5 Things To Remember About Israel-Palestine

I watched the Glenn Beck show, in full, four times last week. No, I haven't converted to the dark side. And, as far as I can tell, I haven't gone crazy. I was interested because he was talking about Israel all week. It's funny, he obviously doesn't know much about Israel-Palestine and also doesn't seem curious to learn. But he's convinced that Obama has betrayed Israel in a way that will probably lead to either genocide or Armageddon. Never mind that Obama was simply re-articulating the traditional US stance on the issue (two states, pre-'67 borders, etc), with which the world is in nearly unanimous agreement. Glenn Beck portrays the Israel-Palestine issue as a stark dichotomy: You either "stand with Israel" and are thereby following God's commandments from the Bible, or you stand with the Palestinians, spit in the face of God, and want all Jews to die. And of course he's very emotional, on the verge of tears, about it.

What's scary is that I think a lot of people agree with him on this. Heck, based on a number of comments I've seen on Facebook I know plenty of people who agree with him.

So I'd just like to throw out five thoughts to help pull this discussion in a more sane direction.

1. Even if you believe the Bible commands you to "stand with Israel," the Bible does not command you to support militaristic, unjust, apartheid policies of the Israeli government. The Bible does not command you to support the oppression of the Palestinian people. It's an absurd argument to say that for a Christian to live out his beliefs he must support the Israeli government's actions no matter how egregious they are.

2. Jews/Judaism and the nation-state of Israel are not interchangeable. It's an important distinction, yet people like Beck speak as though they are one and the same. Only about 42% of the world's Jewish population lives in Israel. More Jews live in America (45% of world population) than in Israel. Israel itself is only 75% Jewish. And if the Palestinians in the occupied territories were counted, Jews would not even be a majority in Israel. Which leads to the next point...

3. When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu demands that Palestinians "recognize Israel as a Jewish state," he is implying, among other things, that Palestinians within Israel will always be second-class citizens. To put that in perspective, imagine people demanding that Ireland "recognize Northern Ireland as a protestant state." Imagine Alabama demanding to be recognized as a Baptist state.

4. The most humane and sensible solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is also the most radically left-wing. I'm talking about a "one-state solution." It goes like this: Make all Palestinians citizens of Israel, incorporate the Palestinian territories into Israel's territory, and allow the refugees to return from Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and elsewhere. Have a secular, democratic government that protects minority rights and freedom of religion. In other words, do what is just and stop treating one group as superior to another. Isn't this also the most "American" solution? You could say that a "one-state solution" is what ended up happening in the segregated American South and in apartheid South Africa. This solution also recognizes the facts on the ground--that Jews and Palestinians are going to live intermingled one way or another. But the strongest opponents to a one-state solution are those on both sides whose positions of privilege would be threatened by democracy and tolerance.

5. Israeli public opinion is much more "Pro-Palestinian" than you think. Most Israelis support a two-state solution with pre-'67 borders. Most Israelis support direct negotiations with Hamas. Most Israeli's support dismantling most of the Jewish settlements in the Palestinian territories as part of a peace deal. So whoever wants to "stand with Israel" should stand with the Israeli people against their right-wing government.

That's all for now. But next time you hear someone being called an Anti-Semite because they are arguing for democracy and justice for Palestinians and Israelis alike, step into that discussion with some of these points. It will hurt Glenn Beck's feelings. And make him cry. Literally.

Another MLK Quote To Chew On

I've seen lots of Martin Luther King Jr. quotes making the rounds on Facebook since the death of Osama bin Laden. They've been quotes about loving our enemies, which seem especially apt right now as Americans process and debate the appropriate reaction to bin Laden's death.

It seems like there is a King quote for any occasion. This reminds me of another one I came across recently:

"There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism"

This is not the MLK my generation learned about in elementary school. The watered-down Dr. King we were taught was solely focused on civil rights for African-Americans. He had "a dream" about a future where Blacks and Whites were equal. And that was all.

But the real King--who hasn't yet been erased from history--fought for civil rights and economic justice and peace and knew that these things could not be separated or viewed in isolation. This is why his speeches, especially the later ones, are filled with references to worker's rights, unions, Vietnam and defense spending.

Here's the quote in more context:

"You can't talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can't talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You're really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry.... Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong... with capitalism.... There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism."

This was King trying to put it all together. Is anyone on the national stage doing that today?

Obama A Lock To Win Re-Election

Warning. In this post I discuss the American political implications of Osama bin Laden's death. To some--mostly Republicans who don't want President Obama to get credit for anything--this sort of discussion seems somehow out of bounds or too early or too divisive. To me, it seems as normal and natural as the air we breathe. Everything about bin Laden's public life and death is interconnected with US policy, so let's talk about US policy and politics.

