The Cordoba Initiative, the organization which first promoted the controversial Park51 project, works to “cultivate multi-cultural and multi-faith understanding” and “to strengthen the bridge between Islam and the West.” But how is Islam to be understood?

One of the conceptual fixtures of the modern world is the yoking together of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism as “The Three Great Monotheistic Religions.” In a global environment which prizes the search for unity, commonality and consensus above all other values, this idea is an easy sell. Too bad it’s not true. Whatever the Big Three are, they are not three of a kind. Managing 21^st century international relations would be so much simpler if being a Muslim meant the same sort of thing as being a Christian which meant the same sort of thing as being a Jew. But they are not the same sort of thing, and the assumption that they are makes us stupid.

Based largely on the national experience of Protestantism and Catholicism, it is assumed that Americans know what a religion is. Islam, pigeon-holed as another religion, must be analogous to Christianity. On the other hand, Islam is more similar to Judaism in that it traditionally encompasses an entire way of life: religious tenets, dietary rules, ethical principles, familial requirements, communal activities, community loyalty, political traditions, cultural values, and more. Islam certainly includes religious beliefs and practices but is far broader than what Americans think of as religion.

A good example of the perpetuation of this misconception of Islam as only a religion is found in a recent piece by Jocelyne Cesari, a French political scientist and currently director of the Islam in the West program at Harvard. She asks what she considers to be a provocative question: “Why is Islam no longer considered a religion?” A more useful question might be: “Is Islam best understood as a religion, in the same way that we understand Christianity as a religion?”

By reducing Islam to a religion we limit how we look at it and how we conduct public discourse about it. To call it a political ideology is likewise misleading. But in America, where most people believe in the separation of religion from politics, a thing must be one or the other. So which is it? Is Islam a religion or a political system? One only has to look back to the earliest days of Islam to see that Muhammad served as a prayer leader, a religious teacher, a moral exemplar, a general, a lawgiver, a community organizer, and a political decision-maker – all rolled into one. Islam was a unified whole, not just religion, not just politics, not just a moral system.

Much of the current debate about the proposed new Islamic center and mosque in lower Manhattan is misguided precisely because pundits and politicians categorize Islam as a religion. Then they weigh in on issues of religious freedom, which are largely irrelevant to the question of whether placing the building at 51 Park Place is a good idea or not. The constitutional right to build a mosque on that site is not in dispute.

Thomas Jefferson, the father of American religious freedom, wrote that “Religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God.” But this description certainly does not fit either Islam or Judaism, both of which heavily emphasize the temporal and communal as well as the transcendental dimensions of life. Despite the shortcomings inherent in his vision of religion, Jefferson’s view has come to be America’s view.

The overt distinction between religion and politics in American life, already referred to, also owes something to Jefferson. Most Americans are still comfortable with the Jeffersonian interpretation of the First Amendment as “building a wall of separation between Church and State.” This particular idea has a pedigree stretching back to the New Testament. “Render under Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s” represents a uniquely Christian perspective on the distinction between the spiritual and material realms.

One cannot just as simply take Jefferson’s “wall of separation between Church and State” and substitute “Mosque” for “Church”. Drawing such a line was anathema to the integrated, all-inclusive Islam as originally conceived and as practiced for centuries. For some Muslims today, the re-integration of the religious and political dimensions of Islam is a goal to be desired and worked towards. Other Muslims wish to move in the opposite direction, towards a further separation of these two realms, in keeping with a more western-style approach to governance and religious belief.

While it makes sense that many American-born or American-educated Muslims adhere to the church-state separation principle and wish to apply it to the Islam they profess, such a distinction rings false to millions of Muslims living in Muslim-majority countries from Morocco to Indonesia. In many of these countries the state supports mosques, pays the salaries of imams, and applies at least some aspects of sharia law. Several of these countries call themselves Islamic republics; several others have declared Islam to be the official state religion. All of them are members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Religion and politics are interwoven in these countries in a way that is unfamiliar to Americans and difficult for us to understand, let alone consider as a legitimate alternative model for a modern society.

The nature of Islam, its similarities and differences from Christianity and Judaism, its compatibility with an American tradition of distinct roles for religion and politics – these are questions that need to be asked, whether the questioner is accused of “Islamophobia”, a failure to appreciate the First Amendment, or any other charge designed to silence criticism and stifle debate.

To ask these questions specifically of Islam does not exclude the possibility of asking similar questions of Christianity and Judaism. Yet there is a difference. The United States was founded by Protestant Christians for Protestant Christians. Catholics were only begrudgingly included in the experiment. Jews were an afterthought. Muslims were not part of the equation at all. Two hundred years later, and with a national Muslim-American presence only emerging in recent decades, Islam is still the new kid on the block.

There is another difference, and that is the not irrational fear of domestic lethal terrorist acts committed by Muslims. Certainly Jews and Christians are capable of committing atrocities in the name of their faith or their community. Baruch Goldstein, an Israeli religious Jew originally from New York, murdered twenty-nine Muslims and wounded dozens more while they were praying in a Hebron mosque. The massacre occurred on the Jewish holiday of Purim, which also fell during Ramadan in that year of 1994. Judaism did not launch that attack, but a Jew did, and he did so as a Jew.

The atrocity that directly affects America and Americans is 9/11. Islam did not launch that attack, but Muslims did – not all Muslims or most Muslims, but at least nineteen Muslims planned and executed a deadly attack against civilians on U.S. soil. Their faith was strong enough that they were willing to blow themselves up, to become martyrs as they saw it. They didn’t just happen to be Muslims anymore than Baruch Goldstein just happened to be a Jew.

Whether we are Muslims, Christians, Jews, or none-of-the-above, as we re-think Islam and its role in the United States, we need to be willing to ask tough questions and to critically evaluate the answers we receive. Some offer answers designed to vilify and condemn all of Islam and all Muslims. Others give answers intended to exonerate Islam of all responsibility for deadly violence and to deny that real Muslims could possibly perpetrate 9/11 or other such acts. Both these sets of answers should be rejected as inaccurate and inadequate.

A new Islamic center in New York City, wherever it is finally built, could serve a useful purpose by providing a forum for honest discussion of these issues. If, however, its founders have already decided to represent Islam’s best face as its only face, then the effort is misguided and America will be the poorer for it.

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

Most of the editorial comments, pro and con, regarding the proposed new mosque complex for lower Manhattan, are concerned with Who and Where: the people behind the mosque and its proximity to Ground Zero. My purpose in these articles is not to support or oppose the project but to examine a different set of questions, What and How: What are the assumptions and premises of the project promoters? How do they intend to build interfaith bridges to Christian and Jewish communities?

The first article examined the ideas of the group led by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf regarding jihad and the supposed hijacking of Islam by violent extremists. Presumably these ideas will help shape the new Islamic center’s outreach to Christians and Jews.

Another key to understanding Imam Rauf’s thinking is his use of the name Cordoba. His non-profit group is called the Cordoba Initiative and, until very recently, the mosque project was called Cordoba House. In order to emphasize “the community center aspect of the project rather than religion,” that name has now been changed to Park51, a more hip, New York style name that offers no associations to another place and time (except perhaps to Studio 54, which I’m sure is unintentional). Cordoba House, by contrast, summons up a host of images and historical references for those familiar with Islamic, Spanish, or medieval history and culture.

The Cordoba Initiative’s website offers this explanation of the Cordoba connection:

“Despite what many think, Islam and the West have a long history of coexistence and harmony. For nearly 800 years, the city of Cordoba in Spain endured as a shining example of tolerance among the three monotheistic religions. Muslim, Christian and Jew cohabited in prosperity during a period known for its outstanding literary and scientific productivity.”

From this blurb it sounds as if medieval Cordoba was an idyllic oasis of brotherly and sisterly love, the sort of world we should all aspire to re-establish. Many writers have waxed rhapsodic about a golden age of peace and prosperity in Muslim Spain. But is that really what it was like? “Nostalgia is the enemy of historical understanding” warns historian Richard Fletcher, author of Moorish Spain. “The simple and verifiable historical truth is that Moorish Spain was more often a land of turmoil than it was a land of tranquility.”

The 800 years referred to by the Cordoba Initiative constitutes the entire era of Muslim rule in Spain, stretching from 711 to 1492. Yet Cordoba itself, the cultural and for long periods of time the political capital of al-Andalus, succumbed to Christian conquest (or reconquest) in 1236.

