The situation in the Middle East has deteriorated again. The militant wing of the Islamic movement Hamas stealthily dug a tunnel under Israeli fortifications and kidnapped a Jewish solider. In response, Israel raided Gaza and arrested several Hamas members of the Palestinian cabinet, whom it intends to put on trial for terrorism.
It would be useless to look for those who threw the first stone in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
It could be Hagar, the Egyptian servant of Abraham's wife Sarah, who bore Abraham a son, Ishmael, considered one of the prophets of Islam. Finding that she had conceived, Hagar adopted a superior attitude towards her mistress, and treated her with contempt. Or it could be Sarah, who took offense and treated Hagar so harshly that she fled into the desert.
Anyway, I am not writing about the parties to the conflict this time. I am writing about the intermediaries who are trying to help the warring parties settle it.
According to political correctness, bad negotiations are better than a good war. This humane postulate seems beyond question, and therefore all peace initiatives of intermediaries in the Middle East are praised even if they are practically useless.
The latest toy of international diplomacy, the Roadmap, has not produced, and is unlikely to produce, lasting results. The reason is apparent: the two parties have been fighting so fiercely and for so long that they simply cannot hear or understand the arguments of political correctness. When the warring sides stop for a breather, the intermediaries think they have succeeded, but their joy is short-lived because the sides resume fighting almost immediately.
The intermediaries do not want to accept defeat because they have a dual task: to restore peace between Israelis and Palestinians, and to strengthen their own position in the Middle East. Unlike the first part of their task, the second is bearing fruit, which only spurs the intermediaries on.
What can be done in this situation? I suggest a heretical solution: let the two sides fight it out.
The British taught a lesson to Russian diplomats at a time when the Slavic nations of Europe were fighting the Ottoman Empire. Not that the Russians were the only ones concerned about Ottoman barbarity. London was outraged at the massacre of Philippopole (Plovdiv), where Turks killed 12,000 Bulgarians, including old people, women and children.
William Gladstone, the leader of the pro-reform Whig party, issued a special booklet, "Bulgarian Horrors and the Question of the East", where he argued in favor of liberating Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina from the Turkish yoke.
The U.K. insisted that the Turks should punish those guilty of the massacre and start the long-promised reforms to create normal living conditions for the Balkan Christians. The realistic British did not expect their gesture to have a major effect.
When the Russian ambassador asked Lord Derby about the aim of British policy in the East, the diplomat replied that the rebels were fighting not for administrative reform, but for independence or, at least, autonomy, whereas the Turks, who verbally agreed to reforms, would not grant them autonomy. Their claims could not be reconciled, and so the sides were unlikely to come to terms, he said.
According to Lord Derby, the powers could only wait for the dust to settle. If the Turks could not put down the uprising, their Sultan might agree to grant autonomy to Bosnia and Herzegovina. If the rebels were defeated, they would have to accept a system that had been created in the conquered Crete.
Unlike the overemotional Russian diplomats, the British, who did not know the term "political correctness" then, regarded the problem from the viewpoint of common sense and reason.
I suggest doing the same in the Middle East now. Political correctness is a good thing in everyday life, but not for objective analysis or practical policy. Political reality is not, and is unlikely to ever become, politically correct.
It would be great if Israel and Palestine came to their senses, rose from the dust, embraced and sat down to discuss a mutually acceptable compromise. But this is an impossible dream, and therefore out of place in practical policy.
The logic of fighting and the logic of peace cannot be reconciled. The fighters can be forced apart (what is the UN Peacekeeping Force for?), or we can wait for one of them to receive an especially hard blow that will make him stop and think. And this will be the best time for effective mediation.
