Stop the madness

I had a hunch that the moment Hamas made a move towards recognising a two-state solution in principle, military action would be stepped up against the Palestinians to ensure that any semblance of a peace process revival is instantly derailed.

The fate of Corporal Gilad Shalit, while serving as a litmus test of Hamas's true intentions, was also used as a pretext for over-reaction from the Israeli forces, as evidenced by the rounding up of a number of Hamas ministers. Reports regarding the Israeli soldier's death have proved unfounded and his release is still a possibility.

This is the time for both the US and the European Union to act as honest brokers if they want their standing to mean anything to the Islamic world.

The escalation of events should ensure that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is put once again at the top of the priority list of the Middle East.

I do not blame the Israelis for having wanted to get their kidnapped corporal back. But was their military escalation the best option to solve this crisis? Why should innocent Palestinians be subjected to aerial strikes against their power plants because of the irresponsible actions of a few extremists?

We should avoid any situations that will further radicalise the Palestinian population. Surely the application of collective punishment on these people is no solution.

I hope that I am mistaken but I feel that the massive ground incursion into Gaza since settlements were evacuated was meant to blow to smithereens all prospects of peace that Hamas's implicit recognition of Israel's right to exist could bring about. This could have been an Israeli way of saying no to a fresh call for a state with pre-1967 borders, with Jerusalem as its capital and for the right of refugees to return. I very much suspect that both the kidnapping of the Israeli soldier and the blitz on Gaza were both intended to trigger a reaction by dampening the peace oriented forces.

There are many lessons to be learnt from this bloody saga:

¤ That unilateral Israeli withdrawals from Palestinian territory will not in themselves bring peace.

¤ Israeli hold over the Gaza Strip remains draconian.

¤ Ehud Olmert could have moved so quickly with force to reply to all those domestic political pressure groups that feel that he and Amir Peretz lack military clout.

¤ The credibility of both the US and the EU is very much on the line because people are not always convinced of the strength and political will backing up their public declarations.

Mahmoud Abbas should avoid being used by the West as an instrument for destabilising and undermining the current Palestinian government. If this were to be the case President Abbas would disqualify himself as a worthy mediator for the Palestinian cause with Israel.

Judging by Mr Olmert's statements he does not consider the so-called "prisoners' statement" to be of any interest to him or of any relevance to the peace process. He has in fact dismissed it totally without any reservations.

Even were the Palestinians to form a unity government, there is no guarantee that Israel will begin a serious peace process.

Both the EU and the US need to be genuinely convinced that it could be a strategic goal of Israel to actually avoid a peace process.

Europe in particular must learn to react differently to the idea of a Palestinian unity government as well as to Palestinian reaction to the peace document.

The US should make a categorical statement that it will accept the peace document as a basis for resumed international assistance.

The biggest problem I see, apart from Hamas's excesses, is what Jewish Senior Fellow and director of the US/Middle East Project for the CFR, Henry Siegman said that the US Congress is unlikely to react positively to this document for it is more under the control of Mr Olmert than is Israel's Parliament!

Mr Brincat is shadow minister for foreign affairs and IT.

leo.brincat@gov.mt