29 October 2003
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and Middle East Democratization Raise Questions
Panelists at Middle East Institute's annual conference examine U.S. policy
By Afzal Khan
Washington File Special Correspondent
Washington -- The U.S. push for democracy in the Middle East and strategies for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict raised more questions than answers at the 57th Annual Conference of the Middle East Institute held at the National Press Club in Washington October 22-23.
John Voll, Professor of Islamic History at Georgetown, said that it is essential to analyze "what is in the minds of U.S. policymakers on Islam."
Voll elaborated that Islam in the United States tends to be defined in "unitary ways" such as it was during the Cold War years when policymakers wanted to know whether "Islam is a bulwark against Communism or a promoter of totalitarianism." In the same vein today, policymakers want to know whether "Islam is compatible with Western democracy or it promotes a theocracy."
Voll cautioned against viewing Islam in such narrow "unitary definitions" that preclude multiple policy options. Instead, he said Islam should be examined in a broader context that recognizes that democracy, theocracy or autocracy can all be practiced under its banner.
"Our unitary definitions constrict the options in our policy," Voll stressed.
Mohammed Wahby, Washington Bureau chief for Egypt's Al-Mussawar magazine and former Under-Secretary of the Egyptian Ministry of Information, reminded the audience of Egypt's previous rich experience of "dynamic democracy" between 1923 and 1952, before Gamal Abdel Nasser overthrew King Farouk in a military coup.
Wahby warned, however, that "now Muslim fundamentalists hold sway in the Arab streets" and therefore a sudden move for democracy with general elections might install fundamentalists in the government. Instead, he suggested that democracy should be set up gradually in Arab regimes, helped by outside forces but not imposed by them.
Yitzak Reiter of Hebrew University, currently a Middle East Institute Scholar-in-Residence, disagreed, asserting that it is not Islamic fundamentalism but simply the fear of more democracy that threatens current authoritarian regimes in Arab countries. He warned, though, that "imported" Western models of democracy would have "repercussions" in the region.
Reiter noted, nevertheless, that the Kingdom of Jordan can serve as a model of a more "enlightened government" than what exists in most Arab countries. According to him, although Jordan is "a liberal autocracy," it has been more "progressive" than other Arab countries.
Saudi businessman and reform-minded journalist Hussein Shobokshi offered a somewhat more optimistic point of view.
Describing himself as a member of the generation of "doubt," caught between old traditional Arab leaders and the modern wave of Western-educated Arabs, Shobokshi said some progress is being made in the Arab world with "censorship" diminishing and "challenges" being raised for the respect of individual rights. He noted that "just two days ago" 30 schools in Saudi Arabia elected their own Shura Council to govern themselves.
However, Shobokshi warned that as a reaction to U.S. and Israeli policies in the region, terrorism has spread. He called upon the Arabs to separate themselves from "oppression," and the Americans to refrain from "bias." He said that anti-Semitism is the "cousin" of anti-Islam.
In the panel entitled "American Perspectives on the Middle East," Robert Malley, former Special Assistant to President Clinton for Arab-Israeli Affairs, addressed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in greater depth. He endorsed the Geneva Accords of 2000 and the creation of a United Nations trusteeship in the West Bank and Gaza.
Malley, who is now Director of the International Crisis Group's Middle East Program, stressed that the "mechanics" of a successful implementation of the Geneva Accords is at issue but not its substance.
Malley addressed the "shortcomings" of the 1993 Oslo Agreement pointing out three deficits in that "peace process." According to him, they are:
- A lack of vision that does not focus on the "end game," leaving the Israelis holding on to territory and the Palestinians reluctant to dismantle Hamas or the Al-Aqsa Brigade for fear of a loss of security;
- A lack of trust from both sides that failed to implement the agreement while "the world stood by" offering no mechanism to foster that trust;
- A lack of legitimacy with the Israelis clinging to the rights of Jewish settlers and the Palestinians living in "a non-state entity."
Malley suggested that the United States take the leadership role and engage the international community in the peace process instead of appearing to "impose it." He suggested that a referendum be held based on the recommendations of the Geneva Accords allowing the people on both sides to decide what they want rather than their leaders.
Aaron David Miller, former Senior Adviser for Arab-Israeli Negotiations, also offered his thoughts on the necessary principles for achieving success in the peace negotiations:
- Negotiations must be based on a balance of interests, and not power;
- The conflict cannot be seen as a moral struggle between right and wrong;
- A third-party mediation is essential as the fundamental imbalance of power between the two sides renders conventional diplomacy insufficient;
- A two-state solution is the only logical solution.
Miller is currently President of "Seeds of Peace," a non-profit organization that fosters co-existence for Israeli and Palestinian youth "touched by conflict and war."
The conference's keynote speaker Clyde Prestowitz, who served as counselor to the Secretary of Commerce during the Reagan administration, warned that U.S. policies in the region have alienated the people there and made them wary of U.S. intentions in the region.
According to Prestowitz, founder of the Economic Strategy Institute and author of "Rogue Nation: American Unilateralism and the Failure of Good Intentions," current U.S. policies in the Middle East have failed to observe and promote the values that America professes to embrace.
(The Washington File is a product of the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
This page printed from: http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2003&m=October&x=20031029193832ndyblehs0.8625147&t=usinfo/wf-latest.html
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
