Tracing God's Providence: After the Fall of the Berlin Wall - Day 4

It's very hard to find some way to bring a peaceful settlement here. Each side has its own positions, stories, narratives, red lines, aspirations, desires, expectations, and assumptions, and to be honest, they're all mutually incompatible. It's impossible for everyone's desires, wishes, and expectations to be fulfilled in this world. It requires a lot of negotiation and compromises, and people need to let go of different expectations and sometimes cross their red lines. The only way to make progress is if both sides can have their positions recognized to some extent and maintain their dignity.

President Clinton invested a huge amount of effort in trying to bring some kind of resolution. He brought together Barak, who was then Prime Minister of Israel, and Arafat, who was the head of the PLO, to negotiate a final settlement. They couldn't find agreement over three main issues. One was territory; after the events of 1967, Israel ended up occupying Gaza and the West Bank. Israel didn't want to occupy these areas and actually wanted to return Gaza to Egypt, which had administered it before. However, Egypt wouldn't take responsibility for Gaza, leaving Israel as the occupying power.

The second issue was the West Bank. Israel hoped to return it to Jordan, as Jordan had annexed the West Bank after 1948. However, the situation evolved, and the Likud government began encouraging Israelis to settle in the West Bank, leading to the development of settlements. At the peace conference, Barak offered Arafat 94% of what he wanted, which included adjusting the borders. However, one of the things Israel wouldn't give up was Jerusalem. In 1948, Israel occupied part of Jerusalem, and in 1967, it occupied the holy city, including the Old City. Israel wanted Jerusalem as its capital, while the Palestinians wanted East Jerusalem back as their capital.

There is no historical basis for Jerusalem to be the capital of Palestine. Before there was ever a separate entity called Palestine, it was part of the district of Syria and never had its own state or capital. Palestinians are a people, a mix of Arabs, Jews, and Christians. The Old City contains the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the second most holy Muslim site. Israel recognised this and left the administration of the Temple Mount and holy sites to Jordan, never aspiring to take control over it. The Temple Mount is a religious centre, not a political one for Muslims.

I believe the capital of Palestine should be Ramallah. There is no legal, moral, or religious justification for Jerusalem being the capital of Palestine; it's merely an aspiration. The Temple Mount is still administered by Jordan, as part of the peace treaty between Israel and Jordan. Israel was willing to transfer administration to the Palestinian Authority, but they wanted sovereignty over the Temple Mount, which would mean the Wailing Wall would be administered by them. This is unacceptable for the Jewish people, as the Wailing Wall is the closest they can get to the Old Temple.

Another issue is the refugees. There were about five to six hundred thousand Palestinian refugees who went to surrounding Arab countries. I believe they should have been allowed to settle in the countries they fled to. Jordan gave Palestinian refugees citizenship and allowed them to integrate, but Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon did not. After the Second World War, millions of refugees were settled and given citizenship in their new countries. The treatment of Palestinian refugees is unique, as they have remained in camps for decades, which is an outrage. The reason for this is that Arab countries want them to return to Palestine or Israel, which is a political strategy rather than a humanitarian concern.

Arafat was blamed for the failure of the summit, but he realised he could only go so far. If he had gone further, he might have been assassinated. Leaders need to educate their people to lead them towards a vision. Gandhi and Martin Luther King spent most of their time educating their own people rather than giving speeches to authorities. They understood that achieving their goals required patience and non-violence. Unfortunately, Arafat did not make that journey within himself and could not guide his people to do so, which contributed to the breakdown of the peace process.

Years later, a second intifada was sparked by Israeli Prime Minister Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount. He had received approval from Arafat and other officials, but the next day, riots broke out in Jerusalem and the West Bank, leading to the second intifada. Some analysts believe this was pre-planned by Palestinian officials to instigate violence. The second intifada was marked by much worse violence than the first, with suicide bombings targeting civilians. The Israeli Defense Forces reoccupied Palestinian areas during this time, leading to significant casualties on both sides.

Israeli soldiers were killed because they exercised a lot of restraint. They did not take the Russian approach of indiscriminately destroying all the buildings. Instead, they were very targeted in the buildings they attacked and the people they wanted to kill. As a result, a lot of Israeli soldiers were killed, considering what normally happens in such situations. In contrast, 52 Palestinians were killed. When you look at what's going on in Iraq in the past or in Ukraine now, the numbers are relatively small, to be honest. Janine, as I mentioned yesterday, was the town where there was a workshop just two or three weeks ago to introduce the programme 'My World and I', which I developed and helped to get published there. Garcia Abdullah expressed a desire to introduce the books 'My World and I: My Journey in Life' in the most extremist cities, towns, and schools, as those are the places that really need to study this course to change their mindset.

