Category: Middle East

Posted on

Democracy, the Jewish State, and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: A Conversation with Gershom Gorenberg

By Alexandra Woodruff

On April 3, 2014, Gershom Gorenberg, expert on Middle Eastern politics, discussed the peace negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians currently mediated by the US Secretary of State John Kerry. The discussion, co-hosted by Dartmouth’s Nelson A. Rockefeller Center for Public Policy and the Social Sciences and the John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding, highlighted issues of occupation and Israel’s identity as concurrently Jewish and democratic.

Gorenberg, a historian as well as a journalist, began the discussion by contextualizing the current peace negotiations by tracing the history of Israel’s development as a nation. After dividing Israel’s history into three eras, beginning with its pre-state history, followed by “the first republic,” and the period of “the accidental empire,” Gorenberg suggested Israel might be on the verge of a fourth era: “a second republic.”

The character of this era, still to come, depends on the success or failure of the current peace negotiations. Gorenberg emphasized that if the current talks were to break down any future negotiations would find both sides worse off. Additionally, he emphasized the importance of the talks and of compromise in continuing Israeli democracy.

Gorenberg also emphasized the importance of narratives in the peace talks, and the significance of the conflict between Israeli narrative and Palestinian narrative. But he also suggested that a “reconciliation of narratives” is not the goal of the current peace negotiations. Instead, it is more important that these narratives do not prevent a successful compromise.

Gorenberg also raised thought-provoking lessons applicable beyond the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. When discussing the conflict between Israel as a democratic nation and Israel as a Jewish nation (can it be both at once? Does true commitment to one prevent the other?), he pointed to two important considerations: first, when thinking about global issues and peoples, we have a habit of imposing Western conceptions upon non-western peoples. Specifically, the concept of “Jewish” as distinctly a religion or a race is a Western concept, and thus not particularly meaningful in discussions of identity and democracy in Israel. Second, Gorenberg emphasized that adopting a pessimistic “change can’t happen” perspective is not only politically damaging, but also historically inaccurate.

Gorenberg’s remarks were introduced by the Dartmouth chapter of J-Street U, “a pro-Israel, pro-peace, pro-Palestinian group that promotes American diplomatic leadership in achieving a two-state solution as an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

Gershom Gorenberg is a senior correspondent for The American Prospect and contributor to The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times.

 

Posted on

After the Arab Spring

By Spencer Blair

Professor Marc Lynch, a professor in the departments of Political Science and International Affairs at George Washington University, regrets coining the term “Arab Spring.” Professor Lynch, who gave a talk in Haldeman on Monday, October 28 called “After the Arab Spring,” was the first to use the term to describe a trend toward democracy in the Arab world in an article on his blog for Foreign Policy.

Lynch renounces the term simply because, while he has an optimistic vision for the Middle East’s long-term future, the 2011 uprisings have not contributed to democratization in the Middle East, and the short-term political future looks bleak in several of these countries, especially Egypt and Syria.

Despite the title “After the Arab Spring,” Lynch acknowledged that much of his talk was devoted to the cause of the Arab Spring, something Lynch attributed largely to the rise of social media. Lynch described the world before the rise of the Internet, in which acceptance of oppressive government was the only feasible political stance, because citizens of Middle Eastern countries under oppressive regimes had no way to educate or organize. Any sort of dissent was quashed immediately and never publicized, and television and radio contained nothing more than positive political coverage of a state’s oppressive leaders.

Expanded technology and the rise of social media, however, revolutionized the relationship between government and citizen, and instances of dissent went viral thanks to a brief Youtube clip or Facebook post. While the 2011 uprisings resulted from a series of complex political, historical, and social factors, the uprisings occurred when they did due to the concurrence of the regime oppression with the peak of social media’s prevalence and relevance in the region.

After the uprisings, Lynch argued, is where everything went wrong, resulting in the highly unfavorable political and social climate that plagues the region today. The changes that occurred following the uprisings were so substantial that returning to the former regime would have been impossible in nearly every country affected, but the upheaval resulted in a rise of Islamist governments rather than the intended democratization. In fact, Lynch and many others now use the term “Islamist winter” to describe the rise of Islamist governments following the initial upheaval, a far cry from the intended democratization of the movement.

The long-term political future that faces these nations is not overwhelmingly bleak, Lynch argues, because eventually these Islamist governments will face similar backlash to that faced by the authoritarian regimes that preceded them, and eventually the environment will be favorable enough for the unfinished business of democratization to occur. For now, however, political strife and anti-democratic behavior is destined to plague the nations that faced political uprisings in 2011 due to the failure of post-upheaval democratization – the lack of a true “Arab Spring.”

Posted on

Marc Lynch on the Arab Uprising

By Max Lu

The lecture delivered by Mark Lynch on the Arab uprising was absolutely fascinating because he provided an entirely different perspective from the mainstream media.

He talked at length about the historical context surrounding the Arab uprising, specifically how the underlying conditions for protest have existed for several decade. Based on this, he argued that the term “Arab Spring” that has been in common usage is actually inaccurate. Furthermore, he says that more protests will erupt in the future because none of the underlying problems have actually been addressed.

He also talked at length about the role of technology in protests. He analyzed the role that Al Jazeera originally had on the Arab public, and the role it continues to play today. He explained how the proliferation of mobile phones, the Internet, and social media expanded on that trend and substantially government control over the flow of information and the public discourse in the Arab world.

After defining the foundation of the protest, he analyzed individual countries and compared the paths that they took. He first pointed out the extreme similarity between the path taken by Tunisia and Egypt, then explained how no other country took a similar path. He talked about the ongoing situation in Syria and how that is affecting its neighbors, the region, and the operational capability of terrorists.

The final part of his lecture focused on the limited influence of US foreign policy on the situation in the Middle East. He argued that American military intervention in Syria would really have limited influence because the US cannot change many of the fundamental forces interacting on the ground.

He also showed that he was very knowledgeable during the question and answer session, drawing from his firsthand knowledge in the region to analyze questions ranging from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to US relations with Saudi Arabia. Overall, it was an excellent lecture that provided a fresh perspective to an important issue.

Posted on

Dinner Discussion with General Mattis

By Feyaad Allie

mattis

Last Friday evening, General James Mattis, retired commander of US Central Command, sat down for a dinner and discussion with members of World Outlook. From this experience, I gained invaluable insight into different viewpoints regarding American policy in the Middle East.

Not surprisingly, General Mattis was called upon to speak about the current situation in Syria. He emphasized that when considering any intervention; the US government must articulate specific goals. He contended that a lack of defined objectives makes it difficult to even consider intervening, no matter the circumstances – leading to questions about the moral imperative in the case of human rights abuses. Mattis responded that since America is not fiscally stable, it is difficult for human rights issues to be a top priority. He asserted that intervention would require cutting domestic costs or borrowing more money from Beijing, both of which are undesirable. Though I didn’t entirely agree with the General’s lack of emphasis on the moral arguments in his assessment of Syria, I did think he offered valid points to consider. The Syrian crisis is a delicate situation and warrants careful thought. The dinner with General Mattis reaffirmed for me that there is no ideal way to handle the conflict.

Other points of interest from the discussion were General Mattis’ justifications for continuing US involvement in the Middle East: 1) US allies, such as Israel and Jordan; 2) the presence of oil; 3) the existence of violent extremism; and 4) the US’ ability to facilitate peace talks. These reasons highlighted the importance of remaining engaged with the Middle East.

Overall, the dinner discussion emphasized the necessity of US involvement in the Middle East and the complexity of issues in that region.

 

Posted on

General James Mattis Gives Public Lecture at Dartmouth

By Justin Roshak

For those of us who came of age during the late Bush administration, the world is dominated by two conflicting sentiments. First, American military and economic hegemony gives us hope that we might use them to do good. Second, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan make us deeply suspicious of American imperialism. This past Wednesday, General James Mattis, retired commander of U.S. Central Command, gave a lecture at Dartmouth entitled, “In the Midst of the Storm: A U.S. Commander’s View of the Changing Middle East.” I found it supremely valuable to hear from a man who has stood on the front lines of the past decade of war and hope, disappointment and progress.

During this lecture, Gen. Mattis spoke about US foreign policy and military action in the Middle East and  below I’ve sketched out some of the critical takeaway points from his discussion:

On Egypt: Undeniable setbacks. The road to democracy is long, and there is room for both hope and disappointment.

