Peace cannot be built on crumbling foundations

In 2000, in what was seen as a highly provocative and symbolic move, Ariel Sharon visited the al-Aqsa complex. Fury and demonstrations soon followed, quickly developing into what became known as the al-Aqsa intifada.

In 2002, Israeli retaliation resulted in the reoccupation of almost all the West Bank, as Arafat’s compound in Ramallah was practically left in ruins.

As Israel justified its actions by claiming it was destroying terrorist infrastructure, reprisals, as in much of this conflict, only made matters worse. Arafat was under heavy pressure to reign in militants, however in the emotional and passionate climate, this was nearly impossible, making peace ever-more distant.

The pressures facing the present PA leader, Mahmoud Abbas, are hardly better, with the paradox of discussions around the table and reprisals on the streets.

The rise of tension in Palestine

The death of Arafat left the Palestinian struggle in uncertainty, which increased when Hamas came to power. Hamas, labelled a terrorist organisation by the EU and US, has been under global pressure, in particular from financial donors, to renounce violence and recognise Israel’s right to exist. So far Hamas has refused a move that for them represents the acceptance of the occupation of Palestinian land.

Furthermore, before any peace or settlement can ensue with Israel, the Palestinians must themselves strike an accord. Fatah and Hamas, the two parties that dominate Palestinian politics, differ in fundamental areas.

Fatah, at the head of the Palestinian national movement since the 1950s, after recognising Israel’s right to exist, made strides towards a two-state solution under the Oslo peace accords. However, this progress was frustrated by its defeat in the elections, raising fears it would use military and political power to sustain its influence.

Hamas, an Islamist movement is solely aimed at the destruction of Israel and the establishment of a Palestine Islamic state in its entirety. However, under fierce economic and political pressure, and heavy bombardment in recent weeks, it may have no choice but to compromise on its charter to save a humanitarian crisis. It has shown positive, albeit half-hearted, gestures towards a future truce.

With both sides holding formidable militias, disagreement over the future position of Palestine and the strategy to deal with a co-existence with the Israelis, led to fighting on the streets and fears of a Palestinian civil war.

A two-state solution

Clearly the current tactics of the Israelis and Palestinians will make peace a near impossibility. Reprisal and military attacks only create a chain of violence that gradually increases in intensity as the attacks get bolder each time. Furthermore, without compromise and a united front on each side, peace will be built on crumbling foundations that a few Jewish or Islamic fundamentalists could easily destroy.

Even a much-heralded two-state solution may not function: cross-border military incursions and terrorist attacks will destroy any dreams of sovereign co-existence within days, with any solution undoubtedly unable to satisfy every party, especially in light of a bitter and passionate regional climate. However, Arabs and Jews lived side-by-side in these lands in the past and perhaps only a future co-existence under one state will bring true long-term peace, however delusional in the current climate.

This would make the task of peace and security a joint responsibility and make both the Jews and Arabs responsible for the action of any inhabitant, despite nationality. In the eyes of the international community and particularly the much prejudiced US administration, they would receive equal financial assistance and equal significance and attention. However, the lands are far too symbolic just to focus on the harmony of the Jews and Palestinians. It’s about greater interference and the clash of civilisations with the Muslims on the one side and the US and Western powers on the other.