WASHINGTONThe heart-wrenching events taking place in Gaza confirm what has been apparent since the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin in 1995the mediocrity of Israels political leadership. By mediocrity, I mean the supremacy of knee-jerk reaction over groundbreaking initiative, of petty politics over vision.
On paper, Israels logic is unassailable: Hamas, a terrorist organization determined to destroy the Jewish state, periodically fires rockets across the border; Israel, as any other state would do, is exercising self-defense by attempting to annihilate Hamas offensive capability.
That logic is self-defeating. Only a permanent occupation of Gaza could ensure the absence of rockets in southern Israel. But Israels occupation of Gaza proved to be politically and practically unsustainableand the Israelis withdrew in 2005.
Suppose Israel tried again. Hamas or some other organization, helped by Egypts Muslim Brotherhood, would harass the occupiers from across the border. By Israels logic, its army would then have to push into Egypt.
In 1982, Israel went into Lebanon in pursuit of the Palestine Liberation Organization using the same arguments it is using in the case of Gaza today. It eventually withdrew, and the invasion did not prevent Hezbollah, another terrorist organization, from using Lebanese territory to attack Israeli civilians years later.
Anything less than a permanent occupation of Gaza will guarantee Hamas resurgence. A permanent occupation, on the other hand, will put the Palestinian Authority led by Mahmoud Abbas in the West BankIsraels moderate interlocutorin the impossible position of either betraying the Palestinian cause or playing second fiddle to Hamas, something we are already beginning to see. The extremists will have a broader popular base in the West Bank and rockets will soon be fired across the border into eastern Israel.
The Israeli security logic would then force a full occupation of the West Bank, pushing Palestinian terrorists into Jordan. And if rockets started to fly into an Israeli-controlled West Bank from Jordan, would the security logic dictate an Israeli invasion of the Hashemite kingdom?
All of this is to say that Israels leadership needs to accept (painfully) the futility of a purely defensive logic. Its best bet is to help create the conditions in which the Palestinian moderates are able to marginalize the fanatics with the help of a population that starts to see improving standards of living. That would mean making concessions and taking risks such as Menachem Begin did when he signed the peace treaty with Egypt in 1979, and in the way Rabin did when he signed the Oslo accords in 1993 and made formal peace with Jordan soon after.
Gazas living conditions since the end of Israels occupation have been dismal. One has only to read the articles of moderates in the Israeli daily Haaretz or the testimonies of Western observers to realize the bitter resentment that the 1.5 million Gazans must feel under Israels drastic commercial and transit restrictions. The severe limitations placed on daily life in the West Bank are also a source of humiliation for many Palestinians. This is not to say that Arab terrorists who fire rockets against innocent Israeli civilians are justified and it does not excuse the corruption and incompetence of the Palestinian Authority. But Israels conduct does not help the Palestinian population place the blame where it belongs for Hamas tyranny in Gaza and for Fatahs appalling governance in the West Bank.
One senses that since the fiasco of the attack on Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006, Israels leaders have spent time preparing for a more efficient assault on Gaza rather than pushing toward the solution that moderate Israelis and Palestinians know is the only workable solution: two states living side by side with Jerusalem containing two capitals, acceptance by the Palestinians of the fact that the refugees will not be able to return to what is now Israeli territory, and acceptance by the Israelis of the fact that their settlements in Palestinian territory will have to be dismantled.
In any conflict between two rightsas Amos Oz, Israels leading novelist, has called itthe best outcome is one in which both sides end up with a certain degree of frustration, but not too much. With differences of nuance, todays Israeli leadersKadimas Tzipi Livni, the Labor Partys Ehud Barak and the Likuds Binyamin Netanyahuare unwilling to move beyond the defensive frame of mind into which Arab terrorism has pushed millions of Israelis who not so long ago were willing to support more visionary and courageous leaders.
|Alvaro Vargas Llosa is Senior Fellow at The Center on Global Prosperity at the Independent Institute. He is a native of Peru and received his B.Sc. in international history from the London School of Economics. His Independent Institute books include Global Crossings: Immigration, Civilization, and America, Lessons From the Poor: Triumph of the Entrepreneurial Spirit, The Che Guevara Myth and the Future of Liberty, and Liberty for Latin America.|
(c) 2009, The Washington Post Writers Group
The erosion of national boundariesand even the idea of the nation stateis already underway as people become ever more inter-connected across borders. A jungle of myth, falsehood and misrepresentation dominates the debate over immigration. The reality is that the economic contributions of immigration far outweigh the costs.