A Calculated Action?
Israel Attacking Iran Nuke Plants
Would Draw West into Conflict
by Dan Ehrlich
Forget the Arab Spring, we now seem to be in a serious winter of discontent with Israel warning of possible Iranian attacks on Jewish facilities worldwide. This comes as speculation continues to mount that Israel will go it alone in attacking Iran's nuclear plants. However, such speculation has been surfacing for five years.
Meanwhile, Egypt is locked in chaotic violence with its military; Libya is still without a united government and a virtual blood drenched civil war is going on in Syria.
But if this isn't too much to handle, Israel says if and when the Assad Alawite regime falls, it will offer sanctuary on the Golan Heights to the sect's Syrian refugees. These are people who have been surrogates of Iran, which has long backed the Assad family, also the sworn enemies of Israel. Ironically, this may be the only way Assad will regain the Golan.
For quite some time Israel, Iran and the West have been playing a poker game whose stakes have been growing daily.
Now, however, we seem to be approaching the "call hand" or end game. As I have said before, I don't think a nuclear-armed Iran will attack Israel. Aside from also destroying three countries surrounding Israel, it would certainly receive all destroying retaliation.
But Israel usually operates from a worst-case scenario; this being that the crazies in Tehran will rationalise collateral annihilation as being the price for the greater good. After all, Iran, a Shiite nation, has little love for Sunni Islam, which form the majority populations in all Arab states except Iraq and Bahrain.
World War 2 interrupted the growth of Arab nationalism that sprang forth when the Ottoman Empire fell after WW1. The Muslim nations in the region had been fighting for the preeminence of their tribes.
The nationalism struggle was again interrupted by the creation of Israel in 1948. Instead of fighting each other they had Israel as a new Crusader surrogate to fight.
Iran sees itself in the forefront of the new Crusader war. The fact it's not an Arab country makes little difference since being a Shiite nation is a far greater hurdle to jump.
By destroying or neutralising Israel it will see itself as the new kingpin in the region, one that will be able to give Shiism greater prominence.
Yet the last thing America wants, or more precisely President Obama wants in a run-up to an election is another Muslim war. On the other hand his potential Republican challenger Mitt Romney is far more hawkish on Iran, something Israel could use to its advantage. Supporting Israel after its bombs Iran would certainly become a hot election issue.
Several opinion polls on the subject show sharp divide in American support for Israeli action against Iran...with a narrow majority in favour.
But an even bigger question is what a small country such as Israel could do to potentially scores of hardened underground nuclear sites all over a large nation such as Iran?
The answer, according to experts, is not very much. But, enough to anger the Iranians, who will figure the attack was with US complicity and launch counter attacks against western interests as well as closing the Strait of Hormuz.
This would drag the west into another conflict with its ultimate regime change goal; the only way peace and security will be re established in the region... something upon which Israel PM Benjamin Netanyahu would be depending.
The view of some that such an attack would set the Mid East on fire is a stretch. Most Arab states fear Shiite Iran and its nuclear ambitions more than they hate Israel. The last thing the nationalist Arabs want us another Empire. Little noticed is the growing Turkish involvement in Arab affairs. The Arabs still respect their former Ottoman rulers, but at a distance.
Yet, this is where the big bluff comes into this poker hand. It's based on the belief that Iran doesn't yet have nuclear weapons. But what if it does? Unprovoked Iran, as with Israel, probably wouldn't admit to having atomic weapons even if it had them.
But, how would the religious fanatics in Tehran react to a major attack by Israel and/or the US? That's the big gamble that could lead to Armageddon. And it's a big reason why an Israeli solo attack on Iran isn't a done deal. The longer Israel waits the less likely they
Should We Stay or Should We Go?
Afghanistan: A Case for Remaining
Where We Never Should Have Gone
by Dan Ehrlich
News reports claiming the Taliban will attempt to retake control of Afghanistan once NATO troops leave in two years restates the questions: Why did we get involved there in the first place and why are we leaving given this threat?
From an American, and even a Euro perspective, Afghanistan could be another example of the pick and choose hypocrisy the West plays at when dealing with armed conflicts. It comes down to what's their worth to NATO? Afghanistan is no longer worth it. Of course, if the Iraqi oil fields were there?
NATO endured a bloodbath in Bosnia for years before taking any action, yet jumped right into Kuwait once Iraq invaded. We have declined to get involved in Syria, yet NATO immediately became involved in Libya and Iraq the Sequel.
But for Afghanistan, Korea makes a good comparison. As I previously wrote, the Korean War was the first major UN action, lead by the USA. It ended in a stalemate, with around 36,000 American killed and an uneasy truce that has kept the country divided with a large American troop presence still there 62 years later.
On the plus side it enabled South Korea to become an industrial powerhouse. On the negative side is has forged North Korea into a nuclear powerhouse, one that threatens the West.
Today the US has 28,500 troops stationed in Korea still under the UN flag. So, if we maintained a garrison in Korea for 62 years, why wouldn't we do the same in Afghanistan? For one thing, the Korean War ended in a cease-fire and truce. Afghanistan is a totally different situation coming at a radically different era for NATO and the US.
The fact is Afghanistan doesn't mean as much to the West than industrial and friendly South Korea. And, we want to remain in striking distance of nuclear-armed Stone Age North Korea.
Yes, but wouldn't maintaining a strong presence in Afghanistan help NATO keep in touch with another nuclear wild card Pakistan, a near failed state that is becoming more and more unstable and less friendly to America? Yes, but popular opinion is against this and politics often trumps what may seem obvious.
President Obama, with reelection and a never-ending recession on his mind, has put in play operation wind-down until 2014 when the only NATO troops remaining in Afghanistan will be those so-called military advisers. As with Vietnam, they will be there to train Afghan troops on how to keep the Taliban out and America's proxy Afghan President Karzai in... hopefully with more success than we had in Vietnam.
As I said the past, the only concrete reason why we, and other NATO nations, are there is to keep the extreme male chauvinist Muslim Taliban from power and Afghan women out of burkas. The idea of a synonymous linkage between the Taliban and Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda group has never been proven.
Yes, I'm sure they cooperated. While they're different people they had different goals. Bin Laden was a Saudi. He didn't care about Afghanistan. He just hid there and in Pakistan. His main goal, other than converting the world to Islam, was to overthrow the Saudi royal family and kick the US out of his country. The Taliban want to overthrow the Karzai Government and kick the US out of their country. It seems they may be accomplishing part of that goal.
But using Korea as an example, given the lives lost and money spent there, wouldn't it seem sensible to maintain a NATO combat unit in Afghanistan as a way of protecting NATO interests? There's little doubt the Taliban will be back. Yet there is considerable doubt Karzai and Company will be able to handle them... He will need NATO... for a long time.
Next year the US will declare its wartime control of South Korea at an end and begin transferring power to South Korea, while possibly cutting back its troop strength there.
South Korea isn't happy at this prospect and wants a clarification of US intentions. Yet, such an action, in light of the planned Afghan pullout, would be one of the few genuine actions taken by the US... even though the motivation is reducing the national debt.
Afghanistan: A Case for Remaining
Where We Never Should Have Gone
by Dan Ehrlich
News reports claiming the Taliban will attempt to retake control of Afghanistan once NATO troops leave in two years restates the questions: Why did we get involved there in the first place and why are we leaving given this threat?
From an American, and even a Euro perspective, Afghanistan could be another example of the pick and choose hypocrisy the West plays at when dealing with armed conflicts. It comes down to what's their worth to NATO? Afghanistan is no longer worth it. Of course, if the Iraqi oil fields were there?
NATO endured a bloodbath in Bosnia for years before taking any action, yet jumped right into Kuwait once Iraq invaded. We have declined to get involved in Syria, yet NATO immediately became involved in Libya and Iraq the Sequel.
But for Afghanistan, Korea makes a good comparison. As I previously wrote, the Korean War was the first major UN action, lead by the USA. It ended in a stalemate, with around 36,000 American killed and an uneasy truce that has kept the country divided with a large American troop presence still there 62 years later.
On the plus side it enabled South Korea to become an industrial powerhouse. On the negative side is has forged North Korea into a nuclear powerhouse, one that threatens the West.
Today the US has 28,500 troops stationed in Korea still under the UN flag. So, if we maintained a garrison in Korea for 62 years, why wouldn't we do the same in Afghanistan? For one thing, the Korean War ended in a cease-fire and truce. Afghanistan is a totally different situation coming at a radically different era for NATO and the US.
The fact is Afghanistan doesn't mean as much to the West than industrial and friendly South Korea. And, we want to remain in striking distance of nuclear-armed Stone Age North Korea.
Yes, but wouldn't maintaining a strong presence in Afghanistan help NATO keep in touch with another nuclear wild card Pakistan, a near failed state that is becoming more and more unstable and less friendly to America? Yes, but popular opinion is against this and politics often trumps what may seem obvious.
President Obama, with reelection and a never-ending recession on his mind, has put in play operation wind-down until 2014 when the only NATO troops remaining in Afghanistan will be those so-called military advisers. As with Vietnam, they will be there to train Afghan troops on how to keep the Taliban out and America's proxy Afghan President Karzai in... hopefully with more success than we had in Vietnam.
As I said the past, the only concrete reason why we, and other NATO nations, are there is to keep the extreme male chauvinist Muslim Taliban from power and Afghan women out of burkas. The idea of a synonymous linkage between the Taliban and Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda group has never been proven.
Yes, I'm sure they cooperated. While they're different people they had different goals. Bin Laden was a Saudi. He didn't care about Afghanistan. He just hid there and in Pakistan. His main goal, other than converting the world to Islam, was to overthrow the Saudi royal family and kick the US out of his country. The Taliban want to overthrow the Karzai Government and kick the US out of their country. It seems they may be accomplishing part of that goal.
But using Korea as an example, given the lives lost and money spent there, wouldn't it seem sensible to maintain a NATO combat unit in Afghanistan as a way of protecting NATO interests? There's little doubt the Taliban will be back. Yet there is considerable doubt Karzai and Company will be able to handle them... He will need NATO... for a long time.
Next year the US will declare its wartime control of South Korea at an end and begin transferring power to South Korea, while possibly cutting back its troop strength there.
South Korea isn't happy at this prospect and wants a clarification of US intentions. Yet, such an action, in light of the planned Afghan pullout, would be one of the few genuine actions taken by the US... even though the motivation is reducing the national debt.
As Automation Replaces Manual Labor
China May be a Model for Dystopian World
by Dan Ehrlich
China is providing two ultimate ironies, the first debunking America's victory over communism and second, the possibility that China's current domestic economic and social model may be a blueprint for a future western world with mass unemployment.
For 45 years America and Western Europe fought a Cold War against communism in which George Bush Sr. declared victory in 1990. The Bush's seem to have a compulsion for premature declarations. China, the biggest communist nation of all, wasn't figured into the victory equation, or was it's growing economic power.
Indeed, China emerged from the Cold War stronger than it had been during its height. And today it has reached a socio-economic compromise allowing it to get rich from western capitalism while maintaining its communist political structure. This may be a master plan for a possible western world to come.
What PM David Cameron and President Obama won't tell their populations is that things probably aren't going to get too much better economically (there's a good chance they will eventually get worse) at least until western nations can make goods as cheaply as eastern nations. But even that may be short-term to what could happen way down the road.
History teaches that decadent nations don't make comebacks. The real world isn't Hollywood. For example, the main strength of the Arab world was its stagnant permanence. Arguably the biggest social change there in 1,000 years has been the formation of Al Jazeera Television, something that ironically may be disrupting this stagnation.
So, while the West has flourished, its own greed, avarice and gluttony is destroying it. Yet, if we disappeared tomorrow the Arabs would probably survive as they have for thousands of years... if their societies don't give-in to change.
But what about the distant future? Providing America and Britain are still here and united, what will life be like, first as low wage nations and beyond.
Capitalism has no master or political ideology. It goes where money is to be made and profits are maximised. The only hard and fast use for people is as consumers. As we see, labor forces can be minimized and moved elsewhere in the world to increase production and profits.
You don't have to look further than your local supermarket to see the next step...automation. Thousands of cashier jobs are being lost to automated shopping...shopping that is now being offered online, too.
And these are service sector jobs that were supposed to be immune to global market competition. Yet this is only a visible aspect of the automation boom that may eventually be a greater challenge to the West than cheap Chinese products.
America emerged from WW2 the richest nation with the largest middle class ever recorded. Yet the only reason most Americans had enjoyed such an affluent lifestyle was because they had good jobs... jobs needed to make and service things...jobs so they could afford to buy dinner out at least once a week, a new car every two years and a new home every few years.
But more than this, people have to earn wages to pay taxes that keep a country running. If there are no wages there will be no taxes, just a population existing on welfare, as many people already in the US and UK serve as evidence.
For the US and UK to get back some lost ground means re developing domestic industry and commerce. More than likely this will come from Asians building factories here to keep their goods affordable to local populations.
But, if machines and computers can eventually do most of manual labor more efficiently and cheaply, what will the future be like for the former middle class and the new non working class? What will they do? For capitalism to thrive, they must have money to spend...otherwise they will be surplus to the requirements of the global market and the corporations will have to scale back production.
A lot will depend on the evolution to an automated society and who will control societies and how they are organized. If America and the UK sink into a morass, individual states and former kingdoms, i.e. Scotland, may push for more self-determination, doing deals with other countries for the exclusive benefit of the states in question.
Yet another cure for cheap Chinese imports will be to rebuild national industries as wage free, union free and totally automated. After massive initial investments, this "I Robot" society will produce all people need and then some. Still, no matter which country controls industry, the big question will still be: What will our people do for work?
As for the distant future, a few lucky people will retrain for still available service sector and industrial jobs. The medical sector will be a main employer. But the bulk of the unemployed may find a home in the military. Many people will go back to the land as subsistence farmers.
One of the reasons Rome gained such a large empire was the fact that slavery meant it had no labor problems. But it did have plenty of unemployed young men...they furnished its army and navy with an unlimited number of recruits to conquer and subdue most of the known world at the time.
In America's case, the military will be more defensive in nature, protecting it from foreign invasion on one hand and domestic insurrection on the other...as is the case with so many so called banana republics, US cities will become breweries of dissent and militancy and the military will be needed to maintain order.
Yet, for those not suitable for the military, the voluntary sector will offer a chance to do something meaningful. You see, while political leaders trumpet the need for new industries to create jobs, there simply won't be the economic viability for such investment in the face of high labor costs vs. dollar-a-day Asian economies.
And any new homegrown industries developed in an open world market would soon leave for cheaper production elsewhere or be automated, using at most a skeleton workforce.
America's only long-term prospect would be the creation of a UK style social welfare state and enriching the country via taxation from cash rich corporations and trade while maintaining former workers on state benefits.
And this is where the Chinese model enters the picture. China maintains free enterprise zones such as Hong Kong and Shanghai where capitalism thrives to service the world. These areas house the nation's economic power, Yet, most of the country remains a communist social welfare state, where the needs of the masses are met by the wealth it makes off the non-communist world. While I'm a firm believer in benevolent capitalism, I can't help deducing something such as this may be a serious option for a future world short of labour.
Of course the simplest thing would be to ban automation, from General Motors to Tesco. But in a free capitalist nation that's about as likely as enacting blanket trade barriers against cheap Asian goods in a global economy that all parties and political leaders support..
On the upside, one of the benefits for millions of people would be a lot of free time for budget holidays.
Okay, you can wake up now, it was only a nightmare.
China May be a Model for Dystopian World
by Dan Ehrlich
China is providing two ultimate ironies, the first debunking America's victory over communism and second, the possibility that China's current domestic economic and social model may be a blueprint for a future western world with mass unemployment.
For 45 years America and Western Europe fought a Cold War against communism in which George Bush Sr. declared victory in 1990. The Bush's seem to have a compulsion for premature declarations. China, the biggest communist nation of all, wasn't figured into the victory equation, or was it's growing economic power.
Indeed, China emerged from the Cold War stronger than it had been during its height. And today it has reached a socio-economic compromise allowing it to get rich from western capitalism while maintaining its communist political structure. This may be a master plan for a possible western world to come.
What PM David Cameron and President Obama won't tell their populations is that things probably aren't going to get too much better economically (there's a good chance they will eventually get worse) at least until western nations can make goods as cheaply as eastern nations. But even that may be short-term to what could happen way down the road.
History teaches that decadent nations don't make comebacks. The real world isn't Hollywood. For example, the main strength of the Arab world was its stagnant permanence. Arguably the biggest social change there in 1,000 years has been the formation of Al Jazeera Television, something that ironically may be disrupting this stagnation.
So, while the West has flourished, its own greed, avarice and gluttony is destroying it. Yet, if we disappeared tomorrow the Arabs would probably survive as they have for thousands of years... if their societies don't give-in to change.
But what about the distant future? Providing America and Britain are still here and united, what will life be like, first as low wage nations and beyond.
Capitalism has no master or political ideology. It goes where money is to be made and profits are maximised. The only hard and fast use for people is as consumers. As we see, labor forces can be minimized and moved elsewhere in the world to increase production and profits.
