06/25/2003 Archived Entry: "Progress?"

An article in the Jpost says that Hamas might be willing to recognize Israel:

Hamas envisions a Palestinian state living side alongside Israel, a senior Hamas official told reporters in an interview in Gaza City late Tuesday night, in what appeared to be the group's first public recognition of the state of Israel.

The statement, from an organization which had called for the eventual destruction of Israel, closely followed reports by both Israeli and Egyptian officials that Hamas is on the brink of declaring a cease-fire with Israel.

Hamas has come under intense, Egyptian, Palestinian, European and American pressure in recent weeks to curb terrorism against Israel, enabling the road map to move forward.

"What is the point in speaking in rhetoric," said Abu Shanab, "lets be frank, we cannot destroy Israel. The practical solution is for us to have a state along side Israel."

As it stands now, it is not difficult for the Palestinians to harm the Jews. Because they want to harm the Jews more than they want to be free and secure, the present situation is much more satisfactory to them than the prospect of a peaceful Palestinian state. Something much deeper than proving to them that they cannot expand their territory needs to take place to solve the problem.

If Bush fails to understand this, the status quo will continue, and the world will have another failed attempt at peace to learn from. Perhaps what is learned from it will make the next attempt successful. If Bush does understand this vital point, then this attempt might succeed, the Palestinians might become good, and Israel might become much more secure. All of these things will make the world a much better place. Let's hope Bush understands what's at stake.

It seems that Bush's policy is to try to make the Palestinian terrorist organizations see that destroying Israel is impossible, on the theory that making that impossibility obvious to them will make them stop wanting to attack Israelis. Sharon's policy is to provide the force that makes it obvious that terrorist organizations can't win.

I used to think this was clearly unreasonable and dangerous. Now I'm not sure. It's possible that the Hamas official they talked to was lying about his intentions, unrepresentative of Hamas intentions, or following a Hamas policy involving negotiating a cease-fire in order to buy time to build up strength. Maybe this time Hamas really is under significant pressure to stop trying to destroy Israel, and that they are changing in the face of that pressure.

This excerpt from the Jpost article gives me pause though:

However, all members of the organization have long insisted that a cease-fire can be fully reached only when Israel withdraws from all of the territories conquered in the 1967 Six Day War. Anything short of that will ignite a continuation of violence.

This demand sounds a lot like all the other demands in the past that Israel give up territory and then maybe the Palestinians won't be so angry and want to kill Israelis.

It would not be right for Israel to withdraw from all the disputed areas on the strength of a promised cease-fire. Doing that would be destructive to Israel and to the cause of peace. If terrorist organizations still want to use the disputed territories as a base of operations, they must be stopped by someone. The willingness of groups that intend to destroy Israel to refrain from attacking for an indefinite period is a step in the right direction. However, it not a sufficient reason to uproot people from their homes and give up vital security interests. Also, it would severely damage Israel's negotiating position, which isn't good for anyone

If Israel withdraws from the disputed areas prior to a negotiated peace, they will have nothing to offer in peace talks. If Israel is not in a position to make concessions, peace talks won't be effective. People who want to destroy Israel now are going to have to be convinced or forced not to, and the issue of territory for a Palestinian state is now both a carrot and a stick. If Israel gives up the territories other than as part of a workable attempt to open up Palestinian society and get Palestinians to stop trying to destroy Israel, there will be no peace. There can only be peace if the societies involved want it, and most ways of giving up some of the territories will not make the Palestinians want peace. Particularly, giving up territory in order to appease terrorists will not discourage terrorism in any way.

However, Sharon and Bush know all of that. They're not weasels, and they're not going to turn into weasels. They're the good guys, and they have no intention of surrendering to the bad guys. They're trying to create a situation where the bad guys lose, the good guys win, and everyone has an opportunity to become good. Bush's track record on that is pretty good so far, and Sharon's record of being willing to fight terrorists and unwilling to appease them is also rather good. I think they probably know what they're doing; neither seem likely to hand a good country over to evil terrorists for the sake up upholding theories about moral equivalence. If it is possible for this to work, they will make it work.

Of course, if it's not possible for the Road Map to Peace to work, then it will fail despite their best efforts. But if it fails, they won't think it succeeded, and they will think of something else to try.