Thursday, October 23, 2008

Now Even Olmert Says Israel Should Withdraw

Now even Olmert says Israel should withdraw from Occupied Territories

By Ghassan Michel Rubeiz

Now he tells us.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Sept. 29 that his country must withdraw from the Occupied Territories, which it has held since 1968, including East Jerusalem.

“We have to reach an agreement with the Palestinians, the meaning of which is that in practice we will withdraw from almost all the territories, if not all the territories,” he said. “This is what we have to do.”

For the past thirty-five years, Olmert has been a staunch supporter of the occupation of Palestinian land and the building of Jewish settlements. Only now, as he is leaving office, is he coming around to the moral and practical view that the occupation and the settlements must end.

But on the ground, they are continuing.

Settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem doubled their construction of houses this year, according to the Israeli group Peace Now. In East Jerusalem, settlers are building close to 1,800 dwelling units and 2,600 more on the West Bank.

Jewish settlements penetrate the Territories with 135 separate communities and a few dozen residential outposts. There are 430,000 settlers who live in these communities, which cover 6 percent of occupied land. But these residential structures are integrated into a much wider area. Settlements are linked with Israel proper through an extensive network of roads, checkpoints and military installations.

Israel has erected a Berlin-type wall that surrounds the settlements. The cement fence has allowed Israel to cut deeper into precious Palestinian land.

Building Jewish settlements undermines the future of Palestinians and weakens the long-term security of Israel. It also erodes Israel’s democracy, hardens the resistance of Palestinians and thwarts U.S. peace mediation.

Despite the evacuation from Gaza, Israel controls all the Territories, an area with a population of 5.5 million Palestinians, almost the size of the Jewish population. In 1967, the United Nations designated the Territories, through Resolution 242, to be the Palestinian state.

The first byproduct of the expansion of settlements is the moral erosion of Israel. It cannot be a democracy when half of the people who live under its sovereignty are oppressed.

The second byproduct of these settlements is the growing exasperation of the Palestinian people. Today, despite rising suffering in Hamas-ruled Gaza and despite the failure of Palestinians to reap the fruits of militancy, the Islamic resistance remains popular among Palestinians. Continually driving Palestinians beyond despair is not a sensible survival strategy for Israel.

The third byproduct of the settlement policy is the delaying of a peace accord. In a descending order of firmness, the United Nations, the European Union and the United States have over the years criticized settlement expansion. Israel’s annexation of land thwarts these efforts.

In August, on a mission to promote peace in Jerusalem, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was ridiculously mild in criticism. She described the expansion as acts that do not “advance the cause of peace.” It doesn’t help Washington to act helpless in face of a growing record of Israeli violation of international law.

Many Israelis rationalize the settlements by claiming they constitute a security zone. Settlers argue that their neighborhoods serve as a demographic belt of defense to distance Palestinians from Israel. Prime Minister Olmert rebutted that view: “Who thinks seriously that if we sit on another hilltop, on another 100 meters, that this is what will make the difference for the State of Israel’s basic security?”

Now that Olmert has recognized the futility of the settlement policy, now that he has followed in the footsteps of other Israeli leaders before him like Abba Eban, Moshe Dayan and Yitzhak Rabin, it’s time for the rest of us to recognize it, too.

The United States should insist that Israel dismantle its settlements and withdraw from the Occupied Territories.

Ghassan Michel Rubeiz, a social scientist and political commentator on the Middle East, is the former secretary of the Middle East for the Geneva-based World Council of Churches. He can be reached at pmproj@progressive.org.

US Muslim Ties in 08


Guest Voice for Newsweek-Washington Post Global

U.S.-Muslim Ties in '08

By Ghassan Michel Rubeiz

Following a week of devastating economic news, the latest presidential and vice-presidential televised debates have put concerns of foreign affairs back on the campaign agenda - particularly issues of importance to Muslim-U.S. relations. Coupled with earlier campaign spin about Barack Obama's alleged Muslim roots, Sarah Palin's reference to "God's work" in Iraq, John McCain's repetitive reference to "radical Islam" and other examples of media mania about Islam, one may have the impression that the future of American relations with the Muslim world depends on the outcome of the 2008 elections.

This is not the case.

America will be tied to the Muslim world for centuries to come. There are six million Muslims in America, and many Americans work and live in the 56 Muslim-majority countries. Tens of thousands of Muslim students study in America. American universities in Muslim societies will continue to play a positive intercultural role.

The connections between the two worlds go beyond the diaspora, expatriate work opportunities and tourism. Washington is an ally of Pakistan in the fight against terrorism; it is allied with Turkey through NATO; it is a major player in the Arab-Israeli conflict; it is active in diplomacy with the people of Cyprus, the Balkans, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines.

Although many of America's policies with Muslim-majority countries take the form of aid and cooperation, America is also engaged in two active wars in Muslim-majority countries and is confronting Iran aggressively on nuclear defense issues and its relations with Hizbullah and Hamas.

These many links - whether over common interest, immigration or competition - will play a long-term role in Muslim-U.S. relations well beyond the November election.

Of the many leading issues in this presidential race, the three matters that most directly impact America's relationship with Muslims - both domestically and abroad - are the future of Iraq, independence from Middle East oil and resolution of the Israel-Palestine question.

Neither candidate has outlined a comprehensive plan to end the war in Iraq. Both disagree on what constitutes success. Obama focuses on the pace of troop withdrawal (16 months after he's elected), and McCain stresses military "victory," with troop withdrawal playing a secondary factor. In fact, the Bush administration has already accepted a major troop withdrawal within the next two years, because the Iraqi government now feels more secure and is demanding U.S. forces leave sooner rather than later.

What will really impact American relations with the Muslim world is not the timing of withdrawal as much as the stabilization of Iraq and its unity. Neither party in this election has a clear plan yet on how to secure Iraq for the long run, how to preserve its unity and how to fit this restructured state into the region. This is where the opportunities lie for enhancing U.S.-Muslims relations.

As to the second issue of special relevance to U.S.-Muslim relations, both candidates are vocal on the need to be independent from Middle East oil. Spontaneous oil autonomy is not realistic. Meanwhile, Arabs are not rushing for disengagement from America and remain a welcome presence in the U.S. market.

A gradual reduction of oil importing from the Middle East, accompanied by and integrated with U.S. support of Arab industrialization, will not only bring about autonomy for Americans but also stimulate an economic industrial revival in oil-rich countries, providing jobs to millions of young people. Many oil countries operate vulnerable "rent economies." Oil economies also need independence from oil through diversification.

Palestine and the perceived bias of the United States toward Israel is the third issue that will impact Washington's relations with Muslims. Unlike McCain, Obama seems to have a strong impulse to support the Middle East peace process. However, with Palestinians divided politically and Hamas in leadership, a U.S.-led breakthrough between Palestinians and Israelis is unlikely in the near future.

But there are still opportunities for U.S. involvement in the Middle East. The United States could work harder on the Syrian-Israeli track of the peace process and start a new chapter of rapprochement with Iran. If there is progress in U.S.-Syrian-Iranian diplomacy, the Arab-Israeli peace process will be automatically accelerated.

The coming elections may affect the future dynamics of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, the profile of energy saving and the pace of the Arab-Israeli peace process. But regardless of which party is in the White House in January 2009, the United States will need to continue to work with many Muslim majority countries on a host of broad issues, and to consider Muslim Americans important within the mosaic of political constituencies and vital to the American social mix.


Dr Ghassan Michel Rubeiz is an Arab American commentator with special interest in the promotion of Arab-American relations. He is the former Secretary of the Middle East for the Geneva-based World Council of Churches. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service.