LEAP: Learning for the Empowerment and Advancement of Palestinians

This post is a small, but related, divergence from the normal subject matter of this blog. I recently applied to be a volunteer English teacher for the Learning for the Empowerment and Advancement of Palestinians (LEAP) Program this summer in Lebanon. Last week, I received notification that I was selected as a volunteer to work in the Rashidieh refugee camp in Tyre, Lebanon. I am very excited to be able to use my skills as a teacher to help Palestinian children gain the skills they need to be successful and to imagine and hope for a better future for themselves and their families.

The time that I spent traveling around the West Bank brought me into contact with many Palestinian children and they have a great excitement for life, just like all other children. Unfortunately, their circumstances can lead them down a road of despair and possible hatred if they are not provided with the means to better their position. No matter what the politics are in any given situation, if we neglect the children, we have done the most damage and we have aided in the perpetuation of conflict for generations to come.

It is my hope to play a small part in ending the vicious cycle of hatred and intolerance that is perpetuated by neglect and indifference. I plan on continuing this blog this summer while I am in the refugee camp in order to provide updates on the work that is being accomplished and to share my personal experiences. It is my hope that you will be interested in following along with the events that will transpire.

Why I Decided to Vote for Gov. Mitt Romney

Anyone who has been following my posts on facebook and Twitter knows that I have been an undecided voter until recently. Many have been surprised and/or unhappy with my choice to back Gov. Mitt Romney and still others are baffled by my decision to not only vote for, but also to campaign for, him in the final days leading up to today's presidential election. I decided to write this post to explain my decision and recent actions. I know many close to me disagree fervently with my decision and have asked how I can support someone they can't. This post is an attempt to describe my thinking.

I actually became a Romney supporter in 2007, after I read Hugh Hewitt's book, A Mormon in the White House?: 10 Things Every Conservative Should Know About Mitt Romney. Before reading this book, I was not supportive of his run for president. I wasn't going to be a campaign supporter just because I share the same religious faith. I take my civil duty of electing public officials seriously and I try to be as informed as I can be. Ultimately, I was convinced that Mitt Romney was the best choice for our next president and I was discouraged when he lost the race for the Republican nomination. I still wrote him in, however, on the ballot for the 2008 election because I was not impressed with either Sen. John McCain or Sen. Barack Obama.

Over the past few years, I have become more and more moderate in my political thinking. I have also become far more informed about foreign policy, especially concerning the Middle East. There have been many times in which Romney has made comments about the Middle East that I have either considered inaccurate or potentially causing greater problems in the future if such ideas are followed. This has been the main reason why I became a fence sitter in this election and not a Romney enthusiast the second time around. Foreign policy--not Romney's but President Obama's-- is also one of the issues that led me back to supporting Romney.

I was already aware that both Pres. Obama and Gov. Romney had very similar foreign policies when it came to the Middle East and the last presidential debate made that clear. Certainly, there are differences between the candidates' complete foreign policies, but I'm most concerned with Middle East policy and I believe that carries the bulk of the concern for most Americans as well. Initially, I was willing to call a draw on this issue and focus on other issues to determine which candidate would receive my support. Unfortunately, on 11 September 2012, the US Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, was killed along with three other Americans during an attack on the Benghazi consulate, which has now been deemed a terrorist attack (click here for a Washington Post article synthesizing what we know about the attack).

It baffles me that there existed such a poor comprehension of the situation in Libya, especially with a post-revolution society that barely even has a governing body organized, let alone a security force that was supposed to help defend the consulate. I also can't fathom how there was such a break down in communication as far as mobilizing more security is concerned--not just as the attack was commencing, but also the repeated requests for an increase in security forces. The blame put on the House for only approving 90% of the budget doesn't explain this at all as the WP article explains above. It is impossible that the president was not made aware of the attack earlier than reported. In 1979, when the US embassy in Iran was being overrun, there was plenty of intelligence circulating the CIA, FBI and White House as those events were unfolding. 33 years later, with the advancements in technology and the president's propensity to use drones, there is no excuse for the delayed reactions outside of the consulate. I am not a conspiracy theorist or swallower, so I will not believe that the president did anything purposefully that resulted in the deaths during this attack. However, there is too much incompetence that was displayed during this attack for me to have any confidence that the president can be an effective Commander in Chief--the part of his job that concerns the control of the military and the protection of the US at home and abroad. It is one thing to work with legislators and generals to withdraw troops from an unpopular war and it is quite another to be able to make fast and quick decisions necessary to save American lives. Because my potential career path may include being in similar situations, this issue and major failure of the president and his administration is not something I can overlook. This earns Romney his first point. I don't know if he and his administration would have had a different outcome, but it is far easier to trust your life to someone who hasn't already failed the lives of others.

A while ago, I wrote a post about Senate Bill S 1867: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, focusing on section 1031, which specifically allows for the indefinite detention of US citizens. President Obama said that he would work to alter this later after the bill was signed, but he has done nothing to my knowledge in this regard. Add this to the president's use of drones to assassinate terrorists, even those suspected terrorists who are US citizens, and there go the red flags again about his competence and decision making on the war on terror. (click here to read about a study conducted by Stanford University and New York University on the effects of drone warfare) I personally believe that such drone tactics are creating a new generation of people who will grow up hateful of the US for treating their lives like they are worth no more than a video game scenario. I also think such drone policies will show an increase of other nations using drone warfare and bring us back to the days when CIA, KGB and other national spies fought the Cold War through assassinations. Gov. Romney does support the use of drones as well, but he hasn't used them so far and he hasn't used them to assassinate US citizens like President Obama has.

