"Regional peace" -- A New Idea for the Middle East!
If you thought that after all these years there could not possibly be a new idea for making peace between Israel and the Palestinians, well, as the cliché goes, think again. Better yet, it is a damn good idea. It holds that Israel would implement the long talked about two state solution (a Palestinian and a Jewish state, "living next to each other in security and peace")--and Iran would actually give up its military nuclear program.
So far, there have been those who held that the road to Tehran, Damascus, Beirut and the rest of the Arab world leads through Jerusalem, meaning that peace in the Middle East requires that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict first be resolved. Only in this way, we have been told a score of times, one can hope to "turn the Arab street" to agree to support other changes that peace in the region requires. Others held that given that Israel sees the Iranian bombs as directly threatening its very existence and that the time is near at which Iran will have nuclear bombs, this is the matter that must be most urgently attended to. And--nobody moved. The new idea is that we can get out of this stalemate by moving on both fronts at one and the same time.
Some are sure to hold that Israel already agreed to a two state solution, hence it will give nothing new in exchange for a deproliferation of Iran. However, the same holds for Iran--it has long and repeatedly declared that its nuclear program is strictly dedicated to peaceful pursuits. Hence, if it would show to IAEA inspectors that it has not been militarizing its nuclear program, it merely would be showing that it was not lying through its teeth.
Both arguments are disingenuous. Although previous Israeli governments declared themselves in favor of a two state solution, the "details"--what such a solution entails and above all the ways to get there--were never agreed upon. And Iran keeps threatening to wipe Israel off the map, which it can hardly hope to do without nuclear arms, which many believe it is rushing to develop. In short, a mutually and simultaneously implemented deal not only makes a great deal of sense, but breaks the stalemate.
There is room here from some truly creative thinking and adroit diplomacy. Step 1? Israel freezes the settlements on the West Bank; Iran freezes the enrichment of uranium. Step 2? Iran opens up some parts of its nuclear industry to international inspection; Israel turns over some parts of the West Bank to Palestinian forces and so on.
Other scenarios can surely be developed. All will have to survive those who will maintain that the whole deal is unfair for one reason or another. I rush hence to reiterate a point Shibley Telhami (a leading Palestinian-American) and I made some years ago, that this is not the time to sort out what ultimate justice entails, who is at fault, who started it all, etc. These kinds of arguments are used by both sides to demand that the other side--the guilty one--yield, and that their sides need not make any concessions. For now, we argued, all sides should focus on where we go from here. Later we can have a Truth Commission to figure out who the real culprit was. The time to make peace is now, all other matters will wait.
The new idea has one more attractive feature. Many Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, are very keen for Iran not to have nuclear bombs. They also favor the two state solution. In short, the regional peace plan has a ready-made, significant political constituency right there in the Middle East.
Although the US is expected to lead the negotiations that must take place, above all by ensuring that both Israel and Iran take parallel steps to implement their part of the deal, Russia should also be involved. Russia is the power that could tip the scales in Iran if it joins the West in promoting an end to the nuclear military ambitions of Iran. Hence, Russian support should be courted, and if need be rewarded, by granting Russia some of the items on their long agenda - for instance, as Obama in effect already offered, the US folding the missile defense system that Bush planned to place in Poland and the Czech Republic to stop Iranian missiles.
Finally, the regional peace plan will serve as a sort of Rorschach test. There are those whose reaction will reveal that they are so confident that Iran has no intentions to build a bomb, or that if it did it "would never be so crazy to use it" that they will not support the plan. There are those so mad at Israel that they want to force it to make major concessions to the Palestinians, come what may. And there are some who see Iran as a major threat to many nations in the Middle East, and are less preoccupied by the Palestinians, especially those who still declare that they are out to destroy Israel. One cannot but hope that all these players would put aside their special takes on the situation and their special pleadings, and recognize a good deal when it is laid out right in front of them. Otherwise, even this sage plan may end up where so many attempts to bring peace to the Middle East have ended up--in the dustbins of history, followed by more bloodshed.
Amitai Etzioni professor of international relations at The George Washington University and the author of Security First (Yale 2007). For more, go here.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Middle East: Iran, Arabs & Israel
1. Palestinian Independent State:
The problems of Palestinian subjugation to Israel occupation are the seeds for an unstable world including the Middle East. Many expect, as previously stated by Iran and many Arab counties, that they would not reject a reasonable break through between Washington and Israel over the Palestinians home state. However; many political analysts have suggested that any resolution about Palestinian state would be a non-starter with Israel.
