Monday, September 15, 2014

Kuwait Mends Ties With Palestinian Leadership

Kuwait's Foreign Minister, Sheikh Sabah al-Khaled al-Sabah, made an historic visit yesterday to the West Bank and the Temple Mount. The significance of the visit is couched in a tumultuous relationship between Kuwait and Palestinian leadership. 

The Foreign Minister's appearance in the West Bank is the first by a senior Kuwaiti official since 1967. His visit, part of a larger tour, is likely intended to mend relations and to increase Kuwait's general influence in the region. Kuwait's regional role is not particularly activist. The Emir was congratulated just last week at the UN for Kuwait's humanitarian efforts on Syria. Yet Kuwait has been hesitant to join a Saudi-led regional force, and did not follow suit when Saudi, the Emirates, and Bahrain withdrew their ambassadors from Qatar in March. Rather, it worked with Oman to mend ties and maintain regional stability. As Kuwait seeks to use its mediating power to gain regional influence, its relationship with the Palestinian leadership will be important. A quick look at the history of this relationship explains why.

In the mid-twentieth century, Palestinians played a vital role in Kuwait's development. Oil drilling required technical expertise, and many highly educated Palestinians came to Kuwait to fill these positions. Palestinian engineers in the 1950's and 60's were in high demand in Kuwait. They had the expertise to run oil extraction sites, and were also proficient in both Arabic and English.

Kuwait was originally one of the main financial backers of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and it had a presence in the country. However, governments in the region, including Kuwait, became fearful of the PLO as a political force. Since many of the region's governments were installed by Western powers, these governments feared the PLO would target them as illegitimate. As a result, Kuwait kept a close eye on PLO activism within the country.

Relations because critical after PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat met with Saddam Hussein two days after the Kuwait invasion. As Kuwait University Professor Shafeeq Ghabra describes, the PLO chairman expressed support for "the Iraqi policy" and incurred the lasting animosity of Kuwait as a result. After an attack on a Kuwaiti aircraft in October 1990 in which Palestinians were implicated, the Kuwaiti government fired over 3,000 Palestinians from government jobs. Fearing arrest and intimidation, around 200,000 Palestinians fled Kuwait during the invasion and liberation of Kuwait. 

Mutual animosity continued after the end of the Gulf War. It lasted for over a decade. In 2001, Kuwaiti MPs spoke out strongly against the visit of Palestinian Authority official Faisal Husseini to a conference in Kuwait against normalizing relations with Israel.

Relations began to mend in 2004, when Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas apologized for the PLO's support of Iraq during a visit to Kuwait. A Palestinian embassy opened in Kuwait last year. Currently, Kuwait chairs the Arab Peace Initiative of the Arab Summit. In the wake of the 2010 Gaza flotilla raid, the Kuwaiti parliament voted to withdraw from the initiative. However, in comments at the Arab Summit meeting held in Kuwait last March, Kuwait's Amir expressed support for the initiative.

Given Kuwait's status as a close US ally, the development of stronger relations between Kuwait and the Palestinian leadership is a positive development. At the same time, the sensitive history of Kuwait-Palestinian relations is an issue in which the US should avoid becoming entangled.


 

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

Israel's "Western" Public Diplomacy Paradox

Israeli public diplomacy strategy is often based on an affiliation with the West. Its latest round of public diplomacy during Operation Protective Edge is no exception. The campaign put Israel's security challenges in Western terms and used graphics and fonts that are trendy in Western communication. Here are some examples:






The IDF also issued releases with English plays on words, such as this commentary on Hamas' breaking a ceasefire:




Israeli public affairs doesn't just look Western. Many of its spokespeople are in fact English-speaking Westerners (Anglos). The IDF's International Media spokesman, LTC Peter Lerner, is British by birth. Mark Regev, the Prime Minister's spokesman, hails from Australia. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu himself spent time in the US and speaks perfect English, as does haBayit haYehudi party leader Naftali Bennett and prominent Likud leader Danny Danon.

Israel's extensive Anglo outreach is helpful in reaching and resonating with many supporters in the West. It is so effective, in fact, that Palestinian activists have criticized media outlets for hosting Israelis fluent in English while hosting Arabic speaking Palestinians. But there is an important tradeoff: In affiliating with the West, Israel is no longer seen as an "other." 

In general, not being seen as the "other" is a good strategy. People are more likely to associate with those like them, and to support Israelis who look and speak like they do. At the same time, Israel's close affiliation with the West entrenches perceptions of the country as the "fifty-first state" of the United States. When people who sound and look like Westerners make statements Westerners disagree with, it creates cognitive dissonance. It generates a feeling that Israel is misrepresenting the West's values. It entrenches the perception that Israelis are immigrants and settlers on indigenous Palestinian land. It also broods frustration that Israel "ought to know better" than to take action some in the West find questionable. 

