In the current American near-elation over rediscovering an ally in France, we should also learn some lessons on diplomacy. France has now let it be known that it will not deal with Syria until the Syrians help resolve the tragic farce of the non-election of Lebanon’s President. There is no question that Syrian-controlled Lebanese parliamentary factions are standing in the way (not that the March 14, i.e. “majority” coalition is not playing politics as well).
The Levant and France have long-standing ties, dating back to French interests in Lebanon in the 19th century and France’s control over Syria and Lebanon between WWI and WWII. Now, diplomatic ties are not being broken but rather, apparently, suspended de facto until Syria ends specific behavior that is not existential, and that it can engineer without humiliation. Subsequently, Syria would have reason to believe that relations with France would resume and presumably improve
Were American diplomacy to succeed in lumbering to a point where it could do similar things, it would be far more effective. Admittedly, the U.S. is the superpower, and thus far more visible and probably less agile. But were we to “normalize” our relationship with countries with which we have problems, and thus create leverage, we could more successfully affect their behavior.
We are a long way from that point. But those who are hoping to lead American diplomacy after 1/20/09 should keep it in mind.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Annapolis Watch (an occasional feature here)
Just a month ago, on 27 November, despite almost universal predictions of failure, Condi Rice managed to stage a high-level international meeting (which she insisted on dubbing a summit), whose sole accomplishment was setting a process in motion. Early this week, as part of this process, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators met in Jerusalem in a very forgettable session, marked only by vociferous Palestinian complaints of newly announced Israeli construction in the contentious Har Homa/Jebel abu Gnehm neighborhood/settlement of Jerusalem, matched by Israeli complaints of alleged Palestinian security failures.
PM Olmert, the master politician, has now attempted to manage this problem and will likely succeed, though in a manner that does not bode well for any serious peace agreement. He has given credibility to the leaked reports that the ill-timed Har Homa building tenders were the result of Israeli bureaucratic timing rather than high-level attempts at humiliating Abu Mazen, though settler-oriented forces in the housing ministry might well have nudged the responsible bureaucrats. In any case, Olmert chose, in classic political, even Solomonic, fashion, to split the baby; declaring that the Har Homa construction will go forward but that any further Jewish building in East Jerusalem will be carefully scrutinized to be sure it does not “hamper” the peace process.
Secretary Rice will probably give this her blessing, and Abu Mazen will have to accept it. However, it is a perfect illustration of why the Annapolis Process is unlikely to succeed.
Olmert, had he been a statesman rather than primarily a politician, might have used the occasion to make an issue of existing government decisions that imperil negotiations. Admittedly, this would have been difficult, as it might have required a cabinet vote. Instead, he took the easy, if clever, route and compromised between peace and settlements, but at the cost of further humiliating Abu Mazen to his people and to the Arab League.
If the Annapolis Process is to have any chance of success before 20 January 2009, Olmert will have to openly confront some significant Israeli shibboleths on settlements, borders and Jerusalem, and probably others as well. Perhaps he is biding his time, and gathering his strength. But there is precious little evidence of this, nor do the forces that would ferociously oppose such changes seem to be particularly worried.
We will see shortly whether Olmert’s post-Solomonic wisdom has moved the process on, so that the next meeting may be more substantive. Abu Mazen’s credibility has taken so many hits that this additional one is unlikely to be fatal. But sooner rather than later there will be a need for hard decisions, and we still do not see good reason to believe that Olmert the compromising politician can swing a cudgel at his enemies when the occasion requires.
Paul Scham
PM Olmert, the master politician, has now attempted to manage this problem and will likely succeed, though in a manner that does not bode well for any serious peace agreement. He has given credibility to the leaked reports that the ill-timed Har Homa building tenders were the result of Israeli bureaucratic timing rather than high-level attempts at humiliating Abu Mazen, though settler-oriented forces in the housing ministry might well have nudged the responsible bureaucrats. In any case, Olmert chose, in classic political, even Solomonic, fashion, to split the baby; declaring that the Har Homa construction will go forward but that any further Jewish building in East Jerusalem will be carefully scrutinized to be sure it does not “hamper” the peace process.