The aim is to shift the way they think, moving away from the belief that they can achieve independence through violence and suicide bombing, which only exacerbates the situation. Instead, they should consider that there must be a different way to resolve and solve this problem, not through violence but in a peaceful manner. Following this, Israel began to build a separation barrier, and the 'Fence for Life' movement started in 2001. Many Israelis, especially those whose relatives had been killed in suicide bombings, felt they could not continue living in such stressful conditions. Every few days, there would be rockets, suicide bombs, or terrorist attacks, creating an incredibly stressful environment. The air raid sirens would go off, forcing people to rush to shelters to protect themselves. While the situation in Ukraine is obviously much worse, a similar kind of stress had persisted in Israel for years, as well as in Palestine.

The purpose of building this barrier was to prevent terrorists from entering Israeli cities and to stop the illegal entry of Palestinians. It approximately follows the 1949 Green Line, which is not supposed to be a legal border. The barrier is incredibly intimidating, with a huge, high wall. People are not just climbing over it; they are throwing things over as well. As a result of the construction of this barrier, incidents of terrorism were reduced by 90 percent, which indicates that it works. There are fewer checkpoints and roadblocks, leading to a decline in terrorism and an increase in economic growth in the West Bank and Israel. However, the problems with the separation barrier include that most of it is built illegally on Palestinian land, which I find unacceptable. While I understand the need for a barrier to protect oneself, it should not be built on someone else's land.

Another issue is that the barrier cuts through Palestinian communities, making access to services, religious, and cultural amenities much more difficult. The barrier does not follow a straight line; it weaves in and out of different settlements, complicating the crossing process due to the limited number of checkpoints. Additionally, the construction led to the destruction of trees and agricultural land, prompting accusations that it is an attempt to annex Palestinian land and preempt final status negotiations. Israelis deny this, but it is a possibility. Around this time, in 2001, the shocking events of 9/11 occurred. As people entered the new millennium with hopes for peace and the resolution of problems like communism, the attack on the Twin Towers was incredibly shocking. This attack was carried out by Al-Qaeda, and Osama bin Laden wrote a letter to explain and justify their actions.

In his letter, bin Laden, as an Islamist, provided a Muslim explanation for their actions. He stated that permission to fight against disbelievers is given to believers who have been wronged, asserting that Allah is capable of granting victory to the believers. The term 'disbelievers' refers to those who do not believe in God or are not monotheists. For Muslims, the greatest theological sin is 'shirk', which is the belief that God has a partner. Christians, who believe Jesus is God, are viewed as committing this sin. Therefore, Muslims believe that all Christians, apart from Unitarians, are destined for hell due to their non-monotheistic beliefs. Bin Laden's justification for the attacks was rooted in the perception that the United States had wronged Muslims, particularly in Palestine, Somalia, and by supporting oppressive governments.

Bin Laden argued that the United States supports Jews in their claims to Israel, which Muslims see as a false claim. They believe that the promises made to Abraham, Moses, and Jesus have been transferred to Islam, making Muslims the rightful heirs to these promises. Consequently, Muslims assert that Jews have lost their right to the Holy Land due to their failure to uphold their covenant. Bin Laden also accused the West of exploiting oil resources at low prices and highlighted the suffering of Iraqi children following the Gulf War. He claimed that Muslims have the right to resist because they have been attacked. Critics questioned why Al-Qaeda did not target the American military directly instead of attacking civilians in office buildings. Bin Laden's response was that there are no civilians in a democracy; all citizens are implicated in their government's actions and policies, and thus valid targets.

Bin Laden's expectations included a call for Americans to embrace Islam, which he described as a religion of sincerity, righteousness, and justice. He urged Americans to stop their immoral activities and to reject the exploitation of women and the hypocrisy he perceived in Western society. He argued that the laws of God, revealed at Mount Sinai, cannot be changed or abolished. Bin Laden accused the West of inventing its own laws, allowing for behaviours he deemed immoral. He called for Americans to acknowledge their mistakes, cease support for Israel, and withdraw from Muslim lands, particularly Iraq, where American military presence was seen as an occupation. He urged the United States to engage with Muslims based on mutual interests and benefits. Following the 9/11 attacks, the United States, under George Bush, decided to invade Afghanistan, which led to a prolonged military engagement that many believe should have been a straightforward police operation to capture or eliminate bin Laden and Al-Qaeda.

