Avuncular American

Gaza's Collateral Damage: Antisemitism in Europe

Today I was invited to Brussels' Radio Judaica to discuss the aftermath of the US elections with American documentary film maker Myriam Abramowicz.  As might be expected, the war in Gaza became a topic, especially the reaction on the streets of Europe.

Abramowicz read out excerpts from Marvin Hier's January 8 Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal, "The Jews Face a Double Standard."  Hier, founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and its Museum of Tolerance, cites the upsurge of odious attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions throughout the world since the Israeli attack on Gaza.  I am wary of a tendency to equate even reasoned criticism of Israel with antisemitism, but when words like "ovens" and "gas chambers" surface and swastikas are smeared on synagogues and other Jewish institutions, it is clear that old demons of hatred against Jews have never died.  Principled protesters have been sullied by association with extremist ideologues and jackboot hooligans that they normally wouldn't be caught dead with.

Thinking Israelis too are concerned that, despite their government's well-honed PR machine, Israel may be losing the worldwide battle for hearts and minds.  Says Barak Ravid in today's Haaretz:

This is not a problem of public relations. It is difficult to impossible to explain the harm to civilians. The Foreign Ministry's efforts to emphasize that Hamas is using civilians as a human shield have only slightly contained the short-term damage.

Nevertheless, the problem is the medium- and long-term damage, which may be manifested abroad as increased anti-Semitism and the delegitimization of Israel's existence as a Jewish state.

These are big concerns.  There is no doubt that Israel's image is suffering, yet again, for what much of the world sees as its army using a sledge hammer against largely defenseless Palestinians.  No matter that Israeli civilians have also suffered years of trauma and death at the hands of Hamas rocketeers.

Israel may achieve short term goals in Gaza, only to have Jewish communities throughout the world pay a long term price in strained relations - and worse - in their countries.  And what of the radicalization of West Bank Palestinians?  This may be a victory that only Pyrrhus could savor.

Before he took to gloating about how he "shamed" Condoleezza Rice by getting her boss on the phone to scuttle a UN ceasefire resolution on Gaza, Ehud Olmert had other ideas about the value of diplomacy.  Here he is, last year, apropos of avoiding war with Syria: "It is better in this situation to speak rather than to shoot."  For Olmert, it may not be too late to heed his own words.  But that depends on what Israel wants out of its final end-of-Bush-era war.

Beyond the immediate matter of rocket-launching Hamas militants, Israel should be concerned about its reputation.  It may now scoff at Europeans practicing double standards, and wonder how any reasonable Arab interlocutor could have sympathy for Hamas.  But it should really worry about the damage this may be causing to long term support in the US.  George W. Bush might be content with transmitting Olmert's abstention instructions to his Secretary of State, but I doubt that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, supportive of Israel though they may be, will be as willing to provide perpetual cover for Israel's intransigence in the face of world calls for a truce.

And the US Congress, which overreached itself in its desire to be more Israeli than the Knessnet, may be out of sync with US public opinion, which is tilting away from unquestioned support of Israel's incursion into Gaza.

1,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza so far.  Five more days until January 20.  Less than a month until Israel's election.

A lot of loose ends to tie up.  And that's just the short term.

Unimaginable Consequences, Unambiguous Threat: Clinton & Climate

I was pleased to see that Hillary Clinton's testimony at her Senate confirmation hearings yesterday included a solid statement placing combating climate change squarely on the list of foreign policy priorities:

[C]limate change is an unambiguous security threat. At the extreme it threatens our very existence, but well before that point, it could very well incite new wars of an old kind--over basic resources like food, water, and arable land. The world is in need of an urgent, coordinated response to climate change and, as President- Elect Obama has said, America must be a leader in developing and implementing it. We can lead abroad through participation in international efforts like the upcoming UN Copenhagen Climate Conference and a Global Energy Forum. We can lead at home by pursuing an energy policy that reduces our carbon emissions while reducing our dependence on foreign oil and gas--which will benefit the fight against climate change and enhance our economy and security.

Her timing was fortuitous, as the Worldwatch Institute released its State of the World 2009 report, which contained this warning:

More carbon dioxide needs to be absorbed than emitted by 2050 in order to prevent catastrophic climate change.

