Year in Review
(Signs of the Time - December 2000)
As we approach yet another new year and the official new century, we reflect on the past and look forward to the future. Most may recall that one of the widely anticipated events of the year 2000 never materialized. The infamous Y2K computer bug was supposed to start the New Year off with a bang by causing havoc around the world. But the computer glitches were few and far between, actually remarkably light considering how many programs had been rewritten anticipation of the problem.
What did come as a surprise, however, was the extent of conflict in the Middle East just when the peace process was supposed to be accomplishing some grand targets. Israel erupted in something just short of a full-scale war.
Year of turbulence, talk of peace
Throughout the year, Israel, Palestine and the violence between these two old foes has
dominated the headlines around the world. Palestine has been vying for an independent
state, and Israel, for its part, has granted several concessions to the Palestinians.
Despite the concessions, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat will stop at nothing short of an
independent state with Jerusalem as its capital. As we approach the end of the year, the
scene of peaceful talk followed by violence continues in its sanguinary conflict.
For example, on November 8, 2000, as clashes turned deadly in the Gaza Strip, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak made his clearest offer yet of an independent Palestinian state but said it must be the result of negotiations that would resume only after the violence abates.
As reported in the New York Times: "Barak’s pledge of a ‘viable Palestinian state’ came in a long letter to the heads of all the world’s governments, meant to explain Israel’s policy in its weeks of conflict with the Palestinians."
Despite the pledge of a viable Palestinian State, an Israeli customs agent was killed in an attack that Barak said called into question Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat’s intentions at reviving the peace talks.
In early November, Israeli leader Ehud Barak’s wrote a letter to world leaders that Israel had made far-reaching concessions during a Mideast summit at Camp David, Maryland, in July. The letter said: "We could resume negotiations which -- based on the ideas discussed at Camp David -- will lead to the creation of a viable Palestinian state, or we can succumb to the route of violence and unilateral Palestinian action." If the Palestinians choose violence, he warned, "Israel will be forced to take measures to ensure the security of our citizens."
In the past Barak has said he would not rule out the creation of a Palestinian state, but his letter contained statements that were the clearest promise yet of eventual Palestinian independence. It should be noted that Barak’s letter appeared, in part, aimed at undercutting possible world support for a unilateral Palestinian proclamation of independence.
The chances for such support have been mitigated by Western criticism that the Palestinians are sending youths to the front lines as a means of garnering world sympathy. One of the two Palestinians shot dead by Israeli soldiers during clashes in the Gaza Strip in early November was 16. The Palestinian authority said it is working to persuade teenagers to stay out of confrontations with Israeli soldiers.
During November the fighting escalated to the point that Israel tracked down and assassinated a Fatah commander. It was Israel’s first targeted, planned slaying of a Palestinian militia leader since the violent confrontation in the West Bank and Gaza began. And it was meant as a tough message, an Israeli Army spokesman said: "Beware you who hurt us. You will be hurt." Israeli Army officials said the militia leader, Hussein Obaiyat, 34, was suspected of being the mastermind behind many shooting attacks on Israeli soldiers and civilians that emanated from the Bethlehem area. A spokesman said that several days ago the army received permission for the killing "from the highest political level" and chose today because "it was a very good tactical time to do it."
Compromise government
Since her inception in 1948, Israel could always rely on the American government to
support her. During the 1967 war, the United States airlifted supplies to Israel on a
continual basis. During every conflict, the Americans were there to help ensure that
Israel would survive both on the UN level and militarily. The assistance was provided to
Israel in most part because the American government could act quickly and decisively. If
Israel required help, both the executive and legislative branches of the government had a
clear enough mandate from the American people to respond to their cries.
In the past year, U.S. President Bill Clinton has huddled with Syrian and Israeli envoys in Shepherdstown, West Virginia; flown to Geneva to meet Syrian leader Hafez Assad; presided over 14 days of grueling Israeli-Palestinian talks at Camp David and, last month, worked virtually around the clock to broker an Israeli-Palestinian cease-fire at a summit in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt.
But the near-collapse of the Middle East peace process on virtually all fronts is prompting some critics to wonder whether Clinton might have erred by investing so much time and energy in the region’s tangled diplomacy. Though it might seem counterintuitive, these critics -- including senior advisers to Republican George W. Bush -- suggest that by devoting so much of his attention to Middle East peace negotiations, Clinton has devalued the power of his office to influence Arabs and Israelis. According to this analysis, presidential attention is a kind of currency: You spend it only when the chance of a payoff is high.
At the time that this article goes to press the outcome of the U.S. elections remains uncertain. In the closest elections in years, both the Senate and Congress are almost evenly divided. As well, the executive branch of the government this year has been selected by one of the slimmest margins ever. Whatever the outcome, one thing is certain; the newly-elected government will be a government of compromise. In order to pass a law or seek help for a foreign nation, a compromise solution must be worked out in a bipartisan manner. Could the next four years become known as the years that the United States is unable because of compromise to provide support to Israel?
During the latter days we are told that there shall be merely talk of peace and that the nations will stand around while the northern power marches into Israel. Will the New Year bring this prophecy to fruition? We all eagerly await the consummation of the kingdom of men and the ushering in of the kingdom of God.
George Rayner