Sunday, January 29, 2006
More about Hamas
Several pundits, writing in newspapers and talking on TV, state that the election of HAMAS in Palestine spoils what chances there were for peace in the region. Hamas will not recognize that Israel even has a right to exist; therefore, what hope is there of a negotiated settlement? For example, David Grossman writes in the Los Angeles Times for Sunday, January 29, as follows:
HAMAS' electoral victory is a severe blow to the chances for peace between Palestinians and Israelis. This fact is incontestable and should not be taken lightly. Both sides have much less room to maneuver than they had before the election; the opportunity for a real compromise, one that will hold up in the long term, has almost entirely dissipated.
I disagree with this assessment. The chances for a peaceful, negotiated settlement were between miniscule and zero before the recent election. The election has not diminished the chances for peace; there was no prospect for peace in the long run in any case.
Israel will hold its own election in a few weeks. National security will be the first issue in the minds of most voters. I expect that they will vote their fear of suicide bombers rather than their hope of peace; that is, I expect a new Israeli government dominated by Likud and hard-line settler parties.
There will then be in each country a government that agrees with the other on at least one important issue: There should be a single state for all of Biblical Israel (or Palestine) and the other government should cease to exist. That is, Hamas wants all the land and so does Likud. Hamas denies the legitimacy of Israel. Many Israeli politicians deny the legitimacy or even the existence of a “Palestinian” people.
To me the sad part of this story is that it could have been prevented. The United States was instrumental in the original establishment of the State of Eretz Israel in 1948. The United States could and should have used its influence on both the Israelis and the Palestinians to impose a reasonable settlement, starting with a defined border between the two states. Instead, our various administrations, both Democratic and Republican, diddles and fiddled. American domestic politics prevented any administration from taking a strong stand against the continued encroachments of Israeli settlements on the land that was left for the Palestinians. American foreign policy, attuned to keeping friends in the oil-rich Arab world, refrained from applying pressure on the Palestinian leaders at the time (Arafat and others) to accept or to make counter proposals to various Israeli offers.
We had our chance to influence the shape of things in the Holy Land. Democratic elections this year, both in Palestine and soon to occur in Israel, have frozen us out. We are now left to threaten, to plead, and to wait.
I hope I’m wrong.
HAMAS' electoral victory is a severe blow to the chances for peace between Palestinians and Israelis. This fact is incontestable and should not be taken lightly. Both sides have much less room to maneuver than they had before the election; the opportunity for a real compromise, one that will hold up in the long term, has almost entirely dissipated.
I disagree with this assessment. The chances for a peaceful, negotiated settlement were between miniscule and zero before the recent election. The election has not diminished the chances for peace; there was no prospect for peace in the long run in any case.
Israel will hold its own election in a few weeks. National security will be the first issue in the minds of most voters. I expect that they will vote their fear of suicide bombers rather than their hope of peace; that is, I expect a new Israeli government dominated by Likud and hard-line settler parties.
There will then be in each country a government that agrees with the other on at least one important issue: There should be a single state for all of Biblical Israel (or Palestine) and the other government should cease to exist. That is, Hamas wants all the land and so does Likud. Hamas denies the legitimacy of Israel. Many Israeli politicians deny the legitimacy or even the existence of a “Palestinian” people.
To me the sad part of this story is that it could have been prevented. The United States was instrumental in the original establishment of the State of Eretz Israel in 1948. The United States could and should have used its influence on both the Israelis and the Palestinians to impose a reasonable settlement, starting with a defined border between the two states. Instead, our various administrations, both Democratic and Republican, diddles and fiddled. American domestic politics prevented any administration from taking a strong stand against the continued encroachments of Israeli settlements on the land that was left for the Palestinians. American foreign policy, attuned to keeping friends in the oil-rich Arab world, refrained from applying pressure on the Palestinian leaders at the time (Arafat and others) to accept or to make counter proposals to various Israeli offers.
We had our chance to influence the shape of things in the Holy Land. Democratic elections this year, both in Palestine and soon to occur in Israel, have frozen us out. We are now left to threaten, to plead, and to wait.
I hope I’m wrong.
