Little noticed in this "Arab Spring"

By Carl 

Israeli citizens are demanding more liberal government:

TEL AVIV, Israel -- While the world has been focused on the anti-government movements that sprang up during the Arab Spring, the largest protests in Israeli history have been sweeping the country for the past two months, threatening to destabilize the government with calls for extensive change.

The protests began with a Facebook petition over the cost of cottage cheese. They now include a litany of demands, including a return to the days when the government took a more active role in subsidizing costs. Protesters also want changes in the tax system, more subsidized government housing and more spending on health and education.

Last weekend, more than 150,000 people participated in a nationwide march to protest high housing costs. The organizers are calling for another march this weekend and promising an even larger turnout.

Israeli officials admit surprise at the strength and staying power of the protesters, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded this week by canceling a scheduled increase in the price of gasoline that was to have gone into effect Tuesday.

That's not popcorn popping, that's the sound of the heads of neo-conservatives and right-wing Zionist bloggers like Pamela Geller exploding.

In a time of austerity measures in America and much of Europe, tiny Israel is deciding, yes, we the people need more.

In fairness, Israel is a nation built on socialist values. As a small island of Judaism in a larger hostile environment, people who are crammed together learn the importance of looking out for one another.

Here in America, we could have adopted the same basic moral values, but chose instead to live with the romantic illusion of "rugged individualism."

Bollocks, as the British would say. "No man is an island," as John Donne put it. Opportunity in America is defined as the culmination of the tribe fostering the one. No one gets rich in this nation on his own, and our tax codes and social constructs ought to recognize this. For behind every rich person in this nation lies an entire community and network of people who work to support his or her opportunities. 

And since greed drives the acquisition of wealth, you can guaran-damn-tee he or she ain't rewarding those folks adequately.

America stopped being about "fairness" a long time ago. It stopped being about opportunity more recently, but still, the barriers to entry in any market are in direct violation of the basic principles of laissez faire economics put down by Adam Smith (who believed in soaking the rich, by the way).

That kind of rugged individualism, where a person through the sweat of his own brow and the dirt under his fingernails, could carve out a modest life for himself that allowed him to be free of working as an indentured servant on someone else's farm, that kind of rugged individualism one can admire. But it's not the rugged individualism people think of today.

It's not the rugged individualism of free enterprise and competition. Now, markets close to competition. Companies will patent everything in sight, including your own DNA, to claim rights to them. Try "going Galt" when you leave your DNA everywhere.

Today, if you don't wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle, you're a rugged individualist. An idiot, but an RI nonetheless. Note that you're middle class enough to *afford* the motorcycle in the first place. You were not someone's slave who suddenly freed himself through dint of hard work and savings. 

Americans have a very hard lesson to learn. We are not individuals. We pretend we can be. And in some small ways, we can be, but not in ways that matter.

A friend of mine said to me recently, "You can be a slave to the corporatocracy under Republicans or a slave to government under the Democrats." There's at least some truth to the latter, and a lot of truth to the former -- although I challenged him to show me how he could be a slave under Democrats. I got a lot of talk about Spain. Not sure it was relevant.

We are slaves. Nearly all of us earn a living making someone else wealthy.

A few of us earn part of our living making someone else wealthy, and part of our living siphoning wealth off other people: in other words, with an economy that is effectively a zero-sum game, you are either being sucked dry or sucking someone else dry. Neither is a particularly pleasant moral position to take.

That the corporatocracy has dug it's siphons so deeply into our society was an inevitable outgrowth of Republican policies (and sadly, many Democratic ones, too).

For my part, I'd rather be a slave to a government that at least once in a while has to get my authorization to enslave me, and that every so often, gets overruled. It sure beats an autocracy of boards of directors and CEOs with no fealty to shareholders, much less other stakeholders like employees or vendors.

Americans could learn a lesson from the Israeli people. When the notion of fairness goes out the window, the best strategy is not to be more antisocial, but less. 

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Israel passes anti-democratic anti-boycott law

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As you may have heard, though it's getting little attention here in North America, Israel on Monday passed a law banning boycotts.

Seriously.

Here's the BBC:

The Israeli parliament [the Knesset] has passed a controversial law that will punish any Israeli individual or organisation boycotting West Bank settlements.

Rights groups say the legislation stifles freedom of speech and compromises Israeli democracy.

After failed attempts to delay debate, it was voted through 47-36.

It follows several Israeli calls to boycott institutions or individuals linked to Jewish settlements on occupied Palestinian land.

It's hard to believe that any country calling itself free and democratic would ever pass such a law, but then, this is Israel we're talking about, a country ruled by Likudnik thugs and other right-wing illiberals who have little to no interest in genuine freedom or democracy.

