There is a great deal swirling around us concerned with Iran and the US. It is impossible to know anything for sure, but these appear to be points more or less clear.
Barack Obama believes strongly in diplomacy. He's willing to use a bit of military power against the ugliest of the Islamic extremists, but shies away from anything like a major threat to use American power. It's hard to believe that all the options are on the table, as long as he is at the head of the table.
The deal reached has several major faults, that seem especially problematic given Iran's record of duplicity.
Iran's threat against Israel is apparent, but not easy to read. Various assessments suggest that it is theoretical, meant to generate loyalty to the mullahs as the leaders of Shiite Muslims, without actual intentions to implement the threats. However, the words are fierce, and Iran's efforts to arm clients who make their own threats against Israel are also worrying. With more money coming after the end of sanctions, Iran will have a greater capacity to array the missiles against us.
Without something dramatic not currently apparent, Obama's advantages with respect to a veto against Congressional rejection appear to be sufficient.
Obama's claims about assuring Israel's defense are problematic. The US has a number of interests, and Israelis cannot be sure that their security is the highest, or even close to the top of the list. Obama's efforts to sell a blatantly imperfect agreement are not encouraging.
What we hear from Obama and Kerry reminds us of a simplistic ad campaign, meant to sell a product of doubtful quality.. Claiming that no one has a better idea is nonsense. Saying that war is the likely effect of Congress rejecting the agreement, and that Iran would lose faith in the US carry a flavor of desperation. Focusing on Israel as the one holdout is not true, and does not encourage Jews always suspicious of others' suspicions.
The charge that Netanyahu could have handled things better pretty much follows party lines, whether in Israel or the US. Moreover, it is no more convincing than Obama's claim that no one has a better idea.
Obama's posture, insisting on whatever diplomacy could produce, has been consistent for some time, and left little room for Israel's concerns other than a frontal assault on details of the agreement, expressed in prominent forums within the United States. Bibi himself has been careful to avoid a direct attack on the President, leaving that to hatchetpeople among his political allies.
Claiming that Bibi meddled in American politics carries little weight. There has not been anything like exclusively American politics since the US began meddling in the affairs of other countries after World War II. Leaders from numerous countries have sought to influence what the US does that impacts on them. Obama's statement that Bibi meddles more than others may increase the fever of both Americans and Israelis.
Critics of Bibi's tactics from among leaders of American Jewish organizations (he was right, but should not have spoken to a Republican dominated Congress) seem concerned to maintain their own roles as spokespeople for Israel in the US, and to firm up their organizations among American donors..
What happens next?
Who the hell knows? However, several scenarios are credible, more or less.
The agreement is good enough to provide some time (who knows how much?) until a crisis. Lots can happen between now and then. Occurrences associated with the Islamic State, military actions involving Egypt and Saudi Arabia can precipitate actions not currently apparent.
Claims by opponents of the agreement that Iran will be free to do what it wants in 10 or 15 years are not convincing. That's a long time. Lots of us will be dead by then. Others will climb to the top of US, Israeli, European, and Iranian governments. Politics is an open game, always subject to change. Americans suspicious of Iranian intentions can pressure Tehran to extend something like the present agreement.
Obama leaves office in less than 18 months. Currently the future of American politics looks like Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.
Anyone feeling comfortable with one of another should raise their hands and let us know what to expect.
Despite the confrontation between Barack Obama and Benyamin Netanyahu, there is wiggle room in their futures.
American provision of defensive and offensive munitions can ease Israeli concerns, parallel to the supply of munitions to Sunni Arab governments also uncomfortable with Iran
The US can harden its position against Iranian actions in the realm of supporting terror, Hezbollah, and other issues worrying Israel. Some of this may come from the White House, Defense Department, or State Department dealing with members of the House or Senate who are suspicious of Iran, but seek to avoid a confrontation with the President.
Iran isn't any more predictable than the US or Israel. Its population ranges from the most primitive to the most sophisticated, with regional concentrations that vary in religion and ethnicity.
Applicable to all of the above is a Jewish expression, "Don't hurry the Messiah. He (or She) will come in His (or Her) own good time."
In other words, lots can happen to change one's calculations. Don't do anything that a short time later will appear stupid.
Does this demand passivity?
Not completely. But it does caution care, and the initiation of extreme action only under circumstances that genuinely appear to be extreme.
As far as can be read from the comments of people with various kinds of expertise, we ain't there yet.
--
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Tel: +972-2-532-2725
Cell: +972-54-683-5325
Fax +972-2-582-9144
irashark@gmail.com
Commentators have long noted that Israel is a western outpost in the Muslim Middle East, and suffers accordingly.
