|
Rethinking Peace in the Middle East
In
his recent address to the United Nations General Assembly,
George W. Bush mentioned the word “peace” thirteen times. In
another address to the American nation, he pronounced this very
word ten times. Statistically speaking, peace is a frequently
mentioned term in the American President’s statements. He
delivers those speeches calling for a war on
Iraq
as part of his “war on terror” campaign. Calling for war, he
justifies it with talk on peace.
The
Need for Peace
With
the end of the First World War in 1918, 10 million lives had
been lost, and hence the need for peace was further introduced
into the international agenda. It later played a major role in
the events that followed the war.
The
famous Paris Peace Conference was held in 1918, resulting in the
establishment of the
League of Nations, which became the first international organization primarily
aiming to preserve peace. Alas, the
League of Nations
failed to achieve its goal, as it simply could not prevent the
outbreak of a Second World War. Raising the slogan of “Peace
and Security,” the United Nations Organization succeeded the
League of Nations.
The
Culture of Peace
 |
|
Anti-war march in Washington D.C. (1968) |
Peace,
as a key word, is repeatedly mentioned in the UN Charter, world
leaders’ speeches, and the mass media. The popular term has
been so commonly used, or abused, especially after the massive
casualties caused by the two world wars, followed by the Vietnam
War, which created the
Vietnam
syndrome and a corresponding global anti-war/pro-peace movement.
Thousands of pro-peace governmental and nongovernmental
organizations all over the world are currently working actively
to stop wars and to counter violence.
In
this culture, peace extraordinarily comes prior to other equally
important – if not more important -- values. In the powerful
media, peace has been promoted as the ultimate goal of humankind
through the eloquent words of the elite, in oblivion to the fact
that it cannot be the only indicator of global stability, or
even “happiness” of all of mankind. It is taken for granted
that it is enough for nations to live in stability. Hardly has
anyone paused at the very concept of peace, or even questioned
its “absolute goodness.”
Peace
is certainly a precondition for happiness, yet there are other
great principles, values and morals, whose violation, especially
for the sake of “peace,” would question the credibility and
ethics of that very concept.
A
Flexible Word
While
– in its basic negative definition – peace is nothing but a
status of no war or no violence, the concept itself bears
different meanings and different connotations. This is true to
the point that an American Intercontinental Ballistic Missile is
called “Peacekeeper,”
and another missile is named “Peacemaker.” Today, the word
“peace” easily fits into military jargon.
Men
of Peace
 |
|
The devastation in Jenin was described as “horrific beyond belief” |
In
his infamous statement on Ariel Sharon, a suspected war
criminal, George W. Bush named him a “man of peace,” showing
his own distorted perception of the term. Ariel Sharon is a man
unrepentantly responsible for two major tragedies: the September
1982 massacre of Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Shatila
refugee camps in
Lebanon, and the April 2002 mass killings, under “Operation Defensive
Shield,” in the Jenin refugee camp in the
West Bank.
The
international community has proven the first massacre’s
occurrence and its stunning atrocities. However,
Sharon’s second crime is a bit controversial. Although the United
Nations committee has refused to name what
Sharon
committed in Jenin “a massacre,” an overwhelming smell of
decomposing bodies filled the air in the camp, and a minimum of
100 Palestinian bodies, mainly civilians, were visibly found and
proven dead. The UN issued an official report challenging the
testimony of its Middle East envoy Terje Roed-Larsen, who had
said that the devastation left by the Israeli forces in Jenin is
“horrific beyond belief” and a “blot that will forever
live on the history of the state of Israel.”
Throughout
his career,
Sharon, as a “man of peace,” commanded the killings of thousands
of Palestinians whose primary crime was their refusal to live in
“peace” under the “civilized” Israeli occupation.
A
Peace Process from Birth to Death
 |
|
1993 witnessed the beginning
of direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians |
The
Palestinian-Israeli case is a classical example of peace being
pursued as a goal at the expense of other values.
The
signing of the Oslo Accords on
September 13, 1993, marked the beginning of the so-called peace process that,
until the beginning of the current Intifada, had been taking
place between the PLO and
Israel, two parties that had previously refused to face each other
over a negotiating table.
