Thoughts for Peace in Palestine

The conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians has deep roots. Each side believes their position to be just, and previous attempts to resolve the conflict have failed. Always present are feelings of mistrust, and a reluctance to yield territory to the other side, because this is territory which both sides have possessed, at one time or another. Every incident of violence by the other side reinforces the mistrust and reluctance, and the violence continues to occur from time to time. But every pause in violence renews the desire on both sides for a resolution of the conflict. Indeed, if the conflict has lasted for over 60 years, it should be apparent to both parties that the status quo is not to the benefit of either side.

According to the Times Online, President Obama is renewing the push for peace between them:

“Barack Obama is to pursue an ambitious peace plan in the Middle East involving the recognition of Israel by the Arab world in exchange for its withdrawal to pre-1967 borders, according to sources close to America’s president-elect. Obama intends to throw his support behind a 2002 Saudi peace initiative endorsed by the Arab League and backed by Tzipi Livni, the Israeli foreign minister and leader of the ruling Kadima party. The proposal gives Israel an effective veto on the return of Arab refugees expelled in 1948 while requiring it to restore the Golan Heights to Syria and allow the Palestinians to establish a state capital in east Jerusalem.”

I offer these thoughts in support of this effort:

• For the sake of peace, both sides must set aside the idea of “Total Ownership” of the territory. There are factions on both sides who believe that they have a right by birth to possess the entirety of Palestine and Jerusalem. It should be clear, after 60 years of armed conflict, that this notion is devoid of possibility and meaning. Continued assertions of total ownership will only lead to continued destruction and mutual suffering. The only solution is a division of the territory, and Jerusalem, between them.

• For the sake of peace, both sides must set aside the idea of their “Right of Return”. Palestinians have often demanded the right to return to their former properties inside Israel as a condition for peace. That alarms the Israelis, who fear that a large increase in the non-Jewish population of their country would mean the end of their Jewish state. At the same time, there are Israelis who insist that they have a right to return to the land they say their God gave them, and to that end they establish settlements outside the borders of Israel. That provokes the Palestinians whose land they are essentially seizing.

• It is shared sacrifice that leads to shared benefits. For the purpose of achieving peace, it must be understood that neither side is “surrendering” to the other side. It must be seen that both sides are accepting certain costs in exchange for the benefits of peace. For example, the Israelis would not be simply “offering land for peace” with the Palestinians, and the Palestinians would not be simply giving away their inheritance to the Israelis. Instead, both the Israelis and the Palestinians would be mutually sacrificing certain perceived claims for the prospect of mutual rewards.

• To wait for the end of violence is to wait forever. There will always be incidents of violence in the Middle East, just as there are incidents of violence in most of the other regions of the world! If Netanyahu wants to see a perfect calm before he will negotiate the terms of peace, he will never achieve peace. He is making peace a pre-condition for peace.