<<<< Back to Part 5

---

 

Fact Number 11 – The Middle East arms race

There is a distinct possibility that if there were a worldwide ban on arms sales to the Middle East, there would be no more radical Arab dictators with modern arms. If the foreigners stopped selling advanced weaponry to nations of the Middle East, the conflict would end.

As no Arab country has a military industry, all weapons in the region are imported.but have amtrax If the western nations were truly interested in bringing peace to the Middle East, they would have placed a moratorium on arms sales to the region decades ago. Instead, they sell tens of billions worth of military hardware every year to the unstable regimes of the region. So the entities that are sending special envoys to "help the two sides make peace" are at the same time the main providers of weapons to the region. Somehow, this contradiction is never exposed.

In 2002, Arab governments in the Middle East spent $52 billion on their military forces, of which $18 billion was for purchases from foreign countries. Arab countries devote 8%-11% of their national incomes to defense (23% of all government expenditures). In the past decade, Saudi Arabia alone has spent over $100 billion on weapons. According to the Federation of American Scientists, in the decade after the Gulf War (1991-2001) the US sold more than $43 billion worth of weapons, equipment and military construction projects to Saudi Arabia, and $16 billion more to Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates. Saudi Arabia alone imports about $15 billion worth of weapons each year. Instead of using this wealth for building an economic infrastructure throughout the region, it is wasted on arms. The rest of the oil revenues (after basic government expenditures are met) are deposited in western banks as the private property of the corrupted Arab leaders. This benefits both the Arab leaders and the large western banking interests.

The probability of ending the arms race is very low for a number of reasons that are not the subject of this article. Suffice it to say that there may be alternatives to the arms race that will enable the military organizations, arms manufacturers, financial and banking interests, and governments to satisfy their needs to the point where they will not oppose these alternative solutions.

----------------

 

Basic Fact No. 12 – The United States and the New Middle East

At the time of the first American war with Iraq in 1991 ("Desert Storm") and at the signing of the tragic Oslo agreement in 1993, there were those who used terms like "New World Order" and "New Middle East" to describe the ambitions of those who initiated these actions. Nothing of the sort came about. On the contrary, in both cases the "new" looked very much like or perhaps worse than the "old."

However, since 9/11, the United States has invested men, materiel and prestige in attacking Afghanistan and Iraq in an attempt to bring about major international changes, particularly in the Moslem world and the Middle East. Despite the demonstrations and accusations issuing forth from Europe, the Third World countries and the Arab world, there is ample evidence to support the belief that the United States is undertaking actions in Asia, the Middle East and perhaps in Africa, not for imperialistic reasons but to replace regimes that threaten the world and to send a signal to potential terrorists and their supporters that the free world is not passive. So far, under the present American administration these efforts have not been given any grandiose name and it is still too early to evaluate the results. It is also too soon to determine whether the United States will retain its resolve to continue these efforts.

At present, there are marked indications that the United States intends to remake the world in a way that will correct the errors caused by the refashioning of the Middle East after World War I. At that time, the Western powers created an artificial Middle East that is a root cause of many of today's problems. During the twentieth century, the tragedies and the deaths of millions caused by the results of the Versailles Treaty and the failure of world government such as the League of Nations and the United Nations, captured the world's attention. The League of Nations, the abortive child of the World War I peace efforts, was unable to stop Italian and German fascism and Japanese imperialism. These were defeated in war, and the threat of communism that arose to take their place as a threat to freedom collapsed, after much bloodshed and sorrow, in a whimper. The United Nations, the child of the Second World War, has proven to be more feckless than the League of Nations. Perhaps this is due to the fact that the League of Nations, although ineffective and doomed from the start, was made up of real nations. Many of the states in the United Nations could not be defined as nations other than in the formal sense. By the last decade of the twentieth century the "Isms" that had plagued the world for eighty years were gone. Their absence has uncovered a new and potentially more dangerous threat - militant Islam combined with terror.

