The MIDDLE EAST

In the wake of 9/11, there was a global backlash against terrorism and a wave of sympathy for the US. Even Yasir Arafat was shocked, and there was a huge candlelight vigil in Teheran. Muslims insisted up and down that their religion does not condone terrorism. And yet throughout the Islamic world there remained a great deal of hatred toward the US and the West—a Gallup poll showed that 16% of Muslims thought the attacks were justified. And of course there was Al Queda and the various other terrorist organizations themselves. A major part of the effort against terrorism was driving a wedge between anti-terrorist and pro-terrorist Muslims. Instead, we drove them into each other’s arms.

The US-led invasion of Afghanistan was necessary and justified. It had the support of the international community, as the ruling Taliban had supported the 9/11 attackers and were guilty of numerous other atrocities. And yet still there were some protests by people who were angry that a fellow Muslim nation had been invaded by the West. Our response should have been to assuage those resentments by pacifying and rebuilding that basket-case of a country as quickly as possible.

There is no risk-free solution to the situation of Al Queda taking refuge in the tribal areas of Northern Pakistan. But it would have helped to keep the international community focused on this issue rather than on George W. Bush and America’s arrogance in invading Iraq.

As for Iran, they are such a major player in the Muslim world that gaining their cooperation in the war on terror should have been considered to be absolutely vital. Iran was not responsible for 9/11, but they had been supporting terrorist groups such as Hezbolla. With the newfound global aversion to terrorism, they had been caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Iran wants legitimacy in the international community, but like everyone else, they have their pride and are going to defend themselves. By calling them “Axis of Evil” and invading two of their neighbors, Bush made it clear to the Iranians that the US was a treat to them. We offered them no face-saving avenue toward improving their behavior.

We should have used the “carrot and the stick”. Quietly demand that they stop supporting Hezbolla and get with the program, or face unspecified consequences, while dangling the possibility of the eventual restoration of diplomatic relations with the US. But instead made them our enemy unnecessarily and provoked them into building nuclear weapons. No one is saying that we should go around appeasing, but you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

We all know that the real power in Iran lies not with its president but with the Islamic Revolutionary Council, but no one is suggesting a summit with the US president and Ayatolla Khameni. That situation calls for a certain “back door” diplomacy, possibly involving third parties in a game of “good cop/bad cop”.
Indeed, every regime, faction, sect, and organization in the Islamic world needs to be approached in a way that’s uniquely tailored to an understanding of what makes them tick. Threats and actual military action are part of the toolkit, but so is playing them off against their rivals, bribery, flattery and again with the cops and the carrots.

But there’s more to diplomacy than talking government-to-government; there’s also talking people-to-people. A wide-ranging conversation needs to take place between Western and Muslim peace groups, religious groups, political parties, etc, because there can’t be mutually agreed-upon solutions to conflicts unless there is mutual understanding. I think there should be a permanent body established where interested parties can come—in person and online—and discuss all the issues that affect the relationship between Islam and the West. (I also had the idea of locating it in Cyprus, since that island is a microcosm of the Western/Islamic split.) I’m sure it will last at least a week before someone blows it up.

But no matter the participants or the venue, the #1 issue is what to do about the Palestinians. The Arab-Israeli peace process is like a bicycle: If it doesn’t keep moving forward it will fall over. Does anyone believe that peace can be achieved without some grand compromise? It helps to know what the other side is after. In this case, the mainstream Palestinian demands are:
• The removal of all Israeli settlements from the West Bank.
• The return of East Jerusalem for use as the capital of a Palestinian state.
• The ‘right of return’ to Israel proper for refugees who fled in 1948 and their descendents.

Now I wouldn’t give them all 3 things either. For starters, I’d limit the right of return to those few elderly refugees who were there in 1948, not their descendants. That’s what the West Bank is for, because yes, most of those Jewish settlements need to go. Those that hug the border can stay (the territory could be made up with land from the Negev). As for Jerusalem, the Palestinians need a country, not a symbol, and Jerusalem is a symbol. It may be the third holiest city in Islam, but it’s the #1 holy city of Judaism. Jerusalem itself anchors the fulfillment of the Jewish people’s return to the Holy Land; they don’t need to have “Judea and Samaria” as well and leave the indigenous population with nothing. A system of shared sovereignty over the Jerusalem’s holy site that has already been proposed is the best available compromise. Getting enough people on either side to accept these conditions will be difficult enough, but if there’s a fairer, more workable solution, I’d like to hear it.

That’s not to say that the West Bank settlements should be immediately abandoned and Israel should turn it’s back in anticipation of being stabbed in it. The point is to agree in principle to make these concessions and use that a basis for further dialogue. Once an agreement has been reached, remove one settlement every month or so, so long as there are no terrorist attacks, any one of which would set the clock back to zero. Building trust and the foundations of peace is a step-by-step process.

In order for there to be peace in the Middle East, both Jews and Arabs have a bitter pill to swallow. But if they won’t budge then Plan B is to detonate a radioactive dirty bomb at the Temple Mount. Let God have the place to Himself.