Marc Tracy has a characteristically smart objection (in part) to my post chastising J Street's opposition to the Palestinian Authority's United Nations gambit. Here are his strong points:
[T]he thing is this: unilateral statehood is bad for the Palestinians. It’s an uneasy conclusion to draw, but an unavoidable one. Whether it should or shouldn’t, it will most likely provoke: a sharp curtailment of U.S. aid; a renewed civil war with Hamas; the sudden anger of a (even more) disenfranchised Palestinian diaspora outside the territories; a weakening of relations with Jordan; a hardening of Israeli stubbornness; and a bunch of other things that not only are bad for average Palestinians but that are in fact worse for average Palestinians than the miserable status quo.
Not easy points to dismiss, so I'll not dismiss them. But he also suggests a way out of the entire unhappy circumstance. And he does so through a recitation of the geopolitical facts behind the U.N. gambit:
Fayyad proceeded to do a pretty decent job—especially given the massive constraints, and minus some untoward authoritarianism here and there. But that still left the question of Gaza, the Iranian terrorist colony in the south. Reconciliation—a power-sharing deal between Fatah and Hamas that made Hamas reasonable—was supposed to be the answer. Build the West Bank, present a united and moderate front, and ask the U.N. for what you have built anyway: that was the plan. Then reconciliation collapsed due to the fundamentally incompatible visions of those two groups. And indeed, Hamas (along with Hezbollah) is against U.N. recognition of a state along the 1967 lines, since it wants a state on all the land between the river and the sea. Yet again, Israel gets off easy—it can be expansionist and not compassionate and all the rest and look like a virtuous Athenian republic compared to its worst enemies.
Hamas' opposition is a massive opportunity waiting to be seized. Abbas and company go to the U.N. and demand statehood, saying all alternatives have failed, and not without reason. They're asking for, roughly, the 1948-67 boundaries that the U.N. has already endorsed. Hamas is now standing in the way of full Palestinian statehood in front of the entire globe, looking to its own people like it's locked in an uncomfortable alliance of interests with... Netanyahu. The reasonable faction in Palestinian politics will be on the verge of a masterstroke.
And J Street, the Obama administration and Israel want to stand against that???? The smarter play, by far, would be to back Fatah, and organize a regional diplomatic united front in favor of Palestinian statehood -- supporting the Fatah-brokered State of Palestine until Hamas is either marginalized and squeezed or comes into the fold. That would be historic in all the right ways: a net positive for American national security; for Israeli security and justice; and for Palestinian dignity and aspirations. The only ones hurt are the psychopathic theocrats of Hamas. Boom.
Of course, that's not going to fucking happen, so as long as I'm shouting into the wind, I'd like people to empty their wallets and give me some cash for the new drum kit I want to buy. But it would be farsighted grand strategy.
a) you underestimate Hamas' capacity to act to thwart progress without disabusing the assortment of chumps who stupidly or willfully won't accept Hamas for what it is.
b) http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=415804
c) describe aspirational drum kit.
Posted by: fuster | 09/09/2011 at 05:36 PM
Good day! this is one of the most interested statement I have heard anyone said. I have always say to myself there are no rules telling us what to do, but rules telling us what not to do. We need to start making rules telling us what to do and we will see how creative our world would be. thanks,
Posted by: gclub | 10/13/2011 at 09:22 AM