Violence between Israelis and Palestinians has erupted after years of what looked like progress. The GSJ's Janet Kerlin asked Linda Miller where the Middle East conflict may be heading. Miller is a senior fellow at the Watson Institute for International Studies, editor of the International Studies Review, and a Wellesley College political science professor.
In the short term, the dovish elements on both sides are worried and pessimistic about the likelihood that a lasting peace based on formal negotiations will take place any time soon. Both Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat are seen as weak leaders unable to make the necessary additional concessions that would meet each other's minimum demands. In the longer term, extremist factions on both sides are poised to take advantage of the turmoil. The recent summits at Camp David and Sharm-el-Sheik, hastily cobbled together by the soon-to-depart Bill Clinton, have reinforced the view that coexistence will not be based on a grand settlement of outstanding issues, but rather on ad hoc arrangements worked out on the ground at a much lower level.
How have both sides failed their peoples?
Clearly, Israel has begun the process of preparing its people for significant change in the territorial map as a result of the peace with Egypt and Jordan and the withdrawal from Lebanon. Equally important, the cognitive map has also changed, with new interpretations of the early history of Israel now found in school curricula and textbooks. On the Palestinian side, far less preparation has taken place. The frequently announced and then postponed declaration of statehood has only added to the frustration of the lengthy Israeli occupation itself. Arafat has run a corrupt, nondemocratic regime and the school textbooks often still use terms like "Zionist entity." These are markers of the disjunction between the two parties which also stems from the fact that Israelis have a half century of statehood to build upon, while the Palestinians are at a very different stage of their political development. Cognitive shifts are the basis for making sure that territorial shifts are secure if and when they come.
What assumptions should Americans now revisit after recent events, including the terrorist attack on the USS Cole?
Americans need to remember that our preponderant power, globally and regionally in the Middle East, makes us a target of the dissatisfied. In the case of the damaged ship, that attack was probably planned far ahead of the outbreak of violence in Israel and the territories and so the two are not directly related. With respect to American policy in the Arab-Israeli conflict overall, we need to reconsider whether the Oslo approach - small steps, confidence building, personal relationships with foreign leaders, massive U.S assistance, postponement of key disagreements, and denigration of international organizations like the U.N. - pay off or contribute to the state of chaos we see now. In a few weeks, we will elect a new president whose administration will take at least a year to get up to speed on these issues and who is most unlikely to invest the time, energy and resources that Bill Clinton spent over the last seven years.