Political Theatre of the Absurd

The Electoral College is not the problem: a lesson that Americans could learn from parliamentary democracies.

2016-12-22T12:02:00.001+01:00

Hillary won the majority of vote, Donald won the presidency - the losing side attacks the electoral college, the winners defend it. It is hard to avoid the impression that these views have more to do with the momentous political preferences than with intellectual honesty. Indeed, although the electoral college might be a quirk of American history, it would be hard to argue that it is somehow inferior or unfair as compared with the proportional system. In fact, once we start talking about "fairness", it becomes a philosophical debate which may not have a unique solution and in which Republicans and Democrats will certainly never agree.

The debate about the electoral college however distracts from seeing the elephant in the room - the deep polarization of political views and the reluctance of Americans to listen to each other. One could even argue that such polarization tends to produce disputable outcomes across all possible electoral systems. Let us look at how this problem plays out in parliamentary democracies, which might at first seem very different from the US system.

Weak governments
It is not uncommon in multi-party parliamentary democracies that a party wins most vote in the elections, but not enough to have the majority in the parliament. In absence of ideologically close coalition partners this party may fail to form the government.^1 In other cases the president (or Queen/King) has to pick the prime minister from the party that might not have won the majority of vote but has more chance to form a viable coalition.^2

Some countries allow for a "weak government" (or "minority government") - when the winning party rules, relying on attracting a few allies from opposition parties on case-by-case basis in order to pass the laws. This kind of deadlock is familiar to Americans by the recent standoff between President Obama and the "do nothing" Congress.

The power of dwarfs
When several parties do succeed in forming a majority coalition, the larger coalition partner often turns out to be a hostage of smaller parties, which may refuse to vote along with the coalition or even threaten to leave it, thus bringing down the government.^3 Again, those Americans who follow the politics, have a pretty good idea about the power of the few senator needed to overcome the filibuster, or that single judge in the Supreme court.

Doubtful remedies

These problems have produced the debates that are rather similar to the debate about the electoral college in the US. One possible remedy is giving a "bonus" to the most successful party in the elections, guaranteeing it majority in the parliament. It certainly makes easier for this party to pass the laws, but simply because this party is given here more power to impose its will on the rest.^4 The situation is familiar to the Americans by the debate about the limits of the president's executive action, recess appointments, etc.

Another approach is raising the threshold for parties to enter the parliament, making it more difficult for small parties to qualify.^5 Both solutions have been criticized as undemocratic.^6

Local elections vs. popular vote

Perhaps less noticeable, but more serious issue is how the parliament is elected: in some countries it is formed from locally elected candidates, who happen to belong to a particular party, whereas in others voters vote directly for the party. When thinking about Congressional elections Americans may feel that they are more used to the former system, which provides fair representation to all communities/regions, just like the senators and congressmen in the US. But in parliamentary democracies this system also has all the shortcomings of the electoral college.

Some countries opt for a combination of the two approaches, not unlike the US, where each state elects two senators but a variable number of congressmen.

To summarize: I tried to show that the political problems in the US are not specific to the US electoral system. More generally, I believe that politics is more about ideas, compromises and diplomacy than about technicalities of the elections.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples:
^1 Belgium has set the record by remaining without a government for 589 days
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2013/10/01/589-days-with-no-elected-government-what-happened-in-belgium/?utm_term=.e6f1923b4607

^2 Israeli election of 2009 is a good example, featuring both the inability of the biggest party to form a coalition, as well as the later coalition formed around the second biggest party. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_legislative_election,_2009

^3 European Union joint decision-making provides multiple examples to this end, e.g. when a single Belgian region was blocking the CETA agreement.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37749236

^4 The idea of such a "bonus" was rejected by Italians in a recent referendum
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/world/europe/italy-matteo-renzi-vote.html?_r=0

^5 Angela Merkel's robust party has been plagued for years by inability of its smaller allies to qualify for the seats in the German parliament, putting at risk Ms Merkel's chancellorship

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/09/22/merkel-triumphs-in-german-vote-but-allies-crushed/2850005/

^6 Turkish voting system is an example here

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/01/turkey-the-worlds-most-unfair-election-system

On Trump-Hitler comparisons

2016-11-08T08:13:00.001+01:00

It is perhaps a bit too late, but I would like to lay to rest the Trump-Nazi comparisons. In my opinion they are superficially based on comparing rhetoric and personality traits, and miss the essential points. At best they are misleading, at worst - they are offensive to those who indeed suffered under dictatorial or totalitarian regimes.

1. People often confuse dictatorship with totalitarianism. Dictatorship is about one person controlling all power branches, whereas totalitarianism is about re-building society according to a different model - it is about ideas that surpass a single person. Nazism, fascism and communism are all totalitarian ideologies which continue to attract people well after their founders died. Hitler, Lenin, Mao and others took a great deal of effort to summarize their ideologies in their written works, where they openly expressed their disrespect for the "rotten" social democracy and described the methods for dismantling it. Trump has no ideology, it is all about himself. So any comparisons with Nazism are simply invalid.

2. Hitler didn't win elections. His party didn't have majority in parliament even after several election cycles. He came to power through a crack in a democratic system - he was appointed the chancellor because of a constitutional crisis, i.e. when government could not be formed democratically.

3. Hitler didn't get total power just because he became a chancellor. He also had his people appointed to key ministries, police etc. And it took them many years to dismantle democratic mechanisms. To be a dictator, Trump would have to have a majority in Congress and Senate, loyal supreme court, his people in FBI and CIA, etc. Until recently the Republicans complained that assassination of US citizens, going to war with congressional authorization, and executive action erode US democracy - they have a valid point here. One could also add the NSA total spying program - a necessary tool, if one wanted to eliminate political opponents.

In short, if I had to bet on one of the two candidates becoming a US dictator, I wouldn't bet on Trump. Which, of course, doesn't make him a good candidate.

Political neurosis. (Or how to vote for Hillary and remain sane.)

2016-11-04T17:24:00.003+01:00

Summary: Voting for Hillary is your right, and one could even make a logical case for it. One could disagree with such a choice, but it is a choice to be respected. On the other hand, ignoring Hillary's faults, attributing to her non-existing competences, and framing your support for her as something grounded in high moral values are a different story. And it says more about you than about her.

There are many people who would like to believe that Hillary is good and that Trump is evil, and that the good always wins. And if you are one of them, then there is nothing easier than surrounding yourself with like-minded people and reading only Hillary-friendly media, i.e. living in a comfortable emphatic bubble.

Except if you are too intelligent to dismiss the evidence that Hillary is far from an angel. And that the world is far from being a good place, and people are being exploited and murdered every day to guarantee your rather comfortable way of life. (I could give you here a long list of Hillary's faults. However, if you need such a list, then you probably belong to the previous paragraph.)

