Frustration in the Middle East (part one): Israel

To say that the Middle East is a frustrating place would be an understatement. But last week, we may have witnessed a new low in the pathetic way the Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Arab conflict are being managed, which signaled that perhaps neither side really wants the conflict to end. Either everyone seems to think that time is on their side or they are too busy worrying about staying in power to do anything to change the situation.

It all began with a visit to the region by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, which stirred up so much angst in Israel’s leadership that one would think that the Nobel Peace Laureate was what the security services in Israel euphemistically refer to as a ‘ticking bomb’ – an imminent terrorist attack. Not only was Carter shunned by anyone in Israel's political leadership that counts – first and foremost Prime Minister Ehud Olmert – but he was also ridiculed, insulted and treated in a way that should embarrass every Israeli. Carter’s latest crime against Israel: he wants to talk to Hamas.

It is no secret that many Israelis and friends of Israel abroad consider Carter to be, at best, antagonistic to Israel; some would even go as far as to call him anti-Semitic. Most think he is a do-gooder Israel does not need; a straight shooter who shoots mostly at Israel; a fanatic for peace and dialogue that is willing even to talk to Satan himself, if he thought it would bring peace. His book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, sealed Carter’s fate in the minds of many Israelis and supporters abroad. Anytime you put the words ‘Palestine’ and ‘Apartheid’ within several miles of each other, Israel’s air defenses go on high alert looking for Carter, slicing through the ether in his cape of peace.

Whether Carter is a crackpot or not, he deserves the respect a former U.S. President who has done a great deal to bring peace to the Middle East, warrants. This means that Olmert, whose behavior toward Carter was unbecoming a Prime Minister, should have received him, nodded politely, and if he wished, forget what he had been told as soon as his octogenarian visitor stepped out. Carter is the perfect interlocutor with organizations like Hamas, and regimes like that of Iran. He is a former U.S. President, which means he has both no official role, but nonetheless his former status and Secret Service detail means he is no lightweight. In other words, he serves everyone’s purpose, without strings attached. Which makes the arguments of some of Olmert’s aides, who argued that meeting with Carter would ‘legitimize’ the idea of talks with Hamas, ludicrous.

Every single day Israeli generals, former generals, generals who want to be politicians, and politicians who want to be generals, get on the air and remind us that the only solution to the situation in the Gaza Strip is a ‘deep,’ ‘thorough,’ ‘crushing’ blow against Hamas. This would, of course, require a massive ground incursion into the Gaza Strip, which every one knows is something the Israeli leadership will agree to do only if domestic pressure becomes impossible to bear (i.e. the kind of pressure that threatens the prime minister’s hold on his post). The irony of this is that those same advocates of the kind of ‘offensive’ that persons like Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz called for on Israel Radio this morning, know that not only will the cost in Israeli lives be terrible, but that it will return Israel to the same Gaza Strip it left in 2005 – in other words, to reoccupying at least 1.5 million Palestinian civilians and assuming direct responsibility for their welfare.

It is an unfortunate fact that the current Israeli government, and probably subsequent governments, will not be able to offer a solution to the Gaza Strip conundrum. This is so for two reasons: Hamas is perceived by Israel to be both a regional and a domestic problem; and Israel is unwilling to achieve real progress with the Palestinian Authority, for domestic reasons, but also because it recognizes that without Hamas there can be no real two state solution.

If it is impossible to move forward and offer a practical solution to the Gaza Strip, either because Israel and the current U.S. administration are unwilling to talk with Hamas (in great part with the blessing of PA’s Mahmoud Abbas), or because Israel is unwilling to reoccupy the territory, then it is high time to listen to those who have called for a long-term cease-fire with Hamas. This would entail a prisoner exchange and a series of other agreements that would regulate and supervise the use of the crossing points on the borders of the Gaza Strip with Egypt and with Israel. Possibly it would also require the deployment of an international force, although Israel is reluctant. In any case, the cease fire would serve to buy time for genuine progress in Israel-PA and PA-Hamas talks. Hopefully this will also allow sufficient time to bolster PA security, economic and political organs that would allow a properly working state mechanism to take root.

