Waffling on Israeli Settlements - The Establishment Wins Again

From the outset of his administration, President Obama has clearly and forcefully stood against Israel’s settlement policy.  In his Cairo speech he said, “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.  This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace.”

Yesterday though the United States vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution calling the settlements illegal … basically saying what the President said in his Cairo speech.  As a matter of fact, the Palestinians were very careful to craft the language of the resolution to match language that the Obama administration has used on this issue.

Ambassador Rice said that the veto should not be misconstrued as our now approving of the settlements.  This statement misses the point.  It isn’t a question of whether we approve or not … clearly the Obama administration doesn’t.  It’s a question of whether the President will stand up for what he believes when the going gets tough.

How this action will be construed by Israel and the rest of the world is that regardless what the President thinks or feels, the United States will not stand with others to stop Israel when push comes to shove.   This will leave the Israeli’s feeling that they are free to do whatever they want and the Arab world feeling that the United States still can’t be an honest broker for peace. 

Contrary to Ambassador Rice’s statements, this action is a setback for peace.  And it is a setback to the President’s overtures to the Muslim world.

I have no way of knowing, of course, but I have the feeling that the President wanted to hang tough on this issue and at least abstain from voting.  But once again, as in case of Afghanistan and in Egypt, the foreign policy and military establishments have held sway and forced him to submit.   

The same thing is happening with Bahrain … I cannot believe that the President doesn’t want to say something forceful against the deplorable use of force to crush the protestors.  But that would be “against our strategic interests.”

The foreign policy and military establishments are stuck in the mindset of the past and their view of strategic interest is very short term.  Our autocratic allies in the Middle East will all be gone in the next few years.  In their place will be countries that will more likely be anti-American because of America’s historic support for those autocrats and its failure to get ahead of the curve on this issue and support the revolution that is occurring in an appropriate way. 

It doesn’t have to be this way.  But history will undoubtedly repeat itself and the United States, as it has often in the past, will lose the opportunity to be the beacon of freedom it should be and instead will be viewed as the front man for the military/industrial establishment.

The Republicans Need a Reality Check

If ever there was a time for the silent majority to rise up and let itself be heard, it is now. 

The loudest group in the United States over the past two years has been the Tea Party.  Through its concerted activism it has managed to change the complexion of contemporary American politics.  It enlarged and aroused the Republican base, providing the Republican Party with its big 2010 House victory, and now it’s calling the tune, forcing the Republican House leadership to propose draconian cuts which would be harmful to state and local economies.

Yet look at who the Tea Party is.  According to a New York Times poll, only 18% of Americans identify themselves as Tea Party supporters and they are wealthier and better educated than the general public.

They are angry, the poll found, about what they see as the undue support that the Federal government provides those less fortunate, especially African Americans.  Thus it’s not surprising that most of the cuts that Republicans propose are in social programs that help the poor and working class, as opposed to Social Security and Medicare, from which their base directly benefit.

Republicans say they have a mandate.  But recent polls consistently show that the majority of Americans, while wanting the deficit cut, don’t what programs cut, whether it’s the big ones like Medicare and Social Security or domestic programs like education, anti-poverty programs, and farm aid.  But since the Republicans have put entitlements and defense off the table, and tax increases have been ruled out, the only places to cut the deficit are those very domestic programs … and the proposed cuts are massive.

The silent majority must make themselves heard … they must call or email their Congressmen to let them know that they do not want these programs cut because it will further depress the economy and increase unemployment.  If they do not, the consequences for the nation will be dire.

We were all thrilled watching the Egyptians protest.  Surely Americans can pick up a phone or send an email to express their protest to these out-of-touch moves by the Republicans.

Islamophobia Has No Place in Our Democratic Society

Life for American Muslims has gotten more difficult in the wake of the Islamophobia that has swept across the land since last August’s “Ground Zero mosque” demonstrations.  Case in point: the Orange County, CA District Attorney recently filed criminal misdemeanor charges against Muslim students for disturbing a public meeting and conspiring to do so.

A year ago at the U. of California, Irvine, several Muslim students – members of the Muslim Student Union – disrupted the Israeli ambassador repeatedly during his speech at the university, shouting protests against Israel.   The students were removed from the hall and the MSU was suspended for a quarter.  The students were not disciplined.

The university’s action was appropriate.  Central to the concept of free speech in our democracy’s marketplace of ideas is the position that various points of view must be allowed to be voiced and heard.  As with most rights, however, there is a concomitant responsibility not to use that right to interfere with its exercise by another. 

By choosing to heckle the ambassador and interrupting his speech, as opposed to, for example, setting up a booth outside the entrance to the hall with banners voicing their feelings, they were attempting to shout him down, to force him to stop speaking, to silence him.  While there is a long tradition of heckling speakers in this country and elsewhere, such action is not the hallmark of a civil society and it is not uncommon for such protesters to be removed from the space by security guards or police.

The MSU was not disciplined for expressing its opinion as it had done frequently in the past without any university action.  It was disciplined for interfering with someone else’s right to be heard.  In the context, I think the suspension was reasonable.

However, the DA’s action is another matter.  It is highly unlikely that when someone disrupts a speech in Orange County and is removed, that person is typically prosecuted.  If my supposition is correct, then there is only one reason why these Muslim students were charged … Islamophobia.

A government official acting against individuals because of their race or creed is a violation of the 14^th Amendment of our Constitution as well as Federal law.  There is no place in our society for toleration of such bias.

Indeed, there is no place in our society for the wave of Islamophobia that we have recently witnessed.  Yes, the United States and its citizens have been subjected to terrorist acts by Islamist militants.  But to take the actions of a violent few and transfer guilt or suspicion to all Muslims and treating them as the enemy is not reasoned action; it is not just action. 

Actually, Islamophobia has in an important sense little to do with 9/11.  During the nine years following that tragedy, while Muslims were clearly viewed more suspiciously by many, there was no public uprising like Islamophobia.   No, that occurred only when right-wing demagogues found a cause they could conflate into a roaring blaze … the so-called “Ground Zero mosque.”

The rage in various parts of the country surrounding Muslim communities wanting to build a mosque is embarrassing.  We have freedom of religion in the United States.  What does that mean, if not the right to build a house of worship for your religious observance. 

Muslim Americans are good Americans.  They as a group are no more a threat than German American citizens were during WWI and Japanese American citizens were during WWII.  That there are undoubtedly isolated radicals among them who wish to harm the United States does not alter that fact any more than the Timothy McVeigh’s and anti-government militias in this country could fairly implicate all white conservative Americans in supporting violent acts against the Federal government.

The demagogues of the right paint a world where an enemy is lurking around every corner, whether it’s an Islamist radical or a socialist liberal.  In former years it was a radical African American or a Communist Jew. 

Unfortunately, the followers who listen to these demagogues have swallowed their emotional diatribes hook, line, and sinker.  That is where the threat to our democracy lies, as well as from any person or group, regardless whether on the right or left, who preaches hate towards fellow Americans.  Hate makes rational discourse impossible, and rational discourse is the lifeblood of our democracy.

When the Word is as Mighty as the Sword

There has been much talk recently about whether people can be held accountable for violence if their words didn’t actually incite the violence, but created a climate of hatred and fear that underpinned the violence.  From a legal perspective, certainly they cannot be held responsible.  However, are they morally responsible?

Two recent cases are on point.  The first concerns the incident in Tucson in which a deranged person with strong anti-government feelings shot and killed or injured twenty people.  Many liberals pointed to Sarah Palin’s infamous “crosshairs” map as well as her “reload” language as having some responsibility for the incident.  To which she replied that she abhorred violence and that such an accusation was a blood libel.

But Sarah Palin has a history of fomenting hostility and violence.  The “reload” call and the rifle crosshair map are just more relevant to the current incident.

During the 2008 election campaign and the health care debate, Palin frequently painted Obama as a hostile enemy, not a “real” American, who “palled around with terrorists” and was a socialist.  As a result, her audiences became increasingly hostile, calling out  “terrorist” and “kill him” on numerous occasions.  Not once did Palin repudiate the violence of her audience.

In the second case, a group of Evangelical Christians went to Uganda to press their message that the “homosexual agenda” was evil and that homosexuals sodomize teenage boys.  To put it mildly, they found a receptive audience and the result was a proposed law under which homosexuals would be executed simply for being homosexual. 

While consideration of that bill was put on hold due to international condemnation, a local paper published photos and addresses of key gay activists with an accompanying anti-gay diatribe, after which one was hammered to death in his home.  Here again, the Evangelicals reacted with horror to the crime and said that in no way did they promote or provoke anti-gay violence.

Yes, to paraphrase the NRA, “people kill, not words.”   So Palin cannot be blamed for the Giffords’ shooting and the Evangelicals cannot be blamed for the Uganda murder.  However, their incendiary deceitful words can be blamed for creating an atmosphere of fear and violence towards, on the one hand, Obama and liberal democrats as the enemy, not just opponents, and on the other towards gays as a threatening Satanic force.

A deranged man pulled the trigger and struck the hammer blows, but Palin and the Evangelicals were a force that help point the gun and raise the arm in violence.

Opposition to Climate Change: Reasoned or Self-Interest?

The Republicans are moving forward in their opposition to climate change.  As the New York Times reported recently, the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives will push legislation stating that the EPA does not have authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act.   They have already done away with the House subcommittee responsible for climate change.   While this bill will most likely not succeed in the Senate, Senator Jay Rockefeller, D-WV, has proposed a bill that would put off any new regulations regarding power plants and other industrial sources for two years.

Despite all the evidence, historic and current, that climate change is upon us and is to a large extent caused by the polluting effect of human industrial and other energy-related activities, there are those, both scientists and politicians, who do not believe this is true.  They either deny that climate change is happening or that it is caused by human activity as opposed to the cycles of nature.  Why?

There is no rational reason for doubting the facts of climate change.  While those who are skeptics have sought to poke holes in the evidence, either by claiming that Climategate showed that the evidence has been manipulated by climate activists or questioning how there can be global warming when the United States and Europe has been experiencing the coldest and snowiest winters in years, these claims have no basis. 

There was no falsification of data found in Climategate and the global warming pattern of climate change is not contradicted by the cold winters we’ve been having.  Overall, we have experienced the hottest years on record and temperatures at both poles and in the ocean are clearly rising.

When you look behind the smoke screens and bluster, one comes up with an answer very much in keeping with human nature and our culture … greed.   Whether it’s scientists who are dependent on the energy industry for the funding of their projects, or it’s Republican politicians whose first interest is always protecting the interests of their big business corporate donors, or it’s a Democrat from West Virginia, a state where politicians regardless of party receive significant financial backing from the local coal industry, the answer is the same.

These people are more concerned with their own personal self-interest then they are with the common good of their countrymen or mankind.  While this is not an uncommon human character trait, and it is certainly not a new trait among politicians, the increasing influence of corporate and financial interests in Congress over the past 30 years is very disturbing. 

Government officials … whether elected or employed … are responsible for doing the people’s work, of acting to further the common good.  President Lincoln coined the phrase, “Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”  The Republicans and some Democrats have instead sought to nurture government of industry, by industry, and for industry. 

Republicans Seek to Fool the People

Republicans are out to prove that indeed you can fool some of the people all of the time.

Republicans say they are out to cut the deficit. Now, all studies on cutting the deficit have said a combination of spending cuts … across all areas, including defense and entitlements … and tax increases will be necessary. 

But not only have they ruled out any tax increases, they have exempted tax cuts from an examination of their impact on the deficit.  Thus they demanded that the Bush tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 be extended despite the $100 billion negative impact on the deficit in just the two-year extension period.

Republicans also say they will create jobs.  But they have not indicated how they plan on addressing this goal … the discredited Reagan-era theory of the trickle down impact of tax cuts hasn’t even been broached.  Worse, by proposing to reduce the deficit solely by huge budget cuts in limited areas of the budget … they’ve taken defense and entitlements off the table … they will likely have a depressing impact on the economy at the state and local level and actually increase unemployment.

Republicans claim they are following the wishes of the people.  Yet contrary to their claimed mandate, recent polls of the public have consistently found that the deficit is not a top concern if cutting it has a negative impact on them.  They want job creation.

True to form, the Republicans are once again being hypocrites.  Their only real interest is protecting their wealthy corporate and banking industry donors.  Their policies show no concern for the average person or the common good.

Wake up, America!

Keeping Egypt from Becoming Another Iran

Once again, American foreign policy finds itself behind the curve of events, supporting the status quo while urging reform, supporting a repressive establishment against the interests of the people.

American foreign policy has always been pragmatic, and indeed, it must be. At its core, however, our foreign policy should be consistent with the principles this country has always said it stands for—democracy, freedom, human rights, and the legitimate aspirations of all people as voiced in the Declaration of Independence.

