Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, April 2002, pages 88-95

Waging Peace

Not In My Name Holds Benefit

“Just dinner, just dancing, just have fun—for a Just Peace” was the appropriate theme for Not In My Name’s first benefit event since its inception in November 2000. According to Steven Feuerstein, founder of the Chicago-based Jewish peace group, donations and a silent auction at the March 2 soirée raised at least $10,000. Although most of the 140 in attendance were Jewish and Arab, guests included members and supporters from a variety of cultures and backgrounds.

In addition to the Persian fare at Reza’s Restaurant and the mix of Middle Eastern and American dance music, two local actresses presented a scene from the upcoming play “Precious Stones,” about a 1990s Jewish/Arab discussion group, by Chicago playwright and activist Jamil Khoury.

Bidding went on throughout the evening for the nearly 80 auction items, which included gourmet dinners, airplane rides, folk and fine art, food and wine, massage sessions, cooking or language lessons, laminated Gush Shalom placards, handcrafted wooden Noah’s Ark assemblies, jewelry, private music recitals, computer training sessions, fitness sessions, gift baskets, CDs, writing and editing services, Arabic desserts and a guided tour of the Chicago Tribune. Most poignant for some was the shoebox-sized sculpture depicting the harrowing scene from the start of the second intifada of a terrified father and son huddled in the hope of escape before the son, Muhammad al-Durra, was shot and killed by Israeli gunfire.

With its membership now extending to Europe, Not In My Name coordinator Cindy Levitt said she hopes the group’s next effort, the “Courage to Refuse” campaign, will raise consciousness globally about the hundreds of Israeli soldiers announcing their refusal to serve in the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

—Roxane Assaf

Debating Reconstruction in Afghanistan: The World Bank and Pakistani NGOs

As the Taliban regime fled Kabul, the World Bank and other development agencies began discussing their role in the rebuilding of Afghanistan. Meeting in Islamabad, Pakistan from Nov. 27 to 29, 2001, the World Bank, Asian Development Bank (ADB), and United Nations Development Program (UNDP) hosted a conference on “Preparing for Afghanistan’s Reconstruction.” Nearly 60 percent of conference participants were representatives of donor nations such as the United States and officials from the host institutions. NGO representatives and Afghan professionals comprised the remaining 40 percent. Issues were organized into three broad working groups, including Immediate Post-Conflict Recovery/Reconstruction of Afghanistan, Social Development, and Rebuilding Infrastructure, where topics such as education, housing, mine clearance, and private sector development were addressed.

At the conference, substantial attention was paid to private sector development, prompting Tore Toreng, chairperson of the Social Development Working Group, to warn of “a tendency of individuals to look for business opportunities. We have to avoid that.”

Conference co-chairpersons Mieko Nishimizu (World Bank), Yoshihiro Iwasaki (ADB), and David Lockwood (UNDP) concluded the event by emphasizing the need to “continue to listen deeply to Afghans … and avoid quick fixes and the tendency to set up inappropriate and costly precedents.”

At present, the World Bank has pledged $500 million to the Afghan Interim administration, while the U.S. has committed $297 million. At the time of writing, a total of $4.5 billion had been promised to the reconstruction effort.

In late January, at the request of the interim government, a 10-member team of World Bank specialists visited Kabul. The mission’s purpose was to help the provisional administration implement an effective and transparent system to manage reconstruction efforts. The team highlighted the prime sectors that require urgent attention. In terms of security, mine clearance is of principal concern. According to the Bank’s Approach Paper, Afghanistan is one of the world’s most heavily mined countries, reflecting 20 years of conflict. Other areas that warrant immediate attention are agriculture, school construction, health care facilities, and overseeing the safe return of refugees.

The World Bank has proposed that a Trust Fund serve as the primary financial mechanism to administer the Bank’s overall reconstruction goals and projects. Bank president James D. Wolfensohn noted the advantages of a trust fund, chiefly that such a system could provide coherence, accountability, and convenience to aid management.

Surprisingly, just as Wolfensohn announced his trust fund proposal for Afghanistan, an internal World Bank document criticized the effectiveness and management of Bank trust funds. Many development experts remain skeptical that improvements in the application of trust funds will be enacted. One committee at the Islamabad conference, for instance, “expressed its strong concern related to the possible role of a trust fund, which could lead to wasteful and poorly targeted…projects.”

Stronger criticism against Bank policies was leveled by Pakistani grassroots organizations during November’s Islamabad conference. The Citizens’ Peace Coalition, Labor Alliance (a coalition of trade unions and informal sector associations), and other Pakistani civil society groups organized protests in which hundreds participated and dozens were arrested. In a joint press conference held Nov. 27, these organizations charged that the conference was in fact exclusive and unrepresentative. Aasim Sajjad Akthar, advocacy coordinator for the Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI), stressed that regardless of the multilateral framework of the development organizations meeting in Islamabad, the U.S. determines the agenda. Consequently, a neo-liberal economic model that benefits Western nations more than Afghanistan may be foisted upon the interim government in Kabul. Indeed, Washington’s share of total voting power in the World Bank is about 16.5 percent, and a decades-old gentlemen’s agreement reserves the top post at the Bank for an American.

Grassroots mobilizations and demonstrations have continued in Pakistan since the conference ended in November. The reason is quite simple: Pakistan is no stranger to the World Bank. Akthar noted that “the cycle of debt that Pakistan finds itself in now is largely due to the regular stream of loans that these institutions have so graciously bestowed upon us.” The World Bank Approach Paper on Afghanistan, he noted, was “careful not to forego mention of the $23 million that Afghanistan still has to repay in past loans.” Furthermore, various SDPI working papers have described the failure of Bank loans in Pakistan, leading to worse living conditions for the poor and women. Despite World Bank assurances, the example of Pakistan leads many to be highly doubtful that Bank policies and projects will have a positive effect in Afghanistan.

—Shrayas A. Jatkar

Clergymen from Three Faiths Discuss Peace

“Peace Building and Reconciliation between Jews, Christians and Muslims in the Holy Land—the Ideal and the Real” was the theme for an evening with three celebrated clergymen at Chicago’s North Park University on Feb. 5. The school’s Anderson Chapel was filled to standing capacity with activists, students and people of all disciplines hoping to glean some wisdom from the three seasoned men of faith.

The speakers were Rabbi Dr. Ron Kronish, director of the Interreligious Coordinating Council in Israel (ICCI) and lecturer in education at Tel Aviv University and Hebrew University in Jerusalem; Rt. Reverend Munib Younan, bishop of the Lutheran Church of Jordan (and Palestine) (ELCJ) and member of the executive committee of the Middle East Council of Churches (MECC); and Dr. Muhammed Hourani, coordinator of the Center for Peace and Reconciliation, Shalom Hartman Institute, lecturer at David Yellin Teacher’s College, and member of the Israel Inter-Faith Association.

“There is an urgent need for a voice for religious moderation in Israel and Palestine,” Rabbi Kronish, who has lived in Israel for the past 22 years, told attendees. He went on to describe that voice as: “A voice that will urge for the end of violence and the return to dialogue and negotiations. A voice that will call upon religious and political leaders to speak out for peace and for promoting peaceful relations between peoples and people in Israel and the region.

“Believe it or not, this voice does in fact exist in Israel and Palestine, but it is rarely heard or seen in the Western press.” Rabbi Kronish described the public “trialogues” that he, Rev. Younan, and Dr. Hourani have given in cities across the U.S. They have tried to demonstrate and argue for the necessity of dialogue between Jews, Christians and Muslims in the Holy Land.

The message and the method is simple and clear: religions and religious leaders ought to be a voice for peace-building and sanity, rather than for terrorism or occupation. They ought to take the lead in educating for peace, in changing the hearts and minds of the people—on both sides—so as to prepare Israelis and Palestinians for the eventual necessity of learning to live together in their part of the world.

The failure to do this adequately so far was one of the great mistakes of the Oslo peace process, the speakers agreed. Agreements cannot be left until “later” any more. Despite the current impasse—or perhaps because of it—now is the time for religious and educational leaders to launch new and bold programs for education for peace and reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians.

Organizations supporting the event included the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America’s Division of Global Mission, Friends of Sabeel-North America, the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at North Park University, Not in My Name, American Friends Service Committee, Pax Christi of Illinois, the Arab American Action Network, Chicago Area Churches for a Shared Jerusalem, and the Chicago Lutheran-Jewish Dialogue Group.

—Roxane Assaf

Revisiting U.S.-Iran Relations

All the speakers at the Dec. 17 conference on “Revisiting US-Iran Relations” sponsored by the American-Iranian Council in New York agreed on one thing: the United States and Iran are not presently on good terms. As Sen. Arlen Specter said, “There is a good bit of baggage in the background of the relationship.”

Former Ambassador Thomas Pickering, now a senior vice president for international relations at Boeing, identified some of that baggage. Iran’s grievances toward the U.S. include CIA involvement in the 1953 overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected government; U.S. active support for Iraq in the first Gulf war; the 1988 shooting down of an Iranian civilian airliner by the USS Vincennes that killed more than 300 people; failure to appreciate Iran’s neutrality during the second Gulf war; U.S. opposition to an oil line through Iran for Caspian oil; and Washington’s allocation of funds for the overthrow of the current government in Tehran.

U.S. resentments are the 1980 hostage crisis; Iranian support for Hezbollah in Lebanon, including the suicide bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks; suspected involvement in the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia; flag-burning and anti-U.S. slogans by crowds of demonstrators; covert efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction; human rights violations against ethnic minorities, women, and critics of the regime; and opposition to the Oslo peace process, along with support for Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

Conference participants differed, however, on approaches for improving the relationship. Hadi Nejad Hoseinian, Iran’s ambassador to the U.N., called the U.S. labeling of Iran as a supporter of terrorism unjust. Iran has its own security problems emanating from Israel, Iraq, and Afghanistan, he pointed out. Because terrorism is a global menace, the ambassador said, the U.N. should have a central role in developing a strategy to deal with it. Nations have the human responsibility, he argued, to rise above self-interest and address the roots of terrorism: poverty, injustices, double standards, and the uneven distribution of the benefits and costs of globalization. Without that, Hoseinian said, Sept. 11 could result in increasing tension and violence, based on the illusion that more bombs can stamp out terrorism.

According to R.K. Ramazani, professor emeritus at the University of Virginia, the change of attitude in Iran toward the U.S. after Sept. 11 reveals the depth of pro-U.S. sentiment, despite 22 years of unilateral U.S. sanctions and frozen Iranian assets. He described U.S. reactions to the proposal of closer cooperation with Iran as ranging from cautious consideration to dogmatic opposition from neoconservatives such as Richard Perle and Newt Gingrich, who said, “Iran is a threat to civilized life on the planet.”

U.S. policymakers err, Ramazani said, in assuming that events in Iran today can be reduced to a struggle between reformers behind President Mohammad Khatami and conservatives who support Ayatollah Khamenei. Even more simplistic, he added, is the Pentagon’s tendency to equate Iran and Iraq.

Ambassador Richard Murphy, now a senior fellow for the Middle East at the Council on Foreign Relations, said that the motivation for the Clinton administration’s dual containment policy was to prevent either Iran or Iraq from becoming a regional hegemon. Ironically, he said, the U.S. has become that country, and dual containment, though not formally dissolved, no longer is active. The U.S. military presence in the Gulf, continued Murphy, likewise has produced a result opposite of its intention by increasing regional instability. Iran’s violent rhetoric, he concluded, overwhelms the reasonableness of its position.

Former New York Times correspondent Youssef Ibrahim suggested that the U.S. and Iran should establish diplomatic relations and then move on from there. J. Michael Stinson, senior vice President at Conoco, agreed, saying that the result is always better when we engage than when we isolate and punish.

—Jane Adas.

Landrum Bolling’s Insight into the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Landrum Bolling, a senior adviser with Mercy Corps, discussed new developments in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Feb. 12 at the United States Institute of Peace in Washington, DC.

Bolling recently met with three mid-level Israeli and four Palestinian negotiators in order to develop a conflict management program. “I came away more optimistic than when I arrived,” he told the audience.

The peace talks began in Vienna, where both parties were able, temporarily, to remove themselves from the chaos and confusion they were intent on calming. “They were no longer there as defenders,” Bolling noted, but as friends who listened to and understood each other’s grievances.

