Below, a couple of articles in the wake of the latest Israeli assault which
again underline that the US-backed Israeli objective is to pummel Gaza until
the "moderate" leadership of Hamas falls into line with the Fatah-led PA and
submits to an enfeebled Palestinian state which would effectively be a satrapy
of Israel. The first piece by Richard Haass of the influential Council on
Foreign Relations reiterates that the key to such a settlement lies in
splitting Hamas in accordance with the Northern Ireland model which brought the
IRA's political leadership to the peace table. The second item, by Fareed
Zakaria, writing in the Washington Post, shows the scale of Israel's
overwhelming military superiority which it expects will accomplish this
objective by grinding down the beseiged and bombarded Palestinians until they
lose all will to resist.
Israel should learn from Northern Ireland
By Richard Haass
Financial Times
November 21, 2012
Israeli missiles continued to fall on Gaza; meanwhile, a bus was blown up in
Tel Aviv. But by the end of Wednesday, a ceasefire agreement between Israel and
Hamas, and brokered by Egypt and the US, was signed. However, there is a big
difference between a truce that is an interlude between rounds of fighting and
one that presages a promising political process. It might take a willingness to
learn from Northern Ireland, of all places, to tip the scales towards the
latter.
Decades of violence – “the troubles” – set the backdrop to negotiations.
Success had its roots in British policy. London’s objective was to end the
terrorism and bring about a political settlement. Doing so required persuading
the Provisional IRA that it would never be able to shoot or bomb its way into
power and that there was a political path open to it that would satisfy some of
its goals and many of its supporters, if it would act responsibly.
The government of Israel has internalised the first but not the second part of
Britain’s strategy. Israel has carried out massive air strikes that have
reportedly destroyed the bulk of Hamas’s Iran-supplied, longer-range missiles
and killed dozens of Palestinians, including Hamas’s military chief.
But military force has limits. Israel cannot bludgeon the Palestinians into
submission. Nor should it want to reoccupy Gaza: there is no reason to believe
the results would be any better this time round.
Israel needs a Palestinian partner if it is ever to enjoy peace and be the
secure, prosperous, democratic, Jewish state it deserves to be. But such a
partner will not just emerge; Israel, as the stronger party, actually needs to
help the process along.
Right now Israel has two potential but deeply flawed partners. The Palestinian
Authority in the West Bank has an apparent desire to make peace but is too weak
to make meaningful concessions. Hamas is easily strong enough but is unwilling
to reject violence and accept Israel.
So Israel has a choice: it can work to strengthen the secular leadership on the
West Bank or it can work to moderate Hamas. The former argues for dropping
sanctions put in place to weaken and humiliate the PA. The latter means not
just frustrating Hamas militarily but demonstrating that negotiation is likely
to yield better results.
It is not clear whether Hamas is open to compromise. Even less clear, though,
is what it has accomplished with this latest round of fighting. Hamas has again
demonstrated its willingness to take the fight to Israel but also its inability
to get results.
What has made the Hamas action singularly counterproductive was that it came on
the heels of a visit to Gaza by Qatar’s prime minister and an infusion of
financial support. Hamas had essentially weaned itself from dependence on Iran
and Syria only to squander the opportunity.
Hamas is in competition with the PA that rules over the West Bank for who
represents all Palestinians. Hamas enjoys an advantage, though: its agenda of
political Islam much better captures the zeitgeist in Egypt and throughout the
region, whereas those ruling the West Bank, including many former associates of
Yassir Arafat, are widely seen as in the image of Arab strongmen who have been
removed from power.
But Hamas only benefits from this comparison if it fully embraces political
Islam as a means and not just an end. Distancing itself from armed aggression
will not deliver a viable Palestinian state.
Israel needs to put Hamas to the test. It can do this by putting forward the
outlines of a fair and comprehensive settlement and a reasonable path for
getting there. The US should work closely with Israel in framing this proposal.
Hillary Clinton, secretary of state, should use the rest of her time in the
region to urge this course. Her goal should be to stimulate a debate in the
Arab and Palestinian worlds that would press Hamas to change its ways or risk
being caught between those who are even more radical and those prepared to
compromise.
This was the dynamic created in Belfast. In the end, Gerry Adams and Martin
McGuinness – the leaders of Northern Ireland’s Hamas equivalent – met the
British challenge. They put down their arms, entered the political process and
reached agreement with those they had fought for decades. Leaders of both
communities deserve credit – but no more than the British, Irish and US
governments that created a context for diplomacy.
