Thursday, July 15, 2010

The Flotilla Incident and the Gaza Blockade - More Revealed Beneath the Surface

"There is no starvation or acute medical crisis there, [but] malnutrition is creeping up, water treatment and sewage are problematic and the economy has been almost entirely shut down by the blockade."


After the tragic events took place with the Turkish flotilla of aid ships, a series of events began to unravel that begged many questions on all sides of the debate. For example, just a short time after that debacle at sea, a very different result came from another attempt to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza. Sponsored by the same "Free Gaza" organization, a ship called the Rachel Corrie out of Ireland attempted to break the blockade. In this case however, no tragic deaths occurred. While this story got little press, it is illustrative of the complexity of what is going on in this cat and mouse game being played by the Israeli government and Hamas.

If you were wondering why the result was so different, the answers are quite simple. As this account by Ethan Bronner in the Boston Globe reveals (Israel thwarts new attempt to break Gaza blockade: Commandos seize vessel peacefully) the Israeli government handled the situation in a much more subtle manner AND the government responsible for the ship agreed to a reasonable compromise.

For weeks after the Turkish flotilla incident, all you heard from Israel was how this tragedy didn't have to happen; how the ship that was boarded could have docked in Ashdod, just like the other five in the flotilla did and unloaded its goods for inspection and later shipment to Gaza. This had been the routine for similar confrontations with ships bound for Gaza. Unfortunately, no one seemed to latch on to the reasonableness of this argument - mainly due to the deaths that took place, the fact that the boarding took place in international waters, and that the boarding took place at night, in what seemed to be a nefarious action. In other words, by going in at night, the Israeli's had to be hiding something, right? In other words, by violating the laws of international waters, Israel is just showing how little regard it has for all kinds of laws of nature and man, right?

For these reasons, this was a disaster for Israel in terms of public perception, international legitimacy, and their ability to have their decisions respected in any way shape or form. And because of this, two things come to mind in light of the BETTER approach taken with the Rachel Corrie - when the Israel communicated their intent with the government of Ireland and persuaded them of the reasonable of their request to dock the ship and transport approved goods after inspection. First, why does it take a disaster to make Israel rethink strategy and second, why to progressives therefore not get more credit for asking Israel to re-think its strategies?

A similar question can be asked about the blockade in general. As the header quote states, it is true that no humanitarian crisis is taking place in Gaza. Yet, Israel is continually accused of "starving' or 'strangling Gaza.' While those terms are demonizing and inaccurate, they will continue as long as incidents like this take place and as long as public perception against Israel's respect for the law and dignity of average Palestinians in Gaza does not change. Interestingly, after the reaction to the flotilla incident, Israel finally acted to eliminate certain restrictions that progressives had been criticizing for some time. Certain food restrictions, left over from a version of the Gaza blockade that really was meant to psychologically impact the population, like jelly and some other incidentals, were recently lifted from the restricted items list. Many reasonable critics of Israel had said these did nothing but to increase distrust. Less reasonable critics said this was a prime example of Israel's evil. Many even said, everything else is ok, but those must go because they are inhumane. But wonderfully, when the restrictions were lifted, the reaction was almost unanimous that it was meaningless. That, my friends, is a perfect example of how Israel just can't win. But to be fair to all those who DO posses something called 'forethought,' we should be able to ask why the restrictions were kept in place at all? Didn't Israel realize how much it was harming their ability to reasonably argue for the necessity of the blockade? And if their response would be with their usual disdain for international opinion, why remove the restrictions at all.

Today, one can read about the Israeli release of reports on the build-up in Lebanon of Hezbollah strongholds in population centers in southern Lebanon. And as so many are reporting, this can be looked at in two ways. On the one hand, maybe Israel has gotten the point about gaining at least some support from the international community - before it actually has to take action. On the other, maybe they are just trying to convince the world about the perils of their neighborhood so that, in general, public opinion can be nudged just a bit. Whichever the intent, one must still ask an important question. If it seems to take such large scale tactical errors - ones that Israel herself has eventually admitted - like the entire Gaza war and the tactics used to board the Turkish flotilla vessel, why could they not have listened to critics earlier. One can only hope this will loosen up the dialogue around how the Israeli government should conduct itself - even if only to help the world better understand her plight. But don't hold your breath on that one.

---

For a more detailed analysis of the Flotilla incident, please read on ...

Israel and the Flotilla – A Reality Check:

Opinions on Israel and the recent flotilla incident range widely and they should. They should because opinions should always range widely and Israel and her predicament should be no different. In fact, that is the angle I want to take in this analysis. It has taken a bit of reflection to decide where the best approach on this should come from and I think finally, that this incident is instructive, but that it is not a “lesson” in the traditional sense. I say that because so many are using their “opinion” to simply reinforce why they are right or why the other side is wrong. In short – more demonization - to all sides - seems to come from the “lessons” we are hearing about these days.

