Sunday, August 28, 2011

Why Don’t we Also be Peaceful with Israel?

In the seventies and eighties of last century, militant Islamist opposition appeared, which was the strongest of the opposition movements, which was able to challenge the July militarist regime... This opposition reached its peak on October, 1981, when it assassinated Sadat and controlled some police zones as Asyut Security Directorate... But, did that opposition succeed in changing the regime or to reach power? The answer is of course “no”.

(A picture of the "sign of peace")

Over 6 decades, Egyptians tried many strategies for opposition, starting from opposition from within the ruling party (and it’s the weakest strategy), to the militant opposition (and it’s the most violent strategy) – all these attempts failed. Till Egyptians discovered a new strategy, “the peacefulness” and the Egyptian revolution came out chanting “peaceful... peaceful”, and the peacefulness succeeded in achieving what the Kalashnikov couldn’t.
6 weeks as well is approximately the period of the Arab-Israeli conflict... For 64 years, Arabs tried many strategies dealing with Israel (starting from being agents to terrorism), and also all the attempts failed... So, why don’t we start adopting a peaceful strategy dealing with the state of Israel to reach full rights to all the peoples of the region? That research paper is an attempt of me to explain how peaceful means can end that conflict completely, thus all the peoples of the region rest and their suffering ends.
However, dear reader I have to warn you, if what leads you to deal with that case is the motivation of revenge and the desire to get-rid of Jews then that research isn’t directed towards you, so don’t waste your time reading it. This research is directed toward who wish to end the conflict by fair way giving all parties their legitimate rights.

The first scene: Security Council decision – November 1947
The first scene which I’m going to concentrate on between numerous historical scenes I’m going to present. It’s the events which followed the decision of Security Council to divide Palestine in November 1947... What were the reactions on the decision? Were these reactions correct or wrong?
After 6 days of issuing Security Council decision, the Arab League met and took a decision to prevent Security Council decision by force (by weapons)... Arabs ignored the peaceful and the diplomatic ways, they didn’t resort to a dialog and didn’t discuss Security Council in its decision. All they did was each one of them went to bring his weapon and chant “death to Jews”.
At the time when Arabs were drunk with the fever of blood-shedding Jews, Israelis were making a world-wide diplomatic campaign to convince the whole world to support the born state of Israel. The United States of America felt that Security Council decision will ignite a war in the region, so it provided a recommendation that to Security Council demanding canceling the partition plan. As usual, Arabs were busy preparing violence, they didn’t care for that American step, and Israelis didn’t go back to their homeland until they convinced the Americans to take back their recommendation from Security Council.
Here, a question arises: What if Arabs thought about peaceful means, and traveled as well to to convince the Americans with their point of view, also the rest of Security Council members? What if America didn’t take back its recommendation about canceling the partition plan? Arabs could have canceled the Security Council decision, therefore obstructing the establishment of the state of Israel from the first place, but unfortunately they were busy with violence, weapons and the desire to kill, so they lost everything.

The second scene: declaring the state of Israel – 15 May 1948
Days passed after the decision of Security Council and it wasn’t canceled. Based on the decision, Israel declared its independence as soon as the British mandate for Palestine ended. So, why didn’t also the Palestinians declared their state at that time, backed by the legitimacy of Security Council decision, and it’s the decision in which Israel adheres to strongly because it’s the decision which gave it legitimate existence? The answer simply is that Palestinians and Arabs were busy with war and blood, and they weren’t interested in peaceful ways, of the type of holding a parliament and heading to the United Nations to declare a Palestinian state.
Once more, Palestinians wasted a golden chance because of being busy with violence.

The third scene: Moshe Sharet initiative – 1953
After declaring independence, David Ben-Gurion headed the Israeli government, who was a Zionist leader adopting radical stances firm against Israel. The chance for achieving peace at his era was very weak. In the year 1953 the Israeli Knesset had its second Prime Minister for Israel who was Moshe Sharet, who was contrary to Ben-Gurion, believing in peace and giving Arabs their rights. Moshe Sharet demanded from the Israeli Knesset to delegate him in making peace talks with Arabs. The Knesset agreed to delegate Moshe Sharet in negotiating on anything and everything (including the right of Palestinian refugees to return inside the Israeli lands).
Moshe Sharet went to all Arab leaders asking for dialog, all of them refused and insisted to settle the conflict by war and violence. Gamal Abdel Nasser agreed on the dialog on the condition of secrecy, because Gamal Abdel Nasser didn’t have the courage to face his people that he was making peaceful negotiations with Israel.
Thus, Moshe Sharet fell in 1954 because of Moshe Sharet failure to convince Arabs of peaceful mechanisms to settle the conflict. David Ben-Gurion became once again to be Prime Minister closing many doors for a peaceful solution to the conflict.
Why Arabs don’t ask themselves: What if they accepted Moshe Sharet initiative? What if these negotiations succeeded and the Palestinian state was established at then, and the refugees came back home? Once again, Arabs lose because of their adherence to violent mechanisms and their objection to peaceful mechanisms.

The fourth scene: the assassination of king Abdallah – 1951
After the Arab defeat in in 1948 war and the truce agreement with Israel in Rhodes – February 1949, and because of not declaring a Palestinian state, Gaza became under the Egyptian administration while the West Bank under the Jordanian administration.
King Abdallah Ben Al-Sharif Hussein, king of Jordan, realized the importance of reaching a peaceful solution to the conflict after the failure of the military attempt. He went to visit Jerusalem along with his peaceful efforts, but the Palestinian terror was waiting for him. He was assassinated inside Aqsa mosque, so that the first peaceful Arab effort be assassinated towards Israel.
After 60 years of assassinating king Abdallah, we ask ourselves: did Abdallah’s benefited Palestinians? Of course not, because Jordan was dragged to a conflict with Israel which didn’t end except after the agreement of Wadi Arabah in 1994, while the West Bank was subject to Israeli occupation and still to that day suffering of a spread of the Israeli army and Israeli settlements in. If king Abdallah hadn’t been assassinated, the West Bank would have now been without settlements and Jordan wouldn’t have lost in its economy and its youth in a conflict for 40 years with Israel. Once again, Arabs lose because of their inclination toward violence and their objection to the peaceful means.

The fifth scene: the Egyptian peace treaty – 1979
In the year 1977, Sadat realized the importance of what king Abdallah was doing in the year 1951, so he decided to start an Arab peace initiative. He visited Jerusalem in November, 1977 and afterward, immediately the Egyptian-Israeli peace talks started. All the Arab parties in the conflict were invited to to join the peace talk, but the Arabs found it hard to make a peaceful work. They launched the “The Three No’s of Khartoum”, objecting any peaceful solution to the conflict, adhering to militarist settlement.
Today, after 32 years of signing the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, we ask ourselves: what if Arabs accepted the peaceful negotiations in Sadat era? What would the Arabs have lost if they negotiated at that time without a result? Was what Jordan take in 1994 more than what it would have taken if it joined Sadad initiative in 1979? Was what the Palestinians take in Oslo, 1993, more than what would they have taken in 1979?
Once again, Arabs waste the chance because of their adherence to the armed solutions not the peaceful solutions.

The sixth scene: Camp David 2 – year 2000
In the year 2000, many positive circumstances gathered. President Bill Clinton was at the end of his presidency and wanted to end the conflict in the Middle East before he leaves office. At the same timing, Israel was lead Ehud Barak of the Labor Party of Israel – Labor Party is a leftist political party known by its support to peace process. Israel was on the eve of parliamentary elections, so Barak needed a success facilitating obtaining many seats in the next Knesset.
The talks had actually started at Camp David, Yasser Arafat, Ehud Barak, Bill Clinton, and who views what Israel offered at that time, would realize that Israel offered an offer in which Palestinians won’t obtain a similar offer forever. A state on the borders of 1967, Eastern Jerusalem the capital city, dismantling of settlements and the return of a percentage of refugees. Palestinians will go after two month from now (in September 2011) to the United Nations too declare a Palestinian state and they know well that they won’t obtain what Israel offered them in Camp David 2.
Yasser Arafat signature was only required and the United States guaranteed the agreement, in other words America would compel Israel to implement. However, Mubarak was annoyed of his absense in the talks, so as, he realized that it is of his interest that the conflict continues, so the relationship between Yasser Arafat and the Egyptian Intelligence was exploited, and he was pressured into objecting to sign the treaty. Emotionally provoking vocal phrases were raised, of the type: resistance, occupation, martyrs, uprising, treason, agents, Zionists. Arafat apologized and didn’t sign the treaty saying to Bill Clinton, “if I signed the treaty, you’ll walk in my funeral soon”.
What happened later on? George Bush, the son, came to White House, he wasn’t a man of peace of any kind. In the Israeli elections, Israelis felt that what Labor Party says is useless with Arabs, so Labor Party together with Meretz lost most of their seat and the Israeli right rose to authority, represented by Likud of the militarist background, allying itself with religious political parties of type of “Shas” and “The Jewish Home”. It objected Camp David 2 and almost destroyed Labor Party, to the extent it’s now a very weak political party in Israel which isn’t influential in political life. Ehud Barak who used to be a hero of peace, didn’t forget at all the Arabs destroyed his strength and transformed him from a strong leader to a chief of a weak political party, so, Barak became an impeder to peace more than a supporter to it.
So, what do Arabs benefit of objecting Camp David 2? Did the Palestinian uprisings give the Palestinians 1% of what would have Camp David 2 give them? What would Arabs do now after the partners of peace in Israel have been destroyed and the governance there was took-over by fanatics and religiously-biased? Do Arabs imagine that they would get more than what was offered to them? What would happen now to any peace agreement after half of what Israel offered in 2000 became unacceptable and not possible to be offered in 2011? What did the Palestinians benefit of being the “sons of stones”? Wouldn’t be better for them to be the “sons of peace”?

