Decision to Discontinue This Blog (For now)

I've decided to discontinue this blog for the moment, and not just because I have no time, and want to spend as little as possible of my time on the internet - though both of those things are true.

I've decided to discontinue this blog, because I made aliyah - and that means that I have committed myself, one hundred percent, to Israel. This does not mean that her flaws have gone away, or that I no longer see them, but it does mean that I am not willing to sit here, going over her flaws with a microscope, and broadcasting them to the world. To me, commitment implies intimacy, and - the Hebrew phrase is "a good eye"* - I will define it as: a conscious effort to see everything, even the flaws, in a positive light.

This does not mean ignoring the problems of Israeli society - if anything, part of the reason I made aliyah was to help solve those problems - but solving those problems does not, for me, at this current time, necessitate blogging about them. If anything, I think one of the most positive ways we can impact a society, is by moving there, and being the best people we can be, and raising our kids to have the values we would like to impart onto society. (A friend of mine wrote a great blog-post about macro vs micro changes in society, that I wanted to link to, but I can't find it!)

Anyhow, this is not to say that I've stopped being critical or cynical - for goodness sakes, I sometimes read advice columns just so I can secretly laugh at the people writing in, and I recently attended a comedy show about the Holocaust. (It was Jews doing the joking, so it was ok.) But I don't want to live a life that focuses on criticism, or on cynicism - because I believe that one of the best ways we can serve God, one of the best ways we can help society, is by being happy, for it is from joy that kindness flows. **

So I want to wish us all, more joy than any of us could ever imagine, and let us use this joy, to serve God and to help each other.

Thank you for reading, and I am always happy to be cynical in person, over a cup of coffee :)


* Ethics of the Fathers, Chapter 2, Mishnah 12. Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakay asks his students which is the good way for a person to follow. The responses are: Rabbi Eliezer - a good eye. Rabbi Joshua - a good friend. Rabbi Yosse - a good neighbor. Rabbi Shimon - one who weighs the outcomes of his actions. Rabbi Elazar - a good heart. Rabbi Yochanan rules that "a good heart" is the right answer, because it includes all of the answers given by the other students. For the text in Hebrew: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/b/h/h49.htm
** עבדו את ה בשמחה באו לפניו ברננה (תהילים ק: ב)
תהילים ב: יא - עבדו את ה בשמחה, גילו ברעדה
איך משלבים בין שני הפסוקים?

Israel

There was an op-ed in today's NY Times, maintaining that Israeli leaders have a 1.5 percent doctrine, wherein they consciously desire to maintain control of the West Bank, and deny the Palestinians a state. I think this thesis is completely false, however, I do think that Israeli leaders have too long maintained the status quo, figuring that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", not realizing just how "broke" it is. Of course, there are legitimate security concerns: Terrorist attacks have gone down, and the PA works with Israeli security forces to maintain that reality. At the same time, much of the PA-controlled media fuels anti-Israel or even anti-Semitic material, and because there still is an occasional attack - such as the brutal murder of a settler family last year - Israelis still live in fear of attack. Fear is inherently irrational, and many Israelis fear that compromise with the PA means compromising their own safety.

Israeli politicians take advantage of that fear: They use it to get elected, and once in office, use it to be lazy. Let's get one thing straight: Israel's main enemy is not Iran. Israel's main enemy is Israel. The social problems of the society, in which different segments are pitted against each other, along with corrupt politicians and an inept beaurocracy, are the true threats to Israel. But Iran makes a convenient scapegoat, allowing Netanyahu not to deal with any of Israel's real problems, like rising inequality, culture wars between Haredi and secular society, and growing racism against Arabs - of course, since Arabs, despite their legal equality, are in effect considered second-class citizens, it is doubtful Netanyahu would care about that anyway. That is not to say Iran is not dangerous - any totalitarian regime that preaches genocidal rhetoric should be prevented from getting a nuclear weapon, and Israel is right to worry. But Netanyahu takes advantage of this legitimate worry, to turn it into irrational fear, so he can avoid having to talk about other issues.

Let's take, for example, the recent lynching of an Arab youth in downtown Jerusalem: While the majority of Israelis, both politicians and civilians, were horrified and condemned the attack, the incident is indicative of a rising tide of racism within Israel. This is becoming a society increasingly obsessed with the fear of being contaminated by the Other. But that is not surprising: In Israel, different segments of society live in complete isolation from each other, and discrimination is considered normal. Even the rabbinic right's obsession with "proper" conversion is in part, motivated by fear of contamination and miscegenation. While most Israelis condemned the attack, had low-level social racism not been tolerated as an inevitable part of society, the high-level, violent racism would have had a harder time taking root. This tolerance of intolerance comes from a perception that racism is not "our" problem, it is the problem of the Other, who is being discriminated against. In reality, however this is "our problem" because a society characterized by racism and intolerance is an unhealthy society, where different factions cannot work together for the good of society. It is a society too torn apart by bickering to progress, and a society characterized by the opposite of human kindness, which is an essential ingredient of a healthy society. After all, how can there be social justice without it?