So instead of lessons, I will speak of common sense realizations, multiple truths, and reasons why things are the way they are. For those unfamiliar with the entire situation in the Middle East, I think this can be an incredibly important read. For those who are already entrenched in the debate, you will not find answers, but you may just find a reason to step back, count to ten, and shut up for a second.

While I first want to start with Israel’s basic approach in this situation, I want to also interject a tangent. Popping up at the tail end of all of this was the Helen Thomas incident. I am bringing this up right now, because before I even get into detail, please remember that underlying almost any FACT about Israel and the middle east are the underlying attitudes about Israel, Jews, and their place in the middle east. While many will say I am just a knee jerking, anti-Semitism crying loyalist, I can’t worry about that. Any understanding of global opinion of Israel, what motivates some to action against Israel, and what Israel and Jews do has to be seen in this light. It is real, palpable and instructive. While people were wondering if folks jumped on the Helen Thomas bandwagon in violation of some principle of her right to free speech, I was wondering why no one was using her as a larger example. If this liberal lion, this well educated senior White House correspondent, could be so biased toward Israel and so frankly anti-Semitic in its classical and modern sense, ANYONE can be and more people then you think are.

And why is that so important? Well, because everyone jumping on the trash Israel bandwagon, whatever there reasoning should be able to step back with thanks to Helen Thomas, and realize that not everyone trashing Israel is doing so because of their “correctness” about any facts, or any moral high ground.

But here we go with some truths (on all sides – so be patient, I’ll get to yours)

TRUTH:
This flotilla was dispatched with express intention of provoking Israel into confrontation.

TRUTH:
Most of the ships in the flotilla were escorted by the Israeli Navy without incident to Ashdod as is common practice so Israel can inspect the cargo and send through approved goods.

TRUTH:
The larger boat that had every intention of causing an incident did in fact include a group of more extreme activists intent on violence.

TRUTH:
Calling all the participants in the flotilla “terrorists” is inaccurate? Most were what most of the world would call well meaning activists seeking to provide goods and humanitarian aid to Gaza and in doing so challenging the legitimacy of the Israeli blockade.

TRUTHS:
Is challenging the blockade in this manner an acceptable form of protest? Sure why not? Does the fact that people disagree with the blockade make it automatically wrong or immoral? No, not automatically. Does the intent of violence make the protest invalid? Well maybe not. If you view the blockade as a form of violence, why can’t you protest with violence? Is that the best way to end the blockade? Well maybe yes, maybe no. Since I waited a bit to write this I can now say that it has achieved something if it stirred debate and actually caused Israel to let more goods through it should always have been letting through. How Israel and defenders of Israel deal with this little fact as dissent and protest are denounced will be very important.

TRUTHS:
Do the backers of the flotilla have troubling connections to extremists and terrorists groups? YES. Does that immediately discredit the entire venture. NO – and this important. This is reflective of the entire Gaza problem. The intermingling of people who had been or are still supportive of what we deem terrorist activities, with respectable people who have either no knowledge of those connections or don’t care is an ongoing complication of how everyone talks about these kinds of initiatives. Should we give these groups a pass? NO. Can we just continue to label any person or activity connected to these groups illegitimate? NO. There were priests, Americans, and legitimate aid workers on these ships, and as long as that will always be the case – Israel and the global Jewish community MUST find a different way to talk about them. By painting ALL of the participants with such a broad paint brush, when any bozo can show that MANY participants are what MANY people would call “legitimate” activists and NOT terrorists, such criticism of them can be PROVEN to be disingenuous at best and LYING at worst.

TRUTHS:
Is the blockade itself morally wrong, illegal, or inhumane? NO. For anyone to claim otherwise is naive, trying to gain political points, or not thinking things through. People will claim that the blockade of Gaza was initially established to deny certain goods to the general population to make things so difficult that they would turn away from Hamas and realize moderation and Fatah were the way to go. This is completely TRUE and the government of Israel has already admitted this. It had the opposite effect, brought on the Gaza war and the government has already admitted it was a mistake. Did that cause them to change things? NO. But that is not the critical point. The critical point is WHY they did not lift the blockade. For many, not reversing course is the point. For Israel, providing truckloads of humanitarian aid should end the discussion. For others, the limiting of harmless food items is the ultimate insult and proof if Israeli “inhumanity.” (Yet when those food stuffs were recently taken off the prohibited items list, all of a sudden its not really about those silly items is it.)

TRUTH:
In the view of Israel, getting out of Gaza was the ultimate sacrifice and they will be forever bitter that Palestinians did not see the magnanimity in that sacrifice. It can be shown how the unilateral turnover without a plan for economic integration was the mistake that bore the current situation. But Israelis do not focus on this. They focus on the rockets that came over and the militancy that has always existed in Gaza. And in this respect, one might say that the reason there was no plan for better integration of the border was that they could not find one. This is a critical point. The inability to find a solution – not that one could not be found - is at the heart of many of Israel’s decision making and MUST be understood as a reasonable motivation for acting certain ways.

