January 24, 2008
Davos, day two - Pakistan, Screaming Eagle and the art of moderation
Why are you in Davos? It is a question we all struggle with in our different ways. But when our three-man FT delegation posed it to Pervez Musharraf on Wednesday afternoon, the Pakistani president seemed incredulous. Were we implying, he asked, that Pakistan was an unstable country that could not be left to its own devices for a few days? "There is no danger in Pakistan," he assured us, "business is bustling."
Does this reaction suggest that the president is cool, calm and in command? Or completely detached from reality? Or just presenting a cynical front to the world, while he battles to contain the forces that threaten to engulf him? During the course of our audience with him - which was written up in Thursday’s paper - I got flavours of all three ideas. (Sorry if this is beginning to sound like the wine-tasting, of which more later.)
Perhaps the most surreal moment was when Mr Musharraf tried to assure us that everything he is doing is completely in line with the constitution. I pointed out that this was a difficult argument to make, when the former head of the Supreme Court is under house arrest. But Mr Musharraf was having none of it. "He is not under house arrest," he replied, arguing that, on the contrary, the Pakistani government wants to re-possess the judge’s official house, and would like him to move. So far from being a political prisoner, Iftikhar Chaudhary is - it seems - an illegal squatter. I pressed Mr Musharraf on this - and he did accept that there are restrictions on the judge’s right to free speech. This, said Mr Musharraf, is because he is an agitator, and the situation in Pakistan at the moment was too unstable to allow for agitation. He also cooly rejected the idea of a UN investigation into Benazir Bhutto’s death, claiming this would be an infringement on Pakistan’s sovereignty.
The only moment, it seemed to me, when the president lost his cool was when we asked him about a recent letter from retired generals, accusing him of undermining democracy. "Who are these retired generals," he said, suddenly flustered. "It is the serving generals who are important." But Mr Musharraf has recently become a retired general himself. And the question of the loyalties of the army and the intelligence services is going to loom large over the next year.
After the Musharraf interview, I badly needed a drink - which was fortunate, since it was the wine-tasting next. Davos, it appears, is rather embarrassed by my favourite event, and so underplays it. The motto of the World Economic Forum is "committed to improving the state of the world", so guzzling first-growth clarets doesn’t quite fit the picture. So the tasting was hidden away in the programme under the blandly uninformative title, "Tradition versus Innovation". You had to read the small print to work out that this was actually a monster face-off between new world and Bordeaux cabernets.
Jancis Robinson was our guide and she will be writing the whole tasting up (provisionally entitled the "Judgment of Davos") in the FT, a week on Saturday. I have promised her not to give away the results and rankings. So - for the wine-lovers among you - I will simply list some of the wines we tasted: Lafite, Latour, Haut-Brion, Moss Wood, Ridge Montebello, Harlan Estate, Screaming Eagle - and four others. The Screaming Eagle is now selling for about $2,000 a bottle. By drinking it, I think we showed that we are committed to improving the state of the world - perhaps by removing over-priced wine from the face of the earth.
Generally, I thought people behaved themselves pretty well. There was no obvious drunkenness, although the FT’s Chris Giles did pioneer an interesting two-handed tasting technique - which involves holding a glass of wine in each fist.
Even after the tasting, I was in perfectly fine fettle for moderating my session on geopolitical risk on Thursday morning. My first aim with this kind of thing is to avoid any disaster - knocking things over, drying up on stage or saying, "A question from the lady at the back, oh - sorry - you’re a man." Judged by these standards, the session was a resounding success.
It was also surprisingly upbeat. Given all the economic gloom around, maybe the political types felt the need to strike a different note. Bernard "I am a romantic" Kouchner, the French foreign minister, provided a mix of big-picture stuff about the need to fight world poverty etc…with detailed accounts of negotiations on Iran and Lebanon. He is very pleased with the Iranian sanctions resolution, but seems gloomy about Lebanon. Gareth Evans of the International Crisis Group said there were at least 20 serious conflicts around the world with the potential to cause misery and instability - but that the last 20 years has actually seen quite a big diminution in global conflict. So basically, we are getting better at handling these things, even if it may not feel like that.
