- Dr. Salim Nazzal is a Palestinian historian. He has written extensively on social and political issues in the Middle East. Can be contacted at [email protected].

(1) www.fpif.org

(2) www.newyorker.com

Inevitably, the only way for Israel to integrate in the region is to recognize the Palestinian rights and to remove the apartheid laws, which were imposed by force in Palestine. The revolt occurred lately among the British Jews against the blind obedience to the state of Israel must be a good example to Israelis to follow. If some rich Israelis have already left to Canada and to America and Europe to escape from the possible war, the majority of the Israelis will be paying the price along side Arabs and Iranians if Israel attacked Iran.
Attacking Iran or Syria is not a matter that can be taken lightly. There is no doubt that the question of the nuclear power in Iran can be peacefully resolved provided that the Us learns from the Iraq lessons and provided that Israel knows that the fire wont be located in one place once inflamed. Some Arab analysts warned that that using nuclear weapon to attack Iran would be open invitations to all Arabs to obtain mass destruction weapons because it will create a state of insecurity and chaos in the whole region. In other words such attack will lead into chaos, which no body can predict where it will lead the region.

Israelis has to choose between continuous wars or lasting peace, because with each war the seeds of the next wars are planted.
Israelis need to think of the lesson given by the white South Africans who had to face the truth that the policy of domination and suppression will end one day.

Arab leaders need to review their policy on the light of the Us Israel policy as implemented clearly in Palestine where encouraging and helping in the Palestinian inter division has been the policy of Israel and the USA, a position was confirmed in rejecting the Palestinian unity agreement reached in Makkah in Saudi Arabia. It was also materialized in Iraq in playing and feeding the sectarian interfight in order to weaken the Iraqi resistance, it become also visible in Lebanon in feeding the differences between the conflicting coalitions with the aim to destabilize Lebanon and to weaken the anti Zionist forces in the country.
Since Israel has played a historical functional role to serve the Imperial interests time has come to the opened minded and the peace activities in Israel to take the responsibility and to intensify their efforts to stand against the Zionist government which drag them from war to war.

Obviously, the USA has become near to the Israeli position in the question of playing off the sectarian elements, and in adopting the policy of encouraging all sorts of divisions with the aim to weaken the forces which resist the American and the Israeli domination projects in the region. Nevertheless, apart from the question of the credibility of (the airspace permission report) which was denied by the secretary general of the Arab league the point is that it consolidates earlier analysis that deconstructing the region is the title which summarized the Israeli policy since the times of Ben Gorion is being adopted by the Bush administration. However the Arab secretary general denial does not free Arab leaders from taking a strong position against any possible attack against Iran. Arab leaders need to remember that their position in supporting the American invasion to Iraq has aided the US and Israel to play on the sectarian divisions in the region which threatening the integration and the stability of each Arab country.

This policy goes in harmony with the American/Israeli deconstruction policy to divide the region between moderates and extremes, as if demanding the rights of the Palestinians as formulated by the united nation resolutions 224,181 and 194 has become an extreme position while the silence on the Israeli daily violations in Palestine is moderation. The American political writer Seymour Hersh refers to the change in the American policy towards adopting the policy of playing off the sectarian differences in the so called (redirection) policy of the United States in its efforts to isolate and probably attack Iran. (3)

Arab observers in the Middle East point out that the change in the American politics has been clear in the American retreat from earlier positions which shyly criticize the Arab countries which lack human rights to consolidate its friendship with. The American position was very obvious in besieging the elected government in Palestine while at the same time supported the non-elected Arab regimes, which go along its policy. The "new" American approach has become based on who support its policy and who does not which confirmed the suspicion of the Arab democratic forces that the Us has not made a break with its historical policy which was based on supporting the oppressive regimes which serve the Us interests. On that base the Us has coined the terms (the moderate Arab countries!) vis avis (the extreme Arab countries!) to differentiate between those countries which accept its policy and who are not.

Few years ago some argued in the Middle East that despite the alliance between the USA and Israel in oppressing the voice of the Arab resistance, there was some who argued that there is difference between both states in dealing with the regional problem. That point of view postulates that the USA is interested in supporting some form of Banana Arab "democratic" states which follows the American policy along side its project known as the grand Middle East. While it was always obvious that Israel last interest is the question of democracy in the Arab countries for two reasons, the first that the Arab democratic states will be more willing to resist Israel while its people is on its side more the one party system regimes. Two, the creation of democratic Arab countries will remove from Israel the self-proclaimed label that it is the only democratic country in the region. Yet later developments indicate a greater American involvement in the Israeli deconstruction project, which apparently aims to remove the resistance spots in the region.

However the last report that Israel got the permission of three Arab countries to use its air space to attack Iran is casting more light not only on the intention of Israel which has never been unknown but confirming the Israeli policy to "integrate" in the region through playing on the sectarian differences which is an old Israeli policy, according to Innam Raad the late secretary of the Syrian party: "The diary of Moshe Sharette revealed the correspondence amongst the three Israeli statesmen, David ben Gorion Moshe Sharette and Eliaho Sasson in February and March 1954, as to the splitting of Lebanon and the whole area into sectarian homelands, which were to emerge in the event of a civil war and turmoil". (2)