A Cry from Iran

There's an assumption some people have that non-Western peoples aren't truly interested in democracy. This is a widespread belief of the Arab and Muslim states. But, in truth, most of the residents of these places would welcome democratic reforms, but there are two challenges: dictators allied with western powers, and religious opposition. But, even this opposition must be considered in context. Islam is not antithetical to democracy: in many ways it is very democratic, holding political leaders subject to the same religious laws as commoners, but there are 'trappings' of democracy that are problematic. An open democracy, for example, means more western influence on fashion and food, and more diverse books and magazines for sale.

We think of democracy as putting a ballot in the box every few years. People in the Middle East look at democracy and they see a bigger picture. Yes, it’s putting a ballot in a box. But it’s also giving rights to women, rights for children to marry whom they want, when they want. The freedom to be secular. The right to have free speech. They look at democracy and they see a civilization that has lost many of its family values, consumed by drugs and alcohol, full of sexual promiscuity. They don’t want that. I don't blame them.

Iran is interesting. Iranians have good reasons to distrust the West. So do I. But, that's a separate issue from seeking democracy; the problem is that in much of the world, especially the Middle East, any form of democratization is seen as Americanization. Western countries who advocate democracy then are perceived as 'colonizers' whose goal is to blanket American hegemony over the region. And because some aspects of democracy are problematic (ie: sexual freedom), there is a tendency to reject the whole, rather than seek, for example, a uniquely Islamic form of democracy. There is also a tendency across the region to blame others (Arabs, in particular, believe conspiracy theories well above normal levels) rather than self-criticize and self-correct.

Iran's Persian populace is different. Iran has a young population that is well-educated, essentially western in attitude, and which has privately expressed disapproval of the country's Islamist President and clerical rulers. The problem has been that this group has seemed more interested in skiing and doing drugs than overthrowing a radical government. Let's be fair: this is a problem that is prevalent in the Middle East and endemic, I think, to Islam. By definition, Islam means submission. It's contrary to Islam to defy religious and familial authority figures. This is still, in many ways, a tribal culture. As long as young Iranians have been unwilling to rise against their parents and Imams, nothing has changed.

Today's reaction to allegations of voter fraud might be the beginning of a democratic revolution in Iran, or not. Revolutions, like forest fires, often start small and smolder for awhile before the big conflagration. But, these revolutionaries face the ultimate foe: Iran's leaders were themselves the revolutionaries of a previous generation. They can anticipate the strategies and actions of the protesters and prevent the spread of anti-government riots. They've already cut cell-phone service and blocked access to social media sites like Twitter. There are reports that police have arrested opposition leaders. Foreign media have reported that they're being prevented from covering the protests.

Furthermore, it will take more than a few riots to bring down this government; it will require the involvement of the military and police, and a willingness to fight and die for reform. And even a change in Presidents will only bring about small change. Regardless of who really won this election, the real power still lies with 'the Mullah behind the curtain', Iran's spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The Iranians will not know democracy until his absolute authority is expunged.

Has the revolution begun? We can only hope. The fall of Iran's fascist, Islamic government would have positive repercussions across the region. At the very least, it could prevent a conflict between Iran and Israel.

Lebanon Dream

After the war in Lebanon in 2006, I suggested that it's "impossible to know the long-term benefits of this conflict. There are many that believe the conflict will only fuel more terrorism; I don't believe this is true."

The first positive result of this attitudinal change was the lack of response from Hezbollah to Israel's operation in Gaza. Although there were many who claimed Hezbollah had only grown stronger after the war in 2006, this claim was mostly based on Hezbollah's own propaganda machine. Nothing is quantifiable. Hezbollah CLAIMS it's stronger. Is it? There are reports that it has more rockets. Does it? This has yet to be seen. Is the group more popular? Yes, according to polls, which are notoriously unreliable in the Middle East, and of course, Hezbollah itself.

What IS quantifiable is that there hasn't been a single rocket, or kidnapping attempt by Hezbollah since the end of the war. In fact, when rockets were fired from Lebanon in June 2007 and January 2009, Hezbollah quickly denied responsibility! Say what you will about Israel's failure to destroy Hezbollah, they were still smacked hard enough they have yet to use whatever rockets they have, even as their so-called Palestinian brothers were being bombed in Gaza. They haven't even sought revenge over last February's killing of their number two guy, Imad Mughniyeh, in Syria.

