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.

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”?

Photo Op II: The sequel

This week major developed countries met in Paris for a “donor’s conference” / “photo op” designed to obtain financial support for the Fatah led Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. (We will let those in Gaza starve) The PA had requested $5.6b of aid and the participants pledged $7.4b over 3 years. Although it is not clear how much of this will actually be forthcoming and how much is just a restatement of previous pledges, it is still a significant amount of money. Tony Blair declared, “This is not a donor’s conference. This is a state building conference”. Even if this money actually appeared, it is not clear to me that it would have much impact on building a viable Palestinian state. PA President Mahmoud Abbas and his Prime Minister Salaam Fayad have frankly stated that most of the money will go towards closing the yawning PA budget deficit and not toward economic development projects. The PA runs this huge deficit not only because of mismanagement and corruption, but also because the West Bank economy is almost non existent. With no economy, tax revenues are limited and unemployment approaches 50%. Therefore, the PA becomes the employer of last resort. Unless conditions on the ground change dramatically, no amount of international funding will create a viable economy and Palestinian state. Early in his first term George Bush declared his support for a viable Palestinian state, living alongside Israel in peace and security. When a friend of mine heard this, he took George Bush at his word. (Probably not the smartest thing that he has ever done.) He decided that if this is really going to happen, we had better figure out what it will take to create a viable economy in the West Bank and Gaza and he commissioned a Rand Corporation study to accomplish this. After several years of work Rand completed the study and created their report. They tried to incorporate the strengths of the Palestinian people, education, healthcare, entrepreneurial spirit, etc., into a plan that could be implemented with international financial support. One of the primary conclusions of the study was that there must be a modern transportation and communications system linking the major population centers of Nablus, Ramallah, Bethlehem, Hebron and Gaza. The report said nothing about settlements, bypass roads, and checkpoints. I said to my friend, “Didn’t they assume away the problem?” His answer was that Rand, not a minor player in government studies business, was afraid to raise the issues. They were concerned that, given the political climate in the US, if the report talked about eliminating settlements, bypass roads and checkpoints, it would be a non starter with the US government. It turned out to be a non starter anyway as the State Department said that they had no interest in even looking at it. As the issue of freezing settlement construction surfaces after the Annapolis Conference, it is clear that Israel intends to retain East Jerusalem and all the major settlement blocks and to continue construction apace. We have been reduced to arguing about what the meaning of “freeze” is. (Sort of like what is the meaning of “is”?) (For this story, click here and here.) Unless the US exerts significant pressure to change the facts on the ground we will be back in Paris (or some other fancy resort) again in three years trying to deal with a Palestinian economy on life support.

Testing, testing, testing

To no one’s surprise, the agreement to begin a new round of negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians with the US as the final judge of who is living up to their obligations is being tested right away. This is probably a good thing as we can avoid wasting a lot of time, effort and money if nothing can come of the talks. The Israeli government is the first to be tested. Immediately after the Annapolis conference a group of right wing Israelis held a demonstration on a hilltop in the E-1 area. The E-1 area is a relatively undeveloped area between the major settlement blocks on the West Bank, such as Maale Adummim and Gilo, and the city of Jerusalem. The Israeli government has long planned to develop the area and has confiscated some Palestinian land and built some structures. Last spring as we were returning to Jerusalem from Maale Adummim, our guide pointed out a building on a hilltop. She said that this was a police station that had recently been built by the Israeli government. It had not yet been occupied, but standard Israeli procedure was to build the police station first and then some time later, after criticism had died down, to build the settlement. Development of E-1 is important to those Israelis who see all of Israel/Palestine as land given to the Jews by God. Developing E-1 would effectively split the West Bank in two and preclude a viable Palestinian state. The purpose of the demonstration by Israeli right wing activists was to put a shot across the bow of the Israeli government to warn them not to even think about stopping development of E-1. (For this story, click here) The US government commitment to a successful “peace process” is also being tested right away. As the world leaders were meeting in Annapolis, the Israeli government announced a tender for bids to build 300 apartments for Jews in the Har Homa/Abu Ghneim area of East Jerusalem, the Arab area of Jerusalem wanted by the PA as the capital of a future Palestinian state. (The Parliament building has already been built.) The issuing of the tender was condemned by the international community, including the US. The Israeli response has been that this is not a violation of the agreed settlement freeze as Israel has annexed East Jerusalem and therefore this is not settlement activity. The annexation is not recognized by the international community including, of all people, the US. This is not the first time we have been down this road in Har Homa/Abu Ghneim. In 1997 the Israeli government commenced apartment construction in this area. The Clinton administration strongly objected and pressured the Israeli government to cease the activity. Evidently Israel’s supporters in the US explained to the administration that this position was hazardous to their political health. The US backed off and when a UN Security Council resolution was introduced condemning the construction the US vetoed it. All this took place when Ehud Olmert was mayor of Jerusalem. I visited this area in May and saw the resulting development. Our guide explained that many of the apartments have been sold to American Jews from NY and NJ as second homes. I doubt if the buyers were told that their neighbors would be hostile Palestinian Arabs. (For this story, click here ) Will anyone take steps to respond to these tests in a manner that will prevent a breakdown of the “peace process” before it even starts? I doubt it. But there is always hope. Even the Arbiter in Chief Condoleezza Rice is only hoping for the best. (For Condi’s hopes click here.)

Contemplating from Gaza

For those are interested in what is happening in Gaza under Hamas control and Israeli blockade, I recommend the blog site Contemplating from Gaza. I have posted a link in the link section to the left. Heba is a wife and mother in Gaza who posts her feelings and impressions periodically.

Paranoia: A good thing?

The news this week has been dominated by reaction to the release of the National Intelligence Estimate that declared that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program four years ago and would not be able obtain a nuclear weapon, even if it wanted one, until the 2013-2015 timeframe. The reaction from the US government was that Iran still remains a “grave threat” and is presents a danger of starting WW III. Many commentators have expressed the view that this reaction is a good example of “I have my policy, don’t confuse me with the facts” or “irrational paranoia”. Perhaps, however, in this case, paranoia is a good thing. I participated in a conference call today with Professor Shipley Telhami, Anwar Sadat Professor of Peace and Development at the University of Maryland on the subject of “Annapolis and Beyond”. During the discussion it was clear that it is crucial that the US weigh in as a player during the “peace process” envisioned at Annapolis. The US role is crucial for several reasons. First and foremost, there is an enormous “power asymmetry” between Israel and the Palestinian Authority in the negotiations. The US must balance this asymmetry if there is to be a just settlement that can be accepted by the Palestinian people. Second, Prime Minister Abbas has put all his eggs in the US basket and the US has put all its eggs in his basket. If the US fails, Abbas is finished and Hamas is waiting on the sidelines to say “I told you so”. Third, Israel is responsive only to the US. Without US pressure Israel has no incentive to negotiate a settlement. The power imbalance makes it very likely that they can weather any violent response by Hamas and other militants. Finally, the US is the sole judge of which party is living up to their obligations under the so called “Roadmap” This role will be tested very quickly as Israel has announced intentions to build 300 apartments in occupied East Jerusalem and has introduced legislation to fund the construction of West Bank “outposts” in violation of the “Roadmap’s” call to freeze settlements. (For this story, click here.) During the conference call, the question was asked “Why did the Arab states attend the Annapolis Conference?” The conventional wisdom has been that they are afraid of Iran and the “Shia crescent” and, therefore, want to support the US in its efforts to contain Iran. Professor Shipley’s opinion, based on conversations with Arab leaders and multiple polls of Arab citizens, is different. Although Arab leaders are concerned about Iran’s growing influence, they are not afraid of Iran and do not feel that there is any danger that Iran will attack them, absent a US/Israeli attack on Iran. The number one priority for the leaders and their people is the resolution of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. They do, however, realize that the American people and their political leaders “just don’t care” if this conflict gets settled. When King Abdullah of Jordan came to the US a few months ago and made a speech about the importance of this issue and the importance of the US in resolving it, he was politely received and then ignored by both politicians and the media. This reinforced the Arab leaders’ view that the only way to get the US’s attention is to create linkage between Arab support for containing Iran and a solution to the Israeli/Palestinian issue. Only this will give the US the will to truly engage in helping to solve this intractable problem. Perhaps paranoia is a good thing.

