![]() |
Below is an article I wrote in 1986 when the American peace movement
finally
was "breaking the silence" on the issues of United States aid to Israel
and Israeli oppression of Palestinians. In the 16 years since
that
article was published, American peace and antiwar movements have
progressed to the point members can speak openly about, and organize
around,
these issues without automatic charges of "anti-Semitism." My new
article addresses both the updated political issues and the
continuing
emotional issues around Middle East organizing.
Even after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, which most people
believe were motivated in large part by the U.S. pro-Israel bias,
vigorous
criticism of Israel and Israel supporters can bring charges of bigotry
from Israel supporters and the pro-war press. Questionable
charges of
bigotry,
be it against women, ethnic, racial or religious groups, or Jews,
especially when
used
to intimidate or bully people for selfish purposes, only creates an
angry
back lash that makes people less and less sensitive to real
bigotry.
THE MIDDLE EAST: ISSUES
AND
EMOTIONS
By Carol Moore
Published in the War
Resisters League’s magazine THE NONVIOLENT ACTIVIST November 1986
The Middle East is the most militarily volatile area of the world and the most likely flash point for nuclear war. The Middle East is also a volatile political issue generating conflict within the American peace movement. These conflicts have resulted in the movement's continuing ignorance regarding the Middle East and its lack of action which belie its commitment to preventing both conventional and nuclear war. I intend to describe briefly the factors making the Middle East such a dangerous war zone, especially for a potential nuclear war, and to explore how debate and action are being, and can be, encouraged within the peace movement.
ISSUES
The Middle East is wracked with religious, ideological, national, and
territorial
disputes. Some disputes are between nations, such as Iran and Iraq,
Libya
and its neighbors, and Israel and other Arab nations. Others are
internal,
as between religious factions in Lebanon, and between Muslim
fundamentalists
or Marxist radicals and established governments. These conflicts are
aggravated
by the intervention of the two "super-powers," the United States and
the
Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union feels its intervention is warranted to protect its own
security and lo maintain a sphere of. influence in its own region, just
as the United States has through Central and South America. However,
its
intervention has been relatively limited, so far, to its invasion of
Afghanistan
to prop up Its Marxist government, aid to various Arab Marxist rebels,
and arms sales and training to nations like Syria and Libya which are
out
of favor with the United States.
The United States feels its intervention is necessary in order to
protect
oil interests, friendly Arab nations, Christians in Lebanon, and the
state
of Israel from radical Arab and Muslim nations and splinter groups,
and,
of course, from the Soviet Union. Soviet intervention doubtless would
be
more extensive were it not deterred by the massive U.S. military
presence
in the area. This includes a number of bases in the Mediterranean, Arab
nations, and the Indian Ocean, and several hundred thousand American
troops.
In 1986 the U.S. spent almost $70 billion to maintain this presence,
including
almost $5 billion in military aid to Egypt and Israel.
The U.S. military presence has included threats to use nuclear weapons
to prevent any Soviet aggression in the area. In 1956, President
Eisenhower
threatened to use nuclear weapons if the U.S.S.R. became involved in
the
Suez Crisis. In 1958, Eisenhower threatened Soviet-backed Egypt and
Syria
to keep them from interfering in Lebanon. In 1967, President Johnson
considered
using nuclear weapons during the Arab-Israeli war and the
Washington-Moscow
hotline was used for the first time. In 1973, during another
Arab-Israeli
war, President Nixon declared a nuclear alert that moved U.S. readiness
to "DEFCON III". In 1979, after the invasion of Afghanistan, President
Carter threatened to use "any means necessary", including nuclear
weapons,
in order to maintain U.S. supremacy in the Middle East. Israel's 1982
invasion
of Lebanon, which included clashes with Syrian and Soviet troops,
nearly
triggered a nuclear alert. In this battle for superpower supremacy in
the
region, the Soviets have backed down under every nuclear threat-so far.
Confident of its power to face down the Soviets, the United States has
acted irresponsibly in the area. It has approved and even subsidized
arms
sales to both sides in the Iran-Iraq and Israel-Arab conflicts. It has
steadily increased aid and ties to Israel, and even encouraged the
invasion
of Lebanon. However, the U.S. has refused to make honest attempts to
deal
with the important issues of Palestinian rights or the Israeli
occupation
of the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights, and Southern Lebanon. More
recently,
the U.S. has used the smokescreen of Arab terrorism to excuse
adventures
like the U.S. attack on Libya.
