Dialogue: History stands in way of Middle East peace

Revisiting the 1993 Oslo accords must be the first step to resolving the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, writes LAURIE ROSS.

The source of the problem between Palestinians and Israelis is the basic injustice created by the Zionist demand for a separate state of Israel. That demand led to Zionist political, economic, religious and military control of the land that was Palestine.

This depended on the United States, Britain and the United Nations giving legal, economic and military support and on the willing or forceful removal of Palestinians from their lands if they did not agree or comply with the creation of Israel.

This artificial state was not agreed to by surrounding Arab states or by the Palestinians. Thus they attacked it from within and from outside. Since 1947 Israel has only survived by military might, which is constantly being challenged, and by the Western guilt complex, which continues to make us feel it is our duty to protect Jews.

This is valid because the West was guilty of compliance with anti-Semitism. After the Holocaust, the world community was right to seek ways to bring about compensation and justice for the Jews.

But the creation of Israel and the methods employed to do this seem inherently wrong. Rather than bringing the Jews freedom, respect and justice, they have created another rod for their own backs.

It was hoped the Palestinians would come to accept Israel and be easily subdued, but the reality is that they have not and never will be.

In a global community that cares about justice, the just causes of a persecuted and oppressed people must be properly addressed.

But in addressing one form of injustice, we must not replace it with another. Seeking true justice for all parties means being able to distinguish between what is simply selfish or unreasonable and what is fair and achievable.

It must be fairly evident that no amount of Israeli military control provides any solution; it simply increases the problem of injustice and hatred that begets more cycles of violence.

While it is true the Palestinians are guilty of employing "methods of terrorism" (or random killings of innocent people for a political cause), they have the excuse that they are the oppressed people fighting for freedom and justice. Their methods are wrong but there is a growing awareness that their cause is justified.

Meanwhile, the Israeli Government continues to retaliate with excessive military violence on a scale that produces far more Palestinian deaths but does nothing to rectify the problem or inspire confidence in peacemaking. The Israeli response only reinforces their mistaken sense of righteous oppression and Palestinian hatred and determination to overthrow them.

The most difficult problem for the Palestinians and Arab nations over the past 50 years has been the acceptance of the existence of Israel. Now at last there seems to be a formal willingness to recognise the state, but the question is on what conditions this should be negotiated.

One of the original mistakes of the Zionists was trying to justify internationally recognised statehood on the basis of Jewish historic roots and a "divine right" that God had promised over millenniums. Divine revelation is not adequate to justify taking over Palestine or any country. Many people and groups are in possession of divine revelation and these are often erroneous or conflicting.

In pursuit of truth, one must see the difference between one group's religious vision and that which is true for a diverse society in terms of a more universal set of values.

Palestine-Israel, as one country, could have worked if it had been established as a free, non-Zionistic state. In the future, one could imagine the basis of a harmonious mutually enhancing partnership within one nation of Palestine-Israel. Of course it will probably take many years of living in chilly civility side by side in separate countries first.

So the immediate achievable goal towards creating peace is to return to the carefully prepared and almost agreed Oslo accords of 1993. This is the plan approved by both parties to create two separate states of Israel and Palestine on the basis of the 1967 borders. They seem to agree they could then co-exist in relative peace.

It involves simply withdrawing Israeli troops and Government control from all the occupied territories. This would need to proceed without expecting a ceasefire on the part of dissident factions who cannot be controlled and who may not be representative of the PLO leadership of Yasser Arafat.

The Israeli Government says the PLO's lack of control over violent individuals is to blame for the failure in the peace process, and this is an excuse to withhold its consent to the agreement. Only after an Israeli withdrawal would the PLO be willing to justify its control over the forces of violent revolt among the Palestinians.

The hardest thorn in the flesh is the question of Jerusalem. Neither side should hold exclusive control of the city. Somehow it should be held in trust by both sides, perhaps as a United Nations protectorate.

There could be an equal mix of Palestinians and Israelis living there, even if in separate but not segregated quarters. Surely both sides would want to dispense with the ugliness of soldiers controlling the city. But if this is the only way they can operate, let it be a UN peacekeeping force, including New Zealanders, as Phil Goff suggested to Yasser Arafat.

Ideally the city would be a more integrated example of Moslem-Jewish-Christian enlightenment, where all the holy places were being honoured and protected by all parties.

A wholesome Palestinian sense of national pride and cultural identity, freed from the need to fight an oppressor, also needs to be encouraged. That will require a huge shift. This is where the Israelis should empathise with Palestinians because they appreciate the natural tendency to turn from oppressed to oppressor and to be stingy rather than generous.

One revolutionary action would be for Israel, the US, Britain and the UN to admit they were wrong in the way they went about creating Israel and offer an apology. Only then would the Palestinians be willing to apologise for their appalling record of protest.

It will be difficult for the Israelis to appear to be giving in to the demands of such violent protest without seeming weak. But it is they (backed by the West) who have the powerful upper hand.

They should be seeking every possible way to defuse the anger and violence by, first, removing any legitimate causes and, secondly, by cultivating more helpful relations with Palestine.

It is sad that there is no evidence of a peace movement in Palestine, whereas there is one in Israel. The Palestinians seem to lack skilled peaceful methods of protest. They also appear to lack compassion for what Jews have suffered for 2000 years.

In addition, the Palestinians would do well to value their relationship with Jewish Israel in terms of their economic development.

They should be far more proactive in demonstrating their desire for a relationship that does not waste resources on military defence but strengthens both sides in the commitment to education, social services and environmental restoration.

For this to happen it might help if NZ and the global community conveyed support for Israel-Palestine morally, spiritually, psychologically and intellectually to carry out a plan that delivers justice for Palestine.

* Laurie Ross, a peace activist, lives in Waitakere City.

Feature: Middle East

Map

UN: Information on the Question of Palestine

Israel's Permanent Mission to the UN

Palestine's Permanent Observer Mission to the UN

Middle East Daily

Arabic News

Arabic Media Internet Network

Jerusalem Post

Israel Wire

US Department of State - Middle East Peace Process