On the eve of direct talks between Israelis and Palestinians, we should ask ourselves if this time around we will find a way to work together to tip the balance in favor of peace. Some may say that we've been down this road before; been there, done that. And as we all know, peace has remained an illusory dream at best. But I would not give up so easily. This time around, there may be a good chance to cut a deal, not because the key players love one another, God forbid, but because they face some common existential threats, and they actually need one another to stave off these threats.

 

A lot is at stake for Israel and Palestine, for the region as a whole, and for the world at large. It is not that the people of the Middle East necessarily care that much about the plight of Palestinians and Israelis. The vast majority don't care, as evidenced by a recent poll. The reason that these talks are important, however, is because a successful outcome could pave the way to a revitalization of the entire Middle East, which would include the creation of good paying jobs, and a realignment of security arrangements in order to contend with the threat of a nuclear Iran. A peace deal between Israel and Palestine could be the seed that grows into a new and vibrant Middle East, a Middle East which is more secure, and which begins to realize a Vision of Hope, a vision of Peace, Prosperity and Freedom.

 

What will a peace deal between Israel and Palestine look like? Surprisingly, that is not so difficult to fathom. Most of the key players know what to expect in this regard. My guess is that the final treaty will probably mirror, in many ways, the proposal made in the year 2000 by President Clinton, and Prime Minister Ehud Barak, to President Arafat, and would include the following elements: a new Palestinian State, all of Gaza, almost all of the West Bank, land swaps of Israeli land to offset the large settlement block retained by Israeli, a dismantlement of most of the Jewish settlements in the West Bank, a sharing of Jerusalem in some form or other, compensation by Israel to the refugees, and a very limited right of return for some Palestinians based on humanitarian ground and subject to Israel's approval. The vast majority of Palestinians would have the right to "return" to the new Palestine.

 

Why would such a deal be cut today, when similar such attempts failed in previous years? Only one reason; because today, the stars are aligning in just the right way, so that the self-interest of each of the key players will push each of them to join forces with one another to stave off some very common existential threats. Look at the whole picture: Fatah in the West Bank is threatened by a Hamas takeover, and may actually need Israel to help meet that challenge. Israel is threatened by a nuclear Iran and may need a peace deal with Palestine to consolidate support for stopping Iran and containing her ambitions for the region. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the other Sunni states are worried about a nuclear Iran, and about Shiite intentions to disrupt the balance of power in the predominantly Sunni Middle East.

 

Putting it all together, the mutual self-interests of the key players may begin to point in one direction, and one direction only, whether they like it or not. Israel will cut a deal with Palestine, even if Hamas decides to take a pass. Saudi Arabia and the other Sunnis will use that pretext to recognize Israel and to declare peace with her based on the Arab Peace Plan of 2002. Such a declaration could become the impetus for a military/economic alliance in the region which will be used to revitalize the region economically with job creation, and to secure the key players by uniting to keep Iran in check. Ultimately, if everything pans out, and granted it's still a big "if," Iran may think twice about her ambitions when facing a united front consisting of Israel, the U.S., and the Sunni world.

 

We can think of the peace between Israel and Palestine as a spaceship of sorts. The spaceship will be thrust into space with the help of three booster rockets: the first and most immediate is the need to consolidate security, the second is the need to revitalize the Middle East economically with good paying jobs, and the third is the need to stabilize relations between Sunnis and Shiites. Perhaps these same needs have always been around. However, this time around they have reached a new level of urgency. We have about a year to pull this thing off, before all hell breaks loose, including the ominous decision of whether or not to allow Iran to go nuclear.

 

Given everything that is at stake, the question becomes: How far are we willing to go, each and every one of us, to maximize the chance for a successful outcome to these upcoming peace talks? Many of us are inclined to leave things to the diplomats and the political leaders. However, the issues are so difficult, and the sensitivities are so heightened, that I strongly doubt that the diplomats, on their own, will be able to cut this deal. They will need help, and even a certain measure of pressure, from the outside, from people like us, to make something happen at the negotiating table.

 

That's where we come in. Don't underestimate, even for a moment, our power to make things happen. Every one of us, each in his or her own way, can help to move the peace process along. We may or may not particularly care about Israel or Palestine, even though many of us do. But we certainly care about ourselves, and the world we want to leave behind for our children. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that we're all in this together, and that we owe it to ourselves and to future generations to do what we can for the sake of peace.

Many of us hold on tightly to our core beliefs. In a world where it is easy to get lost in the shuffle, we use our beliefs, our worldview, to carve out an identity for ourselves. It is only natural. Our core beliefs give us a sense of grounding in the shifting sands of the modern world. And yet, the writing is on the wall. If we are to survive as a species, and more than that, if we are to bring a sense of hope to this world, we owe it to ourselves to ask if at least some of our deeply held beliefs make any sense. Because in a very real sense, it may very well be that our clinging on to false belief is at the heart of what is wrong in this world.

 

We come to believe the things we do in a variety of ways. Most of us are born into a certain worldview, a belief system, and we naturally accept as true the things we are taught at a young and tender age. It is certainly easier join in and play along than to defy conventional wisdom. Others come to believe in certain notions because they want those notions to be true. In other words, some people believe what they want to believe, and for some of them at least, the truth is just a side issue. And still in other cases, a person's mind and imagination can be hijacked by people with a certain agenda or ulterior motive. In this case, a person could be persuaded to believe certain things, things he would not ordinarily come to believe, because he has been persuaded to do so by those who would manipulate his thinking for their own purposes. Suicide bombers are a case in point.

 

Regardless of how we come to believe the things we do, some beliefs make sense, and some do not. Many of us have come to believe things that make no sense, and that would be difficult to justify using rational thought. There are numerous example of false belief: the belief that God would have us kill one another in His name no less when it is precisely He who created us in the first place, the belief that there is any measure of "honor" in "honor killing," the belief that holding on to yet another piece of land is more important than brokering a just and lasting peace, the belief that a weapon of mass destruction will bring security to a regime that is out of step with the will of its people, the belief that it is just dandy to keep running our economies on fossil fuels, the belief that our set of religious beliefs make us somehow superior to those of a different point of view, the belief that it is okay to keep women down even as we need them so desperately to lift us back up, and the list goes on and on...

 

We don't have to be prophets to read the writing on the wall. The stubborn clinging to false belief is bringing us ever more closely to the edge of the abyss. Previously local problems, like water shortages, or climate change, are quickly becoming global problems. Environmental threats are growing exponentially. Political and economic instability in one country can easily wreak havoc in an entire region. Weapons of mass destruction in the wrong hands can be used to re-write the destiny of man. Religious discord, which has been around for thousands of years, takes on added dimensions in a world where technology has not kept pace with what is wise and prudent.

 

There was a time, not too long ago, when people used more of their common sense. Civilization has been around for some 10,000 years, yet we have been around as a species for some 2,000,000 years. Before there was religion, and politics, and technology, there were the cavemen, who had nothing to rely on but their common sense to survive yet another day. They hunted and gathered, and since no one really had much of anything, there was no real reason to kill or steal. It made more sense, in the hostile environment they found themselves, to help one another out, to "...treat others as you would have them treat you..." A movie on The Discovery Channel called The Rise of Man makes the point that The Golden Rule underscored the thinking of the cavemen.

 

To my mind, common sense is what we were given, by our Creator, to bring a semblance of order to our lives. People think of common sense in different ways: the wisdom of the common man, the wisdom born of shared experience, etc. I think of common sense as the intuitive wisdom to conform our thoughts and actions to universally shared truths and values. Don't blow a circuit, it's not all that complicated. The intuitive wisdom is the wisdom that comes from within. It's inside you. Thoughts and actions because it is not enough to think straight, you have to act on what you know to be true. Truths and values; truths are the realities we perceive, values are the realities we aspire to. And why are these truths and values universal? Certain truths and values are so rational, so logical, and so self-evident, that they are universally perceived as true, and therefore universally accepted.

 

As an example, here are three universal truths; the big three so to speak: The Golden Rule, The Golden Mean, and The Greatest Good. I call these the 3-G's for short. The Golden Rule tells us to treat one another as we would have them treat us. The Golden Mean tells us that truth is not an extremist position, but is to be found somewhere in the middle between two extremes. And The Greatest Good would have us do what brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number.

