Was Marx right?

I am not ready to answer in the affirmative, but I do feel that this article poses the question:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gkc3uqGuPnGfO90dElARcCQvgTvA?docId=9576d6a6343c46b1abbd0184a9244305

Republicans

I just don't get it: The Republican party, a la Mitch Mconell, has openly said that their number one goal is not to better this country or protect the interests of its people, but rather, to unseat Mr. Obama as president. How do any Americans agree to take seriously a party that has openly admitted that politics, not policy, is its number one agenda?

A few ways that the party has proved its words through its actions:

1. The Debt Ceiling Crisis - It was the consensus of economists and Wall Street that passing the debt ceiling raise was essential to not causing Great Depression 2, yet the Republicans, instead of doing what the country needed, chose to use this as an opportunity to try to bully Obama: They made their agreement to not actively cause the US economy to tank conditional, in order to get political leverage. Their threats not to raise the Debt Ceiling caused the stock market to go down during the deliberations, causing monetary loss to Americans, and also caused the US to be downgraded by Moody's, which rightly concluded that the US political system was not up to the challenge of solving its debt issues thanks to the Republicans' actions.

2. The recent payroll tax fiasco: Instead of passing something that would continue to allow Middle Class Americans to have an extra 1500 a year, which could then be re-invested in the economy - and 1500 makes a difference to the Middle Class - the Republicans, these anti-tax people, choose to not extend the Middle Class tax-cut unless it is linked with cutting unemployment insurance - therefore harming a large swath of the American population. Of course, economists also agree that unemployment benefits are economically stimulative, because they are spent immediately and thus pour money back into the economy. Of course, these same Republicans want to extend the Bush tax-cuts and refuse to raise taxes on the top 5% of wage-earners, earning of 300,000 a year - so apparently, its ok to raise taxes on those earning less than 300,000 and to cut unemployment benefits that might be the difference between eating and not eating or homelessness and lack thereof for many Americans, but it's not ok to tax the rich - not even to tax them just enough to offset the extra 1500 the middle-class would get from the payroll tax extension - talk about class warfare!

The truth is, its in the Republicans' best interest for Middle Class Americans to have 1,500 less, and for the American economy to tank - that way, they are more likely to vote Republican come 2012. Since the Republicans have admitted their number one goal is to unseat President Obama in 2012, it makes sense that they are pursuing that goal in the most expedient way possible - by actively trying to derail the US economy - and one needs only look at their legislative record if one wants proof.

Monday Morning Roundup

Listening in Africa:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/opinion/sunday/in-africa-the-art-of-listening.html?src=tp&smid=fb-share

Is the US becoming Latin America?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/opinion/sunday/on-the-middle-class-lessons-from-latin-america.html?pagewanted=all%3Fsrc%3Dtp&smid=fb-share

medical marijuana:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/10/opinion/medical-marijuana-and-the-memory-of-one-high-day.html?src=tp&smid=fb-share

scary - how much power corporations have:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/10/opinion/for-29-dead-miners-no-justice.html?src=tp&smid=fb-share

On Syria:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/08/opinion/in-syria-expelling-the-peacemakers.html?src=tp&smid=fb-share

helping the poor:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/opinion/to-fix-health-care-help-the-poor.html?src=tp&smid=fb-share

on the 1 percent and trickle-down theory:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/opinion/sunday/the-1-percent-clubs-misguided-protectors.html?src=tp&smid=fb-share

Republican Presidential Candidates

So Newt Gingrich, who loves causing bruhahas, caused a bruhaha -what a shocker. The LA Times quotes Gingrich as follows:" "I believe that the commitments that were made at the time – remember, there was no Palestine as a state,” Gingrich said. “It was part of the Ottoman Empire. And I think that we’ve had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs and were historically part of the Arab community. And they had a chance to go many places.” "

So as much as I dislike Gingrich (a man who cheats on his wife and had to pay fines for ethics violations when he was Speaker of the House is not quite my cup of tea), in this case, he was technically right: There never has been a state called Palestine ruled by Palestinians. There was supposed to be an Arab state under the partition plan that resulted in Israel's creation, but the Arab League rejected the plan, and Arab states declared war on Israel. The result of the war was territorial gains for Israel in what would have been the Arab state, and a massive refugee crisis as Arabs fled to neighboring Arab countries. The technicall definition of a Palestinian refugee is anyone who had to flee as a result of the war who was living in the British-Mandate area known as Palestine (ruled by the British) as of 46, which is hardly a long-lasting residency considering the war was in 48. Palestinian nationalism largely developed as a result of the refugee-dom of residents who until 48 had thought of themselves merely as Arabs living in the British-Mandate area called Palestie. Of course, the right to Palestinian statehood has been recognized in the Oslo Peace Process, which is an international treaty, but Gingrich had his facts right, because he places the official "making up" of Palestinian nationhood, and I guess it was "made up" by international law - but then again so were the nationhoods of many modern nation-states. I suppose now would be a good time to get into the difference between legal nation-states and the metaphysical concept of nationhood, but thats beyond the scope of a 5 am blog post.

The world's outcry aboutGingrich's comments show how we live in a world in which certain facts are swept under the rug because they are "politically incorrect". That is a major problem because it promotes ignorance and prevents honest discourse. Not to mention that when truths are hidden, injustices usually occur.

