After a decade of
negotiations, assassinations and terrorism (i.e., life
as usual in the Middle East), this year will most likely
see the peace process wind down to its conclusion. Its
final outcome is laced with many uncertainties, but what
is certain is that when it ends, both sides will realize
that everything possible by means of peaceful
negotiation has already been achieved.
The peace process that
began in Madrid, Spain in the fall of 1991 can be
considered a partial success. It provided a decade of
no war - not peace, just the calm eye of a hurricane.
Prior to that time, Arab-Israeli wars broke out
approximately every 10 years: 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973,
and 1982.
Some things were
accomplished. Israel divested itself of major
Palestinian population centers, which had been a source
of daily Arab-Israeli violence. A peace treaty was also
signed with Jordan, stabilizing relations between Israel
and that country.
The Arabs have
received considerable returns on their demands in return
for little or no investment on their part. "The
Palestinians...now have a territory they can call their
own, with 30,000 armed policemen, in return for
renouncing some words in the PLO charter and cracking
down on political opponents they wanted to squash
anyway.
Jordan, for its part,
has completed its post-Gulf War rehabilitation with the
West at no serious cost to its inter-Arab relationships,
given the damage that had already been done to them by
the decision to side with Saddam Hussein in 1990-91."
1
But now that the eye
of the hurricane seems to be leaving, there is
speculation as to whether the storm will subside or
resume.
The
Players
The areas of play
involve southern Lebanon, the Golan Heights, the West
Bank and Jerusalem. The prime players on one team are
the Palestinians and the Syrians. Having an interest in
the betting pool are Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan.
Cheerleading are Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iraq and Iran-and
the rest of the Islamic world. The bettors and
cheerleaders could easily become players if things go
wrong. Oh yes, they're all playing against Israel.
Keep that in mind.
Israel and
Lebanon
Israeli withdrawal
from southern Lebanon is on the table. The Israel
Defense Force's "New Horizon" plan for the withdrawal of
IDF personnel from Lebanon was approved by Prime
Minister Ehud Barak right after the first of the year
and was scheduled to be put into action almost
immediately.
Under the plan, each
Israeli settlement in the affected area had a
tailor-made defense plan drawn up, consisting of
military proposals and precautionary measures to
anticipate potential threats. 2
The plan caused much
dissent. Some settlers see these measures as a
necessary evil, but others say that the protective
measures will make their lives miserable. Settlers fear
their settlements will be turned into military outposts.
However, a Hizbullah
attack from Lebanon on Israeli positions in Lebanon3
resulting in Israeli Defence Force (IDF)
casualties may delay implementation of withdrawal.
Prime Minister Barak announced he will not engage in
further talks with the Syrians until they get the
Hizbullah under control. Barak said, "The government of
Israel cannot hold peace negotiations when the Syrians
are not preventing Hizbullah from attacking the IDF in
the security zone." 4
He went on to say,
"Hizbullah acts with the help of the Iranians and with
the implicit approval of the Syrians, and there is no
doubt in our mind that the Syrians can do more [to stop
Hizbullah]."5
Indeed, both Syria and
Lebanon seem connected to Hizbullah's activities.
According to the World Tribune, "President Emile
Lahoud told the Beirut-based daily, A-Safir, that
the attack was worthy of praise and was necessary to
expel Israeli troops from southern Lebanon. Lahoud said
Hizbullah was shedding blood to ensure the liberation of
Lebanese territory."6
The same week as the
attacks, the official Syrian newspaper, Tishrin,
ran an editorial comparing Israel to the Nazis and
claiming that Zionism "created the Holocaust myth to
blackmail and terrorize the world's intellectuals and
politicians."7
The editorial said
Israel is now "acting in the style of the Holocaust in
its treatment of the Arabs to attain two aims. The first
is to receive more money from Germany and other Western
establishments on the pretext of compensation for the
Holocaust. It has already obtained tens of billions of
dollars in this way. The second aim is to hang the myth
like a sword of Damocles, accusing anyone opposed to
Zionism and its expansionist policies of anti-Semitism."
8
It should also be
recalled that, although much press is made of the
Israeli "occupation" of southern Lebanon, Syria itself
controls approximately 50% of Lebanese territory. It is
actively involved in growing poppies in Lebanon for sale
in the international drug trade. Rarely is the Syrian
occupation of Lebanon ever mentioned.
End Game
Issues
The peace process is
now reaching its most decisive and critical phase,
wherein the most contentious issues will have to be
addressed.
Any further
territorial concessions made by Israel will have serious
strategic implications.
For its part, Israel
wants to establish demilitarized zones on both sides of
the Syria/Israel border and to retain its surveillance
station situated atop Mt. Hermon, overlooking the Syrian
capital of Damascus.
It is conceivable that
Israel could concede the Golan Heights in principle, but
it will not do so in reality without a colossal package
of high-tech military aid from the U.S. to police this
area. There is also speculation that the U.S. might
maintain some kind of peacekeeping force on the Golan
between the two sides.
Earlier, when talks
between the Syrians and Israelis were proceeding in the
U.S., Syrian President Hafez Assad startled everyone by
demanding that President Clinton honor his commitments
and press for a full Israeli withdrawal from the Golan
Heights back to Israel's pre-war boundaries, which would
shrink Israeli territory to the shores of the Sea of
Galilee.
That this type of
demand was made was not unexpected, but it was a
surprise to hear it as a precondition of
negotiations; not as part of them.
