Wednesday, April 21, 2004
Why destroy the houses in Gaza?
Most people following the news know that Israel's government intends to pull its settlements out of the Gaza Strip region in the near future. Less known is the caveat that Israel will leave a substantial military presence there and will continue to control all land and sea access and the airspace over Gaza for an indefinite period. Now that's what I call independence, and I'm sure lots of Hamas supporters agree with me.
All irony aside, one thing that caught my eye about this unilateral transfer was that the Israelis intend to destroy all of the settlements there before they leave. Completely obliterate them, rip up the fertile fields and orchards around them as well. One is left to ask if they also plan to follow the tradition of the Roman legions by sowing the earth with salt and poisoning the wells to ensure that the land is totally uninhabitable for years to come.
There is an obvious option here: Give these nice spaces to Palestinians instead of putting them to the torch. Considering that some land exchange is likely in any final agreement between the two countries, and given that many Gaza residents are living in refugee camps, it would seem an obviously painless goodwill gesture that in no way could be misconstrued as a sign of weakness.
Even if one assumes that Sharon's rhetoric is true about wanting a two-state solution to the crisis (and I don't), it would seem that of late he has completely held back the carrot in favor of a really big dose of stick.
No group is ever going to be beaten down into submission and stay that way very long. While I can understand Sharon's and average Israeli's lack of patience in the face of destabilizing terror bombings, at some point you have to start getting some of the Palestinians on your side. As hard as one may be toward militants and their supporters and overlords, there needs to be some reaching out to those vast majority of Palestinians who don't actively support violence. In a very Machiavellian sense, these spaces, some of which are likely far nicer than any others in Gaza, could be given to the opinon and political leaders of Gaza. Fatten these people up a bit and they just might start to lose their violent edge.
Furthermore, such a transfer could be a model for resolving the 'right of return question' that remains among the sorest of points of contention in any final agreement. Palestinians would not be allowed to return to land inside Israel proper that their families fled in 1947/48, but let those with valid claims be among the first to get a crack at the nice dwellings in abandoned settlements in both Gaza and the West Bank. Will this approach solve everything? Likely not. But it will give a glimmer of hope of normalcy to some Palestinians who have not totally unreasonable property claims. And in the end, such a hope of normalcy is what the majority of regular folks on both sides of this conflict (really of any conflict) really want for themselves, their familes, and future generations.
Most people following the news know that Israel's government intends to pull its settlements out of the Gaza Strip region in the near future. Less known is the caveat that Israel will leave a substantial military presence there and will continue to control all land and sea access and the airspace over Gaza for an indefinite period. Now that's what I call independence, and I'm sure lots of Hamas supporters agree with me.
All irony aside, one thing that caught my eye about this unilateral transfer was that the Israelis intend to destroy all of the settlements there before they leave. Completely obliterate them, rip up the fertile fields and orchards around them as well. One is left to ask if they also plan to follow the tradition of the Roman legions by sowing the earth with salt and poisoning the wells to ensure that the land is totally uninhabitable for years to come.
There is an obvious option here: Give these nice spaces to Palestinians instead of putting them to the torch. Considering that some land exchange is likely in any final agreement between the two countries, and given that many Gaza residents are living in refugee camps, it would seem an obviously painless goodwill gesture that in no way could be misconstrued as a sign of weakness.
Even if one assumes that Sharon's rhetoric is true about wanting a two-state solution to the crisis (and I don't), it would seem that of late he has completely held back the carrot in favor of a really big dose of stick.
No group is ever going to be beaten down into submission and stay that way very long. While I can understand Sharon's and average Israeli's lack of patience in the face of destabilizing terror bombings, at some point you have to start getting some of the Palestinians on your side. As hard as one may be toward militants and their supporters and overlords, there needs to be some reaching out to those vast majority of Palestinians who don't actively support violence. In a very Machiavellian sense, these spaces, some of which are likely far nicer than any others in Gaza, could be given to the opinon and political leaders of Gaza. Fatten these people up a bit and they just might start to lose their violent edge.
Furthermore, such a transfer could be a model for resolving the 'right of return question' that remains among the sorest of points of contention in any final agreement. Palestinians would not be allowed to return to land inside Israel proper that their families fled in 1947/48, but let those with valid claims be among the first to get a crack at the nice dwellings in abandoned settlements in both Gaza and the West Bank. Will this approach solve everything? Likely not. But it will give a glimmer of hope of normalcy to some Palestinians who have not totally unreasonable property claims. And in the end, such a hope of normalcy is what the majority of regular folks on both sides of this conflict (really of any conflict) really want for themselves, their familes, and future generations.
Comments:
Post a Comment
