Biden Aims to Contain Violence in Israel/Palestine. His Policy May Be Stoking It Instead. By Shibley Telhami

Oct 25

Shibley Telhami posted this article in the form of a tweet on October 25, 2023. Here is the link to that tweet. I’ve copied and pasted his article below.

THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE ON ISRAEL/PALESTINE TITLED “BIDEN AIMS TO CONTAIN VIOLENCE IN ISRAEL/PALESTINE. HIS POLICY MAY BE STOKING IT INSTEAD,” WAS SUBMITTED BY EMAIL TO A LEADING NEWSPAPER ON APRIL 11, 2023. IT WAS NOT PUBLISHED (AS IS THE CASE WITH MOST SUBMISSIONS). WHAT FOLLOWS IS THE UNEDITED TEXT AS IT WAS SUBMITTED, PROVIDING CONTEXT FOR THE CURRENT ISRAEL/GAZA WAR.

(APRIL 11, 2023) Biden Aims to Contain Violence in Israel/Palestine. His Policy May Be Stoking It Instead. By Shibley Telhami

As bouts of violence in Israel/Palestine have become more frequent, the Biden administration has been aiming to ‘calm down tensions’ and prevent further escalation.  Instead, its policies have played into the hands of the militant Israeli far right while undermining the most important non-violent levers available to Palestinians for legitimate resistance of life-long repression. In the process, the stage has been set for even more violence ahead. The administration’s voice is usually loudest when there are visible violent eruptions, such as rocket fire from Gaza and Lebanon, or high casualty attacks in Israel or the West Bank — especially when the victims are Israelis. These are of course troubling events that could lead to escalation and do require response. But inherent in this posture is the assumption that the status quo preceding them is not itself violent and thus should be maintained.  Nothing could be further from the truth. The toxicity and violence of the daily status quo drives the bouts of lethal eruptions we are witnessing. The expansion of the illegal settlement enterprise and settler violence against Palestinians — as well as their crops, schools, homes, and villages — has pushed the daily Palestinian reality to the breaking point. And the Biden administration’s reticence and reluctance to address this toxic reality in its statements and policies is, rightly or wrongly, interpreted as tacit acceptance of the situation. The status quo is anything but peaceful and normal under a military occupation that has lasted most of a century with no end in sight. Even when the guns of occupation are silent, their coercive presence cannot be missed.  Every aspect of Palestinian lives is controlled and regulated by Israel — driving, studying, farming, working, traveling abroad, access to healthcare, and even the ability to marry and live with the person you love — just to name a few. Israeli extremists have made no effort to hide the fact they want to make life as difficult as possible for Palestinians, and restrict them into a few overcrowded municipal enclaves, deport them, or worse. The guns are often far from silent. Last year, more than 170 Palestinians, including at least 30 children, were killed across the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem. In January 2023 alone, at least 29 Palestinians, including five children, have been killed. Both innocent Israelis and innocent Palestinians have died tragically over the years, but the overwhelming majority of the casualties — 87% from 2000-2014 — have been Palestinian. Since Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, nearly a million Palestinians have been imprisoned, many without charges. Currently, over 1,000 Palestinian detainees are being held by Israel without charge or trial, the highest number since 2003. In fact, when one takes a close look at what it’s like to be a Palestinian at this moment, what stands out is how the overwhelming majority have endured this apartheid-like system and daily humiliations with perseverance and self-control — not violent resistance. Palestinians and Israelis who want to see an end to the occupation, dehumanization and violence are waiting for President Biden to see them, hear them, and act consistent with shared values. To start, Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza face an overwhelming disadvantage in resources and power, much of which has to do with decades of extraordinary American support for Israel that has given Israel military and political primacy in the Middle East and enabled it to maintain its occupation for most of a century. This asymmetry of power means that Palestinians cannot possibly have a chance of success in peaceful resistance without the help of the rest of world. Biden is making that nearly impossible. There is a lot on Biden’s plate at home and abroad; no one expects major peace efforts, especially given the dire state of politics among Israelis and Palestinians. But Biden must stop making a bad situation worse. The president has actually spent much effort on Israel/Palestine already – principally assisting the Israeli government in avoiding the peaceful consequences of its transgressions by shielding Israel at the United Nations from even diplomatic condemnation of its actions. In the face of Israeli settlement construction in violation of international laws Biden’s diplomats worked hard last month to shield Israel at the UN from a Security Council resolution that would hold Israel accountable. This month, Biden prevented a mere UN statement condemning Israel’s provocation at Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem that led to violence and bloodshed. Since his election, Biden has adopted and pursued the expansion of Trump’s Abraham Accords, which decoupled ending Israeli domination of Palestinians from peace with Arab states — one of the few levers Arabs had to influence Israeli behavior. In the process the US played into the hands of Israel’s far right which has always argued it can have its cake and eat it too. The president even went on a highly controversial trip to Saudi Arabia last summer that he said was aimed at advancing Israeli interests. The US has also made it a priority to fight peaceful international levers to influence abusive Israeli behavior. And, unlike several of our European allies, Biden has failed to forcefully push back against Israeli government efforts to target Israeli and Palestinian civil society and human rights organizations. These efforts show that those explaining the administration policy based on its “crowded agenda” aren’t seeing that this issue has actually been high on the administration’s agenda. The problem is that, rather than advancing peace and coexistence the efforts may have done the opposite. The inevitable outcome is that, on the Palestinian side, those advocating non-violence will lose ground as despair increases and those advocating military resistance will gain ground. On the Israeli side, the empowerment of the militant far right and its ascendance into positions of power promises more violence, which they appear to seek, in pursuit of the “last war.” Some ask: Why should Washington ‘single out’ Israel when the world is full of other human rights abusers? Because Israel is not just any country. In many respects it’s the country in the world that we are most intertwined with due to unparalleled American diplomatic, intelligence, military, and economic support, which has made us complicit in entrenching what has become a one-state reality akin to apartheid – a category that stands out even in the midst of pervasive international illiberalism. The president appears to be a throwback to another era of Democratic politics, when a knee-jerk embrace of Israeli policies was the safe political bet, though his support for Israel may go beyond politics into the personal, as he has stated. But this unprecedentedly dangerous moment demands something very different. This Israel is different, and this coming collapse into violence and settler vigilantism led from the offices of elected Israeli cabinet members will be like nothing we have seen before. It is clear that Biden’s constituents have not been with him on this issue, as polling shows that more Democrats now sympathize with the Palestinians than with Israel. Even Democratic members of Congress have grown critical of his posture on this issue.  Silence and lack of action serves to enable the dangerous Israeli far right and sets the stage for more hopelessness and violence. It puts gas on the fire. The clock is ticking. The president must lead, as he has done elsewhere, and we must stop being part of the problem and start being part of the solution.

