Archive for politics
March 9, 2007 at · Filed under books, middle east, politics
last time i was in israel i picked up a few books in hebrew. mostly centered around israel's recent history.
the first one i read was "good arabs" by hillel cohen. it is based on documents from the israeli police and shin-bet services that were only recently declassified.
the picture the book paints is not one that will be easy to read for many israelis. while i personally give little credit to government agencies and don't buy the israeli myths around our superior moral standards, it was still surprising to learn how corrupt and immoral the israeli government was at the time.
one of the most disturbing revelations as far as i am concerned was the involvement of the israeli security services in trying to control the arab vote and direct it to the party in power (map"ai).
but more than anything it made me realize how inadequate are the history lessons that i got in school. now it looks to me as if i was subjected to propaganda. what you learn in school in israel is very one sided, trying to present the heroic efforts of the jews versus the heartless and barbaric arabs.
i think it will go a long way in making peace process and peace itself feasible if the history taught in schools was more objective, spending as much time on the way things looked to the arab population and the systematic mistreatment from the government.
the arabs are no saints, far from it. and even today their governments, religious leaders, media and general public are operating based on a moral code that is lagging several generations behind the west (yes, i do think there is such thing as moral and less moral cultures. don't buy the relativism approach).
this book is narrowly focused. i wish the school programs will teach some of its findings, but more importantly provide the true history of the early years of israel, the good and the bad.
December 27, 2006 at · Filed under middle east, politics
i read tony blair's piece in foreign affairs titled "a battle for global values", and was really disappointed. tony blair always seemed to me to be very intelligent and eloquent (maybe it is i usually see him talking in press conferences next to bush.. or just his british accent).
it is supposed to lay out his view for what he believes is the real battle of the 21st century (i.e. a battle for the values we stand for), and that is much more than a "war on terror", but it reads more like an attempt to justify his decision regarding iraq.
in his defense of the iraq situation he sounds very much like bush, blaming the naive-peace-protesting-tree-huggers in the west for buying into the propaganda that is coming from the terrorists, calling for a "broader" perspective, and more common excuses…
he is probably right about the values issue. the west should stand for human-rights, environmental protection, individual freedoms, democracy, equal opportunities and economic development. the problem is that the west is not acting consistently according to these values (not domestically and not in foreign policy), and specifically neither bush nor blair can lead the west in such a charge. they are both tainted by the decision to invade iraq, their execution of the occupation and their stubbornness to stay the course.
blair would have done a much better service to humanity if he would have not been bush's puppy on the "war on terror". for him to now write this piece is a bit pathetic and way too late. he should just go home quietly and spare us his dogma.
December 13, 2006 at · Filed under books, middle east, politics
i got the iraq study group report yesterday and stayed up late to finish reading it.
i find the approach of co-chaired, bi-partisan, old-men groups that are supposed to come up with conclusions and recommendations a bit weird. 5 republicans and 5 democrats, all greatly honored for serving with each other on the committee, quickly establish a group-think and reach consensus.
it is a system than guarantees that not the best solution will be offered, but rather the lowest common denominator.
so i was surprised that the report actually did a reasonably fair job in describing how dire is the situation in iraq, and hopefully put an end to the "we're making progress", "the media is only covering the bad news out of iraq..", mantra from bush and his aides.
with regard to the specific recommendations:
- the general approach - i think what they are trying to suggest with regard to a graceful exit from iraq is a scenario in which the US will be able to say "we did all we could to help the iraqis govern themselves, the iraqi government is unable/not willing to make the progress required from a sovereign body and we no longer feel it is our responsibility to support them". which will allow the US to pull out most of its troops and not call it a defeat.
they are offering real measures to improve things on the ground, but at this stage the situation is so hopeless, that it will not account for much. i don't think they really believe their operational recommendations to better the situation in iraq have a real chance of succeeding.
- the diplomatic offensive - i believe the US can get everyone to cooperate beside iran. the path to syria probably lies with getting israel to return the golan heights (one of the recommendations), which i believe israel will have to do, but this is not going to happen quickly enough to have an impact on the situation in iraq.
the US will not be able to create strong enough incentives or disincentives to move iran. iran is just having too much fun watching the US bleed in iraq, and the international community will not side with the US as long as this administration is in power.
actually i doubt that the current administration can not lead any "diplomatic offensive". it's not just that they are not competent to do it, bush is too stubborn and too you're-either-with-us-or-against-us kind of guy. as he is so proudly admits he lacks this type of nuance.
- the milestones to the iraqi government - great milestones. no chance what so ever they are going to meet (or even try to meet) these milestones.
- the military recommendations - sounds good. i am not sure why it took these wise old men to come up with this list, and why these issues are only being addressed 3.5 years into the war, but i guess it is better later than never.
changing the main military mission to training is a very clear path for the US to reduce the number of troops and gradually pull-out.
considering the fact that the ISG was not supposed to look on the past, but rather focus on where do we go from here there are a few interesting comments in the report
- strong criticism of the administration handling of the funding to the war outside of the main budget
- calling for the administration to be more open and honest with the public
- pointing out inaccurate reporting of violence level
- criticizing the number of arabic speaking officials in the embassy (6 out of 1000)
now i understand why bush looked like a ghost when he received the report last week (i'll be interested to know whether he actually read it, or did someone just summarize it for him in a few bulletpoints in powerpoint).
i think he'll wait a few more weeks till the pentagon finish its own review, and while he speaks with "advisors" and members of congress. he will then have a prime-time TV address where he will say "over the past few weeks i have conducted an intensive review of the situation in iraq. i would like to thank the iraq study group, the pentagon analysts, and all those who dedicated their time and efforts to think about this challenge…. blah, blah, blah. i believe there is a path for victory in iraq… there were some great ideas offered by the different groups that looked into the situation… i am planning to adopt some of these ideas into a new comprehensive plan that will clear the path to a successful conclusion of the mission in iraq… blah blah blah"
bush will embrace some of the operational recommendations in the report, he will set milestones (but will not link them to troop levels), he will send a special envoy to the middle-east, he will call for a "stakeholders" conference of all the countries that have an interest to see iraq come out of its crisis.
the bottom line will be that troop levels will not come down significantly and there will be no end in sight for the current US approach in iraq as long as bush is president.
john mccain will not win the 2008 elections (and maybe not even the republican primaries) because of his position on iraq. a democrat will win 2008, and will pledge to be out of iraq by any meaningful measure by Jan 2010.
too many predictions for one post.. 
September 11, 2006 at · Filed under middle east, politics
i wanted to subscribe to Foreign Affairs for a long time, and i finally did so today.
the first essay i read was by Niall Ferguson titled The Next War of the World. I read his essay with the bias of knowing he is an historian who is favored by neo-cons, for his strong support for american foreign intervention, realpolitik, and US acting as the empire that it is without a troubled conscious.
in his essay niall is trying to explain why the 20th century was the bloodiest, and later on he predicts that most likely the 21st century will be the same. just that this time it would be the middle-east and not the balkans that will incubate the global conflicts. considering the current state of things this is not a very creative line of thinking. it is harder to find someone that holds an optimistic view for the region.
niall attributes the time and location of the violence to ethnic disintegration, economic volatility, and empires in decline. today the "empires in decline" is not very relevant, though the US may be regarded as such. the other two factors are very much in play in the middle east.
his remedy for the middle-easy situation is more intervention by the US, and economic progress. i am not sure about either.
August 17, 2006 at · Filed under general, politics
my previous post dealt with how israel's chief of staff found time to sell his portfolio on the day the conflict started (July 12th). it appears dan halutz is not alone. haim ramon , israel's justice minister is likely to be charged with sexual harassment as a result of forcefully french kissing an ex-government employee on that same day.
according to the accuser ramon arrived to a special cabinet meeting to discuss the kidnapping. at the same time a party was going on in the office. the accuser wanted to have her picture taken with the minister, and when they were left alone in the room, he grabbed her and tried to stick his tongue in her mouth..
so while the chief of staff was thinking about his pocket, ramon was thinking with what is underneath his pocket.
truly admirable behavior at a time of crisis.
somehow i think dicks played a major role in this conflict. olmert, peretz, nasrallah and israeli generals seemed to be driven by their egos (i.e. trying to show who has a bigger dick), more than by anything else. which also plays into a broader theory i have about the origin of the current war between fundamentalist islam and the west, which i believe is probably the result of depressed sexual needs (which is also my explanation to the settlement movement in the west-bank).
August 15, 2006 at · Filed under general, politics
"it may be kosher, but it stinks" is a known israeli saying. it is pretty self-explanatory. what dan halutz did may be legal, but it fails the smell test.
so what did he do? on july 12th several hours after the israeli soldiers were kidnapped, and as the large scale military operation was about to begin, halutz found the time to call his broker and tell him to sell-off his portfolio (was not worth much, about $30K).
what is troubling about this is not that he found the time to make the call (it is a very short call, saying "sell"), or that he is not a very sophisticated investor (it would have been much better to short the market), what is troubling is that as israel was dealing with an escalating crisis his small portfolio made it to the list of priorities of things he should take care of.
i won't go into the speculation of what does it means with regard to his belief in the army, the length of the campaign, etc… to me it is an indication that the guy is immoral and incompetent.
August 11, 2006 at · Filed under middle east, politics
in israel there is a lot of talk about hezbollah winning the conflict.
nassrallah is reading the israeli press (he said so himself in one his interviews on al manar teleivision) and is enjoying every minute of it. but this is beside the point. the real question is the hezbollah really winning?
in the eyes of the hezbollah they already won this conflict based on the following:
- there is still a battle going-on after a month
- there are still rockets landing in israel in similar numbers to the start of the conflict
- israelis as far as hadera are not feeling safe
- northern israel is in shelters and not able to sustain a normal life
- nassrallah is still alive
- israelis believe they are losing
these arguments may be enough for the hezbollah to claim victory, but assuming there will be a cease-fire in the next few days, and the dust settles here is the reality:
- lebanon has suffered a major blow to its civilian infrastructure and economy, it will take years for lebanon to rebuild the country to its pre-July 12 state. israel on the other hand will go back to normal rather quicly, repairing the local damages
- the shiites in lebanon have been the target of probably 90% of the israeli attacks. hunderds of thousands fled their homes, and many of them will go back to find that their villages are completely destroyed, their businesses gone.
- israel was able to take over any village it wanted, and hezbollah stronghold it wanted, and suffered casualties only in occasions when it was concerned for civilian life, and sent troops in rather than completly destroy the target
- hezbollah military strength has been greatly reduced (the extent of which will continue to be debated), israel destroyed much of its ammunition, bunkers and killed a good amount of hezbollah fighters
- hezbollah will likely have to agree to a lebanse army presence in the south together with an international force (something the hezbollah has resisted for the past 6 years). which will make it harder for the hezbollah to launch attacks/provoke/harass israel. it will be harder for hezbollah to rebuild its arsenal as israel and the international community will be watching it closely.
but even so, dancing over lebanon's rubble will be nassrallah, celebrating his great "victory".
the shiites already far behind their sunni and christian fellow citizens will fall even further behind. they'll count hundreds of dead, they will have lost their homes and livelihood.
maybe some of them will start asking questions like "what did we gain by this war?", "did it serve our interests? our childrens interests?". "for what cause did our relatives die?", "who are these iranian friends that send us to do their dirty job?".
maybe they will not ask these questions. maybe they will have pride in their "victory", will be angry with these jews with horns, will look for a flag to torch, and chant "death to israel, death to america" as they stand over the rubble that used to be their life.
indeed an arab victory for the ages. as long as the arabs will continue in their quest to re-gain their pride by fighting israel, they will not move forward, but rather stay behind and complain about the evil west, and how it is to blame for their backwardness.
war is measured by which of the parties was left in a worst shape, will take longer to recover and what are the long-term political impacts. based on all these measures israel will be the clear winner in this conflict. which is why i think the sooner the cease-fire the better. israel should insist on an international force, keep its right to preempt hezbollah's future build-up, and get the US and Europe to put sanctions and pressure on iran and syria.
