Who is Running Israel?

Israel is receiving international condemnation of its raid on a ship bringing supplies to Gaza. The Wall Street Journal reports Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has argued that “the blockade of the Palestinian territory is necessary to prevent missile attacks against Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.” (“Israel’s Isolation Deepens,” http://online.wsj.com/article, 6/2/2010). That may be true, but it is not at all relevant to the criticism that Israel used inappropriate force in stopping the ship and killing ten civilians.

How many ways are there to stop a blockade-busting attempt? You can warn the invaders; apparently that was done to no avail. You can physically block them with other ships, or rafts, or other barriers. You could allow your own boats to be damaged by the invader, demonstrating provocation. You can tow the other guys away. You could tear gas the crew. You could ram their boat. You could tangle their propellers with nets.

Is it necessary to board the ship and kill everyone? What kind of thinking is that?

This incident betrays a far deeper problem than a diplomatic “incident” from a mishandled operation. It may demonstrate that the Israeli military is not really under civilian control. The military seems to be blinded by bloodlust, (as demonstrated by inappropriate use of force this time, and in the past), so let’s hope it is not generous to assume that cooler heads exist in the civilian government.

From Netanyahu’s remarks, there is some doubt about that. Naturally, it is his job to defend the action. But if we take his irrelevant defense at face value, it shows that he hasn’t got a clue.

He refuses to apologize “for defending ourselves.” He blames the Obama administration for encouraging others to gang up on Israel. He blames Hamas for shooting rockets into Israel. He says Israel has a right to inspect cargo going into Gaza. He reiterates his claim that there is no shortage of food or medicine and no humanitarian crisis in Gaza (http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/Israel-PM-Defends-Deadly-Raid-on-Aid-Convoy-95435204.html) . He asserts that this is not an issue of human rights and not even an issue of right vs. wrong.

Can he really be that stupid to not understand what the international outrage is about? I don’t know anything about him personally, but it is hard to believe that he is stupid. So the alternative interpretation is that he is boxed in by the military and can say nothing else. I would rather have a stupid person in charge than nobody in charge, or worse, have an autonomous military in charge there.

Nancy Pelosi, National Hero

I say three cheers to House Speaker Pelosi for shepherding the Health Care reform bill through the house this weekend, to get it to senate reconciliation. Just a couple months ago the bill was all but moribund after the senate lost its Democratic majority.

Pelosi is a fierce partisan, much reviled by Republicans, but that’s exactly what was needed in this case. She is often criticized, even by Democrats, for not being more accommodating to the other side in her work. But I think that is naïve. Not a single Republican voted for the health care bill. Not one. They are apparently against health care for all Americans, satisfied that the affluent have care. Nor did Republicans propose any serious alternative, or engage in any serious debate of the substantive issues. They behaved merely as petulant obstructionists and continue to do so.

People who say Pelosi should have been more accommodating of Republicans to avoid the brinksmanship of this past weekend are not aware that we are in the era of “Fuck You politics.” There is no cooperation. There is no possibility of compromise. Conversation is not even possible. Pelosi knew that from the start and played her cards accordingly.

Some Democrats criticize her for being greedy. They say she wasted a lot of valuable time and political capital trying to get American health care grounded on a public option, rather than on private industry. Had the house supported a more moderate bill, the deal would have gone through earlier, more easily, and without the political fallout that some representatives will now suffer. But that is the fallacy of hindsight.

Pelosi had a large majority in the House and there was a narrow majority in the Senate, and Democrats were in the White House, so why NOT go for the brass ring? I would have done the same. It was not unreasonable to set the sights high. It was Republican propaganda that killed the public option, that, and Democrats’ characteristic inability to sell their ideas. Pelosi was not wrong going for the whole garbanzo. And she was smart enough to rein in her aspirations when the reality on the ground changed.

So I say, when it comes to the toughest, most junkyard-dog of a partisan legislator around, I am grateful she is on the right side.

Hail Mr. Moderate

Senator Chris Dodd unveiled his financial reform proposal today – alone. No one else would stand with him at the podium to announce it.

The proposal is deeply unpopular with all Republicans, who favor laissez-faire economics, despite the historical evidence that such policy is absolutely devastating to the country. They're not much on history, Republicans. Dodd can probably expect zero support from them on his bill.

On the other side, the bill is not popular with Democrats either, at least the radical left wing. They favor iron-fisted, almost Stalinistic government control of every aspect of the economy, an approach that is not only impractical, but dangerously disruptive and historically destructive. For example, many Democrats would like to expand again the size of government bureaucracy to create a consumer financial protection agency. That is the Nanny Government at its worst. Caveat emptor is a better policy. How about we take all the money we would have spend on administering a new government agency, and instead spend that amount on financial education for high school students?

Dodd’s bill is well summarized at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/dodd-unveils-financial-overhaul/article1501089/

It is a down-the-middle approach that will curtail some of the most egregious financial offenses without trying to remodel the entire financial system. In that it is reasonable, moderate, and safe.

Whether he can get it passed is a whole different question. There is no middle ground any more in American politics.

Support Palin in 2012!

Sarah Palin told FoxNews.com she "would be willing" to challenge Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential race. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/07/palin-willing-obama/.

This is tremendously good news. Anyone with any political sense should start contributing to her political campaign, now and continuously.

Likely Republican candidate Mitt Romney is also not a bad choice to support, since his religion probably makes him unelectable to the far right. Huckabee is also a good choice, although he could be a surprisingly dangerous populist. But Palin is so completely over the top that all Democrats should enthusiastically support her political ambition, to keep her ambition alive for two more years, and to block the path for any reasonable Republican candidate (if there is such a thing).

Google's High Horse

Google is posturing and harrumphing these days. It says it may decide to pull out of China because of continued censorship of its search engine. According to The Economist (“Flowers for a funeral” Jan. 16, p. 41), a report by Google’s chief legal officer says the company is “reviewing the feasibility” of doing business in China because of ever-tightening limits on free speech there.

Memo to Google: There is no free speech in China. They are communists over there.

It simply cannot be the case that Google has not been aware of this fact, so what could they be thinking? Some writers (especially those from Baidu, the number one search engine in China) say that Google is just looking for a cover story to leave China without admitting economic defeat. Naturally, Google Denies this.

Google also cites recent hacker attacks on its Gmail service as a reason to leave. The hackers have been traced back to China and apparently targeted individuals critical of the government.

Memo to Google: One may not criticize the government in China. It is against the law.

And today, the New York Times reports that Google has postponed the release of its new smart phone in China (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/technology/companies/20phone.html). The phone uses open source Android software but has been highly customized to work well with Google applications.

Why would postponement of the phone be germane at this time? Google says only that its current controversy with the Chinese government would put a pall of bad publicity over the phone’s release (NYT article). That argument, however, conveniently overlooks the fact that said controversy is censored from Chinese media, so there would be no bad publicity. One can speculate that the real issue involves the phone’s ability to easily record pictures, video, and sound, and upload such information to Google sites. Likewise, there are probably slick interfaces to social networking sites. All of that would be feared by the Chinese government, which wishes to control all the information its citizens receive. That’s my guess.

The Chinese government is on the wrong side of history on this argument, and sooner or later (probably sooner than they would like), it will become infeasible to maintain effective censorship in an age of global communications. I worked with a fellow once who had escaped from Bulgaria (pre-wallfall), and defected to the U.S. He told me that there was an armed guard at every copy machine in the country, the state’s effort to control even the most primitive methods of communication. We know how that turned out. It will be the same in China.

However, until that day, the Chinese government has every legal and moral right to censor anything they please. They are not a democracy. They do not have a Bill of Rights. There is no right to free speech. It is illegal to criticize the government there. They have a different system than we do. So Google should get off its high horse and either comply or get out.

Is The Republican Party Doomed?

The Senate passed its version of a health insurance bill just before Christmas. Much of that victory belongs to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who somehow managed to get the 60 votes needed to stop Republican obstructionism. That must have been harder than herding kittens with a stick. There are reports that the senate legislation contains considerable pork benefitting individual senators in exchange for their votes. So be it. That’s how it must be done in a less-than-perfect world. Reid deserves a medal.

On the other hand, what is up with Republicans? Their obstructionist behavior proves that they are motivated to make the Democratic party fail, regardless of what is right or wrong. Not a single Republican vote was cast for health care reform in the Senate. Not one. How can ALL Republicans be in the pocket of insurers? How can every one of them be without compassion? How can 100% of them be contemptuous of the needs of the people they supposedly represent? It is unfathomable. It’s not that they wanted more debate; they wanted to shut down all debate. They are simply petulant obstructionists, like a child who threatens to hold his breath until he gets his way.

The Republican party has become morally, ethically, and intellectually bankrupt. I am sure that as soon as the legislation is reconciled and passed, they will begin campaigning for its repeal. If Dems have any sense of public relations (and they often don’t), they will start framing their victory message now to inoculate the public against the unconscionable Republican hypocrisy inevitably forthcoming.

At some point, even the most ignorant of American voters surely will realize that the Republican party is the party of small-minded greed, selfishness, and immaturity. It will become patently obvious through the party’s bizarre, unjustifiable antics. Won’t it? There must be a bottom to the well of ignorance. This health care reform episode might illuminate that bottom if the Democrats play their P.R. cards right.

I will not be too surprised if, within a decade, the Republican party is defunct, replaced by a new political party, The Conservatives, or something like that, made up of lawmakers who are responsible to the American voters, who do have conscience, ethics, and ideas, but who, unlike Republicans, would like to seriously and honestly engage American voters about important issues such as excessive government spending, and have the courage to stand for election based on their principles. They will become strong. The GOP will be no more.

Killer Joe?

Fox News.com reports that Senator Joseph Lieberman is being called a "killer" because of digging in his heels on the health care debate. (www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,580229,00.html).

He has vowed that he will not vote for the currently debated health care reform bill if it includes a current proposal to extend Medicare to persons under 65 years of age. Thousands of people without health care will die, and Lieberman is their killer if he doesn't extend healthcare to them, the argument goes.

It's stupid rhetoric. Lieberman is right. The cost of extending Medicare down the age ladder would be too expensive. Medicare is already enormously expensive and inadequately funded. Expanding it makes no sense, especially since the rest of the healthcare reform bill will provide for people under 65 in other ways anyway.

Lieberman is not my favorite senator, by a long shot. But I grudgingly admit he has called this one correctly. Spending is fine. We need to spend on our people. That's what government does. But Harry Reid and the other Democrats can easily go completely bananas with public money if nobody speaks up. There are limits to what is possible. Thanks, Joe.

Two Errors in Obama's Nobel Speech

“…Perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars,” said President Obama, accepting the Nobel Prize for Peace on December 10. That fact was a stark incongruity that framed the speech and which made it an almost impossible situation for him. Yet it is that very incongruity that will make the speech endure. School children will read it for generations precisely because it eloquently addresses the inherent tension between peace and war.

He did far better than could have been expected under the circumstance, and delivered a very articulate speech on the topic of peace while commanding armies at war, still, I thought he said two wrong things.

One was his assertion of the universality of American values, which is a myopic, self-centered view. Obama listed “the” iconic American values as if they were automatically universal human truths: defense of human rights, the ideals of liberty, self-determination, equality and the rule of law, and so forth. In fact, not all people and not all governments embrace these values (obviously) which are very far from being universal human values. They just happen to be things that we believe are good. There are other ways to live. Obama does not try to force these values down the throats of others, as G.W. Bush often did, but to list them as universal virtues without qualification is an error that reveals a surprising blind spot.

The second wrong thing Obama said was that “…Evil does exist in the world.” It is true, as he explained, “A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms.” These “small men with outsize rage,” as he called them, cannot be spoken to. Unfortunately they must be killed, in self-defense. That is the sad reality. But that does not imply they are evil. It just means we are unable to talk with them because of utterly incompatible world views.

If a rabid dog attacks you, you may have to kill it, but that does not make the dog evil. It just means that, regrettably, you have no other method of communication. This is a distinction I thought Obama would be familiar with, and I was surprised to hear him invoke the Manichaeism that G.W. was so fond of. It is an erroneous and dangerous way to characterize your enemy.

Palestine by Fiat?

Late last week, the head Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, announced that Palestinians would ask the U.N. Security council to recognize a Palestinian state on 1967 borders. The chance of that happening is nil, since the U.S. would veto it.

Nevertheless, is it such a bad idea to ask? It would force the U.S. into an awkward position, drawing world attention to its one-sided, pro-Israeli policy. That might dislodge some diplomatic energy that is lacking at the moment.

