Lowering Expectations II

On the day after Christmas, the imprisoned residents of Gaza were greeted with the sounds of bombs and rockets falling on Gaza City as Israel began a major attack on this small, heavily populated area which, thus far, has killed close to 300 people. The attack had been widely expected since the end of a six month ceasefire between Israel and the Hamas controlled territory.
It was almost inevitable that the Israelis were going to feel the need to attack Gaza. Sooner or later one of the widely inaccurate rockets fired from Gaza was going to hit a school or synagogue causing significant casualties which would require the Israelis to respond. This attack, however, was more the result of the upcoming Israeli elections and Israeli politics than anything else. As the Israeli political spectrum has moved further to the right, the Labor party of Defense Minister Ehud Barak and the Kadima party of Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni have found themselves outflanked by the growing strength of the rightist Likud party. They have felt the need to show how tough they are, first with rhetoric and then with action.
The devastating attack is a disaster not only for Gaza, but also for the region and the peace process which was already on life support. Everybody’s finger is on the trigger and slightest miscalculation could result in a regional conflict. The authoritarian governments of US allies Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are under pressure from Islamist opposition groups to respond more aggressively. The large anti US/Israel demonstrations, currently peaceful, could turn violent, destabilizing these regimes. Once again the Christmas message of “peace on earth, good will toward men” will be put away with the Christmas decorations.
The only one to benefit from this mess may be President Elect Obama. He has been burdened with high expectations that he would take the ongoing negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and help move them forward toward some sort of agreement. Hamas and other Islamist groups will be strengthened by the conflict and in no mood to negotiate. The high expectations for peace and stability are now gone. Obama will now have plenty of time to deal with the other messes that he has inherited. In the Middle East he will become a fire fighter.

Changing Landscape

One of the trends that became apparent during my recent visit to the Middle East was the changing political landscape. During discussions with Hezbollah and Hamas, two groups isolated by the western powers as terrorist organizations, the words that I heard most frequently were respect, dialogue and the need to solve the Israeli/Palestinian situation in order to have peace and stability in the region.

What I saw in Hamas and Hezbollah spokesmen were reasonable people who, although they remain committed to resistance to the occupation, were open and desirous of dialogue on the basis of mutual respect to solve the regions problems. They certainly did not come across to me as the fanatical terrorists that are portrayed in the west. One of the Hezbollah spokesmen that I talked to was married to an American woman who insisted that her first child be born in NYC. His daughter, therefore, is an American citizen.

Hesham Youssef, the Chief of Staff of the Arab League, talked about their efforts to bring Hamas and Hezbollah to the mainstream.


At the time that Arab politics is moving towards moderation, Israeli politics is moving sharply to the right. It appears that Likud, the hard right Israeli party, will win the February elections and Bibi Netanyahu will be asked to form a government. He is being pulled further to the right by members of his own party such as Moshe Feiglin (His manifesto is here) and other right wing parties such as Yisreal Beiteinu whose leader Avigdor Lieberman advocates expelling Israeli Arabs to the West Bank. Even Kadima leader Tzipi Livni, who portrays herself as a moderate, has advocated transferring Israeli Arabs to the Palestinian territories. (Her comments are here)

I met with Ephraim Sneh, former general and Labor party member of the Knesset, who has formed his own party, Strong Israel, which he describes as center-left. His comments left members of our group in shock.



This is not a recipe for peace and stability.

Balloon Festival

Impatience on the part of commentators to put the Bush administration and its policies behind us and to get on with “change you can believe in” has led them to bemoan the long transition period between elections in early November and inauguration in late January. They have pointed out that the extended power vacuum with a lame duck President and an incoming President Elect with no power but promising changed policies is dangerous. This, they say, is particularly true in a time of global conflict and economic crisis.

The transition period is, however, an opportunity, not only to assemble the new team, but also to float policy trial balloons in order to ascertain public and government reaction. The Obama team has made good use of the transition period for this purpose. They have floated trial policy options on healthcare, climate change and the economic crisis.

This week they have launched balloons with respect to the Middle East. Obama discussed an Iran policy that included economic carrots and potential increases in sanctions. This balloon was greeted in the region with yawns and comments of “so what’s new”.

A more interesting balloon was the suggestion that the US might negotiate a formal nuclear umbrella agreement with Israel to provide deterrence against a nuclear attack on Israel. This was first mentioned by Hilary Clinton during the primary race, but in the context of a threat to “obliterate Iran”.

The idea was greeted in Israel with uniform opposition. Their rational was that this would indicate that the US accepts a nuclear armed Iran and it would not give Israel complete control over their nuclear response options. They could, however, have another problem with this suggestion. It may indicate that the US might sign on to the concept of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction.

The potential usefulness of this concept can be seen in the negotiations that are currently going on in the Organization for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. (OPCW) The OPCW is the only arena where the US is currently engaged in direct negotiations with the Islamic Republic of Iran.
One of the objections that Iran has expressed to eliminating chemical weapons is that the “chemical and nuclear weapons” of the “Zionist regime” is the “most dangerous threat to regional and international peace.” Egypt and Syria, who along with Israel are not signatories to the current Chemical Weapons Convention, have said that they cannot join until the Middle East is free of WMD.

Iran has, in the past, indicated that they are open to any US proposal for a WMD free Middle East. This scares the h___ out if Israel. Former Israeli MK Ephraim Sneh told me “no way, no way” would Israel agree to this.

Trail balloons are generally hot air balloons and float with the political winds. We will have to wait and see which way the wind blows this one.

Lessons learned

It has been interesting to observe the US government reaction to the terrorist attacks in Mumbai and the apparent counsel that they have given to the Indian government concerning their reaction to these attacks. The US appears to have learned some lessons from its own reaction to the 9/11 attacks.
As one considers how to react to attacks such as these there are several points worth remembering. Despite the fact that attacks like these are terrible tragedies for those killed and wounded and their families and friends, they are not existential threats to either the US or India. In terms of a threat to the existence of major powers like the US or India, they are better classified as a nuisance.
It is also important to ask not only who perpetrated the attacks, but why they did it and what did they intend to accomplish. “They hate us for our values” is not a particularly useful answer.
In the case of the 9/11 attacks, Al Qua’da was very up front about its goals and objectives; it published them on all of its web sites.
Osama bin Laden had learned some lessons from his experience as an American ally in the Afghanistan war against the USSR, the “godless Communists”. If one can lure them into an un-winnable war in Afghanistan, one can bleed them until they collapse. A major attack on the “godless Americans” would lure them into un-winnable war in Afghanistan. In the case of 9/11, he got a “two for”. He lured us into Iraq as well and came close to getting us into Iran.
Although he didn’t succeed in bleeding the US to collapse, he certainly inflicted a lot of pain, emotional, physical and economic.
In Mumbai, we seem to be asking not only who did it, but why. The answers to these questions are not yet clear, but we seem to be counseling a measured response and seem to be determined to insure that we don’t play into the hands of the terrorists.
One can only hope that the incoming Obama administration will not have to relearn these lessons in the “school of hard knocks”.

Lowering expectations

One of the issues that President Elect Obama will have to deal with in the Middle East is that of high expectations. Except in Israel, the election of a black man with the middle name Hussein, with a background that included Kenya and Indonesia to the most powerful office in the world has been greeted with great happiness and high hopes for significant changes to American policy in the region. In Syria the headlines blared “Abu Hussein wins” and a countdown to the end of the Bush administration began on the front pages. In Egypt we were told by a member of the Egyptian Institute on Foreign Policy “Obama is a rock star”.
Political leaders certainly recognize that there are limitations on the ability of any President to make changes to American foreign policy. He does not operate in a vacuum. Advisors, Congress, lobbying groups and corporations will all have input. He will face many competing priorities, a crisis in the American and worldwide economies, unpopular and messy wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, reform of the healthcare system, etc. The Chief of Staff of the Arab League told us that “Our biggest challenge is to lower expectations.”
Obama has helped to lower expectations with some of his early appointments. The appointment of ardent Zionist Rahm Emmanuel as Chief of Staff was greeted with uniform disappointment and comments of “more of the same”. A shepherd in the South Hebron hills on the West Bank, who lives with his extended family in tents after having been evicted several times from his land by Jewish settlers and the IDF, when asked about his expectations for change said, “Not great. He has surrounded himself with Zionist Jews”. (How he even knew that, much less its implications, was not clear to anyone.)
The news that Hilary Clinton would be Secretary of State was greeted with a rolling of eyes and shaking of heads.
Despite these disappointments, the news is not all bad. (One has to be a perpetual optimist in this region.) Although the Bush policies have been a complete disaster for the region, he has managed to leave the incoming Obama administration in a better position than he inherited from the Clinton administration. Bush inherited a 2nd Intifada and failed Israeli/Palestinian talks at Camp David and Taba whereas the Obama administration inherits ongoing Israel-Palestinian talks (albeit with no results) and a fragile cease fire in Gaza.
All is not bad on the appointments front. Hilary Clinton is a very bright person who certainly understands the failures of her husband’s policies. National Security Advisor designate General Jim Jones has been engaged as an envoy in the region and certainly understands what is happening, what is not and why.
Whether they will be willing and able to translate this knowledge into policies that better reflect US national interest is uncertain. The mantra of many in the Middle East is probably applicable. “We are hopeful, but we will have to wait and see.”

Whose side is time on?

Jerusalem, Israel – I came to this part of the world with some preconceived notions about where the discussions about an agreement between Israelis and Palestinians stood. Following the Annapolis conference of a year ago, parties agreed to freeze settlements, upgrade Palestinian security capability and engage in discussions regarding a final status agreement.
In the last year Jewish settlement building has continued apace, some progress has been made on security (much more needs to be done) and discussions have been ongoing between the parties. Secretary of State Rice has been to the region eight times in the interim period and has pronounced that much progress is being made on an agreement and that she expected one before the end of the year. I had asked myself, “Does she know something that I don’t know or is she being a complete Pollyanna?” I had concluded she was a complete Pollyanna.
However, as we traveled through the region, we were told by senior political leaders in Syria, Jordan and Ramallah, including Saeb Erakat, the lead negotiator for the Palestinian authority, that “The deal is 95% done. All that remains are details and the political will to implement the deal.”
Then we talked to the technocrats responsible for the actual negotiating teams. They gave a dose of reality. Nothing is done. For the most part nothing has happened in the past year. The political leaders are making optimistic statements only to prevent complete despair from setting in.
The Israelis believe that time is on their side (which may or may not be true) and therefore are just fighting a delaying action. Time, however, is certainly not on the side of peace. Saeb Erakat said to me, “If we reach an agreement soon, Hamas is gone. If we don’t reach an agreement soon, I am gone”. How do you spell “intifada”?

Signals

Amman, Jordan: One thing that is evident in this part of the world is that there are completely unrealistic expectations for an Obama presidency. Following the election, the Cairo weekly English language paper had a banner headline, “A Dream Come True”.
The US embassy personnel have told us that they are making an effort to reduce expectations. They are explaining that US policy is not made solely by the President. Many people and organizations influence the process. Lobbying groups, corporations, advisors, the State Department and others will have a say and even if a new policy is put in place it will take time to implement it.
Nevertheless, in the wake of the wave of hope for a new US policy approach in the Middle East there has been much signaling of a willingness to engage in dialogue.
On the Iranian front, President Ahmadinajad sent is congratulations to President Elect Obama. This is the first time that has happened since the Iranian revolution. The Iranian President is under domestic criticism and pressure for his bellicose rhetoric and the poor performance of the economy and a thawing of relations with the US might help him in the upcoming elections. Obama did not respond and gave the party line on Iran’s nuclear program. The Iranians returned to criticizing Obama, but it didn’t seem to have the same passion.
For the American part a US military officer was quoted as saying “The US needs an interlocutor in Afghanistan. We need to take the views of the Iranians into account. They don’t want a radical Sunni regime in Afghanistan any more than we do.”

In our meeting with Hezbollah Foreign Affairs Director Nawef Mousawi, he responded to a suggestion that they might make a gesture that would assist President Obama in implementing a change in policy by saying “That is interesting to me. I would be open to suggestions.”
The next day this Hezbollah release appeared in the Beirut media:

Mousawi says Hezbollah is ready for dialogue with US if it is recognized and respected

Hezbollah foreign relations officer Nawaf Mousawi said the "Resistance had forced a change in the American behavior in the region."Following a meeting with a delegation from the US Council for the National Interest, headed by former ambassador Edward Peck, Mousawi said that Hezbollah looks forward to setting up relations with all people on the basis of mutual recognition and respect.On the new American policy in the region, he said, "We know that wrong policies which were adopted in the past have been reviewed.""We have shown our desire for dialogue if Hezbollah is considered a resistance movement against Israeli occupation and aggression and a Lebanese political party”. He added, “The Washington based fair minded American delegation we met with yesterday joined us in dialogue on the facts as we see them and Hezbollah is grateful for that. We welcome more dialogue and frank discussions with such Americans”.
Although it is never clear that there can be a positive outcome from dialogue, one can only hope that the US is not “tone deaf” to the signals.

Our man in Washington

Beirut, Lebanon: One of the questions that I have been asking the Lebanese that I have encountered is “What is your reaction to the election of Barak Obama as President of the United States?” People tell me that the initial reaction of most Lebanese and the thousands of American ex-pats who live and work in Lebanon was one of ecstasy.
American ambassador to Lebanon Michelle Sison told us that on Election Day they had a party for the ex-pat community at which they had two jars of buttons, one for McCain and one for Obama. At the end of the night all of the Obama buttons were gone, but they had plenty of McCain buttons left over.
As time has passed, reality has set in that not much may change in US policy toward the region. They now say “We will wait and see”.
This reality was reinforced by the Obama announcement that he would appoint Illinois Congressman Rahm Emmanual as his Chief of Staff. While the western media has focused on his partisan political stance, his abrasive personality and his colorful language, the media in the region has been more concerned with his background and history.
Emmanual is an ardent Zionist and supporter of AIPAC’s hard right views. He is the son on a Chicago doctor who was a member of the Irgun, the Zionist guerilla/terrorist organization who fought the British during the founding of Israel. Arab concerns were not assuaged when Dr. Emmanual said, when asked about the Jewish community’s view of Chief of Staff Emmanual, “He is our man in Washington”.
We asked General Michel Aoun, former Prime Minister and the leader of a Lebanese Christian party allied with Hezbollah, what he hoped for from the early days of an Obama administration. He said “stop aggression, stop interfering in Lebanon, and stop Israeli settlements”. He and we will have to wait and see.

The Road Ahead

During my upcoming trip to the Middle East, it will be interesting to hear the reaction to Barak Obama’s election victory and his assumption of the role of President Elect. Although most Middle Easterners have favored an Obama victory, they have not held out much hope that a change in US administration will result in a serious change in policy.
Predicting the policies and actions of elected politicians is always a risky venture. Campaign rhetoric is probably the least reliable vehicle for understanding the views of a politician. A politician friend of mine once said that “Promises made in the heat of the campaign are retrievable”.
I learned this the hard way when I believed George W. Bush in 2000 when he was critical of Clinton administration efforts at nation building in the Balkans by using military force and advocated for “a more humble foreign policy”.
One way to get a feel for the policies of a President is to look at the advisors and staff people that are part of his team. Presidents cannot be experts in all of the complicated issues that they will face and therefore must surround themselves with people that they trust, listen to and weigh their advice before making a decision.
In an Obama administration, if Middle East advisors are architects of the Clinton administration policies such as Martin Indyck and Dennis Ross, the policies will likely look a lot like the failed Clinton policies. If the advisors are Democratic hawks like Richard Holbrook and Kenneth Pollack, the policies will likely look a lot like Bush administration policies. In either event, not much positive will happen.
On the other hand, if senior advisors include people like Susan Rice, an articulate young black woman, (Obama people like to say “Our Dr. Rice is smarter that their Dr. Rice”.) policies may be more even handed and moderate. Ms Rice is a former Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs in the Clinton administration and thus brings a different perspective to the issues. She is more likely to relate to the plight of the oppressed and disadvantaged.
The next few weeks will be interesting. Stay tuned.

Middle East Journey

Next week my wife and I will be embarking on a political pilgrimage of the Middle East, touring Egypt, Jordan, Israel, Palestine (West Bank and Gaza Strip), Syria and Lebanon with former Ambassador Edward Peck and the Council for the National Interest Foundation.

Previous delegations have interviewed those involved in Middle East politics from across the entire political spectrum. Interviews are set up in every country with officials from U.S. embassies, UN representatives, respected government officials and opposition leaders. I expect our visit to the region to be no different.

For example, last year in Egypt one group interviewed the current Prime Minister Ahmed M. Nazif, Essam el-Erian, spokesperson for the Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo, as well as the Secretary General of the Arab League Amr Moussa. The most recent delegation in May 2008, crossed from Egypt into the Gaza Strip through the Rafah Crossing. They became the first international group to enter Gaza through Egypt since May 2007, when the international boycott of the Hamas government began. While in Gaza, the delegation met with and interviewed Ismail Haniyeh, the current Prime Minister of the Hamas-led government. Every visit to Israel includes meetings with members of the Knesset and various government officials, as well as journalists.

I will be posting in this space throughout the trip with my reactions to the opinions of political leaders as well as ordinary people.

It should be interesting to be in this part of the world right after the US elections and hear the reactions of Middle Easterners to the outcome. Since the only country where this race is even close is the US, should Senator Obama hold on to his apparent lead, Americans will probably be a lot more popular than we have been in the past few years.

