 |
June 04, 2006Fundamentalist Encroachments in BaghdadBaghdadis are reporting that radical Islamists have taken control over the Dora, Amiriya and Ghazaliya districts of Baghdad, where they operate in broad daylight. They have near full control of Saidiya, Jihad, Jami’a, Khadhraa’ and Adil. And their area of influence has spread over the last few weeks to Mansour, Yarmouk, Harthiya, and very recently, to Adhamiya. What is our plan to control (I was going to write re-assert control, but we never really did) Baghdad Mr. Rumsfeld? And please don't say, "as they stand up, we'll stand down," or recite how many hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Army and Police have been "trained". Cuz that's not gonna cut it. P.S. By the way, I've had various Syria-watchers tell me there is something of a religious ressentiment taking place there (various individuals have mentioned Aleppo, for instance). Can others confirm? Meantime, the Israelis have been known to speculate, if usually quietly, about the Hashemite monarchy's stability. We've seen what has happened of late in Palestine with Hamas, of course. And we all know open ballots in Egypt would have the Muslim Brotherhood gaining greater market share. In my darker moments, I wonder whether a major Islamic resurgence is, like the dissolution of the Soviet Union or 9/11, an 800-pound gorrilla mega-development that will similarly catch the CIA and US government mostly unawares. As I said, in my darker moments, because I do believe there are more progressive and secular currents coursing through the Arab world too, not to mention demographic trends that in theory should be helpful. But still... P.P.S. Comments in the thread noted. I think I wrote up this P.S. poorly, and permit me to conveniently chalk it up to a bad flu. I didn't mean to leave the impression that this is some zero-sum game, with secularists good, and Islamists bad. I am also keenly aware, as Lounsbury puts it, that there "are Islamists and there are Islamists". Put somewhat differently, I've never considered, as more breathless commentators routinely do here in the States, Islamism writ large to be the next Big "ism" confronting the US after, say, fascism and communism. This said, it's undeniable that radical Islamists present a clear and present danger, and when I spoke of a potential mega-resurgence of Islamism, I guess I was speaking mostly of the relatively benign more moderate variety, but I suppose it's not a stretch to imagine that radical Islamists will find a more hospitable environment in 'moderate' Islamist states than secularist ones (even the repressive variety), so there are real risks with such scenarios too. As for the 'coursing' comment, I guess I meant I see a good deal of more secularist types in places like Beirut, Teheran and Dubai, and to a lesser extent even places like Amman, Casablanca and Tunis, and combined with demographic trends and the spread of satellite and Internet, think there are windows of opportunity to capitalize on such possible trends in the future. That is, if we did things like raze Abu Ghraib (not now, but at the moment of the scandal, when it would have had a real impact), close Guantanamo, push for a just settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and start providing basic order and security in an Iraq that is rapidly radicalizing amidst increasing anarchy. But perhaps, maybe all that's "magical", to quote Lounsbury again.
Comments
There was a shootout in Damascus yesterday between the government and some Islamist militants. Posted by: praktike at June 4, 2006 04:25 PM | Permalink to this comment
Crappy linear thinking, Greg, and a very destructive paradigm that sensible foreign policy analsysts need to get out of yesterday.
I wonder whether a major Islamic resurgence is, like the dissolution of the Soviet Union or 9/11, an 800-pound gorrilla mega-development that will similarly catch the CIA and US government mostly unawares. As I said, in my darker moments, because I do believe there are more progressive and secular currents coarsing through the Arab world too,
Islamic revivalism ranges from the Taliban to Hamas. Now, I don't expect Instadude to be able to tell the difference between those groups, but Hamas has made no particular move to instititute Sharia by compulsion or force, they've desired to sweep out corrupt PLO officials filling Swiss bank accounts with aid money, their local men talk about stuff like road repair, and they seem committed to democracy so far. Unless you're an Israeli, Hamas is BOTH the force of Islamic revivalism and the force of progress. Quite possibly ditto for Egypt. Absolutely not for the butchers of Iraq - but the butchers of Iraq are being created and radicalized by the butcher shop that is Iraq. So, if you set up your thinking as an inevitable Armageddon between "The forces of progress" and "the forces of Islamic revivial", you are asking for trouble. That sort of attitude from the west is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and in a straight-up fight, the forces of progress will LOSE. Yours truly,
Our foreign policy goal should be to work to make those two sometimes-competing, sometimes-cooperating forces cooperate more and compete less. Glasnost, it depends on what we want. If we want a peaceful, prosperous middle east then you're right. But if we want a middle east that will be no competition, then we're better to manipulate them against progress and toward fundamentalist religion. That's no competition at all. I tend to be in favor of the first approach. But the oil is running out, and the more oil they use themselves for peaceful progress the less is left for us. Likewise china, the more they develop a consumer culture the more oil they'll use for themselves and the less will be left for us. Ditto the rest of the (ex)second and third world. We desperately need to develop cheap alternate energy. With wealth we can share it turns into a different world. Posted by: J Thomas at June 4, 2006 06:43 PM | Permalink to this comment
You can wallow in the "sky is falling" mentality. You can try to blame George Bush and Iraq on all that is currently wrong in Iraq and the Arab world. But the problems of today did not begin 3 years ago. The agents of change have been in the making for decades.
Here is the solution: Fire Rumsfeld and impeach Bush, then everyone will love us and sell us cheap oil, our economy will boom, the arabs will accept the jews, and terrorrism will cease.
Moose sounds like an effete Roman aristocrat, certain of the strength and magnificence that is Roman Imperialism. Posted by: NeoDude at June 4, 2006 08:56 PM | Permalink to this comment
I like marvel's thesis that all Iraq's problems predate the invasion. The lack of hospitals, lack of drinking water, and above all, lack of employment outside militias and terrorist groups didn't just appear with the invasion -- they all predated the invasion but were magically invisible and undetectable until the invasion gave them reality, um, visibility :)
The US has a founding mythos that it is courageous, rather than cowardly, to criticize tyranny. But of course Goering is correct, that it is not so difficult to criticize any dissenters as unpatriotic cowards, to build support for imperial expansion (to belabor the obvious, this applies not only to Nazi imperial expansion, but also to US imperial expansion, Soviet, Japanese, Chinese, Israeli, British, Bulgarian, etc) Posted by: frank wallace at June 4, 2006 11:30 PM | Permalink to this comment
Well, it appears the quality of commentary is heading towards that of say Washington Monthly's blog. As to Greg Djerejian's question, yes, there are Islamist resurgances across the region. I will agree with the observations supra that the analysis expressed between "Islamic resurgence" and "secular currents" are not useful. I'm afraid the entire PS is rather disappointing in terms of clarity of thought. First, the "secular" regimes are part of the problem - only outsiders who are entirely divorced from the region think "secularism" is something that is going to rescue the region. Secular regimes in the region have been the very exemplars of corruption, and frankly it's hallucinatory to believe "secular" currents are "coursing" through the Arab region (although to an extent in Iran, having had the experience of Islam is the Solution rule). I've been involved in the region in private sector since about the time the Soviet regime came down, and I can assure Greg "secularism" ain't winning converts. However, as my colleagues at 'Aqoul and myself often point out, there are religious politics and there are religious politics. Or there are Islamists and there are Islamists. The question you have, e.g. in Egypt is, do you (the US, Europe) want to own the mess when the corrupt mockery of a regime that is Mubarek's rule collapses (see btw the amusing vignettes from Billmon re Cairo, the follow on re Middle Egypt is good as well, despite some errors - like the Shah, do you want to own the end game? Getting flexible with the Brothers may buy you some influence. As for the Jordanian Hashemites, well yes, the Hashemites are bumping up against declining returns on their Bedouine political strategy; the State can't support buying support from the population as in the past. Economic growth isn't there, and Jordan is simply, no matter its economic policies (which are pretty decent), not going grow well surrounded by war. I spent several years working private equity in the region, and you should know that when one is talking putting in real capital, it is a hard decision to make when, e.g. even strategies leveraging Israeli growth get fucked into a cocked hat because of border closures, etc. etc. So, where are people going to turn? And put that in real terms, not what you want to happen. People turn to religion becuase everything else if fucked to hell. The problem is not Islamists qua Islamists, it's what kind of Islamists and what your position is with respect to them. Hanging your hopes on "secular trends" and other such things if bloody magical thinking. Magical. The Lounsbury
I just wanted to compliment Greg on his blog. It is a refreshing and very thought out look on the issue he chooses to talk about, and I just wanted to let him know his efforts are much appreciated. Thank you. Posted by: Daniel at June 5, 2006 02:25 AM | Permalink to this comment
I'm not sure I understand where Greg is going in this set of comments. I don't blame him for his preoccupation with American policy in Iraq and its effects or for his interest in region-wide trends, but wonder if what Zeyad is reporting is really the best example of either. It may be that we Americans have a difficult time with the concept of secularism because it rarely occurs to most of us that an approach to government that is not explicitly religious is necessarily anti-religious. In any number of countries around the world, that is exactly what it has been. Not all of those countries were infected with Marxism or educated in Soviet methods of political control, but Iraq was. For many deeply religious Iraqis -- Shiites especially but also, if Zeyad is correct, many Sunnis -- to be secular is to be anti-religious, hence the enemy, and the lack of restraint practiced by the former Iraqi government in going after its enemies is a lesson many deeply religious Iraqis seem to have learned well. That cannot be the whole story, for several reasons I won't go into right now, but it is part of it. Another part relates to the insurgency, which has been going on for years now without much in the way of a political program. Islamism (of the type Zeyad describes, not necessarily what is preached by the Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo) could be an attempt to to fill that void. Finally an extreme version of Sunni Islamism is one way to assert Sunni identity against Shiite Iraqis -- whose own religious extremists were empowered first by Saddam's overthrow, later by the occupation's fumbling and mainline Shiite clerics unwillingness to confront Muqtada Sadr, and perhaps most of all by the insurgency's enthusiasm for slaughtering Shiites. In any event, the kind of thing Zeyad reports is discouraging because of what it suggests about Iraqi Sunni Arab attitudes toward the insurgency. All along the key to draining the insurgency of its force has been said to be bringing Iraq's Sunni Arabs into the democratic process -- a worthy objective, but one that depended ultimately on Sunni Arabs being willing not just to refuse to participate in the insurgency but to actively fight it. It's hard to see the people Zeyad describes being willing to do any such thing. They would rather kill unbelievers and Shiites, continuing to provoke the inevitable reaction. Zeyad's account may be incomplete or exaggerated; he himself admits that many of the things he reports are rumors only. But if it is in the ballpark -- and this seems likely to me -- he is describing a trend that American policy cannot address with any prospect of success. Posted by: Zathras at June 5, 2006 05:29 AM | Permalink to this comment
Well, since the PPS mentions me.... I would caution against mistaking the fast life of Dubai, Amman, Casa, even Cairo for a good indicator of where society is going. What one sees on the business or tourism circuit is misleading. Of course, what "secular" really means is every bit as troublesome as Islamist. I may have misread (indeed it sounds like it), but the initial comments sounded too much like the usual things. I feel strongly that framing in terms of Secular versus Islamist gets one travelling down the wrong road in understanding what is happening in MENA region. Unusually Zathras puts his finger on a useful Arab region cultural observation in this regard (sorry mate, not your strong point generally), secularism in the region has often been peculiarly anti-religious. Even when it has not, the regimes that "secularism" has produced have hardly been edifying on any basis. Corrupt, brutal, vampire states. One can quibble in the abstract about the reality of the secularism, etc. etc., but for 'the average Muhammed' their lived experience with Secular Regimes has been pretty crappy. One is starting, then, from the wrong point if one begins with the assumption that secular regime, politics are ipso facto progress, understood as progress by the audiences in region. While Bernie Lewis (who is a great historian I may add) fans whank on about the need for an Attaturk in the Arab world, they get their understanding of the socio-political evolution wrong (as Lewis does, unfort. a great classicist doesn't make a good commentator on modern politics). On the other hand, yeah, Sat TV and other influences are 'westernising' a lot of societal expectations and the like in region. That doesn't necessarily translate as 'progressive' (not GD's usage, but in comments supra). Overall, to be frank, I don't see the US (or EU) being the prime driver except in the economic arena supporting economic liberalisation. It would probably helpful, though, not to be quite so transparently engaged in hypocritically propping up tired incompetent dictators for their supposed secularity (I confess a greater partiality to competent dictators like Ben Ali, or utter loons like our dear Muamar) while blithering on about democracy and the like. Posted by: The Lounsbury at June 5, 2006 06:00 AM | Permalink to this comment
The Mubarak regime has continued to crack down hard on the followers of Ayman Nour. Can that be anything other than a deliberate attempt to ensure that the only viable opposition is the MB, thus rendering pressure for democratization "dangerous"? Im sorry Greg, but AFAICT Hosni Mubarak is aware of, and is manipulating the obsessions of folks in the US govt who share your fundamental viewpoint, as surely as Ahmed Chalabi manipulated the obsessions of the neocons you oppose. I would be interested in a fair, balanced, look at the complexities of whats going on Egypt, what the possible policy levers are, what the advantages and disadvantages are. That would show you are unwilling to be so manipulated, as you think the neocons are by Chalabi types. (yes, i understand you have limited time - but dumping Egypt in offhand with look at those immature neocons and their Jacobinism does a disservice, I think, to the realities of the region) Posted by: liberalhawk at June 5, 2006 04:08 PM | Permalink to this comment
"That is, if we did things like raze Abu Ghraib (not now, but at the moment of the scandal, when it would have had a real impact), close Guantanamo, push for a just settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,"
If we had a president who had even a little bit of credibility among iraqis, this would be a fine time for him to make a speech to them, preferably with an official translation. It might go something like, ... you must make your own choices, and I would like to tell you about our experience in america. We started out as thirteen countries. Some of them were founded to support different religious sects. They didn't get along well and several of them were on the verge of religious war. We agreed to a single government with a restriction. It was not allowed to restrict religions. Our government leaders have been religious and their choices are influenced by their religion. But they must not use their powers to hurt other religions. The problems which led to this were problems among different varieties of christians, but the solution is not just for christians. Our government is required to welcome muslims in the united states of america, and all other religions that do not demand their worshippers attack their neighbors. This approach has surely prevented a number of wars among our states. In over two hundred years we have had only one major civil war. I want to suggest that you consider our example and whether you want to follow it. Nations that split over religious issues tend to have considerable violence during the split and the resulting nations tend to be unfriendly toward each other and occasionally war after the split. If you can run a moral government that still does not oppress anyone for their religion -- if you can do that -- you will be stronger. For some time my country has been known as a wealthy and strong one. People argue about the reasons for that. I believe one of the most important reasons is that over our entire history, only once have we wasted our strength fighting each other. I have told you some about how it has worked for my country. I hope this is of some use to you as you make your own choices. Illhamdillah.
"what is our plan to control (I was going to write re-assert control, but we never really did) Baghdad Mr. Rumsfeld? And please don't say, "as they stand up, we'll stand down," or recite how many hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Army and Police have been "trained". Cuz that's not gonna cut it. "
First, my thanks to Greg for cleaning up my multi-post fiasco (including the humiliating multi-post apology....). Second, re Liberal Hawk: I think you mean a pragmatic settlement, or a settlement that muslims will see as just. I presume you meant to write Palestinian as of course Xian Palestinians are part of the equation as well, their land is also being siezed by Israelis and... historically Xian Palestinians made up an important (esp. >bfounding) component of Palestinian terror/restistance groups - above all leadership. Hint, those guys named George were and are not Muslim. Ed Said's annoying apologias did not come from Mars. A just settlement of course is indeed in the eyes of the beholder(s), whatever utility that basic observation has, the real core take away for anyone who's been in the area (of Israel & Palestine) is that a Palestinian state can't work as a chopped up West Bank remnant bantustan (and of course, conversely, has to have secure borders to meet Israeli needs). No one is going to like it very much, but the other choice - endless scratching out of each others eyes - is hardly getting anyone anywhere, unless the Jewish state plans on eventually engaging in ethnic cleansing. Posted by: The Lounsbury at June 5, 2006 09:41 PM | Permalink to this comment
It's funny looking back over the last couple years. Gregory and his ilk had been casting dispersions on the likes Juan Cole and John Kerry, yet look at where we are at now in Iraq.. Posted by: Timetheos at June 5, 2006 09:51 PM | Permalink to this comment
Ah,yes, Lounsbury, nice to hear the voice of Palestinian Propaganda that always denounces any Israeli peace offer as creating a banutstan and accuses Israel of planning ethnic cleansing even as Israel withdraws unilaterly from the Palestinian Territories! Greg, the only Israeli/Palestinian "peace" that is likely anytime soon is if the US sells out Israel in "a Peace in Our Time" type agreement. Even if the US were to do this, there would soon be met by new Moslem demands for a similar settlement regarding Kashmir, etec. J Thomas: It would be nice to have a President who had any credibility left with the American People, let alone the Iraqi People! Posted by: David All at June 5, 2006 10:26 PM | Permalink to this comment
Ah,yes, Lounsbury, nice to hear the voice of Palestinian Propaganda that always denounces any Israeli peace offer as creating a banutstan and accuses Israel of planning ethnic cleansing even as Israel withdraws unilaterly from the Palestinian Territories! You mean, from considers planning the withdrawal from parts of the Palestinian territories. Just to be factually correct. And, actually, if you follow the news, currents in Palestinian politics are certainly attempting to end the vision of total war.
We support Oslo and Israeli withdrawl from almost all of the West Bank because we see no pragmatic alternative, not because it is just. I fucking knew it. Please tell me what part of handing back territory you capture in military conquest of surrounding nations is unjust, additionally when you have no plans to allow the indigent populations to become citizens of your state. Really, anytime you're ready. Posted by: glasnost at June 6, 2006 12:39 AM | Permalink to this comment
Lounsbury, this blog never gets down quite as far as the average public megablog, thank the lord. Nice to see a voice of sanity. Posted by: glasnost at June 6, 2006 12:40 AM | Permalink to this comment
lh: "But ultimately it IS up to the Iraqis to pick a cabinet, and to deal with this problem. WE should support them in that." another dissapointing posting by LH. we break it, we own it. This should be OUR goddamn problem (the estimable zathras' views aside). it's about much more than disingenuously punting the mess to them, albeit saying "WE should support them in that", whatever that means. do you really believe, i mean seriously, that the currently constituted Iraqi army and police can re-institute order in Baghdad (putting aside Anbar and parts beyonds)? if so, you are a much more optimistic man than me (or don't mind a Shi'a killing spree through the Sunni parts of town to 'quiet' things down)! Of course we need to support them! by leading this effort, both with the requisite forces on the ground (which we don't have), and also khalizad's continuing heroic efforts (along with paulson and roberts, likely bush's best appointment of his presidency).gd Posted by: greg at June 6, 2006 12:59 AM | Permalink to this comment
glasnost: > Please tell me what part of handing back territory you capture in military conquest of surrounding nations is unjust I may not agree with original poster, to whom you respond here, but I am happy to attempt the devil's advocate you here request. Justice in returning lands is somewhat in the eyes of the beholder. Would it be just for the US to return the southwestern states to Mexico, from whom it seized them? Would it be just for Mexico, if it had the force, to invade and reoccupy these formerly Mexican land? If it did so, then would it be more just for Mexico to keep this formerly Mexican land it reoccupied, or more just for it to return this territory it just captured by military conquest? My point is simpler than I'm conveying (and not all that interesting I admit) -- besides how much it varies with point-of-view, there is some gray, unclear sunset as time passes, beyond which we no longer reasonably (justly??) expect countries to return land. For example, it seems (to myself) beyond the pale to demand that central England be returned to gaelic control, or that Cordoba be returned to Moslem control, or that southern Scotland be returned to Pictish control, or that much of the US be returned to indigenous control, or that Macedonia be returned to .... to any of the various groups which occupied and lost it. Or that Greece be returned to Turkish (Ottoman) control. Or that Constantinople be returned to Greek control. Posted by: frank wallace at June 6, 2006 01:07 AM | Permalink to this comment
Well, I see there is some violently sub-literate knee-jerking on hand: Ah,yes, Lounsbury, nice to hear the voice of Palestinian Propaganda that always denounces any Israeli peace offer as creating a banutstan and accuses Israel of planning ethnic cleansing even as Israel withdraws unilaterly from the Palestinian Territories! Well, David, if you perhaps would read for comprehension, you will see that no accusation (in the ordinary sense of the word, in the English language) as to present Israeli actions or policies was made, rather an observation as to baseline facts about what would work, although it is entertaining to see anything short of a fellating of Israeli extremism (for the reading comprehension impaired, that is not meant to say Israelis are extremists) labelled as Palestinian Propaganda. Of course, a reader of perhaps ordinary intelligence and some modest reading comprehension would no doubt be able to divine that my comment (although perhaps challengingly complex) was aimed not at Israel but Liberal Hawk and the annoying self-mockery of the generic American Israel "supporter" - really a kind of Bolshy ideologue for whom Israel is merely a little finger puppet to play out political fantasies with.... As to the facts, the Israelis have withdrawn (and deserve, I would highlight, much credit) from some territories. It's not clear what is actually going to happen with the West Bank. The Wall (which I may add I thought and think is a very decent idea if it does not, as it seems to be doing, unilaterally annex significant portions of fertile, well-watered West Bank highlands abutting Israel(*) - not for, mind you, the childish rhetoric of 'racism' but because long run it will be untenable and self-defeating). The comment on Bantustan and ethnic cleansing, again if you remove knee from your skull and read for actual comprehension, was a reference to the self-interest on the part of Israel to see a settlement, despite the simple-minded hyperventilating and posturing of "supporters" thousands of miles away who love to take "maximalist" positions. Given the Palestinian population and all that. (*: it's helpful of course to have actually visited the terrain first hand to comment on the meaning of what on maps sometimes looks trivial. Having been an investment officer looking at Israeli and Arab investment opps, I have had that opportunity) Greg, the only Israeli/Palestinian "peace" that is likely anytime soon is if the US sells out Israel in "a Peace in Our Time" type agreement. Nice to see your inherent objectivity. Or better, nice to see an illustration of why reaching a settlement is so hard. Given the hysterical bigotry that infects portions of both sides. Even if the US were to do this, there would soon be met by new Moslem demands for a similar settlement regarding Kashmir, etec. My this is logical. Obviously the "Moslem" Hive Mind is quite crafty and clever. Almost like the Hebrew Hive Mind. Damned Semites. Lot of them so devilishly clever. Give em a centimeter and the take a kilo. Posted by: The Lounsbury at June 6, 2006 01:07 AM | Permalink to this comment
By the way, Wallace, I agree, these are issues of gray. However, the reality is that keeping the West Bank is a nightmare for Israel as the demographics only get worse, and the only other choice other than exit is genocide or ethnic cleansing.... Ergo, Israel has to exit as it is, in the end, not the nasty charicature that some Arab media and others like to make (nor of course the sinless, Sainted victim and political fantasy finger puppet that some would have...) It would be helpfull if the US enabled a pragmatic settlement rather than blundered about, of course. Posted by: The Lounsbury at June 6, 2006 01:16 AM | Permalink to this comment
Loun, I tend to agree that Israel has a strategic interest in improving things somehow, as -- at least I guess: - demographically Israel is becoming more Palestinian (I think) - Israel is in somewhat of a position like apartheid South Africa -- not nearly as isolated as South Africa (I think), but still, a bit of a pariah for its, well, imprisoning & subjugating so much of its population -- at least, a pariah among its neighbors in the Levant -- and this position, I'd guess, is not great for its security I doubt that Israel can really kill off all the Palestinians, and I suspect most Israelis would be horrified at that idea, and barring that, I expect it needs to come to terms with them. They'd make great cheap labor for Israel, if it could just stabilize into some more peaceful environment. Surely it is a fair pool of cheap labor with lots of Hebrew fluency. And, I forgot an important point -- Israel, I think, imports fossil fuels from Egypt -- and so is in a vulnerable position vis-a-vis the Egyptian authoritative regime's own vulnerability -- and spends a fair amount importing fuels from distant locations. Bringing the Palestinian problem towards a resolution suggest the at least quixiotic hope of improved relations with the fossil fuel rich neighbors. Posted by: f. wallace at June 6, 2006 08:22 AM | Permalink to this comment
Wallace: - demographically Israel is becoming more Palestinian (I think) Or Israeli Arab, if one wishes to put it that way. Israeli Arabs, Xian or Muslim, can be a resource or a time bomb. Occupied West Bank rather tilts them in the long run towards time bomb. - Israel is in somewhat of a position like apartheid South Africa -- not nearly as isolated as South Africa (I think), but still, a bit of a pariah for its, well, imprisoning & subjugating so much of its population -- at least, a pariah among its neighbors in the Levant -- and this position, I'd guess, is not great for its security I am not a great fan of using the S. Africa reference, it has the tendancy to be too pejorative. A settlement is not going to change the pariah status with its neighbours, but it at least sets the stage for potential improvement and allows business to be done (for everyone's benefit). A matter of limiting the downside - an important thing to keep in mind. The Arab neighbours are not going to be Israel's buddies, a point often made as an argument against settlement, for hard core annexation, but certainly a settlement can set the stage for a cold peace which is a relative improvement over ever worsening tension. I doubt that Israel can really kill off all the Palestinians, and I suspect most Israelis would be horrified at that idea, and barring that, I expect it needs to come to terms with them. Given my experience with doing business there, I don't suspect, I know most Israelis would be horrified by genocide. But just like their Arab neighbours, people can feel backed into a corner.
Indeed, there are brilliant opportunities. And, I forgot an important point -- Israel, I think, imports fossil fuels from Egypt -- and so is in a vulnerable position vis-a-vis the Egyptian authoritative regime's own vulnerability -- and spends a fair amount importing fuels from distant locations. Bringing the Palestinian problem towards a resolution suggest the at least quixiotic hope of improved relations with the fossil fuel rich neighbors. Indeed, indeed. Overall, even a cold peace is a step up. Posted by: The Lounsbury at June 7, 2006 12:24 AM | Permalink to this comment
There was, I think, a cold or even tepid peace during the few years Oslo was working. Lots of business plans between Israelis and Arabs, quite a bit of cooperation (IIRC) between Israeli/Palestinian/Jordanian security forces. Israel needs to offer some carrots besides geographical viability, in terms of business opportunities and technology sharing (esp. in medicine, agriculture, and high tech), and secure (for everyone) transportation infrastructure. Israel also used to have world-class education, though I don't know if that's still true. And the Palestinians need to offer security guarantees - something they're in no position to do at present, not unless Hamas changes its charter. Israel's only long-term hope is to offer something valuable that no one else is, or at a price lower than the Palestinians can get elsewhere; to be an active asset rather than a country grudgingly accepted. Does anyone know what sciences or industries Israel really shines at? What kind of reputation do its universities have nowadays? Posted by: CaseyL at June 7, 2006 04:35 AM | Permalink to this comment
CaseyL, very excellent post. Luckily, Israel has at least a few extremely strong univeristies and is generally at the absolute forefront of every main scientific and technical growth field, from biomedical science to robotics and optics to internet services. Posted by: glasnost at June 7, 2006 06:27 PM | Permalink to this comment
CaseyL There was, I think, a cold or even tepid peace during the few years Oslo was working. Lots of business plans between Israelis and Arabs, quite a bit of cooperation (IIRC) between Israeli/Palestinian/Jordanian security forces. Indeed. And there were private equity deals done. I was an investment officer on some. Posted by: The Lounsbury at June 8, 2006 04:06 AM | Permalink to this comment
|
|
About Belgravia Dispatch
Gregory Djerejian, an international lawyer and business executive, comments intermittently on global politics, finance & diplomacy at this site. The views expressed herein are solely his own and do not represent those of any organization. More About the Author Email the Author Recent Entries
Lunch w/ the FT...
Robert Strange McNamara Biden on Israel/Iran Mea Culpa (Part II) Something of A Mea Culpa Search
The News
Financial Times
New York Times Wall Street Journal The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic The American Conservative Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation Real Clear Politics Le Figaro Le Monde El Pais Pravda The Blogs
Across the Aisle
Marc Ambinder American Footprints The American Scene Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Democracy Arsensal Daniel Drezner Washington Monthly James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Huffington Post Mark Kleiman Joshua Landis Daniel Larison Marc Lynch Josh Marshall Progressive Realist Obsidian Wings George Packer Gideon Rachman Andrew Sullivan Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy Steve Walt James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Law & Finance
Barron's
Bloomberg Bull and Bear Wise Calculated Risk Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Bruce MacEwen Barry Ritholz Nouriel Roubini Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog Seeking Alpha The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance Think Tanks
Security
Books
American Scholar
LRB NYRB NYT Book Review Paris Review TLS Granta Grand Street Arts & Letters Daily TNR's The Book The City
Curbed
Eater Gothamist NY Magazine NY Post NY Press New York Observer Tribeca Trib Vanishing NY Village Voice Epicurean Corner
Archives
Syndicate this site:
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
||||