Almost a century later, the United States is in a position and perhaps has the will to undo the tragic mistakes that made the twentieth century the bloodiest in history. General Michel Aoun's speaking at the Institut d'Etudes Politiques in Paris, on June 5, 2003 about America's resolve to fight terrorism said some skeptics will doubt this radical American transformation, or in the least, underestimate it because they still do not understand its magnitude or its sincerity, and remain driven to this position by a long history of American policies that are high on principle but poor on real frontline achievements. In effect, for a long time the Americans practiced an often-absurd policy of complacency, tolerating not only dictatorial regimes but also the most fundamentalist of regimes, as long as they served their economic or political interests. The support they provided the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan - the future Taliban and Usama Bin Laden - in their fight against the Soviet Union is one such telltale example of the absurdity of this policy. However, this policy, which was tolerated in both its direct and collateral losses was contracted out, i.e. it was limited to third-party victims even when these were US allies or plain innocent peoples, could no longer be acceptable when its consequences and primary targets became the United States itself, in its people and its land. The direct attack, of which the American superpower was the victim and by its very nature trespassed over all conventions of war and resistance, left the United States with no choice but total and global war against terrorism.

----------------------

 

The Solution

At the Aqaba summit meeting in early 2003, which was essentially another in the long series of photo opportunities that mark diplomacy in the Middle East, President Bush announced that the Holy Land must be divided between two peoples - the Palestinians and the Israelis. Most of the world currently advocates a two-state solution. This is not the place to discuss the definitions of these "two peoples" since the background of the "Palestinians", as noted above, is questionable and the "Israelis" include Arab citizens who define themselves as Palestinians. And, as the Jewish state, Israel is really only a part of the Jewish people who live dispersed all over the world - the corporate headquarters, as it were. What is relevant to this discussion is the definition of the "Holy Land". Finding a working definition is somewhat awkward because of the changes over the years. Under the Turks, the general area west of the Jordan River that now includes Israel, Judea and Samaria and part of Lebanon, was ruled from Damascus and was generally known as southern Syria. The Palestinians have no designation since they have neither historical background nor tradition that enables defining a land associated with them. The Jewish definition of the Holy Land is a halachic one and delineates those areas in which certain laws that are applicable. And within the Jewish definition, there are various schools of thought since the Jewish kingdoms and various regimes included areas that were both extremely limited as well as extremely broad - in some cases reaching as far north and west as the Euphrates River. Halachic definitions would, in any event, not be acceptable by anyone for practical purposes. Consequently, the only reasonable and acceptable working definition of the Holy Land is the most recent one, that associated with the Balfour Declaration, the League of Nations and the United Nations. This includes both sides of the Jordan River and stretches from the Mediterranean Sea to the border of Iraq. In other words, the area that now includes the State of Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

Thus, President Bush's comment about sharing the Holy Land has already occurred. There is Jewish sovereignty on the smaller section (the approximately 25% west of the Jordan River) and Arab sovereignty on the remaining and larger section.

At the moment, the Arab portion is an area where a Bedouin king of the Hashemite family from Arabia rules over a population composed of an overwhelming majority (80%) of Palestinian Arabs. Indeed, Rabbi Benny Alon, the Minister of Tourism in the Sharon government, is lobbying in the United States for a solution that he calls "logical, humane and viable." Elon has formulated a plan that he believes will represent a viable alternative to the establishment of another Palestinian state west of the Jordan. His plan is along the lines of the solution proposed here but does not go far enough and will not be accepted by the Arab states involved for reasons explained below. Elon argues, correctly in my opinion, that the only force strong enough to enable his solution to be implemented is America. And the only way to influence America is through grassroots support in the US public. The success of his solution, depends on it being taken seriously in the Congress and the Senate; if it considered feasible in the American legislature, it will not be ignored by the Arab states, particularly those which depend upon American support and largesse, primarily Egypt and Jordan. Elon feels that a two-state solution that involves the establishment of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River is an idea that flies in the face of Bush's religious beliefs as a Christian and against the national security interest of the US to achieve stability in the Middle East.

