|
The world press, which has widely reported South Africa’s invitation to the Palestinian prime minister and the objections by the South African Jewish community, has failed to publish in full what the South African minister himself said in defending the decision. I am reprinting it below.
The latest violence in Gaza has created de facto Islamic (i.e. Hamas) security-based control over Gaza and nationalist (i.e. PLO) control -- along with a new emergency government -- in the West Bank. The international community will quickly turn on the money faucet to the non-Hamas government, and Gaza will be left to burn and starve under the rule of the Palestinian Islamists.
Israel was the only country in the world whose government, its opposition, and a majority of its people were in favor of the Iraq war. The loudest voices in favor of a strike against Iran today are exactly the same pro-Israel voices who also wanted the U.S. to attack Saddam, and they are the ones who are opposing President Bush in his belated and weak effort to push for a two-state solution in which Palestine will be an independent sate alongside the state of Israel.
After decades of conflict in the Middle East, Secretary Rice finally said three weeks ago that the creation of a Palestinian state is in the national interest of the United States. To prove it, the U.S. sent its National Security advisor to Ramallah. That’s the first time a senior U.S. official has discussed the Israeli-Palestine conflict in terms of U.S. national security.
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 situation in Gaza reflects exactly what happens when a superpower (like the U.S.) makes a plan, sets parameters, declares deadlines and then lets the situation on the ground fall apart. Conventional thinking in the Middle East is that the Israelis don't carry out wide-ranging military activities without a green light from Washington D.C. Whether or not they gave prior approval, the U.S. has done little to stop the Israelis excessive use of force, which, according to international humanitarian law, is a crime of war.
The Current Discussion: Vice President Dick Cheney said last week that Hamas is doing all it can to torpedo the Mideast peace process -- but Ephraim Halevy, former head of Mossad, thinks it's time to include the Islamist group in peace talks. Who's right?
The problem has to do more with the US attitude towards Iran and Syria rather than its attitude towards Hamas. Furthermore, the big question is whether the Bush administration believes in engaging with any Muslim movement (radical or moderate).
Regarding Syria and Iran, the US has to decide what to do with the olive branch that Syria and to a lesser degree Iran have waved. True, the issue of Lebanon and the election of a Lebanese president is holding things up, but some kind of engagement with Islamists (Hezbollah included) would most probably soften Syria's attitude toward the presidency and would loosen up its hardline attitudes toward Hamas.
A zero sum game with Islamists has proven a failure and a more sensible strategy would be to engage moderate Islamists and to give up on the my way or the highway attitudes. By hardening their position, the Americans are encouraging the Lebanese majority to refuse compromises and the same regarding the Israelis and Hamas. As has been leaked, the Israelis are much more practical on this regard than the Americans
The Current Discussion:Israel celebrated its 60th birthday last week. Will it survive to celebrate its 100th?
The state of Israel as it is now will not exist in 100 years. But if it changes, it will happily celebrate its 100th birthday.
Consider Israel now: its borders unclear, its soldiers occupying another people, its Jewish citizens given unique rights, and its government supporting Jewish settlement activities in another land.
Comments (16)