Peace in the Middle East, will it ever be
Regional, Analysis, 8/12/1999

With Israel's latest attack against Lebanese villages, their electric stations and roads, Israel continues acts that are not sanctioned even in an official war, where civilians are not targeted. Israel continues to show the rest of the world the kind of country it is, a country that is born of aggression, and knows little else as means to its expansionist foreign policy that is hidden under the cloak of a so-called "need for security zones."

Israel was not threatened in any way in this past week, despite the continued losses it continues (along with the Israeli-backed SLA militia) to suffer at the hands of the Lebanese resistance for their occupation of Lebanese territories.

Rather than leave Lebanon, every time Israel suffers a defeat of its occupation forces, it sees fit to strike at Lebanese civilian targets and especially at economic targets (such as the latest attack) that aim to cause maximum pain to impoverished Lebanese citizens who have suffered for many years at the hands of Israeli aggression, in having their family members killed, uprooted, and their means of livelihood destroyed.

So Israel strikes again, blowing up electric stations and roads, and while it is at it, steals Lebanese topsoil so that Israeli farmers can meet their security requirements in terms of the need for good soil.

But that is what Israel wanted all along, the water resources of Lebanon, and the impoverishment of the region for control through creating an unstable environment that would always be subject to political manipulation. And some Lebanese political leaders that became the warlords during the civil war have been all too accustomed in their position of power and are all too happy to play their political games for short-term benefits at the cost of greater national unity. They seem to think that the definition of being Lebanese means allegiance to your tribal or religious clan, and they think that politics means how much money and power can they ensure for themselves, instead of securing Lebanon's interests through responsible dialogue within the framework of what is in the interest of Lebanon.

Some of these clans could care less what happens to Lebanon as a whole, so long as their political views dominate. There seems to be little understanding that with the additional freedoms that they have, responsibilities are attached to this freedom, so that a dialogue and a discussion can lead to consensus and the education of the public rather sloganeering and enticement of hate and threats and instability.

Lebanon has yet to heal from its civil war, and its previous warlords are yet to learn how to help heal the country by learning the true lessons of the past, and the form of transparent government needed to have justice for all based not on one's political or religious affiliation, but rather based simply on the rule of law that sees all citizens as alike.

While Lebanon, along with Syria and Palestine, undergoes an important phase regarding peace negotiation considerations with Israel, there is sometimes the feeling that any open discussion of certain issues will likely lead to weaknesses in the position of these Arab states. But talking about issues in a manner that is inclusive can only strengthen their position rather than weakening it.

Israel (and others) have always counted on these undeveloped internal consensus politics in the Arab states as a lever against these same Arab states. Instead of the Palestinians coming together collectively, we find them in disarray about a united front. The Palestinian government has failed to include its political opponents in their own governance, and the other way around, because there is no give and take for the sake of national unity, that will strengthen their just position rather then weaken it.

This is a typical example, that only tends to radicalize those who are left disenfranchised by the political process. The Palestinians, starting a new state afresh, one would assume, would be aware of the previous history of development of other countries that have developed successfully. But in this we see one indirect example that has a great bearing on internal politics and the foreign politics surrounding the peace negotiations.

Because of this, we see the Palestinians being vulnerable in their position and swaying away from principled (and practical) positions such as the latest Geneva conference that was held and was to make of Israeli officials criminals under the Geneva Convention, for their treatment of Palestinians, not to mention the Lebanese and Syrians in the Golan.

But the Palestinians caved in, missing an opportunity to shine the light on Israel and its government and its practices and its values that can be described as criminal under international law, as their past exposure is one of the reasons why Israel saw a need to rid itself of this image attached to its previous prime minister as a country that is full of aggression against its neighbors and is hostile to a just peace. Those who attribute to internal politics the victory of Barak due to the focus of his campaign on internal issues fail to appreciate the effect world opinion has had on the Israelis, where almost every single world leader blamed Israel for the status quo in the peace process.

So the Lebanese resistance, Arab internal politics and Israel's image are factors. But what these Israeli attacks against Lebanon point to is something that Israel knows supremely well, that in the long term, it is economics that matter for having true political and military power. So Israel bombs away at civilian economic targets (terrorism) to cause instability wherever they can to stunt economic growth and distract the focus of the Arab states' national governments from greatest attention to economic affairs to the whims of this so-called peace process.