On Syria: Assad must go, but what replaces him may not be to out liking. Men regularly betray their countries, but rarely abandon their religion.

On Iran: Detente may be near, but Iran must behave responsibly, less like a revolutionary cause and more like a sovereign state.

The United States has, he said, an international responsibility to maintain stability. That means working with perhaps unsavory regimes, supporting positive change where we can, and maintaing a healthy sense of its limitations. The 200,000 soldiers, sailors, and flyers of CENTCOM are only one half of US power, for they stay at the pleasure of the allies.

He spoke movingly about the ethical foundations of the United States armed forces, and urged us not to condemn the vast majority of determined, moral young men and women for the crimes of a few. “We fix our mistakes” he said, and that struggle towards an ideal is a source of great strength. The US volunteer soldier has, he said with visible pride, a remarkable capacity to keep cool in terrible circumstances. Once he approached a young man under fire and, asking him what was happening, he replied that he was “taking the fun out of fundamentalism”. That calm in the face of danger, he said, means keeping to moral restraint.

Practicality must rule the day. We can support moral diplomacy without wasting our time, money, and lives, but “America has no moral imperative to do the impossible” Ultimately, the level of American engagement will be dictated by the American people. We have resources to secure our economic and moral interests, but there must be political will to do so.

Posted on

Gender Inequality and the Arab Uprisings

By Nick Donlan

When discussing and analyzing the events of the last eighteen months in the Middle East and North Africa, many commentators have framed their narratives and explanations around the “heroic martyrdom” of Mohamed Bouazizi, the Tunisian street vendor who famously set himself on fire after having his wares confiscated by a local police officer. Although his act and story became a catalyst for the Tunisian Revolution (and, some argue, the ongoing uprisings throughout the region), the conventional media account of the incident tends to omit how Bouazizi’s self-immolation may have been the product of more than simply the economic injustices he experienced. While Bouazizi’s difficulties finding a suitable job have been well-documented, pundits frequently overlook (or disregard) his own family’s suggestion that his suicide may have been a response to the shame and humiliation he felt after being slapped in public by a female government official. The world will never know exactly what motivated Bouazizi to strike that fateful match, but his family’s speculation should serve as a reminder to those attempting to comprehend the Arab uprisings that issues of gender inequality are inextricably linked to concerns about economic opportunity and political participation.

In the wake of Bouazizi’s death, specific circumstances and motivations aside, public dissatisfaction with the actions and policies of authoritarian dictators gave way to the rise of widespread protests throughout Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, Syria, Yemen, and beyond. Over a year after these protests began, the region’s governments continue to scramble to consolidate power and regain — or establish — legitimacy with their citizens as they face increasingly uncertain futures. However, the plights of these regimes pale in comparison to those of women throughout the region, many of whom played unprecedented and often vital roles organizing and participating in demonstrations. Although nascent democracies have emerged in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia, early evidence seems to suggest there are no guarantees that more citizen representation will translate into more beneficial outcomes for the women of these countries.

In the most recent issue of Foreign Policy, Mona Eltahawy argues convincingly that the political changes have done little for women across the Middle East and North Africa because of deeply rooted patriarchal attitudes that hamper the prospects for sweeping social changes. In Egypt, for example, women turned out to the streets after the fall of Hosni Mubarak to celebrate International Women’s Day only to be harassed by a rival protest of men spouting insults like, “Go home, wash clothes,” and, “You are not married, go and find a husband.” With just eight women in Egypt’s new 500-seat parliament dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists, practices like forced marriage and female genital mutilation may remain part of the status quo for the foreseeable future. Perhaps even more troubling are the signs of backsliding in traditionally tolerant Tunisia; several female university professors and students have voiced concerns over Islamists’ open hostility towards them for not wearing hijabs.

The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Yemeni activist Tawakel Karman marked an important moment of international recognition of the bravery of an Arab woman. However, despite this recognition, Karman still endures criticism from fellow Yemenis who have labeled her leadership style as “dictatorial” and accuse her of ruining the morality of women. Until men and women present a united front against repressive governments, these revolutions will fall well short of their potential to remedy not only gender discrimination, but also other social and economic ills. Indeed, as Eltahawy eloquently put it in her piece: “The Arab uprisings may have been sparked by an Arab man … but they will be finished by Arab women.”