Peace at any price?
The popular view is that peace is the best outcome for all concerned, if only it could be reached. But, the complexity of the current situation, particularly the split between Hamas and Fatah, makes a peaceful outcome unlikely in the foreseeable future. Fatah is not only unable to take back Gaza, it can hardly control the West Bank, and it is not in Israel's interests to attempt to "destroy" Hamas and do the dirty work for the Fatah/PA in order to restore Palestinian unity. Also, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have been engaged in a fruitless attempt trying to unify Hamas and Fatah for some time without success.
There are three future possibilities:
1. Hamas and Fatah can't overcome their differences, in which case Israel and the US can deal with the Fatah/PA, but cannot make a peace treaty without Gaza, according to both Pres. Abbas and PM Olmert.
2. Hamas and Fatah overcome their differences and form a unity Government on behalf of all Palestinians. That would mean that Hamas had control over Palestinian Govt. operations and functions and neither Israel nor the US could deal with them.
3. Hamas takes over the West Bank, and there is no possibility of a peace process, missiles may rain down on Israel from the West Bank and there is the possibility of another war with Israel.
These options are pessimistic, but, there are two potentially positive outcomes:
1. Israel will in the meantime continue to develop and entrench itself as a State while the Palestinians will continue to be fractured and in need of international welfare, in other words the gap between Israel and the (two) Palestines will continue to increase.
2. Hamas in Gaza will gradually lose power due to its recent defeat, due to lack of Iranian funds to support its military designs against Israel and due to the Obama Administration's influence on the Sunni Arab world.
The future is unknoweable and we cannot tell what unforeseen events might drastically affect it, such as an attack on the Iranian nuclear facilities, or some kind of agreement with Iran made by Obama, however unlikely that may seem.
These are all ctors that will affect Sen. George Mitchell's options as he comes to grips with the intractable nature of the Middle East problem, and it is much more complex now than when he dealt with it previously (when he wrote a report about the 2001 Intifada for Pres. Clinton). Now as well as the Arab world against Israel, there is the Islamist world of Shiite Iran taking the initiative. If Mitchell can help to develop the nascent alliance of the Sunni Arab States (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia) and Israel as an anti-Iranian/Shia bloc that would also be a great accomplishment. But, reaching for actual peace in the next few years seems an unattainable dream, even for someone who helped Ireland achieve the impossible.
There are three future possibilities:
1. Hamas and Fatah can't overcome their differences, in which case Israel and the US can deal with the Fatah/PA, but cannot make a peace treaty without Gaza, according to both Pres. Abbas and PM Olmert.
2. Hamas and Fatah overcome their differences and form a unity Government on behalf of all Palestinians. That would mean that Hamas had control over Palestinian Govt. operations and functions and neither Israel nor the US could deal with them.
3. Hamas takes over the West Bank, and there is no possibility of a peace process, missiles may rain down on Israel from the West Bank and there is the possibility of another war with Israel.
These options are pessimistic, but, there are two potentially positive outcomes:
1. Israel will in the meantime continue to develop and entrench itself as a State while the Palestinians will continue to be fractured and in need of international welfare, in other words the gap between Israel and the (two) Palestines will continue to increase.
2. Hamas in Gaza will gradually lose power due to its recent defeat, due to lack of Iranian funds to support its military designs against Israel and due to the Obama Administration's influence on the Sunni Arab world.
The future is unknoweable and we cannot tell what unforeseen events might drastically affect it, such as an attack on the Iranian nuclear facilities, or some kind of agreement with Iran made by Obama, however unlikely that may seem.
These are all ctors that will affect Sen. George Mitchell's options as he comes to grips with the intractable nature of the Middle East problem, and it is much more complex now than when he dealt with it previously (when he wrote a report about the 2001 Intifada for Pres. Clinton). Now as well as the Arab world against Israel, there is the Islamist world of Shiite Iran taking the initiative. If Mitchell can help to develop the nascent alliance of the Sunni Arab States (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia) and Israel as an anti-Iranian/Shia bloc that would also be a great accomplishment. But, reaching for actual peace in the next few years seems an unattainable dream, even for someone who helped Ireland achieve the impossible.
posted by Jack Cohen at 9:01 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home