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.

The Selfishness of Republican Polticis Apparently Knowns No Bounds

The Republicans are trying to block a senate version of a house bill that would give compensation to rescue workers who suffer long-term health effects from their work on 9/11. This should come as no surprise, for the Republican party has shown, since Obama's election, that its primary concern is not with the wellfare of the United States, but with preventing the president and the Democrats from succeeding with anything on their agenda, lest they actually have tangible achievments to show the American public come election day.

Exhibit A: Preventing the extension of unemployment benefits and comprehensive economic stimulus, despite overwhelming evidence from economists of all stripes that unemployment benefits are among the most stimulative ways to spend government money, and that stimulus is needed
Exhibit B: Republicans who used to support certain policies pre-Obama, started opposing those very policies the minute they came on the Obama agenda
Exhibit C: Trying to un-do regulations passed in response to the economic crisis, meant to prevent abuses by Wall Street, and to protect home-owners
Exhibit D: Insisting on tax-cuts for the wealthy, despite the huge budget deficit and the fact that tax-cuts are ranked as one of the least stimulative way for a government to spend money (or, as the case may be, prevent itself from earning income - for more information, see the various writings of Joseph Stiglitz)

This move by the Republicans however, may be the most disgusting of all. It speaks of an absence of common human decency or any type of Patriotism - this from a party that accuses Obama of not being a real American (whether literally or metaphorically) and presents itself as the patriotic savior of America, magically able to solve all security and military problems, while scouring off the scourge of "illegal aliens" and "un-American" values - apparently, objecting to gay marriage is more American than caring about the lives of American policemen and firemen, and providing them with medical services.

But the blame can not be placed solely on the Republicans' shoulders; The Democrats too, have failed. First of all, Carolyn Maloney was right when she said that the Democrats should have insisted that provisions for 9/11 first responders be included in the tax-cut bill, since the Republicans would not dare oppose tax-cuts, especially when supporting tax-cuts is such a big part of their platform and a major way of attracting voters.

But second of all, the Democrats might propose sensible policies, but they have proved ineffective at playing the game of politics in order to get those policies passed. Voters have every right to be disappointed with the Democrats' ineffectiveness, and unless the Democrats learn how to be more skilled at political manuevering, they are in for an unpleasant wakeup call come 2010. Hopefully, the results of the most recent election will shock them to their senses - yet, so far, if the results of their attempts to pass the 9/11 workmen's health bill is any measure, this hope is ill-placed.

Al Araqib

Today, the New York Times featured an article about a dispute between Bedouins and the Israeli government on Al Araqib. To sum up: The Israeli government repeatedly destroys Bedouin homes, claiming the land belongs to the Israeli State. There are projected plans to build a forest there.

Now, I am a big tree-hugger - but it seems to me that people's homes and livelihoods do take precedence over building a forest in the desert, especially since there are so many other patches of the Israeli desert that can be used. The land may or may not legally be the State of Israel's. It does not matter. If Bedouins are living there, then Israel should continue to allow them to live there, seeing as how it does not currently use the land for anything productive anyway.

This dispute however, speaks to a larger issue: Israel's failure to develop its south desert region (the Negev). It crammed Bedouins into cities that are plagued by poverty, inadequate employment opportunities and inadequate government services. It crammed Sephardi, Ethiopian, and Russian immigrants into cities that are plagued by those same problems, though perhaps on a slightly lesser scale. Israel can not continue to ignore and neglect its Bedouin population, which serves in the army and has proved itself loyal to the State. Nor can it continue to neglect its Sephardi, Ethiopian, and Russian immigrant groups. (For these groups however, the inequality gap is closing slightly, and there has been some progress. Not as much so for the Bedouins.)

So Israel can choose: It can disenfranchise and neglect is Bedouins, and kick them out of their homes, but be within its legal rights. Or it can forgo its legal rights, and instead, take responsibility for the well-being of its Bedouin citizens, and allow them to keep their homes in an unused patch of desert. But whatever it decides, Israel should be asking itself: Does it really need more disenfranchised Arab youths? When will Israel understand that providing social services and employment is in its own self-interest, and the best way to provide security. What is needed is not to force Arabs to take loyalty oaths to Israel - it is to give them a reason to be loyal to Israel by ending discrimination and providing them with employment opportunities and social services.