The move by the Palestinian Authority unilaterally to declare a state is an understandable, theatrical, and ultimately self-defeating gesture. Understandable in the face of the combination of rigid Israeli intransigence and ignorance and cowardice on the part of the American political establishment. The Palestinians have always been good at political agitprop, and have often confused great coups on the global stage with real progress in the daily lives of struggling Palestinian citizens.
The gesture is self-defeating because it will only further alienate the Americans and make the job of potential allies in the United States much harder. The response to this problem may well be a resounding ‘So What? Exactly what have the Americans and Europeans done for us so far?’ True enough in that the Americans have actually come through with very little. Israel, confident in the support of a wilfully ignorant Congress, has safely ignored any American pressure for sincere negotiations with the Palestinians or even slowing down the construction of settlements on Palestinian land. No American administration, especially in an election year, is willing to challenge Congress and the powerful American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) that does so much to misdirect American policy toward this issue. However, by embarrassing the Obama administration and forcing it use its veto in the Security Council to block the statehood claim, the Palestinian leadership has just made it even more difficult to get any, repeat any, support from the United States in the future. This move even could reduce what little funding the Palestinian Authority receives. Who will fund a group that just wants to rub your face in your own weakness?
Embarrassing Relative
But the main conclusion of this train-wreck is to demonstrate just how isolated Israel has become. Israel has so few friends that it will not be difficult for the Palestinian Authority to get the required votes in the General Assembly of the United Nations. Without the American veto the statehood claim would very likely pass the Security Council. How has Israeli gone from being the ‘plucky, valiant little country defending itself against the Arab hordes’ to the embarrassing relative everyone hopes will stay away from Thanksgiving.
Under the leadership of Benjamin Netanyahu and his combative foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, Israel has lost much of the support it used to enjoy. As Carlo Strenger, a professor at Tel Aviv University, notes in a column in The New York Times, Lieberman runs a small, right-wing hyper-nationalist party that keeps Netanyahu’s fractious coalition in power. His role model is not the liberal democracies of the West that he openly disdains. He looks to the autocrats of China and Russia as his role models. It was Lieberman who helped destroy Israel’s relations with Turkey by preventing Netanyahu from apologizing for the killing of nine Turkish citizens in the now-famous Mavi Marmara incident. Whatever, the rights and wrongs of that incident, a simple apology from Israel could have avoided a breakdown in the important relationship with Turkey.
Israel also lost badly when the autocrats in Egypt and Tunisia fell before the popular uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia. Those autocrats gave only lip service to the Palestinian cause, and Israel was left free to do what it wanted. The people now running Egypt take the Palestinian issue much more seriously. When the prime minister of Turkey visited Egypt he was greeted like a conquering hero because of his uncompromising stand against Israel. Israel seems unaware that the equation in the Middle East has changed dramatically.
Netanyahu is counting on the continued support of a clueless American Congress. But do these congressmen know or even care what kind of Israel they are supporting? Is it the Israeli myth so well propagated by AIPAC or the reality so evident to anyone who cares to look? American supporters of Israel should ask themselves if they really want the intolerant, illiberal, autocratic Israel of people like Avigdor Lieberman. Or do they want a country that honours its liberal traditions, recognizes it is actually part of the Middle East and works to end its isolation by sincerely dealing with its neighbours?
As Strenger notes, Netanyahu also believes that Obama will be defeated in 2012 and that he will have more luck essentially blackmailing a gullible Republican than a much more sceptical Democrat. If his calculations are wrong and Obama does indeed win a second term he could be in for a rough ride. In a second term Obama might actually act on some of the fine words about peace and dignity that he has spoken about.
So yes, the Palestinian claim to statehood will be good theatre but terrible real politik. But the real tragedy is the transformation of Israel into the very caricature of the implacable, intolerant, and aggressive country long feared and despised by its neighbours. One fears that the reaction of the current Israeli government to developments at the UN will be to rely even more on military power in an attempt to contain the Palestinian movement. This will be difficult.
Showing posts with label Palestine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Palestine. Show all posts
Saturday, 17 September 2011
Wednesday, 4 May 2011
'All Change' In the Middle East
The relatively muted response in the Middle East to the death of Osama Bin Laden illustrates clearly just how much conditions in region have changed and how outdated the tactics of terrorism have become. Of course the fanatics will rant and rave at the passing of the poster child of Islamic terrorism. They will swear eternal vengeance on the ‘heretics,’ ‘hypocrites’ and ‘blasphemers’ – especially those in Washington – but the words are beginning to ring hollow.
