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.

Nazareth

I visited Craig's internship today in Nazareth.  He seems to work for a really good organization.  Their central goal is to further the Arab-Israeli community within Nazareth in terms of community development and empowerment.  It seems like they are the non-criminal version of ACORN in Israel.  They help out women seeking a divorce from their husbands and convince them to fight for alimony.  They help train them for jobs in the community and they assist others with issues with their pensions and rental prices.  They also seem to deal with a lot of legal issues such as people being taken to small claims courts, mortgage problems, and pushing for policy change.  Mostly they are working to reduce inequalities between Jewish Israelis and Arab/Bedouins in terms of employment and income.  Apparently 30% of men and 60% of women in Nazareth are unemployed and the number of unemployed single mothers is especially bad because the community doesn't typically accept them due to traditional Arab values.  

All in all, it sounds like a great organization.  Craig's boss has some interesting ideas, though.  Sarah Hook came with me and she likes to ask lots of questions about the conflict.  That is certainly not a bad thing, but some of the questions are just asking for a problem.  She always brings up 1 vs 2 state solution and the right of return, both items that always get to people and are basically pointless questions in my mind.  I like hearing their answers, but I don't think that it address the real issues.  There will never be a 1 state solution in our lifetimes and there will absolutely never be a returning Palestinian population.  This got him off on a tangent about how there will never be a peaceful solution and war is inevitable.  That, I believe, is a more likely scenario.  However, he then began to talk about how Israel is working to keep Hezbollah in power because they are able to use them as an excuse to maintain a security state.  I fully agree that they use Hezbollah as an excuse for this, but I seriously doubt that Israel would shed a tear if the organization up and disappeared.  He also said that Israel likes the current Syrian government.  Again, I agree that they probably feel more secure with the devil they know, rather than the devil they don't know, but I don't think that they would intervene to support Assad as he proposed.  That would be international suicide.  I think Israel is happier now that the Egyptian military has said that they will ensure that their presence in the government will be maintained.  Syria is a different story.  Syria might get a new, more hostile government, but that is nothing that Israel can't handle.  

Border fence mark II

We took a group excursion to the border fence today with the IDC Executive Masters program.  Very similar to what we did on the first day and while in Hevron, but this time we visited it with a more liberal minded, career army officer.  That certainly made for an interesting experience.  He was very pro-wall and was very impressed with how much good it had done.  What surprised me the most was the way that he was very candid about the downsides on the Palestinian population.  He basically said that he and other career officers were quiet about their rank when they visited the Hague because there are people out there who want to try them as war criminals.  A lot of that had to do with the wall and the checkpoints within the West Bank.  He basically said that a lot of people called it a violation of human rights and he kind of agrees with them.  It must a be a huge hassle, but his job is to make sure that Israeli citizens aren't killed and the wall and occupation are the best ways to do that.  I am of the opinion that there are two sides to that argument.  The reduction in suicide bombings also happened when Abbas took power from Arafat.  He has a much more peaceful outlook on the whole process and, while corrupt, is doing more for the people of the West Bank than Arafat ever did.  He was also fully in support of a two state solution and brought up something that I never would have expected a military man to suggest:  that Israel surrender some of the Arab majority cities that they control to the new state.  Basically, it was a suggestion that would severely reduce the number of Arabs in the country and help keep the Jewish majority strong.  I certainly see his logic, though I don't know that many of them would want to give up on their health care, pension funds, and risk their economic well being to a Palestinian controlled state.  However, it would introduce a large number of prosperous, educated Arabs into the new state which could potentially have some good effects on the rest of the population of the new Palestine.  At least they would be Israeli educated and have the potential to be sympathetic to the peace process, if nothing else than because their economies would be so intertwined with Israels.  However, I'm not sure I see that happening as a viable solution.  Any territory swap that was arranged would lose some of the Israeli population along with it and that seems to be unacceptable to most of the people.  The security issue is another factor, though I think it could certainly be mediated. However, Israel holds all the cards.  If they give up a substantial portion of their Arab population, it will give them that much more leverage in the future because it would delay the inevitable loss of their Jewish majority that much longer.  Giving some concessions to the Arab populations might also mollify them in future negotiations.  And if things go to shit, Israel still has the most powerful army in the Middle East and the backing of the most powerful country in the world.

Back of the bus

I noticed something over the past few weeks.  The seats in the front half of the bus have substantially more legroom than the ones at the back.  I know in Jerusalem, there are Orthodox Jews who want there to be separation between the sexes, even on buses and they want the government to provide them.  It makes sense that if they want to run their own bus lines, they should have to pay for it.  However, I'm guessing that when the buses were designed, they were made to accommodate this.  Maybe it's just a coincidence, but I'm assuming that they did this on purpose.  I just think that it's strange that there are so many little examples of inequalities left in such a, generally, progressive society.  I know, just from talking to people in the city, that the Orthodox are looked down on by many of the Israelis and especially the people in Tel Aviv, but its little things like that that serve to remind us that there are still aspects of society that are not equal.  I suppose it's kind of a ridiculous thing to say when you consider the obvious inequalities that are demonstrated with the Arab-Israeli and Palestinian populations, but this is even something going against the Ashkenazi Jews.  No, there isn't a law making them sit in the back of the bus, but the reminder is there that it is a very religious society and if some people had their way, it would be much more strictly controlled.  To me, it hearkens back to what it must have looked like back in the 50s and 60s when there were separate water fountains for blacks and whites and what it must have been like to see both of them side by side after even after the civil rights movements ended up legislating equality.  What's ironic with this is that there was never any legislation enforcing this, it's the companies doing it themselves to meet a market demand.  Or, I suppose there could be another explanation.  Maybe they just want to fit more seats into a bus.