This note accepts such a designation, but begins with a slightly different perspective, and seeks to learn what is relevant for the here and now.
The Middle East is not only Muslim, or nearly entirely Muslim. It is also the Third World.
This designation has its social, economic, and political elements, irrespective of religion. Traits of Mexico are similar to those of Palestinian areas of the West Bank, Gaza, and just about everything else from Morocco through to Afghanistan, with the sole exception of Israel.
Most prominent is widespread poverty, limited opportunities for education and other public services, nothing like the democracy that prevails in the better parts of the world, and cultural traits best summarized as traditional, or conservative. There is a limited role in public affairs for women, strong family control centered in elder males, limited tolerance for personal equality, civil rights, an acceptance of homosexuality, or political expressions that challenge the conventional.
Israel is a mirror image on just about all those features, especially in the 80 percent of the population that is Jewish. There are elements of poverty, low education, traditional family structures, and intolerance of diversity in Jewish towns and neighborhoods, especially among the ultra-Orthodox, recent immigrants from Ethiopia, and towns distant from the center with a high concentration of Middle Eastern Jews who did not make it over the course of three generations to better opportunities. Generally, the country is one of the world's wealthiest, best educated, most advanced technologically, most competitive politically, most open to self-criticism, and tolerant of individuals who vary from the norm in their personal beliefs or behaviors.
Some of these "modern" traits appear among the Arabs of Israel, but not to the same extent as among Jews. Borders of the Third World surround Arab neighborhoods in largely Jewish cities, towns and cities that are largely Arab, as well as the Palestinian areas of the West Bank and Gaza.
Add to that competing national identities, with that of the Arabs beefed up by Islam and the interests of Third World Muslim governments with restive populations always on edge, and we're a long way toward understanding the lack of formal accords between Israel and its neighbors, and the protests heard from Israeli Arab politicians.
The borders of ultra-Orthodox communities present a slightly different cluster. No one can claim that the Haredi population is uneducated, but its schooling largely or entirely (depending on congregation) avoids secular topics that could contribute to mutual understanding with Jewish neighbors, and preparation for a productive life. The neighborhoods and towns where the vast majority of ultra-Orthodox live are geographically distinct, largely homogeneous, and often unfriendly to non-Haredi visitors. There is not significantly greater awareness of the "other" between ultra-Orthodox and other Israeli Jews any more than between Israeli Jews and Arabs. While it was only one ultra-Orthodox extremist who took a knife to Jews demonstrating in favor of gays, the condemnation of homosexuals and lesbians from ultra-Orthodox sources has been considerable, even after the death of a teenage girl.
Due to the sensitivity in dealing with a community that asserts its greater Judaic purity, as well as the significant weight of ultra-Orthodox political parties (always part of the government coalition or likely members in the next coalition), the Israeli establishment seems less certain in dealing with this group of "others" than with Israeli Arabs or Palestinians. The record at defending Jews against Arab terror is better than persuading the ultra-Orthodox to educate their children for anything other than the continued study of sacred texts, accept family planning, and move them into occupations that will allow them to support themselves and pay taxes.
We hear about the Israelization of Arabs. Mostly that means the Arabs of the Galilee, Haifa, and Jaffa, and less so those of Jerusalem. The differences come from more or less schooling in Hebrew and integration in Israeli higher education. Here in French Hill, however, a short walk from Isaweea, I encounter Arab men sitting in coffee houses alongside Jews, and reading Israel Hayom. You might tell Sheldon Adelson that he is making a difference, but I'm not sure.
No less prominent are the shrill sounds of Muslim activists claiming that the Jews intend to destroy al Aqsa, nearly daily efforts to assault civilians or throw stones at soldiers and police, and occasional reports of honor killings, i.e., the murder or older women thought to stray from their husbands, or young girls who show signs of responding to the overtures of a young man from a family not on Dad's list of the acceptable.
The TV series "The Bridge" portrays as well as anything outside of professional writing, the differences between the First and Third Worlds. Its stories straddle El Paso and areas over the border. It shows how Mexico has unraveled in recent years, due in large part to warfare among those competing to serve the US market for illicit drugs, or to funnel Mexicans and Central Americans into the US.
Crime and corruption differ in expected directions between Jewish, Israeli Arab, and Palestinian jurisdictions. With a President convicted of rape and a Prime Minister having several convictions for corruption under appeal, Israel cannot claim too much by way of governmental purity. Prominent in the Arab sector, however, are a pervasive role for family connections in local government. The West Bank Palestinian leadership is serving more than six years beyond the expiration of its term, Gazan rulers punish their opponents via street side trials and executions. Crimes of violence as well as traffic deaths are more frequent in Arab than in the Jewish sectors of Israel.
