Black Wave: Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Forty-Year Rivalry That Unraveled Culture, Religion, and Collective Memory in the Middle East Just read a great book, Black Wave, about the rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Thinking about the book beforehand I thought I could understand the regional rivalry, but that was completely wrong. Before the discovery of oil in 1938, Saudi Arabia was a desert populated mainly by nomadic tribes. There could have been no rivalry with Iran, the ancient nation of Persia, with its rich history. The conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran is entirely a very recent occurrence. The author Kim Ghattas, who was born and raised in Lebanon tries to answer the question, “what happened to us?” She points out “the question may also surprise those in the West who assume that the extremism and the bloodletting of today were always the norm.” Back when I lived in Israel, 1975 to 1985, Israeli TV used to show an Arabic movie on Friday afternoon. These movies were usually made in Egypt (which as the author points out had the third largest movie industry in the world at that time). These movies were very similar to the teen movies of Anette Funicello and Bollywood today. But what would strike one today if they were to see one, is the secularism of Egyptian society. Women wore entirely western clothes, the sexes mixed freely, they went to discotheques. Other than they are set in Egypt, they could have been teen movies from the 50s and early 60s here in the states. There have been no shortage of books tracing Islamic fundamentalism and the rise of al-qaeda, ISIS, Hezbollah, or Hamas. What there haven’t been is a book on how Islamic fundamentalism took over the governments of the middle east with what the author calls “the dictatorship of religion.” Starting her history in 1974, she points to three seminal events that occurred in 1979; the Iranian revolution, the siege of the Holy Mosque in Mecca by Saudi zealots, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Other events that shook the middle east in that same period: civil war in Lebanon; Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982; Sadat’s peace treaty with Israel, and Sadat’s assassination a few years later; Assad coming to power in Syria; Saddam Hussein coming to power in Iraq; the Iraq Iran war. And that’s just a partial list. Reading the book, one is reminded of these events, great and small. At the time of the Iranian revolution in 1979, the Islamic nations of the middle east praised the revolution. That praise did not last. In 1987, Pakistan’s President, Zia ul-Haq sent Sunni militants to attack Shia villages. In fighting that lasted two weeks “52 Shias and 120 Sunnis were killed”. The author points out “here then was the epicenter of modern-day sectarian bloodletting, the first of its kind on modern times. Sectarianism had been weaponized”. The author’s full story of “what happened to us” cannot be put into a short review such as this. And it’s one of the few books about the middle east where Israel isn’t the main actor on the stage about which all events are related. Anyone who wants to understand the modern middle east and how it arrived to its “what happened to us” moment, will find this book very informative. I read a lot of books on the middle east; this is one of the best I’ve read in a while.

I try to follow news and books concerning the Middle East. Unfortunately, these books are generally written by authors who are supporters of Israel. I don’t read many books by Palestinians or books that take a pro-Palestinian view. This isn’t so much a choice but rather a function of how I come to know about a book which is generally through best seller lists, such as the New York Times, or a bookstore like Barnes and Noble. Pro-Palestinians books are not well represented in either of these two sources. However, even within these sources I don’t make a point to read many pro-Palestinians sources. I have found most of them, and this applies whether it is a leaflet handed out at a rally or a book such as I’m linking to below, the Palestinians are to a major extent, bystanders, rather than actors with an interactive role. This book, is very much the same. I came upon this book trying to find something on the Madrid peace initiative. Firing up Amazon, this book came. Since I had read an earlier book by Rashid Khalidi, The Iron Cage, I picked it up. Since the sub title of this book indicates that it concerns the failings of the US in the peace process, it piqued my curiosity. If I had to distill the author’s complaint into a single idea, it would be that the US government does not support Palestinian rights as they do Israel’s. The author states “my primary objective is to reveal how closely entwined have been the respective policies of the United States and Israel toward the Palestinian people over recent decades. Logically, this should have disqualified America from playing the role of intermediary between the two antagonists ….” The author discusses three “moments” in the peace process to drive home his point. The first moment is Begin and Palestinian autonomy in 1982. The back story to this first moment followed Sadat’s unilateral peace initiative with Israel. In theory this peace was also supposed to bring about a Palestinian state after some interim period of limited autonomy or self-rule by Palestinians. When Reagan came into office, he coined a phrase “PLO fighters” to appeal to moderate Palestinians to join a peace process and the author speaks optimistically about The Reagan Plan. (I have to admit I don’t really remember any Reagan Plan.) However, no moderate Palestinians came forward. (A point the author fails to mention.) Hence, the Reagan Plan went nowhere. The second moment was the Madrid – Washington negotiations, 1991-1993. As the author admits these talks failed, albeit not his main complaint, when Bush lost the election to Clinton. At this same time Yitzhak Rabin replaced Begin as Prime Minister and started back channel talks with the PLO that resulted in the Oslo accord. At this point, it’s hard to understand the author’s complaint, this is without a doubt the high point of the peace talks and certainly since that point. The third moment is Barak Obama and Palestine, 2009 – 2012. Regarding Obama’s failed attempt at Middle East peace the author acknowledges that the effort was quite possibly doomed to failure when first, in 2009 Netanyahu, the ideological successor of Menachem Begin was elected Prime Minister, and then second, the Republican takeover of congress in 2010. Obama attempted to halt settlements but was completely defeated by Netanyahu and congressional Republicans. I read the book because I read about the Israeli - Arab conflict. Unfortunately, because the author, disappears any role of the Palestinians it is not a very balanced book. Israel does a lot of things wrong, certainly their settlement policy is very likely leading to disaster. The US does a lot of things wrong. They could be more balanced to the Palestinians but by their continued reliance on terror and armed conflict they just don’t give US lawmakers much to work with. The Palestinians also do a lot of things wrong, and this can’t just be ignored. As for the author’s general complaint that the US does not as actively support Palestinians as much as Israel the author notes several times this is partly due to demands that Palestinians renounce terrorism without making any such demand of Israel. There is no equivalence. Israel does not put bombs on buses carrying Palestinian children home from school. Israel does not put bombs in restaurants where holiday celebrations are taking place. Israelis don’t intentionally plant bombs at bus stops filled with Palestinians. If the author wants to make the argument that Palestinians are under occupation by Israel and these are legitimate measures of an armed struggle, then make that claim. But that argument is decidedly different than a claim of equivalence.