Israel, a country of some 6 million, is about to reach its economic limit in terms of progress towards a high per capita income. Assuming that Israel will outdo Switzerland in per capita income, Israel would still be bound to a certain level of economic power. This realization along with the other fact of the inevitable economic progress the Arab states will have as some of them are about to achieve an inflection point in their economic development that will lead them to a healthy and consistent growth that will most certainly eclipse Israel's economy.

Coupled with great fears of the potential success of an Arab common market that would act as an economic block with no inlet for Israel into that market, Israel is well cognizant of its isolation and what it means for its future if hostilities with the Arab states are not resolved.

Lastly, the technical skills that come with such economic development are of great concern to Israel in terms of what they mean to the Arab states ability regarding advanced weaponry that Israel has had the luxury to monopolize.

These are the fundamental factors that do not favor Israel which are driving Israeli strategic thinking and are a factor in its foreign policy and its implication for the peace process.

Israel, in continuing its aggression against Lebanon and insisting that Lebanon has no right to self defense, and Israel not declaring that the Golan is Syrian land that is forcibly occupied, and Israel by yet again wanting to renegotiate already agreed upon agreements with the Palestinians is demonstrating a lack of sincerity for a final resolution to this Middle Eastern problem. Israel is an occupying and aggressive power in each of these countries, and each of these countries indicated full well that if Israel withdraws from these occupied lands, peace can prevail, and the assurances for a continued peace will be put in place. But Israel continues on a path that at this point can be described as disingenuous at best in terms of wanting a just peace.

If the standard for Israel is that "might makes right," and Israel negotiates with that as the primary principal guiding its behavior, then Israel will lose the greatest asset that it will need in the future if it wants to eliminate the friction that may arise, at which time the Arab states' citizens will remember the conditions under which peace was achieved and its principals, that "might makes right," and will act accordingly.

All people of goodwill's efforts aside, if this understanding is not reached, that will not bode well for the future. Former Israeli Prime Minister Peres has said that it is in the interest of Israel to have a Palestinian state. He understood that you don't starve and deprive and connive people that you wish to make friends, and you don't create circumstances that will ensure the economic and political failure of such a state, thus guaranteeing great instability in that state and trouble ahead, instead of prosperity.

Similarly, short-sighted thinking fails to realize that by not announcing that Israel will withdraw from the Golan and south Lebanon, Israel will carry forward problems about Israeli intent, and future problems if that is not actually implemented in a fashion that is recognized by the citizens of the Arab states as "just." In negotiations, Israel should seek its security and not the theft of others' land so that at the end of negotiations, the root cause of the problem can be uprooted and prevented from taking hold again. At the end of a negotiation, one would hope that the problem is solved, but also that the two sides will not hate each other because they feel that their rights have not been restored. History is full of such situations that come back to haunt those involved.

Israel, while claiming to want peace, has yet to show that it means it, and that it is not practicing mere public relations and a repeat of the games played that have plagued the region in the past. Palestine, Lebanon and Syria have spoken unequivocally about their willingness to achieve a solid peace. It is time for Israel to act if it serious about a just peace that can last. And ultimately, courageous individuals have to make the decisions that will set the region on a different course from that of the past.

Previous Stories:
  Arab League condemns Israeli aggression on al Aqsa mosque   (8/12/1999)
  International figures gather to plead for respect in war   (8/12/1999)
  Israeli occupation forces attack civilian assets, electricity stations   (8/11/1999)
  Barak calls on Albright to postpone visit to the region   (8/9/1999)
  Barak to start implementing Wye River agreement in three weeks   (8/7/1999)
  Egyptian Ambassador: President Assad ready to achieve comprehensive peace   (8/7/1999)
  Al-Assad informs Clinton: No negotiations before pledging to withdraw   (8/6/1999)
  Israeli minister stresses the need of withdrawal from the Golan   (8/5/1999)
  Continuing mediation among Fatah and Palestinian opposition factions   (8/4/1999)
  Hamas spokesman released   (8/4/1999)
  Erekat: Barak talks more than acts   (7/29/1999)
  Aznar calls in Gaza for implementing Wye River agreement   (7/23/1999)

Please add a link on your webiste pointing to ArabicNews.com and bookmark ArabicNews.com & subscribe to our daily email news bulletin.

Search