TRUTH:
To be honest about Gaza, one can only talk about “ending the blockade” while at the same time asking how a Hamas controlled area could instill any confidence at all in any kind of “open border situation.” It is easy for people who do not live Israel, to say how smooth things would go if Israel just opened the border. It is easy to say things like “just give it a try,” when you are not confronted with a sworn enemy having easy access to your people. Would any sane country really do that? Just look at the US. Mexico is NOT a sworn enemy and look at the racism, hatred, bias, and rhetoric take place in regard to that open border. Is the situation in Israel really so different – except that they have good reason to be afraid.

TRUTH:
It is still the truth that the majority of the people of Gaza would be peaceful participants in the economy of Israel. In fact, that is the only thing peace advocates can hang their hat on. And it IS important. But in Israel, among the people and the government, security is the mindset. Does that need to change? Yes. But it will not change overnight and to ask Israeli’s to change that mindset so quickly is unreasonable, unrealistic, and insulting. In fact, distrust, on all sides, is the main issue behind why so much of this is a problem at all. Yes this distrust is more perception than reality, but perception becomes reality in politics (just look at Sarah Palin and Scott Brown).

TRUTH:
The truth is that too many Israelis distrust Arabs and that is why enough of them do not demand more out of their leaders. Is this wrong? Is this morally wrong? I do not think it is for us to judge. It is for us to realize and help the world understand that the best way to get to a two state solution is to have a plan that does NOT change things overnight. It is for us to realize and help Israel understand that we get it – BUT that change is essential and a roadmap with a definite END in place is the only way Palestinians will choose the way of moderation and peace..


There are many more “truths” to be discussed on these very important issues. But these are a good start. My friend Ehud Eiran recently published an excellent article in Newseek about the flotilla and the blockade itself. His premise is an important one – that the blockade is a contradiction in that it perpetuates the very situation Israel says it is trying to end – the militancy of Hamas in Gaza. While I agree with 99% of the article I will take issue with one point. But it is a big point. Who says the blockade is intended to moderate the people of Gaza any longer? If the government has already acknowledged that has failed, there has got to be another reason the blockade is still in place. My contention is that they cannot think of any other way. Listening to Ami Ayalon recently, I am convinced people need to know more about the different language Israel and the Palestinians are speaking to one another. To remove the blockade and open the borders would mean one of two things. Either a plan would have to be put in place to assure the Israeli public that the people of Gaze, who chose Hamas as their government could be trusted. Or the Israeli government would no longer have any real control over the situation and would simply have to hope for the best. In many ways, both of those situations are unthinkable and impractical TODAY. And this is what I think most people outside of Israel do not consider. I am not saying something can not be worked out someday and sold to the Israeli voting public. I am just saying that today, neither of those options is really a possibility given the mindset of the Israeli people and the reality of what Gaza is like right now. And it begs the question, why can’t the world get their act together to help Israel and the Palestinians in the way they really need it. They do not need condemnations and accusations. They need a plan, they need time to adjust to it, and they need honest brokers to help. Just look at what has just developed. The UN offered to participate in the inspection of some foreign aid shipments and Israel agreed because they really have nothing to hide in that respect. In this way the UN (some in the UN) are acknowledging the need for both security and for goods to get through.

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

The Afghanistan Tightrope - Still Promising More Than We Can Deliver

"The highly hyped counter-insurgency strategy is illusory. It is an attractive concept in the abstract — “secure, hold and build’’ — but enjoys neither the capacity nor the conditions to actually work."

From the beginning of the invasion of Afghanistan, The Cohen Side was reporting on the VAST portions of the country US Forces did not control, and the folly of even thinking we could "nation build" when we weren't even close to being in control of, well, much of anything. The lack of reporting on this has been shameful and the political posturing over this untenable situation has been way off the mark. Afghanistan will play out the way Afghanistan wants it to. For us to think otherwise simply denies History and is the height of ignorant arrogance. We need to put our testosterone aside for once, and learn from our past mistakes. Me MUST resist the urge to think we can't get a military "win" everywhere we put troops down on the ground. The sooner we realize this, the sooner we can have a rational discussion about what we CAN do over there. There will be a crisis point arriving at our doors soon and we must convince our politicians NOT to shy away from the reasonable course of action - which is to stay committed to a plan of withdrawl - a plan that should not be imediate but deliberate and certain. Our leaders will be facing pressure to press on or devise another surge. That, however would be more folly. As Jonathan Morse points out so well;

"[These] temptations must be forcefully resisted ... [trying to actually win] the insurgency war against the Taliban, [and] weakening the US plan to begin withdrawing forces ...