Refugee camps

After visiting the internship in Bethlehem, we arranged a tour of the refugee camps in the city.  A couple of guys who live in the camp took us around and showed us the housing areas and explained a bit about it.  Really, it looks like any other part of the city as I'm sure you know.  One of the guys took us to his apartment in the city and we met his parents, got lots of tea and we all sat down and had a long discussion.  The other guy that was with us said that his old apartment had been destroyed by the Israeli military a few years ago and he'd been living with family ever since spread out across the camp.  They also mentioned that nearly 20% of the people there had been in prison at one time or another.  Both of the guys giving us the tour had.  One for 18 months and the other for 6.  When asked why, his mother said it was because they love Palestine.  Turns out they were throwing rocks at soldiers.  I don't get the idea of throwing them in jail, that's just going to make things worse in my opinion.  On returning home, the boys were heroes, too, which doesn't help either.  They showed me a youtube video of the night that he returned and it was a huge party in the streets.  That actually brings up another point.  It is obvious that Bethlehem is not the poorest region of the West Bank because according to them, they have all been to college, his sister is studying in England, and they had cable and internet in the house.  It was obvious that they weren't as well off as the people in Israel, but they were certainly getting by.

I tried asking them about the Arab Spring and they all said that they supported it, but that it would never happen in Palestine.  I didn't quite get that.  It was obvious that they were more supportive of a violent resolution, but when I asked them about how they thought a peaceful protest would work in the West Bank, they just said that the IDF would kill them all.  I have to say that I disagree.  I'm sure there would be lots of deaths, and I thought it would be inappropriate to say that they should do it anyway and risk being shot, but it couldn't last.  There is absolutely no way that Israel would get away with a Syria style suppression for long and I would think that there are too many areas where Palestinians could disrupt Israeli life to get a decent amount of concessions out of them.  I had to wonder what would happen if thousands of Arabs sat on the Israeli highways in the West Bank, blocking traffic, but not throwing rocks or anything.  I'm sure that teargas and rubber bullets would be used, but things like highways are too long to adequately patrol.  If they could disrupt the flow of commerce to the settlements, they would make a huge impact internationally.  I also don't think that Israelis could get away with too much violent non-leathal suppression before they had to give in.  I wasn't about to suggest all of this to him.  I can't imagine being responsible for the idea that started the third intifiada.  That would look good on a US govt application.

Bethlehem internships

I visited Ben and Roxanne's internship on Wednesday.  It sounds like a decent organization, but very liberal and a little idealistic.  It was obvious that they are very anti Israeli, but it sounds like they are trying to do good.  Overall, he said that they are opposed to the many of the aspects of the peace process, but mostly the two state solution.  It makes sense.  His argument is basically that Palestine can't function as a country made up of piecemeal sections of desert and small urban centers.  Israel has already grabbed most of the valuable land and is unlikely to give it up.  I think this is probably true.  The Jordan Valley gives them access to the water and effectively shuts off the West Bank from the rest of the world.  If they went ahead with the two state solution they would probably end up being only the second country (excluding Vatican City and others like that) which is completely surrounded by another country.  However, there aren't any other solutions in my mind.  The work they do isn't very political and they seem to be more concerned with putting patches on a wound than actually curing it.  Mostly, because there is no cure yet and all the treatments are very hypothetical.  However, any indication that a one state solution is on the table is just ridiculous.  I was also interested in how he handled the Hamas issue.  He was very timid about even saying their name out loud where people could hear him.  I guess that doesn't surprise me too much since they probably didn't understand everything else that he was saying and he does have to live there and be a visible part of the community.  However, I was surprised when he said that they had worked together before, at least I'm pretty sure he did.  Maybe it was that he had been offered work by them.  However, I'm really glad I didn't end up somewhere where that is a possibility.  With as crazy as America is lately about going after organizations that support Hezbollah and Hamas, I wouldn't want to be affiliated with any of them when I try for a security clearance, even if they are squeaky clean and have the best intentions.

Life and Death

I just saw The Sunset Limited with Rush.  If you have never seen it, it is about a poor black man who saves a professor from jumping in front of a train and they go back to his apartment and have a discussion where the poor man (Samuel L Jackson) tries to convince the professor (Tommy Lee Jones) that he should find God and give life another chance.  The movie progresses and I wont say the end, but the professor gives a monologue where he talks about the futility of life because no matter what happens, life always ends in pain and suffering so why shouldn't people look forward to death.  He is an atheist in the movie and I see some relevance to what he is saying as far as the conflict goes.  I think that part of the problem is and always has been religion.  I know that I just wrote a long blog on how religion isn't the problem, but there is a deeper issue beyond Islam vs. Judaism.  Regardless of the faith, both religions boil down to heading god's word and living forever in the afterlife.  I, myself, am an atheist as well.  However, I can't imagine that, despite all the inevitable pain and suffering in life, it isn't worth it.  Mostly, because there is nothing left afterwards.  Religion teaches us that we need to be kind to our fellow man because that is what god wants us to do.  I disagree.  Religion also says that god will forgive you if you commit a sin.  That you can do almost anything and still live forever in eternal bliss.  In my life, only the person you wrong can forgive you.    You have to make the most of life because there is nothing after it.  I haven't lived the life I would have imagined, mostly because I'm not the person I imagine myself.  But I have come to peace with the man I am and I am happy with that.  I enjoy life.  Even the smallest bits of it, that one moment of happiness in a sea of misery makes it all worth it.  And life is certainly more than a sea of misery.  I love life.  I don't want to hurt anyone else because that is something that I can't take back.  If I end someone's life, however it happens, they are gone and I have taken away those small moments of happiness that make life worth living.  That is why I can't imagine hating someone so much that you want to kill them, to take their home, to cause them pain.  Life is too short for that.  Sometimes I wish that I had gotten my degree in education so that I could travel the world for the rest of my life teaching English in other countries.  To see the whole world for what it is.  Instead, I think I'll do one better.  I'll travel the world trying to make it a better place through hard work and a good example.  I'm not a priest, I'm not a saint, I'm just a man.  But I like to think that I'm a good man and by helping others, I can make this world a nicer place to live.  If I make a difference in even one person's life, it will all be worth it.  If I can find love, even for a day, it is worth a lifetime of loneliness.  And, honestly, I've already done that.  I've seen the world, I've loved a woman, I've been loved by that woman, I've made an impression on a host of different people.  I don't know that it is any type of immortality, but I think it is something.  I would like to think that if I saw a train coming towards me and I had five seconds to live, I would think back on all I've done and be happy.  But I don't have to do that.  I figure I have as much time as I've already lived twice again before I finally have to face that.  I certainly don't want to die old in my bed, but I have so many moments of happiness left to live, that I have no reason to fear death.  I still have a lot of work to do, but I'm ready to do it.  I just wish that the world saw things through my eyes because I think there would be much less pain and suffering.  Much less hate if people lived their lives to their fullest instead of filling themselves with rage and greed and animosity.  But that is a part of life as well.  It will never change.  Religion makes some people love each other and makes another want to kill.  Love does the same.  However, maybe if I can make one other person feel the way I do and they, in turn, make someone else see that way, then I truly have found life eternal.

Mandatory Government Service

I think there are some pros and cons to mandatory government service.  To begin with, I think it makes people here more health conscious.  Sure, you see overweight people.  Some of them are even in the army still, but I think that, all in all, the majority of the people are used to some sort of regular exercise and it probably makes for a healthier population.  The other reason that it is nice is because everyone experiences a full time job at least once in their life.  This is one thing that I would like to see in the US.  I don't think that people can contribute meaningfully to society if they just live off of other people their entire lives.  By this I'm thinking trust fund kids and other rich, spoiled people.  

However, there are some downsides that I had never thought of before that I think are certainly true.  First of all, I think it changes the national mentality.  Israelis are very cold and blunt for the most part.  I don't know if it is an aspect of spending three years in the military, but I don't think it helps.  I think it also makes people more independent, which is good, but it also makes it hard to meet people and break the ice.  Secondly, I think it perpetuates a culture of fear.  Developed countries have enough of a problem with the fear concept.  I think it's because there is so much to lose in a developed country, especially in Israel where you can drive for an hour and see a mirror image with people living with nothing.  Having people in the military living daily with the knowledge that they can be called up to war at a phone call and training for that war makes people constantly think of it.  We have cable news and papers in the States, but only a small section of society has experienced the military.  

Something else that bothers me about mandatory service, something that inspired me to write this blog, was seeing a female IDF soldier get on the bus with a stuffed duck hanging from her backpack.  I know it sounds sexist, but I don't think that girls should be forced to be in the military.  I think that there should be a different service that they can enter such as Americorps back home.  For that matter, I don't think that you should force men to serve either.  I think that, as there is a high demand for soldiers here, it would make sense to offer incentives for men and/or women to join to fill the demand.  Military service should be for 2 years, other service should be for 3 and there would be financial or educational incentives to get people to join the military over the civil service.  The duck tells me that she has a desk job, isn't a cold blooded killer, and is probably filling some mundane job that I have a hard time believing is worth the time and money of the state to fill.  It also makes IDF soldiers look weak.  No hard core terrorist who was riding that bus with us is going to think twice before messing with her.  Maybe she doesn't care.  Is there truly a demand for that many people working for the military?  Put them to work planting trees, doing road construction and other civil projects.  They learn a useful skill, work for the state for a few years, the state gets cheap labor, teachers, etc and not everyone has to join.  I think you could still maintain an active reserve by making all the men do boot camp and then move then onto other support type roles and keeping a full contingent of combat troops ready.

Hope for peace

I was sitting in my internship today and heard a story that gave me more hope for a (eventual) peaceful solution to the Palestinian-Israeli question.  I'm going to rehash it here:


On June 8 an eight-year-old boy, Oron Yarden, was kidnapped at Savyon, near
Tel Aviv. The kidnapper managed to elude the police and escape with the IL2
million ransom paid by the child's parents. Impassioned appeals by the prime
minister, the chief rabbis, and others to the kidnapper to release the boy were of no
avail; the decomposed body of the child was discovered buried in sand dunes near
Netanya on June 30. He had been strangled to death shortly after the ransom was
paid. A 33-year-old Netanya man was arrested shortly after the body was found,
and was sentenced to life imprisonment plus 34 years.

This is from an article that one of the ladies in my office pointed me to.  The boy, Oron, was her son.  Since that time, her husband has passed away and her surviving children have moved to Switzerland with her grandchildren.  She told me that her life ended that day; she has tried to kill herself twice.  However, when the police asked her if she thought it would be ok for the man to be up for limited parole, one day a month to see his wife, she agreed.  Her response was that Israel doesn't have a death penalty and, if they did, she certainly wishes that he would have gotten it.  However, the man has been in prison for over 30 years and since there is no death penalty, he should be allowed to continue living like a human being, not caged up like an animal for the rest of his life.  I was surprised by that.  I would have thought that she would want the worst possible punishment for someone like that, but, while she hasn't forgiven him, as the pain dulls with time, she has learned to live with and accept the fact that the world is a shitty place sometimes and there is only so much we can do about it.  You just have to get busy living or get busy dying.  Her life is good now.  She is dating a wealthy man who takes her traveling and on cruises and treats her very well, much better than her late husband and she is very happy.  She still works in the ICT, though, because even though she is over 70, she likes the work, it keeps her busy, and in a way it could help prevent another instance like what happened to her.