Instead of a targeted operation, the U.S. opted for a full invasion of Afghanistan, which resulted in significant suffering and a humanitarian crisis. The invasion was seen as unnecessary, as the primary goal should have been to eliminate the threat posed by bin Laden and Al-Qaeda without attempting regime change or imposing democracy. The subsequent invasion of Iraq by the United States and Britain, without legal, moral, or strategic justification, was widely condemned. Kofi Annan, then head of the United Nations, stated that the invasion was illegal and lacked support from the UN. While the first Gulf War was justified in expelling Iraq from Kuwait, the second invasion of Iraq did not have a valid legal basis.

Saddam Hussein was not a nice man; he was a dictator and a very unpleasant person. The way he governed Iraq was terrible, and the things he did to the people of Iraq were horrific. The gassing of the marsh Arabs was one of many atrocities he committed. However, at the end of the day, Iraq was an orderly and stable country. Most people, as long as they did not annoy the regime, managed to go about their lives. There was no moral or strategic justification for the invasion, yet George Bush somehow connected Al-Qaeda with Iraq. Saddam Hussein was very much against Islamists; he was a member of the Ba'ath Party and not a regular Muslim, similar to Assad in Syria, who also came from a minority sect. There was no strategic justification for the invasion, and the result was a total disaster, with casualties estimated between 150,000 and a million in Iraq. After the invasion, Iraq became much worse, which is a terrible stain upon the West for destroying another country.

The justification given for the invasion was that it was a project to expand democracy. Condoleezza Rice, the architect behind this policy, argued that the U.S. should stop supporting dictators like Saddam Hussein and instead impose democracy in Iraq. However, you cannot impose democracy upon another country; it is an oxymoron. The naivety of the American invasion was astounding; they believed that once Saddam was removed, the Iraqi people would welcome them and quickly establish democratic political parties and proper elections. There was a complete lack of understanding of the culture and workings of these countries. What should have happened was to let Saddam Hussein die of old age, allowing the people of Iraq to determine their own future and transition. History shows that change often comes from within, as seen in the Soviet Union, where the old communists eventually died off, and new leaders emerged to bring about change.

The neoconservatives, or 'neo' meaning new conservatives, are a distinct group in America. There are two types of conservatives: the paleo-conservatives, who are old-fashioned, and the neoconservatives, many of whom were former socialists. They realised that socialism was not a viable ideal and shifted their focus to free-market liberal democracy, which they sought to impose on other nations. This idealism is problematic, as it assumes that they know what is best for others better than those people know for themselves. George Bush, an evangelical Christian and a moral person, did not engage in scandals like Clinton or Trump, but the consequences of his policies were disastrous. When America invaded Iraq, it deliberately chose not to count the number of casualties, leading to various estimates from NGOs and other sources.

The invasion of Iraq led to the rise of ISIS and a civil war between Shia and Sunni factions, which Saddam Hussein had managed to keep under control. The Sunni minority was oppressed, while the Shia majority faced discrimination. The collapse of order in Iraq resulted in chaos, which allowed ISIS to flourish. This invasion destabilised the entire Middle East, and many of the region's current problems stem from this decision. A leader must make good decisions, as poor choices can have catastrophic consequences not just for themselves but for many others. The invasion also led to the rise of Iran, which had previously been contained. The Iranian Revolution in 1979 overthrew the Shah, who had been installed by Western powers after a coup against a democratically elected prime minister. The subsequent Iran-Iraq War created a balance of power in the region, but the invasion of Iraq disrupted that balance, leaving Iran as the dominant power.

In 2002, following the events of 9/11, the focus shifted to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which many believed was the root of the problems in the Middle East. However, I personally disagree; the war between Iran and Iraq was a far bigger issue that would have occurred regardless of Israel's existence. The Shia-Sunni conflicts and other regional issues would persist irrespective of the Israeli-Palestinian situation. People often blame Israel for the problems in the Middle East, but many of these issues are deeply rooted and predate the establishment of Israel. Even if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were resolved, the underlying problems would remain.

