The morning after...

It's now been a full day of US President Barack Obama.

The press has focused on three issues:

1. Evaluating his inaugural address (and the next day too) and the inauguration ceremony itself.
2. Evaluating his first day in office -- is he really up to the job?
3. How will it address the issues it must now confront, during its first hundred days and beyond. More broadly, what kind of presidency can be expected -- policies, image of the Presidency -- what kind of changes in government and American life?

1.

The speech was impressive in that it set out a path--mood setting--without really presenting any specific agenda items or plans. While it was in some ways a rebuke of the atmosphere of the last eight years (the George W Bush presidency), it was also an announcement that there's a (new) reality that America needs to confront, both domestically and internationally. Unfortunately, I didn't hear it live, but I did view it later and read it online.

Instead of commenting on the entire speech--you may read it for yourself--two sections deserve special comment.

(a) the popular call for a sense of personal responsibility that many others have commented upon:

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies.

It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break; the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours.

It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Our challenges may be new, the instruments with which we meet them may be new, but those values upon which our success depends, honesty and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism -- these things are old.

... What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility -- a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

(b) Far more interesting for me was his comments about the role of government:

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long, no longer apply.

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works, whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.

Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end.

And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

I believe that no society can function without a supervisory body, a government, to maintain order and 'fairness' and to ensure the provision of common/community services. While I'm not sure without a government, it will be a "Hobbesian hell" where people are eating each other up, it does seem clear that society can't function efficiently without it. For better or worse, government is part of our lives. If that's indeed a given, then the question is how can it be structured to better ensure the greatest good? Bloated uncaring government bureaucracies are a drag. Insufficient oversight (complete laissez-faire) will also be a drag on functioning (as witnessed by the financial meltdown created by an ideological mindset of self-regulated financial sector under Bush).

People need to be held accountable for their behavior and actions. At the same time, they also need to know that things beyond their control, but necessary for their functioning will be taken care of. Leaving side the major responsibility for defending the country and maintaining social order, governments also need to protect their most vulnerable population(s) by providing them with the basic services to live a dignified life including health care, education, social services.

This will be of even more importance as America seeks to pull itself of the morass of its economic downturn ("depression"), as well as its international standing. Everyone will need to feel a sense of ownership and honestly pull their own weight. The automatic sense of unique or special entitlement must end, for everyone is responsible for righting the boat without regard for station.

2 & 3

He has certainly assembled an impressive supporting cast of cabinet members and advisers. Few are shrinking violets and when (if?) confirmed the meetings will probably be loud and boisterous affairs with everyone expressing their opinion. Will Obama be able to sift through the expected conflicting advice and distill the best policy/decision? No matter how experienced the supporting cast, Obama will still has a steep learning curve.

He needs to avoid making a "Bay of Pigs" incident--something planned in the previous administration and left over to the next to enact--which tripped up JFK and probably lead to the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Unlike few before him, he has a large number of crisis balls in the air to juggle. FDR needed to address the economic situation--The Great Depression. JFK had a foreign policy issues around the Cold War (including Cuba, Vietnam). Obama needs to address foreign and domestic issues.

Eventually, the glow and "honeymoon" will end when the effects of the hard decisions sink in and the inertia of resisting changes reach a crescendo.

The morning after is just the first day of the presidency and the start of the journey. We'll see.

The Mourning after ...

The dust is beginning to settle on the Gaza war between Israel and Hamas. The ceasefire is generally holding -- Israel has claimed to have completely removed its soldiers (though many are still deployed along the border just in case), there's only sporadic firing on Israel, outsiders including media and international observers (e.g. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon) are coming for "visits"-- so the focus is now on dissecting its results and creating a new future.

The New York Times has dedicated a "room for debate" blog thread to the issue. The Globe & Mail (Canada) reports how angry the UN Secretary-General is following his tour of the damage. CNN has sent its reporter Ben Wedeman to survey the damage and speak to the people. Few in the world has a kind thing to say about Israel or a critical comment about Hamas' behavior in using human shields or use of neutral sites (a UNWRA school, hospitals or residential neighborhoods) to fire upon Israeli military and civilian (over the border) targets. Oh, well...

Was this inevitable? Hamas by merely surviving the Israeli onslaught and not folding won the war? That Israel, whatever, the legitimate causes for going to war was the loser?

To better evaluate the results, it would be interesting to see what was written before or early in the war.

The International Crisis Group published a briefing "Ending the War in Gaza", Middle East Briefing No. 26, 5 January 2009 (pdf). In it, they evaluate the three major players in the conflict--Hamas, the Palestinian Authority (Fatah and Mahmud Abbas) in "the West Bank"and Israel -- and their interests and prospects in engaging in war/conflict.

They write:

1.Hamas

Hamas might not have wished for a full-scale confrontation. There are indications it believed its brinkmanship would force Egypt to mediate a new ceasefire agreement entailing opening of the crossings and persuade Israel to accept it. Three days after the ceasefire’s expiration, a Hamas leader in Gaza said, “there is a previous agreement on the truce with conditions that have not
been met by Israel..." ... The Islamist movement arguably wagered that a steady stream of rockets could force that outcome at minimal cost to itself. But if all-out war was not intended, it was deemed an alternative preferable to the status quo. Hamas leaders made clear that perpetuation of the existing situation was tantamount to renewal of a one-sided ceasefire ... “our strategy is to end the siege using all means”.

[A]s Hamas leaders plainly saw it, a confrontation carried potential benefits. Speaking in the wake of Israel’s attack, a Hamas spokesperson in Lebanon said:

We didn’t really have a choice. It was either die slowly because of the blockade or more quickly due to confrontation. Israel was telling us, “accept the blockade that is killing you”. Despite all the suffering, this aggression put an end to a more painful situation. Now, the whole world is seeing that Palestinians are being killed. Before, people would die and no one would take note.

