If I may be so bold as to issue some advice to President-Elect Barack Obama, it is to be cautious in the extreme about two issues on his agenda: Afghanistan and Israel-Palestine.
His campaign rhetoric included proclamations that Afghanistan is "the right war" "It's time to heed the call...for more troops...and "I'd send at least two or three additional combat brigades to Afghanistan."
Since then, Obama has been cautioned by a variety of experts. There are no clear signals as to his intentions as president.
Afghanistan is far from being a governable society, much less a responsible democracy. Profits from opium permeate the economy; corruption is pervasive; regional war lords may cooperate with one another at the behest of greater powers today and seek to liquidate one another tomorrow. The country is a killer of empires. Ask the British and the Russians. The initial American-led onslaught hurt the Taliban, but they have regained strength. The terrain of the country, established loyalties, as well as sanctuaries in areas of Pakistan never under the control of Islamabad challenge any modern army. Pakistan is part of the problem, and is both fragile and armed with nuclear weapons. The setting is one where well-intentioned outsiders may blunder into making things worse.
Israel-Palestine is not large enough to be a killer of empires. But it has been a source of frustration for the mightiest who trumpet a mission of pressure toward peace. Obama may start by asking Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, James Baker, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Condoleezza Rice.
It may be due to the coincidence of the Christmas season and the presidential transition that I received copies of two messages wanting to heighten Obama's concern for Israel-Palestine. The Institute for Global Engagement sent an ecumenical letter to the president-elect, signed by representatives of Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and several Protestant denominations. (www.globalengage.org)
...we are united by a Biblical call to be peacemakers and a commitment to the two peoples of the Holy Land who yearn for a just peace. As Americans, we urge you, Mr. President, to make achievement of Israeli-Palestinian peace an immediate priority during your first year in office... We know the work for a just peace will not be easy. It will require great courage and resolve, but the risk of inaction is even greater. Without active US engagement, political inertia and perpetuation of the unbearable status quo will make achievement of a two-state solution increasingly difficult. Moreover, we are concerned about the negative impact a further delay will have on the Christian community in the Holy Land, whose numbers continue to decline.
The last item in this excerpt points to an issue that is part of the Middle East story, but seldom highlighted by Christian organizations concerned with Palestinian suffering: the flight of Christians. Neither Bethlehem, Nazareth, nor Ramallah have Christian majorities any longer. Christians who used to be dominant there, and those from numerous other communities with ancient roots throughout the Middle East have left the region. In 1948 there were 40,000 Muslims and 25,000 Christians in Jerusalem; in 2007 there were 253,000 Muslims and less than 13,000 Christians. Just between 1998 and 2005, the Christian population of Bethlehem declined from 33 to 20 percent.
One can explain the migration of Christians by reference to violence and harassment, but not by the Jews.
The Economist published an open letter to the president-elect:
Palestine fouls up our diplomacy: Israel is thrown at us whenever we ask Muslim allies for help. Unsolved, this conflict generates wars....You'll lose nothing by saying forcefully before Israel votes that we want a two-state solution with a shared Jerusalem and little modification of the pre-1967 line. Spell out the percentages. Netanyahu might as well know he won't get another free pass to jerk us around on settlements....Hillary must help you sell this in New York as well as Riyadh. Only then should you step in to close the deal - after figuring out what mix of heat and reassurance to apply to the Israelis. They're the ones who have to give up something real.
The Economist goes part of the way, but not all the way in saying that Israelis are the problem.
Hillary will tell you Bill spent more time on this than anything else in foreign policy, but he failed too. His excuse is that Arafat suckered him ("Don't you ever trust that son of a bitch," was his parting advice to Colin Powell), but now that Arafat's dead the Palestinians have two addresses instead of one. The Europeans tell us that Hamas can live with a two-state deal, despite its spiel about destroying Israel. But if we talk to Hamas we knock the legs from under Mahmoud Abbas.
The last time I looked, the Economist was a British publication. It has a sizable circulation in the United States, but not enough to include"our" "we" and "us" in its letter to the American president-elect.
A lack of American realism, that led the current administration to insist on the Palestinian election that brought the fanatics of Hamas to power, does not bode well for the Economist's recipe. Neither does the image of New York and Riyadh. It will be the Jews of Israel, and not those of America who decide on what to offer the Palestinians. It will be the Arabs of Palestine rather than Saudi Arabia who decide what to demand of the Israelis, and what, if anything, to offer them in exchange.
I see no success for outsiders, whether they be Jews or others, who think they can press Israel into bringing peace to Israel-Palestine. It will take two to make that deal. Israelis have made decent offers, and are willing to control its minority of nay-sayers. It is the Palestinian camp that remains hopeless. The moderates insist on a historical narrative that describes Israel as responsible for all the harm, and require it to turn back the clock. The extremists want Israel out of the region. Few Israelis wish to settle again in Poland, Iraq, Yemen, or North Africa, and few of the natives in those places are putting out the welcome mat.
Whoever leads Israel as the result of the February election will comply with American wishes, to a point. Either Livni and Netanyahu will continue to talk to the Palestinians. Neither will give away the store, or even take great chances with neighbors who might speak well, but have shown themselves time and again unwilling or unable to control the violent factions within their community.
I worried about the prospect of a demagogue with vacuous proclamations of Change. Since the election, I have seen moderation in the extreme. As president, I hope that Obama will be careful in two issues where enthusiasts are pushing him. One is likely to be dangerous (Afghanistan), and the other frustrating (Israel-Palestine).
Combined feed for all JPost.com blogs
Post your own comment
