I came across a very interesting article on Foreign Policy about the prospects of Palestinian Statehood at the U.N. in September. Kudos to Prof. Carlo Strenge.
I enjoyed it, and it was interesting analysis from a psychologist. I often think a psychological look at international relations is helpful; as it tends to explain actions that political science cannot. If states act like humans, since they are run by them, then it is essential to review the psychological aspects of international affairs.
Personally, giving Palestine statehood is the first step of compromising for a two state solution and more importantly, peace. Its called a two-STATE solution.
In addition as mentioned in the piece, if the PA does not achieve statehood, it will totally delegitimize the moderate leadership of the PA. All credibility would be lost, and radical factions may take control of the PA. Peace will be even farther away if that happens.
Israel must concede on this one, and rise up to have long-term strategy of achieving peace to this issue, rather than short term bickering. One must be pragmatic and sensible, keeping in mind the higher ideals and goals to achieve for the future. If one lets theology and emotion get in the way; logic and problem-solving capabilities are lost.
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Monday, June 13, 2011
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Compromise: The Tool of Leaders
Compromise:
1. a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.
2. the result of such a settlement.
I think politicians, from both sides of the aisle, have forgotten this word. Americans do care about partisan issues, but they like it better we things get done. In a 24 hour media cycle, where talking heads, pundits, and everyone judges politicians moves; its been hard for compromise to happen.
However, for America to progress, on the budget, entitlements, and everything else, we have to compromise. Politicians have to see above their agenda's and recognize that the greatest generation of Americans made this country what it is by compromising and making laws that advance and empower America. Compromise is not sacrificing what you stand for, but rather the practical way of advancing interests when working with those whom have opposing views. It is, in fact, being practical and wise.
Compromise is not just for the U.S. congress, it serves for all hot-button issues. The peace process in the Middle East is one of them. A peace agreement will cannot be pro-Israel neither pro-Palestine. each has to give more than it wants in order to achieve sustainable peace.
True leadership is shown in hard compromises which leads to a greater solution for generations. As I stated before, one does not have to give up for what they stand for in order to achieve solutions. However, one must be flexible and see the long-term opportunities that they can fulfill their goals at a later date.
Many people are just not capable of compromise, as shown. Those individuals of this flexibility, this long-term vision, this leadership, and this practically must now step up and be the ones to solve world and domestic issues. We must not be distracted from vocal but extreme sides.
Compromise is a tough thing, but it is essential to solve the issues of today. We live in interesting times, and we need strong leaders willing to stand up and compromise for the greater good of society.
Monday, November 15, 2010
PeaceMaker Reflections: A Game translated to Reality
So tonight I got a chance to play the peacemaker simulation. I have to say, I really enjoyed the game. I thought it gave a broad view in the different options and actors all part taking in the conflict. Through playing the game, it illustrated quite a few important themes which I think serve to be true of the situation in general; the Israeli government's need to satisfy multiple blocs in the government in addition to the different sectors of the public, the P.A.'s internal struggles with Fatah and Hamas for power, the lack of an adequate taxation system in Palestine, and the need to balance peace and security in Israel.
For both states, I had it on the "tense" setting.
Let me first start with my Israeli experience. At first glance, the Israeli PM already has more options available because of the development of Israel and a proper taxation system. Using social initiatives always bring your points with the public up. When responding to violence, I slowly learned that beefing up extreme security measures doesn't help the peace process. However, making smart use of police and prisoners are helpful. One of the main objectives first is to procure the support of the U.S. to help mediate. One also has to talk to the Palestinians and use cross-cultural initiatives; these are really key.
Let me talk about the different sectors of the population though. This is what I thought was the trickiest part to winning on the Israeli side. At first, I tried to really appease both the public and the settlers. This didn't work out too well; I eventually got kicked out of office. What I found out was the more I just focused on the P.A., aid, making the Israeli public happy with police, and disregarding the settlers, the game went well for me. The theme the game is trying to communicate is that for an Israeli leader to appeal to all parts of the government and still achieve peace is nearly impossible. In stead the leader has to be flexible and willing to make difficult choices and ignore a small but vocal segment of the population. By freezing settlements, I was able to get world support, eventually get the public's support, and finally achieved peace. So I guess the lessons are stay mainstream, ignore far extremists, pamper the public, and keep dialogue open.
