Elusive peace

You need to unsheathe your guns when you sue for peace, writes Amin Howeidi*

---

Why has peace between the Arabs and the Israelis turned out to be so elusive? Perhaps because we see peace as a white dove, while the Israelis see it as a hawk and the Americans as a black crow that brings nothing but bad luck. And perhaps because peace is all of these things put together. Peace is a creature as harmless as a dove, as aggressive as a hawk, and as ill-fated as a crow -- and we need to create it, and indeed clone it again and again, from scratch.

Israel's racist policies, its continual aggression against the Palestinians, and the US's unquestioning support of Israel are all obstacles to peace. This was hinted at by former US president Jimmy Carter in his book Palestine: Peace not Apartheid. Peace can only be attained when all those concerned recognise that other parties cannot go beyond certain red lines. Jerusalem, for example, is a red line for the Palestinians. Sooner or later the Israelis will have to recognise this as a fact and deal with it.

Peace is about geography and demographics, not rhetoric. Let me tell you a story. At the first meeting between former president Anwar El-Sadat and Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin, Sadat started waxing lyrical. "Don't you see it, dear Menachem, we're on the moon now?" he asked.

"Dear president, let's get back quickly to earth, since it wouldn't be good to stay on the moon too long," Begin shot back. The two men then got down to business, to the horse trading that is at the heart of all negotiations.

You cannot give others the impression that you are desperate for peace and expect them to meet you half way. Others should know you are ready to fire your guns. That is what will get them to the table.

Hanging on to the dream of fulfilling one's full historic rights could also be counterproductive. One has to admit that power can change history, or at least alter it to some extent. This does not mean one must abandon one's historic rights altogether, but some alterations may need to be made. I know that some people may find this logic offensive, and believe me, even I do. But this is how things are. Once at the negotiating table you'll have to engage in the usual bartering, not assume a position of "all or nothing". Israel should learn how to do that too. Its insistence on having peace as well as land has stunted peace. As a result, we all find ourselves embroiled in a state of perpetual conflict. A conflict is something that involves two or more parties, and so does peace. This means that unilateral measures of the type Ehud Olmert is fond of cannot lead to peace.

Let us not delude ourselves into thinking that peace treaties can end all mistrust. The best peace a treaty can bring about is one of "incomplete trust", and yet it is worth going for. There will always be a dispute over the meaning of a word or a clause, but such disputes can be resolved through further talks, not bullets. The aim of negotiators should be to achieve a realistic peace, not a perfect one.

We must also distinguish between a crisis and a state of affairs. A crisis is something that we can possibly defuse. A state of affairs, however, is something that involves long-term sentiments and beliefs. The Arab-Israeli conflict is more of a state of affairs than a crisis. No treaty can change the fact that Zionism is a political doctrine fraught with religious belief. But co-existence is possible, and so is mutual security. So let us send the rabbis back to the temple and the generals back to the barracks and see what we can accomplish on the negotiating table.

* The writer is former Egyptian minister of defence and chief of General Intelligence.