2. Nuclear Middle East
There is no dispute that Iran is already a nuclear state, like Japan. But Israel has nuclear bomb, Iran does not. The steps required to allay our fear that Iran in the future may develop Nuclear Bomb are:
2.A: Nuclear Fuel Cycle Iranian Consortium;
USA should join the Iranian consortium. IAEA has stated that they could not find any diversion of uranium. Iran has asserted that their activities are limited to fuel for nuclear reactor.
2. B: Nuclear Shield;
An international nuclear shield must protect all nations in the Middle East, including Iran;
2.C: A nuclear- bomb-free Middle East;
This action will remove any pressure from Iran to develop nuclear bomb in the future for deterrence against nuclear bomb Israeli state. The Middle East should be the starting point toward a world free of all nuclear bombs.
The success or failure of the administration of President Obama with Israel would determine the nature of future stability for the Middle East.
Obviously you wish for the destruction of Israel and have found some inane method to try to achieve your ultimate objective. How transparent. How about peace. Peace for peace. Peace for you. Peace for all. End the hate. Recognize Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people and let a hope for peace in the region prevail. Arabs built their Mosque on the Temple Mount, not the other way around. Stop pretending.
You dont agree Israels nuclear weapons are a serious impediment to a nuclear-free Middle East and further peace?
A string of cliches and slogans that add up to "let Israel do whatever it wants, take what it wants, and to hell with everyone else."
It's their heritage, their culture, the foundational principle of their society.
It is a shipload of gasoline, and they are the match. No one needs to "wish" for the destruction of Israel, they will do it themselves.
Your posting is absolutely wrong in its conclusion about the region.
All efforts to end the conflict must focus exclusively on the Palestinians, particularly Hamas. They are the ones who are continuing the war, the ones who refuse to accept the two-state solution, and the ones blocking all efforts at peace. Spreading the delusion that the Israelis have to change isn't going to help things. They won the war, courageously and honorably, with the lowest amount of casualties of any significant conflict in the modern world, and don't have to give in to any demands, or even discuss them. The Palestinians have a choice of surrendering, or continuing to suffer. No one outside of Palestine can help them, or change them. They have to grow up and accept that adult responsibilities and being part of the civilized community means respecting international law and resolving disputes through peaceful means, not violence. I know, it's a difficult thing to do, but other nations have done it and they can do it as well. In the meantime, it's essential that the world stand firm and continue the boycott. It's working.
Mikep,
Your understanding of the situation is deeply flawed. Israel runs the worlds only violently enforced colonial settler movement. That means that either the IDF or armed settlers take an area (outside Isreaels borders) settle it, and then claim it as theirs. This has been going on for more than 40 years. the settlements and occupation have grown every year, regardless of whether there were promises made to stop or not. regardless of ANY promises made. And, regardless of the fact that International law forbids such actions, and that VIRTUALLY EVERY OTHER NATION ON EARTH condemns it, as has been demonstrated numerous times in UN resolutions. Even the US condemns it.
They are soon going to bulldoze 88 Palestinian homes (in the occupied territories) to make way for an Israeli park. The residents are to be forcibly removed if they do not comply or agree. The Israeli government could care less where they go or what will become of the shambles of their lives after that.
Now I would like you to tell me that if someone did that to your home, and the homes of many hundreds of others around you, leaving you and all of them, including the humiliated men, devasted women, and weeping children, out on the street, that you would not resist such a thing.
Israel brings war in the form of the settlements and the occuption they necessitate every single day, and THE ENTIRE WORLD condemns it.
There are so many distortions in your posting it would take too much time to provide some truth to counter each one. So I'll just say this about your posting. Mishegoss.
The settlers are the most serious impediment to peace. They will never leave and they cant be negotiated with. They had to be removed by force from Gaza:
[Thousands of Israeli troops evicted Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip today amid anger, grief and isolated acts of violence.
The actual removals - which have seen troops dragging some settlers out kicking and screaming - have taken place amid high emotion but little physical confrontation.
But three people were killed this afternoon when an Israeli man opened fire on Palestinians he was driving to their jobs in a West Bank settlement unaffected by the pullout.
Unconfirmed reports said the man was protesting at the withdrawal from all 21 settlements in Gaza and four in the West Bank after 38 years of occupation.
The Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, said the shooting was an act of "Jewish terror" aimed "against innocent Palestinians, out of twisted thinking, aimed at stopping the disengagement."]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/aug/17/israel44]
Wouldn't it be ironic, if when finally there might be a two state solution and relative peace between the Palestinians and Israel....
That the Taliban and some al-Qaeda could take Pakistan and even just some of the Nuclear warheads and missiles and all hell breaks out instead, which we could see in the coming months...
All because Bush and Cheney attacked Iraq, rather than pursuing those who attacked us....
