Photo Op II: The sequel

This week major developed countries met in Paris for a “donor’s conference” / “photo op” designed to obtain financial support for the Fatah led Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. (We will let those in Gaza starve) The PA had requested $5.6b of aid and the participants pledged $7.4b over 3 years. Although it is not clear how much of this will actually be forthcoming and how much is just a restatement of previous pledges, it is still a significant amount of money. Tony Blair declared, “This is not a donor’s conference. This is a state building conference”. Even if this money actually appeared, it is not clear to me that it would have much impact on building a viable Palestinian state. PA President Mahmoud Abbas and his Prime Minister Salaam Fayad have frankly stated that most of the money will go towards closing the yawning PA budget deficit and not toward economic development projects. The PA runs this huge deficit not only because of mismanagement and corruption, but also because the West Bank economy is almost non existent. With no economy, tax revenues are limited and unemployment approaches 50%. Therefore, the PA becomes the employer of last resort. Unless conditions on the ground change dramatically, no amount of international funding will create a viable economy and Palestinian state. Early in his first term George Bush declared his support for a viable Palestinian state, living alongside Israel in peace and security. When a friend of mine heard this, he took George Bush at his word. (Probably not the smartest thing that he has ever done.) He decided that if this is really going to happen, we had better figure out what it will take to create a viable economy in the West Bank and Gaza and he commissioned a Rand Corporation study to accomplish this. After several years of work Rand completed the study and created their report. They tried to incorporate the strengths of the Palestinian people, education, healthcare, entrepreneurial spirit, etc., into a plan that could be implemented with international financial support. One of the primary conclusions of the study was that there must be a modern transportation and communications system linking the major population centers of Nablus, Ramallah, Bethlehem, Hebron and Gaza. The report said nothing about settlements, bypass roads, and checkpoints. I said to my friend, “Didn’t they assume away the problem?” His answer was that Rand, not a minor player in government studies business, was afraid to raise the issues. They were concerned that, given the political climate in the US, if the report talked about eliminating settlements, bypass roads and checkpoints, it would be a non starter with the US government. It turned out to be a non starter anyway as the State Department said that they had no interest in even looking at it. As the issue of freezing settlement construction surfaces after the Annapolis Conference, it is clear that Israel intends to retain East Jerusalem and all the major settlement blocks and to continue construction apace. We have been reduced to arguing about what the meaning of “freeze” is. (Sort of like what is the meaning of “is”?) (For this story, click here and here.) Unless the US exerts significant pressure to change the facts on the ground we will be back in Paris (or some other fancy resort) again in three years trying to deal with a Palestinian economy on life support.

Testing, testing, testing

To no one’s surprise, the agreement to begin a new round of negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians with the US as the final judge of who is living up to their obligations is being tested right away. This is probably a good thing as we can avoid wasting a lot of time, effort and money if nothing can come of the talks. The Israeli government is the first to be tested. Immediately after the Annapolis conference a group of right wing Israelis held a demonstration on a hilltop in the E-1 area. The E-1 area is a relatively undeveloped area between the major settlement blocks on the West Bank, such as Maale Adummim and Gilo, and the city of Jerusalem. The Israeli government has long planned to develop the area and has confiscated some Palestinian land and built some structures. Last spring as we were returning to Jerusalem from Maale Adummim, our guide pointed out a building on a hilltop. She said that this was a police station that had recently been built by the Israeli government. It had not yet been occupied, but standard Israeli procedure was to build the police station first and then some time later, after criticism had died down, to build the settlement. Development of E-1 is important to those Israelis who see all of Israel/Palestine as land given to the Jews by God. Developing E-1 would effectively split the West Bank in two and preclude a viable Palestinian state. The purpose of the demonstration by Israeli right wing activists was to put a shot across the bow of the Israeli government to warn them not to even think about stopping development of E-1. (For this story, click here) The US government commitment to a successful “peace process” is also being tested right away. As the world leaders were meeting in Annapolis, the Israeli government announced a tender for bids to build 300 apartments for Jews in the Har Homa/Abu Ghneim area of East Jerusalem, the Arab area of Jerusalem wanted by the PA as the capital of a future Palestinian state. (The Parliament building has already been built.) The issuing of the tender was condemned by the international community, including the US. The Israeli response has been that this is not a violation of the agreed settlement freeze as Israel has annexed East Jerusalem and therefore this is not settlement activity. The annexation is not recognized by the international community including, of all people, the US. This is not the first time we have been down this road in Har Homa/Abu Ghneim. In 1997 the Israeli government commenced apartment construction in this area. The Clinton administration strongly objected and pressured the Israeli government to cease the activity. Evidently Israel’s supporters in the US explained to the administration that this position was hazardous to their political health. The US backed off and when a UN Security Council resolution was introduced condemning the construction the US vetoed it. All this took place when Ehud Olmert was mayor of Jerusalem. I visited this area in May and saw the resulting development. Our guide explained that many of the apartments have been sold to American Jews from NY and NJ as second homes. I doubt if the buyers were told that their neighbors would be hostile Palestinian Arabs. (For this story, click here ) Will anyone take steps to respond to these tests in a manner that will prevent a breakdown of the “peace process” before it even starts? I doubt it. But there is always hope. Even the Arbiter in Chief Condoleezza Rice is only hoping for the best. (For Condi’s hopes click here.)

Contemplating from Gaza

For those are interested in what is happening in Gaza under Hamas control and Israeli blockade, I recommend the blog site Contemplating from Gaza. I have posted a link in the link section to the left. Heba is a wife and mother in Gaza who posts her feelings and impressions periodically.

Paranoia: A good thing?

The news this week has been dominated by reaction to the release of the National Intelligence Estimate that declared that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program four years ago and would not be able obtain a nuclear weapon, even if it wanted one, until the 2013-2015 timeframe. The reaction from the US government was that Iran still remains a “grave threat” and is presents a danger of starting WW III. Many commentators have expressed the view that this reaction is a good example of “I have my policy, don’t confuse me with the facts” or “irrational paranoia”. Perhaps, however, in this case, paranoia is a good thing. I participated in a conference call today with Professor Shipley Telhami, Anwar Sadat Professor of Peace and Development at the University of Maryland on the subject of “Annapolis and Beyond”. During the discussion it was clear that it is crucial that the US weigh in as a player during the “peace process” envisioned at Annapolis. The US role is crucial for several reasons. First and foremost, there is an enormous “power asymmetry” between Israel and the Palestinian Authority in the negotiations. The US must balance this asymmetry if there is to be a just settlement that can be accepted by the Palestinian people. Second, Prime Minister Abbas has put all his eggs in the US basket and the US has put all its eggs in his basket. If the US fails, Abbas is finished and Hamas is waiting on the sidelines to say “I told you so”. Third, Israel is responsive only to the US. Without US pressure Israel has no incentive to negotiate a settlement. The power imbalance makes it very likely that they can weather any violent response by Hamas and other militants. Finally, the US is the sole judge of which party is living up to their obligations under the so called “Roadmap” This role will be tested very quickly as Israel has announced intentions to build 300 apartments in occupied East Jerusalem and has introduced legislation to fund the construction of West Bank “outposts” in violation of the “Roadmap’s” call to freeze settlements. (For this story, click here.) During the conference call, the question was asked “Why did the Arab states attend the Annapolis Conference?” The conventional wisdom has been that they are afraid of Iran and the “Shia crescent” and, therefore, want to support the US in its efforts to contain Iran. Professor Shipley’s opinion, based on conversations with Arab leaders and multiple polls of Arab citizens, is different. Although Arab leaders are concerned about Iran’s growing influence, they are not afraid of Iran and do not feel that there is any danger that Iran will attack them, absent a US/Israeli attack on Iran. The number one priority for the leaders and their people is the resolution of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. They do, however, realize that the American people and their political leaders “just don’t care” if this conflict gets settled. When King Abdullah of Jordan came to the US a few months ago and made a speech about the importance of this issue and the importance of the US in resolving it, he was politely received and then ignored by both politicians and the media. This reinforced the Arab leaders’ view that the only way to get the US’s attention is to create linkage between Arab support for containing Iran and a solution to the Israeli/Palestinian issue. Only this will give the US the will to truly engage in helping to solve this intractable problem. Perhaps paranoia is a good thing.

The mother of all photo ops

In the weeks and months leading up to Tuesday’s conference in Annapolis on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, all parties, Israelis, Palestinians and the US, went to great efforts to lower expectations. The discussions were initially talked about as a conference, then a meeting and finally a gathering. The original goal was to arrive at a strategic vision of what a solution should look like. The goal then changed to a statement of principals that would be embodied in the final agreement and finally an agreement to meet again with the hope of finding a solution. This effort to lower expectations certainly succeeded as polls and interviews of Israelis, Palestinians and other Arabs, leaders and people on the street, indicate. (Click here, here and here) Eighty-five per cent of Americans surveyed by the Wall Street Journal thought nothing would come of it. The State Dept. declared that even organizing the meeting was a success. The meeting was praised as the most serious peace effort in 7 years. A pretty low standard since there have been no peace efforts in the past 7 years. The final agreement (A complete text is here) was no more than another agreement on process, a strategy that has failed many times before. As that great philosopher Yogi Berra once said “If you don’t know where you are going, any road will get you there”. The parties could not even bring themselves to mention the core issues of the conflict: borders, Jerusalem and the status of refugees. The best that they could do was mention that core issues exist. The Israelis could not allow the dreaded “J” word (Jerusalem) to be mentioned as the conservative members of Ehud Olmert’s governing coalition had threatened to bring down the coalition and cause new elections if Jerusalem was even mentioned. The Arab peace plan and relevant UN resolutions also were not mentioned because UN Resolution 194 calls for the repatriation or compensation of refugees. This particular resolution is a big problem for the Israelis as they agreed to it as a condition of their entry into the UN. What happens from here depends greatly on what role the US chooses to play. The US has been declared the sole judge of progress towards a settlement. In the past the US has not exactly been a model of the balanced and unbiased mediator. A lot depends on which faction in the US government controls US policy. On one side we have National Security Advisor Steve Hadley telling a group of American Orthodox Jews and Christian Zionists that “Jerusalem is not on the table” and telling a group of Johns Hopkins University students “there is no place for Syria in the peace process”. On the other side we have Condi Rice shaking hands with the Syrian representative at the end of the conference and thanking him for his attendance. She was also praised by Palestinian Chief Negotiator Saeb Erekat for her “knowledge of all the little issues”. Unless George Bush, the self proclaimed “decider in chief” reverses his position of supporting all the Israeli negotiating positions, it is likely that the Hadley/Cheney faction will carry the day and the negotiations will fail. The one point that all sides agreed on was that time is running out. They agreed to try to reach an agreement by the end of 2008. I would argue that the time frame is even shorter. Unless substantial progress is made by Israel’s 60th anniversary celebration on May 8, 2008 all the Palestinian frustration and loss of hope may well boil over into violence. As Saeb Erekat has said: “If we fail, God help us.”

Experience or Stupidity?

As I have watched the US government try to balance its conflicting strategic interests and policies in the Middle East in the run up to the Annapolis conference or meeting (I noted today that it is now being downgraded to a “gathering”.), I was reminded of the efforts of the Eisenhower administration to do the same thing in the 1950’s. Eisenhower publicly promulgated a policy that the US would protect any Middle East country that was threatened by a country “dominated by international communism”. Middle Eastern leaders and scholars were puzzled at the time about exactly what that meant since neither the Soviet Union, nor China nor any eastern European state were threats to invade the Middle East. It wasn’t until the records of the Eisenhower administration were opened to the public that scholars realized that the policy had nothing to do with international communism but was about countering and containing the influence of the Arab nationalism of Egypt under Gamal Abdul Nassar. The vehicle to accomplish this was to provide economic and military aid to countries (mostly undemocratic and conservative like Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Iraq) that would ally themselves with the US in the region. Most countries who agreed to this bargain were unwilling to do so publicly as it flew in the face of the views of the average man on the street. Even though the governments were undemocratic, they had to pay attention to public opinion or risk being overthrown. The result of this policy was that anytime a sitting government was overthrown, whether peacefully as in Lebanon or violently as in Iraq and the people’s voice was heard, the resulting government quickly allied itself with Nassar and Egypt/Syria. The Eisenhower Doctrine was short lived as the US administration soon realized that Nassar was too politically powerful and they attempted to implement a policy of engagement with Nassar. (This didn’t work either, but that’s another story) If one substitutes Iran for Egypt and “Islamofascism” (whatever that is) or Al Quada for international communism one can see the same scenario playing out again. Egyptian President Gamal Nassar is quoted as saying to an American friend, “The genius of you Americans is that you never made clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make us wonder at the possibility that there may be something to them that we are missing”. In today’s American political battles there is a lot of argument over who has the most experience. The dictionary definition of experience is “knowledge acquired by living through an event”. Acquiring knowledge requires learning something. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is not experience it is stupidity.

Worrying about peace

Several events have occurred during the past week that indicate that progress might be made at the “meeting” convened by the US to discuss how to achieve a negotiated settlement of the conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors. Although the “meeting”, tentatively scheduled for November 26th , still has no firm date, no agenda and no guest list, Secretary of State Rice has been meeting with everybody in sight to encourage progress towards a “vision of a political horizon”. Since the political horizon still seems as far away as ever, the efforts toward progress have returned to working on process as envisioned by the Oslo Accords and the Quartet Road Map. Israel has turned much of the responsibility for security in Nablus over to the Palestinian Authority. The PA has responded by disarming a number of the gangs and factions who have been responsible for much of the violence in this isolated city. This disarmament has included the factions affiliated with the Prime Minister Abbas’s Fatah party. The improvement in security has been praised by Nablus residents as well as the US. Indeed the US has criticized Israel for interfering in the efforts of the PA. (For this story, click here.) Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has floated a couple of trial balloons indicating that Israel might be willing to relinquish a portion of East Jerusalem to the PA as part of a peace settlement. Exactly what this means remains to be seen. The US, having indicated that the PA is beginning to meet its security obligations under the Quartet Road Map, has started to pressure Israel to meet its obligations under the road map to halt the building of new settlements and to freeze current settlements in occupied territories. Precisely what this means is not clear. How does it affect outpost settlements that are illegal under Israeli law? How does it affect major settlement blocs such as Maale Adumin and Gilo that are illegal under international law but recognized by George Bush and Israel? All of this activity has some people worried and they are trying to throw boulders on the road to peace. Worried right wing Likud party members in the Israeli Knesset have introduced legislation to require an unachievable super majority before Jerusalem could be divided. (For this story, click here.) Prime Minister Olmert’s weak government is worried that the US will define the settlement issue in such a way that Israel will be unwilling or unable to meet its obligations and will be accused of being an obstacle to peace. PM Olmert is dispatching a delegation to Washington to address this problem. (For this story, click here.) All this ignores the fact that no one is dealing with the Israeli settlers and Hamas, both of whom have the ability to derail the whole process with violence. Everybody seems to think that if you ignore a problem it will go away. We have been down this peace process road before and have always ended up in the ditch. In my view until all the parties, including the US, can agree on a vision, however sketchy, of what a peace settlement might look like, we a doomed to end up in the same ditch.

Is something positive happening?

There seem to be some events happening in the Middle East that give even a pessimist like me some hope that sanity might prevail in the midst of all the past irrationality. The US has said that it will release nine of the Iranian terrorists, spies, diplomats or whatever that we captured, kidnapped, detained or whatever in Iraq over recent months. The holding of these Iranians has been a bone of contention between the US and Iran since it began several months ago. The Iraqi government has supported the Iranian position. In addition, US military spokespersons have indicated that there is evidence of Iran reducing its support for Shia militias within Iraq. Perhaps both countries are beginning to realize that the aggressive confrontation is counter productive. From both the US and Iranian standpoints the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan with the increasing power of the Taliban is dangerous and undesirable. Pakistan and George Bush’s friend, Pervez Mushareff, are becoming less reliable US allies and Pakistan is increasingly in danger of coming under the sway of radical Islamist groups friendly to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. To have both countries bordering Afghanistan be adversaries would be disastrous for the US and NATO. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may have let his celebrity go to his head and overreached. He may have forgotten that the real power in Iran rests with the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamanei. Trying to understand the opaque and factional politics of Iran is hopeless, but criticism of the forced resignation of respected nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani by the Supreme Leader and the critical letter signed by 183 members of the Majlis or Parliament may indicate that Ahmadinejad’s confrontive style may be wearing thin. The conservative pragmatists, such as Hassani Rafsanjani, may be exerting some influence. Hopefully the US will not ignore any overtures from them as we have in the past. In Israel/Palestine the Palestinian Authority is beginning to disarm fighters on the West Bank as Hamas has done in Gaza. If the PA disarms everybody and not just Hamas supporters, it could significantly reduce the violence. The US has condemned (Condemned might be a little strong, but given the usual non reaction towards Israeli behavior it may be descriptive.) Israel’s continued raids into Nablus (a city where security has been turned over to the PA) and the IDF’s confiscation of PA security force equipment. (For this story, click here) If the PA takes more responsibility for its own security and the US takes a more balanced approach, something might come out of the Annapolis meeting. Call me a Pollyanna, but perhaps something positive might be happening. Then again, perhaps not.