Mohammed al-Khalifa, the head of Bahrain’s Economic Development Board, pointed out that the Gulf economic boom has withstood three regional wars over the past generation - and made the familiar Arab plea for someone to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Fred Bergsten, the American economist, is worried about another oil shock and a protectionist drift in the US. And Steve Forbes, the one-time presidential candidate, thinks - unlike most other people I’ve met here - that there will be a major fall in commodity prices. But even that would be good news. Then I went to a lunch on the future of Asia, which was even more upbeat.
After all this good cheer, I feel in need of some gloom: a session on the Middle East this afternoon and a dinner devoted to the melting of the Arctic should do the trick.
Dear Mr Rachman,
Your notes from Davos are very enjoyable.
Maybe you should always have a glass or two before writing a post (but I wouldn’t suggest this for the column).
Best,
RCS
Posted by: RCS | January 24th, 2008 at 7:58 pm | Report this commentEYELESS IN GAZA
What is this nonsense in the FT’s latest editorial on Gaza about “the moving frontiers (Israel) keeps pushing into occupied Palestinian land”? As far as I can recall Israel evacuated the Gaza Strip in 2005.
It goes on to say: “The Islamists should be brought into talks – on condition they are ready to work for a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza with east Jerusalem as its capital. ” Too bad they are not willing to comply.
Finally we are told that “Only when that is achieved should Hamas, and all Arab countries, be required to recognise Israel.” Why is that so, Mr editorial-writer? Israel is a member of the United Nations and therefore its right to exist follows from international law. The rule of international law is not something to be negotiated; there is no debate to be had about it.
Let me add that control of a country’s borders is a national prerogative. Israel has no obligation to open its borders with Gaza, just as Syria, for example, is not obliged to open its border with Israel — which indeed it does not.
In previous posts on this blog I opined that a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza would not be economically viable. Instead I suggested: Gaza to Egypt, the West Bank to Jordan (whose population is 70% of west-of-the-Jordan origin and whose territory constitutes two-thirds of the original League of Nations mandate for Palestine; simply put: Jordan is East Palestine). Now it seems that is what is happening in Gaza.
Posted by: RCS | January 24th, 2008 at 8:57 pm | Report this commentFor those of us who were not invitd to Davos, you and FT are doing a yeoman job of relating what is going on there. Thanks.
Posted by: k. Chandrasekar | January 24th, 2008 at 9:05 pm | Report this commentWhat are the likes of Musharraf doing at Davos in the first place? With whom will the next round of interviews be, Mugabe, Kibaki, the Burmese generals, the newly appointed advisor to the government of Sudan and head of its genocidal militia in Darfur, or some other tinpot tyrant with either lucrative resource deals to offer or nuclear weapons and/or terrorists to frighten us with? It seems that the assembled worthies at Davos are drinking a little too deeply of the heady wine of coddling dictators.
Posted by: Semakweli | January 24th, 2008 at 9:21 pm | Report this commentRCS: The alternative of Gaza to Egypt is for the European Jews to go back whence they came from and allow the sephardim to form a viable state with the true Palestinians.
Bye!
P
Posted by: Pacifist | January 24th, 2008 at 10:29 pm | Report this commentP,
And what about the Poles in Silesia? The Turks in western Anatolia? The Albanians in Kosovo? The Protestants in Northern Ireland? The Iraqis in Kirkuk?
The European Jews came from the ashes of the Holocaust to a land which was a Jewish kingdom well before the Romans renamed it Palestine.
Palestine is named after the Philistines, the ancient arch-enemies of the Israelites. Philistines, or ‘Plishtim’ in Hebrew, is the name given these people by the Israelites. Its meaning is ‘invaders’. Ironic then that the invented Palestinian nation should adopt this name.
Have a nice day,
RCS
Posted by: RCS | January 24th, 2008 at 10:56 pm | Report this commentRCS,
The Gaza-to-Egypt and the West Bank-to-Jordan theory is unfortunately seen as a policy of pragmatism to the Israelis given what they’re trying to accomplish; no matter who starves, bleeds, and dies along the way.
And personally, given all the years of bloodshed and instability, I wouldn’t be totally opposed to a policy that peacefully implemented such a plan with the consent of Jordan and Egypt; but I am not Palestinian and I know that they would reject any such notion.
