The Neighborhood Watch

There is a famous phrase in Egypt: mafeesh nizam; it means, there is no system.  People use the saying humorously in reference to the lack of traffic laws or to other common mishaps in daily Egyptian life, but the expression reflects a much more serious flaw in the Egyptian status quo.  The system is bribery, corruption, and wasta (connections.)  The system is malleable – if you have money.  The idea of upward mobility hasn’t even achieved the status of a dream.  With this in mind, what some of us have been so lucky to see recently is the first semblance of a system in Egypt, and it’s been devised by ordinary people with no governing or management experience whatsoever.

In the wake of Saturday’s continued demonstration, the Cairo police “mysteriously” disappeared from the streets.  Everywhere.  News spread that government-sponsored looters were spreading out through the city, stealing goods and attacking anyone in their way.  Sporadic gunfire interrupted the abnormal silence.  There was no one protecting us in Maadi, an area of Cairo about 10 kilometers from Downtown.  We were terrified and devised plans to barricade the door.

Fortunately for us, our Egyptian neighbors had their own plans. At first there were simply scattered packs of residents and doormen, but soon people drove through organizing and systemizing the defense.  A well-organized, dangerous neighborhood watch was developed within mere hours.  Fathers, sons, and even grandfathers, resourcefully gathered a frightening array of weaponry.  They broke off broom handles, pipes, and branches; filled empty bottles with gasoline for Molotov cocktails; collected chains, kitchen knives and machetes; we even saw a bow and arrow.

My friends and I later descended with our own household weapons and despite America’s ambivalent, even pro-Mubarak rhetoric, our neighbors made it clear that we were welcome.  They even suggested a sense of duty to protect their expatriate visitors. If it came down to fighting, our Egyptian protectors made it clear that we would be the last to step in, but our presence was still useful.

These guardians are not receiving the credit they deserve in the news, and they know it.  The other night I took some pictures of the watchmen sitting at their posts, gathering around fires, and building roadblocks.  Some of them were annoyed because they were worried that the photos would portray Egypt in a negative light.  The Egyptians feel – rightfully so – that the media has seized their moment of strength and turned it into an example of chaos indigenous to the region.  I explained to the men that my experiences in the past few nights gave me the opposite impression.

Having seen the neighborhood mobilize so efficiently and in such an organized way despite the government clampdown on communications, I have confidence that this movement will culminate in success. The hints of order amidst the chaos in Tahrir in the past few days – exemplified by makeshift triages and prisons – is further evidence that the Egyptian people are capable of governing themselves, even in the absence of a brutal dictator.  Egypt’s show of structure despite government-orchestrated anarchy demonstrates that the nizam can come only from the Egyptian people.  It is time to give them a chance.

On the Campaign Trail

Last week, George Stephanopoulos interviewed President Ahmadinejad on ABC’s This Week.  First,  Stephanopoulos prodded the Iranian President on his intentions to meet with the Obama administration.  He asked, bluntly, “Are you prepared to sit down at those talks without preconditions?”  Ahmadinejad responded enigmatically and danced around Stephanopoulos’ prying questions.

Ahmadinejad and Stephanopoulos on ABC's This Week

He resorted to pointing fingers at the Bush Administration and implicitly stressed the repercussions of Bush’s policies.  “But the U.S. administration severed its relations with us,” he exclaimed as though defending the art of retaliation to a third grade teacher.  Stephanoupolos jumped on his hypocrisy: “it sounds to me as if you’re suggesting now Iran is the one with the preconditions, echoing, in fact, the policy of the last U.S. administration.”

Ahmadinejad is devoted to his status as a hardliner.  President Bush, whose policies re-kindled anti-Americanism in Iran, served as an eight year campaign ad for him.   Meanwhile, Obama speaks of setting aside differences, making concessions, and finding compromise; no doubt Obama would be better complimented by an Iranian reformer.  Ahmadinejad is well aware of this; he is also aware that his daunting litmus test fast approaches.

