Wednesday, April 8, 2009
The following, written by Avi Trengo, appears originally at YNet Hebrew, here. This translation was prepared for Solomonia by the Centrist, so many thanks to her.
Israel's current government is composed of persons whose worldview is more sober than that of their predecessors. They recognize the futility of the "peace process" (clueless European statesmen are enamoured with the term "process", but peace has not been advanced by it). Conversely, the clear-headed Right realizes that we must back away from dominating another people forever.
Netanyahu and Lieberman are holding in their hands the possibility of reversing the status quo. If Obama and the Europeans are so intent on the two-state solution, then, go ahead. Hamastan in Gaza can be regarded as a pilot scheme for a Palestinian state. Can it comply with the requisite conditions that would qualify it for gaining international recognition?
Israel can no longer afford to be perceived by the world at large as a peace rejectionist. Calls for economic boycotting of Israel gain momentum every day and in Europe many bodies implement a silent boycott. The one-state solution is being pushed by radical factions as the alternative to the two-state solution, which includes a no-win situation for Israel: allowing the vote to millions of Palestinians in the occupied territories, combined with the demographic increase of Israeli-Arabs, Israel will soon become a bi-national state.
This problem lead to Sharon's disengagement plan and turned him from one of the most hated leaders in the world to the darling of world leaders. Netanyahu and Lieberman can take the disengagement idea to its logical conclusion.
Israel should treat Gaza as a fully independent sovereign state, while putting to it and its neighbour to south (Egypt) clearly delineated conditions.
In order to forestall various complaints hurled against Israel, the economic disengagement between Israel and Gaza must be complete. You want independence? Take it, with all that it entails. No goods will pass from the Israeli side. There is no control, anyway, over what gets transported through the Philadelphi tunnels so that the reason for Israeli supervision for security reasons is no longer compelling.
Israel has become a laughing stock and was bombarded with condemnations when it imposed restrictions over the products that go through while a thriving smuggling trade, from pasta and soap to Hamas projectiles of any kind kept flowing through the tunnels. The solution is patently obvious: bring out the clandestine trade into the open and make simple demands to Egypt and the UN: They will both cooperate in disarming Gaza, in return for Israel withdrawing any claims over the Rafah border crossing.
Egypt and Gaza will manage the border crossings on their own. The tunnels will become redundant, as all legitimate trade will take place above board, flowing from Egypt into Gaza. Egypt's excuse that the tunnels are used for smuggling food, and Hamas' demands for removing the "blockade" will vanish.
Israel will issue a declaration insisting that any international player that wishes to be involved in the conflict will be required to acknowledge that Israel is no longer Gaza's occupier. Israel will call on the UN to look for solutions to the residential crowdedness in Gaza and to put an end to the "refugee" status of its inhabitants.
Egypt will have to consider allocating some of the area that stretches between Rafah and El-Arish to relieve the living space of Gazans.
This way, Gaza's dependence on Israel will come to an end immediately. No one will be able to complain that Israel does not allow in Palestinian patients, or that it does not facilitate the passage of activists in the strip, or that it bans money transfers. Go to Rafah. The Erez checkpoint is closed down.
Another bonus for Israel will be all those UN personnel and foreign correspondents who currently enjoy the good life in Jerusalem while on their periodical excursions into Gaza, they take the opportunity to make some Israel-bashing speech or write an anti-Israel article. They will have to move the center of their operations to El-Arish in Sinai.
Gaza will become a place in which the UN in Africa is active on the outskirts of the Egyptian government. When did you last see such a place at the centre of international attention?
Water and power infrastructures will be gradually transferred to facilities that will be built with Egypt's assistance. Israel should propose a tight schedule for the transfer. The world having pledged billions of dollars for the "rehabilitation of Gaza" should funnel some of these funds into the construction of these infrastructural facilities in Egypt and connecting them to Gaza.
Israel will commit to allowing the Gazans to build their own seaport in the next three years. There is no security risk involved. If the Hamas government should allow a Karin A type arms ship to dock at its port, the Israeli secret services will know how to deal with it. In return, Israel must ask to conclude the Shalit deal, while maintaining the principle of uni-lateralism. Israel will decide who will be released in return for the kidnapped soldier, and certainly those will have to be Gazan prisoners.
Thus the Islamic state of Gaza will be launched and the world will judge if Gaza state can meet the minimal set of terms required for gaining international legitimacy: governing its own citizens, without blaming Israel and without harming its neighbours.
"so many thanks to him."
I'm a She.
:)
Doh!
The Mother of All Processes, the M.E. "peace" process.
Withdrawal from the Sanai ...
Oslo ...
Withdrawal from Lebanon ...
Withdrawal from notable quarters in the West Bank ...
Withdrawal from Gaza ...
