RE-THINK THE MIDDLE EAST

by Michael Lame, posted on August 3, 2010

In the Rose Garden last week, President Obama asserted that “if we’ve learned anything from the tragedy in the Gulf, it’s that our current energy policy is unsustainable.” Perhaps he meant energy practices rather than energy policy, since an energy policy would presumably be government policy which means the policy of his own administration. Obama’s Secretary of the Interior has slapped a six-month moratorium on deep-water drilling in the Gulf in order to prevent more BP-style disasters, so the “current energy policy” the president criticized is clearly not his energy policy. But whatever he was referring to, what exactly is unsustainable about it?

Oil, gas, and coal will continue to be produced and consumed for decades to come. Perhaps the global reliance on fossil fuels is not sustainable for another 50 years but only for half that. In political terms, however, even 25 years is an eternity. Given how much attention the BP spill has attracted, improved industry safety practices as well as increased government regulation will likely result in diminished risk of a Deepwater Horizon-type disaster in the future. The near-term future, then, will no doubt include more deepwater oil drilling with increased safety measures.

So why would the President call something unsustainable which probably is sustainable for a long time to come? Because “unsustainable”, as a judgment on the status quo, has become the new universal watchword among change-advocates. Why must we make a change? Because the current condition, situation, policy, or system is unsustainable. It’s a more powerful word than untenable because it conveys a sense of urgency. Time is running out. We must act now!

The term “unsustainable” has also recently surfaced in Obama administration references to the Israeli blockade of Gaza. On the day after the flotilla incident, Secretary of State Clinton proclaimed that “The situation in Gaza is unsustainable and unacceptable.” Since then, the Israeli government has announced a lifting of its restrictions on the entry into Gaza of many foodstuffs and consumer products, but the ban on other imports as well as all exports remains in place, as does a set of severe travel restrictions. The blockade has not ended.

Middle East scholar and Palestine-watcher Nathan Brown of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace recently quipped that the typical language of EU documents states that “the situation in Gaza continues to be unsustainable.” He concluded that it’s possible for an “unsustainable” program or policy to be “sustained at this unsustainable level for a long time to come.”

That even the unsustainable is sustainable should come as no surprise. Human beings, after all, have an enormous capacity to adapt, even to horrific circumstances. Tyranny, oppression, malnutrition, poverty are but a few examples of the ills we bear indefinitely as a species. Through human ingenuity and perversity, that which, morally speaking, should not continue even one more day can be made to continue ad nauseum, if not ad infinitum.

If we continue to promote that which is unsustainable, then we are clearly on the wrong road going the wrong way. According to the views of most clerics and politicians, with intellectual underpinnings provided by theologians and ideologues, there is a right road and a wrong road in life. If we choose correctly, life will be long; society will prosper; civilization will flourish. But if we choose incorrectly, woe unto us! The wrong road is characterized not only by unsustainable options but also by diminishing possibilities. “The window of opportunity for a two-state solution is rapidly closing,” we have been told for the last ten to twenty years. Some argue that the window has already slammed shut. Perhaps the closing window is a trope that should itself be finally closed and retired from future discussions of Middle East peace.

The linguistic flip side of unsustainability and the wrong road is that of inevitability and the right road. In the 1990s, Oslo promoters in Jerusalem, Ramallah, and Washington repeatedly and categorically stated that “the peace process is irreversible” and “the two-state solution is inevitable.” Neither prediction turned out to be the case, as demonstrated by the failed Arafat-Barak-Clinton negotiations at Camp David, followed shortly thereafter by the outbreak of the second intifada, the subsequent disappearance of the peace camp in Israel, and the redeployment of Israeli troops in Palestinian cities.

To call a condition “unsustainable” is to contend that it will (and must) break down. To call an outcome “inevitable” is to assert that it will (and must) occur. Both notions are presented as predictions of the future, but in political discourse often they are not really predictions based on weighing the evidence; they are projections. They project an image of the future that the speaker hopes for. The projection’s power may stem from a belief in the efficacy of affirmations: if one says it often enough and loud enough, it will become true. Sometimes matters are presented as inevitable or unsustainable not because the speaker is foolish but because he hopes to fool others. Or it may simply be a matter of wishful thinking: I want peace. Everyone wants peace. Therefore we will have peace. I want the blockade to end. All good people want it to end. Therefore it will end. But the world generally doesn’t work that way, and the Middle East definitely doesn’t.

So how does it work? Conspiracy theorists assume a conscious will behind every action on the international stage. If something bad happens, it must be because someone wants it to happen. There is a certain logic to such theories, but as historians like Barbara Tuchman have shown, wars can break out from mistakes, miscalculations, and misinformation, even when no one wants war. While that is generally true, it is particularly true in the armed-to-the-teeth, hair-trigger, security-minded Middle East. One act of disrespect, one misinterpreted troop movement, one leaked document can set in motion a chain of events leading to pulverized buildings and dismembered bodies. Capriciousness and happenstance cannot be overlooked as key factors in Middle East politics and warfare. They must be considered along with the more traditional strategic, demographic, and economic factors in composing plausible scenarios of potential futures.

While neither war nor peace between Jews and Arabs is inevitable, one is more likely to win a bet that calls for another round of blood-letting than for the achievement of comprehensive peace in our time. Given the odds, what is one to do?

Americans typically assume not only that problems have solutions but that the solutions will be found and implemented quickly. The idea of a catastrophic oil spill continuing to devastate the environment day after day for three months running has been an affront to the American can-do ethos. The fact that Syrian-Lebanese-Palestinian-Israeli peace has eluded president after president for several decades is sobering if not maddening.

In the search for Middle East solutions, too often a short-term fix has morphed into a long-term fixture. Deleterious conditions which should not be sustained have been allowed to continue and to sink deep roots. Who imagined that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians would still be living in refugee camps more than sixty years after the Nakba? Who thought that the occupation of the West Bank would last for more than 40 years? Who believed that the state of Israel, established in 1948, would still lack peaceful relations with most of its neighbors?

The more we assume that the Middle East’s future has already been determined, the less likely we are to take positive action to shape that future. Engagement is not required if the conclusion is foregone, while energy drains out of options that everyone “knows” will one day be implemented. The urgent question, then, is not whether an analysis is accurate, a condition unsustainable, or an outcome inevitable, but whether governments, organizations, and individuals will take timely action to alleviate human suffering and resolve the region’s conflicts.

The words people say and how they say them offer strong indications of what, if anything, people intend to do. By paying close attention to the language employed by the region’s players, we can begin to discern whether their words evoke an energetic bias for action which can make a genuine difference or rather reflect a bystander’s judgment of a pre-determined future.

by Michael Lame, posted on July 9, 2010

J Street, the “pro-Israel, pro-peace” lobby, ran its first television commercial this past week. Watching the ad online confirmed my worst suspicions about this new organization which likes to portray itself as the “real voice” of the mainstream American Jewish community:

Of course it is legitimate for American Jews, individually and collectively, to voice their support or opposition to any American or Israeli governmental policy. If all American Jews were united in their political perspective as to what stance Israel should take towards the Palestinians and what role the United States should play in Israeli-Palestinian relations, then it would make sense for one umbrella organization, like AIPAC, to speak for America’s six million Jews. But American Jews are not united, and therefore the emergence of additional Middle East-focused organizational voices is to be expected.

J Street’s particular bias becomes quite obvious when you watch its new commercial. It begins and ends with overt political partisanship that seems to focus more on personalities than policies:

“While chaos and violence in the Middle East grow, America’s Chorus of No ignores reality”.

Then we see photos of Joe Lieberman, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Alan Dershowitz, Mike Pence, and other spawn of Satan (i.e., conservatives, Republicans, and an ex-Democrat). We hear brief excerpted remarks of Palin, Limbaugh, and Pence, followed by:

“Do they [Limbaugh & company] speak for YOU . . . or do they?” at which point the swelling music changes from discordant to melodic as President Obama appears onscreen, intoning the two-state mantra, “Two states living side by side in peace and security.” Photos of Obama, Clinton, and Petraeus appear onscreen:

“Say yes to American Leadership. Join the community of yes.”

So “American Leadership” in the Middle East is personified by the President, the Secretary of State, and the new commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Why is General Petraeus there at all? Wouldn’t George Mitchell be more appropriate? After all, Mitchell is Obama’s point person promoting Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

We can only guess why Petraeus appears in this commercial. Perhaps he is there based on his testimony before the Senate in March, after which he became associated with the idea that America’s national interest is imperiled by the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian impasse. Perhaps because he’s wearing a military uniform in the picture and Americans seem to like the military these days. The military projects an image of strength and a willingness to fight, while Obama is often accused by his detractors of being gun-shy. Maybe Petraeus is in the ad because he has mainstream popularity as the only American – military or civilian – since the First Gulf War with a proven track record of successful leadership in the Middle East. Obama and Clinton, on the other hand, after a year and a half of speeches, travel, and endless meetings, have little to show so far for all their efforts in the region. For that reason, I suppose it makes sense to link Petraeus with Obama and Clinton as an amalgam of good intentions plus on-the-ground results.

This ad is a classic Democratic campaign ad, pitting the evil Republicans (“the Chorus of No”) against the Democrats, who are good (“the Community of Yes”). For the purposes of the ad, the general has been promoted to the rank of Honorary Democrat, despite his reputed Republican voter registration.

There is nothing wrong with having another Jewish pro-two-state-solution organization operate in Washington DC and nationwide. We already have, among others, the American Friends of Peace Now and the Israel Policy Forum (newly-merged with Middle East Progress), both reputable and serious organizations. But J Street seems different in three important regards.

First, it is an overtly Democratic Party organization. JStreetPAC, its political action committee, endorsed and distributed campaign contributions to 41 candidates in 2008, 39 of them Democrats and only 2 Republicans (both incumbent congressmen). In 2010 it has endorsed 58 candidates: 57 Democrats and 1 Republican (one of the two congressmen it endorsed in ’08). Most other pro-Israel PACs split their donations more evenly between the two major parties.

J Street’s founding president, Jeremy Ben-Ami, has an impressive résumé of accomplishments, much of it in the world of Democratic Party politics. He worked for Bill Clinton, initially in his presidential campaign and eventually in the White House as his Deputy Domestic Policy Adviser. Later he served as deputy campaign manager in Mark Green’s bid for New York mayor, followed by a stint as the Policy Director in Howard Dean’s presidential campaign. He is politically connected in the upper echelons of the Democratic Party, which appears to be his comfort zone.

Second, J Street is not just aligned with the Democratic Party; it is specifically an Obama support group, playing the part of a cheering section for the President to such an extent that the organization could be renamed Jews for Obama. It has consistently supported his approach to the Middle East even when most commentators who support a two-state solution have criticized his administration’s tactics and timing. Through the last year and a half of White House bumbling and fumbling over the settlement freeze, J Street never once criticized Obama, Mitchell, Clinton, or the entire strategy of tough talk to Israel coupled with toothless threats and inept performance. Unlike AIPAC, J Street will not defend Israel no matter what it does. However, J Street will apparently defend Obama no matter what he does.

Israel and the United States, like most other countries, including Arab ones, deserve criticism for their misguided steps, immoral actions, and wrong-headed policies. When a U.S. President screws up – Clinton, Bush, Obama, or whoever comes next – he (or she) should be called on it by friends as well as by foes.

Third, the trouble with J Street is not that it is a Jewish Democratic Party-aligned organization or even that it is joined at the hip with the Obama administration. The problem is that it tries to turn peace in the Middle East into a proprietary issue of the Democrats and vilifies the Republicans as the enemies of peace. That might be a good strategy for electing Democrats, though I doubt it, but it is not a good strategy for building broad national support for a deal between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Most pollsters and pundits predict large gains for the Republicans in the midterm elections this November. Bipartisan support for the president’s Middle East peace-making efforts will therefore become even more important. This summer seems like precisely the wrong time to escalate partisan rhetoric around a two-state solution.

If there is one thing this conflict does not need it’s more political partisanship. Those who want to see a resolution that works both for Israelis and Palestinians already have enough divisions among themselves regarding Gaza, Hamas, Jerusalem, settlements, borders, refugees, prisoner exchanges, etc. And those divisions do not necessarily split along party lines. Obama, like every other well-meaning Democratic or Republican president who tackles the Middle East, will get some things right and some others wrong. An organization that is supposedly “pro-Israel and pro-peace” should stick with those two allegiances: Israel and peace. Being “Pro-Obama” is something else.

So what’s wrong with J Street? It mixes up its views on the issues with domestic party politics. Just as barriers between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East need to be removed, barriers regarding the future of Israel/Palestine should not be erected between Democrats and Republicans.

[Personal disclaimers: In 2009 I attended J Street’s convention in order to hear from an excellent roster of speakers and panelists on the Middle East. I attended the AIPAC 2007 convention for similar reasons. I am not a supporter or a member of either organization. Nor am I a Democrat or a Republican, but rather an independent, with no party affiliation.]

Note: Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

by Michael Lame, posted on July 2, 2010

I found the following video clip online this week, along with a story about it in Haaretz. (http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/new-hit-song-for-palestinian-children-when-we-die-as-martyrs-1.297731) Please view the clip before reading the rest of this piece.

The tune is catchy and the kids are cute, so what is wrong with this video? First of all, the blatant use of children for political propaganda purposes. Second, teaching children to value martyrdom. Third, the message that childhood has no meaning without one’s country. That’s nonsense. Children do not need to identify with a nation or a people to be happy and fulfilled.

It’s one thing to teach children to be proud of their heritage, their country, and their religion. It’s quite another to twist that pride into a morbid desire to prematurely meet one’s maker.