In the mean time, it is worthwhile to comprehend that people like Jimmy Carter are not the problem. Track II talks have been around for a while and they have been important in some breakthroughs in the conflict in the Middle East (Oslo comes to mind), but have also contributed to open dialogue and encouraged the development of civil society in the region. Whether or not Carter’s drive and conviction annoys many friends of Israel, he is no anti-Semite, and he is also no fool. He knows precisely who the dictators he so often meets with are (something commentators have recently slammed him on) and he is no pacifist. As for the bit about apartheid, here is a recent statement made by Ehud Olmert, in an interview to Haaretz the day after the Annapolis summit (Nov. 2007): "If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (also for the Palestinians in the territories), then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished." Maybe apartheid is an overly loaded term – but if Olmert can see what is on the horizon, many others for whom Israel is dear can too.
Michalis Firillas
21 April, 2008

Arab League (part one): Go to Jerusalem

Anyone with children or siblings would recognize the scene: mutual recrimination, mocking expressions, and sometimes a little tussle here and there. No, this is not another classic episode of Roseanne, that show from the late 80s which established the format for other dysfunctional families on television. It is yet another Arab League summit.

But this particular summit, which began yesterday in Damascus, may qualify as a challenger for the prize for worst possible. Even by the high standards of Arab League melodrama and disunity, the Damascus 2008 summit is disturbingly problematic. Indeed, it could be argued that this summit may have marked a new nadir in Arab disunity, of the sort achieved in the early 1980s when Egypt, a founding member and leading force of the organization was boycotted for its decision to sign a separate peace agreement with Israel.

Only 12 of the 22 members of the League were represented at the summit by their respective heads of state. Lebanon boycotted the summit, while Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, leading members of the organization, sent low level officials to the Syrian capital. Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister went further and said Damascus should be ‘punished’ for its meddling in Lebanese politics and for foiling an agreement that would resolve the political crisis that has plagued the country for more than a year.

The Syrians tried to keep up a façade of calm, insisting that that in spite all pressures, and a full-court-press by the U.S., in place since the Damascus was included in the axis of evil by President George Bush, they have managed to host a respectable League summit. They also took a jab at the Saudis by pointing out that in spite their criticism of close ties between Damascus and Tehran, ‘at least we didn’t invite a Persian to an Arab summit,’ reference to Riyadh’s invitation of Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the Gulf Cooperation Council conference in 2007.

The infighting within the Arab world over the role and inroads Iran is making, either in Lebanon, Iraq, the Gaza Strip and elsewhere, is not likely to be resolved any time soon, and we are in for more rounds of similar displays of disunity in the coming months. But one of the more troubling aspects of this summit is the support for a threat to rescind the Arab initiative of 2002, which offered Israel peace and normalization in return for a pullout of territory occupied since 1967. The deal includes a few other conditions, most importantly from Israel’s point of view, of a call for a negotiated agreement on the return of Palestinian refugees. The firebrand Secretary General of the League, former Egyptian Foreign Minister Amr Moussa, said that a decision was made “to evaluate and review Arab strategies and the plan of action regarding reviving the peace process.” This review is set to begin sometime in the middle of this year. A similar decision was reached by Arab foreign ministers meeting in Cairo three weeks ago.

Let’s acknowledge from the onset that Israel is no saint. There is no point in detailing here the shortcomings of its policies, or lack thereof, over the years. The point is that plenty of time was wasted and conscious decisions were made, for domestic political reasons, to avoid taking courageous and substantive steps toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, notwithstanding terrorism and violence. But it should also be said that the Arab League initiative is only half-impressive. Its formula is well known and it comes down to ‘land for peace.’ That is not good enough.

If the Arab League really wants to leave its mark in history, and does believe that adhering to international law is critical to resolving the conflict, then it needs to do something truly impressive. All 22 heads of state should go to Jerusalem as a group, pray at Al-Aqsa mosque, and visit the Knesset. And there they should declare that they recognize Israel’s right to exist within the 4 June 1967 borders, in line with the same United Nations decision to support the partition of Palestine and the 1949 armistice agreements. Of course, they should also take the opportunity to remind the Israelis that if they want normalization, peace, diplomatic missions, etc., they need to relinquish all occupied territory, allow the establishment of a Palestinian state, and assist it to become a viable, livable country. Moreover, they should also tell Israel that this historic visit does not mean diplomatic recognition, but it means historical reconciliation with the partition of Palestine and the rejection of plans, practical or imaginary, to destroy Israel.