And, in each instance, more of the same, endless demands for more, a voracious, never ending, all consuming, incoherent, insatiable, demand for more, more, more ... and more, yet never with accountability, never were a sober gaze, never with backbone directed in a certain direction. Instead, a contentedly willful blindness and, more, more, more, ad infinitum, redux, and again and again.
To avoid becoming cynical is here, as elsewhere, a basic and necessary task. Not an easy task in such cases, but a basic and necessary one nonetheless.
Does anyone think that the Arabs will accept it without dreaming up a thousand excuses for Hamas to continue rocketing Israeli towns, now with improved range imported through their sea port, and with billions from the Europeans and Alibama and his 40 thieves.
Thus the Islamic state of Gaza will be launched and the world will judge if Gaza state can meet the minimal set of terms required for gaining international legitimacy: governing its own citizens, without blaming Israel and without harming its neighbours.
Just look at the hypocrisy of Durban II.
Dream on.
Gaza is not a very tough military target for Israel.
It is not the Lebanon mountains. Gaza is flat, sandy, small and narrow.
The only military problem for Israel in Gaza are the civilians and the world press, remove them and Gaza is a dead duck.
Israel is now labeled as the country who attacked civilians who had "no where to hide". The most important thing Israel can do to protect it's southern border is to remove the stupid demand that Egypt will keep Rafah crossing close.
With Rafah crossing open, Gazans could freely travel to Egypt. Especially at time of war.
Egypt, who now supports Hamas weapon smuggling into Gaza will be made to udnerstand that peace in Gaza is their best defense against the influx of Palestinian refugees flocking to Egypt Sinai peninsula from Gaza.
Open up rafah and the weapon smuggling will stop but if not: Gaza is an easy military target for Israel.
Unfortunately, a lot of this hinges on Egyptian cooperation... and I have seen no signs that Egypt wants to help the Palestinians, in Gaza or elsewhere, with anything more than talk.
Did not Egypt seal off Gaza to prevent a flood of incoming Palestinians, while at the same time turning a blind eye to smuggling out of Egypt into Gaza?
To anyone watching with their eyes open, Gaza already shows us exactly what a sovereign Gaza would be like -- a failed economy and kleptocracy, a terrorist government that rules by fear and murder, a bankrupt territory that insists on its right to send it able-bodied to Israel for jobs and its disabled to Israeli hospitals for treatment, while simultaneously bombarding Israel mercilessly for any reason or no reason.
Why on Earth should any of this change if Israel grants sovereignty to Gaza? Hamas would say, as it has said after previous concessions, that terror got them what they wanted. Why should anyone expect them to stop doing what they think has brought them success?
And yes, I've heard those tired old arguments ("We can no longer afford to stand in defiance of world opinion", "We can always re-conquer the territory if we have to") from leftist Israeli commentators for the past thirty years. It always sounds plausible, and it never works. World opinion can never be counted upon to help Israel; it couldn't in 1967, when Israel stood on the brink of extinction and the world stood by to watch it happen... and Israel is not better loved today than it was then. The world cares very little for Israel; Israel must take care of herself. As for the military argument -- if it's so easy to pacify Gaza once it's a sovereign nation, then why can't it be done now? Does anyone think it will be easier to deal with the human shields and terrorist tactics, once Gaza is recognized as a nation? (And what would our precious "world opinion" have to say about an Israeli invasion then?)
The bottom line is that, sometimes, there is no good solution, nor a quick solution. Every few years, there's a wave of Israeli fatigue with the situation -- and who could blame them? -- with people saying: "let's just give them what they want and forget about this whole mess". But it's not that simple; it never has been that simple.
Until terror is not permitted to succeed, we will continue to see it and have to deal with it. Until the Palestinians have a leader not dedicated to Israel's destruction, negotiations with them will drag on and on and accomplish nothing.
- - - -
I once advocated a different answer to the problem. Israel could announce that, as of May 1st 2009, say, it would no longer tolerate a single rocket fired from Gaza into Israel, for any reason, by anybody -- and that each such rocket would result in a square kilometer of the Gaza Strip annexed by Israel, forever beyond the reach of future negotiations. Let the Gaza fence be pushed outwards, towards the Mediterranean, until the Gaza Palestinians realize -- mirabile dictu! -- that firing rockets into Israel does not serve their own interests. (The Gaza Strip is 360 square kilometers in size; they'd get the idea rather quickly.)
I don't know if that would work or not. But I'd be very interested to see it tried.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
I agree with you Daniel, totally. Any project predicated on the idea that the world will judge the situation honestly is doomed from the start.
About your 'different' answer, it's funny I had the same idea at about the same time. But it's unworkable, first because there's not a single government in the world that won't go ballistic over it. But the more significant flaw in this idea is that is assumes, although we all know better by now, that this is ultimately a border dispute. Borders mean nothing to Hamas. A policy like this would give them an easy PR win without in the slightest degree moving them towards compromise.
