, if you will) who advocate programs which directly lead to violence (or are even perpetrators or sponsors of violence). Let them find their common ground (I don't deny that it exists). Give them the chance to gain their fair representation, even make political alliance together for the cause of fomenting continued violence. I'll take the chances of their opponents, the advocates of reconciliation, in that one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
Here's "Kill Arik, Pt. 1", which I found in MY archives recently. It was written in April, 2004:
"Reporting here from Sharon's Wall in the Occupied West Bank Territories, this is Bryant Gumbel the Third for Fox Network News...."
Disclaimers and Apologies (also for Part 2)
I am not making a communication with anyone that has meaning beyond the meanings of this text. I am not proposing any action contrary to U.S. or international law. I am exercising my free speech as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
I am not an anti-Semite, nor anti-Jewish. I respect the ideals of Zionism, and the remarkable courage and determination of those who made Israel into a nation. I have never, though, been in favour of “The Two States Solution”, as enunciated in recent American policy proposals. That is no solution—it has always sounded like apartheid to me. If we want to get chemical about the close proximity of two differing substances and apply the proper scientific name, I’d go for either an Emulsion or a Concatenation.
“Kill Arik, Part 1”
The dismayed, emotional reaction of much of the Arab world—and all Palestinians--to Bush’s recent blanket endorsement of Sharon’s Wall around Israel (and across the West Bank) seems to have caught the Bush Administration off-guard once again.
I can see our political executives thinking it through: what’s the big deal? It (the Wall) is most of the way up already, we’ve been working on the access points and details with the Israelis for months, it’s too much trouble to change the line at this point, etc. I’m sure there were various discussions, resulting in snubs of who found out about it when: who’s second, twelfth, after Wolfowitz’s valet, etc.; therefore some parties weren’t informed how complete the support would be, and that contributes to the emotional response. From the Bush Administration, I’m sure it’s long been an open secret and subject of classified memoranda chat how the decision would go, and, if we listened closely, there was a large sigh of relief that someone did something to take them off the hook before the election.
Certainly, Dubya’s ultimate endorsement was never in doubt. The Wall fits right in with the Bushite philosophy which I will call “fait-accomplism”. You can do it if you can do it. Afterwards, no one has any choice but to accept its existence and go from there. Patriotism will carry things to their destined conclusions. Neither asking permission nor begging forgiveness. The cowboy way. Have I forgotten anything? (I’m “confident” there’s a mistake in there somewhere.)
Yes, the Wall is supposed to be “temporary”: so was the Berlin Wall (“just” 40 years or so), so was the Great Wall of China. (OK, well, that hasn’t fallen yet, but in the geological sense, I’m sure it’s temporary.) This is not a minor decision—it’s one that will be with us for a long time, as a clear symbol of America’s failure as an honest broker in the area.
Yes, there is a strategic ambiguity in the conflicting U.N. Security Council resolutions saying, on the one hand, that Israel has the right to secure and defensible borders; and on the other, expecting Israel to return to the pre-’67 borders. Another one in the U.S. historic policy toward Israel’s settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. Just the kind of openings someone like Sharon will recognize and blow a tank shell through.
You can almost see Sharon ticking off the items on his To Do list: Oslo--erased, no more messy negotiations about borders for a long time. No “road map” (map this, Colin!), no “final status” negotiations on Jerusalem. Palestinian Right of return, check. Referendum, OK. Memorial to Rabin the Peacemaker gets my face and torso. Now all I got to do is fix this messy little indictment thing.
Why, exactly, does the US, in this time of crisis in Iraq, need to approve this horrendous erection right now? Is that going to help us in the delicate negotiations (apparently, yet to begin) with Ayatollah Sistani? The moans and cries of the Palestinians are the sounds one makes when someone powerful and trusted delivers you into the hands of your enemy. I think it’s a safe bet he heard them.
I wish to inform the 15% of undecided voters in 18 states that George W Bush is not really a cowboy. In Western movie terms, he’s more like the guy who has his henchmen knock over the title clerk and change the records to give him the water rights. This is the guy who’s representing us. Yeah, you know: “The World’s Only Remaining Super Pirate.”
--CST
Post a Comment