Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Two articles of interests

I've been so busy these last few weeks that I've had barely enough time to stay on top of developments in the region.
Two opinion pieces caught my eye that I thought I would pass along.
The first is an Op-Ed in the Times by Prince Turki al-Faisal - the former head of Saudi Intelligence - dismissing the idea that Arab states should initiate the process of normalizing relations with Israel.
The second article appears today at Foreign Policy magazine's site. Titled "More than Just a Photo Op" the article tries to highlight what most observers see as non-existent: an actual strategy of the Obama administration for Arab-Israeli Peace. I'm not sure I agree with all of Daniel Levy's points but it is an interesting argument and I'm sure a few of the things he suggests are both valid and too quickly dismissed.

Wednesday, September 09, 2009

Hiatus

After a complicated and drawn out move, I'm still getting my feet wet with the new school year. I apologize for the absence of postings in the last few weeks and I'm hoping I get back to it shortly. Bear with me!

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Comment clash

I've been trying to become a more active participant in the enormous on-line foreign policy community on topics related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I've done so by commenting on articles and blog posts for the past number of weeks. Some of these exchanges have been fruitful but most are largely exercises in futility. Most of these exchanges are less than civil but some have remained respectful. In both cases though, I've come to accept that the point is not to make friends. That there are many people who know very little despite proclaiming otherwise.
I should also say that I don't find engaging with people I fundamentally disagree with particularly fun. I'm doing it largely as a way for me to hone-in on the substance of my opponents largely illogical arguments. I'm finding it beneficial since so many common tropes - ones largely devoid of truth - keep reappearing.
There was one series of exchanges on The West Bank on Open Salon that I've let die (with my opponent having the last word) simply because it was a topic that I didn't want to pursue (what constitutes "anti-semitism"?). Instead, I will be posting a few exchanges here that I've had in other places in particular from Foreign Policy Magazine, where I'm a regular commenter. Here's a link for a current debate right now:

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Is Mike Huckabee Crazy?

Mike Huckabee – erstwhile Republican presidential hopeful – has lost it.

On a junket paid for by a questionable charity run out of New York, the former Governor of Arkansas and Southern Baptist pastor made the following statements while standing in the West Bank:

“The question is should the Palestinians have a place to call their own? Yes, I have no problem with that, should it be in the middle of the Jewish homeland? That's what I think has to be honestly assessed as virtually unrealistic."

Few in the foreign policy blogosphere have really acknowledged just how significant these statements are.

Glenn Greenwald yesterday brought out the comparison between Huckabee “bashing” US policies on foreign soil and Al Gore doing something similar while in Saudi Arabia back in 2006. The particular hypocrisy Greenwald points to is the lax response when it’s a Republican doing the bashing and it’s an excellent point but it’s one of style and not substance.

Huckabee is rejecting the policy that the United States has endorsed since the Occupation began. He is rejecting what most States and most Israelis support. He is, instead, endorsing quite explicitly the ethnic cleansing of The West Bank.

The continued expansion of settlements like the ones Huckabee toured this week is what, to use his words makes a Palestinian state “virtually unrealistic”. Claiming that the Israelis have a “god given right” to live wherever they so chose in whatever he means by “Jewish homeland” flies in the face of agreed upon parameters of international law and, ultimately, common sense.

Richard Silverstein does an excellent job in Tikun Olam at deconstructing where Huckabee is coming from (and more importantly, where his funds are coming from).

In the end one could argue that the inability for any progress to be made on a solution to the conflict makes Huckabee’s assertions the reality anyway. The difference of course, is that the principle that Palestinians have rights in their land – be it full democratic rights of a single state solution or the self-determination of a two-state solution – is still the foundation for discussions. What Huckabee wants is the end of discussions, the military suppression and transfer of Palestinian Muslim and Christians alike, and ultimately an ethnically pure Jewish state.

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

The United Church and the Israeli Boycott Bruhaha

The United Church of Canada, Canada’s largest Protestant denomination – with roughly 10% of the country’s population describing themselves as adherents – has made another attempt at addressing the Israeli Occupation of Palestine. The General Council Meeting of the church that is held every three years is taking place this week in Kelowna British Columbia and once again has garnered some controversy over a proposed resolution calling for a divestment and sanctions campaign against the State of Israel.

The key issue seems to be specific language used in background documents of the initial resolution calling for sanctions. The CBC is reporting that the background documents that have raised the ire of the pro-Israel lobby group the Canadian Jewish Congress do the following:
  • Calls on the Canadian Government to end its support for Israel’s “Occupation” of Palestine.
  • Calls for a boycott of Israeli academic and cultural institutions in protest.
  • Likens Israeli policies towards Palestinians with Apartheid South Africa.
  • Questions Canadian Members of Parliament who hold dual Canadian-Israeli citizenship.
  • Argues that paid junkets to Israel should be classified as “bribes”.

