Disturbing Naivete

Although I hope that much of this blog will be historical in nature, in order to contextualize current events, and to have it focus on the Middle East itself rather than American policy toward the region, from time to time it will be necessary for me to discuss American foreign policy. I do not think that we have a grand strategy or policy toward the region, other than "Stay out as much as possible, and get out, if possible" and "Let's be hard on our friends and soft on our enemies." Because that is exactly the case. It's become quite clear that Obama wants very little to do with the region - we have no troops left in Iraq, we will soon have none in Afghanistan, and Obama is and has been decidedly standoffish about the civil war in Syria. President Obama is not an isolationist, but he wants out of the region. The most that he wants to do is fire a missile from a drone at Al Qaeda leaders in Yemen and Pakistan, and here and there give the go for a SEAL raid.

The purpose of this post is not,  however, to criticize President Obama's grand strategy toward the Middle East. Rather, it is to discuss the absurd naivete and, frankly, idiocy of his Secretary of State, John Kerry.

While in Israel recently for talks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the two disagreed vociferously about upcoming negotiations with the Iranian regime concerning its drive for a nuclear weapon. Meanwhile, peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians over the past months have gone nowhere. Kerry vented his spleen on Israel's Channel 2, putting the entire onus for the failure of peace on Israel, called the settlements "illegitimate" (rather than "unhelpful", which is usual American rhetoric), and said that, should the peace process fail, Israel will likely be faced with a third intifada. This was a very clumsy, immature attempt to bully the Israeli government into making concessions that it is not prepared to make. By putting the onus on Israel, John Kerry infantilized the Palestinians, as Western politicians do often. They never have agency - they only react to what the Israelis do or do not do. By saying that a failure of the peace talks would lead to a third intifada, John Kerry more or less gave a green light for such an eventuality. Should anyone need a reminder, the Second Intifada killed thousands of people. For Kerry to air his frustrations in such an immature fashion, in public, was a diplomatic faux pas of the highest order.

Kerry's statement is historically inaccurate and feeds into Palestinian propaganda. That propaganda suggests that the Palestinians will play nice so long as there are concessions, but if Israel continues to play the obstructionist by building housing in settlements and not budging on other matters being negotiated on, then the Palestinians will have no choice but to return to "resistance." In other words, this argument gives carte blanche for acts of violence. The fact remains, however, that this "argument" is propaganda - its exponents know that, realistically, the Israeli government is not going to stop building apartments in East Jerusalem and settlements close to Jerusalem, including Maale Adumim, the Etzion Bloc, Har Gilo, etc. And even if the Israeli government did permanently freeze such construction (it will not), the exponents of this propaganda could argue that because of Israeli obstructionism on other issues - say, the right of return, or the final status of Jerusalem, or a million other things - there will still be the right to "resistance." This line of argument puts the entire onus for the success or failure onto the Israelis, and depending upon what the Israelis do or say, or do not do or say, the Palestinians will be justified in either waiting patiently or in launching an intifada.

This is all hogwash, however, because the Second Intifada, which was appallingly violent, was launched after the Israelis had agreed to unprecedented concessions to the Palestinians. Ninety plus percent of the West Bank (with the balance made up with land now in Israel-proper), all of Gaza, and East Jerusalem (which includes the Old City) would have come under Palestinian control. The Palestinian Authority would have had custodianship over the Temple Mount and Israel would keep control over the Western Wall, the one area in East Jerusalem in which this would be the case. The Israelis agreed to a token "right of return" for the descendants of Palestinian refugees (up to 100,000) and also agreed to financially compensate all of the descendants, with the assistance of other countries (this fund would amount in the billions). Arafat, however, refused, and in September 2000, on the flimsy pretext of Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, the Second Intifada was launched. It was not spontaneous - it was preplanned by Arafat and his officials within the Palestinian Authority. There were killings of Israelis, including the famous lynching of two reservists in Ramallah; suicide bombings in major Israeli cities, most of whose perpetrators originated in the West Bank; and so on. This ultimately led to Operation Defensive Shield in 2002, which sought to wipe out "terrorist nests" in major Palestinian cities in the West Bank, most famously Jenin (where many Palestinians and anti-Israeli Westerners falsely accused Israel of committing a massacre), and to the construction of the security barrier between Israel proper and the West Bank to keep out suicide bombers. It should be noted that this barrier has nothing to do with racism or apartheid, and it was not a right-wing dream; Ariel Sharon only gave in to building it under immense (north of 90% approval) pressure to build it in the face of Palestinian violence. The right wing of Israel had historically opposed any separation between Palestinians and Israelis; conversely, it sought to maintain territorial contiguity between Israel and the West Bank, which would allow Israelis to live on either side of the Green Line. Rather, it had been the Israeli left (including Yitzhak Rabin) who began to call for such a barrier in the early 1990s. Just want to clear that up so that the nonsense of it being an "apartheid" wall conceptualized by the racists in Likud can be laid to rest.

