This will be short and to the point, but it is the "great unspoken," so I will once again speak and say it.
Another year has gone by, capping another decade that has gone by, without genuine justice, truth telling and peace in the Middle East.
I have found myself wondering often, as I see the evidence most clearly before me, if many humans have been so deluded that they genuinely prefer to see Armageddon type so called "signs" in the Middle East, rather than roll up their sleeves and achieve genuine and honorable peace and justice. You know who I mean.
The angels proclaimed their declarations from God upon the birth of Jesus of peace to men (people) of "good will." There will be no peace in the Middle East until people get back to work on it in the transparent and fresh air of truthfulness and genuine good will. Again, this comes down to living righteously, not self proclaimed self-righteousness.
Showing posts with label Middle East. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Middle East. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Cultural diplomacy tutorial and RANT
This is another in my series regarding how to understand and achieve successful cultural diplomacy. Here I will explain to you things you must understand about how resistance, subversive and even “terroristic” organizations arise and important characteristics to keep in mind to achieve peace. I have Hamas in the Gaza strip in my mind as the specific case study, but will reference the wide range of groups in history who have been in a revolutionary or uprising role. The only group I want to reserve for separate consideration because they are totally unique is Al Qaeda.
The main point of this tutorial and case study will be to refute the modern assumptions by many, especially those in the western world, that a resistance, subversive or terrorist organization is a separate entity from the civilian population. All resistance, subversive and terrorist organizations arise from the populace; they are not “imposed” on an unwilling population nor are they “side by side” with the populace. Thus Israel and the United States are being deliberately dishonest to imply that Hamas is an organization that can be “rooted out” of the populace, like weeds being pulled from among good corn. Think of Hamas as corn with guns. The same is true of Hezbollah in Lebanon and of course the PLO, now Fatah, the legitimate government, before Fatah lost credibility. One would be more accurate to understand such organizations, with the exception of Al Qaeda, as being violent political parties that non-violent people also support or they would not be on the “ballot” of public opinion.
Look at the two historical examples of the American Revolution and the overthrow of the Czars by the Communists. It’s not like a bunch of people in what would become the United States imposed their will to revolt against England on top of the citizen populace. The delegates to the Congress from the states and then the men who fought in the armies all were drawn from and empowered by the people. Imagine if England thought that the Revolutionaries were a distinct group that they could “kill off” and then the desire for freedom would just die out in America. That would have been a huge military error one that, obviously, they did not make. The English understood very well that the civilian populace fueled and supported the revolution and were part of it, not a separate entity. Those of the civilians who disagreed with the Revolution either remained in place silently and accepted the tide of change, or left for England or Canada. Likewise in the former USSR, one must understand that the populace was behind and part of the Communists who overthrew the monarchy. The problem is that they didn’t know what they were bargaining for, how ruinous Communism would be for body and soul. But the excesses of the monarchy and their ignoring of the extreme and dire poverty of the people allowed the Bolsheviks to arise from among the populace, not as a superimposed force.
Another example is “The Troubles” in Northern Ireland, the conflict between paramilitary Protestant Irish and paramilitary Catholic Irish. Again, right or wrong, it’s not like these groups fell out of the sky and imposed their will on the people. They were members of the populace who felt the need for resistance (Catholic minorities) and counter resistance (the ruling Protestants). That is why one simply could not “go in” and “jail or kill” every paramilitary IRA member, for example, without at the same time pursuing genuine diplomacy. Because these extremist organizations arise from and belong to the populace, one cannot EVER pursue a “sequential” process where “step one” is “stop the violence” and then step two as the “reward” is the diplomacy.
The United States is guilty of naïve and even stupid beliefs such as that. I cannot remember the last time we had “diplomats” who were actually even adequate in understanding the principles of diplomacy and the origins of revolutionary, subversive or terrorist movements. Israel knows darn well the difference but they have made a cultural decision to have a “backs against the wall” stance that insists on total “peace” before social injustice is addressed. Thus Israel is delighted at the naiveté of the past several generations of US “diplomats” who they view as public relations mouthpieces and “defensive” weapons suppliers. I mean, give me a break. Any diplomat worth his or her salt realizes that one cannot “wait” for a total “cease fire” before diplomacy while at the same time one side is turning up the heat of the social injustice that, genuine or perceived, is the result of the valid or invalid violence. It is like expecting a pit bull to stop biting while you are still hitting it with a stick. Israel knows full well that they have tightened the screws on the Palestinians to make their day to day economic life a misery and, in fact, a gulag and thus they continue to poke the pit bull while loudly screaming with feigned senses of grievance that “total peace” is needed before “diplomacy can begin.”
President Bush and his “expert on Russia,” Condoleezza Rice, have not earned one penny of their paychecks regarding the Middle East. What an embarrassment they have been.
Notice I have mixed examples of what people could say are “justifiable” revolution, subversion and while terrorism is never justified one must acknowledge that obviously someone thinks it is or they’d be home planting grape vines, with examples that obviously came to very unhappy fruition, such as the Bolshevik Revolution that brought Communism to power. You don’t “agree” with the people you are engaging in diplomacy with, for cripes sake. Golda Meir (the last Israeli leader that I think understood diplomacy) herself said that you negotiate with your enemies, not your friends. Diplomats should not be “step and fetch its” for one side in the diplomatic endeavor.
I mean, think about this slowly and carefully. In resolving a dispute, how reasonable and fair can that diplomat be if they are supplying one side with the weaponry? The idea of the USA being a diplomat in the Middle East problem is a joke and always has been. All the USA does is supply Israel with weapons and pats on the back. That’s fine if that is the foreign policy stance of the USA but what nerve they have to call themselves “partners in a peace process” and “diplomats.”
Europeans used to be very savvy about diplomacy, having centuries of genuine experience, and they used to laugh at Americans being clods and naïve. In turn, in fairness, Americans spotted the mote in the Europeans’ own diplomatic eye with their soft stance toward the grave and mortal dangers of Communism. But because the Americans were right about Communism, the Europeans shut up and just let it slide as the Americans make a mess of the Middle East. In turn the Americans think that they are foreign policy geniuses (for recognizing that Communism is bad, duh) and as a result have missed cultivating at least three generations of genuine diplomats.
There is another cultural problem with Americans. Because they have experienced over the past forty years the freakish forming of cults and criminal individuals or groups that are terrorists, they have done an unconscious and totally invalid pattern matching in their minds. Thus when America had domestic terrorists such as the SLA (the folks who kidnapped Patty Hearst back in the 60's) who are a few nuts who united for havoc, the lack of diplomatic savvy in the government resulted in Americans just assuming that all terrorists throughout the world are a loose coalition of "nuts" "imposing” terrorism on the populace. In other words, Americans have become so simplistic that they have only two models of understanding of armed resistance: a group of criminal nuts like the SLA from the 60's, or Al Qaeda from 2001. Americans seem to understand absolutely nothing in between which is where all the conflicts in the world actually reside, in that space in between.
Therefore, to summarize my points:
The main point of this tutorial and case study will be to refute the modern assumptions by many, especially those in the western world, that a resistance, subversive or terrorist organization is a separate entity from the civilian population. All resistance, subversive and terrorist organizations arise from the populace; they are not “imposed” on an unwilling population nor are they “side by side” with the populace. Thus Israel and the United States are being deliberately dishonest to imply that Hamas is an organization that can be “rooted out” of the populace, like weeds being pulled from among good corn. Think of Hamas as corn with guns. The same is true of Hezbollah in Lebanon and of course the PLO, now Fatah, the legitimate government, before Fatah lost credibility. One would be more accurate to understand such organizations, with the exception of Al Qaeda, as being violent political parties that non-violent people also support or they would not be on the “ballot” of public opinion.
Look at the two historical examples of the American Revolution and the overthrow of the Czars by the Communists. It’s not like a bunch of people in what would become the United States imposed their will to revolt against England on top of the citizen populace. The delegates to the Congress from the states and then the men who fought in the armies all were drawn from and empowered by the people. Imagine if England thought that the Revolutionaries were a distinct group that they could “kill off” and then the desire for freedom would just die out in America. That would have been a huge military error one that, obviously, they did not make. The English understood very well that the civilian populace fueled and supported the revolution and were part of it, not a separate entity. Those of the civilians who disagreed with the Revolution either remained in place silently and accepted the tide of change, or left for England or Canada. Likewise in the former USSR, one must understand that the populace was behind and part of the Communists who overthrew the monarchy. The problem is that they didn’t know what they were bargaining for, how ruinous Communism would be for body and soul. But the excesses of the monarchy and their ignoring of the extreme and dire poverty of the people allowed the Bolsheviks to arise from among the populace, not as a superimposed force.
Another example is “The Troubles” in Northern Ireland, the conflict between paramilitary Protestant Irish and paramilitary Catholic Irish. Again, right or wrong, it’s not like these groups fell out of the sky and imposed their will on the people. They were members of the populace who felt the need for resistance (Catholic minorities) and counter resistance (the ruling Protestants). That is why one simply could not “go in” and “jail or kill” every paramilitary IRA member, for example, without at the same time pursuing genuine diplomacy. Because these extremist organizations arise from and belong to the populace, one cannot EVER pursue a “sequential” process where “step one” is “stop the violence” and then step two as the “reward” is the diplomacy.
The United States is guilty of naïve and even stupid beliefs such as that. I cannot remember the last time we had “diplomats” who were actually even adequate in understanding the principles of diplomacy and the origins of revolutionary, subversive or terrorist movements. Israel knows darn well the difference but they have made a cultural decision to have a “backs against the wall” stance that insists on total “peace” before social injustice is addressed. Thus Israel is delighted at the naiveté of the past several generations of US “diplomats” who they view as public relations mouthpieces and “defensive” weapons suppliers. I mean, give me a break. Any diplomat worth his or her salt realizes that one cannot “wait” for a total “cease fire” before diplomacy while at the same time one side is turning up the heat of the social injustice that, genuine or perceived, is the result of the valid or invalid violence. It is like expecting a pit bull to stop biting while you are still hitting it with a stick. Israel knows full well that they have tightened the screws on the Palestinians to make their day to day economic life a misery and, in fact, a gulag and thus they continue to poke the pit bull while loudly screaming with feigned senses of grievance that “total peace” is needed before “diplomacy can begin.”
President Bush and his “expert on Russia,” Condoleezza Rice, have not earned one penny of their paychecks regarding the Middle East. What an embarrassment they have been.
Notice I have mixed examples of what people could say are “justifiable” revolution, subversion and while terrorism is never justified one must acknowledge that obviously someone thinks it is or they’d be home planting grape vines, with examples that obviously came to very unhappy fruition, such as the Bolshevik Revolution that brought Communism to power. You don’t “agree” with the people you are engaging in diplomacy with, for cripes sake. Golda Meir (the last Israeli leader that I think understood diplomacy) herself said that you negotiate with your enemies, not your friends. Diplomats should not be “step and fetch its” for one side in the diplomatic endeavor.
I mean, think about this slowly and carefully. In resolving a dispute, how reasonable and fair can that diplomat be if they are supplying one side with the weaponry? The idea of the USA being a diplomat in the Middle East problem is a joke and always has been. All the USA does is supply Israel with weapons and pats on the back. That’s fine if that is the foreign policy stance of the USA but what nerve they have to call themselves “partners in a peace process” and “diplomats.”
Europeans used to be very savvy about diplomacy, having centuries of genuine experience, and they used to laugh at Americans being clods and naïve. In turn, in fairness, Americans spotted the mote in the Europeans’ own diplomatic eye with their soft stance toward the grave and mortal dangers of Communism. But because the Americans were right about Communism, the Europeans shut up and just let it slide as the Americans make a mess of the Middle East. In turn the Americans think that they are foreign policy geniuses (for recognizing that Communism is bad, duh) and as a result have missed cultivating at least three generations of genuine diplomats.
There is another cultural problem with Americans. Because they have experienced over the past forty years the freakish forming of cults and criminal individuals or groups that are terrorists, they have done an unconscious and totally invalid pattern matching in their minds. Thus when America had domestic terrorists such as the SLA (the folks who kidnapped Patty Hearst back in the 60's) who are a few nuts who united for havoc, the lack of diplomatic savvy in the government resulted in Americans just assuming that all terrorists throughout the world are a loose coalition of "nuts" "imposing” terrorism on the populace. In other words, Americans have become so simplistic that they have only two models of understanding of armed resistance: a group of criminal nuts like the SLA from the 60's, or Al Qaeda from 2001. Americans seem to understand absolutely nothing in between which is where all the conflicts in the world actually reside, in that space in between.
Therefore, to summarize my points:
1) You cannot have a valid diplomatic role if you are supplying weaponry to one side, period. I mean, duh, how difficult is that to understand? Step aside and let real genuine neutral diplomats take over your "role."
2) We need genuine diplomats who understand cultural and historical contexts and who understand the actual diplomatic process and are not just “advocates with agendas for one side.”
3) All enduring organizations that are based on armed resistance are not separate from the populace and cannot be extracted from the populace.
4) There is no example of diplomacy where negotiation “waits” until “after” violence has “completely stopped,” particularly if the aggrieved side experiences continual pressure and provocation.
5) Do not say you are for “democracy” and “free elections” and then declare the winners “terrorists.” Hamas was elected into office, deal with it, not whine and try to kill them off while calling yourselves "pillars of democracy."