Securing remains frustrated. Holding is delayed. Building is even more of a failure: development is almost impossible without security; the military itself cannot accomplish the local rehabilitation and stability needed; and the civilian backup to accomplish enduring building is absent, both from the internationals and from Kabul.

In truth, any US commitment to assure good governance in a democratic Afghanistan - before it withdraws - is a self-entrapment of dire consequence."

And why is this important? Well of course its the body bags, the severed limbs, and the families torn asunder. While no one should ever say a soldier died in vein, the questions about this misguided war must be asked - as John Kerry asked decades ago - "Who wants to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

Here is a link to the full article. Please read, pass along to your friends, and tell your congressmen to be brave in the right way - to NOT expand our military presence in Afghanistan and to get our troops home as soon as humanly possible.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/07/13/the_afghanistan_tightrope

Saturday, July 10, 2010

The Right Kind of American Populism

"And yet the pitchforks are being brandished not to encourage government to curb the excesses of the elite but to warn the citizenry that the government has turned into a socialistic threat to free enterprise."

Below is an excellent piece by Jon Meacham written for Newsweek. It is a great commentary on the over exaggerated - if not misplaced - anger toward government. This echoes a consistent theme on The Cohen Side about the "Feau" populism of the day that focuses an irrational anger at government and lets corporate America off the hook for many of its abuses of our economic system. And why does this matter at the end of the day? It matters because this "wrong" brand of populism will only serve to see officials elected who will not fight for the least amongst us. Those most in need will see an evaporation of essential programs and services that form the foundation of our already too loose safety net. In the modern age, we should be very careful about how we treat that safety net. It is entirely possible that our future is one of lower employment than we have ever known. There just aren't as many human jobs needed as there once were. The 'corporate stimulus' referred to in this article is about finding creative ways to support a population where more people are out of work, yet corporate profit margins continue to grow and grow. That money can either go into the pockets of shareholders and the uber wealthy, or it can be used to care for a population in need that will continue to grow and grow. That is the responsible populism I am for.
---
Economically populist causes and candidates have not had the best of runs in recent decades. Jerry Brown tried it in 1992, as did Ross Perot. Eight years later, in an echo of his father’s New Deal origins, Al Gore campaigned for president talking about the “people versus the powerful,” a theme John Edwards unsuccessfully appropriated in 2004 and 2008. If anything could have given new life to old-style populism, the financial meltdown of 2008–09 should have—but, remarkably, it did not.

At first, in the age of Jackson, American populism was about money; later, in the age of George Wallace and Richard Nixon, it became more about culture. It is admittedly difficult to draw precise lines between these things (money is inescapably a driver of culture, and power is a common denominator), but it is safe to think of economic and cultural populism as two different, if occasionally intersecting and overlapping, forces.

Safe, and useful, for the passage of financial-reform legislation in the House last week and a dispiriting report on jobs brought the curious history of populism to mind. Given the clinical economic and political facts of the hour, we should be living through a Jacksonian era of hostility to the rich and the well connected. Those whom Jackson called “the humble members of society—the farmers, mechanics, and laborers” ought to be generating substantial political pressure to exact reparations from, and impose severe new regulations on, the plutocratic few. Unemployment remains high; poverty too pervasive and intractable; the moneyed classes too skilled at the Washington game to make contests over economic justice even remotely fair fights.

And yet the pitchforks are being brandished not to encourage government to curb the excesses of the elite but to warn the citizenry that the government has turned into a socialistic threat to free enterprise.

Populism’s shift from economics to culture in America is as important a development in our politics as the rise of civil rights at home or the fall of the Soviet Union abroad. Without an effective progressive economic movement, questions about wealth and power become questions of degree, not kind. The status-quo is accepted (that’s why it’s called the status-quo), and even the ablest of modern Democratic politicians find themselves at work in an arena defined by those with an interest in limiting reform and thwarting revolutions.

It is a good moment, then, to try to marshal a kind of economic populism that is both principled and practical, a habit of mind and action that allows markets to thrive and neither unduly favors nor penalizes those who already have means. That, at least, was Jackson’s creed. Drawing on his understanding of a republicanism in which institutional interests—in the forms of a central bank, or an entrenched Congress, or an appointed federal establishment—could be corrupting agents in the life of the nation, he wanted to see that the concerns of the ill-organized many were protected against the exclusive privileges of the well-organized few.

For decades, whether the issue has been the tax code or financial regulation or, in the case of the Gulf of Mexico, the oversight of dangerous industrial practices, the initial American instinct has been to ask how little government can do, not what government should do. An economic populism for the second decade of the 21st century ought to create a sense of commonality in which all means, public and private, should be viable options. Government may not always be the solution, but sometimes it is. (Just ask the banks about that.)

