The Israeli-Palestinian peace process (negotiations between Israel and Fatah) has reached a stalemate that could prove quite detrimental to the two-state solution.  It has allowed Hamas to make a resurgence in Palestinian public opinion.   Since the Gilad Schalit deal, which saw over 1,000 Palestinian prisoners released, Hamas has gained popularity in Gaza and the West Bank.  The Hamas political victory also discredited and undercut the influence and image of Fatah and its leaders.  In the eyes of the Palestinians, Hamas was able to make real gains through the use of threats of violence, while Fatah has nothing to show for their non-violent methods and stalled negotiation attempts with Israel.  In reality, this is of course not true.   The West Bank economy has more than flourished in comparison to that of the Gaza Strip, largely a result of Fatah’s negotiations with Israel.  But come election time, what will Palestinians weigh in on more?

While neither party may be part of the answer to the Israeli-Palestinian solution, a Hamas victory in the West Bank would put an end to the peace formula altogether.  Fatah is the only reasonable political party that Israel can negotiate a peace treaty with.  As a result, Israel must do all it can to restore the reputation of Fatah and help it win back the hearts and minds of its constituency.  Dennis Ross, a known supporter of Israel and the former special assistant to President Obama, provides some valuable and constructive insight on how Israel can do this in his most recent piece for the Washington Post:

The following was written on January 6, 2012 by Dennis Ross, the former special assistant to President Barak Obama, for the Washington Post:

Dan Meridor, one of Israel’s four deputy prime ministers, said to me years ago that “the peace process is like riding a bicycle: When you stop pedaling, you fall off.” And currently, the Israelis and Palestinians have stopped pedaling.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is convinced that this Israeli government cannot make a peace deal — or at least one he can live with — so he imposes conditions on negotiations. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sees these conditions as harsh and unprecedented, and doesn’t want to pay a steep political price just to enter talks.

The Obama administration and the other members of the Quartet — the Middle East mediating group that also includes envoys from the European Union, Russia and the United Nations — want to resume direct talks and this past week held a preparatory meeting with Israeli and Palestinian negotiators in Amman, Jordan. There may be more such meetings, and that is good, because ultimately there will be no peace without negotiations.

But there should also be no illusions about the prospects of a breakthrough any time soon. The psychological gaps between the parties make it hard to resolve their differences and have bedeviled all the work for peace talks over the past few years.

I have been intimately involved in peacemaking efforts over the past 20 years under Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Obama, and I know that Abbas and Netanyahu carry the weight of their peoples’ history and mythology, and face enormous political constraints. But those difficulties cannot be a reason to despair and accept a stalemate, particularly when those who reject peace will exploit any impasse to challenge the very idea of a two-state outcome.

While there may be no early breakthrough on holding negotiations, it is possible to overcome the stalemate. One way to do so — and to validate those Palestinian leaders, such as Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, who believe in nonviolence and coexistence — is for the Israelis to change the realities on the ground. After all, these Palestinian leaders need to be able to show that their approach is producing a process that will, in time, end the occupation.

What could demonstrate to the Palestinians that the occupation is receding? Examples are not hard to come by. Since the interim agreement of the Oslo process was finalized in 1995, the West Bank has been divided into non-contiguous areas known as A, B and C — with the Palestinians having putative control in Area A and Israel retaining overall responsibility in the two other areas. From the fall of 1995 to the spring of 2002, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) largely stayed out of Area A, which constitutes about 18 percent of the territory and includes all the major cities in the West Bank. According to the Oslo agreements, the Palestinians are to have civil and security responsibility in this area.

But in 2002, at the height of the second intifada and the horrendous suicide bombings that Palestinians were executing in Israel, the IDF began operating in Area A again to try to stop the attacks. Though the intifada ended in 2005 and Palestinian security forces have been generally effective in preventing terror attacks, the IDF still carries out periodic incursions into Palestinian cities to reinforce local security efforts. This grates on Palestinians, reminding them who remains in control.

So, one meaningful step would be either to stop all such incursions in Area A or, if there are continuing security concerns, to phase them out based on the security situation. Gabi Ashkenazi, former chief of staff of the IDF, has consistently said that “as the Palestinians do more on security, we will do less.” A gradual ending of incursions in Area A would certainly be consistent with that axiom.

In Area B, about 22 percent of the West Bank, Palestinian police maintain law and order but are not permitted to deal with terrorist threats. Israel could allow their presence to grow. From my discussions with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, I know that he is open to increasing the number of Palestinian police stations and broadening the areas where Palestinian security personnel operate. Now would be a good time to take these steps, as any such expansion would certainly be noticed, and welcomed, by the Palestinian public.

Finally, in Area C, which is about 60 percent of the West Bank, Palestinians’ security and police forces have no access, their economic activity is extremely limited, and Israel retains civil and security responsibilities. There is no practical reason that the Palestinians cannot be permitted dramatically more economic access and activity in this area.

To give one example, there are Palestinian stone masonry factories in Area A, but Palestinians have limited access to the rock quarries in the West Bank, which are in Area C. In a case brought against Israeli ownership of the rock quarries, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled late last month that no additional quarries should be Israeli-owned. That ruling creates an opening for private Palestinian ownership, should any new quarries be established — and there clearly is room for more.

Expanding the Palestinians’ economic opportunities in Area C would do wonders for job creation and the overall Palestinian economy. (In the West Bank, unemployment has come down in recent years but remains at about 16 percent.)

These steps should be feasible from an Israeli standpoint. First, these or similar changes could be implemented without altering the territory’ s political status and could be done in a way that would not put Israeli security at risk, particularly if coordinated closely with the IDF.

Second, Netanyahu has said repeatedly that he does not want to rule over Palestinians and that the stronger their economic base, the better the prospects for peace. These steps would certainly demonstrate that the prime minister means what he says. At the same time, they would signal to Palestinians that independence is possible and that the approach from Abbas and Fayyad — not Hamas resistance or violence — can produce it.