Disappearing from the pages of history

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran has been regularly castigated for saying that “Israel will be wiped off the face of the map”. A better translation from the Farsi of what he said is “The Zionist regime in Jerusalem will disappear from the pages of history”.
His point was that a country that is based on religion cannot long survive. He seems to have missed the irony that he is the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran. He may, however, have a point.
It may not be a large problem in Iran which is 99% Shia Muslim, but Israel’s population, on the other hand, is 20% Arab, Christians and Muslims.
During my trips to the region, I have seen a growing sense of anger and frustration among the Israeli Arab population. This anger and frustration stems not only from the treatment of their Arab brothers and sisters in the West Bank and Gaza under the Israeli occupation, but also from the discrimination that they experience within Israel in housing, education and jobs. They are, in effect, second class citizens in their own country.
After years of festering just under the surface, the frustration boiled to the surface in the last week in the Israeli northern port city of Acre. Acre is a gritty lower middle class city of mixed Jews and Arabs who live together, sometimes in separate communities and sometimes next to each other.
On the eve of the Jewish holy day, Yom Kippur, during which many observant Jews do not drive, a young Arab drove through a Jewish neighborhood on his way home from work. A group of Jewish youth, incensed by this affront to their observance, attacked the Arab. When word of the attack spread to the Arab community, a riot ensued. Over the next four days and nights the violence resulted in the destruction of cars, the burning of tires and the arrest of a number of Jews and Arabs. The houses of two Arab residents were burned.
Israeli political leaders have expressed shock that such a thing could happen in Israel. While some on the far right have advocated expelling Arabs from Acre, most leaders have tried to restore coexistence. Feelings are running so high, however, that the Jewish leaders have refused to meet with their Arab neighbors.
All this misses the larger question. What is the role of Muslims and Christians in a state defined as a “Jewish state”? Unless a satisfactory answer is found to this question, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may well be right. The Jewish state may disappear from the pages of history.

Engaging Iran

During last week’s Presidential debate, one of the clear differences between the candidates was their approach to Iran. Senator McCain was a forceful advocate of continuing the policy of confrontation that was the policy in place during President Bush’s first term. Senator Obama, on the other hand, advocated for a policy of engagement to help resolve the disputes between the countries.
A policy of engagement has begun to emerge during Bush’s second term as the neo-conservatives in the Defense Department and Vice President Cheney’s office have begun to lose influence. This change has manifested itself in such things as the direct participation of senior diplomat Nicholas Burns in nuclear talks with Iran and the floating of an initiative to establish a US Interest Section in Tehran.
The Interest Section is a small, but important, step as it will bring American diplomats to Iran to begin to better understand the complex dynamics of Iran and will make it easier for Iranians and Americans to get visas and encourage interaction among ordinary citizens.
This week, in an extended interview with Iranian English language paper, Iran Daily (The article is here.), Gary Sick, a member of the Security Council under President Clinton and currently Professor of International Affairs at Columbia, raised the possibility that President Bush would take advantage of the window of opportunity between the elections and the inauguration of the new president to open the Interest Section.
This time period is a “window of opportunity” for three reasons.
Number one, the elections are over (unless we are still counting ballots in Florida) and therefore campaign politics will not come into play. Doing it before the elections would give Obama a chance to say; “I told you so. Even President Bush agrees that we should engage Iran”.
Number two, Congress will most likely be out of town for the holidays. This is important because the MEK (Mujahedin e’ Khalq), the violent Iranian opposition group advocating for a hard-line policy of regime change in Iran, has the best Congressmen money can buy on their side. They would try to prevent engagement.
Number three, doing it before the new President takes office would create “facts on the ground” which would be hard for a new President to reverse even if he wanted to.
It will be interesting to see what happens.

Spinning the news

This week the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency released its report on the “Implementation of NPT Safeguards in The Islamic Republic of Iran”. When I read about this report in the news media, I thought that there must have been two reports. The western and Israeli news media articles had headlines such as “IAEA Report: Iran blocks weapons probe”. (An example is here.) The Iranian media articles were headlined “Verifications on track”. (The article is here)
It turns out that they were both right. If one takes the time to read the actual report (If you want it, it is here.) the IAEA is talking about two different issues. With respect to Iranian nuclear enrichment activities the IAEA says such things as “All nuclear material at FEP (Fuel Enrichment Plant) … remain under Agency containment and surveillance” and all records “indicate that the plants have been operating as declared (i.e. less than 5.0% U-235 enrichment)”. (The level needed for peaceful uses of nuclear energy.)
The issue of the “weapons probe” relates to an intelligence report supplied by the US to the IAEA which alleges that Iran has a program to modify missile warheads to accommodate nuclear warheads. Iran has said that this report is a fabrication and if the IAEA will provide them with a copy of the documentation they will be able to prove that it is false. As indicated in the IAEA report the US has refused to allow that to happen.
In the run up to the invasion of Iraq the US media was criticized for taking the intelligence claims of the US government at face value and contributing to the government effort to mobilize public support for the invasion. Are we headed down the same road again?

Watch out for the elephants

Since the end of the brief war between Russia and Georgia there has been a worrying escalation in confrontation between the US and Russia.
This whole mess occurred because Georgian President Mikeil Saakashvili did not understand his role in big power geopolitics. He made the mistake of believing the public rhetoric coming from Washington and thought that he was an ally of the US. He didn’t realize that Georgia was a client state of the US and he did not understand the role of a client state.
In the client - patron relationship, the patron provides political, diplomatic and economic support to the client and in return the client is supportive of the patron’s interests in the region. However, the client has the obligation not to embarrass or put the patron in a difficult position. His ill conceived and impulsive attack on the breakaway province of South Ossetia which triggered a disproportionate response by Russia certainly put the US in an embarrassing and difficult position. The US had few if any realistic options for response and the most economically and militarily powerful nation in the world was exposed as a “paper tiger”.
Since the cease fire there have been a series of “tit for tat” verbal and military escalations. The escalations began following the refusal by Russia to immediately remove all of its troops from Georgia proper as agreed to under the ceasefire agreement negotiated by France. This led to an increase in belligerent rhetoric from Washington and the delivery of “humanitarian aid” to Georgia using US Navy warships. This generated belligerent rhetoric from Moscow and a threat about their ability to destroy the NATO ships in the Black Sea. Following the entry of US warships into the Black Sea, Venezuela has invited the Russian fleet to visit and Russia has said that it will send warships to the Caribbean before the end of the year.
These increasing confrontations between two nuclear armed powers with the risk of miscalculation are very dangerous. Rational leaders (if there are any) need to “cool it”. The little guys, (Georgia, Ukraine, and Venezuela) need to remember that when elephants start stomping around it is usually the mouse that gets squashed.

A bi-national state in Israel/Palestine

One of the recent developments in the seemingly protracted and endless conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is the movement of the concept of a bi-national state in Israel/Palestine from the realm of intellectuals, like the late Edward Said, and fringe groups, like The Association for One Democratic State in Israel/Palestine, to the political mainstream. Two years ago, when I first started to write about my view that facts on the ground had made the idea of a two state solution impossible, I felt the need to title the articles “A completely absurd idea”. (For more than you wanted to know about the issue, click here, here and here.)

At that time those of us proposing a single democratic state in Israel/Palestine were generally attacked as “anti-Semitic” and advocating a second Jewish Holocaust. Today the discussion is becoming a mainstream dialogue.

Leading Palestinian Authority negotiators Saeb Erekat and Ahmed Qurei have said that the PA is considering changing their negotiating position from insisting on a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders and with East Jerusalem as its capital to a single democratic state for all its citizens. This was the original PLO position prior to the Oslo agreements.

An in depth article appeared this week in the NY Times (The article is here.) describing the debate going on among Palestinians about how to deal with the fact that expanding Israeli settlements, construction of bypass roads and construction of the separation barrier have made as agreement on a separate viable Palestinian state nearly impossible.

Even the Israeli media has weighed in. The chief US correspondent for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz wrote an article entitled “One state solution? Let the debate begin” (This article is here.) The major points of debate will be “Should there be a single state?” and “What will be the nature of that state?” Unfortunately most of those commenting on this article advocated for a single state for Jews only and ethnically cleansed of Arab Palestinians. Some would say that this has already started. (See this article in The Guardian: “Ethnic cleansing by stealth”.) Human rights groups will have their work cut out for them.

Russia, Georgia and the Middle East

The war between Russia and Georgia is having reverberations in Middle East geopolitics. Israel has become a major worldwide supplier of arms and security services. Georgia is an important client.

The collapse of the Georgian offensive against the Russia supported province of South Ossetia was another blow to the myth of Israeli military prestige and prowess which had already suffered from their failures during the 2006 war with Lebanese Hezbollah.

The key Israeli liaison with Georgia was Brigadier General Gal Hirsch who resigned from the IDF after being severely criticized by the Winograd Commission investigating the Lebanese war. Israel was taunted by Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah saying that it was no wonder that Georgia was defeated since they were trained by Hirsch.

It is apparent that US adversaries in the Middle East are taking advantage of Russian annoyance with Israel for supporting Georgia. Syrian President Bashir Assad is visiting Russia this week for the stated purpose of “expanding military ties”. Moscow and Damascus are reportedly preparing a number of deals involving anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles.

Secretary of State Rice called the Israeli overreaction which resulted in destruction and killing in Lebanon and Israel “the birth pangs of the new Middle East” whereas she called the destruction and killing caused by the Russian overreaction in Georgia a “return to 1938”.

In fact the Georgia war may have been the “birth pangs” of the old Cold War Middle East: US diplomatic and military support for Israel and Russian support for the Arab states.

The Georgian Mess

I had dinner Sunday evening with a former US ambassador to Moldova who described his conversation that afternoon with a retired US ambassador to Georgia. The latter’s take on the situation in Georgia was that Mikheil Saakashvili was an aggressive Georgian nationalist who had promised in his electoral platform to restore control over the entire territory of the former Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic. Saakashvili may have felt empowered by the prospect of NATO membership and the "you are our democratic beacon in the Caucasus" rhetoric that was coming from Washington. He appears to have discounted repeated private warnings from US officials that the West would not come to Georgia’s aid in the event that Georgian actions provoked a Russian military response.

The Russians have been upset with the US over our support for an independent Kosovo and our rapid recognition of Kosovo after its declaration of independence from Russian ally Serbia. The Russians told US officials that if the principle of ethnic self-determination applies to Kosovo, the same principle applies to South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The US argued that Kosovo was “a special case that did not create a precedent,” but as the ambassador noted, there had been at that time a widespread feeling outside the US government that “you guys inside the Beltway can call this a special case, but nobody in the real world thinks that it is. This is going to be a problem.”

Despite disagreements within the Republican Party between those who wanted an aggressive approach to Russia (John McCain and his advisers being among them) and those who felt that Russia had legitimate security interests in the region, the US ambassador to Georgia and other senior US officials repeatedly told Saakashvili, "If you do something stupid, don't count on us to bail you out.” Saakashvili apparently didn't listen and did something stupid and now must face the consequences.

Incidentally, with regard to the breakaway Moldovan province of Transnistria, another focus of a “frozen conflict” in the former Soviet Union, my interlocutor said there are significant differences with the territorial disputes in Georgia. One, Moldova has no common border with Russia; Ukraine is in the way, making Russian military intervention more difficult. And two, if Russia forced Moldova to relinquish its claim on Transnistria, there is a good chance that the remainder of Moldova would opt to join Romania in the interest of securing the benefits of membership in the European Union. An extension eastward of the EU’s border would presumably not be in Russia’s perceived interest.

Dealing with tribalism

The western media has, in general, portrayed the recent spate of internecine conflict in Gaza and the West Bank as a political conflict between Fatah and Hamas. Although there is a political component to the conflict, there is also a strong tribal component. One of the things that I quickly learned in my travels in the region is that tribal loyalties trump most other considerations. In Jordan the government defers to tribal leaders to settle many legal disputes.
A few weeks ago in Gaza, following a bombing that killed 5 Hamas fighters and a little girl, the Hamas led government cracked down on the Fatah associated Hilles clan, arresting many of their members and causing others to flee to Israel. Although Hilles members are associated with Fatah, some are Hamas members and in general they act in the best interest of their tribal brothers.
Western leaders have a long history of lack of understanding of tribal loyalties and the complications that they bring to political situations.
In the US this lack of understanding manifested itself early on in relations with Native American tribes. On the Flathead Reservation in Montana, the US government put two tribes, the Salish and Kootenai, historical rivals, on the same reservation and then wondered why they didn’t get along.
The tribal loyalty component that under girds Diaspora Jews’ support for Israel has long been ignored. Judaism began as a tribal religion of place, the Israelite tribe in Palestine. God chose the Israelites as his people and he lived in Jerusalem. After the exile, Judaism lost its attachment to place (although this is returning with the effort to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem so God will have a place to live), but retains its tribal character. Even Christian Zionists appeal to this tribal loyalty. Pastor John Hagee, founder of Christians United for Israel, said in a recent speech “Christians have a debt to Jews for providing the foundation of their religion, because God made a covenant with Israel”.
The arming of Sunni tribes in Iraq against al Quada is a risky strategy because it is not clear to me what the impact will be once al Quada and the US forces are gone and old tribal conflicts resurface. We may be arming all sides of a future civil war.
Until western policy makers exhibit a greater understanding of the influence of tribalism in the Middle East and Africa and take these complications into account, they will continue to “stumble and bumble” through these regions. Things are never as simple as they seem.

Change you can believe in?

Senator Barak Obama’s recent trip to the Middle East and Europe has been closely followed not only by the US media, but also by Arab media and the average Arab on the street. The initial optimism of Middle Easterners about the potential of an Obama presidency to bring about “change” to American Middle Eastern foreign policy and to be a catalyst for peace in the region has gradually waned as Senator Obama has bowed to the political realities of running for President and has shifted his policy accordingly.

The shift began shortly after he became the presumptive Democratic nominee when, in a speech before the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC, he declared that “Jerusalem will be the eternal capital of Israel and it must remain undivided”. Since Palestinians see East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state, this position is a deal breaker and even the Bush administration has not been willing to go there. A few days later, after much criticism, his campaign “clarified” the statement by saying that he did not mean to preempt final status negotiations.

Palestinians and Arabs in general were wondering what he would say when he was in Israel/Palestine and actually saw the wall and had to talk to Israelis and Palestinians. The results only served to reinforce their belief that it doesn’t matter who is elected, nothing will change. With respect to Jerusalem he said “I continue to say Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel. I have said that before and will say it again”.

In dealing with Israeli concerns about his willingness to talk to Iran without preconditions, Haaretz reported that he told Prime Minister Olmert that he wanted to meet with Iran “to issue a clear ultimatum”. After that “any action against them would be legitimate”. This sounds as hawkish as George Bush and Dick Cheney.

Even his choice of advisors sends the message that nothing will change with respect to Middle East policy in an Obama administration. Obama said “I get my Middle East advice from Dennis Ross”. Dennis Ross was an architect of the failed policies of the Bush Sr. and Clinton administrations and is currently a counselor at the pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He is likely to advocate for the same old policies.

Arabs are probably right when they say “nothing will change”. As Palestinian leader Mustafa Barghouti commented, “Senator Obama seems to be in favor of change everywhere except Israel/Palestine”.

Justice for all

This week an International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor indicted Sudanese President Bashir for war crimes in conjunction with the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. There has been much debate as to how this will affect the UN/AU peacekeeping effort and the efforts of international NGO’s to provide humanitarian aid to the suffering people of Darfur. African Union peacekeepers have already been attacked resulting in fatalities. Fearing for the safety of their employees, some NGO’s are pulling their people from the area.
One of the problems that English speakers have is that we use the same word, justice, for two different concepts. The ICC prosecutor is trying to establish justice in the legal sense. Legal justice refers to punishing wrongdoers or perhaps exacting revenge. The concept of justice referred to in the Jewish and Christian scriptures is more about social and economic justice. It is about having an adequate amount of food (daily bread) or being free from oppression by a domination system.
Brian Steidle, former US Marine, peace keeper in Darfur and author of “The Devil Came on Horseback” spoke in Idaho last year about his Darfur experience. He was asked by a member of the audience “Who are the good guys”. His answer was “There are no good guys”.
I am not sure that attempting to find the “bad guys” and implement “legal justice” will help the people of Darfur experience “biblical justice”.

Israel ignores the US

This week Israel and Hezbollah completed a prisoner exchange agreement mediated by Germany under which 5 Lebanese Hezbollah fighters and 200 bodies of deceased fighters, Lebanese and Palestinian, were exchanged for the bodies of the 2 IDF soldiers who were kidnapped by Hezbollah in 2006.

Israel has also been negotiating with Hamas using Egypt as the intermediary. Thus far the outcome has been a cease fire in Gaza which has for the most part held and it appears that a prisoner exchange will occur on this front as well to be followed by a gradual opening of the Gaza border crossings and easing of the blockade that has starved the Gaza economy.

All this plus ongoing peace negotiations with Syria, mediated by US ally Turkey, has taken place despite fierce opposition from the US. Martin Indyk, former ambassador to Israel and currently Director of the Saban Center for Near East Policy, a pro Israel think tank, said in a lecture in Ketchum, Idaho that the US said to Israel “don’t you dare talk to Hezbollah, Hamas and Syria”.

The fact that Israel ignores the US is not particularly surprising. Israeli war hero and Chief of Staff of the IDF Moshe Dayan once said “the US gives us money, guns and advice”. We choose to take their money and guns and ignore their advice. Ambassador Indyk said that negotiating with these three adversaries makes sense for Israel. The purpose is to co-opt these Iranian allies so that Israel will be free to attack Iran without fear of retaliation from their close neighbors.

This may work for Israel, but how does it work for their erstwhile Palestinian negotiating partner Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen). Following last year’s Annapolis conference, US/Israel policy was to isolate Hezbollah, Hamas and Syria and strengthen Abu Mazen and Fatah with money, arms and political backing. In return Fatah would negotiate with Israel toward a peace framework. After months of fruitless negotiations, Fatah has accomplished almost nothing to benefit the Palestinian people. Israel has refused to release prisoners, stop settlement building or remove checkpoints and has continued attacks on the West Bank.

Hezbollah and Hamas, whose approach is confrontation, resistance and occasional violence, have been successful. Hezbollah was even clever enough to demand the release of Palestinians in the prisoner exchange. They now can say to the Palestinian people “See. We told you that negotiating with Israel is futile. The only thing that they respond to is force”. With Palestinian elections probably upcoming, Fatah is in a weaker position with respect to Hamas than they were last week and US policy is in shambles.

Steadfast in the face of indifference

One of the most common words that Palestinians use to describe their resistance to Israeli occupation is “steadfast”. Their saying “To exist is to resist.” reflects this determination. One of the best examples to this persistent determination takes place each Friday in Bi’iln where Palestinians, Israeli peace advocates and concerned internationals (primary European) demonstrate against the construction of the Israeli security fence/apartheid wall which in this area separates Palestinians from their land.

Because this area is not densely populated, the barrier here is a “fence” and not a wall, although, as one can see from the picture, it is a serious fence.

As my friend Diane Peavey recently found out being part of this demonstration is not risk free. Over the years there have been numerous examples of targeting of demonstrators with tear gas, rubber bullets and live ammunition by Israeli army and border police. Two years ago Irish Nobel Prize winner Mairead Maguire was shot while participating in the demonstration. Even the internationals are persistent as Maquire was back again this year.

Diane was in Bi’iln attending a conference on non-violent resistance. She went to the fence area to watch a group of Palestinian youth play soccer when the tear gas canisters began to fall. She described it as looking like the 4th of July. From the picture that’s not a bad description.

The persistent effort to maintain non-violent resistance in the face of a response of disproportionate force reminds me of the efforts of the American civil rights movement in the 60’s. The difference is this. Whereas in 60’s the reaction of the general population in America was one of outrage over the response, in the Palestinian case the reaction of the American and Israeli general population is one of indifference. I applaud the steadfast effort to maintain non-violent resistance, but I can understand how frustration at the indifference can lead to violence.

After my first visit to the West Bank several years ago, my reaction to the conditions there was “I am not surprised that there are so many terrorists, but that there are so few.”

The Free One

Recently the US government’s Arabic language broadcasting network “Al Hurra” (The Free One) has come under fire for wasting the $600 mm spent since 2004 and for some of its content. Al Hurra was established by the US government in 2004 to provide an alternative to Arabic language satellite channels that were perceived to be providing a distorted picture of America to their viewers. Actually the problem wasn’t that Al Arabyia, Al Jazeera etc. were providing a distorted view, but that they were showing reality. Rather than showing a sanitized view of war from the perspective of the military, they provided the perspective of the civilian populations impacted by war.
They showed the blood flowing in the streets of Baghdad during the early phase of the Iraq invasion. They showed the body parts of Lebanese children blown apart by Israeli bombs during the 2006 war. They not only showed Israeli houses in Sderot blown up by Hamas launched missiles, but also starving children in Gaza after the Israeli blockade.
Some people have concluded that the US Pentagon was so enraged by the coverage of the Iraq invasion that they bombed the Al Jazeera headquarters in Baghdad killing several correspondents. (The documentary film “Control Room” provides a compelling narrative of Al Jazeera in Iraq.)
Under Secretary of State James Glassman said the goal of Al Hurra was to show the people of 22 Middle Eastern countries “what a free press is like”. Actually Al Hurra is not “free press”, but state controlled press. As in Iran, there are “red lines” that they cannot cross without risking being shut down.
A news director was forced to resign after airing a speech by Hasan Nasrallah, leader of Hezbollah. Congress has threatened to cut off funding because the Al Hurra has allowed a talk show guest to express a negative view of Israel’s behavior and has covered a conference in Tehran of Holocaust deniers.
I asked a friend of mine who spent his diplomatic career with the US Information Agency specializing in public diplomacy what he thought of Al Hurra. His comments were that projects like this are “Keystone cops, they don’t work and are a waste of money”.
A young Middle Easterner who I talked to would agree with him. This young man said to me “I love the American music, but when the politics comes on, I turn it off.”

Nobody's listening

Over the past few weeks, it has become increasingly clear that US clout in the Middle East is declining rapidly. President Bush has made a number of pronouncements regarding the US position on many of the issues in this volatile part of the world and friend and foe alike have completely ignored him.
The US has strongly supported the government of Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and his March 14 coalition and encouraged them to confront Iranian supported Hezbollah. He called Hezbollah “terrorists funded by Iran" and "the enemy of a free Lebanon”. This confrontational approach led to an ongoing governmental crisis in Lebanon which only ended when Siniora ignored the US and negotiated with Hezbollah. The Qatar brokered agreement resulted in Hezbollah acquiring a blocking position on any government decisions and changed the election law in such a way that Hezbollah will probably be strengthened in the next election.
George Bush continued his confrontational approach to Iran and Syria saying “Every peaceful nation in the region has an interest in stopping these nations from supporting terrorism." Shortly thereafter Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki visited Tehran and Israel and Syria announced that they were conducting peace negotiations brokered by Turkey.
In Sharm El Sheikh President Bush said “all nations in the region should stand together against Hamas”, a group which he said “was attempting to undermine efforts at making peace”. This week Israel negotiated a truce agreement with Hamas mediated by Egypt which defacto recognized the Hamas role in Gaza and the Palestinian Territories.
The US has tried to encourage democracy and human rights in the Middle East without much success. US ally Egypt has prevented members of the Muslim Brotherhood from participating in elections over the last two years realizing that the cost of ignoring the US is low. As one senior Egyptian official said “We’ve heard these speeches before”.
Nobody knows whether or not these agreements will hold, but maybe the good news is that countries in the region have realized that years of having the US be the major player in the region have brought them nothing but war and suffering. They may have concluded that they have to ignore the US and take matters in their own hands and solve their own problems.

Why now?

This week the level of saber rattling over Iran’s nuclear program escalated dramatically. We have heard the saber rattling before as Senator McCain said that he would “bomb, bomb, bomb” Iran and Senator Clinton said that she would “obliterate” Iran. (See a couple of pictures of what would be obliterated) This, however, is campaign rhetoric and may not reflect current government policy.
This week, though, Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz announced that an Israeli attack on Iran was “unavoidable” and if Iran continued its nuclear program “we will attack it”. This isn’t just Israel talking as aides to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said following recent meetings with George Bush that the US and Israel are “forging a common view on Iran”.
My question about this sudden escalation is “why now”. Not much has happened on the Iranian side. They continue to enrich uranium and have refused to stop despite sanctions. The UN IAEA still has questions. Iran still insists that the program is peaceful.
The answer may lie with the US political calendar. The Israeli government has been concerned about Barak Obama’s less confrontive posture with Iran. With him now being the presumptive Democratic nominee and with polls showing him leading McCain, the Israelis may see this as their last chance to attack Iran.
If you are Iran, what do you do? Do you sit quietly by and wait for the bombs to fall or do you mount a preemptive strike of your own? Both carry risks, but peaceful options are fading. Provoking an Iranian first strike would make it unnecessary to make a case for war to the American people. This is beginning to sound like an inevitable march to war. George Bush’s last hurrah may be pretty ugly.

Whose side is God on?

George Bush’s latest trip to the Middle East did not do much to improve the situation in that troubled part of the world. The primary purpose of the trip was to participate in the 60th anniversary celebration of the founding of Israel. For Palestinians, this is the 60th anniversary of the “Nakba” or Catastrophe in which hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled or were expelled from their homes in Israel/Palestine.

In his speech to the Israeli Knesset, George Bush lavished praise on the state of Israel while making no mention of its effect on Palestinians, even though Palestinian Israeli citizens whose families were affected were sitting in the audience. The message of this speech, that the US is not an honest broker in the peace process, was not lost on the Arab world. The cool reception that President Bush received in the Arab world testified to the fact that the message got through.

Another message of the speech was to introduce God into a conflict that is largely over issues like land and water. Throughout his speech the President related Biblical promises to the modern state of Israel. He said the founding of the State of Israel “was the redemption of an ancient promise given to Abraham and Moses and David – a homeland for the chosen people Eretz Yisrael.”

