How can Diplomacy between Iran and Israel Become Possible?
Persian Version متن فارسی
New Iranian migrations due to fear of war between Iran and Israel are already visible. During the Iran-Iraq War, Iranians migrated mostly from Khuzestan and border areas in Western Iran toward Tehran, Isfahan and central areas of the country. This time, it appears the migrants are from all of Iran and especially from Tehran leaving Iran.
Meanwhile, those with good intentions are seeking initiatives to prevent such a war (1), particularly with regards to pre-emptive attacks (2), when there are policies openly proclaimed by governments of Iran ,(3) and Israel (4), supporting war over Iran's nuclear program (5). In this situation a few initiatives with the goal of bringing peace between Iran and Israel by the citizens of both countries (6) deserve applause.
But achieving peace both before the start of a war and afterwards requires the agreement of the belligerent countries to end animosity, like the peace accord that the government of Ayatollah Khomeini signed with the government of Saddam Hussein to end the 8 year war between Iran and Iraq. But when Iran's government is not willing to sit with Israel at a negotiation table, how could such a possibility exist?
Although both countries describe resorting to military intervention as a way to destroy the other government, history has shown us that such intentions have neither prevented nor ended a war, but rather have helped wars continue. The Hundred Years’ War between United Kingdom and France in the 14th and 15th centuries and the Thirty Years’ War in central Europe during the 17th century are still not forgotten. The uselessness of the Thirty Years’ War, which also had a religious color, taught Catholics and Protestants to tolerate each other, while the last 500 years have shown that neither of these two religions have disappeared and they both exist to this day.
Without a doubt diplomacy in the modern world has changed dramatically. It is said that one of Europe's mistakes in its approach towards the rise of Hitler's fascism was that it looked at diplomacy in a feudal way and considered the handshakes and agreements in formal dinners as the basis of its decisions. By contrast, the United States, which was a new force back then, had a completely different approach to diplomacy. The US made its decisions and executed them based on national interests and with solid understanding of the open and practical realities.
Diplomacy in our times has taken a further step forward and has become more professional. In all modern countries, the governments, political parties and groups hire expert lawyers to defend their interests in relation to executive, legislative and judicial branches of governments of other countries, just as multinational corporations do.
Diplomacy between Iran and Israel in the last thirty years generally has been indirect and done through third countries. The question is how professional it has been done, and as far as those who think of Iran's expediency, there is no reason not to do this directly and out in open. It seems like it is time for diplomacy of Iran and Israel to become open and in front of the eyes of the people of the two countries.
Let's remember that when Palestinian activists wanted to open negotiations with Israel, they did it on a TV program called “Nightline” of the ABC news network - a program that was started following the hostage taking in US Embassy in Tehran, and it started a new page in the relations of Palestinians and Israel.
Sam Ghandchi, Editor/Publisher
Oct 11, 2012