Not going along with the crowd...

I re-post this photo from the Facebook. Here is the comment that it came along with:
"Ordinary people. The courage to say no.

The photo was taken in Hamburg in 1936, during the celebrations for the launch of a ship. In the crowed, one person refuses to raise his arm to give the Nazi salute. The man was August Landmesser. He had already been in trouble with the authorities, having been sentenced to two years hard labour for marrying a Jewish woman.

We know little else about August Landmesser, except that he had two children. By pure chance, one of his children recognized her father in this photo when it was published in a German newspaper in 1991. How proud she must have been in that moment."

General strike in Israel

The Histadrut (the unions) has declared the general of the Israeli government workers, due to the failure of its negotiations with the Finance ministry over the status of the contract workers.

My comments:
1. I generally oppose the strikes, especially those by transportation and medical workers. My reasons are: a) such strikes hold the rest of the country hostages to the whims of a small, but vital for the country's functioning, group , and b) the overall economic damage from such strikes far exceeds the benefits to the strikers.

2. Yet, I have more sympathy for the strikers than for the participants of the "social protests". If you have been reading this blog, then you know the reason: the strikers have clearly formulated demands. In addition, their grievances are legitimate - the contract workers in Israel are a hard-working group of the population, often saddled with the families, who have few reasons to expect a change in their employment status and significant improvements in the near future. These contract workers range from the cleaners to the non-permanent university lecturers (the latter are being fired every Spring and re-hired in the Fall, so that they do not attain the right for the permanent employment benefits.)

No, they are not 99%

An interesting review of several recent Gallup surveys (you may want to visit the Gallup site for the original statistics):

Less and less Americans think that they are poor ("have nots"):
"Let me start with a Gallup survey released on December 15, which showed that the number of Americans who see American society as divided into haves and have-nots has decreased significantly since the 2008 election. Back then, 49 percent saw the country as divided along those lines, and 49 percent didn’t. As of this week, only 41 percent see the country as divided between haves and have-nots, while 58 percent do not. (The share of Americans who consider themselves to be “haves” hasn’t budged: 59 percent in 2008, 58 percent today.)"

Most Americans do not think that the inequality gap is the major problem facing their country:
"Now consider another Gallup survey, this one released on the 16th. Respondents were asked to categorize three economic objectives as extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not important. Here’s what they said:
                                                Extremely/very important          Somewhat/not important
Grow and expand
the economy                                         82                                            18
Increase equality of
opportunity for people to
get ahead                                               70                                            30
Reduce the income and
wealth gap between the
rich and the poor                                  46                                            54
 
Regardless of partisanship, substantial majorities of Americans saw expanding the economy and increasing equality of opportunity as extremely or very important. Not so for reducing income and wealth gaps—21 percent of Republicans and 43 percent of independents. Only Democrats gave this goal a high priority, by a margin of 72 to 27."

Majority of Americans think that "Big Business" is a lesser evil than the "Bog Government":
"A third Gallup survey asked Americans to state whether they saw big business, big government, or big labor as the biggest threat to the country in the future. In March of 2009, 55 percent felt most threatened by big government, and 32 percent by big business.  As of December 2011, a near-record 64 percent saw big government as the greatest threat, versus on 26 percent for big business. As Obama nears the end of his third year in office, the people are more likely to fear government, and less likely to fear business, than they were at the beginning of his administration."

Anti-social protests

Yet another "social protest" is planned in Israel:
"The march is being organized for the third year in a row by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) in collaboration with dozens of other local human rights organizations. Organizers say the recent social justice movement that swept the country over the summer, bringing hundreds of thousands of Israelis into the streets, will give the march added relevance."

I do agree that human rights is an important cause. However, these protests are made completely irrelevant to actually improving human rights by their organizers and participants absolving themselves from any responsibility and demanding that the solutions come from the government:
“Despite the fact that the public voted with its feet for social justice last summer, the government continues to focus on legislation assaulting democratic values. This year at the Human Rights March, we will remind the government that it has forgotten to listen to us, the people. We will march for social justice, freedom of expression and protest, for human rights for all of us, Israelis and Palestinians,” ACRI director Hagai El-Ad said in a press release issued this week."

There are several reasons why blaming the government and demanding that it must solve all the protesters's problems is ridiculous:
1. This is a democratically elected government. On the one hand, this may mean that the government reflects the will of the majority of the Israelis, in which case the protesters are trying to impose the will of the minority on the rest of the country - a very kind of human rights violation that they protests against. On the other hand, if the protesters believe that they represent the majority, there is only one way to check it and to implement the majority demands -  by differently voting in the next election or possibly forming a "social protests" party that will run for the parliament.

2. Government is the main source of human rights abuses. Hoping that the government will correct itself, without voters themselves doing anything more than marching once in a faceless crowd is silly. Lest my opposition to too much governmental power seems to you too libertarian, let me quote the protesters themselves, blaming this very government for the very abuses that they ask the government to correct:
"Lenkinski said she believed the march was coming at a time when “Israel’s democratic principles are increasingly being called into question,” citing what she referred to as “anti-democratic trends in legislation in the Knesset [as well as] a public atmosphere that is hostile toward civil society organizations and human rights organizations in general.”

She said anti-democratic legislation was broken down into four categories: legislation like the Nakba Law and the loyalty oath, which target the country’s Arab minority; laws like the boycott and foreign funding laws that target civil society and NGOs; legislation to limit the power of the High Court of Justice; and legislation to limit freedom of speech."

3. As a democratic country Israel possesses the appropriate system of checks and balances to control the over-reaching by any branch of the government. The fact that mentioned above "un-democratic" legislation have been repeatedly turned down by the Israeli Supreme Court is a proof of that. The protesters however have a tendency over-emphasize any unsuccessful attempt at minor human rights violation in Israel, while remaining completely mute at the atrocities that happen elsewhere - for example, across the border in Syria.

Symbolism of social protests

A highly problematic graffity in one of the major European Universities. The portrait resembling Che Guevara and inscription: "No, to the fascism! Yes, to the revolution." This kind of graffity is as a part of the youth protest movements sweeping through the wealthy Western countries, and reflects the basic flaws of these protests:

1. Protesting for the sake of protesting - indeed the sign specifies what is opposed (fascism), but does not set any goals that should be achieved by the revolution. Apparently, the revolution, i.e. the process of destroying the existing social and economic order, is already sufficient to satisfy the authors of the graffity.

2. Inability to distinguish between democratic and totalitarian systems: indeed, more often than not, revolutions brought to power regimes no less opressive than fascism. To give just a few examples, one may recall the Communist revolutions in Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea and Cuba, the Islamic revolution in Iran, the Arab revolutions of the 60s and 70s that brought to power Gaddafi and other Middle Eastern dictators.

3. Symbolism of Che Guevara, reflecting basic ignorance. Indeed, despite the heroic image in the popular culture, Che Guevara was an active participant of the repressions carried out by Castro regime. Unlike Castro, however, he was an active proponent in exporting revolution to other countries and participated in many bloodlettings beyond Cuba. Ignoring Che Guevara's crimes out of admiration for his "coolness" is similar to collecting "cool" Nazi memorabilia - a hobby which would make many people feel sick.

Legacy of the Tahrir square

A quote:
"The [Occupy Wall St.] movement’s true origins, however, go back to the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt. That was when the world witnessed how intransigent regimes can be toppled by leaderless democratic crowds, brought together by social media, that stand firm and courageously refuse to go home until their demands for change are met. Our shared epiphany was that America, too, needs its Tahrir Square moment and its own kind of regime change. Perhaps not the hard regime change of Tunisia and Egypt, but certainly a soft one."

The saying is that "people learn from mistakes... but smart people learn from the mistakes of others." Most people however do not learn at all, even from the mistakes of their own.
The "protests", from the Arab Spring to Occupy Wall St., unfortunately have shown the truth of this conjecture. One could understand why frustrated (and usually young) people went into the streets and demanded changes - whatever changes, coming from anywhere, and anyhow. But, as the quote above shows, most of these people are likely to miss the main lesson of the protest movements - the protests lacking leadership and clear goals change nothing. They merely allow the protesters to vent off their anger, no more than that.

- Revolution in Tunisia brought to power Islamists. Rather moderate ones, but quite intent on limiting the civil rights of women. You call this social justice?

- Much celebrated revolution in Egypt removed Mubarak, but hasn't changed anything else. The country is run by the same people, the protests continue, the people demand resignation of the head of the ruling army council. Moreover, the only clearly formulated demands turned out to be not for equality, democrayc or economic reforms - but for the abrogating the Egypt's peace treaty with Israel. Is potential war and cessation of economic ties with Egypt's neighbor the kind of social justice that everyone has in mind?

- Revolution in Libya is rarely mentioned as an example of successful protests - no wonder, it was a bloodbath. Yet, so far it was the example of the most organized resistance. It is not clear whether it will bring democracy and justice though.

- Protests in Bahrain were suppressed. Protests in Jordan dissolved after a few meaningless concessions by the King.

- "Tent city" in Israel faded away - its only legacy being the boost that it may (or may not) give in the next elections to the Labor party.

- Protests in Syria look like a massacre. The protests seem to realize that the only way out for them is to get organized - much to the displeasure of the US Secretary of the State.

- "Occupy Wall St.", after several incidents of rape and robberies, was dismantled from the US parks by police.

When protests become mob rule

The politics of hating the "rich" or hating the "system" was ultimately exemplified by two movements - Marxism and Anarchism. The former resulted in the emergence of repressive communist regimes, whereas the latter is associated with the purposeless terrorism that wrecked the Europe in the second half of the XIXth century and the beginning of the XXth.

Whether the "Occupy Wall Street" (OWS) movement will repeat any of these excesses is yet to be seen, but its anarchist and occasionally Marxist tendencies are obvious.

Here is a liberal take on the issue (naturally downplaying the potential for violence):
"Now, this is definitely not the kind of anarchism that inspired terrorists a century ago to murder presidents and princes, and which was depicted in editorial cartoons as the faith of red-eyed men with heavy beards and bombs hidden inside their shabby coats. Instead, the anarchism that motivates some Occupiers today is ultra-egalitarian, radically environmentalist, effortlessly multicultural, and scrupulously non-violent. They are the cyber-clever progeny of Henry David Thoreau and Emma Goldman, streaming video and organizing flash mobs instead of writing essays about the wilderness or traveling around the country touting feminism and free love. The “horizontal” nature of a movement brought to life and sustained by social media fits snugly inside their anarchist vision of a future in which autonomous, self-governing communities would link up with one another, quite voluntarily of course."

And this is a conservative point of view:
"At what point does a protest movement become an excuse for camping? At what point is utopianism discredited by the seedy, dangerous, derelict fun fair it creates? At what point do the excesses of a movement become so prevalent that they can reasonably be called its essence? At what point do Democratic politicians need to repudiate a form of idealism that makes use of Molotov cocktails?

But there is some ideological coherence within OWS. Its collectivist people’s councils seem to have two main inspirations: socialism (often Marxist socialism) and anarchism. The two are sometimes in tension. They share, however, a belief that the capitalist system is a form of “institutionalized violence,” and that normal, democratic political methods, dominated by monied interests, are inadequate. Direct action is necessary to provoke the crisis that ignites the struggle that achieves the revolution."

Protesting for the sake of protesting

Here is an article concisely describing the weaknesses of protesting for the sake of protesting. (I discussed earlier the consequences of the lack of ideology, in particular, the dismal results of the huge "Tent city" protests in Tel Aviv.)

The numerous past protests in the American history, while making a lot of noise, were rarely supported by the "silent majority" of the population:
"Over the years, Democrats have suffered from many stereotypes — big-city bosses, prairie populists, New Deal eggheads, Great Society planners. But the most destructive Democratic image has been the theatrical, radical protester of the late 1960s. Many journalists remember the Yippies, the Battle of Michigan Avenue, the Students for a Democratic Society and the Chicago Seven with nostalgia.

Most Americans, however, viewed this social movement with alarm. Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan became two of the most successful politicians of their time by siding with authority and propriety against disorder and radicalism. It was one of the main reasons blue-collar Democrats became susceptible to Republican appeals. When a student protester confronted Reagan’s car and shouted, “We are the future,” the then-governor of California wrote out in response: “I’ll sell my bonds.” The silent majority cheered."

The article also makes a nice point that, however "cool" the protests may seem to the young people, actively participating in improving life in the country involves mostly things other than protesting:
"The reaction to Occupy Wall Street reveals a gap of perceptions in America. Many liberal politicians, along with many in the media, see tent cities and clashes with the police as evidence of idealism. Many others, however, define idealism as something different from squatting in a park — as voting, walking precincts, volunteering in the community, supporting good causes and persuading their neighbors. These citizens may even share the discontents of Occupy Wall Street while rejecting its methods and culture."

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.

Rothschild or Tahrir? - Spectacular ideological failure of the "Tent City"

While the "tent city"  protests in Israel were supported by the majority of the population and lasted for a few weeks, their ideological failure was spectacular:

- The protesters have never managed to formulate coherent and realistic demands, beyond vague requests for cheaper rent/real estate prices and even more vague "social justice"

- Despite wide support among population, they failed to change in any significant way the support given by the Israelis to various political party. The ruling coalition maintained its support by simply refusing to cave to the silly demands and continuing to propose realistic solutions.

- The protesters failed to form a coherent political movement, apart from jump-starting the political careers of a few leaders.

- They have alienated many observers in Israel and around the World by marching with portraits of mass-murderer Che Guevara, as well as by carrying red flags (Russian Israelis, most notably, could not bring themselves to protest alongside a red flag)

- The p;rotesters's naivete perhaps culminated in renaming the Rothschild boulevard into Tahrir square. This showed the protester's inability to distinguish between what happened earlier this year in Egypt and the protests in Israel: Anti-Mubarak protesters in Tahrir square fought for for basic rights, risking their lives during this fight. The well-off middle-class Israelis in the Rothschild demanded even better life, and used their right to p[rotest, guaranteed by the Israel's democratic system.

Yet, renaming Rothschild into Rothschild-Tahrir demonstrates even greater irony in the "tent city" protesters's quest against the rich and for "social justice": Rothschild was a very rich man who contributed greatly by his fortune and political influence to help the Jewish people and to build the Jewish state. The Tahrir protesters have recently showed that the one thing that is more important for them than "social justice" is... their hatred for Israel.