[WCUSP] For lasting ME peace, look to 1967 UN plan

[Tura Campanella Cook]

 From Christian Science Monitor, 8/10/06:

By Helena Cobban  Thu Aug 10, 4:00 AM ET

CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. - The carnage in Lebanon, Israel, and Gaza 
continues. Civilians in all three areas have suffered horrendous, 
unacceptable casualties. Israel remains the dominant military power in 
the region: It is in no danger of being vanquished, and it clearly 
remains capable of inflicting greater damage on the civilian 
communities beyond its borders. But history has shown us once again 
that, even with all the firepower at its disposal, Israel is incapable 
of imposing its will by force on the Lebanese and Palestinian people 
who are – and will always be – its neighbors.

Israel's government and people need to find a way other than coercive 
military force to build a relationship that is sustainable over the 
long term with these neighbors and thus to enjoy at last the sense of 
security that they (and all the peoples of the region) so deeply crave. 
And Americans, who have a long and close relationship with Israel and 
aspire to have good relations with the Lebanese and Palestinians, 
should understand that the region's most urgent needs are to win a 
complete and fully monitored cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon 
(and, if possible, between Israel and the militants in Gaza), and to 
link that cease-fire to an explicit plan to have the United Nations 
convene an authoritative peace conference within, say, two weeks that 
aims to find a speedy resolution to all the unresolved strands of the 
Arab-Israeli conflict.

Why work for a comprehensive peace agreement now, rather than postpone 
this search once again? Because all the remaining strands of the 
Arab-Israeli conflict are closely connected, and none of them can be 
resolved without the others. Because the casualty rates in Palestinian 
Gaza have been and remain shockingly high. And because the challenges 
the world faces concerning Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan are now so 
serious that the Arab-Israeli tinderbox cannot be left to smolder.

Finding a final, comprehensive peace between Israel and all its 
neighbors may look ambitious, but it is certainly quite doable. The 
past 39 years of peace diplomacy have shown what the basic outline of a 
sustainable "final outcome" will look like. It will roughly resemble 
what the UN Security Council envisaged in 1967 when it called on Israel 
to withdraw from territories it brought under military occupation that 
year, and on the Arab parties to accord full recognition and peace to 
Israel.

This outcome is close to the peace plans discussed intensively between 
Israeli and Arab negotiators in 2000, and to the one the Arab states 
all endorsed in March 2002. In the recent past (though before the 
present tensions), clear majorities of citizens in Israel and 
neighboring Arab communities all expressed support for such an outcome.

This will certainly require visionary and determined leadership from 
the international community. The US, which has given Israel much 
support during its assault on Lebanon, is poorly placed to lead this 
process, but fortunately, the UN can do so. President Bush will still, 
however, have a vital role to play. He has said he does not want to 
return to the "status quo ante," and that he wants to address the "root 
causes" of the current conflict. I agree with these positions. But 
where Mr. Bush identifies the main root cause as that nebulous, poorly 
defined force, "international terrorism," I see it as the failure to 
finish resolving the Arab-Israeli dispute.

One historical note: Almost exactly 50 years ago, Britain and France – 
both of which still had significant political influence over the Middle 
East – allied themselves with an aggressive Israeli military assault 
(against Egypt) aimed at transforming the regional balance in Israel's 
favor. On that occasion, Israel and its allies "won" the war on the 
ground, but they could not win the "transformational" political goal 
that they sought. In the stalemate that followed, the other global 
powers, primarily the US, stepped in and brokered an arrangement 
involving a complete Israeli withdrawal from the lands they occupied 
and the dispatch of UN peacekeepers. Because of the political 
miscalculation Britain and France had made in backing Israel's assault, 
they lost nearly all their political clout in the region. Indeed, those 
events marked the beginning of Washington's dominance there.

Now, Washington's decision to give strong backing to Israel's assault 
against Lebanon looks eerily like a replay of the error that the 
British and French governments made in 1956. Today, only the UN 
Security Council can play the same role – stressing fairness, 
deescalation, and nonviolent problem-solving – that the US played in 
1956. And only the Security Council can say to all the peoples of the 
Arab-Israeli region that their cries of pain have been heard and that 
the world community promises them that their nations can all have a 
safe and hopeful future based on a regionwide peace. Today, surely, 
that goal looks more worth aiming at and more urgent than ever before.

• ~~I~~Helena Cobban is writing a book on violence and its 
legacies.~~/I~~

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 5639 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/wcusp_wilpf.org/attachments/20060812/42026590/attachment.bin