 

What if we could use our common sense, including the 3-G's, to inspire in one another a sense of hope, and to bring a sense of order to this dangerous and often volatile world? What if The Golden Rule would have us treat each other well by Investing in one another to create jobs: jobs which grow our economies, jobs which protect the environment, and jobs which help to weaken the hold of extremist thinking? What if The Golden Mean would have us think straight by using our common sense as our Ideology? And what if The Greatest Good would have us maximize justice by organizing ourselves around a vision of Hope, a vision of peace, prosperity, and freedom? Put it all together, as Thomas Jefferson might have done, and the answer for world peace becomes not all that complicated, "We find this truth to be self-evident: Ideology plus Investment equals Hope, and with hope all things are possible, even the impossible dream of peace.

 

Yes, we find ourselves in troubling times. We sense that things are coming to a head, that history is playing itself out even as we speak. And we know that if things go wrong, they will go very wrong indeed. So what is the answer? What is the answer that could inspire a sense of hope in things to come?

 

Well, no one has the entire answer. That would be asking too much. But my sense is that at the heart of the matter is a need to re-think at least some of what we happen to believe, in favor of what makes more sense. We all believe in this or that. It makes us who we are. But it may be necessary, at this point in time, to filter our beliefs through the filter of common sense, to let go of some of our beliefs, in favor of something we can believe in even more. It may be necessary, in our time, to let go of who we are, so that we can discover an even better version of ourselves. It may be necessary to re-create ourselves in a new light, a light that shines as a beacon of hope, and that points to the realization of a Vision of Hope, a vision of Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom.

 

 

Some leaders in the Middle East are facing existential threats, and as we can well imagine, a knife to your throat concentrates the mind. In chemistry an unstable chemical solution seeks a way of stabilizing itself. Could the volatility of the Middle East find a way to stabilize itself in a way that points to the possibility of peace, prosperity, and freedom?

 

If you look at the varied political landscapes of the Middle East you will begin to see a whole host of hidden dangers lurking in the midst. The Mullahs in Iran, for example, have quite a lot on their plate: an angry citizenry demanding change, a weak economy, the onset of international sanctions, and the looming threat of a military attack. Iran's answer is to pursue nuclear capability, to sponsor terror organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, and to forge new alliances with countries such as Turkey, Syria, and perhaps even Iraq. We may soon see an alliance of like-minded countries which have come together to project influence in the region, and to protect themselves from both domestic and international threats.

 

What will Western countries do in response? They will have no choice but to react. If left unchecked, a political alliance with Iran at its center could easily develop a nuclear capability, and use that as a means of stifling domestic and international dissent, and consolidating control of the entire region. A nuclear capacity will act as a protective shield to protect nations like Iran from any outside interference with regard to domestic policies and foreign policy agendas. The ability to discourage outside interference is precisely why Iran is so hell bent on producing nuclear weapons.

 

The West will have to react. Too much is at stake including access to oil, as well as the looming threat of a further radicalization of extremist groups. But what can the West do, short of war, to counter the threats posed by an alliance of the more fundamentalist elements in the Middle East?

 

The West will have to find a way to ally itself militarily and economically with the Sunni world, with countries that see an Iranian backed alliance as equally threatening to them. How can all of this be accomplished? My guess is that we will soon see a peace deal struck between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Fattah in the West Bank is a lot more worried about an Iranian backed Hamas takeover of the West Bank, than it is about Israel. In fact, Israel is probably the only military force in the region that can actually protect the West Bank from such a takeover. And Israel is a lot more worried about a nuclear Iran, allied with Syria and Turkey, than it is about the West Bank Palestinians, who seem fully committed to growing their economy, consolidating their security, and establishing a Palestinian state within the span of two years.

 

A peace deal struck between Israel and Palestine will reverberate across the region and around the world. New alliances will be forged, and a massive effort will be launched to revitalize the region as a whole, by consolidating security and growing the various economies. Saudi Arabia, for example, along with the other Sunni states, would likely use the Israel/Palestine deal as a pretext to recognize Israel in accordance with the Arab Peace Plan of 2002. Egypt and Jordan would likely join in, having already signed peace agreements with Israel, and also facing daunting challenges from within and without, including the possibility that a nuclear Iran could foment internal opposition throughout the Arab world.

 

And how would Western countries react to a realignment of this sort in the Middle East? The U.S. would probably continue to back Israel, especially as a peace deal is consummated, and would probably lend its support to a military/economic alliance which would counter the Iranian threat, and which would include Israel, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and a great many other Arab states.

 

Will the realignment of the Middle East into two camps necessarily mean war? In my opinion, not necessarily. If a peace deal is forged between Israel and Palestine, and if such a deal is used as a springboard to revitalize the region economically, and if a military/economic alliance is forged between the Western world and much of the Sunni world, then such a result could actually stabilize the region. The Western/Sunni alliance could conceivably be much more powerful than the Iranian alliance, both in terms of military strength, and economic prosperity. As a result, Iran would have to think twice and maybe three times, before taking on such a powerful opponent. Under such circumstances, a certain sense of stability may ensue.

 

Eventually, if a Vision of Hope is realized in parts of the Middle East, a vision of Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom, then countries which may have had no intention of following suit, would likely reconsider their approach in light of increasing domestic pressure. "Hey, where is our share?" the people on the street would ask. In other words, if the military option is no longer on the table, and if terrorism begin to lose its luster, and if there begins to emerge shining lights of success in the Middle East, then everyone in the region will be forced to follow suit, and jump onto the bandwagon of job creation, including: jobs which grow their economies, jobs which protect the environment, and jobs which help to weaken the hold of extremist thinking.

 

Granted, there are an awful lot of "ifs" in this scenario, and perhaps a healthy dose of wishful thinking to boot. And granted, people emboldened by an ideological agenda often make the wrong choices. But I would argue that there is at least a pretty good chance that things could work out this way. And given the dismal alternative-a mixed fruit salad of death, destruction, and despair-it is a chance we cannot afford to lose.

In some circles, "Zionism" has become a dirty word, like some of the other "isms" which have been discarded on the ash heap of bad ideas. In other circles, however, Zionism is held in high esteem, as the redemption of the Jewish people, and as the fulfillment of the promise made by no other than God himself. So which is it?

 

What is Zionism? There are many definitions depending on your point of view. I prefer to think of Zionism as the political movement which made real the aspirations of the Jewish people to a homeland of their own in the land of their ancestors, the land of Israel. When Jews are asked to justify why they are entitled to establish a nation in the land of Israel, they often use several types of justifications, including: Biblical, historical, and ethical.

 

If you accept the Old Testament of the Bible as sacred, and many Christians and Muslims do, then you could say that about 3200 years ago Moses led the Israelites from slavery in Egypt, to freedom in the Promised Land, the land of Israel. And who made that promise? None other than God himself. Using the Biblical approach, Jews justify Zionism as the modern day fulfillment of God's promise to allow them to settle in the land of Israel.

 

If you prefer the historical approach, you could argue that there has been a significant Jewish presence in the land of Israel for the past 3000 years. In fact, Jews believe that King David build the city of Jerusalem approximately 3000 years ago, and the city of Jerusalem appears some 600 times in the Old Testament. It is true that in the year 70 C.E. the Second Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, and most of the Jews were exiled. However, some Jews continued to live there, generation after generation, which lends historical credence to the legitimacy of a Jewish state in the land of Israel.

 

The ethical justification for Zionism has to do with how the Jews were treated during their exile from the land of Israel. Anyone who is the least bit aware of Jewish history knows that for the past 2000 years, the Jews in the Diaspora, or exile, were subjected to various forms of mistreatment and persecution: forced conversions, inquisitions, pogroms, inability to own land, discrimination, etc. Such persecution culminated in the Holocaust in which 6,000,000 Jews, or about one third of all Jews, were slaughtered.

 

In the late 1800's, people like Theodore Herzl, who is the father of the political Zionist movement, decided that without a homeland of their own, Jews were dead men walking. The Holocaust would end up confirming his worst fears. He and others like him organized a political movement to buy up land, in what was then called Palestine, and to work toward the established of a homeland for the Jews. The immigration by Jews to Palestine began in earnest in the late 1800's and continues to this day.

