Home
Delicious
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Stumble Upon
Technorati
Mixx
Sphinn
Twitter
SphereIt
Propeller
Gmarks
Newsvine
Yahoo! My Web
Live Journal
Blinklist
E-mail
My wife and I just returned home from a three-week visit to Israel. To be accurate, we also visited the Palestinian West Bank for a day; a profoundly memorable day at that.
In some ways, our trip followed familiar patterns: visiting family and friends, taking in the wondrous landscapes and vistas, and enjoying the delicious foods with utter abandon. But in other ways, at least some of our experiences seemed to defy normal expectations, and seemed to negate the usual narratives we have come to know.
In the West Bank, for example, we were honored to meet a man who is probably the wealthiest Palestinian on earth, who lives in a palatial mansion he built, and who employs some 60,000 people, second only to the government itself. Did you know that such people live in the West Bank? In Nazareth, we met a Christian Israeli Arab, a builder who has constructed thousands of homes in Israel and Europe, and who hosted us for a delicious meal, along with some 200 Jewish Israelis, as a sign of friendship, and as a willingness to build bridges. At the Dead Sea we spoke to a Jewish billionaire who builds industrial parks for Jews and Arabs to work together because he believes that jobs will bring peace. In Jerusalem, we met the director of a think tank, a Jew who devotes himself to exposing discrimination against Israeli Arabs, in an attempt to perfect Israel’s democracy. In these and other ways, our trip defied normal conventions.
But what of the prospect for peace in the Middle East; the perennial question of our time?
Actually, I came home even more convinced than ever, that there is at least a decent chance for peace, but not because of what you might expect. You might think that people on both sides are tired of war. Well yes, but that will not bring peace, in and of itself. You might think that Israel is sick and tired of world condemnation. Well yes, but that too will not bring peace.
So what then will bring peace between Israel and the Palestinians? What is likely to work now, when so many other attempts have failed before? Only one thing: the need to thwart a common enemy.
It comes as no surprise that Fattah and Hamas are engaged in an existential struggle for survival. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that Hamas is a knife at the throat of Fattah. The more moderate elements of Fattah in the West Bank do not want to see a Hamas takeover of the West Bank, as took place in Gaza. To meet the threat of Hamas, Fattah has decided to do two things: to consolidate its security apparatus, and to create jobs. General Dayton, of the U.S., in cooperation with Jordan and Israel, is working on the security issues. Prime Minister Fayyad, a financial maven of some renown, has been quite successful in creating jobs, and can take pride in a 7% economic growth rate this year. Netanyahu is cooperating in this regard by reducing the number of checkpoints and by advocating on behalf of what he calls “an economic peace.”
If you ask me, the threat that Hamas poses to Fattah opens a window of opportunity for Israel, and for the prospects for peace. If Israel plays her cards right, she will play an active role in this regard, and become a willing partner to help Fattah to consolidate its security, and to create jobs. Israel could use her economic, educational, and research capabilities to help revitalize the Palestinian economy in the West Bank. She could agree to all this on one condition: a comprehensive peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians of the West Bank. The Palestinians would likely agree, not because they love Israel, God forbid, but because they need Israel to stave off a common threat, the threat of Hamas.
A partnership between Israel and the West Bank would be a way of putting pressure on Hamas. Ordinary citizens in Gaza would see the prosperity in the West Bank and would naturally say to themselves: “Hey, where is our share?” They could pressure Hamas in ways that Israel can’t. When Israel fights Hamas she creates martyrs. But when their own people pressure Hamas, now that’s horse of a different color. After a while, without the support of the people, even Hamas could decide to moderate its views, and join the bandwagon of job creation, as a means of legitimating its hold on power. At such time, Fattah and Hamas could become two legitimate political parties, each using legitimate means to consolidate political power. Each creating jobs, instead of instigating terror.
There is a saying in the Middle East: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Could this be a case in point, and could it mean peace?
RSS 
I would agree with you that the formula ”...the enemy of my enemy is my friend...” is not the ideal one for brokering the peace. It is a bit manipulative as you say, and it may or may not work. However, given the history of the region, and the many things which have been tried before, it may be one of the only ways to jump start the process. But it is not enough, in and of itself.
Even though this mutual self-interest may get the parties talking seriously, more has to be put on the table to make something happen. And I agree with you wholeheartedly that a lasting solution will have to address the history, and will have to give both sides a sense of hope.
My work is called Selling a Vision of Hope. You are welcome to visit my website www.sellingavisionofhope.org I want to give substance to a vision of hope by building a Green Industrial Zone in the West Bank. Today I found out that I may be chosen as the American representative for a French project that is underway in Bethlehem, which as you know is in the West Bank, to build a Green Industrial Zone there. The project will have three components: an educational piece, a collaboration on environmental research, and a partnering of the research with entrepreneurs to create jobs and profits for a new Palestine.