One can do a similar analysis of the US and Western Europe. Illegal immigrants would provide one insight into Third World economics and culture close the First World. African Americans, Native Americans, and the Muslim neighborhoods of Europe show their own variations from an overarching similarity. Concepts of "integration" are limited here and there, with each of the "others" having their impact on how we live, and what areas we choose to avoid.
--
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Tel: +972-2-532-2725
Cell: +972-54-683-5325
Fax +972-2-582-9144
irashark@gmail.com
Israel has been wracked by violence, conscience, and not a little hypocrisy in recent days.
Assailants, widely thought to be extremist Jews, firebombed a Palestinian home in a West Bank village, killing a year old child and severely injuring other family members.
An ultra-Orthodox Jew, recently released from prison for a similar offense, broke into a gay pride march in Jerusalem, stabbed and severely injured several of the participants. The most severely injured, a 16 year old high school student, has died of her wounds.
Both events brought severe condemnation from leading officials and others of high status, and produced protest demonstrations that drew thousands in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, and smaller numbers in Haifa.
Another Knesset Member and a prominent journalist have indicated their membership in the gay community.
International media, the UN Security Council, and numerous political figures highlighted the attack on the Palestinian family. Palestinian and Jordanian officials demanded an international committee of inquiry.
With all the condemnations against both events that are appropriate, hypocrisy was not hard to find.
Daily attacks against Jews in the West Bank, and the stoning of Jerusalem trams as they approach or leave stations in Arab neighborhoods, produce no demands for international commissions of inquiry. The Secretary General of the United Nations speaks against all violence, but has not been as clear in attributing guilt to Palestinian who commit, incite, or endorse violence. If you think this is a balanced statement, you may also believe in pink elephants.
"The Secretary-General strongly condemns today's murder of a Palestinian child in the West Bank and calls for the perpetrators of this terrorist act to be promptly brought to justice. He expresses his deepest condolences to the family of Ali Dawabsha, who were themselves severely injured in the arson attack. Continued failures to effectively address impunity for repeated acts of settler violence have led to another horrific incident involving the death of an innocent life. This must end.
The absence of a political process and Israel's illegal settlement policy, as well as the harsh and unnecessary practice of demolishing Palestinian houses, have given rise to violent extremism on both sides. This presents a further threat to the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people for statehood, as well as to the security of the people of Israel. The Secretary-General urges both sides to take bold steps to return to the path of peace."
Palestinians who are successful in killing Israeli civilians and die as a result, receive honor as martyrs, have public squares and other sites named for them. A substantial portion of what the Palestinian Authority collects as aid from international sources goes to pay monthly pensions to the families of those serving prison sentences for killing Israeli civilians or soldiers.
It's also not hard to find hypocrisy among Israelis who claim to suffer from the violence of others. Left wing activists, including prominent intellectuals, have used the most recent occasions to recite what they have been saying for years, that it is all the fault of right wing governments and settlers. Organizers of the demonstrations in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv refused to allow Knesset Members of the religious party, Jewish Home, to speak against violence unless they signed a statement supporting a gay life style.
Palestinian politicians play in similar ways among themselves. Just as left wing Israelis use the latest events to blame their adversaries, so do Palestinians. Hamas is condemning Fatah and Mahmoud Abbas for cooperation with Israelis, and calling on its people in the West Bank to send suicide bombers against the Jews.
And let's not forget the Muslim claim that Jews never had a Temple in Jerusalem, and justify acts of violence against Jews who visit its site.
With all the condemnations appropriate against the two acts violence, both come from contexts that are not going to disappear.
Jewish extremists who act against Palestinians come from a setting where individuals are convinced that security forces do not do enough to protect them from Palestinian violence. Each side adds to the stimulus of the other. We can condemn them all for their lack of humanity and good sense, without expecting either to disappear.
Estimates are that perhaps less than 100 Jews actually participate in random violence against Arabs, but there are many more who speak out against those who condemn them.
Homosexuality remains a problem for religious Jews, no less than for religious Christians and Muslims. Israel's Chief Rabbi, and Knesset Members of religious parties have spoken against violence without endorsing what is forbidden according to religious law.
Issues of gender and sex are more severe for individuals and family members as one moves rightward along the spectrum beyond Reform and Conservative, and into Orthodox, and ultra-Orthodox Judaism.
The pluralism that has a long history in Judaism allows individuals, and individual rabbis, including some who are Orthodox, to speak out in ways that are not conventional, but it does not solve all the problems of individuals or their families. We hear of gay men and women who have come out of the closet to friends but not to family members, or to some family members but not to others.
