The Middle East is undergoing yet another paroxysm of violence. An attack from one side or the other, be it Israeli or Palestinian in origin, leads to reprisal attacks, which leads to -- well, we all understand the vortex that both sides continue to fall into.
This state of warfare has been going on for at least 60 years, since the founding of the State of Israel, and, in a sense, much much longer than that. And the situation is getting worse.
Those on the extremes in both Israel and Palestine (including those inside the governing entities on both sides) are attempting to make sure there will never be a peace settlement. And, by and large, both both sides' leaders allow that interference in the peace process to rule their responses, even though polls in both Israel and Palestine indicate most citizens would prefer a peaceful two-state solution.
The Israel/Palestine situation is so seemingly intractable in how to get to that solution that it leads to regional, indeed almost universal, despair and depression. Without much energy or hope for progress, the status quo of low-level violence persists and constantly threatens to break out into full-scale warfare.
Every so often, maybe every five or ten years, the ongoing slaughter pushes the two battle-weary sides to come close enough to inspire hope that a solution can be devised -- not a perfect solution, not one that guarantees peace, but one leading in that direction. And just as usually, those potential "solutions" tend to fall apart, usually after an act of violence from a crazed individual or an over-reacting Israeli government or from Hamas or other militant groups in Palestine.
DOES ANYBODY REALLY WANT PEACE?
One can't help but conclude that neither side really wants peace; they seem to feel more comfortable playing the victim role. Each side uses its distressing history and a belief that God is on its side. Each would feel supreme joy if the other side simply vanished. Each convinces itself that with just a little more effort -- just another major attack or two, another bit of pressure tactics -- the other side will disappear, will see that it cannot win and will capitulate to its enemy's demands.
Yes, of course, that type of thinking makes no rational sense, but the Middle East puzzle, it's clear, operates mainly out of emotion, hypernationalism, overweening ethnic and religious pride, the ongoing rituals of conflict, and thoroughgoing contempt and fear of The Other.
The two sides, given the mutual hatred and massacres and suspicions, seem incapable of creatively making a peace on their own, though on occasion temporary and informal cease-fires do manage to occur. Outside mediators, be they Arab organizations or the superpower U.S., then have a go at trying to lead the two warring sides into meaningful negotiations.
Various American presidents have put their reputations and energies on the line to try to bring about a settlement that can last (Clinton and Carter were the most successful), only to see the spiral of mistrust and suspicion and violence rise to the fore yet again. Totally ignored is the role-model of how Northern Ireland moved away from its seemingly intractable violence to a tenuous but growing peace.
MIDDLE EAST SPIN AND PHOTO-OPS
George W. Bush occasionally makes some sort of diplomatic move in the Middle East, usually right before a major domestic election. Now, just before another presidential balloting and as his eight-year tenure is coming to a close and he's thinking about his legacy, Bush initiates yet another feint. The White House P.R. machine beats the drum that the U.S. is trying hard to arrange a Mideast peace settlement, but nobody believes that anymore, since it's clear Bush doesn't believe it either. Since he's tied U.S. policy so tightly to Israeli policy -- Israel being America's only dependable ally in the region -- it's all spin and photo ops, lots of sound bites signifying nothing, really.
Indeed, it may well be that the war Bush&Co. care about is not the Israel/Palestinian one, but the ones about to come, perhaps as early as this summer: U.S./Israel against Iran and Israel vs. Hezbollah in Lebanon (as proxy for Syria).
Clearly, there will be no real chance for a movement toward peace in the Middle East until the new American regime takes over, if then. CheneyBush were happy to let the Israelis handle the Palestinian in their own fashion, including further humiliation and brutalization. Bush&Co. admired and saw their own aggressive policies mirrored by the "tough" Israelis.
All three of the major-party contenders for the presidency profess to be staunchly pro-Israeli, so it's unclear whether anything major will change if McCain or Clinton or Obama were to become the new resident in the White House. AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby in Washington, continues to cow many legislators into silence, though it does not represent the wide variety of opinion, much of it sympathetic to Palestinian cries for justice and an end to the occupation, in the American Jewish community. There are strong Jewish pro-peace movements both inside America and inside Israel.
Bernard Weiner, Ph.D. in government & international relations, has taught at universities in California and Washington, worked for two decades as a writer-editor at the San Francisco Chronicle, and currently serves as co-editor of The Crisis Papers (www.crisispapers.org).
it would put together a coalition force like it did when Iraq invaded Kuwait. This force should then be used to force the Israeli invaders back to the International boundaries originally given to it by the United Nations. If Israel then continues to violate International Laws or United National resolutions, the Palestine land which was taken to create Israel will be reclaimed by Palestine, the same as the land given to Nazi Germany was reclaimed by Czechoslovakia. In all cases the Palestine People will retain their right of return.
100% Citizen of the United States of America
by
Anton Grambihler (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 247 comments)
on Thursday, March 13, 2008 at 8:19:56 AM
I agree that a coaltion of that size would be appropriate bu
I agree that a coaltion of that size would be appropriate but is (1) it achievable and (2) absolutely necessary.
I think the fact is that if the US would back off, an occupation for ce for implementing the change should include more honest brokers--of which truly honest brokers are hard to find. I imagine if an unusual coalition of European states, Arab states, African states and Asian or Latin American states would be enough.
The USA has its hands too much on the Israeli side in recent decades. It would take 5 years of more even-handed politics by a new USA administration for the USA to be seen as a more honest broker. Perhaps, even Russia (or China), would be a better player at this junction in history. The USA with its wars Afghanistan and Iraq must likely be severely constricted or over by then
by
ALONE (113 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 246 comments)
on Thursday, March 13, 2008 at 11:42:30 AM