But then you may not have enough courage to accept that the world is such a nasty and scary place. And you want to explain it away: by arguing with those who disagree with you, by ignoring the Hillary's faults and by trying to prove that even doubting her virtues paves the way for unimaginable horrors to come. In short, you try to convince yourself that the world is not what it is, but what you want it to be.

Isn't this the very textbook definition of neurosis? Yes. And we know that it doesn't matter how much you argue and even if you manage to convince someone - your anxiety will remain. Because the ultimate person that you have to convince is yourself - and, as we have already assumed, you are too intelligent and informed to ignore the truth. The reality will not change - the only thing that can change is you. Mastering courage is the only path to mental health.

P.S. Bonus: not only will it make you feel better, but it will also make you look smarter!

P.P.S. The bad news: you may still have to deal with hundreds of less courageous people around you...

Russian's guide to western naiveté: Belief in a good Tsar

2016-10-10T19:39:00.000+02:00

A Facebook friend mentioned today that Russians often see westerners as naive in political matters. This is a very rich subject, and I hope that I will have inspiration to write more about it in the future. For now I limit myself to only one aspect.

Proposition: Westerners believe that honest politicians exist and that the politics in their countries is done honestly.

This is something that Russians refer to as a "belief in the good Tsar" ("Вера в доброго царя.") The story behind this is that Russians for centuries held a belief in a loving and caring Tsar, attributing their privations and poverty to the abuse by the government officials, who supposedly disobeyed their sovereign. Thus, if only the Tsar could be made aware of the Russian people's desperate situation, things could be straightened out: the Tsar would punish crooked officials and reward hardworking and honest people.

The expression is used nowadays as derogatory to describe those seeking solutions in changing political personalities while leaving in place the system that encourages the abuse. That is, the root of the problem in pre-revolutionary Russia was not corrupted officials standing between the Tsar and the Russian people, but the autocratic system that inevitably produces such a situation.

Most Russians nowadays are likely to believe that "all politicians are crooks" - something that westerners know as "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Yet, very few of my European or American friends seem to think that this maxim applies to their countries and/or their favorite politicians, which makes me think of them as naive. (Yes, I mean people like Barack Obama, Justin Trudeau, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, etc. - no political personality is holy for a disgruntled Russian. More about this in a minute.)

So, let me provide you with a bit of a practical advice: if you happen to discuss politics with a Russian, don't start with an emphatic proposition, such as "George Bush is a war criminal./Obama is very smart./Trump is a bigot./Hillary Clinton is competent." Instead of showing empathy, the Russian may ask you: "WHY DO YOU THINK SO?" and you will be in an unenviable position of having to provide logical reasoning for your feelings.

OR they may come hard at you with a bunch of facts demonstrating that your statement is wrong. This doesn't mean that they side with the other political side, but simply that they read newspapers and they judge your statement as technically incorrect. Alas, the maxim "Plato is my friend but truth is a better friend" still matters for Russians. ("Платон мне друг, но истина дороже."/"Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas")

OR they may say nothing. And this is the worst thing, because they probably think that you are too naive/ignorant/stupid to take seriously.

Instead, try another approach. For example, explain why you think that the US should continue spending money on defending South Korea and Japan, and why you think that leaving these countries to defend themselves and allowing them to develop their own nuclear weapons is a bad idea. Don't forget to mention pros and cons. The Russians may not agree with you but they will think you are thinking. And intelligence is something that they respect more than political correctness: "He is rude, but he is a good person" ("Он хам, но человек хороший.")

Bibi goes to Washington: what the media forgot to discuss

2015-03-05T10:09:00.000+01:00

There has been recently much commotion about the Israeli prime minister Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu's speech before the US congress. The prime minister was supposed to lobby against the approaching nuclear deal between Iran and the United States. He was accused of a) breaching the protocol by accepting the invitation from the House speaker John Boehner without consulting with the presidential Administration; b) using the speech (two weeks before the Israeli elections) to boost his re-election chances; and c) playing the partisan divisions in the US and thus undermining the US-Israel relationship.

Citing the above-mentioned "breach of protocol" and the unacceptability of interfering in Israeli elections, US president Obama refused to meet with the prime minister during his visit to Washington, and Vice-president Joe Biden, as well as several dozens democrats, boycotted the speech.

Since much of the coverage focused on the prime-minister's personality (e.g., here), I will leave it out and focus on the aspects of the US-Iran nuclear deal and the Netanyahu's visit which remained largely undiscussed.

1. If Iran goes nuclear, what does it mean for Israel?

If Iran does go nuclear, it will pose a threat to Israel and the Middle East. True, Israel might (or might not) have the second strike capability. From the game theory prospective the Cold War between Iran and Israel is quite different from the Cold War between USA and USSR (or Pakistan and India) due to very different size of these countries. Indeed, the strategy of a Cold War is based on weighing the risk of a nuclear attack versus attacking first and facing the enemy's retaliation. If one can (or believes that he can) neutralize the enemy's ability to retaliate, striking first becomes the preferable option. In this sense, the small size of Israel may create additional insensitives for the first strike by Iran, since Israel can be destroyed by one bomb, while Iran may survive hits killing several millions. This in turn creates greater insensitives for the Israeli first strike...

2. If Iran goes nuclear: what does it mean for the Middle East?

Even if we assume that Israel has sufficient deterrence to prevent direct Iranian attack, Iranian nuclear weapon would change the balance of power in teh Middle East with the countries non-aligned with Iran (starting with Saudi Arabia) either seeking a nuclear weapon of their own or seeking protection of Israel. In the former case we we face a nuclear form of a known question: if everybody had a gone, would it make us safer? In the latter case, there may be interesting motives for peaceful settlement between Israel and Arab states, but also all the unpleasantness of the confrontation between two dominant powers - with proxy wars and a risk of nuclear confrontation driven by a minor miscalculation (aka Cuban Missile Crisis.)

3. Even if Iran doesn't go nuclear: what does it mean for the world?

We don't know whether Iran really goes nuclear. But even if it doesn't, it is already in violation of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty - as certified by the UN watchdog. The Nuclear non-proliferation treaty prohibits the five acknowledges nuclear powers from selling nuclear technologies and materials to non-members of the treaty. The non-nuclear members of the treaty are allowed to buy such technologies in exchange for their obligation not to develop nuclear weapons, which is guaranteed by not enriching uranium beyond certain grade, not using certain technologies and making their nuclear facilities transparent for international inspection. These obligations are violated by Iran, who, as a signatory of the treaty, has purchased nuclear technologies from Russia (e.g., the Busher reactor)

It seems that by signing a treaty with Iran Obama effectively destroys the non-proliferation regime... although it has already done so a few months ago in a "landmark" nuclear deal with India (who, like Israel, is not a treaty member). This is a problem for the World as a whole.

