Religion & Apartheid in the Middle East

by Larry Smith

The dramatic loss of American credibility and prestige after four years of failure in Iraq has forced the once arrogant Bush Administration to take a more pragmatic approach to world affairs.

The adjustment includes improved relations with the United Nations; efforts to deal realistically with enemies like Iran, North Korea and Syria; and the beginnings of a shift on climate change policy.

Most recently, it has included a presidential tour of Latin America - a region that has been neglected since the early days of the Bush government, when Dubyah's first overseas trip was to meet with his Mexican counterpart.

But perhaps the most important element of this shift is a renewed diplomatic effort to settle the festering Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East, which experts say is much worse off now than it was when Bush took office six years ago.

A new bestseller by Jimmy Carter - the president who helped negotiate the Camp David Accords 30 years ago - insists that the only effective approach to the Palestinian problem is the two-state solution first proposed almost a century ago - partition of the Holy Land between Arabs and Jews.

In Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, Carter - a Baptist Sunday School teacher from Georgia who was president from 1976 to 1980 and now runs the humanitarian Carter Centre - stirred up a hornet's nest by using the word 'apartheid' to describe Israeli behaviour in the West Bank. It recalled the 1975 United Nations resolution that condemned Zionism as a form of racism.

His book traces the history of Arab-Israeli negotiations since Camp David, which led to a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt - the most powerful Arab state in the region - that is still in force. For my summary of the origins of Zionism and the Arab-Israeli conflict please click here.

The agreement at Camp David was based on unanimous UN resolutions after the 1967 and 1973 wars between Israel and its Arab neighbours. Carter summarises these at the start of his book:

"Their basic premise is that Israel's acquisition of territory by force is illegal and that Israel must withdraw from occupied territories; that Israel has the right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries; that the refugee problem must be settled; and that the international community must assist with negotiations to achieve a just and durable peace in the Middle East. More specifically, US policy was that Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza were illegal and obstacles to peace."

The rest of the book is based on this opening premise. It presents a balanced account of peace efforts in the region over the past 30 years, as well as offering a well-argued resolution to the conflict. But it has ignited a firestorm of protest among supporters of Israel in the United States, many of whom are upset at the choice of title.

Before he was elected, Jimmy Carter had been invited to visit the Holy Land by Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli military hero of the 1967 Six-day War who later, as prime minister, signed the 1993 Oslo peace agreement with Yasser Arafat, and was assassinated for his efforts by a Jewish extremist two years later.

Carter said the prevailing view then among Israeli leaders was that the occupied territories (the Sinai, the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights) should be kept only until they could be traded for a secure peace with the Arabs. There were about 1500 Jewish settlers in these areas at the time of Carter's 1973 visit. Today, they number 268,000 out of a total West Bank population of about 2 million.

"Our natural presumption," Carter says, "was that Israel would dismantle the unwanted settlements to comply with international law, including UN Security Council resolutions that had been supported by both Israel and the United States...I was excited and optimistic about the apparent commitment of the Israelis to establish a nation that would be a homeland for the Jews...determined to live in harmony with all their neighbours."

The religious aspects of this never-ending conflict are, unfortunately, key to a comprehensive settlement. In a recent interview, Carter said he had been teaching the Bible since he was 18: "And my belief is that God ordained that the Jews should have a homeland there, and I think that international law beginning in 1948 says the same exact thing."

But this view diverges sharply from that of many Christian evangelicals, who are among the most vocal supporters of Israel. Their belief is that in order for Christ to return, the Holy Land has to be first swept clean of Muslims and then all Jews have to be killed or become Christians. According to Carter, "that’s a completely stupid and ridiculous premise on which to base foreign policy or on which to base support for Israel."

And Muslim religious extremists think the same way. In fact, the charter of Hamas (the group that currently runs the Palestinian Authority) insists that "'The land of Palestine is an Islamic [holy possession] consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day."

Carter was a key figure in the first comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace talks. They began in 1977 when it became clear that Egyptian President Anwar Sadat was willing to take bold steps towards peace. Menachem Begin was prime minister of Israel at the time, and Carter invited both to Camp David where he acted as a mediator.

"It is to be remembered," Carter writes, "that the Camp David Accords signed by Sadat and Begin... reconfirmed a specific commitment to honour UN resolutions which...call for Israel's withdrawal from occupied territories...and the recognition of the Palestinian people as a separate political entity. Everyone knew that if Israel began building new settlements, the promise to grant the Palestinians full autonomy would be violated."

