The Third Way: A Different View of the Middle East

As a matter of course, one might well ignore “peace plans” put forward by Knesset members like MK Benny Elon of the ultra-right Moledet party, a central member of the National Union coalition party. But Elon’s new “Israeli Initiative” bears some examination both because it may unfortunately become a significant part of Israel’s policy planning if Benjamin Netanyahu is elected Prime Minister after the fall of Ehud Olmert and because it has at least one point of interest.

Under Elon’s initiative, Israel would annex the entire West Bank, placing it all under Israeli sovereignty. But the Palestinians in the West Bank would then become citizens of Jordan, without actually leaving, although those that wished to would be given financing to do so. Elon revives the old right-wing contention that there is already a Palestinian state, and it is Jordan. But he adds to this a fairly bizarre layer wherein Palestinians would be living on sovereign Israeli land, but would be represented by Jordan. Thus, they would be subject to Israeli security arrangements (this is the most basic characteristic of sovereignty, after all) and their only recourse would be to the Jordanian government in hopes it would plead and win a case with Israel. What happens in Gaza is unclear.

Elon either willfully misrepresents or completely misunderstands various polls of Palestinians who say they would move elsewhere if they could. Rather than ascribe this to the obvious, and accurate, cause–the misery, economic devastation and hopelessness of living under occupation–Elon decides this is because they don’t have faith in the Palestinian Authority, hence would not wish to live in an independent Palestinian state that would be led by the PA. He similarly distorts Jordan’s view by saying it sees the emergence of a Palestinian state as a threat, something that might be true if such a state was headed by Hamas, but not if it is headed by Fatah. (more…)

The Middle East peace conference, announced with much ballyhoo over the summer and convened by the Bush Administration, is struggling, with good reason.

The easiest obstacle to overcome is the one that’s gotten the most publicity: the talks between Mahmoud Abbas and Ehud Olmert attempting to devise a joint Israeli-Palestinian agreement on some framework before the conference. There are many problems here, but both parties have a vested interest in making this agreement happen. Olmert needs to do something concrete to support Abbas, both in the eyes of Palestinians and of Israelis. Abbas needs to show he can get something accomplished with Israel, or his ability to hold control of the West Bank will be seriously diminished.

Yet both sides are facing increasing pressure, both internal and external, against any real progress being made. Saudi Arabia, for instance, remains noncommittal about its attendance at the conference. This is no small point. The Saudis’ absence form the conference will significantly diminish the credibility of any agreement reached in the eyes of the Arab world. But they are not going to give their imprimatur to a conference that doesn’t seem serious about addressing the Palestinians’ rights. The Saudis are also committed to try to bring Fatah and Hamas back into one unified government. This is now a long-range plan, as the Saudis surely recognize that Fatah has little inclination or incentive to pursue this goal right now. That means the Saudis have to be concerned about building relationships with both sides. Fatah is, at best, ambiguous (one might say divided) over the conference, and Hamas is strongly opposed to it. While Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Haim Ramon has opened the discussion about sharing Jerusalem in Israel, an aide to Mahmoud Abbas has made the explosive claim that the Palestinians must retain control over the holiest Jewish site, the Western Wall, an obvious non-starter. This illustrates the splits within Fatah more than anything else, as the aide, Adnan Husseini, surely knows that such a claim will never be supported even by the Arab League. Thus it should be seen as an attempt to scuttle the conference more than anything else. The Saudis need to tread carefully here.

While Hamas and Hezbollah have been vocal in calling on Arab leaders not to attend the conference, the reality that a failure of this conference will have severe repercussions, including repercussions beyond Israel and Palestine, is a much more significant force in casting a shadow over the proposed meeting. One of the purposes, from the Arab point of view, of this meeting is to put together some sort of united front to counter increasing Iranian influence in the region. For the Arab states, it is imperative that this be accomplished without military action, either by Israel or the United States. But both of those countries are not so kindly disposed to a diplomatic initiative, especially the US. (more…)

Cecilie Surasky and I had an op-ed printed in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune today, submitted and published before the University of St. Thomas reversed its decision to refuse permission to invite Desmond Tutu to their campus. Click here to read the op-ed.

For those interested, I appeared on a radio show today for one hour with Steven Walt, one of the authors of “The Israel Lobby.” You can listen to the show online by clicking here. If you have a problem with that direct connection, you can go to the page for the show by clicking here

This is the first time I’ve ever written publicly about the issue of the USS Liberty, the American espionage vessel that was attacked by Israeli forces during the Six-Day War.