What really bothers me are Gingrich's other comments, in which he basically says that all Palestinians are terrorists (hello, racism) and lambasts the peace process (let's all get our shotguns and shoot em out back). And this is what bothers me about the right in general: They just don't get it. The origin of Palestinian statehood is irrelevant. There are currently millions of people - I call them Palestinians, you call them whatever you want - who are not about to go away (To right-wingers who want to send them to Arab states - get real.) So the solution is either permanent Israeli Occupation - not a real solution - a bi-national state - which neither side wants - or a two-state solution, which both sides have at least in theory, agreed to accept. By the way, Israel no longer occupies Gaza, and Hamas, which rules Gaza and still openly calls for destroying Israel, which is why I do distinguish between the West Bank and Gaza. So it's time to stop focusing on who is "right" or what happened on the past, and instead focus on what must be done if for non other than pragmatic reasons.

By the way, Gingrich's transparent pandering to the "Jewish vote", as if Jews all voted in a block (as a Jew, I can testify to the falseness of this assumption - rarely have I been at a Sabbath meal in which a political argument between Jews did not ensue), is disgusting, both because sucking up to a voting block(which is different than taking different ethnic/religious/socioeconomic groups' needs into account) is always distasteful, and because the concept of Jews being a powerful, united, voting bloc just plays into anti-Semitic sterotypes of Jewish power originating in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

As for my pick? I like John Hunstman - but unfortunately, the media has decided he does not have a chance, and therefore stopped covering him, thus insuring that in reality he will not stand a chance. Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy!

Here's a Crazy Idea

There is a lovely little economic cycle that goes as follows:

1. Signs of bad economy leads to economic fear. This fear leads to lack of spending, as people save in anticipation of a potential rainy day. 2. This lack of spending causes the economy to grow even worse, as businesses go out of business, causing people to lose jobs. As the economy grows even worse, people spend even less, which then causes more businesses to go out of business, which causes the economy to grow even worse, as even more people lose jobs. 3. The cycle continues.

Here's a crazy idea: Give everyone who pays 1,000 dollars or more in taxes a 200 dollar tax credit, where if they submit receipts proving they spent up to 200 dollars on anything other than groceries or medical expenses (the two things people are most likely to spend on even during economic hardship, and thus that they would be most likely to spend on sans tax credit), in a retail establishment or restaurant anyplace within their zipcode or up to two zipcodes over in any direction, then they get to pay 200 dollars less in taxes. This might not seem like a lot, but 200 dollars from each tax-paying household in the area would probably add up for the businesses in question, helping them to stay afloat. If each household spent 200 dollars more - yes, cummulatively that would probably have a slight positive effect on the economy.

The only thing is, the money might add up for the government as well and cut into its coffers. In that case, why not make the money tax-deductible, as opposed to giving an actual tax-credit? This would be similar to donations, which are currently tax-deductible, up to a certain amount of money. This would be less expensive for the government - it is not giving people back 200 dollars; rather, when it calculates their income, it is calculating it as if they earned 200 dollars less - so if you income is 5,000 dollars, now you will only be taxed on 4,8000 of those dollars (in reality, if you earn 5,000 dollars you probably won't pay any income tax).

Our country faces tough problems and needs creative solutions. Unfortunately, given today's political climate, it is hard for such solutions to become laws.

Howard Guttman

There has been a recent bruhaha about the statements of Howard Gutman about anti-Semitism. Obama reacted by conemning anti-Semitism in all its forms; some Jews felt the condemnation was not strong enough, and some Republicn presidential nominee hopefuls gote some RJC members all riled up about it at a recent RJC event.

I want to dissect the issue: First of all, giving a public speech on anything as potentially controversial as anti-Semitism, without clearing it with the State Dept., when you're an ambassador, is not ok, and it is not clear whether or not Gutman did so.

Second of all, the big "thing" is that Gutman distinguished between "classic" Western anti-Semitism, and current Muslim anti-Semitism. I do not think such a distinction is unwarranted, provided one is engaging in an intellectual history of the "reasons" for anti-Semitism - as Arendt did in her work "On the Origins of Totalitarianism". There is a big difference however, between a reason and a justification: If an African-American cut in front of me at the airport, causing me to miss my plane that I was catching in order to propose to my lover before he left for Australia, that might be my "reason" for being racist against African-Americans, but it would not be a justification. I beleive on of the tenents of modern liberal theory is that when it comes to discrimination and racism, a reason is never a good justification. Thus, terror attacks by Muslims might be a reason for Islamophobia, but they are not a justification for it. I also think that generally with racism, there is always a meta-reason comprised of the interations of various reasons, some of which play a greater role than others.

So the real questtion is not whether or not Gutman drew a distinction between classic and modern anti-Semitism, but whether he did so in the context of providing reasons for each, or whether he did in fact provide justifications for the latter. Unfortunately, it is hard to get hold of an exact quote. I found this one; ""A distinction should be made between traditional anti-Semitism, which should be condemned, and Muslim hatred for Jews, which stems from the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians". The addition of the words "which should be condemned", make it seem as if Gutman is indeed justifying current anti-Semitism, since the distinction between it and previous anti-Semitism is that unlike classic anti-Semitism, it should not be condemend.* This is the version of the quote that was circulating online and causing the scandal.

