Normalization or Destabilization?

This article has been excerpted from a seminar on the Middle East, given at the Center for International Affairs in December.

The Middle East today is characterized by two different processes. Each of them very mighty, fundamental, and having implications for the rest of the world.

The first process is the peace-making process, both with regard to the bilateral Egyptian-Israeli aspect as well as the inter-Arab, anti-Egyptian reaction which followed President Sadat's initiative, the Camp David agreements and the Peace Treaty. The other process is that of cultural, political, and social revolution and transition progressively sweeping almost all Middle Eastern countries. It is a process characterized by instability. Of course the most dramatic recent event was the fall of the Shah's regime in Iran and the establishment of a new, radical fanatic Islamic society.

Through one bold step Sadat succeeded in completely changing all previously known and accepted norms. And, Sadat is confident that his policy of pragmatism is the right one, for Egypt, as well as for the rest of the Arab countries. He was not intimidated by the inter-Arab coalition opposing him. He believes that this anti-Egyptian, anti-peace-making front will disintegrate and, sooner or later, all others will follow suit.

The crucial problem in appraising the chances and the direction of the first process--the making of peace between Isreal and its Arab neighbours--is, who is going to outlive whom. Will it be Egypt with its present policy or will it be the anti-Egyptian radical front?

And, one should remember--it is relatively easy for an Egyptian to accept the formula of "Peace with Israel"--but it is much more difficult and it is very different to accept a formula of "Israel instead of the Arabs". An Israeli professor, visiting Egypt, was told by a prominent Egyptian: "For 30 years you were all by youselves in a Ghetto. Now we are together with you in the same Ghetto."

A New Arrangement

This brings me to the other course of developments through which the Middle East is moving. In 1977, when Sadat embarked on his dramatic trip to Jerusalem, the whole area was still greatly under American influence. This was the case in Saudi Arabia, in Iran, in the Sudan, Morocco and Jordan. Today, however, the situation is different. The Shah of Iran left his country, and Iran is undergoing a radical, anti-Western, anti-American revolution, with instability as its most immediate characteristic. Whatever stability and normalization the oil market regained in the years between 1975 and 1978 has disappeared, with very strong international repercussions. The Soviets succeeded in penetration to Afghanistan, South Yemen, and North Yemen. Jordan is sitting on the fence though much more inclined towards the radical Arab rejectionist front. And, Saudi Arabia, to the great surprise of both the U.S. and Egypt does not support the Egyptian policy. On the contrary, they embarked upon a course together with the radical elements in the Middle East, potentially very dangerous to the present regime in Raid.

Since we are in the middle of the process it would be foolish to make any definite forecasts as to the outcome. Nevertheless, in reviewing the last two years since Sadat's decision, Egypt has already had one very significant victory: The anti-Sadat, anti-Camp David, anti-Peace Front is already falling apart, I must say, sooner than I had expected. The traditional rivalry between Iraq and Syria, between the two Ba'ath regimes has proved to be, for the time being, stronger than the anti-Israeli cement.

Egypt, then, has had its first victory, but for the time being things have not yet moved in the other direction, that is, towards open support for Cairo and its policy.

The Palestinians

A few words need to be said about the Palestinians since they may play a very significant role in the forseeable future.

First, the next phase in the peace process, the establishment of autonomy in the West Bank and Gaza strip, will never work out without the participation and cooperation of at least some Palestinian elements inside those territories. I believe the greater part of the population would have gladly accepted such an autonomy, not because the parameters offered are the ideal ones for them, but because this would signify the first positive step in the right direction. This would give them hope of coming out of the present impasse which now seems to be the best chance they may have. But their sentiments do not count. As long as there is no "green light" from the PLO leadership, as long as there is a terrorist threat against the life of any local notable who will dare to join the talks, this means a practical non-starter.

Another aspect of Palestinian importance at this very critical phase of the peace-making process, lies in the fact that the Palestinian issue is the "flag" hoisted by every one of the Arab countries. Thus, without some progress towards its solution, it's almost impossible to see any Arab country joining the talks. Furthermore, even the Egyptian position would be very delicate without such progress.

On the other hand, the third aspect depends totally on the PLO itself. In spite of all the efforts to bring about a modification in the PLO's position, the result was never successful. Many times it seemed as if they were about to adopt a more moderate policy, but at the very last moment they turned back, and stuck to the professed policy of their most extreme elements.

This position is not a result of not having a dialogue with the PLO. It is, however, not a dialogue they want with the U.S. It is American recognition they want, without any concession or moderation on their part.

To Sum Up

The situation in the Middle East is very dynamic and volatile. One should not reach any conclusions from one momentary static picture. We can gain the right perspective only by analysing the evolution of the process through which the situation in the Middle East has been changing. Many positions that would have been considered totally unthinkable yesterday are already political facts today. This might very much be the case with today's positions as well. Without elaborating, the U.S. did play a most important and beneficial role in the past. Without such continued involvement in the future there will be no progress.

Let us have no illusions: even if the peace-making process is completely successful, it will not magically solve all the problems of the Middle East area. Many internal and external conflicts trouble almost every country in the Middle East, and all these problems have very little to do with the Israeli-Arab issue. If someone hopes that by solving the conflict he will bring peace and stability to the area, he is very wrong. Unfortunately, this is very much a goal that cannot be reached in the forseeable future.

Shlomo Gazit is a major general in the Israeli Defense Forces and a fellow at the Center for International Affairs.