American irresponsibility has understandably angered Arab and
Muslim
peoples, who, like other Third World peoples, have resented and
resisted
U.S. intervention in their affairs. Many have turned to Muslim
fundamentalism
in protest against western influence, both American and Russian. Some
groups
and nations have turned to terrorism, and all have turned to anyone
willing
to sell them arms. Currently, one half of all military sales worldwide
go to Middle East nations. This includes predominantly state-of-the-art
aircraft, missiles, and ground equipment. Moreover, the region is
rapidly
becoming nuclearized. Israel has nuclear capability already, and
Pakistan,
Libya, Iraq, and Iran, are all working feverishly towards it.
Where might conventional war in the Middle East become nuclear? Some
possibilities
are a Soviet invasion of Iran or Pakistan, an Iranian defeat of Iraq
and
subsequent attack on Gulf oil nations, the overthrow of the Saudi
Arabian
or Egyptian government by fundamentalists or Soviet-aided leftists, or
a nuclear attack by Pakistan on India. Stepped up American attacks on
Libya,
forcing it into a more formal alliance with the Soviet Union, might
quickly
lead to a "super- power" confrontation.
However, the situation most likely to lead to nuclear war is yet
another
war between Israel and its neighbors. As Arab nations, especially
Soviet-client
state Syria, approach military parity with American-client state
Israel,
their demands for the return of Israeli-occupied lands will increase,
and
the possibility of an invasion of those territories-or an Israeli
pre-emptive
strike-increases. Should these client states collide, we face the
deadly
possibility of situations such as American troops killing Russian
troops
in the Beka Valley of Lebanon, and the escalation of tension resulting
from such actions.
EMOTIONS
There is no peace issue that has caused me greater fear, anger, and
despair
than the fact that, despite ongoing conventional wars and the strong
possibility
of nuclear war beginning in the Middle East, there has been, until
recently,
a near taboo on discussing these issues in the peace movement.
Certainly,
the complexity of the issues has hindered Middle East organizing. There
seems to be no easy answer like "U.S. Out of Vietnam" or "Hands Off
Central
America." After all, as some argue, might not the United States'
withdrawal
lead to Soviet dominance of the region, increased power of Muslim
fundamentalists,
a threat to European and American oil supplies, and the destruction of
Israel?
However, I believe these considerations have sparked disproportionate
resistance
by some individuals and groups to creating a consistent
non-intervention
and peace policy. Those who hope to influence middle-of-the-road
individuals
or Democratic Party candidates may not want to be identified with views
that might be attacked as pro-Soviet, pro-"terrorist", or anti-Israel.
Jewish supporters of Israel, especially, become anxious when Israel is
criticized or when the United States' massive military aid to Israel is
questioned.
Discussion of Middle East issues has been squelched through refusal to
discuss the issues or deflecting attention to other issues, by
overwhelming
pro-intervention or pro-Israel arguments, and through emotional appeals
regarding the importance of Israel to Jews. More extreme measures have
included open hostility towards those interested in Middle East issues,
questioning of their motives, "red baiting," charges of anti-Semitism
(or
Jewish self-hate), and threats to withdraw personal and financial
support
from a peace group or the peace movement.
The personal reactions of individual peace activists to these tactics
may
range from bewilderment and confusion, to repressed resentment, to open
hostility, to cynicism and pessimism about the future of the peace
movement.
Many activists have been further disheartened by spectacles such as
"progressive"
political candidate Tom Hayden, with wife Jane Fonda, visiting Israel
to
support the invasion of Lebanon and "pro-peace", Senators Kennedy,
Cranston,
and Metzenbaum vigorously applauding Reagan's attack on Libya. However,
recent events like Israel's invasion of Lebanon, the growing awareness
of Israel's role in supporting repressive regimes in Central America
and
South Africa, and Reagan's Middle East adventurism have begun to break
the taboo on dealing with Middle East issues in the peace movement.
