Balanced policy the only way to peace

by Malcolm Fraser

The Age
10 May 2008
___________________________________________________

TWO months ago, the Australian Parliament passed a resolution celebrating
Israel's first 60 years. Until recently, Australia had preserved a balance
in Middle East policy that asserted Israel's right to survival and security,
but also the right of the Palestinian people to their own state. Under the
previous government, in lock-step with the US, our policies veered to a more
one-sided support for Israel. The vision of a Palestinian state seemed to
slip from view.

US President George Bush claims that it is possible for Israel and
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to negotiate the establishment of a
Palestinian state before the end of this year. That ignores the realities of
the current situation, which Bush has done a good deal to exacerbate.

It is a fact that Israel has persistently established more and more
settlements on the West Bank and that it has ignored the US and the UN
Security Council, which have continuously branded these settlements,
together with settlements in East Jerusalem, as illegal. However, the US has
not exerted real pressure to stop them and the process continues. Through
most of my life I have believed that Israel was a beacon of hope. But
somewhere Israel's leadership lost its way.

Since the start of the war on terror, US policies have become increasingly
unrealistic, branding people as terrorists to be beaten with guns.

In Bush's world, discussion or negotiation with those who are labelled as
terrorists is unthinkable, and indeed would be a betrayal of American
values. Yet he should recall what earlier US presidents did in negotiating
with leaders of the Soviet Union. Those presidents avoided nuclear war and
won the Cold War. Britain achieved peace in Northern Ireland with similar
policies.

Failure to talk with an opponent or with an enemy is perhaps the major
mistake of the Bush Administration. A mistake that has made many parts of
the world more dangerous. Hamas won a legitimate election in early 2006. Aid
workers on the ground in Palestine knew that Hamas would win because Hamas
helps local people while Fatah, corrupt and inefficient, did not. The West
claimed to be surprised at Hamas' victory. It betrayed its own principles by
making it plain that democracy was only acceptable if it gave the kind of
result that Israel and the US wanted.

It would have been possible to say to Hamas: a number of your policies must
change but we welcome your participation in the democratic process and we
are therefore prepared to talk and explore possible areas of agreement. This
approach would have given Hamas an alternative to violence and the
possibility of a different future.

When a joint Hamas-Fatah government was formed, it was short-lived. Both
Israel and the US sought to undermine it and encouraged Abbas to pursue a
policy that would diminish or destroy Hamas. In this regard, Israel and the
US have played a major part in the continued divisions among the Palestinian
people themselves.

I know there are those who would say that Hamas cannot be believed. No
agreement would be sustainable because it wants the total destruction of
Israel. However, those who hold such views commit themselves in effect to
continued warfare. If this situation prevails, Israel will lose more and
more friends and will place its own future in danger.

Terrorism must, of course, be condemned but if one measures the loss of life
in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is clear that the scales are heavily
balanced against the Palestinians. The tactics used by Hamas are inefficient
as a weapon of war, almost futile, but they have extracted a
disproportionate response.

If there is to be any progress, in addition to talking to Hamas it is
critical to heal the divisions between Hamas and Fatah. No arrangement
between Israel and Abbas will be acceptable unless the divisions among
Palestinian people are addressed. But Israeli and American policy is still
focused on perpetuating those divisions, breeding more hatred and bitterness
and making a secure future even more remote.

Former US president Jimmy Carter has recently held discussions in the Middle
East with many of those with whom Bush will not speak. He has attracted a
great deal of criticism from many quarters, including the Israeli lobby.
However, his efforts are to be applauded because he recognises that talking
to Hamas is essential for progress.

Hamas has supported a ceasefire. But this was rejected out of hand as a
subterfuge for gaining time to reorganise and rearm. Hamas has said that if
Abbas can negotiate a solution and if that is endorsed in a referendum by
the Palestinians, it will support it, provided that there is reconciliation
among Palestinians.

What then should be done? The principles endorsed by the Baker-Hamilton
report in relation to Iraq must be adopted in regard to the Palestinian case
as well. There must be talks leading to negotiations involving all the
players including Hamas. Progress will not be quick, it could be months and
possibly years, but a ceasefire, even initially for a limited period, would
be a good start. The ending of the blockade of Gaza and the cessation of new
settlements in the West Bank would be a prerequisite. In addition, the
adjudication of boundaries of Israel and Palestine would be critical to a
final settlement.

Against this modern-day tragedy, it is important for countries such as
Australia to be even-handed. That is why I support the appeal for the
Australian Parliament to pass a resolution recognising the hardships of the
Palestinian people and committing Australia to work for a fair and peaceful
resolution and the establishment of a viable independent state for
Palestinians.
_____________________________________________________________________
Malcolm Fraser is a former prime minister of Australia.


Web link
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/balanced-policy-the-only-way-to-peace/2008/05/09/1210131260171.html