Imam Rauf’s book, What’s Right with Islam: a new vision for Muslims and the West, narrows the pertinent time frame, explaining that the Cordoba Initiative is “named after the period between roughly 800 and 1200 CE, when the Cordoba Caliphate ruled much of today’s Spain.” This formulation is also problematic. To be a bit more precise regarding chronology and terminology, the Umayyad emirate of Cordoba, established in 756, was proclaimed a caliphate in 929. Barely a century later, in 1031, the last Umayyad caliph abdicated, after which Cordoba ceased playing the central role in Spain’s political and intellectual life.

Yale professor Maria Rosa Menocal, in The Ornament of the World: how Muslims, Jews, and Christians created a culture of tolerance in medieval Spain, further whittled down the time period in question regarding Cordoba’s heyday: “From about the mid-eighth century until about the year 1000 this was an Islamic polity, centered in Cordoba, which at its height, in the mid-tenth century, declared itself the center of the Islamic world.”

Though any identifiable Cordovan era of good feelings lasted closer to 250 years than to the 400 or 800 years posited by Rauf, those two and a half centuries also contained episodes of intolerance and bouts of anarchy. Still, for Rauf, the name Cordoba “reminds us that Muslims created what was, in its era, the most enlightened, pluralistic and tolerant society on earth.” That is a big, bold, though commonplace assertion. The idea of an Andalusian golden age, when Christians and Jews lived contentedly under Muslim rule, has become a fixture of Western historical thinking over the last hundred years. But is it true?

Professor Fletcher weighs in on the question: “Early medieval Spain was multicultural in the sense of being culturally diverse, a land within which different cultures coexisted; but not in the sense of experiencing cultural integration. Toleration for Christians and Jews as ‘Peoples of the Book’ is enjoined by the Koran. But in practice it was limited – Christians under Islamic rule were forbidden to build new churches, to ring church bells, to hold public processions – and sometimes it broke down altogether. In 1066 there was a pogrom in Granada in which its Jewish community was slaughtered. Thousands of Christians were deported to slavery in Morocco in 1126. Thoroughly dismissive attitudes to Christians and Jews may be found in the Arabic literature of al-Andalus. It is a myth of the modern liberal imagination that medieval Islamic Spain was, in any sense that we should recognize today, a tolerant society.”

Regardless of historical accuracy, the very name of Cordoba exerts a powerful appeal for many who long for a multi-religious, harmonious pathway to the future. As Rauf writes, “We strive for a ‘New Cordoba,’ a time when Jews, Christians, Muslims, and all other faith traditions will live together in peace.”

In considering the “Old Cordoba”, however, one should not forget that Cordovan tolerance was predicated on Islamic rule. Jews and Christians, once they accepted their status as dhimmi, protected albeit subservient peoples, could participate in the intellectual, artistic, and economic life of the broader community. But one fact was clear throughout medieval Spain, that a single faith was dominant – Islam in the south and Christianity in the north – and the other religious communities were allowed to remain at the pleasure, or rather the sufferance, of the dominant religious-political power.

Sufferance as the basis for a multi-religious society is not a model that will appeal to 21^st century Christians, Muslims, or Jews. For that reason alone, Cordoba is a questionable symbol of inter-faith co-existence. A better model might be … New York City! Predominantly Christian, with sizeable Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu minorities, a Jewish mayor and a Catholic state governor, NYC is a place where religious freedom is guaranteed by law, with constitutional protections to prevent arbitrary revocation of that freedom. Whether the designated location for the Park51 mosque is a good idea or not, whether its current backers are the right people to build it or not, no one is questioning the legal right of Muslims to build mosques in America and to practice Islam openly.

As we have seen, the suggestion of Cordoba as a relevant religious-diversity prototype for New York City raises questions of historical accuracy and acceptable majority-minority relations. In looking for examplars, we might do better to reverse the geographic direction of the search by asking: Does New York’s multi-faith freedom of expression offer a good role-model for the cities of the Middle East?

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

The Cordoba Initiative, the leading sponsor of the mosque complex slated to be built near the site of the Twin Towers, seeks to improve Muslim-Western relations through interfaith dialogue and outreach. Its founder and chairman, Feisal Abdul Rauf, has served for many years as the imam of a Manhattan mosque and has actively fostered Christian-Jewish-Muslim communication. He writes and speaks extensively on behalf of what is known in the West as moderate Islam. Characteristics of that approach are evident in this paragraph from the Cordoba Initiative’s website about one critical Islamic concept:

“In the post-9/11 environment, some Americans tend to think of Islam as a violent creed and of those who practice jihad as terrorists by definition. Jihad, however, is a large and complicated concept, whose meaning actually boils down to the need for peaceful struggle for self-betterment – the war that we wage against the vices within ourselves – a central injunction to all Muslims. That Americans associate Islam with violence is, of course, entirely the fault of the extremists who perpetrate crimes under a false Islamic guise.”

