Israel/PLO; Opportunity or the End of the "Peace" Process?

Excerpted from: ERRI DAILY INTELLIGENCE REPORT-ERRI Risk Assessment Services-Wednesday, September 17, 1997 Vol. 3 - 260

********* LEAD FOCUS********

Tremendous Opportunity or the End of the "Peace" Process?

Opinion/Analysis/Editorial

By C. L. Staten, ERRI Senior Analyst

Chicago, IL (Emergencynet News) -- As Secretary of State Madeline Albright and her entourage return from the Mid-East, after her first official visit there, we believe that the time has come for a serious re-examination of the issues involved in the Israeli/Palestinian peace process. We should, however, preface these remarks for the reader with an understanding that we will examine these issues from the viewpoint of those that have studied issues of terrorism and geo-political conflict for more than ten years.

Let's begin with a historically easily accepted premise that Yasar Arafat attained his position of authority among the Palestinians through his use of directed violence, terrorism, assassinations and intimidation. His background is one of being a revolutionary and terrorist leader, not a statesman. He did not attend any fancy colleges for the purposes of learning statesmanship, international relations, administration, nor the art of compromise. His schooling was was in the use of AK-47s, RPGs, various kinds of bombs, kidnapping, and extortion to achieve his goals.

Add to this "educational preparation" the fact that Arafat really only represents a minority of all of the Islamic and Palestinian factions who would desire to attain control of the small country that is currently called Israel. In fact, any number of respected Mid-East scholars say that there were many other Palestinian leaders that might have been a better choice to represent the fledgling movement for the establishment of a Palestinian state. But, sadly, those were not the choices that were made, and that is not the history of the region where we find ourselves embroiled today.

To put the situation in more accurate perspective, on Sept. 13, 1997, Palestinian President Yasar Arafat warned Israel that war could erupt if the seven-month stalemate in the peace process was allowed to continue. "We could enter into a period of confusion where anything would be possible, including war,'' Mr. Arafat told Israel's Channel 2 television, in a veiled threat. This statement is typical of the rhetoric used by Arafat and other Palestinian spokesmen in recent months and years. It would appear that anytime Arafat and the PLO don't get their way in negotiations they make threats of violence and give tacit public approval to attacks by extremist groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

Sadly, however, that is exactly what a realist should expect from Mr. Arafat and others of his ilk. That is what they do and history shows that they have done their entire adult lives. Peace and negotiations are not a familiar setting for those that have attained their stature in the world by the use of violent rhetoric, threats, and the practice of terrorism and mayhem as a political tool. In fact, some Mid-East scholars, and even Palestinians, readily admit that Mr. Arafat is "an outstanding revolutionary," but a terrible negotiator and administrator of the Palestinian Authority.

The Real Issues

The "bottom-line" issue, that remains the central point of conflict and contention, is Netanyahu's and Israel's willingness to trade large portions of hard-won territory to the Palestinians in exchange for a questionable promise of future peace and security. Arafat's obvious ultimate objective is to obtain, by whatever means necessary, the maximum amount of current Israeli land and resources; Netanyahu's objective must be exactly the opposite, to yield the minimum amount of territory. To further complicate matters, the Palestinians also want to assume control of at least part of Jerusalem, if not all of the "holy city."

If internal boundaries and the partitioning of current Israeli lands were not a complicated enough issue, concurrently, Syria wants Israel to with- draw from the Golan Heights and allow its reoccupation by Syrian forces. Tactically speaking, most military experts admit, such a move would make Israel particularly vulnerable to further encroachment and even large scale invasion from the North.

And, if Israel's overall security situation were not complex and tenuous enough on other fronts, Lebanon and particularly the Iranian-backed terrorist organization, Hezbollah, want Israeli forces to withdraw from the Lebanon/Israeli border and security zone between the two countries. If undertaken, security experts say, this action could make Israel vulnerable to attacks on yet another front.

To draw an analogy, and for the purposes of better understanding in the West, it would be similar to a situation where the United States was under threat of constant attack on both our Mexican and Canadian borders and "foreign powers" are encouraging us to completely give up control of North Carolina, Illinois, Kansas, and Texas to previously avowed enemies, so they can set up their own country in the midst of ours. Further, if these "negotiators" and "peace pundits" have their way, we are supposed to divide Washington, DC in half and let our antagonists set up their capital there. Finally, to make their point crystal clear, our opponents in the negotiations are continually encouraging or conducting deadly terrorist bombing attacks in New York City and Washington, killing hundreds of American citizens. Given these circumstances, what would Americans want their government to do?

Possible Solutions

As with most issues, we at ERRI, approach the Israeli/Palestinian problem from a pragmatic viewpoint. The "peace process" and Oslo accords, as currently configured and practiced, would appear to be on the verge of failure. It just may be that they are based on flawed logic and unreasonable expectations of human nature, as statesmen and diplomats wish and work for an idealistic and altruistic, but so-far unworkable solution. Certainly, the current circumstances in Israel and surrounding areas would seem to indicate that current agreements can not be expected to successfully resolve the multiple religious and geopolitical conflicts that exist there...anytime soon.

Maybe the time has come for a more comprehensive and all encompassing negotiation that would include all of the combatants and countries involved in the region. For example, why not create a "real" home land for the Palestinians, if that is the objective, by taking parcels of contiguous territory from Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel, combine them and officially designate this newly created land mass as "Palestine?" After all, why should Israel be expected make all of the geographic sacrifices to fulfill the aspirations of the Palestinian people? Why not let all of those countries, that have so vocally expressing their concern for the welfare and and future prospects of the Palestinian people, pay part of the territorial price for their freedom and autonomy.

Add to this geographic reapportionment, an enforceable iron-clad financial commitment by Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt and other interested countries that they will help fund and support the infrastructure and future development of this now undisputed country. All of these countries could then cause and monitor free and open elections in this new territory, after allowing a reasonable time of open immigration by all people claiming to be of Palestinian origin.

Of course, what we suggest would require that the government of this new homeland would willingly encompass all of the Palestinian-associated radical splinter groups, dissidents, and disgruntled minorities that feel that they also have a right to participation in the ruling of the country of Palestine. And finally, once formed, all of the countries in the region must formally agree to the integrity and sovereignty of all of their neighbors, including the newly created Palestine. Then, you might have a real foundation for a workable solution for long-term peace in the Middle-East.

Conclusion

Does this author and other ERRI analysts have a realistic expectation that such a plan would ever be undertaken, or even seriously considered by the all of affected parties? In a word...NO. To do so, would require that all of the conflicting regional powers would have to forego their own territorial imperatives, religious and ideological objectives, and political aspirations in order to assure peace and prosperity in the region. It would mean that they, collectively, would have to communicate, cooperate, and work together to enhance the overall economic and humanistic prospects of everyone, of every religion, and every nationality. Sadly, hopes of this sort are probably more idealistic, naive', and unrealistic than the untenable situation that currently exists.

The ERRI DAILY INTELLIGENCE REPORT is a subscription publication of the EmergencyNet NEWS Service, which is a part of the Chicago-based Emergency Response and Research Institute. This publication specializes in Corporate Security/Terrorism/Intelligence/Military and National Security issues.

Emergency Response and Research Institute
6348 N Milwaukee Ave, Suite 312, Chicago, Illinois, 60646, USA

773-631-ERRI Voice/Voice Mail
773-631-4703 Fax
773-631-3467 Computer/Modem - EMERGENCY BBS
Internet e-mail: sysop@emergency.com
WWW page: http://www.emergency.com
Telnet: emergency.com

Return to the EmergencyNet News page