Flying from New York to Lyon in France some weeks ago, I had an interesting conversation with two teenaged French Jews who were my fellow passengers. They were conspicuous in their traditional skullcaps and hats and attracted attention as they chanted their prayers in Hebrew at the time of take off. Speaking to them I was surprised to find that not only were they unusually conscious of their religious identity, but even though French citizens, Israel remained the reference point of their political identity.As West Asia became central to political and popular discourse it became important to put things in perspective. Particularly so because the US media is so unabashedly pro-Israel in its reporting. The loss of one Israeli makes headlines and entire families of Palestinians wiped out in gunfire hardly make news.As I set about figuring out how a peace process, which showed promise in July, could collapse in October, my conversation with my young Jewish companions on the plane proved very handy. Their reference point to Israel had made it clear to me that somewhere they still considered themselves citizens of Israel. Indeed the resentment amongst the 20 per cent Arab citizens of Israel is because the Israeli constitution defines a `natural citizen' as a Jew. A Jew anywhere in the world can return to Israel and get citizenship by virtue of this definition. No wonder Israel remains a central part of the politico-national identity of Jews all over the world. But this also meant that Jews outside Israel are perceived by the Arab Israelis as having more rights than them. This resentment does not bode well for the stability of the region. No doubt the visit of Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount area ignited what was already a volatile situation. But the recent violence was unprecedented also because Israelis of Arab descentjoined the attacks on the Israel military. This reflected the more endemic nature of the elusive peace in the area. The peace process was flawed to begin with. The Oslo interim agreement gave Yassar Arafat's Palestinian Authority control over more than 90 per cent of Palestinians. But these live in a handful of large cities and villages that are separated from each other by land still controlled partly or fully by Israel. This means that a patchwork of Arab zones exists which is cut through by criss-cross roads that meander into Israeli settlements and therefore are manned by their outposts. The non-contiguous nature of Palestinian territory makes travel difficult for them as it results in petty humiliations at the hands of Israeli soldiers on a daily basis. More importantly the Camp David accord left the issue of sovereignty over Jerusalem unresolved. Indeed it heated the issue up instead of resolving it. The recent violence that shows no sign of ending has shaken the average Israeli's faith in peace ever returning to his land. At the same time, he or she shuns the idea of giving a sovereign state to the Palestinians. The dismantling of Palestinian settlements and "separation" appears to be the policy favoured in the future. Yet, years of violence and hostility notwithstanding, Israeli territory and economy are so intertwined with the Palestinians that such extreme suggestions mercifully seem impractical to implement. At the most basic level the interdependence of Jews and Arabs is most evident in the Israeli markets where Jewish merchants depend entirely on Palestinian labour. Ironically, the much hated guns of the Palestinians are also acquired from the black markets of Israel. But political elites across the board seldom build on these bridges of cooperation. In this estranged environment the question here in the US is: Will the new dispensation at Washington continue with the Clinton peace accord? The answer in all probability is no.The writer is a visiting professor at the University of Texas.
