Sometimes I think the song of the Republican Party – one that they would no doubt play without consent – is Cherokee Nation.
They took the whole Cherokee nation
And put us on this reservation
They took away our ways of life…
‘They’ to the Republicans would be anyone who don’t vote their way. The ‘reservation’ they live in fear of, in the same way they fear their ‘way of life’ is disappearing. Their utopia is a land where those-who-do-not-agree live on a reservation; meanwhile, the Republican feels like he/she/it is on a reservation because of ‘taxes’.
In Pakistan, 2% of the population pays taxes. Republicans want to emulate this. In Pakistan, there is little regulation of the economy. Republicans want to emulate this. In Pakistan, there is a traditional religious influence in government, and school prayers. Republicans want to emulate this. In Pakistan, same-sex marriage is unthinkable. Republicans want to emulate this. In Pakistan, the military comes first, and politicians defer to generals. Republicans want to emulate this.
Nicholas Kristof writes for the New York Times:
I spend a fair amount of time reporting in developing countries, from Congo to Colombia. They’re typically characterized by minimal taxes, high levels of inequality, free-wheeling businesses and high military expenditures. Any of that ring a bell?
In Latin American, African or Asian countries, I sometimes see shiny tanks and fighter aircraft — but schools that have trouble paying teachers. Sound familiar? And the upshot is societies that are quasi-feudal, stratified by social class, held back by a limited sense of common purpose.
In fairness to Pakistan and Congo, wealthy people in such countries manage to live surprisingly comfortably. Instead of financing education with taxes, these feudal elites send their children to elite private schools. Instead of financing a reliable police force, they hire bodyguards. Instead of supporting a modern health care system for their nation, they fly to hospitals in London.
You can tell the extreme cases by the hum of diesel generators at night. Instead of paying taxes for a reliable electrical grid, each wealthy family installs its own powerful generator to run the lights and air-conditioning. It’s noisy and stinks, but at least you don’t have to pay for the poor.
I’ve always made fun of these countries, but now I see echoes of that pattern of privatization of public services in America. Police budgets are being cut, but the wealthy take refuge in gated communities with private security guards. Their children are spared the impact of budget cuts at public schools and state universities because they attend private institutions.
Is this our Utopia Nation?
Time, that inexorable force which alters opinion, has persuaded me that the military intervention – bombing, essentially – which the United States pursued in Libya is not to be expected elsewhere. Syria has been in revolt as long as Libya. There has been no outcry from governments to intervene in Syria as there was intervention in Libya. Why? I can think of two reasons: resources and requests. One is tangible; the other, intangible. In the paradox of man, it is far harder to prove tangible reasons than intangible reasons.
We intervened in Libya for intangible reasons. Rebels in Libya requested aid, after realizing they could not win without assistance. We, the several Western intervening powers, sent aid to Libya. Perhaps we should have, perhaps we should not have. Time, that strange force, will tell us. It’s hard to touch or otherwise perceive a request, except with our eyes or ears. It is not hard to touch or otherwise perceive resources natural resources a country produces. Does Libya produce more (that interests us) than Syria? Is there oil?
Libya is the 16th largest producer of oil in the world, responsible, before the recent turmoil, for about 2 percent of world production, or around 1,600,000 barrels per day. Yemen and Bahrain are also oil producers — but far smaller. Bahrain pumps out 45,000 barrels per day; Yemen, 260,000.
The mentions of Yemen and Bahrain result from their internal struggles in March. Bahrain resolved its issues. Yemen continues to rebel. The article doesn’t mention Syria, but Syria produces about “410,000 barrels per day.”
Libyan rebels made a clear request that they needed assistance, but they are not alone in the world. We intervened – we are intervening – in Libya, but not in Syria. If we are assisting rebels (is it really rebellion to overthrow a corrupt government?) in Syria, in Yemen, in Bahrain, or in numerous other places, it is in a covert manner.
Last week I was asked an unusually difficult question. ‘Please break down the Israel vs. Palestine conflict for someone not very knowledgeable about the subject.’ While I am adequate and answering questions and have a decent ability to teach, or educate, people, this question was just a bit broad for me. Where do I begin? I had to ask for a prompt; I had to know what was known before I could expand on the unknown.
The knowledge of the person asking this difficult question sounds pretty generic.
“I know that Israel is one of our strongest allies. I know we provide a lot of money. I know it’s about land that both sides claim to be theirs dating back as long as anyone can remember. I know the peace process has been on going but hasn’t really seemed to have accomplished much since it’s still an issue. Christians seem to not care for the Jewish people but are committed to supporting Israel. I sense that support of the Palestine view is not popular.”
As is my wont, I took time and thought to respond. There are thousands of ways to approach the question of The Conflict, and many different ways to approach why we provide money, whether land claims are accurate, what’s going on in the interminable peace process, and how Christians view the matter. I responded:
“Netanyahu said last week ‘the US needs Israel.’ He didn’t say that Israel needs the US, but that the US needs Israel. The Israeli right, including the American Zionists who develop policy for Israel, believe that the US can’t do without Israel.
They could mean one of two things, and I think they mean both. They mean that we need Israel as an ally in the Middle East (as if anything else has been suggested!); they also mean that Israel must exist as a state. They cannot fathom, and do not want to fathom, a map of the Middle East that is not essentially the Balfour Declaration + drawing lines in the sand + independence of Israel + 1967. They want the world to be immutable and cannot fathom change. The change they cannot imagine would be another declaration and another line in the sand, and the revocation of 1967. And by they, I mean the Israeli right and the American right.
The peace process is still going on. It is the great misfortune of those who seek peace that a liberal, peace-seeking, Israeli-government dissolved into a conservative, defensive, government just at the time that America elected a leader who had plans to work out the differences in the Middle East. Personally, the strength of the Israeli right (including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) discourages me. I would suggest reading “Our Last Best Chance,” by King Abdullah II of Jordan. He’s been a go-between for the peace process for about twelve years, and his father was for fifty years before that.
I can’t speak for the Christian perception of the peace process and for Israeli support. I can’t even speak much about whether they care for Jews; I am mostly with liberal and/or educated people, who do not judge first by religion. I would hazard a guess, though, that support (or lack of support) for Palestine, is based on news coverage. We hear often about rockets hitting Israel. Rockets don’t often hit Palestine, but the oppression there is constant and quiet. We don’t hear about constant, quiet, suffering in the news. Support for Palestine is often based on news, which includes out own interest in multiple sources and awareness of the situation of others.”
Like many Jews of modern times I come from a mixed family. I have, perhaps more than other people I know, a distinctly odd situation. My mother is Jewish, which according to Jewish law makes me Jewish, as indeed I am by choice and by culture. My father is not Jewish, which is to say he never went through the process of converting to Judaism – a very good thing, too, based on the converts I know. He is nominally Jewish, however.
It becomes more complicated. My Jewish mother has two brothers, both of whom have been Bar Mitzvahed, and at least one of whom has ‘left the faith,’ to put it lightly, and the other of which is derogatory of Judaism and every other religion. With a brother and three cousins on my Jewish (i.e. maternal) side of the family, I was the only one to have a Bar/Bat Mitzvah (and I am the youngest of these cousins). Some cousins have become more interested in their Jewish heritage as the years have progressed.
Let’s observe the paternal side of my family. Clearly, since my father is only nominally Jewish, the family religion is something else. My grandmother attends the Episcopalian Church; her children are all rather non-religious. On this non-Jewish side of my family, I have two (three?) cousins who have been Bar Mitzvahed, one of whom is in the Israeli army. I have several other cousins on this side of the family with a decidedly Jewish heritage, though varied in displays of cultural Judaism. I did say it is an odd situation.
I’ve had a Bar Mitzvah, and I call myself Jewish, but I’m far from a practicing Jew. I show up to services for Passover (sometimes) and haven’t been to Rosh Hashanah (new year) or Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) for several years. However, as I mentioned, I have a grandmother who attends church. It was my contribution – one I was glad to make – to drive my grandma to church early on a Sunday morning. Nonetheless, it is distinctly odd sitting in church. As a Jew, I sat there in the second row, wondering, ‘do they know I’m Jewish?’ ‘is it obvious I have no idea what I’m doing?’ – that much was clear, I’m sure.
Generally communal prayer involves some parts where the congregation responds to promptings. I’ve always felt odd doing this – it is a mainstay of education as well to have a reading with a response – but it is decidedly odd doing this for a religion with which you are unfamiliar and don’t quite believe. I’m not very good at lines such as “Jesus is the Lord our God.” Mostly, or completely, these are private worries; nobody commented. Nobody commented that I didn’t take the wine and cracker which is supposed to be blood and body.
