The Peace Process Must Continue

Another week, another round of suicide bombings in Israel and army attacks in Palestine. While the peace process, recently revived with American presidential backing, remains the regions best, indeed only, hope, it currently looks as fragile as ever.

Part of the problem is the attitude of Ariel Sharon. He is reported as saying that "peace will only survive after the total defeat of terror." With this statement, he justifies continued Israeli military incursions into Palestinian lands. With this statement, he justifies his refusal to travel to Washington for peace talks. But he is entirely mistaken. The defeat of terror can only be achieved by ensuring the survival of peace.

There are two problems with Sharon's position. Firstly, and most immediately, by placing the cessation of terror as a necessary pre-condition for peace talks, he is handing the perpetrators of these acts a new and powerful symbolism to their murders. In addition to the motives of vengeance, jihad, and martyrdom, Sharon has assigned terrorism a veto over the peace process, the ability to prevent what these extremists may view as the "surrender" of their theoretical leaders.

Secondly, terrorists thrive under the justification of war. The struggle for freedom, self-determination, a religious ideal is the breeding ground of terrorism. Every Israeli attack on Palestine, real or imagined, is further fodder for those recruiting suicide bombers. Only when the benefits of co-existing peacefully with Israel clearly outweigh the bigoted rhetoric of the extremists will the well of terror dry up.

And potentially Israel brings many benefits to the surrounding nations. By any standards, Israel is a technically advanced and wealthy country. The support it enjoys in many western democracies, especially America, is unlikely to go away. The benefits of viewing Israel as a trading and economic partner are immense.

Hopes for the peace process largely rest on the different ambitions of the two people. Israel is primarily concerned with security, while the Palestinian focus is on self-determination. There is a very real possibility for both sides to legitimately claim they have won the better deal. For Israel, the cost is likely to be in territory, for the Palestinians, interference in their internal affairs sufficient to prevent terrorism. Since Israeli interference is unlikely to be acceptable, it is most likely to be a UN inspectorate that is charged with bringing before an international court those extremists who still encourage terrorism. Both countries must also benefit from international aid and development, with the international community paying for both construction of Palestinian infrastructure and economy, and the re-settlement of Israeli settlers.

There are many difficulties on the road to peace. Some have complained of the simplicity of the American road map, of the difficult areas that are not mentioned, or glossed over. This is to miss the point. A document designed to bring the participants to the table needed to be simplistic. This is a starting point for the peace process, not an end. The aim is to get both sides to the negotiating table, to find common ground. There are agreements that can be made immediately. Gestures of good faith. Small concessions from one side that can be portrayed as great gains by the other. A Palestinian commitment to the existence and security of Israel, an Israeli commitment to close some of the settlements.

The simplistic approach, the approach of getting people round the table and in agreement, has important benefits. Every agreement made, every step forward taken is an argument against the extremists. Every benefit that can be pointed to encourages further talking, further negotiation. At some point the larger, more difficult, more controversial issues will need to be faced. But the sides can be led up to those issues gently, salami fashion - one slice at a time. By the time the harder negotiations are reached, the extremists on both sides will have been marginalised, and a body of benefits will have been built up that failure to negotiate will threaten.

The slow and gentle approach may not work, and it provides plenty of time for some to lose patience and resort to violence. However, any alternative seems less likely to work. But both sides must continue to work through the inevitable setbacks, disagreements, threats, and, yes, violence. The peace process must continue not in the absence of violence, but despite its presence. Only through a successful peace process can the threat of terrorism be ended.

The international will to broker, underwrite and police the peace process is essential, but so is the willingness of the participants to push on past provocation by extremists on both sides. It is in the interests of us all for the road map to lead to peace. Failure is simply not to be contemplated.

Ultimately, there are no easy answers, no perfect solutions. The ideals of the extremists in both Israel and Palestine (and their supporters abroad) are fundamentally opposed, and can admit no negotiated settlement, only mutual annihilation. It is for the moderate majority on both sides to work towards a peaceful future anyway. The compromises that will be needed are difficult to envisage, and will be more difficult to make. But that is for the future. What is needed now is a will to succeed. A decision by the good, the peaceful, the quiet on both sides to continue on forward, no matter the provocation. A future free of terror, death, and hatred is possible, and I believe that the majority on both side feel that is a goal worth striving for. By denying the terrorists the power to threaten the process, their power is diminished. And eventually, when their bloody rhetoric is shown to be false, when Israel and Palestine live peacefully side by side, then and only then will the terrorist finally be totally defeated.

Graham Robinson. 21st May 2003.

archives :: links :: faq :: feedback

Find out how you can support Online Opinion

Online Opinion is a trademark owned by Graham Robinson. All rights reserved. The copyright on all articles, columns, and letters on this site is owned by the original author. The copyright on all other material is owned by Graham Robinson. Permission is granted to download and store these pages for personal or research purposes only, and only as is consistent with normal viewing of web pages. All other rights reserved. Permission is granted to freely link to any page within this site, as long as ownership of the material linked to is clear. No advertisements may be associated with this site, whether explicitly or implicitly, without prior written permission.