2.The government of a democratic state is behaving exactly like a
‘terrorist’ organisation (a label that fits Hamas, but only in part). Fully
aware that there will be widespread ‘collateral’ damage, that democratic
government is targeting overpopulated areas with its planes and missiles. If
the life of innocent civilians were not at stake, the ‘regrets’ expressed by
the key Israeli spokespersons might make us laugh. The asymmetry between the
two ‘organisations’ – the military superiority of a sophisticated army against
the home-made rockets of an armed group – should not make us forget that each
organisation is using the same methods. 3.What are the declared objectives of
this war? In the ranks of the Israeli authorities, especially the military
ones, confusion seems to reign. Some leaders justify the war on the grounds of
their determination to protect the population of southern Israel by terminating
the hail of rockets. But we know that, in the past, such objectives have never
been achieved other than through cease-fire agreements, however limited in
scope.
Others speak of ‘eradicating’ Hamas by eliminating its key political and
military leaders. Has experience not yet taught them that the death of one such
leader spawns ten new ones, each determined to continue the struggle? So how
can we explain the fact that the overwhelming majority of the Israeli public
has again supported their authorities’ decision to launch this massive
offensive against Hamas in Gaza?
4.What are the objectives that the Israeli authorities have been pursuing
for decades? While consistently stating their aspirations for peace with their
neighbours and with the Arab world – consistently calling for the recognition
of the State of Israel, and consistently stating their desire to integrate into
the region – their actual response or action towards their neighbours has, in
almost all cases, been one of brute force. How can we explain that the Peace
Initiative promulgated by the Arab League was ignored by the Israeli government
after its unanimous ratification by the members states in March 2002? And that
the Initiative received the same treatment after its revival in 2007? Should we
once again be reminded that this historic document proposes to the State of
Israel that the conflict be ended, relations with all Arab states be
normalised, and diplomatic and commercial relations be opened? Should we be
reminded that the document also demands Israel’s withdrawal from the
territories it has occupied since 4 June 1967 (with minor exchanges of
territories to allow Israel to keep blocks of colonies in which tens of
thousands of Israelis now live); that East Jerusalem should become the capital
of the Palestinian State; and that an ‘agreed’ – thus negotiated – solution
should be found to the problem of Palestinian refugees?
Rather than resorting once more to a military option from which no solution
can flow, surely the moment has come to take the only option that might bring
life, future and hope to the whole region? It is useless to count on Israeli
politicians, none of whom seem to have either the necessary stature nor the
ability to think of anything but their own political futures. During these
years of ‘negotiations’ – which have brought no improvement to the lives of the
Palestinians of the West Bank and East Jerusalem – the leaders of the
Palestinian authority have been marginalised. Then, after the coup by Hamas in
June 2007, they lost all control of the Gaza Strip. The European Union has
proved that it has nothing to offer but money to rebuild what the Israeli army
has destroyed and to pay the salaries of Palestinian civil servants. To crown
it all, last month it accepted unconditionally that Israel’s status should be
upgraded. The eyes and hopes of all those who aspire to a just and lasting
peace in the region are now turned on the new US administration. Will Barack
Obama, the new President, who promised to bring change – who symbolises change
– have the vision and courage he needs to force the main protagonists in this
conflict to negotiate definitive peace agreements? Is he is fully convinced
that peace between Israel and the Arabs will help him embark on withdrawals
from Iraq, investing more efforts in Afghanistan and in Pakistan and
much-needed talks with Iran? If so, this portfolio should be his foreign-policy
priority from the very start of his mandate.