Biggest Threat to Mid-east Stability: The So-Called Peace Process by YJ Draiman

Biggest Threat to Mid-east Stability: The So-Called Peace Process

The most obvious and dangerous cause of conflict and instability in the Middle East is the so-called peace process. I know this is an unusual point of view.

Let me advance an interesting opinion: The most dangerous cause of instability in the Middle East is the so-called peace process itself. I know this is an unusual point of view. Give me a chance to explain my theory.

By my count, there have been at least 25 major outbursts of violence between Jews and Arab-Palestinians in the Middle East since 1920. Every one of these conflicts ended in a similar way. Either outside powers imposed a ceasefire or Israel halted military operations before the campaign was accomplished and just before a ceasefire could be imposed.

Every one of these conflicts began in a similar way: with a renewed attack by the Arab side or (as in 1956 or 1967) by Arab violations of the terms of the previous armistice or ceasefire and a blockade of the Suez Canal.

Think for a minute how unusual this is. Wars usually end when one side or the other decides it cannot continue fighting. The losing side accepts terms it had formerly deemed unacceptable because the alternative — continued fighting — seems even worse. When have you ever heard the vanquished dictating the terms?

I doubt many Hungarians were delighted to have lost more than half their territory to neighbors in Romania and the former Yugoslavia. The Bolivians still remember the loss of their Pacific coast to Chile in 1884. Some in Indonesia continue to regard East Timor as rightfully theirs. Yet for the most part, these nations have reconciled themselves to these unwelcome outcomes.

Exactly the opposite has occurred in the Arab-Israeli dispute.  Egypt lost the Sinai Peninsula in 1956 but got it back by pressuring Israel. Egypt re-lost the Sinai in 1967 and again recovered it (although this time the right way, after signing a formal peace treaty). I might mention that when Egypt gained its independence, it did not include the Sinai.

Syria lost the Golan in 1967, it attacked Israel in 1973, lost again — and still demands the return of the territory.

Arab-Palestinians rejected the 1947 partition, resorted to war, lost, and to this day demand compensation for their losses.

It is like a game of roulette where the management stops the game whenever you begin losing too badly, with promises to refund your money as soon as it conveniently can. What gambler could resist returning to the tables?

I understand why Western governments acted as they do. They fear that unless they somehow smooth the situation, the world oil market will be upset and radical ideologies will spread throughout the Islamic world. Just like the Arab oil embargo of 1973. What they do not see is that their efforts to contain the problem have in fact aggravated it and accelerated the hostilities by the Arabs.

Think of this alternative history: Suppose that the Western world had not intervened in 1949. Suppose the Israeli War of Independence had been fought to the bitter end: Arab armies breaking apart and fleeing, as they have in the past, commanders laying down their arms, columns of refugees crossing the Jordan River. The 1949 war would have ended not with an armistice, but with a surrender. Arab-Palestinian refugees would have had to settle in new homes, just as the million Jews expelled from their former homes in the Arab lands resettled in Israel.

The outcome would have squelched any hope that more fighting would yield a different result — and the more decisive result might have dissuaded Arab governments from any further attempts to resort to force.

Now think of another scenario. In the 1990s, the former Yugoslavia erupted into war. New states with new borders were carved out of the old country. Hundreds of thousands of people were displaced. Horrific atrocities were committed. The conflict ended. The displaced adjusted to life in their new homes. Former enemies may still mistrust each other, but violence has faded and seems unlikely to return.

Suppose that instead the world had agreed that one of the combatant ethnic groups — the Serbs, say, but it really does not matter — retained a permanent inextinguishable right to reclaim its former homes with all the new offspring. Suppose the world agreed to pay displaced persons from that group billions in foreign aid on condition that they never permanently resettle in the territory to which the ethnic group had moved. Suppose the world tolerated Serbian terrorist attacks on Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo as understandable reactions to injustice. The conflict and violence would continue. Would there be peace in the former Yugoslavia today?

The Middle East peacemakers for the most part act with the highest of intentions and the most exquisite patience. However, instead of extinguishing the conflict, they prolong it. A peace process intended to insulate the Arab world from the pain of defeat has condemned the Arab world — and the Arab-Palestinian people above all — to an unending war, which is initiated by the Arabs.

Every war must end — and badly for at least one of the belligerents. It is time for this war to end as well.

May the victor be merciful.

YJ Draiman