Development vs Independence

One of the ways that the original Jewish immigrants justified their entrance into Palestine (other than the historical/biblical) was the idea that they were bringing development to the area.  While I don't think that anyone can dispute that the predominantly Jewish areas were more developed overall, this still smacks of a colonialist argument.  The British and French used the same justification for their involvement in Africa, India, etc.  However, I have to agree with the Palestinians when they say that they didn't ask for it just like the Africans didn't ask for any help.  We can draw parallels to this with the invasion of Iraq.  Bringing "democracy" to a region without their asking it is a very similar concept.  It isn't PC to imply that the people living there were not advanced enough to develop themselves.  It wasn't true then and it isn't true now, but I think that is still the underlying idea behind a lot of people's thinking.  The Iraqis were not strong enough to take control of the country themselves, so we would come in and be these amazing liberators and welcomed with open arms.  Assuming we leave an American friendly government in place, we still may have a problem with the local population resenting us and viewing any troops or bases remaining in the country as well as the government as a vestige of imperialism.  I think that Americans and Iraqis may have a better chance at reconciliation in the near future than Israelis and Palestinians, but the underlying concept is the same: the Western, developed world thinking that they need to make the rest of the world like ourselves and forcing our ideas on them.  I think there are plenty of places where this fusion has happened organically and Western culture has been invited in to blend with local customs and ideas naturally.

Justice

I was reading in the Caplan book and there was a quote that really stuck out to me.  "The more historical justice that each side demands, the less their real national interests get served.  Justice and interests fall into conflict."

This brings puts into better words a concept that I have had for a while.  When I look at the conflict, I see the current situation.  I don't think it matters who has won or lost over the years.  Historical justice is something that can go back years, centuries, or millenia.  Both sides will claim injustice and both sides will demand retribution and/or compensation.  As for their claims, there was a comment on how God promised a vaguely defined holy land to "the children of Abraham" as an everlasting possession.  Considering that Jews claim decendence from Isaac and Muslims claim decendence from Ishmael, the two sons of Abraham, both are technically the "seed of Abraham" and yet nobody addresses this.  I'm sure that Jews would dispute this claim just as Muslims would argue it.  Regardless, they are still saying that an invisible, omnipotent being promised something to you and this doesn't seem to be the best way to divide real estate.  It would be like claiming the North Pole because Santa Clause lives there.  England might dispute that, but they call him Father Christmas and they dress him differently, so they must be wrong and ours is true.

Dwelling on the past will only complicate an already complicated issue further.  People need to look at the current issues and find a way to reach resolutions that are acceptable to both sides.  Overall, I think most people realize that historical issues are not the basis for the argument, but it often comes back to that.  It may be that most of the people in power don't focus as much on the past anymore, but there is always something else to justify the status quo.  While I don't think that historical justice is the most commonly used logic among the governments and other parties in the negotiations, I think that among regular people it is still used to justify the occupation and policies Israel has against the Palestinians.  It is still used as a theme to control public sentiment much like fear of terrorism is used in the US.  The terrorist theme is obviously used in Israel as well, but they are able to use the other narrative to compliment it.

Intern issues

So, I guess it's time for me to jump on the complaint wagon.  Actually, the internship is fine, but it's the people that I'm working with that I have an issue with.  I have been working on my paper on extremism for about two weeks now and my partner and I decided to exchange our work to see what the other is doing.  She has done much more than me in terms of length and graphics, but her content is questionable.  First of all, she is not much of a writer.  She doesn't know how to write a formal article or paper.  Honestly, it sounds very high-school / undergrad level.  It just doesn't sound professional enough to publish for me.  Granted, it is a rough draft and I can probably help her out a bit, but I don't want to have to rewrite the entire thing.  The other issue is what she is writing about.  She opens the paper with a brief history of Islam in the US.  According to her "research" there is evidence of mosques in Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico that date to 700-800 AD.  I found the website and it's obviously a very pro Islam group.  The idea that the first thing Mohammad did after establishing the first Caliphate was to send people to the New World who settled there and taught the natives to worship Islam is ludicrous.  Even if they are from 800 AD or 1000AD it isn't tenable.  I certainly don't want to share credit for this paper if it is full of conspiracy theory type content.  However, I am also fully aware that Stevie won't let that happen.  If he read it at this point, he would have a field day with it.  He is ruthless when giving us shit, and will probably make fun of her.  In order to avoid this and any potential backlash I can face from it, I asked her to take it out because it isn't a proven source.  Most of the rest of it is ok, but needs more information in it and less graphics.  She works really hard, I have to give her that, but she really needs some direction and isn't too interested in my commentary when I try to give it to her.  If it continues, I may ask Stevie to give her something else to do and I'll finish it myself.  The other option would be to let her do a lot of research, write it up, and then I will fix it after we finish.  That will take some time and a lot of rewriting, but if I do it by myself, I don't think that I will get it done in time.  It has taken me 2 weeks to do the first section and I don't think I can do the other 4 or 5 in time without her.  Even then, I may have to do some work on it when I get home, mostly because I just don't trust anyone else to do it for me.

Where am I? (my long blog)

As far as my internship goes, I'm in the absolute best one in the group as far as I am concerned.  The ICT is a fantastic place to work.  (I know you know everything about it, but the syllabus says to describe it, so I will.)  There are about three full time interns, one full time employee, and a supervisor.  Everyone is working on different topics, but all are obviously related to counter terrorism.  Stevie runs a good ship.  He isn't too strict and lets us interpret our assignments the way that we choose so long as we stay on task and produce good work.  Our job is to produce research for the school that will be used by the faculty in their own work.  Currently Boaz Ganor, the head of the program, is producing articles for publication but the general goal of our organization is to disseminate information for other people to use in their research and personal edification.  I'm not aware of any organizations or governments that contract with the ICT to produce reports for them, but I suppose it is a possibility.  As far as what I want to get from this internship, I am looking for several things.  Originally, I just wanted to get experience working in CT that I would be able to put on my resume.  However, it looks like I’m going to get much more out of it than that.  Aside from the experience, I am currently working on a paper that will be published on the website.  This will be my first publication and although it may not be the most prestigious of journals or mediums, I am excited to have something that I can point to and be proud of.  If I ever decide to go for a PhD I will have at least two published articles (I will be working on another large project for my Master’s capstone).  In addition to this, I have made several contacts that could be useful in the future.  I now know Boaz and will try to stay in contact with him.  He is fairly well known in the CT field and works closely with American counterparts.  Stevie will also likely be doing a PhD in the States at some point and could be a great contact for any future jobs or projects I will work on.  Just having people I can ask about research and who to read and what to study is something handy.  Even the people I work with and the other people in our group could potentially be a resource as we all begin to enter the job market.  Rush has a similar career path in mind as do a few of the other interns.  I hate the word “networking” but whether I like it or not, that is what I am doing.  This is my first foray into counter-terrorism.  While I have studied the Middle East, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and South Asia in the past, I have never exclusively focused on the issue of combating terror.  It has been an interesting experience that I will definitely be able to use in the future.  In fact, I am taking a class on CT next semester and hope to be able to use some of the work I have done here to my advantage during the course.  Ideally, I would like to do something with CT in the future, either with the intelligence community or with some other government organization.  This internship and the seminar course will look very good on a resume and will give me more credibility than I currently have.  The organization, overall, is very conservative, but in a good way.  We constantly joke about peaceniks how much the Western World kicks ass when it comes to fighting the bad guys, but we don’t let racism or politics enter into the equation.  People are constantly wondering on my opinion of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and how it relates to CT.  My response would be that decisions made on the government level will affect how many terrorists there are out there and our job is to find ways to mitigate the amount of violence they can cause.  I like the CIA model.  They don’t make policy; they get the information that allows policy makers to do their job.  Likewise, there are terrorists out there and our job is to figure out who they are and how we can stop them.  The politics can be left to wiser men than I (though the wisdom of politicians is a subject of much debate).  It is nice that everyone in the group has a good sense of humor and because everyone is very secular, no subject is taboo.  We run the gamut of jokes from terrorists, Americans, Jews/Israelis, Russians, politicians and more.  In a way, I like to think of it as how a doctor must get through the day.  I actually know quite a few doctors and they generally have a great sense of humor, though you wouldn’t guess it most of the time.  I think in order to deal with sickness and death on a daily basis; you have to be able to laugh.  We deal with some pretty horrible stuff and, while most of the joking we do would not leave the room, it is a way to deal with reading about suicide bombings, dead civilians, and other types of hate.  So we have a competition to find the hottest terrorist and put her picture on the wall or we discuss which jihadi website we should put an intern’s picture on to have the most effect on their future career.  I like this concept because I’m a cynic when it comes to government.  I don’t want any part in the electoral process other than my informed vote.  My plan is to work with whatever jackass gets elected and do everything I can to make sure that the right decisions are made and the least amount of damage is done.  Right now I’m just concentrating on research, but when I enter the workforce, I would rather be doing field work.  As a diplomat, as an analyst, or on the ground doing development, I prefer to have a task and do it working with the resources at my disposal rather than politicking and pandering to keep my job.  

Rosa Parks and the whiskey bar

There is a bar on Dizengoff that is called Rosa Parks.  Having been there several times, we have wondered where the name came from.  Our first visit, we asked the several of the waitresses where the name came from and recieved different answers from all of them.  The first had no idea.  The second knew that she was a black lady in the US and that's about it.  The third one explained to us that the bar had changed owners several times and the reason for the name has since been lost.  What is interesting, however, is that on our last visit, we were playing pool and had some problems with the table eating our cue ball.  The owner came up and fixed it for us (Rush and I) and we sat and had a drink with him while he talked about Tel Aviv and Israel in general.  His first comment was that Tel Aviv was a special city in Israel.  His claim was that most people in the city would be happy to secede from Israel and become their own country.  I'm sure this was in jest, functionally, this would not work well and Israel would never allow it, but his reasons were interesting to me.  He said that most Tel Avivians didn't care a hoot about the conflict, they just wanted it to end.  He claimed not to care if his neighbors were Palestinian/Israeli/Chinese or any other race.  He just wanted to live in peace and the status quo of a strong Jewish controlled state made no difference to him.  This led him to tell us the real reason that the bar was named Rosa Parks.  When he started to explain it to us, we were a bit taken aback because we thought the reasons were lost to history.  Apparently, he is the original owner and there has never been another.  His logic for naming the bar was that he had lived in Brooklyn for several years which is how he learned about Rosa Parks.  He wanted to name his bar something that was not associated with Palestine, Israel, England, or the US.  While Rosa is from the US, she is (was?) an African American, so he felt that was enough of a distinction for her.  It was about a fight for equality and treating everyone the same regardless of any perceived differences between them.

I can put this in perspective by the bar I went to last night.  Yes, that's right.  I do my best social research on subjects who have been drinking.  Also, if you start an interesting conversation with a bartender, they tend to give you free whiskey after a bit.  This guy over at Armadillo right across from our apt (actually, a pretty cool bar with lots of beers on tap.  You should check it out.) was obviously much more conservative and overheard a conversation I was having with Sarah on counter terrorism/insurgency tactics in Iraq/Afghanistan and how that related to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.  This sparked an intense yet very civil and orderly conversation about Israeli security where he demonstrated his conservative nature.  He most certainly would not advocate a liberal stance towards the Palestinians, though the girl working there would.  On the whole, I agree with the owner of Rosa that most people in Tel Aviv are more liberal, but it is also very apparent that the issue is still very raw with many people.  I imagine that much of it has to do with the number of people who have had friends and relatives killed in the various wars and/or terrorist attacks.  How do we fix this?  Well, according to Stevie at the ICT, we need to go back to the one state solution.  Give the entire Middle East to the Jews.  (This is from the guy who also has pictures of various attractive Arab women on the wall with AK-47s and suicide vests on.  It is called the T.I.L.F. list.  It's like a M.I.L.F., only with Terrorists.)

American Perceptions

The project that I'm working on for my internship is on Islamic extremism in the US.  As part of the project, Stevie sent me a paper on extremism in Italy to help me through it.  Reading through it, I was amazed (why I don't know) about the similarities between the situations in the US and Europe.  I have also been looking at the UK and it is the same.  People from other countries are always talking about how Americans think the world revolves around us and nothing happens outside our borders.  This is certainly an overstatement, but it is true to a degree.  Why other developed countries wouldn't have a problem with terrorism is beyond me.  When one thinks about it, it makes sense that they would actually have more of a problem considering that they have a higher population of Muslims than the US (relative to total population) and movement in and out of the EU is easier than the US.  In fact, having looked into the US situation, we seem to have it pretty good. Muslims integrate much more easily into our society than in Europe, mostly because of the heterogeneous makeup of our country.  We care less about maintaining a homogenous society and more about working together.  Sure, racism is still a problem.  Poor Dearborn, MI gets the brunt of anti-Muslim behavior in the US, but for the most part, I like to think that we accept foreigners better than most countries.  The Muslim minority population in the US is more affluent than in any other developed country.  I think that says something about accepting religious differences as far as workweeks and non-discriminatory employment.  There is also the perception of the American dream.  When all second generation immigrants are automatically American citizens as opposed to countries like Germany who have massive populations of immigrants and are not allowed citizenship, they are able to view themselves as American rather than as Chinese or Mexican or Arabs working in America.  This produces a greater feeling of solidarity with the US than it does in European countries.  On the whole, we definitely have the better situation.  However, I think we are also a bigger target in the eyes of the international community because we are more actively involved in world politics and economics than most European countries.  Hence, we think we are the center of the world because, to a degree, much of the world does revolve around what the US does.  It's a shame we don't get better international news on our standard news channels so that the population in general can be better informed about the situations in other countries, but I guess that's why people like us read a lot of news on the internet.

East Jerusalem

I guess this blog is going to be about the rest of the group.  Everyone came to Tel Aviv this weekend for a quick get together.  I have to say, you can tell who is culturally sensitive and here for the experience and who is here for a party atmosphere.  It kind of annoys me to hear people just whinging about how terrible their internships are and their locations.  I'm sure you know who I am talking about, because everyone said they were happy except for the East Jerusalem crowd.  You specifically asked us where we wanted to be and what kind of internship we wanted.  I look at disappointment as the fault of the disappointed.  Not only did they obviously not do any research before they chose a study abroad that could put them IN A MUSLIM COUNTRY, but they are completely unwilling to adapt to the lifestyle.  This really says something about American perceptions on the area and on the conflict.  Some people just refuse to believe that not everyone wants to be American.  I don't think that many of the girls in the West Bank/Gaza/East Jerusalem etc.  even want to be Americanized.  Is it misogynistic, completely male dominated, and it degrades women.  But, you know what, that isn't going to change overnight.  I figure it is at least as disgusting to the women living in these cultures that Americans walk around in short-shorts and tank tops as it is to American women that the woman are living in a male dominated society.  If you don't like it, don't go there.  Like I said, do some research and know what you are getting into.  American's are spoiled.  We have had decades to gradually make our society the way that it is and we expect to be able to change the rest of the world in a weekend.  I can't think of a way to put this better, so I will just say it.  Some societies are not as advanced as we are.  They are not ready for MTV and Lindsey Lohan.  For that matter, maybe they aren't ready for Democracy.  I think it was Socrates who discussed the logical transition of governments.  From Despotism, to Monarchy, to Democracy, to Socialism, to Communism... None of which is a perfect government.  However, we have seen what happens when a society tries to skip a step.  The Soviet Union went horribly wrong without a period of development and democracy before it went into Socialism.  We can't force a transition, it must happen organically and until that time, we must work with them.  Understanding and showing what development has done for us, the quality of life with a relatively educated population and industrialization is the only way to foster that transition.  Education, as always, is the key.  I think we can see that in the Arabs of Israel.  They still want their freedom and their rights, but they don't want to join Palestine and have them bring down the prosperity that being an Israeli citizen has brought them. A gradual transition will introduce new ideas and concepts to the underdeveloped areas.  Industrialization and prosperity will bring about a greater exchange of ideas and they will incorporate the aspects of Western society that they want and scrap the rest.  This is much more plausible than bringing in prefabricated McDonald's and a Planet Hollywood.