I also give Romney credit for how he explained reducing extremism in the Middle East. During the third debate, Gov. Romney suggested it was necessary to reduce the influence of Islamic extremism in the Middle East and that we can't just kill our way out of the situation. He didn't elaborate on his plan for doing this in his opening statement for this first section, but I began running through my head what needs to be done to accomplish this and the things I thought of were investing in education, economic development, and human rights. In Gov. Romney's follow up, he listed economic investment as #1 in his strategy, 2. education, 3. gender equality, 4. rule of law for civil society. I think this strategy is exactly the type a strategy needed to minimize the influence of extremists and prevent the youth in the Middle East and North Africa from joining extremist organizations. Stating this strategy also gave Romney points for me.

I honestly believe Mitt Romney has proven himself over and over again in his ability to turn things around and make them profitable. He did this with the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, making it the first profitable Winter Olympics in history. He had a rate of 4% unemployment in Massachusetts. Because I think the economy is one of the most important issues of this election, I really leaned toward Gov. Romney on this issue.

I do think Republicans opened Mitt Romney up for the scare tactics about women's reproductive rights. There have been some very ridiculous things said about contraceptives and rape, which people ran with. I know Gov. Romney said that he thinks Roe vs. Wade should be overturned, but I don't believe he would ever do anything to make that happen if he became president. The biggest stretch was taking Romney's opposition to Obamacare's stipulation that employers needed to provide free contraceptive insurance for women and scaring women into thinking Romney wanted to deny them access to contraceptives. This wasn't the case as far as I understood it. The issue was not if women could have access to and use contraceptives, but rather if insurance companies should cover contraceptives at no extra cost to the insured, but to the added cost of the insurer. I personally feel that there is no problem with having contraceptives covered by insurance, but I do think that it should be an elective that is covered by an increased premium, unless the contraceptive is being used necessarily for other health issues (which I know happens often). I personally would like to see insurance become more like car insurance. There should be a limited amount of coverage that everyone should have, but then people can choose to add other types of coverage that would obviously raise premiums depending on what each individual wants covered.

I read many things recently that said a vote for Romney was a vote against civil rights for the LGBTQ community. I completely support the movement for marriage rights in this community and believe we will have equal rights within the next few years. I disagree a vote for Romney damages the possibility of gaining equal rights for the LGBTQ community. I don't think these rights will be granted by any action of the president. We are seeing states taking this issue into their own hands and many are passing laws legalizing gay marriage. There are four states voting tonight on this very issue. I am convinced that states, and then ultimately the Supreme Court, will decide to right the wrong of denying marriage equality to everyone.*

I'm not sure if I have now addressed all of the concerns that many have asked me. I went back to my facebook page to check, and it seems that some of the questions and comments have been deleted. Maybe people don't care anymore now that President Obama has been projected to win re-election. I still stand by my choice to vote for Gov. Mitt Romney for the reasons I have detailed here, but I now turn to a hope that the second term for President Obama is better than the first. I hope the change he promised in 2008 is realized within the next four years. For the sake of all Americans and many people across the world, I hope for a brighter and better future.


*(Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and probably Washington, which all had marriage equality on the ballot, have now legalized gay marriage according to predictions)

Bomb Iran!

It has been a great while since I last wrote a post for this blog.  I apologize to those of you who wish I would write more frequently, and I say you're welcome to those who don't.  I have been very busy and decided to put the blog on hiatus until I could spend the necessary time required to provide quality information.

I, however, decided to break the silence today after learning about a new billboard that is gracing the airspace of Salt Lake City.

© bombiran.org

This billboard is meant to awaken the people from the political warmongering comas to which we have all been subjected, especially during the GOP presidential debates.  The idea is to help people realize that military action against Iran, as has been strongly supported by many politicians, is an act of support for the military-industrial complex (so named by President Eisenhower) and has nothing to do with our own security.

I feel that this is an important message to spread and since I have the platform to get the message out to at least a few people, I figured I should do my part.  The website is very simple and provides very clear and basic information about why military action against Iran is not in the best interest of anyone.  I strongly suggest you take a look at the site and inform yourself of the situation that is threatening our involvement in another war that does not have to be.

Here is a report from KSL news in Salt Lake City with one of the creators of the billboard and website bombiran.org:

Billboard creator hopes people will stop and think about message, war | ksl.com

Senate Bill S 1867, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012

This Bill is 680 pages long, but the section of greatest concern is section 1031.  Please read it.  I have listed sections 1031 and 1032 in order to show the contrast between the two.  In section 1032 there is an exemption for US citizens and Resident Aliens, however, this same exemption does not apply to section 1031.  It is easy to read section 1031 thinking that you are not one of those people, so there is no need to worry.  You may even agree that people who engage in the terrorist activities described deserve the measures taken.  However, ask yourself who gets to make the decision whether a person falls into this category or not?  The individual described in this section has not been tried and found guilty and then submitted to the detention described.  Anyone (including US citizens) suspected of these acts can be detained indefinitely without a trial.  Do you have enough faith in the government that innocent citizens won't be apprehended?  Can you live with the fact that they could be locked away indefinitely without charges or a trial if they are?  This section is an egregious attack on the liberties of US citizens and I hope enough people will voice their disapproval to at least have the same exemption as section 1032 amended to section 1031.  There is enough fodder already for us to be dissatisfied with our legislators, do we really want to add a removal of our liberties to that list?

Pg. 359

3 Subtitle D—Detainee Matters

4 SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED

5          FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN

6          COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AU-

7             THORIZATIONFOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the author-

9 ity of the President to use all necessary and appropriate

10 force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military

11 Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the

12 Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered per-

13 sons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition

14 under the law of war.

15 (b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under

16 this section is any person as follows:

17 (1) A person who planned, authorized, com-

18 mitted, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred

19 on September 11, 2001, or harbored those respon-

20 sible for those attacks.

