Childish tactics undermine Middle East peace process

What are the real odds of a lasting peace between two antagonistic societies living on the same tiny piece of land? If history means anything, "pretty slim" is probably the most hopeful answer we can expect. People are territorial by nature—no five-year-old really enjoys sharing his toys.

The five-year-olds who hold power in the Middle East are no exception. This troubling international conflict boils down to the fact that you hated having to give half of your candy bar to your younger brother. The difference is that in your case your mother yelled at you from the driver's seat to just-give-your-brother-the-stupid-candy to make her stop crying—and of course you did. When an authority figure commands substantial esteem from two parties in conflict, the conflict is easily reconciled; the authority simply exerts enough influence to end the squabble. Case closed.

The problem facing the Middle East peace process is that no one is in the driver's seat and the kids are out of control. In a final attempt to establish a legacy as a benevolent peacemaker, President Bill Clinton, LAW '73, hosted yet another Camp David peace summit where Yasser Arafat, the leader of the Palestinian Liberation Authority, and Ehud Barak, Israel's prime minister, received the opportunity to settle their differences on ostensibly neutral territory. Yet nothing came of the summit. Barak, in the role of frustrated older brother, tried to give his little brother as much as he could. His little brother, however, merely whined and complained, resulting in the complete halt of any progress in the evolution of the mideast settlement.

With the looming pressure of national and international public opinion, the two elected officials are unable to form a compromise that would not upset their constituencies. Despite this hindrance, Barak has shown considerable courage by making risky concessions in the name of peace. At Camp David, Barak took the unprecedented step of proposing to share sovereignty over Jerusalem. Palestinians claim control over their settlements in East Jerusalem as a necessary concession for peace. Although the thought of even considering the split of Jerusalem is abhorrent to the vast majority of Israelis, Barak showed the necessary maturity of a modern world leader by acknowledging that often the road to peace is paved by political suicide. Arafat, showing the characteristics of a middle-school child fretting about his dwindling popularity, came home a hero from numerous failed peace summits to enraptured crowds of Palestinians who hailed his flawless leadership.

In July Arafat shocked the world, stating that on Wed., Sept. 13 he would declare an independent Palestinian state regardless of the status of negotiations. This threat was little different from a three-year-old's "Mommy, I want it now!" Thankfully, Arafat retracted his deadline and promised not to push Israel and the PLO to the brink of war again. Barak justifiably worries that the promise will not last long.

Perhaps if Clinton were not leaving office in January, a parental figure might have been discovered in the president's characteristic bear-hugging form. The relationship that he has maintained with both sides during these negotiations has been unfathomably tactful. Perhaps Arafat would eventually have been forced to grow up and acknowledge the need to make painful concessions in the pursuit of peace for his people. The brutal reality, however, is that with no mother in the driver's seat and no agreement in sight, the children in the back won't be paying attention to the car as it slowly rolls off a cliff.

Lainie Fefferman is a freshman in Silliman.

Graphic by Sarah England.

Back to Opinion...