Ha'aretz was most explicit in linking the violence to right wing politicians and settlement. Its cartoon showed Frankenstein coming out of a factory labeled Settlement Industry.
Israeli Hayom, Ma'ariv, Yedioth Aharonoth, and Jerusalem Post headlined the violence and demonstrations against it. Media affiliated with religious parties or settlers focused on other issues. The settler media Arutz 7 headlined a complaint by a right of center MK that he required protection when trying to speak at the Tel Aviv rally. The SHAS paper, Yomleom (from day to day), did not mention either act of violence or the demonstrations on its front page. The paper of the Ashkenazi ultra-Orthodox covered the violence and the demonstrations, but also featured an article headlined, "Why cannot the left try to understand Yishai Shlisal (the stabber)?"
Critics have cited the security services for insufficient attention to Jewish terror. More extreme critics have accused the political establishment of fostering Jewish terror, or not showing concern for apprehending the guilty.
Officials complain about the sophistication of Jewish extremists, and the lack of access to their cells. The excuse appears weak for an organization that has penetrated activists across the boundaries of language, religion, and culture, within Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank, and further afield.. Security services tap informants among Palestinians to identify those involved in violence, often within hours of an incident.
If the problem derives from unequal resources devoted to the Arab and Jewish sectors, the imbalance reflects the incidence of violence from both sources.
Recent events suggest greater concern for terror among Jews. It did not take long for authorities to apprehend individuals who kidnapped and killed an Arab youth from a Jerusalem neighborhood in 2014, or those who torched a historic Christian Church alongside the Sea of Galilee earlier this year.
It hasn't been a normal few days, but they haven't been all that different from the general picture hereabouts.
--
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Tel: +972-2-532-2725
Cell: +972-54-683-5325
Fax +972-2-582-9144
irashark@gmail.com
Wisdom and justice are elusive topics, with numerous issues on their borders.
Israel presents the topics of settlements, Jonathan Pollard, as well as the Temple Mount, dealt with in an earlier note ("Here and there," July 30)
Settlement is either the curse of post-1967 Israel, the fulfillment of God's promise, an appropriate response to Arab rejections, and/or a way to get more of contested real estate.
Americans have their own problems on the borders of wisdom and justice. Excessive police force in the land of the free is a prominent example.
Illegal immigration troubles those in many places who worry about what is just and/or wise.
Should Israelis stop building in Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem or established settlements in the West Bank until Palestinians agree to negotiate from where we are, rather than where things stood in 1967 or 1947? Or maybe send in the IDF to expel Jews from their homes, and hope that all will be well--among Jews, with Palestinians, as well as with international public opinion?
By no means should we stop arguing the justice or wisdom in what was done years ago or this morning. Then we'll no longer be Jews.
Currently we've been riled by the fate of two buildings in a settlement with the provocative name of Beit El. Palestinians claim they were built on land they owned, but such claims are always in the air and often clouded by other Palestinians who sold the land to Jews. In this case the structures were built without the proper approvals, a court order demanding their destruction, and lots of intense protesters, endorsed by some ranking politicians, claiming Jews should never expel Jews from anywhere in the Promised Land. The destruction of illegal structures in Beit El can be seen as the government's balance for doing the same to illegal Palestinian buildings in areas controlled by Israel.
When a final court order produced the destruction of two structures, a Knesset Member of Jewish Home said that the government should send the bulldozers against the Supreme Court building. The Prime Minister criticized that member of his coalition, and nodded toward his settler constituency by approving the construction of 300 units elsewhere in Beit El, and more in East Jerusalem.
We're also a decade from the withdrawal of Jewish settlements from Gaza, which has brought forth a stream of protests about what some call Israel's worst action. Others think it was Ariel Sharon at his best.
There have also been West Bank activists reoccupying a settlement area that was cleared years ago, with the police having to clear them again.
Judge if you wish. There's plenty to find in the media of recent days.
Now that Jonathan Pollard has been given a date for his release, his case is back in the media.
His story presents several troublesome issues, both with respect to US and Israeli treatments of those who have broken important rules.
He represents stiff punishment for helping an ally that routinely promised a sharing of intelligence. He also stands with the Rosenbergs--especially Ethel--sentenced to death by a Jewish judge. The record indicates that Ethel was much less the criminal than her husband, and may have been sentenced to die in order to pressure Julius to speak more about his activities. Yet her sentence was not commuted.
The Rosenbergs and Pollard suggest that Jews must be more careful than others about dual loyalties.
On the other hand, Pollard not only betrayed his country, but did so from a sensitive position in security services. Beyond being a Jew, he was an American who went bad. He also violated an agreement with prosecutors involving lesser jail time when he gave an interview to a journalist.
Pollard will not be allowed to leave the US for a period of five years after his release.
For some Israelis, that is reason for continued clamor. For others, it is a postponement of a patriotic circus sure to be excessive.
Israelis who squawk about the US treatment of Pollard should look at Mordecai Vanunu. He spent 18 years in prison for telling the world what many already knew, and has since been denied the opportunity to leave the country or to speak with foreigners.
Americans who grew up with images of police states elsewhere--most prominently Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union--face embarrassment due to frequent indications of local cops who show neither wisdom nor justice.
A Cincinnati official was woefully out of touch when he responded to the killing of a motorist pulled over for a missing license plate, with the statement, "This doesn't happen in the United States",
Recent examples include a shoplifter who ended up dead, and a woman pulled over for failing to signal a lane change and then is said to have killed herself while in custody. That all those deaths happen to Blacks not only produced significant unrest, but raise questions about the failure of a society that prides itself on individual freedom and civil rights.
Americans, Israelis, and just about everyone else in the First World ponder the issue of illegal immigration.
No doubt it represents a violation of law, but it also raises questions of humanity and economics. Who among us wants to live in a poor area of Africa or Central America, or close to the bloodshed in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Mexico, or wherever else the migrants begin their journeys? And who else will clean the dishes in the restaurants we enjoy, wash our cars, cut our grass, drive our taxis, or take care of our babies or grandparents? Americans have the special problem of a Constitution that grants citizenship to anyone born in the country. That ups the emotional ante whenever it seems appropriate to expel the parents or children who are citizens, especially if the parents have been law abiding except for their illegal entry.
Where citizenship is not somewhere in the file, countries only have to ponder requests for asylum, often caught between domestic activists claiming that all deserve refuge, and the problems of justifying claims of being in danger if sent home.
Israel has the additional problem of some illegals coming from countries that do not have diplomatic relations with Israel. Authorities can't send illegals back to Sudan. Israel has paid other African countries to accept some of its Sudanese, who have agreed to go with a plane ticket along with a financial grant, but opponents to the practice are sure that those sent will face an inhuman future.
Recognizing the fuzziness of both wisdom and justice has an intellectual advantage. It can be a step toward lessening one's obsession with justifications.
We've known at least since Job that bad things happen to good people. The modern equivalent is "shit happens." Best to admit it and go on.
--
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Tel: +972-2-532-2725
Cell: +972-54-683-5325
Fax +972-2-582-9144
irashark@gmail.com
This oldie from the Kingston Trio ("They're rioting in Africa . . . ") is an appropriate theme for today, even though we have to look beyond its details.
The general point remains. There's chaos in lots of places, and we must hope that somebody doesn't make it a lot worse.
Africa is not currently the most undesirable. The Middle East deserves that designation, although its undesirable traits also apply to those parts of Africa under threat from one or another variety of Islamic extremism.
That includes much of North Africa, as well as parts of West Africa down to Nigeria thanks to Boko Haram, and those parts of East Africa close enough to Somalia, which ranks as perhaps the most failed state of them all.
Kenya has long been home to several varieties of Islam, and has recently suffered from terror coming from its neighbor to the northeast.
One can wonder why Barack Obama sought to emphasize corruption along with the rights of homosexuals and women during his recent visit to Kenya, and seems to have avoided altogether the problems associated with Islam?
The same old Obama, you might say. But shouldn't we hope that those preparing him, and seemingly knowing something about African cultures and events, could have put more emphasis on a issue that might have appealed to the locals, that they had mobilized against, and would have enjoyed a Presidential endorsement of their efforts?
Americans generally stick their heads in the sand, having nothing they can do about more guns than people and frequent rampages by the well armed mad. Hoping that they or their kids are not in the wrong place at the wrong time pretty much exhausts an American's options for self-defense. If gun owners hope to blow away those threatening them or their families, there haven't been many stories of that actually happening.
There's also a problem of traffic deaths in the US. The country scores close to the bottom of western democracies on all the common measures.
One explanation for this statistic is too much booze in the wrong hands at the wrong time.
For those who wonder why I pick on the United States, the answer is simple. Other than Israel, it's the country I know best. Moreover, most readers of these notes are Americans, who also worry about Israel. The two countries are unevenly dependent on one another. Fates are linked
The US is also one of the most enigmatic places, fascinating for anyone concerned about social science. It is among the wealthiest, and perhaps the most advanced in terms of science and technology. Yet it is the most unequal of the well to do countries. A large underclass is associated with lousy overall scores on numerous indicators of health and well being.
Comparison is the essence of judgement. Would it be better to compare Israel with Iceland? Or Kyrgyzstan?
Israel is a relative island of peace and prosperity in a region that is neither peaceful nor prosperous. There are places nearby of greater wealth due to energy resources. But there it's concentrated in few hands, and one has to travel to Israel (if it's permitted) or Western Europe to find a place with decent public services and civil rights.
We recently got a look at what may be our most serious problem. It's associated with religion, and affects Jews as well as Muslims.
Us secular Israelis might wish for a place that was not the birthplace of them all, but that ain't gonna happen.
Call it the Temple Mount, הר הבית, Al Aqsa, a curse, or a blessing.
Soon after the 1967 war, Moshe Dayan, in his role of Defense Minister, gave its control to Muslim religious authorities.
That may have been a magnanimous Jewish gesture for the sake of peace, or an act lacking appropriate balance by the man who is also known to have been a thief of archaeological artifacts.
Whatever, we're stuck with a place which held the First and Second Temples, where Muslims assert that there was neither, and have been working since 1967 to destroy physical remains of one or the other.
Israeli courts have ruled that Jews have equal rights with others to visit and pray on the site, but that pragmatic recognition of the political tinder requires overlooking those rights. At least, perhaps, until one or another Messiah arrives, or returns, is recognized as such by one and all, and solves our problems.
Rabbis differ. Some have ruled that religious law (halacha) forbids Jews from visiting the Temple Mount, lest impure Jews walk in the place reserved only for ritually pure priests, and which place is not known for sure. Other rabbis either say that such a place is known and can be marked off as where Jews should not walk, or say that Jews' rights to visit and pray where they choose should not be denied, and certainly not by the Jewish state. There are also rabbis who go along with the court's decision, i.e., that a Jew's right to pray on the Temple Mount should not be exercised at the price of bloodshed.
It's an issue that reaches the headlines whenever there is an occasion when religious and/or nationalist Jews are moved to express their rights on the Temple Mount.
Tisha b'Av was the most recent occasion. It's a holy day that may have fallen out of fashion with most non-Orthodox Jews of the Diaspora, but here it's an occasion for the closure of banks, stock exchange, restaurants, gyms, and swimming pools. It also features substantial numbers of Jews wanting to visit the Temple Mount without praying, some demanding the right to pray there, a young man who chose the place and occasion to announce that Mohammad resembled a pig, lots of Muslims throwing stones they had brought earlier in anticipation of an encounter, and the police swarming to keep order according to what they had anticipated.
This year's results include a number of minor injuries, some arrests, and contrasting claims about who started it and police brutality.
We're talking about an area about 100 meters square, in a corner of the Old City that is itself about a kilometer square.
All of Israel is about the size or New Jersey or Massachusetts. Some say we are the cause of all the strife. Give the Palestinians what they want, and all will be well. However, not enough Palestinians have been able to ratchet down from demanding all of Israel.
The Temple Mount may be the ultimate deal breaker. Unbelievable though it may be to anyone who can read, assertions that Jews never had a claim on the place get in the way of even many secular Jews to accept something akin to intellectual barbarism.
It's a lot worse not too far from here. For the time being, things are pretty good around these fingers. We've learned to sleep despite the sound of explosions as the Border Police keep our Isaweea neighbors from rampaging towards our bedroom.
Most Jews and Muslims hereabouts have learned to live alongside one another. Jerusalem's weather provides some compensation for occasional indications that some Jews, and many more Muslims, are working for competing utopias that the rest of us would shun.
--
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Tel: +972-2-532-2725
Cell: +972-54-683-5325
Fax +972-2-582-9144
irashark@gmail.com
He's done it again.
The nice man who happens to be the US President has called for an end to homophobia in Africa.
May he have more success than his call for equality and democracy in Cairo.
The best he, Tom Friedman and others could do about that earlier aspiration was to claim that he helped along Arab Spring.
We all know what happened next, is still riling much of the Middle East, and has even led the President to send the people with guns and planes despite his efforts to keep them home.
Obama's been an odd duck since the beginning.
Among the reasons cited for supporting him was that he was the least African among the African Americans in politics. They meant that he wasn't a Jesse Jackson, likely to upset decent Americans by pushing too hard for the sake of the underclass.
He has claimed that he is the most Jewish of Presidents.
There's a bit of truth to that, even though for many Jews he is the wrong kind of Jew, tainted as he is by the support of JStreet.
Africa being what it is, Obama's visit to his father's homeland was not without problems. He talked not only against homophobia, but also against corruption. His visit had been delayed on account of the Kenyan President facing charges of crimes against humanity in the International Court of Justice due to his role in violence some years ago. The case was dropped for lack of evidence, but the court also cited President Uhuru Kenyatta (the son of) and those around him for bribing and intimidating witnesses.