Conflicting conflicts

Ever since the US has had a Middle East policy, basically since WW II, it has had difficulty balancing conflicting aspects of their policies. The strategic US Middle East policies, interests and objectives have at times been in conflict and at times been completely opposed. Some would argue that “strategic” and “US Middle East policy” are not words that should be used in the same sentence. I have maintained that Osama Bin Laden has an advantage in his conflict with the US since he has a strategy and the US is completely focused on tactics. The US has even declared war on a tactic, the so called “war on terror”, but that is another story. After 1945, America’s primary objectives in the region were securing Western access to Middle Eastern oil, preventing the Soviet Union from reaping political or strategic advantage in the area, and ensuring Israel’s security. Pursuing the last of these objectives often complicated the pursuit of the other two. Washington’s close relations with Israel generated anti-American sentiment in the Arab world, providing the Soviet Union with opportunities to increase its political influence in the region. Similarly, during the Yom Kippur War of 1973, President Richard M. Nixon’s decision to airlift military supplies to Israel prompted oil-producing Arab states to impose an embargo on oil shipments to the United States and some European countries, causing major dislocations in the global economy. As the Cold War drew to an end, the imperative of containing the Soviet Union gave way to two new objectives: combating international terrorism and preventing so called "rogue" states—such as Libya, Iran, and Iraq—from challenging U.S. policies in the region. Both of these objectives have acquired fresh urgency following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, but Americans disagree over whether the two goals can, or should, be pursued simultaneously. While President George W. Bush argued that the necessity of disarming Iraq and overthrowing its government as well cannot be separated from the effort to defeat Osama bin Laden’s al-Qa‘ida network, others insist that Bush’s preoccupation with Iraq has diverted precious energy and resources from the war against al-Qa‘ida. As in previous decades, Washington finds no easy formulas for pursuing its diverse objectives in the Middle East. A good example is occurring in the region as we speak. The US has objectives in the region of containing and disrupting Iranian influence, supporting the Kurdish regional government in Iraq as a poster child for positive results from the US invasion and occupation and cultivating good relations with Turkey as a moderate Islamic state, a bridge to the Middle East and a conduit for oil and natural gas flow to the west. In order to help accomplish the first objective, the US has supported and armed the Kurdish Worker’s Party (PKK) and their affiliate the PJAK in their attacks on Iran. (For this story, click here) This has created the problem that the PKK has used this support and the arms to attack Turkey. (For this story, click here) After numerous deadly cross border raids Turkey has asked the Iraqi central government, the US, and the Kurdish regional government to crack down on PKK bases in Iraq and prevent the attacks across the border. The Iraqi government has no ability to accomplish this as they have limited resources and those that they do have are not allowed to operate in Kurdish areas. The US is unwilling to do anything because they support the PKK attacks on Iran and are reluctant to risk destabilizing the only part of Iraq that shows any signs of progress. The Kurdish regional government has no desire to do anything because their long range objective is an independent greater Kurdistan incorporating the Kurdish areas of Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran. The result of all this is that our erstwhile ally, Turkey, and our erstwhile enemy, Iran, are meeting to discuss how to work together to solve their common problem. (For this story, click here) A fine mess, good luck in resolving it.

The Empire Strikes Out

After the recent story of the cancellation of a talk by Archbishop Desmond Tutu (See the story below) it was good news that Father Dennis Dease, President of Saint Thomas, decided that he had made a mistake and reinstated the invitation. (For the full announcement, click here) The initial cancellation was the result of pressure by Jewish/Israel lobby organizations like the Zionist Organization of America. The large number of emails, letters and phone calls from individuals and organizations like Sabeel and Jewish Voices for Peace persuaded Father Dease that he had made a mistake. He said: “I did not have all the facts and points of view. I do now.” The bad news is that I did not help. Shortly after I posted on this subject, I received a call from a friend who had read it. She said: “This is an outrage. You need to write St. Thomas.” Unfortunately I said to myself “What difference will one email from me make?” I was wrong. Tom Friedman’s latest column talks about the power of one involved individual to make a difference. (For the column, click here) I promise to get involved next time.

Do we really pay these guys?

This week The News Hour on PBS did a piece on Iran’s influence in Iraq. The commentators were Ray Takeyh, an Iranian American who is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and Peter Rodman former Assistant Secretary of Defense and fellow at the Brookings Institute. (For a transcript of the conversation, click here) Mr. Takeyh and Mr. Rodman did not agree about much as to how the US should deal with Iran regarding Iraq. Mr. Takeyh took the position that the situation was very complicated, but with careful and sophisticated diplomacy, some agreement was possible. Mr. Rodman, for the most part, repeated the US government policy that Iran was responsible for the bad things happening in Iraq and a policy of threats and sanctions was appropriate and necessary. Surprisingly, the one thing that they did seem to agree on was that there was a great amount of convergence between the strategic goals of the US and those of Iran with respect to the situation in Iraq. The US government would like to see a federal state as outlined in the Iraqi constitution with a relatively weak central government and relatively strong provincial or regional governments. They would like to see the democratically elected and Shia dominated government of Prime Minister Maliki succeed in stabilizing the country. They also would like to see the US troops come home. (Maybe) These are essentially the strategic goals of Iran. For 60 years the Israelis and the Palestinians have been unable to reach agreement on their broader goals. Because of this failure all the efforts to talk about process have come to nothing. Here we agree on the broader goals and what remains is to agree on is how to accomplish them. It seems to me that this is what we pay our State Dept. diplomats to do. Instead of laying down a list of a priori demands and insisting that the other party accedes, as US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker did in his recent meetings with Iran, our diplomats should be looking for the common ground. If these people did their job as poorly for me in business as they do for me as part of the government, I would fire the whole lot and start over. Maybe the American people should try that.

The Empire Strikes Back

Last week the Jewish/Israel lobby tried but were unsuccessful in preventing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from speaking at Columbia University. They were successful in getting Columbia President Bollinger to rudely attack President Ahmadinejad during his introduction. Since they were unsuccessful in New York, they decided to pick on someone smaller and less powerful than Columbia. This week, they succeeded in preventing Nobel Laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu from speaking at St. Thomas College in Minneapolis. (For this story, click here) The grounds for this boycott of Archbishop Tutu were his alleged anti-Semitic remarks at a conference in Boston. The right wing Zionist Organization of America has not only twisted the words of Bishop Tutu, but also those of Jimmy Carter and Professor Norman Finkelstein to achieve their goal of silencing Israel’s critics. (For the full transcript of the speech, click here) It is disappointing that this episode should take place at St. Thomas College, a Catholic school named for a saint who was honored for being willing to question conventional wisdom even religious dogma. During our recent trip to Israel/Palestine my wife and I commissioned an icon of St. Thomas for our church whose name also honors St. Thomas. Those who have gone with us to Israel and the West Bank usually return questioning the conventional wisdom that they have received from the US media and politicians. They tend agree with the words of Bishop Tutu and Jimmy Carter comparing what is happening in Israel/Palestine with what happened in apartheid South Africa. The nun in Jerusalem who painted the icon added the biblical quote “blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.” Perhaps this applies to those who have not seen Israel with their own eyes but still campaign for peace and justice in this region.

Will the real America please stand up!

When it was announced that Columbia University had invited President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran to speak when he was in New York City, I was supportive of this effort to engage in dialogue with one of our many adversaries rather than continuing the saber rattling. Even in this fear obsessed post 9/11 country we should not be afraid to hear a point of view that differs from our own. Similar sentiments were expressed by author and progressive radio host Thom Hartmann.