Secretary Rice will probably give this her blessing, and Abu Mazen will have to accept it. However, it is a perfect illustration of why the Annapolis Process is unlikely to succeed.
Olmert, had he been a statesman rather than primarily a politician, might have used the occasion to make an issue of existing government decisions that imperil negotiations. Admittedly, this would have been difficult, as it might have required a cabinet vote. Instead, he took the easy, if clever, route and compromised between peace and settlements, but at the cost of further humiliating Abu Mazen to his people and to the Arab League.
If the Annapolis Process is to have any chance of success before 20 January 2009, Olmert will have to openly confront some significant Israeli shibboleths on settlements, borders and Jerusalem, and probably others as well. Perhaps he is biding his time, and gathering his strength. But there is precious little evidence of this, nor do the forces that would ferociously oppose such changes seem to be particularly worried.
We will see shortly whether Olmert’s post-Solomonic wisdom has moved the process on, so that the next meeting may be more substantive. Abu Mazen’s credibility has taken so many hits that this additional one is unlikely to be fatal. But sooner rather than later there will be a need for hard decisions, and we still do not see good reason to believe that Olmert the compromising politician can swing a cudgel at his enemies when the occasion requires.
Paul Scham
Notes on the Season
People who work with the “long-term historical perspective” in the Middle East are likely to be drawn toward more unusual stories that either aren’t headline material or don’t make it into the news at all. The recent news has been dominated by the instability in Pakistan but a perusal of reports on less earthshaking events has yielded some interesting insights into the continuity of ancient and modern cultures.
Iraqi Christians—Ancient Roots and Modern Perils
The Chaldean Patriarch of Baghdad recently made a minor stir when he emerged to plead the case of Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi foreign minister under Saddam Hussein who surrendered to US forces after the invasion of Iraq. A familiar name cropping up in an unfamiliar context, Aziz is a reminder that, amidst all of the talk of sectarian violence between Sunni and Shi’a in Iraq, few reports mention the status of Christians there.
Although Chaldean Catholics like Tariq Aziz have downplayed their ancient lineage, other Christians in Iraq trace their roots back many thousands of years to the Assyrian and Babylonian Empires and their religious affiliations back to St. Thomas the Apostle in the first century AD. Ancient Assyria, as a political entity, effectively began in prehistoric times and ended in the seventh century BCE. The Chaldeans, who instituted the last of the Babylonian empires by breaking away from Assyria and eventually conquering it, were in turn conquered by the Persians in the sixth century BCE.
Chaldean Christians in Iraq are now flooding over the borders and many have fled to Jordan. Their inevitable dispersal poses a threat to more than the continuation of a Christian community that may have been one of the earliest in history. The Chaldeans comprise one of the larger Aramaic-speaking groups. The several thousand-year-old Aramaic language, once the lingua franca of the great Persian Empire, has been rapidly disappearing as a spoken language since the end of the Ottoman Empire.
For those interested in Biblical and Jewish history, the words Chaldean and Aramaic should have strong associations. Abraham is said to have come from Ur of the Chaldees, an anachronism if one accepts the Bronze Age (ca. 3000 to 1000 BCE) origins of the Patriarchs. The Chaldeans were not prominent in Mesopotamia until the sixth century BCE. Large sections of the Bible were written after the Babylonian exile (ca. 586 BCE) in Aramaic and it was also the language that Jesus and the Apostles spoke. Aramaic is still used for various important prayers in the traditional Jewish liturgy.
The Semi-Annual Sectarian Scuffle
Living in Jerusalem, we were always intrigued by the ways in which the important churches of the Holy Land are divided among Christian denominations. Over the centuries, various schemes have evolved in order to keep the peace. The possibility for tensions between the Eastern and Western Christian churches is usually forestalled by the fact that they celebrate the major holidays at different times. The spaces within the churches are, also, scrupulously allocated between Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant groups and the keys reside in the hands of neutral Muslim gatekeepers.