Before your eyes glaze over at yet another dire warning, here's the problem: the means to "absorb more carbon dioxide than we emit" do not yet exist.  Yes, I know there's carbon sequestering, pumping it into holes under the earth's crust, but that just hides it under the carpet.  The stuff is still around, waiting for an earthquake to shake it loose in one fatal gush of CO₂.

So while it's encouraging to see that the Secretary of State-Designate recognizes that climate and energy policy is the essence of national security, the Worldwatch report is another indication of how much we've fallen behind during the eight years of denial that was the Bush/Cheney approach to climate change.

Maybe the most encouraging sign that times have changed came out of Detroit this week, when GM CEO Rick Wagoner embraced higher gasoline taxes as a way of weaning Americans from their gas-guzzlers.  Maybe the Democratic Congress should borrow a page from the Republican play book and wrap a higher gas tax in the American flag: "The Independence Excise?"

Thomas Friedman, someone has been listening to your prayers.

Israeli Incursion Extends To White House

The other day, I reacted with dismay to the US abstention at the United Nations over the Gaza ceasefire resolution.  Of course, unanimity minus the US equals impunity for Israel.  The razing of Gaza continues.

What I did not know of at the time was that the operative phone call was not between George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice.  That was only Step Two - implementation.  Step One was the phone call between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and President Bush.  In which, according to Olmert, he told the President of the United States, "You can't vote for it.' [Bush] gave an order to the Secretary of State, and she didn't vote for it."

Diplomats must often swallow their pride, clear their throats, and pronounce their government's policy that at times may be at variance with their own beliefs.  Condoleezza Rice's explanations, and those of her spokesman, on the nuances (and illogic) of helping to draft the UN resolution and then abstaining from it, now can be confined to the dustbin of history.  Thanks to Ehud ("Get me President Bush on the phone") Olmert, we have the raw truth.  He told The Decider how to vote, and The Decider in turn passed on the instructions to Condi.

Next time you see the phrase "51st state" applied to Israel, you'll know that the relationship may in fact be the inverse.  Olmert may have been unduly ungracious to the lady who was a frequent visitor to his table ("she was left ashamed," said the soon-to-be-ex-PM).  So says Steve Clemons in The Huffington Post.  But he was speaking the unvarnished truth.  Israel barks an order, and the US wags its tail.

American Presidents, Republican and Democratic alike, have to be wary about this most unusual of special relationships.  Think of a situation where a representative of a major Arab lobby (though there is no real counterweight to the likes of AIPAC in the US) winds up as Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs, as did Martin Indyk of the American Israel Pubic Affairs Committee during the Clinton Administration.  Roger Cohen in the New York Times tried to yesterday, but his list of Arab-American Mideast experts is nowhere to be seen in the halls of the Obama Transition.

Israel has another week of its free hand in Gaza, free from any questioning by Mr. Bush.  New management takes over in the Oval Office a week from today.  Will that signal the "end game" of Operation Cast Lead?  Will all Israel's objectives have been achieved by then?  What will the body count be in the ensuing seven days?

(Flag photo source: WHDH Boston)

Dubya We Hardly Knew Ye

In some ways, we think we know George W. Bush too well.

He's been President of the United States for eight interminable years.  Today begins his last full week, for those who don't have the official Countdown Out of Office Calendar.

For the 3,000 to 5,000 American families who homes are repossessed daily, Bush has a permanent place in their broken hearts.

To the families of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died since his invasion of their country, "Boosh" will be shorthand for their multiple reasons to hate.  To the families of American soldiers killed there, they will not be able to see his name without remembering who sent their sons and daughters to his war of choice.

And for generations of Americans to come, he will be remembered as the leader who saddled them with insurmountable debt and a stricken economy, rivaling Herbert Hoover in opprobrium.

(Thanks to MAD Magazine and Warner Bros. for their unforgettable poster)

But do we know George W. Bush at all?  Don't look for much help in his endless series of "legacy" interviews, where he finds fault with everyone but himself for the country's parlous state.  Not much help either from the "biopic" by Oliver Stone, despite Josh Brolin's best efforts at impersonification, as Dubya might say.  What is George W. Bush?