The references to apartheid and members of Parliament have since been removed from the documents and the council will address the rest of the resolution tomorrow. This comes after a sustained PR campaign by the pro-Israel Canadian lobby that called the documents “anti-Semitic” and threatened that the Church was risking an irreparable “schism” with the Jewish community.

As a member of the Task Force behind the proposal I have some information that the pro-Israel lobby tries to hide: These documents that they call “anti-semitic” were drawn up by both members of the United Church and members of the Jewish Community and rely largely on sources and quotes from Jewish academics and activists in Canada, The United States and Israel.

That efforts to call attention to the brutal occupation of Palestine should be branded “anti-Semitic” should come as no surprise. It is, as a matter of routine now, a shield used indiscriminately against opponents of the Occupation. As rational people see that criticism of a state and its actions against civilians is hardly an indictment against a people based on their ethnicity this shield will show increasing signs of wear. When the day comes that Israel finally realizes that the Occupation is unsustainable and reaches a fair peace deal with Palestine – the travesty will be that the use of the epithet “anti-Semitic” will be so worn the real enemies of Judaism may get a free pass.

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Foreign Policy's "Attack on Islam"

Professor Sebastian Gorka of the National Defense University published an article in Foreign Policy magazine yesterday on al-Qaeda’s global reach and what the US can do to combat it. It’s a rambling article with a few good points shrouded with illogical jumps in reason and a shaky hold on terminology.

Gorka walks the reader through an important debate in counter-terrorism circles taking place right now over al-Qaeda’s relative importance in the continuation of a “Salafist-jihadi” terror campaign. One side argues that al-Qaeda as become irrelevant with the rise of “leaderless jihad” where individuals or small groups have become radicalized and carry out act of violence without guidance from al-Qaeda. The other argues the opposite: that al-Qaeda remains a significant threat to global stability and their central operations continue to maintain command and control over global partners.

Gorka wades into this debate by pointing to intelligence assessments and open source information that paints a picture of an al-Qaeda…

“…continuing to exercise a significant degree of control over the shaping and dissemination of its Salafi-jihadi message and with the coordinated acts of violence against civilians that it does manage to carry out continuing to play an important role. Al Qaeda does not possess the organizational strength it had eight or 10 years ago, but al Qaeda’s ideology is not waning among the young and extreme. On the contrary, its ‘propaganda by the deed’ continues to inspire new recruits and terrorist attacks, particularly outside the Arab world.”

I don’t entirely disagree with Gorka’s assertion (we differ on minor points), what baffles me is how he gets there.
Immediately after the above paragraph he asserts that “Salafi terrorism” of the kind al-Qaeda “inspires and directs” has reared its head “thousands of miles from Iraq and Israel”. There is no doubt that al-Qaeda in Iraq is – beyond the name – an ideological successor to Bin Laden’s group. But I’m confused about the Israel reference. This may look like a small point but it’s indicative of a trend in the article. None of the Palestinian groups who have carried out attacks against Israel, nor Hezbollah for that matter, are al-Qaeda inspired Salafists.

Gorka really doesn’t distinguish between Islam, Islamism, or Salafism. This is like collapsing Christians, Protestants and Southern Baptists into one amorphous group. His assertion that al-Qaeda’s ideology is “winning converts among Muslims” because recent polls in Pakistan and Egypt show a majority of the population thinks “the west is at war with Islam” is preposterous. Al-Qaeda’s ideology is a lot more than “the west is at war with Islam” and the elements of that Salafi ideology – a juridical system based entirely on early Sharia law and insistence on labeling Shi’a apostates deserving death for instance – are far less popular among the one billion Muslims worldwide. Let us also not forget that the feeling that “the west is at war with Islam” is one held by thousands if not millions of Americans. Your average Egyptian could be convinced of the existence of such a war as easily by John Hagee as Osama Bin Laden.

It’s clear that the United States has to continue to combat al-Qaeda’s ideology head on. Gorka thinks that a troop surge in Afghanistan is the wrong tactic and he may or may not be right. A murky conflation of who al-Qaeda is and who their message appeals to is certainly unlikely to help guide that strategy. We need an understanding of how and why Salafism becomes appealing to someone in Indonesia, or Somalia or Liverpool and that understanding requires a much more nuanced examination.

Tuesday, August 04, 2009

The West Bank on Open Salon

To my (few) loyal readers. I just wanted to both thank you for your continued support and to let you know that in addition to this Blogger site, The West Bank is now being published through Open Salon as well.

I've been doing this blog for three years (apart from that mysterious 2008) and I've appreciated the emails I get from readers, and rest assured that you can still come to this site to get the same posts (if not more) than Open Salon. Open Salon allows me to access a larger pool of readers - many of whom are very engaged in responding to posts with comments and emails - which I'm hoping will help develop the blog further.

I'll post some of those comments here when they seem appropriate.

Here is the Open Salon address if you're interested. Take a minute to explore Open Salon as a whole - you may want to sign up yourself.

http://www.opensalon.com/blog/thewestbank