Next I played as Palestine. Lets just say I had an 0-3, I got kicked out of office each time. I thought the Palestinian mode was much more difficult. There were less options, threat of losing power to factions, and most important, reliance on funding from outside sources. I couldn't implement any programs or security measures without outside funding. The Arab states, Europe, the U.S., and the U.N. would meet with me, but funding wasn't consistent. Fatah and Hamas were gaining power because I couldn't provide for my citizens. Thus, more violence happened and it all went downhill.
Its important to note that these are the conditions President Mahmoud Abbas has to deal with. Without infrastructure, he cannot have an adequate tax system. Without taxes, he cannot have infrastructure for a state. It gave me greater insight into the peril of not having enough money to secure one's own population. That is why it is imperative to continue giving aid to Palestine. Without aid money, a two-state solution will dissolve and violence will continue. Perhaps with further infrastructure, the P.A. can do a better job in caring for its population, decrease the influence of Fatah and Hamas, and there can be a Palestinian state.
Overall I thought it was a great exercise which brought me into making decisions with real consequences. Sometimes you have to give a little, to get a little.
After watching Ted beat his first game in the time I tried 6, I was relieved to finally achieve peace as Israel. A great, and enlightening exercise.
For both states, I had it on the "tense" setting.
Let me first start with my Israeli experience. At first glance, the Israeli PM already has more options available because of the development of Israel and a proper taxation system. Using social initiatives always bring your points with the public up. When responding to violence, I slowly learned that beefing up extreme security measures doesn't help the peace process. However, making smart use of police and prisoners are helpful. One of the main objectives first is to procure the support of the U.S. to help mediate. One also has to talk to the Palestinians and use cross-cultural initiatives; these are really key.
Let me talk about the different sectors of the population though. This is what I thought was the trickiest part to winning on the Israeli side. At first, I tried to really appease both the public and the settlers. This didn't work out too well; I eventually got kicked out of office. What I found out was the more I just focused on the P.A., aid, making the Israeli public happy with police, and disregarding the settlers, the game went well for me. The theme the game is trying to communicate is that for an Israeli leader to appeal to all parts of the government and still achieve peace is nearly impossible. In stead the leader has to be flexible and willing to make difficult choices and ignore a small but vocal segment of the population. By freezing settlements, I was able to get world support, eventually get the public's support, and finally achieved peace. So I guess the lessons are stay mainstream, ignore far extremists, pamper the public, and keep dialogue open.
Next I played as Palestine. Lets just say I had an 0-3, I got kicked out of office each time. I thought the Palestinian mode was much more difficult. There were less options, threat of losing power to factions, and most important, reliance on funding from outside sources. I couldn't implement any programs or security measures without outside funding. The Arab states, Europe, the U.S., and the U.N. would meet with me, but funding wasn't consistent. Fatah and Hamas were gaining power because I couldn't provide for my citizens. Thus, more violence happened and it all went downhill.
Its important to note that these are the conditions President Mahmoud Abbas has to deal with. Without infrastructure, he cannot have an adequate tax system. Without taxes, he cannot have infrastructure for a state. It gave me greater insight into the peril of not having enough money to secure one's own population. That is why it is imperative to continue giving aid to Palestine. Without aid money, a two-state solution will dissolve and violence will continue. Perhaps with further infrastructure, the P.A. can do a better job in caring for its population, decrease the influence of Fatah and Hamas, and there can be a Palestinian state.
Overall I thought it was a great exercise which brought me into making decisions with real consequences. Sometimes you have to give a little, to get a little.
After watching Ted beat his first game in the time I tried 6, I was relieved to finally achieve peace as Israel. A great, and enlightening exercise.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Non-State Actors, Iran, Syria, Turkey, the P.A., and Israel; One Big MEPP Family
In light of our discussion today in class, what's next for the MEPP (Middle East Peace Process), and what are Israel's and the P.A.'s (Palestinian Authority) options?
In The Settlement Fixation, which came out today (conveniently) on foreignpolicy.com, Michael Weiss argues that settlements are the least of Israel's problems to the MEPP. Like our discussion in class, Weiss makes the case that more "critical issues will have to be resolved first, such as reconciling feuding Palestinian political factions, guaranteeing that security can be maintained in the West Bank without an IDF presence, and ensuring that Palestinian institutions now being built are stable enough to sustain a functioning democratic government, regardless of which party is elected."
In the piece, he notes that "in late 2008, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas undertook a hypothetical map-drawing exercise that delineated the border between the two states. The end result allowed for large settlement blocs to be incorporated into the Jewish state, while according land currently inside Israel to the new Palestinian state."
As seen from these two quotes, it seems like the settlement issue is not the biggest of deals. Of course, its not helpful that its still going on, however, as noted by Weiss, its not top priority.
One of the top priorities is to deal with the actors near Israel; Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran. How do you bypass non-state actors (but gradually becoming state actors) like Hamas and Hezbollah. I made a point in class that these are Islamists organizations. The reason people turn to Islamist organizations, or other religiously affiliated grassroots networks is because the state is doing a poor job providing for its people. Thier networks often have some of the necessary infrastructure to give people basic needs such as food, education, and health care. The way to woo the Palestinian population back to the P.A. is by making the P.A. more effective. Giving aid, and promoting governance are a few things. By making the P.A. stronger, however, it is also strengthening a potential Palestinian state. So in order to marginalize Hamas and Hezbollah, one has to accept the inevitable solution of two states.
For Syria and Iran, they are trickier situations. Relations with them may be eased by solving this conflict. But on an important side note; perhaps Israel can have better relations with Syria if they mend them with Turkey. Turkey has recently became a strong ally of Syria after nearly declaring war on them. Syria now depends on the Turkish economy in certain areas. If Israel can repair if relations with Turkey, maybe Turkey can push Syria to the table and negotiations can start. Turkey now likes to be seen as a conflict negotiator. I am sure Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu would be perceptive to this idea; and if he succeeds in brokering a deal (with Syria and maybe even Iran), Turkey's international legitimacy and power will go sky high. Just a thought.
What will the course of the MEPP be? That's a question that will be answered in the years to come.
In The Settlement Fixation, which came out today (conveniently) on foreignpolicy.com, Michael Weiss argues that settlements are the least of Israel's problems to the MEPP. Like our discussion in class, Weiss makes the case that more "critical issues will have to be resolved first, such as reconciling feuding Palestinian political factions, guaranteeing that security can be maintained in the West Bank without an IDF presence, and ensuring that Palestinian institutions now being built are stable enough to sustain a functioning democratic government, regardless of which party is elected."
In the piece, he notes that "in late 2008, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas undertook a hypothetical map-drawing exercise that delineated the border between the two states. The end result allowed for large settlement blocs to be incorporated into the Jewish state, while according land currently inside Israel to the new Palestinian state."
As seen from these two quotes, it seems like the settlement issue is not the biggest of deals. Of course, its not helpful that its still going on, however, as noted by Weiss, its not top priority.
One of the top priorities is to deal with the actors near Israel; Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran. How do you bypass non-state actors (but gradually becoming state actors) like Hamas and Hezbollah. I made a point in class that these are Islamists organizations. The reason people turn to Islamist organizations, or other religiously affiliated grassroots networks is because the state is doing a poor job providing for its people. Thier networks often have some of the necessary infrastructure to give people basic needs such as food, education, and health care. The way to woo the Palestinian population back to the P.A. is by making the P.A. more effective. Giving aid, and promoting governance are a few things. By making the P.A. stronger, however, it is also strengthening a potential Palestinian state. So in order to marginalize Hamas and Hezbollah, one has to accept the inevitable solution of two states.
For Syria and Iran, they are trickier situations. Relations with them may be eased by solving this conflict. But on an important side note; perhaps Israel can have better relations with Syria if they mend them with Turkey. Turkey has recently became a strong ally of Syria after nearly declaring war on them. Syria now depends on the Turkish economy in certain areas. If Israel can repair if relations with Turkey, maybe Turkey can push Syria to the table and negotiations can start. Turkey now likes to be seen as a conflict negotiator. I am sure Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu would be perceptive to this idea; and if he succeeds in brokering a deal (with Syria and maybe even Iran), Turkey's international legitimacy and power will go sky high. Just a thought.
What will the course of the MEPP be? That's a question that will be answered in the years to come.
 |
| Left to Right: President Gul of Turkey, Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas of the P.A., Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu of Turkey |
Monday, November 8, 2010
The Individual is pretty Important
In today's class, we discussed whether the MEPP was reliant on the individuals involved, the processes happening in the states, or the international system in place. While all three are so intertwined that it would be ignorant of me to say one is more important than the other two, I do feel that individuals played a key role in the peace processes happening in the early 90's.
As we went over in class, Clinton was a figure who brought people together. He had a certain personality that many liked, and he was instrumental in bringing Israel and the PLO together at the table. Arafat, whose history in the conflict is long, may have been worn down from years of chaos and fighting. Yitzhak Rabin was a central figure in the process. He had broad support from the public, and with his foreign minister Shimon Peres, achieved great success. All these personalities came together under the right circumstances.