I’ve never written about it before because there was scant substance to write about. The facts we have don’t extend much beyond this: Israeli planes attacked the Liberty, followed by a sea attack by an Israeli ship. The incident left 34 American sailors dead and 170 more injured, some severely. Two US squadrons were mobilized after the attack on the Liberty started and were then called back. Israel claimed the attack was a case of mistaken identity and apologized, and a US investigation was pursued, but only a quick one, which ended with American acceptance of Israel’s excuse and the matter was closed.

Today, we really don’t know much more than that. But the Chicago Tribune brought the incident back up this week, and so, despite the fact that the article really doesn’t shed any new light on the episode, I feel the urge to say something about this.

The attack on the Liberty has provided great fodder for conspiracy theorists for the past four decades. The surviving sailors who have spoken publicly have all been unanimous in rejecting the Israeli claim that they did not see the American flag flying on the ship. The one major point the Tribune article provides is much more conclusive evidence that indeed, the Israeli pilots were fully aware that they were attacking an American ship. This isn’t a big surprise, frankly; Israel’s explanation on this score was never all that credible. The Liberty was not off-course or in an unexpected place and there was no reason ever offered as to why the ship would not have been flying its colors.

But the conspiracy theorists have repeatedly used this incident to prove how much fealty the US gives to Israel, and frankly, that doesn’t make a lot of sense. The US commitment to Israel in 1967 was a lot more tenuous and more slender than it is today. There is no credible evidence that Israel would be able to get away with an intentional attack on an American ship in those days, even if one wants to argue that their influence is so great today that they could (a claim I would not agree with, as is obvious from my recent post on the Israel Lobby). (more…)

Muzzlewatch, the sister blog to this one, run by Cecilie Surasky, has reported that Archbishop Desmond Tutu has been snubbed by the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota because of his sometimes harsh comments condemning Israeli policies. You can find the details here. You can also take action on this issue by clicking here.

The entire issue around Desmond Tutu bears close examination. No doubt, those who justify and support the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza are upset with the way Tutu has spoken about conditions there. And, I would add, some of Tutu’s rhetoric is misguided. But to leap from there to calling one of the foremost champions of human rights and social justice of our age anti-Semitic is frankly reprehensible. And the accusations against him fall apart upon examination.

Beginning with current events, Tutu has been an advocate of boycotts against Israel and has said that the conditions in the Occupied Territories are “worse than apartheid.” I’m not particularly interested in breaking down whether the Israeli occupation is better or worse; the fact that a reasonable person (Tutu or anyone else) can make the comparison is quite enough. No one who has actually observed a checkpoint, has been in a Palestinian town under curfew, has been in Palestinian refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza or has seen the effect of the constant military presence and the wall (all of which I’ve seen first-hand) could possibly say there’s not at least a basis for comparison in terms of the conditions people are living in. I disagree with Tutu’s stance on boycotts, but it is perfectly legitimate for anyone, having seen people living in such conditions, to advocate such non-violent means to relieve that condition. In any case, such advocacy is neither tantamount to anti-Semitism nor even to opposition to Israel’s existence.

But the primary charges against Tutu are older and stem from a slanderous attack on him by the extremist Zionist Organization of America, under the leadership of radical zealot, Morton Klein. The ZOA reacted to a speech that Tutu gave in 2002. Here are the passages from Tutu’s speech just as the ZOA selectively quoted them:

““I’ve been deeply distressed in my visit to the Holy Land; it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa … I have seen the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about … I say why are our memories so short? Have our Jewish sisters and brothers forgotten their humiliation? Have they forgotten the collective punishment, the home demolitions, in their own history so soon? … The apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic, and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust. Injustice and oppression will never prevail.”

Klein headlines this quote thusly: “Israel is like Hitler and apartheid.” Even the selective quoting Klein employs does not lend itself to that reading. Yet in their paper reporting on Tutu’s speech, the ZOA put that headline in quotes, right before the actual quote from Tutu. This was an intentional attempt (and often a successful one) to imply that Tutu had actually compared Israel to Hitler, which he obviously did not do. The effect of this was exemplified just today. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency put out a quick blurb about this issue and said that Tutu had made this statement regarding Israel and Hitler. When we at JVP pointed them to the ZOA’s distortion, they corrected the story.