What does this have to do with the Occupation? Well, the Occupation leads to racism against Palestinians, which is the key racism from which all others flow. You see, the Occupation puts many Israelis in positions where they are seeing the Palestinians as the enemy, the military target, and the inferior, since these Israelis are in a position of power when they serve in the West Bank. Furthermore, the Occupation begets its own logic: Humans cannot live with cognitive dissonance, thus, racist actions necessitate racist ideologies, and not vice versa. That is why racism against Africans and African-Americans did not really take off until the Atlantic Slave Trade and the Colonial Era. The roots were there beforehand, but they did not blossom into a full-blown racist ideology until afterwards, when such an ideology was needed to justify acts in progress. Once there is racism against Palestinians, all other groups that are not mainstream Ashkenazi Jews can then be classified by their proximity to Palestinians: First Israeli Arabs, then Sudanese (non-Jews), then Sephardim from Middle Eastern Countries. Each degree of difference from Palestinians, is a degree less of racism that the offending group will have to experience.

The NY Times op-ed maintained that making Palestinians full Israeli citizens, while officially annexing the West Bank, is an option for peace. I agree with that in principle, but have two objections: 1. Is that what the Palestinians want? I suspect it would leave their desire for statehood unsatisfied. 2. Terrorism takes a while to die out. Is it a security risk to suddenly have no borders between Palestinians and Israelis? After all, imposing said borders or security checks would make the Palestinians second-class citizens, but not doing so would fail to take into account residual anger from Palestinian radicals that would not be appeased by making them Israeli citizens.

If these two objections can be satisfactorily answered, I could support such a measure. Meanwhile however, I think Israel should ask itself why it has become the society that it is today. Personally, I believe it comes down to the very definition of a Jewish State: Right now, in Israel, there is rudimentary Biblical education, official Jewish holidays, and official government sponsorship of a corrupt rabbinate that controls marriage and divorce proceeding for all Israelis, while controlling the lives of religious Israelis in such a way that you sometimes wonder if they don't wake up in the morning asking "How can I make people so disgusted with Judaism that they'll want to become not-religious today?". That is not my definition of a Jewish State, or of Zionism.

What is my definition?: An Israeli state that is not afraid to seriously engage in its own Jewish identity, by having an in-depth yet non-coercive Jewish education curriculum which all schools - secular and public - must follow. This curriculum should include some units on Islam and Christianity as well, taking into account those minorities and focusing on similarities between the three religions, as well as the way that knowledge of the Jewish tradition can helps us to be ethical, involved people in the modern world. Such a society does not have to obsess over the Other, because it is building a society built on shared common values, not on "who is less like you than I am". It is building a positive identity, defined by what we share, not a negative one, defined by what we do not share with others. Furthermore, perhaps such an Israel would not feel the need to patronize a radical rabbinate as a way of proving its Jewishness to itself, a way of passing the basic requirement of being a Jewish State, so that it can justify its own existence. Such an Israel would be too confident in its identity as a Jewish State to sell that identity to a bunch of rabbis. Maybe it would even be confident enough that it could start discussing Isaiah's musings on social justice, in the context of a debate on how to build a better society. Maybe it could discuss how there is space within the Jewish tradition to debate the demerits of extreme inequality, without destroying the capitalist system. This would certainly be a state I would be proud to be part of, because it would be a state in the process of growing, of finding itself - and what could be more Jewish than that? Isn't that what Abraham did from the moment God told him to leave his father's house? Isn't that why we have the concept of yearly repentance, because every year is a step towards becoming our better selves? If nothing else, this State would be a State where an Arab and a Jew could sit down on a bentch and kvetch together about the upcoming test on the life of Mohammed, and story of Genesis - because nothing cements social bonds like complaining about a class while munching on chocolate.

Critiquing Israel?

 Being part of an ethnic and cultural minority can be a very rewarding experience: I feel blessed to be able to balance my Brazilian, Jewish (Israeli?) and American heritages. Nothing is more delicious than a Thanksgiving meal of falafel and pumpkin pie, topped with some guarana and sonho de valsa - and don't even get me started on my love of mixing belly-dancing with samba and the latest hits from Lady Gaga.

