17 - 23 May 2001
Issue No.534
|
Al-Ahram Weekly On-line 17 - 23 May 2001 Issue No.534 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Crusader kingdoms
Peace is not about non-belligerency, nor can it ever be, writes John V. Whitbeck*
When, almost ten years ago, Yitzhak Shamir lost his bid for reelection as Israel's prime minister, he gave a remarkably frank interview to the Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv. Shamir stated that, if reelected, he would have dragged out Israeli-Palestinian negotiations for ten years while settling a further half a million Jews in the occupied Palestinian territories -- actually, he referred to "souls" rather than Jews and to "Judea, Samaria and Gaza" -- thereby making clear that it was never his intention that the peace process launched at the 1991 Madrid Peace Conference should, in fact, lead to peace.
It should now be clear, then, that Shamir's electoral defeat changed nothing. His spirit lived on in Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Binyamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak. While a full half a million Jews have not settled in the occupied Palestinian territories since Madrid, the number of settlers now living there has approximately doubled, and all of Shamir's successors have demonstrated, in deeds if not in words, that their only interest in the peace process was to keep the rest of the world off their back while they entrenched themselves ever deeper in the occupied Palestinian territories.
Until Ariel Sharon, that is. He at least has the merit of honesty in having formally dropped any pretence of seeking peace with Palestine. He has made clear, with support from his soulmate and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, and to apparent international indifference, that all he is interested in negotiating with the Palestinians is a long-term non-belligerency agreement.
What precisely would a "non-belligerency agreement" between an occupying power and an occupied people signify? Non-belligerency may sound like a close cousin of peace, but its essence could not be more different. In the Israeli-Palestinian context, it will signify Palestinian acquiescence in the continuing illegal occupation of the Palestinian lands conquered in 1967 and Palestinian renunciation of the internationally recognised right to resist occupation.
Nevertheless, the near-universal reaction of the international community to the current Intifada and the succession of war crimes deployed to repress it continues to be to call for an end to violence (with the emphasis on Palestinian violence) and a return to negotiations. Negotiations about what? What will it take for the international community to recognize that the problem is not resistance to occupation but occupation itself?
The Palestinian people have made it clear they are prepared to pay a high price for their freedom, their dignity and their fundamental human rights. For most of them, the conditions of their lives are already so miserable and humiliating that the prospect of death with dignity is not an unattractive option. They have nothing left to lose. What will it take for the international community to start to live up to the principles of international law and basic humanity which it professes to support?
One should not be surprised that the US vetoed sending unarmed observers to the occupied Palestinian territories. The US would probably give unqualified support to Israel even if it pushed three million Palestinians, live, through a meat-grinder. However, one used to expect better from Europe. While obsessing daily over alleged war criminals in the former Yugoslavia, the EU has greeted Sharon's assumption of power (and even the inclusion in his cabinet of Rehavam Zeevi, whose entire political career is founded on the advocacy of ethnically cleansing the indigenous population of historical Palestine) with apparent equanimity.
It is particularly disappointing and depressing to see certain Arab governments adopting the Israeli-American analysis and priorities and publicly calling for an end to violence, rather than for an end to the occupation and solidarity with the Palestinian resistance.
The primordial requirement for peace must now be to make Ariel Sharon and all he represents appear, in Israeli eyes, a worse disaster than Ehud Barak, so that the Israeli body politic undergoes a powerful laxative purge which produces a successor willing to get serious about actually achieving peace, not simply keeping a never-ending "peace process" twitching with faint signs of life, a purge sufficient for Israeli public opinion to finally grasp the fundamental reality and essential truth that complying with international law and relevant UN resolutions and ending the occupation is in Israel's own self-interest.
Unfortunately, this will require that conditions on the ground get even worse in the short term in order for there to be any hope of their getting better. During the difficult months ahead, a far greater degree of Arab solidarity with the Palestinian people than has been demonstrated to date -- not simply on the rhetorical but on the practical and financial level -- will be required. The Arab world has the means to summon the world's attention and to force it to take effective action on behalf of a genuine peace if its leaders can only summon the political will to do so.
Israelis love to recite, with a certain smugness, that "the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity." If Israel had any true friends in the world, they would now be screaming that Israel is in the process of missing a golden opportunity that may never come again.
Since the 1991 Madrid Peace Conference, almost all Arab and Muslim states (including, most significantly, the State of Palestine) have been offering to accept the permanence of the Jewish State in 78 per cent of historical Palestine, in return for Israel's withdrawal to its internationally recognized borders in compliance with international law and relevant UN resolutions.
However, the Israelis wanted -- and still want -- more. Their spurning of this generous offer and their abuse of the peace process and of the goodwill of their Arab neighbors are changing the assumption of permanence in Arab eyes. The 78 per cent offer may no longer be on the table -- at least in the hearts and minds of most of the people of Arab and Muslim states. It will certainly be off the table if Ariel Sharon's successor is not serious about actually achieving peace.
One thing should be clear to anyone with even a passing familiarity with the history of Palestine: nothing is permanent except the presence of the Palestinian people. Historically, short-term interlopers have come and gone. The Crusader Kingdom in Palestine lasted for 88 years. So far, the Jewish State has lasted for 53 years. Unless a radical change in Israeli attitudes and direction occurs soon (and it is in everyone's interest that such a change should occur), a prudent person would hesitate to bet on the Jewish State's matching the 88-year lifespan of the Crusader Kingdom.
*The writer is an international lawyer and frequent commentator on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
Recommend this page