Before the West Bank Turns to Hamas

The Hour

By Leonard Fein

Published June 20, 2007, issue of June 22, 2007.
  • Print
  • Share Share

Within 24 hours of my arrival in Israel, I am treated to virtually every conceivable reaction to the Hamas conquest of Gaza.

One friend, who knows well my longstanding belief that only a two-state solution can finally put this conflict to rest, says smugly, “So, who do you want us to negotiate with now?”

Another says this is a golden opportunity for Israel and for all those devoted to peace, because now that the always-awkward coalition between Fatah and Hamas has collapsed, Israel can unambiguously support Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority. Others merely shake their heads at the tragedy of such violence, while more than a few are confirmed in their contempt for Palestinians.

The truth is that no one knows quite how to react. The editorials are all over the map. The events in Gaza are too fresh for anything approaching a consensus.

Abbas? Nothing in his record suggests that he is capable of the leadership now both available to him and required of him. But perhaps he will rise to the occasion.

Olmert? The very same: Nothing in his record suggests that he is capable of the leadership now both available to him and required of him. And it is well to remember that even before the Hamas electoral victory, Olmert had hardly offered Abbas the kind of support that is now so plainly warranted.

But perhaps, even in the face of his unpopularity — a recent poll showed Olmert with a 2% approval rating — he, too, will rise to the occasion. (A 2% approval rating is noteworthy not only for its tinyness but also because it marks what is likely the broadest consensus on any issue in Israel’s history.)

Being in Israel at such a time is an invitation to go beyond the large story (or stories) of the day, to seek out the kind of encounter that does not lend itself to headline or even analysis but that can be instructive, even on occasion illuminating. One such: A 50 year-old Palestinian father of six, Salim Shawamreh, whose home has been demolished by Israel’s Border Police three times but who remains an ardent advocate of non-violent resistance, speaks movingly of the necessity of a two-state solution to the conflict.

His plot of land is on the outskirts of Anata, a town of some 12,000 residents that is divided between Jerusalem and the West Bank. About a third of its population holds Jerusalem identity cards, while the other two-thirds are classified as West Bank residents, with no access to Jerusalem — including the “Jerusalem” parts of Anata. It appears that Kafka made it to Israel after all.

But as much as such meetings and such stories beckon, the “What now?” issue on everyone’s mind is easily evident — even if, as ever, the cafes and malls are crowded and lively throngs gather for this exhibition, that concert.

Will Israel move against the Gazan “Hamastan” before the Islamists’ power is consolidated? Will an empowered Hamas become a willing host to Al Qaeda, a new staging ground for Iran’s proxies?

And: What should be Israel’s policy vis a vis the West Bank and the P.A.? Or, more pointedly: How can Israel decisively prevent the gradual emergence of a Hamas-style authority on the West Bank?

For let there be no doubt: The Palestinians of the West Bank are not immune to the infectious bacillus of suicidal extremism. Unless Israel relates to Abbas as a partner, it will have no partner. That may well suit those in Israel, including those in Israel’s government, who believe that the status quo can be extended indefinitely, but it defies all the lessons that other such conflicts in other places teach.

They teach their lessons, however, only to those willing to learn them. It will not be easy, so late in the deteriorating day, to pay attention.

Abbas and his colleagues, as all West Bank Palestinians, must be able to see, up close, the benefits of their moderation. No, they are not Zionists and never will be.

But the leadership has steadfastly rejected the apocalyptic rhetoric that has for so long poisoned Palestinian nationalism, and in poll after poll a majority of the people has endorsed a two-state solution.

What does it mean “to see the benefits of moderation”? Amir Peretz, the outgoing and largely discredited defense minister, has announced time and again that the days of the illegal outposts are numbered, never mind (for now) Israel’s larger and “lawful” settlements. Yet the outposts stand.

Roadblocks, so many of them simply gratuitous, meant more to irritate and frustrate rather than to protect and defend, have not been dismantled. Simultaneously, negotiation of a final status agreement, including a rejection of the “Palestine as bantustan” approach favored by Ariel Sharon, must be fast-tracked.

Whether an Olmert government, with Ehud Barak as its most powerful member and with the final report of the Winograd Commission looming, will be disposed to move as the new situation requires, depends in no small measure on President Bush. At long last, now in the waning days of his tenure, will Bush help the parties understand what’s at stake, and press them accordingly? That will not be an easy call for this administration, with so many of Israel’s ultimately mischievous “friends” pressing for a fortress Israel.

History is here in the making. This sudden window of opportunity, in the wake of so many missed opportunities over the years, will not stay open long. Around the corner, Iran. Around the corner, more demolished homes, more demolished lives. Here, now, peace at last?


  • Print
  • Share Share

The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.


Comments
Ben Levi Tue. Jun 26, 2007

One of the interesting points that Mr Fein raises is the necessity not to allow the status quo to continue indefinitely, because if this is the policy of Israel - "it defies all the lessons that other such conflicts in other places teach". Interestingly, I can't think of any other conflict in the world, past or present, that is similar to our conflict with the Arabs. What are the lessons to be learned from others when our conflict is so unusual and totally irrational? Israel can "strengthen" Abu-Mazen, and she can make tremendous concessions in accordance to the demands of Fatah. Yet, no one in the Palestinian camp can really promise to end hostilities. Their society is very unstable, and hence no unpopular decisions (such as recognizing Jewish legitimacy) can be enforced.

Yehuda Wed. Jun 20, 2007

A "sudden window of opportunity" is a comment that we hear from time to time. I wonder if Mr Fein can read a newspaper article in Arabic. There is no way in the world that a person whose view of events is defined by the English language could possibly understand the motivation of the Palestinian community. The term "suicide (attack)", for example, is so negative for an English speaker. In Arabic, the term they use is "ishtihad" - and it's a VERY positive. Mr Fein claims: "Poll after poll, a majority of the people has endorsed a two-state solution". Public opinion polls are part of someone else's culture - not the culture of the Arabic world. So, you can ask the public: "Do you accept a two state solution" - and a majority will say "yes". However, if in the same public opinion poll you would ask: "Do you think that the State of Israel is illegal and should be disestablished" - the majority again will say "yes". Another question should be asked: "Are the 'ishtihad' activities legitimate" - surprise, a majority will of course say "yes" yet again. The conflict is not the sum total of the Palestinian grievances. One could answer each and every one of those grievances (the fence, the roadblocks, statehood, refugess, etc, etc) - and, surprise, the conflict will still exist! Perhaps, the funniest statement in the whole article is Mr Fein's question: "Will Bush help the parties understand what’s at stake". The assumption that the Palestinians "don't understand" and need an outsider "to explain" only shows that Mr Fein doesn't have a clue about the sociology of the Arabic world. He is talking down to very proud people, and it just doesn't work. Moreover, he doesn't really understand the interests of the Palestinian people as the Palestinians understand their own interests. At this point in their history, they do not intend to end the conflict.






    Would you like to receive updates about new stories?












    We will not share your e-mail address or other personal information.

    Already subscribed? Manage your subscription.