Author: MandarinTangerine

With the new Trump administration, we ask the question whether the Israel-Palestine conflict might move toward resolution.

There is absolutely no indication the new administration has any interest in the issue. There are no matters extant which force the issue for them.

The Israelis have the upper hand, and they will not relinquish it without pressure from the US.

The Palestinian authority lacks sufficient unity to force the issue.

And the real problem now is that the Trump administration does not possess the moral authority to weigh in successfully on the conflict.

Count on no progress for at least four years.

Could it be possible that the threat of ISIS will end?

Unlike Al-Qaeda and its derivatives, ISIS predicated its unique character on the development of a Caliphate, based on a piece of land, a stand-alone geographic entity.

Now that concept dissipates as the Caliphate comes under siege. In Mosul ISIS fighters are slowly driven from the city. And Raqqa, the “capital” of ISIS, will soon be under attack.

What will be the consequences of ISIS’ loss of territory when the geographic Caliphate no longer exists? Will they have any lasting political or inspirational power? Will they still show up here and there when they bomb a car or a building or take hostages?

Will they appear again in another form like  Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula?

But their political strength rested on a specific tract of land. Surely, they will diminish.

It has been several years now since I visited the city of Taiz in Yemen. At that time we stayed at a little guest house near the center of town. We had no trouble purchasing food, and we rode the city bus when we went to work at the hospital.

Even then, the hospital was poorly equipped. There were not enough respirators for the infants who needed them, some with neonatal tetanus, a disorder never seen in the developed world. Tetanus is completely preventable by the assurance of maternal immunization.

In the evening we drove up the mountain, where we dined at a quiet little restaurant overlooking the city. The mountain road was lined with parked cars, the Yemeni occupants taking their afternoon qat chew.

Now, I understand, the city is a battleground: the Houthis versus the defenders of the old Hadi government, both supported by other countries. The minimal resources previously available are gone. Both food and water are in short supply. And the meager resources of the hospital are gone, I’m sure.

The UN has noted the disaster, but they have no impetus to take action. Yemen has nothing anybody wants.

Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes by Kenneth E. Bailey, published in 2008, offers great studies of Jesus’ life with emphasis on the way it was all seen in the context of time and place. As constitutional scholars would say, “an originalist” view.

Two examples: In Luke 19:4, Zacchaeus, the tax collector “ran on ahead.” Middle Eastern adults do not run in public. To do so is to expose oneself to shame. And they do not climb a tree as Zacchaeus did. We gain new insights into his character and motivation.

In Luke 7:36-50 we see the story of the woman in the house of Simon the Pharisee. Simon ignored the actions expected in receiving a teacher: omitting the traditional kiss and the failure to bring water and oil for washing. The woman, on the other hand, honored Jesus by her actions.

Bailey also stresses the presence of the prophetic rhetorical template used in  many of the accounts. Most Western church sermons skip over this important literature device.

President Trump, in an off-handed manner, brought up the possibility of a one-state solution for Israel/Palestine. For years, the two state solution  has been the dogma of international diplomacy.

At first I thought, Oh No.  But let’s think about it.

The NY times commented on the idea, “There is no conceivable one-state solution that both parties will like.” But maybe that’s a good thing.  At various times, depending on the circumstances, either Israel or Palestine has favored the two state solution. If one side wants it, the other side doesn’t. The timing is never right for both sides.

What would be the consequences of a one state solution? In 2015 there were 6.22 million Palestinians and 6.34 million Jews in the geographic area. The concern is that Palestinians have more children than Jews,  but I suspect economic concerns will ameliorate the disparity.  So we would be left with a 50/50 split. Boy, they might have to work together for solutions. Would this be any worse than the US split? Hamas and Likud might have to back off.

What about settlements, either Jewish or Palestinian? Such discussion would have to be handled jointly. The government leader might, on occasion, be Arab. Jerusalem would be truly an international city.

Another little secret. They are both Semitic peoples.

Major countries no longer need to declare or commit to full-scale war. They now engage other, lesser states to carry out their goals.

Consider Iraq, where we fund and equip Iraqis to fight ISIS for us.

Consider Syria, with all its complexities, where we choose various rebel groups to represent us against Assad and the Russians.

And now today, the UN acknowledges how bad things are in Yemen. They say famine is approaching there. Have they been watching before today? In Yemen we see another proxy war between Shia Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia.

How convenient and sterile is the concept of proxy war!

The Wahhabi Mission and Saudi Arabia, by David Commins, was first published in 2006, but its message is highly relevant to today.

The book deals in a detailed way with Wahhabi doctrine and the history of its implementation in the Middle East. It is a bit of a hard read but worth it for one who wants to understand so-called Islamic fundamentalism and the terrorism that sometimes results.

In the eighteenth century, Muhammad ibn And al-Wahhab enunciated the doctrine that the worship of anything other than God himself is a sin. Thus, worship of anything else, such as places, objects, or martyrs of the faith, was out of bounds.

The outcome of this strict position led many to avow violence against those who rejected it.

Ibn Saud in his successful drive to unify the Saudi peninsula utilized the Ikhwan (Brethren) as instruments of Wahhabi doctrine to carry out his biding. But when the Ikhwan proceeded beyond what Ibn Saud considered useful, he defeated them in battle.

The pattern for the Saudi use of Wahhabi doctrine thus defined itself in  the policies of the Saudi state. When it was useful, they employed the Wahhabi line of thinking. English translations of the Quran, which Saudi Arabia exported abroad, have been found to contain sections which depart from the literal and substitute Wahhabi interpretation. To some degree the world has been set upside down by versions and perversions of Wahhabi doctrine, as seen in groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS.

When Commins published the book in 2006, he believed the influence of Wahhabism was diminishing in Saudi Arabia. While this is true to a degree, its effects are still present.

The effects of Wahhabism linger both in Saudi Arabia and in the world.

George Mitchell’s recent book, A Path to Peace, first summarizes the sad, past history of attempts to reach a peaceful agreement between Palestine and Israel. The two-state solution has been most often pursued. The list of reasons why this has not been achieved is long, painful, and full of death: mistrust between the parties, recurring violence, lack of clear representation from the Palestinian side, the role of Hamas, the complex geography made more complicated by the Israeli settlements, and the fact that neither side perceives sufficient need to cooperate in a solution.

While there has been some economic advancement on the Palestinian side, Israel’s success has been remarkable. For example, Mitchell points out that after the US and China, Israel has the third highest number of companies listed on the NASDAQ. The widening economic disparity between the Israel and Palestine has only made compromise more difficult.

Mitchell proposes a map by which peace could be achieved. First, Mitchell recommended that President Obama outline principles for a solution. This did not occur.

Mitchell stated his own principles for an agreement. He believed the agreement must be based on the 1967 lines with land swaps. Resettlement provisions should be made for displaced Palestinians. Security arrangements must be real and effective. Jerusalem should be the capital of both states.

Mitchell further proposed that the plan would be energized by the establishment of an international fund for Palestinian refugees, by the West guaranteeing Israeli security, and by the generation of a fund for building housing for both Israelis and Palestinians displaced by the political solution.

Mitchell did not believe that current conditions are conducive to a settlement. A political solution will not occur until such time as one or both parties reach a stage of desperation.

A settlement between the two states would go a long way in advancing peace in the Middle East.

From a Christian prospective, one would like to place such a peace in a Biblical framework. The old idea that the rebirth of Israel in 1948 represents the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy has long lost its vigor. As Christians we must await the Lord’s unfolding of His plan. Only then will the Biblical framework fit.

Almost nothing can said about justice for Israel and Palestine without discussing the need for a two-state solution. For Israel the need is for safety and security. For Palestine the need is individual freedoms and self-determination.

So many years have passed in search of a solution that a conclusion seems impossible. So many alternatives have been pitched that none seem viable.

The impediments are immense: a distrust between the two peoples, the recurring violence, the intertwined geography with Israeli settlements mixed in among Palestinian areas, Hamas control of Gaza, and conflicting messages from the international community.

George Mitchell’s new book, A Path to Peace, is a thoughtful and detailed analysis of the history of the conflict, with some proposed solutions. But Mitchell’s ideas contain little that is new.

The fact is that neither side wants a settlement bad enough to make major concessions. Until such time that one or both sides become desperate, it is unlikely any agreement will be reached.

For the present, the Palestinians are stuck with their current situation of control by an opposing government. Justice is not in the cards for the Palestinian people.

Iraq’s constitution describes its government as an Islamic, democratic, federal parliamentary republic. The political situation in Iraq is not to the point of stability such that definitive comments can be made as to the justice system as a whole. The country is still torn by sectarian strife, principally between Sunni and Shia elements. Justice is, therefore, highly regionalized.

Mosul is still under ISIL control, and the population remaining there has little hope for justice of any kind.

The country as a whole continues to operate on a system of revenge justice. Until such time as restorative justice can be implemented, minimal improvements are expected.

Finally, the Kurdish portion of the population finds themselves outside the kin of justice.

At best, justice in Iraq is a work in progress, and the outcome is uncertain.