American Investment in Initiatives to Promote Peace - Term Paper Example

Question: Why doesnt America invest more in people to people programs and grassroots initiatives designed to cultivate peace from the bottom up? Arab-Israel Conflict: American Investment in People-People Programs and Grassroots Initiatives to Promote Peace Introduction The Israel-Arab conflict has continued for over a century now and is considered one of the very serious conflicts around the world. Not only does the duration makes this conflict outstanding and important for many of the worldwide countries but the fact that the territory which the conflict occupies is the Holy Land for such religions as Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Thus, it is apprehensible that until the conflict is solved to the benefit of either of its participants this topic will continue being the question of international importance. America plays a major role in this conflict and is viewed by the Arab states as the biggest supporter of Israel. The crucial roles the West, particularly the United States, plays in the region are closely connected with liberalization and democratization, to the extent that they exist in the Arab world, helping reform to continue and perhaps accelerate. My answer is that whatever economic, political, and cultural influence the USA can exert in that direction is best attempted in ways other than by directly tying official economic and technical assistance to the Arab states to democratic reform. Present Condition of Arab-Israel Conflict In fact, any Western attempt to exert direct pressure of that sort on Arab countries is bound to intensify the strong anti-Western—especially anti-American— sentiments of many ordinary Arabs: above all, the growing anti-Western sentiments of the Islamic fundamentalists, who reject out of hand Western culture and values, including, at least in some instances, liberal, Western-style democracy. For instance, “Israel responded to Palestinian violence at the beginning of the Oslo process by limiting the flow of Palestinian workers to Israel to prevent infiltration of terrorists, and by strict checks at border checkpoints. The border closing drastically reduced the Palestinian standard of living?”1 Their rejection of any sort of accommodation with Israel is part and parcel of their hostility to the West. Moreover, the Wests interest in the Middle Easts economic and political reform, if any, is bound to decline significantly in the 21st century, as the regions oil reserves are depleted—and with it, the regions economic and strategic importance for the West. Private Western concerns, and the economic, scientific, and technical assistance they provide to the region too are not particularly well-equipped to stimulate the process of liberalization and democratization. “Given their primarily profit-making concerns and preoccupations, Western companies and corporations are even less equipped than their government agencies to stimulate such reforms.”2 How will grassroots initiatives contribute to peace? A documentary called “Encounter point” that was put together and produced by a team of Palestinians, Israeli’s and North Americans focuses on how dialogue between Palestinians and Israelis might bring about peace. The slogan of the documentary is “So what do you do with this pain? Do you take it and look for revenge and keep the whole cycle going of violence, or do you choose another path?”3 This is the path in which no diplomats are included, but in with people from society, people who are suffering the same painful experiences, share with each other their pain and talk about solutions. In the documentary Palestinians who lost members of their family and loved ones meet with Israelis who went through the same hard times. One Palestinian in the documentary meets an Israeli and explains that he always wanted to meet an Israeli who wants peace, and the Israeli replied that there are many but are scared to face each other. A Palestinian child in the documentary shout “we don’t want peace, we will fight as much as we can”4 but if one is to read between the lines, they would know that that child is just scared, is full of combined feelings of fear and courage and doesn’t know that on the other side of the table, many children share the same exact feeling. The non-profit organization named “Just Vision” followed the families and conducted interviews to support this successful documentary. The Palestinians will continue to think of a stereotype that all Jews don’t want peach and Jews will think the same way of Palestinians, unless they communicate with each other. Another grassroots initiative is “Seeds of Peace” and its “mission is to help young people from regions of conflict develop the leadership skills necessary to advance reconciliation and coexistence”5. This organization teaches young children to “develop empathy, respect, and confidence as well as leadership……all critical components that will facilitate peaceful coexistence for the next generation”.6 Children from Israel and Palestine were given a “Camp experience that united Israelis and Palestinians on the same team in a range of athletic and artistic events. Seeds also formed small bi-national (Israeli/Palestinian) teams to build usable rafts to race down the Jordan River, a task that included spending the final night of the seminar camped out in tents”.7 Leith who is an Arab-Israeli and joined the camp explained after his time that “At camp, with SOP, you spend three weeks with people you consider your enemy. That really changes your perspective… Israeli and Palestinian seeds end up developing really strong relationships."8 All these are examples of how grassroots initiatives contribute to peace and how it is possible just though dialogue to achieve it. In a book that is called “Peace Begins Here” by Thich Nhat Hanh, a Palestinian shares his story by explaining how he was on a wheelchair and was shot by an Israeli and couldn’t get up while they were shouting “stand up!” He expresses, “I am calling everybody, in Europe, America and everywhere in the world-to think of how you can help us, Israelis and Palestinians, to transform this inhumane situation”.9 Not only is he calling for the Israeli’s but for the whole world to listen to the situation, a page later an Israeli shares his side of the story and says “I believe it is our role to weave together shared narrative of two peoples who are destined and blessed to live in that land together…. I believe that God chose two of the most stubborn people in the world, the Arabs and Jews, to live in the same land… ultimately the land does not belong to Israel or Palestine; it belongs to the Earth and to God. It is a land for all of us”10 “Yes, I am to take your side, but are you ready to take my side? I am a human being like you. Do you know what my side is? It is that suffering must stop”11 “In 1989 alone, thirteen nations compromising 1.7 billion people over thirty-two percent of humanity experienced non-violent revolutions”12. We can see that it is more than possible for non-violent outcomes to be successful, again, why doesn’t America shed more light on this initiatives that are non-violent? Why doesn’t America invest in such organizations? America believes that the push of peace through agreement and treaties between the leaders will actually bring peace. In 1991 “President George H. Bush (senior) sent his Secretary James Baker to the Middle East to persuade Israel and neighboring Arab states to attend a peace conference co-sponsored by the US…. The October/November talks ended without any settlements but all parties expressed interests in continuing the peace process”13 What America does is continues to “express” interest in peace without really seeing the main problem. The Arabs see America as a bias towards Israel and will not listen to its interest because Arabs believe that America is “brain washed”. However, the question is, president after president express the interest in peace and not much is done. The world is waiting for America, who’s looked upon as one of the major powers to do something about it. But unless these people talk and negotiate and share their views not much is going to happen. America should be investing more in grassroots initiatives that will cause people to talk to each other, hopefully they will realize that they all want the same thing, that they all will continue to be “stubborn” that they might be able to live together, they just have to prove it by joining these people together ‘bottom up’ and not the other way round. After George Bush, “Bill Clinton who was known to have stronger sympathies towards Israel than his predecessor”14 Another thing that is stopping America from investing much in such organizations is that it’s too busy with the Israel Lobbying. According to the article The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, the United States, influenced greatly by the Israel lobby, has constantly adopted a biased foreign policy. After the events of 1967, the United States’ foreign policy towards the Middle East has been greatly biased in favor of Israel. “Why has the United States been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state?”15. Although the United States and Israel do not share “strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives”16, through the great influence and power of the Israel lobby, they have managed to convince the United States that both countries share common interests. The power of the lobby is so great that US’ foreign policy is altered to suit that of Israel; “no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest”17. Israel, during the threat of the Soviet Union, served as an ally for the United States, however, this was the extent of the support the US received from Israel. Backing Israel came with a great cost, it complicated the US’ relations with the Arab world, forcing it to make decisions based on the national interest of Israel rather than any others, including its own. Moreover, Israel’s strategic location amongst Arab states has limited and challenged its legitimacy to support the United States’ decision to enter the Middle East, such as the Gulf war and the Iraq war. The support Israel receives from the United States extends beyond merely financial aid and into diplomatic support. The US has repeatedly supported Israel’s position including resolutions in the United Nations Security Council – of which the US is a permanent member – “the US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel”18. The question regarding the US’ support towards Israel is immediately raised; “if neither strategic nor moral arguments account for America’s support for Israel, how are we to explain it?”19. The claim that America supports Israel because it is a fellow democracy surrounded by dictatorships is incoherent, as there are numerous democracies around the world, none of which receives even remotely the same level of support. The answer to the question is simply the Israel lobby. The power lays in the hands of the organization and individuals that work to direct US foreign policy in a pro-Israel dimension. Democratization of People’s Choice: Dilemma of the USA In the face of the continuous US support for Israel –even violating its democratic ethics, another question internationally has been raised whether America is excessively obsessed with her interests in the Middle East and apparently it seems that the USA is not cordial enough to her peace policy. Whereas the USA has a long cherished tradition of fostering democracy both within the national territory and international arena, the evidences in the US support for Israel clearly shows that America is an obstinate supporter of Israel, even if it violates its long cherished democratic ethics. The answer of this question necessarily lies in the fact that America is clearly afraid of losing its control over the vast resources of petroleum, “the liquid gold of the Middle East” and manipulates Israel as the regional watchdog to dominate the petroleum enriched Middle Eastern countries. As an industrially developed country the USA is primarily dependent on the oil supply from these countries. Therefore the whole situation poses a dilemma for the democratic country: on one hand the country is afraid of taking a stance against the Zionist of Israel for losing control over the oil resource of the Middle East and on the other hand, because of its long cherished hostile and one-eyed support for the Israel the USA cannot assist the democratic demands of the Palestinians with the prospect that the whole situation in the Middle East is now a point of no return for no return. In one sense investment in people to people programs and grassroots initiatives designed to cultivate peace from the bottom up means the democratization of the people’s choice for peace that is completely suitable for the democratic culture of the USA. But in another sense such initiative in the grassroots level may assign the common Palestinians as well as Arab with the power that they can use to take revenge by forcing the US force of the Middle East. Peace Initiative in Grassroots Level: What America needs to do? Not be biased, the influence the Israel lobby exerts on the United States provides adverse effects. In spite of it hampering its democratic values, the lobby also forces the United States to believe that share common values and interests, whilst in reality, the US’ foreign policy serves the interest of Israel alone. Education is one main aspect that America could work on to reach some sort of dialogue between the Palestinians and Israeli’s. If American institutes are established within Palestine and Israel, American professors who are willing to change minds and teach students to accept and compromise will indirectly reach a positive reaction. If each generation is following the generation before it, nothing will change, but things will become more tensed. Therefore, if one is to educate them and push them on the first step of the ladder, hopefully students will learn to compromise and listen to one another. At An MUN (Model United Nations) conference in Qatar 2008, I was chairing one of the committees in which I had delegates from Palestine and Israel, both from different schools. They were representing different countries in the committee, but refused to talk to each other. The conference was only for 3 days, the delegates refused to talk to one another on the first day, but when they realized that they are agreeing on many things, and when they listened to us (people in charge of the conference) and the importance of ‘agreeing to disagree’ they were able to talk to one another on the second day and even exchanged emails and facebook accounts by the last day. If these students were able to get influenced during three days, I’m sure initiatives that are educated based in both territories will be able to change how these young students think and will eventually have a positive outcome. Nadine who is a Palestinian that attended Seeds of peace said that "Before SOP, I didn’t think the situation could be changed by negotiation but now I think it’s possible. Before SOP, I thought it would be impossible to co-exist but now I think it’s possible, if both sides are willing."20 And an Israeli girl named Maayan after fulfilling the camp says, "Teachers at my school asked us to say the first word that crosses our mind when we hear the word Palestinian. Some said terrorists. Some said neighbors. I said FRIENDS;”21 Effects of Grassroots Initiatives and People-to-People Programs As to the question whether the US investment in grassroots initiatives and people-to-people programs will be effective or not, the answer lies in the US definition of effectiveness. As the USA is one of the main parties -behind the curtain- in the Arab Israel conflict, it is necessary to decide what the USA counts for effectiveness. The perfect US-definition of effectiveness of any initiative must preserve democracy, peace and a friendly Middle East that will not hamper the US interests in this region. Investment in such grassroots level initiative may have a two-fold outcome. First it will allow the peoples of these conflicting countries to feel the sympathy and empathy for each other. Thus peace will be promoted through sympathetic in the form of universal brotherhood and humanity. Now the people may reject the dictating authority of the countries through a peaceful revolution ensuring peace and democracy. And a peaceful democratic Middle East appears to be pro-US-interest power in this region. Such models of peaceful revolution can be found in the history of the East European countries. Democratization and dethronement of the pro-soviet dictating regimes were first initialized from the change in the grassroots level of a population. The gist of such people-to-people is of the very core of democratic thought that “Treaties are negotiated by governments; Peace is made by people”22 Arab-Israel Conflicts and its Beneficiaries: Effects of Grassroots Initiatives on War Even if the Zionist lobby may have a covert motif to be benefitted from the Arab-Israel conflict, its worst sufferers are the common peoples of Israel and the Middle Eastern countries and its prime beneficiaries appear to be the people in power of these countries and the war businessmen. The main victims of this multi-trillion dollars business are the commons Israelis and the Arabs. Therefore to prolong the animosity between these peoples appears to benefit the arm dealers of the developed countries and the oil companies in the long run. The internecine problems and conflicts, together with their baleful consequences with respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict as a whole, including Arab terrorism, would not have arisen in this century had the Arab states been a model of political legitimacy and democracy. Similarly, it does not follow that the political problems pertaining to the future of Palestine would not have arisen had they, and the various British proposals designed to resolve them, been publicly debated and democratically decided; although it is not implausible to suppose that in that case the history of the Palestine Problem and the Arab-Israeli conflict would have been significantly different. At best, the absence of democracy in the Arab world can only account for one important thread in the tangled skein of the Arab-Israeli conflict. “As we have seen, the conflicts precipitants and deep-lying causes, together with their violent outcomes, involve the contributions of a large number of major historical and cultural forces.”23 How can the image of the US change in the Arab world? Therefore the initiatives in grass root level and people-to-people programs would facilitate to both the democratization and to the people’s awareness of their misery due to the age-old conflict by promoting better understanding between these people. As in these grassroots initiatives and people-to-people programs the first promise is to hear, it will rather gear up the people to mitigate their own animosities for their betterment keeping aside the warmonger people in power and the arms dealers, as Raya a Palestinian says, "One of the first things you learn at SOP is to listen. You have discussions about the conflict but you also learn to live together and respect people who have different views and come from different backgrounds."24 But one of the most striking and important effects of the grassroots initiatives is that the USA will be able to rebuild its image in the Arabian countries. When power-to-power program and round table meeting often plunge into failure, the grassroots initiatives will take the US official close to the common Arabs and it will allow the USA to interact with their core feelings. Conclusion Grass roots initiatives and people to people programs are the only possible ways to support and help native populations to overcome poverty and fight for democratic changes in the region. Now the question is whether the US authority should take the risk of alienating the Israeli watchdog in the Middle East and depends on the people’s capability of sympathizing each other or not. From the above discussion it is crystal clear that it is better to bring the people close to each other who are suffering the severe consequences of the Arab-Israel conflict than to bring the people in power of these countries to the round table meeting that failed again and again to cause the miseries of the common people. Works Cited Dan, “100 Israeli and Palestinian Seeds meet for Field Seminar” 01 Oct. 2009. 20 Oct. 2009 Dan, “Teen climbs tallest mountain in Africa to support Seeds of Peace”, 30 Sept. 2009. 20 Oct. 2009. Derkacz, Evan AlterNet. “Israelis and Palestinians Destroy the No Partner for Peace Canard” 2 Dec. 2006. 20 Oct. 2009 < http://www.alternet.org/movies/44920/> Fernandez, “The United States and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: (UN) forging Future Peace”. International Social Science Review, 80 (2005), 43. Hanh, Thich. Peace Begins Here: Palestinians and Israelis listening to each other. Parallax press, 2004. P. 92 “In a Nutshell: Israeli-Arab Conflict”. MidEast Web. n.d. 20 Oct. 2009 Mearsheimer, John & Walt, Stephen. The Israel Lobby. New York: LRB Ltd 2006 Moore and Aweiss, Bridges over Troubled Water: A Comparative Study of Jews, Arabs, and Palestinians. Paeger, 2004. Roraback, Amanda. Israel in a nutshell. Enisen publishing, 2004. Page 46 Rynne, Terrance. Ghandi & Jesus: The saving power of nonviolence. Orbis books, 2008. Page 81 Seeds of Peace, “About Seeds of Peace” 20 Oct. 2009 at Seeds of Peace, “Our Mission” 20 Oct. 2009 at “Testimonials”, Seeds of Peace. 20 Oct. 2009 < http://www.seedsofpeace.org/media/testimonials> Read More