Radicalism is hindering the peace process in the Middle East, as exemplified through the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its associated violence and longevity. Radicalism has played a pivotal role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has perpetuated tension between Arab states and also between Arab states and the West. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been permitted to continue due to the radical support each side of the conflict boasts. Radicalism is the catalyst behind each side’s hatred for the other and it is that radical hatred which hinders progress towards positive change. The difficult aspect however is not identifying the existence of radical support, but rather recognizing the complexities of where the support is coming from. The United States and Palestinian territories have complex radical support systems, and because the magnitude of support on both sides is high, its impact on the conflict is severe. The longevity and violence of the Israel-Palestinian conflict can be greatly attributed to the radicalism within the United States’ support for Israel, and Hamas’ aspirations for its defeat.
The conflict is typically thought to have two sides, Israel and the Palestinian Territories, and while the United States is often figured into the equation, the source of American support is rarely analyzed. American support for Israel is a matter of public knowledge. It is often ostracized and applauded by allies and adversaries alike but the reason that support is so unwavering in strength is mistakenly not part of the common discourse. The two main sources of radical support for Israel from the United States come from the Israel Lobby in Washington and the conservatives who make it so powerful in the Christian community.
There is a powerful relationship between the right-wing Christian community, namely the Evangelical community, and the state of Israel. It is not only American Jews who make up the Israel Lobby, as many prominent Christian leaders who feel very strongly about supporting Israel. The term “Christian Zionism” is relatively new, however the reality of the term is profound.1 (4) The group is defined as “a formidable voting bloc of conservative republicans whose support for Israel is based on biblical interpretations.”2 Some of this support coming from these Christian Zionists is radical in nature as their connection to Israel relates to fundamentalist sects of the Christian faith. It must be noted that Evangelical support for Israel is not out of good will, it is support deeply seeded self interest. Many fundamental Christians believe that through advocating for Israel they are earning God’s blessing, and that the United States is blessed and cursed according to their degree of support for the Jewish state.3 As religious leader Jerry Falwell explains, “God has blessed America, because America has blessed the Jew.”4 Evangelicals feel such purpose in supporting Israel because they believe the wrath of God will be upon them if they do not. From their perspective, America has been the least anti-Semitic nation in the West, and in order to uphold the blessing of God, that must continue.
Fundamental support for Israel in the Christian community is only one half of the issue. Their support for Israel may be blind and radical, but their distrust and hatred for the Palestinian people is just as disturbing. Several prominent evangelical leaders have denounced not only radical Islam but Islam in its entirety. After the tragic events of 9/11, son of Franklin Graham, the son of Billy Graham, deemed Islam a “very evil and wicked religion”.5 On 60 Minutes, Jerry Falwell referred to the prophet Mohammad as a terrorist.6 Many Christians in support of Israel also supported Bush’s War on Terror campaign and war in Iraq. They are wildly optimistic that the United States can manage to win over the Iraqi people, institute democracy by force, and create an ally in the Middle East. In contrast, that attitude disappears when discussing the Palestinians, who they consider beyond reform and merely an obstacle to achieving a full Jewish return to their homeland. Realistically, the daunting task America took on when entering Iraq pales in comparison to achieving peace in the Middle East. What perhaps is the most radical of Christian thinking is that the United States and its fundamentalist supporters believe their military can overtake the nation of Iraq, overthrow its leader, earn the respect of its people and form a friendly government. However there is no faith in brokering peace between Israel and Palestine. Radicalism is rampant in American support for Israel. The fact that religious and lobbying groups can influence the government to endanger national security is truly frightening and likely best explains why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has experienced such violent longevity.
