Every so often people can surprise you. Thus it was today with Daniel Pipes, writing in the Jerusalem Post that Israel should just “offload” Gaza onto Egypt.
What I don’t like about Pipes’s piece is the extremely demeaning way he writes about the Palestinians. “Given that Gazans have shown themselves incapable of responsible self-rule… ” and so on. But here’s the thing about the “parallel unilateralisms” approach– parallel as between Likudniks like D. Pipes, and the people in Hamas, as I wrote about here, back in 2006: participants in that kind of approach don’t have to be all lovey-dovey; they don’t have to like each other, or even particularly pretend that they do. They just need to let each other get on with their lives.
Pipes says that the “disengage from Gaza” project was suggested to him by Rob Satloff of the Washington Institute for Pro-Israeli Policy. He writes that Satloff suggested that Israel announce these three steps:
- “a date certain for the severing of Israel’s provision of water, electricity and trade access, free entry for replacement services through Egypt, and an invitation for international support to link Gaza to Egyptian grids.”
And he notes that “Giora Eiland, a former Israeli national security adviser, would also detach Gaza from its customs union with Israel and the West Bank.”
This would be music to the ears of many or most of the leaders of Hamas. Interesting. Particularly interesting if Likud comes into power and actually does this.
Parallel unilateralisms is almost the polar opposite of the “integrationist” approach to peacemaking that has been pursued in particular by Shimon Peres and some people in Fateh– with huge amounts of funding from well-meaning people and governments in the west who just love all that encounter-group bonding stuff. However, I worked in one such project, at the non-governmental level, for nearly two years back in the early 1990s; and I can tell you there are a lot of very unhealthy power plays that go on in many or most of them. How could there not be? What you’re talking about, after all, is representatives from one very powerful group, that have passports and resources and nearly all the contacts with the funders, ability to set the agendas, etc etc, and representatives from the other group who have almost none of those advantages…
Thus you had, for example, Shimon Peres who even while he was professing all his “New Middle East” business, was the one who as Prime Minister launched Israel’s extremely lethal 1996 punitive military attack against Lebanon and supported various other uses of quite disproportionate military violence. He wasn’t about to cede any real say in the diplomatic agenda to anyone, no matter how nice he made… And there are power plays and huge vested interests from many of the “mediators” and would-be mediators in the west, too.
I know politics and diplomacy are not the same as interpersonal relations. But they sometimes have a lot in common. Speaking from my experience of my first marriage breaking up, I think it was essential for me– and maybe for my ex, too– to be able to have a “Clean break” from each other. While we still both tried thereafter to deal with each other in a cordial, indeed helpful, way in our management of our continued joint interests (that is, the rearing of our children), once we’d made the decision to divorce neither of us was under any pressure to be “best friends” with each other any more. That would surely have led to some horrendous “Kramer vs. Kramer”-type difficulties. Instead, we both moved on and married other people, and created two new blended families.
The “integrationist” approach has been pursued by Israel towards the Palestinians– without success– since Oslo. Maybe it could have worked in the 1990s, under very different circumstances. (Including some serious and visionary engagement by Bill Clinton in the process, rather than having him just act as in-house attorney for whoever happened to be in power in Israel which was the role he played for eight years there.) But we are 15 years on from Oslo now. The integrationist approach has not worked and it shows no imminent signs of working. Maybe it really is time for a “Clean break”– but of a kind notably different from the one the Likudniks and PNAC-ers proposed back in 1996.
I have Palestinian friends who, when we’ve discussed this matter, have argued passionately that if Gaza “switches” from being tied to the current Israeli-dominated customs union to being linked to Egypt’s economy, then that would signal a disastrous break between Gaza and the West Bank. A long-held mantra of the Palestinian nationalists has been that Gaza and the West Bank are “one political entity.” All previous moves Israel has made at enacting a “Gaza first” approach were strongly criticized.
But Gaza has been disconnected from the West Bank, in practice, for 15 years now. And meanwhile, its people– as also, indeed, the 2.2 million Palestinians of the West Bank– have been suffering hugely from their subordination to Israel’s economic as well as military domination. So if the 1.4 million Gazas have a chance to escape that economic servitude, at last; to break out of the completely anti-humane conditions of economic siege that Israel has imposed upon them and re-open their economy to the world through Egypt: then why should a completely unelected Mr. Salam Fayyad in Ramullah and his many western bankrollers forbid them from doing that?
We should underline the fact that since Oslo it has been forbidden for nearly all Gazans even to visit Jerusalem or anywhere else in the West Bank. Travel between the two territories was far easier before Oslo– even during the height of the First Intifada! It was Oslo that brought the tightened restrictions on travel and trade. Most Gazans alive today have never had the chance even to visit their holy places in Jerusalem.
But– and this is important to note– the fact of this longlasting separation in practice between Gaza and the West Bank has not diminished by one jot the feeling that Gazans have of allegiance to the Palestinian national identity, or their love of and longing for Jerusalem. Similarly, nearly all the millions of Palestinians living as multi-generational refugees in Jordan, and Syria, Lebanon, or elsewhere, also still keenly feel themselves to be Palestinians, who have a special tie to Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank. So the argument that if Gazans build new economic ties with Egypt then they will somehow “forget” their Palestinian-ness, seems without merit.
It’s worth remembering, too, that more than 80% of Gaza’s people are also multi-generational refugees from inside current Israel. They are certainly not about to simply forget all those longstanding claims they have against Israel, which are specifically Palestinian claims and are not shared by Egyptians or any other non-Palestinians.
To be honest, I haven’t made my mind up yet– for what it’s worth– as to whether the unilateralist (or more precisely, Egypt-focused) approach to socioeconomic reconstruction and regional diplomacy can offer a viable path forward for Gaza’s people. What I do see is that the “integration with a much more powerful Israel while sporadically trying to disentangle” approach ihas not worked for the Gazans or the West Bankers… Worse than that, it is inflicting visible harms on Gaza’s people (and the people of the West Bank) day after day after day.
Hey, here’s an idea: Why not let the people of Gaza– or, the people of Gaza and the West Bank– have a free and fair vote on this matter? Why, the vote might even take the form of a parliamentary election… (What do you mean they did have just such a vote back in January 2006? They did? So where are all those parliamentarians now? Oh, in Israel’s jails… Ain’t democracy great?)
“They just need to let each other get on with their lives.”
This is true.
However, time and again, the Israelis have made clear that the one thing they will never allow the Palestinians (or indeed any Arabs) to do is to get on with their lives. Witness how Israel insists on controlling the most mundane aspects of every Palestinian’s life, their wanton destruction of Lebann’s civilian infrastructure in 2006, the details of their ‘peace’ treaties with Jordan and Egypt, in which Israel gets veto power over, for example, how many troops Egypt is ‘allowed’ to deploy along its own borders.
Certainly, even from a right-wing Israeli perspective, full disengagement from Gaza, and indeed the West Bank, makes perfect sense – provided, of course, one is being logical rather than emotional. However, it seems to me that Zionism will not – can not – allow Arabs just to get on with their lives. Despite the Hasbara line about “Arabs” being emotional and primitive, while Israelis are logical and rational, it aint neccessarily so.
Regardless of who the Gazan’s integrate with, their fortunes will not improve if they continue to try to destroy Israel.
As has been noted before (although deleted by Helena because the facts contradicted her narrative), economic integration led to a remarkable increase in the Palestinian standard of living. But when you try to send drugged out idiots with bombs strapped to their chest through the Israeli border, then the unfortunate (and obvious) consequence is that Israel will tighten the borders, which prevents Palestinians from going to jobs in Israel, and Israelis from patronizing Palestinian businesses (in the 1970s, Gaza used to be where many Israelis would shop and dine on Sabbath).
As for integration with Egypt, I think it’s fine except that the Egyptians, having seen a taste of Gaza up close, are already not particularly excited about this prospect. This blogger has gathered some rather interesting reactions from the border.
http://www.sandmonkey.org/2008/02/05/the-changing-tide/
Also interesting, the Palestinians actually rank HIGHER, albeit slightly, on the Human Development Index than the Egyptians! I would guess that if Gaza and the West Bank were considered separate (but that’s a no-no, unless it produces a stat favorable to Helena) Gaza would rank lower.
Perhaps the most disheartening (but all too predictable) part of Helena’s post is her attempt to attack those who have worked so vigilently for peace. Far from being Israel’s “in house lawyer” Bill Clinton worked tirelessly to bring peace to the region, and of course it blew up in his face. The example of Clinton is why most American politicians don’t see a point in brokering a peace deal. The Palestinians will reject anything that implies they have to recognize Israel’s right to exist. And of course, despite the tireless efforts, the Arab world (and cheerleaders like Helena) will falsify the record and claim that the U.S. is “unconditionally supporting Israel.” The result is all of the work and LESS credit than if one just didn’t bother. THAT, and not “the Israeli lobby,” explains why no American politician places the Palestinians high on their agenda. It’s best not to spit in the face of those trying to help you.
And of course, Helena can’t resist the chance to take a shot at Shimon Peres, who paid for his Herculean peacemaking attempts more than once with a political loss. Peres does more to work for peace in a single day than … Helena has done her entire lifetime… [Edited to remove childish, name-calling attacks.]
Joshua’s post, while full of the typical special pleading of Israel apologists, does tangentially bring up a valid point–what’s supposed to be in this for the Egyptians?
We are talking about Shimon Peres, the father of the Israeli nuclear bomb (and therefore also the grandfather of all subsequent nuclear proliferation efforts in the Middle East? We are talking about Shimon Peres, the man who made the decision to launch the quite voluntary military aggression of 1996 against Lebanon (which included the first massacre of Qana)?
Joshua, I think what you fail to understand in your black-and-white view of the world is that human beings, including political leaders, are complex. I willingly grant that Peres has done some good in the world. But that fact does not blind me to (a) the fact that the “good” he has done is less valuable than his acolytes claim, and (b) he has also done some extremely harmful things. Similarly, Hamas has certainly done some very harmful things– including, most recently, the latest suicide bombing in Dimona, undertaken by two Hamas men from Hebron; sowing fear and terror with their rocketing against southern Israel. But they have also done some good things: providing social services that have saved many parts of the Gaza community from complete social disintegration; participating in and policing ceasefires with Israel; turning their supporters overwhelmingly into participation in the peaceful political process of election participation.
So let’s try to focus on the various actions and decisions that various actors take and make judgments, including moral judgments, about them, rather than trying to daub the whole of humanity only with your two options of “Black” or “White”. The world ain’t like that.
That is the best context, too, in which to “judge” the whole of the present Israel-Hamas encounter. Whose actions are helping to pave the way for de-escalation and a fair, hopeful, and sustainable future? It is certainly hard to say that the actions the present Israeli government is taking towards Gaza– the constant and disproportionate, often indiscriminate, military operations, the collective punishment of the siege– are of that kind. (Though I don’t doubt but that some of the other things the government is doing may be good acts.)
So Joshua: a little more thoughtfulness and appreciation of the complexity of human life and human motivations, perhaps? And certainly, a lot less of your childish name-calling.
Refusal to explicitly recognize Israel’s right to exist is cited as a reason for the significant sanctions directed at Hamas.
If the US is to be an honest broker, it should impose significant sanctions on Likud and the religious parties for their explicit refusal to recognize a Palestinian state. And perhaps on Kadima as well. Its platform speaks of a Palestinian state only in vague, hypothetical terms, clearly designed to put the idea of a Palestinian state in ‘formaldehyde’.
this is all premised, of course, on the still-popular notion that there is some form of partition-based ‘solution’ for the land between the jordan and the mediterranean.
this is an increasingly obvious non-starter, for many reasons, starting with the thorough integration of the west bank and east jerusalem into the infrastructure (roads, electricity, water, etc.) of ‘green-line israel’ (as jeff halper of the israeli committee against home demolition has been pointing out for years). more important, however, is the basic fact which helena points out here:
more than 80% of Gaza’s people are also multi-generational refugees from inside current Israel.
the fact that a majority of palestinians are refugees from the ‘wrong’ side of the partition line (whether you look at the green line, the 1947 UN map, or the apartheid* Wall model), with the inalienable right to return home, makes both the ‘two state’ and the ‘one-and-a-half state’ models fundamentally unworkable.
the sooner we stop talking as if partition makes any practical sense – or is compatible with any idea of palestinians as humans with rights – the better we’ll be able to work for the justice which can alone bring peace in its wake.
* n.b.: i’m not insisting on a south africa analogy, though i find it a useful one, i’m simply translating the israeli government’s adjective for it (“separation”) into afrikaans.