 

What hurt the image of Zionism in the eyes of some is that the establishment of the State of Israel caused approximately 700,000 Palestinians to leave their homes as refugees. Most of them left voluntarily, thinking that Israel would soon be destroyed by the seven Arab armies which invaded Israel just as she came into being. Some Palestinians, however, stayed in Israel, and today 20% of Israeli citizens are Arabs. In a recent poll, some 77% of Israeli Arabs say that they prefer to remain citizens of the State of Israel. It should also be remembered that while 700,000 Palestinians became refugees after the establishment of Israel, 850,000 Jews were also expelled from Arab countries where they had lived for centuries.

 

Despite all the justifications for Zionism, however, there is a lot of worldwide pressure being exerted on Jews in general, and on Israel in particular, to bring some semblance of justice to Palestinians. In the wake of such criticism, some people consider themselves to be "anti-Zionist." Being anti-Zionist could mean different things to different people. Some consider Israel to be illegitimate for the start, and call for the eventual dismantlement of the Jewish state. One version of this approach is to call for a "bi-national" state, which would consist of all the Jews and Palestinian Arabs in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, and would therefore destroy the Jewish nation of Israel by creating a state in which the Arabs are a majority. Yet others consider themselves "anti-Zionist" because they disapprove of some of the actions taken by the Israeli government in protecting the State of Israel. The occupation of the West Bank, for example, with its checkpoints and security barriers, evoke a deep seated resentment in the hearts of a lot of people.

 

To counter the rising tide of criticism of the policies of the Jewish state, Zionist organizations such as AIPAC, or the Zionist Organization of America and the like, work hard to defend Israel in the public eye, and to protect the special relationship that exists between Israel and the U.S. The U.S. is one of the few allies that has consistently defended Israel, from the time that President Truman recognized the Jewish state just ten minutes after she was declared, until today.

 

So when we talk about Zionism, a whole range of emotions come to the fore, including those rooted in religion, in history, and in our notion of what is fair and just. Different people see things differently, and that is only normal. In the final analysis, I believe that there is plenty of justification for the establishment of Israel as a home for the Jews. However, there is also some measure of validity in criticizing Israel for at least some of the injustices that Palestinian Arab refugees have had to endure.

 

The answer in my view is not to destroy Israel. Destroying Israel would bring to an abrupt end the dream of Palestinians to live in peace, prosperity, and freedom. The answer is to use Israel's many talents to help bring justice to Palestinians; to create two states, living side by side, in peace, prosperity, and freedom. It could well be argued that there is no other country on earth that is better able, or willing, to bring a good measure of justice to Palestinians, and to have that become the impetus of a global effort to revitalize the Middle East. Of course, Palestinians would have to become open to that. People on both sides would have to let go of some of the hate, in favor of hope. But if a peace agreement is reached, and if justice is done, then the true promise of the Zionist enterprise will have been realized, and only then could Israel fulfill her Biblical destiny to become a "...light unto the nations..." At such time, and with God's help, Israel will no longer be considered the problem in the Middle East, but the solution for the Middle East.

 

 

This article, written by Jose Maria Asnar, the former prime minister of Spain, presents a view of Israel that is quite at odds with the view of many others around the world. Do you think he has a point, or is he way off base? Is it possible that the fate of Europe, and even the fate of the Middle East for that matter, is linked so directly to the fate of Israel? What do you think?

 

José María Aznar

 

Support Israel: if it goes down, we all go down

 

Last updated June 17 2010 12:01AM

 

Anger over Gaza is a distraction. We cannot forget that Israel is the West's best ally in a turbulent region

 

For far too long now it has been unfashionable in Europe to speak up for Israel. In the wake of the recent incident on board a ship full of anti-Israeli activists in the Mediterranean, it is hard to think of a more unpopular cause to champion.

 

In an ideal world, the assault by Israeli commandos on the Mavi Marmara would not have ended up with nine dead and a score wounded. In an ideal world, the soldiers would have been peacefully welcomed on to the ship. In an ideal world, no state, let alone a recent ally of Israel such as Turkey, would have sponsored and organised a flotilla whose sole purpose was to create an impossible situation for Israel: making it choose between giving up its security policy and the naval blockade, or risking the wrath of the world.

