The political Right as an obstacle to reconciliation
That the political Right in Israel constitutes one of the obstacles to bringing a measure of relief to the people of Gaza and those of other contested territories in the Middle East ought to be now plain to see. Some of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent pronouncements, for instance, on the issues in the Gaza make this amply clear, given that the Netanyahu regime’s Rightist proclivities have been very much in evidence over the past few years.
The Netanyahu regime has been rooting firmly for the advancement of Israel’s security considerations and this is to be expected of any administration that has got its priorities right. Given Israel’s current challenges, it shouldn’t come as a surprise if national security is prime among its concerns and the international community couldn’t expect it to be otherwise. However, Israel should take clear note of the fact that its expansionist ventures in the region have only earned it worldwide condemnation and compounded its security concerns. If it has hardly any international supporters today, it has only itself to blame.
Essentially, the problem in the Middle East, and this has all along been the case, is to evolve a political solution that would recognize the right to exist without fear of all the main parties to the tangle. Such a solution would prove comparatively easy to arrive at if the prime antagonists in the region opt to be flexible in their policy positions and thinking on the issues that are central to the Middle East problem. In the case of the Netanyahu regime, such flexibility has not been manifesting easily and this has trammeled the path to a political solution.
It is a prime characteristic of Rightist regimes to be inflexible on issues central to national security and in the case of the Netanyahu administration this has clearly been the case. Given such policy rigidity it should not come as a surprise if current international negotiations aimed at resolving the Middle East crisis are proving deadlocked.
To compound matters, the Netanyahu regime is proving impervious to international opinion even when such pronouncements come from quarters that member states of the international system are expected to give some ear to and consider deeply. For example, International Court of Justice (ICJ) orders that Israel should do everything in its power to prevent, death, destruction and ‘acts of genocide’ in the Gaza seem to be falling on deaf ears in Tel Aviv. The same goes for ICJ orders that the human rights situation in the conflict zone be improved.
More recently, reacting to International Criminal Court (ICC) criticisms of his regime Netanyahu is on record as having said that if the ICC issues arrest warrants for his regime’s officials on charges relating to the manner in which Israel has been carrying out its war against Hamas, ‘it would be a scandal on a historical scale.’ Netanyahu is insistent that his regime has done nothing wrong to attract the charge that Israel’s war against Hamas is in any way ‘genocidal’, for instance.
Rejecting such strictures, the Israeli Prime Minister is of the view that it is Israel that is being subjected to ‘genocide’ and ‘terror’ by Hamas. He said it is highly ironical that Israel which was subjected to genocide at the hands of the Nazis is thus being ‘put in the dock’ by sections of the world community on charges that are, from his viewpoint, untenable.
Intransigence of the above kind should only be expected of hardline, Rightist regimes and the world would do well to recollect the invasions Nazi Germany carried out in Europe in the run-up to World War Two, dismissing in the process the authority of the League of Nations. It would be relevant to also recollect that wars waged on national security considerations are central to Rightist regimes’ strategies of survival. It is in this light that the Netanyahu regime’s current policy rigidity needs to be considered.
However, there is no getting over the fact that Israel’s security fears are harshly real and a negotiated settlement in the Middle East, leading to reconciliation among the warring groups, is unthinkable without resolving Israel’s apprehensions over its security on an urgent basis. The Two State solution may have been tried, tested and rejected but it remains the most rational basis to a negotiated settlement. Going forward, the world community would be erring badly if it glosses over Israel’s security considerations.
Moreover, the international community would need to realize that Israel’s neighbours in the Arab world are by no means a re-assuring presence from its standpoint. While there is no denying the harmful impact that Israel’s intransigence would be having on peace hopes it is equally important to take cognizance of some of its neighbours’ destructive hardline positions on issues in the Middle East imbroglio that are standing in the way as well of fruitful negotiations and reconciliation among the relevant antagonists.
Such short-sightedness is particularly true of the global South. Palestinian disaffection is completely justified and its right to statehood cannot be denied but Palestine and its supporters cannot refuse to see the value of cultivating a degree of flexibility in their policy positions as regards Israel and recognize that the latter’s concerns are almost identical to most of their worries. The lack of such recognition has played a huge role in perpetuating the Middle Eastern blood-letting over the decades. Those sections currently agitating in the US and other countries over the Gaza blood-letting would need to be perceptive of this fact.
Meanwhile, there is the case of Iran whose pronouncements in this connection could only cause panic among Israel’s ordinary citizenry and the peace-loving world. Iran’s political class is on record as vowing to bomb Israel out of existence and such dangerously irresponsible rhetoric could in no way be reassuring for Israel and help in easing its main security concerns. In fact it would only contribute substantially towards Israel’s intransigence.
Given this backdrop, it would be futile for Iranian President Dr. Ibrahim Raisi to comment to the effect that, ‘the international community and international organizations have done little to stop the massacre of civilians in the Gaza.’
Rather than question the effectiveness of international organizations, the Iranian President would do well to consider as to what constructive steps his regime could take to bring the warring sides to the negotiating table. That is, what could his government do to foster a spirit of peace in the Middle East?
International organizations are not in possession of ‘magic bullets’ that could produce peace in a flash as it were. International and regional peace is premised on the good will and support of the totality of the world community. By supporting international peace efforts in a non-partisan manner Iran could pave the way for peace in the Middle East.