For Hamas, they were not only fighting Israel but also Egypt--for keeping the Rafah crossing closed--and the Palestinian Authroity in the West Bank.

Israel is not the only party blamed. While anger toward Israel was predictable, outrage at Egypt and the PA does not lag far behind. A Hamas supporter said, "Abbas and [Egyptian President Hosni] Mubarak are using civilians in Gaza to
teach Hamas a lesson”. At Gaza City’s Shifa hospital, victims’ families curse Abbas and Mubarak with no less vehemence than they do Israel; a woman crying over her two children – one dead, one brain-damaged – accused them of “killing innocent people in Gaza to teach Hamas a lesson”. None of this should be viewed as necessarily translating into support for Hamas; many still resent the movement for its failures in government, its bloody takeover and repressive means. Another grieving woman, who also had lost children, cried that she hoped that “God will exterminate Hamas”. But, in many quarters, the intensity of Israel’s attacks, the feeling of betrayal at the hands of Egypt as well as the PA and Hamas’s steadfastness for now are playing into the Islamic movement’s hands.In the end,Should Hamas nonetheless be in a position where it no longer can effectively rule Gaza – a situation Israel might create intentionally or unwittingly – a movement leader claims it will simply go nderground and “revert to its original state as a resistance movement”. During the Egyptian
reconciliation drive and again in the wake of the ceasefire [the six month one which was in effect until shortly before the war], senior Hamas leaders repeatedly emphasised that preserving the movement was more important than preserving the Gaza government.

2. The Palestinian Authority/West Bank

The Palestinian Authority and Fatah are not involved in the current Israeli-Hamas confrontation and yet – or as a result – they (especially the former) currently are emerging as among its more notable losers. Abbas in particular is in a delicate spot, unable either to play a significant role or
find the right words.

In the end,

The final impact of events in Gaza on the West Bank remains unclear. What is less uncertain is the toll it is taking on the PA leadership’s fortunes. Mustafa Barghouti, a former presidential candidate and head of the Palestinian National Initiative, put it characteristically bluntly:

The current crisis demonstrates to many that Abbas is incapable of representing or protecting his people. If he has good relations with the U.S., why can’t he stop an assault on his own people? If he doesn’t have good relations with the U.S., then what has he been doing the last four years? Good relations with the U.S. was his whole program. Likewise, if negotiations with Israel are not working, he should resign; if negotiations are working, why is Israel doing this to Gaza?

3. Israel

Israel, too, was dissatisfied with the ceasefire, especially as it applied to returning Gilad Shalit and opening of the border crossings (for aid). Nonetheless, they did hope that the ceasefire would somehow be renewed, Israel--though Defence Minister Ehud Barak--held its fire despite the massive increase in rocket fire immediately following the cessation of the ceasefire.

At the core though, was their need

not to give in to Hamas’s insistence that they be opened.

For Israel, it was important to persuade not only Hamas but others in the region that the Islamist movement could not extract concessions through violence ...

Additionally, though in the background, the upcoming Israeli elections on 10 Feb, also informed the planning process and response. Barak needed to present himself as THE military leader different from Amir Peretz and a positive model following the debacle of the 2nd Lebanon War with Hizbollah (2006). Each party needed to ensure that going to war won't backfire on them.

“Going to war in an election period is not a wise move. One knows how to get into a war but not how to get out. The whole thing can turn upside down very easily. Barak simply felt he has to do it, and do it now, in order to achieve the main goal – stopping the fire on Sderot and the south”. Regardless of the electoral season, virtually any Israeli government would have felt compelled to react.

[Yet] ... reluctant to act, Barak went all-out once the decision was made. The initial bombardment from air and sea elicited widespread satisfaction in military circles. It targeted the locations of Hamas’s rule over Gaza: police stations on the first day, killing over 200 Palestinians, the highest recorded number in a single day in the occupied Palestinian territories since 1967; the tunnel supply lines on the second; and homes of Hamas leaders and government buildings on subsequent ones. ...

A key lesson Barak drew from the 2006 Lebanon War is the crucial importance
of who is seen as victor and who as loser. He believes Israel’s power of deterrence decreased in the Second Lebanon War. He will, therefore, not allow this campaign not to reach its objectives or to end with the appearance of an Israeli defeat ...

With time, earlier reported differences between security officials seeking a prompt exit strategy and politicians aspiring to reshape the political map appear to have considerably narrowed. The emerging consensus centres on an air and land campaign aimed not only at ending rocket fire but also at destroying or at least seriously impairing Hamas’s long-range rocket capabilities, security apparatus and longer-term threat potential, halting or seriously reducing weapons smuggling and barring any Hamas activity within a perimeter of several hundred metres from Israeli borders.

The options confronting Israel are multiple. The question is how much damage can be inflicted upon Hamas and its leadership which would temper its terrorist behavior while not creating a real power vacuum that no one of real stature can fill? How can it avoid getting itself stuck in an occuation mode? Does it have the wherewithal to strike quickly and effectively and then get itself out of ythe Gaza morass to the "applause of the world community"?

In terms of press coverage, it hasn't been good. Even American TV, Meet the Press (4 January), was highly critical of the Israeli actions--be it its limiting access to foreign press, its attacks responding to Hamas fire upon "innocent civilians" (though it's difficult to ascertain/verify whose a dressed up Hamas fighter and who's the innocent bystander).

And the bush was consumed

Tonight is the last (full) day of the presidency of George W Bush, and in the bow to last week's parshat hashavua and the burning bush, this blog is dedicated to some thoughts on the change of government in the US (as well as taking a break from discussing the Gaza War).

With the inauguration of Barack Obama tomorrow, a new era will come to America and, hopefully, to the rest of the world.

It is as though divine intervention is involved this year in the changing of the American government. Today is Martin Luther King Jr Day (and also "National Community Service Day") and tomorrow is Inauguration Day. One day dedicated to the loss of a great American who dedicated his life to social justice and the betterment of all Americans, the next dedicated to the hope of seeing some of those dreams being put into action. The expectations of (and on) Barack Obama is enormous.

Before looking forward, it may be helpful to look back to establish a "baseline."

Many have commented on the Bush presidency like EJ Dionne "Bush's Biggest Mistake" (or "Why the Uniter Divided Us"), Dana Milbank and Fareed Zakaria in The Washington Post. In The New York Times, Paul Krugman critiqued his economic policies, Mauren Dowd. Dan Froomkin's "The White House Watch" (a personal favorite) detailed the numerous foibles throughout his administration

For EJ Dionne Jr, the issue was

From the very beginning of his presidency, won courtesy of a divisive Supreme Court decision that abruptly ended his contest with Al Gore, Bush misunderstood the nature of his lease on power, the temper of the country and the proper role of partisanship in our political life. His win-at-all-costs strategy in Florida became a template for much of his presidency, reflected especially in the way the Justice Department was politicized.

Bush did not respect the obligation of a leader in a free society to forge a durable consensus. He was better at announcing policies than explaining them. He dismissed legitimate opposition and plausible doubts about the courses he wished to pursue. It is partly because of these failures that Americans reacted by selecting a successor with such a profoundly different political personality.

Eugene Robinson in turn opined:

Not to kick the president on his way out the door, but he was wrong when he told White House reporters at a wistful, nostalgic news conference yesterday that "there is no such thing as short-term history."

It's true that some presidencies look different after a few decades. But it's also true that presidential acts can have immediate consequences -- and that George W. Bush will leave office next week as a president whose eight years in office are widely seen as a nadir from which it will take years to recover. ...

Asked to identify the biggest mistake of his presidency, Bush gave a curious answer that had more to do with public relations than presidential decision making. He mentioned the "Mission Accomplished" banner that prematurely announced the end of major conflict in Iraq -- but not his decision to invade Iraq in the first place. He mentioned his failure to visit New Orleans at the height of the devastating, deadly flooding caused by Hurricane Katrina -- but not the decision to entrust the Federal Emergency Management Agency to the hapless and ineffective Michael Brown.In Bush's mind, the revelation of shocking prisoner abuse by U.S. military guards at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq was "a huge disappointment" -- but he doesn't take any responsibility, as commander in chief, for the atmosphere of lax training and supervision that allowed the abuses at Abu Ghraib to happen. The failure by U.S. forces to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq qualifies only as "a significant disappointment" -- even though the administration's apocalyptic rhetoric about WMD was what sealed the deal for an invasion and occupation that never should have taken place.

Fareed Zakaria in "He Kept Us Safe, but..." writes:

"He kept us safe."

That has become the mantra to explain why George W. Bush -- contrary to the view of the American public, people abroad and historians -- is actually a great man. For Dick Cheney, unsurprisingly, Bush will rank "among the most decisive, determined and far-seeing leaders this nation has ever had." ...

At some level, it is not surprising that Bush's acolytes should focus on just this one issue. It is difficult to make the claim on other grounds, such as the economy, the traditional measure used by presidents. Bush inherited the most favorable economic fortunes of any president in two generations. In 2000, the Clinton administration presented the nation with a budget almost in balance -- a $17 billion deficit. The Congressional Budget Office was projecting $5.6 trillion in surpluses over the next 10 years. But within a year, most of those surpluses had been frittered away in an
extravagant set of tax cuts. At the end of eight years -- by common consent -- Bush is leaving the country in the worst economic and fiscal shape it has been in since the
1970s or the 1930s.

Under Bush, America has been put on a quasi-war footing, has spent billions on "homeland security," has massively complicated its immigration and visa system, has put friction into the gears of trade, has retreated from its open attitude toward foreigners, and has seen its Constitution circumvented. But Bush has kept us safe. I hope that when Barack Obama thinks about the challenges he faces -- the economy, health care, energy, Iraq and Afghanistan -- he does not obsessively focus on the metric of "keeping us safe."

Dan Froomkin in "The Bush Verdict is in" (WP January 13, 2009) summed up the Bush presidency by writing,

He took the nation to a war of choice under false pretenses -- and left troops in harm's way on two fields of battle. He embraced torture as an interrogation tactic and turned the world's champion of human dignity into an outlaw nation and international pariah. He watched with detachment as a major American city went under water. He was ostensibly at the helm as the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression took hold. He went from being the most popular to the most disappointing president, having squandered a unique opportunity to unite the country and even the world behind a shared agenda after Sept. 11.

He set a new precedent for avoiding the general public in favor of screened audiences and seemed to occupy an alternate reality. He took his own political party from seeming permanent majority status to where it is today. And he deliberately politicized the federal government, circumvented the traditional policy making process, ignored expert advice and suppressed dissent, leaving behind a broken government.

From a different perspective, see Maureen Dowd in "The Long, Lame Goodbye" (NYT January 17, 2009) who in offering a more psychological analysis in comparing the out-going Bush with the in-coming Obama wrote:

As Barack Obama got to town, one of the first things he did was seek the
counsel of past presidents, including George Bush senior.

As W. was leaving town, one of the last things he did was explain why he never sought the counsel of his father on issues that his father knew intimately, like Iraq and Saddam. ...

W. lives in the shadow of his father’s presence, while Obama lives in the shadow of his father’s absence. W.’s parlous presidency, spent trashing the Constitution, the economy and the environment, was bound up, and burdened by, the psychological traits of an asphyxiated and pampered son. The exiting and entering presidents are
opposite poles — one the parody of a monosyllabic Western gunslinger who disdains nuance, and one a complex, polysyllabic professor sort who will make a decision only after he has held it up to the light and examined it from all sides.