August 11, 2006 at · Filed under middle east, politics
the "war" (it is definitely a war for lebanon, i still claim it is a military operation for israel) has now been going for a month.
at this stage there is a consensus that israel did not deliver a knock-out punch to the hezbollah (hard to make a counter argument when ~ 200 rockets are hitting northern israel daily), and therefore hezbollah is essentially winning (i have a major problem with that argument, but i'll deal with it in a separate post).
the israeli press is full of opinion columns. more than the usual dose.
those who are on the right (and center) don't want a cease fire, because that would mean that the sacred "israeli deterrence" is lost, and that doom's day is around the corner.
those who are on the left support a cease fire, and spend most of their time explaining how the army consists of incompetent, trigger happy, generals who are guided by an inexperienced, hot-headed government.
in general the israeli press is obsessed with the inability of the army to destroy hezbollah. it seems to me that there is a complete loss of perspective.
August 10, 2006 at · Filed under politics, religion
there is a big debate in norway over an opinion column written by jostein gaarder on August 5th.
a translation of the original article (also appears at the bottom of the post).
i think criticizing israel and its actions is legitimate. and i don't like it when jews throw the antisemitism blame quickly at anyone who dares criticize israel, but sometimes it is just too obvious. like in this case.
gaarder of course denies being an antisemite, but i would argue he is not only an antisemite but also one that calls for moving beyond rhetoric and on to actions against jews/israelis.
below is my interpretation/translation to some of this text.
on jews:
"We laugh at this people's fancies and weep over its misdeeds. To act as God's chosen people is not only stupid and arrogant, but a crime against humanity"
jews are people who believe they are god's chosen people (the title of his column). unlike the enlightened christians of which only the smallest of fractions are all waiting for the apocalypse as described in the book of revelations. or the victimized muslims never looking to kill any non-believer according to the concept of jihad.
on tolerance:
"There are limits to our patience, and there are limits to our tolerance… We call child murderers 'child murderers' and will never accept that such have a divine or historic mandate excusing their outrages."
so israelis are child killers in the name of their god… hmmmmm. and there is a limit to the tolerance the world should show in the face of such fanatic religious child killers. makes sense.
on the future:
"But fear not! The time of trouble shall soon be over. The state of Israel has seen its Soweto.
We are now at the watershed. There is no turning back. The state of Israel has raped the recognition of the world and shall have no peace until it lays down its arms."
behold gaardner's prophecy. israel haters, do not fear. israel shall soon be destroyed.
on the state of israel:
"The state of Israel does not exist. It is now without defense, without skin. May the world therefore have mercy on the civilian population"
a call for action. i appreciate his call for mercy for the civilian population of israel. some collateral damage probably can not be avoided, but probably a small price to pay for the destruction of israel.
on the moral fiber of israel:
"We do not believe that Israel mourns forty killed Lebanese children more than it for over three thousand years has lamented forty years in the desert. We note that many Israelis celebrate such triumphs like they once cheered the scourges of the Lord as "fitting punishment" for the people of Egypt. (In that tale, the Lord, God of Israel, appears as an insatiable sadist.) We query whether most Israelis think that one Israeli life is worth more than forty Palestinian or Lebanese lives.
For we have seen pictures of little Israeli girls writing hateful greetings on the bombs to be dropped on the civilian population of Lebanon and Palestine. Little Israeli girls are not cute when they strut with glee at death and torment across the fronts."
this paragraph is so good. i just had to copy whole of it. great prose. israelis claim they mourn dead lebanese children. bahh. come on. you know the jews. they are sadistic people, known as such from the beginning of time.
and these small israeli girls writing on bombs (actually artillery shells) fired on civilian population on purpose. these girls are not cute. maybe we should put a caveat in the "show the civilian population mercy" concept, and just kill these girls too.
on the founding of israel:
"We do not recognize a state founded on antihumanistic principles and on the ruins of an archaic national and war religion"
judaism is a religion of war. in great contrast to the peaceful history of christianity and islam. and the peaceful and humanistic history that his behind the creation of the european states.
on zionism:
"Two thousand years have passed since the Jewish rabbi disarmed and humanized the old rhetoric of war. Even in his time, the first Zionist terrorists were operating."
zionists=terrorists. this equation has been true for over 2,000 years
on the jewish people hearing problems:
"For two thousand years, we have rehearsed the syllabus of humanism, but Israel does not listen."