Don't forget to also withdraw those Jews that control the global markets. You do know that the Jews are responsible for our current financial crises, don't you?
Antisemitism and Israel-bashing have important functions in societies all over the world. Those people won't let you take that away from them.
Especially Arab cultures depend on it. Inter-Arab-Nation relations depend on it. Currently even despised Turkey is presentable in Arab Nations, simply because of Erdogan's verbal attacks against Peres.
Probably any movement in the world depends on it, because for every problem for which a movement has no answer it can easily score with Muslims when it puts the guilt into the Jew's shoes. Who would reject such an easy win?
(You know about Mohamed's view of the Jews - don't you?)
If you wake up with a wonderful idea about how to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict easily, better go back to sleep and enjoy the dream. Really is different. Sorry!
Several generations tried and failed.
To Daniel and Adam,
If Gaza is already a sovereign territory - why continue the charade that Israel control the Rafah crossing and thus Israel (as the occupying force) is responsible for Gaza ?
It's a different argument. You're asking "where's the downside?". I'm asking "where's the upside?".
First there is no down side in accepting reality. Gaza is ruled by one regimen that established sovirenigty over the whole territory - this is the first time that any Palestinian body takes responsibility.
Up until now there were always excuses based on the "split" inside the Palestinians. So there is an upside in exposing what a Palestinian state actually is: Do they wish to take care of their own people or do they wish to attack Israel.
The world has used the "occupation" as an excuse to make the Palestinian the world largest welfare state. As such Hamas regimen is free to use it's own resources to attack Israel. Israel has already paid the price in territory and so the only thing that remain in finishing this move is to recognize that Gaza is no longer a part of Israel. From that point the excuses that are used to Justify Hamas attacks are over.
You're really only making the same argument as the original post. And again, you have to ask yourself if you can really expect the world to judge the situation fairly and honestly.
It will not and the upside you expect will not pan out. The world (and of course the Palestinians) will say there's still an occupation because of the west bank or with any pretext they feel like using, and everything Hamas does will be excused.
Meanwhile, there most certainly is a downside. Do you want Hamas to have its own airport, strategically placed in the Gaza strip wherever it can do the most harm? Do you really think, if Israel were to recognize the sovereignty of Hamas over Gaza that it wouldn't create a precedent? If Israel were to accept the sovereignty of Hamas, how could it possibly reason not doing the same in the Fatah ruled west bank?
And what about the next Karin-A? Sovereignty is not just a word - it actually means something. What does it mean that Israel will "know how to deal with it"? Answer: nothing. It's just hand waving and doesn't do anything to ensure Israel's real world ability to actually deal with it.
It's a move that would raise risk on numerous fronts and bring rewards on none.
As some have implied, Gaza became sovereign after Israel pulled out in 2005 and the people elected a government.
The main problem as I see it is that the World refuses to accept this and and accepts any and every Arab excuse to grind Israel.
Not even the US has explicitly condemned the thousands of rockets and mortars fired into Israeli towns and justify Israeli military action this year.
Why, Hilary promised $900 million for Gaza which being fungible will just go to more arms against an Israel that already left the Palestinians to their 'own mercy'.
Adam,
an air embargo can still be imposed.
Karin A issue addressed in the original article.
Your arguments are indeed exactly what got Israel stuck in this situation of already giving up Gaza but refusing to rip the benefits of the situation.
Israel can not continue the siege on Gaza - one way or another it will end: Either by connecting Gaza back to Israel or to Egypt.
Guess what Mubarak wants ?
> an air embargo can still be imposed.
> Karin A issue addressed in the original article.
Not if the word Sovereign actually means something. You can't just brush these meanings aside and pretend they don't matter.
All the original article said about Karin A was that Israel would "know how" to deal with it. What the hell kind of argument is that? That doesn't address the issue is at all.
Gaza is not sovereign.
http://www.globallawforum.org/ViewAnswer.aspx?ArticleId=151
What do you imagine would be the legal grounds for such an air embargo if it were?
> Israel can not continue the siege on Gaza
Apparently you use the word Siege with equal lightheartedness. There is no siege.
The Roman Siege of Jerusalem under Vespatian was a real siege. The Arab siege of Jerusalem was a real siege.
This is something that deserves to be thought about carefully, not superficially.
OK Adam,
You win. Israel to retake Gaza and build settlements there. This must be the reality you aspire too.
Adam,
Palestinians have become the ultimate welfare state. 97% of Gazans are dependent in one way or another on grants from abroad. This leave those who wish to focus on military struggle against Israel from the duty to take care of their own people and families. So maybe some responsibility will actually help fix the situation.
or do you suggest that Gaza will remain "occupied by Israel" and receive billions every year from the rest of the world ?
did you know that Obama is hiding a billion dollar allocation for Gaza under this bill:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jb0SEBSfmFcN0PmrkP-NBT4MTSpQ