Analyses: Israel and Peace in the Middle-East

[Souss]

I have found it beneficial to share analyses with previous subjects. In the currently changing context in Israel, especially locally, peace seems like a possibility again, even though not in the immediate.

I invite everyone to share their analysis of Israel and the region, following the format below, so that we can all get a clearer picture of what really is happening.

Objective: Exist as a safe harbour for jewish people and survive by being a dominant player in the region on all fronts (territorial, military, economic, diplomatic)

Current situation: Israel was created by force with western support and has become a complete fait accompli since the 1967 war. It currently survives in a hostile yet extremely divided entourage, a small jewish enclave in the majoritarily Islamic arab world. It enjoys absolute military supremacy in the region, its only potential contender in that respect nowadays being Iran. It also enjoys quasi-full diplomatic support from the only superpower in the world.

Since 2000, Israel has operated 2 pull-outs from occupied land, namely south Lebanon and the Gaza strip.

Several events, including the Lahoud extension, the assassination of former PM Hariri and suspicions over Iran's nuclear ambitions have resulted in an increase of spotlight and international pressure on all of Iran, Syria and Lebanon, specifically Hezbollah.

Since 2001, increasing incidents with an islamic/islamist flavor to them have brought violence to the heart of the west, from September 11th to the recent riots in France.

Since 2003 the US invasion of Iraq has plunged it into chaos, and there is no sign of a near recovery despite an overall progress.

Strategy: The combination of overwhelming military force and diplomatic immunity gives Israel a margin of manoeuver very few other countries in the world can claim. It practically never has to do anything unless it wants to, with the notable exception of south lebanon. The major factor affecting its behaviour is not its neighbours strategies, but the US strategy, the US being the major provider of most of Israel's support. Therefore a big chunk of its energy goes into aligning US interests with its own. It has relied on being the local US soldier in the past against communism and more importantly arab nationalism (the 1967 war) and today relies on a zionist lobby inside the US to push for its agenda, as well as being connected with the influential corporate militaro-industrial complex of which it is one of the biggest clients.

Projections: Short-term, expect Israel to maintain the same attitude, as it sees others doing the job of weakening those who present the biggest threats to it, namely Hezbollah, Syria and Iran.

It seems the current context offers a unique opportunity for Israel to strike a peace deal that is truly to its advantage. This context also has the potential to change for the worst longer-term, in terms of Israel's interests.

Looking at the region on a long-term basis, many countries are at their weakest in their respective modern histories. Iraq is chaotic and divided, Syria seems to be as isolated as can be. Same goes for Hezbollah who is growing increasingly isolated locally. Iran is under international scrutiny with regard to its nuclear activities.

At the same time, and keeping the long-term basis, nothing prevents Syria from becoming once again a powerful regional player, as well as Iraq. Iran, if it acquires nuclear military technology, which seems like a possibility, would pose an immense threat to Israel.

On another note, and still long-term, if American efforts of democratization succeed, Israel could be looking at a less divided, stronger arab world, which could have a negative effect on Israel's leverage.

Expect also a possible increase of islamic/islamist violence in the west, or perhaps a "regularization" of this violence, with riots and terrorist acts becoming something that regularly happens. In an effort to deal with this at one of its major sources, expect increasing pressure from the west to end the arab-israeli conflict, as the west recognizes the situation as not sustainable.

Sharon has recognized this limited time slot, and has abruptly moved to put as much cards in his hands as possible. Israel will attempt to keep the largest chunk of arab land as part of the final peace deal. Trading the Gaza strip for a bigger piece of the West Bank falls under that.

Keeping the entirety of the Golan heights also seems like an option: once Israel assesses that Syria is at its weakest (eg when sanctions are applied, or when the Assad regime is on the verge of collapse), it will push for a final peace deal.

[Stella]

Nice analysis Souss!

Not much more can be added, however I would have some side notes.

Originally Posted by Souss

...
At the same time, and keeping the long-term basis, nothing prevents Syria from becoming once again a powerful regional player, as well as Iraq. Iran, if it acquires nuclear military technology, which seems like a possibility, would pose an immense threat to Israel...

Syria, in my view will never be able to acquire such political/economical strength to be determining force in the region. Hopefully the changes will begin in Syria as well, and from within the satet, by the free will of the Syrian people.
Iraq is very devided and yet also chaotic, and as the constitution suggests, it won't be able to create a stable democracy, at least not in the near future, regarding the different political wills of the ethnic and religious parties.
I think Iran won't be a problem in the long run, after all money matters!

On another note, and still long-term, if American efforts of democratization succeed, Israel could be looking at a less divided, stronger arab world, which could have a negative effect on Israel's leverage.

