quarta-feira, 1 de setembro de 2010

Análise lúcida e um pouco de história

Uma das mais lúcidas análises do processo de paz entre Israel e Palestinos, escrita por Alan Dershowitz, publicada no Jerusalem Post de hoje. Transcrevo a íntegra, pois vale a pena ler tudo.

"In the days leading up to the initial meeting between US President Barack Obama, Prime Minister Netanyahu and PA President Mahmoud Abbas, the op ed pages and blogs have been filled with opinion pieces about the dynamics of the upcoming peace process. Most of these analyses have simply provided an opportunity for advocates to argue that their preexisting positions are valid. Many of these positions are mythical and bare little relationship to the realities on the ground. Let me identify three pervasive myths.

Myth number 1: Securing peace with the Palestinians based on a two state solution and the end of the Israeli settlements is will bring about peace in the Middle East.

The reality: Myth 1 may have been true back in 2000-2001 when then President Bill Clinton and then Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians a state in all of the Gaza and on more than 95% of the West Bank, with a divided Jerusalem and a $35 billion "reparation" package for the so-called refugees. It is far less true today. A decade ago, the Palestinians could offer Israel the promise of real peace on all of its borders. Today, all the Palestinian Authority can offer is peace on Israel's eastern border with the West Bank. The Palestinian Authority has no control over Israel's southwestern border with the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip or with its northern border with Hizbullah-controlled Lebanon. Most importantly, over the past several years, Israel's greatest threat does not come from the Palestinians; it comes from Iran, over whom the Palestinians have little influence. The reality is that the Palestinian Authority has managed to marginalize itself since Yassir Arafat turned down the Clinton/Barak offer. The Palestinian Authority can now give less, but wants more.

Nor would an Israeli agreement to dismantle the settlements bring about a full peace. Indeed, when Israel dismantled every single settlement in Gaza, that action only stimulated Hamas to redouble its efforts to make life miserable for Israelis by using the abandoned settlements as launching pads for rocket attacks against Israeli civilians. The goal of Hamas, and of an increasing number of anti-Israel extremists, is not a two state solution for Israel and the Palestinians, but rather a one state solution to what they see as the problem of Israel's existence as a Jewish democracy. Israel will never agree to a one state solution and the extremists will never accept Israel as a Jewish state. That is the sad reality.

Let me be clear that I hope the Israelis and the Palestinians do achieve peace and that the Israelis do dismantle the settlements (other than those which both sides agree should remain part of Israeli territory). This would be good for Israel and for the Palestinians, and would contribute somewhat to overall peace in the area. But as long as Hamas, Hizbullah and Iran - none of which recognizes Israel's right to exist, and all of whom oppose the ongoing peace process - continue to pose military threats to Israel, there will be no real peace in the Middle East.

Myth number 2: The second myth is if Israel were to make peace with the Palestinian Authority, the threat from Iran would diminish, because the United States would have more leverage over the Ahmadinejad regime and could do more to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons.

The reality: There is no truth to this linkage, and even more important, I have never met an Israeli leader who believes it. The reality is precisely the opposite. If the United States could prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, Israel would be much more willing to accept significant compromises in its negotiations with the Palestinians. As Israel's Ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, recently put it:

In practical terms, if Iran gets the bomb it will deal a monumental blow to the peace process."

For Israel to be willing to make the sacrifices necessary to achieve peace with the Palestinians - sacrifices that will rip the country apart if force is required against recalcitrant settlers - Israel's security must be assured. It cannot be assured if Iran is allowed to develop the deliverable nuclear weapons it has repeatedly threatened to use against Israel.

Myth number 3: The Palestinians will offer real compromises for peace, because their current situation is intolerable.

The reality: The reality is that many, if not most Palestinians, believe that time is on their side because recent efforts by the international community and radical academics to deligitimize Israel are working. Read the statement recently issued by Hamas and several secular Palestinian groups, some of which had previously favored direct talks. The current position of these groups is to oppose negotiations and wait for Israel to be isolated even further. Here is the way the statement put it:

Insisting on direct talks throws a lifeline to Israel as its isolation deepens... A return to direct talks serves the US and Zionist aim to liquidate the national rights of the Palestinian people."

By "the national rights of the Palestinian people," the groups that signed the statement mean the right of Palestinians to "return" to what is now Israel and to turn it into yet another Muslim-Arab state. Hamas leader Khaled Meshall praised this statement as "exceptional," because it united eleven disparate groups that he says represent a majority of the Palestinians.