21 (2) A person who was a part of or substantially

22 supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces

23 that are engaged in hostilities against the United

24 States or its coalition partners, including any person

25 who has committed a belligerent act or has directly

VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:53 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00359 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1867.PCS S1867 tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS

Pg. 360

•S 1867 PCS

1 supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy

2 forces.

3 (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The dis-

4 position of a person under the law of war as described

5 in subsection (a) may include the following:

6 (1) Detention under the law of war without

7 trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the

8 Authorization for Use of Military Force.

9 (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United

10 States Code (as amended by the Military Commis-

11 sions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–

12 84)).

13 (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or

14 competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

15 (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the

16 person’s country of origin, any other foreign coun-

17 try, or any other foreign entity.

18 (d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is in-

19 tended to limit or expand the authority of the President

20 or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military

21 Force.

22 (e) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—

23 The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress

24 regarding the application of the authority described in this

25 section, including the organizations, entities, and individ-

VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:53 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00360 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1867.PCS S1867 tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS

Pg. 361

•S 1867 PCS

1 uals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of

2 subsection (b)(2).

3 SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

4 (a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF

5 WAR.—

6 (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para-

7 graph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States

8 shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who

9 is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by

10 the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public

11 Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition

12 under the law of war.

13 (2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in

14 paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose de-

15 tention is authorized under section 1031 who is de-

16 termined—

17 (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-

18 Qaeda or an associated force that acts in co-

19 ordination with or pursuant to the direction of

20 al-Qaeda; and

21 (B) to have participated in the course of

22 planning or carrying out an attack or attempted

23 attack against the United States or its coalition

24 partners.

VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:53 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00361 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1867.PCS S1867 tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS

Pg. 362

•S 1867 PCS

1 (3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—For

2 purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a per-

3 son under the law of war has the meaning given in

4 section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise

5 described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be

6 made unless consistent with the requirements of sec-

7 tion 1033.

8 (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The

9 Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the

10 Secretary of State and the Director of National In-

11 telligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if

12 the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in

13 writing that such a waiver is in the national security

14 interests of the United States.

15 (b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS

16 AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—

17 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require-

18 ment to detain a person in military custody under

19 this section does not extend to citizens of the United

20 States.

21 (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require-

22 ment to detain a person in military custody under

23 this section does not extend to a lawful resident

24 alien of the United States on the basis of conduct

25 taking place within the United States, except to the

VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:53 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00362 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1867.PCS S1867 tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS

Pg. 363

•S 1867 PCS

1 extent permitted by the Constitution of the United

2 States.


Contact your Senators and your Representatives and urge them to amend section 1031 to include an exemption for US citizens and legal Resident Aliens.

The Death of Muammar al-Qadhafi

It has been a while since I have written a post and I felt that it was time to at least submit something.  For the next few weeks, I will try to post links to articles that I feel are important regarding current events in the Middle East and North Africa.  Obviously, the news that the rebel forces of Libya captured and killed the more than four decades long dictator, Muammar al-Qadhafi, is very important news.  I do not have the time to put in a lot of thought or give a detailed analysis of the situation and for the next few weeks that will be the same for all of my posts, but I hope you will follow the links I provide and inform yourseves of the major events that are affecting the region and will also affect the US and its involvement.

I will say a few quick things.  I hope that the new Libyan government is stabilized quickly with free and open elections.  The military forces of the rebellion will probably want to be a part of the governing body at first in order to provide stability, but it is clear from the situation in Egypt that the military does not provide stability when it is a part of the governing body, but it inflicts martial law on the people and becomes an entity that oppresses the voices and actions of the people because it wants to demonstrate who has the power.  Egypt had a peaceful revolution to depose Hosni Mubarak, but the military has almost crushed the spirit of the people with its brutal attacks and its fabricated stories in an attempt to maintain the sectarianism between the Muslims and the Copts.  I don't think all is lost in Egypt, but the military needs to be removed soon from its control before it reverts into the same nation the people sought to change.  Because Egypt slipped so easily back into a militarized situation, I fear that the same thing will happen in Libya, especially since their regime change came through armed conflict.  It will be vital to watch the developments in Libya in the coming weeks in order to see in what direction the new Libya will go.

Here is a link to an article from the New York Times about the circumstances surrounding the death of Muammar al-Qadhafi.

The Lost Lessons of 9/11

Today is a day that most people in America are commemorating, because it is the tenth anniversary of the devastating and destructive attacks on the World Trade Center Twin Towers.  There were people from over 100 nations that lost their lives during this attack, and therefore there are many around the world who are also caught up in the memories that this day brings forth.  The events of 11 September 2001 will forever be etched in the annals of history and in the minds of the citizens of the world.

I was not in the United States on this beautiful September morning when the skies of New York City changed in an instant from blue to black, gray, and white.  I was in Switzerland at the time and was oblivious to the events until a friend showed me the news on the television.  I remember looking at the footage of the the planes flying into the towers and the swift and awful collapse of each one.  I almost could not believe what I was watching.  It was as if we had turned on a movie starring Bruce Willis or some other actor whose movies have more explosions than dialogue.  After the initial shock and the wiping of tears, I was surprised how personally attacked I felt.  I am not aware of having lost anyone whom I knew personally in this tragedy, but these events transcended the microcosms of our everyday lives and brought us into a far larger family of nation.  Every soul lost was not just someone's son, daughter, father, mother, husband or wife, but they instantly became the faces of our own friends and families.  We were brought together as a nation, because we faced such an unthinkable disaster together.

