Hurrah for Hamas?

It is easy and justified to criticise Israel for its current campaign. Tel Aviv has upped the ante to a point where a major confrontation is no longer an impossibility. Even those sympathetic to Israel have questioned the offensive against Lebanon, especially since the latter had only recently started an agonisingly long-delayed process of rebuilding infrastructure and normalising its famously violent politics. But along with critiques of Israel, there must also be recognition that the country has the misfortune of dealing with parties that seem to have no interest in peaceful solutions. Which state would want interlocutors such as Hamas and Hezbollah when trying to look for solutions to a problem that carries the terrible burden of bloody history?

It is no one8217;s case that Israel has not often displayed a lack of sensitivity. Or that it has not adopted a too-aggressive policy where retaliation is concerned. Look also, however, at Israel8217;s opposite parties. Yasser Arafat proved yet again, during his leadership of the Palestinian authority, that militant activists do not make good administrators. Palestinians were offered a corrupt, inefficient quasi-government that was run like a durbar. As a result, popular support for groups like Hamas shot up. Had Arafat been a good administrator, had he taken the brief of improving Palestinians8217; quality of life more seriously, had he not continued to see grandstanding against Israel as his principal achievement, the story might have been different today.

The most terrible tragedy of the Middle East today is the dreadful life choices for ordinary Palestinians. True, Israel has made some things difficult8212;typically by making access difficult to places of work and education. But it would be ridiculous not to see that Palestinians have been failed by their leaders. That for the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah, permanent conflict is the best thing. Even if Israel were to become a peacenik tomorrow, who would provide good governance to Palestinians?