Showing posts with label Post Realism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Post Realism. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 09, 2010

Post-Realism

ما بعـد الواقعـية

Post-Realism

خلال الشهور الماضية، أتيحت لي الفرصة أن ألتقي بالعديد من نواب البرلمان الأوروبي والألماني والبريطاني، والمسئولين بالمفوضية الأوروبية والخارجية الألمانية، والأحزاب الليبرالية في أوروبا، ضمن وفد من ممثلي الأحزاب الليبرالية العربية، بدعوة من مؤسسة فريدريش ناومان. وفوجئنا جميعاً أن الموضوع الذي دفع به جميع المتحدثين العرب من المغرب، والجزائر، وتونس، ومصر، والأردن، وفلسطين على طاولات المحادثات الثنائية والجماعية والمناقشات العامة والخاصة، كان موضوع القضية الفلسطينية، مع تشديد على قصور الدور الأوروبي في حل القضية، يسبقه فساد الدور الأمريكي وانحيازه التام لإسرائيل، وازدواجية المعايير الدولية، بما ينذر بكارثة إقليمية وعالمية.

وفي حديثي لأحد المسئولين الألمان، أوضحت أنه لو كان هذا اللقاء تم منذ 10 سنوات، لكانت دفة الحديث اتجهت لدور أوروبا في التنمية الاقتصادية في بلداننا، ونقل التكنولوجيا، والتحول الديمقراطي، وسبل التعاون في إطار الديبلوماسية الشعبية، وغيرها من موضوعات كانت تميز المرحلة التي أسميها مرحلة الواقعية السياسية. بدأت تلك المرحلة في نوفمبر 1973. ففي أعقاب حرب أكتوبر 1973، جلس الرئيس السادات مع كيسنجر، وصارحه برؤيته في مستقبل المنطقة، وضرورة الوصول لاتفاق سلام بين العرب وإسرائيل، وعزمه على أن تتجه مصر غرباً. وكان السادات قد طرد حوالي 15 ألف خبير سوفييتي في صيف 1972، دون أن يبعث بأية إشارة أو يجري أية مفاوضات مع الجانب الأمريكي أو الغرب حول "الثمن" الذي كانت أمريكا مستعدة حتماً لتقديمه مقابل هذا التغيير في خريطة النفوذ السياسي العالمي لقطبي الحرب الباردة في ذلك الوقت، وهو التغيير الذي شكل نقطة انقلاب حسمت نتيجة الحرب الباردة بصورة مبكرة قبل انهيار المعسكر الشرقي داخلياً في نهاية الثمانينات. ومرحلة الواقعية السياسية، تلت مرحلة الرومانسية التي ميزت سياسات مصر في الستينيات، حركتها طموحات الوحدة العربية بأحلامها الرائعة، التي استيقظنا منها على كوابيس الهزيمة المروعة، في يونيو 1967. وفي صباح 11 سبتمبر 2001، استيقظ العالم على مشاهد مفجعة، عندما ظهر طرف لم يكن مدعواً أو محسوباً في تقديرات النظام العالمي الجديد، طرف استطاع تخطي الحواجز الأمنية، والحدود الدولية، والفجوة التقنية، والجيوش النظامية، ليضرب ضربات سريعة متلاحقة، في الولايات المتحدة، ولندن، ومدريد، وشرم الشيخ، وبالي، وغيرها من مدن وعواصم العالم، فيسقط الأبرياء ضحايا للإرهاب، في رسائل دموية نارية طائرة، أوقظت العالم وأوقظتنا جميعاً من مرحلة الواقعية السياسية، لندخل في مرحلة ما بعد الواقعية Post-realism.

ما هي الواقعية السياسية؟ هي أن نطلب من العرب ألا يطمحوا في سلام عادل لأنهم لا يملكون القوة الكافية لاستحقاق هذا السلام. هي أن نطلب من الفلسطينيين أن يجلسوا على طاولة المفاوضات تحت فوهة المدافع، ويقبلوا بما يفرضه المفاوض الإسرائيلي من شروط لأنهم لا يملكون بطاقات يفاوضون بها. الواقعية بالطبع تحتم على الجانب الفلسطيني أن يعود إلى شعبه، ويحاول إقناعه بأن يقبل بتسوية تفتقر إلى العدل، باعتبار أن هذا هو "حكم القوي"، في عالم لا يعرف من العدالة إلا السيف الذي جردنا العدالة منه، ووضعناه في يد من يمتلك المدافع والأسلحة النووية والتقليدية. وبعد أن يجاهد المفاوض الفلسطيني في إقناع شعبه بالتسوية المغبنة، يعود الجانب الإسرائيلي فيرفضها، بحجة أن الواقع السياسي قد تغير على الأرض، فتبدأ المفاوضات من جديد من نقطة ما قبل الصفر، وهكذا تضيع الحقوق في مسلسل من التنازلات التي لا تنتهي.

دعونا نتصور أن يتم هذا على المستوى المحلي، عندما يقوم شخص ما بسرقة حافظة نقودك تحت تهديد السلاح، فتذهب تشكو للبوليس، فيطلب منك الضابط أن "تتفاوض" أنت الضحية الأعزل، مع الجاني المفتري المدجج بالسلاح لتطالبه بحافظتك؟ ماذا يمكنك أن تفعل؟ قد تضطر لحظتها للاستعانة بأحد البلطجية، أو تشتري أنت بنفسك قطعة سلاح، وتستغل فرصة نوم المفتري الغاصب، فتستعيد نقودك وقد تأخذ بعضاً من نقوده أيضاً، أو قد تخطف أحد أطفاله في طريق عودته من المدرسة، لتساوم به على استعادة حقوقك. أليس هذا ما يحدث اليوم في مجتمعنا عندما تعجز العدالة عن الحفاظ على حقوق المواطنين؟ ألا يلجأ البعض للبلطجة في الدولة الموازية لاستعادة حقوقهم في ظل غياب آليات العدالة؟ إن البناء الحضاري للعالم قام على فكرة "ماعت" وهي التي مثلت نظام العدالة والتوازن بين القيم العليا للإنسان في الدولة المصرية القديمة، وبدون "ماعت" يعود البشر لقيم الغابة، القيم التي تحكم عالم الحيوان، وأهمها قيمتي القوة والسرعة، وتنتهي الحضارة الإنسانية، بعد أن يصبح من حق أي شخص ما دام يملك القوة أو السرعة أو كليهما، أن يقتنص ممتلكات الآخرين، أو يعتدي عليهم، أو يقتلهم، أو حتى يأكلهم، فهذه هي طبيعة قيم الغابة.

نفس الشيء ينطبق على المستوى الدولي، فإذا لم تجد الضحية من تشكو إليه، وإذا لم يجد المعتدي من يردعه ويزجره ويأخذ الحق منه، بآليات واضحة ومعايير موضوعية، بدون ازدواجية أو محسوبية دولية، تغيب العدالة، ويصبح الحديث عن الشرعية الدولية حديث أجوف من أي معنى أو غاية، وتتوه الحدود بين الحق والباطل، ويصبح الإرهاب أداة من أدوات البلطجة الدولية، منظومة موازية، مثل الأخذ بالثأر في المجتمعات القبلية، التي تعاني من غياب آليات مجتمعية للشرعية والعدالة.

