Israel and the Flotilla Incident - A Reality Check

Opinions on Israel and the recent flotilla incident range widely - and they should. They should because opinions should always range widely and Israel and her predicament should be no different. In fact, that is the angle I want to take in this analysis. It has taken a bit of reflection to decide where the best approach on this should come from and I think finally, that this incident is instructive, but that it is not a “lesson” in the traditional sense. I say that because so many are using their “opinion” to simply reinforce why they are right or why the other side is wrong. In short – more demonization - to all sides - seems to come from the “lessons” we are hearing about these days.

So instead of lessons, I will speak of common sense realizations, multiple truths, and reasons why things are the way they are. For those unfamiliar with the entire situation in the Middle East, I think this can be an incredibly important read. For those who are already entrenched in the debate, you will not find answers, but you may just find a reason to step back, count to ten, and shut up for a second.

While I first want to start with Israel’s basic approach in this situation, I want to also interject a tangent. Popping up at the tail end of all of this was the Helen Thomas incident. I am bringing this up right now, because before I even get into detail, please remember that underlying almost any FACT about Israel and the middle east are the underlying attitudes about Israel, Jews, and their place in the middle east. While many will say I am just a knee jerking, anti-Semitism crying loyalist, I can’t worry about that. Any understanding of global opinion of Israel, what motivates some to action against Israel, and what Israel and Jews do has to be seen in this light. It is real, palpable and instructive. While people were wondering if folks jumped on the Helen Thomas bandwagon in violation of some principle of her right to free speech, I was wondering why no one was using her as a larger example. If this liberal lion, this well educated senior White House correspondent, could be so biased toward Israel and so frankly anti-Semitic in its classical and modern sense, ANYONE can be and more people then you think are.

And why is that so important? Well, because everyone jumping on the trash Israel bandwagon, whatever there reasoning should be able to step back with thanks to Helen Thomas, and realize that not everyone trashing Israel is doing so because of their “correctness” about any facts, or any moral high ground.

But here we go with some truths (on all sides – so be patient, I’ll get to yours)

TRUTH:
This flotilla was dispatched with express intention of provoking Israel into confrontation.

TRUTH:
Most of the ships in the flotilla were escorted by the Israeli Navy without incident to Ashdod as is common practice so Israel can inspect the cargo and send through approved goods.

TRUTH:
The larger boat that had every intention of causing an incident did in fact include a group of more extreme activists intent on violence.

TRUTH:
Calling all the participants in the flotilla “terrorists” is inaccurate? Most were what most of the world would call well meaning activists seeking to provide goods and humanitarian aid to Gaza and in doing so challenging the legitimacy of the Israeli blockade.

TRUTHS:
Is challenging the blockade in this manner an acceptable form of protest? Sure why not? Does the fact that people disagree with the blockade make it automatically wrong or immoral? No, not automatically. Does the intent of violence make the protest invalid? Well maybe not. If you view the blockade as a form of violence, why can’t you protest with violence? Is that the best way to end the blockade? Well maybe yes, maybe no. Since I waited a bit to write this I can now say that it has achieved something if it stirred debate and actually caused Israel to let more goods through it should always have been letting through. How Israel and defenders of Israel deal with this little fact as dissent and protest are denounced will be very important.

TRUTHS:
Do the backers of the flotilla have troubling connections to extremists and terrorists groups? YES. Does that immediately discredit the entire venture. NO – and this important. This is reflective of the entire Gaza problem. The intermingling of people who had been or are still supportive of what we deem terrorist activities, with respectable people who have either no knowledge of those connections or don’t care is an ongoing complication of how everyone talks about these kinds of initiatives. Should we give these groups a pass? NO. Can we just continue to label any person or activity connected to these groups illegitimate? NO. There were priests, Americans, and legitimate aid workers on these ships, and as long as that will always be the case – Israel and the global Jewish community MUST find a different way to talk about them. By painting ALL of the participants with such a broad paint brush, when any bozo can show that MANY participants are what MANY people would call “legitimate” activists and NOT terrorists, such criticism of them can be PROVEN to be disingenuous at best and LYING at worst.

