Peace In the Middle East--Cliche, but has a beautiful ring to it.

I wrote this as sort of a capstone paper to my 200-level Geography class about the Middle East. As always, I'd love to hear where I went wrong.

The feeling of desperation and devastation that came when I saw body parts lodged up in the rafters of a freeway overpass as a result of a Palestinian suicide bomber will not soon leave me. This was an especially grizzly and poignant scene from Thomas Friedman’s Straddling the Fence report. The scene in the video showed Friedman running to see what had happened. The chaos was thick in the air. The police were yelling to control the crowd. The crowd was yelling anti-Palestine epithets. Of course, only a select few people could get through to the bomb site to see what, exactly, the damage was. The camera man was not one of those few people. Friedman certainly was, though. And while he was doing his reporter work, the camera continued to roll, scanning the scene for anything that could be of interest: people crying in despair at the latest in a long line of violent acts between the two nations; young men yelling in frustration and rage at what the conflict continued to be, “unresolved” being the current status; the devastation that one suicide bomber to inflict on a partially enclosed freeway. And then the camera found the person most directly responsible for the act, or what was left of him, and I had to turn away. Friedman came back a few moments later after questioning one of the policemen nearby the point of attack. He looked as if the bomb had exploded any hope he had for resolving what had, for decades, been called the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.

This video would not be very meaningful without the context behind the conflict that I have learned about in this class. At the beginning of the semester, in my pre-paper, I wrote how I am a novice when it comes to policy problems and international relations within the area of the Middle East and North Africa. Despite my ignorance, I must be a genius in the “take the right classes at the right time” area. I took a Macroeconomics class during the winter of 2008, the same time that insurance firm Bear Stearns filed bankruptcy, igniting the most dynamic time to study Macroeconomics because of what would become the biggest financial meltdown of the past 80 years. And now, at a time when a dozen different countries in the Middle East and North Africa are experiencing a recent spike in tumult and unrest, making the last few months the most dynamic the region has experienced since the creation of the state of Israel, I am taking a class on the Geography of the Middle East and North Africa. I am pleased at my own fortune to be taking the most important and helpful class, from a global perspective, on campus right now. But the knowledge I am gaining from the class has made me more aware, and saddened, by what is going on in this region of the world. On a personal note, I find my prayers for peace for foreign strangers to be more meaningful because I am more familiar with their struggles. (Please don’t grade me on that. I simply wish to convey how the things that I have learned during this class have affected me.)

Specifically to this assignment, those struggles include the conflict between two passionate, stubborn peoples to occupy two relatively small pieces of land, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. This conflict that has been the most severe since Israel was created following World War 2. Hitler and the Nazis were finally defeated, but not after doing tremendous damage to the Jewish population in Europe. Some kind of reparation needed to be made to made up for the loss of 6 million Jews. So the United Nations, with the zealous support of President Harry S Truman, created the State of Israel for the remaining Jews to have a place to live. The problem is that the United Nations commission in charge of selecting a location chose one that was not already vacant of people. Rather, they chose a place at the heart of what global experts refer to as the “shatterbelt.” An ominous name for any tract of land, the shatterbelt is that area in the Middle East that has been conquered over and over again by different empires and nations, the state of Israel being one of the most popular locations for invading hordes. While foreign nations parceling out land that is not theirs to give will make for an interesting case study in sequent occupance in tomorrow’s history and political science classes, the location and issues occurring therein make for a tumultuous and complicated current events seminar.

As interesting as the history of the region is and which people have what kind of rights to the land in the past, experts involved in commentating on possible solutions to the conflict do not focus on property or land rights. They generally see this as a sunk cost as far as the debate goes. They are more interested in how to rectify the most recent of wrongs and what Israel and Palestine can do now in order to find a mutually beneficial, or at least acceptable, solution.

Both sides have a lot of room to improve their relations with the other. They are, after all, in a defunct, unofficial state of war. The suicide bombing that Friedman reported on is one of many attacks made by the Palestinians on strategic Israeli points, such as freeway overpasses or the fatal bus bombing in Jerusalem on March 23. On the other hand, Israel commits its own share of attacks against the Palestinians, such as the action against the supply boat loaded with humanitarian supplies bound for Gaza in May of last year. Because the default position of either side of the conflict is violence, then we know there is something fundamentally with the dialogue, or lack thereof, regarding this intra-regional, inter-cultural relationship.

