Hoping for peace

Today, Benjamin Netanyahu's government approved the construction of 500 more settlement houses in the West Bank.  The US government, the Palestinian Authority, and much of the international community has condemned Netanyahu's decision.  An aide of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called the move "unacceptable".


Clearly, Netanyahu's decision moved us further away from a much-needed peace agreement to end the unsustainable occupation of the Palestinian Territories by Israel.  So why, when he himself has called a one-state solution "disastrous" for Israel, has Netanyahu put up another obstacle in the way of peace?

Netanyahu's response has been three-fold: to claim that this new settlement construction is focused in existing large communities that would remain with Israel in any peace deal; to criticize the international community for quickly condemning Israeli settlements while being slow to condemn the murders of the 5 Israelis; and, all the while, to posture as opposed, on some level, to the very construction he approves in order go seem open to compromise in the peace process.

This is unacceptable. This editorial in Haaretz, written a few days before Netanyahu's decision today, questions Netanyahu's ability to lead Israel to a permanent peace agreement with the Palestinians after words and actions showing his inability to compromise. He continues to blame Abbas for making unreasonable requests as preconditions to peace talks - while claiming that he himself has done much to bring Israel back to the table. Both of these views, along with being basically false, are incompatible with the conciliatory efforts necessary to address the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

But there is a reason for it: Netanyahu faces great pressure from the right wing within his government to encourage settlements in the West Bank and maintain a hard line in the face of calls for compromises from Israel. Many in Israel fear compromising with Arabs now, when the Arab world is becoming more politically vibrant and, likely, more anti-Israel, will put Israel in danger.

Furthermore, the US, while claiming to be on Israel's side by voting against a recent UN resolution condemning the West Bank settlements, is encouraging Netanyahu's actions. As Stephen Walt points out, Obama's tentative chastisements of Israel's actions are not protecting Israel, but instead alienating Arab opinion away from both the US and Israel. And why is Obama so tentative?

Because he wants to get reelected. End of story.

So, as in so many other cases in our world today, politics has gotten in the way of peace. Let us hope that Netanyahu, Abbas, Obama, the Israelis and the Palestinians see the light and work towards the hope of lasting peace in a region sorely in need of it.

Democracy: With Us or Against Us?

As the protests in Egypt continue, one phrase seems to be on everyone's mind: Mubarak out, Democracy in.  This is the goal of the Egyptian protestors occupying Tahrir Square in Cairo, and it is what hundreds have died and thousands have been injured for in these past two weeks.  Finally, after the lives of thousands of American soldiers have been lost in two wars waged to spread democracy to the Middle East, the people of a Middle East nation have gone to the streets in a revolution for representation and freedom.

And yet, America is afraid.

The United States fears the ouster of Egyptian "President" Hosni Mubarak (I use quotes because the word president implies a real election), a dictator we have supported for 30 years.  Despite his despotic rule, Mubarak has taken billions in US foreign aid to maintain a "cool peace" with Israel, and Americans from Obama down fears democracy will allow Egyptians to elect leaders less willing to compromise their beliefs for some cash.

But, as columnist Nicholas Kristof insists in his recent blog post, we should not worry about democracy in Egypt.  Indeed, I say, we should celebrate it.  And here's why:

Americans have been taught to see democracy and Islam as diametrically opposed; one is Western and just, the other is foreign and dangerous.  The protests in Egypt, however, have come to show that democracy has an increasingly crucial place within Islam.  In an opinion piece written yesterday in The New York Times, policy expert Reuel Marc Gerecht asserts that democracy not only represents the justice and freedom so integral in the Islamic religion, but it can work well in Egypt.  And he cautions us not to think of Egypt today in terms of Iran in 1979.

In 1979, a fundamentalist Islamic movement took power in the political vacuum left by the removal of a Western-supported despot carried out by a democratic revolution of the people.  Sound familiar?

The stage seems set in Egypt for a repeat of '79 Iran, a political shift that led to the rise of an oppressive Islamic regime that continues to pose perhaps the greatest threat to peace in the region.  But the movement in Egypt offers several stark contrasts.

First of all, as both Gerecht and Kristof note, the Muslim Brotherhood that seems poised to take the lead in the democratic process in Egypt has been forced by the Egyptian populace to abandon its most authoritarian theories of government in favor of representative rule.  The long-term rule of the Muslim Brotherhood is subject to a large group of Christians within the country that will be at the polling places keeping them in check.

