The Third Way: Finding Balance In Mideast Analysis

Posted in Ben-Gurion, Egypt, Ehud Barak, Ehud Olmert, Fatah, Gaza, Hamas, Iran, Israel, Mahmoud Abbas, Palestine, Terrorism | Tagged Abbas, Altalena, Ami Ayalon, Ben-Gurion, cease fire, Dennis Ross, Efraim Halevy, Egypt, Fatah, Gaza, Gilad Shalit, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Irgun, Israel, Israel Policy Forum, LEHI, Palestinian, Saudi Arabia, Stern Gang, Washington Institute for Near East Policy | 2 Comments

2 Responses

1. on March 23, 2008 at 8:33 pm | Reply Jeff Warner

   Good essay Mitchell. My issue concerns talking about Hamas as if it was monolithic. It is not. It encompasses moderates as well as extremists. For example Ismail Haniyeh in Gaza is quite moderate relative to Khaled Meshaal in Damascus.

   Surely a better way to deal with the Hamas is to work with the moderates and attempt to split Hamas. The goal should be to let the extremists move to Damascus and let the moderates run Gaza.

   
   
2. on March 24, 2008 at 1:26 am | Reply Isidor Farash

   Talk, talk, talk, eh?
   Talking is fine. I have no objection to talking. In fact, in most situations it’s the OTHER party who thinks I am far to verbose. So the talking is not the core issue here. It’s the question as to whom (if anyone) is paying attention.
   Mitchell has a few things wrong, both factually and conceptually. (I hope you don’t mind my talking about it).
   Firstly, the Palestinian-Arab constitution permits the president (presently Abbas) to dissolve any parliament he (or she) chooses. Abbas was attempting this maneuver when a civil war broke out. Therefore, the present Hamas government IS NOT a legitimate government.
   Second, The Fatah is a corrupt and useless political entity and does not serve the best interests of its suffering populations. Choosing between the two is like choosing between Charles Manson versus John Wayne Gacey. Essentially, the “bad Captain Kirk” versus the “worse Captain Kirk”. So, at the end of the day, we can talk all we like and so can they, but no one will have any viable solution because of bad Kirk vs. worse kirk.
   The possible solution is a hard pill to swallow. The answer is . . . Strait talk. Before any functional solution can be hoped to succeed, a free press and free speech must take hold in the PA. What that means is a daily opposition (pro-Israel) newspaper and TV + radio in the PA. Now THAT would really be talking. This should have been done 25 years ago except that the Israelis were too lame to accept that information is at the core of human reasoning. As long as two completely disparate sets of facts are held as true be opposing sides, there is no hope of any real peace. In the interim, Egypt should annex Gaza and Jordan should annex W.B. Problem solved. Failing to take pro-active measures of the sort I have prescribed simply means that at some levels, the prevalent powers may actually prefer a protracted state of violent conflict. I can accept no other explanation. If the world actually believed that an end to the violence was in their best interest, it would have been stopped decades ago. This is a war against the Jews, with the Palestinian-Arabs as hapless pawns. The sooner that both sides appreciates this, the closer it will be to a solution. Most other conclusions simply feed the misery.
   Oh, am I talking too much?