Those were the words softly spoken in my ear... "You Killed Everyone, You Fail".
Simple... to the point. Everyone: Dead.
Let me go back to the beginning...
This last weekend I was taking another course (I had one seminar
in already - this was another basic course) in Israeli Tactical Point
Shooting with Pistols. We were working on Targeting, target
identification, shooting accuracy, shooting and moving and other basic
tactical skills with handguns.
My instructor was a decorated member of the Israeli Special
Forces and Security professional who flew over here to give a series of
seminars in the above mentioned skills.
In this particular phase we were working dealing with clearing
rooms and making sure that we were firing from maximum covered
positions. For this drill our guns were not loaded and all Ammunition
was carefully out of the way.
So.. what happened? Well, the instructor told us to turn our
backs while he set up a room with various targets inside. Then on his
call: "Shots Fired", we were to race to the room and shoot whoever was a
threat (the targets had various pictures of people on them, some with
weapons, some who just looked suspicious). I was second in line.
The First person broke for the room - his trigger clicks
signalling the shots. I heard the instructor say "Sorry, but you are
dead" to him at the end. Then it was my turn.
On the call "Shots fired" - I broke for the room, drawing my
pistol and charging for a point to not only have cover, but, for a point
that could give a clear firing solution. I got that - hit my first
target, and entered the room, going to one knee and firing as I went.
With the Instructor yelling "FIRE, FIRE, FIRE" in my ear (to simulate
pressure) I opened up on everything and anyone. They all died. I didn't
even think twice about it - in that moment and in that second I was
going to shoot anything that moved. Then after successfully firing on
everyone, I yelled "Room Cleared". And that is when I heard my
instructors voice softly telling me... "You Killed Everyone - You
Failed"
I was dumbfounded... I couldn't imagine what I did wrong. I used
my cover to perfection, dropping in the middle of the shots gave me an
advantage, what... what had I done wrong? AND THEN IT HIT ME... I looked
at the targets... Two of them (out of five) didn't have visible
weapons. They had their hands in suspicious poses and in clothing BUT
they were unarmed as far as I could tell. I would have killed potential
hostages, I would have been just like the terrorists.
All of us... each one of us had failed the test by either killing
the hostages (me and three others) OR by being shot not killing a
terrorist. And this made me think... Here I am, training with police
(there were a couple in class), ex-military, at least one security
professional and a host of other people and I would have been almost as
bad people doing the hostage taking. Because no matter what my intent...
the hostages would have been dead anyhow.
And then I thought ... "My G-d, how can anyone not be in favor of
Gun Control??? How can anyone ask that kids and teachers be slightly
trained and then allowed to carry loaded weapons into a school?" I
thought, "That is insane". I mean I have 32 hours of seminar time with
active handling of a loaded weapon PLUS 3 years of martial arts and I
would not have made the right decisions. I need a lot more training
before I can even come close to addressing this situation.
YET, the NRA, their supporters and Conservatives seem to think
that they, or their poorly trained but heavily armed citizens would
never make those kinds of mistakes. It's all one thing when you see it
on T.V. or see it in movies. You can pick out your targets. BUT.. in
real life it's different. The pressure is enormous AND in this drill I
wasn't firing live rounds OR being shot at. I just wanted to be
successful and "save the day".
But Guns and being a hero are not like you see on T.V. Handguns are
notoriously inaccurate beyond 10 meters (give or take). Even the best
operators make mistakes with loaded guns. Imagine a pressure situation
with people running everywhere, screaming, shots flying.... How would
some non-professional make any kind of sound decision?
Might they stop a massacre from happening? It certainly is
possible. Probably though, while they might shoot the gunman, they would
also probably shoot a few other people as well. Not always, but, I
would bet that the numbers would be high.
Guns are not toys and they are not for people who want to play
"John Wayne". They may or may not help you in a home invasion, and if
you have a gun in that situation you might just as easily shoot a family
member as well as or instead of a robber.
I realize from this class the awesome power of a gun in the hands
of someone who knows how to use it (I am just beginning). This is not
something that should be widely available to just anyone without severe
controls, as well as checks.
Maybe in our heads we are that brave hero from stage and screen
and we all think we would do the right thing. We all want to be that
person and honestly, there is nothing wrong with that... BUT, real life
has a way of telling us that we might NOT be that "Hero".
One day, we might wake up and hear: "You killed everyone. You Failed".
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Among The Truthers: An Examination of Modern Conspiracy Theory
There is no subject which I am as simultaneously fascinated and appalled by as conspiracy theories. The ability of so many people to truly believe the most absurd and toxic things both intrigues and terrifies me, for it is both profound insight into human nature, and at the same time a fundamental danger to a democratic society. I have been searching for insight as to why conspiracy theories are so durable, and why they almost always contain an antisemitic element. It turns out there are answers, especially to the later.
I was gripped by the excellent book Among The Truthers: A Journey Through Amerca's Growing Conspiracist Underground by Canadian journalist Jonathan Kay. While 9/11 Truthers, as proponents of the most famous contemporary conspiracy theory, loom largest in the book, the book also addresses 'Birthers', anti-vaccine activists, JFK assassination deniers, and many others. In fact, as I will explain below, none of these can be considered in isolation. Kay's eclectic professional background in engineering, law, and journalism prepared him well for delving into the strange paranoid underworld and emerging with important insights.
Fundamentally, conspiracy theories provide what Kay calls "an explanation for evil". Rather than having to recognize the world as a place full of random, unpredictable, and largely unavoidable danger and pain, where a handsome President can be killed in Dallas by a lone loser with a rifle, or savages can fly planes into buildings on a Tuesday morning and kill thousands, or innocent children can come down with crippling autism, the conspiracy theorist can blame events on an evil conspiracy, with the hidden implication that without the conspiracy everything would be alright and the world would be benign. It gives people, even sub-consciously, a way to account for evil in the world, without having to acknowledge the world as fundamentally a random unforgiving place where basically nobody is safe.
In addition to A) providing an explanation for evil, all modern conspiracy theories share the following characteristics:
B) Unity of evil: Conspiracy theories claim that distinct and opposing or competing forces in the world are actually unified, and their outward oppositional nature is only a ruse. For the conspiracist, there must only be one source of evil in the Universe. 9/11 Truthers insists that Islamists and the US Government (and often the Mossad) are all in league. Anti-vacciners insist that the FDA, pharmaceutical companies, and major research hospitals and journals, which are often adversarial or competitive at times, are actually one in the same. The number of adversarial groups that are actually acting in concert in the minds of Birthers, from hospital administrators to the sheriff's office, is mind-boggling. And in the Illuminati / New World Order fantasies which unite all of these and more, all nefarious actors in all of the sub-plots are ultimately united.
