There is a debate around the spreading wave of Isolationism which is manifested in an unholy alliance between the Hard Left (which ultimately seeks to end the United States) to the Hard Right (which ultimately seeks to create "Fortress America"). Both of these groups have joined forces to strike against those interests which would weaken their "end game" wishes (for the Left, a world where the U.S. if it exists at all, is hobbled and severely weakened and for the Right, where the U.S. exists alone as an island amidst the chaos of an ever confusing and dangerous world).
Being a blog about Zionism and Progressive / Liberal / Centrist politics, we see this in the Israeli - Palestinian conflict where the Hard Left, those that want to destroy Israel out of some misguided sense of ending "Western Colonialism" and who see Israel as a "White nation" (though it is far from that) in the midst of the Third world, has joined with the Hard Right and those who want to simply annihilate the Jewish people out of their own twisted hatred. And so we see these groups come together in coalition that promotes the anti-Semitic BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) movement in an effort to deny the Jewish people their legitimate rights to self determination as it is manifested in the Nation of Israel.
However, this desire goes far beyond advocacy in the Israel / Palestine conflict where both the Jews and Palestinians in the Middle East are pieces in a world wide bid for influence, control of resources, and supremacy. This growing wave of Isolationist thinking threatens not only the very fabric and health of the United States but the fabric of the entire world.
We hear that the world is getting to be a "much smaller place". This is very true. Now, people can talk face to face with those on the other side of the globe from the comfort of their living rooms. Ideas can be transmitted throughout the internet, and data can be shared no matter where we are. We can physically see one another and one anothers environs in a way that has never been possible before.
Because of this, the world is more interconnected than ever before. Things that happen thousands of miles away do affect us. Just look at the rate of environmental damage caused by over use of resources and the concurrent problems that this causes. We are no longer able to isolate ourselves from anyone and we have to come up with global solutions to poverty, the environment, and a host of other problems IF we are too maintain both reasonable standards of living and reasonable National goals.
I do think that National interests can survive and thrive in an ever increasingly globalized world (in fact I think it is imperative that they do). Though that seems counter intuitive to the theory that we need one world government. We don't. While the world needs to act in a more coordinated fashion regarding some of our issues (the environment, poverty, and so forth) there is no way right now that people in individual nations would be able to pull this off in any meaningful day to day manner. We are simply too different and have too many different ways of approaching and solving problems.
To people in al-Qaeda their vision is that of a warlord filled vicious theocratic world, where only those who adhere to their particular form of Islam would wield power and where everyone else would exist to serve them as individuals and their crazed interpretation of Islam in general. To those in corporate America who endorse "Randian Capitalism" the world would be a strict plutocracy where the rich would live in cantons and the rest of the world would be their "resource pool". And with all the iterations in between there is simply no way that humanity could come to any sort of peace agreement on how to run day to day government.
So what prompts this piece? It is due to the fact that I see many people both on the Hard Left (as evidenced by most of the folks - not all but most) at leftist blogsites doing their utmost to spread disinformation regarding the U.S. and demanding that it live up to standards that they would hardly ask of other nations. And when it even comes to discussing other nations, it seems that as long as those nations are anti-U.S. anything they do is ok with the Hard Left. They will excuse all of the things they say they stand for in the name of supporting a nation that stands against the U.S. And by doing so are willing to team up with the most vile elements of the polity to support their cause (example the BDS movement).
I also see the isolationist wing of the Republican party doing the same thing. Unable to think beyond (to them) what seems like the most simple or quick solution they simply say, "let's build a corporate state in the U.S. reminiscent of the Gilded Age and screw everyone else". They simply cannot think out their own little boxes, not realizing that while they are building "Fortress America", forces that are hardly sympathetic to America and our interests gain power. These Rightists think only about the immediacy of an issue and simply don't think about the ramifications of said issue. There is no serious thought that goes into "problem solving".. So we see with the "Repeal Obamacare" folks. All they care about is defeating the President, they care nothing for the long term damage they are causing this nation.
The problem is that both extreme's arguments contain half truths throughout. For the Leftists and their complaints about the NSA, they are generally right. The NSA SHOULD NOT be spying to the extent that it is on American citizens. I get that they want to find out what is happening in the world, and that they are protecting Americans from terror. However, I also get that these powers can easily be misused to create what they like to call "the surveillance state". That said, the NSA and CIA have a responsibility towards protecting American citizens so... this is a problematic issue. However, to compare the U.S. unfavorably to groups like Al-Qaeda and to lionize those who would leak our secrets to foreign nations (Edward Snowden) is far from helpful.
On the Right side, the "Libertarian crew" is right about the fact that we can cut the Defense budget by reducing foreign ventures and use those resources to pay private business at home for development projects. Of course at the same time they need to realize that while we can do that to a degree, we cannot afford to cut ourselves off from the world in a meaningful way and still have a say in our own future due to the fact mentioned previously, that the world is indeed more interconnected and that foreign affairs really do have an impact on our daily lives at macro level.
In the end, one thing that is truly dangerous to the U.S. and the well being of the "free world" is this growing strain of neo-Isolationist thinking. Hamstringing our intelligence sectors will only create a world where America and it's allies (and interests) are threatened. Honestly, the Russians or Chinese certainly have no compunctions regarding the use of any and all tactics to achieve their goals. For the Hard Leftists this is just fine to allow them to thoroughly weaken the U.S. While the Isolationist Hard Right simply doesn't care what other nations do because (and this is sheer idiocy) they think the U.S. can simply "wall itself off" and let the rest of the world burn.
