Three Common Myths That Can Hinder
Pro-Just Peace Activism
Myth #1: This is a foreign conflict that doesn't really affect Americans. In reality, this is very much a domestic issue that affects all Americans. The perpetuation of this conflict drains American resources and poses a threat to American security. Since the 1980s, Israel has received nearly $3 billion in annual U.S. taxpayer-funded aid and billions more in supplemental aid. Much of the aid is in the form of military grants used in Israel's conflict with the Palestinians, as well as money given to Israel to offset the cost of as-yet-unfulfilled peace accords. Israeli violence against Palestinian civilians and the continued denial of Palestinian human rights fuels anger and resentment that can breed retaliatory violence. Because of the massive financial and diplomatic support the US gives Israel, we are viewed by many around the world as complicit in the ongoing oppression of Palestinians, making us a potential target for that violence. The longer this conflict continues, the more America's image, interests and security will be threatened.
Weaning Israel off its disproportionate share of US taxpayer money would allow our representatives to use that money to aid less developed, poverty-stricken countries around the world. Achieving peace between Palestinians and Israelis would lessen security threats and bolster the case for refocusing budget priorities away from massive defense spending and toward education, health and social service programs for Americans.
Myth #2: Except for Arab-Americans and Jewish Americans, most people don't care that much about it.
In reality, this conflict is a cause for concern for many Americans. And there is solid support within the American public for a just resolution to this conflict and a more balanced approach from our government. In addition to the reasons mentioned above, many Americans are concerned with this conflict simply because it is a question of justice and human rights. Palestine is one of the last remaining vestiges of colonialism in the world today. Decades after the American civil rights movement, the fall of Apartheid in South Africa, and freedom for the countries of Eastern Europe, millions of Palestinians still live under a foreign military occupation and are deprived of their most basic human rights.
In the finest tradition of nonviolent peace and justice work, many Americans have traveled to Palestine to join with Palestinian and Israeli peace activists in confronting the injustice of Israel's ongoing military occupation. Grassroots committees have sprung up in cities across the nation to advocate for more balanced and constructive policies from our government.
The issue is also of great concern to many religious communities in the US. As a city holy to Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Jerusalem holds unrivaled international significance. Concern over the fate of the city extends well beyond its borders. Most church groups in the US have made the search for peace between Palestinians and Israelis a priority issue for their congregations.
Churches for Middle East Peace (CMEP), for example, is an ecumenical advocacy group that includes among others, the Presbyterian Church, USA; Episcopal Church; United Methodist Church; Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; National Council of Churches; and the Roman Catholic Conference of Major Superiors.
This level of concern translates into solid support for a just peace and a more balanced role for our government. Recent polls found that:
• 77% of Americans support establishing a Palestinian state (Program on International Policy Attitudes, 11/2001);
• 74% of Americans support applying economic and diplomatic pressure on Israel to reach a peace settlement (CNN/USA Today, 3/2002);
• 69% of Americans say they want the Bush Administration to lean toward neither side in the conflict (CNN/USA Today/Gallup, 5/2002).
Myth #3: This is an intractable conflict that is just too complicated for lay people to understand. Arabs and Jews have been fighting for centuries and there isn't much we can do about it from here.
When approaching activism on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict it is important to remember what the conflict is and what it is not. While you certainly do not need to be an expert to be an effective advocate for Middle East peace, a brief overview of the conflict is provided below. This overview can help dispel some of the stumbling blocks people can face when getting active on this issue for the first time.
• The conflict is NOT centuries old. It is a modern-day problem.
• The conflict is NOT based on any inherent religious hatred. It is political in nature.
• The conflict is NOT too complicated to understand or solve. The way out of the conflict has been enshrined in UN resolutions for decades and there is global consensus on the steps that must be taken to achieve peace.
The Roots of the Conflict
Arabs and Jews lived together in relative harmony in the Middle East for centuries. The conflict began with the late 19th century influx of Jewish immigrants seeking refuge in Palestine from the persecution and anti-Semitism they faced in Europe. Anti-Semitism was not a reality in the Middle East. The predominantly Muslim culture of the Middle East looked on Jews and Christians as "people of the book" who shared a belief in the same God and similar prophetic traditions. As such, Jews and Christians were to have a respected and safe place within Muslim society. That is not to say that conflict did not ever exist, but it was not widespread nor endemic and it did not seek to threaten the very existence of any one community. Jewish immigration into Palestine caused conflict because it was aimed at creating a state for Jews, one that excluded the indigenous Palestinian Christian and Muslim population that made up the majority of historic Palestine. In 1948, Israel established itself on 78% of the land of Palestine. In doing so, Jewish militias, which were to become Israel's army, expelled roughly 750,000 indigenous Palestinians from their homeland and destroyed more than 435 Palestinian villages. Palestinians who were driven off their land have never been allowed to return. The United Nations counts roughly 4 million registered Palestinian refugees. Most live in refugee camps to this day, only a few hours away from their original homes. Palestinian refugees have an inalienable right to return to their homes and lands and to receive compensation for the loss of their property, a right based in international law.
Another 3.5 million Palestinians live today on the 22% that is left of Palestine—the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. Since 1967, they have lived under Israeli military occupation. They are citizens of no country and are deprived of their most basic human rights. Every facet of Palestinian civil and economic life is controlled by soldiers of a foreign army. While Palestinians are subject to Israeli military rule, Israeli settlers living illegally in the Occupied Territories enjoy full freedom.
The 1993 Oslo Accords offered the promise of an end to the occupation and freedom for Palestinians. The accords were based on the land for peace formula. The Palestinians recognized Israel's right to exist on 78% of historic Palestine. In exchange, Israel was to withdraw from the remaining 22%. This is where Palestinians would have their state. While Palestinians did gain some control of their land during the Oslo process, Israel continued to occupy the majority of the land and exercise ultimate control. Also, throughout the Oslo years, Israel vigorously expanded illegal settlements by expropriating land, demolishing houses and uprooting plantations belonging to Palestinians. In fact, during the years of the Oslo peace talks, Israel doubled its settler population in the Occupied Territories to some 400,000 people.
How Did the Current Violence Begin?
On September 29, 2000 Palestinians in the Occupied Territories rose up against Israeli occupation and demanded their freedom. Popular demonstrations were sparked by current Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's provocative visit to the Haram Al-Sharif, where the Al-Aqsa mosque, one of Islam's holiest sites, is located. While Sharon's visit was the match that lit the powder keg, the uprising was the result of the frustrations building within Palestinian society in the seven years since the signing of the Oslo Accords and in their more than three decades living under a foreign, military occupation. Since the uprising broke out more than two years ago, violence, repression, recrimination, and desperation have flourished in occupied Palestine. The situation moved quickly from street demonstrations to a desperate and bloody struggle that has cost nearly 2,700 lives by mid-2003. Israeli reaction to the uprising was swift and has included using lethal force against unarmed demonstrators, demolishing Palestinian homes, olive groves and agricultural lands, expropriating land for the construction of a Berlin Wall-like structure to separate the two peoples, and closures and curfews that have devastated the Palestinian economy.
While the vast majority of the dead are Palestinian, the number of Israeli casualties, most of whom were killed in retaliatory suicide strikes by extremist Palestinians, is unprecedented. This has provoked confusion and anguish in Israeli society that allows the Sharon government to justify its continued aggression against and collective punishment of Palestinians.
Where Do We Go From Here?
There are different opinions about what it takes to build a just and lasting peace between Palestinians and Israelis. There is broad agreement, however, that any lasting solution has to offer peace, security and freedom for both peoples. That cannot be achieved while Palestinians live under Israeli military occupation. The key requirement for any peace settlement is that the occupation end. While the current US administration has not done much to further the cause of peace in the Middle East, even President Bush has repeatedly articulated that the occupation must end and a viable, independent Palestinian state be created alongside Israel. Current US policy toward the conflict revolves around the "Roadmap"—a negotiated, performance-based plan for arriving at a two-state, comprehensive solution to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict within a few years time. The plan was created by the US, Russia, the European Union, and the United Nations, collectively known as the Quartet. The group came together in August 2002 at the height of the international crisis that resulted from Israel's re-occupation of Palestinian cities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
The Roadmap is significant in that it does outline a plan for ending Israeli occupation and creating an independent, viable Palestinian state. Yet there are several problematic aspects, which leave the process open to manipulation by both Israel and the US. One key concern is whether or not the Quartet will in fact function as a Quartet or whether the US will control the process. Given the US' historic bias in favor of Israel and the extremely close relationship between the Bush and Sharon regimes, a US-led peace process does not bode well. Early signs are not good.
When a draft of the Roadmap was released in December 2002, Sharon demanded some 100 amendments, dismissed the Quartet as "nothing," and said that the US was all that mattered. President Bush twice delayed releasing the final text of the Roadmap at Sharon's request. In mid-April, Sharon dispatched a team to Washington to present Bush Administration officials with a more modest set of 15 "reservations" about the Roadmap.
Congressional leadership from both parties has expressed reservations about the Roadmap because it may require too much of Israel. House Majority Leader Tom Delay wanted to abandon the Roadmap altogether. House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), "we need to be wary" of dealing with Russia, the European Union and United Nations on a peace deal. "They have never been strong supporters of Israel." House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told AIPAC that she is "seriously concerned about the timing, tone and effect of the president's statement of March 14. Let there be no weakening in our resolve, no softening in our stance, no lowering of the threshold for the cessation of violence [referring to Palestinian violence]." Rather than encouraging an international plan that may finally bring peace, security and freedom to both Palestinians and Israelis—and serve American interests in the process—these congressional leaders seem more concerned with shielding Israel from having to make any tough compromises for peace.
