Final Blog

Before entering this internship, I had little knowledge about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  In truth, I was mostly pro-Israel until just a few weeks before the program began.  Talking with some of my friends, I began to see a different side to the conflict; one that was contrary to what I had always believed.  Looking into things a bit more, I was shocked at the number of stories about Israeli repression against Palestinians.  Sure, I had read Chomsky before and I had heard anti-Semitic rhetoric about how Israeli is ethnically cleansing the Palestinians, but I mostly chalked this up to extreme points of view; either left wing or Islamic fundamentalist.  However, reading more into it, I was surprised at how little the media had portrayed the other side of the affair.  I don’t know why I was shocked, I knew that the Israeli lobby in the US is huge, that the media almost always takes a pro-Israeli stance, and that due to their strategic importance in the region, the US would always back them and the people would most likely follow due to Holocaust guilt.  After arriving here, my impression only became stronger.  True, the program was very balanced with both sides of the conflict well represented, but the fact remains that even the most hardline pro-Israelis in our group were swayed toward the middle and I personally was pushed firmly over the line.  Every nation is entitled to self-defense, but no nation can justifiably treat one portion of its citizens worse than any other part.  The occupation is also an area of contention for me, but I can see the Israeli point of view on that segement better than I can the mistreatment of the Arab Israelis.  These are the people that are the key to the whole peacemaking process, in my opinion.  If they were treated as equals and allowed to prosper, they would make a powerful intermediary between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority.  They would be a visible sign to the West Bank and Gaza that Israel is a just and fair society that is willing to work towards peace.  Instead, they are treated like conquered subjects. 

I have mentioned several times that I don’t care about historical justice and past grevences.  The world is what it is.  By digging into the past, people are opening up a hole into an area that bears little to no significance on the present.  How far back do you go? Ten years, fifty years, 100 years or several millennia?  It doesn’t change the facts on the ground: two different societies are living next to each other and if they don’t figure out how to get along, they will both suffer from it.  The problem is that for much of the population, this is not a realistic option.  Both sides are rooted in the past and erasing the fact that someone lost their house to an Israeli bulldozer or someone else lost a spouse to a Palestinian suicide bomber is not something that we can expect to happen overnight.  However, we can start the process of mitigating the drive for further conflict.  Israelis are uncompromising on a one state solution.  That is fine, but it means that they will have to stop building settlements and those settlers will have to either get used to living under a Palestinian government or they will have to come back to Israel.  Palestinians are uncompromising on recognition of atrocities in the ’48 war.  Fine, but they may have to settle for something that is vaguely worded and doesn’t come right out and say that Israel blatently drove Arabs out of the country on pain of death, like they want. 

Israel currently holds all the cards and all the chips.  The idea that they can get any more strategic gain out of the West Bank is ludicrous in my opinion.  True, they will most likely have to give up some of their resources that they have secured by the occupation.  For example, control of the Jordan valley is a big one.  But by not making some concessions now, they are risking a turn of events that they are not able to reverse.  Why not bargain now that they have nothing else to gain but so much to lose? If the Jordanian monarchy ever falls, the new government will most likely be a Palestinian one.  The current population of the country is dominated by them, so this would make sense.  How would that affect not only relations with Israel, but sentiments in the West Bank?  A peaceful revolution there could spell political turmoil in Israel.  If a hasty withdrawal plan were initiated, much like the Gaza plan, odds are much greater that the result is going to come out with Hamas being in control and firing rockets at Tel Aviv.  I know that if I were Palestinian, I would be doing daily sit-ins on Israeli-only West Bank roads.  I would be leading teams of women and children to cut down border fences that separate Arab communities.  And, most of all, I would be encouraging western media to document the Israeli response to these things.  Americans and Europeans can only stand by so long as they watch scores of unarmed men, women and children get tear gassed and beaten by IDF soldiers who are trying to keep the roads open and the fences secure.  So long as they don’t resort to violence, Israel will eventually have to back down and make some hard concessions and this would not be good for the region if those concessions are not done in the proper manor. 

My solutions, though obviously far from perfect would be to firstly restart the peace talks.  This should happen after the next round of elections in the hopes that the new PA government will be viewed as legitimate by the people.  Next, I would begin the slow process of reducing the number of checkpoints within the West Bank and allowing a greater number of Palestinians through the border fence in order to find work.  This could be done with either more access points or by initiating a random screening process for people trying to pass through.  Instead of checking everyone, check two out of three, then gradually reduce the number further.  If attacks increase, the wall is still there and everything can quickly be re-implemented.  More police and counter terrorism units should be funded and trained either alongside Israeli units or by third parties such as Germany, France or Britain.  This would allow more of the operations to be conducted by the Palestinian government and not by the Israelis.  This should obviously include extensive information sharing.  Furthermore, the freeze on settlement building should be immediately enforced excepting only those areas that will agreed upon as a land swap between the two states.  Those settlers that are currently deep within the West Bank should be allowed lifetime leases and/or compensation if they wish to move.  After the death of the current occupants, the property would go to auction in order to allow Palestinians the opportunity to purchase it openly.  Further construction could only be done through the legitimate purchase of land from either the PA government or from Palestinian individuals.  Finally, the borders of the West Bank should remain under Israeli control for the present and only be gradually transferred over to the PA.  This includes the right of passage to Jordan from both sides.  Israel would oversee this for a number of years, gradually working with the government police until they feel that they can hand over certain areas.  Eventually, the country would be free of an IDF presence.  Existing infrastructure would become the responsibility of the government to maintain and expand upon, though I believe that it would be in Israel and the International Community’s interests to support this financially.  Regarding the land swap, I can only say that a just amount of compensation is required by both sides.  If that is to include some cities on the Israeli side that are predominantly Arab, so be it.  An influx of population is more financially secure, better educated, and speak some Hebrew would most likely be in both parties interests which is why caring for the Arab Israeli population is so important.  By allowing these people to become the diplomats for a new Israeli-Palestinian peace process, they will serve an important function within the new state. 

None of these solutions is a magic bullet and even all of them together are likely to be difficult if not impossible to pass, but they seem to me to be the most likely paths toward some form of reconciliation.  Maintaining the status quo merely delays the inevitable and reduces the likelihood that the end result will be to the maximum benefit of Israel.  Acting sooner will prevent disaster later.  

Terrorism and response

One of the most interesting things that I’ve learned about my experience at the ICT has been the contrast between operational effectiveness and integration.  Israel seems to tolerate a small minority of Arabs within the country, but when it comes to integrating them into a productive society, they have fallen far short of a desirable outcome.  Home demolitions are not only part of the West Bank CT strategy, they are also a means of local oppression against the Palestinians living under them.  Stevie has gone on record as saying that, in regard to demolishing the homes of late suicide bombers, it has been effective in making the local population come forward and help the IDF stop the bomber before he has a chance to act.  However, determining if this strategy is effective is difficult because there is no way of knowing how many additional strikes it influences.  On one of my last days at the ICT, I was shown an article about General Pershing who was placed in command of the US Philippine forces either just before or after WWI.  There was a Muslim uprising there where they killed a number of US soldiers and the culprits were caught.  Knowing what they did about Muslim culture, the soldiers tied up all the men, naked, and proceeded to butcher several pigs in front of them.  The soldiers splashed the blood on the prisoners and covered the bullets of their guns in the blood as well with the implication that if they killed the Muslims with the bullets, they would not be able to enter paradise.  They then proceeded to shoot all the men except for one, who they let go to tell the story to the other insurgents in the area.  Supposedly, there wasn’t another attack against US soldiers for almost 40 years after this.  I don’t know if it is true or not and I don’t know if causation equals correlation either, but it does seem to me that regardless of what caused the lull in the violence, all it did was delay it until a later point.  Today the insurgency is still going on.  I’m not saying that a military response is not warranted, but I believe that brutal repression will only elicit an increase in motivation that will eventually warrant an equally brutal response.  

Sympathy for the Devil

I was finishing The Looming Tower the other day and I got to the part where Al Qaeda had just attacked the US and the leaders were moving their families around so that the anticipated American response would have less of a chance of killing them.  The author had already gone into detail about some of the American characters that were killed when the World Trade Center fell and I think every American feels at least some degree of personal connection with 9/11 even if they weren't there, so when the time came for the Al Qaeda operatives to run, I certainly didn't feel sorry for them.  However, there was another aspect that bothered me. In one of the final chapters, the author talks about Zawahiri's family and how they were running to avoid the American bombardment.  I had no idea what happened to them at the time.  I knew that Zawahiri lived and so did bin Lade (obviously) but their families were something else.  However, I was secretly hoping that Zawahiri's family would die in the attack so that the son of a bitch would know what thousands of American families felt.  When it actually happened, I didn't feel a bit of sympathy for them either, even though his wife apparently had no idea that her husband was one of the leaders of the group or that he had anything to do with the attack.  To make matters worse, his 4 year old daughter had Downs Syndrome and was certainly an innocent to the conflict.  I know that it's sick, even monstrous, but I didn't care that she was killed.  I want Zawahiri and the late bin Laden to experience every type of pain and agony that is possible in this life and the loss of their loved ones will give them a taste of exactly what they put so many people through.  Honestly, part of me thinks that there are certain people out there that deserve a special room down in Guantanamo where they get tortured 22 hours a day until they beg for death.  Hitler, bin Laden, Pol Pot; certain people that have done such unspeakable things that they don't deserve to be treated humanly.