Do you think that the democratization process promoted by the US Admin. would enhance the unity between arab countries? It might have the opposite effect, and create diversity - which is more likely - what shouldn't be considered by all means as a disadvantage.

Sharon has recognized this limited time slot, and has abruptly moved to put as much cards in his hands as possible. Israel will attempt to keep the largest chunk of arab land as part of the final peace deal. Trading the Gaza strip for a bigger piece of the West Bank falls under that.

Actually Israel now has no intention to bargain the West Bank at all.

Keeping the entirety of the Golan heights also seems like an option: once Israel assesses that Syria is at its weakest (eg when sanctions are applied, or when the Assad regime is on the verge of collapse), it will push for a final peace deal.

Israel would like to keep Golan Hights by all means, as for its crucial strategic location.

What do you think from the Israeli side, only the Likud party hinders the peace process? Would it make difference if the Labour party would take over the government?

[achaaban]

Originally Posted by Souss

It seems the current context offers a unique opportunity for Israel to strike a peace deal that is truly to its advantage. This context also has the potential to change for the worst longer-term, in terms of Israel's interests.

Any peace deal will not be to the advantage of Israel, since they will lose the West Bank and the settlements in any deal.

On another note, and still long-term, if American efforts of democratization succeed, Israel could be looking at a less divided, stronger arab world, which could have a negative effect on Israel's leverage.

Why do you think so? A democratic world is the best case scenario for Israel and the Arab world, first if there is peace it deos not really matter if the Arab World is devided or not. We are states and not one world, today we function as divided states and will still function as devided democratic states, only if a coherent economic integration plan and local development of industrialization will follow the democtatization process that the Middle East will not be divided and this Middle East will include Israel as part of the Middle East. Does Israel want peace? does Israel want a democratic Middle East, where it will be one of many states? Or does Israel benefit from maintaining the conflict alive? and what is the benefit of Israel to keep this conflict alive?

Expect also a possible increase of islamic/islamist violence in the west, or perhaps a "regularization" of this violence, with riots and terrorist acts becoming something that regularly happens. In an effort to deal with this at one of its major sources, expect increasing pressure from the west to end the arab-israeli conflict, as the west recognizes the situation as not sustainable.

Here it is very confusing, why will there be more Islamists violance when a democratic process will give them what they want and that is political participation in government. Once they are in government I doubt it if violence will increase. Of course democracy without an occupation.

Keeping the entirety of the Golan heights also seems like an option: once Israel assesses that Syria is at its weakest (eg when sanctions are applied, or when the Assad regime is on the verge of collapse), it will push for a final peace deal.

Peace rotates around the application of Resolution 242, so this is not up for grabs and negotiations. For there to be peace Israel has to implement Security Council Resolution 242, which requests Israel to withdraw from territories that it Occupied in the 1967 conflict, this included The West bank, the Gaza strip, the Golan Heights and the Sinai dessert. So how are we talking peace without an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights? I do not think that peace is possible without the Golan Heights going back to Syria.

The latest thing I read after the Mehlis report was that Israel wants to see a regime change in Syria that came a week after Sharon said that Israel is not in the business of regime change in Syria. It seems that the Israelis themselves do not know what they want to see in Syria. I think that they wish to get a puppet that will keep the Golan Heights with them, but there are the Syrian people to talk about and the Syrian nationals who are the occupants of the Golan Heights, who have rejected the Israeli citizenships after Israel decided to annex the Heights back in the late 80's and the UN declared the annexation as illegal.

[Souss]

Originally Posted by Stella23

Syria, in my view will never be able to acquire such political/economical strength to be determining force in the region. Hopefully the changes will begin in Syria as well, and from within the satet, by the free will of the Syrian people.

Well Syria has in the past already established itself as a regional power under Hafez El Assad. I'm not saying Syria will become that power again, however, today Syria is at its weakest, and that is a golden opportunity for Israel to negotiate a very advantageous deal while it can.

Originally Posted by Stella23

Iraq is very devided and yet also chaotic, and as the constitution suggests, it won't be able to create a stable democracy, at least not in the near future, regarding the different political wills of the ethnic and religious parties.

I agree, that's why I was careful to mention I was looking at the situation on a longterm basis. Iraq does have immense potential to be a powerful and influential player.

Originally Posted by Stella23

I think Iran won't be a problem in the long run, after all money matters!

Although Iran's economy is not flourishing, it is far from collapse. Iran is the top world producer of natural gas and one of the top producers of oil as well. However, if Iran does acquire military nuclear technology, it would constitute a huge shift in the regional power balance. The threat of use of nuclear weapons is an extremely powerful lever. For example Iran can threaten to export that technology to Hezbollah or palestinians. Big difference in terms of Israel's ability to negotiate a good final deal, not to mention the actual threat.

Originally Posted by Stella23

Do you think that the democratization process promoted by the US Admin. would enhance the unity between arab countries? It might have the opposite effect, and create diversity - which is more likely - what shouldn't be considered by all means as a disadvantage.

Well diversity exists already, but today it is not permitted to be an advantage because it is oppressed. Arab states are completely divided today. One reason is that their leaderships, many of them promoted by the west, are ideologically stuck and far apart from each other, on top of not being accountable to their populations. Although it's hard to say the democratization process will solve all these problems, it definitely is a possibility.

The way I was looking at it, it's hard for arab states to be more divided than today, and it is reasonable to say that more democracy can "cure" some of that division. Less division means more of a united front against Israel, which is not in Israel's interests.

Originally Posted by Stella23

Actually Israel now has no intention to bargain the West Bank at all.

In my opinion it is unreasonable to think that Israel can seriously consider keeping the entirety of the West Bank as part of a final deal. The question is how much of it can and will it keep. The settlements are there to create more "faits accomplis", more irreversible land appropriations.

Originally Posted by Stella23

Israel would like to keep Golan Hights by all means, as for its crucial strategic location.

What do you think from the Israeli side, only the Likud party hinders the peace process? Would it make difference if the Labour party would take over the government?

Noam Chomsky makes a very good analysis about the difference between Likud and Labour. He basically argues the major difference is one of style, and not substance.

Here are excerpts from one of his lecture "Prospects for Peace in the Middle East" given at The University of Toledo, March 4 2001:

[...]Ben Eliezer—he’s described [...] as a “Labor hawk.” He was the housing minister under Shimon Peres, hailed as the Labor dove. In February 1996, towards the end of Peres’s term, the peak of “dovishness,” he announced an expanded settlement program in the territories[...]. This was February 1996. He said, “It is no secret that the government’s stand, which will be our ultimate demand, is that as regards the Jerusalem areas — Ma’ale Adumim, Givat Ze’ev, Beitar, and Gush Etzion — they will be an integral part of Israel’s future map. There is no doubt about this.” He also announced the building of what Israel calls Har Homa, that’s the last section around Jerusalem, mostly expropriated from Arabs. That was put on hold under the Netanyahu government because of strong international and domestic opposition. But the Peres project was picked up again by Barak, and proceeded with no protest.

[...]

Ben-Eliezer also explained in February 1996 that Labor “builds quietly,” with the full protection of the Prime Minister, not ostentatiously like the rival Likud coalition. the Prime Minister can be Rabin, Peres, Barak (who broke all records in construction) or anyone else, but “we build quietly”: that’s the crucial phrase. And that is the reason why the US always prefers Labor to Likud. Labor does it quietly. They’re the “doves.” Likud tends to be arrogant and noisy about it, and that makes it harder to pretend that we don’t know what we’re actually doing. So Labor’s always preferable.

The reason traces back to different electoral constituencies. Labor is the party of managers, professionals, intellectuals—generally the more secular and Westernized sectors who understand very well the norms of Western hypocrisy—and are therefore easier to deal with, hence more admired in the West. The policies differ somewhat; as noted, Labor has often been more aggressive in construction (and also military actions) than Likud, sometimes the reverse, but that is secondary.

An excerpt from his lecture "The Current Crises in the Middle East: What Can We Do?", Massachusetts Institute Of Technology, December 14 2000:

[In 1991] there was a confrontation between Shamir, who was then Prime Minister, and George Bush, over the style of settlement. It had nothing to do with substance. It was the style of settlement in the occupied territories. There is a Westernized section in Israel, mainly the Labor Party. The Labor Party is educated professionals, Western-oriented, secular, you know, that sort of thing. They understand how you deal with the West. They understand the norms of Western hypocrisy. There is another sector, which is poor, religious, you know, the Arab Jewish populations, Sephardic Jews, and so on, who don’t understand much about the West. Shamir and Likud generally come from them, which is why the U.S. typically prefers the Labor Party. They do about the same thing, but the style is different, and that showed at that time. Right at that moment, every time Secretary of State James Baker would show up in Israel, the settlers would pick that moment to go up to a hill somewhere and put up a sign saying “new settlement”, saying, you know, some vulgar expression about Baker, and we don’t care what you say. And the U.S. didn’t like that. That is not the way you are supposed to behave. The way you are supposed to behave is the way Shimon Peres would do it. So, you wait until a week after Baker goes home, and then you don’t go up and put up a new settlement, you thicken an old settlement, doing exactly the same thing, and you don’t offend the boss, and everybody is happy. The boss continues to pay. That is fundamentally the difference in the Labor Party and Likud.

[LebanesePride]

The sad thing is: what are the palestinians objectives? Have they set them?

What kind of state do they want? What are its borders?

Do they have one representative authority that can determin that?