With
the Oslo Accords, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)
was formally recognized by
Israel. Yet, while negotiations were still ongoing, the Israeli
authorities were boldly establishing Jewish settlements on lands
designated under the
Oslo
accords as Palestinian. Almost ten years after
Oslo, millions of Palestinian refugees are still denied their
fundamental right to return to their homes.
If
the peace process started with the signing of
Oslo, it virtually ended when
Sharon
stormed into the al-Aqsa Mosque compound in
Jerusalem, an especially sacred site to Muslims, accompanied by 1000
Israeli policemen. After persistent clashes between the two
sides continued for two consecutive years,
Sharon
formally declared the peace process dead, and the
Oslo
accords no longer binding upon
Israel.
This
is the peace process, and this is the peace sought in the
Middle East; the Oslo-type peace for which Yassir Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin,
and Shimon Peres were awarded Nobel peace prizes. It is a peace
that contradicts justice in every sense, and thus, it is a peace
that will never be achieved. The Israelis are neither peaceful
nor just. At the same time, the Palestinians are asked to be
peaceful under all circumstances; they are required to overlook
justice.
Whenever
the Palestinian-Israeli struggle is discussed in the mainstream
media or talked about by world leaders and politicians, peace,
and nothing else, has to be mourned. It is thought to be the
only way for the two conflicting parties, even if justice is
infringed upon. For no convincing reason, peace is believed to
be superior to justice and to many other “inferior” ideals.
Peace
and Justice in Conflict
A
paradox needs to be resolved. Even though the United Nations is
supposedly devoting itself to peace, and despite the efforts
that are being exerted by international civil society to that
end, peace has never prevailed in the world. The answer to this
paradox is very simple: Peace has become an overwhelming trend;
it is not merely seen as a noble value among other truly noble
values, it is overshadowing all other ethics and norms, ethics
and norms which are being disregarded, and even easily violated
for one definitive goal – peace.
In
the name of peace, Palestinians are being exterminated and
denied their legitimate right to resist the Israeli occupation.
And more ironically, those who vow that they are sincere in
their desire for peace and who have assumed the role of the
world’s guardians of peace want to bomb
Iraq, just to make sure that it has been thoroughly disarmed. Waging
war on
Iraq, which is only one country, would maintain peace in the entire
world, or so they say.
Islam
is Peace
“As-salamu
Alaikum.” “Peace be upon you.” This is how a Muslim
salutes another. “Wa Alaikum as Salam.” “And upon you be
peace.” This is how a Muslim replies. Muslims spell out these
two sentences tens of times per day. This is how they greet each
other. Peace be upon you, and upon you be peace. They make peace
wishes to one another whenever they meet. Do they really mean
it, or are Muslims contradicting themselves? Are Muslims
peaceful, or are they pretending to be so, while simultaneously
indulging in violence? Moreover, the word Islam in Arabic has
much to do with the word salam, or peace. Is Islam a peace
loving religion, or is that a Muslim claim attempting to refute
the denouncements of violence directed towards Islam and Muslims
by the majority of Westerners?
Indeed,
Muslims are required to seek peace. One of the many names of
Allah, the God to whom Muslims submit, is Al Salam (Peace) and
He orders all His worshipers to avoid wars. Therefore, peace for
Muslims is an objective. It is an end for all Muslims, moderates
and, to the surprise of many, radicalists. Osama bin Laden
himself has made it clear that he wishes to realize peace. He
warned Western governments that they wouldn’t enjoy peace
until Muslims do.
According to him, peace should be enjoyed
equally by the whole world if it is to be enjoyed, and as
Westerners have the right to live in peace, Muslims have the
very same right.
Finally,
a significant point still remains to be made clear. Islamic
peace is not a Machiavellian peace. It is not an end that
justifies every means. On the contrary, it is an end, along with
other imperative ends, that Muslims well appreciate in their
striving to please their God.
Sara
Khorshid is staff writer for IslamOnline. She holds a BA
in Political Science from
Cairo
University
and is currently studying for an MA in Political Theory. You can
reach her at sarakhorshid@islam-online.net
|