George W. Bush sought to address the Israeli-Palestinian situation through a quartet involving the United Nations, the EU, and Russia. Abbas, the then Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, and Sharon, a right-wing military leader, met to negotiate a two-state solution. The goal was to establish an independent Palestinian state living peacefully alongside Israel. They agreed on a roadmap that included an end to Palestinian violence and a freeze on settlement expansion. However, violence continued, and Abbas had authority only in the West Bank, not in Gaza. The Palestinian elections in 2005 resulted in Hamas winning a significant number of seats, which shocked many. Hamas, founded in 1987 as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, aimed to liberate Palestine from Israeli occupation and establish an Islamic state in the region. This one-state solution would create a Muslim-majority state in the area now known as Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip.

From the point of view of Israel and Jews living in Israel, the situation is totally unacceptable. It would be akin to going back to living in some European country and suffering the same fate that they endured in Germany, Poland, Austria, and so on. This situation threatens the very existence of the state of Israel, which in turn threatens the existence of Jews who would be driven out and forced to find refuge elsewhere, likely in America. It's a complex issue, and Israel is not the only country that has faced similar threats in the past. Similar aspirations existed in Ireland in the early 20th century, which ultimately led to its division.

Hamas has a social services wing that has been involved in social welfare and education projects for a long time. However, it also has a military wing, which engages in activities such as suicide bombings and rocket attacks. Hamas is not the only group in Gaza; there are other Islamist and terrorist organisations as well. After winning the elections in 2006, Hamas took control of Gaza from Fatah, the political wing of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) that was led by Arafat. Fatah had been recognised internationally as the authority to govern the Palestinian territories, but under its control, the situation was chaotic and corrupt, with rampant organised criminality.

After Hamas won the election, it engaged in a civil war with Fatah, ultimately driving Fatah out of Gaza. Fatah now only controls the West Bank. Some positive changes occurred under Hamas, such as reforming the police and security services, reducing their numbers from 50,000 to 10,000. This made them more efficient and less corrupt, allowing them to better fulfil their responsibilities. As a result, people began paying their taxes and electricity bills, leading to improved services like garbage collection and law enforcement. However, like any governance, there were both good and bad aspects, and the challenge was to encourage the good while weaning people away from the bad.

Phase two was intended to involve an international conference to support Palestinian economic recovery and establish an independent Palestinian state with provisional borders. During this time, many Palestinians left for America and other places, gaining skills and qualifications. Some hoped to return to Palestine to start businesses and contribute positively. Unfortunately, they found it difficult to do so due to an unsuitable economic environment and ongoing organised criminality. In reality, there has been relatively little investment from Arab countries in Palestine; most funding has come from Western NGOs. Many wealthy Arab nations seemed more interested in perpetuating the problems rather than solving them.

The expectation was that this process would lead to an independent Palestinian state and a revival of multilateral engagements covering various issues, including water, environment, economic development, refugees, and arms control. However, this did not materialise. The Road Map for Peace broke down, as Hamas was elected on a platform dedicated to destroying the state of Israel. This made it impossible for Israel to negotiate with Hamas, as they refused to accept Israel's right to exist and were committed to its elimination. This refusal became a significant stumbling block in the peace process.

Hamas continued its terrorist activities, including rocket attacks and suicide bombings, while also investing in building tunnels to facilitate attacks on Israel. Despite the influx of materials intended for rebuilding Gaza, much of it was diverted to tunnel construction. Iran emerged as a major actor in the region, sponsoring Hezbollah, which is similar to Hamas but operates in Lebanon. Hezbollah, a Shia group, controls significant parts of Lebanon and has amassed a large arsenal of rockets, occasionally firing them into Israel. This situation has led to Israeli military responses in Lebanon, as Hezbollah shares a similar goal of eliminating the state of Israel.

Interestingly, Iran's leadership has declared its dedication to eliminating Israel, despite the fact that Iranians themselves are not Jewish. The relationship between Iran and Israel was complex, especially during the period of the Shah, when they had cordial relations. However, after the Iranian Revolution in 1979, diplomatic relations were severed. During the Iran-Iraq War from 1980 to 1988, Israel was a major supplier of arms to Iran, despite the diplomatic break. This support was seen as necessary to counter Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, which posed a significant threat.

In 2000, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei referred to Israel as a 'cancerous tumour' that needed to be removed from the region. This reflects a broader Islamic vision that once land becomes Muslim, it must remain so eternally. The idea of a Jewish state in a land that was previously Muslim is theologically unacceptable to many Muslims and even some Christians, which is why the Vatican did not recognise Israel until the late 20th century. Khamenei's statements about Israel's existence being responsible for many problems in the Muslim world raise questions about the validity of such claims. For instance, the Iran-Iraq War and the conflicts between Shia and Sunni Muslims cannot solely be attributed to Israel's existence.

