geopolitics

Start of a bumpy ride

A clip from the vintage TV show Golden Girls has been making the rounds recently, in which the adorable dolt Rose Nylund, played by Betty White, champions the idea of solving the Middle East conflict by moving the Palestinians to Greenland.

Fast forward to the 47th president of the United States, who last week stunned the world with a proposal that he take over the Gaza Strip and, apparently viewing the war-ravaged territory as a real estate opportunity, promised to turn it into the “Riviera of the Middle East.”

Trump said Israel would hand over the Gaza Strip to the United States, the two million Palestinians there would be relocated, and the US would then “level the site” before presumably constructing a sort of Levant Vegas. Some have begun referring to the enclave as the MAGA Strip.

Donald Trump is a grifter whose lengthy CV is filled mostly with hucksterism and bankruptcy. In so far as he has intellectual tricks up his sleeve, his modus operandi is to distract his patsies with one hand while snatching their valuables with the other and offering spoils to his sycophantic gaggle of oligarchs.

This is to take nothing away from his skill. He is, it seems, outstanding at grifting. For his audience, however, the current reboot of the Trump show has the potential for less reality TV circus fun than train wreck tragedy.

Having dabbled with daddy’s money in the suburban New York real estate market and a few adventures into higher stakes insolvency – even successfully bankrupting a casino, which seems a feat of special skill – he is now (again) gambling at the highest levels imaginable. Only this time, he is gambling with the lives of Palestinians and Israelis, and possibly with the safety and security of people (including Jews) around the world.

The line between maniac and genius often seems perilously trifling, something we are reminded of not only watching the president, but also his newest billionaire tech bro sidekick (or is that side-president?) Elon Musk. Both share the habit of making wildly impolitic remarks (or gestures) that leave observers arguing over whether they have witnessed a policy balloon, the start of Nazi-style fascism, or some sort of sophomoric trolling. Are they serious, we ask ourselves, or is this another bait-and-switch in which one of them pulls a rabbit out of the hat over here so you don’t see the other one pilfering through pockets over there? More likely, it is both.

In other words, is this bizarre Gazababble a serious proposition? And, if not, what is he trying to distract us from?

Among the eye-popping phenomena we’ve seen in the days since the president’s remarks during his visit with Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu have been the reactions from media and other public figures. The guy is, after all, the president of the United States. Media have to report his ramblings as though they are serious ideas to be weighed against alternative options like, say, not annexing one of the world’s most troubled strips of land and evicting (aka ethnically cleansing) the millions of people who live there, causing upheaval in a region already in turmoil, alongside increasing global hostility and potential for danger for the world’s only Jewish state and the world’s Jews.

Global media have reported Saudi, Jordanian and Egyptian leaders declaring Trump’s idea out-of-bounds which, by their very seriousness in rejecting it, seems to grant it some in-bounds validity.

Democrats in the United States and other observers are still poking through the entrails of last November’s election to understand why Americans rejected Kamala Harris’s mantra about “not going back.” There may be a million reasons why Trump won but high among them is the determination by many voters that they didn’t like the status quo. Trump is a disrupter. Whether you like or dislike disruption is irrelevant – no one, regardless of political persuasion, can deny this fact.

If you subscribe to the definition of insanity as repetition while anticipating a different outcome, the world’s approach to the conflict seems kooky. What we’ve been doing hasn’t brought peace closer but has seemed to push it further away. Peace and coexistence have rarely seemed so remote.

But, while doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome may be the definition of insanity, inverting the equation to its exact opposite does not guarantee success. Disruptive ideas are not in and of themselves dangerous, but what are the disruptive ideas that would bring both Israelis and Palestinians peace, security and dignity?

Clearly, something needs to change and fresh ideas are needed. Those are the ideas we should be considering. It is, presumably, possible to redirect a wayward train onto a different siding without derailing it entirely. How much more true when the disruption impacts millions of people’s lives, destroys communities, and would be a moral stain.

To carry on the metaphor, we are only days into the (presumably) four-year journey on this Trump train. The only thing that seems predictable is that it is going to be a bumpy ride. We must consider what each of us will do to ensure the bumps are not catastrophic.

World political theatre

Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu visited Washington this week, coincidentally in the aftermath of US President Joe Biden’s decision to not seek reelection. There is certainly no shortage of topics on their minds – and there are doubtlessly some unspoken subtexts. Given that one man is now officially in the final months of office and the other seems likewise approaching an end, the significance to each man’s country of a tête-à-tête is inevitably minimized.

This was hardly the only theatre happening in recent days. The Bibi-Biden meeting took place days after the International Court of Justice declared that Israel has perpetrated a “de facto annexation” and is preventing Palestinians from exercising their right to self-determination.

The decision by the World Court, as it is known, is “advisory,” rather than “binding,” which is effectively neither here nor there, since Israel will probably do whatever it chooses anyway. And so it should.

This is not to say the court’s decision is meaningless. But its impacts are not at all what the court or those trumpeting this decision think they are.

To be clear: the court is not wrong. Palestinians are experiencing human rights violations in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. They are being prevented from fulfilling their right to self-determination – for reasons well beyond Israel’s control, though Jewish settlements and other Israeli government decisions make a prospective Palestinian state more difficult to realize.

Two things, though, can be true at the same time. Palestinians are experiencing these violations. But, Israel will, and should, ignore the court’s ruling. The ICJ opinion was a political, rather than a judicial, expression, the culmination of a concerted campaign by some of the most despotic regimes in the world. Israel did not participate in the hearing, choosing not to legitimize the process. The decision deserves to be dismissed.

Likewise, the world should largely ignore a related provocation by Israel’s parliament.

The Knesset last week, for the first time, effectively voted against a two-state solution. The vote, which called the idea of a Palestinian state an “existential danger” to Israel, was every bit as much a political act as the ICJ decision. In fact, they are basically two sides of the same coin. The Knesset vote was a slap (along right-left party lines) against those who would presuppose an independent Palestine in the absence of what would be inevitably long and complex negotiations.

The entire situation is a tragedy. The tragedy of the ICJ decision is, first and foremost, for the United Nations broadly, the World Court specifically and the millions, if not billions, of people worldwide whose legitimate need for human rights and a global voice for justice is diminished by the politicization of the ICJ. It is another nail in the coffin of the United Nations’ legitimacy.

Nawaf Salam, the chief judge who released the decision, is a two-time candidate for prime minister of Lebanon, having run with the imprimatur of the anti-Zionist and antisemitic terror group Hezbollah. His presence in this role is a mere illustration of a toxicity that has permeated some branches of the UN, not least the evidence that employees and leaders of UNWRA, the UN branch responsible for Palestinian refugees, were involved in the atrocities of Oct. 7. All of this is inevitable when a global parliament operating on democratic principles is made up primarily of autocratic member-states.

We must step back, though, and make a defence of the world body. Danny Danon, Israel’s former UN ambassador, who has undeniable Likud bona fides, is both a critic of the UN’s failures and a staunch defender of the necessity of its existence. He knows better than almost any other pro-Israel voice of the good work the UN does on too many fronts to abandon it. The idea of the UN is too important to terminate just because it is, in practice, falling woefully short.

Perhaps the best way to think of all these developments is as theatre. Like Netanyahu’s trip to Washington, the Knesset vote against a Palestinian state, the ICJ decision and all the hoopla around these events are just performances and, as Shakespeare said, all the people merely players. Only when all parties commit to laying the foundations for whatever form peace and coexistence might take, rather than simply making dramatic pronouncements, can substantive, positive change become reality.

Selina Robinson’s full speech – rally for Israeli hostages March 17/24

My friends,

I am sorry that I could not join you in person for safety reasons, but I thank the organizers for sharing a few words on my behalf.

My heart has been with all of you these past five months. I join you in seeking release of the hostages now. I join you in seeking peace – peace for the Palestinians – peace for Israelis – peace for us all.

I am told the theme for this week is resilience and so I have spent the last few days reflecting on my own resilience – as the lone voice in government speaking up for the Jewish community and how difficult it had become while others remained silent. I also focused on how much more difficult it became after I was forced to resign, feeling punished for speaking up about Jew-hatred.

I reflected on where the strength, the koach came from to persist, when it would have been so much easier to be silent, to fade into the background, to go along with the others and to pretend that everything was okay.

So, from where do I draw the strength?

It comes from different places:

A husband outraged that his wife is poorly treated by her colleagues, forced from a role she loves and who now keeps a baseball bat in the bedroom because others are threatening her life.
A son who stopped going to his gym shortly after the massacre on Oct. 7 because the Port Moody gym owner and city councillor decided that putting up a large Palestinian flag in her gym demonstrating to the world that she suddenly cares so deeply about a complex geopolitical conflict thousands of miles away is more important than the hurt this causes friends, colleagues, and customers.
A daughter who now must find significant financial resources to make sure the Jewish children in her care are safe this summer.

