RE-THINK THE MIDDLE EAST

by Michael Lame, posted July 10, 2009

In his fascinating autobiography, Once upon a Country, Palestinian intellectual and activist Sari Nusseibeh writes of a heated exchange he once had with Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas):

“You have to level with us,” I demanded. “What is it you want, a state or the right of return?”

“Because that’s what it boils down to. Either you want an independent state or a policy aimed at returning all the refugees to Israel. You can’t have it both ways.” [p. 466]

Earlier this year, a poll commissioned by an organization committed to a two-state solution revealed that for 92% of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza their first choice for dealing with the refugee problem was the “right of return AND compensation”. 77% of Israelis considered this option “unacceptable”. Even the more moderate option of “an Israeli recognition of the suffering of the Palestinian refugees, while most refugees return to the West Bank or Gaza and some return to Israel” garnered a 60% “unacceptable” response from Israelis. (http://onevoicemovement.org/programs/polling_contents.php)

As the Israeli pollster, Mina Zemach, acknowledged in an appearance on Capitol Hill last month, these numbers reflect a broad consensus across the Israeli political spectrum in firm opposition to recognizing a Palestinian refugee “right of return” or to any sizeable number of Palestinians moving (back) to what is now Israel.

So what is to be done? Either the Palestinians demand justice as they see it – and fight for it – or they settle for peace with Israel. As Nusseibeh wrote, it is an either/or proposition.

In March, two occurrences caused me to revisit my own views of justice in the Middle East.

At the beginning of March, three months before President Obama’s trip to Egypt, I received a copy of an interesting article written by Jon Alterman at the Center for Strategic & International Studies. Alterman, a Middle East expert formerly a member of the policy planning staff at the State Department, entitled his piece “Justice is a Virtue”. (http://csis.org/publication/middle-east-notes-and-comment-justice-virtue)

“Justice is one of the most prominent themes in Islam,” Alterman asserts. “To Muslim audiences, the core aspect of justice is not that it is redistributive or even-handed, but that it is ethical.” He goes on to recommend that Obama use the occasion of his upcoming speech to promote a U.S. alignment with the world’s Muslim community in the search for justice.

I have now reached the opposite conclusion about the usefulness of justice as a principle for addressing Middle East conflict. What is, after all, the real relationship between justice and conflict? Is injustice the source of conflict or its result, or both? Martin Luther King reportedly said that “without justice there can be no peace.” Whether that statement is true or not, it sounds good; it sounds right. At demonstrations, many of us have heard if not also uttered the repeated refrain “no justice, no peace.”

But I’ve come to believe that, at least with regards to Arab-Israeli-Palestinian conflict, “a just peace” is an oxymoron. In a perfect world, justice and peace would reinforce each other, but in our world, when conflict rages, justice and peace pull in opposite directions.

Everyone I’ve ever met in the Middle East wants peace . . . on their own terms. Peace is certainly valued by Arabs and Jews, but it is not necessarily their senior-most value. I believe that a primary reason why efforts over the last two decades to resolve Israeli-Syrian and Israeli-Palestinian conflict have failed is that Arabs tend to place a higher value on justice than on peace. (One could also say that peace-making has failed because Israel has never made proposals to the Syrians and Palestinians that they viewed as just.) If a choice has to be made between peace without justice or justice without peace, the Arab world (and perhaps, more broadly, the Muslim world), will opt for the latter. Israelis, despite the long Jewish tradition of seeking justice, tend to put a premium on peace, but they place an even higher premium on preserving their national existence.

Both of these preferences or principled stands, for peace and for justice, are also explainable on a material level. When you already have what you want – e.g., land or power – making peace can lock-in your gains. The Israelis already possess the entire land of Israel/Palestine as well as the Golan Heights. Holding on to as much of that land as possible while achieving peace makes perfect sense to Israelis, and if their offers are rejected, it must be because “the other side doesn’t really want peace”. The Palestinians, in contrast, control nothing. The cause of justice, as Palestinians see it, is consistent with their interests in that it requires them to regain at least some part, if not all, of what they lost.

