Symptoms of Unending Middle East Conflicts

June 07, 2007

Nicholas Berry

A June 5 program at Washington’s Brookings Institution illustrates why all the Middle East conflicts never end. Held on the 40th anniversary of the Six-Day War, the panel of four well-connected analysts/practitioners gave not a clue what process would bring peace in Lebanon, in Palestine between Hamas and Fatah, and between Israel and Palestine, and between Israel and Syria. And this in a program titled: “A Long, Hot Summer: What the Lebanon and Gaza Crises Mean for U.S. Policy in the Middle East”!!!

I pondered why the panelists were at such a loss, and concluded that what was missing was an analysis of why Israel and the United States – the two key players – are incapable of pursuing political settlements. I will try to explain this after briefly reporting what they said.

Bruce Riedel, a Senior Fellow at Brookings’ Saban Center for Middle East Policy, former CIA official, terrorism expert, and former NSC advisor under Clinton, spoke about the growing number of al-Qaeda wannabees in Lebanon, Gaza, and throughout the region. They want chaos and press for unremitting violence to create it. Riedel attributed the growing number of franchise al-Qaeda groups to the war in Iraq, where al-Qaeda in Iraq trains, arms, and gathers an enormous amount of cash to support its outreach.

Hisham Melhem is the Washington bureau chief for Al-Arabiya, the Dubai based satellite station, and a frequent commentator on other media. He made the case that the 1967 War is not over, with its consequences still feeding current conflicts. (David Remnick in the May 28 New Yorker makes the same case.) Focusing on Lebanon, Melhem said that the weak government there decided to fight Fatah al-Islam to gain legitimacy and power, while Syria foments discord there hoping to prevent the convening of a UN tribunal that would try suspects in the murder of former prime minister Rafit Harari. In the Q and A he did mention that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict fuels conflicts involving Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt.

Robert Malley, Middle East and North Africa program director for the International Crisis Group and former NSC staffer under Clinton, named all the flashpoints in the region, saying that it was not probable that any would erupt in [a new] war. But with so many flashpoints, he said new wars were possible. Syria is on a roll in light of U.S. defeats and the failed Israel-Palestine peace process. In Gaza, according to Malley, the fight between Hamas and Fatah is not about ideology or the non-existent peace process. It is overwhelmingly a power struggle. He did mention in a rare comment on U.S. policy that its objectives with Syria (stay out of Lebanon and Iraq) and Hamas (collapse) are not realistic and therefore bound to fail.

Martin S. Indyk is Director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings, a former lobbyist for Israel and former U.S. ambassador to Israel (who says you can’t have it both ways?), and a former NSC staffer under Clinton. Indyk bemoaned the fact that all the leaders involved in the regions conflicts are weak, including Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, and regretted that Bush neglected the region until recently. He made a plea for renewed diplomacy, praising Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s new push.

What was missing?

Riedel failed to deal with how the United States could take down al-Qaeda in Iraq and thus eliminate the recruiting, the training ground, and the bank for the proliferating terrorist groups.

Milhem didn’t even attempt to analyze ways to end the conflicts in Lebanon or greater Israel.

Malley presented a good review of the issues and failed policies involved in all the conflicts, but gave no remedies.

Indyk was supposed to present Israel’s policies and except for noting Olmert’s weakness, largely avoided doing so.

Indyk’s reticence on Israel and the rest of the panel’s reluctance to analyze U.S. policy were the big clues as to why the panel went nowhere and why we can expect seemingly perpetual violent conflict in the Middle East.

Yes, there are failed or failing states in Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt, and a failed Palestinian Authority. Yes, there are radical Islamist groups wedded to violence. Yes, all the issues of the Golan, Palestinian refugees, Lebanese sectarian splits, terrorist cells, Syrian interventions, and Gaza and the West Bank (a Palestine state) are all extremely complex and difficult to resolve.

But.

What the central reality is this: the two big players not only cannot bring themselves to resolve the various conflicts, they really don’t want to. The costs domestically to Israel and the United States are simply too high. The panelists had neither the courage nor honesty to present this fact.

Contrary to polls that indicate a majority of Israelis would accept a peaceful Palestinian state alongside their own, Israel’s leadership continues to want and to acquire Palestinian land, continues to want to make physical and psychological privations on Palestinians so bad that they either leave or become catatonic, and continues to count on full U.S. backing regardless of Israel’s ruthless policies. The dominant political force in Israel is for territorial expansion, and it is not limited to only the growing number of colonizers on Palestinian lands. To buck that force would be political suicide. Israel wants to keep Palestinian refugees in Jordan and Lebanon, and not to return to Palestine. Israel wants to keep the Golan, not giving it up as the price to make peace with Syria. Syria would also demand that Israel accept its free hand in Lebanon as a condition for peace, which Israel would not accept.

Contrary to polls in the United States that favor peace in the Middle East, America’s political leadership of both parties, for reasons of sentiment, congressional temperament, media disposition, and voter clout must continue to give Israel any green light it wants. This connection is far more important than any tie with any Arab state, and American hostility to Arabs and Muslims backstops Washington’s blank-check to Israel.

For Israel and the United States, peace is not on the table.

Of course, neither can say so.

Peace will thus continue to get lip service and only lip service.

Nicholas Berry is Director of Foreign Policy Forum, a member of the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy, and associated with the National Security Network