Wallerstein on end of peace process

A pessimistic prognosis, but Wallerstein at his prophetic best.

***

Comment No. 50, October 15, 2000
"The Collapse of a Peace Process"


It seems quite clear that the so-called peace process in the Middle East is
now over. One can date its either from the Oslo agreements between Israel
and the PLO in 1993 or from the Camp David agreements in 1978 between Israel
and Egypt. In either case, the present reality is the same. It has always
been a shaky process, as are inevitably all such attempts to end fierce and
passionate conflicts in which neither side can win a definitive military
victory. The hawks on each side always say they don't trust the other side,
and now in this case they will say they are vindicated.
The situation in Israel/Palestine is at root quite simple. Two groups who
consider themselves "peoples" - the Jews and the Palestinians - laid claim
to the same territory, in each case on the basis of long historical
connection. Ultimately, the only solution to such a conflict is either a
joint state (either unitary or binational) or partition. The former solution
having been firmly rejected, the latter has been tried twice, first in 1948
and most recently in 2000. The discussions at Camp David in 2000 reached
agreement on what the partition lines should be everywhere except for one
small hill in Jerusalem, a hill however replete with symbolic meaning for
both sides. Both sides insisted on sovereignty over this hill. It was too
small to divide. So one side or the other had to give. Neither was ready to
do this.
There is no analytically correct or even just solution to such a debate over
a hill. Either one works out a solution both can accept, or one does not. In
this case, one didn't. And at that point, the whole process began to
disintegrate. The hawks provoked. The doves became indecisive. The killings
began, and escalated. And everyone who thought they were in power in the
various states - Barak, Arafat, Clinton, Mubarak, Abdullah for a start - saw
how little real power they had in such a situation.
Some "peace processes" work. South Africa seemed to work. Some are today
somewhere in the middle of the process. They may work - Northern Ireland,
Korea, Bosnia. Some haven't even really started - Chechnya/Russia,
Chiapas/Mexico. And some break down, more or less definitively. I fear that
Israel/Palestine, or Israel/Arab world now joins this lugubrious list. At
this moment, everyone seems to be in the middle of deciding who is at fault
in the breakdown. I have my views too, but does it matter?
The real question is what happens next. And here we cannot be certain. But
there are some likely developments. If the war continues, and we are in a
war already, it will probably escalate. It is true that on Oct. 16, there
will be a summit in Egypt to seek a truce, and then possibly a resumption of
talks. But since both sides have hardened their positions since the failed
Camp David discussions, it is hard to see how this will stop the war. At
some point soon, the Palestinian Authority will proclaim a Palestinian
state. It will be recognized by other Arab states of course, and probably a
number of other states in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. It will not be
recognized by the United States. The European Union states will be
embarrassed, and may divide on this issue.
The Israelis have already made it clear what they would then do. They will
either reoccupy any areas of Gaza and the West Bank where they do not still
have troops, or (probably less likely) they will simply reoccupy some of
these areas, where there are Jewish settlements for example. They will
arrest persons linked to the Palestinian Authority, and the various
movements. Yasser Arafat may find himself in exile once again. There will be
a government of national union in Israel. It is already in the works. And if
there is one, the Likud will be calling the shots.
The war may spread beyond the boundaries of Israel/Palestine, though those
in power will try to keep this from happening. But can they? In any case,
the moderates will be eliminated in both camps, by ouster or by
assassination. In the process, Saddam Hussein will be reincorporated fully
into the Arab political process. The various Islamist groups (and their
counterparts among the Jews in Israel) will be strengthened. The governments
of Egypt and Jordan will be in danger. If the war spreads, the possibility
that nuclear weapons will be used should not be ruled out.
The war may spread beyond the Middle East. Already there are signs in
France, a country that has both Jewish and Arab residents in significant
number, that violences could occur there. And if there, why not elsewhere?
The power of such passions to enflame persons across the globe is not to be
minimized.
The United States? Its authority in the region will be greatly diminished.
Those it considers its friends may not survive at all, or if they do, they
may become much less friendly. Both Bush and Gore have declared the defense
of Israel a U.S. national interest. But what will the U.S. really do? They
can and will send money and arms to Israel, and they will support it
diplomatically. But it seems virtually impossible that they would send
troops. And if they don't send troops, their ability to affect the
developments will be small. The U.S. will find itself under attack in many
parts of the world, via what is called terrorism. The U.S. will huff and
puff, and quite possibly retaliate, but that will be at best only partially
effective, and of little use to those who die in the process.
It is possible that mediators will put themselves forward. France and Russia
yearn to play this role, which is and will remain unappreciated by both the
U.S. and Israel. It seems unlikely that, in the short run, France and Russia
can play a big role. Norway is another candidate, but Norway has nothing but
moral prestige to offer. And in conflicts of this severity, the value of
moral prestige is limited. 
So, we are in for a cascading degradation of the situation - countless
deaths and cruelties, a dark horizon for everyone in the region, and perhaps
beyond. There will of course be enormous negative economic effects - from
the physical destruction, from the decline of production and trade, from the
increased investment in armaments, from the non-investment of resources. As
other areas have discovered in such situations, it takes a long time to pull
oneself out of the holes such destructive conflicts engender.
And where will this all end? Who knows? It could be the destruction of the
State of Israel. It could be Israeli military occupation not only of Israel
but of some neighboring areas. It could be endless guerilla warfare. And
perhaps twenty years down the line, exhaustion will set in, and there will
be some continuing truce again.
The basic issue is that Israel cannot survive without some acceptance as a
legitimate state by its neighbors. Its entire foreign policy for the past
thirty years has centered around achieving this. The breakdown of the peace
process is also the breakdown of this kind of legitimation. Whether it can
be reinitiated in the future is uncertain.
Immanuel Wallerstein





_______________________________________________________
Say Bye to Slow Internet!
http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html