Anti-government? (though he expanded both government payroll and national debt as no President before him).  Christianist zealot? (though jeopardized the lives of his fellow religionists in the Middle East, who lost a longtime safe haven in Iraq).  "Master of Business Administration?" (his MBA got him nowhere in "managing" the meltdown brought on by his policy of malign neglect).  I suspect the books analyzing his psyche will continue to be legion, to be added to groaning bookshelves full of tomes attacking his policies while in office.

My apologies to fans of the Irish tune "Johnny We Hardly Knew Ye," and to Kenneth O'Donnell, who appropriated the title for his book on the lamented John F. Kennedy.  No one will lament Dubya.  But he remains an enigma.

I've been reminded by conservative readers that W. probably won't be - and they think he shouldn't be - tried for war crimes.  On the prediction, they're probably right.  On his guilt, well you just have to read the indictment.  It will take more than four or eight years of an Obama Administration to wash away the stain that Bush's torture policies left on a sullied American reputation.

But here's a Travel Warning to the soon-to-be-ex-President: if I were you, I would avoid travel to democratic countries that have an independent judiciary.  Once out of office, the aura of the US Presidency and the immunity it affords will no longer be a force to dissuade prosecutors who respect human rights.  You might just get pursued beyond the borders of Crawford, so it might be best to lie low.

And please, please, don't write any books.  Even Spell Check won't be able to correct your twisting of the language, and of the truth.  Just cut some brush, and fade away.  We won't be needing your advice any more, thank you.

US Abstains While Gaza Is Razed

War... What is it good for?  Absolutely (nothing)

Edwin Starr, "WAR," 1970

George W. Bush - what's he good for?

Before you answer that, consider what a service he's been able to render the fellow lame duck Israeli government in his final weeks in office.  Just by continuing to occupy White House space, he provides cover for an Israeli operation that has received universal (minus one) condemnation.

How else to explain the abstention by the United States on yesterday's UN Security Council resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire?  How could Condoleezza Rice say

[W]e decided that this resolution, the text of which we support, the goals of which we support, and the objectives that we fully support, should indeed be allowed to go forward.  [T]he Council has provided a roadmap for a sustainable, durable peace in Gaza.

... and then abstain from voting in favor?  What kind of principles are these?  Her words make a mockery of the Middle East "Peace Process."

Bush likes to refer to the land that Israelis and Palestinians covet as "the Holy Land."  Maybe he sees a Biblical reference in his hand-washing abstention:

"When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, 'I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it'."

When I started writing this post, my title was going to be "Bush Enables Razing of The Gaza Ghetto."  Then I considered "Flattening A Concentration Camp Called Gaza."  But then I saw that French right wing anti-semitic Holocaust denier Jean-Marie Le Pen had used those same terms, for his usual nefarious, rabble rousing purposes (his anti-immigrant rantings show that he's no friend of Arabs either).

But if Gaza is not "a thickly populated urban slum area, inhabited predominantly by members of a minority group" (Random House Webster's College Dictionary), then it's hard to imagine a clearer contemporary example of ghetto.  And while Le Pen's history of Holocaust revisionism makes his use of "concentration camp" immediately suspect, instead go back to the origin of the term.  The British Army's herding of noncombatants into "concentration camps" in the Boer War a century ago led to the death of thousands of women, children, and elderly inmates through disease and malnutrition.  Just like Gaza, cut off from medical supplies and food rations, just like Iraq during the Nineties - and beyond...

By giving Israel the message "Stop the fighting in Gaza - but just not yet" (as London's Telegraph put it), history repeats itself: this is what Seymour Hersh wrote of Bush Administration thumb twiddling during Israel's disastrous Lebanon campaign of summer 2006:

despite calls from several governments for the United States to take the lead in negotiations to end the fighting, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that a ceasefire should be put off until “the conditions are conducive.”

What is George W. Bush good for?  His "waiting for conditions" or "waiting for the Egyptians," plus slavish Congressional support for Israel Right or Wrong, may very well be setting the conditions for a Hamas takeover of the entire Palestinian political scene - which it was set to do anyway in January 2006 when it swept parliamentary elections, in both Gaza and the West Bank.