The diplomatic ignorance and willful collusion of the Americans in injustice in many forums around the world has been a source of excruciating embarrassment for me for decades now. We don’t have diplomats; we have empty suits with big egos who fly around like celebrities. It’s embarrassing.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Cultural diplomacy: Case study, Libya
I'm impressed. Read this article.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Gadhafis-Son.html
snip
This week's events -- including an unprecedented phone call between Bush and Moammar Gadhafi -- capped a halting, five-year rapprochement between the two countries that began in 2003 when the Libyan leader renounced terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. The process gained traction in August when the U.S. and Libya agreed on the compensation deal.
The younger Gadhafi, who also met with human rights and environmental groups, said his main message was: ''We are good people, and nice. We'll make business. We'll invest, and we have friends here in the states and we have a new chapter in the relations.''
He said Libya's new sovereign wealth fund, a government-owned investment fund with almost $100 billion, ''wants to invest here in America'' despite the current financial crisis.
I'm not going to write a long tutorial on cultural diplomacy, and instead point this topic out to my readers to do whatever behind the scenes background reading that you like about Libya-USA relationships. However, I want to make some points that genuine diplomats should always keep in mind that they can learn from this success.
1) If both sides have a genuine desire to resolve differences, even the most impossible situation can be resolved, often with a success that never could have been anticipated.
If you think that there is incredible misery weighing down the Israel-Palestinian problem, with decades of horror on both sides that damage diplomatic good intentions, let me assure you, especially you younger readers, that the situation between Libya and the USA seemed just as doomed to never overcoming the past. With time and determination on both sides, incredibly we have reached this unforeseen good outcome.
So never "write off" the possibility of genuine cultural diplomacy brokering a shining break through in even the worse of situations.
2) Regardless of provocations, while it is allowable to make forceful responses to situations, never attempt to corner the other party so that they have no dignity.
As rough as the conflict was between Libya and the USA a healthy respect for each other was maintained throughout. This was, in part, because the main conflict between Libya and the USA took place years before a kind of personally demeaning "taunting" has become part of both the official governmental and political discourse and the public "talk radio" and other circuits. Again, contrast that with the Israel-Palestinian conflict, where both sides have used language seeking to mock and strip the dignity of their "opponent." Thus no genuine diplomacy results.
3) Set timetables for actions and stick to them, but let the process of normalization run a natural course of time.
Genuine diplomacy recognizes that two things take place. One is the negotiation and completion of specific actions. The other is allowing all parties to adjust (even to the point of the next generation coming of age and participating) at a pace that is natural to human nature and as a response to new perspective gained from each specific action step.
Once again, compare this to the Israel-Palestinian problem. It has become a ridiculous knot that cannot be untied because people refuse to set timetables for actions and stick to them, and allow normalization to, like a river "flow alongside." The Israelis in particular do not understand that one changes mindset on both sides alongside the honorable carrying out of specific diplomatic tasks and agreements. You can think of it like this, it is like the Israelis say, "Well, we will like and understand you only if you sign these agreements." If the Libya-USA relationship had followed the terrible example in the Middle East, we would not be reading the sincere words of mutual relationship and amiability on both sides that we see in this news article today.
Here is another analogy. If you are offered a job in a company, what if you said before you accepted the job "Well, before I agree, I want a guarantee that every company employee will like me when they meet me, and they will never do anything wrong against me." How likely is that? (Even Jesus certainly did not have that happen, hmm?) If one ties what one thinks of the other party and, further, refuses all natural forms of relationship building to develop until one or the other agreement is signed, that is damming up the natural development of genuine relationship, just as the employee who won't sign on without unreasonable conditions being met first. Thus Israel will not follow UN mandates because they envision first receiving some sort of emotional guarantee of the future, and as a result, they dam up that exact flow of goodwill (or at least fearsome respect) that they desire to have from the Palestinians and the Islamic countries that support them.
The Libya-USA relationship progress demonstrates that hard decisions and agreements on specific actions must be made and carried out, while then, alongside, the natural development of mutual understanding and progress in respect, and even liking, are allowed to develop without conditions.
Congratulations to all who have been involved in reaching the success of the Libya-USA relationship and one that I hope will only improve and benefit both sides (and not just for the investment money, ha). I hope that our future Secretary of State will follow these suggestions ;-)
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Gadhafis-Son.html
snip
This week's events -- including an unprecedented phone call between Bush and Moammar Gadhafi -- capped a halting, five-year rapprochement between the two countries that began in 2003 when the Libyan leader renounced terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. The process gained traction in August when the U.S. and Libya agreed on the compensation deal.
The younger Gadhafi, who also met with human rights and environmental groups, said his main message was: ''We are good people, and nice. We'll make business. We'll invest, and we have friends here in the states and we have a new chapter in the relations.''
He said Libya's new sovereign wealth fund, a government-owned investment fund with almost $100 billion, ''wants to invest here in America'' despite the current financial crisis.
I'm not going to write a long tutorial on cultural diplomacy, and instead point this topic out to my readers to do whatever behind the scenes background reading that you like about Libya-USA relationships. However, I want to make some points that genuine diplomats should always keep in mind that they can learn from this success.
1) If both sides have a genuine desire to resolve differences, even the most impossible situation can be resolved, often with a success that never could have been anticipated.
If you think that there is incredible misery weighing down the Israel-Palestinian problem, with decades of horror on both sides that damage diplomatic good intentions, let me assure you, especially you younger readers, that the situation between Libya and the USA seemed just as doomed to never overcoming the past. With time and determination on both sides, incredibly we have reached this unforeseen good outcome.
So never "write off" the possibility of genuine cultural diplomacy brokering a shining break through in even the worse of situations.
2) Regardless of provocations, while it is allowable to make forceful responses to situations, never attempt to corner the other party so that they have no dignity.
As rough as the conflict was between Libya and the USA a healthy respect for each other was maintained throughout. This was, in part, because the main conflict between Libya and the USA took place years before a kind of personally demeaning "taunting" has become part of both the official governmental and political discourse and the public "talk radio" and other circuits. Again, contrast that with the Israel-Palestinian conflict, where both sides have used language seeking to mock and strip the dignity of their "opponent." Thus no genuine diplomacy results.
3) Set timetables for actions and stick to them, but let the process of normalization run a natural course of time.
Genuine diplomacy recognizes that two things take place. One is the negotiation and completion of specific actions. The other is allowing all parties to adjust (even to the point of the next generation coming of age and participating) at a pace that is natural to human nature and as a response to new perspective gained from each specific action step.
Once again, compare this to the Israel-Palestinian problem. It has become a ridiculous knot that cannot be untied because people refuse to set timetables for actions and stick to them, and allow normalization to, like a river "flow alongside." The Israelis in particular do not understand that one changes mindset on both sides alongside the honorable carrying out of specific diplomatic tasks and agreements. You can think of it like this, it is like the Israelis say, "Well, we will like and understand you only if you sign these agreements." If the Libya-USA relationship had followed the terrible example in the Middle East, we would not be reading the sincere words of mutual relationship and amiability on both sides that we see in this news article today.
Here is another analogy. If you are offered a job in a company, what if you said before you accepted the job "Well, before I agree, I want a guarantee that every company employee will like me when they meet me, and they will never do anything wrong against me." How likely is that? (Even Jesus certainly did not have that happen, hmm?) If one ties what one thinks of the other party and, further, refuses all natural forms of relationship building to develop until one or the other agreement is signed, that is damming up the natural development of genuine relationship, just as the employee who won't sign on without unreasonable conditions being met first. Thus Israel will not follow UN mandates because they envision first receiving some sort of emotional guarantee of the future, and as a result, they dam up that exact flow of goodwill (or at least fearsome respect) that they desire to have from the Palestinians and the Islamic countries that support them.
The Libya-USA relationship progress demonstrates that hard decisions and agreements on specific actions must be made and carried out, while then, alongside, the natural development of mutual understanding and progress in respect, and even liking, are allowed to develop without conditions.
Congratulations to all who have been involved in reaching the success of the Libya-USA relationship and one that I hope will only improve and benefit both sides (and not just for the investment money, ha). I hope that our future Secretary of State will follow these suggestions ;-)
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Cultural Diplomacy tutorial Part 3
Cultural Diplomacy tutorial Part 3
The case study in this tutorial is the example of how Jewish and Christian politicians and diplomats achieve the best dialogue, whether secular or faith based topics, with Islamic politicians and diplomats. My remarks include all the sects of Islam, specifically Shiite and Sunni, and also both the vast majority of Islam that is mainstream, and the minority of Islam that is extremist or terroristic.
My first point is that it is not necessary to be a believer of any faith, per se, in order to have a successful dialogue with Muslim countries. There is a long history of cordial and productive relationships between certain Muslim countries and countries that have either no declared faith, such as China or Russia during the time it was within the USSR, or countries with eastern faiths, such as India and Japan. These tend to be mutually beneficial cultural and economic (trade) relationships. Also, in the past, certain Muslim countries have sought “big brother” protection and alliance, such as has historically existed with the former USSR, as a counterbalance to countries who have been supported by the USA. There is less of a need for that now, but it is still a realistic and understandable underlying motivation, and I’d do the same thing if I were them. This, for those of you who are young to Middle East politics, is the reason that Russia belongs to what is called the “Quartet” of countries that try to assist in discussions for peace in the Middle East. One cannot bring both parties to the table if one party arrives with a superpower on its side while the other sits with a less developed country status and no ability to power share. So to summarize this point, Muslims do not look down on “non believer” countries and in fact have a proven history that extends itself every year with more and more relationships with countries of various faiths or no declared faith at all. A secondary point is that since Muslims lack having a country in the “superpower” category of countries, a survival instinct that is quite realistic and I would do it myself is to maintain a close “big brother or big sister” relationship with a superpower that is friendly and sympathetic to their situations. Do not view that as a negative, as that is a very reasonable and balanced thing to do.
My second point is to explain how diplomacy among Muslim countries and those that profess belief in the one monotheistic God (Christianity and Judaism) should provide a common basis of foundational comprehension, even in secular topics, but in the past the opposite has occurred. Let me first start with an analogy. If one has to negotiate a problem with, let’s say, how your neighbor is using his back yard, is it easier to negotiate with your neighbor if he is a stranger in the sense he is not related to you by blood or marriage, or if your neighbor is a relative of yours? It depends on the circumstances, but I think you see what I mean. The most bitter conflicts in domestic matters can be among relatives, each of whom “expects more and better” from the other because the other is a relative. So having a shared history, family or foundational belief is not a guarantee of better outcome and far from it, it can be much worse if one side feels bitterly betrayed on a personal level. This is important to understand even though I know that modern “secularists” might be all quivering with indignation if they read my words, arguing that one’s faith should have “nothing to do” with secular diplomacy. Well, duh. If you do not understand your partner or combatant’s faith stance in diplomacy, and they have a strong overriding faith, denying your own faith to yourself hardly equips you to better understand them! That would be like saying to your cousin, with whom you are quarreling over land that your shared grandfather left to you both, that you no longer believe that your grandfather ever existed, and hence he should not have any influence on the argument! How stupid would that be? Your cousin would think that you are crazy and likely evil, if you benefited by inheriting land through your grandfather’s will and legacy, and then denied his very existence while quarreling with another of his descendants over that land! So to summarize my second point, even if you represent a secular personal or governmental point of view, you must understand that your Islamic partner perceives a relationship with you and your country based on God, whether you believe in God or not. In fact, it is personally offensive to a Muslim, even if he or she does not show it, if you are the beneficiary of a shared faith history but you deny it. Again, I’m not saying that faith has to enter into a secular dialogue. But I am teaching you how to understand the point of view of the Muslims with whom you dialogue, if you represent a personage or country that seems to deny the “family” relationship of believing the same God. This is the crux of the problem with extremists and why they feel such a burning contempt for the West. But it is also a missed opportunity among mainstream diplomacy where Westerners seem more concerned with denying their own faith history than with being who they are authentically. Muslims respect authentic belief in God, and thus they respect the person who is not ashamed or in denial of that, even if it has nothing to do with the subject being negotiated or discussed.
My third point is related to the second, which is to address why, if Muslims respect belief in God, do they use the term of insult “crusader?” For those of you young to this topic, the term crusader comes from the “Middle Ages,” or early medieval times, roughly seven hundred to a thousand years ago, when armies from Christian nations attempted to “reclaim” the Holy Land, which had been seized by armies of Islam. Islam had been spreading through conquest throughout the Middle East, Africa and even Europe. Yet the Christian defenders and combatants were not called crusaders unless they were specifically sent to wrest the Holy Land from what were called the Mohammadans. Crusaders were organized and sent by Christian leaders and sponsored by whichever Pope occupied the Seat of Peter in Rome at that time. Crusaders wore the cross of Jesus Christ on their armor, and invoked his name in their activities. And there, you see, is the problem. Muslims perceived the Christians to be fighting in the name of Jesus Christ and not of God, the God they share with Christians. Muslims do not deny Jesus Christ at all, and in fact, the Qur’an has much honor and praise for him, recognizing Jesus as an authentic prophet from God given special miraculous capabilities directly from the Holy Spirit of God. But rather than seeing crusaders attempt to regain the Holy Land on behalf of the shared God who created both Muslims and Christians, Muslims perceived that Christians had “broken away” from God, in their eyes. This is why “crusader” is used as an insult, both then and today. A “crusader” is someone who seems to elevate Jesus Christ alone and who denies God.