I’m not suggesting to forgo negotiations and their focus on a two-state solution. Talks need to be pursued, and the Obama administration is rightly doing so. The administration is also continuing to assist with institution-building by providing material support for the security, judicial and other sectors of Palestinian society — steps that fit neatly with the kind of actions I am proposing to validate leaders such as Fayyad. At this point, validation of nonviolence will come less from words and more from demonstrations that the occupation is shrinking and will, eventually, end.

The rest of the Middle East is churning, with dictators being toppled and protesters still in the streets a year into the Arab Awakening. Since the demand for free and fair elections has become a symbol of credibility in the uprisings, the pressure on both Fatah and Hamas to hold elections this year is likely to become irresistible. For the past few years, Abbas has said that he would not be a candidate in new elections, but now he is saying he would like those elections to take place in May and plans to depart the political scene afterward. Even if it will not be simple to reach an agreement with Hamas on the terms of elections, Abbas will feel the need to hold them sometime in 2012.

These elections are likely to shape the Palestinians’ identity and whether they continue to accept nonviolence, peaceful coexistence with Israelis and a two-state solution. If there are clear signs that the occupation is diminishing, the positions of Palestinians such as Abbas, Fayyad and their followers who believe in nonviolence will be validated before the elections. This is essential because the alternative is Hamas, which rejects nonviolence and peace with Israel.

In the recent deal with the Israeli government to free kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit, which gained the release of more than 1,000 prisoners, Hamas was seen as delivering political gain through an act of violence. By comparison, Abbas and Fayyad are not seen as delivering on the issues that matter to the Palestinian public, such as prisoner releases, Israeli withdrawal or a reduction of Israeli control.

For Palestinians, at least, this validation would also shrink the psychological gap between them and the Israelis, inspiring hope that negotiations could actually lead somewhere. It might, thus, also offer the best way to unstick the negotiating track. Even more important, with the changes sweeping the region and a political transition looming for the Palestinians, such a validation may be the only way to preserve support among the Palestinian and Arab publics for a two-state solution.

Dennis Ross, counselor at the Washington Institute, served as a special assistant to President Obama and a senior director on the National Security Council staff from July 2009 to December 2011.

Guest Contribution by Jonathan D. Halevi

The following piece was originally published by Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. The author, Jonathan D. Halevi, is a senior researcher of the Middle East and Radical Islam at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs headed by former Israeli Ambassador to the UN, Dr. Dore Gold. Mr. Halevi is also director of research for the Orient Research Group Ltd., a strategic and private information services company. 

The prevailing optimism in media reports concerning the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafist party’s readiness to adhere to the peace treaty with Israel is based on general statements made by senior officials in both parties. These statements maintain that Egypt must honor the international treaties that it signed.

Yet a more rigorous examination of the two parties’ stances identifies a markedly different tendency. Both seek a way to cast off the Camp David agreement in a manner that will incur minimal diplomatic and economic damage to Egypt, and restore Egypt to its leading role in the circle of states confronting Israel.

The Muslim Brotherhood has set a number of criteria for examining international agreements, including the Camp David agreement: the considerations of Islamic canon law (Sharia), the position of the Egyptian people, and the degree of Israel’s compliance with the agreement from Egypt’s perspective.
The strategic objective of the Egyptian Islamic movements is to transform Egypt into a prime regional force that will lead the diplomatic and military battle against Israel. This means re-examining the Camp David agreement and submitting it to the decision of the new parliament that will be controlled by the Islamic parties or to a referendum – thereby alleviating the responsibility of any future Egyptian government for cancelling the peace treaty. These developments can be averted if the U.S. and its allies take a firm position against any initiative to undermine the Treaty of Peace between Israel and Egypt, and all echelons of the Egyptian establishment are made to understand the implications of any such action.

The revolution in Egypt, followed by elections to the parliament, has elevated the Islamic parties to a position of power as they enjoy an absolute parliamentary majority after the two initial stages of the parliamentary elections. The Muslim Brotherhood movement’s Freedom and Justice party won 49 percent of the total seats that it contested (73 out of 150) in the first stage of the elections and the Salafist al-Nur party won about 20 percent of the seats (30 seats). In the second stage of the elections the Muslim Brotherhood won about 40 percent of the votes and al-Nur about 35 percent. The final stage of the elections will take place in January 2012. However, we can already form the distinct impression that the Egyptian parliament will be controlled by the absolute majority retained by these two extreme Islamic parties.

In recent journalistic reports we repeatedly hear the claim that the Freedom and Justice party and the al-Nur party will continue to honor the Camp David peace agreement with Israel after the new regime has been consolidated under their leadership. These reports are essentially based on general statements made by senior officials in both parties to the effect that Egypt must honor the international agreements that it signed. However, a rigorous examination of the two parties’ stances indicates a totally different tendency: namely, the two parties seek to cast off the Camp David accords in a manner that will cause Egypt the minimal possible diplomatic and economic damage.

The issue of Egyptian adherence to the Camp David agreement was brought up during discussions that Senator John Kerry conducted together with the American Ambassador to Cairo, Anne Patterson, with leaders of the Freedom and Justice party on December 10, 2011. Dr. Mohammed Morsi, the party chairman, referred to the issue in general terms. A report on the meeting by the official website of the Muslim Brotherhood stated:

Morsi noted that Egypt is a large country with a deep-rooted history that fulfills an important role in the Arab, Islamic and international arenas and therefore it honors the agreements and contracts which it has signed. He demanded that the American administration listen directly to the people rather than listen to what is said about them, while emphasizing that the United States could play a role in facilitating economic stability and prosperity for all peoples should it choose to do so.1

New Egyptian Conditions

The Muslim Brotherhood set a number of criteria for examining international agreements, including the Camp David agreement. First, there is Islamic canon law (Sharia); second, one must take into account the Egyptian people’s position which Morsi mentioned in his talk with Senator Kerry; and third, one must weigh the degree of compliance by the other party to any agreement that was signed with Egypt.

The platform of the Freedom and Justice party determines that it will honor international human rights agreements, provided that they do not contradict the Islamic Sharia. Regarding the peace agreement with Israel, the platform states that agreements between countries must be acceptable to the people and conform to the principles of justice and the interests of the parties. Respect for these agreements is conditional upon an obligation by the parties to fulfill them in full, as is the norm in international relations. “Therefore, the party considers it obligatory to reappraise many of the agreements that were signed in various fields by the old regime.”2

Calls to Re-examine the Treaty with Israel

Senior leaders of the Freedom and Justice party have on numerous occasions in recent months favored amending or abrogating the Camp David accords and severing diplomatic and economic relations with Israel. On August 25, 2011, party chairman Dr. Mohammed Morsi demanded a re-examination of the Camp David agreement, and contended that Israel’s “attack” on an Egyptian army border position (that was in response to terrorist fire at the IDF from this position) exemplified Israel’s systematic violation of the agreement.3

Dr. Ahmed Abu Baraka, the Freedom and Justice party’s legal advisor and a senior leader of the party, said on August 28 that it was necessary to re-examine all the clauses of the Camp David agreement to see whether its abrogation was mandated. He emphasized the importance of deploying Egyptian army forces in the Sinai, equipped with heavy and advanced weaponry, in order to deter Israel.4

Dr. Mohammed Gamal Hismat, a senior leader of the Freedom and Justice party and a former parliament member, proposed on August 24 to establish a legal committee that would examine the Camp David agreement in light of Israel’s “continued violation” of the agreement.5

Dr. Essam El-Arian, the deputy leader of the Freedom and Justice party, on August 23 minimized the importance of American threats to terminate assistance to Egypt if it were to disown the Camp David agreement, and contended that Israel was violating the agreement “in a blatant fashion.”6

Dr. Hamdy Ismail, the party secretary in the Ismailiya district, explained on October 31 that the issue of the Camp David agreement directly affected the Egyptian citizenry, and therefore raised a proposal within the party to submit the decision on the issue to a referendum.7

Dr. Ahmed Rami, a senior Freedom and Justice party leader in the Qalyubiya district, called on August 27 for a re-examination of the Camp David agreement, noting that the revolution in Egypt marked the outset of a journey to liberate Jerusalem in view of the fact that the “Zionist entity is near collapse.”8

These positions received additional validation from the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Dr. Mohammed Badie, who in his weekly letters to movement activists elaborates his doctrine and positions with regard to the United States and Israel following the revolutions in Egypt and the Arab world. Badie terms the Camp David accord “a surrender” agreement and he presents a list of demands on this issue. In his letter of May 5, 2011, Badie wrote:

We vociferously call for the termination of normalization, that provided our enemy [Israel] with stability, putting an end to securing the Zionist borders and the killing of infiltrators into the enemy’s [territory], the abrogation of the issues of economic interests such as the QIZ,9 a [halt] to gas exports that wrought damage to our national security, urgent action to complete the opening of the Rafah crossing on a permanent basis and a re-examination of the Camp David agreement so it can be presented to the National Assembly elected in free elections, thus allowing it to have its say after it was denied this for years.10

Badie defines Israel and the United States as Egypt’s principal adversaries. In his weekly letter of October 6, 2011, he reaches the clear conclusion that “our main enemy is the Zionist-American plan, which aspires to take over the entire region in order to establish Greater Israel and the New Middle East.”11

Badie does not mention any option for cooperation with Israel or the United States, but, on the contrary, in his evaluation these two countries, that represent the most dangerous threat to Egypt, are currently in a state of historic decline:

The global forces, the Zionists and Americans, are absorbing a succession of debacles and defeats, commencing with Israel’s isolation and loss of its regional supporters, and the American failures in the military realm (in Iraq and Afghanistan), and in the economic arena that threaten the collapse of the capitalist regime as a result of failed policy and the huge expenses and wars prosecuted under the pretext of liquidating what they call terror. They’ve forfeited their credibility among peoples and now they’ve lost their financial sources, and we do not rule out the possibility that their fate will approximate the Soviet Union’s fate….At the same time the blessed revolutions of the Arab Spring presage a total change in the Arab national map.12

The irrelevance of the Camp David agreement finds expression in the Muslim Brotherhood movement’s overt aspiration to bring about the “liberation” of the entire territory of “Palestine,” a concept that dovetails with its Islamic ideological platform, and which finds expression in the current optimistic assessment by the Muslim Brotherhood leader on the prospects for realizing this vision in practice. In his weekly letter of June 9, 2011, Badie writes:

Victory is near with the help of Allah, it is definite and there can be no doubt about it. The restoration of Palestine, al Quds [Jerusalem], the Golan, and all the lands that Israel conquered is no longer feverish imagination, but a hope that will soon be realized after the [Arab] nations have revolted….The era of “Israeli” superiority has ended and “Israel” has begun to doubt its continuity and survival.13

The official position of the Salafist al-Nur party resembles that of the Muslim Brotherhood. Dr. Emad Abdel Ghafour, the party leader, says:

It is obligatory to honor the agreements to which Egypt is affiliated, and we demand that they be met. There are many passages in the peace agreement that were not implemented [by Israel], such as a solution to the Palestinian problem, the right of self-determination [for the Palestinian people], and the autonomy of a Palestinian state on Palestinian soil. There are many issues that must be implemented so that the Palestinian people will sense that it has benefited from the peace process….The peace agreement of Camp David requires a re-examination.14

Dr. Yousry Hamad, the spokesperson for the al-Nur party, explained that the party’s position on the Camp David agreement would be adopted on the basis of Sharia,15 and vigorously denied journalistic reports that the party was ostensibly prepared to maintain contacts with the Israeli ambassador in Cairo.16

Unfounded Optimism

The optimism regarding a radical change in the positions of these extreme Egyptian Islamic movements regarding Israel grasps at the straws of general statements that do not attest to an ideological reversal, but convey the tactics for obtaining the strategic objective: casting off the Camp David agreement and transforming Egypt into a prime regional force that will lead the diplomatic and military battle against Israel.

