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.

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...