Middle East situation is out of the hands of political leaders

By David Parkinson

The luxury of being half a world away from the mess that is
Israel means we can suggest any resolution we like without having
to personally live with the consequences. But I would suggest that
the horror of the Middle East may no longer be in our hands.

The conflict has now moved farther from the realm of diplomats
and world leaders than most people can comfortably admit.

President Bush is finding out now that our influence in the
region is not so strong after all. Bush is in a difficult position
because it is hard for him to either condemn or condone his ally.
Sept. 11 changed how we look at human rights. Suddenly, these
rights are not so critical when our lives are at stake ““ just
think back to the Taliban when they stood between us and Osama bin
Laden.

Similarly, Israel’s latest incursion into Palestine is
about more than revenge against the Palestinian suicide attacks.
The Israeli military offensive is the government’s response
to these attacks because no government can survive which cannot, at
the very least, protect its people from harm. In America, the issue
was human rights, but for Israel it is about survival.

Israel understands the high cost of keeping the occupied
territories, and not being able to trust Arafat heightens this
cost. While there are some who still hold out for a peace process
with him, the general consensus is that if Arafat isn’t
directly behind those attacks, he certainly isn’t in control
of them, which is almost as bad.

If Israelis and Palestinians want to talk about a serious
cease-fire, then it starts with one side letting up a little, and
then the other. So why doesn’t Arafat condemn the attacks? Up
until now, the militants have been content to let Arafat speak for
them, and he still has some measure of influence. Denounce them,
and his influence vanishes along with any remaining credibility as
the Palestinian leader.

For Arafat, it’s not about representing those hundreds of
thousands of average Palestinians who wish no more than to live out
each day, expecting the next to come. It’s about representing
the small few with a different vision, who also claim to represent
the many.

But there are just enough deluded militants who will take on a
military giant, which until now, was constrained by world and
public opinion. Israeli public opinion is changing fast, much
faster than the rest of the world. Even to a liberal, the
Palestinian attacks are no longer a romantic uprising. Personally,
I think it’s a miracle Israel has been this restrained. I
suspect most Israelis want no more of the blood shed than most
Palestinians, but they feel locked into this battle ““ neither
side can afford to give up ground that will be used against
them.

Possibly the greatest sense in this whole matter came from one
Arab writer who, to eternal disgrace among his colleagues, dared
suggest that instead of the bitter hatred that would “push
Israel back into the sea,” it would be better to make peace
and then assimilate Israel economically and culturally.

In less extreme terms, we heard the recent Saudi proposition:
offer peace, offer trade. Attractive, maybe even worth the occupied
territories, but short of an offer to bring in military guarantees
against further Palestinian violence, few in Israel still believe
that giving away land will help.

“If only Israel would release the occupied
territories,” some argue. But they can’t unless they
stand assured that the territory they hand back won’t
convince Palestinian militants that they are winning. Until it is
credible that a specific, possible concession will be
“enough” it is not prudent, but instead dangerous, to
consider returning land.

Some fundamental shift has to occur in the minds of those young
idealists so willing to give their lives for the Palestinian cause.
They alone hold the peace process in their hands, for Israel will
not stop hunting them.

On the other hand, Israel, like most fairly democratic,
free-market systems, already feels the constraints from within.
Quite simply, this continued conflict is prohibitively expensive in
the form of time, energy, lives and money. Hatred doesn’t
survive long in prosperous societies, only fear. It is fear that
continually votes to fund a military budget with money that could
go toward irrigating fields or purifying water.

Unfortunately, Arafat is not Ghandi, nor are the people fighting
his battles at all convinced of the potential of nonviolent
resistance. The difference between the two leaders’
strategies for self-determination is glaringly obvious. Such a
one-sided conflict quickly made the British look horrible in the
eyes of its own people, and yet, how many fewer Indians died when
police and soldiers had little excuse to use their weapons? India
proved to the world it could be done, and done well. But the
situation is different in Israel. There are no Palestinian strikes
to call, because a terrified Israeli doesn’t dare employ a
Palestinian. Whereas the British couldn’t stand their own
public opinion, even the United States (let alone Israel) ““
confronted with Palestinian suffering ““ can’t make a
clear call anymore.