Not only were Obama's hosts anything but clean on issues of corruption. They also spoke against his comments about homosexuals.
In a response that the Egyptians could have used in 2009 with some adjustments against Obama's call for equality and democracy, President Kenyatta--said to be a known homophob--responded
"There are some things that we must admit we don't share. It's very difficult for us to impose on people that which they themselves do not accept. . . . This is why I say for Kenyans today the issue of gay rights is really a non-issue,"
Those Americans who applauded the Cairo speech might also applaud what Obama said in Nairobi. We can hope that the parallel to chaos now apparent in much of the Middle East will not be a machete-waving onslaught against homosexuals across Africa.
Obama also chose his visit as an opportunity to joke about "birthers.".
"Some of my critics back home might be suggesting I'm here to look for my birth certificate. . . . That is not the case."
An Arizona sheriff told CNN that he remains convinced that Obama's Hawaii birth certificate is fraudulent.
"I'm probably the only law enforcement official that has looked into it . . . Nobody looks into it. They shy away from it."
A bright spot for American Democrats is Donald Trump's statement that he is not entirely convinced that Obama was born in the United States.
With a man like that leading in some polls among the herd of Republicans running for the nomination, the person selected by the Democrats has a better chance at overcoming whatever fatigue Americans feels after eight years of Obama.
It's way too early to write an assessment of Obama's presidency. There is still almost a year and one half till the next inaugural, which is plenty of time to see what happens in Congress to his agreement with Iran, and then at least a full year for indications of Iran's cheating.
On the good side is the first ever success to enact something like universal health care. The political circus could not produce anything like what is available in other western democracies. However, Obama deserves credit for his efforts, and for the accomplishments however limited.
Obama's need to go against a system where the major health insurers are expected to be profit making was bound to be problematic.
There is no end of the antediluvians who write to me about Obama's violation of true Americanism with this enactment, and my own violation of the same principles by writing something positive about an imperfect program.
Against this, my response is that innovative programs are likely to be imperfect..
One can idealize the individualism of American culture and claim that it's what makes America great, but that ain't true. Western Europeans live at least as well as Americans (and by some indicators a lot better), and their regimes are more communitarian than individualistic.
Also to Obama's credit is the opening to Cuba. This was long overdue given the US capacity to swallow what were arguably more weighty frogs associated with China and Vietnam.
It appears to be anything associated with Islam where the President is weakest. The list of criticisms/accusations/ridicule includes spectacular flubs associated with the Cairo speech, the abandonment of Mubarak, the bizarre performance while talking about Syria's chemical weapons and that country's continued production and use of chemical weapons, the obsession with Palestine against the chronic rejections of opportunity by Palestinian leaders, and the hesitance to label as anything associated with Islam several terror attacks by Muslims in his own country.
By his own admission, repeated after rampages by unhinged individuals with easy access to firearms, Obama doesn't seem to have a chance against what makes the US the most violent by far of western democracies.
Perhaps his greatest accomplishment is his election and re-election. Ferguson and Charleston provide ample evidence that racism continues to thrive and reproduce in the United States, but a Black working behind the Oval Office desk remains as a commendable sign of American change.
It's not entirely clear that the US has gone beyond don't ask don't tell with respect to homosexuals. However, the Supreme Court decision in favor of single sex marriage across the country is another plus on the record of the Obama era if not a result of Obama himself.
Aspiring to anything like that for Africa, however, reminds us that no matter how decent an individual his supporters may think of Barack Obama, it is difficult to ascribe to him a realization of what life is like outside of the better circles of the United States.
--
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Tel: +972-2-532-2725
Cell: +972-54-683-5325
Fax +972-2-582-9144
irashark@gmail.com
A few notes ago I sought to tease some lessons about politics from the similarities between Benyamin Netanyahu and Barack Obama ("Political twins," July 10).
Here I'll try my luck with a comparison between Barack Obama and Woodrow Wilson.
The focus is Wilson's participation in the Paris Peace Conference and efforts to create the League of Nations, his failure to get Senate confirmation of US membership, and Obama's people managing negotiations to constrain Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Almost a century separates their careers, and one can find many differences along with some interesting similarities.
Both came to politics via higher education. Wilson's academic career as Professor then President of Princeton was more impressive than Obama's part-time stint at the University of Chicago Law School. One can argue if Wilson's two years as New Jersey Governor was more or less impressive than Obama's three years in the Senate.
As Presidents, and as prime movers in major international efforts, both came under close scrutiny, both had assiduous opponents, both were accused of arrogance and rejecting alternate strategies, and both can be faulted for their tactics.
