What the hell, Bahrain?
The Shiites have hit the fan in Bahrain – Bahraini police and military have been supplemented by more than 1000 Saudi Arabian troops (and some from the UAE), complete with tanks and armored trucks. At least eight people have been killed, with hundreds more injured. Police have been using live ammunition, and there are reports of them firing indiscriminately into crowds obstructing their path.
There has been significant outcry by Shiites in Iran and Iraq (not that Saudi Arabia cares), and at this point the Bahraini royal family has made it clear that they are little more than Satraps for the Saudi Government.
At this point, the violence in Bahrain also seems to be part of an internal power struggle in the Bahraini royal family. Much of the incoherence and inconsistency of the government’s response to the protests (alternating between tolerance and violence) stems from divisions between progressive and conservative elements. Although the progressives were in ascendancy for some time, the involvement of the Saudi government (who strongly back the conservative elements) has reversed that power balance
In conversations on Bahrain (and Yemen and Libya) a question comes up again and again – “Why are these governments so willing to resort to violence against their own people?”
The answer is a pretty simple one – traditionally the autocratic governments of the Middle East have held power through a judicious threefold mix:
a. propaganda,
b. intimidation
c. force
With the advent of widespread electronic communication (both internally and externally) the effectiveness of propaganda has dramatically shrunk. Intimidation still has some effectiveness, but Egypt and Tunisia have served as an example and an inspiration to protesters elsewhere, successfully hobbling the effectiveness of intimidation. Without these two, there is nothing left for a regime to call upon except for force.
“So why not find new options? Isn’t it obvious that the violence will only make it worse?”
Here’s the essential problem: There is no plan B.
As was painfully obvious in the case of Mubarak, the powers that be in the Middle East have been entirely unprepared for what has come to be called “the Arab spring”. The status quo in these countries has been firmly in place for decades, and the skills required to retain authority have had more to do with internal power plays among the elites. An evolutionary shift is underway, and few leaders, if any, have the right range of skills to navigate this new terrain.
***
Lots of stuff going on in Palestine/Israel – seized weapons from Iran, settlement building as collective punishment for the murders in Itamar, rumors of a Syria/Israel peace deal, Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Abbas announced that he won’t be running for reelection – things are always exciting in the Levant.
All of that aside, the issue that I want to touch on is the Palestinian “Day of Rage” protests. There were rallies in Gaza and the West Bank for unity between Hamas and the PA. These expressions of frustration at the gridlock created by having two separate and opposing governments weren’t the product of efforts by either the PA or Hamas, but both Fateh and Hamas were quick to co-opt the rallies.
The protests in Gaza ended a bit early, when Hamas security decided that it was time for the crowds to disperse, and started beating people with clubs.
This speaks to an interesting and unfortunately often overlooked issue – legitimacy. At this point neither Hamas nor Fateh have any. Excepting the die-hard supporters of the two parties (who are often beneficiaries of a paternalistic carrot and stick approach to governance) most Palestinians are sick of both groups.
Mahmoud Abbas is acutely aware of this, and seems to have grown tired of being the whipping-boy for the Israeli government (After the murders in Itamar his public denunciation of the act was deemed insufficiently loud enough by Netanyahu, and he was told that he needed to make sure that the Palestinians heard him clearly – as if most of the Palestinians give a damn what Abbas says about anything).
Word is that Palestinian elections are about six months away, an event that probably wouldn’t favor Fateh or Hamas. Hamas only won the 2006 elections because internal divisions in Fateh split their voting bloc, and over the past few years Hamas has shown themselves to be just as corrupt and nepotistic as the party that they beat. They haven’t secured any visible gains for the Palestinians, and they haven’t shown much in the way of leadership – this has not gone unnoticed. Unless Fateh and/or Hamas can put up some fresh young faces soon they are both poised to lose significant power in the next election.
***
Just a quick third note – although Armenia’s inclusion in “the greater middle east” is debatable, they had some protests two weeks ago, and round two is today.
Worth watching for sure.
Showing posts with label West Bank. Show all posts
Showing posts with label West Bank. Show all posts
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Terror, nonviolence, and Israel
A few years ago, during grad school I tried to write a paper on the concept of “Nonviolent terrorism”. The scope of the project quickly revealed itself to be far beyond the requirements of the class that I was writing it for, and instead I limited the focus of the paper to the performative aspects of self-immolation. (part one of that paper can be found here, part two and three are forthcoming)
The idea of nonviolent terrorism is one that is largely symbolic – actions that induce fear, chaos, and psychological trauma without causing physical harm to people or infrastructure. Bomb threats are probably the most common form of nonviolent terrorism, but other examples can be found – white powder in envelopes, firecrackers tossed into a tense crowd, psychological warfare through pranks. These things wear on the public psyche until it is like a tightly wound spring or a spooked horse unsure which way to jump - ready to protect itself from a threat whose likelihood cannot be clearly determined and whose severity cannot be calculated.
Nonviolent terrorism seeks to mimic the effects of a terrorist act without utilizing the destructive methods of terrorism. Nonviolent terrorism, however, does not exist seperate from terrorism – in fact, the success of an act of nonviolent terrorism is contingent on it being temporarily indistinguishable from a real act of terrorism. The act draws its potency from the real potential for violent terrorism. Threatening to poison a city’s drinking water can be an act of nonviolent terrorism. Threatening to destroy a city with the death ray from your moon base is something altogether different.
Nonviolent terrorism operates on the premise that the thing you fear hasn’t happened yet, but it might...
Israel is currently undergoing a wave of non-violent terrorism.
Let me be clear – I am not referring to the fear that more Gravads and Katushas will rain in from the Gaza strip, or the fear that a collapsing Lebanese government will become the puppet of Hezbollah, or the fear that the Muslim brotherhood will seize the reins of the fledgling Egyptian political scene and nullify the Israel/Egypt peace treaties.
All of these things are real fears, but none of these are the real fear.
The real fear comes from what we saw in Egypt. Less than a month ago millions of people filled the streets of Egypt, and in the face of police brutality and government force they stood their ground. Certainly there were acts of violence by the Egyptian protesters – clashes between hired baltagi and a public who was unwilling to be driven back, there was rock throwing and car burning in defiance of riot police, and there were a few nights where protesters in Tahrir square were pelted with firebombs and fought back with stones. But overall, it was a largely nonviolent movement, and therein lies the seeds of terror.
Certainly, when it comes to Egypt’s future some Israelis are hopeful and others are suspicious. But underneath it all there is a creeping and un-addressable gnawing fear that transcends concerns regarding the Egyptian people.
It is a fear that something like what we saw in Tahrir square could take place in Israel.
Every action by Hamas, or by the Palestinian Authority, or by the Palestinians themselves whether singly or in groups now brings with it the second-guessing - "Will this be the Mohamed Bouazizi moment?", "Is this the next Khaled Said?", "Could this be the thing that triggers it?"
As I said before, these things wear on the public psyche until it is like a tightly wound spring or a spooked horse unsure which way to jump - ready to protect itself from a threat whose likelihood cannot be clearly determined and whose severity cannot be calculated.
What would happen if 100,000 Palestinian citizens of Israel (AKA “Israeli Arabs”) showed up on Ben Yehuda street in Jerusalem demanding an end to the settlements?
What would happen if thousands of Gazan Palestinians marched from Gaza City and the refugee camps to the Erez and Karni crossings demanding passage to their estranged families in East Jerusalem and the West Bank?
What if the Muslim and Christian residents of Ramallah walked en masse to Ma’ale Adumim to protests the progressive loss of what little land they have left?
Most importantly, what if they did it with their hands empty of anything except for their camera phones?
How could Israel respond? And how long could large-scale human action in Israel stay nonviolent - either on the part of the Israelis or the Palestinians?
Because lurking behind the spectacle of Egypt is the specter of Libya: a population who no longer fear for their own lives facing down a military willing to use deadly force.
There is true terror.
The idea of nonviolent terrorism is one that is largely symbolic – actions that induce fear, chaos, and psychological trauma without causing physical harm to people or infrastructure. Bomb threats are probably the most common form of nonviolent terrorism, but other examples can be found – white powder in envelopes, firecrackers tossed into a tense crowd, psychological warfare through pranks. These things wear on the public psyche until it is like a tightly wound spring or a spooked horse unsure which way to jump - ready to protect itself from a threat whose likelihood cannot be clearly determined and whose severity cannot be calculated.
Nonviolent terrorism seeks to mimic the effects of a terrorist act without utilizing the destructive methods of terrorism. Nonviolent terrorism, however, does not exist seperate from terrorism – in fact, the success of an act of nonviolent terrorism is contingent on it being temporarily indistinguishable from a real act of terrorism. The act draws its potency from the real potential for violent terrorism. Threatening to poison a city’s drinking water can be an act of nonviolent terrorism. Threatening to destroy a city with the death ray from your moon base is something altogether different.
Nonviolent terrorism operates on the premise that the thing you fear hasn’t happened yet, but it might...
Israel is currently undergoing a wave of non-violent terrorism.
Let me be clear – I am not referring to the fear that more Gravads and Katushas will rain in from the Gaza strip, or the fear that a collapsing Lebanese government will become the puppet of Hezbollah, or the fear that the Muslim brotherhood will seize the reins of the fledgling Egyptian political scene and nullify the Israel/Egypt peace treaties.
All of these things are real fears, but none of these are the real fear.
The real fear comes from what we saw in Egypt. Less than a month ago millions of people filled the streets of Egypt, and in the face of police brutality and government force they stood their ground. Certainly there were acts of violence by the Egyptian protesters – clashes between hired baltagi and a public who was unwilling to be driven back, there was rock throwing and car burning in defiance of riot police, and there were a few nights where protesters in Tahrir square were pelted with firebombs and fought back with stones. But overall, it was a largely nonviolent movement, and therein lies the seeds of terror.
Certainly, when it comes to Egypt’s future some Israelis are hopeful and others are suspicious. But underneath it all there is a creeping and un-addressable gnawing fear that transcends concerns regarding the Egyptian people.
It is a fear that something like what we saw in Tahrir square could take place in Israel.
Every action by Hamas, or by the Palestinian Authority, or by the Palestinians themselves whether singly or in groups now brings with it the second-guessing - "Will this be the Mohamed Bouazizi moment?", "Is this the next Khaled Said?", "Could this be the thing that triggers it?"
As I said before, these things wear on the public psyche until it is like a tightly wound spring or a spooked horse unsure which way to jump - ready to protect itself from a threat whose likelihood cannot be clearly determined and whose severity cannot be calculated.
What would happen if 100,000 Palestinian citizens of Israel (AKA “Israeli Arabs”) showed up on Ben Yehuda street in Jerusalem demanding an end to the settlements?
What would happen if thousands of Gazan Palestinians marched from Gaza City and the refugee camps to the Erez and Karni crossings demanding passage to their estranged families in East Jerusalem and the West Bank?
What if the Muslim and Christian residents of Ramallah walked en masse to Ma’ale Adumim to protests the progressive loss of what little land they have left?
Most importantly, what if they did it with their hands empty of anything except for their camera phones?
How could Israel respond? And how long could large-scale human action in Israel stay nonviolent - either on the part of the Israelis or the Palestinians?
Because lurking behind the spectacle of Egypt is the specter of Libya: a population who no longer fear for their own lives facing down a military willing to use deadly force.
There is true terror.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)