Special Features,

A Modest Proposal for Peace in Palestine
William A. Cook

“Peace at last, peace at last, thank God Almighty, there’s peace at last.”

Picture the scene immediately following Mahmoud Abbas’ speech before the Nobel Institute in Oslo this week as Israel’s most volatile racist and leader of the newly enfranchised Israel Beitenu Party, Avigdor Leiberman (Gideon Levy, Ha’aretz, 27/03/2006), rushed breathlessly to Ehud Olmert, Israel’s newly elected clone of Ariel Sharon, to tell him the unwanted news, Palestinians want peace (Arabic News.com, 4/26/2006). Quoting Abbas, Leiberman read: “I believe that to resolve the conflict, both sides should not be left alone with this imbalance of occupier and occupied. An international conference should be summoned immediately, in which direct negotiations take place, on the basis of international UN resolutions and signed agreements.” Such chutzpah! But it gets worse. Hamas revealed that it is reviewing the 2002 Saudi Peace Plan which calls for “the Jewish state to return to its pre-1967 borders in return for ‘normal relations’ with Arab nations,” an agreement that if accepted would have Hamas “cease all military activities,” according to a Reuters article, April 27, 2006. “We are studying and considering all kinds of proposals, including the Arab peace initiative,” Nayef al-Rajoub, minister of religious affairs noted. This is not news Olmert wanted to hear. After all he had run his campaign on the promise that he would disenfranchise Hamas and create Israel’s borders unilaterally because there would be no one to negotiate with in Palestine. Now both Hamas and the PLO have offered to talk peace and the world must jump at the offer. The alternative offers only the promise of chaos since it is in the hands of fanatics.

Civilizations live and die by metaphor: they envelop our deepest beliefs and give birth to our singular creations; conversely, misunderstood, they give license to might that in turn wreaks havoc on humankind. Today, that thought should give us pause to reflect on four recent events that mirror, should we will them to, the four horsemen of the Apocalypse: “And I saw, and behold a white horse … and he went forth conquering, and to conquer,” the symbol of the Anti-Christ of Revelation with the election of Hamas and the ultimate conquest of Israel; “And when he had opened the second seal … there went out another horse that was red and power was given to him that sat thereon to take ‘peace from the earth,” the symbol of war by the election of Sharon’s legacy in Kadima to forestall that inevitability; “And when he had opened the third seal … I beheld, and lo a black horse, and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand,” the symbol of famine and pestilence that follows the punishment of Hamas through the Palestine Anti-Terrorism Act that is designed to inflict starvation, sickness and disease; “And when he had opened the fourth seal, and I looked, and beheld a pale horse and his name that sat on him was Death,” the symbol that encompasses the consequences of the actions wrought by the first three of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse, the devastation of the mid-east as imaged in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and the impending doom of our return to nuclear slaughter in Iran as “fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth … and a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea … and the third part of the sea became ‘blood’ … and the third part of the creatures which were in the sea … died …and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters … and a third part of the sun was smitten, and the third part of the moon … and the third part of the stars … so as the third part of them was darkened, and the day shone not … and the night likewise … and I heard an angel flying through the midst of heaven, saying with a loud voice, ‘Woe, woe, woe, to the inhabiters of the earth.” (Revelation 6, 7, 8).

Having cast this metaphor into “Dominionist” terms, the inevitability of Armageddon must follow. All it takes is the exclusion of reason, history, and the advancement of knowledge, replaced by superstition, covenants with mythological figures, and fear of the unknown. Metaphors interpreted by fanatics drive us to our day of doom. Training the innocent to encircle their bodies with belts of death on behalf of Allah’s demand for death to infidels, ordering soldiers to hurl missiles into crowded streets where the innocent must die to secure stolen land, or to ravage Rafah or Fallujah with demolition by bulldozers and depleted uranium to punish collectively the innocent and the criminal are nothing but acts of terror fostered by fanatics bereft of reason and, indeed, of common sense. It behooves us to reflect on the morass in the mid-east that propels the world to a third encompassing conflict that will envelop all in a third world war.

Peace may now be possible if the international community grabs the olive branch tentatively offered by Abbas and Hamas. Peace rests in both cases on Israel’s borders as determined by the UN in sundry resolutions going back to 1967 and upon the right of return for Palestinian refugees, Resolutions 194 and 242 that have the force of International Law since they have the expressed vote of the United Nations behind them, including the United States. Peace also rests on a return to the United Nations as the arbiter of consequence since it is the resolutions of that body that carry legal authority that must be the guiding force to bring peace to Palestine. This turn of events recognizes the failure of the United States as a meaningful and objective arbiter since its allegiance has been and continues to be on the side of Israel. It also puts aside the unquestioned authority of the “Road Map” as the guiding document since it has been breached by both sides, by Palestine’s refusal to disarm and by Israel’s refusal to abandon the settlements that rest illegally on Palestinian land, to mention only one example for each. By going to an international conference, Abbas opens the way for an international consensus for peace based on already accepted resolutions that would force both parties to abide by international law, including recognition of the respective states, Israel and Palestine, on land already determined by borders previously drawn and accepted.  Should Hamas put forward the 2002 Saudi Peace Plan, it would provide acceptance of Israel by all Arab states, including Hamas, as long as Israel returns to its pre-1967 borders; that is, return land that it acquired by war as international law stipulates.

Both operative political organizations in Palestine have co-opted Olmert’s dream of moving unilaterally to define the “red” borders of Israel as he termed them in his campaign. Now the world knows that Palestine is ready and willing to bring peace to that ravaged land and to do so in accordance with international law. Since the US and Israel have exerted incredible influence to force Iran before the United Nations Security Council regarding its nuclear intentions, to make it conform to UN resolutions, one would expect that both the US and Israel would welcome the chance to have UN resolutions adopted peacefully by both Israel and Palestine. Why then would Olmert reject the Palestinian initiative? What has he to fear? Why would Israel summon the Swedish Ambassador to its ministry when it found out that Sweden intends to allow members of Hamas to visit their country? (News from Sweden in English, 4/27/2006). Why would it threaten the Ambassador by asserting, “When you refuse to accept Israel as a partner in a peacekeeping exercise you can’t expect Israel to accept your involvement in the Middle East peace process.” (Ron Prosor, Israeli Foreign Ministry Director to Robert Rydberg of Sweden as reported by Mark Regev to AFP). Why should Israel be the determiner of what nation will participate in peace processes in Palestine when that is the clear prerogative of the UN? Will Israel make a similar demand of Turkey since its Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has met with Abbas and told him, “We deem (the) Palestinian cause our own cause…We are saying that the parties should accept a two-state Middle-East project and messages should be directed to not only the concerned parties but also the entire international community.” (People’s Daily Online, 4/26/2006).