The 53-page "End of Mission Report" by Alvaro de Soto, the UN's Middle East envoy, obtained by the Guardian, presents a devastating account of failed diplomacy and condemns the sweeping boycott of the Palestinian government. It is dated May 5 this year, just before Mr de Soto stepped down.
The revelations from inside the UN come after another day of escalating violence in Gaza, when at least 26 Palestinians were killed after Hamas fighters launched a major assault. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, head of the rival Fatah group, warned he was facing an attempted coup.
Mr de Soto condemns Israel for setting unachievable preconditions for talks and the Palestinians for their violence. Western-led peace negotiations have become largely irrelevant, he says.
Source: The Guardian. Full story available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2101677,00.html
There was a time when we at least put serious efforts into peace in the Middle East. While the US has always looked to its own interests first--as do most nations--we have moved from subtle acts of imperialism meant to shore up our position of hegemony and to advance our "policy goals" to more overt acts of Empire building, particularly in this region. Sad. We had so much opportunity to do good at the end of the Cold War, yet we have squandered our potential on self-serving policies, imperialism, and profiteering.
12 comments:
And after reading the article, I'm not exactly sure I understand the title of the article... It sounds like DeSoto was slamming EVERYBODY involved, the Palestinians included.
Regarding your own comments (and forgive me if I'm being short-sighted, but I'm not sure how they directly corroborate or are related to the article you cited): I do NOT see how it is in the best interest of the American people, the West, or any civilized nation, to deal with Hamas in any shape or form when they refuse to commit to non-violence or a diplomatic solution that involves peaceful coexistence with Israel. This is exactly the opposite of what we’ve been working hard to establish for decades now.
We are not obligated to support the Palestinian people with hundreds of millions of dollars of aid money. If we’re going to throw money at them, then we’d damned well better expect some level of reciprocated good will. Our support should never be unconditional.
So the Palestinian people elected Hamas to power… Fine and dandy, that's their choice, and as a democracy, we are obligated to respect that decision. Great. But now they must deal with the diplomatic repercussions of electing a government that wants to build a terrorist state.
Just look at the most recent violence in Gaza. Hamas fighters have attacked and overrun Fatah security stations and offices all over the territory... And as they take them, they haul the captured occupants onto the street and shoot them in front of their families. One man was tied and thrown from an 18 story building for Christ’s sake! These are the people our government should be sitting at a table with? I’m sorry, but fuck that. This is beyond liberal or conservative values. This is just basic human decency we’re talking about here…
The Palestinians, I will wager, did NOT know they were voting for an armed coup d'état, but that’s what they got. Hamas made promises they couldn’t or didn’t intend to keep and got elected to power for it. We don’t have to like Hamas, support them financially, or even talk to them. Frankly, I think we have an obligation as a civilized people NOT to. Hopefully during the next elections the Palestinians will instead vote for folks who won’t lead their people further into ruin (providing Hamas allows another round of free and impartial elections).
The election of Hamas was a HUGE failure for us, yes. That much is certain. But it was an even bigger failure for the Palestinians…. And I think it’s a HUGE double standard to criticize the United States for dealing with brutal dictatorships in the past, but assert that we SHOULD deal directly with Hamas, offering them hundreds of millions of dollars in aid money when we know for certain that some of it will be earmarked for bomb-belts intended for use against an ally.
First, let's stop working under some delusion that "we" are the good guys--we are not. If we were, we would be working pro actively toward solutions to crises in the region rather than stoking them.
You are right, we aren't obligated to give money to anyone, but denying development aid to an already impoverished and oppressed people because the wrong party was elected is just flat out immoral. The entire world certainly didn't turn against us when Bush was elected, and when we invaded Iraq against everyones' better judgment and the pleas and protests of the international community, only France really attempted any kind of retaliation and that was pretty paltry.
I am getting a little off track, but the key points are these:
1) Regardless of the financial issue, we should be putting serious effort into establishing and promoting peace between Israel and the PA. If that means dealing with "terrorists" then that's what needs to be done. Doing nothing, or worse, actively working against the PA government, only perpetuates an awful situation. Not to mention the fact that we hamstrung the PLO and Fateh for years and then only grudgingly offered them support when it became painfully clear that Hamas was gaining strength and popularity. In fact, I could pretty easily make an argument that we are complicit in Hamas's rise to power.
2) Before we start getting all high an mighty about not funding terrorists because some of that money will inevitably be used to kill innocent civilians let's step back for a minute and consider who gets the most US foreign aid--Israel. And a healthy chunk of that money goes explicitly into state-sponsored terrorism like bombing civilians in Gaza, detaining thousands of Palestinians without trial, torturing hundreds of people a year, and committing dozens of political assassinations. The fact that we are allied with Israel should not for one second dismiss the fact they are just as brutal and repressive and terrorist as Hamas. The only real difference is their motivations and that we recognize Israel as a state and therefore legitimize its actions while we resist the establishment of a viable Palestinian state in part so we can continue to label its actions terrorist.
First Off: I don't recall making the assertion that we were, but thanks for that little interjection of pure, abject cynicism. :) But, since you planted that little soap box, I do want to say that while I know we have our fair share of fallibilities, blemishes, embarrassments, and outright vices (no few of them have come about these past 8 years), I do believe that the U.S. has been a greater force for good than evil in this world, despite our missteps. If I didn’t believe that, I wouldn’t want to live here.
Now, in response:
Quoth Reed: “Regardless of the financial issue, we should be putting serious effort into establishing and promoting peace between Israel and the PA.”
As I recall, that’s exactly what we were doing right up until the elections that brought Hamas to power. Let us also not forget that the U.S. isn’t the only one who doesn’t want to deal with Hamas. The withdrawal of aid came through the result of an international consensus. This isn’t just an U.S. stand.
Now, for a little wake up call: a line from The Hamas Charter…
"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."
And another…
""Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."
And when you get a chance, please peruse http://www.al-fateh.net … a website recently paid for and sponsored by Hamas encouraging children to “martyr” themselves against the Zionists. I’m particularly enchanted by one of the articles titled “Kids, die for Allah”.
So… tell me in no uncertain terms: how do we promote peace between a Hamas led PA and Israel, when one party is bent on the destruction of the other? I mean, it’s great to pay lip service to the effort. But that’s the easy part. When the PLO and Fatah came to the negotiation table, they were prepared to renounce violence, and recognize the state of Israel and its right to exist. Hamas won’t.
And it’s easy to sit in an ivory tower and throw stones at Israel (speaking of being high and mighty)… but I think that conveniently (and dishonestly) forgets the fact that Israel has had to fight numerous full scale wars of survival on its own territory, initiated by almost every neighbor it has… and since then, has had to deal with an enemy within with absolutely no rules of engagement what-so-ever; Everyone is a valid target. Would Israel be so heavy handed with the Palestinian people if they were not pressed to zealously guard their population from exploding buses, random gun fire, rocket attacks, et al? And I’m sure the counter argument would be that Hamas and Hezbollah are the result of Israeli brutality… and I don’t doubt that is partially true. To be absolutely honest, I think that will ultimately boil down to a chicken vs. the egg argument of circular escalation.
Now believe me, I want nothing more than the establishment of a Palestinian State, and for its people to live normal, safe, and healthy lives. But no amount of aid or diplomacy on our part will help them if Hamas continues to wage its war against Israel, especially from a position of power within the Palestinian Authority. I’m not terribly keen on legitimizing Hamas’ tactics and policies by treating them as diplomatic equals. Hamas and Fatah both are a bunch of thugs… but at least Fatah is willing to make the concessions needed for a lasting peace. Hamas isn’t.
I get the impression that this is a case where you’re opting to take the realist road, and this time, I’m choosing the idealist one. I understand the notion that if the ends mean peace for the Palestinians, the means (dealing directly with Hamas) could be justified. I, however, would not be able to abide a policy that did, regardless of the outcome for the Palestinians. If my neighbor had a complaint about where I routed my driveway, I’m not going to go to the negotiating table after he shoots my dog, even if the result is a peaceful and reasonable solution to his grievances.
