Developments in Gaza
In the June 17th issue of Newsday, an opinion piece by Sonia Verma drew my attention with a rather bold title: "Dream of Palestinian state is dead." Due to the violent events of this past weekend, which resulted in a Hamas-controlled Gaza and a Fatah-controlled West Bank, Ms. Verma claimed that "any sort of meaningful peace process with Israel is lost." She based this assertion on the idea that, with Palestinian nationalism now irrevocably divided, the two state solution is no longer feasible, as there is no longer anyone with the popular authority required to steer an independent Palestine.
It seems to me that Ms. Verma has described only one possible outcome where there are innumerable possibilities. With Hamas now controlling Gaza and Fatah controlling the West Bank, it seems to me that the two state solution is more workable than ever. The evidence that a Palestine could arise under Fatah in the West Bank is very strong. It includes the continual dialog between Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, as well as the fact that, with Hamas out of the equation, the West (including the US) has resumed its aid for Palestinians in the West Bank and lifted the embargo against it. Progress is sure to continue.
The result of this is sure to be dichotomous. While the 2.5 million residents of the West Bank would be sure to benefit in nearly all respects if the political divide became permanent and this in turn resulted in the rise of an independent Palestine there, the 1.5 million people in Gaza would be (if it is indeed possible) worse off than they are now. As long as Hamas continues to profess its desire for the dissolution of Israel, it cannot progress further. Hamas will be hard-pressed to continue providing the same infrastructure to the people of Gaza that won it 73 seats in parliament in 2004, especially when one considers the fact that, with Fatah gone, Western nations will feel less inclined than ever to lend support to whatever government may soon arise in Gaza. The results could be disastrous.
While proponents of peace should rejoice in the fact that the split between Hamas and Fatah will give 2.5 million people an eventual path to true self-determination and economic stability, they must remember that 1.5 million others are in a very precarious position as a result. As conditions get worse, the situation becomes more hopeless, and violence inevitably increases, we must remember not to vilify the people of Gaza as their small region begins to look more and more like the Mogadishu of the late 90's, though suicide bombing is clearly wrong. Rather, the people who can be vilified are the dogmatic leaders of Hamas, who admit to not wanting peace.
I have faith in Israel, and I believe that, when faced with the opportunity to set things right with the Palestinian people, it will do the right thing and grant statehood. Likewise, I believe that the events of this past weekend will give Mahmoud Abbas the chance to make good on his word and to come to the table in good faith, wanting only what is best for the people of the West Bank. Hopefully, this will serve as an example to the people of Gaza. Hopefully.
It seems to me that Ms. Verma has described only one possible outcome where there are innumerable possibilities. With Hamas now controlling Gaza and Fatah controlling the West Bank, it seems to me that the two state solution is more workable than ever. The evidence that a Palestine could arise under Fatah in the West Bank is very strong. It includes the continual dialog between Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, as well as the fact that, with Hamas out of the equation, the West (including the US) has resumed its aid for Palestinians in the West Bank and lifted the embargo against it. Progress is sure to continue.
The result of this is sure to be dichotomous. While the 2.5 million residents of the West Bank would be sure to benefit in nearly all respects if the political divide became permanent and this in turn resulted in the rise of an independent Palestine there, the 1.5 million people in Gaza would be (if it is indeed possible) worse off than they are now. As long as Hamas continues to profess its desire for the dissolution of Israel, it cannot progress further. Hamas will be hard-pressed to continue providing the same infrastructure to the people of Gaza that won it 73 seats in parliament in 2004, especially when one considers the fact that, with Fatah gone, Western nations will feel less inclined than ever to lend support to whatever government may soon arise in Gaza. The results could be disastrous.
While proponents of peace should rejoice in the fact that the split between Hamas and Fatah will give 2.5 million people an eventual path to true self-determination and economic stability, they must remember that 1.5 million others are in a very precarious position as a result. As conditions get worse, the situation becomes more hopeless, and violence inevitably increases, we must remember not to vilify the people of Gaza as their small region begins to look more and more like the Mogadishu of the late 90's, though suicide bombing is clearly wrong. Rather, the people who can be vilified are the dogmatic leaders of Hamas, who admit to not wanting peace.
I have faith in Israel, and I believe that, when faced with the opportunity to set things right with the Palestinian people, it will do the right thing and grant statehood. Likewise, I believe that the events of this past weekend will give Mahmoud Abbas the chance to make good on his word and to come to the table in good faith, wanting only what is best for the people of the West Bank. Hopefully, this will serve as an example to the people of Gaza. Hopefully.
posted by Dan Isaac @ 9:55 AM
1 Comments:
At 1:36 PM,
Will Brideau said…
The fact that Hamas openly rejects peace as a solution for their problems is continually depressing and disheartening. I cannot speak enough about the importance of compromise. Even in small issues and conflicts, compromise can be the one tool that resets the balance.
Case in point: check out Iran. Recently the Iranian government agreed to severely cut its uranium enrichment program, but the US said that it had to completely halt it. Never mind the fact that the United States has the largest atomic arsenal on the planet, and that we're the only country who has ever used atomic bombs against others (and on civilians, no less)...I can imagine it would be totally infuriating to have another country come in and tell your country what to do, no ifs ands or buts about it. Not that I think people should be enriching uranium to use in any weapons AT ALL, but failing to compromise seems to be a surefire way to compound your problems infinitely.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home