A state like any other

Israel is a real geopolitical oddball. Not all of its Jews are from Europe and such; in fact I just visited relatives who've lived in Jerusalem and its surrounding areas since 1492, when Columbus sailed the ocean blue and King Ferdinand expelled the Jew. But its politics sometimes resembles the European states that many of its citizens left around 1945. For years now Israel's politics have been dominated by its dealings with the Palestinians. For many, this means security: building a wall to keep out suicide bombers, smashing Gaza to weaken Hamas, bombing Lebanon to destroy Hizbullah, etc.

But when the state was founded, the Israelis had more in mind than security. My father likes to say it was a state founded by socialists, people who believed that all men are created equal and should live according to his ability. Between the state and the kibbutz, romantically speaking, capitalism wasn't all that important. Laid low by the second intifada, Israel decided to liberalize its economy during the 2003-5 finance ministry of Binyamin Netanyahu (please excuse the wikipedia link; the footnotes should help). At worst, the reforms were derided by those in Labor (and even Netanyahu's Likud) as "Thatcherite." Some are more critical of him than others, of course. Haaretz attacks his "anti-Churchillian" policies that destroyed the egalitarian framework that kept the country together. The article blasts him for his Reagan-Thatcherism: "For instead of creating an economic and social powerhouse capable of meeting the challenges that surround it, he created a robber state that serves the settlers, the ultra-Orthodox and the tycoons." But his so-called "obeisance" to the market played a role in helping boost Israel's economy to its current heights. Israel is doing better now than it has in some time.

So why did 250,000 march for social justice as Israel enjoys 5.7% unemployment and 4.8% growth during an anemic worldwide recovery? The marchers blame wage disparities (the highest among the OECD countries) and (illiberal) wage disparities for their plight. Overall, these people feel that there is an economic miracle going on and they are not a part of it. The Netanyahu ministry is trying to respond- it "vowed to free up more state-owned land for development, build more low-rent housing and improve public transport. It also wants to lower dairy prices with more imports and boost medical staff numbers to address demands by striking doctors." But more and more parties are joining in. Kadima in particular is supporting it (and claiming that Netanyahu is igoring their demands), and parties as disparate in politics as the Arab-Israeli UAL-Ta'al and the rightwing National Union have thrown their support behind the protests.

Why now? For one, Israel seems to be "between wars" and unable to do much on the security front. Little can be done on the Palestinian question at the moment. The Oslo Peace Process has come to a stop; some respectable journalists claim that "The Oslo Process is over." Netanyahu is trying to fight the UN's recognition of the Palestinian state, but that's a lost cause as long as Oslo is frozen. Such a fight is determined at the level of the United Nations General Assembly, where no country can veto its decisions. That's how the UN got involved in the Suez crisis- neither Britain nor France could veto the General Assembly decision. Furthermore, the People's Republic of China got the "China" seat in the same way in 1971. Unless Israel can convince a majority of the 193 members of the UN that it should not recognize Palestine, then Palestine will be seen as a sovereign country with its own representative. Perhaps they feel that America's ability to veto its move to the General Assembly will be enough. Although I wonder, then, why France and the UK did not prevent the Suez issue from going to the General Assembly...

Regardless of the maneuvering on the Palestinian question, it is interesting to see that Israel's population wants to focus on economics instead. Israel is not an Arab autocracy that is trying to maintain its gerontocracy; its closer to Spain's economic protests, even if the Arab Spring had its own economic elements (the Tunisian revolt, and through it the whole movement, began when one Tunisian burned himself over his economic situation). It is just a normal country with normal problems, and that is what the economic protests remind us about.

The benefit of waiting for information

There is a very interesting theory about the Spanish 2004 election that occurred three days after the March 11 bombings. Conventional wisdom says that Spain voted to throw out the governing party, which was polling well, because they were scared into "appeasing" the Islamic terrorists by leaving Iraq.

