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.”