By Abdulilah
I wanted to start this article by telling you that in my opinion no matter what happens in the next few weeks or months the work of making peace as it has been formulated by the Obama Administration and its State Secretary, Mr. John Kerry cannot succeed. Not because the effort was not tried or that the negotiators were not honest in their negotiations or skill, but for two main reasons.
The first reason, is because outcomes that are negotiated can only be legitimate “if and only if they could be the object of free and reasoned argument among (and here is the rub) equals” (cohen 1997, 73).
Now I ask you all, where is the equality in these negotiations? Israel the supposed partner in this peace process holds all the strong cards. They hold the land that the Palestinians want for a state. They have had the upper hand in military strength for the last 60 years and this is guaranteed to them by the principal facilitator of the peace (in this case the US). They have been implementing against all international laws, facts on the ground, by annexing, building and occupying lands never prescribed to them even by the UN Charter (who by the way was led by the principal entity that is presently the officiator of this process, the US) that brought them to existence. And lastly; because the rules for participating in the peace process were prescribed by the victor and the facilitator, who as pointed out above is also the guarantor of its existence and military strength.
As such equality is not present no matter how much the Palestinian Authority would wish it so. It therefore will have to acquiesce to many of the demands of the stronger party, which has little reason to give, unless of course it has a change of heart in what it has done in the past 60 years to much of the population it has been negotiating with, as well as with the surrounding states, that have even a larger role than some of the principal parties, as much of the displaced people now reside in their states. One they would like very much to have addressed as part of this peace process.
Secondly; and more importantly is the fact that the negotiations from the start were held in secret and when this occurred and for whatever reasons were given by the lead facilitator (US in this case), this inherent disregard of the public sphere to be part of the discussions and negotiations removes the moral legitimacy of such a peace process. For without such moral legitimacy the peace process is doomed, either because any implementation of the results reached by such a process must be instituted by force by the State’s will or others it gives power to, over those it wishes to control.
I have heard arguments by those who state that especially in the case of the Palestinian/Israeli peace negotiations, any such process until it is taken to the level where agreements have to be inked and approved by both of the parties and their peoples representatives, it must be done in secret to allow for exchanges of ideas and final agreements to take place outside of the public eye which could end up dooming such a process for the start.
Although this argument has validity in some cases, in this case it does not. For one, the people governed at least on one side, in this case the Palestinian side, are governed by a group that does not comprise the entire population, that principally being the Gaza strip which presently is governed by Hamas. Some have stated it has little or no legitimacy to govern even in the areas that it presently controls, however, one rejects this argument as no other entity exists at this time that is as big or does control.
Secondly; assuming it did get tacit agreement from the entity controlling the Gaza strip to negotiate on its behalf, it was doing so knowing that a strong possibility existed that an integral piece of these negotiations was to acquiesce and agree that the people whom were driven out of their homes and lands in 1948 after the UN charter creating the State of Israel, and possibly those driven out later in 1967, would never be able to return. This contrary to even the Charter that created the State in the first place, let alone the subsequent UN and many accepted international laws that govern this type of expulsion and refugee status. As such, at least one side in this process may not be able to deliver on what it agrees upon without such public support.
Thirdly; it is also evident from leakage of the negotiations, one party wants complete recognition that it be regarded as a nation of ONE type of people, principally in this case a faith. This too is a complete contradiction to any normal status of a nation, as creed, color and gender, should not play a role in a democratic system.
I guess one may try to argue this would be fine if that state was ONLY inhabited by one creed, color or gender, from its time of existence to now, or that ALL the people wished to be of that creed, color or gender from this time till the end of time. However, arguing such a nonsensical argument or condition only makes it more of a farce peace and rejectable on moral principles from the outright. As such, an epistemological crisis sets into the minds of the people, whether hard won negotiations or not, that dog will not hunt when placed before the people of both sides.
I do not say lightly disregarding the need for a peace in this land is dangerous if not suicidal. However; any peace process which is not fought at the feet and with tacit agreement from the people cannot endure even if passed, for eventually even force cannot withstand the wave of discontent of the peoples that it was supposed to actually help.
How then can this condition be resolved? It can only be solved when both parties have parity, that being backed by force, or the stronger of the two parties recognizes that it is in its best interest to give more than it wants to today as doing so may allow for peace to exist for its citizens and those who choose to return, possibly making it even greater than it is today. Or it can wait it out, where it will then have to choose between, having an epistemological argument ensue amongst its people and the world at large, or the weaker of the two parties gets stronger that dealing with it makes it untenable. At that time, it may be too late for such agreements to take place.
As for the weaker of the two parties, it must acknowledge first that is negotiating from a position of weakness, and its inability to possibly deliver to the people it does not fully represent, a fair peace, it is bound to fail. In this case failure could mean its collapse, or worse it becomes the whip by which such a peace process is held together, for without the people and surrounding nations’ assistance in its implementation cannot succeed.
God Bless Jordan and Its People
comment replay 