Connect with us

Middle East

For Qatar, Hamas and Israel, Middle East Peace Plan Requires Quiet, Subdued Diplomacy

Published

on

The Middle East peace plan, repeatedly reported to be close to full unveiling, promises to offer both Israelis and Palestinians in Trump speak ‘the Deal of the Century’. Premonitions into the peace strategy offered by the White House, including the administration’s hither to approach to the so-called final status issues identified during the 1993 Oslo Accords, leave little doubt as to the plan’s would-be reception. Particularly across the wider Arab world, where adherence to the Palestinian cause – albeit reduced – still holds public consensus, the official publication of a Trumpian strategy that rejects key negotiation matters will demand a strong repudiation.

Trump’s exacerbation of the Middle East power balance equally challenges the ongoing multi-track negotiations led by Qatar and involving Hamas and Israel, as the advancement of the parties’ geopolitical objectives requires the maneuverability to defy the espousal of traditional stances – interests that are best served by a more subdued US diplomacy.

For those familiar with the political chimes that embody the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the spring and summer of 2018 offered a staunch reminder of the national social and political turmoil, not to mention the ever-changing regional geopolitical dimensions, that characterize the 70-year-old crisis.While initially a grassroots initiative, the Return Marches held in Gaza – intended to protest Trump’s Jerusalem decision and to commemorate Palestinians’ uprooting since 1948 – once again turned the world’s attention to the plight of those living in the tiny strip of land, in large part the result of the decade-long economic blockade implemented by Israel and Egypt in 2007. The resulting tensions on the border, simultaneously, offered Hamas the means to cement its long-sought domestic and international political legitimacy. Through Qatari diplomatic channels, Hamas – considered a terrorist organization by its indirect interlocutor – and Israel have engaged in truce talks with the aim of alleviating the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza and avoiding a full-scale war. At the same time, the avoidance of further bloodshed and improving economic conditions, including through the planned establishment of a sea corridor in Cyprus, enable Hamas to subdue the popular challenge of dominant fundamentalist Salafi and other Jihadi movements in Gaza.

Qatar’s interest in the Gaza Strip is no novel occurrence; since 2012, the Qatar National Committee for the Reconstruction of Gaza(GRC) has been active in renovating and building destroyed infrastructure.In February, the Qatar-America foundation, citing Mohammed E. Al-Emadi, chairman of GRC and Qatar’s Gaza envoy, reported that between 2012 and 2018, Qatar had spent upwards of 400 million on reconstruction projects in Gaza.For Jason Greenblatt, one of Trump’s peace pointmen, Qatar’s partnering with Israel to provide aid to Gaza was supposed to “end […] support for Hamas.” Yet beyond the provision of development aid, Qatar’s assumption of a mediatory role between Hamas and Israel – first confirmed in June – serves its own international agenda.

The subject of an ongoing economic and political blockade led by Saudi Arabia and its allies, the small Gulf state seeks to depose the Egyptians of their role of chief regional negotiators by favoring Hamas-Israeli cooperation over the intra-Palestinian reconciliation sought by the el-Sisi regime. To date, several Cairo-sponsored reconciliation attempts between Hamas and Fatah have failed; the most recent agreement of October 2017 crumbled earlier this year. According to Al-Elmadi, the Qataris are well-placed to assume the role of a credible partner, because, as the envoy disclosed to Al Jazeera, “the Egyptians are not trusted by Hamas. This is because more than a year ago, the Egyptians made many promises to Hamas to achieve reconciliation with Fatah, among other things, but they did not deliver on their promise.”

For Israel, too, Qatar offers an interesting partnership, as one that promotes the administration’s short-term and long-term objectives. The Trumpian Middle East strategy is one which, to date, appears to align with that of Israel. The unilateral recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s undivided capital last December, the refusal to apply internationally-recognized terminology to the Occupied Territories, the recent withdrawal of all aid funding to UNRWA, and the desire to strip millions of descendants of Palestinian refugees of their rights and status closely align with the policies and narrative put forward by the hawkish Likud party, which has, save a four-year hiatus from 2005-2009, ruled Israel continuously since 2001.

In the short term, a successful Qatar-brokered mediation with Hamas allows Israel to establish the desired security on its borders, while also diverting economic and social responsibility on the occupied strip to the oil-rich Gulf state. In the longer term, Israeli (in)direct engagement with Hamas also enables the continuation of the ‘No Partner for Peace Narrative’, initiated by former Labor PM Ehud Barak after the failure of the July 2000 Camp David, to thwart any substantial peace accord. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has continuously emphasized that any and all agreements on Gaza must run through Ramallah. Commenting on the potential ramifications of forging a deal between Israel and Hamas, US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman correctly noted that sidestepping the Palestinian Authority would not only constitute a “tremendous prize” for Hamas but equally create a further obstacle to peace as “the Palestinian Authority should be part of the solution for the Palestinians of Gaza and Palestinians as a whole.”By isolating Abbas, Israel’s partner in security cooperation, the Israeli government also appears to reject the recommendations and warnings of the Israel Defense Forces and Shin Bet, who realize that sidelining the increasingly-frustrated octogenarian poses a regional security risk.

All indications point that Trump’s Middle East peace strategy, which has been under work since mid-2017, will be dead on arrival. The administration’s desire to challenge decades of failed peace-making initiatives is not an unlofty one. Nevertheless, the appointment of a peace team characterized by a pro-settlement approach, the sought disruption of UNRWA’s work and, in the words of President Trump, “taking Jerusalem off the table” demonstrate a tone-deaf approach to the complexities surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Moreover, the alienation and undermining of an already weak interlocutor as a means to further negotiations is symptomatic of a misunderstanding of sound international diplomacy. In her study of the failure of the Oslo Accords, Hilde Henriksen Waage concluded that the exacerbation of the overwhelming imbalance of power between the Israelis and the Palestinians by a third-party facilitator acting as “Israel’s helpful errand boy” inevitably distorted the outcome of negotiations; in the end, according to Waage, the only results that can be achieved when this diplomacy is adopted are “no more than the strong party will allow.”

In response to Trump’s recent demand for Israeli concessions and the promise that Palestinians will get “something good” in return for his recognition of Jerusalem – statements that contradict previous reports – Netanyahu asserted that the publication of the plan had no “urgency.” The undesirability of a diplomatic quid-pro-quo is clear: changing geopolitical perspectives do not mean Netanyahu’s current interlocutors will expend the political capital that involves publicly challenging positions that the Palestinians – and the vast majority of the Arab world – reject.

Grace Wermenbol specializes in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the post-Oslo period. She holds a PhD from Oxford University and has been appointed as a Teaching Fellow in contemporary Middle East history and politics at SOAS in London.

Continue Reading
Comments

Middle East

The fallacy of soccer’s magical bridge-building qualities

Dr. James M. Dorsey

Published

on

Imagining himself as a peacemaker in a conflict-ridden part of the world, FIFA President Gianni Infantino sees a 2022 World Cup shared by Qatar with its Gulf detractors, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, as the magic wand that would turn bitter foes into brothers.

It may be a nice idea, but it is grounded in the fiction that soccer can play an independent role in bringing nations together or developing national identity.

The fiction is that soccer has the potential to be a driver of events, that it can spark or shape developments. It is also the fiction that sports in general and soccer in particular has the power to build bridges.

Mr. Infantino’s assertion that if foes play soccer, bridges are built is but the latest iteration of a long-standing myth.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Soccer is an aggressive sport. It is about conquering the other half of a pitch. It evokes passions and allegiances that are tribal in nature and that more often than not divide rather than unite.

In conflict situations, soccer tends to provide an additional battlefield. Examples abound.

The 2022 World Cup; this year’s Qatari Asian Cup victory against the backdrop of the Gulf state’s rift with the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Egypt; the imprint the Palestinian-Israeli conflict puts on the two nations’ soccer; or the rise of racist, discriminatory attitudes among fans in Europe.

The Bad Blue Boys, hardcore fans of Dinamo Zagreb’s hardcore fans, light candles each May and lay wreaths at a monument to their comrades who were killed in the Yugoslav wars in the 1990s. They mark the anniversary of a riot during the 1990 match against Serbia’s Red Star Belgrade, their club’s most controversial match, as the first clash in the wars that erupted a year later and sparked the collapse of former Yugoslavia.

Fact of the matter is that sports like ping pong in Richard Nixon’s 1972 rapprochement with China or the improvement of ties between North and South Korea in the most recent Summer Olympics served as a useful tool, not a driver of events.

Sports is a useful tool in an environment in which key political players seek to build bridges and narrow differences.

The impact of soccer in the absence of a conducive environment created by political not sports players, is at best temporary relief, a blip on an otherwise bleak landscape.

The proof is in the pudding. Legend has it that British and German soldiers played soccer in no-man’s lands on Christmas Day in 2014, only to return to fighting World War One for another four years. Millions died in the war.

Similarly, Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites poured into the streets of Iraqi cities hugging each other in celebration of Iraq’s winning in 2007 of the Asia Cup at the height of the country’s sectarian violence only to return to killing each other a day later.

Soccer’s ability to shape or cement national identity is no different. In other words. football can be a rallying point for national identity but only if there is an environment that is conducive.

The problem is that soccer and the formation of national identity have one complicating trait in common: both often involve opposition to the other.

That is nowhere truer than in the Middle East and North Africa where soccer has played and plays an important role in identity formation since it was first introduced to the region in the late 19th and early 20th century.

Qatar has been in some ways the exception that proves the rule by plotting its sports strategy not only as a soft power tool or a pillar of public health policy but also as a component of national identity. That element has been strengthened by the rift in the Gulf and bolstered by this year’s Asian Cup victory.

Qatar’s efforts to strengthen its national identity benefits from the fact that the Gulf state no longer operates on the notion that Gulf states have to hang together. Today its hanging on its own in a conflict with three of its neighbours.

Soccer’s role in identity formation in the Middle East and North Africa was often because it was a battlefield, a battlefield for identity that was part of larger political struggles.

Clubs were often formed for that very reason. Attitudes towards the country’s monarchy in the early 20th century loomed large in the founding of Egypt’s Al Ahli SC and Al Zamalek SC, two of the Middle East and North Africa’s most storied clubs.

Clubs in Algeria were established as part of the anti-colonial struggle against the French. Ottoman and Iranian rulers used sports and soccer to foster national identity and take a first step towards incorporating youth in the development of a modern defense force.

Zionists saw sports and soccer as an important way of developing the New Jew, the muscular Jew. To Palestinians, it was a tool in their opposition to Zionist immigration. And finally, soccer was important in the shaping of ethnic or sub-national identities among Berbers, Kurds, East Bank Jordanians and Jordanian Palestinians.

In other words, soccer was inclusive in the sense of contributing to the formation of a collective identity. But it was also divisive because that identity was at the same time exclusionary and opposed to an other.

The long and short of this is that soccer is malleable. Its impact and fallout depend on forces beyond its control. Soccer is dependent on the environment shaped by political and social forces. It is a tool that is agnostic to purpose, not a driver or an independent actor.

Edited remarks at Brookings seminar in Doha: Lessons from the 2019 Asian Cup: Sports, Globalization, and Politics in the Arab World

Continue Reading

Middle East

Syrian Coup de Grâce

Published

on

The Middle Eastern land has a diverse blend of history with conflicts and developments in knowledge. Where on one hand Baghdad was considered as the realm of knowledge on the other hand Constantinople was a symbol of power and domination. But now it seems that all has been shattered completely with conflicts.

The Middle Eastern landscape is facing its worst time ever: a phase of instability and misery. The oil ridden land is now becoming conflict ridden, from Euphrates to Persian Gulf; every inch seems to be blood stained nowadays.  The region became more like a chess board where kings are not kings but pawns and with each move someone is getting close to checkmate.

Starting from the spring which brought autumn in the Middle Eastern environment, now the curse is on Assyrian land where blood is being spilled, screams have took over the skies. The multi facet conflict has caused more than 400,000 deaths and 5 million seeking refuge abroad whereas 6 million displaced internally.

What began with a mere peaceful civil uprising, has now become a world stage with multiplayers on it. Tehran and Moscow are playing their own mantra by showing romance with Assad while Washington has its own way of gambling with kings in their hand. Involvement of catchy caliphate from 2014 is worsening the complexities of the Syrian saga. The deck is getting hot and becoming more and more mess, chemical strikes, tomahawk show, carpet bombing, stealth jets and many more, Syrian lands is now a market to sell the products exhibiting fine examples of military industrial complex. While to some, Syrian stage seems to be a mere regional proxy war, in reality it seems like a black hole taking whole region into its curse. One by one every inch of the country is turned into altar as the consequence of war. A country is now ripped into different territories with different claimants, but the question still remains as “Syria belongs to whom?”

The saga of Syrian dusk has its long roots in past and with each passing moment it is becoming a spiral of destruction. What is being witnessed in current scenario is just a glimpse of that spiral. It has already winded the region into it and if not resolve properly and maturely it can spread like a contagious disease that can take whole Middle East into its chakra.

With recent development in Iran nuclear deal which left whole world into shock; and house of Sauds forming strong bond with western power brokers and Israel, to counter Tehran (because kings of holy desert have so much engraved hatred towards shiaits, that they prefer to shake hands with Jews and establish an unholy alliance) is making matters worse. This all has the potential to push the region into further more sectarian rifts. With Syrian stage already set. The delicacy of the situation is not secluded from the palette of the world.

Despite the condemnations from across the globe, humanitarian watch remains blind and failed to address the issues in Syria leaving Syrians in long lasting agony and despair The symphony of pain and suffering continues in the Middle Eastern region while world watches like a vicious sadist, the region becomes a playground for major powers as ‘Uncle Sam” has their own interests in engaging, Kremlin have their own concerns same goes for every single actor who is party to the conflict.

The panacea to the Arabian pain is simple “a sincere determined approach” to the disease. Even if every party with draws from the conflict the situation can get worse due to the generated power vacuum and can make Syria a replica of Iraq. The Syrian grieve needs to be addressed through proper management skills, if not the curse is upon whole region.

Continue Reading

Middle East

The battle for leadership of the Muslim world: Turkey plants its flag in Christchurch

Dr. James M. Dorsey

Published

on

When Turkish vice-president Fuat Oktay and foreign minister Mevlut Cavusoglu became this weekend the first high-level foreign government delegation to travel  to Christchurch they were doing more than expressing solidarity with New Zealand’s grieving Muslim community.

Messrs. Oktay and Cavusoglu were planting Turkey’s flag far and wide in a global effort to expand beyond the Turkic and former Ottoman world support for President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s style of religiously-packaged authoritarian rule, a marriage of Islam and Turkish nationalism.

Showing footage of the rampage in Christchurch at a rally in advance of March 31 local elections, Mr. Erdogan declared that “there is a benefit in watching this on the screen. Remnants of the Crusaders cannot prevent Turkey’s rise.”

Mr. Erdogan went on to say that “we have been here for 1,000 years and God willing we will be until doomsday. You will not be able to make Istanbul Constantinople. Your ancestors came and saw that we were here. Some of them returned on foot and some returned in coffins. If you come with the same intent, we will be waiting for you too.”

Mr. Erdogan was responding to an assertion by Brenton Tarrant, the white supremacist perpetrator of the Christchurch attacks in which 49 people were killed in two mosques, that Turks were “ethnic soldiers currently occupying Europe.”

Messrs. Oktay and Cavusoglu’s visit, two days after the attacks, is one more facet of a Turkish campaign that employs religious as well as traditional diplomatic tools.

The campaign aims to establish Turkey as a leader of the Muslim world in competition with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and to a lesser degree Morocco.

As part of the campaign, Turkey has positioned itself as a cheerleader for Muslim causes such as Jerusalem and the Rohingya at a moment that Saudi Arabia, the UAE and other Muslim nations are taking a step back.

Although cautious not to rupture relations with Beijing, Turkey has also breached the wall of silence maintained by the vast majority of Muslim countries by speaking out against China’s brutal crackdown on Turkic Muslims in the troubled north-western province of Xinjiang.

Mr. Erdogan’s religious and traditional diplomatic effort has seen Turkey build grand mosques and/or cultural centres across the globe in the United States, the Caribbean, Europe, Africa and Asia, finance religious education and restore Ottoman heritage sites.

It has pressured governments in Africa and Asia to hand over schools operated by the Hizmet movement led by exiled preacher Fethullah Gulen. Mr. Erdogan holds Mr. Gulen responsible for the failed military coup in Turkey in 2016.