Columbia University Shows True American Values
by Thom Hartmann

Columbia University, by inviting Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak, has shown confidence in the wisdom and adultness of their students and our republic.
Ahmadinejad is the president of a major nation in a vital part of the world, and we should have enough self-assurance and belief in our own system of government, and in the intelligence of our college students, that we can let them (and our larger public) evaluate his words, whatever they may be.
To be terrified of his speaking there (or, for that matter, laying a wreath at Ground Zero) is behavior one would have expected from a fragile régime like Khrushchev's USSR or Burma's military junta, not the bold, brave, and fearless USA.
We are the nation whose President Nixon reached out to and met with China's Mao Tse Tsung at the same time Mao was funding and arming the North Vietnamese to kill our soldiers in Vietnam. We're the nation whose President Reagan confronted Soviet President Gorbachev, who at the time had thousands of nuclear warheads armed and pointed at us and was actively funding and arming proxy wars we were fighting in more than a half-dozen nations. We're the nation whose President Roosevelt said, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."
And let's also remember that the people of Tehran, Iran, produced one of the largest candlelight vigil demonstrations in the Muslim world in support of the USA the day after 9/11, repudiating the act and actors of that event. We still have the ability to make an ally of that nation, and shouldn't blow it by fear and bluster (or bombs). America is better and stronger than the nervous Nellies and chickenhawk war-mongers who currently have control of the Republican Party (and a few Democrats, apparently).
As JFK said: "We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values; for a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."
We are not afraid. We are Americans!

I was, however, appalled at the behavior of Columbia University President Lee Bollinger. Not only was he rude to an invited guest and displayed complete ignorance of Iran and its government, but he also played right into the hands of the publicity seeking Iranian president. Common courtesy would dictate that when you invite someone into your home you treat him with respect. His ignorance of Iran is inexcusable as he has one of the foremost experts on modern Iran on his faculty, Gary Sick. A brief conversation with Mr. Sick would have allowed him to ask some very difficult questions in atmosphere of civil dialogue. As an Iranian blogger said: “A taxi driver in Tehran could have asked more difficult questions for President Ahmadinejad to answer.” Most of what President Ahmadinejad said in his speech was geared to his domestic audience and the “Arab street”. By aggressively attacking the Columbia event and organizing demonstrations attended mostly by Jews the American Jewish lobby allowed Ahmadinejad to portray the conflict as one between Iran and the “occupying Zionist regime”. Pictures of demonstrators in yarmulkes were all over the Arab press. This allows Ahmadinejad to portray Iran as a protector of the Palestinian cause against the “occupying Zionist regime” which plays very well on the “Arab street”. (Commentators in Israel have bemoaned the actions of the Jewish lobby. To see an example click here.) How do supposedly intelligent people do these things?

I hope that I am wrong

As those of you that have been reading my ramblings in this space for a while know I have about given up on the viability of a two state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. My rational has been that there is no overlap between the positions of the two parties and therefore no room for a negotiated settlement. Today, during a conference call with Ambassador (ret) Phillip Wilcox, President of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, I asked him his opinion. He expressed that in his opinion, backed up by polls; there is considerable support within the Israeli and Palestinian polities for a two state solution within the framework outlined by the Geneva Agreements or the Arab Peace Initiative. The problem he said was that the two governments do not reflect the views of the people and most reasonable people have given up on their ability to influence their government. The Israeli government has been captive to the Israeli military and the settler movement for a long time. The Palestinian government is not strong enough to confront the rejectionist parties. The catch 22 is that it is virtually impossible for Palestinian institutions to develop in an environment of Israeli occupation where security is defacto in the hands of the Israeli military. As we move closer to the Middle East Peace Conference (now being downgraded to a meeting) called for by President Bush, Secretary of State Rice is pushing hard for the two parties to agree on a “political horizon” prior to the conference. This is a step forward since, up to now, all of the focus has been on the process rather than on the end game. It is, however, very unlikely that the two parties can, by themselves, come to an agreement in six weeks on something that they have been unable to agree on for 60 years. Ambassador Wilcox feels, and I agree with him, that the only chance for a “political horizon” to come forward is for the President of the United States to articulate a proposed agreement that addresses the issues of borders, settlements, refugees and status of Jerusalem. This will require an enormous amount of political courage on the part of the Bush administration, something that this administration does not seem to have in great supply. There clearly is not unanimity within the administration as to what the “political horizon” should look like. Many strong voices within the administration are advocates for the Israeli right wing position of “no compromise with terrorists”. One potentially promising event occurred within the last week when Israeli Vice Premier Ramon floated a trial balloon proposing that Israel give up their occupation of Arab East Jerusalem as part of a peace deal. (For this story click here.) Ramon is a Labor party member of Olmert’s Kadima led governing coalition and may or may not speak for Olmert. It may, however, indicate that Olmert is beginning to think pragmatically. I am not optimistic that anything positive can come from all this. I hope that I am wrong. The good news is that I have been wrong before.

Does this make sense?

As part of their campaign to justify invading Iraq, the US government maintained that Saddaam Hussein’s government was aiding Al Qaeda and would provide them WMD from their non-existent stockpiles. I believed the assertion that Iraq had WMD; after all it was a “slam dunk”. (Silly me) However, the Al Qaeda claim never made sense to me. Al Qaeda’s ultimate goal is to establish a Sunni Muslim caliphate in the Middle East and more ambitiously in the world. Saddaam Hussein was secular Baathist Socialist. The last thing he would want to see was an Islamic government in the Middle East. Now, in making the case for war in Iran, the US is accusing Iran of supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan and aiding insurgent groups in Iraq. The Taliban claim also makes no sense to me. The Taliban is a long standing supporter of Al Qaeda and also wants to see a Sunni Islamic caliphate. Iran is a Shia country and considers the Taliban a dangerous adversary. Based on this view, Iran aided US efforts to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan. Iran also has poor relations with Pakistan, a supporter of the Taliban, and an ally of the US. (Huh??) As an Iranian government minister said after Pakistan exploded is first nuclear weapon, “That was a Genii that would have been best left in the bottle”. Why would Iran want to support the Taliban efforts to reestablish an enemy state right on its borders? It makes no sense to me. In terms of Iranian activity in Iraq, the Shia groups that Iran has the most influence are the SCIRI and al Dawa. Both of these groups are part of the US supported government of Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki. Muktada al Sadr’s Mahdi Army has more of an Iraqi nationalist agenda and is probably not a strong client of Iran. Although weapons may flow across the long and porous border between Iran and Iraq and the Iranian government has many factions with different agendas, it is hard to imagine that the Iranian government would support insurgents fighting against a government made up of the people with whom it has the best relations. Perhaps one of the lessons learned from the Iraq war debacle is that if it doesn’t make sense, perhaps it isn’t true no matter how many times the US government says it.

Back to School

The Khalil Gibron International School, NYC’s first ever Arabic dual language school, opened quietly this week with arrival of 55 sixth grade students. This quiet opening occurred despite the angry furor surrounding the school. (For an article, click here) The mission of KGIS is:
“to prepare students of diverse backgrounds for success in an increasingly global and interdependent society. Our focus is on holistic student development and rigorous academics. Through our multicultural curriculum and intensive Arabic language instruction, students graduate with the skills they need to become empowered independent thinkers who are able to work with cultures beyond their own. Students graduate with a deep understanding of different cultural perspectives, a love of learning, and a desire for excellence, with integrity preparing them for leadership in today’s constantly changing global world.”
This seemingly desirable objective, to create students who are comfortable in and knowledgeable about a part of the world that is important to understand in the 21st century, has brought a barrage of attacks from Jews, Christians and ad hoc anti Arab groups. Daniel Pipes, columnist for the NY Sun and Jerusalem Post, AIPAC leader and founder of Campus Watch, an organization dedicated to monitoring the portrayal of Israel in educational institutions, led the charge from the Jewish community. (Here, here and here) The Christian attack has been led by the Thomas More Law Center, a conservative legal center started by Thomas Monaghan, the conservative Catholic founder of Domino’s Pizza. They have been joined by the ad hoc “Stop the Madrassa Coalition” (To see who these guys are, click here) The effort has had some success as the Principal designate Dhabah Almontaser has been forced resign for refusing to condemn the use of the word “intifada” (literally “shaking off”) and has been replaced by Danielle Salzberg, a Jewish woman who speaks no Arabic. As I listen to the attacks on Arabs generated by KGIS and the Dubai Ports controversy as well as the general anti immigrant discourse surrounding the immigration reform bill, I wonder what happened to the country of immigrants that took great pride in its ability to deal with and to find strength in diversity.

