[A-List] Britain/US split: Iraq, Palestine

["Michael Keaney" <michael.keaney@xxxxxx>]

Put Middle East peace before Iraqi war
By Douglas Hurd
Financial Times: December 3 2002

Two unsolved problems torment the Middle East: the danger from Saddam
Hussein and the insecurity of Israel. We are tackling the first problem at
high speed and the second sluggishly. Last week's atrocities in Israel and
Kenya suggest that we may have our priorities the wrong way round. We are in
danger of missing a chance of a peace settlement between Israelis and Arabs
that may soon disappear.

There is surprisingly little argument about the outline of a settlement. The
land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan river would be divided
vertically, more or less on the lines established in 1967. The boundary runs
through Jerusalem, which becomes the capital of Israel and of the new
Palestinian state. It would be internationally guaranteed, if necessary with
a peacekeeping force.

Each side makes a painful concession, which can be softened in negotiation.
The Palestinians have in practice to give up the right of return to their
former homes in Israel - a blow to be softened by compensation. The Israeli
settlers in the West Bank and Gaza have to pull out - a blow to be softened
by negotiated changes in the boundaries to bring some of the settlements
within Israel in return for cessions elsewhere.

This is close to what President Bill Clinton and Ehud Barak, the Israel
prime minister, agreed at Camp David in July 2000 and Yassir Arafat, in his
foolishness, rejected. It is close to what Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi
Arabia sketched more recently and the Arab League, including the Palestinian
Authority, endorsed - but by then it was the Israelis who held back.

No solution is without risk for Israel. What is certain is that the present
policy of Ariel Sharon, prime minister, is not working. Israel feels bound
to respond to suicide bombers by acts of oppression that create more suicide
bombers. The argument that Israel cannot negotiate with Palestinians while
suffering from Palestinian violence fatally lumps together those
Palestinians who accept the existence of Israel and the extremists who
reject it. Mr Sharon's policy paralyses the Arab states who want peace but
are scared of their own public opinion. If sustained it will frustrate the
leisurely efforts of the Quartet group (comprising the US, the European
Union, Russia and the United Nations) to make progress towards a settlement.

We know from the past that the US possesses, but is reluctant to use, the
leverage to change Israeli policy. The US and the EU together have the
necessary leverage over the Arab governments and the Palestinian Authority.

Delaying the resumption of the peace process is recommended by those who
believe that the attack on Iraq should come first unless Mr Hussein
unexpectedly complies in full with the latest UN requirements. They argue
that, in a war, the Iraqi leader will be quickly overthrown and that a
liberated Iraq will lead the Arab nation to democracy and peace with Israel.
They are probably right in the first half of the prophecy. I do not believe
that the Iraqis will fight hard for Mr Hussein. Sanctions have prevented his
using oil revenues to rebuild his armed forces after the defeat of 1991. The
cruelty of his rule ensures that the crowds who are now forced to support
him will dance in celebration round his coffin.

But the second half of the prophecy strikes me as empty. The danger is not
of a prolonged war but of what happens next: that we win the fighting in six
days and lose it all in six months. The idea that in Iraq an American
general, like Douglas Macarthur in Japan in 1945, could invent and impose
new democratic institutions is a classic example of the danger of false
comparisons. The Japanese were shocked into total submission by the atom
bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

As we British discovered in the 1920s and 1930s, the Iraqis - whether Kurd,
Sunni or Shia - are a highly determined, perceptive and nationalistic
people. I hope that behind the scenes some intelligent work is going on to
find valid Iraqis who could, in practice, gain quick consent for a
post-Hussein government that did not rely indefinitely on American and
British bayonets. But the difficulty goes wider than Iraq.

In the absence of a convincing peace process with Israel, the outcome of a
quick Anglo-American military victory in Iraq would be a sullen and
humiliated Arab nation. Arabs would feel contempt for their undemocratic
pro-western governments and would be strongly attracted to acts of violence
against western interests and against Israel, which would continue to be
seen as a western implant. Israel would have the power to survive even
then - but at the cost of endless wretched weeks like last week.

This is not inevitable. We can do better by changing our priorities. No
attack on Iraq is imminent. The coming weeks could be used to galvanise the
peace process and separate the terrorists from the majority of Arabs who
still want peace. While the opportunity is still there we need to show that
we in the west are concerned with justice for Palestine and security for
Israel as well as, indeed as part of, our own self-defence against terrorism
and weapons of mass destruction.

Lord Hurd is a senior adviser to Hawkpoint and a former UK foreign secretary