I also proposed that there would positive political repercussions.

I wrote: “Lebanon's sectarian population has always been split, with Christians and Druze generally supporting Israel's efforts to remove militant forces (thousands of Christians actually fled to Israel in 2000 fearing a rise in militant Islam in the south, and possible retribution against Christians who supported Israel after 1982). Shiite Moslems have generally supported or condoned both the PLO and Hezbollah because they see these groups as armies in a larger conflict: Pan-Arabism (until 1982) and Global Jihad (after 1982). I don't believe this current conflict will increase support, and its likely that many Lebanese, of all stripes, will blame Hezbollah for their recklessness (even if they hold Israel responsible for the deaths.) The Arab street traditionally display public support for its leaders and their military exploits, even when privately they may be critical. It's quite possible that Hezbollah will now lose some of the political support they've enjoyed, and their seats in parliament. We'll know with the next election.”

Well, that election has now been held and lo and behold, the Lebanese responded exactly as I expected, voting along sectarian lines while denying Hezbollah the victory it predicted.

Official results issued by the Interior Ministry on Monday confirmed that the March 14 Forces achieved victory in the elections, with 71 seats against 57 seats for the opposition forces. Lebanese President Michel Sleiman expressed his satisfaction over "the transparent elections, and the high spirit of democracy.

The Lebanese parliament will now have to deal with Hezbollah demands to continue the veto vote it earned through violence. It also must continue to deal with Hezbollah's state-within-a-state in southern Lebanon. Nevertheless, election results indicate at least some anger with Hezbollah's partisan politics and continued advocacy of violence against Israel.

Lebanon has suffered through a civil war, a consequence of religious and political fragmentation, but today enjoys some semblance of democracy and normality. Hezbollah's ongoing attempts to derail this balance may yet bear fruit, and the Lebanese would be well-advised to consider the long term benefits of conciliation and compromise. And they should strongly consider extending that attitude toward her southern neighbour, Israel, a move that would further push Hezbollah and its sponsors, Syria and Iran, into the margins, and contribute to the economic and political health of the region.

Race-O-Rama

It seems like as soon as there's any conflict involving Israel, I begin to hear the word 'anti-Semitism' a lot more often. Either it's an accusation against anti-Zionists, or an accusation by anti-Zionists convinced that they'll be accused of anti-Semitism for any criticism of Israel.

I think these accusations need to be considered more carefully. I'm well aware of the debate within Jewish circles and in the press. But the argument is never - well, let's be fair and say rarely - that Israel is being criticized, but how it's being criticized, and the absence of fair criticism of the other side, or even of other countries. For example, I'm very careful with my criticism of other nations because I'm very aware of Canada's abuse of Natives; our treatment of our indigenous people is shameful. And Canada's not alone, sadly. So, the complaint from some people is when Israel gets singled out, and is criticized in a vacuum - it's not the criticism itself. Perhaps this is a subtle difference, but it's also crucial. When Israel is cited by the UN Human Rights Committee endlessly without a mention of China, Syria, Sudan, Sri Lanka, Chechnya, etc, that's anti-Semitism. When newspapers put Israel on the front page, but ignore hundreds of thousands of deaths in Darfur, that's anti-Semitism. When Churches and Universities advocate boycotts of Israel while ignoring the persecution of Tamils, or basic human rights abuses in dictatorships from Libya through Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, that's anti-Semitism. Unless someone has another explanation.

It's pretty obvious to me when anti-Semitism is anti-Semitism. I don't often make the accusation, because your average anti-Semite simply can't recognize it in himself. I've met a lot of Christians like that; they claim to love Jews, but will turn around and call us 'incomplete, 'Pharisaical,' and 'stiff-necked.' Criticism of Israel is even worse, as I've pointed out, and often suggests an unfair double-standard is at play (ie. if you're going to call yourselves the Chosen People, you must do better than every other people on the planet); or there's this sense that the Jewish emergence from powerlessness that occurred after the Second World War has really thrown a wrench in some people's plans. WE weren't supposed to restore Israel ourselves; we weren't supposed to even survive the Holocaust intact let alone more powerful than before. There are a lot of folks out there, and I'm including quite a few Jews, that are very uncomfortable with Jewish power - and I don't mean just political power - I'm talking about Jews running around with guns, God Forbid, defending ourselves, asserting our right to self-determination, reclaiming what was taken from us by force, well, it's enough to make secular, bagel-loving American Jews blush with embarrassment (and fear of being accused of being Communists, or spy or Fifth Columnists or whatever else could undermine their hard-earned assimilation.)