قالت إحدى السياسيات "الواقعيات": "لابد أن تعلموا أننا ملتزمون بأمن إسرائيل، وأن تعاملنا مع إسرائيل يتسم بحساسية مفرطة، وهناك ذكريات ما حدث في الحرب العالمية الثانية، التي تجعلنا عاجزين عن فعل الكثير من الأشياء التي قد تكون واجبة وصحيحة. ولابد أن يتحقق السلام من خلال التفاوض، ونحن كأوروبيين نشعر أحياناً أن إسرائيل لا ترحب بتدخلنا، وبالتالي لا نود أن "نتطفل" على القضية، ونحن نبذل أقصى ما في وسعنا في حدود هذه المعطيات." يا سيدتي، لقد تفضلتم و"تطفلتم" وتدخلتم بالفعل، عندما أصدر بلفور وزير الخارجية البريطاني وعد بلفور في 1917، ثم جاء اضطهادكم لليهود ومحارق الهولوكوست، واليوم تشعرون بالذنب، وتظنون أنه ربما علينا نحن، أن ندفع ثمن خطاياكم أنتم، ولكن الشأن الفلسطيني، لم يعد قضية محلية أو إقليمية، بل أن العالم كله يدفع الثمن الآن. ربما حدث لكم نوع من الكلال أو أصبح الموضوع كمرض مزمن يتعين علينا أن نعتاد عليه، ولكن الوضع الآن يختلف، لقد كفرت الشعوب في منطقتنا بالعدالة الدولية وأصبحت الحركات المتطرفة والمسلحة ودعاة القوة مثل حزب الله، حماس، أحمد نجاد، تتمتع بتأييد قطاعات واسعة من العرب والمسلمين في العالم كله وداخل حدودكم أنتم، حتى بن لادن نفسه، أصبحت له شعبية بفضل احتكامكم للمعايير المزدوجة، وأخشى أن حساسيتكم تجاه ما فعلتموه أنتم ضد اليهود في الحرب العالمية الثانية، قد يدفع العالم نحو حرب عالمية ثالثة، بل ربما نكون الآن وسط حرب عالمية ثالثة بالفعل، ولكنها حرب غير تقليدية، حرب موازية، أنتم تحتلون العراق وأفغانستان بالقوات النظامية، ويدفع المدنيون الثمن في تفجيرات إرهابية، في لندن ونيويورك وشرم الشيخ وبالي ومدريد.

ومن أجل أن نتجنب هذه الحرب العالمية الثالثة، أو نجهضها، لابد أن نعود مرة أخرى إلى المبادئ، وهذا ما أسميه مرحلة ما بعد الواقعية. إن ما حدث وأهال عليه العالم التراب في الماضي، ظنا أنه مات وتحلل، فهو يبعث اليوم، إنه ينهض الآن، ليلاحقنا في كل مكان. لم يعد من الممكن أن نهرب من يوم الحساب، لقد أصبحت "الكارما" التي استحقتها كل دولة معلقة في رقبتها، "كل طائره في عنقه". لم تعد للجيوش وأسلحة الفيديو جيم والتحصينات الأمنية قيمة، فالعقاب يأتي من حيث لا نحتسب، أحياناً من السماء، وأحياناً في الهواء أو الماء، إن الشخص الذي يصل لدرجة من الإحباط واليأس، تجعله مستعداً لمبادلة حياته، مقابل توصيل رسالة دموية، لعالم خلا من العدل، مثل هذا الشخص قد لا تنفع معه إجراءات الأمن، لأن إجراءات الأمن تعتمد على أن الشخص سوف يأتمر بأمر رجال الأمن خوفاً على حياته، ولكن ماذا إذا هانت حياته وفقدت قيمتها أمام الظلم والفقر، وقيل له أنه سوف يصبح بطلاً شهيداً يستحق الجنة، والجنة الآن؟ عندما يصبح ذلك الشخص العادي انتحارياً تعجز أمامه كل الإجراءات والتحصينات.

هذا عن أفراد انتحاريين، ولكن ماذا إذا وصلت أنظمة انتحارية إلى الحكم في الشرق الأوسط؟ لقد اكتسبت القيم التي يتشدق بها الغرب سمعة سيئة وسط الشعوب، فالنظم المستبدة تذيق شعوبها الذل وشظف العيش، وهي تتمسح بالأنظمة الغربية وتسير في ركابها، بينما تدعي أنها تقود تلك الشعوب للجنة الغربية، والشعوب لم تر من جراء مبادرات السلام والانفتاح على الغرب سوى المزيد من الإذلال والفقر، وضياع الأراضي والحقوق، ولم تر من العالم الغربي الذي يتشدق بقيم الحرية والعدالة والشرعية الدولية، سوى النفاق الأخلاقي، والمعايير المزدوجة والتعامي عن الجرائم الإسرائيلية بسبب قوة اللوبيات اليهودية في الولايات المتحدة والعالم.

