Stuck in the Middle With You*

A Saudi jpournalist published on his personal Twitter account last week an insanely provocative phrase that stated: 'If Israel attacked Iran and war erupted between the two countries, then I would support Israel mindfully and heart-fully, considering that our primary enemy is Iran and not Israel. Arabs of the north must know that'.

Three interesting words were employed by the Saudi journalist in his insightful tweet: mental, emotional, and primary. Let us start with mental and emotional capacities first before moving to the equally astute observation regarding the prioritisation of enemies.

Unlike social relations that are formed and broken upon the discretion and judgement of individuals who enjoy full liberty in managing their personal affairs, relations between nations are not. Whilst laws that regulate social relations could be manipulated to one´s own benefit based on his/her whims, laws that govern diplomatic relations are vigorously guarded to ensure the preservation of national interest. Such laws are not solely formulated in legislative forums, but have been preceded by natural laws that are have are innate in modern systems, may they be political or social.

The Saudi journalist suggested in his tweet that from a rational perspective (mindfully) and based on his sentiments (heart-fully), he would stand by Israel should a war break off between Tel Aviv (Jerusalem to the liking of the journalist) and Tehran. He justified his position on both reason and sentiment. It is the same rhetoric that has been employed across time and the perfect excuse to turn a blind eye towards the laws that govern our being, including those derived from morals, religion, history, and constitutions. In the eighteenth century Charles de Montesquieu beautifully portrayed human behaviour and how it should be reined:

Man, as a physical being, is like other bodies governed by invariable laws. As an intelligent being, he incessantly transgresses the laws established by God, and changes those of his own instituting. He is left to his private direction, though a limited being, and subject, like all finite intelligences, to ignorance and error: even his imperfect knowledge he loses; and as a sensible creature, he is hurried away by a thousand impetuous passions. Such a being might every instant forget his Creator; God has therefore reminded him of his duty by the laws of religion. Such a being is liable every moment to forget himself; philosophy has provided against this by the laws of morality. Formed to live in society, he might forget his fellow-creatures; legislators have therefore by political and civil laws confined him to his duty (The Spirit of Laws).

The impetuous passions of our fellow journalist have been heated up with regional events that include Iran´s dominance expansion with Hezbollah´s victory in Lebanese parliamentary elections, Shiite victory in Iraqi parliamentary elections, Iran´s clandestine nuclear programme that was unravelled recently by Israel, the Israeli attack on Iranian interests in Syria, and Europe´s hesitation to support the US´s withdrawal from the nuclear accords with Iran on 8 May.  To face the perils of Persian further empowerment, the journalist tossed religion, morals, and laws into the bin of ´you do not serve me at the moment´, and attempted to stir impulsive, manipulative, and self-serving emotions. Such emotions precisely contradict the journalist’s punchline in his intelligent tweet: our primary enemy is Iran, not Israel. If he is suggesting that Israel ranks second on the enemy list, why would he ´mindfully and heart-fully´ support his second enemy? Irrespective of the reader´s stance regarding the Iranian-Arab and Arab-Israeli drama, it makes little sense to support a historic enemy (to respect the journalist´s use of words and rhetoric albeit wrongfully). And why would such calculated support be ceded with both passion and reason? Importantly, how did he expect that ‘Arabs from the north´ would justify the support to Israel - the secondary threat - in a hypothetical war with Iran - the primary source of danger? In what way did he expect that reason and emotions guide the Arab nation in justifying take sides in a war between common 'enemies'? When will respect to laws be the sole guide to a nation´s affairs? Why did the journalist make no reference to the importance of respecting the cultural and historic sensitivities that have been entrenched in legislative systems of neighbouring nations, and opted for a narrow, self-serving view that he advised others to follow? Why is it that after three centuries one is still debating the dangers of emotionally-charged sentiments that come at the cost of established laws and regulations?

When emotions are high, people vent and spurt out irrational statements. When seasoned journalists take that route, politicians might likely follow suit…and no Montesquieuan remedy could help in that case. 

* To those who know what this song means to me, you are very very much missed.

    

Should I Stay or Should I Go?

On 12 May, American President Donald Trump will decide whether the United States will pull out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA): the international deal with Iran over its nuclear programme.

But the United States will leave. Just Called Pour an Obvious Adieu.

The timing of the awaited decision is no coincidence. First, it will come less than a week after the Lebanese elections would have been celebrated. As has been predicted, Iran´s proxy Shiite militia in Lebanon – dubbed Lebanese political organisation, won considerable votes at the May parliamentary elections. Indeed, Hezbollah political bloc’s gains came at the expense of the Saudi backed Future Movement, which lost one-third of its seats. Naturally there was finger pointing and conspiracy theories regarding schemes to eliminate the Future party from the political process. Most likely, Sunni forces in the region will take a free ride on the Shiite-danger-blame train.  

Second, the Israeli Knesset adopted a proposal on 1 May that authorises the premier and defence minister to declare war ‘under extreme circumstances’. Concomitantly, the Israeli Prime Minister showcased Iranian nuclear documents (obtained by Mossad operatives in Iran) regarding Tehran´s naughty nuclear programme prior to the JCPOA.

Third, Palestinians and other Arab and Muslim nations will commemorate al Nakba Day (remembrance of Palestinian diaspora following the establishment of the independent state of Israel on 14 May 1948) on 14 May. In some cases, the usual chaos, mayhem, and violence will likely take place in the West Bank and the Gaza strip, with the support and blessings of Israel´s historic enemies (Iran and its proxy organisations in the Middle East).

When, and not if, the US pulls out of the nuclear deal, it will have a series of supporting arguments. Iranian associates are gaining further ground in the troubled Middle East, most recently attested by the Lebanese parliamentary elections. Iran´s retaliation against Israel for the latter´s offence against Iranian troops and military presence in Syria will not go unnoticed – although un-analysed and un-justified with objective goggles. Self-defence will be expected from the Israeli Defence Forces, whose green light will be given with the ease of switching a light bulb at home (thanks to the newly adopted proposal granting the premier and his defence minister the right to respond instantaneously when Israel is under threat). Attacks against Israelis and death chants to Zionists on al Nakba Day will stir sympathetic emotions towards Tel Aviv and a blind eye towards its actions which will likely be directed against Iranian proxies.

Pulling out of the JCPOA will not only be the sensible decision in light  of the recently exposed documents regarding Tehran´s web of nuclear lies, but also when taking into account the related geopolitical developments that have rendered Iran the biggest threat to the world at large.

Washington´s unwise decision will reverberate in the region, and more bloodshed is expected. Like a broken record, the rhetoric has paved the way for further violence, and as promised, no one should be surprised.

Because He Said So

On 14 May, Israel will celebrate 70 years of independence. On that day, the United States is also expected to move its embassy to Jerusalem in the spirit of celebrations amongst Israelis, and mourning of Palestinians who are reminded of the Nakba: the day they lost their land 7 decades ago.

To mark the upcoming occasion, an Israeli senior Ministry of Foreign Affairs official spoke to Al-Monitor regarding Israel’s historical narrative at 70 years of independence, indicating that Israel´s democratic existence in a region of autocratic regimes bestows further legitimacy to the imminent  festivities. Plus, Donald Trump has endorsed Israel’s right to be recognised by the Palestinians as the homeland of the Jewish people. Yes, Trump´s statement seals the deal and provides the missing and crucial conformation of the Jewishness of Israel and the Jerusalemness of its capital.

It is interesting how the official´s enlightening proclamation came right after his/her reiteration that Israel is the only democracy in the region. In that official´s opinion, democracy constitutes what millions of Arabs believe is fair, what the Palestinian people conceive as historical injustice inflicted upon them, and the  illegal, unilateral recognition of the status of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in spite of international condemnation. Trump said it should be Israel´s capital, then it should be. Let us forget the city´s history that stretches back to 5000 BC, its linkages with the patriarch of the Hebrews Abraham and Moises, the early wars over the city between the Israelis and Philistines, the rulings of David and Solomon, and the eras of the Persians, Macedonians, Maccabees, Romans and Herodes. Christianity’s birth and Byzantiu´s rule are irrelevant, and so is the city´s fruition under the Umayyads, Abbasids, Fatimids and Ayubbis. The Crusaders´ battles are the past and must be ignored. The Ottoman´s Empire, the two World Wars, and the British mandate should all be forgotten. The rich history of the city, the coexistence of multiple religions over centuries, and the dozens of civilisations that reigned over it mean nothing to some Israeli aides. Trump´s recognition suffices.

In three weeks´ time people of the sacred land will be rejoicing and mourning simultaneously. The world will be watching silently until action is deemed necessary. The euphoria of masked peace and unfair conquer of the holy city should not be a reason to forget history and the lessons that should have been learned and entrenched in both hearts and minds.  Independence day should be an occasion to remember the history of Jerusalem and the right that Muslims, Christians, and Jews have in that land. Trump´s words should not trump history.

Shelters Before Graves

Inspite of seeing her making out passionately with another man at the staircase, he decided to ignore the issue, but confront – and prosecute – her for the affair she had 10 years ago. I was advised* to start off with a sexy tone to lure readers into skimming through…I hope that was sexy enough, albeilt the unappealing context of this article.  Now, the hot affair is a perfect analogy for what has happened between The Netherlands and Turkey following the famous Armenian genocide recognition vote.

On 22 February, the lower house of the Dutch Parliament approved a motion that recognises the Armenian genocide of 1915 by the Ottoman Empire. According to Christin Union parliamentarian Joel Voordewind, The Netherlands ¨cannot deny history out of fear of sanctions. Our country houses the capital of international law after all, so we must not be afraid to do the right thing here too".  "We are acknowledging history", he said. Turkey obviously was livid, and explained that the Ottomans at the time acted within the context of a raging confrontation with Russia during World War One. In a clever answer, Turkey’s Foreign Ministry indicted that “The baseless decisions taken by the parliament of a country that turned a blind eye to a genocide — whose pain still has not eased — in Srebrenica, in the middle of Europe, have no legal binding or validity´´.

The question of why, the basis, and purpose of the vote will not be addressed by this article. However, the timing will be. As I am typing, Syria's besieged Eastern Ghouta region is being bombarded. Intense shelling has already killed over 400 people since Sunday evening, with 79 children among the dead. One must wonder whether this is not yet another genocide that must be given priority in international condemnation. What happened to Armenians over 100 years ago is not to be ignored or belittled, but those people have perished, and so have the governments that orchestrated their deaths. Nothing can be done to right the wrongs. Historic recognition is admirable, but has no value other than sentimental.

Perhaps parliamentarians across the world should not wait for another 100 years to cry over the unjust death of the innocent and helpless. There is still a chance to save Syrians and Yeminis and Afghanis and Iraqis from a plethora of genocide-associated-acts that are committed on a daily basis.

International recognition of the Armenian genocide came after years of documentation, research, lobbying, and persistence – all of which are commendable. No one should deny the tragedy of killing 1.5 million Armenians…but the death of 79 children is also tragic, and unjust. Only it is a contemporary type of injustice that is politically charged and historically blurred. The facts have not settled in, but people are settled in their graves.

The Netherlands, and many other countries, have acted like the wronged husband. He had every reason to confront his wife with regard to the affair she had 10 years ago, but should have prioritised the more recent, pressing, and not-totally-substantiated fully fledged affair. Doing the latter could save the marriage, while the former would not…it would only document an act of the past. The Netherlands, and the international community at large, should consider doing the same.