It is important that we do have civilian oversight of our intelligence gathering particularly as it relates to American citizens. Don't take this article as indictment of that. We are a "free nation" because our government has been restrained in its ability to gather information / data on our everyday lives. It is also important that we recognize that "overzealous" gathering of personal data can and often does lead to problematic issue with regards to a "surveillance state". I do not want to live in a nation that monitors my computer usage or my phone records without any kind of just cause.
So.. it is important that we balance our need for privacy with our need for the protections our intelligence sectors provide. What we need here is an honest discussion about how we can best balance the two needs. What we don't need is constant vilification of our nation hidden with rhetoric designed to weaken our nation and its ability to protect its citizens. We don't need those who would propose solutions in a vacuum either supporting or without understanding the nature of our national enemies.
Though these movements currently operate on the fringe, as the Hard Left is no real part of the Democratic Party and the Isolationist Hard Right is only a portion of the Republican Polity, still they represent possible growing threats (as they appeal mainly to the young and idealistic for various reasons), it is important that we understand and expose them for who they are. Of course here in the U.S. they should not be restricted from discussing their viewpoints, but those viewpoints should be exposed for what they really are, an effort to weaken the United States, both at home and/or abroad.
Showing posts with label America. Show all posts
Showing posts with label America. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
A Conversation with a Friend - Just What do you stand for?
I was in an email conversation with a wise friend of mine and I was talking with him about what we saw as solutions to the issues in the Middle East. In that conversation he said to me:
For myself, lately a lot. I find myself tossing between being pushed towards relatively Rightist solutions because of the stupidity, hate, and vitriol I see spread towards Jewish people in public forums and in the news by the Palestinians and their supporters. At the same time I then wobble back to the Left when I see the absolute insanity and idiocy of the memes that are spread by the Right, with their own version of their noxious bigotry and brain dead generalizations.
Well, my friend's letter got me thinking and he is absolutely 1000% RIGHT! What is it that I am for? What is it that I expect others to be for given their circumstances and what are creative solutions to the problems that we face.
I have been as guilty as anyone else for participating and allowing these childish games of internet "I know you are but what am I" to be part of this blog. That comes from my own behavior as well. The fact that I would even engage with people who have no serious agenda and only come here to scold, or state their mindless propaganda, all the while offering absolutely content free comments that don't address anything ends today.
From now on, we discuss the issues and ONLY the issues. Enough of the negativity. From now on, the main question is "What are you for", "What do you represent". For posters who can't do this, don't post here. You are not welcome and you add absolutely nothing to the discussion. You don't have to agree with the philosophy of this site but you do have to actually stand for something and you do have to articulate what you stand for. Once you articulate that you have to be able to defend it. If you can't or won't defend the substance of your commentary then your comment will be deleted. No "ifs", "ands" or "buts".
SO... what am I for? I am for a few things:
1. I would like to see a "Liberal / Progressive" agenda in the United States of America, as the normative way that we as a nation conduct politics. I would like to see civil rights for all Americans to be respected. I would like to see an end to the politics of personal destruction that have invaded our system. I would like to see politicians talk about real reform and real solutions to problems. Right now the only people I see coming up with specific balanced approaches are the Democrats, I see nothing from the Republicans but vague talk about slashing "entitlements" AND cutting taxes for the Rich in some Randian theoretical frenzy.
2. Internationally, I stand for a strong yet sensible American presence. I believe that we have a responsibility as the most powerful nation on Earth to lead (but to lead with respect) people into new and better places, however, I also believe as a powerful nation we have a responsibility to our allies and friends to assist in their defense and well being. I think that we do need to be mindful though of our actions. In other words, I think we have to respect people and their beliefs and try to work with other cultures rather than purely against them.
3. Because this blogsite is called "The Progressive Zionist", it follows that I support "Progressive" to Center-Left policies in Israel, (hence the "Zionist" part). For Israel, a country that I love and I lived in (though I remain an American first and foremost), I believe in a Left-Center approach to both foreign and domestic Israeli policy. What does this mean... Well, on the Israeli domestic front I believe strongly in economic and social justice for all Israeli citizens. I believe that all citizens whether Arab or Jewish should have equal access to services and rights in the Israeli system. I do believe the system is unfair, and under the economic and social policies of the Netanyahu Government(s) I believe that the disparity is getting worse for both Jews and Arabs.
As for the Occupation... I believe that it is wrecking Israeli society and forcing the Israelis into a place that will compromise their integrity as a Jewish and Democratic State. I adhere to the formula Abba Eban came up with when he said:
1. Israel can be Democratic
2. Israel can be a Jewish State
3. Israel can be a State from the Med. to the Jordan,
But it can only be two of the three. It cannot be all three things unless the Israelis decide to commit acts of "ethnic cleansing". My feeling on the two of three things is that I think 1&2 are the most important things.
Anyway, that is where I stand. I am for a Liberal / Progressive Israel that is also a strong Social Democracy.
What are you for? What do you stand for?
"I need to get back to thinking about what I am for, not just what I am against."Powerful statement regarding this blog, the "intertoobz" and everything that we seem to believe in lately. How much of our thinking is really based due to reactions to the anti-Semites and Israel / Jew Hate on the Left? How much of our thinking is based around the insane and hateful rhetoric on the Right.
For myself, lately a lot. I find myself tossing between being pushed towards relatively Rightist solutions because of the stupidity, hate, and vitriol I see spread towards Jewish people in public forums and in the news by the Palestinians and their supporters. At the same time I then wobble back to the Left when I see the absolute insanity and idiocy of the memes that are spread by the Right, with their own version of their noxious bigotry and brain dead generalizations.
Well, my friend's letter got me thinking and he is absolutely 1000% RIGHT! What is it that I am for? What is it that I expect others to be for given their circumstances and what are creative solutions to the problems that we face.
