Norman Finkelstein, Egypt, and the West’s View of Muslims

I think the following brief clip from Norman Finkelstein is an excellent statement of the principles of democracy related to the situation in Egypt.  His description of the way Muslims are viewed in the West connects with a recent thought I had: if you look at a map of the world you will see that most of the regions with a majority Muslim population are ones that were most severely dominated by European colonialism.  Those are specifically Africa, the Middle East, and Indonesia.  While proving it would require far more rigorous analysis than I can provide here, it seems straightforward to observe that the sense of cultural superiority that came with imperialism still influences how the West views the inhabitants of these lands.  Go here for an interactive map of the Muslim world.


US Showing More Lack of Neutrality on Israel/Palestine

Now that talks are resuming between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority, there is more evidence of the US’ lack of neutrality.  Reuters reports:

“In another sign of possible momentum, Martin Indyk, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel who directs the foreign policy program at the Brookings Institution think tank in Washington, is expected to be named as the new U.S. envoy for Middle East peace, possibly as early as Monday, a source familiar with the matter said.”

First, if the US wanted to be an impartial mediator it would not name the former ambassador to Israel.  Imagine in the 1980′s if the US had named its ambassador to the UK as the “envoy for peace between the UK and Ireland.”  Fortunately, it chose George Mitchell.

A more specific example of Indyk’s lack of neutrality is his description of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran as the “rejectionist bloc,” which although is considered conventional wisdom, indicates an unwillingness to empathize with the Palestinians or see any reason why, for example, a guerrilla militia that developed to push out an occupying army would still harbor animosity towards the country that occupied it.  This is not to excuse the violations of the laws of war by either Hezbollah or Hamas.  But to refer to the elected government of the Palestinian people as a “terrorist government” as Indyk did, is not becoming of a mediating diplomat.

Lastly, and I must emphasize that this is not meant as any kind of racist or religious slur, it is not neutral to pick someone who is Jewish as a mediator between the two sides, just as it would be ludicrous to pick an Arab or even a Muslim American.  Going back to someone like George Mitchell, as Obama did in his first term, would be far more appropriate.


Tsanarev Photo Forces Us to See a Human Being

It is an odd feeling to say I am weighing in on the Rolling Stone controversy about having Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on its cover, since I find it hard to see how it is controversial.  One friend of someone who lost both legs wrote on Facebook:

“Your use of a provocative, borderline sympathetic image and headline of someone who has caused so much pain to our country is appalling, insensitive, and disgusting,”

It is interesting that it is labelled “borderline sympathetic,” because it implies that any image of a person who has committed an evil act that doesn’t depict them as a monster is patently offensive.  I think what is really going on is that 1) people don’t want to be reminded of what happened and 2) if we see Tsarnaev as a normal kid who did something horrible, then we have to face our own ambivalence and see that while he did something horrible, like any human being he has positive aspects too.  It is much easier to label Tsarnaev as an evil monster with no redeeming qualities.  He certainly should face punishment for what he did, but that doesn’t mean we cannot see him as a complete human being.

Rolling Stone has likely helped reduce the risk of terrorism if people actually try to discover what caused this kid to become so radicalized and do something so evil.  We would do well to remember Hannah Arendt’s idea about the “banality of evil.  On another level, one simply wonders if people have forgotten about the idea of a free press.

Read the Rolling Stone article here.

Balanced Perspective on Iran Needed

One lesson in reading the news is that interpretation is always key.  The US Air Force put out a report assessing the threat of ballistic missiles from other countries.  Some Israeli news outlets have put out stories that refer to the part of the report that says “Iran could develop and test an ICBM capable of reaching the United States by 2015. ”  Interestingly, YNet interprets this with the headline “Pentagon: Iran will soon have nuclear missiles capable of striking US.”  The report says nothing about Iran possessing nuclear warheads, but only about missile delivery systems.  There is also the fact that capability does not justify military action or its threat, at least according to international law. (See Article 2.4)  Nonetheless, the Israeli government is very sure that Iran is about to gain nuclear weapons and is threatening to attack Iran.  This is not to say that Iran should have nuclear weapons and is somehow an innocent victim, but balance seems fair.  For example, the report states

“Iran has ambitious ballistic missile and space launch development programs and continues to attempt to increase the range, lethality, and accuracy of its ballistic missile force”

To get a sense of how the US may appear to other countries, one need only look at the mission statement of the US Space Command, under the control of the US Air Force:

“Air Force Space Command, activated Sept. 1, 1982, is a major command with headquarters at Peterson Air Force Base, Colo. AFSPC provides military focused space and cyberspace capabilities with a global perspective to the joint warfighting team.”