I think this relates to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict very well because I can see how an Israeli who lost someone to a suicide bomber or a Palestinian who lost their house to an Israeli bulldozer could feel unwavering hatred toward the other side and be happy when bad things happen to them.  I think its unfortunate and I think its something that can be overcome, but I also think that its simply a part of human nature.  Part of us thrives on revenge and we aren't happy until we've achieved it.

Reflections on my internship

Over the past seven weeks, I've had a chance to experience what it would be like to work in a research institute / think tank and overall, I've enjoyed it.  I like doing research, though I can't see myself doing it forever.  I can tell that Stevie has access to more information than I do when he does his research, the databases are fairly comprehensive, but I think he has developed contacts within the government and/or military that are able to fill him in on some of the finer details of the counter-terrorism world.  This would be the big advantage of working in the field for as long as he has.  I think in order to write well about current events, to have any accuracy with which to evaluate or guess how things will turn out, one has to have more information than what is reported in the newspapers and the journals.  I think it is unfortunate that most of the published papers that come out on terrorism and similar issues are often out of date or incomplete simply by the fact that they are academic and don’t have access to government sources.  I mentioned that I think Stevie has more contacts that he will admit, but, at the same time, I don’t think he is privy to any classified information from the intelligence agencies.  This is another reason that I have decided that I don’t think I want to work in academia.  I fully appreciate everything that I have learned from this experience and I think it has taught me a great deal about how to write a substantial research paper and, perhaps more importantly, how the academic community operates itself.

On an even greater level, this internship has shown me a new area of study that I had little experience in before.  Counter-terrorism has always been in the back ground of my studies, but I primarily focus on transnational security.  This is certainly an aspect of transnational security, but not a major focus.  To date, I have dealt more with counter-insurgency, which is similar, but handled in a very different way.  The fact that I have been focusing on the US is very significant as well.  Transnational deals with military threats to the US, but not with asymmetrical aspects.  I have been focusing on the home grown threats to the US, which, in my opinion, are very small.  We have some worry about immigration, illegal and legal, that bring extremist ideals into our country, but overall, there are very few instances of truly home grown terror.  Even the attacks that we have seen have usually been half baked and fairly ineffective.  As of today, we have yet to see a native born suicide bomber from the US.  The day that we do will be a critical turning point for terrorism in the US.  Britain has had this happen before, as well as a number of other countries throughout the world but the fact remains that, despite the fear American have of a homegrown attack, they are not as likely as they are in Europe, Israel, or somewhere in the Middle East. 

Working at the ICT has taught me a few things about and what we need to look at in terms of how to protect ourselves from violence.  The first thing we have to do, and something that we already do very well, is keep integrating our minority populations into society.  I think part of this is the overwhelming sense of nationalism that we experience as Americans.  A recent immigrant to the US does not typically think of themself as a Pakistani living in America with a US passport, they think of themself as a Pakistani-American and an American citizen.  Because they can integrate into society so well, though, they are less likely to throw away the life that they can give their family by adhering to radical principles and ideologies.   Even the Muslim Brotherhood, which is present in America, is less concerned with violence and terror than with creating organizations that can provide development assistance to needy people in the Middle East.  There have been instances, such as the Holy Land Foundation and some of their umbrella organizations, that funnel money to Hamas and Hezbollah in violation of US policy, but most of those monies go to the charity arm of the organizations.  Unfortunately, this allows more money to go to the military arms and that is, of course, a threat to regional stability, but I also think that some of the work that they do is important.  I think it’s too bad that the Israel is unable to do more of this for them and thus defuse the power of the terrorist supporters by providing them with what they need.  In all honesty, Israel is probably the worst country to provide this in terms of it being accepted and being seen as some sort of underhanded plot to overthrow the PA or exert a greater influence than they already do, but I certainly think that someone has to fill that void and the longer they keep NGOs out of Gaza, the harder it is going to be to uproot Hamas.  We specifically speak of two different components to CT strategy:  Motivation and Capacity.  It is easy enough to reduce capacity.  Border fences and checkpoints do that very well, but eliminating motivation is incredibly hard.  I feel like US CT strategy keeps that in mind, even if they don’t do it very well.  Israeli strategy is more concerned with simply destroying capacity.  That’s the rub, too.  If you institute programs that try to reduce motivation, the odds are that you are not doing everything you can to reduce capacity by funding projects and allowing for local funds to go towards enabling that capacity rather than the projects that we are funding.  Also, like I mentioned with the fences and checkpoints, restrictions on the civilian population are great for limiting capacity but only succeed in increasing motivation.  I think the only other way to reduce motivation is to get the population into a position where they have too much to lose to attempt an attack. 

This strategy only works in areas of the world like the Middle East, Chechnya, Colombia, and other developing countries.  The attack yesterday in Norway is a great example of what we just can’t really prevent.  Oklahoma City and Northern Ireland are others.  How do you reduce the motivation of a crazy radical living among you that has a good job, maybe a family, but just believes so strongly in a political structure or religion that they can throw away everything that they have in exchange for influencing the opinions of others.  I think that the only way we can begin to combat these are by extending community outreach programs.  It has worked in the Muslim American communities in the US (more than 40% of all attacks that are diverted are the result of someone in the community coming out and telling local police or the FBI). 

All of this knowledge that I have just written about is new to me.  I have a much better understanding about how a modern democracy operates a successful CT strategy and I think this is really going to help me in whatever career I decide to follow.  I am hoping for something in the IC community or some branch of the DOD.  Terrorism is a huge, hotbutton issue within the government and will stay that way for the foreseeable future.  It is helping to give me a much more rounded view of the security field in general and will make my resume that much more appealing.  Especially since I’ve spent some time editing papers for Dr. Ganor.  I have been told that he will be personally writing my letter of recommendation because he was very impressed with my work on his articles.  The contacts that I’ve made here can’t hurt either.  Half of getting a job is knowing the people that can get you through the door and, while most of these people work in Israel, they know people in the States and work with them regularly.  In this field, there is also a lot of moving about and the US is always a popular destination because we pay so much more than anyone else.  So, all in all, I have had an excellent experience with this internship and I would highly recommend it to anyone in future programs if I were you. 

Egypt

The Egyptian military just came out and said that they are going to maintain their position in the new government basically irregardless of what happens in the elections.  They have also said that they won't allow international inspectors to monitor them.  I know that everyone at the ICT is jumping for joy at this prospect because it lessens the chance of a fundamentalist government taking control.  I'm of two minds about it.  On one hand, I agree that it is certainly the best thing for the US, Israel, and regional stability.  However, the ingrained democratic ideals of being an American chaffs at this thought.  It is my hope that some sort of a middle road will come about, where the military allows a civilian government to grow slowly.  Democracy is a dangerous thing in developing countries and the transition from authoritarian to democratic is the most dangerous time for it.  If it can be done well (slowly) while maintaining GDP and job growth, it raises the possibility of this turning into a very solid government.  Turkey did much the same thing under Ataturk and then in the 80's (I think it was the 80's) when the military over threw the government in a bloodless coup because they refused to support a non-secular regime.  Their power has been gradually limited over the past few decades, but I still think they are the overwhelming force behind the throne.  I know that Dr. Ganor at the ICT will disagree with me, but I don't think that Turkey will allow a fundamentalist government any more than we would.  There is too much to lose financially.  Turkey is one of the rising stars within the international markets.  If they join the EU (and after this last year with the meltdown, I'm not sure they even want to) then they would have even more incentive to stay secular because they will have to adhere to European protocols for civil rights and freedoms.  Egypt could be the same way.  It could follow much the same route as Indonesia and Turkey.  The only problem is that they don't have the infrastructure and resources that those two countries have, and that is going to be the limiting factor.  No matter what government takes hold, there is still going to be high unemployment and a large, educated youth cohort with nothing to do.  With the proper amount of aid, a new age Marshall plan to build up the country, I think that those jobs could be created and disaster averted.  Egypt would be my first target for this plan.  Tunisia as well, and then maybe Syria, depending on what happens in the next few months/years.  I refuse to be pessimistic about it, however.  I'm hoping for someone in the military to realize that they can't avoid change forever and that if they don't allow some concessions to the protesters, they will either have to brutally repress them (Syria style) or they will have another Arab Spring in 10 years that may be more violent and damaging than the first.  I've never been good about predicting the future, but I don't think I can be wrong every time.  Hopefully this is the one of those times.