American logic - an oxymoron?

Former Vice President Al Gore’s most recent book “The Assault on Reason” bemoans the fact that reasoned discourse has been replaced by emotional and ideological responses that are encouraged by mass media and 10 second sound bites. Although many reviewers have suggested that he is making much adieu about nothing and is ignoring the role of emotion in making sound judgments, a look at US Middle East policies leads one to conclude that that he may have a good point. Some examples quickly come to mind.

Support democracy in the Middle East while implementing policies that enrage the general population and expect that they will elect governments that are friendly to the US. (A good example is here)
Support a Shia government in Iraq and at the same time oppose influence and involvement by Shia Iran
Give millions of dollars of weapons to Saudi Arabia and at the same time accuse them of undermining US efforts in Iraq
Encourage a Sunni barrier around the “Shiite Crescent” and expect that there won’t be sectarian rivalry
Support Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory and expect that Palestinians will peacefully accept the status quo
Threaten Iran with sanctions, nuclear attack and regime change and expect that talks will encourage them to help the US out of the mess in Iraq
Isolate and starve Palestinians in Gaza and expect that they will blame Hamas rather than the US/Israel (A story about Hamas’s approach in Gaza is here)
Encourage Israel to bomb Lebanon and kill over 1000 civilians and expect that the Lebanese will blame Hezbollah rather than the US/Israel
Exclude Hamas from peace negotiations and expect that any agreement would be supported by the majority of Palestinians who elected them to office

Maybe American logic is an oxymoron.

Living in a bubble

With respect to what is going on in Palestine, most Israelis “live in a bubble”; preoccupied with living their everyday lives in a modern advanced society. They either don’t know or choose to ignore what is going on right next door less than twenty miles away. For them the West Bank might just as well be Zimbabwe. Few have ever been to the West Bank. They think that “It is much too dangerous”. I have been there many times and no longer think twice about traveling there. Those Israeli Jews living in the upscale West Bank settlement of Maale Adumim can commute to work on the settler road and never have to see an Arab and don’t even have to look at the separation wall. In this area it is being faced with sandstone on the Jewish side so that it blends into the landscape. My Jewish friends are shocked when they hear that I have stayed in Arab East Jerusalem. An Israeli Jew said to me that if you blindfolded an Jew from West Jerusalem or Tel Aviv and took them to East Jerusalem, he would be terrified and would think that he was in Jenin or Nablus. An American developer is building condos in East Jerusalem and marketing them to American Jews as being 7 minutes from the Wailing Wall. I think that the buyers will be surprised to find that all of their neighbors are Palestinian Muslims and the Wailing Wall is only 7 minutes away at 4 o’clock in the morning. Others have had similar experiences.

I received this note from an American student at Hebrew University.

“Until I studied at Hebrew University, with mostly American Jewish but also Israeli students, I did not understand just how high the level of fear is among many of Israel's Jewish citizens and American visitors. When I tell many of my fellow students that I stay on the Mount of Olives, a Palestinian neighborhood near campus, their eyes open wide and their faces tighten, as if I'm either crazy or in imminent danger. When I explain that I work in the West Bank, and go there often to visit friends, their jaws drop. Some are notably disapproving of this and would consider me a terrorist sympathizer, or a radical leftist, or tragically naïve. Many, however, are just curious, wanting to know how dangerous it is. The rewarding part for me is meeting the brave few who have begun to ask questions, who have set off, some timidly, others more confidently, on the lonely road to truth, knowing that it will be a very uncomfortable truth. I am coming to appreciate just how difficult a step that is for them, and I am inspired by their willingness to confront their own deep-rooted fears. The role I've been able to play is to gently push them along the way, even when it isn't comfortable for them. Between those few and the zealots who have no conception of Palestinians as human beings are a great number of people who express nicely packaged sentiments about co-existence but are too comfortable or too afraid or both to advocate for any real change. It reminds me of reading Dr. King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail in which he responds to a group of clergymen who had cautioned against what they considered provocative activity.One American woman, with whom I was studying, listed off a dozen or so organizations dealing with things like Arab-Jewish coexistence and reconciliation that she was involved in. When I mentioned that my organization supports Palestinians who engage in nonviolent resistance she looked at me warily. She began to inquire about my experiences with Palestinians. "What is it they want?", "Along with rights, do they have a sense of responsibilities?" I responded by explaining that their sense of responsibility to one another and to their guests, under harsh conditions, is more than admirable. I knew this wasn't what she was looking for.”Israel and its friends abroad need to start asking themselves about their responsibilities to Palestine, instead of always about the Palestinian's responsibilities to Israel. Under the current status quo the responsibility of the Palestinians to Israel is that of African-Americans to Jim Crow and of non-white South Africans to apartheid. None. The Palestinian's responsibility is to engage in a struggle that respects common humanity and seeks to dismantle the current state and replace it with one in which Israelis and Palestinians are not cast into the roles of oppressor and oppressed. The responsibility of Israelis is to stand with them in that struggle.”

Perspective on Iran

In May, my wife and I were privileged to be able to be able to spend two weeks in the Islamic Republic of Iran. We were able to have conversations with ordinary Iranians at a school, a madrassa, in a home, in parks and on the street. The one thing that you realize right away upon arriving in Iran is that “you are not in the Arab World anymore Dorothy”. Iranians make it very clear that they are Persians with a long history of advanced civilization. This is immediately apparent when one engages with the women. In the Arab World women tend to be very conservative in their dress and reticent in their behavior. This is true even in Israel, Palestine and Jordan where there is no government dress mandate but where behavior is more influenced by religious, family and cultural norms. In Iran, although the government mandates “Islamic dress”, the women “push the envelope” in terms of dress, readily initiate discussions with men and make up more than half of university students and more than half of the work force. They are leaders of organizations involved with human rights, women’s rights and freedom of the press and expression.
This is a very young society with more than 70% of the population under the age of 35. This segment of the population is restless under the strictures of the authoritarian Islamic government of the mullahs. Although the Islamic government spawned by the revolution has changed a lot in the past 30 years, the young population is pushing for still more change. It is clear, however, that this change must originate from Iranians. As one person said to me, “The last thing that we need is another revolution. It would set us back thirty years. Change will come, but it must come from within Iran”. Iran has a long sad history of exploitation by western countries. Any government that is seen as a creation or puppet of the west would have no legitimacy and would not be accepted by Iranians.
Most Iranians that I talked with were concerned about the current regime’s “totalitarian tendencies”. Complaining about the regime seems to be a national pastime engaged in by everyone from the elites to the man on the street. Everywhere we went we were welcomed by Iranians of all ages, surprised and happy to see Americans in their country. In general Iranians admire and respect America for all that it has accomplished and for the values that it advocates. They do comment that in recent years America seems to have lost its way. In a discussion that I had with an Iranian about how Iranians seem to separate their disagreement with the American government’s Middle East policies from their feelings about ordinary Americans. He said “That is true, but it may change. You are a democracy and in a democracy the people are responsible for their government”.
In my opinion and experience, the US has much more in common with Iran, an historic ally in the region, than we do with many of the other authoritarian regimes in the region that we currently support. Our experience may be best described by a quote from Tony Wheeler’s book Badlands after his visit to Iran. “Wander through any park full of picnicking Persians, endure another barrage of welcomes and accept another glass or two of tea and you begin to realize that these are not the rabid extremists some segments of the Western media would have us believe.”

Peace not apartheid

Recently former President Jimmy Carter attracted a lot of criticism in the west, particularly the US, for language in his book Palestine: Peace not Apartheid which linked the behavior of Israel to the white supremacist state of South Africa. Although he said that he was merely trying to provoke discussion and not make a comparison, the message was clear. Now the debate about the nature of a Jewish state in Palestine has surfaced again within Israel. A law allocating sales of government land to Jews only has begun the legislative process with what appears overwhelming support by politicians. (For more details, click here.) Many Israeli opinion leaders are questioning whether this type of legislation foretells a racist Jewish state in Palestine. (For a Haaretz editorial on this, click here) You will note from the comments on these two articles, this behavior seems to have a lot of support within the Israeli public. As the prospect of a single state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict gains more credibility this debate will continue to grow. Award winning author Ghadi Karmi's new book Married to Another Man: Israel's Dilemma in Palestine will increase the discussion.