There is another view however: Al Qaeda did not lead to the defeat of the Partido Popular (PP) in Spain. Soon after the bombings occurred, when it wasn't entirely clear what happened, the PP was quick to blame the Basque separatist group ETA, even after it became clear that ETA was not at fault. Why did they persist in blaming ETA? On one hand, the PP's crackdown on ETA was popular. On the other, very few Spaniards backed the Iraq War. This helped lead the PP to maintain that ETA was behind the attacks even when ETA itself denied it. The PP feared that the voters would back the anti-war PSOE because the war led to the bombings.

Instead, this rushed conclusion that ETA was behind the bombings led many voters to believe that the PP was trying to distort the truth and led many who would not have voted at all to back the PSOE. If the PP had been more honest (although some of them still believe it), they could have said something along the lines of "we are strong, we will not let the terrorists determine our foreign policy." The PP may have gotten won term as planned.

Well, it's a theory. But it's something to keep in mind. Many of us leapt to the conclusion that an Islamic group was responsible for the Norway attacks, including yours truly. To be fair, an extremist Islamic terrorist group claimed responsibility for it. As we all now know, it was actually done by a White Christian right wing extremist who seems to think that killing civilians (and the Prime Minister) will prevent Norway from becoming communist/Islamic.

This is why it is so important to wait for information first...

Why Norway?

That was my first thought upon seeing the headline. It was most likely done by a group related to Al Qaeda, if only because Norway doesn't have many enemies. But why Norway? It isn't leading the charge against terrorism in a high profile way. It isn't leading the fight in Afghanistan and Iraq like America is. Norway hasn't drawn any nasty cartoons lately (in case you've forgotten, that was Denmark, and Norway said sorry for reprinting them). Even Reuter's attempt to figure out what groups may have attacked Norway neglected to ask: why Norway? Most of the groups on the list are regional in character (the Islamic Movement of Uzbeckistan is probably more interested in Central Asia than Scandinavia for instance), and the closest any of them get is an LeT man interested in the Danish cartoon scandal and a Somali terrorist who was born in Denmark.

Okay, they're both in Scandinavia. But that's about it.

One argument is that it didn't really matter to the terrorists who they were killing, that they just want to kill, and Norway is just another western country on the list. But that can't be entirely true. For one thing, if someone wants to commit murder, he doesn't necessarily have to do it on behalf of some greater cause, whether it be Timothy McVeigh's extreme anti-government stance or the creation of a global caliphate. Terrorism itself is defined as the use of violence against civilians in the pursuit of political aims. Terrorism without the political aims is simply murder, and the attack itself may have failed in one aim: killing the prime minister, as Rodrigo Javier suggests (See his twitter post here). But why kill the prime minister in the first place?

One might point to Norway's foreign policy. Norway contributed troops to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In the case of Iraq, Norway originally sent 150 troops, but withdrew the bulk of them in June 2004 after it became clear that the Norwegian public did not care for the war, and withdrew the last ten in 2006. Furthermore, it still has troops in Afghanistan and Libya, partially due to its NATO obligations (the same goes for Germany and Turkey, both of which initially opposed the war in Libya). Perhaps, then, the attack was done to jolt Norway out of the war just as the March 11 attacks on Spain helped get the Spanish out of the war (the situation is far more complicated than that, but the point still stands). That makes the most sense. But that is not a sufficient reason. Other targets loom larger in the scope of who "should" be attacked. Britain and France, for instance, have far more troops there. France in particular has carried out one-third of all NATO aerial strikes in Libya, and must have more of a role in Afghanistan than Norway does. So, why?

The answer, as far as I can tell: opportunity. With the strengthening of visa regimes throughout the Western world, it is harder and harder to send people to one country or another. The attempted Times Square bombing in particular was perpetrated by an American civilian. Perhaps a Norwegian finally took Al Qaeda's call to attack Norway to heart, and was aided by Norway's environment of openness. In a land where you can find anyone's email address and the classes seem to mix better than elsewhere, security seems to be low on their list of priorities.

