I apologize for my relative lack of posting in the last month; I've got quite a number of ideas that should be posted over the next few weeks, time permitting.
I'd like to discuss the ongoing civil war between Fatah and Hamas, occurring mainly in the Gaza Strip. For the last month, I've been following the stories about Fatah-Hamas ceasefires that last for hours, about endless unity government talks that go nowhere, and about the general escalation of violence between the two sides: kidnappings, assassinations, ambushes, overrunning enemy posts, weapons buildup, etc. It is clear to me that no amount of Egyptian mediation or Israeli restraint is going to settle these issues; Fatah and Hamas are going to keep duking it out in the absence of a serious external threat (Israel has wisely refrained from Gaza operations). One of the two will eventually establish a sort of control (though a bloody one), and that will be that. Hamas has greater strength in Gaza (and is being bankrolled much more effectively by Iran), but Fatah has overall numbers, the aura of Western legitimacy, etc.
What struck me, though, was that the world doesn't seem to care much about Palestinian casualties when they're doing it to themselves. Oh, the papers mention it, but over twenty people were just killed (including 4bona fide kids) in about 36 hours, just days after the beginning of a 'cease fire' (clearly, they are using the Palestinian definition of a cease fire). In the past year, 660 Palestinians died due to Israeli action (roughly; the figures are somewhat disputed). That means for ALL of the territories, this averages to less than two fatalities per day.
These fatalities are reported on endlessly and with a great deal of fanfare - and justifiably so, that's a fairly high level of 'background' violence, even including the Gaza offensive after the Shalit abduction in June. Yet when the Palestinians are killing each other at a rate five times that (and the last 36 hours is hardly unique; every time the cease fire fails, violence like this breaks out), it seems like most of the world doesn't care. (I find the contrast striking, though, as Israeli weapons and training are far more sophisticated than Palestinian ones. It suggests that Israeli violence against Palestinians is highly restrained and focused, despite the unfortunate levels of unwanted casualties.)
To be honest, I understand - I don't really care, either. I find this troubling. Yes, I understand that both Fatah and Hamas are full of nasty pieces of work, and I'd prefer they be killing each other (and that it's them killing their own civilians, and not us) rather than aiming at Israel. Yet I still find it troubling. Don't the residents of Gaza deserve some peace and quiet? When they support terrorist attacks on Israel, they will unfortunately bear some of the burden for the response. But this is just ridiculous.
Does this violence somehow presage what a new Palestinian state will look like? Let's
imagine that Israel does pull out most of the West Bank and establishes a land swap/etc. for the rest. They'll remove their control of the Palestinian borders, and recognize Palestinian sovereignty. Does this mean that Palestinian suffering will end?
I think not. I think the state will fall apart in internecine strife between religious and nationalist elements; I think this will eventually lead to the nuts (ie Islamic Jihad, parts of Hamas, etc.) being able to successfully carry out terrorist attacks on Israel, necessitating a Palestinian-Israeli war (rather than an internal conflict, which has been the case until now).
So, for this post, I challenge you to suggest how to establish Palestinian stability and peace. Let's ignore the issue of Israeli security for now; assuming that is assured, how can the Palestinians make a government that will make their lives better?
I'm at a loss on this one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
How to establish Palestinian stability and peace 101.
1) leave them alone
2) let them continue to fight their civil wars between Fatah and Hamas until civilians begin realizing that neither group has the answer
3) let the civilians seek external help for stability. they will get this from stable, non-terrorist-related, sources
The End.
wishful thinking I know, but nothing good can come out of going into Gaza right now
Well, it looks like they're using a pretext (Israeli 'destruction' of the Temple Mount) to mobilize the Palestinian street again, again ensuring that Israel will bear the brunt of their violent attacks.
Intafada Three, anyone?
Even if the above doesn't happen, I'm somewhat skeptical of your plan. I've been of the opinion for some time that a solution cannot be externally imposed on the Palestinians (it must come from themselves), but I don't think sitting back and waiting for it to happen is the best. For one, Israel is far too involved in the process to allow an external power much leeway in Gaza (especially as most such powers would be Arab nations with dubious relations with Israel)... also, the current status quo isn't one Israel can really accept.
I've talked quite a bit about a "Defensive Shield" style operation in the Gaza Strip. I don't think now is the time to do it, but if Fatah and Hamas can put themselves together and again start seriously threatening Israeli interests, I think it will be required. *sighs* Tough to know what option is best to take. I don't envy Olmert (although I certainly don't have the best opinion of his decision-making track record so far...).