4. Obama's motivations in raising scandal

Whatever were the motivations of Mr. Netanyahu, the situation would not have grown to be so absurd, if the Obama administration and the Democrats didn't make so much fuss about "the breach of protocol". To be sure, Obama administration has ignored, and even committed itself much greater breaches of protocol. For example, a year ago it hosted the un-elected Ukrainian prime-minister just before the elections that were supposed to legitimize the un-democratic change of power in Kiev. The breach of protocol in this case is particularly noticeable, since in parallel the administration took great pains not to show any support for the military coup in Egypt, even though it brought to power a US ally.

There may be multiple motivations for Obama and Democrats politicizing the scandal:

a) To support a more friendly Israeli party in elections (which immediately makes them look duplicitous due to the accusations against Netanyahu that the speech was a pre-election stunt)

b) To avoid the public discussion of the Iranian deal: the administration wants to take credit for the "landmark nuclear deal", but, as I noted before, its effect on nuclear non-proliferation may be devastating. It is worth reminding that not so long ago, during 2010 Nuclear Security Summit, Mr. Obama still was promoting his vision of the World without nuclear arms.

c) Finally, while supporting Israel always make for good US foreign policy, bushing it often makes for a good policy domestically, especially for the Democrats - who still get to be supported by very liberal Jewish community, but whose party is also a home to multiple anti-semitic and anti-Zionist crowds. In this sense the Netanyahu's speech merely brought out of the closet the partisan divisions regarding Israel that has already existed in the US.

5. Behavior of the Israeli left
Israeli left has made extensive use of the quarrel between the President and the prime-minister in its election campaign, but did it in a way characteristic of the Israeli left: by trumpeting a largely non-existent issue of the damage to the US-Israeli relations. It is surprising, because the prime-minister exposed himself by openly stating that he considered the issue of Iran as superseding all the domestic problems. Focusing on tehse domestic problems, e.g., by proposing a serious economic program, could have done a lot of damage to Netanyahu's standing. This was not done... to the detriment of the Israeli left and of Israel as a whole.

Wag the EU (Synopsis of a movie)

2014-02-22T10:36:00.000+01:00

“Why does the dog wag its tail?

Because the dog is smarter than the tail.

If the tail were smarter, it would wag the dog.”

“Wag the Dog”, a movie

The former Soviet republic of Ukraine has log been a place of geopolitical struggle between the United States and the European Union on the one hand, and Russia on the other.

The US has no deeply invested interests in Ukraine, but would like to steer it in the western direction as a part of an effort to sustain its own world dominance. Russia is trying to expand its political and economic influence in order to regain its status as the world power. The EU, although less politically ambitious than the US, is hoping to get access to the Ukrainian market in order to spur its own economic growth, stalled in the wake of the ongoing financial crisis. To this end the EU has engaged Ukraine in the negotiations about the latter becoming a part of the common European market in exchange for potential future integration in the Union.

The Ukrainian people are divided about the issue: while some of them feel excited about the western way of life, the others fear that joining the EU will entail the collapse of the Ukrainian industries, plunging their country into poverty and lawlessness not seen since the early years after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Y., the Ukrainian president elected by his people for the lack of any better alternatives, cares only about his own political survival. He knows that, partially due to his mismanagement, the country is on the brink of declaring a default. Understanding that the EU, burdened by its own economic problems, is unable to help, he walks out of the negotiations in favor of a generous economic aid package offered by Russia.

The Y.’s sudden change of mind triggers public protests in the Ukrainian capital. Experienced American diplomat, V. N., wants to use the protests to replace the Ukrainian president by a more pro-western figure. This effort nearly collapses at the very start when a phone conversation, in which she frankly discusses her interference into the Ukrainian politics, becomes public. The situation is saved by the European leaders, who manage to shift the focus of public attention by blowing out of proportion their indignation about the foul language that V.N. used in respect to the EU.

The Ukrainian opposition however seems to be unable to force Y. to step down. Its leaders turn to the US, asking it to impose sanctions on the Ukrainian president and his circle – the demand which the US, as a western democracy, cannot fulfill. “We are not the USSR, we cannot impose sanctions just because we don’t like the guy,” – reluctantly explains V.N. to the disappointed opposition delegation.

To help the Ukrainian opposition V.N. engages Tough Guy, a former marine and the creator of one of the world biggest social networks. T.G. has earned the trust of V.N. during his fruitful collaboration with the National Security Agency. Now she suggests him a more challenging mission – going to Ukraine and building a pretext for imposing the sanctions on the Ukrainian government.

T.G.’s efforts in Ukraine first fall flat when he encounters the Ukrainian opposition leaders’s naïve belief in honest and peaceful resolution of the political standoff. One of them, a dim-witted former boxing champion, pathetically declares: “No western ideal is worth sacrificing Ukrainian people’s lives.”

In desperation, T.G. turns to an extremist right-wing leader, X. In exchange for a hefty sum of US dollars X. promises to “take the protests a bit further”.

The next day the protests erupt into violence which leaves a few dozen of Ukrainians dead. The fact that the numbers of killed protesters and Ukrainian policemen are approximately equal raises many doubts about what exactly happened. But with the help of a charming Ukrainian opposition activist, Oksana, T.G. launches a campaign on social networks convincing the world that the killings were deliberately perpetrated by the Y.’s security forces.

The next day the US and the EU declare the use of force against peaceful protestors unacceptable and impose the sanctions against the Ukrainian government, whereas Russia promises to help Y. to restore the rule of law in his country...

The last frame of the movie shows a social network page commemorating those who died for better Ukraine.

Disclaimer: the account presented here is fictional, although loosely based on real names and events.

Capitalism, Socialism, Communism: formulating the problem

2013-01-08T16:27:00.000+01:00

Introduction: I consider the main existing economic systems with the goal to reformulate the centuries-old economic debate as something like a problem in many-body physics (admittedly, very vaguely stated.)

Laissez-faire capitalism, or what is often called “wild capitalism”, is the most liberal, (i.e., free), economic system imaginable, whose description dates back to the works of Adam Smith. It is comprised of many small private units, firms and households, which try to maximize their profit or minimize their expenses. These units exchange goods, (i.e. interact), in a market in such a way that the whole system eventually achieves equilibrium, where the supply of goods from the firms equilibrates the demand for these goods by the households. The role of government is reduced to providing the medium for transactions (i.e., a market and the money) and ensuring that they are done in an honest way.

For someone, familiar with the basics of statistical physics and strongly correlated systems, the existence of such equilibrium in a many-body system does not seem impossible. Adam Smith, living in 18^th century, was in a less fortunate situation. He had to introduce the concept of “the invisible hand” which has incurred much ridicule. “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” - John Maynard Keynes.