To put it succintly: if it was caused by Islamic terrorists, then it would be due to Norway's own participation in the war on terror, a desire to force it out of Afghanistan, and the opportunity to strike it. At least I've answered my own question. I'll refrain from saying more until I know more. It might not have been Al Qaeda or such after all...it could just be some madmen who are fighting on behalf of the environment, or a fascist group. One might argue that neither group has been active in Norway for some time. Perhaps; but if you asked me a week ago if Norway would be a target of Islamic terrorism, I would say no. Let's see how the story develops...

Take Two, beginning with Libya

Let's try this again, shall we?

A lot has happened since that post in February, 2009, and it would take a while to recap it all. So let's just get back in the swing of things with a very interesting article from the New York Times.

This one is about the difficulty of nation building in the ruins of the ancien regime. The media has focused a lot on the war, but what I find more interesting is how the rebels have been trying to rebuild their country in the midst of the conflict. In this area of the Nafusah Mountains, the rebels have held their ground and built a new society in what was once Qaddafi's Libya. This is in spite of the fact that this rebel held territory is much closer to Tripoli than the areas out in the east; weeks earlier the territory had been on the brink of defeat.

But the politics of the situation is not as interesting as how the city is run. The proverbial trains still need to run and administration still has to be done. For instance, in spite of the war many of those who worked for Gaddafi's government have retained their old positions in what is supposed to be the new Libya. This includes the police, many of whom are Gaddafi's men in new rebel uniforms. The article never delves into why this has happened, but one can see why. Not all of these people were loyal to Gaddafi because they loved him, but simply because they needed a job and he was willing to give one to them. This is true throughout the Middle East, where jobs are given to many to make it economically difficult for them to revolt. After all, why would one revolt against his employer? Furthermore, these people know how to run a state, and can run the trains that are working well while the rebels try to put the other ones back on their respective tracks.

At the moment, this region has also embraced the idea of "freedom of speech," or at least the right to protest against its former dictator. Seven new newspapers have been launched in this area (and distributed through the magic of photocopies), proving that at least in this part of the world the newspaper industry is not dead.

Honestly, the entire article is worth a look, just to see how much has changed...and how much work it takes to build a new state and fight a much stronger foe, even when you have wealthy Libyans contributing from abroad and an ill-equipped army against a much stronger one.

Yes, this is my first new post in more than two years, and I plan to do this on a weekly basis at worst, but preferably a daily one. Hope you like the revived blog!

The Blair Lecture

I just went to the Tony Blair lecture, and...uh, I don't want to forget anything. They wouldn't let us bring a lot of stuff, like recording devices for instance. So...yeah...

So why not use a blog I haven't updated in months?

Anyway, this was at the Issam Fares lecture at Tufts on February 2nd. Sorry if the notes are rough!

The World: To make a peaceful world where we banish the issues of Global Warming, hunger and disease in Africa (which he is quite passionate about), we have to deal on a global basis of partnership and create a world order based on justice and partnership- the time when the West could impose their will on the rest of the world is over. We can not and should not do this. We should not act in morally restrictive and anyway useless national fashion- the whole world must act together. But there is one big problem with this...

Islam: Samuel Huntington once proclaimed that the Cold War would be replaced by a Clash of Civilizations- and it is the belief that such a clash exists that motivate some radical Muslims to think that committing suicide and killing innocents will somehow reconcile you with God.

Is Islam in a transition phase? Perhaps. And if we want to influence it at all, we cannot keep it in a strictly military manner- we need to do things in terms of persuasion, and overall...

Blair on the Middle East: During a tour through Palestine as the envoy of the Quartet (the US, Russia, EU and the UN that is supposed to negotiate or at least guide the process as one bloc), Blair's (Palestinian) guide once said, "Moses, Jesus, Muhamaad...why did they have to come here?"

He said that there are a lot of conflicts, and while the Arab-Israeli conflict was not the cause of the conflicts that rile from Somalia to Iraq, or even a cause, for they would exist without Israel, but solving it is necessary and the most important thing they can do to bring peace to the Middle East (which I will acronymize to MENA or "middle east and north Africa"). To solve this, we have to start now. We have to let the Palestinians rule themselves, instead of promising it as the Israeli settlers are allowed to take the best land uninhibited. Perhaps more importantly, we have to give the Gazans a way out, for the Gazan strikes has destroyed the infrastructure- and the hopes of many. We must not isolate Gaza from the West Bank!

On Iraq: Blair openly acknowledged that he could split the room on the question "Do you still think it was the right thing to do?"...or not XD. Apparently all the information he had was put on a website, though I remember reading that the whole event was rather controversial. I believe there was some rather odd event that put a shroud over the whole affair, but it may be best not to reference it directly in such a post as this. Still, he seems to have acknowledged the damage, and the best he could answer was that Iraq would not have been less dangerous if Saddam was still in power.

Okay, onto the lighter stuff before I forget absolutely everything.

On his command of communication: Apparently he somehow dodged using a mobile or a blackberry for his ten years in power as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. In any case, he said he has one now- which prompted Tufts President Bacow to comment that he was trying to get rid of his. Blair remarked he loved the communication ability his gave him- and had to refuse Bacow's offer of his Blackberry.

More problematic was something that happened in his first years of power. He was at a news conference with the French Prime Minister at the time (a Socialist, given the timing), and he made the mistake of giving a live conference in French. He's good, but not that good: When asked which policies of the French PM he wanted to emulate, he meant to say, "There are many policies of his that I would like to emulate."

It came out as, "I prefer the Prime Minister in many different positions." No, Blair's married. To a woman.

On Ireland: Before Blair had a Bush-shaped albatross around his neck, he was famous for many other things. His New Labour coalition created growth and prosperity (which seems to have gone down the toilet recently), he pushed for ground troops in Kosovo during the Balkan wars, was (and is) passionate about African aid (and rock stars who want said aid), and, perhaps most importantly given Iraq, pushing for peace in Northern Ireland. While there, his wife Cherie got pregnant. An Irish delegate came up to Blair and remarked on how wonderful Blair is blessed with yet another child and inquired about the name of the child. Blair said "Well, if it's a boy, then we'll probably name him after his grandfather," and thought nothing of it.

A few months later, the delegate came up to Blair and said, "remember that fortutious conversation?"

"Well, I put 1000 euros on his name..."

I hope you guys got something out of this!

Remember, Remember, for we should never forget

I know very few people read this blog, but try to remember the 11th, not the fifth, of November.

89 years ago, on the 11th minute of the 11th hour on the 11th day on the 11th month, the worst war the World had yet seen finally ended. On that day, many hoped for peace. True, many of them also hoped for glory, but the people on the field rarely thought of that- they just wanted to survive. They saw possible friends die on the field that day. Some of them had played football together in the Xmas of 1914 for crying out loud! Those soldiers, in another life, were or could have been friends; due to the war, people with similar ideas never had the chance...

By that day, the hope was not for a peace built on quicksand like the Treaty of Versailles; they wanted the Great War to be the War to end all Wars, the last time war would ever be fought. The fact that the peace didn't even last a year- as Central and Eastern Europeans fought to carve out their states from Austrian, Hungarian, German, Turkish and Russian territory- but no one really wanted that. The hope was that Wilson would be able to lead us into a new world, where war wasn't just a memory, but its very recurrence unthinkable.

The fact that he failed is not the same thing as wanting to fail. He really did hope he could save the world from other wars. Sure he was a racist and had a nasty messiah complex, but he did believe what he said. He wanted no more wars.

I believe the British and their ex-colonies wear poppies to remember those who thought they were fighting to end that war. Sure it may have been for glory at first, but there was a genuine hope that the Great War would be the last War.

We Americans don't have such a tradition. Maybe we should start it. For it does not stand for war, but for those who hoped there would be no more.

Can We Do It? Jesus Christ that's not the Question anymore!

Okay. The election was a week ago. In that span a lot has happened.