In the next segment of this entry, I will explain to the skeptics why this seemingly impossible act of unity and symbolism on the part of the Arab League is not only doable but urgently necessary at this time.

Michalis Firillas

31 March, 2008

The Source of the Problem – the Fourth Estate and its role

It was a hard week. But now it is better. The lull is over, “senior IDF sources” informed us – much to their relief. Nearly 30 Qassam rockets are plain obvious proof of that. For Palestinian groups in the Gaza Strip, the killing of five militants in the West Bank is also considered proof that the lull is over. There is nothing harder than waiting for the enemy to make a move. It’s like in the black and white movies, when the veteran Foreign Legion officer keeps telling his inexperienced troops to ‘wait… wait… wait…’ only to let loose in a massive fusillade, felling the charging natives at close range.

But last week was troubling for another reason. For nearly eight days, even before the lull became apparent – we cannot say that it ‘went into effect’ since we are told that there was no agreement behind the break in the rocket attacks – the media reported that negotiations were taking place. These were ‘indirect’ negotiations between Israel and Hamas, with Egyptian officials playing the role of mediators, moderators and brokers, all at once. The media insisted that negotiations were taking place, but senior government officials in Israel, including Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, were steadfast in their own assurances that there was no such diplomatic effort.

It is not uncommon for the media to report something only for government to deny it the next day. However, it is uncommon that such tit for tat would go on for nearly a week. The consistency of the reports, claiming that negotiations were taking place, and the equally stubborn insistence from government that there was nothing happening, was striking. It is the kind of consistency that one is not used to in this part of the world, where the situation can change two-three, sometimes more times, in a single 24 hour period.

Whether negotiations were or were not taking place is not the point here. Clearly different sides use the term ‘negotiations’ differently: the Palestinian Authority, the government, the IDF, the Hamas, the Egyptians, the journalists and others, all had their own agendas for interpreting certain behavior as ‘negotiations.’ In fact, that special sign language that Israel believes it shares with Arabs over the years, Palestinians and others, a combination of force, restraint, gestures of good will, punishment, etc., is also a form of ‘negotiations’ in this part of the world.

The point here is about sources, the integrity of the media, and its role in society. If for an entire week media outfits insist something is happening, citing unnamed sources, while the government is denying it, we have a problem. If the denials last 24 hours or even 48 hours, that is borderline normal. Usually, the story will change due to the pressure on those denying it, more information will be released or uncovered. But if they hold out for six-seven days, they have chosen to challenge the media’s claims. They are not just hiding. They are challenging the professionalism and the integrity of the reporters, as well as their ability to interpret the situation in their beat. At this point the media have two options: they must either go on the attack, proving the government officials are not telling the truth, or they must recall their story and acknowledge that they were wrong. Neither happened in this case, and this reflects poorly on the media and on our society.

The root of the problem is with a culture in which sources are overly protected. This creates a cycle of feeding/leaking information, a chafing of what is the most potent tool in a journalist’s kit – skepticism, and a failure to carry out to its maximum effect the role of the Fourth Estate in society. Obviously there are ethical and security restrictions. The famed Watergate scandal source, Deep Throat, remained anonymous for decades. There are censorship issues, particularly in security related stories, as well as gag orders protecting the identities of suspects. Neither are consistently applied and leaks with attached agendas are rampant.

But there is also a point in which either the sources need to be tested by their willingness to ‘come out’ or they need to be dropped. Cultivating sources is fundamental in journalism and competition can be fierce. But what is also basic is that attribution of sources is the norm, and protecting them is secondary and requires serious evaluation by the reporter and the editor. More often than not, the same story appearing in the Israeli press, quoting “sources” or “highly placed sources,” also appears in the international news agencies, except that in those stories the source is named, often because the information was provided at a public press conference. If the media in Israel is going to fulfill its duty with professionalism and unblemished integrity, it must begin to refer to its sources by name, at the risk of losing them. This will make this country more transparent and this society less corrupt.
Michalis Firillas
March 14, 2008