I argued in one of my earlier posts that the Arab-Israeli conflict might be over
- it has been superseded by the Iranian vs. Israel+'moderate Arab states' confrontation. Therefore the Palestinian issue will gradually lose it importance as some of the Arab countries will drift toward Israel.
Perhaps, it will develop according to the European scenario a hundred years ago, when, after hundreds (!) of years of bloody wars, England and France concluded entente against Germany and then instigated the war which resulted in the fall of most of the European monarchies. In the case of Europe this took about a hundred years (between Napoleonic wars and the World War 1), and one may expect that similar developments in the Middle East will take some 50-100 years.
However, creation of one more artificial state in the Middle East (i.e. the Palestinian State) is unlikely to affect this dynamics in a positive way. Particularly so, because at the moment there are all reasons to think that this will be a totalitarian state (Mr. Abbas, negotiating the peace treaty, is currently in the 72nd month of his 48 month term. He is quite unpopular and keeps his hold to power by means of arresting his political opponents, which are themselves no better.)
What Palestinians really need is a plan for economic development, which will allow them in future integrate into the Palestinian Republic of Jordan)) Whether the Palestinian state will be created or not, the reunification of the Palestinians in future is as certain as the reunification of West and East Germany was, and this means collapse of the Jordanian monarchy.
Of course, this scenario is based on two assumptions which are at odds with the official position of the US State Department:
1)the Iran-Israel+ conflict is already defining the Middle East politics;
2)Arab dictatorships and monarchies are even less sustainable than the Israeli occupation of the territories. (The King of Jordan is particularly concerned, this is why he is acutely interested in the two state solution - this is the only way to postpone the fall of the Jordanian monarchy.)
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Saturday, December 18, 2010
"Peace Now" Myth
http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2010/1209_israel_public_opinion_telhami.aspx
The article above contains the links to the recent poll, showing the attitudes of the Israeli Jewish and Arab population towards peace process. The analysis is presented here: http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=199813
The striking fact is that 91% of Israeli Jews and 88% of Israeli Arabs think that it will take more than 5 years to achieve peace, or that it may never come. This is remarkably in a contradiction with the impression that you may get from listening politicians (both right and left) or reading the media (either right or left).
Indeed, the most suitable time for making peace is always "now": this is how it was during Clinton, this is what George W. Bush promised before the Annapolis (he insisted that a peace agreement could be made before the end of his presidency, leaving for negotiations less than a year), this is what president Obama promised upon entering the office (his prognosis fluctuated at different times between a year and two years, although the latest initiative implied that all the key issued can be settle within 90 days.)
One cannot but note that all the peace-making efforts are based on two unproven assumptions:
1. Peace is a matter of reaching a political agreement between Israeli government and the Palestinian "representatives"
2. Peace can be achieved within a short period of time (1-2 years).
I would like to stress, that I am not takings sides here in terms of ascribing the fault for non-peace to either side of the conflict - this can be debated. What I would like to stress is that the above-mentioned assumptions are ungrounded.
These assumptions ignore the following:
a) Palestinian "representatives", i.e. Palestinian Authority, are not really the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people. This is demonstrated by popularity of the alternative Palestinian groups (Hamas etc.), was clearly demonstrated in the Palestinian elections, is implicitly confirmed by the reluctance of the Palestinian Authority to call for the new parliamentary and presidential elections. Moreover, the Palestinian Authority does not control part of the Palestinian territory (Gaza) and cannot promise that this part will conform to any agreement between PA and Israel.
b) Political agreement alone will not change the people's attitudes, i.e. as long as there are Arabs willing to kill Jews and Jews willing to settle illegally on Arab land, the peace will be nothing more than a declaration on paper. Enforcing the peace agreement against these groups or convincing them to change their attitudes is unlikely to be accomplished within a year or two. More likely, since we are dealing with the groups whose vision was formed by the conflict during which their were born and raised, we need to expect that any change in their attitude/behavior will take at least a generation.
c) An agreement made on paper will not remove the economical/social reasons that force people to prefer armed fight (or settlement on the territories) over peaceful existence (settling within the recognized Israel borders). This would require change of economic and social conditions as within the Palestinian territories, as well as within Israel. (e.g. by enabling Palestinians to earn decent living by means other than serving in a militant organization, and by reducing the Influence of religion in the Israeli society.)
d) We have already witnessed 20 years of efforts to make peace which have not produced any results. Taking 20 years as a characteristic time of the "peace process" it is unreasonable to predict any significant changes within an interval of time which is an order of magnitude shorter. (I admit that this is a purely scientific argument.)