On the diplomatic front, Turkey has in recent years opened at least 26 embassies in Africa, expanded the Turkish Airlines network to 55 destinations in Africa, established military bases in Somalia and Qatar, and negotiated a long-term lease for Sudan’s Suakin Island in the Red Sea.

The Turkish religious campaign takes a leaf out of Saudi Arabia’s four decade long, USD 100 billion effort to globally propagate ultra-conservative Sunni Islam

Like the Saudis, Turkey’s Directorate of Religious Affairs (Diyanet) provides services to Muslim communities, organizes pilgrimages to Mecca, trains religious personnel, publishes religious literature, translates the Qur’an into local languages and funds students from across the world to study Islam at Turkish institutions.

Turkish Muslim NGOs provide humanitarian assistance in former parts of the Ottoman empire, the Middle East and Africa much like the Saudi-led World Muslim League and other Saudi governmental -non-governmental organizations, many of which have been shut down since the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington.

Saudi Arabia, since the rise of crown prince Mohammed bin Salman in 2015, has significantly reduced global funding for ultra-conservatism.

Nonetheless, Turkey is at loggerheads with Saudi Arabia as well as the UAE over the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi; Turkish support for Qatar in its dispute with the Saudis and Emiratis; differences over Libya, Syria and the Kurds; and Ankara’s activist foreign policy. Turkey is seeking to position itself as an Islamic alternative.

Decades of Saudi funding has left the kingdom’s imprint on the global Muslim community. Yet, Turkey’s current struggles with Saudi Arabia are more geopolitical than ideological.

While Turkey competes geopolitically with the UAE in the Horn of Africa, Libya and Syria, ideologically the two countries’ rivalry is between the UAE’s effort to establish itself as a centre of a quietist, apolitical Islam as opposed to Turkey’s activist approach and its support for the Muslim Brotherhood.

In contrast to Saudi Arabia that adheres to Wahhabism, an austere ultra-conservative interpretation of the faith, the UAE projects itself and its religiosity as far more modern, tolerant and forward looking.

The UAE’s projection goes beyond Prince Mohammed’s attempt to shave off the raw edges of Wahhabism in an attempt to present himself as a proponent of what he has termed moderate Islam.

The UAE scored a significant success with the first ever papal visit in February by Pope Francis I during which he signed a Document on Human Fraternity with Sheikh Ahmad al-Tayeb, the grand imam of Egypt’s Al-Azhar, the revered 1,000-year-old seat of Sunni Muslim learning.

The signing was the result of UAE-funded efforts of Egyptian general-turned-president Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi to depoliticize Islam and gain control of Al Azhar that Sheikh Al-Tayeb resisted despite supporting Mr. Al-Sisi’s 2013 military coup.

To enhance its influence within Al Azhar and counter that of Saudi Araba, the UAE has funded  Egyptian universities and hospitals and has encouraged Al Azhar to open a branch in the UAE.

The UAE effort paid off when the pope, in a public address, thanked Egyptian judge Mohamed Abdel Salam, an advisor to Sheikh Al-Tayeb who is believed to be close to both the Emiratis and Mr. Al-Sisi, for drafting the declaration.

“Abdel Salam enabled Al-Sisi to outmanoeuvre Al Azhar in the struggle for reform,” said an influential activist.

The Turkey-UAE rivalry has spilt from the geopolitical and ideological into competing versions of Islamic history.

Turkey last year renamed the street on which the UAE embassy in Ankara is located after an Ottoman general that was at the centre of a Twitter spat between Mr. Erdogan and UAE foreign minister Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahyan..

Mr. Erdogan responded angrily to the tweet that accused Fahreddin Pasha, who defended the holy city of Medina against the British in the early 20th century, of abusing the local Arab population and stealing their property as well as sacred relics from the Prophet Muhammad’s tomb,. The tweet described the general as one of Mr. Erdogan’s ancestors.

“When my ancestors were defending Medina, you impudent (man), where were yours? Some impertinent man sinks low and goes as far as accusing our ancestors of thievery. What spoiled this man? He was spoiled by oil, by the money he has,” Mr. Erdogan retorted, referring to Mr. Al-Nahyan.

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Modern Diplomacy