Today's Situation

Two new Middle Easts Thursday, August 03, 2006

There was someone who did believe in Peres' vision -- Bill Clinton. True, Clinton was more personally taken by Rabin's modesty and shyness, but Clinton's hands on political style fit neatly with Peres' vision of massive investment in the Gaza Strip, for example, to help it become a Hong Kong of the Middle East, or the Jordan Valley as a three-way (Israel, Palestine, Jordan) cornucopia of tourism and industry benefiting all. But his successor hated all things Clintonian, so the one thing one would never hear 'realistic' George Bush ever talk about was America's role in nation building overseas, or any form of hands-on approach to the Middle East. Bush didn't even know what was meant by 'a new Middle East.'

But now, Olmert and Bush are the main proponents of the concept of a new Middle East. For Bush, the new Middle East will emerge from his 'war on terror,' which is all about using the sword to impose democracy on Arab countries, which are anyway in a state of violent upheaval because of the natural change imposed by the explosion of communications, from satellite TV to the Internet. For Olmert, the new Middle East is one in which Israel uses its strength to say no to terrorism, and in which Israel has a role to play in the global campaign against the Islamic jihadist war against the west. Neither Olmert nor Bush seem to have any clear goals for what happens after they impose their will -- if they manage to do so. Olmert yesterday said that he reckons an Israeli victory over Hizbollah will provide some momentum to his plan to withdraw from what some say is 90 percent of the West Bank. That immediately caused an outcry in Israel, largely on the Right, where there is always blind support of any use of force against Arabs, charging that Olmert was betraying the national consensus in favor of the war by 'politicizing it.' But other than the mention of the convergence plan, and vague talk about the possibility of a new political arrangement with Lebanon and the impact of an Israeli victory over 'the terrorists' on Israel's front with the Palestinians, Olmert has not put forward any vision for what his new Middle East will look like.

The same is true of Bush, whose unswerving faith in democracy's ability to improve the quality of life of nations and the individuals who live in them might be admirable, but whose faith in the use of force to persuade people to accept democracy is about as self-contradictory as the Israeli idea that the way to persuade people to turn their backs on terrorists is to terrify them with air raids and artillery shelling.

It used to be said that the second Arab country to make peace with Israel would be Lebanon, with which Israel has no border dispute. But by the time Anwar Sadat showed up in Jerusalem, the Lebanese civil war precluded any independent action by a Lebanese government. When Jordan made peace with Israel, the IDF was holding a swathe of southern Lebanon known as the 'security zone,' which was a killing field for Israeli soldiers and Hizbollah fighters. Six years ago, Israel quit that zone and a year ago, after the Cedar Revolution swept Syrian troops out of Lebanon, there was actually hope that it would eventually lead to the beginning of out of a rapprochement between Israel and Lebanon. After all, Beirut and Tel Aviv could be twin cities in their vitality, their enthusiasm for business and fashion and fun. But now, Israel is back in that security zone, trying to call it a 'special security zone' lest it bring back bad memories to hundreds of thousands of Israelis. The majority of Lebanese, who were not at all happy about Hizbollah keeping its weapons after all the other militia gave up theirs' in Lebanon, and who were trying to conduct a 'national dialogue' to politically corner the Hizbollah to force it to rearm, has now naturally sided with Hizbollah against the Israeli assaults on Lebanese infrastructure. True, some brave Lebanese are speaking out against Hizbollah, Syria and Iran's crude interventions in Lebanon, but Israel once again tops the list of most hated countries.

Olmert hasn't said a word about making peace with Lebanon, and how making peace could set in motion a real change toward a real new Middle East. He rejects talk about handing the Shaba Farms over to Lebanon, saying the area is Syrian and besides, it would be a reward to Hizbollah, Lebanese Prime Minister Fu'ad Siniora has said that if Israel uses the opportunity now, there could be a political settlement between the two countries, but if it does not, Lebanon will be the last country to sign a peace with Israel. And meanwhile, Bush is not known to have spent much time on the phone with either Olmert or Siniora, and of course refuses to have anything to do with Syria, a key player in his 'axis of evil.'

So, is there a new Middle East on the horizon? Perhaps, but if it ever shows up, the old Middle East might be too worn out to recognize it, or grab the opportunity to make it happen.

Today's Situation || Yesterday's Situation