M.I.T. professor and social critic Noam Chomsky explains, in
the preface to his alternative classic Fateful Triangle: the United States,
Israel and the Palestinians (1999), that when he is forced to title public
speeches, sometimes years in advance, he can always resort to a default entry
he says, "always works." That
title: "The Current Crisis in the Middle East" constantly retains its
relevancy. And so few have been surprised by the recent escalation of conflict
between Israelis and Palestinians over the last few days, as militant rockets
rained on Israel and Israel retaliated with disproportionate vengeance.
However, as Israel reservists and IDF soldiers mobilize on
the Gazan border posturing for full-fledged war, it would do us all well to
recognize that today's current crisis in the Middle East represents both the
potential spark that could kindle world war and, at the same time, an
opportunity to usher in fundamental alterations that could put the region on a
pathway to peace.
There is very little likelihood
of turning crisis into opportunity however. In order for the international
community to capitalize on recent turmoil and deescalate conflict, the United
States would have to alter what has been its absolute preconceived pro-Israeli
stance. As U.S. politicians stress Israel's rights to self-defense and the
mainstream American media continues its typically bias coverage portraying an
Israeli state fighting for survival, there is a tendency to view any resolution
to the ongoing conflict as necessarily coming solely from the people of the
region themselves. And so politicians and pundits have resorted to pressuring
Egypt's new Islamic government to exert pressure on Hamas and threatening to
cut U.S. aid to Egypt as a means of inducing truce. But such pressure, even if
successful, can only provide a temporary fix. The United States would do better
to seek a permanent or at least long term solution which would have come from
the U.S. itself. The U.S. should call for immediate comprehensive negotiations
around a two-state solution.
In actuality, the international
community has supported a two-state settlement along recognized pre-June 1967
borders with "minor and mutual modifications" since the Arab States
first proposed it to the U.N. Security Council in January of 1976. Contrary to
popular opinion, Israel opposed the first resolution and the U.S. vetoed it to
make it disappear. The actual historical record documents an array of
resolutions and negotiations since, all of which have been consistently
rejected by a U.S.- Israeli alliance that excludes any potential foundation of
a viable and contingent Palestinian nation. Recent developments suggest it is
time to alter that stance. The outcome of the unfolding crisis has serious
implications for future region-wide conflict. Hamas claims it simply seeks to
end Israel's siege on Gaza and Israel claims it seeks only to defend itself,
both assertions are in fact reductionist and refuse to account for contextual
animosities that could fuel full-fledged war.
In fact, Israel fears the rise of
the Arab world surrounding it and is threatened by a resilient Hamas regime.
Since its legitimate election in 2006, Israel and the U.S. have been doing
everything possible to undermine a functioning Hamas government. Many of these
efforts have drawn enhanced advocacy and intervention from countries like
Turkey, Iran, Qatar, a newly Islamist Egypt, and others. By making Gaza
essentially the world's largest open-air prison, Israel has not only
exasperated much of the Arab and Muslim world's animosity but has confirmed
claims that a U.S. hegemony partial to Israel seeks democracy and the rule of
law only when it coincides with its broader self-interests. In fact, it is
erroneous to begin the narrative of today's conflict with the reassertion of
Hamas rocket fire into Israel. The history of repression since Hamas's election
in 2006 has born witness to a disproportionate level of Israeli violence and a
refusal to entertain any political resolution as long as it included the
elected party. Any further oppression and especially reoccupation of Gaza would
almost certainly fan the flames of regional war.
Hamas has been emboldened by the
Arab Spring and expects support for its objectives. However, it is unfortunate
that they have placed thousands of citizens lives on the line in a clear
endorsement of violence as a means of ending Israeli oppressions. While
understandable, its efforts are much more a political ploy intended to
delegitimize Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas, Hamas's chief political rival,
who is pursuing a veto at the UN General Assembly to grant Palestine
observer-state status.
The movement has certainly been
inspired by the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the recent visit
and developmental aid promised by the Emir of Qatar. But their joining in on
rocket attacks is clearly intended to appease jihadist criticisms and divert
Palestinian desires to solicit truly democratic gains from the Arab Spring.
Where Hamas once prevented attacks and preserved a ceasefire while seeking a
political means to ending the embargo, their recent reliance on violence risks
the enhanced international support that Palestinians have generated over recent
years. These self-serving efforts could also backfire and lead to Gaza's
reoccupation or propel a war with mass Palestinian casualties.
Hamas obviously seeks to pressure
Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi to make a ceasefire contingent on Israel's
ending the blockade. That outcome would prove a major victory for the movement.
In fact, Morsi did send his prime minister to embed in the Gazan Strip as a
sign of solidarity, but it is extremely dangerous to risk the reoccupation of
Gaza and the lives of innocent Palestinians.
The balance of power is clearly in Israel's favor. The Palestinian
rocket that killed three Israelis in Kiryat Malachi may represent the deadliest
rocket strike ever on Israel from Gaza but in retaliation over 100 Palestinians
have already died with many hundreds more severely injured. Additionally, many
of the rockets fired from Gaza have been shot down by Israel's new, U.S.-funded
Iron Dome defense system. There is nothing similar in the Gaza Strip.
