With friends like this who needs enemies

With the destruction of the border fence between Gaza and Egypt in Rafah and subsequent free flow of traffic back and forth across the border, Hamas has again succeeded in throwing a monkey wrench into the US and Israeli plans to impose their will in this part of the world. Ever since their founding in the 1980’s with the assistance of the US and Israel as a counterbalance to the PLO, Hamas has been a problem for the US and Israel and some of their allies in the region. As my friend Palestinian Archbishop Elias Chacour once said to me, “Once the baby is born and grows up, it is hard to control it”. Because Hamas is an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, the largest opposition political organization in Egypt, the authoritarian Egyptian regime is leery of anything that might increase their strength. Jordan is concerned that any success by Hamas with its Islamist agenda will empower the Islamists within Jordan. For Fatah and the PLO, Hamas is their biggest political rival. Hamas now controls Gaza and my sources tell me that Jordanian Intelligence believes that Hamas is actually stronger in the West Bank than Fatah. Ever since Hamas won the general election in 2006, the US, Israel and their western allies have portrayed themselves as friends and supporters of Fatah, primarily with guns and money. Worry on Hamas’ part that this aid would allow Fatah to destroy them militarily led to the Hamas takeover of Gaza. One of the first things that Hamas accomplished in Gaza was to disarm all of the factions and criminal gangs in Gaza and make the security forces the only ones with guns. This was a very popular move with the average citizens. As one Gazan woman said, “We may not have much money, but at least we can go shopping and visit our friends and family without risking getting killed”. Seeing the popularity of this move, Fatah tried to do the same thing in Nablus when Israel turned security there over to them. Israel, however, made it backfire by invading Nablus and arresting many of the people that had just been disarmed. PA President Mahmoud Abbas’ strategy has been to show that he can accomplish more to relieve the suffering of the Palestinian people by engaging and compromising with his friends the US and Israel than Hamas can accomplish by resistance and confrontation. The problem is that Abbas didn’t pick very reliable friends. When Israel completely blockaded Gaza, creating a humanitarian crisis, Abbas, Egypt and Jordan pleaded with the US to do something to help. Nothing happened. Hamas took action by blowing up the border fence. This not only broke the blockade, but created diplomatic chaos in Israel, Egypt and the US. They have been issuing conflicting and contradictory statements by the hour. Hamas has asked that the border be reestablished, but that the border be open and controlled. The US has threatened Egypt with loss of aid if they do so. Israel isn’t sure what to say. Tough decisions. A lot of uncertainty. One thing that is certain is that Hamas will come out of this stronger and Fatah and its “friends” will be weaker.

Seeing the big picture in a land of details

As President Bush winds up his first trip to the Middle East by visiting so called “moderate” Arab countries, the primary purpose of his trip has become more evident. He has escalated his rhetoric about Iran in an attempt to rally support for an aggressive posture against the “most dangerous country”. Although Arab response has been muted, my sources indicate that the US effort is doomed to fail. Although these Arab countries are concerned about the growing influence in the region of Iran and Shia Islam in general, they much more concerned about the Israeli- Palestinian conflict and its effect on the attitude of their ordinary citizens. Their verbal comments about Iran are more intended to get the US more engaged in solving the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and to encourage on-going US arms sales to Arab countries. It appears to have worked. There were some significant changes in the apparent US attitude towards the conflict. As opposed to the Annapolis conference where no one could bring themselves to even mention the key issues and the Arab peace plan, George Bush was more direct in his comments. (For the complete text, click here) In his final remarks he called for:
1. An end to the occupation
2. Building of the Palestinian economy and security apparatus – How this can happen without and end to the occupation and an end to Israeli attacks and incursions is not clear.
3. Homeland for Palestinians like Israel is homeland for the Jews- Code language for no right of return for Palestinian refugees and Israel as a Jewish state. What the role of Israeli Muslims and Christians is in a “Jewish state” is not clear.
4. Ensure that Israel has “secure, recognized and defensible” borders – this would be easier if anybody knew what the borders were.
5. Mutually agreed adjustment to the armistice line of 1949 – Code language for Israel can keep the major settlement blocks in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and the path of the wall will be the border. What will happen to the thousands of non Israeli Palestinians who live on the Israeli side of the wall is not clear.
6. A viable and contiguous Palestinian state- It will take somebody smarter than I to explain how this can happen if Israel keeps the settlement blocks with their associated bypass/settler roads and their control of the water resources.
7. Solution for Jerusalem- too hot to even mention.
In the Palestinian Territories this was met with great skepticism. In Israel it was met with intransigence. Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu told Bush “Jerusalem has belonged to the Jewish people for 3,000 years and the Jewish people will ensure that it will remain undivided under Jewish sovereignty forever”. The Jerusalem Post quoted a senior Israeli official “Israel will continue building in Jerusalem as well as in major settlement blocs in the West Bank even as a construction freeze continues elsewhere in the territories”. Member of the Knesset Benny Elon called for granting Jordanian passports to all Palestinians, dismantling the Palestinian Authority and abandoning any notions of an independent Palestinian state. (How Israel can issue Jordanian passports is unknown.) Skepticism may be the order of the day and we haven’t even mentioned Hamas , Gaza or Hebron. How anything can happen without engaging Hamas, who represents over 50% of the Palestinians, I have no idea. What to do about the religious settlers in Hebron is also a big problem with no obvious solution. Spokesperson for the Hebron Jewish settlement, David Wilder, told me that if the Hebron settlers were evacuated “I wouldn’t say that an Israeli civil war was probable, but it is certainly possible”. Ignore a problem and maybe it will go away. GWB always said he was a “big picture guy”.

