Tag: Israeli-Palestinian conflict

America’s military withdrawal from the Muslim world is inevitable

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorized5 Comments on America’s military withdrawal from the Muslim world is inevitable

Author’s note: I wrote most of this article over a year ago but have been unable to publish it until now. Instead of updating it, I decided to publish it as is because developments over the past year merely support my conclusions. For example, as discussed below, a year ago America’s debt was $20 trillion. It has now climbed to $28 trillion. Similarly, America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan and its refusal to get involved in the latest round of fighting between Israelis and Palestinians both support my central argument: America’s military withdrawal from the Muslim world is inevitable. If I were a betting man, I would wager that America’s military presence throughout the Middle East and North Africa will be a shell of what it is today 15-30 years from now:

INTRODUCTION

Due to a combination of political and economic factors as well as its shifting national security priorities, the US will eventually withdraw its military from the Muslim world. It is not a question of whether America will withdraw its forces, but of when and how. Economically, the financial shocks of the COVID-19 Pandemic combined with the high levels of debt held by the US government and America’s diminished manufacturing capacity will necessitate a sharp reduction in US government spending. Politically, America’s right wing wishes to withdraw from the Muslim world due to its isolationist and nationalist views while its left wing favors a withdrawal due to its anti-imperialist views. They may disagree on why and how, but neither end of America’s political spectrum wants to keep troops in the Muslim world. Finally, America’s military deployments to the Muslim world are no longer supported by pressing national security interests. The combined effect of these factors will inevitably lead to a withdrawal of American troops from this part of the world.

The United States has become the dominant military power in the Middle East and throughout much of the Islamic world. It currently has troops stationed in several Muslim countries such as Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Oman, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. Its naval forces control the Persian Gulf and its allies in Israel and NATO control the Mediterranean. It is the main arms supplier to many Muslim nations such as Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, and the UAE which gives the US significant leverage over these militaries while its allies in Europe supply weapons to many other Muslim states such as Morocco and Algeria. It also regularly conducts military operations and drone strikes throughout Africa as well as Yemen. Iran is the only Muslim country that actively refuses to accept this situation and, as a result, is subject to brutal economic sanctions and clandestine military operations. In other words, the United States and its allies have effective military control over a substantial portion of the Muslim world. The problem is that America’s robust military presence comes with a steep price tag that is becoming increasingly unaffordable[i].

In addition to the $6 trillion cost of America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the constant deployment of troops to the Muslim world has forced its military planners to fund and arm a military that is much larger than would otherwise be needed. These extra funding requirements have been a feature of US defense budgets for decades. Even the official budgets for America’s military underestimate the true cost of its military spending because they do not include all the funds spent on nuclear weapons or intelligence activities[ii]. Although it is difficult to gauge how much of America’s military spending is tied directly to the Muslim world, given its extensive military infrastructure in this part of the world, the long duration of its presence, and large number of troops involved, it is reasonable to assume the true amount significantly exceeds the $6 trillion spent in Iraq and Afghanistan the past two decades.

WHY AMERICA HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO WITHDRAW FROM THE MUSLIM WORLD

ECONOMIC FACTORS:

America’s withdrawal will primarily be driven by its finances. The COVID-19 Pandemic has brought the unhealthy debt levels of the US government into focus once again; however, America’s debt has loomed over it for years. Rather than making the tough compromises necessary to devise balanced budgets, America’s leaders have resolved the age-old debate of guns versus butter by liberally borrowing money to ensure they lacked neither. At the same time, America’s business and political leaders have entered into trade agreements that resulted in severe reductions to its manufacturing capacity. The result has been skyrocketing levels of debt and unsustainable trade imbalances. The staggering amount of resources America pours into its military combined with the significant reductions to its manufacturing base[iii] have drained its economy and, together, pose one of the biggest threats to its continuing prosperity.[iv] At its height, American power was largely derived from its economic, political, and cultural dominance as well as its ability to apply overwhelming military force, as it did in WWI and WWII. Since the end of the Cold War, the US has reacted to its greater freedom of action as the sole remaining superpower by increasingly relying on military power to achieve foreign policy goals. This sustained dependence on military power combined with the gradual dismantling of America’s manufacturing base has diminished its older and more important power centers of their vitality, decreasing the real basis of American power. Over the long run, the continued reliance on military power that is no longer supported by a strong manufacturing base has placed a heavy burden on resources. It has also led to a disconnect between perceptions of American power by its policymaking elites versus the realities and limits of this power.

As a result of America’s weakened financial position, its policymakers must re-prioritize how its military resources are used. Calling for deep cuts to spending may strike some as overly alarmist given the economic growth the US experienced prior to the COVID-19 outbreak. But America’s strong economic growth since the end of the Great Recession has diverted attention from the fact that its massive military spending, particularly since 9/11, has seriously undermined its fiscal position since this spending was only made possible through deficit financing. As the debt burden from this spending grows, it will limit the ability of the US government to meet its spending obligations. As a result, US policymakers must confront serious decisions regarding how to use America’s resources before their policy options become substantially more constrained. American policymakers face two choices. They can proactively adjust their foreign policy goals and military commitments to manage the changes its weak finances require, or they can wait until its debt is so burdensome that they will have no choice but to drastically cut military spending. The former option provides some ability to manage this transition, the latter does not.

POLITICAL FACTORS

In addition to its financial concerns, political trends within the US will also compel a withdrawal from the Muslim world. The increasing prevalence of arguments that favor withdrawing troops from the Muslim world, regardless of the potential impact on the region, show that many segments of American society have no desire to maintain its presence in the region. For example, when discussing the Middle East, Doug Bandow suggests “Washington should accept instability in the region[v]” as part of its efforts to reduce troop levels. These sentiments illustrate that Americans are tired of their military involvement in the Muslim world. America’s right wing sees its involvement as an unnecessary waste of resources that would be better spent in the US. America’s left sees its involvement as immoral and a continuation of ineffective neo-colonial policies. As such, both left and right favor withdrawing American forces from the Muslim world. In fact, this may be one of the few topics that America’s divided political factions agree on. These political trends are a result of growing dissatisfaction with America’s policies and will add pressure to withdraw troops from the region.

THE MUSLIM WORLD IS NO LONGER A NATIONAL SECURITY PRIORITY

Troop levels in the Muslim world are no longer supported by pressing national security interests. US policies in the Middle East have largely been shaped by the confluence of interests of the defense industry, energy industry, Israel, and the dictators that rule much of the region. Together, these groups have prevented the rise of a Muslim hegemon capable of taking over America’s security responsibilities. Instead, they have pushed the US to become the primary hegemonic power in the region by arguing that 1) increased military spending and arms sales to foreign countries are healthy for the US economy 2) American military forces were necessary to ensure the US had access to energy supplies 3) American troops were necessary to protect Israel and 4) American troops were necessary to provide stability by providing security guarantees to many of the governments of the region. These reasons do not make sense. Because of policies meant to appease these interest groups, the US has spent trillions of dollars and much political and moral capital in pursuit of policies that are too expensive and counter to its long-term interests. The influence of these groups has led to policies that have allowed them to make hundreds of billions of dollars but at a cost of trillions of dollars to American taxpayers. Since each of the interest groups primarily responsible for the development of US policy acts according to its own logic, it will be necessary to analyze them individually.

THE NEED TO SUPPORT THE DEFENSE INDUSTRY

After entering WWII, the United States converted its massive civilian manufacturing base into one that could supply its military with the weapons and supplies needed to defeat the Axis powers anywhere in the world. The ability to harness its extraordinary industrial capabilities for military use propelled it towards victory but also laid the seeds for many of the problems confronting it today. The creation of an industrial complex geared exclusively towards military production created companies with a vested interest in continued military spending and the political and financial means to influence US government policy to ensure high levels of military spending. The defense industry has therefore benefited from US policies in the Muslim world by filling the larger orders for weapons and supplies that were necessary to maintain America’s presence in the region and by supplying weapons to the governments of the Muslim world allied to it.

High levels of military spending have typically been justified on the basis that this spending, even if high in absolute terms, is relatively small as a proportion of US GDP and that such spending boosts both manufacturing and scientific research within the US. Though there is merit to these arguments, these policy justifications are no longer sufficient to support high levels of military spending due to the large debt the US has accrued. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the US government’s debt will reach $20.3 trillion by the end of 2020[vi]. These figures will increase as further stimulus packages to fight the COVID-19 Pandemic are approved and tax revenue shrinks due to reduced economic activity. In light of the rapidly increasing debt held by the US, arguments that justify high levels of military spending or debt by highlighting their relationship to overall GDP levels are no longer persuasive because they ignore the reality of America’s worsening finances. Instead of relying on distorted statistics that argue high levels of debt and military spending are acceptable, as a matter of common sense, it should be obvious that continuing to add to an already bloated deficit will only make repairing America’s financial strength more difficult. As such, even if military spending continues to hover around 3% of GDP (a level some argue is affordable), this spending must be considered too high if it is paid for by more deficit financing when the debt will soon pass $20 trillion! Even if the US has the capacity to borrow more, doing so must be tied to pressing economic needs such as dealing with the COVID-19 Pandemic, not unnecessary military spending.

Again, it is difficult to gauge the percentage of US military spending directly attributable to the Muslim world, but it is much easier to track weapons sales by US companies to foreign nations. The US has consistently been the biggest exporter of weapons to the world and many of its sales have been directed towards governments in the Muslim world. Saudi Arabia is one of the biggest consumers of US weapons, accounting for a fifth of total US weapons sales for the five-year period ending in 2017. Half of America’s weapons sales during this period went to customers in the Middle East or North Africa[vii]. Weapons sales to Islamic nations are justified on the basis that they are necessary to support America’s allies and contribute to economic development.

The problem with this reasoning is that the allies in question are exceptionally incompetent when it comes to engaging in modern warfare[viii]. As a result, selling weapons to these nations does not make them more secure or better able to resist attack from another nation. As the Arab Spring showed, these weapons are primarily meant for use against the people that have been forced to obey the region’s many dictators. Weapons sales to these dictators adds to the instability of the Muslim world by providing its despots with the means to intimidate and murder their people. Supporting these dictators contributes to instability in the region by propping up rulers who cannot adequately protect their nations, reside over extremely weak political and economic institutions, and can only govern based on fear and violence. Though these sales may subsidize the costs of America’s military infrastructure, the long-term moral and political cost is too high to justify the economic gains. Instead of selling weapons to the dictators of the Muslim world, the US must develop policies that can allow it to disentangle itself from the region by focusing on trade that does not involve weapons used by rulers to murder their own people. Aside from the fact that profiting from the pain and suffering of others is morally and ethically disgusting, it also creates a reinforcing loop that forces the US to maintain its military presence in the region. Despite their massive weapons purchases, the region’s dictators are not strong enough to retain power without American support. America’s military presence and weapons sales to the region only reinforces its instability by supporting the dictators that are the primary cause of this instability.

ACCESS TO ENERGY SUPPLIES

The primary justification behind US policies towards the Islamic world has always been the need to secure access to energy supplies. This justification is not valid for two reasons.

The first is that the Muslim world is incentivized to sell its mineral resources to the West because of the laws of supply and demand. Most energy exporting Muslim countries have been unable to diversify their economies away from their dependence on selling oil and gas. As such, they rely on this revenue to pay for the government services they provide, and do not have the domestic demand necessary to consume their own supplies. As a result, Muslims are just as eager to sell oil to the US as the US is to buy it. The Arabs have only used their oil as a weapon once and the effect of their boycott was just as traumatic to their economies as it was to Western economies. Consequently, they have never used oil as a weapon again. Withdrawing American troops would not affect the ability of the US to import as much oil has it needs for its own consumption. Arguments that rationalize the use of military assets to secure access to these resources or that justify support for dictators on the basis that they can guarantee timely oil deliveries are not persuasive because they ignore the basic laws of economics that should govern such transactions. They also ignore the simple fact that a weak, authoritarian government will be just as incentivized to sell oil as a strong, democratic one.

The second reason the US does not need to maintain its military presence is that it is no longer as dependent on Middle Eastern energy supplies. The US has developed its own domestic energy production capabilities and diversified its oil suppliers away from Muslim producers to such a degree that in 2019 only 11% of its crude oil imports came from the Persian Gulf[ix]. In fact, over half of US crude oil imports now come from Canada and Mexico. The increased ability of the US to satisfy its energy needs through domestic production and diversified suppliers means that it no longer needs to waste military resources securing these energy supplies.

THE NEED TO PROTECT ISRAEL

Part of the reason the US has sought to prevent the rise of an Islamic hegemon is to ensure no power can threaten Israel. The logic underlying this policy does not hold up to scrutiny for two reasons. The first is that Israel has developed a sophisticated nuclear triad that would deter even a powerful Muslim nation. It is Israel’s nuclear capabilities, not American support, that act as the ultimate guarantor of its survival and independence. As such, US efforts to ensure no Islamic nation or political entity can develop enough power to threaten Israel are an unnecessary waste of resources. The second is that the lack of a Muslim hegemonic power has removed any pressure on Israel to compromise with the Palestinians under its control. Israel’s right wing may see this as a victory, but it will eventually turn into a pyrrhic one because it will either lead to the inclusion of millions of Palestinians into Israel as equal citizens (a result many Israelis do not want) or it will lead to the creation of a new Apartheid regime in the Middle East. Israel’s right seem intent on creating the latter scenario even though doing so will turn it and its supporters in the US into international pariahs and ensure that it remains involved in low level conflict in perpetuity.

Israel has overwhelmingly won its conflict with the Palestinians and its Arab neighbors. There is almost no prospect for the creation of a viable Palestinian state because Israel has resoundingly defeated the Palestinians politically and militarily. The last vestige of meaningful Palestinian resistance offered by Hamas cannot match Israel’s military capabilities. Its policy of continued resistance plays directly into the hands of right-wing Israelis who seem intent on creating small cantons of weak and divided Palestinians like the homelands created by the Apartheid regime in South Africa. Israelis have managed to create a state that has allowed its Jewish citizens to prosper while maintaining military control over millions of Palestinians who have been denied their basic rights while having to endure decades of military occupation. Despite their long running conflict, the Palestinians are still fragmented and weak and have been unable to develop military capabilities that could force Israel to change its policies. The political and diplomatic influence of the United States has neutralized attempts to gain international support and the political dynamics within the Middle East have deprived them of support from the surrounding Arab states. The result has been Israel’s complete subjugation and/or neutralization of the Palestinians living under its control or in surrounding territories. This victory may turn to defeat in the long run because it is so complete that it has incentivized Israel’s right-wing government to pursue policies that will allow this conflict to fester with no end in sight. Without a meaningful political solution that addresses the legitimate concerns of the Palestinians, Israel will be involved in low level conflict against an opponent that cannot defeat it but will have no incentive to stop fighting it either.

As explained above, a Muslim hegemonic power would not threaten the existence of Israel due to its formidable nuclear arsenal. It would; however, limit the ability of Israelis to attack, either overtly or clandestinely, its neighbors and it would force Israel to treat its Arab citizens with dignity and justice. Aside from not being contrary to American interests, such an outcome would greatly help them by finally creating the conditions that could lead to sustainable peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Israel has taken advantage of the lack of a Muslim hegemonic power to grind Palestinian opposition into the dirt and, in doing so, has ensured the region will suffer from low level violence and instability for the foreseeable future. Its complete and total military victory has empowered it to refuse even the smallest compromises with the Palestinians and has created a situation with no end in sight that necessitates continued American involvement in the region.

INFLUENCE OF RULERS WITHIN THE MUSLIM WORLD  

Many of the Muslim world’s governments expend a tremendous amount of resources in order to secure American support for their rule. For example, Saudi Arabia is estimated to have spent $60 million since 2016 to retain lobbyists, public relations firms, and fund think tanks[x] to maintain American support. This influence has ensured that criticism of Saudi Arabia’s brutal war in Yemen, abysmal human rights record, and financial support for extremist Muslims does not lead to a withdrawal of US support. In fact, the US has actively helped Saudi Arabia prosecute its war in Yemen despite the catastrophic effects on Yemen’s civilian population[xi]. Though considered the most proficient, the Saudi government is not the only authoritarian Muslim government to take advantage of America’s lobbying and PR firms. Nations such as Egypt,[xii] the UAE, and Qatar[xiii] also spend millions of dollars to make sure that America supports their interests.

This is problematic because the interests of these governments are often counter to the interests of the US. While arms sales to these nations may support economic activity within the US, their destabilizing effect also forces the US to maintain its costly military presence in the region. The Islamic world’s dictators and despots are the primary cause of its instability and weakness because of the inherently weak and violent nature of authoritarian and autocratic political institutions. These institutions have concentrated political and economic power in the hands of small groups of elites throughout the Muslim world that do not respect human rights, the rule of law, or freedom of expression. They use the machinery of the state to maintain their control and inflict violence on any citizens who oppose their rule even if that opposition is peaceful in nature. The rule of these elites has prevented Muslim nations from providing the government services necessary to support dynamic economies. It has also fueled the growth of extremist non-state actors that have reacted to the oppression and blatant theft of their governments by articulating violent ideologies that have plunged many Muslim nations into a state of chaos and anarchy which has, in turn, driven millions of Muslim refugees out of their homelands. American support for these rulers helps to keep the political institutions responsible for the Muslim world’s weakness in place and this weakness has directly led to the US military presence in the region. As such, it is in the long-term interests of the US to support the creation of democratic institutions in the Muslim world that can finally stabilize the region.

Some have looked at the actions of the US and seen a conspiracy to keep Muslims weak. The most likely explanation for America’s actions is much more mundane. The sad truth is that America’s politicians are for sale due to its corrupt (though technically legal) political system that incentivizes short term thinking focused on election cycles and obtaining the funds necessary to effectively contest these elections. The interest groups discussed above have manipulated America’s legislative process by exploiting these weaknesses to their own advantage. America’s policies towards the Muslim world are therefore best explained as resulting from the undue legislative influence of groups that have prioritized their own narrow self-interests over the long-term strategic interests of the US or the human suffering their actions cause. These groups have used their control of the legislative process to secure access to resources in a way that has subverted many of America’s basic ideals and principles and resulted in policies that are counterproductive and unsustainable. However, the arguments of those advocating for a continued American presence in the region can no longer outweigh the urgent need to fix America’s finances, the fact that so many Americans simply do not want to maintain its presence in the region, or the fact that most of the arguments used to rationalize current troop levels are not tied to national security needs.

Given these economic, political, and national security dynamics, the only real question is how and when America will withdraw its troops. Despite agreeing on the need to withdraw, the differing perspectives of its political factions will likely lead to conflict regarding the manner of America’s withdrawal. As such, while America’s withdrawal may be inevitable, the nature and timing of this withdrawal is uncertain. If the US does not adequately plan for and manage its withdrawal from the Islamic world, the results could be dire. Instead of following the same path they followed in Afghanistan, US policymakers must make an objective and realistic assessment of their policy options given the looming reduction in financial resources. They must stop engaging in the same arrogant behavior that prevented them from acknowledging the reality of their position in Afghanistan for so long. Turkey, Iran and Pakistan have already reacted to America’s inconsistent policies and hostility by developing close relationships with China. This is a foreshadow of what will happen if the US abandons the region without a plan in place.

CONCLUSION

The US must realize that due to its weakened finances and increasingly isolationist political trends, it can no longer continue as the dominant military power in the Muslim world. As such, it needs to develop and implement policies that will incentivize the creation of inclusive and pluralistic political and economic institutions and it needs to develop meaningful alliance relationships with these countries based on mutual respect rather than the traditional neo-colonial dynamic. The fundamentally imperial perspective of US policy makers must change; instead, they must treat the governments of the Islamic world as equal partners rather than clients to be bullied or cajoled. This will only be possible once these governments are run by competent officials that have been placed in power through the result of free, fair, and transparent democratic processes.     

America’s reluctance to protect Saudi oil facilities from Iran as well as its desire to withdraw from Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan indicates its withdrawal is already under way. To better manage these changes, policies need to be clearly explained and agreed upon. Currently, America’s policies are a mix of hawkish rhetoric and haphazard military deployments that are not part of a clear strategy. America’s military leaders have explained their reduced commitment to the Middle East by referencing the need to focus on China but have yet to develop a new strategy that accounts for its lower importance and the smaller budgets likely to characterize military spending in the future. Instead, America’s military elite and their political and business allies have historically fought against serious cuts to military spending even as its debt was growing exponentially[xiv]. Given America’s high debt levels, massive military spending, the political infeasibility of raising taxes, and the refusal of its military and industrial elites to drastically reduce military spending, its long-term economic outlook was extremely precarious before the COVID-19 outbreak and is now particularly bleak. This is compounded by the fact that the aforementioned economic recovery was largely based on monetary manipulation (printing money, a.k.a., quantitative easing, borrowing money, and artificially keeping interest rates low to incentivize more borrowing) rather than strengthening America’s manufacturing base and overall fiscal position.

These pressing economic concerns combined with the growing belief among Americans across the political spectrum that American troops have no business in the Muslim world and its changing national security priorities will force it to withdraw from the Muslim world. The need to re-allocate resources to the Pacific, America’s energy independence, Israel’s dominant military capabilities, and the seemingly permanent instability of its Arab allies will outweigh the arguments traditionally used to justify its presence in the Islamic world. Having discussed the many factors that will lead to an American withdrawal from the Muslim world, the next step is to discuss the potential impact on the Muslim world and how Muslim nations should react to the coming changes. This discussion is available here.

[i] Bandow, Doug, “Want to Fix the Deficit? Bring Home the Troops,” Foreignpolicy.com, May 28, 2020,  https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/05/28/us-deficit-military-spending-budget-bring-home-troops/.

[ii] O’Hanlon, Michael, “Dollars at work: What defense spending means for the US economy.” Brookings Institute, Aug. 19, 2015, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2015/08/19/dollars-at-work-what-defense-spending-means-for-the-u-s-economy/.

[iii] “Manufacturing is now Smallest Share of US economy in 72 years,” Bloomberg, Oct. 29, 2019, https://www.industryweek.com/the-economy/article/22028495/manufacturing-is-now-smallest-share-of-us-economy-in-72-years.

[iv] This sentiment is partially shared by former Secretary of Defense James Mattis and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen who also see America’s debt as a threat to its national security. See: Kazda, Adam, “Military Spending: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly,” Pursuit, June 19, 2018, https://www.ourpursuit.com/military-spending-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/.

[v] Bandow, Doug, “Want to Fix the Deficit? Bring Home the Troops,” Foreignpolicy.com, May 28, 2020,  https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/05/28/us-deficit-military-spending-budget-bring-home-troops/

[vi] ”The National Debt Explained,” Investopedia, accessed October 9, 2020, https://www.investopedia.com/updates/usa-national-debt/.

[vii] Ivanova, Irina, “Saudi Arabia is America’s No. 1 weapons customer.” CBSNEWS.com, October 12, 2018, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/saudi-arabia-is-the-top-buyer-of-u-s-weapons/.

[viii] For a more detailed discussion of the performance of various Arab militaries since WWII see: Pollack, Kenneth, Armies of Sand, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019).

[ix] “How much petroleum does the United Sates import and export?” U.S. Energy Information Administration, accessed on Oct. 9, 2020, https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=727&t=6  and “US energy facts explained,” U.S. Energy Information Administration, accessed on Oct. 9 2020, https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/.

[x] Meyer, Theodoric and Woellert, Lorraine and Levine, Marrianne, “Diplomatic crisis spotlights Saudi Arabia’s spending in Washington.” Politico, Oct. 16, 2018, https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/16/saudi-arabia-spending-washington-909882. Massoglia, Anna, “Saudi Arabia ramped up multi-million foreign influence operation after Khashoggi’s death.” Opensecrets.org, Oct. 2, 1019, https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/10/saudi-arabia-ramped-up-foreign-influence-after-khashoggi/.

[xi] Bazzi, Mohamad, “The United States Could End the War in Yemen if it Wanted to,” The Atlantic, Sept. 30 2018, https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/09/iran-yemen-saudi-arabia/571465/

[xii] Schapiro, Avi, “Egypt’s Best Friends in D.C,” The Atlantic, July 8, 2017,

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/07/egypt-lobbying-sisi-trump-muslim-brotherhood/532227/

[xiii] Lardner, Richard, “Qatar, UAE spend heavily on lobbyists amid a war of words,” AP news, March 30, 2018,

https://apnews.com/b2d5003280e343a88985d784e9060586/Qatar,-UAE-spend-heavily-on-lobbyists-amid-a-war-of-words

[xiv] Kazda, Adam, ”Military Spending: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly,“ Pursuit, June 19, 2018 https://www.ourpursuit.com/military-spending-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/.

Tagged : / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

Muslims are still too weak and divided to help the Palestinians

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorized3 Comments on Muslims are still too weak and divided to help the Palestinians

The latest round of violence in Gaza galvanized the Muslim world yet again. Demonstrations and social media campaigns in support of Palestine highlighted the deep feelings of sympathy many Muslims have for its long-suffering people. As encouraging as it was to see so many show their support for the Palestinian people, these expressions of empathy and rage will ultimately lead to nothing.

That is because of one inescapable fact: Muslims are still too weak and divided to effectively confront Israel and its key ally, the United States. Iran is one of the few Muslim nations to actively oppose the neo-colonial power structures imposed upon the region by the West and, in return, it has been isolated and subject to brutal sanctions and clandestine military attacks. Until Muslim nations develop the military capacity to deter Israeli and American aggression, they will always be vulnerable to the type of violence that consumed Gaza.

The reasons for the Islamic world’s sustained weakness are too varied and nuanced to adequately address here. Suffice it to say, the prevalence of authoritarian political and social institutions throughout the region have choked off intellectual, political, and economic development in a way that has made it impossible for Muslim nations to develop the military capabilities required to protect themselves. As the always insightful Pervez Hoodbhoy points out in a recent editorial, the Muslim world’s lack of intellectual freedom and investment in education have left it unable to develop the means to counter Western aggression. He is absolutely right. Until the Muslim world revitalizes its intellectual climate, it will never be able to develop the technological base required to free itself from the domination of outside powers.

Compounding the problem is that Muslims refuse to work together. The Arabs are so scared of their Persian neighbors they are willing to work with Israel to weaken them. The Turkish people have finally begun to pivot back to the Muslim world, but their pan-Islamic vision is undermined by their oppression of the Kurds. Pakistan’s generals are so dependent on financial subsidies from their Arab patrons that they refuse to develop meaningful ties with Iran. These divisions play directly into the hands of the men that bombed Gaza and those that empower them. As Mr. Hoodbhoy correctly points out, unity by itself will not be enough. But working towards unification is just one of many changes that Muslims must make if they genuinely wish to change the power dynamics of the current global system in their favor.

The simple fact is that there is no Muslim nation large and powerful enough by itself to challenge the great powers of the world. That is because there is no Muslim nation with the size and resources of the US, China, Russia, or a united Europe. The only way that Muslims will ever end the atrocities in Palestine (or Kashmir, or Xinjiang, or Chechnya, or Burma) is by learning to work together.

The problem is that its authoritarian political institutions make working together impossible because they make it impossible to build the sort of inclusive and open political institutions required for such cooperation. The Muslim world is so large that the only way it will ever come together is by creating inclusive and democratic political institutions that can allow its diverse people to work together for their mutual betterment and protection. As such, the region’s lack of democracy not only limits its intellectual environment, economic strength, and stability but also its ability to bring Muslims together.

If Muslims are serious about helping the Palestinians (or the many other Muslim communities subject to conquest and oppression all over the world) then they must begin to institute deep rooted political and legal reforms to create democratic political institutions and stimulate the sort of intellectual growth necessary to end the dominance of the great powers. Such reforms will be key to supporting economic and technological development which are necessary precursors to acquiring advanced military capabilities.

They must also learn to work together. However, rather than indulge in fantasies about re-creating the Caliphate, ideas that can allow Muslims to work together must be based on a realistic assessment of the political and strategic environment facing the Muslim world today. Sadly, an honest assessment will quickly rule out the Arab, African, and Central Asian Muslim states. Their authoritarian political systems are so entrenched that expecting them to voluntarily reform themselves is not a realistic goal. The only Muslim nations with the right combination of strategic incentives, institutions, and geography that could convince their elites to come together are Pakistan, Turkey, Iran, and Afghanistan.

All four need to undergo serious reforms as well but three out of four are locked in existential conflicts that should incentivize their elites to at least consider such ideas. Though Turkey does not face the same strategic concerns as Iran, Pakistan, or Afghanistan, its elites should also be receptive to such ideas because they are the only way Turkey will ever be able to fully realize its pan-Islamic foreign policy goals.

Of course, the key to convincing these elites to adopt such ideas will be appealing to their pocketbooks. Consequently, the best way to build a sustainable alliance between these four nations is to start by building stronger economic ties and infrastructure that can allow for the free flow of goods, people, and ideas throughout them. The Muslim world divided itself politically long ago but was historically linked through interconnected layers of religious, trade, and political networks. The European conquest of the Muslim world destroyed these connections and today’s rulers have refused to rebuild them out of fear that doing so will threaten their grip on power. It is time for Muslims to rebuild these links so that their interests begin to align in a manner that can eventually lead to greater political and military cooperation.

Some may find calls for Islamic unity to be antiquated and even cliched, but the devastation being wrought upon so many parts of the Muslim world shows that the need for unity has never been greater. The civilizational based theory of international competition articulated by Samuel Huntington is becoming more of a reality every day as a multi-polar world largely centered on the world’s great civilizational blocks emerges. As this new international order takes shape, the Islamic world will continue to be a source of instability that will invite further conflict until its nations take the steps necessary to finally end their protracted weakness. Unity among Muslims will not be a panacea that will cure all the Muslim world’s problems, but it would certainly be a step in the right direction.

Tagged : / / / / / / / / / / /

Non-violent resistance is the best chance the Palestinians have left

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorized5 Comments on Non-violent resistance is the best chance the Palestinians have left

On April 13, 1919 British General Reginald Dyer ordered his troops to open fire on a crowd of unarmed Indians in the city of Amritsar. They murdered 379 men, women, and children that day. Despite the inevitable calls for revenge, Mahatma Gandhi worked tirelessly to convince his countrymen that non-violent resistance was still their best chance for freedom. It took nearly thirty years and countless more deaths, beatings, and unjust imprisonments, but Gandhi’s tactics eventually freed the Subcontinent from the evils of imperialism. Martin Luther King borrowed many of Gandhi’s ideas to finally free African Americans from the evils of segregation. Though primarily grounded in value systems that abhorred violence, the choices Gandhi and King made were also a reflection of the fact that they were outgunned by men who had no problem murdering women and children. Non-violence was not just a moral choice, but a necessity born of weakness.

The parallels between these examples and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be painfully obvious. The latest fighting claimed the lives of over 250 Palestinians compared to just 12 Israelis. While some may find it crude to compare casualty figures, the huge disparity in these numbers highlights the power differential between both groups and is consistent with numbers from previous conflicts as well. For example, in 2014 Israel killed over 2,100 Palestinians while suffering only 73 fatalities. The lopsided casualties suffered by the Palestinians is based on their inability to match Israel’s military capabilities. They do not have the heavy weapons required to challenge the IDF in a conventional fight and have proven incapable of developing effective guerilla tactics that can do so either. From a military perspective, the Palestinians are incredibly weak while Israelis are incredibly strong.

One of the few American media personalities to correctly diagnose this state of affairs is comedian Trevor Noah who poignantly highlighted on his Daily Show that the Palestinians simply do not have the military ability to protect themselves. Hamas’ ability to attack Israel with rockets may grab headlines but homemade rockets are not going to significantly change the balance of power in this conflict as long as Israel has all the tanks and warplanes. Consequently, the only real path to peace and dignity for the Palestinian people lays in civil disobedience and non-violent resistance aimed at dismantling the Apartheid state most of them have been forced to live in since 1967. Given the serious military imbalance between the parties, this is the only chance for the Palestinians to secure their rights. It also represents their best chance to use the political momentum and sympathy generated from the latest violence to their advantage.

For the most part, the latest round of fighting was depressingly similar to previous bouts of violence that always seem to feature massive Israeli bombardments and disproportionate Palestinian casualties. However, there was one crucial difference this time. For the first time, the Palestinians had vocal support from within the US political establishment. For the first time, Americans are having a conversation about their government’s unequivocal support for Israel. These changing sentiments are still not enough to challenge the vested and powerful interests within America that have always supported Israel, but it shows there is a chink in the armor. And the best way for the Palestinians to exploit this opening is by adopting widespread civil disobedience in which they peacefully refuse to comply with Israel’s Apartheid policies. Doing so would not only secure the moral high ground (given their lack of weapons, this is the only high ground they can hope for), it would also give them new political momentum and significantly change the current dynamics of the conflict which still heavily favors Israel.

Non-violence is the only tactic that has the potential to change the pattern of violence between both parties. Otherwise, these periodic conflagrations will continue repeating themselves because the fundamental dynamics of this conflict will remain unchanged. And the one unchanging fact shaping this conflict for the past 16 years is that Israel has overwhelmingly won both militarily and politically. It won when it crushed the second Intifada and locked Hamas in an open-air prison (along with two million innocent Palestinians for good measure).


The recent détente between Israel and various Arab states and the muted reaction to Israel being labeled an Apartheid state by Human Rights Watch also highlight the degree to which it has won this conflict politically. The sad reality is that the Western world has become numb to the devastation being inflicted upon the Palestinian people. Until this latest round of violence, America’s unwavering support gave Israel carte blanche to do as it pleased to the Arabs under its control and it seemed there was no red line it could cross that would change this, even attacking Islam’s third holiest site during Ramadan. Non-violent resistance is therefore the only path left that has any chance at ending the cycle of violence and securing a favorable outcome for the Palestinians.

The biggest barrier to effectively using such tactics is the fact that no amount of civil disobedience will result in the creation of an independent Palestinian state. Israel’s colonization of the West Bank destroyed that option. The presence of roughly 760,000 settlers and the extensive network of settlements and infrastructure they built across the entire area integrated the West Bank with Israel, creating “facts on the ground” that make building a viable Palestinian state impossible. Many Israelis are adamantly opposed to a one-state solution, but the truth is that their leaders set them on this path the minute they started building settlements in the West Bank (to say nothing of the fact that a nation built in the heart of the Arab world should probably expect to have a few Arab citizens). Israel and the West Bank are already a single state in all but name, controlled by a single political authority. Israel has just hidden behind the legal fiction of the Green Line to create an Apartheid state that denies the Palestinians their fundamental rights.

For non-violence to work, it must be used with a realistic goal in mind that forces Israelis to decide if they would rather live in a Jewish state or a democratic one. And the Palestinians must understand that just because they refuse to resort to violence does not mean Israel will play along. The British did everything they could to goad Indians into fighting back. Similarly, attempts at non-violent protest in Gaza were met by sniper fire in 2018. Israel will do everything in its power to get the Palestinians to keep fighting for the false promise of their own state because violent resistance, even in self-defense, plays into the hands of right-wing Israelis looking to justify their unbelievably hypocritical policies. Despite these obstacles, civil disobedience still represents the best chance for the Palestinians to end their suffering by creating a genuinely democratic state in which all of Israel’s citizens are treated as equals.

Tagged : / / / / / / /

It is time for the Palestinians to surrender

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorized5 Comments on It is time for the Palestinians to surrender

There was a time when America pretended to be a neutral arbitrator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There was a time when Arab nations that pursued normalization with Israel were ostracized by their fellow Muslims. Those times are now a distant memory and the changing dynamics of this conflict illustrate a simple fact: Israel has overwhelmingly defeated the Palestinians both politically and militarily. This defeat is so complete that there is no chance the Palestinians will ever be allowed to create a viable nation of their own. As such, the two-state solution is no longer a realistic path to peace. The only remaining option that can safeguard the interests of the Palestinians is inclusion in Israel as equal citizens. This is also the only option that will allow Israel to remain a democracy instead of becoming an apartheid state. If Israelis continue to prioritize maintaining their state solely for the benefit of Jews, they will create a new apartheid regime that will ultimately lead to the demise of everything that once made Israel worth fighting for. Both sides can continue down the path of war or they can start to make the tough choices that may lead to peace. As such, it is time for the Palestinians to give up their hopes of having their own state. Instead, they must realize that inclusion into Israel’s dynamic society as equals is their best chance at having a prosperous future. For their part, the Israeli people must realize that their choice to create their nation in the heart of the Islamic world means they must abandon their dream of a homeland exclusively for Jews.

It is therefore time for all armed Palestinian groups to unilaterally lay down their arms and unequivocally renounce the use of violence. It is also time to abandon the façade of the Palestinian Authority and incorporate the entirety of the occupied territories into Israel as an equal and undivided whole. Both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority must abandon their governmental responsibilities and allow the Israeli government to assume responsibility for necessary government services in the Gaza strip and the West Bank. In short, it is time for the Palestinians to surrender and abandon all resistance to Israel in exchange for full inclusion into Israeli society.

In order to facilitate the integration of these territories into Israel, the Palestinians should be given their fair share of political power within the structure of the Israeli state so that its Arab communities can participate in its political institutions. Power should be apportioned fairly based upon transparent democratic principles to ensure that political power is fairly distributed among all of Israel’s communities, including its Arab ones. All citizens of Israel should be treated equally under the law and given the same access to educational and occupational opportunities. Discriminatory policies that place Palestinians at a disadvantage with respect to such opportunities must end so that the socio-economic disparity between the two communities can be addressed over time. This can only be achieved by allowing both groups their fair share of political and economic power and access to resources.

The security apparatus of the state will obviously be needed to combat extremists on both sides that will always seek to use violence to justify their continued separation. But the presence of such extremists must no longer be used to rationalize their forced segregation. Instead, they must learn to share their resources and work together for a more vibrant and inclusive Israel.

THE PALESTINIANS HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY DEFEATED MILITARILY

The Palestinians have lost the struggle to create their own state. Despite being at war for decades, they have yet to develop the military capacity to defeat Israel. They are under an effective military blockade that has prevented them from importing the heavy weapons they would need to confront the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). Nor do they have the industrial infrastructure necessary to build heavy weapons themselves. Since they cannot build or import the heavy weapons needed to fight the IDF, they do not have the ability to wage a conventional war to secure their freedom.

They have also proven incapable of developing asymmetric warfare capabilities that can challenge the IDF. Their lack of political support in the surrounding Arab states means they cannot use these countries as a base to support a guerrilla campaign. Without support from allies outside Israel they do not have the logistical capacity or territorial depth to wage an effective guerrilla campaign. The terrain and the ease with which Israel can control access to urban centers has also made developing effective guerrilla tactics difficult. Consequently, the only remaining choices are slaughter or surrender.

There is no valor in allowing yourself to be slaughtered, particularly when the battlefield is full of women and children. The only realistic option is therefore surrender. At this point, the Palestinian people and their armed forces, such as they are, have become nothing more than punching bags for Israeli forces. There is no chance the large difference in power between the two sides will change any time soon. As such, it is time for the Palestinians to give up their armed struggle. Instead of waging war, the Palestinian people must commit to only using non-violent tactics to peacefully convince Israelis to change their policies. Doing so will force Israelis to confront the hypocrisy of their policies towards them and finally decide if they would rather live in a democratic state or a Jewish one. By choosing to build their new nation on Palestinian lands, Israelis made it impossible to have both and it is time for them to confront this contradiction.

NEITHER SIDE HAS ACTED LIKE PEOPLE WORTHY OF THE HOLY LAND AND YET BOTH DESERVE SYMPATHY

Both sides have committed barbaric acts of violence against each other. Neither has acted like people worthy of the Holy Land. Israeli security forces have committed serious human rights abuses. It has been a military aggressor on numerous occasions and engaged in the unlawful killing and excessive use of force against civilians. The Palestinians are guilty of equally atrocious behavior, having intentionally targeted civilians on numerous occasions as well. Both sides refuse to see the humanity in each other and have resorted to murdering each other’s children without remorse. As such, both sides must stop pointing fingers and allow for a general amnesty for all parties.