Though hypothetically such an equilibrium state is possible, it still remains to be determined under which conditions it exists, whether it is achieved on realistic time-scales, and whether its parameters are always consistent with the demands of the general welfare as whether salaries in the labor market are sufficient to provide livelihood.

Laissez-faire capitalism is known to work in many situations but has also run into spectacular failures, most notably the Great Depression. It now exists only in developing capitalist countries (for example, in Russia), but still has many supporters, such as the Libertarian movement in the United States, represented by Ron Paul.

Communism is the total opposite of Capitalism. A communist government controls all production (i.e. the “firms”) and distributes goods to households. Ideally, even money is not needed under such a system.

In theory a centralized system is capable of producing and distributing required goods more efficiently than the many uncoordinated actors of laissez-faire capitalism. However, in practice it is known to be very slow in adjusting to the demands of households due to the length of the command chain (i.e., government bureaucracy), and its participants’ lack of personal interest in higher efficiency. It is also highly prone to abuse due to the excessive concentration of power in the hands of a small group of people, which tend to abuse this power either through deliberate evil doing or due to simple incompetence. The existing communist countries are examples of such abuses.

Communism also showed itself badly during the Great Depression: a famine in large and normally agriculturally profitable areas of Southern Russia and Ukraine took millions of lives in early 1930’s and even resulted in widespread cannibalism. It remains an open question whether “Holodomor” was the result of a deliberate genocidal policy by Stalin (as the Ukrainian government insists) or simply of his and his advisers’ economic incompetence. In either case it was exacerbated by the high centralization of power.

Regulated Capitalism is an attempt to salvage individual freedom, inherent in the Capitalist system, while limiting the possibility for its failure. It is achieved by establishing “fair rules of the game”: such as anti-monopoly laws when a greater number of competing firms are desirable and regulating natural monopolies where competition is unwelcome (e.g. water and electric supplies and public transportation are often cheaper and more efficient when provided on large scale).

Government may also play a greater role in carrying such functions as building public roads, enforcing law and order, and protecting the environment. While these functions are funded via taxation, it can be argued that taxpayers get fair value in exchange for what they pay. A firm that makes greater use of public roads than a private individual could pay proportionally more in taxes. A similar argument can be extended to funding the police and legal systems since businesses are more dependent on their protection than individuals.

Socialism attempts to improve general welfare by forcing the redistribution of wealth and by more heavily regulating business. I focus below on the economic shortcomings of socialism, but it is necessary to note that the main opposition to redistributionist policies is ideological. Although redistribution is often justified on the grounds of fairness, (i.e., general welfare) it is ultimately unfair from the point of view of individual rights, encoded in the laws of all the developed Western societies. Indeed, this redistribution is in fact a forceful confiscation of legally obtained private property.

From the point of view of welfare, the main drawback of the socialist system is that the attempts to correct market outcomes often result in negative side effects. For example, rent control laws often give advantage to long-term tenants over those who are looking to move in: the latter are forced to pay a higher price for the same kind of property than the former. Similarly, labor unions drive higher benefits and salaries of employed workers (the price of labor) resulting in lower demand in the labor market, and therefore in higher unemployment than would exist in free market conditions.

While all the developed modern economies are to some extent socialist, their current state suggests that the socialist system is unstable. This is mainly due to the lack of a balancing mechanism that would restrict the growth of welfare benefits, which the majority inevitably awards to itself via the democratic process. This growth is usually funded via borrowing or increasing taxes, which are the same via the Ricardian equivalence, practices that cannot continue indefinitely. Eventually socialism either evolves into its logical extreme of Communism, the Marxist view, or faces the threat of economic instability and relapses back into a state with less welfare distribution, which what seems to be currently happening in Southern Europe and Ireland. In Israel such a turn took place as the result of hyperinflation in the 1980’s under the government of Shamir and Peres.

Formulating the problem

We thus face the problem of designing a social system which would be stable and generate satisfactory outcomes in terms of general welfare. This should include:

1. Formalizing the elementary units and the interactions in a laissez-faire capitalism system and finding under which conditions the system self-organizes and when, or whether, it can be stable.

2. Elucidating the basic mechanisms of instability in Socialist and Communist systems.

3. Determining the proper mixture of free competition, enforcing “fair rules of the game”, and wealth redistribution which would be stable, while providing a sufficient level of general welfare.

HaMetziut: the Real Peace Plan

2012-12-22T13:47:00.001+01:00

As it is explained in the program of the movement HaMetziut, we do not consider the “peace process” as the main priority of the Israeli politics. Yet, as a serious political party, HaMetziut has a clear position regarding the peace with the Palestinian people and with the Arab states.

The Israeli Right correctly points out that at present there is no Palestinian leader willing to make peace with Israel and/or being able to implement such an agreement in practice. It is also true that most of the concessions to the Palestinians, made by Israel in the last two decades, have brought nothing but more violence and suffering as to the citizens of Israel, as to the Palestinians themselves.

Yet, the Israeli Right has offered no realistic solutions for the problem, and even continues to aggravate it by the unreasonable expansion of the settlements.

The Israeli Left has been recycling the same ideas for the last twenty years: they claim that making peace with the Palestinian people and the Arab states is a question of making big enough concessions. The most extreme ones believe that with big enough concessions the peace can be achieved immediately (“Peace Now”).

The most disgusting aspect of this attitude to the peace is the attempts to disenfranchise a significant part of the Israeli population – the settlers – from their basic citizenship rights, encouraging to reduce the protection, economic assistance and freedom guaranteed by the state to all its citizens.

HaMetsiut acknowledges the Reality: the Peace, that has eluded Israel during the twenty years of the peace process, will not come now. Neither will it come tomorrow. It may take twenty more years to achieve it. Yet, we cannot wait till it comes on its own – instead of making the situation worse, Israel should help create the conditions for peace and prepare itself for various scenarios under which the peace settlement may occur.

Our position is:

- Peace cannot come now, but the status quo will eventually end. Therefore it is obligation of the Israeli government to prepare necessary groundwork for peace, and to carry out policies that lay the groundwork for the peace settlement with the Palestinian people and the Arab States.

- Israel needs real peace rather than a peace agreement. Such peace agreement can be achieved only when there is a Palestinian leader with enough authority to implement such an agreement.

- They key to the peace is fulfilling the right of the Palestinian people for the self-determination. It must be recognized that more than half of the Palestinian people live beyond the territory controlled by Israel. Thus, the Palestinian independence cannot be achieved by means of only Israel’s concessions, but requires active participation of the Arab states with significant Palestinian population (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan).

The attempts to put full responsibility for the resolution of the Palestinian problem at Israel’s feet amount to trying to wash hands of the Palestinian suffering (when such attempts come from within Israel) and to shift the focus onto Israel from other problems and conflicts in the Middle East (when such attempts come from abroad).