A truly objective analysis of the Pal-Israeli conflict will lead one to the conclusion that there is indeed a party to blame for the current bloodshed; and it’s not Hitler.
While the Holocaust was a horrendous display of violence and disregard for human life, it is not an excuse to implement consequentially similar methods on another population in order to achieve some objective with Biblical overtones.
So what of nominal irrelevancies like the meaning of Palestinian in Hebrew? No child born in the country is an “invader,” not Arab or Jewish.
Should not these people enjoy a life unburdened by the quarrels of their forefathers?
Also, if you analyze the long-term trajectory of Israel you will discover that, as a Jewish state, it has no staying power.
Who is to assure you that fifty or a hundred years from now the Arab states will remain fragmented and weak?
Who is to know that fifty years from now Israel will continue to occupy such a preeminent position in U.S. geostrategy?
Who is to guarantee that the Jewish electorate in the U.S. will still have so much influence in the future? (which can be undone with a few simple laws)
It is in the interest of the Jewish people and their posterity to begin to implement a socialist binational state in order to avert any slaughter of innocent Jews in the future.
Posted by: barmakid | January 25th, 2008 at 1:20 am | Report this commentMr. Rachman,
Allow me to second RCS’s delight with your posts from Davos. Good stuff.
Posted by: barmakid | January 25th, 2008 at 1:32 am | Report this commentGR:”Mohammed al-Khalifa, the head of Bahrain’s Economic Development Board, … made the familiar Arab plea for someone to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict”
I agree. Free Marwan and Gilad!…I also think someone should make a film about the Gaza blockage and blowing up of the border barrier between Egypt and Gaza! Really gutzy clever move by Hamas!…Mohammed al-Khalifa must know a financial backer or 2 for such a project!
very interesting editorial in HaAretz…(excerpt)
“As hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were streaming into Sinai by car and making a mockery of Israel’s policy in Gaza, the prime minister gave a speech at the Herzliya Conference that sounded disconnected from reality. There is little point in extolling the quiet on the northern border when a diplomatic and security crisis for which Israel has no solution is taking place in the South. The Qassam fire is continuing, the policy of sanctions on Gaza has collapsed and Hamas is growing stronger politically, militarily and diplomatically. It is clear to everyone that reestablishing the border along the Philadelphi route will be impossible without its consent. The confusion that characterized official Israeli responses to the international media shows that the developments in the Gaza Strip took the government completely by surprise.
In his speech, Ehud Olmert declared: “Mistakes were made; there were failures. But in addition, lessons were learned, mistakes were corrected, modes of behavior were changed and, above all, the decisions we have made since then have led to greater security, greater calm and greater deterrence than there had been for many years.” Olmert was referring to the Winograd report. But he categorically ignored the fact that what was happening in the South completely contradicts his statements. If that is what learning lessons looks like, if that is what deterrence means, the Olmert government has precious little to boast about.”
Well it sure should not boast about the blockade! Ehud Barak should be slinking around the DAVOS convention hall!
Of yes…what brilliant co-chair(s) thought it wise to provide Musharraf with a forum…Geesh!
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | January 25th, 2008 at 2:09 am | Report this commentRESPONSE TO RCS’ EYELESS IN GAZA
–The moving frontiers of Israel is a reference to Israel’s settlement expansion in the West Bank, it doesn’t take a genius to figure this out. It has continued virtually interrupted for 30 years.
–As for inclusion into talks, Israel also doesn’t “comply” to the Quartet’s standards or the Road Map. The road map calls for a freeze in settlement activity, so far, Israel has only removed a few outposts but has started plans on expanding settlements between East Jerusalem and Abu Dis. Moreover, if the same demands that are put on Hamas were put on Israel, we would quickly see that neither comply. The demands are recognition of the right to exist, renunciation of violence, and compliance with past agreements. No Israeli political party (not even Labor) accepts the right of a Palestinian exist within its internationally recognized borders (that is, the 1949 armistice lines). Israel refuses to renounce violence and has in fact increased raids into Gaza at will and in Nablus and other cities in the West Bank, often killing civilians in the process. Moreover, Israel has violated every single one of its past agreements with the PA, including its expansion into the West Bank, building of the wall (under oslo I and II, and the road map, no party is to take unilateral action that alters final status issues), house demolitions, wye, etc. The list goes on.