Read More

An Open Letter to the Governments of the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and all EU member states and EU institutions on Israel/Palestine and the Gaza crisis

Oct 24

As a group of researchers, policy analysts, and experts with deep commitments to and expertise on the Middle East and North Africa, we have always worked side-by-side to advance policies based on shared universal values. Today, we find much of the government-led responses to the Gaza war to be in grave violation of these values and principles. After the horrific slaughter of civilians by Hamas in Israel on October 7, the world correctly and justifiably reacted with condemnation and solidarity; a response we are in complete alignment with. An accumulated legacy of dehumanisation of Palestinians has resulted in far too many western governments uncritically condoning the campaign of collective punishment against millions of innocent Palestinians that Israel launched in retaliation. When Russia bombed critical civilian infrastructure in Ukraine, or Assad held Aleppo under siege, western governments loudly and rightly condemned these attacks and called for immediate humanitarian ceasefires. Many wonder why they won’t do the same here. We have reached a point where there is virtual consensus among rights groups that war crimes were committed by Hamas on October 7 where over a thousand Israeli civilians were killed, and that war crimes have been committed by Israel since its aerial bombardment campaign against Gaza began which has killed more than five thousand civilians so far. To make matters worse, incitements to ethnic cleansing removing the distinction between civilians and combatants has been broadcast from the most senior levels of the Israeli establishment. The facts make for an ominous forecast and averting it should be our collective priority and is our collective responsibility. Western capitals pride themselves on solidarity with allies, and are demonstrating this again with Israel. But to achieve long-term security for Israel and the broader region, there is a moral and strategic obligation to ensure that Israel’s self-defence is characterised by international humanitarian law and leads to an end to the occupation; Western governments have not sufficiently emphasised that obligation, despite the situation demanding it. UN experts have also raised the need to restrain Israel from international law violations. But rhetoric is not enough. Using diplomatic leverage to pressure both Israel and Hamas, who are holding hundreds of hostages, towards adhering to international law is one of our key tools for de-escalation. One that is currently being discarded. Western governments should be advancing attempts to de-escalate, rather than give the impression that ‘might is right’. Given the power asymmetry between Israel and