Their key political battles were highly partisan. Critics faulted Wilson for failing to bring Senate Republican leaders to Paris, where they would have a part in creating the peace treaty and the Charter for the League of Nations that was incorporated in the peace treaty, and which would be brought to the Senate for confirmation. Republicans controlled the Senate, and confirmation required a 2/3 vote in that body. Also against Wilson were the large blocs of German and Irish ethnics who had opposed his entry in the war on the side of Great Britain.
There was a Jewish issue in both cases. Both men were accused of anti-Semitism, and both made major appointments to Jews.
The status of American Jews was vastly different in the early part of the 20th century. Jews from Germany had gone to the US in sizable numbers beginning in the 1840s. Some had acquired status and wealth, and they were not all that happy to see it challenged by the mass of poor Jews who began coming from Eastern Europe in the 1880s. In a pattern seen elsewhere where there were established Jews threatened by a flood of refugees, Germans helped the newcomers with significant resources, but also sought to disperse them in ways they hoped with minimize an onset of anti-Semitism against themselves
One can find comments in Wilson's pre-presidential writings against Jews from Eastern Europe that can be described without effort as anti-Semitic. At the same time, he was also writing against other poor immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe. As President, Wilson appointed Louis D. Brandeis the first Jew to the Supreme Court. His concern for the rights of European minorities was seen as support for a Jewish homeland, but he let the British deal with that hot potato.
For a lengthy article dealing with Wilson, the status of Jews and early Zionism in the US, Brandeis' efforts to enlist the support of Wilson for a Jewish homeland, along with limits on Jews' capacity to speak out too forcefully, see this.
Doing an Internet search for the subject of Wilson and the Jews produces items not unlike the clamor around assertions of Obama's birthplace, claims of him being a Muslim or having a high affinity for Muslims, and being sufficiently opposed to Israel's interests as to qualify for the label of anti-Semite.
The Internet includes items probing Wilson anti-Semitism, and claiming him to be a tool of international Jewry.
There is an enormous literature about Wilson's struggle for the League of Nation, his loss in the Senate, its impact on his health, and its contribution to subsequent events. Historians link his lack of strategic wisdom to America's post-war isolationism, a Red Scare that rivaled or surpassed McCarthyism, as well as the absence of significant role in international affairs for the US as fascism festered in Europe and Japan. When the war had already begun in Europe and Asia, US involvement seemed inevitable, yet Franklin Roosevelt could get Congressional approval of a key provision for compulsory military service by a margin of only one vote in the House of Representatives.
The essence of Wilson's 14 points was the freedom of nations from colonial control. Taking account of the emphasis on democracy that developed after 1918, Wilson could have produced the text of Obama's Cairo speech. Even more clearly, Wilson would have been pleased with Obama's emphasis on diplomacy to settle international problems.
The earlier President had about as much success in moving Britain and France from continued colonialism as the later President had with his ideas of equality and democracy in the Muslim Middle East.
The sharpest difference between the two would have been the matter of race. If Wilson had met Obama in the Oval Office, we can imagine him saying something like, "Now I've met the waiter. Where is the President?"
For Wilson on matters of race, see this.
Obama's partisan struggle for the confirmation of his primary item of foreign policy is a work in progress. Opposition to the agreement is not solely a Jewish issue, and Jews are not all on one side. While prominent Jewish organizations have signed on to the opposition nominally led by Israel, prominent Jews--beyond Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman, the highest ranking professional in the US delegation negotiating the agreement--have endorsed the President's position. No surprise that JStreet is on the President's side. Also supporting the agreement as having more positive than negative features are Ami Ayalon, former head of Shin Bet and former chief of the Israeli Navy; and former Mossad head, Efraim Halevy.
A recent revelation helps those arguing against Obama. It finds the Syrians still producing and using poison gas, long after Obama claimed to have dealt with the issue via diplomacy.
One can parse the arguments against the Iran agreement for their Jewish roots. Its failure to address Iran's support of terrorism, and Iran's obsessive opposition to the legitimacy of the Jewish state are prominent in a Jewish bill of particulars.
The rules of the game are markedly in Obama's favor. In sharp contrast to the 2/3 vote in an Republican Senate that the Democrat Wilson needed, Obama needs only one third of either the Senate or House of Representatives to uphold what may come to be his veto of a Congressional resolution against the agreement.
There'll be work here for historians, writing in the context of who knows what changes will occur with respect to Iran, the US, American Jews, and Israel.
--
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Tel: +972-2-532-2725
Cell: +972-54-683-5325
Fax +972-2-582-9144
irashark@gmail.com