There is an intriguing place where we might begin the work of a renewed economic populism: in corporations, not the capital. If the goal of populism is the amelioration of life for the many, then President Obama could strike a confounding (in a good way) pose by calling on the private sector to take up an idea put forward this week by Fareed Zakaria: unleash a corporate stimulus. “The Federal Reserve recently reported that America’s 500 largest non financial companies have accumulated an astonishing $1.8 trillion of cash on their balance sheets,” Fareed writes. “By any calculation (for example, as a percentage of assets), this is higher than it has been in almost half a century. And yet, most corporations are not spending this money on new plants, equipment, or workers…[Such] investments would likely have greater effect and staying power than a government stimulus.”

A populism that begins in the boardroom—that would really be change we could believe in.

All of a Sudden, Afghanistan's not going so well? Really?

Not for nuthin', but my April post on Afghanistan seemed to fly in the face of what other's were claiming as our "success" in the region. Lo and behold, a couple of months later, it turns out you really can predict the future by knowing the past and by knowing the way our military leaders refuse to learn from it. Who knows what "success" or even General Patreaus's "progress" even look like? My only real question is, if it is now clear we don't know what we want, how can any realist plans be made to get there? We will just keep trudging along - trying this - and trying that - only to face the same problem - which is that no one wants us there. Those who are violently opposed to our being there will kill anyone who collaborates, and those who may actually want to see a change in government still blame us for the violence. We cannot solve every problem in the world and the Bush strategy of "getting them over there so they don't come here" now seems as outdated as the cold war itself.

We should leave - sooner rather than later. And the reason is clear. With some philosophy of protecting the US or defeating the Taliban (who many want to believe are interchangeable with Al Queda) we are simply sending Americans into harms way with no clear benefit in sight. Afghanistan is not Iraq. Hell, even Iraq isn't Iraq. How many people died in Iraq over the past two weeks from bombings? Whether we seem to care or know about this is not the issue. The issue is that for all our money and all the lives wasted and for all the "surges" and strategies. Both places may only be marginally better for us having been there. And I repeat, MAY be different. It is entirely likely that both places will have a militant religious group in power, either running things or instilling enough fear so to have their way. We need to face that we cannot remake the Middle East anymore than Europe could and move on. Containment from abroad may be the better policy, as it most likely was when were containing Iraq before our invasion. But I'm just saying.

Monday, April 5, 2010

Still Not Winning Them Over in Afghanistan (or Iraq)

Once again I will ask the question. Why do we even bother writing History books? In a previous post on our follies in Afghanistan, I hearkened back to a day when our pre-Vietnam invasion plans might as well have been focused on Iceland for all we knew about Vietnamese culture and politics. So the questions remain, is it that our leaders continue to ask the Military to do things it can't - or does our Military convince leaders it can do things, when it has no clue what it is talking about? Or is it a little of both.? Either way, we should demand better. And we should at least demand that our political and Military leaders can pass the MCAS before they decide to wage war.

Some recent developments in the US's "Marjah" offensive may startle some. But to any of my former History students, it should be more like a "Ho, Hum - I coulda' told you that." Weeks ago, much was made of our "new" strategy in Afghanistan - and how Marjah was a great example - a successful - example of it. Nightly news shows ran with the story of our "control" over the area. That was then and this is now. And what is on the news shows about Marjah? Crickets. Silence.

According to Military officials in charge, things have changed. I would suggest that things never actually changed and that they are realizing the folly of the concept of having "control" over areas of Afghanistan. Here are some of the quotes. And if anything looks familiar to things you know about Vietnam or Iraq - well then you get to take a cookie from the cookie jar - and then cry for the pathetic way yet another war is being conducted in ignorance.


" ... the Taliban have reseized control and the momentum in a lot of ways’’ in northern Marja, Major James Coffman, civil affairs leader for the Third Battalion, Sixth Marines, said in an interview in late March. “We have to change tactics to get the locals back on our side.’’

“You shake hands with them, but you don’t know they are Taliban,’’ Colonel Ghulam Sakhi, an Afghan National Police commander said. “They have the same clothes, and the same style. And they are using the money [we provide to the community] against the Marines. They are buying [improvised explosive devices] and buying ammunition, everything.’’


One tribal elder from northern Marja, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of being killed, said in an interview on Saturday that the killing and intimidation continued to worsen.
“Every day we are hearing that they kill people, and we are finding their dead bodies,’’ he said. “The Taliban are everywhere.’’


Oh my. Does any of this look familiar? Did you really expect them to be wearing badges or id bracelets? The Taliban are a part of the fabric of this society. They were allowed to rise again to such power because we were so focused on Iraq and lost the support of the non-Taliban elements of society. As always, the war was lost before it was fought.

The local problem points to the larger issue as American forces begin to expand operations in the predominantly Pashtun south, where the Taliban draw most of their support and the central government (the one nobody likes or understands) is deeply unpopular.

