Two keys to peace in Syria

For the Syrian crisis to end without enormous additional loss of life, two things need to happen.

          First, Western powers should cease threatening military intervention.

          And second, Syrian president Bashar al-Assad should step down, and Moscow should point him toward the exit.

          The violence continues in Syria, despite the presence of international observers and the repeated promises of the government to abide by the U.N. peace treaty.

          This has led some hawks to argue for a Western military response, with Washington, Riyadh and Paris warning Assad of the possibility of military intervention.      

          The use of force is a deceptively attractive alternative to the application of soft power. If fully armed and trained, the Syrian opposition forces could ultimately dislodge the Assad dynasty. But when the dust of hostilities settles, the country would likely be in ruins: carnage, devastation and divided leadership, with no clear plans for democracy building.

          Past examples of external military intervention in the region are discouraging. While the Iraq War did topple Saddam Hussein, it came at a high cost of national disunity and deplorable waste of human and material resources. And the NATO intervention in Libya was bloody and destructive.

          Even the softer strategy of arming rebels from the outside is flawed. There are no cases in the region of armed resistance leading to liberation. In Algeria, Lebanon and Yemen armed resistance against unjust regimes did not bring freedom and equality: the more killing that occurs today, the less national reconciliation tomorrow.

          What’s more, the Syrian regime is not likely to last more than a year given the deterioration of the economy, continued defection of the military and sustained international pressure. The opposition should have patience,  confidence and vision to bring the different segments of society together after the ruler steps down.

          The critical question is how to eliminate the ruler without hurting the democracy-building process.  

          Russia is a crucial partner for Syria. Moscow should realize that a change in leadership at the top is necessary for peace.

          That’s why it was so disheartening to see Assad interviewed so cozily on Russian TV on May 16, with him saying that the Syrian people support his government and blaming the protests on “terrorists.”

          In order for diplomacy to work, Moscow must apply strong pressure for leadership transition in Damascus, and the West must reduce its threats of direct or indirect military intervention. 

          Otherwise, this bloody civil war will drag on and on.

Palestinian Christians -- A Modern Exodus

Ghassan Michel Rubeiz, May 1, 2012,

Palm Beach Gardens, Florida

A recent CBS “60 Minutes” segment by Bob Simon exposed an important aspect of Israel’s occupation: the exodus of Christian Palestinians

The timing of this provocative story could not be worse for Israel. In recent years, the focus of tension in the Middle East has shifted from Palestine to Iran. But the television report redirected the discussion from the suspected intentions of Tehran to the actual policies of injustice in Jerusalem.

Many Israelis argue that the occupation is a necessary evil. The steadily increasing Palestinian population is seen as a growing demographic threat. Fear predisposes many in Israel to rationalize the ongoing occupation, begun in 1967, that takes away Palestinian land, political power and social opportunity.

On April 22, Simon’s report on the exodus of the Christians of Palestine was an act of audacity. Simon argued that Israel’s occupation contributes significantly to the rapid emigration of local Arab Christians, the first Christians, from the land where Christ was born, raised and inspired.

Simon interviewed many Arab Christians who spoke their mind about their demoralizing life conditions: the erection of an intrusive wall of isolation, the spread of Israeli check points, limited mobility and obstructed economic freedom. It is these conditions of occupation that are influencing many Arab Christians to leave Israel.

To balance the sources of evidence, Simon asked two Israelis to interpret the situation.

In defending the rationale for the separation wall, Michael Oren, Israel’s Ambassador to the US, explained that “their [Palestinian] inconvenience is our [Israel’s] survival.”  Oren’s simplistic rationale for the building of the wall reflects how far removed from the people’s sentiment the Israel’s ideologues are.

The ambassador also claimed that it is the Muslims who displace and oppress Arab Christians. For an ambassador, Oren sounded inappropriately sectarian. It is as if the politics of injustice is irrelevant to what is happening in both Israel and the Arab world.  

When Simon asked an Israeli journalist to comment on the situation, he received an honest response.  Ari Shavit, of Haaretz newspaper, astutely opined: “Israel is not persecuting Christians as Christians. The Christians in the Holy Land suffer from Israeli policies that are a result of the overall tragic situation.”

Simon’s report did not provide in-depth analysis of the background to the Christian Palestinians’ migration. Sociologists speak of “push and pull” factors in emigration. The difficulty of life under occupation is the central push factor.

An important factor pulling Palestinians away from home is their capacity to make the transition to live abroad. More Christians than Muslims are middle class. Local Christians have many relatives abroad who facilitate the migration. A second pull factor: Palestinian Christians are attuned to Western-style living.

When “60 Minutes” takes on a story its effect on attitude change can be significant. Already tens of thousands of emails have targeted CBS either to complain about or to praise the story.

Still this segment glossed over an important dimension in the presence of local Christians: The Palestinian Christians are a bridge making community.

In a future Israel-Palestine peace settlement, the Arab Christians would serve much needed mediation for reconciliation and democracy building. The Palestinian Christians are responsible for launching non-violent occupation resistance among Palestinians. They have laid the theoretical and moral foundation for national liberation.

Christian Palestinians are proud of being both Arab and Christian. Their churches and welfare agencies serve all Palestinians. They identify with all minorities and value ethnic and religious diversity.

The Palestinian Christians of the Holy Land cannot fathom why  many Western Christians, who are so sympathetic and supportive of Israel, are so alienated from Palestine.

The significance of the Christian Exodus from Palestine may escape most politicians. But the theme of uprooting and departure, as documented by “60 Minutes,” is not new to the people of the Holy Land.  Those with a sense of history of the region may see a parallel in the exodus from Palestine and the Exodus from Egypt.