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.

Declaring Independence Without Permission

by Michael Lame, posted on July 26, 2010

Last week, on July 22nd, the International Court of Justice in the Hague issued an advisory opinion regarding Kosovo’s 2008 declaration of independence from Serbia. According to the opinion issued by the ICJ, “the Court considers that general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence. Accordingly, it concludes that the declaration of independence [by Kosovo] did not violate general international law.”

Wow, what a momentous decision! International law does not prohibit declarations of independence. Separatist movements and freedom fighters around the world can breathe a sigh of relief knowing that their words will not get them into trouble at the Hague. Of course, if they are caught closer to home, they may still be tried and executed for treason against the governments they seek independence from.

Imagine if international law had held sway in 1776. How might an earlier version of the International Court of Justice have reckoned with Jefferson’s handiwork? “We hold these truths to be self-evident…” The court might have objected to his discourse on natural law and the rights it supposedly confers, instead insisting that positive law – in this case the law of the British Empire and English common law – was dispositive. Had it come to a court of law, our founding fathers might have lost their case for independence.

What if the court hearing the Kosovo case had ruled the other way? What if the ICJ were to conclude that declarations of independence in general or the specific declaration of independence in question constituted a violation of international law? Should the Kosovars then have rescinded their freedom charter since international law prohibited it?

This decision of the United Nations-affiliated ICJ should trouble anyone concerned with the global future of freedom and the independence of nations, not because of the particular outcome in the case but because the court dealt with the question at all. Something is wrong when a court decides whether or not oppressed peoples can declare their independence. For legal determinations to encroach on the realms of the political and the moral is nothing new, but that trend is increasingly prevalent, increasingly accepted, and I would argue, increasingly dangerous. If every controversy of international import becomes a legal question to be handled by lawyers and adjudicated in courts, humanity will be the loser.

Legal systems are instituted to maintain the order of things and to procedurize orderly change. Revolutions, by their very nature, overturn the order of things, as do declarations of independence. Therefore, they should be illegal, and they should continue to occur – outside the legal system. What needs to be fought against is the idea that the only legitimate change to the international order is that which is sanctioned by law.

In 1988, the PLO famously and ineffectively declared the independence of Palestine. Many nations recognized the newly declared state, though on the ground nothing changed. Israel continued to control the West Bank, Gaza, and east Jerusalem, as if no declaration had occurred.

Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian Authority’s prime minister based in Ramallah, has been putting the West Bank’s house in order. Uniformed Palestinian police now patrol city streets, maintaining the peace. Ministries operate with established budgets and procedures. Transparency is the watchword of Fayyad’s financial administration, making donor nations happy, while public and private investment increases. Fayyad plans to build the infrastructure of a Palestinian state and to declare its independence (once again) by the end of 2011.

Imagine that Abu Mazen (or his successor) and Fayyad (or his successor) do indeed declare an independent state of Palestine next year. Imagine further that Israel objects and the U.N. General Assembly thereupon requests that the International Court of Justice issue an advisory opinion on the matter. Given the history of the ICJ, especially its 2004 advisory opinion about the wall or security barrier in the West Bank, odds are that it would support the Palestinian position.

But is that how Israeli-Palestinian conflict can or should be resolved – by the act of a group of judges sitting in the Hague, far removed from daily life in Rafah, Ramallah, and Rehovot? The hundred years’ war between Jews and Arabs in Palestine is not fundamentally a legal dispute to be settled by both sides getting their day in court.

Sometimes the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to adjudicate issues which are viewed as inherently political matters better addressed by the legislative and executive branches of government. Some of the dissenting opinions by ICJ members in the Kosovo case raised similar objections, but to no avail. In a lengthy concurring opinion, Judge Cançado Trindade of Brazil posited that “ours is the age of an ever-increasing attention to the advances of the rule of law at both national and international levels.” There ought to be limits, however, to the advance of the rule of law into all spheres of public life.

Law cannot resolve all conflicts, and law will not resolve the most intractable political and religious controversies of our time. To think that it can is to ignore power relationships as well as the strength of historical memory, nationalist fervor, moral and religious conviction. The cool rationality of adherence to legal reasoning and precedent does not outweigh people’s collective passions.

Kosovo’s future should be determined in the Balkans, by Kosovars and Serbs, along with their immediate neighbors, i.e., by the people who live there and are most directly affected by the conflict. Likewise, Palestine’s future should be decided upon not in Washington, New York, or the Hague, but in the Middle East, by Arabs and by Jews.

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

by Michael Lame, posted on July 15, 2010

Two of America’s key strategic allies at the east end of the Mediterranean are at loggerheads. Ever since the deadly flotilla incident in May, harsh words have flowed from Jerusalem and threats have issued from Ankara.

Although Prime Minister Netanyahu stated on Israel’s behalf that “We regret the loss of life”, Foreign Minister Lieberman reaffirmed that Israel “has no intention of apologizing to Turkey” or to the families of the nine people who died on the Mavi Marmara. Israel claims that its soldiers, who were assaulted when they boarded the Turkish ship, acted properly in self-defense. Hence an apology is inappropriate.

Last week, Turkey’s foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, publicly gave Israel three options: apologize, agree to be judged by an international panel of inquiry, or suffer the loss of diplomatic relations with Turkey. This ultimatum comes in the wake of other adverse actions taken against Israel since May. Military hardware contracts have been cancelled, as have joint military exercises. Turkey’s ambassador has been recalled to Ankara. Israeli military planes have been refused entry into Turkish airspace.

Of course the problems between Turkey and Israel did not start with the flotilla. One can trace them back at least to 2002, when “moderate Islamists” of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) won the Turkish election and Recep Tayyip Erdogan subsequently became prime minister.

Newspapers tend to focus on confrontational events to account for the decline in Turkish-Israeli relations. For example, at Davos in January 2009 Erdogan stormed off the stage during a heated exchange with Israeli President Peres. That was triggered by Operation Cast Lead, with the extensive death and destruction visited upon Gaza by the IDF. Erdogan also felt betrayed. Just days before the Israeli attack, then-Prime Minister Olmert had come to Ankara to discuss Turkish mediation efforts between Israel and Syria. That two-year project, during which Turkey had mediated five rounds of talks between Israeli and Syrian officials, was undermined and suspended when military operations began in Gaza.

Underneath such events, however, a governmental and societal process of reorientation, both foreign and domestic, has been undertaken by the AKP, a process of greater identification with Muslims, Arabs, Palestinians, and, within the Palestinian community, specifically with Hamas. That direction obviously leads away from close cooperation with Israel.

Recent direct contacts between Israel and Turkey to defuse the current tense situation have proven unproductive to-date. On June 30, Israeli cabinet member “Fuad” Ben Eliezer held a not-so-secret meeting in Brussels with Davutoglu. The meeting’s only apparent result was a bruised ego for Israeli Foreign Minister Lieberman, who was left out of the loop.

Likewise, U.S. efforts to bridge the growing gap between Ankara and Jerusalem have failed so far. On June 26, President Obama and Prime Minister Erdogan met privately during the G-20 session. According to news reports, Obama cautioned Erdogan not to sever ties with Israel. When Netanyahu came to the White House on July 6, Obama encouraged him to apologize to Turkey.

The issues between the two countries and the two leaders are personal and emotional as well as strategic. Turkish lives have been lost. Turkish ships have been seized. Turkish pride has been offended. Israel feels that it was set up by the Turkish government, that its soldiers were brutally ambushed and put in an untenable position where they had no choice but to use deadly force.

From an American perspective, and given the important stabilizing role that the U.S.-Turkey-Israel strategic triangle has played in the region for decades, it behooves the Obama administration to redouble its efforts to keep this set of relationships intact. Turkey’s recent support of Iran on the nuclear issue in defiance of the U.S. furnishes one more reason to try some creative diplomacy in order to slow down, if not reverse, Turkey’s slide away from the west.

What more could the United States possibly do to head off a rupture between these two important allies?

It could raise its own profile from private to public and from exhortation to mediation. The president could offer to personally intercede in the row between the two prime ministers in a tripartite mini-summit: Obama, Erdogan, and Netanyahu. Or he could designate someone to mediate on his behalf with high-level representatives from the two countries. Perhaps George Mitchell, Hillary Clinton, or even Bill Clinton could handle this difficult assignment. If the White House issues a public summons or invitation to the two parties to meet under its auspices, and if such a meeting does takes place, it might allow either or both parties to climb down from their obstinate positions regarding the flotilla incident and its aftermath. The upshot might be that the Israeli-Turkish relationship is salvaged or at least temporarily patched up. A successful U.S. intervention would be a feather in the administration’s cap, one of the few for its Middle East policy to-date.

A U.S. mediator, whether the president or his envoy armed with the full backing of the White House, could meet behind closed doors with Turkish and Israeli leaders to hammer out substantive actions and face-saving devices to allow all sides to claim success. A Netanyahu apology would perhaps be more palatable to the Israeli public if it were seen as the result of arm-twisting by Israel’s big brother. A reluctant Erdogan could publicly assert that due to Obama’s personal intervention, certain U.S. promises (perhaps regarding further relief for Gaza), and Israel’s commitment to return the impounded ships shortly, he had decided to refrain from breaking off diplomatic, military, and economic relations with Israel. The appearance or reality of pressure from the highest levels of the U.S. government might make it easier for Israel and Turkey to step back from the brink.

Although there is always a downside risk involved in a diplomatic initiative, that risk is limited in this case. The parties might refuse Obama’s good offices. Alternatively, they could accept and the subsequent mediation efforts could fail to prevent the severing of Turkish-Israeli relations. However, since that appears to be the direction things are headed in without U.S. intervention, even an unsuccessful attempt to prevent it would likely be applauded. An expenditure of some political capital to keep the network of regional U.S. alliances from fraying any further seems like a good investment. America could use a win in the region. Israel would have a breather from bad publicity and further isolation, and Turkey would keep its options open for facing either east or west in the coming years.

Now is the time, Mr. President, to come to the aid of your allies.

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

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.