Sarah Palin is still with us. "Us" is appropriate, insofar as any American presidential prospect must provoke concern here and elsewhere. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/06/AR2010020603264.html?nav=rss_email/components
"Concern" is a neutral word. My guess is that Israelis who applauded George W. Bush are warming their hands at the prospect of a Palin presidency.
I am less than enthusiastic, but I am not surprised at the support she has. Different sex, skin color, and politics than Barack Obama, but in other respects a clone. Just as Obama differed in color and politics from GWB, but was a clone in the same ways as Palin resembles him. Not too long ago, Jimmy Carter was in the same category.
Photogenic, articulate, demagogic, inexperienced, and naive about the postures that make them attractive candidates. Electable, but not likely to make the world or the United States better places.
Other democracies demand a long apprenticeship for their national leaders. Typically the ladder goes from local or regional office to the back bench of a party delegation in the national legislature, to a gradual climb through minor ministerial appointments to candidacy for party leadership.
Americans claim to admire democracy. Commentary about the president's health reform also features the assertion that Americans know what is good for them, in contrast with Europeans held slaves to their governments and high taxes. In the same cultural mix are assertions that political parties have too much power; that the right policies will come from good people who think primarily about the national interest.
This an American syndrome: parochial, promoted by people who know little about Europe, think that the more democracy the better, do not recognize the roles of strong parties in imposing discipline on would be demagogues, and think that low taxes are good indicators of personal freedom. I am amazed by what I read about the superiority of the United States, and conclude that the authors have not flown on a European airline, traveled on a European train, driven on a European road, made a serious comparison of European and American health care, elementary or secondary education, statistics for violent crime, or pondered the quality of political debate and living standards that make Europeans at least the equal of Americans on measures of personal freedom and opportunity.
By some measures the United States is the most democratic country on the planet. Most states allow the people to vote directly for important issues of public policy: whether the government can borrow money or increase taxes, as well as religious issues like same sex marriages and limits on abortion. Most state judges must stand for election, along with those who aspire to numerous offices that in other countries are filled by political party committees, or appointed by senior civil servants concerned with the professional backgrounds of the applicants.
The downsides of the American democracy are extremely low turnouts for almost all electoral contests below those for president, governor, and United States Senator, as well as low turnouts for those key offices when compared to turnouts in other democracies; and the simplification of referenda by people who create the issues, raise money for the campaign, define the wording that is initially the subject of petitions and later on the ballot.
Complexity of the population and procedures have saved the United States from catastrophe. The separation of powers designed by the framers still works to make it easier on those who want to kill a proposal than to pass a law. The consequence is a difficult in keeping up with international standards. Barack Obama's party has a majority in both Houses of Congress, but not enough of a majority in the Senate to overcome procedural features added over the years to the basic frustrations of legislation created by the separation of powers.
No one should try to make the United States like a Western European democracy. Histories and cultures are different, as are government structures and the rules (formal and informal) of politics. A campaign to insist on more experience for presidential candidates would be condemned as elitist. And if the likes of Jimmy Carter, GW Bush, Barack Obama, and Sarah Palin are any indication, such a campaign would also be un-American.
--
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Tel: +972-2-532-2725
Fax +972-2-582-9144
irashark@gmail.com
What's happening in the Middle East?
Nothing.
It doesn't look that way, with the White House trying one proposal after the other, and virtually every national leader of consequence suggesting how to produce the two state solution.
A bit below the surface, one can find good reasons why none of those directly concerned want anything serious to occur.
Israel does not want to move hundreds of thousands, or tens of thousands of Jews (the numbers depend on which settlements) who have lived where they are for up to 40 years, when no previous movements have brought parallel concessions or a halt in the violence. Israel is also wary of creating a Palestinian state that would be vulnerable to take over by Hamas or groups even more extreme, that would have access to simple rockets fashioned in their workshops and more powerful stuff supplied by Iran, Syria, Sudan, North Korea, or whatever government comes to the fore against western democracies.
For similar reasons, neither Jordan nor Egypt want a Palestinian state with access to serious armaments that could provoke radical ideas among their own Palestinians (a majority in Jordan) or Islamic extremists (problematic in both Jordan and Egypt). Likewise, Lebanese Christians and Sunni Muslims are nervous about what their Shiite neighbors might provoke, and concerned about the Palestinian residents of Lebanon (non-citizens since 1948) demanding rights or instigating action against Israel.
