RE-THINK THE MIDDLE EAST

by Michael Lame, posted on Nov. 19, 2009

“Did Obama grovel?” asks the AP headline.

“Washington (AP) – Some conservative commentators seized on President Barack Obama’s deep bow to Japan’s Emperor Akihito over the weekend, accusing the U.S. commander in chief of groveling before a foreign leader.

“So did he?”

According to the State Department, “Protocol, in general, is about respecting the customs and traditions of a host country. The president was simply showing respect.”

Showing genuine respect for that which deserves respect makes sense – both political sense and common sense. But when is a show of respect just that – a show? And when does that show hit a false note?

Over the last several decades, Western leaders have been increasingly careful to honor diversity, to show respect for different religions and cultures, and to empathize with the suffering of others. These are healthy developments, provided that the honor, respect, and empathy do not result in undermining essential distinctions. There are genuine, critical, and irreducible differences between various cultures, ethnicities, religions, and political systems. These differences reflect the deepest of human beliefs and hopes.

Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are not interchangeable, nor are their values identical. Abraham, in the Tanach, may or may not refer to the same man as Ibrahim, in the Qur’an. One God is worshipped by adherents of all three faiths. It does not necessarily follow, however, that they all worship the same God. The current popular presumption, voiced by numerous religious leaders from all sides, is that “Elohim,” “God,” and “Allah” are simply names in different languages for the same Deity. Perhaps they are. Perhaps they are not.

Diplomats, peace activists, and conflict resolvers with the best of intentions may seek to blur the distinctions, but we cannot respect our differences without acknowledging their existence.

Japanese culture and American culture are obviously quite different. An American can show respect for Japan’s traditions without pretending to share them. For a Japanese person to bow before the emperor of Japan is an appropriate sign of deference, even reverence. But what rings true in behavior between two Japanese is not necessarily appropriate for non-Japanese. To this observer it seemed that Barack Obama’s bow before the emperor struck a false note. After all, Akihito is not his emperor. Nor can we say that bowing for Japanese is like shaking hands for Americans. If that were the case, the emperor would have bowed back to the president, which he did not.

In a similar way, honorific titles bestowed upon religious figures are appropriate when used by adherents of that religion. “Your Holiness the Pope” is a completely legitimate form of address when the pope is spoken to by a Catholic. But for Protestants, there’s nothing particularly holy about a pope. Christians don’t recognize the holiness of the Qur’an or the prophetic mission of Muhammad. Jews don’t accept Buddhism or its leaders as holy. Therefore, it is false respect for a Protestant to speak of the pope as “his holiness.” It is false respect for a Christian to speak of “the holy Qur’an” or of “the prophet Muhammad, may peace be upon him.” It is false respect for a Jew to speak of “his holiness the Dalai Lama.” And it is false respect for the president of the United States of America to bow before any other head of state, whether his title is Emperor, King, Big Brother, or Supreme Leader.

Captain Horatio Hornblower, in one of his seagoing adventures, encountered a Central American megalomaniac who called himself and insisted that others call him El Supremo. In the 1951 film version, starring Gregory Peck, the incredulous Hornblower, on first hearing of this, responds, “El Supremo? That means the Almighty.” When Hornblower meets the diminutive ruler, he addresses him as “señor” but is immediately rebuked: “Human beings do not address me as señor.” Of course, we can each call ourselves whatever we wish, but that doesn’t mean that others must adhere to our wishes.

In the wake of Iran’s stolen election and subsequent violent repression of dissent, is it still appropriate for Ayatollah Khamenei to be dignified by our president’s referring to him as Iran’s “Supreme Leader”? The title itself implies a legitimacy which now seems unwarranted.

Ways must be found to show honest, authentic respect between nations and, in particular, between peoples in conflict – without creating a false impression that we all believe the same or think the same or share the same values when we don’t. Nor should we allow a misimpression that we accept, honor, or respect others’ values or actions which we don’t.

We should not bow down before other people’s leaders. Neither should we bow down before other people’s beliefs about the future or their interpretations of the past. The Native American view of the last 500 years is necessarily different from that of “the white man.” Both views have power as historical interpretations. Neither tells the whole story.

How can people speak with respect to their adversaries regarding matters still in contention? No episode of modern Middle Eastern history is more contentious – to this day – than the events of 1948.

There is more than one interpretation of what happened that year, and the known facts do not all point in one direction. It is no more appropriate for Jews to call the ’48 war al Nakba, the Catastrophe, than it is for Arabs to call it the War of Independence. The outcome was a disaster for the Palestinians and a cause of celebration for the Jews.

For Israeli Jews, ’48 remains a source of pride and honor. The recent writings of Israel’s “new historians” temper that traditional Israeli view without fundamentally undermining it. Yet Israelis can – if they wish – listen and learn and empathize enough to begin to appreciate the tragedy visited upon the Palestinians in ’48, who lost home and homeland. Still, the partisan interpretations and the judgments of the past are unlikely to change any time soon.

One can show respect for another’s suffering without agreeing with his view of the past or his political agenda. An Israeli can express understanding for Palestinian perspectives without embracing or endorsing Palestinian political aspirations. The reverse is also true, though given the power differential, it may be asking much more of Palestinians to step into Israelis’ shoes and appreciate that point of view.

This is one area in which Israeli and Palestinian political leaders have consistently failed. They have not spoken with real respect to the people on the other side. They may have demonstrated a superficially respectful demeanor, correct and polite, but genuine respect goes far beyond that.

