from my Senator:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding the state of affairs in Israel and the Palestinian Territories.
Having recently returned from a visit to the Middle East, where I met with Israeli and Arab leaders, I believe that Israel and its rivals are ready to take a rational step toward peace. But it won't happen unless the United States steps in and acts as a catalyst. Only the United States possesses the authority and the trust -- muted though it may be -- to bring the contending sides together and reach a comprehensive agreement based on a two-state formula.
The precedents are there. In the Yom Kippur War, it was the United States that negotiated the armistice and brought about disengagement. The historic Camp David Accords, pledging Israel's return of the Sinai, would not have happened without the leadership of President Jimmy Carter. President Bill Clinton came within a hair's breadth of forging a comprehensive settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. I have long urged a renewed U.S. role in stimulating dialogue between Israel and Syria, as well as Israel and the Palestinian Authority. For the past eight years, the United States has played a subdued role, emerging occasionally to encourage the sides to talk.
President Barack Obama's appointment of special envoys to the Middle East, Pakistan and Afghanistan signals a dramatic shift from the detachment of the Bush years. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton confirmed this new approach when she declared in her confirmation hearings: "Despite the seemingly intractable problems in the Middle East, we cannot give up on peace." I personally welcome this return to an activist U.S. role. The world should, too.
The Obama administration takes office at a time when the current conflict may move each side closer to compromise if it doesn't drive them further apart. For Israel, that means cessation of hostilities, withdrawal and steps toward a Palestinian state. For Hamas, it means an end to the rocket attacks and acceptance of Israel's right to exist.
During my meeting with President Bashar al-Assad of Syria in Damascus in December 2008, there was a clearly articulated readiness to resume stalled negotiations under Turkish sponsorship once the Israeli-Hamas conflict ends. President Assad was engaged and welcoming of the prospect.
The battle with Hamas has interrupted, but not derailed, the peace process. It is significant that not one of Israel's adversaries, with the exception of Iran, sided with Hamas' rocket attacks. Egypt backed the Israeli action, noting the aggressive stance taken by Hamas. Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad conceded that Israel had acted in self-defense.
And while there has been widespread anger over the scope of Israel's response, reflecting the mood on the Arab street, there has also been recognition of Israel's right to defend itself. President Assad expressly said that he recognized Israel's security interests.
Forty-five years ago, John F. Kennedy told graduating seniors at American University that peace was the "necessary rational end of rational man." He continued, "peace does not require that each love his neighbor; it requires only that they live together in mutual tolerance." This is a pragmatic formula that should suit rational men in pursuit of rational self- interests.
Thank you again for writing. The concerns of my constituents are of great importance to me, and I rely on you and other Pennsylvanians to inform me of your views. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office or visit my website at
Arlen Specter
No comments:
Post a Comment