I have been as guilty as anyone else for participating and allowing these childish games of internet "I know you are but what am I" to be part of this blog. That comes from my own behavior as well. The fact that I would even engage with people who have no serious agenda and only come here to scold, or state their mindless propaganda, all the while offering absolutely content free comments that don't address anything ends today.
From now on, we discuss the issues and ONLY the issues. Enough of the negativity. From now on, the main question is "What are you for", "What do you represent". For posters who can't do this, don't post here. You are not welcome and you add absolutely nothing to the discussion. You don't have to agree with the philosophy of this site but you do have to actually stand for something and you do have to articulate what you stand for. Once you articulate that you have to be able to defend it. If you can't or won't defend the substance of your commentary then your comment will be deleted. No "ifs", "ands" or "buts".
SO... what am I for? I am for a few things:
1. I would like to see a "Liberal / Progressive" agenda in the United States of America, as the normative way that we as a nation conduct politics. I would like to see civil rights for all Americans to be respected. I would like to see an end to the politics of personal destruction that have invaded our system. I would like to see politicians talk about real reform and real solutions to problems. Right now the only people I see coming up with specific balanced approaches are the Democrats, I see nothing from the Republicans but vague talk about slashing "entitlements" AND cutting taxes for the Rich in some Randian theoretical frenzy.
2. Internationally, I stand for a strong yet sensible American presence. I believe that we have a responsibility as the most powerful nation on Earth to lead (but to lead with respect) people into new and better places, however, I also believe as a powerful nation we have a responsibility to our allies and friends to assist in their defense and well being. I think that we do need to be mindful though of our actions. In other words, I think we have to respect people and their beliefs and try to work with other cultures rather than purely against them.
3. Because this blogsite is called "The Progressive Zionist", it follows that I support "Progressive" to Center-Left policies in Israel, (hence the "Zionist" part). For Israel, a country that I love and I lived in (though I remain an American first and foremost), I believe in a Left-Center approach to both foreign and domestic Israeli policy. What does this mean... Well, on the Israeli domestic front I believe strongly in economic and social justice for all Israeli citizens. I believe that all citizens whether Arab or Jewish should have equal access to services and rights in the Israeli system. I do believe the system is unfair, and under the economic and social policies of the Netanyahu Government(s) I believe that the disparity is getting worse for both Jews and Arabs.
As for the Occupation... I believe that it is wrecking Israeli society and forcing the Israelis into a place that will compromise their integrity as a Jewish and Democratic State. I adhere to the formula Abba Eban came up with when he said:
1. Israel can be Democratic
2. Israel can be a Jewish State
3. Israel can be a State from the Med. to the Jordan,
But it can only be two of the three. It cannot be all three things unless the Israelis decide to commit acts of "ethnic cleansing". My feeling on the two of three things is that I think 1&2 are the most important things.
Anyway, that is where I stand. I am for a Liberal / Progressive Israel that is also a strong Social Democracy.
What are you for? What do you stand for?
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Why is it so Difficult?
Here is what I don't get... What is difficult about ending the Gaza altercation? In Israel and in America the Hard Left keeps talking in terms of a cease fire or a truce. The Lunatic Right, both here and there, keep talking about blowing Gaza into little bits and "levelling" the place. Neither one of course, (and as usual) is right. They simply aren't. It's not hard to see an answer yet despite the ease of that answer no one wants to address it. Why? Because it takes away an easy crisis that both sides need to feed their power base.
Hamas NEEDS to see their children and civilians die. It's in their interest. They can't maintain any sort of power if they are not seen as the "Heroes of Resistance". They will fight to the very last civilian (as long as their money and influence are not harmed), just to prove that they and no one else is who should rule in the land that is now Israel and Palestine. They certainly don't care who they have to kill to get there and the more their own people suffer, the more they can take those people's minds off of their own failures and corruption.
The Israeli and American Right, need to have an enemy to fight in order to continue to scare people into supporting their nihilistic Randian vision of the world coupled with building towards some fictional Spartan state that they can all feel very tough about while sending other peoples kids to do their fighting for them.
ANYWAY... In all of the analysis and hand wringing about what Israel is doing everyone keeps talking about cease fires and Ten Year Truces and how if Israel just ended it's embargo on the Gaza Strip everything would be peace and light. The Useful Idiots and their supporters all talk about the culpability of Israel without addressing the prime issue, that of the responsibility of Hamas and the Palestinians to simply accept that Israel exists as the National Homeland and State of the Jewish people. IF they did this simple thing... this conflict would be over within ten seconds.
Imagine if a Palestinian leader would go to the Israelis and say "Listen, we are sick of war and sick of what is happening so here's the deal. Give us the land in the Olmert deal for a nation, including at least half of the Old City of East Jerusalem. We will de-militarize for ten years however, YOU are responsible for our protection as well as training of our military so that when we get through our growing pains we can have a professional and responsible military. ALSO, we will need aid. You and the U.S. need to build up our infra-structure and provide a market for our goods until we can develop our markets. That means access to roads, water, and the like. In return... We will give you a complete and total peace. We recognize that Israel is and will be the National Homeland and State of the Jewish people . We will open cultural and trading exchanges and allow for our children to learn with yours in mixed education programs."
That's it. That would end it right then and there. The War, this exchange, the conflict. Done. It would be completely over. No one, but no one asks this of the Palestinians. To be fair, no one on the Israeli Right would lay this out as an opportunity either. But you have to give something to get something. The Palestinians have to retain some pride to make this a lasting deal. So... This is a fair deal. The Palestinians get control of Islam's third holiest site (the Haram al-Sharif), Christianity's holiest site (Bethlehem) and they get a secure and viable state. They can even negotiate for recompense for those driven from their homes in past wars. Israel would be foolish not to accept these terms.
Until then though, why should Israel cede one inch of anything to people that talk in terms of destroying them? They shouldn't. They need to keep the pressure on Hamas' leadership until they are either dead, removed, or at some point they realize that they will not be dislodging the Israelis and that it is time to do something for their own people rather than continuing to play politics.
What I am curious about is why isn't anyone insisting that Hamas formally recognize Israel? That never, ever gets discussed. There are a million and one other things discussed but no one ever addresses this. YET, this is the simplest thing in the world IF one really wants to end this horrible conflict. Israel will recognize the Palestinians... why won't they simply recognize Israel as the nation it was created to be?
Sadly, this is just a "pipe dream". Hamas has too much money to make and too much power to gain for them to do anything like that. The Israeli Right, I fear, would never accept this as it goes against the concept of Eretz Yisrael HaShlema. BUT, I do think there are some on the Israeli Right that might go along whereas I think there is no one in Hamas or in it's support base that would consider this.
But as an American, I sit here and wonder.... How is this so difficult? And WHY is this not even discussed?
Hamas NEEDS to see their children and civilians die. It's in their interest. They can't maintain any sort of power if they are not seen as the "Heroes of Resistance". They will fight to the very last civilian (as long as their money and influence are not harmed), just to prove that they and no one else is who should rule in the land that is now Israel and Palestine. They certainly don't care who they have to kill to get there and the more their own people suffer, the more they can take those people's minds off of their own failures and corruption.
The Israeli and American Right, need to have an enemy to fight in order to continue to scare people into supporting their nihilistic Randian vision of the world coupled with building towards some fictional Spartan state that they can all feel very tough about while sending other peoples kids to do their fighting for them.
ANYWAY... In all of the analysis and hand wringing about what Israel is doing everyone keeps talking about cease fires and Ten Year Truces and how if Israel just ended it's embargo on the Gaza Strip everything would be peace and light. The Useful Idiots and their supporters all talk about the culpability of Israel without addressing the prime issue, that of the responsibility of Hamas and the Palestinians to simply accept that Israel exists as the National Homeland and State of the Jewish people. IF they did this simple thing... this conflict would be over within ten seconds.
Imagine if a Palestinian leader would go to the Israelis and say "Listen, we are sick of war and sick of what is happening so here's the deal. Give us the land in the Olmert deal for a nation, including at least half of the Old City of East Jerusalem. We will de-militarize for ten years however, YOU are responsible for our protection as well as training of our military so that when we get through our growing pains we can have a professional and responsible military. ALSO, we will need aid. You and the U.S. need to build up our infra-structure and provide a market for our goods until we can develop our markets. That means access to roads, water, and the like. In return... We will give you a complete and total peace. We recognize that Israel is and will be the National Homeland and State of the Jewish people . We will open cultural and trading exchanges and allow for our children to learn with yours in mixed education programs."
That's it. That would end it right then and there. The War, this exchange, the conflict. Done. It would be completely over. No one, but no one asks this of the Palestinians. To be fair, no one on the Israeli Right would lay this out as an opportunity either. But you have to give something to get something. The Palestinians have to retain some pride to make this a lasting deal. So... This is a fair deal. The Palestinians get control of Islam's third holiest site (the Haram al-Sharif), Christianity's holiest site (Bethlehem) and they get a secure and viable state. They can even negotiate for recompense for those driven from their homes in past wars. Israel would be foolish not to accept these terms.
Until then though, why should Israel cede one inch of anything to people that talk in terms of destroying them? They shouldn't. They need to keep the pressure on Hamas' leadership until they are either dead, removed, or at some point they realize that they will not be dislodging the Israelis and that it is time to do something for their own people rather than continuing to play politics.
What I am curious about is why isn't anyone insisting that Hamas formally recognize Israel? That never, ever gets discussed. There are a million and one other things discussed but no one ever addresses this. YET, this is the simplest thing in the world IF one really wants to end this horrible conflict. Israel will recognize the Palestinians... why won't they simply recognize Israel as the nation it was created to be?
Sadly, this is just a "pipe dream". Hamas has too much money to make and too much power to gain for them to do anything like that. The Israeli Right, I fear, would never accept this as it goes against the concept of Eretz Yisrael HaShlema. BUT, I do think there are some on the Israeli Right that might go along whereas I think there is no one in Hamas or in it's support base that would consider this.
But as an American, I sit here and wonder.... How is this so difficult? And WHY is this not even discussed?
Monday, February 6, 2012
American Voters and term "Israel Firsters"
During my morning reading I had a chance to read what might be one of the most ridiculous exercises in political sophistry that I have ever read. Simply put, even I as a very Pro-Israel Jew read this and was struck by the simplicity and foolishness of this piece. How this got picked up and carried and by any news outlet is staggering in that this might be one of the most poorly reasoned opinion pieces I have ever read. What piece is this? Take a look for yourselves: U.S. Jews who put Israel First are merely expressing their democratic rights.
Well, from the title... Yes Joel, you are right. They are merely expressing their democratic rights. They get to do that. Is voting for Israeli interests over the U.S.' interests their right? Sure, we are a democracy. So yes that simple statement is absolutely true. You know what else is true Joel, the Sun is yellow, the sky is blue and guess what Joel... you have a keen grasp of the obvious.
So where does Joel Braunold go wrong in this piece? Well right away by having as a byline: There is nothing neither wrong or un-American with being a single issue voter. Actually Mr. Braunold, I would say in this case there is something both "wrong" (which I admit is a subjective judgement) and "un-American" (which is also a subjective judgement).