Many heroes showed their faces that day and not all of them survived, because they were willing to put the safety and security of others before themselves.  I unfortunately cannot write from a firsthand perspective about how 9/11 and the endless stories of heroism helped to unite our country, but I heard from my family and friends that there was a definite change.  People were nicer to each other and willing to express their love for each other more easily.  These are the things that I hope we remember and never forget about 11 September 2001.

Lamentably, the initial effects of 9/11 have not endured for 10 years on a national scale.  I'm sure there are individuals who have changed the course of their lives and become kinder, more selfless and service oriented.  There was, however,  the potential for us all to move into a new era of American camaraderie, mutual respect and trust; but instead we have become divisive, intolerant, and suspicious.  We have become a nation of blamers and victims expecting others to fix all of our problems because it is "owed" to us.  Instead of facing our troubles head on with the help of those around us, like was briefly displayed on 9/11, we feel the hands we are dealt in life are unfair and that we are entitled to something more without doing anything to achieve it.

It is time that we truly honor those who were lost by locating our will, tenacity, and integrity from amidst the hyperbolic rubble under which we have allowed it all to be buried.  It is time that we stop pointing fingers at those whom we blame for the hardships that we face and work to rise out of the ashes.  It is time that we find within ourselves the ability and capacity to open our hearts to everyone and to extend the hand of brotherhood/sisterhood and fellowship.  We live in a great country, but we are tearing it apart with our bickering, derogatory words and actions, and our intolerance.  11 September 2001 demonstrated that we have the capacity to rise above all odds and now is the time to prove it.  Let's all take up the banner to help those around us regardless of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and age.  Let's come together to ensure a brighter future and truly honor the lives of those we lost! 

Events Leading to the War of 1967

     It has been a month since my last post and I apologize.  It isn't that I haven't wanted to post on many of the events that have currently graced the front pages of newspapers and magazines, but I have been working on papers for school.  My original plan was to post my most recent paper on the War of 1967 (Six-Day War) between Israel and the UAR (Egypt), but after looking into copyright laws, I realized that it could possibly become an issue to post my paper here without consent from all the authors whom I cited in my work.  So I have decided to do the next best thing--I am posting my introduction and conclusion, which provide the general content of the paper.
     The territorial gains (the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights) made by Israel during this war have been the greatest points of conflict between the Arabs and the Israelis.  This paper does not look at the results of the war and the impact they have had on the region, but rather it is an investigation of why the war occurred in the first place and the possibilities that existed to avoid war altogether.

Introduction

The Six-Day War of 1967 between Israel and the United Arab Republic (Jordan and Syria were also involved) is an example of a war that occurred due to rhetoric, manipulation, and miscalculation.[1]  Both sides had built-up sizeable militaries and were adequately armed in preparation for future conflicts, but the war that erupted between Israel and the UAR in June of 1967 was not inevitable.  This by no means suggests that the potential for conflict did not exist.  There were many contributing factors that led to the eventual Israeli attack on the UAR, but from these there are a few that played a major role in initiating the course of events that resulted in war.  Prior to the outbreak of war, the Soviet Union provided Syria and the UAR with false information about the concentration of Israeli troops on the border with Syria.  This led Gamal ‘Abdel Nasser, president of the UAR, to build-up troops in the Sinai Peninsula as a deterrent to Israel, which ultimately resulted in Nasser’s expulsion of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) from the UAR and began a quick chain of events that culminated in a swift Israeli victory over he UAR, Jordan, and Syria.

Israel’s defeat of the UAR and its allies was a harsh blow to the Arab world and its designs to remove Israel from its place as a Middle Eastern state.  These plans were partly responsible for the resulting war in 1967, in as much as they put pressure on Nasser to come out from the shadow of the UNEF and reestablish himself and the UAR as a strong Arab nation.  This paper will examine two primary factors that escalated the situation between Israel and the UAR to war—the Soviet propaganda of Israeli troop build-up along the Syrian border and the removal of the UNEF from the UAR replaced by UAR troops in the Sinai.  The first section of this paper provides the context, by which the events of May and June 1967 were influenced.  The following section will analyze the Soviet propaganda and discuss the possible motivations for supplying its Middle Eastern clients with false information.  The final section will address the issue of Nasser’s decision to remove UNEF troops from the Sinai Peninsula, which was partially influenced by the “intelligence” provided by the Soviets.  Through a close look at these elements, one will be able to have a more thorough understanding not only of the elements that ignited the Six-Day War, but also of those things that possibly could have prevented war in the late spring of 1967.

Conclusion

The situation in the Middle East in 1967 was certainly unstable, but there was a multitude of influences that made an unstable situation, a situation of war.  The Soviet Union hoped to capitalize on the Middle East’s waning affiliation with the United States by securing its own Arab clients.  Because of this goal, it became increasingly involved in the affairs of Egypt and Syria.  Continuing a policy that had previously worked, the Soviets initiated a propaganda campaign to strengthen the bonds between its two main Arabs clients, the UAR and Syria, and to discourage any Israeli designs to attack Syria and threaten the neo-Ba‘thist government.  This propaganda was miscalculated as well as the internal situations of both Syria and the UAR.  Syria welcomed a new external war in the hopes to halt a conflict with the Muslim Brotherhood.  Nasser was not willing to be a pawn on the Middle Eastern chessboard, but wanted to be the king.  This miscalculation of the situation allowed the Soviet Union to spark the fuse that would ignite a new Arab-Israeli war.

The blame does not fall solely on the Soviet Union of course.  Although one might question if there ever would have been a war if the Soviets didn’t instigate a crisis, it is very difficult to determine this.  It is, however, much easier to determine possible outcomes had other agents reacted differently to the initial crisis.  The mobilization of UAR troops into the Sinai was not a move beyond the point of no return.  The UAR and Israel had averted a military conflict seven years earlier under almost the same circumstances.  The problem with this situation was Nasser’s need to quiet the comments of his fellow Arab leaders, which were delegitimizing his claims as leader of the Arab world.  An inaccurate assessment of the situation by the UN Secretary General U Thant further complicated the situation.  Had he applied pressure on the UAR and refused to remove the UNEF from UAR territory, it is quite likely a replay of the stand off in 1960 would have been the only consequence.  However, U Thant’s compliance with the UAR’s request, although correct according to policy concerning the UNEF, forced Nasser to continue the course of action he began.

Nasser, who did not meet the opposition he expected, had to decide whether he wanted to avoid a war and lose his prestige among the Arab world or continue with actions that would commit the UAR to another war with Israel, but would further legitimize his status in the Arab world.  He chose the latter path because that was his whole purpose in playing the game the Soviets had set before him.  The superpowers and the UN failed to recognize the importance the Israelis placed on naval access to the Straits of Tiran and didn’t work hard enough to convince Nasser to open the straits.  The risk assessment became too great for Israel and it finally attacked and defeated the UAR, Jordan and Syria. 

The possibility for a different outcome existed in 1967, but there were too many conflicting aspirations that resulted in the events that have been recorded in the annals of history.  Although the “what if” game could be played forever, what is clear from this analysis is that there is not one sole person or entity that is responsible for the chain of events that escalated into the Six-Day War.  Instead, the propaganda, manipulation, rhetoric, and miscalculations of a number of agents determined the course of events that led to war in 1967 and has affected the Middle East and the Arab-Israeli conflict ever since.     

---

[1] Syria was no longer part of the UAR at this time, but it was still the official name of Egypt.

As Democracy Spreads in the Middle East and North Africa, Israel Stifles It

Israel once enjoyed the title of being the only democracy in the MENA region, but now as the Knesset has voted to ban citizen rights of freedom of speech and assembly when it comes to the actions of the Israeli government, Israel is continuing the slippery slope to dictatorship and fascism.  I know that some may find my implication of fascism as offensive and insensitive given the atrocities against Jews and other peoples that occurred at the hands of fascists, but the term is accurate for describing the direction in which Israel is headed.  The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines fascism as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition."  The second paragraph of the NY Times article (see link above) describes how the defenders of this bill consider it necessary in order to fight against Israel's current global delegitimization.  This certainly sounds like exalting the nation above its people and there is no question that the state of Israel already exalts race above the individual.  This new law will forcibly suppress opposition, which already occurs in the West Bank, but will now be a part of life in Israel.  I would also suggest that there is also economic and social regimenting that occurs at certain levels in Israel.  I don't think Israel has a dictatorial leader yet, but it doesn't seem far from attaining this fascist characteristic.

Police and IDF gathered at demonstration  © Chad Card

The Knesset now has made it possible to continue settlement building in the West Bank without vocal opposition.  They have just written themselves a free pass to continue illegal acts in peace and quiet.  I'm sure there are some Israelis who will not pay attention to this law and will continue to defy it.  I am also sure that the Palestinians will continue to vocalize their opposition to the acts of the state of Israel against them.  I hope the Knesset is busy building more jail space, because that is what will be needed if this bill is not overturned by the Supreme Court of Israel.

© Chad Card

© Chad Card

I recently shared some pictures of Israeli protesters in Jerusalem, who gather every Friday in demonstration against the settlements and wrongful eviction of Palestinians from their homes.  I am honored to have been able to witness this type of integrity among Israelis.  I am also saddened that these people, who know what is right, will face fines and jail if they continue to vocalize their opposition to these injustices.  If a people doesn't have the right to speak out against the actions of their government, they have lost any control they might be able to wield in that government.  When that happens, the door for authoritarianism is blown wide open.  It is my hope that enough people and nations will realize that the state of Israel is fast becoming like Nazi Germany and make a substantial change in their support for Israel's policies before it is too late and the atrocities of the holocaust are revisited on another people in the name of "national security."

The Second Flotilla and the US Failure to Support What is Right

On 26 June 1948, the United States along with its allies began a 15 month operation called the Berlin Airlift in English and Die Luftbrücke (The Air Bridge) in German, which circumvented the complete blockade of Berlin by the USSR through coordinated and continuous flights of supplies from West Germany to Berlin.  Berlin, although located in newly created East Germany, was divided like the rest of the country into east and west zones.  However, the Soviet Union wanted to have the entire city and initiated the blockade.  Luckily for the West Berlin Germans, who were considered enemies only a few years earlier, the Soviet Union and Communism had become the new enemies of the western Superpowers and these Superpowers organized an honorable effort to bring relief to those Germans who had been cut off from necessary supplies.  I was fortunate enough to be in Berlin in 1998-99 when the 50th anniversary of this historic humanitarian aid event was commemorated and President Bill Clinton represented the US and its role in die Luftbrücke.  

Now, what does this have to do with the Middle East?  As I am writing this post, there is a second flotilla that has left Greece and is headed for Gaza in an effort to bring necessary supplies to the people, who have been devastated by the Israeli blockade of seaports and land crossings.  Gaza has a total land area of 360 sq. km., which is slightly smaller than the 479 sq. km. of West Berlin.  It also has a population that is slightly smaller than that of West Berlin in 1948 at 1.65 million people compared to 2.2 million.  The number of people per square kilometer is almost exactly the same between Gaza and West Berlin of 1948.  Another similarity between the two is the difficulty of production and resources in the area necessary to sustain the population.  Where these two seemingly similar situations differ is in the perpetrators of the blockades.  For West Berlin, the new enemy of the West--the Soviet Union--had instigated the blockade, which was their right for security purposes since Berlin was located in their territory.  The Palestinians, are not as fortunate, since the perpetrator of the Gaza blockade is Israel--the most strongly supported country by the United States.  It seems humanitarian aid is worthy of US support as long as the recipients are its allies or if the aid will thwart the plans of its enemies.

I'm not saying that the Unites States does not supply humanitarian aid to the Palestinians, because it does and I do not want to mislead anyone.  My point here is strictly related to the Gaza situation and the Flotilla of Peace that is on its way to Gaza.  One of the ships in this flotilla is called "The Audacity of Hope" carrying 50 US citizens.  The US State Department has issued a travel warning about entering Gaza by sea, which states "previous attempts to enter Gaza by sea have been stopped by Israeli naval vessels and resulted in the injury, death, arrest, and deportation of U.S. citizens. U.S. citizens participating in any effort to reach Gaza by sea should understand that they may face arrest, prosecution, and deportation by the Government of Israel."  In response to questions about the second flotilla headed to Gaza, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton also stated "that it’s not helpful for there to be flotillas that try to provoke actions by entering into Israeli waters and creating a situation in which the Israelis have the right to defend themselves."  It appears that the US supports any action Israel will take against US citizens on this flotilla.  The great problem with this is there is no intention for the flotilla to enter Israeli waters.  The flotilla that was attacked by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) last summer was still in international waters when boarded by IDF soldiers and the plans of the current flotilla are also to remain in international waters.  Just because Israel has a naval blockade on Gaza, does not mean those waters have now become part of Israeli territory, although I am sure that is the mindset.  Does Israel have the right to check the cargo of the ships to make sure there are no weapons or potentially dangerous materials?  Sure it does.  The problem, unfortunately, is that anything can be labeled as potentially dangerous and blocked by the Israelis, which has happened continuously with supplies to Gaza.

Statements from the State Department indicate the ineffectiveness the flotilla will have, pointing to the improvements in the transportation of materials into Gaza.  State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland released a statement last Friday, which noted "that the humanitarian situation has significantly improved over the last year, including a marked increase in the range and scope of goods and materials moving into Gaza, an increase in international project activity, and the gradual expansion of exports."  What she doesn't mention is the fact that these improvements are a direct result of the first flotilla to Gaza.  Without that first flotilla, there would have been no easing of the Israeli blockade.  Other statements have warned US citizens against supplying materials to recognized terrorist organizations like Hamas, implying that those aboard the flotillas are criminals and could very possibly face criminal charges for their actions.  What I find astounding is that we consider Hamas a terrorist organization, but the Taliban in Afghanistan has never made the list.  We have been at war with the Taliban for a decade, fighting a war on terror, and yet the Taliban is not on the list.  I wonder if it has to do with the fact that originally the Taliban was an ally of the US.  We supplied arms to the Taliban, known as the mujahideen at the time, which in Arabic means those who are involved in jihad, in order to support their fight against the Soviet Union, whose victory against the USSR was applauded by the US government.  This was made famous by the book and subsequent movie Charlie Wilson's War.  Maybe they haven't made the list because the US needs to be able to have legal interaction with the Taliban to further its purposes in Afghanistan and the region.  My guess is that President Obama does not believe the war can be won without a compromise between the new government of Afghanistan and the Taliban.  Since the US has a strict policy of not negotiating with terrorists, it cannot list the Taliban as a terrorist organization.  One of the criteria for qualifying as a terrorist organization is posing a threat to US national security, which Hamas does not do, but the Taliban obviously does.  The point here is that whom the US government decides is a terrorist organization is completely arbitrary.

It is clear that the reason Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization is because they are an enemy to Israel.  I will not deny that Hamas has carried out terrorist operations.  I'm not trying to justify the actions of Hamas, but I would like to put things into perspective.  Recently the US Senate unanimously passed a non-binding resolution (S. Res. 185 text) urging the president to veto any resolution that comes to the UN Security Council for the recognition of an independent Palestinian state.  Much of the resolution focuses on Hamas and the unity government that has been forged between Fatah and Hamas since the breakdown of the last attempts at peace negotiations.  Senator Ben Cardin from Maryland, the head writer of the resolution, states, "any Palestinian effort to gain recognition of a state outside of direct negotiations demonstrates their lack of a good faith commitment to a peace negotiation. The Senate is now firmly on record that this kind of action would be directly counterproductive to peace. If the Palestinians pursue this, it may well have implications for the continued U.S. participation with the Palestinians."  I'm not surprised that the Palestinians lack good faith in the peace negotiations.  More than sixty years of negotiations have done little to better their situation.  What is also implied in Senator Cardin's statement and made clear in the resolution, is the intent to withdraw all funding to the Palestinians should they continue to pursue recognition in the UN.

Israeli settlement in the West Bank near Bethlehem  © Chad Card

Senator Cardin also comments that "Israel has always been willing to come to the peace table for direct negotiations."  I can't refute this fact, but it is one thing to always agree to negotiations in order to demonstrate to the world your beneficence in an effort to garner continued support and it is a completely different thing to actually be prepared to negotiate.  The unwillingness to extend the moratorium on new settlement construction in the West Bank clearly indicates how dedicated Israel is to peace negotiations.  What is worse is operative clause 5 of the S. Resolution 185, which reads "the Senate supports the opposition of the President to a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and the veto by the United States on February 18, 2011, of the most recent United Nations Security Council resolution regarding a key issue of the Israeli-Palestinian process."  The key issue that goes unnamed is the US veto of the UN resolution to recognize the illegality of the Israeli settlements according to international law.  So, operative clause 5 should read "the Senate supports the opposition of the President to a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and the veto by the United States on February 18, 2011, of the most recent United Nations Security Council resolution deeming the Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal according to international law."  This UN resolution was not a resolution to create a new international law, but to enforce one that is already in existence and one that Israel has violated since the first settlements were begun.

