Israel’s new Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, will easily be able to revive the Middle East peace process after several years of inconclusive brinkmanship by his predecessor Benjamin Netanyahu. The world and the stakeholders in the Middle East will look to him with hope. The real question, however, is will Mr Barak be able to make the necessary break in Israeli thinking to achieve a lasting peace.
The central difficulty has been that just as Israel gained territory and military security since 1948 by a series of bilateral conflicts, too many Israeli leaders in the past two decades have assumed that peace can be made the same way. Israel has always hoped that peace could be attained by a series of bilateral arrangements. First with Jordan to expel Palestinians, then with Egypt over return of territory occupied in the 1967 war, then hoping to pick off Syria be with a deal over the occupied Golan Heights, and all the while using military force to quell any threat from Lebanon. More significantly, the question of the Palestinians has also been seen as one of a bilateral arrangement involving borders. If the Palestinians could only be held within defined borders all would be well.
The early indications are that Mr Barak will continue the bilateral approach, albeit with more vigour and openness than his predecessor. Any attempt at a comprehensive Middle East peace agreement has not even been considered.
If one reads beneath the diplomatic euphemism, there is little cause to celebrate.
Today, Mr Barak will begin a series of meetings with Arab leaders. He will meet the Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Cairo on Friday and Palestinian President Yasser Arafat on Sunday. There are no serious distances here. But there is no attempt to meet them together. Then Mr Barak – a former army chief — will also hold talks with Jordan’s King Abdullah before flying to the United States in 10 days to meet President Clinton.
Mr Barak has vowed to strive for peace with the Palestinians, Syria and Lebanon with equal urgency. But that view is a one-by-one view. In the context of Middle East politics it invites failure because of its lack of comprehensiveness. The Syrians are up to their necks in Lebanon. The Jordanian Government can do nothing without at least passive acceptance of the Palestinian leadership.
Syria’s response was classic. While ostensibly portraying an open-arms response, Syria revealed that it would not be a party to one-by-one picking off by Israel. Syria’s President Hafez al-Assad was quick to respond to Mr Barak’s overtures. Seemingly positive, he welcomed “”specific opportunities towards a comprehensive and just peace in the region.”
Sounds nice, but it is diplomatic speak for, “”We are not interested in a bilateral agreement involving just Golan. We must be satisfied about the future of the Palestinians and the security and independence of all of Lebanon before we will end hostility.”
And Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat spoke similarly – high on hyperbole and bleak with understatement. Mr Arafat said he hoped to work with Mr Barak to make “”the peace of the brave”. But he added: “”I want to say something. The Palestinian track is the central issue of the entire Arab nation.”
In short, “”We will not be picked off.” The bilateral breakthrough with Egypt and to a lesser extent Jordan two decades ago worked then, but that strategy has stalled. The Oslo agreement promised a broader approach in the mid-nineties with its hopeful dialogue with Palestinians within Israel. That two stalled under Mr Netanyahu. A new start is needed with a comprehensive approach.
Mr Barak has to put aside his general’s stars. He is not on the battlefield. As a Prime Minister seeking peace he cannot think in terms of outflanking, isolating, dividing and ruling and treating his enemies enemy as his friend. This is a military mindset which Mr Barak must overcome if peace is to be achieved. On its face, the world might welcome the early signs within the new Israeli Government, but it does not take much surface scratching to reveal that the old siege mentality remains. Bilateral juggling is no substitute for comprehensive discussion and resolution.