This video, this song, this phenomenon all should be condemned at the highest levels of Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim society. And if similar propaganda is being generated on behalf of Israel, that too should be condemned at the highest levels of Israeli and Jewish society.

Too many children have already died on both sides of Arab-Jewish conflict in the Middle East. We don’t need more martyrs. We need for there to be no more martyrs.

by Michael Lame, posted on February 19, 2010

A couple weeks ago, within one 24-hour period, two friends on opposite sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict sent me emails. One message came from Amman, the other from Tel Aviv. Each contained a link to a website.

www.islamonline.net referred me to www.ifamericansknew.org, whose tagline is “what every American needs to know about Israel/Palestine” and which claims to provide “full and accurate information on this critical issue…” Of course, the organization is terribly biased, in this case against Israelis.

The second email linked me to www.mythsandfacts.org and a long article by an Israeli-American polemicist entitled “This Land is My Land”. Of course, the piece is terribly biased, in this case against Palestinians.

Now, it’s a truism that you can find anything and everything online, including lies masquerading as facts, half-truths presented as whole-truths, false analogies, faulty reasoning, unwarranted benefits-of-the-doubt, and plenty of wishful thinking.

One common-sense fallacy, espoused frequently by people of goodwill, upon first looking in on a conflict from the outside, is the assumption that the truth must be found somewhere in the middle, as in “I’m sure they’re both right and they’re both wrong.”

Others, who naturally side with the underdog in a controversy, assume that the weaker party is in the right.

The schoolyard rule of thumb is that whoever throws the first punch is the bully and definitely in the wrong.

Many of us, myself included, start from the assumption that my people are in the right, however one defines “my people” – by nationality, ethnicity, religion, class, or alma mater.

All of these assumptions can be recognized and the biases overcome, but to do so takes hard work – both internally, by examining oneself, and externally, by studying the issues and their context.

Wittgenstein wrote that “from nothing in the field of sight can it be concluded that it is seen from an eye.” Yet perhaps the most important realization about what one sees is that one is seeing it. Absent that insight, one may simply imagine that one is seeing the world as it is, rather than seeing it from a particular vantage point. Since the eye cannot see itself, it is no easy matter to recognize one’s own physical point of view, or, more broadly, one’s own bias.

Even a comprehensive educational program culminating in a PhD in Middle East Studies is unlikely to produce an absence of bias. Scholars, like everyone else, bring their prior bias to their reading and writing. The scholar’s bias is then reinforced by selective facts and figures, with references to documentary evidence, eyewitness accounts, and original source materials.

But the region’s conflicts are real and complex, not simply the products of academic interpretation or biased viewpoints. Syrians, Lebanese, and Palestinians, as well as other Arabs, have bones to pick with Israel, and vice versa. The basis of their grievances – not only the grievances themselves – deserves our close attention. Our support can be gained by the power of the claims and by compelling reasoning behind the claims. Alternatively, if the claims appear insubstantial or the reasoning seems faulty, our support may be lost.

In presenting their arguments, Arabs and Jews often rely on law – Talmudic, Islamic, Ottoman, British, Israeli, natural or international law – though neither side relies exclusively on jurisprudence to make their case. In the search for authoritative criteria, both sides also bring in other disciplines: history, archaeology, scripture, demography, economy, etc. Appeals are made to one’s humanity, to national interest, to the future of one’s people, to the future of all people.

Each side questions the validity of the criteria employed by its opponents: Is the Tanach or the Qur’an a legitimate authoritative source for determining claims to the land? Is there such a thing as “Palestinian soil” or “Jewish land”? What entitles a group of people to political self-determination? Who should have a place at the table in determining the outcome of the dispute? What sorts of attacks against what kinds of targets are beyond the pale?

Knowledgeable people of goodwill, intelligence, and strong conviction can be found all across the political spectrum and on all sides of Middle East conflict. One need not postulate bad intent to account for Zionist or anti-Zionist sentiments.

In light of the above, consider this recent quote from Jeffrey Goldberg:

“The Middle East is a tragedy precisely because the Israelis have an excellent case, and the Arabs also have an excellent case.”

Should we buy this argument? Do both sides really have an excellent case? Even if some merit can be attributed to the position of each of the parties, does one side’s claim or contention decisively outweigh the other’s?

The answers to these questions may not be true for all time. Your answer ten years ago might be different than your answer today or ten years from today. A once-righteous cause can lose its potency over time. A solution that looked good in the heady days of Oslo may be less attractive now. Conversely, a feeling of hopelessness dating back to the second intifada could conceivably be replaced by a sense of renewed possibility.

I look forward to reading your responses to these questions.