Ironic isn't it...?
The problems in Pakistan are not the fault of W-Bush, that is not quite correct. I am not defending Bush, but the problems in Pakistan were there prior to W's time in the White House.
There is little reason for the US to fear Iran, and many reasons to work with them.
Iran has not attacked another nation for about 250 years. The CIA and the entire US intelligence community concur that there is no Nuclear weapons program in Iran. It has been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that the widely reported statements that Ahmadinejad made were in no way a threat to the existence of Israel, but rather a criticism of the current political regime. In other words, a willful mistranslation. The US's best bet for stability in Iraq is working hand and hand with the Iranian's.
On the other hand, If Israel attacks Iran, they will mine the gulf and take other actions (in self defense) that will cause world oil prices to go to $500 per barrel, and gas to 12 per gallon. This will trigger a depression that would make this one look like the good old days, and we will be forced to go to war with Iran, as Iraq, afgahnistan and Pakistan (where there are REAL threats) melt down due to the US being forced to clean up Israels pointless and dangerous mess in Iran.
Avigdor Lieberman is a settler leader. Thus, he cites "peace" as an objective, rather than a Palestinian state, because that would mean the end of most existing settlements, while striving for "peace" is code for unrestricted settlement growth, as has been demonstrated for more than 40 years.
Iran did not start the war with Iraq, but they certainly attacked Iraq.
Despite your desire to make it so, most of the problems in the Middle East have nothing to do with Israel.
Iraq attacked Iran. Iran defended itself against invading forces. Anyone would. We funded it and backed it, and armed Saddam (with things like WMD). One million casualties on both sides. We also secretly funded Iran, because we really never wanted Saddam to win in the first place.
That had nothing to do with Israel, it was all on us and Saddam.
re."Iran has not attacked another nation for about 250 years."
Wrong. this is a net rumor without basis in reality.
Fact: Iranian army under Abbas Mirza invaded Russia in 1826. They lost, of course.
Fact: Iran attacked and now occupying sovereign territory of Bahrain and UAE. Today.
Overall, Iran prefer to work through the network of spies, saboteurs and proxy armies funded, armed and trained by Iranians.
You should apply to advise Obama. Insight on Huffington. Wow.
Iran isnt occupying Bahrain
Iran is NOT occupying anyone, and the 1826 situations that you cite (is, first, in 1826 AND I fail to see it as significantly DIFFERENT than 250 years ago) was in response to Previous Russian attacks in the region, and the PERSIANS were armed, supported and trained by the Brits, so by your logic, It was really a British operation, but regardless it was defensive in nature.
Please cite ANY proof that Iran occupies anyone today. Here's supporting evidence that they do not.
"Bahraini Shī'a fundamentalists in 1981 orchestrated a failed coup attempt under the auspices of a front organization, the Islamic Front for the Liberation of Bahrain. The coup would have installed a Shī'a cleric exiled in Iran, Hujjatu l-Islām Hādī al-Mudarrisī, as supreme leader heading a theocratic government."
key word? FAILED. also, an internal matter, not including the Iranian army or government. IE, NO OCCUPATION.
"The largest demographic presence in the Emirates is Indian. Like most countries in the region, the UAE and Iran dispute rights to a number of islands in the Persian Gulf but this has not significantly impacted relations due to the large Iranian community presence and strong economic ties."
IE, NO OCCUPATION
Please refrain from such obviously disprovable assertions
Not a single mention of Israelis nuclear program, which is the main motivator for Irans program to begin with.
This just isn't true.
What isnt?
Certainly there is a need to move on both the Israeli-Palestinian peace track as well as on addressing the challenges posed by Iran.
-Noam
www.peacenow.org
I have never understood such arguments.
So to clarify, he wants the COUNTRY of Israel gone, yes? Where would the Israelis go? How would they be removed? Is this while the Iranians chant "death to Israel, death to the Zionists"?
I know, let's think that the leader of a country who funds Hamas and Hezbollah (who, by the way, haven't hesitated to turn their weapons on fellow Arabs) and who calls Israel a "stinking corpse" and quotes directly from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion-when he's not too busy denying the Holocaust-only wants a peaceful regime change.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4384264.stm
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11bronner.html?ex=1307678400&en=efa2bd266224e880&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
First of all, Iranians are Persians, not Arabs. Anyone familiar with the area should know that and the fact that there's been historic friction between them.
Where would the Israelis go?
Well, if they agreed to a single democratic state that embraces both Arabs and Jews (and even the occasional Persian), they wouldn't need to go anywhere. The current state of israel would disappear and be replaced by the new one, just as the current South African government replaced the former apartheid regime. Personally, I don't think the two-state solution will work, there will eventually be war between these two states.
