Friday, December 18, 2015

Israeli and American exceptionalism

          The United States and Israel, at the first glance, are two countries with vast differences in size, geography, cultures, etc. The role and place each country plays in international system bear little resemblance to one another. Yet, a closer look reveals that these two powers may not be that different; there is one thing both countries share in common: each country’s emphasis on its own exceptionalism.

          Over the last centuries, America has been described as “the empire of liberty” or the “shining city on the hill.” In the past, America has always prided itself on being the leader of the free world whereas European powers were still using colonial methods to control other nations. This perception cultivates in America a sense of higher moral ground than its European counterparts. As a country once colonized by outside powers, the United States has viewed itself as more virtuous, more restrained, more just. However, there were differences between American actions and speeches. While lauding the sovereign integrity of other countries, the United States blatantly followed the “Manifest Destiny” doctrine, an imperialist program to expand the country by arms, if necessary. American exceptionalism also has its own flaws. While this mentality makes America a unique nation, it also creates a self-congratulatory image for America and makes it harder for American policy-makers to understand why other states are less enthusiastic about American dominance or irritated by American hypocrisy.

          Israel, since its founding, has viewed itself as a small nation perpetually entangled in an unprecedented conflict with its neighbors. In a speech Ben-Gurion delivered to Israeli youths, he merged the theme of Israel’s moral exceptionalism and its national security exceptionalism: “Our survival secret during thousands of years…has one source: Our supreme quality, our intellectual and moral advantage, which singles us out even today, as it did throughout the generations.”[1] Israeli exceptionalism has been a powerful narrative to form a cohesive front at home and confront the threats from abroad. But while helping to unite the Israeli nation, the exceptionalism mentality creates an image of “a lone wolf” in Israel. There has always been this perception of Israel fighting against the world, and this kind of mindset has led to Israel’s illegal occupation in defiance of international law. Believing that its problems are unique, Israel demands “unique solutions” rather than the commonly accepted answers. Israel’s perceived destiny to “dwell in loneliness” helps partly explain why Israel has not been active in formulating regionalism initiative.

          Exceptionalism is a source of pride for both countries. Each country’s belief in its uniqueness has solidified its national power. But this “city on a hill” syndrome can easily lead to the moral exoneration in both countries and the failure to comprehend their foes’ motivations.




[1] Ben-Gurion, David. 1971. Yihud and Yiud (Distinction and Destiny). Tel Aviv: Am Oved.

Why America needs Donald Trump

            It is official. Donald Trump can say anything now. The celebrity Republican candidate and billionaire real-estate tycoon has started a quite remarkably successful campaign with his rallying cry to “make America great again” without any explanation of what made it wonderful before or how he will actually make the country return to its heyday. What Donald Trump seems to be doing so far is to prove his unparalleled ability to provoke the public. Building a human-proof wall, attacking John McCain for being captured during the Vietnam War, implying that a Fox News’ anchor is having menstrual problems, etc. are some of Trump’s outrageous remarks. Trump’s recent calling for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” maybe the final straw. But Trump’s hateful and racist rhetoric is a useful reminder that bigotry still exists in America, and there are still things that can be done to combat this outdated and dangerous mindset.

            Trump’s call to ban Muslims should not be a surprise given the growing Islamophobic sentiment in the United States, especially after 9/11 and the Paris attacks. Islamophobia, of course, existed long before 9/11, but increased in frequency during the past decade. I recently came across this video which showed exactly how anti-Muslim sentiment has spiraled out of control. Just after the Paris attacks, a Virginian civilian engineer named Samer Shalamy came to a small community forum and presented his plans to replace an old Islamic center in town. Then suddenly a man stood up and yelled at Shalamy, “Every one of you are terrorists. I don't care what you say. I don't care what you think." He later added, to the cheers in the crowd “"Every Muslim is a terrorist, period. Shut your mouth."

            This anti-Muslim prejudice is so dangerous, especially with the rise of Daesh. Its recent attacks in Paris showed the brutality of the group and helped inflame the Islamophobia that the community has been trying to quell for years. This anti-Muslim narrative transformed the problems with Daesh into a civilization conflict: Islam versus the West. But ostracizing Muslims means playing into the terrorists’ hands, for they can blame the West on Muslims’ sufferings and recruit more of those distressed citizens. Donald Trump has been the front-runner in further deliberately manipulating the anti-Muslim rhetoric for his political gains. But if anything, Trump has been successful in bringing this issue into the prime-time news and social media. The outrage from the public is incredible. Americans and the world have condemned Trump and showed their solidarity with Muslims. Politicians, talk-show hosts, etc. have also come together to defend the Muslim community. Maybe America does need a reality TV character like Trump to show how ignorance and bigotry still exist, how dangerous those sentiments can be, and how Americans can work together to protect their long-cherished notion of religious liberty.


            So thanks again, Donald!


Sunday, December 13, 2015

Behind the veil: The right to drive my destiny

"I believe that in general, for the Saudi woman, every day is a new battle. She needs to find ways to live on the face of this earth without colliding with the law, with men, with society, with the religious clerics, or with the political establishment. She is besieged. …Within every Saudi woman, there is a Scheherazade. Imagine Scheherazade trying every night to stay alive until the next night. That's how I see the Saudi woman.” - Wajeha Al-Huwaidar

On paper, it looks like the wind has changed for women in Saudi Arabia. For the first time in the country’s history, women are registered to vote in municipal elections. It is a significant step forward to empower Saudi women and girls, who are now on their way to be a part of the public sphere, not just the excluded victims of society.

          Sex segregation in Saudi Arabia is nothing new. There has always been a female sphere of activities in the kingdom, for women have a “special” nature that needs a “special” type of education and a “special” set of behaviors. By the age of seven, boys and girls are separated into a divided world of men and women: all public facilities such as transportation, banks and restaurants are segregated as a matter of law. Saudi women are subject to the concept of qawama or “male guardianship.” A woman is not allowed to travel without the permission of her male guardian; she needs him to write her a letter to enroll in university; a permission from him to get medical care or to marry. Basically, women in Saudi Arabia need men to give them permission to do everything in their life. Qawama robs women of their autonomy by placing them under the custody of their male relatives. They cannot make decisions without men’s consent. Women are only treated as objects whose ownership is passed from one man to another.


          The Arab Spring inspired Saudi women to make demands for their rights. The access to the Internet by the end of the 1990s gave rise to e-activism. Social networks have made the spread of ideas easier and more effective. Women connected with each other and created new ties through social networks. Blogging became the main platform for women to express themselves, often anonymously. The internet is a safe space where women have equal access in ways that are different from the reality where women are always subordinate to men. Blogs such as women2drive campaign, Saudi Eve, Saudiwoman, etc. are examples of female bloggers that try to bring in changes to women realities.

          The recent change in suffrage law is a landmark for a country that is notorious for imposing constraints on women. While this is a significant change for a conservative monarchy like Saudi Arabia, it probably will not make much difference. Municipal elections in Saudi Arabia are not that important because local elected officials usually have little power in the country. Moreover, the right to vote does not go far enough to advance any substantial women’s rights. The most controversial restriction is the government’s ban on driving. Saudi Arabia is now the only country that prohibits women from driving or even riding a bicycle. The right to drive is very important, especially in a country that lacks transportation, the inability to drive is an obstacle to women to achieve even the smallest equality. Without the right to drive, women will have to depend on a male companion to travel to places, for it is relatively unsafe to walk and women are often prohibited from walking alone in public. There is a “women to drive” movement that attracts the media attention lately. Women participating in the movement will drive out in public spaces. But these women who broke the taboo on driving were arrested. They were ridiculed. They were condemned.



It is never just about driving. It is about being in the driver’s seat for one’s own destiny. The new extension of suffrage to women is laudable, but there is still a long way to go in the fight for gender equality in Saudi Arabia.

Cannot stand on the sidelines

          Last year when Obama assembled a coalition of its allies against ISIS, Israel was not asked, at least publicly, to contribute. Jordan and Qatar, Australia and Denmark, Turkey and Britain were all expected to help counter the threat from ISIS; although better equipped than some of these countries, Israel was kept off the list. This action, however, came as no surprise. It was certainly not the first time the Jewish state was absent from a coalition at war in the region. Going back to the Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 when George H.W. Bush was bringing together nearly 40 countries against Hussein administration’s aggression, Israel was also left out. Bush understood that in order to build a broad international (or regional) coalition that he wanted, he had to keep Israel excluded from the club. Considering how the region was still occupied with the Arab–Israeli conflict, this decision was logical and understandable. But as ISIS becomes more and more dangerous, Israel’s participation is much needed, both for its interests and for the coalition’s.

          In its first ever video in Hebrew, ISIS threatened to tear down Israel: “…there will not be a single Jew left in Jerusalem and throughout the country.” The message, however, failed to get Israeli official attention. It is true that the group does not represent a direct military threat at the moment: It has a limited military capability, and before they can come to “wipe [Israel] out,” they have to pass the Hashemite kingdom. Jordan, a strategic partner of Israel, will serve as a buffer zone and have enough military power to withstand the terrorists’ onslaught. Moreover, the threat from ISIS in neighboring Syria is now overshadowed by the escalation of the ongoing Palestinian–Israeli conflict. Anti-Palestinian rhetoric dominates Israel’s statement, as seen in Netanyahu’s latest U.N General Assembly Speech.

But downplaying the threat posed by ISIS is not a good long-term strategy for Tel Aviv. As ISIS is taking Syria piece by piece, the threat of an ISIS attack in Israel is on the horizon. Tensions occasionally spilled into Golan Heights. ISIS is gaining more outside support, some of them are from Israel, according to Israeli security officials (Source). There is also a possibility that ISIS will try to destabilize Jordan, and Israel cannot risk letting its only ally in the Levant region turn into an enemy state. The challenge from ISIS prompts Israel to take actions. Participation in the anti-ISIS coalition will demonstrate to the world that Israel is not an international pariah. It proves that Israel is an important strategic ally of the United States by standing with the superpower against terror. Israel can also play the ISIS crisis to build its new allies. Joining the coalition provides an opportunity for Israel to show the moderate Arabs that it is not an enemy but a potentially steadfast ally.


Of course the invitation for Israel’s participation has not been extended. The U.S. would want Israel, a democracy with a strong military power, to be a pillar of the coalition; nevertheless, the protracted conflict with Palestinians is an obstacle to Israel’s involvement in the coalition. Unless Israel chooses to address the Palestinian question with more creative terms in the service of peace, Israel can never be a part of the coalition that may protect its security interests. There is always a possibility of a dreadful scenario: If ISIS were strong enough to take over both Syria and Jordan, Israel would have to face both Hamas and Daesh on both sides. It is important that Israel, by joining the United States and its allies, pursues its fight with ISIS before this new enemy causes greater problems for the Jewish state.

Saturday, December 12, 2015

In search of the Jewish soul

Hatikvah (or “The Hope” in Hebrew) is one of the few national anthems written in minor key. Mournful in tone, the song tells the return to the homeland of a nation from exile. Generations of Israelis have walked the long walk they were required to walk with both grievances and hope. But this journey to the Holy Land is not impossible as long as “in the heart, a Jewish soul still yearns.” From the very start, Israel had faced a Herculean mission: A daring project to unify a nation, to establish a new state, to install a trustworthy leadership, to create formidable borders from sketch. Against all odds, Israel survives its embryonic stage and evolves into a stronger country than ever. Its success is remarkable, its strength undeniable, its soul indomitable. The Jewish soul, throughout the Holocaust experience, remained morally courageous. But is it starting to dissolve?

1967 is a watershed year. The Six-Day War has fundamentally reshaped the region: Political maps were altered and the Israeli psyche experienced a shift. The country, after the stunning victory, was filled with euphoria and hubris. It was a Pyrrhic victory regardless. The completeness and swiftness of the triumph intoxicated Israel with a sense of grandeur that led to the colonization of the occupied territories: “A greater Israel” in defiance of international law. After capturing the lands, Israel assured the international community that the wounds of Holocaust would inform the state to establish a truly enlightened occupation. But the relationship between the occupier and the occupied will always be based on doubt and fear, violence and resentment, oppression and suffering; “enlightened occupation” is only an empty slogan. For Palestinians, Israel is an alien entity that deserves no place in the land. Israel’s illegitimate occupation of a foreign people becomes a moral burden for a vibrant and intellectual country that is painfully aware of its brutal history. “This is what the Occupation does to Israel’s soul,” Silverstein laments, “It kills it in the most mundane of ways.”



A woman holds a sign reading: ‘With occupation, there is no hope,’ during a protest march against the Netanyahu government, Tel Aviv, October 24, 2015. (photo: Yotam Ronen/Activestills.org)

“Who is Israel?” is not an easy question to answer. A victim of the past. An oppressor of the present. Israel is now at odds with itself. The illegitimacy of the occupation taints the Jewish state. It is viewed as a colonialist power, and in the twenty-first century, there is no room for colonialism. The demand to end the occupation is greater than ever, but so are the risks. But it is this struggle to balance security and morality that makes up the very essence of Israel's soul, which is, in Halevi’s words, “the ability to sustain paradox.”

Friday, December 11, 2015

Live by the sword. Die by the sword.

At a meeting of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense committee in October, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu turned to the politicians present and said: “You think there is a magic wand here, but I disagree. I’m asked if we will forever live by the sword – yes.” (Source) With just a few words, he summed up his vision for the future. He pushed back against his opponents who still believe that there is a “magic wand” to solve the Jewish state problem. To survive, Israel is destined to live by the sword. But he had conveniently omitted the closing phrase of this famous saying: “Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.”

The State of Israel was born out of war and blood, and it has lived by its sword ever since. The establishment of the Jewish state was a political miracle. A pupa that turned into a butterfly. ­A minority that became a self-reliant majority. It all started with a basic premise: “A land without a people for a people without land.” But the land, inhabited thousands of years by the Arabs, is certainly is not “a land without a people.” The Arabs would not receive Israel with open arms; they viewed the Jewish state as a foreign element and refused to accept Jewish sovereignty. “Israel is the cancer, the malignant wound in the Arab body, and the only way of remedy is to uproot it just like a cancer” (King Saud in 1954). Wars were fought, and the Arab antagonism grew with every Israeli victory. For Israel, “war made the state, and the state made war.”[1] Every battle against the Arabs fostered a common identity and a sense of community in Israel. Nationalism only added fuels to Israel’s determination to forestall any calamity. Wars to defend its existence have indeed given Israel the most severe motive: survival.

Israel’s response to the recent attacks from Palestine (or third intifada as many people called it) has been the same: Violence. And more violence. Earlier this October, Netanyahu announced “an all-out war” to combat the Palestinian terrorism. “And we will wage it aggressively,” he added (Source). But aggression will not solve Israel’s problems. Last year, after the murder of three Israeli teenagers, an Israeli Arab teen was burned to death by three Jews as a revenge (Source). Then a firebombing attack in Duma (a Palestinian town in the West Bank) killed an 18-month-old child (Source). If Palestinians attack with stones, Israel responds with fire. Will aggression quell the uprising? Someone has to put down the sword, and Netanyahu made it clear that it would not be Israel, whose actions are driven by its perceptions of existential threats throughout history. But we also have to ask ourselves why should Palestinians, under Israel’s harsh occupation, put down their sword?

It is a mental deadlock.

Moshe Dayan, at the funeral of the young Israeli security officer, delivered a eulogy that captured the siege mentality of this never-ending conflict (Source):

“…We are a generation of settlement and without the steel helmet and the gun’s muzzle we will not be able to plant a tree and build a house. Let us not fear to look squarely at the hatred that consumes and fills the lives of hundreds of Arabs who live around us. Let us not drop our gaze, lest our arms weaken. That is the fate of our generation. That is our choice – to be ready and armed, tough and hard – or else the sword shall fall from our hands and our lives will be cut short.”

But no nation can and should live by the sword forever. Both sides need to understand that if any practical agreement is ever to be achieved, their demands will only be partially met. A realistic middle ground should be established in order for both parties to avoid jeopardizing each other’s existence and acknowledging each other as free peoples. The time has arrived to build a durable peace, as the wisest of men wrote thousands of year ago, “there is a time for killing and a time for healing, a time for breaking down and a time for building up, a time for war and a time for peace.”






[1] Tilly, Charles. "Reflections on the History of European State-Making." In The Formation of National States in Western Europe. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1975.

Tuesday, December 1, 2015

#thirdintifada: Social Media Intifada?

         A new wave of violence and reprisals has been flaring up in Jerusalem, across Israel and in the West Bank. These stories about the current unrest sound tragically familiar: horrific attacks on Israelis by Palestinians, followed by horrific responses by Israel. Of course, Palestine’s criticism of Israel’s occupied territories is nothing new. However, the incitement behind this latest Palestinian uprising (or so-called “Jerusalem intifada” or “Third Intifada”) is unprecedentedly influenced by social media platforms such as Youtube, Facebook and Twitter. The disturbing images of recent unrest in Israel and Palestinian territories have been documented and swamped Twitter through the hashtag #thirdintifada. Anti-Semitic posts calling for violence were featured on Facebook, and instructional videos on how to stab Jews effectively went viral. This proliferation of anti-Israel messages with amateur videos, images and tweets thus gave the current spate of attacks between Palestinians and Israelis the title of “Social Media Intifada.”

         Intifada is an Arabic word literally meaning “tremor” or “shuddering.” The word was first applied in 1987 as a response to the sense of helplessness and resistance among Palestinians to Israel’s occupation of West Bank and Gaza since 1967. Palestinians, with a new sense of purpose, started rising up against Israeli rule. From the very beginning, imagery has become central to these uprisings. Pictures of Israeli soldiers beating Palestinians children or tanks against rock-throwing protesters were used and distributed effectively by Palestinians. Children became soldiers and were assigned tasks according to their age. Innumerable poems were then written to glorify their deaths. Hailed as “Children of the Stones,”[1] these 10-year-old martyrs became the iconic images of the first intifada that encouraged a culture of violence among Palestinians. The second intifada began in 2000, and the provocative images of Ariel Sharon visiting the sacred Temple Mount sparked the protests among the Palestinians who viewed Sharon as a “war criminal.”

“Children of the Stones” (Source)


Ariel Sharon’s visit to Temple Mount (Source)

       This time social media has already left its mark on the uprising. Social networks are now used by the youth as a platform to convey their political messages and thus become the online battleground for the so-called third intifada. Each side has its own gruesome images and videos that incited violence from both sides. A music video that was shared more than 100,000 times on Facebook featured Palestinian musician Qassem Najjar singing “When a shahid (martyr) is made, we will take each other's hands ... workers, teachers, doctors ... from the left and from the right.” Before-and-after pictures of a shahid become popular, with one image showing the person healthy and the other showing them dead. A video was released in October showing a Jew being brutally attacked with a meat cleaver by a Palestinian man. This video fueled the pro-Israel messages, but at the same time, the attacker was described by the Shebab News Agency as a “martyr.” A Palestinian teen, inspired by this spreading violence, wrote a Facebook post about her desire to become a shahid then went out to stab an Israel man hours later. In the words of Nisman, president of an Israeli security analysis firm: “There’s a viral nature to these attacks: One person goes out, they get killed, then they get glorified, it makes other people want to go out.” (Source) The risk of more Israeli violence also increases after these ongoing conflicts as hate-filled messages (e.g. Death to Arabs) spread through Facebook.

       But will this intifada be any different from the last two? On the one hand, the shocking images and videos are circulated virally, inspiring the current violence between both sides. The angry passions aroused on social media also increase the impact of the attacks. On the other hand, the attacks were self-initiated and lacked a concerted effort or strategy. These Palestinian assailants were unaffiliated with any form of political ideology or movement. This mass of young people who tried to use social media to express their fury over Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories fail to comprehensively capitalize this energy and only make the matter worse. These leaderless acts of terrorism undermined the effort by the PLO to secure international legitimacy for an UN-declared Palestinian state. With ill-defined goals, the latest spike of violence will not change the status quo or get the Israeli – Palestinian peace talks on track. The possibility for a better tomorrow for Palestine thus remains elusive. 





[1] Peretz, Donald. Intifada: The Palestinian Uprising. Boulder, Columbia: Westview Press, 1990. 83.