Upon returning to the Middle East, however, Bolling said, the peacemakers became disoriented, as new chaos and confusion pulsated throughout Israel and the occupied territories. He recalled that the Palestinian negotiators were consumed with speculations of Arafat’s future—would Israel murder him or merely continue to place him in a position where he was struggling for power? At the same time, Palestinian leaders who offered an alternative to Arafat were assassinated by Israel or fleeing the region for refuge.

The Israeli peace brokers explained that their government was not united on how to deal with Arafat, Bolling said, nor had Israel looked with favor on any potential successor in case of Arafat’s demise. They expressed the power struggle within their own government when they said, “Sharon is not the Israeli government.”

Aware that both the Israeli and Palestinian governments were experiencing disunity, and recognizing that their leaders would inevitably negotiate with their political careers in mind, the panelists discussed various ideas, and agreed upon one, Bolling said, and outlined the pending plan, which calls for an imminent Palestinian state. With 60 days to work out the details, a Palestinian state with U.N. membership would be established, albeit without defined boundaries. “This would offer a change in negotiations,” Bolling claimed, “as two states would now face each other.”

Bolling explained that the Palestinian discussants were more skeptical of the plan than the Israelis, concerned that if this deal were struck, it might be the only deal. “There would need to be strong proof,” he said, “that there would be negotiations toward a final solution.”

The atmosphere in Israel and the occupied territories changes from day to day, Bolling noted, and it seems to be changing for the worse. As violence increases, he said, conversation decreases. The tactics of both parties have failed, however, he added: Israeli violence has led to more Palestinian violence, which has led to more Israeli violence. There is hope in this failure, however, Bolling concluded, a hope that another tactic will be taken—the tactic of conversation and negotiation.

—Kristel Halter

U.S.-Saudi Relations: Views from the Kingdom

The Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine on Feb. 12 invited four distinguished speakers from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to share their perspective on U.S.-Saudi relations. The speakers, in the U.S. to attend the World Economic Forum, included Abdullah Xenel Alireza, Dr. Abdulmuhsun Alakkas, Ziyad Al-Sudairy, and Dr. Noura Al-Yousef.

Abdullah Xenel Alireza, chairman of Xenel Industries, began by expressing his frustration with the recent barrage of American media criticism of the Kingdom. “I think that Saudi Arabia has been carpet bombed in the media more than any other time in its life,” he said. While negative portrayals of Saudi Arabia are a natural consequence of its regrettable association with Sept. 11, he said, it is unfair to tarnish the standing of an entire nation on account of a handful of anti-American extremists.

Dr. Abdulmuhsun Alakkas, deputy chairman of Saudi Research Marketing Group, as well as a member of the Counsultative Council (Majlis Al-Shura), further explored why the U.S. media has turned a negative lens on Saudi Arabia. He placed partial blame on “the American unilateralist,” who, he explained, thinks Washington’s war against terrorism can be won by the U.S. alone. The unilateralist sees two types of people or governments: those who support and those who condemn terrorists. He envisions a chessboard where all terrorist-condemning states become pawns of the U.S. “The unilateralist thinks Saudi Arabia can be a vassal state,” Dr. Alakkas said, “but she is an ally.”

Ziyad Al-Sudairy, partner of the law office of Ziyad Al-Sudairy and who is a fellow member of the Consultative Council, examined the problem from another angle. “There are substantive problems and substantive concerns we have to address on our side,” he said. These are not image problems, he pointed out, but real problems. He extended his line of reasoning to include the U.S. “Osama is not unique to Saudi Arabia,” he said. He can be found throughout the Muslim world, acting out against U.S. foreign policy. Just as Saudi Arabia’s problems cannot be dismissed simply as image problems, Al-Sudairy said, so, too, international resentment toward U.S. foreign policy is not a consequence of false image—it is a real, substantive problem.

Dr. Noura Al-Yousef spoke on the controversial topic of women in Saudi Arabia, charging that the U.S. media use women to enforce negative images of Saudi Arabia. “More communication is needed with Americans,” she said, “not just on a governmental level, but on a social level.”

Sudairy agreed, adding that “many people think the restrictions on women are imposed from the top.” This was not the case, he claimed. Instead, he said, “This is a bottom-up problem.”

Alireza agreed with both Yousef and Al-Sudairy, arguing that a top-down approach to cultural change would not work. “Women are going to lead the change,” he said. “They know the parameters, and they know when to move,” he said.

