Israel

No Sweat Apparel is a company I have plugged before and which I purchase clothes from. I have shoes, flip flops, shirts and pants from them. Their products are all fair trade and/or union made. Most of their stuff is good quality (though occasionally shoes wear out fast) and their flip flops are really cool, designed by Indonesian children with some of the proceeds going to fund the education of that child. All in all, a good company with cool products that are fair to workers.

They are starting a new project that ideally will help peace between Palestine and Israel. This appeals to me because during my one trip to Israel I had the chance to talk to many people and it made me realize that one major key to peace is economic prosperity. While my wife and I were there (between the assassination of Rabin but before violence broke out...and on the same trip we got engaged on Santorini in Greece and where we almost got caught in the big Turkish earthquake...) everyone, Arab and Israeli, was tensely optimistic. Everyone we talked to WANTED peace. Why? "Because it's good for business." This is the key. If people feel they have stake in peace, they will work for peace. I have written about this before and discussed companies and organizations that work to further economic cooperation and prosperity in Israel/Palestine. I also have written about another important facet of peace in the Middle East: environmental projects that can help the prosperity of all concerned.

As oil and wheat prices skyrocket, banks quite literally teeter on the brink of collapse, our soldiers keep dying, and the US deficit keeps on climbing, we may sometimes forget the monumental blunder that got us into this mess: the invasion of Iraq.

This is the number one drain on our economy, the number one reason for high prices and the number one reason the international alliance that supported American after 9/11 now barely speaks to us.

The Iraq Blunder is one of the biggest blunders ever in American History...and yet the George Bush/John McCain/Joe Lieberman axis of blunders STILL thinks we should be occupying Iraq for eternity.

But the one, single question that no Republican has ever been able to answer is just why did we ever invade in the first place. Why did we invade, what are our goals, what is our exit strategy? No answer from Bush. No answer from McCain. No answer from Lieberman.

No answer because there IS no answer. Every single excuse they ever gave us for invading Iraq proved to be a lie. I was one of those who, at the time they were making their case to the world for invasion, was dead certain they were lying. My knowledge of history and politics, everything I knew about the Middle East and Islam told me their excuses were lies. Those of us who saw through their lies were proven right. This morning I was reminded of this, on the eve of the 5th year anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq Blunder, that I was right.

It was probably inevitable that a major Presidential candidate with an Arabic name would, sooner or later, be confronted with questions about the relationship between the United States and its closest Middle Eastern ally. Equally inevitably, after five years of war in an Arab country and seven after a terrorist attack carried out on this country by an Islamist terror network, that discussion will touch on America's fractured relationship with the Islamic world in general and our posture towards the Jewish state in particular.

A look back is in order. In 1820, New York State's Grand Island was proposed as the location of a new Jewish homeland, understood as a gathering place for Jews before aliyah to Zion became possible. Emma Lazarus, author of The New Colossus, was an agitator for proto-Zionist and proto-feminist ideas in New York's 19th Century Gilded Age. The connection between New York and the idea of Zionism is long and deep.

The United States was one of the first countries to recognize Israel itself, somewhat to the chagrin of the British Empire; and before Washington endorsed the fact of Israel's independence, there had been a bipartisan consensus of sympathy to the Zionist experiment.

President Wilson expressed his support for the Balfour Declaration when he stated on March 3, 1919:

The allied nations with the fullest concurrence of our government and people are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundations of a Jewish Commonwealth.

After Wilson left office, his successors expressed similar support for the Zionist enterprise. "It is impossible for one who has studied at all the services of the Hebrew people to avoid the faith that they will one day be restored to their historic national home and there enter on a new and yet greater phase of their contribution to the advance of humanity," said President Warren Harding.

Calvin Coolidge expressed his "sympathy with the deep and intense longing which finds such fine expression in the Jewish National Homeland in Palestine."

"Palestine which, desolate for centuries, is now renewing its youth and vitality through enthusiasm, hard work, and self-sacrifice of the Jewish pioneers who toil there in a spirit of peace and social justice," observed Herbert Hoover.

Of course, Hoover's observation rested on one glaring error: that the Cis-Jordanian Imperial mandate of Palestine was terra nullius, an empty land awaiting settlement. The land was not empty, and the question of how to reconcile the legitimate claims of competing (and, one could argue, complementary) nationalisms has been contentious and unresolved ever since.

Following independence, the relationship between the United States and the new nation of Israel quickly cooled, responding to the patterns of alignment set in the developing Cold War. A major portion of the weaponry that secured the new state's independence came from Czechoslovakia prior to that country's complete absorption into the Soviet orbit. In 1956, President Eisenhower forced an Anglo-French-Israeli expedition force to retreat from the Suez Canal, recently seized by Egypt's Arab nationalist President Gamal Abdel Nasser. Further frost was added to the bilateral relationship by the conservative Eisenhower administration's distrust of Israel's nascent structure as a socialist economy characterized by strong labor unions, led by the labor coalition Histadrut, and a parallel internal economy of collectivist enterprises in the Kibbutzim. A rapprochement of sorts between the Labour government of Levi Eshkol and the Kennedy/Johnson administration was capped in the 1967 Six Day War, another Cold War proxy battle, when American arms shipments to Israel obviated comparable shipments to Arab combatant states by the Soviet Union and resulted in a stunning Israeli victory.

As a result of that victory, Israel became an occupying power over territories previously belonging, de facto or de iure, to Egypt, Syria and Jordan. It is the fate of these territories that ultimately will decide a resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

In 2004, the Democratic Party platform embraced the concept of a two-state solution for the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, following in the footsteps of the Clinton administration's developing Middle Eastern policy. The current republican administration embraced the idea of two states for two peoples some time into its first term as well. Despite the overall fraying of the post-war foreign policy consensus along partisan lines, therefore, it can be considered settled American policy that the legitimate national aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians, to live in peace, security, within recognized borders as fully sovereign members of the international community, are an objective of the American national interest. Firmly embedded within that consensus is the assumption that America, due to the kinship between our domestic institutions and Weltanschauung with those of Israel as a Western democracy, will continue to support Israel's security and aid that country's defense.

Barack Obama stands equally firmly within this consensus. So why the controversy?

Rudy Giuliani has, in essence, announced a lack of policy regarding Palestine. Rudy has decided to emulate the early Bush policy of ignoring Palestine as a legitimate player in the game of Middle East politics, a policy that failed miserably, aiding the rise of Hamas.

From Salon.com:

Outlining his foreign policy views in the September/October issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, Giuliani said "too much emphasis" has been placed on brokering negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians -- an apparent swipe at President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who have been pushing both sides for final status negotiations despite Hamas's takeover of Gaza in June.

"It is not in the interest of the United States, at a time when it is being threatened by Islamist terrorists, to assist the creation of another state that will support terrorism," the former New York City mayor said.

"Palestinian statehood will have to be earned through sustained good governance, a clear commitment to fighting terrorism, and a willingness to live in peace with Israel," Giuliani said...

Interestingly, when Bush first took over the Presidency, he too ignored the United State's role in brokering negotiations between Israel and Palestine, allowing the situation between Israel and Palestine to spiral into violence and chaos. This helped the rise of Hamas, a true terrorist regime.

[UPDATE: Saw on Current TV this morning a report that the Palestinian government wanted the Hamas Mouse axed and said that the strategy of indoctrinating Children with political messages was unacceptable. Of course the Current TV host interpreted this to mean, "Okay, guys, you caught us so we will have to stop." It is unclear whether Hamas will comply...after all they are not known for their sensitivity. I wonder if it was political pressure or threats from the Disney Imperial Lawyers that led to the Palestinian government's statement...]

Hamas has a new spokesmouse. Yes...spokesmouse. Hamas is using a mouse to encourage Palestinians to deliver its message calling for the complete destruction of Israel. Problem is, the mouse, named Farfur, is a dead ringer for a certain Disney icon:

Image from Palestinian Media Watch (an Israeli organization)

The show that uses Mickey...er, I mean Farfur, is reported to be sophisticated and funny, even if it's main character is ripped off from Disney. This is where Hamas has great skill. They know to target future generations with their message. While Bush is creating enemies for generations and Olmert is botching wars, Hamas is teaching the next generations of Palestinians that the destruction of Israel is god's will and something that they should dedicate their lives to. Much as I find Hamas to be a disgusting terrorist organization, their strategic skill is currently better than that of either Bush or Olmert, and we need to learn lessons from them. Now I am not suggesting a Moishe Mouse character teaching kids about the two state solution, but Hamas got where it is by reaching out to people, setting up schools and hospitals and, basically, community activism. They don't just strap explosives to people and send them off to kill innocent civilians. They also build the trust and confidence of the Palestinians. I advocated since before 9/11 that you don't win by being the world's bully. You win by working with people to build a stable life. Look at Afghanistan and Iraq. Look at Palestine. We have not done there what we did for defeated Germany and Japan. And the consequences are pretty much what you would expect.

Some years back I read Jared Diamond's excellent book Collapse. It covers a wide range of issues and locations in its analysis of the collapse of civilizations and draws parallels with modern soceity and past societies with the intent of finding ways in which our society can survive rather than collapse.

One of the most important points to me in the book was the critical role of forests in ANY society's economic well being and long term stability. A contrast between Haiti and the Dominican Republic dramatically showed the difference between a nation that was nearly completely deforested and one that preserved its forests. Preserving forests maintained soil productivity as well as protected fisheries that were downstream.

Global warming gives us added reason to be tree huggers. Trees are the most effective long term way of removing carbon from the atmosphere. Nothing else can do so much at such low cost. Combine their protection of the soil, water resources, downstream fisheries, etc. with their ability to sequester carbon, and preservation of forests and tree planting are about the best thing any of us can do to stabilize human society in the face of current challenges.

An area where this is most critical is one that is dear to my heart: the Middle East. I am a pro-Israel Jew. I am also pro-Palestine. But having read a great deal of history, I know that the existance of a Jewish nation is very important to me and to my children. Even the most welcoming of nations has turned anti-Semitic in the past, and so the well being of Israel seems to me kind of like an insurance policy for all Jews. It gives us a place where we can go if and when the nations that hold the diaspora turn on us...again.

Don't be reading this. Henry Rollins is on IFC right now. His regular show starts 11 PM EST tonight. But before that IFC is airing a show he did in Israel. Both funny, crazy and an interesting American Jewish Punker view of Israel. If you are online right now, STOP and turn on IFC, NOW!!! Rollins rocks and he tells it like it is with both naivete and cynicism in a bizarre but mesmerizing mix. Watch it...now!

I try to get my news from several sources, and that can lead to some interesting discoveries. It seems that in the early days of Israel's attack on Lebanon, Jacques Chirac wanted Israel to go into Syria as well. This is from Guysen Israel News:

Jacques Chirac had urged Israel to attack Syria in the first few days of the war in Lebanon. According to the army radio Galei Tsahal, the French president sent a message to Jerusalem, via a secret channel. He proposed that Israel launch an offensive against Damas and bring down the regime of Bashar al-Assad in exchange for total French support in the war. According to the message from Paris, Syria was held responsible for sparking the war on the northern border and encouraged Hizbollah to act. (Guysen.Isra×›l.News)

I have found no confirmation of this. Most of the coverage of Chirac's view of Israel's attack on Lebanaon is of his condemnation of Israel's "disproportionate actions," as in here:

President Jacques Chirac said Friday that Israel's military offensive against Lebanon is "totally disproportionate" and asked whether destroying Lebanon was not the ultimate goal.

However, he also said that rockets fired on Israel by Hezbollah and Hamas are "inadmissible, unacceptable and irresponsible."

Chirac implicitly suggested that Syria and Iran might be playing a role in the expanding crisis in the Middle East which, along with the Iranian nuclear issue, creates "a truly dangerous situation in which we must be very, very careful."

There has really been a recent dovetailing of Israel related issues. From a Bulgarian friend quizing me on Israel to a discussion among NYC bloggers (offline and private, so none of your business) about Israel/Palestine, to some rather disturbingly anti-Israel diaries on Daily Kos with some outright anti-Semitic overtones. (Note: This statement in NO WAY implies an anti-Semitic bias of dKos in general. The opinions were those of particular individuals, not the community as a whole). And, of course, my recent writing about Jewish issues, including what seemed to be a not so well received piece on the depth and persistence of anti-Semitism historically.

In the context of all of this, I find an editorial that gets to the crux of one key issue in Israeli politics: the balancing of equality for Israeli Arabs with security of Israel as a whole. In an ideal world these two things would not need balancing. But the Middle East is not and never has been an ideal world even if you look back thousands of years.

This is from Abraham Foxman and Ken Jacobson, both of the Anti-Defamation League, and originally appeared in The Jerusalem Post on March 5, 2007:

For those of us who are seriously committed to creating equality for Israel's Arab citizens but who are also highly concerned about assaults on the legitimacy of the Jewish State from without and within, recent articles in The Jerusalem Post by representatives of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) and the New Israel Fund (NIF) leave a feeling of discomfort.

A poll conducted by BBC in 27 countries shows that Bush's idea of an "Axis of Evil" may get some international support. Problem is, according to world opinion, the US is part of that Axis of Evil...or perhaps Axis of Destabilization:

According to a poll made for the BBC, carried out in 27 countries, 56% of those interviewed see in Israel, the United States, Iran and North Korea, "the countries with the most harmful influence on the world". (Guysen.Isra×›l.News)

Checking out the BBC website, shows that Israel, Iran and the US are viewed as having a "mostly negative influence" on the world by more than 50% of people polled. North Korea does slightly better with 48% of people polled seeing them as having a "mostly negative influence." So the US is slightly better than Iran and slightly worse than North Korea in its influence on the world, it seems. Great job, Bush! The world, which loved us under Clinton/Gore now see us as about as much a threat to the world as Iran and North Korea thanks to Bush/Cheney.

Looking at it from the other end, Canada, EU collectively, and Japan top the list as having a "mostly positive influence" according to more than half of people taking the poll. It is interesting that Japan does so well given how much China, Taiwan and the Koreas hate them. Isreal's low rating is not surprising given their unpopularity in the Muslim world and the negative view of their war with Lebanon.