But this rich complexity also comes with its own challenges: Recently, I find my desire to publicly criticize Israel competing with a feeling that to do so would transgress some unstated rules of group loyalty. I try to tell myself that I want to criticize Israel for the same reason we often don't tolerate in loved ones what we tolerate in casual acquantances (and hence wind up picking stupid fights with said loved ones.*): In a certain sense, critique is a sign of caring. Then, there is also the fear that maybe your loved one's misdeeds are caused by your own wrong action - parents, for example, often freak out at kids' misdeeds because they fear it reflects negatively on their own parenting abilities. Every time Israel does something "wrong", I consider myself partially responsible. Some might say I am taking the rabbinic statement "All of Israel are responsible for each other" a bit too seriously, but I actually think that phrase contains a larger truth: All micro-members of a society are partially responsible for the society's shape as a macro-unit. If I bear less responsibility for Israel's social woes, that is only because recently I've been less a part of Israeli society, having been abroad since November. At the same time, as someone who has been spending at least two months a year in Israel since I'm eighteen, I can't really say I'm completely divorced from that society, and thus, completely guilt-free. In fact, now that I am living in the US, I also feel responsible for the US's social flaws, however, I feel less guilty about critiquing it, simply because its the most powerful country in the world. My words are not going to harm the US, though they might (hopefully) inspire just a bit of social change.

Israel however, is a severely embattled nation. It faces terrorism threats from within, not to mention hostile neighbors with nuclear ambitions. Then, there is the sheer amount of anti-Semitism disguised as anti-Israelism. That is not to say that anti-Israelism equals anti-Semitism, simply that anti-Semitism often finds anti-Israelism as a useful disguise to wear in a politically correct world.** For all I know, some random neo-Nazi could stumble across my blog, take one anti-Israel sentence out of context, and then use it in an argument to convince some naive and ignorant internet-junkie to join the cause. That kind of terrifies me.

I keep on telling myself that criticism is the first step both to taking action, and to inspiring others to do so. I also look to the prophets, who were about as critical of Israel as they come***, but then again, they tended to prophecize in Hebrew (except for Ezekiel, whose Aramaic differs greatly from the Judeo-Aramaic of the Talmud.****) and not only did they prophecize within Israel, but they also often did so at the Temple Mount, which would kind of be the equivalent of me walking into a synagogue today and yelling about the Occupation. That is extremely different than criticizing Israel in English, via the internet, which makes it available to an  international group of strangers.

Yet I do not wish to switch over to Hebrew - not just because at this point in my life, writing in English comes easier to me (that could change if I started writing in Hebrew again, as I used to do in highschool, when I spoke Hebrew nearly everyday of my life, as opposed to now, when I rarely use it), but also because I want my writing to be available to English-speaking people, and I want it specifically to resonate within the American Jewish community, which is very involved in Israel in a variety of ways.

I suppose my critique of Israel stems from my vision of Zionism: Theodor Herzl saw Israel basically as a modern nation state that happened to have Jewish citizens, because they needed their own state in order to be safe. Even though the Dreyfus affair, progroms, and Holocaust, are all events of the past, I do believe that given the long history of anti-Semitism, it is important for Jews to have a safe haven, just in case mass anti-Jewish violence flares up again (and ocassional instances of anti-Semitic violence do indeed exist - the recent events in France were a reminder).

But on a broader scale, I see Israel not just as a place where Jews live, but also as a state meant to reflect Jewish values -and anyone who has read the prophets or the work of the rabbis, will have a hard time disagreeing with me that peace and social justice are Jewish values. I believe in cultural Zionism, a la A.D. Gordon: I want Jews to speak Hebrew globally, the same way Spanish people who live in the US might speak Spanish at home. I want my children, no matter where I live, to know not only the poetry of Yehuda Halevi****** and Yehuda Amichai, and the songs of Naomi Shemer, but also whatever crappy Israeli soap operas and pop music happen to be reigning the airwaves. They can choose whether or not they want to be religious, but they'd better know Tanach and Talmud, because those are major literary-intellectual achievments of the Jewish people. I believe it is important to make informed choices about one's Judaism, and knowing one's cultural and intellectual heritage is a prerequisite to that.

If I had to list the worst contribution of religious-national Zionism to Israeli society, it would not be the settlements or any specific political policy per se, but rather its Messianism: If this is the beginning of the redemption, then the Jews are in Israel for good, no matter what they do or how badly they act. Victory is inevitable. Taking away the possibility of failure also takes away the impetus for social change. Much of the sprouting of social change in the US right now is because many in the US feel that it is standing at the edge of the abyss, and they want to make sure it doesn't fall - but if you believe that you can't fall, there is no need to prepare the parachute.

While, as a religious Jew, I do believe that Israel's founding, as well as its various victories, and the large number of qassams that fall into empty fields (and I've sat in a mamad and heard them fall), are all miracles, I do not believe that God gave us the land scot-free: The Hebrew Bible is full of warnings that if the Jews do not act properly, the land of Israel will literally vomit them out - and while much of the Biblical warnings might refer to idol-worship, the rabbinic tradition holds murder as tantamount to idol worship, and claims that the Second Temple was destroyed, and the Jews exiled, for social ills, not ritual malfeasance. That is leaving aside explicit warnings by the prophets that ritual worship is worth nothing if not accompanied by social justice.******  Furthermore, Jeremiah constantly exhorts the people not to think that just because God promised them the land, he won't kick them out of it. Because of this, I do not assume that the state of Israel - which is after all - and should be - a secular state - is eternal. I believe, on a political-historical level, that it can fail as other states have failed, and on a religious-spiritual level, that the more social injustice there is, the more likely it is to do so.

I also agree with Yeshayahu Liebowitz, a) that the rabbanut should be abolished b) that considering the secular state to be a holy entity, is in a certain sense idol worship, because it is taking something religiously neutral, and investing it with an inherent holiness - which is essentially what idol worship is. You take a piece of wood, and say it is a god.

For me, when the State of Israel has a rally in which politicians describe Sudanese refugees living in Israel in Nazi-istic terms - because yes, describing a certain group as a cancer that is ruining society, is indeed Nazi-istic - even though the prime minister officially condemns said rally, I still have a religious obligation to speak out, to ask what kind of society Israel becoming if such a rally can take place at all, if any Israeli politician can be present at such a rally and get away with it - and yet I must also acknowledge the Israelis who held a counter-protest the next day, to condemn racism, and those who called for a criminal investigation into the actions of the politicians who spoke at the racist rally. And this religious obligation for words counter-acts any secular notions of ethnic loyalty that stir within me, even as it does adhere to the rabbinic maxim of Jews taking mutual responsibility for each other's actions - because if I stay silent, I become a bystander, who is only one degree removed from the label "perpetrator", because one of the greatest perils of our time is not evil itself, but rather, indiffirence to evil, because, as Mordechai says to Esther (which is one of my middle names) in Esther 4:14, "For if you will remain silent in this time, salvation will come to the Jews from another place, and you and your father's house shall perish, and who knows if it is not for a time like this, that you reached the kingdom?"

So within one blog post, I've gone from being the frustrated belly-dancer to the five-year-old Disney princess, if Disneyland were Persia. I suppose I should end with links to a letter from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and a speech by Elie Weisel, in an effort to reclaim my dignity.

* Exhibit A: The eternal boyfriend-girlfriend battle over the raised toilet-seat.

** Furthermore, while it might not always be anti-Semitic, the extent of global anti-Israelism and how acceptable it has become, is ridiculous. The UN has issued more statements about Israel than about Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, or China - all of which are such terrible human rights violators that Israel looks like an angel in comparison. It is politically acceptable to call for the destruction of Israel, a nation founded by UN-charter and by a defensive war, when it's neighbors all invaded it in response to its declaring independence, but not for the destruction of the afformentioned nations, which were founded as a result of colonialism and not-necessarily-self-defensive wars. Nearly every country in the world was founded by some sort of war or revolution - even the US was founded with a war against the British -but somehow, the fact that Israel was founded on a purely defensive war, all of a sudden becomes a major international issue.

*** Isaiah called the people of Israel "captains of Sodom" and the "nation of Gommorah", in Isaiah chapter 1, verse 10. Also, Isiaah and Jeremiah are two of my favorite prophets. I had a huge crush on Jeremiah in highschool.

**** That makes sense, because he prophesied in Babylonia, not in Israel - which, by the way, the Talmud has issues with, because it tries saying prophecy only exists in the land of Israel, and winds up saying God makes an exception if you're standing near water, which is why Ezekiel could prophesize in Babylon. Anyhow, Ezekiel can not be used as a proof for anything because he is different than the other prophets in many ways. Also, if you want to read my Ezekiel and menstrual blood rant, click here.

***** I misplaced my copy of his poetry a week ago and it's driving me crazy!

******To quote Isaiah, 1:11-20: "To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto Me? saith the LORD; I am full of the burnt-offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats. 12 When ye come to appear before Me, who hath required this at your hand, to trample My courts? 13 Bring no more vain oblations; it is an offering of abomination unto Me; new moon and sabbath, the holding of convocations--I cannot endure iniquity along with the solemn assembly. 14 Your new moons and your appointed seasons My soul hateth; they are a burden unto Me; I am weary to bear them. 15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide Mine eyes from you; yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear; your hands are full of blood. 16 Wash you, make you clean, put away the evil of your doings from before Mine eyes, cease to do evil; 17 Learn to do well; seek justice, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. {S} 18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD; though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. 19 If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land; 20 But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword; for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken."

a note on all blog entries

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

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.