My strength has also come from:

The two Jewish professional women who, as a requirement of their jobs, came to hear the Throne Speech at the Legislature in February. They were forced to find a safe route into the building as there were dozens of protesters aggressively calling for a unilateral ceasefire and the destruction of Jews.
The physicians who refuse to train Jew-hating UBC medical students.
The teachers who organize to push back on the Jew-hatred we are seeing in the [BC Teachers’ Federation].
The people working in the public service who are telling their stories of intimidation like being told that their Jewish star necklace is a symbol of genocide.

Resilience for me comes from the countless stories from people who talk about being fearful at work, from Holocaust survivors who say, “It’s happening again.”

Resilience comes from Jewish community leaders and volunteers who are doing everything they can to keep programs running, to push government to do the right thing, to care for their congregants who are scared and worried, and who lead by example.

Resilience comes from the emails and letters from hundreds of people, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, who remind me that even though I felt alone in my caucus and in government, I was not alone. I am not alone. We are not alone. Many were seeing what I was seeing, what we are seeing and are prepared to stand up to Jew-hatred.

Resilience comes from reaching out to others who are hurting too and finding out that they want to help heal our wounds together.

Resilience comes from seeing the Oct. 7 survivors of rape and torture pick up the pieces of their lives. It comes from seeing Israelis gather once again to protest their government. It comes from so many of you who have reached out with words of support, encouragement, and love.

Resilience comes from us gathering our collective strength as we lift each other up and remind ourselves that we are not alone – that together we will find the strength – the strength to bring peace.

A tragedy in progress

(photo from internationalaffairs.org.au)

The interview was a moment of clarity and despondency. A cable news anchor asked an Afghan-Canadian activist what the West should do to save the Afghan people, especially women and girls, from the Taliban.

The hesitation by the interviewee probably conveyed the hopelessness so many feel in direct proportion to their geographic or familial proximity to the crisis. The most powerful, heavily resourced military the world has ever known left Afghanistan this month after almost 20 years. Instantaneously, it seems, all the work of nation-building, developing security capacity and attempting to instil the structures of civil society, evaporated. If that force, backed by other Western powers, including Canada until 2014, could not hold back the tide of the Taliban, what can ordinary Canadians possibly do?

Based on the lessons of history, and the comparatively recent invention of the concept of “responsibility to protect,” the world, by any measure, should be coming to the aid of the Afghan people. But U.S. President Joe Biden is also correct, declaring, “American troops cannot and should not be fighting in a war and dying in a war that Afghan forces are not willing to fight for themselves.” U.S. leaders faced an impossible choice, probably with no possible good outcome.

It is unquestionably inhumane for the world to leave the Afghan people to the whims of tyrants. But the American people, particularly military families, have understandably had enough of “endless wars.” Who will step up to fill that vacuum? The United Nations was created, in part, for precisely this sort of moment but it has been, in many ways, corrupted and deracinated from the humanitarian foundations on which it was created.

If there were an easy solution to this quagmire, you wouldn’t be reading it in the pages of a small Jewish newspaper on the Pacific fringe of the continent. We have little beyond hopes and prayers to offer the Afghan people.

The fall of Kabul almost certainly represents something enormous, although we may not understand yet the full implications.

The beginnings and ends of historical eras are not always visible to those who live through them. Our current era, which began almost exactly 20 years ago, on Sept. 11, 2001, in some respects, came to an end this month with the U.S. pullout from Afghanistan.

Many observers have compared the chaos at Kabul airport with the Saigon airlift in 1975, when America fled, as some put it, with its tail between its legs. Forty-five years later, America remains a force not to be trifled with. But neither is it the undisputed powerhouse it was since the Second World War. Whether it remains a recognized (and feared and respected) superpower – or whether the fall of Kabul is a bookend to the fall of Saigon in the longer fall of America – remains to be seen. Whatever eventuality, America is no doubt diminished.

This comes, not coincidentally, as central Asia and the Middle East roil with instability and the broader troubles of that part of the world will certainly present problems for Israel. But Israel has faced existential threats throughout its history and will most likely adapt to the new reality.