Whether in the Far East or the Middle East, customs matter, titles matter, differences matter, and perhaps most of all, respect matters.

by Michael Lame, posted on Nov. 6, 2009

Your goal is to get over the wall. You set a tall ladder up against that wall and begin to climb. On Day One you reach the half-way mark before you stop and come back down. The next day you manage to climb three quarters of the way up before returning to the ground. And on Day Three you complete the climb and find yourself standing on the top rung of the ladder!

Only then do you discover your error. The top of the wall is still beyond reach. The ladder itself is too short. You must climb down now and begin to look for another way over the wall. The question is: Did you make progress towards reaching your goal as you climbed higher each day on a ladder too short?

The illusion of progress is a commonplace of Middle East diplomacy: peace plans proposed; conferences convened; inducements dangled; joint statements issued; monies pledged; frequent flier miles accumulated; solemn vows exchanged. But action is not accomplishment, and motion is not the same as momentum.

Not “a bridge too far” but a ladder too short

If it’s true that “everyone knows” the parameters of a peace deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and if each round of negotiations brings the two sides even a wee bit closer together, then perhaps we are making progress, slow and painful though it may be. But if the ladder of bilateral negotiations is itself too short, or if the framework of a two-state solution is the wrong ladder altogether, then no matter how long we scramble up that ladder, we won’t make it over the wall.

In March, President Obama announced that the war in Afghanistan is a war of necessity and therefore must be fought to a successful conclusion. Several months later, despite his previous remarks, he launched a thorough review of America’s Afghan policy and the various options available to him.

In a very public way, he has brought together his most knowledgeable military and civilian advisors in a series of high-level policy planning sessions. Regardless of the outcome of the policy review, Obama has already signaled how critical the issue is to his presidency. A ladder tall enough for the job at hand must be found.

Why not use the same approach in order to re-think our Middle East policy? Clearly, Afghanistan is of great importance to the president. So too is the set of interconnected conflicts between Arab states, Israel, and the Palestinians.

Obama signaled the critical nature of these concerns from the start of his presidency. On his second day in office he appointed George Mitchell as his special envoy to the region. He granted his first interview as president to an Arab journalist. He gave speeches in Ankara and Cairo and at the U.N. in New York, in each of which he emphasized the high priority he places on the Middle East.

re-think Afghanistan, re-think the Middle East

All administrations make mistakes early on, and this administration was more anxious than most to make its mark quickly, especially in its dealings with the president of the Palestinian Authority and the prime minister of Israel. But jumping into the soup of Middle East politics, while waving the thread-bare banners of The Road Map, Normalization, and a Settlement Freeze, has not moved the region noticeably closer to peace. The danger of further missteps is real and consequential.

It is time for the president and his foreign policy team to step back a bit and regroup, honestly assess what has worked and what hasn’t in 2009, seek additional advice, and begin again.

In a manner similar to what he has done with Afghanistan, the president could hold a series of high-level meetings with a variety of experts, both in and out of government, to examine all the key issues of Middle East conflict and how to approach them.

The task would be to re-think and re-formulate a winning strategy for bringing peace to the region. The role played by the U.S. and our relationship with the parties should also be re-evaluated to insure that they are not misconceived.

If it is determined that peace is currently beyond reach, the president’s policy review group could still devise a strategy for significantly reducing people’s suffering, deprivation, and the likelihood of further rounds of violence.

We need to know how tall a ladder to construct before we start climbing again.

The precedent has been set. If our nation’s Afghan policy can be rethought – even in the midst of a shooting war – so can U.S. policy for the Middle East.

An Interview with Bashar Masri

by Michael Lame, posted on Nov. 3, 2009

Bashar Masri is a Palestinian, born and raised in Nablus, educated in Egypt and the United States. Trained as a chemical engineer and with a background in management consulting, Bashar moved back to the West Bank from the Washington DC area in the mid-1990s, establishing himself in Ramallah. He was the founder and first publisher of the Palestinian daily newspaper Al Ayyam. A successful businessman, Bashar is CEO of Massar International, which engages in a variety of business activities across the Middle East, North Africa, and Eastern Europe. He is married, with two teenage daughters.

By far, Bashar’s largest undertaking to-date is the project of planning and building a new Palestinian city from the ground up. It’s called Rawabi, and it’s located north of Ramallah.

I interviewed Bashar regarding Rawabi, the economic conditions in the West Bank, and the evolution of his own thinking about the future of Palestinian-Israeli relations. The interview was conducted by phone on October 24^th. Bashar spoke with me from his home in Ramallah.

As a personal note, I should mention that I have great respect and affection for Bashar. He and I have been friends for almost 25 years. We worked closely together in the latter half of the 1980s when he served as vice president of the Foundation for Mideast Communication and I served as the organization’s president. Twice we traveled together to Tunis, in 1987 and 1988, to meet with Yasser Arafat, Khalid al-Hassan, Yasser Abed Rabbo, and other PLO leaders. I attended Bashar and Jane’s wedding twenty-some years ago and I have periodically visited Bashar in Ramallah in recent years, most recently last December.

Bashar’s is an important voice to listen to as Americans, Palestinians and Israelis grapple with a complex set of issues. The first part of his interview focuses on the Rawabi project. The second part deals more with the larger economic, political, and personal dimensions of Palestinian life in the West Bank. To listen to Part One of the interview, CLICK HERE. For Part Two, click HERE.

NOTE: This is the first in a series of Re-Think the Middle East interviews with individuals whose words and deeds demand our attention, whether we agree with them or not. Who else deserves more notice than they have received? Who should we be listening to about the future of the region? RTME invites your suggestions.