After Sept. 11, brighter peace
prospects

by Benjamin Miller

As with the Persian Gulf war of 1991, the current war on terrorism creates a great opportunity to advance the Arab-Israeli peace process.

In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks, some argued that the most effective way to prevent future attacks would be to address the root causes of terrorism, notably the Palestinian issue. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon indeed became alarmed that in its attempts to build a wide coalition, one that includes as many Arab and Muslim states as possible, the United States might "appease" the Arabs. It would do so by sacrificing Israel's interests as Czechoslovakia's interests were on the eve of World War II.

Osama bin Laden, for his part, is using the Palestinian issue for his war against America and the West, to appear as the great savior of the suppressed Palestinians much as Saddam Hussein tried to do a decade ago.

"Appeasement" of bin Laden and his associates would be fruitless. These fanatics are not trying to influence the fine details of an Arab-Israeli peace. They planned their horrific actions well before the recent collapse of the peace process. Peace in the Middle East is their great enemy, which will deprive them of a great issue to mobilize money and support for their war against America and Arab regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. There is no way any peace agreement can satisfy their demands, because they wish Israel not to exist at all.

Israeli worries about coalition deals with Arab states behind its back are understandable and such deals have to be avoided. However, a more forceful U.S.
engagement in the peace process, which will result in security for Israel and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state alongside it, is a key interest of both the United States and Israel. All the better if such an outcome will "appease" the moderate elements in the Muslim world and the "Arab street" and as a result reduce the appeal of the militants.

The question is, why do the prospects of such an outcome look brighter now? It has been only a year since the Clinton administration tried desperately to advance a peace agreement fair to both parties. This initiative collapsed as the Palestinians resorted to violence precisely when the most moderate Israeli government -- Ehud Barak's government -- was ready to accept painful concessions for making peace. Such a violent response led the Israeli public to elect the hard-liner Sharon. The year of violence increased the level of distrust and made the advancement of peace an uphill battle.

Still, the events of Sept. 11 make progress in the peace process much more likely than has been the case for a very long time. The United States, the only power capable of promoting regional peace, has both more interest and more leverage to advance the peace process. Progress in that process is necessary to maintain a coalition with many Arab and Muslim participants for an extended period. Fear of spreading instability in the Middle East and the removal from power of moderate regimes there increases the interest in peacemaking.

Peace will reduce the appeal of radicals, who manipulate conflicts for their own purposes. Weakening of the radicals by the U.S.-led war on terrorism will increase American leverage to influence the regional actors, similarly to the increasing U.S. leverage following its victory over radical Iraq in the Gulf war.

At the same time, the regional parties' own maneuvering room decreased in the aftermath of Sept. 11. The Palestinians have lost their "strategic" weapon: terrorism and especially suicide bombers.

The United States is going to be much less tolerant of this kind of violence after Sept. 11, although some, including Arabs, try to make the unfortunate distinction between legitimate and illegitimate terrorism. Yasser Arafat has learned the Gulf lesson that joining the anti-U.S. side might be too costly for him. Thus he is, for a change, making real efforts to keep the U.S.-brokered cease-fire and even to go ahead with the unavoidable fight with his militant Islamists.

Israel, for its part, is again, as in the Gulf war, under heavy U.S. pressure to show restraint and not to disrupt the coalition by provocative acts such as excessive resort to force or expanding settlements in the occupied territories.

Promotion of the peace process is a vital U.S. interest. It is the only way to reconcile conflicting American interests in the region -- support for Israel and maintaining good relations with moderate Arab states in the oil-rich region.

The region's moderates eagerly want U.S. leadership in bringing about the long-awaited peace. This will be a long road with numerous ups and downs, but if the cease-fire holds, the implementation of the Mitchell Committee's recommendations about confidence-building measures should be a first step in reviving the peace process one year after it collapsed.

To be sure, the assassination of an Israeli cabinet minister by Palestinians militants on Wednesday poses a major threat to this opportunity to promote peace.

While restraining Israel, the United States and the international community should take advantage of the current situation to exert very heavy pressure on Arafat to crack down decisively on his radicals so that the terrorism against Israel will finally stop.

Suppressing the militants is a prerequisite not only for reviving the peace process but for avoiding a dangerous escalation of violence. Moreover, disarming the radicals is an essential condition for building a viable Palestinian state able to live peacefully alongside Israel.