Some people want to bash Israel so bad they’re already tearing down Annapolis. Case in point: Michael Shaik and Anthony Loewenstein, who got op-ed space in The Age. Their commentary is full of factual holes (more on them later), but most egregious is this statement I want to first address:
Peace is the absence of violence. In the Middle East the term “peace process” has become a euphemism for normalising the violent dispossession of an occupied population.
You can’t define something by what it’s not. Peace is a productive state of harmony and completion. Asserting that peace is the “absence of violence” is like asserting “black is the absence of white.” It says nothing.
Shaik and Loewenstein’s definition raises another fallacy: that in the absence of violence, peace passively happens. In fact, peace is something that must be actively created, pursued, built, and nurtured. Peace doesn’t just happen on its own. This misconception explains how they so easily tear down not just the Annapolis conference but years of peace negotiations.
Now about those factual holes:
• Mahmoud Abbas dissolved his coalition with Hamas when the Islamists took over the Gaza Strip, not because of Israeli pressure.
• Abbas’ moves against Hamas charities in the West Bank came because Hamas directly challenges his authority, not as a negotiating concession.
• Abbas cracked down on Nablus gunmen who became a law unto themselves.
• As positive as these developments are, Abbas hasn’t demonstrated a commitment to Israel’s security. He’s demonstrated a commitment to his own security. Nothing yet indicates he can deliver Palestinian peace.
• The UN resolution the US initially introduced would’ve made the Security Council a more active player in Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. Nobody trusts them to be honest brokers.
Send comments to: [email protected]