C) Hypercompetence: Conspiracy theories attribute superhuman and ultimately impossible abilities to the supposed conspirators. This is most obvious is in the claims, common to all modern conspiracy theories, that hundreds or thousands or even tens of thousands of people can keep an unbelievably profound secret for decades. How many people would have needed to be in on a plot to stage the 9/11 attacks as a US government plot? When you consider everyone within the airlines, the military, the demolition experts who supposedly rigged the buildings, the investigators both within the government and without, and so in, it is an enormous number of people. It is utterly superhuman for absolutely nobody to blow the whistle in all this time. Even more remarkable would be that happening for the 50 years since the JFK assassination or the 45 years since the moon landing, which considering that the Apollo program employed 400,000 people, is incredible.
It is not just in ability to keep a secret, but in every realm of human achievement, from science to technology to public relations that conspirators are apparently not subject to the constraints of mere mortals.
D) Lack of nuance: To the conspiracist, the supposed (unified) conspirators are evil incarnate, without the normal range of human emotions and opinions. To cite an obvious example, anti-vaccers believe that tens of thousands of scientists and doctors both in the private sector and government - people who in reality choose to go into science out of a thirst for knowledge and into medicine out of either a love for people or money - are in reality pure monsters who want nothing other than to afflict children and families with autism. Birthers can't conceive of a doctor, county registrar, or small town newspaperman in 1960 simply wanting to do his job, instead insisting that all of these people and others plotted, for some unknown reason, to have an 18 year old single mother travel to the other side of the world to give birth.
The recipe for a modern conspiracy theory, then, is as follows: 1) Take an event or trend of events that reveals the arbitrary nature of misfortune in the world, and instead attribute it only as the result of nefarious actions of a powerful group. 2) The powerful group must include many forces in society, some of which appear to be in opposition or competition but are actually unified. 3) The evil and power of the unified group is boundless. 4) Any facts that contradict the hypothesis are simply evidence of the reach and penetration of the evil group into whatever generated the fact.
The reason, as Key shows, is that not only are all modern conspiracy theories the same, but they are all based on the Elders of Zion.
"The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion" was the first modern conspiracy theory, that is, the first one that fits the mold discussed above, and it served as a template for all to come. The book was a hoax, appearing in Europe in the chaos following World War I and the Russian Revolution, which purported to be the transcripts of the meeting of a secret group of Jews that run the world. The supposed transcripts revealed the Jews' secret plot for world domination, in which they would plant the ideas of liberalism and secularism in order to seed catastrophic events such as the French Revolution, Russian Revolution, and various wars which would eventually allow them to take over.
This contained all of the elements discussed above: An explanation for bad events, and a group of unified, supremely evil, and hypercompetent (engineering the French Revolution!) conspirators behind it. It is no surprise then, that since the 20th century's most notorious antisemitic tract was the blueprint for all modern conspiracy theories, that all modern conspiracy theories would contain an element of antisemitism. From the supposed Mossad and "Israelis who stayed home from work" connections to 9/11, to the explicitly Jewish connotations of the Illuminati, to the Khazar Hoax and the USS Liberty Hoax, antisemitism is a staple of modern conspiracy theories, and no wonder.
As Kay points out, and anyone who forays into the jungle of major online blogs and comment boards can attest, it is basically impossible to convince a conspiracy theorist otherwise once they have gone down that road. Furthermore, once someone has embraced one conspiracy theory, they will likely embrace more, for as discussed here, they are all essentially the same anyway.
Matters are made worse because of our contemporary media landscape, where, thanks to the decline of the traditional print and broadcast media and the rise of blogs and cable pundits, people can now go an arbitrarily long time without ever encountering a dissenting viewpoint. This is a problem that of course extends far beyond conspiracy theories, but it certainly helps to feed them. When both the left wing and the right wing speak dismissively of the "mainstream media" and largely refuse to accept any facts or opinions presented therein, the opportunities for moderation of extreme views are few and far between.
It would all be a laughing matter if conspiracy theories were not a big deal, if we could simply make fun of theorists' zeal and the implausibility of their claims. But conspiracy theories and their peddlers erode the very heart of a democratic society, which depends on a certain amount of public trust in our public institutions. Not blind faith, certainly, but also not complete dismissal of the value of elected governments or the principle of voluntary associations. People who believe elections are useless because the government is controlled by a secret group, or that professional qualifications such as mechanical engineer or doctor are useless because those professionals are part of a giant nefarious plot, do not make for good citizens in any sense.
What then, is to be done, about the proliferation of conspiracism? This may be the point where there are no good answers at present, given human nature and our media landscape. Kay makes a modest proposal for a high school or college course about conspiracy theories, teaching the Elders of Zion as a case-study since it is a conspiracy theory which few people believe anymore (except in the Arab world, of course). I think that this might be a mistake that would simply lead to its re-popularization. Instead, I would like to see a new conspiracy theory created from whole cloth following the formula - perhaps that the atomic bombing of Japan was a hoax and never actually happened, and then that taught as a case-study in a new high school or college course. It isn't a magic bullet, but it would be a start.
I was gripped by the excellent book Among The Truthers: A Journey Through Amerca's Growing Conspiracist Underground by Canadian journalist Jonathan Kay. While 9/11 Truthers, as proponents of the most famous contemporary conspiracy theory, loom largest in the book, the book also addresses 'Birthers', anti-vaccine activists, JFK assassination deniers, and many others. In fact, as I will explain below, none of these can be considered in isolation. Kay's eclectic professional background in engineering, law, and journalism prepared him well for delving into the strange paranoid underworld and emerging with important insights.
The Problem Defined
Right off the bat Kay does something very useful, which is to define what a conspiracy theory is precisely. This is important, to differentiate conspiracy theories, which are characterized by improbability and cult-like adherence, from real-life conspiracies that do actually exist in the world, such as how al-Qaeda really did conspire to carry out the 9/11 attacks. Kay adopts the definition given by scholars Steve Clark and Brian Keeley:A conspiracy theory traces important events to a secretive, nefarious cabal, and its proponents consistently respond to contrary facts not by modifying their theory, but instead by insisting on the existence of ever-wider circles of conspirators controlling most or all parts of society.This definition gets at the essential difference between conspiracy theories and actual conspiracies, and also between conspiracy theories and run-of-the-mill paranoia. Conspiracy theories adopt to contrary information only by widening the circle of supposed perpetrators. For instance, when I have tried to tell moon landing deniers that the Apollo astronauts put mirrors on the lunar surface that scientists have since used to bounce lasers off of and precisely measure the distance to the moon, those conspiracy advocates simply decide that these scientists must also be in on the conspiracy and are lying about the research they have done. When I tell Khazar Hoax advocates about genetic studies disproving their claim, they likewise decide that the scientists, research journals, and funding agencies must all be part of a nefarious Jewish plot.
