Biggest Threat to Mid-east Stability: The So-Called Peace
Process
The most obvious and dangerous cause of conflict and instability in the Middle
East is the so-called peace process. I know this is an unusual
point of view.
Let me advance an interesting opinion: The most dangerous cause of instability
in the Middle East is the so-called peace process
itself. I know this is an unusual point of view. Give me a chance to explain my
theory.
By my count, there have been at least 25 major outbursts of violence between
Jews and Arab-Palestinians in the Middle East since
1920. Every one of these conflicts ended in a similar way. Either outside
powers imposed a ceasefire or Israel
halted military operations before the campaign was accomplished and just before
a ceasefire could be imposed.
Every one of these conflicts began in a similar way: with a renewed attack by
the Arab side or (as in 1956 or 1967) by Arab violations of the terms of the
previous armistice or ceasefire and a blockade of the Suez Canal.
Think for a minute how unusual this is. Wars usually end when one side or the
other decides it cannot continue fighting. The losing side accepts terms it had
formerly deemed unacceptable because the alternative — continued fighting —
seems even worse. When have you ever heard the vanquished dictating the terms?
I doubt many Hungarians were delighted to have lost more
than half their territory to neighbors in Romania
and the former Yugoslavia.
The Bolivians still remember the loss of their Pacific coast to Chile
in 1884. Some in Indonesia
continue to regard East Timor as rightfully theirs. Yet
for the most part, these nations have reconciled themselves to these unwelcome
outcomes.
Exactly the opposite has occurred in the Arab-Israeli dispute. Egypt
lost the Sinai Peninsula in 1956 but got it back by
pressuring Israel.
Egypt re-lost
the Sinai in 1967 and again recovered it (although this time the right way,
after signing a formal peace treaty). I might mention that when Egypt
gained its independence, it did not include the Sinai.
Syria lost the
Golan in 1967, it attacked Israel
in 1973, lost again — and still demands the return of the territory.
Arab-Palestinians rejected the 1947 partition, resorted to war, lost, and to
this day demand compensation for their losses.
It is like a game of roulette where the management stops the game whenever you
begin losing too badly, with promises to refund your money as soon as it
conveniently can. What gambler could resist returning to the tables?
I understand why Western governments acted as they do. They fear that unless
they somehow smooth the situation, the world oil market will be upset and
radical ideologies will spread throughout the Islamic world. Just like the Arab
oil embargo of 1973. What they do not see is that their efforts to contain the
problem have in fact aggravated it and accelerated the hostilities by the
Arabs.
Think of this alternative history: Suppose that the Western world had not
intervened in 1949. Suppose the Israeli War of Independence had been fought to
the bitter end: Arab armies breaking apart and fleeing, as they have in the
past, commanders laying down their arms, columns of refugees crossing the Jordan
River. The 1949 war would have ended not with an armistice, but
with a surrender. Arab-Palestinian refugees would have had to settle in new
homes, just as the million Jews expelled from their former homes in the Arab
lands resettled in Israel.
The outcome would have squelched any hope that more fighting would yield a
different result — and the more decisive result might have dissuaded Arab
governments from any further attempts to resort to force.
Now think of another scenario. In the 1990’s, the former Yugoslavia
erupted into war. New states with new borders were carved out of the old
country. Hundreds of thousands of people were displaced. Horrific atrocities
were committed. The conflict ended. The displaced adjusted to life in their new
homes. Former enemies may still mistrust each other, but violence has faded and
seems unlikely to return.
Suppose that instead the world had agreed that one of the combatant ethnic
groups — the Serbs, say, but it really does not matter — retained a permanent
inextinguishable right to reclaim its former homes with all the new offspring.
Suppose the world agreed to pay displaced persons from that group billions in
foreign aid on condition that they never permanently resettle in the territory
to which the ethnic group had moved. Suppose the world tolerated Serbian
terrorist attacks on Croatia,
Bosnia and
Kosovo as understandable reactions to injustice. The conflict and violence
would continue. Would there be peace in the former Yugoslavia
today?
The Middle East peacemakers for the most part act with
the highest of intentions and the most exquisite patience. However, instead of
extinguishing the conflict, they prolong it. A peace process intended to
insulate the Arab world from the pain of defeat has condemned the Arab world —
and the Arab-Palestinian people above all — to an unending war, which is
initiated by the Arabs.
Every war must end — and badly for at least one of the belligerents. It is time
for this war to end as well.
May the victor be merciful.
YJ Draiman
