An exceptionally short-lived truce was broken today as Palestinian factions renewed their conflict and the interior minster, Hani Kawasmeh, resigned. Meanwhile, the disquiet resulting from the publication of the interim findings of the Winograd Report has intensified. I believe that these events exemplify the difference in culture between those on the Israeli side of the "green line" and those on the Palestinian side. More specifically, I think it shows the difference in approach taken by those opposed to the government of the day on each side.
Many Israelis, a significant majority according to some opinion polls, want Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to resign. However, they have not formed militias and fought pitched battles on the streets of Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Tiberias. Yet that is exactly what some Palestinians opposed to the Hamas-led government have done. Obviously, those firing automatic weapons at each other on the streets of Gaza do not represent the majority of Palestinians but their existence is, nonetheless, worrying.
This begs the question: Why do Palestinians opposed to the Hamas-led government not air their grievances peacefully in the same way people do in Israel and, for that matter, the UK? Unfortunately, that is a question I have yet to answer.
Furthermore, those in Israel who are calling for Olmert's resignation do so because they believe that he led them into a pointless war or, at the very least, grossly mishandled an otherwise-just war; those Palestinians opposed to their government simply do not like Hamas. They may well disagree with suicide bombings and rocket attacks on civilians as a tactic, but they do themselves no favours by expressing such views via the medium of violence. So I would argue that Israelis have more justification to oppose their democratically-elected government than Palestinians have to oppose theirs (although both sides obviously have the right to oppose whoever or whatever they wish), yet one side does so peacefully and the other through the barrel of a gun.
I should point out that there are regular peaceful protests in many Palestinian towns, but they will always be overshadowed by the minority who take up arms at the slightest provocation.
Showing posts with label lebanon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lebanon. Show all posts
Monday, May 14, 2007
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Murderous States
The murder of the anti-Syrian Lebanese politician, Pierre Gemayel, on Tuesday could well be the straw that breaks the Lebanese camel's back. As with the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, Syria is the prime suspect and, yet again, the Syrian government has strenuously denied any involvement.
The title of Gideon Rachman's latest article on his international affairs blog for the Financial Times sums up the situation: "Lebanon on the Brink". Many used such words after the death of Mr. Hariri, but Hezbollah seemed to distract everyone with their renewed attacks on Israel, which eventually lead to the recent war.
While I say that Syria is the prime suspect, and while I don't want to prejudice the ongoing investigation, who else has a motive? If it wasn't Syria, it was Hezbollah - but then "Syria" and "Hezbollah" are virtually interchangeable terms. This is why I am not convinced by the change of policy in the United States, which now appears to wish to engage with Syria (as well as Iran). If Syria had lain dormant for a while - or at least refrained from murdering politicians who oppose its influence in Lebanon - then perhaps this could be seen as a sensible decision by the State Department but, given recent events (not just this murder, but also the almost constant stream of weapons flowing from Syria to Hezbollah before and during the war), would it not have been more sensible for the Bush Administration to have taken the line espoused by their Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton? He believes that "additional assassinations might be coming" and, when asked about possible Syrian involvement, he said, "We need to find out all of the facts, but you can take a look at the pattern of who gets assassinated in Lebanon..."
As with a great many people, I can't say I often agree with John Bolton but, on this occasion, he seems to be one of the more sensible voices around.
The title of Gideon Rachman's latest article on his international affairs blog for the Financial Times sums up the situation: "Lebanon on the Brink". Many used such words after the death of Mr. Hariri, but Hezbollah seemed to distract everyone with their renewed attacks on Israel, which eventually lead to the recent war.
While I say that Syria is the prime suspect, and while I don't want to prejudice the ongoing investigation, who else has a motive? If it wasn't Syria, it was Hezbollah - but then "Syria" and "Hezbollah" are virtually interchangeable terms. This is why I am not convinced by the change of policy in the United States, which now appears to wish to engage with Syria (as well as Iran). If Syria had lain dormant for a while - or at least refrained from murdering politicians who oppose its influence in Lebanon - then perhaps this could be seen as a sensible decision by the State Department but, given recent events (not just this murder, but also the almost constant stream of weapons flowing from Syria to Hezbollah before and during the war), would it not have been more sensible for the Bush Administration to have taken the line espoused by their Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton? He believes that "additional assassinations might be coming" and, when asked about possible Syrian involvement, he said, "We need to find out all of the facts, but you can take a look at the pattern of who gets assassinated in Lebanon..."
As with a great many people, I can't say I often agree with John Bolton but, on this occasion, he seems to be one of the more sensible voices around.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)