Make no mistake, the terrorists have had – and may well continue to have - their tactical successes. But they have failed miserably in their larger efforts to drag the world back into their medieval paradise. Methods of prevention and detection of terrorist threats have sharply improved, but more than that, the goal of rolling the clock back several hundred years has far less appeal than the thoroughly modern aspirations like democracy, justice, equal opportunity, or improved living standards.
If the so-called ‘Arab Spring’ has shown anything it is that millions of people across the region are willing to risk a great deal to attain these basic standards that we in the developed world tend to take for granted. The demonstrators in Tahrir Square in Cairo, the fighters in Benghazi, or the brave protestors in Syria are not struggling to impose a medieval religious life style or a new Islamic caliphate. They are trying something new. Rather than simply blame outsiders (Europe, America and Israel) for their problems, the new wave of Arab activism is looking inward and seeking long-overdue changes to the region’s stagnant political and economic structure.
In many ways groups like Al Qaeda and the old Arab regimes played off each other. Al Qaeda and the jihadis would threaten the old regimes who in turn would use this threat as a tool to deflect external calls for change and to extort billions of dollars from the West, all in the name of ‘fighting terrorism’. Now, thanks to the efforts of millions of ordinary, brave people this cynical game is ending. No one knows how these events will play out, but governments already have to begin re-calibrating their relationships with the new, emerging forces in several key Arab countries. What will the attitude of the new players be toward those countries that for too long helped to prop up oppressive regimes throughout the Middle East? Will there be serious calls for real Arab unity – something that has evaded them for centuries? Exactly how will they deal with the staggering social and economic problems that continue to plague the region? Can countries like Syria and Lebanon avoid sinking into the quagmire of sectarian violence?
Perhaps no country has to do more re-calibrating than Israel. Israeli leaders had gotten comfortable with the old regimes. They knew exactly where they stood with Egypt, Jordan, and even Syria. Israel could do pretty much what it wanted with the Palestinians, and none of its neighbours would make more than a pro forma protest. The Egyptians, for example, were perfectly happy for Israel to clamp down hard on Hamas and, in the process, remove a problem for Egypt. Successive Israeli leaders became very adept at playing off the inherent Arab divisions to the seeming benefit of Israel’s own security.
Having built its relationships with the heavy handed Arab regimes, Israel was now faced with the unsettling prospect of dealing with more democratic regimes that reflect the desires and aspirations of ordinary people. The risk for Israel is that the ordinary people in most Arab countries were much less enthusiastic about relations with Israel in general, and much more enthusiastic about the rights of the Palestinians than the old, autocratic regimes ever had been. Egypt, for one, has been quick to re-orient its foreign policy more favourably toward Hamas and even Iran. It has also opened the border with Gaza.
Israel also is now faced with the improbable alliance of the two main Palestinian groups, Fatah and Hamas, that have fought each other viciously over the past few years and have diametrically opposed views toward Israel. Fatah has recognized the reality of Israel and has worked closely with the West to negotiate a two-state solution. While Hamas pledges non-violence it continues to reject recognition of Israel. Fatah leaders also praised the death of Osama Bin Laden, whereas one Hamas leader, Ismail Haniyeh, condemned what he called the ‘assassination and killing of an Arab holy warrior.’ The issue is further complicated because Hamas is recognized as a terrorist group by the United States and many European countries. The agreement was signed this week in Egypt, but it remains to be seen just how long these two opposites can co-exist.
Hamas as well is forced to do a bit of recalibration in Syria where it has long been supported by the Assad regime. It has to decide whether to support the murderous regime or lend its voice to the people protesting. After all their support the Syrian authorities are demanding payback and insist that Hamas speak out forcefully in favour of the regime and against the pro-democracy insurgents. The Hamas leadership disingenuously maintains that the organization is a ‘guest’ in Syria and must remain neutral.
