Is peace in the Middle East Possible?

[youngborean]

I believe the Middle East is at a unique point in its history. After 50 years of the existence of Nation States in the area, coupled with 50 years of fighting over borders there seems to be an attitude growing that peace is possible at this juncture. I will offer up pluralism as the my for peace in the middle East. So I will phrase the question like this. With the strong divide between religious and political ideals that have developed in the Middle East, is a tolerant atmosphere that promotes pluralism possible at this point? And as a side question, why does this issue raise such concern for people around the world?

[ST88]

Looking at it on a purely practical level, it's not only possible, it's on its way right now. There are now other examples of how religion/religion relationships can possibly be peaceful in the same region (Bosnia, Northern Ireland).

Pluralism has precedent in other parts of the world, most notably in the U.S. and Russia. Where it doesn't work, like 90s Yugoslavia and current Sudan, there has to be a power vacuum and a charismatic leader and/or party to spur on the violence. This is why the Palestinian elections were so important, because Arafat's death left a dangerous power vacuum. The same thing happened when Rabin was assassinated, but Israel was already an elective democracy so the transition of power was a part of the national identity.

And since Abbas has not become a Milosevic (or an Arafat, for that matter), there is hope. It is also encouraging to see that Sharon is to the Left of his party on this issue -- the Gaza pullout, for example.

The Neo-conservatives currently in power in the U.S. are virtually blind backers of Israel, so Sharon possibly feels that he has the pressure of being a U.S. ally on him that is greater than the pressure of being a representative of the Likud party.

In my opinion, for the first time in modern Israel's history, all of the ingredients are there -- all we need is for the cooks to stir and bake.

And as a side question, why does this issue raise such concern for people around the world?

I think that some major nations of the international community have a direct interest in Israeli statehood, because it is essentially a UN mandate. The UN, as an organization unto itself, has a question of legitimacy hanging over its head with Israel.

Other Muslim & other Asian nations have an interest, because Israel is seen by many as a Western country stuck in the East. It's the de facto representative of the U.S. & Britain in that part of the world. The relationship of Islam to Israel sets the tone for Muslims around the world.

[youngborean]

The UN, as an organization unto itself, has a question of legitimacy hanging over its head with Israel.

I find this interesting. Is the legitimacy becasue they first granted statehood to Israel, or because of there failure to enforce a claim against Israel to have failed resolution 242, or because they have categorically voted against Israel since 1947?

It's the de facto representative of the U.S. & Britain in that part of the world.

It is also the representative of itself in that part of the world. I think a choice had to be made to eventually accept money from the US. But what country doesn't take American money when offered.

In my opinion, for the first time in modern Israel's history, all of the ingredients are there -- all we need is for the cooks to stir and bake.

I like your optimism. I guess this statement implies that there would never be peace under Arafat. Hopefully Abbas has the political capital to do the things he claims to want.

I guess I could add a second question. Assuming that Palestinian statehood is a precursor to peace as many seem to propose, will that stop Israel and Syria/Iran from being enemies?

[Dilettante]

I admire your optimism. I hope I'm proved wrong, but I fear there are still too many fanatics (on both sides) for peace to be possible anytime soon. Will the future Palestinian state be democratic, and if so, for how long? Will some Israeli fanatic attempt to assessinate Sharon?
Too many things are up on the air...

[dangerdan]

Hmmm, it is incredibly difficult to say if peace will be sustained. We can defiantly say its looking about as positive as its been for a long time. The optimist with quickly point out the recent developments, Abbas firing three (!) of his security chiefs after the mortar attack by militants. This must have really raised some eyebrows and hopes in Israel, being that "reigning in militants" is a pretty major complaint in Israels rhetoric. Also Israel freeing 500 (of the 6000?) Palestinian prisoners must only have been seen as a positive. Pretty major stuff. And things seem to be moving very swiftly indeed. I just checked BBC then and found a new article about Israel thinking of detaining Israeli right wing radicals. Wow!

[ST88]

The UN, as an organization unto itself, has a question of legitimacy hanging over its head with Israel.

I find this interesting. Is the legitimacy becasue they first granted statehood to Israel, or because of there failure to enforce a claim against Israel to have failed resolution 242, or because they have categorically voted against Israel since 1947?

And yet none of these resolutions are seriously considered, let alone enforced. Many of them were enacted merely to placate the Islamic (oil) world. I think this is because the UN has a stake in seeing Israel continue to exist. And Israel knows it.

In my opinion, for the first time in modern Israel's history, all of the ingredients are there -- all we need is for the cooks to stir and bake.

I like your optimism. I guess this statement implies that there would never be peace under Arafat. Hopefully Abbas has the political capital to do the things he claims to want.

Arafat was given a chance for legitimate peace in the region in the waning days of the Clinton administration. It was essentially the same deal as the current one. He refused. Now he's gone. So I'm thinking that his personality was a stumbling block.

I guess I could add a second question. Assuming that Palestinian statehood is a precursor to peace as many seem to propose, will that stop Israel and Syria/Iran from being enemies?

Syria and Iran have their own problems with Israel, and Palestinian statehood was merely a convenient excuse, in my opinion. With that excuse removed, we might see that the actual, practical reasons will come out into the open. This is happening right now. Syria's occupation of Lebanon, for example, is being questioned inside Lebanon since the former president was assassinated by persons unknown (as of this writing). Iran's nuclear program has always been a problem. Rewind back to 1980/81. Remember when Israel staged a raid on Iraq's nuclear program? Who said boo? Now they are talking about raiding Iran's program. Israel claimed the Golan Heights when the world was focused on Tito's funeral and the Olympic boycott. There has been a no-man's land betwen northern Israel and southern Lebanon since (when? 1968? something like that). Hezbollah, the Iran-backed Shia quasi-terrorist, quasi-humanitarian group in Lebanon, has raided the Israeli army for years in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982. Syria's at best tacit understanding with and at worst bankrolling Islamic Jihad shows that it has been waging a guerilla war with Israel by proxy. Same thing with Hezbollah. Lebanon may be the key to the whole shmear.

[youngborean]

Palestinian statehood was merely a convenient excuse, in my opinion

I agree with this statement. The rhetoric of the dialogue gets out of hand here. The Palestinians have been used as an excuse on both sides to ignore the larger fundamental problems that have kept these wars going. When or if they get a state, I hope there is a detailed protocol of what will happen when provocations between Syria persist.

Lebanon may be the key to the whole shmear.

This is true and very insightful. I think it only makes logical sense that if there is an outcry for Israel to stop its occupation of the Westbank and Gaza, the independence of Lebanon must coincide. Otherwise Israel would strategically be compromised and we'd all be hypocrites for claiming that the instability in the region is relagated to one issue.

[dangerdan]

This is true and very insightful. I think it only makes logical sense that if there is an outcry for Israel to stop its occupation of the Westbank and Gaza, the independence of Lebanon must coincide.

True. Syria doesnt seem to have much of a (moral) leg to stand on complaining about Israels occupation. But the nature of the occupation is, to me, what is important here. From a humanitarian point of view, surely you would say that Syrians treatment of Lebanons population is vastly different to Israels treatment of the Palestinians. As important as Lebanons independence is - and Im not trying to paint a rosy picture of Syria - from a humanitarian point of view they differ greatly, wouldn't you say?

And yet none of these resolutions are seriously considered, let alone enforced. Many of them were enacted merely to placate the Islamic (oil) world. I think this is because the UN has a stake in seeing Israel continue to exist. And Israel knows it.

Hmmm, I think another reason why the resolutions criticizing Israel have failed to gain much weight is because, whist most of the world will agree with them, the US does not support them (Im obviously speaking quite generally here). I remember reading some interesting articles and statistics on the resolutions Israel and the US have stood alone on.

As an interesting side note, I remember Chomsky mentioning a key moment where he believes Israel could have accepted peace and integrated into the region but at the expense of its unparalleled support from the US. Though I forget what the moment was. Ill look it up if I remember.

[youngborean]

True. Syria doesnt seem to have much of a (moral) leg to stand on complaining about Israels occupation. But the nature of the occupation is, to me, what is important here. From a humanitarian point of view, surely you would say that Syrians treatment of Lebanons population is vastly different to Israels treatment of the Palestinians. As important as Lebanons independence is - and Im not trying to paint a rosy picture of Syria - from a humanitarian point of view they differ greatly, wouldn't you say?

This is true. The nature of these occupations from their inception was different. The difference is that Syria has no reason to be there anymore. Their occupation filled a power gap, and is now only about money. Israel's initial occupation was because of a direct conflict they were involved in (all debatable motivation aside). The fact that there is no great humanatarian crisis there now is all the more reason for Syria to leave. There was a great humanitarian crisis there when Syria first entered. Israel could (and does) argue that they are still at war, making the nature of there occupation understandably different. Syria has had peace for a while in Lebanon, they should have been gone a long time ago. Hopefully, this temporary (I am only saying this as a skeptic) cease-fire is a precursor to the end of the occupation and the unneccessary suffering of all people on both sides who never intended to directly concern themselves with the conflict.

[a.elhusseini]

hehe, ive been living in the middle east for all my life. I have seen all the problems sprout from everywhere, being an arab and a muslim i can say that they all root back to the palestinian-israeli land issue. I dont believe there will ever be peace in the middle east, not in Iraq for the coming 30 yrs, Syria which im pretty sure the U.S.A will find something against is going to engage in a war and this will negatively affect its' neighbors lebanon and jordan...Also Iran is close to gettting nucluer power, i believe by then israel/U.S.A would have had many allies in the middle east to launch another war on iran. hehe 10 yrs from now i could see more destruction going on, what the palestinians are trying to do now is give up their land to stabalize the number of casualties on both sides. still i doubt its gonna work out