A real question, then, is whether justice in Arab terms must be ALL-OR-NOTHING. For the Syrian regime, justice necessitates the return of ALL the land conquered by Israel, right up to the June 4, 1967 line. ALL might be defined by Hamas as the entire land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan, which includes the state of Israel. Fatah might define ALL as 100% of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem (or a land swap with Israel that would equal 100%).

But what if the Israelis are not willing to part with 100% of the lands captured in 1967 or their equivalent? Must the conflict go on until and unless the Israelis concede the point? Does the offered return of less than 100% constitute such an injustice that no peace on those terms could be accepted by any Palestinian patriot?

In the middle of March I attended an event in Washington which featured Ziad Abbas, a Palestinian born and raised in the Dheisheh camp near Bethlehem. He spoke from his personal experience about the life and aspirations of refugees, and he claimed that “the only possibility of justice is the right of return.”

That phrase, “right of return”, speaks volumes to Palestinians. It speaks of justice and homecoming, of wiping away a humiliation and righting a wrong. That phrase says something completely different to Israelis, as we saw earlier in reviewing the polling data. Israelis hear it as an existential threat to their state and an indirect way of undoing the outcomes of the UN vote in favor of partition in 1947 and of the ensuing war.

What possible justice can there be for the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who lost their homes in 1947-1949? Regardless of how they came to be refugees, monetary compensation does not make up for the destruction of a way of life, a community, or a centuries-old relationship to the land. Dollars cannot substitute for having a place of one’s own in which to raise a family. Most of the pre-1948 Palestinian villages in what became Israel are long gone. Many previously Palestinian-owned houses in Jaffa and Haifa and Acre, if they remain intact, are now occupied by Israeli families. Many formerly Arab-owned orange groves have been plowed under.

Palestinians can’t return to the world they knew before ’48. It no longer exists. There really is no possibility of justice for them. That doesn’t mean that nothing can be done for Palestinian refugees and their descendants, but I doubt that what can be done could be called justice.

Alterman concludes his article by claiming that “[t]he moral ground is occupied by those who strive for justice, not those who kill in the name of it.” But seeking justice is not necessarily a bloodless affair. The figure in history who I most closely associate with an absolute commitment to justice – a passion for justice – is Robespierre. And we all know how his efforts turned out. The Middle East has already seen too many wars and reigns of terror. Perhaps a new conversation is called for to examine what justice looks like in the 21st century.

Michael Lame, posted June 5, 2009

I wrote in Part I that Obama should not present himself as an expert on Islamic history. Here’s an example of why not. In Cairo he said that “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition.” This gratuitous swipe at Christianity, perhaps designed to show Islam’s moral superiority in the Golden Age, should have been fact-checked by the presidential speechwriters. Cordoba was captured from the Muslims in 1236 during the Spanish Reconquista. The Spanish Inquisition was instituted by Ferdinand and Isabella in 1478. You do the math.

Obama should be lauded for making several points strongly and clearly: condemning Holocaust-denial; unequivocally naming al Qaeda as the culprit in the 9/11 attack; affirming that Iraq is better off without Saddam; stating that America’s bond with Israel is “unbreakable”; recognizing the Arab Peace Initiative as a beginning, not an end; declaring to Iran that “when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point”; speaking out on behalf of women’s rights and freedom of religion.

While there was good news in the Cairo speech, yet as with so many of his prepared remarks, the President seems addicted to weighing and balancing every issue: “Having said that. . . On the other hand. . . At the same time. . . Likewise. . .” But foreign policy is not always a balancing act. We should not split the difference between friends and foes. Even-handedness only makes sense when we are truly neutral in our view of a controversy. But that is not the case for America regarding Israel and the Palestinians, Israel and Arab countries, or Iran and Arab countries.

