A Chance in Palestine
Israel has finds itself in a unique situation right now. Hamas and Fatah have announced a peace plan to calm the Palestinian territories. Saudi Arabia has been behind an idea to make peace between not only Palestine and Israel, but also recognition from Saudi Arabia. This is a chance at a new epoch. Admittedly, if I were Israel I would be extremely wary of Hamas. But, the fact that the richest Arab state and the defender of the Holy Land of Mecca and Medina is willing to recognize Israel means it is a road Israel must explore.
Israel’s best chance for peace is a democratic Palestine. The Democratic Peace Principle argues that no two democracies have ever fought each other. Therefore, a democratic Palestine – whether in federation or federacy with Israel or independent would do much to secure Israel.
However, the flip side of the democratic peace principle is the economic principles. Benjamin Friedman has shown in “The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth,” that a nation experiencing economic growth is more likely to expand democracy and civil liberties. Yet, a country that faces stagnation and poverty is more likely to contract such liberties. And this is the situation that Israel faces.
Israel faces this since both Gaza and the West Bank are among the poorest in the region. Their average national income per person is $1,500 while Israel is $22,500. Such a problem has been further exacerbated by the recent embargo on the Palestinian Authority and the civil war that just yesterday found some settlement. The CIA has stated: “The Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in September 2005 offered some medium-term opportunities for economic growth, which have not yet been realized due to Israeli military activities in the Gaza Strip in 2006, continued crossings closures, and the international community's financial embargo of the PA after HAMAS took office in March 2006.”
Number one, harsh economic sanctions on a people for electing their leaders sends the complete wrong message. Number two, embargoes seldom achieve political ends. Just look to the affect of the brutal economic sanctions for 10 years on Saddam Hussein, or 50 years of embargo on Fidel Castro. Number three, and this is the most important: “Power corrupts.”
Hamas is now in power. It is longer merely a terrorist opposition group. Now, the Palestinian people – who make a third as much as their Arab neighbors and less than a tenth of their Jewish neighbors – will look to Hamas to solve some problems. Therefore, power will cause it to corrupt its own principles in a pragmatic need for results.
Now, I can already see the argument against this. You will tell me one cannot negotiate with a terrorist group – especially such a radical one. But it is the very question of radicalness that requires such a negotiation. I ask you, who could be more radical and dangerous than the PLO of the 1970s and 1980s? Well, we certainly determined that: Hamas and Hezbollah. You may ask, well yeah, but now who could be more radical and dangerous than Hamas? That answer is Al-Qaida. They are out there and would probably love to help out in Palestine after the Americans pull out of Iraq.
The problem with the Oslo Accords had been that Fatah could not control such groups as Hamas. Today, Hamas and Fatah are joined together in governance. An agreement with the PA is an agreement with the two largest power groups. The peace can be found in the conjunction.
So it is a golden opportunity. Lift the embargo and move some direct capital investment into Palestine. Israel should try to get Hamas onto its side of democracy and economic growth. A free, prosperous Palestine with rising living standards, either independent or in federacy/federation with Israel secures the Jewish Homeland. And, right now is the time to start the process.
Israel’s best chance for peace is a democratic Palestine. The Democratic Peace Principle argues that no two democracies have ever fought each other. Therefore, a democratic Palestine – whether in federation or federacy with Israel or independent would do much to secure Israel.
However, the flip side of the democratic peace principle is the economic principles. Benjamin Friedman has shown in “The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth,” that a nation experiencing economic growth is more likely to expand democracy and civil liberties. Yet, a country that faces stagnation and poverty is more likely to contract such liberties. And this is the situation that Israel faces.
Israel faces this since both Gaza and the West Bank are among the poorest in the region. Their average national income per person is $1,500 while Israel is $22,500. Such a problem has been further exacerbated by the recent embargo on the Palestinian Authority and the civil war that just yesterday found some settlement. The CIA has stated: “The Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in September 2005 offered some medium-term opportunities for economic growth, which have not yet been realized due to Israeli military activities in the Gaza Strip in 2006, continued crossings closures, and the international community's financial embargo of the PA after HAMAS took office in March 2006.”
Number one, harsh economic sanctions on a people for electing their leaders sends the complete wrong message. Number two, embargoes seldom achieve political ends. Just look to the affect of the brutal economic sanctions for 10 years on Saddam Hussein, or 50 years of embargo on Fidel Castro. Number three, and this is the most important: “Power corrupts.”
Hamas is now in power. It is longer merely a terrorist opposition group. Now, the Palestinian people – who make a third as much as their Arab neighbors and less than a tenth of their Jewish neighbors – will look to Hamas to solve some problems. Therefore, power will cause it to corrupt its own principles in a pragmatic need for results.
Now, I can already see the argument against this. You will tell me one cannot negotiate with a terrorist group – especially such a radical one. But it is the very question of radicalness that requires such a negotiation. I ask you, who could be more radical and dangerous than the PLO of the 1970s and 1980s? Well, we certainly determined that: Hamas and Hezbollah. You may ask, well yeah, but now who could be more radical and dangerous than Hamas? That answer is Al-Qaida. They are out there and would probably love to help out in Palestine after the Americans pull out of Iraq.
The problem with the Oslo Accords had been that Fatah could not control such groups as Hamas. Today, Hamas and Fatah are joined together in governance. An agreement with the PA is an agreement with the two largest power groups. The peace can be found in the conjunction.
So it is a golden opportunity. Lift the embargo and move some direct capital investment into Palestine. Israel should try to get Hamas onto its side of democracy and economic growth. A free, prosperous Palestine with rising living standards, either independent or in federacy/federation with Israel secures the Jewish Homeland. And, right now is the time to start the process.
posted by Eucleides of America at 8:30 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home