Ten Years After
Yesterday was the tenth anniversary of the public ceremony to announce the Oslo Peace Accords. Ten years ago on the lawn of the White House, Rabin and Arafat shook hands, and the world thought a new day was dawning. Ten years on, and you find nary a hint of the hope and dreams raised that day. I think most people (myself included) have, on occasion, unfairly blamed one side or the other for the failure of the Accords. It is plain to see both are at fault for picking paths to power instead of peace.
In Arafat, the Palestinians have had a man who placed the good of himself ahead of the people. If Arafat had, in those heady days following the announcement, opened his fledgling government to the political wings of armed factions outside of his own Fateh movement, things may have been different. If Hamas and Islamic Jihad had a political stake in the government, they might not have seen the need to build complete organizations that paralleled that of the PA. Arafat's hunger for power kept them apart and led them to believe (rightly, I think) that their only hope was to act as a separate authority for their followers, leading to numerous unconnected controlling factions. This in turn led to the Palestinian Authority's inability to stop separatist actions and suicide bombings; there is no way to influence those outside of a power structure without utilizing that power. So the violence continues unabated, and the PA is unwilling to take the only action available to it to stop it. Palestinians killing Palestinians is unacceptable for all involved, and there can be no dialogue without inclusion.
The Israelis, in turn, have been mislead by their elected officials. Netenyahu and Sharon are polarizing individuals who have seen accommodation as weakness, instead of the one true path to peace. The Israelis are in the position of power - the occupying force, the modern society. They have something concrete to give, where the Palestinians had nothing to give the Israelis beyond recognition (security from suicide bombings did not become a major issue until Sharon fanned the flames of anger over the slow-going peace process by visiting the Temple Mount). The refusal of Israel to allow contiguous Palestinian land in the West Bank, and the continued growth of settlements that are clearly illegal under the Geneva Conventions regarding occupying powers, are giant blocks preventing any steps toward two viable states (For some simple maps of Israeli settlements, see the BBC's map of the West Bank and of the Gaza Strip. For a slow loading, large but very detailed map of the West Bank, go here).
So, where to now, ten years after? Many of you who have talked with me about this subject know that I would love to see, in the absence of two viable and separate states, a greater nation of Israel-Palestine shared by all. Interestingly, in today's New York Times, columnist Thomas L. Friedman discusses the dividing wall and the possible result: a Palestinian call for a single state. Unfortunately, this is probably the least acceptable solution for the Israelis, as the population numbers would create an Arab, not a Jewish, democracy (which ironically would most likely be stable and strong prior to the Iraqi democracy the US is trying to create. Why not help create an Arab democracy with a population already accepting of the ideas of voting and representation? The mind boggles).
There are no easy answers, no imminent hope for peace. Ten years ago, it began with a handshake, and now proceeds with explosives and nails, missiles and masonry walls. Oh, Oslo, where do we go from here?
In Arafat, the Palestinians have had a man who placed the good of himself ahead of the people. If Arafat had, in those heady days following the announcement, opened his fledgling government to the political wings of armed factions outside of his own Fateh movement, things may have been different. If Hamas and Islamic Jihad had a political stake in the government, they might not have seen the need to build complete organizations that paralleled that of the PA. Arafat's hunger for power kept them apart and led them to believe (rightly, I think) that their only hope was to act as a separate authority for their followers, leading to numerous unconnected controlling factions. This in turn led to the Palestinian Authority's inability to stop separatist actions and suicide bombings; there is no way to influence those outside of a power structure without utilizing that power. So the violence continues unabated, and the PA is unwilling to take the only action available to it to stop it. Palestinians killing Palestinians is unacceptable for all involved, and there can be no dialogue without inclusion.
The Israelis, in turn, have been mislead by their elected officials. Netenyahu and Sharon are polarizing individuals who have seen accommodation as weakness, instead of the one true path to peace. The Israelis are in the position of power - the occupying force, the modern society. They have something concrete to give, where the Palestinians had nothing to give the Israelis beyond recognition (security from suicide bombings did not become a major issue until Sharon fanned the flames of anger over the slow-going peace process by visiting the Temple Mount). The refusal of Israel to allow contiguous Palestinian land in the West Bank, and the continued growth of settlements that are clearly illegal under the Geneva Conventions regarding occupying powers, are giant blocks preventing any steps toward two viable states (For some simple maps of Israeli settlements, see the BBC's map of the West Bank and of the Gaza Strip. For a slow loading, large but very detailed map of the West Bank, go here).
So, where to now, ten years after? Many of you who have talked with me about this subject know that I would love to see, in the absence of two viable and separate states, a greater nation of Israel-Palestine shared by all. Interestingly, in today's New York Times, columnist Thomas L. Friedman discusses the dividing wall and the possible result: a Palestinian call for a single state. Unfortunately, this is probably the least acceptable solution for the Israelis, as the population numbers would create an Arab, not a Jewish, democracy (which ironically would most likely be stable and strong prior to the Iraqi democracy the US is trying to create. Why not help create an Arab democracy with a population already accepting of the ideas of voting and representation? The mind boggles).
There are no easy answers, no imminent hope for peace. Ten years ago, it began with a handshake, and now proceeds with explosives and nails, missiles and masonry walls. Oh, Oslo, where do we go from here?
<< Home