Whatever the final outcome, this agreement between Fatah and Hamas has presented Israel with a brand new situation. Divided Palestinians were much easier to deal with than united Palestinians. Prime Minister Netanyahu reacted in his usual Pavlovian, hard-line fashion and immediately called on Fatah to break the deal. He also moved to block the transfer of $90 million to the Palestinian Authority.
The Israeli foreign ministry, however, favours a more nuanced, cautious approach. In an internal document the foreign ministry says a united Fatah/Hamas unity government would offer Israel a strategic opportunity.
“The Palestinian move is not only a security threat, but also a strategic opportunity to create a genuine change in the Palestinian context. . . Such a change may serve the long-term interests of Israel.” One can only hope that the Israeli political leadership listens to the professionals in the foreign ministry.
We can expect many similar confusing, contradictory statements from governments around the world as leaders struggle to learn just how the ‘Arab Spring’ will evolve into summer and fall.
Make no mistake, the terrorists have had – and may well continue to have - their tactical successes. But they have failed miserably in their larger efforts to drag the world back into their medieval paradise. Methods of prevention and detection of terrorist threats have sharply improved, but more than that, the goal of rolling the clock back several hundred years has far less appeal than the thoroughly modern aspirations like democracy, justice, equal opportunity, or improved living standards.
If the so-called ‘Arab Spring’ has shown anything it is that millions of people across the region are willing to risk a great deal to attain these basic standards that we in the developed world tend to take for granted. The demonstrators in Tahrir Square in Cairo, the fighters in Benghazi, or the brave protestors in Syria are not struggling to impose a medieval religious life style or a new Islamic caliphate. They are trying something new. Rather than simply blame outsiders (Europe, America and Israel) for their problems, the new wave of Arab activism is looking inward and seeking long-overdue changes to the region’s stagnant political and economic structure.
In many ways groups like Al Qaeda and the old Arab regimes played off each other. Al Qaeda and the jihadis would threaten the old regimes who in turn would use this threat as a tool to deflect external calls for change and to extort billions of dollars from the West, all in the name of ‘fighting terrorism’. Now, thanks to the efforts of millions of ordinary, brave people this cynical game is ending. No one knows how these events will play out, but governments already have to begin re-calibrating their relationships with the new, emerging forces in several key Arab countries. What will the attitude of the new players be toward those countries that for too long helped to prop up oppressive regimes throughout the Middle East? Will there be serious calls for real Arab unity – something that has evaded them for centuries? Exactly how will they deal with the staggering social and economic problems that continue to plague the region? Can countries like Syria and Lebanon avoid sinking into the quagmire of sectarian violence?
Perhaps no country has to do more re-calibrating than Israel. Israeli leaders had gotten comfortable with the old regimes. They knew exactly where they stood with Egypt, Jordan, and even Syria. Israel could do pretty much what it wanted with the Palestinians, and none of its neighbours would make more than a pro forma protest. The Egyptians, for example, were perfectly happy for Israel to clamp down hard on Hamas and, in the process, remove a problem for Egypt. Successive Israeli leaders became very adept at playing off the inherent Arab divisions to the seeming benefit of Israel’s own security.
Having built its relationships with the heavy handed Arab regimes, Israel was now faced with the unsettling prospect of dealing with more democratic regimes that reflect the desires and aspirations of ordinary people. The risk for Israel is that the ordinary people in most Arab countries were much less enthusiastic about relations with Israel in general, and much more enthusiastic about the rights of the Palestinians than the old, autocratic regimes ever had been. Egypt, for one, has been quick to re-orient its foreign policy more favourably toward Hamas and even Iran. It has also opened the border with Gaza.
Israel also is now faced with the improbable alliance of the two main Palestinian groups, Fatah and Hamas, that have fought each other viciously over the past few years and have diametrically opposed views toward Israel. Fatah has recognized the reality of Israel and has worked closely with the West to negotiate a two-state solution. While Hamas pledges non-violence it continues to reject recognition of Israel. Fatah leaders also praised the death of Osama Bin Laden, whereas one Hamas leader, Ismail Haniyeh, condemned what he called the ‘assassination and killing of an Arab holy warrior.’ The issue is further complicated because Hamas is recognized as a terrorist group by the United States and many European countries. The agreement was signed this week in Egypt, but it remains to be seen just how long these two opposites can co-exist.