The mother of all photo ops

In the weeks and months leading up to Tuesday’s conference in Annapolis on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, all parties, Israelis, Palestinians and the US, went to great efforts to lower expectations. The discussions were initially talked about as a conference, then a meeting and finally a gathering. The original goal was to arrive at a strategic vision of what a solution should look like. The goal then changed to a statement of principals that would be embodied in the final agreement and finally an agreement to meet again with the hope of finding a solution. This effort to lower expectations certainly succeeded as polls and interviews of Israelis, Palestinians and other Arabs, leaders and people on the street, indicate. (Click here, here and here) Eighty-five per cent of Americans surveyed by the Wall Street Journal thought nothing would come of it. The State Dept. declared that even organizing the meeting was a success. The meeting was praised as the most serious peace effort in 7 years. A pretty low standard since there have been no peace efforts in the past 7 years. The final agreement (A complete text is here) was no more than another agreement on process, a strategy that has failed many times before. As that great philosopher Yogi Berra once said “If you don’t know where you are going, any road will get you there”. The parties could not even bring themselves to mention the core issues of the conflict: borders, Jerusalem and the status of refugees. The best that they could do was mention that core issues exist. The Israelis could not allow the dreaded “J” word (Jerusalem) to be mentioned as the conservative members of Ehud Olmert’s governing coalition had threatened to bring down the coalition and cause new elections if Jerusalem was even mentioned. The Arab peace plan and relevant UN resolutions also were not mentioned because UN Resolution 194 calls for the repatriation or compensation of refugees. This particular resolution is a big problem for the Israelis as they agreed to it as a condition of their entry into the UN. What happens from here depends greatly on what role the US chooses to play. The US has been declared the sole judge of progress towards a settlement. In the past the US has not exactly been a model of the balanced and unbiased mediator. A lot depends on which faction in the US government controls US policy. On one side we have National Security Advisor Steve Hadley telling a group of American Orthodox Jews and Christian Zionists that “Jerusalem is not on the table” and telling a group of Johns Hopkins University students “there is no place for Syria in the peace process”. On the other side we have Condi Rice shaking hands with the Syrian representative at the end of the conference and thanking him for his attendance. She was also praised by Palestinian Chief Negotiator Saeb Erekat for her “knowledge of all the little issues”. Unless George Bush, the self proclaimed “decider in chief” reverses his position of supporting all the Israeli negotiating positions, it is likely that the Hadley/Cheney faction will carry the day and the negotiations will fail. The one point that all sides agreed on was that time is running out. They agreed to try to reach an agreement by the end of 2008. I would argue that the time frame is even shorter. Unless substantial progress is made by Israel’s 60th anniversary celebration on May 8, 2008 all the Palestinian frustration and loss of hope may well boil over into violence. As Saeb Erekat has said: “If we fail, God help us.”

Experience or Stupidity?

As I have watched the US government try to balance its conflicting strategic interests and policies in the Middle East in the run up to the Annapolis conference or meeting (I noted today that it is now being downgraded to a “gathering”.), I was reminded of the efforts of the Eisenhower administration to do the same thing in the 1950’s. Eisenhower publicly promulgated a policy that the US would protect any Middle East country that was threatened by a country “dominated by international communism”. Middle Eastern leaders and scholars were puzzled at the time about exactly what that meant since neither the Soviet Union, nor China nor any eastern European state were threats to invade the Middle East. It wasn’t until the records of the Eisenhower administration were opened to the public that scholars realized that the policy had nothing to do with international communism but was about countering and containing the influence of the Arab nationalism of Egypt under Gamal Abdul Nassar. The vehicle to accomplish this was to provide economic and military aid to countries (mostly undemocratic and conservative like Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Iraq) that would ally themselves with the US in the region. Most countries who agreed to this bargain were unwilling to do so publicly as it flew in the face of the views of the average man on the street. Even though the governments were undemocratic, they had to pay attention to public opinion or risk being overthrown. The result of this policy was that anytime a sitting government was overthrown, whether peacefully as in Lebanon or violently as in Iraq and the people’s voice was heard, the resulting government quickly allied itself with Nassar and Egypt/Syria. The Eisenhower Doctrine was short lived as the US administration soon realized that Nassar was too politically powerful and they attempted to implement a policy of engagement with Nassar. (This didn’t work either, but that’s another story) If one substitutes Iran for Egypt and “Islamofascism” (whatever that is) or Al Quada for international communism one can see the same scenario playing out again. Egyptian President Gamal Nassar is quoted as saying to an American friend, “The genius of you Americans is that you never made clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make us wonder at the possibility that there may be something to them that we are missing”. In today’s American political battles there is a lot of argument over who has the most experience. The dictionary definition of experience is “knowledge acquired by living through an event”. Acquiring knowledge requires learning something. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is not experience it is stupidity.