The relations between The Netherlands and Turkey are currently lukewarm, and the estranged NATO members have both withdrawn their diplomatic representation following another earlier dispute. Amidst present circumstances and heightened political conditions, it would be advised that these two important partners try to mend relations and look at the bigger picture. Now is not the time to recriminate one another for past mistakes committed by previous leaderships. More pressing issues are at stake, and reconciliation is necessary.

In the spirit of love and sexiness as recommended above, ELO´s song (One Step at a Time) has insights for those in rocky relations, including nations. 

*You know who you are, and how dear you are.

Thou Shall Not Consume, But I Certainly Shall

In a succinct version of a harangue, Jordan´s Prime Minister attributed the critical financial conditions in Jordan to the consumerist culture of its citizens (revert to article published in the Jordan Times on Valentine´s Day in the spirit of love). Problems that stretch from lack of transportation services to the elevated cost of rudimentary sustenance products had one root cause: the greedy, consumerist Jordanian citizen.

Interestingly, and on the same day, a news article was published in the Washington Post indicating that following a meeting between the Jordanian and Foreign Minister and the American Secretary of State, Washington pledged to give Jordan at least $1.275 billion a year annually over the next five years, replacing a previous three-year commitment of $1 billion annually. This generous support comes two months after Jordan urged Washington to withdraw its recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital at the famous UN vote. The US was livid, promised to jot down the names of traitors, and subsequently cut off any aid and assistance as a strong slap on the wrist.  Jordan on the other hand exposed its fangs and talons and employed its best weapon – rhetoric – against Washington´s audacious move. Clearly, water under the bridge, and Jordan and the US kissed and made up.

The message that an average Jordanian citizen would get from all of this would be that their government is unable to sustain itself without foreign aid, but that citizens should and must be able to do so. A family of six with an income that does not exceed 500 Jordanian Dinars should be able to provide the minimum and basic needs for its household, but a government that has mastered the art of aid receipt cannot. The government felt entitled to preach on the basics of financial management and self-restraint against the dangers of consumerism, but set a record for failing to implement sound economic policies. Speaking of records, someone might need to explain to the premier that purchasing a car to get to work is not attributed to Jordanians’ passion for shopping for cars, but rather to the lack of public transportation. And bread is not a meal.

While it is certainly a diplomatic victory for Jordan to have the US not only not go through with its threats but actually increase its aid to Jordan, it is a moral defeat for Jordanians who felt insulted by Trump´s arrogance and disregard to the rights of Palestinians in Jerusalem. Snubbing economic aid would have restored pride and quenched the anger of the Jordanian street – a street that is still being blamed for economic woes and misfortunes. It might not be feasible to reject aid, but a statement that explained why it was accepted and an apology for still being dependent on donations would have been nice – certainly nicer than reprimanding Jordanians for their shopping sprees.

It is only hoped that quotients of the generous American aid be channelled to citizens...after all, they must maintain their consumerist behaviour, no?

Halifax Now and Then

Movies tend to awaken senses and invite ideas to take a deeper and more profound spot in one´s mind. A series of shots with visual effects that are interwoven beautifully within a script could allow for a reassessment of notions and beliefs. In the movie 'Darkest Hour', the mute inner dialogue of Winston Churchill once he was appointed Prime Minster of England at the acme of World War II resonated with a sapient audience from the future. Churchill´s romantic and patriotic refusal to bow before German attacks and offer a dignified surrender was admired by viewers, who reminisced about the days of glory and pride. The weak, feeble figure of Edward Frederick Lindley Wood, First Earl of Halifax, was naturally ridiculed for its defeatist standpoint. After all, it was the Earl of Halifax who pushed for striking a deal with Adolf Hitler after the fall of most of Western Europe. But Churchill the hero defied his party and its leadership, and stood by the pride and will of a glorious nation. And history proved his decision right.

