LONDON, 28 March — “Changing the regime in Iraq would be polarizing the United states and its supporters, especially as there is no negotiation on the core issue of Israel and Palestine.” Sir David Gore-Booth, a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia quoted the findings of the Royal United Services Institute in his presentation on the second day of the MEED conference on Security in the Middle East here on Monday. He continued, quoting George Tenet, director of the CIA, that “the main challenge to the Arab world now is to balance support for a change of regime in Iraq and America’s declared intent against the demands of the Arab public.”

In a detailed and deeply empathetic analysis of the changes in Middle Eastern politics and global alliances since 1967 through Sept. 11 up to date, Sir David was sometimes blunt in his views. “Both sides’ he said, “have always used violence to achieve what they want. However, until the Palestinians can enjoy what the Israelis have enjoyed and claimed for themselves, no amount of tinkering with security will change it.”

He reinforced the opinion expressed on Sunday by Dr. Magnus Ranstorp of the Center for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence. “Land for peace is the essence of the peace plan put forward by Crown Prince Abdullah. It’s beautifully simple; more vision than plan.” He continued by analyzing the merits of the plan and the impact it could have on the region. He thought that it could have considerable weight because it was proposed by another international friend of the United States and thus undermined the Israeli assumption and preference of being the United State’s sole ally in the region. More importantly, it was an entirely unexpected and very public announcement. In effect, the gauntlet has been thrown down and Israel simply cannot ignore a proposition, so publicly made by a state of the importance to the region and global economy as Saudi Arabia.

Sir David thought that there would be meaningful change as a result of this, but to achieve it would take time. He saw the Israelis as on the downside of the public relations struggle that surrounds the conflict.

In 1967, he thought, the perception of the world community was that the Arabs did not want peace and rejected apparent peaceful moves. That has changed dramatically. “In 2002, it is quite clear who is responsible. The Israelis are preventing Yasser Arafat from going to Beirut to discuss peace.” As a result, he thought, “the parameters have changed enough to make it likely that in the next ten year period, there will be peace.”

Asked about the refusal of Yasser Arafat to accept the plan put forward at the Camp David talks, Sir David considered that Arafat was doubtful of Ehud Barak’s ability to sell the proposition to the Israeli hawks.

Moreover, he was doubtful if he could convince the Palestinians to accept it either, as it would not have allowed the existence of a viable Palestinian state and would have allowed Israel to keep hold of its strategic assets.

Events seem to have proved Arafat right, thought Sir David. “Arafat did not miss a historic opportunity.”