MIFTAH
Thursday, 28 March. 2024
 
Your Key to Palestine
The Palestinian Initiatives for The Promotoion of Global Dialogue and Democracy
 
 
 

Undoubtedly everyone has been warned or informed, at some stage in their life that “violence solves nothing”. Whether this response is issued by a concerned friend or even an authoritative figure, be it a family member or a person whom one considers wise and speaking from experience, the meaning is rather self explanatory.

The phrase is so universally known and seemingly irrefutable it compels us to trust it and apply it to our daily life even when every day we see that violence seems to have more gains than pacifism in a range of political situations. The state of Israeli itself was born out of violence.

In the ongoing fray between Israel and the governing body in Gaza, people on both sides are indoctrinated into thinking that violence solves everything, is ultimately in their collective interests and the key to their salvation.

In a world where people expect their leaders to be blessed with the characteristic of accepting responsibility, this trait is evidently forgotten in the very place where it is imperative for peace to prevail.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert declared this week that “we will continue to apply sanctions that are hurtful to the needs of the [Palestinian] population in order for it to be clearer that living conditions cannot be altered only from our side”. Meanwhile, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri responded that “Israel bears full responsibility and will also suffer the consequences”. Both sides stubbornly ignore international recommendations, international codes of conduct and are desperately attempting to absolve themselves of any blame in this “eye for an eye” scenario.

Instead, all their rhetoric and illegitimate operations in this standoff are ostensibly legitimized by claims that they are acting for the sake of “the people”, their interests, their future safety and freedom. However, on the verge of Israel’s 60th anniversary and a time when Palestinians remember the expulsion of 800,000 of their people from their homes [“Al Nakba”], the citizens on each side are far from secure.

Since the outbreak of the second Intifada on September 29, 2000 to January 31 2008, 4,528 Palestinians have been killed and a further 10,756 are currently incarcerated in Israeli prisons. One would have thought that with this kind of “sacrifice” for the cause, there would have been some progress made in the peace process. As it stands, despite the regular meetings between Olmert and President Abbas, peace has never been so evasive or such a fluid concept.

For the first time, Palestine is operating under a duopoly. Gaza, controlled by Hamas, is an enclosed prison of 1.5 million people living in humanitarian disaster, suffering from illegal economic sanctions imposed by Israel and subjected to regular invasions and air strikes. The West Bank is littered with over 550 Israeli checkpoints, separated from east Jerusalem, surrounded by 250,000 Israeli settlers and shadowed by a nine-meter wall which runs through the West Bank cutting into 8% of Palestinian land. In total, Palestinians in the West Bank are refused access to 38% of their land which is reserved for roads and areas only available to Israelis.

Since the peace talks officially recommenced at Annapolis in November, 184 Palestinians have been killed. More death is not the expected effect of a conventional peace process.

On the other side, 1,031 Israelis have been killed since the beginning of the second Intifada and currently only one Israeli, Gilad Schalit, is held prisoner [by Hamas in Gaza]. The Israeli Prime Minister, having recently escaped blame for Israeli actions during the Second Lebanese War in 2006 as documented in the Winograd report, is still devastatingly unpopular with the public and criticized for holding peace meetings with Palestinians without an official mandate from the Israeli people.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak suggests that the government has “no interest in an escalation”. However, what can he expect to achieve when implementing such draconian measures on Palestinians in Gaza? As a result Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Popular Resistance Committee will continue to seek retribution by countering these attacks with Qassam rockets, as they have such limited avenues available for retaliation. Testament to what Israel is really anticipating is their motion to reinforce 3,600 out of 8,000 Israeli homes within 4.5 kilometers of rocket fire from Gaza at a cost of $100 million. Olmert has also asserted that the army has a “free hand” in Gaza, permitting them to target anyone at their discretion in the hope of halting rocket attacks.

In addition, there are the suspicious circumstances surrounding the death of Hezbollah special operations chief, Imad Mughniyeh. Leader of Hezbollah, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, was quick to accuse Israel and has threatened them with an “open war” in continuance of the “July War” of 2006. According to Ha’aretz, Nasrallah has deployed over 50,000 activists to southern Lebanon while Israel has stationed US-made Patriot air defense missiles near Haifa.

The Second Lebanese War claimed nearly 1,200 Lebanese lives, mostly civilians, while Israel lost approximately 50 soldiers. Now, the death of a man who was blamed for the deaths of over 100 people in a string of attacks from the eighties and early nineties in Lebanon and Argentina could potentially be the catalyst for another conflict, which may incorporate other nations and will certainly be the cause of many more lost lives.

With this tense pressure-cooker situation in northern Israel and Gaza, what is the proposed aim and expected outcome of adhering to this policy of violence?

History has proven that the ramifications of such action will not divert or change the realities on the ground. On the contrary, a confrontation will lead to more death and devastation while exacerbating an already highly beleaguered and fragile political climate in the area. So why pursue this direction?

Veteran Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery, in a very commendable analysis of such a supposed fruitless labor devoid of rational thought, concluded that such demonstration of power evokes a psychologically toxic feeling of jubilation, satisfaction and elation. One should dignify this assessment with serious contemplation. There is a certain subconscious thrill attached to such a violent approach. To possess the means to affect change, control or influence future proceedings is infectious and allows the protagonist to proceed with a divine-like supremacy. Assuming the figure of someone who has the capacity and the capability to unleash a choreographed sequence of events that can alter the natural progression of the area can also be hypnotic. Furthermore, there is the prospect of praise, reverence and what the ancients used to call “kleos” [glory] if the person is successful in his quest. The individual will not be cast into obscurity but will be remembered and seen as an object of inspiration, accomplishing the ultimate goal of a leader - to establish a legacy.

“Violence solves nothing” is still an accurate statement. Maybe the fact that it is somewhat of a cliché distracts from its message, so much so that it is sometimes ignored. Violence leads to further fatalities and destruction which provides the psychological and political incentive for extremism as a method of obtaining justice. Violence also creates an environment where such behavior can be concentrated and developed allowing for more violence to ensue. On the face of it, a policy of violence which yields no results is inexplicable, unless the violence is perceived as a means to an end by any of the respective parties.

After 60 years, there is no evidence to suggest that violence, not only within the boundaries of Israel and Palestine but also in the broader spectrum, has been a means to an end or a gradual process to complete a meticulous grand strategy that will lead to prosperity. The disconcerting aspect of this theory is that a grand plan will probably be at the expense of or involve the complete annihilation of the opposite party. Sixty years is a long time to endure so much pain and loss, so why can the policy not be reformed to one of dialogue and peace?

John Holmes, Undersecretary for Humanitarian Affairs, stated last week that “the only thing that will make a lasting difference is a peace settlement”. Mr. Holmes is correct but omitted a vital point – peace will only be a possibility if it serves, or is conducive to the interests of the respective players.

In any case, the rhetoric from both sides should immediately change. Although granting it legitimacy and support, justifying violence by disguising it as an integral tool for the sake of the “people” should not be credited as a viable excuse. After all, innocent people, guilty only of placing faith in their leaders, are the ones being exploited and suffering the most, thus far encountering no tangible or visible improvements.

 
 
Read More...
 
 
By the Same Author
 
Footer
Contact us
Rimawi Bldg, 3rd floor
14 Emil Touma Street,
Al Massayef, Ramallah
Postalcode P6058131

Mailing address:
P.O.Box 69647
Jerusalem
 
 
Palestine
972-2-298 9490/1
972-2-298 9492
info@miftah.org

 
All Rights Reserved © Copyright,MIFTAH 2023
Subscribe to MIFTAH's mailing list
* indicates required