Gaza war: disaster or opportunity?
In January 2006 the more-militant more-islamist palestinian group Hamas beat the less-militant, less-islamist palestinian group Fatah in the Palestinian parliamentary elections, which has lead to foreign sanctions and 18 months of instability in the Palestinian territories.
Mahmoud Abbas is the leader of Fatah, President of the Palestinians and is respected by Israel and America. He (and Fatah) recognise Israel’s right to exist and agrees with a two-state solution. He is the good guy. Unfortunately he doesn’t control the parliament and after today he doesn’t control the Gaza strip.
After an uneasy 3-month Hamas-Fatah alliance, Abbas has declared a state of emergency and Hamas has taken over the Presidential offices in the Gaza strip in a psuedo-coup. Fatah has responded by arresting several Hamas officials in the West Bank. The result is that the Palestinian territories have been effectively split in two with Hamas (the bad guys) controlling the 1.5 million people of the Gaza strip and Fatah (the good guys) controlling the 2.5 million people in the West Bank. Everybody is lamenting a disaster.
But this could be an opportunity for Israel & America. Israel should take this opportunity to move fast, remove minor settlements from the West Bank (and annex the larger ones in exchange for other land) and recognise the West Bank as a Palestinian State with full rights under the leadership of Abbas & Fatah. America & the rest of the world should immediately recognise this State and start throwing aid at them. Anything that can’t be agreed soon should be put in a “we’ll work it out later & we promise to negotiate with an open mind” basket instead of being used as an excuse for inaction.
In contrast, Gaza should be denied Statehood & aid. This is a great opportunity to show the Palestinian people that the peaceful approach gets results while the terrorist approach only leads to extended fighting and instability. The moderate Abbas would be the hero that brought independence to his people while Hamas would be the murdering bastards who extended the war, povery and diplomatic isolation of the Gaza Palestinians.
Some will say (as Hamas already has) that Palestine cannot be split up. This is rubbish as Palestinian territories have already been split up several times. The British Mandate of Palestine (1921-46) included both Palestine & TransJordan (the part of Palestine on the east of the Jordan river). The British decided that Jewish immigrants should be restricted to the Palestinian side and Trans-Jordan (after 1949, simply “Jordan”) was to remain an Arab state and the two subsequently split.
Then in 1947 the UN arranged another partition of Palestine between a Jewish area and an Arab area. Those boundries were never accepted because of the 1948 Arab-Israel war. After that war, some of Palestine was split up and handed over to Eygpt, Jordan & Syria and the remainder became Israel.
In 1967 the territories were changed up again following the six-day war. Israel took the Gaza strip from Egypt and the West Bank from Jordan and controlled these areas as “occupied territories”. Egypt and Jordon no longer want these lands back and so the stateless people left in those areas became the Palestinians. Most people now accept that these left-over territories need Statehood, but there is no strong reason why the two different areas need to be the same State.
There are other advantages to splitting up Gaza from the West Bank. Smaller States mean less of a threat for the security of Israel. They also hold potential benefits for the Palestinian people as it offers more jurisdictional diversity and competition and reduces the incentive for a Hamas-Fatah civil war. If/when Gaza subsequently gets independence then Gaza & the West Bank can discuss federation if they choose (like Egypt & Syria did for 4 years), but my instinct is that by then they will cherish their independence or might prefer federation with other countries instead.
33 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
-
Recent Comments
Catallaxy Files- Evaluating Rudd’s Fiscal Stimulus February 11, 2012I am just giving you a sneak preview of my piece in the Inquirer section of The Australian today. You will all have to run up to the newsagency or go on-line to read it. No doubt, it will make me popular with parts of the blogosphere! Gosh, at least Alesina’s paper was published in [...]Judith Sloan
- Should the RBA intervene to lower the Australian dollar? February 10, 2012I had this piece in The Australian during the week. I became interested in the topic during my visit to Switzerland. I conclude that the RBA will not, and probably should not, intervene but it is an interesting topic. The value of the Australian dollar is putting many of our trade-exposed industries under real pressure. [...]Judith Sloan
- Open Forum: February 11, 2012 February 10, 2012 Sinclair Davidson
- Evaluating Rudd’s Fiscal Stimulus February 11, 2012
- inCISe
- Oliver Hartwich:Greece’s austerity package February 11, 2012 Editor
- Amnesty on truth February 10, 2012I’m ashamed to admit I was a member of Amnesty International in high school. Back then I proudly wore an Amnesty badge on a black beret. Now I cringe at the memory of my naive self lapping up their hyperbole. The Sydney Morning Herald recently reported that Amnesty International is urging a parliamentary human rights watchdog to investigate the federal gover […]Sara Hudson
- More on PHI rebate means test February 10, 2012When I wrote in Incise yesterday, ‘Rebate should not be means tested,’ I did not expect events to move quite as quickly as they have. The government seems confident it has the numbers to get the means test through. I wouldn’t be surprised if Rob Oakshott and Andrew Wilkie have indeed swallowed the government’s nonsensical arguments, but it will be interestin […]Robert Carling
- IPA news
- Let European dogs lie February 9, 2012Australians will be surprised to learn that, apparently, the federal government now has responsibility to help the city of...
- It's time to bring back the thrift February 9, 2012Ted Baillieu plans to shave 3600 jobs from Victoria's bloated public service. The state of Wisconsin in the US, with a...
- We'll huff, we'll puff, we'll blow the budget into surplus February 8, 2012Bill Clinton famously said, "It's the economy, stupid". So it is. Unsuccessful politicians might be inclined to argue,...
- Let European dogs lie February 9, 2012
Interesting to see you advocate foreign aid.
Do you think Iraq should be split up?
Yes — and American can withdraw from different Iraqi countries at different times. After the Americans leave, the new countries would be free (as are all countries) to consider federation.
I think the West Bank aid could be raised voluntarily through charities, but I wasn’t going to quibble over that point in this discussion. For the sake of the immediate argument I was assuming the foreign aid practices of the west remain unchanged (though I would change them if I could).
I should have also mentioned that the US & the west should immediately engage in free trade with the West Bank.
Wow. Excellent suggestion there JH. Thinking outside the box. It looks nice theoretically but what about situation similar to Korea arising?
Which problem with Korea do you mean? I don’t think that multiple palestinian states would be more likely to acquire nukes and/or invade Israel than a united palestinian state.
Koreans want to unite their country so that their race is united. However this doesn’t seem to be a strong consideration for Arabs as they are already happily living in many different jurisdictions and their previous attempts at federation have fallen apart. Having said that, they are free to federate once they are both independent (as are all countries).
John, if Israel went on another 2006 like air power campaign, they would need to do the same more or less.
The die is cast.
I don’t understand your comment Mark. What does an air campaign against Hezbollah have to do with Palestinian independence? What do you mean “do the same more or less”? The same as what? To whom? The die has been cast about what?
[...] I’ve been doing some political blogging about Palestine & Military foreign aid and am about to head down to Brisbane for a poker home-game with Dave, [...]
Pingback by Travel time « Chapter 5 | June 15, 2007
More or less I am agreeing with you that Hamas are terrorists whilst Fatah has been pacified. A strike against Hamas would give implicit support to Fatah.
If the Palestinians think that Israel & Fatah are allies then they will turn against Fatah. Especially if people think that Fatah supports Israeli strikes that kill Palestinians (Hamas or otherwise).
Fatah actually needs to be seen to get results to convince the Palestinian people that they should support the peaceful option.
Interesting idea John. There’s absolutely no reason to join up Gaza and the West Bank (as there is no reason to join up Mosul, Baghdad and Basra). Hamas are out-and-out terrorists and deserve no recognition nor aid.
However, this would require decisive action on the part of the Israelis and Olmert is not your man. Sharon may have considered it but not Olmert.
Also requires local Arab support (Eqgypt, Syria and SA)otherwise it would be seen as an Israeli/US stitch up.
Carving up Iraq seems logical to me. And in many ways it would represent a form of natural justice. I’m not sure why territorial integrity is so routinely considered important. Surely peoples right to self determination is a far more meaningful concept to defend. And as John indicated a nation that is carved up following war and then set free is still in a position to federate if that is what people want.
Larger nations do however have a smaller ratio of perimeter to area and perhaps that means they are easier to defend.
I agree it’s an interesting idea, but there are other scenarios.
Internecine fighting in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq has the potential to expand and involve much of the Arab world, directly or indirectly. Considering the Arab world is a source of dictatorial governments, lack of liberty and economic corruption, plus good old terrorism, a really good shit fight might lead to some reassessment and an opportunity to do better. The aftermath may require something like the Marshall Plan, but it might be cheaper than what’s being done now anyway.
John, I think most Arabs and some Palestinians are more enlightened than you assume. Some Palestinians were reported to have welcomed minor Israeli strikes now and much of Lebanon is anti Syrian, even in the face of oppression, occupation and murder of their leaders.
Nevertheless, a peaceful option will work either way.
What I meant was two countries staring down each other over no-mans land claiming one is more legitimate than the other, as has happened with Korea in the past.
Partition of Ireland didn’t work that well for 90 years. The prosperity of the Republic though has led to many loyalists and republicans alike deciding that Northern Ireland would be better off chasing wealth than arguing about sovereignty. A prosperous independent Palestine based on the West Bank may well convince noncombatents to stand up to those that would lead them to martyrdom.
The only opportunity Gaza presents is if by some miracle the Hamas and Fatah loons manage to completely exterminate one another.
Here’s the horrible truth folks: the muslims in that part of the world are not going to settle for peace with the Jews. Ever.
Read what I just said very carefully, and please try to present some plausible data to refute it. Because I’ve never found a shred of evidence in the history of that region which would suggest otherwise.
“Here’s the horrible truth folks: the muslims in that part of the world are not going to settle for peace with the Jews. Ever.”
(The State of) Egypt. (The State of) Jordan.
What am I missing?
(The State of) Egypt. (The State of) Jordan.
Plus the State of Lebanon, excluding Hezbollah.
The problem is not inherently muslim, although islamic fundamentalism has added a new dimension. Unconventional warfare (eg terrorism) was sponsored by Libya until Gaddafi realised it was bad for his health and wasn’t going to make him a world leader.
The loonies in Iran, and to some extent Syria, who have filled his shoes could learn the same lesson. A few cruise missiles might be needed for that to occur though.
Ultimately I have no doubt Arabs will reject fundamentalism and embrace capitalism, if not democracy. The question is what happens between now and then and how long it takes.
“What am I missing?”
The two main political entities in “Palestine”, both of whom have the extermination of Israel on their charter, plus the neighbouring loonies in Hizbollah. Then there’s Iran, Syria, etc etc
Incidentally, state TV in those two peaceful dictatorhsips you mentioned airs TV drama like ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ and clerical rants about Jews drinking the blood of muslim babies, etc.
Tex
Does Fatah have the extermination of Israel on their Charter? Are you sure? I was under the impression that they are idelogically commited to a 2 state solution. They are also not a Muslim party.
- Yes, I am sure.
http://www.fateh.net/e_public/constitution.htm#Goals
“Article (12) Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence. ”
“Article (17) Armed public revolution is the inevitable method to liberating Palestine. ”
“Article (19) Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People’s armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated. ”
- No, they aren’t. See above
- They aren’t a “muslim party”, just a party full of muslims.
Abbas has agreed to the 2 state solution. Genocide and giving up aren’t really good options… so Israel will have to do something someday.
Fatah under its various head oafs have said lots of things, never backed up by actions
Wasn’t the death of Yasser Arafat supposed to improve the prospects for peace?
I think it did. The problem is that it was an improvement from ‘impossible’ to ‘incredibly unlikely’.
Israel and the US have given their support to Abbas and cut off oil to Gaza.
I reckon that amounts to a tacit agreement between Israel and Fatah-Palestine to accept each others right to exist.
Israel should have struck Syria and Iran in the war last year. Hamas could have never of really sustained itself.
Yeah — it looks like Bush & Olmert might be reading this blog.
I disagree about Syria & Iran. Note that Israel was very careful to be clear that they were attacking a non-governmental terrorist organisation (Hezbollah) and not another country. If Israel had attacked another country it would have been very easy for the situation to quickly escalate beyond control including most muslim countries and half the rest of the world. Not worth it.
You mean Israel would be unpopular? – As a hypothetical Israeli, I fail to see the threat.
Tex is 100% correct. None of major Arab player, as well as palestinian organisation ever done anything credible to establish piece with Israel (apart from some time to time making politically correct statements about piece).
Last 14 years is a clear evidence that none of the Arab leadership really wants a lasting piece with Israel (short of it’s destruction).
I thought libertarians agree that if someones comes to your house with gun pointed at you, you have a right to kill him. This right also applies to other states, as long this not a state of Israel.
The “piece” that includes the word “pie” as in “piece of pie” is not the same as the word “peace”. Not that I’m much better when it comes to selecting the correct spelling.
“peace” spelling was intended.
On the reflections, Arab rulers do not want peace with Israel, do not want piece of Israel, but the destruction of whole Israel
Personally i dont think that we in Australia can even begin to comprehend Israel’s position. I believe that they over reacted in Lebanon, but Israeli politics go to survival.
I doubt that we could comprehend what it must be like to be surrounded by countries that would happily wipe us off the face of the earth.
As for the situation with Arafat’s death and the peace that was ment to ensue, I believe things were better when Arafat was alive, as he was a proponent for peace, albeit none that included Israel keeping the land that they took.
It was a better situation that exists at the moment.
Sorry, It was a better situation than that which exists at the moment.