Public opinion in
Israel runs high against full withdrawal from the
Golan Heights, due to the fact that the area was won
several times at a high blood cost to the Israelis.
Since the 1967 War
following attack by Syria, Jordan and Egypt, Israel has
occupied the Golan and maintained that it would be
impossible to defend itself from any resumption of
Syrian aggression if the plateau were surrendered.
History proves this claim. From these mountains,
strategic locations in northern Israel have been
repeatedly attacked in previous times.
Today the Golan is
dotted with Jewish settlements, home to nearly 20,000
Jews, all of whom would be forced to leave their homes
behind and relocate to other parts of Israel. The Golan
is also a valuable source of approximately one-third of
Israel's water supply.
Water
Rights
Water rights are a key
issue in the peace talks for all concerned. Water is
scarce with a drought in progress; it has been even
scarcer in the last few years. Water officials have
already expressed concern that the dry winter this year
may mandate water rationing.
There is fear that
losing water from the Golan Heights would cause serious
problems. The Golan watershed feeds the Sea of Galilee,
which is a major source of water for northern Israel and
the Jordan River.
The Syrians have
demanded that Israel pay $3.5 billion for the use of
Golan water over the past 30 years. Israel could not
begin to comply with these demands.
Other water concerns
involve the West Bank aquifer, making that a part of the
contention over who settles where and controls what.
Overall, water rights will remain a large part of Middle
East politics for years to come.
A Palestinian State to be
Announced (Again)
At the World Summit in
Davos, Switzerland, Palestinian Authority Chairman
Yasser Arafat announced that he intends to declare a
Palestinian state with or without Israel's cooperation
before the end of this year, probably in September.
Arafat expressed
frustration at what he termed Israeli "delaying tactics"
in peace talks with the Palestinians.9
February 13 was originally slated as a
completion date for having a final status framework in
place, but negotiations have been proceeding very
slowly.
The
Refugee Problem
The Palestinians are
also demanding repatriation of all Palestinians who left
Palestine during the 1948 and successive wars. The
status of Jewish settlements on the Golan and the West
Bank will likewise have to be decided. Along with water
rights, this is a very complicated and "sticky" issue.
There is also serious
Arab concern about Israel's nuclear capability. Egypt's
Foreign Minister, Amr Moussa, was quoted in December as
saying that there must be agreement on all key issues,
including Israel's nuclear weapons, "or there will be no
agreement at all" and there will be "a great disturbance
in the region."10
Even the Arabs recognize that this is, indeed, the end
game.
The Fate
of Jerusalem
The status of
Jerusalem as Israel's capital and/or the capital of a
Palestinian state will be the largest stumbling block
over which both sides will most likely be unable to
agree.
In the 19 years
between 1948 and 1967, Jerusalem was divided by barbed
wire, walls, and armed troops separating the population,
making it a difficult time for all living there. All of
that changed after the city was reunited in 1967. Thus,
redividing the city again is not feasible.
At Davos, Yasser
Arafat was asked whether the Palestinians would be
willing to accept certain suburbs of East
Jerusalem as their capital. Arafat said, "East
Jerusalem is in the territory that Israel occupied in
1967 and is the Palestinian capital. He said that U.N.
Resolutions 242 and 388 - involving the principle of
land for peace - apply to this territory."
11
There have been
several proposals for the fate of Jerusalem over the
years. One is to divide the city into districts,
assumably based on the majority population in a given
sector. This would unnaturally divide Jerusalem into
enclaves splattered around the city and is not a
feasible option.
A second proposal
would have Jerusalem governed by an international
authority. This proposal was given serious
consideration at one time when Arab states outside
Israel (except Jordan) thought this would most likely
put an end to Israeli control of the city. The
practical problems of "internationalization" are too
numerous to make it feasible.
Failing those options,
control by a single nation seems to be the next choice.
However, recognizing Israeli or Palestinian sovereignty
over all or part of Jerusalem, while guaranteeing open
access and the internal administration of religious
places by their adherents, exists in the realm of the
possible but not the probable.
The bottom line is
probably that both sides want a capital in
Jerusalem and neither side will be willing to accept
proposals by the other for the fate of Jerusalem. On
this one point alone the peace process could founder.
Final
Outcomes
The Palestinians claim
they are struggling for the creation of their own state,
which they virtually have already. But of all the
players in the Mideast territory end game, only one
country is actually struggling to preserve its
existence: Israel. The actual existence of Lebanon,
Syria, Jordan and Egypt is not threatened by the outcome
of this game. But for Israel, one bad move could be
fatal.
This point is
frequently overlooked in a western media favorable to
the Arab position. If Israel loses, it loses big time.
Israel will most
likely not yield to Palestinian or Arab demands for a
full return to the 1967 borders, and a withdrawal from
the Golan Heights without serious reciprocation and
guarantees from both the U.S. and Syria is unlikely.
Israel will not be
favorable to the return to Arab rule in East Jerusalem
and the Palestinians will not settle without a capital
in Jerusalem. It will not agree to an uncontrolled
flood of refugees returning.
Under no circumstances
will Israel agree to discuss its nuclear weapons
capability within the peace process, even though Egypt
is demanding it do so.
In the end, barring
unforeseen events, the most likely outcome of the peace
talks is a stalemate, at which time the peace process
would die a death of non-accomplishment.
All bets are off in
the game that would follow.
* * *
