Lecture: Iraq, Iran and Palestine
IRAQ, IRAN AND PALESTINE CONNECTIONS
Ghassan Michel Rubeiz, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, June 4, 2006
Lecture outline
The US is mixed up in a three interactive conflict areas, namely, Iraq, Iran and Palestine.
First Iraq:
1. 9/11 gave the neo conservative power in US. They conceived in 9/11 an open sesame policy. With a 9/11 pass-par-tous key the Neos entered Afghanistan and then Iraq. Fighting international terrorism was less urgent than solving the Arab Israeli conflict with force.
2. Invasion of Iraq was designed to come closer to the sources of “evil” in the region: Saddam Hussein, Palestinian Hamas, Lebanese Hizbullah, Syrian and Iranian regimes. This approach is dictating the peace process.
3. Results counterproductive: Hamas is ruling; Hizbullah strongest power in Lebanon; Syrian regime received an extension of legitimacy after being on life support conditions; Iran gets a new Kaddafi figure in Ahmadinajad.
4. US reacts by staying the course in Iraq, following an eradication policy of privation in Palestine and creating a Security Council resolution ( 1959) to deal with Syrian regime and with Hizbullah . US lobbies heavily for Sanctions on Iran at UN, with a subtle warning for an air attack should sanctions fail.
5. Hizbullah, Hamas, Ahmedinajad, Syria’s Assad and Iraq’s Sadr form an informal alliance against the two adversaries: US and Israel.
Iraq is a quagmire occupation with no clear vision on what to do and how to leave a broken country that was bad and now is awful; thanks to a war without preparation, a war without reason, a war without a chance for a positive ending and a war against a solution.
Ultimately the Iraqi army will be able to quiet the rebellion. We do not know how long it will take? No immediate solution appears. The sooner the US army leaves the more likely the solution will appear. The solution will materialize locally with some help from the region and with participation of international good will. Iran can play a negative or a positive role, depending how confident it feels and how much it is in conflict with the US and Israel.
Iraq’s unity is hard to bring back. The Kurdish autonomy is irreversible, but not the Shiite/ Sunnite connection. The latter rift between Muslims of Iraq is reversible, given a common language, same religion, frequent intermarriages and a strong Arab identity.
6. A regional conference may help bring the major Arab countries and Iran into the decision making process. But that would require thawing of tense relations between the the US and Iran.
US AND IRAN RELATIONS
Iran issues for US
- Threat of future US attack
- Demonization: No language of respect
- Finance issues: blocking of accounts
- Palestine: a wailing wall on demand?
- Israel and Iran: the two new superpowers
US issues for Iran
Hizbullah: unruly on border with Israel and model for other Islamic militants internationally
Hamas: a hybrid of Hizbullah and Egypt’s Islamic brotherhood
Nuclear militarization: Nixon’s mistake to allow the region to have an exception in Israel is here to haunt us now. Iran wants parity with Israel on Nuclear power and it wants security from US and Israel.
Threat to Israel: Israel has ironically made itself more vulnerable by acquiring the nuclear bomb as a holocaust reflex
Human rights: Iran is an electoral democracy, with weak separation of constitutional powers
The US has not acknowledged Iran’s emerging political status yet. Iran today, enjoys formidable political power in the Middle East. This country is a prime mover in Iraq (Shiite power) a player in Afghanistan recovery (border country), an ally of Syria and a close partner of Hamas and of Hezbollah. Moreover, increased oil revenues have reinforced its government’s influence within and outside its borders. Iran is also a leader of the Shiite political revival. It claims ascendancy in Islamic statehood ideology and resistance against Westernization, not modernization. In the Muslim world, Iran today, outranks Egypt, Turkey, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia, in political influence.
Facing so much difficulty in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US may have to radically shift its Iran and larger Middle East policy. A visionary US foreign policy requires three new elements:
A. Intense high level dialogue with the Iranian regime,
B. Creative program of exchange with Iranian society
C. Fair response to Iranian related Middle East trouble spots.
There are plenty of reasons for the US to dislike the post Shah Iranian autocratic regimes: e.g. the hostage ordeal, support of militia activities abroad, militant theocracy and vociferous anti Israel politics. Similarly, Iranians, have their own reasons to dislike American policies. The US is seen as an imperialist power. There is wide evidence showing US strong meddling in internal Iranian affairs over the last six decades. The US military shadow over Iran is heavy. As a punitive measure, since the mid nineties, the US legislators have placed selective sanctions on trade with Iran. The US trade sanctions have not worked well since many countries have mutual interest in dealing with this oil producing country. The US has demonized Iran since the Hostage crisis.
