From the Financial Times for Tuesday 17th May 2011.
"Trouble In The Golan Heights. Israel must adjust to the new reality in the Middle East.
On Sunday, for the first time in 38 years, the uneasy peace on the borders between Israel and Syria was breached. Israeli troops fired on a group of Palestinian protesters, who broke into the Israeli occupied Golan Heights to mark the anniversary of the NAKBA, or expulsion of Palestinians from the newly formed state of Israel in 1948.
It is highly unlikely that the protesters were able to pass through the maze of blast walls and razor wire guarding the Golan Heights without a nod from Damascus. For Bashar al Assad, the Syrian tyrant clinging to power by ever more brutal assaults on his own people, a skirmish with Israel serves as a useful distraction. It is also yet another rendition of the tired old refrain that despots across the Middle East have chorused to the outside world for 40 years: oust me, and chaos will follow.
Yet regardless of the cynicism behind such moves, Israel got its response badly wrong. Shooting unarmed civilians (the protesters were carrying clubs and stones, but no firearms) is not just morally reprehensible; it also makes it easier for Mr Assad and his ilk to paper over the cracks in their crumbling legitimacy by claiming to hold the line against Israeli aggression. Moreover, such incidents have a corrosive effect on Israel's international standing.
That is not something Israel can afford, least of all now. The winds of change whistling through the Middle East have already brought into question some of the certainties (Egyptian assistance in enclosing Gaza; the split between Hamas and Fatah) that have helped sustain Israeli security for the past five years. A new generation of Arab leaders will be far less inclined than their autocratic predecessors to cut deals with Israel in defiance of Arab opinion. In this context Israel needs allies. Of late, it has been shedding them.
The best way for Israel to win back support is to show that it is committed to peace. What this means in practice has long been clear: division of the land in line with the parameters set out by Bill Clinton in 2000 and reaffirmed in the Arab peace initiative of 2002; the establishment of a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza with Arab east Jerusalem as its capital; and land swaps to allow Israel to incorporate some of the settlements around Jerusalem.
Sadly, Israel shows little appetite for compromise. It has even indicated that it might block the Palestinian elections proposed as part of the reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas. Israeli concerns about Hamas are justifiable. But as the West has found, thwarting the democratic process in Arab countries usually ends in bloodshed.
Barack Obama, the US president, has a chance this Thursday, when he gives a speech on the Middle East, to impress on Israel that the Clinton plan offers the best hope of lasting peace. He should take it. It would be in the interest of Israel if its government listened too."
COMMENT: Newspapers such as The Times, Die Welt, Le Monde, Pravda and The New York Times could reasonably be described as world class newspapers. However it could be argued, that the Financial Times is the voice of realism for political establishments throughout the world. And it has been stated clearly in the FT, that political realities have changed considerably for the Israelis.
Various political establishments can huff and puff about 1967 borders, Clinton initiatives, Norway accords, indefensible borders, demographic changes and whatever else, but it can only be a matter of time before one million or more unarmed Palestinians gather on the Israeli borders, pull down the fences and make their ways to Tel Aviv. Intending to stay there until they are granted their full democratic rights in their home country.
And of course the Palestinians would be supported in their endeavours by the eighty million or so newly secularist Egyptians.
The new reality is that the Israelis are simply not going to be allowed to use modern armaments to maintain their anachronistic, racist and undemocratic theocracy.
Tom Smith, Tuesday 24th May 2011.
"Trouble In The Golan Heights. Israel must adjust to the new reality in the Middle East.
On Sunday, for the first time in 38 years, the uneasy peace on the borders between Israel and Syria was breached. Israeli troops fired on a group of Palestinian protesters, who broke into the Israeli occupied Golan Heights to mark the anniversary of the NAKBA, or expulsion of Palestinians from the newly formed state of Israel in 1948.
It is highly unlikely that the protesters were able to pass through the maze of blast walls and razor wire guarding the Golan Heights without a nod from Damascus. For Bashar al Assad, the Syrian tyrant clinging to power by ever more brutal assaults on his own people, a skirmish with Israel serves as a useful distraction. It is also yet another rendition of the tired old refrain that despots across the Middle East have chorused to the outside world for 40 years: oust me, and chaos will follow.
Yet regardless of the cynicism behind such moves, Israel got its response badly wrong. Shooting unarmed civilians (the protesters were carrying clubs and stones, but no firearms) is not just morally reprehensible; it also makes it easier for Mr Assad and his ilk to paper over the cracks in their crumbling legitimacy by claiming to hold the line against Israeli aggression. Moreover, such incidents have a corrosive effect on Israel's international standing.
That is not something Israel can afford, least of all now. The winds of change whistling through the Middle East have already brought into question some of the certainties (Egyptian assistance in enclosing Gaza; the split between Hamas and Fatah) that have helped sustain Israeli security for the past five years. A new generation of Arab leaders will be far less inclined than their autocratic predecessors to cut deals with Israel in defiance of Arab opinion. In this context Israel needs allies. Of late, it has been shedding them.
The best way for Israel to win back support is to show that it is committed to peace. What this means in practice has long been clear: division of the land in line with the parameters set out by Bill Clinton in 2000 and reaffirmed in the Arab peace initiative of 2002; the establishment of a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza with Arab east Jerusalem as its capital; and land swaps to allow Israel to incorporate some of the settlements around Jerusalem.
Sadly, Israel shows little appetite for compromise. It has even indicated that it might block the Palestinian elections proposed as part of the reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas. Israeli concerns about Hamas are justifiable. But as the West has found, thwarting the democratic process in Arab countries usually ends in bloodshed.
Barack Obama, the US president, has a chance this Thursday, when he gives a speech on the Middle East, to impress on Israel that the Clinton plan offers the best hope of lasting peace. He should take it. It would be in the interest of Israel if its government listened too."
COMMENT: Newspapers such as The Times, Die Welt, Le Monde, Pravda and The New York Times could reasonably be described as world class newspapers. However it could be argued, that the Financial Times is the voice of realism for political establishments throughout the world. And it has been stated clearly in the FT, that political realities have changed considerably for the Israelis.
Various political establishments can huff and puff about 1967 borders, Clinton initiatives, Norway accords, indefensible borders, demographic changes and whatever else, but it can only be a matter of time before one million or more unarmed Palestinians gather on the Israeli borders, pull down the fences and make their ways to Tel Aviv. Intending to stay there until they are granted their full democratic rights in their home country.
And of course the Palestinians would be supported in their endeavours by the eighty million or so newly secularist Egyptians.
The new reality is that the Israelis are simply not going to be allowed to use modern armaments to maintain their anachronistic, racist and undemocratic theocracy.
Tom Smith, Tuesday 24th May 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment