Sunday, 18 January 2009

ISRAEL - a strategy for peace?

It continues to surprise me that Israel, that most intellectually vibrant of countries and cultures, allows its political life to be dictated by Hamas. 

I say this because Hamas can, effectively at will, undermine and destroy any peace initiative or attempt at negotiation simply by firing rockets at the Israeli civilian population. The consequences are inevitable. However long or patiently the population may suffer the disruption caused by rocket attacks, Israel in due course will be forced to respond and launch an attack against the Hamas military operations in Gaza. However careful Israel may be in targeting its military response, the heavily populated area means that there will be collateral damage, including the horrifying sight of dead or mutilated women and children, and the result will be a wholly understandable international public outcry against Israel. 

Another inevitable consequence of concerted Israeli military action will be a new generation of militant Islamic youth ready to take up arms and follow the banners of organisations like Hamas.

Surely it is time to consider whether there should not be a pro-active policy for long term peace, preferably one which seizes the strategic initiative from Hamas and which is not subject to Hamas's military or political veto. On this subject, I have one suggestion which I hope the Israeli government, along with President Obama and the new US administration, might at least consider. 

Israel should act to undermine the Hamas militants, and all those who believe in the elimination of the Israeli state, by building a "peace road" between Gaza and the Palestinian West Bank, uniting the two segments of a future Palestinian state with a highway which would be under the control of the Palestinians. This would demonstrate Israel's sincerity in helping to create a viable Palestinian state. The building of the "peace road" would have huge symbolic value. Given appropriate will, it should not be affected by random attacks by militants on the Israeli population. On the contrary, an organisation such as Hamas which persisted in attacking the Israeli population with rockets while that same population was busy constructing a road uniting the two regions of Palestine would incur the condemnation of civilised and rational international opinion. 

On a purely pragmatic and physical level, it might be argued the "peace road" would divide Israel. This would be an unjustified fear. The contractual rights granted to the Palestianians would allow the Palestinians control of, say, 10 feet of earth beneath the road to effect maintenance, and, say, 20 feet above the road to allow all conceivable forms of traffic. That would leave Israel free to build bridges over the highway or tunnels beneath it. In practice, the "peace road" would be far less of a physical obstacle to Israel's transport infrastructure than natural or geographical obstacles such as a line of hills or a valley.

Set against this, the political and social benefits would be of almost incalculable value. The "peace road" would seize the strategic initiative in the region, and create powerful momentum to turn politics away from the terrible and apparently interminable axis of war and retaliation. 

Above all, a "peace road", because it would be built on Israeli territory, would require no formal Palestinian consent. This would overcome perhaps the greatest and most intractable problem of all in future peace negotiations -- gaining the consent of a politically divided Palestinian population to agree to any form of unified representation. This is why, it could be argued, such a programme is superior to other forms of proposed progress in the middle east. To be set in motion, it requires the consent of only one of the opposed parties -- the Israelis.
   
If a new American administration wishes to invest in a more settled middle east, the construction of a "peace road" would be a far more effective contribution to the future stability of the region than any comparable military expenditure. An estimated cost of $4 billion is a considerable sum, but it pales, for example, beside the total cost of the Iraq war, which is now estimated at $597 billion. Funded by America, and built by Israeli labour, there are good reasons for believing a peace road uniting Palestine has a better chance of transforming the politics of the region than any further costly and potentially destructive military adventures.

0 comments: