Skip to content
ELCA Blogs

Peace Not Walls

Ha’aretz: The New UN Process Begins in July

Ha’aretz: Palestinians plan to approach UN Security Council about statehood in July

In addition to the article itself, the 300+ comments are quite interesting. It appears that Palestinian leadership has succeeded in changing the terms of the debate.

 

Additionally, AFP reports that there will be finalization of a Palestinian unity government by June 6. Developments in the region are swift and serious.

 

 

 

Doubling Down: The U.S. Commitment to the Peace Process

Greetings to you this U.S. Memorial Day. In addition to remembering those whose lives have been lost defending the United States, this is an important day to recognize “the things that make for peace” (Luke 19:42). In these days after a series of speeches on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from both President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu, those things again seem hidden from our eyes.

President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu

President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu

We are in a rapidly changing diplomatic climate. The “Arab Spring” has upset the balance of known relationships in the Middle East. From a “realist” foreign policy perspective, this is a time for reassessing the value of long-standing and emerging allies while measuring known and emerging threats to U.S. economic and national security interests. In such a climate, recognizing and promoting “the things that make for peace” becomes even more challenging.

Every relationship in the region is up for negotiation. This includes the U.S. relationship with the State of Israel and the Palestinian people. Many are questioning the proposition that the only path to peace is through a U.S.-controlled peace process. These questions are beginning to change minds. Why else would Michael Oren, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, publish an article in Foreign Policy calling Israel a “partner par excellence” and arguing that “America needs Israel now more than ever”?

Instead of taking the opportunity to challenge the policies of the State of Israel, the Obama Administration has decided to double down on its traditional, unwavering support. The February U.S. veto of a UN Security Council resolution on Israeli settlements pushed one stack of chips into the center of the table. The recent speeches by President Obama (at the State Department and before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) offered up another.

But why? Why is this moment in history passing without a significant challenge to the patently illegal practices of the State of Israel in the territories it has occupied since 1967? To answer this question, foreign policy calculations must be taken into account. But that is not sufficient. There is something unique to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which constrains American foreign policy at this critical juncture: the peace process itself.

The plot is complicated. Luckily, George Mitchell, the Obama Administration’s former U.S. Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, recently provided a “Cliff’s Notes” synopsis of the Obama Administration’s current approach to Israel and Palestine. In his May 26 interview with Charlie Rose, Mitchell provided the key to understanding the logic informing current realities, at least from the U.S. perspective. The upshot: it’s all about Israel.

Mitchell carefully explained that President Obama’s recent speech took place within the context of both the Arab Spring and Palestinian efforts to receive recognition as a state in September through the UN General Assembly. As Mitchell put it bluntly: “President Obama is trying to head off a train wreck at the UN in September.” The rest of the interview makes it clear that the disastrous effects of Palestinian efforts at the UN will be visited not on the Palestinians, but on the United States and the State of Israel.

Graphic: Foreign Policy Magazine

During the interview, Mitchell mentioned three threats to the State of Israel: 1) demographic realities which threaten either the democratic or Jewish nature of the state; 2) rapid developments in weapons technology, especially missiles; and 3) the increasing isolation of the State of Israel on the international scene. He mentions that this international isolation is problematic for the United States as well. Ambassador Oren’s proud claim that Israel is the “ultimate ally” of the United States comes with consequences.

At the same time President Obama enunciates the principles of self-determination for others in the region, the United States is putting its full effort into derailing Palestinian progress toward September. In addition to providing incentives for Palestinians to abandon this path and return to the negotiating table, Mitchell shared that, diplomatically, the administration is seeking to persuade other countries to not support the effort. Because positive recognition through the UN would “only deepen the crisis from Israel’s standpoint,” the Obama Administration’s efforts have “one objective: making it more likely we can get a peace agreement—a meaningful, sustainable peace—than these other actions can ultimately provide.”

And there it is. The potential “train wreck at the UN in September” will be most damaging to Israel, to the United States, and, most fatally, to the “peace process” itself. Nevertheless, the highest goal of the Obama Administration relative to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict appears to be preservation of the process. Only a process managed by the United States, for which Israel claims to be an “ultimate ally,” can sufficiently assuage Israel’s sense of “crisis.”

One can forgive Palestinian leaders for not accepting the premise that such a process will lead to an agreement which honors the best interests of their people. Their incremental move away from this slanted negotiation table toward the broad multilateralism of the United Nations—described by those tending to the peace process as an act of brazen unilateralism—is at least reasonable. As Mitchell said, “Salaam Fayyad is a truly outstanding leader.”

The problem we are facing is a lack of imagination of what comes next, after the current peace process is recognized to have ended. It ended, in fact, with the U.S. veto in February, forcing Palestinians to decisively seek another path. Even if Palestinian efforts toward September are successfully forestalled, what happens after the train wreck finally occurs and the present U.S.-Israeli goals of extending hegemony and projecting power are exposed as irreconcilable with the goal of delivering sustainable peace?

Instead of recognizing the things that make for peace for Israel and Palestine, the United States remains locked in a struggle to preserve its control of a peace process that appears to have run its course. U.S. policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is caught in a feedback loop, the content of which is less and less convincing to the international community. It is time for the United States to finally recognize “the things that make for peace” in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and work toward a Palestinian state that is just as viable as any of its neighbors. If U.S. policy is formed by a government of its people, that recognition is up to you.

Rev. Robert O. Smith, Ph.D.
Coordinator, Peace Not Walls initiative of the ELCA

 

NILI Urges President Obama to Visit Jerusalem and Restart Talks

The National Interreligious Leadership Initiative for Peace in the Middle East (NILI), a high level group of religious leaders of Christians, Muslims and Jews, which includes the Rev. Mark S. Hanson, the presiding bishop of the ELCA, is urging President Obama to visit Jerusalem and re-start peace talks now.  They wrote a letter and an ad to appear this week.  The ad states:

We are Jewish, Christian and Muslim national religious leaders united in support of strong U.S. leadership for a two-state solution before it is too late. 

We urge you to visit Jerusalem and the region soon to meet with Israeli and Palestinian leaders to restart negotiations focused on the principles and ideas in the Israeli Peace Initiative, the earlier Arab Peace Initiative and the Geneva Accord.

We believe the United States, in coordination with the Quartet, should continue to respond carefully to the new Palestinian unity agreement and not act precipitously to cut off aid to the Palestinians. The unity government must commit itself to rejecting violence and negotiating a two-state peace agreement with Israel. 

We pledge our prayers and public support for active, fair and firm U.S. leadership for peace and we will urge Congress to support this effort.

NILI supports a two-state solution to the conflict that brings security and recognition to Israel and establishes a viable and independent state for the Palestinians—two states living side by side in peace and security—with peace agreements between Israel and all her Arab neighbors.

Download letter  |  Download ad

Palestinian President Abbas on a Palestinian State

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, in an op-ed in the New York Times, talks about the importance and international legitimacy of a Palestinian state.  Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu takes issue with him and his account of history.  President Abbas does leave out the detail that the Arabs did reject the UN partition plan on the basis that it gave half of the land to the Jewish state when only a fraction of the land was owned by Jewish people.

ELCA Presiding Bishop Joins Interfaith Call for Middle East Peace

The Rev. Mark S. Hanson, presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), and 32 Jewish, Muslim and Christian leaders, said in a letter that a new peace initiative by former Israeli government, intelligence and security officials offers a useful sign for Middle East peace. The leaders, writing as the National Interreligious Leadership Initiative for Peace in the Middle East (NILI), sent the letter to President Obama April 14.

Speaking of the latest Israeli initiative, as well as the Arab Peace Initiative and the Geneva Accord, the leaders said:  “The main elements of these peace initiatives reflect years of official and informal, unofficial negotiations,” the religious leaders wrote. They wrote that “the peace initiatives include creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, based on the 1967 borders with possible limited land swaps as mutually agreed; a fair negotiated resolution of the issue of refugees that does not threaten the demography of Israel; the sharing of Jerusalem by Israel and the Palestinian state with both having their capitals in the city; and Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights as part of a peace agreement with Syria.”

NILI is an initiative composed of a broad range of Jewish, Christian and Muslim national organizations in support of a common, substantive message for Middle East peace.  It’s focus is on building support for strong U.S. leadership for a two-state solution to the conflict that brings security and recognition to Israel and establishes a viable and independent state for the Palestinians—two states living side by side in peace and security—with peace agreements between Israel and all her Arab neighbors.