I hope this helps people to understand, then, the strange paradox of extremist Muslims who consider the West to be “Godless” yet insult them with a term that seems to invoke God, which is “crusader.” The term crusader has endured because of that very perception, which has some foundation in truth. The term “Muslim” to a Muslim means someone who believes in the one God. This is why the Qur’an declares the Israelite patriarchs and prophets, such as Abraham and Jacob, to “be Muslims.” They are not doing a retroactive conversion. The term Muslim means a believer in the one monotheistic God, the God who self identified from Adam, throughout Israelite history, and to and including Jesus Christ. Muslims “keep their eye,” however, only on God. They revere the prophets and forefathers, but they would never fight in “the name” of any of them. Thus the Muslims during the time of the Crusades viewed the Christian crusader combatants of fighting in the name of Jesus Christ, but not in the name of God. Muslims were genuinely fighting in the name of God, believing that they were forcing the heathen, the pagan and also the Abrahamic faiths that had gone “astray” back to putting their attention and worship toward God and only God. That is why they swept through the Middle East, through much of northern Africa, and into southern Europe, until they were finally stopped by the Christian nations of Europe and the line held. But the term “crusader” was used with contempt not toward the defenders of the invaded countries, but because that was the term that those who came to liberate the Holy Land in the name of Jesus Christ adopted for themselves. So when a modern extremist Muslim uses the term “crusader” as an insult that is code language for accusing a Christian of being a nominal Christian who does not really believe in God.
Because during the Crusades to be Christian meant to be Catholic, since the Reformation was still several hundred years off in the future, Muslims maintained a suspicion of Catholics long after it was necessary. But in recent years through enhanced dialogue and more ecumenical education, Muslims have come to realize that Catholics do genuinely believe in the one God, despite what the actions of the historic crusaders seemed to indicate. And this is also why there are examples of countries, such as Syria and until recently Iraq, where the Christian Orthodox and Catholic faiths have peacefully co-existed within predominately Muslim countries all along. The Qur’an states that there should be peaceful co-existence. But the history of the Crusaders gave Muslims the perception that Christians go beyond “defending” their country from forced conversion by Muslims, and would, in fact, mount attacks to wrest back the Holy Land from the Muslims, who are descendants of the original occupants, while the Europeans were not. So where pockets of Orthodox and Catholics held on and continued to reside in the land of their ancestors, they were able to do so, though often under very harsh circumstances (such as in Egypt), since there is a continuity of these Christians in that land. But “crusader” has a connotation of an “invading outsider meddler.” Thus extremists will apply the code word “crusader” to even highly irreligious cultural mores that invade from the West, such as lewd entertainment, in the ultimate irony. Extremist Muslims use the term crusader as insult of even the behavior that true Christians disapprove of in agreement with them, which is the degraded cultural and societal behaviors that they deplore, since they perceive it as a degrading cultural invasion rather than a genuinely God fearing invasion. So to summarize, if one is to negotiate with Muslims, one must understand that when the term “crusader” is invoked, it is not a back handed compliment admiring someone’s adversarial faith (kind of a “Muslim versus Christian” slogan) but is instead, basically, code word for accusing the “crusader” of being an invading cultural anti-God and God denying force. Extremist Muslims are not “admiring” the faith of people they call “crusaders.” They are evoking the belief that “crusaders” abandoned worship of the one God and thus bring with them degraded cultural values and beliefs.
None of what I am teaching here, by the way, is justifying or excusing extremist Islamic beliefs. As I’ve blogged before one of the greatest errors among devout Islamic believers is that they believe they have a mandate from God to do what the Bible calls “smiting,” but, in fact, they do not have that mandate. However, one cannot productively dialogue with either moderates or extremists if one does not understand the origins of their point of view, and accurately decode their terminology and language of concepts.
So my fourth point is that either consciously or unconsciously, Muslims have higher expectations from Jewish and Christian individuals or countries because they have perfect understanding that all three faiths originate from belief in the same God. Muslims therefore, consciously or unconsciously, “expect” better behavior and comprehension of the complexity of issues from Jews and Christians. This is also why they have been bitterly disappointed when they do not perceive this common foundation of relationship. It is, like I used in my analogy, as if both cousins inherited land from a grandfather, but one denies that the grandfather even existed. Even if the reality of the grandfather is not pertinent to the topic under discussion, it is very disconcerting to the believer to be in dialogue with the non believer. Thus, as certain Israeli leaders have become more secular and less religious, rather than this being viewed as a reassuring development, to the Muslim it is very disconcerting. They view that as a development that increases the distance between the parties in dialogue, not narrows it. Muslims wonder how Israelis can understand their point of view if they no longer seem to believe in the same God, from which the Muslim point of view springs. So secular “logic” that advocates becoming more secular and faith neutral in negotiating is an advantage and a plus in negotiating is totally wrong. Modernists seem to think that separation of church and state, plus increased reliance on secular beliefs and reasoning is helpful to genuine diplomacy, but the opposite is true. Western countries and pro Israel organizations have completely erred in this regard. Trust me, a Muslim diplomat better understands an extreme Orthodox Jew than they understand a Jew who has become secular, because to a Muslim, a secular or a non-believer is unpredictable. Muslims understand people who are motivated by belief in the same God, but who may have vigorous disagreement about what share of God’s creation to allocate and claim. Muslims, especially extremists, do not understand former believers who seem to be motivated by degraded Western values rather than God.
Here are some examples of this. A Muslim can well understand combating with a Jew or a Christian over whose church, mosque or synagogue should occupy a given sacred space. That is easy to understand, even if the solution sure is difficult to reach, if even possible, for at least each side understands full well the other side’s motivation. Each side believes in their faith, in, ultimately, the same God, but is robustly combating for the upper hand in a sacred arena. This type of diplomacy opportunity may be difficult to resolve, if one and only one site is being fought over, but it’s not hard to identify and explore the options and have a fruitful dialogue, should everyone be motivated to pursue a solution. However, Muslims are totally baffled and enraged by actions that they believe originate from a denial of their diplomatic combatant’s own God. An example of this is the Israeli government’s policy of destroying the housing of the families of those they identify as terrorists. This is such a secular and cold determination of policy that Muslims cannot fathom it, and thus have an increased contempt, rather than an increased compliance. Likewise the hindering of basic needs for the Palestinians, such as being enfranchised in the economy, or as happened recently the ability to repair a burst sewage treatment pond that actually killed people, is just seen as evidence of a God denying secularism. The problem is that a Muslim is at a loss as to how to negotiate. I certainly sympathize, since it is a challenge to negotiate with someone who is fully absorbed with exercising secular power, regardless of their positive or negative underlying motivation. This is why Muslims may turn to more extreme advocates, rather than lesser, since they perceive the exercise of secular power as being a “pushing” without knowing where the pushing is going to end up, as if one is blindfolded and forced to walk backwards. When a Muslim argues with an Orthodox Jew, however, they both understand each other’s agenda and purpose, and are not obscured by wondering where the random reactions of secular decisions and exertions of power will take them.
So to summarize, Muslims are Muslims because they believe in the one God, and thus they have less understanding of “cultural Jews” and “cultural Christians” and their motivations. Just as westerners worry about “how far will Islamic extremists go?” in truth Muslims worry and wonder “how far will western secular extremists go?” Muslims, especially the clergy, feel that westerners, including the Israelis, have no self restraint and thus are totally unpredictable in what they will do, and that is very worrisome. And please, I am not at all diminishing the genuine self restraint that Israel and its people have repeatedly demonstrated as they have tolerated continual terrorist attacks. What I mean is that the overall agenda and the specific tactics of westerners and the Israelis seem, to Muslims, to be “open ended” and anything might happen, including totally illogical and counterproductive movements and decisions. We all know that random behavior is the most challenging to deal with in all aspects of life. Muslims feel that secular believers have removed their own norms and commonality of expectations and thus “anything goes” as far as the westerners and Israelis are concerned. This has been one of the fundamental root causes of the lack of progress in the resolution of the problems in the Middle East. Muslims have had to negotiate with many unpredictable partners.
My fifth point is that during times of uncertainty people adopt the old adage “any port in a storm.” That expression means that a boat that is in danger of sinking must dock at the first port it finds, even if that is really not an ideal place. Thus people will ally themselves with some very dubious beliefs and cohorts if they feel pressurized in chaotic conditions. All sides in the Middle East situation have done this. The Israelis hooked up with certain Evangelical and other outlying Christian groups who view Israel just as cannon fodder for conversion and the “imminent” “battle with the Anti-Christ.” I will say one thing; at least these nuts have made Catholics look good again. Muslims have come to learn to distinguish between Christians who are mainstream and are not presuming to dictate who is doing what to whom “according to the Bible” and those who are trying to use the conflict in the Middle East as some sort of stage for their Anti-Christ play. Israelis in their desperation for peace and normalcy have taken money and listened to the horrible advice of many Christian nut jobs. I can’t think of too many worse combinations that Jews who have lost their own faith and who take advice from Christians who are lost in a confrontational fantasy. This in fact harkens back to the crusader problem where some sort of new age crusaders have run around in Israel influencing secular leaning Jews toward thinking of the Muslims and themselves as participants in some end of times tableau. This is a sane diplomat’s worse nightmare, LOL. Muslims would find it much easier to negotiate with solid Orthodox or Conservative Jews who have the discipline and self contained restraint of mainstream beliefs. What is really sad is that when conservative Jews backlash, often they hit the Christians who are not the nut jobs, especially Catholics and Orthodox. So Jews bog down in arguing about whether Pope Pius XII was all he could have been in helping Jews in World War II, rather than wondering why so many Christians are running around Israel looking for the Anti-Christ and predicting how many Jews will die and how many will convert before “the end of times.” Muslims, on the other hand, have come to discern between whacky Christians and the mainstream Christians, notably the Catholic Church, and thus things are improving and options are opening up. So my advice to any diplomat who has to deal with issues regarding Israel is to be aware that for decades now certain Christian nut jobs have pulled strings behind the scenes among the Israeli government and populace, stirring up an “end of times” mentality that is contrary to diplomatic good faith efforts.
This is one reason why Iran has become so outspoken regarding their Shiite Twelver beliefs. The Iranian clergy and government are fully aware that certain secularists and Christians have influenced Israelis with their manufactured “end of times” narrative and expectations. As I’ve explained, Muslims of all sects have a justifiable suspicion that Christians have, in general, abandoned the one God. Remember, crusaders are, to them, secularized Christians who promote Jesus Christ and deny God. So it’s not like Iran decided to suddenly spout what westerners may deride as apocalyptic and “extremist Islam beliefs.” Rather, Iranians view themselves as “setting the record straight.” From the point of view of the clergy and the government of Iran, they perceive that Israel has become overrun with unpredictable crusaders and secularized Jews. Contrary to popular thought and as I discussed above “secular logic,” Iran is not reassured by less devout Jews. Greater devotion and mainstream faith is stabilizing on all sides, among Muslims, Jews and Christians alike. This is why the clergy of Iran, the President, and other government representatives constantly reiterate their faith context within documents of even only secular scope. They feel they must repeatedly refute and restore what they consider to be a mainstream context for what they think is often irrational secular or cultist influences. Western governments and the media erroneously portray Iran as like suddenly coming up with strange ideas while the opposite is true. They view themselves as speaking up, louder and louder, as they see a jumble of marginal cultist beliefs and secularization invade their own region of the world, specifically Israel. The last thing Iranian clergy wants are nominal Christians telling the Israelis that they “know” that the Anti-Christ is this or that and that the end of time is “coming” here or there on such and such a place. Mark my words, behind the scenes “end of time” nut job advocacy has set back peace in the Middle East. This became clear to the Iranians and others when they observed some of the muted but unmistakable behind the scenes apocalyptic dialogue that informed the invasion of Iraq by the USA. So to summarize this point, a diplomat who dialogues with Iran must realize that Iran is not trying to be extremist in their beliefs or out of the mainstream but, rather, Iranians feel they must speak up with what they view as the correct and less specific interpretations of end of time theology. Like the Catholic Church, Iranians in general believe that only God knows those times and that those events and their timing cannot and should not be manipulated by human beings. Thus it is an error for diplomats to view the faith based verbiage of the Iranian government to be provocative. In fact, the opposite is true, where Iranians feel that reiteration of their faith context is mainstream and helpful to stabilizing what has been an increasingly unstable and chaotic fragmentation in their part of the world.
The obvious example of any port in a storm is the attraction of extreme Hadassah teachings and militant Palestinian organizations, giving rise to what is called Islamic extremism. When people feel disenfranchised and continually pushed by what they consider to be unpredictable and randomly pushing forces, they join up with forces that they feel can push back. Some of it is so frustratingly predictable. For example, people have known for years that the legal Palestinian organizations, led by Arafat, were at best inexperienced and at worst corrupt regarding the financials of aid that was given to them by the rest of the world. But rather than send a lot of boring accountants and viewing that as a problem that needed to be solved, those who oppose the Palestinian agenda laughed in their hands at the hapless and corrupt looting and wasting of money. However, suddenly there is no laughter when the people, who are no fools, elect Hamas into power. Suddenly there is outrage and puzzlement, how could the Palestinians vote in even worse extremists! I found reading such reports in the newspapers to be too foolish to even put up with. Everyone knew full well that the Palestinian government was wasting and looting, as just about every immature government agency will do, and they just let it happen rather than donate and even insist on financial advisors. But every wise option was blocked by the view that it was “aiding terrorists” when one helps the Palestinians. That is what I mean by the feeling that secularized Jews have, to Muslims, an alarmingly unpredictable set of reactions and the international community, including the UN, has been naïve, to say the least. I would have sent a boatload of accountants to the Palestinian authority along with the financial aid and as a condition to it, and that’s a fact. I mean, it must have been twenty years ago that I heard on a NYC TV news station report chuckling about how Arafat has part ownership of a bowling alley in Manhattan. How stupid is this? Everyone was laughing up their sleeves at how the Palestinians mismanaged their aid money, and the people suffered, and then they are surprised when finally the Palestinians “threw the bums out” and elected Hamas? Then you heard squeals and howling of “outrage” all the way to the supposedly democracy advocating White House. The average Palestinian family has been looted every which way imaginable, and everyone has been “in on it,” including the USA and Israel. And then people wonder when they continue to despair and adopt “any port in a storm.”
My sixth point is about the terminology “Zionist entity.” Westerners and the Israelis view the use of this term by Muslims as a slur, just like the term crusaders. Diplomats need to not be so simplistic and understand, just as I explained crusader, the nuance and origins of the term. Muslims use the term Zionist in order to avoid using the terms “Jewish” or “Israelite,” those two terms which they have no desire to insult. Muslims share the faith history preserved in the Jewish Bible of the ancient Israelites and confirm in their own Qur’an that Judaism is one of the God believing faiths. They, correctly, observe that the secular state of Israel has a government that is neither Jewish, as in being a theocracy or state religion, or Israelite, as in mandated and structured as the Kingdom of Israel of old. Thus the Muslims who use this term are taking care not to call Israel something that they feel it is not (which is, as I explained, a faith based structure as was in the past) but to characterize it as what they think it is, which is a created construct. Israel was created, as many countries in the world have been, as a result of the end of colonialism, armed conflict and UN or other governing mandate. This makes the state of Israel, in the eyes of many, to be the “Zionist entity.” It was the Zionist political movement, in reaction to the Holocaust during World War II that resulted in the creation of a state that then became populated by immigrant Jews. I’m not making a statement as to the justification of the state of Israel either way, so I’m not being critical or “taking sides.” I’m explaining the mindset and historical facts that any diplomat needs to appreciate. When someone refers to the “Zionist entity,” sure, they are not being complimentary. But one must understand the nature of the slur in order to successful comprehend diplomatic positions.
Iran serves as an excellent example in the Zionist entity discussion. Many westerners insist on thinking that Iranians hate Jews, and when they hear Iranians use the term “Zionist entity” they think that is a slur referencing that supposed hatred. But that is not true. There is a minority Jewish population in Iran and they have a parliamentary representative who occupies the seat reserved for Jews. Whenever that representative or others state that Iranians do not hate Jews, they are accused of being brainwashed, controlled, and oppressed or, not to be indelicate, to use American slang referring to servants “the house Jew.” I mean, if you want to believe that a country hates your faith or your culture, even if that is not true, I guess it’s a free world and you can think what you want. But any of your diplomatic endeavors will of necessity go awry due to this lack of misunderstanding. “Zionist entity” is a code word that is not just a slur regarding the belief that the state of Israel is a false and artificial construct, but it also a positive validation that the speaker is not using the term “Jewish” or “Israelite” as a slur. Diplomats need to understand precisely what the parties to negotiation are actually saying and what they actually believe.
My seventh point is that when stances are misunderstood, over simplified or painted as cartoons, rather than being clarifying, greater confusion results. To use the previous example, if one insists in believing that Iran “hates Jews,” one has swept off the table multiple diplomatic options that are valid but presume that Iran does not hate Jews. Thus simplistic and erroneous thought and speech eliminate valid diplomatic options rather than make the problem easier to solve.
My eighth point is that extremist speech tends to breed more extremist speech in response. Many people are outraged by what the President of Iran says about the Holocaust. But if you were experienced diplomats who understand human nature, you’d recognize that “pressing buttons” is a common reaction to being characterized in cartoon terms one’s self. If people are going to insist that one is a “Jew hater” when one is not, one loses motivation to defend the accuracy of what you do believe, and it is common to respond by shrugging and pressing some buttons in return. Genuine diplomats recognize that and put it in their proper context. As a diplomatic pointer that I may give to those who are outraged by comments such as questioning the Holocaust. It is diplomatically a sign of weakness and insecurity to obsess over and freak out about a statement that one knows is untrue. Every poker player knows that if your opponent stops the game to tell you that your mother wears combat books and is a linebacker on the Green Bay Packers, that you do not stop the game to get “proof” that your mother does not wear combat boots and that she is not a hefty linebacker for an American football team. And you do not obsess during the rest of the game with thinking that your opponent “really believes” that your hefty combat boot wearing mamma spends her Sundays playing on the gridiron. I try to think back to the last time I observed a genuine deft diplomat on the public stage and I must confess, I really cannot think of any recently. The Americans in particular seem so eager to get into tit-for-tat name calling while actually holding their “diplomatic” portfolios that it is just pathetic.
My ninth and final point, for this particular blogging, is that diplomats must avoid using bad or otherwise inexplicable behavior as “input” to unrelated situations being negotiated without fully understanding its context. Here I am referring to the relationships between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. Westerners observe outbreaks of horrible violence and merciless cruelty between these groups as somehow being informative of the character of the people and the faith in general. That sounds like a powerful argument that no one can refute, that surely there is something “wrong” with a faith where the believers of different sects can bomb each other’s shrines and mosques, torture civilians, murder children, and describe them as unbelievers. However, here is the danger of drawing a cultural conclusion from those events. If an observer had arrived on earth for the first time in the 1970’s and 1980’s and their only exposure to Christian Protestants and Catholics was to be Northern Ireland, what would they “learn” and conclude? They would see Protestants and Catholics do unspeakable things to each other. If they left earth at that point and told their colleagues what they saw, what valid conclusions could they have taken back with them based on witnessing what came to be called “The Troubles?” Likewise diplomats must take great care to not draw broad based conclusions when they witness terrible sectarian violence among Muslims. It is factual information that must be considered in context (and indeed was not considered by the Americans at ALL when they invaded Iraq, to the woe and detriment to all), where one knows that the potential for such a conflict exists, just as it did in fact exist between Protestants and Catholics in the power keg of Northern Ireland. Diplomats constantly “mine” for information and perspectives that are fully informed by the context and the factors that could precipitate those conditions, but they are very cautious about sweeping generalities of culture and character, which would in the large part be proven disastrously wrong.
Well, I hope that you, dear readers, have found my thoughts here to be helpful. I feel I must make some sort of joke about being a diplomat with an invisible and very low paying portfolio, ha.
The case study in this tutorial is the example of how Jewish and Christian politicians and diplomats achieve the best dialogue, whether secular or faith based topics, with Islamic politicians and diplomats. My remarks include all the sects of Islam, specifically Shiite and Sunni, and also both the vast majority of Islam that is mainstream, and the minority of Islam that is extremist or terroristic.
My first point is that it is not necessary to be a believer of any faith, per se, in order to have a successful dialogue with Muslim countries. There is a long history of cordial and productive relationships between certain Muslim countries and countries that have either no declared faith, such as China or Russia during the time it was within the USSR, or countries with eastern faiths, such as India and Japan. These tend to be mutually beneficial cultural and economic (trade) relationships. Also, in the past, certain Muslim countries have sought “big brother” protection and alliance, such as has historically existed with the former USSR, as a counterbalance to countries who have been supported by the USA. There is less of a need for that now, but it is still a realistic and understandable underlying motivation, and I’d do the same thing if I were them. This, for those of you who are young to Middle East politics, is the reason that Russia belongs to what is called the “Quartet” of countries that try to assist in discussions for peace in the Middle East. One cannot bring both parties to the table if one party arrives with a superpower on its side while the other sits with a less developed country status and no ability to power share. So to summarize this point, Muslims do not look down on “non believer” countries and in fact have a proven history that extends itself every year with more and more relationships with countries of various faiths or no declared faith at all. A secondary point is that since Muslims lack having a country in the “superpower” category of countries, a survival instinct that is quite realistic and I would do it myself is to maintain a close “big brother or big sister” relationship with a superpower that is friendly and sympathetic to their situations. Do not view that as a negative, as that is a very reasonable and balanced thing to do.
My second point is to explain how diplomacy among Muslim countries and those that profess belief in the one monotheistic God (Christianity and Judaism) should provide a common basis of foundational comprehension, even in secular topics, but in the past the opposite has occurred. Let me first start with an analogy. If one has to negotiate a problem with, let’s say, how your neighbor is using his back yard, is it easier to negotiate with your neighbor if he is a stranger in the sense he is not related to you by blood or marriage, or if your neighbor is a relative of yours? It depends on the circumstances, but I think you see what I mean. The most bitter conflicts in domestic matters can be among relatives, each of whom “expects more and better” from the other because the other is a relative. So having a shared history, family or foundational belief is not a guarantee of better outcome and far from it, it can be much worse if one side feels bitterly betrayed on a personal level. This is important to understand even though I know that modern “secularists” might be all quivering with indignation if they read my words, arguing that one’s faith should have “nothing to do” with secular diplomacy. Well, duh. If you do not understand your partner or combatant’s faith stance in diplomacy, and they have a strong overriding faith, denying your own faith to yourself hardly equips you to better understand them! That would be like saying to your cousin, with whom you are quarreling over land that your shared grandfather left to you both, that you no longer believe that your grandfather ever existed, and hence he should not have any influence on the argument! How stupid would that be? Your cousin would think that you are crazy and likely evil, if you benefited by inheriting land through your grandfather’s will and legacy, and then denied his very existence while quarreling with another of his descendants over that land! So to summarize my second point, even if you represent a secular personal or governmental point of view, you must understand that your Islamic partner perceives a relationship with you and your country based on God, whether you believe in God or not. In fact, it is personally offensive to a Muslim, even if he or she does not show it, if you are the beneficiary of a shared faith history but you deny it. Again, I’m not saying that faith has to enter into a secular dialogue. But I am teaching you how to understand the point of view of the Muslims with whom you dialogue, if you represent a personage or country that seems to deny the “family” relationship of believing the same God. This is the crux of the problem with extremists and why they feel such a burning contempt for the West. But it is also a missed opportunity among mainstream diplomacy where Westerners seem more concerned with denying their own faith history than with being who they are authentically. Muslims respect authentic belief in God, and thus they respect the person who is not ashamed or in denial of that, even if it has nothing to do with the subject being negotiated or discussed.
My third point is related to the second, which is to address why, if Muslims respect belief in God, do they use the term of insult “crusader?” For those of you young to this topic, the term crusader comes from the “Middle Ages,” or early medieval times, roughly seven hundred to a thousand years ago, when armies from Christian nations attempted to “reclaim” the Holy Land, which had been seized by armies of Islam. Islam had been spreading through conquest throughout the Middle East, Africa and even Europe. Yet the Christian defenders and combatants were not called crusaders unless they were specifically sent to wrest the Holy Land from what were called the Mohammadans. Crusaders were organized and sent by Christian leaders and sponsored by whichever Pope occupied the Seat of Peter in Rome at that time. Crusaders wore the cross of Jesus Christ on their armor, and invoked his name in their activities. And there, you see, is the problem. Muslims perceived the Christians to be fighting in the name of Jesus Christ and not of God, the God they share with Christians. Muslims do not deny Jesus Christ at all, and in fact, the Qur’an has much honor and praise for him, recognizing Jesus as an authentic prophet from God given special miraculous capabilities directly from the Holy Spirit of God. But rather than seeing crusaders attempt to regain the Holy Land on behalf of the shared God who created both Muslims and Christians, Muslims perceived that Christians had “broken away” from God, in their eyes. This is why “crusader” is used as an insult, both then and today. A “crusader” is someone who seems to elevate Jesus Christ alone and who denies God.
I hope this helps people to understand, then, the strange paradox of extremist Muslims who consider the West to be “Godless” yet insult them with a term that seems to invoke God, which is “crusader.” The term crusader has endured because of that very perception, which has some foundation in truth. The term “Muslim” to a Muslim means someone who believes in the one God. This is why the Qur’an declares the Israelite patriarchs and prophets, such as Abraham and Jacob, to “be Muslims.” They are not doing a retroactive conversion. The term Muslim means a believer in the one monotheistic God, the God who self identified from Adam, throughout Israelite history, and to and including Jesus Christ. Muslims “keep their eye,” however, only on God. They revere the prophets and forefathers, but they would never fight in “the name” of any of them. Thus the Muslims during the time of the Crusades viewed the Christian crusader combatants of fighting in the name of Jesus Christ, but not in the name of God. Muslims were genuinely fighting in the name of God, believing that they were forcing the heathen, the pagan and also the Abrahamic faiths that had gone “astray” back to putting their attention and worship toward God and only God. That is why they swept through the Middle East, through much of northern Africa, and into southern Europe, until they were finally stopped by the Christian nations of Europe and the line held. But the term “crusader” was used with contempt not toward the defenders of the invaded countries, but because that was the term that those who came to liberate the Holy Land in the name of Jesus Christ adopted for themselves. So when a modern extremist Muslim uses the term “crusader” as an insult that is code language for accusing a Christian of being a nominal Christian who does not really believe in God.
Because during the Crusades to be Christian meant to be Catholic, since the Reformation was still several hundred years off in the future, Muslims maintained a suspicion of Catholics long after it was necessary. But in recent years through enhanced dialogue and more ecumenical education, Muslims have come to realize that Catholics do genuinely believe in the one God, despite what the actions of the historic crusaders seemed to indicate. And this is also why there are examples of countries, such as Syria and until recently Iraq, where the Christian Orthodox and Catholic faiths have peacefully co-existed within predominately Muslim countries all along. The Qur’an states that there should be peaceful co-existence. But the history of the Crusaders gave Muslims the perception that Christians go beyond “defending” their country from forced conversion by Muslims, and would, in fact, mount attacks to wrest back the Holy Land from the Muslims, who are descendants of the original occupants, while the Europeans were not. So where pockets of Orthodox and Catholics held on and continued to reside in the land of their ancestors, they were able to do so, though often under very harsh circumstances (such as in Egypt), since there is a continuity of these Christians in that land. But “crusader” has a connotation of an “invading outsider meddler.” Thus extremists will apply the code word “crusader” to even highly irreligious cultural mores that invade from the West, such as lewd entertainment, in the ultimate irony. Extremist Muslims use the term crusader as insult of even the behavior that true Christians disapprove of in agreement with them, which is the degraded cultural and societal behaviors that they deplore, since they perceive it as a degrading cultural invasion rather than a genuinely God fearing invasion. So to summarize, if one is to negotiate with Muslims, one must understand that when the term “crusader” is invoked, it is not a back handed compliment admiring someone’s adversarial faith (kind of a “Muslim versus Christian” slogan) but is instead, basically, code word for accusing the “crusader” of being an invading cultural anti-God and God denying force. Extremist Muslims are not “admiring” the faith of people they call “crusaders.” They are evoking the belief that “crusaders” abandoned worship of the one God and thus bring with them degraded cultural values and beliefs.