إن التخلي عن مبادئ العدالة والحق والمساواة، يهدم الأساس الأخلاقي للحضارة الإنسانية، ويفتح الباب لأن تصبح القوة الغاشمة هي أساس الاستيلاء على الحقوق واغتصابها أو استعادتها، وبهذا نطعن السلام في العالم طعنة قاتلة، ويصبح على كل شخص منا ألا ينام، فعليه أن يسهر مدججاً بالسلاح، يتمنى ألا يغفو، ولكنه حتماً سوف يغفو، وعندما يغفو أي منا، لا نعلم من أين يأتي الخطر.

إن الرومانسية وتجاهل الواقع يجعل ما نقوله هنا مجرد كلام غير قابل للتطبيق، ولذلك على العالم اليوم أن يتطرق إلى حلول خلاقة تضع آليات لتحقيق العدالة الدولية على أرض الواقع، ربما من خلال إصلاح الأمم المتحدة، أو اللجوء للتحكيم الدولي عندما تفشل المفاوضات، أو الضغط الاقتصادي على الدول التي تتسبب بسلوكياتها المستهترة في تقويض السلام العالمي.

لا يجب أن نقع ضحايا للواقعية المفرطة ونقول هذا هوالواقع. لو قال أجدادنا نفس الشيء، لظلت مصر تحت الحكم العثماني أو الانجليزي، ولظلت أوروبا تحت نير حكم امبراطوريات مستبدة، ولظل الإنسان يعيش في الغابة. فالعالم نرسمه في مخيلتنا وضمائرنا أولاً، ثم ننطلق لنبنيه ونصنعه على أرض الواقع، ولا يجب أن نتخلى عن حلمنا في عالم ينعم بالسلام، والتطلع لغد أفضل لنا ولأبنائنا، بحجة أن الواقع سيء.

هذه هي ما أسميه بمرحلة ما بعد الواقعية. وفي رأيي، هذا هو البديل عن اندلاع أو اتساع الحرب العالمية الثالثة. لأنه إذا كانت الواقعية تحتم علينا أن ننظر للأوضاع اليوم كما هي، فإن ما بعد الواقعية، تستدعي منا أن نتحسب لمخاطر المستقبل التي قد نجلبها على أنفسنا، عندما ننسى القيم الحاكمة في منظومة "ماعت".

Friday, April 02, 2010

Post Realism Five

Racing Against Time

as the

World Heads Towards Chaos



By:
Wael Nawara


First Published May 2009



An eventual rift between the new US administration and the right-wing Israeli government may be inevitable. The Obama administration wants to be seen as reclaiming back its right to set the US foreign policy in the White House and the State Department and not in the halls and corridors of AIPAC conventions. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), an American lobbying group, has advocated for pro-Israel policies to the Congress and Executive for more than five decades, often against, many would argue, American interests. Obama delayed his meeting with Netanyahu as not to coincide with AIPAC's gathering in a symbolic gesture that the American agenda is no longer at the mercy of the strong pro-Israel lobby. The lobby which had hi-jacked US foreign policy for decades is slowly being realized as a threat to US interests and indeed, although no one will dare to say that, to World Peace and Global Security at large. When Netanyahu meets Obama on the 18th May, he will have to present an Israeli vision towards peace, if indeed a serious one exists.

It is fair, yet unpopular, to say that the situation in Palestine and Israeli discourse for the past few decades fuels, if it is not directly responsible for, the chaotic situation in Pakistan, Iran, Gaza, Egypt and the developing worldwide clash between the West and Muslims. The West is seen to have blindly supported Israel with no regard to the indigenous people of Palestine, its neighbors and the Arab and Muslim worlds as a whole. With the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the bad situation in Iraq & Iran, Obama's administration is racing against time as the world heads towards chaos.

Israel itself faces a very uncertain future if it does not quickly resolve the Palestinian issue. Israeli negotiators have been too smart for Israel’s own interests, as they stalled for decades always demanding more from the defenseless Palestinian side while successive Israeli governments strived to change realities on the ground by building more settlements, erecting apartheid walls, confiscating homes, lands and seizing water resources such that the window for a viable two-state solution now has almost disappeared. The table will turn around soon and Israel will have to give many concessions in land, water, labor arrangements and other resources to resuscitate the dead embryo of a Palestinian State back to vitality.






Also See:



















Saturday, October 10, 2009

Nobel Prize for Hope


Wael Nawara

Wael Nawara

Posted: October 9, 2009 11:23 AM








For Peace to Be:


Obama Wins Nobel Prize for Hope!





Realizing that peace was probably nowhere near, the Norwegian Nobel Committee may have decided to award the Nobel Prize to Obama, for Hope. According to reports, the Committee voted unanimously and with ease for Obama, for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." The Nobel committee recognized Obama's efforts to solve complex global problems including working toward a world free of nuclear weapons. Obama, who has been barely nine months President of the United States, was awakened to the news. In reaction, he said he was “humbled to be selected".

Elsewhere, the news was received with mixed feelings. On my Facebook page many responded with one word “Why” and a question mark. One person jokingly used an Arabic Language Metaphoric Style which when translated would mean, “Obama won for what will be”. He won for the peace that will be or the peace that could be. Someone else asked: "Now we are celebrating Christmas in June?" Perhaps what we are celebrating is a paradigm shift that may allow us to celebrate Christmas in December!


Obama’s visit to Cairo and his speech were warmly received by millions if not billions of people from every faith and nationality. His attempts to build bridges between civilizations were admired. His persistent efforts to solve complex conflicts gave hope and optimism to many. Finally, here is a world leader, who truly cares. Beyond calculations of votes and political gains, someone who has the courage to tackle issues which could politically backfire.

Two weeks ago, Obama’s efforts to bring about peace in the Middle East came to a difficult test. The Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, practically forced the American President to give up his demand for a freeze on building the Israeli Settlements on Occupied Palestinian Territory. A day after meeting U.S. President Barack Obama at the tripartite summit in New York, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told CNN that the U.S. demand for a complete settlement freeze in the West Bank was "costing us a great deal of time." The covert message to Obama seemed to be, don’t waste your time.

Uri Avneri, an Israeli writer and founder of the Gush Shalom peace movement, commented on the confrontation in Ramallah online with a piece titled “The Drama And The Farce: Netanyahu Humiliates Obama”. In Avneri’s eyes, Obama had come unprepared to exert pressure on Israel. Avneri asked ”Why did Obama insist on the settlement freeze – in itself a very reasonable demand – if he was unable to stand his ground?”

Netanyahu won that battle, showed his people and the world that he is “no sucker”. Obama may have lost his ground this one time, but he has hopefully learned a lesson. Perhaps Obama also showed the world Netanyahu’s true intentions towards peace.

It is not realistic to expect that a century-long conflict like the one in Palestine, or decades-long nuclear arms race will all be instantly resolved by one tap of some magic wand which Obama alone keeps. So, when the Nobel Prize Committee says that "Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," the Committee is being realistic in its expectations. No one alone can achieve world peace. Obama has won for propagating Hope and for extending a hand for peace and understanding. Now it is the turn of others to capture that opportunity and embrace that hand before it is no longer there.

The Committee rejected the claim that awarding the Nobel Prize to Obama at such an early stage gives undue recognition to efforts which are yet to bear realized fruits. The Committee demonstrated that it intends to promote Obama just it had done for Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 recognizing his efforts to open up the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc. The Committee further announced that Obama’s "diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population,". Plainly put, as “Realism” ruled, force and military might alone decided the fate of conflicts. Thus the world rewarded aggression and consequently promoted further conflict and an endless race to acquire instruments of destruction, war and terror. In awarding the Nobel Prize to Obama, the Committee promotes a new era of Post-Realism, where justice and not might, should rule, not only in poet’s lyrics or beauty queen speeches, but in the behavior of world leaders and in the conduct of nations.

