In Theory: Can America be a Middle East peacemaker?

Following President Obama’s recent speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC) 2012 Policy Conference in Washington, D.C., a writer has taken America to task for attempting to broker peace in the Middle East while giving continued support to Israel.

In an article headlined, “Why the United States has no moral credibility as a peacemaker,” Omid Safi likens America to a biased referee who tells one team, “I want you to know that you and I share an unbreakable bond. If you are ever behind, I am going to jump in and protect you. If you commit a foul, I am going to wave off those fouls.”

Safi, professor of Islamic Studies at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, goes on to point out that the U.S. has given billions of dollars in financial aid and military hardware to Israel, and vetoed several United Nations resolutions against Israel, but still considers itself to be the only nation capable of achieving peace between Israel and Palestinians.

Safi’s view is countered by Sam Lane, managing editor at The Daily Iowan. In an opinion piece headlined, “United States is right to provide foreign aid to Israel,” Lane states how he felt skeptical about America’s aid to Israel, asking, “Why spend more than $3 billion in foreign aid to Israel instead of other nations? Why should we be even considering engaging in a conflict with Iran during such a difficult economic time at home?” But after listening to speakers at the AIPAC conference, including Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu, Lane changed his mind.

“The U.S. must continue to show support for Israel, not for the purpose of spreading democracy, but to protect it in a state where a democratic way of life faces fire from neighboring countries daily,” he says in the article.

Can America act as peacemaker between Israel and Palestinians while giving unequivocal support to Israel?

Of course the United States can, and should, act as a peacemaker in the Middle East and, at the same time, offer unwavering support to Israel.

These two roles are not mutually exclusive. In fact, it could be argued that America’s strong bond with Israel helps enable that small country surrounded by hostile neighbors to feel secure enough to enter into a real dialogue.

America’s role as Mideast peacemaker is due to our proven track record of forging a major agreement between the nations of Egypt and Israel, and our distinction of being the only superpower in the world today. Our influence and strength have allowed us to bring opposing sides to the table and to create a climate where serious negotiations are possible. No other country is capable of doing this because no other country has quite the same clout and network of deep relationships with parties from all sides.

America’s unequivocal support of Israel is due to the simple fact that as a nation, we share Judeo-Christian moral and ethical values with no country in the Middle East but Israel. Like the United States, the Jewish state stands out as a beacon of democracy, human rights and liberty for all its citizens, regardless of race, religion, color, or creed. These principles cannot be found in any other country in the area. Does Israel occasionally fall short of its lofty ideals? Of course. As in every democracy, there are still flaws and room for improvement. Nevertheless, the nation stands in an entirely different category from the brutal dictatorships and repressive monarchies that characterize the rest of the region.

Inevitably, people who are uniformed, or who refuse to become informed, will argue that America should not support a country that is “discriminatory,” or is “occupying” land belonging to Arabs. The fallacy of these arguments is self-evident. The fact is that Israel affords its Arab residents, who comprise 20% of its population, full citizenship and the right to participate in every aspect of society. There are 14 Arabs in the Israeli Parliament, making decisions for all its citizens, and there is also an Arab member of the Israeli Supreme Court. Does that sound discriminatory?

There is also much misinformation regarding the occupation. Israel came into possession of the Occupied Territories after its victory in the 1967 Six Day War, when every Arab nation in the Middle East attacked the tiny country in a coordinated campaign to annihilate her. Israel’s subsequent attempts to vacate occupied lands in 2000 and 2005 only brought the enemy closer to her borders and resulted in tens of thousands of rockets being fired into civilian centers and causing horrific terror. Most Israelis do not think occupation is a good idea, but having rockets rain down on Tel Aviv or Jerusalem is far worse.

Ultimately, there are two issues that stand, more than any others, in the way of peace. As of today, the Palestinians have refused to abandon terrorism, or accept Israel’s sovereignty and right to exist as a Jewish homeland. I am certain that if the Palestinian people reject violence and fully accept a neighboring Jewish state, there will be peace.

Most Americans fully understand this indisputable truth, and therefore provide strong support to Israel, which over time has proven to be our most trustworthy friend and stable ally in the Middle East.

Rabbi Simcha Backman
Chabad Jewish Center
Glendale

There has been a historic one-sidedness in the relationship between the United States and the states of Israel and Palestine.

The United States has always had Israel’s back. This has included early recognition of the state of Israel, billions of dollars in foreign aid, and massive tonnage of military support going to Israel.

Past support for Israel should not prevent the United States making efforts to bring peace to the Middle East. The conflict between the interests of Israel and Palestine is a Gordian knot and there is no nation or group that has proposed a peaceful solution for the conflict.

All groups and nations should be making efforts to encourage a peaceful long-term resolution. The United States should be able to contribute also, especially since by contributing so much to the Israeli economy, it should have influence over Israel.

While the U.S. has been heavily favoring Israel, we also contribute millions of dollars to Palestine for civilian and humanitarian aid.

A peaceful outcome for Israel and Palestine will require painful compromises on both sides and will only be possible if all the parties bring pressure to bear on both sides to make those compromises. I always believe nonviolent, peaceful solutions exist if people are willing to work hard enough to bring about these peaceful solutions.

Steven Gibson
South Pasadena Atheist Meetup
Altadena

I have long been concerned with the seemingly biased position held by our country with regard to our support of Israel and opposition to the Palestinians. That is not to say that I am against our assistance to the state of Israel. I simply believe that we need to be more even-handed in our dealings with both groups.

