Israel and its Jewish identity

Israel and its Jewish identity

S P SETH

John Kerry, US secretary of state, has been engaged in intense shuttle diplomacy to bring about a peace settlement between Israel and Palestine. Even when, at times, he has found it annoying and frustrating to deal with the Israeli government’s negativity, he has persisted. During one of his recent diplomatic trips, he let go his frustration during a television interview when he said, “ If you say you are working for peace [referring to Israel] and you want peace, and a Palestine that is a whole Palestine that belongs to the people who live there, how can you say we’re planning to build [even more settlements] in the place that will eventually be Palestine?”  But the US would still not lean on Israel to insist that it stop annexing more Palestinian territory by building any number of new settlements. Still it was refreshing to find a US leader, a rare occurrence, tell it to the Israelis the way they need to be told and more often.

As Kerry has persisted with his shuttle diplomacy, he has tended to court Israel with a suitably modified approach even closer to the Israeli position. Which led Israel’s foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, to praise Kerry for his diplomatic efforts for an Israeli-Palestinian settlement, urging his country to accept the deal  being currently brokered by Washington for Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Besides, the US is willing to promote the idea of an Israeli security presence in the Jordan Valley, on the borders between the occupied West Bank and Jordan. No prize for guessing that the Palestinians are opposed to both. On the first point, they argue that it is for the Israelis to define or view themselves in whatever terms, and not for the Palestinians, the Arab world or the international community to expressly recognize that. Besides, any recognition of its Jewish character has the potential of expelling and/or treating as second class the country’s more than 1 million Arab citizens. On the question of stationing an Israeli security force within their territory, it is abhorrent on the face of it. What sort of a Palestinian state it will be when an important segment of it has Israeli troops stationed there! It will tantamount to occupation in another guise.

Why is Israel insisting on its Jewish character? Aren’t they sure who they are? And if they are, why do they need others to recognize their Jewishness? The vehemence with which Israel seeks its Jewish identity recognized has more than one meaning. At one level, there is moral repugnance at the way Israel has been created with the expulsion and killings of the Palestinians and the continuance of that process with more and more Jewish settlements. This repugnance is reinforced with the long and circuitous boundary wall further eating into Palestinian territory and reducing, what is left of Palestine into Bantustans on the lines of the old South African apartheid state.

Israel is aware of the moral odiousness with which many people in the world regard its policies and politics. The UN has been disapproving of its relentless aggression into the Palestinian territory, and its settlements are considered illegal. But with powerful and rich friends, like the United States, it has been able to continue its aggression into Palestine without any effective action by the international community. By insisting on the prior recognition of its Jewish identity, Israel seeks to whitewash the moral stench of its policies.

Another aspect of prior recognition of Israel’s Jewish identity is designed to reinforce the Zionist narrative that Judea and Samaria [Palestinian homeland] was part of the biblical Jewish homeland, and that Israel has a moral claim backed by antiquity.  A formal acceptance of Jewish identity will hopefully lend credence to Israel’s otherwise morally dubious Zionist project. No wonder, the Israeli foreign minister, Lieberman, was full of praise for John Kerry saying that, “It’s the best proposal [the identity issue and the US willingness to consider an Israeli security force in the Jordan valley] we can get and we really appreciate the efforts of Secretary of State John Kerry. He has really put a lot of energy into the issue.”

 And if the Palestinians are not willing to accept the Jewish character, Israel will simply blame them for wrecking the peace process. And this is precisely what they want-- to wreck the peace process but blame it on the Palestinians. In this way, it keeps to hold and expand the occupied territories and force out the remaining Palestinians out of their homeland. The most that they would like to entertain in the interim period, until the Palestinians are forced out entirely, is municipal administration of local affairs by Israeli-nominated Palestinians, with its security and control of finances under the Israeli government. This might have the effect of erasing the Palestinian identity. Indeed, Netanyahu and others like him have dismissed the idea of a Palestinian homeland and Palestinian identity. Any recognition of Israel’s Jewish identity by the Palestinians and the Arab world would simply hasten this process.  

Some influential figures in the Israeli government are even unhappy with the US’ willingness to put recognition of Israel’s Jewish identity on the agenda for the peace process. Though the foreign minister Lieberman has praised John Kerry for his efforts and the new initiative to incorporate Israel’s Jewish character as part of the peace agenda, Israel’s defence minister, Moshe Yaalon, let loose his annoyance and criticism of the US secretary of state’s diplomatic blitz to broker a peace settlement between Israel and Palestine. Israel’s biggest selling newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth, quoted him as saying, “Secretary of State John Kerry—who has come to us determined and acting out of an incomprehensible obsession and a messianic feeling—cannot teach me a single thing about the conflict with the Palestinians.”  And he added, “The only thing that can save us is if Kerry wins the Nobel Prize and leaves us alone.” Apparently, this is the view of the Israeli government and Yaalon’s only indiscretion is that he was caught saying it behind closed doors. Of course, this drew a sharp rebuke from the US state department with its spokeswoman calling his remarks “offensive and inappropriate, especially given all that the United States is doing to support Israel’s security needs.”

But the US is so tied up with Israel and its tremendous lobbying power; it is unlikely to adversely affect their relationship. Yaalon didn’t even bother to apologize for his “offensive” remarks. He simply reiterated how important US was as an ally of Israel and said, “When there are disagreements, we work through them inside the room… including with Secretary of State Kerry…

Note: This article was first published in DailyTimes.

Contact: sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au

Egypt: is there a method to army’s madness?

S P SETH

The way things are going from bad to worse since Egypt’s first ever democratically elected president, Mohamed Morsi of Muslim Brotherhood/ Freedom and Justice Party, was deposed by the military, one would think that the army and its shadow interim civilian government have a game plan about where they are taking the country. Morsi was removed last summer following popular demonstrations against his regime for suppressing his political opponents to usher in an Islamist autocracy. He was given 48 hours by General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, who was also defence minister in Morsi’s government, to sort out the country’s political crisis and stabilize the situation. In the event that he didn’t or couldn’t, and wasn’t willing to relinquish his presidency, Morsi was deposed as the country’s president on July 3 and put behind bars where he has remained since. Since then, most Brotherhood leaders have been jailed, and more than 1000 of its supporters have been killed. But the saga of daily protests against the military regime is continuing.

While the military-appointed interim government is blaming the protests and violence on the Brotherhood, designating it as a terrorist organization, as well as banning all its charitable and social welfare outfits, the country is facing a much more pernicious threat from extremist outfits inspired by al Qaeda that recently attacked police headquarters in the northern city of Mansoura, killing 16 policemen and injuring more than 130 people. This attack, like others elsewhere in Egypt, are blamed on Brotherhood, though an al Qaeda-linked group, Ansar Beit al-Maqdes, active in Sinai where they have staged some attacks before, has claimed responsibility. Indeed, the Brotherhood has denied responsibility and strongly condemned the attack. They are not known to have any connection with al Qaeda or any such extremist outfit.  

Why is General Sisi then gunning after the Muslim Brotherhood? Because ever since the military took over power in Egypt in a coup with Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser at its helm in the fifties (though General Naguib was the nominal leader for a while), Muslim Brotherhood has been in its sight as the best organized movement to challenge the army’s domination of the national scene. Nasser went after them, filling jails with their supporters and leaders, executing some of them and apparently crushing the movement on surface, at least. The Brotherhood was never gone and bided its time that never came until recently with the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak, though the popular movement against Mubarak’s rule was an amalgam of a wide array of secular elements, including women and minorities and was organized and highlighted through social media. But in the ensuing elections, the Brotherhood won with Morsi as President with Freedom and Justice Party as its political vehicle.

Interestingly, though, the army did abandon Mubarak (who was one of them) at the end because of the scale of the popular movement against him. He was becoming a liability for the military, buoyed up by the adulation of the people for the army on their side. After Mubarak’s fall, and the Brotherhood’s victory, the army tried to manipulate the political system to entrench its supremacy but, by then, it looked like it was too late. However, because the Brotherhood had waited so long to wield power to reshape Egypt into their Islamist mould, they were in a hurry to overhaul and control all state institutions for their ideological agenda. They simply forgot that the Arab Spring that brought down Mubarak was a broad church, which included people strongly opposed to Brotherhood’s agenda, including some Islamist groups. And in the process they succeeded in creating a popular movement against them, even looking bigger than the crowds that had rallied against Mubarak in Tahrir Square and elsewhere in the country. And many anti-Morsi protesters looked to the army to resolve the situation. Which they did by removing Morsi as the country’s president, convinced that from now on they would have people on their side.

 But if people were expecting the army to restore democracy, they soon found out that it was more interested in restoring its own power by taking on their old foe, the Muslim Brotherhood. Indeed, they are going to try Morsi for all sorts of crimes, including murder, though the trial keeps on being adjourned, possibly to avoid more protests and violence. The Brotherhood has been declared a terrorist organization, protests have been banned and even prominent secular leaders of the revolution against Mubarak have been arrested. Indeed, there is a not so subtle attempt to whitewash the Arab Spring by sparing Mubarak from being tried for murderous attacks on protestors in the dying days of his regime. Even the spontaneous jail breaks that occurred releasing political prisoners, like Morsi, during the 2011 uprising against the Mubarak regime, will result in criminal charges of collaborating with foreign militants, like Palestinians and Hezbollah elements. General Sisi and his interim government appear to have lost touch with reality.

However, there is probably a method to their madness. They seem to think, and they might not be all that wrong, that Egyptian people, by and large, are sick of the continuing unrest and violence in the country and would like it to stop. The economy is in a mess, hurting the common man the most. An important source of income and employment from foreign tourists is almost dried up. While many people might sympathize with the Brotherhood, they probably have no more energy for non-stop protests and killings. And the army seems to be the only organized institution, along with police, that might put an end to Egypt’s nightmare. Which explains its enthusiasm about the referendum on the revised constitution that will make army the ultimate arbiter of Egypt’s political system. With the Muslim Brotherhood banned, and the state machinery geared to make the referendum ‘a success’, its result seems a foregone conclusion. And General Sisi has indicated that after the referendum he would seek presidency as the candidate of the Egyptian people and with army’s mandate.

The problem, though, is that the Brotherhood is strongly entrenched in Egyptian society politically and, more importantly, through its vast network of charities, medical facilities and social welfare in general. And by banning these activities of the Muslim Brotherhood, the army will be doing great disservice to many poor Egyptians dependent on these services. Mubarak had recognized the important role that the Muslim Brotherhood-related charities played in Egyptian society where state services were either inadequate or non-existent. Therefore, even when the Muslim Brotherhood was banned under his regime, their charities and related organizations were still functional.

By banning all things related to the Brotherhood, the military might end up making many people angry and unhappy. At another level, by pushing the Brotherhood into a corner giving them no space to function in any way, the army might push some among them into al Qaeda type terrorism and that will be a terrible outcome for the country leading to a prolonged civil war; not unlike the situation in Algeria in the nineties where the annulment of an election verdict for an Islamic party by the military, led to a long drawn out civil war.

Note: This article was first published in the Daily Times.

Contact: sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au

Iraq: high price of US invasion

S P SETH

There is rarely a day when Iraq is free of brutal violence. Much of the time it is sectarian in nature between the Sunnis and Shias but others too are not spared, like the country’s fast depleting Christian minority. It gets even more complicated with the al Qaeda inspired/affiliated groups committed to create an Islamic heaven of sorts, to include neighbouring countries and, if possible, the entire Muslim world.

Iraq’s tragedy, though, began when the then US president George Bush and his coterie decided to club Saddam Hussein’s Iraq with Afghanistan, as the centre of global terrorism. And to make Iraq look even more sinister, a case was made that it had weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, biological etc.), which posed a threat to the region as these weapons could be passed on to the terrorists to cause mayhem. In other words, terrorism and Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction (that were never found out) became enmeshed into one huge ‘imminent’ threat requiring urgent action. Its urgency was thought self-evident with a dangerous tyrant like Saddam Hussein ruling Iraq. And it was considered best to deal with it as part of the  ‘global war on terror’, starting with the invasion of Afghanistan where the al Qaeda leadership, responsible for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the US, was sheltering. In any case, it was necessary to make an example of another regional country, and who could be a better candidate than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, because as Bush said he had tried to kill his father after the first Gulf War under Bush senior. Besides, as Rumsfeld reportedly said, that the US military would soon run out of targets within Afghanistan.

But still a case needed to be made about Saddam’s terrorism connection. And Bush wanted it done immediately after the September 11 attack in the US. As Richard Clarke, Bush’s counterterrorism adviser reportedly recalled that the president got hold of a few of us, and said, “… I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this… “ Clarke said that when we told the president that it was al Qaeda’s doing and “…we have looked several times ...and not found any real linkages to Iraq…”;  Bush said testily to “Look into Iraq, Saddam [linkage]”. What it says is that Bush’s mind appeared to have been already made up, with advice from his close coterie, to use the September 11 events to nail down Saddam and get rid of him. And in the process, restore and re-establish US supremacy in the region and, indeed, to reorder Middle East’s geopolitical map.

This was supposed to bring about democracy in Iraq on the back of American tanks rolling through the country. And, at the same time, this wasn’t supposed to cost the US much because Iraq would be re-built with its oil wealth, with contracts awarded to the US companies. Indeed, if anything, the US might come out a winner, both politically and economically. Besides, such display of “shock and awe” would be a salutary lesson to other countries in the Middle East to do as they are told. And this will further secure Israel.

Even though the September 11 tragedy shook the US psychologically, being the first attack of its kind on the US soil, the proponents of realpolitik, like defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, (and prime minister, Tony Blair in Britain) seemed to see in it an opportunity to not only re-set US (western) dominance in the Middle East but to develop a new theory and practice of “benevolent imperialism” to restore order anywhere in the world where it was deemed to be broken. The US conservatives around Bush believed that in realpolitik terms, the US had wasted its status as the world’s only superpower for nearly a decade since the collapse of the Soviet Union. And Rumsfeld, with Cheney as US vice-president virtually behaving like president, were set to overhaul the US military doctrine by enshrining the principle of ‘pre-emptive strike’, thus enabling them to militarily intervene anywhere and everywhere as they considered fit. Iraq, apart from Afghanistan where the case for military invasion was thought self-evident, was the testing ground for the new America.

As we know, things didn’t work out as they were meant to be--- whether in Iraq or Afghanistan. In the latter, the mechanics of a small residual US military presence is still not worked out after the scheduled US withdrawal from Afghanistan by end-2014. In Iraq, things are getting worse by the day and there is no knowing if and when this Pandora’s box, so rudely opened by the US with its military invasion of Iraq, will be put together again. Mark Danner, while reviewing some books, including Donald Rumsfeld’s memoir, in the New York Review of Books, makes a stinging critique of Iraq invasion. He writes, “Under Saddam, Iraq had been devoid of Islamic jihadists; it took the American occupation to make of Iraq a breeding ground for jihadists and a laboratory for developing and honing their techniques of asymmetric warfare: the car bombs, kidnappings, improvised explosive devices, and other ruthless tactics in a cheap and effective ‘toolbox’ that has been employed with considerable success from Afghanistan to Yemen to Mali”; and now in Syria with the al Qaeda-inspired Islamic State of Iraq and Syria operating there as probably the biggest insurgent group in that country, as well as in Iraq with violence rocking Anbar province.

What a terrible indictment of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 with its ramifications being felt not only in Iraq, with more than 8000 people dead in 2013 alone, but in an arch of al-Qaeda inspired insurgency from North Africa to much of the Middle East!

Barack Obama, Bush’s successor, was supposed to be different. He did withdraw US troops from Iraq by end-2011 but the mess created by US military invasion has created its own momentum of continuing and aggravated violence with people being blown up here and there. Though Obama toned down Bush’s rhetoric of the “global war on terror”, replacing it with the new term “overseas contingency operation” after coming to power in 2009, this doesn’t reflect any substantive change with the exception of increasing use of drones to hunt down terrorists and civilians alike.

Besides, as Mark Danner quotes Rumsfeld’s remarks to Errol Morris, director of the film, The Unknown Known, “Barack Obama opposed most of the structures that President George W. Bush put in place: Guantanamo Bay, the concept of indefinite detention, the Patriot Act, military commissions. “  He adds cryptically: “Here we are, years later, and they are still here…” In other words, the mess continues and Iraqi people and people elsewhere in the region, caught in its dragnet, are paying the price. 

Note: This article was first published in the Daily Times.

Contact: sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au