I caught much of Mitt Romney's Virginia speech on foreign affairs last week. The first word that came to mind was "shallow", which I found out later, was also Madeline Albright's description.
The first question I would ask is: other than thumps of his chest and calling Obama weak, what does Romney have to offer?
It is one thing to be critical of the current President. But there was no thoughtful criticism, just hot air rhetoric. In fact, it appeared to me that Romney's only goal in this speech was to attack Barack Obama.
For example, Romney's one phrase about Osama Bin Laden rightly praised the military and intelligence forces, but left out the Commander In Chief. Is Romney so disdainful of Obama that he deliberately chooses to ignore any possible praise? Is this the best behavior we can expect out of our possible chief diplomat?
On the issues of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, China, and Russia, Romney offered absolutely no true critique or insight. He either agreed with Obama (though he did not acknowledge this), or he said he would somehow be "stronger" - that's IT.
On Libya and Syria Romney chose the rhetoric over the facts. How would he, as President, react on the current, very fluid situations? Send the troops? If yes, how many would he take out of Afghanistan?
I didn't hear a peep about Pakistan, one of the most difficult challenges we face.
Finally, Israel-Palestine. As a local sportscaster used to say - "let's go to the videotape".
Between his Florida "secret" speech and his address to the Israeli Knesset, Romney has all but given up on the Palestinians. Calling the problem "unsolvable", and declaring that the they do not "want peace", Romney was resigned to a policy of "kicking the ball down the road, hoping that something happens" (hmmm - so Romney believes in "hope" after all :-)).
In his (public) Virginia speech, he calls for the 2-state solution. If I were Mahmoud Abbas, would I take this as a sincere proposal?
Granted, Israel's moral and political foundations need to be praised, as Romney rightly did (and Obama regularly does). But as in the "47 percent" remark, Romney, in his speech did not back away from his dismissal of Palestinians. So how, I must ask, does Romney propose to bring the 2 sides together?
I've expressed my frustrations with Abbas and Netanyahu. I don't think they speak to the realm of possibility. They are mired with the past injuries to their respective peoples and choose to influence with fear and nationalistic pride rather than thoughful negotiations.
But Mitt Romney will make no better a leader. In fact, with his attitudes, I don't think Mitt Romney could today even pass the test to be a low-level diplomat.
I hope President Obama can make the case for his leadership over Romney in the next debate.
Thanks for reading.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Regaining The Debate Momentum
I write this less than 3 weeks before the 2012 Presidential election. I am very concerned - Mitt Romney is gaining in the polls. And the more I see of Romney, the worse I feel about who he is and what many of his supporters think.
I divide Romney supporters into 2 groups. First, the die-hard conservative Republicans - the ones that either broadcast on Fox News or get their information from it. Second, the more independent voter who looks to see who is the more competent.
Obama was on a roll for the past few weeks getting the votes of his base and the independents. Romney's campaign suffered from suspicions due to his lack of transparency. He did not reveal his tax liability and how he shelters his money. He didn't give an explicit explanation that shows how his tax reduction will bring the deficit down. He didn't say publicly how exactly he would deal with the Arab-Israeli dispute, or Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, China, or Russia.
Then came some damaging events for Romney: the secret recordings in Florida - which gave insight into at the very least his attitude towards a large part of the electorate. His "47 percent" remark drew enormous criticism. Romney at first said it was "unelegant" but did not show remorse. The pollsters detected that there was a growing mistrust as Romney's numbers fell.
However, at the first debate, Romney made a comeback. He did so without revealing any more of his plans, and without showing any remorse on the "47-percent" remark. He did it by first portraying our current economic state as Obama's failure, and then stating that the usual conservative free market approach coupled with a universal tax cut will be the way back to prosperity. In the debate (unlike the recording) he only hinted at the "47-percent" by framing opposition to government solutions as only "against the government" policy (especially Obama's), not against "the people" who receive the government benefits. Clever, and it went unchallenged.
I didn't catch all of the debate. I was driving home and listened to some of it on radio. It was clear that Obama was unprepared. I was screaming the rebuttals to Romney at my windshield but Obama failed to go on the offensive. I remembered that I had seen the lackluster Obama before - it reminded me of some of the 2008 debates. When I got home I saw the split-screen TV that had Romney calmly smiling during Obama's answers - which gave him another advantage since Obama seemed nervous.
A few days later my fears became justified: the polls now show Romney ahead. Clearly the independents shifted.
I cannot explain what happened to Obama, and I hope he does a better job in the next 2 debates (more on this later), but I wish people understood exactly what Romney was selling.
A few examples:
First, his philosophy on government. In an era of high deficits AND high unemployment, it's easy to say government tries to do too much and claim that if only we brought down government spending and gave the money back to "you, the taxpayer" a massive number of new private sector jobs would be generated. More on this later.
Second, the notion that the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare) leads to a end of choice (freedom).
Finally, the specifics of his tax policy and the deficit issue. The Republican argument that we pay too much taxes always has appeal, and the easiest thing to do in a campaign is to claim that everyone, yes everyone, benefits from their solution.
I wish Obama had brought up that we are a country evolving in finding solutions to problems. Let's not forget how we ended slavery. It was a government-based solution that was opposed by business. But the overriding concern over the business interest was the moral way we treat each other as human beings and citizens.
The same holds true for child labor laws, worker protection laws, and minimum wage. Government has intervened. But even though businesses have to pay more, we have some degree of ensuring some morality in the employer-employee relationship. There's almost always going to be that business interest - morality tradeoff.
(As an aside, isn't it ironic that Conservatives deal with the immigration issue by calling for a "fence" but not really going after businesses that hire illegals. I don't see guns and rallies in front of those businesses. Perhaps it is because those businesses benefit from the illegals' lower wages?)
The concept of Government investment is, as we know, nothing new. But it is interesting that Republicans, in the 1936 Presidential campaign, claimed that FDR's New Deal was and will continue to be a substantial failure. Again, they use the same arguments that we hear today - that we cannot have prosperity if the government takes "our" money and it it's always better to satisfy the business interest. The Republicans' morality believes that the "freedom" of striving for profit is, and will generate good behavior. We've seen lots of examples that say - "not always".
Another aspect in our country's moral evolution has been in retirement and health care. Keep in mind - Social Security and Medicare are more like insurance policies - not entitlement programs. The conservative objection is that these are compulsory. But these are programs that benefit retirees - people who have paid into a system that just guarantees that you get back what you put in. The free market could get lucky and do just as well or better - but there are no guarantees. So we've evolved to favoring some safety for our seniors - do we want to turn back on this?
The evolution of health care requirements for non-seniors, as I see it, affects both the public and private sectors. The public sector expanded programs to cover some disabilities and to those who are living in poverty. The private sector implemented health insurance so that individuals and families can buy into a pool of health benefit money so long as they agree to the rules set by the insurer.
I'm not sure exactly why health care costs have risen so much, but I see several factors. As a child, my father had insurance to cover only "emergency" events and long hospital stays. I was not covered under any policy. The rare "normal" doctor visits were paid for out of pocket. Fortunately, I was a healthy child. My father, however, had a serious heart condition and died at age 62 (I was 16) when he suffered his first heart attack. I don't know if bypasses were available back in 1970, but I doubt that any preventative procedure would have qualified for emergency insurance. But we didn't have the money to pay for it out of pocket, so my Dad took his chances.
When you combinine the growth of private plans that cover non-emergency treatments as well as the public sector plans for the disabled and disadvantaged, we see more expenditures in health care than in my father's day. You can look at it a couple of ways: now that we have insurance, the costs seem more transparent. This is good in that it takes a lot of the worry away and people really get treated early and live longer. But the downside is that expectations for coverage rise as we expect our out-of-pocket expenses to go down.
I have no great answers to this, but what I can say is that the Republican message that the ACA results in less individual freedom is bogus. I can speak from personal experience that it is Insurance Companies, not the Government, not the doctors, that are the impediment to the care I often need. For example, it is the insurance company that dictates what medication I should take for my allergy. My doctor was eventually able to get what I needed approved, but I pay more for it because it isn't the medication of "choice".
Romney and the Republicans want to sell the notion that the Government is intruding too much. But under ACA, we still have private plans. The "intrusion" is that these plans must meet the standards that doctors and consumers want, even if it digs into the insurer's profitability.
Thus, my exit question for Health Care is: Do we want to continue to have health care decisions be totally market (read: profit) based, allowing people to fend for themselves, or is our moral code OK with having some regulations so that everyone in this country knows that he or she won't go broke due to bad luck with his or her health?
If we can keep the costs down, if we can still enforce some individual responsibility in both health care and retirement, and if we can make sure there is no fraud, I'll go along with Obamacare and not privatize Social Security.
Regarding tax policy: We've been down this road before. Romney and Ryan are showing Santa Claus and hiding Scrooge. You cannot hide an important question such as "how do you get more revenues when you are cutting taxes" behind a answer such as "I'll work with Congress to figure this out". I hope Obama finds a way to make sure Romney doesn't get away with this.
Related to taxes is the issue of the deficit. As Bill Clinton urged, do the math. Compare the 1990's to the last decade. Look at the fact that the increases in unemployment under Bush resulted in higher unemployment insurance costs (and keep in mind that our citizens paid for this up front, so they are not "entitlements"). Romney and Ryan need to answer to the Clinton line that the Republicans "got us into the mess, complained that Obama didn't get us out fast enough, and want to be put back in charge".
I hope the Obama campaign gets a few ideas from this writeup and the next 2 debates go much better. I will write a foreign policy piece shortly.
Thanks for reading.
I divide Romney supporters into 2 groups. First, the die-hard conservative Republicans - the ones that either broadcast on Fox News or get their information from it. Second, the more independent voter who looks to see who is the more competent.
Obama was on a roll for the past few weeks getting the votes of his base and the independents. Romney's campaign suffered from suspicions due to his lack of transparency. He did not reveal his tax liability and how he shelters his money. He didn't give an explicit explanation that shows how his tax reduction will bring the deficit down. He didn't say publicly how exactly he would deal with the Arab-Israeli dispute, or Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, China, or Russia.
Then came some damaging events for Romney: the secret recordings in Florida - which gave insight into at the very least his attitude towards a large part of the electorate. His "47 percent" remark drew enormous criticism. Romney at first said it was "unelegant" but did not show remorse. The pollsters detected that there was a growing mistrust as Romney's numbers fell.
However, at the first debate, Romney made a comeback. He did so without revealing any more of his plans, and without showing any remorse on the "47-percent" remark. He did it by first portraying our current economic state as Obama's failure, and then stating that the usual conservative free market approach coupled with a universal tax cut will be the way back to prosperity. In the debate (unlike the recording) he only hinted at the "47-percent" by framing opposition to government solutions as only "against the government" policy (especially Obama's), not against "the people" who receive the government benefits. Clever, and it went unchallenged.
I didn't catch all of the debate. I was driving home and listened to some of it on radio. It was clear that Obama was unprepared. I was screaming the rebuttals to Romney at my windshield but Obama failed to go on the offensive. I remembered that I had seen the lackluster Obama before - it reminded me of some of the 2008 debates. When I got home I saw the split-screen TV that had Romney calmly smiling during Obama's answers - which gave him another advantage since Obama seemed nervous.
A few days later my fears became justified: the polls now show Romney ahead. Clearly the independents shifted.
I cannot explain what happened to Obama, and I hope he does a better job in the next 2 debates (more on this later), but I wish people understood exactly what Romney was selling.
A few examples:
First, his philosophy on government. In an era of high deficits AND high unemployment, it's easy to say government tries to do too much and claim that if only we brought down government spending and gave the money back to "you, the taxpayer" a massive number of new private sector jobs would be generated. More on this later.
Second, the notion that the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare) leads to a end of choice (freedom).
Finally, the specifics of his tax policy and the deficit issue. The Republican argument that we pay too much taxes always has appeal, and the easiest thing to do in a campaign is to claim that everyone, yes everyone, benefits from their solution.
I wish Obama had brought up that we are a country evolving in finding solutions to problems. Let's not forget how we ended slavery. It was a government-based solution that was opposed by business. But the overriding concern over the business interest was the moral way we treat each other as human beings and citizens.
The same holds true for child labor laws, worker protection laws, and minimum wage. Government has intervened. But even though businesses have to pay more, we have some degree of ensuring some morality in the employer-employee relationship. There's almost always going to be that business interest - morality tradeoff.
(As an aside, isn't it ironic that Conservatives deal with the immigration issue by calling for a "fence" but not really going after businesses that hire illegals. I don't see guns and rallies in front of those businesses. Perhaps it is because those businesses benefit from the illegals' lower wages?)
The concept of Government investment is, as we know, nothing new. But it is interesting that Republicans, in the 1936 Presidential campaign, claimed that FDR's New Deal was and will continue to be a substantial failure. Again, they use the same arguments that we hear today - that we cannot have prosperity if the government takes "our" money and it it's always better to satisfy the business interest. The Republicans' morality believes that the "freedom" of striving for profit is, and will generate good behavior. We've seen lots of examples that say - "not always".
Another aspect in our country's moral evolution has been in retirement and health care. Keep in mind - Social Security and Medicare are more like insurance policies - not entitlement programs. The conservative objection is that these are compulsory. But these are programs that benefit retirees - people who have paid into a system that just guarantees that you get back what you put in. The free market could get lucky and do just as well or better - but there are no guarantees. So we've evolved to favoring some safety for our seniors - do we want to turn back on this?
The evolution of health care requirements for non-seniors, as I see it, affects both the public and private sectors. The public sector expanded programs to cover some disabilities and to those who are living in poverty. The private sector implemented health insurance so that individuals and families can buy into a pool of health benefit money so long as they agree to the rules set by the insurer.
I'm not sure exactly why health care costs have risen so much, but I see several factors. As a child, my father had insurance to cover only "emergency" events and long hospital stays. I was not covered under any policy. The rare "normal" doctor visits were paid for out of pocket. Fortunately, I was a healthy child. My father, however, had a serious heart condition and died at age 62 (I was 16) when he suffered his first heart attack. I don't know if bypasses were available back in 1970, but I doubt that any preventative procedure would have qualified for emergency insurance. But we didn't have the money to pay for it out of pocket, so my Dad took his chances.
When you combinine the growth of private plans that cover non-emergency treatments as well as the public sector plans for the disabled and disadvantaged, we see more expenditures in health care than in my father's day. You can look at it a couple of ways: now that we have insurance, the costs seem more transparent. This is good in that it takes a lot of the worry away and people really get treated early and live longer. But the downside is that expectations for coverage rise as we expect our out-of-pocket expenses to go down.
I have no great answers to this, but what I can say is that the Republican message that the ACA results in less individual freedom is bogus. I can speak from personal experience that it is Insurance Companies, not the Government, not the doctors, that are the impediment to the care I often need. For example, it is the insurance company that dictates what medication I should take for my allergy. My doctor was eventually able to get what I needed approved, but I pay more for it because it isn't the medication of "choice".
Romney and the Republicans want to sell the notion that the Government is intruding too much. But under ACA, we still have private plans. The "intrusion" is that these plans must meet the standards that doctors and consumers want, even if it digs into the insurer's profitability.
