Læs også min WEBLOG "Info-BLOG'en" med nyheder Tilbage til "Artikeloversigt" |
|
Israel - Politisk udvikling efter GazaHow to make Israel secureHazem Saghieh, 26. august 2005 After Israel’s Gaza withdrawal, Israeli public opinion bears prime responsibility for further political progress, says Hazem Saghieh. The solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute will not come overnight, but
a crucial pre-condition is an understanding in Israel of the need to have a
stable partner not an enemy across its fine boundaries. Stand back from the
passions of the Gaza
withdrawal and look for a moment at the Israeli-Palestinian dispute from an
unfamiliar viewpoint: the concept of the healthy nation-state. Western colonialists introduced the idea of the nation-state
to the middle east, but it has never gained deep or solid acceptance there.
Rejection of it abated during the cold
war because it fitted the designs of the two superpowers, but since that
period, hostility to the nation-state has re-emerged stronger than ever. This,
in my opinion, is one of the main reasons behind the contemporary phenomena of
“Islamist terrorism” and “failed states”. The inhabitants of the middle east still conceive their identities more in
religious, sectarian and ethnic terms, than as nations. Embracing pan-Arabist
and Islamist ideology has also played a significant role in weakening the
nation-state through offering some illusory alternatives. We see obvious
examples of this in places like Iraq, Lebanon, and Sudan. The nation-state at play: Egypt, Lebanon and Palestine In Iraq and Lebanon, this vacuum has left the way open to fundamentalist and
Iranian state influence, which threatens numerous Arab countries and Israeli
interests as well. Israel could help contain the situation, not from any
altruistic concern for its neighbours, but principally for its own sake. It
could do so by working to establish a Palestinian state as a peaceful neighbour
on its borders. However chilly Egyptian-Israeli relations may be, the so-called “cold peace”
between them was the first
in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and twenty-six years on, it has proven the most
resilient. In contrast, the Lebanese situation is still one of the most
intractable in the region, despite Israel’s unilateral withdrawal
from the south of the country in 2000. How has this come about? Out of all the Arab countries, Egypt fits the model
of the nation-state most closely, while Lebanon, with its weak state and
sectarian divisions, fits the model least well. This goes against the views of
many Arabs and Israelis who, for contradictory reasons, believe that Israel
benefits from the disintegration of its Arab neighbouring countries. In the age of globalisation, freedom of movement, and the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction, the collapse of one society can easily affect
others nearby. In such a situation, one cannot rely on separation walls
to prevent crises. To delay the creation of a Palestinian state would be
dangerous not only for the Palestinians, but for others as well. “Mother before justice” Israel’s weakness as a nation-state is something that we should always bear
in mind: its borders are ambiguous, while the “law of return” blurs the
distinction between Israeli citizens and Jews living elsewhere. For far-sighted
Israelis, their country’s demographic make-up must also be a cause for concern:
a mixture of European, Sephardic, and Russian Jews, alongside an Arab population
of around 20% (and growing), in which no group has a clear majority. It is true that the most intensive period of suicide bombings in Israel led
many moderate Israelis to place their “mother before justice”, as Albert
Camus once did, commenting on the French-Algerian war. This reaction was
understandable, even if it meant incomprehensibly turning a blind eye to the
terrible suffering of the Palestinians, the house demolitions, and the land
seizures. However, suicide attacks have since abated, and the Palestinian Authority led
by Mahmoud
Abbas has repeatedly demonstrated its moderation, pragmatism, and readiness
to fulfil its commitments. All this leads one to question the willingness of
Israeli public opinion to link the withdrawal from Gaza with the roadmap.
Israeli settlement activities in the West Bank and around Jerusalem, and
official Israeli statements about annexing the main settlement blocks, make it
difficult to be optimistic. Israeli public opinion must stand up to these policies, which seek a
withdrawal from Gaza only so that Israel can swallow up large chunks of the West
Bank. If there is no such opposition, as there was to the war in Lebanon, the
Israeli public will be complicit in blocking the formation of a Palestinian
state and denying stability to Israel itself and to the rest of the middle east. The sense of justice among Israelis is needed as much as rationality from the
Palestinians. Both are required more than ever.
|