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.