As an "active amateur" as far as middle east policy is concerned, I have been following the events in Gaza and those leading up to them fairly carefully of late. I took a very insightful class- SCCC 427, Challenges to Mid-East Stability at the University of South Carolina, Ken Perkins, professor, should anyone be interested :)- that led to me doing a good bit of research for a term paper on the sociological effects of military occupation on the Palestinian people. And I think that the way we- and I mean the media, the punditry, and the US government- approach the issue is very very wrong.
We tend to approach the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with a "chunky nation-state" mindset. We view the conflict as one between two distinct entities- Israel and Palestine. So we support a two-state solution, recognize the PLO (sort of) and then we can't understand why every peace agreement we put forward or help to mediate tanks. The reason is that we view the issue entirely in terms of land and percentages and not as a quality-of-living issue. If I had a nickel for every time I've heard "The Israelis were willing to give the Palestinians all but a small part of the West Bank at Oslo/ Wye River and the Palestinians spurned it" I'd be a wealthy man. What people don't understand is that this is not an issue of percentages. 98% of the West Bank is not enough when you feel entitled to 100% of it. And 100% of it is never going to fly with 50% of Israelis. Even from the security standpoint that is pretty much the only one we address in our foreign policy such a plan is flawed- Israel would still have controlled the corridors of transport in Palestine, essentially creating bantustans. Kind of like me saying "well, I'll leave your house, but I reserve the right to control your hallways." How much freedom do you really have?
The cool thing about the Gaza withdrawal is that, tenuous as it is, it offers a real chance for something to happen. This is a situation where at least theoretically, there could be no Israeli presence in Gaza. The civilians are leaving, and so is the military, which is a big step. Although the military is going to reserve the right to reenter Gaza if rocket attacks on Israel start happening, which from some corner or another they almost certainly will, the plan here is to give Gaza to the Palestinians, which opens up a great possibility.
What is important here is not that the Palestinians feel they have a set percentage of their land or control of their own security situation, although those things are important. Unemployment in Gaza is over 40%, and not much better in the West Bank. Houses, businesses, and infrastructure are in rubble from terrorism and indiscriminate IDF destruction- the IDF has made nearly 30,000 Gazan families homeless at some point or another. The area has no functioning airport, and is sealed off from both Egypt and Israel. Now Israel can leave Gaza and nominally hand it over to the Palestinian Authority. But if we just leave it at that- a withdrawal, a changing of hands, a titular changeover of power of security- nothing good is going to happen for Israel OR Palestine.
What must happen is that the average Gazan- that every Gazan- feel that they have gained something from not interfering with the withdrawal and not using it as an opportunity to keep shooting. At the very beginning of this, the US Government, the EU, and the UN should have promised the Palestinian Authority boatloads of economic and security assistance in exchange for a peaceful withdrawal. What has happened too often in the past is that the powers say "well, Israel will withdraw if the PA stops the terrorism." The PA, weak and trying to control things, CANNOT just stop the terror, so it is labeled terrorist itself. This is intellectually invalid and dangerous- Israel needs an authority in Palestine to work with that is a moderating influence but that has power. If the PA, weak as it is, uses all its available resources to crack down on people many justifiably angry Palestinians view as heroes and martyrs, they will lose what little control they have and Hamas will run the show. That's what's been happening, in slow motion, for 15 years.
It is vital for anyone interested in peace that the more moderate political power in Palestine- I would say in Israel as well, but c'est la vie- dominate the scene. We may not like it, we may have questions, but right now that's the Palestinian Authority. And how do we keep the PA in power without being the ugly Americans and throwing too much metal around? By tying the success of the withdrawal and the peaceful nature of Palestinian activity in Gaza to real, tangible aid, not just vague assertions from a vacationing US president that he wants to see a two-state solution. We ought to commit money, engineers, and equipment to repairing and enhancing Gaza's infrastructure. We ought to create jobs with programs such as these. If Gazans are being paid decent wages to build themselves roads, ports, housing, an improved electrical grid, and better farming systems, their lives will improve quickly. And with that will gradually come a lessened feeling of desperation and thus less of an incentive to commit acts of violence. Will it change overnight? Absolutely not. Will Hamas and other groups continue to say that despite progress, they will not rest until all of Palestine is Palestinian? Yep. And they'll keep shooting rockets and suicide bombers, which is why Israel cannot retaliate with a steel fist as it has been every time one of these tragic incidents occurs.
Israel's economic policy has for years, deliberately and not deliberately, encouraged the weakening of Palestine. In the 1970's and 1980's, it was the all but stated goal of the Likud party to place so many settlers in the West Bank that the prospect of an independent Palestine would have to be scrapped. Israelis employ many Palestinians in menial jobs and factories, and Israel, with its control of the flow of goods into Gaza and the West Bank, can ensure that Palestinians all too often have to buy goods made in Israel by their underpaid countryment, and that they pay too much for them. The profits then go back to Israel- it's neo-mercantilism. Until there is an acknowledgement- and change- of this economic structure, and large focused foreign investment in the West Bank and Gaza, people in those places are going to continue to be poor, and desperate, and violent.
Obviously, it's a two-way street. Palestinians cannot expect foreign investment unless they make Gaza and the West Bank safer places, which means cracking down on terror. But in recent man-in-the-street interviews after the last Palestinian elections, I noticed something disturbing- many people felt that Hamas was a better candidate to provide social services like schools, clinics, and security than the PA. And if Hamas can do those things for the Palestinians, then have they not earned the right to speak for them on the security situation? I don't think that's something any peace-wanting person- and don't think there aren't people on both sides with no interest in peace- would want. This isn't an issue of land- at least not entirely. This is an issue of quality of life. If we help the Gazans- cheap loans, aid, directed investment, and advice on security and policing- then the quality of life for Gazans improves, making relations better with Israel and the rest of the world and giving a potent example to the West Bank. But without a serious rise in the quality of life for Palestinians, desperation and anger will continue to shape their reactions to Israel and each other.