Fuck that guy. I’m calling the police, and he’s lucky that I wouldn’t shoot HIS dog. :P
Oh, and before I forget: I'm calling shenanigans on posting an article from The Guardian, of all places!
You made many good points, and I am not at all condoning any of Hamas's actions. In fact, any power that takes an active interest in the peace process should condemn any activities that result in civilian deaths. But one of the key problems is that none of the issues are cut and dry, with easily identifiable good and bad guys. The ideological and political positions as well as the actions of both actors are complex. Many components make up those actors, and it is therefore difficult to say point blank that an actor wants X, says Y, and does Z. I also think that the language of the discourse, the coverage in the media, and the way the conflict is framed by western policy makers attempts to artificially construct such silly distinctions. For example, yes Hamas has called for a continual war against the state of Israel and frames their language in zealous religious terms. They even promote martyrdom and encourage children to die for their cause. Now, I am in no way saying these things are good; however, I cannot understand why the West in general finds these aspects of Hamas anymore repugnant or in any way tangibly different than the policies that Israel uses and the basic ideology Zionism. Let's keep in mind that the founding philosophy and political platform of Israel was to establish a Jewish state, a state based on an exclusionary ideology, rooted in a belief that Jews are God's chosen people and therefore had greater claim to that area than other groups, and brought into existence and perpetuated by violence which often targets civilians. Moreover, Israel maintains a policy of required military service (though religious students and ultra-Orthodox Jews are exempt), so they are not just relying on propaganda to induce people to fight for their side, the state compels it from virtually all citizens. So, I just fail to see such a clear distinction in either the message or the methods of either group. Hamas uses reactionary Islamic propaganda and the discourse of occupation and anti-imperialism to justify its attacks against Israel; Israel uses the language of Zionism and the discourse of self-defense to justify attacks on Palestinians. Both make use of violence that specifically targets civilians in order to achieve its goals. So, why is what legit and the other not?
In the past we argued that we refused to work with Hamas and similar groups because they were non-state groups that used violence to achieve ends and thus were not legitimate parties. But now Hamas is attached directly to a (quasi) state, and we still refuse to deal with them on the grounds that they use violence. Well, who doesn't? If the criteria for legitimacy is non-violence then we need to end our dialog with lots of states, beginning with Israel. I am all for such criteria, but our current platform just seems hypocritical, calling for "restraint" for one side versus out and out condemnation for the other.
And to respond to this:
"So… tell me in no uncertain terms: how do we promote peace between a Hamas led PA and Israel, when one party is bent on the destruction of the other?"
Which is bent on the destruction of the other? As far as I can tell Israel wants to obliterate Hamas as much as Hamas wants to obliterate Israel. And recall, Hamas led does not mean Hamas dictated. Just because one party is in power doe not mean that they are the only ones you can negotiate with. Nor does it mean that they get their way every time. So I think it is completely realistic to think that continuing to support the PA, regardless of which party had the majority of votes, could result in tangible benefits for all the parties involved. If you want a specific proposal, why not deploy a peace keeping force, why not start a series of regional peace conferences and draw in other key players, particularly more moderate states such as Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt, why not work to promote the viability of the PA so they can actually govern?
One more thing, yes we have worked hard to promote the PA in the past. Sometimes. Clinton put a ton of effort into it, and it was only through sustained negotiations between Israeli and PLO delegates hosted by the White House and with constant engagement by the president and secretary of state that any progress was made. The Bush administration moved all of that to the back burner. Yes, some ambassadors and diplomats went back and forth telling everyone to get along and saying the US promoted peace, but what was actually done amounted to virtually nothing. If you want peace you have to work for it. For one, get on the fucking ball and start making plans for a viable Palestinian state (one of the reasons Fateh lost to Hamas was that 7 years had passed since any real move in that direction had occurred); determine boundaries; dismantle settlements (which despite the very widely publicized demolition of a few have actually grown in recent years); withdraw Israeli troops from the West Bank; bring in an international peace keeping force to help promote security (something many Palestinians have been amenable to for years). There are things that can be done, but it takes pressure on both sides as well as support.
