Being a peacemaker is part of being surrendered to God, for God brings peace. We abandon the effort to get our needs met through the destruction of enemies. God comes to us in Christ to make peace with us; and we participate in God's grace as we go to our enemies to make peace.
Glen H Stassen & David P Gushee, Kingdom Ethics

25 March 2008: five days ago, the Lebanese Council of Ministers unanimously decreed that this date will henceforth become a Muslim-Christian national feast day so that members of both faith communities come together annually around the theme of Together around Mary: Our Lady and exalt Sitna Mariam (St Mary, mother of Jesus). Given that both Muslims and Christians revere Mary in their respective holy books, albeit in different ways, this feast hopes to draw them together, and in so doing perhaps focus on what unites rather than what separates them. There are also plans to export this feast to Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Poland, Italy and France next year as an innovative platform for inter-religious and inter-regional dialogue.

I liked this rather unusual idea, and I pray that that this Marian icon will manage to become an apolitical - or at least non-politicised - catalyst providing the foundation for a further coming together of all Lebanese communities. But the irony - and I suppose ultimately the strength - of such a project is that it has found its genesis in a country with so many tectonic confessional plates. It is encouraging that a resilient Lebanon of ever-decreasing cedars, increasingly busy these days gearing itself up toward the parliamentary elections of 7th June, can find the time, space and will to institute this symbolic feast.

Yet, important as religious symbols are for Lebanon, a more crucial symbol looms ahead in the shape of the results of the forthcoming elections. They would elicit the alliances and political forces of the two respective political coalitions of 8th March and 14th March and perhaps even trace a trajectory for the future course, development and possible re-alignments of the whole country as politicians change camps, consolidate their gains or suffer their losses.

This is why a closer look reveals myriad tensions, uncertainties and spats underlying political structures. In fact, feuds can be witnessed during almost every meeting of the Lebanese cabinet whose current template for governance was drafted by a finite Doha Agreement and which at times reflects more a sense of disunion than of union. The two major political blocs busily vie for influence, with the electoral lists of candidates in different constituencies - especially in critical ones such as the Metn - proving hard to put together because everyone pushes their sectarian affiliations at the expense of the larger good.

Interestingly enough, the Armenian Tashnaq party has now assumed the role of kingmaker in this mêlée: their seats in Beirut, the Metn and Zahlé could together tilt the balance of power between the two coalitions. No wonder then that politicians from both blocs, let alone from within the same blocs, have feverishly canvassed for their votes. Armenians, who number around 150,000, would probably sway the results in the Beirut 1 district (including Achrafieh, Saifi and Rmeil) where most Christians live today, However, the three Armenian parties (Tashnaq, Ramgavar and Henchak) who do not always see eye-to-eye politically should also be prudent with their choices and examine the consequences of their alliances or any breach of their historical neutrality and long-standing support for the incumbent presidency.

But the disagreements in the cabinet - whether over the national annual national budget and the amount to be allocated to the Council for South, over judicial appointments, over the national dialogue under the auspices of the president or even over the location of ministerial offices and telephone wiretapping - are all sapping the strength of the country and fomenting quite dangerous polarisations amongst its diverse communities. Lebanon is a tinderbox, and there is always the fear that a minor event could catapult the whole country into a major confrontation. Still, perils notwithstanding, nobody seems capable to take bold visionary decisions or make concessions at this critical stage without the risk of alienating their constituencies.

Interestingly enough, I realise that a majority of the Lebanese population of all hues and backgrounds are well-meaning and hard-working, let alone canny enough to suss out their leaders’ agendas. Yet, their populist hopes are negated not only by the inveterate ambitions and confessional nature of Lebanese politics, but also by this bizarre political setup in a Lebanon whereby the majority and opposition parties are meant to work together consensually. They sit together around the same cabinet table and participate collectively in the decisions of government. Yet, their interventions are more like endless filibusters that simply arrest any decision-making process. Besides, what aggravates the anomalous situation further is that the minority parties within government retain their veto on all decisions through their one-third blocking votes in cabinet. In other words, any cabinet decision can easily be unmade or frozen. One wonders how any constructive democratic decision could then be taken as each side checkmates the other with glib ease. I do not think I have ever come in my constitutional studies across any system of governance that places the winning and losing sides together in government.

But let me go back to the elections. Overall, even when factoring into the equation all those questionable nominations that occur via what the PSP Druze leader Walid Jumblatt described as “asphalt bulldozers” (political favours made to gain voters’ support that include paving roads), the numerical results of the ballots are more or less clear for the Sunni, Shi’i and Druze constituents. But they fall apart quite sharply in relation to the constellation of Christian parties. So what happens with the Christian vote is crucial in defining the future Christian presence in Lebanon - not only as an essential fabric of Lebanese history and plurality but also of regional Eastern Christian presence - and in underlining its future witness. For instance, despite his repeated assertions to the contrary, I believe that the FPM movement led by General Michel Aoun who sees himself as the Christian tsar is losing some ground and seems less likely now to become the undisputed Christian party in the next parliament - certainly not when his former ally, the Greek Orthodox Michel el-Murr, claims that he is no longer with Aoun, and when State Minister Nassib Lahoud busily consolidates his independent but largely pro-14th March platform.
In addition, the outspoken patriarch of the Maronite Church has also been admonishing the parties to be cautious and the voters to be wise with their choices. On 16th March, this ageing and increasingly less relevant church leader warned that “voters must know who they will be choosing to defend their basic rights... They must not forget the proverb, ‘whoever buys you shall sell you.’” But the influence of the church has been in steady decline and Maronite politicians are increasingly breaking ranks with it. As such, it will be interesting to observe how the ballot box will address intra-Christian rivalries and transubstantiate the results of the elections into hard facts that can then be exercised peaceably on the ground.
As important, and arguably more decisive than the parliamentary elections, is the proceedings of the forthcoming Special Tribunal for Lebanon that will convene in The Hague to examine the assassination in 2005 of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri - father of House Majority Leader Saad Hariri. The four generals in custody suspected of involvement in this assassination are meant to be transferred to the court in The Hague soon so their innocence or guilt is determined by the panel of judges. A Memorandum of Understanding between Lebanon and the Special Tribunal coordinates the flow of communication between both sides. In a rare interview recently, Daniel Bellemare, the Canadian general prosecutor for the Special Tribunal, told the Canadian television programme Envoyé Special that “no phantoms planted the bomb to assassinate Hariri. There were real people behind the bombs, and we are capable of finding them.” As such, the repercussions of this trial - barring any violence - could be quite acute, more so since Rafik Hariri’s murder and of a host of other bombings and assassinations is what put in motion much of the developments in Lebanon over the past four telling years.
When one speaks of Lebanon, of elections and tribunals, one cannot overlook the Syrian influence that has overshadowed this country since the Taëf Agreement (Document of National Accord) of 1989. Despite all the recent international moves to transform Lebanon and Syria into independent states with normal diplomatic relations, the Syrian regime should strive to improve the situation further by facilitating the process of disengagement between the two countries. Although ambassadors have been exchanged for the first time in the history of Syro-Lebanese relations (Michel el-Khoury for Lebanon, and Ali Abdel Karim Ali for Syria), scant effort has been deployed to date to resolve the thorny issues of border demarcation, Lebanese detainees in Syrian custody, and the disputed territory of the Sheba’a Farms. Only today, at the 21st Arab Summit in Qatar, the Syrian president postulated mechanisms on how to manage intra-Arab disagreements but did not define on how to solve them. So many pundits await the next set of Syrian moves as they will not only impact Lebanon but also the geopolitics of the wider region. However, it is clear that the constancy, sharpness and shrewdness of Syrian foreign policy are now yielding dividends. After all, Syria is being courted by France, the USA and Saudi Arabia - which had opposed it vociferously in the past - and has also resumed its role as maker or breaker of deals. What happens in the future is relevant, since the Syrian stance could heavily affect not only Lebanese independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and prosperity, but also other regional factors including Iran, Palestine and to some lesser extent in Iraq.
Last week, the Lebanese parliament approved a draft law to allow voting rights to 18-year-olds. If the government approves this draft law within the statutory period of four months, it will enable the younger generations to vote in the 2010 municipal elections. Although some key players are concerned that this measure could well create a demographic power imbalance in the country, I still regard it is a positive step and hope that Nabih Berri’s Parliament and Fouad Siniora’s Government would act in concert - and in the same vein - when tackling other pending issues too. Perhaps Lebanese politicians would heed President Suleiman’s recommendation for the establishment of a Senate according to Article 7 of the Taëf Accord - later integrated as Article 22 into the Lebanese Constitution. The Taëf Accord had envisioned a bicameral government, with parliament elected on a non-sectarian basis and sectarian representation being relegated to the second chamber.

In my contacts with Lebanese colleagues and friends, I am constantly amazed by the flexible and enterprising nature of the Lebanese character. Despite bloody wars and a surfeit of doom and gloom - so much so that many younger generations are still traumatised by it - the Lebanese psyche remains quite robust and its entrepreneurship manages to re-build the country after each calamity. Just look at how the Central Bank of Lebanon is managing to sustain the stability of the financial market when richer countries are almost up against the wall as they heap billions into creating uncertain fiscal stimulus packages.

Today, despite my self-confessed pessoptimism, I would argue that the Lebanese file stands a chance for building a peaceful national compact so long as good will and good faith join hands to serve the interest of the Lebanese people and their public institutions. But would realism in Lebanon help set its spirit free, or would it muzzle itself with more tensions?

Developments in the Middle East in general are usually so swift, and yet also so subtle at times, that it is quite easy to miss out on some of their finer nuances. There is always the easy temptation to continue adhering to age-old classical and frankly sclerotic interpretations that are duly regurgitated by some politicians or pundits who think they know better anyway. No wonder then that we are often swept away with ideas that aggravate - rather than improve - the overall political, socio-economic and inter-religious realities of this troubled region.

So let me focus today on some developments that are presently taking place within the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In Israel itself, the world will soon become re-acquainted with a prime minister who wears an old face but a new suit. Indeed, it is almost certain that this “new” prime minister will be Benyamin Netanyahu. And although the world community half expected his government to reflect the right-wing extremism of some of the factions that have already thrown their lot with him, it seems that the two-week extension that President Shimon Peres granted Netanyahu might have helped him broaden the base of such a government with the likes of Labour leader Ehud Barak. So there is animation in some international and Arab circles that a level of ‘moderation’ might well seep into the future policies of such a coalition. However, this is where I believe most of the analyses go off the rail! True, with Avigdor Lieberman as Foreign Minister - he who once reportedly suggested that Israel should destroy the Aswan dam in Egypt in order to flood Cairo - and with his movement Yisrael Beiteinu also possibly controlling other sensitive portfolios, one can almost feel the revanchist pangs of a further defeat of peace and a growing realisation that Israel will not concede an independent Palestinian state, whether it is led by the Gaza-based Hamas and therefore ideologically unrelenting or by the more pragmatic and therefore pliable Ramallah-based Fateh. But I would invite the reader to think soberly and objectively whether a broader government with other coalition partners - such as Shas (with the key ministries of Interior and Housing) and Labour (with its putative portfolios) - would necessarily deliver peace? What about the lessons or precedents of history let alone the stance of those very same politicians in past years? The conflict is about concrete issues, not cosmetic personalities - otherwise, we will have already sorted out this conflict and would now be living in a peaceful Arab-Israeli-Palestinian Elysium!

Indeed, Netanyahu’s oft-stated focus for ameliorating the economic viability of Palestinians rather than enabling the creation of their state is a sop that cannot wash with most Palestinians any longer. Over the past two decades, it has become clear that the Israeli political elite - from the higher echelons to the lower mandarins, and whether on the left or right of the mercurial political spectrum - do not by and large wish to conclude any peace agreement with Palestinians that would involve painful concessions and unavoidable territorial withdrawals. There are certainly some notable exceptions, but most would prefer to continue colonising a whole Palestinian people so long as they lay their hands on the geography and resources of this land and try to keep Palestinians quiescent by offering them a few political crumbs.

