Monday, January 22, 2007

Carter does not deserve the attacks

Former President Jimmy Carter's recent book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," is very helpful in alerting Israel, U.S. policy makers and the whole world that Palestine should have a viable state if Israel is to have a lasting peace.

The book documents the human rights violations of the Israeli occupation and the growing annexation that would diminish the chances of peace in the future. The book also bravely laments the unconditional support of the U.S. for Israel's hegemony in Palestine.
Among Arabs and Palestinians Carter is now a hero, but among Israelis and some Americans Carter has turned into a villain. Why did Carter fail to deliver his message about peace to most Israelis and their allies in the West? The answer may lie in the technical delivery of Carter's message rather than in its content.

It is ironic how a true friend of Israel, an expert on the Middle East, a peace maker, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate and a prophetic Christian would receive so much hostility from the American Jewish community about his latest best seller.
The book was perceived as a rebuke of Israeli policy. Carter's narrative convincingly shows that if conditions do not change for the better in the future Israel will face an embarrassing apartheid situation, in which a Jewish minority subjugates a Palestinian majority just as a White minority ruled over the Black majority in South Africa during a previous notorious era.
Carter's forceful message is needed. It will stimulate discussion on the Arab-Israeli conflict for years to come. As an advocacy tool the book is a great success. But for attitude change the book has limited impact. Every book has limitations.

This book may have missed an ingredient that would have made it reach the hard-to-reach. The work glossed over the Arab politics of Palestine. It would have helped Carter's opinion change strategy to discuss the Arab role in mishandling the Palestinian cause.
It is important to expose the shoddy human rights records of Arab states. Israelis need the therapeutic feeling that they are not the only iron-fisted state in the region. There may be no apartheid in the twenty two Arab countries, but they have autocracies. Moreover, Arabs have failed to defend Palestinians in successive wars. For example, commenting with phenomenal sensitivity on Saudi Arabia's regime Carter opines that " They balanced their absolute authority with an impressive closeness to their subjects."(p.101).

Carter's silence on Arab autocracy in this book angers the excessively proud Israelis who are obsessive about their "unique democracy," albeit a democracy restricted to the Jewish community. Carter appears in this book to Israelis and many Americans (especially those uninformed about the Middle East) as an advocate of Arabs and insensitive to the Jewish community. His avoidance of Arab autocracy is viewed by his critics as a biased omission of their glaring domestic injustice.

To be fair to Carter, Arab mistreatment of other Arabs is a separate issue. But it is as urgent and as cruel as the issue of Israeli colonial treatment of Palestinians. But Arab autocracy, and even tyranny in cases like Saddam's Iraq, is more related to a delayed Arab awakening, an awakening that will take generations to self-correct from within. Arabs will reform their governance at their own pace and in their own culturally sensitive ways. Carter could have discussed Arab autocracy (in a separate chapter) to make two relevant points that tend to recur in Arab/Israeli debate. First Arabs should not use the occupation of Palestine as an excuse for their neglect of chronic domestic issues. Second, Israelis should likewise not use Arab hostility to Israel as an excuse for not solving the Palestine problem.

Carter should have dealt more seriously with the psychology of fear in apartheid. Israel's apartheid is a short sighted strategy of escape from living with Arabs. Israel seems to be too hesitant to make a peace deal with Arabs in a climate of excessive fear of the future. Carter could have addressed the indirect connection between the region's instability and Israeli reluctance to exchange land for peace. He could have pointed out that it was Israel's choice to build its state within a region that is emerging from colonialism, burdened with new forms of Western influence and struggling to apply the rule of law in a tribal and sectarian culture.

Was Carter as frank about Palestinians as he was about Israelis? Palestinians have been fratricidal and unruly. They have used force unwisely and missed some openings for peace making. They have tarnished their cause partially by resorting to suicidal killing of innocent Israelis. Out of compassion to the underdog Carter is too gentle on misguided Palestinian politics. However, on some occasions the former president has been very frank about Palestinians. In a pastoral style he states that: "Some Palestinians react by honoring suicide bombers as martyrs..". He adds "the cycle of distrust and violence is sustained…" ( p. 206). The Nobel laureate chose to limit his criticism of Palestinians. Perhaps he believes that the Western world has already over-chastised Palestinians for political failure that is partially beyond their control.

Some of Carter's critics may wish to see him remain as an emeritus peace maker. And in peace making opinion change is important. But even in advocacy the art of attitude change of the audience is crucial. Has Carter missed an opportunity to reach the American public at large? Has Carter reached the minds but not the hearts of all stake holders in the region's conflict?
In his latest book Carter is provocative about Israel and its many U.S. friends; and too many of Israel's friends are expectedly on the defensive. Unfortunately, many critics seem to have ignored the fact that Carter was the most active U.S. president in peace making. He was the agent who successfully and miraculously enabled negotiation between Israel and Egypt, using the principle of land for peace. Carter was the engineer of the first moral bridge between Arabs and Jews. What Carter has done in the history of peace making between Arabs and Jews is foundational, inspirational and eternal.

In the long run Carter's book will stand as a breakthrough contribution to peace. Carter may have lost his position as a broker of peace, but he remains a prophet of justice.

Monday, January 15, 2007

Four Way Occupation Profile: FWOP

FWOP: Four-Way Occupation Profile

Ghassan Rubeiz, January 15, 2007.

The world ponders why the Arab world is slow in moving toward democracy. Few observers appreciate the crippling impact of the collective societal burdens that slow desirable social change in the Middle East. In “Four occupations smothering the Middle East” I argued that the region is occupied in four dimensions. Rulers occupy freedoms, religious authorities occupy the mind, colonialists occupy borders and local militias occupy the street. (Daily Star, November10, 06).

Developing the four variable framework, I now propose measurable indices for each of the four occupations. I came up with a forty item occupation profile, ten items for each of the four occupations.
I introduce a political diagnostic tool to be known as the “FWOP”. FWOP is the acronym of “Four Way Occupation Profile”. This tool is not a scale, although it may develop into a measurement instrument through further study. In its present “clinical” format the FWOP explores diagnostically the specific areas in which a country is challenged along four critical parameters. These four are 1. Governance: respect of law, 2. Social awareness: occupation of the mind, 3. Colonialism: victim of foreign occupation, and 4. Militias: occupation of the street.

Each section is accompanied by a commentary. The Profile is an instrument designed with the Middle East in mind, but it is somewhat applicable elsewhere. Readers are urged to respond to this effort with a general commentary or with specific suggestions for a revised draft. Questions are framed to have “yes” or “no” answers. As situations of different countries vary the interpretation of data should change accordingly. This is why this instrument is an exploratory profile and not a scale.


Occupation of ruler: quality of governance

Section One Commentary:
If a political regime sacrifices electoral democracy to some tolerable level to insure stability and economic progress firmness of governess is understandable. However, if a regime is tyrannical and leading the country into economic ruin there is no justification for its continuity. The rush to democracy before economic and social infrastructure is being challenged today after what we have seen in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine. So the severity of autocracy needs to be assessed in light of historical and socio economic conditions of the country.

Questions on Ruler
1. Has ruler extended his term for too long?
2. Is ruler surrounded by his clan in dominance over rule?
3. Has ruler inherited the reign or was he elected?
4. If elected, has ruler come to his reign through an arranged or a true election?
5. Is national defense budget disproportionate to human investment (health and education) budget?
6. Has ruler engaged in a military campaign against local resistance?
7. Is there a sizable volume of political prisoners that regime is responsible for?
8. Is rank of country on international index of corruption unfavorable?
9. Is rank of country on Freedom House annual global list unfavorable? (Research instrument measuring political freedom)
10 Is rank of country on Human Development Index unfavorable? (United Nations ranking of countries on social and economic aspects of well being)

Occupation of the mind: degree of social awareness about equality and human rights

Section two Commentary:

Women in the Middle East suffer at two levels: disadvantage of opportunity and denial of inequality. Research indicates that education of women is the most prognostic indicator of human development. That is why PWOF has four items related to gender.

Questions on social awareness
1. Are women well represented in high political office: parliament, cabinet and judiciary?
2. Are women a small minority in university enrolment?
3. Is ratio of women who finish elementary school above 50% level?
4. Are women aware of their rights to freedom?
5. Are clerics politically important?
6. Is legal system inspired by universal human rights? (Family law on marriage, intermarriage, divorce, and inheritance can be problematic)
7. Are there many civic organizations?
8. Are human-rights associations active in society?
9. Is Media too loud on foreign injustice and too calm on local injustice?
10. Is media controlled by government?

Foreign occupation: influence in domestic rule

Section Commentary
All Arab countries are subject to foreign influence. A few countries suffer land occupation: e.g. Iraq, Syria and Palestine. Some states are tied politically through economic assistance: e.g. Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. Palestinian refugees are the majority of Jordanian populations; Jordan’s stability is highly dependent on the future of Palestinian politics. Asians run the Arab Gulf infrastructure. The US provides political and military security to Saudi Arabia and surrounding oil regimes. Iran’s influence in Lebanon, Iraq, the Gulf and Syria is expanding.

Question on Foreign hegemony
1. Is country occupied by foreign power?
2. Is country regime dependent economically on a foreign power?
3. Is country dependent on foreign power for its security?
4. Is society infrastructure run by immigrants or foreign personnel?
5. Area militias financed by foreign power?
6. Are militias trained and protected by foreign power?
7. Is country non sovereign due to foreign occupation?)
8. How well is foreign influence recognized by world community?
9. Is country united to resist foreign occupation?
10. Is foreign occupation getting worse?

Unauthorized armies

Commentary
Failure of Arab states to deliver security or wellbeing to their societies has created a vacuum that militias are filling. Militias are gaining popularity as foreign intervention increases and local governments fail to respond to emergencies. Militias are expanding their mission by offering social service and political representation within the state. Militias are also expanding their mission beyond their national borders and acting as states or national armies. Militias are using religious symbols and sentiments in what is essentially a political organization. Arabs see Israel as a Jewish State; militias capitalize on this fact and use religion as a matching response to political Judaism.

Questions on Militia occupation
1. Is there a single militia or a cluster or rival militias?
2. Is the militia a resistance movement focused on foreign hegemony?
3. Is the militia focused on local occupation or foreign occupations?
4. Do militias use force against civilians? ( elements of terrorism)
5. Is the militia leaderless or led by a recognized figure? (Implications for accountability)
6. Are the militias ideologically oriented or sectarian? (Implications for political compromise)
7. Is militia integrated in the political system?
8. Is militia integrated in society?
9. Is militia coordinated or rival with the state? (e.g. Hezbollah’s recent shift after summer war)
10. Is militia accessible to negotiation with the state or a foreign power? (That is the question in debate currently)

Concluding words

FWOP is a country “stress profile” for the Middle East. The Profile was developed in response to a growing dichotomy in reflection on Arab politics. Some believe that foreign intervention is the root cause of Arab problems and others believe that Arabs are totally responsible for their current malaise. Is the truth in between those two extreme views? The response of readers will determine the “shelf-life” of FWOP.

Author's email is and his blog is .

Thursday, January 04, 2007

Is a new Middle East war looming?

Is a new Middle East war looming?

Ghassan Rubeiz/ Jan 1, 2007


When Western friends ask me why the Palestinians don’t get their act together, I simply say I do not know. Last week provocative, albeit ineffective, Palestinian rockets were fired from Gaza into Israel while a new Israeli settlement was announced to the world. Palestinians complain in a language of despair and Israel exploits regression in Palestinian politics. Why with force, their weakest weapon, do Palestinians keep offering Israel additional excuses to extend and expand a cruel occupation?

As I listen to Palestinians I detect excessive anger and when I listen to Israelis I detect a subconscious holocaust fear. Palestinians are angry about continued, worsening and expanding occupation. Israelis are afraid of their future; they know that they can not simultaneously have peace and the occupation.

Both Palestinians and Israelis look for miracles to solve problems. For Israel 1948 and 1967, the dates of the creation of the state and the expansion into the Territories respectively, were miracle years. But sine1967, additional wars over forty years were battles of loss and destruction for the Jewish as well for the Arab people. Indeed, the two rival nations need external help as they continue to fulfill each other’s worst nightmares.

Israeli fear is many sided. Surrounded by 300 million angry Arabs Israel seeks security in partnership with the US, the world’s superpower. Israel postpones partnership with its neighbors and evokes their hatred through occupation and Western ties. But Israel will always be searching for security if it continues to conceive of it in terms of isolation from the “enemy”.

There are four million Palestinians living in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. In Israel proper (1967 borders) there are five million Jews, and a sizable minority community of one million Palestinians. Within the combined area of Israel proper and the occupied Palestinian territories high Palestinian birth rates will give them the chance to become a majority in the foreseeable future.

In a decade or less Israel will be forced to make a choice between two painful decisions: to terminate the occupation of Palestinian land (to avoid becoming apartheid, as former President Carter suggests his recent bestseller) or to go to war (to drive more Palestinians from the Territories into Jordan, Syria and/or Lebanon).

Terminating the occupation is not on the horizon. Being an alien state in the region, Israel does not feel secure enough to offer Palestinians a sovereign and viable state in exchange for peace and normalization. That is why Israeli illegal settlements in the West Bank continue to expand.
Ironically, lack of vision in Palestinian politics stimulates Israeli injustice. Palestinians are too fratricidal; they do not articulate their exact expectations of Israel; and they do not abandon blind use of force in their struggle against the occupation.

Peace is an investment in a trusting relation with one’s adversary. Peace making demands leadership and positive thinking. Strong leadership is now lacking among Arabs and Israelis. Within the Palestinian community, President Abbas and his Fattah party fight with Prime Minister Haniyeh and his Hamas party. On the Israeli side, Prime Minister Olmert has lost much of his credibility after the summer war with Lebanon.

While Israel is not likely to withdraw from the Occupied Territories voluntarily it does not wish to demographically slide into apartheid. A war of ethnic Israeli cleansing of Palestinians under Israeli rule becomes tempting. The rise of the extremist Avigdor Lieberman, the new deputy prime minister is an indication that ethnic cleansing has advocates in Israel.

But ethnic cleansing is not easy to implement without a cover up. Regional instability provides this cover up. The Middle East looks more unstable than ever today. In Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine there are similar dynamics of political turmoil: a threat of civil war accompanies external intervention in domestic governance.

The major external players in these three related crises are the US and Israel on one side, and Iran and Syria on the other. Global tension concerning Iran’s growing militancy is increasing. On December, 23, the UN Security Council issued sanctions on Iran. Israel and the US are alarmed about Iran’s ideology, its current leadership and its nuclear program.

Regional and local dynamics are blurred. Israel seems to be anticipating a second round of fighting with Hezbollah and Hamas, and their regional allies, since the summer war was not successful in taming resistance forces in Lebanon and Palestine. In the next expected round Israel and/or the US may attack Iran and/or Syria to reach five objectives: dismantle Iran’s nuclear defense, reduce Syria’s influence in the region, liquidate Hezbollah’s militarization in Lebanon, reduce Hamas’ power and quite the Iraq insurgency.

As Israel is desperate to find lasting security in an isolating region, the US is desperate for an exit from the Iraqi quagmire. Neoconservative policy planners in the US and Israel argue that a victory with Iran and Syria would reposition America and the Jewish state as peace makers, democracy builders and 9/11 avengers.

But war planners need to realize three points: Iraq policy failure can not be rectified by a new war with Iran and its allies, previous Middle East wars have not enhanced stability in the region and military success of classical warfare against popular insurgencies is no more guaranteed.

In this conflict there is a perpetual fear- anger cycle: an excessive fear that compels Israel to dominate in order to preserve its future security, and in response to Israeli imperial dominance there is a growing anger that divides and blind Palestinians in political problem solving. Both the fear and the anger are legitimate emotions that need to be tackled by an international force of justice and peace for years to come until the two nations build sufficient trust in each other.

To rely on Israel to change its policy of semi-permanent occupation is unrealistic since its fear of the future is crippling. And to expect Palestinians to give up militant resistance is to dream of collective national spontaneous recovery.

Since the international political climate is not likely to change in the near future further deterioration of the Palestinian- Israeli conflict is expected. Regrettably, it appears that in the foreseeable future a new round of a regional Middle East war looms ahead.



The author’s email is grubeiz@adelphia.net and his blog is .