All of this violence happened even though Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak gave Yasser Arafat everything he could have possibly wanted (minus a full right of return, to which no Israeli government, even a left-oriented one, will ever concede). It did not happen because of Israeli obstructionism. Similarly, Israel has had to go back to every single place from which it has ever withdrawn, with the marked exception of Sinai (into which it has made brief incursions, however). For example, Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000; it returned to fight Hezbollah in 2006. The IDF withdrew from cities in the West Bank after the Oslo Accords; the Palestinians immediately destroyed Joseph's Tomb in Nablus, as one example, and then launched suicide operations from the West Bank. The IDF returned with massive force in 2002, as mentioned above. In 2005, Israel disengaged from Gaza; it has carried out three military assaults, most intensively in 2008-9 in Operation Cast Lead, since then. In other words, the pattern seems to be that, the more Israel concedes, the more violence that it faces. This is because, when Israel makes these concessions, their enemies smell blood and try to press for the kill. This pattern is the exact opposite of what John Kerry stated on Israeli television; however, his statement may in the end become a self-fulfilling prophecy. (Please note that the First Intifada is not relevant in this case as it did not occur in the aftermath of Israeli withdrawals or of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks).

Secondly, we need to discuss John Kerry's performance concerning the talks with Iran in Geneva. This is not only Kerry, mind you - it reflects much of the thinking within the Beltway, particularly in Foggy Bottom, as well as the European powers sans France. The thinking is hopelessly naive. I understand the desire to come to an agreement with the Iranians on their nuclear program - no one wants to go to war with Iran. Every reasonable person strongly prefers a diplomatic solution. The talks in Geneva were to be the first phase; they would call for Iran to freeze its nuclear activities for 6 months in return for the unfreezing of Iranian currency reserves abroad. This would ease the pain of sanctions, which have had significant impact on the Iranian economy, which is experiencing inflation and a devalued currency. The problem is that Iran is probably already close to break-out capacity - it has 19,000 centrifuges, 3,000 of which are of a more advanced model that can enrich uranium at a quicker pace. Iran would have had to stop enriching uranium, especially at a 20% level, but it would not be required to get rid of the uranium that has already been enriched. In other words, the agreement does not have the teeth necessary to get a good deal. Eventually France stepped in because of its concerns about Iran's heavy water reactor in Arak (whose waste product is plutonium - an alternative route to a nuclear bomb) and Iran protested its "right" to enrich uranium. New talks will begin on November 20, so we shall see where it goes.

The ironic thing is that Kerry, since the failure of the talks, has tried his best to convince congressmen that they must not pass a new sanctions bill because that would be warmongering. This is stupid. If the congressmen wanted war, they would call for war. They are calling for sanctions precisely because they weaken Iran and provide the U.S. with more leverage in diplomatic negotiations - they serve the purpose of diplomacy, real diplomacy - not the diplomacy that is talking for talking's sake, photo ops, cocktails while overlooking Lake Geneva, and putting one's head in the sand. The only reason that the Iranians are agreeing to these talks to begin with is because the sanctions are really biting. So how are sanctions opposed to the spirit of diplomacy, as Kerry and the State Department argue? Beats me. There is an obsession in Washington to get an agreement, any agreement, with Iran, and now there is an opening because of the "moderate" Rouhani. I understand that this was to be but a preliminary stage in a series of stages of diplomacy, but the six months on the table would provide Iran with vital time and at the same time ease their economic pain. In return for...maintaining their nuclear infrastructure and not building anything for six months.

Lastly, there is Kerry's championing of the Geneva 2 talks (why always Geneva? God, that lake must be something) concerning the civil war in Syria. These would, hopefully, create a transitional government for a postwar Syria. The problem is that it doesn't make any sense. At all. The civil war right now is basically a stalemate, but Assad, with the assistance of Iran, Iraqi Shiite militias, and Hezbollah, has made military advances in Aleppo and in the Damascus suburbs. He literally has no reason to talk with anyone about anything while he has the upper hand. He knows that, should his regime fall, he is done for - even if there was a hypothetical agreement with some of the rebel factions in Geneva to keep him somehow within a postwar government - because, the fact is, the rebel factions that count are boycotting Geneva. The most militarily effective opposition brigades are not interested in talking with Assad - they want him fallen from power and dead, and they want the destruction of his regime. Even if there were an agreement with Bashar al-Assad and some of the more willing-to-talk rebels, because of the unorganized and decentralized nature of the rebels (who are fighting each other on the ground), there would be no enforcement mechanism for the agreement's stipulations. Who is going to enforce it? The UN? The U.S.? The weaker rebel factions in the face of strong opposition from Islamists and others who will not talk? And what would happen should Bashar al-Assad and his backers continue to shell civilians areas and continue their onslaught? Because there is no enforcement mechanism, it's kinda useless. And because the U.S. and its Western allies have little to no leverage in Syria at this point, I don't think either side really cares what we have to say any more. The states that have leverage are Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey because they are actively arming, financing, and/or actively fighting on either side of the civil war. Because we have remained so standoffish, and because we erased whatever leverage we had left after President Obama backed off from striking Assad and agreed with Russia to get rid of Assad's chemical weapons (although 99% of the dead have been killed with conventional arms), we don't pack any punch. The Geneva 2 talks are deeply unserious, as our Secretary of State increasingly seems to be.

The Importance of Conspiracy Theories

One of the most important phenomena in the modern Middle East is that of the conspiracy theory. It has been a hugely destructive force in the political life of the Arabs: it has prevented their political maturation and has inflicted their societies with a culture of violence. Conspiracy theories are not, of course, native or exclusive to the Middle East and are widespread in the West. The JFK assassination and the moon landing are two of the most ranted-about events: others include Roswell, NM; "chem-trails"; "lizard people"; "9/11 was an inside job!"; the Fed's noxious influence over the U.S. and its policies; and there have even been conspiracy theories about the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary. This but scrapes the tip of the iceberg, and to wade through conspiracist websites is to wade through a sewer of fevered imaginations, of obsessed people connecting dots that should be disparate foci, of unserious thinking and, in many cases, the daddy of all conspiracy theories: anti-Semitism (including, very prominently, Holocaust denial). I once read somewhere that "the conspiracy theory is the crutch of the ignorant." With a quick Google search, I was unable to find the origin of this quote, but regardless, it is true. For the conspiracy theorist, things are never what they seem and the simple answer is never the right one. It is the direct opposite of Occam's razor: rather, the more convoluted the story, the more sinister the imagined machinations, the more players supposedly involved, the more Rube Goldberg-esque it is, the more LIKELY that it is the truth. The conspiracy theorist is impervious to rationality or to logic, or to cold, hard facts; everything that you throw at them is just a smoke-screen. You're just plugged into the Matrix, you don't "get it," their facts are the only correct ones, you are either poor and misguided or, worse, in on the conspiracy yourself. Many people believe in at least some conspiracy theories, but they are most prominent on the fringes of the political spectrum (at least in the U.S.). This is not surprising because two of the most conspiracy-minded movements of them all were the Soviets and the Nazis.

It is also no coincidence that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were two of the most murderous regimes in history. When one believes in conspiracies against them, one lashes out at the "author" of the "conspiracies." It's a no-holds barred, all out fight against the enemy, who tries to wiggle and obfuscate, but is ultimately the source of all evil. In the early history of the Soviet Union, this noxious enemy was the kulak, the supposed wealthy peasant who exploited the lesser peasants and laughed all the way to the bank. The kulak was largely an imaginary phantasm of the fever-brained leaders of the Soviet Union. the kulaks were determined to exploit the peasants, come what may, and they sought to sabotage the Soviet system at every opportunity to hang on to their power. The word "kulak" became an infinitely elastic term under which anyone could be thrown into imprisonment or outright murdered. If your neighbor did not like you, he could denounce you as a kulak and have you taken care of. In the face of this insane policy, many people were indeed motivated against the Soviet system, so the Soviet accusation of the alleged kulaks' sabotage became a self-fulfilling prophecy. Millions of "kulaks" were deported to Siberia and/or killed.

The Nazis hated a lot of people, but as everyone knows the focus of their hatred was the Jews. In the imaginations of Adolf Hitler, his propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels, and Nazi "chief philosopher" (and ridiculous crank) Alfred Rosenberg, the Jew was indeed behind everything that ailed the world: Bolshevism and Marxism of any stripe, capitalism, the immorality of modern society (including jazz, "degenerate" art, and so on), democracy, and so on. Hitler did not espouse anti-Semitism to attract popularity; rather, many were discomfited by the anti-Semitic Nazi message. The Nazis were elected in large numbers in the elections of June 1932 not because of their anti-Semitism but because they were seen as a party that would uphold German values and morality in the face of Communism and the despised Weimar Republic. They would unite Germany as one, strong Volksgemeinschaft that would overturn Weimar and the "Diktat of Versailles" and redress the supposed "stab in the back" that "occurred" in November 1918. Hitler and many of his top minions (particularly the aforementioned Goebbels, Rosenberg, as well as Reichsfuhrer-SS Heinrich Himmler) deeply and seriously believed in a Jewish-led conspiracy to undermine the German nation. In their imaginations, the Jews controlled the US and Britain as the puppeteers of international finance capitalism; and the Jews also were the true power behind the Bolshevik regime in the Soviet Union. Because of the absurdity of this notion, many failed to take Hitler seriously. Look at this crazed Austrian corporal and his nonsensical ranting. What a joke! Well, obviously, it was not a joke, and the conspiratorial mindset of Hitler, many of the top Nazis, and many within the SS and the German military helped lead to the onset of the Second World War and the Holocaust.

The Nazis were not in it for the money (although they did loot, especially Rosenberg and Hitler's second-in-command Hermann Goering, and they did steal businesses from Jews and the belongings of Jews after they had murdered them). The Nazis were very serious about reordering the racial map of a Europe under their domination, and the Jews had to go first. Not all of this was due to conspiracy theorizing, of course; there was a fervent belief in Lebensraum (living space) and it was to be in the East, which was rich in the production of agricultural commodities. This was an absurd Weltanschauung, perhaps, but was not in and of itself a conspiracy theory. But Hitler's fixed obsession with the destroying the Soviet Union (which made its invasion by Germany all but inevitable under a Hitler regime) and his murderous anti-Semitism certainly added to the bloodiness of Nazi terror. How could millions of innocent people be murdered, their only crime being a Jew? Because it was firmly believed that the Jews were doing their damnedest to destroy Germany; they needed to be destroyed first, and they needed to be destroyed completely. In the culmination of this Nazi logic, Himmler stated that the children needed to be murdered as well because otherwise they would avenge their fathers when they grew up. Better to take care of them now.

These are just two examples of conspiracy theories taken to a gruesome conclusion. Conspiracy theories go way back, of course. Look at the "blood libel": Jews were accused of killing Christian children and draining their blood for the purpose of baking Passover matzo. This was firmly believed. This initially European notion spread to the Middle East in 1840 when a Christian monk disappeared in Damascus and that city's Jews were blamed for it. It was, however, a strictly Christian notion until the 20th century, when references to the blood libel began cropping up in Muslim scholarship. Books on the noxious influence of the Jews, including the blood libel, are prominent in bookshops in Cairo and Damascus, among other cities (I can attest to personally seeing blatantly anti-Semitic books in the windows of bookshops in Damascus), as well as in Arabic media.

The blood libel is not the only conspiracy peddled in a conspiracy-obsessed Middle East. The Israelis poison wells and pass out gum that causes cancer and AIDS. In fact, the AIDS virus was purposefully invented by Israel to weaken the Arabs. The Israelis are always (and I mean ALWAYS) seeking a way to bring down the Al-Aqsa Mosque on Jerusalem's Temple Mount. The Arabic media is OBSESSED with this notion; there was a point where I would read at least one article about this supposed conspiracy to destroy Al-Aqsa every single week in Al Jazeera. Of course, if you very seriously believe that your enemy is out to destroy one of your holiest and most important places, you are not going to be very motivated to discuss peace with your enemy. And if you believe that the Jewish Temple is a fairy tale concocted by the Zionist Conspiracy, or that if it existed, it did so in Nablus (as Arafat maintained), you have zero reason to feel that you should negotiate over the status of Jerusalem. What can the Western Wall possibly mean to Jews if there was no Temple in Jerusalem? Many Muslims maintain this notion, and say that the wall is where Muhammad tied his winged steed Al-Buraq. All the Jewish ties to the site are untrue, they maintain. So if the Jews are mere interlopers, with no ties to Palestine or to Jerusalem, why negotiate with them? The only reason the Jews are able to control their territory is because the Zionist lobby controls foreign media and governments, poisons the Palestinians with cancer, AIDS, and toxins, they train sharks to kill tourists to ruin the Egyptian economy, etc, etc. Who would want to negotiate with such an enemy? If an enemy were so nefarious, so malevolent, so evil, how could you possibly peacefully coexist? It also serves as a convenient alibi; everything is the fault of your enemy. Your lousy economy, your domestic political foes, and so on, are all the enemy's fault, and not your own. There is no need for introspection, at all. This is, um, not good.

While there have of course been real conspiracies in history, the deeply embedded proclivity to engage in conspiracy theorizing in the Middle East is a truly disturbing reality, with an exceptionally dreadful history.

Welcome to Al-Zilzal!

It's been a very long hiatus since I have last blogged. It's been due to a combination of writer's block and a general feeling of "meh." But Sheriff John Stone is back in town.

Brief explanation as to the title of this blog: "Al-Zilzal" means earthquake in Arabic. I jokingly gave myself this nickname as a "street ball" name last year but, more importantly and seriously, it refers to the fact that the Middle East is undergoing a political earthquake of historic ramifications right now. Civil war in Syria; a coup and ferocious crackdown in Egypt; vicious sectarian violence in Iraq; tensions between the Gulf Arab states/Israel and Iran; and more. In short: it's great fun!

The Middle East has long been a focus of violence and warfare. As the crossroads of Africa, Europe, and Asia, it has seen myriad armies march through its deserts and its mountains. One only need to think of the Egyptians, Hittites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Mongols, Turks, etc, etc. The land is soaked in the blood of conquerors, martyrs, and countless, countless victims.

In that sense, the events that we are seeing today are but the latest stirrings of a volatile region. But they are of huge importance. Whither Egypt? Is it on its way to a renewal of the Mubarak years? Or something different? How about Syria? All the pundits and experts were convinced even in the summer of 2011 that Bashar al-Assad was going to fall any day. He has still not fallen, and he will not fall for quite some time, if he does at all. What is the destiny of that country? It is historically the "beating heart" of political pan-Arabism, and is being fought over in a frenzied fashion by, on one side, the Syrian military, paramilitary groups loyal to Assad, Hezbollah, Iraqi Shiites, Iran, and Russia; and, on the other, Sunni Muslims of varying political orientation, ranging from leftist to liberal (in the classical sense) to fundamentalist to radical Islamist. This latter faction is supported by the Gulf Arab states and, minimally, by the Western powers, including the United States. The fate of Syria will not leave the rest of the region unchanged. Lebanon was, until the mid-20th century, considered part of Syria; "the Lebanon", as it used to be known, referred to Mt Lebanon, not to what constitutes the modern state. There has been Sunni-Shiite (and Alawi) fighting in Lebanon, particularly in Tripoli, but also in Beirut, that perpetually traumatized city. Iraqi volunteers have gone to Damascus to fight for the tomb of Sayyida Zeinab, granddaughter of the Prophet Muhammad, which lies on the southern outskirts of Syria's capital. Iraq, of course, has its own issues; there have been suicide bombings in Baghdad, Mosul, and basically every other major Iraqi city including the southern city of Basra (but not including much of Iraqi Kurdistan). Syria, as the geographical heart of the Middle East, has become the staging ground of an international war between Sunni and Shiite, a sort of Middle Eastern Spanish Civil War (or Afghanistan, which I, for arbitrary reasons, will not consider part of the Middle East for the purposes of this blog. And really, it's not. It's southern/central Asia. Deal wid it.) And, of course, there is the looming specter of the Iranian bomb, and the almost humorous sight of John Kerry tripping over himself to "stop them" by giving them everything they want in return for our lifting of sanctions. What about Iraq? We pulled all of our troops out, Shiites and Sunnis are blowing each other up, Nuri al-Maliki has strengthened his grip on power and has been assisting Assad's forces in Syria. What is the future of this country?

You might notice that I have not mentioned the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This conflict is a particular academic interest of mine, but it is of very, very minor importance when one places it against the backdrop of the scene I have presented. The Syrian civil war has killed north of 125,000 people and is fought with very little consideration of civilian life; in fact, the Syrian military has used starvation as a purposeful tactic to weaken the opposition. There have been massacres of civilians, including the use of chemical weapons back in August. I have seen a horrific video of Hezbollah fighters dragging corpses and the barely living out of a truck and then proceeding to kill the living and to pump bullets into the already dead. Iran, which of course backs Assad to the hilt, is proceeding with its nuclear weapons program, and it is casting a very large shadow over the entire region. Our (in)action has infuriated Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain, among others, who fear, and have reason to fear, the Iranian bomb. Egypt is a country of 80 million people that is structurally unable to feed its own people.

In the meantime, despite the best efforts of John Kerry and the media, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been rather quiet. There have been a few incidents, sure, but they do not remotely compare to the hugely important events elsewhere in the region. Indeed, the only reason that these incidents are reported as widely as they are is because Israel is a popular whipping boy. A bulldozed home outside of Ramallah will appear more prominently in most Western newspapers than the murder, starvation, disease, and displacement that characterizes the war that is occurring literally right next door in Syria. The construction of apartments in Eastern Jerusalem will get more attention and boil more blood than the bombardment of Syrian cities by Bashar al-Assad's minions. And this, of course, points to the corrosive, disproportionate obsession with the Jewish state that characterizes much of the world. Taken in isolation, of course the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is important, as are all conflicts. They should all be taken seriously. It is when this conflict is clearly seen to override other developments in importance that things become wrong and dangerous. A proponent of the disproportionate attention on Israel would probably suggest that this is because the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the "key conflict" in the region: the mama conflict from which all others stem. This is silliness, of course, but it is believed, in one degree or another, by a lot of people in Washington, D.C. and other important capitals around the world. "The road to peace lies through Jerusalem." But clearly the violence between Sunni and Shiite in Lebanon and Iraq, the war in Syria, the crisis in Egypt, Iran's aggrandizement, and past brutalities in the region (Hama in 1982; the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88; the various civil wars in Yemen in the 1960s, 1980s, and 1990s; the Dhofar rebellion in Oman in the 1960s and 1970s; Bahrain's suppression of Shiites; Saddam Hussein's genocide of the Kurds and invasion of Kuwait; and on and on and on) have and had nothing to do with Israel/Palestine, at all. That conflict is but an alibi for leaders like Saddam Hussein, Hafez and Bashar al-Assad, and others to cloak their own brutality and drive for power in the region.

This has been, admittedly, a rather unfocused, scattered post. I'm a little rusty! But it's good to be back in the game.