Jewish Bedouins

BY CARMIA

Some time ago, a video clip was circulating which speculated on the allegedly Jewish origins of Palestinians, including Bedouin tribes in the Judean desert and the Negev.

While visiting Petra earlier this month, we came across such a young Bedouin who claimed Jewish ancestry. Speaking in Hebrew, he told us that his family used to herd in areas stretching from around Beersheba to Jordan until the borders closed up and they were left on the other side. He says that his grandmother still lives in the Negev, and that he has visited the area on several occasions. He also claimed to have hosted a party at which alcohol was served. Asked how he reconciled drinking alcohol with his conservative and Muslim environment, he replied, nonchalantly, that, "as a Jewish [sic]", he and others are "allowed" to drink.

It would be very difficult to verify his claims, but what I found interesting was that he made them in the first place. Perhaps the tribe he hails from has an oral history that points towards a Jewish background. One of the supporting arguments that he relied on to make his case about his tribe's Jewish ancestry was the fact that, according to him, his tribe would curse others in the Petra area by telling them, "il'an saleebak" ("may your cross be cursed"). Our loquacious and easygoing friend told us that this reference to the cross was based on the originally Christian heritage of other people in the Petra area from who his tribe distinguished themselves. Or perhaps it was all a business strategy to sell more souvenirs.

Random Bedouins at Petra

The Diplomatic Circus

Turkish PM Erdogan

Israel's "Operation Cast Lead" has generated a number of interesting diplomatic moves and rifts that give us some insights into the ambitions of various powers in the region.

Most remarkable have been Egypt's repeated pronouncements that Hamas itself is to blame for the crisis. The regime feels confident enought to withstand both foreign and domestic pressure, even as Nasrallah has castigated Mubarak for his alleged support of Israel. It is clear that Egypt wants Hamas weakened and is willing to tolerate large numbers of Palestinian casualties for this to happen. Egypt is asserting itself as the power broker in the Israeli-Gazan conflict, and making both the Iranians and Syrians look like idle talkers. The message to Hamas: we are your only road to salvation. 

The Jordanians are looking on quietly, hoping that the Israelis finish the job quickly, with as few Palestinian casualties as possible. They seem more antsy than the Egyptians about the operation's implications for them.

Among the Europeans, the French have played the most visible role in efforts to achieve a cease fire. Until now, their efforts have not achieved very much on the ground. Although Sarkozy has blamed Hamas for the eruption of violence, he has also tried to push for a quick end to the fighting. I am not sure what exactly France is up to. My sense is that Sarkozy is trying to seize an opportunity for France to establish another foothold in the Israeli-Arab conflict. Unlike the Egyptians, the French do not seem to place as high a priority on weakening Hamas. It is possible that they may even support a partial legitimization of the Hamas government in Gaza, which would be achieved through an insertion of French monitors at the Philadelphi corridor, to guard against the militarization of the Strip via underground tunnels. 

I am not sure how the Egyptians are responding to these moves. However it may be packaged, such international monitors on the Egyptian side of the border represent an affront to Egyptian sovereignty. Furthermore, Egypt may well want to keep some weapons against Israel in its arsenal, by preserving the option of turning a blind eye to Hamas or other Palestinian smuggling.

One can be sure that the Germans are watching France's high-profile diplomacy very carefully. Meanwhile, Angela Merkel is probably pursuing German objectives with a little more tact and efficacy than Sarkozy. 

The other regional power that has made headlines since the Gaza operation began is Turkey. Erdogan's condemnations of Israel have been especially damning. They seem to reflect Turkish public opinion but they are also, likely, connected to Turkey's efforts to mediate between Syria and Israel. Turkey has invested significantly in the Syrian track and sees the current conflict as a blow against its efforts and its standing in the Arab world. The Turks have also long sought a normalization of Hamas's rule over Gaza - I am not sure why this has been important to them (ideological reasons?).  

Qatar, as usual, is using the opportunity to strike blows at the Saudis, who are very quietly toeing the Egyptian-Jordanian-American line. 

For the U.S. and Israel the priority is that Hamas emerge visibly weakened from "Operation Cast Lead." Whatever cease fire emerges must look quite different also from the Lebanese solution.  Peace Now cannot mean War Tomorrow.