Despite these factors, brawls at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre at Easter and the Church of the Nativity at Christmas have become all too frequent in recent years. These affairs generally begin with the clerics but extend quickly to involve secular bystanders and the Christmas fracas this past week in Bethlehem was no exception. Palestinian police were called in when members of rival Christian groups began fighting at the church marking the site of Jesus’ birth and four people were wounded in fray. According to reports, the Orthodox encroached on the Armenian section while the priests were cleaning the church following the “Western” Christmas rites. The Eastern Church celebrates Christmas in the first week of January rather than on December 25th.
Supposedly, the Kingdom of Armenia was the first state to adopt Christianity as its religion in an event traditionally dated to 301 AD. At one time the Armenian Apostolic Church was labeled as Monophysite like the Coptic Church primarily because both churches broke away from the mainstream church before the sixth century AD and refused to accept the condemnation of Monophysitism of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD. Monphysites believe that that Jesus has only one nature—divine, as opposed to the mainstream church view that he has two natures, one divine and one human.
Although one might say that Christianity, as a universal religion, began in the Greek world with the missionary journeys of St. Paul, the complex series of divisions over doctrine beginning as early as the second century AD eventually split Eastern and Western Christianity. Disagreements over papal authority and the nature of the holy trinity, among other things, resulted in the Great Schism of 1054 AD separating the Eastern (Orthodox) from the Western (Catholic) Church.
While it seems that the Armenian and Greek churches have much in common with respect to their historical relationships to the Catholic Church it is obvious that their differences are more significant. The great debates over theological doctrine of the early centuries of Christianity are no more. The major disputes between churches in both the Eastern and Western traditions are now over spaces that can be measured with a ruler.
Patenting the Pyramids
This story has nothing to do with the Christmas season but is, nonetheless, something that certainly affects Middle East Heritage. Under a new law expected to be passed by Egypt’s parliament, royalties for “commercial use” of Egyptian Antiquities will be required when copies are made of museum pieces or ancient monuments such as the Pyramids. The law would apply in all countries and the money will be used to maintain thousands of archaeological sites.
Egypt’s relationship to its Pharaonic past has been fairly amiable one since the days of Nasser’s attempt to forge a new “pan-Arab” identity in the fifties and sixties. As it turns out, Egyptians are too proud of their spectacular antiquities to give in easily to a perspective that places them historically on a par with other Arab countries. Further, few people there outside of the Muslim Brotherhood seem to be concerned about the pre-Islamic paganism of Ancient Egypt.
A sore subject for Egypt’s archaeologists and antiquarians, however, has been the plundering of the country’s treasures for Western museums. Since the eighteenth century, Europeans have been traveling to Egypt and looting its sites. The new law, unenforceable though it may be, is undoubtedly a reflection of this inglorious history.
Iraqi Christians—Ancient Roots and Modern Perils
The Chaldean Patriarch of Baghdad recently made a minor stir when he emerged to plead the case of Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi foreign minister under Saddam Hussein who surrendered to US forces after the invasion of Iraq. A familiar name cropping up in an unfamiliar context, Aziz is a reminder that, amidst all of the talk of sectarian violence between Sunni and Shi’a in Iraq, few reports mention the status of Christians there.
Although Chaldean Catholics like Tariq Aziz have downplayed their ancient lineage, other Christians in Iraq trace their roots back many thousands of years to the Assyrian and Babylonian Empires and their religious affiliations back to St. Thomas the Apostle in the first century AD. Ancient Assyria, as a political entity, effectively began in prehistoric times and ended in the seventh century BCE. The Chaldeans, who instituted the last of the Babylonian empires by breaking away from Assyria and eventually conquering it, were in turn conquered by the Persians in the sixth century BCE.
