It seems lately there has been an upsurge of communication between the U.S. and Iran. For example, when President Barack Obama said he was “appalled and outraged” by Iran’s post-election crackdown, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad countered by accusing President Obama of behaving like his predecessor (George W. Bush) and said there was no point in talking to Washington unless the U.S. president apologized. How productive these encoded and decoded messages are remains to be seen. Verbal communication is very important, since it is symbolic interaction between people. It is a determining factor in what one understands and how one reacts. Most important, though, is nonverbal communication or gestures and behaviors performed contextually. Most communication between leaders and nations are actually nonverbal. In other words, nations communicate through actions-past and present, beliefs, cultural norms, and values they practice. While verbal communication can often appear confusing, ambiguous and contradictory, nonverbal communication is usually clear, concise and definite.
In his A New Beginning speech on June 4, 2009 in Cairo, President Obama said, “I have made it clear to the Iraq people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq’s sovereignty is its own.” (A major 2008 campaign promise to Americans was an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.) To this day, there are over 100 U.S. military bases in Iraq and tens of thousands of troops. President Obama also claimed, “Now, make no mistake: We do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We see no military--we seek no military bases there.” The U.S. currently has over 80 military bases and several combat brigades in Afghanistan. Are these brigades and bases temporary or permanent?
In fact, the U.S. has nonverbally militarized much of the Middle East. Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Oman, and Pakistan hosts anywhere from one to 16 military bases each. (1) Even the Status of Forces Agreement between the U.S. and Iraq, requiring American combat forces to leave Iraqi cities by the end of July, appears verbally vague at best. New reports claim U.S. troops will be massing along the outskirts of Iraqi cities and encircling them. They will intervene at will, despite the deadline.
Again, President Obama said, and after admitting the U.S. overthrew a democratically elected Iranian government during the Cold war, “Rather than remain in the past, I’ve made it clear to Iran’s leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward.” And yet, the CIA and U.S. nonverbally interfered in Iran’s recent presidential election by manipulating technology and instigating certain groups in Iran to overthrow the Islamic republic. The Obama Administration has also announced it is moving forward with subsidizing Iranian dissident groups worth $20 million, as the Bush Administration did.
(Note: An Iranian official alluded to the CIA or a terrorist organization in the death of Neda, the young Iranian girl that was tragically gunned down. Evidently, the bullet was not the kind normally used in Iran or by Iran’s security forces.)
Keeping this in mind, and when President Obama and president Ahmadinejad speak, listen to America’s and Iran’s historically nonverbal communications and behaviors. Political nonverbal communication is very territorial and can be observed by how nations prioritize their interests and use their resources and money. It can be defensive or offensive in nature too. After World War II, the U.S. was consumed with destroying Communism and in occupying the Middle East for its oil. Because of this, the U.S. toppled Iran’s leader in 1953 and then exploited Iran’s resources and its people. It will take much more than a verbal apology for the U.S. to right the wrongs it has committed against Iran.
When the U.S. was expelled from Iran in 1979, it then fought a war with Iran through its proxy-Iraq. It also preceded to fight over control of the oil-rich regions around the Persian Gulf. It was at this time that U.S. missiles shot down one of Iran’s civilian airliners killing all 290 passengers on board. The U.S. also has militarily invaded and occupied two neighboring countries: Iraq and Afghanistan. (One could argue the case for Pakistan too.)
Most recently, the U.S. has condemned and threatened Iran for wanting to pursue civilian nuclear enrichment, thereby implementing economic sanctions against the country.
One can begin to understand why President Ahmadinejad, a strong nationalist, said, “This is our friendly advice: We don’t want to see the big disgraces of the Bush Era to be repeated in the new U.S. Era.” In response, President Obama hinted at ending direct talks with Iran. He also warned the clock was ticking on Iran’s nuclear enrichment program. Meanwhile, President Ahmadinejad cautioned the U.S. that the response of the Iranian nation would be crushing and cause remorse. Will nonverbal communication win out once again?
Communication also entails empathetic listening. This type of listening tries to understand and enhance relationships among countries and their leaders. It is the ability to identify with a nation’s concerns, cultures, religions, and histories. (Imagine if Iran had toppled the U.S. Government, exploited its resources, invaded and occupied Canada and Mexico, built fortifications in Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, Panama, Haiti, and Cuba, and funded anti-American groups for the purpose of destabilizing the nation.)
With this kind of nonverbal communication that the U.S. and presidential predecessors has shown: violent overthrows, armed interventions and occupations, imposing military bases, and extended bombing campaigns-not to mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who needs verbal communication?