Palestinians, this has enabled collective punishment in Gaza, and fast-tracked illegal
settlement expansion in the West Bank, where reports indicate that Palestinians are
being dispossessed, killed, or placed in ‘administrative detention’ in their hundreds.
This path, rather than ensuring security for Israelis, deepens the cycle of violence
and only makes the conflict’s regionalisation more likely.
The lack of strategic focus and failure to pressure collective adherence to
international law, denigrates the West’s global moral standing. It isolates it from
swathes of the world, deepening divisions at a time of great power competition and
shared challenges to our climate, collective security, and the world economy. It also
creates a precedent that imperils small states and fatally undermines any semblance
of a global rules-based order.
We are mandated to respond to this challenge by foregrounding our common
universal values, and we should be forewarned that our response is nothing less
than a civilisational litmus test, which will catalyse either the spread or retreat of
these values in the world.
We, the undersigned, call on western governments and our colleagues across the
policy-making world to centre those core values, upholding the equal humanity of
Palestinians and Israelis, rejecting anti-Semitism, anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bigotry,
at home and abroad.
Above all, in this crisis, we advocate for an immediate ceasefire, the provision of
humanitarian aid to all in need, and the return to political processes that can facilitate
just and fair resolutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
If we fail to do this, and instead enable the worst, then we condemn this region to the
tumult of war, deepen global divisions, and put an indelible stain on our collective
conscience.

To add your signature to this letter please email: OpenLetterIP@gmail.com

All signatories are signing in their personal capacity so as not to imply any
institutional positions. However, the following signatories are associated with a broad
variety of noted institutions in the policy arena, including but not exclusively, the
International Crisis Group, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Chatham
House, the European Council on Foreign Relations, Cambridge University, the Middle
East Institute, King’s College London, the Atlantic Council, the Tahrir Institute for
Middle East Policy, and others.

  1. Comfort Ero, Institute Director
  2. Marwan Muasher, former Foreign Minister
  3. Yair Wallach, Reader
  4. Yezid Sayigh, Senior Fellow
  5. Lara Friedman, Foundation President
  6. Maha Yahya, Center Director
  7. Michelle Dunne, Institute Director
  8. Nathalie Tocci, Institute Director
  9. Hugh Lovatt, Senior Policy Fellow
  10. Mohanad Hage Ali, Deputy Director for Research
  11. Jonathan Portes, Professor
  12. H.A. Hellyer, Senior Fellow & Professor
  13. Joost Hiltermann, Programme Director
  14. Adel Abdel-Ghafar, Programme Director
  15. Alessia Melcangi, Associate Professor
  16. Mai el Sadany, Institute Director
  17. Kelly Petillo, Programme Manager
  18. Johan Schaar, Researcher
  19. Emad Badi, Senior Research Fellow
  20. Eduard Soler I Lecha, Assistant Professor
  21. Hafsa Halawa, Independent Consultant
  22. Zuri Linetsky, Research Fellow
  23. Zaha Hassan, Human Rights Attorney
  24. Gerd Nonneman, Professor
  25. Timothy Kaldas, Institute Deputy-Director
  26. Virginie Collombier, Programme Deputy Director
  27. Dalia Ghanem, Programme Director
  28. Beverley Milton-Edwards, Professor
  29. Tarik Yusuf, Institute Director
  30. Haizam Amirah-Fernandez, Senior Analyst
  31. Riccardo Fabiani, Project Director
  32. Intissar Fakir, Programme Director
  33. Wolfram Lacher, Senior Associate
  34. Elham Fakhro, Research Fellow
  35. Cinzia Bianco, Senior Policy Fellow
  36. Noha el Mikawy, Dean
  37. David Butter, Analyst
  38. Sami Nader, Institute Director
  39. Marc Owen Jones, Professor
  40. Noha Aboueldahab, Assistant Professor
  41. Sarah Yerkes, Senior Fellow
  42. Assad al-Achi, Institute Director
  43. Shahram Akbarzadeh, Professor
  44. Abdullah Baabood, Professor
  45. Karim Emile Bitar, Professor
  46. Galip Dalay, Senior Research Fellow
  47. Ishac Diwan, Director of Research
  48. Aziz al-Ghashian, Researcher
  49. Karim Haggag, Professor
  50. Adel Hamaizia, Institute Director
  51. Asma Khalifa, Institute Director
  52. Tarek Megrisi, Senior Policy Fellow
  53. Kholood Khair, Institute Director
  54. Khaled Mansour, Writer
  55. Renad Mansour, Senior Research Fellow
  56. Karim Mezran, Senior Fellow
  57. Ahmed Morsy, Senior Researcher
  58. Farea al-Muslimi, Senior Research Fellow
  59. Tariq al-Olaimy, Institute Director
  60. Rouzbeh Parsi, Programme Director
  61. Randa Slim, Programme Director
  62. Andreas Kreig, Professor
Read More