For example, when Israel attacks the Palestinians with undue ferocity or annexes some of their territory, our media and government appear to give some sort of justification for their behavior. However, when the Palestinians do the same kinds of things, they are often castigated for their actions. If such a behavior is wrong for one nation, it should not be all right for another to do the same thing. To me, such an unequal assignment of blame smacks of prejudice and Islamophobia.

With that said, I still believe that our country can act as a peacemaker between the two groups, flawed though our past behavior may have been, if we can work to dismantle our image as the unequivocal supporter of Israel. Just as parents can mediate between two of their children when they disagree, our nation can give equal support to both groups. To suggest otherwise is to say that we believe only one side can be right in each case, instead of seeing that there is right and wrong in both perspectives. An absolutist method does not work well in families or world politics.

My hope is that the Israelis and the Palestinians will find a way to give up their ancient opposition to each other and establish two independent states living in peace. As long as inequality exists between these two cultures, true peace is only a dream. But if our government can help in that process, there may yet be a possibility for a positive outcome for all. That is my hope.

The Rev. Dr. Betty Stapleford
Unitarian Universalist Church of the Verdugo Hills
La Crescenta

The answer to the question is yes. Besides, isn’t that what we’ve been doing since Israel’s founding in 1948? While it may be logically inconsistent to have the U.S. support Israel while at the same time try to broker a peace deal, what other choice is there?

Without U.S. support, some of Israel’s unfriendly neighbors would run her over. OK, that’s the obvious part. What isn’t so obvious is that if Israel does something with which we disagree (such as run bulldozers through schools that contain Arab children), we have the right, even the duty, to tell Israel that she went too far.

In my opinion, the U.S. must support Israel, but it is not anti-Semitic to criticize an Israeli policy, such as the building of settlement after settlement in what was Palestinian territory. The problem is terribly complex. But at the same time, Palestinians are people, too, and they have rights, just as the Israelis do.

Just as it is not unpatriotic to disagree with an American policy (such as two long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan), it is not antiSemitic to criticize an Israeli policy. Besides, what are friends for if they can’t tell you the truth?

The Rev. Skip Lindeman
La Cañada Congregational Church

You back your friends, not in bad decisions, but in outside aggression that threatens what is essentially your own family afar. If there’s conflict, you work to reconcile. Nobody’s neutral, as everyone has a stake, but what must be done is to not let it cloud judgment.

I’ve been to Israel, and Palestinians invited me into their homes for coffee. They’re no different than other people, and I think we forget there are more Palestinian Christians in Israel than Jewish ones, since Israel is essentially secular with only a religious veneer — and even that veneer isn’t for the Easter Messiah. But how much should that matter?

The whole world needs reminding that it put the Jews in Palestine since it was their ancestral homeland from before there was any such thing as Palestinians. They received that region, which is no larger than New Jersey, because Nazi powers nearly eradicated them. When Jews arrived, it was a Palestinian wasteland with scant cultivation, and just nomads wandering about.

Now Israel flourishes, and as the only local democracy, it sits precariously, surrounded by thousands of miles of anti-Semitic Arab territory. Ironic, because if Arabs thought the Palestinian problem was an issue, they’d only have to open borders to welcome in their brethren. They don’t because they hate Jews more than they love Palestinians. That being the case, democratic underdog Israel has the support of the world’s greatest democracy.

Israel is still the Bible land. It’s one of few middle-eastern countries where pilgrims feel secure, they speak English, and Christianity is not persecuted. The citizens there are tough, but they don’t cut heads off infidels or blow up innocents.

Currently, they’d prefer not being nuked while maintaining their micro-parcel of property. I think it reasonable that we help run interference for them, but please don’t expect us to pretend that annihilating them, or ruining their infrastructure for the sake of minority individuals who don’t wish to peacefully assimilate, are options.

The Rev. Bryan Griem
Montrose Community Church
Montrose

I think Professor Safi makes a valid point, if only in practical terms, that our one-sided position on Israel detracts from our effectiveness as a mediator. Our hideous recent war of choice in the Middle East also calls into serious question our moral standing as a peace broker there.

The supreme irony to me is that anyone here would criticize Iran for gaining nuclear capabilities while the U.S. sits on a vast arsenal of hypocrisy, as does Israel, and we are the only country to have used nuclear weapons. Plus, think how different history might have been, had we not overthrown a democratically selected, secular, president of Iran to install the shah.

Lane poses a strawman argument in implying that there is any serious possibility that the U.S. would abandon Israel. By and large, critics of U.S. Israeli policy question only the unequivocal nature of our support, despite how unhelpfully intransigent Israel has been in dealing with the Palestinians.

I also can’t buy his assertion that Arabs in Israel enjoy full democratic rights. Clearly this is not the case for Palestinians in the occupied territories. You can raise the technicality that it isn’t Israel, but really, what does “occupied” mean? Israel controls life there.

A well-informed Jewish friend with whom I discuss this topic frequently fears that Israel’s survival as a democratic state is threatened not by rocket attacks, but by its conduct in occupied Palestine. I think his opinion is shared by other Jews, including some in the Israeli Knesset.

Palestinians under occupation are routinely separated from their crops, water and jobs; their property is destroyed and their land stolen outright.

Religions call upon adherents to be peacemakers. I don’t recall there being exceptions for seemingly intractable conflicts in which all involved appear to have a profound death wish. I’ll also go out on a limb and speak for atheists, secular humanists and rationalists in wanting the Israeli-Palestinian nightmare to end.

Yes, we can, and should, do everything we can to help achieve peace in the Middle East, despite our imperfect record there. Redemption is always possible.

Roberta Medford
Atheist
Montrose