Choices
Doesn't it always come down to choices? Palestinians exercised their option in a freely democratic electoral process and brought terrorist Hamas to legislative power within the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Authority made their choice when they retained Chairman Arafat at their head, while knowing he and his cronies were deflecting funds directed at them from the international community for the needs of the Palestinians to their own private Swiss bank accounts.When the Palestinian Authority was accepted as the voice and legislative body of the Palestinian people after Israel permitted them entry back into the Territories from Lebanon, they had the opportunity, with the help of Israel and the international community, to build critical civic infrastructure in preparation for a nascent independent state of their own. They chose to neglect this critical duty, and instead to chafe, to bide their time while their peoples' opportunities to advance slowly deteriorated.
When U.S.-brokered talks time after time promised a final peace between Israel and the Palestinians to result in the creation of a Palestinian state, the hard good-will offers were summarily rejected, even though they came as close to granting to the Palestinians all of their demands as Israel could manage, without destroying her own integrity as a nation. Those too were choices, as was the following plan to mount the first Intifada.
More latterly, after the meeting at Annapolis, when the international community, along with representatives of governments of the Middle East met to enjoin Israel and the Palestinian Authority under Mahmoud Abbas, to begin yet again a dedicated round of talks leading to a peace solution, the solitudes were still intransigently divided on the issue of painful surrender to the practicality of giving up some of their "non-negotiable" aspirations.
The PA remains adamant on issues ultimately destructive of Israel. Choices.
It is questionable how and whether meaningful discussions can get underway, let alone succeed, when nothing appears to have changed with respect to the ongoing barrage of rocket attacks and attempted suicide attacks on the part of the Palestinians against Israel. How conducive to bargaining in good faith is it when the integrity of a state's borders are continually assaulted, and its peoples' safety threatened? Choices.
Now, the World Bank is entertaining Palestinian Authority pleas for funding to bring the PA out of its economic stagnation. In turn the World Bank looks to Israel to relax its restrictions imposed heavily against access to its borders. Requiring as well the lifting of trade and travel restrictions as a requisite to advancing foreign aid leading to a hoped-for economic advance for the Palestinian Authority.
There is no denying the social/economic plight of the Palestinians.
The reason for checkpoints is obvious; security concerns, borne out by the equally undeniable fact that PA-associated terror groups continue to be a safety scourge on Israel's population. Yet it is to Israel that the World Bank looks, to make sacrifices, to remove sanctions and blockades and in the process to reveal her utter vulnerability to an implacable enemy for whom the plight of their own people appears insufficient reason for them to cease attacks.
The Palestinian Authority, despite its avowals, despite its obligations laid out in the groundwork of any workable preface to a treaty, despite the injunctions laid out for it by the United Nations to ensure that attacks cease, has been unwilling or incapable or both, of performing this most elemental of functions, preparatory to peace bargaining. Choices?
The Palestinian prime minister asks donors to provide $5.50 billion in aid over three years to assist the PA.
These funds for budgetary support and development are seen as critical to ensure that the PA can move forward toward its vision of achieving statehood, and of representing the needs of the Palestinians. No one could argue with Salam Fayyad's simple statement: "There is a great need." But with the fulfilment of the provisions also comes responsibility, and we have yet to see fully convincing initiatives to fulfil the obligation to restrain terror groups.
The new Middle East envoy, Tony Blair, is fully supportive of increased economic co-operation to lay the groundwork of responsible governance, but his assurances that Gazans, now controlled by Hamas whose intentions toward Israel remain unchanged, will be convinced to restrain their deadly animosity is precipitate.
Yes, most certainly, it's within the realm of possibility that all outstanding issues may be resolvable. But only if and when both sides to the conflict are each fully prepared to make sacrifices, to drop or to dilute some of the most indefensible demands each brings to the table. On Israel's part, the dismantling of Jewish settlements on the West Bank, perhaps exclusive of some that the PA may agree could remain in exchange for other wished-for needs. On the Palestinian Authority's part, dropping the adamant insistence on right of return. Choices.
Jerusalem divided? If both entities accept the feasibility on the basis that they will aspire to live in peace with access to sites held dear by each an assurance, under an international umbrella that can ensure stability and that any such agreement is not voided unilaterally. All of which can be achieved, and peace allowed to take the place of aggression and violence, the cycle that continues to frustrate and pinion the antagonists to ongoing conflict.
The political will must be shown to be present, on both sides. The population of both sides must demonstrate their preparedness to accept painful sacrifices for the greater good of living side by side in a state of acceptance and in the process opening up their futures. Choices.
Labels: Middle East, Political Realities, Troublespots
posted by Pieface @ Friday, December 14, 2007
<< Home