Meanwhile, the facts that Israel creates on the ground are fearsome. Let me refer to a 20-page report of 15 December 2008 initiated by EU Consuls-General in Jerusalem along with their colleagues in Ramallah published in Le Nouvel Observateur on 18th March. It rings chilling alarm bells about the future of Jerusalem, and constitutes an indictment of Israeli use of settlement expansion, the separation wall, by-pass roads, resident permits for Palestinians, displacements or deportations and the E-1 Plan connecting Ma’ale Adumim with Jerusalem “to pursue actively its illegal annexation of East Jerusalem.”

This ‘confidential’ report, that was destined for Javier Solana, EU foreign and security policy chief, remained shelved for three months. Yet, it highlights some sobering facts: out of the 470,000 settlers presently in the OPT, 190,000 (or roughly 40%) are in Jerusalem and another 96,000 around Jerusalem - with the majority in settlement blocs such as Givat Ze’ev, Etzion and Ma’ale Adumim. The report further adds that 86% of the trajectory of the separation wall, including in Jerusalem, lies inside the 1949 armistice line and that 385,000 settlers are living on the Israeli side of the wall. Conversely, 285,000 Palestinians live between the wall and the Green Line in a no man’s land that also cuts them off from the West Bank. In a nutshell, this report argues that the successive faits accomplis Israel has been creating on the ground drain the credibility of the Palestinian Authority as the Israeli supposed partner and as such weaken any residual popular support for peace negotiations between the parties. Interestingly enough, this report is not unlike a similar one from 2005 that was also shelved then, so I am afraid I can show scant anticipation about its impact either.

In fact, I would suggest that the days when Israel would have accepted peace followed the creation of its state, namely in 1948, 1956 and 1967. I am just old enough to remember the veteran politician Abba Eban whose one eloquent declaration in London in 1970 stated that “history teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives.” So had all the alternatives been exhausted after the 1973 war, and have conditions changed since then so that both parties learn not to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity? I think not, since Israeli overconfidence by then had already exceeded the bounds of what is manageable and a different power play started establishing itself within the Israeli psyche. The report of the EU Consuls-General clarifies in my opinion that Israel is in no haste to make peace with the Palestinians, and that the much-vaunted two-state solution that is still being marketed in some political corridors has become largely moribund despite illusory or romantic assertions to the contrary.

Therefore, I would argue that the intelligent strategy now would examine what needs to be done absent any real hope for the re-launch of a viable peace initiative in the foreseeable future. The international community - including the otiose Quartet and its peripatetic envoy - still perpetuate the unreality of a possible peaceful resolution that would lead to an independent and sovereign Palestinian state side-by-side with Israel. But would a bit of honesty not reveal that the searing consequences of the occupation to date render such an outcome almost unachievable and that the legal and political fundaments facilitating it are well nigh inexistent? What is probable is not necessarily possible in peacemaking. In that sense, I find the Likud policies at least less contrived and more open about Israeli intentions toward peace and conflict management. After all, they call a spade a spade rather than pretending it to be anything else.

What about the other side of the coin then - namely the Arab countries as well as Palestinian factions? The Arab countries, riven between the so-called axes of confrontation and moderation, are politically limp and seem to spend much time check-mating each other in the hope that the ‘other’ side will not grow too much stronger. In some sense though, it is Iran, not Israel, which has now become the understated nemesis of some countries. Whilst the majority of inter-Arab conciliatory efforts - and summits - purport to deal with the ravages of an Israeli occupation and its aggression against Palestinians, they target tangentially Iran and strive to circumvent any regional extension of Iranian-style Shi’i influence. Mind you, it is an interesting moot point to explore how the putative presidential election of Mir-Hossein Mousavi as president in the Iranian elections of 12th June - with a possible appointment of Khatami as foreign minister - might affect Arab-Iranian relations let alone impact Israeli tactical policies as much as Western reactions over the nuclear issue. That is why President Obama’s well-calibrated and introductory invitation to the Iranian people and leadership for dialogue is an essential component for the start of a familiar but necessary bargaining process. The litmus test for its success would consist of underlining the global parameters of such a relationship and its attendant measures. As the syndicated journalist Rami Khouri put it in an article this week, the USA should resist lecturing others and tackle its lingering streak of arrogance if it wishes to move forward in its relations with Iran (and also with other regional players).

Moreover, Arab ructions are exacerbated further by deep Palestinian divisions. The ongoing efforts at dialogue between Fateh, Hamas and other Palestinian factions in Cairo will no doubt eventually produce a format for an agreement - due more to exogenous rather than endogenous pressures. However, they would not rapidly heal the prurient wounds gashing the whole Palestinian national body or (more vitally) refine a common vision for the future when the positions of the parties themselves are antithetical. In fact, one rudimental issue is how any agreement inter partes would consider those accords that have already been concluded between the Palestinian Authority and Israel - mainly during and subsequent to the Oslo years? And thereafter, how would the West react to a government of national consensus (wifaq watani) that does not subscribe to those principal pre-conditions for dialogue? After all, it rejected such a government earlier! The negotiators might well band-aid those wounds and gloss over their divergences, but we all know that band-aids peel off. Yet, despite such impediments, Hamas cannot remain a pariah for much longer in the region and will gradually be re-integrated into the political process - initially by the EU with its test balloons, before the Obama Administration in all likelihood joins the marketplace. The visits to Gaza by the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, by Senator John Kerry and recently by a high-level EU delegation, are ways of gradually bringing Hamas in from the cold and giving substance to the reality that the PLO is weakening its hold on the dynamics of the peace process. That is why it makes sense that Palestinians heal their wounds before they lose the plot - and the land - completely and then usher in the much-anticipated legislative and presidential elections.

What about President Obama’s fresh Administration? It is true that the president is trying to extend an open hand to former foes and underlining the merits of dialogue, engagement and smart diplomacy. However, whether such policies anchor themselves in practical measures, evoke reciprocity or remain piecemeal, I do not believe Obama can put his full weight behind any deal that coerces Israel to respond to the collective peace overtures of the Arab countries - including the much-discussed Arab League initiative adopted unanimously at the Beirut Summit in 2002 and rebooted in Riyadh in 2007. After all, I seriously question whether the American president can afford to confront the Israeli government, Congress / Senate and the US-based lobbies (and particularly AIPAC) without blinking first. Yet, this is exactly what the president should do since the American policy to date that Israel can do no wrong has been calamitous - not least for Israeli long-term security. This is what the well-known Aaron Miller, public policy fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, implied recently when commenting that American policies toward Israel have undermined both Israeli and American interests for the past 16 years. But the Israeli and Jewish lobbies are still far too influential, and I recall Pat Buchanan’s politically-incorrect statement as far back as 1990 that Capitol Hill is an Israeli occupied territory. But just look at what happened to Charles (Chas) Freeman, US former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, who was being vetted for the post of chairman of the National Intelligence Council (NIC) in the new Obama Administration. He allegedly had to withdraw his name from the process due to Israeli-inspired and Jewish-mounted American pressure upon him and upon the US Administration.
In my opinion, the expectation voiced almost mantra-like by many parties that the USA should become “an honest broker” and stop supporting Israel unequivocally is a convenient opt-out if not also a redundant or even false premise. Rather, the question should be whether there is a way to impress upon the US Administration and its American constituencies that their collective interests dictate more even-handedness and honesty when dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian let alone Arab-Israeli conflicts. I would argue that the president understands this distinction, but I am not confident he would be able to shift policies and positions - more than minimally - to accommodate such an outcome.

But something has to give for the sake of peace - and truly for the sake of Palestinians as well as Israelis - in terms of the mindsets and actions of those involved in the process. Imagine that the USA and its allies have mislaid so much of their political rectitude in the past decade that they now refer to ‘disputed Palestinian lands’, not occupied ones, and view the settlement of Palestinian land as well as the evacuation of its people as ‘unhelpful’ rather than illegal. They act with diffidence when it comes to Israeli transgressions against International law as evidenced during the Gaza war last year. In fact, it is this skewered attitude toward International law and politics that led to a global call for an investigation into the Gaza conflict by a 16-strong group including Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu, former Irish president and UN human rights commissioner Mary Robinson and Justice Richard Goldstone. The world's veteran investigators and judges addressed this letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon as well as to all members of the UN Security Council wherein they demanded a full international investigation into alleged abuses of international law during the bombardment and occupation of the Gaza Strip. The signatories - who have led investigations of crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Darfur, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, South Africa, East Timor, Lebanon and Peru - argued that the UN investigation ‘should not be limited only to attacks on UN facilities.’ Only yesterday, Richard Falk, a UN human rights investigator and international lawyer from Princeton University also questioned in a new report to the UN Human Rights Council the legality and one-sided nature of the Israeli incursion in Gaza.

Let me conclude with a thought that crystallises the formidable task ahead for multi-track negotiators, given the incongruous remoteness of a two-state solution today. As some readers are aware already, the Arab League nominated Jerusalem as The Capital of Arab Culture 2009. Yet, the Israeli authorities used their customary “presence” (in other words intimidating force) to forestall any Palestinian celebrations not only in Jerusalem but also in Nazareth. Consequently, the bulk of the event took place by proxy in Bethlehem. For one, this shows Israeli obsessive and suppressive concern for any Palestinian activities that would imply attachment, involvement and by implication sovereignty to the city of Jerusalem or to any sense of Palestinian national identity in the occupied territories and even in Israel itself. But it also betrays both a heavy-handed reaction to any Palestinian civic manifestation and a fear almost that the genie should not be let out in case it cannot be forced back into the bottle again! The clashes that took place at Umm el-Fahm today, when Baruch Marzel and some of his fellow Jewish extremists from Kach marched into this town, were a brazen show of provocation. So does it truly surprise anyone that the Israeli-Palestinian file is decidedly unpromising and sadly iffy, and that a fresh irenic track has to be found to rejuvenate it?

I often struggle to remain an optimist, not to become a pessimist. But optimism that strays violently outside the prism of realism becomes questionable. So I have adopted a quaint word from the writings of the late Nazarene novelist Emile Habibi to describe myself as a pessoptimist, hopeful of promise but careful enough to recognise the hurdles ahead. In that sense, I would rally with Habibi’s frank - and at times suitably honest and controversial - statements by suggesting that an Israeli-Palestinian file that is facing a serious impasse could well witness the unravelling of a national - and legitimate - dream unless there is a concerted movement to remedy what is clearly a dereliction of duty by the world comity.

I pray that the ongoing political shenanigans in Israel-Palestine do not lead to more deaths and violence or induce the bloody settling of scores on all sides that emulate a lex talionis for direct retribution - as expressed in the Book of Exodus in the Hebrew Scriptures. No more “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, an arm for an arm and a life for a life”. But more than mere prayers, I also use the words of the Irish novelist James Joyce to express the hope that the current muddling signs across this volatile land would be managed with more wisdom and caution … and so lead us all ‘toward less muddle’.

It was certainly noteworthy if not also significant to pundits across the European Union that the Iraqi provincial elections of 31st January took place with strikingly little violence, and that the results not only strengthened the central state but also consolidated PM Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s anti-federalist mandate let alone his hopes for a possible second term in the upcoming parliamentary elections. Besides, the Iraqi security apparatuses functioned more or less well in managing the annual pilgrimage of Shi’i Muslims to Karbala despite a series of violent attacks. No wonder then that we in the West started daring to hope that President Obama’s tenure could perhaps engender a period of increasing consensus and calm in Iraq as much as the gradual re-animation and eventual re-independence of this resourceful and oil-rich country.

This hope that the media translated into political headlines across its pages or news bulletins was further encouraged by President Obama’s announcement of substantial troop withdrawals in the next six months. US combat operations would in effect cease by end-August 2010, and the remaining contingent of American troops, anything between 35,000 and 50,000, that are meant to ensure the period of transition would in all likelihood also be drawn down by end-2011. High time, many associates told me with long and meaningful sighs, not least due to the alarming study by the RAND Corporation that some 300,000 US service members are currently suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder or depression, and that 320,000 have most likely experienced a traumatic brain injury.

So has Iraq started witnessing a period when combat operations will gradually give way to stability operations instead, and when the much-needed mission of nation-building can start in earnest?

Let me admonish readers that we should not indulge too hastily in over-confidence, or worse complacency. Just witness the recent vile attack against the police academy in Baghdad or the later incident in western Baghdad that resulted with many casualties. Whilst it is true that violence across Iraq has dropped to its lowest ebb since the American invasion of 2003, there have nonetheless been a score of high-profile attacks, including a bombing at a cattle market in Hilla.

Baghdad, for instance, remains a fortress city, with hundreds of checkpoints and tens of thousands of armed security officers lining the streets. In Diyala Province, north of Baghdad, local security officials report that there has even been a steady increase in attacks in the past few weeks. In fact, the cities of Ba’quba and Mosul remain plagued by violence.

But let me go beyond physical, psychological or structural violence. Let me remind readers briefly of a few things that need to be undertaken to help turn the tide in Iraq, limit the nihilistic violence of terror-infused groups and encourage Iraq sustain itself through a period of democratic and peaceful transition whereby all communities - Kurds, Sunnis and Shi’is, as well as the smaller ones such as Yazidis, Mandaeans, Sabaeans and Christians - would live peaceably together.

In order to achieve a sense of coherence and coming together for the whole country, it is vital to settle those outstanding issues between the Arab and Kurdish components of Iraqi society that have occasionally descended into disputes and even into ugly spats. I allude first and foremost to the pending status of Kirkuk (and other disputed territories) that has stalled for months due to non-implementation of Article 140 of the Constitution that had called for a plebiscite by end-2007. In addition, a draft federal hydrocarbons law, essential to the production and export of oil and gas from new fields, has also been languishing due to rudimental differences between Baghdad and Erbil. The fact that Kirkuk has a super-giant oilfield and significant gas reserves, when coupled with a history of Kurdish presence and subsequent Arabisation by the late president in the 1980’s, underline the importance of treating this matter expeditiously but also equitably.

Moreover, it is equally necessary to review the Constitution, but one must exercise caution that it is not done at the expense of one community or another. The Constitution must be all-inclusive and preserve the fundamental rights of all Iraqis. This is essential to help the sense of Iraqi resurgent nationalism imbuing the country today. Iraqis can reflect their re-tapped pride in their own country by taking those steps that would ensure a stable security environment for everyone as well as the economic livelihood of all Iraqis. Iraq can well afford democracy with plurality and stability.

Let me add a word of caution though. The global recession would sooner or later lead most Western powers to question their open-ended commitments in Iraq. If the country were to spiral into discord and violence again, the USA, the UK and other allies who find themselves caught up in an extended economic disaster would then be reluctant to continue supporting the unending warfare or costly politicisation of Iraq if - or when - it begins to undermine their own economic recovery. As such, the sooner Iraq regains its health, the better it will be for everyone - Iraqis and other players alike.

So will Iraqis upset the prophets of doom and gloom, put their heads together and sort out their house? Will they heed to those who wish them peace and prosperity, or will they continue to jostle for power and follow the road to perdition?

Last week, I attended a meeting on Gaza at the House of Commons that brought together as speakers a former Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem, the Palestinian General-Delegate, a Labour Member of Parliament and a Liberal Democrat Peer in the House of Lords. The interventions were powerful in terms of their descriptive analysis of the dynamics on the ground in Gaza and the wider Palestinian territories as much as their vivid highlights of the dour realities facing Palestinians today.

They also were - quite expectedly - as unanimous in their condemnation of Israeli aggression and discriminatory practices as they were in their hopes for a just and peaceful settlement of this seemingly intractable conflict. Yet, once stripped of the expressions of hope or even effectual perorations, I did not discern much political vision or realistic and coherent analyses that would lift us out of this morass and lead us all toward a possible resolution restoring justice and dignity for Palestinians, security for both peoples and peace for all. Was this because the event, or perhaps even its venue, were not conducive to a more profound discourse, or was it because even such savvy “in-people” whose fingers are on the political pulse did not have any solutions to proffer other than those that have faced constant blind alleys in the past?

Readers might recall that President Obama recently appointed Senator George Mitchell as his envoy to the Middle East. Yet, we have forgotten that this veteran politician was already toiling for peace in Israel-Palestine eight years ago although we all have little to show for it on the ground. 2000-2009 are nine years that included the death of Yasser Arafat, the formation of the Kadima party, the Palestinian legislative elections, the debilitation of the Palestinian Authority and its loss of Gaza to Hamas, the Hezbollah-Israel war in southern Lebanon, the Annapolis-led re-launch of an otiose roadmap, the Hamas-Israel war in Gaza, the relentless expansion of Israeli settlements and concomitant dispossession of Palestinians (including the recent evacuation notices against Jerusalemite residents in the al-Bustan neighbourhood of Silwan) and the latest elections in Israel. One could be forgiven to observe that the prospects for peace are alarmingly more remote and less practicable today.

So as the Palestinian factions multiply their chequered efforts toward reconciliation in Cairo, and with 87 donors pledging almost $4.5 billion at Sharm el-Sheikh to help the Palestinian economy and rebuild Gaza after the three-week Israeli offensive, I just wonder where we are truly heading with the conflict. Is there not a cyclical sense of dejà-vu here, with a viciously unending saga of reconstruction and destruction? Palestinians build their land, Israel destroys much of it in successive wars that it claims are for self-defence, and then international and regional donors step in to try and raise yet more funds to re-build that same decimated infrastructure or its affiliated institutions. This time round, it even looks more complex since aid agencies suggest that reconstruction could be hampered further by an inability to deliver essential material such as cement and steel to Gaza due to the Israeli-led blockade. Does any of this make sense at all anymore? Is there a deliberate policy of pacification through rounds of destruction and reconstruction, or does it simply point to the lamentable fact that such projects - laudable, generous and manifesting goodwill - are futile and even daft minus any durable political settlement?

As David Rosen, the former chief rabbi of Ireland, now based in Jerusalem as head of inter-religious affairs for the American Jewish Committee, commented at Davos in Switzerland on 31st January during the economic forum, “You have a complete breakdown of trust: ‘It’s my toy!’ ‘No, it’s my toy!’ We need someone who can move the parties beyond their own pain and vulnerability.” I agree with my friend. However, we need more than identifying the owner or nature of the toy. We need also to underline the immediacy of the situation since the peace train has already left the station and is almost beyond reach.

But what peace train you might well ask me with incredulity? Until quite recently, as my epektasis writings, publications and interviews all point out, I would have naturally - and intuitively - opted for a two-state solution so long as a number of pre-requisites came together. To start with, the Palestinians - mainly Hamas and Fateh - would need to get their own severely dilapidated house in order and agree to reach a consensus that overcomes their own [largely] politically-motivated and solipsistic interests. Israel would then have to withdraw from the West Bank and Arab districts of East Jerusalem, as it did from Gaza in 2005, on the basis of International law and UNSCR 242 and 338. Any territories it might retain in the West Bank would have to be swapped - mutatis mutandis - with land from the Israeli landmass. Such withdrawal would engage ipso facto a phased pullout by Israel from its myriad settlements in the West Bank and Arab Jerusalem - save the land swaps - at the same pace that Palestinians meet the security and governance metrics acknowledged by all sides. The Quartet could then re-discover part of its mission and become the arbiter on whether those metrics are being met by both sides.

But can one still catch this steaming peace train that carries away with it the skeleton of a two-state solution? After all, most people still claim to be in its favour of this option - many mainstream Israeli politicians, the leadership of the Palestinian Authority, most Arab governments, and almost the entire international political comity. But a two-state solution predicates a sovereign Palestinian state adjacent to Israel that would be viable and contiguous and have control over its lands and resources. Sadly, my own experience and analysis would argue that such a Palestinian vision embracing the West Bank and Gaza is inexorably becoming a chimera. Today, a snaking and ugly concrete barrier, with its electronic watchtowers, as well as 500 checkpoints dotted across Palestinian territories, together cleave West Bank cities from one another, Jerusalem from the West Bank, most of the West Bank from Israel and Gaza from all other geography. Moreover, the persistent growth of settlements is now by far the central impediment that makes the birth of any Palestinian state today harder to envisage than twelve short months ago - even after the much-vaunted but rather vacuous political shenanigans of Annapolis in 2007.

Let me make a small calculation to underscore the problem today. In 2005, when Israel left Gaza, it deployed 45,000 police at a cost of $2.5 billion to remove 8000 settlers. Yet, according to figures compiled by B’Tselem, the Israeli human rights group, the West Bank has 121 Jewish settlements with a population of [over] 280,000 - or 35 times more than in Gaza. So who will manage to ‘unsettle’ those settlers in view of the concatenation of religious beliefs, secular interests, political weaknesses and psychological traumas? An inexpungeable fact is that by wilfully - and in a political sense malevolently - increasing the number of settlers, Israeli governments have ensured that it will be harder to implement a genuine peace agreement. In other words, they have knowingly reduced the odds for peace. The fatalities from the Gaza war, the killing of animals, the bombing of buildings and the damaging of cemeteries, are frustrated and punitive tit for tat measures that have left their livid scars on a whole population. In fact, I was moved this week by a report from World Vision that the prolonged exposure to violence and poverty has left hundreds of thousands of children in Gaza facing severe mental health risks.

My own political barometer confirms that Israelis have become more radical over the past two years. Whilst none of the parties won over 25% of the vote in the parliamentary elections last month, the results showed nonetheless a crucial hardening of Israeli public opinion and an outcome that will make any irenic initiative more implausible. As Gideon Levy wrote in his editorial, Rabbi Meir Kahane can now rest in peace since his doctrine has won the day. Twenty years after his Knesset list was disqualified, and eighteen years after he was murdered, Kahanism has seemingly become legitimate in public discourse with the transformation of racism and nationalism into accepted values. Today, Avigdor Lieberman calls for a ‘test of loyalty’ as a condition for granting citizenship to Israeli Arabs, while Kahane called for the unconditional annulment of their citizenship - an impossible choice between their transfer to the Palestinian state or their deportation. But Palestinian grassroots are more resilient today: they reject defeat or flight from their homeland, and continue their soumoud (steadfastness) more as a sign of defiance against Israeli aggression and vengefulness than as faith in their own future.

So what I fear might well happen in the foreseeable future is a continuation of redundant political negotiations that are devoid of any strategic choices for peace. Israel is quietly enlarging its settlements (Shalom Akhshav indicated this week that the Israeli Housing Ministry has a blueprint for 73,000 new settlement units in the West Bank), Palestinians are being led by the nose kicking and screaming all along, and the pro-Israel lobby (including AIPAC) is being mobilised to obstruct any robust American moves toward peace. Add to this pot the economic interests of the offshore natural-gas supplies in the Gaza Marine gas field, an area roughly 20 miles off the Gaza coast, and one can alas make a fairly accurate assessment of the dice being rolled out on this Monopoly game board. The distressing reality though is that neither Israelis nor Palestinians will disappear from existence, no matter the provocations and hardships, nor will one people accept to be governed by the other. So the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation becomes more entrenched, feeding the political frenzy of the ever-expanding radical wings, and in the process rendering a two-state solution, or any sustainable solution for that matter, increasingly improbable.