Seventh scene: Arab Spring – 2011
When the Tunisian revolution started in December 2010, everyone looked at it as an exceptional case specific to Tunisia, and everyone dealt with the approach of “Egypt isn’t Tunisia” and “Libya isn’t Tunisia”. But, when the revolution succeeded in Egypt in overthrowing Mubarak and when the revolutions in Libya, Yemen, Syria and Bahrain erupted, everyone realized that the Arabic-speaking peoples knew the strength of the peaceful revolutions.
The Israeli right stood confused in front of a fateful question: “what if the Palestinians started a peaceful revolution”? Israel was accustomed to that the Palestinian resistance is militant, because using violence against Israel allows it to use its army in the framework of self-defense and no one would blame Israel when it chases child-kidnappers or killers of civilians. But, if the Palestinians started a peaceful revolution, Israel won’t be able to use its army, so what would it do? No one in Israel (and specifically the Israeli right) found an answer on that question, and the fear remained to them of a Tunisian revolution.
But, as one of Israel leaders said that “Israel’s success doesn’t depend on its smartness, but on the stupidity of its enemies”. The Palestinians wasted the chance in the second uprising in 15 May 2011, contrary to the rest of the Arab peoples, the Palestinians didn’t look for a Palestinian Tahrir square to protest in peacefully. Palestinians didn’t realize that the peacefulness has no relation with penetrating the borders, infringement on the territorial waters of Israel and chanting racist words. A peaceful sit-in disseminating racist ideas is exactly as the sit-in of Mostafa Mahmoud square, where peaceful protestors chanting shit thought, and of course that won’t lead to a result. The chance is still available for Palestinians to adopt the peaceful method of Tahrir before it's too late.

(A picture of the biggest demonstrations in the history of Israel, Tel Aviv, 6 August 2011)

Peaceful Strategies toward Israel
- Why won’t we start trying peaceful strategies with Israelis and see if it would succeed as the peaceful Egyptian revolution succeeded? We tried violence for 6 centuries, so why don’t we try the peacefulness for 6 months?
- Before the eruption of the Egyptian revolution, the Egyptian demonstrators were at the beginning of their demonstration giving flowers to police officers and tell them “we’re not demonstrating against you,but against the regime”... So, why don’t we send flowers to Israelis and tell them “we do not antagonize you as individuals, but we are against your policies toward us and Palestine”?
- Also, before the Egyptian revolution, one of the opposition groups published on the internet a list with telephone numbers of Egyptian police officers and we started a campaign of calling those officers, trying to convince them to stop assaulting demonstrators... That campaign succeeded in attracting numerous police and army officers and ex-officers and their families, and they participated in our revolution.
So, why don’t we start in the same thing with Israelis? Why don’t we start communicating with ordinary Israeli individuals and tell them that the Mossad and the Israel Defense Forces actions are unacceptable, inhumane and obstruct peace in the region? Why don’t we convince try to them with the justice of our cause, if we really believe-in its just.
What if we each Egyptian person started adding two Israelis on his friends list on Facebook? If there were million Egyptians, each one of them can only affect two Israeli citizens, that means that we are affecting 2 million Israeli citizens (or a quarter of Israel census)... So, what if we put in consideration that Egypt has approximately 10 million Facebook users, and that each on of them has the ability to add 5000 friends to his friends list. The soft force is much stronger than any other violence you imagine.
It’s of my interest, of your the interest and the whole world’s interest that the conflict ends in Middle Easy, therefor I wish that we start a true beginning in Arab peaceful attempts for the sake of putting an end to the conflict and blood-shedding, and to establish a fair warm peace built on coexistence between the peoples of the region.

Maikel Nabil Sanad
El-Marg general prison
2 ع [‘ayn]

Give Peace A Chance - John Lennon

No comments: