Hamas' Cynical Plan

Israel was not created in order to disappear – Israel will endure and flourish.  It is the child of hope and the home of the brave.  It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success.  It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom.

            President John F. Kennedy 

This past week, Permanent Observer of Palestine to the U.N. Riyad Mansour spoke of the recent troubles between his state and Israel.  He spoke of Israel breaking the recently agreed upon cease-fire and castigated the Jewish state for the massacre of Palestinians.  Interviewer Charlie Rose asked about the actions of Hamas, breaking the truce with thousands of rockets leading to the Israeli response.  Mr. Mansour, speaking with either shocking naïveté or willful obliviousness, said that Hamas does not represent the Abbas government and therefore, does not represent a violation of the cease-fire.  The U.N. Observer’s verbiage is characteristic of an unbalanced and cynical approach in the worsening climate of the Middle East. 

Since the Oslo Accord in 1993, Israel has been pushed into one agreement after another in which it sacrifices and Palestine does not.  Israel has ceded territory, has agreed to a needed two-state solution and nine years ago, it demolished a slew of Israeli settlements throughout Gaza and the West Bank to secure a possible peace.  It has entered into negotiations with the Abbas government who has shown, at times in the recent crisis, remarkable courage in speaking out against Hamas and those who support the terrorist group.  Yet, Hamas lies just outside the light of diplomacy and refuses to budge.  

Hamas has pursued a policy that calls for the destruction of Israel by inviting its fire and using ordinary Palestinians as shields.  Despite Mr. Mansour’s blithe understanding and acceptance of Hamas, the terrorist group has fired its many rockets out of homes, schools, mosques and areas that would ensure, in the retaliation, what Charles Krauthammer called the telegenic death of hundreds of innocent civilians.  The deaths of innocents televised are callously used as part of a public relations campaign that has won support throughout the world.  Morality does not matter, only the end result.  Hamas fires away at Israel while some throughout the world justify the means used.  I guess terrorism works.  

For all those who chastise and criticize Israel for its actions, it fails to offer an alternative.  Some have suggested at other times that Israel needs to negotiate.  To what end?  To lose more land or invite more rockets?  Other observers have correctly assessed that since Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank ended nearly a decade ago and Palestine has been able to pave its own path, vital economic and political institutions, needed infrastructure and stability has been absent.  Despite the fact that Israel gives the Palestinian state millions of dollars a year in aid and supplies, a periodically well-intentioned Mahmoud Abbas and the powerless Palestinian civilians have been in the grips of Hamas.  The terrorist organization has repeatedly sought to undermine any efforts of peace.  They want the destruction of Israel and if it can’t happen militarily, they will do so by cynically placing its own “constituents” in the line of fire to convince the world that Israel is in the wrong. 

Israel, to its credit, has failed to dove-tail into the culture of death and martyrdom that is being embraced in Gaza.  Israeli ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer, referring to the words of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has come out to say that Israel will not glorify the Jews responsible for the reaction to the death of three Israeli teenagers.  Those who killed that young Palestinian man will not be hailed as heroes, will not have public squares named after them and will not be taught to young Israeli children.  All of which has happened in Palestine.   

It is difficult to say how Palestine and the ordinary citizen will be able to take control again of its future and its faith.  Thankfully, if recent international news coverage holds true, there has been a more even-handed reporting of the recent violence with a hard look being cast upon Hamas.  Israel has little open to them in the way of options.  Hamas is counting on that and hoping that the old formula will work once more.  Perhaps, people are starting to see the position with which Israel has wrestled over the last couple of decades.  If Hamas can be shown for what it is, it might bring the region closer to peace.  Sadly, I don’t expect to see it any time soon.

Beginning of the Reckoning?

Last weekend, European and American leaders, in negotiations with Iranian representatives in Geneva, Switzerland, struck a six-month deal to limit the enrichment of uranium.  It is hoped that this agreement is the first step towards slowing Iran’s search for a nuclear weapon.  However, as a historian, I hope this is not the Munich Agreement of our times.  At its core is a trust (or hope) that Iran will fulfill its obligations as it sincerely presented them at the negotiation table.  Despite this, there is a fear that the western European leaders and President Obama do not end up looking like the appeasers – a group of leaders who hoped, against history, that the promises slipping from the mouths of tyrants do not end up costing us dearly in the end. 

It is often said that the current elected leader of Iran, President Hassan Rouhani, is a moderate.  Keep in mind that in a country like Iran, “moderate” does not translate to a western definition.  If indeed he is not the promise that many westerners desperately hope he is, the question must be asked about the motivation of Iran.  Iran, like most dictatorial regimes, only agrees to that which costs them nothing to do so.  Consider the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Act.  Throughout the Harding/Coolidge administrations, there was a concerted attempt to take war off the table and help bring more belligerent countries in line with some fifty-four countries signing along.  This measure was joined by earlier efforts such as the Washington Conference (1921-2) and the various naval power agreements to limit tools of war.  However, such pie-in-the-sky idealism, further advanced by the impotent League of Nations, only assuaged people’s concern temporarily.  None of the agreements or the organization prevented the carnage ahead.   

The hope for better things, with no history or facts to support such aspirations, brought us to the infamous Munich Agreement, where the Allies, desperate to avoid war, gave away Czechoslovakia in the late 1930s.  Czechoslovakia was not present at those meetings, and today, countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia, very concerned by an Iran with nuclear weapons, are equally minimized and now equally anxious.  To put it succinctly, many people are concerned because they don’t trust the governments that formed the agreement.  The Saudis do not trust the Iranians to carry out their obligations and they do not trust the Obama administration or the Europeans to punish Iran should the Islamic Republic fail to uphold its end.  For Saudi Arabia, who fears a Shi’a nuclear power, and the Israelis, who fear anyone nearby with a nuclear weapon, a rather untenable situation has developed.  Despite the words of assurances by various European and American leaders, the general sense is that it is doomed to fail because the aggressor lacks the interest and the appeasers lack the intestinal fortitude for a fight.  

Herein lies the problem of all of the major conflicts that have wreaked havoc in the 20^th century.  The League of Nations was destroyed because it failed to act against Italian aggression in Albania and Ethiopia and when Japan invaded its neighbors.  U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt felt that by not joining the Spanish civil war, the fight between fascists and republicans would not grow but it did when Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini helped.  The Allies partially created the carnage of World War II because they failed to check Hitler’s rise to power.  What will be said 40 years from now?  Will European leaders and President Obama further epitomize the folly of trusting untrustworthy dictatorships?  History seems to suggest that the treaty struck in Geneva will be an unmitigated disaster through either Iranian action or pre-emptive strikes by Saudi Arabia or Israel.   

From the outside, it is easy to make judgments and none of us are privy to all the factors that went into the construction of that treaty.  I can only use the examples of leaders past to understand what happens when you try to buy compliance with concessions.  One good side of the treaty is that it lasts only six months and perhaps, with a clearer vision, world leaders might take another approach.  I’d just hate to think the future of relations in the Middle East (and its stability) is dependent upon the cooperation of a country like Iran.  Let us hope our leaders have learned from history instead of just repeating it. 

Habemus Papam

It is a ceremony that is unique in its old-fashion qualities.  An announcement of epic proportion done through smoke signals – a white smoke signal that sends an electrical charge throughout the crowd outside St. Peter, filling out the square that stretches out before the famed cathedral.  Within the Eternal City, Catholics and curious onlookers from around the world, some bedecked in the colors of their country or their region, many clutching crucifixes, stood facing the Loggia of the Blessings, the balcony at the front of the St. Peter’s Cathedral.  To add to the antiquity quality of the event, the cardinal deacon Jean-Louis Tauran of France made the announcement of the new pope in Latin.  Whether devout or secular, ambivalent or rapt, all find a curiosity in the announcement Habemus papam – we have a new pope. 

I’m not Catholic but like most people, I was quite Tiggerish about the idea of a new pope and the pomp and circumstance in which it was surrounded.  So, what does the new pope mean?  Remember that this man is immediately responsible for over one billion individuals who look to him for spiritual guidance and a church that seeks direction in the face of internal and external challenges.  When the new pope announced Urbi et Orbi, therein lies his new responsibilities – to the city and to the world.  The new pope, Jesuit Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina or Francis I, must restore the trust of people in the Church but also has a role to play in continuing the efforts of Benedict XVI and John Paul II by working with the conflicts that plague the world and, in particular, the Holy Land. 

There has been much speculation that a new pope, particularly one from outside of Europe, could be a more liberal, modern one – one that might extend different attitudes towards a greater role for women, contraception and gays and lesbians.  Despite the theological problem with some of those issues, the pope is likely to be more conservative considering that all the cardinals that made up the conclave were appointed by the previous two pontiffs – both were conservative, ideological and intellectuals.  It is unlikely that Francis I will be different and it is just as well because the church does not need a theologically flexible man but a steadfast one to ward off the evils from within and the pressures from without.   

Within the square, the media sought long and hard for those who had all sorts of demands of the pontiff.  Yet Francis I, as a direct descendent of the man Jesus entrusted with the keys to the kingdom of heaven, cannot afford to play fast and loose with the dictates of the Church.  Modernity and its demands are not a concern, nor should it be, of the church or the Holy Father.  The late Cardinal John O’Connor, the bishop of New York, once said that it was not the responsibility of the Church to bow to the sins of the congregation but it falls upon the adherents to rise to the standard of the Church and Christ.     

The pope has challenging years ahead.  At the age of 76, he does not have much time, one would surmise, to act upon his interests.  While a new pope suggests new possibilities, this man, by all accounts a humble one, shall be tested in quick order.  As Catholics throughout the world pray for their new leader, we all can play a role in making things better.  Perhaps we has Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists can all extend our own prayers to help put an end to what troubles us in this world.  It certainly could not hurt. 

The One Truly Philosophical Problem

There are some topics that are hard to discuss – not so much because the topic is difficult but the readers have no frame of reference.  For example, how can an American audience relate to the selling of children into prostitution because it brings money in for the family?  How can an American audience relate to the killing of government opposition in order to quell dissatisfaction?  Even more difficult is suicide as protest.  Sadly, Americans have plenty experience with suicide but only as it relates to mental illness – not as a form of protest from one of “sound mind and body.”  There was an interesting article in Foreign Policy on the psychological components of a suicide protestor, highlighting differences between sanguinary and communicative objectives but it is fair to also consider the effectiveness of the tactic.

My article is not a moral argument but more a practical one.  The two main types of suicide as protest (as also highlighted in the article) are suicide bombers (sanguinary) and suicide by self-immolation (communicative).  While both profess to do the same thing (attempt to alter a present condition through self-sacrifice), they are radically different in their approaches and in how others perceive the acts. 

The suicide bomber is largely seen negatively from a western mind-set because the protest involves the death of others (typically, innocents) and the motives are not always pure.  Studies done on the subject show that seldom are these “martyrs” ideologues.  Though these acts are not approved of, they are effective.  Suicide bombings have changed the course of European governments and have compelled them to accept what was generally considered antithetical to their beliefs.  Examples include Spain’s quick withdrawal from Iraq after the Madrid bombings and the condemnation over cartoons depicting Muhammad negatively instead of defense of free speech.  It would be one thing if these governments presented an argument that defined their policies separate from the bombings, especially in the case of Spain, but more typically, the hope is that by deferring they can avoid the possibility of bombings in their country. 

Never mind that we are talking about European countries and other western democracies responding to the actions and beliefs of a few, but ultimately, it might not matter.  Consider the recent violence between Israelis and Hamas.  The Palestinians fire rockets from schools, hospitals and other civilian centers.  They admit this in press conferences.  When Israel responds, world news outlets characterize the measure as brutal and criminal.  When Palestinian and Hamas leadership say they “must” fire from these locations, no one challenges their near-complete lack of rationale nor challenges their assertion that in the same breath, they blame the Israelis for killing their civilians.  This is in conjunction with suicide bombers sent into Israel but the actions are the same.  The use of sacrifice to make and implement a point but on a much larger scale than an individual bomber.  The sacrifices are working as Palestinians are gaining in international support. 

On the other hand, we see a recent uptick in self-immolation by Buddhist priests, a resurgence of an old tactic from the Viet Nam War era.  The most famous of these suicide protests was done by Vietnamese monk Thích Quẚng Dức in protest of the Ngo Dinh Diem government in the South in 1963.  These measures, most recently seen in Burma and Tibet, are universally admired and register with people because of the self-sacrifice, without other casualties, against a repressive regime.  There is also something to the pain and suffering that goes into the sacrifice, separate from the instantaneous and otherwise painless sacrifice of suicide bombers.  There is also a widely held belief that the sacrifice is being done by one much more aware and dedicated to their cause.  However, they are the least effective.  Neither the South Vietnamese government nor the more modern Burmese government was shaken by the protests and it was not what brought down these regimes.  Tibet activists have made little headway against China though they have gained world-wide support. 

What we hate, we respond to and what we appreciate, we ignore.  Part of this is due to China’s prominence in world affairs, as opposed to many Middle Eastern countries who largely play little economic role internationally.  With each suicide bomber, we witness the death and destruction and, for some, there is a permanent change in the perception of Islam as a faith of extremism.  To make matters worse, we validate and value that perception by how we respond.  We back away from time-honored liberties and rights while twisting our world view to accept the paradigm of terrorists.  In doing so, we also give no help to those who seek to right the ship and take back the core of Arab and Islamic values. 

Many Faces and Many Challenges

For moderate and modern Muslims, it must be a tiring thing to watch, once more, as clerics stoke highly impressionable and easily angered radicals to rise up and destroy and kill over something as insignificant as a low-budget movie that, were it not for the violence, no one would have heard of or thought much about.  Yet, we see the hostility from various countries around the world.  Worse, we see governments, namely Egypt, who provides the most ineffectual of rebukes on the riots and attacks on foreign embassies.  It is with Egypt that the U.S. is most concern but the crisis is twofold – religious and political. 

From a religious point of view, where do the renewed attacks, protests and riots leave Islam?  I don’t suspect that Muslims do or should care of how they are perceived outside their mosques and homes but it must have occurred to some regarding the level of insecurity in faith the actions of a few represent.  In Islam’s early days, the religion was a vibrant and progressive faith whose focus on education and exploration, of the world and of ideas.  Indeed, the Muslims were responsible for the preservation of Greek and Roman knowledge and philosophies.  However, as the faith grew and the empires it counseled grew larger and more suspicious, Muslim clerics forbade outside or new ideas that could not be validated by the Qur’an.  In doing so, the Muslims turned their backs on their own greatness and turned inwards, fearful of those from without who sought to pollute their faith.  Today, if Islam is characterized by anything, it is those whose anti-modernity pervert the faith and its tenets.  Meanwhile, Muslims who do not share such sentiments are overshadowed, outshouted and ignored. 

Politically, this can only worsen relations between the Arab nations and the West.  The United States has supported, albeit weakly, the movements that have sought a greater voice throughout the Middle East.  However, as has been mentioned before, the Arab Spring has become more a hopeful description rather than an accurate one.  Indeed, some of the same corrupt powers are being wielded by new faces that previously represented the voices of the oppressed.  Though the U.S. did not do as much as many would have preferred, the actions of rioters are mystifying given that which the Americans have done.  To Americans, the blame we “share” for the making of this film is telling in two ways.  To citizens where the government approves or disapproves of any form of expression, there is a lack of understanding of how things work in a free society, where most have little knowledge of such a film.  Second, the clerics and leaders whipping people into a frenzy couldn’t care less about Mohammad or his teachings; the film is simply an excuse to strike against those they hate.

Protestors destroyed our embassies and killed our representatives.  Meanwhile, what does the U.S. do?  The general consensus is that Libya has shown more stability and more outrage to the actions of a few than seen elsewhere.  In Egypt, we give nearly $2b in foreign aid and President Obama has extended his greatest amount of support to President Morsi and recognition of the elected government.  The lack of support and weakness of the response to the rioters suggest that the current Egyptian government will prove trouble for the Americans.  Perhaps, our displeasure with the Egyptian response should culminate in a withdrawal of some or all foreign aid and a pulling back of our support of the government.  Egypt’s actions deserve no less.  Meanwhile, the unrest throughout the region needs to be countered by those Muslims with a greater world view.  If not, Islam will be relegated to the extremists and the worst of stereotypes.  We are already moving towards that.