WASHINGTON, March 16 (UPI) -- In politics, as in life, be careful what you wish for. The Palestinians had long wanted a two-state solution, and, well, now they have a two-state solution. Two states, one in the West Bank and one in Gaza. Actually, better make that three states, if you count the state of confusion that the two opposing states have created.
Indeed, confusion seems to be the dominating factor in the Middle East today as the conflict becomes more complex, more difficult to solve and is drawing in countries that previously were either not involved or marginally involved. A quick analysis of the region underlines this point of view.
Palestine: We already covered the basics, but the conflict that began as a dispute over turf has turned into a far uglier religious war. And we know that when God orders the killing, it can be far deadlier than that commanded by most politicians. (There are exceptions.)
Unless Hamas and Fatah are able to reconcile and work together, the moribund peace process will end up like the dozen or so other Middle East peace attempts that time and again have interrupted wars in the region yet for the most part failed to bring about a lasting peace.
Starting with the U.N. Security Council Resolution 242; the Rogers Plan, named after former Secretary of State William P. Rogers; right through the latest "road map" for peace presented by the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations, under the stewardship of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, they all have hit a dead-end street.
There are two, or rather three, success stories in the 61-year history of this modern Middle East conflict. The first success came about as a result of Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Richard Nixon's secretary of state succeeded through his relentless efforts and his persistent shuttle diplomacy to extract -- and not without difficulty -- an initial agreement to a cease-fire on the Golan Heights in the aftermath of the October 1973 war, and later solidify that cease-fire into a longer-lasting agreement. In fact, despite the rhetoric and confrontational talk that from time to time emanates from Damascus, in the 36 years since the end of hostilities nary a bullet was fired across the U.N. demarcation line separating the two antagonists.
The second success attempt came from President Jimmy Carter's efforts at Camp David and the ensuing accords the presidential retreat in Maryland gave the pact that led to peace between Egypt and Israel. This peace ended up costing the life of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, who was accused of treason and assassinated by members of the Muslim Brotherhood. And here is an important point for those dragging their feet on the slow road toward peace. Egypt may well have signed a peace treaty with Israel, but it does not mean the Egyptian people are at peace with Israel.
Anti-Israeli sentiments are never far below the surface in the most populous Arab country. One does not even need to scratch the surface, as the animosity aimed at Israel and the strong support for the Palestinians are clearly visible in the streets of Cairo and in the pro-Hamas rallies across the country. The Muslim Brotherhood has never been stronger, and, barring government interference in the next elections, the Islamists are in good standing to win. The Egyptian government is treading a very thin line between how much they think they can get away with in manipulating the polls and upsetting the street to the point of inciting civil disobedience and risking an open confrontation.
The second point of urgency is what is likely to happen in the post-Mubarak era, as Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has yet to name a vice president after 26 years since he assumed power upon Sadat's assassination.
The third story with a happy ending in the long and bloody saga of war and broken peace treaties in the Middle East is Jordan's and Israel's peace agreement signed on the shores of the Dead Sea.
While Syria remains technically at war with Israel, although the two countries have not exchanged anything more lethal than ugly words since 1974, with one or two exceptions the Golan has remained peaceful. Israel bombed a camp in Syria used by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command to train commandos, and more recently Israel destroyed what it claimed was a nuclear processing facility in northern Syria. Syria denied the implications.
But, as has been stated by many analysts who study Syria and follow closely its development, the maker or the breaker of a final settlement of the Middle East crisis is in the hands of Syria and its president, Bashar Assad. It has always been said in the Middle East that there could be no war without Egypt, and there could be no peace without Syria.
The reason Syria has the capability of tilting the balance between war and peace is in part due to Syria playing host to Hamas' military wing, its support of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (also based in Damascus) and Syria's alliances with Hezbollah and Iran.
Ah, yes, Iran. Speaking of confusion and of expanding the crisis, the Islamic Republic has been at the forefront of the Middle East crisis, supporting, financing and training Islamist groups and raising the specter of nuclear proliferation in the region.
According to Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, "Iran is at the point where it can develop nuclear weapons."
Addressing an audience of Young Professionals in Foreign Policy in Washington last week, Mullen said he believed the Islamic Republic of Iran "is at the center of an awful lot of what is going on in the world."
--
(Claude Salhani is editor of the Middle East Times.)