It seems however, that this was a misquote. In the online version of the remarks, seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhEkrhoiH9o

Gutman draws a distinction between the reasons for classic anti-Semitism and reasons for modern anti-Semitism among some Muslim or Arab emigrant communities in Europe, but he certainly does not justify or condone any type of anti-Semitism. Without the larger context of the speech, it is impossible to judge whether in tone it might have indeed been implicitly justifying it. But in any case, the truth does not matter - the misquote is the one stuck in people's minds, and the damage is hard to undo. It is much easier to dispel a positive reputation then a negative one - facts are not needed for the former, yet often prove insufficient for the latter.

A final note: Gutman is Jewish, and his father is a Polish Holocaust survivor. He has used his personal history to ward off accusations of anti-Semitism, but I do beleive one can be Jewish and anti-Semitic, or African-American and racist, and that sometimes remarks must be judged on their merits, regardless of the speaker's biography. On the other hand, sometimes that biography is relevant, and it can be hard to know where to draw the line.


* http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/06/quote-on-anti-semitism-misattributed-to-us-ambassador-doesnt-ease-criticism/

Hello?

I have not blogged for a while because, to be perfectly honest, politics has been too depressing to write about. I hope to fix that: My new resolution is to blog every other Monday, starting with this Monday - let's see if I can stick to my resolution.

My feelings about politics in America are complicated. My feelings about politics in Israel can be summed up by this op-ed in haaretz:

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/how-peace-vanished-from-israeli-discourse-1.400274

My fears can be summed up in this paragraph, lifted from the article: "If there is no peace, no dream and not even negotiations, something else will take their place. If the Palestinians' faint hope of freedom is doomed, they will be forced again to take another path. What else can they do? Wait around doing nothing for an entire generation? Sit idly by for two generations? Of course not. This vacuum will be filled by another circle of bloodshed, more horrible than the previous ones. The first uprising was the stone-and-knife intifada, the second was the suicide bombers' intifada. The third is likely to be even more violent."

Palestine

The Palestinians are taking their case for statehood to the UN. Most of Europe will support it, and it looks set to pass. Israel has been protesting, and managed to secure a UN veto.

Instead of stubbornly trying to prevent the inevitable however, Israel would be better off playing hardball: We are willing to support your bid, and even to sign a lasting agreement with your new state tomorrow, provided you meet our conditions: 1. control of the Old City of Jerusalem with a defensible perimeter around it to prevent a potential siege situation a la 1948 2. No Right of Return, however, Israel will give aid money to a repatriation fund run by your government, and will give numerous aid to your government. This sum should a) be distributed over a number of years to provide long-term aid b) be reasonable so as not to strain the Israeli government or its economy 3. working out the details of border control between the two countries.

This would make Israel look reasonable and peace-seeking both to Palestinians and to the larger world. It would also be a way of taking an inevitable fact and using it to get some benefits for Israel. As it is however, Israel can not support the Palestinian bid: It has already invested too much in convincing the US to oppose the bid. Doing an about face now will seem fickle and ungrateful, and therefore risk alienating Israel's best ally. Of course, Israel shouldn't have been using its political capital with the US in order to prevent statehood to begin with, but that's beside the point.

I would also urge Palestinians to aggressively pursue negotiations with Israel: The simple declaration of statehood sans negotiations will not change the daily lives of most Palestinians or help the financially ailing Palestinian Authority. Neither will it result in a step-down of Israeli troops - if anything it will result in a step-up, as security fears mount. True, statehood means the Palestinians could urge the UN to pass sanctions or take Israeli government officials to the ICC, but the UN is a slow bureaucracy ineffective at passing resolutions, and at enforcing those it does pass. Additionally, the US veto would be in place when it comes to sanctions, and prosecutions at the ICC don't stop a government from pursuing a certain policy: It took years of genocide in Sudan before the ICC began prosecuting Bashir. Even now, a final verdict has not been reached, and his government continues to pursue murderous policies - which means that the ICC's effect on the daily lives of the people whose rights Bashir violates has been negligible.

For these reasons, it is in the Palestinian people's best interest for their government to negotiate with the one party that can improve their daily lives, very quickly: Israel.

It takes two to tango. Time for both parties to come to the table.

Gun Control

Having read about a shoot-out in Nevada, involving an Ak-47 and a man whose family was concerned about his mental health, I am reminded of the tragic shooting in Arizona, involving an automatic weapon and a man about whom mental health concerns were raised.

As my heart goes out to the victims and their families, I hope that our society will start taking both gun control and mental health issues seriously. I firmly believe in the right of Americans to bear arms, but we must control a) which type of arms - civilians should not have military-grade weapons b) when such arms can be used and carried c) who can have such arms. There need to be stricter regulations about who can get permits, and stricter enforcement of those regulations. Mental health exams and background checks must be required. Additionally, gun-owners should be subjected to checks on their gun - every two year or so, a federal or state inspector should view where and how the gun is stored, since storing guns safely is an issue. This would also be an opportunity to chat with the gun-owner and make sure there are no red flags - if there are red flags, then there should be an investigation, during which the owner's gun may be taken away for safekeeping, to be returned to them if the investigation yields no results, or if they undergo treatment and are pronounced as properly rehabilitated by a mental health professional. The owner would be given notice - but short notice - about the inspection, and could delay it if able to prove they are on vacation, etc. Or perhaps owning a gun could require a yearly mental health checkup. It is true, such inspections and checkups are an invasion of privacy - but while Americans have the right to bear arms, individuals who choose to own guns must bear (no pun intended) the consequences: They are acquiring weapons that make them a potential public threat, and therefore must be willing to be monitored to make sure they do not in fact pose such a threat. Similarly, if the American taxpayer is not willing to foot the bill for making sure that the right to bear arms is carried out safely, he or she must not use that right.