In Elon's words :My plan is based on the understanding that a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River is a failed proposition. Such a state will have no economic viability. It will have no territorial contiguity. It will be a destabilizing force that will immediately work to undermine Israel and Jordan by force and political subversion. And it will have international legitimacy in the UN to do so. Until 1988 both Jordan and every Israeli government understood this. My plan is based on a regional solution that recognizes the fact that Jordan is Palestine. The only way to solve the problem with the Palestinians is to reduce it to a border dispute between two already existing states - Israel and Jordan. If we can reconceptualize the way we view the problem then we can solve it. It moves from an existential conflict to a territorial border dispute like Alsace-Lorraine. Elon's plan includes the following points:

Immediate dissolution of the Palestinian Authority, a non-viable entity whose existence precludes the termination of the conflict.

Israel will uproot the Palestinian terror infrastructure. All arms will be collected, incitement will be stopped and all the refugee camps, which serve as incubators for terror, will be dismantled. Terrorists and their direct supporters will be deported.

Israel, the US and the international community will recognize the Kingdom of Jordan as the only legitimate representative of the Palestinians. Jordan will once again recognize itself as the Palestinian nation-state. In the context of a regional development program, Israel, the US and the international community will put forth a concerted effort for the long-term development of Jordan, to rehabilitate its economy and enable it to absorb a limited number of refugees within its borders. Israeli sovereignty will be asserted over Judea, Samaria and Gaza. The Arab residents of these areas will become citizens of the Palestinian state in Jordan. The status of these citizens, their connection to the two states and the manner of administration of their communal lives will be decided in an agreement between the governments of Israel and Jordan (Palestine).

Israel, the US and the international community will allocate resources for the completion of the exchange of populations that began in 1948, as well as the full rehabilitation of the refugees and their absorption and naturalization in various countries.

After implementation of the above stages, Israel and Jordan (Palestine) will declare the conflict terminated. Both sides will work to normalize peaceful relations between all parties in the region.

Elon's plan is reasonable and would be feasible except for several drawbacks, all of which are amenable to correction if the United States is sincerely interested in solving the problems of the Middle East and international terror.

1. The normalization of relations between Israel and any or all of the Arab states is something that can neither be dictated nor declared. It is the result of years of education and support by the Arab governments and media. Israel has peace treaties with both Jordan and Egypt but her attempts at normalization have not been reciprocated. The best that can be expected is formal relations that may some day be followed by normal relations. Thus, Item 7 in Elon's plan is not achievable in the immediate future but should be considered a long term goal. That is still an achievement and a major step toward eventual real peace.

2. There is no reason to settle all those who call themselves refugees in Jordan. The northern part of Sinai is an area with natural resources that can accommodate a large population. With international support it can become a productive part of Egypt. And there is no reason why Egypt should not provide this land as its contribution to regional stability. The land will remain part of Egypt and its productiveness will be a major source of Egypt's GNP. Turning this area from desert to production will relieve many of the problems of political instability that are outgrowths of the growing population in the Nile River area. And Egypt will depend less on foreign assistance. Additionally, Egypt like Jordan, is dependent upon American foreign aid. Egypt was paid off by the United States for signing the peace treaty with Israel by massive aid (that, incidentally, enabled it to update its armed forces which represent a serious threat to Israel rather than use the funds to improve its mushrooming population). Agreeing to allow Palestinian Arabs to resettle in the Sinai will undoubtedly open the American pocketbook even further. For Egypt it is a win-win situation. Thus, Items 4 and 6 above should include international support of both Jordan and Egypt to resettle the Palestinian Arabs and assist them to develop and be productive.

3. A major drawback in the Elon plan is the fact that it will not be accepted by the King of Jordan. The Palestinians consider Jordan to be part of Palestine and are not happy with the Hashemite regime. Indeed, their long term plans include the destruction of Israel to be followed by the overthrow of the Hashemite monarchy. Further, the present King Abdullah is fully cognizant of the fact that his father, Hussein, had to kill and exile thousands of Palestinians in 1970 in order to eliminate the threat that the represented to his regime. He will not accept hundreds of thousands of Palestinians into Jordan because of the risk to the Hashemite dynasty and to his own life. .

The resolution of this show-stopper difficulty is undoubtedly the most controversial and politically incorrect part of the solution proposed herein. However, it is feasible depending particularly upon the will of the United States.

The proposed solution has three parts:

Replace the Saudi regime with the Hashemite regime. That is, to remove the Saudis from Arabia and to install King Abdullah of Jordan as the King of Arabia.

Assist the Palestinians to establish a state in what is now Jordan Relocate those Arabs who do not wish to be part of the new Palestinian state to northern Sinai, an Egyptian territory

This can come about in one of several ways. In one scenario, the Saudis will be convinced to leave, will pack up their bags and retinues and exile themselves from the land that they forcefully took from the other tribes, including the Hashemites, in the early part of the previous century. In another scenario, they will be forced out by the American military or by the threat of American military action. This may not be as unreasonable as it sounds. Laurent Murawiec, a scholar formerly of Rand Corporation and presently at the Hudson Institute presented a report recommending this move to the National Defense Board, an advisory board to the Pentagon, in Washington last year. In this report, Murawiec urged the US to use military force to occupy the Saudi oil provinces where Shi'ites, a sect discriminated against by the Saudi Wahhabis, form the majority of the population. Although the report was rejected by the board, it received a lot of attention and there are apparently a growing number of supporters of this idea. It should be noted that despite millions of dollars spent to purchase American arms, Saudi Arabia has called on European and American troops to defend itself both domestically and from foreign threats. Saudi Arabia is a paper tiger.

Amos Asa-El (Jerusalem Post, November 14, 2003) adumbrates a third scenario. He writes " It takes no historian, economist, or fortune-teller to predict the shocks and tremors that will accompany the rapidly approaching downfall of the Saudi royal house… One is at a loss to seek throughout history a comparably brazen, stupid, and criminal combination of theft, waste, oppression, obscurantism, hypocrisy and belligerency. Morally, economically, and socially - it is predestined to collapse… Like the fall of the Berlin Wall, the fall of the Saudi kingdom will reflect a widespread sense of disgust with a morally bankrupt regime. Yet, unlike the fall of the Wall, which offered the West moral vindication and strategic breakthrough, the fall of the house of Saud will generate geopolitical chaos and moral perplexity". This third scenario can be prevented by implementing one of the first two proposed.

The recommended solution will have the following implications and results: The Hashemites will return to Arabia, their actual home, from which they were forced out by the Saudis. They will no longer be threatened by the Palestinians. Further, the Hashemite kingdom will now have oil resources and no longer be a pauper that exists upon the good will of others.

The Palestinians will be able to establish their own independent government in the area now occupied by the Kingdom of Jordan and rule themselves. The Saudis will no longer have the oil resources and the income from which they use to fund international terrorism and the Wahhabi form of Islam which includes anti-western education and preaching throughout the Islamic world. The Saudi royal family can resettle itself anywhere that it pleases. It has enough family resources to be comfortable anywhere that it desires.

Who will benefit from this solution?

* The Jordanian King: As noted, he would return to the ancient homeland of his family, will rule over the major Islamic holy places, be rid of the threat of overthrow by the Palestinians, and be further compensated by the vast oil reserves over which he now has control. He will be supported by the United States and will be a major purchaser of American arms - he will now have the funds to do so.

* The Egyptian president: those Palestinians who choose to be resettled in Northern Sinai will add a productive element to the Egyptian economy and, at the same time, be far enough removed from Cairo and the Nile area to not be a physical or political threat to the ruling element.

* The Saudis: although they may be unhappy about the loss of oil resources, they probably have enough funds stashed away in Switzerland and other areas to console themselves.

* The weapons manufacturers: the Hashemite Kingdom and Egypt will still be potential purchasers. At the same time, the sales to the American military forces will increase since the United States will need to strengthen its military to meet the obligations that the American administration takes upon itself to fight international terrorism and alleviate potential and actual conflict areas that are the source of general instability.

* Israel: the demographic problem west of the Jordan River will be resolved, the refugee camps, the emetic swamp that has served as a breeding ground for terrorism and anti-Jewish hate, will be eliminated. Additionally, there will be a short and defensible border (the Jordan Valley) between Israel and the new Palestinian state.

* The Palestinians: if they are honest in their claim that they desire an independent state that will live in peace with its neighbors, they will have 75% of mandatory Palestine in which to develop that state

* The oil interests: the oil will continue to flow under pro-American auspices

* The world: the major source of international terrorism will be eliminated