Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, October/November 2000, pages 91-95

Waging Peace

 

American University Professors Discuss Middle East Peace Challenges

On Sept. 6, the American University School of International Service forum hosted a talk on the status of the Middle East peace process. The principal question of debate was whether or not peace can be achieved between Israel and Palestine, especially in light of the Camp David deadlock on the status of Jerusalem.

The first discussant, Prof. Abdul Aziz Said, director of the Center for Global Peace at American University, began by asserting that peace can indeed be achieved between the long-time rivals pending the realization of critical preconditions. Both parties should learn from the experience of South Africa, he said, by starting serious reconciliation efforts. “There has to be truth- telling,” he maintained. “Israelis have to admit that they took the land from the Palestinians, and Palestinians have to start to recognize the existence of Israel.”

Professor Said also asserted that there cannot be peace without prosperity, and thus peace has to be made with the knowledge that it will benefit both sides. While emphasizing the need for Arab states to accept the existence of Israel, he added that Israel has to open itself to its neighbors, saying, “Israel has to accept itself as part of the region, not as an outpost of Western civilization.”

Professor Said asserted that a vision of peace is needed and a change in perceptions and education are immensely critical. He also warned that the Palestinians will not be ready for statehood until its leadership undergoes serious reform. Finally, when dealing with Jerusalem, Professor Said argued that “we have to take politics out of the equation.” He warned against the Israeli position on Jerusalem, which he described as a manifestation of Jewish fundamentalism that has to be kept in check.

Visiting Israeli Professor Yoram Peri currently is a scholar in residence at the School of International Service. He reaffirmed Professor Said’s point that peace will be achieved, arguing that despite the current emphasis by the media on the failure of the Camp David talks, substantial progress has been achieved. During the Camp David talks, he said, the Palestinian side accepted Israeli demands for security and the presence of settlements in the West Bank. On the issue of Jerusalem, Peri said, “in a courageous move by Barak, he agreed to give back some neighborhoods to the Palestinians without consulting his government.”

Peri did not elaborate, however, on the terms of such “compromises.” He stated that most Israelis are coming to terms with the idea that there will be a viable Palestinian state enjoying sovereignty and territorial integrity. Saying that “we are dealing with symbolic politics,” Professor Peri dismissed Palestinian refugees’ demands for their right to return as “unrealistic and counterproductive to the peace efforts.”

While attempting to achieve progress on the current stalemate, Peri said, both Barak and Arafat are under mounting pressure from their own constituencies. He said it is too early to judge if final status negotiations are failing, but was optimistic about the meetings taking place between the two leaders at the U.N. Millennium Summit in New York.

—Asma Yousef

 

Civil Disobedience at the White House

On Monday, Aug. 7, following a weekend of activities in Washington, DC by peace activists commemorating the 10th anniversary of the imposition of sanctions on Iraq, a group of 300 protesters congregated at Lafayette Park to reaffirm their opposition to the sanctions regime responsible for the death of more than 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of five. Protesters marched to the Treasury Department, which enforces the sanctions, to publicize their involvement in a project to send water purification materials without a license to Iraqi orphanages and health centers in Baghdad. By sending such materials without a license, many of the participants risk having civil fines of up to $275,000 per violation and criminal penalties of up to $1 million and/or 12 years in prison. In addition, participants at the rally displayed a list of names of 1,000 Americans who signed on to the Campaign of Conscience, a faith-based national campaign demanding the lifting of non-military sanctions against Iraq. Leading the crowd of protesters were Bishop Gumbleton, Rev. James Lawson, and Rev. John Dear—all religious leaders representing various congregations. The protesters then proceeded to White House, where they were arrested for sitting on the sidewalk in front of the White House.

For more information on the Campaign of Conscience, contact the Fellowship of Reconciliation at (914) 358-4601; the American Friends Service Committee at (215) 241-7170; People’s Campaign for Nonviolence at (202) 270-0951; the National Mobilization to End the Sanctions on Iraq at (202)543-1062; or visit <www.endthewar.org>.

—Asma Yousef

 

Israeli Public Opinion on a Final Status Agreement

Ephraim Yuchtman Yaar, head of the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research at Tel Aviv University, discussed the state of Israeli public opinion in the context of final status negotiations. The co-director of the Peace Index project, a monthly gauge since June 1994 of Israeli opinion on the Arab-Israeli peace process, spoke at the Middle East Institute in Washington, DC on July 25, the day the Camp David negotiations broke down.

“When talking about the public opinion of the Israeli population,” he began, “we need to distinguish between the Jewish majority and the Arab minority. Due to the high fertility rate among Arabs, today they account for almost 20 percent of the Israeli population—but that includes children,” he noted. “When we come to the adult population of voting age the proportion of Israeli Arabs is between 11 and 12 percent.”

