Middle East settlement without political correctness

03/07/2006 16:44 MOSCOW, (RIA Novosti political commentator Pyotr Romanov)
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20060703/50832620.html

The situation in the Middle East has deteriorated again. The militant wing
of the Islamic movement Hamas stealthily dug a tunnel under Israeli
fortifications and kidnapped a Jewish solider. In response, Israel raided
Gaza and arrested several Hamas members of the Palestinian cabinet, whom it
intends to put on trial for terrorism.

It would be useless to look for those who threw the first stone in the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

It could be Hagar, the Egyptian servant of Abraham's wife Sarah, who bore
Abraham a son, Ishmael, considered one of the prophets of Islam. Finding
that she had conceived, Hagar adopted a superior attitude towards her
mistress, and treated her with contempt. Or it could be Sarah, who took
offense and treated Hagar so harshly that she fled into the desert.

Anyway, I am not writing about the parties to the conflict this time. I am
writing about the intermediaries who are trying to help the warring parties
settle it.

According to political correctness, bad negotiations are better than a good
war. This humane postulate seems beyond question, and therefore all peace
initiatives of intermediaries in the Middle East are praised even if they
are practically useless.

The latest toy of international diplomacy, the Roadmap, has not produced,
and is unlikely to produce, lasting results. The reason is apparent: the two
parties have been fighting so fiercely and for so long that they simply
cannot hear or understand the arguments of political correctness. When the
warring sides stop for a breather, the intermediaries think they have
succeeded, but their joy is short-lived because the sides resume fighting
almost immediately.

The intermediaries do not want to accept defeat because they have a dual
task: to restore peace between Israelis and Palestinians, and to strengthen
their own position in the Middle East. Unlike the first part of their task,
the second is bearing fruit, which only spurs the intermediaries on.

What can be done in this situation? I suggest a heretical solution: let the
two sides fight it out.

The British taught a lesson to Russian diplomats at a time when the Slavic
nations of Europe were fighting the Ottoman Empire. Not that the Russians
were the only ones concerned about Ottoman barbarity. London was outraged at
the massacre of Philippopole (Plovdiv), where Turks killed 12,000
Bulgarians, including old people, women and children.

William Gladstone, the leader of the pro-reform Whig party, issued a special
booklet, "Bulgarian Horrors and the Question of the East", where he argued
in favor of liberating Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina from the Turkish
yoke.

The U.K. insisted that the Turks should punish those guilty of the massacre
and start the long-promised reforms to create normal living conditions for
the Balkan Christians. The realistic British did not expect their gesture to
have a major effect.

When the Russian ambassador asked Lord Derby about the aim of British policy
in the East, the diplomat replied that the rebels were fighting not for
administrative reform, but for independence or, at least, autonomy, whereas
the Turks, who verbally agreed to reforms, would not grant them autonomy.
Their claims could not be reconciled, and so the sides were unlikely to come
to terms, he said.

According to Lord Derby, the powers could only wait for the dust to settle.
If the Turks could not put down the uprising, their Sultan might agree to
grant autonomy to Bosnia and Herzegovina. If the rebels were defeated, they
would have to accept a system that had been created in the conquered Crete.

Unlike the overemotional Russian diplomats, the British, who did not know
the term "political correctness" then, regarded the problem from the
viewpoint of common sense and reason.

I suggest doing the same in the Middle East now. Political correctness is a
good thing in everyday life, but not for objective analysis or practical
policy. Political reality is not, and is unlikely to ever become,
politically correct.

It would be great if Israel and Palestine came to their senses, rose from
the dust, embraced and sat down to discuss a mutually acceptable compromise.
But this is an impossible dream, and therefore out of place in practical
policy.

The logic of fighting and the logic of peace cannot be reconciled. The
fighters can be forced apart (what is the UN Peacekeeping Force for?), or we
can wait for one of them to receive an especially hard blow that will make
him stop and think. And this will be the best time for effective mediation.