So you see, I have been working to sustain a peace deal with the kind of Hope that you are looking for, based on growing our economies, protecting the environment, and neutralizing the hold of extremist thinking with good paying green jobs.
Saudi financing would be the icing on the cake and would say to the world that oil profits are being used to generate green profits, and that good paying green jobs are being used to weaken the hold of extremist thinking.
I would be happy to work with you on this if you conclude that it is the right way to go. You can reach me by way of the website.
I hope to keep the discussion going with you and your friends. I still think there is an opportunity, but as you suggest, we never quite know whether we’re coming or going in the Middle East.
Thank you for your kind consideration.
I also agree that both sides are sort of tired of the ongoing struggle, and yearn for peace. Moreover, I also agree with you about the factions in the Palestine - Fatah versus the Palestine. Yes, internally -> is IS - versus .. not a minor political disagreement.
All of what you said, observed and implied are, in my opinion -> spot-on..
However, I do not think your solution { if there is one you are proposing} will work and here is why i think so ->
[a] yes, it could be possible that Israel maybe able to capitalize on the given rift between Fatah and Hamas.
[b] yes, it may be achieved -> the [a] above - If Israel plays her cards right..
[c] all of the above is fine -> however there is a fundamental issue that i am not able to get it down my throat yet..
and here is the fundamental problem ->
its that online liner - >
” an enemy of an enemy is a friend”
this is the driver - the soul of the analysis .. behind.. is it not? -> well, its the heading of the post .. so its got to be .
Now, this is precisely, the problem.. and here is why I think this is a problem - a problem in the belief - in the mind-set itself { rest is algebra: if we get the model itself wrong, it doesn’t matter, how sophisticated our mind coagulates around the clots} :
The problems with this *belief*/mind-set/dogma -> and enemy of an enemy is my friend
I see 3 problems:
[a] Philosophical problems -> in politics - it translates to Policy level issues - policy is not tactics ..
[b] Tactical issues :
[c] Implementation Issues:
the first - Policy fork -> any friendship based on animosity- hatred, dislike - isnt sustainable - because the foundation itself is - ahem - *not-based-on-friendship* ->
Second -> the Tactical Problems -> If the Israelis are seen as manipulative - as they are being perceived throughout : i have a quote for you on this ->” its great to be Machiavellian - > but the worst thing you can have going on - is people find out that you are Machiavellian ” -> and you can read history to find out what happened to Nicholas Machiavelli...
Third -> Implementation Issues -> well, Israel is not a monolith - as outsiders may think or want to think/believe - > Israel is a complex curry - many cultures, multiple ethnicities, multiple views -> heard that phrase ->
*2 Jews - 3 opinions*
well in this case -> 4 Jews - wont just
mean 6+ 4 opinions -> but also .. they will change over a period of time..
here is the simulation i think..
” ok.. fine.. yeah.. and thats right”
” but.. if that is the case then... ”
and finally someone - believe me - someone will say -> ” OK, but what after Fatah? ” -> what is the legitimacy of Fatah..? how long will fatah reign ? etc etc ...
___________________________________
if this wasn’t intellectual enough - here are some models: well there are 3 .. only.. :
[1] Fukuyamian View -> which has this famous line -> ” End of History as we know it” ...
[2] Huntingtonian View -> with that often quoted line ” Islam has bloody borders” -> parse it to mean - ” in the future, the wars will be based on cultural differences... and no.. fukuyama aint right”
[3] John Mersheimer’s view -> which is you know, sort of what i see inter spread in your post - alongside some Fukuyama’s views.. whats wrong with this view cannot be know unless you see - what this view proposes and here is a cornerstone : -> * Countries do not have permanent friends of permanent enemies.. ” -> this is sort of Machiavellian -> it has more of the politics slant - than policy imperatives..
whats wrong with John Mershemeir’s view - one may ask :
well, how about this:
[a] this view had been the dominant view used by the US State Department for years - make it decades -> sort of like -> chuck the policy -> an enemy of an enemy is a friend -> and you know who drove this policy? -> the cold war - and here it went :
USSR = enemy -> find out who is the enemy of the USSR -> make it our friend..
true to the prescription - the State Department goes on a hunt for the bride -> great -> so where were the suitors: - those who were the enemies of the enemy - the enemies of the USSR:
1. Afghanistan
2. The Stans -lets call it - the biggistan .. { my phrase for all those — stans - that didnt like the ussr}
3. i forgot..
[b] so obviously when you make an enemy of an enemy a friend - then what will others do..? how about the friends of the enemies: here is the list:
[a]India = the ally of the USSR -
[b]everyone else that was a friend of the USSR - was like -NOT GOOD or something :) -> SO say, Poland and the rest of the Eastern Block = NOt Good ..
ok.. here is 2009 :
[a] in 1980s -> the mujahideen were freedom-fighters fighting the infidel-communist-russians-> and now ? - what is AFGHANISTAN? - either a refugee or ???
