Dr. Umar Khan
Dr. Khan belongs to a Lahore based Think Tank.
28-1-26
The
Gaza Bloodbath and the Board of Peace
“I cease
not to advocate peace; even though unjust, it is better than the most just
war.”
— Marcus Tullius Cicero
At
the World Economic Forum in Davos, U.S. President Donald Trump has been
pursuing his Middle East “peace” plan. Central to this proposal is the creation
of a Board of Peace composed of multiple countries—an entity whose
objectives may rival, if not directly challenge, the United Nations.
The
limitations of the 80-year-old UN have indeed been exposed for various reasons.
To address these, the proposed body envisions a streamlined decision-making
process and a powerful enforcement mechanism. An International Stabilization
Force (ISF)—comprising armed forces from different countries under a single
command—would be tasked with implementation.
This
heavily armed and well-supported Board of Peace, however, appears designed to
pursue nearly all of Israel’s objectives while offering Palestinians little
more than a possible reduction in the violence they are currently enduring. In
effect, Palestinians are expected to absolutely capitulate before a militarily
dominant Israel, while also wishing extremist settlers a “safe and pleasant”
occupation.
It
is difficult to imagine a more one-sided arrangement.
The
land of Palestine, inhabited by its local population for millennia, was
occupied through force, coercion, and financial inducements by Jewish settlers
from around the world, with the active assistance of colonial European powers.
The establishment of the state of Israel marked the beginning of an unending
conflict—one that has periodically intensified and subsided but never ceased.
Euphemisms
were invented to normalize/trivialize violence. The routine killing of
Palestinians was chillingly likened to “mowing the grass,” as if mass death
were a grim joke.
Over
the decades, nearly all neighboring states that resisted Israel were
neutralized—through force or political pressure—such as Egypt and Jordan. Those
that refused to submit were devastated: Syria, Iraq, and Libya stand as
examples.
Peace
requires parity, or at least the semblance of it. What exists instead is a
profound mismatch. On one side stands Israel, arguably among the world’s most
powerful states, wielding immense influence globally—especially over the United
States, a country feared by most others. On the other side are Palestinians,
armed with little beyond their lives, resilience, and hope for unseen help in
securing their basic rights.
Peace
between adversaries depends on balance. Absolute dominance by one side results
only in subjugation—or outright annihilation of the weak, as repeatedly
threatened by Netanyahu. The promised quid pro quo of peace negotiations remains
a mirage, much like peace itself.
The
predictable outcome has been the repeated slaughter of helpless Palestinians
under one pretext or another, while the world grows increasingly numb to
Palestinian bloodshed. The conflict is framed as a “war” between Israel and
demonized Palestinian groups such as the PLO or Hamas—convenient labels that
obscure the reality of occupation and asymmetrical violence.
This
delegitimization of Palestinians and normalization of violence serve Israeli
warmongers and corrupt politicians, sustaining their popularity and grip on
power. Ironically, resistance to occupation strengthens extremist and bigoted
Israeli leaders, while embarrassing decent Israelis and even U.S.
presidents—who appear helpless in dealing with Netanyahu. Trump’s arrogance
toward Zelensky and his deference toward Netanyahu explain much.
Recently,
over 70,000—likely many more— innocent and unarmed Palestinian men, women, and
innocent children have been killed by Israel under the banner of “war.” This
has laid bare the near-total impunity Israel enjoys and the helplessness or
indifference of the international community. Voices of protest—such as the UN
Secretary-General or Francesca Albanese—are swiftly criticized, discredited,
and neutralized.
These
repeated atrocities desensitize a world that once aspired to a rules-based
international order. Such normalization of mass violence risks destabilizing
the global system, with potentially catastrophic consequences. This conflict,
like other seemingly endless and senseless wars, must be resolved.
History
offers painful lessons. Wars are chaotic. We may start them, but we cannot
control their course or their endings.
The
two World Wars were effectively a single conflict separated by a 20-year pause
for rearmament. Britain, then the world’s strongest power, expected the First
World War to end within weeks—by Christmas 1914 at the latest. Instead, it
dragged on for years, killing tens of millions and inflicting unimaginable
suffering.
Only
fools fight battles they cannot win. No rational observer would give
Palestinians any chance of military victory under present circumstances or
through their current methods of resistance. The human slaughter of occupied
Palestinians appears destined to continue, with little hope of meaningful
intervention.
Committed
and courageous people are a nation’s greatest asset. Such irreplaceable human
capital must never be squandered in unwinnable confrontations or exposed to
certain annihilation without preparation as is being done in Gaza.
Resistance
does not exist solely in the form of armed struggle. Economic strength, public
relations, technology, and diplomacy often play a greater role in determining
outcomes than guns and bombs.
A
ceasefire and an immediate end to violence may be necessary to stop the
bloodshed, while systematically documenting and exposing the perpetrators.
China
offers a powerful example. Once humiliated, looted, and crippled by forced drug
addiction, it regrouped over a century, rebuilt itself, and returned to the
world stage with dignity and strength. Hong Kong—ceded after the humiliating
Opium Wars—was reclaimed without violence, proving that the greatest victories
are those achieved without fighting.
This
human massacre must end. The weak must choose the timing and nature of their
struggle—and this moment is not it. Peace, even at great cost, may be worth
considering if it saves lives of the young and preserves a future. This struggle
might be postponed till parity is achieved and time and venue is decided by the
oppressed and not the oppressors.
“An
uneasy peace is better than no peace at all.”
— James Maxwell
“There
never was a good war or a bad peace.”
— Benjamin Franklin
No comments:
Post a Comment