Braunold starts off his failed article by saying that voting for Israel is just as much a single issue for the American voter as is say a vote based on the environment (using Keystone XL as an example). This immediately fails on the grounds that voting based on opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline is a domestic American concern. The pipeline which would run from the Canadian border to the Gulf of Mexico represents a potential environmental hazard for the United States (our own country). The pipeline would run directly over an important aquifer that supplies much of the central U.S. states water supply. The environmental impact of a disaster involving said aquifer would be monumental to the U.S. It is thus an American issue and thus makes far more sense for a single issue voter in an American domestic election than say voting based on the fact that President Obama doesn't call Prime Minister Netanyahu each night and tell him what a great guy he is.
So Braunold sensing the following criticism presents TWO explanations the first of which is completely ridiculous that even Braunold himself does not subscribe to it (he claims it is a Right wing meme and for the most part he is right). The second one though bears looking at. The article claims that Jewish voters might consider the existence of Israel so important and so key to their very being that they would vote based on that premise. To back that up he cites Jewish American voters in the '30's and '40's. Well, in that case I understand this. I, for instance, would never vote for a candidate that talked about not being friendly or supporting the existence of Israel as I see that as both fundamentally against American interests AS WELL AS being fundamentally against Jewish interests. In his example he uses British MP Ken Livingstone.
Were Mr. Livingstone running for President of the U.S. I wouldn't disagree with Mr. Braunold in that vote since from what I know about MP Livingstone I don't think he is a reasonable choice for that position and YES, my vote would be affected by his anti-Israeli, anti-Jewish advocacy. BUT... Mr. Livingstone is not running for President of the United States (well, foreign policy wise his clone - Ron Paul is, but, that is not someone I would consider voting for).
The person running and being cited by the ODS'ers (Obama Derangement Sufferers) is President Barak Obama and unless one is a Republican and sympathetic to Republican arguments regarding the U.S. Political system then voting for a Republican rather than President Obama purely on the grounds of Israel rather than domestic priorities (those being American priorities both foreign and domestic) is by Bruanold's definition both "wrong" AND "un-American".
This then runs us to a term that has lately come up: "Israel Firsters". Now this is a term personally I don't like. I think that while it may be sometimes accurate, it is too broadly used by anti-Semites to make claims of dual loyalty. So where do I see this issue as "Wrong" or "Un-American" in our election. Well first of all, I think the Republican agenda of:
1. Overturning Roe v. Wade
2. Stripping the EPA of regulatory power Or dismantling it completely
3. Putting the tax burden on the Middle Class and Poor while exempting the Rich from paying their fair share
4. Underfunding Education
5. Supporting the destruction of the Social Safety Net
6. Supporting the repeal of credible Health Care Reform
and so much more stands against America. But, voting for those things (while professing to be against ALL of them) because one thinks that President Obama, a President who has:
1. Increased Aid to Israel up and above previous administrations
2. Been termed an "Exceptional Friend of Israel" by both the Defense Minister of Israel, it's Deputy Foreign Minister, and it's President
3. Supported Israel in the U.N. countless times
4. Personally intervened to save Israeli Diplomats in Egypt
5. Continually worked to find a peaceful solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict
6. Constantly stated that Israel must remain the National Homeland and State of the Jewish People
7. The First President to hold a Seder in the White House
8. The First President to designate a Month of the Year, Jewish History Month
9. Has had not one BUT TWO Jewish Chefs of Staff
But even if President Obama wore an Israeli Flag while singing "Hatikva", all while hugging a Binyamin Netanyahu Plush toy it would STILL not be enough for the ODS crowd. Why? Who knows...... .
In the Meantime they would support a party which supports:
1. One State solution to the conflict in the Middle East (without thinking about the ramifications of that)
2. A front-running candidate who supported the Post Death conversions to Mormonism of Jewish Victims of the Holocaust
3. has a candidate that thinks Israel shouldn't exist and would de-fund it entirely.
Ok but I digress....
Now here is where I get controversial. I would say that if this is one's point of view, that the voter who feels this way is living in the wrong country. While one would certainly have the right to vote any way they want, why would this voter bother living here instead of in Israel? I would challenge anyone who feels this way to answer that question. If a narrow P.O.V. as determined by Im Tirtzu or the Israeli Right is what you vote for in American elections then you live in the wrong place.
Now, if one is a Republican to begin with... Dynamite vote for your party. But make your vote based on American priorities. After all, you are an American. If you want to vote for Israeli determined priorities, Kol HaKavod, move to Israel. They need more Olim.
Well, from the title... Yes Joel, you are right. They are merely expressing their democratic rights. They get to do that. Is voting for Israeli interests over the U.S.' interests their right? Sure, we are a democracy. So yes that simple statement is absolutely true. You know what else is true Joel, the Sun is yellow, the sky is blue and guess what Joel... you have a keen grasp of the obvious.
So where does Joel Braunold go wrong in this piece? Well right away by having as a byline: There is nothing neither wrong or un-American with being a single issue voter. Actually Mr. Braunold, I would say in this case there is something both "wrong" (which I admit is a subjective judgement) and "un-American" (which is also a subjective judgement).
Braunold starts off his failed article by saying that voting for Israel is just as much a single issue for the American voter as is say a vote based on the environment (using Keystone XL as an example). This immediately fails on the grounds that voting based on opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline is a domestic American concern. The pipeline which would run from the Canadian border to the Gulf of Mexico represents a potential environmental hazard for the United States (our own country). The pipeline would run directly over an important aquifer that supplies much of the central U.S. states water supply. The environmental impact of a disaster involving said aquifer would be monumental to the U.S. It is thus an American issue and thus makes far more sense for a single issue voter in an American domestic election than say voting based on the fact that President Obama doesn't call Prime Minister Netanyahu each night and tell him what a great guy he is.