The events of recent weeks will have many consequences we cannot yet foresee. One thing is particularly notable, however. Hamas, who control Gaza, sent a message of congratulations to the Taliban for “defeating” the United States.

With thankfully few exceptions, no one believes the Taliban to be a force for any sort of good. When people who for decades have defended or apologized for Hamas violence against Israel are faced with the realization that Hamas and the Taliban are ideologically adjacent, will that alter the attitudes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

We won’t be holding our breath.

Get involved in election

Canadian elections do not generally pivot on issues of foreign affairs. Yet, the split screen image Sunday of Justin Trudeau calling a federal election juxtaposed with images of the Taliban seizing control of Afghanistan was a stark one. Canada left Afghanistan in 2014, having joined an international coalition after 9/11 to attempt to bring the terrorists who found free rein in that country to heel.

The remaining American forces were slated to leave this month, with U.S. military officials candidly acknowledging that their departure would almost certainly result in a Taliban revival. They were wrong only about the timing. Estimates were that it might take the fundamentalist Islamist sect weeks to take back the country. It took mere days.

The implications for Afghan citizens are bleak. Desperate Afghans were hopelessly clinging to U.S. military aircraft taxiing on the runway at Kabul airport. Afghan women will, based on prior experience under the Taliban, become some of the most oppressed in the world. There are also expectations of violent retaliation against anyone and everyone who, in the past two decades, “collaborated” with Western forces. The possible scenarios for Afghan people are horrible to envision.

And the implications go beyond the borders of that country. Optimists, such as they may be on this subject, say that the 20-year Western engagement in Afghanistan has not been for naught. The United States captured Osama Bin Laden and has not experienced another 9/11-type terror attack in that period, though whether Americans are actually safer, with other forms of domestic extremism and violence on the rise, is another question. Regardless, in a region with so much instability and contending factions, the Afghan situation further disrupts an already deeply troubled part of the world.

We may not immediately see the consequences of what is happening halfway around the world, but already domestic politics are being affected by the developments. Canadian military planes are rescuing interpreters and others who assisted our forces when they were in Afghanistan. There are calls for Canada and other Western places of refuge to accept more refugees from what seems destined to become a theocratic dystopia. But we cannot, apparently, save the entirety of the Afghan people and their country from the grips of their oppressors. Western powers held the Taliban at bay for 20 years but understandable domestic pressures to put a halt to “endless wars” inevitably brought us to this point.

This week’s election call comes amid a conflagration much closer to home as well. British Columbia is seeing wildfires and weather events unlike anything we have witnessed before. The hypothetical impacts of the climate emergency have gotten very, very real for Canadians with any sense of cause and effect. Appropriately, opinion polls suggest that Canadians view climate and the environment as a top – if not the top – issue as they ponder for whom to cast their ballots.

One problem with democracy is that those who seek public approval are disinclined to tell voters things they do not want to hear. Canadians (and other earthlings) need to understand that this crisis demands that our leaders impose potentially painful policies that will impact our emissions-producing lifestyles. We say we need to address the climate emergency, but will we be so enthusiastic when it impacts our own pocketbooks and comfortable routines?

One might imagine that scenes of the province on fire might make voters look seriously, finally, at a political party with the climate as its No. 1 priority. But the Green Party of Canada has been in turmoil since the Israel-Hamas conflict last spring. Annamie Paul, the Jewish, Black leader of the party, has been fighting an internal battle against insurgents in her own ranks. We hope that her voice will be heard and that all parties will take this existential issue with utmost seriousness.

The continuing pandemic will play a role in this campaign as well – both as Canadians assess the achievements of our government during the crisis and, more immediately, in the way candidates and campaigns pursue votes while adhering to safety protocols. The parties should be judged on what kind of COVID recovery plan they propose, and how they intend to follow through on supporting the most vulnerable Canadians through this health, economic and social crisis.

Whatever issues are important to you, this is the time to make your voice heard. Consider reaching out to your local candidates. Discuss your concerns with them. Volunteer for or contribute to their campaign if you like what you hear – consider connecting through the Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee. The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs distils information about various party platforms and policies. Our country and our world face urgent issues. An informed, active electorate is the key to ensuring that our elected officials reflect the concerns that matter most to us.