But that is exactly what happened - after Israel withdrew from the Egyptian Sinai. Unfortunately, other Arab states rejected the peace deal and Sadat was assassinated by Muslim extremists a few years later.

Fast forward to today - when, Carter says, the Israelis are unilaterally building a wall of imprisonment within Palestinian territory to impose "a system of partial withdrawal, encapsulation and apartheid on the Muslim and Christian citizens of the occupied territories."

The driving force is not racism but the acquisition of land, he says: "It is obvious that the Palestinians will be left with no territory in which to establish a viable state, but completely enclosed within the barrier and the occupied Jordan River Valley."

The Israeli-Palestinian issue is the principal fault line in world conflict today, but Carter says the Camp David Accords show that diplomacy can bring lasting peace between ancient enemies. And all of the initiatives that followed this agreement contain key common elements that can be consolidated if pursued in good faith.

He cites two obstacles to permanent peace in the Middle East: Some Israelis believe they have the right to confiscate Palestinian land, and some Palestinians react by honouring suicide bombers as martyrs. The key requirements, he says, are that the security of Israel must be guaranteed within a permanent legal boundary, and the sovereignty of all nations in the region must be honoured.

"As I said in a 1979 speech to the Israeli Knesset, 'the people support a settlement. Political leaders are the obstacle.' Over the years, public opinion surveys have shown that a majority of Israelis favour withdrawing from Palestinian territory in exchange for peace, and recent polls show that 80 per cent of Palestinians still want a two-state peace agreement with Israel.

"The bottom line is this: peace will come to Israel and the Middle East only when the Israeli government is willing to comply with international law...All Arab nations must pledge to honour Israel's right to live in peace under these conditions."

Tragically, there have been no substantive peace talks during the past six years of the Bush Administration, despite the fact that breakthroughs have occurred only when the United States has been fully engaged in the process.

But lately, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has called for a comprehensive settlement similar to a proposal adopted at an Arab summit in 2002.

At that time, the Arab states offered peace with Israel if it withdrew from all territories seized in 1967 - the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. In return, all Arab states would recognise Israel's right to exist within secure borders. At present, the only Arab governments that recognise Israel are the Palestinian Authority, Egypt and Jordan.

According to Carter, "This offer is compatible with official US government policy, previous agreements approved by Israeli governments, and with the International Quartet's 'roadmap for peace.' With strong US pressure, backed by the UN, Russia, and the European Community, Israelis and Palestinians would have to come to the negotiating table."

And moderate Arab governments say they will help Washington stabilize Iraq if the US takes a central role in resolving the long-standing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In a speech to the US Congress earlier this month, Jordan’s King Abdullah said that "the security of all nations and the stability of our global economy are directly affected by the Middle East conflict."

Secretary Rice has pledged to help set up a Palestinian state by the end of Bush's term. Will this finally be the 'end of days'?

Comments

[Colyn Roberts]

FWIW ... probably way more than you needed to hear about one passing paragraph in one weekly column!

I always look forward to "Tough Call". I really appreciate the fact that it's one of the few regular columns that's not strictly "navel gazingly" local in orientation.

However ... not to take issue with the overall concept of your column today, as I find myself rather appalled by some of what the Israelis are doing ... but it is surprising that a journalist in this so-vocally evangelical Bahamas would write that "Many Christian evangelicals' belief is that in order for Christ to return, the Holy Land has to be first swept clean of Muslims and then all Jews have to be killed or become Christians."

That is simply NOT a characterisation of Evangelical Christianity - one of the hallmarks of which is the belief in the "Rapture" (you may have heard of it ... "Left Behind" books, etc.) In other words, theoretically Christ's return could happen at any time. "May be morning, may be noon, may be evening, or may be soon" is the refrain from the well-known song, "Coming Again". I have heard more sermons in my life about the imminence of Christ's return than on just about any other subject.

Though there are at least four major currents of thought with regards to Christ's return, NONE of them have the characteristics quoted, and indeed I know of no minor ones either which would take those positions. Jimmy Carter would know, too, as his Southern Baptists hold to a pretty strict interpretation of a pre-Millennial rapture without any of the pre-conditions quoted above. On the other hand there is a belief in some quarters that AFTER the Rapture and during the Tribulation period the Jews will have to make a choice. I have never heard or read of anything or anyone who takes the position quoted on the Muslims in the Holy Land.