"we" have been humanists for the past 2,000 years (maybe some small exceptions during the middle ages, the crusades, the colonialism, a few small wars here and there, a couple of big wars, holocaust. but other than that it is really a clean slate of pure humanism).
it's just these damn jews that don't get it.
on final solutions:
"…there are those who want, with God's assistance, a final solution to the Palestinian problem"
zionists=terrorists nazis
on how to handle the surviving jews:
"We do not recognize the state of Israel. Not today, not as of this writing, not in the hour of grief and wrath. If the entire Israeli nation should fall to its own devices and parts of the population have to flee the occupied areas into another diaspora, then we say: May the surroundings stay calm and show them mercy"
"…Give the Israeli refugees shelter, give them milk and honey!"
unfortunately "we" may have to deal with some israeli refugees that were not killed during the destruction of israel. last time "we" promised them bread and jam when "we" put them on the trains. say what you want about the jews, but they have good memory. they will not fall for this trick again. this time "we" should promise them "milk and honey"..
when "we" put them in these shelters "we" need to make sure there is room for as many jews as possible, lock the doors and release the gas.
the full text:
God's chosen people
Jostein Gaarder, Aftenposten 05.08.06
There is no turning back. It is time to learn a new lesson: We do no longer recognize the state of Israel. We could not recognize the South African apartheid regime, nor did we recognize the Afghan Taliban regime. Then there were many who did not recognize Saddam Hussein's Iraq or the Serbs' ethnic cleansing. We must now get used to the idea: The state of Israel in its current form is history.
We do not believe in the notion of God's chosen people. We laugh at this people's fancies and weep over its misdeeds. To act as God's chosen people is not only stupid and arrogant, but a crime against humanity. We call it racism.
Limits to tolerance
There are limits to our patience, and there are limits to our tolerance. We do not believe in divine promises as justification for occupation and apartheid. We have left the Middle Ages behind. We laugh uneasily at those who still believe that the God of flora, fauna, and galaxies has selected one people in particular as his favorite and given it funny stone tablets, burning bushes, and a license to kill.
We call child murderers 'child murderers' and will never accept that such have a divine or historic mandate excusing their outrages. We say but this: Shame on all apartheid, shame on ethnic cleansing, shame on every terrorist strike against civilians, be it carried out by Hamas, Hizballah, or the state of Israel!
Unscrupulous art of war
We acknowledge and pay heed to Europe's deep responsibility for the plight of the Jews, for the disgraceful harassment, the pogroms, and the Holocaust. It was historically and morally necessary for Jews to get their own home. However, the state of Israel, with its unscrupulous art of war and its disgusting weapons, has massacred its own legitimacy. It has systematically flaunted International Law, international conventions, and countless UN resolutions, and it can no longer expect protection from same. It has carpet bombed the recognition of the world. But fear not! The time of trouble shall soon be over. The state of Israel has seen its Soweto.
We are now at the watershed. There is no turning back. The state of Israel has raped the recognition of the world and shall have no peace until it lays down its arms.
Without defense, without skin
May spirit and word sweep away the apartheid walls of Israel. The state of Israel does not exist. It is now without defense, without skin. May the world therefore have mercy on the civilian population. For it is not civilian individuals at whom our doomsaying is directed.
We wish the people of Israel well, nothing but well, but we reserve the right not to eat Jaffa oranges as long as they taste foul and are poisonous. It was endurable to live some years without the blue grapes of apartheid.
They celebrate their triumphs
We do not believe that Israel mourns forty killed Lebanese children more than it for over three thousand years has lamented forty years in the desert. We note that many Israelis celebrate such triumphs like they once cheered the scourges of the Lord as "fitting punishment" for the people of Egypt. (In that tale, the Lord, God of Israel, appears as an insatiable sadist.) We query whether most Israelis think that one Israeli life is worth more than forty Palestinian or Lebanese lives.
For we have seen pictures of little Israeli girls writing hateful greetings on the bombs to be dropped on the civilian population of Lebanon and Palestine. Little Israeli girls are not cute when they strut with glee at death and torment across the fronts.