EU’s split personality

The European Parliament. (photo by Treehill via Wikimedia Commons)

Dr. Sharon Pardo is a member of the department of politics and government at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and the director of the Centre for the Study of European Politics and Society. He has been awarded the Ad personam Jean Monnet Chair – and was the first Israeli scholar to receive it. He also was elected to join the advisory council of Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, a think tank funded by the German government, another singular accomplishment for an Israeli scholar. Pardo was in Vancouver last month, where he gave a lecture at the Jewish Community Centre of Greater Vancouver.

A major theme of Pardo’s research is the disjunction between the public stance the European Union has taken on Israeli policies – its “normative position” – and the economic and trade relationships between individual member countries and Israel. Contrary to the common perception that the EU is anti-Israel, Pardo argues that the reality is much more complicated.

“The truth is that trade relations proceed with no regard to the normative position,” explained Pardo to the Jewish Independent in an interview at the Fairmont Hotel Vancouver on Aug. 21. “That is, in fact, the very thing that allows the EU to speak with one voice – the fact that individual member countries know that their own trade relations with Israel will not be affected by the normative position of the EU.”

The professor explained that there are two different voices, “the normative voice on the supranational level and the economic voice on the trade-relations level, on the realpolitik level of the individual member countries. We could say that Europe has a split personality.”

photo - Dr. Sharon Pardo of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev spoke in Vancouver in August — Dr. Sharon Pardo of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev spoke in Vancouver in August. (photo by Dani Machlis, BGU)

The facts on the ground are that Israel and the EU have such extensive relations that, for most practical purposes, Israel is already a member of the EU, said Pardo. EU members have well-developed trade relations with Israel, and the EU and its members fund research and development and other initiatives in Israel. The EU accounts for 35% of Israeli trade, said Pardo, and perhaps 41% of Israelis are would-be citizens of the EU.

Pardo contends that the critical position of the EU towards Israel on issues related to the occupation and Israel’s wars are not intended for external consumption at all, but are actually directed inwards as a means to establish an integrated European identity.

“These normative positions are being used to shape the new European identity through asserting shared values,” he said. “They are for internal consumption. The EU has striven to unite 508 million citizens around a set of values – the rule of law, human rights, etc. – which are perceived as European values. Since 1957, Europe has been asking the question, ‘Who are we? How do we define ourselves?’ One way to define ourselves is against the other. Israel is the ultimate other: Israel is part of us, but Israel is what we are not.”

Citing as an example of the emptiness of many of the EU’s statements, Pardo pointed to the 2012 EU guidelines for the territories occupied by Israel.

“We call these ‘guidelines for nothing,’” said the professor. “There are a total of five research institutions in the territories, none of them were ever supported by the EU. There was one institution, Ahava, a private project which received some funding. The reason it is so easy for the EU to author those guidelines is that there is no trade there. A total of 0.6% of Israeli trade with the EU comes from the territories.”

As an expert on the EU, Pardo can also speak to Brexit. He calls it “an accident, both at the U.K. and EU levels. Brexit was not meant to issue in a real British exit,” he said. “Little Britain surprised David Cameron – the amount of euro-skepticism was underestimated.”

Pardo worries that there will be dire consequences for Britain, and potential negative fallout for Israel as well.

“This is going to be a nightmare for the British economy and the city of London,” he said. “The EU has no choice but to crush the city of London because it will be unregulated in its competition against other European capitals. The EU cannot offer them a good deal – they can only be offered the worst deal possible, and they will be offered the worst deal possible. Theresa May is stuck with this strange decision, which is a result of PR companies manipulating the British public. Just imagine having now having to negotiate 192 new trade agreements with the rest of the world!”

While Pardo is optimistic about the relationship between Israel and the Jewish people and the British leadership, he is concerned about the effects of Brexit on Israel as a country.

“David Cameron was one of the friendliest European leaders to Israel, and Theresa May will also be friendly. She has been a friend to the Jewish people and an enemy of antisemitism,” he said.

But, he added, “Brexit can weaken the European integration project and have major implications for Israel.”

Pardo said it is essential for Israel to adopt a more explicit “grand strategy” with regards to the EU.

“Israel needs the EU,” he said, “and we need to be clearer about what we want from our relationship and how we plan to conduct it. We will not serve our own interests with the kind of anti-EU rhetoric that some Israeli politicians employ simply to get votes from an Israeli public that resents the normative positions of the EU.”

Matthew Gindin is a Vancouver freelance writer and journalist. He blogs on spirituality and social justice at seeking her voice (hashkata.com) and has been published in the Forward, Tikkun, Elephant Journal and elsewhere.