Likud Votes For Armageddon

On mother’s day, the Likud party overwhelmingly rejected the idea of a Palestinian state in completedefiance of the position advanced by President Bush who sees the establishment of a Palestinian State as theonly solution to resolving the Middle East conflict. It is also a key that will open up opportunities for theUS to once again establish a new order in the Middle East that will safeguard America and American interestsfrom terrorism and the growing anti-Americanism in the Muslim world.

The Likud vote not only rejects the only path to comprehensive peace in the Middle East but also makes amockery of American positions on the subject and undermines American interests in the region and its war onterrorism. The most devastating consequence of this statement by the ruling party in Israel is the message itsends to the Palestinians. If Likud has its way it will leave the Palestinians with only three options –eternal occupation and life without freedom and dignity forever, forcible expulsion or ethnic cleansing (apolicy preferred by some American Republicans such Dick Armey), or a fight to the finish.

Likud’s vote also tips the balance of power within the Palestinian community. About 80% Palestiniansfavor a two state solution and are willing to live in peaceful co-existence with Israel. But nearly 20% ofPalestinians support Hamas and Islamic Jihad who stand for complete extermination of the Jewish state and likeLikud favor only a one state solution to the crisis. While Hamas and Likud may use different means, the formerpreferring suicide bombers, and the later preferring strategic bombers (F-16s), tanks and barricades, it seemsthat they mirror each other in their intransigence and anti-peace ideologies. The Likud vote to reject thePalestinian state will certainly make Hamas and its methods more popular. Netanyahu, the most extreme ofIsraeli voices is fast becoming the recruiter-in-chief of suicide bombers for Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

The Palestinian Authority is already screaming foul. Saeb Erakat the Chief Palestinian negotiator saw thevote as a statement of the Israelis to deny the Palestinians their legitimate rights and to continue theoccupation, settlement and the demographic annexation of Jerusalem.

Washington as usual is downplaying the issue. Israel continues to takes steps that make peace impossibleand Washington merely responds by increasing its support and commitment to Israel. The American government andthe media, important elements of which have often functioned as an arm of the government since 9/11, have madedemanding commitments to peace from Arafat and the Palestinians an art form. But when it comes to Israel theyare always eager to work overtime as damage control subcontractors. In fact the Israeli media often puts theAmerican media to shame when it comes to ‘fair and balanced" reporting on the subject.

At the moment, America is promising a Palestinian state in the near future if the Palestinians give uptheir armed struggle against Israel. If the Palestinians do comply, can the US deliver? It seems that theLikud/Israel has more influence in the Congress and the media than the White House and they are in no mood totoe the President’s line on this crucial issue. Who should the Palestinian leadership listen to? Should theytake the American President seriously and condemn violence and give up their only effective weapon – suicidebombing – or should they listen to the Israeli ruling party and get ready for Armageddon. After all wasn’tit an American, Patrick Henry, and not a Palestinian who said ‘Give me Freedom or Give me Death"?

There is hope still. Let’s not concede victory to Netanyahu and his extreme designs. Even as thewarmongering Likuds were rejecting the visions of their own leader Sharon and the American President, hundredsof thousands of Israelis marched on May 11^th calling for peace, withdrawal and an end tooccupation. Shimon Peres himself, perhaps anticipating the Likud vote, declared that the best thing that couldhappen to Palestinians and the Israelis was creation of the Palestinian State. He also reflected that perhapsit was a mistake not making a Palestinian state the immediate goal of the Oslo accords.

The first Intifada led to Oslo. The second has led to suicide bombings, reoccupation and war crimes. Bothcommunities continue to suffer. But there is a difference, while the international community refuses to dealwith Palestinian extremists who reject the Israeli state, Israeli extremists (Netanyahu – the architect ofthe Likud vote) who reject the Palestinian state get to address the US senate and get private audiences withthe US Vice President.

It is time to end all double standards and for the US and the international community to reject allextremists. Before the region falls into despair and self-destructs we must move ahead aggressively to enforcea just peace in the Middle East.

Dr. Muqtedar Khan is Director of International Studies at Adrian College in Michigan.