While the U.S. media’s surge of criticism against Saudi Arabia cannot be dismissed as an image problem, it must be taken with a grain of salt, the participants concluded. And while its problems are substantive, they said, Saudi Arabia is a strategic ally that the U.S. is not likely to abandon any time soon—no matter how harsh the criticisms become.

—Kristel Halter

Robin Wright’s Perspective on Religious Extremism

The Woodrow Wilson International Center on Feb. 6 invited Los Angeles Times columnist Robin Wright to discuss the evolution of Islamic extremism.

Wright defined three specific phases within the history of Islamic extremism: Islam as national identity, as national identity opposed to Western influence, and finally as national identity opposed to regional governments spawned by the West.

Islam became synonymous with Arab national identity as a result of the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, Wright told the audience. Israel’s swift defeat of Syria, Egypt and Jordan in the 1967 war left Arabs feeling that there was something fundamentally wrong in the Arab world, she said. “Thereafter,” Wright explained, “Arabs began to look inward and found Islam.”

Arabs reconstructed their sense of Arab nationalism within the framework of their increased sense of Islamic identity, she said, and, as a result, pan-Arab nationalism defined by Islam flourished.

The centrality of Islam within Arab national identity became evident during the 1973 Yom Kippur war [or the Ramadan war, as the Arabs call it]—a war, according to Wright, which was fought in the name of Islam. “Islam became a vital and viable idiom,” she said, “a source of identity both politically and militarily.”

“It was no accident,” she continued, “that in 1979 Islam had arrived in many Muslim minds as an alternate political solution.”

Islam became a political tool for opposing foreign oppression and influence, Wright elaborated, particularly from the West. This second phase of Islamic extremism experienced great victories in the 1980s, she noted, with Hezbollah forcing the U.S. to withdraw from Beirut and Israel from southern Lebanon. A few years later, she pointed out, Russia withdrew from Afghanistan. “The message was,” Wright claimed, “that Islam worked,” and could victoriously challenge foreign oppression and influence.

In the 1990s, she said, a Western tide swept over the world, as democracy offered an alternative to fallen or declining autocratic regimes and military dictatorships. The Islamic world, however, refused to feel even a ripple, she contended. Nevertheless, she stated, many governments succumbed to Western influence, reaping the benefits of cooperation. “The U.S. was seen as the prop that kept these governments in power,” Wright said. In turn, she added, the governments became pawns of the U.S. Muslims became infuriated and resisted not only the U.S., she said, but their own governments. Wright described this third phase of Islamic extremism as “jihad at home.”

Yet, as the events of Sept. 11 demonstrate, she said, “jihad at home” has moved to American shores. She grappled with the idea of a fourth phase of Islamic extremism, but argued that the extremism embraced by Osama bin Laden was an aberration. “Osama bin Laden wanted to create a grand Islamic ummah,” she said. Most extremist groups, however, don’t share that vision, she maintained, but instead are focused on a specific country, and have an agenda unfolding in that country.

However, she cautioned, the danger still exists that Islamic extremism will evolve in the direction of Osama bin Laden. “We must both promote democracy and help create civil societies,” Wright concluded, “and we must deal more honestly with our oil policy.” In so doing, she argued, we will not simply quell the symptoms, but eradicate the disease.

—Kristel Halter

Media Blackout Includes Jewish Anti-Zionists

In February and March various segments of anti-Zionist, Orthodox Jewry took to the streets of Washington, DC and New York City to protest the existence and actions of the state of Israel.

Their efforts have shared three things in common: They have been large—ranging in size from hundreds to tens of thousands; they’ve featured speakers both articulate and passionate; and they have all been virtually totally ignored by the American media.

On the other hand, when a tiny crowd led by the notorious Avi Weiss assembled in front of the PLO Consulate in Manhattan, the fringe group received widespread media attention. Of course, Weiss’ message that the PLO should be banned from America because it is a “terrorist organization” was more in keeping with the mainstream media’s stance.

Neturei Karta International staged a counter demonstration against the Avi Weiss-led affair. Neturei Karta members, who believe that Zionist philosophy will inevitably result in suffering for Jew and Gentile alike, called for the expulsion of the Israeli Consulate from New York because, the group charged, Israel is a terrorist state. This protest, equally well attended as that of the anti-Palestinian demonstration, received no media coverage whatsoever.

The American media continues to avoid covering demonstrations and press conferences given by Neturei Karta International and other Jewish peace groups.

—Emad Fraitekh

Anti-Zionist Apartheid Struggle Hits New Stride

For this writer, the struggle against Zionism was reinvigorated in America with three relatively recent initiatives. The first was a student-led demonstration held in April 2001 at the University of California at Berkley. The primary demand of the Berkeley students—who had occupied one of the administration buildings in an act of civil disobedience—was divestment, the highly effective cornerstone of the struggle against apartheid in South Africa.

The second initiative occurred on a rainy night in October 2001, when the newly formed “Black Voices For Peace,” held its inaugural program in a Howard University Law School lecture hall in Washington, DC. To a large (especially on a weekday evening), predominantly African-American audience of over 200 people, the organization’s principal founder, Damu Smith, announced the need for Black Voices for Peace to be heard in this county’s policymaking circles. The foreign policy issue which thus far has received most attention from this new social activist movement has been the Mideast crisis—specifically, America’s unjust support of Israeli apartheid, and the role this support has played in the perpetuation of conflict in the region.

The evening’s panel featured a number of prominent African-American activists, Dr. Ron Walters of the University of Maryland School of Political Science, Nkechi Taifa of the Howard University School of Law, Ron Daniels of the Center for Constitutional Rights and Reverend Graylin Hagler of Plymouth Congregational Church. This writer was honored to be the Muslim voice on the panel.

A third initiative and cause for optimism was a press conference held Dec. 11, 2001, at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. Entitled “Peace in the Middle East, Why the Process Continues to Fail: A Christian, Jewish, Muslim Perspective,” the event was sponsored by The Peace and Justice Foundation, and featured Dr. Robert Younas, Rabbi David Weiss, and Dr. Imad ad-Dean Ahmad. What made this press conference of special import was the speakers’ frank approach in addressing the issue, along with the presence of Rabbi David Weiss of Neturei Karta International.

In addressing the ongoing conflict, and the distinction between Judaism and Zionism, Rabbi Weiss, a Torah-believing Orthodox Jew, declared:

“We of Neturei Karta International find the toll of dead and wounded on both sides to be intolerable. We feel that it is high time for a radical departure from the assumptions that have governed and effectively stifled free debate on the subject.

“Our perspective is far from new,” Rabbi Weiss continued. “It is the centuries-old view of the Torah. It was once universally shared by all Jews, and it is only our people’s recent flirtation with assorted secularist dogmas that have caused it to be forgotten of late in some quarters. Simply stated, the essence of Judaism is our faith, our belief that G-d spoke to Moses and the assembled multitudes at Sinai, and there gave His Revelation to the world. This was, is and always will be, Judaism.”

Rabbi Weiss described Zionism as a “movement dedicated to altering the traditional view of [Jewish] redemption. It posited that political maneuver—revolutionary terror, war and dispossession—would yield Jewish salvation.”

Weiss was also refreshingly honest in his assessment of Israel’s value as a haven for world Jewry. “Only blind dogma could at this date see Israel as something good for the Jewish people,” he noted. “Established as a so-called safe haven, it has consistently over the past five decades been the most dangerous place on the face of the earth for a Jew to live. It has been the source of tens of thousands of Jewish deaths, of families torn apart, and has left a trail of grieving widows, orphans and friends in its wake.”

As he neared the conclusion of his opening address, Rabbi Weiss made an observation that could serve as a summary statement for the press conference, as well as a statement on why a fresh, more forthright approach to the quest for peace in the Middle East is urgently needed at this time:

“People of the press, I have come to you today to offer a new perspective on the Middle East, a new explanation as to why all previous attempts at peacemaking have failed,” Rabbi Weiss said. “It is our belief that they are inherently doomed to fail. All of them share one fatal assumption. They find it axiomatic that the state of Israel should exist. And, in contrast to the plain evidence of the past half-century of Jewish history, they see its existence as a positive development for the Jewish people.”

While the press conference was predictably ignored by America’s mainstream media, it was covered by a significant number of alternative media organizations, both print and broadcast.

