Foreign Policy and the ‘Jesus Factor’

02/20/2006

By Paul Munnis

Michael E. O’Hanlon, Brookings Institute’s, Senior Fellow of Foreign Policy Studies, and holder of the The Sydney Stein, Jr. Chair, makes key assertions on Democratic prospects for election in 2008 as follows:

“Just as neo-cons have provided much of the spark and intellectual energy behind modern-day Republicanism, Democrats need a “neo-progressive” movement to give purpose and vision to their party—and political hope to their future candidates.”

“Big ideas are needed in a changing, challenging international environment. They are also good politics. Candidates with big ideas convey purpose and gravity. They also convey resoluteness and firm beliefs—traits that helped President George W. Bush appeal to voters on the grounds that he had character and shared their values.”

Today, American foreign policy is dominated by the middle-east and even a casual examination of the dynamics of the mid-east leads one to witness Israel and their 57 year old struggle to exist.  One then rapidly observes the Palestinians and the failed attempts by them to live in peace with Israel. The failure of these two nation-states to live in peace and harmony is the fundamental issue of discord dominating U.S. Foreign Policy. There are ripple effects in Iraq, Iran, and in every Islamic nation in the world as a result.

U.S. support for Israel radiates outwards to every bit of mid-eastern sponsored terrorism and is the bane of U.S. presidents who have struggled to resolve the issues. America has provided decades of support for Israel and is not about to walk-away from the country either. Doing so would be political suicide for America and its leaders.

As Bill Clinton left public office he was within 3% of resolving the diplomatic issues. Then he left office and Bush sponsored his ‘Roadmap for Peace.’ Bush then stopped trying to promote diplomatic solutions and he left the situation largely in the hands of the two nation states pledging support for Sharon. Arafat then died as Abbas replaced him determined to forge a peace between Palestine and Israel. Then Sharon had a stroke and is now incapacitated.

In the meantime the Palestinian Fatah Party was corrupt to the core and lost the recent Palestinian election to Hamas an avowed enemy of Israel. Foreign Policy has now taken a huge step backwards. It is both a problem and an opportunity for resolving the conflict for Democrats.

If we Democrats want to retake the presidency we need to advocate a foreign policy that will win in the Israeli / Palestinian theater and the election of Hamas is a gift to Democrats from God allowing us to show a better way.

Different options are being looked at now and they include military and economic solutions even as various diplomatic solutions seem elusive. Yet military and economic solutions only worsen the situation leaving diplomacy as the only course of reasonable action open to us.

So let us concentrate on the possibilities of renewed diplomacy.

In a sense, Hamas has had their worst dreams realized. They now must govern Palestine and take responsibility for the outcome. So far they have been in the cat-bird seat, watching, judging, disturbing, and inciting. All of that takes an opponent to rise up against and it gives Hamas identity as a result. But now there is no opponent inside of Palestine. They are the government and so they need an opponent.

The attempt is to make Israel the enemy and to force a struggle against them. That means military conflict, a road of comfort for Hamas as hate for Israel is their identity element. Remove that identity element and Hamas is as nothing. 

Israel is not so dumb and they ask what will happen if they refuse to engage Hamas militarily but instead subject Palestine to a combination of isolation of services combined with economic starvation? The answers that come back are that it feeds into the plan of Hamas to make Israel the sworn enemy of Palestine and thus it focuses the struggle for Hamas by strengthening their identity with the Palestinian people.

What seems to be needed instead is the ‘Jesus Solution,’ a policy based upon loving your neighbor’s and embracing your enemies.

This is counter-cultural for Israel who has spent the last 57 years in an Old Testament approach of ‘an eye-for-an-eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ The result has been irreconcilable strife. The notion of turning the other cheek for Israel is thus an absurd proposition. Besides how could they accomplish such a thing from a tactical viewpoint?

They could start by setting up an alternating schedule for access to the new gateways with Hamas. Just say they will man them one month and Hamas will man them another and Israel will bias the schedule to favor the Holy Days for access to Jerusalem by the members of Islam. That is a small concession and it forces Hamas to begin to deploy forces for governance while negotiating.

Next, they could create a neutral buffer zone for the religious zones inside of Israel asking the UN to provide access control and supervision of those sites; that removes a lot of the religious animosity.

Then, they could say to Palestinians that while they don’t like supporting Hamas they will continue to pay their taxes to Palestine because it is the moral thing to do. Then they could give a loan to Palestine to build schools and infrastructure and improve the lot of the Palestinian people while regaining the tax money as interest on the loans. This fosters more negotiation with Hamas and it forces Hamas to either govern or withdraw from the scene.

In the meantime they could encourage Palestinians to come to Israel for trade and economic opportunity by assuring that it exists.

Then they could make it easy for Palestinians to live in Israel as citizens while creating an economic advantage for them to do so.

I am speaking here about cultural assimilation of Palestinians into Jewish society and that is a hard step for Israel to take because they seek to be a Church State Government instead of a pluralistic society. It means granting minority rights to Palestinians and others living in Israel and it means separating Church and State. Yet after 57 years of failure it is getting time for Israel to try something daring and new. If the Jewish culture is attractive to people and vital then it should still flourish in Israel in an atmosphere of pluralism. It has flourished elsewhere under those conditions; right here in America for example.

Sharon dared to oppose the strife caused by Jewish settlers and thus removed a lot of the anguish in foreign relations as a result. Pluralism could be the next big step for Israel development and be the next stepping stone to peace.

In the meantime an effort must be to either make Hamas step up to the plate of quality government or else to demand a new election in Palestine. America should invest in that effort long before we place money into creating instability in Iran as Ms. Rice seeks funding to do. Our goal must be to create stability and not instability in the mid-east.

It is hard for Bush to push this option because of his ties to the U.S. Religious Right whose platform is one of tearing down the ‘Separation Laws’ in the U.S. Constitution. But it would be quite easy for Democrats to sponsor such a strategy because we have no such baggage and in fact we are champions of Separation issues where on the domestic front we have been vocal about separation of Church and State as well as separation of powers between the three branches of domestic government.

The ‘Jesus Factor’ should not be discounted as a strategic foreign policy option for America. It should be understandable and supportable by most Americans regardless of Party. It should have broad appeal to Swing and Undecided voters. We have tried most everything else that we can think of and it has been a failure. Why not try love and kindness and understanding as an alternative to the policies of old?

In strategy planning we are taught that the way to manage an enemy is to attack his strengths. In the case of Palestine the political strength of Hamas is its anti-peace platform with hatred of Jews as their theme song. Attack this as Jesus would and thus force Hamas to govern if it seeks to retain power. This is a valid foreign policy option for Democrats.

When it comes to foreign policy for Afghansitan and Iraq we Democrats are left with few options anyhow except to sponsor Separation of Church and State, Separation of Powers, minority rights, pluralism, and peace between factions. We would do well to formalize them as elements of the “Jesus Factor,’ and become firm advocates of these principles.