|
BARACK OBAMA delivered a policy speech dwelling on the Middle East
crisis at the anniversary convention of the American Israel Public
Affairs Committee (Aipac) just one day after garnering the required
number of delegates for his Democratic nomination to the highest
elective position in America. It was, to a large extent, a welcome
speech that hinted at a more harmonious and reasoned relationship
between the remaining superpower nation and the rest of the world
under an Obama presidency. Under his leadership, there would
certainly be greater prospects for concretization of democratic
ideals, respect for universal human rights, recognition for various
nations’ struggle for self-determination and independence, and
fealty to the fundamental ethics of the United Nations. Antagonizing
other cultures and provoking them to war has, after all, only served
to further isolate America from the community of nations and its
universal path towards diplomatic amity and peaceful resolution of
conflicts among countries.
Nonetheless, certain aspects of the same speech
has been perceived as an obvious concession to further Obama’s
candidacy, an admission of the influence of the Jewish vote and,
thus, the first visible dent in Obama’s “armor” of honesty and
scrupulous determination not to be swayed by the popular view for
the sake of being popular.
Obama, in declaring that Jerusalem City shall,
under his presidency, be recognized as the capital of Israel,
expectedly drew wild and enthusiastic applause from his audience.
But one wonders whether the declaration was made primarily for that
purpose. It is, in any event, a statement fraught with many,
possibly unintended, consequences even as it appears to contradict
his stated commitment to a two-nation policy, i.e. full recognition
of both the State of Israel and the State of Palestine.
Unfortunately, it is Jerusalem that has been the more difficult and
contentious in negotiations for the creation and recognition of two
states. Jerusalem City is sacrosanct land to the three greatest
monotheistic religions. Christianity claims this Holy City because
it is the birthplace, residence, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Judaism claims this Holy Land as the land of the Jewish forebears,
counting Abraham, Moses, Solomon and David among them. The Wailing
Wall is itself the wall of Solomon’s palace and Israel is the
Promised Land of the Hebrews. Islam claims this Holy City as the
Land of the Prophet Muhammad’s Night Journey and Ascension into
heaven, where he met Allah and the Prophets from the beginning of
time.
It is a problem that will require further
thought and evaluation, much more than has been currently invested
on it by this formidable nominee whom many pray will become the next
president of the United States. The resolution will probably not
come within the lifetime of the previous Democratic president under
whose guidance a possible solution had come tantalizingly close
because the leaders of the involved nations seemed fully committed
to finding it.
Some see at least two possible solutions to the
Israel-Palestine issue. One, which I proposed sometime ago and
believe provides a promising scenario, is the
“internationalization” of Jerusalem City, administered by an
international authority acceptable to the three religions competing
for sacred territories therein. The second possible solution is
allowing the Jewish and Palestinian leaders to negotiate amicably
for a delineation of their own territories within the Holy City. It
appears that Jerusalem City itself has been quite peaceful. The
Catholic Pontiff has basically agreed to any arrangement provided
Christian pilgrimages are allowed at holy sites and the Catholic and
Christian residents respected. The Palestinians, mostly Arabs, have
respected the practice of both Jewish and Christian rites and
pilgrimages to Jerusalem but will not agree to ceding Jerusalem to
the Hebrews precisely because surrendering the third holiest Islamic
city site is unimaginable to Muslims. The Jews have also been quite
respectful towards other religious pilgrims and practitioners in
Jerusalem. But the Israelites have just been building too many
Jewish resettlement sites outside their territorial boundaries,
which encroach into Palestinian territory. If the Israelites can
just give up their settlements that have usurped Palestinian lands,
then walled boundaries can be constructed in respect of such
agreements.
The American president will have to study this
matter further so as to come up with a sober appraisal of the
situation. Obama should not be pressured by the powerful Zionist
lobbyists in America into impulsive declarations demanding Jerusalem
City as Israel’s capital, but neither should Obama be compelled by
Arab oil sheiks into retreating from his position on the Israel
issue. His name “Barack” is common to Hebrews while his second
name “Hussein” marks his Muslim heritage as it is the name of
the Prophet Muhammad’s grandson from the marital bonds between Ali
and his daughter Fatima. Already these names are favorably sparking
a sea change in America’s policies in the Middle East, simply
because this prophesied next American Democratic president has much
more shared commonalities with the peoples of the world than any
Republican warmonger.
ericfmallonga@yahoo.com
|