Hamas may be depending on a
response from the Arab world but any retaliation would jeopardize Egyptian
legitimacy and be at the expense of rising international support for the
Palestinian cause. As expected, Britain and the U.S. have already stressed
Hamas's responsibility. Israeli attacks during Operation Cast Lead in 2008 were
prompted by the rocket-fire of independent militants disconnected from the
Hamas regime. The fact that Hamas is participating in this wave of attacks
directly only gives Israel a means to declare self-defense under international
law.
President Obama has stressed
Israel's right to defend itself. Just days after his reelection, it is probable
that the Israel-Palestinian issue will play a predominant role in his second
term. When he was first elected in 2008, Saudi foreign minister Prince Turki
al-Faisal penned an op-ed in the Financial Times that stressed the need to
concentrate on negotiating a two-state settlement or, he warned, the entire
region could go up in flames. Obama neglected the warning and now, four years
later, the Saudi prince's admonishment indeed came to fruition, awkwardly
however the flames of the Arab Spring have yet to reach either Israel or
Palestine. But it could easily be argued that Obama's support for Arab
authoritarianism and his preservation of an absolutely pro-Israeli status quo
paved the way for revolutions that ushered in Islamist political parties and
that placed Hamas in today's more complicated and advantageous negotiating
position. It would do a great deal of good if the Obama administration were to
revisit Prince Turki's admonition, for these sparks of conflict in Gaza, if
followed by Israeli occupation stand the chance of igniting World War III.
On September 27th, Benjamin
Netanyahu drew his "red line" at the U.N. general assembly seeking
international support for an attack on Iran and pressuring the U.S. to back
such warmongering. Since then, the
Iranian currency has plunged in free fall which threatens the ruling
regime. In Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu's
Likud party recently approved joining forces for upcoming parliamentary
elections with party of ultraconservative Avigor Lieberman, a definite
warmonger who flatly rejects all negotiations with Palestinians. War in Gaza
would present an opportunity for the troubled Iranian regime and an Israeli regime
seeking reelection and international support for an attack on Iranian nuclear
facilities. Iran could view assistance of Palestinians as a way of warding off
dwindling Arab support. The Assad regime in Syria could see involvement as a
last chance prospect for its preservation. Hezbollah, Turkish or Egyptian
involvement could enhance their reputations. Israel could view retaliation in
Gaza as a means of reclaiming legitimacy after the damage caused to its
reputation after Operation Cast Lead. Rising salafi jihadist eminence in the
Sinai and Arab world could seed even more militancy. An array of unintended
consequences could spark full-fledged war.
The U.S can stop the nonsense
immediately by realizing the necessity of an immediate and sincere push for negotiated
peace. The Obama administration should broker immediate negotiations bringing
in representatives from the entire region. The should realize that a two-state
settlement along slightly modified pre-1967 borders is the viable option and
should mandate it with certain conditions for all parties involved. Firstly,
Hamas and the general government in Palestine should be forced to hold an
immediate referendum to determine the question of Israeli recognition. They
have long since claimed that they would recognize Israel's existence if the
Palestinian population supported such a move. Thereafter, they should be
pressured to accept an unconditional ceasefire in exchange for an end to the
Israeli siege. The U.S. should also make its aid to Egypt contingent on its
adoption of a constitution that preserves rights for women and minorities,
peace with its regional neighbors and that opens up its economy to further
trade with Israeli firms. And the U.S. should make its military aid to Israel
contingent on its acceptance and adherence to the two-state solution. The
Saudis, Iranians, Turks and others should be included and the negotiations
should involve international observers from across the globe. Such an outcome
is the only viable alternative to eventual all-out war.
Such an outcome would also induce
a political, economic boom leading to an era of development never before seen
in the modern Middle East. Such a development could also mark the onset of a
progressive era in American politics, restoring its international reputation,
especially in the Muslim world while rallying domestic support for Obama's
stated objectives at home as well. Accounting for the altering global political
and economic dynamic actually allows for the recognition that the necessary
global political will exists to make a two-state solution possible; at least if
negotiations begin now.
The U.S. was not always so
rejectionist. In the wake of World War I President Woodrow Wilson, author of
the doctrine referred to as Wilsonian idealism, organized an American survey of
the Middle East. As scholar Ilan Pappe puts it Wilson, "wished to exploit
the results of the war by disintegrating the big colonial empires in the name
of the right to independence and self-determination." "In the
Wilsonian vision, the Arab peoples, too, were entitled to the national
liberations denied them during four hundred years of Ottoman rule." The
survey would be called the King-Crane Commission, after academic Henry King and
Charles Crane, a Chicago businessman. The commission polled the Arab world and
found that Arabs were deeply opposed to the establishment of a Jewish state in
Palestine and that such a development would produce long-term conflict and
resentment. They considered Arab animosities
and the report concluded, "with a deep sense of sympathy for the Jewish
cause, the Commissioners feel bound to recommend that only a greatly reduced
Zionist program be attempted... this would have to mean that Jewish immigration
should be definitely limited, and that the project for making Palestine
distinctly a Jewish commonwealth should be given up." That report would
not have a heavy influence on U.S. policy, but it did induce a balanced
"Arabist" legacy that continued to play a major role in the State
Department's formulation of Mideast policy, that is up until the American
Jewish community founded the AIPAC lobby in order to delegitimize all Arabist
influence.
That was during the Eisenhower
administration. Today the effects of the Arab Spring have enhanced sympathy for
Palestinian plight and ongoing turmoil in the Middle East that serves as a drag
on a struggling global economy have paved the way for a resurrection in
"Arabist" sentiment amongst academics, policymakers and the general
population.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
