The
Middle East Muddle:
Is Peace Still Possible?
By Bernard Weiner
15 March, 2006
Crisis
Papers
The
run-up to the impending war against Iran -- and make no mistake, the
foundations are being laid daily by the Bush Administration -- bears
a remarkable resemblance to the propaganda barrage before the U.S. attacked
Iraq: Iran is the repository of all things evil, they will destabilize
the region if they get nukes, they support terrorists, the U.N. and
international community can't wait until there are mushroom clouds in
the sky, etc. etc. All that's missing is an invented tie-in with 9/11.
Because of the thorough botch the Bush Administration
has made of the Iraq Occupation, and because there are no extra U.S.
troops to go around, it's a reasonable presumption that there will be
no ground invasion of Iran. Instead, following passage of some ambiguously-worded
U.N. Security Council resolution, there might well be a U.S.-Israeli
air-bombing/missile assault on that country's nuclear facilities. (The
experts tell us that Iran won't have nuclear-weapons capability for
anywhere from three to 10 years out -- in short, there is no imminent
threat to the U.S. or anyone else.)
The reaction by Iran and other Islamic countries
to such an air assault is likely to be intense, perhaps including retaliatory
attacks on Israel, and damaging the American and European economies
by withdrawing oil sales to the West or blocking ships from entering
the Straits of Hormuz into the Persian Gulf. And, of course, one can
anticipate that the Bush Administration -- unless the impending attack
can be stopped in its tracks by popular opposition -- will be caught
flat-footed (again!) by its usual lack of planning for the unforeseen
consequences of its wars.
But rather than focus on what is about to go down
in Iran, the chaotic disaster that the Bush Administration's attack
on and inept occupation of Iraq has led to, or even the resurgence of
the Taliban in Afghanistan, I'd like to propose an examination of the
Middle East situation since it serves as the kindling for the firestorms
that sweep the entire region.
Hamas is now on the inside of the halls of power,
Israel is about to choose its new leaders, and the situation is encouragingly
fluid, with a tenuous truce in major fighting between the two sides.
Thus, this is an especially propitious time for all parties to reflect
and meditate on how, or even whether, a just solution is still possible,
and what such a Middle East peace might mean for the entire region.
THE MEDIEVAL ISLAMISTS
A resurrected holy Muslim empire has been the dream
for many decades of a segment of the Islamic religion. Or if that dream
is unrealizable, at least their desire to be left alone, outside the
distractions and decadent temptations of the 21st century, to implement
their strict version of the Koran.
Regardless of what the U.S. does, that Islamist
resurgence is bound to occur, even, or especially, amidst a more widespread
Islam that is willing to exist side by side with Western modernity and
tolerance.
But certainly the harsh treatment for nearly 60
years of Palestinians by Israel, a nation supported by the U.S., has
been a spur to the growth of that fanatic Islamist movement in the Middle
East.
U.S. NEGLECT OF THE REGION
On the surface, American policy in the region appears
to make no sense. It seems clear that if the U.S. is after a calmer
Arab Middle East, and with it a stable flow of oil to America and Europe,
its first order of business, one would think, would be to ensure a just
peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, so as to tamp down the
fire that endangers so much in that region.
But under both Democratic and Republican presidents,
the status quo has been left to fester, partially because intervening
in this convoluted, passionate dispute rarely pays off for the U.S.
and often leads to embarrassing failures. And so Israel, America's lone
dependable ally in the region, is blindly supported by U.S. administrations,
no matter what its leaders do. The Palestinians are teased with words
about a coming Palestinian state, but nothing much really happens from
the U.S. end.
While Carter and Clinton at least tried to bring
the parties together, and actually were starting to accomplish something,
the Bush Administration promises much and delivers little, and is unwilling
to use its leverage to get its ally Israel to make the concessions it
will have to make for a lasting peace.
WHY SHOULD U.S. WORK FOR PEACE?
The well-armed Israelis feel insecure, the powerless
Palestinians feel humiliated and brutalized, thousands die, terrorism
grows in this atmosphere -- and not much changes, decade after decade.
And, from the point of view of America's political leaders, why should
it be changed? The oil keeps flowing, so why would any U.S. administration
risk touching this dangerous third-rail of international politics?
How about because it's the right thing to do? How
about because the Middle East would be stabilized? How about because
Islamist terrorism would lose one of its most potent recruiting arguments?
How about because the U.S. would regain much of the positive prestige
it has lost as a result of Bush's wars against Muslim countries?
Even supposing a just peace could be worked out
between the Israelis and Palestinians, Islamist terrorism would still
exist, would still be capable of awful acts of mayhem and murder. But
much of the passion behind today's terrorism would be diminished or,
in some areas, even disappear were the Palestinians to obtain their
own viable state. Similarly, there would be a concomitant diminution
of Israeli brutality and murder in the new arrangement.
Which brings us to how we get to that state of
peace. Even with the victory of Hamas, an organization dedicated to
the elimination of Israel from the map, polls continue to demonstrate
that most Palestinians prefer a peaceful, two-state solution. Most Israelis,
if their security can be guaranteed by treaty, likewise seem to prefer
peace with a Palestinian neighbor-state rather than decades of still
more bloodshed and insecurity.
WHAT WILL HAMAS & ISRAEL DO?
It's not going to be easy. Hamas has been dedicated
to the destruction of Israel, so asking them to recognize Israel's right
to exist now that they are in charge of the Palestinian Parliament seems
to make no sense. Likewise, Ehud Olmert, Israel's acting prime minister,
wants to carry on many of the hard-line policies of Ariel Sharon, such
as completing the Separation (Border) Wall and enlarging key existing
settlements in the Occupied West Bank, which antagonizes the Palestinians.