I don’t completely agree with the editorial writer on recognizing Israel. I think both Israelis and Palestinians should recognize each other and cease violence. Nevertheless, your argument for international law is quite amusing. I agree, international law is not something to be negotiated, but unfortunately Israel violates international law on a regular basis. Under the Geneva Conventions Common Article II, it is illegal to transfer a population into occupied territory. That is ALL Israeli settlements are illegal. Moreover, under common international law, it is inadmissible to acquire territory by force. That means Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and control over any territory held in the 1967 War is illegal under international law. This is not to mention the illegality of targeted assassinations, house demolitions, collective punishment, torture, and the suspension of habeas corpus. All this, my friend, is also illegal.
As for control of a country’s borders, I absolutely agree. Any country has the right to control ITS OWN BORDERS. The problem is, Israel wants more than that; it wants to control the borders of Palestinians; hence the control of Gaza’s borders, airspace, and sea access, the same goes to the West Bank. Israel has every right to control its borders, it does not have the right to control those of the occupied territories and is in fact obliged under international law to return those territories.
On your last point of the West Bank and Gaza going to Jordan and Egypt respectively, you seem to be rather ill-informed on this issue as well. Your idea is neither new nor workable. What you are proposing is the Allon plan, which was proposed decades ago. It was proposed in the immediate aftermath of the 67 war, and again in the 70s and 80s. The problem is that Egypt has never claimed Gaza, although it administered it. Jordan renounced all formal claims to the West Bank almost two decades ago. Today, there is no way in hell either country would accept this, let alone the Palestinians who want their own state. The Jordanian population has tension with its Palestinian population (about 50% of the country) and it would simply not accept the Palestinian population of the West Bank as part of the country. Likewise with Gaza and Egypt. The NDP of Egypt’s main occupation is suppressing the relatively moderate Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt and all Islamists movements. Hamas, an offspring of the MB, is loathed by Egypt’s ruling party and the last thing Mobarak would want is to take in a populition sympathetic to Hamas’s message. Your proposal is unoriginal and unrealistic.
and lastly, the one guy analyzing todays political situation using biblical text: get real. If we’re going back to the bible, then wouldn’t it be, dare I say, anti-semitic of God to kill all Jews who didn’t convert to Christianity when the messiah returns? Come on, this can’t be serious.
Posted by: Joel | January 25th, 2008 at 3:12 am | Report this commentI concur with Joel. RCS stop throwing a hissy fit just because the FT has actually gone a little further than the rest of the Western Media and attempted to give an objective view of ground realities.
Posted by: Sam | January 25th, 2008 at 4:56 am | Report this commentYes, I concur as well. That’s what I’m talkin about Joel!
Posted by: barmakid | January 25th, 2008 at 5:05 am | Report this commentJoel,
If memory serves…weren’t the Golan Heights used to shell Israel? Which is why they weren’t eager to surrender them to a people which has sworn to destroy Israel? About “going back to bible”, etc…isn’t it fairly common for Islamic radicals to refer to Westerners as “crusader”?….just who is living in the past here?
Posted by: Jan | January 25th, 2008 at 7:29 am | Report this commentDear Barmakid,
Thank you for you reply. Your comments are refreshingly balanced (relatively speaking, in comparison with P’s often visceral hatred as well as that of the anonymous editorial writer).
I can’t agree with you that a bi-national solution would bring any stability. On the contrary, we’ve seen what has happened in the Balkans, the break-up of Yugoslavia. In the end the international community had to resort to meticulously delineating the living-spaces of the various nationalities. And there is also the Lebanese experience to inform us. Within the cultural matrix of traditional societies, multi-national solutions are inherently unstable and very very dangerous — dangerous for the communities involved and, this being the ME, dangerous for global stability.
Of course I am also emotionally tied the State of Israel and I therefore reject any dilution of its national character (which I wouldn’t characterize necessarily as being ‘Jewish’: were the Byzantines Roman?) as do a majority of Israelis. I am sure Israel will survive and prosper, if only for the ingenuity of its people. Israel has been in greater dire straits before.
Dear Joel,
The West Bank and Golan were seized in a defensive move, following Arab acts of aggression (the closing of the straits) which legally amounted to a declaration of war. It is perfectly legal to acquire territory in self-defence. Furthermore, the West Bank can’t be deemed ‘occupied territory’, since Jordan’s claim to the land was unrecognized internationally.
You say my suggestions (Gaza to Egypt, the West Bank to Jordan) are ill informed and yet we see this transpiring on the ground, at least in Gaza. Disregarding Mark Twain’s dictum for a moment (’never make predicitions, especially about the future’) I dare suggest that, in one manner or another, my (unoriginal) ideas are the shape of things to come.
I was not analysing the current political situation using Biblical text. Rather I was reminding us of the strong emotional connexions to the land which both sides to the conflict harbour, something every realist should appreciate.
However, there is also what I would term the shallow-history fallacy, which is analysing the situation solely in a static modern political context: the West versus the Rest, Europe as against Asia, First World versus Third World. So that P, for example, doesen’t mind Sephardi Jews (or at least pretends not to mind them) but would have European originating Israelis uprooted (and what about the hundreds of thousands of half-breeds born in Israel?). This is shallow history. Before the Industrial Revolution no dichotomy between the ‘West and the Rest’ ever existed. Before the ‘Rise of Europe’ there were only Jews, not European Jews and Sephardic Jews. And the momentum of globalisation points to a re-balancing of world history (see Clive Ponting’s excellent ‘World History: a new perspective’) so that such a Euro-centric analysis is no longer feasible.
Similarly, Egypt and Jordan are modern inventions. Even discounting the part of the Hashemite Kingdom’s population originating from west of the Jordan, the two populations, that of Jordan and the West Bank, are essentially the same: same culture, same religion, same colloquial and even same cuisine.
Posted by: RCS | January 25th, 2008 at 9:02 am | Report this commentRCS:You say my suggestions (Gaza to Egypt, the West Bank to Jordan) are ill informed and yet we see this transpiring on the ground, at least in Gaza
Hardly. What you see is empathy for Hamas and Gazans growing among the entire Israeli occupied Palestinian population…soon there will be a unity conference in Caro…Sharm el sheik…between Hamas and PNA…what you see in Gaza is the energy, fury, ingenuity, passion, and desperation that creates statehood thru the centuries…The Isaeli Blockade was a stupid and cruel strategy coming on the heels of Bush visit…as it turns out Barak, Abrams gave a gift to Hamas…There will be a Palestinian state along side Israel…but Hamas will be the engine that drives it creation…there is no difference to the role that the Irgun payed preIsrael statehood and the role of Hamas now… everyone who wants to see a 2 state solution to the conflict should come down from their high horse and deal with Hamas…Hamas can eventually deliver on Israel security concerns and issues…PNA cannot.
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | January 25th, 2008 at 4:22 pm | Report this commentDear Ms. Lawson,
The people who don’t talk to Hamas are those who don’t really want peace because they have got almost everything that they wanted in the status quo and are bettering their position by a continuing land grab.
This position is calculated to defeat any progress in peace moves.
Personally, I am against a two-state solution but, should the Palestinians decide that’s their best option, then that’s cool, too.
Hamas and the Lebanese Hezbollah, by their steadfastness and by their incorrupt, efficient management of their meagre resources, are shining a revealing light on the corrupt, incompetent sell-outs who pass for the “leaders” of Arab nations and it is to be hoped that this will inspire Arabs to sweep out their diseased elites and start afresh.
The replacement of the corrupt Arab rulers with representative government is the first requisite step in making progress in anything in the region.
The West will, of course, prefer the status quo to having to deal with people who seek their support among their own people, rather than in Washington, London and Paris.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | January 25th, 2008 at 5:01 pm | Report this commentDear Mr. Rachman,
I assume you missed out on this event at Davos?
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4LfNXPkzMb0
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | January 25th, 2008 at 5:10 pm | Report this commentI must have missed Mr. Rachman’s reference, if any, to the Gaza situation. Is this what they are talking about at Davos? It seem that the Israel - Palestinian conflict is such a contentious issue that it is showing up on just about any blog at all, short of the recently incarcerated Martin Lukes’ brainbangs, which, for some reason, never got around to any kind of creovation on this topic.
Having said this, I should think that any objective observer who is not drunk on the wine of blind support for Israel right or wrong on the one hand, or the poison of anti-semitism on the other, would regard the current state of affairs in Gaza as what it unquestionably is - a human rights catastrophe, pure and simple. This is why the FT editorial was such a welcome piece of sanity.
Posted by: algazi | January 25th, 2008 at 5:49 pm | Report this commentSorry to interrupt - but did I mention Gaza? If you want to take issue with an editorial in the FT, why not do it under the comments section provided under the relevant article (I think it exists, doesn’t it?) Such a policy might make it harder for you to find each other - but would that really be such a tragedy?
Here is a compromise proposal - if the idea above doesn’t work, I will write something that acutally is about the Middle East and you can then beat each other up to your heart’s content. I’m not saying when, however.
Posted by: Gideon Rachman | January 25th, 2008 at 6:10 pm | Report this commentThe West Bank and Golan were not defensive moves. Moshe Dayan admitted that the majority (he claimed at least 80 percent) of attacks in the demilitarized zone (between Israel and Syria, including the Golan Heights) were instigated by Israel (see Tom Segev’s, 1967, p. 143-144; also Zeev Maoz’s Defending the Holy Land). Odd Bull, the U.N. Observer General at that time, described how Israel disregarded the demilitarized zone, stating “The situation deteriorated as the Israelis gradually took control over that part of the demilitarized zone which lay inside the former international boundaries of Palestine,” adding that Israel’s “attitude made any steps towards peace impossible.” (see General Odd Bull, War and Peace in the Middle East, p. 49, 51)
Likewise, Menachem Begin admitted after the war the following: “The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.” (see Avraham Sela, The Decline of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, p. 91) What’s more, although Nasser announced his intention to close the straights of tiran, he never actually did it. You can find proof of this from two sources: 1) State Department archives (available online), specifically Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964-1968, Vol. XIX, Arab-Israeli Crisis and War, 1967, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2004), document 90, when Dean Rusk states on May 28th 1967 that Egypt had not implemented any blockade. In fact, U.N. Major General Rikhye, who observed the straits, said in his memoirs (The Sinai Blunder, p. 78) that Egypt searched a couple ships but never really blockaded the Straights of Tiran. Furthermore, at the time of the announcement of the blockade Eilat only accounted for 5 percent of Israel’s trade. Even more damning was that Egypt stated that it would only stop ships that were flagged (Israeli flag). The State Department at the time reminded Israel that “over the past two and a half years only one merchant ship flying the Israeli flag had gone through the Straits.” (Segev; p. 287). Moreover, Israel was never under any serious existential threat as American and Israeli intelligence confirmed so at the time. The CIA estimated at the time that Israel could defeat a simultaneous attack by all the surrounding Arab states within 7 to ten days, and indeed Israel won it in 6. the CIA partially got their intelligence from Mossad through James Angleton (see Tim Weiner, Legacy of Ashes; p. 277) Indeed, when Abba Eban met with LBJ to make Israel’s case, Johnson told him that Israel should not strike because Egypt has no intentions to (according to his own intelligence and concurred by Israel’s intelligence when Mier Amit went to Washington)and even if all the Arabs attack Israel, Israel would “whip the hell out of them.” (see Avi Shlaim’s Iron Wall, p. 239-240) Moreover, at the end of the day, it was Israel who struck first. Egyptian troops were in a defensive position in the Sinai and there is absolutely no evidence that Egypt intended to attack Israel. There is plenty of evidence of the opposite, and indeed that turned out to be true (an Israeli first strike on June 5).
Lastly, on the legal point, I’d like to see where you see in the UN charter or any treaty or convention that it is ok to acquire territory by force, even if defensive. This claim is a figment of your imagination. I have studied international law, and it just ain’t so. If it was, could Nicaragua annex Texas in defense because the US attacked Nicaragua via the contras? Would it be alright for Castro to annex Florida in defense after the Bay of Pigs? I don’t think so. It’s clear to see that your legal imagination is quite nonsensical. Ironically, Israel’s claim to the West Bank is not recognized by anyone, including the United States, so I just don’t understand your logical acrobatics.