Answering the questions

Here is a letter that I have written to those involved in advocating for a solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Dear friends:
There has been much talk in recent months about a vision for a “two state solution” to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Those calling for a two state vision, whether they are Condoleezza Rice, other governments, Israeli Peace advocates or western NGO’s have an obligation to describe their vision. In my opinion any two state vision needs to address these questions.
1. Does the vision provide for a viable Palestinian state living alongside a secure Israeli state?
2. How will this vision deal with the refugees from the 1948 and 1967 wars?
3. Is the vision politically acceptable to both the Palestinians and the Israelis?
If they cannot answer these questions, they have no vision.
I have been engaged with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict for a number of years. I used to think that the “two state solution” provided the best opportunity for a resolution to the conflict. Two years ago, I began to have doubts. After my most recent visit to this part of the world this spring, I have reluctantly concluded that a “two state solution” is no longer possible. As is common in the region, events on the ground have outrun the political process. Over the past 15 years, the Israeli government has tried to establish “facts on the ground” that preclude a “two state solution” and they have succeeded. With 500,000 Jewish settlers living east of the green line, a complete loss of hope and faith in the Palestinian community and a hardening of attitudes in the Israeli polity, there is no longer a “two state solution” that is politically possible. The “single state solution” remains the only alternative to continuing suffering for all parties. All parties involved in searching for a solution need to recognize the futility of the “two state solution” and deal with questions about a single state. The question to be answered now is “What will be the nature of the single state?” Will it be a secular state with equal rights for all in which everyone practices their own religion? Will it be an apartheid state in which one group isolates and oppresses another? Will it be a state which is ethnically cleansed of one group for the benefit of another? We need to shift to a mode of considering how we can best mitigate the negative consequences of such an outcome. We can advocate for one state with equal rights for all, but we need to be prepared to deal with the most likely outcome, the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. The first requirement for solving a problem is to recognize the brutal reality

More strange bed fellows

The Middle East is a part of the world where many odd alliances appear. One is never sure who is allied with whom and whatever one thinks may all change tomorrow. After George Bush’s State of the Union speech in which he declared Iran part of the “Axis of Evil” and after the well documented Department of Defense plans for war with Iran it became clear that the US government considered Iran an arch enemy. Ongoing saber rattling and deployment of forces were designed to intimidate the Iranian government. (For the latest episode, click here.) We now seem to have a new ally in our efforts to intimidate Iran and perhaps an ally in any war effort with the Islamic Republic. Our old friends at Al Quada have also decided that Iran is an enemy. They have declared that unless Iran ceases their support for the Iraqi government they will begin attacks against Iran. (For this story, click here) Since the US Armed Forces are over stretched in Iraq, perhaps they could use the help of Osama bin Laden in any military adventure against Iran. We should, however, think about the unintended consequences of supporting the objectives of Al Quada in the Middle East. As one of my friend said to me after a presentation on my trip to Iran “I don’t agree with everything you said, but you made me think”. Thinking is good. Our government should try it some time. It might help.

Supporting Terrorists

There are several defining events in the history of US-Iranian relations. These include the CIA overthrow of the democratically elected government of Mohammed Mossedegh, the US support of the oppressive regime of the Shah, the attack on the US embassy and the subsequent hostage crisis and US support of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. One can argue about the level of the US support for Iraq during the war, but this conflict which resulted in the deaths of 1mm Iranians shapes much of the Iranian worldview. Murals of the martyrs (heroes) of this war are everywhere in Tehran. Another result of the memory of this conflict is that there is only one group more unpopular in Iran than the “Zionist regime” in Israel. This unpopular group is the Mujahedeen al-Khalq Organization (MKO) or People’s Mujahedeen, aka Mujahedeen e Khalq (MEK). This group, with its odd Islamist/Marxist ideology, shared the anti Shah viewpoint of other Iranian groups and participated in the 1979 Islamic revolution. They quickly fell out with the regime of Ayatollah Khomeini and after increasingly militant opposition were forced into exile in France and Iraq. A military wing which advocated overthrow of the Islamic Republic by force was formed in Iraq and became supporters of Sadaam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. With strong contacts and relationships within Iran, the MKO was able to provide Sadaam with useful intelligence as well as Farsi speaking fighters. This participation in the deaths of so many Iranian young men has made the MKO a hated group both within the Iranian government and among the Iranian people on the street. This animosity has been heightened by MKO terrorist attacks on Iranian civilian targets. The terrorist attacks resulted in the MKO being classified as a “terrorist organization” by the US State Department. The US, however, seemingly looking for another way to increase animosity between the US and Iran has decided to support its own “terrorist organization” in the region. Everybody else has one; why not us? (For this story, click here.) This unusual policy choice may have something to do with US domestic politics as the MKO has considerable support within the ex-pat Iranian community in the US. In the Middle East it sure is hard to figure out who the “good guys” are. Maybe there are no “good guys”.

Border security and unintended consequences

With Congress seemingly unable to reach a compromise on how to deal with immigration reform, we are headed toward more of the same in terms of an extension of current policy. Over the past few years legislation has focused on increasing border security in the name of protecting our borders from immigrants who might perform dastardly deeds such as terrorist attacks or getting a job. This increased border security resulting from manpower, technology and walls has had an effect on cross border migration, but not all of the consequences are intended. The construction of walls in urban areas like San Diego has had the effect of changing the migration routes from the urban routes where undocumented immigrants are more easily apprehended to the desert areas of Arizona and New Mexico which are harder to police and more dangerous for the immigrant to traverse. Because border crossing is now more dangerous and expensive, undocumented immigrants have chosen to stay in the U.S. rather than return to their home countries. In-migration to the U.S. has stayed relatively constant since the early nineties. What has changed is a dramatic drop in out-migration. This discrepancy has resulted in a big increase in the undocumented immigrant population. As Congress addresses this increase by such policies as forcing all 12mm undocumented immigrants to return to their home countries and preventing future immigrants from entering the country, it seems to be neglecting a number of very real considerations and responding to hysterical statements by the anti immigrant crowd. There are moral, practical and economic issues to be considered. Recent surveys show that there are 14mm people living in households headed by undocumented immigrants. Of these, 4mm are American citizens, primarily minor children who are citizens by birth right. If we deport the heads of these households, are we prepared for media pictures of crying children and parents as they are separated, perhaps never to be reunited? (For a real story, click here) From a practical point of view: How will we fill these jobs while they are gone? In the 21st century global economy goods, services and all of the inputs (capital, information, technology, etc.) except labor flow relatively freely across national boundaries. Does a policy of further restricting the flow of labor make sense? The US economy creates 400-500,000 more jobs each year than the native born population can fill. It seems to me that there are several possible solutions to this mismatch of demand and supply.
1. Slower growth to reduce the number of jobs created
2. Export the unfilled jobs overseas
3. Import workers to fill the job demand
Slowing the natural growth rate of the economy and making everybody poorer does not seem like a wise policy either economically or politically. A policy decision to export jobs overseas would result in the high skill and high paid jobs being done by foreigners leaving the low paid jobs for “Americans”. Indians, Chinese and Poles can do the high paid technology jobs; only “Americans” can mow my lawn. If we choose to import workers to fill the job demand the questions are: Will they be documented or undocumented? Will we know who they are and where they are? From a security point of view we would be better served if they were documented. Current proposals would allow high skilled workers to enter legally for 2 years. Isn’t there a disconnect between bringing in highly skilled workers, training them and then sending them home to do the job there. Maybe we should recognize that in a global economy migration “just is” and focus on mitigating the problems resulting from it.

