A Rose for Abu Mazen: Peace Without Justice and Knowing When to Let Go

Written By Friends of Sabeel

By Jesse Steven Wheeler

Upon hearing back from my congressional representatives, I am inevitably greeted with the following:

“Thank you for your important concern. I believe that a two-state solution on the basis of direct negotiations is the best way to bring about peace.”

Then nothing happens. Likewise, a negotiated two-state solution has become the mantra of the “liberal zionist,” those who in their support for a Palestinian state would actively reject moves toward authentic justice. Even Mahmoud Abbas, as recently as last month, has called upon the international community to resurrect the “peace process” in order to “prevent a one-state reality.” For his part, UN Secretary-General António Guterres declared that “persistent violations of the rights of Palestinians along with the expansion of settlements risk eroding the prospect of a two-state solution.” As well intentioned as such proclamations sound, the historically observant cannot help but contemplate the hollowness with which they ring, in reference to what has in reality been a long moribund peace-process, stillborn even and doomed to fail from the start.

In his modern classic, “A Rose for Emily,” preeminent American novelist William Faulkner relates the story of Emily Grierson, a reclusive spinster of aristocratic lineage unable to cope with the prospect of losing the man she loves, albeit unrequited. After his sudden disappearance, the man is discovered decades later as a rotting corpse atop a bed clearly shared by Emily. It is this pathological refusal to let go, as Emily cleaves to the decaying body of her would-be lover while stubbornly denying the tragic reality that is now her life, which reminds me so much of statements like those above.

Regarding the peace-plan’s exact time of death, there exist multiple accounts. However, the following words from Oxford historian Avi Schlaim are illustrative:

Controversy surrounded Oslo from the moment it saw the light of day. The 21 October 1993 issue of the London Review of Books ran two articles; Edward Said put the case against in the first. He called the agreement “an instrument of Palestinian surrender, a Palestinian Versailles,” arguing that it set aside international legality and compromised the fundamental national rights of the Palestinian people. It could not advance genuine Palestinian self-determination because that meant freedom, sovereignty, and equality, rather than perpetual subservience to Israel.

In my own article I put the case for Oslo. I believed that it would set in motion a gradual but irreversible process of Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories and that it would pave the way to Palestinian statehood. From today’s perspective…, it is clear that Said was right in his analysis and I was wrong.

Schlaim goes on to remark that “the fundamental reason [for failure] was that Israel reneged on its side of the deal” when in 1996 Binyamin Netanyahu came to power soon after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. He “spent his first three years as PM in a largely successful attempt to arrest, undermine, and subvert the accords.”

Be it stillborn from the start or the deliberate result of right-wing infanticide, the peace process—and the two-state solution upon which it is conditioned—has been dead for decades. And yet, the various players have insisted upon living beside its corpse, raising the question: “Why cleave so fervently to the specter of a long dead peace-plan?” For the Israelis and their benefactors, Schlaim remarks:

[Negotiating in bad faith] turned the much-vaunted peace process into a charade. In fact, it was worse than a charade: it provided Israel with just the cover it was looking for to continue to pursue with impunity its illegal and aggressive colonial project on the West Bank.

A popular Palestinian reading of history might say this was the intent of Oslo from its inception, granting international legitimacy to the occupation while simultaneously allowing Israel to “pass the buck” with regard to its administration and securitization of the Occupied Territories. For Palestinian leadership, on the other hand, the existence of the Palestinian Authority represents the sole shiny trinket—the pretense of a state—granted to the Palestinian national movement in exchange for giving up their claim to 78% of historic Palestine and the pacification of the 22% that remained, under occupation. That Abbas, whose sole legitimacy rests upon his being president of an “authority without any authority,” would cling so fervently and for so many years to the illusion of a long dead peace-process raises serious questions.

Ultimately, can peace ever be built without justice, liberation, or the acknowledgment of harm? The promised peace of Oslo failed precisely because the justice sought by the Palestinians never materialized. As Said alluded to above, peace without justice remains little more than surrender. Meanwhile, the pursuit of justice without mercy easily falls prey to never-ending cycles of vengeance and intractability. Are we to mourn, therefore, this failed process? Or, will such a reckoning allow the opening up of creative possibilities for the establishment of justice and peace for all diverse peoples between the river and the sea? It is our hope in resurrection that allows us to cling less tightly to things as they have been and get creative with regard to their transformation.

In the end, I wish to be abundantly clear that FOSNA does not support one particular solution over against another. We are neither for or against a “one-state solution,” a “two-state solution,” a “bi-national confederation,” or any other proposed “solution” for that matter. What we are, however, is pro-justice, pro-dignity, pro-truth, pro-mercy, and pro-peace. This is the criteria by which we judge and support any process.

“Mercy and truth are met together; justice and peace have kissed” (Ps 85:10).

News & Announcements

FOSNA invites you to join us in the upcoming events, about which we are very excited:

  • Wednesday, January 12 - Labels and Laws: Silencing the Voices of Justice, featuring Sahar Francis of Addameer, Brad Parker with Defense of Children Palestine, and FOSNA’s Jonathan Kuttab, co-founder of al-Haq (hosted by United Methodist Kairos Response & Methodist Federation for Social Action)

  • Thursday, January 13 - The Two-State Solution is Dead - Now What? featuring Noura Erekat, author of Justice for Some: Law and the Question of Palestine, Jeff Halper, author of Decolonizing Israel, Liberating Palestine: Zionism, Settler Colonialism, and the Case for One Democratic State, and Jonathan Kuttab, author of Beyond the Two-State Solution (hosted by Nonviolence International)

  • Tuesday, January 18 - A Declaration Regarding Respect for the Bodies of the Deceased, petition to be presented in person to the Israeli embassy in Washington D.C. by Jonathan Kuttab and faith leaders representing Jewish, Muslim, and Christian traditions, alongside Michael Beer and Mubarak Awad of Nonviolence International, and our friends at Code Pink. If you are a religious leader or scholar based in the Washington D.C. area and are interested in joining us, please contact friends@fosna.org.

Friends of Sabeel
Previous

Antisemitism Is Sin. Period.
Next

Victory for Abu Hawash: One Small Step