On your reiteration of the Allon plan; I don’t claim to be Nostradamus but it is difficult for me to see how blowing a couple of holes in the wall can equate to sound evidence that Egypt will take control of Gaza and Jordan of the West Bank. It just seems to be an impossibility because of the domestic politics of Jordan and Egypt.
The bible comment was not directed at you.
Egypt is a modern invention? You have got to be kidding me (Ancient Egypt? The Egyptians? the Nile? come on!). Jordan is a a modern invention but you are entirely mistaken if you think the West Bank and Jordan are the same (culturally, politically, whatever). I’m not trying to be rude, well actually I am, but you really don’t seem to know much about this. Anyone who has studied Jordan can tell you about the rift between the Palestinian population in Jordan (made refugees as of result of 1948 and onward) and the non-Palestinian Jordanians. Any basic text on the country could tell you that. I had the privilege to spend some time in Jordan and the West Bank last year, and I can tell you that you could not be any more off mark. There are many more nuances to the Arab world than you assume.
Posted by: Joel | January 25th, 2008 at 11:16 pm | Report this commentDear Joel,
I haven’t checked the sources you reference, but on the face of it it seems you are quite knowledgeable of the subject. Some of what you say is news to me, but I can’t judge, it would take someone more scholarly to agree or otherwise.
That’s as for the facts. But as for their interpretation, I can’t see why you hold Israel to such a high standard of legal niceties, while constantly dissolving ‘the Arabs’. So what if only 5% of Israeli shipping went through Eilat, is blockading the straits an act of war or not? And if it’s true they were never forcefully blockaded (probably having to do with Egyptian incompetence, judging by their handling of the Gaza border), do formal statements carry no weight? (BTW, was Sinai not demilitarised after 1956?)
As for ‘my reiteration of the Alon Plan’: The Alon Plan would have had Israel hold on to a strip of land bordering the Jordan. I do not propose that. Puncturing ‘a few holes in a wall’ is indeed of strategic significance. At the time of writing the Egyptian police were unable to hold back the Palestinian masses (again, famous Egyptian competence). The Egyptian authorities are walking a tight rope here: They cannot seem to be starving the Gazans, but they are quite scared of Hamas infiltrating their own territory. So in the end they will have no choice but to pull in to Gaza. Either they take over Gaza or the Gaza-inspired MB might one day take over Egypt! I suggest they do so indirectly, in the vein of Syria vis-a-vis the Lebanon.
Egypt of course is not a modern invention, I take that back. As for the differences between the West Bank and Jordan: again your into niceties, these ones cultural. Sure there are differences, there are even differences between one town and the next (my Arab colleague claims he can spot a person’s village through minute differences in pronunciation and the use or otherwise of various exclamations) but overall there is a cultural unity between what were formerly both part of the original League of Nations mandate for Palestine. Is not this what Arab radicals and pan-Islamists claim — that the ‘West’ is trying to fragment the ME?
Posted by: RCS | January 26th, 2008 at 5:04 am | Report this comment“on the face of it” = apparently
Sorry for a direct translation of a Hebrew idiom.
Posted by: RCS | January 26th, 2008 at 5:13 am | Report this commentTwo comments, one on holding Israel to a high legal standard and the other on my cultural niceties.
1. I am not holding Israel to a standard any different than anyone else. I am not saying the Arabs are innocent. All sides share blame for the 1967 war, but the facts seem to hold that Israel indeed shares a larger burden of blame. They were the ones to strike first. Under international law, there are two ways to go to war. One is if you get approval from the security council. And the other, most commonly claimed, is under Article 51 of the UN charter which boils down to self defense—-that is, if you are under an imminent threat. Nasser threatened to close the straits on May 22. Israel and the US were in constant contact with each other through the state department, embassies, the UN, and other avenues. Israel and the US also exchanged intelligence. Although publicly Nasser certainly said some startling things, he too was in contact with the US and what he said in private was another tune. This is not excusing his absurd comments but rather making the point that Egypt made it unequivocally clear that they would not be the first to strike or start a war. US military experts and intelligence confirmed this, as did Israeli intelligence. What’s more, Egypt seemed willing to work diplomatically. Egypt had scheduled to send their Vice-President to meet with Johnson for June 7, and the US likewise planned on sending Humphrey to Cairo to meet with Nasser to ease tensions. Nasser also appeared to be willing to take the case to the World Court. In fact it was Israel that had to be restrained by the US: from May 15 to the eve of the war, the US warned Israel in the strongest language 9 times to not initiate hostilities but it did. I am not holding Israel to a higher standard. Had Egypt attacked first, they would be guilty but they didn’t. Formal statements carry some weight but not as much as actions, such as initiating a war. There was a diplomatic route and Israel was well aware of this.
2. I am not making some abstract claim about culture. There is serious history. in the 1970s, Jordan virtually fell into civil war between Hussein and Palestinian nationalist forces. The Palestinian national identity is far too deeply engraved to make their national aspirations disappear. If Fatah and Hamas can’t get along, I don’t see how West Bank Palestinians will be willing to drop their right to self-determination in order to join Jordan. Again, this is all anyones guess game so I really can’t say anything with real certainty but I sense that the political reality in Jordan and the West Bank is far too complex to expect the West Bank to merge with Jordan any time soon, if ever. However new these nationalist identities seem, they very deeply entrenched (don’t call a Jordanian a Palestinian unless he actually is one). Read Rashid Khalidi’s seminal book Palestinian Identity and you will begin to understand some of the complexities. I think you are oversimplifying the Arab world to a remarkable extent. There is no such Pan-Arab movement today. That has long past. It died along with Nasser. There are many cultural variations and we simply shouldn’t make one swift swoop and lump all these people into this homogeneous Levantine Arab category. There are serious difference even within Jordan (I can’t imagine a Jordanian from Amman living at ease with a Jordanian from Zarka for example). And Likewise with Palestinians (hamas and fatah rift being the most obvious). My only point is that Palestinian and Arab society in general is much more complex and nuanced than you assume. What you keep referring to as “Egyptian incompetence” is a case in point. Is it their “Egyptianess” that makes them incompetent? It just doesn’t make much sense. Is it the US’s Americaness that made it soo incompetent in Iraq and Afghanistan, that made it failed miserably in “nation-building” adventures in Central America from 1900 through the 1930s, is it Americaness that caused it to fail in Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and in Cuba in the first half of the 20th Century? My point is that all societies have their complexities that are often misunderstood, if not understood at all. So to boil down Egyptians as incompetent because of their national identity or to say Jordanians and Palestinians are just the same old Arabs I think is quite mistaken and simpleminded.
Posted by: Joel | January 26th, 2008 at 8:51 am | Report this commentArticle 51 it certainly was, but we could argue about it on and on, or rather we could not, since I am definitely not as knowledgeable as you are, in diplomatic history and international law. I just know that some of the historians you have cited, such as Avi Shlaim, are contentious figures, not mainstream historians.
As for culture and national identity: I agree that there are many and sometimes overlapping shades to what constitutes any national identity. I accept the picture is nuanced and I think I made so much clear in my previous post — I cited the example of differences between Arab villages in Israel and therefore I am not surprised by your evidence from Jordan. But is this a uniquely Levantine Arab phenomenon? Do such differences not exist in many countries, even ones considered ethnically homogenous? Are the differences between East Bankers and West Bankers greater than those between New York and California? Or Hamburg and München for that matter?
How deeply ingrained is the Palestinian identity we’ll see in years to come. In the meantime we are witnessing a rift between the more Islamist Gazans as opposed to the more urbane West Bankers. BTW, the 1970 civil war in Jordan is a case in point: Fatah was poised to take over the East Bank, if it were not for Israeli interference.
Posted by: RCS | January 26th, 2008 at 9:40 am | Report this commentHi Joel,
Posted by: bmh | January 27th, 2008 at 5:35 pm | Report this commentyou seem to be rather wellinformed regarding the Palestienean/Isreal-Situation. Any “vision” for a more peaceful/stable future?
Kind regards
BHM