America should not withdraw from the peace process

PALM BEACH GARDENS, FL - Thomas Friedman is emphatic that America should withdraw from the Mideast peace process until Arab and Israeli attitudes soften. I disagree. America should deepen its involvement in peace-making and assume more responsibility than before. In the Middle East, America is not just a broker; Washington is a part of the solution and part of the problem. Israel did not become a regional superpower on its own. As a result, the United States has become joined at the hip to Israel. In a difficult regional environment, Washington is a guarantor of Israel’s security; reciprocally, Israel serves US strategic interests. Thomas Friedman oversimplifies. In a 7 November, New York Times op-ed, Friedman attributes the stalemate to a deficit in seriousness of the protagonists: “If the status quo is this tolerable for the parties, then I say, let them enjoy it. I just don’t want to subsidise it or anesthetise it anymore. We need to fix America. If and when they get serious, they’ll find us. And when they do, we should put a detailed US plan for a two-state solution, with borders, on the table”. The popular columnist is right to look for a paradigm shift for the peace process. However, the solution is not, as he suggests, in abandoning the mediation at a moment of despair. The Middle East conflict might explode if the United States suddenly abandons the scene of conflict resolution. Things are indeed worsening, even before the United States considers disengagement. Regional headlines are telling: President Abbas is threatening to resign. Netanyahu prevails on the settlements issue as Washington yields to the “Israel-first” lobby. Hilary Clinton regrets her praise of Netanyahu for his “unprecedented gesture” on limiting illegal construction on Palestinian land. The region’s public erupts with anger. Israel is mobilised to respond to a defiant and risk-averse Iranian regime, a provoked Hamas in Gaza and a re-mobilised Hizbullah in Lebanon. As the peace process stalls hope starts to fade. The voice of moderation in Palestine is discouraged and the voice of anger is rewarded. Abbas feels he has no peace partners in Israel and no support in the West. Since 1967, the Arab-Israeli conflict has gradually evolved into a complex Arab-Israeli- American problem. The United States has been involved in the Israeli occupation, its maintenance, its expansion and its rationalisation. The United States supplies Israel with phenomenal aid and military assistance. Washington protects Israel from criticism at the United Nations. Most Americans may not wish to be deeply involved in the region. But their government, business and religious leaders over the last four decades have been active in every aspect of life in Israel and in the wider Middle East. America is now also militarily involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is not to say that the United States is to blame for all that has gone wrong in Israel and Palestine. Over the last few decades, Israel has shifted from seeking national security to establishing regional dominance. Fear fuels Israeli short-sighted politics and self-fulfilling prophecies. For their part, the Palestinians have diluted their secular approach to statehood by mixing their political struggle with religious symbols. Hamas, an “Islamic resistance” remains popular and powerful. The fundamentalist dimension in the Palestinian struggle has a growing impact on Jewish fear. The two sides of the conflict are divided, and their differences are deepening. Israel is split deeply on the rights of settlers. It is not clear how they can work out a Jewish state within a democratic framework. There is no plan on co-existence with Palestinians and on the viability of a Palestinian state. For Israelis, the future is not a pleasant subject. Divisions among Palestinians are pathetic. The Palestinians have two leadership systems, two governments and two geographical administrations. They are deeply divided on the role of religion in politics and on the nature of resistance. On the future of refugees there is no consensus or a realistic vision. It might be politically too risky for the president now to try harder than before to confront the Israel lobby. Understandably, President Obama would rather risk his re-election prospects on ambitious health reform and fixing the US economy than on twisting arms to recast the US role in the peace process. To enhance the Mideast peace prospects, America must engage as an equal partner in the search for a solution to the conflict, with full rights and responsibilities. Israel should acknowledge that its occupation of Palestinian territories negatively impacts both its own future security and the strategic interests of the United States. The three sides, America, Israel and the Arabs, must work out a win-win peace plan. When the United States participates in the peace process as a stake-holder, not simply as a convener, there will no more be a need to beg and cajole Israel or the Palestinians to be—as Friedman anticipates—more “serious”. ### Dr. Ghassan Rubeiz (grubeiz@comcast.net) is an Arab-American commentator on issues of development, peace and justice. He is the former secretary for the Middle East of the Geneva-based World Council of Churches. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Robertson: Islam not a religion

Palm Beach Gardens: Eccentric religious leaders are free to launch hate “missiles” across international borders. Media networks are totally free to spew provocative interfaith theology. The impact of unregulated religious propaganda on world peace, public diplomacy and ethical business practice is a question which merits serious debate.

The self-appointed champions of politically obsessed religious communities, be it Muslim, Christian or you name it, should realize that defending one’s people or one’s faith through gestures of hate ends up damaging one’s cause more than hurting the target.

On his TV station, on November 10, Reverend Pat Robertson condemned Islam and Muslims, in response to the Fort Hood massacre. Islam “is not a religion” he declared; it is a “violent political system”. He added that “we should treat it as such, and treat its adherents as such, as we would members of the Communist Party or members of some fascist group”.

If Robertson wishes to take violent politics out of religion, he better start within his own community. He and his fellow extreme Evangelicals are deeply involved in the promotion of war and territorial occupation in the Middle East.

What characterizes the politics of Robertson are anger and arrogance: passion for war, for power and for wealth, Armageddon culture-clash ideology, disdain for the United Nations and animosity for diversity of life-style and beliefs.

As a McCarthy disciple, Robertson’s commentary on Islam belongs to the Spanish Inquisition rather than to open society.

While Muslim Americans are searching for meaningful ways to express compassion for the families and friends of the victims of Fort Hood, and while authorities at the highest levels are calling for prudence during the investigation of this awful crime, some media outlets are helping the healing and others are not.