Support for the axis of evil

Many ordinary Iranians that I talked to during my recent visit to Iran expressed the point of view that all of the US saber rattling and “axis of evil” and “regime change” rhetoric was actually helping to keep the unpopular hard line regime in power. Iranians are very proud of their country with its long history and ancient culture and are very patriotic. Anytime that their country has been threatened they have rallied around their government no matter how unpopular. A good example of this attitude happened in 1980 when Saddaam Hussein’s Iraq, with the support of the US and other western countries, invaded Iran. In 1980, shortly after the Iranian revolution and the founding of the Islamic Republic of Iran, it was not clear which political faction was going to come out on top. The Islamists associated with revolutionary hero Ayatollah Khomeini clearly had the upper hand as they were the best organized, but a number of other factions were jockeying for position. The MEK/MKO, with its odd Marxist/Islamist ideology, the Communists, secularists and monarchists were all players. When Saddaam thought that he could take advantage of this factionalism and take over the Iranian oil fields, Iranians of all stripes rallied to the Islamist government and drove out the invader, albeit at the cost of over a million lives on both sides. This phenomenon has been evident in Iran in the past few years. As the US/Israel have threatened economic and military action against Iran the reformist and moderate hard line groups have been reluctant to speak out against the very hard line regime of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Opposition leaders have been unwilling to appear unpatriotic and have kept a low profile. The situation appears to have changed somewhat in the past few weeks since the release of the National Intelligence Estimate which downgraded the threat of the Iranian nuclear enrichment program. Most people in the Middle East, whether Arab or Persian, breathed a big sigh of relief and concluded that the US/Israel would not be able to sustain a consensus for attack on Iran. The aggressive rhetoric has subsided somewhat and there are even talks about having talks. This has given the opposition factions space to escalate their criticism of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s performance both in foreign affairs and economics. (For an example, click here) Much of this criticism could not have happened without the tacit approval of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamanei. This political space is important since, with parliamentary elections imminent, a start could be made toward the installation of a more moderate regime through the democratic process. (This is my definition of “regime change”) President Ahmadinejad must be saying to himself “Where is George Bush when I need him”? Never fear George is here! The announced primary purpose of his Middle East trip is to insure that everyone in the region understands the “grave threat” of Iran and to rally the “moderate” Arab states in opposition to Iran. The recent altercation between US warships and Iranian patrol boats in the Straits of Hormuz has been another opportunity for “over the top” rhetoric. This altercation has turned into a battle of videos similar to the battle of GPS’s between Iran and the British over the kidnapping, capture, detention or whatever of 15 British sailors and marines last spring. I have looked at both the US and Iranian videos and find the Iranian position that this is a normal course of events in this crowded narrow waterway to be more believable. (You can see the Iranian video here and the US video here and form your own opinion.) It did not appear to rise to the level of a “provocative act” and justify the threat of “serious consequences”. However, with hard liners in charge in both countries, it appears that the two leaders are kindred spirits and need each other’s support to maintain their positions of power.

Are you going to talk or fish?

One of my favorite fishing stories concerns an old small town fisherman who invites a young newcomer to go fishing with him. The next day two men head out onto the lake in their boat. The young man begins to assemble his rod and attach his bait. The older man watches him for awhile and then reaches into his tackle bag, pulls out a stick of dynamite, lights the fuse and throws it over the side of the boat. There ensues a large explosion and shortly many stunned and dead fish float to the surface which the old man begins to collect. The younger man is shocked and proceeds to berate his fishing partner. “You can’t do that; it is immoral and illegal.” The old man listens to the tirade for a few moments and then reaches into the bag, pulls out another stick of dynamite, hands to the young man and says “Are you gonna talk or fish”? It seems to me that this story has some relevance to current and upcoming events in Israel/Palestine. The international community including the US and George Bush have been strongly criticizing Israel for their continued expansion of settlements in the occupied West Bank and Jerusalem since the Annapolis conference and for their failure to remove so called “illegal” settlements on the West Bank. This has happened before when the in 1997 the Clinton administration tried to prevent construction of settler housing in Har Homa/Abu Ghniem in occupied Jerusalem. After much discussion and threats regarding these settlements, Israel finally called the US’s bluff and the Clinton administration backed down and did nothing. It is clear that nothing will happen to forestall the continued settlement construction without strong US action. Talk won’t get it done. It is likely that, when George Bush visits Israel in the near future, Ehud Olmert will hand him a stick of dynamite and ask “Are you gonna talk or fish”?