Peace and War after Gaza
Ahmed Hany
February 03, 2009
The war on Gaza proved one strategic fact, which is that there is no military solution for the Arab-Israeli conflict. However, unnecessary wars made people suffer and the causes of these wars are far from reaching a settling point to the conflict. Moreover, one may claim that Israel creates situations that provoke resistance groups to take uncalculated decisions so that Israel starts new wars when peace has a chance.
Israel and Syria were engaged in indirect negotiations in Turkey. The Syrian President Bashar Al-Asad would not have told that his country would negotiate directly if the round had not been productive. The internal Israeli politicians are so weak that no one could take decisions about withdrawal from Golan. The general election and the religious parties complicated the situation for the Israeli politicians. Tight besieging of Gaza was the maneuver that provoked Hamas to fire its ineffective rockets. This happened under Iranian pressure to ruin the Syrian-Israeli negotiations or at least postponing it until Iran starts its negotiations with Obama administration. Hamas refused to renew the truce.
In fact, the Arabs are divided not between peace and war or between moderates and resistance supporters. They are divided between those who signed peace treaties and, those who find it hard to achieve peace. Let us remember that all Arabs accepted the Arab Peace Initiative. Regardless of what said to media in press conferences, the conferees in Doha did not give an alternative to peace process. Nobody there has ever said that a military alliance would be created to go to war. Even Syria did not declare frankly that it would arm resistance groups in Lebanon and Palestine.
When Arabs chose peace as a strategic option and declared the Arab Peace Initiative, they did not seek methods to oblige Israel to accept peace. Choosing peace does not mean that this particular initiative is the only method. Many other methods should have been explored and studied. Declaring the Palestine Authority as a state or calling for one state solution are two other options. In Kuwait conference when the Saudi King warned that his initiative would not remain on table for long, this means that he wanted to set a timetable for the peace process based on this initiative. The Sharm conference showed that the EU leaders want to see a Palestinian state. Both the Egyptian President and the Jordanian King want this year witnesses the end of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Then the Arabs have some problems to be solved. The first is to have a timetable for peace process. The second is to prevent Israel from ruining the process. The third is to prevent Iran from using the Palestinians to achieve goals that are not related to the Arabs´ interests. The fourth is to control resistance groups in a way that serves the Palestinian cause and not to make Palestinians suffer more. The fifth is to give Syria full support and protection to return to the peace process.
The new American Administration sees the Middle East an important area for achieving its global strategic aims. Yet, it gave priority to Central Asia military campaign in Afghanistan then to its relations with Russia. To achieve goals in Afghanistan, it wants to withdraw its troops from Iraq. To secure Israel before withdrawing from Iraq it wants to open dialogue with Iran and to finalize the peace process. As long as the Arabs do not define, their views for the region as a whole and their views about their role in the global strategy the US will define this role. Then the Arabs should devise a strategy that defines their role globally. Their global strategy should serve solving the problems that hinder achieving peace in the region. This does not mean confronting the US or any other global force.
The Arabs should encourage the EU countries to play more active role in the region. They also should understand the Russian moves in the region and build on the good Arab-Russian relations. The EU and specially France want to play a very active role in the region. The Mediterranean Union gives a good chance for Arabs to activate the EU role. Brown´s Britain is different from Blair´s one. The British voice is always heard in Washington. The Saudi sponsoring of direct negotiations between Taliban and the Afghani government should be encouraged by all Arab states as this gives Arabs a weight in the global strategic situation. They should play not only an active role in Iraq, but also a competitive one to Iranian influence there. They should insist of being a partner in any regional dialogue about the Gulf. They should relentlessly encourage Syria and Israel to go to direct negotiations preferably on an Arab land either in Egypt or in Jordan. Sponsoring the peace process between Syria and Israel and between Israel and Lebanon helps much to reunite the Arab Front in the peace process. Coordination between the Turkish, the Egyptian and the Saudi roles in the region boost the peace chances and support the Arab front. How to safeguard Syria and to compensate it for the Iranian financial investment and technical help is the job of Egypt and Saudi Arabia. As long as the Americans are willing to talk to Iran, they should also talk to Syria. Again, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have to mediate between Syria and US.
Russia is willing to return to the Middle East. It declares its plans of building Naval bases in Syria, Libya and Yemen. It is noticeable that during Gaza war it supported the Egyptian Initiative. Its foreign minister called Iran and Syria to press on Hamas to stop firing Rockets during the war. In other words, despite the relation between it and Syria and Iran, it took the other side. This means that Russia while returning to the Middle East, it did not want to have a conflict with the West about Palestine or Gaza. It means also that despite the Russian media campaign against Israel during the war, its official circles had other calculations derived from its global strategy. Russia denied supplying Iran and Syria with advanced air defence devices and it always assures Israel that its arms sales to the Middle East will not affect the military balance that is in Israel favor.
The Moscow Peace Conference that will be held in the first quarter of this year is a chance for Arabs to propose their different views about peace in the region.
The Palestinian resistance groups know now that those who dragged them to Gaza war will never go to war for them. Conflicts about influence in Gaza or in the West Bank should stop. After all, they both are occupied. The resistance should think globally and act locally. The Arabs and the world recognized the Palestinian Authority as the representative of Palestinian people. Any trial to change this situation will just harm the resistance and the Palestinian civilians who pay the price for unnecessary adventurers. Moreover, they have known the fact that there is no war for Palestine without Egypt. However, Egypt decided to give peace a chance because it believes that there is no military solution for the conflict. It would have been much better for Palestinians if their leadership had come to Mina House Obroy in Cairo when Sadat had put their flag beside the Israeli one on the negotiation table. Yet, Israel should know that there is more than one peaceful solution. The Two-States solution will not last for long. Olmart said it to his people.
Israel and Syria were engaged in indirect negotiations in Turkey. The Syrian President Bashar Al-Asad would not have told that his country would negotiate directly if the round had not been productive. The internal Israeli politicians are so weak that no one could take decisions about withdrawal from Golan. The general election and the religious parties complicated the situation for the Israeli politicians. Tight besieging of Gaza was the maneuver that provoked Hamas to fire its ineffective rockets. This happened under Iranian pressure to ruin the Syrian-Israeli negotiations or at least postponing it until Iran starts its negotiations with Obama administration. Hamas refused to renew the truce.
In fact, the Arabs are divided not between peace and war or between moderates and resistance supporters. They are divided between those who signed peace treaties and, those who find it hard to achieve peace. Let us remember that all Arabs accepted the Arab Peace Initiative. Regardless of what said to media in press conferences, the conferees in Doha did not give an alternative to peace process. Nobody there has ever said that a military alliance would be created to go to war. Even Syria did not declare frankly that it would arm resistance groups in Lebanon and Palestine.
When Arabs chose peace as a strategic option and declared the Arab Peace Initiative, they did not seek methods to oblige Israel to accept peace. Choosing peace does not mean that this particular initiative is the only method. Many other methods should have been explored and studied. Declaring the Palestine Authority as a state or calling for one state solution are two other options. In Kuwait conference when the Saudi King warned that his initiative would not remain on table for long, this means that he wanted to set a timetable for the peace process based on this initiative. The Sharm conference showed that the EU leaders want to see a Palestinian state. Both the Egyptian President and the Jordanian King want this year witnesses the end of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Then the Arabs have some problems to be solved. The first is to have a timetable for peace process. The second is to prevent Israel from ruining the process. The third is to prevent Iran from using the Palestinians to achieve goals that are not related to the Arabs´ interests. The fourth is to control resistance groups in a way that serves the Palestinian cause and not to make Palestinians suffer more. The fifth is to give Syria full support and protection to return to the peace process.
The new American Administration sees the Middle East an important area for achieving its global strategic aims. Yet, it gave priority to Central Asia military campaign in Afghanistan then to its relations with Russia. To achieve goals in Afghanistan, it wants to withdraw its troops from Iraq. To secure Israel before withdrawing from Iraq it wants to open dialogue with Iran and to finalize the peace process. As long as the Arabs do not define, their views for the region as a whole and their views about their role in the global strategy the US will define this role. Then the Arabs should devise a strategy that defines their role globally. Their global strategy should serve solving the problems that hinder achieving peace in the region. This does not mean confronting the US or any other global force.
The Arabs should encourage the EU countries to play more active role in the region. They also should understand the Russian moves in the region and build on the good Arab-Russian relations. The EU and specially France want to play a very active role in the region. The Mediterranean Union gives a good chance for Arabs to activate the EU role. Brown´s Britain is different from Blair´s one. The British voice is always heard in Washington. The Saudi sponsoring of direct negotiations between Taliban and the Afghani government should be encouraged by all Arab states as this gives Arabs a weight in the global strategic situation. They should play not only an active role in Iraq, but also a competitive one to Iranian influence there. They should insist of being a partner in any regional dialogue about the Gulf. They should relentlessly encourage Syria and Israel to go to direct negotiations preferably on an Arab land either in Egypt or in Jordan. Sponsoring the peace process between Syria and Israel and between Israel and Lebanon helps much to reunite the Arab Front in the peace process. Coordination between the Turkish, the Egyptian and the Saudi roles in the region boost the peace chances and support the Arab front. How to safeguard Syria and to compensate it for the Iranian financial investment and technical help is the job of Egypt and Saudi Arabia. As long as the Americans are willing to talk to Iran, they should also talk to Syria. Again, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have to mediate between Syria and US.
Russia is willing to return to the Middle East. It declares its plans of building Naval bases in Syria, Libya and Yemen. It is noticeable that during Gaza war it supported the Egyptian Initiative. Its foreign minister called Iran and Syria to press on Hamas to stop firing Rockets during the war. In other words, despite the relation between it and Syria and Iran, it took the other side. This means that Russia while returning to the Middle East, it did not want to have a conflict with the West about Palestine or Gaza. It means also that despite the Russian media campaign against Israel during the war, its official circles had other calculations derived from its global strategy. Russia denied supplying Iran and Syria with advanced air defence devices and it always assures Israel that its arms sales to the Middle East will not affect the military balance that is in Israel favor.
The Moscow Peace Conference that will be held in the first quarter of this year is a chance for Arabs to propose their different views about peace in the region.
The Palestinian resistance groups know now that those who dragged them to Gaza war will never go to war for them. Conflicts about influence in Gaza or in the West Bank should stop. After all, they both are occupied. The resistance should think globally and act locally. The Arabs and the world recognized the Palestinian Authority as the representative of Palestinian people. Any trial to change this situation will just harm the resistance and the Palestinian civilians who pay the price for unnecessary adventurers. Moreover, they have known the fact that there is no war for Palestine without Egypt. However, Egypt decided to give peace a chance because it believes that there is no military solution for the conflict. It would have been much better for Palestinians if their leadership had come to Mina House Obroy in Cairo when Sadat had put their flag beside the Israeli one on the negotiation table. Yet, Israel should know that there is more than one peaceful solution. The Two-States solution will not last for long. Olmart said it to his people.
Print
Email