None of what I am teaching here, by the way, is justifying or excusing extremist Islamic beliefs. As I’ve blogged before one of the greatest errors among devout Islamic believers is that they believe they have a mandate from God to do what the Bible calls “smiting,” but, in fact, they do not have that mandate. However, one cannot productively dialogue with either moderates or extremists if one does not understand the origins of their point of view, and accurately decode their terminology and language of concepts.
So my fourth point is that either consciously or unconsciously, Muslims have higher expectations from Jewish and Christian individuals or countries because they have perfect understanding that all three faiths originate from belief in the same God. Muslims therefore, consciously or unconsciously, “expect” better behavior and comprehension of the complexity of issues from Jews and Christians. This is also why they have been bitterly disappointed when they do not perceive this common foundation of relationship. It is, like I used in my analogy, as if both cousins inherited land from a grandfather, but one denies that the grandfather even existed. Even if the reality of the grandfather is not pertinent to the topic under discussion, it is very disconcerting to the believer to be in dialogue with the non believer. Thus, as certain Israeli leaders have become more secular and less religious, rather than this being viewed as a reassuring development, to the Muslim it is very disconcerting. They view that as a development that increases the distance between the parties in dialogue, not narrows it. Muslims wonder how Israelis can understand their point of view if they no longer seem to believe in the same God, from which the Muslim point of view springs. So secular “logic” that advocates becoming more secular and faith neutral in negotiating is an advantage and a plus in negotiating is totally wrong. Modernists seem to think that separation of church and state, plus increased reliance on secular beliefs and reasoning is helpful to genuine diplomacy, but the opposite is true. Western countries and pro Israel organizations have completely erred in this regard. Trust me, a Muslim diplomat better understands an extreme Orthodox Jew than they understand a Jew who has become secular, because to a Muslim, a secular or a non-believer is unpredictable. Muslims understand people who are motivated by belief in the same God, but who may have vigorous disagreement about what share of God’s creation to allocate and claim. Muslims, especially extremists, do not understand former believers who seem to be motivated by degraded Western values rather than God.
Here are some examples of this. A Muslim can well understand combating with a Jew or a Christian over whose church, mosque or synagogue should occupy a given sacred space. That is easy to understand, even if the solution sure is difficult to reach, if even possible, for at least each side understands full well the other side’s motivation. Each side believes in their faith, in, ultimately, the same God, but is robustly combating for the upper hand in a sacred arena. This type of diplomacy opportunity may be difficult to resolve, if one and only one site is being fought over, but it’s not hard to identify and explore the options and have a fruitful dialogue, should everyone be motivated to pursue a solution. However, Muslims are totally baffled and enraged by actions that they believe originate from a denial of their diplomatic combatant’s own God. An example of this is the Israeli government’s policy of destroying the housing of the families of those they identify as terrorists. This is such a secular and cold determination of policy that Muslims cannot fathom it, and thus have an increased contempt, rather than an increased compliance. Likewise the hindering of basic needs for the Palestinians, such as being enfranchised in the economy, or as happened recently the ability to repair a burst sewage treatment pond that actually killed people, is just seen as evidence of a God denying secularism. The problem is that a Muslim is at a loss as to how to negotiate. I certainly sympathize, since it is a challenge to negotiate with someone who is fully absorbed with exercising secular power, regardless of their positive or negative underlying motivation. This is why Muslims may turn to more extreme advocates, rather than lesser, since they perceive the exercise of secular power as being a “pushing” without knowing where the pushing is going to end up, as if one is blindfolded and forced to walk backwards. When a Muslim argues with an Orthodox Jew, however, they both understand each other’s agenda and purpose, and are not obscured by wondering where the random reactions of secular decisions and exertions of power will take them.
So to summarize, Muslims are Muslims because they believe in the one God, and thus they have less understanding of “cultural Jews” and “cultural Christians” and their motivations. Just as westerners worry about “how far will Islamic extremists go?” in truth Muslims worry and wonder “how far will western secular extremists go?” Muslims, especially the clergy, feel that westerners, including the Israelis, have no self restraint and thus are totally unpredictable in what they will do, and that is very worrisome. And please, I am not at all diminishing the genuine self restraint that Israel and its people have repeatedly demonstrated as they have tolerated continual terrorist attacks. What I mean is that the overall agenda and the specific tactics of westerners and the Israelis seem, to Muslims, to be “open ended” and anything might happen, including totally illogical and counterproductive movements and decisions. We all know that random behavior is the most challenging to deal with in all aspects of life. Muslims feel that secular believers have removed their own norms and commonality of expectations and thus “anything goes” as far as the westerners and Israelis are concerned. This has been one of the fundamental root causes of the lack of progress in the resolution of the problems in the Middle East. Muslims have had to negotiate with many unpredictable partners.
My fifth point is that during times of uncertainty people adopt the old adage “any port in a storm.” That expression means that a boat that is in danger of sinking must dock at the first port it finds, even if that is really not an ideal place. Thus people will ally themselves with some very dubious beliefs and cohorts if they feel pressurized in chaotic conditions. All sides in the Middle East situation have done this. The Israelis hooked up with certain Evangelical and other outlying Christian groups who view Israel just as cannon fodder for conversion and the “imminent” “battle with the Anti-Christ.” I will say one thing; at least these nuts have made Catholics look good again. Muslims have come to learn to distinguish between Christians who are mainstream and are not presuming to dictate who is doing what to whom “according to the Bible” and those who are trying to use the conflict in the Middle East as some sort of stage for their Anti-Christ play. Israelis in their desperation for peace and normalcy have taken money and listened to the horrible advice of many Christian nut jobs. I can’t think of too many worse combinations that Jews who have lost their own faith and who take advice from Christians who are lost in a confrontational fantasy. This in fact harkens back to the crusader problem where some sort of new age crusaders have run around in Israel influencing secular leaning Jews toward thinking of the Muslims and themselves as participants in some end of times tableau. This is a sane diplomat’s worse nightmare, LOL. Muslims would find it much easier to negotiate with solid Orthodox or Conservative Jews who have the discipline and self contained restraint of mainstream beliefs. What is really sad is that when conservative Jews backlash, often they hit the Christians who are not the nut jobs, especially Catholics and Orthodox. So Jews bog down in arguing about whether Pope Pius XII was all he could have been in helping Jews in World War II, rather than wondering why so many Christians are running around Israel looking for the Anti-Christ and predicting how many Jews will die and how many will convert before “the end of times.” Muslims, on the other hand, have come to discern between whacky Christians and the mainstream Christians, notably the Catholic Church, and thus things are improving and options are opening up. So my advice to any diplomat who has to deal with issues regarding Israel is to be aware that for decades now certain Christian nut jobs have pulled strings behind the scenes among the Israeli government and populace, stirring up an “end of times” mentality that is contrary to diplomatic good faith efforts.
This is one reason why Iran has become so outspoken regarding their Shiite Twelver beliefs. The Iranian clergy and government are fully aware that certain secularists and Christians have influenced Israelis with their manufactured “end of times” narrative and expectations. As I’ve explained, Muslims of all sects have a justifiable suspicion that Christians have, in general, abandoned the one God. Remember, crusaders are, to them, secularized Christians who promote Jesus Christ and deny God. So it’s not like Iran decided to suddenly spout what westerners may deride as apocalyptic and “extremist Islam beliefs.” Rather, Iranians view themselves as “setting the record straight.” From the point of view of the clergy and the government of Iran, they perceive that Israel has become overrun with unpredictable crusaders and secularized Jews. Contrary to popular thought and as I discussed above “secular logic,” Iran is not reassured by less devout Jews. Greater devotion and mainstream faith is stabilizing on all sides, among Muslims, Jews and Christians alike. This is why the clergy of Iran, the President, and other government representatives constantly reiterate their faith context within documents of even only secular scope. They feel they must repeatedly refute and restore what they consider to be a mainstream context for what they think is often irrational secular or cultist influences. Western governments and the media erroneously portray Iran as like suddenly coming up with strange ideas while the opposite is true. They view themselves as speaking up, louder and louder, as they see a jumble of marginal cultist beliefs and secularization invade their own region of the world, specifically Israel. The last thing Iranian clergy wants are nominal Christians telling the Israelis that they “know” that the Anti-Christ is this or that and that the end of time is “coming” here or there on such and such a place. Mark my words, behind the scenes “end of time” nut job advocacy has set back peace in the Middle East. This became clear to the Iranians and others when they observed some of the muted but unmistakable behind the scenes apocalyptic dialogue that informed the invasion of Iraq by the USA. So to summarize this point, a diplomat who dialogues with Iran must realize that Iran is not trying to be extremist in their beliefs or out of the mainstream but, rather, Iranians feel they must speak up with what they view as the correct and less specific interpretations of end of time theology. Like the Catholic Church, Iranians in general believe that only God knows those times and that those events and their timing cannot and should not be manipulated by human beings. Thus it is an error for diplomats to view the faith based verbiage of the Iranian government to be provocative. In fact, the opposite is true, where Iranians feel that reiteration of their faith context is mainstream and helpful to stabilizing what has been an increasingly unstable and chaotic fragmentation in their part of the world.
The obvious example of any port in a storm is the attraction of extreme Hadassah teachings and militant Palestinian organizations, giving rise to what is called Islamic extremism. When people feel disenfranchised and continually pushed by what they consider to be unpredictable and randomly pushing forces, they join up with forces that they feel can push back. Some of it is so frustratingly predictable. For example, people have known for years that the legal Palestinian organizations, led by Arafat, were at best inexperienced and at worst corrupt regarding the financials of aid that was given to them by the rest of the world. But rather than send a lot of boring accountants and viewing that as a problem that needed to be solved, those who oppose the Palestinian agenda laughed in their hands at the hapless and corrupt looting and wasting of money. However, suddenly there is no laughter when the people, who are no fools, elect Hamas into power. Suddenly there is outrage and puzzlement, how could the Palestinians vote in even worse extremists! I found reading such reports in the newspapers to be too foolish to even put up with. Everyone knew full well that the Palestinian government was wasting and looting, as just about every immature government agency will do, and they just let it happen rather than donate and even insist on financial advisors. But every wise option was blocked by the view that it was “aiding terrorists” when one helps the Palestinians. That is what I mean by the feeling that secularized Jews have, to Muslims, an alarmingly unpredictable set of reactions and the international community, including the UN, has been naïve, to say the least. I would have sent a boatload of accountants to the Palestinian authority along with the financial aid and as a condition to it, and that’s a fact. I mean, it must have been twenty years ago that I heard on a NYC TV news station report chuckling about how Arafat has part ownership of a bowling alley in Manhattan. How stupid is this? Everyone was laughing up their sleeves at how the Palestinians mismanaged their aid money, and the people suffered, and then they are surprised when finally the Palestinians “threw the bums out” and elected Hamas? Then you heard squeals and howling of “outrage” all the way to the supposedly democracy advocating White House. The average Palestinian family has been looted every which way imaginable, and everyone has been “in on it,” including the USA and Israel. And then people wonder when they continue to despair and adopt “any port in a storm.”
My sixth point is about the terminology “Zionist entity.” Westerners and the Israelis view the use of this term by Muslims as a slur, just like the term crusaders. Diplomats need to not be so simplistic and understand, just as I explained crusader, the nuance and origins of the term. Muslims use the term Zionist in order to avoid using the terms “Jewish” or “Israelite,” those two terms which they have no desire to insult. Muslims share the faith history preserved in the Jewish Bible of the ancient Israelites and confirm in their own Qur’an that Judaism is one of the God believing faiths. They, correctly, observe that the secular state of Israel has a government that is neither Jewish, as in being a theocracy or state religion, or Israelite, as in mandated and structured as the Kingdom of Israel of old. Thus the Muslims who use this term are taking care not to call Israel something that they feel it is not (which is, as I explained, a faith based structure as was in the past) but to characterize it as what they think it is, which is a created construct. Israel was created, as many countries in the world have been, as a result of the end of colonialism, armed conflict and UN or other governing mandate. This makes the state of Israel, in the eyes of many, to be the “Zionist entity.” It was the Zionist political movement, in reaction to the Holocaust during World War II that resulted in the creation of a state that then became populated by immigrant Jews. I’m not making a statement as to the justification of the state of Israel either way, so I’m not being critical or “taking sides.” I’m explaining the mindset and historical facts that any diplomat needs to appreciate. When someone refers to the “Zionist entity,” sure, they are not being complimentary. But one must understand the nature of the slur in order to successful comprehend diplomatic positions.
