Israel's utmost attention should be on Palestine not Iran

Israel’s utmost attention should be on Palestine not Iran

Ghassan Michel Rubeiz

West Palm Beach,

November 30, 2013

 

Recently six world powers have agreed with Iran on an initial deal to limit its nuclear program.

The interim nuclear deal, with Iran is a step in the right direction. Peace with Iran would give the Islamic Republic a chance to take steps for reform of its dysfunctional political system and take measures to improve its regional relations. A moderate Iran would help “domesticate” the Lebanese Hezbollah resistance movement, Israel’s direct adversary, and enhance a political settlement in Syria.

In trying to derail the nuclear deal Prime Minister Netanyahu has left no stone unturned. His campaign against the Iranian regime exhibits all the makings of an alarmist strategy.  Despite receiving the lion’s share of US foreign aid, orchestrating the strongest lobby in Washington and enjoying unwavering loyalty from leading Western powers, Netanyahu charges betrayal and declares that his allies have committed a “historic mistake” by signing a “bad deal” with the “most dangerous regime on earth.”

If Israel’s alarmist campaign fails to sabotage international dialogue its image among nations will suffer; if the campaign does succeed to rupture negotiations Israel will be helping to start a new Mideast war. The campaign is a lose-lose undertaking.

Israel’s obsession with Iran is an outcome of poor political judgment.

Future Palestine, not Iran, should keep Israelis awake at night. Iran, a distant, isolated and exhausted neighbor, is not a grave threat to the Israelis.  And there is no reason for perpetual animosity between Iran and Israel. These two states do not share borders, dispute territory or carry sentiments of revenge for past military confrontation.  As both societies are rich in national pride, talent and culture they could one day lead the region in technology and economic development.

The primary threat to Israel is in its backyard: its occupation of Palestine. Israel seems to have no serious intentions of satisfying Palestinian national aspirations. Palestinians have remained deeply attached to their land and determined to achieve independence. The world community is aware of the urgency for the creation of a Palestinian state, but Israel is not.

In a New York Times column Richard Cohen chastises Israel for being unable to take risk for peace: Iran is to be tested. .. Things may unravel but at least there is hope. Perhaps this is what is most threatening to Netanyahu. He has never been willing to test the Palestinians in a serious way… http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/26/opinion/cohen-israels-iran-dilemma.html?_r=0

Unwilling to acknowledge the consequences of an occupation that is heading to a de facto apartheid, Tel Aviv looks for a scapegoat to distract attention from its shortsighted policies and oppressive practices in the Palestinian territories.

Having the only nuclear arsenal in the Middle East, having won three major regional wars and having run an occupation with an iron fist for over four decades, Israel current leaders still posture as the good shepherds whose nation is at the mercy of modern day  “Nazi” ( their term) hierarchy in Iran.

Israel looks desperate for new allies. Netanyahu now claims that the Arab Gulf states are his partners in opposing Iran.  Teaming militarily Sunnite Gulf Arabs with a Jewish state against Shiite Persians is a morally toxic sectarian formula which would fragment the region and plunge it in turmoil for decades to come. With hesitation, Saudi Arabia now has accepted the recently forged nuclear deal, if the agreement is based on “good intentions.”

In Foreign Policy John Hanna points out “that Saudi paranoia about being sacrificed on the altar of a U.S.-Iranian deal is nothing new.” Hanna could have said nearly the same about Israel’s dramatized fear.  http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/11/29/iran_saudi_arabia_nuclear_war_obama.

Saudi Arabia could consider a policy paradigm shift by exploring rapprochement with Iran. King Abdullah could venture to go for a handshake with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.  Saudi Arabia and Iran could jointly offer a peace proposal to Israel.  Such a dramatic gesture may open up meaningful dialogue on Palestinian independence and comprehensive normalization of relations with Tel-Aviv.

But neither Saudi Arabia nor Israel is in the mood of reconciliation. Israel’s campaign of international pressure has gone too far, alarming Thomas Freidman of the New York Times: Never have I seen Israel and America’s core Arab allies working more in concert to stymie a major foreign policy initiative of a sitting US president….. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/opinion/friedman-lets-make-a-deal.html?_r=0

Israel’s visionaries must recalculate.  Efforts to derail the nuclear deal are misguided. The primary source of danger for Israel is not Iran; it is neglected Palestine.

Saudi Arabia and Israel: strange bedfellows

Saudi Arabia seeking Israel’s help on Iran: strange bedfellows

West Palm Beach: November, 18, 2013

 

Following Israel’s lead, Saudi Arabia is pressuring Washington to intensify sanctions on Tehran.  To push immediate legislation for new sanctions on Iran, Israel’s hard line friends in the US congress are selling the myth that both Arabs and Jews are united against Iran’s “dangerous” ambitions.

It is amusing to watch Prime Minister Netanyahu incessantly pontificate to the media about a “rare” moment in history where Arabs and Jews are purportedly united in opposing excessive “evil”, Iran’s nuclear weapons. 

An odd display of Gulf-Israeli complicity is being stretched and exploited for undesirable political ends. True, the Sunni Arab Gulf leaders do feel threatened by the risk-prone and overambitious Shiite leadership in Iran, but the Arab Gulf represents no more than ten percent of the Arab world’s 300 million people.  Moreover, it is merely the ailing king of Saudi Arabia and his elite neighbors in the small Arab sheikdoms who wish to see Iran further humiliated at any cost.  There are not many Arabs who are willing to risk exposing their region to a new devastating war over Iran’s ambitions.

Such Machiavellian alliance between two unrelated states is based on an ill conceived notion that continued administration of punishment is bound to yield maximal political results.

For many reasons Iran has few friends in the international community.  But the Islamic Republic should not be demonized; if this obstinate regime is pressured to capitulate the outcome could be very costly for the entire world. The current US, UN and European sanctions have already softened Tehran’s nuclear stance. New leadership in Tehran has offered significant concessions: limited enrichment and full transparency to international inspection. As Tehran tries to mend fences with the West, it should be given the chance to moderate and reform at its own pace.

The next round of the nuclear negotiations between the six world powers and Iran are scheduled to start on November 20.  Israel and Saudi Arabia have no sensible reasons to feel alarmed by the recent dramatic progress made on the negotiating table.

The strange convergence of interests between Riyadh and Tel Aviv reflects a new low in Saudi Arabia’s feeling of insecurity and a new high in Israel’s orchestration of international relations.

Not to trivialize Israel’s rational fears of Iran, it is the way the Jewish state handles these fears- with threats and denial, assuming exceptional status at all times, which is in question. It is hard to imagine a vulnerable state threatening to start a war to avert a war. It is hard to fathom how Israel insists on nuclear “abstinence” for the adversary and full entitlement to possession of same weapon.  In dealing with Washington Israel assumes a posture of a “donor”, not a favored recipient of American aid.

It is hard to understand the logic of Netanyahu’s policy on war and peace. This master of television rhetoric claims that he could not commit to peace with the Arabs as long as the Middle East is in such a state of turmoil. The fact is that a new war between the West and Iran will only add havoc to the region.  

As for Saudi Arabia, it is strange for the lead sponsor of the Mideast peace plan of 2002 to mobilize the Arab Gulf in confronting Iran with such passive aggression.

In mobilizing diplomatically against Iran Saudi Arabia is taking a great risk. The Arab Kingdom is highly dependent on Washington for its military security.  For the Kingdom, to have Israel as a covert partner is risky. In outsourcing its national defense to the West, Saudi Arabia is deepening its long term insecurity and increasing its unpopularity in the Arab and wider Islamic world. The Kingdom is the only state in the world which spends big money to be (politically) invaded.

How could Saudi Arabia claim, as it recently did, to be upset with Washington’s neglect of Palestine and turn to Israel for help on Iran, an Islamic  state which has spent enormous resources, albeit inefficiently and counterproductively, supporting Palestinian resistance?

The Geneva-based meeting of November 20 should be the forum where regional peace could make a start. Forging safe peace terms with Iran will promote understanding on so many pivotal issues and give a boost to a regime in desperate need for societal change from within.

And that artificial Israeli-Saudi embrace looks dangerous.

 

 

 

 

“Out Loud”: a sobering film about homosexuality in Lebanon

 

October 30, 2013

West Palm Beach

 

In Lebanon, where there is no despot to oust, the Arab Spring takes shape in the struggle for social change.

On October 25, the first film (Out Loud, directed by Samer Daboul) about homosexuality in Lebanon debuted in a New York City theater.

It is sad that this film could not be finished or shown in Lebanon.  The producer and his team of actors took a great risk in staging the film inside the country. At one point an armed group of civilians protected the production from intense harassment. The Out Loud team had to finish the film in the US to escape threats on their life.

However, over five million Lebanese expatriates, who outnumber the residents in the home country, will be able to see this provocative film. A pervasively unstable political climate (sectarian power sharing, economic hardship, a militia culture and corruption in governance) has driven many Lebanese to seek freedom and opportunity abroad.

A New York Times review was polite in suggesting that the film “bleeds with sincerity.” I have not seen this film yet and cannot comment on its technical quality. Other reviews criticized the script and character development. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/25/movies/out-loud-from-lebanon-directed-by-samer-daboul.html?_r=0

The photo accompanying the NYT movie review - two young males exchanging an affectionate embrace - might shock many and sober a few, especially Middle Easterners.

Out Loud depicts the agony of being gay in Lebanon, a small Arab country with immense social contradictions. The showing of this film will stimulate public discussion of a highly sensitive subject.

In most Arab societies international news on changing attitudes and laws on homosexuality seems to be falling on deaf ears.  Sexual norms in the region have been tightening over the past few decades, since the resurgence of religion-based, political fundamentalism.

This is not to say that homosexuality has been totally suppressed in the Mideast. In fact the strict separation of the sexes in public space is likely to widen the prevalence of covert homosexuality.

Homosexuality in the Middle East faces harsh religious, cultural and legal sanctions. But in Lebanon, which is often considered to be the “social laboratory” of the Arab world, there are subtle signs of tolerance for limited manifestations of the gay lifestyle.  In Beirut gay bars do exist despite prohibitive laws and occasional busts by the police.

This adventurous cinematic work is not a documentary on gay liberation. The subject is much wider.  The story deals with post civil-war idealism and angry youth who are thirsty for social and political change.

The film is about discrimination against homosexuals and  about systems which drive a community of perfectly normal people to live the life of abnormality. It is about inducing fear and guilt in the minds and souls of thousands of children who are not born heterosexuals. It is about the infliction of criminality, religious damnation and bigotry. It is about undermining the “Lebanese laboratory.”

Honoring the human rights of any minority group is celebrating human diversity. The aspirations of the Arab Spring will never be met without the integration of social reform with political rebuilding.  

Out Loud may be a contribution to the thematic diversity of the Arab Spring.