Some
groups have added these issues to their larger agendas, sponsored
speakers,
and produced literature. Some, like the Syracuse Area Middle East
Dialogue
Group, have created discussion groups between Jews, Arabs, and peace
activists.
And many spoke out against the bombing of Libya.
BREAKING THE SILENCE
In 1985 the American Friends Service Committee and the Mobilization for
Survival (“Mobe”) sponsored a major conference on the Middle East
called
"Breaking the Silence: Mobe is now encouraging activists to
organize
regional "Breaking the Silence" conferences. In a letter distributed to
activist groups, Mobe stressed that a major reason the peace movement
had
been silent about Middle East issues is that "People are afraid they
will
touch off controversy, divisiveness and a loss of public support for
their
organizations."
To deal with these fears, a primary "Breaking the Silence" conference
purpose
is to "create a safe place in which people would be able to discuss
emotionally-charged
issues.” A similar but ongoing approach might be for local peace
groups to hold workshops to deal with Middle East issues and the
emotions
they engender. These would emphasize conflict resolution techniques,
recognizing
that the first principle is not to avoid confrontation, but to welcome
opportunities to seek truth and clarify principles. Emphasis would be
placed
on seeing the partial truth in all positions and maintaining respect
for
those with whom we disagree.
Participants would be encouraged to understand the emotions the issues
arouse. Jewish activist might explore fears of persecution, denial that
Israel has committed injustices or hostility towards anyone who
questions
Israel's actions. Non-Jewish activists might explore fears I of
being
labeled anti-Semitic, resentment of those who block discussion of
Middle
East issues, or feelings of dis-empowerment in dealing with
non-intervention
issues. Moderates might discuss their various fears: of the military
consequences
of a non-interventionist U.S. foreign policy, of being labeled radical
or leftist, or of losing respect or support within their own moderate
organizations
should they publicly support non-intervention. As emotions are
recognized,
released, and clarified, activists can find renewed trust, enthusiasm
and
energy for seeking rational and constructive approaches to peace in the
Middle East.
I believe all peace activists must start making the issue of war and
peace
in the volatile Middle East a top priority. If this does not happen,
and
if those who support American intervention in the Middle East are
allowed
to continue to suppress discussion and action, there is little chance
that
we can build a non- intervention, peace and disarmament movement strong
enough to prevent nuclear catastrophe.
In the seventeen years since I wrote the article above, much has
changed,
both in Middle East issues and the emotions involved in Middle East
peace
organizing. Yet too much has remained the same--the United States
and Israel still dominate the Middle East and pro-Israel activists
(aided by the pro-Israel media) still find ways
to stifle effective protest by Americans. Frustrated Middle
Easterners
turn terrorist and plot vengeance against those they consider to be
their
oppressors. And we all remain potential victims of the accidental
or intentional nuclear destruction that may yet result. (Map
shows how little land -- blue slices of pies -- was owned by Jews in
Palestine in 1948.)
In the spring of 2002, Israel re-occupied the West Bank and Gaza,
destroying
much of the Palestinian Authority infrastructure. (See
photos of DC protests.) Many believe that
Sharon's whole policy
has been to provoke Palestinians to terrorism so that Israel would have
an excuse to smash the PA and even drive the rest of the Palestinians
out of Gaza and the West Bank. If so, the Palestinians foolishly
took the bait
SEPTEMBER 11TH - AN EXCUSE TO REV UP
US/ISRAELI IMPERIALISM
As long predicted, the United State's military dominance of the region
caused some fanatical opponents of that dominance to turn to terrorist
attacks on military targets and innocent civilians, including inside
the
U.S. During the 1990s Americans suffered the 1993 World Trade
Center
attack (allegedly planned in part by a paid FBI informant who once
worked
for the Egyptian military), the 1996 Kobhar Towers attack in Saudi
Arabia,
the 1998 attacks on U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, the 2000
attack
on the USS Cole in Yemen. However, it took the September 11, 2001
attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon to finally get
America's
attention - and give the neoconservatives in the President George Bush
administration the "new Pearl Harbor" they needed to bolster US-Israeli
imperialism in the Middle East.