And yet we're [my college] looking back on the Bush years as some bygone era that we should be glad to see the back of, and Obama is still some wonderful thing.

Someone needs to poor a bucket of water on us. The time for enthusiasm was some time ago. Barack may mean "blessed," but Jesus Christ (Christos: Good news)! Wake up!

Looking back on history, we've only rarely had presidents who can unite us in any meaningful way (Roosevelt after the New Deal, Eisenhower). Furthermore, a magical Super Man is almost unheard of in history. Look at our supposed heroes!

Washington: Rare. Like, really rare. Besides, can anyone of us name something he did while president?

Roosevelt: A great man, if flawed. His New Deal hit it well for a while, especially with the poor over the grumbles of the rich. Then he tried to pack the courts and smashed his popularity, as the 1938 campaign demonstrated (he tried to run rebel candidates against conservative Democrats. They failed).

John F. Kennedy: The King of Camelot didn't ascend to his throne until his postmortem. Cuban Missiles and Nasa aside, he authorized and botched the Bay of Pigs, failed to get most of his program through, pumped up our Vietnam presence, and ignored Civil Rights until late in his presidency. Third year to be specific.

Ronald Wilson Reagan (6 letters each!): For some reason the right has siezed on this man as the Saint of Conservatism. Really? His massive tax cut in 1981 was reversed by 2 massive tax increases in 1982 and 83. Mondale in 84 said that Reagan would increase taxes again (his point? "I will raise taxes. My opponent won't tell you. I just did."). In 1985 Mondale was proven right.

As for everything else? Reagan did little for abortionists (Sandra Day O'Connor and Kennedy were centrists, with Scalia as the lone "true" conservative of his picks). He helped bring down Communism, but he had help (and ran huge deficits for "victory" in a nuclear war at that.). To be honest, I tend to do better in noting his successor's achievements than RWR (you know, greenery, a limited war with Iraq, etc)

Oh, and Teddy Roosevelt, the posterboy for American Greatness, Trust Busting, and Imperialism. He's awesome and may well be one our very best, but he was also a mistake and why VPs tend to be filled these days by, apparently, idiots and old wannabes these days. Just ask Qualye and Cheney. Or Mondale. Or Bensten. Or...Actually, I think the idiot thing was a recent Republican phenomenon, apart from Andrew Johnson.

Well, how about foreign leaders? This is called "A view on the World," right?

Most of those, such as Frederick the Great, Peter the Great, Louis XIV, Napoleon, Maria Theresa and Joseph II of Austria and their ilk are rare dictators that we would no longer stomach. Some, like Peter I and Joseph II had problems satisfying their base (especially Joe, who actually ennobled Jews).

What about politicians? If picking presidents of our country was hard, who could compete?

Charles De Gaulle, who revived French pride and gave them an overlarge view of themselves

Tony Blair, who will be remembered for devolution, Saving Northern Rya-Ireland, and following Bush into a war that destroyed his popularity (why did he win the following election? The conservatives would've done it too!)?

Some Spanish guy I must be forgetting?

Otto Von Bismarck, who put the words "trickery, deciet, and Blood and Iron" in diplomacy and pretty much master-minded much of international politics?

Junichiro Koizumi, who privatized the Post Office, did some other stuff that I can't remember, and has The Best Hair Ever (see above)?

...

Okay, Obama? If you want to prove your mettle, you need a new hairdo. We need more people with awesome hair.

Still, we need to temper our expectations. He may well be an improvement on Bush, but we won't know for some time, okay? He'll do something, and it might even be good, like in the days of Johnson (Please ignore Vietnam), Nixon (Please ignore his crookedness), and Clinton (please excuse the political skill of the man who destroyed Universal Health Care in america for two decades and somehow let his last years get dominated by his more frivolous undertakings until he finally touched on Israel and Palestine. And we want our White House dishes back.)

And suddenly I'm hoping that Koizumi takes over Japan again. And TR comes back with a new haircut. Can you believe that look with a stache? Sigh...