Guest Response: A move toward peace

Saturday, May 10, 2008

By Eliah Lux

<The following article was written in response to an April 23 opinion piece by Joe Schloss - Eds>

Listening to former President Jimmy Carter’s detractors as they attempt to generate a scandal over his recent meeting with Hamas leaders, I cannot help but reflect on the Bush Administration’s efforts to deal with the Israel-Palestine issue. It’s a very short list of activities. The chariot that is the Israel-Palestine peace process is stuck in the mud, as it has been for the seven years since Bush took office, and the Republicans (and doubtless some Democrats too) have the gall to stand on dry ground, while telling us that Carter is not pushing the carriage in just the right way.

Jimmy Carter is the only American public figure to get his feet remotely dirty over the past seven years. The Bush Administration, too bogged down with the quagmire that is Iraq, has largely ignored the Israel-Palestine issue and is now making a last-ditch, Johnny-come-lately attempt to initiate talks between the two sides. It is clearly an eleventh hour effort more aimed at rescuing Bush’s woeful international legacy than at achieving any meaningful progress on Israel/Palestine.

Yet the Carter approach is noble not only for its tirelessness, but also for its strategic vision. Meeting with a terrorist organization may be unsightly, but it is also necessary in this case - and necessity is the first guidepost to be followed in achieving a lasting peace. We cannot hope to achieve peace between the major parties if the major parties are not invited to the table. Sadly, both Israel and the US bear a great deal of blame for Hamas being one of these parties.

Few people know that when Hamas came to power in the 1980s, it was initially bolstered by Israel, who was hoping to use its emergence as an alternative Palestinian faction to thwart the power of the PLO.  Though militant and unrecognizing of Israel from the beginning, it wasn’t until a 1994 attack on a mosque (killing 29) by a radical Jewish settler in the West Bank that Hamas abandoned its policy of only attacking Israeli military targets and began to engage in acts of violence directed towards civilians.

Fast-forward to the 2006 Palestinian elections. Despite Israel and Fatah’s (the secular and more moderate of the two Palestinian factions, headed by Mahmoud Abbas) wish that the elections be postponed in lieu of a possible Hamas victory, the Bush Administration - committed to its full-speed-ahead approach to democratizing the Middle East - insists that they proceed on schedule. Hamas wins a clear victory in a free and fair election, claiming the popular vote and the lion’s share of the parliamentary seats. Mahmoud Abbas blames the Hamas victory on the lack of any efforts by Israel and the US to include him in peace talks over the previous five years, thus making him look like a marginalized and ineffective leader.

Israel responds to the legitimate Hamas victory by announcing that it will withhold funds normally due the Palestinian government and vital to its functioning, and will target Hamas leaders for assassination in the event of attacks on Israelis by any Palestinian.
Given this history, it is little wonder that Hamas has continued in its militant ways. Can we really expect a policy of isolation to have a moderating or nullifying effect on a hard-line group? Isolation only empowers and emboldens militant groups, pushing any hope of reconciliation further away. Jimmy Carter writes: “A major impediment to progress is Washington’s strange policy that dialogue on controversial issues is a privilege to be extended only as a reward for subservient behavior and withheld from those who reject US demands.” He goes on to remind us that 62 percent of Israelis favored direct talks with Hamas at the time of its election.

The harsh reality is that dismissing Hamas means dismissing any real prospect of resolving the Israel/Palestine conflict. Our ostensibly principled policy of not negotiating with terrorist groups needs to be exposed for what it really is: a self-serving, hypocritical (consider the current US strategy in Iraq), and cynical obstacle to peace efforts.  Peace itself is the only principle that needs remembering.

PERMALINK:
Guest Response: A move toward peace | Planet JH News Article: General News

Leave a Comment