Like any other advocacy group, the Cordoba Initiative is not eager to post inconvenient truths on its website. Instead, it will present those parts of the truth that forward its mission, while denying or ignoring the rest. The group’s definition of jihad as essentially a “peaceful struggle for self-betterment” no doubt is designed to reassure a non-Muslim American audience well disposed to the idea of personal improvement, but that definition certainly doesn’t tell the whole truth. For a fuller picture and another perspective, read the following from Rudolph Peters’ book, Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam:

“The Arabic word jihad…means to strive, to exert oneself, to struggle. The word has a basic connotation of an endeavour towards a praiseworthy aim. In a religious context it may express a struggle against one’s evil inclinations or an exertion for the sake of Islam and the umma…In the books on Islamic law, the word means armed struggle against the unbelievers, which is also a common meaning in the Koran. Sometimes the “jihad of the sword” is called “the smaller jihad,” in opposition to the peaceful forms named “the greater jihad.” The origin of the concept of jihad goes back to the wars fought by the Prophet Mohammed and their written reflection in the Koran…It is not clear whether the Koran allows Muslims to fight the unbelievers only as a defense against aggression or under all circumstances.”

Other books and treatises offer additional interpretations of this key Islamic concept of jihad, which is sometimes referred to as the sixth pillar of the faith. The point here is not whether Peters or Rauf got it right, but that serious students of Islam see jihad quite differently, and these differences are reflected in the views of millions of Muslims around the world.

According to the storyline developed by Rauf and other moderate Muslims over the last decade, radicals such as al-Qaeda have “hijacked” Islam, which is a religion of peace. The terrorists who bombed various cities around the world during that time period are political revolutionaries or reactionaries who happen to be Muslims. They do not represent Islam and their actions cannot be attributed to Islam since terrorism is un-Islamic.

On the other hand, if you read the statements released by Osama bin Laden and Aymin al-Zawahiri as well as the notes found after the bombings, you will see that Islamic beliefs lay at the heart of the 9/11 bombers’ murder-suicide operation. Neither the bombers nor the men who sent them just happened to be Muslims. That moderate Muslims would say otherwise, claiming that al-Qaeda adherents perpetrated their “crimes under a false Islamic guise,” is understandable, but unpersuasive.

While one might prefer Rauf’s descriptions of jihad and Islam to be correct, they are only partial pictures. And therein lies the danger. Most Americans, Europeans, and Asians, most Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists do not understand Islam, yet it is increasingly important that they do. So which of the many Islams should they get to know? The moderate and peace-loving Islam of Rauf? The spiritual and quietist Islam of the Sufis? The austere Islam of the Wahhabis? The various strains of Shi’ite Islam – the Fivers, the Seveners, or the Twelvers? The national liberation Islam of Hamas? The terror-promoting militant Islam of al-Qaeda?

There is no single Islam. No one on the planet – no matter how devout or how steeped in Islamic literature, history, tradition and practice – can speak for Islam. Muslims never had a pope; the caliphate was abolished decades ago. In its stead, there exist multiple Islams with numerous spokespersons, all competing with one another.

Islam has not been hijacked. The spread of Islam by any means necessary has been advocated by some Muslims since the 7^th century, while others have espoused a live-and-let-live approach towards non-Muslims. One can cite chapter and verse from the Quran to back either position. The commonly quoted “There is no compulsion in religion” (Quran 2:256) can be set against “Slay the idolaters wherever you find them” (Quran 9:5). True, these quotes are taken out of context, but that is how scriptures are always quoted – out of context. Periodically, throughout Muslim history, reformers and fundamentalists have stepped forward to rescue or revive Islam, either by modernizing or by purifying it. Imam Rauf would have more credibility with American skeptics if he did not speak as if there is only one true Islam (the one he espouses) and that more extreme versions of Islam are false.

