Palestine, not Israel, hinders peace effort

Mischna is a graduate student in geophysics.

By Michael Mischna

In response to Ghaith Mahmood’s submission, “Problem
is about oppression, not coexistence” (Daily Bruin,
Viewpoint, May 3), accusations of apartheid must be taken with the
utmost concern.

Apartheid is an inflammatory word if used passionately, and
reckless accusations of apartheid by the Palestinians do not
improve the peace effort in any respect. It implies that Israel
wantonly and indiscriminately oppresses otherwise peaceful
Palestinian citizens. It evokes images of savage brutalities
committed on an otherwise helpless populace. Nothing could be
further from the truth.

  Illustration by KRISTEN GUILLETTE Above all, Israel is
seeking peace with its neighbors, not violence. Given the
opportunity, who would not favor casting aside one’s gun in
return for a quiet, secure life?

But all recent attempts for Israel to achieve peace have been
turned aside by the Palestinian Authority whose interest lies not
in achieving security for its citizenry, but rather in furthering
its own quest for power.

At the Camp David meeting in July 2000 between Ehud Barak and
Yasser Arafat, Prime Minister Barak agreed to breathtaking
concessions that would produce a lasting settlement between
Israelis and the Palestinians.

The settlement included: Israeli withdrawal from 95 percent of
the West Bank; granting the United Nations Security Council
sovereignty over the Temple Mount, a site holy to both Jews and
Muslims; providing secure and free travel between Gaza and the West
Bank; permitting tens of thousands of displaced Palestinian
refugees to return to Israel; creation of a limited Palestinian
army; and above all the creation of a Palestinian state.

What Israel would receive in return would be a guarantee of
their security ““ a promise that bears more weight than all
other guarantees combined. There, in a nutshell, is the outline of
the Camp David Peace Proposal of July 2000.

Israel was ready to give up tangible things ““ land,
security, control over religious sites ““ in return for the
most intangible promise of peace.

This proposal was summarily rejected by the Palestinian
Authority under the guise that no peace deal would be brokered
until the Temple Mount was placed under full Palestinian
control.

Despite what the rhetoric seems to imply, the Temple Mount is
not exclusively a Islamic religious site. The holiest of Jewish
sites resides there as well ““ the Western (Wailing) Wall of
the Second Temple.

To ensure fair and continued access to the site requires the
democratic, impartial supervision of the United Nations ““ not
the authoritarian rule of a Palestinian government.

Perhaps there lies the crux of the problem, and one that should
concern us as Americans. Since the inception of Israel, the United
States has been its strongest ally, and for good reason: the
formation of the Israeli government marked the first instance in
modern times that a democratically-elected government was chosen in
the Middle East. The United States has a vested interest in
preserving and protecting democracy around the world ““ a
democratic nation is most likely to be a peaceful nation.

For 53 years, Israeli citizens have had the ability to choose
their leaders and plan their own policy. Conversely, Palestinians
cannot select their leaders. Any potential Palestinian government
will be more akin to a monarchy or dictatorship than a democracy
under the current leadership scheme. The power held by those in
charge will be closely guarded by any means necessary, as history
has repetitively shown us.

The voice of the Palestinian Authority does not speak for most
Palestinians, but for those already in power. The rhetoric and
media-controlled news released by the Palestinian Authority is spun
to further the agenda of the powerful at the expense of the
truth.

Exaggerations, half-truths and flat-out lies are being told to
the Palestinian people in an attempt to rally them around a common
enemy (Israel), with the promise that the Palestinian Authority
will “lead” them to freedom. In fact, the only place
the Palestinian Authority is leading them is to further
bloodshed.

If the Palestinian Authority wants peace, they must show they
speak for their constituents by allowing their constituents to
choose who they want to represent them. Let them relinquish their
tangible assets of power and presence for the intangible promise of
peace in our time.