Review 22.5
11 April - 24 April, 1997

Decent people everywhere breathed a sigh of relief after two attempts to murder school children in Gaza miraculously failed last week. It is in the interests of Israel and the Palestinians that all attempts to return the Middle East to a region of despair rather than hope are also not permitted to succeed.

The forces arrayed against peace in the Middle East that guarantees even a modicum of security for Israel include totalitarianism cloaked in the garb of "Islamism", the dated, corrupt nationalism that bolsters dictatorships in Libya, Iraq and Syria, and the geo-political agendas of rival states and movements in the Arab world. These forces benefit from global game-playing by powerful competing political interests and by every sign that the partners in the peace process are faltering.

The totalitarian ideologies grouped together under the somewhat misleading title of "Islamic fundamentalism", are common enemies of Israel, modernising Arab states and the Palestinian leadership. Their ability to inflict pain and suffering is perhaps greater than their actual influence on the Middle East, but Iran and its clients will seek to exploit their destructive capacity at every turn. Each time the PLO, the OIC or the Arab League invokes extremist rhetoric, the murderers of Hamas and Islamic Jihad perceive opportunities to assert themselves through violence.

The non-Islamist dictatorships of Iraq and Libya, together with those sectors of the elites in other Arab countries upset at Arab/Israeli relations of the past five or so years, have been encouraged by the internationalisation of the issue through forums such as the United Nations, the Arab League and the OIC.

Against these forces is the preference of ordinary Israelis and ordinary Palestinians for peace and personal security over tension, conflict and suffering. The momentum for peace is driven by the recognition that maximalist aims produce lose:lose equations while compromise can deliver win:win outcomes. It depends on recognition that, for the future relations of the peoples of the Middle East, cool heads must overcome heartfelt emotions.

Pronouncements that the peace process has collapsed, declarations to forcibly change the Israeli/Palestinian relationship and the disengenuous rationalisations for extremism that have dominated over the past few weeks, must be evaluated against the backdrop of the real changes, both physical and psychological, which have taken place since the fall of the Soviet Union and the inauguration of the Madrid and Oslo processes. The Arab boycott, which pre-dated Israel's establishment, can not simply be resurrected, despite the pious pronouncements of the Arab League. Any "intifada" jeopardises Palestinian gains since Oslo and threatens the interests of the PNA. Yasser Arafat also has a vested interest in holding back the terrorists, both for domestic reasons and to justify his place at the negotiating table.

Israel has already ceded control of strategic assets to the PNA, and armed and financed representatives of an organisation that has still not changed a constitution preaching Israel's destruction. Israel has benefited diplomatically, particularly in its relations with Jordan and some of the less tyrannical Middle Eastern states.

Grand-standing media commentators in the media, some of whom claim the situation has returned to pre-Oslo, pre-Madrid days, largely ignore these dramatic changes to the Arab/Israeli and Israeli/Palestinian landscape.

Although it would be folly to ignore the pressures on the peace process, it is a greater mistake to underestimate the logic that drove Israel and her antagonists to Madrid and which propels the Oslo process to this day. The peace process has been rescued from crises in the past, particularly when the alternative to a compromise has been seriously considered.

The peace process remains the best hope for breaking the cycle of violence in the region. Israelis face mixed signals from the PLO, which is using the threat or reality of violence to undermine Israel's positions and is promoting each pot-hole on the road to final status as an international incident.

Israeli and Palestinian leaders who genuinely care for the future of their peoples will be addressing the question of how to overcome the obstacles to negotiations of the past few weeks and move forward to final status deliberations. Simple self-interest should assure that, despite the challenges of the past month, Israelis and Palestinians resume the difficult and testing process of negotiating the final status of issues that are steeped in emotion.

Governments outside the region that seriously want the peace process to succeed will also be doing what they can to encourage a climate of trust and goodwill rather than convey the impression that violence will be allowed to succeed as a negotiating tactic or that the security needs of Israelis are to be sacrificed for an uncertain future.

There will be other crises, blockages and tests of power before negotiations conclude. Unless one of the parties to the negotiations or the US suffers a complete failure of nerve, and of common sense, the momentum for peace will prove unstoppable.