In Marja, the Taliban are hardly a distinct militant group, and the Marines have collided with a Taliban identity so dominant that the movement appears more like the only political organization in a one-party town, with an influence that touches everyone. Even the Marines admit to being somewhat flummoxed. And we've never, ever heard of that before right? Our own military, confused by an entire situation or context on the ground. And here are a couple of good quotes for you.

“We’ve got to reevaluate our definition of the word ‘enemy,’ ’’ said Brigadier General Larry Nicholson, commander of the Marine expeditionary brigade in Helmand Province. “Most people here identify themselves as Taliban.
“We have to readjust our thinking so we’re not trying to chase the Taliban out of Marja, we’re trying to chase the enemy out,’’ he said.

That's a peach isn't it. Its not about defeating the enemy (assuming we knew who it was) but about redefining who the enemy is so that we're actually succeeding instead of losing.

Right.

Now if you look back through these pages a few entries back, you will see that this is exactly what we did in Iraq and now hope to do in Afghanistan. In Iraq, we retreated behind a small enclave and let the rest of the country self destruct - and called it a victory for the surge. All we really did was protect our own troops better (no question an important element) and protect the Western styled central government. All the while, insurgents have been blowing the country apart. This has only increased as our departure is imminent. Again - not an excuse to stay - just the reason to stop the blow-hards clamoring about our success in Iraq.

And so too will any success we claim in Afghanistan be tainted by our delirium. We have no idea what we are doing in Afghanistan or what will lead to any real success. More than likely, we will define the Taliban as a political party and then say we have actually defeated any Taliban insurgents. Meanwhile, the Taliban will have actually take over the entire country again - just like the Vietnamese communists did - simply because we didn't realize how central a part of the country they actually were.

Don't you just love history.

(see more about this story here)

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Jerusalem Emotions - When Two Rights Make a Wrong

---

My recent trip to Israel and the West Bank was certainly during a very interesting time. At home in the US, people were up in arms over actions by the Israeli government or actions of the US Government. In Israel - among Israeli's and Palestinians - the feelings were the same. No matter who you were, someone acted stupidly, someone acted insultingly, someone didn't act strongly enough or someone acted too strongly. The bottom line was that many were offended and hurt.

I will be blogging much more about my trip and about my conversations with both Israeli and Palestinian young leaders. But today, the topic of the day is Jerusalem. It is - and yet it isn't the appropriate topic however. I believe the appropriate topic is that grand ole' concept of FEELING information versus THINKING information (thank you Stephen Colbert).

I say this is the appropriate topic because however one feels about any issue relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the pundits and government officials never seem to take into account the FEELINGS of the other side. And more than any factoid, fact on the ground, or historical element - emotions, feelings, slights and indignity lie at the heart of almost every moment that brings us further away from peace.

Admittedly, I think the Israelis are better at insulting others with their matter of factness than any other group. With my political hat on I will say this may very well condemn them to a future of conflict and hostility in the world. But with my cultural hat on I will say - as I have to many students and colleagues - Israeli's are direct, factual, and honest. These are all traits that should be admired. But in a world that is so easily offended and "hurt" their honesty is often harsh and insulting - insulting being an incredibly subjective word of course. The corollary being - "Get Over It!"

But the Americans and Palestinians can share in their own brand of "insulting honesty" as well. And herein lies the crux of the Jerusalem dilemma as well.

One might think the Biden visit to Israel was an inopportune time for the Israeli government to release their announcement of scheduled construction in East Jerusalem. And one might think this announcement was meant to "hurt" or "insult" the Americans and Palestinians who have been clamoring about settlements and East Jerusalem. And in a way it was. But whenever I hear something on the Palestinian side of the equation that seems "insulting" or "hurtful" to Jews or Israel, I ask people to step back, count to ten, and ask WHY that action was taken. I actually reach out to my Palestinian friends and ask them to "Help me understand the motivation." And I have found that this approach not only helps me understand the motivation, but also makes me less angry AND gains me respect from my friends for bothering to ask rather than attacking them. If we had more of this kind of approach we would all be better off.

But in this blog what I am claiming is that so often, Westerners and Israelis are asked to understand the Palestinian perspective rather than the Israeli perspective. In fact, the United Nations stands almost singularly on many days to ask that we understand the Palestinian psyche and not the Israeli. This is no where more true - than on the issue of Jerusalem.

I will preface my upcoming comments by saying that in some way shape or form, autonomy over some portions of Jerusalem and a contiguous border or corridor of some kind will have to be a future reality in any two state solution. It just will - and there is no getting around that. The emotional attachment Palestinians have to Jerusalem being part of some kind of arrangement in the future is real. But right now - I am going to be weighing that attachment against that of World Jewry.

EMOTIONAL FACT - You don't TELL Jews or Israeli's what to do with Jerusalem.

Let me repeat - you DO NOT TELL Jews or Israeli's what to do with Jerusalem.