Israel: Road map to nowhere
Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter is one of those rare birds who have retained their humanity even after four years in the world’s most powerful job. The architect of the first Arab-Israel peace accord was moved to tears when he visited the ruins of Gaza this month, comparing the condition of the Palestinians to “worse than animals.”Granted, most Americans are not familiar with the Palestinian way of life, I often wonder what the Israelis themselves think of the people living next door in a permanent hell. Are the Israelis ever moved by the Palestinian suffering, as Carter has been and rest of the world often is? If they are, it is yet to be seen. No matter what happens to the Palestinians and what the rest of the world thinks of their suffering, Israel and its leaders remain as indifferent and as unreasonable as ever. When Benjamin Netanyahu promised his own road map, after President Barack Obama gave him those stony looks in the Oval Office with the world media watching, even the most hardened cynics began nursing hopes of peace.
We thought, maybe, Israel, prodded by its faithful ally and biggest backer, finally has had a change of heart. Maybe, we hoped, it’s finally time for the doves of peace to descend on the Holy Land. Perhaps, the time has come for Palestinians to find themselves a home — even if moth eaten — of their own.
But Israel is nothing if not consistent. Netanyahu did unveil a “road map” in his much-hyped speech but you do not know what to make of it. Having refused to acknowledge the existence of Palestinians all these years, Netanyahu has finally agreed for “peace” and a Palestinian state, if it can be called one. However, his one hand takes back what the other proffers. The “sovereign and independent” Palestine envisaged by Israel will have no military or security forces of its own. It is not permitted to possess or import any weapons. It cannot control its own airspace. And, yes, the borders of this Bantustan will be controlled by the able and efficient forces of the great state of Israel. His Imperial Majesty Netanyahu is kind enough though to grant the future Palestinian state the right to have its own flag and currency. In return, all Israel asks from the Palestinians is the surrender of their rights over their lands and homes in what was once Palestine. They must recognize Israel as the Jewish state and the divine right of Jewish people to the Holy Land. So what if this means the Palestinians can never dream of returning to their homes and lands from which they were driven out or even hope for recompense? In any case, where’s the land and where are the homes that the Palestinians dream of returning to?
It’s all Israel now — greater Israel, from the river to the sea! When will Palestinians grow out of their dreams? How long will they continue to cling to idle hope, year after wasted year, generation after lost generation? After all, it’s been nearly seven decades since the Nakhba?
And yes, Jerusalem shall remain the capital of Israel, no matter what the Palestinians claim or Muslims and Christians believe. As for the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and around Jerusalem, they will continue to grow and multiply by the day like all good neighborhoods should do.
After all, they’ve been growing over the past half-a-century or so. No one has been able to stop them, no matter who is in power in Tel Aviv or Washington. This is why Netanyahu thinks it is not in the “interest of peace and stability” to put a freeze on them now.
Like Israel’s good ol’ friend Bush would argue, they are, after all, ground realities. No one can change them, not even Obama. How dare Barry, hardly four months in the White House, demand a freeze on the settlements when all his predecessors failed to do so! Does he know what he is up against? No one has taken on Israel and survived to tell the tale. No US president has ever managed to push the Israelis in a direction they do not want to go. Israeli politicians have repeatedly played cat-and-mouse not just with the Palestinians and Arabs but also with successive US presidents, forever buying time even as more and more Palestinian land is eaten away by settlements. No wonder Netanyahu believes he can play the same games with Obama. This is why he came up with that road map to nowhere. While the White House praised the Netanyahu juggernaut as an “important step forward,” it is seen by the Palestinians, Arabs and rest of the world as a huge setback to Obama’s groundbreaking initiative.
This is not an important step forward, Mr. President, but a clever move to sabotage your peace efforts. This is not a two-state solution but a massacre of the aspirations and hopes of a long persecuted people. In Palestinian leader Mustafa Barghouti’s words, Netanyahu hasn’t endorsed a Palestinian state but a ghetto. Netanyahu doesn’t even call it a Palestinian state but ‘territory’ — whatever that means! As Palestinian spokesperson Saeb Erekat puts it, Netanyahu’s proposal is a “slap in the face” for Obama. So much so even the Israeli commentators are shocked by the in-your-face belligerence of their leader. The question is, what does Obama do now? Does he have the courage to call Israel’s bluff? Is he prepared to beat Bibi at his own game?
His courageous and sincere efforts to end the world’s longest running conflict have awakened hope across the Middle East and beyond. He has not only gone against America’s own hallowed traditions of blind support to Israel, but is also prepared to challenge the powerful vested interests and lobbies in Washington to bring peace to the Holy Land.
If people around the world are, for the first time in decades, optimistic about the Middle East peace today, the credit goes to this extraordinary individual with an equally extraordinary history. Would Obama squander all this euphoria and goodwill because of Israel’s continuing obstinacy? Would he allow Netanyahu to undermine this historic opportunity?
As Carter has pointed out, the United States is in this together with Israel. It shares the equal responsibility for the Palestinians’ exploitation and the mess in the region.
The US has to choose between peace and justice for both Palestinians and Israelis — and the Middle East — or take Israel’s side and perpetuate the cycle of violence and chaos across the region.
কোন মন্তব্য নেই:
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন