France is Looking for a Leader

France is much more than a country, France is also an idea. Perhaps the first nation-state in Europe, the nation that brought democracy to the continent, and the power of the masses. The state of Henri IV (the great and the good), Louis XIV (the state is me) and Napoleon Bonaparte (the Emperor). Great leaders, who united the French nation, expanded its borders, connected parts that once seemed to be impossible to connect, and for better or worse, placed it on the map of the world of their time.

In a certain sense, this is what the French nation has always sought, a leader that will connect it, contain it and bring it to its proper place among the nations.

In the 20th century, France had only two leaders approaching such a magnitude, Charles de Gaulle and Francois Mitterrand, one from the right and one from the left. One a war hero, a symbol of stubbornness, national pride and the father of the Fifth Republic and the second was the ultimate politician, the modern king of France, who became the most influential figure of the European left in the 20th century. What Thatcher and Reagan symbolize for global conservatism, Mitterrand symbolizes for socialism.

None of the four candidates for the presidency today is a unifying candidate, on the contrary - the uniqueness of each of them is in his contrast and opposition, to a symbol, an idea or another candidate. Therefore, the close results, the concern, and the uncertainty. Like other Western nations, France is also seeking its way, the first round of elections is just the beginning.

This post was originally published in Hebrew

The Minority’s Spring

Ever since Britain and France occupied the Middle East, the myth of the “Arab” Middle East spread across the world. Large parts of the world saw the Middle East as one homogeneous unit—the Arab nation—with other unwanted minorities to blame for the woes of the region. 

We learn this to be an illusion, especially following the Arab Spring. Iraq’s liberation from the hands of Saddam Hussein provides the most telling example. The de-facto division of Iraq into different minorities—Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds—exemplifies the myth of the regions homogeneity. Especially in northern Iraq, the long-standing Kurdish minority sprung forward and demands its historical rights in the renewed wave of self-determination.

The same process occurs in the greater Middle East. The breakup of the Soviet Union granted independence to Armenia and Azerbaijan. The two countries, although geographically distant from the core of the Middle East, feel historically and culturally connected to the region. The Armenians see themselves as the original Christian followers and zealously guard the Armenian Quarter in Jerusalem’s Old City. And, the Shiite Azeris see their legacy deeply rooted in the ancient Persian Empire, no less than the Iranians themselves. 

Additionally, Southern Sudan, which recently gained independence, illustrates another example as it represents the first time in modern history that sovereignty was passed from an Arab to a Christian country. Finally, Libya’s recent civil war exemplified the insurmountable divide between the Tripolitania, Benghazi and the Touareg tribe of Fezzan.

The aforementioned examples demonstrate that the “Arab” North-African countries are not so Arab. Among them we find enormous minorities—tens of millions of people—including Berbers, Darfuris, Coptic Christians, and many other who have nothing in common with the Arabs. 

Syria illustrates the most recent example heading toward an “Iraqi” future of its own. One would expect opposition to unite in times of strife. Nevertheless, as the death toll rises and Assad’s regime continues to struggle, no unified opposition is prepared to take the lead and raise the flag following victory. The somewhat organized changes of government in Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen are not expected to repeat in Syria. On the contrary, Syria is on the verge of a second civil war, and can easily split into various minorities including Alawites, Christians, Sunnis, and Druze among others. Syria today risks becoming its Eastern neighbor—Lebanon—which has been divided since its establishment. Such future composed of an endless mosaic of tiny minorities that stretch from the Beirut shores on the Mediterranean Sea to the Basra shores in the Persian Gulf.

The Arab Spring revealed that all that is known about the Middle East could change overnight. More specifically, as the once all-mighty leaders can now be overcome, so can Middle East borders be subject to changes in accordance with the rising minorities. The Arab Spring exemplified the desire of Arab youth to have their voice heard. More importantly, however, the Arab Spring illustrated that the Arab Spring is not only Arab and that there are many other voices ignored and forgotten that now demand to be heard. This is the Minority’s Spring, which signals the end of the Arab hegemony in the area. We have been introduced to a new Middle East—a Minority’s Middle East.

* Omer Gendler is a researcher in the field of International Relations specializing in Civil Wars. He is based in Jerusaelm.

This article was originally published  in rudaw magazine.

Where is the United States ?

Why the silence of the United States in the renewed conflict between United Kingdom and Argentina on the Falkland Islands may someday cost her dearly

Over a week has passed since the re-broke of the Falkland Islands conflict between United Kingdom and Argentina, and so far we have not heard a word about it from President Barack Obama or any other official representative of the United States government.  South America Countries (Rio Group) published a support in the position Argentina, Caribbean Communities countries (CARICOM) have announced that they "understand" the Argentinian side and call for negotiations between United Kingdom and Argentina on the subject. Even UN Secretary General Ban Ki - Moon has already announced that if asked to will negotiate in the conflict. Actually, all the American continent countries have already expressed their opinion, well okay not all, one kept silent, the United States.

Compared with the previous round of battles which took place in 1982 President Ronald Reagan supported completely his good friend Margaret Thatcher, this time the United States of Obama prefers to remain silent and not support any party, and leaves the solution to the dispute in the hands of the parties involved.

The reason for this silence is an American attempt to approach the countries of South America, the new direction for the South continent has declared by President Obama at the beginning of his term. The first step, we saw six months ago when the United States in a rarely move share similar opinions with the countries of South America regarding the question of legality of the military coup in Honduras, even though it  was pro American coup.

But the United States forget that Falkland Islands conflict and the cracks in international recognition of British sovereignty over the islands, may one day return to her too. This is no longer a military coup, political conflict or event with negligible short-term interests, but about the fundamental meanings fateful for the long term. In what the British control over the Falkland Islands is different than the U.S. domination of Puerto Rico? In both cases it was an area occupied from the Spanish Empire her sunset. Falklands with the departure of the Spaniards from South America and Puerto Rico due to the Spanish–American war and the departure of the central continent.

If the United States recognizes even slightly in the legitimacy of Argentina right on Falkland Islands, a day will come, and she will have to meet the requirements of the countries in Central America on Puerto Rico. Also Argentine claim that Falkland's residents not entitled to self-determination because they are immigrants who came to the island two centuries ago and only the original inhabitants of the Falkland Islands have the right to self-determination can not even considered in the United States. Because Texas, was established in exactly the same way, settlers of Anglo - Saxon origin fed up with the Mexican government, preferred to declare independence and then merged with the United States, and no one really think Mexico has any right on Texas.

What will happen tomorrow if Guatemala suddenly decides not to recognize the independence of Belize, a country with a history similar to Falkland Islands, did the United States not express a firm stand? Or Venezuela's Hugo Chavez suddenly decides he wants back Aruba, Bonaire and Curacao, will the United States also be silent, just to approach South America countries?

Latin American residents need to understand that you can not turn the clock back. Two hundred years of Anglo - Saxon and European rule can not suddenly stop just because some leaders are looking for an ancient national pride or to strengthen their rule. Besides, South America countries, who said that these territories are historic Latin? Do not forget that you were not there first.

If the United States did not make a firm position, the continent of America may enter a slippery slope, President Obama enough to sit on the fence, interfere in the crisis now.