Some Implications of the Mid-term Election in the US
Note from the Host:
The following letter was submitted by Professor Abdullah Ahsan of the International Movement for a Just World, one of the co-sponsors of the Dialogue of Civilizations project. We welcome responses. Email: iep21@seachanges.net
The November 7, 2006 mid-term election verdict in the United States is a welcome development. Foreign policy issues, particularly the war in Iraq, have dominated the mind of the electorate and the international response has already demonstrated that this will help improve America’s global image.
The election results are more of disapproval of Bush Administration’s so-called war on terror and pre-emptive actions in Iraq and Afghanistan than approval of the Democratic Party’s position on those issues. In this connection what comes to mind is the contribution of civil society groups such as GoldStarFamiliesforPeace.org, Antiwar.com, BringThemHomeNow.org and particularly individuals such as activist Cindy Sheehan and academicians such as Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky and many others.
To be realistic, however, one must note that this election will not bring any fundamental change in US foreign policy. The “Love-for-Israel” foreign policy of the US administration is going to continue at least for a while. But again, one good sign is that increasingly more and more apprehensive Americans are now voicing their concerns about the influence of Israeli lobby groups in Washington. Public response to the recent Mearsheimer-Walt paper on the subject is evidence of this concern. One also becomes optimistic when one observes the response to Ehud Olmert’s post-election public praise for the war in Iraq. Commenting on Olmert’s meeting with President Bush, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz (November 14) said, “Politicians from the Democratic Party said that they wanted to speak to Olmert about his comments on Iraq before responding publicly, but expressed disapproval over the remarks.” We are not sure what the Democrats conveyed to Olmert but a public statement of their disapproval of Israeli interference in American politics is a positive sign.
The main disturbing aspect in Israeli-US relationship is the increasing role of Evangelicals. David Kirkpatrick has rightly pointed in his article in The New York Times of November 14 that, “For Evangelicals, Supporting Israel is ‘God’s Foreign Policy’.” He adds, “Many conservative Christians say they believe that the president’s support for Israel fulfills a biblical injunction to protect the Jewish state.” Here one should highlight the fact that when President Truman signed the document to recognize the “state of Israel” in 1948 he scratched the term “the Jewish state” and wrote by hand “the state of Israel”. Also, one should recall that the founding fathers of the United States of America categorically rejected the role of religion in politics because of similar use of religious myths in politics in medieval times. Rational minds of the 21st century must be able to distinguish between noble religious teachings on human dignity and the use of religious myths for political purposes. The faster the people of the United States differentiate “religion” from the “exploitation of religion”, the better it will be not only for the people of the US, but also for the rest of the world.
Professor Abdullah Al-Ahsan
Committee Member
International Movement for a Just World
Malaysia