Issues with counter terrorism

I mentioned in my last blog how someone at Craig's internship suggested that Israel was supporting Syria so that they can have Hezbollah as a source of fear to keep the population in line.  As I stated, I certainly don't think this is the case.  At work we deal with Hezbollah and Hamas quite a bit and I don't think that there is any way, shape or form that they could take to make Israel want to work with them.  Originally, Fatah was also a terrorist organization as was the PLO, but both have since renounced violence and are trying to work with the Israelis.  Now I think that we will begin to see Hamas do the same.  Hezbollah will always be a guerrilla movement until they take control of Lebanon.  Beyond that, I think we can hope for greed and political pressure to mollify them a little.  As we have seen in the past, even religious fanatics are susceptible to the draw of money.  The Ayatollahs in Iran talk about spreading Islam and condemning Israel for its treatment of the Palestinians, but they just do it to keep their position within the government and the country.  I think the government in general wants to establish itself as the hegemonic power in the region and this is why they constantly condemn Israel, to get the Arab world on their side or to at least identify with them.  Does Iran really give a shit about Israel or the Palestinians?  I think not.  Hezbollah and their support for them is just a way to put a thorn in the side of it's enemies (the US and, by proxy, Israel). The Ayatollahs are all rich old men who make their living by controlling the vast tracks of land that have been bequithed to them over the generations and they don't want to risk losing that.  They also, of course, want more.  I think the same will be true of Hamas and Hezbollah.  The leaders of Fatah are known for corruption and are not opposed to working with Israel so long as it maintains the status quo. As Hamas moves into the picture, they will take a greater stake in the monetary aspects of running the country and they will molify their beliefs if they think that it will perpetuate their economic well being.  The same can be said for Hezbollah.  When it comes right down to it, I think both of these organizations are rational actors.  True, Hamas supports suicide terrorism and Hezbollah likes to fire rockets at Israelis, but we have seen that they are also victims of their own terror.  The leader of Hezbollah has come out and said that if he had known that Israel was going to invade in 2008 following the kidnapping of the IDF soldiers, he never would have ordered it.  The war cost Hezbollah and the Southern Lebanese people billions of dollars in damages to infrastructure and thousands of lives.  They can respect the cost benefit ratio of these actions and, so long as they don't underestimate the response, they will come out ahead.  If the retaliation is greater than the initial attack, they won't be willing to perpetuate further attacks.  Instead, diplomacy is the more effective tactic.  They can still keep the support of the people and enrich themselves by playing ball internationally.  Honestly, if they were willing to renounce violence and form a political party (this would entail changing their charter and recognizing the State of Israel) I have a feeling that the US would gladly give them economic aid in return for it.  It's like Iran.  There has been talk of basically buying the Iranian nuclear program.  Would the US cut a check to Iran for X many billions of dollars for them to give it up, allow inspectors, and have all their highly enriched uranium shipped to a facility outside teh country?  I think we absolutely would.  It's way cheaper than military action in terms of blood, treasure, and the effect it would have the economies of the region and, therefore, the rest of the world.  The biggest problem, like the rest of the conflict, is getting from point A to point B.  The negotiations and the political capital that must be expended to do so.

Arab jobs

One of the things that struck me when I went to visit Craig's internship was that he was talking about how Arabs had more difficulty getting jobs.  Now, this in and of itself, doesn't really surprise me, but I was under the impression that the Palestinian Israelis that had been here since the 40's were generally well employed and making equal wages.  When he told me the percentage of people who were out of work, I was really surprised.  What also struck me was how they enforce the discrimination.  He was telling me that when someone applies for a job, the employer always asks for proof of military service.  Obviously, since Muslim Israelis don't serve, they can't do this and it's an easy way to ask if someone is a Muslim or not.  Actually, from the Israeli point of view, this is ingenious.  Asking if someone is Muslim or not is obviously segregation based on religion.  Asking if they have served is just national interest.  Like asking a US employee if they have registered for the draft.

What also struck me was that, apparently after the war, large sections of land were zoned as government/public land despite the fact that there were already villages there.  Using this as an excuse, the government doesn't supply the communities with water or electricity in an attempt to drive them off the land.  If this would happen, they don't have many options to build new villages.  Craig's boss was already saying that it's really difficult for even Israeli Arabs to get building permits.  I understand why they don't allow the Arabs in East Jerusalem to build, but I think they are asking for trouble by not taking care of all those Arabs who are holding Israeli passports and are complete citizens.  They are a sizable enough minority that they could cause serious problems in the event of an uprising/civil rights movement.  I can see it being very bad for the economy when/if this ever happens.  This is why the peace process is so important now rather than later, to address these issues before they can have a serious effect on the country.