Speaking of racism, anti-Zionists also love to accuse Israel of abusing its Arab citizens. Show me a country that doesn't have race (or for that matter, gender) issues. When Israel was liberating Gaza (and yes, I used that word deliberately because it was Israel in 1967 that for the first time since 1948, permitted refugees to travel to the West Bank and beyond and work in Israel), the US was engaged in race riots across the country that left hundreds dead and injured. When Israel was permitting Arab women to vote for the first time anywhere in the Middle East, Swiss women still couldn't vote or participate in parliament (they got the vote in 1971). Some would say hatred and anger are pervasive in this part of the world, but we don't judge a society on its faults alone (after all, who is faultless?); we judge it on its actions to correct these faults, through prevention and corrective laws.

And it's worth noting, anti-Jewish and Christian racism isn't just condoned in most Islamic countries: it's actively promoted and funded. That's the difference. While Muslims wail about cartoons featuring Mohamed, images like this regularly appear in state-funded Arab newspapers: Source: Al-Watan (Qatar), April 2, 2007

Then again, maybe the problem isn't anti-Semitism at all? Perhaps it's not Israel being held to a higher standard, but the Muslim world being held to one much lower? Either way, it's hard not to feel that the great experiment, the United Nations, which aims to to, "reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small," has failed.

The Double Standard

Speaking of double-standards and hypocrisy, which I do from time to time, it's impossible to ignore this blatant example. Anyone been following Sri Lanka's campaign against the Tamil Tigers? Human rights organizations have reported thousands of civilians killed, some during a barrage that struck a hospital. Even the UN has acknowledged, "nearly 6,500 ethnic Tamil civilians were killed in the last three months of fighting." Other sources suggest the death toll may be much higher. "An investigation by The Times into Sri Lanka’s civilian casualties, however — which was conducted in a week-long visit to Sri Lanka — has found evidence of a civilian death toll of 20,000, almost three times that cited previously."

We should expect some sort of investigation soon, right? Don't hold your breath. The UN human rights council has actually praised the Sri Lankan government's "victory over the Tamil Tigers and refused calls to investigate allegations of war crimes by both sides in the final chapter of a bloody 25-year conflict." It then passed a resolution describing the conflict as a "domestic matter that doesn't warrant outside interference."

Indeed.

Trekkies

Before I say a few words about the new Star Trek film, and you know I must, I need to describe going to the screening, our first 'movie date' in Israel. Israel is a modern country, and that applies to its movie cinemas. The experience was all very familiar, but just different enough to be memorable.

I knew I was going to have to deal with Hebrew subtitles; I didn't expect that everyone in the theatre would be English speaking. I expected to be able to get kosher food; I was surprised to discover that the popcorn was also pareve (as was another patron who deliberately had pizza for dinner assuming the popcorn would be 'dairy.')


I resigned myself to the inevitable commercials before the film; I never anticipated a 5 minute intermission in the middle of the film. Do Israelis have unusually small bladders? I hoped we might run into people we knew; instead, we got a lift with total strangers, and talked about the film all the way home.

Anyway, I was talking about Star trek. I've been watching Star Trek for, um, ever. I actually remember watching the original series with my Dad and recording the Animated series on cassette tapes (pre-VCRs, folks). I also have a scrapbook I started when they first started talking about a new film in the mid-70`s. Those of you who came into the series with TNG can`t imagine how exciting a time it was, going to conventions when they were still run by the fans and not those money-making scum who took them over, meeting other Trekkers, waiting and hoping for a movie or another series, or even just a chance to meet someone associated with the show. It`s easy now to be jaded, after Voyager and Enterprise, but the scene was so different during the 70`s. What a time it was. I`m so grateful to have been a part of it.

So, as one of Trek's 'old fossil' fans, I was admittedly nervous when the news of a reboot was made official. But, I was actually pretty excited, too. It's worth remembering that in many ways, Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979), albeit with the original cast, also felt to many of us like a reboot. There some of the same concerns leading up to the release of the film about the new look of the Enterprise and the Klingons, and the new production team, especially director Robert Wise who knew nothing about Trek. Even Wrath of Khan reinvented much of what we now consider canon. And most of all, this is Science Fiction. What does canon mean in a genre which has already established that events and characters can be altered?

