ENDING the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an international priority has been overtaken by the turbulence in the Middle East. While still a desired goal – US secretary of state John Kerry is pushing hard for it – it has dropped down the scale in relation to the mass deaths and destruction in Syria, Egypt, Libya and Yemen, with other countries also sliding towards anarchy – as seen in Lebanon on Tuesday with double suicide bombings in Beirut killing at least 23 people.
Yet, paradoxically, the turmoil might open the way to finally ending the longrunning struggle between Palestinians and Israelis.
That is because the fall-out from what began as the Arab Spring is shaking the Arab world to its foundations. And the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran is feared not only by Israel, but by others in the region too.
Although the Arab world has never been monolithic, it was for years united in rejecting Israel after its founding in 1948. That weakened after Egypt and Jordan signed peace treaties with the Jewish state, but to this day an official pan-Arab office exists in Damascus to coordinate a boycott of Israel.
In practice it has never been effective and these days is increasingly breached. Violent anti-Israel – and anti-Semitic – rhetoric is loudly expressed by some, but Israeli quality products are bought, whether tomato seeds or hi-tech, often through a third country. Still more, it’s an open secret that diplomatic links exist with a number of Arab countries.
That much is under the counter was shown in mid-year with an extraordinary action by Israel’s foreign ministry: it announced the opening of a consulate in an Arab capital – but declined to name the country.
Those Arab countries which have not been submerged in violence are fearful that the tide of unrest could engulf them. They want domestic stability and economic progress. They do not want challenges to their autocratic rule and they worry about eruptions of pro-Palestinian demonstrations in their own streets.
Possibilities for progress are strengthened because worldwide sanctions have weakened Iran. Its economy is in great difficulty and it cannot pursue its regional power ambitions as before. Its chief client state, Syria, is rent asunder and with chemical weapons being removed it is not a threat to Israel.
Hezbollah in neighbouring Lebanon is an Iranian proxy and has a reported 70 000 or so missiles aimed at Israel, but its energies are directed to backing Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad and sending its militants to fight for him.
Hamas in the Gaza Strip, also a recipient of Iranian arms and money, has got to deal with problems of survival. The Israeli blockade is vastly extended by Egypt’s action in closing its Rafah border crossing with Gaza and in destroying hundreds of tunnels once used to bring in fuel and food. Hundreds of Palestinians are repeatedly stranded in no man’s land, with Egypt refusing to allow them to return to their Gazan homes.
So Israel’s most malevolent enemies must deal with their own problems. That provides opportunities for other Arab states to develop relations with Israel.
The Iranian nuclear crisis is itself a prime factor in creating new relationships. Arab states in the Gulf area are mortally afraid of any growth in Iranian power and influence. The Sunni-Shi’ite Muslim rivalry is part of that: Tuesday’s deadly bombings in Beirut were claimed by a Sunni group to be a protest against Shi’ite Hezbollah’s involvement in Syria and it was thus also a strike against Shi’ite Iran.
Saudi Arabia, the prime Sunni backer, is painfully aware that Iran could close the Straits of Hormuz and throttle oil exports. The Saudi attitude was made clear when Wikileaks released US diplomatic cables which reported that King Abdullah wanted Washington to “cut off the head of the snake” to end Teheran’s nuclear threat.
That, of course, is equally Israel’s desire. And both countries are deeply disappointed and concerned by what they see as US failure to deal effectively with Iran.
They see weakness and also in regard to Syria: Saudi Arabia wants to get rid of Assad, is aiding the rebels and is dismayed that the US has walked away from military attack.
Saudi Arabia and Israel are poles apart in every possible way: it’s a repressive society vs a democracy, it’s Islam – and a stern brand of Wahhabism at that – vs Judaism. In addition, the Saudis have been major financial backers of anti-Israel Palestinian movements. So Israel and Saudi Arabia are unlikely allies. Yet political commentators are increasingly speculating that an alliance based on mutual interest is developing between them.
That has gone so far that the London Sunday Times this week reported that Saudi Arabia was prepared to do the unthinkable – to make itself available to enable Israeli warplanes to bomb Iranian nuclear sites.
If that seemed implausible and fanciful then look at the interview in the Financial Times with Yaakov Amidror who, until last week, was national security adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu. He spoke about Israel doing what the US is not doing: a strike on Iran’s nuclear installations that would halt Teheran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons “for a very long time”.
Asked if Israel has the capability to hit Iran’s subterranean nuclear sites, he replied: “Including everything . . . We are not bluffing. We are very serious – preparing ourselves for the possibility that Israel will have to defend itself by itself.”
