Middle East Strategy at Harvard
(
MESH) has been running a roundtable on the “The First 100 Days” of the next administration, asking what priorities should be set for immediate attention in the
Middle East.
Here is the response of Josef Joffe , who is publisher-editor of the German weekly Die Zeit and is a Fellow in International Relations at the Hoover Institution. He obtained his Ph.D. degree in Government from Harvard:
It was always wrong to claim that the conflict between
Israel and the Palestinians, or even with all the Arabs, was the root of all evil in the
Middle East. That clash was always one conflict among many, both within and between Arab/Muslim nations –between states and states, rulers and ruled, and sects and denominations. Since the rise of Iranian power in the aftermath of
Iran’s war against
Iraq (1980-88), the dominant regional conflict has again been over hegemony. Past claimants have been
Egypt,
Egypt-plus-Syria, and Saddam’s
Iraq. Now it is
Iran, pitted against the reigning egemon, the
United States, and its regional allies ranging from
Israel to
Saudi Arabia.
Iran ’s hegemonic quest deserves the lion’s share of the next administration’s attention. The aim is contain and deter and possibly intimidate a power that has married its revolutionary ambitions to sudden oil wealth, and which is well-advanced on the road to nuclear missile-weapons. Whatever happens in this arena will affect
America’s power and interests by at least an order of magnitude more than events unfolding between
Gaza and
Nablus . . ..
By itself, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has no strategic implications simply because neither side has any strategic option against the other. The Israelis cannot “destroy”
Palestine, and vice versa. Over the decades, it has also become clearer that no Arab state is willing to send its boys to die for Jenin, let alone
Haifa. Iran would like to acquire a strategic option against Israel, but its murderous desires have very little to do with imposing a two-state solution on
Jerusalem. The point is rather to eliminate
America’s most important regional pawn (well, make it “castle” and “rook”) from the chessboard. So, for the next administration, “it is the hegemony, stupid.”
Add to this a cold-eyed assessment of the Israeli-Palestinian issue. It may well be true that neither side is interested in a two-state solution. The Israelis will not repeat the “
Gaza gambit” — unconditionally vacating Hamas- or Fatah-controlled lands that are turned into a launching pad for rocket and terror attacks against Green-Line
Israel. What goes for
Gaza, goes triply for the
West Bank. No sane government will leave the security situation between Tulkarem and
Jericho in the hands of a Palestinian authority, no matter whether it is Fatah- or Hamas-dominated. There may also be a more charitable element in play here: No Palestinian authority acceptable to
Israel will want to forego the protection of the Israeli army.
Are the Palestinians truly interested in their own state? An affirmative answer is hardly a given. If statehood were their main business, the Palestinians would have turned Gaza into a proto-state between 1994 (when Arafat set up shop there) and 2005 (when Sharon vacated the Strip), and into a real state after the withdrawal.
Instead, the Hamas game was not state building, but a test of wills and endurance, the object being to demonstrate that the Palestinians were (a) completely immune to deterrence and (b) willing to absorb any punishment the Israelis meted out to them, whether blockades, bombs or incursions. Entities that want to become states do not behave in this self-debilitating manner. Hence, we ought to conclude that statehood (rather than, say, honor, pride or dreams of final victory) is not the primary objective of the Palestinian powers that be. Nor are two states what Israelis long for day and night.
Whence two prescriptions follow for the next administration. One, pay homage to the irradicable theory according to which
Palestine is the “core” of the conflict; engage in meetings, bilaterals, conferences; be an “honest broker.” But do not confuse motion with movement, given that neither
Israel nor the Palestinians are pining away for two states. Second, keep in mind what the real issue is: the hegemonic ambitions of
Iran. Talk to Iran, by all means, but keep piling up the powder and protect your alliances, especially with the strongest ally of them all, Israel.
Joffe has been saying this for at least three-and-a-half years. His prior comments now look prescient. Condoleezza Rice has spent her last two years on a fool’s errand.
