• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Photo

Peace, I’ve learned, is often subjective. When in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, peace traditionally becomes merely an oft-repeated idea, too often insincere, cloaked with shaky agreements and soon forgotten.

However, the international mood has shifted. Recently, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and the newly elected Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas met in Egypt to agree upon a joint cease-fire. The “situation,” as Israelis and Palestinians call it, may no longer be the same anarchic hopelessness encountered for years.

It’s encouraging news. But still, my cynicism stays intact, remembering the failures of the Oslo Accords in the 1990s, compounded by 50 years of unresolved bloodshed.

But like most people, I still long for and dream of a peaceful, democratic future for this troubled region. As Yitzhak Rabin, Israel’s then-prime minister, declared in 1993, “Enough of blood and tears. Enough.”

In September 2000, when the al-Aqsa launched the second Palestinian intifada, the peace process was in shambles. Sharon refused to meet with Arafat, accusing him of double-faced treachery, and there was little hope for negotiations.

But in November 2004, Arafat passed away. And Mahmoud Abbas, former Palestine Liberation Organization chairman and Fatah party member, was elected as president of the Palestinian National Authority.

Since that day, major changes have occurred. Sharon will continue his plans to pull out of Gaza and parts of the West Bank, betraying the settlers once regarded as his faithful allies. He recently released 500 of the 900 Palestinian prisoners he’s promised, and above all, he has recognized the need for Palestinian statehood.

Meanwhile, Abbas agreed to the terms of the cease-fire. He’s voiced his plans to work toward a democratic Palestinian state, without threats and violence. Additionally, President Bush has asked Congress for $200 million in emergency aid to Palestinians for this fiscal year. It’s a small amount compared to the money allocated for Israel, but a request like this wouldn’t have been feasible until today, when a new Palestinian leadership has taken hold.

There’s a sense of optimism throughout the world. Many of us would like to say that the al-Aqsa intifada is finally over. But history has a way of repeating itself, and if it’s taught us anything, it’s that any sort of “end” in Middle Eastern politics might not prove so conclusive.

Such was the case in the 1990s when a chillingly similar situation unfolded. In 1993, Former Prime Minister Rabin met with Arafat, and the two jointly agreed upon a Declaration of Principles, known today as the Oslo Accords.

These accords seemed to benefit both sides. The Palestinians were granted the Palestinian Authority, as well as the right to Palestinian self-governance. In return, Arafat recognized Israel’s right to exist and promised vigilance in the fight against terror.

But the Oslo Accords were, nevertheless, a failure. They neglected to address permanent issues, including the settlements, borders, Jerusalem, security and refugees. Instead, the Accords prioritized the reaching of an agreement over the actual content of the agreement itself. So for seven years, negotiations endlessly continued. By 1995, following the tragic assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, the process began to unravel. Then, in late 2000, after the collapse of talks between then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Arafat at Camp David, both Israeli and Palestinian extremists discredited the process entirely. A few months later, the intifada began.

Today, both sides hold the same goals originally sought in 1993. Palestinians want the end to Israeli occupation and settlement in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and the establishment of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital. Israelis want a cease-fire, secure and defensible borders, an undivided Jerusalem, as well as the preservation and support of Israeli statehood by the international community. In that sense, not much has changed between the two powers.

But the world – and its leaders – have shifted. For one, there’s Abbas. The new Palestinian leader is willing to work side-by-side with Israel and the United States. Best of all, however, Sharon is a new man. Originally perceived as the Likud party’s hard-liner, he’s warmed up to compromise.

Surprisingly, Sharon managed to reform the Knesset, Israel’s cabinet, making space for Labour Party members – the more liberal majority of Israeli politics. With the support of the Labour party, Sharon was able to dispense 8,500 eviction notices to settlers in the Gaza strip and four West Bank settlements.

Clearly, neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians will disappear, and both need to acknowledge the other as human equals.

The challenge is how they will go about doing this. It won’t be simple, particularly in regard to curbing extremists. And it won’t be speedy, as we’ve learned from the failures of the Oslo Accords. There will be moments of intense frustration, as patterns persist and leaders continue to break promises.

Maybe I’m daydreaming, or perchance I’m moonstruck, but the path toward peace is ultimately inescapable. If this does not happen, the region will face its greatest horror yet.

Fried is a second-year history student. E-mail her at ifried@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.