Olmert searches for a "civilised" partner.
Ehud Olmert has come the closest he will ever come to admitting that the Israeli incursion into Gaza is actually an attempt to undermine the democratic choice of the Palestinian people and to destroy the democratically elected Hamas government.
Facing international criticism over Israel's disproportionate response to the kidnap of Gilad Shalit and to the charges that Israel's real intention was to topple the government of Hamas, Olmert replied:
In other words, the Palestinians can either choose to be governed by Hamas - and endure the misery Israel is currently subjecting them to - or they can choose "a civilised government prepared to make compromises"."We have no particular desire to topple the Hamas government as a policy. We have a desire to stop terrorists from inflicting terror on the Israeli people."
But saying that the Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority was "not a government which is influenced by terror ... This government is terror," he said the Palestinian people had to decide whether to be ruled by such a government or "by a civilised government prepared to make compromises based on reasonable agreements that can lead to peace between us and them. That is the choice."
And what are those "compromises" that a "civilised" government would agree to make?
East Jerusalem? Large tracts of the West Bank?
Olmert, rather coyly, doesn't say.
What is becoming overwhelmingly obvious though is that the IDF lack the wherewithal to secure the release of Gilad Shalit. For all their show of strength, they have achieved very little; indeed, it's a wonder that the 19 year old boy is still alive.
The Israelis have always sought to control this situation - by which I mean the entire occupation rather than just the kidnap of Mr Shalit - with brawn rather than brains, always believing that their vastly superior military power would ensure their victory or, at the very least, allow them to dictate that victory's terms.
They have, with American acquiescence, dismissed offered peace deals as "irrelevant" and always sought to impose their own solution.
As Zvi Bar'el eloquently explains in this morning's Ha'artz newspaper:
Then the street gang that captured Shalit came along and explained to Israel what is "relevant." Hamas does not recognize Israel, cried the well-known chorus, so it is not a partner for dialogue. But look who is courting who and who is calling for protecting Shalit's life these days.Israel has for too long now searched for this "civilised government prepared to make compromises". In other words a government that will agree to give them what they want.
Everyone's looking for someone to hold "responsible" - Hamas, Haniyeh, Meshal, Syria; but recognizing that apparently all of these potential responsible parties are truly less relevant has yet to be internalized.
Because the field, especially in Gaza, is now controlled by 18 and 20-year-olds whose organizational affinity might be the result of wanting to be part of some respectable framework, but soon they won't even need that. They will be the next Hamas.
Haniyeh was 25 years old when the first intifada, the nonviolent one, began; Abu Ubeida, the chief Qassam maker in Gaza, is 28 years old now. He is the new generation that is not impressed by tanks; nor are the people of the Islamic Army and the Nasser a Din Brigades. They are the ones who are compiling their national resumes now. They are waiting for the IDF in the alleys that they know so well to show not only Israel but also their own veteran, exhausted and blacklisted leadership - the old woman who can no longer crawl through tunnels, who is perceived as a collaborator and has forgotten what a national struggle is all about - that they have already started the next round of appointments.
Israel's partners now are in its prisons. And this is the paradox. Just when it becomes critical to draw a distinction between the street gangs and some kind of responsible leadership, Israel is barking up the wrong tree.
They are waiting for a train at a place where there aren't any tracks.
The problem for the Israelis lies in their own definition of "civilised." They are almost demanding that the Palestinians see the conflict in their "civilised" terms.
What the Israelis are failing to internalise is that their definition of "civilised" is, to the Palestinians, simply a euphemism for surrender.
It will never come to pass.
Brawn has failed. It's time for brains. And brains would demand that the Israelis negotiate with whoever the Palestinian people say are their elected representatives, rather than wait for this mythical leadership that the Israelis would prefer.
Click title for full article.
Tags:
No comments:
Post a Comment