Neither the US or Iran can fairly claim that their crisis today is solely caused by the other side. US dialogue with Iran may need to be secretive, comprehensive and bilateral. It should cover at least the following issues: nuclear development, Iraq’s stability, Middle East peace, Hezbollah and Hamas. There is now too much pride and rage on both sides to allow face to face candid and comprehensive dialogue.
But insecurity softens pride. If Iraq turns into a deeper quagmire, US reconciliation with Iran may become a priority. And if the Iranian rulers run into a growing domestic crisis, they may seek accommodation with the US. Dialogue does not look like a realistic option now.
The second dimension for a new diplomacy is fostering international cultural exchange with the people of Iran. The US is not building sound socio cultural ties with internal Iranian reformers. Instead of encouraging Iranian people to people exchange, the US is slowing cultural, economic and educational sharing with Iran. If the Soviet transition to democracy is a model, containment of the Islamic regime would allow time and opportunity for the reformers to mobilize. Given appropriate Western support, Iranian society has a promising potential for generating a new post Khomeini revolution, blending authentic Islam with modernity, separating the state from religious authority without total secularization. One can not predict the pace and quality of social change in a transitional society like Iran. But Iran remains an excellent candidate for achieving a future Islamic renaissance, given its historical experience with freedom, its youthful demography, intellectual aspirations and rich economic resources.
Iran is at the political nerve center of the Middle East. US foreign policy should alter its approach to other urgent problems in the region in order to restore harmony between the US and the Arabs, and with Iran.
Accelerating departure from Iraq will help enhance America’s relations in the region. Coordinated planning with Iran to enhance Iraq’s future stability would be a confidence building measure. Reviving the Arab Israeli peace process is crucial. Through a US rejuvenated Middle East peace process that includes the Syrian Golan Heights, Hezbollah and Hamas may be enticed to integrate their militias in the national armies of Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority, respectively.
Ironically, the US foreign policy in the Middle East has significantly strengthened Iran thus creating a precarious American-Persian power tension. For its own survival and for the region’s wellbeing, the current US Administration needs a new Middle East peace “road map” that runs through Tehran.
PALESTINE ISRAEL CONFLICT
Unilateral Withdrawal and Wall of exclusion are unhealthy and non lasting measures
Palestinians should read the sign on the wall and start using their greatest assets, namely, human rights, empowerment of their people and staying power. Time is on their side.
Progressive Israelis should seek this moment of opportunity to achieve a realistic two-state solution based on 1967 borders.
The recent Abbas- Prison-reformists referendum initiative may have a chance to turn the tide against militant Hamas
The referendum may empower secular and peace oriented Palestinians, but will the US and Israel support a 1967 framework for peace?
Fundamentalist groups thrive on pressure and religious mobilization operates on renewable political energy. Will the referendum cost Abbas what he has left of his political power? It is still too early to bury the referendum initiative, but Abbas' move is an indication that Palestinians are struggling to get out of a political stalemate. In Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's speech last week to the United States Congress, there were threats of terminating the peace process, leaving Palestinians hanging at the mercy of future Israeli hegemony.
What choices do Palestinians have today facing an adversary whose demands are unconditional surrender? Palestinians face grave asymmetry of power with the occupier. They are backed by feeble Arab regimes and they are threatened by crippling divisions of ideology. Will Olmert's speech force Palestinians to swallow their pride and become politically more discerning and future-oriented?
The choice of militant resistance assumes that Palestinians will achieve victory through war, with or without rules of combat. Militant leaders dream of bringing Israel to its knees. Hamas and Islamic Jihad mobilize young men through religious symbols, demand unlimited Palestinian sacrifice, count on expanding demographic power and calls for increased Arab support. Is this form of struggle working?
Israel's occupation is gradually turning into annexation, while the international image of Palestinians is not improving. Without intending to bring about such a thing, the nature of chaotic Palestinian military strategy extends the life of Israel's hegemony.
