This week a bunch of my friends went to the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations in downtown Manhattan. I don’t think I have ever seen people at my school so divided over an issue that does not even fall within their usual area of interest. And that is exactly where the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations become dangerous. If people who have little to no idea about how the world economy works decide to take part in a demonstration that targets one of the main drivers of the world economy, why are they there? I think many young people attend the demonstration because it is ‘cool’ to go to something that challenges the current system, even when this system is so well established that abandoning or altering it would be very difficult and probably detrimental. Another thought that crosses my mind is whether the time at which these protests are occurring is related to the public uprisings in the MENA. Given the recent success in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt of political revolutions in disposing their infamous leaders, why not stage a revolution that challenges the economic system at a time where Western capitalism is struggling?
This week, I will focus on the prisoner swap that is taking place between Hamas and the Israeli government, and recent developments between Iran and the USA. As always make sure to check the end of the post for additional links (this week particularly about Occupy Wall Street).
A Game of Numbers
Israel agreed to release 1,027 Palestinians for the return of one of their soldiers, Gilad Shalit, who was captured five years ago, on June 25th, 2006, at the age of 19 by the Islamist organization Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The Economist’s headline “An extraordinary exchange rate” probably summarizes best what can be described as a pretty lopsided deal. Both parties are likely to gain fame among their own populations and abroad at a time where it is needed to secure a solid base of support in a region in transition. Hamas was able to secure many of its most infamous members who have been serving decades of prison terms for committing acts of terrorism during both intifadas. The return of over a thousand Palestinians, many of which were expected to remain locked in Israeli prisons for the remainder of their lives, is sure to give Hamas renewed legitimacy from Palestinians not just in the Gaza Strip, but also in the West Bank and abroad. Israel, working closely with Egypt to ensure the smooth transfer of prisoners, is sure to gain support domestically from a population that has been waiting for Sergeant Shalit to be freed and internationally from countries that see this prisoner transfer as a step towards mutual recognition between Hamas and the Israeli state. Without a doubt many of those released will pick up arms to fight Israel again. So in the long-run is it going to be worth it for Israel to release so many of its public enemies? Cooperation over the release with Egypt will help to fix the strained ties between the two countries and when looking at it that way, the release of some one thousand prisoners is worth a peace treaty that took thirty years and four wars to come about.
“Me? Nahhhhhh.”
This past week, Iran proved once again that it is the number one state in the world when it comes to denial. After a plot to assassinate the Saudi Arabian Ambassador was unveiled by a US undercover agent acting as a member Mexican drug gangster, President Obama was quick to accuse the Iranian regime of planning the attack on the Saudi envoy’s life. Ayatollah Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad both denied the claim that this assassination was ordered by their regime, even though one of the two planners was identified as belonging to the Quds Force, a special unit under direct control of the Ayatollah tasked with exporting the Islamist Revolution beyond the borders of Iran. Both of them also advised the United States from refraining from any kind of retaliation. (If that in itself is not a sign of guilt I don’t know what is!) Iranian experts chimed into the condemnation of the United States by stating that Iran would have no benefit from assassinating the Saudi ambassador in Washington. While some might claim that a state-sponsored act of terrorism could lead to a war between the United States and Iran, I have to agree with the remarks made at the end of this Deutsche Welle article. It is unlikely that the United States will be willing to enter another prolonged war in a region that is already in great turmoil. The chance to attract more negative attention is simply too great. I support President Obama for wanting to prosecute Iran internationally and I hope that he will be able to use the international system to weaken the legitimacy of Iran’s leadership. Oh and one last note: Do you really think that Iran has no reason to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States? Wouldn’t that just show how ‘high and mighty’ Iran is if it is able to murder the envoys of its greatest regional enemy, Saudi Arabia, even in the most secure state of the world? I don’t think we need to look any further than Iraq and Bahrain to see that those two states are so pitted against each other that I would not put the assassination of diplomats in other states beyond them.
Other Links
No comments:
Post a Comment