JERUSALEM -- Over the last months, the people of Gaza were victims to a bloody family feud, almost an all-out civil war. Therefore, when the news came from Mecca, Saudi Arabia, that the two feuding Palestinian factions, Fatah and Hamas, agreed to create a national unity government, the Gazans started celebrating.
In Israel and the United States, however, the Mecca agreement was met with reservations. Israeli and U.S. officials said that they expected the new Palestinian government to accept the three principles set by the international community -- recognizing Israel, respecting past agreements with Israel and renouncing terrorism -- before the embargo on the Hamas government would be lifted. Since Hamas, which is still a vital element of the Palestinian government, refuses to recognize Israel, it seems that nothing has actually changed.
Bush's vision
President Bush's vision is that two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, live in peace next to each other. Such a scenario is based on the old dictum that democracies don't fight each other. Yet if the American idea of democratizing the Middle East boils down only to sending Arabs to the ballots, then no one should be surprised if Hamas turns out to be the victor. In the same vein, demanding that Hamas recognize Israel is ridiculous. These are serious people, who believe that Israel shouldn't exist and that Palestine should be an Islamic theocracy, not a liberal democracy.
All the gimmicks, then, coming from Mecca or elsewhere, will not work.
Individual Palestinians, perhaps, accept the Jewish state as an accomplished fact. As a collective, however, they either use the rhetoric of peace and at the same time engage in terror, or, in the case of Hamas, reject Israel's existence altogether. Unfortunately, it seems that for the Palestinians, it is more important to keep the conflict with Israel alive rather than resolve it and turn to nation-building.
When Yasser Arafat, at Camp David in 2000, was presented with the most generous proposal that any Israeli leader could have offered, he rejected it and started the bloody intifada. And when in 2005 Israel pulled out of Gaza unilaterally, the Palestinians, instead of establishing there the nucleus for their state, chose to harass the neighboring Israeli city, Sderot, with their Kassam rockets, thus invoking angry Israeli reprisals. Later, they elected the Hamas terrorists as their government, bringing upon themselves world embargo and more poverty.
Frankly, I prefer the Hamas types who tell me the truth in my face much more than the phony guys who pretend to be peace-loving democrats, just to please the West. And in light of this, here is my suggestion for the future of the Israeli-Palestinian relations: Israel should go on and pull out unilaterally from most of the West Bank.
In peace, mutual dignity
This is vital if Israel wants to remain both Jewish and democratic. Sheltered behind a defensive wall, protected by its army and strengthened by its booming economy, Israel should wait for the Palestinians to make up their minds. Once they cannot blame the Israeli occupation for all their troubles, the ball will be squarely in their court.
If Palestinians truly embark on the path of democracy and peace, they'll find in Israel their best ally. If they turn to the other direction, then they'll be dooming themselves and their children to endless misery.
Am I becoming a pessimist at old age? Definitely not. I have no doubt that Israelis and Palestinians will eventually live side by side in peace and mutual dignity. However, both sides will have to make serious efforts to get there -- and in this long, uphill road, there are really no shortcuts.
This article was first published in The Miami Herald on March 2, 2007.
http://www.miami.com
The opinions