Foreign Policy In Focus by Stephen Zunes, November 1, 2001
[Source] There has been a curious bout of revisionist history in recent weeks criticizing the U.S. decision not to “finish the job” during the 1991 Gulf War and overthrow the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein. With such a lopsided victory in the six-week military campaign, these right-wing critics argue the U.S. could have easily marched into the capital of Baghdad and ousted the dictator…
Category: US Middle East Policy
10 Things to Know About the Middle East
Alternet by Stephen Zunes October 1, 2001 [Source]
1. Who are the Arabs?
2. Who are the Muslims?
3. Why is there so much violence and political instability?
4. Why has the Middle East been the focus of U.S. concern about international terrorism?
5. What kind of political systems and alliances exist in the Middle East?
6. What is the impact of oil in the Middle East?
7. What is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict about?
8. What has been the legacy of the Gulf War?
9. How has the political situation in Afghanistan evolved and how is it connected to the Middle East?
10. How have most Middle Eastern governments reacted to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and their aftermath?
10 Things to Know about U.S. Policy in the Middle East
Alternet September 26, 2001 by Stephen Zunes
1. The United States has played a major role in the militarization of the region.
2. The U.S. maintains an ongoing military presence in the Middle East.
3. There has been an enormous humanitarian toll resulting from U.S. policy toward Iraq.
4. The U.S. has not been a fair mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
5. U.S. support for Israel occupation forces has created enormous resentment throughout the Middle East.
6. The U.S. has been inconsistent in its enforcement of international law and UN Security Council resolutions.
7. The U.S. has supported autocratic regimes in the Middle East.
8. U.S. policy has contributed to the rise of radical Islamic governments and movements.
9. The U.S. promotion of a neo-liberal economic model in the Middle East has not benefitted most people of the region.
10. The U.S. response to Middle Eastern terrorism has thus far been counter-productive.
U.S. Policy Toward Political Islam
Alternet.org, September 12, 2001, by Stephen Zunes The perceived growth of radical Islamic movements throughout the Middle East and beyond has not only caused major political upheaval in the countries directly affected but has placed political Islam at the forefront of concerns voiced by U.S. policymakers. One unfortunate aspect of this newfound attention has been the way it has strengthened ugly stereotypes of Muslims already prevalent in the West. This occurs despite the existence of moderate Islamic segments and secular movements that are at least as influential as radicals in the political life of Islamic countries. Even though the vast majority of the world’s Muslims oppose terrorism, religious intolerance, and the oppression of women, these remain the most prevalent images of the Muslim faith throughout the Western world. Such popular misconceptions about Islam and Islamic movements—often exacerbated by the media, popular culture, and government officials—have made it particularly difficult to challenge U.S. policy.
Audio: The Evolution of U.S. Policy on Jerusalem: International Law versus the Rule of Force
For the Record No. 80, 2 August 2001
[Source & Audio, 40 mins.] July 26, 2001, by Stephen Zunes
“Recent moves by the Clinton and the current Bush administrations regarding Jerusalem have surprised even the most cynical observers of U.S. foreign policy for their disregard of … international legal conventions and their departure from the stated positions of their previous administrations,” said Stephen Zunes at a 26 July 2001 Center lecture. Zunes … explained the U.S. has become increasingly accepting of Israel’s unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem, which is in violation of international law…
The Failure of U.S. Policy Toward Iraq and Proposed Alternatives
Foreign Policy In Focus by Stephen Zunes, Jue 1, 2001 [source]
Current U.S.-UN policy regarding Iraq has failed and has largely lost credibility. It is widely viewed internationally as reflecting U.S. (and, to a lesser degree, British) insistence on maintaining a punitive sanctions-based approach regardless of the humanitarian impact and it is increasingly regarded as having failed to bring about either democratic changes in Iraq or security for the Persian Gulf region. Numerous countries are challenging, if not directly violating, the sanctions regime, and international support has largely eroded. The U.S. is the driving force behind UN policy, since Washington wields effective veto power over any proposed changes…
Challenging Aid to Israel
U.S. Aid to Israel: Interpreting the “Strategic Relationship”
By Stephen Zunes, January 26, 2001
Audio at Internet Archive; Also at Window Into Palestine
“The U.S. aid relationship with Israel is unlike any other in the world,” said Stephen Zunes during a January 26 CPAP presentation. “In sheer volume, the amount is the most generous foreign aid program ever between any two countries,” added Zunes, associate professor of Politics and chair of the Peace and Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco. He explored the strategic reasoning behind the aid, asserting that it parallels the “needs of American arms exporters” and the role “Israel could play in advancing U.S. strategic interests in the region.” Although Israel is an “advanced, industrialized, technologically sophisticated country,” it “receives more U.S. aid per capita annually than the total annual [Gross Domestic Product] per capita of several Arab states.” Approximately a third of the entire U.S. foreign aid budget goes to Israel…