Under Bill Clinton the United States did relatively little to act on
evidence that Osama Bin Laden and others were involved in the African
embassy and USS
Cole attacks. Nor did it take effective steps to protect
Americans
from potential terrorist attacks. For example, even though the
FBI
had information about terrorist plans to attack the World Trade Center
again,
including using airplanes, it did not share this information with the
CIA.
George Bush never even called a meeting of the terrorism task force
during
his first 8 months in office!! On September 11th the government was not
even
able to protect the Pentagon from attack by airplane despite almost
than
an hour's notice that such attacks were underway in New York. I
myself
had assumed the bazookas would have been on the roof and the fighter
jets
buzzing the whole capitol area within minutes of the second airplane
attack
on the World Trade Center!
Since September 11th the Bush administration, which did little to
prevent
the attacks, has led a belligerent campaign to root out alleged
terrorists
worldwide. Of course, "terrorist" seems to be broadly defined as
any group or nation that hates American military dominance and could
potentially
use violence to oppose it. The Patriot Act similarly broadly
defines
terrorism for domestic groups.
Most upsetting to million of
Americans
is the perception that the neoconservatives (i.e., alleged
conservatives
whose first priority is creating a new American empire using military
force)
surrounding Bush tricked the American people into attack Iraq not
because
it threatened America but because it threatened Israel. (For
names
and think tanks and good links see http://geocities.com/neoconsbad)
Now that Bush has won the 2004 elections, the
neoconservatives
are revving up the war engines for U.S.-Israel military attacks on
Syria and Iran.
This would be the fulfillment of
neoconservatives’ 1996 report written for
then Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu titled “Clean Break: A New
Strategy
for Securing the Realm.”
Published by Institute for Advanced Strategic & Political Studies (Israeleconomy.org) and signed on
to by now influential Bush administration officials Richard Perle,
Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser, the report boldly stated:
"Our claim to the land -- to which we have clung for 2,000 years -- is
legitimate
and noble." It recommended using Cold War-like propaganda to lure
Americans
into supporting Israeli ambitions. Israeli Prime Minister Sharon
adopted the “Clean Break” vision. So did 30 million "Christian
Zionists" who
support the expansion of Israel for their own religious purposes.
(See
numerous articles about the Armageddon
Lobby.)
Once neoconservatives
took power in the White House, Pentagon and State Department
under President George Bush, Sharon made sure that President Bush "got
with
the program." He visited “born again” Christian President George
Bush
seven times in two years, becoming the most frequently visiting foreign
leader.
Protestations by European allies, China and Russia, or targeted nations
(even North Korea's recent nuclear blackmail) have done little to
quench
the Bush administrations desire for revenge and dominance.
Critics
doubt the Bush administration's commitment to apprehending the real
perpetrators,
which is best done through negotiation and diplomacy. And
proponents
of a non-interventionist foreign policy warn that if the United States
does not stop dominating other nations, especially in the Middle East,
the next terror attack could be far more devastating and make September
11th a historical footnote. (See relevant links at http://www.libertarians4peace.net)
EMOTIONS
I myself am still politically involved in Middle East non-intervention
and peace issues -- and I still experience the same combination of
fear,
anger, despair -- and, after all these years of activism,
frustration.
The good news is that in the peace movement it has become easier to
criticize U.S. support
for Israel, Israel's oppression of the Palestinians, and the actions of
Israel supporters without automatically being attacked as an
anti-Semite.
Most peace movement and leftist criticism of Israel is done with
relative sensitivity since
today's activists are well trained in "politically correctness."
Libertarians, who call for a totally non-interventionist military
policy,
tend to be more blunt in their criticisms.
Despite this progress, some Jewish peace activists remain
overly protective of Israel, paranoid about its critics and insistent
on
defining the parameters of "allowed" speech and activism on the
topic. Less
politically sophisticated
gentiles who remain fearful of being labeled anti-Semitic either act
within
these parameters or seek safety by focusing on less controversial
issues
of U.S. non-intervention, like the war in Colombia. (See various
articles about this at http://www.non-intervention.net)
Where formerly Israel supporters sabotaged
anti-interventionist organizing
through quickly charging anti-Semitism, today they first use low key
guilt
tripping techniques or denial or diversion techniques, resorting to
accusations of anti-semitism
only when particularly frustrated. Big donors who support Israel
may make it clear
that criticism beyond what they consider proper will mean the end of
their
donations to organizations. Jewish activists may stake out the
"politically
correct" position and then use subtle pressure to convince gentiles to
go along with it. Often that position is that "the Occupation" is
the problem but that Israel has a right to all land confiscated between
1948 up to just before the 1967 war where it conquered the West Bank
and
Gaza. Sometimes there is even a denial that, for example, Israel
wants a war with Iraq or that Israel has or has threatened to use
nuclear
weapons. Some claim that Israel is merely an off-shore military
base
or client state of the United States and that it's supporters have
little
effect on U.S. policies.
Leftist and liberal peace and anti-war movements
remain dominated by individuals
and groups who believe that "social and economic" justice, often
imposed
by UN or world government schemes, is the answer to ending war.
Anti-capitalists
emphasize "No Blood for Oil," when opposing the Iraq oil, but rarely
mention
the influence of pro-Israel lobbyists, be they neo-conservatives,
pro-Zionists
or Christian Zionists. Even a group whose goal is ending aid to
Israel
puts all its energy into boycotting a private company that makes
bulldozers,
instead of protesting the various interest groups that support aid to
Israel!
Coincidentally or intentionally, this directs attention away from
military
and political elites, including supporters of Israel, who support
militarism
and Israeli and U.S. dominance of the Middle East.
The biggest change since 1986 when I wrote the original article is that
today
there are hundreds of thousands of young Arab-American activists,
second
generation, born in America, who are fervently committed to Palestinian
rights
and opposed to civil liberties abuses like the Patriot Act. These
activists
are intelligent, educated, articulate, assertive and well-organized and
are
becoming a motive force in the American peace, non-intervention and
civil
liberties movements. They work amicably with Jews and gentiles who
support
their cause. While there may be some ongoing tension between the more
conservative
Jewish peace activists and Arab-American peace activists, so far
relations,
when not merely distant, have been conducted in an amicable manner.
Nevertheless,
even Arab-Americans can find their efforts diffused and mis-directed by
pro-Israel
activists if they are not careful.
In the libertarian movement
pro-Israel
supporters are just as blunt in attacking Israel critics, as the
critics
can be in criticizing Israel. See for example http://www.antiwar.com which
includes 4-10 articles critical of Israel military policies, every day,
among its dozens of anti-militarism articles.
However, the libertarian movement also has
been
inflitrated by a small but vocal minority of fanatical and bigoted
Ojectivists
(followers of Ayn Rand) and Israel supports (some afficianados of the
notorious
Jewish Defense League) continually promote neoconservative and
pro-state
of Israel propaganda smearing Muslims as "Islamo-facists." Similarly
they
smear as
"anti-Semite" and
try to silence by harassment any libertarian who tries to apply
libertarian
principles to the state of Israel. Battles between these factions
have
been fought over the years within a leading libertarian organization,
the
Libertarian Party. It is a hard core non-interventionist party
which
opposes government intervention except to protect individuals against
force
and fraud on American soil. It believes the United States
government should defend American soil only and have no troops abroad,
supply no foreign military aid, and have no foreign military alliance.
Since the September 11 attacks,
more
conservative elements in the party have tried to find more excuses for
U.S.
military intervention in "self-defense" abroad. Those who support
Israel
have aligned with them. Hard core non-interventionists formed Libertarians for Peace
to oppose them. The battle over this issue is in part responsible for
the
party losing thousands of members from both sides since September 11th.
For
a detailed exposition on this phenomena see my article, originally
published
at LibertyforAll.Net entitled "Is Applying
Libertarian Principles to Israel Anti-Semitic," as well as links below.
SOLUTIONS
I still believe American anti-war, non-intervention and peace activists
-- and even libertarians --
must make the issue of ending aid to Israel and even getting the U.S.
military
out of the volatile Middle East a top priority. Our very survival
may depend on it. Happily, there are
a number of groups doing just that, as linked to below. I still
am
willing to speak out against those who support American intervention in
the Middle East, be it actively or tacitly. I encourage those who
share this priority to do the same.
