Sunday, September 7, 2008

The Unsubstantial Nature of Past Peace Plans

When Benjamin Netanyahu said (Arutz Sheva, April 22, 2008) that he was going to ignore any peace deal signed by Olmert upon what aspect of International Law was he basing this on? After all, if treaties signed by two nations are superior to even U.N. resolutions, as I stated in my previous post, then what is the legal justification for his statement? First of all, even if an outgoing leader signs a document, if it is unlikely to ever be ratified, it is not in the same classification of potency as a fully completed peace deal. Secondly, if the incoming leader can illustrate clearly that the most fundamental of International Laws was violated, Jus Cogens, then even a fully completed peace deal could become obsolete.

Whoa, what am I saying here?! Am I saying that all the peace deals in the past had the potential to become obsolete as soon as the next government that disagreed with it came into power? If so, then that would mean all these peace deals Israel has been running after was just for the sake of the POSSIBILITY of a few months of peace. Let’s consider this closely…

Let’s define peace between nations. The ideal form of peace would be one that does not just put an end to belligerence, but would also establish active friendship. An end to belligerence alone is a cold peace, essentially all but a cold war. Such a situation exists between Egypt and Israel. Active partnership exists between Israel and Jordan on several but not all matters. While not utterly perfect, the Israel-Jordan peace deal represents the current prototype of what is needed for a peace deal to be successful in the Middle East. We don’t know if the cold peace with Egypt is strong enough to keep Egypt out of a war between Israel and Syria, so we are caught in a perpetual wait and see mode to find out if there really is peace after all. What benefit does this bring to Israel? The only sure thing it did was to bring more oil to OPEC.

What is the physical difference between the peace deals? In the peace deal with Egypt, Israel had to withdraw from a large amount of territory, for a promise by Egypt to be nice from now on. While with Jordan, Israel withdrew from much less territory than Jordan relinquished (even though they could have gotten the peace deal done without giving up even a drop of land). This implies that when the non belligerent side (Israel) is tough during negotiations, they get true peace, and if they cede more territory than their former adversary, that is, if they show weakness, then they get cold peace at best. Such is the nature of the rough and tumble Middle-East.

Scientifically speaking, though, from a mere two cases alone we cannot base any conclusive statistical proof, except for the fact that the peace agreement between England and the IRA is almost a duplicate model of the Israeli-Jordanian pact. The non-belligerent side, in that case, England, stayed tough, did not give up land, and they got a complete dismantling of the IRA as well.

This would lead one to think that any peace deal that Syria would agree to in the near future would not likely have a chance at bringing true peace. Until Syria is prepared to forsake the Golan, no real movement towards peace should be expected on that front. Further still, this implies that the current Roadmap to Peace is at its heart, a failed attempt at peace, even in a theoretically perfectly ideal installation of the terms in the noblest of land-for-peace, peace plans.

So, yes, all land-for-peace, peace plans are high risk for minimal gain. There is no true expectation for peace by any the politicians involved except by the most left wing of dreamers. If so, then why do they do it? Perhaps due to a perceived lack of a viable alternative vision, but, I believe not due to intentional mischief. They cannot deal with the idea of eternal war, so they keep taking risks hoping to one day find a real solution for peace.

I would liken this to an electrician with a box of fuses, one of which he knows is good, so he keeps plugging in a different one into the socket hoping that this is the one that will restore power to the room, meanwhile everyone stands there in the dark.

These peace hungry politicians dredge forward and despite their near exhaustion and exasperation at the whole affair and continue onward with little trust in the very work they slave over year after year to achieve.

Certainly, if my suppositions are correct, all this seems like so very little motive to force thousands of people out of their homes over. It just does not seem worth it, settling for a less than optimum form of peace, when they should be seeking to use a peace plan that is the least likely to have long term causes to be regretted and repealed. They should not have to settle for so little.

Thank God, now that there exists a much more true path to peace, they no longer have to.

No comments: