Palestine Churning - The point of no return
The crisis in the Palestinian territories seems to be nose-diving towards complete anarchy. The events of last week has left the world wondering whether we are all witnessing the partitioning of Palestinian territories even before the people of Palestine could achieve complete statehood. The two rival factions – Fatah and Hamas have fought each other to take control of their respective strongholds of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The outing of Fatah from Gaza was particularly brutal with eyewitness accounts of gross human rights violations and the unashamed execution of Fatah members by the Hamas faction. The Fatah side reacted almost immediately and has now ousted the Hamas from the West Bank in a tit for tat battle of attrition. The unity government, which was formed after the Mecca Declaration in March this year, saw hopes for peace rise with both Hamas and Fatah sharing power in order to achieve the ultimate goal of complete statehood. The euphoria was short lived, even my Middle Eastern standards, and within months the two sides were fighting street battles through their militias and political battles in the prime minister’s cabinet. That the West had completely cut foreign aid and the fragile territories energy supply led to increased frustrations amongst politicians and ordinary Palestinians alike. The stated aim of the embargo was to make the Hamas renounce violence and recognize the state of Israel. As it unfortunately turned out, the West’s sanctions not only took the wheels of the nascent Palestinian government, it further hardened the extremist outfits of Hamas, who saw this as another injustice by the West in order to arm twist the Palestinian people to recognize Israel. Ultimately, the viability of the unity government seemed vulnerable from the start and the West’s actions precipitated its downfall. As things stand, President Mahmoud Abbas, of the Fatah, has dismissed the Hamas led Ismael Hanieyah government and has sworn in Salaam Fayyad as the new interim Prime Minister. Fayyad, a former finance minister, will now pave the way for a new government that will be elected by the Palestinian people. The Fayyad premiership will appeal to most Palestinians as he is seen as a non-partisan independent belonging to neither faction.
The paramount question that faces the leaders of the Middle East and the West is how to get the defunct road map to peace back on track and how to ensure that this current crisis does not take on multi-national dimensions. To avoid this domino effect to chaos, the West, particularly the US, will urgently need to learn from its mistakes and take some crucial leadership steps to bring back Palestine from the proverbial brink. First and foremost, there is an urgent need to appoint a US representative to the Middle East. The current twin pronged approach towards diplomacy involves the use of multinational and multi body instruments like the Quartet, which includes the U.S., EU, Russia and the UN or to use shuttle diplomacy through Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. Neither has proved effective, with the Quartet not making any significant progress on the Oslo accords and the inherent disadvantages of a multibody approach causing things to go nowhere. The use of Rice as an effective mediator is seen as ad-hoc and only as a fire-fighting mechanism with the Secretary of State flying into the region only at a time of crisis. The US has gained tremendously from use of its special envoy for the North Korean talks in Christopher Hill. His persistence and presence in the region has ensured that the North Koreans have taken encouraging steps to bring its nuclear weapons under international inspections. This after the first testing of a nuclear device by the North Koreans seemed to have spelt the death knell to negotiations. By persisting with diplomacy and by continuing to talk to its friends and enemies the US can expect favorable results from the North Korean talks. A similar replication of this model needs to infused into the Middle East. Cynics may argue that with only eighteen months left in the Bush administrations tenure, appointing a Middle East representative will achieve little. While that may be true, it will however, send a clear signal of America’s intent on resolving this decades old dispute. Optimistically, this step may actually help in achieving some progress on President Bush’s stated two-nations living side-by-side policy initiative. The chequered legacy that the President will most definitely leave behind will also indict him for further deteriorating the Middle East conflict rather than improving it in any measurable manner. A peace envoy may just help the Bush Administration clear the air about the seriousness with which it takes the Arab-Israel dispute.
The other key learning that the West must take out of the entire crisis is that embargo’s, travel bans and economic sanctions on most occasions hurt the common man rather than having its intended effect on the ruling dispensation of any country. The list of failed sanctions is elaborate and some notable examples include Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Syria and now the Palestinian government under Hamas. Closer home, the sanctions that followed the nuclear tests by India and Pakistan in 1998 had little effect on both countries and ultimately the US had to remove sanctions and restore complete diplomatic relations with both countries. In the specific case of the Palestinian territories the ordinary Palestinian has felt continuously let down by the West. They voted when the West asked for the spread of democracy in the region. They elected a Hamas government, whom they thought would bring great social change after years of Fatah misrule and corruption. Hamas, on the other hand, had done some commendable work in the field of health and education in the Gaza strip, which led the electorate to believe that this would be the way of an elected Hamas government. However, Hamas continued to rule like a militia in charge rather than respect the mandate for change. The Hamas top brass felt that their election was the ringing endorsement for a further hardening of its people’s stance against Israeli occupation. They not only upped the ante against the Israeli armed forces but also played a crucial role in opening a second front in Gaza after the Israel- Hezbollah war broke out in 2006. The Palestinian people suffered further with the increased sanctions that were put into place by the West for the actions of the Hamas government. Rising unemployment and a rage against the west ensured that the militias only gained recruits but also a sense of injustice and a crisis was all for the making. The Palestinian people are now suffering the fallout of the power vacuum that has left them wondering what the future holds for them. The destructive role of sanctions has once again toppled a government, albeit, with a residual chaos that the West will find difficult to handle. The Hamastan, as some analysts are calling the new realities of Gaza, will further witness crushing sanctions which will not affect the Iranian financed Hamas, but the ordinary man, woman and child on the streets of Gaza.
The U.S will also have to realize that the proxy war it is playing with the Iranians is only harming its interests while at the same time strengthening Iran. The West’s call for Iran to end its nuclear program has fallen on deaf ears and the Iranians are playing a concerted public relations exercise to ensure that they are portrayed as the victims and the US as the aggressor in the region. The use of Iranian manufactured arms and weapons by Shia groups in Iraq, the Hezbollah in Lebanon and by Hamas in Gaza is indeed worrying. However, the West must count its options before opening too many theatres of conflict with the chances of winning any being rare. The Israel – Lebanon conflict of 2006 was widely seen as a defeat for Israel. The Hezbollah emerged stronger and in doing so has ensured that the Western backed Fioud Siniora government is further weakened by assassinations of prominent politicians. In Iraq, the situation is clearly not under control with sectarian strife assuming the 2006 proportions with a string of bombings of Shia and Sunni mosques meant to foment tension and violence. The Palestinian territories are further witnessing chaos. In such a situation, the American ploy to ratchet up the pressure on Iran will only aggravate the problems of the region rather than alleviate them. The Bush administration will have to ease its ego over Iran and put Iran in historical context. For better part of the last two millennia, Iran’s Persian Empire had been unconquered and unchallenged. The Persians always ruled areas that included modern Iran and no other kingdom or empire came close to defeating the might of the Persians. After the Islamic revolution, Iran has now again wanted its place as amongst the most influential countries in the world. With ample oil reserves and a sizeable army it has gained influence in the region over the years. The Iranians, it must be noted, helped the United States overthrow the Taliban on its Eastern flanks and ensured that the Northern Alliance took control of Afghanistan. However, with the war in Iraq, Iran sought to gain influence in the only country with a Shia majority apart from itself. The Americans failed to take this into account before the invasion. Iran now looks to dominate all Shia areas, which include parts of Lebanon. However, history has also taught us that the Arabs and Persians have not taken to each other for centuries. In this regional fight the Americans should stay clear of hostilities that date back centuries rather than blatantly take sides. In real terms it means that the Americans should look to placate Iran in order to extract benefits in Iraq and Palestine. Fighting through Israel and western backed governments will only help Iran not harm it.
The Arab people, including the Palestinians, have also long felt the desire to break free from American hegemony in the region that exists either through US backed governments like in Lebanon or through physical occupation as in the case of Iraq. These “client” governments, so installed by the blessing of the West, are seen as western hypocrisy by the Arabs. The West selectively prescribes democracy for some states while blesses regimes with leaders of questionable constitution. The idea that “one size does not fit all” irks the Arabs into believing that the West and the US are advocating democracy only for its own Machiavellian benefits. The US and West must give up that notion as backing non-democratic, corrupt regimes will only further throw up more Hamas’ and Hezbollah’s of the region. While such a u-turn may not be possible for years, even decades, it a fundamental shift in foreign policy that the West must be ready for if it wants things to change on the ground.
So today, the world is watching Palestine return to chaos after only days of calm. Not one analyst is ready to wager on the outcome of the current churning that’s in progress. What is true is that Palestine has taken a route that will significantly change the region and the Middle East peace process permanently. For it is the first time that the West will have to contend with not one, but two Palestinian entities. The West has already shown its open backing for Fatah, and in doing so, has ensured that Hamas will further want to show the Fatah faction as being the lapdog of the U.S. The open backing for Fatah may encourage aid to come the West Bank, in the long term, however, it will also lead to a backlash against Fatah, who will be seen as siding with the West at a time of a fresh Gaza crisis. Days after the overthrow of Saddam, then National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice has proclaimed that the route to resolving the Palestinian peace process was through Baghdad. With Gaza looking more and more like Baghdad, one wonders whether the ghost of Baghdad is coming to haunt Gaza.
The paramount question that faces the leaders of the Middle East and the West is how to get the defunct road map to peace back on track and how to ensure that this current crisis does not take on multi-national dimensions. To avoid this domino effect to chaos, the West, particularly the US, will urgently need to learn from its mistakes and take some crucial leadership steps to bring back Palestine from the proverbial brink. First and foremost, there is an urgent need to appoint a US representative to the Middle East. The current twin pronged approach towards diplomacy involves the use of multinational and multi body instruments like the Quartet, which includes the U.S., EU, Russia and the UN or to use shuttle diplomacy through Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. Neither has proved effective, with the Quartet not making any significant progress on the Oslo accords and the inherent disadvantages of a multibody approach causing things to go nowhere. The use of Rice as an effective mediator is seen as ad-hoc and only as a fire-fighting mechanism with the Secretary of State flying into the region only at a time of crisis. The US has gained tremendously from use of its special envoy for the North Korean talks in Christopher Hill. His persistence and presence in the region has ensured that the North Koreans have taken encouraging steps to bring its nuclear weapons under international inspections. This after the first testing of a nuclear device by the North Koreans seemed to have spelt the death knell to negotiations. By persisting with diplomacy and by continuing to talk to its friends and enemies the US can expect favorable results from the North Korean talks. A similar replication of this model needs to infused into the Middle East. Cynics may argue that with only eighteen months left in the Bush administrations tenure, appointing a Middle East representative will achieve little. While that may be true, it will however, send a clear signal of America’s intent on resolving this decades old dispute. Optimistically, this step may actually help in achieving some progress on President Bush’s stated two-nations living side-by-side policy initiative. The chequered legacy that the President will most definitely leave behind will also indict him for further deteriorating the Middle East conflict rather than improving it in any measurable manner. A peace envoy may just help the Bush Administration clear the air about the seriousness with which it takes the Arab-Israel dispute.
The other key learning that the West must take out of the entire crisis is that embargo’s, travel bans and economic sanctions on most occasions hurt the common man rather than having its intended effect on the ruling dispensation of any country. The list of failed sanctions is elaborate and some notable examples include Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Syria and now the Palestinian government under Hamas. Closer home, the sanctions that followed the nuclear tests by India and Pakistan in 1998 had little effect on both countries and ultimately the US had to remove sanctions and restore complete diplomatic relations with both countries. In the specific case of the Palestinian territories the ordinary Palestinian has felt continuously let down by the West. They voted when the West asked for the spread of democracy in the region. They elected a Hamas government, whom they thought would bring great social change after years of Fatah misrule and corruption. Hamas, on the other hand, had done some commendable work in the field of health and education in the Gaza strip, which led the electorate to believe that this would be the way of an elected Hamas government. However, Hamas continued to rule like a militia in charge rather than respect the mandate for change. The Hamas top brass felt that their election was the ringing endorsement for a further hardening of its people’s stance against Israeli occupation. They not only upped the ante against the Israeli armed forces but also played a crucial role in opening a second front in Gaza after the Israel- Hezbollah war broke out in 2006. The Palestinian people suffered further with the increased sanctions that were put into place by the West for the actions of the Hamas government. Rising unemployment and a rage against the west ensured that the militias only gained recruits but also a sense of injustice and a crisis was all for the making. The Palestinian people are now suffering the fallout of the power vacuum that has left them wondering what the future holds for them. The destructive role of sanctions has once again toppled a government, albeit, with a residual chaos that the West will find difficult to handle. The Hamastan, as some analysts are calling the new realities of Gaza, will further witness crushing sanctions which will not affect the Iranian financed Hamas, but the ordinary man, woman and child on the streets of Gaza.
The U.S will also have to realize that the proxy war it is playing with the Iranians is only harming its interests while at the same time strengthening Iran. The West’s call for Iran to end its nuclear program has fallen on deaf ears and the Iranians are playing a concerted public relations exercise to ensure that they are portrayed as the victims and the US as the aggressor in the region. The use of Iranian manufactured arms and weapons by Shia groups in Iraq, the Hezbollah in Lebanon and by Hamas in Gaza is indeed worrying. However, the West must count its options before opening too many theatres of conflict with the chances of winning any being rare. The Israel – Lebanon conflict of 2006 was widely seen as a defeat for Israel. The Hezbollah emerged stronger and in doing so has ensured that the Western backed Fioud Siniora government is further weakened by assassinations of prominent politicians. In Iraq, the situation is clearly not under control with sectarian strife assuming the 2006 proportions with a string of bombings of Shia and Sunni mosques meant to foment tension and violence. The Palestinian territories are further witnessing chaos. In such a situation, the American ploy to ratchet up the pressure on Iran will only aggravate the problems of the region rather than alleviate them. The Bush administration will have to ease its ego over Iran and put Iran in historical context. For better part of the last two millennia, Iran’s Persian Empire had been unconquered and unchallenged. The Persians always ruled areas that included modern Iran and no other kingdom or empire came close to defeating the might of the Persians. After the Islamic revolution, Iran has now again wanted its place as amongst the most influential countries in the world. With ample oil reserves and a sizeable army it has gained influence in the region over the years. The Iranians, it must be noted, helped the United States overthrow the Taliban on its Eastern flanks and ensured that the Northern Alliance took control of Afghanistan. However, with the war in Iraq, Iran sought to gain influence in the only country with a Shia majority apart from itself. The Americans failed to take this into account before the invasion. Iran now looks to dominate all Shia areas, which include parts of Lebanon. However, history has also taught us that the Arabs and Persians have not taken to each other for centuries. In this regional fight the Americans should stay clear of hostilities that date back centuries rather than blatantly take sides. In real terms it means that the Americans should look to placate Iran in order to extract benefits in Iraq and Palestine. Fighting through Israel and western backed governments will only help Iran not harm it.
The Arab people, including the Palestinians, have also long felt the desire to break free from American hegemony in the region that exists either through US backed governments like in Lebanon or through physical occupation as in the case of Iraq. These “client” governments, so installed by the blessing of the West, are seen as western hypocrisy by the Arabs. The West selectively prescribes democracy for some states while blesses regimes with leaders of questionable constitution. The idea that “one size does not fit all” irks the Arabs into believing that the West and the US are advocating democracy only for its own Machiavellian benefits. The US and West must give up that notion as backing non-democratic, corrupt regimes will only further throw up more Hamas’ and Hezbollah’s of the region. While such a u-turn may not be possible for years, even decades, it a fundamental shift in foreign policy that the West must be ready for if it wants things to change on the ground.
So today, the world is watching Palestine return to chaos after only days of calm. Not one analyst is ready to wager on the outcome of the current churning that’s in progress. What is true is that Palestine has taken a route that will significantly change the region and the Middle East peace process permanently. For it is the first time that the West will have to contend with not one, but two Palestinian entities. The West has already shown its open backing for Fatah, and in doing so, has ensured that Hamas will further want to show the Fatah faction as being the lapdog of the U.S. The open backing for Fatah may encourage aid to come the West Bank, in the long term, however, it will also lead to a backlash against Fatah, who will be seen as siding with the West at a time of a fresh Gaza crisis. Days after the overthrow of Saddam, then National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice has proclaimed that the route to resolving the Palestinian peace process was through Baghdad. With Gaza looking more and more like Baghdad, one wonders whether the ghost of Baghdad is coming to haunt Gaza.
Labels: International Affairs
posted by Karan Thakur @ 7:13 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home