Israel should confront Western and Arab leaders with the fact that economically viable and nationally complete Palestinian state cannot exist within the territories consisting of the West Bank and Gaza.

- HaMetziut will propose a series of economic and political measures to be carried out within the next 10-20 years with the aim to make peace agreement more likely. This laying of Groundwork for Peace will include:

a. Restraining settlement activity

b. Encouraging economic and cultural development of the Palestinian people, as well as their economic and cultural ties with Israel.

c. Consistently promoting democratization in the Middle East with understanding that governments responsible to their people will be more willing to conclude peace agreement with Israel.

d. Supporting the transformation of the political system in Jordan with the goal that the Palestinian people living there would have proportional and fair representation in the government, and having in mind eventual re-unification of the Palestinian people living in Jordan and the West Bank.

e. Acknowledging the right of people to live in the place to which they experience significant attachment, such as a place where they were born and spent their childhood, or the place where they have spent significant part of their life. In particular, we will lobby the United Nations for extending the full citizenship rights for the descendants of the Palestinian refugees currently living in Syria and Lebanon. This is consistent with our intention to keep under Israeli control the territories in which Israeli citizens have been living for already more than one generation.

Political program

2012-12-07T15:35:00.002+01:00

I post this in view of approaching Parliamentary elections in Israel (January 22nd, 2013). If I had a political party running for the Knesset, the following would be my likely program:

HaMetziut (“The Reality”)

1. Peace process is not the main priority

We are aware of the reality: the decades of failure in the Arab-Israeli peacemaking and the non-democratic nature of the most of the Middle Eastesrn states. Therefore we believe that the peaceful political settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict is not possible in the nearest future. The conflict should be managed in order to i) ensure the safety of the Israeli citizens, while also ii) minimizing the casualties among the civilian population of Israel’s adversaries.

2. Personal freedom

We believe in the equality of rights for all Israeli citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs, ethnic origin or geographic location.

In particular:

i) We will encourage deeper integration of the Israeli Arab citizens and the other ethnic minorities into the mainstream Israeli society to forge one common Israeli identity.

ii) All citizens should have equal rights and obligations when it comes to military service, taxation, aid to big families, etc.

iii) Although we do not intend to encourage the settlement activity, we believe that the settlers are equal citizens of the State of Israel. Therefore we will oppose any legislation intended to impose boycotts/sanctions or otherwise discriminate against this group of population, as well as against any other ethnic/religious/demographic group.

iv) We will promote civil marriage/unions as well as other measures intended to provide equal rights to all Israeli citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs, ethnic origin, sexual preferences, etc.

3. Economic Freedom

It is a duty of the State to help less fortunate of its citizens, whenever their misfortune results from poor health, lack of opportunity, accidents, advanced age or other reasons beyond their control. However, we believe that it is the obligation of young, healthy, educated and otherwise fortunate part of the society to take the economic, social, and political responsibility for the country’s well-being. We believe that the role of the State is to provide equal opportunity and “fair rules of the game” to this active part of the population, rather than to subsidize it.

Baywatch and protectionism (Do foreign workers steal domestic jobs?)

2012-05-23T13:54:00.001+02:00

This article provides an interesting example of issues raised by protectionism, describing a summer guest-worker program in the US, under which young foreigners take short-term jobs in the US at the expense of higher unemployment among young Americans. A particular example given is lifeguards at swimming pools. Employers admit a number of reasons for preferring guest workers to hiring more Americans, such as cheaper labor (no need to pay high taxes), greater availability during the season, lower demands posed by the workers, and a shortage of Americans willing to work as lifeguards etc.

Protectionism here is expressed by a visa policy that restricts foreign workers from competing in the labor market. Thus, guest-worker programs are the easing of protectionism. This style of protectionism is very common and therefore often overlooked; indeed the very existence of nation-states aims at giving a group of people (the nationals of a particular state) various advantages over foreigners, particularly, in access to the domestic labor market. While many countries practice visa-free regimes for tourist visits, working invariably requires obtaining a visa. Even within the European Union employers are encouraged to prefer domestic workers.

Getting back to the situation at hand, there are four different groups of actors involved: the companies/employers, consumers of services (i.e. those who are using swimming pools), domestic workers, and foreign workers. Companies and the two types of workers are engaged via the labor market.

Economically, the outcome of hiring is most efficient if the domestic and foreign workers have equal access to the labor market so companies can employ the maximum number of workers under the most profitable conditions and provide cheaper and higher quality services to their consumers.

Socially the economically efficient outcome is not necessarily the best. One might, for example, see higher social value in ensuring maximum domestic employment while disregarding foreigners. Tightening visa requirements may force companies to put more effort in finding domestic labor, and to offer better salaries/work conditions/employment periods in order to hire a sufficient number. The downside of this outcome is that it will hit negatively at the domestic producer (i.e. the companies/swimming pools), as well as at the domestic consumer, who will have to pay a higher price for using a swimming pool, or be at greater risk of drowning due to the shortage of lifeguards, or face the closure of some pools due to their economic inefficiency or lack of lifeguards.

What I find most interesting is how this simple case raises uncomfortable questions regarding the traditional “right vs. left” political views as they exist in the US and Europe.

In particular, the moderate “left” (represented, for example, by Barack Obama and François Hollande) advocates government involvement to improve market outcomes, along with more compassion towards foreign workers (i.e. potential immigrants). Here, government interference (i.e. tightening visa rules) would improve the market outcome domestically, but hit immigrants.

Conversely, the moderate “right” (Mitt Romney and Nicholas Sarkozy) would find it hard to reconcile a pro-free-market position with its tougher views on immigration.

In this light it is not surprising that the positions of nationalists (such as Marine LePen) and Communist-like movements (Jean-Luc Melenchon) are often so similar and isolationist: the right sees protectionism as a way to hit hard against disliked immigrants, whereas the left sees protecting domestic workers as a convenient justification for striking “the rich” (i.e. the companies).

On war

2012-05-18T11:05:00.003+02:00

Here is an article by Senator Joe Lieberman, making a case for US intervention in Syria:
"What is happening in Syria is a humanitarian catastrophe, with at least 10,000 dead, more than 1 million people displaced and horrific human rights abuses perpetrated daily, including the widespread and deliberate use of rape and other sexual violence as weapons of war."

Predictably, many of the comments following the article accuse Lieberman of war-mongering and being a "neo-con". As I show below, there is no perfectly moral way to take a position in regard to a war, but there is one way that is clearly wrong: making one's position fit the one's biases or political preferences.

One may oppose any war and all violence. This is a highly principled, although a somewhat naive position. On the surface it also looks like a highly moral one. Yet, the morality of confronting violence with inaction is questionable, as is illustrated by the famous poem "First they came...".

