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.