When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited the United States during the Clinton administration it was not Clinton with whom he first visited. Instead he met with Christian leader Jerry Falwell and his evangelical, pro-Israel followers. Falwell is considered a forefather of Christian Zionism and boats a large following. In turn, he has power in Washington and also expresses his desire to use that power when necessary. He knows full well what power Christian Zionists wield and stated, “There’s nothing that would bring the wrath of the Christian public in this country down on this government like abandoning or opposing Israel in a critical matter.”7 For instance, in April 2002 when President Bush called on Israel to withdraw tanks from the West Bank, Falwell and his conservative base sent thousands of letters of protest to the White House. Israel did not move its tanks as per Bush’s request, nor did he ask again.8 Whether referred to as conservatives, Christians, or Christian Zionists, those who support Israel on a purely religious basis have developed a strong influence on foreign policy, which is the next subject of analysis.
For decades, American support for Israel has been questioned, especially their financial support for the Jewish state which has developed into an economically sound nation. Israel is fully economically, militarily and socially prosperous however it continues to receive billions of dollars out of the United States foreign aid budget. John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt co-authored a controversial book, looking into the Israel lobby and its power. In their offensive against the lobby, the authors make some bold accusations. One notable excerpt reads, “Thanks to the Lobby, the United States has become the de facto enabler of Israeli expansion in the Occupied Territories, making it complicit in the crimes perpetrated against the Palestinians.”9 In other words, now the U.S. has blood on its hands due to the lobbying taking place in Washington. The book faced intense criticism from within the United States and abroad because it reveals the influence of the lobby on the United States government. The authors aimed to reduce the taboo surrounding the topic as they echo the thoughts of many in claiming that the lobby is not helping the United States, Israel, or the Palestinians. As outlined in the book, Israel receives about $3 billion in direct assistance each year, roughly one-fifth of the foreign aid budget, and worth about $500 a year for every Israeli.10 The numbers can only be described as radical. If congress were to propose that the American government send similar amounts of money to comparative economies like Spain, the idea would be comical. However for decades, what is referred to as the “Israel Budget” has been untouchable. No administration can even think of reducing support or they will suffer at the hands of the Israel lobby which consists of extremely powerful Jewish members of society and industry. The support is not limited to monetary aid and is also manifested in international forums. Since 1982, the US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members.11 The reasoning behind the power of the lobby is simple. The Jewish population, albeit small, has a high voter turnout and is remarkably wealthy. Thus, when it comes to campaign funding and support, both parties look towards the lobby and Jewish Americans. The main issue here is not that the United States is spending money or that politicians receive funding, it is the fact that America is being influenced to act it what may not be its best interest. For example, when settlement freezes are ignored or a war takes place, all sides lose. The Israelis more hatred in the Palestinian community and take lives and the United States threatens its own national security by angering Muslims globally. It is terrifying for the United States that a special interest group like the Israel lobby can have such an extraordinary strangle hold on American foreign policy.
In the West Bank, Fatah refuses to negotiate over land as it is being taken away by the Israelis, and Netanyahu is wise enough to know that he can get away with it. He is American educated and highly aware of the situation in the United States. The United States can only express a minimal level of displeasure in regards to settlement expansion. If America were to forcefully speak out and condemn Israeli policy the Obama administration would be committing political suicide. The Israeli government utilizes the Israel Lobby in the United States to its full advantage and that is why it is so dangerous. Obama, like his predecessors, is powerless in the situation because the more pressure he puts on Israel, the more pressure he receives domestically in regards to the Israel Lobby.12 When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refused a settlement freeze, President Obama backed down. And his decision to back off “pleased his political advisers, who fear that any pressure on Israel will result in diminished campaign donations for the 2012 re-election campaign.”13 The article goes on to suggest that Obama should ignore the lobby and draft an American plan for peace and unless accepted, Israel funding will be cut.14 This simple tactic of motivation would work; however never will happen until the lobby is ignored. The Israel lobby is a very real power in Washington. Despite the best efforts of its members to question its own existence deem its opposition anti-Semites, there is no doubt that the lobby does exist and its influence on the American administration is unmatched among interest groups.
