Solve the Arab-Israeli conflict first

In the run-up to the Iraq war, pundits and policy wonks were debating the centrality of Iraq in transforming the Middle East into a pro-Western, democratic, and terrorist-free region.

Iraq was to be the first Arab democracy that will spill over the rest. That, and the presence of a victorious American army, would undermine Arab autocratic regimes and radical movements, and, in due course, the region will be inured to democratic order.

Michael Doran, then an academic and now a national security council staffer, penned an article in Foreign Affairs magazine (January/February 2003) urging Washington to stay clear from the Israel-Palestine conflict and zero in on Iraq.

In an instance of folie a deux, Doran wrote that "What the Bush administration seems to understand better than its critics is that the influence of the United States in the Arab-Israeli arena derives, to no small extent, from its status as the dominant power in the region as a whole - and that this status, in turn, hinges on maintaining an unassailable American predominance in the Arabian Gulf."

Moreover, "It was Saddam's defeat that cleared a space for the Madrid Conference and eventually the Oslo peace process. Then as now, defeating Saddam would offer the United States a golden opportunity to show the Arab and Muslim worlds that Arab aspirations are best achieved by working in cooperation with Washington. If an American road to a calmer situation in Palestine does in fact exist, it runs through Baghdad."

In a postscript (March 16, 2005), Doran peremptorily declared that "Events over the past two years have largely borne out my thesis".

And to the critics he had this to say: "Many commentators warned, for example, that there would be dire consequences if the Bush administration set out to topple Saddam Hussain without also pressuring the Israeli government to do more for the Palestinians.

"The administration chose to ignore this advice, and - thanks partly to the passing of Yasser Arafat - Israeli-Palestinian relations are now the warmest they have been in years."

He argues farther, that Palestine is no pivot of regional politics and only has a symbolic significance.

Au contraire, the centrality of Arab-Israeli conflict in regional politics is easily demonstrable and now more so after the Iraq fiasco. The eminence grises of American diplomacy, James Baker and Lee Hamilton, implied as much.

Without lancing the boil of Arab-Israeli conflict the body politic of the region will have less chance of recuperation, let alone seeing the penumbra of liberty.

Diplomatic initiatives

For one, the US has unstintingly involved itself in the conflict. Major US diplomatic initiatives towards the area (eg the partition of Palestine 1947, the tripartite declaration 1950, Rogers Plan 1969-70, Camp David Accords 1978, Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty 1979, the Oslo accords 1993) by and large concerns the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Moreover, US foreign aid is disproportionately devoted to the Arab-Israeli conflict. In fact, about one third of the foreign aid goes to the principal players in this saga, ie Israel and Egypt. Given all of these involvements in the conflict, it would look rather ludicrous to suggest the US extricate itself from its resolution.

Second, there is no other issue in the region which is charged with as much emotion as the plight of Palestinians and the status of the holy city of Occupied Jerusalem. No other cause reverberates throughout Arab and Muslim societies as Palestine does.

For the US to advocate freedom and democracy in the region while it insouciantly watches Palestinians' rights trampled into the dust is judged as rank sanctimoniousness in the regional court of public opinion.

Third, the conflict embroils the major regional powers in the Middle East, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and even Iraq, which makes the Arab-Israeli conflict a centrepiece of their foreign policies.

In addition, the countries with much of the output of Arab political discourses, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, are entwined with this conflict. Little surprise, then, that this pernicious conflict is viewed as the fulcrum of regional politics.

Fourth, the US concerns with weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear capabilities, is related to this conflict. Iran, Syria, Egypt (and Iraq under Saddam) are seeking strategic parity with Israel.

A peaceful settlement of the conflict will usher the region into regional disarmament. The lingering conflict is Israel's alibi for possessing nuclear weapons, that in turn serves as justification for others to pursue similar capabilities.

Fifth, the international community concern with the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by force is egregiously violated by Israel's policies of annexing the Golan Heights and the expansion of colonies in Palestinian territories.

The US and the world cannot fight, and rightly so, Saddam's forceful annexation of Kuwait, while the world leader all but abets and finances Israeli colonies and a colossal wall that lends support for a system dubbed apartheid by former president Jimmy Carter.

Last but not the least, a just solution for the conflict is in line with the US values and principles and would lay the grounds for stability and prosperity in the Middle East - the sine qua non for the spread of democracy.

To be sure, the Arab-Israeli conflict is not the root cause of all ills in the region, but certainly it is intricately related to many of its tribulations, and veritably casts a dark shadow over many issues in the region. If the US could roll the dice on war, it certainly can take a risk for, and seek redemption in, peace.

Dr Albadr S.S. Alshateri is a UAE-based political analyst and writer.