Hamas as well is forced to do a bit of recalibration in Syria where it has long been supported by the Assad regime. It has to decide whether to support the murderous regime or lend its voice to the people protesting. After all their support the Syrian authorities are demanding payback and insist that Hamas speak out forcefully in favour of the regime and against the pro-democracy insurgents. The Hamas leadership disingenuously maintains that the organization is a ‘guest’ in Syria and must remain neutral.
Whatever the final outcome, this agreement between Fatah and Hamas has presented Israel with a brand new situation. Divided Palestinians were much easier to deal with than united Palestinians. Prime Minister Netanyahu reacted in his usual Pavlovian, hard-line fashion and immediately called on Fatah to break the deal. He also moved to block the transfer of $90 million to the Palestinian Authority.
The Israeli foreign ministry, however, favours a more nuanced, cautious approach. In an internal document the foreign ministry says a united Fatah/Hamas unity government would offer Israel a strategic opportunity.
“The Palestinian move is not only a security threat, but also a strategic opportunity to create a genuine change in the Palestinian context. . . Such a change may serve the long-term interests of Israel.” One can only hope that the Israeli political leadership listens to the professionals in the foreign ministry.
We can expect many similar confusing, contradictory statements from governments around the world as leaders struggle to learn just how the ‘Arab Spring’ will evolve into summer and fall.
Thursday, 24 February 2011
The Palestine Question Remains Central
A recent essay in The Wall Street Journal would have us believe that the Palestine/Israel conflict has nothing to do with upheavals in the Arab world. Emanuele Ottolenghi takes the classic, if superficial, line that decades of repression and economic stagnation, rather than concern about the fate of the Palestinians, were the sparks for the mass movements in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Bahrain.
On one level this is true enough. It took more than dismay at the Palestinian quagmire to bring down the Twin Towers and motivate suicide bombers around the world. The internal conditions in most Arab countries were quite sufficient to generate the long smoldering hopelessness, frustration and violent rage that led to the recent mass demonstrations. All it took was the spark of a dramatic action like the self-immolation in Tunisia combined with instantaneous communication to give people the courage to overthrow political leaders that had lined their own pockets at the expense of the welfare of most of the people. In the process these dictators were able to play the Western leaders for fools by holding up the bogeyman of Al Qaeda. “Of course we are repressing our own people. You should thank us instead of sending over these interfering NGOs. If it were not for us Al Qaeda would sweep through the entire region. Oh, and by the way, don’t forget to send the billions of dollars you promised,” ran the line that was accepted by so many gullible governments.
These conditions have been well documented over the years, and people who know the Middle East at all were surprised only by the speed at which the protests spread and the relative ease, except for bizarre mystery world of Libya, with which the ancien regimes crumbled.
But to jump from the reality of this conflict to the conclusion that the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is irrelevant to the current situation defies all logic and common sense. This bit of geo-political acrobatics ignores the serious point that one of the major complaints of the Arab ‘street’ is that the isolated leaders were too close to Israel and didn’t do enough for the Palestinian people. The easy relationship between the Arab security organizations and their Israeli counterpart was justified as a way to keep the lid on the situation and prevent the fundamentalists from taking over.
What really worries the Israelis now is that whoever takes over in Egypt and elsewhere will start paying more real attention to the Palestinian problem. The Israelis and others forgot just how much the Palestinian issue resonates with the masses that were demonstrating in Tahrir Square. Those crowds did not have to be filled with jihadis or Al Qaeda members to be angry at the collusion of the regimes with the Israeli treatment of Palestinians. The new government may not break the treaty with Israel, but we can expect it to be much more vocal and active in support of both Hamas in Gaza and Fatah in the West Bank.
It is also a reality that whatever their governments may have said, many in the Arab world view their relationships with the West through the prism of the Palestinian problem. I can not think of a single discussion I had over the years with ordinary people from Kuwait to Morocco that didn’t sooner or later come around to Palestine. In the most sumptuous home or humble shop the pained question, however politely framed, was always the same, “Why do you let the Israelis treat the Palestinians so badly?” The vast majority of the people were perfectly willing to grant the reality of Israel, but they could not understand the unbalanced treatment of the Palestinians. It made all the Western talk about democracy and human rights in the region seem merely like a cynical exercise of the age old ‘might makes right’ principle.
