TSAHAL MUST GET A BLOODY NOSE
* * *
(Here's two
messages recently published on X, about the Gaza War.)
* * *
First message - November 2, 2023 - 14 h 24
The
Jewish-Palestinian problem started during the time of the British mandate over
Palestine, a territory that used to be a part of the Ottoman Empire. The
mandate was given to Britain by the Society of Nations, a regulatory
institution that existed before the establishment of the United Nations.
In 1948, the
victory of Israeli forces during the war of Independence sowed the seeds of
everything that happened since: the creation of a Jewish state, first, but also
the concurrent creation of a vast population of expatriates and refugees still
leaving outside the new country's borders.
It must be
said here that the Palestinians who lives inside Israel proper are in a very
different situation, compared to those leaving outside it. They are Israeli
citizens and, as such, they enjoyed rights, and the ability to vote in Israeli
elections. At the Knesset (Israel's parliament), they have their own parties to
represent them, to express their needs and to defend their interests.
The 1948
situation was made a lot worse in 1967, with the Six-Days war. That conflict
had the result of giving Israel the responsibility of managing a large
Palestinian population, living in the Occupied Territories, areas of the old
Mandate that Israel took from Egypt (the Gaza Strip) and from Jordan (the West
Bank, including the part that was later annex by the State of Israel and became
then known as East Jerusalem).
Here, it must
be said that the case of the Golan, taken from Syria and annexed, is different,
simply because its territory was not a constituent part of the British mandate
over Palestine and its native population was therefore made up of Syrians, not
Palestinians.)
So, the
current crisis is the direct result of two Israeli military victories. Since
then, Israel attitude toward Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories
has shifted through time, going here or there, but always remaining between the
two poles of neglect and repression. Now, the Palestinians of the West Bank are
at best a pool of cheap labor and at worst a hostile population that must be
gradually replaced by Jewish settlers. The best scenario, from the current
government's point of view, would be for the Palestinians to move en masse
to Jordan, leaving their lands free for Jewish resettlement. In the case of
Gaza, it was, before the war, an open-air jail, essentially. Again, the
government probably hopes that the war may incite the Gaza Palestinians to move
to the Sinai if the Egyptians let them go there, again leaving their territory
for Jewish resettlement.
The war may
take many forms in the future and extend in many more places than only the Gaza
Strip. It is beginning more and more clear, however, than only a military
defeat may force Israel to eventually change its general policy and attitude
toward the Palestinians. If Israel has the upper hand, nothing is likely to
change in the difficult, complex, and painful relationship existing between
Israelis and Palestinians in the last century.
Israel will
not agree to live peacefully with the Palestinians and allow the creation of a
Palestinian State alongside the Israeli State, unless it is facing defeat in
the face. Only a defeat will bend Israel enough to push it out of its
complacent attitude toward the plight of the Palestinians. There's no other
way.
Then, if it
does happen, if Israel accepts the long-needed and long-awaiting division of
Palestine in two parts, one for the Israelis, one for the Palestinians, then
peace might be possible in the Middle East, after a century of turmoil and
blood.
Who, then, if
it does happen, would engineer the whole normalization process, including the negotiations
between the two parties, and act as an overall mediator and peacemaker?
Probably Beijing, under the supervision of the United Nations...
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/why-netanyahu-must-go
* * *
Second message - November 3, 2023 - 12 h 47
The initial
attack by Hamas forces was horrendous and terrible. Killing civilians,
including women and children, can never be seen or presented as something
honorable. But something must be said about it: it was also the result of
decades of neglect and mistreatment by Israel toward the Palestinian population
in general.
The present
situation, between Israelis and Palestinians, is so rotten that only a military
defeat of Israel's armed forces can unblock the deadlock. Tsahal must suffer a bloody
nose, but not an outright and complete catastrophe, potentially leading to an
invasion of Israel by foreign forces and the possible large-scale massacre of
innocent civilians such a thing may create.
That would be
a tragedy, and not just for Israel, given the nuclear arsenal that country is
known to possess. The Israeli government, if it is pushed to the brink and fear
for the sake of its own civilian population, may choose, facing annihilation,
to destroy dozens of Arab and Iranian cities all over the Middle East and North
Africa, bringing death and destruction on an unthinkable scale.
That would be
the scenario to avoid at all costs, of course. Still, the Palestinian tragedy
is the result of two victorious wars by Israel, one in 1948, and one in 1967.
Only a non-victorious war, from the Israeli point of view, may result in peace.
There is a
precedent: the Yom Kippur war, in 1973, that opened the way to a peace
settlement between Israel and Egypt (then, as now, the most powerful Arab
country). The first days of that war started as an Arab victory that deeply
shook Israel and forced it, eventually, to accept negotiations with its
neighbors.
It was
possible for the French and the Germans, despite at least three wars (1870,
1914-18, 1939-45) to achieve peace and establish normal relations, devoid of
fear and resentment. The same thing is potentially possible between
Hebrew-speaking Jews and Arabic-speaking Palestinians, in the long-run, given
the right conditions, each on its own portion of the Palestinian mandate given
by the Société des Nations (along post-1967 lines).
Let's go
further. It may be that, after the current war, the Two-State solution became
eventually a Four-State solution, since Gaza and West Bank are geographically
separate, and since Jerusalem is a sacred place for the three great
monotheistic traditions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). Because of that,
the present territory of the present City of Jerusalem may possibly become an independent
City-State, somewhat like Singapore, in order to placate the faithful of those
three greats religions and avoid the pitfalls inherent to the fact of dividing
a holy city or giving it whole to this State or that State.
Thus, in such
a hypothetical scenario, the Gaza Strip (with or without Hamas), the West Bank
(minus the present settlers), Jerusalem (both East and West, and maybe with
adjacent Bethlehem, with its Christian Palestinian population) and Israel
proper may become one day four independent political entities, possibly united
in a custom union or in some sort of economic association...
The only
remaining litigious item on the agenda, then, would be the Golan, a Syrian
territory annexed by Israel following the 1967 war. The resolution of that problem
would necessarily imply negotiations between Israel and Syria, one day...
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/end-israels-gaza-illusions
* * *
PLUS: @charles.millar3 (Twitter)
"Killing civilians, including women and children, can never be seen or presented as something honorable. " should not be stated unless confirmed by an independent source.
RépondreSupprimerEnglish is not my first language, but my second, French being the first. This being said, I think that the correct answer, in your language, to your question is the following: Violence begat violence. Death begat death. Pushing a people away begat the pushing of another people away. The Hagannah, the Irgoun and the Stern gang begat Yasser Arafat, the PLO and Hamas, all of those considered 'terrorists' at one point in time, either by the British, by the Americans, or their allies. In the territory corresponding to the old Palestinian mandate, two peoples are trying to find a peaceful way to co-exist, side by side. When the military branch of Hamas, under the orders of the political branch of Hamas (based on Beirouth for security reasons), kill innocent civilians, it is the moral equivalent of the deaths that occured in the village of Deir Yassin, before the creation of the State of Israel. Nobody has the moral high ground here. Nobody can justifiy the taking of a life, even a single one, and I certainly won't attempt to. The only way to break the cycle of violence and death is to seat and talk. To leave the Gazaouï population without recourse, in a kind of void, outside of Israel and outside of Egytpt, is to invite the creation of a self-governed entity. Hamas is the self-government that emerged out of that, par défaut, in a sense, in the absence of no other possible (and more preferable) solution. To dream of transforming the West Bank into a new Judea and a new Samaria is to see the current population living there as being in the way, as being useless and irrelevant. It has been said before, and by more intelligent persons than me, only a Two States solution is conceivable. Israel and Palestine are indissociable. Jews belong there, Christians belong there, Muslim belong there. Those three confessions belong to that small patch of land, thos hallowed ground, so sacred for so many millions, so many billions of people. I hope that a lasting peace may one day emerge from all the killings and the takings of lives that are happening in Gaza, in the West Bank, in Israel proper. I really hope so. I hope you do hope so too.
RépondreSupprimer...that hallowed ground... Sorry, I should have read that comment before publishing it. It just burst out.
RépondreSupprimer