A few months ago, I found myself actually looking through my Star Trek comics and memorabilia from the late 60's/ early 70's. I started to get excited about this one, and enjoyed seeing people hyped up the way I was before the first Trek film came out. I thought: I'm sure there are going to be things about this film I hate but I don't care. As Kirk said: "Young minds, fresh ideas. Be tolerant!"

Well, I've now seen the new one and, frankly, I'm undecided. It looked great. The actors were all very good. I especially liked Karl Urban, although my wife felt he was copying DeForest Kelly rather than just playing the part like the others. The weak one for me was Zoë Saldana as Uhura. She was fine, but lacked the grace and elegance of Nichelle Nichols. I liked the comedy but felt like Scotty was a bit too much comic relief, which is I'm sure why they went with Simon Pegg rather than Paul McGillion, who would have made a great Scotty.

In all honesty, though, my big issue with the reboot has nothing to do with dialogue, plot or even casting, none of which was consistently brilliant in any incarnation of Trek. JJ Abrams, whose work I greatly respect, has said on record that he preferred Star Wars to Star trek, and that he wanted to reboot Trek in that mold for a younger, ostensibly more A.D.D. audience. But, in fact, both film genres originally ran simultaneously, with TMP actually following the first Star Wars film (because, in large part, of the success of that film, Paramount was willing to go ahead with TMP.)

For years, we had both SW and Trek, one franchise fast, fun and FX heavy, the other more thoughtful and character oriented. In a sense, they complimented each other. I have enjoyed both series for different reasons.

In other words, I don't need my Star Trek to feel like Star Wars. It was possible to reboot the series, adding more FX, introducing a new, hip cast, and even adrenalizing the stories without sacrificing the philosophical nature of Star Trek. I'm not convinced they accomplished this even though I enjoyed the film. But, I am willing to cut them a fair bit of slack because this was a first film with a new cast and crew. My hope is that a sequel will put more emphasis on the hopeful future of the Star Trek universe. I really do wish them luck. I'd still like to believe that the world needs Star Trek.

Washington Merry-Go-Round

I want to hate Michael Oren.


He's not only a terrific historian, eloquent and clear, but he's also far too dashing for his own good. Oren, who was born in the US but has called Israel home for decades, is also a fervent Zionist, an army reservist who has served as a government spokesperson during times of war, and a father of a serving soldier. And now, as if I couldn't hate him any more, he's Israel's new Ambassador to the US.

If Benjamin Netanyahu is remembered for anything it may be this brilliant appointment of a most deserving and appropriate candidate. I've never met Michael Oren, unfortunately, but I would welcome the chance to tell him in person what I'm writing here. Mr. Oren, serve us well. Be honest. Be passionate. Be yourself. Make a difference. And good luck.

If you're not familiar with Michael Oren, you deserve it to yourself to read some of his political and historical articles (and get out there and buy his books, too. Oren is the author of Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East and of Power, Faith, and Fantasy: The United States in the Middle East, 1776 to 2006.) He never fails to educate and entertain.

From The TNR Archives: Michael B. Oren

The New Republic has made available a long list of articles, all worth checking out. "Unfriendly Fire: Why Did Israeli Troops Attack The USS Liberty?" from July 23, 2001 is essential reading.

Also, check out, at the Azure Magazine website:

Jews and the Challenge of Sovereignty
Michael B. Oren | Is "Jewish state" a contradiction in terms?

Levi Eshkol, Forgotten Hero
Michael B. Oren | Israel’s third prime minister offers a different model of Jewish leadership.

The Second War of Independence
Michael B. Oren | Fifty years later, the lessons of the Suez War are only now becoming clear.

Did Israel Want the Six Day War?
Michael B. Oren | Newly released documents reveal the government's true motives during the tense weeks leading up to June 5, 1967.

Save the Citizens’ Army
Michael B. Oren, Benjamin Balint

Zohan and the Quest for Jewish Utopia
Michael B. Oren | Adam Sandler's hit comedy reflects a deep divide between Israeli and American Jews.

Orde Wingate: Friend Under Fire
Michael B. Oren | The new historians take aim at the father of the IDF.

The 'USS Liberty': Case Closed
Michael B. Oren | June 8, 1967: Why did the IDF open fire on an American spy ship?

UPDATE: Two more articles, both from Commentary Magazine.