As I write about yearly mental health checks for gun-owners, I have to say, I wish they were mandated and covered by health insurance for most of society. Our federal and local governments have invested less and less in mental healthcare, and we as a society are paying the price. Too many people are walking around with untreated mental illnesses. The combination of rampant untreated mental illness and available weapons is extremely combustible, not to mention fatal.

However, leaving aside the public safety threat, we as a society suffer in many ways from lack of mental healthcare - not only because many individuals are suffering, but also because each untreated patient brings along with them a cadre of friends and relatives whose lives are also affected - not to mention the wasted potential of both creative and economic productivity that is not being actualized due to mental health issues. It is only when we stop stigmatizing mental illness, and start taking it seriously, that we as a society will be able to feel safe, and to truly realize our potential as a nation.

Why Obama Lost

President Obama signed into office a debt bill that almost no one likes, but everyone concedes as necessary. I condemn the Republicans for playing political games with the country's economy, but I also acknowledge that President Obama lost at the game, and it will likely cost him the 2012 election.

Part of being a good poker player is knowing when to call someone's bluff; This is a skill that Obama clearly lacks, and in capitulating to the Republicans out of a fear that they would make good on their word to screw over the American economy, Obama gave in to a deal he did not want, and came out looking weak. He was unsuccesful at negotiating, and everybody knows it, because the deal he got is so different from what he asked for.

If President Obama had thought of his own political career, instead of the country's economy, he should have called their bluff: Let the economy go to peices, and then spend the next year convincing the American people that the bad economy is all the Republicans' fault for not raising the debt ceiling.

Instead, Obama refused to risk the country's economy. Passing a bill based on cuts, and not revenue increases, validates the Republican narrative that cuts are the only way to cut the deficit and improve the economy (and that revenue increases are actually harmful to that endeavor).

This raises an important question: If cuts are the way to go, and revenue-raising is either detrimental to or not that important to cutting the deficit and improving the economy, what was Obama kvetching about so much? Why didn't he give in earlier? If raising revenue is essential to cutting the deficit and improving the economy, then why did Obama give in? Was it because he was too weak to fight?

None of the answers to these questions reflect well on the president: At the best, he seems like a well-intentioned but weak leader. At the worst, he seems like a pragmatistic ready to give up on what is best for the nation.

President Obama had an opportunity to outline a vision of what America should be, and how we should cut the deficit and improve the economy. Instead, he came up with a vision of compromise - it does not matter what America should be or how we balance the budget and improve the economy, as long as Americans of all political stripes have a say in how we do so. The problem is, that during times of economic crisis (or any other type of crisis, for that matter) people do not want wishy-washy visions of comrpomise: They want strong, clearly outlined visions. That is part of why demagogues, such as Hitler and Stalin, two men with strong visions, often take power during economic crisis. The other thing people seek during crisis is strength: With all the uncertainty around them, they expect certainty from their leaders. This certainty comprises not just a clearly defined vision, but also the strength to implement that vision, and not waver from it. Again, this is why demagogues like Hitler and Stalin (two men who I abhor) rise to power in times of crisis.

That is why, unless the economy improves a lot between now and 2012, or some very unpredictable pro-Obama political development takes place, Obama is likely to lose the 2012 election: Unless the situation is such that people feel less of that almost visceral need for stability from the leader, or Obama proves to the American people that he is the stable leader that they need, with stability being comprised of clear vision and the strength to carry it through, we will likely be looking at a new Republican white house.

Gay Marriage in NY

I would like to contrast the Congressional Republicans' refusal to compromise and determination to put politics ahead of the nation's interest, with the principled decision of the NY State Senate Republicans, many of whom chose to vote with their conscience, even at great risk to their political careers.

The victory of the gay marriage legislation was not just a victory for the GLBTQ* or for lovers of equality, but also, for the American people: It was an example of the beauty of American democracy at work, of a concern for the rights and well-being of one's constituents trumping political ambition, of concern for America's well-being trumping parisan politics. Because of that, I strongly urge all Americans to support those Republicans, even if they do not see eye-to-eye with them on all the issues: I beleive having principled politicians who work for the good of the people is ultimately more important than what their principles are and whether or not we agree exactly on what that good is.

I also think the LGBTQ* must get behind those politicians and show them that it is doing their best to get them re-elected. This is not a question of grattitude**, but rather of realpolitik. If politicans feel that voting for gay rights will not only get them the support and votes of the LGBTQ community, but also, that that community do its best to get them the votes of straight people as well, then they are more likely to do so. If, on the other hand, they feel that voting for gay rights either a) will not necessarily win them the LGBTQ community's loyalty, if there are other issues the LGBTQ community disagrees with them on, or b) that such support will not translate into a real effort to get them re-elected, then they are less likely to do so. Basically, turn voting for gay rights into a political gain, not a political loss. This may seem unfair: Essentially, it is saying that LGBTQ voters should be one-issue voters. It is unfair. However, many groups have turned themselves into a one-issue voting bloc with great success. An example is the Christian right, which has turned itself into a two-issue bloc: anti-abortion and anti-gay rights. The Republicans consistently fight for policies that economically disadvantage many of their voters, but get away with it, because they know that as long as they oppose abortion and gay rights, they will still get elected. That is why it is so hard to get gay rights legislation passed - unless the GLBTQ lobby decides that it will vote for candidates if and only if they support gay marriage, regardless of their other policies. But it is up to the lobby -and to individuals - to ask themselves if that is a price they beleive it is worth paying.

At the end of the day, it would be to allow society to reduce one's existence as a political being to one's sexual identity - which is in it and of itself a victory for the heteronormative patriarchy.

* I am so egal: Alternating between putting "Lesbian" and "Gay" first.

** On the one hand, its always nice to show grattitude. On the other hand, providing someone with equal rights should not be considered doing them a favor - or should it, if doing so involves putting one's political career on the line?

The Debt Ceiling

It is a universally acknowledged economic fact that not raising the debt ceiling would put the American economy in the toilet.

So what the Republicans are basically saying to Obama is: If you don't do what we want, we will put the American economy in the toilet.

I don't understand how the American people are not outraged that the Republicans are using the economic future of our country - ie, the livelihoods of most Americans - to play political games.

The alternative version of this story is that the Republicans want to compromise with Obama in order to raise the debt ceiling.

So they are saying: If you only do some of what we want, we'll be nice, and won't destroy the American economy.

I don't think that not causing a second Great Depression should be an issue that one imposes conditions about, even if one is willing to compromise on some of those conditions. Of course, the real problem is that Republicans have proven unwilling to compromise: They are not even willing to agree to not giving millionares tax breaks on corporate jets, let alone actually compromise on any real issues.

There are two major ways to get rid of debt: A. Cut spending B. Raise revenue ie increase taxes. As President Obama said in today's press conference, both are necessary. The Republicans are refusing to even acknowledge the existence of option B. This is the equivalent of what the Republicans are doing:

Republicans: Honey, I am sorry, but we can't afford to get you a new car - oh, and we'll have to cut down on your diabetes medication - it's too expensive.

America: But without the car I can't get to work and will lose my job, so we'll have no money and might even have our house, which still has a mortage on it, go into foreclosure.

Republicans: That's too bad.

America: But honey, I thought your boss offered you a job with higher salary.

Republicans: Yeah, but I can't take it, because it the money from that higher salary would be coming out of my boss's paycheck.

America: What do you care about his paycheck?

Republicans: My boss uses some of that money to buy you nice gifts on your birthdays. You wouldn't want to lose out on that trickle down effect would you?

America: I'd rather you take some of his money so I can afford my diabetes medication.

Republicans: Now honey, don't be unreasonable. Let's work out a compromise. Maybe if we also cut down on food bills, we can afford the car.

America: But I need to eat!

Republicans: No, you only think you do. Actually - scrap that. Let's cut down on food and medicine, and not get you the car. But I am sure we can reach some sort of compromise about the car issue.

I think it's time the couple in this scene got a divorce. I am just waiting for the American people to come to the same conclusion.

Thoughts on President Obama's Recent Middle East Speeches

While I can understand disagreeing with the vision outlined in President Obama's recent Middle East speeches, I do not understand using them as a basis to call him anti-Israel. In them, he has reaffirmed Israel's right to exist, the strong bonds between the US and Israel, a commtiment to Israeli security and preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, and condemned the Hamas-Fatah unity while stating that Israel can not be expected to negotiated with a terrorist group callng for its destruction, that a Palestinian state must be de-militarized, and opposing the PA's move to seek statehood at the UN.

Furthermore, it seems to me that the entire concept of land-for-peace is based on the ceding most post-67 terriotires - ie, basing it off of the 1967 borders, though not necessarily going back to the exact borders of 48 - which is exactly what Obama has stated, as he clarified today what he meant by :67 borders with mutually agreed upon landswaps, and has been the policy of both every Israeli and every American administration since the days of Rabin and Clinton. To expect Obama to be more "pro-Israe;" ie, right-wing, than that, woild be expecting him to essentially endorse a one-state solution, and be more right-wing than any of his predecessors, as well as large swathes of the Israeli public.

Most people complain about Obama's "tone", which is a very vague term. Others point to his stormy relationship with Netanyahu, however, Netanhyahu, while brilliant, is a rather tempermental man whom it is hard not to have a stormy relationship with. Furthermore, from day one, both the American and Israeli Jewish publics have perceived Obama as anti-Israel, and every positive overture of his has gone unnoticed, while any even slightly leftwing remark has garnder dispropoprtionate outrage. It is no wonder Obama is not moree pro-Israel: A relatinship with a people who had you pegged as an enemy from day one, and do not seem open to changing their mind, who show disgrattitude at any positive overture but complain heavily at any misstep and offer no forgiveness, must by definition be a hard relationship, and at a certain point efforts at appeasing them may seem futile, causing you to give up. It is to President Obama's credit that he has not done so.

President Obama is president of the US, not of Israel. While we, as American Jews, have a right to advocate on behalf of Israel - that is one of the beauty's of democracy, that different minority groups can advocate for different causes - we must keep in mind that ultimately, his mandate is to protect the best interests of the United States, and he can only be as pro-Israel as that mandate allows him to be. If we want a government tasked with the mandate of protecting the best interests of Jews first, then we should move to Israel.

