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 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!