First, in case you had any doubt before that President Obama would be re-elected, you can probably cast away that doubt now. Bin Laden's death is the single best news item Obama could have hoped for in his first term, with the possible exception of a miraculous economic recovery. In the minds of ordinary voters (those who aren't following political news all the time like you and me), Obama is now associated with patriotic ass-kicking. His campaign commercials will rekindle that association in the Fall of 2012. And patriotic ass-kicking wins elections.

Republicans also just lost what has been their top issue in recent elections: national security. I don't agree with Obama's conduct of the wars he inherited. But what room do Republicans have to criticize him? He fights their wars better than they did. And it's a fair question to ask: Why couldn't George W. Bush catch bin Laden? Maybe because he wasn't really trying...

"I just don't spend that much time on him, really, to be honest with you."

For Bush, bin Laden was more useful as living justification for his Global War on Terror and the exercise of unprecedented executive power. Remember, at the time of the remarks above, he was still plotting how to use 9/11 as justification to invade Iraq and maybe later Iran. Obama, on the other hand, campaigned on the strategy of shifting resources from Iraq to Afghanistan ("the right war") to better hunt bin Laden. When he took office he ordered the CIA to make Osama bin Laden its top priority. Whether those policies were right or wrong, they do mean Obama will get political credit for bin Laden's death. The old policy was failing, he changed it, and the new policy succeeded.

Finally, I've been watching as Republicans struggle to settle on their talking points about all this. For some, the line is simply, "Congratulations to our brave troops and how dare anyone politicize this." Others are bigger about it and congratulate everyone involved including President Obama. But Rush Limbaugh tried out something different the other day. He said something like, "I congratulate the president and thank him... for following the Bush policies in the war on terror." Oh please. The Bush policy of ignoring bin Laden? The answer to that argument is simply to play the video above.

More to follow as I try to pull the tarp off and fire up this old blog.

Shameless and Relentless

The Republican budget proposals rob the poor to pay the rich. There is no program they support that benefits working people. Yet there’s no treat for the rich that Republicans are not fighting for. And they never stop. When the economy’s booming, they say we can afford tax cuts for the wealthy and that we should bet Social Security on the stock market. When the economy’s tanking, they say that only tax cuts for the wealthy can stimulate the economy and that we can’t afford Social Security at all. They never stop trying to suck wealth out of the public to pay the rich. They never stop hunting any organization that seeks to equalize (democratize) power.

Two thought experiments will help illustrate these points. First, imagine the most cartoonish greedy CEO you can. Now think of the political and social policies he would support. Odds are these would place him somewhat to the right of the average Republican politician. But I think this CEO would still be welcome, if not celebrated, in today’s Republican party. Now imagine the cartoonish CEO gets a dose of pragmatism. He realizes he can’t get everything he wants right away. He sees he has to work incrementally. So he wraps up his true goals in arguments about “free markets,” “big government,” “rugged individualism,” and so on. After this change in tactics, our CEO is just a regular old Republican. You could picture this guy standing next to John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and Paul Ryan, telling us why the rich need tax cuts and the average workers need pay cuts.

The second thought experiment is more of a challenge: Try to think of a single institution--whether it’s a government program, an organization, or a policy—that builds power or quality of life for ordinary or disadvantaged people and is not reviled by Republican politicians and conservative pundits. Hmm, what’s something really basic and humane? How about an organization that registers poor people to vote and advocates for affordable housing for the poor? That organization was called ACORN and was successfully destroyed by a right wing smear campaign. How about just the ability to sit down in a green space and enjoy a beautiful day? Green space? You mean the city park, maintained with tax dollars, where Republican donors want to build a casino? When are you doing this sitting? On the weekend after your 40-hour work week, which was created by the labor movement in the face of violent resistance from big business? Is the air your breathing clean or polluted? You get the picture. Give it a shot.

They never stop gobbling up our money and never stop hunting down resistance. It’s Ebenezer Scrooge meets Gestapo.

Why Progressives Should Cautiously Support The Libyan No-Fly Zone

Should progressives and leftists really support military strikes by the most powerful forces in the world against yet another Muslim country? I think this position stinks, but it stinks much less than the alternative.

The alternative is that we continue to use words and money to support the rebels and undermine Gaddafi. Maybe in the long term that would help the Libyans overthrow Gaddafi and begin a democratic transition. But in the short term it would mean Gaddafi crushes this uprising with air, land, and sea power. It would mean a siege and heavy bombardment of the second largest city in Libya. It would mean mass executions in the cities that supported the revolution (which is most of them). Are we willing to watch all that happen so that we can take a principled stand for pacifism or non-intervention? Not me.

American progressives have cheered on the protests and uprisings in the Middle East since they began in Tunisia in January. We have rallied in solidarity. We have linked our own struggles for justice to those in the Middle East. We have pressured our government to ditch its puppet dictators in the region and side with the people. We have encouraged these uprisings in many ways. In Libya the uprising has been met with brutal and overwhelming military force by a dictator who is allied with Western governments and oil companies. We cannot now just look the other way while the dictator crushes the uprising and slaughters its people.

We must support a no-fly zone and the air strikes that go with it. Our attention now should shift toward preventing "mission creep" and unnecessary escalation. We can't allow the US government or anybody else to turn this into a war for foreign domination of Libya. For some in the West, it is probably already about extending their own power. A number of peace activists and intellectuals are already making the case that the US rarely if ever intervenes militarily in foreign countries for purely humanitarian reasons. Phyllis Bennis from the Institute for Policy Studies argues that the US government is more interested in being favorably positioned in the region and with a new Libyan government than in preventing atrocities. Yes, that's true. All of the usual arguments from the left against war and intervention are true. But they are not reasons to oppose a no-fly zone in Libya. They are reasons why the international left must keep up the pressure on governments once the no-fly zone and air strikes begin.

How We Got Here...

Over the last week there's been a dramatic shift in the international community's position on the fighting in Libya. At first, France and Britain were the only countries making much noise in support of a no-fly zone over Libya. The US was dragging its feet. Then, the 22-member Arab League voted unanimously to call for a no-fly zone. Meanwhile, Gaddafi's forces were rolling through Ajdabiya, the last major town before they reached Benghazi--the capital of the anti-Gaddafi uprising. Soon the talk of a no-fly zone would be a moot point, because the rebels would control no territory of significance.

And then suddenly the United States changed its position yesterday and threw its weight behind the push in the UN for military action. On Thursday the UN Security Council voted to authorize "all necessary measures" short of ground invasion to protect Libyan civilians. At any time in the next few days, US, European, and Arab nation air strikes are likely to begin against Gaddafi's heavy artillery, tanks, and air power. Although it would have been nice to have seen this move a week ago, before the regime forces had driven so far east, this does seem to me like remarkably fast maneuvering by the UN, all things considered.

And Where We Should Go

So there's a strong mandate from the world for the use of force. But what should that use of force look like? The first goal should be to stop a government assault on Benghazi. That means defending the desert road between Ajdabiya and Benghazi. The second goal should be to dismantle Gaddafi's ability to make war on other cities. That means preventing his armor and artillery from simply rolling back into Ajdabiya or heading back further west to crush remnants of the uprising in other cities.

What do you think? What's the "least bad" option?

Yes, A Libyan No-Fly Zone Would Be Easy

In Libya, the United States seems content for now to watch Gaddafi brutally reassert control. The regime is using its superior organization and firepower to drive the revolutionaries further and further to the east.

NATO and the UN have, to varying degrees, discussed the idea of enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya to prevent Gaddafi from bombing the rebel strongholds in the east. Although, I think it's a general rule that when the US government proposes military action, its stated aims are almost never its true aims, a no-fly zone deserves consideration. We are watching a brutal dictator crush a revolution, bombing civilians with Russian and French-built military aircraft. A revolutionary army to oust Gaddafi cannot move across wide open desert roads toward Tripoli under an all-out military assault.

And keep in mind, the rebel-controlled National Council, which France was the first to recognize as the legitimate government of Libya, has asked for a no-fly zone. If the case for humanitarian intervention is ever valid, why not here? Why should the international community simply stand back and watch?

Defense Secretary Gates has been going around making the case that enforcing a no-fly zone would not be easy. He's wrong. It would be easy. Crater Gaddafi's airfields. The west could prevent military planes from even taking off in Libya, let alone shoot them down once they're flying. We've also heard explanations of how hard it would be to maintain a no-fly zone once in effect. That's beside the point. Who says a no-fly zone has to be 100 percent enforceable from the moment it's declared? Announce it, enforce it when and where you can, and set up the logistics to make it more effective as quickly as possible.

I do not understand the slow motion we are seeing from the administration. France and Britain are calling for a no-fly zone, and Italy has offered use of its bases. But the US drags its feet. Is this just diplomatic positioning? Does Obama want it to look like we were dragged in by the international community rather than leading the push?

And then there's this:

"The regime will prevail," Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said darkly at a Senate hearing on Friday. What?! I must not have gotten the memo that it was time to write off the Libyan opposition. Once again, I do not understand what the Obama administration is doing here. The US should continue discussing a no-fly zone, but the focus on the difficulty of such an operation seems overblown and dishonest.

Of course, as always, the American people should be suspicious of a push by the political elite for any military action. But we should also be vigilant that the US government is ready to sell out a people's movement to keep a predictable, western-friendly dictator in power.

(And yes, Gaddafi has been a friend of the US, Britain, and Italy since 2003.)