What Hope Now for Mideast Peace?
Lost in the fixation on the war in Iraq was the continuing strife in Israel and the West Bank. Peace seems as illusive and out of reach as ever, though both sides seem to be talking the talk.
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told Israeli newspaper columnists, in an interview published Wednesday, that he would meet with Abu Mazen as soon as he formed a cabinet, and also said that "concessions" by Israel would be necessary.
"In my opinion, real peace, peace for generations, peace that does not give rise to suicide bombers or terror organizations, necessitates concessions," Sharon said in the interview with "Yedioth Ahronoth," one of Israel's daily Hebrew newspapers.
"There are places we will have to evacuate."
Palestinian cabinet minister Saeb Erakat has said that Palestinians are looking for "deeds" not words from Sharon.
The so-called Mideast quartet -- the United States, the European Union, the United Nations and Russia -- met late December and agreed upon a "draft road map" for peace.
According to a copy of the draft obtained by CNN, the ultimate goal is a "final and comprehensive settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by 2005."
In the first phase, the Palestinian leadership must call for an "immediate and unconditional cease-fire to end armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere," a first step that would not be contingent upon any moves Israel may or may not make.
At the same time, Israel will be required to immediately bring an end to any actions "undermining trust, including deportations, attacks on civilians, confiscation and or demolition of Palestinian homes and property, as a punitive measure or to facilitate Israeli construction" -- a move also not contingent upon any steps the Palestinians may or may not take.
Both sides clearly seem to understand that some sacrifices will be required to achieve peace. The question is whether the will and the political courage exist to make those sacrifices and to learn to work towards developing the degree of trust that living in peace will require.
Of course, failing that, it IS a whole lot easier to maintain the status quo and the attendant bloodshed and recrimination that go along with it. Peace in the Middle East can not and will not be simply the absence of armed conflict and terrorism. Somehow, some way, both sides are going to need to learn to live together and trust one another. As optimistic as I try to be, it's tough imagining that trust developing in our lifetime. There has been, as Yitzhak Rabin once put it, "too much blood and tears." This generation may simply be too poisoned by the hatred and bloodshed. It may take another generation and a fresh start for peace to become a reality.
Of course, there is another option, one I haven't considered until now, and one that deserves some serious consideration. Chris Noble lays out an interesting theory of how the fall of Saddam Hussein may upset the Middle East power balance. Until now, Israel has always been the focus of Arab hatred, the source of all evil and the single entity most responsible for all that is wrong with the Arab world. Guess what, kids? With no Saddam to deflect hatred and blame onto Israel, Arab countries may just have to face up to the reality the Israel is NOT the Evil Empire that they have portrayed it as for the past 55 years. Wouldn't THAT be something? What if they really COULD all just get along? It could happen, and this scenario is as plausible as any other at the moment.
