Israeli-Palestinian Enmity Remains upon Death of Sharon: US-Russian Interference Hinders Peace Effort

After eight years in a coma, former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has died. Among other stories surrounding his posthumous evaluation, much global commentary has focused upon his leadership as defense minister during the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, when he permitted the massacre of some 700 to 2,000 Palestinians by a Christian militia. While the actual count remains in dispute, the slaughter of even one person is still a slaughter, much less hundreds of unarmed Palestinians. Even Israelis find it difficult to rationalize Sharon’s actions; the accompanying stigma for war crimes may be hard to shake.

Sharon Should Face Trial for Sanction of Massacre during Lebanon Invasion

While alive, Sharon escaped the judgment of international war crimes tribunals, but his passing has created a certain expectation for Middle Eastern peace. Israel’s position is that its survival was ultimately contingent upon fighting the five Arab-Israeli wars. From the first war in 1948 until the fifth in 1982, Israel and its Arab opponents have used every form of modern armament short of nuclear weapons across the vast sands of the Middle East. In the opening stages of the fourth war in 1973, Israel was very nearly annihilated. If not for the strength of U.S. military aid, circumstances in the Middle East today might be entirely different. Sharon was the last Israeli prime minister to have played a part in all five wars. Current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was born in 1949. From a historical perspective, the burden on Israeli-Palestinian relations caused by the wars should be lessened for the Israeli government and, in its place, allow for more peaceful thinking.

But indeed, not having participated in war is not a clear indication of an anti-war stance, and both Israelis and Palestinians have had their right to exist challenged within an atmosphere thick with mutual distrust. With the addition of the Middle Eastern geopolitical strategies of the U.S. and Soviet Union (now Russia) during the Cold War and post-Cold War eras in supporting Israel and the Palestinians with a constant flow of military aid, it was inevitable that war became the only solution to their problems. Though there have been no major Arab-Israeli wars for the past 30 years, there is still the occasional Israeli fighter strike on a Palestinian base and the Middle East remains a powder keg ready to blow. At one time 20 years ago, Israel adopted a peaceful demeanor, but this was done with an ulterior motive. When Sharon became prime minister in 2001 and then unilaterally disengaged from Gaza, it was widely regarded as an Israeli attempt to fetter Palestinians and forestall any plans to establish a Palestinian state. With the proliferation of such theories, the peace process was put on hold indefinitely.

The Middle Eastern landscape is a complex tapestry woven from situational, historical and religious factors, as well as the influence of external powers. Having personally experienced this [landscape], the last generation of Israelis and Palestinians were unable to put their differences aside. With both Sharon and Yasser Arafat now having returned to dust, however, a new way of thinking should be cultivated, lest the conflict be passed down to later generations. When even South Africa’s apartheid policies can become history, why can’t the Israelis and Palestinians, with their abundant wisdom, accomplish the same?

A key factor here is the presence of external powers. As all are aware, the true puppet masters behind the successive Arab-Israeli wars were the U.S. and the former Soviet Union. They took hold of Israel and Palestine respectively and wielded their veto powers with abandon in the U.N. Security Council, with at least 48 U.S. vetoes coming on resolutions pertaining to the Middle East, Palestine or Israel. The United States’ sheltering of Israel in this way is linked to its Middle Eastern strategy. Maintaining a foothold in the Middle East; balancing affairs in Africa, the Mediterranean and the Middle East; and supporting Israel are common goals that straddle party lines within the U.S., with the only differences in the choice of tactics. When the U.S. requires the aid of Arab states, Israel temporarily becomes of secondary importance, such as during the first Gulf War when the U.S. used every method at its disposal to restrain Israel for fear that the Arab coalition against Iraq would fracture. But when the Israeli military surrounded PLO leader Arafat’s headquarters, the U.S. did little beyond feign a token objection.

A Third Option Outside of the U.S. and Russia: Beijing May Be of Aid in Peace Talks

After more than half a century, circumstances in the Middle East remain dire. Israel’s present inability to find a suitable opening for peace remains a contributing factor, but the overt and clandestine struggles in the region between external powers are the primary culprits in the prolonged conflict. Although the Middle East maintains close ties with the U.S. and Russia, China should be capable of serving as a nonpartisan force to mediate within the deadlock, given the burgeoning strength of its economy in recent years and its impartial diplomacy toward both Israel and the Palestinians, as past reliance on the dueling U.S. and Russia has only ever won a short-lived peace. The passing of the battle-scarred Sharon has paved the way for a new way of thinking. Years of strife will not be forgotten in a day, but if the Israelis and Palestinians hesitate and miss this fleeting opportunity for peace, the next disaster may soon come knocking at the door.