Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Time to deal separately with Gaza

  Time to deal separately with Gaza
by Yossi Alpher
A Hamas-Fateh unity agreement is bad for the prospect of an 
Israeli-Palestinian peace process, at least in the near term. If the 
current unity efforts are crowned with success, PLO negotiators with 
Israel, led by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, will have 
to show deference to Hamas sensitivities and toughen their stand on 
issues like the right of return. Assuming new Palestinian elections are 
the first order of business of a unity agreement, Fateh and Hamas will 
compete in displaying a hard line and peace negotiations will have to be 
postponed.
So obvious does this seem that one wonders what motivates Fateh to agree 
to talk unity while at the same time demanding final status talks. Why 
does Egypt, which is presumably dedicated to successful 
Palestinian-Israeli peace talks, continue all these years and months to 
shepherd endlessly abortive Palestinian unity talks? Why are appeals 
made to Syria to pressure Hamas to modify its unity demands when the 
only way to seriously influence Syrian positions is through a 
Syrian-Israeli peace process, about which the moderate Arab states are 
not enthusiastic? Why did the Obama administration seemingly wake up 
only last month to the detrimental effects of a unity agreement for the 
peace process and petition Cairo to desist?
I can conceive of two possible answers. One is that it's all a sham and 
everyone is just going through the motions in the name of political 
correctness, with Cairo finding in abortive unity talks a convenient and 
harmless way to keep tabs on Hamas and leverage its failing regional 
leadership aspirations. The other is that the alternative to Palestinian 
unity--Palestinian disunity, i.e., the ongoing Gaza/West Bank, 
Hamas/Fateh geopolitical split--is simply so awful to imagine that unity 
efforts will continue no matter what the cost.
Under present circumstances, a successful Palestinian-Israeli peace 
process means an agreement with the West Bank alone, even though both 
Israel and the PLO would declare their intention that it eventually 
apply to the Gaza Strip as well. Eventually--because there currently is 
no prospect that Gaza will be pried loose of the Hamas grip. But an 
agreement with the West Bank alone is better--for Israel, the 
Palestinians, the Arab states and the world--than none.
And yet, argue the unity-at-all-costs advocates, a state in the West 
Bank alone won't be "viable". As if the Palestinian West Bankers with 
their superb human resources and dedicated diaspora can't create a state 
at least as viable as any other non-oil state in the Arab world. As if 
the addition of the overpopulated and impoverished Gaza Strip makes a 
state more viable. As if the emergence of a state in the West Bank won't 
provide the greatest incentive possible for Hamas to moderate its 
ideology and join.
Rather, the real dilemma embodied in any effort to confront the 
possibility of a successful peace process without Gaza is the question, 
what to do with Gaza on its own. Certainly neither Egypt nor Israel, 
Gaza's two neighbors, wishes to confront that question. Moderate 
Palestinians obviously shy away from contemplating the consequences of 
moving forward on the West Bank without Gaza: this would shatter their 
narrative of a two-state solution based on a Palestinian state in the 
West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza.
Yet, if there is to be any viability to the notion of an 
Israeli-Palestinian peace process mediated by the United States, it's 
time for all parties concerned to recognize that, for the time being at 
least, Gaza is a separate entity. We all have to begin reevaluating our 
failed strategies for Gaza. We need to look for new strategies that 
don't interfere with the process but are not, of necessity, a part of 
that process.-
Published 26/10/2009 © 
bitterlemons.org
http://www.bitterlemons.org/issue/isr1.php


O meglio, Time to deal separately with the West Bank - and not with Gaza, se 
"deal" significa non solo trattare ma anche giungere ad un accordo!
Interessante.
Questa � anche l'idea, non esplicitamente citata ma necessariament 
eimplicita, di quell'editoriale di Joe Klein sul Time.
Entrambi mi sembrano molto ottimisti, perch� Yossi qui deve fare i conti con 
la (im)probabilit� che Fatah accetti l'idea di buttare a mare, seppur 
temporaneamente, Gaza; mentre Joe ha dovuto mettere in conto che da un lato 
Fatah accetti uno scambio di terre di circa il 5%, e dall'altro Israele 
accetti che circa il 20% degli insediamenti, quelli minori e pi� dispersi, 
restino fuori. Entrambe scelte impopolari e poco probabili, temo.