Lastly, why do you hate the Guardian? It's a completely legit news source...major British daily press. I believe it as well as its journalists have won many awards for news and business coverage. What gives? It's not like I cited Workers' World News or an editorial from Fox News.
Reed and I have discussed this issue at length. I agree in part with both of you.
On the one hand, Hamas is disgusting in my opinion. Everything about the group, from their birth out of the Muslim Brotherhood to their want to obliterate Israel to supporting their hatred in part on things such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (completely false documents - even the conspiracy theorists know that!). They are a morally bankrupt and are contrary to peace in the region. Having said that...
Israel is over-reactionary in the extreme. They foster the continued hatred and mistrust as much as any group. The state of Israel hides behind security to commit terrible human rights violations and are in many ways equal to Hamas in blame in the conflict.
To Reed -
As far as I can tell, I can't find support for your statement: "Let's keep in mind that the founding philosophy and political platform of Israel was to establish a Jewish state, a state based on an exclusionary ideology, rooted in a belief that Jews are God's chosen people and therefore had greater claim to that area than other groups, and brought into existence and perpetuated by violence which often targets civilians." The Basic Laws sound very similar to the Bill of Rights, especially in the freedom of religion category, same at least on paper in the judicial system. So, maybe it's initially founded in that, but it seems like the language you're using is heavy-handed (but I am not a Druze or Christian or Muslim living in Israel), in at least your are seeking to compare Israel's rhetoric to that of Hamas'. Compare the 1988 Hamas Covenant (or Charter) to the Basic Laws for my point.
To Beck -
What's wrong with the Guardian? You can't judge a paper on the editorials (if indeed that's what you're doing). I've never heard anything negative about the Guardian.
In summation -
To give a more informed decision, I need to do a little more reading on the history of the conflict. I am just being honest here. I would like to revisit this issue in the near future.
The Guardian is hardly an apolitical and unbiased news source. In all honesty, I put them in the same category as Fox News regarding an opinionated slant to their news. Recall that I pointed out that DeSoto's report slammed everyone equally: The US, the EU, the UN, and the PA... yet, strangely (or not so strangely?), the article is titled "Secret UN report condemns the US for Middle East failures". WTF, seriously. >:|
Now: The reason any Israeli security operation targets civilians is because the people initiating and planning the attacks ARE civilians. The PA has no military as such, and the PA security personnel are actively trying to discourage Hamas from behaving like retards. (hence the recent Hamas revolt)
Regarding the creation of the state of Israel, which you somewhat touched on: believe me, I'm very sensitive to the fact that Israel's very existance today is the result of imperialist meddling... But then, so were the "borders" of Palestine to begin with. But I do believe that the Jewish diaspera needed a homeland, and history owed them a huge apology for a couple thousand years of invasion, oppression, and dispersion. I think the execution of the establishment of the state was the problem.
And let's be honest, what western religion doesn't preach that it's the one true religion, chosen by the God of Abraham to be his people?
Now, on one point I do agree: Why the hell hasn't more progress been made regarding the establishment of a PA state? But that's everybody's fault... Particularly Israel's for not dismantling enough settlements in the west bank, or discouraging the creation of new ones. I understand that it's hard to watch images on TV of your government evicting your own people from their homes enmasse... But FFS, do what you have to do, and get it done. Yesterday. The US needs to be putting more pressure on them to do so, the PA needs to get its act together, and quell these militias that keep firing rockets into Israel so they can confident enough to withdraw their forces from the West Bank.
I could really give a crap about what Western religion believes anyone deserves. Religion is the largest part of the problem in the entire situation in my opinion. It is the most terrible handicap possible to place in the way of peace and mutual understanding. Religion, at this point in history, is a heavy weight that is holding human advancement back in almost every front (especially political and cultural).
History owes a lot of people a lot. Choosing one above another seems racist to me. Native Americans have undergone something very similar to genocide and countless broken treaties, the theft of land and rights. Several peoples in the former Soviet Union were systematically abused for fifty years (some continue to be abused today). Many peoples are undergoing a genocide right now in Africa. As in southeast Asia, as in...
