Soccer Dad

Jacksons deals

Jackson Diehl writes in "Mideast policy in a fantasy world" about an Israeli diplomat whom he spoke to.

In other words, Israeli policy is counting on Gaza's impoverished and largely uneducated population to stage the first popular revolution against a domestic government in the modern history of the Arab Middle East. It also assumes that people suffering from extreme privation will respond by demanding a more moderate government.

The extreme privation is a matter of dispute as a number of sources saw to it that he Hamas run PA received even more aid in 2006 than it did in 2005. The problem cannot be solved as Diehl asserts:

In reality, probably the only way forward in the Middle East is for Israel and Hamas to start to come to terms with each other, however provisionally, while accepting that Hamas's formal recognition of Israel, and Western acceptance of Hamas, will come at the end rather than the beginning of the process. Only if they decide on a full-fledged cease-fire will there be a chance to end the violence -- and head off the growing risk of another multi-front war in the Middle East. Only if Hamas agrees to free the Israeli soldier it is still holding hostage, Gilad Shalit, will there be a major Israeli release of Palestinian prisoners. If Israel is to stick to its promise to reduce roadblocks and illegal settlements in the West Bank, it will need Hamas's tacit cooperation -- one suicide bomb by Hamas would quickly reverse any Israeli retreat. And Western governments will find it difficult to do even rudimentary business with Hamas unless Israel goes first.

Actually as reported before, Israel is set on a major release of prisoners, 250, to be exact and Gilad Shalit is just as captive as he ever was.

His assertion to the end of the paragraph that "...one suicide bomb by Hamas would quickly reverse any Israeli retreat" has been disproved so many times it's laughable that he'd even suggest that.

For a short history lesson let's go back to 1996. 2 and a half years after Israel and the PLO signed a peace deal, including a commitment that the PLO would fight terror, Hamas launched a series of terror attacks that killed more than 60 Israelis in ten days. The mantra at the time (from the Israel government, the American government etc.) was that they wouldn't let the terror "kill the peace process." There was no acknowledgment that the terror was the result of PLO non-compliance and that therefore the PLO was an illegitimate terror organization. And the peace process continued giving the PLO more money, territory, and weapons. The intifada of 2000 occurred because promises of peace trumped good sense.

In 2000 Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon. Instead of inspiring Hezbollah to lay down arms because it no longer had a cause to fight Israel, Hezbollah used its freedom to build up its offensive capacity leading to last summer's war.

And of course the withdrawal from Gaza strengthened the terror forces and made the undisputed Israeli city of Sderot a regular target of terrorists firing from Gaza.

So what exactly does Israel have to gain by recognizing Hamas? Hamas won't prevent terror. Neither did the presumed "moderates" of Fatah. The reason for this is simple, Palestinian nationalism does not countenance the existence of a Jewish state in the Middle East. As long as Israel exists Fatah and Hamas will dedicated to its destruction. The "peace process" just allows them to further those goals with Israel's assistance.

Though I am always suspicious of the Arab League, this article suggests that perhaps they're changing. But until the Arab League and the Palestinians unconditionally accepts Israel's right to exist there won't be any peace. Diehl has not been paying attention to the recent history of the Middle East.