The Metaphorical Bull

Radically Centrist is back! I'm not sure how long for, but I hope to keep posting regularly, if infrequently, for the foreseeable future.

It seems that somebody has decided to take the bull of stagnant peace negotiations by the horns of destiny and give themselves an ultimatum. The shock is, that somebody is Mahmoud Abbas. I say "shock", but a little analysis shows that Mr. Abbas is the only person in a position to do anything at the moment:

• Ehud Olmert is in the midst of a corruption investigation and is unlikely to win the coming Israeli elections.
• Ismail Haniyeh and Khaled Mashal (of Hamas) can't make any significant change without incurring the wrath of their membership.
• George W. Bush is fading into the famous "lame duck" stage of his presidency. (This was amply displayed by his rather limp speeches surrounding Israel's 60th anniversary celebrations.)
• Tony Blair doesn't seem to have the respect of anyone in the Middle East - certainly not the Palestinians. This is reflected in his lack of visible progress since his appointment as the Quartet's envoy in the region.

Thankfully, Mr. Abbas has realised the pivotal role he now has in the peace process, and this ultimatum should give Israeli negotiators a reason to exist once more: if Abbas resigns, his successor is unlikely to be a suitable "partner for peace", to use the Israeli phraseology. Given Mr. Abbas's lack of progress in recent years, both in the peace process and in improving the daily lives of Palestinians, the people of the West Bank may well elect a Hamas President in six months' time. This would almost certainly stall any ongoing negotiations indefinitely. However, there is no need for such pessimism, as independent candidates like Mustafa Barghouti gained a significant number of votes in the last Palestinian Presidential elections*, and I predict that they will do better again next time.

Mr. Abbas's acknowledgement that "regional extremists [are] coming out victorious [while] both the Israelis and the Palestinians are reluctant to make a deal" is also significant. I believe that this statement is the first time a Palestinian President has tacitly acknowledged his own negotiation team's reluctance to compromise with Israel. I do not believe that Yasser Arafat would ever have said such a thing.

In my opinion, little concrete progress will be made until Olmert, Abbas and Bush have all been replaced. I predict that their successors will be Binyamin Netanyahu, Mustafa Barghouti and Barack Obama, respectively. If this situation were to arise, Israel might once again be seen as the belligerent side, if Mr. Netanyahu's recent speeches in the Knesset, and elsewhere, are a good guide to his current philosophy. None of this bodes well in the short term, but once the current generation, known forever to me as a generation clinging to the status quo, is replaced, perhaps we will have reason to be more optimistic.

Prophetic (well, not quite...)

A few weeks ago, I wrote a letter* to the Jewish Telegraph (Liverpool) in which I said, among other things, that Palestinians are more concerned with having a non-corrupt government than they are about which party is in power. Therefore, my argument went, the demise of Fatah in last year's elections was mostly due to perceived (and often actual) corruption in their ranks. I argued further that most Palestinians do not support Hamas' fundamental principles (as set out in their charter: "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad") in the sense that they are prepared to settle for a compromise in the form of a two-state solution.

The following week, a reply appeared. It was written by someone from a Leeds-based Zionist group and was highly critical of my letter. One point in particular seemed to rankle the author: my characterisation of Palestinian opinions. He referred to another opinion poll showing that many Palestinians support suicide bombings against civilians, among other things. While I respect his opinion and accept that the poll to which he referred is valid, a poll reported today in Ha'aretz shows Palestinians becoming disillusioned with Hamas, something I have thought might happen for a while now.

The title of this article sums up how I feel about this: on the one hand, I just want to say, "I told you so!"; on the other hand, my prediction is hardly unique. I have seen numerous pieces on analysis, both in the Israeli and British press, predicting the collapse of the Hamas government when they are shown to be spending government resources on rockets to fire at S'derot rather than on schools and hospitals. The poll reported today shows:

"...47 percent said the Fayyad government is performing better than the previous Hamas-led Cabinet led by Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh. In comparison, 24 percent favored Haniyeh's government, while 23 percent said there was no difference between the two governments. Six percent did not answer." (courtesy Ha'aretz)

(These results are from a sample of 1,200 people in the Gaza Strip and West Bank and have a margin of error of 3%.)

While Hamas are by no means a marginal force among Palestinians (especially in Gaza), their support has certainly diminished substantially - something that can only be good for the peace process.

*If anyone would like to see a copy of my letter, leave a comment below and I'll email it to you.

What if...

...the kidnappers of Alan Johnston had been Israeli? Would the world have reacted differently? If so, would this indicate a double standard being applied to Israel?

