Time to Intervene in the Middle East
 Time to Intervene in the Middle East The local Israeli and Palestinian actors have lost control of their conflict. Should the international community not make a series of decisions immediately, it too will miss its opportunity to positively influence the explosive situation. The United States does not show signs of changing its policy of unilateral support for Israel; therefore, the European Union and some prestigious States, like, for example, South Africa, must launch a new peace initiative, consisting of phases; and impel the deployment of an unarmed intervention force that would limit damages to both communities. The Israeli policy of blocking negotiations, selective assassinations, attacks against civilian populations, economic reprisals and siege of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) is counterproductive. Israeli policy does not provide more security in the long or short-terms for its citizens: It weakens the only Palestinian institution with which it can negotiate, it foments hatred amongst new generations and it strengthens radical Palestinian groups. On the other hand, the murder of civilians by suicide bombers reinforces the positions of Israeli extremists and radicalizes Israeli moderates insofar that they too end up supporting the use of force instead of diplomacy. These tactics take power away from the NPA and create more suffering overall for the Palestinian people. Violence is a weapon used to obtain political results; however, within the Israeli-Palestinian scenario, it is a tool used for revenge. Whatever either side of the struggle claims, the political objectives in this conflict have been lost. The response of the Palestinians in the street - the second Intifada, - has become secondary to the attacks carried out by Hamas and other radical groups. The attempted security that Ariel Sharon’s government wants to give to its citizens is useless: there is no army that can match suicide attacks. Even if Yasser Arafat could and attempted to imprison all of the leaders and potential culprits of the attacks, there are youths throughout the Gaza Strip and the West Bank prepared to die because they have nothing to lose and potentially much to gain by bringing honor to their families and social groups of identity by sacrificing their lives for their cause. Every effort made by Arafat to control the radical groups reinforces the belief amongst the great majority of the population that they have lost everything and that it is necessary to resort to violence. In 1999, the renowned Palestinian analyst Khalil Shikaki told me in a conversation in Ramallah that Israel must impel the creation of a Palestinian State in order to guarantee its own security and that the PNA must accelerate its process of democratization in order to gain legitimacy. Last week in an interview with The Economist, Shikaki said: "Hamas is part of the Palestinian movement. One more year of Intifada and it will be the movement." As long as the US continues giving it money, weapons and diplomatic support, Israel will not change its policies. The conservative Israeli government accepted the invitation to come to Madrid in 1991 to discuss the conflict only after the then US president, George Bush, threatened to restrict aid to Israel. Currently, the US needs to maintain the coalition against terrorism and, at the same time, it does not want to change its policy towards Israel. But Washington and Europe must think in terms of the future. The conservative analyst, Samuel Huntington, famous for his prediction of the "clash of civilizations" writes in Newsweek(Special Davos Edition, December 2001) that one of the reasons of the Islamic violence against the West is the US’s Israeli policy. Nevertheless, if Washington does not change its policy then other States must take the initiative. The EU, with the support of countries like South Africa, Egypt and Norway (that played a decisive role in 1991-1993), should plan a peace strategy made up of phases, beginning with a cease-fire according to the Mitchell Report, creating minimum measures of trust and seeking the foundations to initiate new negotiations on the most crucial issues: the land and settlers, the refugees, Jerusalem. Along these same lines, they should create negotiating channels and forums to deal with the non-state groups, like the Israeli settlers and, especially, the Palestinian radical groups. Diplomacy, money and determination are needed in order to diplomatically confront Israel and demand more control of the finances and security of the PNA. The negotiations in 2002 will be much more complicated than before because while groups like Hamas now have more social support, the PNA has lost its standing and the Israeli and Palestinian societies are more skeptical than ever before. While the conditions are created for negotiations, the States that take the intitiative must recognize that the international community is faced with a situation that threatens regional and international peace and, therefore, an action in accordance with the United Nations’ Charter is necessary. Accordingly, the Security Council must take charge of this conflict. This step is not something that will be easily accepted; however, the members of the Security Council must acknowledge the importance of an agreement that will halt the escalating violence which appears to be leading to open war. At the same time, the Secretary General of the UN must demand that an unarmed international observation mission serve as an outside control and deterrent. Israel’s attack upon Arafat’s heliport on 3 December is an indication that the confrontation is nearing direct attacks between the Israeli government and the PNA delegation. Open war, as unequal as it might be amongst the two sides, is one step away. It is urgent that initiatives be taken. This situation presents a great opportunity for Europe, even if it means that it has to openly disgree with Washington, to use the conditions created since 11 September to explain to the US that, for the good of all, it is absolutely necessary to change its policy towards Israel. Copyright 2001 El País |
