National Politics/Race Relations Focus - The Gates Arrest, Police Work, and the Politics of Race

---

CRASH!

That's my take on last weeks arrest in Cambridge of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.

This was a Crash of epic proportions. But unlike the Titanic, when we knew the factors and markers (Iceberg, Large Ship Steaming Too Fast) this Crash was not what most people expected.

What was expected was the all to quick jumping on the bandwagon that took place. Most people immediately got sucked into the comfortable Left-Right paradigm. Liberals immediately claimed of "Racial Profiling" and conservatives jumped right to "Stop Playing the Race Card - That Doesn't Happen Anymore."

As usual, both extremes were very, very wrong. And as usual, the truth lied somewhere in the middle. In the movie CRASH. There is a heart wrenching scene where a fairly wealthy African American is stopped by a clearly racist caricature of a cop. The cop, played by Matt Dillon, has clear hostility toward blacks and we know this because we hear stories about how his dad lost a job to a black person due to affirmative action. Most times, we are not lucky enough to get into some one's head, but that's the beauty of movies - they give it right too us. Sad part about the Gates saga is that after about a day - we DID have the answers right in front of us. In the movie, the police officer clearly abuses his power, pulls over the well dressed black man because he is black and proceeds to insult and physically/sexually harass his wife. Its horrible, it black and white, and we get it. But that is NOT what happened here. Not even close.

What began to emerge after reading the police reports and watching the interviews with officer Crowley, was a story that had a touch of racial bias - MAYBE - and a ton of overreacting to police presence, attitude, and procedure. Lets start with the bias first. To be fair, who knows if the elderly woman who pointed out to her neighbor that the break-in was occurring would have done so had the occupant (Gates) been white? Who knows if she would have known him better had he been white. What we do know by listening to the tapes and matching them with the reports is that Professor Gates seemed to be upset at the very presence of the Police and not really by anything they did or said. It would appear that because they did not leave when he said it was his house, that he truly believed being black was the reason. That's the baggage. It is baggage that I don't have and its the baggage that I can only imagine.

But here's what I do know - when I was younger I used to resent being stopped by the Police. Of course I always thought I was right and was always innocent of any traffic violation the police may have thought they saw or invented. I grew up with many kids who were schoolyard bullies-turned-guys with a badge and a gun and really resented that. But after I got more experience with the Law and what police have the right and ability to do - to ANYONE - things changed. From that moment on, if I am stopped, BOTH my hands go to the 10 o'clock position on the steering wheel, in plain sight, and I don't move a muscle until the police tell me too. And I have never really had anything bad done to me, I just don't like the absolute power police have and I'll be damned if I'll "give them a reason."

Now I brought up the scene from the movie "Crash" because most likely, the character in the scene who was stopped knows full well what the police have the power to do and probably did do all the time in his community. Professor Gates is knowledgeable enough to know all of that as well. So why would he act more like an impetuous 18 year old then a mature, responsible Harvard Professor who, without any real provocation, could put up with a little police machismo and procedure and not blame it all on race so quickly. The answer to that can only be one thing - baggage - and the probability that Gates is a pompous Harvard professor who feels he is DUE a disproportionate amount of respect. (that's what an 18 year old would think anyway) He even specifically used the "do you know who I am" phrase. How many poor minority kids in the projects all over the country get to use that one (and mean it)? And how many actually say things like "this is because I'm black - give me your badge number" (and expect to either get BETTER treatment after that or expect NOT to eat some pavement.)

This is the real world where real police do real things. I know that and I am amused that Professor Gates did not. You DON'T MOUTH OFF TO POLICE - period. Black or white. Especially if you want to end things amicably. But to be fair, if I heard ONE thing, in Gates' accounts or on the tapes that made me think for a second the police did something overtly racist to deserve this, believe me I would be acknowledging it. But I didn't and I don't think its there.

But here's what's interesting. I will bet anyone any amount of money that had Gates been wearing a three piece suit and was clean shaven, things would have gone a little differently. And here is why. No one ever wants to talk about the class issue. In this case - and in many, many others - it trumps race. I was clearly not at the house, but based on the tapes and interviews, I am willing to bet the dialogue went something like this.

