Middle East tension likely to persist

Middle East tension likely to persist

By Riza Sihbudi

JAKARTA (JP): There is a good chance that the current
Palestinian-Israeli dispute will plunge the Middle East into
further conflict.

The most recent tensions emerged with Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu's plan to build settlements in East
Jerusalem's Har Homa or Jabal Abu Ghneim hill, located near the
holy town of Al-Quds.

The Har Homa project has drawn strong opposition from several
quarters. Notably the Moslem countries, but also the Palestine
National Authority (PNA) led by Yasser Arafat, and even some
countries in the West have expressed objections to the project.

There are two main factors underlying this opposition to the
Har Homa project. Firstly, Al-Quds is widely envisaged as the
future capital of an independent Palestine by the PNA and many
Palestinians.

Secondly, in 1993 and 1995, tripartite agreements were signed
between Palestine, Israel and the U.S. stating that the final
status of Al-Quds would be discussed only in 1998. Palestinian
negotiators argue that the Har Homa project transgresses these
agreements.

Netanyahu seems vulnerable to pressure from extremist groups in
Israel. Many of these hardliners have opposed the peace process
from it's inception. Some pro-Arab analysts maintain that
Netanyahu drew on the support of these hardliners in his recent
victory over Shimon Peres. In turn, Netanyahu's reconciliatory
approach towards the Arab nations led the nickname "Best Israeli
for the Arabs" with some sections of the populace.

Netanyahu's government itself is a coalition of right wing
extremists, who emphasize Israel's military security at the
expense of the peace process. It would be political suicide for
Netanyahu to ignore their influence.

Meanwhile, the Israeli political elite seems to understand
that the stern warnings from abroad, mainly from the West
represent more than mere "rhetoric to pacify the Arabs".

As is typical with the politics of the Middle East, the
international community has frequently issued loud, but hollow
condemnations. But the outside world lacks both the ability and
the willpower to enforce peace and justice in the Middle East.

The U.S. Security Council veto of opposition to the Har Homa
project reveals the hypocrisy of the West- both in its claims to
be a champion of human rights and of democracy.

One popular,but unrealistic explanation is that growing
international pressure will allow Netanyahu to persuade
hardliners that the Har Homa project must be abandoned.

Perhaps this thesis could hold if Labor figures such as Shimon
Peres or the late Yitzhak Rabin still governed Israel- men who
were more serious about the peace process.

The attitude of the Arab countries is no less ironic. They
have made no serious attempt to defend the Palestinians. The oil-
rich Arab states, showing primary concern for their own wealth
have been engaged primarily with empty rhetoric. This strengthens
a perception of the death of Pan-Arabism.

There are two factors behind the ambiguous attitude of the
Arab world. Firstly, the birth of an independent Palestine would
be alarming for many Arab-states. These nations may perceive an
intellectual rivalry with the Palestinian nation. To push for
Palestinian independence would seem to be tantamount to creating
a second Israel.

Secondly, regional groupings such as the Arab League, the
Organization of Islamic Conference Organization (OIC) or the
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), are
dominated by oil-rich states which are close allies - if not
puppets - of the United States. It is unrealistic to think that
they would take a stance that was contrary to U.S. interests.

In this situation, only a miracle can save the peace process.
It is no wonder that in the past few weeks there has been a
resurgence of the Intifada resistance. For these young
Palestinians, the Intifada is the only means to oppose an Israel
backed by the West. Perhaps they believe that God only helps
those who help themselves.

If the above analysis is accurate, protracted conflict is the
most likely scenario in the Middle East. Is this what the U.S.
and other arms manufacturers want ? God only knows.

The writer is a researcher at the Indonesian Institute of
Sciences (LIPI) and the Indonesian Society for Middle East
Studies (ISMES) in Jakarta.