If the Middle East is to be spared another disastrous explosion of violence, one might argue, the one regime that urgently needs changing is that of Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak.

Bernard Lewis, 93, historian, scourge of Islamic radicalism and spiritual god-father of America’s neocons, gave a word of advice to Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert at a meeting in Jerusalem this month. There could be no negotiation, he warned, with the regimes of Tehran and Damascus. They would have to be “replaced.”

So it was back to regime change! As if nothing had happened since 2003! As if the catastrophic war in Iraq had not demonstrated the bankruptcy of the neocon fantasy of using American power to overthrow and “reform” Arab regimes to make the Middle East safe for Israel and the United States.

If the region is to be spared another disastrous explosion of violence, one might argue, the one regime that urgently needs changing is that of Olmert and his Defense Minister, Ehud Barak.

Both are failed prime ministers: Olmert for his lamentable, ill-conceived and destructive war in Lebanon in 2006, and Barak for his stubborn inability to seize the chance of peace with the Palestinians and Syria in 2000 — when, as a newly-elected Prime Minister, the chance was there to be seized.

Far from learning from their mistakes, these men appear to be stuck in a time warp of bad ideas. They seem convinced that Israeli settlement expansion in Palestinian territory can continue unchecked whatever the world may say; that resistance movements such as Hamas and Hizbullah can be destroyed by brute force, sanctions and boycotts; that Iran poses an “existential threat,” not just to Israel but to the whole world, and that it must at all costs be stopped, if necessary by force; that Israel has no need to return the Golan Heights to Syria; that deterrence is the key to Israel’s security and that the United States will, for all time, guarantee Israel’s “qualitative military edge” over the whole Arab world.

There is an extraordinary contrast between these head-in-sand attitudes and those of much of the Arab world. Indeed, most Arabs now seem eager to put an end to their conflict with Israel, once and for all, in order to get on with enjoying their bonanza of oil wealth, which offers them a unique chance to transform, develop and modernize their societies.

The Arab peace plan — offering Israel peace and normal relations with all 22 Arab states if it withdraws to its 1967 borders — remains on the table. Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad has signaled repeatedly that he is ready for unconditional peace talks with Israel. Hamas in Gaza has offered Israel a hudna or cease-fire, of ten, twenty and even fifty years’ duration.

Yet, Israel adamantly refuses to grasp these extended hands, and continues to maintain a negative stance. It is only playing at peace talks with Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas, even though U.S. President George W. Bush says he wants a peace settlement between Israelis and Palestinians by the end of the year.

The same message was conveyed this week to Israel by another of its good friends, France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy. At a state banquet in Paris for Israel’s President Shimon Peres, Sarkozy reminded his guest that an independent, democratic and viable Palestinian state was the best guarantee of Israel’s future security. (Editor’s note: Sarkozy is a committed Zionist.)

Indeed, the whole of the international community is urging Israel to take the historic path of peace, in this its sixtieth anniversary year. But Israel shows no inclination to comply. The real question is why?

Is it that Israelis do not want peace? All the polls suggest the contrary. Two thirds of Israelis seem ready to give up the settlements for peace, and sixty-four percent say the government must hold direct talks with Hamas.

The problem does not lie with Israeli public opinion but with the present configuration of Israeli politics. Israel’s leadership is paralyzed by the blocking strength of right-wing, ultra-nationalist forces, which threaten to bring down the government and demand the immediate cessation of talks with the Palestinians, if they go beyond empty, time-wasting exchanges.

This is what makes it impossible for Olmert to move boldly in the direction of peace. Hence the urgent need for regime change.

This conclusion was underlined by the bloody events of the past couple of weeks. They began when, in a bid to force Hamas to halt the Qassam rockets fired against Sderot and other Israeli towns, Israel launched a major assault on Gaza, killing more than 130 Palestinians — half of them women and children. It is worth recalling that the Qassams — the first of which was fired on 16 April 2001 — have so far killed 12 Israelis in seven years.

The response of an enraged young Palestinian to the slaughter in Gaza was to mount a terrorist attack on Jerusalem’s Mercaz HaRav religious school on the night of 6 March, killing eight students and wounding several others. All Israelis not blinkered by zealotry will certainly recognize that the attack, whether on the yeshiva or on some other Jewish target, was a highly predictable response.

President Bush, who after the lethal Gaza raids went no further than to urge restraint on Israel, called the attack on Mercaz HaRav “barbaric and vicious.” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called it “an act of terror and depravity.” Hilary Clinton called it a “despicable act of terrorism” and Barack Obama, her challenger for the Democratic nomination, a “cowardly and outrageous attack.” Britain’s young and inexperienced Foreign Secretary, David Millband, called it “an arrow aimed at the peace process.”

What peace process, Mr. Milliband?

Mercaz HaRav, where the attack took place, is a hotbed of Zionist religious extremism. It is a cradle of the settlement movement. Apart from producing a long list of violent men, this yeshiva has spawned Gush Emunim, the movement of gun-toting Israeli thugs who steal land, uproot olive trees, squat in the heart of Arab towns, and make Palestinian life a misery in the Occupied Territories. This is the real obstacle to peace.

In terms of incitement and brainwashing of youngsters, Mercaz HaRav’s record is at least as bad as that of any extremist madrasa in Pakistan. Any Israeli government seriously interested in peace would close it down.

Yet, in today’s Israel, that would be unthinkable. After the killing of the young students, crowds started chanting the obscene slogan of “Death to the Arabs.” Right-wing militants demanded the establishment of eight new settlements on the West Bank as “a proper Zionist response” to the murders.

Olmert himself bowed to the pressure and authorized the building of 750 new housing units in the East Jerusalem settlement of Givat Ze’ev, driving another nail into the coffin of the all but dead peace process. Without East Jerusalem as its capital, there can be no viable Palestinian state and hence no peace process worthy of the name.

Meanwhile, Defense Minister Barak has rejected any notion of a cease-fire with Hamas. He has quashed rumors that Israel was engaged in indirect contacts with the Islamic movement, by way of Egypt. “Operational activity in Gaza is continuing and will continue,” he declared belligerently.

Nothing can still be hoped for from the lame duck President George W. Bush, whose years in office have inflicted terrible damage on both the United States and the Middle East. Only if the next American president manages to unite with a resolute European Union in putting an end to this madness can peace stand a chance — for the benefit of Arabs and Israelis alike.

Patrick Seale is a leading British writer on the Middle East, and the author of “The Struggle for Syria”; also, “Asad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East”; and “Abu Nidal: A Gun for Hire.” © 2008 Patrick Seale