Those points seem somewhat invalid to me, if not invalid somewhat weak. Just had to call you out :-) I mean religion... really... :-P
Some point in time, we need to look forward rather than backwards. Some steps are being made now, thank goodness. I want to keep hope for the future (in large part because the past is so miserable).
And as far as the Guardian goes... everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
Looking at what beck wrote again... maybe he is not using religion as a support for anything. Maybe he is speaking against religion... I can't tell from reading it, it could be read either way. If I misinterpreted it please excuse me and clarify. I am willing to admit I may have misunderstood what you wrote.
Just two things:
1) In reference to the Basic Laws of Israel: Well and good for 'Israeli Citizens'...and do not apply in the Occupied Territories. The people living that gray zone of occupation have little to no rights.
2) My point on the ideology of the state isn't so much about how the state was created or why by the Great Powers. Yes, the world owed the Jews--call it a bad attempt to alleviate guilt for ignoring a genocide. Where to put a homeland was a different story and not as deterministic as many believe. There were other options considered for the location of the homeland: Uganda, part of Ethiopia, Mindanao. Why it was so important that it be in Palestine was the religious connection, that it was a returning of a people to their "rightful" place and everyone else can get out of the way.
My real argument, though, is more about the persistent belief of many Israelis that the state must retain its Jewishness. I mean, this isn't news and it's not hidden from public view. Many Israeli politicians have asserted flatly that they will not accept the enfranchisement of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories because that would erode the essential Jewish character of the state. There have also been debates about what to do about the Israeli-Arab citizenry since based on their population growth they will one day (not far off) dominate Israel numerically. These are grave concerns for many Israelis who, I fear, would rather resort to apartheid than have to be a democracy run by non-Jews. Mind you this is not an argument about Jews or Arabs specifically, but about any state that would define itself in such a way that it would exclude, repress, or discriminate against minorities in order to retain its identity. I feel the same way about all those nationalist jerks in this country that want to preserve the Anglo nature of the US against a "tide" of Latinos or the religious fools that talk about the US as a "Christian" country. My point is, that basic ideology is simply unacceptable in my mind. Flat wrong.
Pope: Heh, yeah, I must not have made myself clear. I was simply pointing out that Jews are hardly the only religion out there that thinks its people are "special", so we shouldn't pretend its a condition even remotely unique to them. I do believe that the Jewish people are a unique ethnic identity unto themselves that, while rooted in religion, does transcend it.
Regarding The Guardian: Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I think it is fundamentally dangerous for news outlets like the Guardian, Fox News, or the New York Times to furtively form my opinions for me. That is not their job. If you're going to report the news, report the news. If you're going to post opinion pieces, post opinion pieces. But when the two intermingle, that's when I get off the bus. Just the facts please. Dammit.
And if you will note, this article wasn't presented as an editorial opinion piece. It was presented as genuine news item. Hence my aggrivation.
On a side note, this is exactly why I think it's abhorrent for major news papers and media outlets to openly endorse politicial candidates. I think it's absolutely contrary to the role of the press, and undermines the press's intended role as an objective watch dog over the powers-that-be. But I digress...
Ok... I think we're all starting to stray off the beaten path here. :) We have too many tangents that are begging to be addressed, and frankly, I don't have time to touch on every single one like I want to!
So, to summate my opinions/points:
1. regardless of whether or not we agree with the process that created the Israeli state, it's here now, and not going away.
2. Israeli forces target civilians because they HAVE to... the people firing rockets, blowing up buses, and shooting AKs into night clubs, and planning operations ARE civilians who hide amongst innocent people. And unfortunately, the result is often innocent deaths. And that absolutely tragic... but is it really fair NOT to expect Israel to defend itself?
Hamas targets civilians because they cannot defend themselves.... and in turn hide amongst them because it forces Israel to often engage and harm innocent people, furthering their image as a brutal oppressor.
3. I don't mind Israelis wanting to preserve the "Jewishness" of their country. That's fine and dandy. But that should never come at the cost of subverting the rights of minorities.
