Change is possible

Change is possible! Here are two contemporary examples: The policy of
France towards Israel, and the decision by the IRA to give up resort to
arms.
France has been the main European antagonist to American policy and has been
hostile to Israel as a presumed puppet of the US. As an opponent of the
Iraq war and a sympathetic supporter of the Palestinians, France has been
essentially an opponent of Israel since the time that Gen. De Gaulle broke
relations after the Six Day war in 1967. Now PM Sharon has made an
incredibly successful State visit to France where he was received
enthusiastically and positively by Pres. Chirac and his administration.
There are four things responsible for this major change: 1. The passing of
Yasir Arafat, who was the darling of the European left, and now his
influence is gone from the scene; 2. The segue from the anti-Saddam war in
Iraq to the insurgency; 3. The upsurge of Muslim terrorism in the UK and
elsewhere in Europe, and 4. The Gaza disengagement plan, which has been
undertaken by Sharon partly to undermine European objections to Israeli
policy and earn "brownie" points with European leaders.
Although this dramatic turnaround could not have been predicted, if it had
not happened at least with one European leader, this would have been a
failure of the policy. As it is, Sharon must be congratulated for having
pulled off a major diplomatic coup. Some might argue, who needs France
anyway, but there is the feeling that a corner has been turned in
Euro-Israeli relations. France is a supporter of Lebanese sovereignty, an
opponent of Iranian nuclear development, and a supporter of PA Pres. Abbas
and an opponent of Palestinian terrorism, all subjects on which there is
accord with Israeli policies. Stranger things than this have happened, but
not many.
The IRA's decision to forgo the use of "armed struggle" is a watershed in
Irish history. For the first time the main Republican party has decided to
seek change only by peaceful means. Of course, some Unionists and others
are a bit skeptical, but the statement issued by Gerry Adams of Sinn Fein
appears unambiguous.
Why now? The IRA has been under pressure for some time to take this step ,
but has until now stopped short. There are two possible reasons for the
change, first the murder of Mr. McCartney in a pub in Belfast that has
brought enormous negative PR against the IRA, including the visits of his
sisters to Washington and London. Second, the advent of domestic terrorism
in Britain. The IRA does not want to be tarnished with the same brush as
the Muslim extremist terrorists. Since the IRA have used terrorism against
Britain in the past they do not want to be seen as an enemy of Britain while
Britain is under attack, they do not want to be misconstrued as sympathizers
with the Islamist agenda. But, perhaps the main reason is that change does
occur, the Irish people on both sides of the divide have become
disillusioned by the use of violence, it has achieved nothing. Now is the
time for peaceful solutions.
That time has unfortunately not yet come for the Palestinians, who still see
violence, the "armed struggle," as the main means to attain their goals.
Maybe the unilateral Israeli disengagement will persuade them otherwise, but
unfortunately they are not sophisticated enough to appreciate the concept of
selective tactical withdrawal. The terrorist groups will interpret it as a
victory for their strategy. Nevertheless, the IRA move could be considered
a model for their own future.
To those who argue against the disengagement policy on the cynical grounds
that the Palestinians cannot change, that nothing does change, I say that
change is indeed possible, and we must act accordingly, with cautious hope.