Interestingly, English statesman and writer, George Savile, the first Marquess of Halifax (1633 –1695) held similar views to the 20th century Halifax.  A staunch opponent to the concept of ´fundamental principles´, he defined such a hyped and defended concept as the ‘nail that everyone would use to fix what is convenient for them at a moment and keep it unshakeable. Fundamental is similar to sacred vocabulary that maintains things in their state, disallowing anyone touching them’. Such progressive intellect could be broadened to tackle the right to question any concept, belief, or costume – including national pride. A fundamental belief in any concept could be a vice that is cladded in ethical discipline. Any government that is based on a set of fundamental principles that are rigid, inherent, and defining to a nation could be subject to auto-destruction if opposed to re-evaluation and assessment.

Earl Halifax warned his English peers in 1940 of the dangers of transforming principles into causes. He championed peace, even if it meant surrender, and accepted that England´s history of victories see a setback- potentially and hopefully temporarily. Refusing to rejoice pride might have echoed the 17th century Marquess´ views regarding the need for a `radical compromise between power and freedom…whereby governments should be able to be strong to maintain peace, and liberal enough in order not to cause repression'. Had history taken another turn, most viewers would have supported Halifax´s questioning of a romantic notion that was promoted by a leader who refused to compromise a fundamental principle. A strong government must ensure peace. It is acceptable to lose at times, to surrender at others, and to start again.

If both Halifaxes were here today, they would most likely have key insights on world events. Should the question of principle kill any attempt for peace? Should a fundamental belief in a cause or an idea deny other alternative notions to emerge? Should the principle that binds Gulf Arab States together in their opposition to Persian expansion stand at a higher pedestal than potential for prosperity and harmony? Are Arab States willing to shed more blood to defend their romantic principles? While it ended well for the Allies in the 20^th century, it will likely not be case for their allies in the 21^st. 

No motive

It was a clever plan. A 17-year-old carpentry-apprentice waited patiently until the target client purchased furniture from his employer, who in return tasked the young man in particular with delivering the furniture to the target’s rented apartment. Just when he made sure that no one was around, except for the landlord of course, the master-mind behind the plot charged and stabbed the victim with a screw-driver-turned-into-a-weapon. The victim quickly reached for his gun and fired a round of shots in the air that killed both the young attacker, and the innocent bystander (landlord). The failed attempt was politically motivated, as intelligently clarified by the law enforcement authorities of the screw driver victim’s country. Yes, the 17-year-old planned all of this to get out an important political message. No one shall be safe…furniture shops will serve as a breeding ground for young political criminal wannabes.  

The whole incident, sarcasm-free, occurred a week earlier when an Israeli embassy security guard shot dead a 17-year-old Jordanian man and the landlord who was at the wrong place at the wrong time. Allegedly, the young man was delivering furniture to the Israeli man, when they both quarrelled and the former attacked the latter with a screwdriver. To defend himself, the Israeli security guard reached out for his gun (like a sensible person would do), and with little regard to human life, killed both the young boy and the landlord who was standing there.

The tragedy of the entire episode, besides the unnecessary and unjustified death of two Jordanians, is the casual reaction of the Israeli government to the crime. To add insult to injury, Israeli officials have suggested that the incident was political (in response to the riots in Jerusalem following Tel Aviv’s wise decision to place metal detectors at Al Aqsa Mosque’s site).

By insisting on diplomatic immunity that protects the guard from questioning and prosecution, and by fabricating events and insisting on the ‘political motive’, Israel masked the regular excessive, brutal, unjustifiable, and non-discriminatory act with the typical self-defence rhetoric.

Any incident, any place and any time is meant to directly harm the innocent and defenceless (but gun bearing) Israeli civil servants – that is the common perception marketed by the masters of the victimisation theory. Had Tel Aviv had a little bit of tact, they would have at least given themselves some time to investigate the elements behind the incident and then blame it on political agendas.

It could have been a regular, old fashion argument between a client and an employee. It could have been an act of rage by a young young boy, which could have been handled more compassionately and wisely by an older and more sensible man. It could have been so many things, but death should not have been one of them.

God rest the souls of the two innocent victims.