On March, 23 1997, Israeli Spokesman Moshe Fogel told BBC Radio 4 lunch time news that it was the fault of Yassir Arafat and the Palestinian Authority that Hamas had been able to re-launch its terror campaign. It was a very sad case of 'qui accuse s'accuse'. His reason was that the Hamas terrorists had been released from 'Palestinian' jail. However that, logically and tragically, means that Israel is at least in part responsible: because of those it released from jail, and because there has been no extradition of murderers from the 'Palestinian' self-rule areas and no serious action taken by Israel when Arafat's PA has released held murderers in the past (after token days in custody).

The plain fact is that we are the victims of a dangerous, as well as inaccurate, use of words. Peace is the absence of violence and there cannot be a process associated with it. There can be negotiations about all sorts of elements concerning the exercise of rule and sovereignty. But there is either peace or there is not. One cannot move towards it as we are told is consistently the case as a result of concessions and 'confidence building' measures. There either is confidence or there is not. If not, only the absolute absence of violence and hostile rhetoric over a considerable period of time, and consistent (re)education, will make any difference.

We have, over the last few days, seen what many of us long foresaw, and it gives little pleasure to be proven right. There is no peace and the idea of a 'peace process' is simply a feint with the press and the USA and Europeans in the vanguard of the deception. The only process is that of surrendering control and security both gained in a Just War (literally). Every time Israel acts in a manner to which the Arabs wish to object, then there is predicted violence and the Israelis are accused of acting in a way prejudicial to the 'peace process'. Whenever the Israelis have to act firmly (as in Lebanon or to quell murderous mobs) then they are asked to show restraint and not to start [!] another cycle of violence.

That Jews living in any area near to them is so offensive to the Arabs need cause no surprise, nor that the rest of the World should regard it as provocative. But that no one should see fit to comment that it affords a wonderful opportunity to practice peace, now that peace is so thoroughly processed, but that the Arabs refuse to seize this opportunity, this is suggestive of another layer of blindness worthy of remark. Jordan, of course, still refuses to allow Jews to live in it. The so-called 'Peace Island' symbolizes supposedly the 'warmth' of the peace with Jordan. In reality the Judenrein nature of the state and the professional bodies' punishment of those fraternizing with Israelis in the commercial sphere reveal the temperature better. One may only hope that King Hussein's grotesque letter to the Israeli Prime Minister, of recent date, is not a further gauge. It is perhaps a sudden throw back to the days when realpolitik demanded a sympathy with Saddam Hussein. The tone was not really meant, any more than that piece of play-safe diplomacy was, we are supposed to believe. It is all meant to be all right because Uncle Sam does not really mind. But then it was not American girls who were gunned down 'because of Israeli intransigence' (which means any policy disliked by the Arabs which merits warnings and threats and murders according to the 'process').

So: what peace, when? What process is it? Has anyone except the Israelis truly agreed to peace? Is there any other process except an Israeli surrender one? No evidence can be found to suggest the Arabs are serious about changing their political culture of violence. Why should they be? Indeed, Hanan Ashrawi pointed out, in a phrase which unravelled the 'Oslo Idea' perfectly, that the Palestinians would not do the Israelis' security work for them. So there we have it, in a nutshell. The whole thing is a fraud upon the public.

There is no such thing as an 'Hamas' activist and a PLO activist, separated by yards of ideological and religious and political difference, and there never was. They all want the same thing in the end. So what then is the nature of the process? Low intensity conflict for political purposes, and women and children, if Jewish, are good and effective targets in the struggle. And it is time people believed it and acted on it, from the highest to the lowest in the Land. War is war no matter by what name it goes by. Bizarrely this war of words and death and maiming goes by the name of 'peace process'. Thereby it seems to disarm Israel of really effective action. No more compromising and appeasement we keep hoping. But no evil so far has had any impact on government action, Labor-Meretz or Likud.

The late Israel Eldad wrote 'Such terms as evil and wicked may not be terms in common usage in discussing political problems which are normally treated as a matter of interests, beyond good and bad. Yet there are countless contemporary examples of pure evil in the field of politics?' How much more evidence in blood and lives does there need to be before it is accepted that there is neither peace nor a process, except that of self-destruction, when dealing with evil of the kind Israel faces and has always faced. Where is the evidence that the Arabs are changing? What peace? What process? The words are a deceptive code. The time has come to face what they mean in reality.
# Click for the B'tzedek commentary index.