At this critical time of emotional disequilibrium in American society, Robertson’s tasteless and inflammatory statement on Islam trivializes compassion and inspiration and pours boiling oil on deep psychological wounds. As a fellow Christian, I find Robertson an embarrassment and a catalyst of conflict.

With a clash-culture strategy, Robertson is taking on the Muslim world, a fifth of the world’s population. The harm to American foreign policy caused by televangelical hate has not been assessed. If we wish to reduce wars and enhance communication across borders new standards of interfaith exchange must be identified.

House resolution indicates America remains solidly behind Israel

The Progressive

By Ghassan Michel Rubeiz, November 5, 2009

Congress needs to stop letting Israel get off easy for violating international law.

On Nov. 3, the House of Representatives voted to discredit a U.N. report that accuses both Israel and Hamas of war crimes in the three-week war last January. The House reflexively backed Israel by a vote of 334-36, with 22 abstentions.

This vote was as immoral as it was counterproductive.

The U.N. report is known as the Goldstone report, after its leader, Richard Goldstone, who is a South African judge with an impeccable reputation and an extensive experience in international criminal justice. Incidentally, Goldstone is of Jewish background; his record in support of Israel is solid.

On Sept. 15, he released his report, entitled “United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict.” Last month, the U.N. Human Rights Council endorsed it.

The report accused Israel of applying disproportionate force on Gaza and of not protecting civilian lives. Israel killed 1,400 people in the Gaza invasion, many of them civilians. During this invasion, 13 Israelis were killed.

The report also charged Hamas with unlawfully shelling rockets on civilian neighborhoods in Israel, actions designed to create terror.

But this was not good enough for the House. Its resolution called on the president and the secretary of state “to oppose unequivocally” the Goldstone report.

This sends a signal to Israel that it can get away with aggression.

It tells Palestinians that Congress cares nothing for them.

And it tells the Arab and Muslim worlds that Washington is not their friend.

The House resolution proves that rational debate in the Congress about Israeli policy is taboo. Until that taboo is lifted, we cannot expect progress in Mideast peace talks.

Need for US-sponsored Arab-Israeli deal

Palm Beach Gardens:

Palestinians and Israelis are locked in a relationship of deep mistrust. A credible outside force must intervene to break up an enduring cycle of despair. In the foreseeable future, there seems to be no Middle East miracle cure, spontaneous recovery, inspiration, powerful leadership or any of those signs of self-generated breakthroughs.

The paradigm of conflict resolution must shift from endless ego massaging, exhaustive pre-bargaining and limitless cajoling to direct US endorsement of a specific peace plan: 1967 borders, a plan for refugees, a shared Jerusalem, future of Israeli settlements, land swap measures, security guarantees for Israel and dimensions of a viable Palestinian state.

Negotiations will start bearing fruits when Arabs and Jews shed anachronistic ideas on forging peace. Since neither side is likely to relinquish hard-line attitudes, the American administration, as a trusted broker of peace, should propose the final outcomes of a two-state solution.

In the Arab Israeli conflict, what is a dream for one side is a nightmare for the other. Palestinians still dream of fulfilling the rights of return of their refugees to Israel proper. Meanwhile, Israel urges the international community to “license” its Jewish character as a state.

Imagine the impact of exact Palestinian justice: the return to Israel of several million refugees. Would not this sudden and massive influx of new Arab residents overwhelm Israeli society? Then imagine the impact of affirming Israel as Jewish state: the sanctioning of the social inferiority of 1.5 million Israeli Arab citizens.

Peace makers must figure how to reconcile the rights of refugees with the survival rights of the state of Israel. Moreover, future peace arrangements must reconcile the rights to a Jewish, democratic homeland with the rights of the non-Jewish citizens to equality.

Justice does not necessarily mean reversal of problematic events. In fact, the return of several million refugees to an already crowded Israeli society may not do adequate justice to either Palestinians or Israelis. However, reintegrating a segment of the refugee population in a future Palestinian state would be natural and suitable.

Palestinians would not be abandoning justice when they invest in the development of a hopeful future for their refugees. But to be symbolically sensitive, Israel must acknowledge the suffering they have caused Palestinians in displacing them across borders. Such Israeli acknowledgement would help the refugees to partially overcome their loss as they think of alternatives.

Moreover, a substantial withdrawal of Israeli settlers from the West Bank and East Jerusalem would partially compensate for barring Palestinians to return to Israel proper, which still remains the “historic Palestine” to many Arabs.

Finally, a comprehensive empowerment plan addressing the future of Palestinians refugees who live in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and elsewhere would go a long way to addressing justice. Such a plan should be designed by representatives of the Palestinian refugees and approved by the Arab states. On an unprecedented scale, Israel, the Western world and the rich Arab countries should participate in the funding of an empowerment program that will insure all refugees a decent life with ample social opportunity, security, economic prosperity and full citizenship in settlement countries.

In a lasting agreement, Israelis will have to compromise too. In a secular state, Israelis would not be sacrificing security by ensuring equality to non-Jewish citizens.

Religious states do not thrive. There is no reason to believe that Israel would be an exception. In such a unique state, Israel would have to be able to protect freedom and equality from the corrosive elements of a triumphal religious political culture. As a Jewish state Israel will never be able to maintain peace or democracy; it’s Muslim and Christian minorities would be marginalized, regardless of how secular social life in Israel is. Only a fully secular state would be able to build a modern Israeli society.

Not withstanding international law on the rights of return of Palestinians to their homeland and the competing rights of Israel to survive, peace between Arabs and Israel can only be achieved through brokered consensus. To end the mutual fear that paralyzes the peace process, a US- sponsored plan must demonstrate how peace would insure the emergence of a viable Palestinian state and guarantee a secure secular and democratic Israel.