As a Muslim, the author has always sympathized with the Palestinians who have endured decades of military occupation and been forced to live as second-class citizens while having most of their homeland taken from them. However, he also sympathizes with the Jewish people who have seen the worst humanity has to offer and still managed to create a vibrant and powerful homeland for themselves. Israel was not created as part of an expansionist conquest of the Muslim world. It was created because Europeans refused to let their Jewish neighbors live in peace. The desperate souls who began the Zionist movement were not bloodthirsty warriors looking for new land to conquer. They did not choose to return to the Holy Land to seize its riches or capture strategic territory. They returned to Israel because they had no place else to go. Europe’s Jews often had to endure discrimination and violence at the hands of their neighbors. Despite this history, no one could have predicted the scale of the horrors unleashed by the Nazis that eventually led to the industrialized murder of roughly 6 million Jews. Though the Zionist movement predates the Nazis, it was their actions that provided the strongest catalyst for creating Israel.

When Muslims look at Israel and the actions of its people, we must never forget how the evils of the Holocaust shaped their worldview. When we speak of the Holocaust we must not only focus on the evil of the Nazis. We must also understand that the Nazis had plenty of help from people willing to herd Jews into death camps out of nothing more than jealousy and greed. Obviously, the murder of innocents on such a large scale is truly evil. But the complicity of those that helped and the refusal of so many others to stand up for their neighbors simply because they were a different religion is an equally horrific form of evil. After escaping from the horrors of the Nazis, Jewish refugees literally had nowhere to go. Even if migrating to America was an option for some, America during the 1930s and 40s was still tolerant of anti-Semitic views and would hardly have been appealing to someone fleeing anti-Semitic persecution in Europe. The only choice Jews had was to try and create a new homeland for themselves. They chose to create this homeland in Palestine due to the historical connection they felt to the land and because they had no other realistic options.

Muslims often lament that we are paying for the sins of the German people. This might be true, but we are also paying for our own sins. Rather than welcome Jewish refugees as fellow humans in need of help, many Palestinians echoed the same hateful rhetoric of the Nazis, vowing to push them back into the sea. Jewish refugees were not blameless either since many of them brought European attitudes of racial superiority with them. Many viewed their new Arab neighbors with the same sort of colonial disdain as so many other Europeans. Neither community was interested in building a healthy relationship with the other. The poor reaction of the Arabs to their new neighbors, particularly once the stream of refugees increased, likely solidified the feeling among Jews that they could not trust them. At the same time, newly arrived Jews exhibited a level of disregard for the Arabs that could only lead to acrimony and conflict.

This dynamic of mistrust has come to characterize the relationship between Jews and Arabs today and has made solving this conflict considerably more difficult. Despite the bad blood between both communities, they have no choice but to find a way to come together.  This should start with a change of attitudes on both sides and an honest reckoning of how the actions and racism of both have fueled their conflict. Muslims must end the hateful and one sided rhetoric that is often used when discussing Israel and acknowledge the extreme historical circumstances that led to its creation by showing compassion towards a people that have seen the gruesome consequences of humanity’s tribalism and violent instincts. Even if one adamantly believes that Israelis have treated the Palestinians unfairly, it is time to accept the reality that there are now over 6 million Jews living in the Holy Land and continually threatening to push them into the sea is counterproductive and cruel. It is time for Muslims to accept responsibility for their role in this conflict by addressing how their refusal to accept their new neighbors caused Israelis to arm themselves and seek to create a state that excluded as many Arabs as possible.

Rather than constantly cast ourselves as victims, Muslims must also realize that our refusal to modernize directly led to the conquest of Palestine. Instead of blaming the poor refugees who, despite their meager circumstances, were able to carve a state for themselves out of the heart of the Muslim world, we must take responsibility for our own shortcomings. Chief among these was our refusal to extend the hand of friendship to those in need during one of humanity’s darkest hours. This is indicative of a culture that no longer has compassion for the weak and no longer strives to protect the most vulnerable among us. By forgetting our core Islamic values and falling into the same trap of hate and selfishness as so many other societies throughout history, we laid the seeds for our own destruction. The same lack of compassion that showed itself in our dealings with Jews returning to the Holy Land has also shown itself in how we treat each other and the sort of governments we create. These governments have been so lacking in compassion and human decency that they have plunged the Muslim world into a cycle of war and poverty from which it has yet to recover. If the Muslim world is ever going to reverse its long decline it must first address the issues within its societies that have caused them to create such violent and repressive political institutions since these are directly responsible for its perpetual state of weakness. It is this weakness that allowed a group of destitute refugees to conquer Palestine.

Israelis must do their part to work towards peace as well by examining how their own conduct has contributed to the current situation. They must address the inherent hypocrisy in creating a homeland for themselves by taking the homeland of the Palestinians. And they must address how their own colonial attitudes have prevented them from working with the Palestinians they have conquered. Although Israel has overwhelmingly won its conflict with its Arab neighbors, it is on a path towards perpetual war because of its refusal to consider the legitimate grievances of the Palestinians. Israelis must realize that creating a just peace is in their interests and that their leverage to negotiate such a peace has never been better. Instead of using their dominant military victory to secure a lasting political settlement with the Palestinians, Israel has continued bullying and beating a Palestinian populace that is essentially defenseless. When Israel was young and vulnerable the tenacious fighting spirit of its soldiers was inspiring. Now that Israel is the dominant military power in the Eastern Mediterranean, it looks more like a bully when it saturates defenseless neighborhoods in Gaza with thousand-pound bombs and artillery shells that have a curious tendency to hit civilian targets.

Unfortunately, Israel’s right-wing government seems inclined to ensure that it remains Jewish at the cost of its democracy. The world has already witnessed the injustice of such a system. It should be obvious by now that political systems designed to exclude people based solely on their race, ethnicity, or religion are immoral and unsustainable. The Israeli people should know better than most how wrong it is to lock people in ghettos while denying them the rights and dignity that all people deserve simply because they are the wrong religion or race. Instead of using the same de-humanizing arguments the Nazis used to justify their treatment of the Jewish people, Israelis must break the cycle of racist fueled violence by starting to consider that their Arab neighbors may also deserve peace and justice.

Facing the horrors of the Holocaust has caused Israeli society to become consumed by fear. This fear has caused them to justify policies and attitudes rooted in the same sort of hatred and xenophobia that the Nazis used to justify their treatment of the Jews. Though vigilance and self-defense are the right of every people, Israelis have used their superior military power to bully the Palestinians based, in part, on racist justifications that have caused them to espouse the sort of values and prejudices that  allow them to de-humanize the Palestinians. Rather than use their power to perpetuate war, Israelis should include the Palestinians into their society as equal citizens so that both groups can work to tear down their barriers and learn to live side by side. This is the only way Israel can meet the challenges of the future as a free and democratic society.

Those Israelis that oppose the inclusion of large numbers of Palestinians into their society have only themselves to blame. Israel’s victory has been so complete that it has made creating a viable Palestinian state impossible. If the Palestinians had been able to fight Israel to a stalemate, then perhaps a peace between two equal parties could have led to the creation of a state for each community. But the Israeli defeat of Palestinian resistance has been so complete that no such possibility exists. As a result, the only remaining option is a one state solution.

