When a discussion of international affairs involves the Middle East, two words inevitably enter the dialogue: "peace process". To these two words, any objective observer may find it difficult to stifle a cynical scoff or chuckle. Peace process? How can there be a peace process when obviously there is no peace to keep? It fits into the same category of the absolutely illogical just as referring to the NATO and UN forces deployed to former Yugoslavia, Cyprus, East Timor, Afghanistan, and almost anywhere else such contengents are sent as "peace keepers" is entirely absurd and illogical. When snipers, suicide/homicide bombers, massacres, and other activities that clearly satisfy any sensible definition of hostilities are regular occurrances, where is the peace that is to be kept or processed?
Another fallacy of the term "peace process" is that it implies the feuding factions sincerely want peace. This is not exactly the situation in the Middle East. When a party to a militarized or quasi-militarized conflict wants peace, that party does certain things such as propose a cease fire, exchange prisoners, voluntarily retreat or withdraw, and attempt direct negotiations as signaled by accepting or requesting an offer of truce. None of these events has transpired in the Middle East.
For the moment remove the Israeli and Arab labels from the issue. Think of them as A and B which could signify any group anywhere in the world. The A and B groups intensely dislike each other. A is an advanced, Westernized society whose functioning, recognized government satisfies all the requirements of statehood: control of territory; a population; legimitacy to provide infrastructure; exercise of the rights, duties, and powers of sovereignty.
B is a much poorer group financially than A. Although some of the population of B live and work within the territory of A, B does not recognize or respect the authority of A and would like to replace it with a new authority dominated by representatives of B. The leaders of B realize that in respect of military resources, A by far surpasses B's limited strength. But the dislike of A is so strong that B vows to find other methods to accomplish its goals.
Clashes between A and B begin soon after A is constituted as a state. Resentment by B increases as the power and influence of A increase. B eventually gains sympathy and limited support from some of A's neighboring states. Tensions rise and decline and rise again. Guerrilla warfare tactics prevail. From time to time another group (call them C) intervenes to try to solve the problems A and B seem unable to settle for themselves. Neither A nor B sought the assistance of C; C simply took the initiative for the sake of finding peace.