Building a massive 15-storey Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero is already highly controversial. If the project comes to fruition, it will continue to attract attention. What sort of speakers, one wonders, will be featured in its 500-seat auditorium? Will only moderate, peace-and-tolerance-promoting, Jew-and-Christian-loving Muslims be allowed to appear? And if so, will that moderate view become the face of the faith that New Yorkers accept as the real and true Islam? Or, on the contrary, will a series of moderates-only speakers present such a continuous contradiction to what people hear, read and see everyday that the entire enterprise will be discredited as a whitewash of aspects of Islam which are less-than-friendly to non-Muslims?

Once we get past the “we all love Abraham” meet-and-greet, Christians, Jews, and Muslims would be well served, as they engage in real interfaith dialogue, to remember the traditional Anglo-American court room oath required of each person who offers testimony: “Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God.”

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

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 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.

Scroll down below the following article to read the “What’s Wrong with J Street?” blog post plus responses and to add your comments.

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.

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.

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.

Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square car bomber pleaded guilty earlier this week to ten terrorism and weapons charges. During his court appearance he made a political statement that deserves more attention than it has so far received:

“[U]ntil the hour the U.S. pulls its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, and stops the drone strikes in Somalia and Yemen and in Pakistan, and stops the occupation of Muslim lands, and stops killing the Muslims, and stops reporting the Muslims to its government, we will be attacking U.S.”

This statement is important as much for what it doesn’t say as for what it does. No mention is made of Jews or Israel or Zionism, Jerusalem, Gaza, or the Palestinians. Instead, it focuses on America’s military presence in Muslim nations as the ongoing offense to Islam that demands a violent response.

The Pakistan-born U.S. citizen continued, “I consider myself a mujahid, a Muslim soldier. The U.S. and the NATO forces, along with 40, 50 countries has attacked the Muslim lands.”

Contrast these quotes with the much-publicized remarks of General Petraeus, who is between jobs for the next few days, having just stepped down as CENTCOM commander in order to take on the thankless task of heading up American and coalition forces in Afghanistan. In his prepared statement before the Senate Armed Services Committee in March, Petraeus asserted that “Insufficient progress toward a comprehensive Middle East peace” is one of several “major drivers of instability” in CENTCOM’s AOR (geographic Area Of Responsibility). “The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR…The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel.”

Three days before his testimony, an article appeared on Foreign Policy magazine’s website which claimed that in January, “Petraeus sent a briefing team to the Pentagon with a stark warning: America’s relationship with Israel is important, but not as important as the lives of America’s soldiers.” 

A week after his Senate appearance, and as part of an effort by Petraeus to deal with the fallout from the article and from his testimony, the following story appeared in Haaretz:

“Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the U.S. Military’s Central Command, telephoned Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi Wednesday to deny the reports he had blamed Israeli policy for the failure to reach a regional solution and for endangering the lives of U.S. soldiers in the Middle East.”

Some people interpreted the initial comments and alleged actions by Petraeus as expressions of a view they share that Israel is the problem in the Middle East, not just for Muslim countries but for America as well. Even after his correction/denial, the impression remains that some high-ranking officials think that Israel’s ongoing conflict with Arab countries and the Palestinians makes life more dangerous for U.S. soldiers in the region.

But according to Shahzad, life is dangerous for U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan precisely because they are in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are non-Muslims who have invaded Muslim countries, and they have remained there for most of the last decade. American soldiers, overwhelmingly Christian, are seen by the likes of Shahzad as infidel invaders of Dar al Islam. Armed, uniformed U.S. grunts walking the streets of Kabul are an affront to many freedom-loving – or xenophobic, depending on your perspective – Sunni Muslim Afghans. Is it because the Americans are occupiers or is it because the Americans are not Muslims? Or both?

American armed forces currently are stationed in more than a dozen Muslim countries, including Afghanistan, Bahrain, Djibouti, Iraq, Kyrgyzstan, Kuwait, Qatar, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. For those who share Shahzad’s worldview, the simple fact that so many American soldiers are based in so many Muslim countries provides a sufficient reason for ongoing attacks against the United States.

To borrow terminology from Ayatollah Khomeini, the “Great Satan” (America) has committed its own sins against the Arab and Muslim peoples which are distinct from the sins of the “Little Satan” (Israel). Shahzad’s courtroom statements remind us that even if the U.S. were to withdraw its support of Israel tomorrow, millions of Muslims would still have a bone to pick with the Great Satan.watch?v=PEeC6Vxn-MQ