Moderation and Binationalism

This posting is inspired by an article in the NY Times, sent to me by my brother, Izzy. Here's the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/opinion/14goldberg-1.html

Here's my take.

A strong position amongst certain scholars and politicians is one which supports moderate Arab regimes, especially Fatah. However no regime, Iran included, lives in a vacuum. Ultimately, either Ahmadinjad, his successor or perhaps a CIA-supported junta in Iran will cave and see the benefits in engagement. Hopefully it won't require a tactical nuclear strike to get there.

Reagan may have called for Mr. Gorbachev to "tear down this wall," but he was neither realistic about the implications for emerging economies, nor was he forward-thinking vis-a-vis the fallout in the Middle East and Central Asia. There's a matter of regional hegemony at stake, especially after the collapse of the USSR. The cold warriors had a relatively firm grip on their proxy players in Eurasia, even if things got testy at times. Yeah, we all miss the commies. The Saudis are nervous because the U.S. is headed for alternative energy sources, and they need to make nicey-nice with the West in order to be included in whatever 21st century trade dynamics that emerge. That is after the financial debacle gets straightened out, and it will in 10 or 20 years. Egypt will cow to whatever the U.S. and Israel want - it's in their interest, as will Jordan, Libya, Iraq, and the Gulf states. These regimes are all integrally tied into the global, petroleum-based economy however and they will be increasingly subject to the forces of extremism when the sheikhs and cultish leaders grasp for ways to keep people fed and clothed - and that's why it's crucial to support them and engage them, as unsavory as that is at times.

In any rigorous, healthy political dynamic, even the religious fanatics will have a voice and a strong influence; that's politics as usual. It gets ugly when the kooks are running the show. Look at the U.S. - things get bad around here too, what with cross-burnings and lynchings during Jim Crow, and even the shootings of abortion doctors in the last 20 years. From a certain perspective, the U.S. is a newly emerging democracy. We are just awaking from eight years of a regime that was tacitly, if not at times actively sympathetic to some forms of religious crusading. Even examining Bush in the most sympathetic light reveals arcane American Imperialism which resorts to extreme costs and measures: see Guantanamo and Abu Garaib. Through a certain lens, the war in Iraq can arguably be understood as a born-again Christian, military adventure.

It's up to the rational voices in politics and academia to make certain that extremist ideas which promote utopian visions are exposed for what they are; murderous. Both secular and religious utopias are unworkable. Dr. Yehuda Bauer is a scholar of Holocaust history, and an anti-genocide activist; I have tremendous respect for him. He posits, "utopias kill, and radical utopias kill radically." Bauer cites a variety of cases, from Islamic fascism, to Marxism and National Socialism - the desires and outcomes are consistently the same: to rewrite history from a particular, deistic / philosophical perspective, and to destroy or severely marginalize anyone who is opposed to the tyrannical despotic, utopian vision. Bauer is certainly not pollyanna about it, yet he also contends that radical Islam is NOT mainstream Islam; Wahhabi and extremist forms of Shiah Islam are NOT Islam. He sees mainstream Islam as a civilized and peace-loving creed, and believes that the majority of Muslims and Islamic governments are not interested in world dominance through a new Caliphate. He cautions that moderates must be vigilant, because the threat of radical Islam is very real.

Personally, I'm not sure a two-state solution is still viable, particularly because of the territorial division between Gaza and the West Bank / Samaria. I think if Israel is truly going to call itself an ethical democracy, it needs to contain its own extremist, militant fascistic tendencies, be they religious or secular. I think that is already happening but there are miles to go. It also must come to the reality that it needs a constitution because its judicial system is tenuously strained between the interests of British Common Law, the remnants of Ottoman Law, and the political cries of the Rabbanut who have a grip on matters of personal status. It's a parliamentary system, but it's far from a democracy. I also think there should be serious consideration to a binational Israel / Palestine which allows full voting rights, and a justly enforced rule of law for anyone who wants to live there. There's a whole lot of literature and research on that matter. I wouldn't be surprised if we start hearing calls for a binational solution again in the coming months.

It will never be perfect.