The Muslim Brotherhood, as well as the al-Nur party, is seeking a convenient exit point from the Camp David agreement, due to an awareness of the implications of violating a binding diplomatic treaty under international law and the immediate damage that the Egyptian economy is likely to absorb as a direct result of an initiated abrogation of the Camp David accords.

Egypt receives $1.3 billion annually in U.S. military assistance, while in 2010 American economic assistance totaled $250 million. The Egyptian army’s main strength is predicated on American weapons systems including F-16 and F 14 aircraft, Apache helicopters, M1A1 and M60A3 tanks, surface-to-air missiles, spy planes, and more. In the framework of bilateral military cooperation, the armies of the two countries customarily conduct joint training and maneuvers.

How to Nullify the Peace Treaty

Yet the die has been cast and the strategic choice has already been made. The only question on the agenda is how to implement this decision at a minimal diplomatic and economic cost. We can infer from comments by senior Muslim Brotherhood members that they are interested in playing the “democratic game” to the hilt on this issue as well. This means re-examining the Camp David agreement and submitting it to the decision of the new parliament that will be controlled by the Islamic parties or to a referendum – thereby alleviating the responsibility of any future Egyptian government for cancelling the peace treaty. The immediate pretext will be Israel’s noncompliance with clauses in the agreement, in order to attribute to Israel the blame for the treaty’s abrogation.

It would appear that the Muslim Brotherhood’s appraisal is that following their seizure of power and additional achievements of the Arab Spring, the U.S. will be compelled to accept the new reality, just as it has made peace with the situation up to now. American leaders have even reiterated their praise for the democratic process, although this process has elevated the radical Islamic forces to new positions of power. These forces aspire to drain democracy of content and gradually (the Muslim Brotherhood strategy) or immediately (the al-Nur party approach) implement Islamic religious law.

From Israel’s standpoint, the revolution in Egypt and its translation at the ballot box into the Islamic Revolution carries the serious potential for transforming Egypt in the foreseeable future into an enemy and restoring it to the circle of confrontation states. Israel is doing its utmost to preserve the Camp David agreement even for appearances sake. However, developments in Egypt will inevitably lead to the creation of a serious security challenge on Israel’s southern border. The new Egypt will try to exercise its full sovereignty in Sinai and deploy regular forces there, employing various pretexts, beginning with Israeli “violations” of the Camp David agreement, proceeding with the need to defend itself against an Israeli attack, and concluding with Egypt’s obligation to protect its Palestinian brothers in Gaza.

Furthermore, the Muslim Brotherhood movement in Egypt, the parent movement of Hamas, provides ongoing assistance to Hamas and furnishes it with strategic backing that is growing more potent due to the Brotherhood’s increased strength in the recent elections. A high proportion of Izzedine al Qassam Brigade activists who were killed in recent years in Gaza were simultaneously Muslim Brotherhood activists and Hamas members. The plausible assumption is that one of the Muslim Brotherhood’s first objectives after it assumes the reins of power will be to guarantee an open border crossing between Gaza and Egypt, and to provide comprehensive economic and military assistance to Hamas that will pose new security risks for Israel.

Furthermore, the strategic alliance between the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas may constrain Israel’s freedom of military action in Gaza (as well as in the West Bank) because this could provoke an Egyptian military response, including the transfer of aid, weapons, and intelligence to Hamas, the deployment of Egyptian forces in Sinai and/or in Gaza, stationing Egyptian antiaircraft systems on the border of Gaza, and threats of direct military action.

These developments can be averted if the U.S. and its allies take a firm position against any initiative to undermine the Treaty of Peace between Israel and Egypt, and all echelons of the Egyptian establishment are made to understand the implications of any such action.

* * *

Notes:

1. http://www.ikhwanonline.com/new/Article.aspx?ArtID=96953&SecID=0

2. http://www.hurryh.com/Party_Program.aspx

3. http://www.hurryh.com/Provinces/Our_news_Details.aspx?News_ID=1933&ID=23

4. http://www.hurryh.com/Provinces/Our_news_Details.aspx?News_ID=2000

5. http://www.hurryh.com/Party_Article_Details.aspx?News_ID=1872

6. http://www.hurryh.com/Our_news_Details.aspx?News_ID=1850

7. http://www.hurryh.com/ar_print.aspx?print_ID=4579

8. http://www.hurryh.com/Our_news_Details.aspx?News_ID=1954

9. The QIZ Agreement (QIZ-Qualified Industrial Zones) was signed in 2005 between the governments of the United States, Israel and Egypt. The agreement defined industrial zones whose factories would receive a customs exemption on their exports to the United States if a certain percentage of the raw materials originated in Israel.

10. http://www.ikhwanonline.com/new/Article.aspx?ArtID=83759&SecID=0

11. http://www.ikhwanonline.com/new/Article.aspx?SecID=213&ArtID=92523

12. http://www.ikhwanonline.com/new/Article.aspx?SecID=213&ArtID=92523

13. http://www.ikhwanonline.com/new/Article.aspx?ArtID=85754&SecID=0

14. http://www.tayyar.org/Tayyar/News/PoliticalNews/ar-LB/salafi-egypte-pb-5363323219.htm

15. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tCfUs6upxQ&feature=youtu.be

16. http://www.facebook.com/AlnourParty/posts/211082628974957

The miraculous uprising which swept the whole region should be seen in the context of political, economic, demographic and technological backdrop of the region, not in continuation with any past movement.

Immanuel Wallerstein, the known social scientist, views the Arab spring as a continuation of the unfinished movement of 1968 which, after becoming a worldwide movement, did not achieve its goals. The current surge in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), to him, is the reincarnation of the same movement, trying to recapture the unfinished business of the sixties.

