August 4, 2014
Former National Director of the American Jewish Congress: Israel Provoked This War

There seems to be near-universal agreement in the United States with President Barack Obama’s observation that Israel, like every other country, has the right and obligation to defend its citizens from threats directed at them from beyond its borders.

But this anodyne statement does not begin to address the political and moral issues raised by Israel’s bombings and land invasion of Gaza: who violated the cease-fire agreement that was in place since November 2012 and whether Israel’s civilian population could have been protected by nonviolent means that would not have placed Gaza’s civilian population at risk. As of this writing, the number killed by the Israel Defense Forces has surpassed 600, the overwhelming majority of whom are noncombatants.

Israel’s assault on Gaza, as pointed out by analyst Nathan Thrall in the New York Times, was not triggered by Hamas’ rockets directed at Israel but by Israel’s determination to bring down the Palestinian unity government that was formed in early June, even though that government was committed to honoring all of the conditions imposed by the international community for recognition of its legitimacy.

The notion that it was Israel, not Hamas, that violated a cease-fire agreement will undoubtedly offend a wide swath of Israel supporters. To point out that it is not the first time Israel has done so will offend them even more deeply. But it was Shmuel Zakai, a retired brigadier general and former commander of the IDF’s Gaza Division, and not “leftist” critics, who said about the Israel Gaza war of 2009 that during the six-month period of a truce then in place, Israel made a central error “by failing to take advantage of the calm to improve, rather than markedly worsen, the economic plight of the Palestinians in the [Gaza] Strip. … You cannot just land blows, leave the Palestinians in Gaza in the economic distress they are in and expect Hamas just to sit around and do nothing.”

This is true of the latest cease-fire as well. According to Thrall, Hamas is now seeking through violence what it should have obtained through a peaceful handover of responsibilities. “Israel is pursuing a return to the status quo ante, when Gaza had electricity for barely eight hours a day, water was undrinkable, sewage was dumped in the sea, fuel shortages caused sanitation plants to shut down and waste sometimes floated in the streets.” It is not only Hamas supporters, but many Gazans, perhaps a majority, who believe it is worth paying a heavy price to change a disastrous status quo.

The answer to the second question — whether a less lethal course was not available to protect Israel’s civilian population — is (unintentionally?) implicit in the formulation of President Barack Obama’s defense of Israel’s actions: namely, the right and obligation of all governments to protect their civilian populations from assaults from across their borders.

But where, exactly, are Israel’s borders?

It is precisely Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s refusal to identify those borders that placed Israel’s population at risk. And the reason he has refused to do that is because he did not want the world to know that he had no intention of honoring the pledge he made in 2009 to reach a two-state agreement with the Palestinians. The Road Map for Middle East peace that was signed by Israel, the PLO and the United States explicitly ruled out any unilateral alterations in the pre-1967 armistice lines that served as a border between the parties. This provision was consistently and blatantly violated by successive Israeli governments with their illegal settlement project. And Netanyahu refused to recognize that border as the starting point for territorial negotiations in the terms of reference proposed by Secretary of State John Kerry.

But on July 12, as noted in The Times of Israel by its editor, David Horovitz, Netanyahu made clear that he has no interest in a genuine two-state solution. As Horovitz puts it, “the uncertainties were swept aside … And nobody will ever be able to claim in the future that [Netanyahu] didn’t tell us what he really thinks. He made it explicitly clear that he could never, ever, countenance a fully sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank.” The IDF, Netanyahu said, would remain permanently in the West Bank. During the Kerry-sponsored negotiations, he rejected out of hand the American proposal that U.S. and international forces be stationed on the Israeli-Palestinian border, which he insisted would remain permanently under the IDF’s control. Various enclaves will comprise a new Palestinian entity, which Palestinians will be free to call a state. But sovereignty, the one element that defines self-determination and statehood, will never be allowed by Israel, he said.

Why will he not allow it? Why did he undermine Kerry’s round of peace talks? Why is he inciting against the Palestinian unity government? Why does he continue to expand illegal settlements in the West Bank, and why did he use the tragic kidnapping and killing of three Israelis as a pretext to destroy what institutional political (as opposed to military) presence of Hamas remained in the West Bank?

He’s doing all of these things because, as suggested by Yitzhak Laor in Haaretz, he and his government are engaged in a frenzied effort to eliminate Palestinians as a political entity. Israel’s government is “intent on inheriting it all” by turning the Palestinian people into “a fragmented, marginalized people,” Laor writes. It is what the Israeli scholar Baruch Kimmerling described as “politicide” in a book by that name he wrote in 2006.

So exactly who is putting Israel’s population at risk? And what is Obama prepared to do about it?

I’m sure the president’s political advisers are telling him that a congressional election year is not the time to take on the Israel lobby. They are wrong, not only because it is always election time in the United States, but because successive polls have established that American Jews vote constantly and overwhelmingly Democratic for a wide variety of domestic and international reasons, but support for Netanyahu’s policies is not one of them.

And if the president wishes to convince Israelis and Palestinians that Israeli-Palestinian peace is a cause worth taking risks for, should he not be willing to take some domestic political risks as well?

