I thought this letter to Clinton was interesting. You might too.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1068057.html
particularly when compared to
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=30715
Each of these sources has a definite perspective on the issue, what I find most interesting is the commonalities.
ok it's Iraq but it's interesting
-
Here is a link to a blog put up by Morgan on a different Blog. There are a
number of entries that tie more to your topic than theirs. Enjoy.
15 years ago
Posts
These two articles show incredibly different sides to the same basic story: the US is providing aid to the reconstruction of Gaza. Both articles admit to the inextricable link between this aid and the continuation/restarting of a peace process, but from different angles. The Middle East Online article seems like a typical press release; it speaks to the United States’ intentions with the aid and the need to relaunch a peace process. It does, however, simplify the situation beyond belief, as demonstrated by President Sarkozy’s comment: "We know perfectly well what the conditions are for peace. We've known them for years, there must be two states and each one must take a step towards the other." The solution is aid money, and restarting talks, but by essentializing the situation into a two-state system, it places the conflict in a Western Perspective. Clinton, Sarkozy, and the British Foreign Secretary all speak of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as if there was a simple solution to forge, with the help of American backing, and that Palestine can become “a state that is a responsible partner, is at peace with Israel and its Arab neighbours and is accountable to its people, a state that Palestinians everywhere can be proud of and is respected worldwide.” It appears that if the Americans just swoop in with aid money and bilateral talks, that the solution will come and everything will be forgotten. The Haaretz article, on the other hand, places foreign aid and the conflict in a much more realistic light. Burston speaks of the conflict from the perspective of one who has experienced life in the Middle East. His division of the players into 6 separate states is a more accurate representation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It is not merely a dispute between a unified state of Israel and Palestine/Hamas/Terrorists there are divisions within both states, as well as other regional actors who are integral to this process. The author sounds frustrated, and distrusting of the Western powers sent to save the day: “One left-field reason that U.S. the aid may actually foster movement: Americans, who have been notably understanding of wide-scale Israeli attacks on heavily populated areas, may take heightened interest in the rebuilt structures, and having them remain intact. This is, in turn, a potentially powerful incentive for Israel to seek alternatives to the devastation of the recent war, whose effectiveness inn the service of Israel's interest has yet to be demonstrated.” Burston realizes that this conflict is so much deeper than a religious or geopolitical issue, but that each “swing state” is a piece of the larger puzzle--each with its own problems and demands. The six recommendations to move forward in the process underline the immense problem encountered in finding peace between Palestine and Israel. By deconstructing the issue into six “states” there are at least realistic and defined processes to move forward unlike the basic “two-state” system found in the The Middle East Online article.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your analysis Laura, but what I saw as similar was the focus on the US and Clinton in particular. The idea that the US can (and should) swoop in and try to fix the problem. I thought the implicit nod towards a 'colonial present' was interesting in that BOTH sides were expressing it.
ReplyDeleteThat's very interesting, I hadn't really considered a 'colonial present' side to the two articles. I don't find it all that surprising that both sides were expressing the need for the US to fix the Palestinian-Israeli conflict since we've heavily invested foreign aid to Israel before. I think there is a general sentiment that some larger power, be it the US, the EU or the UN, needs to take over the peace-process since it has so many layers of issues, as demonstrated by the Haaretz article. I'm not sure if I see that as a "colonial" influence, but more of the larger global issues entwined in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that increases its visibility on an international scale. It is difficult, however to separate “colonial power” from other nomenclature like “developed countries” or the “Global North” etc., they’re all describing rather similar systems of power.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, the call for US mediation might have deeper significance than simply its position as a global superpower. If the US is investing money into rebuilding Palestine, perhaps on the international scale it is seen as a state moving towards neutrality, or at least a state that recognizes the need for coexistence in the region. I don't think the US can stop being pro-Israel, but I do find it interesting that when we're providing aid to Palestine, it is coming with the condition--that they need to change and coexist with Israel. It's not a strings-free aid package, which we have given Israel before. Maybe the US was also the chosen state to take over the peace process because we’ve tried to mediate before, and it is most likely easier for one state to moderate rather than a supranational entity like the EU or the UN.
I don't think that it is possible for one state to mediate a peace process. As made clear in the article "Hillary Clinton, Gaza, and the six-state solution", this conflict reaches far across boarders. I think that the peace process should not be limited by the current boarders.
ReplyDelete"By providing humanitarian assistance to Gaza, we also aim to foster conditions in which a Palestinian state can be fully realised," Clinton said.
This is a great example of how "humanitarian" aid is being used to further political agendas. Using the word "humanitarianism" in this case is extremely problematic. As Laura wrote above, the US is not becoming more neutral, they are using this so called "humanitarianism" in hopes of creating what the US wants in Israel.
This 'colonial present' that KC mentions is clear here as we see further/more obvious indications that Isreal can be considered a surrogate state. This aid is, in fact, not "humanitarianism", but actually furthering the US's presence in the strategic Israel, or ... "more of the same" (so to speak).