this opendemocracy.net site has some interesting articles.here is one:
http://www.opendemocracy.net
Israel and the Arabs: peace, not diktats Anatol Lieven - openDemocracy
Israel and the Arabs: peace, not diktats
Anatol Lieven
24 - 7 - 2006
An agreed, just settlement of the core conflict between Israel
and the Palestinians - not punitive Israeli expeditions-is
the only way to peace in the middle east, says Anatol Lieven.
Anatol Lieven is a senior research fellow at the New
America Foundation in Washington DC. His book Ethical
Realism: A Vision for America's Role in the World
(co-written with John Hulsman) is published by Pantheon
in September 2006
Also by Anatol Lieven in openDemocracy:
"Missionaries and marines: Bush, Blair and
democratisation" (September 2002)
"America right or wrong?" (September 2004)
"Israel and the American antithesis" (October 2004)
"Israel, the United States, and truth" (October 2004)
"Bush's choice: messianism or pragmatism?" (February
2005)
In recent months, the George W Bush administration seems to
have been quietly drifting towards a de facto acceptance of
Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert's plan for a unilateral,
Israeli-dictated "settlement" to the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict if a Palestinian authority does not accept an
agreement on Israel's terms. The events of the past four weeks
-in Gaza, Lebanon, and Israel itself -have made completely
clear that this course is disastrous. It will ensure not only
the continuation of Palestinian terrorism, but violence and
destabilisation in neighbouring states and ultimately
throughout the entire middle east.
The origins of the latest flare-up of violence in Lebanon lie
in the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.
Without the election of Hamas, Hamas's extremism, and Israel's
armed intervention to overthrow the Hamas government,
Hizbollah would not have had the excuse to launch its own new
attack on Israel. Hizbollah's backers, Iran and Syria, have
exploited the eruption in Israeli-Palestinian tension for
their own ends. They did not create that tension. For that,
Israelis and Palestinians both share considerable blame -but
the US is backing only the Israelis.
The contours of this contemplated Israeli diktat to the
Palestinians are already clear. The frontier with the West
Bank would run along Israel's existing security barrier,
almost cutting the Palestinian territory in half. Israel would
keep control of the Jordan valley, severing the Palestinian
"state" from the rest of the middle east. Israeli-controlled
roads leading to the Jordan valley would divide the
Palestinian lands still further. No compensation would be
offered to Palestinian refugees and their descendants or to
the Arab states which have hosted them for decades.
This dictated "peace", far from being the "two-state solution"
officially promoted by the US, would give the Palestinians
nothing remotely resembling viable statehood. It would be
rejected by the Palestinian people and the world community. It
would give Palestinian leaders no incentive to control
extremism among their own people.
Nonetheless, such a diktat -however unjust and harsh-would
have a certain brutal justification if it led to a real and
effective separation between Israelis and Palestinians, and an
end to major violence between the two sides. But it won't. The
unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in August 2005 was
supposed to lead to just such a separation – and all too
obviously hasn't.
Instead, only a few months later, Israeli forces are once
again deep within the Gaza strip, carrying out an operation
designed to punish the Palestinian people for terrorism and
overthrow the Palestinian government. And the original reason,
or at least pretext, for this massive operation was some
almost completely ineffective rocket attacks on Israel, and
the kidnap of just one Israeli soldier. This Israeli reprisal
in turn has led to a new conflict with Hizbollah, and the
radical destabilisation of Lebanon, which was supposed to be a
prize example of successful US efforts to democratise the
middle east.
The terms of an Israeli-dictated settlement would make further
terrorism against Israel inevitable. Israel's security fence
might limit attacks, but as the Gaza experience has shown,
could not possibly end them – especially since Israeli
security forces in the Jordan valley and elsewhere would
continue to be surrounded by Palestinians. And if Israel
continued to inflict collective punishment on the Palestinian
people as a whole, then even limited Palestinian statehood
would be revealed as a cruel fraud.
If the US acquiesces in such a diktat, then any hope of
strengthening progressive forces elsewhere in the middle east
will be lost. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict will continue,
and will continue to generate support and recruits for
al-Qaida and its allies. In his book Knights Under the
Prophet's Banner, al-Qaida's second-in-command, Ayman
al-Zawahiri, writes that his organisation should concentrate
on exploiting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, because
whereas most Muslims do not share al-Qaida's ideology, most
Muslims and almost all Arabs sympathize with the Palestinians.
The Bush legacy
As many moderate Israeli commentators have pointed out, such
an Israeli diktat would also not be in the real long-term
interests of Israel. It would wreck détente even with
pro-western Muslim states. As the Hizbollah attack and
Israel's counter-attack on Lebanon have demonstrated, it would
certainly not lead to peace between Israel and her neighbours.
It would continue to focus the hatred of Muslims all over the
world on Israel. It would make real integration into Europe
and the west impossible for Israel. From the security point of
view, it would essentially lead to Israel marking time until
the day - however long delayed- when Palestinian or Islamisist
terrorists acquire a capability to deliver a really
devastating blow.
Rather than drifting along behind this Israeli strategy, the
Bush administration should throw its weight behind a genuine
agreed solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, should
declare clearly what that solution should be, and should
demand that both sides accept it – rather than demanding that
the Palestinian side make all the key concessions in advance.
The Bush administration should do this because it is the right
thing to do, and obviously the patriotic thing to do from a
United States standpoint. And Bush should also do it for the
sake of his historical image, something which is said to
concern him very deeply. Given the mixture of unsolved and
grossly worsened problems he will leave behind, Bush stands a
good chance of being remembered as one of the worst presidents
in the entire history of the United States. But he can still
save something from the wreck. A settlement to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict would allow him to be remembered
as on balance a true servant of his country, and even a
benefactor of mankind.
http://www.opendemocracy.net
Israel and the Arabs: peace, not diktats Anatol Lieven - openDemocracy
Israel and the Arabs: peace, not diktats
Anatol Lieven
24 - 7 - 2006
An agreed, just settlement of the core conflict between Israel
and the Palestinians - not punitive Israeli expeditions-is
the only way to peace in the middle east, says Anatol Lieven.
Anatol Lieven is a senior research fellow at the New
America Foundation in Washington DC. His book Ethical
Realism: A Vision for America's Role in the World
(co-written with John Hulsman) is published by Pantheon
in September 2006
Also by Anatol Lieven in openDemocracy:
"Missionaries and marines: Bush, Blair and
democratisation" (September 2002)
"America right or wrong?" (September 2004)
"Israel and the American antithesis" (October 2004)
"Israel, the United States, and truth" (October 2004)
"Bush's choice: messianism or pragmatism?" (February
2005)
In recent months, the George W Bush administration seems to
have been quietly drifting towards a de facto acceptance of
Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert's plan for a unilateral,
Israeli-dictated "settlement" to the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict if a Palestinian authority does not accept an
agreement on Israel's terms. The events of the past four weeks
-in Gaza, Lebanon, and Israel itself -have made completely
clear that this course is disastrous. It will ensure not only
the continuation of Palestinian terrorism, but violence and
destabilisation in neighbouring states and ultimately
throughout the entire middle east.
The origins of the latest flare-up of violence in Lebanon lie
in the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.
Without the election of Hamas, Hamas's extremism, and Israel's
armed intervention to overthrow the Hamas government,
Hizbollah would not have had the excuse to launch its own new
attack on Israel. Hizbollah's backers, Iran and Syria, have
exploited the eruption in Israeli-Palestinian tension for
their own ends. They did not create that tension. For that,
Israelis and Palestinians both share considerable blame -but
the US is backing only the Israelis.
The contours of this contemplated Israeli diktat to the
Palestinians are already clear. The frontier with the West
Bank would run along Israel's existing security barrier,
almost cutting the Palestinian territory in half. Israel would
keep control of the Jordan valley, severing the Palestinian
"state" from the rest of the middle east. Israeli-controlled
roads leading to the Jordan valley would divide the
Palestinian lands still further. No compensation would be
offered to Palestinian refugees and their descendants or to
the Arab states which have hosted them for decades.
This dictated "peace", far from being the "two-state solution"
officially promoted by the US, would give the Palestinians
nothing remotely resembling viable statehood. It would be
rejected by the Palestinian people and the world community. It
would give Palestinian leaders no incentive to control
extremism among their own people.
Nonetheless, such a diktat -however unjust and harsh-would
have a certain brutal justification if it led to a real and
effective separation between Israelis and Palestinians, and an
end to major violence between the two sides. But it won't. The
unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in August 2005 was
supposed to lead to just such a separation – and all too
obviously hasn't.
Instead, only a few months later, Israeli forces are once
again deep within the Gaza strip, carrying out an operation
designed to punish the Palestinian people for terrorism and
overthrow the Palestinian government. And the original reason,
or at least pretext, for this massive operation was some
almost completely ineffective rocket attacks on Israel, and
the kidnap of just one Israeli soldier. This Israeli reprisal
in turn has led to a new conflict with Hizbollah, and the
radical destabilisation of Lebanon, which was supposed to be a
prize example of successful US efforts to democratise the
middle east.
The terms of an Israeli-dictated settlement would make further
terrorism against Israel inevitable. Israel's security fence
might limit attacks, but as the Gaza experience has shown,
could not possibly end them – especially since Israeli
security forces in the Jordan valley and elsewhere would
continue to be surrounded by Palestinians. And if Israel
continued to inflict collective punishment on the Palestinian
people as a whole, then even limited Palestinian statehood
would be revealed as a cruel fraud.
If the US acquiesces in such a diktat, then any hope of
strengthening progressive forces elsewhere in the middle east
will be lost. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict will continue,
and will continue to generate support and recruits for
al-Qaida and its allies. In his book Knights Under the
Prophet's Banner, al-Qaida's second-in-command, Ayman
al-Zawahiri, writes that his organisation should concentrate
on exploiting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, because
whereas most Muslims do not share al-Qaida's ideology, most
Muslims and almost all Arabs sympathize with the Palestinians.
The Bush legacy
As many moderate Israeli commentators have pointed out, such
an Israeli diktat would also not be in the real long-term
interests of Israel. It would wreck détente even with
pro-western Muslim states. As the Hizbollah attack and
Israel's counter-attack on Lebanon have demonstrated, it would
certainly not lead to peace between Israel and her neighbours.
It would continue to focus the hatred of Muslims all over the
world on Israel. It would make real integration into Europe
and the west impossible for Israel. From the security point of
view, it would essentially lead to Israel marking time until
the day - however long delayed- when Palestinian or Islamisist
terrorists acquire a capability to deliver a really
devastating blow.
Rather than drifting along behind this Israeli strategy, the
Bush administration should throw its weight behind a genuine
agreed solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, should
declare clearly what that solution should be, and should
demand that both sides accept it – rather than demanding that
the Palestinian side make all the key concessions in advance.
The Bush administration should do this because it is the right
thing to do, and obviously the patriotic thing to do from a
United States standpoint. And Bush should also do it for the
sake of his historical image, something which is said to
concern him very deeply. Given the mixture of unsolved and
grossly worsened problems he will leave behind, Bush stands a
good chance of being remembered as one of the worst presidents
in the entire history of the United States. But he can still
save something from the wreck. A settlement to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict would allow him to be remembered
as on balance a true servant of his country, and even a
benefactor of mankind.