Seven Existential Threats
Michael B. Oren, May 2009

Does the U.S. Finally Understand Israel?
Michael B. Oren, July/August 2002

Law and Disorder

International law is not cut and dry, but there are a number of precedents that have been established in past conflicts. International law defends, as a minimum, the right of a state to act to protect against threats to its political independence or territorial integrity [Brunson MacChesney, "Some Comments on the `Quarantine' of Cuba," The American Journal of International Law, 57 (No. 3, 1963), 595.] and to act when the imminence of attack was of such a high degree that a nonviolent resolution of a dispute was precluded.[McDougal, "The Soviet-Cuban Quarantine and Self-Defense," p. 598]

International law also insists that the recognized purpose of self-defense is to deter aggression and to protect the interests of the state. [James Francis Gravelle, "The Falkland (Malvinas) Islands: An International Law Analysis of the Dispute Between Argentina and Great Britain." Military Law Review, 107 (1985), 56. ]

Its goal is preventive in nature and not retributive. [D. W. Bowett, Self-Defense In International Law (New York: Fredrick A. Praeger, 1958), p. 20]

We can argue until the cows come home if Israel's military and political strategy will achieve this goal; only time will tell. But, Israel is in her right to respond to attacks against her citizens and territory.

The problem is that the nature of warfare is evolving as we speak. International and human rights laws concerning warfare that were written post-Second World War, in the aftermath of the devastation of Europe and America's bombing of Japan fail to address the sort of conflicts Israel now faces; there was little consideration, or even knowledge of the kind of warfare that exists today between state and non-state entities. It is a maddening fact that so-called political groups like Hamas cannot be tried for blatant violations of human rights laws; even the Palestinian Authority could not be held responsible, as they do not as of yet represent a state (and there are many that believe it was Arafat's intent to prevent statehood in order to distance the group from accountability).

To those who suggest Israel does not regard international law, I would say just the opposite is true. In fact, the IDF even has a legal department that considers and advises on all aspects of law and warfare. It would be more correct to say that all modern, western states are aware that international laws concerning both war and human rights are generally ambiguous and can be pushed and stretched as the need demands. In Gaza, however, Israel went above and beyond what any other state would do to protect civilians. This is an interesting interview with a British former military officer on the subject, and a British soldier with the Intelligence Corps in Iraq and Afghanistan comments here.

The IDF is actually one of the few western armies that has a moral code. Here's a relevant article on the subject. I would agree with this quote:

"The Israeli Defence Forces’ ethical standards are different from, and in some ways higher than, the British army’s, says Paul Robinson, but in the end the question is not whether IDF actions are moral, but whether they are wise." This is, of course, a whole other issue.

That said, I think it's generally true that no party in this conflict is seeking 'peace' as such. Israel demands security and recognition; the Palestinians demand justice and compensation; and the Arab world demands a restoration of honour and lost lands. Peace will be the outcome of these demands being met.

Therefore, all parties are equally responsible for achieving peace. The problem with placing the onus on any one party is that it is, in the end, counterproductive. Any unilateral moves made by, for example, Israel, such as the return of Gaza to Palestinian rule, actually sets back peace in that it reduces Israel's sense of security. And as we saw, as soon as rockets and mortars began flying over the border, Israeli lives and well being were also threatened.

There is also a problem with the notion of moral equivalency in these kinds of conflicts. There are acts which must be condemned; blindly criticizing the use of force when it is clearly a response to acts of terror, and then suggesting that both sides are equally responsible is simplistic. And this conflict is anything but simple.

I cannot describe the problem any better than this:

"Sometimes the desire to form a balanced judgement of the conflict, and not to attribute responsibility for the conflict largely to one side, a generally positive aspiration, may prove a pitfall and distort the picture...Symmetries in objectives, modes of action, and interrelationships of two sides in the conflict must be examined carefully. It is sometimes the very desire to adopt the stance of a neutral judge that leads the observer to close his eyes to inconvenient patterns of behaviour on the part of one side or the other in the conflict or at least to regard them benignly. Adopting a neutral stand is liable to intoxicate the observer with a euphoria of self-righteousness; he will derive great satisfaction from his rectitude and from his capacity to transcend issues and view them from lofty heights. His awareness of affinity with one side of the conflict may inculcate in him a tendency towards ostentatious neutrality, leading him to tip the scales and do violence to the facts." (Y. Harkabi: Nuclear War and Nuclear Peace, Israel Program for Scientific Translations, 1966, p. 270).