Syria speaks with an angry voice against Israel, but has a record of vicious actions against its own Muslim extremists that rivals what any government in the region has done.
None of the non-Shiite elites in the region have expressed warm endorsement of what might come from a refurbished Persian Empire.
What all the leaders of these countries want, more than anything else, is quiet at home.
One might also put the ostensible Palestinian leaders of the West Bank in the same camp. They are hanging on to office and perks with the help of Israeli, Jordanian, and American security personnel, and know the popular resentment that is seething under their feet. Any concessions necessary to entice Israel to an agreement could provoke enough resentment to topple them.
Hamas of Gaza also wants to keep hold of what they have. One notes their claim that they always aimed their rockets at military targets and apologize for Israel's civilian casualties. Nonsense, to be sure, but it may gain them a point in international forums stacked to support whatever they say.
The major outlier in this description of nothing-supporters is the Obama White House. It departed from the modest efforts of its predecessors to bring about change, and their more typical acceptance of the status quo between Israel and Palestinians. The loud efforts of Obama and crew might actually have nudged the participants to possible negotiations further apart from one another.
Europeans are inclined to follow the American lead, especially on issues that do not commit them to much. Recently they have joined the parade of visitors to Israel and Palestine saying in public what the Americans are saying in public.
Obama is naive but not stupid. He is admitting that he made some errors in his initial overtures with respect to Israel, Palestine, and their neighbors. One should not expect him to endorse the platform of nothing, but he may retreat quietly and focus on other issues. That will bring him close to what most of his predecessors did, most of the time.
The appeal of nothing may not last. There is no permanence in politics. But politics gravitates to what is easy, and usually avoids the risky and heroic. For the time being (which will last who knows how long), let's hear a cheer, or at least see a quiet nod, in favor of nothing. It works for us all.
--
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Tel: +972-2-532-2725
Fax +972-2-582-9144
irashark@gmail.com
In several of these notes I have described the United States as a laggard among wealthy democracies in its support of social services. Anti-tax individualism shows itself in one of the lowest indicators among this group of countries for government outlays as a percentage of national resources. President Obama's disappointment in health reform is only the most recent demonstration of a culture unfriendly to government programs. It is most apparent among Republicans, but it is far from absent among Democrats.
Now I am pleased to identify a significant departure from public sector stinginess. The American representative to the Palestine National Authority--Daniel Rubinstein--traveled to Bethlehem and announced another U.S. contribution, this time of $40 million, to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). According to the Palestine News Agency, "The United States is UNRWA's largest bilateral donor. In 2009, the United States provided over $267 million to UNRWA, including $116.2 million to its General Fund, $119.5 million to its West Bank/Gaza emergency programs, $30 million to emergency programs in Lebanon, and $2.2 million to assist other Palestinians in the region." Other Palestinians in the region are mostly those in Syria and Jordan. http://english.wafa.ps/?action=detail&id=13712
Yet another positive note in the story is the openness of the State Department to people with a name like Daniel Rubinstein. The 1940s was a long time ago.
Close to last in aid to its own citizens but first in aid to Palestinians is a mark of some distinction, but not clearly a positive mark. If any people demonstrate the folly of excessive public support it is Palestinians who have lived off their claim of being refugees through four generations and 60 years.
One can argue without end about the facts and the morality as the British Mandate for Palestine became Israel. Who did what, and who rejected what compromises are questions in the dustbin of history, along with who is responsible for African slavery, and which group may claim ownership over each part of North and South America, Europe, Asia, Africa and other places where migrations and bloody conquests began long before recorded history, and continued through much of the history that has been recorded. One can ponder the responsibility of Arab countries and the United Nations, along with Palestinians themselves and Israel for the maintenance of the refugee phenomenon. While individual Palestinians have left the camps and done well, UNRWA remains a vital part of Palestinian lives and international politics. Dependence is the name of the game, for the organization, the refugees, the politicians of Palestine and those of other countries who accuse only Israel of responsibility.
There is no better demonstration of the American mantra that aid breeds weakness, and cuts off individual initiative before it can develop.