So Braunold sensing the following criticism presents TWO explanations the first of which is completely ridiculous that even Braunold himself does not subscribe to it (he claims it is a Right wing meme and for the most part he is right). The second one though bears looking at. The article claims that Jewish voters might consider the existence of Israel so important and so key to their very being that they would vote based on that premise. To back that up he cites Jewish American voters in the '30's and '40's. Well, in that case I understand this. I, for instance, would never vote for a candidate that talked about not being friendly or supporting the existence of Israel as I see that as both fundamentally against American interests AS WELL AS being fundamentally against Jewish interests. In his example he uses British MP Ken Livingstone.
Were Mr. Livingstone running for President of the U.S. I wouldn't disagree with Mr. Braunold in that vote since from what I know about MP Livingstone I don't think he is a reasonable choice for that position and YES, my vote would be affected by his anti-Israeli, anti-Jewish advocacy. BUT... Mr. Livingstone is not running for President of the United States (well, foreign policy wise his clone - Ron Paul is, but, that is not someone I would consider voting for).
The person running and being cited by the ODS'ers (Obama Derangement Sufferers) is President Barak Obama and unless one is a Republican and sympathetic to Republican arguments regarding the U.S. Political system then voting for a Republican rather than President Obama purely on the grounds of Israel rather than domestic priorities (those being American priorities both foreign and domestic) is by Bruanold's definition both "wrong" AND "un-American".
This then runs us to a term that has lately come up: "Israel Firsters". Now this is a term personally I don't like. I think that while it may be sometimes accurate, it is too broadly used by anti-Semites to make claims of dual loyalty. So where do I see this issue as "Wrong" or "Un-American" in our election. Well first of all, I think the Republican agenda of:
1. Overturning Roe v. Wade
2. Stripping the EPA of regulatory power Or dismantling it completely
3. Putting the tax burden on the Middle Class and Poor while exempting the Rich from paying their fair share
4. Underfunding Education
5. Supporting the destruction of the Social Safety Net
6. Supporting the repeal of credible Health Care Reform
and so much more stands against America. But, voting for those things (while professing to be against ALL of them) because one thinks that President Obama, a President who has:
1. Increased Aid to Israel up and above previous administrations
2. Been termed an "Exceptional Friend of Israel" by both the Defense Minister of Israel, it's Deputy Foreign Minister, and it's President
3. Supported Israel in the U.N. countless times
4. Personally intervened to save Israeli Diplomats in Egypt
5. Continually worked to find a peaceful solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict
6. Constantly stated that Israel must remain the National Homeland and State of the Jewish People
7. The First President to hold a Seder in the White House
8. The First President to designate a Month of the Year, Jewish History Month
9. Has had not one BUT TWO Jewish Chefs of Staff
But even if President Obama wore an Israeli Flag while singing "Hatikva", all while hugging a Binyamin Netanyahu Plush toy it would STILL not be enough for the ODS crowd. Why? Who knows...... .
In the Meantime they would support a party which supports:
1. One State solution to the conflict in the Middle East (without thinking about the ramifications of that)
2. A front-running candidate who supported the Post Death conversions to Mormonism of Jewish Victims of the Holocaust
3. has a candidate that thinks Israel shouldn't exist and would de-fund it entirely.
Ok but I digress....
Now here is where I get controversial. I would say that if this is one's point of view, that the voter who feels this way is living in the wrong country. While one would certainly have the right to vote any way they want, why would this voter bother living here instead of in Israel? I would challenge anyone who feels this way to answer that question. If a narrow P.O.V. as determined by Im Tirtzu or the Israeli Right is what you vote for in American elections then you live in the wrong place.
Now, if one is a Republican to begin with... Dynamite vote for your party. But make your vote based on American priorities. After all, you are an American. If you want to vote for Israeli determined priorities, Kol HaKavod, move to Israel. They need more Olim.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Wrestling with our Angels
The history of the Jewish people has been a history fraught with hard decisions. In biblical times, Jacob has his name changed to Israel after an all night wresting match with an angel in Genesis 32: 24-30,
24-25 But Jacob stayed behind by himself, and a man wrestled with him until daybreak. When the man saw that he couldn't get the best of Jacob as they wrestled, he deliberately threw Jacob's hip out of joint.
26 The man said, "Let me go; it's daybreak."
Jacob said, "I'm not letting you go 'til you bless me."
27 The man said, "What's your name?"
He answered, "Jacob."
28 The man said, "But no longer. Your name is no longer Jacob. From now on it's Israel (God-Wrestler); you've wrestled with God and you've come through."
29 Jacob asked, "And what's your name?"
The man said, "Why do you want to know my name?" And then, right then and there, he blessed him.
30 Jacob named the place Peniel (God's Face) because, he said, "I saw God face-to-face and lived to tell the story!"
Current times are no different and now the American and Israeli Jewish communities face some difficult decisions. The week of the Palestinian push for Statehood at the United Nations is here and what happens this Friday will alter the course of relations in the region for years to come. Oh, maybe not at first but, down the line this will be a "game changing event".
At the end of this week the Palestinian Authority under the leadership of President Mahmoud Abbas will ask the United Nations Security Council for a vote on Statehood. As things currently stand, the United States is planning on vetoing this measure (or so it has announced). Both the United States and the European Union favors direct negotiations over this move but as far as anyone can see only the U.S. is planning a veto.