Camp David II: Clinton Should Pressure Israel, As Carter Did
Foreign Policy In Focus by Stephen Zunes, July 1, 2000
[Source] It is highly unlikely that the upcoming summit between the United States, Israel, and Palestine at Camp David will the kind of positive results that came from the 1978 summit between the United States, Israel, and Egypt. At the earlier Camp David gathering, President Jimmy Carter was willing to pressure Israel to withdraw from all Egyptian territory seized in the 1967 war in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338. President Bill Clinton, in contrast, has not supported total Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian lands seized in 1967, and he has actually pressured the Palestinians to allow the Israelis to maintain control of large amounts of their land, including Arab East Jerusalem, the historic capital of Palestine…
U.S. Policy Toward Jerusalem: Clinton’s Shift To The Right
Foreign Policy In Focus by Stephen Zunes, July 1, 2000
[Source] It is not surprising that Jerusalem has become the sticking point in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The Israeli refusal to share the city with the Palestinians and the Clinton administration’s refusal to push the Israelis to compromise make successful negotiations extremely difficult…
U.S. Must Insist Israel Return to the Peace Talks and Withdraw from Lebanon
Foreign Policy In Focus by Stephen Zunes, February 1, 2000
[Source] Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s decision to pull out of the peace talks with Syria is a shameless capitulation to Israel’s far right and raises serious questions as to whether the Israeli government is seriously interested in peace. President Clinton must demand that Israel return immediately to the negotiation table and come into full compliance with UN Security Council resolutions or risk an immediate cutoff of U.S. military and economic aid. The Israeli government broke off the talks following an attack by Lebanese guerrillas against Israeli occupation forces inside Lebanon…
The U.S. and the Israeli-Syrian Peace Process
Foreign Policy in Focus/Institute for Policy Studies,
February 1, 2000, by Stephen Zunes. Also at
TheFreeLibrary.com, February 15, 2000, and
updated at FPIF October 4 and 12, 2005 [source]
–
Key Points
* The U.S. role as a superpower with strong strategic and economic interests in the region often conflicts with its role as mediator in the Israeli-Syrian peace process.
* Syria has moderated its once-belligerent posture toward the Israelis and is now closer to accepting the existence of Israel and living in peace.
* The United States has maintained its strong support for Israel’s negotiating position, even though Israel now takes a more hard-line posture than its autocratic neighbor.
U.S. Policy Hampers Chances for Israeli-Syrian Peace
Foreign Policy in Focus/Institute for Policy Studies, December 1, 1999
There is little hope for real progress in the Israeli-Syrian peace talks unless the Clinton Administration is willing to uphold human rights and international law along with its commitment to Israel’s legitimate security needs. Since Israel seized the Golan Heights from Syria in 1967, these issues have been at the heart of the dispute. [Source]
Continuing Storm: The U.S. Role in the Middle East
Foreign Policy In Focus by Stephen Zunes, April 1, 1999
[Source] Throughout the centuries, Western nations have tried to impose their order on the region now commonly known as the Middle East. For certain periods of time they have succeeded, only to find themselves at the receiving end of a popular and oftentimes violent backlash. Now, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the triumph in the Gulf War, the United States stands—at least for a time—as the region’s dominant outside power…
The Strategic Functions of U.S. Aid to Israel
PDF: Middle East Policy, October 20, 1996
by Stephen Zunes [Download as plain text]
The United States aid relationship with Israel is unlike any other in the world, or indeed, like any in history. In sheer volume, the amount of aid is the most generous foreign aid program ever between any two countries, totaling $77.726 billion through fiscal year 1996.Foot note 2_1 No country has ever received as much Congressionally-mandated aid as has Israel, including South Vietnam. Indeed, Israel receives more U.S. aid per capita annually than the total annual GNP per capita of several Arab states, including Egypt, Mauritania, Sudan, Yemen and Morocco.Foot note 2_2 What is perhaps even more unusual is that Israel, like its benefactor, is an advanced, industrialized, technologically-sophisticated country, as well as a major arms exporter. This paper examines the nature and extent of U.S. foreign aid to Israel, the strategic roots of such a policy, how the relationship has been affected by the changing world order, the aid policy of the Clinton Administration, its military component, its impact on Israel, the debate within both Israel and the United States, and the impact of aid on the Middle East peace process….
Clinton on Wrong Side of Jerusalem Issue
Christian Science Monitor, By Stephen Zunes April 27, 1994
[Source] A little-noticed policy shift by the Clinton administration on Jerusalem has implications beyond the fate of one city in the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. It marks a retrenchment in the American commitment to international law and the authority of the United Nations. The United States abstained from a section of a recent UN Security Council resolution condemning the February Hebron mosque massacre, objecting to a paragraph that referred to the Arab part of Jerusalem as occupied territory. This eastern half of Jerusalem was seized by the Israeli Army in June of 1967, along with the rest of the West Bank, which was controlled by Jordan…