Iran serves as an excellent example in the Zionist entity discussion. Many westerners insist on thinking that Iranians hate Jews, and when they hear Iranians use the term “Zionist entity” they think that is a slur referencing that supposed hatred. But that is not true. There is a minority Jewish population in Iran and they have a parliamentary representative who occupies the seat reserved for Jews. Whenever that representative or others state that Iranians do not hate Jews, they are accused of being brainwashed, controlled, and oppressed or, not to be indelicate, to use American slang referring to servants “the house Jew.” I mean, if you want to believe that a country hates your faith or your culture, even if that is not true, I guess it’s a free world and you can think what you want. But any of your diplomatic endeavors will of necessity go awry due to this lack of misunderstanding. “Zionist entity” is a code word that is not just a slur regarding the belief that the state of Israel is a false and artificial construct, but it also a positive validation that the speaker is not using the term “Jewish” or “Israelite” as a slur. Diplomats need to understand precisely what the parties to negotiation are actually saying and what they actually believe.
My seventh point is that when stances are misunderstood, over simplified or painted as cartoons, rather than being clarifying, greater confusion results. To use the previous example, if one insists in believing that Iran “hates Jews,” one has swept off the table multiple diplomatic options that are valid but presume that Iran does not hate Jews. Thus simplistic and erroneous thought and speech eliminate valid diplomatic options rather than make the problem easier to solve.
My eighth point is that extremist speech tends to breed more extremist speech in response. Many people are outraged by what the President of Iran says about the Holocaust. But if you were experienced diplomats who understand human nature, you’d recognize that “pressing buttons” is a common reaction to being characterized in cartoon terms one’s self. If people are going to insist that one is a “Jew hater” when one is not, one loses motivation to defend the accuracy of what you do believe, and it is common to respond by shrugging and pressing some buttons in return. Genuine diplomats recognize that and put it in their proper context. As a diplomatic pointer that I may give to those who are outraged by comments such as questioning the Holocaust. It is diplomatically a sign of weakness and insecurity to obsess over and freak out about a statement that one knows is untrue. Every poker player knows that if your opponent stops the game to tell you that your mother wears combat books and is a linebacker on the Green Bay Packers, that you do not stop the game to get “proof” that your mother does not wear combat boots and that she is not a hefty linebacker for an American football team. And you do not obsess during the rest of the game with thinking that your opponent “really believes” that your hefty combat boot wearing mamma spends her Sundays playing on the gridiron. I try to think back to the last time I observed a genuine deft diplomat on the public stage and I must confess, I really cannot think of any recently. The Americans in particular seem so eager to get into tit-for-tat name calling while actually holding their “diplomatic” portfolios that it is just pathetic.
My ninth and final point, for this particular blogging, is that diplomats must avoid using bad or otherwise inexplicable behavior as “input” to unrelated situations being negotiated without fully understanding its context. Here I am referring to the relationships between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. Westerners observe outbreaks of horrible violence and merciless cruelty between these groups as somehow being informative of the character of the people and the faith in general. That sounds like a powerful argument that no one can refute, that surely there is something “wrong” with a faith where the believers of different sects can bomb each other’s shrines and mosques, torture civilians, murder children, and describe them as unbelievers. However, here is the danger of drawing a cultural conclusion from those events. If an observer had arrived on earth for the first time in the 1970’s and 1980’s and their only exposure to Christian Protestants and Catholics was to be Northern Ireland, what would they “learn” and conclude? They would see Protestants and Catholics do unspeakable things to each other. If they left earth at that point and told their colleagues what they saw, what valid conclusions could they have taken back with them based on witnessing what came to be called “The Troubles?” Likewise diplomats must take great care to not draw broad based conclusions when they witness terrible sectarian violence among Muslims. It is factual information that must be considered in context (and indeed was not considered by the Americans at ALL when they invaded Iraq, to the woe and detriment to all), where one knows that the potential for such a conflict exists, just as it did in fact exist between Protestants and Catholics in the power keg of Northern Ireland. Diplomats constantly “mine” for information and perspectives that are fully informed by the context and the factors that could precipitate those conditions, but they are very cautious about sweeping generalities of culture and character, which would in the large part be proven disastrously wrong.
Well, I hope that you, dear readers, have found my thoughts here to be helpful. I feel I must make some sort of joke about being a diplomat with an invisible and very low paying portfolio, ha.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Cultural diplomacy tutorial case study Part 2
My second case study is the most difficult one that exists in the world today, which is the generation long conflict, both military based and in the lack of peace of mind, in the Middle East, specifically Israel, the Palestinians, and the neighboring Islamic countries and populations. I have been enormously frustrated from the very beginning at the inability and unwillingness of "the powers that be" to seek a genuine solution and pathway to going forward in harmony and peaceful co-existence.
In the first case study I pointed out that regardless if one approves of the situation, actions or mindsets of one or all the participants, one must identify the values that are being protected (or believed to be protected) and then diplomats propose scenarios and solutions that protect those values in reality, not in concept.
If one looks at it that way, all of the participants actually have the same value that they are seeking to protect, but it is the fulfillment of that value that varies widely among the interested parties. To give an analogy, suppose you have a group of five hungry people. They share the value that they are trying to protect, which is "to have enough food to survive and thrive." But simply because all five are hungry, and share the value of needing food, it does not mean that all five need the exact same food. If one is an infant, then that one needs baby food and milk. If one is a grown man who works at hard labor all day, he would not survive on baby food and milk, he needs high calorie protein meals. If the third has simple needs, then he or she will be happy with bread and perhaps fish, so long as there is a steady and reliable supply. Do you see what I mean? In the Middle East situation, everyone has from the very beginning leaped toward arguing, using my analogy, about the foods that one expects for one's self, ignoring what specific foods the other needs. Further, no one has agreed that the foundational problem is a shared value and common need, which is in the analogy, "the need to have enough food to survive and thrive." One cannot be a cultural diplomat without identifying each party's core value that they seek to protect and invest in finding a solution for providing that value to your diplomatic partner, yes, even the "opponents," especially with the opponents. If someone is shooting at you because they need baby food and milk for their infant and has no other way to provide it, you do not have peace by trying to convince them that their infant should just gnaw on a beef bone, or eat hard food when the infant would not survive on that. This is, as I said, still using my analogy. One must buy into the need of one's cultural diplomacy partner (aka opponent) that they must receive food that is appropriate to the infant, not to the grown adult. Just because you might have a lactose intolerant household, you should not tell your cultural diplomacy partner or opponent that "milk is not good for them because it's not good for you" and that "their baby should therefore learn to survive without milk."
So turning back to the reality of the Mideast situation, what is the shared value that each party is seeking to obtain and/or protect? It is the shared value of "home," which must be described as territory that is under their governance, under their self determination, and where they can provide an economy where their people can thrive. Do you see the problem? When one uses the word "homeland," that connotes completely different "foods" to each "hungry" participant in the diplomacy, or conflict. There is insufficient attention to the definition of "home" being a place of self determination where the economy can provide for a thriving of the people. Decade after decade I have watched "the sound and the fury" of Mideast participants forcing down each others throats their own definition of "home," ignoring the needs of a genuine home, which is a place of self determination combined with an economic structure where the population can thrive. If genuine diplomats started from the very beginning of this situation and did this process, as obvious as people might assume the answers would be, it would be educational and helpful to an extreme.
When one goes to the very beginning and defines the core value being sought, obtained and/or protected, and then supplies the specifics of how that value, as in "home," must be provided to be successful, suddenly you have something that the Middle East has never had before: options. Once one combatant recognizes that the food the "other side" needs is infant milk, for example, suddenly options dawn on everyone, as light bulbs, instead of guns and bombs, go off. Think of the ways to provide infants with milk. Nurture mothers so they can breast feed. Nurture wet nurses. Provide cow milk. Provide goat or sheep milk. Import milk from other countries. Suddenly you have, just in this one example, more than five "options" where no option at all existed before, when one party was insisting that a hard potato and a beef bone are "food" and thus "meets the need" of the diplomatic combatant party that is representing the infant.
The past is only important because it helps to understand the frame of reference when your diplomatic partner/combatant is describing to you, in good faith, their "home" value and its definition. The odds are that even they do not really understand fully their own needs and definitions until they pause to reflect on them in that context, as I describe, and explain it to others. The obvious example is the "never again" shorthand definition that the country of Israel uses to describe their vision of "home." "Never again" is one of the greatest paradoxes in modern politics and social verbiage. It seems so obvious, but it has become incredibly obscure. Let me divert with an example. When someone has lost a home to a hurricane or a typhoon, one can say "never again," but what does that mean? There is a huge range of options if one examines it carefully in dialogue, to see what the lost homeowner means by "never again." Here is what the homeowner might mean: Never will I build in a hurricane prone area. Never will I be caught without flood insurance again. Never will I have a basement that can flood, or lack stilts for my rebuilt house. Never will I ignore hurricane warnings and not evacuate. Never will I build out of thin wood a home when I could use steel, brick or cinder block. And etc. etc. one could go on and on. Do you see what I mean? The battered hurricane home owner who lost his home can say "never again," but unless you know what he means by that, how can anyone proceed with action? It is likewise with the Israelis who have become so used to saying "Never again" that they lose patience, and even misunderstand themselves, what options exist to make "never again" come true for them.
I know for a fact that you can put two Jews together who both agree "Never again," and think they are in complete agreement, and would quickly pick a fight with a diplomatic combatant who questions their "Never again," who would actually find, if they paused and analyzed "Never again" the way I describe that they would find they have totally different visions of what "Never again" means. But individuals, political parties, communities and schools of belief do not recognize their own different mental visions of what "Never again" means. When people hear a word or a concept, they form a mental picture, one that flashes so quickly they do not even realize that they are "painting a mind portrait" in that instant. So here is how that works in an example. I know Jews who when you say "Never again" to them, they do not picture Israel being afflicted as was Germany, but they imagine some other country in the world being afflicted and Israel being the "last resort" for those Jews. Thus "Never again" to them means "Never again will a Jew have no place to go to be rescued when their own country persecutes them." Ah yes, but I also know Jews who when they say "Never again," they imagine an affliction occurring within Israel. Do you see what I mean? They think they are speaking of the same "Never again," but their "food needs" based on the common shared value of having food (to go back to my original analogy) differs. One envisions a country that must continue to exist as the ultimate refuge and insurance policy. The other envisions a country that is actually in danger of being under siege or affliction. This is a huge simplification of course, but it is realistic, as I know what people are thinking and how they individualize their perceptions, of course, as they would.
Thus a diplomatic partner or combatant can inadvertently "press the button" of one Jew but not the other with a particular action or set of words. The diplomat partner might address a "Never again" definition of one Jew, but totally alarm the "Never again" specific needs of the other Jew.
This exact same principle applies to the Palestinians. They, however, do not have a "Never again" mindset that both illuminates and obscures at the same time, since they are still within the situation that is unsatisfactory. They live within "What do we do now, and what will happen next?" and that mindset both illuminates and obscures too! Here is why.
Everyone has seen the obligatory science fiction movie where a huge meteor hits the earth or whatever. (I'm not sneaking in reference to "End of Time" fears here. If you ever talk to me in person you have to get used to my saying and meaning the obvious, not hinting at the theological or the occult). I want to use the meteor as an example of a huge object hitting something and causing material to spurt out in all directions. You see that in pictures of the moon and some of the planets, and it is believed that the Gulf of Mexico was gouged out by a striking meteor. Now, I can't use the example of throwing a stone into the water, because while there are ripples, they don't stay frozen as ripples, but the water immediately smooths over again where the stone was thrown. This is not a description of the Middle East, but the meteor striking is an example. While there has always been land grabbing and conflict in the Middle East, since Biblical and Roman times, and all the way into the colonial recent past, Hitler basically threw a meteor during the Holocaust. The meteor caused the rippling of refugees fleeing the countries of his control, and the survivors did not "flow back" into Germany upon his defeat, except those German nationals who repatriated. Refugees and their fears and their realities remained thrown "out there," just as if they were ejected during a meteor strike.
So what happened next? The refusal of many countries to take Jewish refugees and other problems and motivating factors resulted in a second meteor hitting, and that is Jewish home seekers arriving in Palestine. This is not a judgmental statement at all, but a retelling of actual history using an analogy. The arrival of the Jewish advocates for a home state were like a secondary meteor (one that is understandable and justified) hitting, but this time in the territory of Palestine. Now the Palestinians, right or wrong, in fact or in fear, become the "ejecta" from the impact of the meteor. Millions became displaced and that is simply a fact. They are still in their physical or mental state of "displacement." Thus one cannot begin to solve the Mideast problem and bring peace without conducting a total inventory of "home displacement." I do not mean that we set up courts and argue over a land ownership. I mean we need to diagnose, like compassionate doctors, the segments of displaced Palestinians and articulate their degree of displacement, just like the hurricane homeowner used in the previous example. Are they in the second generation of living in camps in another country? Are they displaced within Israel? Are they in Israel but mentally and spiritually displaced? Are they confined in areas where they cannot economically thrive? Peace will not come to the Middle East until we all act like adult doctors who can count the scars and decide what to do about them, rather than ignore or deny them. That is not weakness, that is honesty and strength. Everyone has been too weak about speaking honestly about the Palestinians who are displaced, and so they live in a confined and churning "lack of home" reality and state of mind. This is why "We want a Homeland" like "Never again" sounds so obvious, but is completely diffuse and differing in meaning from Palestinian to Palestinian, just like from Jew to Jew. A "homeland" to one Palestinian may be returning to Israel from Jordan to reside in a Palestinian state, but that might not at all be what the next Palestinian wants, who only wants to get out of the refuge camp and become part of the economic mainstream of wherever he or she is currently residing. So again, just like "Never again," Palestinians who have no idea what each other thinks and needs are "assuming" that they all mean the same thing when they say "Palestinian homeland." One would find, however, that they, like the Jews, have totally different mental portraits of what they mean, and what they would need for them and their families to thrive.
Thus you have the third parties, which are the Islamic countries of the Middle East, who feel somewhat helpless. They feel that the displacement crisis (both physical and spiritual) of the Palestinians are completely ignored. Jews understandable map that concern by the Islamic countries onto their "Never again" fear, and perceive this as pressure (which it is) but reduce their reaction to one option ("offense as defense.") The Israelis feel a constraint pressure of having to evaluate each blip on the political and crime radar as being a "act, react, forebear or endure" crisis. It's no way to live. But the Middle East countries must understand that when they apply pressure without doing the same "homework" within their own resident Palestinian populations, they are pressing the buttons of the Jews and that is not constructive at all. Let's be honest. The Islamic countries have pussy footed in fear of stirring up their own unhappy Palestinian populations. I understand that, but at some point, one must take a first step and not just wring one's hands in dismay. Everyone is waiting for some magical solution that is not going to exist. Middle East countries fear fully absorbing their Palestinian populations because they hope that they will someday be able to "go home." As a result, we are on the second generation of millions in camps who cannot yet "go home." Where is home and what should it look like? This must be decided by working with Israel, not against Israel, to do a displacement inventory and analysis. Where there is hope that some Palestinians may migrate to their preference of a Palestinian state, then sure, continue to host them, but ask for some assistance from the world in making their temporary conditions more amenable and as an investment in their future. Where Palestinians must or prefer to remain, then mainstream their access to the economy so they can thrive, and not just eke out a living somehow.
Israelis have the know how about how to contribute to economic success, but as you can see in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, they withhold that because they feel both unappreciated when they do "help" and they use withholding economic self determination as a weapon. This is understandable but has never been actually helpful. Someone who is able to self determine and thrive with hope of prosperity is not sitting there hating and planning the next attack. No, I am not naive, you are. When one does a genuine displacement inventory one suddenly sees many more options of behavior than cutting off supplies as punishment for terrorist attacks.
The lack of genuine progress, of the type I have described, results in all sides feeling they are "forgotten" and they are, for all intents and purposes, if one looks at the results. Israel is "forgotten" because the world feels there is a formula of support they give Israel, but cannot really relate to the heart of why Israelis need security. The Palestinians are "forgotten" because like meteor ejecta, they still sit wherever they were thrust, and live not in homes but in places and mindsets of "displacement." The Middle East countries who host Palestinians are "forgotten" because the status quo just drags on and on in the refugee camps. (Look at how, on a different example, Syria has had to just do the best they can with virtually no help from the world as they host hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees, including many Christians who were driven out of Iraq by persecution) "Out of sight out of mind" is the motto of the world when it comes to refugees, and the countries of good will must struggle to support them. And this is why a country like Iran will apply the pressure, not because they are a host country, but because they chafe at the feeling that the Palestinians are "forgotten," and so they rattle the saber to remind the Israelis and the world that the problem of displacement is dragging on and on and on.
In my spare time I've even sketched out a recovery plan for the Gaza strip. Trust me, that did not require a tremendous amount of my brain power, just good will and sound cultural diplomacy expertise. When are people going to go to work in good will and solve these problems peacefully?
I hope you have found this helpful, especially the young people, who inherited this mess that should never have become such a mess at all.
In the first case study I pointed out that regardless if one approves of the situation, actions or mindsets of one or all the participants, one must identify the values that are being protected (or believed to be protected) and then diplomats propose scenarios and solutions that protect those values in reality, not in concept.
If one looks at it that way, all of the participants actually have the same value that they are seeking to protect, but it is the fulfillment of that value that varies widely among the interested parties. To give an analogy, suppose you have a group of five hungry people. They share the value that they are trying to protect, which is "to have enough food to survive and thrive." But simply because all five are hungry, and share the value of needing food, it does not mean that all five need the exact same food. If one is an infant, then that one needs baby food and milk. If one is a grown man who works at hard labor all day, he would not survive on baby food and milk, he needs high calorie protein meals. If the third has simple needs, then he or she will be happy with bread and perhaps fish, so long as there is a steady and reliable supply. Do you see what I mean? In the Middle East situation, everyone has from the very beginning leaped toward arguing, using my analogy, about the foods that one expects for one's self, ignoring what specific foods the other needs. Further, no one has agreed that the foundational problem is a shared value and common need, which is in the analogy, "the need to have enough food to survive and thrive." One cannot be a cultural diplomat without identifying each party's core value that they seek to protect and invest in finding a solution for providing that value to your diplomatic partner, yes, even the "opponents," especially with the opponents. If someone is shooting at you because they need baby food and milk for their infant and has no other way to provide it, you do not have peace by trying to convince them that their infant should just gnaw on a beef bone, or eat hard food when the infant would not survive on that. This is, as I said, still using my analogy. One must buy into the need of one's cultural diplomacy partner (aka opponent) that they must receive food that is appropriate to the infant, not to the grown adult. Just because you might have a lactose intolerant household, you should not tell your cultural diplomacy partner or opponent that "milk is not good for them because it's not good for you" and that "their baby should therefore learn to survive without milk."
So turning back to the reality of the Mideast situation, what is the shared value that each party is seeking to obtain and/or protect? It is the shared value of "home," which must be described as territory that is under their governance, under their self determination, and where they can provide an economy where their people can thrive. Do you see the problem? When one uses the word "homeland," that connotes completely different "foods" to each "hungry" participant in the diplomacy, or conflict. There is insufficient attention to the definition of "home" being a place of self determination where the economy can provide for a thriving of the people. Decade after decade I have watched "the sound and the fury" of Mideast participants forcing down each others throats their own definition of "home," ignoring the needs of a genuine home, which is a place of self determination combined with an economic structure where the population can thrive. If genuine diplomats started from the very beginning of this situation and did this process, as obvious as people might assume the answers would be, it would be educational and helpful to an extreme.
When one goes to the very beginning and defines the core value being sought, obtained and/or protected, and then supplies the specifics of how that value, as in "home," must be provided to be successful, suddenly you have something that the Middle East has never had before: options. Once one combatant recognizes that the food the "other side" needs is infant milk, for example, suddenly options dawn on everyone, as light bulbs, instead of guns and bombs, go off. Think of the ways to provide infants with milk. Nurture mothers so they can breast feed. Nurture wet nurses. Provide cow milk. Provide goat or sheep milk. Import milk from other countries. Suddenly you have, just in this one example, more than five "options" where no option at all existed before, when one party was insisting that a hard potato and a beef bone are "food" and thus "meets the need" of the diplomatic combatant party that is representing the infant.
The past is only important because it helps to understand the frame of reference when your diplomatic partner/combatant is describing to you, in good faith, their "home" value and its definition. The odds are that even they do not really understand fully their own needs and definitions until they pause to reflect on them in that context, as I describe, and explain it to others. The obvious example is the "never again" shorthand definition that the country of Israel uses to describe their vision of "home." "Never again" is one of the greatest paradoxes in modern politics and social verbiage. It seems so obvious, but it has become incredibly obscure. Let me divert with an example. When someone has lost a home to a hurricane or a typhoon, one can say "never again," but what does that mean? There is a huge range of options if one examines it carefully in dialogue, to see what the lost homeowner means by "never again." Here is what the homeowner might mean: Never will I build in a hurricane prone area. Never will I be caught without flood insurance again. Never will I have a basement that can flood, or lack stilts for my rebuilt house. Never will I ignore hurricane warnings and not evacuate. Never will I build out of thin wood a home when I could use steel, brick or cinder block. And etc. etc. one could go on and on. Do you see what I mean? The battered hurricane home owner who lost his home can say "never again," but unless you know what he means by that, how can anyone proceed with action? It is likewise with the Israelis who have become so used to saying "Never again" that they lose patience, and even misunderstand themselves, what options exist to make "never again" come true for them.
I know for a fact that you can put two Jews together who both agree "Never again," and think they are in complete agreement, and would quickly pick a fight with a diplomatic combatant who questions their "Never again," who would actually find, if they paused and analyzed "Never again" the way I describe that they would find they have totally different visions of what "Never again" means. But individuals, political parties, communities and schools of belief do not recognize their own different mental visions of what "Never again" means. When people hear a word or a concept, they form a mental picture, one that flashes so quickly they do not even realize that they are "painting a mind portrait" in that instant. So here is how that works in an example. I know Jews who when you say "Never again" to them, they do not picture Israel being afflicted as was Germany, but they imagine some other country in the world being afflicted and Israel being the "last resort" for those Jews. Thus "Never again" to them means "Never again will a Jew have no place to go to be rescued when their own country persecutes them." Ah yes, but I also know Jews who when they say "Never again," they imagine an affliction occurring within Israel. Do you see what I mean? They think they are speaking of the same "Never again," but their "food needs" based on the common shared value of having food (to go back to my original analogy) differs. One envisions a country that must continue to exist as the ultimate refuge and insurance policy. The other envisions a country that is actually in danger of being under siege or affliction. This is a huge simplification of course, but it is realistic, as I know what people are thinking and how they individualize their perceptions, of course, as they would.
Thus a diplomatic partner or combatant can inadvertently "press the button" of one Jew but not the other with a particular action or set of words. The diplomat partner might address a "Never again" definition of one Jew, but totally alarm the "Never again" specific needs of the other Jew.
This exact same principle applies to the Palestinians. They, however, do not have a "Never again" mindset that both illuminates and obscures at the same time, since they are still within the situation that is unsatisfactory. They live within "What do we do now, and what will happen next?" and that mindset both illuminates and obscures too! Here is why.
Everyone has seen the obligatory science fiction movie where a huge meteor hits the earth or whatever. (I'm not sneaking in reference to "End of Time" fears here. If you ever talk to me in person you have to get used to my saying and meaning the obvious, not hinting at the theological or the occult). I want to use the meteor as an example of a huge object hitting something and causing material to spurt out in all directions. You see that in pictures of the moon and some of the planets, and it is believed that the Gulf of Mexico was gouged out by a striking meteor. Now, I can't use the example of throwing a stone into the water, because while there are ripples, they don't stay frozen as ripples, but the water immediately smooths over again where the stone was thrown. This is not a description of the Middle East, but the meteor striking is an example. While there has always been land grabbing and conflict in the Middle East, since Biblical and Roman times, and all the way into the colonial recent past, Hitler basically threw a meteor during the Holocaust. The meteor caused the rippling of refugees fleeing the countries of his control, and the survivors did not "flow back" into Germany upon his defeat, except those German nationals who repatriated. Refugees and their fears and their realities remained thrown "out there," just as if they were ejected during a meteor strike.
So what happened next? The refusal of many countries to take Jewish refugees and other problems and motivating factors resulted in a second meteor hitting, and that is Jewish home seekers arriving in Palestine. This is not a judgmental statement at all, but a retelling of actual history using an analogy. The arrival of the Jewish advocates for a home state were like a secondary meteor (one that is understandable and justified) hitting, but this time in the territory of Palestine. Now the Palestinians, right or wrong, in fact or in fear, become the "ejecta" from the impact of the meteor. Millions became displaced and that is simply a fact. They are still in their physical or mental state of "displacement." Thus one cannot begin to solve the Mideast problem and bring peace without conducting a total inventory of "home displacement." I do not mean that we set up courts and argue over a land ownership. I mean we need to diagnose, like compassionate doctors, the segments of displaced Palestinians and articulate their degree of displacement, just like the hurricane homeowner used in the previous example. Are they in the second generation of living in camps in another country? Are they displaced within Israel? Are they in Israel but mentally and spiritually displaced? Are they confined in areas where they cannot economically thrive? Peace will not come to the Middle East until we all act like adult doctors who can count the scars and decide what to do about them, rather than ignore or deny them. That is not weakness, that is honesty and strength. Everyone has been too weak about speaking honestly about the Palestinians who are displaced, and so they live in a confined and churning "lack of home" reality and state of mind. This is why "We want a Homeland" like "Never again" sounds so obvious, but is completely diffuse and differing in meaning from Palestinian to Palestinian, just like from Jew to Jew. A "homeland" to one Palestinian may be returning to Israel from Jordan to reside in a Palestinian state, but that might not at all be what the next Palestinian wants, who only wants to get out of the refuge camp and become part of the economic mainstream of wherever he or she is currently residing. So again, just like "Never again," Palestinians who have no idea what each other thinks and needs are "assuming" that they all mean the same thing when they say "Palestinian homeland." One would find, however, that they, like the Jews, have totally different mental portraits of what they mean, and what they would need for them and their families to thrive.
Thus you have the third parties, which are the Islamic countries of the Middle East, who feel somewhat helpless. They feel that the displacement crisis (both physical and spiritual) of the Palestinians are completely ignored. Jews understandable map that concern by the Islamic countries onto their "Never again" fear, and perceive this as pressure (which it is) but reduce their reaction to one option ("offense as defense.") The Israelis feel a constraint pressure of having to evaluate each blip on the political and crime radar as being a "act, react, forebear or endure" crisis. It's no way to live. But the Middle East countries must understand that when they apply pressure without doing the same "homework" within their own resident Palestinian populations, they are pressing the buttons of the Jews and that is not constructive at all. Let's be honest. The Islamic countries have pussy footed in fear of stirring up their own unhappy Palestinian populations. I understand that, but at some point, one must take a first step and not just wring one's hands in dismay. Everyone is waiting for some magical solution that is not going to exist. Middle East countries fear fully absorbing their Palestinian populations because they hope that they will someday be able to "go home." As a result, we are on the second generation of millions in camps who cannot yet "go home." Where is home and what should it look like? This must be decided by working with Israel, not against Israel, to do a displacement inventory and analysis. Where there is hope that some Palestinians may migrate to their preference of a Palestinian state, then sure, continue to host them, but ask for some assistance from the world in making their temporary conditions more amenable and as an investment in their future. Where Palestinians must or prefer to remain, then mainstream their access to the economy so they can thrive, and not just eke out a living somehow.
Israelis have the know how about how to contribute to economic success, but as you can see in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, they withhold that because they feel both unappreciated when they do "help" and they use withholding economic self determination as a weapon. This is understandable but has never been actually helpful. Someone who is able to self determine and thrive with hope of prosperity is not sitting there hating and planning the next attack. No, I am not naive, you are. When one does a genuine displacement inventory one suddenly sees many more options of behavior than cutting off supplies as punishment for terrorist attacks.
The lack of genuine progress, of the type I have described, results in all sides feeling they are "forgotten" and they are, for all intents and purposes, if one looks at the results. Israel is "forgotten" because the world feels there is a formula of support they give Israel, but cannot really relate to the heart of why Israelis need security. The Palestinians are "forgotten" because like meteor ejecta, they still sit wherever they were thrust, and live not in homes but in places and mindsets of "displacement." The Middle East countries who host Palestinians are "forgotten" because the status quo just drags on and on in the refugee camps. (Look at how, on a different example, Syria has had to just do the best they can with virtually no help from the world as they host hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees, including many Christians who were driven out of Iraq by persecution) "Out of sight out of mind" is the motto of the world when it comes to refugees, and the countries of good will must struggle to support them. And this is why a country like Iran will apply the pressure, not because they are a host country, but because they chafe at the feeling that the Palestinians are "forgotten," and so they rattle the saber to remind the Israelis and the world that the problem of displacement is dragging on and on and on.
In my spare time I've even sketched out a recovery plan for the Gaza strip. Trust me, that did not require a tremendous amount of my brain power, just good will and sound cultural diplomacy expertise. When are people going to go to work in good will and solve these problems peacefully?
I hope you have found this helpful, especially the young people, who inherited this mess that should never have become such a mess at all.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Delightful "Middle East" six degrees separation
This is a very enjoyable read! How the "six degrees of separation" theory is more than coincidence in Middle East culture.
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=112376&d=4&m=8&y=2008
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=112376&d=4&m=8&y=2008
Very good opinion piece about Middle East
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=112406&d=4&m=8&y=2008
Coexistence of spirit and matter in the Middle EastHassan Bin Youssef Yassin Arab News
The Middle East has played a central role in world affairs since the dawn of human history. Scholars have declared it both the spiritual and the material birthplace of humanity. It was in Mesopotamia that modern civilization was born, with the first organized societies and economies emerging from the agricultural revolution. Some centuries later, the region was to give rise to the world's three monotheistic religions, in the hills of the Holy Land and the deserts of Arabia.
Today it is the spiritual aspect that gets most attention, in both positive and negative ways. The monotheistic order that emerged in the Middle East transformed the world through its unique message, and gave the world its most important connection to the Almighty, in whose guidance and spirit we have lived ever since. Unfortunately the three religions of Islam, Christianity and Judaism have also been used to justify many wars and conflicts in God's name.
The spiritual heritage of the Middle East has brought out the best and the worst in humankind. Generations of human beings have lived better lives through God's guidance and His message.
But too often men have also fought over the belief that they were the true interpreters and servants of God. The call by Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah in Madrid to bring people of different faiths together should be viewed as an attempt to defuse such struggles and to allow us to practice unity, respect and tolerance in our interpretations of our common God.
What we tend to forget today is that the Middle East very much remains also a material center of the world, and this aspect is often more entwined with the spiritual aspect than we realize. The region's oil wealth has turned the Middle East into the keystone of world economic stability. This has attracted a great deal of attention to the region, as it has come to symbolize the essential link in the stability and survival of our current economic order.
As the nexus of spiritual and material significance, ignoring one or the other aspects of the Middle East can be extremely damaging to the rest of the world. Should oil be disrupted through further conflicts in the region, the collapse of the world economy is not just a possibility, but a certainty. We must begin looking at the Middle East in its universality, its spiritual and material components, and watch for any factor that can disrupt that balance.
Most importantly, we must give the Middle East the attention it deserves. In the lands where the three monotheistic religions have often been at odds, it is important that we promote stability and understanding, and work at resolving the many conflicts that threaten the region and its vital economic role. The spiritual and the material are nowhere as linked as in the Middle East, and we must all recognize this in order to avert a greater crisis than any the region has witnessed.
- Hassan Bin Youssef Yassin is a political analyst based in Jeddah. He can be contacted at Zyzy30@aol.com
Coexistence of spirit and matter in the Middle EastHassan Bin Youssef Yassin Arab News
The Middle East has played a central role in world affairs since the dawn of human history. Scholars have declared it both the spiritual and the material birthplace of humanity. It was in Mesopotamia that modern civilization was born, with the first organized societies and economies emerging from the agricultural revolution. Some centuries later, the region was to give rise to the world's three monotheistic religions, in the hills of the Holy Land and the deserts of Arabia.
Today it is the spiritual aspect that gets most attention, in both positive and negative ways. The monotheistic order that emerged in the Middle East transformed the world through its unique message, and gave the world its most important connection to the Almighty, in whose guidance and spirit we have lived ever since. Unfortunately the three religions of Islam, Christianity and Judaism have also been used to justify many wars and conflicts in God's name.
The spiritual heritage of the Middle East has brought out the best and the worst in humankind. Generations of human beings have lived better lives through God's guidance and His message.
But too often men have also fought over the belief that they were the true interpreters and servants of God. The call by Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah in Madrid to bring people of different faiths together should be viewed as an attempt to defuse such struggles and to allow us to practice unity, respect and tolerance in our interpretations of our common God.
What we tend to forget today is that the Middle East very much remains also a material center of the world, and this aspect is often more entwined with the spiritual aspect than we realize. The region's oil wealth has turned the Middle East into the keystone of world economic stability. This has attracted a great deal of attention to the region, as it has come to symbolize the essential link in the stability and survival of our current economic order.
As the nexus of spiritual and material significance, ignoring one or the other aspects of the Middle East can be extremely damaging to the rest of the world. Should oil be disrupted through further conflicts in the region, the collapse of the world economy is not just a possibility, but a certainty. We must begin looking at the Middle East in its universality, its spiritual and material components, and watch for any factor that can disrupt that balance.
Most importantly, we must give the Middle East the attention it deserves. In the lands where the three monotheistic religions have often been at odds, it is important that we promote stability and understanding, and work at resolving the many conflicts that threaten the region and its vital economic role. The spiritual and the material are nowhere as linked as in the Middle East, and we must all recognize this in order to avert a greater crisis than any the region has witnessed.
- Hassan Bin Youssef Yassin is a political analyst based in Jeddah. He can be contacted at Zyzy30@aol.com
Sunday, March 2, 2008
A very good speech by the King of Jordan
http://www.jordantimes.com/?news=6095
snip
AMMAN (JT) - The US should be completely involved in Middle East peace process to influence the course of discussions, monitor progress and help bridge the gaps to ensure a final agreement by the end of 2008, His Majesty King Abdullah said on Friday.
In a speech he delivered at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, the King stressed “the critical importance of a long-term strategic American involvement in the development of the Middle East”.
“I am here to explain that such a commitment is an opportunity to transform the strategic landscape of the Middle East for years to come,” he told students and faculty members at the school (see full text).
The King urged college academicians to help draw up a US strategy in the area.
I know that optimism does not come easily in academia. But I do know about the visionary thinking that is the scholar’s gift. Today, I ask you to employ visionary thinking to consider a short- and long-term strategy that will ensure a viable, stable, prosperous Middle Eastern region and a safe and secure world for all.
Highlighting the fact that the world’s 57 Muslim countries are not at peace with Israel and whose citizens deem the conflict in Palestine as the issue of their time, His Majesty warned of the implications for global stability if the Mideast conflict continues.
He asserted that 2008 is a critical year. “We are in the best possible position to resolve 60 years of conflict between Israel and Palestine,” especially since the Arab and Muslim states have committed to an “unprecedented and unanimous peace initiative”.
***
He has a wise perspective and should be listened to, although Washington's "help" has been very one-sided.
snip
AMMAN (JT) - The US should be completely involved in Middle East peace process to influence the course of discussions, monitor progress and help bridge the gaps to ensure a final agreement by the end of 2008, His Majesty King Abdullah said on Friday.
In a speech he delivered at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, the King stressed “the critical importance of a long-term strategic American involvement in the development of the Middle East”.
“I am here to explain that such a commitment is an opportunity to transform the strategic landscape of the Middle East for years to come,” he told students and faculty members at the school (see full text).
The King urged college academicians to help draw up a US strategy in the area.
I know that optimism does not come easily in academia. But I do know about the visionary thinking that is the scholar’s gift. Today, I ask you to employ visionary thinking to consider a short- and long-term strategy that will ensure a viable, stable, prosperous Middle Eastern region and a safe and secure world for all.
Highlighting the fact that the world’s 57 Muslim countries are not at peace with Israel and whose citizens deem the conflict in Palestine as the issue of their time, His Majesty warned of the implications for global stability if the Mideast conflict continues.
He asserted that 2008 is a critical year. “We are in the best possible position to resolve 60 years of conflict between Israel and Palestine,” especially since the Arab and Muslim states have committed to an “unprecedented and unanimous peace initiative”.
***
He has a wise perspective and should be listened to, although Washington's "help" has been very one-sided.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Arab League peace initiative
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/25/world/middleeast/25cnd-israel.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1185380169-UHtukesMMxInK0H/rt9Rig
JERUSALEM, July 25 — The foreign ministers of Egypt and Jordan made a historic visit to Israel today to promote the Arab League’s peace initiative, the first time a delegation from the league has been sent to Israel.
The league’s initiative would grant Israel full recognition and normal relations with its Arab neighbors in return for withdrawing to its 1967 borders and accepting the creation of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital.
It also calls for “an agreed, just solution” to the issue of Palestinian refugees. The initiative was begun by Saudi Arabia and endorsed by the Arab League in 2002.
“We are extending a hand of peace on behalf of the whole region to you, and we hope that we will be able to create the momentum needed to resume fruitful and productive negotiations” among Israel, Palestinians, and the rest of the Arab world, the Jordanian foreign minister, Abdul-Ilah al-Khatib, said at a news conference with Mr. Peres, The Associated Press reported.
The Egyptian foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, said he hoped Israel would respond positively to the proposal.
***
I hope so too.
JERUSALEM, July 25 — The foreign ministers of Egypt and Jordan made a historic visit to Israel today to promote the Arab League’s peace initiative, the first time a delegation from the league has been sent to Israel.
The league’s initiative would grant Israel full recognition and normal relations with its Arab neighbors in return for withdrawing to its 1967 borders and accepting the creation of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital.
It also calls for “an agreed, just solution” to the issue of Palestinian refugees. The initiative was begun by Saudi Arabia and endorsed by the Arab League in 2002.
“We are extending a hand of peace on behalf of the whole region to you, and we hope that we will be able to create the momentum needed to resume fruitful and productive negotiations” among Israel, Palestinians, and the rest of the Arab world, the Jordanian foreign minister, Abdul-Ilah al-Khatib, said at a news conference with Mr. Peres, The Associated Press reported.
The Egyptian foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, said he hoped Israel would respond positively to the proposal.
***
I hope so too.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Listening to a conservative talk show host...
... he sounds about twelve years old in his understanding of the Middle East and the motivations of the Palestinian people.
His mom ought to take him by the hand and teach him how to read and understand! And to have some compassion for all people. It's funny because the first few sentences of his monologue actually showed some understanding, then it totally collapsed into mean gibberish. Did his father help him with any of this?
His mom ought to take him by the hand and teach him how to read and understand! And to have some compassion for all people. It's funny because the first few sentences of his monologue actually showed some understanding, then it totally collapsed into mean gibberish. Did his father help him with any of this?
Saturday, May 19, 2007
OK, now I'm impressed
His words speak for themselves.
Snips from the BBC online article:
The ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, says he is giving $10bn (£5bn) to set up an educational foundation in the Middle East.
It is thought to be one of the largest charitable donations in history.
The announcement was made to widespread applause at the World Economic Forum, which is being held in Jordan.
At the moment, he explained, there was high illiteracy in the region - where more than 40% of Arab women cannot read or write.
The whole Arab world publishes fewer books than the country of Turkey.
"Our region needs at this moment 15 million job opportunities, and our Arab world will need in the next 20 years between 74 to 85 million job opportunities," the sheikh told the conference.
"In order to realise these objectives, I have decided to establish the Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum Foundation to focus on human development, and have I decided to endow a fund of $10bn to finance its projects," he said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6672923.stm
Snips from the BBC online article:
The ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, says he is giving $10bn (£5bn) to set up an educational foundation in the Middle East.
It is thought to be one of the largest charitable donations in history.
The announcement was made to widespread applause at the World Economic Forum, which is being held in Jordan.
At the moment, he explained, there was high illiteracy in the region - where more than 40% of Arab women cannot read or write.
The whole Arab world publishes fewer books than the country of Turkey.
"Our region needs at this moment 15 million job opportunities, and our Arab world will need in the next 20 years between 74 to 85 million job opportunities," the sheikh told the conference.
"In order to realise these objectives, I have decided to establish the Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum Foundation to focus on human development, and have I decided to endow a fund of $10bn to finance its projects," he said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6672923.stm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