 

In our dealings with Israel, we must blow away the red mists of anger that too often cloud our judgment. A reasonable and balanced approach should encapsulate the following realities: first, the state of Israel was created by a decision of the UN. Its legitimacy, therefore, should not be in question. Israel is a nation with deeply rooted democratic institutions. It is a dynamic and open society that has repeatedly excelled in culture, science and technology.

 

Second, owing to its roots, history, and values, Israel is a fully fledged Western nation. Indeed, it is a normal Western nation, but one confronted by abnormal circumstances.

 

Uniquely in the West, it is the only democracy whose very existence has been questioned since its inception. In the first instance, it was attacked by its neighbours using the conventional weapons of war. Then it faced terrorism culminating in wave after wave of suicide attacks. Now, at the behest of radical Islamists and their sympathisers, it faces a campaign of delegitimisation through international law and diplomacy.

 

Sixty-two years after its creation, Israel is still fighting for its very survival. Punished with missiles raining from north and south, threatened with destruction by an Iran aiming to acquire nuclear weapons and pressed upon by friend and foe, Israel, it seems, is never to have a moment's peace.

 

For years, the focus of Western attention has understandably been on the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians. But if Israel is in danger today and the whole region is slipping towards a worryingly problematic future, it is not due to the lack of understanding between the parties on how to solve this conflict. The parameters of any prospective peace agreement are clear, however difficult it may seem for the two sides to make the final push for a settlement.

 

The real threats to regional stability, however, are to be found in the rise of a radical Islamism which sees Israel's destruction as the fulfilment of its religious destiny and, simultaneously in the case of Iran, as an expression of its ambitions for regional hegemony. Both phenomena are threats that affect not only Israel, but also the wider West and the world at large.

 

The core of the problem lies in the ambiguous and often erroneous manner in which too many Western countries are now reacting to this situation. It is easy to blame Israel for all the evils in the Middle East. Some even act and talk as if a new understanding with the Muslim world could be achieved if only we were prepared to sacrifice the Jewish state on the altar. This would be folly.

 

Israel is our first line of defence in a turbulent region that is constantly at risk of descending into chaos; a region vital to our energy security owing to our overdependence on Middle Eastern oil; a region that forms the front line in the fight against extremism. If Israel goes down, we all go down. To defend Israel's right to exist in peace, within secure borders, requires a degree of moral and strategic clarity that too often seems to have disappeared in Europe. The United States shows worrying signs of heading in the same direction.

 

The West is going through a period of confusion over the shape of the world's future. To a great extent, this confusion is caused by a kind of masochistic self-doubt over our own identity; by the rule of political correctness; by a multiculturalism that forces us to our knees before others; and by a secularism which, irony of ironies, blinds us even when we are confronted by jihadis promoting the most fanatical incarnation of their faith. To abandon Israel to its fate, at this moment of all moments, would merely serve to illustrate how far we have sunk and how inexorable our decline now appears.

 

This cannot be allowed to happen. Motivated by the need to rebuild our own Western values, expressing deep concern about the wave of aggression against Israel, and mindful that Israel's strength is our strength and Israel's weakness is our weakness, I have decided to promote a new Friends of Israel initiative with the help of some prominent people, including David Trimble, Andrew Roberts, John Bolton, Alejandro Toledo (the former President of Peru), Marcello Pera (philosopher and former President of the Italian Senate), Fiamma Nirenstein (the Italian author and politician), the financier Robert Agostinelli and the Catholic intellectual George Weigel.

 

It is not our intention to defend any specific policy or any particular Israeli government. The sponsors of this initiative are certain to disagree at times with decisions taken by Jerusalem. We are democrats, and we believe in diversity.

 

What binds us, however, is our unyielding support for Israel's right to exist and to defend itself. For Western countries to side with those who question Israel's legitimacy, for them to play games in international bodies with Israel's vital security issues, for them to appease those who oppose Western values rather than robustly to stand up in defence of those values, is not only a grave moral mistake, but a strategic error of the first magnitude.

 

Israel is a fundamental part of the West. The West is what it is thanks to its Judeo-Christian roots. If the Jewish element of those roots is upturned and Israel is lost, then we are lost too. Whether we like it or not, our fate is inextricably intertwined.

 

José María Aznar was Prime Minister of Spain, 1996-2004