Hegemonic peace

Hegemonic peace
Glen E. Robinson is author of several books on strategic issues and the assistant professor of Faculty of Graduate International Studies in Monterey of California and a member of the Research Center of Middle East Studies at the University of Berkeley in California.
In this article, he examines the concept of hegemonic peace by the United States and Israel and compared examples of this kind of peace at the global level to explain the formation of the PLO in the peace agreements and the role of it in peace treaties and role of close structure of power in the Palestinian Authority.
Robinson's look to hegemonic peace reveals some of the facts about the Palestinian crisis and explains why the colonial projects such as the "road map" do not reach a conclusion.
The obvious failure of the Camp David II (July 2000) in depicting a fair and practical image of peace and innovative act of Ariel Sharon in going to the Haram al-Sharif in Jerusalem (on 28September, 2000) and excessive use of military force by Israel in response to Palestinian anger, only led to deepening the unstable cycle and made the peace that seemed to be unstable from the beginning became be more unstable.
While understanding the reasons for dissatisfaction with the Palestinians, but this causes problems in most of the American press portrayed otherwise.
While understanding Palestinians' dissatisfaction is easy, the reasons are shown in another way in America's media. In the media, Palestinians' unrest are reflected as "war-mongering of Arafat" (Thomas Friedman's provocative words) or a war which was designed and Initialize by the Palestinians against peace seeking Israelis. In this type of look, when the time came for the fateful decision for Palestinians, which was a historic opportunity to accept Israel's generous suggestion and an end to conflict, Arafat refused to be Palestinian spokesmen, and it just was leader of a guerrilla group, and when he returned home, he started a war that kept him away from realization of peace.
This kind of analysis of events in Palestine clearly shows ignoring the history and politics of Palestine. However, the US media are not alone in ignoring the facts of dispute; The US government's peace team had received multiple warnings of predicting violent incidents, but all these warnings were ignored. For example, Azmi Bishara, a member of Israel's parliament, warned in June 2000:
"The maximum amount that Israel is ready to compromise on will never meet minimum expectations of Palestinians. I do not think that what is ahead is peace or war, but it is a confrontation."
Some American analysts had explicitly predicted the coming wave of unrest ahead of the Oslo process, and Arafat did not hope it so.
If the summit failed, Arafat could have bring reasons that instability is certainly expected, but his demands had no effect on deaf ears of American team which was quite enthusiastic about the final peace treaty to be accomplished in the last days of the Clinton administration.
Controversial personalities, false policies, unfounded assumptions, failure of political meeting in full explaining the violence and instability caused by Oslo in both Israel and the Palestine is inadequate; But unrest must be understood more deeply and by considering the structural conditions, ie by the hegemonic peace properties.
In this article, I have studied the necessity of hegemonic character of the peace process, and then I will show that how hegemonic peace goes back to the structure of the power regime in Palestine.
Hegemonic peace
Hegemonic peace is a peace between two extremely unequal powers that one party, the other party subjects giving autonomy to the other side by accept or reject the Agreement.
This peace is not peace between the two sides with relatively equal power and it is not imposed peace as well to entirely failed enemy.
In contrast to this peace, hegemonic peace will be unstable peace between the powers of the parties.
Peace process between Palestine and Israel is clearly hegemonic which reflects imbalance of power between the two sides. While the idea of "just peace" by many (in Israel), will be honored, but peace treaties will only demonstrate power rather than justice.
In negotiations of Palestinian and Israeli parties and agreements concluded since 1993 up to now, always Israel's power has overcome the Palestinian side and all key issues have been postponed for the future due to Israel's insistence. In any politic case, Israel has shown its strength about what must be done: no rubbles are allowed any return without the permission of Israel; no agreement is obsolete until Israel confirms it; No land will be returned to the Palestinians unless Israel permits.
While the Palestinians were willing to solve these issues, it was only Israel that could do them. In this way, the peace process should be considered as discussion inside Israel not as negotiations between Palestine and Israel.
Israel's major internal debates are focused on this issue that how much of 22 percent of the Palestinian territories that have been occupied in 1948, must be returned to the Palestinians. Militants in Israel wants to maintain Israel's permanent control over all Palestinian areas; While the so-called pacifists group intend to give the West Bank and Gaza Strip to the Palestinians so that they will give up their other rights.
All of these issues are while there is no pressure from the Palestinians on Israel; no Palestinian illegal settlements have been established in Israel, there is no displaced Israelis who want to return to Gaza, and no Palestinian forces have occupied Israeli areas. The only pressure on Israel from the Palestinian side was rejecting Israeli unacceptable proposals.
Hegemonic peace is more unstable than a peace based on a reasonable balance of power or a peace based on complete dominance. Peace with the balance of power will be stable and lasting peace.
Because both sides know that if the other party fails, it will be able to create damages in significant unacceptable levels.
Cold War between US and Soviet displays peace based on complete dominance and peace stability with balance of power and military occupation of Japan and parts of Germany following World War II by the US.
The hegemonic peace is unstable peace for both sides. In World War I, governments at war with Germany were strong enough to make one way revenging peace in Versailles, but they were not so powerful to re-form Germany in their own volition. The result of this peace was instability on both sides and occurrence of another war that took place later.
In 1982, after Israel's invasion of Lebanon, a formal agreement with the government was imposed but the peace was very fragile and this peace quickly led to instability and sectarian violence and aggression and eventually to the collapse of peace.
There is a compelling logic in explaining why hegemonic peace came to led to uncertainty for both sides; Instability is more clear for the weaker party: there will be inevitable massive wave of opposition to the government to sign a peace that deals people's national rights.
In this way, political opposition is strengthened at the community level, while "The surrendered government" is forced to put pressure on the opposition, and because of this action, polarization occurs, and the government will be against his own people.