Tension is mounting in the Mediterranean as a second aide ship, the Rachel Corrie, is approaching the Gaza coast. Gaza is currently under an Israeli blockade. Free Gaza, the group supporting the Rachel Corrie, has asserted that the ship is carrying medical supplies and construction material to Palestinians in the Gaza strip. Both are in short supply in Gaza after a prolonged siege by Israel. Israel claims that the ship is carrying weapons and missiles for Palestinian guerrillas fighting Israel. Free Gaza denies that the ship is transporting weapons and is simply bringing needed aide. Despite international condemnation, Israel says it will intercept the ship. No doubt it is prepared to use force again if the Rachel Corrie refuses to yield. The ship is named after an American activist killed by the Israelis in 2003: an additional provocation.
There is a solution to the looming crisis. Israel could simply inspect the ship to verify the claim that it is not carrying weapons but needed supplies, as the crew of the Rachel Corrie claims. A refusal to submit to an inspection would provide a legitimate reason for the vessel to be boarded. If weapons are found, Israel would be vindicated. The ship could be seized, a plot to attack Israel would be thwarted, and Free Gaza would be exposed as a front for people seeking to harm Israel. If weapons are not found, Israel could allow the ship to proceed and thereby take a step to lessen the growing international criticism of their blockade of Gaza. But so far Israel is not willing to consider that option. The determination of Israel to maintain the blockade is absolute. They are willing to strangle Gaza until it submits to Israeli demands.
The determination of Israel to blockade Gaza verges on spite. Every man, woman, and child in Gaza must suffer until Hamas is vanquished. The blockade is not about Israel's security. Construction material and medical supplies in no way threaten Israel. It is about Israel's determination to crush Hamas. The strategy is to make life in Gaza so miserable that the people there will rise up in desperation and rid themselves of their elected leaders. Even if Israel succeeds in this endeavor, they will have done nothing to soften opposition to Israel in Gaza.
It is difficult to see how strangling Gaza is in Israel's self interest. A vibrant, fourishing Gaza is in everyone's interest. An impoverished and desperate Gaza is in no one's interest but Hamas. Israel has long had a public relations problem. It is doing absolutely nothing to improve its image. Perhaps when enough people in Gaza are finally homeless, hungry, ill, and injured, Israel will succeed in its effort to undermine the government in Gaza. But it will come at a high cost. Israel is not the victim here. Neither is Hamas. The people of Gaza are.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Friday, June 4, 2010
Violence in Israel.
There has been more violence and turmoil in the Middle East. More lives have been lost. Israel has acted aggressively in defending what it sees to be in its interests. Palestinians and their supporters have acted provocatively and pushed Israel into a corner. Israel reacted as it has become accustomed to: with force. It has become a predictable cycle. Palestinians and their supporters provoke Israel and Israel responds with force. The Palestinians always lose.
Opinion is slowly starting to turn in the Palestinians' favor. Israel's harsh responses have begun to cast them as a bully in the eyes of many. Rightfully so. There is no need to fire or launch commando raids on unarmed ships or commit air strikes on Palestinian villages to root out sporadic rocket fire. Israel has a sophisticated military. They have many options at their disposal. Bombs, tanks and artillery should not be high on their list. Still, the Palestinians seem to take some encouragement when Israel bombs or shells them. Indeed, it seems at times they deliberately seek to provoke Israel into a harsh and disproportionate response: a tried and true guerrilla tactic that Israel continues to fall for.
Violence has achieved very little for the Palestinians. More often than not, it has proved counterproductive. Provocation has had some success in the press, but has gotten them little on the ground. Perhaps it is time for the Palestinians to adopt a different approach to the problem. What the Palestinians need is an Arab Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King. What they do not need is Hamas or another Arafat.
Opinion is slowly starting to turn in the Palestinians' favor. Israel's harsh responses have begun to cast them as a bully in the eyes of many. Rightfully so. There is no need to fire or launch commando raids on unarmed ships or commit air strikes on Palestinian villages to root out sporadic rocket fire. Israel has a sophisticated military. They have many options at their disposal. Bombs, tanks and artillery should not be high on their list. Still, the Palestinians seem to take some encouragement when Israel bombs or shells them. Indeed, it seems at times they deliberately seek to provoke Israel into a harsh and disproportionate response: a tried and true guerrilla tactic that Israel continues to fall for.
Violence has achieved very little for the Palestinians. More often than not, it has proved counterproductive. Provocation has had some success in the press, but has gotten them little on the ground. Perhaps it is time for the Palestinians to adopt a different approach to the problem. What the Palestinians need is an Arab Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King. What they do not need is Hamas or another Arafat.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
What Rights?
Opponents of Arizona's tough new immigration law are attempting to borrow from the civil rights movement and adopt its tactics and methods. Workshops and seminars have been set up to train pro immigrant protesters on how to use those methods to further their cause. The attempt has been encouraged by civil rights activists. Amilcar Shabazz, chairman of the Department of Afro-American Studies at the University of Massachusetts said "I think it is genius." The attempt to re frame the question over illegal immigration as an issue of civil rights is a clever one. It is also deceptive.
Civil rights protesters in the 60's were laboring for the rights of African Americans due to them under the Constitution. They were systematically being denied fundamental rights that were given to all Americans. They were arguing for what belonged to them. Illegal immigrants, can make no such claim.
Illegal immigrants are just that, illegal immigrants. They are in the country in violation of U.S. law. They do not have the rights accorded to U.S. citizens. They do not have the rights due to legal residents. They do not even have the right to be here. African Americans were, and are, entitled to all the rights and privileges due to any other American citizen. Immigrants, especially illegal immigrants, are not.
What it comes down to is illegal immigrants are claiming the right to be in the U.S. in violation of U.S. law. There is no such right.
Civil rights protesters in the 60's were laboring for the rights of African Americans due to them under the Constitution. They were systematically being denied fundamental rights that were given to all Americans. They were arguing for what belonged to them. Illegal immigrants, can make no such claim.
Illegal immigrants are just that, illegal immigrants. They are in the country in violation of U.S. law. They do not have the rights accorded to U.S. citizens. They do not have the rights due to legal residents. They do not even have the right to be here. African Americans were, and are, entitled to all the rights and privileges due to any other American citizen. Immigrants, especially illegal immigrants, are not.
What it comes down to is illegal immigrants are claiming the right to be in the U.S. in violation of U.S. law. There is no such right.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Why is No One Blaming him?
Last week, President Obama took responsibility for the environmental disaster in the Gulf. "In case you are wondering who's responsible, I take responsibility" he said. President Obama took the heat for the security lapses that led to the failed attempt to blow up an airliner last Christmas. "When the system fails, it is my responsibility to take the blame" he said solemnly. During the struggle over health care, when the plan looked like it was going to fail, President Obama took responsibility for the political circus that it engendered, saying he "misjudged" in his handling of the plan. When the economy failed to respond to the administration's frenzied attempts to spend it back into health, the president took responsibility for that too. It as been a common theme throughout Obama's presidency for him to "step up" and take the blame when things go wrong or don't go as planned.
Given all the missteps, failures, and errors Obama has taken responsibility for, why is no one blaming him? It is a credit to his political skills that Obama is able to come out of each admission looking stronger and more noble than before. He is uncannily able to take the blame without really taking the blame. Even more remarkable is how Obama is able to turn each failure by the government into an opportunity to expand the government. No failure is wasted by Obama. Every failure is an opportunity. The government always gets another chance.
"I'm confident that people are going to look back and say that the administration was on top of what is an unprecedented crisis" said Obama of the disaster in the Gulf. If there is one thing the administration is good at, it is appearing to be on top of a problem rather than behind it.
Given all the missteps, failures, and errors Obama has taken responsibility for, why is no one blaming him? It is a credit to his political skills that Obama is able to come out of each admission looking stronger and more noble than before. He is uncannily able to take the blame without really taking the blame. Even more remarkable is how Obama is able to turn each failure by the government into an opportunity to expand the government. No failure is wasted by Obama. Every failure is an opportunity. The government always gets another chance.
"I'm confident that people are going to look back and say that the administration was on top of what is an unprecedented crisis" said Obama of the disaster in the Gulf. If there is one thing the administration is good at, it is appearing to be on top of a problem rather than behind it.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Scrounging for Jobs
Democratic Senator Charles Schumer recently introduced a bill that would require call centers to inform people when their call is transferred outside the U.S. Call center jobs are increasingly being moved overseas. The idea is that if callers are made aware that their calls are being transferred they will be displeased. Schumer introduced the legislation as a way to encourage call centers to bring those jobs back.
Things must be very grim indeed if a U.S. Senator is scrounging for jobs at call centers. I doubt Schumer has ever worked at a call center. If he had, he might not be so determined to save those jobs. But then again, as is so often the case, Schumer's effort is not so much about what he is doing as it is that he is doing something. If he succeeds in his effort, no doubt in his next campaign he will find occasion to mention how he acted to save U.S. jobs. Nothing will be said that the jobs he saved are often miserable jobs for marginal pay. In Washington, jobs are statistics.
Things must be very grim indeed if a U.S. Senator is scrounging for jobs at call centers. I doubt Schumer has ever worked at a call center. If he had, he might not be so determined to save those jobs. But then again, as is so often the case, Schumer's effort is not so much about what he is doing as it is that he is doing something. If he succeeds in his effort, no doubt in his next campaign he will find occasion to mention how he acted to save U.S. jobs. Nothing will be said that the jobs he saved are often miserable jobs for marginal pay. In Washington, jobs are statistics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)