Rolling out the big guns

Over the past few months several UK organizations have been in various stages of approving and implementing boycotts of Israel because of their human rights record during the 40 year occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. These organizations include UNISON, a 1.3 million member trade union, Britain's National Union of Journalists and the University and College Union. Although some of the boycotts are largely symbolic some, particularly the UNISON boycott, have the potential to make a difference. The British may being leading on this issue because they can more readily see the parallels between the situation in Israel/Palestine and the situation in apartheid South Africa. A British religious leader who was traveling with me in Israel/Palestine and who was involved in efforts to change the white South African regime commented "This is my first time here. Everything that I saw in South Africa I am seeing here". The Jewish/Israeli lobby appears to see the potential that this activity has to create a problem for them and they "rolling out the big guns". A coalition has been formed to make the case that these boycotts are a product of antisemitism and bias against Israel. (To see a story on this click here) Leaders in this effort include not only the usual suspects like Harvard professor Allan Dershowitz, but also respected opinion leaders like NY Times columnist Tom Friedman. (For his column entitled "A Boycott Built on Bias" click here) Mr. Friedman makes the point that is wrong to boycott a university, Hebrew University, that is a leader in Israel in providing equal education opportunities to Jews and Arabs alike. He is right in saying that Hebrew University is a leader in this area, but what he either doesn't know or chooses to ignore is that some Arabs are more equal than others. The kind of behavior that the boycott organizers are critical of allows the Israeli Army to make decisions based on "security concerns" that prevent the "less equal" Arabs from taking advantage of this opportunity. (To see stories on this click here and here) The Anti Defamation League has implemented a major ad campaign to fight the boycotts. (To see this click here) They make the point that the boycott organizers are singling out Israel and ignoring the human rights behavior of such countries as Zimbabwe, Sudan, Iran and Venezuela. It seems to me a little odd that an organization supportive of Israel would include Israel in this list of pillars of the human rights community. I guess politics makes strange bed fellows.

Sweet and Sour

During a visit to St Anne’s Cathedral, a Catholic Church in the Muslim quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, I asked Father Michel La Voie, a French Canadian Priest, what it was like to live in the Old City and Israel. He responded in his soft spoken tones “It is like Chinese food, sweet and sour. It gets a little heavy after awhile” Similar sentiments are expressed by Pastor Russ Siler, Pastor of the English speaking Lutheran congregation in the Old City of Jerusalem who is now leaving after four years in the city.

9 June 2007

It is almost as if I am returning to school after a summer break, preparing to write the obligatory essay on what I did over my vacation. Save for the fact that this term stretched out for four years, it was truly a break—a world apart from that which most people in my home country experience on a daily basis. Here is a world in which one is not free to travel where one wishes. It is a place not of freedom, but of restrictions—not of liberty, but of oppression. As my wife Anne and I prepare to leave this land which has been our home these past few years, I wish that I could package this segment of our lives and make it available to you in such a way that you could see, feel, hear, smell, taste, and touch the things we have. Then you would be as overwhelmed by joy, sadness, elation, and despair as we are. But I cannot. All I believe I am capable of doing is telling you what I will miss and what I will not miss as we return to the United States.
I will miss the beautiful homes left to us from a magnificent past, with their arched windows and ornate porches and high ceilings. I will not miss the piles of rubble and rebar which mark demolished Palestinian homes—more than 15,000 of them since the Occupation began, most on the flimsiest of pretexts by the Israeli army or municipal authority—where I know lie crushed under each one a family's dream of a place of their own.


I will miss the magnificent countryside, littered with rocks and hills of every size and description, and the rugged landscapes that Abraham and Sarah, Hagar and Ishmael, Jesus, Peter, and Andrew hiked through. I will not miss the monstrous Wall, barbed wire fences, dirt mounds across unpaved village access roads, and ugly, prison-fortress-like crossings and terminals, ubiquitous in their barbarity. I won't miss them, because Israel presents them to you as dire necessities for their security, indeed, for their very survival, while we see the truth of Israel's reality which is to carve up Palestine into ever tinier clusters of humanity whose religious, cultural, societal ties are so slashed into disconnected ribbons that a nation is impossible.
I will miss ever so much the innocent smiles and playful giggles on the faces of the children—Israeli, Palestinian, international—all over the place. I will not miss the heaviness dragging on my heart like an anchor, as I realize how very soon that playful innocence will fall victim to fear and hatred, to bigotry and racism. I will miss the steady stream of visitors—vacationers, pilgrims, seekers, tourists—that arrive like clockwork at our 9:00 am Sunday worship in St. John's Chapel.
I will miss their delight at being in the Holy Land—many of them first-timers, but many more veterans of the land—their eagerness to meet Palestinian Christians whom, they soon learn, have been a vital presence here for the entire life of the Christian Church, and their openness to listen to narratives of the deadly conflict that the rest of the world seldom hears. I will not miss the busloads of tourists whose guide takes them to Bethlehem for a quick peek at the Church of the Nativity, then hurries them back to Jerusalem, because, "It's dangerous in the West Bank."
I will miss the witness of the courageous Israeli and Jewish women and men—Machsom Watch, Rabbis for Human Rights, Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, Women in Black, and all the others—as they tirelessly seek to stand in solidarity with people who seek justice and to educate those who wonder what unspeakable things are being done in the name of their beloved religion. I will not miss those coarse voices who violently insist—to the detriment of intelligent dialogue, discussion, disagreement, debate, or dissent—that any person who dares to criticize Israeli policy is either self-hating or anti-Semitic.
Perhaps, however, more than anything, I will miss the thousand times a week I hear ahlan wa salan—Welcome—singing out with genuine warmth from face after face of those who are desperately eager to let me know that, regardless of appearance, religion, or nationality, I am their brother. I have no doubt whatsoever that, were one of these persons to be down to his last piece of bread, he would beckon me closer and say, "Come, sit, eat!" What I will never miss are the questions spontaneously emerging from these same warm hearts, "Why does America treat us this way?" "Why do they help Israel oppress us and take our land?" "Will you please tell Mr. Bush that all we want is to be treated fairly; we only want justice." I will not miss these questions because I think they are harsh or prompted by bad intentions, but because I have no answers which will make a whit of difference to my sisters, to my brothers who are so baffled by the way our country treats them.
Some of you have asked what I will do when we return to the States. At this juncture I can only grin broadly and say "Retire!" We do know there are challenges and adventures awaiting us; we just don't know what or where or when. The only certainty in my mind—No. Make that in my heart—is that I will continue to speak up and to speak out. My friends here would understand if I did not. They would softly comfort me, "We know how hard it will be." The problem is that I will not be that easy on myself. I cannot see the tears in my brother's eyes without tasting the salty bitterness in my own mouth. And I cannot swallow the bitter taste; I must open my mouth and let it out! Thank you for your faithful willingness to listen and for your constant support. They have been life-giving! Peace!

Russell O. Siler,
Pastor
English-speaking Congregation Lutheran Church of the Redeemer Jerusalem, Old City thesilers@earthlink.net

On self censorship

Iranians that I talked to during my recent trip to this complex country described the media situation as being very nuanced. Although overt censorship is no longer common, there are "red lines" that media outlets critical of the regime would be wise not to cross if they wish to keep their jobs or stay in business. (For a good description of the situation click here) The meeting that we were scheduled to have with a group of journalists was canceled. Although the actual reason for the cancellation was not completely clear, the best guess was that they did not want to risk being associated with Americans at a time when such association could impact their livelihood. As the article points out the location of the "red line" is not clear and therefore journalists need to be careful and exert a large degree of self censorship with respect to what they say or publish. In the US, however, the location of the "red line" with respect to the Israel/Palestinian conflict is very clear and one crosses the line at one's peril as DePaul University political science professor Norman Finkelstein found out. If you are in academia or the media and dare to cross the line your livelihood will be in peril. (For this story click here) My advice would be: If you are in this position and want to keep your job, exercise a little self censorship.

Do I want my child in this world?

This morning in church the sermon included a poem by Wendell Barry

Manifesto: The Mad Farmer Liberation Front.

Love the quick profit, the annual raise,vacation with pay.

Want more of everything ready-made.

Be afraid to know your neighbors and to die.

And you will have a window in your head.

Not even your future will be a mystery any more.

Your mind will be punched in a card and shut away in a little drawer.

When they want you to buy something they will call you.

When they want you to die for profit they will let you know.

So, friends, every day do something that won't compute.

Love the Lord. Love the world.

Work for nothing.

Take all that you have and be poor.

Love someone who does not deserve it.

Denounce the government and embrace the flag.

Hope to live in that free republic for which it stands.

Give your approval to all you cannot understand.

Praise ignorance, for what man has not encountered he has not destroyed.

Ask the questions that have no answers. Invest in the millennium.

Plant sequoias.