President Eisenhower expressed this philosophy powerfully in his famous Farewell Address:

We yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched . . . strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment. . . . Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.

—President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Farewell Address, January 17, 1961

But if we look at America’s foreign policy in the Middle East, and indeed throughout most of the world, we find instead that U.S. foreign policy has been based primarily on the military and industrial interests of the United States—a very narrow definition of our national security interests. American foreign policy has virtually never been based on what is in the best interests of the people of a country because the military/industrial establishment views popular movements as inherently anti-American, which has in fact become a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

Of course, our government always seeks to portray its policy when possible as being for the betterment of the people.  Thus the Vietnam War was about protecting the South Vietnamese from the domination of the Communist North, and Iraq was, belatedly, to free the Iraqis from the yoke of Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship.  But in reality, that was not why the United States invested its blood and treasure in these efforts.  It was instead to protect its military/industrial interests.

How different the world would be today if the United States weren’t trapped in this conservative view of the world. What if instead of supporting governments that oppress their people, we supported the people in furtherance of our strategic long-term interests? 

One example of a lost opportunity was when Ho Chi Minh approached President Truman about providing support to his movement.  He was not anti-American although a Communist.  How might that have changed the events in Southeast Asia? 

Likewise whether it was support for the Shah of Iran or the assassinations of President Salvador Allende of Chile and President Patrice Lumumba of the Congo, the American government consistently has taken a conservative view inconsistent with the principles of our country.  And we have paid the price, in that the result has usually not been favorable for American strategic interests, except perhaps in the short term. 

Most recently, the tragedy of 9/11 and the rise of terrorism to a large extent flow from this failed foreign policy.  We must acknowledge that in the long-term, our foreign policy perspective has often been counter-productive.

U.S. foreign policy should instead support democracy around the world … through peaceful means, not imposition by American force … regardless of whether the resulting government is pro- or anti-American. Our policy must also show true concern and support for the legitimate economic needs and political aspirations of the people in Third World countries.

If through such policy actions we come to be seen as truly supporting the people rather than the governments that oppress them, then many countries that liberate themselves and their inhabitants would no longer be anti-American.  They might not be allies, but at worst they would be neutral, thus greatly increasing our national security.

The current events in Egypt are a case in point where America could pay dearly for its policy mistakes.  Because of our historic support for President Mubarek, as well as our support of Israel, the general mood of the “street” in Egypt is anti-American. 

Even though President Obama sincerely wants to improve relations with the people of Egypt and the other Muslim countries and spoke to them eloquently at the beginning of his term, his actions have spoken louder to them.  There has been no real change in American foreign policy vis a vie the Arab world.  He is trapped in the system that Eisenhower warned against.

What America is doing in Egypt is trying to find a way to support the establishment and thus current strategic interests while opening the door for freedom of expression and for the opposition to take part in government.  But proposing an interim government headed by the ex-security chief and current Vice President Suleiman, who would negotiate with the opposition while Mubarek is still on the scene, is almost bound to fail. 

It is highly unlikely that the Egyptian power structure is ready to give up its grip on power in future elections.   And it is unlikely that the opposition will trust anything Suleiman says.  Indeed, why would they trust the man who was in charge of crushing them? 

The “negotiations” that occurred today were not surprising therefore in their result.  Suleiman claimed progress on the issues and consensus while insisting that Mubarek stay till the elections; that was the spin that was put on the meeting in the government media.  The opposition said that nothing was accomplished and that demonstrations will continue.

The United States needs to be more daring and at a minimum come out clearly in support of the people and urge Mubarek to leave now.  For unless he agrees to go now, there will be no orderly transition. 

Further, we must use our close contacts with the Egyptian military to insure that they are a force for change. They will be the determining factor in whether real change occurs peacefully, or whether the revolution grows violent. Without pressure from the military, it is highly unlikely that the Egyptian power elite will ever agree to give up power peacefully.  And the military will only press for change in the power structure if they see it as being in their own interest.  That’s where America’s influence must come to bear. 

It is not too late to save Egypt from becoming another Iran.  Our goal should be to encourage the development of a country like Turkey … a country that blends secularism and Islam, engages an independent foreign policy, and has close relations with both the West and the Arab world.  While this may be less convenient than the old arrangement, if the choice is between another Iran or a Turkey, I think the choice is clear as to America’s best interests.