Thinking Outside the Box: Engaging the
Palestinian Authority
by Major Robert K. Holzhauer, USA, Middle
East FAO
If you continue to do the same thing to solve a problem, you usually end up with the
same results. Keeping this thought in mind, I would ask the reader if there might be
more we could do to assist in the Middle East Peace Process (MEPP). Sometimes we all
need to step aside from our current attempts at attaining a goal, and think outside of our
current course of action.
I believe there is an approach that the United States' government could apply that
would decrease tension between Palestinians and Israelis now that would serve to reduce
suffering on both sides. It would also enhance our current diplomatic engagement of the
Palestinian Authority while including Israelis in supporting a working solution to
casualties caused by the current Intifada in the region. It is not a comprehensive solution,
but serves to pave the way for increased cooperation between Palestinians and Israelis.
What I propose is that the United States' government provide limited International
Military Education and Training (IMET) and Expanded IMET to the Palestinian
Authority.
So, why do this? I hope to sell this idea by explaining the merits of Security
Assistance (SA) training to a fledgling democracy that needs the training to improve the
quality of life in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. I can think of no finer method of
engagement than training members of the PA in Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS).
ATLS is surgical intervention for casualties inflicted by military means. It trains
surgeons in treating gunshot and projectile wounds seen in conflicts similar to the
ongoing crisis. This relatively inexpensive training would allow for the treatment of
personnel injured as the result of activity from either side. It could naturally be coupled
with Emergency Medical Technician Basic (EMT-B) and Paramedic (EMT-P) training
for first responders.
I wish to start with reducing the suffering of casualties created as a result of this
conflict. I do not choose, nor do I expect my reader to choose, to fix blame for the
situation as it currently exists, rather I propose to do something about the symptoms of
the problem and leave something in the infrastructure behind that is sustainable and
benefits Palestinian and Israeli civilian alike.
To further my case, let's form a mental image of a combined PA-Israeli team
treating casualties of a bombing. The EMT-B's and EMT-P's provide effective triage
and ATLS providers perform lifesaving surgical intervention for victims that may be
largely uninvolved in the activity that leads to their injuries. They are not in the job of
fixing blame for the bombing, which may have occurred as the result of factors outside
the control of either governing body. This team is caring for people that both authorities
have a legitimate concern, might I add a duty, to provide services for.
This is feasible, even barring current positions regarding engagement prior to the
cessation of violence. We can train the PA; we already train the Israelis in ATLS. Why
not train them together? Alternately, we could train them separately on the same medical
protocols to enhance cooperation in this critical field. The bottom line is that this is a
humanitarian undertaking, regardless of your religion or politics. Islam and Judeo-
Christian ethics and values are in harmony here.
Additional E-IMET training to the PA would serve to provide even further
capabilities to the PA that are badly needed. In the areas of public health alone, there are
several courses that would provide for better services, better sanitation, better health care
and the knowledge to sustain the infrastructure improvements that will eventually occur
as knowledge empowers people.
Courses that focus on civilian control of the military and civil-military relations are
applicable in the case of the PA. Knowledge gained from these courses would allow the
PA to improve its services and exert greater control over its forces to limit the influence
of other groups and enhance responsiveness to calls for a cease-fire.
E-IMET courses in particular will have a direct, contributory effect on the efficacy
of the PA in limiting the influence of factions that gain legitimacy among the populace
by providing pseudo-governmental services and persist in subverting the MEPP while
refusing to engage in democratic processes. E-IMET is specifically tailored to remove
some of the technical restrictions associated with IMET and the training of police forces.
What I've discussed so far are measures that enhance the capability of the PA, an
elected authority, to do its job in providing services for everything from trauma care,
clean and available water supplies, to effective management of funds and services. The
use of E-IMET in particular is consistent with our stated national policy of supporting
democratic institutions.
All of the training mentioned can be made available to the PA in the form of Mobile
Training Teams (MTT's) or by having students visit the United States. Naturally, it
might be better to train in a more stable environment.
Is training a place where the Kingdom of Jordan could serve to facilitate? I
certainly believe that in the case of non-military training, no-one would benefit more,
both economically and from a political standpoint, from mitigating the effects on either
governing body than Jordan, with its large Palestinian population and ties to all nations in
the region. The question remains. Would Jordan host an MTT that taught both parties,
or even better, all three, including the Jordanians, on ATLS and EMT procedures?
Perhaps. This is one of the hazards of thinking outside the box. It increases your
available options.
One of those options is Israeli-Palestinian engagement. I do not see any objection
coming from the Israelis for the United States providing E-IMET, as it is specifically
tailored for use by civilian authorities. Personnel trained in similar protocols will
naturally work better in a combined environment. Engagement serves to enhance
commonalities when people work together to provide solutions. Engagement before a
solid ceasefire is possible under the limited circumstances of providing services for
people that endure undue hardships as a result of this crisis.
I now want to mention perhaps a larger benefit of a policy of SA training
engagement. Engaging the PA will send a message to all parties involved in the peace
process that the United States remains committed to the MEPP and intends to make
progress and contribute to both sides of the solution, instead of repeating the measures
we've employed before. The largest benefit that we can gain from providing limited
IMET and E-IMET to the PA may be putting the region on notice that we intend to match
words with action. Perhaps thinking outside the box is not such a bad idea after all.
Major Robert K. Holzhauer USA (48G) is currently serving as
Director, Middle East Studies, Defense Institute of Security Assistance
Management
2001, Foreign Area Officer
Association
Springfield, Virginia
Maintained by LTC Steve
Gotowicki.
http://www.faoa.org