And I say that as a friend of Israel, as one who is saddened whenever Israel turns to the right, as one who wishes that Israel could just make peace not just with its neighbours but with itself, for good.

This law is simply ridiculous. Worse, its passage shows just how far Israel is currently willing to go to stifle dissent, how detestably defensive it has become, how it lashes out at its critics with venom. How, when it does such a thing, can we say that it has justice on its side?

**********

Roger Waters -- as some of you know, someone I love and admire a great deal -- has posted a clip on Facebook opposing the law. I'm with him all the way. Here it is:

Who's Ed Koch?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Because he's a right-wing extremist on Israel, and therefore opposes President Obama's moderate views on Israel and the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, former New York City Mayor Ed Koch wants a Republican to replace Anthony Weiner in New York's 9th Congressional District, a heavily Jewish district in Brooklyn and Queens. A Republican win, he thinks, would "be another political shot heard around the nation" and make Obama more centrist (i.e., more pro-Israel in a way he approves). No matter that the Democratic candidate, David Weprin is an Orthodox Jew with conservative views on Israel. For Koch, it's all about sending a message to the White House.

All of which is complete nonsense. Koch won't be happy unless Obama, or any president, embraces Likudnik extremism. Sensible moderation isn't enough. But, then, this election should be (and will be) about more than just Israel (and Obama's Israel policy), even in a heavily Jewish district. Other issues are just as much on the minds of voters, if not much more so, and it's silly to think that the vote should be a referendum of sorts on Obama's views on Israel without any regard for the views of the candidates themselves or of the various other concerns of voters. Koch would seem to have a one-track mind. The voters in NY-9 surely have other priorities.

Regardless, I must ask this: Does anyone actually care what Ed Koch thinks about anything? He's a certifiable fool.

Craziest Republican of the Day: Allen West

By Michael J.W. Stickings

He wasn't being crazy when he was criticizing Newt Gingrich for proposing the return of "poll tests," but he's generally one of the craziest and most extreme Republicans around, and he's been at the crazy again in recent days attacking President Obama over Israel:

In West's typical hyperbole, he said [Obama's] speech was the "beginning of the end" of Israel and mysteriously accused Obama of giving Islamists a "Pavlovian-style" reward. But in a statement quoted by the Broward County New Times [on Wednesday], West took things further than any Republican lawmaker yet, invoking Hitler and accusing Obama of "nefarious" intent toward Jews:

In reviewing history, I would say Sir Neville Chamberlain was naive in his negotiations with German Chancellor Adolph Hitler. However, when one examines the state of affairs in the Middle East, including the Fatah-Hamas reconciliation pact, increase of rocket/mortar attacks from Gaza, the definitive Hamas Charter statement vowing the destruction of Israel, and the Hamas condemnation of America for killing Osama bin Laden... I cannot attribute this incompetent statement to naivete, but rather to conscious, nefarious, and malicious intent.

Of course, this is "an ignorant or intentionally dishonest interpretation of Obama's speech and the facts of the Middle East situtation." (And, yes, he spells Hitler's name incorrectly.)

And it is simply ridiculous, if predictable from the likes of West, to suggest that Obama is anti-Israel, or that suggesting, as Obama did, that the pre-1967 borders be taking as a starting point for negotiations signals an opposition to Israel's very existence. As the New Times explains:

Obama never once said Israel ought to withdraw to its "pre-1967" borders. He said that the division of land between Israel and a future Palestinian state would take the 1967 borders as a template and would be modified by land swaps. The words "pre-1967" never passed his lips. (In his speech, Obama also roundly decried Fatah's association with Hamas. West doesn't mention this, presumably because it would tarnish Obama's new image as the Jew Killer In Chief.)

How Obama's cautious, conservative stance on Israel is "unconscionable" is anyone's guess. It's precisely the approach advocated by every American president for a generation. The only way Obama's prescription is "unconscionable" is if a two-party solution is itself "unconscionable" -- which West firmly believes. Yet, like Obama's statements of unyielding support for Israel's security and his condemnation of Hamas, this goes unmentioned in his remarks.

And so you see, West is anti-Obama but also anti-Palestinian, and so he's attacking Obama, and doing so by lying about what the president actually said and actually supports, for working towards a sustainable peace in the region that includes not just a secure Israel but a Palestinian state that is itself similarly secure in its territory -- and not just "peace" on Likudnik Israel's terms, a "peace" that would allow Israel to keep all the post-1967 land it occupies.