It’s elementary that the right to overfly Saudi Arabia would dramatically aid an Israeli air strike. And if Israel did succeed in inflicting serious damage, then Saudi Arabia plus a host of other Arab countries would cheer with delight – even though they might castigate Israel in public and rejoice in private.
On the other hand, Saudi Arabia quickly issued a denial, saying it “has no relations or contacts with Israel of any kind or at any level”.
In fact, Saudi Arabia has for more than a decade been seeking to end the IsraeliPalestinian conflict. In 2002 it issued a land for peace offer to Israel: we will normalise relations if you return to the pre-1967 war boundaries, accept the return of Arab refugees from the 1948 and 1967 wars and share Jerusalem as the capital.
The Arab League endorsed the offer and it is known as the Arab Peace Initiative (API). Israel’s prime ministers have looked the other way; the offer’s demands are viewed as extreme. But, as API supporters point out – and Israeli and Palestinian peace groups back it – the API is not a final statement, but the start of a negotiation with the details still to be agreed.
That the API is still alive – it was reaffirmed early this year – demonstrates the extent of Saudi interest in a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Indeed, the Palestinian cause remains “sacred” to the Saudis, says Sir Tom Phillips, who retired last year after successive stints as Britain’s ambassador to Israel and then to Saudi Arabia. A reason they want progress on the issue is “to deny the Iranians the ability to claim – with a politically calculating eye on the ‘ Arab street’ – that they are the more genuine advocates of the Palestinian cause”.
However, it’s highly unlikely that peace is around the corner. Israeli suspicions of Arab intentions are deep; Arab animosities are strong, especially in the street beyond the ruling elites. Thus, for example, two Moroccan members of parliament came to Israel last week for a meeting of Mediterranean parliamentarians – but under pressure from home backed out from visiting Israel’s Knesset (parliament).
Whether the whispers and speculation will lead to anything concrete cannot be said. But that there is movement is certain. And it’s better to have activity and hope than to go on wallowing in the morass of nothingness of the last few years.
What a pity, however, that South Africa is unable to contribute its experience in resolving conflicts. Praising Iran for its human rights and sending a fraternal delegation to North Korea in the same month that its minister for international cooperation denounced contact with Israel is not the way to present itself as a potential mediator. That the cabinet promptly disavowed the minister, even though she had correctly portrayed the nuts and bolts of government policy towards Israel, only adds to the confusion and confirms South Africa as a non-player. Benjamin Pogrund is the former deputy editor of the Rand Daily Mail. He now lives in Jerusalem. His latest book, Is Israel Apartheid? Reporting the Facts on Israel and South Africa, is to be published by Rowman & Littlefield in New York next year
Hope amid Arab turmoil
Yet, paradoxically, the turmoil might open the way to finally ending the longrunning struggle between Palestinians and Israelis.
That is because the fall-out from what began as the Arab Spring is shaking the Arab world to its foundations. And the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran is feared not only by Israel, but by others in the region too.
Although the Arab world has never been monolithic, it was for years united in rejecting Israel after its founding in 1948. That weakened after Egypt and Jordan signed peace treaties with the Jewish state, but to this day an official pan-Arab office exists in Damascus to coordinate a boycott of Israel.
In practice it has never been effective and these days is increasingly breached. Violent anti-Israel – and anti-Semitic – rhetoric is loudly expressed by some, but Israeli quality products are bought, whether tomato seeds or hi-tech, often through a third country. Still more, it’s an open secret that diplomatic links exist with a number of Arab countries.
That much is under the counter was shown in mid-year with an extraordinary action by Israel’s foreign ministry: it announced the opening of a consulate in an Arab capital – but declined to name the country.
Those Arab countries which have not been submerged in violence are fearful that the tide of unrest could engulf them. They want domestic stability and economic progress. They do not want challenges to their autocratic rule and they worry about eruptions of pro-Palestinian demonstrations in their own streets.
Possibilities for progress are strengthened because worldwide sanctions have weakened Iran. Its economy is in great difficulty and it cannot pursue its regional power ambitions as before. Its chief client state, Syria, is rent asunder and with chemical weapons being removed it is not a threat to Israel.
Hezbollah in neighbouring Lebanon is an Iranian proxy and has a reported 70 000 or so missiles aimed at Israel, but its energies are directed to backing Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad and sending its militants to fight for him.
Hamas in the Gaza Strip, also a recipient of Iranian arms and money, has got to deal with problems of survival. The Israeli blockade is vastly extended by Egypt’s action in closing its Rafah border crossing with Gaza and in destroying hundreds of tunnels once used to bring in fuel and food. Hundreds of Palestinians are repeatedly stranded in no man’s land, with Egypt refusing to allow them to return to their Gazan homes.
So Israel’s most malevolent enemies must deal with their own problems. That provides opportunities for other Arab states to develop relations with Israel.