Jerusalem may be negotiated at some point and MANY Jews and Israeli's support that. But because of both Historical baggage and certain historical realities - to tell Israeli's what to do with Jerusalem is abhorrent and will get the hairs on their back so in a stir that YES, it will derail a peace process. It is that important and yes, it is emotional, and yes I believe more central to Jews than Palestinians.

I believe that both the US Government and the Palestinians need to come to grips with that, even though, as I have said, Palestinians are a people who the world has decided deserve an autonomous state of their own. I also support that. I will just remind, that the occupation of a people - by not allowing them certain rights and freedoms - which is the reality on the ground in the West Bank - is NOT the same as occupying someones established country through conquest or war.

It should be no crime to say that today's Palestinians did not have a state that Israel invaded. They were the indigenous Arabs who fought in a war to keep Jews from having a state and who did not want to share the land. Israel occupies their historic Judea Sumaria (volatile words I know) and formally occupy parts of Jordan. And as soon as I see Jordan demand a return of their land, I will be the first to give a Hechsher to the term "occupation". But since Jordan has formally given up that claim and the long History of Jerusalem is so, well, Judeo-Christian, I simply cannot give the same kind of credence to Arab shouts for Jerusalem. The Jewish baggage, I believe, IS actually more sensitive and is why you DO NOT TELL Israel or Jews what to do with Jerusalem.

Again - this does not mean you do not put it on the table and negotiate around it. It is also not a reason to deny the right of modern Palestinian's to the state they should have had in 1948 (whatever it would have been called - cause we all know it ironically would NOT have been Palestine.)

It is just an important reason why don't publicly TELL Israel what it can and cannot do with its ONLY historically spiritual center. And believe me this is not the same old right wing argument about the Muslim world having Mecca and Medina as more important places. It is about the fact that Israel DID NOT conquer or occupy a place called Palestine and is centrally, spiritually, and emotionally attached to Jerusalem like NO other place. And it actually is important - in this emotional context - that the same cannot be said for the Palestinians - no matter how intellectual a case they make. The reason it does cause such furor is because it seems like yet more of "their land" or their "future state" is being taken away. And that is important to be sensitive about about. But it really should matter that plans area already in place to compensate for that land.

Yes - Jerusalem will be a part of some arrangement going forward. But to hinge a future Palestinian state - that Israel will grant out of land it currently rules - on "settlements" and "apartments" in Jerusalem is a mistake. People that do this understand neither the geography of the area, the spirituality of the place, or the motivations of the Palestinians. As it has been rightly pointed out, settlements and apartments in East Jerusalem, while an important concern, have not been an impediment to negotiations for over 15 years. They are so now, ONLY because of those in the Obama administration who do not "GET" anything I just wrote above. They only believe that East Jerusalem is the same as a "settlement" on the West bank and frankly, it just isn't.

What we should be focused on is the land swaps that have been spelled out in multiple other agreements and the willingness of Israel to hand bank areas at ANY stage of development as they did in Gaza. Oh - and the already established willingness to discuss Jerusalem - but just not to be DICTATED TO about Jerusalem.

It is certainly understandable that the Palestinian Authority would try to "seize the day" with a more demanding US government. But if they were smart, they would not use this card to get more before negotiations begin. If they were smart, an advisor will tell them they will not get anywhere by publicly demanding anything in regard to Jerusalem before hand - but that they should use the Obama card to negotiate more on Jerusalem then they are likely to EVER get again.

But of course, as we travel ever so swiftly back to the beginning of this blog, they will not do that. And so the Israeli's will continue to think the Palestinians will never miss an opportunity to ask for more. And this is why Israel is building in East Jerusalem in the first place. They live in a world where they live as if there were no Palestinians - until such a time as they think they have a willing negotiating partner. That is not the same a s a partner mind you. They are waiting to hear someone say that all the previous plans that have been laid out are now alive again. Until they hear at least something like that, they will live as if tomorrow is the same as today. And they will talk that way as well.

Monday, March 8, 2010

What We Don't Know About Afghanistan - #1533

---
Please insert any other country into this entry, like Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq or Iran, but this story is just another fine example of how little our leaders EVER really know about what they are doing. It goes without saying that this is also another fine story about how little WE know about how little our leaders know about what they are doing in other countries.

One of my favorite stories (that is true and on tape) like this one is from the Vietnam era. Just hours after LBJ really kicked off the Vietnam war, he asked his advisors if we had people on staff who actually knew anything about the Vietnamese people. There was dead silence.

So on that same note it was amusing to hear from General Patraeus (you know the hero of the surge) that recently, the US brought the current Afghan Vice President to speak to the people of Marja on the recent offensive there. The Vice President began to speak and when he was done, there was - dead silence. No one in the audience spoke the language that was just spoken. You should be speechless.

I of course am not because this did not surprise me in the least. It is Afghanistan, and most of our foreign military follies in microcosm.