CP - (Loud knocks or bangs) Cambridge Police, identify yourself (no guns drawn I believe).
HLG - What - what are you doing here? This is my house (said like Eddie Murphy in Raw) now get out of here.
CP - We have a a report of a break-in, please come out on the porch and identify yourself.
HLG - I am Henry Lewis Gates Jr. a Harvard Professor and this is my house, please get out of here. (Please is not said in a nice way).
CP - For the last time sir, I am asking you to cooperate and follow me out of the house.
HLG - Why, because I'm black? If I were white, you wouldn't be asking me to leave my house. I'm not leaving and you can't make me - and you don't have a warrant.

Now I am going to stop there and give some analysis. But right after this point is where I believe things went really bad. Gates, not being a lawyer, didn't realize that because of the reported break in, the Police could come in. I believe they did and then all hell broke loose with Gates yelling.

As reported by officer Crowley, his only intention was to see who this guy was. But his worry was that 1) This guy may not be telling the truth (that's never happened before right) 2) If the report was correct, there may be other's in the house and GATES may be in danger. That is why he was asking him to come out on the porch and I BELIEVE HIM. IT MAKES SENSE. NOTHING THAT GATES SAYS DOES.

Now I want to depart from the story line to talk about three things related to police procedure.

1) In ALL cases if the police just said why they were doing something, even the short version, things would ALWAYS go better. But they never feel they need to. And because of that they often HEIGHTEN tensions instead of diffuse them. In this case, it was not clear to Gates why he should go out on the porch of his own house. In Gates' mind, history shows that coming out of the house is the beginning of the end for an accused black person - resulting in arrest or violence. And while that CAN be true , even in 2009 (my conservative friends would say that's crap) it probably wasn't going to be true outside a 3 million dollar home in Cambridge just outside of Harvard. So in that case - JUST DO WHAT THE POLICE ASK. How complicated is that? I wish they were always more polite and explained things more, but until that changes and until you put your life on the line every day like they do to understand why they do what they do - just do what they ask. I know that. Why does Professor Gates not? And please don't think that just because he is a College Professor he is an expert on in-the-trenches encounters like this.

2) From the sounds of the tapes, it does also not seem like the proper doubt about the situation being a robbery got communicated to the police on the scenes. The woman calling in was SO equivocal about whether this was a break-in or the owners returning from vacation. She actually said that last part. And why? Because she saw suitcases and wondered out loud to the police on the phone whether that might mean they were in fact the owners returning home. She even admitted that she was only calling because her elderly neighbor saw this happen. This was in man ways a second hand account. As for the bags, the officer on the phone responded with "what do you mean they had bags, what does that even mean, why is that important." Well it may have changed the opening line to "Cambridge Police, we got a call about a break-in, are you the owner sir?" Now why that did not happen is partly because of a problem I have with police procedure that can easily contribute and make worse even a small HINT of racial/class bias. I truly believe the above line is often the more conciliatory one delivered in places like WAYLAND and SUDBURY and especially if the person was clean-shaven, wearing an expensive watch and a three piece suit. But this is Cambridge, a fairly urban setting, and this guy looked like anyone, and he was "maybe Hispanic" according to the call.

Now I know that last part will ruffle some feathers. Some will say "Its just for identification". But I say that's crap. Any student of anti-Bias education knows that the more we label and the more we diminish the totality of identity, the more we spread bias. And who knows how someone processes that information. You plant the idea of Hispanic and you can't help but have preconceived notions enter you brain. Its human nature. That wouldn't stop if we used other terms, but it would at least let the person fill in the blanks. No need for us to help them out. These days what does that even mean for purposes of identification. Is he light skin or dark skinned. Is he tan or as black as night (the color). There are so many mixed marriages these days someone on the cream side could be about 5 different nationalities or of a million ethnic backgrounds. Let just agree to use distinguishing marks, clothes, and color pigmentation in shades - instead of what the office on the phone asked fro abruptly. "Is he white, Hispanic or black man" As if any of us really know. And clearly, she did not.

In talking to a friend, he said that using race in this case was no problem at all, it was that "easiest, most efficient way to communicate identity in that situation." I have already dispelled that myth above, but my point here is that YES, NOT using race is not as easy. We are programmed to do it from years of common practice. We don't even ask why when clearly another way would actually help us be MORE careful about what people look like and whether they were the perpetrator or not. Isn't a pink striped Izod and a receding hairline with, light brown skin a lot better then "I think he's Hispanic." The very question is both out of date and becoming more and more USELESS.