Wikileaks

My first assignment at the ICT, after reading a book on CT strategies, is editing a paper on British security through the eyes of the Wikileaks documents.  While I find it interesting, there are two aspects of it I don't care for.  Firstly, the paper is very poorly written.  The author is either a poor writer, or doesn't speak English as a first language.  Much of the paper is cut and copied directly from Wikileaks reports.  In fact, it is glaringly obvious which parts were written by the author and which ones weren't.  I would certainly call it plagerized because much isn't quoted or cited properly either.  I asked that my name not be placed on it even though, after my extensive revisions, it is much better (if I do say so myself).  Stevie doesn't seem bothered by this and I wonder if it has anything to do with a difference in American vs Israeli academic ethics or if it is because that is what he wanted the student/intern to do.  The second issue, and one I tried to explain to him after he assigned the paper, was that as a potential US govt employee, I am not supposed to read any Wikileaks. Most of these were published openly through The Telegraph or other newspapers, so I don't think it will be much of an issue, but I wrote two of my professors to ask their opinion on the issue.  By the time they had gotten back to me, I had already read too much, though, and I am worried that I may have overstepped myself.  The documents were widely circulated enough that I'm sure it won't be a deal breaker for any candidate, but I wish I had insisted on a different project.  It's ironic that I specifically asked not to be placed in the PA because I was worried about a security clearance and it is in Tel Aviv that I run into what I assume will be the biggest stumbling block to one.  I'm sure that I am overreacting, especially since they were all published through the papers, but I have made a point not to go to any more websites regarding them.

The interns themselves are an interesting mix of people.  All are from the US, but only one is going to school at the IDC.  He is considering making Aliya (sp?) in a few years, but waiting until he is old enough that the army won't want him for the full time.  He basically said that if he becomes a citizen in a few years, the army either wont want him or he will only be in for about 6 months.  Those 6 months would mostly be spent making coffee for 1000 shekels a month, which is crazy because I go through more than a 1000 shekels a week here (Yikes! Tel Aviv is not cheap!  But that's my own fault for not eating/drinking at home more).  I was talking to a few IDF girls at a bar the other night and they said the same thing.  They are answering phones and doing secretarial work for about the same amount.  (I felt a moment of sympathy and almost bought them a few rounds of drinks.  However, their boyfriends showed up right around then and saved me some money and any additional resentment.)  I'm not sure how they do it.  I have no idea what combat soldiers in the US get paid, but I think it is a few thousand dollars a month.  I was told that IDF combat troops make less than US$1000 a month, which is crazy.  However, with all the deployments they have in the PA and the Lebanese and Syrian borders, I suppose it is necessary.  Israel is a wealthy country, but doesn't have the kind of cash to spend on its military that the US does, even with billions of dollars in US military aid.

Internship - Week one

My internship is amazing.  I am deeply in debt to you, Yehuda, for selecting this one for me.  Being able to do my own research and potentially get something published will really help out my resume.  The first week, however, has been fairly slow.  Stevie asked me to read a book on counter-terrorism written by one of the faculty at the ICT.  The premise was interesting, mostly that we need a fully comprehensive definition of terrorism before we can truly fight it and the logic behind countries who don't want it standardized.  Basically, in order to condemn terrorist actions and hold states accountable for their support of it, we have to have a legal framework built around the definition in order to bring the issue to a head.  Surprisingly, it is states like Syria and Iran that are the most proactive about forming a true definition because they want to have it written so that it can justify their support of organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah.  They see them as freedom fighters and not terrorists, so their definition will exempt their actions.  However, the US is against a true definition because we don't want to have any legal repercussions against our CT actions and military operations fighting it.  We also support a number of organizations within countries that oppose the regimes we are not friendly with and either of these issues could result in action against us in the international courts or the UN.  

I was generally surprised when I finished reading this because I had imagined that the US would be all for a policy of standardization of the framework against terrorism.  After reading this, though, it makes complete sense from a political point of view.  As the global superpower, we are currently able to operate with impunity in most of the international arena.  I don't see this as just, but it is a fact that we deal with.  From a CT point of view, it also makes sense for us.  When we can operate within the international anarchy, we are able to take the actions that we deem necessary to protect ourselves and our interests.  While defining the concept would have some, limited, benefits, it could be tantamount to shooting ourselves in the foot in the international battle against extremism.  Allowing the government to operate outside a legal framework it excellent for keeping citizens safe from everyone except the government that is trying to protect them.  It removes rights in exchange for protection which is, of course the great dilemma with all security arguments.  How many of your rights are you willing to concede in order to feel safe?  (To paraphrase what one member of the IC told me once: Safety is positively correlated to the number of clothes you have to take off at the airport.)

Yad Vashem and Foreign Ministry

The most interesting thing that struck me at Yad Vashem was how different it was from the museum in DC.  The DC museum focuses on shock and awe whereas Yad Vashem looks at the causes and motivations of both the heroes and perpetrators of the Holocaust.  While the differences between the two of them are important, it was the impressions among the group that made the most impact on me.  I was personally impressed with the guide, but Liz, one of the two Jewish students in our group, was apparently offended by him.  I don't know if it was the manor in which he approached the subject or some other factor, but I thought it was interesting.  While not Jewish myself, I think that it was a fascinating take on the Holocaust, one that would only come after several generations.  While he certainly made a point about the uniqueness of the genocide, the fact that even as the Nazis were losing the war they still made last ditch efforts to kill every Jew that they could, he was still very adamant about keeping any connection between it and any other event separate for that very reason.  Personally, I thought it was difficult to separate what the Nazis did to the Jews before the war, rounding them up with only what they could carry and sending them to live in ghettos, much different from what the Jews did to the Palestinians after '48 and '67.  Obviously the whole genocide part of it is different (though one could make a case that it fits the UN definition if stretched a bit), but there is no doubt that ethnic cleansing took place.

