Editorial:
Middle East: In the vice of reality

The election of George Bush as President of the US and Ariel Sharon as 
Prime Minister of Israel could presage a bloody escalation in the Middle 
East because of its strategic position and, of course, its oil 
resources.

However, times have changed substantially in the Middle East and both the 
new leaders must face this reality.

It is no longer 1967 when a very superior Israeli army defeated the 
military forces of surrounding Arab countries. At that time the UN Security 
Council adopted resolutions demanding that the Israelis withdraw to their 
pre-1967 borders — a decision that has never been carried out. Successive 
Israeli Governments have ignored the decisions of the UN with the backing 
of successive US Governments.

Slowly the Israelis have been forced to evacuate occupied territory. They 
first of all pulled back from the Sinai, which was handed back to Egypt. 
More recently, they were forced to evacuate the southern part of Lebanon. 
Southern Lebanon became too hot as a result of the military actions of 
Hamas and other Lebanese liberation forces. Israel still refuses to 
evacuate the Golan Heights that belong to Syria , or the West Bank, Gaza 
Strip and Jerusalem which are part of Palestinian territory.

President Clinton, who was 100 per cent pro-Israel, attempted to force the 
Palestinians to accept a settlement that would have allowed for the 
creation of an emasculated Palestinian state which would be easily 
dominated by Israel. Furthermore, it would have excluded the return of the 
millions of Palestinians who have been robbed and forced off their historic 
lands by Israeli settlers.

For a long time, it appeared that the leadership of the PLO in the person 
of Yasser Arafat would accept some lesser deal but the resistance movement 
of the Palestinians has become so strong that this is now excluded. The 
courageous struggle of the Palestinian people, particularly the young 
Palestinians, is seen on TV screens around the world almost every day and 
creates a dilemma for the Israeli Government.

It is no longer possible for the Israeli army to just shoot it out, re-
occupy territory that it has already handed back to the Palestinian 
administration, and expel more tens of thousands of Palestinians and turn 
them into refugees.

Another factor is the growing strength of the Arab countries which, despite 
their many differences, have rallied around the cause of the Palestinians.

The new US President may also introduce a somewhat different note into US-
Israeli relations. President Bush may not be so fanatically pro-Israel as 
were Madeleine Albright and President Clinton.

Considerations of oil also come into the equation. The oil resources of the 
Middle East are to be found in the territory of the Arab states — not 
Israel. Furthermore, the oil producing states, organised in OPEC, are no 
longer prepared to be bullied by the US and other oil-guzzling west 
European states. This has been demonstrated by the refusal of the OPEC 
countries to increase the output of oil and, thereby, depress the price of 
oil. The high price of crude oil weighs heavily on the economies of the 
developed industrial countries. Some Arab oil producing countries are 
proposing that they should suspend trade with Israel. That would be a body 
blow to the Israeli economy.

There has also been a change in another area. It is the re-emergence of the 
Russian Federation with a more active foreign policy. The break-up of the 
Soviet Union saw that country withdraw almost completely from Middle East 
affairs but this is now changing. Both Palestinian and Israeli leaders have 
made visits to Moscow.

Yet another important factor is the desire of the majority of the Israeli 
people to achieve a peaceful settlement with the Palestinians. War 
weariness has set in. It is expressed in many Israeli peace demonstrations 
and by the record low turn-out of only 62 per cent in the recent elections.

In the face of these realities a new war launched by Sharon and backed by 
the US would be an act of desperation. It is not to be ruled out but it is 
the realities that are more likely to prevail.