Say that your main crop is the forest that you did not plant, that you will not live to harvest.

Say that the leaves are harvested when they have rotted into the mold.

Call that profit. Prophesy such returns.

Put your faith in the two inches of humus that will build under the trees every thousand years.

Listen to carrion - put your ear close, and hear the faint chattering of the songs that are to come.

Expect the end of the world.

Laugh.Laughter is immeasurable.

Be joyful though you have considered all the facts.

So long as women do not go cheap for power, please women more than men.

Ask yourself: Will this satisfy a woman satisfied to bear a child?

Will this disturb the sleep of a woman near to giving birth?

Go with your love to the fields.

Lie down in the shade.

Rest your head in her lap.

Swear allegiance to what is nighest your thoughts.

As soon as the generals and the politicos can predict the motions of your mind, lose it.

Leave it as a sign to mark the false trail, the way you didn't go.

Be like the fox who makes more tracks than necessary, some in the wrong direction.

Practice resurrection.

The line that resonated with me was "Will this disturb the sleep of a woman near to giving birth?" It reminded me of a conversation I had with a young Palestinian woman on the West Bank. She said "My husband and I are not sure that we want to have children. Is it fair to bring another life into our existence?" We should be concerned if we are creating a world into which women are afraid to bring to life. This is a road to death not resurrection. Perhaps one of the criteria for government policy should be: How will women feel about bringing new life into the world we are creating?

The danger of soft power

Prior to our recent trip to Iran, my wife and I had many people question our sanity in going to such a dangerous place. We heard comments like “Why would you go there?” and “We will pray for you”. We were also warned in Iran of the dangers, if somewhat tongue in cheek. One afternoon we went to a tea house at the end of one of the beautiful old bridges in Isfahan. As I was talking to the Iranian at the reception desk, he asked where I was from. When I said “America”, he responded with a grin “American. Why would you come here? Don’t you know all Iranians are terrorists?” As I was leaving the tea house and inquired how much I owed him he responded “You are Americans; you are my guests”. Upon our return to JFK airport in NYC the immigration official, when he saw that we had been to Iran, said “Don’t you know that people disappear all the time in Iran?” In some respects these warnings were accurate. Several Iranian-Americans have been arrested and detained in Iran in the last few months. (To see the story, click here and here) These people have been primarily human rights advocates and activists. We also experienced the efforts of the Iranian government to reduce the contact between American citizens and the Iranian people. Many of our meetings with journalists and women’s rights groups were canceled either by the government or by the groups themselves who were afraid of the repercussions of meeting with Americans. The group following ours had all of their meetings canceled. The reason given by the government is that they are afraid that contact with Americans will lead to a “velvet or soft revolution” such as occurred in the Soviet Union. The government is afraid that by engaging with the young and restless Iranian population Americans could create a non-violent regime change. The US government, however, seems to be on a completely different path and seems to being to doing its best to sustain the unpopular regime. US and international sanctions give the Iranian regime a scapegoat for their bad economic policies. Efforts to undermine the regime with propaganda and collusion with outside opposition groups, who have little support within Iran, give the mullahs an excuse for their repressive policies. US refusal to recognize Iranian rights under the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT), military threats and saber rattling tend to solidify popular support behind the regime. It is these types of policies that have succeeded in keeping Fidel Castro in power in Cuba for 50 years. Some Iranians say that the regime would like to see the US attack Iran as it would unite the population against the “Great Satan”. The greatest danger to the regime, as the regime itself admits, is engagement with Americans. The current government might well fall of its own weight. All Iranians that I talked to wanted this to be a peaceful transition created by Iranians. They said “The last thing we need is another revolution. It would set us back 30 years” and “A new government must not be seen as a creation of the west. If it were seen as sponsored by the US, it would have no legitimacy”. The Islamic regime has gradually moderated since the revolution. As one Iranian said to me “We are going through a difficult time now, but this too will pass. Democracy is not a pill that you take.”

End of the beginning-beginning of the end

This month’s travels to the Middle East, including Israel and Palestine, yielded a view of a situation much worse than I saw last year. The light of hope has gone out of the eyes of West Bank Palestinians. Economic sanctions, the cut off of aid, border closings, the arming of factions and the disruption of communication and travel have resulted in frustration and a loss of hope. Internecine warfare and chaos have added to the despair caused by high unemployment and a collapsing economy. It is becoming increasing clear to me, if not to our political leaders, that a negotiated two state solution to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is unrealistic. For there to be a negotiated settlement there must be overlap between the positions of the parties. As the Israeli rejection of the Arab peace proposal indicates, there is a large gap between the minimum that the Palestinians would accept and the most that the Israelis would offer. Israelis are not going to give up modern settlements on the West Bank, like Maal Adumim, which are made suburbs of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem by bypass roads. These settlements are home to 500,000 Israeli Jews. Years of weak and even incompetent leadership in the US, Israel and the Palestinian Authority have brought us to this point. They have been unwilling or unable to make the difficult political decisions required for a solution. We are at the end of the peace process and the beginning of the road to apartheid and ethnic cleansing. (Jeff Halper, Coordinator of Israeli Committee Against Housing Demolition makes this point here) Heading down this road, we are in danger of arriving at out-right war. The Palestinian/American lawyer who is the legal advisor to the Palestinian Authority told the story of a conversation that he had on the streets of Ramallah on the West Bank. After he had led a team of Palestinian Authority lawyers at the International Court of Justice who won their case and had the ICJ declare the Israeli separation wall/fence illegal, he was told “You may be happy, but it will have no effect. The US and Israel will ignore it and the rest of the world will go along. No one knows we are here unless we make a noise”. The lawyer said “I knew what he meant”. Sooner or later a Palestinian Israeli citizen, enraged by the death of a sister in childbirth at an Israeli checkpoint or the death of a brother as collateral damage from an Israeli targeted killing will “make a noise” at a coffee shop in Tel Aviv or Haifa. (The novel The Attack by Yasima Khadra explores this scenario.) The resulting Israeli crack down will surface all the fissures in Israeli society and expand the conflict throughout the region. More innocent Israelis, Palestinians and maybe Americans will die. But perhaps there are no innocent Israelis, Palestinians or Americans. In a discussion with an Iranian about the fact that Iranians don’t hold the actions of the US government against individual Americans he said “This may change. You are a democracy and in a democracy, you are responsible for your government.” Israel, the Palestinian Territories and America are democracies. In a democracy you get the government that you deserve.

Welcome to my country

As an American visitor in Iran who is obviously not Iranian, one is frequently approached in public places with the question “Where are you from?” When you say America”, the usual response is “Welcome to my country” or ‘Welcome to my city”. This response of ownership reflects the strong nationalism of Iranians and their great pride in their ancient civilization, much of it dating from the 2nd millennium BCE. I met a young lady in Persopolis, a palace complex dating to 500 BCE, who was in tears. When asked why she was crying, she responded that “I am so sad that that my country has fallen from where it was to where it is today.” This pride in their country’s historical importance manifests itself when the man in the street supports the efforts of a relatively unpopular regime to stand up to the west and insist that their rights under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) be respected. Given this popular support it is unlikely that US efforts to force Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment program will have an impact. The best that the US can hope for is that Iran will live up to its obligations under the NPT and allow effective IAEA inspections to remain in place. The current US sanctions are having little effect. There is some cost to the economy since international credit card transactions have to be processed through Dubai, some US patented drugs hard to obtain and spare parts for US made equipment are unavailable except at a very high cost. Everything needs a middleman. (Our guides mother and mother in law both called to see if he had survived our flight from Tehran to Yazd. They said “Our planes are not safe.”) There is also a cost to the US from the sanctions. Iran is building strong business relationships with French, Russian, Chinese and Arab state business entities. These business relationships will be hard to overcome when relations are normalized and Iranians fully expect that to happen. When there was pressure to sell the US embassy property to pay compensation to the victims of the Iran Air flight shot down by the USS Vincennes, President Amadenijad refused to allow it. He said “The property belongs to the US and they will want it back when they return”. Currently the former embassy is a now closed museum of American “crimes”. Current US policy of attempting to unilaterally isolate Iran will probably have the same effect as US Cuba policy and keep the current regime in place for a long time. We would be better served by engaging this proud nation with its moderate Muslim population and with its potential to be an ally in stabilizing this troubled part of the world.