American Involvement in the Middle East Crisis Should Be Minimal
|
April 16, 2002 It’s just another day in Tz’fat, Israel. Another day in a long line of violence, destruction, and warfare that has immersed the Middle East for the past several decades. The conflict is rooted in the culture, the heritage, and the politics. However, this was not always the case. Suicide bombing, rock-throwing, and trigger violence was not always present in the lives of these two peoples. Before the state of Israel was created in 1948, the people of the region -– Jews, Christians, and Muslims –- lived in harmony for well over one thousand years. The movement known as zionism, the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their native land, led to the current crisis. When the state of Israel was created and recognized in 1948, 750,000 Palestinian Arabs were left without a homeland. Albeit the Palestinian Arabs did live in the same land that the Jews claimed in 1948, however the Jews also had a claim to the land through their expelled ancestors. So who gets the land? And what role, if any, should the United States play? What role, if any, does the United States hold in facilitating or encouraging discourse between the fragile and destructive countries battling over land, religion, and power? Had the U.S. not been involved in the conflict up until this point, I would say that the U.S. should not take any role in the conflict. Whenever American presidents gather the leaders from Israel and the Arab world in order to advance the "peace process," the American taxpayer takes a major blow to his or her pocketbook. But somehow the peace process is never complete. As Thomas Jefferson pointed out as the simple, coherent, and consistent abiding principle of America on foreign policy issues, "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations ... entangling alliances with none." In global conflicts where good American citizens are positioned on many sides of a political issue, there is no Constitutional authority -– nor is there rational need to be involved in a war that America did not start. Because the U.S. has been involved in the conflict in the past, it now has a standing obligation to sort out the mess in the Middle East. Had American Presidents and the U.S. Congress obeyed the principle of sovereignty without entangling alliances valued by the founders of this nation, the U.S. would not be in the position that it is in to this day. It’s position: World savior, international capital of imperialism, and world dominatrix. The U.S. has positioned itself negatively with global nations that it could be neutral with: Sudan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Yugoslavia, Slovenia, and Afghanistan. Instead, it is our obligation to mete out justice through balanced mediation of the crisis in the Middle East. The conflict is quite complex and, depending upon whom you ask, you will get a completely different perspective on the problems and the necessary solutions. On the one hand, there are the Palestinian Arabs (those who tend to side with Arafat), who argue that the only solution to the problem is to force Israel to negotiate in good faith by pulling one-sided support away from Israel. But these same people also claim that Israel is impossible to deal with, often ignoring opportunities to ease tension (1). They argue that, because Israel negotiates from a position of power, controls the tone of the negotiations, and has less to lose if the agreements go awry, Israel would be easier to negotiate with. They might point out that Palestinian Arabs die at a rate three times higher than Israelis, have very little political power, and have lost their homeland. The Palestinian Arabs do maintain control of small amounts of land, however, even the best offer that Israel gave them would have left them with nothing but tiny, disarmed cantons. These cantons are separated by access roads to the Israeli settlements and military bases. Lastly, the Israelis continue to reject the Palestinian Arabs’ right to return for the millions of refugees living in squalor. Then there is the perspective of those who agree with Israel. The defenders of Israel will claim that the Israelis are not overly bad to the Arabs living in Israel, that the Arabs have a right to vote through democratic means, and that the Arabs have representation in the Knesset, Israel’s governmental parliament. Defenders of Israel will point to Arab nations such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Qatar as nations that have threatened terrorism -– not only against Israelis, but also against Americans. They will say that all of these Arab nations are either funding terrorism against the U.S. or are hiding terrorists within their nations. They believe that Yassir Arafat is a terrorist and a morally and politically doomed leader (2). Arabs, they say, have many other countries in the Middle East that ultimately could constitute a "homeland" for them similar to the “homeland” that the Jews have in Israel. Israel advocates believe that Arafat runs a repressive autocratic state, complete with secret police and restrictions on press, speech, and travel. What does the Constitution say on this issue? Not a whole hell of a lot when it comes to foreign policy. As the old adage states, "Where one stands on political issues depends upon whose ox is being gored" (3). According to Sheldon Richman of the Future of Freedom Foundation, "Being the world's cop inevitably dilutes the constitutional protections that are supposed to be America's signature…. To put this succinctly, as others have done before, the activist foreign policy pursued by [past presidents] can't help but convert [our] republic into an empire" (4). That’s according to Richman. The U.S. President as well as most mainstream politicos and American citizens disagree. "Most Americans accept the United States has serious obligations (5) ... They want to maintain current levels of defense in an uncertain world and are committed to diplomatic engagement through alliances and multilateral organizations" (6). So not only is there no concise opinion on what the U.S. role in foreign policy should be, but there is also no concrete opinion on what the Constitution says about it. Can you say, "Constitutional Crisis?" Whatever action or role the U.S. decides to take, it must act soon. Lives are at stake and are dependent upon U.S. decision-making here and now. Both Ariel Sharon, the Prime Minister of Israel, and Yassir Arafat, President of Palestinian Council, are awaiting the U.S. choice of moves or sides. But don’t anticipate any quick jolts of movement soon. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, in an interview on NBC, said the United States "is prepared to use monitors when the circumstances permit" (7). However, she also mentioned, on NBC's Meet the Press that, "The option of sending U.S. troops to the Middle East to secure the peace, if it is ever achieved, is ‘not on the table’” and is “certainly not on our radar screen" (8). Obviously if the U.S. decides to take action with regards to the conflict in the Middle East, whatever action taken will be feverously difficult not only to carry out – but also to justify in the eyes of Americans. President Bush is a war President, so he should fair quite well in whatever decision he and his advisors make. But, whatever that course of action is, it is needs to be taken shortly. As time withers away, so do families, cities, and human lives. Works Cited 1. Price, Joyce Howard. "Israel won’t back use of U.S. peacekeepers." The Washington Times. April, 2002. OnLine: Accessed April 16, 2002. < http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20020415-33986954.htm >. 2. Paul, Ron. "American Foreign Policy and the Middle East Powder Keg." Anti-War.com April, 2002. OnLine: Accessed 15 April 2002. < http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul28.html >. 3. Woll, Peter. American Government: Readings & Cases. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2002. Page 444. BR> 4. Richman, Sheldon. "Stop Playing Games." The Future of Freedom Foundation. November, 1998. OnLine: Accessed 17 April 2002. < http://www.fff.org/comment/ed1198c.asp >. 5. Government by the People. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2002. Page 432. 6. Rielly John E. (ed.). American Public Opinion and U.S. Foreign Policy. Chicago: Council of Foreign Relations, 1995. Cited in Government by the People. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2002. Page 433. 7. Wahdan, Hadeel. "Israelis resume offensive; fighting near the Church of Nativity." The Associated Press. April, 2002. OnLine: Accessed 16 April 2002. < http://www.boston.com/news/daily/16/mideast_israel_palestinians.htm >. 8. Wahdan, Hadeel. "Israelis resume offensive; fighting near the Church of Nativity." The Associated Press. April, 2002. OnLine: Accessed 16 April 2002. < http://www.boston.com/news/daily/16/mideast_israel_palestinians.htm >. |
 |
Essays |