[b] the Eastern Block - was it the what’s-his-name-Rummsfield? - who said - the old europe and the new europe?
Oh old europe was a friend.. and now - there is a strong - anti-US current..
India is now one of the Biggest ally of BOTH USA AND of Israel..
Pakistan WAS an ally - a friend of the Regan administration -> and Indra Gandhi was a ****** and Indians were ***** ? according to the tapes released of Nixon and Kissinger { yeah, apologies accepted - but werent required.. its past}
and ? NOW its 2009? - what is PAKISTAN NOW ? - take your pick -: here are the options:
[a] aid
[b] where is Wajiristan ?
[c] who is the president of pakistan?
i mean come on - paksitan was a friedn also -> because -> pasktan = anti=USSR AND ANTI INDIA :)
and we call this POLICY?
:)
:)
__________________________
John Mershemeir’s view doesnt work in Middle East and in the Stans ... why? - because - in Middle East -> at least 30% is about HISTORY .. and deep seated - mistrust of each other...
______________________________________
Huntington’s view -> ? Oh well.. this is so bleak and dark - that fighting this would mean -> History = in our present and in the future
_______________________________________
Fukuyama’s view -> This, I hope, is the hope and the guiding force -
BTW : according to any polls, pew being one of them -> there are two nations - most pro american than anyone else -> can you guess? who they are ? =>
here is the answer :
[a] a former friend of the enemy = enemy = Poland
[b] a former enemy of a friend = India = a former and even current ally of the - AHEM - erstwhile nation called the USSR
_____________________________________
but why doesnt Fukumaya approach not work in middle east?
in my opinion, here is why:
[a] Fukumayaian view requires - trust, and somewhat of letting go of the history..and in case when nations= middle-east -> which means - neither west nor east -> it means -> what Freidman says in that book called - the Lexus and the Olive tree..
[b] We cant agree on what is Middle East
c] Middle east has too many players -> and the biggest of them all - are not their local government - but its dictated by - sort of like -> who is at the white house and who gets to sleep at the Lincoln Bedroom
yah in short -> Republicans - neocons - and their \hawks or the Dems - with their doves :)
______________________________________
Middle East = 30% history , 40% emotions and 100% arguments :)
so peace in the middle of east => has to have some components of history and some Hope .. a hope that says -> lest end the history - as we know it ..:)
but thats hard - to do - the do - because we have too many - who -you? and you -whos - in both Israel and in Palestine..
and if u think i am nuts.. great.. you should be too..
here is the who you -> and you who>
[a] no one phorein had more of the Lincoln bedroom than Arafat when - who = Clinton .. and u know - when who = Bush -> i heard - it was mostly the Indians sleeping there { Oh, he is in India - yeahthe not-spo-phorein-visiting-guy-oh-folk-is-in-india-now-!!gotfigure)
[b] In Israel -> if who you = kadima its not the same when who-you = Bibi Netanya-hu :) u know LIkud?
[c] so, in middle east AND IN Israel If who - you = american - then there are many questions:
here are some :
(i) r u = necon ? dove or hawk?
(ii) are you = american = a Jew ? - is so - then - do you know? - who? and are you - one of the self-hating-jew ( quote made by Bibi - referring to AxelRod and Rambo Emmanuel)!
(iii) are you = american = Carter - then you=pro-arab- and less - Isareli -> so. can you - help negotiate - Gilad et all.?
(iv) are you = american = *can-talk-to the egyptians and the turkish* ?
but the most important question becomes -> If you = American - then are you here for *interering in our internal affairs or are you here to help negotiate what we want by interfering in the Arab world” amazingly - when the americans talk to the Arabs - they are faced with the same question ->
ie.
” your american - so.. dont interfere with our internal affairs - but hey.. we would be glad to talk about such-and-such-issue-with-so-and-so-in-the KNESSET*
_____________________________________
are you confused? - with the twists and the turns and the permutations and the combinations?
___________________
If so- then let me tell you - ITS ME TOO
___________________________________
Welcome to the Middle East -> here the histroy runs through the veins ..
______________________________
AND While i end this long post ..
what is history of the Zion =???
__________________________________
regards
Olga Shulman Lednichenko
PS: My name = Olga.. Middle name = Shulman and Last Name = Lednichenko.. sometimes i do this -> middle name = last name = shulman=lednichenko
yeah Olga = Russian.. and you probably know better than even me -> most of the last names with - those 3 words ***man = Jew... and the last names with vowels specially ending with O and V et al = Russian..
so, yes, i get confused - if its Borsh or Falafel
_______________________________