Or to go into the history books, there was the 1997 report US Space Command put out that stated its “Vision for 2020″ to be

“dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect US interests and investment.  Integrating Space Forces into warfighting capabilities across the full spectrum of conflict.”

As always, I would refer readers back to my post on Arab public opinion polls on who they see as threats.

South American Unity

It’s an amazing thing to see South American nations so united.  It would be naive to think they are models of virtue just because they have have left governments, but they certainly are models of self respect, as seen recently in their solidarity around Evo Morales’ plane being forced down.


If Only US Candidates Had Lines as Good As This…

Iran just had a debate among candidates for president.  Apparently the candidates hated the format and refused to answer a lot of questions.  One candidate especially had a line we could all learn from:

 “With these repetitive, discontinuous, short, one-to-three minute answers, the people are being harmed and the eight people up here are being insulted.”

German Conservatives Go Left of U.S. Again

To add to what I said about a week and a half ago on how German conservatives say things that you would rarely hear an American Democrat say, Reuters had an excellent piece that highlights how different Europe really is.  I recommend reading the whole article, but it is quite telling that the German Finance Minister warned that if Europe adopted US welfare standards “we would have a revolution, not tomorrow, but on the very same day.”

Krugman on What Drives Deficit Scolds

I finally got around to reading Paul Krugman’s piece in the New York Review of Books on austerity.  In it, he gives a concise statement that explains very well what economic interests motivate the opposition to stimulus and deficit spending.   It also makes clear what economic interests are not being served.

“As many observers have noted, the turn away from fiscal and monetary stimulus can be interpreted, if you like, as giving creditors priority over workers. Inflation and low interest rates are bad for creditors even if they promote job creation; slashing government deficits in the face of mass unemployment may deepen a depression, but it increases the certainty of bondholders that they’ll be repaid in full…It’s also worth noting that while economic policy since the financial crisis looks like a dismal failure by most measures, it hasn’t been so bad for the wealthy.  Profits have recovered strongly even as unprecedented long-term unemployment persists; stock indices on both sides of the Atlantic have rebounded to pre-crisis highs even as median income languishes.”

Merkel Comments Point Out Difference Between Western Europe and US

In an interesting contrast between Western Europe and the US, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said today that financial markets need more regulation.  Her party, the Christian Democratic Union, is the more conservative German party, yet gives at least some minimal commitment to the notion that the government should keep markets in check.  Merkel said,

“Crises have blown up because the rules of the social market have not been observed…We have made progress but we are nowhere near a point where we could say that the kind of derailment that leads to market crises could not happen again and so the issue will again play a central role at the G20 meeting this year.”

Also interesting that she notes that markets have a social purpose and are not simply to be praised for their own sake.

“It is true that economies are there to serve people and that has by no means always been the case in recent years.”

White House Statement Ignores International Law

It’s been a number of months since I blogged, but I am back for the time being…

I do not wish to argue whether or not the attacks by Israel on Syria this weekend were justified, but instead point out a comment made by a White House spokesman, quoted by Reuters, that deserves more attention than it is likely to get:

The president many times has talked about his view that Israel, as a sovereign government, has the right to take the actions they feel are necessary to protect their people.”

This type of statement is made just about every time Israel goes on the attack.  The problem is that if international law is taken into account, then it is not a universally true statement.  If “the actions they feel are necessary to protect their people,” include the threat or use of force, then no sovereign government has this right unchecked.

Article 2, Section 4 of the United Nations Charter states:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

There are two exceptions to this: 1) the UN Security Council approves the use of force and 2) in self defense against armed attack until the Security Council has time to act.  The second condition is summarized in the well known Article 51 of the the UN Charter:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

Israel did not refer this to the UN Security Council and will certainly not refer it to the Council under an Article 51 claim, most likely because of its past violations of Security Council resolutions.  So while Israel is certainly not alone in violations of international law, it certainly is in violation at present.

What is revealing is how we would react to other countries making the same statement the White House did.  If Iran attacked Iraq and Russia said “Iran, as a sovereign government, has the right to take the actions they feel are necessary to protect their people,” we would immediately recognize the statement as meaningless and we would apply the international norms that say a country cannot attack another one just because it claims it is in self-defense.  Given current US drone attacks outside of armed conflict in Afghanistan, in addition to its vast history of wars launched in violation of international law, it is not surprising that the White House will make such a statement about an ally.  International law is considered so foreign and inapplicable to us that this statement passes without comment.