The Current Discussion: With the Israeli re-invasion of Gaza, it's clear that the "Annapolis Peace Process" is collapsing. Does it matter? Who's to blame?

The events in Gaza represent all that is going wrong with the way the “peace process” is being handled. Hamas feels frustrated having won an election fair and square (so much for wanting more elections in this climate) and resorted to force to take over the Gaza strip. As much as one puts the blame on Hamas, which is not ill-deserved, one must also blame those who have said they will not deal in a political process with Hamas. If the argument is that since Hamas is hell-bent on destroying Israel and hence, is not dealing with Israel, then let us not forget the PLO charter that stated the same and how they are today bedfellows in a faulted peace process.

In my recent book, I argued that the region expects fairness from the U.S. and the U.N., which implies that Israel should receive the same condemnations a rocket-launching Hamas or suicide bomber would receive. Both extremes, whether they be the overkill of Israeli forces or the madness of suicide bombers, are wrong. One can either sit and try to analyze who fired the first shot, or as sensible humans we can ask both sides to disengage, accept that Hamas has a political mandate, and deal with them, the PLO and the Israelis on ONE platform for peace. It would be totally unwise to even think that a peace process that ignores the chosen party of the electorate of Palestine can be a workable peace.

Continue »

To negotiate is always a better option for all sides then to lob rockets or send in tanks in retaliation.

The one fundamental thing we all forget is that Hamas won the election. While its philosophy and actions may not be particularly conducive to the peace process, Hamas has offered a ceasefire, and is the elected government of Palestine. It is time for all parties to bring them into the fold of a dialog.

To say that Hamas is against the State of Israel is effectively to limit the possibility of peace. It glosses over the fact that the PLO itself was a sworn enemy of Israel. And it overlooks the reality that Israel has not helped the peace process by its use of excessive force.

Unfortunately, we tend to forget that the root cause of the problem is as much a mistake of Israel as it is the intolerance of the Hamas. The economic blockade of Gaza has hurt the process and created a humanitarian crises that makes dialog all the more difficult. Israel's settlement policy has to be changed and the forceful eviction of Arabs from their homes has to be stopped.

The world is at a crossroad where the chances for peace cannot be simply be put aside on the pretext that one does not wish to include an element of political society that is a reality.

To argue that only the PLO and the Israelis can broker a peace ignores the political reality of elections. Dick Cheney's understanding of the region is appallingly bad and the way the American administration handled Iraq speaks for itself. Halevy is a realist: He understands that the political will has to back the need for peace and this means Hamas must be at the table. I believe this is that moment for a proper peace to be brokered and both sides will have to give in to the needs of the moment.

Continue »

The Current Discussion:Israel celebrated its 60th birthday last week. Will it survive to celebrate its 100th?

This may sound shocking coming from a Pakistani living in Dubai, but the reality is that Arabs must learn to accept Israel in their midst. While a great deal is said about Iranian leadership and Hamas wanting the destruction of Israel, if we move beyond the rhetoric, the country is there to stay.

Israel has come so far, irrespective of the controversies that surrounded its creation and its position on the Middle East political map. It will indeed make it to its 100th birthday. What will affect Arab perceptions of Israel is the way the country conducts itself. Yes, there are acts against Israel which are violent, and there are acts by Israel that create the conditions for violence to gain steam. But the issue of forcibly taking Arab lands is real: part of the inherent problem lies in claims that since an Arab farmer does not have proof of land ownership, the State of Israel can then take it.

Continue »

For Israelis to allow their government and army to kill so many civilians in Gaza is pure and simple genocide. I am not condoning Hamas's rocket firing; in my eyes, both acts of violence are wrong and misplaced. However, it has always seemed to me that Hamas has been shooting these rockets more to bolster its own image among its own people than to inflict serious damage on Israeli citizens.

Continue »

The Current Discussion: Israel's real "existential question" is whether or not to disenfranchise its Arab minority, says Fareed Zakaria in his column this week. Is he right?

The sad aspect of people like Avigdor Lieberman, the leader of the Yisrael Beytenu party that controls a crucial block of seats in the Israeli Knesset, is that they have forgotten history. The question of expelling Israeli citizens who are Arabs should not even be considered - especially because it is a grim reminder of the laws and actions of Nazi Germany. While the idea may not be as harsh as the Nazi Nuremberg laws of 1936, the moral equivalent is exactly the same that citizens who have not broken the law are being expelled merely because of their ethnicity and perhaps their religion.

Continue »

The Current Discussion: Are Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Obama on a collision course over Iran and the Palestinian problem? What would be the consequences of a breach between the United States and Israel?

One of the assurances that Israel has always had is the unwavering support of Washington, both when Israel is harmed and when it acts to harm others in response to its own perception of threat. President Obama, it would seem, is taking a slight detour from this established principle of U.S. foreign policy; keeping Israel as the cornerstone of U.S. policy in the Middle East, but effectively seeking a dialogue with Iran and at the same time wanting to push both Israel and the Palestinians to work out peace. While on the face of it there is nothing new in this approach, look at it in the rhetorical context of how past American administrations have handled Middle East policy. President Obama's approach is more open-minded and more interesting. His call to lead the world through example and deeds rather than simply by bullying has resonated well with many countries.

Continue »