At the tenth annual Palestine Center conference on 2 November experts on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict met at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, to discuss the topic, “The Palestinian-Israeli Impasse: Has U.S. Policy Run its Course?”

A panel on “International and Grassroots Initiatives,” moderated by Samih Farsoun, former Chairman of the Sociology Department at American University, included: Phyllis Bennis, Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies; Alexandros Karidis, Middle East Affairs Program Associate with the World Council of Churches; Barbara Lubin, Executive Director of the Middle East Children’s Alliance; Gila Svirsky, co-founder of the Coalition of Women for a Just Peace; and Kumi Naidu, of the South African NGO Coalition.

Bennis discussed the possibilities for Israeli-Palestinian peace in the wake of 11 September and whether, in the current environment, a breakthrough is possible in her presentation, “Challenging U.S. Policy on Israel and Palestine.”

In working to achieve peace between Israel and the Palestinians, all of us are in “a moment when we cannot afford illusions.” While the dialogue for justice for the Palestinian people matters in our “community and our college campuses,” so far it has had little effect “when confronting power.”

The struggle is made more difficult because “we are dealing with a Palestinian leadership that has lost its vision.” The Palestinian Authority (PA) is compared to the African National Congress (ANC) of apartheid-era South Africa, which “worked for years to create a political movement and had [a] strategy for gaining international supporters … The divestment movement on college campuses … occurred because the ANC wanted it.” Without a coordinated plan such as that created by the ANC, it will “not resonate with the American people to hear that the Palestinians are in an apartheid state.”

The 11 September attacks “changed a lot about how we have to address those policies,” and the nature of the movement is at an intersection. Now “we must de-educate people about what they know.” One of the positive results that has come from 11 September is that “Israel is suddenly a possible impediment to the [international] coalition” against terrorism.

Bennis pointed out that “final status issues alone will [not] motivate the public to support the Palestinians.” Activists must say “we are supporting occupation and it is violating human rights,” and “U.S. [made] helicopter gun-ships are attacking Palestinian civilians.” It must also be emphasized that many in the region hate the U.S., not “for who we are, but because after Israel bombs [the Palestinians] the parts say ‘made in the USA’.”

Concluding, Bennis explained that “we have to take the issue to where people are.” We have the responsibility to say “this is a new world since 11 September, and people are asking new questions, and it is right to ask those questions, and we have some answers.” The answers begin with: “we have to end the occupation, and we have to do it based on human rights and international law.”

Alexandros Karidis of the World Council of Churches (WCC) discussed “The International Ecumenical Response to the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict.”

The WCC “is a fellowship of 342 churches in over 110 countries … from virtually all Christian traditions,” and has “been deeply involved in efforts for peace in the Holy Land since 1948.” The Council’s goal is “a comprehensive and just peace agreement that will assure the rights, well-being, and security of Israel and the Palestinian people.” They have been committed “to dialogue between Christians, Jews, and Muslims to promote tolerance and harmonious relationships.”

Since 1995, the WCC has “placed a particular focus on Jerusalem as an element of the final stage of negotiations and to the call for it to be designated a shared city for three faiths and two peoples.” At the start of the second intifada, “the patriarchs and heads of the Christian communities in Jerusalem denounced the aggression … and affirmed their solidarity with the Palestinian people, Muslims and Christians alike, in defending the fundamental right to worship and prayer in Jerusalem.”

The WCC, according to Karidis, also has a broad-based plan to push for the end of the occupation. The first fruits of this plan are “the establishment of the Ecumenical Monitoring Presence in Palestine and Israel (EMPPI), which is meant to coordinate the work of church and ecumenical monitoring and observer teams there.” EMPPI is expected to “focus on monitoring and observing human rights violations in sensitive situations, such as check points,” and on “accompanying people in their daily activities.” Karidis emphasized that the WCC makes up a global network that can be mobilized for projects like EMPPI and this “is what the World Council has been trying to do.”

Barbara Lubin discussed her activities as an activist for peace and justice, speaking on the “Conference against Racism in Durban.”

Addressing what has happened in the U.S. since 11 September, Lubin said, “I was not surprised that it happened,” only that “it took so long to happen.” Just prior to 11 September, she attended the International Conference on Racism in South Africa, which she described as “an amazing experience.” At a rally during the conference she saw people holding signs condemning Israel’s practices against the Palestinians, giving a “general feeling of people from all over the world … that Israel has got to stop its tactics.”

