If you have never been to the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC, I encourage you to go. You will need some time, however. You will want to absorb the enormity of the evil about which you are reading.
The Jewish people have long been the target of violence. Biblical history witnesses to it in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes IV and in the Roman Empire. Christian history in Europe testifies to the intense suspicion and violence toward the Jewish people in the Crusades. It found its most full expression in World War II, of course. Why such violence directed at the Jewish people is so much part of a two thousand year history would require much study. Right now, all I want to stress is that violence toward the Jewish people has a long history. Most of us today want to repent, in some way, of that history. We want the future to be different from the past.
Yet, some people in our world want to continue this history of violence toward the Jewish people. Many are in the Middle East. They look upon Israel as the new Nazis. They view Israel as an oppressor of the Palestinians. They have connections to the Nazi view of the Jewish people. They aligned themselves with the Nazis during World War II. Such is the history of Islam in the Middle East, as represented by Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran in particular, and Muslim militants in general. Some in Europe and America are “fellow travellers” in adopting the position that Israel is an occupier and aggressor, always to be opposed in contrast to the oppressed view of the Palestinians. All of this, despite the obvious dominance of the Arab population in the Middle East, the obvious possibility of settlement of Palestinians in Arab states (after all, Jews come from around the world to Israel), and the wealth Arab states possess to accomplish all this.
In such a context, the President offered some remarks in May of 2011 on the Middle East and the Arab-Israeli conflict. I would like to explore the talk.
The President begins his remarks at the State Department by referring to the uprising in Muslim countries. His assumption is that this is a good thing.
He views the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as actions from which America needs to move in order to have a shift in foreign policy there. Of course, he marks the death of Bin Laden as a significant marker in this shift. He thinks that Bin Laden, by the time of his death, was already becoming less of a factor, as masses of people in the Middle East began seeing it as a dead end. As the President sees it, the Middle East is seeing cries for human rights through the moral force of non-violence.
In the region, he identified the core interests of the United States as countering terror, stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, securing the free flow of commerce, and maintaining the securing of Israel, and working for peace in the Arab-Israel conflict.
He takes some credit for the spread of “self-determination” through his speech in Cairo. As important as the interests of the United States may be, he thinks these interests need to connect with the aspirations of the people as expressed in the uprisings. In this light, the United States will support efforts toward democracy. He notes that calls for change have been met with violence. He lists the countries in the news: Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Assyria, and Yemen. He refers to American opposition to Iran’s intolerance and Iran’s repressive measures, as well as its illicit nuclear program and its support of terror. He highlights the success in Iraq of a Muslim nation pursuing a democratic process. I see some irony here, in that when convenient, Iraq becomes a model for other countries can be both Muslim and democratic. In any case, he stresses that the United States will pursue reform in the region toward democracy. He wants to encourage relationships that focus on education, commerce, science, and technology. He stresses that America stands for tolerance, and he wants to see this expressed in the Middle East in the area of religion. He wants to see the rights of women upheld. He wants to promote economic development. He assumes that a democratic Egypt will emerge, and that therefore the United States will forgive a billion dollars of its debt to us. He wants the United States to “invest” in Tunisia and Egypt through an enterprise fund. Of course, if the reader has been attention, the United States has no money to do this. It will borrow the money, or print it. He also wants new trade agreements with these countries.
His highly debatable point is that an Arab Spring exists. Recently, Ben Stein went so far as to call this notion a fraud. The dictators kicked out of Egypt were pro-West, restrained on Israel, open to free enterprise, and resisted Iranian influence. Now, he says, Egypt is rapidly becoming anti-Israel and pro-Iran, and pro-Hamas, the Iran-led terrorist group. They are far from being pro-human rights, which they would have to be if the West were to celebrate genuinely what is going on in the Middle East. As he sees it, the common denominator to all of the Arab street movements is sympathy to Iran. He thinks that when the dust settles, Iran will own the Middle East.
Interestingly, hours before President Obama spoke, Islamic fundamentalists gathered in Cairo to demand the release of Oma Abdul Rahman, the blind Egyptian cleric imprisoned in the United States for masterminding the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. In fact, his son, Mohammed, who fought alongside Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, talked to reporters in Egypt and was part of the protest movement in Egypt. The previous government of Egypt would not have allowed Muslim militants to demonstrate in front to the American embassy.
My point here is that the demonstrations are not the clear expression of a cry for human rights. I would consider it a possible outcome, but hardly a definite one. Thus, his analysis of what is happening in the Middle East will have to await future developments. My skepticism is simple. Any move toward majority rule, when the majority has an immoral and unjust culture, is a bad thing. The move toward majority rule could well be disaster for Christians and Jews in the region, and therefore a disaster for individual rights, especially for women. It could well bring the rise of the Iranian dream of its hegemony in the Middle East.
Obama comes to the point where he says, “Let me conclude,” and then discusses the Arab and Israeli conflict. He thinks the basis for the negotiations is “clear.” He wants a viable Palestine and a secure Israel. He continues as follows.
The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.
As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself -– by itself -– against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism, to stop the infiltration of weapons, and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. And the duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.
These principles provide a foundation for negotiations. Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met. I’m aware that these steps alone will not resolve the conflict, because two wrenching and emotional issues will remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians.
The prime minister of Israel made it clear that the suggestion by the President to go back to the 1967 borders is a non-starter because they are indefensible. He makes it clear that Israel will not negotiate with a government in which Hamas is a part. This is a response to the acknowledgement by the President that Fatah and Hamas coming together raises questions for Israel. The Prime Minister makes it clear that it does more than raise questions. It is a non-starter for Israel. Further, the Prime Minister says that as direct the President has been to Israel in the need to give up territory, he needs to be so with the Palestinians in the area of the “right of return” by Palestinians to Israel, due to the 1948 war. He thinks the United States needs to look the Palestinians in the eye, so to speak, and make it clear that this will not happen.
I should also comment that the President has the support of official United Methodist statements. For example, United Methodist Book of Resolution #312 affirms, without recognizing the paradox, the right of Israel to exist and the right of return for Palestinian refugees. In Book of Resolutions 323, the United Methodist Church supports Resolutions 242 and 338 for a just lasting peace. Security Council Resolution 242, passed in 1967, calls for Israel to withdraw from land occupied in the 1967 war. It also calls for recognition of national boundaries by all parties. It desires peaceful passage through international waterways. It wants a “just settlement” of the refugee problem. Security Council Resolution 338, passed in 1973, calls for cease-fire of the present conflict, all parties to implement resolution 242, and that all talks have as their aim a just and lasting peace.
Given the flow of this speech, the President seems motivated by his perception of the uprisings to think that this is an opportunity for change in the Arab-Israeli conflict. He may be right. I suspect he is wrong.
James Philips of the Heritage foundation points out the anomaly in this speech of being blunt to Israel, and not being equally as blunt with the Palestinians.
Israel’s 2005 withdrawal to its 1967 border with Gaza led not to peace but to expanded terrorism after Hamas staged a bloody coup in 2007 and transformed Gaza into a base for launching rockets against Israeli civilians. Israel cannot afford to return to its 1967 border with the West Bank unless it has ironclad guarantees that any territory relinquished will not again be transformed into a base for future terrorist attacks. This is impossible as long as Hamas, committed to Israel’s destruction, remains a potent force.
As I have stressed, violence toward the Jewish people has a long history, reaching a height during the Holocaust. Arab militants want to continue that history. They show no signs of longing for a different future. The West has before it a choice. The direction that choice will take is less clear today than it was before Obama took office.
No comments:
Post a Comment