3) But here's the last part. Please listen to the 911 call . You'll get my point about what REALLY contributed to this situation.(http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/BO120131/) It was not race. It was the over-reaction of Gates spurred on by an attitude that police carry into EVERY situation. The Globe had an interesting story about this the other day. They took the one sided view that "suspicion" save lives. Not once did they ask police to be a little better in at least trying to identify situations where they do not need as much bravado. But that's the way police do things. In this same way, police look at every person - not like they are suspicious, but like they are scum. I'm sorry but that's what it feels like with EVERY interaction - and that needs to stop. If it is a strategy to put people on the defensive, then fine, but be more careful about how you use it. There are more good people out there then scumbags, and just because you see more scumbags on a daily basis does not mean you get to unload that baggage on everyone else. Yes, yes, just like my "who is really a terrorist" argument goes, one could ask how police can possibly separate the wheat from the chaffe, the good from the scum. Well I don't know exactly, but we won't know until they try. And why is this important? Did you LISTEN to the 911 call? I have been that person - made to feel like an idiot and a 2 yr old as I am talked to like I am bothering the person on the other end. The woman was clearly trying to do her civic duty and this guy was grilling her. And because of that grilling and supposition of superiority, or some other testosterone driven reason, he LEFT OUT THE CRITICAL FACT ABOUT THE SUITCASES. He didn't think it was important because the goal is NOT to exonerate but to suspect. The woman was trying to explain "barged in" - something you and I really can picture in our minds. Did the officer even somewhat politely ask her to explain further in this way - "Mam when you say barged in, was the door already open, was the lock broken or was the door broken down" Instead he scoffed and said, "barged - what does that mean, what is .. barged in.." in the most - you are just so horrible at relating to me what I want to know in the way I want to hear it" manner of speaking. I think my mom use to call my dad on that same 'tone'. You all know what I'm talking about.

And the best part was at the end of the call with the laughing exhale by the woman who made the call. Its the same sound I have made after calling the police. It is the sound of "You - A-hole! I'm trying to HELP YOU! No wonder people don't like the police and I'm wondering if I I'll ever call to report a crime again if I'm going to be treated this way."

To be fair, Police provide a necessary service and we should all kiss the ground they walk on. But too many walk around with that very phrase practically tattooed to their faces and flowing in their voice. I can't explain it, I only know it when I see it. Take a look at the guy standing to the right of Crowley in that video of the Police responding in solidarity to Obama's comment. This may be tantamount to racial bias itself, but that's the face. The face of "I don't have to justify my actions to you." Its the face of Jack Nicholson's Nathan Jessup - the face of "you should just thank your lucky stars I'm on that wall, eat your breakfast and say thank you." I really think that was the face that Professor Gates saw, and I really think that was the tone he heard. And frankly, if I were as prominent as him and sensed for one second I would be talked to differently if I were white, I may have reacted similarly. And that's what I want to end with. I think Gates over-reacted. But every bone in my body wonders how much of the tone I am describing here and the way police don't ever feel the need to explain themselves plays a role in all of these kinds of encounters. And that's what I think Obama was responding to. It's like in baseball when we say the umpire should have walked away. At some point, even though Gates was belligerent, someone should have walked away. And since the guys with the guns and the cuffs have the power, I'm putting that ball in their court. Gates gets the "Dude, not everyone is a racist" ball put in his court. It will be interesting to see if this blue ribbon panel they've put together agrees with me. I doubt it, but you never know.

---

National Politics Focus - Sotomayor Hearings Part of a Larger Conservative Strategy

---

For conservative Republicans, the Senate confirmation hearings were about more than questioning Judge Sotomayor. As this Boston Globe article begins to discuss, this is just one part of a larger GOP strategy. Whether it was ill advised in this case is yet to be seen. In many ways, I think their approach was a mistake. But you've got to give them credit. They are consistent if nothing else. If you haven't had the pleasure of receiving e-mails from the Republican National Committee, I highly recommend it. You will see that what used to be one party criticizing the other has turned into an all out campaign to dupe the American people into believing that Barak Obama and people like Judge Sotomayor are the latest incarnation of extremist, leftist, commy-socialist whackos who want to take over this country with a fascist and ideological coupe.

