Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, July 2009, pages 53-54

Muslim-American Activism

“Prospects for Peace”

	(L-r) Cecile Coronato, Dr. Sudha Ratan and Geneive Abdo listen to a question at the CSID conference (Staff photo D. Hanley).

ANOTHER LIVELY panel at the Center for Study on Islam and Democracy conference discussed “Prospects for Peace in the Middle East.” According to Halim Rane of Australia’s Griffith University, religion has never played a positive role in the Holy Land. He suggested “trading rockets for [U.N.] resolutions,” and also using nonviolence, because the most potent weapon in the Palestinian arsenal is “moral power,” which could change global public opinion.

Dr. Mohamed Nimer of American University in Washington, DC discussed Hamas, which, he said, started as a political protest movement by Palestinians who believed resistance to Israel was better than offering concession after concession. Nimer described the Hamas Charter, which, he said, has never been submitted to a vote by governing bodies. “No one uses it,” he noted. “It’s a tract meant to mobilize support and it should be amended...It projects anger, not vision.”

Hamas political leader Khaled Meshal has indicated that he would go along with a two-state peace agreement, Nimer said, whereas Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his Likud party have refused to accept a two-state solution or implement any past peace agreements. Nimer suggested seven steps for Obama to take to achieve peace in the Middle East, including conditioning aid to Israel on an Israeli withdrawal to set borders and working with a Palestinian national unity government.

Nathan Funk of the University of Waterloo in Canada had practical suggestions for the president. He advised prudence, national humility, more active conflict resolution, a genuine commitment to democracy, and dedication to restorative justice. Americans need to listen to diverse Muslim voices and use public diplomacy to articulate and receive feedback, Funk stated. The president must be prepared to endure domestic criticism as he changes or “self-corrects” America’s existing policies in order to place them more in line with American values and interests.

—Delinda C. Hanley