Palestinian political leadership has been divided and fratricidal. The toll of human suffering has been too harsh, especially on civilians and children. Militant ideologues ignore the fact that liberation is about state building, not only about regaining land. Authoritarian leadership and closed ideologies do not generate mature political independence. Extreme ideologues are not mindful that Palestinians are fighting an unrealistic war against a regional superpower, backed by a global superpower. Too many Palestinians are choosing to fight and lose, to fight more and lose more. For how long will militant Palestinian ideologues perceive victory in failure?
Since peace is not realistic in the near future, Palestinians should develop a longer-term strategy of popular civic resistance. Israel will enjoy for the near future a political honeymoon of hegemony in the absence of an international mechanism to enforce justice. But through its ruthless occupation Israel is sowing the seeds of corrosion of its own political system. Israel will not be able in the long run to cope with the consequences of its occupation of Palestinian territory.
Is it time for Palestinians to recognize the power of civic resistance in order to reverse the occupation with political organization? In recent times, popular resistance worked well in South Africa, in Eastern Europe, in Ireland and elsewhere. It can work for the Palestinians. But in order for civic resistance to work well, the Palestinians need to unite, embrace the rule of law in their struggle and open links with peace partners within Israel and outside.
Palestinians have lost much so far. Yet their unity, moral courage and vulnerability may turn out to be their greatest assets for a brighter future.
Muslims and Arabs in particular, see a cumulative record of hegemony inflicted by the Christian West. The Crusaders occupied the Holy land and they were cruel in dealing with the communities they occupied. They failed to occupy the Middle East for a long time. They left Palestine in the thirteenth century after two hundred year rule of severe damage to Christian Muslim relations. But they reemerged in the 19th century with secular clothes under the Mandate system. They created Christian Lebanon in 1920 , Grand Liban, partly out of Syrian land, declared a Home Rule for a minority Jewish community in Palestine in 1917, carved the border of Iraq for the Sunnites, denied Iran’s Shia independence, and elsewhere ruled indirectly in the Middle East.
In the second half of the Twentieth Century the US replaced Europe as a central player in colonial politics.
In Iran, in 1953, they prevented the Mussadaq democratic government from developing the country, supported a corrupt Shah regime and armed Saddam in his war on the Persian state.
The support of a Jewish state in the Middle East contributed to the growth of revival of Islamic State thinking in Egypt, sine 1950, in Syria since 1970, in Lebanon since 1980’s, in Iran in 1970’s.
The invasion of Iraq is the latest assault on the Muslim world with massive damage to Iraqis and Americans in blood, morality and money.
This US regime is repeating the scenario of Iraq on Iran, but not exactly. There is still some hope for a diplomatic solution with more honest dialogue between the US, Iran and the Arab world. The world is facing a triple dangerous interactive conflict: Iraq, Palestine/Israel and Iran. Are coming into yet another new Middle East war?
Lecture at Unitarian Church in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida
IRAQ, IRAN AND PALESTINE CONNECTIONS
Ghassan Michel Rubeiz, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, June 4, 2006
The US is mixed up in a three interactive conflict areas, namely, Iraq, Iran and Palestine.
First Iraq:
1. 9/11 gave the neo conservative power in US. They conceived in 9/11 an open sesame policy. With a 9/11 pass-par-tous key the Neos entered Afghanistan and then Iraq. Fighting international terrorism was less urgent than solving the Arab Israeli conflict with force.
2. Invasion of Iraq was designed to come closer to the sources of “evil” in the region: Saddam Hussein, Palestinian Hamas, Lebanese Hizbullah, Syrian and Iranian regimes. This approach is dictating the peace process.
3. Results counterproductive: Hamas is ruling; Hizbullah strongest power in Lebanon; Syrian regime received an extension of legitimacy after being on life support conditions; Iran gets a new Kaddafi figure in Ahmadinajad.
4. US reacts by staying the course in Iraq, following an eradication policy of privation in Palestine and creating a Security Council resolution ( 1959) to deal with Syrian regime and with Hizbullah . US lobbies heavily for Sanctions on Iran at UN, with a subtle warning for an air attack should sanctions fail.
5. Hizbullah, Hamas, Ahmedinajad, Syria’s Assad and Iraq’s Sadr form an informal alliance against the two adversaries: US and Israel.