Thus, my exit question for Health Care is: Do we want to continue to have health care decisions be totally market (read: profit) based, allowing people to fend for themselves, or is our moral code OK with having some regulations so that everyone in this country knows that he or she won't go broke due to bad luck with his or her health?
If we can keep the costs down, if we can still enforce some individual responsibility in both health care and retirement, and if we can make sure there is no fraud, I'll go along with Obamacare and not privatize Social Security.
Regarding tax policy: We've been down this road before. Romney and Ryan are showing Santa Claus and hiding Scrooge. You cannot hide an important question such as "how do you get more revenues when you are cutting taxes" behind a answer such as "I'll work with Congress to figure this out". I hope Obama finds a way to make sure Romney doesn't get away with this.
Related to taxes is the issue of the deficit. As Bill Clinton urged, do the math. Compare the 1990's to the last decade. Look at the fact that the increases in unemployment under Bush resulted in higher unemployment insurance costs (and keep in mind that our citizens paid for this up front, so they are not "entitlements"). Romney and Ryan need to answer to the Clinton line that the Republicans "got us into the mess, complained that Obama didn't get us out fast enough, and want to be put back in charge".
I hope the Obama campaign gets a few ideas from this writeup and the next 2 debates go much better. I will write a foreign policy piece shortly.
Thanks for reading.
Monday, September 3, 2012
The Candidates' Economic Worlds
The debates going on over economic issues stem from, I believe, 2 opposite views of the world that I covered in my initial blog post.
What the "you didn't build it" debate highlights is one side promoting individualism and the other promoting community.
Yes, President Obama's words were taken way out of context. He clearly stated that success doesn't come in a vacuum, but it was taken as though the individual deserves no credit.
In the world of the individualists ("Buchannanism"), only the creativity and hard work by those who start business and make it succeed is what makes America exceptional.
Yet in every company I have worked for that has succeeded, their successes have, in Management's opinion, derived from the employees who have made significant contributions to their products and services.
So we need healthy entrepreneurship AND a healthy environment for those who work for our entrepreneurs.
The moderates acknowledge the sacrifices of entrepreneurs, but say that they succeeded in an environment where our governments were a catalyst. Yes, there are regulations to keep everyone in line, but business success does not come in a vacuum. Our public schools, public roads, public transit, strong common currency, environmental protection, national security and defense, and - yes - health and retirement protection policies have established a place that keeps our country strong and our people protected.
The individualists fear that the country (government) is taking away entrepreneurship. The globalists fear that we may be going back too far to individualism.
I believe that if we make sure we frame our programs as working to solve a specific problem - and not get too tied down in the overall individualism versus community debate - we could make more progress.
Let's take, for example, the debate concerning stimulus and infrastructure.
Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnel, John Boeher, and Eric Cantor fully support lots of government spending on America's infrastructure, as they know it will create thousands if not millions of jobs (though it will increase our debt).
The only thing is - their infrastructure of choice is the military.
(And now with sequestration approaching, there is some fear that defense will take a big hit. I work in defense and I see it)
So there should be no argument about government needing to invest. The difference is - "in what"?
Another aspect of this debate about business versus government is being able to differentiate "entrepreneurship" from "capitalists" (people who do not produce anything, but simply use money to make money). Particularly when it comes to investment. Thom Hartman spoke to this recently. If I put my own money into my own business and it is successful, I should be rewarded. While it is nice to have outside investment, keep in mind that the investors are, like the Vegas crowd, speculating. They want the business to succeed, and may take part in some business decisions, but in the end their gratification not only comes from the business' success, but from their financial reward as a result of it.
When it comes to taxes, the individualists want to combine the entrepreneurs and the capitalists. They feel that both should pay lower taxes than workers.
I disagree.Those who directly create American jobs should get a break, but for the rest, income is income.
Keep in mind that investment in a company does not always result in American jobs. I have a separate post on this.
In conclusion, we cannot allow scare tactics of "government takeover" to frame the debate about what is best for our country. A lot of what we have done has worked but it needs to be tweaked to work better. To lower our debt AND foster business growth, we need to make sure that our government's investments in projects that will help us grow our infrastructure are properly financed, and we give some extra help to real entrepreneurs.
Thanks for reading.
What the "you didn't build it" debate highlights is one side promoting individualism and the other promoting community.
Yes, President Obama's words were taken way out of context. He clearly stated that success doesn't come in a vacuum, but it was taken as though the individual deserves no credit.
In the world of the individualists ("Buchannanism"), only the creativity and hard work by those who start business and make it succeed is what makes America exceptional.
Yet in every company I have worked for that has succeeded, their successes have, in Management's opinion, derived from the employees who have made significant contributions to their products and services.
So we need healthy entrepreneurship AND a healthy environment for those who work for our entrepreneurs.
The moderates acknowledge the sacrifices of entrepreneurs, but say that they succeeded in an environment where our governments were a catalyst. Yes, there are regulations to keep everyone in line, but business success does not come in a vacuum. Our public schools, public roads, public transit, strong common currency, environmental protection, national security and defense, and - yes - health and retirement protection policies have established a place that keeps our country strong and our people protected.
The individualists fear that the country (government) is taking away entrepreneurship. The globalists fear that we may be going back too far to individualism.
I believe that if we make sure we frame our programs as working to solve a specific problem - and not get too tied down in the overall individualism versus community debate - we could make more progress.
Let's take, for example, the debate concerning stimulus and infrastructure.
Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnel, John Boeher, and Eric Cantor fully support lots of government spending on America's infrastructure, as they know it will create thousands if not millions of jobs (though it will increase our debt).
The only thing is - their infrastructure of choice is the military.
(And now with sequestration approaching, there is some fear that defense will take a big hit. I work in defense and I see it)
So there should be no argument about government needing to invest. The difference is - "in what"?
Another aspect of this debate about business versus government is being able to differentiate "entrepreneurship" from "capitalists" (people who do not produce anything, but simply use money to make money). Particularly when it comes to investment. Thom Hartman spoke to this recently. If I put my own money into my own business and it is successful, I should be rewarded. While it is nice to have outside investment, keep in mind that the investors are, like the Vegas crowd, speculating. They want the business to succeed, and may take part in some business decisions, but in the end their gratification not only comes from the business' success, but from their financial reward as a result of it.
When it comes to taxes, the individualists want to combine the entrepreneurs and the capitalists. They feel that both should pay lower taxes than workers.
I disagree.Those who directly create American jobs should get a break, but for the rest, income is income.
Keep in mind that investment in a company does not always result in American jobs. I have a separate post on this.
In conclusion, we cannot allow scare tactics of "government takeover" to frame the debate about what is best for our country. A lot of what we have done has worked but it needs to be tweaked to work better. To lower our debt AND foster business growth, we need to make sure that our government's investments in projects that will help us grow our infrastructure are properly financed, and we give some extra help to real entrepreneurs.
Thanks for reading.
Israel, the US, and the Republikuds
In Mitt Romney's convention speech, he claims that President Obama "threw Israel under the bus".
The rhetoric of division in this area is getting stronger and nastier, and it's time we fight back.
There is a merger of 2 political parties now - the US Republicans and Israeli Likud - we can call them the Republikuds. They use extreme nationalism and fear to promote their agenda. What is this agenda? That the only way to show support for Israel is make it totally unconditional. No matter what Israel says or does, they are right, and any deviation from this is seen as at least questionable if not totally unpatriotic. Arabs cannot be trusted at all. Iran must be bombed (speaking to them is was a huge mistake).
My universlist-moderate stance respects the Republikuds nationalism and desire to protect Israel, but rejects their condemnations of those who try to seek dialogue for peace.
In a nutshell, I see the Republikuds biggest problem as this: they have no long-term vision as to where Israel needs to go over the next few decades. Since they see the Arabs as mistrustful, they have put themselves in a political protective shell with no way out. This occurs while the non-Jewish population in Israel continues to grow.
Back in November 2007 when George W. Bush was President, I showed my support for his and Condeleesa Rice's efforts to bring peace at the Annapolis conference. I go into arguments with Israeli settlers and extremist Palestinians who both said they would not "give an inch". When I asked an Israeli protester "What is the future, perpetual war?" he could only answer back by accusing me of "lying".
Our current president, Barack Obama, has made sincere efforts for peace. Yes, he at times was critical of Israeli settlement policy, but he never turned his back on Israeli security. His 2011 proposal of restarting the peace talks with the phrase "1967 borders with land swaps" was no different than George W. Bush's "Road Map" plan that twice called for Israel to "end its occupation of 1967". And on Iran, Obama has been stronger than Bush, but the Republikuds want to use their nationalism for their own political purposes. (An Iranian friend of mine suggests that bombing will backfire because it will strengthen the extremists there - so we need to be careful.)
If there are Palestinians like Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish that can potentially take power (see my earlier post), we can move in the right direction. Israel's best interest, especially in the light of uncertainty after the Arab Spring, is to come to terms with the Palestinians and find a win-win solution - of course both sides will have to sacrifice, but the "win" will be the reality of peace, friendship, and prosperity.
In the meantime, we, the moderate Jewish American community, have to repudiate the Republikuds.
Thanks for reading.
The rhetoric of division in this area is getting stronger and nastier, and it's time we fight back.
There is a merger of 2 political parties now - the US Republicans and Israeli Likud - we can call them the Republikuds. They use extreme nationalism and fear to promote their agenda. What is this agenda? That the only way to show support for Israel is make it totally unconditional. No matter what Israel says or does, they are right, and any deviation from this is seen as at least questionable if not totally unpatriotic. Arabs cannot be trusted at all. Iran must be bombed (speaking to them is was a huge mistake).
My universlist-moderate stance respects the Republikuds nationalism and desire to protect Israel, but rejects their condemnations of those who try to seek dialogue for peace.
In a nutshell, I see the Republikuds biggest problem as this: they have no long-term vision as to where Israel needs to go over the next few decades. Since they see the Arabs as mistrustful, they have put themselves in a political protective shell with no way out. This occurs while the non-Jewish population in Israel continues to grow.
