 |
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, March 2005, pages 69-73 Waging Peace Religious Leaders Call For Appointment of Presidential Envoy
AT THE NATIONAL Press Club on Jan. 13, Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders urged President George W. Bush to appoint a special presidential envoy to work full time on peace negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. More than a year earlier, in December 2003, 35 religious leaders formed the National Interreligious Leadership Initiative for Peace (NILIP) to support determined U.S. leadership in the Middle East peace process. A delegation of these leaders, who represent more than 100 million Americans, presented their clear, unified and heart-felt message in Washington, DC and in similar press conferences across the country. The leaders described themselves as united in their support of a viable, independent, democratic Palestinian state alongside the existing state of Israel with enduring peace and security for both sides. They pressed for the implementation of Senate Resolution 477, calling for a reinvigorated and concerted U.S.-led effort for more rapid progress on the road map. In their appeal the religious leaders called on President Bush to:
His Eminence William Cardinal Keeler, archbishop of Baltimore, described the interreligious initiative as an “unprecedented partnership bringing a powerful ethical voice for peace at a critical time.” Rabbi Alvin Sugarman from Atlanta, GA, who said he’d walked through the gates of Auschwitz with Cardinal Keeler, said, “Today we walk together on another road, a road map for peace.” The previous week, Sugarman had joined a hundred imams and rabbis in Brussels to discuss peace in Israel and Palestine. We religious leaders “can stop the violence,” Sugarman said. “The American religious community can stand in silence now or stand up and speak out today.” According to Rabbi Amy Small, president of the Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association, stalling peace negotiations until all the violence stops only gives a “veto” to extremists in this conflict. Mohamed Elsanousi, media relations coordinator for the Islamic Society of North America, added that resolving the Israel/Palestine conflict would reduce terrorism worldwide. The Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick, the stated clerk of the Presbyterian Church (USA), enumerated the tasks required of a special presidential envoy. Bishop Dimitrios of the Greek Orthodox Church of America called for a dramatic increase in international aid to repair damaged infrastructure and “restore hope to those homeless living in despair.” Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center for Reform Judaism, said that there is broad-based support for peace. This is a moment of opportunity, he noted: “If we do not grasp it, it may not come again.” NILIP coordinator Ron Young of Seattle, WA, told reporters that last October these same religious leaders urged Secretary of State Colin Powell to send a full-time peace envoy to Israel and Palestine, just as the United States did in Northern Ireland and Sudan. Most Jewish and Arab Americans endorse similar solutions to the conflict, Young said, and nearly 70 percent of Israelis and Palestinians would accept the same plan. “We really have to overcome the sense that peace is not possible,” he insisted. “Now is the time for the administration to move quickly.” —Delinda C. Hanley Wilcox Calls for President to Work for PeaceAmbassador Philip C. Wilcox, Jr., president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, received the Louis B. Sohn Human Rights Day Award from the United Nations Association, National Capital Area, on Dec. 15, 2004 in the Cannon House Caucus Room. In accepting his award, Wilcox said the Middle East peace process has “gone down in flames.” There is new hope for a resumption of peace talks today, Wilcox said, because “polls show that most Israelis and Palestinians now understand there is only one solution to meet the bottom line needs of both peoples: security for Israel and liberation for the Palestinians in two viable states.” Wilcox added that “there is growing convergence on solutions to the tough problems of settlements, borders, Jerusalem and refugees.” Nonetheless, when it comes to making peace Israelis and Palestinians are deeply conflicted, Wilcox stated. “Intellectually, they accept the essentials for a two-state peace. But emotionally, they have lost faith that this is possible and they are consumed with fear.” They have lost hope, first of all, because the violence on both sides has been devastating, Wilcox explained. “Second,” he continued, “Palestinians thought Oslo would bring an end to occupation and an independent state in 22 percent of former Palestine. But Israel continued to build settlements, doubling the settler populace of the West Bank between 1993 and 2000, when the Oslo process collapsed.” With both sides feeling betrayed, Wilcox said, negotiations