It is no surprise that Iran may be demanding preconditions now.  Ahmadinejad wants to remind Iranians of their uncompromising opponents and his audacious reluctance to capitulate.  Faced with demoralizing maladies caused by low oil prices and global recession, Ahmadinejad is simply trying to prescribe more Ahmadinjad.

What You See When You Watch Hamas

Yesterday, Human Rights Watch published a report incriminating Hamas for unwarranted killings and torture; Israel supporters breathed a sigh of relief as one of Hamas’ greatest allies defected.  The two-front battle against Hamas and the New York Times/Amnesty International will finally devolve into mano-a-mano, right?  Not so fast, American media coverage of the report has been scant so far.

According to HRW, Hamas militants have executed at least 32 of their fellow Palestinians; in addition to the killings, Hamas militants allegedly tortured many others.  The report, titled “Under Cover of War,” concludes that Hamas used the recent Gaza incursion to cover up the violence and continued the tactics well after the confrontation had ended.  Most victims were accused of working for Israel.

This news complements Israel’s public relations disaster quite nicely.  In March, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz published several soldier’s accounts of fighting in Gaza.  The accounts were scathing, to say the least, and linked IDF commanders to condoned civilian shootings.  IDF tactics can be questionable, but as Richard Cohen points out in the Washington Post, “it remains unimaginable that Israel would murder its domestic critics or silence dissent with the occasional kneecapping. These are the tactics of thugs.”

The report hints that Hamas may not have had explicit control over its militants when the murders occurred.  According to BBC and the Guardian, Hamas has denied any involvement in the killings.  Commanders claim have conducted several inquiries so far and promised to punish those responsible.  This may be propaganda, but if true it reveals how little control the political Hamas has over its militant arm.  The organization has separate wings to control its politicians and soldiers, no doubt an effort to dilute political responsibility for Hamas’ army.  Regardless, the killers are affiliated with Hamas and therefore representatives of its values, just like IDF soldiers represent Israel.

Some have commended Human Rights Watch for their objectivity.  Many international watch dogs and media outlets unfairly incriminate Israel while turning a blind eye to Hamas’ mischief; this report has not seen coverage in the New York Times as of yet, nor is it likely to.

Perhaps the anti-Israel media coverage is not the worst thing, however.  Public sentiment in the United States concerning the Israel-Palestine conflict still is derived substantially from an us vs. them mentality.  Sure, the Jewish lobby is all-powerful and can throw money at elected officials, but September 11th effectively reminded many Americans that Arabs, Muslims, and liberals are destroying the world.  Palestinians fit into the latter category.  Thus, we might conceive the media as playing a balancing act.  Granted, that is not their job description, but practically speaking they may not be committing a heinous crime.

Breakfast of Champions

The second Siege of Vienna was one of the most important events in history.  In 1683 The Ottoman Empire, then the most powerful force in the world, surrounded the Austrian capital for two months.  Eventually, the siege turned into a massive battle that unified several European armies and ended the Ottoman conquest into Europe.  If the Ottomans had emerged from that epic confrontation victorious, we might all be under a sultanate.   While the survival of the Western world may sound like a good result, it pales in comparison to a couple of the battle’s other products.

After defeating the invading force, the Viennese had to celebrate.  Since traditional celebratory accessories such as beer funnels, fog horns, raves, etc. were not yet popular, the Austrians took a culinary approach.  In a profound slap in the face to the Ottomans, they invented a pastry shaped like the Ottoman crescent and ceremoniously consumed the empire’s symbol.  Of course, the French immediately stole the idea, added some unnecessary letters, more butter, and voila croissants.

Jews living in Europe at the time were also quite pleased with the outcome of the battle.  Jewish bakers decided to commemorate a successful cavalry force by creating thick bread in the shape of a stirrup, that is, a circle with a hole in the middle.  Of course, the German word for stirrup is Bügel and before anyone knew it H&H was making millions. So if you’re feeling particularly victorious in the morning, why not celebrate a major triumph of the Western world by eating a chocolate Ottoman Crescent complemented by a stirrup with cream cheese.

Cohen v. Goldberg…Continued

Roger Cohen and Jeffrey Goldberg are at it again.  In a recent column, Cohen referred to Goldberg as Netanyahu’s “faithful stenographer.”  Goldberg pointed out that New York Times columnists are barred from attacking their critics, and followed with this retort:

“[Cohen] is a Jewish apologist for an anti-Semitic regime, and he should be reminded often that he has debased himself. But in a way, I’m disappointed that he’s so easily rattled. “

These petty squabbles unfortunately lack substance.  Goldberg and Cohen stand on opposite sides of the fence in regards to dealing with Iran.  Goldberg is reluctant to accept Iran’s commitment to peaceful talks.  He remains skeptical of the regime and believes that their anti-Israel passion will not be tamed by diplomacy.  Cohen, on the other hand, sees Iran as more pragmatic.  He is optimistic about Obama’s openness to talks and believes that the Iranian people are given a bad rap.  Both of these views are completely legitimate; Goldberg and Cohen are both more than qualified to express their opinions on the matter.  I would love to see a live debate between the two, no doubt it would be heated.  But within the realm of journalism, the personal attacks are silly and extraneous.

Here is a link to my previous post about Goldberg and Cohen.

This is a good article that counters Cohen’s typical Iran argument.

Turkish Delight

Last week Obama paid a highly anticipated visit to Turkey.  Aside from reminding Turks of their critical importance to an American holiday, Obama gave a 25 minute speech to the Turkish Parliament touching on several sensitive issues.  Before we examine at what he said, let’s take a look at the context of this speech.

Turkey is a crucial ally.  Tactically, it plays in integral role in the supply line to Afghanistan.  It also conveniently shares a border with Iraq.  We all remember Turkey’s role in the Cuban Missile Crisis; if Russia becomes belligerent in the future, Turkey is a key buffer for Europe.  The country is also predominantly Muslim, yet their government is officially secular.  Many see Turkey as a good model for democracy in Muslim states.

Since World War II, America has been on fairly good terms with Turkey.  The relationship hit the rocks in 2003 when Turkey refused to allow U.S. troops to use its Iraq border.  Bush retaliated by denying Turkey help in dealing with the PKK, a Kurdish separatist group in Turkey that operates in Iraq.  When Turkey crossed the border into Iraq in 2008, the U.S. urged the Turks to withdraw immediately; when they did, the PKK claimed victory.

A couple of recent events have smoothed the tidings, including Obama’s election, but the Turkish are still hesitant to embrace America.   Many Turks hit the streets to protest Obama’s visit.  A 22 country BBC study found that “Turkey is the only country polled where significantly more people think that US relations would worsen under an Obama presidency than a McCain presidency.”    Obama, knowing that he faced resentment, relied on sycophancy and eloquence.

“Turkey is a critical ally. Turkey is an important part of Europe. And Turkey and the United States must stand together — and work together — to overcome the challenges of our time.”

Obama went on to juxtapose George Washington and Ataturk focusing on similarities rather than differences.   He emphasized the need for cooperation in these challenging times.  He assured his audience that America is “not at war with Islam.”  He overtly pledged his support for Turkey’s campaign to enter the EU: “let me be clear: The United States strongly supports Turkey’s bid to become a member of the European Union.”  While his words seemed genuine, no doubt they were sugar coating his more controversial stances.

Perhaps the most sensitive subject relates to an event that took place nearly 100 years ago.  Many Turks have refused to apologize for the Armenian Genocide.  This episode, which claimed the lives of an estimated 500,000 Armenians (estimates reach 1.5 million) is hotly contested.  During Obama’s election campaign, he pledged to recognize the massacres as a genocide in an effort to court America’s Armenian population.  Needless to say, most Turks are not happy about this.  Obama tackled the issue with his usual eloquence:

“History is often tragic, but unresolved, it can be a heavy weight. Each country must work through its past. And reckoning with the past can help us seize a better future. I know there’s strong views in this chamber about the terrible events of 1915. And while there’s been a good deal of commentary about my views, it’s really about how the Turkish and Armenian people deal with the past.”