One may adopt the "responsibility to protect" attitude, and always take the side of victims against the oppressors. This is a principled position as well, which perhaps culminated in the George W. Bush's "Freedom agenda". The problem is with deciding who is a victim and who is the oppressor, since one can easily transform into the other. In addition, killing in the name of protecting someone is still killing. Oppressors are no less human their victims.

One may adopt a "realistic" view and support a war when one may benefit from it economically, politically or in terms of one's own safety, while opposing it when no benefit is forthcoming. This is a cynical and cruel attitude, but it is a consistent position... and perhaps the only one that a national leader should adopt.

The attitude that one shouldn't adopt is the hypocritical one: such as supporting the military action initiated by a Democratic President, while opposing the "Republican" wars; or supporting the "resistance" by Hamas/Hezbollah, while opposing Israel's self-defense measures.

Unfortunately, the fact that the events in Syria are largely overlooked, while much smaller scale events in other places, for example in Israel, trigger worldwide protests, is a testimony to the widespread hypocricy. The same can be said about those who passionately oppose the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, while cheering the "real leadership" that President Obama has shown in ordering the raid against Osama bin Laden, in "leading from behind" the "humanitarian" strikes in Libya, and in waging the "smart war" using unmanned aerial vehicles in Pakistan and Yemen, which has taken thousands of lives.

Gay marriage vs. equal rights

2012-05-10T08:49:00.000+02:00

The Obama's recent announcement that he now supports a "gay marriage" deserves a few comments.

1. Why Obama does it?
First and foremost, it is not a secret why such a sudden change of his position came now - in order to be re-elected in November Obama has to make maximum effort to distract voters from the economic issues. Recently he tried to tout his assassination of Bin Laden, but the attempt backfired - both due to the absurdity of the assumption that another president would not make a similar decision, as well as because of the strangeness of a Democratic president playing a tough guy, G.W.Bush-style.

2. How Romney should respond?
It would be really interesting to see how Romney responds to this announcement. He will lose a lot, if he picks this culture war fight. In my opinion, acknowledging publicly that the issue is important, but pointing out that the President is merely trying to distract the Americans from the economic problems would be the strongest answer.

3. Should there be "Gay marriage" or... equal rights?
"Gay marriage" is really an absurd combination of words, since it necessarily involves a collision between the civil rights and the religious idea of marriage. The right thing to do would be to separate completely the civil rights granted to long-term couples (homosexual and heterosexual alike) and the religious "marriage", as performed by a priest, rabbi or an imam. This is the way how it is done in many civilized countries. French couples, for example, are quite content saying "We are not married - we are PACSés" - meaning that they prefer not to deal with religious issues. One step further would be to simply acknowledge the rights of the de-facto long-term couples - married or not.

Obama himself is perfectly aware of this, since up till recently he supported the civil unions, but not the marriage. I dare say however, that the President is now more interested in picking a fight with conservative Christians, then he is interested in the human rights.

Update:
It is now unclear what the buzz is about, since Obama has not promised to actually do anything, but only expressed his personal views. A quick internet search will convince you that Obama
i) supported the gay marriage in 1996, when running for the Illinois senate: "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."
ii) opposed it when running for the US senate in 2004: "I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman but I detest the bashing and vilifying of gays and lesbians."
iii) and again supports it now, in 2012: “I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”

Palestinian problem is not only Israel's problem

2012-04-12T10:29:00.000+02:00

A rare article about an important issue: Palestinian problem is not only Israel's problem - it is not only Israel's fault and it is not in Israel's power to solve it.

The reason: majority of the Palestinians do not live under Israel's control: millions of them live in Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. Those in Jordan constitute Jordan's indigeneous population, as originally Jordan was a part of the Brtish Mandate "Palestine" intended to be split into Jewish and Arab (i.e. Palestinian) states.
Those in Syria and Lebanon are descendants of the refugees in the second/third and even fouth generations. They are technically designated as refugees, because neither of these countries is willing to grant the citizenship rights to people who were born in it, if these people have Palestinian ancestry.

These obvious facts are largely unknown to the "international community", which continues to insist on the "two-state solution", i.e. the resolution of the Palestinian problem at Israel's expense only. Israel undoubtedly will have to leave most of the West Bank territiries that it currently controls - this will solve the guilt problem for the Israeli left... yet, it will not solve the national problem for the Palestinians.

Solving Palestinian problem requires democratization of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and larger Middle East and giving the Palestinian people the full rights in the countries where they live now. It may also require re-unification of teh Palestinians living in Jordan and the West Bank (aka East and West Germany.)

This is not likely to happen soon, since the Middle Eastern dictators have all the reasons to hold to their power... and the enlightened West has all the reasons to support these dictators by insisting on the "two-state solution" and ensuring teh continuous flow of oil.

The article quoted in the beginning out lines the Jordanian King's efforts to disfrinchise the Palestinian people in Jordan of their citizenship rights:
"King Abdullah is seeking to complete the divorce proceedings between Jordan and the Palestinians which his late father, King Hussein, began in 1988.

The separation began in July that year, a few months after the eruption of the first intifada.

King Hussein realized back then that it was not in the interest of his kingdom to maintain a linkage to the West Bank, home to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.

His biggest fear was that the intifada would spill over into Jordan, where the Palestinian majority would rise against his monarchy. [...]

In 2009, Amman quietly began revoking the Jordanian citizenship of thousands of Palestinians, triggering strong protests from human rights organizations and pro-Palestinian groups around the world. [...]

Talk in Israel and elsewhere about turning Jordan into a Palestinian state has also left the king worried about the future of his kingdom. That explains why he is not even prepared to receive 1,100 Palestinian refugees who have fled Syria in recent weeks, while at the same time welcoming more than 100,000 Syrians who crossed the border into Jordan.

The Jordanians have no problem absorbing tens of thousands of Iraqis, Syrians and Libyans. But when it comes to the Palestinians, it’s a completely different story. The last thing King Abdullah needs is another 500,000 Palestinians in the country. "

Romney's litmus test for intellectuals

2012-04-04T11:01:00.000+02:00

The paradox
One of the striking paradoxes of modern democracies is that most people do not choose a candidate/party that would most closely represent their political views! Indeed, more often one simply adopts the positions of the candidate that the one supports.

I could support this thesis with many examples,but none of them would match the absurdity of the presidential campaign that has been unreveling in the US: it so happened that the Republican party is about to nominate a centrist, or perhaps even center-left, candidate (Mitt Romney) to compete with Barack Obama who, despite his class war rhethorics, has borrowed most of his successes from the book of his conservative predecessor (drone war in Pakistan, targeted assassinations, economic stimulus, auto-industry bail-out.)

Etch-a-sketch
For example, here is the criticism of Romney's "etch-a-sketch" changeable political views, aimed at rather educated audience (those with the knowledge of at least quantum mechanics.) Yet, one would think that the intellectual readers who are able to appreciate such an analogy would have worried that their views on Romney match those of some hardcore conservatives. But do they?