Despite that fact that nothing could be further from the truth, this strategy does seem to be what they are hanging their hats on. It doesn't really seem to matter that health care needs reform or that stimulus packages and private sector bailouts are necessary in this time of extreme crisis. They believe that as long as they can connect centrists like Obama and Sotomayor to their mythically dangerous ,wacko-leftist causes and their clandestine LIBERAL fascist takeover of the country, that is all that matters.

Please check out this article from the globe and check back for more about this on-going trend. And as an added note - isn't it interesting that conservatives use this paradigm of Liberal Fascism to scare people - all the while no one seems to make a peep about the wealthy class and business elites that really run this country as a kind of oligarchy. And the difference my friends: the business oligarchy desires the status-quo and their wealthy constituency to benefit, while so-called liberal fascism has always wanted to change things so that that poor and vulnerable could have a better life. Which fascism would you choose? (Ignore the fact that we seem to have made our collective choice long ago.)

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/07/13/in_sotomayor_hearings_gop_seeking_to_send_message_to_obama/

In a future article - the horrible irony of white, privileged males being able to claim "racism" of a Latina judge who has more knowledge about bias and racism in her pinkie finger than exists in the entire Senate.

---

Health and Fitness Focus - Athletes Resort to Pickle Juice and More to Boost Performance and Aid Recovery

---

Who needs Gatorade? (or its High Fructose Corn Syrup)

Check out this article from the Boston Globe's "G" section. This is no joke. Give it a try and let me know how it went.

---

Pickle juice popsicles, anyone?

For some athletes, nothing says hot-weather workout savior like popsicles made from the briny, green liquid. The combination of water, salt, vinegar, and flavorings can replace essential electrolytes lost during exercise on hot, humid days. Freezing the juice takes away some of the ick-and-eww factor and adds some refreshing fun.
Most athletes will gamely pucker up for improved performances, and pickle juice in liquid form is gaining popularity as well.

The maker of Pickle Juice Sport, a dill-flavored sports drink promoted as a way to prevent muscle cramps, says it supplies several dozen teams and more than 100 pro athletes. Philadelphia Eagles head trainer Rick Burkholder credits natural pickle juice with a win over the Dallas Cowboys when on-field temperatures reached 109 degrees at Texas Stadium during the 2000 season opener.

“It’s been a hidden secret,’’ said Pickle Juice Sport president Brandon Brooks. “Teams didn’t want to divulge the secret because it’s an edge on the competition.’’
No longer a secret, pickle juice joins chocolate milk, Ensure, sweetened condensed milk, coffee, coconut water, sugar cubes, and gummy bears on a growing list of surprising foods and beverages athletes use before, during, and after games and lengthy workouts to improve performance and recovery.

Elite triathletes have long filled water bottles with baby food. Marathoners might carry mini candy bars for refueling on long training runs. Cyclists stuff cooked, salted potatoes down their jerseys for long rides.

Such high-sodium, high-carb, and often high-calorie foods are not meant for exercise enthusiasts heading off for an easy midday jog or making a quick after-work stop at the health club. But the body needs easily-digested carbohydrates, electrolytes, and fluids to counter the effects of relatively intense workouts lasting 90 minutes or longer. Nutritionists recommend that professional athletes and weekend warriors alike experiment and find what works for them.
For athletes who experience problems with dehydration and cramping, salt often alleviates those issues. Post-exercise recovery foods should include a carbohydrate-protein combination like chocolate milk has. The more variety the better, because endurance athletes often experience flavor fatigue.

Research shows that some natural food options can be more nutritionally effective than heavily-marketed sports drinks, energy bars, and gels. Many are more cost effective as well.

“There’s nothing magic about the engineered foods,’’ said sports nutritionist Nancy Clark, who has counseled members of the Red Sox and Celtics as well as Olympians and college athletes.

“There’s nothing you can’t get through real food. Inside the box, tends to be the engineered foods. I encourage my clients to think outside the box.’’

With the current economy, athletes may find an outside-the-box approach adds value, nutritionally and otherwise. Well-known sports drinks and foods can be an expensive proposition when compared with natural food alternatives. Gatorade’s chocolate nutrition shakes generally cost around $3 per 11-ounce can. Chocolate milk generally costs around $3 per 64-ounce ...

... continue reading at ...