A variety of solutions to the Israel-Palestine problem have been
proposed,
two state, one state, federations and confederations. However,
all
of them will be easier to implement when Israel no longer can rely on
billions
of dollars of U.S. military and financial to continue its expansion
into
Palestinian land and oppression of Palestinian people.
I personally promote a confederation solution where Israelis and
Palestinians
can have their own communities on justly acquired land which would form
their
own states, be they Israeli, Palestinian or some third state of mixed,
cosmopolitan
membership. (These states would have to work together on issues like
roadways
and water rights, of course.) The Israelis would withdraw to the 15-20
percent
that is in fact justly acquired and return the rest to its true owners.
Most
Palestinians would gladly accept such a solution as long as the
Israelis
give up their nuclear weapons and stop threatening their neighbors. See
a variety of confederation
plans, plus maps of the area, at the Israel-Palestine
Confederation page.
The solution to terrorism and to oppressive and predatory nations in
the Middle
East is similar. First stop the U.S. from intervening: bring the
troops
home, end foreign aid and alliances, make major cuts in the bloated
defense
budget. U.S. support for some tyrants and attacks on others (some
of
them former allies) only inflames their people against America.
It
makes it easier for tyrannical leaders to unite their people behind
themselves
and against the "Great Satan." Free of U.S. oppression, peoples of the
Middle
East finally could turn against their most immediate oppressors --
their
own governments! Since many of those states also contain
separatist
religious or ethnic groups, they do should be given the right to
self-determination.
Relevant Links:
News and commentary:
Lists of Dozens
of Israel-Palestine-oriented Peace groups
http://www.advocacynet.org/resource_view/resource_30.html
http://www.hpn.org/confederation/concerned.html
http://www.ariga.com/peace.shtml
http://www.ariga.com/humanrights/
http://www.eccmei.net/~eccmei/j/orgs.html
http://www.againstbombing.com/peacegroups.htm
http://www.nad-plo.org/
Libertarian views:
*Libertarian Murray Rothbard's late 1960s "War Guilt in the Middle East" http://www.mises.org/journals/lar/pdfs/3_3/3_3_4.pdf
*Murray Rothbard "Pat Buchanan and the Menace of Anti-Anti-Semitism" http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch6.html
*"The Real Reason to Oppose Aid to Israel" by Libertarian I. Dean
Ahmad, Ph.D. http://www.minaret.org/israeliaid.htm
*Richard Ebeling "Property Rights and the 'Right of
Return'" http://www.fff.org/comment/com0305o.asp
*Sheldon Richman "'Ancient History: U.S. Conduct in the Middle East Since World War Il and the Folly Of Intervention" http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-159.html
*"Cant and The
Middle East" by Sheldon Richman http://www.fff.org/comment/com0205h.asp
*Stephen P. Halbrook's Journal of Libertarian Studies article "The Alienation of a Homeland: How Palestine Became Israel" http://www.blancmange.net/tmh/articles/halbrook.html.
* http://www.libertarians4peace.net and http://www.lewrockwell.com have lots of good links* National Platform of the Libertarian Party, Adopted in Convention, July 2000, Anaheim, CA http://www.lp.org/platform
Documents and
Timelines:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/mideast.htm
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/timeline.html#mod
http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story564.html
http://www.mideastweb.org/timeline.htm
http://www.palestine-net.com/history/bhist.html
http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/chronology/0_chronology.htm
http://www.adl.org/Israel/advocacy/chronology.asp?xflag=3
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/world/2001/israel_and_palestinians/timeline/
http://www.netureikarta.org/
AKA http://www.nkusa.org AKA http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com
http://globalcircle.net/00palestine.htm
Carol Moore
Articles:
* Middle East Issues
and Emotions: 1986 War Resisters League Article & updated February
2004 version http://carolmoore.net/articles/mideastissuesandemotions.html
* Various decentralist/confederation solutions at: http://www.secession.net/israel-palestine-confederation.html
* Expose of Jewish Defense League http://carolmoore.net/sfm/jdl.html
* "Is Applying Libertarian Priciples to Israel Anti-Semitic?" http://carolmoore.net/libertarianparty/principlesandisrael.html