New School Politics

If you're a first time visitor, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, which will keep you up to date with all the latest New School Politics posts. Thanks for visiting!

“Allahu Akhbar” comes the cry almost simultaneously from dozens of buildings across the Gaza Strip. This isn’t, however, just any other call to prayer in the Palestinian territories. Instead, militants from Hamas are celebrating the “liberation” of Palestine. Hamas declared an almost immediate victory as their forces steamrolled over the Fatah, their more moderate political opponents. Claims Hamas, today is the”second liberation of the Gaza Strip, this time from the herds of collaborators.” Hamas, somewhat deluded, believes they vanquished Israeli forces in 2005 and will proceed to crush their Fatah opponents in 2007.

For Hamas, 2007 is the year of government. In early 2006, Hamas won a majority in some of the West Bank and Gaza’s first democratic elections (although the results and methods of polling were contested). The government was controlled partially by Mahmoud Abbas, the chairman of the PLO Executive Committee, and the leader of Fatah. In recent years, Abbas’ voice has spoken for moderate Palestians, those who seek to live with peace and tranquility instead of war and destruction. It seems as if, at last, the voice of moderation has been drowned out. This week’s onslaught against Fatah makes the organization seem almost saintly, at least in comparison to Hamas.

Hamas has finally removed the last bastion against an Islamic government, leading the way to a country based strictly on Sharia law. International news coverage, however, barely begins to scratch the surface. Hamas’ attacks aren’t just an attack on Fatah. Instead, they’re the final strokes in an operation that began years ago. With this victory, Hamas has the opportunity to turn the Palestinian territories into a state run with an iron fist, quieting dissent and punishing protesters.What the majority of individuals fail to notice is that Palestine has been this way for years. The territory, once a well-governed section of the prosperous nation of Israel, has seen significant deterioration in recent years. The region has erupted into civil unrest dozens of times since the Israeli withdrawal. The government, despite appearences, held no real power in the territory anyway. The government’s most important ability, that to negotiate with other countries, seems to have been squandered as key fights between Hamas and Fatah (politically, this time, not violently) bogged down the Palestinian legislative authority.

While the government was busy attempting to compromise, the violent thugs of Hamas and Islamist organizations scattered across the West Bank and Gaza gave the regions a constant feeling of chaos. Since Israel pulled out, Palestinian citizens have lived in constant fear, not quite sure who to support in the neverendnig war for power. Support Fatah when they’re popular, and you may fnid yourself executed as soon as Hamas rises to power. What’s more, the situation in the Palestinian territories truly shows how incapable the region is of properly governing itself. Since Israel’s withdrawal, the areas have been provided with constant Israeli and US aid in an effort to push the Palestians to greater world understanding and tolerance. When it was clear that these efforts were in vain, the US and Israel continued their policy, paying more attention to the people than their beliefs and politics.

Palestine has been given endless opportunities for growth. The country’s not an independent nation, but that may very well work to its benefit. As a part of Israel, citizens receive the opportunity to commute to major Israeli cities to work at jobs not available in Palestinian territories. Were the country independent, regional change, not just civil war, would result. Neighboring countries like Egypt and Jordan would feel reprocussions as well. In this instance, however, Israel may end up being Palestine’s saving grace. Israel has an obligation to promote peace and equality in all territories, even if the territories they strive to protect often attack them (see the intifada, etc.).

Israel, argues Liz, should not piece together an international force to bring peace to the Palestinian territories. As Ryan so eloquently noted, Israel is not in the wrong here. Over the past fifty year, they have time and time again demonstrated their ability to effectively run a government. Currently, Israel stands as a world pioneer in numerous markets and boasts one of the most developed markets in the Middle East. Liz claims the intrusions of Israel into Palestine, an area of their own country, is preventing progress in the region. The fault, however, is not Israel’s. Palestine has been given dozens of opportunities to reform and exist peacefully with the rest of the world. Instead, they have chosen violence and destruction.

At this stage, it’s too early to tell if Hamas’ victory will be permanent. The violence in the Palestinian territories has brought a new meaning to political dissent. Palestinians loyal to Fatah are being executed in droves, and Hamas has begun targeting key Fatah leaders to dismantle the opposition from the top. Palestine clearly does not understand the concept of democracy. Hamas purports that they, finally, have given a voice to the Palestinian majority, but instead of ruling a government, they are smothering any chance for an equitable and fair governmental arrangement in Palestine.

Interesting Link: A Palestinian-written editorial in YNetNews provides an interesting perspective on Israeli-Palestinian relations in light of the current conflict

Popularity: 49% [?]

I must fundamentally disagree with Liz’s characterization of Israel:

Once again, Palestinians are dying. This time, however, they’re not actually being killed by the Israelis.

…

Israel is clearly in the wrong with its imperialistic attitude toward its Arab neighbours, but if the Palestinians want a nation of their own, they must prove that they can govern it without terrorizing their citizens.

Let us first observe that Israelis are so too always being killed, the difference is they’re always being killed by Palestinians! That’s just one example of the primitiveness of the culture surrounding Palestinians–they’re essentially engaged in tribal warfare. You cannot begin characterizing Israelis and Palestinians on equal moral grounds when Likud and Labor handle disagreements through elections and open debate while Hamas and Fatah handle them with TNT and roadside bombs. Do not ignore the distinctive moral nature of each side when examining the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians: Israel is a free and secular republic while a Palestinian state would resemble nothing more than another Arab dictatorship, ruled by Shari’ia and bent on complete destruction of Israel.

Second, it is completely backwards to smear Israel as imperialistic towards its Arab neighbors when its Arab neighbors initiated the years of perpetual conflict nearly six decades ago. Immediately after its founding in 1947, five surrounding Arab nations, not counting stateless forces such as the Arab Liberation Army, invaded Israel with the goal of destroying the UN Partition plan and obliterating Israel. Only after Israel single-handedly defeated the cohilition of five nations did they proceed to take the land that was designated for Palestine, in the same way that Israel invaded the Sinai Peninsula only after Egypt took control of the Straights of Tiran in 1967.

It is ironic that Palestinians today beg for an independant state when the origional partition plan was itself a two state solution. The Palestinians were the ones who invaded Israel and ultimately erradicated the partition.

The military force that Israel has used over its history has always been for the moral purpose of protecting its freedom against neighboring belligerents. Imagine for a moment that your nation, upon its conception, was invaded by five neighboring states and lived in a state of constant terror and constant hostility as you were surrounded by an entire region of people who wanted nothing short of its annihilation. How could that nation not be justified in fighting back? While the entire ”international community” of bleeding hearts weeps for Palestine, Israel has stood firm in recognition of the fact that freedom is not free, and that in order to defend the freedom of its people, the Israeli government must use unequivocal military force against its attacker, lest its freedom cease to exist. 

Popularity: 51% [?]

In May 28’s New York Times, Venezuela Police Repel Protests Over TV Network’s Closing [TimesSelect readers only]:

With a little more than an hour to go late Sunday until the country’s oldest television network was to be taken off the air after 53 years of broadcasting, the police dispersed thousands of protesters by firing tear gas into demonstrations against the matter.

…

Groups that support President Hugo Chavez also flooded a central area of Caracas to celebrate his decision not to renew the broadcasting license of Radio Caracas Television, or RCTV which has been one of his most vocal critics.

I think I have said enough about the bottomless pit that Venezuela has jumped into (here and here), and my notations continue to prove correct. Now Chavez has taken a TV Network off the air because of their outspokenness against the Venezuelan President. Lucky for Chavez he has done away with rule of law in his country otherwise a judicial or legislative check would certainly emerge.

But maybe I give the Venezuelan people too much credit. After all they have already reelected the man, twice. Its not like they haven’t had a chance to stop his evasion of liberty and property rights. But now those violations have come to a climax of sorts as Chavez has violated a right recognized as sacred by most liberals and conservatives alike–the right to free speech.

The moral of this individual story, although there could be many, is that for the right of free speech to exist the right to property must also exist. In fact the right to free speech is a corollary to property rights; accordingly Chavez’s disrespect for free speech is a consequence of his disrespect for property.

Essentially, if you own and have a right to your property that means you can also use it for whatever speech purposes you desire. But if the right to property can be undercut by a politician’s whim then that property cannot be used for the speaking purposes that the owner desires–rather, it can only be used at the politician’s approval. The fact of the matter is that for speech to truly be heard there needs to be capital to distribute that speech (television, print, etc.). But if government has a check on that capital (property) then people cannot speak freely, rather they can only say what the government allow. Case in point: Venezuela.

Note: this post edited for grammatical consistency at 10:15PM on June 12, 2007.

Popularity: 21% [?]

Late last week, British Prime Minister Tony Blair claimed that “black culture” is causing many of the recent murders in London. With harsh frankness in his final weeks at the top of Britain’s Parliament, Blair was not afraid to confront political correctness head on. Meanwhile, a large majority of responses disagreed with the Prime Minister, declaring the real problem was “social deprivation”. In staunch retaliation, Blair stated that “Economic inequality is a factor and we should deal with that, but I don’t think it’s the thing that is producing the most violent expression of this social alienation. I think that is to do with the fact that particular youngsters are being brought up in a setting that has no rules, no discipline, no proper framework around them.”

I find it particularly intriguing how politicians tend to let their true feelings known when they have the least to lose. Their thoughts are always provocative, and Blair’s message was head-on with one of the largest issues concerning crime in developed countries. Frankly, I do basically agree with him, although I would perhaps word it differently. The problem here is the gang culture, which you can be born into or just as easily dragged into. It’s almost as bad as the poverty cycle. However, the fact remains that the majority in this culture are black people.

Not to blame pop culture, but just listen to the lyrics of rap music. That is the prime example of what gang culture is. Whether or not a teenager falls into it during drug experimentation relies very heavily on his or her upbringing and current situation in life. Although, if born into it, it’s quite natural that you yourself would join in the “family business”.

Obviously, the whole issue is quite a large and hard one to tackle. But, I assume one would want to eliminate the gang culture itself to make any real progress. Drug legalization would go quite far in reducing what is the main feature of the culture. With no drugs to deal, or perhaps rather far less people to sell to, the market would be literally destroyed. This would immediately reduce the number of gang attacks.

From here, by properly funding and aiding organizations who help people get out of the poverty cycle, we could ensure those formerly in the gang culture get proper training or education to get real jobs. This in turn helps create a stable financial situation in which a more acceptable lifestyle can be adopted.

Of course, it’s necessary to boost policing to get the crime leaders off the streets and into a rehabilitation process. Couple that with proper education to teenagers about drugs, alcohol, sex, and the law, as well as extracurricular activities abound. Ta-da: Gang culture eliminated!

Whatever the case, I think the PM made a very strong and important statement by throwing political correctness out of the window. It needed to be said by someone.

Popularity: 62% [?]

1. Initiate a National Service
2. A single State Solution between Palestine and Israel
3. Ensuring an end to energy dependence in the Middle East
4. Increasing abilities of non-governmental organizations, and US government organizations to provide immediate and effective disaster relief around the world that promotes pro-American imagery.
5. Outlawing Shari Law in the United States
6. Forming a joint anti-terrorism act with China, Russia, Japan, and the EU to ensure a task force greater than Interpol with no objective but to prevent global terrorism and also to create a multinational counter-terrorism task force capable of responding to nuclear, biological, chemical, and hostage crisis’s in every corner of the globe within 24 hours.
7. Providing cold-war level funding to form and operate pro-American television, Internet, and print sources outside of the United States.
8. Using covert military action and government sponsored economic means to open up rogue terrorist states to capitalism and western values.
9. Securing major American sea and airports to scan one hundred percent of cargo, also ensuring that the southern boarder of the United States is secure.
10. Rebuilding the national intelligence, enforcement, and emergency response community from the ground up to increase response time, preparedness, and capabilities, while balancing cost.

In the coming days I will create an in dept explanation of how to accomplish the steps I have outlined.

Popularity: 79% [?]

Our favorite San Francisco liberal has done it again with her recent trip to Syria. Nancy Pelosi went against the wishes of the president and met with the President of Syria against the wishes of the White House.

Even if her actions in Syria were beneficial (which they were not), she has set a bad precedent that shows her lack of understanding for the US Constitution. Yes, the Bush administration sometimes seems to treat the Constitution as a scrap of paper, but it is beyond hypocritical for the democrats to claim they will restore the Constitution when they themselves go against the very principles they claim to uphold.

We are in a dangerous place when our Congress threatens to dictate the foreign policy of the President of the United States. If Newt Gingrich had traveled to Bosnia to meet with officials when Bill Clinton was in office, there would have been a tremendous outcry. The overall state of American politics shows how little our politicians know or care about the real issues. It seems that they would all rather fight amongst themselves than protect the nation they have sworn to serve.

Editor’s Note: Some spelling and punctuation fixed at 6PM EST 4/8/07.

Popularity: 25% [?]

Aside from Rosie O’Donnell and Mahmoud Admadinejad, most of the world is aware of that it is Iran who has been provoking the West in recent days. I remember reading two Fridays ago about the seizure of the fifteen British sailors and marines before any American media began reporting it. Indeed, it seems that as I predicted the situation has escalated. Aside from historical pretense, it seems that Iran is preparing for a longer standoff.