Of course, there is nothing new about "etch-a-sketch" (flip-flopping) attitude in politics. In particular, in the US it is a common practice for the candidates to "run to the right/left" during the Republican/Democratic primaries, and then "run towards the center" during the general election. The candidate competing against a sitting president is naturally at disadvantage, since the president usually does not have to compete in his party primaries. This, for example, allowed George Bush campaign to successfully brand his 2004 challenger John Kerry as a "flip-flopper".

Obama himself recently gave an example of this tendency of politicians to put their election campaign above the ideological integrity in his overheard comments to the Russian President.

Ironically, the most memorable example of "etch-a-sketch" comes also from Obama: the statement that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided" has generated a great applouse among the Jewish audience in the 2008 AIPAC conference, but was retracted by Obama immediately after the speech was over.

Comparison
A few points for comparing Mitt Romney and Barack Obama:

1. Obama's signature achievement in domestic policy is his healthcare legislation. This legislation was however modeled after a similar law introduced earlier in Massachusets by Romney. In fact, the two laws were even designed by the same people!

2. As a governor of Massachusets Romney was supportive of pro-choice groups and sexual minority rights. Despite formally abandoning these positions in the primary, he has enjoyed ovewhelming support among the female voters, and has continued to be attacked for his liberal views by other Republican candidates.

3. During the primaries Romney has adopted unusually harsh stance on illegal immigration. However, Obama has a record of merely paying lip-service to immigration reform, while significantly ramping up the number of deportations.

4. Romney's views support for exerting US military power around the world will be matched by the Obama's pride of the "smart" drone war in Packistan, the targeted assassinations of Bin Laden and US citizen Anwar al-Aqlaki, and keeping open the detention camp in Guantanamo - all morally questionably undertakings of the kind which the Democrats has been outraged about since George Bush years.

5. Obama hardly can be blamed for the current economic troubles - he happened to be president at the low of the economic cycle, whsoe downward swing dates back not only to teh Bush presidency, but also to the economic growth bubble of teh Clinton years. Yet, the intellectuals will have hard time explaining why they would rather entrust the US economy to the law professor (Obama) than to the career businessmen (Romney).

Inequality and economic growth

2012-04-03T18:50:00.000+02:00

A worthy new addition to my "Theatre of the Absurd" section, coming from no one else but President Obama himself:
“In this country, broad-based prosperity has never trickled down from the success of a wealthy few. It has always come from the success of a strong and growing middle class,” Obama intends to say, according to the prepared text. “That’s why studies have shown that countries with less inequality tend to have stronger and steadier economic growth over the long run.”

Yes, just look at Europe...
(I presume the President had in mind capitalist countries, because there is even less inequality in Cuba or North Korea.)

Is terrorism right or left?

2012-04-02T11:09:00.000+02:00

This article tries to identify the causes of the home-grown terrorism, addressing the particular example of the recent terror attacks in Toulouse, France. It hits however an important point:
"Many French initially and secretly hoped that what happened in and around Toulouse would prove to be a repetition of the attacks in and around Oslo in 2011 – that the terrorist would turn out to be the product of the extreme right. Merah claimed to be acting in the name of fundamentalist Islam; in reality, he was the product of a bloody and deviant sect. How can a petty delinquent, a lost child of the French nation, fall prey to terrorist hatred of any variety?"

In short, we have by now witnessed equally horrifying attacks originating from the extreme right and from the extreme left. What causes the terrorism is not the part of the political spectrum that one belongs to, but how far one is ready to go in order to impress his/her views onto the others.

Nuclear deterrence

2012-03-31T11:23:00.000+02:00

A good analysis addressing the logical merits of the argument that Iran armed with nuclear weapons vis-a-vis Israel will make the Middle East or the World a safer place:
"But I was nervously aware that I was urging good sense about a strategic situation that was senseless, because it was premised upon the credibility of a threat of holocaust. I was careful to note my discomfort in my book: deterrence, I said, may be supported but not celebrated, because it is another term for an unprecedentedly lethal danger, which it elects to manage rather than to abolish. I was uneasy with the commonplace notion that deterrence between the United States and the Soviet Union “worked,” because this was impossible to verify.

[...]

I CANNOT SAY with sufficient confidence that an Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities would be rational or right. There is too much information that I do not possess. I worry about the costs. I do not fear that the region would go to hell, because the Arab states would rejoice in such an action. (In this matter the leader of the Sunni bloc is the Jewish state.) But I do not know that Iran in its current political configuration will be deterred, and neither does anybody else."

Kissinger on Arab Spring

2012-03-31T09:00:00.000+02:00

Henry Kissinger on the Arab spring and the US policy (or the current lack thereof) in the Middle East:
"For more than half a century, U.S. policy in the Middle East has been guided by several core security objectives: preventing any power in the region from emerging as a hegemon; ensuring the free flow of energy resources, still vital to the operation of the world economy; and attempting to broker a durable peace between Israel and its neighbors, including a settlement with the Palestinian Arabs. In the past decade, Iran has emerged as the principal challenge to all three. A process that ends with regional governments either too weak or too anti-Western in their orientation to lend support to these outcomes, and in which U.S. partnerships are no longer welcomed, must evoke U.S. strategic concerns — regardless of the electoral mechanisms by which these governments come to power. Within the framework of these general limits, U.S. policy has significant scope for creativity in promoting humanitarian and democratic values."

What is in common between Afghanistan and Gaza?

2012-03-21T08:12:00.000+01:00

If it were not so said, it would make an addition to my "Theatre of the Absurd" collection (JPost repeats here the information provided by LeFigaro):
"A man engaged in a shoot-out with French police on Wednesday, suspected of killing four people at a Jewish school this week, claims to be linked to al-Qaida, French Interior Minister Claude Gueant said.

"He claims to be a mujahideen and to belong to al-Qaida," Gueant told journalists at the scene of the siege.

He also said the man had been in Afghanistan. "He wanted revenge for the Palestinian children and he also wanted to take revenge on the French army because of its foreign interventions," Gueant said."

My comment:
Sadly, I am pretty sure that most of the readers see nothing unusual about this claim. Yet, think for a moment about the links between Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Al Qaida, on the other hand, and France and Palestinian children on the other. However outraged you may be about the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, you will have hard time connecting it to the events in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Al Qaida without accepting some kind of "global Jihad" point of view or taking a point that all of the World's troubles are faults of Israel and the Jews.

Is antisemitism dead, Ms. Ashton?

2012-03-20T08:07:00.001+01:00

Catherine Ashton unwittingly has made a very charged statement:
"Speaking in Brussels at a meeting with Palestinian youth, Ashton said that "When we think about what happened today in Toulouse, we remember what happened in Norway last year, we know what is happening in Syria, and we see what is happening in Gaza and other places- we remember young people and children who lose their lives," she said."