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/food/articles/2009/06/22/athletes_resort_to_pickle_juice_and_other_odd_foods_to_boost_performance/

Or to Purchase a Pickle Juice Sports Drink go to ...

http://www.goldenpicklejuice.com/

---

Middle East Focus - Natanyahu and Barak put West Bank settlement freeze back on the table

- - -

Media sources today are reporting comments from Israeli government officials that a West Bank Settlement freeze may be acceptable under certain circumstances and as part of a larger commitment to obligations on the part of Arab nations and the Palestinian Authority and Hamas.

On the surface, this will both be applauded and ridiculed by all sides. (What else is new?) But at a deeper level, this is very reflective of analysis that has appeared in this blog before. It is both not what any "side" will be happy with - and at the same time a brilliant political move by the Netanyahu government. It is also, I believe, a very rational and effective position in the long run.

If you take a close read not at the headline, but at the commentary by Defense minister Barak, you will see some of what "The Cohen Side" has been expressing all along. While I am generally no fan of the Netanyahu approach and lack of subtle nuance, this calculation, along with his recent endorsement of some kind of Palestinian state must be applauded.

Rather than come into office with the policies of a Palestinian State and Settlement Freezes on his table, he took them off. And I say this with precise language because for the previous 15 years, those were dead center on the table. Any commentary to the contrary is just false. Both the Camp David Accord proposals and the Sharon, Ohlmert and Livni government had been waving those flags of accommodation for quite some time.

Netanyahu's position was actually very rational and understandable. His stance was - look - we gave up Gaza, we have been offering this for some time, and what has it gotten us? We actually are criticized even MORE. We are demonized even MORE. We are bombed even MORE. And add to all that, the Palestinian Leadership is fractured, in practical Civil War, and even MORE dissatisfied. Now I am not saying all that is correct or a perfect policy stance. But it was genuine, honest, and in many ways dead on. How could any responsible Israeli leader envision a Palestinian government in the foreseeable future that would NOT be at risk of Hamas takeover. And if that was the case how could anyone talk about a state - much less a fully independent and armed one. And if that was the case, why would a leader bring normal life to a halt in the settlements, when this "limbo" may last for quite some time.

Again, it may not be the policy that makes the west or the left happy, but it made sense. It simply begs the question - could we please see some movement on the other side before we commit to what may be a suicidal policy of acknowledging a Hamas state on our border. In stark terms, that really was what was at stake.

So first we had a switch in policy that made Obama happy, but really didn't change much. I mean it did - because Netanyahu crossed that bridge he was asked to cross. But he maintained the reservations I spoke about above. And in many ways, the agenda is now more centered. We can say that Israel has supported a Palestinian state for the past 15 years, and he can say that he put front and center the pitfalls associated with that prospect under the current political realities.

And now in a similar way, Netanyahu and Ehud Barak have helped to do the same thing with settlements. They have put it back on the table (because it never really left) but it is now a more centered agenda - which is what it always should have been. What the Obama administration really wanted, when they said "complete freeze" was an end to illegitimate land takings, and end to construction for new settlers, and some show of willingness to budge on the part of Netanyahu. They got all that, but Netanyahu got what many on the right and the center wanted. An acknowledgement that if some settlements have always been designated (by Israel and the P.A.) to remain a part of Israel - why should construction in that defined area stop? Many on the left said it would send a better signal to the Palestinians. These people, I am afraid, don't really understand the game of signals in the Middle East. A better signal is the one that makes sense and is honest. And now what is on the table is not perfect, but a better and more rational starting point for Israel AND for long-term peace.

And as much criticism as this will get - precisely for the reasons I praise - it is now possible to soften this position in further negotiation. Rather than a rather black and white "freeze on all settlements" which is actually a meaningless phrase in reality, there will be a freeze on some of the activity that more people in the center believe should have been frozen in the first place.

To hear more about these views, please tune in to WDIS - AM 1170 today as David will discuss this further on the Chuck Morse show.

- - -

Middle East Focus - Mara Rudman and Positive Steps Toward Two States

- - -

Reports that Mara Rudman will be heading the US "Dream Team" focusing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are very encouraging. Mara was in Boston over the winter to address a group at the local Jewish federation. I found her so engaging, I kept in touch with her, asked her serious question and got serious responses. To quote Bill Maher "You've got to give Obama some credit ... he's appointing people that you only used to read about in the paper ... and of course its good to know someone in this administration is actually reading the paper."