The MENA movement, however, entails a different scenario in terms of its strategies, objectives and global outreach. Originating from the most unexpected region of the world, it has now become a worldwide movement and in this sense it is the first global movement of its kind supported by the world audience who is watching it through electronic and social media.

These revolts should be seen as a logical outcome of political, economic, demographic, global and technological contexts of the 21^st century.

Political Factors

The Muslim world has been in the clutches of dictators for the last 60 years in the form of complete or partial autocratic systems in different countries. These dictators have been surviving using internal oppression on one hand, and support from external powers, on the other.

In the countries where a complete dictatorial system exists, the legitimate political structure is absent and human rights are denied. Monarchy or a pseudo democratic structure has been in place by ruling elites and industrialists. Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya under the Kaddafi regime, and Iraq before the U.S. invasion, are some examples of complete autocratic systems. Autocracies gained power in these countries because of these factors:

1. Power is consolidated through controlling natural resources where petro dollars remain a major source of power for these regimes. Ruling elites control profits of natural resources which are conveniently distributed among selected groups.
2. The total grip on economic, social and political structures is based on the absence of political process, denying basic human rights to people, and imposing severe restrictions on freedom of expression.
3. Monarchy is justified through religious legitimacy in some countries. In Saudi Arabia, for example, a system of political and economic control has been legitimized by the religious clergy who support the rulers and their system.

In the countries, on the other hand, where a system of partial dictatorship prevails, some rights have been given to the masses denying their participation in a genuine political process. Media are free to some extent, business activities are allowed, and education is provided but the electoral drama is played to elect the same dictator again and again. Here, people are denied of their democratic rights by efficiently keeping them away from the political process.

Any resistance to change the system is dealt with a brutal force using police and armed forces. In this system of half-democracy and half-dictatorship, however, the real power lies with dictators, who rule the masses in collaboration with the armed forces, industrialists and the oligarch while masses are forcefully kept away from the genuine political process. Egypt under Hosni Mubarak and Tunisia under Zainulabedein Bin Ali had the same, half-and-half democracies.

These two administrative structures in the region have also survived for over half-a-century because of external powers that have several benefits in keeping these dictators. They use them in regional administrative arrangements to keep their control and ensure the oil supply which is so vital for their economic survival.

The so-called doctrine of “gradualism” was introduced to legitimize a prolonged support to dictators in the region. The absurd doctrine promotes the idea that democracy can be gradually introduced in the region with an assumption that people are not ready for a complete democracy in these countries yet. The youth movements, however, have proved the doctrine wrong.

Demographic and Economic Factors

The same Muslim nations that have been suffering at the hand of their dictators are facing wide range of unemployment, economic disparities and exploitation of business and ruling classes. These societies, however, offer some demographic dynamics that ultimately played against the current political setup and demanded a profound and meaningful change.

Youth is a large proportion of the region’s population which is growing faster than any other age group. A Brookings Institute Report says the proportion of youth in the Middle East is between 27% and 34%. The population of 15-29 age groups in Egypt is currently 29% while in Libya, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia it is 28%. The same population group in UAE, West Bank and Gaza is 27% while it is 30% in Jordan and Yemen. In Algeria and Syria it is 31%, and in Qatar 34%.

The youth unemployment rate in the region is alarming. According to ILO, unemployment figures for youth are twice the rate of the general population. It also indicates an obvious gender gap where unemployment rate for young men is 22.7 percent as compared to the 31.7 percent for young women. While more than half of the female population in the region is illiterate, the Arab world has the lowest participation of women in the labor force in the world, 25 percent.

In an article published in Viewpoint in 2010, I predicted a possible youth surge in the region in these words “Equipped with unemployment, gender inequity, lack of political empowerment and illiteracy this young-and-restless segment of the population could easily become a source of political chaos and civil unrest” (Middle East on a Shopping Spree for Higher Education, Viewpoint, July 23, 2010).

When the Tunisian youth came out to streets in early 2011, they were demonstrating the same dissatisfaction against the prevailing conditions in their society with a hope to change their system. The youth uprising intends to achieve these objectives besides other goals:

1. Establishing a legitimate political system where people can participate in a genuine democratic process.
2. Introducing a new economic system on the basis of equality.
3. Establishing a pragmatic foreign policy to restore national sovereignty.
4. Restoration of basic human right of people.
5. Equal opportunities of education for all.
6. Equal participation of women in social, economic and educational fields.

Overall, the youth struggle that started in early 2011 is different from previous movements in the region. First the movement has a global perspective. Global news media exposed brutalities of government forces on unarmed protestors and supported their struggle in these countries.

Unlike other political movements of the past, the current uprising does not have an apparent leadership. The ocean of protesting men, women and youth, does not have a single charismatic leader but several young leaders organizing protest rallies.

Not exaggerating the use of social media, whose role in the movement has been over emphasized, the young leaders who are more educated and technologically savvy, widely used social media to unite the core group of leaders. Undoubtedly, social media, the internet, TV and satellite technologies gave this movement a global face. In this sense, although the technology provided the movement a moral justification supported by the worldwide audience, the real credits goes to the youth who managed and used it effectively.

The miraculous uprising which swept the whole region should be seen in the context of political, economic, demographic and technological backdrop of the region, not in continuation with any past movement.

 

© 2012, Qaisar Abbas. This article may not be reproduced in any form without providing an active attribution link/ reference to The Pakistan Forum. All attribution links within the article must also be retained.

The past year in Israel has been anything but boring.  The Palestinians were rejected for full-membership in the United Nations, Israeli Corporal Gilad Schalit was returned alive to Israel, Turkey downgraded its diplomatic relations with the Jewish state, the Israeli population took to the streets for social change, and Israel continued its covert operations against Iran’s nuclear program.  As is customary for bloggers covering specific regions for the Foreign Policy Association, I will address Israel’s “unexpected event of the year,” name a “man of the year,” and provide a “forecast for 2012.”

