A word on the effectiveness of criticism:
A political analyst observed, "The radical leftists in this country ... seem to have permanently disengaged from any meaningful political process. There can be passion from within the political process. Just because most of the apples are rotten doesn't mean we need to uproot the tree."
As a realist, I've come to the conclusion that many liberals have lost track of objectivity and have given way to emotion. A realist tries to think about what will and won't work, rather than polarizing issues and using extremes and ideals.
Also, I personally believe the people best-equipped to discuss and debate issues are the voting citizens of the country.
As popular as it is to bash Bush in Romania and Greece (the most recent places I have visited), I don't think it's as effective as dissent within the American citizenry.
In fact, it may be feuled by anti-American sentiment, whether justified or not.
Isn't anti-Americanism is a bad thing?
The political analyst I quoted before is right, though. What good is it when people with such passion disengage from the political process? How can they effect change from outside of the system?
The same holds true for Israel. Policy-makers respond to the citizens of the country. I'm not saying international opinion doesn't matter at all, but the members of the Kinesset will answer to their citizens first.
Is this unreasonable? Or would Israel-bashers have them respond first to the liberal babble coming out of the U.S. these days?
Is it hypocritical to have its citizens' interests at heart?
15 comments:
The radical left has always been out of touch, just like the radical right. Their lack of critical thinking, and the urge to see the world in black and white terms (despite their supposed love for moral relativisim), left them useless. It's unfortunate that such supposedly educated people, were never taught to think.
Isn't anti-Americanism is a bad thing?
Sure, bashing America because it's America is a bad thing -- and so is boosting America just because it's America (nationalism is just another form of control that leaders use to manipulate people).
What good is it when people with such passion disengage from the political process? How can they effect change from outside of the system?
Well, a big part of the problem is that the U.S.'s political system isn't very inclusive, using an outdated winner-take-all plurality voting system which is the reason we have only two main parties. Most modern democracies (including Israel) use Proportional Representation, resulting in a multi-party system.
The far left and the far right would have split off from the Democrats and Republicans. And moderate libertarians like me would have a more mainstream party that isn't labeled as a bunch of barking moonbats. And then we'd all have a real voice in the government.
Me, I'm not an Israel-basher. I do think, however, that the U.S.'s foreign policy is not even-handed when it comes to the Israel/Palestinians issue, tilted in favor of Israel. I believe they get about a third of our foreign aid budget. Why does Israel even need foreign aid if it has one of the highest per-capita GDPs in the Middle East (higher than Saudi Arabia)? Wouldn't that money do far more good going to Africa?
This tilt towards Israel happens for a variety of reasons (some of them better than others), but it's one of the biggest reasons why Arab sentiment is overwhelming anti-American (the other main one being that we have a long history of meddling in the Middle East militarily to try and keep the price of oil stable).
Me, I'm not an Israel-basher. I do think, however, that the U.S.'s foreign policy is not even-handed when it comes to the Israel/Palestinians issue, tilted in favor of Israel. I believe they get about a third of our foreign aid budget. Why does Israel even need foreign aid if it has one of the highest per-capita GDPs in the Middle East (higher than Saudi Arabia)?
The majority of the money that the United States gives to Israel is derived from the Camp David peace accords that occured in 1979 between Israel and Egypt. As part of this agreement for peace, Egypt was also promised billions of dollars a year in foreign aid which they still recieve to this day. Additionally the majority of the money Israel recieves from the United States is spent purchasing goods from American companies creating jobs and stimulating the economy.
Good point, Andrew. Even-handed doesn't apply because the aid refers to two nations: Israel and Egypt, in which case it is even-handed.
At any rate, my main point was that dissent within a country is the most effective way to force a government to be responsive to its citizenry. Israel, a vibrant democracy, is more successful at this than Americans. Maybe Americans could learn something about that from Israelis.
Another thing: if a country that receives a good deal of aid is to be subject to such scrutiny, let's talk about Egypt and false elections. We don't, though, because the fact is that Israel is put to harsher criticism.
I believe U.S. foreign aid to Egypt is about two-thirds of that to Israel. And yes, the aid to Egypt is also deserving of scrutiny -- but the rationale behind that aid was not to foster democracy but to "reward" Egypt for making peace with Israel. As I would think Israelis generally support this, I don't exactly see how this is a point in favor of even-handedness on the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
Contrast the Israeli occupation of the Palestinians with the U.S. occupation of Iraq. How much money has Israel spent on nation-building and investment in Palestinian infrastructure in the past 50 years compared to how much we've spent on rebuilding Iraq in the past few? And as bad as things are in Iraq right now and the controversy over the possibility of permanent bases, can you imagine the reaction of Iraqis to the prospect of U.S. settlements?
I would think an even-handed foreign policy would start by having our leaders point out this discrepancy. To be sure, the situations are different (our coffee houses aren't being bombed), but the main point is that the goal of the U.S. occupation is to rebuild a stable and democratic Iraq. It's not my impression that this is the goal of the Israeli occupation.
That we're failing at our goal is not because it was the wrong goal, but because Bush committed too few resources to it (troop ratio was well below that in Bosnia or other more successful occupations).
Laura: dissent within a country is the most effective way to force a government to be responsive to its citizenry.
As I understood it, Banks's dissent was mainly directed at the U.S. to modify its foreign policy. But yes, the U.S. could stand to learn a lot from Israel (e.g. adopting Proportional Representation, as I mentioned earlier).
Andrew: Additionally the majority of the money Israel recieves from the United States is spent purchasing goods from American companies creating jobs and stimulating the economy.
This is irrelevant. Government spending is a grossly inefficient way to stimulate the economy. A percentage of that money gets used up every time it changes hands, and this happens moreso when it's international spending. Besides, if the purpose of the aid was to stimulate our economy, it would be better spent on our closer trade partners, such as Canada or Mexico.
But of course, the main purpose of the aid is not to stimulate our economy, but to benefit the recipient.
Also you can not compare the Israeli "occupation" of Gaza and the West Bank to the US occupation of Iraq. The US occupation of Iraq is the result off an offensive attack against a nation who had not attacked America or American interests.
On the other hand Israel came in control of Gaza and the West Bank in result of a defensive battle after they were attacked by Jordan and Egypt, and be careful to criticize Israel for not funding the Palestinians as they have given them more money than the majority of the Arab world.
Also Israel coming in control of Gaza and the West Bank is the only reason why we are talking about the Palestinians today. Egypt and Jordan had no intention of ever creating a Palestine. Had Israel lost that war the land simply would have been divided among the conquerors, and no one would ever dare claim that Egypt, and Jordan were "occupiers".
True about the offensive vs. defensive wars, but the point about the goal of the occupations is still valid. I think the occupation of Lebanon leading to the creation of Hezbollah should have made it obvious that occupations increase rather than decrease terrorism. Not claiming that the occupations cause terrorism, just that it makes it considerably worse.
And yes, we're learning this yet again in Iraq, but at least we're trying (albeit failing) to build a state which can then be held responsible for that problem.
Yes, the Arab states are worse than Israel. Also irrelevant in regards to our foreign policy balance between Israel and the Palestinians. The Kurds aren't likely to get a state from Iran, Turkey, and Iraq either. Does that mean they don't deserve one? Of course, the U.S. has been historically tilted towards Turkey on that one.
Also the Israeli "occupation of Southern Lebanon was a direct result of terrorist attacks coming from the region. And since their withdrawal from that area in 2000 the attacks have once again skyrocketed including one in a village I was staying at about 3 hours after I departed (Qiryat Shmona) in Northern Israel just this winter. These attacks do not recieve the same media attention as they are not "homicide bombings".
I am not saying Israel is better than Arab states, I am saying that they are often unfairly judged and their is an extreme double standard that they are held to.
Not trying to make a judgmental statement. Just pointing out that an occupation that does not seek to rebuild is doomed to cause more harm than good for both parties.
As to Lebanon, focusing on "who started it" is merely a means of ignoring the fact that the occupation made the terrorism problem worse by creating Hezbollah. And of course, withdrawing after Hezbollah was created wasn't going to undo the damage already done. But that doesn't mean withdrawal wasn't the right decision.
Or are you advocating a reinvasion?
I am not advocating an invasion I am advocating that the state of Israel has a right to defend itself and its citizens just like any other country on this planet. I am stating that life for the citizens in Northern Israel has not been as safe since the withdrawal from Southern Lebanon in 2000, and maybe something needs to be done to guarantee their safety?
Im not asking for Israel to go around placing troops in foreign countries. I am suggesting that countries like Lebanon crack down on terrorists so that Israel does not have to.
Would I be opposed to Israel re-entering Southern Lebanon? While I do not think that would be the best option in the world they may be left with little choice if these attacks are not stopped.
Israel has a duty to its citizens to guarantee their safety. In fact security is the most important part to any state as without security the state can not function.
I am advocating that the state of Israel has a right to defend itself and its citizens just like any other country on this planet.
On that, we have no disagreement.