Nothing New Here
A major insight that Kay delivers is quite profound: All modern conspiracy theories are the same. All you have to do is switch out the names and some ultimately trivial details.Fundamentally, conspiracy theories provide what Kay calls "an explanation for evil". Rather than having to recognize the world as a place full of random, unpredictable, and largely unavoidable danger and pain, where a handsome President can be killed in Dallas by a lone loser with a rifle, or savages can fly planes into buildings on a Tuesday morning and kill thousands, or innocent children can come down with crippling autism, the conspiracy theorist can blame events on an evil conspiracy, with the hidden implication that without the conspiracy everything would be alright and the world would be benign. It gives people, even sub-consciously, a way to account for evil in the world, without having to acknowledge the world as fundamentally a random unforgiving place where basically nobody is safe.
In addition to A) providing an explanation for evil, all modern conspiracy theories share the following characteristics:
B) Unity of evil: Conspiracy theories claim that distinct and opposing or competing forces in the world are actually unified, and their outward oppositional nature is only a ruse. For the conspiracist, there must only be one source of evil in the Universe. 9/11 Truthers insists that Islamists and the US Government (and often the Mossad) are all in league. Anti-vacciners insist that the FDA, pharmaceutical companies, and major research hospitals and journals, which are often adversarial or competitive at times, are actually one in the same. The number of adversarial groups that are actually acting in concert in the minds of Birthers, from hospital administrators to the sheriff's office, is mind-boggling. And in the Illuminati / New World Order fantasies which unite all of these and more, all nefarious actors in all of the sub-plots are ultimately united.
C) Hypercompetence: Conspiracy theories attribute superhuman and ultimately impossible abilities to the supposed conspirators. This is most obvious is in the claims, common to all modern conspiracy theories, that hundreds or thousands or even tens of thousands of people can keep an unbelievably profound secret for decades. How many people would have needed to be in on a plot to stage the 9/11 attacks as a US government plot? When you consider everyone within the airlines, the military, the demolition experts who supposedly rigged the buildings, the investigators both within the government and without, and so in, it is an enormous number of people. It is utterly superhuman for absolutely nobody to blow the whistle in all this time. Even more remarkable would be that happening for the 50 years since the JFK assassination or the 45 years since the moon landing, which considering that the Apollo program employed 400,000 people, is incredible.
It is not just in ability to keep a secret, but in every realm of human achievement, from science to technology to public relations that conspirators are apparently not subject to the constraints of mere mortals.
D) Lack of nuance: To the conspiracist, the supposed (unified) conspirators are evil incarnate, without the normal range of human emotions and opinions. To cite an obvious example, anti-vaccers believe that tens of thousands of scientists and doctors both in the private sector and government - people who in reality choose to go into science out of a thirst for knowledge and into medicine out of either a love for people or money - are in reality pure monsters who want nothing other than to afflict children and families with autism. Birthers can't conceive of a doctor, county registrar, or small town newspaperman in 1960 simply wanting to do his job, instead insisting that all of these people and others plotted, for some unknown reason, to have an 18 year old single mother travel to the other side of the world to give birth.
The recipe for a modern conspiracy theory, then, is as follows: 1) Take an event or trend of events that reveals the arbitrary nature of misfortune in the world, and instead attribute it only as the result of nefarious actions of a powerful group. 2) The powerful group must include many forces in society, some of which appear to be in opposition or competition but are actually unified. 3) The evil and power of the unified group is boundless. 4) Any facts that contradict the hypothesis are simply evidence of the reach and penetration of the evil group into whatever generated the fact.
Really, Nothing New Here
Kay brings it all home with yet another a very interesting insight, which addresses one of the perplexing things about conspiracy theories that I have always noted: Why do they almost always have an antisemitic component?The reason, as Key shows, is that not only are all modern conspiracy theories the same, but they are all based on the Elders of Zion.
"The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion" was the first modern conspiracy theory, that is, the first one that fits the mold discussed above, and it served as a template for all to come. The book was a hoax, appearing in Europe in the chaos following World War I and the Russian Revolution, which purported to be the transcripts of the meeting of a secret group of Jews that run the world. The supposed transcripts revealed the Jews' secret plot for world domination, in which they would plant the ideas of liberalism and secularism in order to seed catastrophic events such as the French Revolution, Russian Revolution, and various wars which would eventually allow them to take over.
This contained all of the elements discussed above: An explanation for bad events, and a group of unified, supremely evil, and hypercompetent (engineering the French Revolution!) conspirators behind it. It is no surprise then, that since the 20th century's most notorious antisemitic tract was the blueprint for all modern conspiracy theories, that all modern conspiracy theories would contain an element of antisemitism. From the supposed Mossad and "Israelis who stayed home from work" connections to 9/11, to the explicitly Jewish connotations of the Illuminati, to the Khazar Hoax and the USS Liberty Hoax, antisemitism is a staple of modern conspiracy theories, and no wonder.
What Can Be Done?
Kay presents alarming statistics on the number of Americans subscribing to various conspiracy theories, and anecdotally, I think it may be worse than even the statistics paint. I would estimate that certainly a significant minority, and possibly a majority, of the self-declared "reality based community" at blogs such as Huffington Post and Daily Kos believe in some form of 9/11 Trutherism, anti-vaccism, the Khazar hoax, "ZOG", or another modern conspiracy theory (See here and here for some examples). On the political right it is just as bad, with large numbers of people believing in Birtherism, the New World Order, the NAFTA superhighway, and other nonsense, even at a supposedly mainstream conservative forum such as Human Events.As Kay points out, and anyone who forays into the jungle of major online blogs and comment boards can attest, it is basically impossible to convince a conspiracy theorist otherwise once they have gone down that road. Furthermore, once someone has embraced one conspiracy theory, they will likely embrace more, for as discussed here, they are all essentially the same anyway.
Matters are made worse because of our contemporary media landscape, where, thanks to the decline of the traditional print and broadcast media and the rise of blogs and cable pundits, people can now go an arbitrarily long time without ever encountering a dissenting viewpoint. This is a problem that of course extends far beyond conspiracy theories, but it certainly helps to feed them. When both the left wing and the right wing speak dismissively of the "mainstream media" and largely refuse to accept any facts or opinions presented therein, the opportunities for moderation of extreme views are few and far between.
It would all be a laughing matter if conspiracy theories were not a big deal, if we could simply make fun of theorists' zeal and the implausibility of their claims. But conspiracy theories and their peddlers erode the very heart of a democratic society, which depends on a certain amount of public trust in our public institutions. Not blind faith, certainly, but also not complete dismissal of the value of elected governments or the principle of voluntary associations. People who believe elections are useless because the government is controlled by a secret group, or that professional qualifications such as mechanical engineer or doctor are useless because those professionals are part of a giant nefarious plot, do not make for good citizens in any sense.
