A new peace paradigm

One of the most egregious errors during Operation Cast Lead was the failure to embed the military operation into a political framework that would advance peace, which requires reducing the capacities of groups like Hamas. This mistake is typical of narrow respectives, rather than a comprehensive and long-term grand strategic outlook.

If the Israeli government had such an outlook, it would have recognized the need for a new diplomatic paradigm while strengthening deterrence and inflicting disproportional punishment for harming Israel. A peace process of "more of the same" is rather hopeless in the long term. Massive intervention is needed to alter historic and dangerous processes, not piecemeal efforts. The circumstances demand a new Israeli peace plan leaning on the Arab peace initiative.

The regional dynamics and global geostrategic transformations make adhering to the principle of "managing the conflict" increasingly dangerous for Israel. The proliferation of weapons of mass killing and the increasing number of fanatic actors, as well as the fear of instability in moderate Arab states, make for a slippery slope. Added to this is Barack Obama's expected policy, which requires fresh diplomatic initiatives from Israel.

Peace plans in the past have suffered from tunnel vision. Even if an agreement is reached with the Palestinians, it will be unstable and endanger Jordan and, eventually, Israel. An agreement with Syria without its disengagement from Iran will not guarantee quiet in the north. And the belief in "economic peace" combined with continued Israeli domination over the territories cannot prevent a deterioration.

Israel doesn't have too many cards to play. It would be a mistake to hand them over for peace agreements with the Palestinians and Syria, along with the vague promises of normalization in the Arab peace initiative. Only a comprehensive Middle Eastern agreement that stabilizes the moderate Arab states, confronts Iran and fanatic groups, and includes credible security arrangements is worth a withdrawal from the territories and painful concessions on Jerusalem. And only such an agreement, with the backing of most Muslim countries and the global powers, has a chance to win the support of most of the Israeli public.

So Israel must initiate a paradigm jump. Instead of the Annapolis agreement and the road map, which focused on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there should be a Washington agreement, which would present a final picture of the entire Israeli-Arab-Muslim conflict. There would also be a "road atlas" for a regional agreement, in which every Israeli concession would be met with one by the Palestinians, Syria, and most Arab and Muslim states, all adding up to full, peaceful relations and credible security arrangements. The refugee problem would be solved by agreeing on a formula for compensating and absorbing them into all Middle East countries that agree to take them in, in accordance with their capacity.

The new paradigm needs to include steps to stabilize the moderate Arab regimes to gain time for economic development and modernization, without which any "democratization" is a prescription for fanaticism. Security arrangements and demilitarization, all under watchful supervision, will help contain Iran, neutralize organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, and prevent a Palestinian state from becoming a factor that endangers Israel, Jordan and the Middle East.

In this context, it does not make too much of a difference who wins the upcoming elections. All candidates for becoming prime minister understand the diplomatic-security realities, never mind their declarations. Given the variety in beliefs and assessments, the new prime minister will need radical diplomatic creativity and a long-term vision for the region. He will have to create a new diplomatic-security paradigm to extricate Israel from its catch-22.

The writer is professor emeritus of political science at the Hebrew University.