Thursday, June 29, 2006

Trust Thine Enemy

Snakes get a really bad rap when the comment that someone speaks with a "forked tongue", is used to indicate the condition whereby public utterances don't reflect true intent, or when those who espouse certain conditions speak of them without having any intention of honouring them. It's a way of presenting one face to open scrutiny, while reserving another, hidden face, more reflective of true intent. Some call it hypocrisy. But what it really is, is public relations. Political public relations has overtaken decent diplomacy with frank intent to resolve problems. Snakes aren't really that bad at all. To imbue them with the worst elements of intractable human relations is to insult them gratuitously.

Palestinians have truly embraced the utility of public relations. To them goes the prize for presenting themselves as the aggrieved in a situation which they have themselves manufactured out of sheerly bitter intransigence, vituperative frustration, deadly intent. Matters which could be solved expeditiously because both parties to the dispute need to live in peace and a certain harmony respecting each other's autonomy and aspirations of prosperity to make life more palatable for their people, are instead festering to the point of deadly turn-abouts.

Time and again opportunity has arisen to settle differences, to make concessions, to bring hope to truly untenable situations of raw suspicion, hatred and willingness to wreak unspeakable havoc. Each time it seems to a waiting world that results might being a tenable peace, the hand of partnership is abruptly withdrawn, the dove flown. The hand, formerly proferred in peace, now carries deadly weaponry, and the battles begin anew.

The roller-coaster of emotions, uncontrollable rage, unspeakable carnage goes on and on. Where, at certain points in collaborative consultation it might appear that the elusive opportunities to give peace the opportunity to consolidate positions, radical elements foment situations which break down negotiations and hurl the opposing sides back into their corners of mutual distrust.

Each time Israel, fervently hoping to create a situation which might make peace the only solution acceptable to both sides, by withdrawing from protective positions taken in response to deadly incursions, their peace overtures, their withdrawals are taken by the Palestinian militants as faintness of heart, as a personal triumph reflecting their untiring, unstinting efforts to destroy the Jewish state. How to reach an agreement with an avowed enemy who has no intention of honouring peace talks and the potential for two states living side by side in harmony?

Now, we have the draft of an accord reached between Fatah and Hamas. Fatah, which claims to want to live as a world-recognized Palestinian State, alongside that of Israel, with full respect for the sovereignty of borders and the sanctity of human life; no more strife. Despite which, Fatah still had not proven that it fully intends to implement a state of full acceptance and ultimate peace, since their militant factions never did agree to lay down arms, and continued to do as much damage to the peace process as they could manage, including the perpetual bombing of Jewish settlements and killing of Israelis, when possible.

And then there is Hamas, the standard-bearer of ultimate hostility to the existence of Israel. The implacable enemy of the Jewish State, whose mandate states baldly that its intent is to drive the State of Israel out of the Middle East and regain, reclaim all the territories which had formerly existed as a free-for-all of tribal warfare for the surrounding Arab states. Those very same states that permitted the Palestinians the illusion, from time to time, that the land they lived upon was theirs, while plotting unremittingly, to bring it under their aegis, and to which purpose the neighbouring states held a perpetual state of war among themselves.

  • Hamas considers the entire territory upon which Israel stands to be "occupied" by the enemy.
  • Hamas considers that any agreement which might be made with Israel will be of a purely temporary nature; until such time as they can achieve their goal; the removal of the State of Israel from the geography of the Middle East.
  • The implicit agreement on the acceptance of Israel by a relatively small, politically unstable faction is not supported by the entire Fatah movement, and will never be accepted in total by the militant faction of Hamas.
  • Hamas will never consent to relinquish the "right to armed resistance" to the occupiers, Israel.
  • Hamas is prepared to unconditionally accept any and all conditions of an accord which recognizes Palestinian rights based on Arab legitimacy, rights that are seen by them to be fair to the people, in preservation of their rights. This obviously precludes the acceptance of the State of Israel, since to submit to the demands, Israel would have to (for the moment) give up lands taken after 1967, in protection of its existence from invading Arab armies; give up Jerusalem as its capital; permit the law of return, embracing the return of millions of Palestinians, most of whom were born after the initial dispersal. That is the short term; in the long term, once the Palestinians have completely established their "national aspirations" (something previously denied them by their neighbouring Arab states) Israel would be no more, fully absorbed by the press of the majority Palestinians among the population, and dissolved finally by popular demand (of their neighbours).
How's that for a solution?

posted by Pieface @ Thursday, June 29, 2006

Follow @rheytah Tweet