The Place of the Sharīʿa in a Modern Muslim State: Between Juristic Reasoning (al-Istidlāl al-fiqhī) and the Common Good (al-naẓar al-maṣlaḥī)

Aug 01

Last June, at the invitation of the Moroccan Ministry of Endowments and Islamic Affairs, I gave a series of lecture at different Moroccan educational institutions. This is the text of the first lecture I gave, at the esteemed Qarawiyyin University in Fez. It was a great honor for me to give a lecture at this venue, which is arguably the oldest university in the world and without doubt one of the oldest centers for the study of Maliki law.

My lecture, which was delivered to the University President, senior administration, and graduate students in Islamic law, raised the question of the legitimacy of the modern state from the perspective of Islamic law, the sharia. I argued, contrary to certain Islamist groups and post-modern intellectuals, that there is no reason to believe that the modern state is per se illegitimate from the perspective of Islamic law.

Drawing on the Maliki tradition of Islamic law, I show that the legitimacy of decisions of rulers is not based on substantive conformity with the shari’a (or justice) as much as it is based on the consent of the ruled and the substance of the decision not being manifestly unjust. Based on this principle, I argue that states that enjoy popular legitimacy are, by virtue of that fact alone, substantially legitimate from the perspective of Islamic law. Accordingly, working toward achieving representative institutions that enjoy effective public consent is a crucial condition for the legitimacy of the modern Muslim state.

With regard to what it means for a decision not to be manifestly unjust, I also rely on Maliki authors to point out that jurists did not demand that particular decisions be in conformity with what jurists believed was the correct rule of the Shari’a, only that decisions not violate certain clear rules and principles of the Shari’a. Finally, I pointed out that what many radical Islamists take to be “ruling based on something other than what God has revealed” — and therefore is illegitimate or worse — is in fact nothing more than the state exercising its lawful discretion to organize the public interest through the issuance of positive laws. Far from undermining the shari’a, these help make the law more effective by replacing informal and discretionary methods of dispute resolution with clear rules.

Read More

Muslims, Trump and Islamic Political Ethics

Nov 24

I recently published a short essay on AltMuslimah with my thoughts on what Islamic political ethics have to say about the domain of the political in contrast to the domain of the market, and why the integrity of the political requires rejection of candidates such as Trump who conflate private interest — the defining characteristic of the market — with the political — the defining characteristic of which is concern for the public good.

Read More

Interview with Founder of Black Lives Matter

Aug 05

Alicia Garza, founder of the Black Lives Matter movement, was recently interviewed by Bloomberg.  Too many people still understand racism from the narrow lens of morality, and accordingly, only recognize intentional, conscious racism as noxious. They are, however, blind to the structures that de jure racism has bequeathed us.  As she puts it, “[R]acism is a set of interlocking dynamics: One in three black men can expect to spend some time incarcerated; women are the fastest-growing population in prisons and jails—and 30 percent are black; black folks are on the low-earning end of the economy. Lots of people who are great people are implementing and ­protecting systems, practices, structures that fundamentally exclude, disenfranchise, marginalize black people.”  Undoing these structures is the great challenge facing the US today.  I am hoping that with a Hillary win in the fall, the necessary changes in the Supreme Court can be made to allow us to adopt the broad remedies necessary to undo the legacy of Jim Crow in the US.

Read More

Strategic Voting in Monday’s Federal Election

Oct 16

Regarding the upcoming Federal election this Monday, it is crucial that Canadians opposed to Harper and his Federal Conservatives avoid vote splitting.  This means that they should look to which of the non-Conservative candidate in the voter’s riding has a better chance of defeating the Conservative candidate.  This link helps voters determine whether their riding is a swing riding, i.e., in a competitive race where, if the liberal and NDP voters coordinated, they could defeat the Conservative candidate.  This document also dispels much of the confusion that surrounds strategic voting in the GTA, and is directed specifically toward the concerns of Muslim voters in the GTA.

Read More