BTW ... just to emphasise that this is not a statement of my personal views, here's a quote from the relevant Wikipedia article on the Rapture (the one on Evangelicalism is also illuminating):

QUOTE

Imminent or not imminent?
The vast majority of those who believe in a pre tribulation rapture, believe that the rapture is imminent, that is to say, that nothing else needs to happen first, before the rapture. However, some others allege that certain warning signs must first take place, even before the pre-Tribulation rapture. The following is a list of these events:

The nations of the world must unify their currency onto a universal standard.
There will be peace in Israel according to Ezekiel 38.
There may be a one world government, something like the 7th beast of Revelation, prior to the antichrist's 8th beast government.
The Jewish temple in Jerusalem must be rebuilt in its original place.
The Jewish people must be in control of the land of Israel.
Many Old Testament commandments must be performed in the temple. This includes the sacrifice of an unblemished red heifer.
The Antichrist must be walking the earth in human form.
UNQUOTE

What bothers me about the mis-characterisation in the article is that it gives the impression that somehow Evangelical support for Israel is motivated by the wish to hasten the End Times. Nothing could be further from the truth, though this is an oft-misused mis-characterisation of "religiously illiterate" American pundits - particularly those who wish to paint George W. Bush with the "religious fanatic" brush. (By the way, I carry no torch for that guy). This is - again simply put - wildly inaccurate.

Evangelicals by and large support Israel and the Jews as they are seen to be "God's chosen people". And of course there is some lingering sympathy as a result of the Holocaust.

One of these days soon I'm going to get back to my blog and write a few words about Marilynne Robinson's collection of essays "The Death of Adam" where among other things she writes about how contemporary American society pronounces frequently "on" a subject without really knowing much "about" it.

[larry smith]

Thanks for your comment. You are right that I have to plead guilty to not being an expert on the End of Days. However, the paragraph you refer to paraphrased a direct quote by Carter - a southern Baptist Sunday School teacher. And I was basically reviewing/explicating his book.

Here is an excerpt from a Carter interview conducted with the Seattle Times:

Q: Taking you back to what you said about the Christian element here in America. Obviously, a lot of people who have been strong supporters of the same AIPAC line have been the Jerry Falwells of the world. What has that done to foreign policy? Do you think the conservative fundamentalist movement has had some impact on that as well?

Carter: Well, there is no doubt about that. … I noticed that when Ariel Sharon was stricken -- he's still unconscious – Pat Robertson announced that this is a punishment of God because Sharon had advocated withdrawing from Gaza, which only comprises 1 percent of the Holy Land. But that at least demonstrates their attitude toward the Israeli situation.

Q: But a lot of their position is premised on "we want to save Israel," but not necessarily save the Jews in the Second Coming. Isn't that right?

Carter: That's right. Their purpose is to wipe out all non-Jews out of the Holy Land so Christ can return and then in the ultimate commitment, is that all Jews would either be burned in fire or converted to Christianity. That's the ultimate. It's an extreme and, I think, ridiculous interpretation of the scriptures.

This is from Beliefnet:

According to their reading of the Bible, God established a covenant with Abraham in the Book of Genesis. Essentially, says Beliefnet columnist Richard Land, a Southern Baptist leader with close ties to the Bush Administration, evangelicals support Israel because they believe "God blesses those that bless the Jews and curses those who curse the Jews. Consequently, we believe America needs to bless the Jews and Israel, because if we bless the Jews and support Israel, God blesses us. And if we don't, God curses us."

But it goes beyond that. The establishment--and continuation--of the State of Israel is essential to set the stage for the imminent return of Jesus. At the time of the Second Coming, these Christians believe, Jesus will descend from heaven, subdue all of Israel's enemies and take believers to heaven in what is known as the Rapture--literally, they will ascend to the clouds to be in heaven. This series of events ushers in the end-times. According to conservative Christians' reading of the Book of Revelation, this won't happen unless Israel exists in the Holy Land.

[EB Christen]

Genuine problem solving in the Middle East went out of the window with the inception of the War on Terror. As long as everything is seen through this prism, the ability to tackle issues on the ground in separate sovereign entities will be clouded and the 'war' between the Muslim world and the West that Osama bin Laden wanted so badly will continue to expand in scope. The Iraq situation, the Iran situation, the Israeli-Palestinian situation, the Saudi situation and the prevention of terrorism are all linked, but they are not one simple problem that can be lumped under 'war on terror', as CNN and FOX would have you believe. These issues are much older than 9/11 and their solutions are complex, but not impossible. Hopefully, with better leadership in the White House (and virtually any of the current candidates will be better than Bush), a lot more will be achieved. The price for failure is heavy and not to be ignored.