RE: [Futurework] More nuance, less fury (was Riots in Riyadh?)

[Karen Watters Cole]

A Friend To the Other Israel By Yoel Esteron, Washington Post OpEd, Monday, November 3, 2003; Page A19 The writer is managing editor of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz TEL AVIV -- Was it only a bad dream? Just seven months ago, my girls, the grandchildren of Holocaust survivors who barely escaped the gas chambers of Auschwitz, left for school every morning with gas masks slung over their shoulders. Actually, for several weeks, all the citizens of Israel were instructed to carry their gas masks around with them 24 hours a day. The Iraqi threat may have been imaginary, but the fear was real. Saddam Hussein lobbed missiles at Israel in 1991 and had no qualms about using chemical weapons to suppress the Kurdish uprising in Halabja in 1988. He never gave up his dream of equipping his country with unconventional arms and "incinerating Tel Aviv," as he put it. So if there was fear, it was not some kind of weird paranoia. Maybe Hussein's hidden arsenal will be found one day and maybe it won't. For the moment, it seems that, in March 2003, he didn't have the means to carry out that dream of his and that the Iraqi threat was all bluff and bluster. One thing is clear: We are no longer afraid of Iraqi missiles. That threat is gone from the skies of Israel and the entire Middle East, and for that we are grateful to the Bush administration and U.S. troops. As the United States passionately debates whether or not the war was justified, one fact is not in dispute: In the Middle East today there is one less dangerous and ruthless tyrant -- which is nothing to sneer at. The American victory in Iraq has not eliminated all our fears. Foreign reporters are impressed by our stamina, by our ability to live with day-to-day Palestinian terror. The truth is that many Israelis have become as numb to terror as they are to traffic accidents, swiftly returning to their normal routine. But the fear doesn't disappear. It controls our lives and exacts a terrible price. We are emotionally drained and gripped by despair at the thought that we could be doomed to live with this bloody conflict forever. The Americans understand our predicament, and we are grateful to the United States for being our friend. In a world where Israel is vilified and cursed, treated almost like a leper, American friendship is a source of hope and faith. Looking more closely at U.S.-Israeli relations, however, it turns out that things are more complicated. The Bush administration, with its avid support of Israel, is also helping the Sharon government to sit on its hands and do nothing to promote a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Washington has drawn up a "road map," but after a succession of sickening attacks on Israeli cities, not to mention America's troubles in Iraq, the Bush team has lost its desire to push Israel into following that map. There are many people, of course, who believe that the political track cannot advance while human bombs are blowing people to shreds. After this kind of bloodbath, I admit, even the peaceniks shake with fury and despair. But fury and despair are bad advisers. Without political dialogue and the creation of hope for the Palestinians' national aspirations, only bombs will talk. Bush is helping the Israeli government, but which Israel stands to gain? There are two Israels. One wants to control all the land from the Jordan to the sea, step up the building of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza and deny the legitimate rights of the Palestinians. The other Israel is satisfied with a Jewish state inside the Green Line and prepared to live in peace alongside a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. The Sharon government represents the Israel of the settlers. But most Israelis, according to surveys conducted over the past decade, favor the second option. They expect the United States to keep up its warm and greatly appreciated friendship, for which there is no substitute, but also to act in a way that will serve their most precious interests -- which are not necessarily those of the current government. What does that mean? It means a more complex, nuanced American policy. Vigorously coming to Israel's aid when it is attacked? Certainly. Understanding and support for the unique predicament of the Jewish state? Of course. But at the same time, genuine pressure on the Sharon government to stop the building in the settlements, ease the plight of the Palestinians and give them hope, and put forward some political plan that they can accept. To liberate this region from the fear of Saddam Hussein, Bush sent over hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops. To stop the insanity of suicide bombings we need sharp thinking -- not aircraft carriers. The question is whether Bush can come up with a policy that will further peace without harming U.S. friendship with Israel. We will be very grateful. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55092-2003Nov2.html   Yes, absolutely, and here is just another indication of how it divides and why we must pursue a peaceful resolution:   Poll controversy as Israel and US labelled biggest threats to World peace - 30.10.2003 - 17:41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The European Commission is coming under fire for publishing selective poll results while failing to release results which revealed the extent of the mistrust of Israel and the United States in Europe.   Article >> http://euobs.com/?aid=13324&rk=1   Before we can get beyond this, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has to be resolved, annoying as it may be....   Lawry Yes, everything is really about a small country 4,000 years ago in the middle of a desert.    Can't we get beyond this?    There are other ways and we can learn from each other.   REH In my more gloomy moments it seems that the  Biblical prohecies seem to  be unfolding inexorably.  Armageddon. ... arthur US policy is being used for a narrow set of interests: the Christian evangelicals seem determined to create a clash of religions -- Christianity vs Islam.  Oddly, a branch of them, the Christian-Zionists, have added to the portfolio an Israel-first agenda. Given the Christian-Zionist belief that all non-Christians will be destroyed, it seems strange that some elements in Israel have embraced an alliance with these Christian-Zionists, but then the Israelis probably don't think that God has that in store for them, so don't much care for the beliefs and values that lie behind Christian-Zionism, happy to settle for the political support the Christian-Zionists offer Israel.  In case any of you missed it, by Christian-Zionist I am referring to people like Tom DeLay -- see the very interesting speech he gave to the Israeli Knesset recently.  Right now, the Christian evangelical and Christian-Zionist agenda is powerfully placed within the Administration: Rove, DeLay, Feith, Perle, Bolton, Reed...et al.  US policy toward the rest of the world generally and the Arabs and Muslims specifically has been hijacked by these folks, and is now working against the interests of the country. Sometimes these US policies are justified by the 'war on terrorism' -- one of the inventions of the Christian evangelicals -- but the sad fact is that the 'war on terrorism' is actually aggravating the terror threat, not diminishing it. This is a pedantic way of saying that Americans will die thanks to these Christian evangelicals.  As the rest of the world reacts to what they see as a US out of control, we will see a broadband resistance to the US take shape. Not only will there be further terror attacks on US interests, but trade relations will suffer, and cultural ones. I don't know if you ever had a desire to take your art overseas, but the chances of that happening have taken a nose-dive in the last two years.  Then, also, we have the trillions of dollars that this 'war on terror is costing us, or rather costing future generations. And the impact on US civil liberties, e.g. the 'sneak and peek' and unlimited uncharged detention policies pushed by Ashcroft and the President.  The Christian evangelicals simply do not care about these costs to the US and our interests: they give their religious goals precedence over US interests.  The American public is gullible. How many Americans have ever traveled to the Muslim or Arab worlds (other than in a tank)? How many Americans even know Arabs or Muslims who live in this country, as their neighbors?  Hell, how many people even on this list???  Americans are patriotic. Combined with their gullibility, this leaves them open to being exploited, to being conned into giving their support, if only a passive support, for policies that would readily appear inimical to a populace that was more knowledgeable, thoughtful, and skeptical.