|
Readiness for Policy Examination
There is a readiness now, forced by tragedy and necessity,
among both U.S. government leaders and ordinary people, to examine
the policies and practices that feed that bitter wellspring
that gives rise to Islamic fanatics. Numerous aspects of U.S.
policy toward the Middle East come to mind. This examination
is resisted by some who see it as an effort to excuse the vicious
violence perpetrated on September 11, which cannot be justified.
Others see it as an essential component of devising strategies
and policies that can de-legitimatize the terrorist network,
their distorted interpretation of Islam and their call for violence.
The personification of the conflict by focusing on bin Laden
could obscure the more fundamental strategy of deflating the
popular support that gives fanatic Islamists their protection
and provides for their recruitment.
Palestinian Suffering and Holy Jerusalem
The continued suffering of the Palestinians living under occupation
and Israel's exclusive sovereignty over holy Jerusalem, have
been foremost among Arab, Muslim and Christian grievances for
decades. The failure of the international community to fulfill
the requirements of U.N. Security Council Res. 242, which outlines
the "land for peace" formula, has weakened the integrity
of the United Nations and the application of international law.
It is widely recognized that the U.S., in its self-appointed
role as sole sponsor of Israeli-Arab peacemaking, has protected
Israel from its obligation to end the occupation.
The phenomenon of the satellite broadcasts of al-Jazeera, the
Arab version of CNN, has brought vivid pictures of the intifadeh
into cafes and apartments throughout Arab and Muslim countries.
Despite the lack of democratic institutions, these countries'
leaders, who are now being courted by the U.S. as allies, cannot
ignore the popular sentiment of their burgeoning, youthful and
unemployed populations.
And no symbol is more inflammatory to these masses than Israel's
abusive sovereignty over Jerusalem and the golden Dome of the
Rock. A strategy for restoring hope and calming anger in the
street would include the expression of a prophetic vision for
the sharing of Jerusalem as a policy objective of the United
States. The call from U.S. churches, and their Jerusalem partners,
for the sharing of Jerusalem by its two peoples and three religions,
has assumed broad political significance.
A New Paradigm
Certainly bin Laden has exploited the Palestinian cause for
his own uses, as have many others over many years. Nevertheless,
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can no longer be allowed to
fester in its bloody cycle of violence while the Bush Administration
pursues its domestic agenda. The global coalition directed against
terrorism can also pave the way for a new dynamic, more international
in nature, for Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking.
Shlomo Ben-Ami, Israel's former foreign minister, wrote in
the London Financial Times in October that: "The loss of
mutual trust between the parties and their total incapacity
to make even the smallest step towards each other, let alone
to observe their commitments, without being nursed by third
parties, make the creation of an international framework for
peace the last and only way out of the dangerous impasse."
Ben-Ami goes on to outline, "through American assertive
leadership" the building of "an inter-national alliance
for peace in the Middle East" will lead to an international
conference, a multinational peace-keeping force, internationally
supervised disengagement and a comprehensive settlement.
Richard Murphy, former Assistant Secretary of State, now with
the Council on Foreign Relations, has proposed that the United
States bring a resolution to the U.N. Security Council that
would build on UNSC Res. 242. Specifically, that "the council
anticipates a viable Palestinian state, sovereign over the land
in the West Bank and Gaza from which Israel would withdraw;"
that "final borders of the state of Palestine
should closely reflect the 1949 armistice lines;" and that
"negotiations should resume immediately to determine how
much land Israel must retain to assure its security."
However, no agreement, whether imposed from outside or negotiated
bilaterally, can hold, unless both Israelis and Palestinians
make a concerted effort to restrain their hotheads, foster mutual
tolerance and abstain from incitement and hostile propaganda.
Israeli Hopes for Peace
Even an internationalized peace process will fail if Israelis
cannot see that ending the occupation is in its best interest.
Support is still alive in Israel for a two-state solution, and
the latent center in Israel, which does not back the settlements,
could still be rallied. They have lost trust in Arafat and their
fears have been exploited by the Israeli right-wing that seeks
to keep all the land.
The absolute need for the U.S. to lead both sides to a desired
common outcome now requires that, unlike with Oslo and the postponement
of final status issues, the final vision of a lasting peace
be spelled out. Americans will want to know that the paramount
gains of a peace agreement would benefit both Israelis and Palestinians
and would serve the basic interests of the U.S. as well. The
immense costs of conflict for both peoples, and the benefits
of peace for both sides must be highlighted. This will require
a sensitivity that respects the deep fears that haunt Israelis
and Jews that Israel's existence is at risk.
Congressional Restraint
U.S. foreign aid to Israel has long been a barometer of the
strong U.S. support for Israel and its military security. As
reported by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency in an October 30 news
analysis: "The foreign aid bill has traditionally given
Israel supporters, both in Congress and out, more than an opportunity
to send money to Israel. It gave lawmakers and advocates a chance
to make their voices heard by the administration, to speak out
on concerns over the Middle East."
But, following the September 11 attacks, legislators want to
show support for the administration's coalition building and
have dropped several provisions meant to punish Palestinians
and Egypt. While Isreal will receive the full amount requested
by the administration - $2.04 billion for military aid and $720
million for economic aid, the $800 million that President Clinton
promised Israel for its withdrawal from southern Lebanon was
shelved.
The policy option of pressuring Israel toward constructive
policies by threatening foreign aid has been unused except for
the Bush/Baker demand in 1992 that Israel freeze settlement
activity before its request for loan guarantees would be approved.
Still, it is unlikely that the administration will publicly
threaten Israel's aid and even more unlikely that Congress would.
Productive advocacy would be to encourage Members' support for
the Palestinians as a part of Congressionial backing for a new
peace process.
Quelling Blame
Israel's use of U.S.-supplied weaponry against Palestinians
out- rages many Americans and Palestinians, as well as Islamic
militants. Whether on al-Jazeera or CNN, all see the news photos
of mighty tanks, deadly Apache gunships and the destruction
they bring. The administration knows this spectacle is an impediment
to its enlisting the cooperation of Arab and Muslim countries.
The administration has strongly rebuked Israel for its invasion
of Palestinian towns and its assassinations of Palestinians
but is hesitant to condemn Israel's use of U.S. weaponry against
civilians. Deputy Assistant Sec. of State David Satterfield,
speaking at a pro-Palestinian conference in November, said;
"We continue to look with concern at the use of those arms."
Some Palestinians and their supporters defend their use of
violence as a legitimate form of resistance in the face of systemic
violence of the occupation. This is seen by many supporters
as a failed strategy that is decimating Palestinian civil society,
and feeds old perceptions of a hate-filled people determined
to exterminate Israel.
The Mitchell Committee's (see www.cmep.org) recommendations,
being accepted by the parties and supported internationally,
continue to be the starting point for any new effort. Yet Israel
and the Palestinians are seemingly unable, on their own, to
calm the violence and proceed to the confidence building steps
which include a freeze on Israel's settlement activity. It is
increasingly obvious that a means must be found for the presence
of international observers of some sort for violence to subside.
Placing Blame
The easiest case is to place total responsibility for the September
11
attacks on Osama bin Laden as a fanatic leader of irrational
militants. If so, there is no need to look for root causes in
the policies and actions of the United States, Israel or Arab
states. But it's not that simple. While no grievance constitutes
just cause for terrorism, each does have a basis that calls
for examination of U.S. policies.
Bin Laden's main objective is to overthrow the Saudi monarchy
which rules his homeland. This gov- ernment, and other Arab
regimes, have maintained authoritarian rule repressing political
opposition. The U.S., leery of "Islamic" political
activism, has not promoted human rights or the democratization
of its Arab allies and has supplied them with massive military
might. More- over, the placement of U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia,
where the Saud dynasty is custodian of the holy places of Mecca
and Medina, is seen as an affront to Muslims worldwide.
The plight of the Iraqi people and the 11-year long punishment
of Iraq offers a rallying cry for those who cast the United
States as an enemy of the Muslim people. America's unilateral
(with the exception of Britain) policy objectives of overthrowing
the regime and establishing and bombing no-fly zones have no
basis in Security Council resolutions. The anger at America's
violation of international law is intensified by the racism
apparent in its disregard for the suffering of Iraq's Arab populace.
That's not all. The "balance of power" between the
U.S. and USSR ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union in
1991, leaving a power vacuum. Concurrently, the technological
revolution and the globalization of economies and popular culture
have contributed to the massive dislocations of a world still
adjusting to this end of the stability imposed by the superpower
rivalry. Terrorism by non-state actors is a phenomenon of this
changing world, and has not yet run its course.
Our attention to terrorism must include a willingness to examine
U.S. engagement in the region. The responsibility continues
for our elected officials and for ourselves as faith-based advocates
and citizens to promote policies and actions that lead to peace,
the reconciliation of warring peoples and hope for security
and well-being of all peoples.
Suggested Action:
Administration: The White House comments line is the best way
to communicate with the Administration in these mail-wary times.
Please call 202/456-1414 with the following message in your
own words.
As the President works with other nations to stop international
terrorism, ask that he enlist the international community in
a new Israeli-Palestinian peace process that has the clear objective
of two states living as peaceful neighbors and sharing Jerusalem
as the capitol of their two states. International monitors are
needed now to stop the cycle of violence and to protect Palestinians.
But it's up to the United States to stop Israel's use of U.S.
supplied weapons against Palestinian civilians.
Congress: Both American Friends of Peace Now and American Muslims
for Jerusalem are urging support for a new Congressional initiative
- H.Con.Res.
253: "Expressing the sense of the Congress with respect
to ending the violence in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, and
endorsing the recommendations of the Mitchell Committee Report."
While this initiative, and the Mitchell report itself, may seem
meek compared to the horrendous situation, they are positive
steps in the right direction which deserve your advocacy.
Please call, email or fax your representative, asking if they
are cosponsors of the pro-Mitchell resolution, H.Con.Res. 253.
You can reach your representative via the Capitol Switchboard,
202/224-3121 or online at www.house.gov/house/Member A district
office phone number may be in your phone book. You can find
H.Con.Res.253 and a list of cosponsors at the Library of Congress'
website www.thomas.gov Make these points in your communication:
I hope you are a cosponsor of H.Con.Res.253, which endorses
congressional support for the Mitchell Committee recommendations.
The State Department has endorsed H.Con.Res.253 and called it
a "positive and welcome contribution."
The Mitchell Committee recommendations for ending violence,
implementing confidence-building measures, and returning to
negotiations have been endorsed by the Bush Administration,
Israel, the Palestinian Authority, the UN and the EU.
The absence of peace efforts and the ongoing violence between
Israel and the Palestinians is a serious impediment to the global
anti-terror campaign and fuels anti-American sentiment. It's
time for the U.S. Congress to endorse the Mitchell Committee
recommendations. This is in America's best interest as well
as that of the Israel and the Palestinians.
General Assembly
October 11, 2001 letter from Clifton Kirkpatrick, Stated Clerk:
"At the same time you seek to end terrorism we hope you
will also give serious attention to other priorities which are
crucial for lasting peace in relation to nations in the Middle
East. We particularly implore you to work to support justice
for the Palestinian people, to end the sanctions that cause
suffering to so many people in Iraq, and to support efforts
for human rights, economic development, and religious tolerance
among all the peoples of the Middle East. These actions will
go a long way toward removing many of the tensions that lead
to terrorist actions."
|