The tendency to blame Jews for various global issues is a form of anti-Semitism that has persisted throughout history. Events such as the Twin Towers attacks, the First and Second World Wars, and even the COVID-19 pandemic have seen some individuals attributing blame to Jews. This scapegoating raises important questions about why Israel and Jews are often blamed for a wide range of problems, rather than reflecting on the actions and responsibilities of those making the accusations. The Arab Spring, which began in 2010, was initially seen as a potential turning point for democracy in the Middle East but ultimately led to significant instability and conflict across the region. The invasion of Iraq destabilised the entire Middle East, and the subsequent uprisings against corruption and economic stagnation in various Arab countries resulted in widespread unrest.

The Arab Spring began in Tunisia, sparked by the tragic self-immolation of a vendor who faced police corruption and state control. This act of desperation resonated with many who were suffering under similar oppressive conditions. The protests spread to Libya, Egypt, Yemen, and Syria, leading to civil wars and uprisings. While some rulers were deposed, others, like Assad in Syria, managed to maintain control. The situation in Syria became particularly dire, with a civil war that has resulted in immense suffering and instability. The notion that the Arab Spring would lead to democracy and positive change has largely proven to be misguided, as many countries have descended into chaos and failed statehood.

Stability is a crucial factor in the Middle East. If a region becomes a Muslim majority, it often leads to the oppression of minorities. This is why leaders like Saddam Hussein and Bashar al-Assad were able to maintain control. Although Assad was not as brutal as his father, who massacred 50,000 people in Homs, he still managed to maintain a level of stability. In Libya, despite Gaddafi's harsh regime, many people who stayed out of politics were able to live their lives without major disruptions. However, the situation has since deteriorated into chaos, particularly in Syria, where the rise of ISIS, exacerbated by the destabilisation of Iraq by the US and UK, has led to significant unrest. The West, rather than supporting Assad to maintain stability, chose to arm various rebel groups, which ultimately resulted in further chaos.

The Arab Spring, which began with the overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt, was initially seen as a hopeful movement for reform. However, the election of Islamist leaders led to a military coup, as the army, which controls a significant portion of the Egyptian economy, could not tolerate the threat to its power. The Libyan civil war and the ongoing Yemeni crisis illustrate the disastrous outcomes of these uprisings. The early hopes for political reform and economic equity quickly faded, revealing the naivety of those involved. When ideologies clash with the harsh realities of power, the results are often catastrophic. This is evident in the current situation in Ukraine, which reflects similar complexities.

Under President Obama, there was little progress in the Middle East. The Arab Spring's impact and the American administration's role in it remain subjects of debate. Obama's presidency was marked by turmoil in the region, with the only notable achievement being the assassination of Osama bin Laden. In contrast, President Trump attempted to engage with the Middle East through initiatives like the Warsaw Conference in 2019, which aimed to address Iran's influence and terrorism. Arab nations felt increasingly vulnerable due to Iran's expanding control in the region, leading them to seek alliances with Israel.

The collapse of Iraq removed a significant barrier against Iranian influence, prompting Arab countries to form coalitions. The Abraham Accords, signed in September 2020 by the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, marked a significant shift in relations between Israel and Arab nations. Other countries, such as Sudan and Morocco, soon followed suit. However, the political landscape shifted again with Biden's election, as he was less supportive of the Accords and sought to revive agreements with Iran. Despite Trump's controversial persona, his foreign policy brought about notable progress in the Middle East, fostering improved relations and economic cooperation between Israel and Arab nations.

The historical context of Jewish communities in the Middle East highlights their positive impact on local economies. Jewish investment and entrepreneurship have historically led to economic growth wherever they have settled. This trend was evident in Britain during the 17th century and continues to be relevant today. As we look at the current state of the Middle East, it is essential to consider the implications of these relationships and the historical decisions that have shaped the region.

In the next segment of this workshop, we will shift our focus to Europe, examining developments since the Second World War, including the establishment of various European institutions and the policies that shaped them. We will explore the events following the fall of the Berlin Wall and how they relate to the current situation with Russia and Ukraine. Understanding the past can provide valuable insights into anticipating future developments, particularly in light of the decisions made after the Second World War and the subsequent evolution of Europe.