He made the connection to the founding of the US saying that the founders saw the US as “a new promised land” and quoted William Bradford stepping off the Mayflower saying “Come let us declare in Zion the word of God”.

This connection is not a new one. Americans have long seen themselves as God’s chosen people, blessed by God. This imagery manifests itself particularly in music and prayers during national holidays such as the 4th of July or Memorial Day. (Does God really bless America and not Iran, Iraq or North Korea?)

One of the reasons for the close relationship between America and Israel is that Americans see this parallel between the founding of America and the founding of Israel. Both countries have a story of a courageous persecuted people, with the help of God, carving a strong nation from a harsh land populated by savage heathens.

Rather than bringing the Divine into the equation, George Bush might have been better to listen to the words of assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Itzak Rabin, “If the conflict were to be theologized, there would never be peace. For to theological conflict, there are no compromises, and therefore no solutions.”

Proxy War III ?

This week the ongoing governmental crisis in Lebanon boiled over into violence. Hezbollah militias supported by Iran and Syria clashed with militias supporting the current governmental coalition which has the backing of the US, Saudi Arabia and Israel.

The governmental crisis has been going on for six months since President Emil Lahoud left office. Since then, Hezbollah has refused allow a parliamentary quorum to elect a new president and the government has functioned without a president and with a deadlocked parliament. (Many Americans might argue that a vacant presidency and a deadlocked legislature is not a bad state of affairs.)

The US and its allies have supported the governing coalition of Prime Minister Siniora, claiming that it is a democratically elected government. This is a bit of a stretch as in reality Lebanon is a sectarian state. Under the treaty which ended the civil war, the President must be Maronite Christian, the Prime Minister a Sunni Muslim and the Speaker of Parliament a Shi’a Muslim. The Parliament is divided up based on a 1932 census with 50% Christians and 50% Muslims. About the only thing that the parties agree on is that they don’t want another census, but current estimates are that the country is 60% Muslim, 35% Christian and 5% other (mostly Jewish). Hezbollah’s argument is that the election law should be rewritten to more fairly reflect current conditions. (I think they are right.)

A complicating factor is that the Muslims have little trust in the Christians as they are seen as pawns of the Israelis. This largely stems from a 1982 event in which Christian militias with the aid of the Israeli Army led by Arial Sharon massacred thousands of Palestinians, men, women and children, in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps.

This current crisis, with all of its complicated historical baggage, can only be solved by the Lebanese themselves. Unless the US/Israel and Iran/Syria stop trying to fight their proxy war using the Lebanese, we are on the verge of another civil war which last time killed over 1 million Lebanese.

The bill is due

During my recent trip to Amman, Jordan, I had the privilege of being able to meet with children of Iraqi refugees who were attending the Episcopal Diocese of the Middle East Bishop’s School. These children were able to attend this fine school because of scholarship support provided by the diocese and other interested patrons. These bright eyed youngsters answered questions and sat politely as a bunch of old people chatted on in a language that they did not understand. (I am not sure that my grandchildren would have done as well.) They put a human face on the Iraqi refugee crisis that is rapidly becoming an embarrassment to the developed world.
The flow of refugees out of Iraq has its roots in the First Gulf War when Iraqi Christians, previously protected by Saddaam Hussein began to be seen as agents of the US and were forced by persecution to flee. Since then nearly 2 million refugees have fled Iraq for Syria and Jordan, two of the poorest countries in the region, in order to escape the violence. Exact numbers are hard to determine as the refugees do not have legal status in either country and cannot legally hold jobs and therefore are reluctant to make their presence known.
Initially the new arrivals were what Jordanians call “Mercedes Refugees”. These were wealthy businessmen and former Baathists who drove up the price of real estate by buying large houses in new developments in West Amman. The surge in refugees following the bombing of the Shiite shrine in Sammara and the resulting outbreak of civil war included the middle and lower classes. These people are now running out of money since they are unable to support themselves. They have no viable options. They can’t go back to Iraq because of the violence; they can’t remain in Jordan because they have no way to support themselves and they can’t go else ware because, with some exceptions, no one will accept them.
The most vulnerable are those who have worked with the US occupation force and with international NGO’s. The US has promised to admit 12000 of these people this year, but to date has admitted only 1700. One small city in Norway has admitted more Iraqis than the entire US. If the rest of the US had resettled as many Iraqis per capita as my small state of Idaho, the US would have met its goal.
When the US invaded Iraq in 2003, NY Times columnist Tom Friedman reminded his readers that the “china shop rule” applies; “if you break, you own it”. The US broke it. Now the bill is due and we are delinquent in our payment.

Who will save the churches?

Last week I visited Hagia Sophia, the 6th century Byzantine church in Istanbul, converted to a mosque in the 15th century and now a museum. A member of our group commented that it was sad that so many churches in Turkey were now museums. Our leader, who has lived and taught in Jerusalem for many years, said that he thought that the same thing would happen in Israel/Palestine. In his opinion, within 10 to 20 years the Church of the Resurrection/Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem would be a museum. His viewpoint was that all of the Christians will have been driven out of Israel/Palestine and there will be no one to maintain the churches. After last year’s trip to Israel/Palestine, I had concluded the same thing. This year, however, I had dinner in Amman, Jordan with an intelligent, articulate, attractive Palestinian woman who gave me hope. Let’s call her Nora. (Not her real name)
Nora was born in Bethlehem on the West Bank, educated in the US and has a US passport so she lives in Bethlehem by choice. She can leave at anytime and move to the US. Despite the hardship, she chooses to stay because “I feel like I am helping my people”.
The American and Israeli Jews who feel that there is no such thing as a Palestinian have not met Nora. Those in the US and Israeli government who are trying to make life so difficult for Palestinians that they leave Israel/Palestine, have not met Nora.
Her determination to stay despite the hardships of daily life and work for a Palestinian state is amazing. She and many others like her are the epitome of the Palestinian motto, “to exist is to resist”.
On the other hand it might be just as well if the Church of the Resurrection/Holy Sepulcher became a museum. In that event the various Christian factions might quit fighting over it. (For the latest episode in this multi-century conflict, click here)

The head scarf problem

When it comes to issues related to the status of women in Muslim and particularly Middle Eastern countries, westerners tend to focus on the “hijab” or head scarf.
In western eyes the head scarf is seen as a symbol of oppression and second class citizenship. In some countries where it is mandatory, like Iran and Saudi Arabia, it is that. In others, like Jordan, Syria and Indonesia, it is a personnel choice of observant Muslim women. It has even become an issue in Western European countries. Countries such as France, Great Britain and the Netherlands have banned it in various forms in public institutions.
Turkey’s avowedly secular government has banned the wearing of “hijab” in public spaces such as government offices and universities. This long standing policy has not liberated women, but has resulted in Turkey ranking close to the bottom in measures of the status of women. Since Turkey is 99% Muslim and over 65% of women wear “hijab”, the ban has had the odd effect of discriminating against the majority.
Since the crackdown on wearing of head scarves following the last military coup, thousands of observant women have been unable to obtain jobs, practice their professions or study at the school of their choice. Lawyers cannot go to court with their clients, professors cannot teach and students must go abroad to attend college. This includes the daughters of the President and Prime Minister.
Ardent secularists, who see a fundamentalist behind every tree, defend the policy as necessary to prevent the formation of an Islamic government governed under Islamic Sharia law. The current AK led government has attempted to relax the head scarf ban. The secularists have responded by filing a court case seeking to overthrow and ban the democratically elected AK party. If this happens, Turkey, a US ally in the Middle East, will be in for some rough times, perhaps even civil war or a military coup. How can a little piece of cloth cause so much trouble? As an Iranian girl said to me, “We have much bigger issues to deal with than the head scarf”.

Risky business

Recent news reports have recounted the intense fighting in al Basra and other southern Iraq cities between Iraqi security forces supported by US and British forces and insurgent Shia militias. It is not clear what precipitated the outbreak of hostilities at this particular time. Some believe that it is an attempt by Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki to burnish his credentials as a tough leader ahead of upcoming elections. Others, including his political rivals, believe that it is an attempt to destroy rival factions before the elections. It also may be an attempt to regain control of oil exports and smuggling through al Basra which is siphoning millions of dollars per day from the national treasury. It probably is some of all of the above. A better way to look at the conflict is a power struggle between rival Shia political groups and criminal gangs. Defeating the forces of “radical cleric” Muqtada al Sadr’s Mehdi Army would solidify the position of Maliki’s Dawa party and their ally SCIRI (aka ICRI) who are already in a strong position because they are supported by both the US and Iran. The whole US backed enterprise, however, is very risky. Number one, it might not even be successful and could lead to the break down of the Mehdi army’s cease fire which has contributed to the reduction of violence over the past few months. If it is successful, it may lead to unintended consequences. SCIRI and Dawa are supporters of the “Biden Plan” which calls for partition of Iraq into Kurd, Sunni and Shia semiautonomous regions. In January SCIRI floated a plan to create a Shia “super province” south of Baghdad (Creatively called “South of Baghdad Region”) similar to the Kurdish region in the north. Muqtada al Sadr on the other hand is more of an Iraqi nationalist who wants US troops out of Iraq and a stronger central government. He is supported in this point of view by moderate Sunni Arabs and secularists. The so called “Biden Plan” may well be the best solution to the Iraq quagmire, but to formally implement it without first agreeing on a plan to share oil revenues is risky business. Control of oil revenues by Kurd and Shia “super provinces” while leaving out the oil deprived Sunni area is an invitation to reignite the Sunni insurgency and escalate the conflict between Sunni Arabs and Kurds over the oil rich Kirkuk region. Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.

