Sunday, June 29, 2008

Peace, Not In My Lifetime

Peace? Not In My Lifetime


East Meredith, New York, June 26, 2008

grubeiz@comcast.net

“Peace in the Holy Land? Not in my lifetime,” is an opinion I hear too often from my Jewish American friends. Arab Americans have a similar pessimistic view of the prospects for peace in the Middle East.

Making peace is a process of commitment. To make a deal one merely needs a client willing to bargain, but to make peace one needs a respectful and responsive partner.

Currently, Arabs and Israeli leaders are trying to make deals on three parallel and separate fronts: Israel’s occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights, Tel-Aviv’s severe siege of Gaza, and prisoner exchange between Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Jewish State.

Middle East politicians may be able to score limited gains in these current negotiations but lasting peace they will not achieve through a fragmented approach. To reach a peace breakthrough, Arabs and Jews need to undergo radical changes in attitude.

Imagine an Arab awakening that prepares visionary statesmen for peace. In such an awakening Arabs would recognize Israel’s fear of being a minority state within an Arab collective of 22 countries. Arabs would pledge not to take revenge if power were to shift in their favor. Rulers would seriously engage in political reform. If this fundamental change were to occur, Israel would then perceive the Arabs as responsive partners for peace.

Imagine a parallel Israeli renewal of orientation. In such a renewal Israelis would acknowledge the consequences of their land occupation and displacement of all people involved. Israelis would fully accept a free, viable and independent Palestinian state. They would assume moral and financial responsibility to compensate Palestinians for their multifaceted suffering. When all these revolutionary changes take place, Israelis will then become an attractive partner for peace with Arabs.

Regrettably, neither side is on the path to peace. Facing desperate conditions, leaders in Israel, Syria, Lebanon and Gaza are gambling over fragmented political solutions that do not require reorientation of policy and remobilization of efforts. Weak leadership does not take risk, make sacrifice or solve fundamental national problems. In seeking relief from battle-fatigue and political stress Israel and three Arab countries are now engaged in a process of deal-making. On the surface the deal-making looks like peace-making.

What are these three deals that Arabs and Israelis are trying to hammer out?

First, Syria and Israel are talking covertly about peace possibilities if the Golan Heights is returned to Syria. Israel occupied the Golan Heights in 1967 and annexed the territory in 1981. Strangely, while Israel conducts these talks with Syria it is threatening military intervention in Iran, Syria’s closest ally. But this may not be the best time to revive the Golan issue. Not only is Syria is under US sanctions, in recent months Israel launched a surgical attack on Syrian facilities that it claimed were nuclear. Today is Israel really ready to return the strategic, Golan border-district to Syria after years of integrating the territory in its society.

The second Arab Israeli deal covers the crippling siege of Gaza which is under Hamas rule. Israel has already signed a six-month truce with Hamas, effective June 19. The deal stipulates that Hamas will stop shelling rockets into border towns in Israel. In return, Israel will gradually lift the siege on Gaza. Hamas agrees to reign-in the shelling from other Palestinian factions and Israel stops its assassination campaign of resistance leaders. The chemistry of this deal has been sour from the start. Ehud Olmert accuses leaders in Gaza of being “blood-thirsty terrorists”. And Hamas reciprocates by refusing to recognize the existence of Israel. Despite the rhetorical denial of the state of Israel, Hamas pleads with Egypt to mediate. It desperately seeks Cairo’s intervention to terminate the Israeli siege on the strip. Both sides are trapped. For Israel, the siege policy has not worked to break the will of Hamas. Consequently, Israel seems to be rethinking its failed policy of brutally forcing political change.

The third parallel and separate deal relates to Lebanon. Israel is negotiating with Hezbollah a prisoner exchange. At the same time, Israel has invited Beirut government to direct bilateral peace talks. But Lebanon today is stressed and fragile; it cannot be a norm breaker. Individual Arab states consider unconditional direct talks with Tel-Aviv a taboo. Israel wishes to make deal with Hezbollah, an organization it has considered a criminal agent. Is Tel-Aviv willing to swap prisoners with Hezbollah after launching a war two years ago that tried to obliterate this resistance movement, a war that is sadly still considered unfinished?

The prognosis of these three separate, parallel and hesitant rounds of peace talks is poor. The difference between peace making and deal making is in attitude and process. In the search for peace the actors are respectful of one another and their efforts are relevant, genuine, timely and coordinated.

To achieve lasting peace Arabs and Israelis must look each other in the eye and start direct, coordinated and comprehensive negotiations. The two sides will reach productive exchange of ideas on their interlinked future when they recognize mutual concerns and imagine relevant and decisive solutions.

“Not in my life time”.

-

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home