Research & Commentary Results

The fall of the Qaddafi regime and the loss of the state monopoly on violence gave way to a duopoly of power in Libya whereby rudimentary “national” forces—under the control of the National Transitional Council (NTC) from March 2011 to August 2012—were established in competition with the non-state “Revolutionary Brigades,” which had borne the brunt of the military struggle against Qaddafi’s forces. Since then, the Revolutionary Brigades have increasingly sought to assert themselves in the political arena.

Libyan popular and political support for engaging the international community offers the United States and Western partners an opportunity to help stabilize a North African energy producer and encourage orderly political change. Conversely, a failure to act could have costly, long-term regional and international security consequences. Domestic political limitations to direct U.S. government engagement, along with other issues that compete for attention and resources, are constraints on a more active policy. Moreover, Libyans themselves would not tolerate a dominating U.S. role.

In 2011, many observers predicted that relations between Libya and Egypt would become closer after both countries underwent similar revolutions followed by attempts at democratic transition. But three years later, the realization of this prediction appears unlikely. Political realities and ideological differences have led to a relationship that is contentious at best.

Read the full article on LobeLog.

This essay is part of the Middle East-Asia Project (MAP) series on “’Civilianizing’ the State in the Middle East and Asia Pacific Regions.” The series explores the past and ongoing processes of Security Sector Reform (SSR) in Asia-Pacific countries and examines the steps already taken and still needed in the MENA region. See More

In the wake of the revolutionary fervor that has swept the Middle East and North Africa since the beginning of 2011, retributive justice has taken precedence over restorative justice approaches as countries seek to address human rights violations.

John Kerry’s extraordinary efforts to make peace between Israel and Palestine through six months of bilateral talks have produced no significant results. Kerry, determined to succeed, is turning to a “framework” that would create a new basis for continued negotiations. The framework has not yet been released. But if it is a clear outline of an American plan for peace, not just a collection of ideas that avoids laying out U.S. positions, it could be a game changer.

In May 2013, Libya’s General National Congress (GNC) overwhelmingly passed the Political Isolation Law (PIL). The PIL’s enactment represented a far-reaching attempt to prevent members of the regime of Muammar Qaddafi from holding public office during the country’s transition. But the decision also appeared to fit a precarious pattern of post-conflict accountability in Libya, which has been characterized by acts of vengeance and one-sided justice aimed at anyone associated with the defeated regime. The passage of the law also reflects the current state of political instability in Libya wherein decisions are politically motivated and often forced at the barrel of the gun rather than agreed upon through public consultation and democratic decision-making.

In the Middle East today, diplomatic success and failure are unfolding side by side, often with some of the same players. High-profile attempts are being made to end the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, to stop the massacre of innocents in Syria, and to bring Iran in from the cold.

Since questions of post-atrocity accountability began to surface in regard to the “Arab Spring,” there has been interest in the pursuit of international-led justice in countries that have experienced uprisings, such as Bahrain, Libya, Syria, and Yemen. There were calls for the involvement of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in both Libya and Syria. The ICC has become involved only in Libya. However, this involvement has become mired in struggles that expose the challenges of a system that some regard as simply another expression of a profoundly undemocratic international order.

Ori Nir of Americans for Peace now will hold a conversation with Akiva Eldar on the current situation in Israel and Palestine.Akiva Eldar is a senior political columnist for Al-Monitor news service’s Israel Pulse. He was formerly a senior columnist and editorial writer for Haaretz and served as Haaretz’s US bureau chief and diplomatic correspondent in the 1980’s. His most recent book (with Idith Zertal), Lords of the Land, on the Jewish settlements, was a best-seller in Israel and has been translated into English, French, German and Arabic.

2013 Annual Conference:   Overview  |  Banquet  |  Conference  |  Luncheon

Moderator: Amb. Daniel Kurtzer, Middle East InstituteMunib Masri, PADICO HoldingYossi Vardi, High-tech investor and entrepreneurMiroslav Dusek, World Economic Forum 

The Middle East Institute, The Foundation for Middle East Peace, Churches for Middle East Peace, and Americans for Peace Now Present Breaking the Silence, A book discussion with Avner Gvaryahu Author of Our Harsh Logic: Israeli Soldiers’ Testimonies from the Occupied Territories, 2000-2010  Moderated byAmb.

The Middle East Institute is proud to host author and Brookings senior fellow Stephen P. Cohen for a reading and discussion of his book, Shooting for a Century: The India-Pakistan Conundrum (Brookings Institution Press, 2013). In his latest book, Dr. Cohen explores one of the most intractable conflicts in modern history and examines the parallels with the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, observing how nuclear weapons, minority and victim psychology, and outside powers come into play in both regions. Widely regarded as one of America’s foremost experts on South Asian affairs, Dr.