It is up to Israel, the US and Arab governments to do the same now. No one can
be certain the effort will pay off; what is sure, though, is that the choices
and options will only become worse with the passage of time.
The writer is the president of the Council on Foreign Relations. He was the US
envoy to the Northern Ireland peace process from 2001-03
*
* *
Israel dominates the new Middle East
By Fareed Zakaria
Washington Post
Wednesday, November 21, 8:10 PM
As missiles and rockets exploded in Israel and Gaza, television news was
dominated by the tragic violence, and we were warned that the battle between
Israel and the Palestinians might spread because we are in a new and much more
dangerous Middle East. Islamists are in power, democracies will listen to their
people. In fact, as the relatively quick cease-fire between the parties shows,
there is a very low likelihood of a broader regional conflict. It’s true that
we’re in a new Middle East, but it’s one in which Israel has become the
region’s superpower.
In a thorough 2010 study, “The Arab-Israeli Military Balance,” Anthony
Cordesman and Aram Nerguizian document how over the past decade Israel has
outstripped its neighbors in every dimension of warfare. The authors attribute
this to Israel’s “combination of national expenditures, massive external
funding, national industrial capacity and effective strategy and force
planning.” Israel’s military expenditures in 2009 were about $10 billion, which
is three times Egypt’s military spending and larger than the combined defense
expenditures of all its neighbors — Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. (This
advantage is helped by the fact that Israel receives $3 billion in military
assistance from Washington.)
But money doesn’t begin to describe Israel’s real advantages, which are in the
quality and effectiveness of its military, in terms of both weapons and people.
Despite being dwarfed by the Arab population, Israel’s army plus its
high-quality reservists vastly outnumber those of the Arab nations. Its weapons
are far more sophisticated, often a generation ahead of those used by its
adversaries. Israel’s technology advantage has profound implications on the
modern battlefield.
The most powerful Arab military, and the one against which Israel is often
judged in scholarly studies, is Syria’s. But of course the Syrian army is now
in turmoil as it battles its own people and Bashar al-Assad hangs on to power.
Then there are the asymmetrical threats from groups such as Hezbollah and
Hamas. The study takes a look at them and analyzes Hezbollah’s huge arsenal of
missiles. The authors conclude that these pose no real threat to Israel because
the missiles are largely unguided and thus ineffective. Hamas’s rockets are
even more crude and ineffective. Israel’s response, its “Iron Dome” defense
system, has worked better than expected.
As for terrorism, the other asymmetrical strategy against Israel: Despite
Wednesday’s attack on a bus in Tel Aviv, Israel is largely protected from
terrorists because of the wall it built in 2003.
As for larger threats, the study points out that Israel is the only country in
the region with a sophisticated nuclear arsenal — estimated to be between 100
and 500 weapons, many of them on submarines — and advanced ballistic missiles.
This is why Egypt, despite being under a new Islamist government, is not going
to risk war with Israel. Nor are the other Arab states. They will make fiery
speeches and offer humanitarian assistance. But they will not fight alongside
the Palestinians in Gaza or do anything that could trigger a wider war.
Turkey, another powerful regional player, has a government that has weakened
its ties with Israel and clashed with it repeatedly over its treatment of the
Palestinians. But these are verbal clashes, unlikely to amount to much more. In
fact, Turkey is now facing a situation in which its efforts to become a
regional power have backfired. It gambled that it would be able to dislodge the
regime in Syria, which has not yet happened. Its relations with Iraq have
deteriorated as it shields the Sunni vice president from Baghdad’s Shiite-led
government, which wants to arrest him. And since Turkey has frosty relations
with Israel, it can only watch from afar as Egypt becomes the bridge between
Israel and Hamas. The only real outside broker in the region is, of course, the
United States, Israel’s closest ally.
These are the realities of the Middle East today. Israel’s astonishing economic
growth, its technological prowess, its military preparedness and its tight
relationship with the United States have set it a league apart from its Arab
adversaries. Peace between the Palestinians and Israelis will come only when
Israel decides that it wants to make peace. Wise Israeli politicians, from
Ariel Sharon to Ehud Olmert to Ehud Barak, have wanted to take risks to make
that peace because they have worried about Israel’s future as a Jewish and
democratic state. This is what is in danger, not Israel’s existence.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