Capitalism's Not Just For Cronies, Crooks & CPAs

With 2008/2009 looking ominously like 1929's Crash and the ensuing Great Depression, it's not surprising that journalists will zero in on tragic stories like the recent suicide of German billionaire Adolf Merckle, who threw himself under a train as his firm faced insurmountable debts.  Merckle's family, I'm sure, is in a state of shock, a state the train driver likely shares.  But how about his conglomerate's 100,000 employees?  Imagine how they feel.

In France over the holidays, we commiserated with my wife's sister, whose employer has announced a restructuring plan that will seriously affect the lives of his employees.  Though not directly linked to "la crise" - as the current economic climate is called - the move has already meant job loss, dislocation, and high anxiety.  Close to retirement, sister-in-law is likely to be spared personal hardship, but she is genuinely upset - to the point of tears - about the effect on her co-workers.  She has worked in the factory her entire adult life.

Elsewhere in France, it's a cousin who had to say a long, excruciatingly long, goodbye to his employer, a major electronics manufacturer, which once employed thousands of people in his provincial city.  Cousin's last couple of years were spent retraining fellow employees, for jobs they knew were not going to materialize.  "It was the financiers," he told us.  They knew nothing - and cared less - about the core business.  You can imagine the rest of the story - manufacturing is now done in China.

Both stories, very close to home, tell me that we're missing something big in the "whither capitalism?" debate.  It's true, capitalism has earned itself a pretty rotten reputation of late, what with Bernard "Ponzi" Madoff, trillion dollar losses of intangible (and incomprehensible) assets, and numb skulled management by the behemoths of the US car industry.

A Cold Winter, From Bulgaria to Boston

Citgo, Venezuela's Texas-based oil subsidiary, has suspended its scheme to provide cheap heating oil to thousands of low-income families in the US.  The programme is being halted because of falling world oil prices.

BBC January 6, 2009

Several European countries say their supplies of Russian gas have been cut sharply amid an energy price dispute between Moscow and Ukraine.  The EU depends on Russia for about a quarter of its total gas supplies, some 80% of which is pumped through Ukraine.

BBC January 6, 2009

Since the heat and hot water in our building in Brussels is heated by (probably Russian) gas, I have a personal interest in these stories.  My only connection with the Venezuelan story is that I used to have a Citgo credit card.

Hugo Chavez's generosity is bumping up against real world limits, which is the latest example of how philanthropy bites the dust when the going gets tough.  All around the world, as formerly wealthy donors check their net worth, charity starts to look like it needs to stay home.

Chavez of course originally had political motives to dispense his oil largess in the United States, a nice way of thumbing his nose at the Yanqui Bush, whose oil friends had no such programs of their own.  Even after the Citgo suspension, Joseph Kennedy of Citizens' Energy had a hard time finding fault with the Venezuelans: "I don't get one barrel from one US company. Not one."

As uncomfortable as it is for the 200,000 American families who have benefited from the Citgo program, it's nothing compared to the pain that millions of European homes and industries could face if Russian gas is turned off mid-winter (Western Europe is currently shivering under a sub-zero cold spell, blowing down, appropriately enough, from Siberia).

Last August, during the Russian-Georgian war over South Ossetia, Europeans were reminded of their dependence on Russian energy supplies.  What better time than in the depths of winter to show its customers that Russia knows how to play Energy Monopoly?

The Venezuelan and Russian hands on the oil and gas valves should serve to remind us - as we were warned a generation ago by President Jimmy Carter - that dependence on strongmen for oil is a fool's game.  Chavez, Putin/Medvedev, Ahmadinejad - the West needs to bail itself out from this crowd.

When it gets cold in Bulgaria, Brussels, and Boston, the strategic sense of energy diversification becomes more and more evident.  Instead of using the world financial (now economic) crisis to find excuses to renege on energy/climate goals, now is the time to spur efforts to play Energy Autarky.

Freedom from Fear: Roosevelt, Updated

Prepare yourselves for another great Obama speech, whether he delivers it on Inauguration Day January 20 or at his first State of the Union address - maybe he'll do both.