Here is a link to learn more about Mara Rudman's background and gravitas. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/05/19/relentless_player_to_push_for_palestinian_state/

But now I want to talk more about WHY this is a good thing and WHY it is still important to read through the MEDIA BIAS over why THEY think its a good thing. Consider this my "MIDDLE EAST USER"S GUIDE" entry for May 20, 2009. (Oh - and Happy Birthday Caryn!)

I am still furious about the coverage Obama's meeting with Netanyahu and Rudman's appointment is getting. Jeff Jacoby tackled this issue a bit in his piece in the globe today, but I won't even provide the link because I DON'T want you to read his column. He is part of the old "knee jerk crowd" that looks at the past few days and simply says "There won't be peace, and its the Palestinians fault." My objective to is to point out why peace will be so challenging, point out where it is the Palestinians' fault, where its the Israeli's fault, and where you and I can have a role in bypassing the dialogue of blame. In fact this week is a PERFECT example of why this approach is so necessary.

As I wrote in my previous entry, the coverage of the past few days would have you believe that these talks were only about getting Netanyahu to say yes to a two state solution. Even on the front page of the globe, you would think that Israel's past four Prime Ministers, the Knesset and the majority of people in the street hadn't been screaming 'TWO STATE SOLUTION" from the hills for the PAST 15 YEARS.

I can only imagine what these talks would have been about if Tzipi Livni and the Kadima party had gotten just a little more support in the past elections. We would probably be talking about borders, timetables, and the ball would be squarely in the Palestinians court as it has been for the past 15 years. But the reason I can't in good conscience write about that first, and the reason Bibi doesn't want to talk about that first is clear.

Please, I challenge you, read the press about the past weeks statements from Hamas leaders, and representatives of the Palestinian Authority. Following the Obama-Netanyahu meeting a Hamas spokesman stated that "What we've seen is a continued development of the Zionist-American relationship at the expense of our people" and "Obama's statements and messages of hope are meant to mislead global public opinion regarding the continued existence and conduct of the racist and extremist Zionist entity."

These are the leaders whom the rest of the world want Netanyahu and Israel to be comfortable with as leaders in a future Palestinian state. Please read the comments by President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-President-Obama-and-Israeli-Prime-Minister-Netanyahu-in-press-availability/

Similarly to what my entry said, Netanyahu - and Rudman - both acknowledge that there has to be a way to make an end around the extremists that really hold this whole process hostage. No reasonable person would allow - as it is currently constituted - this Hamas government to ultimately hold power. And in case you didn't know, talks in Egypt between Hamas and Fatah (the group currently in charge in the West Bank) fell through yesterday. THERE IS NOT EVEN A GOVERNMENT TO TALK TO RIGHT NOW AND PEOPLE ARE PORTRAYING ISRAEL AS UNWILLING. The recent leader of Fatah, amid these internal problems acknowledged HIMSELF yesterday that NOW MAY NOT BE THE right time for negotiations. Even Palestinians know this. Why does the rest of the world not want to see it. This is a microcosm of the problem we face in America and Europe. People are so eager to see a solution, that they don't want to look closely at the facts (sound familiar folks).

Now does that mean an overthrow? No. Does that mean some kind of violent incursion? Probably not. (Although think of this when you try to evaluate the Gaza incursion ... What if Israel had somehow defeated Hamas? Think of the door that would be open right now. Don't think for a second that wasn't more on the minds of Israeli leaders than what the media and anti-Israel crowd portrayed. Yes - a high cost for pa ossible future for Palestinians and Israelis. But yes, Israel's leaders do think like that and make those difficult choices daily).

What it does mean is that with people like George Mitchell and Mara Rudman in place, Hamas will be held accountable. They may still be allowed to save face, and be the face of the government, but they will have to change. The Northern Ireland model is the one we have to look at most closely. Remember Shin Fein, "The Political Wing of the IRA". The extremists were slowly marginalized by the international community. The semantics of creating a body NOT committed to violence allowed the wackos to wither on the vine if you will. I am not saying this is entirely possible in this middle east context, but it is the ONLY path that holds merit. And this is why Mitchell and Rudman were brought in. And by the way, this is why Obama's view on Iran is slightly backward. Having fewer arms to throw down and less money to re-arm would be a huge boost to making this process a lragely non-violent one.

