WASHINGTON, 3 May 2004 — The 2004 election campaign is now in full swing-and all indications are that it will be the dirtiest in American history. There will be surprises, of course, from Republicans and Democrats alike. Barely-founded or simply untrue assertions will be advanced at the last minute to try to swing a very close election one-way or the other.
From the point of view of Americans who consider US policy toward Palestine a major problem, there’s not much new. It’s as if the Palestine problem has disappeared from Americans’ radar screens, and terrible things are happening in a vacuum.
Let’s take these developments one at a time. In England, 52 former British foreign service officers signed a letter to Prime Minister Tony Blair asking him to consider the consequences if Britain continues blindly to follow George W. Bush as the American president makes heedless and unnecessary mistakes sure to cause needless and irreparable harm to the US and the rest of the world. The next day, my office sent a letter via our e-mail list calling for American Foreign Service officers to take a similar action. The result was phenomenal, and certainly demonstrated that thousands of Americans are deeply concerned about the Palestinian problem as well as the ongoing catastrophe in Iraq. With lots of input and suggestions, we currently are gathering signatures for a letter to President George W. Bush, from Republicans, Democrats and Independents. We may be divided by political persuasion, but are united by our belief that our government is heading toward great danger. Our hope is that both political parties will take heed and listen to the voice of experienced diplomats.
Here’s the gist of the letter to President Bush: “We are deeply concerned by your April 14 endorsement of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s unilateral plan to reject the rights of three million Palestinians, to deny the right of refugees to return to their homeland, and to retain five illegal settlement blocs in the occupied territories. It ignores international laws declaring Israeli settlements illegal. It flouts UN Resolution 194, passed in 1948, which affirms the right of refugees to return to their homes or receive compensation for the loss of their property and assistance in resettling in a host country should they choose to do so. And it undermines the road map for peace drawn up by the Quartet, including the US. Finally, it reverses longstanding American policy in the Middle East.
“Your meeting with Sharon followed a series of intensive negotiating sessions between Israelis and Americans, but which left out Palestinians. In fact, you and Prime Minister Sharon consistently have excluded Palestinians from peace negotiations. Former Palestinian Information Minister Yasser Abed Rabbo voiced the overwhelming reaction of people around the world when he said; ‘I believe President Bush declared the death of the peace process today.’ “By closing the door to negotiations with Palestinians and the possibility of a Palestinian state, you have proved that the United States is not an even-handed peace partner. You have placed US diplomats, civilians and military doing their jobs overseas in an untenable and even dangerous position.
“Your unqualified support of Sharon’s extra-judicial assassinations, Israel’s Berlin Wall-like barrier, its harsh military measures in occupied territories, and now your endorsement of Sharon’s unilateral plan are costing our country its credibility, prestige and friends. “It is not too late to reassert American principles of justice and fairness in our relations with all the peoples of the Middle East. Support negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis, with the United States serving as a truly honest broker. A return to the time-honored American tradition of fairness will reverse the present tide of ill will in Europe and the Middle East — even in Iraq. Because the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is at the core of the problems in the Middle East, the entire region — and the world — will rejoice along with Israelis and Palestinians when the killing stops and peace is attained.”
While it is unlikely that Bush will heed our advice, at least we can say that we honestly tried and have given voice to the concerns of many Americans. Dozens of non-diplomats have called us to ask, “Why can’t we get something similar from our perspective?” One group said, “We’d like to do a letter from retired missionaries,” and former Peace Corp volunteers made a similar request. The permutations are endless. And, of course, anyone with good sense will say “the more the merrier!”
I hope that thousands of Americans will exert similar efforts. Diplomats will hold a news conference at 12:00 tomorrow at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. There has been more critical news from Washington, DC this past week about the election. Prominent American pollster John Zogby has conducted a tracking poll commissioned by his brother, Arab American Institute President Dr. James Zogby. According to the poll, Arab-American voters in four crucial states, Michigan, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, could have a “seismic” impact on the election. In a two-way race, the poll found, 49 percent of Arab-Americans in those four states would vote for John Kerry, the presumed Democratic nominee, only 30 percent would pick Republican President Bush, and 21 percent said they would vote for someone else or were unsure.
It also is significant that if consumer advocate Ralph Nader, himself an Arab-American, stays in the race, as he says he will, the statistics be significantly altered. He would receive 14 percent of the Arab-American vote, with 28 percent going to Bush and 45 percent for Kerry. Fourteen percent of poll respondents said they would vote for someone else or were unsure. How astonishing, then, those in many states both Kerry and Bush seem to be completely ignoring the potential of Arab— and Muslim-American voters.
Dr. Agha Saeed, for example, is bubbling with plans for the 2004 elections. He and his colleague, Maad Abu-Ghazalah, have formed the American Muslim Task Force on Civil Rights and Elections under the auspices of the American Muslim Alliance. They expect to double the votes cast in 2000. In addition to planning mini-conventions, with the first to be held July 2-4, the group will be holding town meetings, with 23 planned and two already having taken place in New York. The task force will be stressing civil rights and human rights. Other groups are working just as hard. These include the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), which a few years ago merged with the National Arab American Association. Another important group is the Council for the National Interest, founded by former Republican congressmen Paul Findley and Pete McCloskey, who have worked with retired Foreign Service officer Eugene Bird and former Ambassador Edward Peck.
Still more groups include the American Task Force for Lebanon; the American Task Force for Palestine; the Jerusalem Fund; the Palestine Center; the American Muslim Council; the Council on American-Islamic Relations; the Muslim Student Association; the Council on American-Islamic Relations and Churches for Middle East Peace; and many more. In addition, there are regional groups not yet working on a national basis. When it comes to the presidential election, however, I keep thinking “so what!” Bush and Kerry may be two-of-a-kind Zionists. If that’s the case, Nader’s only role will be to make sure that the worse of the two gets elected. I’m caught in a dilemma, and suspect that 9 out of 10 people whose first interest is peace in the the Middle East feel the same way. I’ll be interested to see what people in the Arab world have to say this week.
— Richard H. Curtiss is the executive editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs magazine.