In conclusion, she stated that the most important thing to learn from 11 September is that “instead of the United States government pointing its finger out there, we have to point inside … and say, what are the policies of this country that has caused so much anger … with our government?” “The world has become very small … we have to be good citizens of this world.”

Gila Svirsky discussed her work as an Israeli peace activist in her presentation, “Israeli Peace Activism and the Politics of the Middle East.”

The Coalition of Women for a Just Peace, a grouping of ten Israeli women’s peace organizations, organizes “joint actions that magnify our impact and raise the volume on the message that we are trying to convey … we are Israelis, and we believe that peace is viable between our two nations, and that the only viable peace must be based on a two state solutionŠIsrael and Palestine, free and independent.” In addition, “women must be full and equal partners in the negotiations for peace,” because as things stand now, “we have trained specialists in the art of destroying an enemy expected to transform into trained specialists in the art of resolving differences amicably.” The Coalition’s philosophy is that “many mothers would have a head start on almost any general in the art of resolving differences amicably.”

One of the central problems the peace movement in Israel faces is that “the Israeli media ignore us, and therefore the world media ignore us.” Even though it often “feels like a blackout of our message” is occurring, “little by little, over time, the Israeli grassroots peace movement has had an impact on Israeli attitudes and policies.” This is accomplished “by affecting American policymakers, institutions, and individuals.” The Israeli Committee against House Demolitions “managed to dramatically reduce the demolition of Palestinian homes for about a year,” by “encouraging American supporters to make direct citizen appeals to the White House and the State Department.” Appeals “came in massive numbers, until the State Department” ordered the U.S. embassy in Israel to discuss the matter with Israeli officials. Finally, “Clinton raised the issue with Netanyahu,” and “home demolitions ended almost entirely,” until Sharon came to power. “Israel is vulnerable to international pressure, particularly by the U.S. government.” Whenever the U.S. decides to exert its influence on the concept of a just settlement, “the Israeli government would have to fall in line if the U.S. insists.”

In summation, Svirsky noted that in the current international climate, the moment has arrived “for the U.S. to find its voice” on achieving peace in the Middle East. “American silence is more troubling than its words.” Peace is the answer “because I love Israel, and this occupation is eating the humanity out of Israel.” The U.S. must “help us bring this horror to an end.”

Kumi Naidu provided insight into his participation in the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, an experience relevant to the current Palestinian struggle for freedom, in “Anti-Apartheid: The South African Experience.”

The ANC, led by Nelson Mandela, spoke of “four pillars of struggle,” with “mass mobilization” a vital component. This entailed the enlistment of “many citizens of our country, black and white É to become active agents in trying to oppose the policies of the regime.” In South Africa, Naidu belonged to Black Sash, made up of individuals from “white women … who supported the struggle against apartheid, to much more militant youth organizations.”

The second pillar was that of “international solidarity.” Those in the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa “understood very clearly that … we would be completely na•ve not to understand how global power and global politics … to a large extent determine how much of the resolution of the political conflict would happen.” Even as late as the year before Nelson Mandela was released from prison, most South African “policy makers still regarded him as a full-fledged terrorist,” so “the struggle to shift international public opinion in our struggle in South Africa was not too dissimilar … to what you are facing now.”

The third pillar of struggle, “the political underground,” was “pushing the banned political organizations.” The fourth pillar, “armed struggle,” was in fact “a very, very limited attempt at … armed propaganda.”

Juggling these four elements “was a very, very challenging thing,” because international solidarity “was dependent on what sort of messages are transmitted from the different components of the struggle.”

Naidu concluded by explaining that the traditional definition of democracy is “the act of casting a vote once every four or five years,” but the biggest challenge facing citizens around the world is to redefine governance as “an enterprise between citizens and their governments on an ongoing basis.” The continuing challenge is “to ensure that the voice and the views … of ordinary citizens … have a chance to be translated into policy and into implementation of policy.” This must occur so that we do not end up with “the form of democracy without the substance.”

The above text is based on remarks delivered at the 2 November 2001 Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine conference, “The Palestinian-Israeli Impasse: Has U.S. Policy Run its Course?” The speakers’ views do not necessarily reflect those of the Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine or The Jerusalem Fund. This “For the Record” was written by Michael S. Lee; it may be used without permission but with proper attribution to the Palestine Center.

This information first appeared in “For the Record” No. 92, 16 November 2001.