Media Monitors Network, CA
April 26 2008
Elusive Peace: 60 Years of Pain and Suffering
by Louay M. Safi
(Saturday, April 26, 2008)
"The solution to the conflict must not be based on Jewish, Christian,
or Muslim prophecies that would only inflame hate and mistrust among
the followers of the three religious traditions. It should, rather, be
based on the prophetic principles cherished by the three religious
traditions. It must be based on the shared committed to the sanctity
of human life, and the universally accepted principles of equal
dignity, freedom of religion, democracy, and the rule of law."
————————————– ——————————
George W. Bush, who proposed the boldest peace initiative of any
American president to solve the Palestine issue, managed to deliver
only the most meager results during his two-term presidency. The
Roadmap for Peace, developed by the United States in cooperation with
Russia, the European Union, and the UN (the Quartet), was presented to
Israel and the Palestinian Authority on 30 Apr. 2003. Despite the
proclaimed hopes, however, it has been a clear fiasco and anything but
a roadmap to peace. Although the Bush administration, during its final
year in power, organized the largest conference for Middle East peace
ever assembled and again made the boldest promises, very few people
are holding their breath. The Roadmap initiative is practically over,
and all signs point to a dead-end.
Israel continues to confiscate more land and build more illegal
settlements, while the Palestinians continue to hold onto their towns,
villages, farmland, and houses with all the strength they can
muster. All participants in this widening confrontation keep digging
themselves into a deeper hole and bringing the world to the brink of
disaster. The disparity between the parties is great, outside help is
increasingly favoring one party over the other, and no honest broker
or visionary leader has yet appeared to take a principled stand and
advance a fair solution.
How did the search for peace bring us to this sad state of affairs?
Can the ongoing dynamic be changed from its current state to one that
promotes real hope and peace?
The Making of the Roadmap
In his 4 Apr. 2002 speech, Bush outlined his formal position: a
two-state solution that would result in an independent Palestinian
state living `side by side’ with a Jewish state in historical
Palestine. "The Roadmap,’ he declared, `represents a starting point
toward achieving the vision of two states, a secure State of Israel
and a viable, peaceful, democratic Palestine. It is the framework for
progress towards lasting peace and security in the Middle East…" A
year later, the State Department produced a detailed plan with
specific phases and benchmarks to guide the peace process and set 2005
as the year for achieving a `final and comprehensive settlement.’ The
results are well known: illegal Israeli settlements continue to grow
rapidly; the Palestinian Authority is divided in two; and Gaza is
subject to repeated military assaults, starvation, and economic
blockades by Israel.
The State Department’s plan was in many ways an academic exercise,
written with little attention to the dynamics of the political
conflict that gripped the region for the last sixty years. The plan
placed all the cards in the hands of the Israeli authority, requiring
the immediate and complete cessation of hostilities by Palestinians
while permitting the Israeli military to continue its incursions into
the Palestinian towns and villages to arrest Palestinian activists and
assassinate Palestinian militants. Mahmoud Abbas, excited by the
Roadmap and what he believed to be a new commitment by the Bush
administration to broker a new peace, persuaded Hamas to commit to a
truce. The truce lasted till August 21st, when, Israel, using an
American made Apache, assassinated Ismail Abushanab. Abushanab was
considered by many Palestinians to be moderate, who strongly supported
the negotiated truce.
The Bush administration saw no need to pressure the government of
Ariel Sharon to stop its incursions into Palestinian territories, and
to at least freeze settlements as an important measure and first step
to building trust. President Bush insisted that the United States
cannot pressure the two parties to peace, and that future peace must
evolve through negotiations and the mutual agreements between the
warring parties. This practically gave Israel the upper hand in
deciding the future of the Roadmap, as it enjoyed overwhelming fire
power.
The outcome of the Roadmap sponsored by the Bush administration is no
different than that outcome of the Oslo accords sponsored by the
Clinton administration: more expansion and more resistance. The
Israelis are determined to pursue the goal of Greater Israel, and the
Palestinians are increasingly willing to take strong punishments and
heavy casualties to hold unto their land.
