Dr. Riad Awwad: The Annapolis Conference: New Proof That Making Peace Is Harder Than War…

  • 0

Dr. Awwad is a writer, journalist and medical doctor. The son of Syrian writer Suluman Awwad, he is currently based in Bucharest, Rumania, where he is a good-will ambassador for Middle East Info, an Israeli organization promoting democracy, pluralism and mutual respect in the Middle East.

The Middle East region is, without a doubt, one of the hottest and most sensitive regions of this planet: the cards on the table are confusing, and the palette of nuances and colors is very mosaic-like, as the interests of the “great powers” intertwine and boycott each other on the majority of occasions. Furthermore, another element adds to the fear and wariness: the “radical extremism” found in the programs and objectives of other radical countries.

President George W. Bush has launched, for this fall, an invitation to an international peace conference-a peace which, from the looks of it, seems to be more difficult to achieve than a straight-up war.

The effort undertaken this far by the USA is now in the crosswinds as a result of the wary and intransigent spirit which some currents and personalities promote in Washington. Before the events of September 11th 2001, a simple show of force was enough to discourage extremism, but nowadays, the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan leads to pessimism: in an era of globalization and single-pole domination of the world, terrorism and violence are being used for the most selfish objectives, with no connection to civilization, peace or tolerance. And all of this under the most fundamentalist religious cover ever witnessed in history.

If we look at the actors invited to the Annapolis conference, we see that each and every one is tangled in his own internal troubles and torments that can restrain the normal development of the peace talks. Talking about peace, we must remember that one who cannot make peace in his own home has no ability to make peace amongst others.

Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas has announced that the land which he will request from the Israelis represents 98% of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, to which the eastern part of Israel is added, meaning approximately 6,209 square kilometers, with the possibility of a territorial swap or monetary compensation in exchange. Mahmoud Abbas has proposed numbers, but has not stated if the Israelis agreed to them, nor if he is going to be able to impose them on Hamas. That is not to say that he will be able to impose them, in the first place, on the Israelis.

On the other hand, Syria is requesting the inclusion of the “Golan matter” on the agenda of the conference as a condition for sending its negotiators to Annapolis. It’s as if the Arabs want to exit through the door before even entering.

Egypt, by the way, keeps waiting, showing some excessive caution and fear of the results of the talks in the USA, and Israel accuses the Arab side of raising some prerequisite explosive conditions which, once approved, could ruin the government’s coalition in Tel Aviv, even if Prime Minister Ehud Olmert assures he will do everything in his power for the conference to succeed.

Mahmoud Abbas rejects the idea of a Palestinian state with provisional borders and any exchanges of population with Israel, and Israel’s problems remain as spiky as before; for the Israeli part, the Jerusalem file is forever closed, while the Palestinians consider it to be the mother of all problems and the biggest priority.

No less sensitive and complex is the issue of the Palestinian refugees and their right to return to their homes. The radicals of each side have lots of contradictory ideas which most certainly will not lead to any real solution. We advance here the idea that “nationalization” of the Palestinians in the countries where they are situated now with, of course, the payment of some financial compensation for both them and the host lands, could offer a reasonable solution to the problem. The refugee who left Palestine in 1948 as a newborn is now 60 years old and has his own children, grandchildren or even great-grandchildren. Who will return to Palestine? The father, the children, the grandchildren or great-grandchildren? The financial compensation we mentioned above could be offered in some kind of program for developing peace and democracy in the region. Speaking about solving a problem before reaching this resolution means that neither one of the sides involved-Israeli or Arab-wishes in reality to reach a possible peace; it is as if they would prefer living under the specter of a possible war, in a climate of ascendant religious extremism and where some Palestinian forces are used to accomplish goals that have nothing to do with the idea of peace. In such conditions it is not an exaggeration to affirm that achieving peace in the Middle East is like some ninth wonder of the world, so hard to conceive, ever harder to achieve.

This year, the chief of American diplomacy, Condoleezza Rice, has been shuttling from Israel to the national Palestinian Authority without managing to clarify the details regarding the future configuration of territories which will form the Palestinian state-neither the problem of the 2% proposed as a trade, or compensation. The situation is even more complicated if we take a look at the intense and contradictory debates between the Israeli political forces and the extreme radicalism of some, like Shas or “Israel our home”, who oppose any concession to the Palestinians. More elastic opinions can be found amongst a series of prominent politicians like vice-premier Haim Ramon, foreign affairs minister Tzipi Livni or even the president, Shimon Perez. Israel, which in 1967 needed only three days to occupy the entire Gaza strip, has been struggling for 40 years now in the chains of the “colonial problem” which it has created itself. On the other hand, no one seems to understand or agree upon the future status of Jerusalem. In our opinion, it should receive a status similar to that of the Vatican-a state within a state, in which all confessions and religions live together. Jerusalem is a sacred place for Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Why shouldn’t the flags of peace fly above it, like in some open international and inter-religious city, as we all are united by the singleness of God? What prevents the fulfilling of the dream that peace should substitute for radicalism, sectarianism and extremism?

If, in 1948, the Arabs had recognized the existence of Israel, the Middle East today would be more developed and more prosperous than Japan. But in politics the word “if” does not exist, and we bear the duty of discussing together the future of our children and our children’s children, because what binds us together is more powerful than what stands between us.

Unfortunately, both the Arabs and the Israelis prefer wasting time instead of using every minute, starting right now until the conference, to assure its success and end the violence and bloodshed once and for all.

Dr. Riad Awwad: The Annapolis Conference: New Proof That Making Peace Is Harder Than War…

  • 0