Back in November 2007 when George W. Bush was President, I showed my support for his and Condeleesa Rice's efforts to bring peace at the Annapolis conference. I go into arguments with Israeli settlers and extremist Palestinians who both said they would not "give an inch". When I asked an Israeli protester "What is the future, perpetual war?" he could only answer back by accusing me of "lying".
Our current president, Barack Obama, has made sincere efforts for peace. Yes, he at times was critical of Israeli settlement policy, but he never turned his back on Israeli security. His 2011 proposal of restarting the peace talks with the phrase "1967 borders with land swaps" was no different than George W. Bush's "Road Map" plan that twice called for Israel to "end its occupation of 1967". And on Iran, Obama has been stronger than Bush, but the Republikuds want to use their nationalism for their own political purposes. (An Iranian friend of mine suggests that bombing will backfire because it will strengthen the extremists there - so we need to be careful.)
If there are Palestinians like Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish that can potentially take power (see my earlier post), we can move in the right direction. Israel's best interest, especially in the light of uncertainty after the Arab Spring, is to come to terms with the Palestinians and find a win-win solution - of course both sides will have to sacrifice, but the "win" will be the reality of peace, friendship, and prosperity.
In the meantime, we, the moderate Jewish American community, have to repudiate the Republikuds.
Thanks for reading.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Fear
On November 4th, 1995, Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by a lone gunman in Tel Aviv. As we mourned, and as President Clinton said "Shalom Haver" ("Goodbye, Friend"), I was struck with the idea that it was nothing less than fear that drove Yigal Amir to perform this horrible deed.
There was (and still is) a fear amongst a segment of the Israeli population that the world, especially the Arabs, want to take something significant away. Whether it is rational or not, we cannot deny the existence of this fear.
Near the time of the assassination, I was reflecting on this, and I wrote a long letter to an Israeli newspaper, and shipped it via Telex (this was pre-email days). I don't know if it got received or published, and I don't have a copy, but I remember a bit what I said.
Fear, I said, is one of the basic emotion that exists in humans. It preceeds mistrust and hate. Mistrust and hate preceed much of our violence.
We have seen this work at all levels of interaction - whether it is animal to animal, person to person, group to group, nationality to nationality, religious group to religious group, person to country, or country to country.
It is easy to see these days where fear exists: Many of the Israelis fear the Arabs and Persians, many of the Arabs (and Persians) fear the Israelis and the West. One side feels that the other side wishes to take away its wealth or pride or freedom or even existence.
Even domestically, there are fears by one ethnic group for another, by one race for another.
The fears are perpetuated from generation to generation. This is often done by a demagogue in a group. Also by our "teachers" - be it religious leaders, educators or politicians.
At the Million Man March, which was near the time of Rabin's assassination, I walked around the National Mall with a sign of protest. I stated that we should not be influenced by messages of fear, as I felt that Mr. Farrakhan was giving us just that. I caught some flak from the attendees, but I think many of the people there understood.
So let's take Israel and Palestine. There are many examples in the world, but this one is closer to my heart.
The Israeli people have recent history to help generate fear. Not just the Holocaust, but the current fear that Arabs do not want them in the land they currently reside in. They point to evidence such as the anti-Israel education in Arab schools.
The Arabs see Israelis as a powerful force (thanks to the US) that wishes to take away Arab land and pride.
The fear has given rise to leaders who perpetuate it.
The media promotes these leaders.
Looking from the outside on this, I see a way out, but it is going to have to start with one basic premise:
The fear must be eliminated - as much as possible.
This is as much grass-roots as top-down. For example, I attended the Unity Walk 2 Sundays ago. This was a gathering of all religions and cultures to find bonds and our commonalities. This was, for me, all about removing fear. Juan Williams got raked over the coals for confessing to his fears of other cultures (NPR took this way too far in my opinion), but in this Unity Walk setting, I could admit to my own fears and realize that the people there had more warmth, more trust, more in common with me than I ever thought, and I was able to form bonds, not walls.
We had leaders of each of the 3 major religious communities speak. These people were great speakers.
However, they spoke to our choir, and I do not hear their voices heard outside this safe gathering nearly enough.
Try to imagine what things would be like if we could expand our sense of community. Instead of placing all your trust in the closest family, friends and neighbors, imagine what the world would be like if we saw that many of our own fears were irrational. Our neighbors might be of a different culture but still possess the basic human elements of compassion.
I, a Jew, am trying to see this in those I am told are my "enemies", such as the Arabs of Palestine.
In reading Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish's incredible book "I Shall Not Hate", I see the expressions of compassions from a man I am initially supposed to hate. I am supposed to mistrust and hate him because he expresses the desire for a state for Palestine (which for many imply the elimination of the Jewish state). But I see in his book words that reach out with compassion. Not only that, but Izzeldin says that many of his countrymen agree with him, so I should try to replace my mistrust with trust.
And Izzeldin also says that most Israelis, whom he used to see on a daily basis at the hospital he worked at (as a Fertility Doctor) are perfectly capable of forming bonds of trust - once they know that the people facing them are not out to take things away. He says that if Palestinians and Israelis could only find their commonalities by simply having the simple positive interactions, we could go a long way in solving this conflict.
How can we build on this? How can we bring these 2 groups with a long, strong history of conflict together?