But in the very same speech, Tutu also said: “In our struggle against apartheid, the great supporters were Jewish people. They almost instinctively had to be on the side of the disenfranchised, of the voiceless ones, fighting injustice, oppression and evil. I have continued to feel strongly with the Jews. I am patron of a Holocaust centre in South Africa. I believe Israel has a right to secure borders…We condemn the violence of suicide bombers, and we condemn the corruption of young minds taught hatred.” These words and similar ones have been heard from Tutu quite frequently, and are a clear declaration not only of friendliness to Jews but for support for Israel’s existence. The ZOA does not bother to share such facts with its readers, however.

In that same speech, Tutu said some things that are certainly objectionable. He referred to a “powerful Jewish lobby” which makes people afraid to speak out against injustice in Israel/Palestine. It’s not an accurate way to put it, as there is much more to the lobby than Jews (and this is quite different from the Walt/Mearsheimer claim that “the Lobby” actually determines US policy), but I’ve encountered the shutdown of talks and events personally and seen it happen to others far too often to deny that Tutu is speaking about a real phenomenon, no matter how many people like to deny it. If it were simply about “what the public wants”, such events would not be set up in the first place.

I’ll say again that Desmond Tutu is a harsh critic of the occupation and I believe his criticism has at times gone too far in its bellicosity. Yet when this issue of his speaking came up, the president of the University of St. Thomas was told that there was a “Jewish consensus” that would find Tutu’s appearance objectionable. If Israel and/or her supporting activists here are going to claim to speak for all Jews, they cannot then turn around and criticize Tutu for believing what they have said. In my view, both are wrong. And in my view both should be heard fully and without impediment.

Desmond Tutu is no anti-Semite, but he is a passionate opponent of Israel’s occupation regime. He is not anti-Israel as he has said many times that he supports Israel’s right to exist within secure borders. Perhaps indeed he goes too far on occasion. But after 40 years of ongoing occupation, an occupation that makes Israel less secure while causing death, injury and destitution for millions of Palestinians, perhaps hearing a man of Tutu’s stature going overboard should be making people listen instead of lash out.

When issues heat up, especially those that may involve potential armed conflict, the one thing you can count on is that reason generally goes out the window. The forces promoting conflict tend toward demonization and distortion to frighten people sufficiently so they will back military action while anti-war tend to ignore the very real concerns that might exist with the country in question, sometimes even praising those who should not be praised for “standing up to imperialism” or some other ism.

The United States’ military action in Iraq as well as the simmering conflict between Israel and Syria, the worsening situation with the Palestinians and on top of last summer’s war between Israel and Hezbollah have greatly increased the instability in the never-stable Middle East. The prospect of an attack on Iran would greatly magnify the already considerable instability even by Mideast standards. Though I have never believed Iran would be attacked and still don’t, those pressing for such an attack have increased their efforts greatly, so the possibility is greater than ever. Some rational analysis of this situation is sorely needed.

Iran as a real threat

Let’s start with this: Iran is a threat. Iran has long harbored ambitions of expanding its influence in the Middle East, and the destruction of Iraq removed the biggest barrier to their goals. Iran is the leader of the Shi’ite world, a part of Islam much smaller than the majority Sunni, but also a group whose people happen to be situated in several countries (Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Iraq) on top of large oil deposits.

Iran’s relationships with both the US and Israel have been severely strained since the overthrow of the US-sponsored Shah in 1979. The Iranian populace is not likely to soon forget that the brutal Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was reinstated in 1953 in a CIA-sponsored coup, despite the official apology for this dastardly deed that the US issued in 2000. Iran’s anti-Zionist rhetoric as well as their support for anti-Israel militias such as Hezbollah is a fundamental part of their populist appeal in the Muslim world.

But the greatest threat Iran poses is not to the US or Israel directly but rather to the other key US client in the region, Saudi Arabia. With a majority Shi’ite population in both neighboring Iraq and in the oil-rich eastern province of Saudi Arabia, the Saudis have long feared increasing Iranian influence. Iran’s growing popularity in the region, especially as compared to the cynicism which the Saudi ruling elite inspire, makes the Saudi royal family distinctly nervous, and with good reason. While Iran cannot pose a real military threat to the US or Israel, it can do so against Saudi Arabia, especially if it can rally popular forces against the rulers. This is not an immediate danger, but it is a long term one, and one which the Saudis fear more than any other. (more…)