Israel is a strategic ally of the United States, although Obama did not say so in Cairo. He said that “America’s strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable.” He acknowledges the fact of the bond without defending it or advocating for it. “It is based upon cultural and historical ties,” he asserted, without pointing to the political and ideological ties, i.e., that both countries are vibrant democracies with a free press and a strong concern for civil liberties. This is not an inconsiderable omission. It’s the difference between a nostalgic bond based in the past and a fundamental one based in the values of the present.

Obama’s choice of words is rarely accidental. He is intentionally giving Israelis of the center and the right cause for concern. It appears that his primary interest in Israel at the moment is that it not obstruct the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside it. The difference from previous presidents, both Democrats and Republicans, is significant. It’s a difference of style, substance, and attitude. Sticks as well as carrots may be required to move Israel’s policy towards cutting a deal with the Palestinians, but Israelis need to feel that this President cares about them as he obviously cares about the Palestinians. In his speech, he drew an analogy between African-Americans and Palestinians as oppressed peoples fighting for their freedom. Many liberal as well as leftist blacks in this country see a kindred cause in the Palestinian struggle. But if Obama is to avoid the confrontational mode that the first President Bush and his Secretary of State got caught up in with Israel, then he needs to make clear that his policy towards Israel is more positive than simply pressuring it so that he can fulfill his large policy goal of rapprochement with Arabs and Muslims.

Obama appears to see Israel less as a valued partner and more as a potential obstacle. This is where the carrot-and-stick model breaks down. Context matters. If a President asks for big sacrifices from the Israelis, they are far more likely to make those sacrifices if they feel that the President stands with them and will not abandon them. Even then, there are limits to what Israelis are willing to give up. I doubt that they will give up their violent objection to a nuclear Iran, even if Obama does.

What does Obama ask of Israelis and of Palestinians? He asks them to fulfill their obligations under the Road Map. Then he asks the Palestinians to give up violence, which he calls a dead end. But the real dead end is the Road Map. Rolled out in 2003, it consists of an outdated set of steps imposed by the Quartet, which neither side – Israeli or Palestinian – has taken seriously, except to point a finger at the other side for not fulfilling its requirements. It called for “a final and comprehensive settlement of the Israel-Palestinian conflict by 2005.” Phase One of the Road Map required the Palestinian Authority to disarm militias at the same time that it required Israel to dismantle settlement outposts and to freeze all settlement activity “including natural growth of settlements.” Neither side has lived up to it. Neither side will. Why is anyone still talking about it?

[Note: The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not represent the views of Re-Think the Middle East.]

Michael Lame, posted June 4, 2009

In one of the best lines in his Cairo speech, President Obama asserted that “we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors.” In Shakespeare’s words, “shame the devil by telling truth.” Unfortunately, Obama did not proceed to tell the truth by saying what Americans hold in their hearts and say behind closed doors about Muslims and Arabs. If he had, this would have been a tough speech. He didn’t and it wasn’t.

THE U.S. AND MUSLIMS

The Administration’s premise is flawed, as is the premise of several other American initiatives regarding Muslims, such as the U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project and the Doha Compact. In his speech Obama never used the term “Muslim world” or “Islamic world”. Instead, he repeatedly employed the euphemisms of “Muslim communities” and “Muslim-majority countries”. Why is it relevant to relate to countries and communities on the basis of their religious affiliation? Should U.S. foreign policy really be directed towards Islam as such or towards addressing Muslims as Muslims? Even the term “U.S.-Muslim engagement” reveals a contextual disconnect which cannot be bridged. These are not two members of the same set.

The United States is a secular nation with a strong Judeo-Christian heritage, far more Christian than Jewish. There is no similar tradition of Islamic influence on American culture or politics. If our country has any religious complexion at all, it is Christian. Unless we promote America as a Christian country (which I hope we never do), our President should not be talking about religion in the conduct of foreign policy. Can anyone imagine a U.S. President in the 21st century giving a speech about our country’s relations with “Christian-majority countries”?

SHOWING RESPECT

We are expected to understand, respect, and show appreciation for other people’s religion, history, culture, and values. But if we criticize any component of Islam, then we are being disrespectful. By operating within those parameters, we are falling into a trap.

Of course we should show people respect, regardless of their religion. That does not mean we should show respect to their religion. Respect the person, not necessarily their beliefs, their politics, or their ideology. Part of Muslim history is bloody. Part of the religious tradition is intolerant. Part of the culture is suppressive. And some of the values do not square with western notions of civil liberties. Yes, the same can (and should) be said of Christianity and Judaism. Every religion, every culture, every nation has a dark side. The danger lies in white-washing and excusing that which is inexcusable.

The First Amendment to our Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Any U.S. President would be well-advised to steer clear of showing undue respect for any establishment of religion, his own or anyone else’s.

George W. Bush knew very little about Islam. His pronouncements about the nature of Islam were off-base precisely because the political leader of a secular nation has no business addressing people’s religious convictions and certainly lacks the authority to speak of what a religion not his own permits or promotes.

Barack Hussein Obama apparently knows little more about Islam than did his predecessor in office, and, despite his biography, he too has no business trying to lecture the world about the nature of a religion which he professes is not his own. His grasp of the past is too insecure for him to be believable in stating that “throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.” That may or may not be the case, but the President of the United States is not the one to pose as an expert on Islamic values through the ages.

When she was Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice erred in making reference in a speech to “the Holy Quran.” It was a mistake both because America is a secular state which does not officially recognize any book as holy, and because she is a Christian. The Quran is holy only to Muslims – not to Christians, Jews, Hindus, or anyone else.

Obama just made the same mistake. It is not disrespectful to speak of “the Quran” without the believer’s adjective “holy”. The Bible is only “holy” for those who believe it is the word of God. “Peace be upon them” is a phrase used by Muslims, not by Christians or Jews. President Obama, a Christian, should not show false respect by calling something “holy” which he does not consider to be so. And if he does consider the Quran to be holy then perhaps he sees no real difference between Islam and Christianity.

In his speech he even offered himself up as a champion of Islam, claiming that he considers it part of his “responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.” Really? The last time I checked Article II of the Constitution, I did not find that in the President’s job description.

The use of the term “holy” in and of itself may be a small matter, but it reveals a larger problem. The basis for the new U.S. outreach to Muslims and Arabs – the unspoken underlying assumption – is that we Americans have screwed up, that the United States has done wrong and has offended Muslims. Therefore we need to make amends, to bend over backwards to show respect even when we don’t feel it and even when it’s not appropriate.

THE STORY WE TELL

Telling people what you think they want to hear, when you are President of the most powerful nation in the world, is a bad idea. For example, Obama spoke of the “tumultuous history” between the U.S. and Iran, specifically mentioning our role “in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government.” That is part of the story, but why do we never mention how the U.S. saved northern Iran from Soviet occupation at the end of WWII? Why accept the anti-American Iranian narrative that begins with Mossadegh and ignores our profound contribution to Iranian sovereignty and independence?

America’s version of recent relations with Arab countries should not start either with 9/11 or with the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Perhaps we should begin with the 19th century founding of the American University of Cairo and the American University of Beirut and their tremendous contribution to the intellectual development of the region, or start with our opposition to continuing the French and British mandates in the Middle East after World War II. Perhaps Obama should have started telling the story in Cairo in an unpopular way by defending our support of the 1947 U.N. partition plan and our de facto recognition of Israel in 1948.

The point is that we should tell the story from our perspective – the good, the bad, and the ugly – including our opposition to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, including our large financial support of UNRWA, including our leadership of the Europeans to belatedly stop the killing of Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo.

As Americans, we need our story to be told, and we need our President to tell our story to people who want to hear it and to people who don’t.