In The Absence of War, Is There Peace?

One of the tactics used by the Palestinian Arabs and their supporters is the twisting of language. Disputed territory becomes occupied territory; Palestinian Arabs suddenly become the Palestinian people with the Right of Return. Now these Palestinains and those who support them will say that we are in midst of a historic opportunity for peace (assuming that Israel is willing to make all the necessary concessions).

In this context, Daniel Pipes upsets the apple cart:

As a scholar, Pipes is eminently aware of how the definition of any political situation creates tacit premises. He is exacting in his use of words. The title of his speech was the "Palestinian-Israeli War." It wasn't "The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict" – or "problem" or "issue."

"War" not only defines the "mode and intensity of the conflict," as we political scientists like to say, but for Pipes it defines his paradigm.

And this, for me at least, defines Pipes. You see, it is possible to hear dozens of speakers take numerous courses and never understand the assumptions that underline a person's positions. Oh yes, you can understand where they stand on the issue; usually you discover that in the first ten seconds. And yes, you will know their interpretation of the history of the Middle East and their view of the causes of the conflict. But there are always those troubling theoretical lacunae that are filled in with some admixture of ideological syrup and a garnish of hope – hope, that is, that one's ideology is triumphant. Even so many sophisticated people, those who were educated at a time when universities were serious places, can't retain the distinction between explanation and justification.

Pipes, in contrast, began with an intellectual paradigm – war.

I caught myself mentally nodding my head when I read that. What some refer to as a peace process that is the only hope for peace in the region, is a battle played under the cover of diplomacy to get every possible concession out of Israel piece by piece.

Which is why I was caught off-guard by the following remark by Dr. Michael Oren, historian and author:

Q: Do you believe that Israel will ever see peace?

Oren: The period of 1960-67 is considered one of the most peaceful periods in Israeli history. Do you know that per-capita more Israelis were killed every year in terrorist attacks during that period than today? We're in the Middle East, a very unstable and violent area, and, accordingly, we have to have realistic expectations of what peace means in our area. Peace for us really means the absence of active war.

I'm confident that we can go through long periods of such peace. Keep in mind that we haven't had an attack by a large conventional army in more than 30 years. The reason we haven't is because the last time they tried it, we whooped them, even though they had a surprise attack on us. So we can have long periods of quiet, but quiet is relative. [emphasis added]

Peace is more than the absence of war--years ago it was called the Cold War, not the Cold Peace.

Why should Israel have to settle just with not having a declared war on their hands? Why is Israel not entitled to have peace? Let's be realistic: Is the reason the Arab world has not launched a conventional war in more than 30 years merely that it was not successful--or is it because the "Palestinian initiative" is proving far more successful for the Arabs than anyone could have possibly imagined?

Don't look now, Dr. Oren, but Israel is the under attack right now.
And the Palestinian Arabs have found something more lethal than the element of surprise.

The element of peace.

Technorati Tags: Israel and Palestinians.