Moses’ Mission and its Reenactment in Modern Times
The Jewish claim to Palestine is based on the divine promise to
Abraham, a prophet claimed by the followers of Judaism, Christianity,
and Islam: "On that day, God made a covenant with Abraham, saying: "To
your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt as
far as the great river the Euphrates. The land of the Kenites,
Kenizzites, Kadmonite, the Chitties, Perizzites, Refraim, the
Emorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Yevusites." (Genesis 15:18-21)
The Promised Land was further specified during the time of Moses: "Now
Moses went up from the plains of Moab to Mount Nebo, to the top of
Pisgah, which is opposite Jericho. And the LORD showed him all the
land, Gilead as far as Dan, and all Naphtali and the land of Ephraim
and Manasseh, and all the land of Judah as far as the Western Sea, and
the Negev and the plain in the valley of Jericho, the city of palm
trees, as far as Zoar. Then the Lord said to him, "This is the land
which I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, saying, ‘I will give it to
your descendants’; I have let you see with your eyes, but you shall
not go over there." (Deuteronomy 34:1-4)
This second promise given in Deuteronomy evidently delineates a
smaller expanse of land promised to Moses than the one promised to
Abraham. The promise was fulfilled during the reign of Joshua, and
reached its farthest expansion under Solomon when the Israelite
controlled much of Greater Syria and parts of Iraq and southern
Turkey.
Muslims do not disagree with the Biblical claims, as the Qur’an
reaffirms God’s promise to Moses that his followers will be delivered
from their Egyptian servitude to the Holy Land. They do not, however,
accept the claim that a Biblical promise can be legitimately reenacted
after thousands of years and used as a ground for gathering world
Jewry in Palestine and dispossessing its current inhabitants of their
ancestral land. Thus they consider such a deed to be a blatant
violation of universally accepted moral principles and recognized
international law.
The early pioneers of Zionist ideology, consumed with obtaining the
existing powers’ endorsement of their demand for a Jewish homeland,
hardly worried about Arab reaction. On 29 Aug. 1897, they met in
Basel, Switzerland, to refine their plan to take over
Palestine. Imperial Europe, then expanding its colonial control into
Asia and Africa, was forging new countries out of old ones and
installing new regimes to replace fallen empires. In addition, the
rise of European nationalism and the subsequent desire of European
nations to affirm their national identity posed serious challenge to
European Jewry. Establishing a homeland in historic Palestine seemed
to offer an effective solution to Europe’s chronic anti-Semitism and
fulfill the centuries-long Jewish longing for the Holy Land.
On 2 Nov. 1917, the Zionist Organization extracted the Balfour
Declaration, which recognized Palestine as a Jewish homeland. In 1919,
it submitted a six-point proposal for establishing a Jewish Palestine
to the Peace Conference of Paris. Two points were particularly
notable: the boundaries of Palestine would `extend on the west to the
Mediterranean, on the north to the Lebanon, on the east to the Hedjaz
railway and the Gulf of Akabah,’ and the League of Nations was called
upon to make Palestine a British mandate.
The prospect of a Jewish homeland brought great excitement to Zionist
leaders, as they realized that their dream is being transformed into
reality. Many Zionist leaders did not fully grasp the direction of
world history and the full consequences of reliving an ancient
prophecy in modern times. Zionist leaders underestimated the reaction
of the local population of Palestine, the Arab Middle East, and the
rest of the Muslim world, to the formation of a Jewish State in the
region. In an article by H. Sacher, published in the Atlantic Monthly
in 1919 under the title `A Jewish Palestine,’ the author, a Jewish
Historian, argued in support of the founding of a Jewish State, and
envisaged a harmonious and peaceful society in which all live together
well. Jewish Palestine, he insisted, `will do justice between all the
nationalities within its borders. It will establish the equality of
men and men, and work toward democracy, political and economic. It
will be one of the pillars of the League of Nations, and by its
relationship to all the scattered communities of Israel, it will forge
powerful links for the brotherhood of the peoples. In the Near East
and the Middle East it will strive to replace the broken tyranny of
the Turk by a harmonious cooperation between Jew, Arab, and Armenian.’
Sacher saw in Palestine a place for self expression of religious and
national identity long denied to European Jewry. Sacher portrayed the
impact of an independent homeland on ordinary Jews in ways that
revealed the impact of the homogenizing modern state and
culture. `There he will see the Jewish faith developing freely,’ he
pointed out, `according to the law of its being, distracted neither by
opposition, nor by surrender to an alien environment. There he will
see the Jewish national spirit expressing itself in a society modeled
on the Jewish idea of justice, in a Hebrew literature, in a Hebrew
art, in the myriad activities which make the life of a people on its
own soil, under its own sky.’
Reality Check and Emerging Demography
The sixty years that passed since the founding of the State of Israel
have been traumatic, particularly for the Palestinian people, but
increasingly to the world community. The migration of European Jews to
Palestine began in earnest under the British mandate, and as the
number of Jewish settlements in Palestine multiplied, Palestinians
revolted repeatedly against Britain, in unsuccessful bids to gain
independence. Independence was instead handed to the Zionist
organization, which in 1948 declared the birth of the State of
Israel. The war of independence, which was fought mainly against Arab
militias, led to the displacement of 711,000 Palestinians, mostly in
surrounding Arab countries.
Today, more than 5 million Palestinians live in Diaspora mostly in
Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. Significant Palestinian communities also
reside in the Gulf countries, Egypt, North Africa, and North
America. These Palestinians are the subject of a debate over the
`Palestinian right of return.’ Israel continues to resist demands to
allow Palestinians who were forced out during this war, which Arabs
call al-Nakba (the Catastrophe), to return on the grounds that doing
so would disturb the existing `demographic balance’ and make the claim
of a Jewish state unsustainable. Indeed, this fear seems to be the
main reason why Israel has been reluctant to formally annex the West
Bank and Gaza. Such an act would also violate international law. But
Israel has consistently violated UN Security Council resolutions that
clash with its own designs, such as its formal annexation of Syria’s
Golan Heights even though the UN considers such an annexation to be
illegal.
Despite exhaustive negotiations for peace of the last two decades,
Israel continues to push towards achieving the Zionist dream of
Greater Israel. The Roadmap announced by Bush in 2002 and his attempt
to reinvigorate it last month during his visit to the Middle East, are
the continuation of countless rounds of negotiation during the
nineties. Bill Clinton led a series of negotiation as part of the Oslo
agreement that aimed at establishing Palestinian state. The
negotiation failed in 2000, when it became apparent that the outcome
was far removed from the claims of a sovereign state and contiguous
territories. Camp David eventually gave the Palestinians a disarmed
set of Bantustans under de facto Israeli control.
Throughout the last two decades the Israeli negotiated with their Arab
peace partners with bad faith. They continued to build more
settlements, confiscate more land, and to strengthen their grab over
the territories as they engaged Palestinians in peace negotiations on
the promise of Palestinian independence. Between 1993 and 2006, the
number of settlers in the West Bank and Gaza doubled. The number of
West Bank settlers increased from 11,600 in 1993 to 234,487 in
2004. 2006 statistics shows that the number of settlers has exceeded
268,400. The number of settlers in Gaza jumped from 4,800 in 1993 to
7,826 in 2004, to drop to 0 after the Israeli government decided to
withdraw unitarily from the Gaza strip.
Jewish settlements in the West Bank are illegal under International
law. Article 49, paragraph 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states:
"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own
civilian population into the territory it occupies". The International
Court of Justice has, likewise, asserted in paragraph 120 of its
Advisory Opinion of July 9, 2004 that the settlements are illegal.
Jewish settlements also contradict the very spirit of Oslo and the
Roadmap, which the United States considers to be the basis for ending
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Roadmap document published by
the State Department in 2003 insists that `The settlement will resolve
the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and end the occupation that began in
1967, based on the foundations of the Madrid Conference, the principle
of land for peace, UNSCRs 242, 338 and 1397, agreements previously
reached by the parties, and the initiative of Saudi Crown Prince
Abdullah ` endorsed by the Beirut Arab League Summit ` calling for
acceptance of Israel as a neighbor living in peace and security, in
the context of a comprehensive settlement.’
Palestinian Misery and Double Standards
Sacher’s vision of Israel that `will do justice between all the
nationalities within its borders,’ has faded away. Palestinians who
live in the West Bank and Gaza are deprived of their basic human
rights, and subjected to a set of standards that is far removed from
the ones administered in the Israeli settlements. The Israeli
government applies Israeli law to the settlers and the settlements,
practically annexing them to the State of Israel. The Separation Wall
serves as an instrument for such annexation. The resulting system is a
regime of legalized separation and discrimination. `This regime is
based on the existence of two separate legal systems in the same
territory, with the rights of individuals being determined by their
nationality.’ Palestinians who apply for building permits are often
turned down, and when they build their houses without building permits
are demolished by the Israeli Civil Administration, even when the
construction is done on private land.
The Israeli Civil Administration facilitates, on the other hand, the
construction of Jewish settlements and by-pass roads, even when these
encircle Palestinian towns and villages, and make movement in the West
Bank extremely difficult. In the last eight years, the numerous check
points that were constructed in the West Bank (and Gaza until the
Israeli Unilateral withdrawal) have made the life of Palestinians
miserable, and destroyed the already weak Palestinian economy.
The squeeze policy adopted by the Israeli government against
Palestinians did not stop at denying permits for new housing, but
extends to confiscation of Palestinian land. The construction of what
Israel calls Security Barrier, and what its critics refer to as the
Apartheid Wall, is being used to confiscate Palestinian lands, and has
often resulted in separating families, and occasionally making
commuting between Palestinian localities extremely difficult, if not
impossible.
Somaia Barghouti, Chargé d’affaires of Permanent Observer
Mission of Palestine to the United Nations, protested in a letter to
the UN Secretary General, on January 26, 2005, the continuous
confiscation of Palestinian land for no avail. `Israeli bulldozers
have been razing land,’ Barghouti stressed, `confiscated by the
occupying Power from its Palestinian owners, in the area, including in
the village of Iskaka, for the construction of the Wall. Indeed,
Israel continues to construct the Wall despite the ruling by the
International Court of Justice, in its advisory opinion of 9 July 2004
(A/ES-10/273 and Corr.1), on its illegality.’ Barghouti went on to say
`that Israel’s construction of the Wall in the Occupied Palestinian
Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated
regime are contrary to international law, and that Israel is under an
obligation to cease its construction of the Wall, to dismantle the
structure situated therein, to repeal or render ineffective all
legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto, and to make
reparation for all damage caused by the construction of the
Wall. Regrettably, the occupying Power has been doing exactly the
opposite.’
Logic of History and Power
Modern Israel’s predicament is clear: a nation created to liberate
European Jewry from discrimination and oppression is increasingly
guilty of the very practices it sought to escape. This reality has
brought anguish even to many Jews. For decades, Israeli leaders have
tried to use the country’s military advantage to force Arab and
Palestinian compliance. This worked for a while, as the early Zionist
pioneers faced vanquished and illiterate Arab communities. But the
policies of iron fists and excessive force by successive Israeli
regimes have backfired. Israel is increasingly facing new generations
of Palestinians who are determined to reclaim their honor and dignity
and who are willing to risk their lives and pay a high cost to achieve
freedom and self-determination.
Some Israeli leaders have begun to realize that traditional approaches
aimed at forcing the Palestinians to surrender to the Zionist project
of Greater Israel no longer work. In a `New York Times’ (14 Aug. 2005)
article, Ethan Bronner quoted a senior Israeli official closely
associated with Likud leaders as saying: `The fact that hundreds of
them are willing to blow themselves up is significant," he said. `We
didn’t give them any credit before. In spite of our being the
strongest military power in the Middle East, we lost 1,200 people over
the last four years. It finally sank in to Sharon and the rest of the
leadership that these people were not giving up.’
During Dec. 2003, then deputy prime minister Ehud Olmert told Nahum
Barnea of `Yediot Aharonot’: `Israel will soon need to make a
strategic recognition … We are nearing the point where more and more
Palestinians will say: `We’re persuaded. We agree with [right-wing
politician Avigdor] Lieberman. There isn’t room for two states between
the Jordan and the sea. All we want is the right to vote.’ On the day
they reach that point,’ said Olmert, `we lose everything. … I quake
to think that leading the fight against us will be liberal Jewish
groups that led the fight against apartheid in South Africa.’ Now
serving as Israel’s prime minister, he repeated his concerns, albeit
in more ambiguous language, upon his return from Annapolis Conference
by telling `Haaretz’ (28 Nov. 2007) that `the State of Israel cannot
endure unless a Palestinian state comes into being.’
Five years later, the two-state solution remains elusive. Pragmatic
Israeli leaders have not been able to revise the logic of return. If
modern Israel is a fulfillment of divine promise, it is difficult to
argue against Greater Israel. Many Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims
have developed profound doubts as to Israel’s intentions and final
borders. Many in the Middle East suspect that Israel still wants to
fulfill the Biblical boundaries of Greater Israel, which extend far
beyond modern Palestine. The late Yaser Arafat and Hafiz al-Assad are
on record as protesting Israel’s design to expand its boundaries to
Lebanon, Syria, and even Iraq. In a special meeting with the UN
Security Council in Geneva in September 1988, Arafat produced a
document that `proved’ Israel’s expansionist goals: "This document is
a `map of Greater Israel’ which is inscribed on this Israeli coin, the
10-agora piece." Describing Israel’s boundaries as they appeared on
that map, Arafat stressed that they include "all of Palestine, all of
Lebanon, all of Jordan, half of Syria, two-thirds of Iraq, one-third
of Saudi Arabia as far as holy Medina, and half of Sinai." (Middle
East Quarterly, March 1994).
Commenting on Arafat’s argument, Daniel Pipes, the neoconservative
American historian, specialist, and analyst of the Middle East,
rejected the contention that the Greater Israel espoused by modern
Zionism encompasses Syria and Jordan. Conceding that modern Zionist
leaders and historians, including Theodor Herzl, made references to
Jewish settlements in Syria and Jordan, Pipes insisted that these were
personal views and do not represent established views on Israel’s
borders. Along with many other conservative Jews, however, he insists
that Gaza and the West Bank must be within Israel’s borders.
While most Israelis are increasingly aware that using force has
certain limitations and seem willing to compromise with Palestinians,
a determined minority represented by the Likud and the ultra-religious
parties is bent on pushing all the way. Avigdor Lieberman, leader of
the Right-wing Yisrael Beiteinu party, resigned from Olmert’s cabinet
during January 2008 to protest the renewal of peace talks with the
Palestinian Authority that seek to address Jerusalem’s final
status. The Israeli Right’s position has strong support in the United
States. Conservative American Jewish and Christian organizations have
consistently backed the Likud and advocated a Greater Israel that
extends to the West Bank and Gaza.
In 1996, several leading American neoconservatives, among them Richard
Perle (Pentagon policy adviser [resigned February 2004] and former
Likud policy adviser), James Colbert (communications director, Jewish
Institute for National Security Affairs), Charles Fairbanks,
Jr. (former deputy assistant secretary, State Department), Douglas
J. Feith (former undersecretary of defense for policy), and Robert
Loewenberg (founder, Institute for Advanced Strategic & Political
Studies [IASPS-Jerusalem]), authored "A Clean Break: A New Strategy
for Securing the Realm," which was published by the Israeli-based
IASPS. This political blueprint, meant for the incoming government of
Benjamin Netanyahu, rejected the Oslo peace process and reasserted
Israel’s claim to the West Bank and Gaza. Furthermore, it called for
rejecting the principle of trading land for peace, established by the
Oslo Agreement, and demanded the unconditional Palestinian acceptance
of Likud’s terms (peace for peace), removing Saddam Hussain from
power, and reconstituting Iraq.
The two-state solution has another aspect: the 5 million Palestinians
living in the Diaspora, well-organized and strongly committed to their
ancestral land, have organized their lives around the dream of
return. In an essay entitled `It Is Always Eid in Palestine,’ Yasmine
Ali, a Palestinian-American who visited a Palestinian refugee camp in
1999, describes her encounter with elementary students who have never
seen Palestine: `¦ what really caught my eye was the `Wall
Magazine,’ which consisted of writings by Shatila children. There were
several pages tacked to the bulletin board, listing qualities that the
children had, in their minds, attributed to Palestine: `Palestine is a
very, very beautiful land … There is a sea of chocolate in Palestine
… Children are always happy in Palestine … Women don’t gossip in
Palestine … The streets are very clean in Palestine … It is always
Eid ["Feast Day"] in Palestine … Parents don’t die in Palestine.’ I
stared at that for a long time. It was indescribably poignant, how
this obviously reflected their situation in Shatila camp. It reminded
me of how the Jews in the ghettos of Poland and Germany and numerous
other countries used to imagine Palestine as the Promised Land —
indeed, how it has been imagined by so many the world over for
thousands of years. And now by Palestinians themselves. Palestine, the
Promised Land, once and forever. The irony was too bitter.’
>From Power Play to Common Principles
`[the Zionists pioneers believed that] the only language the Arabs
understand is that of force,’ wrote Ahad Ha’Am the leading Eastern
European Jewish essayist, upon returning from a visit to Palestine in
1891. Throughout of its conflicts with neighboring Arab countries,
Israel has always had the advantage of superior fighting force. It has
for decades succeeded to advance its claims to Palestine by creating
facts on the ground. In addition of superior military that has
acquired a reputation of invincibility, the construction zeal of
Jewish settlements in the Holy Land has allowed Israel to grow and
expand. For decades, fighting and building was done with great
religious zeal.
Years of Israeli mastery over Palestinians and the constant reliance
on force to keep them in check have led to similar perceptions among
Palestinians: that force is the only option available to counter
Israeli expansion. The Israeli occupation has transformed the
Palestinians, bringing about a generation of angry and determined
militants convinced that the only language Israel understands is that
of force.
Force, however, does not bring a permanent and long lasting solution
to conflicts. Might does not make right, is a principle borne by long,
and regrettably repeated, historical experience. `The strongest is
never strong enough to be always the master,’ observed Rousseau in his
Social Contract, `unless he transforms strength into right, and
obedience into duty.’ Israel has been expanding its domain not on the
basis on any established system of law, but by the overwhelming power
it has over ordinary Palestinians and its ability to create facts on
the ground. The biblical account and historical grievances stem from
the experience of the European Jewry, which is the basis of Western
support, has not been accepted by Middle Eastern societies. The people
of the Middle East see the divine promise as historically bound, and
expect to be treated as people with equal rights and dignity.
The impetus that drive the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is rooted in
international struggle of the 18th and 19th centuries Europe, and has
nothing to do with the logic of international relations based on the
notion of right and international law expected by the citizens of 21st
century. The logic that guided the establishment and expansion of
Israel has focused more on the affirmation of Jewish identity and
power, and less on justice and the right of Palestinians. This logic
can be seen in the arguments of the foremost Zionist leader of the
20th Century. "[T]hese days it is not right but might which prevails,’
noted David Ben-Gurion. `It is more important to have force than
justice on one’s side," he added. He went on to say that in a period
of "power politics, the powers that become hard of hearing, and
respond only to the roar of cannons. And the Jews in the Diaspora have
no cannons." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 191)
Europe has already turned the page on its nationalist politics and
colonial ambitions, while the Middle East is still engulfed in
destructive wars rooted in religious differences and national
aspirations. Furthermore, the appeal to religion for establishing
political structures has inspired other actors to privilege religious
affiliation over a system of rights and law. The Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, if not quickly resolved, threatens to galvanize the world
along religious lines and transform itself into a global conflict.