collapsed. “Without any political process, to resolve the conflict, both sides turned to violence,” he said. “Extremists on both sides have held the initiative for four years. Through violence and propaganda, they have destroyed hope.” Violence and fear have obscured the fact that there are silent majorities for peace in both societies, Wilcox stated. Many Israelis and Palestinians believe it is time for diplomacy to replace violence. But this won’t happen without strong new American leadership, Wilcox warned: “Quiet diplomacy will not be enough. Nor will resurrection of the road map alone. What is needed is a bold new American initiative that spells out a compelling vision of peace that will restore hope and rally both Israeli and Palestinian majorities.” Thus far, the Bush administration’s approach has been largely passive, if not partisan on behalf of Sharon, Wilcox said. “Alas, too many of our politicians, Republican and Democrat, are still prisoners of the popular wisdom that this issue is just too hot to handle and that activism risks losing votes and dollars. “I don’t believe it,” Wilcox stated. “There is surely a silent majority, even a potential coalition, of American Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and Arab Americans who understand that things are going very badly for Israelis and Palestinians—and, as a result, for the United States. Having worked on this problem for over 25 years, I am convinced that with presidential leadership, this majority would rally to a new American peace initiative if it were wise and fair.” Argued Wilcox, “A bold American peace plan could be a powerful political plus for President Bush, if pursued with skill and empathy and sustained by a senior presidential envoy. “Today there is a window of opportunity,” Wilcox said. “We must not let it close. “Too much passion has been wasted in a partisan blame game. This is a conflict involving two victims. If we Americans cannot grasp this and if we take sides, we become part of the problem, not the solution,” he warned. “So let us try harder to help both Israelis and Palestinians escape from the trauma of their respective catastrophes,” Wilcox urged. “Let us show empathy and respect for both peoples, to help redeem their suffering and rescue them from an otherwise grim future. Let us make good on our pledge to support Israel’s security and its long-range well-being. And let us honor our commitment to justice for the Palestinians. “In doing so,” he concluded, “we will protect American interests, not the least of which is to restore our own reputation as the world’s standard-bearer for peace, equality, and human rights.” —Delinda C. Hanley Former Knesset Speaker Calls for Peace
Saying there is a small window of opportunity for peace in Israel/Palestine, former Deputy Knesset Speaker Naomi Chazan described the role the second Bush administration can play in resolving this conflict. She spoke at a Jan. 21 program held at the Carnegie Endowment for Peace in Washington, DC. Referring to the recent re-elections of both George W. Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, as well as the election of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Chazan described this moment as the most extraordinary convergence of power in Israeli, Palestinian, and U.S. relations since 1967. These three “new, old” governments have an unprecedented chance for peace now, she said. Emphasizing the need to act immediately, Chazan warned that if a just peace is not reached in the next two years, the possibility of a viable two-state solution will be permanently lost. Chazan proceeded to emphasize the necessary role the United States and the international community must play in order to achieve peace. She also noted this is the first time a majority of both Israelis and Palestinians have stated they would support a two-state solution along the lines of the Geneva initiative—but, she pointed out, the Israeli government is not yet there. Despite an insightful and brilliant presentation, Chazan failed to touch upon the fact that Sharon’s projected path of the apartheid wall and expansion of West Bank settlements demonstrate that his goal is not two states, but three isolated Palestinian bantustans in the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, all surrounded by greater Israel. —Christian Richmond Anti-War Protest at Bush Inaugural ParadeFor the first time since American presidential inaugural parades began marching down Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC, an opposition group was allowed to have bleachers to protest along the parade route. But International ANSWER’s (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) anti-war demonstration at the Jan. 20 inauguration of George W. Bush was not an easy feat. After much negotiation and more than one court appearance, ANSWER was granted permits for a stage, sound system, bleachers, and rally at John Marshall Park at the start of the parade route. In a seeming attempt to shut out protesters, however, an inordinate number of obstacles were placed in the way of free speech. In addition to blocking the area to deliveries of a stage, sound equipment and bleachers, the Park Service at the last minute—Jan. 19 at 5 p.m.