What then, is to be done, about the proliferation of conspiracism? This may be the point where there are no good answers at present, given human nature and our media landscape. Kay makes a modest proposal for a high school or college course about conspiracy theories, teaching the Elders of Zion as a case-study since it is a conspiracy theory which few people believe anymore (except in the Arab world, of course). I think that this might be a mistake that would simply lead to its re-popularization. Instead, I would like to see a new conspiracy theory created from whole cloth following the formula - perhaps that the atomic bombing of Japan was a hoax and never actually happened, and then that taught as a case-study in a new high school or college course. It isn't a magic bullet, but it would be a start.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
ISRAELI POLITICS - WELCOME TO THE THUNDERDOME
In his first speech as a Member of Knesset, Naftali Bennett, leader of the HaBayit HaYehudi Party may have opened a door to Centrist coalition while inadvertently slamming the door on a Rightist one.
In his speech Bennett stated:
Ok.. back to sorting... We have the P.M trying to build a coalition. To his left, he has potential partners in Yair Lapid (Yesh Atid), Tzipi Livni (HaTanuah), and Shaul Mofaz (Kadima), all of whom insist on a Two State solution and all of home say that it is important.
To his Right (and within his own party) he has the Right Wing of his party who won't back him up on this and who feel that a Two State Solution cannot get done and he has Naftali Bennett (a natural coalition partner to Likud-Betainu but Bibi is reported to not stand the man). He can make a coalition with Yesh Atid, HaTanuah and Kadima and possibly Labor IF he gets serious about the Peace Talks. OR he can make a coalition with Yesh Atid and HaBayit HaYehudi, would be immediately at odds over Two States. OR he can spin Right, and co-opt the religious parties but then he runs into issues where the Haredi Draft comes into play.
I am not sure how any of this is going to produce a stable government or one that lasts for more than 15 minutes.
For political observers the Israeli "Thunderdome" is in full swing. Grab some popcorn and watch the show. It should produce some very interesting scenes.
In his speech Bennett stated:
<em>"We must know that the land of our forefathers is not a piece of real estate, and that there is no need for me to speak of geo-strategic depth to explain why this is important to me.This coming the day after coalition meetings between Prime Minister Netanuyahu and Bennett AND a day after Prime Minister Netanyahu said this:
"I live in Ra'anana and feel safe because my brothers protect me from the mountains of Binyamin and Samaria. There is no room in our divine little piece of land for another country. It won’t happen, but friends, before any discussion on the territories, it must be said that the Land of Israel belongs to the nation of Israel."</em>
"I believe that a framework to peace (with the Palestinians) is what I outlined in my speech in Bar-Ilan University – two states for two peoples: A demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish state."But that's not all... in a response to the Prime Minister, Yair Shamir an incoming MK from Likud-Betainu had this to say:
“Netanyahu’s Bar Ilan speech was never approved by the Likud party or the government of Israel. The idea of a two state solution is impossible to implement,” Shamir said.And who exactly is Yair Shamir:
Shamir, the son of the late Likud prime minister Yitzhak Shamir, is a former IAF pilot. He said he would be very pleased to serve as defense minister in the next government, but is widely expected to be given a senior domestic portfolio. He is the No. 2 to Avigdor Liberman on the Yisrael Beytenu list, and No. 4 on the joint Likud-Beytenu list; Liberman, the former foreign minister, will not sit in the cabinet while he’s fighting fraud and breach of trust charges...At the same time we have potential partner to Likud-Beitanu, Yesh Atid's leader Yair Lapid, saying the following:
“Both parties understand that they have to go back to the Roadmap,” Lapid told American Jewish leaders in Jerusalem – a reference to an outline laid out by president George W. Bush. “We have to jumpstart [the process]… People have to understand that we’re talking about the two-state solution.”...
SO... what do we have.. let's sort some of this out as Secretary of State Kerry heads there this month and with President Obama heading over to the Middle East on March 20th. Oh yeah and Outgoing Defense Minister Ehud Barak paid Washington a visit the other day. Only thing is that no one knows why, but he is meeting with American Defense AND Intelligence personal. Oh yeah, and while this is happening PM's chief negotiator with the Palestinians Isaac Molcho AND National Security Adviser Yaakov Amridor are also heading to Washington.....“I mean, I look at these territories as part of Greater Israel, but I understand that this dream might be postponed for another 1,000 years,” he said, “because the other option is having a country that is not Jewish. I want to live in a Jewish country and in order to live in a Jewish country, I have to somehow… I don’t want to say get rid of, but separate myself from the 3.3 million Palestinians we have right now between the [Mediterranean] Sea and the eastern border of Israel.”
Ok.. back to sorting... We have the P.M trying to build a coalition. To his left, he has potential partners in Yair Lapid (Yesh Atid), Tzipi Livni (HaTanuah), and Shaul Mofaz (Kadima), all of whom insist on a Two State solution and all of home say that it is important.
To his Right (and within his own party) he has the Right Wing of his party who won't back him up on this and who feel that a Two State Solution cannot get done and he has Naftali Bennett (a natural coalition partner to Likud-Betainu but Bibi is reported to not stand the man). He can make a coalition with Yesh Atid, HaTanuah and Kadima and possibly Labor IF he gets serious about the Peace Talks. OR he can make a coalition with Yesh Atid and HaBayit HaYehudi, would be immediately at odds over Two States. OR he can spin Right, and co-opt the religious parties but then he runs into issues where the Haredi Draft comes into play.
I am not sure how any of this is going to produce a stable government or one that lasts for more than 15 minutes.
For political observers the Israeli "Thunderdome" is in full swing. Grab some popcorn and watch the show. It should produce some very interesting scenes.
Monday, February 11, 2013
Netanyahu's Kobayashi Maru
From the Urban Dictionary
It seems that Israeli Prime Minister faces his own Kobayashi Maru - better known as his version of "The Two State Solution". What makes this Netanyahu's version of a "no-win" situation? Due to the fact that his proposals are an unacceptable alternative to almost EVERYONE, Israeli, Palestinian or member of the World Community.
The Prime Minister has NOT laid out an official plan but given all of his statements on the subject one can speculate what his map might look like. It seems that Netanyahu is proposing something akin to a combination of the Olmert Plan (see map here) AND the Allon Plan with a few changes and additions two of which are that Jerusalem remain undivided under Israeli Control and as Israel's International Capitol and that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the National Homeland and State of the Jewish People.
So what makes this a Kobayashi Maru Test? Why is it a "no-win" situation for the PM?
Well first off (and let's get the most obvious issue or "objection") - In any negotiation there needs to be an agreement from both sides on a final plan. To get that agreement from the Palestinians, they would have to voluntarily give up on any part of East Jerusalem, including Islam's third holiest shrine the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque. NOW... one can make the case that for the most part that under Israeli Rule worshipers have been free to exercise their religious freedom while the same cannot be said when other religions had ruled over Jewish Holy Sites. Still, no Arab leader could voluntarily give up Jerusalem and expect to live until the end of the day.
President Abbas, actually agreed to split E. Jerusalem (as indicated in the Palestine Papers), however, as he never took this back to the Palestinian people and walked away from negotiations one will never know if this would have been accepted by the general populace.
