A successful revival of the Middle East peace process faces many obstacles, no less Israel's past willingness to escape negotiations, or to let the process fall altogether. Israeli Premier Benjamin Netanyahu calls for negotiation, while at the same time shatters the possibility of peace by announcing, very publicly, that he will not withdraw from occupied East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. He calls for recognition by other countries in the region of Israel as a Jewish state and last, but by no means least, he has said that his country must have a permanent military presence in the West Bank. On the other side of the fence, quite literally, the Palestinians refuse to enter into negotiations until the freezing of settlement projects occurs, something seemingly supported by Washington until Israel refused to halt its land-grab programme. In reality, the two sides must know that there can be no military solution to their conflict. Both Israeli President Shimon Perez and former foreign minister and opposition leader Tzipi Livni have warned that the alternative to a two-state solution will be a bi-national state. Israel is not ready for this. However, with both Israel and Palestine agreeing the terms of the Oslo accords in the 1990s, as well as Israel signing peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan officially based on UN Security Council resolutions 242, 338 and 339, then all parties, including Syria and Lebanon, accept the basis for peace. Still, accepting basics is not a guarantee to constructing a peaceful solution as history shows. Any peace accords carry the possibility of success or failure, but what shape the relationship between the rivals is in, after the signing of a treaty, makes all the difference between permanent peace and another war. When the Israeli premier says that his country wants military existence in the West Bank after the establishment of the two states, then clashes would continue between Palestinian groups and the Israeli army. When he insists that Palestinians and other Arabs recognise his country as a Jewish state, then future co-existence between Israeli Arabs will be doubtful. If Israel finishes the expulsion of the Palestinians then yet another refugee problem will occur, which could lead to war, and yet another war in the region could seriously destabilise and divide those already fragile countries in the Levant or importantly Iraq. Therefore, these Israeli preconditions just lead to more turmoil in the Middle East, rather to a permanent peace as all hope. The US particularly talks a lot about Israeli security as if Palestinians and other countries of the region have no right to be secure. The formula of ‘land for peace' in short, does not fulfill the security requirements of the Middle East. Rather, the formula should be ‘land for peace and security for all'. Arrangements should respect geopolitical facts as well. The above formula opens the Israeli nuclear file and attaches it to the Iranian nuclear file as well as the possible spread of mass destructive weapons in the region in general. Moreover, it determines the size of armies in each country according to its area and demographic heaviness. And some countries have responsibilities in the region in global strategies; Israel is not one of them. This was clear during the first Gulf War when the then US President Bush senior asked Israel not to respond to Iraqi ground-to-ground missiles, so as not to ruin the West-Arab alliance. Security for all stipulates that armies should be deployed between Israel and the new Palestinian state on both sides of borders. As long as the West and the US mix up the very firm difference between terrorism and Islam, the terrorism problem will not be solved. No doubt, terrorists are criminals and importantly that they are present in all faiths. But redefining Israel as a Jewish state opens the door for the establishment of Jewish hard-line nationalist groups, which could lead to a Jewish version of the Taliban or al-Qaeda. Settlers already use terror – through the Argon gangs for example, to force Palestinians to leave their lands. If Israel continues to take vital natural resources such as water, leaving Palestinians with acrid lands, this could become a flash point of conflict. Water shortage is a security problem that needs to be addressed. Using nuclear reactors to desalinate sea water is one solution, but would only be successful if a regional nuclear organisation were established that could control technology transfer, safety, enrichment of uranium and inspection rules, and most importantly could ensure that everyone in need right across the region benefited. All manoeuvres and hesitations to go to the negotiating table are reflections of future risks. The US must resolve these hazards for the sake of its global strategy. The EU shows some advancement towards that aim, however, steps are not enough. Recognising a Palestinian state before negotiations recommence may be a good step, but rules for the survival of this state are more important. If the Obama administration, as the guiding force in this process, can not resolve these risks during their first term, most probably some cards will be held by other rising actors before another four years is up. Decisive action is needed, but who will be the one to take it?
