Peace Out?

Americans are seriously tired of the war in Iraq. But are they ready to get serious about peace in the Middle East? Jakarta-based Trish Anderton explores this question while visiting the U.S. for the first time in a year and a half.

I notice it right away, as a friend is driving me to her apartment from Boston's Logan Airport: the yellow "Support Our Troops" magnets that once festooned so many of my fellow Americans' bumpers have dwindled to almost none. Only a few faded examples still cling to the rear ends of recalcitrant pickup trucks and SUVs.

This seems to confirm what most people always assumed: those magnets were about supporting the war, not the troops.

And now, Americans want out.  As we pick our way through the maze of detours surrounding the airport, I begin wondering: People are rejecting the war, but are they looking for broader solutions in the Middle East? Are they pondering the conditions that helped lead to war?  For example, are they looking for a president who can revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace process?

I decide to find out. Luckily, just a few days later, I'm headed to a key battleground in the early stages of the U.S. presidential race: New Hampshire, where the first presidential primary vote will happen early next year.

                                                            ****

"The war is overshadowing everything," says Wayne McDonald, vice-chair of the state Republican committee, balancing a plate of barbecue on his knee at a Republican picnic in the town of Etna. "What (voters) want more than anything else is for us to be out of there."

But that doesn't mean there's more interest in the peace process, he adds: "I think it's largely being crowded out."

The poll numbers agree. In a mid-June survey of the state's Republican voters by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, 59 percent said Iraq was among their top concerns. Foreign policy -- the entire arena of foreign policy -- limped in at 9 percent. Asked the same question a month later, 20 percent of Democrats cited foreign policy as a top issue.

On their campaign websites, most candidates emphasize their support for Israel, without a corresponding vow to pursue peace or protect the rights of Palestinians.  Only Democrat Dennis Kucinich devotes significant space to the importance of an even-handed peace process.

Kucinich isn't likely to advance the cause much, however, since he's polling at 3 percent nationally.

The next day, Democratic candidate Bill Richardson addresses a crowd in the state capital, Concord. Looking a bit rumpled and chubby for an America that likes its candidates trim, the New Mexico governor fields a question on Middle East peace. He quickly summarizes his support for the 1967 Israeli borders, for Israel's right to exist and for the Palestinians' right to a state. In sum, he says, "I believe we need a comprehensive settlement that involves talking to all the players in the region."

But the questioner, interpreter Fatima Deek, doesn't look happy. Deek grew up as a Palestinian refugee in Jordan. She's been in the U.S. for 16 years. She's looking for a candidate to tackle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and she hasn't found one yet.

"All of them say oh, you know, we have to think about something, we have to do something," she tells me after the speech. "But I think it's all crap. I didn't like Bill Richardson's answer. I need more."

Deek blames Palestinian misery on a combination of American imperialism and weak Arab leadership. She's frustrated that the plight of her fellow refugees hasn't inspired more passion.

"I want a candidate who will say this is unfair, this is unjust," she says. "I am glad people are talking about Darfur. But what about the forgotten refugees?"

                                                            ****

Actually, the Middle East conflict is never really forgotten in the U.S.; it's an endless source of headlines and editorials. As the decades pass, however, Americans appear to be losing hope in ever finding a solution. Last year, a U.S. poll found 64 percent of

respondents thought Israel and the Arab nations would never be at peace.

I e-mail Steven Simon, senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council of Foreign Relations, to ask why people aren't taking a broader view on Middle East issues.

"You expect too much of voters," he chides gently in his reply. He cites the difficulty Americans face in withdrawing from Iraq "under conditions that resemble defeat". He cites the country's longtime emotional and strategic identification with Israel. He points out the complexity that would be involved in any peace deal.

"It is not surprising that candidates will shy away from these sorts of questions," he concludes, though he adds the issue will arise more in the later stages of the campaign.

Connie Whitlatch is my last hope. She's the director of Churches for Middle East Peace (CMEP), which sent a letter to all the candidates in August urging them to make "stronger American diplomatic leadership" in the peace process a top priority. I call Whitlatch, and she politely bursts my bubble.

"I really do not think it's a good time for candidates to talk about this issue," she says, because "they don't usually do a very responsible job of it."

In the heat of a campaign, she says, politicians end up taking extreme positions. Rather than force the issue into the limelight, CMEP hopes to get the candidates to commit to work for peace. Then the organization can follow up on that commitment in a more sober atmosphere after the next U.S. president takes office.

The situation in the Middle East looks rather bleak at the moment, she admits, but the need for a peace process is so strong as to make it "almost unstoppable".

"I'd like to think that (sense of) inevitability is correct and it will come to pass," she says.

It's not exactly a clamor for peace. But for the moment, it looks like it will have to suffice.

Home