The landscape of New York City has changed, and the Empire State Building has resumed its prominence above the remains of the collapsed towers of the World Trade Center. The Marine marathon runners in Washington craned their necks as they passed by the Pentagon to stare at the massive jagged hole. Even the landscape of our minds has been reshaped by the hot flow of fear.

The September 11 attacks on the United States are reshaping the alignment of nations, bringing new visions into view and clouding long-held perceptions. The very nature of war is being redefined. In the hot core of the conflict, the U.S. bombed the Taliban and searches for Osama bin Laden. Beyond Afghanistan, the reverberations are shaking U.S. relations with allies and enemies alike. The tremors have shaken Capitol Hill as well, creating new opportunities and new challenges for the Bush Administration, new restraints on Congress and new responsibilities for public policy advocates.

Ready for Policy Examination

There is a readiness now, forced by tragedy and necessity, among both U.S. government leaders and ordinary people, to examine the policies and practices that feed that bitter wellspring that gives rise to Islamic fanatics. Numerous aspects of U.S. policy toward the Middle East come to mind. This examination is resisted by some who see it as an effort to excuse the vicious violence perpetrated on September 11, which cannot be justified.

Others see it as an essential component of devising strategies and policies that can de-legitimatize the terrorist network, their distorted interpretation of Islam and their call for violence. The personification of the conflict byfocusing on bin Laden could obscure the more fundamental strategy of deflating the popular support that gives fanatic Islamists their protection and provides for their recruitment.

Palestinian Suffering and Holy Jerusalem

The continued suffering of the Palestinians living under occupation and Israel’s exclusive sovereignty over holy Jerusalem, have been foremost among Arab, Muslim and Christian grievances for decades. The failure of the international community to fulfill the requirements of U.N. Security Council Res. 242, which outlines the "land for peace" formula, has weakened the integrity of the United Nations and the application of international law. It is widely recognized that the U.S., in its self-appointed role as sole sponsor of Israeli-Arab peacemaking, has protected Israel from its obligation to end the occupation.

The phenomenon of the satellite broadcasts of al-Jazeera, the Arab version of CNN, has brought vivid pictures of the intifadeh into cafes and apartments throughout Arab and Muslim countries. Despite the lack of democratic institutions, these countries’ leaders, who are now being courted by the U.S. as allies, cannot ignore the popular sentiment of their burgeoning, youthful and unemployed populations.

And no symbol is more inflammatory to these masses than Israel’s abusive sovereignty over Jerusalem and the golden Dome of the Rock. A strategy for restoring hope and calming anger in the street would include the expression of a prophetic vision for the sharing of Jerusalem as a policy objective of the United States. The call from U.S. churches, and their Jerusalem partners, for the sharing of Jerusalem by its two peoples and three religions, has assumed broad political significance.

A New Paradigm

Certainly bin Laden has exploited the Palestinian cause for his own uses, as have many others over many years. Nevertheless, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can no longer be allowed to fester in its bloody cycle of violence while the Bush Administration pursues its domestic agenda. The global coalition directed against terrorism can also pave the way for a new dynamic, more international in nature, for Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking.

Shlomo Ben-Ami, Israel’s former foreign minister, wrote in the London Financial Times in October that: "The loss of mutual trust between the parties and their total incapacity to make even the smallest step towards each other, let alone to observe their commitments, without being nursed by third parties, make the creation of an international framework for peace the last and only way out of the dangerous impasse."

Ben-Ami goes on to outline, "through American assertive leadership" the building of "an international alliance for peace in the Middle East" that will lead to an international conference, a multinational peace-keeping force, internationally supervised disengagement and a comprehensive settlement.

Richard Murphy, former Assistant Secretary of State, now with the Council on Foreign Relations, has proposed that the United States bring a resolution to the U.N. Security Council that would build on UNSC Res. 242. Specifically, that "the council anticipates a viable Palestinian state, sovereign over the land in the West Bank and Gaza from which Israel would withdraw;" that "final borders of the state of Palestine should closely reflect the 1949 armistice lines;" and that "negotiations should resume immediately to determine how much land Israel must retain to assure its security."

However, no agreement, whether imposed from outside or negotiated bilaterally, can hold, unless both Israelis and Palestinians make a concerted effort to restrain their hotheads, foster mutual tolerance and abstain from incitement and hostile propaganda.

Israeli Hopes for Peace

Even an internationalized peace process will fail if Israelis cannot see that ending the occupation is in its best interest. Support is still alive in Israel for a two-state solution, and the latent center in Israel, which does not back the settlements, could still be rallied. They have lost trust in Arafat and their fears have been exploited by the Israeli right-wing that seeks to keep all the land.

The absolute need for the U.S. to lead both sides to a desired common outcome now requires that, unlike with Oslo and the postponement of final status issues, the final vision of a lasting peace be spelled out. Many Americans will want to know that the paramount gains of a peace agreement would benefit both Israelis and Palestinians and would serve the basic interests of the U.S. as well. The immense costs of conflict for both peoples, and the benefits of peace for both sides must be highlighted. This will require a sensitivity that respects the deep fears that haunt Israelis and Jews that Israel’s existence is at risk.

Congressional Restraint

U.S. foreign aid to Israel has long been a barometer of the strong U.S. support for Israel and its military security. As reported by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency in an October 30 news analysis: "The foreign aid bill has traditionally given Israel’s supporters, both in Congress and out, more than an opportunity to send money to Israel. It gave lawmakers and advocates a chance to make their voices heard by the administration, to speak out on concerns over the Middle East."

But, following the September 11 attacks, legislators want to show support for the administration's coalition building and have modified legislative language and dropped several provisions meant to punish Palestinians and Egypt. While Israel will receive the full amount requested by the administration - $2.04 billion for military aid and $720 million for economic aid, the $800 million that President Clinton promised Israel for its withdrawal from southern Lebanon was shelved.

The policy option of pressuring Israel toward constructive policies by threatening its foreign aid has been unused except for the Bush/Baker demand in 1992 that Israel freeze settlement activity before its request for loan guarantees would be approved. Still, it is unlikely that the administration will publicly threaten Israel's aid and even more unlikely that Congress would. Productive advocacy would be to encourage Members' support for the Palestinians as an integral part of Congressional backing for a new peace process.

Quelling Violence

Israel’s use of U.S.-supplied weaponry against Palestinians outrages many Americans and Palestinians, as well as Islamic militants. Whether on al-Jazeera or CNN, all see the news photos of mighty tanks, deadly Apache gunships and the destruction they bring. The administration knows this spectacle is an impediment to its enlisting the cooperation of Arab and Muslim countries.

The administration has strongly rebuked Israel for its invasion of Palestinian towns and its assassinations of Palestinians but is hesitant to condemn Israel’s use of U.S. weaponry against civilians. Deputy Assistant Sec. of State David Satterfield, speaking at a pro-Palestinian conference in November, said; "We continue to look with concern at the use of those arms."

Some Palestinians and their supporters defend their use of violence as a legitimate form of resistance in the face of systemic violence of the occupation. This is seen by many supporters as a failed strategy that is decimating Palestinian civil society, and feeds perceptions of a hate-filled people determined to exterminate Israel.

The Mitchell Committee’s recommendations, being accepted by the parties and supported internationally, continue to be the starting point for any new effort. Yet Israel and the Palestinians are seemingly unable, on their own, to calm the violence and proceed to the confidence building steps which include a freeze on Israel’s settlement activity. It is increasingly obvious that a means must be found for the presence of international observers of some sort for violence to subside.

Placing Blame

The easiest case is to place total responsibility for the September 11 attacks on Osama bin Laden as a fanatic leader of irrational militants. If so, there is no need to look for root causes in the policies and actions of the United States, Israel or Arab states. But it’s not that simple. While no grievance constitutes just cause for terrorism, each does have a basis that calls for examination of U.S. policies.

Bin Laden’s main objective is to overthrow the Saudi monarchy which rules his homeland. This government, and other Arab regimes, have maintained authoritarian rule repressing political opposition. The U.S., leery of "Islamic" political activism, has not promoted human rights or the democratization of its Arab allies and has supplied them with massive military might. Moreover, the placement of U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia, where the Saud dynasty is custodian of the holy places of Mecca and Medina, is seen as an affront to Muslims worldwide.

The plight of the Iraqi people and the 11-year long punishment of Iraq offers a rallying cry for those who cast the United States as an enemy of the Muslim people. America’s unilateral (with the exception of Britain) policy objectives of overthrowing the regime and establishing and bombing no-fly zones have no basis in Security Council resolutions. The anger at America’s violation of international law is intensified by the racism apparent in its disregard for the suffering of Iraq’s Arab populace.

That’s not all. The "balance of power" between the U.S. and USSR ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, leaving a power vacuum. Concurrently, the technological revolution and the globalization of economies and popular culture have contributed to the massive dislocations of a world still adjusting to this end of the stability imposed by the superpower rivalry. Terrorism by non-state actors is a phenomenon of this changing world, and has not yet run its course.

Our attention to terrorism must include a willingness to examine U.S. engagement in the region. The responsibility continues for our elected officials and for ourselves as faith-based advocates and citizens to promote policies and actions that lead to peace, the reconciliation of warring peoples and hope for security and well-being of all peoples.

SUGGESTED ACTION:

ADMINISTRATION:  The White House comments line is the best form of communication with the Administration in these mail-wary times. Please call 202/456-1414 with the following message in your own words.

As the President works with other nations to stop international terrorism, ask that he enlist the international community in a new Israeli-Palestinian peace process that has the clear objective of two states living as peaceful neighbors and sharing Jerusalem as the capitol of their two states. International monitors are needed now to stop the cycle of violence and to protect Palestinians. But it’s up to the United States to stop Israel’s use of U.S. supplied weapons against Palestinian civilians.

CONGRESS: Both American Friends of Peace Now and American Muslims for Jerusalem are urging support for a new Congressional initiative - H. CON. RES. 253: "Expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to ending the violence in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, and endorsing the recommendations of the Mitchell Committee Report."  While this initiative, and the Mitchell report itself, may seem meek compared to the horrendous situation, they are positive steps in the right direction and deserve your advocacy.

Please call, e-mail or fax your representative, urging them to cosponsor the resolution endorsing the Mitchell Committee report. You can reach your representative via the Capitol Switchboard, 202/224-3121 or online at www.house.gov/house/Member. A district office phone number may be in your local phone book. You can find H.Con.Res.253 and list of cosponsors at the Library of Congress’ Web site  http://thomas.loc.gov/  Make these points in your communication:

• I urge you to be/thank you for being a cosponsor of H.Con.Res.253 which endorses the Mitchell Committee recommendations. The State Department has called H.Con.Res.253 a "positive and welcome contribution."
• The absence of peace efforts and the ongoing violence between Israel and the Palestinians is a serious impediment to the global anti-terror campaign and fuels anti-American sentiment.
• The Mitchell Committee recommendations for ending violence, implementing confidence-building measures, and returning to negotiations have been endorsed by the Bush Administration, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, the UN and the EU.
• It’s time for the U.S. Congress to endorse the Mitchell Committee recommendations. This is in America’s best interest as well as that of Israel and the Palestinians.