During the embassy crisis, America had one advantage prior to conducting its failed rescue attempt; the hostages were in one location. The Iranians have learned their lesson and they have apparently scattered the British sailors throughout the country, or at least in multiple locations within Tehran. This makes any British rescue attempt much more difficult. At the same time, the British cannot allow the sailors to be brought to trial, as it will be a propaganda disaster.

The Iranians are hoping that the British will be forced to the negotiating table with the Russians. It is clear that neither America, nor Britain will consider making prisoner exchanges (which would also be a disaster and an incentive for hostage taking in the future). However, there are military options that the United States and Britain could take with the full support of the international community that would give them the upper hand in the negotiating table and it would also demonstrate that such blatant disregard of international law will not be tolerated.

One idea that was considered by the US military during the Iranian hostage crisis was to use naval and sea power to secure several Iranian Islands in the Persian Gulf and to then exchange the Islands for the hostages. Jimmy Carter committed to a failed rescue attempt, but it does not mean such a proposal would not work during this crisis. Britain should immediately begin a massive PR campaign at the United Nations, in the EU, with members of the Arab League, and with the media to use all of their available intelligence to prove that the British sailors were in international waters and kidnapped illegally. Additionally, in a statement to the Security Council and to Iran, Britain should make it clear that Iran will face harsh consequences if the British soldiers are not freed within ten days, or if they are brought to trial.

If the British sailors are not released or if they are brought to trail, American and British naval forces in the Persian Gulf should seize several Iranian islands that provide economic and political significance. This should of course correspond with a total naval blockade of all Iranian ports in the gulf. England could then use this territory to get an upper hand in the negotiating table and offer an exchange of the British sailors for the Iranian Islands.

If the sailors or marines are harmed in any way, coalition air and sea power should decimate all Iranian government and military assets along with using precision air strikes to cripple the Iranian nuclear program. In any case, US soldiers in Iraq should be protected against any Iranian retaliation as all American forces were given proper equipment prior to the invasion incase Saddam used biological, nuclear, or chemical warfare in his defense.

As I write this another news story about growing tensions with Iran seems to be breaking, and I am sure that when I awake tomorrow the situation will be different than when I went to bed. Out of all of this, the most disturbing fact may be the lack of appearance by Iranian President Mahmoud Admadinejad, which may suggest that the country is now in total control of the hard liners and clerics.

Popularity: 33% [?]

In a move that’s sure to annoy some in the White House, China and Russia strengthened their outer space cooperation today by announcing that they are preparing a joint mission to put a probe on Mars. The Chinese are providing the probe, named the “Phobos Explorer”, to collect samples of the red planet, while the Russians are building the spacecraft. The two countries have maintained ties throughout the years, beginning their relationship back in the 1950’s when the Soviets helped their Communist brethen establish the Chinese Space Program. While China’s space efforts are hindered by their lack of technological development, agreements such as this one will push its program forward.

However, perhaps the most interesting piece of the news to ponder is how America will react. While the joint launch is something the United States successfully completed a few years ago, NASA hasn’t had much to show for its space program since the Apollo missions. Is this the impetus for another race to space? Maybe not quite, but I’ll certainly bet that US officials are uneasy with the idea of their former enemy teaming up with their new enemy in an area such as space travel. But at least society will see some benefits with competition in space programs, versus something like, oh, say, nuclear armament.

Popularity: 48% [?]

France was once the country of change, of revolution, of new ideas.  It hasn’t been so in a while now, but with the first round of Presidential elections coming up on May 6th, things could change in France for the first time in decades.

France has a semi-presidential government, with both an elected President and a selected Prime Minister.  The defining characteristic of this government, however, is the concept of dirigisme.  Dirigisme involves a high level of government involvement in the economy, and the French government has historically been very involved in the transportation and infrastructure sectors in France.  Although the French government has been loosening its grip since the early 90’s, Socialist tendencies still abound in the French marketplace.  For instance, there is a 35-hour workweek and employers have a very hard time firing employees. (Until recently, there was a fine for businesses who fired elderly workers.)

All these Socialistic restraints are slowing down the French economy. The GDP growth this past year was 2%, below the EU averager of 2.8%, and is expected to fall even further to 1.9% next year.  The unemployment rate has been hovering just below 10%, which is high even for EU standards.  Taxes are also far above the average EU values and certainly above anything one might expect to see in a laissez-faire economy.  While dirigisme may have originally been an appropriate response to the massive stresses WWII placed on France, its population, and its economy, it is now outmoded and a serious threat to the continued growth of the French economy.

So where do the elections come in?   Lire le reste de cet article »

Popularity: 47% [?]