What I see as a partial solution is to tell others about Izzeldin's book and have them read it. At least that's a start. It might influence a few minds and hearts. We'll see.
I am also in touch with Dr. Abuelaish and hope to meet him soon, so that we can cement the bond we have recently formed, and come up with ideas as to how to influence others towards reducing our fears and increasing trust and respect.
Thanks for reading.
There was (and still is) a fear amongst a segment of the Israeli population that the world, especially the Arabs, want to take something significant away. Whether it is rational or not, we cannot deny the existence of this fear.
Near the time of the assassination, I was reflecting on this, and I wrote a long letter to an Israeli newspaper, and shipped it via Telex (this was pre-email days). I don't know if it got received or published, and I don't have a copy, but I remember a bit what I said.
Fear, I said, is one of the basic emotion that exists in humans. It preceeds mistrust and hate. Mistrust and hate preceed much of our violence.
We have seen this work at all levels of interaction - whether it is animal to animal, person to person, group to group, nationality to nationality, religious group to religious group, person to country, or country to country.
It is easy to see these days where fear exists: Many of the Israelis fear the Arabs and Persians, many of the Arabs (and Persians) fear the Israelis and the West. One side feels that the other side wishes to take away its wealth or pride or freedom or even existence.
Even domestically, there are fears by one ethnic group for another, by one race for another.
The fears are perpetuated from generation to generation. This is often done by a demagogue in a group. Also by our "teachers" - be it religious leaders, educators or politicians.
At the Million Man March, which was near the time of Rabin's assassination, I walked around the National Mall with a sign of protest. I stated that we should not be influenced by messages of fear, as I felt that Mr. Farrakhan was giving us just that. I caught some flak from the attendees, but I think many of the people there understood.
So let's take Israel and Palestine. There are many examples in the world, but this one is closer to my heart.
The Israeli people have recent history to help generate fear. Not just the Holocaust, but the current fear that Arabs do not want them in the land they currently reside in. They point to evidence such as the anti-Israel education in Arab schools.
The Arabs see Israelis as a powerful force (thanks to the US) that wishes to take away Arab land and pride.
The fear has given rise to leaders who perpetuate it.
The media promotes these leaders.
Looking from the outside on this, I see a way out, but it is going to have to start with one basic premise:
The fear must be eliminated - as much as possible.
This is as much grass-roots as top-down. For example, I attended the Unity Walk 2 Sundays ago. This was a gathering of all religions and cultures to find bonds and our commonalities. This was, for me, all about removing fear. Juan Williams got raked over the coals for confessing to his fears of other cultures (NPR took this way too far in my opinion), but in this Unity Walk setting, I could admit to my own fears and realize that the people there had more warmth, more trust, more in common with me than I ever thought, and I was able to form bonds, not walls.
We had leaders of each of the 3 major religious communities speak. These people were great speakers.
However, they spoke to our choir, and I do not hear their voices heard outside this safe gathering nearly enough.
Try to imagine what things would be like if we could expand our sense of community. Instead of placing all your trust in the closest family, friends and neighbors, imagine what the world would be like if we saw that many of our own fears were irrational. Our neighbors might be of a different culture but still possess the basic human elements of compassion.
I, a Jew, am trying to see this in those I am told are my "enemies", such as the Arabs of Palestine.
In reading Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish's incredible book "I Shall Not Hate", I see the expressions of compassions from a man I am initially supposed to hate. I am supposed to mistrust and hate him because he expresses the desire for a state for Palestine (which for many imply the elimination of the Jewish state). But I see in his book words that reach out with compassion. Not only that, but Izzeldin says that many of his countrymen agree with him, so I should try to replace my mistrust with trust.
And Izzeldin also says that most Israelis, whom he used to see on a daily basis at the hospital he worked at (as a Fertility Doctor) are perfectly capable of forming bonds of trust - once they know that the people facing them are not out to take things away. He says that if Palestinians and Israelis could only find their commonalities by simply having the simple positive interactions, we could go a long way in solving this conflict.
How can we build on this? How can we bring these 2 groups with a long, strong history of conflict together?
What I see as a partial solution is to tell others about Izzeldin's book and have them read it. At least that's a start. It might influence a few minds and hearts. We'll see.
I am also in touch with Dr. Abuelaish and hope to meet him soon, so that we can cement the bond we have recently formed, and come up with ideas as to how to influence others towards reducing our fears and increasing trust and respect.
Thanks for reading.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Israel and The Arab Spring
A thought came to me today while I was reading Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish's book, "I Shall Not Hate", and having just read the newspaper about Syria and the growing tensions between Israel and Egypt (due to an accidental killing of Egyptians during an Israeli reprisal raid against Palestinian terrorist attacks):
The argument of some in Israel and the US is that we should fear the "Arab Spring", because it may let loose the "anti-Israel & anti-West" side of the Muslim Arabs and put them in power or influence.
I'm seeing this from another angle or perspective:
Basically it is this: If the dispute between Palestinians and Israelis was today fully settled, there would be absolutely nothing to fear in the Arab Spring.
This statement doesn't blame one side over another (in the failure to resolve the dispute). I've heard both sides of the argument and the only thing I blame is intransigence.