Today, we are faced with an unsettling Tantalus - as the Israeli Jewish peace activist Uri Avnery wrote - who is hungry and thirsty but can neither bend down for water nor reach out to the fruit basket on his head for food. The international community is unwilling to persuade Israel to give up its colonisation of Palestinian land and roll back its occupation, and so we are now drifting into uncharted waters that might become much choppier in the months ahead.

Is a two-state solution still feasible, as Hillary Clinton and Tony Blair claimed only this week? Or have we truly crossed the political Rubicon and are heading toward a perilous period of political entropy? My sense is that the two-state solution is almost lifeless unless - yes, unless - the world community stops looking at the conflict through a one-dimensional lens and agrees to apply an impartial, honest and robust brokerage between Israelis and Palestinians. This deal should revolve around well-anchored UN Resolutions and well-established parameters, but can only succeed if it involves all parties - inclusive of Hamas - since the Western fixation on demonising this faction and pretending it does not exist will simply checkmate any real hope for peace. This is clear to any level-headed politician, be they in the US, the EU or the Middle East, yet we wrap up the Gaza war with more good money thrown after bad and hope that it would somehow solve issues and salve consciences.

Simply put, will we allow the negatives to overwhelm the positives, and then wring our hands with rueful helplessness as the conflict slides into further chaos and draws all our lives into further lethal global disarray? I dread the answer …

So what do Christians witness in a holy land that is host to many hurried pilgrimages?
According to sociologists, Christians some sixty short years ago constituted over 25% of the overall Palestinian population in the Holy Land, and almost 80% of the southern triangle of Bethlehem, Beit Sahour and Beit Jala. Today, those numbers have dwindled alarmingly, due largely though not exclusively to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In a nutshell, Christians have alas lost hope in a land that once witnessed the salvific birth of hope.
Ever since the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land in 1967, Israeli settlers have relentlessly colonised Palestinian land - often encouraged, and frequently funded, by successive Israeli governments. The physical, demographic and economic integrity of the land - and thereby of its native people - has been eroded by deliberate Israeli occupation policies that are not only contrary to International law and UN Resolutions but that also strive to get rid of Palestinian demography (the people) whilst retaining Palestinian geography (the land). The concomitant discrimination has resulted in unemployment, poverty, socio-economic meltdown, strangulated despair and violence. Is it any wonder that Palestinian Christians emigrate in large numbers?
But in focusing upon the vagaries of Israeli occupation, it is also honest to consider two contributory factors.
Over the past decade or more, some Muslims have become increasingly less tolerant of people who do not share their faith or system of beliefs, at times considering Christians as heretics although they too are Ahl al-Kitab (People of the Book). Such attitudes are in part due to an erroneous belief that those Christians are politically or historically linked to the larger Christian Church in the West (Greece, Rome, London) or to the Crusades that Osama Bin Laden froths over in his ‘messages’. Such positions generate structural violence whereby Christian shops are at times the last ones to be frequented for business or where Palestinian Christians are the last to receive financial aid from local authorities. Talk for instance to a Christian ironmonger, butcher, secretary, verger or grocer, and one detects grave concerns simmering under the veneer of pan-Palestinian solidarity.
The twin tensions arising from Israeli occupation practices and inter-religious issues are also exacerbated by fundamentalist evangelical Christian constituencies in the West (acutely in the USA) purporting that our faith should support Israel unquestioningly because God chose the Israelites as His people and entered into a Covenant with them. It is therefore incumbent upon Christians to defend Israel (as a political entity) and Israelis (as a demographic entity) over the whole of biblical land of Israel (as a geographic entity). I believe that such Christians are misreading Jesus’ ministry and also harming their brothers and sisters in faith by adhering rigidly to the tenets of the Old Testament, ignoring the transforming message of the New Testament, being selective in their scriptural and prophetic quotations and overriding issues of justice.
Paradoxically though, most Evangelicals also believe that the Messiah’s Second Coming (and therefore the fulfilment of prophesies in the Book of Revelation) is through the in-gathering of Jews (in modern-day Israel) so they could be converted to Christianity. Yet, there exists today a political alliance between both parties whereby Jews overlook the underlying eschatological motivations of those Western Christians in return for their unstinting financial-political support of Israel.
Altogether, the small communities of Living Stones in the Holy Land - whether Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant - face severe existential challenges. They strive to bear witness to the commandments of love, inclusiveness and reconciliation in the faith-led belief that Jews, Christians and Muslims are united through Abraham and Sarah and are hewn from the same rock (as written in the Old Testament). So perhaps we - globally - should show added sensitive appreciation for the life and witness of those indigenous Christians who have lived in the land of the Bible for two millennia and support them more concretely instead of considering them an alien sect or even helping marginalise them. After all, is that not what our Christian fellowship asks of us? Is that not what Jesus’ love for the neighbour - let alone for the brother or sister - demands of us too? Or is the bedrock of our Christian faith simply a pick-and-choose one rooted in broad hints of prejudice or, dare I even say it, racism?

dr harry hagopian

My soul cries alas for thee,
O my land,
With a sigh like the blaze of a conflagration
My soul cries alas for thee,
O mine of excellences,
With a sigh
That makes me bite my thumb

George W Bush, the 43rd president of the USA, gave his final conference to the White House press corps today in which he made a rather robust defence of his eight-year legacy. Defiant at times, reflective and even funny at others, the president still maintained his overall political viewpoint despite the fact that he enjoys the lowest approval ratings since the history of polls.

However, President Bush also admitted - albeit somewhat airily - to some ‘disappointments’ or even ‘mistakes’ during his two terms in the White House. The image of a president standing warrior-like aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln on 1 May 2003 with a Mission Accomplished banner behind him was a mistake, for instance, as was the infamy of the Abu Ghreib prison tortures. However, one was left with the clear impression that President Bush still believed firmly that historians will give him a more favourable by-line once the dust has settled and he has eclipsed to his ranch in Texas.