—El-Hajj Mauri’ Saalakhan (director of operations for The Peace And Justice Foundation)

Palestinian Women Celebrate International’s Women’s Day, March 8, 2002:

Women from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) joined a special Women in Black UK vigil in Trafalgar Square, London, on March 8, International Women’s Day, to show solidarity with other women’s organizations around the world calling for an end to Israeli occupation of Palestine. Following the vigil, a delegation went to 10 Downing Street to present a letter to Prime Minister Tony Blair demanding international protection for the Palestinian people and an end to British complicity in Israeli war crimes.

Also on March 8, Palestinian women took the opportunity to express their opposition to and defiance of Israel’s occupation of their land and remind others of their struggle for human rights and equality. Their press release stated: “We stand in defiance, with knowledge of the full tragedy of the Palestinian people living under oppression and occupation, whose national identity is marginalized. We stand in defiance, aware that Israeli prisons are filled with Palestinian men, boys, women and girls; aware that the politics of ‘transfer’ of Palestinian citizens of Israel is the dialogue of a system which bases this call in its national framework, laws and very structure.

“From here, we, the women of Palestine, assert our struggle for equality in all aspects of life, and assert our national struggle to end the occupation, to establish a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, and the right of return for every refugee to his and her home.”

For more information on the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, e-mail <London@palestinecampaign.org or info@palestinecampaign.org> or visit their Web site, <www.palestinecampaign.org>.

—Delinda C. Hanley

Palestine, Israel, and an Honest(?) U.S. Broker

Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies and Ambassador Edward Peck, vice president of Foreign Service International, addressed the question of whether or not the U.S. could be an honest broker of peace between Palestine and Israel at the Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine, Jan. 31. Both speakers seemed to believe that it could not.

Pointing out that Israel and Palestine had been left out of President George W. Bush’s State of the Union address, Bennis made the analogy that such disengagement was typical of the overall policy of neglect followed by both the Bush administration and the U.S. press. Bennis cautioned the audience to remember, however, that billions of dollars in U.S. aid to Israel and the virtually constant use of the U.N. Security Council veto do constitute active engagement. Moreover, she noted, U.S. policy toward the Middle East has been remarkably consistent in its focus on Israel, oil, and stability. Despite much talk of change from the Clinton administration’s policy to that of the Bush administration’s, Bennis contended that the only substantive change was in the order of precedence. Where Clinton put Israel first and oil second, Bush—whose administration, she said, is so entrenched in the oil industry—put oil first and Israel second.

Nonetheless, the attacks of 9/11 changed the situation somewhat. According to Bennis, the need to build a coalition, including cooperation with Arab and Muslim countries, initially prompted Bush to talk about the need for Palestinian statehood. By the middle of October, however, when the coalition was in place and the military effort well underway—and, Bennis maintained, after the need to court Palestine had diminished—the U.S. went back to its usual stance of full support for Israel. Although, she noted the rhetoric involved had changed to some degree, actions had not.

There was “no political will” in the U.S., Bennis said, to push for the end of the occupation. Instead, she argued, there must be an effort to stop U.S. funding, vetoing, and supplying of arms. Bennis did not think this initiative would come from the U.S., however, but rather through international efforts based in the U.N., the EU, or possibly South Africa.

Ambassador Peck agreed that Washington would not change its policies toward Israel and Palestine—as long as those policies suited U.S. interests. He postulated that governments do what they think is ultimately in their own best interests. Of course, governments could be “coerced, afraid, or dead wrong,” Peck added, and still think they are doing what serves them best. Therefore, he maintained, as long as a vocal minority who care deeply about Israel remain more committed and vocal than those who oppose Israeli policies, the U.S. government will not change its stance.

Unlike Bennis, however, Peck concluded that no one could take the place of the U.S. as the broker for Middle East peace. Instead, he argued, the American public must be awakened to the situation to ensure that the segment of society which is opposed to Israeli (and therefore U.S.) policy becomes the dominant voice on the American scene.

—Sara Powell

Former CIA Analyst Discusses Future American Policy Toward Iraq

Georgetown University’s Center for Contemporary Arab Studies hosted a Jan. 17 lecture by Dr. Judith Yaphe on the prospects for a war with Iraq. A senior research fellow and Middle East Project Director at the National Defense University’s Institute for National Strategic Studies, Dr. Yaphe previously had served for 20 years as a senior analyst on Middle Eastern and Persian Gulf issues in the CIA’s Office of Near Eastern and South Asian Analysis.