Another parallel that I began to draw from speaking with the Foreign Ministry is that of the religious state.  My basic American values make it very difficult for me to support such a confined nationalistic sentiment in a population.  Only allowing Jews to become new citizens seems more than a little racist to me.  In fact, it's more restrictive than many Islamic Republics.  I respect that the dream of many Holocaust survivors was made reality when Israel was formed, but I personally believe that the idea of a sustainably homogeneous state has died out with globalization.  It is too easy to travel across the world and start a business and raise a family in a new country.  Everyone interacts with everyone.  If a country closes itself off to immigration and restricts itself to such a narrow minded concept, it is doomed to fall behind other countries who are more open.  The whole concept of maintaining an ethnic majority when a quarter of your population is different is ridiculous anyway.  If, in twenty years, a new generation of Israelis haven't taken over from the hardliners, I think that some real problems will manifest themselves in the economy and international opinion of Israeli society.

Israeli Impressions

The first day of the seminar was interesting from a historical perspective.  This is especially true when considering the nature of the guide who took us around the old city.  Being a Jewish woman, I was interested in her take on several issues.  What struck me the most, however, was her description of events at the Western Wall.  After visiting the site, I asked her why the construction of houses stopped and when the renovation of the plaza took place.  I knew full well what happened after the 1967 takeover of Jerusalem, but i wanted to hear what she said.  Her take on it was that after taking control of the Old City, the authorities decided to clear some shoddy old houses from the area and create the plaza.  This was glossed over very quickly and the subject moved on.  She didn't mention the army bringing in bulldozers without approval 48 hours after establishing control.  I thought this was a little irresponsible on her part and not very objective, though I can understand how that might not be some thing she would be particularly proud of.

The next day, seeing the poverty of Hevron was devastating.  The area of the old market and even some of the surrounding areas were at least as bad as I had seen elsewhere in the developing world (Honduras, Nicaragua and Guatemala).  I felt that the discussion was, overall, fairly biased and almost propaganda-esque.  The fact that the man said he was worried that he would be shot if he wasn't with Americans was a little over the top and I find it hard to believe that the settlers regularly throw rocks at Arab children and the soldiers are all monsters who completely ignore this.  I'm sure they aren't nice to each other and that rock throwing happens, but he had a very good reason to distort the facts for the visiting Americans.  Also, the gas bomb that just happened to be lying in the street several days after the incident in the market with the flashbangs was a bit suspicious as well.  The streets were fairly well maintained as far as trash was concerned and I can't believe that they would just leave it there for almost a week when there is surely someone who collects them to record the serial numbers.  All this notwistanding, there is still the very real fact that the wall/checkpoints/etc are certainly bad for the local economy as well as for the convenience of the residents.  I would assume that the raids conducted by the IDF were not for their own amusements, but rather to go after suspected terrorists.  Considering that Hevron is a very Hamas friendly city, this is most likely the case, though I can see how it would appear to be very aggressive to the locals.  The fact of the matter is, though, that the more the Israeli government opressess the local population, the more they will become sympathetic to extremist groups that promise to provide services, improve living conditions, and remove the occupation.  As incomes decrease, many of the residents are left with no other choice.

First Impressions

So to begin with, my first impressions of Israel.  Having traveled with my sister (hereafter Charlotte) for a  week before the program began, I had already experienced a sliver of both the Jewish and Arab cultures.  Israelis, while generally friendly and helpful, are also much colder and blunt than their Palestinian and Jordanian counterparts.  I have to wonder if much of this is due to the military culture that presents itself in Israel.  Not only has the the entire population served in the armed forces at one point or another, but they continue to see their country existing in a state of siege.  I think this is also a result of greater Westernization of the Israelis.  The Arabs, on the other hand, are friendlier and more generous.  I have noticed this trait in many third world countries and I think much of it has to do with the importance and reliance on extended families.  A willingness to help a third cousin who you barely know is little different from helping a complete stranger and welcoming that person in to your home, especially if you are trying to make an impression on that person.  The downside to this is that, being from a third world mentality, there is a higher chance that they will take advantage of you as a tourist who doesn't speak the language or know the local customs.  This has happened to me as well.  I am also infatuated with cultures different from my own and, while Israel is certainly different, it is much more similar than the Arabs.

We are fortunate to see the country from so many points of view.  I arrived here with an opinion on the conflict.  I am not so ignorant that I I will blind myself to the points of view of either side, especially when I know that what is right and just is a subjective concept and realities of power and politics are what truly dictate outcomes. I am trying to keep my personal opinions to myself and look at the issue objectively especially considering the internship that I will be participating in.  I can only assume that those working in counter terrorism will have a more conservative outlook on the security situation than many of the NGOs that my fellow students are working with.  Justice for Israelis and Palestinians is a moot point when looking at terrorism.  From a political standpoint, there is one imperative - Keeping civilians safe.  Whether this is through a large military presence and a separation wall or through development projects and community outreach, the goal is the same.  The military should leave politics to the politicians.  I imagine that many American exchange students didn't agree with Communist ideology when they studied in the USSR, but they are able to learn much about the people and culture by doing so.  This is not to compare Israel to the USSR in any way shape or form, but one does not have to agree with a policy to learn much from it.  Israel is very good at counter-terrorism and they certainly use different tactics than the United States.  This will be a fantastic opportunity to compare and contrast strategies and learn what works and what doesn't.