Most Unexpected Event: The Return of Gilad Schalit

There was no bigger surprise inIsrael this year than the return of five-year captive, Corporal Gilad Schalit.  On June 26, 2006, Corporal Schalit was captured on the Israeli-Gaza border by Hamas militants.  Several proofs of life were provided throughout the duration of his captivity, but in the back of most Israeli’s minds there was the likelihood that Schalit was dead.  The odds were against him, as most Israeli soldiers who have been captured by enemy states and non-state actors have either returned in coffins, or not at all.  Corporal Gilad Schalit defied the odds.  The Israeli population, who intensely lobbied the Israeli government and international community to secure his release, was overwhelmingly satisfied, proud, and inspired by his return.  They could be seen on television weeping and praying.

While a joyous occasion, Schalit’s release was surrounded by controversy.  There was significant debate about the price Israel had to pay for Schalit, more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners.  Several of the prisoners were directly responsible for the murder of Israelis. A handful of Knesset Ministers and community leaders felt that the prisoners being released would return to terrorism, and would lead future attacks on Israelis.  There was also the issue of how Egypt handled Schalit’s return to Israel.  Before being allowed to speak with or see his family, Egyptian authorities forced Schalit to do a shameful, and mistranslated, interview on Egyptian national television.

Regardless, the return of Gilad Schalit was a full display of Israel’s value on life, and was a welcomed jolt of optimism to a country that has been experiencing increased international isolation.

Person of the Year: Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas

Though he is not an Israeli, I could not pass up making Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas my 2011 “Person of the Year.”

2011 saw the most recent attempt by the Palestinian Authority to gain full-fledged membership in the United Nations.  Given its timing in relation to current peace-talks and failed Palestinian unity discussions, it is arguable whether this was in fact in the best interest of the Palestinians.  President Abbas did, however, do an admirable job of bringing it global attention.  What makes him man of the year is how little he did with that attention.

In the lead up to the UN General Assembly, there was much speculation about whether membership would actually be granted to the Palestinians.  Most understood that for political reasons it would not be. Nonetheless, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Barak Obama were noticeably nervous and dismayed.  They made significant attempts to change President Abbas’ mind and lure him back to the negotiating table for direct talks with Israel.  President Abbas found himself in a unique, and rare, position of power and control.  It would have been more than possible to make reasonable demands of Israel and the US in order to get peace talks back on track.  It could have been a turning point in discussions, bringing some long lost muscle and credibility back to Palestinian leadership.  Instead, President Abbas chose to pursue full-membership to the UN.  As expected, his application was rejected and his reputation spoiled.

Since his failure at the UN, President Abbas has been mostly stagnant and the Palestinian resolve has further eroded.  In the last two-weeks he has openly stated that he is considering Hamas membership in to the Palestinian Liberation Organization.  This would likely halt all discussions of peace and lead to a Hamasization of the West Bank.

Forecast for 2012

Given the events of 2011, the upcoming year will likely be a pivotal one for the Jewish state.  There are lots of unanswered questions: what is the future of Israeli-Turkish relations? Will the social protests actually lead to change? What is the future of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank?  What will the elections in Egypt mean for the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty? And of course, what is going to happen with Iran?

It would be nice if one could be optimistic about the answers to the above questions, but it is unfortunately difficult.  Israeli-Turkish relations are likely to break off completely barring a change of heart in Turkish regional ambition.  Given the gridlock system of the Israeli government it is unlikely any kind of social change will happen in the near future.  If Hamas is allowed in the Palestinian Liberation Organization the West Bank will likely turn in to Gaza 2, with peace-talks hitting an all-time low.  The Muslim Brotherhood, the likely future ruling party of Egypt, is preaching moderation and peace with Israel, but political pundits believe otherwise.  It will not be the first time politicians have lied about alliances in order to gain international support.  The only place one can find any remote sense of optimism/neutrality in predicting Israel’s 2012 is that it will certainly keep up its covert operations against Iran’s nuclear program.

The truth is that Israel is one of the most dynamic and unpredictable countries in the world.  On any given day, anything can happen.  The only thing that is certain is that Israel will continue its economic development and that its people will do their best to live happy and normal lives.

By Jehanzeb Dar

Because of modern alarmist reactions to the word “Palestine,” many non-Arabs and non-Muslims take offense when it is argued that Jesus was a Palestinian (peace be upon him).

Jesus’ ethnicity, skin color, and culture often accompany this conversation, but few people are willing to acknowledge the fact he was non-European. A simple stroll down the Christmas aisle will show you the dominant depiction of Jesus: a blonde-haired, blue-eyed, white man.

Islamophobia and anti-Arab propaganda have conditioned us to view Palestinians as nothing but heartless suicide bombers, “terrorists,” and “enemies of freedom and democracy.” Perpetual media vilification and demonization of Palestinians, in contrast to the glorification of Israel, obstructs us from seeing serious issues such as the Palestinian refugee crisis, the victims of Israel’s atrocious three-week assault on Gaza during the winter of 2008-2009, the tens of thousands of homeless Palestinians, and many other struggles that are constantly addressed by human rights activists around the world.

To speak from the perspective of the Palestinians, especially in casual non-Arab and non-Muslim settings, generates controversy because of the alignment between Palestinians and violent stereotypes. So, how could Jesus belong to a group of people that we’re taught to dehumanize? 

When I’ve spoken to people about this, I’ve noticed the following responses: “No, Jesus was a Jew,” or “Jesus is not Muslim.” The mistake isn’t a surprise to me, but it certainly is revealing. Being a Palestinian does not mean one is Muslim or vice versa. Prior to the brutal and unjust dispossession of indigenous Palestinians during the creation of the state of Israel, the word “Palestine” was a geographic term applied to Palestinian Muslims, Palestinian Christians, and Palestinian Jews. Although most Palestinians are Muslim today, there is a significant Palestinian Christian minority who are often overlooked, especially by the mainstream Western media.