Thanks for the thoughts.
Ender
I don't think Hamas and Fatah can really be reconciled until there's a wider movement in the Islamic world to delegitimize violence and create an Islamic culture based on progress and the future and not stagnation and the past.
*nods* How can this be fostered/created, though, Hans? (BTW, is that supposed to be for Morgenthau?)
I agree the solution cannot be one imposed externally, but we see the same problems time and time again. When not being controlled by someone (whether it be Saddam, Israel, or any number of others), most Arab (or is it Muslim?) groups tend to fall into serious and violent sectarian divides that tend to destroy any hopes of democracy or freedom for these peoples.
This, I think, is the fundamental misconception of those in the US who advocate 'nation building' in the Middle East. While I understand the need to topple dictatorial regimes with policies inimical towards US interests, I think their logic of the aftermath is rooted in a fundamentally Western understanding of a very non-Western society.
Ender
Good guess about Morgenthau. :) Hm, I don't even know where to start there. If I knew the answer, I'd be a rich man.
The only times in modern history (and mind you, this all happened before the advent of mass communication and transportation, which might very well have made nationalism a far larger barrier than it was in the past) where a country managed to forcefully alter another country's culture required a near annihilation of the latter (not necessarily by the former) and a long-term occupation (I'm thinking mostly of Germany, Japan, and the entities composing the Soviet Union). You can't really impose a new system until the old one is thoroughly discredited, and I don't think anything short of a nuclear holocaust would have that effect.
The most we can do is promoting economic reform and political liberalization (which is not the same as democratization; it means more civil liberties but not more political freedom). Even if one or more Muslim countries were to become more stable and less interested in violence, there is little reason to think that this change would spread. The Muslim world is fractured, and saying that a Turk or an Indonesian is doing x is not going to persuade an Arab or a Persian to do x.
I think with the exception of incredibly isolationist regimes, the US really has no business attempting regime changes, as the regimes were there in the first place for a reason. Sure, getting rid of Kim or Castro might bring about change, but getting rid of Assad or the al-Sauds will not. It might conceivably be possible to transform another country, but the costs of doing would be so large that it's inconceivable that the US would be willing to bear them.
Interesting thoughts.
I don't know how much time you spend checking out American-Israelis who aren't part of the government/media, but I've seen a lot discussion among them about Germany, Japan, and 'enlightened' occupations. I have yet to see a really incisive analysis explaining what went right about those two occupations, and why the US (and Israel, among others) are failing so miserably nowadays at imposing some level of order and peacefulness on the populations. Maybe it's because Iraq and the territories haven't been adequately beaten, or insufficient forces alloted for the task... but I think it's something more subtle that we're mostly missing.
There are lots of factors we can point to: relative timidity due to fears of censure in the 'international community' that wouldn't have existed in the Cold War, religious and cultural issues that weren't present (at least not to the same extent) in WWII Germany and Japan, legacies of colonialism in determining Middle Eastern borders with little regard to intelligent border-making, etc. These are reasonable points (and your suggestions on what we can do are good ones), but they leave me somewhat unsatisfied.
I guess I'm just searching for some over-arching paradigm that we're missing, that will bring all of these murky issues into focus. Maybe I'm dreaming that such a paradigm exists... or maybe it's just that we don't have sufficient historical distance to see it. Oh, well.
Thanks for the thoughts!
I actually have a book by the RAND Institute that analyzes previous occupations. I haven't read it in a while though. I recall some factors it mentioned was the amount of soldiers per 1000 people being occupied (millions occupied Germany, which was only three times the size of Iraq), amount of money spent per 1000 people being occupied (far more was spent in Bosnia than in Iraq or Afghanistan).
But I think it's hard to discount the effect of mass communication on nationalism. Let's not forget that Israel had very few problems occupying Palestine from '67 until the mid-80s. Plus the Germans or Japanese who wanted to do something against the occupation in the '40s had a very limited set of tools at his disposal. Now we have suicide belts and IEDs. There was also a far higher tolerance for casualties back then. Killing a few thousand Americans wouldn't end the occupation.
In the end, it comes down to a cost-benefit analysis. The occupied population is able to extract a higher cost for the occupation, and the tolerance for high costs no longer exists.
Post a Comment