It was, as far as necessities go, necessary that somebody take my grandma to church. It is good to get up in the morning and not always be in the house. I can’t complain that I did what somebody was supposed to do – and it might as well have been me – and drive to church. It is much less an act of religion than it is of habit, custom, and socializing. The only thing I’m missing, and I hope I remedy this, is that I should also connect to the religion with which I am familiar. It would feel far less odd.
I have not written for some time on any subject. Before I elaborate on my many doings, I find it necessary to write again about events. Obama has, through his calm demeanor, created much agitation. This is especially true of his natural opponents: anything on the right of the spectrum. This time, he has worried Israel (by which I mean the government) by promoting peace.
I wrote last month about the AIPAC conference, which is now upon us. Andrew Sullivan’s reaction to the AIPAC – Netanyahu mode of action, which is to maintain the status quo, perfectly exemplifies my own reaction.
What strikes me is the visceral and emotional power behind the AIPAC line, displayed in Netanyahu’s contemptuous, disgraceful, desperate public dressing down of the American president in the White House. Just observe the tone of Netanyahu’s voice, and the Cheney-like determination to impose his will on the world, regardless of anyone else, and certainly without the slightest concern for his ally’s wider foreign policy and security needs. It seems clear to me that he believes that an American president, backed by the Quartet, must simply bow toward Israel’s own needs, as he perceives them, rather than the other way round. Has Netanyahu ever asked, one wonders, what he could actually do to help Obama, president of Israel’s oldest, and strongest ally in an era of enormous social and political change? That, it seems, is not how this alliance works.
…
And it is absurd not to notice Obama’s even-handedness. It’s clear he won’t legitimize Hamas until Hamas legitimizes itself by acknowledging Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and dropping its virulent, violent anti-Semitism. He rebuked Abbas for going the UN route. Like any US president, he is committed to Israel’s security and is, indeed, vital to it. But all he asks is a good faith attempt by the Israelis to acknowledge that their future state has to be based on the 1967 lines with landswaps. Indefensible? Says who? With a regional monopoly of over a hundred nuclear warheads and the best intelligence and military in its neighborhood, and a vibrant economy, Israel is not vulnerable. And in so far as it may be vulnerable – to Iran’s nuclear gambit – its government is alienating the indispensable ally in this deserved quest for security. This is panic and paranoia, not reason and self-interest.And no one seems to appreciate Obama’s political courage in all this. Obama seems to understand that an equitable two-state solution is a key crucible for the change he is seeking with respect to the Muslim world, the minimum necessary to advance US interests in the region and against Jihadism abroad. With each month in office, he has pursued this, through humiliation after humiliation from the Israelis, who are openly trying to lobby the press, media, political parties and Congress to isolate this president and destroy his vision for peace and the historic and generational potential his presidency still promises. To achieve this, he has to face down the apocalyptic Christianist right, the entire FNC-RNC media machine, a sizable chunk of his party’s financial base, and the US Congress. And yet on he pushes – civilly, rationally, patiently.
The death of Osama bin Laden has led to the question of how we found him. Naturally, those who defend torture will say torture aided in finding bin Laden, while those who oppose torture will say that torture – Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Black Sites – will say torture hindered finding bin Laden. What’s the reality?
There is no evidence that torture was integral to capturing bin Laden. Of three tortured prisoners among the countless leads and tips and interviewees, one was deemed “quite cooperative” before Torture7 being tortured, thereby leaving open the question of whether the shred of information he provided could have been gotten by non-barbaric methods; and two denied any knowledge of the courier under the torture technique called “waterboarding.” So in order to defend torture, Cheney has to say that it’s a success when the tortured tell lies. Heads he wins, tails we lose. Moreover, in the last two years or so, torture has been forbidden – although its legacy remains with war criminals protected by the US government, in violation of Geneva – and it was after those two years of a return to decency that bin Laden was found and killed. As for the Bush administration’s over-arching goal – democratization of the Middle East – it was only under Obama that we got the Green Revolution in Iran, the successful revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia, and the power-struggles now happening in Syria and Libya.
There will always be some who disbelieve what the government says. Therefore, there will always be conspiracies. It’s too early to decide whether the “Birther” conspiracy can be put to rest, and it’s certainly too early to tell whether the conspiracy that Obama announced the death of Osama bin Laden for political points will go away. It would be all too easy to quash these rumors by having the television media show proof of death. NOT proof with gaping bullet holes, or pictures during the attack, or any other pictures that might be inflammatory. There is simple proof. Al Qaeda has already given it to us:
“We in Al-Qaeda organisation pledge to Allah the almighty and ask his help, support and steadfastness to continue on the path of jihad, the path walked upon by our leaders, and on top of them, Sheikh Osama,” SITE said, quoting the statement.
“We also stress that the blood of the mujahid Sheikh Osama bin Laden, may Allah have mercy upon him, weighs more to us and is more precious to us and to every Muslim than to be wasted in vain,” it said.
“We call upon our Muslim people in Pakistan, on whose land Sheikh Osama was killed, to rise up and revolt to cleanse this shame that has been attached to them by a clique of traitors and thieves who sold everything to the enemies.
“(We call upon them) to rise up strongly and in general to cleanse their country (Pakistan) from the filth of the Americans who spread corruption in it,” said the statement.
The statement came after US President Barack Obama said that American commandos killed bin Laden on Sunday in a covert operation in the Pakistani garrison town of Abbottabad.
Al Qaeda acknowledges that bin Laden is dead. That should be proof enough. If it’s not, I’m reminded of the Atlas Shrugged world in which no one is sure that they can know what reality is, because (after all), how can you be sure reality is real?
I am an amalgamation of all that I read. Therefore, the many responses I have to the death of Osama Bin Ladin have already been written. There are Americans chanting “USA! USA!” in the streets; a feat that does not often happen. There are people who say “so what?” There are people who are happy, who are mad, who are mostly indifferent. I feel I am all of these.
Let’s accept the proposition that Bin Ladin planned the attacks on the World Trade Center, the attacks on several US embassies in the ’90s, and other attacks. Does that justify his death? I accept the notion of the death penalty; it seems a more cost-effective (including emotional and societal costs) route than life in prison, which must be funded, even with the flaws and mistakes of prosecutions. I accept even more strongly, though, the belief that we follow the rule of law, and not just the rule of law but the law that is morally right. Is death for Osama acceptable because we say it is?
I am not proud that my country killed Osama. I felt a moment of interest when I read the news, and I can appreciate that the president did something he said he’d do, even if I’m not convinced that Osama – or the War on Terror – is worth pursuing. I wasn’t jumping up and down yelling “USA!;” the death of an individual is much less a national accomplishment than the victory of a nation. This isn’t is a victory; optimist though I am I do not see this being the end to the War on Terror.
Politically, at least in the short term, this helps Obama on both a domestic and international level. He’ll receive great praise in the US for this – he already has – and his campaign can use this to show that he does what he says he’ll do. Conversely, and simultaneously, if he uses the ‘tough guy’ card in his campaign as America becomes more and more tired of being involved in two officially unofficial wars, and a third unofficial war (Libya), (if we include Yemen it’s four, and Pakistan it would be five officially unofficial wars), Obama’s support from peace-seeking Democrats will plummet. At the same time, this helps Obama on an international level, if he chooses to pursue peace and not ‘tough guy.’ It gives Al Qaeda a reason either to fight or to stop fighting, depending on how Obama can use this to his advantage. It gives him leverage as well with allies, and it gives allies leverage against the US as they can argue that the US no longer has a cause to fight for.
My interest in the death of Osama Bin Ladin is mostly political. I have written in the last about fear of government, about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and the Peace Process, and about international intervention. Our fear of our own government has become justified over the past decade. We have great reason to fear that the death – assassination, really – of Osama is just an extension of the many things we should fear about our government. It is inescapable to observe the Middle East and ignore the effects of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict; most violence directed from the Middle East (or indeed the world) toward the West is rooted in the inability to make steps to solve, or ameliorate, the problem. We, the ‘West,’ have spent a long time engaged in Afghanistan/Pakistan and Iraq. In at least one of those ‘engagements’ our goal was to get revenge for 9/11. At what point do we move on?
P.J. Crowley on the Arab Spring:
The administration’s caution with Syria is certainly due in part to the uncertainty that what follows Assad would be better. But if that were the criteria guiding us, we would have stuck with Hosni Mubarak. Another factor is the absence of the strong regional support that crystallized around Libya. Again, if that is a precondition, the Arab Spring will end in Tripoli or Sana’a, depending on which leader holds out the longest.
And yet the political case for regime change in Syria is compelling, and far more fundamental to long-term regional interests. We want Gaddafi to go, a leader we took off the state sponsor of terrorism list. We appear prepared to tolerate a leader whose regime remains on the list—and for good reason.
While Assad has kept the border with Israel quiet, every other action he has taken, most particularly his alliances with Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas, undermine the overarching U.S. objective in the region: comprehensive peace in the Middle East.
The Dole Blog 