Why Radical Islam Just Won't Die

Recently author and NYU professor Paul Berman wrote a NY Times op-ed piece in which he makes the case that radical political Islam is a modern religiously based movement and that the US has used various policy approaches over the past 3 decades to address this phenomenon. (To see the whole article, click here) I would argue, however, that fundamentalist Islam like fundamentalist Christianity is a modern religious phenomenon born out of a reaction to the threat of liberal modernity. Political Islam, on the other hand, has its roots in political grievances and the US and its western allies have, for 60 years, made consistent policy choices that have led to the rise of and strengthening of militant political Islam.
The US has long pursued policy goals in the Middle East that conflict and in many cases are mutually exclusive. Consistently, through Democratic and Republican administrations, the US has favored confronting the Soviet Union, western access to Middle Eastern oil and support for a Jewish state in Palestine over Middle Easterner’s quest for independence and self mastery.
Over this period, a series of disastrous wars and political decisions have discredited (Egypt) or destroyed (Iraq) secular Arab nationalist governments as a force in the Middle East. People under oppression, whether internal or external, have long had a tendency to retreat to churches (Catholics in Soviet dominated Eastern Europe), synagogues (Jews in 20th century Europe, particularly Germany) and mosques (Muslims in present day Middle East). It is not surprising, therefore, that political Islam in its national form (Iran) and in the form of non-state actors (Hizbollah and Hamas) would arise to supersede failed Arab nationalism.
Unless policy makers make different choices that take into account the aspirations of Middle Easterners, political Islam, in both its moderate and virulent forms, will be force to be reckoned with for a long time.

A 100 year war?

Some of this week’s news has only served to increase my pessimism that a negotiated peaceful settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict is possible. The news articles indicated a widening of the gap between and a hardening of the positions of the parties to the conflict. This appears to be true for political and religious leaders as well as the average man on the street. During his obligatory visit to Israel to cement his pro-Israel credentials with American Jewish and right wing Christian voters, Senator John McCain declared his support for Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, a clear show stopper for the peace process. Senator Hilary Clinton has already proclaimed her intention to move the US embassy to Jerusalem in recognition of this position. A leading Israeli rabbi issued the Jewish version of a “fatwa” declaring that it is “…forbidden by Jewish law to employ Arabs or rent homes to them.” (How this works is unclear as there were no Arabs in Israel/Palestine in biblical times.) The Israeli High Court has approved the closing of a major West Bank road to Palestinians use “for the convenience of the settlers”. The widening gap is also apparent among ordinary citizens. A recent poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy Research shows that 84% of Palestinians support the March 6 attack on the Jerusalem yeshiva that killed 8 young students. 75% of Palestinians say that negotiation is “without benefit”. 64% of Palestinians support the shooting of rockets into Israel from Gaza. These numbers are way up over the December poll, probably as a result of the Israeli incursion into Gaza which killed over 100 Palestinians including women and children. According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, an Israeli advocacy group reported that “Israel’s Jewish community increasingly supports the delegitimization, discrimination and even deportation of Arabs”. In the US, there were a number of disturbing comments on the Department of State (DOS) web site related to a question which they raised regarding Middle East Policy: “Should the US engage with Hamas in the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians?” Representative Mark Kirk (R-Illinois) was shocked that the DOS would even ask this question saying, “Worrying that you guys are asking questions like this using funds approved by the appropriations committee that I am a member of” Some of the other comments included:
“The only way to solve the problem is by sending all Lebanese, Syrians, Jordanians, Saudis, and Egyptians that currently live in the Land of Israel back to their respective countries. Everything else only prolongs the conflict.”
“If you mean "engage" in the military sense, as in "draw close in combat," then - yes, the U.S. should engage with Hamas - and wipe them out. But if you mean "negotiate" with a terrorist group and sworn enemy of a U.S. ally, then, no”
“So forget peace. It takes two sides for that and you only have one interested. In war, peace arrives when one side loses. As long as we continue trying to make both sides winners, there will never be peace.”
“Are you people nuts?! Hamas, Hizbollah, the Palestinians are all TERRORISTS!”
“The peace process won't be successful until Hamas is exterminated.”
The DOS reports “increasing frequency and severity of anti-Semitic incidents since the start of the 21st century, particularly in Europe…”. This hardening of attitudes leaves little political space for leaders who might advocate a more moderate and balanced approach. Only Senator Barack Obama seems to have had the temerity to advocate a more nuanced policy. In a recent speech to a group of Cleveland, Ohio Jewish leaders he said “I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you’re anti-Israel and that can’t be the measure of our friendship with Israel. If we cannot have an honest dialogue about how do we achieve these goals, then we’re not going to make progress….Frankly some of the commentary that I’ve seen which suggests guilt by association or the notion that unless we are never ever going to ask any difficult questions about how we move peace forward or secure (an) Israel that is non military or non belligerent or doesn’t talk about just crushing the opposition that that somehow is being soft or anti-Israel, I think we’re going to have problems moving forward.” (That’s about as close to a balanced approach as an American politician can go without commiting political suicide.)
Unless this point of view becomes more prevelant, I am afraid that our grand children will still be fighting and dying in Middle Eastern deserts.

What are we doing about this mess, other than praying?

Last spring, after returning from two weeks in Israel/Palestine including the West Bank, I wrote an article expressing my pessimism that a negotiated two state solution would still be possible. I felt that the anger and loss of hope that I saw in Palestinians, both in Israel and on the West Bank, was sounding the death knell for the two state solution. I predicted that sooner or later a Palestinian Israeli, 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 would “make a noise” at a coffee shop in Tel Aviv or Haifa. The resulting crackdown would expose all the fissures in Israeli society and possibly provoke a regional conflict. . (For the whole article, click here) Unfortunately, last week, it happened. A young Palestinian Israeli from East Jerusalem, angered by the recent massacres in Gaza, opened fire at a right wing Yeshiva killing 8 teenage students and wounding several others. In the hysterical aftermath there have been calls to “expel all the Arabs”, blame Arab members of the Knesset and kill all Arabs with “Jewish blood’ on their hands. For the most part the Israeli government seems to have, so far, resisted the calls of the radicals for harsh attacks and the lull in the fighting has generally continued. The Israelis did, however, kill four Palestinians on the West Bank which generated a barrage of rockets from Gaza in retaliation. They have also “embargoed” Al Jazeera television for “inciting terrorism”. Al Jazeera’s crime seems to be showing the effects of war on ordinary people on the receiving end: destroyed houses, blood soaked streets, children’s body parts. The US had the same reaction to Al Jazeera’s coverage of the Iraq war. (The movie “Control Room” documents this. I recommend it.) Despite this violence, however, negotiations appear to be continuing with Hamas through Egyptian mediation regarding the “hudna” (long term ceasefire) that Hamas has long called for. The Hamas demands that the ceasefire includes the West Bank and that the blockade of Gaza be lifted may well be deal breakers for the Israelis, but at least conversation, however tentative, is happening with Hamas. Maybe the US/Israel is beginning to realize that nothing can happen in the peace process without engaging Hamas. Pressure appears to be increasing for a change to more sensible policies. As Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) said to Assistant Secretary of State David Welch at recent hearings investigating US Middle East policy, “What are we doing about this mess, other than praying?”

