Al-Ahram Weekly   Al-Ahram Weekly
23 - 29 March 2000
Issue No. 474
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 Issues navigation Current Issue Previous Issue Back Issues

 
Front Page
 Menue
  
  SEARCH
 

War of definitions

Qadri HifniBy Qadri Hifni *

Since long before Madrid, peace has been constantly on our minds. At times, it was confused with negative ideas such as reconciliation with the enemy, submission, exclusion of the military option, pointless compromise, etc. While we certainly favour a peaceful settlement, the essence of peace as a strategic option makes the use of force as a last resort imperative.

In the maze of definitions, the real meaning of peace can be missed. For some, it means simply "remaining calm on the surface," "refraining from aggression under any circumstance," or "resigning oneself without endeavouring to improve the situation." All these are far removed from the concept of peace as a strategic option. These definitions imply three situations, all of which constitute a threat to peace: First, perpetuating the status quo; second, submitting to aggression; third, a no-peace, no-war situation, which arms dealers and warmongers prefer.

Ehud Barak's recent statements to the Palestinian leadership suggest that whatever the Palestinians agree to in the final settlement agreement is all they will ever get. Barak knows that no "final solutions" exist, and that the "permanence" of any peace agreement depends only on the agreement's success in addressing the causes of the conflict.

Why, then, should Barak make such a statement to the Palestinian Authority when he knows it is futile? No doubt he intends to generate a useless controversy over the point of signing, which will override the Arabs' assertions that peace is our strategic option. The intention, in sum, is to keep the conflict over the meaning of peace ablaze.

 


* This week's Soapbox speaker is a professor of psychology at Ain Shams University.

   Top of page
Front Page