You don't have to look further than your local supermarket to see the next step...automation. Thousands of cashier jobs are being lost to automated shopping...shopping that is now being offered online, too.
And these are service sector jobs that were supposed to be immune to global market competition. Yet this is only a visible aspect of the automation boom that may eventually be a greater challenge to the West than cheap Chinese products.
America emerged from WW2 the richest nation with the largest middle class ever recorded. Yet the only reason most Americans had enjoyed such an affluent lifestyle was because they had good jobs... jobs needed to make and service things...jobs so they could afford to buy dinner out at least once a week, a new car every two years and a new home every few years.
But more than this, people have to earn wages to pay taxes that keep a country running. If there are no wages there will be no taxes, just a population existing on welfare, as many people already in the US and UK serve as evidence.
For the US and UK to get back some lost ground means re developing domestic industry and commerce. More than likely this will come from Asians building factories here to keep their goods affordable to local populations.
But, if machines and computers can eventually do most of manual labor more efficiently and cheaply, what will the future be like for the former middle class and the new non working class? What will they do? For capitalism to thrive, they must have money to spend...otherwise they will be surplus to the requirements of the global market and the corporations will have to scale back production.
A lot will depend on the evolution to an automated society and who will control societies and how they are organized. If America and the UK sink into a morass, individual states and former kingdoms, i.e. Scotland, may push for more self-determination, doing deals with other countries for the exclusive benefit of the states in question.
Yet another cure for cheap Chinese imports will be to rebuild national industries as wage free, union free and totally automated. After massive initial investments, this "I Robot" society will produce all people need and then some. Still, no matter which country controls industry, the big question will still be: What will our people do for work?
As for the distant future, a few lucky people will retrain for still available service sector and industrial jobs. The medical sector will be a main employer. But the bulk of the unemployed may find a home in the military. Many people will go back to the land as subsistence farmers.
One of the reasons Rome gained such a large empire was the fact that slavery meant it had no labor problems. But it did have plenty of unemployed young men...they furnished its army and navy with an unlimited number of recruits to conquer and subdue most of the known world at the time.
In America's case, the military will be more defensive in nature, protecting it from foreign invasion on one hand and domestic insurrection on the other...as is the case with so many so called banana republics, US cities will become breweries of dissent and militancy and the military will be needed to maintain order.
Yet, for those not suitable for the military, the voluntary sector will offer a chance to do something meaningful. You see, while political leaders trumpet the need for new industries to create jobs, there simply won't be the economic viability for such investment in the face of high labor costs vs. dollar-a-day Asian economies.
And any new homegrown industries developed in an open world market would soon leave for cheaper production elsewhere or be automated, using at most a skeleton workforce.
America's only long-term prospect would be the creation of a UK style social welfare state and enriching the country via taxation from cash rich corporations and trade while maintaining former workers on state benefits.
And this is where the Chinese model enters the picture. China maintains free enterprise zones such as Hong Kong and Shanghai where capitalism thrives to service the world. These areas house the nation's economic power, Yet, most of the country remains a communist social welfare state, where the needs of the masses are met by the wealth it makes off the non-communist world. While I'm a firm believer in benevolent capitalism, I can't help deducing something such as this may be a serious option for a future world short of labour.
Of course the simplest thing would be to ban automation, from General Motors to Tesco. But in a free capitalist nation that's about as likely as enacting blanket trade barriers against cheap Asian goods in a global economy that all parties and political leaders support..
On the upside, one of the benefits for millions of people would be a lot of free time for budget holidays.
Okay, you can wake up now, it was only a nightmare.
Now that the US has Left Iraq:
We Have to Ask: What has America Gained
From almost Endless Conflict Since 1950?
by Dan Ehrlich
Goodbye 2011. Once again America has closed a military adventure, one which eight years ago President GW Bush proudly declared to be a "mission accomplished." But it was a campaign whose purpose was vague and success in doubt since there were no weapons of mass destruction and socio-political breakdown is a distinct possibility in such a polarized tribal nation.
The democracy we have installed in Iraq, predictably, is gradually disintegrating, with the Shiite Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, issuing an arrest warrant for the Sunni deputy PM and threatening other Sunni leaders as he tries to consolidate his power as possibly Iraq's next dictator. He hasn't been wasting any time, has he? And as with the country's previous dictator, the West was his benefactor and enabler.
Meanwhile, in the oil rich north, the Kurdish majority there has been creating its own autonomous region and has even concluded deals with western oil companies... positive steps for the repressed Kurds. Al-Maliki is content to allow this, at least for now. The Kurds are more useful out of the way in a happy and trouble free zone, keeping the oil flowing and helping the PM maintain his power.
As these events unfold and a New Year is here, we can look back and ask ourselves what have major American military adventures accomplished since 1950?
The Korean War was the first major UN action, lead by the USA. It ended in a stalemate, with around 36,000 American killed and an uneasy truce that has kept the country divided with a large American troop presence still there 62 years later. On the plus side it enabled South Korea to become an industrial powerhouse. On the negative side is has forged North Korea into a nuclear powerhouse, one that threatens the West.
Vietnam was America's second geo-political war fought mainly to preserve US hegemony in Southeast Asia, but sold to the public as part of the Cold War against the spread of communism. Again stalemate and growing popular discontent forced America out and the North Vietnamese in after nearly 60,000 US troops died there. Today, a united communist Vietnam has mended fences with the US to the point of now depending on America to protect it from former best buddy China.
The 1990 Gulf War, Operation Desert Storm, was a US-led, UN sanctioned NATO action in response to the Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Again it was sold on the idea of freeing Kuwait from an invading tyrant, but it really was about safeguarding the Gulf and Saudi oil region.
This eventually lead to the just-concluded Iraq War and the Afghanistan War, if you can call it that, still in progress, both fought as part of the War on Terrorism... a war that may never end since there may always be terrorists somewhere. To date, more than 6,500 US troops have been killed in these. And, in Afghanistan, there's no end in sight.
Since its creation, the USA has been involved in 13 major conflicts and dozens of minor ones resulting in 1.35 million military deaths. Yet most have one thing in common, they didn't occur because of perceived threats to national security or survival. They were economic or political in nature, but sold to the public, as most wars are, on the grounds of national security and patriotism. In fact, there's probably only one country today that fights wars of national survival, Israel.
In the end what has America gained from its human sacrifice? We trumpeted our victory in the Cold War, yet now are in debt and at the economic mercy of the biggest communist nation of all.
While communist Vietnam is now our friend, atomic armed North Korea, with little to lose, remains a gateway to Armageddon.
America has a national debt of more than $15 trillion due largely to unnecessary wars we have fought partly on the false jingoistic view that our way should be everyone's way. So, in the end the main beneficiary of American conflict has been the Military-Industrial Complex. You won't find this mentioned in the Constitution, but it exists as much as Congress.
Proof of it existence has again been revealed in a new $50billion arms deal with our favorite extreme autocratic oil-producing nation, Saudi Arabia. It's designed to counter a perceived regional threat from Iran and will generate 50,000 jobs back in the USA.
And you can bet board members of the complex are milling over plans for America's next possible military adventure, what's in it for them and how they will sell it to a public frustrated by our lagging economy and costly foreign involvements. Yet as long as terrorism exists, there will always be a cause to rationalize conflict.
We Have to Ask: What has America Gained
From almost Endless Conflict Since 1950?
by Dan Ehrlich
Goodbye 2011. Once again America has closed a military adventure, one which eight years ago President GW Bush proudly declared to be a "mission accomplished." But it was a campaign whose purpose was vague and success in doubt since there were no weapons of mass destruction and socio-political breakdown is a distinct possibility in such a polarized tribal nation.
The democracy we have installed in Iraq, predictably, is gradually disintegrating, with the Shiite Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, issuing an arrest warrant for the Sunni deputy PM and threatening other Sunni leaders as he tries to consolidate his power as possibly Iraq's next dictator. He hasn't been wasting any time, has he? And as with the country's previous dictator, the West was his benefactor and enabler.
Meanwhile, in the oil rich north, the Kurdish majority there has been creating its own autonomous region and has even concluded deals with western oil companies... positive steps for the repressed Kurds. Al-Maliki is content to allow this, at least for now. The Kurds are more useful out of the way in a happy and trouble free zone, keeping the oil flowing and helping the PM maintain his power.
As these events unfold and a New Year is here, we can look back and ask ourselves what have major American military adventures accomplished since 1950?
The Korean War was the first major UN action, lead by the USA. It ended in a stalemate, with around 36,000 American killed and an uneasy truce that has kept the country divided with a large American troop presence still there 62 years later. On the plus side it enabled South Korea to become an industrial powerhouse. On the negative side is has forged North Korea into a nuclear powerhouse, one that threatens the West.
Vietnam was America's second geo-political war fought mainly to preserve US hegemony in Southeast Asia, but sold to the public as part of the Cold War against the spread of communism. Again stalemate and growing popular discontent forced America out and the North Vietnamese in after nearly 60,000 US troops died there. Today, a united communist Vietnam has mended fences with the US to the point of now depending on America to protect it from former best buddy China.
The 1990 Gulf War, Operation Desert Storm, was a US-led, UN sanctioned NATO action in response to the Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Again it was sold on the idea of freeing Kuwait from an invading tyrant, but it really was about safeguarding the Gulf and Saudi oil region.
This eventually lead to the just-concluded Iraq War and the Afghanistan War, if you can call it that, still in progress, both fought as part of the War on Terrorism... a war that may never end since there may always be terrorists somewhere. To date, more than 6,500 US troops have been killed in these. And, in Afghanistan, there's no end in sight.
Since its creation, the USA has been involved in 13 major conflicts and dozens of minor ones resulting in 1.35 million military deaths. Yet most have one thing in common, they didn't occur because of perceived threats to national security or survival. They were economic or political in nature, but sold to the public, as most wars are, on the grounds of national security and patriotism. In fact, there's probably only one country today that fights wars of national survival, Israel.
In the end what has America gained from its human sacrifice? We trumpeted our victory in the Cold War, yet now are in debt and at the economic mercy of the biggest communist nation of all.
While communist Vietnam is now our friend, atomic armed North Korea, with little to lose, remains a gateway to Armageddon.
America has a national debt of more than $15 trillion due largely to unnecessary wars we have fought partly on the false jingoistic view that our way should be everyone's way. So, in the end the main beneficiary of American conflict has been the Military-Industrial Complex. You won't find this mentioned in the Constitution, but it exists as much as Congress.
Proof of it existence has again been revealed in a new $50billion arms deal with our favorite extreme autocratic oil-producing nation, Saudi Arabia. It's designed to counter a perceived regional threat from Iran and will generate 50,000 jobs back in the USA.
And you can bet board members of the complex are milling over plans for America's next possible military adventure, what's in it for them and how they will sell it to a public frustrated by our lagging economy and costly foreign involvements. Yet as long as terrorism exists, there will always be a cause to rationalize conflict.
As Deaths and Ultimatums Multiply
Is Syria on Verge of Civil War?
And Will the West Intervene?
by Dan Ehrlich
Ultimatums from the Arab League, Turkey, the EU and US have yet to stop the bloodshed in Syria which is nearing 4,000 dead and heading for a civil war. This isn't what the Arab Spring was supposed to bring. But it does illustrate a need for continued Big Power involvement in this powder keg region. And events may mean just that as pressure builds for outside intervention.
For quite some time western leaders have maintained an end to the Israel-Palestine issue is the key to Middle East peace. However, the so-called Arab Spring has destroyed that idea. Indeed, the only connection Israel may have had with the upheavals sweeping the Arab world is through TV and the Internet, where the multitudes could see the affluent lifestyle along Tel Aviv's beaches.
For people, such as the Syrians, kept under theocratic dictatorships since 1918, and repressive Ottoman rule since the 15th Century, the idea of a better, freer life is what has fueled the uprisings. Yet, there will always be tension and danger with the prospect of chaos in a feudal world interacting with wealthy and free western nations...nations dependent on that world's black gold.
Several surveys of living standards reveal Arab nations woefully behind all developed nations and even below most Latin American nations. The United Nation's Human Development Survey shows Norway Number 1, the USA 4, Israel 17, the UK is back at 27 and the closest Arab country, the UAE at 32. Syria is way down at 118. Libya, which is also in utter chaos, was rated 64, Tunisia is 94, Jordan 95 and Turkey, a non Arabic Muslim nation that wants to join the European Union is 83. Way down the list is Egypt at 113 and Yemen at 154.
The Arab world is similar to the USA in one key geopolitical area. It needs an enemy or scapegoat for its shortcomings and the excesses of its potentates. For decades America had Communism as an all-purpose enemy. With that gone, and the fact we are an economic hostage to the world's biggest nation, one that's Communist, we had to find another adversary...terrorism... a never-ending war of terror. Yet America's economic and employment problems are causing our masses to rethink foreign wars and foreign aid.
But, for the Arabs that enemy has been Israel...the simple fact is, if Israel never existed it would have to be invented to keep the Arab masses in line. They and the West would most probably face the same problems. The West would still be fighting to control Middle East oil until it runs out and the Arabs would be blaming each other and the West for their problems.
Given the NATO action in Libya and Iraq, it seems the only way the bring stability to the Arab World is to force the issue with an overpowering dose of neo colonialism, i.e., Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
NATO became involved in Libya on the grounds that Gadaffi was killing civilians. With this reasoning Syria, whose leader is killing thousands of his own people, is ripe for western intervention. And the West has to stop being timid and do what it has to do to maintain respect for its preeminence and support for civilized government.
The alternative is to accept an unknown outcome of various uprisings, with a worse case scenario being Islamic extremist governments. Indeed the only stable country in the region is Israel, and even it has to contend with the prospect of more violence from the Palestinians, who find it easier to take on the Israelis than their own corrupt leadership.
Yet, the Israel-Palestine issue has been relegated to a sideshow. Israel could recognize a Palestinian state tomorrow and it would have no effect on the so-called Arab Spring. The uprisings would continue and governments would remain or fall.
Little by little the Arab masses, while still hating Israel out of conditioning, are realizing an end to their repressive governments and not an end to Israel will help them obtain better lives.
But it seems realistic to conclude that for some time to come this region will be unsettled, chaotic and begging for some benevolent yet strong leadership. The main problem with the Arab world has been a nationalism based on a mass of uneducated people held in check by authoritarian, often repressive regimes, using religion as a tool of state control.
And part of this control has been maintaining feudal tribal fiefdoms where outsiders are often rejected on religious grounds and in the case of Israel, massive propaganda orchestrated by the state aimed at scapegoating that country for all the world's problems. Sound familiar?
The key to neo imperialism is to benevolently bring these people into the modern world through order, civility, living standards and proper contemporary education. This doesn't have to be nation building.
It's more like time travel. The nations of the Arab world are close enough in proximity to the West to have graduated away from ancient tribal lifestyles. But, for the most part they haven't and this modern day medievalism is the main difference that separates them from being modern progressive societies.
Some UN officials hoped back in 1948 that the creation of Israel would establish a climate of cooperation where the technically proficient Israelis could teach the Arabs how to make the desert bloom. For the most part this hasn't happened.
Since the West's prime interest in the Middle East isn't date and fig exporting, the only way to secure oil exports for the long term is by the West doing it until proper democratic governments can take root.
So far Tunisia, Morocco Libya, Egypt, Syria, Bahrain and Yemen are in varying states of revolution or civil war. There have also been rumblings from Jordan and Lebanon.
This instability and upheaval could eventually impact oil production and the real possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran will only make things worse.
The Arabs, long the witnesses and victims of big power conflict know how to play one side against the other. They did it during the Cold War and sensing the West is in decline are warming a bit towards Iran, who some may feel will be a new power broker in the region.
In the long run this will prove a mistaken assumption. The forces of international capitalism will not be held in check by Iran. We acted quickly during Operation Desert storm when Iraq occupied Kuwait and the West will act again, if need be.
Part of the neo imperial doctrine would be to make the Middle East a nuclear free zone. This would eventually include Israel. Besides, once peace and tranquility encompasses the region, there will be no need for atomic weapons.
The key for the West would not to be perceived as an occupation power, but one of helping hands...the way Somalia was supposed to be...but ended so disastrously.
A fact of life is people is desperation will accept whatever help is given. This holds true even in a normally rejectionist Arab world. Libya is an example, as was Kuwait. A major test will be what happens after the US leaves Iraq. With one of the world's largest oil reserves, the West won't be happy to see Iran making a move of any sort of influence.
The importance of bringing stability to this region goes beyond Arab countries...Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan form a continuous belt of non Arabic Muslim nations linked to Europe yet influenced by what happens in Arab nations.
If the West allows chaos to continue and radical regimes to form, it could eventually face an expanded terror war and a growing disenchantment with the West.
Is Syria on Verge of Civil War?
And Will the West Intervene?
by Dan Ehrlich
Ultimatums from the Arab League, Turkey, the EU and US have yet to stop the bloodshed in Syria which is nearing 4,000 dead and heading for a civil war. This isn't what the Arab Spring was supposed to bring. But it does illustrate a need for continued Big Power involvement in this powder keg region. And events may mean just that as pressure builds for outside intervention.
For quite some time western leaders have maintained an end to the Israel-Palestine issue is the key to Middle East peace. However, the so-called Arab Spring has destroyed that idea. Indeed, the only connection Israel may have had with the upheavals sweeping the Arab world is through TV and the Internet, where the multitudes could see the affluent lifestyle along Tel Aviv's beaches.
For people, such as the Syrians, kept under theocratic dictatorships since 1918, and repressive Ottoman rule since the 15th Century, the idea of a better, freer life is what has fueled the uprisings. Yet, there will always be tension and danger with the prospect of chaos in a feudal world interacting with wealthy and free western nations...nations dependent on that world's black gold.
Several surveys of living standards reveal Arab nations woefully behind all developed nations and even below most Latin American nations. The United Nation's Human Development Survey shows Norway Number 1, the USA 4, Israel 17, the UK is back at 27 and the closest Arab country, the UAE at 32. Syria is way down at 118. Libya, which is also in utter chaos, was rated 64, Tunisia is 94, Jordan 95 and Turkey, a non Arabic Muslim nation that wants to join the European Union is 83. Way down the list is Egypt at 113 and Yemen at 154.
The Arab world is similar to the USA in one key geopolitical area. It needs an enemy or scapegoat for its shortcomings and the excesses of its potentates. For decades America had Communism as an all-purpose enemy. With that gone, and the fact we are an economic hostage to the world's biggest nation, one that's Communist, we had to find another adversary...terrorism... a never-ending war of terror. Yet America's economic and employment problems are causing our masses to rethink foreign wars and foreign aid.
But, for the Arabs that enemy has been Israel...the simple fact is, if Israel never existed it would have to be invented to keep the Arab masses in line. They and the West would most probably face the same problems. The West would still be fighting to control Middle East oil until it runs out and the Arabs would be blaming each other and the West for their problems.
Given the NATO action in Libya and Iraq, it seems the only way the bring stability to the Arab World is to force the issue with an overpowering dose of neo colonialism, i.e., Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
NATO became involved in Libya on the grounds that Gadaffi was killing civilians. With this reasoning Syria, whose leader is killing thousands of his own people, is ripe for western intervention. And the West has to stop being timid and do what it has to do to maintain respect for its preeminence and support for civilized government.
The alternative is to accept an unknown outcome of various uprisings, with a worse case scenario being Islamic extremist governments. Indeed the only stable country in the region is Israel, and even it has to contend with the prospect of more violence from the Palestinians, who find it easier to take on the Israelis than their own corrupt leadership.
Yet, the Israel-Palestine issue has been relegated to a sideshow. Israel could recognize a Palestinian state tomorrow and it would have no effect on the so-called Arab Spring. The uprisings would continue and governments would remain or fall.
Little by little the Arab masses, while still hating Israel out of conditioning, are realizing an end to their repressive governments and not an end to Israel will help them obtain better lives.
But it seems realistic to conclude that for some time to come this region will be unsettled, chaotic and begging for some benevolent yet strong leadership. The main problem with the Arab world has been a nationalism based on a mass of uneducated people held in check by authoritarian, often repressive regimes, using religion as a tool of state control.
And part of this control has been maintaining feudal tribal fiefdoms where outsiders are often rejected on religious grounds and in the case of Israel, massive propaganda orchestrated by the state aimed at scapegoating that country for all the world's problems. Sound familiar?
The key to neo imperialism is to benevolently bring these people into the modern world through order, civility, living standards and proper contemporary education. This doesn't have to be nation building.
It's more like time travel. The nations of the Arab world are close enough in proximity to the West to have graduated away from ancient tribal lifestyles. But, for the most part they haven't and this modern day medievalism is the main difference that separates them from being modern progressive societies.
Some UN officials hoped back in 1948 that the creation of Israel would establish a climate of cooperation where the technically proficient Israelis could teach the Arabs how to make the desert bloom. For the most part this hasn't happened.
Since the West's prime interest in the Middle East isn't date and fig exporting, the only way to secure oil exports for the long term is by the West doing it until proper democratic governments can take root.
So far Tunisia, Morocco Libya, Egypt, Syria, Bahrain and Yemen are in varying states of revolution or civil war. There have also been rumblings from Jordan and Lebanon.
This instability and upheaval could eventually impact oil production and the real possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran will only make things worse.
The Arabs, long the witnesses and victims of big power conflict know how to play one side against the other. They did it during the Cold War and sensing the West is in decline are warming a bit towards Iran, who some may feel will be a new power broker in the region.
In the long run this will prove a mistaken assumption. The forces of international capitalism will not be held in check by Iran. We acted quickly during Operation Desert storm when Iraq occupied Kuwait and the West will act again, if need be.
Part of the neo imperial doctrine would be to make the Middle East a nuclear free zone. This would eventually include Israel. Besides, once peace and tranquility encompasses the region, there will be no need for atomic weapons.
The key for the West would not to be perceived as an occupation power, but one of helping hands...the way Somalia was supposed to be...but ended so disastrously.
A fact of life is people is desperation will accept whatever help is given. This holds true even in a normally rejectionist Arab world. Libya is an example, as was Kuwait. A major test will be what happens after the US leaves Iraq. With one of the world's largest oil reserves, the West won't be happy to see Iran making a move of any sort of influence.
The importance of bringing stability to this region goes beyond Arab countries...Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan form a continuous belt of non Arabic Muslim nations linked to Europe yet influenced by what happens in Arab nations.
If the West allows chaos to continue and radical regimes to form, it could eventually face an expanded terror war and a growing disenchantment with the West.
The Iranian Bomb?
If No Military Action is Taken
It Might be Best to Simply Ignore It
by Dan Ehrlich
Currently being knocked off the Euro front pages by the Greek economic fiasco is a possible game changer of enormous proportions. Will Israel attack Iran's nuclear plants with more than just computer software?
Up until now it's been a poker game that Iran has been playing very well, refusing to be bluffed down in the face of Israeli threats and American intimidation.
But now, as the International Atomic Energy Agency released a report claiming Iran has long been trying to develop atomic weapons, the case for a preemptive strike, such as Israel once carried out against Iraq, will be stronger.
Yet for argument's sake let's say Israel doesn't attack Iran.... which it probably wouldn't do without American backing up front.
Iran then will most certainly develop a nuclear weapon. In fact, it could be argued the military and economic threats against it offer Iran justification to have such weapons.
Here's what I think will happen. Iran, like Israel, will deny having the bomb. Why make it official? Better to keep the world guessing. Just the thought of an Iranian bomb will create in the Middle East what the US had for more than 40 years with Russia... Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), a sort of fantasy nuclear standoff between powers who may or may not have nuclear weapons.
Yet, this is very dangerous game to play, and one that a nation such as Iran, run by devout theocrats, feels it can afford. Wealthy democracies will think long and hard before taking military action that may mean counter attacks against them. But dictatorships with less to lose who feel they can raise the status of their homeland may not have such reservations.
The big goal of Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been to replace Saudi Arabia as the Middle East's main player, which will be quite a task since Iran is a non Arabic Shiite Muslim nation, while most of the Arab world is Sunni Muslim. But, having the bomb maybe a big persuader.
However, there could be a spanner in the Iranian gears, and its called Turkey, a powerful country far more developed and with a stronger economy than anyone in the region except Israel.
Until recently Turkey has been looking westward towards the European Union. But, now it has rediscovered its Islamic glory and past Ottoman Empire. Even though the Turks have remained cordial to Iran, the Iranian imperial ambitions will not be welcomed in Ankara.
I repeat, Iran will not admit to having nuclear weapons. But, the threat will still be there as will the nuclear standoff. And barring fanatical action, that's with what we may have to live. And its also a reason Turkey has allowed US missile batteries on it soil.
Possibly the best way to deal with Iran's denials will be to simply ignore it by accepting their claims. I mean there's no point in playing the bluff game if no one believes you. This might force Iran to own up to their bomb. But, using it would be another thing, one that could be a gateway to Armageddon. Such stakes may be too high for the major powers to play.
The main lesson the world learned from the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident was that even a relatively small radioactive discharge could cause a disaster over a wide area. And this lesson has been taken in by the Arab world, which fears Iran's atomic ambition.
It knows if Iran, or anyone else for that matter, attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, bordering states such as Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and especially the Palestinians could be destroyed as well. Shock waves and atomic radiation know no borders.
You might say, the Arab-Israeli conflict could be settled in one blow, with the suffering survivors envying the dead.
We can only hope Iran realises this, too. And we can also hope if and when they get the bomb, their maniacal leadership doesn't adopt the standard terrorist logic of accepting collateral damage for their idea of the greater good.
If No Military Action is Taken
It Might be Best to Simply Ignore It
by Dan Ehrlich
Currently being knocked off the Euro front pages by the Greek economic fiasco is a possible game changer of enormous proportions. Will Israel attack Iran's nuclear plants with more than just computer software?
Up until now it's been a poker game that Iran has been playing very well, refusing to be bluffed down in the face of Israeli threats and American intimidation.
But now, as the International Atomic Energy Agency released a report claiming Iran has long been trying to develop atomic weapons, the case for a preemptive strike, such as Israel once carried out against Iraq, will be stronger.
Yet for argument's sake let's say Israel doesn't attack Iran.... which it probably wouldn't do without American backing up front.
Iran then will most certainly develop a nuclear weapon. In fact, it could be argued the military and economic threats against it offer Iran justification to have such weapons.
Here's what I think will happen. Iran, like Israel, will deny having the bomb. Why make it official? Better to keep the world guessing. Just the thought of an Iranian bomb will create in the Middle East what the US had for more than 40 years with Russia... Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), a sort of fantasy nuclear standoff between powers who may or may not have nuclear weapons.
Yet, this is very dangerous game to play, and one that a nation such as Iran, run by devout theocrats, feels it can afford. Wealthy democracies will think long and hard before taking military action that may mean counter attacks against them. But dictatorships with less to lose who feel they can raise the status of their homeland may not have such reservations.
The big goal of Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been to replace Saudi Arabia as the Middle East's main player, which will be quite a task since Iran is a non Arabic Shiite Muslim nation, while most of the Arab world is Sunni Muslim. But, having the bomb maybe a big persuader.
However, there could be a spanner in the Iranian gears, and its called Turkey, a powerful country far more developed and with a stronger economy than anyone in the region except Israel.
Until recently Turkey has been looking westward towards the European Union. But, now it has rediscovered its Islamic glory and past Ottoman Empire. Even though the Turks have remained cordial to Iran, the Iranian imperial ambitions will not be welcomed in Ankara.
I repeat, Iran will not admit to having nuclear weapons. But, the threat will still be there as will the nuclear standoff. And barring fanatical action, that's with what we may have to live. And its also a reason Turkey has allowed US missile batteries on it soil.
Possibly the best way to deal with Iran's denials will be to simply ignore it by accepting their claims. I mean there's no point in playing the bluff game if no one believes you. This might force Iran to own up to their bomb. But, using it would be another thing, one that could be a gateway to Armageddon. Such stakes may be too high for the major powers to play.
The main lesson the world learned from the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident was that even a relatively small radioactive discharge could cause a disaster over a wide area. And this lesson has been taken in by the Arab world, which fears Iran's atomic ambition.
It knows if Iran, or anyone else for that matter, attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, bordering states such as Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and especially the Palestinians could be destroyed as well. Shock waves and atomic radiation know no borders.
You might say, the Arab-Israeli conflict could be settled in one blow, with the suffering survivors envying the dead.
We can only hope Iran realises this, too. And we can also hope if and when they get the bomb, their maniacal leadership doesn't adopt the standard terrorist logic of accepting collateral damage for their idea of the greater good.
And Next in the Middle East: A Free Kurdistan?
Kurds may Eventually Benefit from Turkey's Support for a Palestinian state
by Dan Ehrlich
Turkey’s new support for a Palestinian state is a hypocritical irony that may come back to haunt it in the distant future.
On one hand it’s responsible for the seedlings that grew into modern-day Israel and on the other it’s doing all it can to repress the national aspirations of its own large Kurdish minority, while rooting for the creation of a Palestinian state.
Largely forgotten amidst all the international hype surrounding the Israel-Palestinian conflict is the ongoing persecution of one of the world’s largest stateless minorities. Upwards of 30 million Kurds live largely segregated in Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria where they have undergone periods of persecution…some brought on by their uprisings of national liberation.
Even though the Kurds have Persian origins, their biggest community is in Turkey where an ongoing 36-year insurgency has claimed the lives of 40,000 Kurds.
Turkey’s answer is something Israel doesn’t attempt with its Arab population…forced assimilation through military conscription, with the result of Kurds in the Turkish Army being forced to fight their brother Kurds in the uprising.
Yet, it seems logical if and when a Palestinian state becomes a reality, the birth of an independent Kurdistan will be next on the Middle East agenda. The irony here is Turkey was the governing power that sold land in Palestine to Zionist Jews before WW1.
Unlike the Palestinians, who are Arabs mainly from surrounding Arab lands, the Kurds are a distinct non Semitic ethnic group. They existed as mountain dwelling nomads for hundreds of years in a cross border region called Kurdistan. One of the greatest Muslim warrior leaders Sultan Saladin was a Kurd.
After the Ottoman Empire was dissolved, Britain agreed to the possibility of a Kurdish nation being declared. However, this idea was rejected in 1923 by Turkish leader Kemal Ataturk, who put down the first modern day Kurdish uprisings. Since then the Kurds have remained one of the world’s largest stateless ethnic groups.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/daily/feb99/kurdprofile.htm
The Kurds have one main thing against them…No oil. If they could control the flow of oil the odds of their gaining statehood would shorten. But wait! Don’t the Kurds now control the oil rich region of Iraq? And doesn’t Turkey seek closer ties with the West? Euro-pressure may build on Turkey if and when things start popping.
As I said, if there ever is a Palestinian state, look for the Kurds to impress the world with their need for a national homeland, through increased military action coupled with political lobbying.
Yet, Turkey will dig in its heals and become even more repressive. One only has to recall the WW1 Armenian genocide by Turkey of up to 1.5 million people to know the Turks don’t play by the western rule book. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide The big question may be: Will Turkey cave in to Western pressure in favor of the Kurds...or will it revert back to its ruthless Ottoman past.
Kurds may Eventually Benefit from Turkey's Support for a Palestinian state
by Dan Ehrlich
Turkey’s new support for a Palestinian state is a hypocritical irony that may come back to haunt it in the distant future.
On one hand it’s responsible for the seedlings that grew into modern-day Israel and on the other it’s doing all it can to repress the national aspirations of its own large Kurdish minority, while rooting for the creation of a Palestinian state.
Largely forgotten amidst all the international hype surrounding the Israel-Palestinian conflict is the ongoing persecution of one of the world’s largest stateless minorities. Upwards of 30 million Kurds live largely segregated in Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria where they have undergone periods of persecution…some brought on by their uprisings of national liberation.
Even though the Kurds have Persian origins, their biggest community is in Turkey where an ongoing 36-year insurgency has claimed the lives of 40,000 Kurds.
Turkey’s answer is something Israel doesn’t attempt with its Arab population…forced assimilation through military conscription, with the result of Kurds in the Turkish Army being forced to fight their brother Kurds in the uprising.
Yet, it seems logical if and when a Palestinian state becomes a reality, the birth of an independent Kurdistan will be next on the Middle East agenda. The irony here is Turkey was the governing power that sold land in Palestine to Zionist Jews before WW1.
Unlike the Palestinians, who are Arabs mainly from surrounding Arab lands, the Kurds are a distinct non Semitic ethnic group. They existed as mountain dwelling nomads for hundreds of years in a cross border region called Kurdistan. One of the greatest Muslim warrior leaders Sultan Saladin was a Kurd.
After the Ottoman Empire was dissolved, Britain agreed to the possibility of a Kurdish nation being declared. However, this idea was rejected in 1923 by Turkish leader Kemal Ataturk, who put down the first modern day Kurdish uprisings. Since then the Kurds have remained one of the world’s largest stateless ethnic groups.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/daily/feb99/kurdprofile.htm
The Kurds have one main thing against them…No oil. If they could control the flow of oil the odds of their gaining statehood would shorten. But wait! Don’t the Kurds now control the oil rich region of Iraq? And doesn’t Turkey seek closer ties with the West? Euro-pressure may build on Turkey if and when things start popping.
As I said, if there ever is a Palestinian state, look for the Kurds to impress the world with their need for a national homeland, through increased military action coupled with political lobbying.
Yet, Turkey will dig in its heals and become even more repressive. One only has to recall the WW1 Armenian genocide by Turkey of up to 1.5 million people to know the Turks don’t play by the western rule book. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide The big question may be: Will Turkey cave in to Western pressure in favor of the Kurds...or will it revert back to its ruthless Ottoman past.