To many men and women, no matter in whichever continent of the world, President Bush has been an unfortunate mishap who failed quite early in his presidency to lead his nation and was hijacked after 9/11 by the neo-conservative ideology of the Cheneys, Roves, Rumsfelds, et al of Washington DC. In fact, his fumbling watch included major wars such as in Iraq and Afghanistan, saw the Middle East - and more specifically the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - ricochet wildly into alarming stasis or bloody violence and ended with the biggest financial disaster since 1937 and possibly even 1929.

I have written consistently against the Iraqi war, not because I was a supporter of a cruel dictator who butchered his way into power and well beyond, but because the grounds for this war were highly questionable in both legal and strategic terms. What weapons of mass destruction? As Hans Blink, the UN arms inspector, admitted publicly, those weapons were a dodgy pretext for an ideological war with nefarious global consequences. Iraq is littered with the graves of those who died since the invasion began in 2003, as are the US military cemeteries itself. It is quite true that there are at least as many graves - largely of Kurdish and Shi’i Iraqis - that were inhumed by Saddam Hussein but surely two wrongs do not make a right, do they?

However, I admit with relief that the situation has improved substantially on the ground in Iraq since the surge ordered by President Bush in early 2007. After all, the violence has diminished quite noticeably in most governorates, the Sofa will in all likelihood lead to a methodical drawdown of US troops in Iraq in such a way that president-elect Barrack Obama will not be boxed into an impossible corner, our own British troops will have left Basra by next summer, and Baghdad just witnessed the symbolic handover of the Green Zone to the Iraqi flag and the opening of the US and other embassies in Baghdad.

So in some sense, things seem to be shuffling ahead in Iraq, though not elsewhere in Gaza where the US Administration has been an obstruction rather than a solution to the warfare or even in Lebanon where a distressing lack of clarity persists over the parliamentary elections. However, two observations come to the fore. The first is that such a reduction in violence seems largely contingent upon the presence of those numbers of US troops. I wonder if this might still be the case once those troops have left the country, whether in 2011 or at another date. In fact, this is when we might well realise that democracy was not injected by President Bush into the region. After all, a healthy democracy in the Arab World has to grow from within society, but it can only do so if the efforts of its proponents were not constantly squelched and if they were not censored, harassed or imprisoned by their leaders or post-colonial masterminds simply for aspiring toward democratic values.

The other observation is that the policies exported by President Bush through a coterie of ideological (and therefore, by definition, dangerous) advisers has also made our world more unsafe. Why? Simply because his ill-advised policies have fomented further the kind of Ben Laden-image and al-Qa’eda-clone prototype of violence, radicalism and fanaticism. Here is a president who chose to open a series of Pandora boxes that provided its dangerous protagonists and unhinged choreographs with spurious pretexts to enhance their levels of global blackmail, violence and terror. Would the less injudicious and more ‘presidential’ way not have been to chart a course that dealt with real terrorism rather than chase ideological bogeys?

With a selective approach to democracy, and a legacy of extraordinary renditions and Guantanamo-like jurisdictions, I view with disfavour the policies of the outgoing president who has demoted America’s central role as a beacon of democracy and decency, of lofty values, of freedom of expression and human rights. As for Iraq, I appreciate the joy felt by its citizens upon their liberation from a vile despot. But did they truly gain democracy? Or will the power plays between the three main communities with their incinerating sectarianism prove to be their undoing and lead toward further ructions? Or could Iraqis learn from history and shelve their own interests for the sake of the larger good of their great country as a whole?

Goodbye President Bush! Welcome President-Elect Obama. Good luck to Iraq, and to the Middle East, in 2009.

We are short of rooms and supplies, we are up to our necks ... The buildings are falling on the heads of the patients
Ramez Zyara, a surgeon at Al-Shifa hospital in Gaza

Some two millennia ago, Bethlehem witnessed the miraculous birth of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ when the Word became flesh and made His dwelling amongst us for the salvation of humankind. This new faith we know as Christianity started in a lowly manger, in a small, deprived and unassuming town under Roman occupation, and led some three decades later to the glorious chapter of the Resurrection in nearby Jerusalem.

Today, Bethlehem with its Nativity Basilica, its Manger Square and falafel stalls, still marks this history. However, has the situation improved, and is Bethlehem, celebrated in so many Christmas carols, any more peaceful and merry today?

Throughout the past year, Palestinians across the West Bank and Gaza have suffered in varying degrees as a result of the political realignments of our global world. Whether in terms of a painful economy, degrading political circumstances, snaking separation walls, bellicose internecine feuds or merely discrimination by one group against another, or one faith against the other, 2008 has at times been another year of fading hope and escalating suffering.

However, our Christian faith teaches us to be resolute and hopeful, and to look for those signs of hope that inject optimism into our moments of justifiable pessimism. A very tall order, I must admit, when many Palestinians are worried about their daily food and movement, but I personally can never abandon the promise that the gloom of Good Friday only leads to the glory of Easter. After all, Bethlehem heralded a saviour, and led us to the empty tomb.

This is why I join today with all Palestinians - whether Christian or Muslim - in Bethlehem, Beit Jala, Beit Sahur as much as in the rest of the Holy Land in wishing them the joyful peace that is an ultimate reward for their steadfastness and resourcefulness. Yes, it has to be a joy, even if it feels untrue and ephemeral, despite the sacrifices and hardships, or the dark clouds hovering above their families, despite Israeli settlements and expropriations, or Palestinian feuds and tensions. The joy that comes from within cannot be vanquished, it cannot be suffocated and quashed, and remains a formidable tool not only for self-edification but also as a challenge against all aggressors. As the Christmas carol O Come, O Come, Emmanuel reminds us, the light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it!

On my own behalf, as well as on behalf of those Christian constituencies I am privileged to work with, I recognise with humility and admiration the courage of Palestinian Christians in Bethlehem. I wish them, and all those tourists visiting them during this holy season, ‘eid milad majeed, sa’eed wa moubarak in the faith-centred hope that the Mystery of the Incarnation will help lift up their spirits and lead them toward better harmony and an eventual peace with justice. This is a tough wish, almost an impossible one some would add, but who said that our faith should be an easy one?


www.epektasis.net