Top 5 Controversies

by Charles Lenchner

category: Middle East

Published October 05, 2008 @ 02:25PM PT

Get together partisans to debate the Middle East, and some arguments are likely to emerge. Very likely. Smart operators make an effort to stay away from those arguments by asking questions that don’t have answers you can memorize – like: ‘what about the Middle East makes you hopeful? But if you want to go back to well-trodden ground, try these out for size:

1. It’s Their Fault: Finger Pointing After the Oslo Accords Collapse

After more than thirty years of attempting to reconcile the status of Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza and the future of a Palestinian state, two Intifadas – or uprisings – threatened to derail successive peace processes. The second Intifada more or less ended the one peace process that got the closest to an actual agreement -- the Oslo Accords. Who’s to blame? President Bill Clinton, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and top U.S. diplomat Dennis Ross have blamed the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. Their version of events – which was the one given the widest publicity – is that Arafat rejected a nearly complete, extremely generous offer without making a counter-offer, and thus blew up the peace process.

Rival versions conclude that Barak and Clinton forced Arafat into an impossible position, making an unfair offer bound to be rejected and then using a slick PR machine to distort what actually transpired. Robert Malley spoke out fairly rapidly, but he has since been joined by Aaron Miller. Both of them were also senior diplomats deeply involved in the negotiations.

Camp David talks in 2000

Summary of Dennis Ross’ version of events

http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000555.html

Robert Malley’s version of events

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14380

2. “One State or Two State”

The two-state solution – arguing for the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel -- has been the international preference since before Israel was founded. But it wasn’t until the First Palestinian Intifada (1987) that majorities of both Israelis and Palestinians finally accepted its wisdom. With the breakdown of the peace process and the start of the Second Intifada, some have argued that the time for a two-state solution is over. There are two main reasons: first, because Israeli settlements, roads and other measures have created irreversible facts on the ground, and then because an impoverished Palestinian state with limited control over its own borders, economy and water supply is not truly viable, and certainly wouldn’t be independent.

Opponents of the one state solution, usually argue that it’s used rhetorically as a threat or with malice as a way to achieve the destruction of Israel.

Analysis of one/two state argument from the Alternative Information Center

http://www.alternativenews.org/blogs/michael-warschawski/one-state/two-states-sari-nusseibeh-and-his-disappointed-zionist-friends-20080901.html

Haaretz compilation of one/two state arguments (from 2004, but still relevant!)

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=383879&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

Israeli centrist Yossi Alpher arguing for a two state solution

http://www.bitterlemons.org/previous/bl180808ed32.html#isr1

3. Is Israel a Democracy or an Apartheid State?

Many in the West single out Israel as the only true democracy in the Middle East. When challenged by critics, most Israelis will point to their country’s fair and free elections, proportional representation, free press, and respected judicial system.

Critics point at two facts that prevent Israel from claiming to be a true democracy. First, Israel does not have a constitution promising equality for all citizens, and some laws (such as the Law of Return) treat Jews and non-Jews differently. Secondly, the Israeli occupation has resulted in two sets of laws for two peoples in the same territory – to some, the very definition of apartheid. Mainstream critics aren’t saying that ‘Israel is an apartheid state’, but rather that Israeli rule over the Palestinians in the West Bank, combined with the presence of hundreds of thousands of Jewish settlers there, has created an apartheid situation there – with Israel as the responsible state.

New York Times review of Carter’s book, Peace Not Apartheid

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/books/review/Bronner.t.html

Former Israeli High Court Justice Aharon Barak discusses Israeli Democracy

http://www.israel21c.org/bin/en.jsp?enDispWho=Views^l248&enPage=BlankPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enVersion=0&enZone=Views&

4. Is Political Islam a Problem, or is Islam the “Solution”?

Across the Arab and Muslim world, political forces advocating “Islamic” solutions continue to gather strength. The most veteran is the Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt, considered to be the strongest opposition group there. The major Sunni Islamist groups in Palestine, Syria and Jordan are all offshoots of the Brotherhood.

The basic political message is that when the rulers of these countries adhere more strictly to Islam and stop forging alliances with American and Europe, then they will be better able to achieve social justice, military strength, and cultural achievements.

Political scientists generally place Islamism in the category of fundamentalism in general, and it does share some characteristics with other version that exist among Christians, Jews, and Hindus. At the same time, the lack of democracy and political rights across the Arab world have led to a situation where the mosque is often the only public space in which opposition politics can safely exist. Islamism then, is simply the logical response of marginalized groups within these authoritarian societies.

Islamism is a threat to the West

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=80B6D82B-07F8-4E44-9383-3E7D6D4E35DB

Islamism is a legitimate political trend

http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol6/v6n24islam.html

Official English website of the Egyptian Islamic Brotherhood

http://www.ikhwanweb.com/

5. What Role Should the U.S. Play in the Middle East?

America purports to support freedom, human rights and democracy around the world. This historic role should mean supporting those forces calling for free and fair elections and human rights. In practice however, the US has supported monarchies and dictatorships like Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. While these countries do not practice democracy, they have been US allies who have helped keep the Middle East stable. “Stability” has a very specific meaning in this context: to keep the oil flowing, support Israeli-Palestinian peace, purchase US weaponry, and oppose US enemies such as Iraq and Iran.

Iran is much more democratic than Egypt, but it has oil wealth it uses to challenge US hegemony in the Persian Gulf. Syria is a more free society than Saudi Arabia, but it is a regional ally of Iran and a bitter enemy of Israel.

Commentators in the US and the Arab world have noticed the discrepancy between US ideals and the choices of who to support, but explanations differ as to why this occurs.

Noam Chomsky on US policy in the Middle East

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Middle_East_Policy_(Chomsky)

CS Monitor on the US and ‘democracy promotion’ in the Arab world

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0517/p01s03-wome.html

Brookings Institute paper on Bush’s “Freedom Agenda”

http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2006/09middleeast_wittes.aspx