Second, The Palestinians would also have to renounce their perceived "Right of Return" as laid out in U.N. Res. 194. NOW, according to the Palestine Paper by accepting Israel as the National Homeland and State of the Jewish people. This is a flash point in negotiations and it is something that is of vital importance to both sides. For the Israelis to allow "Palestinian Right of Return" would mean the end of their State as a "Jewish State", and for the Palestinians to give this up would mean "giving up" on the refugee population and banishing them to the tender mercies of their Arab brethren in the surrounding nations.
Again, President Abbas indicated (according to the Palestine Papers) that he would indeed compromise here - HOWEVER like with Jerusalem he was hesitant to take it back to his populace knowing full well that this would never be acceptable to a vast majority.
This is not to mention that the presumed Netanyahu border outline leaves the Palestine State with few resources including most importantly water, no control over their borders and a demilitarized state. As previously stated, this would be a very "hard sell" for Abbas and the Palestinian leadership and quite possibly one that they could not agree too even if they wanted.
Now, the PM and the Israeli negotiating team my feel that they have the Palestinians "Over a Barrel", and to degree they do, of course the Palestinians also feel they have the Israelis "Over a Barrel". How so? Well, if the Palestinians don't negotiate, they can't have a State. Something that they want and in my opinion quite badly need. At the same time if they don't have a State, they force Israel into a situation where the Israelis bleed manpower and treasure to maintain an unpopular Occupation. They force Israel into the position of becoming a permanent Occupying power, a position that would eventually in turn severely strain support for Israel with even it's strongest allies in the U.S. and Europe.
This position of becoming a permanent Occupying power would then force Israel into a demographic nightmare given birthrates of Jews relative to Palestinians. It would not be long until Jews were a minority in the area that they ruled over. THUS, this would destroy Israel's democracy and force an almost permanent civil war on the nation.
Of course the Israelis could then forcibly remove the entire Palestinian population of the West Bank, but, for some odd reason, I think that level of ethnic cleansing would bring on the next Arab Israeli War, and most likely Israel would not have the backing of the it's principle allies.
BUT ok.... let's say the "Age of Miracles" returns AND the Palestinians agree to the Prime Ministers plan. What then? Well the PM's own party turned hard right in the last election lifting noted Right Wing politicians Gideon Saar, and Danny Danon to more powerful positions while relative moderates like Dan Meriador were purged. These hard rightists have said in no uncertain terms that they would not accept anything less than Israeli control over the entire West Bank (Judea and Samaria as they call it).
Would the Rightists give up on the Occupation of Hebron? As one Rightist blogger likes to put it, would the YESHA give up on telling Jews that they have the right to live in what they consider Jewish land in Judea and Samaria? Giving up the settlements in Gaza was traumatic enough (remember Gush Katif?) one can imagine that officially giving up sovereignty over the Territories would lead to a government split at the best and (more likely) Civil War at worst.
Now it is again the both sides in a Catch-22. The Palestinians get what they want (sort of) but who is to guarantee that radical factions like Hamas don't get control of the Palestinian polity, and start a conflict (like Cast Lead). After all it is in the Hamas Charter that they must kill all the Jews and destroy Israel. Then, like in Gaza Israel would be facing an enemy shelling Jerusalem and Tel Aviv from even closer range. What Israeli Prime Minister could agree to something like that and keep his job much less his life (witness Yitzhak Rabin)?
Basically, there's no good way through this without a miracle or more properly the backing of a Super Power to make a deal happen. For the Israelis to make this deal happen they need to have the assurances and the actual back-up of a major military power to assure their security. Something along the lines of a mutual defense pact with a nation like the U.S. and economic security arrangements with both of it's major economic partners,. the U.S. and the Europeans.
For the Palestinians they need to make sure that people will be there to help them build their economy and a stable political system that would not be subject to the authoritarian impulses of the their present leadership. They would need to strike a deal around the Harm al Sharif and Al-Aqsa where they do not relinquish control of their Holy Sites AND they would have to find an alternative solution to the Refugee's.
It's like doing a coin flip with the devil where he smiles and says: "Heads I win, Tails you lose", and you know it's true. Are there ways out. Possibly.... Is it likely now. Not. At. All.
Kobayashi Maru - A no-win situation or scenario, in which every action is effectively countered by a force either seen or unseenThe Kobayashi Maru was a fictional test in the Star Trek series of a "no-win" situation. The test was to assess a cadet's fitness to deal with an impossible situation.
It seems that Israeli Prime Minister faces his own Kobayashi Maru - better known as his version of "The Two State Solution". What makes this Netanyahu's version of a "no-win" situation? Due to the fact that his proposals are an unacceptable alternative to almost EVERYONE, Israeli, Palestinian or member of the World Community.
The Prime Minister has NOT laid out an official plan but given all of his statements on the subject one can speculate what his map might look like. It seems that Netanyahu is proposing something akin to a combination of the Olmert Plan (see map here) AND the Allon Plan with a few changes and additions two of which are that Jerusalem remain undivided under Israeli Control and as Israel's International Capitol and that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the National Homeland and State of the Jewish People.
So what makes this a Kobayashi Maru Test? Why is it a "no-win" situation for the PM?
Well first off (and let's get the most obvious issue or "objection") - In any negotiation there needs to be an agreement from both sides on a final plan. To get that agreement from the Palestinians, they would have to voluntarily give up on any part of East Jerusalem, including Islam's third holiest shrine the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque. NOW... one can make the case that for the most part that under Israeli Rule worshipers have been free to exercise their religious freedom while the same cannot be said when other religions had ruled over Jewish Holy Sites. Still, no Arab leader could voluntarily give up Jerusalem and expect to live until the end of the day.
President Abbas, actually agreed to split E. Jerusalem (as indicated in the Palestine Papers), however, as he never took this back to the Palestinian people and walked away from negotiations one will never know if this would have been accepted by the general populace.
Second, The Palestinians would also have to renounce their perceived "Right of Return" as laid out in U.N. Res. 194. NOW, according to the Palestine Paper by accepting Israel as the National Homeland and State of the Jewish people. This is a flash point in negotiations and it is something that is of vital importance to both sides. For the Israelis to allow "Palestinian Right of Return" would mean the end of their State as a "Jewish State", and for the Palestinians to give this up would mean "giving up" on the refugee population and banishing them to the tender mercies of their Arab brethren in the surrounding nations.
Again, President Abbas indicated (according to the Palestine Papers) that he would indeed compromise here - HOWEVER like with Jerusalem he was hesitant to take it back to his populace knowing full well that this would never be acceptable to a vast majority.
This is not to mention that the presumed Netanyahu border outline leaves the Palestine State with few resources including most importantly water, no control over their borders and a demilitarized state. As previously stated, this would be a very "hard sell" for Abbas and the Palestinian leadership and quite possibly one that they could not agree too even if they wanted.
Now, the PM and the Israeli negotiating team my feel that they have the Palestinians "Over a Barrel", and to degree they do, of course the Palestinians also feel they have the Israelis "Over a Barrel". How so? Well, if the Palestinians don't negotiate, they can't have a State. Something that they want and in my opinion quite badly need. At the same time if they don't have a State, they force Israel into a situation where the Israelis bleed manpower and treasure to maintain an unpopular Occupation. They force Israel into the position of becoming a permanent Occupying power, a position that would eventually in turn severely strain support for Israel with even it's strongest allies in the U.S. and Europe.
This position of becoming a permanent Occupying power would then force Israel into a demographic nightmare given birthrates of Jews relative to Palestinians. It would not be long until Jews were a minority in the area that they ruled over. THUS, this would destroy Israel's democracy and force an almost permanent civil war on the nation.
Of course the Israelis could then forcibly remove the entire Palestinian population of the West Bank, but, for some odd reason, I think that level of ethnic cleansing would bring on the next Arab Israeli War, and most likely Israel would not have the backing of the it's principle allies.
BUT ok.... let's say the "Age of Miracles" returns AND the Palestinians agree to the Prime Ministers plan. What then? Well the PM's own party turned hard right in the last election lifting noted Right Wing politicians Gideon Saar, and Danny Danon to more powerful positions while relative moderates like Dan Meriador were purged. These hard rightists have said in no uncertain terms that they would not accept anything less than Israeli control over the entire West Bank (Judea and Samaria as they call it).
Would the Rightists give up on the Occupation of Hebron? As one Rightist blogger likes to put it, would the YESHA give up on telling Jews that they have the right to live in what they consider Jewish land in Judea and Samaria? Giving up the settlements in Gaza was traumatic enough (remember Gush Katif?) one can imagine that officially giving up sovereignty over the Territories would lead to a government split at the best and (more likely) Civil War at worst.
Now it is again the both sides in a Catch-22. The Palestinians get what they want (sort of) but who is to guarantee that radical factions like Hamas don't get control of the Palestinian polity, and start a conflict (like Cast Lead). After all it is in the Hamas Charter that they must kill all the Jews and destroy Israel. Then, like in Gaza Israel would be facing an enemy shelling Jerusalem and Tel Aviv from even closer range. What Israeli Prime Minister could agree to something like that and keep his job much less his life (witness Yitzhak Rabin)?
Basically, there's no good way through this without a miracle or more properly the backing of a Super Power to make a deal happen. For the Israelis to make this deal happen they need to have the assurances and the actual back-up of a major military power to assure their security. Something along the lines of a mutual defense pact with a nation like the U.S. and economic security arrangements with both of it's major economic partners,. the U.S. and the Europeans.
For the Palestinians they need to make sure that people will be there to help them build their economy and a stable political system that would not be subject to the authoritarian impulses of the their present leadership. They would need to strike a deal around the Harm al Sharif and Al-Aqsa where they do not relinquish control of their Holy Sites AND they would have to find an alternative solution to the Refugee's.
It's like doing a coin flip with the devil where he smiles and says: "Heads I win, Tails you lose", and you know it's true. Are there ways out. Possibly.... Is it likely now. Not. At. All.
Friday, February 8, 2013
Secretary of State Kerry gets tough on Iran
In his first public address regarding Iran, new Secretary of State John Kerry has words from the Administration regarding Iran:
"We are prepared to let diplomacy be the victor in this confrontation over their nuclear program," Kerry said after meeting with Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird. "The president has made it clear that he is prepared to talk about a peaceful nuclear program."
Kerry also said: "Iran has a choice: they have to prove to the world that it is peaceful and we are prepared to sit responsibly and negotiate how they can do that and how we can all be satisfied."....
...Kerry also said that Iran's recent revelation that it would vastly increase its pace of uranium enrichment, which can make both reactor fuel and the fissile core of warheads, is "concerning" and "disturbing."
"The president has made it clear that his preference is to have a diplomatic solution, but if he cannot get there, he is prepared to do whatever is necessary to make certain that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon," he said.
Now, this is clearly a diplomatic "shot across the bow" to Iran. Right now it seems it is meant purely as a rhetorical threat as the U.S. in reality is actually going through force reduction in the Persian Gulf and rotating a carrier group OUT of the region.
It comes on the heels of Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini's rhetoric stating:
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's supreme leader Thursday strongly rejected proposals for direct talks with the United States, effectively quashing suggestions for a breakthrough one-on-one dialogue on the nuclear standoff and potentially other issues.....
...."Talks will not solve any problems," Khamenei said in the statement posted Thursday following a meeting with air force commanders.
"You are holding a gun against Iran saying, 'Talks or you'll fire.' The Iranian nation will not be frightened by such threats," he added in apparent reference to U.S. sanctions over Iran's nuclear efforts.However, this bellicose tone however, has not necessarily been supported through their actions.
First off, while the Bulgarians found Hizbollah guilty in an attack on a civilian bus in Burgas, Bulgaria that wounded a number of Israelis Iran has been quick to distance itself from it's client's actions.
Second, The Iranians publicly rebuffed Syrian requests for action after Israeli warplanes attacked a Syrian transfer of Soviet SA-117 missles to Hizbollah as well as a chemical weapons research facility.
Lately Iranian rhetoric has simply not matched their deeds. SO... what can we take away from this ratcheting up of rhetoric from the U.S.
Well.... (and I have been very wrong before), I think this is a signal that the U.S. is about to take an enhanced DIPLOMATIC role in the region. Now note that I say Diplomatic rather than Military.
Why do I say this? Well I say this due to the fact that the U.S. is in Force Reduction and Balancing the Budget mode, so ADDING a conflict in the region would do neither of those things. Additionally, the administration is discussing peaceable Nuclear energy as a "live with" situation.
At the same time perhaps the unconfirmed "blast" at Fordo was a message to Iran regarding the realities of their quest to enrich Uranium to weapons grade levels.
What then does the U.S. taking the DIPLOMATIC initiative mean... Well, it means that the President is putting the U.S. out in front on both a political and economic track to isolate the Iranian regime.
So far, aside from the Civil War in Syria (that is sure to cost the Iranians that nation), there are grumblings in Lebanon against Hizbollah (an Iranian client), as Israeli Jets fly mock sorties over the country in response to Hizbollah threats. At the same time the Government of Egypt who just had productive talks with Iran is facing popular dissension in the streets.
So is the U.S. signalling a move to enhance it's standing in the region through more covert means and with use of it's allies?
As far as economically, my assumption from Kerry's statements are that should the Iranians NOT "come to the table", they will face another more severe round of sanctions in addition to the ones that are beginning to strongly effect the Iranian economy and causing grumbling amongst the populace.
What I don't see is an all out military strike just yet, and honestly maybe not ever. BUT I do think things are about to get extremely "interesting" in the Persian Gulf.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Mr. Obama and the Belagan
Here is the word of the day: Belagan:
What is one of the most difficult intellectual endeavors on the Planet? Trying to figure out the politics of the Middle East. Nothing but nothing about this area is clear and nothing but nothing about this area makes a ton of sense. Into this fray - the President Obama steps. Living up to a campaign promise made during his first term the President will be heading to the Middle East to visit both the Israelis and Palestinian leadership (well the P.A. part of it)
Of course, in typical fashion for anything in the Middle East, nothing about this visit seems to make sense. One side (the Americans) state that the visit is for the President to "strengthen the bonds between Israel and the U.S.", One side (the Palestinians) are insisting that the U.S. visit be used to "pressure" the Israelis into halting the settlement process and force the Israelis to negotiate with him for a State and finally One side (the Israelis), are saying that that the President is both coming with a plan and a proposal for a summit between the Israelis and Palestinians AND Not coming with anything (is this a surprise to anyone?)
Speaking the other day President Obama had this to say:
Meanwhile, the Prime Minister has come under heavy fire from some own members of his party. Outgoing Deputy Prime Minister (Likud) Dan Meriador surprised everyone today with some harsh criticism of the Netanyahu settlement policy.
Meanwhile the Palestinians say that they want to the President to visit and put some heat on the Israelis to end settlements and get back to the negotiating table. Their two demands: Start negotiations based on the the 1967 borders (and they have expressed willingness to compromise there in the past) AND cease ALL settlement construction, even in the established settlement blocs.
and:
It may not be much and I would bet money that it will not amount to much but one never knows. There is a great deal of instability in the region with the Iranians flexing diplomatic muscle and heading to Egypt to make nice with President Morsi along with the electoral situation in Jordan, where the King faces growing radicalism and opposition to his rule, to the chaos in Syria and the increasing power of Hizbollah in Lebanon.
So, I imagine that the President is heading there to try to stabilize the Israeli / Palestinian situation as he tries to deal with the mess that heading his way from the increasing radicalization of political movements in the Arab World. But it is not only the Arab World. The American policy has long been one of support for Two States for Two Peoples. The increased settlements in the West Bank (Occupied Territory), as Meriador points out do cause an issue with the international community and honestly they will eventually cause an existential crises within Israel itself as the demographics of the country would change with annexation or permanent occupation of the Arab areas of the West Bank.
On the other hand, the Palestinians themselves refuse to recognize Israel as it was formed to be (as the National Homeland and State of the Jewish People) AND the political situation within the Palestinian polity is questionable at best, with Hamas gaining more power again after their mini-War in November. The Israelis, quite understandably are not really willing to give up a lot of land and then having to deal with Hamas (a force dedicated to Israel's destruction) all of a sudden sitting in some very strategic areas.
Mr. Kerry and Mr. Obama are stepping into a Belagan - I say Kol HaKvod ("All the respect" - literally, "Total respect - Way to go" figuratively ). I hope they have some success here so that Israel and America can move forward and so Israelis and Palestinians can find a way to make peace (as unlikely as it seems).
| Noun | 1. | balagan - a word for chaos or fiasco borrowed from modern Hebrew (where it is a loan word from Russian); "it was utter and complete balagan!" |
What is one of the most difficult intellectual endeavors on the Planet? Trying to figure out the politics of the Middle East. Nothing but nothing about this area is clear and nothing but nothing about this area makes a ton of sense. Into this fray - the President Obama steps. Living up to a campaign promise made during his first term the President will be heading to the Middle East to visit both the Israelis and Palestinian leadership (well the P.A. part of it)
Of course, in typical fashion for anything in the Middle East, nothing about this visit seems to make sense. One side (the Americans) state that the visit is for the President to "strengthen the bonds between Israel and the U.S.", One side (the Palestinians) are insisting that the U.S. visit be used to "pressure" the Israelis into halting the settlement process and force the Israelis to negotiate with him for a State and finally One side (the Israelis), are saying that that the President is both coming with a plan and a proposal for a summit between the Israelis and Palestinians AND Not coming with anything (is this a surprise to anyone?)
Speaking the other day President Obama had this to say:
“Given how important I think the situation in the Middle East is, and our partnership with Israel which is stronger than it’s ever been, when I go to Israel I want to make sure that we’re actually moving something forward,”and American Ambassador Dan Shapiro added:
“President Obama is not coming with conditions or demands. He is coming to confer with all our partners about problems and challenges we are dealing with in the region.” He said Obama would not seek “a specific result” in any discussions related to “bringing Israel and the Palestinians back to the negotiation table.”The White House reiterated this through:
Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren speaking to MSNBC reiterated that position saying:White House spokesman Jay Carney confirmed to reporters on Wednesday that Obama would bring no peace proposal with him, and will instead focus on discussions on issues of mutual concern to Israel and the US.The timing of the visit is tied to the new administrations in both Israel and the United States, Carney said.
Israel’s ambassador to Washington, Michael Oren, told MSNBC that the purpose of the visit was not to relaunch peace talks.
BUT..... Outgoing Deputy PM Danny Ayalon contradicted them by with this:“The White House has made very clear that the purpose of the trip is to strengthen an already historic bond between Israel and the United States. I think it sent a powerful message to the Middle East at a time of great uncertainty and upheaval throughout the region, and I think that is the purpose of the trip,” Oren said
Israel’s outgoing deputy foreign minister Danny Ayalon said earlier Wednesday that Obama wants to host a summit between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas during the visit, which is tentatively set for late March or early April. Ayalon said he was “certain” preparations for such a summit were already under way.AND in two related stories:
Yitzhak Molcho, the Netanyahu administration’s special envoy to Ramallah, will reportedly be dispatched to the US next week to discuss ways of advancing talks with the Palestinians, adding to speculation that a peace plan is in the works.as well as this from Haaretz:
A senior member of Netanyahu's Likud party who is involved in the coalition talks said Tuesday that Netanyahu is considering acceding to Hatnuah leader Tzipi Livni's demand to appoint her as minister in charge of talks with the Palestinians.SO... what is the truth of this?
Meanwhile, the Prime Minister has come under heavy fire from some own members of his party. Outgoing Deputy Prime Minister (Likud) Dan Meriador surprised everyone today with some harsh criticism of the Netanyahu settlement policy.
In a setback for Netanyahu, a close political ally criticized Israel's settlement policies, saying continued construction deep inside the West Bank has undermined Israel's credibility and could threaten the country's long-term survival.
"We could pay a great price," Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor, a senior member of Netanyahu's Likud Party, warned on Israeli Radio....
....And....
But on the radio, Meridor said the government was sending mixed signals to the world by speaking in favor of Palestinian independence while settling Israelis on lands claimed by the Palestinians.
He said Israel should limit construction to major settlement "blocs" and existing Jewish settlements in east Jerusalem, and halt construction in outlying areas. Israel is expected to keep these settlements under any future peace deal.