From reading Dr. Abuelaish and from what I see in the polls in Israel and Palestine, I believe that the people are ready to settle.
If the 2 sides had settled by now, we'd all be welcoming the Arab Spring in open arms, wouldn't we? We'd have states in the Mideast closer to the Israeli and democratic Arab model than we have today. Isn't this what we want, especially if neither side regards the other as a threat?
If you do fear the Arab Spring, what is your response? (If you believe I am naive, read my very first post.)
I'll have a review of Dr. Abuelaish's book in a future post.
Thanks for reading.
The argument of some in Israel and the US is that we should fear the "Arab Spring", because it may let loose the "anti-Israel & anti-West" side of the Muslim Arabs and put them in power or influence.
I'm seeing this from another angle or perspective:
Basically it is this: If the dispute between Palestinians and Israelis was today fully settled, there would be absolutely nothing to fear in the Arab Spring.
This statement doesn't blame one side over another (in the failure to resolve the dispute). I've heard both sides of the argument and the only thing I blame is intransigence.
From reading Dr. Abuelaish and from what I see in the polls in Israel and Palestine, I believe that the people are ready to settle.
If the 2 sides had settled by now, we'd all be welcoming the Arab Spring in open arms, wouldn't we? We'd have states in the Mideast closer to the Israeli and democratic Arab model than we have today. Isn't this what we want, especially if neither side regards the other as a threat?
If you do fear the Arab Spring, what is your response? (If you believe I am naive, read my very first post.)
I'll have a review of Dr. Abuelaish's book in a future post.
Thanks for reading.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Somebody Else's Troubles
I heard of replay of an old Steve Goodman song from the 1970's - "Somebody Else's Troubles". I decided to re-print the lyrics with one change on the third verse making it more appopros for today. In case you haven't heard of him, Steve wrote "City Of New Orleans" and was considered by many to be one of the best solo performers of his time. He was a high-school classmate of Hillary Rodham. Died of leukemia in 1984. This song makes a terriffic statement
Yesterday I went downtown and saw an old-time picture show
And the hero got a pie in the face.
He didn't like that and he stormed around the screen,
But everybody else was laughin' in that place.
That's cause it ain't hard to get along with somebody else's troubles
And they don't make you lose any sleep at night
As long as fate is out there burstin' somebody else's bubbles.
Everything is gonna be alright.
And everything is gonna be alright.
Did you ever pay for something that you didn't do ?
And did you ever figure out the reason why ?
And when the doctor says this gonna hurt me a lot more than this hurts you,
Did you ever figure out that that's a lie ?
He knows it ain't too hard to get along with somebody else's troubles
And they don't make you lose any sleep at night
As long as fate is out there burstin'somebody' else's bubbles.
Everything is gonna be alright.
And everything will be alright.
And I saw the politician, follow his party line,
He said, "We all have to tighten up our belts."
But he didn't look any thinner than he did a year ago
And I wonder just how hungry that man felt.
He knows it ain't too hard to get along with somebody else's troubles,
They don't make you lose any sleep at night.
Just as long as fate is out there burstin'somebody' else's bubbles.
Everything is gonna be alright.
And everything is gonna be alright.
So I asked the undertaker what it took to make him laugh
When all he ever saw is people cryin'.
First he hands me a bunch of flowers that he'd received on my behalf
He said, "Steve, business just gets better all the time."
And it ain't too hard it to get along with somebody else's troubles,
They don't make you lose any sleep at night.
As long as fate is out there burstin' somebody else's bubbles
Everything is gonna be alright.
And everything is gonna alright.
Yesterday I went downtown and saw an old-time picture show
And the hero got a pie in the face.
He didn't like that and he stormed around the screen,
But everybody else was laughin' in that place.
That's cause it ain't hard to get along with somebody else's troubles
And they don't make you lose any sleep at night
As long as fate is out there burstin' somebody else's bubbles.
Everything is gonna be alright.
And everything is gonna be alright.
Did you ever pay for something that you didn't do ?
And did you ever figure out the reason why ?
And when the doctor says this gonna hurt me a lot more than this hurts you,
Did you ever figure out that that's a lie ?
He knows it ain't too hard to get along with somebody else's troubles
And they don't make you lose any sleep at night
As long as fate is out there burstin'somebody' else's bubbles.
Everything is gonna be alright.
And everything will be alright.
And I saw the politician, follow his party line,
He said, "We all have to tighten up our belts."
But he didn't look any thinner than he did a year ago
And I wonder just how hungry that man felt.
He knows it ain't too hard to get along with somebody else's troubles,
They don't make you lose any sleep at night.
Just as long as fate is out there burstin'somebody' else's bubbles.
Everything is gonna be alright.
And everything is gonna be alright.
So I asked the undertaker what it took to make him laugh
When all he ever saw is people cryin'.
First he hands me a bunch of flowers that he'd received on my behalf
He said, "Steve, business just gets better all the time."
And it ain't too hard it to get along with somebody else's troubles,
They don't make you lose any sleep at night.
As long as fate is out there burstin' somebody else's bubbles
Everything is gonna be alright.
And everything is gonna alright.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)