Contextualizing David Ignatius' claim about "John Kerry’s big blunder in seeking an
Israel-Gaza cease-fire"?
by Ahmed E. Souaiaia*
David Ignatius, a journalist with extraordinary access to
the halls of power but apparently limited sound reasoning argued that John
Kerry has committed a “big blunder in seeking an Israel-Gaza cease-fire.” He explained that “Kerry’s error has been to put
so much emphasis on achieving a quick halt to the bloodshed that he has
solidified the role of Hamas, the intractable, unpopular Islamist group that
leads Gaza, along with the two hard-line Islamist nations that are its key
supporters, Qatar and Turkey.” Mr. Ignatius went on to provide a solution: “A
wiser course […] would have been to negotiate the cease-fire through the
Palestinian Authority, as part of its future role as the government of Gaza.
Hamas agreed last April to bring the authority back to Gaza as part of a unity
agreement with Fatah that was brokered by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.”
There are serious factual, ethical, geopolitical, and legal
problems with Ignatius’ analysis and recommendations.
First, there is no shred of evidence that Hamas is
unpopular. The only data we have is that they had won the last round of
elections defeating Fatah, the party headed by Mahmoud Abbas. Even as civilians
are killed every day, Gazans have not filled the streets to protest Hamas. In
fact, Palestinians filled the streets in the West Bank, which is controlled by
Fatah, to support Hamas and other armed Gazan groups. It is true however, that
Hamas is “unpopular” among some Arab rulers, namely those of Saudi Arabia,
United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Egypt. But those rulers lack popularity
among their own peoples. In Egypt, for instance, the turnout for the election
that Sisi won was so low that he needed to tweak the rules and extend the vote
for an additional day, even after which his popular mandate remained weak.
To argue that Kerry should not act for “a quick halt to the
bloodshed” is equivalent to saying that more innocent people should die if it
would lead to a better political settlement. That is ethically and legally
problematic. A political settlement written with the blood
of children and civilians is callous, cruel, and damaging to any hope for a just solution.
Kerry did not choose to side with Turkey and Qatar, he was
forced to deal with them because Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Egypt are not
interested in ending the violence. These rulers are interested in ending Hamas.
Unless Mr. Ignatius thinks that ending Hamas is possible at this point, there
is no other option but to find intermediaries who can convince Hamas to agree
to some kind of a truce. Mr. Kerry thinks that Turkey and Qatar can play that
role. And that is separate from the negative roles I believe Turkey and Qatar have played in amplifying sectarian violence elsewhere. As to ending Hamas’s existence, even the current Israeli leaders are not
suggesting that through a prolonged military action they will be able to wipe out
Hamas. Their stated goal is to disarm Hamas and other radical groups and
destroy the tunnels, and it should be said that even those goals are impossible
to achieve because, they, too, were siding with the Arab block that has no political or ethical capital among the peoples of the Middle East.
Israeli leaders continue to change the goal posts in
dealing with Hamas while ignoring Abbas’ overture for a negotiated peace. Ten years ago, most
people condemned the targeting of civilians by suicide bombers. Now that Hamas
is waging a traditional war, Israeli leaders want them to stop using missiles
and digging tunnels while Israeli planes, ships, and tanks continued to shell
densely populated Gaza cities, killing in the process more than 1000 people—85% of whom
are civilian children, women, and men. There are no laws against building
tunnels used for defensive purposes and there are no laws that deny any people
the right to acquire defensive weapons. Instead of continuing to suffocate the
Palestinians, Israeli leaders should have taken the opportunity to work with
the State Department to reach a negotiated settlement instead of building
illegal settlements on occupied land.
Gaza has been under air, naval, and land blockade since
Hamas took over. Israel attacked the strip three times and failed to disarm
Gaza’s armed groups. In fact, after each military operation, armed groups in
Gaza became better trained and more adapt. Apparently, Israeli leaders seem to
think that Hamas will be weak now since they lost their ally in Egypt (the
Muslim Brotherhood), are openly targeted by Saudi Arabia and UAE, and lost the
support of Syria and Iran. That is a gross miscalculation. Should the war on
Gaza continue for few more weeks, Israel will be isolated from the rest of the
world and the rulers of Saudi Arabia and Egypt will be under threat, not Hamas.
The Palestinian issue has always been, and still is, the barometer by which the
standing of Arab leaders is measured. The Arab Spring—the popular and
non-violent version of it that is—eliminated two of the Arab leaders who were
most careless in dealing with the Palestinian cause. While Saudi Arabia remains,
for now, immune to popular protest due to its tribal structure and total
absence of civil society institutions, al-Sisi should be worried that he could
face Mubarak’s and Morsi’s fate.
Mr. Ignatius seems to ignore that the Arab Spring, with its
successes and failures, had created a new reality in the Middle East. For him
to suggest that the U.S. administration can choose which Arab leaders decide the
fate of Gazans is to ignore the transformations of the last four years. Kerry
is not acting “contrary to the interests and desires of the United States’
traditional allies, such as Egypt, Jordan, [and] Saudi Arabia.” He is acting
with the knowledge that those traditional allies were made irrelevant by the
Arab Spring. He is acting with the realization that rulers sustained by clan
dominance and military juntas lack legitimacy. The days of telling the Middle
Eastern peoples who their leaders ought to be are gone; this is the New Middle
East in a state of violent birth.
____________
* Prof. SOUAIAIA teaches at the University of Iowa. His
most recent book, Anatomy of Dissent in Islamic Societies, provides a historical and theoretical
treatment of rebellious movements and ideas since the rise of Islam. Opinions
are the author’s, speaking on matters of public interest; not speaking for the
university or any other organization with which he is affiliated.
No comments:
Write commentsShare your thoughts...