Lastly, a question to friends who do reject land for peace: What do you see as the solution? The only solution I can see, aside from land for peace, is the status quo: Israel ruling over a large population of Palestinians who are not citizens, turning it into a country whose military occupation becomes part of its national fabric - something that i beleive is bad for civil society, and ultimately dangerous, since occupied peoples will rise up, and history shows that when they do, they might not play fair and might target civilians. This is a case in which the threat of a Palesitnian-Israeli official war, scary as it is, almost pales beneath the threat of terror. The other solution is for Israel to become apartheid: A state in which the Palestinians in certain areas of the country are denied citizenship and basic human rights, not as part of a temporary military occupation until a peaceful solution can be worked out, but as part of the permanent status quo. Neither of these "solutions" is acceptable to me, since I beleive they violate the concept of Jewish democracy that is one of the foundations of Zionism as laid out by David Ben Gurion in Israel's Declaration of Independence, and since I beleive occupation and apartheid both rot away a society at the roots, thus harming even the "privileged" groups.

Sex Scandals and Politics

Recently, between Gingritch and Shwarzenneger, it seems like there have been a lot of politician sex scandals on the news. I am not quite sure why it matters whether or not a politician has had an affair; I beleive that a person's personal life is usually not a good indicator of the politician they will be; a good man can be a terrible governor, president, etc., and vice versa.

I guess sex scandals touch on the question: How important is a politician's personal morality? I do beleive that while the answer is generally: "Not that important.", there is an exception to that rule: It is important if a politician commits a gross immorality in their personal life, because that does indicated that their code of ethics is such that they might act immorally once in power, either by a) acting in their own best interest and not those of the state or b) not remaining loyal to supporters/not tyring to adhere to the platform on which they were elected, thus sabotaging the entire democratic process, which hinges on the principal that by choosing candidates, you are choosing policies. (At least in the US; there are countries where you vote for parties, not candidates, and those are a different cup of coffee.)

If one takes this exception to the rule, then it would matter whether or not a politician stole a large sum of money, but not whether they once shoplifted during a drunk night in college. It would matter to me whether they had a history of treating those in positions below them like crap, because that speaks to a basic lack of respect for humans, which I view as a gross immorality. While I do view affairs as immoral, I would not hold a politician who had a one-time affair politically responsible for his action, provided a) he did not lie b) he appeared genuinely contrite about it - as Shwarzenneger appears to be. I would however, hold politicians with multiple affairs (bespeaking not a one-time mistake, but rather a way of life/general attitude towards their marriage) or who dealt poorly with their affairs (example: Jon Edwards) or had affairs in particularly immoral situations (ex. Gingritch, who supposedly had an affair when his wife had cancer - I can not find a reputable source for this) politically responsible.

I can not decide if those who castigate politicians for their personal lives are holding our politicians to a higher standard, or simply define any affair as a gross immorality. Mostly however, I suspect that they are either just muckracking, or muckracking in the hopes of discrediting whichever politician/political party they happen to oppose. That makes me very sad.

The Changing Face of the Middle East

The world has changed: Egypt is no longer under Mubarak's power, and protests have erupted in Libya and Bahrain, both of which have effectively kicked out/intimidated reporters, though some footage is still being sneaked out by brave local residents.

Many people are afraid of some Muslim extremist takeover. Of course, there is a possibility that Muslim extremis groups could take over, for a variety of reasons: 1. Those groups were the only viable opposition for a long time, meaning both that they are popular, and that they are better-organized than other groups. In other words, they are good at politics and are facing opponents who do not have as much experience playing the game. 2. They may take over through violence or revolution.

In the second scenario, the most likely outcome is an anti-Western state of imposed religious law, like Iran perhaps. In the first scenario, it is possible that there will be a state in which the state religion is Islam, religious practices are encouraged by law, and religious education is state-funded, but there is still a sort of freedom of religions for non-Muslims, and the question will be to what extent. Veiling may or may not be optional. It may be the non-Muslims will have complete religious freedom. Perhaps laws will simply maintain that one adhere to their religion - thus, Coptic law for Coptic, Muslim law for Muslims, etc. It is also possible, however, that even if democratically elected, an Islamist party will impose authoritarian rule. Fareed Zakaria, in his book "The Future of Freedom", explains how often democratically elected governments may impose illiberal regimes. Indeed, in unstable countries, it is very likely that democratically elected governments will do so, in part, because people's need for security may lead them to vote for regimes they know will be authoritarian. Hamas is a prime example of a democratically elected government that is anti-Western, funds religious education institutions that preach hatred, started a war with a Western ally, and severely curtails religious freedom, both by opressing non-Muslims and by not providing protection for Muslims who may wish to break religious rules. Zakaria beleives in a gradual process of liberlization and infrastructure building which must lay the groundwork for democracy before it can take effect. Libya and Bahrain, and to a lesser extent, Egypt, have not gone laid that groundwork.

Revolution by and for the people is a beautiful thing, but it has its dangers. One need only look at the French Revolution and its Reign of Terror in order to figure that out. If a stable government is not imposed soon after the old one is deposed, revolutions get swept up in their own excesses, until a new regime arises to impose security through violence. Thus, the revolution in Egypt will only be as succesful as the new military transitional government and the future elected government.

As for Libya and Bahrain, it is to soon to tell what will happen, since their leaders still sit on their waning thrones, ignoring the lessons of Louis: If he had accepted the National Assembly, he may not have ended with his head in a guillotine. Instead, he remained stubborn, and with each refusal to accept the will of the people, he only succeeded in further angering them. Then again, Louis did not have the military force of Libya and Bahrain, and guns may work miracles for silencing people, especially when you then deny them medical treatment, as Bahrain has done.

