from NY to Israel Sultan Reveals
The Stories Behind the News

What a Real Middle East Process Would Look Like

Posted: 15 Aug 2009 09:08 PM PDT

As the Obama Administration tries to drag the rotting corpse of
the peace process out from under the table and into public view,
accompanied by the expected Israel bashing and phony rhetoric about
everyone learning to get along, it might be time to revisit why the peace
process failed in the first place.

Unlike the accord with Egypt, the "Middle East Peace Process"
expected Israel to negotiate not with a country, but with the PLO
terrorist organization, as supposed representatives of the Palestinian
Arabs living in Gaza and the West Bank, who were to be given an autonomous
territory in exchange for an end to the violence. Though the violence did
not end, only escalated, the autonomous territory became a state. Now the
PLO\Fatah is fighting for its life against Hamas, and the only thing
keeping it in power is American and Israeli backing. The day America and
Israel withdraw their support, is the day that Abbas, or whoever is
running the giant fraud and terror network of the Palestinian Authority
that has siphoned off billions from the US and the EU, had better have a
fast jet waiting on a nearby airfield.

It's news to no one that the
PLO template of the peace process has failed. Arafat and his henchmen had
no ability to govern and no interest in ending the violence. By the end of
his term, even President Clinton who had built his legacy on Middle East
Peace, was forced to admit that Arafat did not want peace. The process had
failed long before that. It was kept alive and is being kept alive like a
zombie, by foreign governments and left wingers who insist on the
important of a peace process, while being completely detached from the
reality of its failure.

The Clinton, two Bush administrations and
Obama now, have expected Israel to negotiate with a bunch of terrorists,
give them a state, and assume that will solve all the region's problems.
As usual this is one of those cases where a four year would quickly
understand what most diplomats and politicians deliberately choose not to
understand, because it is in their professional interest not to understand
it.

But by way of contrast, let's take a look at what a real Middle
East Peace Process worthy of the name would look like, not from a
pro-Israel perspective, and without laying blame, but from the perspective
of practical problem solving oriented diplomacy.

The current
situation involving Israel and the Arab world is the product of two wars,
in 1948 and 1967.

Seven nations participated in the 1948 war,
Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Israel.
(Representing the Palestinian Arab side was the Jaysh al-Jihad al-Muqaddas
militia under the Mufti of Jerusalem, a former Hitler ally, but not as a
nation.)

Five nations participated in the 1967 war, Egypt, Syria,
Jordan, Iraq and Israel. (The Palestinian territories had been annexed by
Egypt and Jordan in the aftermath of the 1948 war.)

It is clear
that any serious Middle East Peace Process has to involve at least five of
these nations, preferably all seven, hammering out a resolution to any
lingering problems, and agreeing to a long term regional accord. The
problems to be discussed include mutual hostility, the regional arms race
arise from it, and the status of refugees displaced by mutual hostilities
between the parties. The resolution would involve an end to such
hostilities and the agreement of all parties to work together to resolve
regional issues and problems that arose from their former exchange of
hostilities.

Because of the prolonged history of these hostilities, no
individual problem can be put at the doorstep of only one party or one
nation. Nor can any solution involve only one party or one nation.
Solutions must be mutual and involve reciprocation. One party cannot be
expected to shoulder the burden alone, or do what the other party will
not.

Just as an end to hostilities must be mutual, all other
agreements must be mutual as well. So if the Arab states believe that a
Palestinian state is vital for peace, they must also be prepared to
contribute land to the creation of such a state. This applies most
glaringly to Jordan, which was also formed out of the territory of the
former Palestinian Mandate, and to Egypt, which had run Gaza for decades.
A Palestinian state composed of the territory of three nations and
administered by three nations, would be a far more stable and tenable
entity. It would also shift the scenario from one of aggression, to mutual
cooperation.

The mutual hostilities have in turn created a flow of
refugees out of Israel and to Israel, with Palestinian Arabs fleeing
Israel, and Jews from Arab lands fleeing to Israel. There are two
solutions to such a problem, their absorption by their new land, or their
return to the land they fled from. If the nations in the pact agree to the
latter, then they must be willing to provide territory or financial
compensation to those refugees, across the board.

If Israel must
provide land or compensation for Palestinian Arabs who fled, the Arab
nations must provide land or compensation for the Jewish refugees who fled
or were expelled from their countries. If not only the living refugees,
but all of their descendants, must likewise be accommodated, the same
solution would have to be applied across the board.

The number of
Palestinian Arab refugees and Jewish refugees from Arab lands has both
been capped at below a million at the time. Their descendants are both
estimated at being somewhere in the several million range. The problem is
roughly equivalent on both sides. The solution would have to be roughly
equivalent as well. It might take the form of Israel contributing more
land for a Palestinian Arab land, and in turn receiving land from Arab
nations for the Jewish refugees it absorbed. It might take the form of all
sides agreeing to a "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" to call an end
to past issues, and agree to absorb whatever refugees are residing in
their country at the present, with financial compensation provided by the
country of the refugee's origin, to both the refugees and their new
nation.

Such an approach might actually yield a legitimate regional
solution, one based on mutual recognition, a mutual end to hostilities and
a commitment to mutual problem solving. This is in contrast to the present
day process which is utterly incapable of solving anything, because it
enables the Arab nations' neglect of their end of the problem, while
forcing Israel to negotiate with terrorist organizations that serve as
proxies for the ongoing Arab and Iranian hostilities with
Israel.

Such a process does not address either regional problems or
regional participants, dooming it to fail, and to prolong the misery of
everyone involved by promoting terrorism, bigotry and the use of
Palestinian Arabs as pawns in a larger war between the regional powers. By
eschewing a real Middle East Peace Process, the United States and Europe
are prolonging the regional conflicts in favor of a microcosmic approach
that expects Israel to shoulder the burden alone, while expecting nothing
from the region's other powers. If they seek real peace, they must be
willing to push for a process that fosters mutual responsibility and
accountability, rather than striving to ignore it. Only such a process has
any hope of bringing peace.