The international community is heavily involved in the conflict between these two nations. (Here I use the word “nation” to describe a cohesive group of people who share a culture and history; not a political state entity recognized by other states inasmuch as Palestine is not yet internationally recognized a state, despite its government and organized bureaucracy.) It was the United Nations that created the conditions for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They allocated land for the Jews in part because of guilt for allowing the Holocaust to happen. Now they feel guilty for the debacle stemming from giving away the land that the Palestinians lived on. On top of that, the world’s thirst for the resources in abundance in the area, specifically oil and natural gas, bring further incentive for foreign countries to facilitate peace in an historically war-torn area.

The United States is pouring in support for peace. Arabic and Middle East experts are in high demand in the military. A conversation with an acquaintance of mine enrolled at West Point illustrates the anti-terrorism efforts our country engages in. To defeat an enemy, one must first understand the enemy. He reports how popular the Arabic Studies major is at West Point. He is also involved in counter-terrorism training. The concept behind his training is that in order to fight terror, we must know how to be terrorists ourselves. Based on this thinking, the cadets design simulations of terrorist attacks. They even go so far as to covertly contact arms dealers to get prices and discover ease of accessibility to materials they may need. This acquaintance had a man ready to sell him a few dozen pounds of C4 explosive over the phone, no questions asked. His simulation happened to be the most “successful” in his class –an attack on the Wailing Wall at Passover, costing somewhere between $4 ,000 and $6,000, with an estimated casualty count of 20,000 to 30,000 people.

These efforts beg the question: are we fighting against violence or advocating for peace? The main problem is that both sides feel that violence is their only outlet. It is their only access to having their point be heard; to have a voice. Here in the United States, we have plenty of impassioned dissenters who seem to be just as incensed in their respective causes as any of the Palestinians or Israelis. The difference between the violent conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians and the conflict in Western countries is that in our form of democracy, these impassioned people are not forced to resort to violence in order to be heard or taken seriously. Except, of course, in gang cultures, but they do not enjoy a democratic method of communication.

The answer to this conflict can only come through peaceful, somewhat private dialogue. Both sides are already very well organized. The Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have the support of their respective governments to come to some kind of peace agreement. The real problem is when the general public gets involved—people who are not as well-informed as their leaders and who do not have a big picture mentality. Therefore, to keep public support, leaders of both sides must make impassioned speeches that speak of non-compromise. However, behind closed doors, I have no doubt that both sides are willing to make concessions to the other in order to stop the bloodshed.

Unfortunately, Palestine is not yet formally recognized as a state, and therefore can’t really officially enter into peace agreements. Whoever the Palestinian official is who enters such peace talks cannot yet speak for the entire nation. Hamas, the violent organization encouraging violence against Israel, is not controlled by the Palestinian National Authority. Palestine must be more unified in order to make any peace agreement stick. In February, “The Jerusalem Post” reported that a declaration of statehood made by the Palestinian Authorities could come as early as September of this year.

Of course, Hamas will not come crashing down if the Palestinian National Authority decided to declare itself the central government of Palestine. The PNA will have to employ some internal diplomacy with its own people. Leaders within Hamas will need a position in the PNA to keep their own voices heard, and their gunfire quiet; so the PNA needs to prepare itself to provide such a position. On the other hand, in order for Hamas to secure such an official place in the new government, they will have to surrender some of their demands. Until all parties involved are willing to make compromises and ready to lose some face in the process, the un-informed boots on the ground will continue to strap bombs to their chests and use them in, well, deadly ways.

Besides diplomacy, land rights is a big problem inter-twined with the diplomacy debate. Israelis encroaching on land what used to be Palestinian dwellings needs to stop immediately and be reversed. Perhaps the Israeli Government and the PNA could create a grandfather clause to let Jews go back and visit the settlements they built, but the cultural affront to simply taking land without regard to the lands current residents is deplorable. It will be hard now to not have Jews living in Palestine, but will become the norm within a generation.

Jerusalem is also a big question mark. Both sides want the city and have historical claim to it. So, let them both live there. Washington D.C. is not part of any state; neither should Jerusalem. The city will have both Jews and Arabs living there. If their respective governing bodies and countries are diplomatic but still live together, this will trickle down to the general public and they will be able to live separately, but together, also.

It’s a complex, violent issue. But the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict can disappear when private diplomacy with compromise and benefits for the other side will be the main goal. I look forward to seeing if the PNA can unify the Palestinians this coming Fall and pull the proverbial trigger on statehood declaration. This is where it all starts.