Dr. Yaphe noted that there currently is an ideological battle within the Bush administration over how to deal with Iraq in the post-Sept. 11 era. It is an intense battle, she said, between those who feel the current political atmosphere is perfect for finishing an “uncompleted job” in Iraq and opponents who do not wish to drag the U.S. into a war with unclear goals or an uncertain prospect for success.

Nonetheless, Dr. Yaphe asserted, there definitely exists an air of anger, vindictiveness, and polarization toward Iraq. Dismissing claims that Iraq had any involvement in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, she stated that, nevertheless, many analysts feel that the support enjoyed currently by the Bush administration may enable it to expand its war on terrorism to include Iraq.

Dr. Yaphe also claimed that many in the government feel misled by trusted intelligence experts who, in 1991, recommended against sending U.S. troops to Baghdad, predicting that Saddam Hussain would not survive much longer. Ten years later, however, he not only has survived, but his power base within the country has been strengthened substantially.

Since the Gulf war, Dr. Yaphe said, various scenarios for toppling Saddam Hussain failed to reach their intended goal. These schemes generally involved supporting various Iraqi factions militarily and financially, providing safe havens within Iraq, and encouraging Iraqis to revolt en masse and ultimately topple Hussain. The bitter experience of similar past failures in other regions, coupled with the perceived weakness of the Iraqi National Congress, the umbrella organization for Iraqi opposition, she observed, has prompted some to term such a scenario “the bay of goats,” comparing it to the Kennedy administration’s ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1962.

Others have asserted, however, that enlisting regional coalition to aid any future military campaign is not necessary, she continued. Supporters of this theory compare Iraq to Afghanistan, arguing that the presence of U.S. bases on friendly territory in Pakistan was all the U.S. needed to launch its offensive against the Taliban. Similarly, they contend, Turkey is well prepared to fulfill Pakistan’s role. [Turkish Prime Minister Ecevit subsequently said military action against Iraq would be a catastrophe for Turkey.] Once the U.S. puts its political will and power behind a military operation against Saddam, these strategists conclude, all other countries will follow suit.

The problem with such a scenario, according to Dr. Yaphe, is that Iraq is not Afghanistan. Whereas Afghanistan had a failed state, no government and no military, she explained, Iraq has a strong centralized government and an entrenched security apparatus backed by the 30-year reign of the Ba’ath party. There is no equivalent to the Northern Alliance in Iraq, she pointed out, because all Iraqi opposition groups live in exile, with no name recognition. Northern Iraq’s Kurdish population avoids taking any action that may provoke Saddam, Dr. Yaphe said, because it seeks to keep the territory it currently controls.

Dr. Yaphe expressed concern that U.N. weapons inspectors have not operated in Iraq since the summer of 1998. Economic sanctions have deprived Iraq’s economy of $120 billion in oil revenues, she continued, so Saddam must have foregone such a fortune for a good reason: to hide his weaponry from the world. Dr. Yaphe also expressed skepticism toward the team of U.N. weapons inspectors, primarily because “it includes fewer American inspectors.”

According to Dr. Yaphe, the only way Iraqis would rebel against Saddam is if they are sufficiently angry at him. She admitted, however, that the sanctions have tightened Saddam’s grip over the country by diverting Iraqis’ anger against the United States. Dr. Yaphe saw no point in continuing economic sanctions on Iraq, although she cautioned against lifting any scrutiny of Saddam’s military capability.

Without the credible threat of a military strike, Dr. Yaphe warned, Saddam Hussain will remain undeterred. She recommended the targetting of places of high value to Saddam in any future military offensive. Noting that, in the past, schools and mosques have been used to store nuclear weaponry, she nevertheless cautioned against hitting them for fear of potential backlash. Dr. Yaphe also asserted that, before initiating any policy toward Saddam, an overwhelming force would have to be in place nearby.

Dr. Yaphe concluded by saying that there are no clear-cut answers pertaining to America’s strategy toward Iraq. She predicted that it is very likely that the Bush administration will strike Iraq, but not any time soon—not until the administration is fully prepared.

—Asma Yousef