Obama indeed may have won the Nobel Prize, not for the Peace he helped realize, but for the Hope he has managed to inspire. The Hope that our world can truly be a better place. And like everything else, Peace may start with one shred of hope. Hope for Peace.

Follow Wael Nawara on Twitter: www.twitter.com/wnawara


P.S.

So many people are asking how Obama deserved the Prize. Now, if we assume that the Nobel Prize should be given to the Person who has made the strongest impact on world peace during the last year and in that way it is comparative in nature. Do you know of some other person who has made a more positive impact on world peace during the last year? Honestly, I do not know of any other person than Obama who is more deserving.



Monday, June 15, 2009

The Ultimate Divide


The Ultimate Divide

And the Illusion of Armageddon



The recent events in Iran, Pakistan, Lebanon and even inside the United States, show that we are experiencing a deep divide in our world. You can see it and you can touch it. It affects elections like the ones we have recently seen in the U.S., Iran and Lebanon. It crosses boundaries of geography, ethnicity, religion or cultures. The new divide is not sectarian. We have seen in Lebanon that both the Hezbollah-led alliance and March 14 coalition both had Muslim and Christian factions as a part of each. This divide is not nationalistic. We have seen some right-wing American Neoconservatives publicly or secretly wishing that Ahmadinijad would win the elections so that a final confrontation between the U.S. and Iran would imminently draw near. Islamist fanatics also supported Ahmadinijad for what appears to be different reasons, but really it is because of the same motive. A quest for confrontation. A death wish for the bloodiest self-fulfilling prophecies of all time, Armageddon.


The new divide cuts deeply through our societies. It disrupts peaceful coexistence in our homelands and our world. It brings the threat of civil war closer to our towns and cities. It competes to control our media and our education systems. In one way, the new divide could be seen as being between the moderate and the traditional. The old and the new. Between the liberals and the conservatives. Between the fanatically religious and the secular. Between those who believe in changeable human laws and those who insist on following what they see as the timeless divine will of God. Between things we can debate and things which some consider to be unbound by time, place or logic. But ultimately, the divide is really between those who believe that our problems can be solved through dialogue, diplomacy, economic cooperation and even sanctions; and those who believe that war is inevitable. The divide is between those who believe that we, with all our differences can co-exist, and those who believe that it is either us or them. Between those who think that we can differ but still maintain amicable relations and those who think that either you are with us, the good, or you are against us siding with the axis of evil. The divide is between fear-mongers and promoters of xenophobia on one hand and those who simply believe that people are more or less the same everywhere on the other.


The national divide in Egypt, Lebanon or Iran is not a simple political disagreement within one agreed framework. It is often a disagreement on the nature of the framework which should govern agreements and disagreements. The debate in Washington about torture is not the result of a political disagreement. It represents a disagreement over a basic moral question, are the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights truly universal? Do Geneva conventions apply equally to us and to others? Are they only binding for others or are they binding for all of us? The same divide occurred a few years ago in the over whether or not the United States has the right to invade Iraq, without a United Nations mandate or a consensus from the international community. The problems in Pakistan are not caused by a minority or an isolated rebel group, they represent a national divide between a large portion of the population who supports or at least sympathizes with Taliban with its extremist and violently confrontational ideology, and moderates who want to resolve conflict through peaceful means and dialogue.


Needless to say, that the absence of an effective and fair International Justice System, stands behind the widening of this divide and the empowerment of the extremist ideology. When peaceful means failed and failed for decades, violence started to be marketed as a potentially more successful alternative.


The clash of civilizations assumes that a country or a group of countries belong to a distinctive civilization. Funny enough, the new roles of globalization weaken the validity of such classification. The truth is that the clash is happening within each society. It is a clash of mindsets. A clash of values and personal ideologies. The ideological commonalities cut across societies just like global market segmentation takes place. The clash, therefore, can be more accurately seen as a clash between those who believe in tolerance, diplomacy, peaceful struggle and would only consider war as a last resort in self-defense on one hand and those who believe in exclusivity, violent confrontations and pre-emptive strikes on the other hand.