His other bold move involved meeting with Ahmet Turk, a controversial figure in Turkey.  Turk heads the Democratic Society Party (DTP) which supports the Kurds.  Since Turk refuses to recognize the PKK as terrorists, many in the Turkish Parliament, including Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, have low opinions of him.  Obama met him one-on-one.  The meeting reinforced his overall message, however, which stressed acceptance and tolerance.

Obama drew quite a crowd, including Turkish generals who have boycotted parliament since 2007.  He was also joined by the millions tuned into Al-Jazeera, and it was evident that his speech was directed towards the greater Muslim world as well.

Obama is demonstrating what some kind words and respectable gestures can accomplish.  Relying on diplomacy and rhetoric, the Obama administration is launching the United States into the multi-polar world that Bush refused to accept.

The timing could not be better.  Obama’s approach is coinciding with a very gradual deemphasis on American military preponderance.  A day after Obama’s visit, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced the end of the F-22 program, America’s expensive unrivaled cutting edge fighter jet project.  This cut was no doubt necessitated by the economy, but it conveniently sends a message to the world that America wants to end war just like you do.

In his speech, Obama explicitly committed America to “a world without nuclear weapons.”  The Economist jumped on that statement, and even though they are just words, they represent a first step in the right direction.  I think that’s how the world views Obama’s first foreign policy actions as President, as good first steps.  At the same time, we all know how much harder it is to appreciate a movie when we’ve heard great things about it.  Expectations can be dangerous, and if Obama fails after four years, the world might resent America more than ever.

Text of the speech can be found here.

Shoot First, Cry Later

The recent Gaza incursion is proving to be a public relations nightmare.  Now soldiers are coming out with personal accounts of shooting women, children, and unarmed citizens.  Not only were such killings unpunished, they were condoned.

“The order was to take down the person, this woman, the minute you see her. There are always warnings, there is always the saying, ‘Maybe he’s a terrorist.’ What I felt was, there was a lot of thirst for blood.”  -  IDF Squad Commander

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz is publishing a series of soldier accounts, including harsh indictments of Israel’s highest commanders.  An article outlines a scenario in which a sharpshooter took down woman and a child after they were released.  It was the result of a simple miscommunication, a seemingly innocent split-second decision in which orders trumped compassion.

Needless to say, human rights groups are furious.  Within Israel, everyone is outraged; some people are inflamed by the killings and others by the admissions.  For a country that relies heavily on international support, these reports are a devastating victory for Hamas.

In Gaza, putting civilians on the front lines is a win-win-win-lose situation.  The unconventional combatants will inevitably be successful in at least one of three possible ways.  The first, and least likely accomplishment, is killing Israeli soldiers.  The benefit in this scenario is obvious.  The second, and more likely accomplishment, is sustaining a devastating injury.  Such an injury is invaluable in appeals to human rights groups and the United Nations.  The third, and most likely accomplishment, is death.  Nothing can inspire hatred towards Israel and devotion to fighting than the death of a family member.  Of course, the deaths are a loss, but desperation has made sacrifice a necessary component to Hamas’ campaign.

Reading the first half of this post on its own would convince any uninformed reader that Israels are the bad guys.  The second half incriminates Hamas.  That’s why this conflict is so protracted, literally everybody is to blame.  The passion felt on both sides obliviates any possibility for reconciliation.  You will be hard-pressed to find a powerful Israeli politician who explicitly favors a “two-state solution” with the two states being Israel and Palestine.  Similarly, Hamas will not relinquish it’s position on Israeli sovereignty.  Israel and America consistently require Hamas to recognize Israel prior to any meaningful talks.  Neither side will make the first move; until someone makes a meaningful concession, the prospects for peace are bleak.

Two Jewish American Journalists Spar

Over the course of the past month, New York Times columnist Roger Cohen and Atlantic writer Jeffrey Goldberg have been in disagreement.

