The Palestinian Arabs are a divided nation. They are living in three regions: West Bank, Gaza and Israel. The population of Arabs in these three regions is more or less the same. The Arabs are living in peace in the two areas of West Bank and Israel. All the violence we read about in news reports is related to the region called Gaza.
Why is there this difference? The reason is that the Arabs of the West Bank and Israel have accepted practical peace, while the Arabs of Gaza are trying to establish ideal peace. History shows that practical peace is achievable at any moment, whereas ideal peace always proves the veracity of the well-known saying: the ideal cannot be achieved.
Practical peace means peace based on the status quo. In every situation there is a status quo. If you accept this status quo, you can establish peace instantly. But, if you want to establish ideal peace, then it will amount to changing the status quo, which would necessarily lead to confrontation and fighting. The result of this fighting culture is chain war. The defeated party seeks revenge, and this sets off a series of battles, leading to revenge after revenge. When a situation of this sort takes shape, there is no end to it. This is exactly what is happening in Gaza.
Acceptance of reality is the key to success.
The Arabs of the West Bank and Israel have accepted the formula of practical peace, albeit under compulsion. However, the result of this has been positive and, for a long time now, they have been living in a state of normalcy in their respective areas. In contrast to this, the Arabs of Gaza are trying to establish ideal peace. What is happening in Gaza is the price of this unrealistic policy. According to the law of nature, there are only two options available: either accept practical peace and establish normalcy, or pursue ideal peace and face constant violence as its price.
Early Islam provides a historical example of this. The Prophet of Islam started his mission in 610 AD. At that time, the Arabs followed the tribal culture, due to which there was constant conflict. Islam adopted the formula of unilateral peace, which proved effective and very soon there was peace in Arabia. When the Prophet started his mission, the Arabs turned hostile towards him. A state of war prevailed for about eighteen years between the Prophet and his opponents. After this period, the Prophet of Islam unilaterally accepted the conditions of the other party by signing the Hudaibiya Agreement.
This brought about peace between the two parties, thus throwing open the doors to all opportunities. It was by availing these opportunities that Islam easily spread throughout Arabia. This was the demonstration of practical peace.
The history of the Hudaibiya Agreement shows that unilateral peace is not a matter of losing, but rather a great gain. This is because it opens the door to opportunities, and opportunity is greater than everything else.
Accept practical peace and establish normalcy, or pursue ideal peace and face constant violence as its price.
In the present situation, there are examples of these two methods. The Arabs of the West Bank and Israel have accepted the formula of practical peace, so they are enjoying normalcy, whereas the Arabs of Gaza are trying to achieve ideal peace, and are consequently paying its price. This is in accordance with the law of nature. When it comes to the law of nature, you have no option other than to accept it.
The formula of “establishing peace on a unilateral basis” was never repeated in the later period of Muslim history. But, it was repeated under compulsion in the thirteenth century. When the Mongols destroyed the Abbasid Empire, the Muslims were so demoralized that they were not in a position to fight. So, they accepted the status quo and within less than fifty years history changed completely. About this event Philip Hitti has remarked: “The religion of Muslims conquered where their arms had failed.” Acceptance of reality is the key to success.
