Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and Middle East Democratization Raise Questions
| Wednesday October
29, 2003
Panelists at Middle East Institute's annual conference examine U.S. policy By Afzal Khan Washington -- The U.S. push for democracy in the Middle East and strategies for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict raised more questions than answers at the 57th Annual Conference of the Middle East Institute held at the National Press Club in Washington October 22-23. John Voll, Professor of Islamic History at Georgetown, said that it
is essential to analyze "what is in the minds of U.S. policymakers
on Islam." Voll cautioned against viewing Islam in such narrow "unitary
definitions" that preclude multiple policy options. Instead, he
said Islam should be examined in a broader context that recognizes that
democracy, theocracy or autocracy can all be practiced under its banner. Mohammed Wahby, Washington Bureau chief for Egypt's Al-Mussawar magazine and former Under-Secretary of the Egyptian Ministry of Information, reminded the audience of Egypt's previous rich experience of "dynamic democracy" between 1923 and 1952, before Gamal Abdel Nasser overthrew King Farouk in a military coup. Wahby warned, however, that "now Muslim fundamentalists hold sway in the Arab streets" and therefore a sudden move for democracy with general elections might install fundamentalists in the government. Instead, he suggested that democracy should be set up gradually in Arab regimes, helped by outside forces but not imposed by them. Yitzak Reiter of Hebrew University, currently a Middle East Institute Scholar-in-Residence, disagreed, asserting that it is not Islamic fundamentalism but simply the fear of more democracy that threatens current authoritarian regimes in Arab countries. He warned, though, that "imported" Western models of democracy would have "repercussions" in the region. Reiter noted, nevertheless, that the Kingdom of Jordan can serve as a model of a more "enlightened government" than what exists in most Arab countries. According to him, although Jordan is "a liberal autocracy," it has been more "progressive" than other Arab countries. Saudi businessman and reform-minded journalist Hussein Shobokshi offered a somewhat more optimistic point of view. Describing himself as a member of the generation of
"doubt," caught between old traditional Arab leaders and the
modern wave of Western-educated Arabs, Shobokshi said some progress is
being made in the Arab world with "censorship" diminishing and
"challenges" being raised for the respect of individual
rights. He noted that "just two days ago" 30 schools in Saudi
Arabia elected their own Shura Council to govern themselves. - A lack of vision that does not focus on the "end game," leaving the Israelis holding on to territory and the Palestinians reluctant to dismantle Hamas or the Al-Aqsa Brigade for fear of a loss of security; - A lack of trust from both sides that failed to implement the agreement while "the world stood by" offering no mechanism to foster that trust; - A lack of legitimacy with the Israelis clinging to the rights of
Jewish settlers and the Palestinians living in "a non-state
entity." - The conflict cannot be seen as a moral struggle between right and wrong; - A third-party mediation is essential as the fundamental imbalance of power between the two sides renders conventional diplomacy insufficient; - A two-state solution is the only logical solution.
(The Washington File is a product of the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov) |
Copyright 2014 Q Madp www.OurWarHeroes.org