Peace, of Course - Terms?
Prince Saud al-Faisal urges Israel to accept the Arab League peace plan. He states the Middle East risks perpetual conflict if the peace plan fails. Yes, he is certainly correct there. Of course the Middle East has always, forever, been in perpetual conflict, so there's not much new there. One always hopes, and in this particular instance, that the near future may grant peace to the region.Given the constant push-and-shove of the region, the tribal inheritances, the ritual displays of aggrieved anger, the hot tempers of the demographics who prefer jihad to 'surrender', peace appears a tenuous glimmering hope into the elusive future.
For two very individual sides in a conflict to agree to a cessation of hostilities, to recognize the legitimacy of each other's claims, a 'blueprint for peace' must contain a certain roominess for give-and-take. One side agrees to give a little, the other must also. What one is prepared to give, the other may take. But when the proposal for peace is entirely written by one protagonist in such a flagrantly unilateral manner as is being presented by the Arab League, more in the order of a conqueror's formula for the acceptance of the vanquished what is the value of the proposal?
A peace proposal that is weighted completely for the satisfaction of one entity as opposed to the other with unconditional demands for acceptance, not an openness to discussion with respect to the specific demands listed is a formula for failure. No self-respecting state can possibly accept the unilateral truncation of its parts to achieve a recognition due it legally and internationally by the very fact of its presence as a sovereign nation.
Yet here are the leaders of the Arab world gathering in Riyadh, for their annual summit. Under the Saudi-drafted proposal being re-introduced for the second time, Arab countries would agree to formally recognize Israel if it:
- Withdraws from all Arab lands it occupied in the 1967 war;
- Accepts the creation of a Palestinian state embracing the entire West Bank and Gaza;
- With East Jerusalem as its capital;
- And agrees to a "just solution" for Palestinian refugees.
The question remains; why does the Arab world which assembled to launch a deadly attack on the new State of Israel in 1948 and subsequently feel it now has the sole right to determine terms of peace, particularly when the Arab lands which Israel now occupies relate to the lands seized during wars that Israel did not initiate nor wish to occur? Furthermore, if "both sides must want it equally", why does the Arab world not make an effort to accommodate the needs of the country they are now pressing to accept their unilateral draft?
- Item number one may be readily accommodated, but as an obvious sacrifice to Israel.
- Item number two may be facilitated with the best of all possible intentions.
- Item number three calling for the sacrifice of East Jerusalem is hardly feasible for the ancient city of the Hebrews should be seen as indivisible; held as a previous Jordanian jurisdiction Jews were not permitted access to their most holy sites.
- Item number four is intensely problematical and as proposed its meaning is elusive; "right of return" for upwards of some four million Palestinians within the confines of the Jewish state's borders is unthinkable as it would irremediably dilute the purpose and character of the State of Israel.
"If Israel refuses", the Prince intones portentously, "that means it doesn't want peace and it places everything back into the hands of fate. They will be putting their future not in the hands of the peacemakers but in the hands of the lords of war", he claims. Choice, where is the choice? Fairness, where is the fairness? In whose hands should Israel place their trust for the furtherance and security of its interests; their own, or that of a despotic collective?
Prince Saud dismisses the potential for further diplomatic overtures toward Israel. "It has never been proven that reaching out to Israel achieves anything", he claimed. As though delivering an ultimatum can be correlated with 'reaching out'. Threats as signs of good faith. Very impressive. "Other Arab countries have recognized Israel and what has that achieved?" he intoned. "The largest Arab country, Egypt, recognized Israel and what was the result? Not one iota of change happened in the attitude of Israel towards peace."
Israel and history and objective observers would beg to differ. Israel stands ready to meet a softening of attitudes with a like response, as she always has. The peace with Egypt resulted in an official frigidity emanating from Egypt, not Israel. It is not Israel that teaches its population through the medium of the printed word and the electronic media that Jews are untrustworthy and their goal is to take what is not theirs, to eventually rule the world.
Egypt's state-controlled news and entertainment media regale its citizens with specially-produced television series that depict the Jewish state as a pariah in conformance with the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Egypt encourages its people to maintain a frosty distance of distrust and anger. So much for results of waging peace, not war.
In theory everyone is eager to give peace a chance. No one, it appears, is equally eager to take the steps necessary to create a climate favourable for peace. In the words of an overweening optimist shuttling from the United States to the Middle East: "The Arab states should begin reaching out to Israel, to reassure Israel that its place in the region will be more, not less secure by an end to occupation and the establishment of a Palestinian state.
"To show Israel that they accept its place in the Middle East", Ms. Rice said.
Labels: Middle East
posted by Pieface @ Wednesday, March 28, 2007
<< Home