In addition, the Islamic population of Egypt is mostly Sunni, not Shi'ite, and thus the leaders of the Brotherhood are not Ayatollahs and religious heads - those that fill the power structure of Shi'a tradition - but lay people, some with liberal beliefs.  Both columnists note that these leaders can and must be more receptive to the needs and wants of the Egyptian populace, and, even if they do rise to power, they will be held accountable by the energized voters of their nation.

The Egyptian protests offer Americans an important lesson: Islam and democracy are not mutually exclusive.  Although Mubarak's ouster could worsen relations between the Egyptian government and both the US and Israel, at least in the short run, this does not mean we should prevent democracy from taking hold.  For, as the bringers of democracy to the world, we cannot choose to whom it goes and when.

Indeed, I say, it is a sign of America's grand successes over the past 250 years that people in far regions of the world, who hold ideologies quite opposed to ours, want to model our system.  Egypt's democracy may come about just how ours did - in a hard-fought revolution against an oppressive regime.  Let's take this opportunity to separate ourselves from this oppression and be the nation that escaped the grasp of tyranny and created a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Just because, this time, these people aren't all white Christians, does not mean they're not people.

In Us vs. Them, Everyone Loses

Before I begin this week's post, I must offer you this disclaimer: I am Jewish.  I believe completely and whole-heartedly in Israel's right to exist and prosper.  I make my following arguments not to hurt Israel; rather, I critique Israel because I love Israel.

With that, let us begin...

Today, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu offered to extend the moratorium on settlement building in the West Bank (a practice the UN has found to be in violation of Palestinian sovereignty) if Palestinian leaders were to officially recognize Israel as a Jewish state.  The Palestinians immediately refused.

Yesterday, the Israeli cabinet approved the addition of a "loyalty oath" to citizenship laws that would require every non-Jew applying for citizenship to swear loyalty to Israel as a Jewish state and democracy.

These are just two in a slew of Israeli policies and positions emerging to further restrict the rights of Arabs, 20% of Israel's population, incite resistance and violence, prevent a peace agreement, and undermine the very values upon which Israel was formed.  By forcing Arabs seeking citizenship to swear allegiance to a nation that has shown it does not want them while simultaneously showing disregard for the sovereignty of Palestinian territory, Israel is inhibiting negotiations of a peace agreement and the eventual, much-needed two-state solution.  Indeed, by insisting on one controlling state that denies Arabs equal rights and the right of self-determination, Israel endangers the survival of the very values the loyalty oath was created to defend: Israel as both a Jewish and democratic state.

If Israel hopes to fulfill its Zionist mission, it must avoid and reverse the "us vs. them" ideology that has come to plague its policies.  While history offers us many examples of the failure of this ideology, I refer you instead to a valuable piece of literature that I'm reading in my English class: The Poisonwood Bible, by Barbara Kingsolver.

The Poisonwood Bible follows the Prices, a 1960s Baptist family from Georgia, on a mission to the Belgian Congo (for a more complete summary, click here). The Price family, led by the Reverend Nathan, struggles to adjust to life in the Congo, to understand the Congolese people, to recognize the incompatibility of Christianity with the village's way of life, and to accept the legitimacy of the Congo's autonomy and independence.  Several of the daughters, but Nathan especially, enter the Congo choosing ignorance and isolation from the native culture rather than understanding and accepting it. As the Prices become the last white family in their village and in much of the Congo, their strict us vs. them dichotomy serves to only further endanger them and inhibit them from realizing any of their goals -- personal, religious -- or even to survive.

Israel now faces a choice, as it always has to an extent, between the "us vs. them" view that both history and literature teaches us is destined to fail, or a measured and pragmatic negotiation of its current position in order to salvage its long-term viability.  Again, Israel today cannot be both a Jewish state and a democracy.  If it embraces and favors only Judaism, it strips equal rights from a significant sect of the population, and therefore is not a democracy; if it gives equal rights to all the Arabs in its territories, Jews will soon loose their demographic majority in the region and loose control, thus eliminating the Jewish state.  Israel cannot have both, just as Nathan cannot both force Christianity on the Congolese people and survive in a foreign country with few other whites and little independent means.

In the game of us vs. them, nobody wins.