What would happen if Palestinians were to unilaterally declare such a state? It would be interesting. Israel might acknowledge it, but would seal its borders and shut off the water. Trade and transportation would stop. There would be no effective communication between Gaza and the West Bank. Since Hamas controls Gaza and is against such a declaration, in effect, you would have a Palestine on the West Bank only.

(1967 Borders)

Israel would not give up its settlements without a fight, so the idea of 1967 borders would not be real on the ground. Still, there would be, in fact, a Palestinian state. The Arab world would recognize it and money, goods, and military support would flow in immediately. Palestine would no longer be dependent on Israel, but instead on Jordan, and other neighbors, until it could find its feet.

One can imagine that over time, the new Palestine would develop its own governance and economy and become a functioning state. It would solve the persistent “middle east crisis” by its defacto recognition of Israel. Israel would be hard pressed not to acknowledge the legitimacy of the new state (not necessarily with formal diplomatic recognition). Palestine declared independence once before, in 1988, and many countries recognized that declaration, but for practical reasons, nothing came of it. Is it worth trying again?

On the down side, there is the problem of the illegal settlements. Essentially, there would be an unresolved border issue there. But if the Palestinians were to simply accept the border of The Wall that Israel has built, and give up on land already annexed, they would have stopped that erosion and staked firm borders. They would have to get past wet-eyed talk about historic homelands and all that, and just go for the certainty of statehood.

Gaza would be left to itself. In the long run, it might declare itself the new state of Hamas, or be taken over by Egypt, or if Hamas were to fall, opt to be annexed to Palestine. None of those outcomes is so terrible.

(Original 1947 Borders)

The new Palestine could join the U.N., the Arab League, and whatever other organizations it could. Any hostility between Israel and Palestine would be a matter for U.N. negotiation. Israel would remain secure with U.S. backing. Such an outcome would take much of the ideological wind out of extremists who excuse their militancy on grounds of supporting the struggle of the Palestinian people. That struggle would be over.

The AFPAK Conundrum

President Obama will soon announce whether or not he will agree to General McChrystal’s request to send 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan. Most pundits agree that 40K would be merely a downpayment; that at least 100,000 would be needed to suppress the Taliban there. So we are looking at a Vietnam-style gradual escalation that slowly bleeds the country (our country) white, whereupon we throw in the towel in defeat. It’s not even clear what these 40K troops would be used for. It’s not even clear what the present troops there are doing. The war in Afghanistan is not popular with Americans, but even allowing for the fact that the American public has a short attention span, sending more troops is a bad idea now and an even worse trend.

Should we pull out then? Let the Taliban take over? An argument could be made for that option, except for one small problem: Pakistan has the atomic bomb. The Taliban are not going to stay in Afghanistan. They have already migrated into Pakistan, which is now their headquarters. We do not need another bunch of nut-case Islamic extremists with nuclear weapons. The consequences are too severe to even consider.

So what is a good strategy? Not that Obama calls me any more, but if he did, I would say, don’t sent any more fighting troops to Afghanistan. It’s a never-ending battle there. No matter how many Taliban we kill, they can easily recruit more. Instead, send 40,000 troops into Pakistan to wipe out the Taliban in the Northwest region, drive them back into Afghanistan. Pakistan is what we need to protect, not Afghanistan.

Granted, the Pakis may not care to have 40,000 American troops barge in. But maybe there is a way around that. Maybe they are 40,000 trainers, advisors, logistics personnel, and whatnot; everything but trigger-pullers.

Once Pakistan is secure, we take these further actions in Afghanistan: We seal the borders of Afghanistan (as much as possible) from the inside with troops, and from the outside with economic and political sanctions. Especially the border with Pakistan. Then we eradicate the poppies, which is the Taliban’s source of income, and we pay farmers a subsidy to grow something more useful to the same profit level. Hey, it works in Wisconsin, it can work in Kandahar. I am sure that farm subsidies are less costly than a war without end. Finally, we spend money, money, money on training and infiltrating human intelligence into Afghanistan, psychological warfare, and on building schools, electric generators, and water systems in villages. We do NOT try to convert the country to democracy, capitalism, or Christianity. I would guess that all these efforts, costly though they might be, would still be less expensive than another eight years of warfare.

So Obama should send in, not 40,000 troops, but 40,000 civil engineers, spies, and micro-diplomats. Troops are not what we need.