Two comments:
1. What happened in Toulouse resembles what happened in Norway - these were both deliberate attacks against children on the basis of the political convictions/religious beliefs of their parents. Syria and Gaza hardly belong to the same category - the deaths that happened there resulted from war, and even though these deaths are no less tragic, putting all four events in the same line diminishes the significance of Ms. Ashton's condemnation of the hatred that motivated attacks in Toulouse and Norway.

2. It is not clear from Ms. Ashton statements which particular deaths in Gaza she meant - those caused by the Israeli reprisals or those that result from the not infrequent explosions in the terrorist workshops, routinely located in densely populated neighborhoods, and the crude rockets launched towards Israel, which sometimes fall while still over Gaza. In general, there are many things that she did not say explicitly, while allowing her statement to fit easily with widespread anti-Israeli and antisemitic stereotypes.

3. Ashton seems to imply that attacks against Jews are somehow justified by the Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. In doing so she however risks crossing the boundary between supposedly legitimate criticism of Israel as a country, and blaming all Jews for the Israeli actions, just because most of the Israelis are Jewish. In short, her statement has clear antisemitic connotations.

It is worth contrasting Ms. Ashton's statement with the ones made by the UN Secretary General and the US, which withheld unhelpful comparisons and stuck to mentioning only what is relevant to the case: the country where it happened and the community which was targeted:
"UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned the Toulouse attack. In a statement released late Monday, Ban stated that he "condemns in the strongest possible terms this act of violence and expresses his sincere condolences to the victims' families and the Jewish community, as well as to the government and people of France."

The US also added its condemnation over the attack, as State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland stated Monday that the US was "shocked and saddened to learn of the horrific attack at a Jewish school in Toulouse, France. We join the Government of France in condemning this unprovoked and vicious act of violence.""

Later update:
1. Obviously, I was not the only one who found the statement discussed above antisemitically charged: Baroness Ashton has eventually apologized for it.

2. French, on the other hand, have honorably showed today that they will not justify any kind of killing.

Most prestigious professions in Israel

2012-03-14T08:27:00.000+01:00

Impressive order of priorities:
"The Dahaf Institute survey, led by Dr. Mina Tzemah, also examined the public’s views of the status of the profession of scientist. Individuals in the medical profession were rated number one in prestige, while scientific professions were number two.

Somewhat lower were engineers, followed by teachers and military officers. The least respected profession was being a Knesset member. Teaching has risen in prestige, from 11th place in 2009 to fourth today."

Is the Palestinian problem the major Middle East problem?

2012-03-08T10:20:00.000+01:00

Here is a coincise formulation of the point that I have made several times in this blog (here, here, and here): the Palestinian problem is being used as a way to distruct the World's attention from the far more serious problems within and among the Middle-Eastern states:
"For decades, the chattering classes have been working hard to teach us that the central issue of the region was not the Shia-Sunni conflict or the struggle for freedom by Arabs longing to rid themselves of autocratic monarchs or dictators. The belief in the centrality of the Palestinian issue was so strong that every other consideration had to be subordinated to the cause of trying to assuage the anger of the Muslim world at their plight. But in the past year, the main subjects of discussion have been the Arab Spring revolts and the debate over how best to stop the Iranian nuclear threat. The result is that the world is getting on with its business these days without obsessing about the Palestinians. Even President Obama, who had picked an annual fight with Israel, chose this year to abandon his usual attempt to pressure Israel into concessions to the Palestinians."

American support for Israel

2012-03-05T17:03:00.000+01:00

Here are a few interesting charts from Gallup, showing how the support of the American public for Israel has varied throughout the years.

A conservative blog points out that the support is lowest in the periods when Israel has engaged in negotiations with the Palestinians, and makes the claim that the "peace process" undermines the Israel's relation with the American public.

Despite my reservations about the "peace process" as we know it, I tend to think that the reason for a higher support during the years of no peace negotiations has to do not with the hard line of the Israeli government, but with the Palestinian terrorism - the tactics which contradicts to the very basic western values (regardless of how pro-Palestinian or anti-Israeli advocates justify it.) Had the Palestinians resorted to a peaceful resistance, the Israeli government would have no insensitives for a hard stance.

"Good" rich and "bad" rich

2012-03-05T10:53:00.000+01:00

A valid point about the income of the sport superstars versus the income of the (hated) business stars:
"I confess to being a huge Lin fan. Indeed, my teenage son has been idolizing Lin’s skills and work ethic ever since Lin starred on the Harvard team. But, as an economist observing the public’s seething anger over the “one percenters,” or individuals with exceptionally high incomes, I also see a different, overlooked facet of the story.

What amazes me is the public’s blasé acceptance of the salaries of sports stars, compared to its low regard for superstars in business and finance. Half of all NBA players’ annual salaries exceed $2 million, more than five times the threshold for the top 1% of household incomes in the United States. Because long-time superstars like Kobe Bryant earn upwards of $25 million a year, the average annual NBA salary is more than $5 million. Indeed, Lin’s salary, at $800,000, is the NBA’s “minimum wage” for a second-season player. Presumably, Lin will soon be earning much more, and fans will applaud.

Yet many of these same fans would almost surely argue that CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, whose median compensation is around $10 million, are ridiculously overpaid. If a star basketball player reacts a split-second faster than his competitors, no one has a problem with his earning more for every game than five factory workers do in a year. But if, say, a financial trader or a corporate executive is paid a fortune for being a shade faster than competitors, the public suspects that he or she is undeserving or, worse, a thief."

When the facts are too obvious

2012-02-29T11:40:00.000+01:00

I have pointed many times that the proponents of two-state solution and "peace now" are often oblivious to the very basic facts of Arab-Israeli conflict. Sometimes, however, the facts are too obvious to ignore, as Lara Friedman of the "Americans for Peace" has realized at the Arab League conference:
"If representatives of the organization that sponsored the Arab Peace Initiative cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the legitimacy of Jewish equities in Jerusalem, they should know that they discredit their own professed interest in peace. Their framing of the future of Jerusalem as a zero-sum game only makes it more likely that Israel will continue asserting its current power over East Jerusalem to hinder the vision of two states living in peace with a Jerusalem as a shared capital."

Here are some of the facts that I have written about before:
1. There is no Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but a larger Arab-Israeli conflict
2. The two-state solution does not solve the Palestinian problem, but only the Israeli one
3. Palestinians have more pressing concerns than the statehood
4. Solving Arab-Israeli conflict is impossible within major democratic transformation in the Arab countries (here and here)
5. Westerns powers are interested in over-emphasizing the two-state solution in order to preserve good relations with the autocratic Arab leaders (here and here)