To some extent these opinions were voice by Benyamin Netanyahu, who introduced the concept of "economic peace" and by Avigdor Lieberman, who stated that peace is unlikely to come in our lifetime. In view of the preceding discussion I expect the reader to recognize the validity of these points of view regardless of the one's attitude towards these two political leaders.
Unfortunately, upon becoming the prime minister, Netanyahu had to subscribe to the delusion of "Peace Now", i.e. peace within 1-2 years. The politician who can actually bring the peace is the one who will be able to confront the Israeli public and the "international community" with the difficult truth: Peace Now is impossible. Making peace may take several decades. Here is the plan of what we must do during this time in order to make the peace come.
The article above contains the links to the recent poll, showing the attitudes of the Israeli Jewish and Arab population towards peace process. The analysis is presented here: http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=199813
The striking fact is that 91% of Israeli Jews and 88% of Israeli Arabs think that it will take more than 5 years to achieve peace, or that it may never come. This is remarkably in a contradiction with the impression that you may get from listening politicians (both right and left) or reading the media (either right or left).
Indeed, the most suitable time for making peace is always "now": this is how it was during Clinton, this is what George W. Bush promised before the Annapolis (he insisted that a peace agreement could be made before the end of his presidency, leaving for negotiations less than a year), this is what president Obama promised upon entering the office (his prognosis fluctuated at different times between a year and two years, although the latest initiative implied that all the key issued can be settle within 90 days.)
One cannot but note that all the peace-making efforts are based on two unproven assumptions:
1. Peace is a matter of reaching a political agreement between Israeli government and the Palestinian "representatives"
2. Peace can be achieved within a short period of time (1-2 years).
I would like to stress, that I am not takings sides here in terms of ascribing the fault for non-peace to either side of the conflict - this can be debated. What I would like to stress is that the above-mentioned assumptions are ungrounded.
These assumptions ignore the following:
a) Palestinian "representatives", i.e. Palestinian Authority, are not really the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people. This is demonstrated by popularity of the alternative Palestinian groups (Hamas etc.), was clearly demonstrated in the Palestinian elections, is implicitly confirmed by the reluctance of the Palestinian Authority to call for the new parliamentary and presidential elections. Moreover, the Palestinian Authority does not control part of the Palestinian territory (Gaza) and cannot promise that this part will conform to any agreement between PA and Israel.
b) Political agreement alone will not change the people's attitudes, i.e. as long as there are Arabs willing to kill Jews and Jews willing to settle illegally on Arab land, the peace will be nothing more than a declaration on paper. Enforcing the peace agreement against these groups or convincing them to change their attitudes is unlikely to be accomplished within a year or two. More likely, since we are dealing with the groups whose vision was formed by the conflict during which their were born and raised, we need to expect that any change in their attitude/behavior will take at least a generation.
c) An agreement made on paper will not remove the economical/social reasons that force people to prefer armed fight (or settlement on the territories) over peaceful existence (settling within the recognized Israel borders). This would require change of economic and social conditions as within the Palestinian territories, as well as within Israel. (e.g. by enabling Palestinians to earn decent living by means other than serving in a militant organization, and by reducing the Influence of religion in the Israeli society.)
d) We have already witnessed 20 years of efforts to make peace which have not produced any results. Taking 20 years as a characteristic time of the "peace process" it is unreasonable to predict any significant changes within an interval of time which is an order of magnitude shorter. (I admit that this is a purely scientific argument.)
To some extent these opinions were voice by Benyamin Netanyahu, who introduced the concept of "economic peace" and by Avigdor Lieberman, who stated that peace is unlikely to come in our lifetime. In view of the preceding discussion I expect the reader to recognize the validity of these points of view regardless of the one's attitude towards these two political leaders.
Unfortunately, upon becoming the prime minister, Netanyahu had to subscribe to the delusion of "Peace Now", i.e. peace within 1-2 years. The politician who can actually bring the peace is the one who will be able to confront the Israeli public and the "international community" with the difficult truth: Peace Now is impossible. Making peace may take several decades. Here is the plan of what we must do during this time in order to make the peace come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)