Ceasefire
Whether or not the current displays of goodwill between Israel and the Palestinians lead to progress in the long term could depend on international opinion. It is significant that Israel is able continually to point to acts of terrorism by Palestinians as evidence that the PA cannot or will not keep terrorists under control, and therefore Israelis can only be safe if Palestinians remain under occupation. The reason Israel is able to make such pronouncements on the international stage and keep a straight face whilst doing so is because acts of violence by settlers basically go unreported outside Israel. Thus a prominently placed article on the website of Israel's best-selling daily, Ha'aretz reports today that "Gunfire from the Atzmona settlement in the Gaza Strip critically wounded a Palestinian man Wednesday, Palestinian security officials said....The 22-year-old man was shot in the abdomen while walking near the Atzmona settlement on the border with Egypt, the officials said."
"The body of a Hamas militant, Hassan Alami, was also found Wednesday near the Khan Yunis refugee camp...Hamas officials said Alami was killed in a "work accident," meaning he was either building a bomb or trying to plant one. They did not provide any further details."
The facts are that acts of violence continue to be carried out by terrorists on both sides. There are always going to be fanatics in this conflict. But how often do you hear about suicide bombers? And how often do you hear about settlers shooting people? If the facts were accurately reported, the conflict could be very different.
If all this good will develops in to a "peace accord" of some kind, the most likely outcome, I think, is that Abbas will trade the Palestinians continued existence as a political entity for vague assurances of peace, in the same way that Arafat traded Palestinian statehood for vague assurances of peace at Oslo. The reaction by the Palestinians could be a violent one. Again, the international dimension here is crucial. And some appreciation of the real meaning of the Gaza pull-out is necessary if we want to understand the conflict. In my view, it only confirms Baruch Kimmerling's thesis (see his 2003 book "Politicide".) It seems that too few realise what Sharon is doing. The question is whether or not he can delay final status negotiations long enough to do it. Graham Usher's article in Al-Ahram Weekly last Friday was very revealing on this point I feel. Usher quotes Hassan Abu Asli, head of the Land Defence Committee in the village. of Sur Bahar in south Jerusalem on how Abbas will tackle the question of Israel's ongoing construction of settlements and the seperation fence: "He will ask the Americans how Israel's wall and settlement policies in Jerusalem square with George Bush's vision of a viable, contiguous and independent Palestinian state. He will demand to go directly to the final status negotiations, since this is the only way to stop them."
My guess is Sharon will evade final status negotiations for as long as he can, to create as many solid West Bank settlements as possible. What the end result will be is anyone's guess, but I have a feeling that the longer the "peace" lasts, the more violent the eventual backlash will be.
Of course, nothing is set in stone, and the power of "the international community" (that is powerful contries, like ours) to change all of this is immense.
"The body of a Hamas militant, Hassan Alami, was also found Wednesday near the Khan Yunis refugee camp...Hamas officials said Alami was killed in a "work accident," meaning he was either building a bomb or trying to plant one. They did not provide any further details."
The facts are that acts of violence continue to be carried out by terrorists on both sides. There are always going to be fanatics in this conflict. But how often do you hear about suicide bombers? And how often do you hear about settlers shooting people? If the facts were accurately reported, the conflict could be very different.
If all this good will develops in to a "peace accord" of some kind, the most likely outcome, I think, is that Abbas will trade the Palestinians continued existence as a political entity for vague assurances of peace, in the same way that Arafat traded Palestinian statehood for vague assurances of peace at Oslo. The reaction by the Palestinians could be a violent one. Again, the international dimension here is crucial. And some appreciation of the real meaning of the Gaza pull-out is necessary if we want to understand the conflict. In my view, it only confirms Baruch Kimmerling's thesis (see his 2003 book "Politicide".) It seems that too few realise what Sharon is doing. The question is whether or not he can delay final status negotiations long enough to do it. Graham Usher's article in Al-Ahram Weekly last Friday was very revealing on this point I feel. Usher quotes Hassan Abu Asli, head of the Land Defence Committee in the village. of Sur Bahar in south Jerusalem on how Abbas will tackle the question of Israel's ongoing construction of settlements and the seperation fence: "He will ask the Americans how Israel's wall and settlement policies in Jerusalem square with George Bush's vision of a viable, contiguous and independent Palestinian state. He will demand to go directly to the final status negotiations, since this is the only way to stop them."
My guess is Sharon will evade final status negotiations for as long as he can, to create as many solid West Bank settlements as possible. What the end result will be is anyone's guess, but I have a feeling that the longer the "peace" lasts, the more violent the eventual backlash will be.
Of course, nothing is set in stone, and the power of "the international community" (that is powerful contries, like ours) to change all of this is immense.
posted by UK plc at 4:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home