These questions were explored by Charles Moore in a recent article in the Telegraph. Here is an excerpt:

But just suppose that some fanatical Jews had grabbed Mr Johnston and forced him to spout their message, abusing his own country as he did so. What would the world have said?

There would have been none of the caution which has characterised the response of the BBC and of the Government since Mr Johnston was abducted on March 12. The Israeli government would immediately have been condemned for its readiness to harbour terrorists or its failure to track them down.

Loud would have been the denunciations of the extremist doctrines of Zionism which had given rise to this vile act. The world isolation of Israel, if it failed to get Mr Johnston freed, would have been complete.

It seems to me that very little overt action has been taken to secure the release of Alan Johnston. The story has received significant media coverage, but certainly not as overwhelmingly so as the case of Ken Bigley, who was kidnapped and murdered in Iraq in 2004. This surprises me, because Mr. Bigley was an engineer -- one of many -- working in Iraq, some of whom had been kidnapped before Mr. Bigley, only to be released after a short time and, probably, a ransom payment; whereas Alan Johnston is a very highly-respected journalist, both in Britain and in the Middle East, who has now been captive for several months. His kidnap has provoked mass protests in Gaza, where he lived and worked, but there doesn't seem to be much fuss about the situation back in Britain. This strikes me as very odd.

Now, if Alan Johnston had been kidnapped by Israelis (by which I mean an extremist Israeli group of some description) all hell would have broken loose across the world, as Charles Moore says. Arab countries, in particular, would relish in the opportunity to attack Israel for not doing enough to secure his release. (This would happen whatever Israel decided to do because, as I have seen over the years, each and every action of the Israeli Government is criticised by someone. If they try a multilateral approach, they are criticised by the Israeli Right for appeasing terrorists; if they act unilaterally, as with the Gaza withdrawal, they are criticised by others for allowing the Strip to descend into chaos.)

However, perhaps this is not entirely a double standard. If someone is kidnapped in a lawless, albeit democratic place like Gaza, where kidnapping is a fact of life, it is perhaps not so newsworthy as when someone is kidnapped (for political reasons, anyway) in, for example, London, where such things simply don't happen. (Having said that, the Madeleine McCann case is attracting rather a lot of attention...)

On balance I think that, while Charles Moore does have a point, it is rather unfair to judge the international community on their reaction to an event that did not (and will not, in the foreseeable future) occur. In the meantime, all we can hope is that Alan Johnston is released, unharmed, as soon as possible.

The Middle East's new buzzword: restraint

I have always been fascinated by politicians' use of language, and the word "restraint" has recently come to light as an interesting example of one of two terms having similar dictionary definitions but entirely different political nuances. The second term, in this case, which I believe has been replaced by "restraint" is "inaction". If a politician is accused of "inaction", he/she might as well resign; if however, a politician exercises "restraint", they might well be congratulated by many people as having avoided the second deadly sin of politics: being reactionary.

This wordplay has become all too apparent in the Middle East, particularly relating to the actions of the Israeli Government. Past Labour administrations, such as that of Ehud Barak, were often accused of inaction in the face of terrorist activity. However, the current Kadima-led government of Ehud Olmert has, according to recent reports, been exercising restraint. I think that this shows a shift in Israeli public opinion towards the Left (or, I should say, the Israeli Left, which is rather different to the Left as it is understood in other parts of the world). In my opinion, this can only be a good thing, as it means that the government can refuse to retaliate for Palestinian attacks and rely on being congratulated for their restraint rather than being lambasted for their inaction. Hopefully, this will lead to a situation where Israel no longer feels the need to retaliate for individual attacks, and can concentrate on preventing future loss of life on both sides.

Define "Ceasefire"

An exceptionally short-lived truce was broken today as Palestinian factions renewed their conflict and the interior minster, Hani Kawasmeh, resigned. Meanwhile, the disquiet resulting from the publication of the interim findings of the Winograd Report has intensified. I believe that these events exemplify the difference in culture between those on the Israeli side of the "green line" and those on the Palestinian side. More specifically, I think it shows the difference in approach taken by those opposed to the government of the day on each side.

Many Israelis, a significant majority according to some opinion polls, want Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to resign. However, they have not formed militias and fought pitched battles on the streets of Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Tiberias. Yet that is exactly what some Palestinians opposed to the Hamas-led government have done. Obviously, those firing automatic weapons at each other on the streets of Gaza do not represent the majority of Palestinians but their existence is, nonetheless, worrying.

This begs the question: Why do Palestinians opposed to the Hamas-led government not air their grievances peacefully in the same way people do in Israel and, for that matter, the UK? Unfortunately, that is a question I have yet to answer.

Furthermore, those in Israel who are calling for Olmert's resignation do so because they believe that he led them into a pointless war or, at the very least, grossly mishandled an otherwise-just war; those Palestinians opposed to their government simply do not like Hamas. They may well disagree with suicide bombings and rocket attacks on civilians as a tactic, but they do themselves no favours by expressing such views via the medium of violence. So I would argue that Israelis have more justification to oppose their democratically-elected government than Palestinians have to oppose theirs (although both sides obviously have the right to oppose whoever or whatever they wish), yet one side does so peacefully and the other through the barrel of a gun.

I should point out that there are regular peaceful protests in many Palestinian towns, but they will always be overshadowed by the minority who take up arms at the slightest provocation.

Immature Democracies

"Abbas Says He May Dismiss Hamas Government", declared the New York Times today. Yet another example of a recently democratised country (or autonomous region, in this case) threatening to fall into chaos.

The Neo-Conservative aim of spreading democracy throughout the world, especially in "rogue states", seems all well and good, but it has several failings. One of these, I believe, causes the type of situation described by the NY Times, above. The Neo-Con attitude seems to be that democracy comes first, and then Western civilisation and associated norms follow. For me, this process is the wrong way round, and the latter aim is both ridiculous and arrogant. Firstly, the ground must be prepared for democracy, rather than the world's preferred method of government being foisted upon an unconvinced population. By "preparing the ground" I mean:

• explaining the electoral process
• establishing rules by which elections will be run, including:
• what is and is not acceptable during campaigns
• acceptable methods of funding for political parties and candidates
• establishing rules for political parties in general, for example:
• no party can be allowed to associate itself with any sort of militia or other armed group

My other major problem with the Neo-Con approach is the assumption that countries such as Iraq will want to adopt the Western way of life and that their population approves of Western culture. I do not accept the argument that some countries simply "don't want" democracy, or that it is an unsuitable form of government for them. However, I do believe that not all countries are ready for democracy at the present time; any country that has been ruled undemocratically for decades will need to adjust to any new freedoms.

To return to the NY Times article, I think that Mr. Abbas's suggestion to replace the current government with one comprised of technocrats is a good one, and could greatly improve the lives of the Palestinian people. I do not think that new elections would be sensible (although many people may now move their allegiance away from Hamas, given their poor record in government) as this would simply be propogating the problem of the Palestinian Territories' immature democracy. Until policy related to Israel ceases to overwhelm all domestic policy in the Palestinian legislature, elections will continue be counterproductive as the results will mostly reflect Palestinians' attitude towards Israel, rather than any concern for good governance.

And as for Iraq, what's Blogger's word limit?!

Syrian Attitude

Today's attack on the US Embassy in Damascus, Syria, followed the fifth anniversary of the 11/9 attacks (as I insist on calling them). This event was marked in Syria by the staff of the US Embassy observing a minute's silence and taking part in a short ceremony. The Syrian public largely boycotted the event and the government of President Assad took no part in it. Perhaps one could not expect a mass outpouring of grief on the streets of Damascus, but to expect the participation of a representative of the government is surely not too much to ask?

This event just goes to show the attitude of the Syrian public towards America; they don't just dislike US foreign policy (as much of the world does), they dislike the superpower to the extent that they have no sympathy for the 2,800 people who died 5 years ago yesterday. And when you realise how much they hate America, multiply that several times to reach the extent to which they hate Israel. Although Syria funds Hezbollah partly to retain some influence in Lebanon, it is seen by the Syrian public as a way to attack its most hated neighbour, perhaps to destroy it one day.

The US Government (rightly, IMHO) withdrew their ambassador from Damascus some time ago. (The embassy is now run by staffers.) Perhaps this move was prescient, given today's attack, but its wider significance is that it represents the way in which America responds to those who violently disagree with their foreign policy: it refuses to engage with them. The attitude of the US Government seems to be, "Hey, there's this isolationist state whose government hates our foreign policy - let's further isolate them by cutting diplomatic ties! All those in favour..."

This tactic has been shunned by the two main Palestinian political parties, Fatah and Hamas. While I intensely dislike both of these groups (Fatah for their corruption, and the suffering this brought upon the Palestinian people, and Hamas for their murderous tendencies, to put it mildly), their recent statement of a wish to cooperate in a government of national unity is very promising. It could easily lead to a de facto recognition of Israel and, therefore, to renewed peace talks. PM Olmert has already agreed to hold talks with Chairman Abbas, although he is still refusing to talk to PM Haniyeh of Hamas. Perhaps this Palestinian coalition as a whole will constitute a "partner for peace", as the Israelis call those with whom they feel they can talk.

With this development, and the gradual deployment of UN forces in Lebanon, my optimism is growing by the day.