"There is a lack of consistency between our claim of wanting two states ... and the fact that we don't limit building to the blocs only," he said. By sending this mixed message, "we cast doubt on our intentions and statements, and this is costing us a very high price."
Meridor stressed that establishment of a Palestinian state is in Israel's interests. Without a partition, most demographers believe that the Arab population under Israeli control could soon outnumber Jews.
The Haaretz daily on Thursday, citing two unidentified officials, quoted Netanyahu's national security adviser, Yaakov Amidror, as warning that Israel's settlement policies were hurting its standing with key allies.
"It's impossible to explain the issue of settlement construction anyplace in the world," he was quoted as saying. "Construction in the settlements has become a diplomatic problem and is causing Israel to lose support even among its friends in the West."
Meanwhile the Palestinians say that they want to the President to visit and put some heat on the Israelis to end settlements and get back to the negotiating table. Their two demands: Start negotiations based on the the 1967 borders (and they have expressed willingness to compromise there in the past) AND cease ALL settlement construction, even in the established settlement blocs.
Expressing support for a two-state solution ahead of US President Barack Obama’s spring visit, senior Palestinian official Jibril Rajoub said Thursday that “the Americans are the only ones who can build a bridge to peace.”IMPORTANT NOTE:: Rajoub was the guy who said this: "Asked about leaving blocs of Jewish settlements in the West Bank as part of the framework of the two-state solution, Rajoub rejected the idea out of hand. “Absolutely not. There is not room for even one settler” beyond the pre-1967 lines, he said. The fact that it was even discussed at at earlier negotiations at Camp David was a “mistake,”
and:
"We believe he has good intentions, but in order for him to succeed, he should realize the reasons for the failure of the previous round of talks and avoid them," said Mohammed Ishtayeh, a senior Palestinian negotiator. "Mainly he needs to get involved personally and put real pressure on Israel......
.....Ishtayeh said the Palestinians would not budge on their demands for a settlement freeze or their insistence that the 1967 borders remain the baseline for negotiations. He also ruled out an interim agreement while final borders can be worked out.SO... what's really happening. Well if it were my guess - and I think it is here.... I think that there is something in the works regarding at least a re-opening in the Peace Process. The fact that Likud-Betainu is talking to Tzipi Livni and has had two meetings with the Center and Left parties BEFORE he has even met with the Rightists is telling. Also, sending Molcho to Washington to brief Secretary of State Kerry prior to his visit later this month I think means something is afoot.
It may not be much and I would bet money that it will not amount to much but one never knows. There is a great deal of instability in the region with the Iranians flexing diplomatic muscle and heading to Egypt to make nice with President Morsi along with the electoral situation in Jordan, where the King faces growing radicalism and opposition to his rule, to the chaos in Syria and the increasing power of Hizbollah in Lebanon.
So, I imagine that the President is heading there to try to stabilize the Israeli / Palestinian situation as he tries to deal with the mess that heading his way from the increasing radicalization of political movements in the Arab World. But it is not only the Arab World. The American policy has long been one of support for Two States for Two Peoples. The increased settlements in the West Bank (Occupied Territory), as Meriador points out do cause an issue with the international community and honestly they will eventually cause an existential crises within Israel itself as the demographics of the country would change with annexation or permanent occupation of the Arab areas of the West Bank.
On the other hand, the Palestinians themselves refuse to recognize Israel as it was formed to be (as the National Homeland and State of the Jewish People) AND the political situation within the Palestinian polity is questionable at best, with Hamas gaining more power again after their mini-War in November. The Israelis, quite understandably are not really willing to give up a lot of land and then having to deal with Hamas (a force dedicated to Israel's destruction) all of a sudden sitting in some very strategic areas.
Mr. Kerry and Mr. Obama are stepping into a Belagan - I say Kol HaKvod ("All the respect" - literally, "Total respect - Way to go" figuratively ). I hope they have some success here so that Israel and America can move forward and so Israelis and Palestinians can find a way to make peace (as unlikely as it seems).
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
WHERE DO YOU FIT IN THE ISRAELI ELECTORATE
In emailing with a friend he told me that he took a poll at the Israeli Democracy Institute's website regarding Political Compass in Israel.
What happens, is that they ask a number of questions regarding your political thoughts and then place you on a grid to give you an idea where you stand. Now, for a couple of years I have always thought of myself as a Left Center type guy with tendencies towards social justice and/liberty. In commentary, I always said that I fit with either Avodah (Labor) and HaTanuah (Tzipi Livni's Party), SO... when my friend mentioned this to me I decided to take the poll and see where I came out.
Surprise of Suprise, there were seven parties in my range. The closest was HaTanuah, and AmShalem (this surprised me at first until I read up on them - but they didn't cross the threshold so...) and then I was right in between Avodah, Yesh Atid, and Kadima. On the outskirts was UTJ and Tal (the Arab Party).
The furthest party from me (and I am proud to say this) was Otzma L'Yisrael, Yisrael Beitanu, HaBayit HaYehudi, and Hadash. And then at about equal distances Meretz, Likud, Shas, Balad,
Needless to say I was pretty proud of this because this is kind of where I thought I would land. I am no radical leftist though I lean left, and I for sure am no Rightist. It was nice to see that confirmed. So pretty much I guess this dispells the nonsense over at Daily Kos about me being a Rightist. Where one Celtic Merlin had this to say:
Anyway, here is the link to the test: 2013 Israeli Election Compass - Where do you fit in... Please let me know.
What happens, is that they ask a number of questions regarding your political thoughts and then place you on a grid to give you an idea where you stand. Now, for a couple of years I have always thought of myself as a Left Center type guy with tendencies towards social justice and/liberty. In commentary, I always said that I fit with either Avodah (Labor) and HaTanuah (Tzipi Livni's Party), SO... when my friend mentioned this to me I decided to take the poll and see where I came out.
Surprise of Suprise, there were seven parties in my range. The closest was HaTanuah, and AmShalem (this surprised me at first until I read up on them - but they didn't cross the threshold so...) and then I was right in between Avodah, Yesh Atid, and Kadima. On the outskirts was UTJ and Tal (the Arab Party).
The furthest party from me (and I am proud to say this) was Otzma L'Yisrael, Yisrael Beitanu, HaBayit HaYehudi, and Hadash. And then at about equal distances Meretz, Likud, Shas, Balad,
Needless to say I was pretty proud of this because this is kind of where I thought I would land. I am no radical leftist though I lean left, and I for sure am no Rightist. It was nice to see that confirmed. So pretty much I guess this dispells the nonsense over at Daily Kos about me being a Rightist. Where one Celtic Merlin had this to say:
"Lately - over about the last 12 to 15 months - he has moved more and more in line with Israeli hard-liners"Whoops... Oh well facts are always pesky things.
Anyway, here is the link to the test: 2013 Israeli Election Compass - Where do you fit in... Please let me know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)