WASHINGTON, 27 April 2007 — King Abdallah of Jordan called for the United States to put its full weight behind a peace drive in the Middle East in his speech delivered in Washington before a joint session of Congress on March 7.
The following is an interview with US Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA), conducted by Michael Shank, a PhD student at George Mason University’s Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution in Washington. He began by asking her how Congress would react to the king’s speech:
Michael Shank: In King Abdullah’s speech recently for the United States Senate and House of Representatives, Jordan’s leader claimed that “the wellspring of regional division, the source of resentment and frustration far beyond, is the denial of justice and peace in Palestine.” What did he mean by the “denial of justice” and how did/will US Congress respond to Abdullah’s statement?
Congresswoman Capps: I think he was referring to the Palestinian situation in general and in dealing with occupation over the last 40 years. Unfortunately, I did not sense much of a response from the majority of my colleagues. But I think there really is beginning to be a movement toward more open-minded peace opportunities that recognize the right to a better quality of life and security for both Palestinians and Israelis. King Abdullah’s speech rightly called on the US to engage diplomatically in the region at a more intense level and I was moved by his call to create a new legacy in the region that could restore hope for peace among the young people in the Middle East. Just because negotiations are incredibly difficult, doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do every last thing in our power to achieve a lasting peace using whatever diplomatic resources we possess.
Shank: The Arab Peace Initiative, first facilitated in 2002 by Saudi Arabia, is now gaining new momentum. What kept the initiative from successfully brokering a lasting peace between Palestine and Israel the first time around? What does it need to be successful this time?
Capps: I think Israel was unreceptive to the plan the first time because of language regarding key issues like refugees, for example. Plus 2002 was a more volatile year in the region. I’m glad to hear though that the Arab Peace Initiative is being discussed again and I hope that Israel will see this as an opportunity for negotiations and not flat out reject it because there are pieces of the plan that they oppose. I also hope that the United States will take a more active role in persuading the Israeli government to build upon the Arab Peace Initiative as a starting point and likewise encourage Arab states to enter negotiations knowing that the plan in its current form could never be the final document.
Shank: One primary form of US engagement in the conflict between Palestine and Israel has been the withholding of economic aid from Palestine’s elected officials as a way of exerting pressure. The European Union is rethinking this approach since the adverse impacts of such a strategy are most acutely felt by Palestine’s civilian population. Why does the US continue this strategy?
Capps: I sincerely believe that withholding humanitarian aid runs contrary to our best interests of peace and security in the region as well as the best interests of the US. The US continues this strategy because the administration and many of my colleagues in Congress believe, incorrectly in my view, that this will force the Palestinians to reject the Hamas led government. I’m afraid that will only alienate the forces for peace among the Palestinian civilian population. We should encourage civilians to support a pro-peace government by letting them know they are supported by the international community and that their cause is ours.
I absolutely agree that not a single US dollar should ever reach terrorist organizations, including Hamas, and stand by existing US law that prevents such activity. However I have been greatly disappointed by efforts in Congress to seemingly go out of their way to place barriers to US efforts to engage Palestinians in peace efforts, through legislation like the “Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006” which passed the House last year. While the Senate version that was ultimately signed into law was at least a better alternative, it was still unnecessary and still places barriers to achieving peace. Just recently, another piece of legislation has been reintroduced in the House to further withhold funds from reaching even non-Hamas members of the Palestinian government and I fear we are sending a horrible message.
Shank: King Abdallah called for “all hands on deck”. In response, how will the US Congress and the US administration play a key role in building a sustainable peace between Israel and its neighbors?
Capps: I support H.Res.143, which calls for a Special US envoy for Middle East Peace. This would be the best way to ensure an intensified role by the American government to securing a lasting peace for Israel and the greater Middle East. I hope that more of my colleagues will recognize the importance that a special envoy would play and hope that we can pass this resolution.
The United States should be doing more to facilitate diplomatic negotiations and I commend Speaker Pelosi for leading a bipartisan delegation to the Middle East in accordance with the Iraq Study Group’s recommendations. My colleagues...have a unique opportunity to discuss a wide range of issues affecting the security and stability of the entire region, knowing that Congress has chosen to implement a path towards ending the war in Iraq. The administration must follow suit and engage more seriously with Israel, its neighbors and all countries of the Middle East. Such action is long overdue and the situation is only getting worse.