Chaldean Christians in Iraq are now flooding over the borders and many have fled to Jordan. Their inevitable dispersal poses a threat to more than the continuation of a Christian community that may have been one of the earliest in history. The Chaldeans comprise one of the larger Aramaic-speaking groups. The several thousand-year-old Aramaic language, once the lingua franca of the great Persian Empire, has been rapidly disappearing as a spoken language since the end of the Ottoman Empire.
For those interested in Biblical and Jewish history, the words Chaldean and Aramaic should have strong associations. Abraham is said to have come from Ur of the Chaldees, an anachronism if one accepts the Bronze Age (ca. 3000 to 1000 BCE) origins of the Patriarchs. The Chaldeans were not prominent in Mesopotamia until the sixth century BCE. Large sections of the Bible were written after the Babylonian exile (ca. 586 BCE) in Aramaic and it was also the language that Jesus and the Apostles spoke. Aramaic is still used for various important prayers in the traditional Jewish liturgy.
The Semi-Annual Sectarian Scuffle
Living in Jerusalem, we were always intrigued by the ways in which the important churches of the Holy Land are divided among Christian denominations. Over the centuries, various schemes have evolved in order to keep the peace. The possibility for tensions between the Eastern and Western Christian churches is usually forestalled by the fact that they celebrate the major holidays at different times. The spaces within the churches are, also, scrupulously allocated between Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant groups and the keys reside in the hands of neutral Muslim gatekeepers.
Despite these factors, brawls at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre at Easter and the Church of the Nativity at Christmas have become all too frequent in recent years. These affairs generally begin with the clerics but extend quickly to involve secular bystanders and the Christmas fracas this past week in Bethlehem was no exception. Palestinian police were called in when members of rival Christian groups began fighting at the church marking the site of Jesus’ birth and four people were wounded in fray. According to reports, the Orthodox encroached on the Armenian section while the priests were cleaning the church following the “Western” Christmas rites. The Eastern Church celebrates Christmas in the first week of January rather than on December 25th.
Supposedly, the Kingdom of Armenia was the first state to adopt Christianity as its religion in an event traditionally dated to 301 AD. At one time the Armenian Apostolic Church was labeled as Monophysite like the Coptic Church primarily because both churches broke away from the mainstream church before the sixth century AD and refused to accept the condemnation of Monophysitism of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD. Monphysites believe that that Jesus has only one nature—divine, as opposed to the mainstream church view that he has two natures, one divine and one human.
Although one might say that Christianity, as a universal religion, began in the Greek world with the missionary journeys of St. Paul, the complex series of divisions over doctrine beginning as early as the second century AD eventually split Eastern and Western Christianity. Disagreements over papal authority and the nature of the holy trinity, among other things, resulted in the Great Schism of 1054 AD separating the Eastern (Orthodox) from the Western (Catholic) Church.
While it seems that the Armenian and Greek churches have much in common with respect to their historical relationships to the Catholic Church it is obvious that their differences are more significant. The great debates over theological doctrine of the early centuries of Christianity are no more. The major disputes between churches in both the Eastern and Western traditions are now over spaces that can be measured with a ruler.
Patenting the Pyramids
This story has nothing to do with the Christmas season but is, nonetheless, something that certainly affects Middle East Heritage. Under a new law expected to be passed by Egypt’s parliament, royalties for “commercial use” of Egyptian Antiquities will be required when copies are made of museum pieces or ancient monuments such as the Pyramids. The law would apply in all countries and the money will be used to maintain thousands of archaeological sites.
Egypt’s relationship to its Pharaonic past has been fairly amiable one since the days of Nasser’s attempt to forge a new “pan-Arab” identity in the fifties and sixties. As it turns out, Egyptians are too proud of their spectacular antiquities to give in easily to a perspective that places them historically on a par with other Arab countries. Further, few people there outside of the Muslim Brotherhood seem to be concerned about the pre-Islamic paganism of Ancient Egypt.
A sore subject for Egypt’s archaeologists and antiquarians, however, has been the plundering of the country’s treasures for Western museums. Since the eighteenth century, Europeans have been traveling to Egypt and looting its sites. The new law, unenforceable though it may be, is undoubtedly a reflection of this inglorious history.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Introducing
Middle East Heritage and Politics Newsletter
Archaeology, History and the Modern Middle East
The Middle East Heritage and Politics Newsletter is designed to inform and engage those who want to see the Middle East in terms of its archaeological and historical past and its political and cultural present—and the connections between them. As editors we solicit articles from both expert commentators and educated non-specialists. We will also provide informed analysis of major news events affecting Middle East Heritage and Politics.
We are Sandra Scham and Paul Scham and, in addition to our education and research in the United States, we also lived and worked in the Middle East for a number of years.
Sandra Scham is an archaeologist, a former editor of the journal Near Eastern Archaeology and current Washington Correspondent for Archaeology Magazine. Sandra teaches the archaeology of the Ancient Near East at Catholic University and has also taught at the University of Maryland and Jerusalem University College in Israel. Sandra has done archaeological work in Israel, Jordan and Southeastern Turkey and has a Ph.D. in Anthropological Archaeology. She has also worked with Palestinian and Israeli archaeologists on projects dealing with issues of common interest in archaeology and heritage.
Paul has done graduate study at Princeton in modern history, has a law degree and is currently a researcher and Adjunct Scholar at the Middle East Institute in Washington, D.C. For six years he worked on the development of joint Israeli, Palestinian and Jordanian academic and NGO projects at the Truman Institute for the Advancement of Peace of Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Paul has taught courses on conflicts in the Middle East and modern Middle Eastern politics at George Mason University and the Middle East Institute and other institutions. He frequently appears on radio and TV as an analyst of current developments, but his particular interest is in historical narratives and their potential use in the peace process.
Both of us have a strong background in teaching in universities and in adult enrichment programs. In addition to lectures, we have been on radio and television news programs discussing our areas of expertise. We are published authors of many articles and papers as well as contributions to popular magazines and newspapers. Our most recent books are Connectivity in Antiquity and Shared Historis: A Palestinian-Israeli Dialogue.
Archaeology, History and the Modern Middle East
The Middle East Heritage and Politics Newsletter is designed to inform and engage those who want to see the Middle East in terms of its archaeological and historical past and its political and cultural present—and the connections between them. As editors we solicit articles from both expert commentators and educated non-specialists. We will also provide informed analysis of major news events affecting Middle East Heritage and Politics.
We are Sandra Scham and Paul Scham and, in addition to our education and research in the United States, we also lived and worked in the Middle East for a number of years.
Sandra Scham is an archaeologist, a former editor of the journal Near Eastern Archaeology and current Washington Correspondent for Archaeology Magazine. Sandra teaches the archaeology of the Ancient Near East at Catholic University and has also taught at the University of Maryland and Jerusalem University College in Israel. Sandra has done archaeological work in Israel, Jordan and Southeastern Turkey and has a Ph.D. in Anthropological Archaeology. She has also worked with Palestinian and Israeli archaeologists on projects dealing with issues of common interest in archaeology and heritage.
Paul has done graduate study at Princeton in modern history, has a law degree and is currently a researcher and Adjunct Scholar at the Middle East Institute in Washington, D.C. For six years he worked on the development of joint Israeli, Palestinian and Jordanian academic and NGO projects at the Truman Institute for the Advancement of Peace of Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Paul has taught courses on conflicts in the Middle East and modern Middle Eastern politics at George Mason University and the Middle East Institute and other institutions. He frequently appears on radio and TV as an analyst of current developments, but his particular interest is in historical narratives and their potential use in the peace process.
Both of us have a strong background in teaching in universities and in adult enrichment programs. In addition to lectures, we have been on radio and television news programs discussing our areas of expertise. We are published authors of many articles and papers as well as contributions to popular magazines and newspapers. Our most recent books are Connectivity in Antiquity and Shared Historis: A Palestinian-Israeli Dialogue.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