A genuine peace agreement will require concessions on both sides. Obama knows that. But West, like Netanyahu, and like many in the American pro-Israel lobby, refuses to compromise, or to concede anything at all, which he crazily likens to appeasing Hitler. And that means he opposes peace, or at least that he doesn't give a damn about the Palestinians. Given his history of scapegoating Muslims, it's hardly surprising that that's the case.

(photo - with more on West's craziness)

Major Democratic donor criticizes (and will not contribute to) Obama over Israel

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As the neocon Commentary (or is it Dysentery?) is (gleefully) reporting, Haim Saban, a major Democratic donor, "has indicated that he will not contribute to President Obama's reelection campaign in 2012, because of the administration's stance on Israel":

"President Obama has raised so much money and will raise so much money through the Internet, more than anybody before him. And he frankly doesn't, I believe, need any of my donations," said Saban.

"I'm very perplexed as to why the president, who's been to Cairo, to Saudi Arabia, to Turkey, has not made a stop in Israel and spoken to the Israeli people," he continued. "I believe that the president can clarify to the Israeli people what his positions are on Israel and calm them down. Because they are not calm right now."

He's probably right that Obama doesn't need his financial support, but what does he object to, that Obama hasn't visited Israel? Okay, fine, he should go to Israel sometime, but the real issue is that Obama refuses to play along with the right-wing pro-Israel lobby in the U.S., that is, to kowtow before Netanyahu and Likud, and their American allies, who seek "peace" only on terms that penalize the Palestinians and otherwise keep them in a state of submission before an enlarged Israeli state that keeps the land it has come to occupy.

Again, all the president said in his speech last week was that Israel's pre-1967 borders should be taken as a starting point for negotiations. That's it, but it was enough to enrage Netanyahu and others on the right and to turn Congress into a bunch of shameless weaklings applauding Israel's, and the Israeli lobby's, demands.

Obama deserves criticism, perhaps, for not doing enough to work for a settled peace between Israel and the Palestinians, but his position is clearly aimed at securing such a peace by acknowledging that concessions are required on both sides. Of course, Netanyahu and his allies, both in Israel and the U.S., refuse to make any concessions, or at least the sort of concessions that could actually bring about peace, which is why they are obstacles to peace regardless of whatever dishonest rhetoric they may spew.

If there is to be any progress in the region, and any long-term security for Israel, it is essential that extremist ideology of all kind be rejected in favour of a more realistic understanding of what it may take to reach a compromise that, while not necessarily perfect, will be acceptable for the most part to both sides. It's too bad Saban doesn't seem to get that.

Measuring politics by standing ovation: Netanyahu addresses Congress and pushes the same old right-wing agenda

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Honestly, how does it matter that Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu got 29 standing ovations, four more than President Obama got during his 2011 SOTU address?

Are we measuring political popularity by standing ovation?

And does this really indicate anything other than that the generally right-wing pro-Israeli lobby is immensely influential and that weak-kneed Sens. and Reps. will kowtow to Likudnik demands for fear of appearing to oppose that lobby?

And that Netanyahu is a powerful orator?

(As Think Progress notes, he got a standing ovation for saying that Israel doesn't occupy the West Bank. In other words, he got a standing ovation for telling a massive lie. And all those standing and applauding didn't seem to have a clue. Indeed, they only brought shame on themselves for doing so.)

**********

Because, otherwise, all Netanyahu espoused was the same old hard-line position -- a domineering Israel that refuses to make concessions -- that has done nothing to secure anything even resembling a lasting, sustainable peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Sure, Israel will be "generous on the size of the Palestinian state," but the devil, as they say, is in the details -- and it's all about "where we put the border." And Netanyahu stressed that Israel will not, if he has his way, go back to its pre-1967 borders, even though Obama, breaking somewhat from previous U.S. policy, stated in his Middle East speech other day that those borders would only be a starting point for negotiations.

That isn't nearly good enough for Netanyahu and the Likud and their mostly right-wing American allies, of course, even though that would certainly be a good starting point that could ultimately lead to an acceptable compromise.

Because, of course, they only want peace on their terms.

Now, I'm generally pro-Israel myself, but I'm not certainly not pro-Netanyahu's Israel, and certainly not for the sort of peace they want. I used to think that it might just take a conservative like Netanyahu to make the necessary concessions to secure peace, but it's been clear for a long time that Israeli conservatives want no such thing and that there will never be a genuine peace agreement as long as they're in power.

It doesn't matter how many standing ovations Netanyahu gets. He's a bully, not to mention a liar, and Israel under his leadership is itself a bully -- a bully with a military that seeks to advance its interests through force.

President Obama knows better. Obviously, Congress does not.