Self-Delusion among Scandinavian Foreign Ministers

KGS, who blogs at Tundra Tabloids, sends along his translation of an article was published in today’s Helsingin Sanomat (subscription required), the New York Times of Finland, on the editorial front page.

As KGS notes,

This is a classic textbook case of European intellectuals refusing to accept reality, namely that the Palestinians who support Hamas are fighting for the good of the whole Ummah. Then there is the moral equivocation of both sides (regardless of the truth) and the trashing of UNSCR 242, the basis for “the land for peace” formula.

This is why Scandinavia needs to be the focus of wider attention. They are far too boisterous and influential for their numbers, and their opinions are too far off the track to be of any constructive, positive use.

First, here’s the entire editorial. I’ll fisk parts of it afterwards.

The Middle East Needs encouragement in the Peace Process

“Positive steps forward in the peace process are now possible, but they demand active participation by the international community”

Many observers who have long followed the Middle East peace process are frustrated, and right now this feeling is strong.

Israel’s government is close to dissolving, while the Palestinian government is suffering from disagreement. The stabilization of the situation could take months.

Presumably therefore, any kind of diplomatic initiative right now would be in vain. In our opinion the assessment of the situation is correct, but the conclusions are completely mistaken. In spite of all the difficulties there are four factors that exist, that could lead to peace. If the United States and Europe do not take hold of these possibilities, it could present itself to be a fateful mistake.

The Arab League’s peace initiative is the first possibility. The initiative offers Israel in unambiguously clear language, full relations and a wide normalization for a return to the pre-1968 [actually 1967 —KGS] borders and negotiated agreement concerning the question of refugees.

The Arab League should now clarify its proposal and explain it directly to the Israeli people. Israel’s leaders have reacted rather positively to the proposal and therefore Arab leaders should begin an international diplomatic, political action and convince Israelis of their constructive intentions.

The second possibility consists of the Palestinian groups’ Mecca agreement and the basis of the agreement which formed the national coalition government. According to some opinions this was regrettable because the inclusion of the Hamas will not bring peace, according to them, Hamas should removed from the government.

- - - - - - - - - -

The international community, especially European countries, should establish relations to the new government and break the economic and diplomatic boycott. Attempts to oppose the government and its area of movement have made it difficult for them achieve a ceasefire and reach a political agreement.

From the basis of discussions between representatives of the International Crisis Group (ICG) and leaders of Hamas, we have become aware of important opening suggestions — from the position of continuing the peace process — in the fundamental questions.

This includes promises from both sides over a comprehensive truce and unanimity that a state within the 1967 borders is a joint goal of the Palestinians.

This also includes recognizing President Mahmoud Abbas as the only one empowered to negotiate with Israel and to assure that agreements ratified by each and every institution within Palestinian democratic order will be adhered to.

These promises must naturally be clarified and verified, but it must happen solely in an exchange of dialogue with the Palestinian government.

The economic boycott, according to which Palestinian aid is steered past Palestinian officials, has not led to a decrease in aid. Instead it has lead to a more closed and ineffective process. It has weakened hard-built Palestinian institutions. Aid should be therefore given through the Palestinian state treasury office, which is now lead by a generally esteemed minister.

The third possibility is Syria’s newest awakening to openly negotiate with Israel without any preconditions. Many suspect that Damascus is only trying to avoid its growing international isolation and resist the founding of an international tribunal, which would solve the murder of Lebanon’s prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri.

Regardless of Syrian appearances, the definitive factor is nonetheless its desire to sit at the same negotiation table.

Syrian commitment could mean that the danger of a new conflict between Hizbullah and Israel would decrease, that Hamas would become more moderate and send a message to Iran that it also should reevaluate its politics again.

An opposite development in which President Bashar al-Assad’s overtures are left unanswered, means without a doubt that Syria in the future will act destructively in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq.

The fourth and final possibility is composed of the newest, one-of-a-kind joint understanding of Arab and Israeli goals for peace. An Israeli and Palestinian as well as Israeli and Syrian peace agreement have been affirmed and approved in many opinion polls, unofficial discussions and agreement suggestions.

We presented at the ICG in 2002 one suggestion, and the developments afterwards haven’t shaken our conclusion. The international community now has time to present a detailed and exhaustive vision for Middle East peace.

Such a vision is needed to encourage the sides to be prepared for necessary compromise.

If we wait until ideal conditions for peace to materialize some time, that’s a bad excuse for inaction. It also means that we effect the conditions in that they will never appear at all.

Our opinion in Europe and in Northern Europe, is that every real advancement (for peace) available be taken advantage of and used. The Middle East conflict has already for too long poisoned international relations.

UFFE ELLEMANN-JENSEN
Former foreign minister Denmark

LENA HJELM-WALLÉN
Former foreign minister Sweden

PÄR STENBÄCK
Former foreign minister Finland

THORVALD STOLTENBERG
Former foreign minister Norway

Israel’s government is close to dissolving, while the Palestinian government is suffering from disagreement.

Hoo, boy! That’s a disingenuous summary. An Israeli government may be dissolved by the President, and new elections will be held. Hamas and Fatah are killing each other in the streets. Same thing.

The Arab League’s peace initiative is the first possibility. The initiative offers Israel in unambiguously clear language, full relations and a wide normalization for a return to the pre-1968 [actually 1967 —KGS] borders and negotiated agreement concerning the question of refugees.

How many times have we heard this one before? When do we get to say, “Been there. Done that.”?

Arab leaders should begin an international diplomatic, political action and convince Israelis of their constructive intentions.

With words, apparently. Actions never speak louder than words if you’re a friend of the Palestinians.

Attempts to oppose the [Hamas] government and its area of movement have made it difficult for them achieve a ceasefire and reach a political agreement.

The West is responsible for all of the problems in “Palestine”. Any violent activity is somehow caused by our less than fully indulgent attitude towards the Palestinians.

Aid should be therefore given through the Palestinian state treasury office, which is now lead by a generally esteemed minister.

We are obliged to do this despite the proven track record of the Palestinian Authority, with the recent disappearance of more than five billion dollars.

An opposite development in which President Bashar al-Assad’s overtures are left unanswered, means without a doubt that Syria in the future will act destructively in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq.

The wishful thinking in this one is truly breathtaking. There has never been the slightest indication that Boy Assad or his father has ever been interested in acting non-destructively towards Israel and Lebanon. Every overture and concession by the Western powers is just exploited as an opportunity to extend the long and brutal arm of Syrian power even further.

On and on and on.

And then there’s the old mantra: both sides… both sides… both sides… repeated over and over until all our brains turn to jelly.