W. was immune to doubt and afraid of it. (His fear of doubt led to the cooking of war intelligence.) Obama is delighted by doubt.

Bush fancied himself the Decider; Obama fancies himself the Convener. Some worry that a President Obama will overdo it and turn the Situation Room into the Seminar Room. (He’s already showing a distressing lack of concern over whether his cherished eggheads bend the rules, like Tim Geithner’s not paying all his taxes, because, after all, they’re the Best and the Brightest, not ordinary folk.)

W., Cheney and Rummy loved making enemies, under the mistaken assumption that the more people hated America, the more the Bushies were standing up for principle. But is Obama neurotically reluctant to make enemies, and overly concerned with winning over those who have smacked him, from Hillary and Bill to conservative
columnists?

Whatever goodwill America generated in its history and immediately following 9/11 were lost and burned in the "bush fire" of the last eight years. For the Phoenix to rise again, the lessons of the Bush years must be identified, internalized and 'operationalized' in the running of the Obama White House.

Bob Woodward in last Sunday's (18 Jan 2009) Washington Post using his experience observing and writing about the Bush years, and believing that Presidents live in the unfinished business of their predecessors, presented the 10 lessons Obama needs to take away from the Bush experience if he hopes to correct "the errors" of the last administration.

1. Presidents set the tone. Don't be passive or tolerate virulent divisions.
2. The president must insist that everyone speak out loud in front of the others, even -- or especially -- when there are vehement disagreements.
3. A president must do the homework to master the fundamental ideas and concepts
behind his policies. (The president should not micromanage, but understanding the ramifications of his positions cannot be outsourced to anyone.)
4. Presidents need to draw people out and make sure that bad news makes it to the
Oval Office, (including specifically asking their opinions and not assume or rely on second-hand information).
5. Presidents need to foster a culture of skepticism and doubt. ...While Presidents and generals don't have to live on doubt. But they should learn to love it.
6. Presidents get contradictory data, and they need a rigorous way to sort it out.
7. Presidents must tell the public the hard truth, even if that means delivering very bad news ... A president is strong when he is the voice of realism.
8. Righteous motives are not enough for effective policy.
9. Presidents must insist on strategic thinking. ... a willingness to pay a short-term price for the sort of long-term gains that go down in the history books ... [as a] President will probably be judged by the success of his long-range plans, not his daily crisis management.
10. The president should embrace transparency. (Some version of the behind-the-scenes story of what happened in his White House will always make it out to the public -- and everyone will be better off if that version is as accurate as possible.) ...
[To do so t]hey should run an internal, candid process of debate and discussion with key advisers that will make sense when it surfaces later. This sort of inside account will be told, at least in part, during the presidency. But the best obtainable version will emerge more slowly, over time, and become history.

Let's hope and pray that Obama takes the lessons to heart and the rest of world allows Obama to be himself and not the "Second Coming". A mere correction will also go a long way to setting the world straight.

Let the ink start to spill ...

In light of the recent announcement that Hamas has agreed to a one-week ceasefire (enough time for Israel to fully vacate Gaza), I wonder if this piece in The New York Times "Weekend Opinionator" "The battle over the battle in Gaza" is still current. It's certainly an interesting read.

Enjoy and hopefully, after I've read more closely through post and the cited articles, I'll have a fuller comment.

Whose really left to be right?

In search for the conditions Israel has created for its unilateral ceasefire with Hamas/Gaza, I found this exchange of open letters between well known Israeli leftists -- the novelist A.B. Yehoshua and Haaretz columnist Gideon Levy -- arguing over the Gaza situation and the need for Israel to go to war.

Large portions of their exchange appears below. It's a real cat fight.

Yehoshua takes Levy to task how he can remain so strongly opposed to Israel's military response to the Hamas provocations?

You remember that in recent years I called you occasionally to praise you for your articles and your writing about the wrongs done to the Palestinians in the administered territories, whether by the army or by the settlers ...

I did not ask you why you did not visit Israeli hospitals in order to tell the painful stories of Israeli citizens who were hurt in terrorist attacks. I accepted your position that there are plenty of other journalists doing this and that you had taken on the crucial mission of telling the story of the afflictions of the other side, our enemies today and our neighbors tomorrow.

Accordingly, it is from this position of respect that I find it necessary to respond to your recent articles on the war in which we are engaged today, so that you will be able to preserve the moral validity of your distinctive voice for the future.

When I asked you after the disengagement from Gaza, Gideon, explain to me why they are firing missiles at us, you replied that they want us to open the crossings. I asked you whether you truly believe that if they fire missiles the crossings will be opened, or the opposite. And whether you truly believe that it is right and just to open crossings into Israel for those who declare openly and sincerely that they want to destroy our country. I did not get an answer from you. And even though the crossings were in fact opened many times, and were closed in the wake of the missile attacks, regrettably I still did not see you standing firmly behind a moral position which says: Now, people of Gaza, after you expelled the Israeli occupation from your land, and justly so, you must hold your fire.

The doleful thought sometimes crosses my mind that it is not the children of Gaza or of Israel that you are pining for, but only for your own private conscience. Because if you are truly concerned about the death of our children and theirs, you would understand the present war - not in order to uproot Hamas from Gaza but to induce its followers to understand, and regrettably in the only way they understand in the meantime, that they must stop the firing unilaterally, stop hoarding missiles for a bitter and hopeless war to destroy Israel, and above all for the sake of their children in the future, so they will not die in another pointless adventure.

There is something absurd in the comparison you draw about the number of those killed. When you ask how it can be that they killed three of our children and we cause the killing of a hundred and fifty, the inference one can draw is that if they were to kill a hundred of our children (for example, by the Qassam rockets that struck schools and kindergartens in Israel that happened to be empty), we would be justified in also killing a hundred of their children.

In other words, it is not the killing itself that troubles you but the number. On the face of it, one could answer you cynically by saying that when there will be two hundred million Jews in the Middle East it will be permissible to think in moral terms about comparing the number of victims on each side. But that is, of course, a debased argument.

After all, you ... know very well that we are not bent on killing Palestinian children to avenge the killing of our children. All we are trying to do is get their leaders to stop this senseless and wicked aggression, and it is only because of the tragic and deliberate mingling between Hamas fighters and the civilian population that children, too, are unfortunately being killed. The fact is that since the disengagement, Hamas has fired only at civilians. Even in this war, to my astonishment, I see that they are not aiming at the army concentrations along the border but time and again at civilian communities.

In response, Levy takes Yehoshua to task, but instead of addressing the issues raised in his letter that despite whatever measures Israel has undertaken--disengagement, opening crossing for aid (as well as transferring funds)--Hamas has continued unabated to call for Israel's extinction and fired its missiles/rockets against civilian targets, Gideon Levy clings to his ideological 'blinders' focusing on larger number of Palestinian civilian killed/injured, continued Israeli aggression ... In other words, context is fixed (Israel = bad, Gazans/Palestinian = victims). Any suggestion to the contrary is equivalent to apostasy. Instead of discussing ideas, Levy's tone is more personal and critical/judgemental.

I, too, deeply respect your wonderful literary works. But, unfortunately, I have a lot less respect for your current political position. It is as if the mighty, including you, have succumbed to a great and terrible conflagration that has consumed any remnant of a moral backbone.

You, too, esteemed author, have fallen prey to the wretched wave that has inundated, stupefied, blinded and brainwashed us. You're actually justifying the
most brutal war Israel has ever fought and in so doing are complacent in the fraud that the "occupation of Gaza is over" and justifying mass killings by evoking the alibi that Hamas "deliberately mingles between its fighters and the civilian population." You are judging a helpless people denied a government and army - which includes a fundamentalist movement using improper means to fight for a just cause, namely the end of the occupation - in the same way you judge a regional power, which considers itself humanitarian and democratic but which has shown itself to be a brutal and cruel conqueror. As an Israeli, I cannot admonish their leaders while our hands are covered in blood, nor do I want to judge Israel and the Palestinians the same way you have.

The residents of Gaza have never had ownership of "their own piece of land," as you have claimed. We left Gaza because of our own interests and needs, and then we imprisoned them. We cut the territory off from the rest of the world and the occupied West Bank, and did not permit them to construct an air or sea port. We control their population registrar and their currency - and having their own military is out of the question - and then you argue that the occupation is over? We have crushed their livelihood, besieged them for two years, and you claim they "have expelled the Israeli occupation"? The occupation of Gaza has simply taken on a new form: a fence instead of settlements. The jailers stand guard on the outside instead of the inside.

And no, I do not know "very well," as you wrote, that we don't mean to kill children. When one employs tanks, artillery and planes in such a densely populated place one cannot avoid killing children. I understand that Israeli propaganda has cleared your conscience, but it has not cleared mine or that of most of the world. Outcomes, not intentions, are what count - and those have been horrendous. "If you were truly concerned about the death of our children and theirs," you wrote, "you would understand the present war." ... you could not conjure up a more crooked moral argument: that the criminal killing of children is done out of concern for their fates. There he goes again, writing about children," ... Yes, it must be written. It must be shouted out. It is done for both our sakes.

This war is in your opinion "the only way to induce Hamas to understand." Even if we ignore the condescending tone of your remark ... They cannot be put down forcibly. Despite all the destructive force we used in this war, I still can't see how the Palestinians have been influenced; Qassams are still being launched into Israel. They and the world have clearly taken away something else from the last few weeks - that Israel is a dangerous and violent country that lacks scruples. Do you wish to live in a country with such a reputation? A country that proudly announces it has gone "crazy," as some Israeli ministers have said in regard to the army's operation in Gaza? I don't.

Finally, you ask me to preserve my "moral validity." It isn't my image I wish to protect but that of the country, which is equally dear to us both.

Is this the end of a beautiful friendship? Is a divorce is the works as one side has defiled itself and its ideological purity?

Unilateral ceasefire

A few minutes ago, the "two Ehuds" PM Olmert and Defense Minister Barak announced that with the receipt of a letter from several European leaders -- France (Sarkozy), Germany (Merkel), Great Britain (Brown) and Italy (Berisconi)-- agreeing to assist Egypt in preventing Hamas was rearming via its tunnel system, Israel has announced it will unilaterally commence a ceasefire as of early this morning at 2:00 am (Israel time).

While on one hand, I'm pleased that hostilities are over--assuming Hamas ceases to fire rockets into Israel (which it did shortly before the official announcement was made)-- and that the political process can begin to create a new reality on the ground, on the other hand, I strongly wonder if (a) it'll work, (b) it wasn't caving in to international pressure (from the international community including the personal entreaties of the UN Secretary General) and the negative world media and (c) if all (or even most) of the goals were achieved.

At the end of the day, Gilad Shalit is still in captivity. Hamas still has the wherewithal to fire rockets into Israel beyond the Gaza border region. Israel will be vilified for damaging Gaza and the large number of civilian causalities.

It was a no-win situation and now with Hamas' ability to spin its situation and Fatah/Abbas/ Palestinian Authority to exercise any real authority I'm not convinced Israel achieved a Pyrrhic victory.

We'll see and more to come later as the dust truly settles.

Tyrany of the majority

Yesterday the Israeli Central Election Committee voted overwhelmingly to ban two Arab political parties--the United Arab List-Ta'al [UAL] (e.g. Ahmed Tibi) and Balad (Azmi Bishara)--from running in the upcoming elections. They were accused of "incitement, supporting terrorist groups and refusing to recognizing Israel's right to exist." It was the front page story in Haartez and The Jerusalem Post reported:

Twenty-six of the committee's members - all MKs except for former deputy president of the Supreme Court Justice Eliezer Rivlin, who heads the Central
Elections Committee and abstained - voted to disqualify Balad.

Three committee members voted against disqualifying the party, including representatives of Meretz and Meimad. A total of 21 members voted to disqualify UAL, seven voted against (Labor and Meretz representatives) and two abstained.

In 2003, the committee approved a similar request to disqualify Balad from Knesset elections, a decision that the High Court of Justice later reversed.

Rivlin quoted the High Court's 2003 ruling, saying the decision had mandated that there be substantial evidence that a given party supported an enemy's armed fight against Israel in order to disqualify that party from running for the Knesset, not just random and sporadic hostile sentiments expressed by its members.

Attorney Dana Briskman, speaking on behalf of Attorney-General Menahem Mazuz, told the committee prior to the vote that the attorney-general had not found sufficient evidence to disqualify Balad or UAL.

Both parties intend to appeal their case to the Supreme Court, which, is currently expected to reverse the decision.

That the larger parties voted to ban the major Arab parties, caving in to the right-wing parties is a severe blow to democracy in Israel. If disrespect for the Israeli 'reality' is enough to disqualify a political party, then the Jewish haredi parties should also be banned. The case of the Arab parties is completely different than Kach which openly called for violence (against Arabs) and the ignoring Israeli law; i.e. they actively and publicly espoused a racist agenda. Despite the support for the Arab cause, including visiting enemy countries (Syria for example and running away a la Bishara following the 2nd Lebanon War [accused of spying for Hizbollah]), I don't believe they called for the overthrow of Israel or an end of democracy. On the contrary, they have actively demanded a greater sense of democracy, better treatment for its [Israel] Arab citizens even at the cost of reducing the overtly Jewish content/symbols of the state. (That Israel regardless of the Arab parties continually struggles with its Jewish identity--but that's for a different submission.)

The idea of "tyranny of the majority" has been part of policy theory and philosophy since the time of Plato.

While I know that Israel is not a colony or offshoot of the United States, it is instructive to reflect upon some early comments on American democracy on the need of the majority to consider the needs and feelings of minority views and populations.

Two important works, The Federalist Papers (Hamilton, Madison and Jay) and Democracy in America (Alex de Tocqueville) discussed this issue as it sought to create and describe a young American republic.

James Madison in Number 10, following up on the comments made in Number 9 by Alexander Hamilton regarding "The Union as a Safeguard against Domestic Faction and Insurrection" suggested that the creation of a republic would prevent factions being created that would injure the interests of another (smaller) group and upset the sense of justice throughout the country. For Madison the great divider was the ownership of property.

It is in this vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests and render them all subservient to the public good. ... The inference to which we are brought is the causes of factions cannot be removed and that relief is only to be sought is the means to control its effects.

Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America was the first to specifically use the term "tyranny of the majority" wrote:

I regard it as an impious and detestable maxim that in matters of government the majority of the people has the right to do everything ...

There is one law which has been made, or at least adopted, not majority of this or that people, but by the majority of all men. That law is justice.

Justice therefore forms the boundary to each people's right.

A nation is like a jury entrusted to represent universal society and to apply the justice which is its law. Should the jury representing society have greater power than than the very society whose laws it applies?

Based on the words of both Madison and de Tocqueville in their appeal to the sense of justice, rulers/majorities need to that transcend the immediate national (and natural) desire to exercise its power over its 'enemies' and minority voices.

In Israel, the governing structure of proportional representation only works when each group has the opportunity to have its voice officially heard. Cutting off the voice of the Arabs will only weaken the democratic fibre of Israel. The decision must be reversed by the Supreme Court.

Strip search

A strip-search is generally understood to mean:

TRANSITIVE VERB: To search (a person) for illegal articles, such as drugs or weapons, by first requiring the removal of all clothing (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000)

In addition to playing with the word "strip" (with the Gaza STRIP), the situation in the Gaza strip suggest that the verb and its metaphor are appropriate here.

1. The IDF is currently engaged in its ground attack in search for weapons and other terrorist equipment and activities, and


2. The world sees it as acceptable to 'dress-down' Israel for its behavior in running its military campaign.

It seems clear that Hamas has spent much of its existence as the ruling authority in Gaza promoting at best and organizing the smuggling of arms through underground tunnels from Egypt into the Gaza Strip via the "Philadelphia Corridor". For one reason or another, the smuggling has continued unabated under the watchful [sic.] eye of the Egyptians and the consternation of Israel. That many of the tunnels run under homes and end also in the basements of residences (of either Hamas leaders or civilian sympathizers) make their discovery difficult and their eradication complicated (if only to avoid additional civilian injury or death).

So while some tunnels may be located and destroyed by air, many require a house-to-house search for them. Hence, a strip search at great personal risk to the ground soldiers.

The ground forces are also focused on "neutralizing the threat" by locating and destroying the mobile rocket launchers (removing the threat), finding caches of weapons and munition, arresting/killing the military leadership (and its structure), and (I assume) also proactively (i) locating and rescuing Gilad Shalit and (ii) convincing Hamas to either abdicate its rule, change its ideological commitment to Israel's destruction by recognizing Israel's right to exist or join its West Bank 'brothers' in negotiating a political settlement so a two state solution may be reached. In other words, lessen (preferably remove) the threat of rockets and anti-Israel terrorist activities emanating from Gaza.

The literal sense is stifled by the more figurative understanding of the strip-search, in this case directed AT Israel instead directed by Israel.

The media and world opinion (encompassing both ordinary public opinion and government pronouncements) has been unanimously critical of Israel. While some may acknowledge Israel's suffering under Hamas rocket attacks it is tempered by their critique of Israel's 'over reaction' and 'disproportionate response.' One exception to this trend was Ian O'Doherty "Why the Israeli people have had enough" in the Irish Independent newspaper. Otherwise, it seems to be open season for attacking Israel:

• CNN seems to never miss an opportunity to announce that Israel refuses to allow its reporters to enter Gaza and must, therefore, report from the Gaza-Israel border.
• The BBC gives the microphone to Gazans (somehow, they managed to get their press team(s) into Gaza itself) how Israel is wantonly attacking--killing and injuring--'innocent' civilians.
• The printed media, including The New York Times and the Washington Post (see especially their talk back sections), highlight the Gaza attacks while downplaying the last eight years and current bombing by Hamas upon (southern) Israel.

Somehow, Israel is to have its clothing removed as its reasons for going to war questioned while Gaza is presented as (again) the victim of "disproportionate" response, "naked" aggression by Israel. In the end, the "naked truth" is left wanting as little or no context to the conflict is given.

Unresolved counsel

Last Thursday's (8 Jan 2009) attempt to craft a ceasefire agreement by the UN Security Council has fallen flat through its resolution on the situation on Gaza -- SC Resolution 1860 (2009). Despite working to create the language of the resolution, the US abstained while the other 14 country members voted in favor.

In the words of the UN Press Release:

Explaining her abstention, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the US wanted to see the outcome of the Egyptian initiative first, but allowed the resolution to go forward because it was a step in the right direction. A negative vote by the US, one of the Council’s permanent members with veto powers, would have killed the measure.

Stressing the urgency of “an immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire,” and calling for “the unimpeded provision and distribution throughout Gaza of humanitarian assistance,” it called on UN Member States to support international efforts to alleviate the humanitarian and economic situation in Gaza, including through additional contributions to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).

It also called on Member States “to intensify efforts to provide arrangements and guarantees in Gaza in order to sustain a durable ceasefire and calm, including to prevent illicit trafficking in arms and ammunition and to ensure the sustained re-opening of crossing points.” Israel has accused Hamas of smuggling more advanced rockets and weapons and has closed crossings into Gaza in response to Hamas rocket fire.

The US rationale is a lame excuse and seems to have made the resolution DOA. With its veto power, it could have just as easily called for, by either politely requesting or threatening a veto to delay the vote to wait for the results of Egyptian initiative. Their behavior in addition to showing the ineptness of the Bush foreign policy (and Sec. Rice) also opened the door for both sides to ignore the call.

According to the Barak Ravid in Sunday's Haartez [11 Jan 2009], Israel was disappointed with the lack of support it received form its 'allies.'

• France (President Nicolas Sarkozy) broke its promise to prevent the proposal from being finalized, if Israel agreed to a joint French-Egyptian ceasefire proposal.
• The US (President George Bush) refusal to veto.
• The failure to incorporate the release of Gilad Shalit (the abducted IDF soldier) from its captors in Gaza.

Aluf Benn in a front page story in Sunday's Haartez labeled the UN Resolution as "a serious diplomatic malfunction" for Israel and its struggle for having its concerns addressed.

[E]ven if the decision bears no operative significance, it should stir
concerns in Israel for three reasons.

First, things are not going to get better. This is the international position, which identifies with the Palestinian suffering and ignores Gilad Shalit's fate and the suffering of the people in Israel's south.

Second, although Hamas is not mentioned in the resolution - which it has rejected - ... their friends have good reason to smile. Hamas' Gaza regime now enjoys the legitimacy afforded it by the Security Council, the international community's highest institution. That's because Resolution 1680 refers to a Hamas republic as a fait accompli. The resolution does not demand that the Strip be returned to the Palestinian Authority, except in the call for a renewed settlement for the crossings, which will be based on the old agreement between Israel and the PA. Nor does the resolution call for disarming the militias and terrorist groups operating in the Gaza Strip.

Third, the process that led to the passing of the resolution points to Jerusalem's failure in handling the issue. Israel objected to having the war end in a Security Council resolution similar to the one that ended the Second Lebanon War. This is probably why Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni - who led those who oppose an agreement for fear it might legitimize Hamas - opted to stay at home instead of heading over to the UN headquarters in New York.

In the battle for public opinion, Israel is failing. Despite the lack of real Arab support for Hamas, there's wide support for the plight of the Palestinian Gazans and disgust for the Israeli military response -- in the media, Arab masses and governments -- as witnessed as the ongoing anti-Israeli protests throughout the globe. Israel has failed to ensure that its message is given mass support. So while, Israelis may still support the need for war, there's a clear realization that time is quickly running out to continue the war and ensure its goals of significantly reducing the Hamas bombing and terrorist capabilities are achieved.

To reinforce the ambiguous situation, I'll close with two voices from leading UN officers.

From Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in remarks to the Security Council following the adaption of the resolution said:

An immediate and durable ceasefire is the first step. However, we also all know that more will be needed, and that a political way forward is required to deliver long-term security and peace.

Earlier, the General Assembly President Miguel D’Escoto chided the lack of action by the Security Council.

“I can’t stand the smell of formaldehyde,” he told a news briefing at Headquarters. “Rigor mortis seems to have taken over, and we are failing the world, we are failing the cause of peace,” he added, referring to “the dysfunctionality” of the Council.

They both may be correct. However, until the international community ceases to perpetuate its "business as usual" approach--pity on the Palestinians (and the terrorist Hamas) and shame on Israel for responding militarily to provocation--and honestly (in good faith and evenhandedness) lays the groundwork for creating infrastructure for a political solution, the the wheels for peace instead of inching forward will be left spinning in the mud a process sullied by the slinging mud (which could be better being used to build "peace cabins").

The Kristof ball on Gaza

Nicholas Kristof in today's (Thursday 8 Jan 2008) New York Times commented on the Israel-Gaza conflict in a piece he titled "The Gaza Boomerang" arguing that Israel has overstepped the standard of decency in responding to the Hamas attacks on southern Israel.

I sought to respond in the comments section attached to the op-ed piece. Somehow, it didn't get printed, so here it is:

If the boomerang effect is predicated upon the fact that Israel supported Hamas some 20 years ago as a counter force to the PLO/Fatah (Arafat) it's a weak one. First of all, 20 years ago was a different time -- a lot of water has passed under the bridge. Since then, the PLO has actively engaged in negotiating a settlement or understanding with Israel which necessitated a formal recognition of the State of Israel. Hamas during the same time period has stiffed its resolve against both Fatah (and other Palestinian secular nationalists) as well as Israel and the West (America and her allies) in general.

While you may minimize the effect of eight years of lobbing rockets into southern Israel, the life of those directly affected was severely disrupted. Businesses folded, school work (never mind actually learning and attending classes) were significantly affected. That only a "small number" [20] of Israelis/Jews were killed doesn't make the ongoing bombings less traumatic or insignificant.

The target of Hamas bombings weren't military targets, unless you accept the Hamas position that all Jews are legitimate (and military) targets. Israel has sought to attack military targets -- returning fire to locations of initial shots, locations of its military leadership and ammunition depots. With Gaza being one of the most densely populated regions in the world coupled with the fact that Hamas has purposely placed its sensitive military sites deep in civilian areas as well as using civilians as "shields" (see the recent bombing of the UNWRA school) makes "collateral damage" all the more likely.

While I assume that you are correct in reporting that a large number of Gazans and Palestinians "scorn Fatah as corrupt and incompetent, and they dislike Hamas’s overzealousness and repression," they seem to have done little to promote their desire for better governance and a more peaceful relationship with Israel. Instead of refusing to be used as human shields for Hamas attacks, they have continued the dysfunctional arrangements. I heard of no protest for "better living conditions" -- the end of Hamas' violent rule (which could have ended the international boycott and Israeli siege).

Lastly, the fact that many of the tunnels open into houses makes bombing them open to "collateral damage". That Egypt has either turned a blind eye to the smuggling or was powerless to stop it despite many pleas from Israel is an additional issue. Egypt -- above ground -- has also refused to allow supplies to enter Gaza. Yet for some reason, only the Israeli blockade is mentioned.

Israel also uprooted the Jewish residents/settlers from Gaza three years ago. It was to be the start of better relations (as there was no longer a physical Jewish/Israeli presence in the area). As a token of their appreciation, the bombings intensified and with Hamas' refusal to renew the ceasefire agreement and a further escalation of the bombings, Israel was goaded into launching a military campaign.

What was already a humanitarian crisis only became worse.

I hope and pray that the military hostilities will end quickly and that a real ceasefire will take hold that will allow both Gaza and (southern) Israel and its residents to live in peace and quiet and prosperity. That will only happen if Hamas permits it by renouncing its desire to violently destroy Israel.

I'll wait and see.

War is a humanitarian crisis

The Israeli incursion into Gaza is now 11 days old and the world press continues to harp upon the humanitarian crisis for the Gaza residents. This is despite the regular, albeit limited (around 80), trucks delivering humanitarian aid via Israel. Lost in the discussion are: (a) the refusal of Egypt (their neighbor and fellow Arab) to open its border at Rafah for Arab/Islamic aid to enter and wounded to exit to receive necessary medical attention--the border is sealed shut to prevent a mass exit of fleeing refugees, (b) Hamas has purposefully placed its military strategic posts near very more densely populated civilian or religious sites (e.g. mosques) so as to garner better propaganda points. No one seems to address the issue that Hamas has placed its civilian population in a military crisis its entire existence as the governing body of Gaza.

• It staged a bloody coup to wrest control of Gaza from the Palestinian Authority (viz Fatah) and has kept the population especially Fatah leaders, members and sympathizers under control;
• It has refused to change its raison d'etre to at least accommodate the existence of the State of Israel (aka "the evil Zionist entity"), if only as a facade to end the diplomatic siege/ boycott of Hamas by the international community;
• It has lobbed--complicitly or directly--rockets and bombs into southern Israel since the beginning of its control, thereby terrorizing Israelis and 'inviting' (dare I say taunting?) Israel to respond with military force and perpetuating the Israeli blockade of its crossings between Israel and Gaza.

Hamas created the humanitarian crisis and with international complicity (media and other 'well-meaning' international organizations) perpetuated it. Instead of working to reverse it and accept responsibility for improving the conditions for its people, it exacerbated the situation and blames Israel for all its problems.

The call for a cease-fire by many, the UN, the European Union as well as by the Arab/Islamic world is both an enabling device for the Hamas to divert attention from its own responsibility to protect its people from violence as well as another opportunity to prevent Israel from protecting itself from senseless provocation and terrorism. Unfortunately, Israel is caught begtween being an upstanding member of the international community and doing what it feels is needed to stop the bullying. Instead of waiting to hear from Hamas about its intentions about abiding by a ceasefire, it offers its response first. Instead of demanding Galit Shalit back first, it transmits funds to Hamas [Israel nismanagement of Dec 2008] and provides a list of prisoners (read Hamas terrorists) it's willing to release.

Let's place the conflict in context and have both sides feet put to the fire, instead of using the situation as (yet) another opportunity to bash Israel and its right to exist in peace and dignity.