From Gaza, to Baghdad, to Crawford

Comment: Compromise is an essential building block of peace
Web Posted: 08/25/2005 12:00 AM CDT

Frida Ghitis
Special to the Express-News


AMSTERDAM — The scenes played out around the world in recent days seem only vaguely related: Israeli soldiers dragging tearful Jewish settlers from their homes in Gaza; Iraqi politicians wrangling over a draft constitution; a bereaved California mother and her supporters setting up camp in front of the President's ranch in Crawford.

The events, however, have more than media coverage in common. They all show societies going through the most wrenching, dangerous and crucial moments of their political life: trying to survive disagreements.

They have something else in common: the stifling summer heat that makes conflicts even more explosive.

There is almost nothing as politically incorrect as saying that one culture is superior to another. But there is little question that societies that develop peaceful ways to disagree are more successful than the rest.

And before we get overly puffed up about America and the West's highly civilized manner of protest, let's not forget the many wars fought before disobedience, peaceful protests and the voting booth became the preferred method of expressing discontent and settling disagreements in North America, Europe and much of the rest of today's world.

In Europe, it is the fear of an emerging inability to disagree peacefully that has thrown the continent into crisis. When a Muslim extremist in Amsterdam slashed the throat of the controversial filmmaker Theo Van Gogh last November, the first reaction here was utter disbelief. Most people had long ago taken offense at some of the statements from the deliberately provocative Van Gogh. But killing someone whose ideas you opposed went against the very foundation of modern Dutch society. The terrorist attacks in London last month created just the same kind of crisis. Europeans are right to worry. Killing people because one disagrees with their views carries a cost beyond the loss of human life.

Saddam Hussein's Iraq boasted beautiful buildings and lovely parks. But challenging any aspect of the regime all but guaranteed death. The country reeked of political pathology. It was an ailing nation. If Iraq is able to find a way to establish functioning channels of constructive disagreement, it will stand a chance of building a successful society.

Societies that know how to allow their own members to settle their differences peacefully also develop ways to deal with those who refuse to play by the rules or with outsiders who threaten their existence. The right to use force is given only to one player: a legitimately chosen government.

Ariel Sharon's decision to remove settlers from their homes was met with street protests, legislative debates and, ultimately, the use of force by soldiers and police. And, before long, Sharon will also have to face the voters.

In the United States, protesters will continue to express their opposition to the war and their deep disagreements with the government. Members of Congress will ask questions and criticize the White House, even as they are critiqued and questioned. And voters will have a chance to pass judgment on their representatives' answers at the polls.

As for Iraq and Gaza, it is still too hot to know how they will turn out. Palestinian and Iraqi leaders are trying to decide what kind of nation they want to build. With both lands awash in weapons, the easy way out is to shoot your point of view across.

In Gaza, with dozens of armed militias roaming the streets, the government of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has limited authority. That means that controversial but necessary decisions simply cannot be implemented. The coming months will show if Palestinians in Gaza are capable of establishing the rule of law, to be enforced only by those elected to represent the people, not by those who have strength by virtue of owning and using weapons.

Iraq, for its part, still needs to devise a system for settling what are sure to be years of disagreements, primarily between ethnic and religious groups, over the important issues that have and will continue to arise.

In the end, the essence of successful politics is making choices and managing differences without tearing society apart. America was unable to reach that point without a devastating civil war. We may soon find out what it takes for Palestinians and Iraqis.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frida Ghitis writes about world affairs