Thursday, October 13, 2011
A telling poll about the "Occupy Wall St. Movement"
I wrote previously about the ridiculous demands posted by the "Occupy the Wall St." protesters, as well as about the incoherence of the "Tent City" protests. Here is some statistics about the former. The main lesson is: although facebook and twitter have made it easier to bring a large number of people together for a protest, they do not substitute for intellegence and the serious political ideas, withiout which any protest is doomed to failure.
About Gilad Shalit
There is general rejoicing in Israel due to a deal to free Gilad Shalit, who have been held captive for more than five by a Hamas-affiliated organizatuion in Gaza. This, however, is a kind of situation when one gets a strange feeling from the fact that some obvious questions are persistently evaded by the news sources, the commentators, and the public:
1. Isn't it a bit early to rejoice before the deal has gone through?
2. Does the government have any information about Shalit's physical condition? The report says that he has been moved to Cairo, but I shiver from the thought that his family and everyone else are assuming that he is alive and well without rally knowing it...
3. I would like to point out something that is commonly overlooked in the debate about exchanging Palestinian held in Israeli jails for kidnapped soldiers. It is commongly stated that such exchanges are motivated by moral and emotional arguments, whereas "logically" Israel endangers its own citizens by releasing the accomplished terrorists, and showing that blackmail works. This "logic" misses the important point: the ability fo Israel to defend itself is determined not only by the number of the enemy fighters, but also, more importantly, by the Israeli soldiers's willingness to fight for their country. Giving the soldiers credible promise that the country will to its utmost effort to protect them is the only way to convince them that this country is worth fighting for.
1. Isn't it a bit early to rejoice before the deal has gone through?
2. Does the government have any information about Shalit's physical condition? The report says that he has been moved to Cairo, but I shiver from the thought that his family and everyone else are assuming that he is alive and well without rally knowing it...
3. I would like to point out something that is commonly overlooked in the debate about exchanging Palestinian held in Israeli jails for kidnapped soldiers. It is commongly stated that such exchanges are motivated by moral and emotional arguments, whereas "logically" Israel endangers its own citizens by releasing the accomplished terrorists, and showing that blackmail works. This "logic" misses the important point: the ability fo Israel to defend itself is determined not only by the number of the enemy fighters, but also, more importantly, by the Israeli soldiers's willingness to fight for their country. Giving the soldiers credible promise that the country will to its utmost effort to protect them is the only way to convince them that this country is worth fighting for.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Will Obama attack Iran?
A few thoughts about the alleged Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in the United States:
1. The Iranian activity calls for many paralles with the Iranian hostage crisis that led to the fall of the Carter presiency. The similarity of the Obama's and Carter's foreign policies might be the explanation forthe Iranian intrasurgence.
2. On the other hand, this may be continuation of the Obama's "a la George Bush" policy to boost his national security credentials, in order to improve his re-election chances. The previous steps included the assassination fo Bin Laden (the documentary about which is likely to be released a month before the presidential elections) and the recent assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki.
3. Finally, this might be a pretext for attacking Iran, which makes sense as from the pre-election point of view, as well as due to the recent reports that Iran has passed or about to pass the "point of no return" in its race to building a nuclear weapon.
1. The Iranian activity calls for many paralles with the Iranian hostage crisis that led to the fall of the Carter presiency. The similarity of the Obama's and Carter's foreign policies might be the explanation forthe Iranian intrasurgence.
2. On the other hand, this may be continuation of the Obama's "a la George Bush" policy to boost his national security credentials, in order to improve his re-election chances. The previous steps included the assassination fo Bin Laden (the documentary about which is likely to be released a month before the presidential elections) and the recent assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki.
3. Finally, this might be a pretext for attacking Iran, which makes sense as from the pre-election point of view, as well as due to the recent reports that Iran has passed or about to pass the "point of no return" in its race to building a nuclear weapon.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
The main myth about the Arab-Israeli conflict
The main myth about the Arab-Israeli conflict, propagated by politicians, media and the intellectuals alike, is that it is a conflict only between Israel and the Palestinians. Here is the most recent such claim by a distinguished Israeli writer, who argues that dividing "the Land of Israel" into two states is a moral imperative.
Unfortunately, dividing the Land of Israel solves only half of the problem: it absolves Israelis from their part of the responsibility for the Palestinian problem, but it does not solve the problem that the Palestinians face. There are Palestinians living in Jordan (under non-Palestinian monarchy), in Syria (under a non-Palestinian dictator), and in Lebanon (where they were only recently granted the rights equating them to foreign workers) - a peace accord between Israel and Palestinians will do little to address the aspirations of those Palestinians (the majority) who are not on the territories controlled by Israel. And against whom the Arab politicians will direct the anger of the Palestinian people? - take your guess.
The problem is that the Middle East in its political development is about 100 years behind the Europe, and, as long as most of it remains monarchic/totalitarian, the Palestinians will be people without a true state. Ironically, the Arab leaders deny teh Palestinian people the same right that they deny to the Jewish people - the right for self-determination in their historical homeland.
Sadly, Arab Spring failed to change this state of affairs (for Europe it took two world wars.) And as long as the archaic monarchic/dictatorial order persist in the Middle East, the Arab politicians interested in holding their power, as well as the Western politicians concerned about their influence in the Middle East, will perpetuate the myth that the Palestinian problem can be resolved at the expense of Israel only.
I am not as good a writer as A. B. Yehoshua, but I think my past analysis is more logical... and I don't think Arab Spring has modified it significantly: here and here.
Unfortunately, dividing the Land of Israel solves only half of the problem: it absolves Israelis from their part of the responsibility for the Palestinian problem, but it does not solve the problem that the Palestinians face. There are Palestinians living in Jordan (under non-Palestinian monarchy), in Syria (under a non-Palestinian dictator), and in Lebanon (where they were only recently granted the rights equating them to foreign workers) - a peace accord between Israel and Palestinians will do little to address the aspirations of those Palestinians (the majority) who are not on the territories controlled by Israel. And against whom the Arab politicians will direct the anger of the Palestinian people? - take your guess.
The problem is that the Middle East in its political development is about 100 years behind the Europe, and, as long as most of it remains monarchic/totalitarian, the Palestinians will be people without a true state. Ironically, the Arab leaders deny teh Palestinian people the same right that they deny to the Jewish people - the right for self-determination in their historical homeland.
Sadly, Arab Spring failed to change this state of affairs (for Europe it took two world wars.) And as long as the archaic monarchic/dictatorial order persist in the Middle East, the Arab politicians interested in holding their power, as well as the Western politicians concerned about their influence in the Middle East, will perpetuate the myth that the Palestinian problem can be resolved at the expense of Israel only.
I am not as good a writer as A. B. Yehoshua, but I think my past analysis is more logical... and I don't think Arab Spring has modified it significantly: here and here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)