Here is a coincise formulation of the point that I have made several times in this blog (here, here, and here): the Palestinian problem is being used as a way to distruct the World's attention from the far more serious problems within and among the Middle-Eastern states:
"For decades, the chattering classes have been working hard to teach us that the central issue of the region was not the Shia-Sunni conflict or the struggle for freedom by Arabs longing to rid themselves of autocratic monarchs or dictators. The belief in the centrality of the Palestinian issue was so strong that every other consideration had to be subordinated to the cause of trying to assuage the anger of the Muslim world at their plight. But in the past year, the main subjects of discussion have been the Arab Spring revolts and the debate over how best to stop the Iranian nuclear threat. The result is that the world is getting on with its business these days without obsessing about the Palestinians. Even President Obama, who had picked an annual fight with Israel, chose this year to abandon his usual attempt to pressure Israel into concessions to the Palestinians."
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Monday, March 5, 2012
American support for Israel
Here are a few interesting charts from Gallup, showing how the support of the American public for Israel has varied throughout the years.
A conservative blog points out that the support is lowest in the periods when Israel has engaged in negotiations with the Palestinians, and makes the claim that the "peace process" undermines the Israel's relation with the American public.
Despite my reservations about the "peace process" as we know it, I tend to think that the reason for a higher support during the years of no peace negotiations has to do not with the hard line of the Israeli government, but with the Palestinian terrorism - the tactics which contradicts to the very basic western values (regardless of how pro-Palestinian or anti-Israeli advocates justify it.) Had the Palestinians resorted to a peaceful resistance, the Israeli government would have no insensitives for a hard stance.
A conservative blog points out that the support is lowest in the periods when Israel has engaged in negotiations with the Palestinians, and makes the claim that the "peace process" undermines the Israel's relation with the American public.
Despite my reservations about the "peace process" as we know it, I tend to think that the reason for a higher support during the years of no peace negotiations has to do not with the hard line of the Israeli government, but with the Palestinian terrorism - the tactics which contradicts to the very basic western values (regardless of how pro-Palestinian or anti-Israeli advocates justify it.) Had the Palestinians resorted to a peaceful resistance, the Israeli government would have no insensitives for a hard stance.
"Good" rich and "bad" rich
A valid point about the income of the sport superstars versus the income of the (hated) business stars:
"I confess to being a huge Lin fan. Indeed, my teenage son has been idolizing Lin’s skills and work ethic ever since Lin starred on the Harvard team. But, as an economist observing the public’s seething anger over the “one percenters,” or individuals with exceptionally high incomes, I also see a different, overlooked facet of the story.
What amazes me is the public’s blasé acceptance of the salaries of sports stars, compared to its low regard for superstars in business and finance. Half of all NBA players’ annual salaries exceed $2 million, more than five times the threshold for the top 1% of household incomes in the United States. Because long-time superstars like Kobe Bryant earn upwards of $25 million a year, the average annual NBA salary is more than $5 million. Indeed, Lin’s salary, at $800,000, is the NBA’s “minimum wage” for a second-season player. Presumably, Lin will soon be earning much more, and fans will applaud.
Yet many of these same fans would almost surely argue that CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, whose median compensation is around $10 million, are ridiculously overpaid. If a star basketball player reacts a split-second faster than his competitors, no one has a problem with his earning more for every game than five factory workers do in a year. But if, say, a financial trader or a corporate executive is paid a fortune for being a shade faster than competitors, the public suspects that he or she is undeserving or, worse, a thief."
"I confess to being a huge Lin fan. Indeed, my teenage son has been idolizing Lin’s skills and work ethic ever since Lin starred on the Harvard team. But, as an economist observing the public’s seething anger over the “one percenters,” or individuals with exceptionally high incomes, I also see a different, overlooked facet of the story.
What amazes me is the public’s blasé acceptance of the salaries of sports stars, compared to its low regard for superstars in business and finance. Half of all NBA players’ annual salaries exceed $2 million, more than five times the threshold for the top 1% of household incomes in the United States. Because long-time superstars like Kobe Bryant earn upwards of $25 million a year, the average annual NBA salary is more than $5 million. Indeed, Lin’s salary, at $800,000, is the NBA’s “minimum wage” for a second-season player. Presumably, Lin will soon be earning much more, and fans will applaud.
Yet many of these same fans would almost surely argue that CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, whose median compensation is around $10 million, are ridiculously overpaid. If a star basketball player reacts a split-second faster than his competitors, no one has a problem with his earning more for every game than five factory workers do in a year. But if, say, a financial trader or a corporate executive is paid a fortune for being a shade faster than competitors, the public suspects that he or she is undeserving or, worse, a thief."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)