Before you start looking for reasons why this wasn't so bad, let's be clear about a few things.
1) No one in OUR government understood the country enough to even wonder about this.
2) No one in THEIR westernized, puppet government new enough about the country to care about this.
3) No one in EITHER government noticed during the speech that this was going on and no one there even said anything until it was over. This means they weren't really interested in the first place. They know who and what this guy is all about - so what did it matter. He's the guy who is nothing like them who demands money from them at gunpoint (a US gun.)
So yeah, ha ha, what a silly mix up.

But really, if you didn't know certain things about Afghanistan you should now.
And here they are ...
1) The people who are in charge in the central federal government DO NOT represent the majority of rural people in Afghanistan.
2) We support those federal officials and so most people in Afghanistan DO NOT believe we are acting in their best interest.
3) Afghanistan is a much more complex place and multi-faceted problem then even our best leaders know about AND THIS IS ALMOST TEN YEARS AFTER WE FIRST GOT THERE!
3b. Yes that is maybe the most outrageous thing here - that this stuff STILL happens!
4) Because of 1-3b, whatever our strategy is, when we leave, things will resort to a situation we would today consider unacceptable, but then will consider just fine and a natural part of our victory.
5) For example, even though American deaths have declined dramatically, Iraqi's are killed by insurgents on a DAILY basis in numbers ranging from 10-50. Is that STABILITY?

So enjoy whatever good comes out of the media on Afghanistan. It is a mess, we don't really understand what we are doing there, and they really don't like or get this centralized, federal representative government thing. Go figure.
---

Sunday, February 28, 2010

Delahunt’s journey to Mideast upended - The Boston Globe

---
A very good analysis of J-Street and it's desired role in the American Jewish community and the Pro-Israel/Pro-Peace movement.

Delahunt’s journey to Mideast upended - The Boston Globe

Posted using ShareThis
---

The Goldstone Illusion | The New Republic

---
An excellent and fairly balanced analysis of the Goldstone report and the unfortunate bias that is simply a reality at the U.N. and in reports like this. This article be Moshe Halertal by no means gives blanket support for the war. The alternatives are clearly pointed out. But in a manner that is clearer than most who have attempted it, the difference between traditional war and war with a terrorist entity is extremely well done. And again, the question is raised whether any war against such an entity embedded in a civilian population should be carried out at all, given the necessary moral compromises one is forced to make. And that is a valid point. Halbertal artfully allows the reader to entertain this possibility while at the same time asking the reader to put themselves in the shoes of those who do choose the option of war and do try to balance some kind of morality along the way.

The Goldstone Illusion The New Republic

---

Monday, February 22, 2010

Political Cartoons - On Target with Stimulus, Health Care and Republican Obstruction

---
Here are some of my favorite political cartoons from the past few weeks.

This first one is my favorite. Its PERFECT and completely challenges any argument against spending in the current economic climate.

The house is burning people!!! Get the ladder up there no matter what it takes! Yes the deficit is TOO big and needs to be addressed. But it was big last year and the year before and DIRECTLY impacts NO ONE tomorrow or the day after. Now I wouldn't make that argument if our economic climate were better. If we were prospering, I would say it was responsible to pay down the debt more now - for future generations. But people are hurting TODAY and will be TOMORROW and certain programs and stimulus funds are often the only things saving their jobs and/or their lives.

Rising deficits make a convenient political hammer for the Republicans these days, because they do indeed threaten the nation’s long-term financial stability. But the need for new jobs is urgent, and any proposal to stimulate employment in the short term is vital - and yes - will cost money now.

Even though feeding the corporate beast was tough for me to swallow, I don't think people really understand what would have happened had the many banks and companies that benefited from stimulus funds failed. The human toll on families - for generations - is already steep as a result of this crisis. Those additional failures would have had an almost unimaginable human toll. Why are more people not condemning conservatives for wanting to leave those people hanging in the wind? Does the "Tea Party" argument of "let them fail" really wash when it would have been many of those same people out of work?

In a similar way, have people forgotten that one of the main reasons behind health care reform AND a public option is because as things stand, tax payers ARE ALREADY paying for the health care of the under and uninsured? Wouldn't it have been better to create a more efficient system (not program!!) where-by they could have gotten comprhensive health care at a lesser expense to us?



These last two are classic. Of course I realize that it is customary for the party not in power in congress to try to win it back. But it has also been customary for SOME bi-partisanship to emerge during a crisis. Enjoy these two Olympics inspired cartoons on Republican obstructionism.
















Here are links to each political cartoon (this first link - gocomics.com - is a great site to just explore):

Stimulus vs Deficit:
http://www.gocomics.com/mattdavies/2010/02/08/

Health Insurance:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/cartoons/20100215_ink_tank?pg=6

Skating to Recovery or November:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/cartoons/20100215_ink_tank?pg=3

GOP Against Anything Obama is For ..
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/cartoons/20100215_ink_tank?pg=18


---