Henry Siegman is president of the U.S./Middle East Project. He served as senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and non-resident research professor at the School of Oriental and African Studies of the University of London, and is a former national director of the American Jewish Congress.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/israel-provoked-this-war-109229.html#ixzz39SOhuJjW

July 9, 2014

(Source: youtube.com)

July 8, 2014
A professor of mine had a four-part paradigm of change.  It was really simple, and went like this:
1.  No talk, no do. 2.  Talk, no do. 3.  Talk, do. 4.  No talk, do.
In less elegant words, you move from not acknowledging the existence of a problem (no talk, no do), to discussing it and doing nothing about it (talk, no do), to working on it while you continue to discuss it (talk, do), to having reached a consensus so that you stop arguing about it and get on with solving it (no talk, do).
For Libertarians and the issue of corporatism, we are barely moving from Step 1 to Step 2, but then neither liberals nor conservatives have done much better. Libertarians sometimes confuse their belief in free markets with a protection of corporate capitalism, and end up arguing in favor of exactly what they decry:  government power deployed to distort markets in favor of certain “winners” and against “losers.”
Here is the problem, on which real liberals, real conservatives, and real libertarians need to find some common ground:  the State, which has, for better or worse, been given tremendous power for good or evil, has been almost completely co-opted by the plutocrats of corporate capitalism who are (a) anti-market; (b) anti-competition; (c) anti-free speech; and (d) willing to use all powers of the government—both civil and brutally violent—to maintain the hold on wealth and power that they achieved via both force and fraud.
The only good news is that many people are starting to see this, it’s just that Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians don’t realize they are seeing the same thing, and they have too long been convinced that they are natural enemies and shouldn’t compare notes.
There is only one road forward to the future we’d like to see. We have to begin the difficult process of bringing liberal, conservative, and libertarians back to the table as Americans, and we have to begin the arduous process of re-creating the separation of corporation and state.
This is tough, tougher than probably anybody believes.  Corporations control our government:  no matter which party is in power the same corporate revolving doors swing widely around.  Corporations control most (but thankfully not quite all) our media.  The leveling hierarchy of the internet and rapidly evolving social media elude their control, but they’re working on it.  Who do you think effectively gives the NSA its marching orders in the first place?
Booker T. Washington made famous the phrase, “Put down your bucket where you are.”  Start where we live.  Start with our neighbors.  Start with our local public schools.  Start with our state and local elections.
There is already a start happening, and its beginnings can be found in a series of unlikely events.  Greens and progressives have succeeded in changing the narrative of a proposed initiative in Delaware to such an extent that it took significant corporate monetary intervention to tilt the recent mayoral race in the “correct” direction.
Libertarians and progressives have united to challenge the corporate health-care and insurance worlds to retake some ground for the cause of midwives and home birth.  Conservatives and liberals are together beginning to question the drive towards completely corporatized public education.
There is an old truism in politics that you build coalitions by looking for that which unites you, not that which divides you. The complete takeover of American institutions by an increasingly dictatorial corporate oligarchy that consciously intends to eliminate both the free market and the last vestiges of meaningful democracy from our nation is an issue that—if properly stated—can unite a large number of us.
While there is still time.
by Steve Newton is a Professor of History and Political Science at Delaware State University and the Libertarian candidate in Delaware’s 22nd State Rep District.

A professor of mine had a four-part paradigm of change.  It was really simple, and went like this:

1.  No talk, no do.
2.  Talk, no do.
3.  Talk, do.
4.  No talk, do.

In less elegant words, you move from not acknowledging the existence of a problem (no talk, no do), to discussing it and doing nothing about it (talk, no do), to working on it while you continue to discuss it (talk, do), to having reached a consensus so that you stop arguing about it and get on with solving it (no talk, do).

For Libertarians and the issue of corporatism, we are barely moving from Step 1 to Step 2, but then neither liberals nor conservatives have done much better. Libertarians sometimes confuse their belief in free markets with a protection of corporate capitalism, and end up arguing in favor of exactly what they decry:  government power deployed to distort markets in favor of certain “winners” and against “losers.”

Here is the problem, on which real liberals, real conservatives, and real libertarians need to find some common ground:  the State, which has, for better or worse, been given tremendous power for good or evil, has been almost completely co-opted by the plutocrats of corporate capitalism who are (a) anti-market; (b) anti-competition; (c) anti-free speech; and (d) willing to use all powers of the government—both civil and brutally violent—to maintain the hold on wealth and power that they achieved via both force and fraud.

The only good news is that many people are starting to see this, it’s just that Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians don’t realize they are seeing the same thing, and they have too long been convinced that they are natural enemies and shouldn’t compare notes.

There is only one road forward to the future we’d like to see. We have to begin the difficult process of bringing liberal, conservative, and libertarians back to the table as Americans, and we have to begin the arduous process of re-creating the separation of corporation and state.

This is tough, tougher than probably anybody believes.  Corporations control our government:  no matter which party is in power the same corporate revolving doors swing widely around.  Corporations control most (but thankfully not quite all) our media.  The leveling hierarchy of the internet and rapidly evolving social media elude their control, but they’re working on it.  Who do you think effectively gives the NSA its marching orders in the first place?

Booker T. Washington made famous the phrase, “Put down your bucket where you are.”  Start where we live.  Start with our neighbors.  Start with our local public schools.  Start with our state and local elections.

There is already a start happening, and its beginnings can be found in a series of unlikely events.  Greens and progressives have succeeded in changing the narrative of a proposed initiative in Delaware to such an extent that it took significant corporate monetary intervention to tilt the recent mayoral race in the “correct” direction.

Libertarians and progressives have united to challenge the corporate health-care and insurance worlds to retake some ground for the cause of midwives and home birth.  Conservatives and liberals are together beginning to question the drive towards completely corporatized public education.

There is an old truism in politics that you build coalitions by looking for that which unites you, not that which divides you. The complete takeover of American institutions by an increasingly dictatorial corporate oligarchy that consciously intends to eliminate both the free market and the last vestiges of meaningful democracy from our nation is an issue that—if properly stated—can unite a large number of us.

While there is still time.

by Steve Newton is a Professor of History and Political Science at Delaware State University and the Libertarian candidate in Delaware’s 22nd State Rep District.