More on that in a future post.

King Abdullah II Puts on Clinic

King Abdullah II and Queen Rania of Jordan
(Photo: Royal Hashemite Court Archives, Nasser Ayoub)

King Abdullah II of Jordan today addressed a joint meeting of the House and Senate in the U.S. Congress. Ahead of his trip to the United States, the King reiterated his conviction that time is running out for a peace settlement between Israelis and Palestinians. Last Friday, the ruler of the Hashemite Kingdom criticized Israel for dragging its feet, and called upon it to choose between the "prisoner mentality of 'Israel the fortress'" and living in peace with its neighbors.
Today, the King urged the U.S. to commit itself to a revival of the peace process, cutting out the criticism of Israel:

I come to you today at a rare and indeed historic moment of opportunity when there is a new international will to end the catastrophe. And I believe that America with its enduring values, its moral repsonsibility, and yes, its unprecedented power must play the central role.

Today I must speak, and I cannot be silent. I must speak about a cause that is urgent for your people and mine. I must speak about peace in the Middle East.

King Abdullah's speech was of course long on vision and short on policy. But that is to be expected for an address like this. The Jordanian ruler pointed to the Arab Peace Initiative as a basis, but also referred to the Taba and Geneva accords.

In his flawless, unaccented American English, King Abdullah appealed directly to American values, invoking F.D.R. and referring repeatedly to the hope for freedom, peace, and prosperity. Standing in front of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Dick Cheney, he projected optimism and the air of a serious statesman. The CPSAN camera panned several times to his beautiful, smiling wife, Queen Rania, watching the proceedings with other members of the royal family, and with her hair uncovered. There is no doubt that King Abdullah can put himself on the map as the most popular Arab leader in America today, provided that parts of his address make the television screens. He certainly communicates better with Americans than Olmert could ever hope to. I would even say that he put on a better show than Bibi would have - Americans like optimism a lot more than pathos and dire warnings.

In light of this, I was surprised (or perhaps not) to read the FOX News web coverage of the address. According to FOX,

Top House Democrats said Wednesday they are "disappointed" with Jordanian King Abdullah's address to a joint meeting of Congress in which he singled out the plight of Palestinians without mentioning the role of Palestinian groups in preventing a Mideast peace.

In a room with a number of pro-Israeli politicians, the king devoted his speech to discussing an end to the conflict in the Middle East, but he focused primarily on the needs of the Palestinians and suggested that Israel was holding up the peace process.

It is true that King Abdullah did not mention Hamas's refusal to recognize the State of Israel. To be sure, the King is trying hard to pressure the U.S. to force the Israelis forward, and thereby to ease his own domestic problems and improve Jordan's strategic situation. And yes, it's possible that Tom Lantos and Joe Lieberman were not enthusiastic about King Abdullah's words, especially in light of his remarks last week. But the FOX coverage would have one believe that King Abdullah's speech was a complete failure. That is simply not the case.

The King played the role of "moderate Arab leader" and trusted American ally perfectly. No backbencher and no ordinary American could have come away from the address thinking that this was a one-sided, Israel-bashing speech. While the King spoke of the "denial of justice and peace in Palestine" and referred to "60 years of dispossession and 40 years of occupation," he never blamed Israel directly for this history. He referred not only to the "Lebanese father saving money to send his children to college" and to the "Palestinian child on the way to school," but also to the "Israeli mother" fearfully watching her son board a bus. He invoked the memory of his own deceased father, King Hussein, who spoke to the U.S. Congress more than a decade ago, together with former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin z"l. The message was clear: back then, the U.S. committed itself to a negotiated peace settlement, and today it must continue that legacy. It was a potent expression of his opposition to unilateral solutions:

In 1994 with Israeli PM Yitzhak* Rabin beside him, [my father] spoke of a new vision for the Middle East. And their courageous work received bipartisan support from your leaders. And there was tremendous hope for a new era, that people would be brought together, that a final and comprehensive settlement of all the issues would be achieved. Thirteen years later that work is still not completed. And until it is, we are all at risk. We are all at risk of being victims of further violence resulting from ideologies of terror and hatred. It is our greatest and most urgent duty to prevent such dangers to our region, to your country, and to the world. The choice is ours: an open world full of promise, progress, and justice for all. Or a world closed, divided peoples, fear, and unfulfilled dreams. Nothing impacts this choice more than the future of peace in the Middle East.