[Souss]

Originally Posted by achaaban

Any peace deal will not be to the advantage of Israel, since they will lose the West Bank and the settlements in any deal.

You're looking at it today. But what if you approach it as today vs. tomorrow?

Originally Posted by achaaban

Why do you think so? A democratic world is the best case scenario for Israel and the Arab world, first if there is peace it deos not really matter if the Arab World is devided or not. We are states and not one world, today we function as divided states and will still function as devided democratic states, only if a coherent economic integration plan and local development of industrialization will follow the democtatization process that the Middle East will not be divided and this Middle East will include Israel as part of the Middle East. Does Israel want peace? does Israel want a democratic Middle East, where it will be one of many states? Or does Israel benefit from maintaining the conflict alive? and what is the benefit of Israel to keep this conflict alive?

Please look at my reply above to Stella23 concerning that subject. I would also be very interested in seeing your overall analysis of Israel and its relation to the conflict, including objectives, background, strategy and projections.

Originally Posted by achaaban

Here it is very confusing, why will there be more Islamists violance when a democratic process will give them what they want and that is political participation in government. Once they are in government I doubt it if violence will increase. Of course democracy without an occupation.

I was talking about increased or regularized violence in the western world. I think you are talking about Iraq? I'm not sure please clarify.

Originally Posted by achaaban

Peace rotates around the application of Resolution 242, so this is not up for grabs and negotiations. For there to be peace Israel has to implement Security Council Resolution 242, which requests Israel to withdraw from territories that it Occupied in the 1967 conflict, this included The West bank, the Gaza strip, the Golan Heights and the Sinai dessert. So how are we talking peace without an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights? I do not think that peace is possible without the Golan Heights going back to Syria.

The latest thing I read after the Mehlis report was that Israel wants to see a regime change in Syria that came a week after Sharon said that Israel is not in the business of regime change in Syria. It seems that the Israelis themselves do not know what they want to see in Syria. I think that they wish to get a puppet that will keep the Golan Heights with them, but there are the Syrian people to talk about and the Syrian nationals who are the occupants of the Golan Heights, who have rejected the Israeli citizenships after Israel decided to annex the Heights back in the late 80's and the UN declared the annexation as illegal.

You might not think that peace without restitution of the Golan Heights to Syria is possible, and in my opinion you would've been right a little while ago. But today, Syria is completely cornered, and nothing says Bashar won't decide to give up the Golan or part of it to save his behind.

I think it would be naive to think today that Israel intends to withdraw entirely from the West Bank. Resolution 242, or at least the english version of it, is ambiguous as it states "territories" and not "all territories", and while you or I might find this claim ridiculous, this is on what Israel and the US base their argument that not all the land should necessarily be restituted. Furthermore the palestinians' previous acceptance to negotiate on land makes it hard to take an unwavering position today rejecting any territorial compromise.

In my opinion, Israel does not want regime change in Syria. It is in its interest to have a weak neighbour, and the current situation suits it perfectly.

[Stella]

Although Iran's economy is not flourishing, it is far from collapse. Iran is the top world producer of natural gas and one of the top producers of oil as well. However, if Iran does acquire military nuclear technology, it would constitute a huge shift in the regional power balance. The threat of use of nuclear weapons is an extremely powerful lever. For example Iran can threaten to export that technology to Hezbollah or palestinians. Big difference in terms of Israel's ability to negotiate a good final deal, not to mention the actual threat.

Souss, what my hint was with the money matter, that Iran would also want to be a regional economic power /well it seems now Russia is willing to side with Iran/ so all that nuclear debate is just a circus, in the background there are more important motives.

[Souss]

Originally Posted by Stella23

Souss, what my hint was with the money matter, that Iran would also want to be a regional economic power /well it seems now Russia is willing to side with Iran/ so all that nuclear debate is just a circus, in the background there are more important motives.

It's one point of view, yes. I would really like to see your overall analysis of the regional situation, tho. Maybe we can compare then and draw useful conclusions.

[gramsci]

a peaceful and democratic middle east is a big thread for israel as an entity . cos it will be considered a pure closed jewish state surrounded by democratic arab countries ............ thats seems a bit impossible to hapen cos of arabs
the demografic factor btw israelian and palestinian is a thread .
the diversity in the israelian society itself is a big thread due to lot of factors and social differences and relgious ideologies between sefardim and eshknezim , falasha , .... so on , many event have already occured . but the war status make this differences seems nothing compared to externalthread made by arabs .
last the american factor which play big role in the isralelian politics , any change , or any change on the international level between the major forces may put israel in difficult condition .

[Stella]

Originally Posted by gramsci

... any change on the international level between the major forces may put israel in difficult condition .

Major forces on int. level? Who are they? I know just a one.