Déjà vu all over again

In January 2006 when Hamas surprised everybody, including themselves, by winning the Palestinian Authority US supported parliamentary elections, an Israeli Palestinian friend of mine said “As a Christian I don’t agree with their Islamist agenda, but clearly most Palestinians want to give them a chance after years of corrupt Fatah rule. I hope that the US will give them some space to work out their policies, since they didn’t expect to win and haven’t really thought out what they want to do.” If the US gave them any space, it lasted about a microsecond. Immediately the US and its western allies blockaded and isolated the Palestinian territories in an effort to force the overthrow of the democratically elected government. That plan didn’t work, but it did, however, succeed in creating internecine conflict among Palestinians. Reading the stories in the Middle Eastern press it was clear to most observers, including myself, that the US was attempting to arm and train Fatah loyalist militias to forcibly oust Hamas from the government. This plan didn’t work either. The goal of the effort was also clear to Hamas who, in June 2007, preemptively threw the US armed Fatah security forces out of Gaza. Fatah leader, Mahmoud Abbas, backed by the US, declared a “state of emergency”. (Something which is illegal under the PA Basic Law without approval of the Parliament.) This “state of emergency” continues today. Everything that observers suspected about US policy and involvement has been confirmed in a recent David Rose Vanity Fair article “The Gaza Bombshell”. (For the whole sordid story, click here.) In the words of the noted philosopher and theologian, Yogi Berra, this looks like “déjà vu all over again”. As one looks back over years of US Middle East policy, one sees numerous examples of overthrow of democratic governments (Mohammed Mossedegh in Iran), covert arms shipments to unsavory characters (Iran-Contra), using unelected strong men to support US policy (Saddam Hussein in Iran-Iraq war) and interference in domestic political affairs (Lebanon). None of these policies worked out very well. One would think that we could learn from history and try something else. As the Vanity Fair article concludes “It is impossible to say for sure whether the outcome in Gaza would be any better- for the Palestinian people, for the Israelis and for America’s allies in Fatah- if the Bush administration had pursued a different policy. One thing, however, seems certain: it could not be any worse.”

Looking at Gaza

This week during a conference call that I participated in, Andrew Whitley, Director of UNRWA (The UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine) described the situation in Gaza, both humanitarian and political. From a humanitarian perspective the economy in Gaza has completely collapsed. 75% of Gazans are totally reliant on international aid for food, power, water and other necessities of life. The other 25% are primarily government workers who are still being paid. The Fatah government employees are being paid by the Palestinian Authority to stay home and not work. Sewage treatment plants are not functional as a result of power cut offs and lack of spare parts. Sewage runs in the streets and rivers. (For a first hand view, click here) From a political perspective the youth are becoming increasingly radicalized. (50% of Gazans are under 18) Groups sympathetic to Al Qaeda’s agenda of violent political Islam are becoming increasing visible. He believes, if the current state of affairs continues, that Gaza is in danger of becoming a Somalia-like ungovernable area where criminal gangs, warlords and violent radical Islamists flourish. As the violence in Gaza escalates, it appears increasingly unlikely that the state of affairs will change. Although polls show that a majority of Israelis believe that the Israeli government should take Hamas up on their offer of a negotiated cease fire, US/Israel feels the need to inflict a political defeat on Hamas. The standoff between Hezbollah and the IDF during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war and the Hamas success in breaking down the Gaza-Egypt border barrier have raised the political standing of these militant Islamist resistance groups. To reduce Hamas’ standing in the region, Israel has stepped up the pressure on Hamas controlled Gaza by cutting off food, fuel and other necessities while escalating their attacks across the border. The US has quietly cheered from the sidelines. Absent a ceasefire, homemade missiles have continued to rain down on border communities in Israel. While these missiles are extremely inaccurate, (The safest place to be may be where they are aiming.) they do occasionally hit something. This week one Israeli was killed by a Qassam missile. This has prompted a massive Israeli retaliation which has resulted in hundreds of Palestinian casualties including women and children. A senior Israeli defense minister has declared that Israel will inflict a “holocaust” on Gaza. As Andrew Whitley pointed out, it is only a matter of time until one of these rockets hits a sensitive site like a kindergarten. When that happens, the current violence will look like a walk in the park. Without cooler heads prevailing on all sides (cool heads seem to be in short supply), the extreme violence that I forecast in this space, if nothing happened in the peace negotiations which resulted from the Annapolis Conference, will come to be. As leaders in Tel Aviv, Washington and Gaza City ponder their next moves, they might consider how they will explain their decisions to the parents of the kindergarten children.

National self determination

Since WW I the US has tried to balance the concept of national self determination as articulated by President Woodrow Wilson with the real politic need to maintain the nation state system. The tension between the right of a state to maintain its territorial integrity and the right of peoples to self determination has caused a lot of diplomatic policy headaches. For most of recent history, the US has come down on the side of the stability of nation states, particularly when the states have been sympathetic to US foreign policy goals. With its rapid recognition of the new state of Kosovo following a unilateral declaration of independence by the Kosovars, the US has moved in the other direction. One can make the case that this was the right decision given that an independent Kosovo was probably inevitable following the US/NATO intervention in a Serbian civil war in the 1990’s. The US claims that this is a “special case” and does not create any precedents. US Special Envoy to Kosovo Frank Wisner argues that “Kosovo is a unique case”. Not everybody agrees. Russia has refused to recognize an independent Kosovo, supporting their Slavic brothers in Serbia. Spain and Greece have also said that they will not recognize Kosovo fearing an empowering precedent for their restive Basque and Turkman minorities. Israel is also trying to decide how they will deal with the problem. Statements by some Palestinian Authority ministers suggesting that the PLO should also unilaterally declare independence and pressure the international community for recognition have caused consternation on the part of those who hope for a negotiated two state solution. Others in Palestine and the international community have begun to be more vocal in advocating disbanding the PLO altogether, turning the whole problem over to the Israelis and pressing for one man, one vote. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert labeled this "the South African solution". This is the worst case scenario for Israelis, as demographics would mean the end of the “Jewish State”. For this to happen Palestinian politicians would need to voluntarily give up their power; not something politicians do easily. However, as the post Annapolis negotiations continue to drag on with no signs of progress, an “out of the box” solution becomes more and more likely. Stay tuned.

Common sense on immigration

Recently an international conference was held in Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on the subjects of immigration and migration. (For a discussion of this conference, click here) The booming economies of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) require a large number of immigrant workers in order to sustain their rapidly growing construction, tourism and service sectors. Although it is not completely clear to me that there isn’t a bit of an economic bubble here (How many $7mm houses and 180 story office buildings can the world sustain?), government planners expect that the pace of growth will continue for the foreseeable future. In Dubai alone, immigrants outnumber natives by 3 to 1. These countries have made a decision that they do not want to become multicultural, multiethnic countries and, therefore, all of these immigrant workers are temporary workers. They have no path to citizenship. A number of NGO’s and international groups have been critical of the GCC countries for the treatment of the immigrant population and for the conditions under which they live. Because many of the GCC countries are tourism dependent and, therefore, very sensitive to their image, when the sending countries who supply most of the workers requested an opportunity to discuss the problems the GCC countries readily agreed. Most of the sending countries are South Asian countries such as the Philippines and India. They are concerned that the labor migration be a win, win, and win for the sending countries, in terms of repatriated funds, for the receiving countries, in terms of access to cheap labor and for the migrant workers themselves, in terms of providing a better income for their families. The conference, facilitated by the International Labor Organization (ILO) and International Organization on Migration (IOM), was a very civil dialogue among the interested parties. There was little arguing or posturing. In general the parties agreed that most important factors were enforceable standards in both the sending and receiving countries and status for the migrants in order that they would have access to the enforcement agencies in the receiving countries. Of all the issues discussed, there was vast agreement that status was the most important. No status is a recipe for abuse. While talk is easy and it remains to be seen how much of what was agreed to will actually be implemented, it seems to me that the US could learn a lot from this effort at establishing a win, win and win situation. So much of what passes for debate on the immigration issue in the US quickly devolves into partisan wrangling and name calling. Not everything discussed in Abu Dhabi applies to the US as these are small countries with small dense populations and the US is a large empty country with a large multiethnic population. We certainly, however, could learn the lesson that rational dialogue among the interested parties has a greater chance of success that yelling at each other.

We are a democracy and we are responsible

During my recent trip to the Islamic Republic of Iran, I met two Iraqi retired school teachers during a stop for tea and ice cream. These guys were Shia Muslims from southern Iraq, the folks who had been oppressed by Saddaam Hussein and who were supposed to greet the US invasion with open arms. They were, however, very angry at the US, calling US troops “blood thirsty” and saying that the US won’t help Iraq because “Israel controls the US government”. They said “Why don’t you rise up and overthrow your government?” I tried to explain to them that in the US, the way we “overthrow” the government is through a peaceful process of elections. This did not seem to pacify them much. A few days later, when I was having tea and ice cream with two Iranians (If you see a pattern here, you are right.), we were discussing my observations that both Arabs and Iranians don’t hate Americans. On the contrary they like Americans and admire America’s openness, dynamic economy and innovative technology. They may have some qualms about American culture with its emphasis on materialism and sex and its focus on individualism to the detriment of family and community, but on the whole they have positive feelings about America and Americans. What they hate is the US government and its policies, but they seem to be able to separate Americans from their government. The Iranians agreed with me, but one of them said, “You are right, although that may change. You are a democracy and you are responsible for your government”. As we approach the election season (Seems as though we have been in it forever already.) we should ask ourselves who we want to be making American policies toward the rest of the world, what we want those policies to look like and who we want to be the face of those policies in the world. Depending on the choices that we make, the answer to the question frequently asked after 9/11, “Why do they hate us?” may be easy. We are a democracy and we are responsible.