One can disagree, and say that the individuals didn't matter too much. International realists can further say it was the states, not the people.
Whether we want to believe it or not, individuals change a lot in this world. Individuals make history. Without certain people being where they were in the right place, certain events wouldn't have unfolded the way they did. For instance, Washington during the Revolutionary war, Napoleon in France, Lincoln during the Civil War.
To bring the issue closer to the region, if Gamal Nasser wasn't President of Egypt, would pan-Arabism been so big in the Middle East? If Mustafa Kemal didn't take charge, would there be a nation of Turkey? If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad didn't become president of Iran, would relations be so bad? So many 'ifs" made possibly by individuals.
Individuals often spur the creation of certain policy. We can look at the international system and events scientifically and systematically, but often people overlook the power one person holds. That power can change the course of the world.
Now was Rabin nessesary to the peace process? Well it does seem so. When Benjamin Netanyahu became Prime Minister, most of the same characters were in power. I do admit, the aspects of the exact situation between Israel and Palestine were different, but they couldn't come to further agreement. If Rabin had been alive, would it had gone through? Maybe. However, it does serve to illustrate that an individual can change the world. Especially in the Middle East. Hopefully we'll get another Rabin and they'll make it happen.
As we went over in class, Clinton was a figure who brought people together. He had a certain personality that many liked, and he was instrumental in bringing Israel and the PLO together at the table. Arafat, whose history in the conflict is long, may have been worn down from years of chaos and fighting. Yitzhak Rabin was a central figure in the process. He had broad support from the public, and with his foreign minister Shimon Peres, achieved great success. All these personalities came together under the right circumstances.
One can disagree, and say that the individuals didn't matter too much. International realists can further say it was the states, not the people.
Whether we want to believe it or not, individuals change a lot in this world. Individuals make history. Without certain people being where they were in the right place, certain events wouldn't have unfolded the way they did. For instance, Washington during the Revolutionary war, Napoleon in France, Lincoln during the Civil War.
To bring the issue closer to the region, if Gamal Nasser wasn't President of Egypt, would pan-Arabism been so big in the Middle East? If Mustafa Kemal didn't take charge, would there be a nation of Turkey? If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad didn't become president of Iran, would relations be so bad? So many 'ifs" made possibly by individuals.
Individuals often spur the creation of certain policy. We can look at the international system and events scientifically and systematically, but often people overlook the power one person holds. That power can change the course of the world.
Now was Rabin nessesary to the peace process? Well it does seem so. When Benjamin Netanyahu became Prime Minister, most of the same characters were in power. I do admit, the aspects of the exact situation between Israel and Palestine were different, but they couldn't come to further agreement. If Rabin had been alive, would it had gone through? Maybe. However, it does serve to illustrate that an individual can change the world. Especially in the Middle East. Hopefully we'll get another Rabin and they'll make it happen.
 |
| Left to Right: Yassir Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin |
Thursday, October 21, 2010
A Few Reflections from the PBS Video
Today in class we watched the second video of David Shipler's Arab & Jew: Return to the Promise Land (I hope I got the title right). The video was pretty powerful. I knew the basic history and facts about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but this video helped me understand it better.
One can read as many textbooks and analytical essays about a conflict, but using interviews with real people bring a situation so far away closer. For example, I know World War II to to be a war of great proportions, but it was way before my time. Its sort of a myth for the more recent generations. However, talking with my grandparents about their actions and service during the war makes it tangible history. I feel connected with the events that had happened, and it becomes more of a reality. Well, watching the video of very personal interviews today, it made me feel more connected with what is occurring almost a half-world away.
We discussed many themes that came out of the video, and it drives home just how complex this situation actually is. During the peace talks, one can just ask themselves 'Why can't they fix this already?' Well I was one of those people, more or less. I knew the situation and history, so I like to think I wasn't ignorant of exactly what was going on. However, after seeing exactly how Israelis and Palestinians think about each other and the past, it adds another dimension. Though, after watching the interviews, I would like to know how Shipler chose who to interview. Not accusing him of anything, it would just be interesting to see why he chose the people he did.
A quote I jotted down stood out for me. Rita Huri, the Israeli-Arab social worker, said that Israelis and Arabs may "live in some place, but not together". I thought that was pretty powerful. Not to directly compare the situation in Israel, but it reminded me of the Jim Crow laws in the South. White and Black American citizens lived in the same place, but they didn't actually live together. Everything was separate. There was a mental barrier that persisted in the south from fully integrating and accepting blacks in society. I think the mindset, at least a bit, can be used to describe some interactions between many Israelis and Arab-Israeli citizens. I think it is important for Israeli citizens and Arab-Israeli citizens to have a dialogue for further understanding. Once this first mental barrier can be removed, other barriers between Israelis and Palestinians can be too.
At the end of the video, the lawyer (sorry, I didn't catch his name), said "its all over but the body count." Well I hope there can be peace, eventually, without a body count.
One can read as many textbooks and analytical essays about a conflict, but using interviews with real people bring a situation so far away closer. For example, I know World War II to to be a war of great proportions, but it was way before my time. Its sort of a myth for the more recent generations. However, talking with my grandparents about their actions and service during the war makes it tangible history. I feel connected with the events that had happened, and it becomes more of a reality. Well, watching the video of very personal interviews today, it made me feel more connected with what is occurring almost a half-world away.
We discussed many themes that came out of the video, and it drives home just how complex this situation actually is. During the peace talks, one can just ask themselves 'Why can't they fix this already?' Well I was one of those people, more or less. I knew the situation and history, so I like to think I wasn't ignorant of exactly what was going on. However, after seeing exactly how Israelis and Palestinians think about each other and the past, it adds another dimension. Though, after watching the interviews, I would like to know how Shipler chose who to interview. Not accusing him of anything, it would just be interesting to see why he chose the people he did.
A quote I jotted down stood out for me. Rita Huri, the Israeli-Arab social worker, said that Israelis and Arabs may "live in some place, but not together". I thought that was pretty powerful. Not to directly compare the situation in Israel, but it reminded me of the Jim Crow laws in the South. White and Black American citizens lived in the same place, but they didn't actually live together. Everything was separate. There was a mental barrier that persisted in the south from fully integrating and accepting blacks in society. I think the mindset, at least a bit, can be used to describe some interactions between many Israelis and Arab-Israeli citizens. I think it is important for Israeli citizens and Arab-Israeli citizens to have a dialogue for further understanding. Once this first mental barrier can be removed, other barriers between Israelis and Palestinians can be too.
At the end of the video, the lawyer (sorry, I didn't catch his name), said "its all over but the body count." Well I hope there can be peace, eventually, without a body count.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Uneasy Body Language
As the Israel-Palestinian peace talks at the White House begin, most can tell the meeting between the leaders are uneasy.
Take a look at this photo from the New York Times.
Mr. Abbas and Mr. Netanyahu are obviously uneasy. The half grin by Pres. Abbas and the stern glare of PM Netanyahu create a particularly tense and not so optimistic aurora. Now does this photo tell of what the outcome of these talks are to be? Certainly (and I hope) not. However, it is a early reminder of just how much tension and recent animosity there has been between the Palestine Authority and Israel. I hope that both parties can overcome such obvious tension and reach some sort of agreement (ideally a comprehensive one). If both leaders want their names engraved in the history books as their predecessors, Menachem Begin and Anwar El Sadat, each have to concede maybe a little more than they would like. As one of (if not the most) thorny issue in international politics in the past 70 years, it is going to require sacrifices for a lasting peace. Lets hope the awkward handshake seen in the photo is proven worng through these talks.
On a lighter note, here is another picture from the New York Times which could double like a movie poster, maybe for Reservoir Dogs.
Take a look at this photo from the New York Times.
Mr. Abbas and Mr. Netanyahu are obviously uneasy. The half grin by Pres. Abbas and the stern glare of PM Netanyahu create a particularly tense and not so optimistic aurora. Now does this photo tell of what the outcome of these talks are to be? Certainly (and I hope) not. However, it is a early reminder of just how much tension and recent animosity there has been between the Palestine Authority and Israel. I hope that both parties can overcome such obvious tension and reach some sort of agreement (ideally a comprehensive one). If both leaders want their names engraved in the history books as their predecessors, Menachem Begin and Anwar El Sadat, each have to concede maybe a little more than they would like. As one of (if not the most) thorny issue in international politics in the past 70 years, it is going to require sacrifices for a lasting peace. Lets hope the awkward handshake seen in the photo is proven worng through these talks.
On a lighter note, here is another picture from the New York Times which could double like a movie poster, maybe for Reservoir Dogs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)