There are many reasons the US does not want to support the Palestinians' right to seek recognition by the UN.  This "unilateral" decision would create a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, which means the Old City of Jerusalem and all of the illegal Israeli settlements would be included in the Palestinian state and the Israeli settlers would become Palestinians.  This is why the US is so adamant that the two-state solution come through direct negotiations.  The purpose of the negotiations is to give the land of the settlements to Israel and swap it for land that Israel possesses.  This 1:1 exchange seems fair, but one must ask the question, "Why is Israel constructing settlements in the West Bank when they have all of this land to swap?"  The answer to this question is two-fold.  The Israeli settlements in the West Bank are strategically located over natural water sources and the unsettled Israeli territories are non-arable lands.  These direct negotiations will create a Palestinian state that is not able to sustain itself because the majority of its arable land and water sources will go to Israel.

Playing soccer with children of displaced Palestinians  © Chad Card

If the continued settlements weren't enough of a source of pain, anguish and anger for the Palestinians, there is currently a bill in the Knesset, the Israeli governing body, to make Palestinians pay for the costs of the demolition of their homes.  This has already been a practice in East Jerusalem, where Palestinians are forcefully ejected from their homes at night by masked soldiers in order to replace these families with Israeli settlers.  The displaced Palestinian families must then pay the cost of moving their stuff out of their homes or else forfeit their possessions.  I had the opportunity to listen to some of these families in East Jerusalem, who sit everyday on the street outside of their homes in protest of their forced eviction.  This is what the US government is supporting.  Prior to her comments on the flotillas, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton comment on the situation in Syria.  She said, "we are closely monitoring the situation in Syria and in neighboring countries, and it is [a] further example of the lengths to which President Assad’s regime will go to repress the people of Syria rather than actually working in a collaborative way to try to resolve the legitimate concerns of the Syrian people. And it just is very clear to us that unless the Syrian forces immediately end their attacks and their provocations that are not only now affecting their own citizens but endangering the potential border clashes, then we’re going to see an escalation of conflict in the area."  I'm wondering where the disconnect is.  How can the US understand that oppression and restriction of rights is wrong and the cause of clashes in Syria, but it can't recognize the same thing in Palestine?  Oh I forgot, the US isn't friends with Syria, but it is bed buddies with Israel.

If You Want to Comment on the Poll Before it Closes

I realized when I made the current poll about the presidential candidates that some of you, who participate in the poll, may have something to say before I actually write a post about the results, and this was confirmed by my friend Kathleen.  I have created this post not to share my own perspective at this time, but to allow you all to comment on the current poll.  I know there are a lot of current and potential candidates and you may not have even heard of some of them, I know I hadn't.  If you would like to see something on each candidate follow the link and have fun.

Addendum to Afghanistan Post

President Obama addressed the nation yesterday and outlined his plan for withdrawal from Afghanistan and an ending to the war.  He wants a removal of 10,000 troops starting in July and to return to pre-surge troop levels by next summer.  He also projected an end to the war by 2014.  I was pleased to hear him discuss the need to protect the advances made in education and for women and girls.  I was also glad to hear him imply that the war on terrorism is not one that is fought on a battlefield, but rather one that needs to focus on specific targets. I think the greatest mistake we made with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was to initially treat them like normal combat wars.  It was not only less effective, but it also helped to contribute to the image of the US as an imperial force--making it easier for terrorist organizations to recruit members.

President Obama also turned the focus towards the future of the United States.  He spoke about taking the middle road between the extremes of military isolationism and troop overextension.  The idea that we need to work with international allies to prevent and stop the evils that are occurring in the world is a sound policy.  I know that many feel that this diminishes the clout our military may have in the world, but that should not be the focus of our worries.  As the president said, we need to focus on nation-building here in the US.  Instead of rallying together as we did following 9/11 and with the initial operations in Afghanistan, we have become a nation that has warred with itself and become more destructive with words and ideals than we could have been with weapons.  It is time to come back together as a proud people, not to boast of ourselves in front of the world, but to support each other in accomplishing our dreams.  We need to become less self-serving and more service oriented--willing to help those in need.  It is time to reclaim what made the United States great from the beginning--our willingness to sacrifice our desires for the greater good.

Before I was able to listen to the address, I had heard that President Obama mentioned the troops would be home by September of 2012.  I was all ready to write about the president's use of the war to further his presidential re-election campaign.  If this was mentioned in another context, then I am disgusted that the troops in Afghanistan are being used as pawns in the elections. and if that is the intent, we might as well just bring them all back now and watch Afghanistan crumble without the loss of more American lives.  However, this is not what was mentioned in the address to the nation and the timeline of concluding the combat phase of this war.  I am hopeful that the US military and civilian forces will be able to train Afghani troops, police, and the general population as the president indicated.  My one fear is that the president has indicated the need for the Afghanis to patrol for and protect against al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups.  I worry that focusing too much of our rebuilding of Afghanistan on their security may turn Afghanistan into a militarized nation as it was under the Taliban.  Hopefully, the military and police forces will be trained not to rule the nation, but to ensure and protect the rights of the people from those who would oppress.

If anyone who reads this has served in Afghanistan, I would love to hear what your thoughts are on the issues brought up in this post and the one that preceded it.  I am not an expert on Afghanistan and I am not in the military.  I know what I learn from books and the news isn't the whole story, but that is all I have at the moment on which to base my comments.  If anyone has greater insight into the situation in Afghanistan, I would love for you to share your thoughts.  Again, I have to reiterate, this blog is intended to start a discourse--an exchange of ideas.  I want to learn more about these issues as much as anyone who reads this blog.  If you don't feel like an expert, but have questions, suggestions, or different opinions than the ones I share, I truly want to know what they are.  Please make a comment if you are so moved.

War in Afghanistan Poll

Well, I guess I haven't come up with any intriguing polls, since my two polls have only managed to bring in 20 votes total and the new poll currently only has one participant.  Two of those votes were mine, so really the total stands at 18.  I would appreciate it greatly if you would comment on this post with suggestions for new polls.  My only guidelines would be that your suggestions focus around the Middle East and/or the United States, since that is the focus of this blog.  I thrive on interaction and I truly desire hearing your opinions about the polls and the posts on this blog.  You can comment anonymously or publicly, but please comment so I have something from which to build.  Thank you so much for reading this blog and for participating with me.

In the last poll, I provided an incomplete statement to which I wanted you to add your opinion.  The statement was:  Now that Osama bin Laden has been found and executed do you think the war in Afghanistan is  

justified                                                                            1 
                                                                                              (33%)

another US intervention that will one day backfire         1 
                                                                                              (33%)

a lost cause                                                                       0 
                                                                                                (0%)

a mistake                                                                          1 
                                                                                              (33%)

One individual believes the war is justified, I'm the one who indicated the second option and another individual believes the war in Afghanistan is a mistake.  It is interesting to me that no one was willing to place a vote indicating the war is a lost cause.  Although I’m sure there are those out there who believe that the war in Afghanistan is a lost cause, no one indicated as such.  This makes me glad because we can't afford for the war to be treated as a lost cause.  Whether the US should have entered into a war in Afghanistan or not, it is necessary now to focus on finishing this war and providing the Afghanis with the security and organization they will need to ensure the positives that have come from this war (i.e. education of girls, greater rights for women, the destabilization of the Taliban) are not lost when the US withdraws from their country.  What this requires is the patience to stay in Afghanistan until these things are secured.  This means that many more years are required for the US to maintain a presence in Afghanistan, which is not a popular option for most Americans and, therefore, not good political policy especially as we enter the presidential campaign.  However, it is my hope that President Obama doesn’t fear a campaign loss if he keeps us committed to Afghanistan and doesn't start to make promises of huge troop withdrawals in order to appease the voters.  I don’t say this because I want us to be forever engaged in a war in Afghanistan, but I also don’t want us to ever have to return because we didn’t feel like making things right the first time.

This is one of the reasons I said this war is another intervention that will backfire on us.  Our record of intervention in the Middle East is not very good.  Almost everything, if not everything, with which we have involved ourselves in this region has ultimately come back to haunt us.  In 1953 we staged a coup of a democratically elected prime minister in Iran, who was an ally to the US (both Prime Minister Musaddiq and Iran) and we paid the Iranian ayatollahs annually in order to ensure their support of the Shah we installed (see William Blum, Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, pg. 72).  Now Iran is one of the most verbal haters of the United States led by the ayatollahs to whom we paid millions.  In 1963, a decade later, we decided to try our hand at another “successful” coup and we unofficially aided the coup in Iraq that overthrew ‘Abd al-Karim Qaasim and led to Saddam Hussein’s rise to power (whom we courted at the time).  To continue with Iraq, during the 80s we supplied President Hussein with weapons to fight our now Iranian enemies, whom we created.  Soon after the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait on 2 August 1990 and became an enemy to the West using the weapons we freely supplied to him just a few years prior.  It is too soon to tell what the results of the most recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will be, but if we look at the results of the past, we might get some idea.

I’m afraid it is too late for us to do anything about Iraq.  The one thing we have learned in both Afghanistan and Iraq from our past mistakes in the Middle East is to not replace one dictatorial government with another.  Unfortunately, we have still imposed a government on the people of each nation and preselected its leaders.  We have imposed democracy on both Afghanistan and Iraq without truly working with the people of the two nations to help them build something that is more organic.  The instability that still exists in Iraq is partly due to this very fact.  Given the sectarian nature of Iraq, setting up a government that would be agreeable to all involved was going to be a challenge, but trying to impose a western structure in this situation without a real investment from the masses could quite possibly lead to the same situation we had in Germany after World War I.  We forced democracy on the Germans; we made them pay for the war, which they couldn’t, thus economically destabilizing them; the Great Depression hit the world and Hitler rose from the ashes to cause even greater destruction.  I certainly hope we haven’t created another Weimar Republic in Iraq, but if we don’t remain somehow invested in its future and stability, we may have done just that.

In Afghanistan, not only have we imposed democracy, but we have supported people of questionable integrity because they had the clout we needed to fight against the Taliban.  If we are not careful and we leave Afghanistan in the hands of these new leaders who used to be or still are drug lords and weapons dealers, we have not only created a breeding ground for a new dictator, but we have also associated democracy with tyrannism, deceit, and corruption.  It is in our best interest not only to train Afghani police forces, but to help the Afghanis rebuild their nation.  Again, we need to work with the Afghani communities, which are tribal, and find out from them what they need and how we can be of service to them.  Anything we build without community support won’t last even if it is good and beneficial to the people.  We need to help the Afghanis to be interested and invested in their own nation building.

I would say that the war in Afghanistan was justified as much as I think the war in Iraq was justified, not for the reasons given—housing al-Qaeda and bin Laden in Afghanistan and WMDs in Iraq—but for the ending of an era of oppression and massacres in both nations (not to say the wars haven’t had a large number of casualties).  Removing Saddam Hussein and the Taliban have been good things from a humanitarian point of view, so I would say the wars are justified.  However, if we don’t make sure the people are invested in their new governments and lives, I do feel like we will one day experience the repercussions of our intervention and that will be our greatest mistake.