Yaar divided the Jewish population of Israel into three parts: The Israeli right, or hawks, who do not support the peace process; the Israeli left or moderates, who support the peace process and believe that peace can be reached by negotiation; and those in the middle who, Yaar said, halfway support the peace process, but are very skeptical about the chances for peace. Even if the peace agreement is signed, he said, this last group doubts whether it will bring an end to the historical conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. “That is why today it is really difficult to mobilize support for the peace process,” Yaar noted.

The position of Jewish Israelis toward the peace process is intimately related to their degree of religiosity. The ultra-Orthodox, according to Peace Index Project surveys, comprise 8 percent of the Jewish population. Regular Orthodox Jews, who are less strict in their religious observance, constitute 10 percent of the population. The third group, of tradtional Jews, make up about 30 percent of the Jewish Israeli population. These Jews keep some religious rules, but primarily for cultural or traditional reasons, rather than because of deep religious convictions. In describing traditional Jews, Yaar said they would go to pray on Saturday but then drive to see a soccer game (driving on the Sabbath is strictly prohibited in Orthodox Judaism).

Secular Jews, who constitute almost 50 percent of the Israeli Jewish population, usually don’t attend synagogue. They may celebrate Passover for traditional family reasons but, again, not because of the holiday’s religious importance.

Yaar asserted that from the time the Peace Index was founded there always has been the same steady relationship between the level of religiosity and the attitude toward the peace process: the more religious a person, the less supportive he is of the peace process. The ultra-Orthodox and regular Orthodox are mostly hawks and constitute 18 percent of the Jewish population. The position of traditional Jews toward the peace process is closer to the Orthodox than to the secular, though they are not as “hawkish” as the former. And most of the left-wing “doves” in Israel, Yaar said, are drawn from the secular part of the Jewish population. This explains the difficulty in attaining a clear Israeli majority for or against peace. It also explains why Israel always has a coalition government, because no single leader can be elected by a majority at the party level.

Education, age and income also influence Israelis’ attitude toward peace. Yaar noted that better educated (and therefore more well-to-do) and older people are more supportive of the peace than are uneducated (poor) and younger people. Finally, he explained, there also is a correlation between Israelis’ ethnic origin and their attitude toward the peace process. The percentage of Ashkenazi (Jews of European origin) who support the peace process is higher than that of the Sephardi (Jews of Oriental origin), regardless of whether one is a first- or second-generation immigrant.

“Actually,” concluded Yaar, “we end up basically with two general profiles: anti-peace-right and pro-peace-left. The pro-peace profile consists of secular, relatively highly educated, more well-to-do middle-aged or older Ashkenazi Jews. Anti-peace sentiments, on the other hand, tend to prevail among the Orthodox, less educated, less well-to-do Sephardi Jews.”

Yaar cautioned that there are some notable exceptions to these patterns. Despite the fact that they are Ashkenazi and most are highly educated, for example, roughly two-thirds of Russian immigrants are considered to be extremely hawkish. The 1 million Jews who have immigrated to Israel from the former Soviet Union since 1989 today account for 14 percent of the electorate.

Yaar divided Israeli attitudes toward particular issues such as borders, refugees, and the status of Jerusalem into symbolic and existential issues.

“I think for Israel the issue of borders and the issue of Palestinian refugees are existential,” he said. “Israel cannot afford to take in a significant number of Palestinian refugees. It would mean the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state. And Israel was founded as a Jewish state, whether you like it or not,” he continued. “So if Israel wants to maintain its character as a Jewish state, it needs a Jewish majority.”

Considering that 20 percent of Israel’s population—not counting the West Bank and Gaza—already is Palestinian, Yaar noted, “For Israel it would be like committing suicide.”

This view is shared by the large majority of Israeli Jews, on both left and right. “There is no way that an Israeli politician would be able to convince the Israeli public to give up on this,” he said.

On the issue of borders, Yaar said there is not much room to compromise on that issue, either. “To put things in perspective,” he said, “the entire area of Israel, including the West Bank, is about the size of New Jersey. And, whether Israel is willing to give up 80 percent of the occupied territories or 85 percent or 90 percent, there are certain areas that are of great strategic and demographic importance. Therefore,” he argued, “from an existential point of view, Israel cannot afford to give them up.”

Yaar predicted that “no Israeli leader would be able to gain the support of even a significant minority for a withdrawal to pre-1967 borders.”

According to Yaar, the status of Jerusalem, recognized as the single important issue for Israelis as well as for Palestinians, is mostly of symbolic and historical, rather than of substantive strategic, importance. “I think with imagination a solution to this issue can be found to satisfy both sides,” he said. “For example, our surveys indicate that most Israeli Jews do not know where the Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem are, including those that are at the very heart of Jerusalem.”

Yaar was part of a team formed to develop various scenarios for Prime Minister Ehud Barak to present to the Israeli public in order to gain its acceptance of Palestinian sovereignty over East Jerusalem. “Where Jerusalem is concerned,” he said, “a lot of things depend on how you package this issue. If you say that we divide Jerusalem with East Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state and West Jerusalem the capital of Israel, this is unacceptable. But,” he continued, “if Israeli public opinion is cultivated you can have the same pie in a different package. There is a way to find a compromise. It can be done if you work on it wisely, not hastily and, of course, not by bringing the two leaders to Washington, when the gap in the positions is still huge.”

—Alima Bissenova

 

Dr. Marc Ellis Speculates on Future of Jerusalem

The American Committee on Jerusalem hosted Dr. Marc H. Ellis, professor of American and Jewish studies and director of the Center for American and Jewish Studies at Baylor University, at an Aug. 3 briefing on Capitol Hill regarding the future of Jerusalem.

In a talk entitled “Sharing Jerusalem: A Progressive Jewish Perspective,” and building on the assumption that the general end of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is imminent, Professor Ellis was hopeful that a bright future for Jerusalem would be assured through the grass-roots interaction of the various peoples living there in their search for normalcy.

Dr. Ellis theorized that the finalization of borders, when combined with a necessary Israeli confession of rights violated, would eventually persuade significant portions of the population that the struggle was over, leaving them free to pursue their day-to-day lives. He cited such prosaic yet vital issues as garbage collection, sewage treatment, and education as areas where Jerusalem residents would learn to work cooperatively for their collective good.

Ellis claimed that as interaction expanded among the citizens of Jerusalem the balance of power would level, saying, “a civil rights movement must begin that will lessen or eventually end divisions on account of ethnic or religious identity.” When asked exactly how this would occur, he reiterated that defined borders and shared administrative interests over the next 50 years would force normalization of relations and therefore equalize the balance of power.

Despite his assertion that “the vision of a shared Jerusalem will initially demand a restructuring and reallocation of resources to bolster the Palestinian presence in the city, a presence that has been systematically undermined over the last decades,” Dr. Ellis’ vision of a Jerusalem under joint sovereignty and with community spirit in the not-too-distant future lacks a substantive base. While admitting that wrong has been done to the Palestinian people, Ellis presumed that Palestinians would practice “revolutionary forgiveness.” Moreover, when asked about Palestinians’ right of return, he stressed that there could “be no return to an era.” Without that right however, his assumption of forgiveness is questionable.

—Sara Powell

 

Taliban Opposition Spokesman Discusses Afghanistan

On July 18 Mohammed Es-haq, Washington representative for the Northern Alliance, the anti-Taliban coalition led by ousted Afghan President Burhanuddin Rabbani and former Defense Minister Ahmad Shah Masood, spoke at the Middle East Institute outlining the position of the Islamic State of Afghanistan on a solution to the ongoing Afghan crisis.

Blaming foreign interference for the continuing war in Afghanistan, Mohammed Es-haq said that the fighting will end only when the Afghan people exercise their right to self-determination.

“With the defeat of the Soviets and their Afghan cronies,” Es-haq said, “Afghanistan gained a golden opportunity to build a new political system and reconstruct their country, but failed to do so. The major reason for this failure was the abandonment of Afghanistan by the U.S. after the Soviet withdrawal, which paved the way for regional powers to compete with each other for influence in Afghanistan. If the Mujahadeen government had been supported by the United States when it was formed in 1992, Afghanistan would have had a stable government representing all the people of Afghanistan in control of the whole country,” he said.

According to Es-haq, among other regional powers Pakistan is playing an extremely destructive role in preventing the return of peace and stability to Afghanistan. The Taliban opposition, which is made up of different ethnic and religious groups, including Shi’i Muslims, Hazaras, Tajiks and Uzbeks, now is fighting, not for the purpose of gaining power, but for its own survival.

The Taliban gained power by force and retains power by maintaining military control, Es-haq continued. “The ideological position adopted by the Taliban makes it impossible for the people to choose their leadership or change the form of government by peaceful means,” he said. “The title of Amir-ul-Mumineen [Supreme Leader of the Muslims] gives the leader of the Taliban a lifelong office term with sweeping powers.

“The Taliban controls 70 to 75 percent of the territory of Afghanistan, but they do not enjoy the popular support they once did, even in the area of their control,” Es-haq continued.

Massacres, human rights abuses, discrimination based on gender, ethnicity and language, and the Taliban dependence on foreign support have tarnished their image in the eyes of Afghans, he said. According to Es-haq, the Taliban are facing problems recruiting fighters, which has made them dependent on forced conscription and the hiring of foreign extremists.