Thus, the immediate picture in the Middle East looks extremely unstable. The long-term picture however, if democracy can succeed, is one of much more stability than preceded the revolutions, one of liberal values, peace, and economic health. Such an environment would be less conducive to recruitment by terrorist groups, and thus enhance world peace and security.

It can even be hoped that the people of Gaza will finally rise up against Hamas, who has opressed its people terribly since taking office.

In the meanwhile, it is in the interest of the US to make sure democracy succeeds - the stakes are too high to let it fail, both because of the ensuing instability and spread of extremism if it fails, and because of the lessening of the terror threat and the blow to extremist Islam if it succeeds. Thus, the US should be allocating funds to help Egypt build economic infrastructure, perhpas even giving micro-lends to Egyptians who want to start small businesses, and be teaching political parties how to organize. It should do the same for Libya and Bahrain, should the moment come. This investment in the health of Egyptian democracy should be seen as an investment in American security - and that is priceless.

Egypt: A US Foreign Policy Quandary

The Egypt situation is difficult for the US from a foreign relations perspective. If the US supports the protesters, it will be seen as an unworthy ally who betrays her friends at opportune moments - a reputation which obviously bodes ill for future US alliances.

On the other hand, if she support Mubarak, she is seen as not supporting freedom and democracy - an especially hypocritical decision given her history, as well as her long military experiment with "bringing democracy to Iraq". America will be seen as supporting a dictatorial tyrant simply for her own convenience (Mubarak is a definite US ally, but who knows what a new government would look like, especially if the Muslim Brotherhood is involved...). If the US actively gets involved, not only will it be seen as meddling to prevent democracy and as supporting a tyrant, but it will also be seen as an imperialist state that uses its power to meddle in world affairs, and will probably gain the anger of the Arab world, since this will only confirm suspicions that the US is ready, willing, and able to use it military and economic force to shape the Middle East to its wishes, thereby denying Middle Easterners the freedom to choose by whom and how they wish to be governed, and, by extension, how they wish to live. This will also harm Mubarak, who will be seen as a US puppet government - This is already a critique by Al Queda of many governments in the Middle East, and making it seem true could be detrimental to US security. Of course, the US can not let "not pissing Al Queda off" be the guiding force of its foreign policy, since that would involve pretty much folding ourselves into a hole and letting the whole world overtake us, since it is America's very existence that it is Al Queda's source of discontent. In this case however, there is a widespread Arab fear that the US wants to rule the Middle East indirectly by installing puppet governments or controlling pre-existing governments through economic incentives (ie bribes in the form of aid), and it seems unwise to play into that.

Meanwhile, as the US wisely refuses to take sides, though it would be better if it were not so obvious that it was biding its time. Meanwhile, it is said that private jets are flying out of Egypt. Presumably, this is because Egyptian higher-ups anticipate a revolution, and want to get out of harm's way before the new regime kicks in. I wonder if Hosni Mubarak was on one of those planes. If so, it would be catastrophic for Egypt, since chaos would ensue, and traditionally, chaos plays to survival of the fittest, with the most brutish thug literally clubbing (or shooting) his way to the top, and taking power. In Egypt, there is an additional concern that this thug could be anti-Western, or perhaps even associated with terrorist groups, thereby threatening the balance in the whole Middle East, and implying anti-Western takeovers throughout the region. This threat is very acute given the Muslim Brotherhood's increasing role in the action on Egyptian streets.

Mubarak still has time to save himself, but not much. In order to do so, he must a) stop trying to pass his reign over to his son, though his son can be put up as a candidate by his party in a truly democratic election, which leads to b) Mubarak must institute true democratic reforms, including (but not limited to) freedom of speech and press, as well as truly democratic elections. In taking away access to social media and imposing curfews, Mubarak can only increase anger and exacerbate the foment by feeding the very causes that led to it in the first place.

Mubarak should learn from King Louis of France, who could have kept his head if he would have acquiesced to the demmands of the National Assembly - instead, every time he tried clamping down on the revolution, he radicalized it by increasing discontent with the government. Interestingly, in France, as in Egypt, one of the major issues was a stagnant economy and high food prices. Egypt has high unemployment rates, and a lack of economic infrastructure - which is part of why Mubarak is so terrified of democracy: It may mean an end to his reign, since his regime has failed to provide the Egypt with prosperity. In general, having a democracy means that governments have to respond to the people's needs to stay in power - and it is Mubarak's unresponsiveness that is causing the foment in the streets, and that is why Mubarak fears a democratic election. Of course, part of his fear is a legitimate fear for Egypt's safety if the Muslim Brotherhood takes power - which is part of why the US has supported his regime.

No matter what happens in Egypt, taken together the revolutions in Tunis and Lebanon, it shows that a new moment has started in Middle Eastern history, where people who are fed up literally taking matters into their own hands - could it be that true democracy is coming to the Middle East? I hope so. However, as Fareed Zakaria points out in his book, "The Future of Freedom", democratic elections can often lead to despotic governments taking power by democratic means - especially in countries that are already unstable. I hope that will not happen here -hopefully, any governments that take power by democratic means will know that the people of the Middle East are too thirsty for freedom to allow a democratic government to not stay that way, and will fear that a turn towards despotism would result in them meeting the same downfall as their predecessors.