As for the main players.. .the Israeli people strongly oppose this move though there are widely dissenting opinions on how to handle it. Interestingly enough, the Palestinian People are mixed on this. Palestinian polls offer widely differing opinions on the matter. According to the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip
Whilst (59.3%) of the respondents are of the opinion that it’s necessary to go first back to the negotiations with Israel as to reach a permanent peace with the Israelis then resort to the UN, (35.0%) however support going directly to the UN seeking the recognition of the Palestinian state unilaterally without the need for concluding a peace accord with the Israelis.
So if the people involved are so divided, how should American progressives and liberals look at this upcoming vote and it's implications for The United States and the region?
First of all, it should be a given that this measure has enough votes to pass the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). It most likely has Security Council support or at least abstentions from everyone BUT the United States (who plans to veto). Given this America now needs to make an informed and important decision.
For American progressives and liberals this question is fraught with pitfalls, longterm traps, and really no good answers. On one hand, there are many reasons to support the Palestinian quest for Statehood (a quest I support along with supporting the maintenance of a strong Israel as the Nation State and Homeland of the Jewish People), from the yearning of the Palestinian people to be free to run their own polity to the necessity of maintaining the Jewish people's legitimate rights to self-determination. On the other hand, the Palestinian Polity is badly fractured between a group that actively calls for the destruction of the State of Israel (Hamas)and a group of individuals that are committed to creating a State that considers Jews as settlers in the land and talks of their expulsion of an ethnic group (Fatah/PLO). Neither Fatah/PLO or Hamas represent anything remotely progressive or liberal in their polity. SO... the question remains what should the U.S. do.
Further complicating the matter for the American team is a potential draft of wording on the resolution which DOES NOT call for establishing borders based on June 4th, 1967 armistice lines but on declaring Statehood and deciding borders based on negotiations (land swaps) of those borders at a later point. This position has been a big part of the American position regarding the resolution of borders for the conflict.
SO... here is a short list of the political and realistic Pro's and Con's of an American Veto:
CON'S (Why a veto would be bad)
1. America's standing and prestige in the area will take a hit. American prestige is already low and is being challenged by both Turkey and Iran (who are also lining up as opposing forces). This symbolic move for statehood is popular both with the "street" and with governments within the region. A U.S. veto would be go directly against these wishes and would inflame the Arab "street" making relations with the U.S. difficult. Though many of the governments involved here (Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc....) have strong ties to the U.S. they would be faced with massive unrest should they continue their relationships with the U.S.
2. Ultimately the Palestinian people need a State and as such will keep asking the United Nations for recognition.Despite the wishes of the Israeli ruling coalition and the U.S. administration, this move will succeed in the U.N. at some point even if it does not succeed in the UNSC. It will pass the UNGA this time around. Should there be responsible behavior on the part of the Palestinian polity it is just a matter of time for it to pass the UNSC as well. When the U.S. veto's the Palestinian resolution it will further reduce America's diminshed ability to influence behaviors of the Palestinian Polity.
3. This measure would bring about strong international pressure to actually end the conflict. Whether the Israelis like it or not, this would force their Right Wing into decision making mode and there would be no more ambiguity to what position they would take regarding a number of issues involving the West Bank and Jerusalem. As the colloquial saying goes... at this point Israel would have to "Shit or get off the pot" relative to what they see as the fate of the occupied territories.
PRO'S (Why a veto is the right thing to do)
1. This will do nothing to settle the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis. Given recent Palestinian pronouncements regarding ethnically cleansing Jews from their territory, pronouncements on Right of Return, and Hamas' recent signal that they might accept the Palestinian move at the U.N. as long as the future Palestinian State refuses to recognize Israel. The Israelis are simply not going to end their occupation because this measure passes. Far from that, what will likely happen is that the security meme will become dominant (as it is already) and that even Israeli Center - Left groups will adopt the Center-Right's narrative on Security (see my article Avodah Rising). This in turn would lead to conflicts between Israelis and Palestinians and could even lead to a violent Third Intifada.
2. The Palestinian polity is simply not ready for this despite the popularity of such a move. There is no coherency or unity there. Should there be a State, it would be a split policy with Hamas ruling part of the State and the Palestinian Authority ruling the other part. Who would anyone negotiate with as far as borders or peace? It potentially could set off a Palestinian Civil War, a conflict that could explode in other parts of the Arab world.
3. Unilateralism does not solve conflicts. The U.S. (rightly so) feels this issue should be settled through direct negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. The U.S. feels that it is not up to the United Nations to set borders between two nations and that only direct negotiations between the parties involved can do that.
4. The United States made a pledge to Israel, Whether right or wrong, the U.S. has "made it's stand". What would this tell our allies about what our words mean? Not too mention that Israel has been our strongest friend in the region. Not vetoing this would be seen as us turning our back on some of our best friends in the world.
So given what we are facing we are indeed faced with a task no less than Jacob was when he wrestled with an angel of G-d. He was wounded in the fight (as was evidenced by his permanent limp following the battle) but he emerged stronger and with the new name of Israel. How we wrestle with our own angels will determine how we come out of this fight.
24-25 But Jacob stayed behind by himself, and a man wrestled with him until daybreak. When the man saw that he couldn't get the best of Jacob as they wrestled, he deliberately threw Jacob's hip out of joint.
26 The man said, "Let me go; it's daybreak."
Jacob said, "I'm not letting you go 'til you bless me."
27 The man said, "What's your name?"
He answered, "Jacob."
28 The man said, "But no longer. Your name is no longer Jacob. From now on it's Israel (God-Wrestler); you've wrestled with God and you've come through."
29 Jacob asked, "And what's your name?"
The man said, "Why do you want to know my name?" And then, right then and there, he blessed him.
