Justice for all

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

Israel ignores the US

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steadfast in the face of indifference

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Free One

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

Nobody's listening

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

Why now?

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

Whose side is God on?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proxy War III ?

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

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

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

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

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

The bill is due

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

Who will save the churches?

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

The head scarf problem

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

Risky business

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

Why Radical Islam Just Won't Die

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

A 100 year war?

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

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

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

Déjà vu all over again

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

Looking at Gaza

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

National self determination

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

Common sense on immigration

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

We are a democracy and we are responsible

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