Jinn Home Page | Search | Net-Links
Vectors | Voices | Heresies | Pacific Pulse | The Americas | California | Movements | Civil Conflicts | YO!

PREDICTONS

By Franz Schurmann


fschurmann@pacificnews.org

Column for Tuesday, October 24, 2000

What Went Wrong With My Predictions Of Middle East Peace Accords?

Evaluation of Predictions in lieu of Predictions #82 and #83

The first prediction I made, on February 16, 1999, was that Israel and the Palestinians would eventually sign a peace agreement. Until Bloody Friday, September 29, 2000 I believed that Americans would get the predicted "October surprise" in the form of an Israeli-Palestinian agreement brokered by President Clinton. Instead a new Intifada erupted.

All of my clearly wrong predictions were based on two assumptions. The first held that America needs global peace to keep the global economy going. The second was that, as the world's newest empire, it had the power to impose peace, especially if the warring parties were small states. And Israel is a small state and Palestine is tiny.

These two assumptions were the basis of the double-track peace process that emerged from the Madrid and Oslo meetings. The Madrid conference of October 30, 1991 grew directly out of America's military and political victories in the Gulf War of January 1991. American military power forced Saddam Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait. The political basis for the war was formed through a coalition of countries supporting America that included all of Israel's neighbors except Lebanon. Of central importance to the subsequent peace process was Syria's adherence.

Why Make Predictions?
It's risky to make too many predictions. Most --- especially if they are short term --- likely will turn out wrong. Why then make them?

Why do crystal ball gazers? Because by making them they show belief that the world is orderly, not chaotic. When you hear the non-predictors cautioning against predictions maybe it's because deep down they see the world as chaotic.

It's like in the classic French film "The Triumph of Medicine." The money-pinched doctor in the Alpine village was surrounded by fellow-villagers who never got sick, lived to a hundred, then quickly died. But when Dr. Knock (Louis Jouvet) came in he had a different "philosophy." Later when he had built Europe's most modern hospital in the village he told the old doctor: "Your philosophy is that sickness is but a temporary deviation from health; mine is that health is but a temporary deviation from sickness."

Moral for careerists: you do better believing that the world is chaotic.

So as a sign that I believe the world is not chaotic but basically orderly I launch this web-site called "Predictions." The predictions will all be verifiable in the near future, at most a year's time.

With a non-hostile ring now surrounding Israel the Bush and then Clinton administrations put pressure on both Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to come to terms with each other. The Oslo peace conference that launched the Israeli-Palestinian peace process took place on September 9, 1993. A step-by-step peace process was sketched out that envisaged an Israeli pull-out from the territories it occupied with the Six Days War of June 1967 and the establishment of a state on land that had been given back to the Palestinians by the Israelis. In return Israeli would have gained peace and normalization of relations with Arab countries. The shorthand expression for this process was "land for peace."

On November 4, 1995 Prime Minister Rabin was assassinated by a young and religious Jewish youth. Now in retrospect it seems that this date marked the beginning of the ending of the double-track peace process. At the Arab League summit of October 22, 2000 the participating countries agreed to diminish or shut down their links with Israel. This formally ended the Madrid process. A few days earlier a meeting in the Sinai peninsula resort town of Sharm as-Sheikh that brought Clinton, Barak and Arafat together, had no significant results. Instead the Intifada continued.

I do not think the peace process began to end when Rabin was killed. My thinking now is that there was a chance for an October surprise until that chance ended on Bloody Friday September 29, 2000

It's not likely that any accord of significance can appear in the 12 days left until the American election on November 7. A handshake photo-op between Barak and Arafat might swing some votes in Gore's direction. But given the fierce hatreds that now prevail between Palestinians and Israelis such a handshake would further weaken the already badly weakened power bases of both men. And if they just stood like statues next to a smiling Clinton the photo-op would be irrelevant.

On November 21, 1995 the three leaders of the warring factions in Bosnia, Milosevic (Serb), Tudjman (Croat) and Izetbegovic (Muslim) initialed the Dayton Air Force Base agreement to end the war in Bosnia. It was a great personal triumph for Clinton and showed how great was the power of the American empire to force its will on small country warring factions. If Rabin had not been assassinated it is quite likely that some time in the election year 1996 a similar peace agreement would have been signed by Rabin and Arafat. But that didn't happen.

Rabin's successor was Shimon Peres. Peres strongly advocated the two-track peace process. But when he led his Labor Party into the election he lost. The Likud, right-wingers and Benyamin Netanyahu came to power. That many if not most of them did not support the peace process was always known. That Netanyahu used all kinds of pretexts to delay implementation of the peace process was fully known by all involved. But the key question is why didn't Clinton put pressure on Israel to speed up implementation.

Clinton easily won re-election in 1996. The economy was in excellent shape. When in 1994 the declining dollar turned around under the policies of the new Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin the economy began a rapid upturn. More and more capital flowed into the booming high-tech sector. The Dow began to go up and up at a steep curve.

Israel benefited greatly from this upturn. Its highly educated Russian immigrants created a new high-tech sector that carried the Israeli economy with it. The Palestinians were still seen by Israelis as a threat but as more and more Arab countries began to develop economic and political relations with Israel it was the Palestinians who were isolated, not the Israelis. I don't think the Israelis were the ones who hacked away at the peace process until it collapsed.

A part of the weakness that led to the collapse of the peace process was in Washington. During his second term Clinton became a highly activist and successful president, particularly in the foreign policy sector ----- as was the case during Nixon's and Reagan's second terms. Clinton fought hard for his China policy and finally won this year. He ordered NATO into Kosovo and while he didn't achieve his main goal of overthrowing Milosevic the Albanian majority (90 percent) got their province back. And in the Middle East Israel was more and more accepted by Arab and Muslim countries even as more and more concessions, even if small, were squeezed out of the Israelis.

But this election year Clinton was as deeply involved in campaigning as earlier. Hilary is running for the Senate in New York, Gore is running for president in his party and, most important, with his astonishing fund-raising abilities he is fighting hard to get Democrats in control of Congress. Given overwhelming Congressional support of Israel Clinton had no choice but to tilt back towards Israel.

But Clinton's calls on Arafat to "do more to end the violence" sound like echoings of Ehud Barak. Yet there is more to it than that. It is widely believed that Arafat was anxious to proclaim Palestinian statehood so that he could become its first president. As president it would be difficult to remove him by other Palestinian or Arab political competitors.

Arafat may control the al-Fatah faction of the PLO but his leadership does not extend much beyond that. Events in the Arab and Islamic world have shown that new grass roots political forces are arising. All of them are Islamic in a part of the world where religion has deep roots among ordinary people. The real political power in the emerging Palestine is not Fatah but Hamas.

Hamas is an outgrowth of the Muslim brotherhood of Egypt. It provides a lot of social services to Palestinians who lack a state to offer such services. For many years the Muslim brethren in Egypt did the same. At times they were suppressed and at others they were able to operate openly, even gaining seats in parliament. But among the secular states of the region there is deep worry about growing Islamic political strength. All it takes to measure that influence is on the streets to do a quick count of young women who wear the hijab scarf and young men who grow beards.

If the peace process had not ended, sooner or later America and Israel would have had to start dealing seriously with the Islamic fundamentalists. Recently as Washington kept insisting it would not allow the Taliban to join the UN a Taliban delegation was touring the US to discuss the Afghan situation. If the Ultimate Intifada is to be ended Arafat's authority will not be enough. Hamas leader Imam Yasin will have a big say in the matter.

Given the flames and fury now raging in the Holy Land it is not likely Arafat can be ousted. But if the peace process had continued without a proclamation of Palestinian statehood Arafat could possibly have been faced with a challenge to his power. In this sense the Intifada has well served his interests and ambitions.

Previous Predictions:

Prediction #1, February 16th:

Prediction #2, February 23rd: Prediction #3, March 2nd,1999 Prediction #4, March 9th, 1999 Prediction #5, March 16th, 1999 Prediction #6, March 23rd,1999 Prediction #7, March 30th,1999 Prediction #8, April 6th,1999 Prediction #9, April 13th,1999 Prediction #10, April 20th,1999 Prediction #11, April 27th,1999 Prediction #12, May 4th,1999 Prediction #13, May 11th,1999 Prediction #14, May 18th,1999 Prediction #15, May 25th,1999 Prediction #16, June 8th,1999 Prediction #17, June 15th,1999 (Non-)Prediction #18, June 22nd,1999 (Non-)Prediction #19, June 29th,1999 Prediction #20, July 6th,1999 Prediction #21, July 13th,1999 Prediction #22, July 20th,1999 Prediction #23, July 20th,1999 Prediction #24, August 3,1999 Prediction #25, August 10,1999 Prediction #26, August 17,1999 Prediction #27, August 17,1999 Prediction #28, September 1,1999 (Non-) Prediction #29, September 7,1999 (Non-) Prediction #30, September 14,1999 Prediction #31, September 21,1999 Prediction #32, September 28,1999 Prediction #33, October 5,1999 Prediction #34, October 12,1999 Prediction #35, October 19,1999 Prediction #36, October 26,1999 Prediction #37, November 2,1999 Prediction #38, November 9,1999 Non-Prediction #39, November 16,1999 Non-Prediction #40, November 23,1999 Non-Prediction #41, November 30,1999 Non-Prediction #42, December 7,1999 Prediction #43, December 14,1999 Non-Prediction #44, January 25, 2000 Prediction #45, February 1, 2000 Prediction #46, February 8, 2000 Prediction #47, February 15, 2000 Prediction #48, February 22, 2000 Prediction #49, February 29, 2000 Prediction #50, March 7, 2000 Non-Prediction #51, March 14, 2000 Non-Prediction #52, March 21, 2000 Non-Prediction #53, March 28, 2000 Non-Prediction #54, April 4, 2000 Prediction #55, April 11, 2000 Prediction #56, April 18, 2000 Prediction #57, April 25, 2000 Prediction #58, May 2, 2000 Prediction #59, May 9, 2000 Prediction #60, May 16, 2000 Prediction #61, May 23, 2000 Prediction #62, May 30, 2000 Prediction #63, June 6, 2000 Prediction #64, June 13, 2000 Prediction #65, June 20, 2000 Prediction #66, June 27, 2000 Prediction #67, July 7, 2000 Prediction #69, July 18, 2000 Prediction #70, July 25, 2000 Prediction #71, August 1, 2000 Prediction #72, August 8, 2000 Prediction #73, August 15, 2000 Prediction #74, August 22, 2000 Prediction #75, August 30, 2000 Prediction #76, September 5, 2000 Prediction #77, September 12, 2000 Prediction #78, September 19, 2000 Prediction #79, September 26, 2000 Prediction #80, October 3, 2000 Prediction #81, October 10, 2000 Evaluation for October 24, 2000

Pacific News Service, 660 Market Street, Room 210, San Francisco, CA 94104, tel: (415) 438-4755.
Jinn Magazine: <http://www.pacificnews.org/jinn/>
Email: <pacificnews@pacificnews.org>

Copyright © 2000 Pacific News Service. All Rights Reserved.
Please do not reprint our stories without our permission.
Our articles are available for reprint. For rates and information, contact Scott Louie at (415) 438-4755 or at <pacificnews@pacificnews.org>