Worrying about peace

Several events have occurred during the past week that indicate that progress might be made at the “meeting” convened by the US to discuss how to achieve a negotiated settlement of the conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors. Although the “meeting”, tentatively scheduled for November 26th , still has no firm date, no agenda and no guest list, Secretary of State Rice has been meeting with everybody in sight to encourage progress towards a “vision of a political horizon”. Since the political horizon still seems as far away as ever, the efforts toward progress have returned to working on process as envisioned by the Oslo Accords and the Quartet Road Map. Israel has turned much of the responsibility for security in Nablus over to the Palestinian Authority. The PA has responded by disarming a number of the gangs and factions who have been responsible for much of the violence in this isolated city. This disarmament has included the factions affiliated with the Prime Minister Abbas’s Fatah party. The improvement in security has been praised by Nablus residents as well as the US. Indeed the US has criticized Israel for interfering in the efforts of the PA. (For this story, click here.) Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has floated a couple of trial balloons indicating that Israel might be willing to relinquish a portion of East Jerusalem to the PA as part of a peace settlement. Exactly what this means remains to be seen. The US, having indicated that the PA is beginning to meet its security obligations under the Quartet Road Map, has started to pressure Israel to meet its obligations under the road map to halt the building of new settlements and to freeze current settlements in occupied territories. Precisely what this means is not clear. How does it affect outpost settlements that are illegal under Israeli law? How does it affect major settlement blocs such as Maale Adumin and Gilo that are illegal under international law but recognized by George Bush and Israel? All of this activity has some people worried and they are trying to throw boulders on the road to peace. Worried right wing Likud party members in the Israeli Knesset have introduced legislation to require an unachievable super majority before Jerusalem could be divided. (For this story, click here.) Prime Minister Olmert’s weak government is worried that the US will define the settlement issue in such a way that Israel will be unwilling or unable to meet its obligations and will be accused of being an obstacle to peace. PM Olmert is dispatching a delegation to Washington to address this problem. (For this story, click here.) All this ignores the fact that no one is dealing with the Israeli settlers and Hamas, both of whom have the ability to derail the whole process with violence. Everybody seems to think that if you ignore a problem it will go away. We have been down this peace process road before and have always ended up in the ditch. In my view until all the parties, including the US, can agree on a vision, however sketchy, of what a peace settlement might look like, we a doomed to end up in the same ditch.

Is something positive happening?