30 Jacob named the place Peniel (God's Face) because, he said, "I saw God face-to-face and lived to tell the story!"
Current times are no different and now the American and Israeli Jewish communities face some difficult decisions. The week of the Palestinian push for Statehood at the United Nations is here and what happens this Friday will alter the course of relations in the region for years to come. Oh, maybe not at first but, down the line this will be a "game changing event".
At the end of this week the Palestinian Authority under the leadership of President Mahmoud Abbas will ask the United Nations Security Council for a vote on Statehood. As things currently stand, the United States is planning on vetoing this measure (or so it has announced). Both the United States and the European Union favors direct negotiations over this move but as far as anyone can see only the U.S. is planning a veto.
As for the main players.. .the Israeli people strongly oppose this move though there are widely dissenting opinions on how to handle it. Interestingly enough, the Palestinian People are mixed on this. Palestinian polls offer widely differing opinions on the matter. According to the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip
83% support going to the UNSC to obtain recognition of Palestine as a state. Moreover, 74% believe that there is no point in returning to negotiations with Israel without acceptable terms of reference or without freezing settlement construction and that therefore president Abbas is right in seeking UN involvement.
So if the people involved are so divided, how should American progressives and liberals look at this upcoming vote and it's implications for The United States and the region?
First of all, it should be a given that this measure has enough votes to pass the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). It most likely has Security Council support or at least abstentions from everyone BUT the United States (who plans to veto). Given this America now needs to make an informed and important decision.
For American progressives and liberals this question is fraught with pitfalls, longterm traps, and really no good answers. On one hand, there are many reasons to support the Palestinian quest for Statehood (a quest I support along with supporting the maintenance of a strong Israel as the Nation State and Homeland of the Jewish People), from the yearning of the Palestinian people to be free to run their own polity to the necessity of maintaining the Jewish people's legitimate rights to self-determination. On the other hand, the Palestinian Polity is badly fractured between a group that actively calls for the destruction of the State of Israel (Hamas)and a group of individuals that are committed to creating a State that considers Jews as settlers in the land and talks of their expulsion of an ethnic group (Fatah/PLO). Neither Fatah/PLO or Hamas represent anything remotely progressive or liberal in their polity. SO... the question remains what should the U.S. do.
Further complicating the matter for the American team is a potential draft of wording on the resolution which DOES NOT call for establishing borders based on June 4th, 1967 armistice lines but on declaring Statehood and deciding borders based on negotiations (land swaps) of those borders at a later point. This position has been a big part of the American position regarding the resolution of borders for the conflict.
SO... here is a short list of the political and realistic Pro's and Con's of an American Veto:
CON'S (Why a veto would be bad)
1. America's standing and prestige in the area will take a hit. American prestige is already low and is being challenged by both Turkey and Iran (who are also lining up as opposing forces). This symbolic move for statehood is popular both with the "street" and with governments within the region. A U.S. veto would be go directly against these wishes and would inflame the Arab "street" making relations with the U.S. difficult. Though many of the governments involved here (Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc....) have strong ties to the U.S. they would be faced with massive unrest should they continue their relationships with the U.S.
2. Ultimately the Palestinian people need a State and as such will keep asking the United Nations for recognition.Despite the wishes of the Israeli ruling coalition and the U.S. administration, this move will succeed in the U.N. at some point even if it does not succeed in the UNSC. It will pass the UNGA this time around. Should there be responsible behavior on the part of the Palestinian polity it is just a matter of time for it to pass the UNSC as well. When the U.S. veto's the Palestinian resolution it will further reduce America's diminshed ability to influence behaviors of the Palestinian Polity.
3. This measure would bring about strong international pressure to actually end the conflict. Whether the Israelis like it or not, this would force their Right Wing into decision making mode and there would be no more ambiguity to what position they would take regarding a number of issues involving the West Bank and Jerusalem. As the colloquial saying goes... at this point Israel would have to "Shit or get off the pot" relative to what they see as the fate of the occupied territories.
PRO'S (Why a veto is the right thing to do)
1. This will do nothing to settle the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis. Given recent Palestinian pronouncements regarding ethnically cleansing Jews from their territory, pronouncements on Right of Return, and Hamas' recent signal that they might accept the Palestinian move at the U.N. as long as the future Palestinian State refuses to recognize Israel. The Israelis are simply not going to end their occupation because this measure passes. Far from that, what will likely happen is that the security meme will become dominant (as it is already) and that even Israeli Center - Left groups will adopt the Center-Right's narrative on Security (see my article Avodah Rising). This in turn would lead to conflicts between Israelis and Palestinians and could even lead to a violent Third Intifada.
2. The Palestinian polity is simply not ready for this despite the popularity of such a move. There is no coherency or unity there. Should there be a State, it would be a split policy with Hamas ruling part of the State and the Palestinian Authority ruling the other part. Who would anyone negotiate with as far as borders or peace? It potentially could set off a Palestinian Civil War, a conflict that could explode in other parts of the Arab world.
3. Unilateralism does not solve conflicts. The U.S. (rightly so) feels this issue should be settled through direct negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. The U.S. feels that it is not up to the United Nations to set borders between two nations and that only direct negotiations between the parties involved can do that.
4. The United States made a pledge to Israel, Whether right or wrong, the U.S. has "made it's stand". What would this tell our allies about what our words mean? Not too mention that Israel has been our strongest friend in the region. Not vetoing this would be seen as us turning our back on some of our best friends in the world.
So given what we are facing we are indeed faced with a task no less than Jacob was when he wrestled with an angel of G-d. He was wounded in the fight (as was evidenced by his permanent limp following the battle) but he emerged stronger and with the new name of Israel. How we wrestle with our own angels will determine how we come out of this fight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)