|
|
Whose
Peace?
|
|
||||||||
Much has been written lately about several attempts to craft an alternative peace plan in the decades-old Israeli-Palestinian dispute. The best known of these recent plans the "Geneva Initiative" was conceived and written by representatives of both sides of the conflict, but without the involvement of governments or politicians. As such, it is a fresh approach that should provide a lesson to those who continue to believe that peace is something that can only be crafted by government officials, or bribed and bullied by the "international community." We do know this: after decades of conflict and tens of billions of US taxpayer dollars spent, US government involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process has led nowhere. The latest US government-initiated plan for peace, the "road map," appears to be a map to nowhere. This does not surprise me much. With a seemingly endless amount of money to bribe the leaders of the two opposing sides to remain engaged in the process, is it any wonder why the two parties never arrive at peace? But people on both sides are becoming more and more frustrated with the endless impasse and endless government and bureaucrat-written peace agreements that go nowhere. That is why plans like this should be of such interest. Initially conceived by an obscure Swiss professor, the project was joined by former Israeli Justice Minister Yossi Beilin, former Palestinian Authority Information Minister Yasser Abed Rabbo, and by other prominent individuals like former president Jimmy Carter. The negotiations led to the creation of a 50-page detailed accord. I do not know whether the product is perfect. I have not studied the minute details of the proposal. But what I do know is that politicians, governments, and special interests promote war at the expense of those who have to fight them. Wars end when the victims finally demand peace. And that is what we are beginning to see. According to one recent survey, a majority among both the Israeli and Palestinian population support this new initiative. That is encouraging. To his credit, President Bush has demonstrated an open mind toward this alternative approach. He declared the Geneva Initiative "productive," and added that the United States "appreciates people discussing peace." Secretary of State Colin Powell echoed the president when he resisted hard-line pressure to ignore the proposed accord, stating, "I have an obligation to listen to individuals who have interesting ideas." This is also encouraging. Predictably, though, this new approach is not as welcomed by those governments, politicians, and special interests who have a stake in dragging out the process indefinitely. Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat has been lukewarm at best. Extremist Arab organizations that have a special interest in continuing the violence have also rejected the Geneva Initiative. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has rejected the Initiative out of hand. Said Mr. Sharon: "Geneva is an attempt to do something only a government can do."
But the point is that governments have little incentive to finally end
conflicts such as these. The United States is in places like Kosovo
and Bosnia indefinitely in the name of "peace-keeping" and
"peace processes." The same will be true of our involvement
in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is not until foreign involvement ceases
that means our continued meddling in the Middle East and
the people involved demand peace that real working solutions begin to
emerge. The Geneva Initiative is therefore a positive step toward peace
in the Middle East. Let us step back and get out of the way!
Ron Paul is a Republican Congressman from Texas. He was the 1988 Libertarian Party candidate for President.
|
Previous articles by Rep. Ron Paul Conscription
The Terrible Price of War Mistreating
Soldiers and Veterans Heed
Bush Sr., Stop the $20 Billion Iraq Giveaway Syria
Sanctions Will Cut Trade and Peace National
Endowment for Democracy: Paying to Make Enemies of America That's
Your Money In Iraq We
Cannot Afford Another $87 Billion in Iraq Can
We Afford To Occupy Iraq? Trust
Us, We're the Government Ron
Paul Applauds Congressional Restrictions on Patriot Act Phony
Justifications for War What
Happened to Conservatives? An
Appointed Congress? Iraq:
What Are We Getting Into? Keep
the United Nations out of Iraq and America Don't
Antagonize Our Trading Partners The
Myth of War Prosperity Another
United Nations War? Buying
War Allies and 'Friends' with Foreign Aid Conscription
Is Slavery Waning
Prospects for Peace in 2003? What
Does Regime Change in Iraq Really Mean? Our
Incoherent Foreign Policy Fuels Middle East Turmoil Homeland
Security Is the Largest Federal Expansion in 50 Years Unintended
Consequences The
Homeland Security Monstrosity Oppose
The New Homeland Security Bureaucracy! Honoring
Our Military Veterans Opposing
the Use of Military Force Against Iraq Congress
Must Say Yes or No to War Is
Congress Relevant with Regards to War? Can
We Afford This War? War
is a Political Mistake Entangling
Alliances Distort our Foreign Policy Questions
that Won't Be Asked About Iraq A
Foreign Policy for Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty Arguments
Against a War in Iraq Important
Questions About War in Iraq War
in Iraq, War on the Rule of Law Will
Congress Debate War with Iraq? The
Homeland Security Non-Debate Department
of Homeland Security Who Needs It? Opening
Cuban Markets Good for Cubans and Americans Is
America a Police State? Inspection
or Invasion in Iraq? Don't
Force Taxpayers to Fund Nation-Building in Afghanistan Say
No to Conscription Statement
in Support of a Balanced Approach to the Middle East Peace Process The
Founding Fathers Were Right About Foreign Affairs |