Zionism is a nineteenth-century European political movement, it embraces a colonial view of Arabs and is unfit to be the governing principle of any nation. It's roughly similar to extreme Serbian nationalists' views on Bosnia, i.e. that the Muslims must be expelled from the"Serbian homeland."
"Death to Zionists" does not equate to "death to Jews," as many Zionists like to imply. Every Jew is not a Zionist, some are forcefully opposed. The Iranian president has said this many times, and points to an undisturbed Jewish population in Iran.
I have noticed that folks screaming Death to Zionists generally aren't concerned with the difference between a Zionist and a Jew.
Why must Israel alone bear the burden of a Palestinian state? Jordan has no history since it was created in 1922 by the Brits in order to serve as a homeland for Arabs and to provide a place to install a king belonging to the Hashemite family. It would seem given the similarities between Palestinians and Jordanians that Jordan alone would serve as a great homeland for Arabs.
Israel is now on our historic homeland. We are not leaving. We have established the only place on earth where it is perfectly acceptable to be a Jew. My friends and I paid a heavy price in 1973 to make certain Israel would continue to exist and we are willing to again pay that price to defend Israel.
To Amitai Etzioni,
Shalom ~
Please no more new Ideas. Really. It's exhausting. It's disturbing. Let's just keep the good old ones we have. No more Strategies. No more Tactical thinking. No more moving the goal post in the middle of every new game. No more distractions of war or other threats.
There's a global financial crisis to be re-solved and it would be much appreciated if Israelis would be good and contribute to solutions rather than create further new problems.
The World is Flat, now - remember? Globalization & all that. So any war between you and anyone else, will impact all our lives.
Cheers ~ L'chaim.
Israel has never started a war with any of our neighbors, never. Yes, we joined with the Brits and French in 1956 in an attempt to open the Suez Canal. But that was not a war. Even in 1967 we did not fire the first shots of the 6-Day War, the Egyptians did that when they illegally closed the Straits of Tiran.
Interesting concept...question is...who would actually agree to it? Do you think Bibi, if he were so inclined, has enough political clout to stop settlements?
There is no EVIDENCE that Iran has ever pursued nuclear weapons. NONE
I keep making this statement on HP and I never get challenged with EVIDENCE.
Note that the author never used the word EVIDENCE.
Here is the evidence:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/03/nie-iran/
Iran has tried to pursue nuclear weapons, and apparently it stopped the program in 2003, but we still don't know if they restarted it, which they could easily do.
Just for the sake of logic, "we don't know" is not evidence - - -
There's a new idea every day.
And the end result is the Palestinians remain in their ghettos, the Israelis enjoy their milk and honey while constantly looking over their shoulder, and the Middle East perches on the brink of the Apocalypse.
Real change will take some genuine concessions on both sides, concessions that simply aren't possible.
Tick tick tick.....
And Israel has to allw inspections and declair their nuvlear programs as apart of the process also. That may work, otherwise the Israelis are just blowing smoke up the worlds arse once again.
We do not have to do anything concerning our nukes, if we in fact have them.
George Washington on Israel
"A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification." ~George Washington Farewell Address
"The nation which indulges toward another habitual hatred or habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interests." ~ George Washington
"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none." ~ Thomas Jefferson
Did I miss the bit where George Washington mentioned Israel?
I believe Washington was more concerned with America becoming entangled with the constant wars between European countries.
Unless you want us to become completely isolationist again?
No one wants isolationism, we simply want to act in America's interests, not Israels. If Israel wants with Iraq, Iran, and the rest of the Middle East, why should we be the ones to sacrifice our young ones for them?
Let them fight there own wars, instead of pretending to have American interests in mind while pushing Israel's agenda instead.
I believe Washington's point ( it was general advice) was that we ought not get entangled in the affairs of ANY other country, especially those that engages in constant wars, such as Israel.
What more can someone expect from one of our resident Israeli neocons.
"And Iran keeps threatening to wipe Israel off the map, which it can hardly hope to do without nuclear arms, which many believe it is rushing to develop."
Here we go again.
For the bazillionth time, Iran is not threatening nuclear war against Israel. It wants the STATE of Israel off the map, not the elimination of its Jewish residents.
Inserting this falsehood makes the "ideas" in this article senseless.
Also: the real parallel to Iran opening up its nuclear program for inspection would be for Israel to do the same. After all, Israel's nuclear weapons are the reason Iran would want its own.
Anyone making the argument that Iran wants israel destroyed, but has no bad intentions for Jews is making a dishonest argument.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