Regarding the resolution of the current crisis in Afghanistan, Es-haq said, “We—the Islamic state of Afghanistan, which was formed in 1992—are for a political solution to the Afghan problem. We are ready to work with all Afghan groups, including the Taliban, to achieve this objective.”

Es-haq emphasized that the Islamic State of Afghanistan believes in a democratic and pluralistic society. It encourages education and participation in social and political activities by both men and women. “We are not warlords,” he said. “We believe in providing services to the people and improveing their conditions. But the military threat by Taliban drains all our resources into military expenditures.

“It is important that the U.S. support the Afghans opposed to the Taliban,” Es-haq concluded. “Even a limited amount of humanitarian aid, anti-drug and anti-terrorism money can make a difference. It will send the message that the U.S. is aware that the Taliban is not the only government to claim legitimacy over Afghanistan.”

—Alima Bissenova

 

U.S. Defense Policy Discussed at CATO Policy Forum

A panel of four experts on security, defense and foreign policy debated the future of U.S. defense policy at a June 29 CATO Institute Policy Forum in Washington, DC.

Cato Institute senior fellow Doug Bandow, a former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, advocated cutting military spending and developing a new, balanced defense policy. “The world which we face today is completely different from the world which we faced during the Cold War,” he said. “The United States is safer today than it has been at any time in the past half-century.

“Today, America accounts for about one-third of the world’s military outlays.The United States currently spends over $270 billion per year on the military, more than the expenditures of the next six countries—Russia, China, Japan, Britain, France and Germany—combined,” Bandow said. “America spends more than four times as much as Russia, almost eight times as much as China, and 17 times as much as all perceived rogue nations together.”

Advocates for extending U.S. military expenditures cite the need to protect Europe and Northeast Asia, but Bandow said that U.S. allies and regional powers can take care of their own neighborhoods. “It is better to leave the managing of local crises to the countries that have the most at stake,” he said. “With a combined GDP of $8 trillion, a population of 400 million, and a military of one million, the European Union members are capable of doing whatever they want and going wherever they want in the region,” he maintained.

Emphasizing the intrinsic interrelatedness of defense policy and foreign policy, Bandowhighlighted the need to reconsider the Cold War’s “big spending, highly interventionist policy.”

“The main argument for preserving an over-expensive military,” he said, “is that we live in a world which is more dangerous today than it was a decade ago. But,” he continued, “to act as though the U.S. is threatened from all sides is to take a flight from reality.”

The final argument for an extensive U.S.military role in the world, Bandow pointed out, is humanitarian intervention. “Though it is morally a most attractive argument,” he acknowledged, “as an idea that we are going to save people’s lives and prevent all those terrible things around the globe from happening, in reality it turns out that humanitarianism, as practiced by Washington, is quite limited.…Today the practical criteria [for U.S. intervention] are that if white Europeans are dying, and the abuses are captured on film, the killers represent an enemy state. Otherwise, it is possible for thousands, or millions, to be killed or displaced without a thought, and the supposed guardians of human rights will not do anything to stop it.”

In contrast, the next speaker, director of the Center for Security Policy Frank Gaffney, stated that the current world situation requires the U.S. to maintain the sort of forces that allows a global presence.

“The reality is that in important ways the American people are less safe today than they were eight years ago,” Gaffney said. Outlining the potential threats to the United States he pointed to Russia and China and a handful of “troublemakers,” such as North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Cuba, and Libya.

The third speaker, Ivan Eland, director of the Defense Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, supported his colleague Bandow’s position, saying, “The nation’s favorable location away from major centers of conflict make the possibility of a conventional attack by another nation unlikely. With oceans on the east and west and, frankly, weak neighbors on the north and south, the possibility of an invasion is even more remote. Moreover, the U.S. nuclear force is the most powerful on the planet and would make any such enemy’s attack suicidal.”

According to Eland, most of the defense budget’s $300 billion is spent not for defense but for America’s self-appointed role as world leader. He suggested that in order to reduce the budget, the U.S. needs to reduce its commitments.

The final panelist, Daniel Goure, deputy director of the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, called Eland’s proposals to cut military expenditures unsustainable. “The existing forces are under-funded by $100 billion,” he said. “That means that it is going to be cut by 50 percent anyway if you keep it on the current budget, let alone further cutting military spending.

“The U.S. has to spend more on defense precisely for the reason that my colleagues used in arguing our secure geostrategic position: we have got oceans to cross,” he argued. “It costs enormously to get our navy or air forces to the Middle East or Adriatic.

“The problem with our allies,” he continued, “is that today they spend a lot less and spend it badly. They have more headquarter people and have conscription armies instead of professional armies. But we can’t let them fall to a potential aggressor because they didn’t do what they should have done,” he reasoned. “It is morally equivalent to letting a shopkeeper be robbed, because he didn’t spend enough money on security systems.”

—Alima Bissonova

< Prev		Next >