On the Palestinian side, support comes in incredibly different ways from a wide array of governments, groups, and global actors. However, the radicalism on the Palestinian side largely stems from Hamas, and arguably Fatah and Iran as well. It is important to differentiate between global support for the plight of Palestinians and radical support for Islamism and the defeat of the Jewish State. Within Palestine, radical support comes from Hamas and Fatah, although in recent years Hamas has solidified its position has the Islamist voice for Palestinians. Radical support exists outside of Palestine as well from the current Iranian leadership and fundamentalists across the Middle East who identify with the Palestinian side of the conflict. Although, the greatest source of radicalism pertaining directly to the conflict is Hamas, the domestically popular Islamist military, social, and political party.
The first step towards understanding the radicalism within the Palestinian side of the conflict is recognizing the divide within the Palestinian people. Throughout most of the conflict, the Palestinian cause was commonly voiced by the Palestinian Liberation Organization and its leader Yasser Arafat. However in recent years, as segregation of the Palestinian people into the West Bank and Gaza became more pronounced, the people within those territories have split ideologically. The Palestinians have traditionally been perceived as a united front against Israel, and the media has reported on the conflict based on this assumption. The PLO developed into what is now known as Fatah which dominates the West Bank, and Hamas who has gained control of the Gaza Strip. Hamas surprisingly won the elections 2006 and took over control of Gaza the following year after violent clashes with Fatah, who was unwilling to hand over power. The differences between these two groups go deeper than political misunderstandings. The two are engaged in a “bitter battle in a wider power struggle between two rival Palestinian factions known to hold to diametrically different ideological positions.”15 The driving force behind Hamas, which means “Islamic Resistance Movement”, is radical Islam.16 Fatah on the other hand operates under the brand of Palestinian nationalism that desires a permanent and bordered Palestinian state. While there is nothing inheritingly dangerous about the desire for statehood, Fatah and nationalism have been responsible for numerable acts of violence and conflict. It is arguably the failure of Fatah which brought about the perceived need for a group like Hamas. Islamic fundamentalism may very well have “its roots in the failure of Muslim nationalism.”17 Regardless, both groups have employed violence and are not above borrowing bits and pieces of ideology from each other, but the focus of this analysis is on radicalism, not violence.
Radical Islam is an “expansionist and utopian ideology that often justifies violence in the name of what is commonly recognized as a peaceful religion”.18 Islamists seek a united Muslim global polity under the leadership of a caliph that would lead to world domination. The spread of Islamism is of great concern to the United States and the West in general but arguably poses an even greater threat to Palestinian progress. Hamas has been deemed a terrorist organization by much of the Western world, and neither the United States nor Israel will consider it a legitimate party to negotiate with. Hamas claims that it desires an end to Israel as a state, and Israel refuses to negotiate with terrorists who want them wiped off the map. The very principle of negotiation with Israel is offensive to Hamas, and Fatah’s diplomatic efforts have earned the ire of their radical opposition.19 Hamas capitalized on the anti-Israel sentiment among the Palestinian people, as they quickly realized that rejection of Israeli existence earned them support. However this extreme stance, however good for the short term support, has hurt the longevity of their political power. Early into gaining relevance, Hamas organized a series of ultra violent attacks on Israel. In 1989 alone, Hamas kidnapped Israeli soldiers, stabbed a soldier to death, hijacked and crashed a bus in Tel-Aviv killing 16 and then later in the year killed five IDF soldiers.20 Hamas’ use of violence has been effective in two areas: increasing support within Palestine, and feeding into the hatred and radicalism in the opposition.
For every Hamas attack there is an Israeli response, more American funding, and another settlement built. And for every Israeli offensive there is an increased turn towards Islamism and violence. The two sides are caught in a deadly cycle that has yet to result in any true gains for Israelis or Palestinians. Jonathan Schanzer writes “only by rejecting the platforms of both parties will the Palestinian people behind to break the self destructive cycle”.21 Younger Palestinians of a more educated and aware generation must enter the political realm and shift those in Gaza and the West Bank towards diplomatic peace. The tactics and ideology of Fatah and Hamas need to be thrown out entirely as the conflict has evolved in complexity and scope since the 1980s. A united, moderate voice is desperately needed so radicalism can finally lose power and be removed from the equation. Again, it is clear that Fatah and Hamas have both resorted to violence, and in sheer casualty numbers, Arafat and his revolutionary PLO caused more death than Hamas ever has. The PLO was also the original radical force in Palestine. According to their 1964 Charter their goals included the “eradication of Israel’s economic political, military, and cultural existence.”22 What Hamas needs to do, much like the PLO did when transforming into Fatah is become less extreme, whether it is real change or merely perceived. It is all about perception and as long as Hamas embraces their role as radical Islamists, they are not doing their supporters or the peace process any favours.
Islam’s role the Middle East’s progress is profound and carries several unflattering misnomers—extremism, conservatism, Islamism, fundamentalism, and militant Islam. Whichever brand name preferred, Islam is undoubtedly heading in a dangerous direction in Palestine. It is thought by Middle Easterners and Westerners alike that Israel, despite its low approval among Muslims, is in fact good for Muslims. Israel provides Muslims and Arabs with a much needed common enemy, and without Israel to fight against, Middle Eastern nations would fight between themselves. Whether this argument is valid or not, which it very likely may be, it exposes what is wrong with the Middle East. Sure, Israel is a common enemy and for good reason but it has served as more than just that. It provides Islamists with a cause for violence and a reason to support extremism. As nations bond against Israel, they are being distracted from home-grown problems that are quite frankly more threatening than Israel. If the Middle East truly wants progress, something profound must happen. The common enemy needs to change from Israel to Islamism, and if it does not, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will continue.
Despite this paper focusing on radicalism within the support coming from the United States and Palestine, radicalism certainly exists within Israel as well. In regards to support of Israel coming from within the Jewish state itself, there is a very strong part of the population in strict allegiance with the notion that the land is rightfully theirs, including the land currently inhabited by Palestinians. Since achieving statehood, Israel has been supported by radicals within their own government and people. Radical proponents for settlement expansion and the oppression of the Palestinian people have prevented a successful peace process from unfolding. Israel has had one revolutionary leader in Yitzhak Rabin who was internationally lauded for his genuine efforts for peaceful co-existence in a two-state solution. He was assassinated by a Jewish extremist who felt, like many others did at the time, that Rabin was conceding too much to the Palestinians. The death of Rabin derailed a very promising peace process and gave power to the radicals on all sides. Before and after Rabin, Israeli leaders have showed minimal interest in peace and continue to strengthen the mutual hatred that fuels the conflict. An interesting fact and maybe even the trick to Rabin’s attempts at brokering peace: he was not religious. For the betterment of all parties involved, all fundamentalists should give up cursing each other and transform their hatred into furious prayer for another leader like Rabin.
Today Pakistani madrasas (Islamic schools) alone churn out more than one million graduates per year experts in jihadi ideology.23 Is this alarming? Yes. But similar numbers can be found globally for Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and the like. Perhaps the key element to the Middle East discussion is to simply agree to disagree, a mantra that Israel and Palestine should have adopted long ago.
There is deeply rooted irony or maybe more accurately hypocrisy in the global conflict between Christians, Arabs, and Jews. Each religious group is labelling an opposing group as radical and religiously driven all the while each group acts according to a literal interpretation of their holy book. As history tells it, the Jewish people flocked to the Middle East to fulfill a desire for a Jewish state due to a history of persecution throughout Europe and other parts of the world. Christians, most vigorously in the United States, support the Jewish people in their permanent relocation. They felt guilty for the allowing the holocaust to happen and the bible calls for a Jewish return to Jerusalem. The result of Jewish immigration to Palestine was uprooting of indigenous Arabs living in the area who eventually turn to radical Islam in the form of Hamas after nationalism fails with Fatah. Essentially, the Jews and Christians support the Jewish state based on a literal translation of the bible and torah in the same breath condemn the Islamists trying to defend it through a literal interpretation of the Qur’an. There is obvious radicalism on all sides of the conflict and once leaders recognize it and figure out a way to bypass it politically and socially, a peace process may finally come to fruition.
Bibliography
Baylis, Thomas. The Dark Side of Zionism: Israel's Quest for Security Through Dominance. United States: Lexington Books, 2009. Print.
Ensalco, Mark. Middle Eastern Terrorism:From Black September to Sepember 11th. Philadelphia: University Of Pennsylvania Press, 2008. Print.
Gupta, Dipak K. Understanding Terrorism and Political Violence. New York, NY: Routledge, 2008. Print.
Lee, Melvin E. "The Fallacy of Grievance Based Terrorism." The Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2008. Web. <http://www.meforum.org/1830/the-fallacy-of-grievance-based-terrorism>.
Lipsky, Louis. Thirty Years of American Zionism. Arno Press Inc, 1977. Print
Marranci, Gabriele. "Reading Islamic Fundamentalism: Theories, Theorums and Kernals of Truth." Understanding Muslim Identity: Renthinking Fundamentalism. England: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. 55-77. Web.
Mearsheimer, John. "The Israel Lobby." London Review Of Books, 10 Mar. 2006. Web. <http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby>.
Mohaddessin, Mohammad. Islamic Fundamentalism. Washington D.C: Seven Locks Press, 1993. Print.
Rosenberg, MJ. "Jerusalem Bombing: Obama Must Act Now." Al-Jazeera English, 24 Mar. 2011. Web. <http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/201132475022188112.html#>.
Schanzer, Johnathan. Hamas Vs. Fatah: The Struggle for Palestine. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press, 2008. Print.
Stephen, Spector. Evangelicals and Israel: The Story of American Christian Zionism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.
1 Stephen, Spector. Evangelicals and Israel: The Story of American Christian Zionism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print. Page 2.
2 Stephen, Spector. Evangelicals and Israel: The Story of American Christian Zionism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print. Page 2
3 Ibid. Page 24.
4 Ibid
5 Stephen, Spector. Evangelicals and Israel: The Story of American Christian Zionism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print. Page 76.
6 Stephen, Spector. Evangelicals and Israel: The Story of American Christian Zionism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print. Page 76.
7 Mckay, Mary J. "Zion's Christian Soldiers." CBS News, 8 June 2003. Web. <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/03/60minutes/main524268.shtml>.
8 Mckay, Mary J. "Zion's Christian Soldiers." CBS News, 8 June 2003. Web. <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/03/60minutes/main524268.shtml>.
9 Mearsheimer, John. "The Israel Lobby." London Review Of Books, 10 Mar. 2006. Web. <http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby>.
10 Ibid
11 Mearsheimer, John. "The Israel Lobby." London Review Of Books, 10 Mar. 2006. Web. <http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby>.
12 Rosenberg, MJ. "Jerusalem Bombing: Obama Must Act Now." Al-Jazeera English, 24 Mar. 2011. Web. <http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/201132475022188112.html#>.
13 Rosenberg, MJ. "Jerusalem Bombing: Obama Must Act Now." Al-Jazeera English, 24 Mar. 2011. Web. <http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/201132475022188112.html#>.
14 Ibid
15 Schanzer, Johnathan. Hamas Vs. Fatah: The Struggle for Palestine. NY, NY: St. Martin's Press, 2008. Print. Page 2
16 Ibid. Page 5.
17 Marranci, Gabriele. "Reading Islamic Fundamentalism: Theories, Theorums and Kernals of Truth." Understanding Muslim Identity: Renthinking Fundamentalism. England: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. 55-77. Print
18 Schanzer, Jonathan. Hamas Vs. Fatah: The Struggle for Palestine. NY, NY: St. Martin's Press, 2008. Print. Page 5.
19 Schanzer, Jonathan. Hamas Vs. Fatah: The Struggle for Palestine. NY, NY: St. Martin's Press, 2008. Print. Page 6.
20 Ibid. Page 32.
21 Schanzer, Jonathan. Hamas Vs. Fatah: The Struggle for Palestine. NY, NY: St. Martin's Press, 2008. Print. Page26
22 Ibid
23 Lee, Melvin E. "The Fallacy of Grievance Based Terrorism." The Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2008. Web. <http://www.meforum.org/1830/the-fallacy-of-grievance-based-terrorism>.
No comments:
Post a Comment