That dominant narrative not only distorts and misrepresents the Palestinian struggle as a religious conflict between “Muslims and Jews,” but consequentially pushes the lives of Palestinian Christians into “non-existence.” That is, due to the media’s reluctance to report the experiences and stories of Palestinian Christians, it isn’t a surprise when white Americans are astonished by the fact that Palestinian and Arab Christians do, in fact, exist. One could argue that the very existence of Palestinian Christians is threatening, as it disrupts the sweeping and overly-simplistic “Muslim vs. Jew” Zionist narrative. To learn about many Palestinian Christians opposing Israeli military occupation, as well as Jews who oppose the occupation, is to reveal more voices, perspectives, and complexities to a conflict that has been immensely portrayed as one-sided, anti-Palestinian, and anti-Muslim.

Yeshua (Jesus’ real Aramaic name) was born in Bethlehem, a Palestinian city in the West Bank and home to one of the largest Palestinian Christian communities. The Church of the Nativity, one of the oldest churches in the world, marks the birthplace of Jesus and is sacred to both Christians and Muslims. While tourists from the around the world visit the site, they are subject to Israeli checkpoints and roadblocks. The Israeli construction of the West Bank barrier also severely restricts travel for local Palestinians. In April of 2010, Israeli authorities barred Palestinian Christians from entering Jerusalem and visiting the Church of Holy Sepulchre during Easter. Yosef Zabaneh, a Palestinian Christian merchant in Ramallah, said: “The Israeli occupation in Gaza and the West Bank doesn’t distinguish between us, but treats all Palestinians with contempt.”

Zabaneh’s comments allude to the persistent dehumanization of Palestinians, as well as the erasure of Palestinians, both Christians and Muslims. By constantly casting Palestinians as the villains, even the term “Palestine” becomes “evil.” There is refusal to recognize, for example, that the word “Palestine” was used as early as the 5th century BCE by the ancient Greek historian Herodotus. John Bimson, author of “The Compact Handbook of Old Testament Life,” acknowledges the objection to the use of “Palestine”:

The term ‘Palestine’ is derived from the Philistines. In the fifth century BC the Greek historian Herodotus seems to have used the term Palaistine Syria (= Philistine Syria) to refer to the whole region between Phoenicia and the Lebanon mountains in the north and Egypt in the south… Today the name “Palestine” has political overtones which many find objectionable, and for that reason some writers deliberately avoid using it. However, the alternatives are either too clumsy to be used repeatedly or else they are inaccurate when applied to certain periods, so “Palestine” remains a useful term…

Deliberately avoiding the use of the name “Palestine” not only misrepresents history, but also reinforces anti-Palestinian racism as acceptable. When one examines the argument against Jesus being a Palestinian, one detects a remarkable amount of hostility aimed at both Palestinians and Muslims. One cannot help but wonder, is there something threatening about identifying Jesus as a Palestinian? Professor Jack D. Forbes writes about Jesus’ multi-cultural and multi-ethnic environment:

When the Romans came to dominate the area, they used the name Palestine. Thus, when Yehoshu’a [Jesus] was born, he was born a Palestinian as were all of the inhabitants of the region, Jews and non-Jews. He was also a Nazarene (being born in Nazareth) and a Galilean (born in the region of Galilee)… At the time of Yehoshu’a’s birth, Palestine was inhabited by Jews-descendants of Hebrews, Canaanites, and many other Semitic peoples-and also by Phoenicians, Syrians, Greeks, and even Arabs.

Despite these facts, there are those who use the color-blind argument: “It does not matter what Jesus’ ethnicity or skin color was. It does not matter what language he spoke. Jesus is for all people, whether you’re black, white, brown, yellow, etc.” While this is a well-intentioned expression of inclusiveness and universalism, it misses the point.

When we see so many depictions of Jesus as a Euro-American white man, the ethnocentrism and race-bending needs to be called out. In respect to language, for instance, Neil Douglas-Klotz, author of “The Hidden Gospel: Decoding the Spiritual Message of the Aramaic Jesus,” emphasizes the importance of understanding that Jesus spoke Aramaic, not English, and that his words, as well as his worldview, must be understood in light of Middle Eastern language and spirituality. Douglas-Klotz provides an interesting example which reminds me of the rich depth and meaning of Arabic, Urdu, and Farsi words, especially the word for “spirit”:

Whenever a saying of Jesus refers to spirit, we must remember that he would have used an Aramaic or Hebrew word. In both of these languages, the same word stands for spirit, breath, air, and wind. So ‘Holy Spirit’ must also be ‘Holy Breath.’ The duality between spirit and body, which we often take for granted in our Western languages falls away. If Jesus made the famous statement about speaking or sinning against the Holy Spirit (for instance, in Luke 12:10), then somehow the Middle Eastern concept of breath is also involved.
Certainly, no person is superior to another based on culture, language, or skin color, but to ignore the way Jesus’ whiteness has been used to subjugate and discriminate against racial minorities in the West and many other countries is to overlook another important aspect of Jesus’ teachings: Love thy neighbor as thyself. Malcolm X wrote about white supremacists and slave-owners using Christianity to justify their “moral” and “racial superiority” over blacks. In Malcolm’s own words, “The Holy Bible in the White man’s hands and its interpretations of it have been the greatest single ideological weapon for enslaving millions of non-white human beings.” Throughout history, whether it was in Jerusalem, Spain, India, Africa, or in the Americas, white so-called “Christians” cultivated a distorted interpretation of religion that was compatible with their racist, colonialist agenda.

And here we are in the 21st century where Islamophobia (also stemming from racism because the religion of Islam gets racialized) is on the rise; where people calling themselves “Christian” fear to have a black president; where members of the KKK and anti-immigration movements behave as if Jesus were an intolerant white American racist who only spoke English despite being born in the Middle East. It is astonishing how so-called “Christians” like Ann Coulter call Muslims “rag-heads” when in actuality, Jesus himself would fit the profile of a “rag-head,” too. As would Moses, Joseph, Abraham, and the rest of the Prophets (peace be upon them all). As William Rivers Pitt writes: 

The ugly truth which never even occurs to most Americans is that Jesus looked a lot more like an Iraqi, like an Afghani, like a Palestinian, like an Arab, than any of the paintings which grace the walls of American churches from sea to shining sea. This was an uncomfortable fact before September 11. After the attack, it became almost a moral imperative to put as much distance between Americans and people from the Middle East as possible. Now, to suggest that Jesus shared a genealogical heritage and physical similarity to the people sitting in dog cages down in Guantanamo is to dance along the edge of treason.

Without acknowledging Jesus as a native Middle Eastern person — a Palestinian — who spoke Aramaic — a Semitic language that is ancestral to Arabic and Hebrew — the West will continue to view Islam as a “foreign religion.” Hate crimes and discriminatory acts against Muslims, Arabs, and others who are perceived to be Muslim will persist. They will still be treated as “cultural outsiders.” Interesting enough, Christianity and Judaism are never considered “foreign religions,” despite having Middle Eastern origins, like Islam. As Douglas-Klotz insists, affirming Jesus as a native Middle Eastern person “enables Christians to understand that the mind and message” of Jesus arises from “the same earth as have the traditions of their Jewish and Muslim sisters and brothers.”

Jesus would not prefer one race or group of people over another. I believe he would condemn today’s demonization and dehumanization of the Palestinian people, as well as the misrepresentations of him that only fuel ignorance and ethnocentrism. As a Muslim, I believe Jesus was a prophet of God, and if I were to have any say about the Christmas spirit, it would be based on Jesus’ character: humility, compassion, and Love. A love in which all people, regardless of ethnicity, race, culture, religion, gender, and sexual orientation are respected and appreciated.

And in that spirit, I wish you a merry Christmas. Alaha Natarak (Aramaic: God be with you).

The author blogs at Muslim Reverie. He recently wrote a chapter in “Teaching Against Islamophobia” on the demonization of Muslims and Arabs in mainstream American comics.

Silence never won rights.  They are not handed down from above; they are forced by pressures from below.  - Roger Nash Baldwin

Today we celebrate International Human Rights Day, marking the 63rd anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Today is one that continues to inspire people across the globe, transcending cultures and borders, as they stand united for human rights for all men, women and children.

The promotion and protection of global human rights became a priority for the United Nations following World War II, when world united to see that the horrors of the war would not be repeated. Respect for human rights and human dignity “is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”, the General Assembly declared three years later with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  As a result in 1950, the UN General Assembly selected 10 December as Human Rights Day (Resolution 423(V)).

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was born from the wounds of the Holocaust, which shocked the world over and gave birth to the word genocide.  As we sit in remembrance, we should note that we do not have to go back some 63 years to remember the monstrous human rights violations that face men, women and children.  The situations in the DRC, Sudan, Iraq, Somalia, Iran, Sri Lanka, Gaza and Afghanistan, are only a few examples of where we should ask ourselves if we have made any significant progresses.  Even though gender inequality has found a larger place on the awareness map this past year, we continue to battle for equality and education for all, and for an end to gender discrimination, child labor and all forms of modern slavery. We have gained some ground in the battle to ensure basic human rights for all. But we have a long way to go: the horrors of abuse, war and genocide still exist, and they are too often ignored as we go about our daily lives.

86% of the world’s children live in the developing world. Many lack access to primary education, and forced labor, sexual abuse, and gender inequality run rampant. A third of all children in the developing world have had some level of malnutrition by the age of five, and have little or no access to adequate healthcare. In 2011, millions upon millions of children continue to live in dire conditions. 215 million children work as child laborers, 115 million in hazardous conditions (ILO). While there has been progress, especially in regard to awareness on issues like child trafficking, the majority of problems are stagnate in the world of international politics.

It is clear that we have a long way to go yet to ensure that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is upheld across the globe. On this Human Rights Day, let us act as a united global community and hold ourselves accountable for ensuring the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration. Take this day not only to celebrate progress, but to resolve to act, to address the voices of those who seek their right to freedom.

Links to UN and UN System sites:

United Nations

• Human Rights Day
• Human Rights
• Human Rights Council
• General Assembly, Social, Humanitarian & Cultural Committee (3rd Committee)
• Global Issues on the UN Agenda: Human Rights
• UN Works for Human Rights
• CyberSchoolBus – Student Conference on Human Rights at the United Nations
• International Criminal Court

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

• Human Rights Day
• Message of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
• Commission on Human Rights
• Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
• Human Rights Committee
• Human Rights Bodies
• Human Rights Issues
• International Law

International Labour Organization

• International Labour Standards
• ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work
• Standards and Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work

Unesco

• Human Rights
• Human Rights Education
• World Forum on Human Rights, 2nd Edition – Nantes, France, 10-13 July 2006

UNICEF

• Children’s Rights
• Children Have Rights
• Realizing Rights, Getting Results

UnitedNationsDevelopment Fund for Women

• Human Rights

United Nations Development Programme

• Poverty Reduction
• Inter-Agency Campaign on Women’s Human Rights in Latin America and the Caribbean
• Equality between Women and Men

United Nations Research Institute for Social Development

• Democracy, Governance and Well-Being
• Gender Justice, Development and Rights

World Health Organization

• Health and Human Rights

International Human Rights Links: .

• African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights
• Alliances for Africa
• Amnesty International
• Arab Organization for Human Rights
• Asian Human Rights Commission
• Carter Center
• Centre for Human Rights
• (University of Pretoria, South Africa)
• Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law
• (Washington College of Law, American University)
• Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
• Derechos Human Rights
• European Court of Human Rights
• Human and Constitutional Rights (Arthur W. Diamond Law Library, Columbia Law School )
• Human Rights Internet
• Human Rights Library
• (University of Minnesota)
• Human Rights Watch
• Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
• Inter-American Court of Human Rights
• International Committee of the Red Cross
• International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights
• International Federation of Human Rights Leagues
• International Institute of Human Rights
• Rights International
• Universal Rights Network
• Women’s Human Rights