Here in Ramallah, everything is quiet. However, news reports are starting to sound sharper. The Times cites growing evidence of civil war, whereas Al Jazeera mentions only a Hamas rally, and their repeated declaration that they will refuse to recognize Israel.
Who, then, is correct? It would be naive to assume that there won't be confilct in Gaza, but I would be surprised if it spread so rapidly to the West Bank. At the moment (possibly not for too much longer, but at the moment), the opportunity cost of civil war is too great.
However, when it comes to principle, who's right? Hamas is holding rigidly to an untenable position. The West refuses to recognize a government that, while distasteful, was elected in what even the US concedes was a free and fair election. So who's right?
If people spend too long battling over ideas, living conditions deteriorate, coping strategies are exhausted, and that opportunity cost suddenly doesn't seem so high. There's no civil war yet. This isn't Iraq. But another actively unstable linchpin in the Middle East will further weaken the tenuous hold on law and order that currently exists. Watch out.
In case the world looks too depressing, take a look at this: http://improbable.com/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment