Is it time to give up on the idea of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Thomas Friedman brings up this idea in the New York Times today. Friedman argues that it is only a matter of time before Palestinians in the West Bank start demanding a voice in the government that rules them. That is the government of Israel. He argues that it will be difficult for Israelis and their supporters to argue against the principle of one man, one vote.
I had never thought of the implications until he brought it up today. It would give Palestinians a stake in the government that actually rules them today. It would ease the problems of the right of return issue, since most Palestinians are already within the boundaries of the one state. It would make the West Bank settler problem irrelevant. The security barrier would be unnecessary. It would bring peace and prosperity to the whole country.
Why not a one-state solution? The only problem is that we would have to give up on the concept of a Jewish state in the Middle East. This means that there would be no country founded on the basis of providing a homeland for members of the Jewish religion. Is this so bad? America is founded on the concept of separation of church and state and the idea that government is a secular institution. But our policy in the Middle East is that of backing the state of Israel as a Jewish state. Of course, bringing up this idea opens one up to the charges of anti-semitism. But if US policy in Iraq and Afghanistan is to provide an environment in which a secular government, independent of Islamic clerical influences, can be created, why is our policy towards Israel different?
There are other problems, of course. If there were one state within the borders of Palestine, Arabs would outnumber Jews. It is uncertain whether a state with a predominance of Arabs would continue to allow Jews to immigrate. It is unlikely that Israel would even agree to bring the Palestinians into the state of Israel under these conditions. Issues such as the right of return for Palestinians outside of Palestine would still be unsettled. What about the claims of Palestinian refugees' lost lands? These are lost lands that they either left or were thrown out of in the partition of 1948. That is over 50 years ago and the Palestinian refugees still remember them.
Sunday, September 14, 2003
Friday, September 12, 2003
Here is a fascinating article in the New York Times analysing the tax system in America. The main theme of the article is that the tax burden on the American middle class is lower than the rest of the industrialized world and has not been reduced over the past 30 years by either the Reagan or Bush I & II's tax cuts. In fact, the tax cuts were gifts mainly to the richest in America and have reduced the total amount of income taken in by the federal government with no appreciable impact in stimulating the economy.
It seems that tax cut advocates have convinced Americans that their taxes are too high so that American will accept a reduced government. The point of cutting taxes is to "starve the beast" or according to Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, ''I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.'' The point of reducing taxes is to create exactly the fiscal crisis that we are now facing in order to make it politically acceptable to reduce services.
But the benefits of tax cuts have not gone to the middle class. Any tax cuts for the middle class have been minimal and essentially a cover for radical cuts in taxes for the rich. The core of tax cutting plans have been cuts in dividend taxes, capital gains taxes, drastic reductions in tax rates on the highest incomes and repeal of estate taxes. The benefit of all of these tax cuts accrue disproportionally to the rich. According to this article, taxes were not cut for the middle class precisely in order to get the middle class angry that their taxes were too high. This way, the tax cut advocates could sell their plan of massive tax cuts for the rich by buying off the middle class with minimal tax cuts. So long as the middle class was getting something out of the deal, a tax cut package for the rich could sail through congress.
Essentially, "Tax Cuts" means "Cuts in Government Services." The question in the fiscal crisis we are now facing is whether we as middle class Americans want to cut services such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Police, Fire protection, and Schools or whether the minimal tax relief we receive is worth the loss of these services.
The conclusion of the New York Times article paints a frightening picture for middle-class Americans, especially those who are thinking about their retirement years or have already entered those years.
"If Grover Norquist is right -- and he has been right about a lot -- the coming crisis will allow conservatives to move the nation a long way back toward the kind of limited government we had before Franklin Roosevelt. Lack of revenue, he says, will make it possible for conservative politicians -- in the name of fiscal necessity -- to dismantle immensely popular government programs that would otherwise have been untouchable.
"In Norquist's vision, America a couple of decades from now will be a place in which elderly people make up a disproportionate share of the poor, as they did before Social Security. It will also be a country in which even middle-class elderly Americans are, in many cases, unable to afford expensive medical procedures or prescription drugs and in which poor Americans generally go without even basic health care. And it may well be a place in which only those who can afford expensive private schools can give their children a decent education.
"But as Governor Riley of Alabama reminds us, that's a choice, not a necessity. The tax-cut crusade has created a situation in which something must give. But what gives -- whether we decide that the New Deal and the Great Society must go or that taxes aren't such a bad thing after all -- is up to us. The American people must decide what kind of a country we want to be."
It seems that tax cut advocates have convinced Americans that their taxes are too high so that American will accept a reduced government. The point of cutting taxes is to "starve the beast" or according to Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, ''I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.'' The point of reducing taxes is to create exactly the fiscal crisis that we are now facing in order to make it politically acceptable to reduce services.
But the benefits of tax cuts have not gone to the middle class. Any tax cuts for the middle class have been minimal and essentially a cover for radical cuts in taxes for the rich. The core of tax cutting plans have been cuts in dividend taxes, capital gains taxes, drastic reductions in tax rates on the highest incomes and repeal of estate taxes. The benefit of all of these tax cuts accrue disproportionally to the rich. According to this article, taxes were not cut for the middle class precisely in order to get the middle class angry that their taxes were too high. This way, the tax cut advocates could sell their plan of massive tax cuts for the rich by buying off the middle class with minimal tax cuts. So long as the middle class was getting something out of the deal, a tax cut package for the rich could sail through congress.
Essentially, "Tax Cuts" means "Cuts in Government Services." The question in the fiscal crisis we are now facing is whether we as middle class Americans want to cut services such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Police, Fire protection, and Schools or whether the minimal tax relief we receive is worth the loss of these services.
The conclusion of the New York Times article paints a frightening picture for middle-class Americans, especially those who are thinking about their retirement years or have already entered those years.
"If Grover Norquist is right -- and he has been right about a lot -- the coming crisis will allow conservatives to move the nation a long way back toward the kind of limited government we had before Franklin Roosevelt. Lack of revenue, he says, will make it possible for conservative politicians -- in the name of fiscal necessity -- to dismantle immensely popular government programs that would otherwise have been untouchable.
"In Norquist's vision, America a couple of decades from now will be a place in which elderly people make up a disproportionate share of the poor, as they did before Social Security. It will also be a country in which even middle-class elderly Americans are, in many cases, unable to afford expensive medical procedures or prescription drugs and in which poor Americans generally go without even basic health care. And it may well be a place in which only those who can afford expensive private schools can give their children a decent education.
"But as Governor Riley of Alabama reminds us, that's a choice, not a necessity. The tax-cut crusade has created a situation in which something must give. But what gives -- whether we decide that the New Deal and the Great Society must go or that taxes aren't such a bad thing after all -- is up to us. The American people must decide what kind of a country we want to be."
This editorial was in the New York Times today. I think it is a true assessment of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
"You cannot equate blowing up children on a bus with building on land someone else considers his. But you needn't do so to recognize that the one step Israel can and must take now is to freeze the construction of settlements and dismantle the newer settler outposts. This is the necessary course not only because the American-sponsored peace plan, or road map, requires it, and not only because such a move might drive the Palestinians to do something significant on their side, like arrest or disarm a few terrorists. Ending settlement in the occupied lands is central to the survival of the Jewish state." New York Times, Sept 12, 2003
The Bush administration has been pressuring the Palestinians to crack down on terror groups in Gaza and the West Bank, but where is the pressure on the Israelis? They have to do something to make cracking down on terror worthwhile for the moderates in the Palestinian government. The moderates are only now beginning to gain some leverage within Palestinian society.
Unfortunately, rather than making a gesture of conciliation, the Israelis have decided to exile Yassir Arafat. While Arafat might not win a political beauty contest in Palestine, promising to expel him from the West Bank would do exactly the opposite of what is needed. It would unite the moderates and radicals in Palestinian society behind Arafat and further delay any crackdown on terrorism within Palestinian society. In such a situation, the radicals will have the upper hand and the ascendancy of the moderates will be delayed.
"You cannot equate blowing up children on a bus with building on land someone else considers his. But you needn't do so to recognize that the one step Israel can and must take now is to freeze the construction of settlements and dismantle the newer settler outposts. This is the necessary course not only because the American-sponsored peace plan, or road map, requires it, and not only because such a move might drive the Palestinians to do something significant on their side, like arrest or disarm a few terrorists. Ending settlement in the occupied lands is central to the survival of the Jewish state." New York Times, Sept 12, 2003
The Bush administration has been pressuring the Palestinians to crack down on terror groups in Gaza and the West Bank, but where is the pressure on the Israelis? They have to do something to make cracking down on terror worthwhile for the moderates in the Palestinian government. The moderates are only now beginning to gain some leverage within Palestinian society.
Unfortunately, rather than making a gesture of conciliation, the Israelis have decided to exile Yassir Arafat. While Arafat might not win a political beauty contest in Palestine, promising to expel him from the West Bank would do exactly the opposite of what is needed. It would unite the moderates and radicals in Palestinian society behind Arafat and further delay any crackdown on terrorism within Palestinian society. In such a situation, the radicals will have the upper hand and the ascendancy of the moderates will be delayed.
Sunday, September 07, 2003
It appears the Saudi Embassy is working overtime in its P.R. department. There was an advertisement in The New Republic describing the various Actions and Arrests made by the Saudi Government since September 11. Most the actions and arrests were made this year since May 12, when al Qaeda set off a series of bombs in Riyadh. The advertisement claimed that 500 individuals with suspected ties to terrorism were arrested since September 11, 2001, but it doesn’t say when those arrests were made. I suspect that most were made since the May 12, 2003.
As much as this advertisement shows that the Saudis are very concerned with American public opinion towards their country, it shows that they have gotten serious about terrorism in the wake of their own bombing earlier this year.
Among the specific arrests and actions:
Yousif Salih Fahad Al-Ayeeri, aka Swift Sword, was killed on May 31. He was a major al Qaeda operational planner and fundraiser.
Ali Abdulrahman Said Alfagsi Al-Ghamdi, aka Abu Bakr Al-Azdi surrendered. He is a top al Qaeda agent in Saudi Arabia and is suspected of being behind the May 12 bombings in Riyadh.
Turki Nasser Mishaal Aldandany was killed on July 3 with three other suspects. He was another mastermind of the May 12 bombings.
16 members of terrorist cells in Riyadh, Qasim and the Eastern Provinces were arrested on July 21.
Three men were arrested at a checkpoint in Makkah on July 25 for possessing a “religious edict” in support of terrorist acts against Western targets.
Six terrorist suspects were killed and 4 arrested on July 28 in Qasim Province north of Riyadh. The six killed were Ahmed Nasser Abdullah Al-Dakheel, Karim Olayan Al-Ramthan Al-Faridi Al-Harbi, Saud Aamer Suleiman Al-Qurashi, Mohammad Ghazi Salim Al-Wafi Al-Harbi, Isa Kamal Yousuf Khater, and Isa Saleh Ali Ahmed. The four arrested were Abdullah Hilal Al-Harbi, Mohammad Hilal Al-Harbi, Dhaifallah Hilal Al-Harbi, and Abdul-Elah Hilal Al-Harbi.
Three clerics, Ali Fahd Al-Khudair, Ahmed Hamoud Mufreh Al-Khaledi and Nasir Ahmed Al-Fuhaid, were arrested after calling for support for the Riyadh bombers.
I am curious about two of these actions. Those are the arrest of the three men at the checkpoint on July 25 and the arrest of the three clerics. Were these people arrested for anything more than carrying radical papers and speaking out publicly in support of terrorists? Did they do anything other than exercise freedom of speech and freedom of the press? I don’t know the details of any of these cases, but while we press Saudi Arabia for more in the war on terrorism, we must also encourage them to respect the basic freedoms we claim to enjoy in the United States as well. Security is important, but so are basic human rights and freedom.
As much as this advertisement shows that the Saudis are very concerned with American public opinion towards their country, it shows that they have gotten serious about terrorism in the wake of their own bombing earlier this year.
Among the specific arrests and actions:
Yousif Salih Fahad Al-Ayeeri, aka Swift Sword, was killed on May 31. He was a major al Qaeda operational planner and fundraiser.
Ali Abdulrahman Said Alfagsi Al-Ghamdi, aka Abu Bakr Al-Azdi surrendered. He is a top al Qaeda agent in Saudi Arabia and is suspected of being behind the May 12 bombings in Riyadh.
Turki Nasser Mishaal Aldandany was killed on July 3 with three other suspects. He was another mastermind of the May 12 bombings.
16 members of terrorist cells in Riyadh, Qasim and the Eastern Provinces were arrested on July 21.
Three men were arrested at a checkpoint in Makkah on July 25 for possessing a “religious edict” in support of terrorist acts against Western targets.
Six terrorist suspects were killed and 4 arrested on July 28 in Qasim Province north of Riyadh. The six killed were Ahmed Nasser Abdullah Al-Dakheel, Karim Olayan Al-Ramthan Al-Faridi Al-Harbi, Saud Aamer Suleiman Al-Qurashi, Mohammad Ghazi Salim Al-Wafi Al-Harbi, Isa Kamal Yousuf Khater, and Isa Saleh Ali Ahmed. The four arrested were Abdullah Hilal Al-Harbi, Mohammad Hilal Al-Harbi, Dhaifallah Hilal Al-Harbi, and Abdul-Elah Hilal Al-Harbi.
Three clerics, Ali Fahd Al-Khudair, Ahmed Hamoud Mufreh Al-Khaledi and Nasir Ahmed Al-Fuhaid, were arrested after calling for support for the Riyadh bombers.
I am curious about two of these actions. Those are the arrest of the three men at the checkpoint on July 25 and the arrest of the three clerics. Were these people arrested for anything more than carrying radical papers and speaking out publicly in support of terrorists? Did they do anything other than exercise freedom of speech and freedom of the press? I don’t know the details of any of these cases, but while we press Saudi Arabia for more in the war on terrorism, we must also encourage them to respect the basic freedoms we claim to enjoy in the United States as well. Security is important, but so are basic human rights and freedom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)