* For people interested in this kind of stuff: logically enough, the Jordanian King pronounced the het in Rabin's first name as a voiceless pharyngeal fricative - this is noteworthy only because, besides the Arabic phrases, King Abdullah spoke without the trace of any accent. Americans, of course, pronounce Rabin's first name with a simple h or sometimes with a voiceless velar fricative (as in Bach). And while we are indulging in glossophilia - the King also made a comment about his New England boarding school experience, where he learned that "one should only talk if what one has to say will improve on silence."

King Abdullah's speech was interrupted several times with enthusiastic applause. He gave Americans what they wanted to hear - an appreciation for America's traditional role in the world and an inclusive vision of a future Middle East. And he managed to do this specifically as an Arab and Muslim leader, pointedly beginning and ending his speech in Arabic.

Opening with the words bismillah al-rahman al-rahim [In the Name of God the most Graceful and Compassionate] and concluding with the greeting salam aleikum, which, he translated for the benefit of the audience, as "peace be upon you," King Abdullah expressed his pride at standing in the House chamber ("this historic institution") as his father had done in 1994. He gave "shout-outs" to Nancy Pelosi and Keith Ellison, telling legislators that

It is a special privilege to be here in the year that the American Congress welcomes its first woman speaker and its first Muslim-American member of Congress.

Ellison returned the favor by answering the King's salam at the end of the speech.

The full CSPAN video of the King's address is now up.

Hizbullah Stumbles, for Now

From the FPM website: apparently the guy on the groundis a 65-year-old (Aoun supporter?)
being kicked by a Lebanese Forces member (tayyar.org)

The latest attempt by Hizbullah and company to bring down the Siniora government in Lebanon has failed - at least for now. On the streets, Christian pro-government forces held their own against the anti-government Christian backers of Michel Aoun's FMP, while Sunni activists flexed enough muscle to thwart Hizbullah and Amal. But the key was outside intervention, including perhaps a restraining order by the Iranians, after pressure from the Saudis (see Ha'aretz). Or maybe it was the overt backing of King Abdullah as well as the U.S. (which is intent on preventing the victory of the Syrian-Iranian proxies) and France for the government. In any case, Siniora et al. seem to have acquired a new lease on life.

Meanwhile, most of the Sunni Arab world viewed the latest showdown in Lebanon as a must-win confrontation in the regional Sunni-Shi'a showdown. With Iraq in Shi'a hands and Syria in Iran's pockets, the Saudis can capitalize on widespread support from Sunnis who are still fuming about the execution of Saddam Hussein. This, in turn, has emboldened the Sunni supporters of the Lebanese government. Nasrallah has taken notice and trying to tread carefully.

On a related note, the Jordanian Mohammed al-Masri has an op-ed in the Daily Star about Jordan's position on the Sunni-Shi'a rift. The article is about Jordanian encounters with Shi'a Iraqi expatriates in their midst. Apparently, the Jordanian state is following a "zero-tolerance policy toward the public practice of Shiism." However, al-Masri concludes that the real threat to Jordan is not the practice of Shiism in the country or the specter of mass conversions by its Sunni population; rather, the real danger is

political Shiism: support for Shiite political organizations and acceptance of their political paradigms

Al-Masri goes on to say that

the sweeping support for Hizbullah during the war in Lebanon last summer was a clear manifestation of political Shiism,

which is a sneaky way of criticizing the wide-scale support for Hizbullah in the Arab world during the war. Ultimately, he blames Israel for the rise of "political Shiism" - i.e., for the increasing threat to regimes like Jordan by Iran and its proxies:

As much as events in Iraq and interaction with Iraqi communities within Jordan lead to Jordanian antipathy toward Iraqi Shiites and Iran, the Israeli factor and potential conflict between Israel and Hizbullah still encourage support for Hizbullah-style Shiite organizations. Therefore it might be misleading to assume that new anti-Iranian feelings in Jordan are sustainable, when the Israel factor in regional developments could undermine them