Israel now has to recalibrate its relations with the new governments. What’s it going to do? Will it maintain the Netanyahu government line that Israel’s security can only be maintained by more defense spending, tighter restrictions on the Palestinians, and more and more settlements on Palestinian land? Or will it recognize that no Arab government, especially the new ones that want to prove they listen to the people, will be able to give Israel the real security it wants as long as the Palestinian issue remains unresolved?
Ottolenghi maintains that the “…the conventional wisdom that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the mother of all problems in the region has now been exposed as nothing but a myth.” In some ways he is correct. The Palestinian conflict clearly is not the only problem facing the new governments, but, if the new governments want to gain credibility that the former regimes never had, until this burning issue is resolved nothing can really be resolved. For the time being the jihadis and other radical religious elements are very much in the background. One sure way to bring them raging out into the open is to maintain that the Palestinian problem is irrelevant.
On one level this is true enough. It took more than dismay at the Palestinian quagmire to bring down the Twin Towers and motivate suicide bombers around the world. The internal conditions in most Arab countries were quite sufficient to generate the long smoldering hopelessness, frustration and violent rage that led to the recent mass demonstrations. All it took was the spark of a dramatic action like the self-immolation in Tunisia combined with instantaneous communication to give people the courage to overthrow political leaders that had lined their own pockets at the expense of the welfare of most of the people. In the process these dictators were able to play the Western leaders for fools by holding up the bogeyman of Al Qaeda. “Of course we are repressing our own people. You should thank us instead of sending over these interfering NGOs. If it were not for us Al Qaeda would sweep through the entire region. Oh, and by the way, don’t forget to send the billions of dollars you promised,” ran the line that was accepted by so many gullible governments.
These conditions have been well documented over the years, and people who know the Middle East at all were surprised only by the speed at which the protests spread and the relative ease, except for bizarre mystery world of Libya, with which the ancien regimes crumbled.
But to jump from the reality of this conflict to the conclusion that the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is irrelevant to the current situation defies all logic and common sense. This bit of geo-political acrobatics ignores the serious point that one of the major complaints of the Arab ‘street’ is that the isolated leaders were too close to Israel and didn’t do enough for the Palestinian people. The easy relationship between the Arab security organizations and their Israeli counterpart was justified as a way to keep the lid on the situation and prevent the fundamentalists from taking over.
What really worries the Israelis now is that whoever takes over in Egypt and elsewhere will start paying more real attention to the Palestinian problem. The Israelis and others forgot just how much the Palestinian issue resonates with the masses that were demonstrating in Tahrir Square. Those crowds did not have to be filled with jihadis or Al Qaeda members to be angry at the collusion of the regimes with the Israeli treatment of Palestinians. The new government may not break the treaty with Israel, but we can expect it to be much more vocal and active in support of both Hamas in Gaza and Fatah in the West Bank.
It is also a reality that whatever their governments may have said, many in the Arab world view their relationships with the West through the prism of the Palestinian problem. I can not think of a single discussion I had over the years with ordinary people from Kuwait to Morocco that didn’t sooner or later come around to Palestine. In the most sumptuous home or humble shop the pained question, however politely framed, was always the same, “Why do you let the Israelis treat the Palestinians so badly?” The vast majority of the people were perfectly willing to grant the reality of Israel, but they could not understand the unbalanced treatment of the Palestinians. It made all the Western talk about democracy and human rights in the region seem merely like a cynical exercise of the age old ‘might makes right’ principle.
Israel now has to recalibrate its relations with the new governments. What’s it going to do? Will it maintain the Netanyahu government line that Israel’s security can only be maintained by more defense spending, tighter restrictions on the Palestinians, and more and more settlements on Palestinian land? Or will it recognize that no Arab government, especially the new ones that want to prove they listen to the people, will be able to give Israel the real security it wants as long as the Palestinian issue remains unresolved?
Ottolenghi maintains that the “…the conventional wisdom that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the mother of all problems in the region has now been exposed as nothing but a myth.” In some ways he is correct. The Palestinian conflict clearly is not the only problem facing the new governments, but, if the new governments want to gain credibility that the former regimes never had, until this burning issue is resolved nothing can really be resolved. For the time being the jihadis and other radical religious elements are very much in the background. One sure way to bring them raging out into the open is to maintain that the Palestinian problem is irrelevant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)