My point is that the occupation of Lebanon made Israel less safe (withdrawing didn't completely undo that because the damage was done and Hezbollah had been created), and the occupation of the Palestinians is continuing to make Israel less safe. And this should be obvious when you note that Israel isn't even attempting to help the Palestinians build a state, and thus is completely ignoring hearts and minds -- a sure-fire way to breed even more terrorism.
The U.S. is doing a bad enough job on hearts and minds in Iraq as it is. Imagine how much worse things would be if it weren't even making the attempt -- and were building U.S. settlements on Iraqi soil. Or would you seriously suggest the U.S. change its occupation to be more like Israel's?
To get back to the point, as I've said before, the lack of U.S. foreign policy balance is clear from the fact that the U.S. leaders don't seem to ever point this out publicly. Then again, the U.S. government only pays lip-service to fairness. It has always been beholden to special interests, and moreso to organized ones than disorganized ones.
The claim that Israel has not tried to help to the Palestinians create a state is a joke, they provide more financial aid to the Palestinians than the majority of the world. It is not Israel's fault that Yassar Arafat was the most corrupt leader this world has ever seen stealing billions of dollars from his people while refusing to build them permanent houseing preferring instead to leave them in shanty towns as political symbols in hopes of one day "possessing" all of Israel.
I would argue that do to the security fence that is being built that Israel is a safer country than it has been in years... keep in mind Israel has never been a safe place. Before the Palestinians it was the Egyptians, Syrians, Lebanese, and the Jordanians, the Palestinians are just the latest obstacle to peace in the middle east.
The state of Israel has already withdrawn from Gaza and has plans to withdraw from the West Bank. Do you think the terror groups will stop their? Groups like HAMAS oppose Israel's existence period, they do not want to coincide.
The claim that Israel has not tried to help to the Palestinians create a state is a joke, they provide more financial aid to the Palestinians than the majority of the world.
According to this, the top aid-givers to the Palestinians are the EU ($600 million a year) and the U.S. ($420 million a year).
I can't find any numbers on Israeli aid. Perhaps you mean the money Israel collects on duties and the VAT on imports to the Palestinian territories? That's not aid. That's a tariff that they are imposing on somebody else's imports.
And despite misguided protectionist rhetoric, tariffs on imports always hurt the economy they are imposed upon. A tariff on a single good may help domestic producers of that good -- but at the price of increasing the cost of goods on everybody that purchases that good, which has ripple effects.
And regardless of your trade views, it's still not aid.
They built all of the power and water facilities in both of the territories with money collected from Israeli citizens, they also built the education system, and some of Israel's tax money does go to the Palestinian authority all though right now those funds are being with held.
Israel has offered numerous times to give the Palestinians their own state. The last time occuring in 2000, where Barak offered Arafat everything that he had asked for, and was still rejected. Not only was he rejected but Arafat responed by starting the second Intifada.
some of Israel's tax money does go to the Palestinian authority all though right now those funds are being with held.
I believe you have a misconception there. Read what I wrote again as well as the article I linked. A tariff is when you add a tax upon your imports. While it's generally a bad idea because it hurts the entire economy to benefit one industry (i.e. it's akin to a corporate subsidy), the tax proceeds do belongs to you. On the other hand, if you add a tax upon all of somebody else's imports then 1) you are harming their economy 2) the tax proceeds belongs to them.
Israel has offered numerous times to give the Palestinians their own state.
Your view about Barak's offer is controversial, but irrelevant to this discussion about nation-building. But I think "let them try to build one" is more accurate than "give." Israel doesn't even need to offer anything. There's a huge power disparity here. As the occupying power, they could just build it, like the U.S. is doing in Iraq. For that matter, isn't there something wrong with the picture that the U.S. is doing more to create a Palestinian state than the Israelis? Clinton had to badger both Barak and Arafat just to come to the negotiating table in the first place. Nobody badgered Dubya into rebuilding Iraq.
Now Iraq is not a great analogy, as you've said. How about contrasting Israel's occupation with the Allied occupation of Germany and Japan after WWII? In that case, Germany and Japan were the aggressors and committed atrocities far, far worse than anything the Palestinians did. They also had far more severe damage to their infrastructure due to a war that was more brutal and lasted much longer -- yet the occupation and rebuilding effort took only about seven years. The Allies did this because of the lesson they learned from the botched handling of Germany after WWI -- and nobody had to badger them into doing it.
And to get back to the original point about U.S. balance, every school-kid in the U.S. knows WWII history. If you look at occupations throughout history, that is the model that is pointed to as the greatest success. That and the current occupation in Iraq are obvious comparisons to Israel's occupation, and a U.S. foreign policy with any semblance of balance would be pointing it out loudly and publicly.
But we don't, because we're Israel's strongest ally instead.
Post a Comment