Is there a chance for a peace miracle in Middle East?

January 26, 2009

Palm Beach Gardens, Florida

The Gaza crisis unfolds as America starts a creative presidency in the face of overwhelming economic challenge. Israel is about to elect hard-line leadership and Palestinians have yet to accept the need to unite through civic empowerment, rather than fight an asymmetrical war with the occupier.

The world expects two parallel miracles to take place in the foreseeable future. President Obama is assigned the miracle of reversing a crisis of confidence in the US economy; the newly appointed US envoy, George Mitchell, is assigned the miracle of reversing the crisis of confidence in Middle East peace.

The Middle East is the land of miracles, but not the political type. What would it take to achieve a peace miracle? A new peace process, accommodation from both rival sides and US firm intervention would go a long way to generate hope in a settlement.

The war in Gaza is the last nail in the coffin of what has been a worn-out, discredited and short-sighted peace process. But with a transformed US foreign policy, a fresh initiative for a lasting Arab-Israeli settlement may have a chance to emerge.

The most saddening thing about the tragedy of Gaza may not be the blood spilled, the level of destruction caused or the hatred generated, but rather the missing of yet another historic opportunity to intervene effectively in the Arab Israeli conflict. Effective intervention deals with root causes and the interrelated parts of the conflict.

President Barack Obama is deeply sensitive about the relevance of Gaza to his agenda of change. Obama knows that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can only end when the occupation is terminated and when Israel’s future is solidly secured. The new president is well aware that the conflict will only end when Palestinians accept Israelis, and Israelis, in turn, trust Palestinians. Any other Arab agreement of peace with Israel is vulnerable as long as national aspirations of Palestinians remain blocked.

The cease-fire agreement will further limit the military capacity of Hamas and ease Israeli restrictions on the people of Gaza. But Hamas will soon regenerate military muscle and cash political credit for its martyrdom. In fighting a superior military power, Palestinians see success in sacrifice, not in body count of the enemy.

The propaganda war never stops. Israelis claim the moral high ground in all their wars and accuse Palestinians of violating the rules of combat. Israelis measure the morality of fighting by the “surgical” accuracy of targeting the enemy. Palestinians measure immorality of war by the intensity of Israeli collective punishment of their civilians. Israel accuses Palestinians of terrorism; Palestinians accuse Israelis of state terror.

Both sides of the conflicts are trapped by a counterproductive political strategy. Israelis are trapped by an occupation which undermines quality of governance and respect of rule of law. Palestinians are trapped by a strategy of risk-prone resistance which slows the pace of their political liberation.

Each side is intent on “teaching” the opponent lessons of justice. Israel “disciplines” the people of Gaza with devastating air strikes. Palestinians intimidate Israelis with feeble rockets which cause damage, fear and occasional loss of life.

Each side considers itself a victim. Palestinians underestimate the existential fear of Israelis, and Israelis underestimate the suffering of Palestinians.

Each side unwittingly delays peace. Extreme Israelis prefer to preserve the status-quo to an active search for peace; a lasting settlement requires painful accommodation. Extreme Palestinians are not in a hurry to negotiate a two-state solution. Some Palestinians dream that one day Israel will have to “expire”.

The two sides have become monotonous in rhetoric, predictable in defending their case and simplistic in analysis. Each has chosen a convenient moment in time to identify who started this last conflict. Israel talks about violation of cease fire in late December and Palestinians talk about Israeli air strikes of early November. This selective perception on each side characterizes narration of subjective history, analysis of conflict, claims to land, the role of God and the expectation of who will ultimately win.

Obama and his team must be aware of the futility of the step-by-step, territory-by- territory, country-by-country, incremental approach to solving a conflict that involves several countries and several interconnected Palestinian communities. How can one separate the issue of Gaza troop evacuation from the problem of expanding Israeli settlement in the West Bank? How can the issue of withdrawal from the West Bank be negotiated separately from the issue of the occupation of the Golan Heights in Syria? How can withdrawal of forces from all Palestinian territories take place without massive international investment in a comprehensive social and economic empowerment of the Palestinian refugees?

To break this self reinforcing cycle of hostility in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the US administration must suggest the basic elements of a region-based, land-for-peace agreement. But this conflict is not only about land for peace. The solution must include Jewish recognition of responsibility for past Palestinian suffering and Arab recognition of responsibility for future Israeli security.