My Gay Thoughts

The following is a response I sent to Joel Burns, the city council member speaking in the video. You don't have to watch the video to read my comments, but it is a very touching video I think you should watch. I wrote this response a while ago, and was reminded of it recently when I re-read this talk by President Hinckley.



Mr. Burns,

I'm sure this is one of hundreds, maybe thousands, of responses to your brave message posted on Youtube. Might I say that we live in an opportune time, that such a touching and personal message given in a local city council meeting can reach the entire world. Thank you for your tasteful and personal message.

By way of introduction, I am a 25-year old student at Brigham Young University studying Sociology and Education and an active, faithful member of the LDS Church. I also work as a social worker at a group home for at-risk youth, some of whom are struggling with the consequences of same-sex attraction.

When I first started college, I stood staunchly against gay marriage and gay relationships. Thanks to my sociology classes and the statistics-heavy papers I've read, I've found that gay marriage is not something to be afraid of. (Weak marriage IS a problem, but that is unfortunately not being talked about.) As I'm sure you're aware, social science shows that parents' sexual orientation alone is not an indicator of successful OR detrimental child-rearing. This information opened my mind, and my heart, to other possibilities of accepting gays into society more openly.

Your comments, however, didn't focus on the marriage debate, which is refreshing. Tolerance and brotherly love is something I would hope everyone, regardless of personal beliefs, can accept. And based on my new-found charity towards other people, homosexuals being at the front of that list right now, I can agree with your comments almost whole-heartedly.

My point in spending the last 20 minutes writing and revising this message to a stranger: there is a pocket of us who are caught up in the semantics game and want gays to have the same privileges and responsibilities as married people, but just not call it marriage. Because of my religious beliefs, I don't want LDS clergy legally obligated to perform marriages between two men or two women. But changing the legal definition would take the pressure off those of us who have a religious conviction against the structure of gay marriage. My faith does not actively oppose baptism in other churches. In a similar vein, I don't see why we would oppose a formal recognition of love and dedication between two gay people.

This doesn't solve all problems, of course. Gay people still wouldn't be "married," and being "civilly unionized" sounds like something from an Orwell novel. But my point is that there are people on the other side of the issue who are looking for some sort of compromise. We are also trying to figure it out, whatever that will turn out to mean.

Thank you for your service. The best to you and yours.

Derrick Kellis

Conflict and Resolution Over GAP

The Agency—The Arab League

As a member of the Arab League, I have been assigned to prepare this white paper on behalf of an exploratory committee regarding the intricacies and nuance of what has become of GAP-the Southeastern Anatolia Project-since its inception over 45 years ago. This multi-national project is of the utmost importance to the region in terms of providing hydro-electric power and potable water, bringing unity to the area, and showing Europe and the West of the Middle East’s ability to bring about progress in a peaceful, responsible manner. Many peoples and nations (Turkey, the Kurdish people, Syria, Iraq) have a vested interest in the successful completion of the project. The Arab League, therefore, holds an important role in maintaining open dialogue and fair outcomes to all parties involved.

The River Basin—The Origin of the Fertile Crescent

Southeastern Anatolia is a hotspot of politico-cultural conflict. The current conflict is best understood in the context of the region’s history—specifically Turk-Kurd relations and actions taken by both sides to achieve their respective goals. The two nations have been fighting each other since the 1920s, most of the effort coming from Turkey trying to assimilate the Kurds into their country. It has picked up especially severely since the late 1970s, when the Kurdistan Workers Party started committing violent acts in retaliation to Turkey’s actions.

Unfortunately for the Kurds, 4.3 million of them live in area (Harris). The flood zone of the largest dam included in GAP is home to 170,000 Kurds (Soffer 91). Hence, in context of a violent history of conflict with the government, the Kurds see the project as simply another attempt to clear them out of their own land (Ayboga).

Turkey is interested in the Southeastern Anatolia basin for its irrigation and hydroelectric power potential (Izady). The proposed agricultural benefits of GAP are substantial; with an estimated 2 million ha increase in irrigation land, quadrupling the current agricultural output. This is not only crucial in handling the rising population and the food requirements that come with it; but it also comes into play when considering trade potential with other countries in the region (Harris).

However, the Kurds are suspicious of the Turks; and rightly so based on past violence.

Therefore, there is trepidation on the part of the Kurds that they will not see much of the economic benefit from this state-run project. The fact that international support from the World Bank has been waning because of shortcomings on Turkey’s part for not “consulting with downstream states on water allocation” (Soffer 91) has further strengthened the Kurds argument that Turkey will divert the power from the hydroelectric dams away from the area, and use the agriculture from the irrigation to feed or pay those people not native to the area (Ayboga).

Turkey also claims to bring important advancements to the area in terms of health education, potable drinking water, and family planning to help curb the swelling population (Harris). From a developmental and sustainability standpoint, these are useful and important tasks to undertake as the country moves into the 21st century. A rapidly growing, yet poor lower class has huge potential to drain the state entitlement programs; becoming an unnecessary burden if the state is able to first foresee and stem it off. However, put in context of past conflict between the Kurdish nation and the Turkish state, attempts to improve health and family life are seen as a new strategy to undermine the Kurds from more control of the area (Ayboga).

Problematic Eminent Domain

Another problematic area is that of compensation for the more than 200,000 Kurds who have already moved out of the region (Soffer 91). Many of them are being relocated under precedent of eminent domain. Eminent domain states that when public works are planned, the government executing those plans has the right to offer the residents whom that project would displace current market value for their land would the public works not take place, but require them off of the property. For instance, in the United States, this precedent is often invoked for the building of a new freeway or the expansion of a city street. Houses and property privately held before the road is built would consequently be destroyed in the road-building process.

Eminent domain is challenging to the Anatolian Kurds for two main reasons. The first is that many Kurds do not have official paperwork proving their ownership of the land they are on—a sort of common law property right. They therefore are not eligible to receive compensation for land that is not theirs, which they have been living on and off of for hundreds of years. Turkey could potentially give them nothing in terms of compensation. Current practice dictates a “land-for-land” compensation model—simply giving the common law property owners different land than what they currently “own.” However, Turkey is offering old farms elsewhere in the country in return for the rich soils of the various dams’ flood areas. And whatever land outside of GAP that is suitable for productive use is already occupied (Ayboga).

Secondly, according to some accounts, those Kurds who are compensated for their land are not being paid enough for the new living arrangements that are provided by the Turkish government, (Ayboga). Two of the more popular relocation sites include Diyarbakir and Batman. Both are urbanized cities and do not reward the agrarian skills that the displaced Kurds have developed. Not only are they not paid fairly for their land, they are moved into an alien way of living without necessary skills to succeed (Ayboga). And so, through not making adequate compensation for those most seriously affected, Turkey and GAP do not bode well with international observers, effectively lowering their influence as evidenced by the World Bank’s withdrawal of support (Soffer).

Conflict with Downstream States

Unlike the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates, the challenges associated with GAP are not halted at the border. This massive, $21 billion undertaking is causing problems with the downstream states of Syria and Iraq. While never threatening full stoppage and containment of the waters within her borders, Turkey has dammed up the flow without first asking permission. In early 1990, Turkey stopped the flow of the Euphrates behind the flagship dam of the 22, the Ataturk. For one month, the reservoir grew by 1.5 billion cubic meters of water. They did increase the water flow in the months leading up to the stoppage and warned Syria and Iraq that they wouldn’t have any water for a month. This allotment was not enough and the economies of both states suffered greatly because of it. Even after pleas from the Syrian and Iraqi governments, Turkey refused to open the spillways before their plans dictated and threatened a longer stoppage time. Luckily, the few years following the water halt brought heavier rains and snows than normal, mitigating some of the international anxiety. Actions such as these have violated the funding agreement that Turkey had with the World Bank and forced the state to cover more of the cost of the project than they had previously planned, delaying the operational status of many of the dams. (Soffer 91-3).

Solutions

Any widespread project that involves land, damming of rivers, and relocation of hundreds of thousands of native residents will naturally invite criticism and conflict. Unfortunately for Turkey and the Arab League, the economic benefits to Turkey do not completely off-set the injustices done to the Kurds and downstream states. Such a large project requires a cooperative effort for which Turkey, by herself, cannot compensate.

There is much room for out-reach on Turkey’s part. The country has done well to not further threaten cutting off water to Syria and Iraq. However, with such a lucrative project at stake, further efforts at sharing the resultant water and power with other groups and nations to ensure GAP’s success should be high among Turkey’s priorities. This would improve trade relationships with oil- and resource-rich Syria and Iraq. It would also allow support from the World Bank to be reinstated and get the various dams and power plants back on track.

In addition to economic advantages, Turkey should stay well aware of the recent changes in power in many of the countries of the Middle-East. With a violent population within her own border, the time is relatively right for such an uprising to take place. Providing better compensation and extending confirmed property rights to the Kurds would greatly decrease the chance of similar conflict to other countries happening inside Turkey’s borders.

With such a controversial and complicated series of events which have stemmed from GAP, the Arab League would do well to take this opportunity to resolve whatever problems exist. While there have been shortcomings in the execution of GAP, the overall outcome can still be salvaged for the good of all parties involved.

Works Cited
Ayboga, Ercan. "Turkey’s GAP and Its Impact in the Region." Kurdish Herald - The Independent Gateway to Kurdish News and Analyses. Web. 14 Feb. 2011. .
Harris, Leila M. "Water and Conflict Geographies of the Southeastern Anatolia Project." Society and Natural Resources 15 (2002): 743-59. Web.
Izady, Mehrdad R. The Kurds: a Concise Handbook. Washington: Crane Russak, 1992. Print. As summarized on kurdistanica.com.
Soffer, Arnon. Rivers of Fire: the Conflict over Water in the Middle East. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999. Print.


I read 100% of the book.

Why do we make it hard for ourselves?

The following is a response to an op-ed in the Times written by Mormon poet Nicole Hardy. It may be helpful to read the article that she posted. Thanks to Kaneischa Johnson for posting the article on her blog.

There are a lot of weird, confusing things going on with us single people. We're all pretty amazing people. K, maybe not ALL, but many of... you guys are. You have grand ambitions and are loyal, trustworthy friends. You are faithful members of the Church who want the right things. You take care of yourselves and are very pretty or handsome, whatever the case may be. How is it that more of you aren't together? Because all women are independent feminists and all dudes are closet gays or porn addicts? Are we THAT judgmental and short-sighted of each other?

Does anyone else feel that the opposite sex has too high of expectations for a particular personal relationship? I hear of some girls who don't accept a first date, but with no reason given. I hear of some guys who don't ask for a first date because they don't want the girl to think that it's anything more than one person trying to get to know another person more. I hear bishops and their respective wives telling stories of getting engaged on their first date. That's not even dating! Do they want us to feel an hopelessly high expectation? Or be so ridiculously selective in whom we ask out that all the hard work, cooperation and discovery of having a successful dating life has already magically happened by the time we go to lunch for the first time?

Answers

I don't have any answers, hence this post. If I did, then I would be married and make all you single people figure it for yourselves. (Suckas!) But I AM a sucka. If a missing link even exists, I don't know what it is. "Just being oneself" is making for a lot of people who really should be what someone ELSE wants them to be--a process that comes naturally to some, and painfully to others. After all, I don't WANT to be who I am for my future wife. I want to be a gazillion times better than who I am now--for her!

Another non-answer: maybe there IS value in hanging-out? To lighten the pressure of getting to know someone in a private, one-on-one setting? To offer some kind of filter or buffer for our first impressions? If we're supposed to marry our best friend, maybe we should be dating our best friends; rather than the cute girl in church we asked out simply because she looks nice or the strange boy whom we were obligated to say "yes" to because Young Women class told us we have to.

Blink

I've been listening to the audiobook Blink by the Malcolm Gladwell. In it, he makes an argument against long, methodical reasoning sessions that some revert to every time a decision must be made. He says that while there are some situations when this drawn-out process is useful, there are many circumstances that are resolved better when left to snap judgments--made in the blink of an eye. Is a first date just such a case? Should a first date never last longer than 20 or 30 minutes? Just long enough to go for a drive or have a hot chocolate and find out if this person is compatible? What do guys need to do differently? What do girls need to do differently?

Questions and Non-Answers

I usually find questions more interesting than answers. It's exciting to think of a possible answer and just be proven wrong. I love trying a new technique in racquetball, only to realize that it was wrong. Exploration and discovery is fascinating to me. But this preference I have toward questions usually does not involve personal, intimate, eternal decisions. Of the many areas of my life, dating/marriage may be the only one that I would like an answer that works. At least every once in a while. Of course, if you have 20-30 minutes to give me some answers during, say, a drive or over some hot chocolate, I'll probably say yes. Cuz that's what I learned from Young Womens.