But in our daily conversations, understanding this is not enough. If the daily barrage, and the occasional dinner conversation keeps coming back to "Bibi won't say Two States." You need to be able to respond. Why you ask? Because the only way to achieve the solution above, which includs the marginalization of the TRUE extremists in this situation, it must begin at home, and on the ground. The more the networks of extremists feel accepted at home and abroad, the longer they will stay in power. WE DO HAVE A ROLE HERE. I recently asked a crowd I spoke to, to begin taking stands; to read and educate yourself. Acknowledge the faults Israel has to account for. Acknowledge that Bibi not saying the words is a PR nightmare. But DO NOT let others who think they know what's going on shape the argument. If any speaker describes the "Zionist entity" as an evil one, or a racist failed project, you know where they are going. Stand up, prepare to leave, tell them why, and leave. Talk to your friends about the past 15 years of that open door for a two state solution. Talk to your friends about the need for Hamas to cease its language of destruction AND for Bibi to join the rest of the country and almost every other leader. DO NOT let the context be WHAT WILL ISRAEL DO. Return the discussion to what will BOTH SIDES do! Use the Northern Ireland model and the very real way Obama has put it into play. England made compromises. The IRA disarmed for the most part. But both sides only budged after neutral parties helped build trust and provide assurances, timetables, and goals.

The added benefit here is that Obama is seen much more as a neutral party. But again, don't let the fact that Bush's policy of backing Israel all the time, means Israel spent the past eight years perpetrating evil while the US looked the other way. NO. The US looked the other way, and for the most part, Israel still acted in good faith. They did not do enough about settlements, they did not do enough to encourage trust, but they also do not routinely call for the destruction of Palestinians and their state. They acknowledge the dual claim to the land and simply want to end the role extremists have played in derailing all their efforts. And let me be clear about this one last point. When people ask how Israeli's can just "go on" with their lives when Palestinians are suffering. As with most issues, Israeli's look at that differently. They do not see the extremists losong control any time soon nor do they feel the hatred for Israels very presence diminishing any time soon. And so their ONLY option is to LIVE. To yes, build homes in disputed land. To yes, create whatever security measures they think they need to LIVE like the Western Democracy they strive to be. To yes, wage war when they feel it just. This is Israel in 2009.

Hopefully, Mitchell, Rudman, and Obama, can create that momentum and trust so that extremism can wither away in the leadership of the Palestinians. That is what the media should be talking about today, that is what average Palestinians really dream of, and that is why YOU need to be talking about it every chance you get.

- - -

Middle East Focus: New and Improved US/Israel Relations - A Users Guide

- - -

As President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu prepare to meet, it is a shame that the context put forth in the media is almost completely about Netanyahu's point of view and what he will and will not say. It is as if the past 15 years of Israel clearly paving the way for a Palestinian state mean nothing.

But then again, Israel is used to having its History and what it did for peace 30 seconds ago ignored and forgotten by much of the world.

So I wanted to take this opportunity to begin a series of entries that will do what so many of my friends and colleagues ask me quite frequently - give us all some language we can use to talk about Israel without sounding like a brainwashed, Israel-right-or-wrong Stepford wife (or husband as the case may be).

The key to doing this, of course, is to make sure you are always doling out legitimate criticism of Israel's actions at the same time you asking for understanding about her predicament and the almost incessant Catch 22's she finds herself in.

My first one has already presented itself:

1) Yes, Netanyahu has expressed reservations about proclaiming his support for a Palestinian state. In the world of diplomacy, this is a disaster. It helps put the spotlight on those who have been saying for 15 years that Israel isn't serious about a Two State Solution. It also allows the world to believe that maybe Israel hasn't been serious. But friends, DO NOT BE DETERRED. The truth is that no election or 2009 policy can change HISTORY. Israel has been holding a door open for a two state solution for 15 years. It was a major door to hold open since so many thought it crazy. So many thought that any sovereign land held by Palestinians would be a staging ground for terrorism and attacks on Israel. And yes, those people, like Bibi, seemed to have been vindicated by Gaza.

2) Yes, Gaza does give many pause to be SO committed to the Two State Solution as Kadima was. They felt burned and they feel that there should have to be SOME change in how Hamas acts as a partner before we feel comfortable with them as any part of a future Palestinian sovereign state. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. And this is what is so difficult to navigate. Of course Israel could have handled the Gaza withdrawal better. But more people need to understand (and be talked to by well-meaning and level headed supporters of Israel) that Israel wants to be able to hand over sovereignty in theory to the Palestinian people and allow the creation of a Palestinian state. Unfortunately, the reality that presents itself is truly horrific for the people of Israel. I say this not because of any bias or racism on their part (even though it is there). I say this because of the word I use over and over - DISTRUST AND DAMN GOOD REASONS FOR IT - ON BOTH SIDES. This is why Bibi should legitimately be able to say - hold on a minute - before just committing to a State when the nature of its leadership is so in doubt.

3) Why is it so hard for people around the world to understand that Israel IS actually threatened by the VERY REAL words of Hamas and Fatah leaders, that talk about - not reconciliation with Israel - but her ultimate destruction? Why is that fact so downplayed along with the threats from Iran. Why do people not know about or routinely ignore these very important problems?

• 3a ... My first real answer. Those who have no knowledge of the prevalence of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish sentiment in the world outside of the United States, and how it is actually one in the same outside of the United States, will never understand how a Jewish person or Israeli sees and feels the pressure of that VERY REAL animosity.

• 3b ... My second real answer. Despite that very real pressure and the very real threat it creates, when well off Jewish Americans and Israelis sit and ponder, and speak of threats to Israel and Jews, IT IS NOT RIGHT to compare the way we feel threatened with the way a Palestinian feels in the West Bank and Gaza. THERE IS NO COMPARISON. It does not mean that one is better than the other. It is simply apples and oranges and will never CONVINCE anyone of the validity of the case for Israel. It comes down to this - In the West Bank, the standard of living is not good. Checkpoints are annoying, inconvenient and infuriating. Israeli soldiers often do seek to humiliate or simply have the effect of humiliating those they stop or interrogate. It does seem to the West like "Extreme Racial Profiling" and clear Occupation. In Gaza, the impact of the war on the Palestinian psyche was simple. "We are weak, we don't want to be weak, and Israel shoved it in our faces. As a result of this, too many of us died and we will always blame Israel and not Hamas." When you come to grips with the harsh reality that what I just described can NEVER be trumped by the situation in Sderot, or by the "threat" of terrorism Israeli's feel on a daily basis in 2009. IT JUST CANNOT COMPARE.

• 3c ... My third real answer. What people seem to forget is that the gauge of suffering is skewed. Because Israel is the one with the army and the apparent upper hand, no mention of Sderot or Terrorism will convince anyone. It needs to be made clear, that the territories have evolved from the over-sized refugee camps the Jordanians and Egyptians set them up as. In the meantime, Israel, a very long time ago set itself on a path, with a vision and a goal. It prospered, developed, and is a beacon of progress to Jews, Arabs, and all those who live and travel within the "green line." This only happened because of how seriously it protected those borders from enemies who sought to destroy her. And so now, in 2009, its standard, and definition of itself as a safe, secure and prosperous country does not include shells coming in from any neighbor. This standard is fairly universal in Western countries, yet I just read the other day by a "lefty" writer this phrase .. "The Katushas had almost all stopped, what was Israel's problem." Now I am not exactly sure what this person's definition of "almost all" was, but I actually have no problem with the fact that Israel's standard of safety is not "Well its only a couple of shells a day - looks like we can move ahead with our plans for peace." Where Israel wants NO threat of terrorism, and Israel seeks to have NO neighbors who even whisper about its annihilation, others would say - that is too high a standard. Others would say, "Israel, you shouldn't care what your neighbors say, or do, you should just give them all what they want, now." We need to be able to speak to our friends, not in the context of this argument - but in the context of a country who is so much like the United States. Once we can do that, we shift the discussion from who has the power to "What would Denmark do? And what would Germany do if they didn't like what Denmark did?" Only when you do that do you also see that as problematic as it is to build a house in a settlement that 5 peace plans say will be part of Israel in the future - "problematic house building" would never be a justification for Germany to send missiles into Denmark. We need to be able to acknowledge what more needs to be done to set the conditions for peace, while never relenting that Israel's standard for trust and comfort is the same as any countries would be - be they Denmark, Germany, or the United States.

- - -