The tragic and appalling death toll in Lebanon and Israel has once again brought into sharp focus the conflicts which scar the Middle East. The goal of a prosperous, peaceful and democratic region seems perhaps further away than ever, as longstanding enmities are reinforced by recent events. Yet it is precisely in such gloomy circumstances that progressives have a particular responsibility to seek a just, long-term and lasting settlement.
It is clear that there are two central preconditions for a lasting peace: the creation of a viable Palestinian state willing and able to coexist in peace with Israel, and an end to terrorist attacks on Israel itself.
The early failure of the present Bush administration to continue Bill Clinton’s efforts to secure a two-state solution between the Palestinians and Israelis was a disastrous dereliction of duty. A truly concerted international effort to re-energise the Middle East peace process is of critical importance now. The election of Hamas earlier this year represented a severe setback but it is the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, who speaks for his people on these issues and every poll confirms that most Palestinians (and indeed most Israelis) favour a two-state agreement.
One lesson from recent history is that surely negotiations are the right way forward. Israel’s unilateral withdrawals from both Lebanon and the Gaza Strip did not bring increased peace and security – they left vacuums which were quickly filled by Hizbollah and Hamas respectively. A new state of Palestine will only succeed if its creation is negotiated, not simply imposed.
The outlines of an agreement for a Palestinian state are already pretty clear. The real question is whether the political will is there on all sides. Most Israelis know that they will never enjoy long-term security unless the Palestinian question is resolved. President Abbas’ commitment is clear and there are even signs of a shift in Hamas’ position. Tony Blair has long emphasised the UK’s support for an urgent settlement.
Can the US be persuaded to really engage with this in the kind of sustained way that is necessary to secure a result? The evidence from the first six years of George W Bush is not encouraging, but as he moves into the final chapter of his presidency perhaps he will be persuaded; he is after all the first US president to accept explicitly the goal of a Palestinian state.
The benefits of an Israeli-Palestinian agreement would be enormous – not only for these two long-suffering peoples but for the wider region. The ability of extremists to tap into popular support for the Palestinian cause is well documented. Deal with that cause and the true character of the extremists will be clear.
The international community has a responsibility to engage with Iran and Syria: these are unsavoury regimes with atrocious human rights records and links with terrorists, especially Hizbollah; but a policy of isolation and labelling their governments as ‘evil’ simply is not working. A change of approach is necessary, both to promote reform and democracy internally and to persuade these regimes that if they are prepared to stop their support for terrorists the potential benefits are considerable – both diplomatically and economically.
Perhaps the most powerful critique of the west is the sense of ‘double standards’ – that a blind eye is turned to human rights violations in Egypt or Saudi Arabia that would be condemned if they happened in Syria or Iran. A regional approach that is consistent in promoting freedom of expression, democracy and human rights is long overdue. Lack of consistency serves to undermine credibility.
A final thought – let us not forget Lebanon itself, a country that has been torn apart for decades by civil war, invasion and terrorism. Once an agreement is reached, the world cannot again turn its back on Lebanon.