4. Stuff
Beck - I totally agree with your assertion that this article is incorrectly, perhaps even irresponsibly, titled. This article is in some ways slanted, starting with the title. But in general, I had never heard anyone say anything about the Guardian, it's not like its The Nation or something. I have always thought the press should have perspective. Matter of fact, I think that even having an exposed bias is fine. I like it when a reporter says, "In this reporter's opinion..." Journalism should be truthful, comprehensive and critical. Sometimes that does mean asking questions that may seem leaning one direction or another. I like journalists like I like my historians, honest about their bias and willing to give a genuine perspective on issues. I am an adult and can discern a fact from an opinion. What I am hearing you say is that you want a chronology. That's cool, but I don't. I like watching/listening/reading news with perspective. Facts are great, but I will still watch MSNBC, knowing it leans just to the left, FOX, knowing it leans solidly to the right, CNN, knowing they bow to political pressure, NPR, knowing people think they are leftward leaning, BBC, knowing in general there is little other than critical perspective in it, so on. I like my news that way just fine, I feel I am still getting the facts and can decide for myself what is believable. I think we have a different idea of journalism, that's all.
On your points:
1. I think we all agree on that.
2. Had Timothy McVeigh run to Montreal and the USA had leveled a city block there, would that have been ok? What about if he ran to Native American reservation, would it have been ok to bomb it and kill innocents there? I say no. They don't HAVE to bomb and kill innocents in my opinion. Maybe some sort of joint Israeli-Palestinian police action? Swat teams? Something more humanitarian...
3. I believe that a secular state is better, by far.
4. I totally disagree with stuff!
I'll try really hard to be brief:
1) I am with Brian on the media issue, and as long as news orgs. clearly separate news reporting from editorializing I welcome the informed input and critical analysis that the journalist brings to the story--that is their job; anyone telling you something different is selling you something. Also, while I agree the article title was misleading, that was really the "news" in it. An article titled "UN Report Slams Everyone for Mideast Peace Failure" would not attract many readers.
2) Israel does not have to target civilians. a) Hamas and other militants are not civilians even if they are guerrillas, and the Geneva convention clearly distinguishes between the two. b) Israel has the technology both in intelligence gathering and tactical weaponry to target perpetrated. I am not saying they will always get it right and only kill the intended target, but they can be cleaner when the choose. And they often choose to. In fact, they are one of the very few states that engage in an open policy of political assassinations (in a word repugnant), and they often do such with extreme precision. When they decide to level a block or two of Gaza it isn't because they had to, it was because they chose to. c) It is completely wrong to ever say that a state "has" to kill civilians. While it may be a dominant strategy and it may be politically, strategically, or tactically expedient it is still a choice, and I am willing to say any time a groups opts to target civilians they are wrong. This applies to Hamas, Israel, the US, or the Vatican. Immorality cannot be justified by expediency.
3) I am not arguing against ethic, religious, or ideological states in principal. I think they lead to more harm than good, yes. And any country with a majority of one group will by nature be defined by that group. All Arab states (with the exception of Lebanon) are Muslim states. In a sense, all Western states are Christian states in that they are Christian dominated and use Christian religious law and philosophy to inform their current political and social structures. But when a state decides that it will "enforce" its identity or otherwise seek to retain its identity by expulsion, discrimination, persecution, or assassination it is wrong.
4) Stuff is important. I agree with John on that. There is always stuff lurking unpacked in the background that informs ideas, opinions, and actions. For example, I mentioned this to Pope earlier, just consider what Gaza is. Yes we all know it is small and impoverished and violent. But how many people, in the discourse and context of the conflict, really consider that it is a practically barren spot of land 25 miles long by 6 wide with a population of 1.5 million. Add on that the fact there is virtually no land to use for industry let alone agriculture and the fact that while it is nominally independent since Israel withdrew, effectively no one can enter or leave b/c Israel guards/blocks all the land crossings and sea ports. So, in a sense, it is prison of 1.5 million people...many with guns, and animosity, and no jobs, and families in prisons, and wives and children and parents killed in reprisal attacks. Would we not expect radials to win support and violence to ensue, both at the oppressor and against one another. If you want a solution to the conflict, fix the base problems. In short, stuff matters.
Post a Comment