Real peace must wait

Israelis, Palestinians not ready for peace, instead resorting to cynical talks

Moshe Elad|Published: 05.14.08 , 17:40

Israel’s 60th anniversary, which also marks 60 years to the Palestinian Nakba, is a proper milestone for examining the state of the peace process between the two peoples.

Why, for example, have attempts to reach compromise between the sides since the Oslo Accords were signed repeatedly failed? Is it possible that the Oslo Accords constituted a trauma that proved to both sides how unready they are for peace? And is the US desire for peace between the two sides sufficient in order to aspire for it?

Ever since the state’s establishment, the Israeli Left pushed the country’s leaders to secure peace agreements with the Arabs, almost at any cost; the Left pushed for “Peace Now,” whereby the noble Israelis will make concessions to the weak Arabs from a position of strength – a sort of “peace of the generous.” The Left argues that once we sign a peace treaty with our neighbors its content would be less important, because in any case the agreement would be “properly adjusted” on the go.

Yet the Left only sees the opportunities. It tended to recall past eras in the Land of Israel when Arabs and Jews lived in coexistence. It compared the situation here to other regions in the world where long years of hostility came to an end with a genuine peace. We can make peace with the Arabs, leftists insisted, if only we find a brave leader.

On the other hand, the Right doubted almost any peace plan on the agenda. It was preoccupied with analyzing the enemy’s true intentions; the Right only saw the dangers inherent in possible agreements and was unwilling to compromise on anything. For long years, the Right rejected any peace treaty, because “we must not hand over parts of our homeland.”

Ever since Oslo, the Right has rejected the Arabs as a people. The frustration stemming from the failure to honor agreements, the violation of agreements, and the outbreak of the al-Aqsa Intifada – which elicited criticism and despair among some Israeli leftists as well – led the Right to dismiss the possibility of any pre-agreement or even the buds of a process, and also led to radical slogans such as “no Arabs – no terror attacks.”

Since the Oslo failure, we almost do not hear either the Left or the Right. It is possible that both of these camps ended their role. The vacuum that ha been created was filled by believers in a new type of peace – the cynical peace.

Deep hatred

This peace has no genuine support either on the Israeli or Palestinian side. At most, it is praised in the White House or at the headquarters of the International Quartet. The cynical peace is characterized by deep hatred between the two sides; growing hostility with every passing day; ongoing hostilities and retaliation; growing distrust; and a two-faced façade – a militant one vis-à-vis the audience at home, and a “moderate” one meant for international public opinion.

The cynical peace made its public appearance in Yasser Arafat’s “Jihad speech” in Johannesburg, when a short while after signing the agreement with Israel the Palestinians called for its destruction. In the process of cynical peace, senior Palestinian representatives meet with Israeli representatives and agree that the refugee question can be resolved, but once they return to their towns or villages, they speak in favor of a Palestinian right of return.

This kind of peace believes in fortifying homes, schools, and YMCAs as a way of life. It even views bomb shelters as a trust-building measure. A cynical peace can sacrifice a whole town and turn its residents into sitting ducks.

This kind of peace focuses on a determined effort to satisfy Uncle Sam at any cost; it often relies on statements such as “look how nice the process is moving along,” which is only conveyed to parties that are unfamiliar with the actual state of affairs. This is a peace of photo opportunities and of hollow declarations such as “two states for two peoples living side by side” (Bush) or “peace of the brave” (Arafat) or “we shall continue making peace as if there are no terror attacks” (Israeli leaders.)

This is a process that wishes to progress quickly, and particularly to do so in line with the American way; it is a process whose perpetrators are certain that both sides are ready for an agreement, even though this isn’t the case; this is a peace process that insists on viewing Mahmoud Abbas and his colleagues as worthy Palestinian leaders who are able to both sign a peace treaty and implement it, in contradiction to the views held by most Palestinians.

A cynical peace is just like the temporary ceasefire (hudna) proposed by the Hamas movement – that is, it is no more than a tactical move aimed at preparing enemy forces for a future clash with Israel.

The question that usually accompanies such decisive declarations is “what’s the alternative?” Once upon a time, the Left used to say: We must achieve peace, because how long can the bloodshed continue? Yet then it turned out that a certain kind of peace does not necessarily prevent the bloodshed. Once upon a time the Right used to say: We shouldn’t trust the Arabs, because the moment we do so, blood will be spilled. Well, today blood is being spilled even when we don’t put our trust in the Palestinian side.

The Oslo agreements and period that followed them showed that both sides are still unprepared for genuine peace. On the other hand, the cynical peace may bring about an agreement, but it will be an agreement drenched in blood.