Here's to the day when all the world's people live in freedom - as FDR put it, freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.

Political or Social? Thoughts on the Tucson Tragedy

I have not been writing much about events lately. There has been a lot going on in the world (there always is), but at a certain point, I became too disenchanted to engage in analysis.

It seems that the media is obsessed with political problems and their solutions. Of course, both the left and the right have been excited to spin the Gabrielle Giffords incident for political gain. Ultimately however, the shooting was a result of societal, not political, problems.

It is very likely that loose gun-control laws played a role in the shooting: Arizona's loose gun-laws meant that Loughner did not need a permit to carry a weapon in public, while loose enforcement of license-requirements meant that he could get a gun license and obtain a gun legally despite mental health and agression issues that should have been red flags and prevented him from doing so, while the new laws allowing 30-round ammunition means he fired that many more rounds (10-15 more, to be exact) before he had to reload - and it was the act of reloading that allowed him to be apprehended. Even Dick Cheney is saying that it may be time to go back to 10-15 round limits for civilians.

These loose gun-control laws however, would not have been an issue, were it not for the societal issues that led for Loughner to take advantage of them - whether those social issues are lack of adequate care for mentally ill, a violent society, or a society that takes political invective literally.

To put it another way: As a democracy, perhaps our loose gun-laws are merely a political manifestation of the state of our society - certainly it is the attachment of a loud and powerful group of Americans to their guns, and the lobbying they do, that prevents meaningful gun-law reform from getting passed in Congress.

There are two basic ways of looking at the tragedy, and they are not necessarily mutually exclusive: 1. This was the work of a madman 2. This was due to violent political rhetoric. Both are social issues.

1. If this was the work of a madman, then we as a society must ask ourselves three questions:1. Does America have a higher rate of mental ilness and if so, why? 2. Did this man have proper access to mental healthcare/are we providing such access to mentally ill people? 3. How could this man have been allowed to be free if he was dangerous?

The last two questions are not identical. In the wake of the attack, people have been asking why this man was not institutionalized. The answer is very simple: In America, we have the concept of "least restrictive alternative" - one can only be locked up if a) they pose a definite danger to themself and/or others b) a less restrictive alternative would not prevent them from being a danger to themselves or others. Often, out-patient treatment and medication are enough to make the patient safe for her/himself and others. This makes the more salient question 2: Why are we as a society not providing adequate mental healthcare? Often, patients lack access to outpatient care, which can lead to a revolving door situation: The patient deteriorates to the point where they require hospitalization, is released the minute they don't, does not receive proper care outside the institution, so they detiriorate and are re-hospitalized, starting the cycle all over again. Loughner may have not required institutionalization - but he did require mental health services that he was not getting.

2. Loughner most likely had some mental problems - the question is to what extent. Did those problems prevent him from distinguishing right from wrong - an essential component of an Not Criminally Responsible mental health defense? It is possible that, though he had some problems, he still was enough in control of himself and in contact with reality to be responsible for his actions.

In any event, even a madman does not operate in a vaacum and may be influenced by the political and social climate around him - which is why Loughner's potential mental ilness and the violence of recent political rhetoric are not mutually exclusive.

The issue with the violence of political rhetoric however, is that ultimately, it is a social, not political, problem. It basically means that we as a society frame our politics in terms of violence, which must indicate an underlying tendency towards violence or desire for violence in our society - if not, then the violent rhetoric would be unsuccesful - it would not resonate with voters, and politicians would stop using it. Instead, it has been succesful, which is why it has increased - politicians have responded to voter attitude as much as voters have responded to politicians' invective.

True, the line between politics and society in a democracy is murky. Our media both shapes and is shaped by political rhetoric, and our society is both shaped by and shapes the media. But I find that the recent trend of pinning responsibility on politicians and governments, is disempowering, as well as inaccurate - surely no objective analyst can disregard the role of society, even though they may argue over the extent of that role.

This trend has also appeared in media and government analysis of two global conflict zones: Sudan and Israel.

Sudan recently had peaceful elections. The world is holding its breath, as Western governments and NGOs give themselves pats on the backs. The simple truth is however, these elections were successful in a large part thanks to Sudanese society, which was desperate to avoid war, precisely because their country has been ravaged by it for so many years. The true pat on the back should go to the Sudanese people.

Western governments also view events in Israel through a political lens: There are countless efforts to engage in political negotiations and come up with political treaties. There are very few efforts however, to change society, even though society is the place where peace starts. Western governments would be much better off supporting grassroots peace-efforts on the ground, and NGOs that work with Israelis and Palestinians to promote peace, then trying to impose a peace-deal neither side is ready for. Indeed, in the West Bank, where the Palestinian Authority has engaged in real efforts to improve the economy and people's standard of living, violence has tapered off naturally, because the society is now concerned with its economic growth, and violence is bad for the economy.

Some of the most succesful NGOs, such as KIVA and Iqbal Quadir's efforts to provide individual Bangladeshis with cellphones, are so succesful precisely because they empower inviduals to change the society around them, rather than imposing change from the top. Often, the change each individual makes may seem infintisimal - one family, one community, one village - but it all adds up, and somehow, in its gestalt, the whole of the change made by these individuals is more than just the some of its parts.

In a democracy, changing politics means changing society. It is time to turn to NGOs like KIVA and the Grameen Bank, which won a Nobel Prize, to learn how to do so - and to understand that such change might happen gradually, one person at a time.