The retribution of blood vengeance
We do not recognize the rhetoric of the state of Israel. We do not recognize the spiral of retribution of the blood vengeance with "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." We do not recognize the principle of one or a thousand Arab eyes for one Israeli eye. We do not recognize collective punishment or population-wide diets as political weapons. Two thousand years have passed since a Jewish rabbi criticized the ancient doctrine of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth."
He said: "Do to others as you would have them do to you." We do not recognize a state founded on antihumanistic principles and on the ruins of an archaic national and war religion. Or as Albert Schweitzer expressed it: "Humanitarianism consists in never sacrificing a human being to a purpose."
Compassion and forgiveness
We do not recognize the old Kingdom of David as a model for the 21st century map of the Middle East. The Jewish rabbi claimed two thousand years ago that the Kingdom of God is not a martial restoration of the Kingdom of David, but that the Kingdom of God is within us and among us. The Kingdom of God is compassion and forgiveness.
Two thousand years have passed since the Jewish rabbi disarmed and humanized the old rhetoric of war. Even in his time, the first Zionist terrorists were operating.
Israel does not listen
For two thousand years, we have rehearsed the syllabus of humanism, but Israel does not listen. It was not the Pharisee that helped the man who lay by the wayside, having fallen prey to robbers. It was a Samaritan; today we would say, a Palestinian. For we are human first of all — then Christian, Muslim, or Jewish. Or as the Jewish rabbi said: "And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others?" We do not accept the abduction of soldiers. But nor do we accept the deportation of whole populations or the abduction of legally elected parliamentarians and government ministers.
We recognize the state of Israel of 1948, but not the one of 1967. It is the state of Israel that fails to recognize, respect, or defer to the internationally lawful Israeli state of 1948. Israel wants more; more water and more villages. To obtain this, there are those who want, with God's assistance, a final solution to the Palestinian problem. The Palestinians have so many other countries, certain Israeli politicians have argued; we have only one.
The USA or the world?
Or as the highest protector of the state of Israel puts it: "May God continue to bless America." A little child took note of that. She turned to her mother, saying: "Why does the President always end his speeches with 'God bless America'? Why not, 'God bless the world'?"
Then there was a Norwegian poet who let out this childlike sigh of the heart: "Why doth Humanity so slowly progress?" It was he that wrote so beautifully of the Jew and the Jewess. But he rejected the notion of God's chosen people. He personally liked to call himself a Muhammedan.
Calm and mercy
We do not recognize the state of Israel. Not today, not as of this writing, not in the hour of grief and wrath. If the entire Israeli nation should fall to its own devices and parts of the population have to flee the occupied areas into another diaspora, then we say: May the surroundings stay calm and show them mercy. It is forever a crime without mitigation to lay hand on refugees and stateless people.
Peace and free passage for the evacuating civilian population no longer protected by a state. Fire not at the fugitives! Take not aim at them! They are vulnerable now like snails without shells, vulnerable like slow caravans of Palestinian and Lebanese refugees, defenseless like women and children and the old in Qana, Gaza, Sabra, and Chatilla. Give the Israeli refugees shelter, give them milk and honey!
Let not one Israeli child be deprived of life. Far too many children and civilians have already been murdered.
August 10, 2006 at · Filed under internet, movies, politics
this is a story i missed over the weekend (either because of work, or because i am reading too much about the middle-east crisis and neglecting other news items), and was amazed to read today.
ABC reported that a supposedly amateur video on youtube that is making fun of al gore and his message about the dangers of global warming has actually been produced by a PR firm that counts among its client ExxonMobil.
the PR firm (DCI ) and Enron refused to comment on whether this indeed the case. but when the WSJ tried to reach out to the supposed amateur the email could be traced back to servers belonging to the PR firm..
youtube, blogs, myspace and more are used more and more by corporates to promote their products and message, but it seems to cross the line in being disingenuous. it is one thing to create a blog or a youtube video and even make it look amateurish, but deceiving the users to believe this was done by some 29yr old guy from california just for the fun of it, is something else.
Next entries »