TIME Magazine, which portrayed the President-Elect in a FDR pose, drew the parallels between Roosevelt's rescue of Depression-era America after Hoover and Obama's hoped-for bailout after the Bush years.  Other than sharing party affiliation and having to clean up after Republican economic meltdowns, Franklin Roosevelt and Barack Obama were both endowed with a secret weapon - their mighty oratorical skills.

Roosevelt's first inauguration speech - "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" - was so apt for the moment and so full of memorable lines that I recommend that you read it (you can also listen to an excerpt) on the "History Matters" website.  Oh, and if you are frustrated (and fearful) that you've had to wait until January 20 to say goodbye to Bush, remember that Roosevelt only took over from Hoover on March 4, 1933 - a full four months after the 1932 election.

Read today's Paul Krugman Op-Ed in the New York Times and you'll see that the Nobel laureate is concerned about the D-word.  Krugman fears a downward spiral where "businesses and consumers start to base their spending plans on the expectation of a permanently depressed economy."  Fear begets fear.

Oratory, of course, is just a vehicle, and in the wrong hands - Hitler comes to mind - can become demagoguery.  But skilled oration of the kind that Obama practices, like Roosevelt's stirring words in the depths of the Depression, can get people to focus on the solutions, now that the problems are associated with the bad old days of Dick and Dubya.

January 6 marks the anniversary of another memorable Roosevelt speech, which he gave in 1941, when the United States was still at peace.  It became known as the "Four Freedoms" speech (see 1946 stamp issued in Roosevelt's honor after his death in office).  Returning to a familiar theme, Roosevelt's Fourth Freedom was "freedom from fear."  FDR identified Axis use of "a new one-way international law, which lacks mutuality in its observance."  Sound familiar?

Franklin Roosevelt knew, and Paul Krugman and Barack Obama know the deadening power of fear.  Fear has been one of the tools of the Bush Administration.  Fear can be used to convince people what they should be against; it is much less useful a tool to solve problems, and is useless if you want to harness good will and make it work for the commonweal.

Roosevelt gets the last word (Inauguration, 1933)

This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.

Faraway Fields of Lake Wobegon

Checking in after my Christmas-New Year's hiatus far from internet connections.  Actually, far from publicly-available internet connections that were not closed over the holidays.  I've been in provincial France.

On our drive back towards Brussels, we got into range of BBC on our car radio, and a couple of reports provided food for thought.  One was on Britain's (or, I should say Britons') self image in years of late: rather glum, with a tendency in the media to dwell on bad news (teenage knife crime, binge drinking, loutish behavior, etc).

But to a large number of Germans, who gather for such rituals as Scottish country dancing and other rites connected with Great Britain, the United Kingdom is the promised land.  We all know the old Irish expression "Faraway fields look green."  Sometimes you have to travel beyond the confines of your own borders to appreciate your country for what it's worth - or to see it as others see it.  That's a running theme in this blog, of course.  An expatriate view of America and the world from Europe.

So if the BBC report showed Brits how much their low societal esteem is unjustified, another BBC report showed how individual Brits have a rather high regard for themselves.  In part, this is the "Lake Wobegon Effect," Garrison Keillor's imaginary place "where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average."

According to the BBC, in matters of intelligence, civility, and driving skills, 60% of the population place themselves in the top 20%.  I would guess that this doesn't happen exclusively in Britain or in Lake Wobegon.

But if people put themselves (or their children) in the top bracket, why do they often sell their country short, or think that things have to be better elsewhere?  Though it can be carried too far, a bit of international comparative shopping is healthy.  Especially if you live in a state of mind that makes you think your country is better than anywhere else.

So why don't we resolve to do this in 2009: use those "sister city" links for some real world uses.  LIke looking for best practices?  American city planners could check out how European cities are taking on the automobile and making downtowns accessible by public transportation.

French people, fond of complaining about everything, including their world-class medical system, might be sent on an internship to the US, where they could navigate America's health-care "situation."

Short of these exchanges, maybe we should all just admit that other people/countries might do things better than we do, or conversely that sometimes things just aren't so bad in our own countries as we've convinced ourselves they are.  Either way, we just have to open our minds that there is no monopoly on ways to run a country or society properly.