|
MIDDLE EAST PEACE LIKELY TO REMAIN ELUSIVE Most Middle Eastern countries were established in the last century and came together by occupation, military adventures, and land grab. There was no Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Kuwait or Iraq, these were areas controlled by the Ottoman Empire. Following the French and British mandates, borders were drawn up and national identities were created. Jewish immigration to Palestine goes back to the late 19th century. Jewish philanthropists, such as the Rothschilds, first began to sponsor agricultural settlements for Russian Jews in Palestine in the late 1870’s. Pogroms, or anti Jewish race riots, in Europe led to what is known in Zionist history as the “first aliyah.” “Aliya” is a Hebrew word meaning “ascent,” referring to the act of spiritually ascending to the holy land. The modern state of Israel may have been established in 1948, but more importantly, the Zionist institutions in Palestine date back well over a hundred years. This long history is nearly impossible to reverse. None of the Arab Israeli wars were able to reverse Israel’s existence, nor were the countless guerilla activities, hijackings, kidnappings, suicide bombings, or moronic rocket attacks that invite a disproportionate Israeli response, resulting in the death of thousands of innocent Palestinians. Politically, there has been only one major diplomatic breakthrough—The 1979 Camp David Accords, which resulted in a peace treaty between Israel and, the most powerful Arab country, Egypt. Hence, the only American president to have success in Middle East peace-making was Jimmy Carter. Clinton gets an A for effort for Camp David II (2000) but no cigars. And now a new American administration will take its turn at addressing the conflict, an attempt that will most certainly be frustrated by the complexities of the issues and the unwillingness of the various actors to make the difficult, but necessary, compromises for lasting peace. A review of the attitudes or objectives of the various actors involved in this saga will illustrate the point. Syria— the Syrians, unlike the Iranians, are pragmatic and are willing to deal. The price, however, is too high as far as the Americans and Israelis are concerned. The Syrians want protection for the regime, the Golan Heights, billions of dollars for many years to support their economy, a free hand in Lebanon to control it, run it, and eliminate all their enemies. Iran—the Iranians want to be a nuclear power, with atomic bombs. Their position on Israel is ideological and clear-- they want to eliminate Israel altogether. They also want to influence and run Iraq, drive the United States out of the entire Persian Gulf, and have a major say, through Hezbollah, in the politics of Lebanon. Hezbollah and Hamas—they are agents of destruction in Lebanon, Israel, and Palestine. In the end they will obey their masters in Tehran and Damascus. The Palestinian Authority—led by President Mahmoud Abbas, wants Hamas to agree to a two-state solution with Israel as a pre-condition to forming a unity government, a demand rejected by the Islamist group. Even if Abbas is able to convince Hamas to join a coalition government, his goal of a Palestinian state, in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, is not likely to materialize due to the formation of a Likud-led government in Israel. Israel—the Israelis are not interested in peace, at least not under the next government, which is likely to be a right-wing government, composed of 65 out of 120 members of parliament. Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud -led coalition is likely to include Yisrael Beiteinu, or Israel is Our Home, headed by ultranationalist Avigdor Lieberman, and other right wing parties who would join Netanyahu’s government only if he promises to expand Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Expanding Jewish settlements in the West Bank is a non starter to any peace process. Finally the United States—the Americans want Israel’s security preserved, the free flow of oil to continue from the Gulf, and Iran kept in check. This last goal regarding Iran is likely to be the most challenging. The Iranians are Machiavellian and President Obama has no idea who he is dealing with or what he is up against. Opening direct talks with the Iranians is a major mistake. The gaps are so large between the U.S. and Iran that any attempt at dialogue will turn into an exercise in futility. The last time Iranian and American diplomats met was in Baghdad at a conference aimed at gathering support for the Iraqi government. The meeting degenerated into a shouting match with both sides exchanging insults. Future talks with Iran will meet the same fate. The problems with Iran are deep, long standing, and ideological and cannot be resolved through talks. Instead, the U.S. must rely on its military and naval superiority in the region to keep Iran contained. A special thanks to Kifah Taha of KBR Inc. for his contributions to this editorial.
Contact Information |