The Iranian nuclear crisis is itself a prime factor in creating new relationships. Arab states in the Gulf area are mortally afraid of any growth in Iranian power and influence. The Sunni-Shi’ite Muslim rivalry is part of that: Tuesday’s deadly bombings in Beirut were claimed by a Sunni group to be a protest against Shi’ite Hezbollah’s involvement in Syria and it was thus also a strike against Shi’ite Iran.
Saudi Arabia, the prime Sunni backer, is painfully aware that Iran could close the Straits of Hormuz and throttle oil exports. The Saudi attitude was made clear when Wikileaks released US diplomatic cables which reported that King Abdullah wanted Washington to “cut off the head of the snake” to end Teheran’s nuclear threat.
That, of course, is equally Israel’s desire. And both countries are deeply disappointed and concerned by what they see as US failure to deal effectively with Iran.
They see weakness and also in regard to Syria: Saudi Arabia wants to get rid of Assad, is aiding the rebels and is dismayed that the US has walked away from military attack.
Saudi Arabia and Israel are poles apart in every possible way: it’s a repressive society vs a democracy, it’s Islam – and a stern brand of Wahhabism at that – vs Judaism. In addition, the Saudis have been major financial backers of anti-Israel Palestinian movements. So Israel and Saudi Arabia are unlikely allies. Yet political commentators are increasingly speculating that an alliance based on mutual interest is developing between them.
That has gone so far that the London Sunday Times this week reported that Saudi Arabia was prepared to do the unthinkable – to make itself available to enable Israeli warplanes to bomb Iranian nuclear sites.
If that seemed implausible and fanciful then look at the interview in the Financial Times with Yaakov Amidror who, until last week, was national security adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu. He spoke about Israel doing what the US is not doing: a strike on Iran’s nuclear installations that would halt Teheran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons “for a very long time”.
Asked if Israel has the capability to hit Iran’s subterranean nuclear sites, he replied: “Including everything . . . We are not bluffing. We are very serious – preparing ourselves for the possibility that Israel will have to defend itself by itself.”
It’s elementary that the right to overfly Saudi Arabia would dramatically aid an Israeli air strike. And if Israel did succeed in inflicting serious damage, then Saudi Arabia plus a host of other Arab countries would cheer with delight – even though they might castigate Israel in public and rejoice in private.
On the other hand, Saudi Arabia quickly issued a denial, saying it “has no relations or contacts with Israel of any kind or at any level”.
In fact, Saudi Arabia has for more than a decade been seeking to end the IsraeliPalestinian conflict. In 2002 it issued a land for peace offer to Israel: we will normalise relations if you return to the pre-1967 war boundaries, accept the return of Arab refugees from the 1948 and 1967 wars and share Jerusalem as the capital.
The Arab League endorsed the offer and it is known as the Arab Peace Initiative (API). Israel’s prime ministers have looked the other way; the offer’s demands are viewed as extreme. But, as API supporters point out – and Israeli and Palestinian peace groups back it – the API is not a final statement, but the start of a negotiation with the details still to be agreed.
That the API is still alive – it was reaffirmed early this year – demonstrates the extent of Saudi interest in a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Indeed, the Palestinian cause remains “sacred” to the Saudis, says Sir Tom Phillips, who retired last year after successive stints as Britain’s ambassador to Israel and then to Saudi Arabia. A reason they want progress on the issue is “to deny the Iranians the ability to claim – with a politically calculating eye on the ‘ Arab street’ – that they are the more genuine advocates of the Palestinian cause”.
However, it’s highly unlikely that peace is around the corner. Israeli suspicions of Arab intentions are deep; Arab animosities are strong, especially in the street beyond the ruling elites. Thus, for example, two Moroccan members of parliament came to Israel last week for a meeting of Mediterranean parliamentarians – but under pressure from home backed out from visiting Israel’s Knesset (parliament).
Whether the whispers and speculation will lead to anything concrete cannot be said. But that there is movement is certain. And it’s better to have activity and hope than to go on wallowing in the morass of nothingness of the last few years.
What a pity, however, that South Africa is unable to contribute its experience in resolving conflicts. Praising Iran for its human rights and sending a fraternal delegation to North Korea in the same month that its minister for international cooperation denounced contact with Israel is not the way to present itself as a potential mediator. That the cabinet promptly disavowed the minister, even though she had correctly portrayed the nuts and bolts of government policy towards Israel, only adds to the confusion and confirms South Africa as a non-player. Benjamin Pogrund is the former deputy editor of the Rand Daily Mail. He now lives in Jerusalem. His latest book, Is Israel Apartheid? Reporting the Facts on Israel and South Africa, is to be published by Rowman & Littlefield in New York next year
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos