Other

Courtesy of the Daily Beast & Getty Images

Much has been said over the course of this week about President Obama’s recent speech on the affairs and future of the Middle East.  As with any such presentation, many in the world of political media have gone to great length arguing the minutia of the speech’s content and reading into conspicuous absences among those subjects not touched on.  Despite the noteworthy weight of the President’s words on the future of the region and the commitments the US intends to make toward aiding economic and governmental development, one subject has stood out among the rest.

The President’s stance in the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict, and the reaction to Obama’s words on the two-state solution and the 1967 borders received a great deal of attention.  I’d blown off most of this commentary as more of the same typical attempts to paint a dramatic political narrative of events and Presidential policy regardless of the surrounding facts.  Often it’s very easy for me to ignore the narrative, as ultimately I suspect that in the larger picture neither my opinion nor the opinions of others interested in international affairs is of much relevance in the tide of media sensationalism.

Thus I had little to say on the subject until one of my friends asked my opinion on some of his recent musings.  Mr. Breach and I seldom agree on much in the field of international relations and conflict, yet I have always appreciated his ability to base his arguments in reason rather than rhetoric, so I was terribly pleased with his assessment of our history regarding the two-state solution.  However widespread it may be, the idea that our support of the two-state solution is something intensely radical and new is essentially nonsense.

Overall at least in reference to the Israel-Palestine conflict, President Obama’s speech struck me as basically more of the same.  Unquestionable support of our Israeli allies along with firm urging that the conflict has gone on long enough and some manner of accord is necessary has been the US message on this problem for ages.  It didn’t seem as if anything of note was said regarding the conflict save for continuation of a decades old unofficial policy.

Ultimately there remains a much better question than the laughable inquiry of whether or not President Obama is turning his back on Israel.  What might be a much more useful query for both the populace and the political media is whether or not these problems can be resolved through public discourse and political speeches alone? The intensity of the social cleavages and tensions in the Israel-Palestine conflict leads me to believe that ultimately the attitudes of the people will have to be changed, we can only hope that some resolution between the region’s politicians will serve as a critical first step in that process.

Other

Image courtesy of Boise Weekly & Getty Images

I was initially uncertain about writing more on the continuing crisis in Egypt.  Largely my purpose in blog writing tends toward discussing issues outside the spotlight of mainstream political news media, but the relevance of the current crisis to democracy promotion is such that it would be folly not to discuss the subject further.  The political change currently rolling through the Middle East has the potential to shape the region for the foreseeable future, and so I thought it would be worth taking a moment to discuss the reactions of other world powers to the current political change.  More specifically, the political reactions in the United States, European Union, China and Israel are vastly different and illuminating in regard to the nation’s issues with the Middle East and the ideological promotion of democracy.

In Israel, as in most nations, standards and opinions vary among the populace, the government and most obviously the media.  That being said the most regular sentiments expressed by Israel’s media have been of resistance to potential change and concern over “extremism”.  Of particular note has been the series of harsh critiques of President Obama’s approach to the crisis as naïve, ill informed and unaware of the region’s history.

Fortunately, and contrary to its news media, the Israeli government been rather cool headed about the situation, particularly in light of recent commentary from Egypt’s new VP regarding the continuation of peace with Israel.  However, as in America, the specter of the potential leadership by the Muslim Brotherhood has been one of many concerns among Israel’s conservative government.  Further given the division of the state and the issues with Palestine, there is obviously the added concern over protests in Israel. Israel’s stance on the situation might seem harsh to Americans, but the threats posed by political change in Egypt are much more tangible and immediate than they are to us across the sea.  Through all of this, the government of Israel has still voiced firm support for potential democracy within the state.

Though it is not exactly a subject of focus at the moment, China’s reaction to the current political crises in the Middle East has been telling.  Predictable in many ways, China’s activities have focused on controlling access to information on the crisis for fear of domestic uprisings.  While the differences between the governments of China and Egypt are- to put it bluntly- massive, China’s government has long been proactive on capping potential troubles before they have the opportunity to overflow.  We’ve discussed in the past the need for constant awareness among authoritarian regimes, and the ways they’ve risen to the challenge. In the current Middle East political crisis, China has provided a sterling example.

In Europe, despite all the tangible dangers and potential for problems presented by a transition from Mubarak’s authoritarian regime, the standard has been support for change and hopefully democratic growth.  As in the Unites States, European support has largely been limited for fear of meddling in the affairs of another state, particularly in a time of governmental transition.  This stance may have been expected to a degree, the EU as a body without a populace to be held accountable by has often been quite progressive in its assertions over human rights and the development of representative governance.  It is important to note however, that the EU is hardly the most representative of bodies, and that opinions throughout the governments and populace of member states vary greatly.

In the US, as mentioned in another of my posts, the government found itself in something of a difficult position.  Regionally our projects in democracy building have long been threatened by our support of Egypt’s authoritarian regime, and there was the small issue of Obama’s speech in Egypt in staunch support of democratic growth in the state.  On the other hand Mubarak was easily one of the United State’s most useful allies in the Middle East, thus I was quite pleasantly surprised at our government’s decision to voice support of regime change in the area.  At the same time, contrary to many I find that our reserved approach to the situation was precisely the right decision, rather than the perception that we were only hedging our bets. Few things are more important in the growth of potential democracy than the principle of self-determination.

In all, these last weeks have been quite a time for any student of governance or individual with an interest in international relations.  I consider myself rather fortunate to be alive during a period of such potential change, even if as always I have my pessimistic doubts.  Though certainly I can understand the desire to relate to the struggles for representation throughout the Middle East, I’d note that solidarity and self absorption are not one in the same, and that now certainly isn’t a time for self-centered news reporting.  The current protests aren’t a parallel for US Tea Partiers any more than they are for any other social movement or the 1979 revolution in Iran, and flawed analogies are seldom helpful to anyone.

Other

I understand the problem: Israeli and Palestinian leaders cannot end the conflict between each other without having a civil war within their respective communities. Netanyahu would have to take on the settlers and Abbas would have to take on Hamas and the Fatah radicals. Both men have silent majorities that would back them if they did, but neither man feels so uncomfortable with his present situation to risk that civil war inside to make peace outside…

The most valuable thing that President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could do now is just get out of the picture – so both leaders and both peoples have an unimpeded view of their horrible future together in one state, if they can’t separate…

America must get out of the way so Israelis and Palestinians can see clearly, without any obstructions, what reckless choices their leaders are making. Make no mistake, I am for the most active U.S. mediation effort possible to promote peace, but the initiative has to come from them.

Man’s got a point.

Other

Other

Eden Aberjil doesn’t understand what all the fuss is about. The former soldier sees nothing wrong with posting photos on her Facebook profile showing her posing, grinning and amused, alongside blindfolded Palestinian detainees. “The pictures reflect the military experience,” she told Army Radio this week of her online photo album, entitled “The army: the best time of my life.”…

Aberjil’s “experience” is reflective of a culture that has taken root over the course of decades of occupation, one which perceives Palestinian prisoners as subhuman…

The humiliation of Palestinian detainees must not be remembered as the “best time” of any soldier’s army experience.

It’s a sad comment on Israeli society that the newspaper needed make this point.

Other

Other

Other

Other

Other