Muslim militants throughout the world have already used Palestine as a
central issue to galvanize support, and far Right groups in the West
use the same issue to mobilize the West against Islam and
Muslims. There is a dire need to begin a rational debate on how to
address the Palestinian question calmly and on the basis the political
values of freedom, equality, democracy, and justice.
Globalization of the Conflict
Not only did Israel fail to `establish the equality of men and men,’
as Sacher had hoped it would when he published his vision of a Jewish
Palestine nearly a century ago, it also failed to `replace the broken
tyranny of the Turk by a harmonious cooperation between Jew, Arab, and
Armenian.’ Sacher the historian failed to anticipate the extent of the
Arabs’ and Muslims’ resistance to the creation of an exclusively
Jewish state. The reality is that since its inception, Israel has been
engaged in numerous hostile exchanges with its neighbors. While it has
managed to neutralize some old enemies, most notably the PLO, Egypt,
and Jordan, it has created new and even fiercer ones, including Hamas,
Hizbellah, and Iran.. Its peace with Egypt and Jordan remains quite
fragile, resting as it does on the ability of two undemocratic regimes
to keep their populations silent ` populations whose popular
sentiments have always been pro-Palestinian.
Israeli leadership has been forced to view any country in the region
that express sympathy and support for the Palestinians as a potential
enemy. Israel is constantly working to make sure that it is able to
maintain a comfortable margin of military advantage. As a result,
Israel has also felt duty obliged to check the rise of any military
power in the region to ensure that its military superiority is never
challenges. This has led to preemptive wars and strikes in the past
against Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. Israel currently
urging the United States to undertake a preemptive military attacks
against Iran if it does not stop enriching uranium for fear it can be
used for military purposes. and has threatened that it will do so if
need be.
In recent years, the Palestinian conflict has deepened the divide
between predominantly Muslim and Western countries. A 2007 survey by
Gallup showed that 58% of Americans are sympathetic to Israeli with
only 20% expressing sympathy toward Palestinians. 44% thought that the
United State should not get involved in any diplomatic efforts to end
the conflict, unless Palestinian recognize Israel first, while 25%
thought the US should not do any thing about it. And that 57% thought
that the US should not give any support to the Palestinian Authority,
while 30% thought support must be contingent on recognizing
Israel. This is quite removed a position than the one found in Arab
and Muslim countries who have made repeated demands for immediate
withdrawal of Israel from the territories its occupied since 1967, and
have frequently expressed resentment of American support to Israeli
policies and measures against Palestinians.
For five years, nightly news programs in the Middle East have been
bombarding their audiences with graphic pictures of the life in the
West Bank and Gaza. Raids by Israeli military on town and villages,
home demolitions, confiscation of land, assassination of militants,
closures and blockades, impoverished and crowded neighborhoods, and
similar images fill the TV screens on a daily basis. This has created
deep bitterness and guilt as old and young helplessly watch
Palestinian suffering. The picture of the Middle East conflict is
almost diametrical opposite across the West-Middle East divide.
Silencing Voices of Moderation
There is little debate on the reality and consequences of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Jimmy Carter pointed out in his recent
book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, that the political debate about
the policies of the Israeli government is much more open and lively in
Israel than it is in the US. `There are constant and vehement
political and media debates in Israel concerning its policies in the
West Bank,’ Carter claimed, `but because of powerful political,
economic, and religious forces in the U.S., Israeli government
decisions are rarely questioned or condemned, voices from Jerusalem
dominate our media, and most American citizens are unaware of
circumstances in the occupied territories.’