In reality, Israel's security challenges are unique among Western states. No Western country faces constant barrages of rocket attacks, an ever-existent threat of an intifada, and close international scrutiny (though not always consequences) for any security action it takes. One would be hard pressed to find a Western state that, if in Israel's situation, would react with the same level of caution. Of course, this level of caution did not stop the deaths of over 2,000 Palestinians and the injury of thousands more in Gaza. It has not, to date, resulted in the end of severe restrictions on freedom of movement or the daily humiliation of checkpoints. However, the terms under which Israel conducts security policy are very different from those of the West and need to be understood in that context.

Given that this is the case, Israel must to walk a fine line between portraying itself as Western, and affiliating so much with the West that people forget that its circumstances are different. This shift does not requires a sea change, rather a calculated adjustment in strategy. The interview below with an soldier from the IDF's Youtube channel does a good job of finding that balance. The soldier is not an Anglo but rather a Hebrew-speaking Israeli. His basic respect for civilians as a soldier sounds more genuine in Hebrew than coming from a polished Anglo spokesperson. His testimony (translated with some liberty, and including some obvious IDF talking points) evokes that of Western soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan and his testimony humanizes the IDF.



Most importantly, the video invites the viewer to empathize with the soldier while recognizing the existence of a cultural and national difference. This recognition likely makes the viewer more willing to entertain, if not accept, points of view not perfectly resonant with her own.

Monday, August 11, 2014

Gaza Shock Talk Isn't Engaging People, It's Scaring Them Away

Tal Abbady's editorial in the LA Times today argues that posting polarizing content on Facebook is a bad way to conduct political debates and a good way to lose friends. Abbady's point speaks to a broader irony of posting such content. Activists pushing polarizing content do so in order to engage new supporters. Yet those standing outside the cacophony of Middle East politics are often pushed away rather than pulled in by such posts.

During Operation Protective Edge, both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian activists have engaged in a rhetorical "Shock and Awe" campaign. Pictures of death and destruction, appeals to save women and babies, and "what would you do if it were you?" questions are the more innocuous elements of these campaigns. More notoriously, some in the conflict have misappropriated words that have no place in analysis of the ongoing conflict: Genocide. Extermination. Pogrom. Holocaust. As political scientists Evgeny Finkel and Sarah Parkinson point out, this language has been particularly present in the current conflict. 

Radical (or just ignorant) activists justify using these rhetorical trump cards by noting what they see as a desperate situation in the region. Appealing to desperation, they argue, engages people. But the problem with desperation as an engagement strategy is that it is based on radical constructs of how the world works. And these constructs are usually completely out of touch with reality. They state that the public is not in support of a given side because of propaganda or intimidation from the enemy, or else is too stupid to be aware of the conflict or care about it. Shock language is necessary, therefore, to "wake up" these complacent dullards or cause great moral reckoning among those who have thrown in their lot with the other side.

These ideas are easy to understand and compelling. They are also complete nonsense. The public is not "asleep" or "ignoring" Gaza. As of August 5, 2014,  81% of the American public has seen at least "a little" coverage of Gaza on television, 79% have seen something online, 79% have seen something in newspapers, and 80% have seen something on social media. 

The idea that support for the "other side" is based only on baseless propaganda is also out of touch with reality. Smart, educated, experienced, and highly informed analysts from across the political spectrum concur that the causes and effects of the current violence in Gaza are not black and white. While there are clear cases on both sides of wrongdoing, both Israelis and Palestinians have legitimate and unaddressed claims too. Those who support the "other side" do so because the conflict is complicated, not because of evil schemes. More importantly, the use of shock language does not create a moral reckoning among supporters of the "other side." Rather, it causes anger, resentment, and fear - the exact drivers of the conflict in the first place.

More concerning, earnestly interested people turn away from discussions of the conflict when it becomes a rhetorical minefield. Rather than engagement, shock activism is breeding reluctant complacency from people who want to help but do not want to offend. This attention drain harms both Israeli and Palestinian civilians who so desperately need and deserve care. While those who use shock language might have good intentions, they are actively harming the chance for all people in the region to obtain safety, freedom, and empowerment.

Wednesday, August 6, 2014

Why You Shouldn't Boycott Israeli Academics

The Middle East website Jadiliyya published a call today by 100 US academics to boycott Israeli academics. The list is formidable - many scholars included are first-rate and conduct excellent Middle East research. As a website, Jadiliyya has many informative pieces and is a positive force for reason in a convoluted region. However, this call to boycott is poorly substantiated and does not represent the best tools we as an academy have to offer suffering people in the Middle East. Signing it would be a mistake.

For starters, the text of the petition relies on questionable assessments of the situation on the ground. It accuses the international community of silence with regards to Gaza. This claim is demonstrably false. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry, British MP Ed Miliband, and French President Hollande, among many others, have raised questions about Israel's use of force in Gaza. Any "silence" is not due to a lack of speaking - it's because those who perceive silence aren't listening.

The petition then lists the Israeli actions which warrant a boycott. Many of these actions, as discussed in previous posts on this blog, are quite disturbing and merit investigation. But the statement omits any mention of Hamas' rockets, tunnels, or kidnappings. It omits any consideration that Hamas could bear some responsibility for shooting rockets from civilian areas. While criticizing Israel's disruption of Palestinian academic environments, it says nothing about Israeli universities which in the past have had to shut down or disrupt classes as a result of rocket fire. Such considerations do not reduce the severity of Israeli actions, but if the goal is "morality" why be partial?

In fact, partiality is the defining element of the petition. The signatories have nothing to say about Qatari academics whose work is supported by a government that funded Hamas' rockets. They have nothing to say about Iranian academics who designed the rockets that Iran admitted to giving Hamas. Again, if the basis of the boycott is supporting moral academic work, why not include these actions as well?

The most disappointing part of the petition, however, is where it tries to establish a link between Israeli academics and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). This evidence is disappointingly shoddy and would certainly not pass peer review. The claim that Israel's universities have offered "unconditional support" for the Israeli military is substantiated in footnotes 6 and 7 with the following:

1. An article about Tel Aviv University which describes its role in IDF technologies like smart bandages, tunnel detection systems, and the Iron Dome system (designed by an alum of the university).

2. A Facebook post in Hebrew, which most of the signatories don't read, that shows pictures of Haifa University students packing Bamba into boxes.

3. A Facebook post from the Technion, again in Hebrew, that wishes for the safe return of students who were called up to fight in Operation Protective Edge.

4. An English statement from Bar Ilan University expressing "support and encouragement" for the IDF and security forces and wishing them a safe return.


5.  A book chapter, by an Israeli, with a BA and an MA from Tel Aviv University.

6. A broken link to the radical anti-Israel site Electronic Intifada. 


This was the best evidence one hundred academics, many of them world class, could come up with to support a boycott. Of course, these questionable links are only half the evidence. They say nothing of Israeli academics like Oren Yiftachel whose book Ethnocracy is foundational in academic criticism of Israel. They say nothing of Neve Gordon who published a book literally called Israel's Occupation in 2008There are even Israeli academics who support boycotting Israeli goods - Anat Matar and David Newman among them. These examples roundly refute the petition's claim that "our colleagues in the Israeli academy have been silent."

This call to boycott is both prejudicial and poorly substantiated. It disregards the inherent complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It also fails to show how a boycott of Israeli academics would have any effect whatsoever. Rather than gloss over complexity, academic supporters of Palestinians would do better to leverage their understanding of this complexity in Mideast politics. They could exert pressure through existing channels with Israeli counterparts. They could study the phenomenon of asymmetric warfare and make recommendations of how Israel could reduce casualties while achieving legitimate ends of self-defense. Ultimately, it is engagement rather than disengagement that will give academics the best chance to make a positive difference in the region they so deeply care about.


Sunday, July 27, 2014

In Gaza, Success Is Also A Failure

Israel has come to a strategic turning point in the Gaza conflict. It has been faced over the past 72 hours with increasing pressure from President Obama and Secretary Kerry. It also faces international frustration over the failure of several attempts to reach a cease-fire. Jeffrey Goldberg's assessment this morning makes several points about Israel's losing long-term strategy that merit serious consideration. 

However, in the short term, the operation is achieving Israel's mission of denying Hamas the capacity to use both rockets and tunnels. Israel also has already invested the time and effort to move assets into Gaza. The marginal cost of continuing the operation is low compared to the cost of re-mobilizing these assets for a future conflict. Additionally, with 86.5% of a sample of 504 Hebrew-speaking Israelis against a cease-fire, there are clear domestic incentives to continue Operation Protective Edge.

Internationally, Israel's political capital has probably taken the brunt of the hit it is going to take from the operation. True, if there is another strike on a school or hospital, that will incur additional harm for Israel. The coming days are likely to see further protests in Western capitals and polemic anti-Israeli articles circulated online. However, fatigue over the operation means that unless the death toll in Gaza increases dramatically, Israel will not suffer significantly more than it already has in the realm of public outcry. Prolonging the conflict is also a show of Israeli resolve which signals both Hamas and international parties in a way that favors Israeli deterrence.

Israel can, strategically, continue the Gaza operation and have the benefits outweigh the costs. But hidden in this assessment is a painful tragedy of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and perhaps conflict in general. 

If Israel continues Operation Protective Edge, hundreds more Palestinians will die. Israelis too will be injured, and more IDF soldiers may fall in the line of duty. But hundreds of Palestinians - most of them with no connection to terrorism or to Hamas - will die. And perhaps the greater tragedy is that this will make so little difference to the outcome of the conflict. The party responsible for this tragedy is not uniquely Israel, which has demonstrated some concern for civilians and has been criticized heavily for specific failures to sufficiently do so. Rather, it is a an international system in which people are statistics rather than human beings. Perhaps the reason the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is so uniquely painful is way it reminds us of how little a life, Israeli or Palestinian, really matters in war.

Saturday, July 26, 2014

The Face Of Evil: How Israel and Hamas Construct Each Others' "True Nature"

Anyone with the misfortune of having a social media account over the past month has been inundated with articles, pictures, and sound bites on the Israel-Gaza conflict. Day after day, articles make their way across social networks supporting this side or that. This sharing is often more than an attempt to spread information. It is, additionally, a form of discursive warfare. It is a battle to convince others of the enemy's "true nature."

"True nature" is a concept reflected in pieces from both the pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian perspective. Retweets of Israeli teenage girls' racist instagram pictures, or descriptions of the "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous Terrorists" are intended to "unmask the true face of evil." These pieces - based on evidence but often highly one-sided - are intended to show the "real" way the enemy thinks, feels, and behaves. This unmasking then becomes a pretext for the actions of a given side. If that side can "awaken" enough people to the enemy's "true nature" then it can justify its actions in terms of moral absolutes.

Ironically, "true nature" is not actually true. It is a schema, or a set of beliefs, which prioritizes information confirming a preexisting belief. The information on which schema are based may very well be factual and evidence-based. However, it prioritizes confirming information over contradicting information. For example, when pro-Palestinian activists are presented with evidence of Israeli respect for civilians, such evidence is given less normative weight than evidence Israel is not respecting civilians. When pro-Israel activists are presented with evidence that Palestinians are suffering at the hands of the IDF, it is given less normative weight than evidence Israel is acting in self-defense from indiscriminate rocket fire against Israeli civilians. Terms like "Yes but" or "while X, Y" are indicative of this weighing process.

The unfortunate outcome of schema building is that each side is fighting what is essentially a constructed enemy. Again, the evidence on which this construction is based is usually factual. But they are not all the facts. Particularly difficult is the fact that schema are human nature - every person has constructions to help make sense of a chaotic world. However, when the consequences of our schema are human suffering, we must do the hard but necessary work of weighing evidence deliberately. It may not change our position on the Israel-Gaza conflict. However, it will make all of us more responsible participants in a discourse whose outcome matters for millions of innocent people.


Thursday, July 24, 2014

Every Gaza Editorial Ever

The X-Y conflict is very complicated. At least, we like to say that. Saying the X-Y conflict is complicated makes you, the reader, doubt your own understanding of the conflict. This piece will manipulate your uncertainty by over-simplifying a conflict it already has admitted is complicated. Don't ask questions. I have experience with the X-Y conflict, whereas you don't know what you're talking about.

It comes down to this: Since their founding, X's goal has been the elimination of the Y people. It's very foundational documents prove that X believes Y cannot exist alongside them in any final arrangement.

Do not accept claims of moral relativism. There can be no justification for X's heinous crimes against innocent members of Y. So often seen as the "victim" X's society is in fact deeply racist. Despite this, it has been the recipient of substantial sums of money. This society is fundamentally opposed to progress. In fact, the sheer misanthropy of X leads one to question whether its leadership are human, or monsters.

In fact, from a young age, members of X are brainwashed to hate Y. Using schools, government propaganda, and the media, X imposes something between half-truths and lies on its own children. These children first experience contact with Y at a young age, but their society teaches them to hate Y. Thus, when they come of age, this hatred is perpetuated.

X is not just a participant in a tragic "cycle of violence." Y is merely responding to X's aggression which has claimed lives and injured many members of Y. "If Y were only to stop," X says, "These problems would go away." Yet X is the instigator. X started it.

The media, however, is blind to this obvious truth. In countless headlines, articles, and interviews, the media constantly make X look good while completely ignoring Y's claims. This clear bias is the result of a mix of powerful interests and willful ignorance. X is more telegenic. Nobody cares about Y's suffering. They don't matter in the eyes of the media.

Thus Y is forced to defend itself in the face of this bias and constant attack from X. No group in a similar position would do anything different. Yet the world is blind to Y's plight. Decent people ought to be outraged at this unfair treatment of Y, and put their full support behind its mere struggle to survive in the face of such pure evil.