Middle East 101 |
| 2nd Report from the Middle East George Wertin, Julie and Michael MaddenMonday, December 9th, 2002 |
Fr. George Wertin, Julie and Michael Madden were part of a delegation in early October that visited the Middle East for 11 days. They met with leaders and citizens from both sides of the conflict. This is their 2nd debriefing to the community.
The first meeting was reviewed at this link.
|
On Monday December 9th at 7 p.m. about 120 people attended a panel discussion entitled: Middle East 101 in Hospitality Hall. The panel was: Father George Wertin, Julie Madden, Pastoral Ministry/Social Outreach Coordinator, and her husband, Michael Madden.
The panelists had two boards up front, one board had a current map of Jewish Settlements in the West Bank, and the other board had photos from their trip. They also had two handouts. One handout had a brief chronological history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the other handout had contact information for various news agencies, Middle East and US-based Middle Eastern Peace organizations. Both handouts are reprinted below. George opened with a prayer and then began the discussion by saying that even though the trip was two months ago, it is still fresh in his mind. He finds himself perusing the paper daily and looking specifically for the latest news on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. He does not have to look far: the stories are usually on the first couple of pages of the paper. George said he went to the Middle East because he was suspicious of media coverage on the issues and wanted to see firsthand what was going on and meet and talk with people on both sides. Julie Madden was the instigator of the trip. Julie said she was inspired to go by two recent speakers at St. Joan’s: Kathy Kelley and Kathy Pierson. George asked the audience what they wanted from the panel discussion. Some of the comments/questions from the audience are reprinted below. Not all of them were answered or addressed by the panel. Not all of them can be answered. But, they are good, thought-provoking questions. The audience questions:<
 George wanted it to be clear that the panel supports a two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Meaning: the Israelis and Palestinians would each get a portion of the current state of Israel to have their own states. Later, George said that the fact that many people on both sides are now even recognizing the right of the other side to have a state at all is a huge leap forward. It was not always so. A new problem created by this recent acceptance of the other sides right to some land: What will constitute a state and what will each side accept as a state? Unfortunately, not everyone on each side thinks the other side should get land for a state. No matter what solution is ultimately reached, the fact that not everyone may accept the solution could still be a major problem. There are radical fringe elements on both sides.
Julie mentioned several organizations that are U.S. based and working towards peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. She also mentioned several organizations that are based in the Middle East that are working towards a peaceful resolution of the conflict. George said the U.S. must realize that it has to take an active stance in any Israeli-Palestinian peace process, not only because the U.S. gives a lot of money to Israel but also because the U.S. is the dominant world power. We must be involved. Michael mentioned that a lot of people want to return to the methods of the First Intifada in the late 1980’s. The First Intifada was mostly peaceful and involved sit-ins, strikes and other non-violent protests. The First Intifada is believed to be largely responsible for the 1993 Oslo Accords in which Palestinians agreed to 22% of the country’s land and would recognize Israel in the remaining 78%. Unfortunately, Israel has refused to adopt the Oslo Accords but the fact that Oslo happened at all is significant. The Second Intifada, which began in 2000, has been largely violent. George said that when they met with Yasser Arafat at his compound in Ramallah what surprised George the most was that Arafat did not criticize anyone. The closest Arafat came to criticism was when he said he begged Ariel Sharon not to visit the Al-Aqsa Mosque (Dome of the Rock). Sharon’s visit to the Mosque sparked the current Intifada. Michael believes that Arafat’s biggest disadvantage, as a world leader, is that he does not know how to deal with the Western style of government and the Israeli’s do. Julie said Arafat’s biggest concern, other then the Second Intifada, was a possible U.S. war with Iraq because that would further destabilize the region.
Michael mentioned that the panel would be meeting with Senator Mark Dayton in a few weeks to give him an overview of their trip. George encouraged anyone interested in traveling to Israel as the panel did, contact the Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR). FOR organized the panel’s trip. It is unlikely that St. Joan’s would be the primary organizer of trips to the Middle East. FOR has much more experience. However, Julie said there might be interest in exploring an ongoing relationship with the area, much like our current relationships with South Africa and Guatemala. What can we do to learn more and get involved in the Middle East peace process?
Emailed reports from the delegation can be seen on our website. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The purpose of the panel was to provide ongoing follow-up of the two-week trip to Jordan, Lebanon and Israel that George, Julie and Michael went on as part of a FOR (Fellowship of Reconciliation) delegation.
Julie said one thing she did not know before she left was the high level of discontent and distrust Israeli and Palestinian citizens have of the leadership on both sides. George said the Israeli’s are not as united behind the conservative leadership of Ariel Sharon as we may be lead to believe. Michael Madden said Sharon and the government are far to the right and it is becoming clear that they support some type of ethnic cleansing. It is difficult to know where the average Israeli stands on such an issue as ethnic cleansing but Michael would not say that just because Sharon was elected means most Israeli’s would support ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.
As far as more Palestinians emigrating to other countries, there is already a large population of Palestinians living in neighboring states-especially Jordan. George said Lebanon is still too unstable to be a viable destination for more refugees. Other countries in the region have economies largely based on oil-production. The Palestinians are largely an agrarian people. The farming of olive trees is the Palestinians largest source of income. Even if the Palestinians could emigrate to another country in the region, what could they do to support themselves?
