[preliminary notes on] Ending Middle Eastern Madness?
CPDS Home Contact  
Introduction +

 

Introduction

As a result of the outbreak of conflict in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah in mid 2006, there were many calls for real solutions to problems in the Middle East.

For example:

The Middle East is a tinderbox where key player want to destroy their enemies with bullets, bombs and missiles. Holding prisoners is one cause of violence and Israel's vulnerability. This led to renewed violence in June - when Palestinians attacked Israel and provoked a strong response which has brought reconciliation between warring Palestinian factions and support for them throughout the Arab world.  With US backing, Israeli bombed Lebanon. Hezbollah rockets from Syria and Iran struck northern Israel. Israel has a right to defend itself against attacks, but it is is inhumane and counterproductive to punish civilians in the hope that they will blame Hamas and Hezbollah for provoking the response. The result has been broad Arab and worldwide support for these groups, while both Israel and the US have been condemned. The urgent need in Lebanon is that Israeli attacks stop, Lebanon's regular military control the southern region, Hezbollah cease as a separate fighting force, and future attacks against Israel be prevented. These are ambitious hopes, but even if the U.N. Security Council achieves a solution, it will be just another band-aid. The current conflict is part of the repetitive cycle of violence that results from the absence of a comprehensive settlement in the Middle East. Majorities on both sides want peace. A major impediment to progress is Washington's policy that dialogue on controversial issues will be extended only as a reward for subservient behavior and will be withheld from those who reject U.S. assertions. Direct engagement with the PLO and others will be necessary if secure negotiated settlements are to be achieved. Failure to do so risks the creation of an arc of even greater instability running from Jerusalem through Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad and Tehran. The people of the Middle East deserve peace and justice, and the international community owe them leadership and support.  (Carter J., Stop the Band-Aid Treatment: We Need Policies for a Real, Lasting Middle East Peace, Washington Post, 1/8/06)

The conflict between Hezbollah and Israel has dominated the news. We should not forget the background to this. Hezbollah is an armed revolutionary militia established among Shiite communities in Southern Lebanon where it has popular support. It is  a state within a state providing social services. It was founded by Iranian Revolutionary Guards and is inspired / financed by Iran and Syria. Like its sponsors in Iran, it is devoted to destroying Israel. Iran's President called for Israel “to be wiped off the map.”, and Hezbollah's leader is no less determined - having made similar statements. The UN resolved that the militias in Lebanon should be disarmed. The Lebanese Government, in whose ranks sit members of Hezbollah, has neither the will, nor the capacity to do so. In the six years since Israel left Southern Lebanon, Hezbollah has been digging in and building its armoury.  Hezbollah, like all effective terrorist organisations, embeds itself in the community. Civilian casualties are a terrorist objective - which are expected to inflame global opinion against Israel and reinforce local support for Hezbollah. Many hoped that Hezbollah would become a mainstream domestic political party in Lebanon. But while it had success (and joined the government)  Hezbollah kept its campaign against Israel. Current hostilities were triggered by a Hezbollah ambush, within Israel - an act of war. Israel responded with a campaign to destroy Hezbollah - which has been criticised by European countries as an over-reaction. Others have suggested that what was done was too slow, or insufficient.  More important than such questions is the overall strategic context . There can be no Middle East peace without acceptance of the right of Israel to exist and the emergence of an independent Palestinian state. Equally there can be no peace in Lebanon until the militias are disarmed and the Government has a monopoly of armed force. (Turnbull M., 'Israel takes on Hezbollah', circular email 6/8/06)

('Time to find an end to the madness', editorial Courier Mail, 2/8/06).

Such calls recognise the need to do more than contain current violence (eg to create an environment in which people of the Middle East can gain peace and justice).

The purpose of this document is to suggest what might be required to achieve such an outcome - and that this seems well beyond what appears to be being considered in diplomatic efforts to prevent violence.

Qualification

[This document is in a very preliminary form and requires extensive adjustment]

Author's approach

The author has no detailed knowledge of conflicts in the Middle East - much less who is 'right' or 'wrong'. All parties seem to have been pig-headed and to have preferred violence to other options.

Rather the author comes at this question primarily from the viewpoint what has been required for the development of modern societies (with particular consideration of the situation of Western societies and East Asia) which has suggested issues in relation to the Middle East's predicament).

Overview

Overview

The problem raised by conflict in the Middle East is far wider than the actions of terrorist organisations or Israel's efforts to defend itself.

Though Israel's relationships with its neighbours are a 'sore' in the Middle East, this is not the only point of conflict / instability  and there are broader concerns that help inflame the 'sore' - especially the autocratic governance, poor economic performance and alienation from global cultures that characterise many countries in the region.

Thus 'development' issues are of central importance to conflict / instability in the Middle East.

In fact the major obstacle to ending violence is arguably that attention is focused on actual or potential conflicts and military / security methods are emphasised as a response, which has the effect of preventing serious attention to the contextual factors that have a key role in driving those conflicts.

The stakes are rising. Attempts by the US to promote political and economic progress through use of force to displace bad governments in the Middle East to head off a radical Islamist 'revolution' have been based on the theory that pre-emption would make a future global-scale conflict. However Islamist extremists show increasing power (eg Iran is heading towards nuclear weapons; chaos rather than effective government prevails in Iraq and Afghanistan; and Hizbollah's resistance to Israeli attempts to destroy it in southern Lebanon was vastly more effective than had been expected). Unless the conflict is resolved diplomatically or ideologically, the potential for far wider and more destructive regional conflicts is increasing.

A better way to prevent conflict would be to demonstrate that this can't really lead to progress in resolving the underlying causes of tensions in the Middle East.  This should be obvious as the history of the region over the last few decades suggests that conflict is mutually destructive and self-perpetuating.

However Israel (and indeed the US and various Middle Eastern governments) deserve to be exposed as foolish for their use of primarily militarily / security methods in attempting to prevent attacks by Islamist extremists, because (a) this has the effect of validating their cause and (b) demonstrating to Muslim populations the probable futility of the extremists' ideology (ie their lack of any practical solutions to challenges facing the Middle East) should be a far easier, cheaper, more effective and less damaging way to reduce the potential for conflict.

This could perhaps be achieved by methods speculated in Discouraging Pointless Extremism. The latter suggests, for example, that the Islamist goal of governing complex / ever-changing social and economic systems in accordance with simpler and unchanging religious principles can probably be shown to be unworkable.

Israel (and the US and others who have sought to discourage Islamist extremism) have largely failed to even try to demonstrate the impracticality of politicising religion.

The Cold War ended when people in the Soviet world realized that Communism was not a sensible way to manage an economy or society. Careful evaluation and public exposure of the practicality (or otherwise) of Islamist ideologies should take a lot more tension out of the Middle East than Israel's military action against Islamist extremists on its borders (or war crimes' charges to moderate that action).
Non Solutions

'Solutions' that would not work

US president has called for Muslims generally to reject extremism and reiterated his (a) intent to fight terrorism (b) intent to pressure for democratic political reforms in Middle East and [ref]

George W Bush may be judged by history as President Truman - who set in train the policy of containment that ultimately resulted in victory in Cold War in the face of opposition from defence establishment. Bush doctrine involves (a) treating terrorists as a force in war not as criminals (b) holding states responsible for actions of their terrorist surrogates (c) seeing dysfunctional political culture of Middle East as source of terrorism and (d) fighting ideas behind terror with democracy and human rights and (e) taking pre-emptive action. Truman's war in Korea was even worse than Iraq. CIA has been critical of Bush doctrine - but this seems to be covering its backside for intelligence failures. Clinton administration did not take terrorism seriously. Bush's central insight was that terrorists are at war with civilization - and that there is a specific enemy (fundamentalist, extremist Islamism - represented by Al Qa'ida). Because it is large; has some support from state apparatus; makes clever alliances; lacks moral scruples; and seeks to acquire nuclear weapons, it is a threat as great as Soviet union. Bush was right to conclude that status-quo approach to Middle East did not produce peace - but produced terrorism. The people of Iraq want democracy. Most killing in Iraq has been done by those who oppose democracy. Lately Saudis, Egyptians and Jordanians do not support al Qa'ida agenda. Bush made many mistakes. But all wars are messy. Bush has never shirked the hard decisions [1]

This can't work because of the absence of preconditions for a democratic system of government to be effective (eg a social order based on a belief in liberty; and civil institutions to develop policy options).

War crimes:

Israel's use of excessive force in Lebanon could probably be the basis for war crimes' action.

However war crimes' charges would never do more than prevent Israel's dubious efforts to reduce threats to its security from Islamist groups such as Hezbollah and the latter's presumed sponsors in Syria and Iran. It would not address or reduce underlying problems in the region.

Surely a better way to prevent conflict would be to demonstrate that this can't really lead to progress in resolving the fundamental causes of tensions in the Middle East.

It matters little whether Israel's use of excessive force was the result of (a) an attempt at deterrence reflecting its insecurity (b) intelligence blunders or (c) an attempt to provoke action by Syria / Iran that would rationalise a response favourable to nations having heavier firepower.
Reducing Contextual Stresses

Real Solutions: Reducing Contextual Stresses?

The political and economic context in the Middle East could be improved if attention could be given to them. For example:

  • the region has rich natural resources (ie oil) and this often seems to lead to poor quality local economic leadership - and thus to disadvantaged communities - because this problem has not been taken seriously (see About the Curse of Natural Resources); Oil is however critical to global economy
  • there are unexamined features of liberal economic models (which are being globalised) that make it difficult for societies to prosper - because systemic requirements for economic success are not automatically met (see Non-Western societies and the difficulties they face);
  • there are features of the culture of Muslim dominated countries which seem to further inhibit economic prosperity (by making change, which is critical to economic productivity, difficult to achieve) and to encourage an autocratic approach to government (eg see About Arabic Thought and Islamic Science);

The US's political environment is a significant part of the problem because it allows excess influence through lobbying by influential interest groups - ie by something like a 'military industrial complex'. Under this influence the US has been unable to view problems in the Middle East other than through a militarist lens - though at times in the past its leadership would probably have been capable of taking a broader view. The methods that the US is using are accelerating the decline of its status and reputation in the world (ie those methods are not in the interests of the US itself).

It is vital to encourage the world community to lift its sights from simple concern with conflicts.

A better option is to encourage world leaders to look at the 'big picture' questions so as to give the peoples of the Middle East some hope of a future..