The reason why many Israeli settlers refuse to leave their illegal settlements is because they believe that this land has been promised to them by God. Many Muslims also believe that they must control Jerusalem because of other religious reasons. During the crusades, Christian warriors believed they had to reclaim the holy land. Too many promises for the same piece of land. Muslims, Christians and Jews sadly have come to believe in Armageddon. The final war where God rewards the righteous, the faithful and the virtuous and delivers victory to his chosen people. The trouble is, each party believes that they are the chosen people. As soon as an attack on Gaza takes place, Muslim mosque preachers of the Friday prayers start telling the stories of Armageddon and how "a rock will tell the faithful that an enemy Jew is hiding behind it, so that the faithful can slay that enemy." Funny enough, the idea of Armageddon had no mention in the Koran and was most likely borrowed by late interpreters from biblical sources. Some Jewish sects and more recently Zionist Christians also believe in Armageddon with different intentions, to say the least. On the way to Armageddon, Islamist extremists, right-wing Neocon extremists, Zionist extremists, do all go hand in hand, till they arrive to the battlefield of course, there it will be a different story of which no one will live to tell. Perhaps Armageddon was once necessary as a potent psychological mobilization mechanism for survival in the past. But times have changed. Armageddon has become the scariest self-fulfilling prophecy of all times. But the good news is, as much as it is self-fulfilling it also is surely self-defeating.


The idea that there is a chosen nation, or a chosen people, or children of God, despite being so deeply rooted in the religious beliefs of Muslims, Christians and Jews is self-defeating because it gives moral justification to the notion that some of us are better or "more equal than others". The struggle of who exactly is better will continue to fuel war and conflict till doom's day, AKA Armageddon. One thing is for sure, Man, by his very nature seeks equality and freedom and rejects bondage and inferior treatment. Thus, ideologies which favor one race, one nation or one religion can fuel wars for centuries, but because Man ultimately seeks peace, safety, comfort and prosperity, these ideas are at the end self-defeating.


Armageddon, at least in the way it is currently being taught, is an illusion. Not because wars will never happen. Unfortunately we will witness wars every now and then. But the idea that Armageddon is a final war whereby one religion or one people will win an ultimate victory, military or otherwise, and then reign supreme happily ever after, as the world witnesses "the end of history", will just never happen. Wars, straight or asymmetric will just continue to erupt until a world order of equality and justice is established. Man will always seek freedom, dignity and equality and this will ultimately defeat Nazism, fascism and promoters of any sort of exclusive supremacy to any group, nation, race, religion or civilization.


But as for now, this divide will continue, until such time that the ominous promise of Armageddon is finally discredited.




Sunday, May 10, 2009

Post Realism 7



After 30 Years on Camp David Accords



Will the Mountain Come to Mohamed?








The Egyptian humiliating defeat of 1967 was a hard blow to an era of unrealistic dreams. Unearned dreams, really. An era of Romanticism and seemingly great ideals. Ideals which sadly turned out to be hollow. The 1979 treaty of Camp David between Egypt and Israel put an official end to that era of Romanticism and signified an era of Realism.


The era of Realism recognized that power and military might alone shall reign supreme in our world. With total disregard for justice, legitimacy and other “hollow” ideals. Justice became like a thin shell or a mask. The substance inside is power. And without that internal substance, justice would be easily cracked. It would not stand a chance in the “real” world. Justice is there only to protect the rights of the strong. As for the weak, justice is blocked by lobbies and vetoes. The “weak” is not meant to demand, or even request, justice.


But Realism without Justice, Honor or Vision, led to the events of Sep 11th 2001 and what followed. The irony is that the strong started to use the terms of "International Legitimacy". International Legitimacy became a hard currency. Marred with double standards, past failures and a tall pile of UN SC vetoes, an effective International Justice system was nowhere to be pointed at. The world was just not designed to work in that way.




On Sep 11th 2001, the world entered into a new era, without even realizing what it was. Some called it the “War on Terror” which was more like a “War of Errors”. Errors of diagnosis and judgment. Instead of realizing that military power alone, without justice or legitimacy had given birth to hatred, extremism and terror, therefore shifting focus to designing a new International Justice system to resolve pending conflicts, George W. Bush did the exact opposite, initiating new wars, creating more enemies and fueling more hatred and extremism.


Instead of seeing past Realism to Post-Realism, the Neocons continued the same deadly path towards clash and global conflict as if working towards the old self-fulfilling prophecy of Armageddon. But as Iraq turned ugly, Iran more radicalized, Hezbollah rising in Lebanon and Hamas reaching power in Palestine, the entire world, perhaps except Bush and a few of his supporters had realized the failure of the NeoCons strategy. The old wisdom of “Realism”, that power alone can impose peace or security, even for the strong, turned out to be false. Values like justice, legitimacy and the rule of law, started to regain weight and thickness. This is a terrific opportunity to work towards ending all conflicts. Not with the old idea of negotiations which would still favor the strong, presenting only a temporary solution and a short-lived peace that would sooner or later break as violence and conflict erupt, but through International Justice. Arbitration. International Courts of Justice, existing or to be erected.


Signing the Camp David Accords in 1979 solved a key problem for Egypt, restoring sovereignty over Sinai and ending a quarter-century state of war, which was meant to pave the way for development, prosperity and democratic transformation. But the key problems were not solved by 1979 agreement. The key conflict was about the Palestinians and not about Egypt or Sinai. Israel, and the world, thought that they could do by neutralizing the biggest Arab country, Egypt, through Camp David. That signing a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel will buy security and peace. But that was a mistake. The core problem remained and the conflict worsened.


I do not think that Egypt needs to demand amendments to Camp David Accords. Israel will soon demand such amendments! The peace treaties to come, if and when they come, will automatically impose new game rules and mandatory changes on the Camp David terms. This time the mountain might just come to Mohamed.







Thursday, May 07, 2009

Post-Realism 5

Racing Against Time

as the

World Heads Towards Chaos



By:
Wael Nawara




An eventual rift between the new US administration and the right-wing Israeli government may be inevitable. The Obama administration wants to be seen as reclaiming back its right to set the US foreign policy in the White House and the State Department and not in the halls and corridors of AIPAC conventions. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), an American lobbying group, has advocated for pro-Israel policies to the Congress and Executive for more than five decades, often against, many would argue, American interests. Obama delayed his meeting with Netanyahu as not to coincide with AIPAC's gathering in a symbolic gesture that the American agenda is no longer at the mercy of the strong pro-Israel lobby. The lobby which had hi-jacked US foreign policy for decades is slowly being realized as a threat to US interests and indeed, although no one will dare to say that, to World Peace and Global Security at large. When Netanyahu meets Obama on the 18th May, he will have to present an Israeli vision towards peace, if indeed a serious one exists.

It is fair, yet unpopular, to say that the situation in Palestine and Israeli discourse for the past few decades fuels, if it is not directly responsible for, the chaotic situation in Pakistan, Iran, Gaza, Egypt and the developing worldwide clash between the West and Muslims. The West is seen to have blindly supported Israel with no regard to the indigenous people of Palestine, its neighbors and the Arab and Muslim worlds as a whole. With the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the bad situation in Iraq & Iran, Obama's administration is racing against time as the world heads towards chaos.

Israel itself faces a very uncertain future if it does not quickly resolve the Palestinian issue. Israeli negotiators have been too smart for Israel’s own interests, as they stalled for decades always demanding more from the defenseless Palestinian side while successive Israeli governments strived to change realities on the ground by building more settlements, erecting apartheid walls, confiscating homes, lands and seizing water resources such that the window for a viable two-state solution now has almost disappeared. The table will turn around soon and Israel will have to give many concessions in land, water, labor arrangements and other resources to resuscitate the dead embryo of a Palestinian State back to vitality.






Also See:














My Page on Facebook

Wael Nawara on Facebook