Several American political leaders and scholars blame the lack of
political debate and balanced media coverage of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the Jewish Lobby, a loose coalition of
pro-Israel organizations devoted to promoting Israeli
interests. Carter himself felt the brunt of the Lobby upon the
publication of his recent book on Palestine. The book was deemed by
conservative Jewish groups to be anti-Semitic because it expresses
sympathy to the plight of the Palestinians, and brought attention to
the Israeli politics that aim at fragmenting the Occupied Territories
and subjugating the Palestinian people.
Another courageous attempt to stimulate the debate about Israel’s
policy in the Occupied Land, and there consequences for the United
States was made by the two foremost political scientist in the United
States, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. Their recent book, The
Jewish Lobby, an expansion of a paper they published under the same
title, brings to the fore the strategies employed by pro-Israel
lobbyists, and unveils the extent of their influence on US foreign
policy towards the Middle East. One underlying strategy illustrated by
Mearsheimer and Walt is the `strong prejudice against criticizing
Israeli policy,’ and that `putting pressure on Israel is considered
out of order.’
The Jewish Lobby provides examples of pressure tactics employed by
conservative Jewish groups to frustrate efforts by prominent American
Jews to balance the Israeli policies towards Palestinian and to curb
the Israeli excesses. The book documents, for example, the backlash
against Edgar Bronfman Sr, the president of the World Jewish Congress,
for writing a letter to President Bush in 2003 urging him to persuade
Israel to curb construction of its controversial `security fence’. His
critics accused him of `perfidy’ and argued that `it would be obscene
at any time for the president of the World Jewish Congress to lobby
the president of the United States to resist policies being promoted
by the government of Israel.’
Likewise, Seymour Reich the president of the Israel Policy Forum, was
denounced and accused of being `irresponsible,’ for advising
Condoleezza Rice in November 2005 to ask Israel to reopen a critical
border crossing in the Gaza Strip. His critics insisted that `There is
absolutely no room in the Jewish mainstream for actively canvassing
against the security-related policies . . . of Israel.’ The severity
of the attacks forced Reich to announce that `the word `pressure’ is
not in my vocabulary when it comes to Israel.’
Prospects for Fair Solution
The conflict in Palestine threatens to destabilize world politics and
embolden fundamentalist demands for religiously exclusive political
states. The principle of rule of law has suffered immensely under the
climate of fear that followed the terrorist attacks on the American
homeland on September 11, 2001. Extremists in both the East and the
West are working hard to deepen the divide, and turn a political
conflict into a religious war. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is
being used by the far right in both Muslim and Western countries to
justify bigotry and to demonize people on the other side of the
divide.
There is a dire need to use our creative imagination and to find a
just and equitable solution to the conflict. The logic of `creating
facts on the ground’ and `might makes right’ must give way to the
spirit of the age, of equal dignity and the rule of law. It might be
well the case that conflict might continue to play itself out until
complete victory or complete defeat is achieved. But this would
definitely be a tragic moment, as it would signal the triumph of force
over morality and rationality. It would be a tragic moment, because by
then, the conflict would have created overwhelming misery on all sides
that no human being would be willing to contemplate.
The solution to the conflict must not be based on Jewish, Christian,
or Muslim prophecies that would only inflame hate and mistrust among
the followers of the three religious traditions. It should, rather, be
based on the prophetic principles cherished by the three religious
traditions. It must be based on the shared committed to the sanctity
of human life, and the universally accepted principles of equal
dignity, freedom of religion, democracy, and the rule of law.
Will prophetic principles triumph over self-styled and self-fulfilled
prophecies? I do not know the answer, but I do not believe it is
preordained as the fundamentalists of the three religions would like
us to believe. I do, rather, believe that the answer to the question
hinges on the actions of members of the three communities. I do hope
that people of reason and deep faith privilege the clear principles
demanded by their religions and international conventions over vague
prophecies interpreted by fallible and rationally limited and
emotionally charged human beings.
w/full/51468
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/vie