The word is tricky because it can be wildly misleading. Hitler was for peace, so was Churchill. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his opponent Amram Mitzna, as much as Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and PFLP leader George Habash have no other objective. The empty shell of peace can be filled with whatever substance one cares to inject into it.

Peoples of the Middle East yearn sincerely for peace. They have suffered cruel hardships--directly or not--from successive wars. A global poll would very probably yield a majority vote in favor of a "fair settlement."

However, the positive response would be loaded with deep skepticism. "The Arabs, whatever they allege, want to throw us into the sea." would say many Jews. "The Israelis will ultimately expand their state, grant bantustans to the Palestinians and spread their hegemony to the whole region," would argue most Arabs. Both camps would moreover express negative stereotypes of the "enemy", enough to prevent any meaningful reconciliation. This state of affairs is not surprising: wars, as a rule, engender the poisons of mistrust and racism; fortunately they fade away as normalization progresses.

Two bright spots in this bleak picture: a majority of Israelis and Palestinians are now convinced that there is no military solution to their problem; and their respective perceptions of an acceptable settlement converge, as repeated polls indicate, and are compatible with much of the Clinton parameters. Paradoxically, Arab public opinion and the Jewish establishment in the Diaspora are often closer to the extremists than to the realists on both sides of the green line.

This is one explanation why peace movements in Arab countries are virtually non-existent. In Egypt and in Jordan, for example, peace organizations are rare and marginal while powerful "national fronts" are dedicated either to supporting the intifada or to resisting "normalization", including with Israeli peace activists. Another major reason is that Arabs have a different perspective than the Palestinians; while the latter willy-nilly cooperate closely with the United States, militant anti-Americanism is paramount in the Middle East where no distinction is made between "American imperialism" and "Israeli expansionism." The Palestinian Authority and its leader Yasir Arafat are spared, Prime Minister Abbas (Abu Mazen) is sometimes politely criticized, but the roadmap is often rejected as another "Zionist-American conspiracy."

Those who believe that there is no peace movement in the occupied territories are victims of a misperception. Several do exist and work hand in hand with their Jewish counterparts. Moreover, many mainstream politicians and intellectuals in Palestine, though not organized, can be considered as peace activists in the sense that they would support a settlement based on President Clinton's peace plan. The Palestinian Authority, in spite of its hesitations and shortcomings, is part of this vast consensus. Hence, a movement in Palestine similar to "Peace Now" in Israel would be senseless since the Abu Mazen government is not to be compared to the Likud-settlers coalition whose peace credentials are doubtful to a large section of Israeli public opinion.

International experience indicates that peace activists proliferate only within the boundaries of the dominant power. Who has ever complained that anti-war movements only existed in the United States and in France and not in occupied Vietnam and "French" Algeria? Violent resistance to occupation is considered world wide as legitimate while its repression, even in "self defense," is not. Israelis will end up admitting these realities--however unjust they may perceive them--when they cease to believe that the West Bank and Gaza are "disputed" territories. Peace negotiations could then progress even though violence may continue until a mutually acceptable settlement is reached, as Yitzhak Rabin and other Israeli doves had hoped before hawkish views prevailed in the Jewish state.

Peace movements in Israel have shrunk to marginal proportions not so much because of the failure of the Camp David summit of July 2000 and the intifada that followed, but essentially because of the distorted portrayal of both events. Israelis were told, and they believed it, that Arafat had rejected Ehud Barak's "generous" offer with no rational justification, that he planned and initiated the intifada, that Israel had no peace partner and was facing only terrorists. Israeli peace activists were naturally perceived in the Jewish state either as naive or as unpatriotic; and in the Arab world, as irrelevant (by moderates) or unreliable Zionists (by radicals). They are, however, respected and admired by the Palestinians, who benefit from their multi-fold assistance, as well as for their courageous struggle against the occupation. Their role is not to be underestimated. They are building bridges between the two peoples and are laying the foundations of a future peaceful coexistence.

Unfortunately, they will not gain credibility as long as the Israelis give precedence to security over negotiations, and as long as anti-American bellicosity prevails in the Middle East. They could break out of the ghetto in which they are locked if they adapt to the globalized world by integrating specific Arab concerns: unfettered sovereignty, closure of foreign bases, common security arrangements, denuclearization, democratic rule, human and minority rights. An Arab-Israel front based on such a platform may seem utopian today but it is worthwhile considering, if an avenue leading to a durable peace is to be opened.-Published 7/8/2003©bitterlemons-international.org



Eric Rouleau, journalist and author, was French ambassador to Turkey and Tunisia. From 1955 to 1985 he was a special correspondent and editorial writer for Le Monde.