We don't know how the new Hamas leadership will
look at the compromises that will have to be made in the movement toward
peace. Will it, can it, evolve into a government that accepts a two-state
solution? If a geographically and economically viable Palestine state
were to be created next door to Israel, would they, could they, accept
that neighbor?
We don't know who the new leaders of Israel will
be after the upcoming election. If it's the hard-line Likudist Benjamin
Netanyahu, peace prospects are minimal. But if the new Israeli leaders
are open to the idea of an equitable two-state solution, progress can
indeed be made. (And, looking at the demographics, as Sharon did, Israel
simply has to divest itself of the Occupied Territories, lest the Jewish
nature of the State of Israel be placed in jeopardy. The probable outcome
is that the bulk of the Palestinians will be on one side of the border
in their own state, with the bulk of the Jews on the other side in a
smaller, but more religiously homogenous, Israel.
WHAT A SOLUTION MIGHT LOOK LIKE
So, everyone knows, and always has known, what
the eventual solution will be, will have to be: A secure Israel, a viable
Palestine, an internationalized Jerusalem of some sort. To get there,
Israel will have to exit from virtually all of the West Bank, abandoning
almost all of the settlements there and agreeing not to attack inside
the new Palestine's borders; the Palestinians will have to recognize
Israel's right to exist, and refrain from terrorist attacks on their
neighbor.
Those Palestinians who would prefer to return to
their ancestral homes inside Israel will, for the most part, have to
relinquish their claims and agree to accept financial compensation for
those properties, money that will help them purchase land and buildings
inside the new Palestine state. As Ernest Partridge ingeniously has
suggested, only partially tongue in cheek, Jewish settlers in the West
Bank would be allowed to remain on condition that they renounce Israeli
citizenship and accept Palestinian citizenship. One imagines that the
settlers would leave voluntarily.
Those parts of Jerusalem that are regarded as Holy
Land by three great religions will have to be administered by an international
body of some sort.
Once the peace treaties have been signed and implemented,
then the doors will be open for bilateral treaties on water, jobs, environmental
protection, etc.
WHAT'S BLOCKING MOVEMENT TOWARD PEACE
I suspect that there will be no significant U.S.
movement toward bringing peace to the Middle East while Bush/Cheney
are in power. It's simply not a priority for them; indeed, it's possible
that they are quite content with keeping the Palestine/Israel dispute
on the boil, thus ensuring their superpower hegemony in the region.
(Then, too, Bush&Co.'s fundamentalist Christian base requires that
Armageddon take place in the Holy Land prior to the Second Coming of
Christ, so peace is not what they're after.)
Keeping the parties at war reminds one of the reason
why the Reagan Administration supported Iraq's war against Iran in the
1980s, to ensure that the two regional giants would battle and decimate
each other. Because of Bush Administration screwups, if current trends
hold, Iraq will be ruled by Iran-leaning Shi'ite parties, bringing Iraq
and Iran closer together. The irony of history.
Nobody quite knows how to factor in Fatah, Arafat's
organization, into the Palestinian equation. Would the more moderate
Fatah, defeated in the recent parliamentary elections, be willing or
able to serve as a mediator between Israel and the new Palestinian rulers
(since the Israelis don't want to negotiate with Hamas)? Could Fatah,
would it, work out tentative peace proposals with the new Israeli leadership?
If so, could the Fatah negotiators sell it to Hamas?
Will Hamas, now that it is the governing body rather
than the secret militant opposition, move somewhat toward the center?
In doing so, would they be willing to deal for a geographically/economically
viable Palestine by agreeing to recognize Israel's right to exist --
and would their fanatic base permit them to do this? (Sort of like the
Catholic IRA making peace with the Protestants in Northern Ireland,
which spawned "the Real IRA," those extremists eager to continue
the violence.)
THE HOPE THE OTHER WOULD VANISH
It seems to me that no progress whatsoever toward
peace can be made without a willingness to start at a point "beyond
history," as it were. That is, both sides would acknowledge historical
grievances going back decades, or in some cases hundreds or even thousands
of years -- but, in the interest of bringing the conflict to an acceptable
close, simply stipulate that each side has its historical grievances
and move on. No more "my victimhood was worse than yours, and you
owe me for this, that and the other atrocity."
In the past, neither party has wanted to move seriously
toward peace because, in truth, each side believed that with just a
bit more pressure or violence, the other side would disappear. Yes,
I know this attitude doesn't make rational sense, but not much is rational
in this ages-old dispute.
The Palestinians believed that they could force
the Israelis to give in and grant them everything they wanted, which
would mean the effective destruction of Israel; the Israelis believed
they could force the Palestinians through the brutalities of an Occupation
to move to other lands and abandon their desire to push the Jewish state
into the sea.
Now, it's possible that both sides, after ceaseless
murders and brutalities over the decades, might come to a mutual awareness
that enough is enough, that the Other is not going to disappear, that
the Israelis can destroy Palestine if they so choose, that the Palestinians
can ensure that Israel will never live in peace. In short, a political
accommodation will have to be made, for the sake of the children and
grandchildren, and economic viability, of both countries.
Supposing that a peace treaty can be obtained,
and implemented properly with sensitivity, peace and prosperity for
both peoples may eventually be achieved.
But, as always, how to get from here to there?
Aye, there's the rub. All we can be sure of is that Middle East peace
won't be, can't be, accomplished as long as the current U.S. administration
is in power.
Copyright 2006 by Bernard Weiner
Bernard Weiner, Ph.D. in government & international
relations, has taught at various universities, worked as a writer/editor
with the San Francisco Chronicle for 19 years, and currently co-edits
The Crisis Papers (www.crisispapers.org).
For comment, write [email protected]