Why negotiate from a position of relative weakness, the signers of the statement ask rhetorically, when the international community is strengthening the position of the Palestinians, while weakening Israel?

The sad reality is that an overarching Mideast peace is not entirely in the hands of the Israeli and Palestinian leaders who are meeting in Washington. That is no reason for not trying. But unless the threats posed by Iran and its surrogates, Hizbullah and Hamas, can be neutralized, the best that can be expected is what the Bible described as "peace, peace and there is no peace."

Quando o presidente Lula esteve em Israel, dentre as várias besteiras e absurdos que falou, ficou claro que, na sua opinião (que, nesse particular, reflete em maior ou menor escala as opiniões das esquerdas do mundo todo) é que a responsabilidade pela paz na região cabe apenas a Israel. Basta desmantelar os assentamentos na Cisjordânia, derrubar a cerca e levantar o bloqueio a Gaza e haverá paz.

A análise feita por Dershowitz deixa claro - se é que precisava - que essa visão é estúpida. Sugere, também, que o maior culpado pela detrioração da situação (na qual sequer a Autoridade Palestina têm como, pos si só, garantir paz e segurança) é Arafat, já que foi a partir do fracasso em Camp David que a coisa degringolou de vez. Mas, quanto a isso, Dershowitz deixou de esclarecer um ponto fundamental.

Por que, em 2000, quando Ehud Barak (então primeiro-ministro de Israel) e Clinton ofereceram a Arafar Gaza inteira, 95% da Cisjordânia, reparação financeira para os refugiados e administração conjunta de Jerusalém (em suma, quase tudo que os palestinos sempre demandaram), Arafat não aceitou e, ao contrário, deu início à segunda intifada?

Porque, para começo de conversa, as negociações de paz entre a Autoridade Palestina (então ainda OLP) e Israel tiveram início, na primeira metade da década de 1990 (acordos de Madrid) porque Arafat isolou-se completamente em relação aos países árabes que, naquela época eram seus maiores apoiadores e financiadores. Quando o Iraque invadiu o Kwait em 1990 (causando a primeira guerra do Iraque), Arafat pôs-se ao lado de Saddam Hussein, apostando que a Arábia Saudita e outros países árabes não apoiariam a coalisão liderada pelos EUA para libertar o Kwait. Perdeu a aposta e, com isso, perdeu apoio político e financeiro.

Terminada a guerra, não teve outra opção senão aceitar negociar a paz com Israel. Esse processo evoluiu até os acordos de Oslo. A partir desse momento, a Autoridade Palestina passou a ter autonomia administrativa e judiciária nos territórios ocupados e, em certa medida, autonomia política. A partir daí, o povo palestino teve uma soberania (não plena pois ainda não havia estado) e um autogoverno que jamais tiveram em sua história, mesmo antes da existência do Estado de Israel.

A partir de determinado momento, o povo palestino passou a questionar mais ou menos o seguinte: quando estávamos totalmente sob jugo israelense nossa vida era péssima e a culpa era de Israel; agora nós temos uma Autoridade Palestina e nossa vida continua péssima. Não temos acesso a educação, saúde, emprego; a Arafat e seus asseclas são milionários. O que eles estão fazendo para melhorar nossas vidas?

Em suma, o povo palestino começou a se dar conta de que um sujeito que, durante a vida inteira foi um terrorista, na hora em que teve que administrar o semi-estado, não deu conta. A corrupção na autoridade palestina começou a ser questionada. Aliás, um dos motivos que favoreceu a ascenção e domínio do Hamas sobre Gaza foi exatamente a inépcia e a corrupção da Autoridade Palestina.

No ponto em que estava a situação nos territórios palestinos em 2000, durante as conversas de Camp David, Arafat estava diante de dois caminhos muito claros: ou ele aceitava a proposta, que levaria à criação de um Estado palestino e, então, teria que realmente passar a governar e buscar solucionar os problemas do seu povo; ou dava pra trás, arrumava um pretexto para recomeçar as hostilidades e voltava a ser o que sempre foi; um terrorista e um agitador. Obviamente, escolheu o segundo caminho.

O resto a gente já sabe. Desaguou no impasse atual, muito pior do que havia há dez anos, que Dershowitz tão bem descreve.

Nenhum comentário:

Postar um comentário