Jul 24th 2014

The Double Folly

by Alon Ben-Meir

 

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies for over 20 years.

The war between Hamas and Israel has exposed the folly of both sides. Hamas’ long-standing objective to destroy Israel has come back to haunt it, which may eventually spell its own demise. Conversely, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s unwillingness to end the occupation and the blockade has also shown the folly of his policy.

The sad irony is that Hamas’ leaders know that they will never be able to seriously threaten Israel existentially, and every time they challenge Israel, they subject the Palestinians in Gaza to the horror of war, destruction, and death.

Similarly, Netanyahu does not recognize that continuing the occupation and the blockade is unsustainable and there is no such thing as secure borders in the age of rockets, regardless of how fortified they may be.

Let me first state that I distinguish between the fanatic, violent and misguided organization Hamas, and the vast majority of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, who want to live in peace and dignity.

The current flareup vividly demonstrates the cruelty and degenerate morality of Hamas by using men, women and children as human shields to safeguard its cache of rockets, subjecting innocent Palestinians to abject poverty and despair. This only attests to Hamas’ brutal reign, which places its twisted religious bent above the lives of those it presumably wishes to protect.

Driven by blind fanaticism, Hamas’ leaders readily sacrifice the precious lives of children and heartlessly prevent ordinary, terrified Palestinians from leaving their homes to avoid death and injuries for the sole purpose of inviting increasing international condemnation of Israel.

Hamas made a habit of provoking Israel, ostensibly to end the Israeli blockade. Instead, it finds itself marred in another bloody confrontation while the vast majority of Palestinians in Gaza end up paying a dear price.

Following the formation of the Palestinian unity government, I advocated that Israel should give Hamas a chance to demonstrate its willingness to adhere, albeit indirectly, to the three Quartet principles of recognizing Israel, accepting prior agreements, and forsaking violence, which the unity government reaffirmed.

Instead, Hamas chose to forfeit a historic opportunity that could have allowed the unity government to chart a new path to bring about the eventual lifting of the blockade and establish the conditions on which to gradually build a durable peace.

Rather than building on Israel’s concessions in the 2012 ceasefire agreement, Hamas opted to challenge Israel again in an effort to boost its waning political legitimacy among the Palestinians, who have been reaping nothing from Hamas’ militancy but more pain and despondency.

While Hamas was able to generate in times of stress sympathy from the Arab states, today Hamas finds itself more isolated and financially strapped than ever before.

Weary of Islamic extremism, the Arab states are in fact quietly cheering Hamas’ beatings by Israeli forces. Not surprisingly, Egypt took pleasure witnessing Hamas’ self-inflicted wounds as the Egyptian government loathes Hamas, which has strong affiliations with the now-outlawed Muslim Brotherhood.

Netanyahu, on the other hand, has not fared much better. He insists that Israel is not an occupying power and that in any case it needs defensible borders. The new conflagration with Hamas has once again revealed the folly of his argument as thousands of rockets are raining on Israel, creating mayhem and forcing thousands to scramble in fear for cover.

The argument advanced by right-wing politicians is that the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 demonstrates that the Palestinians cannot be trusted, as Hamas uses the land as a staging ground for attacks on Israel instead of building the infrastructure of a state.

Had it not been for the fact that the withdrawal from Gaza was precipitous, unilateral, and done without security arrangements, economic development plans, or in phases, the picture would be different today. Hamas would not have been able to overthrow the PA, which was in control of Gaza at the time, and seize control of the Strip.

Nevertheless, the decision to withdraw was made on the assumption that a divided Palestine is more advantageous to Israel, and ridding itself of Gaza would free Israel from the responsibility of administering a densely populated area which Israel has no affinity to, and has no ideological resonance or geostrategic value.

The shortsightedness of successive Israeli governments in settling for the status quo is not sustainable given the continuing blockade of Gaza and Israel’s unwillingness to ease it in times of calm, the occupation of the West Bank, and the continuing expansion of settlements. A violent eruption such as the current war was predictable and bound to occur.

Here again the Israeli folly is put on full display. A relatively small fanatic Islamic group is able to inflict incredible havoc all over Israel while boldly facing down the most formidable military power in the Middle East.

Now Netanyahu find himself in a box. He is torn between his desire to crush Hamas and destroy its infrastructure, and the international pressure to end the hostilities. Once again, the whole world is watching the unfolding of a Greek tragedy, except this one is very real and unforgiving.

It is a tragedy because both Hamas and Israel are guilty of hubris that transcends any bounds and defies reality. The ever-present evidence of Israeli hubris is the unending occupation while denying the Palestinians the establishment of their own state; with Hamas, it is its suicidal persistence to seek Israel’s total destruction.

It is clear that a ceasefire must be urgently established to immediately provide humanitarian aid organized by the UN, which must be followed by negotiating a more durable accord. But no such agreement will have any meaning unless it addresses the causes and consequences of this never-ending conflict.

The current crisis offers an opportunity for a major breakthrough:

To begin with, no concession should be made to Hamas unless it first surrenders its cache of weapons to a UN-sponsored group in return for easing the blockade and gradually lifting it altogether.

Security coordination between Israel and the PA should be put in place in Gaza under the auspices of the unity government, allowing the PA security forces to take charge of all crossings from the Gaza side.

Israel must pledge to resume the peace negotiations in earnest and recommit itself to the two-state solution to give all Palestinians the hope that the occupation will eventually come to an end.

I am not naïve to assume that Hamas and Israel will readily accept such an agreement. But this is time to squeeze both as they cannot have it both ways. For Hamas, it is to be free to move people and goods in and out of Gaza while preparing for the next battle, and for Israel, to continue the expansion of settlements, maintain the occupation, and keep the blockade in place.

If the international community, led by the US, wants to avoid a repeat of these disastrous scenarios, it must insist on these conditions, however untenable they may seem.

Indeed, as long as these dynamics are not fundamentally changed, Israelis and Palestinians will pay the price. It is time to expose the Israeli and Palestinian folly.

Both sides will discover that this mutual folly assures a fate as described by Aeschylus: “So great shall be new sacrifices of clotting blood… so great the piles of bones, even to the third generation they shall be seen by human eyes as speechless warnings that those who must die not overreach themselves: when stubborn pride has flowered, it ripens to self-deception and the only harvest is a glut of tears.”

Browse articles by author

More Current Affairs

Aug 3rd 2009
A potentially decisive battle to define this year's health care debate - and the Obama Presidency - will take place in town hall meetings, little league bleaches, and conversations on door steps near yo
Aug 2nd 2009

The Obama administration's push for a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace may have a much stronger likelihood of succeeding this time around because of the prevailing political and security dynamics.

Jul 30th 2009

MOSCOW - My great-grandfather, Nikita Khrushchev, has been on my mind recently. I suppose it was the 50th anniversary of the so-called "kitchen debate" which he held with Richard Nixon that first triggered my memories.

Jul 28th 2009

NEW YORK - In the afternoon of July 16 two men appeared to be breaking into a fine house in an expensive area of Cambridge, Massachusetts. Alerted by a telephone call, a policeman arrived smartly on the scene. He saw one black male standing inside the house and asked him to come out.

Jul 28th 2009

As the G-2 "strategic dialogue" between the US and China gets underway in Washington, I talked

Jul 28th 2009

I have a confession to make. I am an avid reader of personal advice columns. When I read those published generations ago, I feel that they provide a great insight what life was really like in those days--and what the prevailing norms were regarding what was considered right and wrong.

Jul 28th 2009

Jul 27th 2009

LONDON - In her brilliant book, "The Uses and Abuses of History" the historian Margaret Macmillan tells a story about two Americans discussing the atrocities of September 11, 2001. One draws an analogy with Pearl Harbor, Japan's attack on the US in 1941.

Jul 24th 2009

With a significant majority of Israelis and Palestinians in favor of a two-state
solution with peace and normal relations, why then there is no national drive in
either camp to push for a solution? The United States cannot equivocate with the
Jul 23rd 2009

Landrum Bolling, former President of the Lilly Endowment and Earlham College, has put together a collage of commentary from four outstanding American foreign policy giants.

Jul 22nd 2009

In contrast to the thesis -- much promoted by the president himself -- that he is not an ideologue but a pragmatic, Obama has laid out a strong new normative foundation for his foreign policy.

Jul 21st 2009
Today it would be hard to find one member of Congress who openly advocates the abolition of Medicare or Social Security.
Jul 20th 2009

LONDON - Mainstream economics subscribes to the theory that markets "clear" continuously.

Jul 16th 2009

Obama is challenged to come up with ways to pay for a health insurance plan that will cover most, if not all, Americans. Many call for cutting services and reducing fees for doctors and for hospitals. Others favor raising taxes one way or another. I say first cut out the crooks.

Jul 15th 2009
In the current health care debate, Democratic Members of Congress representing swing districts have often (though not always) been among the most cautious when it comes to supporting President Obama's proposals for health care reform.