Iraq is a quagmire occupation with no clear vision on what to do and how to leave a broken country that was bad and now is awful; thanks to a war without preparation, a war without reason, a war without a chance for a positive ending and a war against a solution.
Will the Iraqi army be able to quiet the rebellion? Inshallah. We do not know how long it will take? No immediate solution appears. The sooner the US army leaves Iraq, the more likely the solution will appear. The solution may materialize through local communal wisdom, with some help from the region and with participation of international good will. Iran can play a negative or a positive role, depending how confident it feels and how much it is in conflict with the US and Israel.
Iraq’s full unity is hard to bring back. The Kurdish autonomy is irreversible, but not the Shiite/ Sunnite connection. The heart of the problem is the regressive nature of the current constitution. The latter rift between Muslims of Iraq is reversible, given a common language, same religion, frequent intermarriages and a strong Arab identity. A regional conference may help bring the major Arab countries and Iran into the decision making process. But that would require thawing of tense relations between the the US and Iran.
IRAN US RELATIONS
Facing so much difficulty in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US may have to radically shift its Iran and larger Middle East policy. A visionary US foreign policy requires three new elements:
A. Intense high level dialogue with the Iranian regime,
B. Creative program of exchange with Iranian society
C. Fair response to Iranian related Middle East trouble spots.
PALESTINE ISRAEL CONFLICT
1. Unilateral Withdrawal and Wall of exclusion are unhealthy and non lasting measures
2 Palestinians should read the sign on the wall and start using their greatest assets, namely, human rights, empowerment of their people and staying power. Time is on their side.
Progressive Israelis should seek this moment of opportunity to achieve a realistic two-state solution based on 1967 borders.
The recent Abbas- Prison-reformists referendum initiative may have a chance to turn the tide against militant Hamas
The referendum may empower secular and peace oriented Palestinians, but will the US and Israel support a 1967 framework for peace?
Ghassan Michel Rubeiz, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, June 4, 2006
Lecture outline
The US is mixed up in a three interactive conflict areas, namely, Iraq, Iran and Palestine.
First Iraq:
1. 9/11 gave the neo conservative power in US. They conceived in 9/11 an open sesame policy. With a 9/11 pass-par-tous key the Neos entered Afghanistan and then Iraq. Fighting international terrorism was less urgent than solving the Arab Israeli conflict with force.
2. Invasion of Iraq was designed to come closer to the sources of “evil” in the region: Saddam Hussein, Palestinian Hamas, Lebanese Hizbullah, Syrian and Iranian regimes. This approach is dictating the peace process.
3. Results counterproductive: Hamas is ruling; Hizbullah strongest power in Lebanon; Syrian regime received an extension of legitimacy after being on life support conditions; Iran gets a new Kaddafi figure in Ahmadinajad.
4. US reacts by staying the course in Iraq, following an eradication policy of privation in Palestine and creating a Security Council resolution ( 1959) to deal with Syrian regime and with Hizbullah . US lobbies heavily for Sanctions on Iran at UN, with a subtle warning for an air attack should sanctions fail.
5. Hizbullah, Hamas, Ahmedinajad, Syria’s Assad and Iraq’s Sadr form an informal alliance against the two adversaries: US and Israel.
Iraq is a quagmire occupation with no clear vision on what to do and how to leave a broken country that was bad and now is awful; thanks to a war without preparation, a war without reason, a war without a chance for a positive ending and a war against a solution.
Ultimately the Iraqi army will be able to quiet the rebellion. We do not know how long it will take? No immediate solution appears. The sooner the US army leaves the more likely the solution will appear. The solution will materialize locally with some help from the region and with participation of international good will. Iran can play a negative or a positive role, depending how confident it feels and how much it is in conflict with the US and Israel.
Iraq’s unity is hard to bring back. The Kurdish autonomy is irreversible, but not the Shiite/ Sunnite connection. The latter rift between Muslims of Iraq is reversible, given a common language, same religion, frequent intermarriages and a strong Arab identity.
6. A regional conference may help bring the major Arab countries and Iran into the decision making process. But that would require thawing of tense relations between the the US and Iran.
US AND IRAN RELATIONS
Iran issues for US
- Threat of future US attack
- Demonization: No language of respect
- Finance issues: blocking of accounts
- Palestine: a wailing wall on demand?
- Israel and Iran: the two new superpowers
US issues for Iran
Hizbullah: unruly on border with Israel and model for other Islamic militants internationally
Hamas: a hybrid of Hizbullah and Egypt’s Islamic brotherhood
Nuclear militarization: Nixon’s mistake to allow the region to have an exception in Israel is here to haunt us now. Iran wants parity with Israel on Nuclear power and it wants security from US and Israel.
Threat to Israel: Israel has ironically made itself more vulnerable by acquiring the nuclear bomb as a holocaust reflex
Human rights: Iran is an electoral democracy, with weak separation of constitutional powers
The US has not acknowledged Iran’s emerging political status yet. Iran today, enjoys formidable political power in the Middle East. This country is a prime mover in Iraq (Shiite power) a player in Afghanistan recovery (border country), an ally of Syria and a close partner of Hamas and of Hezbollah. Moreover, increased oil revenues have reinforced its government’s influence within and outside its borders. Iran is also a leader of the Shiite political revival. It claims ascendancy in Islamic statehood ideology and resistance against Westernization, not modernization. In the Muslim world, Iran today, outranks Egypt, Turkey, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia, in political influence.
Facing so much difficulty in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US may have to radically shift its Iran and larger Middle East policy. A visionary US foreign policy requires three new elements:
A. Intense high level dialogue with the Iranian regime,
B. Creative program of exchange with Iranian society
C. Fair response to Iranian related Middle East trouble spots.
There are plenty of reasons for the US to dislike the post Shah Iranian autocratic regimes: e.g. the hostage ordeal, support of militia activities abroad, militant theocracy and vociferous anti Israel politics. Similarly, Iranians, have their own reasons to dislike American policies. The US is seen as an imperialist power. There is wide evidence showing US strong meddling in internal Iranian affairs over the last six decades. The US military shadow over Iran is heavy. As a punitive measure, since the mid nineties, the US legislators have placed selective sanctions on trade with Iran. The US trade sanctions have not worked well since many countries have mutual interest in dealing with this oil producing country. The US has demonized Iran since the Hostage crisis.
Neither the US or Iran can fairly claim that their crisis today is solely caused by the other side. US dialogue with Iran may need to be secretive, comprehensive and bilateral. It should cover at least the following issues: nuclear development, Iraq’s stability, Middle East peace, Hezbollah and Hamas. There is now too much pride and rage on both sides to allow face to face candid and comprehensive dialogue.
But insecurity softens pride. If Iraq turns into a deeper quagmire, US reconciliation with Iran may become a priority. And if the Iranian rulers run into a growing domestic crisis, they may seek accommodation with the US. Dialogue does not look like a realistic option now.
The second dimension for a new diplomacy is fostering international cultural exchange with the people of Iran. The US is not building sound socio cultural ties with internal Iranian reformers. Instead of encouraging Iranian people to people exchange, the US is slowing cultural, economic and educational sharing with Iran. If the Soviet transition to democracy is a model, containment of the Islamic regime would allow time and opportunity for the reformers to mobilize. Given appropriate Western support, Iranian society has a promising potential for generating a new post Khomeini revolution, blending authentic Islam with modernity, separating the state from religious authority without total secularization. One can not predict the pace and quality of social change in a transitional society like Iran. But Iran remains an excellent candidate for achieving a future Islamic renaissance, given its historical experience with freedom, its youthful demography, intellectual aspirations and rich economic resources.
Iran is at the political nerve center of the Middle East. US foreign policy should alter its approach to other urgent problems in the region in order to restore harmony between the US and the Arabs, and with Iran.
Accelerating departure from Iraq will help enhance America’s relations in the region. Coordinated planning with Iran to enhance Iraq’s future stability would be a confidence building measure. Reviving the Arab Israeli peace process is crucial. Through a US rejuvenated Middle East peace process that includes the Syrian Golan Heights, Hezbollah and Hamas may be enticed to integrate their militias in the national armies of Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority, respectively.
Ironically, the US foreign policy in the Middle East has significantly strengthened Iran thus creating a precarious American-Persian power tension. For its own survival and for the region’s wellbeing, the current US Administration needs a new Middle East peace “road map” that runs through Tehran.
PALESTINE ISRAEL CONFLICT
Unilateral Withdrawal and Wall of exclusion are unhealthy and non lasting measures
Palestinians should read the sign on the wall and start using their greatest assets, namely, human rights, empowerment of their people and staying power. Time is on their side.
Progressive Israelis should seek this moment of opportunity to achieve a realistic two-state solution based on 1967 borders.
The recent Abbas- Prison-reformists referendum initiative may have a chance to turn the tide against militant Hamas
The referendum may empower secular and peace oriented Palestinians, but will the US and Israel support a 1967 framework for peace?
Fundamentalist groups thrive on pressure and religious mobilization operates on renewable political energy. Will the referendum cost Abbas what he has left of his political power? It is still too early to bury the referendum initiative, but Abbas' move is an indication that Palestinians are struggling to get out of a political stalemate. In Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's speech last week to the United States Congress, there were threats of terminating the peace process, leaving Palestinians hanging at the mercy of future Israeli hegemony.
What choices do Palestinians have today facing an adversary whose demands are unconditional surrender? Palestinians face grave asymmetry of power with the occupier. They are backed by feeble Arab regimes and they are threatened by crippling divisions of ideology. Will Olmert's speech force Palestinians to swallow their pride and become politically more discerning and future-oriented?
The choice of militant resistance assumes that Palestinians will achieve victory through war, with or without rules of combat. Militant leaders dream of bringing Israel to its knees. Hamas and Islamic Jihad mobilize young men through religious symbols, demand unlimited Palestinian sacrifice, count on expanding demographic power and calls for increased Arab support. Is this form of struggle working?
Israel's occupation is gradually turning into annexation, while the international image of Palestinians is not improving. Without intending to bring about such a thing, the nature of chaotic Palestinian military strategy extends the life of Israel's hegemony.
Palestinian political leadership has been divided and fratricidal. The toll of human suffering has been too harsh, especially on civilians and children. Militant ideologues ignore the fact that liberation is about state building, not only about regaining land. Authoritarian leadership and closed ideologies do not generate mature political independence. Extreme ideologues are not mindful that Palestinians are fighting an unrealistic war against a regional superpower, backed by a global superpower. Too many Palestinians are choosing to fight and lose, to fight more and lose more. For how long will militant Palestinian ideologues perceive victory in failure?
Since peace is not realistic in the near future, Palestinians should develop a longer-term strategy of popular civic resistance. Israel will enjoy for the near future a political honeymoon of hegemony in the absence of an international mechanism to enforce justice. But through its ruthless occupation Israel is sowing the seeds of corrosion of its own political system. Israel will not be able in the long run to cope with the consequences of its occupation of Palestinian territory.
Is it time for Palestinians to recognize the power of civic resistance in order to reverse the occupation with political organization? In recent times, popular resistance worked well in South Africa, in Eastern Europe, in Ireland and elsewhere. It can work for the Palestinians. But in order for civic resistance to work well, the Palestinians need to unite, embrace the rule of law in their struggle and open links with peace partners within Israel and outside.
Palestinians have lost much so far. Yet their unity, moral courage and vulnerability may turn out to be their greatest assets for a brighter future.
Muslims and Arabs in particular, see a cumulative record of hegemony inflicted by the Christian West. The Crusaders occupied the Holy land and they were cruel in dealing with the communities they occupied. They failed to occupy the Middle East for a long time. They left Palestine in the thirteenth century after two hundred year rule of severe damage to Christian Muslim relations. But they reemerged in the 19th century with secular clothes under the Mandate system. They created Christian Lebanon in 1920 , Grand Liban, partly out of Syrian land, declared a Home Rule for a minority Jewish community in Palestine in 1917, carved the border of Iraq for the Sunnites, denied Iran’s Shia independence, and elsewhere ruled indirectly in the Middle East.
In the second half of the Twentieth Century the US replaced Europe as a central player in colonial politics.
In Iran, in 1953, they prevented the Mussadaq democratic government from developing the country, supported a corrupt Shah regime and armed Saddam in his war on the Persian state.
The support of a Jewish state in the Middle East contributed to the growth of revival of Islamic State thinking in Egypt, sine 1950, in Syria since 1970, in Lebanon since 1980’s, in Iran in 1970’s.
The invasion of Iraq is the latest assault on the Muslim world with massive damage to Iraqis and Americans in blood, morality and money.
This US regime is repeating the scenario of Iraq on Iran, but not exactly. There is still some hope for a diplomatic solution with more honest dialogue between the US, Iran and the Arab world. The world is facing a triple dangerous interactive conflict: Iraq, Palestine/Israel and Iran. Are coming into yet another new Middle East war?
Lecture at Unitarian Church in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida
IRAQ, IRAN AND PALESTINE CONNECTIONS
Ghassan Michel Rubeiz, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, June 4, 2006
The US is mixed up in a three interactive conflict areas, namely, Iraq, Iran and Palestine.
First Iraq:
1. 9/11 gave the neo conservative power in US. They conceived in 9/11 an open sesame policy. With a 9/11 pass-par-tous key the Neos entered Afghanistan and then Iraq. Fighting international terrorism was less urgent than solving the Arab Israeli conflict with force.
2. Invasion of Iraq was designed to come closer to the sources of “evil” in the region: Saddam Hussein, Palestinian Hamas, Lebanese Hizbullah, Syrian and Iranian regimes. This approach is dictating the peace process.
3. Results counterproductive: Hamas is ruling; Hizbullah strongest power in Lebanon; Syrian regime received an extension of legitimacy after being on life support conditions; Iran gets a new Kaddafi figure in Ahmadinajad.
4. US reacts by staying the course in Iraq, following an eradication policy of privation in Palestine and creating a Security Council resolution ( 1959) to deal with Syrian regime and with Hizbullah . US lobbies heavily for Sanctions on Iran at UN, with a subtle warning for an air attack should sanctions fail.
5. Hizbullah, Hamas, Ahmedinajad, Syria’s Assad and Iraq’s Sadr form an informal alliance against the two adversaries: US and Israel.
Iraq is a quagmire occupation with no clear vision on what to do and how to leave a broken country that was bad and now is awful; thanks to a war without preparation, a war without reason, a war without a chance for a positive ending and a war against a solution.
Will the Iraqi army be able to quiet the rebellion? Inshallah. We do not know how long it will take? No immediate solution appears. The sooner the US army leaves Iraq, the more likely the solution will appear. The solution may materialize through local communal wisdom, with some help from the region and with participation of international good will. Iran can play a negative or a positive role, depending how confident it feels and how much it is in conflict with the US and Israel.
Iraq’s full unity is hard to bring back. The Kurdish autonomy is irreversible, but not the Shiite/ Sunnite connection. The heart of the problem is the regressive nature of the current constitution. The latter rift between Muslims of Iraq is reversible, given a common language, same religion, frequent intermarriages and a strong Arab identity. A regional conference may help bring the major Arab countries and Iran into the decision making process. But that would require thawing of tense relations between the the US and Iran.
IRAN US RELATIONS
Facing so much difficulty in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US may have to radically shift its Iran and larger Middle East policy. A visionary US foreign policy requires three new elements:
A. Intense high level dialogue with the Iranian regime,
B. Creative program of exchange with Iranian society
C. Fair response to Iranian related Middle East trouble spots.
PALESTINE ISRAEL CONFLICT
1. Unilateral Withdrawal and Wall of exclusion are unhealthy and non lasting measures
2 Palestinians should read the sign on the wall and start using their greatest assets, namely, human rights, empowerment of their people and staying power. Time is on their side.
Progressive Israelis should seek this moment of opportunity to achieve a realistic two-state solution based on 1967 borders.
The recent Abbas- Prison-reformists referendum initiative may have a chance to turn the tide against militant Hamas
The referendum may empower secular and peace oriented Palestinians, but will the US and Israel support a 1967 framework for peace?
posted by Ghassan Rubeiz at 1:16 PM
1 Comments:
canada goose outlet, converse shoes, nike air max, ugg, hollister clothing, ralph lauren, canada goose, hollister canada, lancel, karen millen, coach outlet, replica watches, iphone 6 case, timberland shoes, uggs canada, gucci, hollister, louboutin, canada goose pas cher, canada goose outlet, oakley, juicy couture outlet, moncler, canada goose, wedding dress, moncler, air max, converse, moncler, canada goose, moncler outlet, supra shoes, louis vuitton canada, parajumpers outlet, montre femme, moncler, ray ban, toms outlet, moncler, canada goose outlet, baseball bats, canada goose uk, vans, ugg boots, juicy couture outlet, moncler
Post a Comment
<< Home