Open Letter to Camp David Partners by: Mohamed Kamel
Open Letter to Camp David Partners
Date: August 20, 2000
It is very nice to dream of
peace and it is very nice to have world peace, but what is the difference
between having and dreaming of peace.
To dream of peace: it is very
easy to start negotiating and put all the people on alert for expected announcement
every day. It is very easy to go in a political game in which we through the
ball to each party’s field. All this is good for dreams; all of this is good
for heightening the ambitions, hops and dreams of the poor people who do not
have homes in which to sleep, eat or have the simplest of dreams. All of this
is good for giving hope to those who lack, and giving dreams to those who
haven’t.
All these are not practically
effort for peace, all these are games, created to mislead those concerned, without
having real solutions at hand.
As interesting as the hope for
peace is, the political game of negotiations is very dreadful, as it can lead
to more violence upon failure. Dreaming is very good as it builds ambitions and
hops for a better future, but those who have lost their dreams have no more
ambition and more hope and thus becoming desperate, taking maters in their own
hands, violence seems like the only solution. Since it is in fact the most
effective way of getting people to listen and may be care. Care rather then
watch and blame the victims.
We are hearing over and over
about compromises. But compromise is not the real issue. It is a matter of
rights, if I take your house by force, would you sue me for the basement, the
living room or most likely the house! It is an issue of basic human rights and
principals, in 1917 the Jews were promised a land where there were people
“Palestine”, in 1947 the Jews created a stat over this land.
The UN accepted that and decided
to create two states to accommodate the Arab and the Jews, each in a state,
what a compromise! But it remains a UN decision, the UN body which is the world
countries united in a decision, in 1948 Arab and Jews went in war and the Jews
occupied most of the of the UN declared Palestinian state, and then they
started to blame the Arabs of not accepting the two states, “ So you do not
accept, if you have no power you get nothing”. And still now the dream of the
great Israel exist “from the Nile River to the Euphrates River”
Neither Arabs nor Jews were happy with the wars that took
place until 1967 in which the new Jewish state took over parts from three
neighbouring countries (Egypt, Jordan, Syria) in addition to what remained of
the UN declared Palestinian state.
Palestinians remained on the
world’s eyes as refugees who have the right to return and be compensated, and
the UN’s resolutions in 1947, 1948, and up to date stated the same: “no rights
could be build on the reality of occupation and no change to the occupied land
would constitute rights”. Those are not only UN resolutions but also
international laws principles.
So it is a matter of principal,
is the world going to stick to principals will it accept that a country have
the power to gain control over another by force. It is not a matter of
concessions to have peace; it is a matter of achieving real justice, which will
be accepted for its farness.
What you are discussing now is not the main issue: how
many refugees have the right to return? Jerusalem belongs to whom…etc? The real
issue is so simple and so clear: what have the UN resolutions called for, those
resolutions should be implemented, and that is the real only possibility of
achieving peace, if it is in fact real peace which we are looking for; other
wise it will remain some people’s game of giving hope of peace and we will
return to a no war no peace situation in which each party will try to bring
justice by his means.
Camp David Partners:
I would like to thank you in
behalf of humanity for your effort for peace, but please be honest you will be
judged not only today or tomorrow but also the 100 years to come.
Brossard, Québec, Canada
posted by Mohamed S Kamel @ 9:38 PM
0 Comments
