Message from the Editor

In this issue, our conference deals with New Approaches to Israel and the Middle East. The subgroup of fifteen ILF Fellows that discussed this sensitive issue included Muslims and Jews, Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives. Co-leader Douglass Carmichael (who worked with Donald Straus in the leadership of the conference throughout) opens the conference by directly questioning whether a better approach to issues and opportunities for Israel, Palestine, and the Middle East is even possible.

To assist us in our focus he briefly describes the historical impetus of US support for Israel. He characterizes it as an opportunistic or tactical policy based on the dynamics of the Cold War, oil, and Israel’s strategic location. He contends that our current policy under the Bush administration is essentially unchanged, though the focus of legitimacy seems to have shifted from oil to the war on terrorism. Regardless of the reason for our policy it is one that ignores issues of justice, environment, youth, and business. The result, he proposes, is that the USA is viewed by other members of the international community as an illegitimate broker in the middle east because our policy is perceived as so one sided. Plainly stated, Douglass says the USA is overly supportive of the Israelis, even at the expense of the very ideals we most admire and support.

Quick to emerge was the suggestion from some members that the size of the Jewish vote in the USA, and the influence of lobbies have dictated relatively uncritical support for Israeli policies in the White House and Congress, no matter what those policies may be.

Discussion turned to the recognition that there have been several good plans devised, such as the Geneva Accords, to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but all have failed at the implementation level. The members explored in some detail the many impediments to a peaceful resolution. The competing religious systems of Israel and Palestine, continued Israeli expansion by settlements that intrude into the Palestinian territory, the continued use of terrorism by the Palestinians, and the refusal by Israel to cede rights of return to the Palestinians are just a few.

The conference was in progress even as events unfolded in the world to underline the seriousness of the issue. In Europe a poll was released by the EU that showed the majority of people in Europe saw Israel as the greatest threat to world peace and the USA as the second greatest threat. The ILF fellows struggled to reach consensus on some aspect of the dilemma and were partially successful. All of the participating members agreed that:

1. This situation is unstable and deeply troubling, and the danger is spreading to other countries.

2. It is critically important for our political leaders to bring discussion of the issue into the public arena.

3. The politics of the situation make it extremely difficult for our elected officials to conduct such a debate.

4. Some mechanism is needed that will accomplish the task of public dialogue.

5. The favored mechanism is an independent commission, a diverse, bipartisan group with a mandate to recommend a revised U.S. policy in the Middle East, although doubts were raised because of the likely vulnerability of such a group to the very pressures that prevent debate among politicians.

In most of our discussions, the goal of reaching a consensus with a non-partisan group such as the ILF has essentially been replaced by a focus on generating wisdom. This conference differed in that respect. That the ILF fellows across a broad range of diversity were able to achieve this level of consensus is a significant event and one which perhaps underlines the very serious threat the continuing conflict represents to the entire world. Kip Winsett Editor, ILF Digest

Kip Winsett
Editor