TRUTHS:
Is the blockade itself morally wrong, illegal, or inhumane? NO. For anyone to claim otherwise is naive, trying to gain political points, or not thinking things through. People will claim that the blockade of Gaza was initially established to deny certain goods to the general population to make things so difficult that they would turn away from Hamas and realize moderation and Fatah were the way to go. This is completely TRUE and the government of Israel has already admitted this. It had the opposite effect, brought on the Gaza war and the government has already admitted it was a mistake. Did that cause them to change things? NO. But that is not the critical point. The critical point is WHY they did not lift the blockade. For many, not reversing course is the point. For Israel, providing truckloads of humanitarian aid should end the discussion. For others, the limiting of harmless food items is the ultimate insult and proof if Israeli “inhumanity.” (Yet when those food stuffs were recently taken off the prohibited items list, all of a sudden its not really about those silly items is it.)

TRUTH:
In the view of Israel, getting out of Gaza was the ultimate sacrifice and they will be forever bitter that Palestinians did not see the magnanimity in that sacrifice. It can be shown how the unilateral turnover without a plan for economic integration was the mistake that bore the current situation. But Israelis do not focus on this. They focus on the rockets that came over and the militancy that has always existed in Gaza. And in this respect, one might say that the reason there was no plan for better integration of the border was that they could not find one. This is a critical point. The inability to find a solution – not that one could not be found - is at the heart of many of Israel’s decision making and MUST be understood as a reasonable motivation for acting certain ways.

TRUTH:
To be honest about Gaza, one can only talk about “ending the blockade” while at the same time asking how a Hamas controlled area could instill any confidence at all in any kind of “open border situation.” It is easy for people who do not live Israel, to say how smooth things would go if Israel just opened the border. It is easy to say things like “just give it a try,” when you are not confronted with a sworn enemy having easy access to your people. Would any sane country really do that? Just look at the US. Mexico is NOT a sworn enemy and look at the racism, hatred, bias, and rhetoric take place in regard to that open border. Is the situation in Israel really so different – except that they have good reason to be afraid.

TRUTH:
It is still the truth that the majority of the people of Gaza would be peaceful participants in the economy of Israel. In fact, that is the only thing peace advocates can hang their hat on. And it IS important. But in Israel, among the people and the government, security is the mindset. Does that need to change? Yes. But it will not change overnight and to ask Israeli’s to change that mindset so quickly is unreasonable, unrealistic, and insulting. In fact, distrust, on all sides, is the main issue behind why so much of this is a problem at all. Yes this distrust is more perception than reality, but perception becomes reality in politics (just look at Sarah Palin and Scott Brown).

TRUTH:
The truth is that too many Israelis distrust Arabs and that is why enough of them do not demand more out of their leaders. Is this wrong? Is this morally wrong? I do not think it is for us to judge. It is for us to realize and help the world understand that the best way to get to a two state solution is to have a plan that does NOT change things overnight. It is for us to realize and help Israel understand that we get it – BUT that change is essential and a roadmap with a definite END in place is the only way Palestinians will choose the way of moderation and peace..


There are many more “truths” to be discussed on these very important issues. But these are a good start. My friend Ehud Eiran recently published an excellent article in Newseek about the flotilla and the blockade itself. His premise is an important one – that the blockade is a contradiction in that it perpetuates the very situation Israel says it is trying to end – the militancy of Hamas in Gaza. While I agree with 99% of the article I will take issue with one point. But it is a big point. Who says the blockade is intended to moderate the people of Gaza any longer? If the government has already acknowledged that has failed, there has got to be another reason the blockade is still in place. My contention is that they cannot think of any other way. Listening to Ami Ayalon recently, I am convinced people need to know more about the different language Israel and the Palestinians are speaking to one another. To remove the blockade and open the borders would mean one of two things. Either a plan would have to be put in place to assure the Israeli public that the people of Gaze, who chose Hamas as their government could be trusted. Or the Israeli government would no longer have any real control over the situation and would simply have to hope for the best. In many ways, both of those situations are unthinkable and impractical TODAY. And this is what I think most people outside of Israel do not consider. I am not saying something can not be worked out someday and sold to the Israeli voting public. I am just saying that today, neither of those options is really a possibility given the mindset of the Israeli people and the reality of what Gaza is like right now. And it begs the question, why can’t the world get their act together to help Israel and the Palestinians in the way they really need it. They do not need condemnations and accusations. They need a plan, they need time to adjust to it, and they need honest brokers to help. Just look at what has just developed. The UN offered to participate in the inspection of some foreign aid shipments and Israel agreed because they really have nothing to hide in that respect. In this way the UN (some in the UN) are acknowledging the need for both security and for goods to get through.

The Afghanistan Tightrope - Still Promising More Than We Can Deliver

"The highly hyped counter-insurgency strategy is illusory. It is an attractive concept in the abstract — “secure, hold and build’’ — but enjoys neither the capacity nor the conditions to actually work."

From the beginning of the invasion of Afghanistan, The Cohen Side was reporting on the VAST portions of the country US Forces did not control, and the folly of even thinking we could "nation build" when we weren't even close to being in control of, well, much of anything. The lack of reporting on this has been shameful and the political posturing over this untenable situation has been way off the mark. Afghanistan will play out the way Afghanistan wants it to. For us to think otherwise simply denies History and is the height of ignorant arrogance. We need to put our testosterone aside for once, and learn from our past mistakes. Me MUST resist the urge to think we can't get a military "win" everywhere we put troops down on the ground. The sooner we realize this, the sooner we can have a rational discussion about what we CAN do over there. There will be a crisis point arriving at our doors soon and we must convince our politicians NOT to shy away from the reasonable course of action - which is to stay committed to a plan of withdrawl - a plan that should not be imediate but deliberate and certain. Our leaders will be facing pressure to press on or devise another surge. That, however would be more folly. As Jonathan Morse points out so well;

"[These] temptations must be forcefully resisted ... [trying to actually win] the insurgency war against the Taliban, [and] weakening the US plan to begin withdrawing forces ...

Securing remains frustrated. Holding is delayed. Building is even more of a failure: development is almost impossible without security; the military itself cannot accomplish the local rehabilitation and stability needed; and the civilian backup to accomplish enduring building is absent, both from the internationals and from Kabul.

In truth, any US commitment to assure good governance in a democratic Afghanistan - before it withdraws - is a self-entrapment of dire consequence."

And why is this important? Well of course its the body bags, the severed limbs, and the families torn asunder. While no one should ever say a soldier died in vein, the questions about this misguided war must be asked - as John Kerry asked decades ago - "Who wants to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

Here is a link to the full article. Please read, pass along to your friends, and tell your congressmen to be brave in the right way - to NOT expand our military presence in Afghanistan and to get our troops home as soon as humanly possible.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/07/13/the_afghanistan_tightrope

The Right Kind of American Populism

"And yet the pitchforks are being brandished not to encourage government to curb the excesses of the elite but to warn the citizenry that the government has turned into a socialistic threat to free enterprise."

Below is an excellent piece by Jon Meacham written for Newsweek. It is a great commentary on the over exaggerated - if not misplaced - anger toward government. This echoes a consistent theme on The Cohen Side about the "Feau" populism of the day that focuses an irrational anger at government and lets corporate America off the hook for many of its abuses of our economic system. And why does this matter at the end of the day? It matters because this "wrong" brand of populism will only serve to see officials elected who will not fight for the least amongst us. Those most in need will see an evaporation of essential programs and services that form the foundation of our already too loose safety net. In the modern age, we should be very careful about how we treat that safety net. It is entirely possible that our future is one of lower employment than we have ever known. There just aren't as many human jobs needed as there once were. The 'corporate stimulus' referred to in this article is about finding creative ways to support a population where more people are out of work, yet corporate profit margins continue to grow and grow. That money can either go into the pockets of shareholders and the uber wealthy, or it can be used to care for a population in need that will continue to grow and grow. That is the responsible populism I am for.

---

Economically populist causes and candidates have not had the best of runs in recent decades. Jerry Brown tried it in 1992, as did Ross Perot. Eight years later, in an echo of his father’s New Deal origins, Al Gore campaigned for president talking about the “people versus the powerful,” a theme John Edwards unsuccessfully appropriated in 2004 and 2008. If anything could have given new life to old-style populism, the financial meltdown of 2008–09 should have—but, remarkably, it did not.

At first, in the age of Jackson, American populism was about money; later, in the age of George Wallace and Richard Nixon, it became more about culture. It is admittedly difficult to draw precise lines between these things (money is inescapably a driver of culture, and power is a common denominator), but it is safe to think of economic and cultural populism as two different, if occasionally intersecting and overlapping, forces.

Safe, and useful, for the passage of financial-reform legislation in the House last week and a dispiriting report on jobs brought the curious history of populism to mind. Given the clinical economic and political facts of the hour, we should be living through a Jacksonian era of hostility to the rich and the well connected. Those whom Jackson called “the humble members of society—the farmers, mechanics, and laborers” ought to be generating substantial political pressure to exact reparations from, and impose severe new regulations on, the plutocratic few. Unemployment remains high; poverty too pervasive and intractable; the moneyed classes too skilled at the Washington game to make contests over economic justice even remotely fair fights.

And yet the pitchforks are being brandished not to encourage government to curb the excesses of the elite but to warn the citizenry that the government has turned into a socialistic threat to free enterprise.

Populism’s shift from economics to culture in America is as important a development in our politics as the rise of civil rights at home or the fall of the Soviet Union abroad. Without an effective progressive economic movement, questions about wealth and power become questions of degree, not kind. The status-quo is accepted (that’s why it’s called the status-quo), and even the ablest of modern Democratic politicians find themselves at work in an arena defined by those with an interest in limiting reform and thwarting revolutions.

It is a good moment, then, to try to marshal a kind of economic populism that is both principled and practical, a habit of mind and action that allows markets to thrive and neither unduly favors nor penalizes those who already have means. That, at least, was Jackson’s creed. Drawing on his understanding of a republicanism in which institutional interests—in the forms of a central bank, or an entrenched Congress, or an appointed federal establishment—could be corrupting agents in the life of the nation, he wanted to see that the concerns of the ill-organized many were protected against the exclusive privileges of the well-organized few.

For decades, whether the issue has been the tax code or financial regulation or, in the case of the Gulf of Mexico, the oversight of dangerous industrial practices, the initial American instinct has been to ask how little government can do, not what government should do. An economic populism for the second decade of the 21st century ought to create a sense of commonality in which all means, public and private, should be viable options. Government may not always be the solution, but sometimes it is. (Just ask the banks about that.)

There is an intriguing place where we might begin the work of a renewed economic populism: in corporations, not the capital. If the goal of populism is the amelioration of life for the many, then President Obama could strike a confounding (in a good way) pose by calling on the private sector to take up an idea put forward this week by Fareed Zakaria: unleash a corporate stimulus. “The Federal Reserve recently reported that America’s 500 largest non financial companies have accumulated an astonishing $1.8 trillion of cash on their balance sheets,” Fareed writes. “By any calculation (for example, as a percentage of assets), this is higher than it has been in almost half a century. And yet, most corporations are not spending this money on new plants, equipment, or workers…[Such] investments would likely have greater effect and staying power than a government stimulus.”

A populism that begins in the boardroom—that would really be change we could believe in.

All of a Sudden, Afghanistan's not going so well? Really?

Not for nuthin', but my April post on Afghanistan seemed to fly in the face of what other's were claiming as our "success" in the region. Lo and behold, a couple of months later, it turns out you really can predict the future by knowing the past and by knowing the way our military leaders refuse to learn from it. Who knows what "success" or even General Patreaus's "progress" even look like? My only real question is, if it is now clear we don't know what we want, how can any realist plans be made to get there? We will just keep trudging along - trying this - and trying that - only to face the same problem - which is that no one wants us there. Those who are violently opposed to our being there will kill anyone who collaborates, and those who may actually want to see a change in government still blame us for the violence. We cannot solve every problem in the world and the Bush strategy of "getting them over there so they don't come here" now seems as outdated as the cold war itself.

We should leave - sooner rather than later. And the reason is clear. With some philosophy of protecting the US or defeating the Taliban (who many want to believe are interchangeable with Al Queda) we are simply sending Americans into harms way with no clear benefit in sight. Afghanistan is not Iraq. Hell, even Iraq isn't Iraq. How many people died in Iraq over the past two weeks from bombings? Whether we seem to care or know about this is not the issue. The issue is that for all our money and all the lives wasted and for all the "surges" and strategies. Both places may only be marginally better for us having been there. And I repeat, MAY be different. It is entirely likely that both places will have a militant religious group in power, either running things or instilling enough fear so to have their way. We need to face that we cannot remake the Middle East anymore than Europe could and move on. Containment from abroad may be the better policy, as it most likely was when were containing Iraq before our invasion. But I'm just saying.