Roger Cohen recently voyaged to Tehran where he observed, among other things, the current state of Iranian Jews.  He left Iran optimistic.  The some 25,000 Jews living in the Persian nation feel well-treated and accepted despite current political trends, according to Cohen.  He painted Iran as a forward-looking Middle Eastern nation bent on little more than international acceptance.  Their pursuit of nuclear arms is a matter of practical necessity that should not be condemned; rather it should be met with viable alternatives.

His prescription for Iran is similar to his controversial recommendations on dealing with Hamas and Hezbollah.  They too, according to him, deserve a dialogue.  Cohen’s optimistic approach met hostility.

Perhaps the most vocal critic of Cohen’s series is Jeffrey Goldberg.  Goldberg countered almost every Cohen column with a brief retort on his blog at The Atlantic.  He cautioned that Cohen’s observations were naive and ignored important cultural context.  Muslim tradition, rather than tolerance, enables Jews in Iran to be treated with respect; negative sentiments revealed in political trends represent true Iranian feelings.

The dialogue took an interesting turn when a Rabbi in Los Angeles – whose congregation consists of many Iranian Jews – invited Cohen to interact with members of his community.  Goldberg implored Cohen to accept, which he did.  Cohen published his anxiously anticipated reflection on the visit in Sunday’s times.  Needless to say, Cohen acknowledged the adversities faced by Iranian Jews with a little less optimism; nonetheless he continued his advocacy for diplomacy.  Here’s a chronology of the Cohen-Goldberg debate:

February 22nd – “What Iran’s Jews Say” – Cohen

February 25th – “Roger Cohen’s Very Happy Visit with Iranian Jews” – Goldberg

March 1st – “Iran, the Jews, and Germany” – Cohen

March 2nd – “Roger Cohen’s Credulity, Cont’d” – Goldberg

March 2nd – “Not All Reporters Get the Roger Cohen Treatment” – Goldberg

March 3rd – “An Invitation for Roger Cohen” – Goldberg

March 5th – “Good for Roger Cohen” – Goldberg

March 6th – “Hezbollah’s Insane Roger Cohen Graphic” – Goldberg

March 8th – “Middle East Reality Check” – Cohen

March 11th – “Cohen on Hamas and Hezbollah” – Goldberg

March 15th – “Iran, Jews, and Pragmatism” – Cohen

A World Without Islam

Early last year, Graham Fuller wrote an article titled “A World Without Islam.” He argues that conflict between the East and the West would exist even if Christianity existed where Islam reigns today.  He acknowledges the obvious fact that Islam has had a powerful impact, but he thinks that it’s overstated.  We hear a lot about Islam as an enemy of the West; many argue that Islam is the reason behind many of the problems in the Middle East.  Fuller’s argument is a nice rebuttal.

You can find the article here.

Running Out of Options

After a brief holiday, Iran is back in the forefront of world news.  A couple of days ago, reports surfaced that Iran has enough material for a nuclear weapons.  Robert Gates maintains that production still has several formidable hurdles to clear, but the news is still daunting.

The worries continue: Hillary Clinton warned her UAE equivalent that a diplomatic approach to Iran is probably futile.  She went on to argue that America’s willingness to engage is, in fact, Iran’s “worst nightmare.”

To compound this fear, news broke that Obama sent a secret letter to Russian leadership offering a deal.  In exchange for halting missile shield plans, Obama asked Medvedev to end Iran’s program.  Apparently the letter was quite blunt; there won’t be an A for effort, America wants the program halted.

We still haven’t heard back from Moscow, but this is clearly a difficult decision for Russia.  The United States asserts that the missile shield is aimed at Iranian hostility and has no intention of intimidating Russia.  At the same time, Putin probably saw the missile shield as an opportuniy to demonstrate Russia’s recently acquired political weight.

Accepting Obama’s deal may be seen as cowardly, but given the economic situation, Russia needs to take what it can get.  Should Moscow reject the proposal, the military option will inevitably gain some thrust.  On the Iranian front, we can only hope that Khatami will regain the presidency and initiate a more reconciling foreign policy.