No hope for early peace in West Asia

By Qamar Agha

IN SPITE of the Sharm el-Shaikh agreement between Israel and Palestinians to end bloodshed, violence is continuing in the occupied Arab territories in which at least 285 persons have lost their lives and more than 6,000 have been injured. The ongoing violence has created deep bitterness on both sides and a major setback to the peace process. The Palestinians are also of the opinion that the United States is now biased towards Israel and therefore unfit to broker a deal. They are demanding the inclusion of Russia, the European Union and the United Nations as mediators in the peace talks and the deployment of an international protection force - a notion Israel has rejected.

The violence was triggered more than two months ago, after the killings of several Palestinians protesting against the visit of the Likud Party leader, Mr. Ariel Sharon, to Al-Aqsa or Temple Mount in East Jerusalem. His visit was convened to reiterate Israel's claim over the ``undivided'' Jerusalem which it claims to be the ``eternal'' capital of the Jewish state. Mr. Sharon is also opposed to the ``land-for-peace'' deal with the Palestinians. The minority government of the Prime Minister, Mr. Ehud Barak, resorted to an ``iron-fist'' policy to suppress the Palestinian protesters and win the support of the right-wing Likud Party to forge a National Unity government. But he has failed to form a unity government and opted for elections to the office of Prime Minister.

In the fast moving developments, there is not much hope for early revival of the peace talks. Most of the political parties in Israel are not prepared to grant any major concession to the Palestinians, nor are they ready for withdrawal from the remaining occupied Palestinian territories including East Jerusalem which it captured in the Arab-Israeli war of 1967. There is even the suggestion of a unilateral withdrawal of the Israeli forces from the territories controlled by the Palestinian Authority as well as a move towards annexing the remaining 60 per cent territory. The Palestinian Authority, which has full or partial control of 40 per cent of the West Bank and Gaza, will have no option but to merge with the neighbouring Jordan - an old notion rejected by the PLO long ago.

Israel never thought that the Cold War would end and that one day it would be asked to part with 40 per cent part of the West Bank and Gaza territory to the PLO - ``a terrorist organisation committed to destroying the Jewish state''. This happened under pressure exerted by the Western nations and, in addition, Israel was facing difficulty in maintaining its hold over the territories in the wake of a previous intifada (uprising). Now, Israel is in a much better position and has neutralised the Western nations' pressure by carving out a new role for itself in the containment of Islamic militancy. Israel has been emphasising for quite some time that there is need to forge a grand alliance of Western nations to defeat Islamic militancy which is posing a ``serious threat'' to their interests. It is propagating that Islamic militancy has become as big a threat as was international communism led by the Soviet Union in the Cold War era.

However, anti-West sentiments have been rising in the Arab world for quite some time because of the Western countries' unwavering support to Israel and their refusal to see the Arab point of view on Palestine. It is generating a sort of unity among nationalist as well as religious outfits in the Arab world. Both are demanding tough measures such as freezing the Arab nations' ties with Israel, which is also posing problems to regimes in Egypt and Jordan which are maintaining closer ties with the Western nations. In these countries, powerful anti-West movements led by Islamic jehad also exist. As a result, Egypt has recalled its envoy from Tel Aviv and Jordan is refusing to send its new Ambassador. Qatar has already snapped its ties with the Jewish state.

Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah has criticised the U.S. for allowing the collapse of the peace talks called by its President, Mr. Bill Clinton, himself. The blunt Saudi charge against the U.S. reflects a deep frustration among the Arab leaders. Crown Prince Abdullah, heir apparent to the Saudi Kingdom, is the most pragmatic leader in the Arab world. There is a growing feeling in the Arab world that the U.S. too has a role in whatever is happening in the Palestinian territories.

Mr. Clinton's recent pronouncements were seen as yet another proof of America's ``partiality'' towards Israel. He blamed the PLO leader, Mr. Yasser Arafat, for the collapse of the Camp David Summit and announced his willingness to endorse the Congress proposal for moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The Clinton administration was also considering a move to further improve its strategic relationship with and enhance military sales to Israel. Mr. Clinton made all these announcements soon after Israel refused to withdraw from East Jerusalem and decided not to dismantle the Jewish settlements in the West Bank, where more than two lakh Jews are residing. It is also not allowing the return of four million Palestinian refugees.

These developments suggest that now there is a marked shift in Mr. Clinton's handling of the Arab-Israeli dispute. Earlier, he played an ``honest broker'' and even pressured Israel to stick to an agreed timetable for withdrawal from the Palestinian territories. He was also not prepared to give the Jewish state any role in the containment of Islamic militancy in the region. At that time, he was mainly relying on Pakistan and the U.S. allies in the Arab world. There was a perceptible change in Washington's attitude to the West Asia peace process following Pakistan's failure to deal with the problem, especially in the aftermath of the bomb blasts in the U.S. embassies in East Africa. Besides, the U.S. Presidential as well as Senate elections - Ms. Hillary Clinton could not have won the Senate elections from New York without the support of the Jewish people - must have influenced Mr. Clinton to rely on Israel.

So, Israel is placed in a much better position than before. The peace process has proved more beneficial to Israel than to the Palestinians. It has helped in ending Israel's isolation in the international community. Several Arab and many member-countries of the Non-Aligned Movement including India (which were earlier reluctant to have diplomatic ties with Israel) have now developed closer ties with the Jewish state. The militant Islamic movement backed by the conservative Islamic regimes is also forcing India, Russia and even some of the newly- independent Muslim countries of Central Asia to seek Israel's help in dealing with Islamic militancy in their countries.

Besides, the Arab states in the post-Cold War era do not have much to offer; their bargaining capacity is at the lowest ebb. Their monopoly over oil is also not going to last longer, thanks to the discovery of massive oil and gas reserves in Central Asia and other parts of the world. The recent rise in oil price and the failure of oil producing countries to contain it would seriously damage the economies of the developing nations. Because of this, some of the nations which were traditional champions of the Arab cause have now developed an indifferent attitude towards the Arabs. In such a situation, Israel thinks it can get away with its ``iron-fist'' policy towards the Palestinians.

However, it is still early to say how the developments in West Asia will take shape. But one thing is certain: if Israel is not restrained from taking a belligerent attitude towards the Palestinians, then the chances are that peace will not return to the region. There is also every possibility of intifada spreading to some of the pro-West Arab countries. The absence of democracy in the Arab world is fuelling Islamic militancy in the region which, in turn, gives Israel an excuse for retaining its hold over the territories and fish in the troubled waters.

(The writer is a specialist in West Asiaaffairs.)

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Bush and the Asian balance of power
Next     : Poll campaigns in U.S.