Saturday, December 1, 2007

Teach your children well

I don’t know what kind of media attention the Annapolis Conference is receiving back in the United States, but this monumental meeting right now of leaders from the Middle East and other nations interested in peace in my-neck-of-the-woods certainly comes at a great time for me in my learning about the Middle East. These thorny issues never seem to be well-explained in the US (although Op-Ed titan Thomas Friedman does a magnificent job) and I have enjoyed looking at shards of evidence, hearing people’s personal stories, and endeavoring to draw conclusions about what peace might look like. As I mentioned early last week, just before Thanksgiving, King Abdullah II of Jordan came to KA to teach us and help us understand some of the issues that contribute to the cycle of distrust and violence in this region. As I said, he is not just a well-educated man, but a presiding monarch who lives “between Iraq and a hard place,” meeting with world leaders helping them to understand the dynamics of the Middle East.

I didn’t know he was coming to lecture, so I hastily grabbed whatever scraps of paper I had in my suit pocket to take notes as he pointed to a power-point map and helped us evaluate the priorities as he sees them. He was blunt: “If there is no geographic state of Palestine, there will be no peace in the Middle East.” He also underscored that time is of the essence: “We need the United States to make this work, and we need them now; before there is a change of president in 2008—it must happen now. Right now there is a President who wants to burnish his legacy. If we wait, who knows how long until we become a priority again.”

But His Majesty is not a polemic, whiny politician singing a one-note rag—he carefully explained why he ranks the issue of Palestine so high: “Here are the problems in order of importance to solve: Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq. Yes, I know Americans think it is Iraq first and maybe Iran next, but no—if we solve the Palestinian issue first, other issues will fall into place, and other issues will neutralize and fade away. What I hope to do at the Annapolis conference is help countries connect the dots—the peace process is about Palestine. The west needs to see these dots and how they connect.” –editorial comment: what great teaching!!

And then he explained point by point, how and why these issues could be solved if you follow the sequence of priorities. Instead of just staring at the vastness of the Arab map and feeling lost in a morass of suicide bombings, he gave us a framework, guided us to comprehend how one success could lead to another success. As I mentioned last week, the students and faculty were riveted in the lecture hall as he debated which moves in the real-life chess game might actually lead to the goal of peaceful resolution.

HM candidly observed: “Iran is a rogue state, in my opinion, and has too much say in the Mediterranean. Hamas is headquartered in Damascus [Syria], and every move they make has a phone call to Iran. Here is how it can work—we need the issue of Palestine settled so Hamas calms down, so Syria calms down, so Iran is back in its place. Syria is full of conspiracy theorists. I was speaking to the President this morning, and said to him, ‘it is always about some dark agenda for you.’ They [the Syrians] have to see how the process can benefit all of us. Essentially, it would bring us peace. At Annapolis I have to remind the US of Syria’s role in this, and how it is difficult to work with Syria. They [the Syrians] need to be reminded of Arab brotherhood and not just stew in their suspicions. Other problems can be solved if Palestine is solved. Right now Palestine is cantonized, like swiss cheese—Israel can imagine solutions, so they say, but now they must agree to a timetable. It must be in 2008. If Israel does not agree to the timeline, I question whether they want to be ‘in the neighborhood.’ If they agree, there could be peace in this turbulent Muslim world, from Morocco to Indonesia. What is the future they want? We are willing to have peace.” He further cautioned, “If the US attacks Iran, it will be a disaster. Iran is like an octopus, and the way to get at the octopus is to attack and maim the tentacles and remove them one by one.”

Students asked excellent questions about how negotiations and compromises work at the
peace table. HM explained that there are consolation prizes and hopes that mediators will offer the right kinds of “diplomatic carrots.” Another student asked if Iran wants peace. “What do you think?” asked the expert teacher. Several believed the answer is no—they reasoned that peace would take away their influence with Hamas and their power in Damascus. So interesting trying to see how each piece fits into the puzzle. It was clear that with the number of players in this project, getting everyone to envision, desire, and seek peace at the same time is excruciatingly difficult. Everyday as I look in the English-language newspaper, The Jordan Times, and see photos of the King meeting with world leaders, explaining how these volatile dots might actually connect into a picture of harmony, you keep stockpiling hopes in the diplomatic process.

A student asked, “okay—so Palestine is created—what next? What does Jordan have to deal with?” The King answered: “We get to deal with the logistics of peace—new borders, refugee emigration, and our historical role in Jerusalem. I am willing to deal with these logistics!” As he closed his “class” with us, he urged us to consider that “failed dialogue would sustain the tensions in the region. I hope it [the Annapolis Conference] will be a peace process and a time trust-building. The meeting would lead to an establishment of a Palestinian state on Palestinian lands in the West Bank and Gaza, and a fixed time frame. Regardless of the outcome, it will be a historic event.”

November marked the 90th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration—one of the most gosh-darned announcements in modern history. In 1917 the British government called for the establishment of a “Jewish national home” within Palestine, which implied the idea of two states. Indeed it seems that Britain promised both Arabs and Zionists the same piece of prime real estate. When the United Nations passed its resolution in 1947, it called explicitly for the establishment of two states. As I look at the history, neither side ever has liked the idea, and there has been fighting and recriminations ever since.

History, unfortunately, has not favored success when it comes to peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The road to peace is littered with numerous failed plans that have left in their wake a sea of bitter cynicism, and a resignation that this is a road that will forever stretch beyond the horizon. As I have done a little on-line surfing recently, that is certainly what many of the talking heads I encounter are saying. I have listened, over the years, to people who are pro-Israel, and I have listened, for the past four months, to people who are pro-Palestinian. If you set aside the political rhetoric, however, you’ll find that their desires are not so different.

Herein lies the seed of hope for peace, or perhaps just a seed of hope for hope.

No comments: