Reflection V

This study abroad has been a really eye-opening experience for me.  I felt like I was constantly learning new things, and in turn, becoming more and more perplexed.

I felt very perplexed by the presentations delivered by the two speakers Professor Moshe Maoz and Nimrod Goren.  Both discussed the Arab Spring, and both argued that the Israeli reaction to the revolutions were too negative.  In fact, the Arab Spring is a positive sign of a changing Middle East, and Israel should get involved to promote democracy and provide humanitarian aid.  Both lecturers made the claim that the Muslim Brotherhood is a mostly moderate organization which will put aside some of its claims for the sake of pragmatism.  The Sunni Muslims are the more moderate, and Israel should ally itself with the Sunnis against the Shia Crescent of Iran and parts of Iraq and Saudi Arabia.  Iran’s influence is the biggest threat to Israel today, they argued, and the only way to combat it is to ally with Iran’s rivals.  They accused Israel of ignoring attempts to reach out by their Middle East neighbors, such as the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002.

                While I do see the Arab Peace Initiative as a missed opportunity, I was surprised to see how Professor Avram Sela’s views on the Arab Spring were so vastly different and more pessimistic.  After all, they both work at the Truman Institute for Peace.  Yet Sela believed that the Arab Spring was causing chaos to erupt, providing the possibility for extremists to take over, and was pessimistic about the probability that the Muslim Brotherhood would promote genuine democracy or pragmatism toward Israel.  He did not see the Muslim Brotherhood as a very moderate group.  The readings also seemed to imply that the Arab Spring really was a more complicated season.  Rubin’s article, on Israel and the Palestinians, took a more pessimistic view about the possibility of change in the Palestinian Leadership and Hamas.  The article by Lesch was more optimistic about the opportunities for change on the part of the Palestinian leadership.

                This left me very torn on the issue.  On the one hand, I think that Israel is in the Middle East and it is in the country’s best interest to ally itself with surrounding countries, especially if they are trying to democratize.  The Arab Peace Initiative’s does prove that the surrounding countries are willing to make some compromises, especially when it comes to helping the Palestinians.  The evidence provided in Shelef’s book provides proof for the possibility of ideological change, even among “extremists”, under certain circumstances. That said, I don’t think that the lack of Middle East alliances is completely Israel’s fault.  A lot of the states involved are extremely hostile toward the country on purely ideological grounds, and I don’t think that with the Arab Spring, the demonization of Israel will end.  I also question whether or not Shia Muslim countries are inherently more extremist, because Israel was once allied with Iran.  I see Iran as a big threat, to be taken seriously.  I would like to be optimistic and believe that if Israel just reaches out and thinks positive, they will become friends with the Middle East.  Unfortunately, I don’t think that the reality is that simple.  The reality seems to be somewhere in between the three lecturers—pretty grim, but with some definite glimmers of possibility.