There seem to be some events happening in the Middle East that give even a pessimist like me some hope that sanity might prevail in the midst of all the past irrationality. The US has said that it will release nine of the Iranian terrorists, spies, diplomats or whatever that we captured, kidnapped, detained or whatever in Iraq over recent months. The holding of these Iranians has been a bone of contention between the US and Iran since it began several months ago. The Iraqi government has supported the Iranian position. In addition, US military spokespersons have indicated that there is evidence of Iran reducing its support for Shia militias within Iraq. Perhaps both countries are beginning to realize that the aggressive confrontation is counter productive. From both the US and Iranian standpoints the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan with the increasing power of the Taliban is dangerous and undesirable. Pakistan and George Bush’s friend, Pervez Mushareff, are becoming less reliable US allies and Pakistan is increasingly in danger of coming under the sway of radical Islamist groups friendly to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. To have both countries bordering Afghanistan be adversaries would be disastrous for the US and NATO. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may have let his celebrity go to his head and overreached. He may have forgotten that the real power in Iran rests with the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamanei. Trying to understand the opaque and factional politics of Iran is hopeless, but criticism of the forced resignation of respected nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani by the Supreme Leader and the critical letter signed by 183 members of the Majlis or Parliament may indicate that Ahmadinejad’s confrontive style may be wearing thin. The conservative pragmatists, such as Hassani Rafsanjani, may be exerting some influence. Hopefully the US will not ignore any overtures from them as we have in the past. In Israel/Palestine the Palestinian Authority is beginning to disarm fighters on the West Bank as Hamas has done in Gaza. If the PA disarms everybody and not just Hamas supporters, it could significantly reduce the violence. The US has condemned (Condemned might be a little strong, but given the usual non reaction towards Israeli behavior it may be descriptive.) Israel’s continued raids into Nablus (a city where security has been turned over to the PA) and the IDF’s confiscation of PA security force equipment. (For this story, click here) If the PA takes more responsibility for its own security and the US takes a more balanced approach, something might come out of the Annapolis meeting. Call me a Pollyanna, but perhaps something positive might be happening. Then again, perhaps not.

Conflicting conflicts

Ever since the US has had a Middle East policy, basically since WW II, it has had difficulty balancing conflicting aspects of their policies. The strategic US Middle East policies, interests and objectives have at times been in conflict and at times been completely opposed. Some would argue that “strategic” and “US Middle East policy” are not words that should be used in the same sentence. I have maintained that Osama Bin Laden has an advantage in his conflict with the US since he has a strategy and the US is completely focused on tactics. The US has even declared war on a tactic, the so called “war on terror”, but that is another story. After 1945, America’s primary objectives in the region were securing Western access to Middle Eastern oil, preventing the Soviet Union from reaping political or strategic advantage in the area, and ensuring Israel’s security. Pursuing the last of these objectives often complicated the pursuit of the other two. Washington’s close relations with Israel generated anti-American sentiment in the Arab world, providing the Soviet Union with opportunities to increase its political influence in the region. Similarly, during the Yom Kippur War of 1973, President Richard M. Nixon’s decision to airlift military supplies to Israel prompted oil-producing Arab states to impose an embargo on oil shipments to the United States and some European countries, causing major dislocations in the global economy. As the Cold War drew to an end, the imperative of containing the Soviet Union gave way to two new objectives: combating international terrorism and preventing so called "rogue" states—such as Libya, Iran, and Iraq—from challenging U.S. policies in the region. Both of these objectives have acquired fresh urgency following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, but Americans disagree over whether the two goals can, or should, be pursued simultaneously. While President George W. Bush argued that the necessity of disarming Iraq and overthrowing its government as well cannot be separated from the effort to defeat Osama bin Laden’s al-Qa‘ida network, others insist that Bush’s preoccupation with Iraq has diverted precious energy and resources from the war against al-Qa‘ida. As in previous decades, Washington finds no easy formulas for pursuing its diverse objectives in the Middle East. A good example is occurring in the region as we speak. The US has objectives in the region of containing and disrupting Iranian influence, supporting the Kurdish regional government in Iraq as a poster child for positive results from the US invasion and occupation and cultivating good relations with Turkey as a moderate Islamic state, a bridge to the Middle East and a conduit for oil and natural gas flow to the west. In order to help accomplish the first objective, the US has supported and armed the Kurdish Worker’s Party (PKK) and their affiliate the PJAK in their attacks on Iran. (For this story, click here) This has created the problem that the PKK has used this support and the arms to attack Turkey. (For this story, click here) After numerous deadly cross border raids Turkey has asked the Iraqi central government, the US, and the Kurdish regional government to crack down on PKK bases in Iraq and prevent the attacks across the border. The Iraqi government has no ability to accomplish this as they have limited resources and those that they do have are not allowed to operate in Kurdish areas. The US is unwilling to do anything because they support the PKK attacks on Iran and are reluctant to risk destabilizing the only part of Iraq that shows any signs of progress. The Kurdish regional government has no desire to do anything because their long range objective is an independent greater Kurdistan incorporating the Kurdish areas of Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran. The result of all this is that our erstwhile ally, Turkey, and our erstwhile enemy, Iran, are meeting to discuss how to work together to solve their common problem. (For this story, click here) A fine mess, good luck in resolving it.

The Empire Strikes Out

After the recent story of the cancellation of a talk by Archbishop Desmond Tutu (See the story below) it was good news that Father Dennis Dease, President of Saint Thomas, decided that he had made a mistake and reinstated the invitation. (For the full announcement, click here) The initial cancellation was the result of pressure by Jewish/Israel lobby organizations like the Zionist Organization of America. The large number of emails, letters and phone calls from individuals and organizations like Sabeel and Jewish Voices for Peace persuaded Father Dease that he had made a mistake. He said: “I did not have all the facts and points of view. I do now.” The bad news is that I did not help. Shortly after I posted on this subject, I received a call from a friend who had read it. She said: “This is an outrage. You need to write St. Thomas.” Unfortunately I said to myself “What difference will one email from me make?” I was wrong. Tom Friedman’s latest column talks about the power of one involved individual to make a difference. (For the column, click here) I promise to get involved next time.

Do we really pay these guys?

This week The News Hour on PBS did a piece on Iran’s influence in Iraq. The commentators were Ray Takeyh, an Iranian American who is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and Peter Rodman former Assistant Secretary of Defense and fellow at the Brookings Institute. (For a transcript of the conversation, click here) Mr. Takeyh and Mr. Rodman did not agree about much as to how the US should deal with Iran regarding Iraq. Mr. Takeyh took the position that the situation was very complicated, but with careful and sophisticated diplomacy, some agreement was possible. Mr. Rodman, for the most part, repeated the US government policy that Iran was responsible for the bad things happening in Iraq and a policy of threats and sanctions was appropriate and necessary. Surprisingly, the one thing that they did seem to agree on was that there was a great amount of convergence between the strategic goals of the US and those of Iran with respect to the situation in Iraq. The US government would like to see a federal state as outlined in the Iraqi constitution with a relatively weak central government and relatively strong provincial or regional governments. They would like to see the democratically elected and Shia dominated government of Prime Minister Maliki succeed in stabilizing the country. They also would like to see the US troops come home. (Maybe) These are essentially the strategic goals of Iran. For 60 years the Israelis and the Palestinians have been unable to reach agreement on their broader goals. Because of this failure all the efforts to talk about process have come to nothing. Here we agree on the broader goals and what remains is to agree on is how to accomplish them. It seems to me that this is what we pay our State Dept. diplomats to do. Instead of laying down a list of a priori demands and insisting that the other party accedes, as US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker did in his recent meetings with Iran, our diplomats should be looking for the common ground. If these people did their job as poorly for me in business as they do for me as part of the government, I would fire the whole lot and start over. Maybe the American people should try that.

The Empire Strikes Back

Last week the Jewish/Israel lobby tried but were unsuccessful in preventing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from speaking at Columbia University. They were successful in getting Columbia President Bollinger to rudely attack President Ahmadinejad during his introduction. Since they were unsuccessful in New York, they decided to pick on someone smaller and less powerful than Columbia. This week, they succeeded in preventing Nobel Laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu from speaking at St. Thomas College in Minneapolis. (For this story, click here) The grounds for this boycott of Archbishop Tutu were his alleged anti-Semitic remarks at a conference in Boston. The right wing Zionist Organization of America has not only twisted the words of Bishop Tutu, but also those of Jimmy Carter and Professor Norman Finkelstein to achieve their goal of silencing Israel’s critics. (For the full transcript of the speech, click here) It is disappointing that this episode should take place at St. Thomas College, a Catholic school named for a saint who was honored for being willing to question conventional wisdom even religious dogma. During our recent trip to Israel/Palestine my wife and I commissioned an icon of St. Thomas for our church whose name also honors St. Thomas. Those who have gone with us to Israel and the West Bank usually return questioning the conventional wisdom that they have received from the US media and politicians. They tend agree with the words of Bishop Tutu and Jimmy Carter comparing what is happening in Israel/Palestine with what happened in apartheid South Africa. The nun in Jerusalem who painted the icon added the biblical quote “blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.” Perhaps this applies to those who have not seen Israel with their own eyes but still campaign for peace and justice in this region.