Pressure for a Viable Peace Plan

On Apirl 19, the Los Angeles Times printed a report detailing growing international pressure on the State of Israel to produce a viable proposal that would renew negotiations toward the establishment of a Palestinian state. The plan will most likely be unveiled in a speech by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. This policy speech might be delivered before a joint session of the U.S. Congress.

One might think that a speech signaling a different Israeli approach to peace-building with Palestinian neighbors might best be delivered to an audience of Palestinians. Or, at least, that such a speech might be delivered in Israel.

Here in Chicago, “The Friendly Confines” refers to Wrigley Field, home of the ever-hopeful Cubs. It seems that for PM Netanyahu, there is no friendlier place on earth than the U.S. Congress. The likelihood that this speech will be delivered in the U.S. to a U.S. audience should give U.S. citizens a clue about their government’s role in perpetuating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its preference for Israeli perspectives.

Whenever the speech might be delivered, details of the “Netanyahu Plan” are being leaked to elicit response. Yesterday, in response to some unofficial details, Palestinian Anglican Christian and Palestinian Liberation Organization leader Hanan Ashrawi, said that the plan already seems to be little more than “a reinvention of Israel’s occupation.”

Christians in the United States should be careful, then, when Netanyahu’s speech is finally delivered. Some will hail him as a courageous leader for peace. Others will criticize him for giving too much away to the Palestinians. But watch carefully about details of where the speech is made. Why should it be assumed that an oration about Palestinians which cannot bear being recited to Palestinians would come close to addressing their most basic needs? If such a speech is indeed given in the chamber of our country’s legislative branch — to an audience of our elected representatives — how will we be implicated in what will follow?

Follow The Leader…Now Who’s The Leader Again?

The NPR program, All Things Considered, had an interesting segment last Wednesday about the peace process in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The title, “U.S. Hopes To Jump-Start Israel-Palestinian Talks,” is a bit misleading since the piece discusses a multitude of potential options and justifications for the way forward in this region of the world.

The most interesting point for me was the potential for quite a few “leaders” in the process to emerge. Will the US be at the forefront? Will the Palestinians opt to go through channels at the UN? Will Israel unilaterally make a move? How will the other actors in the Middle East position themselves in this new environment? Definitely worth checking out.

Read and/or Listen to the Segment

New Israeli Peace Initiative (IPI)

Today prominent leaders within Israeli society will officially reveal a new Israeli Peace Initiative (pdf). This initiative is meant to be a response to the Arab Peace Initiative issued by the Arab League in 2002 and again in 2007. Though it does not get in to much detail it is broad in its scope touching on issues from refugees to Jerusalem to the Golan Heights.

It has been officially welcomed by both Americans for Peace Now and J Street. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also received a copy on Sunday and is reported as saying he looks forward to reading it.

For more information read the NY Times article Prominent Israelis Will Propose a Peace Plan.

The State of Israel in a post-Mubarak, post-Goldstone world

Ha’aretz blogger Natasha Mozgovaya has recently published an interesting article on the range of Israeli policy options presented to the annual conference of the Anti-Defamation League. The headline is a bit misleading, I think; the fascinating thing here is the diversity of opinion on what Israel should do in this moment of history. The options range from unilaterally separating from Palestinians to embracing the change sweeping across the region by developing stronger diplomatic relationships. There is no question that the landscape of the Middle East is changing. Because of its broad base of political, military and economic power, many paths are available to the State of Israel. And because of that power, its chosen path will have implications for many.

Expediting the Expansions

Today, the Israeli government announced that another 942 housing units had been approved for construction in Gilo, one of the largest illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank. According to several newspapers, including Ha’aretz and the New York Times, the plan was approved by the Jerusalem Planning and Building Committee on Monday, April 4. Normally, follow-up votes can occur months after the committee approval; in this case, the vote has been scheduled for the next Tuesday.

An Israeli army crane loads a part of a concrete wall in the Jewish neighborhood of Gilo in Jerusalem, Sunday, Aug. 15, 2010. (Photo by: AP)

This expedited schedule indicates a rush to approve and start construction on land claimed by Israeli settlers before Israelis and Palestinians achieve any substantive progress toward the establishment of Palestinian statehood. Many peace plans, such as the recently announced “Israeli Peace Initiative” (prepared in response to the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002) indicate that, in Jerusalem, “Jewish neighborhoods shall be under Israeli sovereignty; the Arab neighborhoods shall be under Palestinian sovereignty.” (more…)