316 Stepping Back from the Brink
The tensions in Lebanon following Gemayel’s assassination have been reflected in the Lebanese blogs over the past week. One post from Mustapha, in particular, struck me as particularly timely given King Abdallah’s warnings about civil wars in Lebanon, Palestine, and Iraq today:
I have my strong opinions and convictions. So do my political opponents.
But unlike many observers believe (or perversely seem to wish for), neither my camp nor the opposite one wants a civil war. In fact, every single person in this country saw enough bloodshed to last a lifetime, and we do not wish to see another war in the near or far future, thank you very much.
My opponents and I also have a common belief: An external force is bent on fighting with our bodies. I believe it’s Syria, my opponents believe it?s The US and Israel. We are both convinced that the ?foreign villain? is intent on using the tense situation to cause mayhem in this country.
Wisdom demands that we both watch what?s happening in Iraq today and learn our lessons very well.
Nice sentiment, Mustapha.
Taking a cue from the spirit of Mustapha’s post, I should also note Olmert’s encouraging gesture today, and the U.S. diplomatic efforts that the BBC credits with prompting it. I’ve wasted a lot of breath bitching about Israeli policies in the region and the Bush administration’s halfhearted attention to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So it’s nice to see some motion in the right direction on both fronts.
The Israelis and the United States have made it clear that Abbas is their partner in negotiations. Abbas’ position will be strengthened vis Hamas’ if he can bring real concessions back from the Israelis. The Israelis and the Americans would presumably view this as among the positive outcomes of dialogue. The ball is now in Hamas’ court. They have two options: play the spoiler, or outflank Abbas by presenting a comprehensive peace plan that addresses their concerns about the current situation and the details of the final agreement. I’d like to see them choose the second. I think we can all agree that the current situation serves no one’s interests, that no military solution to this problem (short of ethnic cleansing) exists, and that we could all use a little peace and quiet.
Come to think of it, the same could be said of Lebanon or Iraq today…
[tags]Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Hamas, Abbas[/tags]
5 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
40 queries. 0.169 seconds. CMS: WordPress. Design: modified Hiperminimalist Theme.
RSS for posts and comments.
Valid XHTML and CSS.
The way I see it Elijah, is you have misread Olmert’s gesture today. “He called on the Palestinians to renounce violence and give up the insistence on the refugees’ right of return to territory within Israel’s borders, which has long been a major sticking point in peace negotiations.”
What we could all use is a one-state solution.
Comment by Amr Gharbeia — November 27, 2006 #
Ohlmert’s speech today is actually worth reading in its entirety. You can read it below:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/793308.html
Comment by Andrew Exum — November 27, 2006 #
Thanks for the link, Ex. I agree; it is worth reading in its entirety.
Maybe you’re right, Amr. Reading the full text of Olmert’s speech, I can better understand your suspicion. I hope, for example, that Olmert isn’t “extending a hand of peace” in the same way Ben Gurion did. But I think you can read all that as tailored for his domestic audience. Read on. The sappy strings cut out, and he devotes the rest of the speeech to concrete steps that would improve Palestinians’ lives.
“What we could all use is a one-state solution.”
I’d go one step further and say that a one-state solution may be a historical inevitability. But the Muslim, Christian, and Jewish inhabitants of this hypothetical state are going to have to co-exist, and they’re going to have to be at peace (even if they don’t love each other) before a one-state solution is even on the horizon.
You highlight the fact that Olmert called on the Palestinians to renounce violence. And? Isn’t the absence of violence a rather important component of peace…anywhere?
Olmert didn’t fulfill my utopian fantasies for the Middle East with this speech, but he did take a step in the right direction.
Comment by Administrator — November 28, 2006 #
Such a drama queen, that Olmert. So much rhetorical flourish, and lots of finessing harsh truths and repeating old cliches about self-sacrificing Israel and pugnacious Arabs. The “hand of peace” he’s talking about seems to have been extended mostly with its third finger raised upward.
The speech is interesting from a rhetorical viewpoint, though. It’s almost like the Melian dialogue in parts – talking about Israel’s magnanimity and desire for peace and willingness to help the Palestinians, but warning Palestinians not to put Israel to “another test” because in a “violent battle” they’ll have no chance. There are some concrete initiatives embedded in the speech (like the prisoner exchange one) but for the most part it seems like a repetition of the old “we don’t like doing this to you but you’re making us” trope. One wonders who he’s really trying to sell this plan to, and I’m guessing he’s selling it domestically, hence the use of Glorious Ancestors in framing the project. He’s certainly not trying to reach out to Palestinians with that use of “Judea and Samaria.”
What’s up with this: “I know that many Palestinian families yearn for the day when their loved ones will return home. This day could be very close.” And yet: “You must…relinquish your demand for the realization of the right of return.”
Comment by SP — November 28, 2006 #
LMAO. I guess no one’s feeling as magnanimous as Mustapha.
Comment by Administrator — November 28, 2006 #