—required that bicycle racks surround the sound system. Moreover, ANSWER was informed, the bike racks had to be in place by 7 p.m., the deadline for set-up to be completed—and all the racks in Washington already were being used by police and the PIC. A mad dash to Baltimore and back somehow was managed. ANSWER managed to jump every hurdle, and at 7 a.m. inaugural morning volunteers were in place, meeting buses, directing people from the subway stops to the checkpoints, and waiting in line at the checkpoints. Gates opened at 9 a.m. and by 10 ANSWER was hosting a growing rally which eventually comprised about 13,000 people. C-SPAN 2 carried the event live for over four hours as numerous speakers took to the stage. Throughout the day, Brian Becker, ANSWER national coordinator, talked about the correlation between money spent on the war on Iraq and the lack of money for education, healthcare, and housing here in the U.S. Becker called for unity in those opposed to Bush administration policies. Other speakers made similar connections between their causes and the Iraq war, including Macrina Cardenas of the Mexico Solidarity Network, Chuck Kaufman of the Nicaragua Network, Nathlie Hrizi of the National Committee to Free the Cuban Five, and this reporter, speaking about the Palestinian elections and the Bush administration’s push for Middle Eastern democracy. Particularly poignant were parents who had lost their children in Iraq. Michael Berg, Celeste Zappala, and Sue Neiderer. talked about the senselessness of the war. Neiderer said she was speaking at the ANSWER rally to carry out her son’s last message as he left to return to Iraq. He told her that the war was wrong, and the U.S. should immediately pull out. All the speakers called for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Protesters cheered as Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), newly returned to the House, walked on stage. Saying she was glad to be back in the House, she promised not to give up, to do whatever it took to hold the Bush administration, as well as Congress, accountable, and to keep fighting for just U.S. policies both abroad and at home. The informational aspect of the program ended as the parade proceeded down Pennsylvania Avenue. Shouts of ”No Justice No Peace, and U.S. Out of the Middle East” filled the air and continued until the parade was past. See inside back cover for more photos. —Sara Powell MEPC Panel Examines War on Terror
The Middle East Policy Council (MEPC) hosted its 38th Capitol Hill Conference Series on U.S. Middle East policy Jan. 11 at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill. MEPC president Chas. W. Freeman moderated the panel, the theme of which was “Iraq, Afghanistan, and the War on ‘Terror’.” Panelists were Dr. Daniel Byman, an assistant professor at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service; retired Col. W. Patrick Lang, director of Human Intelligence Collection from 1992 to 1994 at the Defense Intelligence Agency; Dr. Anatol Lieven, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; and Michael Scheuer, former chief of the CIA Counter-terrorist Center’s Osama Bin Laden unit. Since Sept. 11, 2001, al-Qaeda’s modus vivendi has evolved, according to Byman. Its “haven in Afghanistan has been severely disrupted,” he noted, and “there is nothing comparable to what existed in Afghanistan.” Secondly, he said, the “permissive environment” for terrorists that existed prior to Sept. 11 no longer persists, but has been replaced by a “worldwide effort against this organization [Al-Qaeda].” Finally, Byman described the effort in the U.S. to actively engage “terrorism” as “much stronger” and “focused.” Overall, he rated Washington’s improvement vis-à-vis the “terrorism mission” to have gone from a pre-Sept. 11, “F” to its current “C.” In the opinion of Michael Scheuer, the formerly “Anonymous” author of Imperial Hubris fame, the U.S. won the battle in Afghanistan, but not the war. The U.S., he maintained, “basically let most of the insurgents—both al-Qaeda and the Taliban—go home with their rifles and other equipment.” Scheuer described the 18,000 American troops remaining in the country as “mostly a garrison.” The lack of an offensive military posture in Afghanistan, he explained, means that “probably two-thirds of Afghanistan is terra incognita to [the U.S.] at the moment.” “There’s no bigger gift we could have given to Osama bin Laden than the invasion of Iraq,” Scheuer continued. “It means now the three most sacred places in Islam are occupied by either the Americans or the Israelis. Whether or not 1.3 billion Muslims support Bin Laden,” he added, “1.3 billion Muslims will be offended by the fact that all of their sanctities are occupied at the moment.”
According to Scheuer, the “leadership vacuum [in the Islamic-Arab world] is something [Bin Laden] has filled up very nicely. Bin Laden has said very clearly, time and again, ‘myself and al-Qaeda cannot beat the Americans alone, we cannot hope to do that. We need a worldwide effort, hitting Americans, hitting their allies, causing disorder.’ And he [bin Laden] said, ‘my role, if I have one, is not as military commander, but as inspirer and instigator.’ “And I think it’s fair to say,” Scheuer concluded, “that it seems, with our help, that he is accomplishing that.” Lieven, who reported on the Chechnya and Afghanistan conflicts for The Times of London, described Afghanistan as a “classic case study of how international jihadis have been able to move into and even colonize a local ethnic conflict.” The best policy for America in Afghanistan, Lieven argued, would be to look at Russia’s involvement in Chechnya and “then do exactly the opposite in each case.” In Lang’s opinion, “The Iraq story is not really so much about Iraq or the international jihadis or any of that stuff; it’s really about us.” Instead of paying heed to the counsel of the intelligence community or the academic community prior to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, he noted, the Bush government “decided, in fact, that it would invade the Iraq of our dreams and this was an Iraq in which we would be welcomed in the streets, we would need very minimal force, there was no requirement for an occupation.” Lastly, Lang said, the American proclivity to aggressively change other people will continue in policy actualization “so long as we refuse to understand that these people [anyone who is not American] have in fact different motivations than we do. They have a different culture, which is absolutely legitimate. They don’t have to be like us, in fact, in order to live good and fruitful lives.” —Brock L. Bevan Lourdes Alvaraz on Arabic Storytelling
The Mosaic Foundation, an American non-profit organization founded by the spouses of the Arab ambassadors to the United States, on Dec. 2 presented the second lecture in its 2004-2005 series entitled “West Looks East: the Influences of Traditional Arab Design.” Hosted at the World Bank’s Infoshop in cooperation with the World Bank-IMF Arab Club, Professor Lourdes Alvarez delivered a lecture on “The Gullible Thief and the Sea of Stories: Arabic Storytelling Traditions and the ‘West.’” Nevine Hassouna, wife of the ambassador of the League of Arab States, introduced Alvarez, who currently is assistant professor of modern languages at the Catholic University of America, located in Washington, DC. Alvarez holds a Ph.D. in Spanish from Yale, and has studied Arabic in Morocco and Egypt. A published scholar on cultural and literary relations between religious and ethnic groups in Islamic Spain, or Al-Andalus, Professor Alvarez discussed the “remarkable spread from East to West” of literature and literary styles. Textual or literary “intermingling” was prevalent in Islamic Spain, she noted, where the three Abrahamic faiths thrived during 700 years of coexistence until 1492, when Castile and Aragon conquered Granada, the last area of Islamic Spain. Much of the Arabic literature which spread to Europe via Islamic Spain had been translated from source material originating farther east, Alvarez explained, in such places as Persia and India. The Panchatantra (five discourses), for instance, originated in ancient India circa 500 CE. A collection of animal fables intended to instruct the sons of royalty, the Panchatantra was first translated into Pahlavi (an ancient form of Persian), then into Syriac, and finally into Arabic around 750 CE. Using the Arabic book Kalila wa Dimna (named after the two jackals who are its main characters) to illustrate her points, Alvarez said the book was the result of one Abdallah Ibn al-Muqaffa’s translation of Indian fables into Arabic. The fables that comprise Kalila wa Dimna are embedded in other stories within the text—an approach, Alvarez said, which has proven to be an “incredibly popular literary device.” Well-known books published in Europe that incorporate elements of Kalila wa Dimna include Don Juan Manuel’s El Conde Lucanor, Giovanni Boccaccio’s Decameron, and Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales. In fact, said Alvarez, the number of times the tales of Kalila wa Dimna have been told and retold in translation is “almost dizzying.” Nor is it only the content of the stories that is borrowed, she pointed out, but the style of framing the stories as well. It is the universality of the stories’ morals, Alvarex concluded, combined with their didacticism, that has allowed them to spread across the globe. —Brock L. Bevan Lecture Looks at Islamic Gardens
Dr. Elin Haaga presented a lecture entitled “Paradise in the Garden: the Influence of the Islamic Garden Today” at the World Bank’s InfoShop auditorium on Jan. 6. Sponsored by the Mosaic Foundation in cooperation with the World Bank-IMF Arab Club, the lecture was the third in the 2004-05 series, “West Looks East: the Influences of Traditional Arab Design.” Haaga, who holds a master’s degree in history from Oxford University, curently is adjunct professor at the George Washington University, where she teaches a course on the history of landscape design. Although “people have not always thought of gardens as an art form,” Haaga noted, their aesthetics have nonetheless been spread across continents. “Unlike a painting which, if grand, will hardly ever be painted over, gardens have often been remade,” she said. As a result, Haaga explained, it is hard “to find [out] exactly what ancient gardens were like.” One way to reconstruct ancient Islamic gardens, she told the audience, has been to examine the “vernacular traditional gardening” in an area in which former gardens existed. By determining the “one way that seems normal” of gardening in a particular area, she said, one can extrapolate and reconstruct the “idea of how the world should look” according to the ancient civilizations that produced the gardens. According to Haaga, Egypt provides a good point of departure for studying the evolution of Islamic gardens. This is because design elements and the particular method of order recur, she said, citing as enduring characteristics enclosure from the outside world; a platform often found with pillars; a water tank or pool in the center of the garden; and fruit-bearing trees. “The idea of an enclosed space with water is obviously very appealing in a hot, dry climate,” noted Haaga. It is Persia, however, that is considered the birthplace of Islamic gardens. “Persian gardens were famed in ancient times,” said Haaga, describing them as “the most famous” and “most beautiful” gardens in the known world. Referring to a garden plan of Cyrus the Great from circa 500 BCE, Haaga explained the basic features of the Persian garden: a cross design cutting the garden into four separate quarters known as Chahar Bagh, the cross-channeled water. The four resultant waterways represented the four rivers of Eden, said Haaga, “creating a whole world” in the enclosed space. Although this type of garden would be transmitted both to Persia’s east (e.g., the Mughal Taj Mahal) and west (e.g., Alhambra), no garden in present-day Iran is as old as the garden at the Alhambra in southern Spain. Paradise (a word which etymologically means a walled compound in the Avestan language) gardens, as Persian gardens are sometimes known, are rectilinear and symmetrical. The orderly arrangement of watercourses and plants provided for “clarity of [the] world around you,” Haaga said. Other elements in Islamic gardens include fruit-bearing trees (e.g., fig, olive, palm, and pomegranate trees), fragrant plants, flowering plants, and music. After the Abbassids massacred the Umayyads at the Battle of the Zab in 750, Haaga said, the remaining Umayyad scion, Abd Al-Rahman, moved to Cordoba and created a separate caliphate. The traditions of Persian gardening which he brought with him eventually would extend throughout Islamic Spain. Spaniards, said Haaga, were “unselfconsciousness” toward Islamic gardens brought to Spain from the East, and this type of garden was considered natural, rather than “Islamic” or “Eastern.” This accounts for its spread, for instance, to the Americas after 1492, Haaga concluded. —Brock L. Bevan |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