ONLY PEACE BETWEEN ISRAELIS AND PALESTINIANS CAN LEAD TO NORMAL RELATIONS WITH THE MUSLIM WORLD

The recent hostility between Jews and Muslims is in aberration in what has historically been a symbiotic relationship that has been referred to as a Judeo-Islamic civilization. Both groups must commit themselves to recreating the bonds that once allowed them to prosper by working to build a new Judeo-Islamic tradition that can allow them to work together. Rather than turn themselves into a European fortress in the heart of the Muslim world, Israelis must embrace the choice their ancestors made to return to the Islamic world by trying to build relationships with Muslims predicated on respect and equality. The improving relations between Israel and various nations within the Muslim world will never realize their full potential or expand to a significant number of Muslim nations until the Palestinian issue is resolved in a manner that reasonable Muslims find fair. Once this happens, both Israel and the Muslim world would benefit greatly from increased trade particularly given Israeli technical expertise in agriculture, IT, and water conservation and desalinization.

Peace would also render Israel’s policy of supporting the Muslim world’s many despots unnecessary. In order to ensure that no groups within the Muslim world can challenge its interests, Israel has supported many of the region’s dictators. Supporting the autocratic and authoritarian governments of its Arab neighbors will eventually backfire in the same way that the covert support its intelligence agencies provided for the creation of Hamas ultimately led to the bloody suicidal bombing campaign of the early 2000s and its invasion of Lebanon led to the creation of Hezbollah. Policies rooted in violence and repression always lead to more violence and intolerance. Likewise, the repressive policies of the Muslim world’s dictators are primarily responsible for the development of extremist non-state actors that refuse to accept the existence of Israel. Their oppression, theft, and horrible economic mismanagement combined with their refusal to give their citizens a voice in their governments are the primary sources of these groups’ appeal and support. Supporting these despots will only lead to more violence and more extremism. Instead of fearing democracy in the Muslim world, Israelis should help to spread it even if that leads to the assumption of power by Islamic oriented groups.  

Assuming Israel’s Muslims are being treated fairly, Muslim governments comprised of non-violent Islamists, such as those that espouse Islamic modernists ideals, should present no problems for Israelis. The current animosity between the Muslim world and Israel is primarily based on the cruel treatment of the Palestinians. Once this stops, there will be no reason for continued hostility. Peace between Israel and Jordan and Egypt has not led to warmer relations between their people precisely because most Muslims believe the Palestinians are being treated unfairly. Once this changes, real and meaningful ties between the people of the region can develop.

The changes suggested above will require significant compromises by both parties; however, they also represent the best chance to secure lasting peace. Only ideologies that are inclusive and support the development of democratic institutions that allow for the participation of all Israel’s people can lead to sustainable peace. The policies pursued thus far have not worked because they are based on exclusionary and authoritarian policies. As such, it is time to consider a new path that realistically accounts for the current dynamics of this seemingly intractable conflict.

HOW THE MUSLIM WORLD FAILED THE PALESTINIANS

In closing, the author feels compelled to address the Palestinian people by apologizing on behalf of the Muslim community for being unable to come to your aid. We have failed you. Your brothers in Egypt are ruled by soldiers that care only for wealth and power and have shown themselves to be useless on the battlefield. Your brothers in Jordan are ruled by a man who pretends to be progressive but, based on his actions, also seems to care only about wealth and power. Syria is consumed by civil war because its ruler was so obsessed with these same pursuits that he preferred to slaughter innocent women and children rather than share power with his people. Your neighbors to the north are still rebuilding after the Israeli invasion of their lands and have yet to develop political institutions that can address the needs of their heterogeneous society. As a result, they are in no position to help. The rulers of the Arab Gulf nations are so weak and consumed by greed and their thirst for luxury that they can offer no help either. In order to ensure their fragile hold on power, they have sold you out. Though the leaders of Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan are more sympathetic to your plight, they still refuse to work together and, by themselves, they are too weak to challenge Israel and its American backers. Consequently, you are on your own and the only advice the author can give you is to surrender and seek peace on the best terms you can. Otherwise, you will continue to be slaughtered without pity, forced to live under a brutal military occupation or siege, or forced into poverty and servitude as punishment for your continued resistance. This will lead to the creation of a political and legal system designed to keep you permanently subservient to Israel. The longer you pursue the false promise of your own state, the more entrenched your weakness and servitude will become.

Though the rulers of the Muslim world will jump up and yell whenever they find a cartoon offensive, their refusal to help you proves they do not care about the wholesale imprisonment and slaughter of Muslims in Palestine or in any other parts of the world. Apparently, they find cartoons more offensive than the collective punishment meted out to you. Muslim leaders may “bravely” challenge the hypocrisy of the West and its love for free speech that stirs religious animosities while simultaneously trampling on the freedom of its Muslim citizens to practice their religion, but they can only sit by and watch as Israel’s blockade of Gaza slowly kills its children from malnourishment and disease. They watch impotently as Israel and its allies conspire to keep Gaza besieged while you slowly wither away in your open-air prison. You have suffered enough. Too many of your children have died and too many of your young men are rotting in Israeli jails. Since the rulers of the Muslim world are too busy fighting the evil cartoons of the West, they do not have time to help.

They spend their time yelling about cartoons instead of helping you because this allows them to pretend they care about their religion, but the truth is that all they really care about is money and power. They have refused to implement the deep rooted political and legal reforms their societies need because they refuse to share meaningful power with their people since doing so would make it harder for them to control and steal from them. As such, none of your fellow Arabs or Muslims have been able to develop the military capacity to ensure your freedom. Without serious political and legal reforms combined with increased spending on educational and scientific development designed to improve the critical thinking and technical skills of their people, the Muslim world will never be able to create the sort of culture and institutions that can lead to strong economic growth based on innovation and technological development. Without these ingredients, developing a modern armaments industry is impossible as is building armies capable of competently engaging in modern warfare. Since there does not appear to be any Muslim nation or ruler willing to implement these reforms, there is no hope that any of them will develop the power to help you.

IT IS TIME TO WAVE THE WHITE FLAG OF SURRENDER

The author must therefore beg you to surrender as quickly as you can.  In order to ensure that Israel accepts your surrender, you must peacefully stop complying with all laws meant to further your oppression and occupation. Every Palestinian should unequivocally demonstrate the intention to surrender by waving a white flag and taking to the streets completely unarmed to peacefully ask the Israeli government to dismantle its occupation infrastructure and accept you into its country. It is time to trade in the IDF’s checkpoints for unhindered access to all parts of Israel as free citizens. The leadership of all Palestinian factions should lead the way by publicly surrendering their weapons to Israeli authorities. The only way that Israelis can be convinced to abandon their hopes of creating an ethnically and religiously segregated society in which they alone hold power is if you make it clear that you pose no danger to them. As such, all Palestinians throughout Israel must peacefully work together to convince Israelis to let you become equal citizens within their society by stating in the clearest possible terms that you surrender. It is only by having the courage to admit your defeat that you may finally free yourselves.

Tagged : / / / / / / / / / /