US, Israel
Business Booming in One, Flat in Other
Yet Both Share Similar Economic Issue
by Dan Ehrlich
Cain's Shallow Views Won't Stop American Decline
You’ve got to admire Herman Cain, whether you do or don’t agree with his often simplistic views. To challenge the GOP establishment and rise higher and higher in the polls is no small feat.
That’s mainly because of his outspoken and brash language centered on domestic policies that resonate with millions of voters.
But Cain seems to be making the same mistake that many self made millionaires from humble beginning make…the “if I can make it, anyone can” belief. This was British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s mantra.
She, along with her political soul mate President Ronald Reagan, had little sympathy for the unemployed or low wage workers. They viewed them either welfare spongers or simply weren’t trying hard enough to get ahead.
The fact America has the greatest rich-poor gap among western industrial nations is something many captains of industry on America’s listing industrial ship don’t want to address.
Yet here President Obama’s message isn’t that much different from the pizza man…He recently challenged the nation’s African Americans to stop complaining and start moving.
However, for Cain to brand the Wall Street protests as the acts of losers (Again the “if I can make it anyone can” mantra), is both naïve and callous given our economic situation.
In the end his 9-9-9 taxation plan, which experts brand as a windfall for the rich and disastrous for the poor, gives Herman Cain away as just another Wall Street loving fat cat with a Reaganesque view of the less well healed. To use the age-old adage: A former slave can make a worse taskmaster.
A good way to view the American dilemma is through a microcosm…a small nation with a similar problem. That nation is Israel, with a population of 7.5 million, 6 million of which are Jews and 1.5 million Arabs.
Now, given the historic academic excellence and business acumen of Jews one might think Israel would truly have become a land of milk and honey. And, on the plus side it has the second highest living standard of any Middle East nation. And its economy is so strong it has a credit rating now a shade ahead of America’s.
But, on the negative side, as with the USA, it has a rich-poor gap almost as great, with many citizens forced to live sub standard existences. Before the current anti Wall Street protests, a half million people protested all over Israel for decent living standards there.
But how could this be? By Cain’s logic, such people are losers. Yet, many demonstrating Israelis were military vets, college grads and most were employed …many of whom have now found themselves being shortchanged on life in their own idealic country during a time of plenty.
If this is happening to Israel in a relatively short time span, it may be easier to understand why American protests will continue to grow now and in the future.
We rose to new heights of affluence and plenty as the post WW2 superpower with an untouched industrial base that grew and grew rather than being blown to hell by the war. We were the main producer nation.
But, while our industry grew our population in 1950 was less than half what it is today…When Israel was formed in 1948 there were less than a million people in the new state, more than seven times fewer than today. However, unlike America, Israel has a very small landmass, which means that land will become expensive when the demand of a growing population increases.
America doesn’t have a land problem…yet. Its main similarity with Israel is in the concentration of wealth. Israel doesn’t have the unemployment problems of the West. People are working. But the cost of living has outstripped wages, meaning many Israelis can’t afford a decent life, while a few fats cats own most of the nation’s prosperity.
In America, many things are dirt cheap, and the country is large enough to afford varying living standards that means if you go looking for it, you should be able to find some affordable place to live.
But, you have to have some level of income to do this. And, as our unemployment rate climbs, fewer and fewer people will be able to afford a living standard that isn’t reinforced by welfare assistance. A main reason for this isn’t just the rapid death of our industrial base, but also the rapid growth of our population.
Where China put the brakes on its population growth with a one-child policy, America is still a two-kid country with 312 million people.. If current trends continue, the population of the United States will rise to 438 million in 2050, from 296 million in 2005.
And 82 percent of the increase will be due to immigrants arriving from 2005 to 2050 and their U.S.-born descendants, according to new projections developed by the Pew Research Center.
Who will employ all these people? What will their living standard be? If we have 9 to 17 percent unemployment rate now with our current population, what will 2050 be like? And, what will housing cost be when land and housing in key areas becomes scarce?
One thing is certain, there will be other Herman Cains around, extolling the view, “If I can make it, you can, too.”
.
Business Booming in One, Flat in Other
Yet, Both Share Same Economic Problem
by Dan Ehrlich
Business Booming in One, Flat in Other
Yet Both Share Similar Economic Issue
by Dan Ehrlich
Cain's Shallow Views Won't Stop American Decline
You’ve got to admire Herman Cain, whether you do or don’t agree with his often simplistic views. To challenge the GOP establishment and rise higher and higher in the polls is no small feat.
That’s mainly because of his outspoken and brash language centered on domestic policies that resonate with millions of voters.
But Cain seems to be making the same mistake that many self made millionaires from humble beginning make…the “if I can make it, anyone can” belief. This was British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s mantra.
She, along with her political soul mate President Ronald Reagan, had little sympathy for the unemployed or low wage workers. They viewed them either welfare spongers or simply weren’t trying hard enough to get ahead.
The fact America has the greatest rich-poor gap among western industrial nations is something many captains of industry on America’s listing industrial ship don’t want to address.
Yet here President Obama’s message isn’t that much different from the pizza man…He recently challenged the nation’s African Americans to stop complaining and start moving.
However, for Cain to brand the Wall Street protests as the acts of losers (Again the “if I can make it anyone can” mantra), is both naïve and callous given our economic situation.
In the end his 9-9-9 taxation plan, which experts brand as a windfall for the rich and disastrous for the poor, gives Herman Cain away as just another Wall Street loving fat cat with a Reaganesque view of the less well healed. To use the age-old adage: A former slave can make a worse taskmaster.
A good way to view the American dilemma is through a microcosm…a small nation with a similar problem. That nation is Israel, with a population of 7.5 million, 6 million of which are Jews and 1.5 million Arabs.
Now, given the historic academic excellence and business acumen of Jews one might think Israel would truly have become a land of milk and honey. And, on the plus side it has the second highest living standard of any Middle East nation. And its economy is so strong it has a credit rating now a shade ahead of America’s.
But, on the negative side, as with the USA, it has a rich-poor gap almost as great, with many citizens forced to live sub standard existences. Before the current anti Wall Street protests, a half million people protested all over Israel for decent living standards there.
But how could this be? By Cain’s logic, such people are losers. Yet, many demonstrating Israelis were military vets, college grads and most were employed …many of whom have now found themselves being shortchanged on life in their own idealic country during a time of plenty.
If this is happening to Israel in a relatively short time span, it may be easier to understand why American protests will continue to grow now and in the future.
We rose to new heights of affluence and plenty as the post WW2 superpower with an untouched industrial base that grew and grew rather than being blown to hell by the war. We were the main producer nation.
But, while our industry grew our population in 1950 was less than half what it is today…When Israel was formed in 1948 there were less than a million people in the new state, more than seven times fewer than today. However, unlike America, Israel has a very small landmass, which means that land will become expensive when the demand of a growing population increases.
America doesn’t have a land problem…yet. Its main similarity with Israel is in the concentration of wealth. Israel doesn’t have the unemployment problems of the West. People are working. But the cost of living has outstripped wages, meaning many Israelis can’t afford a decent life, while a few fats cats own most of the nation’s prosperity.
In America, many things are dirt cheap, and the country is large enough to afford varying living standards that means if you go looking for it, you should be able to find some affordable place to live.
But, you have to have some level of income to do this. And, as our unemployment rate climbs, fewer and fewer people will be able to afford a living standard that isn’t reinforced by welfare assistance. A main reason for this isn’t just the rapid death of our industrial base, but also the rapid growth of our population.
Where China put the brakes on its population growth with a one-child policy, America is still a two-kid country with 312 million people.. If current trends continue, the population of the United States will rise to 438 million in 2050, from 296 million in 2005.
And 82 percent of the increase will be due to immigrants arriving from 2005 to 2050 and their U.S.-born descendants, according to new projections developed by the Pew Research Center.
Who will employ all these people? What will their living standard be? If we have 9 to 17 percent unemployment rate now with our current population, what will 2050 be like? And, what will housing cost be when land and housing in key areas becomes scarce?
One thing is certain, there will be other Herman Cains around, extolling the view, “If I can make it, you can, too.”
.
Business Booming in One, Flat in Other
Yet, Both Share Same Economic Problem
by Dan Ehrlich
Regression...What's That?
Turkey Pastrami? Better Get Used to It
In the America Politicians Won't Mention
by Dan Ehrlich
The other day at my local market I asked for a half pound of lean pastrami. But, I could see the attendant grabbing a piece of turkey pastrami and was ready to slice it when I said “Wait a second, I want real beef pastrami" which was the only pastrami you could buy for more years than I can recall.” And for a few cents more in cost, that’s what I eventually bought.
What my experience seeking beef pastrami and the current anti Wall Street protesters have in common is both having to deal with the decline of America which I call our Regression. It’s something as a nation we have never experienced. That may because nations in decline experience it only once.
America is not going into a recession or even a depression. Those are things we had when the horn of plenty was still overflowing and this nation had a bright future. With that gone we have in fact entered a regression. It can be argued we are gradually going back to our roots as a nation, but this time on the cheap.
America, with the biggest rich-poor gap in the developed world, has a colossal challenge of keeping the population well fed. And, no matter how our economy does, our workforce probably won’t realize the high wages of better days. For example new figures show a living standard drop twice as much today as it was during the last recession, which allegedly began in 2008 and ended last year…but don’t hold me to that.
The current anti Wall Street protests are nothing compared to the anarchy that could result if hunger in America reaches a tipping point…something that won’t happen as long as we can make cheap food for the masses. Cheap food that will be promoted as a healthier alternative. Currently turkey burgers are being promoted on televison as a healthier and cheaper alternative to beef.
This and the economic downturn has forced US cattle ranchers to sell beef on the hoof in foreign countries, such as China and Japan. where beef prices are very high.
Cheapening of America Underway for Years
But, the cheapening of America has been going on for years at the same time we have been sold on the super size idea and that artificial foods are often better than real food.
Just look at many of the prepared meats and meals in any supermarket and see the crap that’s now being passed off as a healthier alternative to genuine meat we used to get. The all American pork hot dog is history at many markets, replaced by chicken and turkey dogs…Of course, if you have money to spend you can buy the more expensive all beef dogs.
A basic drink such as orange juice is mainly made from concentrate, meaning we don’t know how much water is actually added. Of course, if you’re not so well off you can buy gallons of orange drink, not juice, but at the same price real juice used to cost.
At major supermarket chains in the US cheap plain wrap food is becoming more prevalent. As time marches on, more and more of our basic commodities will be adulterated to feed us on the cheap. And you can bet, somewhere in time when the last drop of oil is pumped from the earth, someone will patent air or water as our new power source.
As our rich poor gap increases, the dietary gap will follow suit, with the masses dining on Soylent Green while the elite eat fillet steak and Hebrew National all beef hot dogs.
World Divided into Producer and Consumer Zones
The world is now divided into two zones composed of producer nations and consumer nations. The problem for we as consumers is our countries have to create jobs so we can buy goods that fuel the furnaces of the Asian producers. Yes, we are all in bed together and it looks like our political leaders are resigned for a long lie-in.
President Obama and all US presidents since Ronald Reagan have one main thing in common, they’re supply-side monetarists. They cringe at talk of restrictive trade barriers and extol the one-world market, the very thing that has pinned us to the Chinese economy and our own slow impoverishment.
We started with nothing in America except the land and a growing population. We developed a wealthy society that emerged pre-eminent at the end of WW2 as the only major industrial power not largely destroyed. In fact we became so rich, our own industry couldn’t provide us with the amount of quality goods we wanted such as multiple TVs in the house and multiple cars in the garage.
So, to feed our materialistic hunger and enrich the capitalists, we dropped trade barriers and welcomed in foreign goods. Then we began exporting work abroad, first to Japan and now to China and India.
Well, gradually, our happy days are ending. Other nations have also become wealthy or in China’s case, an industrial giant, largely through our patronage and we’re fighting them for trade and natural resources.
The Sad Fact is We Can't Compete with Slave Wage Nations
The sad fact of life is, we can’t compete against slave wage cultures and yet maintain our economy and obscene consumption rate. We have two choices both resulting in a new austerity for us. We can raise trade barriers and rebuild our industrial base, which will mean higher costs for consumers or we can lower our wage structure so we can compete with dollar-a-day wage nations.
No matter, Americans will have to learn to live on less as our backward slide continues. We may even get to know our families again as we all huddle around our home theater systems and vie to use the family car.
Oh yes, you can bet on the forbidden S-word to become spoken more openly in America. As people downsize and downgrade, socialist programs will be needed to care for the newly dispossessed who will be battling with Mexican workers for jobs at fast food joints.
This is where nations such as the UK have a big advantage. Any regression there won’t be nearly as severe and will be cushioned by the much maligned, but long established welfare state. On the other hand, Europe's social democracies, in the same bed with the USA, will have to figure out how to pay for these programs.
Eventually when a slimmed down America hits bottom, it will have to decide how it climbs up again, by redeveloping its industries, with taxes on foreign good, as in the post WW2 years or depending on Chinese firms, who in any case may have taken over the country by then, for our resurrection.
Turkey Pastrami? Better Get Used to It
In the America Politicians Won't Mention
by Dan Ehrlich
The other day at my local market I asked for a half pound of lean pastrami. But, I could see the attendant grabbing a piece of turkey pastrami and was ready to slice it when I said “Wait a second, I want real beef pastrami" which was the only pastrami you could buy for more years than I can recall.” And for a few cents more in cost, that’s what I eventually bought.
What my experience seeking beef pastrami and the current anti Wall Street protesters have in common is both having to deal with the decline of America which I call our Regression. It’s something as a nation we have never experienced. That may because nations in decline experience it only once.
America is not going into a recession or even a depression. Those are things we had when the horn of plenty was still overflowing and this nation had a bright future. With that gone we have in fact entered a regression. It can be argued we are gradually going back to our roots as a nation, but this time on the cheap.
America, with the biggest rich-poor gap in the developed world, has a colossal challenge of keeping the population well fed. And, no matter how our economy does, our workforce probably won’t realize the high wages of better days. For example new figures show a living standard drop twice as much today as it was during the last recession, which allegedly began in 2008 and ended last year…but don’t hold me to that.
The current anti Wall Street protests are nothing compared to the anarchy that could result if hunger in America reaches a tipping point…something that won’t happen as long as we can make cheap food for the masses. Cheap food that will be promoted as a healthier alternative. Currently turkey burgers are being promoted on televison as a healthier and cheaper alternative to beef.
This and the economic downturn has forced US cattle ranchers to sell beef on the hoof in foreign countries, such as China and Japan. where beef prices are very high.
Cheapening of America Underway for Years
But, the cheapening of America has been going on for years at the same time we have been sold on the super size idea and that artificial foods are often better than real food.
Just look at many of the prepared meats and meals in any supermarket and see the crap that’s now being passed off as a healthier alternative to genuine meat we used to get. The all American pork hot dog is history at many markets, replaced by chicken and turkey dogs…Of course, if you have money to spend you can buy the more expensive all beef dogs.
A basic drink such as orange juice is mainly made from concentrate, meaning we don’t know how much water is actually added. Of course, if you’re not so well off you can buy gallons of orange drink, not juice, but at the same price real juice used to cost.
At major supermarket chains in the US cheap plain wrap food is becoming more prevalent. As time marches on, more and more of our basic commodities will be adulterated to feed us on the cheap. And you can bet, somewhere in time when the last drop of oil is pumped from the earth, someone will patent air or water as our new power source.
As our rich poor gap increases, the dietary gap will follow suit, with the masses dining on Soylent Green while the elite eat fillet steak and Hebrew National all beef hot dogs.
World Divided into Producer and Consumer Zones
The world is now divided into two zones composed of producer nations and consumer nations. The problem for we as consumers is our countries have to create jobs so we can buy goods that fuel the furnaces of the Asian producers. Yes, we are all in bed together and it looks like our political leaders are resigned for a long lie-in.
President Obama and all US presidents since Ronald Reagan have one main thing in common, they’re supply-side monetarists. They cringe at talk of restrictive trade barriers and extol the one-world market, the very thing that has pinned us to the Chinese economy and our own slow impoverishment.
We started with nothing in America except the land and a growing population. We developed a wealthy society that emerged pre-eminent at the end of WW2 as the only major industrial power not largely destroyed. In fact we became so rich, our own industry couldn’t provide us with the amount of quality goods we wanted such as multiple TVs in the house and multiple cars in the garage.
So, to feed our materialistic hunger and enrich the capitalists, we dropped trade barriers and welcomed in foreign goods. Then we began exporting work abroad, first to Japan and now to China and India.
Well, gradually, our happy days are ending. Other nations have also become wealthy or in China’s case, an industrial giant, largely through our patronage and we’re fighting them for trade and natural resources.
The Sad Fact is We Can't Compete with Slave Wage Nations
The sad fact of life is, we can’t compete against slave wage cultures and yet maintain our economy and obscene consumption rate. We have two choices both resulting in a new austerity for us. We can raise trade barriers and rebuild our industrial base, which will mean higher costs for consumers or we can lower our wage structure so we can compete with dollar-a-day wage nations.
No matter, Americans will have to learn to live on less as our backward slide continues. We may even get to know our families again as we all huddle around our home theater systems and vie to use the family car.
Oh yes, you can bet on the forbidden S-word to become spoken more openly in America. As people downsize and downgrade, socialist programs will be needed to care for the newly dispossessed who will be battling with Mexican workers for jobs at fast food joints.
This is where nations such as the UK have a big advantage. Any regression there won’t be nearly as severe and will be cushioned by the much maligned, but long established welfare state. On the other hand, Europe's social democracies, in the same bed with the USA, will have to figure out how to pay for these programs.
Eventually when a slimmed down America hits bottom, it will have to decide how it climbs up again, by redeveloping its industries, with taxes on foreign good, as in the post WW2 years or depending on Chinese firms, who in any case may have taken over the country by then, for our resurrection.
Back to Square One 1948
Abbas Won't Recognize Israel as a Jewish State
But Wants the World the Recognize Palestine
by Dan Ehrlich
West Bank Palestinian leader Mahmood Abbas told a group of Arab Americans that he will not recognize Israel as a Jewish state, proving that nothing has really changed in some Arab minds regarding Israel,
This bigoted religious philosophy, that Islam can be the only preeminent faith in the region, from 64 years-ago, was the main Arab sore point that prompted the first Middle East war.
Abbas, after his UN speech asking for his state of Palestine (Land of the Philistines) to be proclaimed he hinted he will not re start peace talks with Israel as long as settlement building continues. And it’s easy to see his point given the rather small area of his proposed state…or more accurately his half-state. Hamas in Gaza wants nothing from of his UN begging.
Yet, listening to his speech and you can see why this conflict just goes on and on…From start to now, the Palestinians’ problem is the fault of Israel…Abbas made no mention of Arab wars, terrorism and rocket attacks or the fact that his own Arab brothers have from 1948 designated Palestinian refugees as official pawns, hanging them out to dry on an Israeli clothesline.
Yet by western logic the negotiating stance of Abbas is mind-boggling. He leads a hard pressed people cut off by war from their own kind, receiving little aid from the Arab world, and yet dictates to the victors in these wars (Israel) that his people should have their own state, without first recognizing Israel, the established nation that occupies land they call their own.
So, what Abbas is hoping for is to have the UN proclaim his state without him recognizing Israel, thereby really changing nothing for his people on the West Bank, and maintaining the status quo that has been going on since 1967.
The West Bank has been in contention since after the 1948 war, when it formed a ceasefire line between Jordan and Israel. There never have been internationally recognized borders for Israel and the West Bank. This is why Abbas has asked the UN to declare his state there.
When Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1994 that enclave was not part of the deal. Through Arab League pressure Jordan finally gave up all claim to the West Bank in 1988. The League, since 1948, had wanted to keep the West Bank Arabs as dispossessed people, pawns in their war of attrition with Israel.
But, since there never have been internationally recognized borders and Israel controls that area, it feels it has the right to settle on its historic homeland. Why haven’t there been recognized borders? Because most Arab states don’t accept Israel exists and refuse to show it on their maps.
However, settlement building on occupied territory is also a political ploy aimed at forcing the Palestinians back to the conference table. And it might work if much of the world wasn’t involved in this conflict. But, since it is, Abbas can dig his heals in and refuse to negotiate.
In the end the zealous settlers become the losers. When Israel vacated the Sinai and Gaza Strip it evacuated settlers and demolished the settlements.
Abbas’ trip to the UN may also signal that he realizes he’s not going to get anymore out of the Israelis and wants to have his state proclaimed without his recognizing Israel. This is where the UN could show some initiative by linking Palestinian statehood with mutual peace and recognition.
Yet, how can the UN declare a state when that state is geographically and ideologically divided with Abbas speaking for only half of it? The other half is in Gaza run by Hamas, which wants an endless war against Israel.
This brings up the two totally different aspects to this conflict: the humanitarian in providing a home for a dispossessed people and the political in that any such state will be used as a tool weaken and nibble away at Israel. The latter will depend much on how Israel deals with any new state and its people.
Right now Israel’s economy is booming. It has a higher credit rating than America even though there is a great gap between rich and poor Israelis. Yet, any Palestinian state will have to depend on the kindness of strangers. It will have to deal with Israel and Israelis and hopefully some of the wealth and know-how will rub off on the Arabs.
Perhaps then peace will finally come to that area. Remember, affluent democracies seldom war with each other. On the other hand, Palestine may become Israel’s Mexico, something that could be more destructive to a Jewish state than war.
Abbas Won't Recognize Israel as a Jewish State
But Wants the World the Recognize Palestine
by Dan Ehrlich
West Bank Palestinian leader Mahmood Abbas told a group of Arab Americans that he will not recognize Israel as a Jewish state, proving that nothing has really changed in some Arab minds regarding Israel,
This bigoted religious philosophy, that Islam can be the only preeminent faith in the region, from 64 years-ago, was the main Arab sore point that prompted the first Middle East war.
Abbas, after his UN speech asking for his state of Palestine (Land of the Philistines) to be proclaimed he hinted he will not re start peace talks with Israel as long as settlement building continues. And it’s easy to see his point given the rather small area of his proposed state…or more accurately his half-state. Hamas in Gaza wants nothing from of his UN begging.
Yet, listening to his speech and you can see why this conflict just goes on and on…From start to now, the Palestinians’ problem is the fault of Israel…Abbas made no mention of Arab wars, terrorism and rocket attacks or the fact that his own Arab brothers have from 1948 designated Palestinian refugees as official pawns, hanging them out to dry on an Israeli clothesline.
Yet by western logic the negotiating stance of Abbas is mind-boggling. He leads a hard pressed people cut off by war from their own kind, receiving little aid from the Arab world, and yet dictates to the victors in these wars (Israel) that his people should have their own state, without first recognizing Israel, the established nation that occupies land they call their own.
So, what Abbas is hoping for is to have the UN proclaim his state without him recognizing Israel, thereby really changing nothing for his people on the West Bank, and maintaining the status quo that has been going on since 1967.
The West Bank has been in contention since after the 1948 war, when it formed a ceasefire line between Jordan and Israel. There never have been internationally recognized borders for Israel and the West Bank. This is why Abbas has asked the UN to declare his state there.
When Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1994 that enclave was not part of the deal. Through Arab League pressure Jordan finally gave up all claim to the West Bank in 1988. The League, since 1948, had wanted to keep the West Bank Arabs as dispossessed people, pawns in their war of attrition with Israel.
But, since there never have been internationally recognized borders and Israel controls that area, it feels it has the right to settle on its historic homeland. Why haven’t there been recognized borders? Because most Arab states don’t accept Israel exists and refuse to show it on their maps.
However, settlement building on occupied territory is also a political ploy aimed at forcing the Palestinians back to the conference table. And it might work if much of the world wasn’t involved in this conflict. But, since it is, Abbas can dig his heals in and refuse to negotiate.
In the end the zealous settlers become the losers. When Israel vacated the Sinai and Gaza Strip it evacuated settlers and demolished the settlements.
Abbas’ trip to the UN may also signal that he realizes he’s not going to get anymore out of the Israelis and wants to have his state proclaimed without his recognizing Israel. This is where the UN could show some initiative by linking Palestinian statehood with mutual peace and recognition.
Yet, how can the UN declare a state when that state is geographically and ideologically divided with Abbas speaking for only half of it? The other half is in Gaza run by Hamas, which wants an endless war against Israel.
This brings up the two totally different aspects to this conflict: the humanitarian in providing a home for a dispossessed people and the political in that any such state will be used as a tool weaken and nibble away at Israel. The latter will depend much on how Israel deals with any new state and its people.
Right now Israel’s economy is booming. It has a higher credit rating than America even though there is a great gap between rich and poor Israelis. Yet, any Palestinian state will have to depend on the kindness of strangers. It will have to deal with Israel and Israelis and hopefully some of the wealth and know-how will rub off on the Arabs.
Perhaps then peace will finally come to that area. Remember, affluent democracies seldom war with each other. On the other hand, Palestine may become Israel’s Mexico, something that could be more destructive to a Jewish state than war.
Four Powers Call for Talk Resumption
Abbas: Not While More Israel
West Bank Homes are Being Built
by Dan Ehrlich
West Bank Palestinian leader Mahmood Abbas has hinted he will not re start peace talks with Israel as long as settlement building continues. And it’s easy to see his point given the rather small area of his proposed state...Or, in fact, half a state.
Yet, listening to his speech and you can see why this conflict just goes on and on…From start to now, the Palestinians’ problem is the fault of Israel…Abbas made no mention of terrorism and rocket attacks or the fact that his own Arab brothers have from 1948 onwards designated Palestinian refugees as official pawns, hanging them out to dry on an Israeli clothesline.
But more than this, just prior to his speech he told a group of Arab Americans he had no intention on recognizing Israel as a Jewish state. So, in fact, he's taken the conflict back to 1948 and once again shown the true feelings of the PLO.
The West Bank has been in contention since after the 1948 war, when it formed a ceasefire line between Jordan and Israel. There never have been internationally recognized borders for Israel and the West Bank. This is why Abbas has asked the UN to declare his state there
But, since there never have been internationally recognized borders and Israel controls that area, it feels it has the right to settle on its historic homeland. Why haven’t there been recognized borders? Because most Arab states don’t accept Israel exists and refuse to show it on their maps.
However, settlement building on occupied territory is also a political ploy aimed at forcing the Palestinians back to the conference table. And it might work if much of the world wasn’t involved in this conflict. But, since it is, Abbas can dig his heals in and refuse to negotiate.
In the end the zealous settlers become the losers. When Israel vacated the Sinai and Gaza Strip it evacuated settlers and demolished the settlements.
Abbas’ trip to the UN may also signal that he realizes he’s not going to get anymore out of the Israelis and wants to have his state proclaimed without his recognizing Israel. This is where the UN could show some initiative by linking Palestinian statehood with mutual peace and recognition.
Yet, how can the UN declare a state when that state is geographically and ideologically divided with Abbas speaking for only half of it? The other half is in Gaza run by Hamas, which wants an endless war against Israel and would also love to get rid of Abbas, as well.
This brings up the two totally different aspects to this conflict: the humanitarian in providing a home for a dispossessed people and the political in that any such state will be used as a tool weaken and nibble away at Israel. The latter will depend much on how Israel deals with any new state and its people.
Right now Israel's economy is booming. It has a higher credit rating than America even though there is a great gap between rich and poor Israelis. Yet, any Palestinian state will depend on the kindness of strangers. It will have to deal with Israel and Israelis and hopefully some of the wealth and know-how will rub off on the Arabs.
Perhaps then peace will finally come to that area. Remember, affluent democracies seldom war with each other. On the other hand, Palestine may become Israel’s Mexico...something that could be a deadly blow to a Jewish state.
Abbas: Not While More Israel
West Bank Homes are Being Built
by Dan Ehrlich
West Bank Palestinian leader Mahmood Abbas has hinted he will not re start peace talks with Israel as long as settlement building continues. And it’s easy to see his point given the rather small area of his proposed state...Or, in fact, half a state.
Yet, listening to his speech and you can see why this conflict just goes on and on…From start to now, the Palestinians’ problem is the fault of Israel…Abbas made no mention of terrorism and rocket attacks or the fact that his own Arab brothers have from 1948 onwards designated Palestinian refugees as official pawns, hanging them out to dry on an Israeli clothesline.
But more than this, just prior to his speech he told a group of Arab Americans he had no intention on recognizing Israel as a Jewish state. So, in fact, he's taken the conflict back to 1948 and once again shown the true feelings of the PLO.
The West Bank has been in contention since after the 1948 war, when it formed a ceasefire line between Jordan and Israel. There never have been internationally recognized borders for Israel and the West Bank. This is why Abbas has asked the UN to declare his state there
But, since there never have been internationally recognized borders and Israel controls that area, it feels it has the right to settle on its historic homeland. Why haven’t there been recognized borders? Because most Arab states don’t accept Israel exists and refuse to show it on their maps.
However, settlement building on occupied territory is also a political ploy aimed at forcing the Palestinians back to the conference table. And it might work if much of the world wasn’t involved in this conflict. But, since it is, Abbas can dig his heals in and refuse to negotiate.
In the end the zealous settlers become the losers. When Israel vacated the Sinai and Gaza Strip it evacuated settlers and demolished the settlements.
Abbas’ trip to the UN may also signal that he realizes he’s not going to get anymore out of the Israelis and wants to have his state proclaimed without his recognizing Israel. This is where the UN could show some initiative by linking Palestinian statehood with mutual peace and recognition.
Yet, how can the UN declare a state when that state is geographically and ideologically divided with Abbas speaking for only half of it? The other half is in Gaza run by Hamas, which wants an endless war against Israel and would also love to get rid of Abbas, as well.
This brings up the two totally different aspects to this conflict: the humanitarian in providing a home for a dispossessed people and the political in that any such state will be used as a tool weaken and nibble away at Israel. The latter will depend much on how Israel deals with any new state and its people.
Right now Israel's economy is booming. It has a higher credit rating than America even though there is a great gap between rich and poor Israelis. Yet, any Palestinian state will depend on the kindness of strangers. It will have to deal with Israel and Israelis and hopefully some of the wealth and know-how will rub off on the Arabs.
Perhaps then peace will finally come to that area. Remember, affluent democracies seldom war with each other. On the other hand, Palestine may become Israel’s Mexico...something that could be a deadly blow to a Jewish state.
Denied Nationality by Arabs, Israelis
Palestinians Deserve Their Own State
But Statehood Should be Tied to Mutual Recognition, Peace
The Palestinian Arab people deserve a state of their own for two reasons: Their Arab brothers don’t want them and the Israelis, with 1.5 million Arabs of their own, don’t want them either. So, as with the Jews of Europe, being an unwanted people, they qualify for a homeland. Yet any such state should be tied to mutual acceptance and a peace treaty.
The major problem for the West in dealing with this endless growing headache has been in understanding the Middle East mindset. When the UN voted for the creation of Israel in 1947, it was with largely a western mindset…if the new state could survive a military campaign against it, that would be the end of hostilities. And, as with post war Europe, loose ends such as refugees could be solved through negotiations.
The West never imagined an endless period of hostility and wars aimed at ridding the region of a thorn in its side…one that only seem to fester with time. And that was because the Arab nations refused to treat the wound, in this case, an ever-increasing number of refugees, from these wars. They knew there would come time when this infection would burst open, as it now is doing.
We in the West see things in terms of quick success or failure…politicians see issues as terms in office. But, the Arabs have long viewed life in a timeless void where, if you wait long enough, the world will revert back to the way it was.
So, it has been with their endless conflict with Israel. The Arab League knew in 1948, after their first losing war with Israel, that keeping Arab refugees stateless would be beneficial to their new war against the Infidel, a war of attrition.
Now, that practice has borne fruit…a UN resolution resurrecting the ancient Roman territory of Palestine into the State of Palestine. Yet, as was the case with Israel in 1948, a resolution is one thing, holding on to your claim is another. This makes any Palestinian entity problematic since it’s really composed to two basic entities, the West Bank, at peace with Israel and the Gaza Strip, at war with Israel. The new state of Palestine is divided, before it’s even off and running, both geographically and politically.
It’s one thing to having a nation born into a state of war, fighting for its survival, and another fighting before being born as a nation so you can carry on the fight legitimately after a painful birth. Hamas, which controls Gaza, hates Israel religiously and has vowed to destroy it. Its hostile and deadly acts are the sole reason for Israel’s blockade. Hamas would also like to rest control of the West Bank from the PLO. But, the two factions have called a truce for now. This is the state of the state that’s being born.
Israel, for its part in this saga, has made the mistake of thinking it could out wait the Arabs war of attrition by heaping hardships on the Palestinians. Things such as settlement building, withholding funds and border crossing delays are part of a failed policy by the conservative government to nobble the Palestinians into negotiations.
Yet all this right up to the any UN resolution ignores the one basic fact that has remained since 1947…one that was made clear by recent events in Egypt…. The Arabs, including the Palestinians, don’t want a Jewish state in the region. Why, for example, hasn’t a peace offering been made with the Palestinian state resolution? It seems this would be a natural part of any statehood bid. Israel’s 1948 declaration of independence called on all its neighbors to work together for peace…So why not the Palestinians?
Most probably it’s because Palestinian President Mahmood Abbas is a tool of the Arab League, an organization, which with a few exceptions, has worked toward weakening and eventually destroying Israel. The League has one other concern…Palestinian refugees…It doesn’t want its member states to be forced through international pressure to accept them as citizens.
What’s mystifying in an ever-smaller world is how no major international political or body of justice has condemned League Resolution 1457, which denies Palestinians citizenship in Arab nations.
Just as mystifying is the ethnic loyalty the Palestinians continue to hold for people who have kept them penned up in camps for as long as 63 years on a promise that the Infidel would be driven into the sea. Making peace isn’t that hard, especially when you become sick and tired of feeling sick and tired. But, it takes two.
However, one positive advantage of a Palestinian state for Israel will be it’s ability and even its inability curb attacks. If it does, great, if not, Israel will have a green light to respond against an established nation that maintains a state of war against it.
More realistically, a Palestinian state’s main priority will quickly shift from war to economics and making the life of its citizens better. To do this it will need Israeli assistance…assistance that will be offered only in peace.
Palestinians Deserve Their Own State
But Statehood Should be Tied to Mutual Recognition, Peace
The Palestinian Arab people deserve a state of their own for two reasons: Their Arab brothers don’t want them and the Israelis, with 1.5 million Arabs of their own, don’t want them either. So, as with the Jews of Europe, being an unwanted people, they qualify for a homeland. Yet any such state should be tied to mutual acceptance and a peace treaty.
The major problem for the West in dealing with this endless growing headache has been in understanding the Middle East mindset. When the UN voted for the creation of Israel in 1947, it was with largely a western mindset…if the new state could survive a military campaign against it, that would be the end of hostilities. And, as with post war Europe, loose ends such as refugees could be solved through negotiations.
The West never imagined an endless period of hostility and wars aimed at ridding the region of a thorn in its side…one that only seem to fester with time. And that was because the Arab nations refused to treat the wound, in this case, an ever-increasing number of refugees, from these wars. They knew there would come time when this infection would burst open, as it now is doing.
We in the West see things in terms of quick success or failure…politicians see issues as terms in office. But, the Arabs have long viewed life in a timeless void where, if you wait long enough, the world will revert back to the way it was.
So, it has been with their endless conflict with Israel. The Arab League knew in 1948, after their first losing war with Israel, that keeping Arab refugees stateless would be beneficial to their new war against the Infidel, a war of attrition.
Now, that practice has borne fruit…a UN resolution resurrecting the ancient Roman territory of Palestine into the State of Palestine. Yet, as was the case with Israel in 1948, a resolution is one thing, holding on to your claim is another. This makes any Palestinian entity problematic since it’s really composed to two basic entities, the West Bank, at peace with Israel and the Gaza Strip, at war with Israel. The new state of Palestine is divided, before it’s even off and running, both geographically and politically.
It’s one thing to having a nation born into a state of war, fighting for its survival, and another fighting before being born as a nation so you can carry on the fight legitimately after a painful birth. Hamas, which controls Gaza, hates Israel religiously and has vowed to destroy it. Its hostile and deadly acts are the sole reason for Israel’s blockade. Hamas would also like to rest control of the West Bank from the PLO. But, the two factions have called a truce for now. This is the state of the state that’s being born.
Israel, for its part in this saga, has made the mistake of thinking it could out wait the Arabs war of attrition by heaping hardships on the Palestinians. Things such as settlement building, withholding funds and border crossing delays are part of a failed policy by the conservative government to nobble the Palestinians into negotiations.
Yet all this right up to the any UN resolution ignores the one basic fact that has remained since 1947…one that was made clear by recent events in Egypt…. The Arabs, including the Palestinians, don’t want a Jewish state in the region. Why, for example, hasn’t a peace offering been made with the Palestinian state resolution? It seems this would be a natural part of any statehood bid. Israel’s 1948 declaration of independence called on all its neighbors to work together for peace…So why not the Palestinians?
Most probably it’s because Palestinian President Mahmood Abbas is a tool of the Arab League, an organization, which with a few exceptions, has worked toward weakening and eventually destroying Israel. The League has one other concern…Palestinian refugees…It doesn’t want its member states to be forced through international pressure to accept them as citizens.
What’s mystifying in an ever-smaller world is how no major international political or body of justice has condemned League Resolution 1457, which denies Palestinians citizenship in Arab nations.
Just as mystifying is the ethnic loyalty the Palestinians continue to hold for people who have kept them penned up in camps for as long as 63 years on a promise that the Infidel would be driven into the sea. Making peace isn’t that hard, especially when you become sick and tired of feeling sick and tired. But, it takes two.
However, one positive advantage of a Palestinian state for Israel will be it’s ability and even its inability curb attacks. If it does, great, if not, Israel will have a green light to respond against an established nation that maintains a state of war against it.
More realistically, a Palestinian state’s main priority will quickly shift from war to economics and making the life of its citizens better. To do this it will need Israeli assistance…assistance that will be offered only in peace.
With Most of Their Facilities Abroad
Two Industry Leaders Blame Washington
For America's Economic Decline
by Dan Ehrlich
Recently I watched Starbuck’s honcho Howard Schultz and Caterpillar CEO Doug Oberhelman proclaim on network TV that Washington was broken, the people had no faith in it, our politicians were liars and for America’s economy to become strong again will take massive investment in US industry and education
And while I agree with their views, I couldn’t help thinking of some hypocrisy in their words. The majority of Caterpillar plants and Starbucks coffee houses are now in foreign countries. And most of the Starbucks’ recent cutbacks have been in America. Schultz didn’t mention this.
The official “recession is over” claim has been a feel good attempt designed to divert our attention from high unemployment, the declining middle class and the fact that the bulk of American industry is anything but patriotic.
The Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think tank, says American companies have created 1.4 million jobs overseas last year, compared with less than 1 million in the U.S. Robert Scott, the institute's senior international economist says the additional 1.4 million jobs would have lowered the U.S. unemployment rate to 8.9 percent.
“There's a huge difference between what is good for American companies versus what is good for the American economy," Scott says. The fact is: American jobs have been moving overseas for more than two decades. But now, the products being made are high tech goods as well as clothes and toys.
D.C. Uncertainty Deters US Business Investment
It is Schultz’s view the fault of our economic decline lies squarely with our politicians, claiming US industry is fearful of investing its huge profits back into America because of the anxiety and the uncertainty that exists with regard to the political system.
He pointed out only 9 million Americans currently work in our industrial sector. “Can you believe that? I mean, that's a stunning statistic.” His words came when Ford, also with has more factories abroad than in America, was announcing still another plant under construction in India where 5,000 Indians will be employed.
Profits at major American corporations are up, the stock market is soaring and our leaders repeatedly tell us the great recession of 2008 is history. When in fact it will still be with us through 2011 and probably 2012. That’s because the nation is carrying record high unemployment of 9.8 percent, or 17 percent in real terms.
On top of this, much of what US firms are making abroad is staying abroad…being bought by foreigners while the US domestic market still is in a subdued recession mode.
“It’s the economy stupid,” that Clinton era rallying cry is what today’s politicians keep skirting around, diverting us with a few key side issues, such as gays in the military, abortion, gay marriage and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, from the reality of globalization… that vague locale where the political Right and Left meet.
When Right and Left Meet
The Left sees the global market as the death of the nation state, which it loathes, and the birth of a global society of growing equality, where the lion will lie down with the lamb. The Right sees it as the normal progression of free market capitalism with new markets for American industry, the end result being world economic zones controlled largely by super banks.
So far the Right is far ahead of the Left. Much of the world has been divided into economic and political zones, including NAFTA, the EU, SEATO and the African Union. And globalization has allowed, or forced, American firms to open up profitable operations abroad, while leaving their home country in the dust.
The main success the Left can claim is a growing middle class, if you can call it that, in overpopulated developing nations. By 2015, for the first time, the number of consumers in Asia's middle class will equal those in Europe and North America combined. Which is understandable since the American Middle Class has been in decline for several years and the Asian version is growing by virtue of the West's appetite for its cheap goods and services.
"All of the growth over the next 10 years is happening in Asia," says Homi Kharas, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute and formerly the World Bank's chief economist for East Asia and the Pacific.
And, who serves these new consumers? US firms do, such as that most all-American icon Coca Cola. Of Coke's 93,000 global employees, less than 13 percent were in the U.S. in 2009, down from 19 percent five years ago.
More than Half New Caterpillar Hires Overseas
More than half of the 15,000 people that Caterpillar has hired this year were outside the U.S. The tractor maker from Moline, Ill. has opened two plants in China.
So, while Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are busy backing America with their millions, other major players are backing the very people that are helping to impoverish America. There may come a time when we won’t be able to afford the stuff China makes. But that won’t matter so much if China develops its domestic market…which will be a neat trick given the repressive nature of the Communist nation.
Yet, we know little of this back home. We are more likely to know the finalists on Dancing with the Stars or America’s Got Talent, the latter show pointing out an irony of the times as to who really has the talent these days.
Since WW2 we have been involved in four major military conflicts plus the Cold War, which enriched the Military Industrial Complex but did nothing for our population.
This plus more light entertaining such as Olympic Games, sports, social networking, the cult of celebrity and entertainment help blind us to real issues such as the economy, poverty, pollution, global warming, overpopulation, dwindling energy and other essential resources that are becoming more serious with each passing year.
Oberhelman says that an open and honest dialogue with our leaders is missing. “I don't believe that this situation about our budget is anything new. And it is beyond me that we can't have an open, honest dialogue with our people.”
American Education System isn't Good Enough Today
Underpinning much of this is the growing lack of quality education among America’s young. As Oberhelman explains, “What we find is a lot of the applicants need retraining, they need basic education, maybe they didn't get through high school, there are all kinds of problems.
“So we spend a lot of time training and retraining. It's heartbreaking because our education system has failed all of us. And again you go to China, even Mexico, Brazil the education systems are valued - ours are not in this country at K-12 level. It's amazing how that change has transpired in my lifetime.”
When asked why unemployment was remaining so high for so long, Schultz again blamed the isolationist atmosphere inside the D.C. Beltway.
“When I examined the cost of what the election cycle was in 2008, which was more than $4 billion, and it's estimated in 2012 $5.5 billion is going to be spent on congressional re-election and the presidential election.
“Just think about that - $5.5 billion when we have 9 percent unemployment in America. And people don't know where their next meal is coming from. The system is completely broken.”
And speaking of the election, Oberhelman said, “Any politician that says no tax revenue or zero spending cuts does not deserve reelection.”
Two Industry Leaders Blame Washington
For America's Economic Decline
by Dan Ehrlich
Recently I watched Starbuck’s honcho Howard Schultz and Caterpillar CEO Doug Oberhelman proclaim on network TV that Washington was broken, the people had no faith in it, our politicians were liars and for America’s economy to become strong again will take massive investment in US industry and education
And while I agree with their views, I couldn’t help thinking of some hypocrisy in their words. The majority of Caterpillar plants and Starbucks coffee houses are now in foreign countries. And most of the Starbucks’ recent cutbacks have been in America. Schultz didn’t mention this.
The official “recession is over” claim has been a feel good attempt designed to divert our attention from high unemployment, the declining middle class and the fact that the bulk of American industry is anything but patriotic.
The Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think tank, says American companies have created 1.4 million jobs overseas last year, compared with less than 1 million in the U.S. Robert Scott, the institute's senior international economist says the additional 1.4 million jobs would have lowered the U.S. unemployment rate to 8.9 percent.
“There's a huge difference between what is good for American companies versus what is good for the American economy," Scott says. The fact is: American jobs have been moving overseas for more than two decades. But now, the products being made are high tech goods as well as clothes and toys.
D.C. Uncertainty Deters US Business Investment
It is Schultz’s view the fault of our economic decline lies squarely with our politicians, claiming US industry is fearful of investing its huge profits back into America because of the anxiety and the uncertainty that exists with regard to the political system.
He pointed out only 9 million Americans currently work in our industrial sector. “Can you believe that? I mean, that's a stunning statistic.” His words came when Ford, also with has more factories abroad than in America, was announcing still another plant under construction in India where 5,000 Indians will be employed.
Profits at major American corporations are up, the stock market is soaring and our leaders repeatedly tell us the great recession of 2008 is history. When in fact it will still be with us through 2011 and probably 2012. That’s because the nation is carrying record high unemployment of 9.8 percent, or 17 percent in real terms.
On top of this, much of what US firms are making abroad is staying abroad…being bought by foreigners while the US domestic market still is in a subdued recession mode.
“It’s the economy stupid,” that Clinton era rallying cry is what today’s politicians keep skirting around, diverting us with a few key side issues, such as gays in the military, abortion, gay marriage and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, from the reality of globalization… that vague locale where the political Right and Left meet.
When Right and Left Meet
The Left sees the global market as the death of the nation state, which it loathes, and the birth of a global society of growing equality, where the lion will lie down with the lamb. The Right sees it as the normal progression of free market capitalism with new markets for American industry, the end result being world economic zones controlled largely by super banks.
So far the Right is far ahead of the Left. Much of the world has been divided into economic and political zones, including NAFTA, the EU, SEATO and the African Union. And globalization has allowed, or forced, American firms to open up profitable operations abroad, while leaving their home country in the dust.
The main success the Left can claim is a growing middle class, if you can call it that, in overpopulated developing nations. By 2015, for the first time, the number of consumers in Asia's middle class will equal those in Europe and North America combined. Which is understandable since the American Middle Class has been in decline for several years and the Asian version is growing by virtue of the West's appetite for its cheap goods and services.
"All of the growth over the next 10 years is happening in Asia," says Homi Kharas, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute and formerly the World Bank's chief economist for East Asia and the Pacific.
And, who serves these new consumers? US firms do, such as that most all-American icon Coca Cola. Of Coke's 93,000 global employees, less than 13 percent were in the U.S. in 2009, down from 19 percent five years ago.
More than Half New Caterpillar Hires Overseas
More than half of the 15,000 people that Caterpillar has hired this year were outside the U.S. The tractor maker from Moline, Ill. has opened two plants in China.
So, while Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are busy backing America with their millions, other major players are backing the very people that are helping to impoverish America. There may come a time when we won’t be able to afford the stuff China makes. But that won’t matter so much if China develops its domestic market…which will be a neat trick given the repressive nature of the Communist nation.
Yet, we know little of this back home. We are more likely to know the finalists on Dancing with the Stars or America’s Got Talent, the latter show pointing out an irony of the times as to who really has the talent these days.
Since WW2 we have been involved in four major military conflicts plus the Cold War, which enriched the Military Industrial Complex but did nothing for our population.
This plus more light entertaining such as Olympic Games, sports, social networking, the cult of celebrity and entertainment help blind us to real issues such as the economy, poverty, pollution, global warming, overpopulation, dwindling energy and other essential resources that are becoming more serious with each passing year.
Oberhelman says that an open and honest dialogue with our leaders is missing. “I don't believe that this situation about our budget is anything new. And it is beyond me that we can't have an open, honest dialogue with our people.”
American Education System isn't Good Enough Today
Underpinning much of this is the growing lack of quality education among America’s young. As Oberhelman explains, “What we find is a lot of the applicants need retraining, they need basic education, maybe they didn't get through high school, there are all kinds of problems.
“So we spend a lot of time training and retraining. It's heartbreaking because our education system has failed all of us. And again you go to China, even Mexico, Brazil the education systems are valued - ours are not in this country at K-12 level. It's amazing how that change has transpired in my lifetime.”
When asked why unemployment was remaining so high for so long, Schultz again blamed the isolationist atmosphere inside the D.C. Beltway.
“When I examined the cost of what the election cycle was in 2008, which was more than $4 billion, and it's estimated in 2012 $5.5 billion is going to be spent on congressional re-election and the presidential election.
“Just think about that - $5.5 billion when we have 9 percent unemployment in America. And people don't know where their next meal is coming from. The system is completely broken.”
And speaking of the election, Oberhelman said, “Any politician that says no tax revenue or zero spending cuts does not deserve reelection.”
Arab League Moves its Pawns
Palestinians Seek Unworkable State from UN
Without Recognizing its Vital Benefactor
by Dan Ehrlich
Recognition for Recognition =Unconditional Peace: Why Not?
In a few days the United Nations will be asked by the Palestinian Authority to proclaim a Palestinian state on the West Bank, Gaza Strip and in Jerusalem. As flawed as this arrangement may be, any such proclamation should be tied to the Palestinian Authority recognizing Israel with a peace treaty, something that would be constructive in ending this conflict.
This probably won’t happen because there is more in play here than simple politics. There’s the East and West mindsets that don’t have much in common.
Every year in the Palestinian territories several so-called honor killings take place. They’re usually women who compromise their family honor by committing personal acts we wouldn’t think twice about in the West.
http://kinziblogs.wordpress.com/2011/08/02/dis-honor-killing-in-palestine-ayas-murder-sparks-change/
I bring this up because it actually sheds light on the actual reason why the Arab-Israel Conflict has been going on for so long. This isn’t a conflict about land rights as much as it is about honor, unredeemed honor the Arabs have lost to Israel in wars and by the Jewish state still existing.
If you have to designate a villain in this conflict it isn’t Israel or the Palestinians. It’s the Arab League, which has used the Palestinians as its pawns for generations.
The Real Villains of this Tragedy
It was the Arab League that was against Jordan and Egypt annexing the West Bank and Gaza after Israel won the 1948 war. Its wish was to keep these people dispossessed and brainwashed with a hatred of Israel and engaged in a never-ending war of liberation.
Yet, to this day, Jordan is the only Arab nation to buck the League and offer Palestinians citizenship in its sparsely populated land. And, oddly, some League members may have secretly relished Israel's victory in 1967 because it created the occupied Palestinian territories leaving its residents people without a country, which is what the League had wanted in 1948.
In 1959 the Arab League passed Resolution 1457 http://frontpagemag.com/2011/06/03/the-story-of-arab-apartheid/ which denies citizenship to Palestinian refuges living in Arab countries, a unique law in that no other religious or ethnic group discriminates in such a way against its own people.
This has led us to the reality that peace between the Arab world and Israel will not happen until Arab populations are properly educated and materially affluent. Remember, affluent, intelligent democracies don't make war on each other. Until that time, if ever, Israel will remain the right country in the wrong place.
The Palestinian Authority, which doesn’t recognize Israel, a country set-up by the United Nations, will ask that same body to proclaim its statehood composed of the West Bank of the Jordan (formerly part of Jordan), Gaza Strip (formerly part of Egypt) and East Jerusalem.
Yet, this will be more symbolic political move rather than a fait accompli pushed by the Arab League, the puppet master that has pulled the strings of Palestinians for generations.
Reality is Palestinians will Need Israel
All posturing and demands by Palestinians for their own state won't change the reality that they will have to maintain a dependence on a state they hate for their very survival.
They will have to deal with Israelis, work for Israelis, sell to Israelis and buy from Israelis. And eventually if they become affluent and well educated, they may stop attacking the Israelis. If they don't, any independent Palestinian state will be short lived.
I have long felt a roadblock to peace has been big power involvement in the region. If the Palestinians, for example didn't have America or Russia as arbitrators and ombudsmen they would have been forced to deal directly with Israel and wouldn't be able to dodge issues such as acknowledging Israel even exists.
Now, according to the New York Times, Europe is exerting more pressure and influence in the Middle East http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/21/world/middleeast/21mideast.html as America pulls away from the region...we have more than enough problems at home. And so do most of the European nations, for that matter. http://www.cer.org.uk/pdf/wp424_middle_east.pdf
But Europe's close proximity to the region and its dependence on its oil has long kept the Continent's attention and concern. The elder President Bush had little trouble enlisting many European nations to liberate Kuwait after the Iraqi invasion in 1991.
Yet Europe acted as effete observers during the bloodbath in Bosnia shortly after Operation Desert Storm...Now, Europe has led the air assault on Libya, something it jumped into even though this is a civil war. Do you think oil is a major factor in Europe's actions?
Nation's inject themselves in foreign events because there is either a perceived economic of strategic interest to do so. The public may be led to believe these are for humanitarian concerns, but usually this reason is a popular smokescreen for a geo-political motive.
Oil the Only Interest in the Region
Europe and America's only reason to concern themselves with feudal nations existing on a different planet from the rest of us is oil. And since the oil stoppage after the 1973 Arab-Israel war, the western nations have been hoping that a peace between the two sides would insure that "the spice would flow."
But the so-called Arab Spring this year has been a game changer of radical proportions. It has pushed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the back burner as much of the Arab world became caught up in revolution, uprisings or just demonstrations for change.
Enter Europe, as with America, caught in a monumental economic crisis that threatens the European Monetary System. But, unlike America, Europe is far more dependent on Arab oil.
Europe's meddling in the region could end up as another excuse for the Arabs to complain to a third party rather than dealing directly with Israel. This would be counterproductive, simply preserving the status quo.... which many European leaders don't mind...just as long as there's not another war that may affect the oil flow.
After WW2 most of Europe's sympathies rested with the new state of Israel. The Nazi Holocaust was a Continental disgrace and tragedy of unequaled proportions. Besides, countries such as Poland and Germany didn't want Jewish refugees returning to homes that no longer were considered theirs.
Europeans More Pragmatic than Idealistic
But Europeans are far more pragmatic than idealistic. The horrors of that genocide are wearing thin in the face of two new realities...economics and demographics.
Not only are there 75 times more Muslims than Jews in the world, several millions of these Muslims now live in Europe. In short: There's a lot more money and political capital to be made from Muslims than Jews. Add oil to the mix and it's a no brainer for the historically anti Semitic Europeans.
Oh, and there’s also the chaos vs. order obsession. While most Americans view Israel has a hard pressed little democracy up against great odds, Europeans see Israel as the cause of the Middle East tension and disorder, something they don’t like.
A quick aside: An ultimate irony is that before and during WW2 Germany went to such great lengths of depravity and brutality to cleanse itself of non Germanic, non Christian citizens only to wind up today with far more of those people than ever.
So, allowing Europe to be the main arbiters in the region could be a recipe for disaster. In the long run the EU just doesn't have the nerve for anything except a threat to oil imports and yet all its air power wasn’t enough to crush Gaddafi.
The Palestinians UN petition is part of the Arab League’s policy of doing whatever it can do weaken Israel. And this includes having a state in two separated parts, one carved from Jordan and one from Egypt.
Jordan Lost West Bank Because of War with PLO
And this is a story in itself. Jordan had its claim to the West Bank taken away in 1988, not by Israel, but by the Arab League, for its war against the Palestine Liberation Organization and cooperation with Israel. The League decided the land would be better served as a Palestinian entity to use against Israel.
As for Gaza, it was the only war spoils from 1967 that Egypt didn’t want returned. Can you wonder why?
So, how can a nation declare its statehood if it is divided and separated by its sworn enemy? It stands to reason there must be peace between the two sides before a viable state can be formed.
That doesn't concern the League's unofficial rep. Mahmood Abbas. He simply wants the UN to declare the state of Palestine despite it being born into a state of war. And a big part of that declaration is getting the EU on his side.
Former US ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk feels the issue could fracture the EU between some member states who will hang in there with the US which opposes a resolution and others who may side with the Palestinians. I disagree. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/21/world/middleeast/21mideast.html
The EU can't force its members to vote in a block. And diverse voting won't destroy the EU. In fact it might strengthen it in the eyes of Europeans who feel their national identities are being drowned out by a federal Europe.
For example, Germany and Italy are rejecting the Palestinian campaign, France and Spain are receptive, and Britain, as usual, is on the fence.
But a better solution might be one where the UN showed some independent creativity by linking any Palestinian statehood resolution with the PA fully recognizing and accepting Israel via a binding peace treaty. No acceptance, no state!
That won't happen...Abbas won't sign a treaty without the usual conditions...conditions designed to weaken and eventually do to Israel what the PLO did to Lebanon...create a collection of tribal cantons, which is what the Arabs could have had in 1947 just before they chose war as their best option... The reality that western leaders choose to ignore is the Arabs' longterm goal is the same today as it was in 1948...They don't want an Infidel nation in the region.
Palestinians Seek Unworkable State from UN
Without Recognizing its Vital Benefactor
by Dan Ehrlich
Recognition for Recognition =Unconditional Peace: Why Not?
In a few days the United Nations will be asked by the Palestinian Authority to proclaim a Palestinian state on the West Bank, Gaza Strip and in Jerusalem. As flawed as this arrangement may be, any such proclamation should be tied to the Palestinian Authority recognizing Israel with a peace treaty, something that would be constructive in ending this conflict.
This probably won’t happen because there is more in play here than simple politics. There’s the East and West mindsets that don’t have much in common.
Every year in the Palestinian territories several so-called honor killings take place. They’re usually women who compromise their family honor by committing personal acts we wouldn’t think twice about in the West.
http://kinziblogs.wordpress.com/2011/08/02/dis-honor-killing-in-palestine-ayas-murder-sparks-change/
I bring this up because it actually sheds light on the actual reason why the Arab-Israel Conflict has been going on for so long. This isn’t a conflict about land rights as much as it is about honor, unredeemed honor the Arabs have lost to Israel in wars and by the Jewish state still existing.
The 1948 resurrection of Israel has proven one sorry fact: Poverty level peasant based theocracies, with an invincible view of their faith’s worldwide pre-eminence, can’t or won’t happily exist next to affluent progressive democracies...in this case, one that has been demonized for generations by regional dictators.
If you have to designate a villain in this conflict it isn’t Israel or the Palestinians. It’s the Arab League, which has used the Palestinians as its pawns for generations.
The Real Villains of this Tragedy
It was the Arab League that was against Jordan and Egypt annexing the West Bank and Gaza after Israel won the 1948 war. Its wish was to keep these people dispossessed and brainwashed with a hatred of Israel and engaged in a never-ending war of liberation.
Yet, to this day, Jordan is the only Arab nation to buck the League and offer Palestinians citizenship in its sparsely populated land. And, oddly, some League members may have secretly relished Israel's victory in 1967 because it created the occupied Palestinian territories leaving its residents people without a country, which is what the League had wanted in 1948.
In 1959 the Arab League passed Resolution 1457 http://frontpagemag.com/2011/06/03/the-story-of-arab-apartheid/ which denies citizenship to Palestinian refuges living in Arab countries, a unique law in that no other religious or ethnic group discriminates in such a way against its own people.
This has led us to the reality that peace between the Arab world and Israel will not happen until Arab populations are properly educated and materially affluent. Remember, affluent, intelligent democracies don't make war on each other. Until that time, if ever, Israel will remain the right country in the wrong place.
The Palestinian Authority, which doesn’t recognize Israel, a country set-up by the United Nations, will ask that same body to proclaim its statehood composed of the West Bank of the Jordan (formerly part of Jordan), Gaza Strip (formerly part of Egypt) and East Jerusalem.
And will this new state be called the Republic of Palestine? That’s a Roman provincial name placed on what was once a Jewish nation in an effort to eradicate the Jewish presence there. If the Palestinians are indigenous to the region, why maintain a Roman identity?
Yet, this will be more symbolic political move rather than a fait accompli pushed by the Arab League, the puppet master that has pulled the strings of Palestinians for generations.
Reality is Palestinians will Need Israel
All posturing and demands by Palestinians for their own state won't change the reality that they will have to maintain a dependence on a state they hate for their very survival.
They will have to deal with Israelis, work for Israelis, sell to Israelis and buy from Israelis. And eventually if they become affluent and well educated, they may stop attacking the Israelis. If they don't, any independent Palestinian state will be short lived.
I have long felt a roadblock to peace has been big power involvement in the region. If the Palestinians, for example didn't have America or Russia as arbitrators and ombudsmen they would have been forced to deal directly with Israel and wouldn't be able to dodge issues such as acknowledging Israel even exists.
Now, according to the New York Times, Europe is exerting more pressure and influence in the Middle East http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/21/world/middleeast/21mideast.html as America pulls away from the region...we have more than enough problems at home. And so do most of the European nations, for that matter. http://www.cer.org.uk/pdf/wp424_middle_east.pdf
But Europe's close proximity to the region and its dependence on its oil has long kept the Continent's attention and concern. The elder President Bush had little trouble enlisting many European nations to liberate Kuwait after the Iraqi invasion in 1991.
Yet Europe acted as effete observers during the bloodbath in Bosnia shortly after Operation Desert Storm...Now, Europe has led the air assault on Libya, something it jumped into even though this is a civil war. Do you think oil is a major factor in Europe's actions?
Nation's inject themselves in foreign events because there is either a perceived economic of strategic interest to do so. The public may be led to believe these are for humanitarian concerns, but usually this reason is a popular smokescreen for a geo-political motive.
Oil the Only Interest in the Region
Europe and America's only reason to concern themselves with feudal nations existing on a different planet from the rest of us is oil. And since the oil stoppage after the 1973 Arab-Israel war, the western nations have been hoping that a peace between the two sides would insure that "the spice would flow."
But the so-called Arab Spring this year has been a game changer of radical proportions. It has pushed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the back burner as much of the Arab world became caught up in revolution, uprisings or just demonstrations for change.
Enter Europe, as with America, caught in a monumental economic crisis that threatens the European Monetary System. But, unlike America, Europe is far more dependent on Arab oil.
Europe's meddling in the region could end up as another excuse for the Arabs to complain to a third party rather than dealing directly with Israel. This would be counterproductive, simply preserving the status quo.... which many European leaders don't mind...just as long as there's not another war that may affect the oil flow.
After WW2 most of Europe's sympathies rested with the new state of Israel. The Nazi Holocaust was a Continental disgrace and tragedy of unequaled proportions. Besides, countries such as Poland and Germany didn't want Jewish refugees returning to homes that no longer were considered theirs.
Europeans More Pragmatic than Idealistic
But Europeans are far more pragmatic than idealistic. The horrors of that genocide are wearing thin in the face of two new realities...economics and demographics.
Not only are there 75 times more Muslims than Jews in the world, several millions of these Muslims now live in Europe. In short: There's a lot more money and political capital to be made from Muslims than Jews. Add oil to the mix and it's a no brainer for the historically anti Semitic Europeans.
Oh, and there’s also the chaos vs. order obsession. While most Americans view Israel has a hard pressed little democracy up against great odds, Europeans see Israel as the cause of the Middle East tension and disorder, something they don’t like.
A quick aside: An ultimate irony is that before and during WW2 Germany went to such great lengths of depravity and brutality to cleanse itself of non Germanic, non Christian citizens only to wind up today with far more of those people than ever.
So, allowing Europe to be the main arbiters in the region could be a recipe for disaster. In the long run the EU just doesn't have the nerve for anything except a threat to oil imports and yet all its air power wasn’t enough to crush Gaddafi.
The Palestinians UN petition is part of the Arab League’s policy of doing whatever it can do weaken Israel. And this includes having a state in two separated parts, one carved from Jordan and one from Egypt.
Jordan Lost West Bank Because of War with PLO
And this is a story in itself. Jordan had its claim to the West Bank taken away in 1988, not by Israel, but by the Arab League, for its war against the Palestine Liberation Organization and cooperation with Israel. The League decided the land would be better served as a Palestinian entity to use against Israel.
As for Gaza, it was the only war spoils from 1967 that Egypt didn’t want returned. Can you wonder why?
So, how can a nation declare its statehood if it is divided and separated by its sworn enemy? It stands to reason there must be peace between the two sides before a viable state can be formed.
That doesn't concern the League's unofficial rep. Mahmood Abbas. He simply wants the UN to declare the state of Palestine despite it being born into a state of war. And a big part of that declaration is getting the EU on his side.
Former US ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk feels the issue could fracture the EU between some member states who will hang in there with the US which opposes a resolution and others who may side with the Palestinians. I disagree. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/21/world/middleeast/21mideast.html
The EU can't force its members to vote in a block. And diverse voting won't destroy the EU. In fact it might strengthen it in the eyes of Europeans who feel their national identities are being drowned out by a federal Europe.
For example, Germany and Italy are rejecting the Palestinian campaign, France and Spain are receptive, and Britain, as usual, is on the fence.
But a better solution might be one where the UN showed some independent creativity by linking any Palestinian statehood resolution with the PA fully recognizing and accepting Israel via a binding peace treaty. No acceptance, no state!
That won't happen...Abbas won't sign a treaty without the usual conditions...conditions designed to weaken and eventually do to Israel what the PLO did to Lebanon...create a collection of tribal cantons, which is what the Arabs could have had in 1947 just before they chose war as their best option... The reality that western leaders choose to ignore is the Arabs' longterm goal is the same today as it was in 1948...They don't want an Infidel nation in the region.
A Need to Read
From US, EU Issues to Mideast Mess
Passing of Time Muddles Historical Realities
by Dan Ehrlich
Frequently TV talk show hosts Jay Leno and Jimmy Kimmel will go out in the street to ask ordinary people simple questions concerning current events and American issues. The replies, overwhelmingly, leaves a knowledgeable person shocked…not just about the absurd answers, but also for the future of America.
I mean if a person can’t even tell you who was buried in Grant’s Tomb, it’s easier to see why politicians with the limited knowledge of Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin garner such large followings.
The so-called “dumbing down”of America has been going on for more than two generations. Some say it began when multiple-choice exams replaced essays and written answers in schoolwork right through university level studies.
A similar situation exsists in the United Kingdom, the home of literature's greats. A new survey reveals the nation's youth doesn't read much anymore. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/08/23/childrens-attitude-to-reading_n_933817.html British youngsters are ditching Dickens and Shakespeare for Facebook and Twitter. Only one in six British youths read a single book in a month, according to a survey.
This, plus the passing of time, various forms of propaganda, including some revisionist history, may leave people out of touch and ignorant about local, national and world issues. For example, many Americans can’t tell you the simplest background to the causes of WW2.
But, as a superpower America must have a population that understands what going on in the world: The “with great power comes great responsibility” axiom. We instead rely on our political leaders to handle this. However, since they feel Americans are ignorant about most issues, they tend to operate in accordance with their own geo-political beliefs.
"In War, Truth is the First Casualty", Aeschylus, 500 BC
On the international level probably no problem has evolved into a more convoluted maze of disinformation than the endless Arab-Israel conflict. It’s a rare classic example of heroism and idealism turned to derision through the passage of time and changing perceptions.
That’s mainly because it has been going on for so long. Maybe this is why it commands so much more attention than far more deadly conflicts going on in Asia and Africa.
Here we have a unique historical event...the resurrection of a dead nation, that is lost on many people today, Yet, if these people would read reputable history books they would learn about Jews buying land in Palestine from the Turks and later Arabs, not stealing it, about the rise of Arab nationalism at the fall of the Ottoman Empire, British double dealing, about the first Arab massacres of Jews and the rise of Jewish defense groups who in turn killed Arabs in revenge.
History tells of Palestinian complicity with the Nazis during WW2 to kill Jews there, of the Jewish war refugees trying to run the British blockade of Palestine and of the 1947 UN partition plan accepted by the Jews but rejected by the Arabs, who chose war or nothing. Yet, many people today have little or no knowledge of this.
While contemporary history frequently brings up Palestinian refugees, it rarely is concerned with Jewish refugees from Arab countries. Maybe that’s because Israel welcomed them, while the Arabs kept their brothers in camps. It's all there in history.
Yet, from many comments on notable news sites such as the Huffington Post and the Daily Beast, we are led to believe a bunch of survivors from Nazi death camps, who had no views at all about Arabs, traveled to Palestine to kick Arabs out of their homes, steal their land and embark on a century of persecuting these people.
Some Writers Are Racist or Just Ignorant
It’s obvious from many of these comments the writers have little historical knowledge of these issues or use them to release deep seated anti Arabic or anti Semitic feelings.
Aside from all this history, there's probably no greater misplaced patronage and hypocrisy than the liberal love affair with the Palestinians, from bleeding heart Harvard professors to the female friendly Guardian newspaper in the UK.
On one hand many of these same people are backing our war in Afghanistan solely on the need to secure and safeguard women's rights from Taliban brutality. And yet, they condemn and boycott Israel, a social democracy with equal rights for women and home to 1.5 million Arabs, for ill treatment to Palestinians, many of whom look upon women as livestock, homosexuals as dead-men and women walking and infidels as less than equal than them.
More Palestinian women die annually in so-called honor killings by their own families than they do from Israeli reprisal bombardments.
On the other side of this lunacy it could be said most Arabic culture, aside from their religion, would be a good fit for the US hard right red state mob with its love of traditional family values, hatred of gays and deep rooted male chauvinism.
Absurdity of this Conflict
For some time America’s religious right as been overflowing with impassioned vocal and financial backing for Israel from the same conservative region that used to lynch Jews for helping Blacks. Of course that was before it hit the Jerry Springer crowd that they might get reserved first class tickets to heaven if they can get all the Jews into Israel and the same time…bring on their long-awaited Rapture.
Yet, much of this is based on changing perceptions. There was a time when the Israelis were darlings of the far Left. It was a social democracy with collective farms and freedom for all. But most of all it was viewed as an underdog, something as important to liberals as a coffin is to vampires.
Three decades and wars undermined that most favored underdog status…Israel became a winner and occupier of land conquered in Arab wars waged against it. But the biggest blow to its status with the Left was the rise of the right-wing Likud Party, whose actions wiped away memories of socialist collective farming. The Left felt betrayed that its client state was turning right.
The Left, unwittingly worked with the rejectionist Arab League, to morph the Arab-Israel Conflict into the Israel-Palestine Conflict. In the media, Israel facing more than 300 million Arabs would always have them as underdogs. But, localizing the issue with only the Palestinian Arabs would transform Israel into an uber hund (overdog). And Israel could then be seen as a powerful Western nation oppressing poor peace loving Arabs.
Yet, despite this, all the settlement building, rocket attacks and suicide bombings, the reason for this conflict hasn’t changed one bit in 64 years…. Most Arab nations don’t want a Jewish nation there and will wait till hell freezes over to get rid of it, with their pawns of the moment the Palestinians. But, how many young people today have read about this? Who is buried in Grant's Tomb?
From US, EU Issues to Mideast Mess
Passing of Time Muddles Historical Realities
by Dan Ehrlich
Frequently TV talk show hosts Jay Leno and Jimmy Kimmel will go out in the street to ask ordinary people simple questions concerning current events and American issues. The replies, overwhelmingly, leaves a knowledgeable person shocked…not just about the absurd answers, but also for the future of America.
I mean if a person can’t even tell you who was buried in Grant’s Tomb, it’s easier to see why politicians with the limited knowledge of Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin garner such large followings.
The so-called “dumbing down”of America has been going on for more than two generations. Some say it began when multiple-choice exams replaced essays and written answers in schoolwork right through university level studies.
A similar situation exsists in the United Kingdom, the home of literature's greats. A new survey reveals the nation's youth doesn't read much anymore. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/08/23/childrens-attitude-to-reading_n_933817.html British youngsters are ditching Dickens and Shakespeare for Facebook and Twitter. Only one in six British youths read a single book in a month, according to a survey.
This, plus the passing of time, various forms of propaganda, including some revisionist history, may leave people out of touch and ignorant about local, national and world issues. For example, many Americans can’t tell you the simplest background to the causes of WW2.
But, as a superpower America must have a population that understands what going on in the world: The “with great power comes great responsibility” axiom. We instead rely on our political leaders to handle this. However, since they feel Americans are ignorant about most issues, they tend to operate in accordance with their own geo-political beliefs.
"In War, Truth is the First Casualty", Aeschylus, 500 BC
On the international level probably no problem has evolved into a more convoluted maze of disinformation than the endless Arab-Israel conflict. It’s a rare classic example of heroism and idealism turned to derision through the passage of time and changing perceptions.
That’s mainly because it has been going on for so long. Maybe this is why it commands so much more attention than far more deadly conflicts going on in Asia and Africa.
Here we have a unique historical event...the resurrection of a dead nation, that is lost on many people today, Yet, if these people would read reputable history books they would learn about Jews buying land in Palestine from the Turks and later Arabs, not stealing it, about the rise of Arab nationalism at the fall of the Ottoman Empire, British double dealing, about the first Arab massacres of Jews and the rise of Jewish defense groups who in turn killed Arabs in revenge.
History tells of Palestinian complicity with the Nazis during WW2 to kill Jews there, of the Jewish war refugees trying to run the British blockade of Palestine and of the 1947 UN partition plan accepted by the Jews but rejected by the Arabs, who chose war or nothing. Yet, many people today have little or no knowledge of this.
While contemporary history frequently brings up Palestinian refugees, it rarely is concerned with Jewish refugees from Arab countries. Maybe that’s because Israel welcomed them, while the Arabs kept their brothers in camps. It's all there in history.
Yet, from many comments on notable news sites such as the Huffington Post and the Daily Beast, we are led to believe a bunch of survivors from Nazi death camps, who had no views at all about Arabs, traveled to Palestine to kick Arabs out of their homes, steal their land and embark on a century of persecuting these people.
Some Writers Are Racist or Just Ignorant
It’s obvious from many of these comments the writers have little historical knowledge of these issues or use them to release deep seated anti Arabic or anti Semitic feelings.
Aside from all this history, there's probably no greater misplaced patronage and hypocrisy than the liberal love affair with the Palestinians, from bleeding heart Harvard professors to the female friendly Guardian newspaper in the UK.
On one hand many of these same people are backing our war in Afghanistan solely on the need to secure and safeguard women's rights from Taliban brutality. And yet, they condemn and boycott Israel, a social democracy with equal rights for women and home to 1.5 million Arabs, for ill treatment to Palestinians, many of whom look upon women as livestock, homosexuals as dead-men and women walking and infidels as less than equal than them.
More Palestinian women die annually in so-called honor killings by their own families than they do from Israeli reprisal bombardments.
On the other side of this lunacy it could be said most Arabic culture, aside from their religion, would be a good fit for the US hard right red state mob with its love of traditional family values, hatred of gays and deep rooted male chauvinism.
Absurdity of this Conflict
For some time America’s religious right as been overflowing with impassioned vocal and financial backing for Israel from the same conservative region that used to lynch Jews for helping Blacks. Of course that was before it hit the Jerry Springer crowd that they might get reserved first class tickets to heaven if they can get all the Jews into Israel and the same time…bring on their long-awaited Rapture.
Yet, much of this is based on changing perceptions. There was a time when the Israelis were darlings of the far Left. It was a social democracy with collective farms and freedom for all. But most of all it was viewed as an underdog, something as important to liberals as a coffin is to vampires.
Three decades and wars undermined that most favored underdog status…Israel became a winner and occupier of land conquered in Arab wars waged against it. But the biggest blow to its status with the Left was the rise of the right-wing Likud Party, whose actions wiped away memories of socialist collective farming. The Left felt betrayed that its client state was turning right.
The Left, unwittingly worked with the rejectionist Arab League, to morph the Arab-Israel Conflict into the Israel-Palestine Conflict. In the media, Israel facing more than 300 million Arabs would always have them as underdogs. But, localizing the issue with only the Palestinian Arabs would transform Israel into an uber hund (overdog). And Israel could then be seen as a powerful Western nation oppressing poor peace loving Arabs.
Yet, despite this, all the settlement building, rocket attacks and suicide bombings, the reason for this conflict hasn’t changed one bit in 64 years…. Most Arab nations don’t want a Jewish nation there and will wait till hell freezes over to get rid of it, with their pawns of the moment the Palestinians. But, how many young people today have read about this? Who is buried in Grant's Tomb?
Democracy in Danger
2012 Poll: No Serious Obama Challenger?
by Dan Ehrlich
India and the United States are the world’s largest democracies with one other main thing in common: In the end they aren’t very democratic…with governments plagued by inefficiency, factional fighting, waste, corruption, and most of all being out of touch with everyday people. Democracy is best suited to small nations.
Cast, religion and regional ethnicity divide India, a nation set to overtake China as the most populous country. America, while not as demographically complicated, is also divided…between Red States and Blue States, progressive and conservative. Oh yes, the largest single block of voters are described as MOR (middle of the road), but they’re dispersed through the entire nation. Yet, they’re the most prized group during election years.
The next US presidential election is more than year away and as usual, the campaign has already begun. Yet, much of the hoopla and fanfare associated with past campaigns may be minimal this time around. The voters are slowly realizing, through their own personal declining economies, that the US government isn’t working for their best interest and that no politician seems to have the answers as to how the economy can be rebuilt.
To have a working and practical democracy there has to be an effective and intelligent opposition to the party in power. And this is what many people now find most worrying. There isn’t an effective opposition leaving the voters with little choice. There’s President Obama, who promised much but is delivering little and the Republicans, who seem to be composed of rather unsophisticated, almost brain-dead wannabes who, as with many of their liberal opposites, are living in a fantasy world of their own desires.
Ever since the post-Civil War years the GOP has been the party of business and industry, with its HQ not in Washington, but on Wall Street. Yet, after Watergate, with party’s reputation destroyed, it re-branded itself as the party of God and American family values, with an emphasis on states’ rights. This proved to be a good ploy that eventually divided the nation between red and blue states.
But most amazing aspect of the GOP is how its leaders maintain mind-defying dogma in defiance of science and common sense, but in line the beliefs of its core voters and Fox News.
This fact has been brought to the forefront of the new campaign by a collection of has-beens and would-be presidents with two things in common: The private sector, not the government, will fix the economy and global warming is all BS.
With Michelle Bachmann once again embarrassing herself, this time by celebrating Elvis Presley’s death day as his birthday, the new right-wing front-runner has to be Texas Gov. Rick Perry. I mean if you thought GW Bush was rather rustic, this guy makes him look like Cole Porter.
Aside from calling the Federal Reserve chairman a traitor and threatening him with violence if he ever visited Texas, Perry clings to the fantasy that our patriotic private sector if allowed to get to work will create jobs and mend the economy...this is from a state with the lowest wages and highest convict execution rate in the country. The private sector he's talking about number some of the same firms that are relocating all over the world from Mexico to China to hire cheap labor and develop new markets.
Foremost among these is Halliburton, which is holed-up in tax-free Dubai…close to its billion dollar Middle East operations that GW made possible.
The main Problem with strongly held political dogma on the right or left is that true believers refuse to modify their faith in the light of changing circumstances. They may re-brand themselves, but they won’t or can’t face a new reality.
And the new reality America is facing is the power and effect of the global market, to which Ronald Reagan attached us and every president since has supported. This is the main reason the right and left, Democrats and Republicans, can’t come up with answers, or won’t tell us the truth, about the country’s future. They support the free market.
President Obama again has mentioned his desire to create jobs here through massive public works projects. And this is one of his many yet unfulfilled campaign promises. On this site I suggested solving the nation’s drought problem by constructing a northeast to southwest aqueduct.
Yet some GOP politicians will quickly condemn the idea as being too costly and unaffordable. To this we can answer: If we can afford two wars and troops stations all over the world, we can certainly afford to maintain our country at home.
A lot of this, of course, is based on a politician’s shelf life, his term in office. This is where liberals and conservatives meet…their limited concern and vision, if any, for the future. They tend to be concerned with the here and now. Yet, the future is where you and your children will live.
Americans are waking up to the fact the economy isn't the only thing in trouble here. Without an effective opposition to hold a government accountable through constructive criticism and offering better ideas, a democracy will eventually die.
The 2012 election will probably see Obama reelected mainly because there's no decent candidate to stand against him. Yet, the outcome will also indicate how sophisticated, unsophisticated or desperate the electorate is.
2012 Poll: No Serious Obama Challenger?
by Dan Ehrlich
India and the United States are the world’s largest democracies with one other main thing in common: In the end they aren’t very democratic…with governments plagued by inefficiency, factional fighting, waste, corruption, and most of all being out of touch with everyday people. Democracy is best suited to small nations.
Cast, religion and regional ethnicity divide India, a nation set to overtake China as the most populous country. America, while not as demographically complicated, is also divided…between Red States and Blue States, progressive and conservative. Oh yes, the largest single block of voters are described as MOR (middle of the road), but they’re dispersed through the entire nation. Yet, they’re the most prized group during election years.
The next US presidential election is more than year away and as usual, the campaign has already begun. Yet, much of the hoopla and fanfare associated with past campaigns may be minimal this time around. The voters are slowly realizing, through their own personal declining economies, that the US government isn’t working for their best interest and that no politician seems to have the answers as to how the economy can be rebuilt.
To have a working and practical democracy there has to be an effective and intelligent opposition to the party in power. And this is what many people now find most worrying. There isn’t an effective opposition leaving the voters with little choice. There’s President Obama, who promised much but is delivering little and the Republicans, who seem to be composed of rather unsophisticated, almost brain-dead wannabes who, as with many of their liberal opposites, are living in a fantasy world of their own desires.
Ever since the post-Civil War years the GOP has been the party of business and industry, with its HQ not in Washington, but on Wall Street. Yet, after Watergate, with party’s reputation destroyed, it re-branded itself as the party of God and American family values, with an emphasis on states’ rights. This proved to be a good ploy that eventually divided the nation between red and blue states.
But most amazing aspect of the GOP is how its leaders maintain mind-defying dogma in defiance of science and common sense, but in line the beliefs of its core voters and Fox News.
This fact has been brought to the forefront of the new campaign by a collection of has-beens and would-be presidents with two things in common: The private sector, not the government, will fix the economy and global warming is all BS.
With Michelle Bachmann once again embarrassing herself, this time by celebrating Elvis Presley’s death day as his birthday, the new right-wing front-runner has to be Texas Gov. Rick Perry. I mean if you thought GW Bush was rather rustic, this guy makes him look like Cole Porter.
Aside from calling the Federal Reserve chairman a traitor and threatening him with violence if he ever visited Texas, Perry clings to the fantasy that our patriotic private sector if allowed to get to work will create jobs and mend the economy...this is from a state with the lowest wages and highest convict execution rate in the country. The private sector he's talking about number some of the same firms that are relocating all over the world from Mexico to China to hire cheap labor and develop new markets.
Foremost among these is Halliburton, which is holed-up in tax-free Dubai…close to its billion dollar Middle East operations that GW made possible.
The main Problem with strongly held political dogma on the right or left is that true believers refuse to modify their faith in the light of changing circumstances. They may re-brand themselves, but they won’t or can’t face a new reality.
And the new reality America is facing is the power and effect of the global market, to which Ronald Reagan attached us and every president since has supported. This is the main reason the right and left, Democrats and Republicans, can’t come up with answers, or won’t tell us the truth, about the country’s future. They support the free market.
President Obama again has mentioned his desire to create jobs here through massive public works projects. And this is one of his many yet unfulfilled campaign promises. On this site I suggested solving the nation’s drought problem by constructing a northeast to southwest aqueduct.
Yet some GOP politicians will quickly condemn the idea as being too costly and unaffordable. To this we can answer: If we can afford two wars and troops stations all over the world, we can certainly afford to maintain our country at home.
A lot of this, of course, is based on a politician’s shelf life, his term in office. This is where liberals and conservatives meet…their limited concern and vision, if any, for the future. They tend to be concerned with the here and now. Yet, the future is where you and your children will live.
Americans are waking up to the fact the economy isn't the only thing in trouble here. Without an effective opposition to hold a government accountable through constructive criticism and offering better ideas, a democracy will eventually die.
The 2012 election will probably see Obama reelected mainly because there's no decent candidate to stand against him. Yet, the outcome will also indicate how sophisticated, unsophisticated or desperate the electorate is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)