As images of death and destruction were broadcast on televisions throughout the world, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice commented that we were seeing “the birth pangs of a new Middle East.”  But, to some who viewed the tremendous destruction in Lebanon, the vulnerability of Israel, the vehement anti-American protests and the proclamations of Hezbollah’s victory, this war more likely represented the burial of the Bush Administration’s ambitious plan for a new Middle East.  

President Bush’s New Middle East envisioned a sort of regional renaissance as oppressor regimes were overthrown and their people, freed from tyranny, used the ballot box to reform their states and build a vibrant civil society that rejects extremism and religious militancy. That plan, however worthy in intent it may be, is not going well.  

This close to the conflict, it’s not clear what will result from the 34 days of fighting between Israel and Hezbollah. Nevertheless, the shock of the Lebanon war and its obvious failure to bring victory for either side, much less peace, points to the need for new policies.  The New Middle East should be characterized by the pursuit of peace, security, justice and hope for the future through negotiations and compromise. 

Again and again, as people talked about how to stop the fighting, the necessity of a two-state solution to the Palestinian question was raised. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) on the Senate floor, “The core of all challenges in the Middle East remains the underlying Arab-Israeli conflict.”  Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), wrote President Bush, “…no lasting solution to the turmoil in the Middle East will be achieved without resolving the Israeli-Palestinian problem…There can be little doubt that the lack of progress on that front continues to breed hatred and hostility that is effectively exploited by Hezbollah, Iran, Syria and others.” 

August’s firestorm has energized the world. Now, and perhaps this time more than ever, there is an opportunity to bring a fresh approach and global commitment toward a comprehensive resolution of the 58-year-old Arab-Israeli conflict.  

“Only through a serious and credible rekindling of the long dormant peace process can there be any hope whatsoever of addressing, and eliminating, root causes,” advised the highly respected International Crisis Group.  

The most recent comprehensive effort was in 1991 when Secretary of State James Baker, in the wake of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and the Gulf War, stitched together the Madrid Conference.  This launched a process that included bilateral state-to-state negotiating tracks and multilateral tracks on issues of regional concern (water, environment, arms control, refugees and economic development).  Those negotiations stumbled and stalled, but demonstrated that strong American leadership can move the parties from confrontation to negotiations.   

The Madrid process, although it faltered, led to the Oslo peace process in which Israel and the PLO recognized each other and pledged to negotiate peace in phases.  The Oslo process ultimately collapsed after seven years of negotiations because there was no agreed definition of peace between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators, and U.S. mediation was overly cautious.  But considerable progress was made in defining solutions to major issues before the process collapsed in January 2001 and the Sharon government was elected in Israel.  There was also progress toward an agreement between Israel and Syria over the occupied Golan Heights.   

The war of attrition against Israel’s occupation of southern Lebanon continued throughout the decade.  Lebanon’s situation, then as now, was complicated by its ties with Syria and by its inextricable links with issues set aside by the Oslo Accords for final status negotiations, especially those regarding the Palestinian refugees and water resources. From Damascus and the refugee camps of Lebanon, Palestinian critics of Oslo rejected negotiating with Israel and encouraged armed resistance. Still today, Khaled Mashal presses for a militant Hamas policy from Damascus while Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad rejects US demands to stop harboring militant Palestinian groups, including Hamas, and to halt support for Lebanon’s Hezbollah.  

Despite the current hostile state of affairs between Israel, Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians, considerable progress toward resolution of the conflicts has been made. Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000 left the Sheb’a Farms plot as the sole territory in dispute between Israel and Lebanon.  Israel and Syria were close to agreement when talks broke down in January 2000, six months before the death of Hafez al-Assad. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, under intense political pressure from rivals Netanyahu and Sharon, held fast to the shoreline of the Sea of Galilee and Assad walked away.   

Even though Israel and the Palestinians are in conflict and diplomacy comatose, there is widespread understanding of the components necessary for a lasting two state peace agreement, and polls continue to show support for a two-state solution.  Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, recently outlined these elements, including:  

* A Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, with minor rectifications agreed upon by Palestine and Israel.

* Palestinians giving up the right of return and Israel…removing its settlements from the West Bank, again with rectifications as mutually agreed.

* Deployment of an international force to facilitate and supervise traffic to and from Gaza and the West Bank.

* Designation of Jerusalem as the shared capital of Israel and Palestine, with appropriate international guarantees of freedom of movement and civic life.  

“These elements are well-known…What seems breathtakingly complicated, however, is how one mobilizes the necessary political will, in the region and beyond, to transform these principles into an agreement on a lasting accord. The current crisis in Lebanon provides a historic opportunity to achieve what has seemed impossible,” concludes Scowcroft.    

The responsibility to mobilize Israel, the Palestinians, the Arab states and the international community falls upon the United States.  No other country or group has the capacity to do this. But a collaborative approach is essential, and the Quartet (US, UN, EU and Russia) is the ready-made vehicle to initiate a comprehensive peace process.  

The Hezbollah-Israel war confirmed the shortcomings of the Bush Administration’s heavy reliance on military force and its lack of confidence in diplomacy for resolving conflicts and dealing with adversaries.  As bombs and rockets continued to kill Lebanese and Israelis, the President’s refusal to immediately seek a cease fire and engage diplomatically left the United States with reduced options and diminished influence in the region.  Similarly, the Bush Administration’s decision to defer to Israel’s unilateral policies and undermine the newly elected Hamas government increased the influence of the more radical Damascus branch of Hamas.  

Flynt Leverett was the senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council and on the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff during President Bush’s first term before he left because of policy disagreements. Leverett, writing in The American Prospect, promotes a “realist” strategy in which the U.S. would: 1.) widen its approach to defusing the crisis to include direct engagement with both Syria and Iran, 2.) would re-establish US-Syrian cooperation on important regional issues, and 3.) indicate its willingness to pursue a “grand bargain” with Iran that would restrain its nuclear activities and normalize bilateral relations.

Furthermore, Leverett calls upon the Administration to articulate a more substantive vision for a two-state solution that incorporates the Arab League peace plan.  To make such major policy changes, the White House will need to know that American citizens support strong Presidential leadership in pursuit of a comprehensive Middle East peace and that constituents will encourage their members of Congress to support peacemaking.  Meanwhile, new proposals and surprising initiatives are happening on the international scene.  

“Things have gone too far.  We call upon the International community to intervene and insist on a diplomatic solution to this conflict.  All Authorities must change course, and with unflinching International pressure and presence, they have to negotiate in order to reach the just and definitive peace.”   

From “Stop All Violence, Pursue a Just Peace” a statement signed by the Patriarchs and Heads of Local Christian Churches in Jerusalem.