Sendungsbewusstsein

Kritische Auseinandersetzung mit den Medien

Moshe Yaalon benennt vier Fehler der Friedenspolitik im Nahen Osten Freitag, 31. August 2007

Filed under: Allgemein — peet @ 12:59 Uhr
Tags: ,

Der ehemalige Generalstabsschef Israels Moshe Yaalon hat in der israelischen Zeitung „Maariv“ einen offenen Brief an Tony Blair veröffentlicht. Am 26.8 wurde eine gekürzte Fassung des Textes in den „Los AngelesTimes“ gedruckt (Link), die ausführlichere Fassung ist bei „Ynet“ erreichbar oder auf der privaten Seite des Generals. Nach mehreren Monaten, eigentlich schon Jahren der müden lauwarmen Sprüche erscheint hier eine hart formulierte Analyse, die sich gegen Sharons Politik stellt, gegen die aktuelle Regierung des Landes und – was auch besonders wichtig ist – besser argumentiert als es Netanjahu kann. Eine gute Diskussionsvorlage auf jeden Fall.

Vier Fehler (Link):

Primary among these is the belief that solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a prerequisite for stability the Middle East. This view might be common in the West and even in Israel, but it is entirely fallacious. […]

Dovetailing with this is the assumption that Israeli territorial concessions are the key to progress in the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. Again: Completely false. The reality is that we are confronting an ascendant jihadist Islam that believes that it is leading the battle against Israel and the West.

In this context, Israeli territorial or other concessions – whether made unilaterally or according to an agreement – simply fill the jihadists‘ sails: They reinforce the jihadi belief that Israel and the rest of the West are weak and can be conquered by military means. Not only are Israeli territorial concessions not the key to solving the conflict, they actually make it worse. […]

Too many in Israel and throughout the West believe that the problem between Israel and the Palestinians is „the Occupation.“

When people in the West use the term, „the Occupation“ usually means the territories Israel conquered in the 1967 defensive war known as the Six Day War. But many Palestinians, and some Israeli Arabs, use „Occupation“ to refer to all of the land of Israel („from the sea to the river“).

If the problem between Israel and the Palestinians was just the ’67 territories, and the solution was dividing the land (as was proposed by the British Mandate in 1937, by the UN in 1947 and by the prime minister of Israel in 2000), then the conflict would have ended long ago. The heart of the problem between Israel and the Palestinians is that a Palestinian leadership willing to recognize Israel as an independent Jewish state has not yet risen. The problem’s actual heart is that Fatah, Hamas and even some Israeli Arabs do not recognize the Jewish people’s right to an independent state, recognition granted by Blair’s predecessors during the British Mandate through the Balfour Declaration, and affirmed again and again in the international arena.

Another misconception is the belief that the Palestinians want and have the ability to establish a state that will live in peace alongside the state of Israel. The clear-eyed among us understand that this hope has been dashed. Arafat established a gang rule that refused to take responsibility for its people and accept accountability for their welfare.

Mahmoud Abbas did not and does not want to take responsibility and enjoys his „weakness“ – and the results are apparent. A society that educates and encourages a culture of death is a society with a built-in mechanism for self-destruction. We need simply to look at the sad case of the Gaza Strip: Palestinian nationalists won, received overwhelming political and economic support from the global community and from Israel, and the miserable outcome is apparent to all.

Many in Israel and the rest of the West, looking through w estern glasses, believe that economic development is an engine capable of neutralizing nationalistic and religious feelings, which will bring peace, which will in turn bring security.

If you still believe this, I recommend that you hearken to David Ben-Gurion at the opening session of the Knesset in 1960: He termed those who believed this „naïve Zionists.“ Those still clinging to this misconception ought to demand that the Palestinians explain what they did with the $7 billion they received over the last few years.

Seven billion reasons for economic progress – and yet: Why did they destroy the Erez industrial zone? Why do they attack the passages in the Gaza strip? Why is the Palestinian economy in shambles? Why are they so much worse off under the rule of the Palestinian Authority than they were prior to Arafat and his cronies assuming power in May 1994?

Yaalons Empfehlungen an die Politik:

Western governments must refrain from pressuring Israel, which leads only to short-term gains (and to longer-term complications). Instead, try to convince the Palestinians to commit to a long-term strategy: One premised upon educational, political and economic reforms that will lead to the establishment of a civil society that cherishes life and not death, that values human rights and freedom, and that develops a middle class and not a corrupt, rich elite.

Don’t waste money propping up Abu Mazen or his security organizations. Direct funds toward educational reform and toward encouraging small businesses in order to facilitate the growth of a middle class, which is the core of civil society.

At the same time, act to solve the Palestinian refugee issue through humanitarian means: Establish an international fund that will offer refugee families an appropriate amount to aid in their resettlement and integration ($100-200,000.00 per family), on the condition that the acceptance of this money represents the resolution of their refugee status. Don’t be tempted to take the easy route of grabbing short-term – and short-sighted – „gains,“ such as demanding that Israel uproot settlements or refrain from military activity in Palestinian towns. As I wrote, Israeli concessions will be viewed as yet another victory for Islamist jihad. Emissaries who press for the cessation of IDF activity in Palestinian areas are asking for a renewal of the terror war Israelis endured following the September 2000 withdrawal from Lebanon. Blair – who sent the British army to Afghanistan to prevent terror attacks in London, Madrid and New York – particularly understands that the best defense is a good offense. And a good offense includes the freedom to capture and arrest terrorists in their hideouts.

The emissaries must not be tempted to talk to Hamas, even in the face of pressure from home (be it political or economic, such as that from British Gas, which has interests in the Palestinian Authority that apparently outweigh moral considerations). For the sake of Palestinian society, Hamas and its ideology must be defeated.

Emissaries are sent to address with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but they maintain clarity: The Israeli-Palestinian dispute is not the most significant conflict today. That title belongs to the battle between jihadist Islam and the West; Israel is merely one theater where that fight is being waged. […]

In diesem Blog sind zum selben Thema noch einige Hinweise weiterführend – zu Texten von Eiland (Link), van Creveld (Link), M.Sharon (Link), Woolsey (Link).

Advertisements
 

Kommentar verfassen

Trage deine Daten unten ein oder klicke ein Icon um dich einzuloggen:

WordPress.com-Logo

Du kommentierst mit Deinem WordPress.com-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Twitter-Bild

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Twitter-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Facebook-Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Facebook-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Google+ Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Google+-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Verbinde mit %s