The paralysis of initiative appears in politicians' efforts to deal with the dispute, as well as the help me lethargy in the neighborhoods still called refugee camps. Palestinian leaders have learned only the language of demand and expectation. It is for Israel to make concessions, and for other countries to pressure Israel. The Palestinian narrative--supported by numerous others--is that Israel has a monopoly of blame and Palestine a monopoly of justice. Nothing offered to the Palestinians has ever been enough, and we are hard pressed to cite a concession Palestinian officials have offered to Israelis in their numerous meetings.
On the same day that I read about the latest American government donation to UNRWA I received an article from a professional journal reflecting the toughness of some Americans toward their own people. The subject is the cost of emergency service for
"Individuals who Necessitate Their Own Rescue." That is, people who through carelessness or ignorance get themselves into situations where it is dangerous and expensive to extract them. The article ponders the legal, moral, and administrative issues involved. It notes that there are states and localities that may charge for rescue, but "Charge-for-rescue policies are a bad idea." http://www.bepress.com/jhsem/vol7/iss1/2/?sending=10901
Israelis are familiar with the problem. Most common are overseas tourists and ultra-Orthodox youths who wander unprepared into the desert, go off the marked trails, fall into ravines, or suffer from dehydration. On our hikes we have encountered well dressed women trying to clamber down rocky slopes in high heels, and young men dressed for the study hall, without water bottles and obviously uncomfortable in the sun. During each season of flash floods there are people who try to drive through torrents that cover desert roads and must be rescued. Sending a military helicopter to such cases, or picking a lost hiker from a ravine costs the IDF thousands of dollars per hour. Politicians have raised the question of demanding payment from the careless, but none has dealt with the administrative problems or the opposition.
I recall stories from the United States of fire brigades that depend on subscriptions, refusing to fight a fire destroying the home of an owner who has not paid the dues. Should a helicopter crew refuse to pluck a survivor who cannot pay on the spot, has no receipt from rescue insurance, or left the credit card at home? Perhaps Americans can be more creative and persistent than Israelis in solving the problem.
If the person in distress could claim Palestinian status, the payment might come out of the next United States allocation to UNRWA. And will non-Palestinian welfare families be far behind?
--
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Tel: +972-2-532-2725
Fax +972-2-582-9144
irashark@gmail.com
A report by Israel's Ministry of Health sheds light on the working of a mixed public-private health system that has considerable popular support, along with continued conflicts over how much and who should pay. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1147185.html
The average Israeli family spends NIS 633/month (about US $170) on health care. Of that NIS 169/month is for the supplemental insurance offered by the HMOs. Other private expenditures are for dental care, eyeglasses, and medicines not covered by the HMOs.
The report also shows that the rich pay more. The wealthiest 20 percent of families spend NIS 1,111/month compared to the poorest 20 percent NIS 306/month.
Not included in the average NIS 633 monthly outlay is the cost of the basic service. That comes from a health tax that is progressive. The working rich pay more. Retirees get a great deal no matter what their resources. They are also likely to be heavy users of health care.
As upper-income professionals we paid about NIS 2,000/month (US $500) for the health tax. As pensioners, we pay NIS 400/month.
Israel is not a socialist paradise where everyone gets the same. It is, however, a system that provides coverage to everyone, and where 80 percent of the population is able to pay the equivalent of US $45/month for the government regulated supplemental insurance that produces shorter waiting times for specialists and surgury, more choice of physicians, and greater discounts on medications. Everyone has free access to family physicians, a co-pay for a visit to a specialist is about US $4, sophisticated tests like MRI cost the same, and one's family physician can arrange quick access to a specialist or tests when appropriate. The outlays of this aged family for additional insurances to cover items like access to overseas treatments for conditions not treatable in Israel, medications not covered by the HMOs, and assisted living amount to about US $ 240/month.
There are annual disputes about the medications and treatments to be added to the basic coverage. There are demonstrations by patients, often organized by drug companies, claiming that stingy bureaucrats are denying them medication that will save their lives. Explanations from professionals are that arguments are about new and expensive medications that might prolong the lives of some of the people who take them. A recent controversy dealt with the efforts of the ultra-Orthodox chair of the Knesset Finance Committee to have HMOs provide dental care for children. Opponents claimed that he would be financing large families at the expense of Israelis who would be denied new medications.
My reading and conversations indicate that this outline of Israel's health system resembles those in most European countries. The essentials are extensive coverage for everyone, with added coverage for people who pay for additional insurance, or go outside of the system when they choose. As on many other social indicators, the wealthy do better than the poor, the intelligent choose more wisely than others, and those living far from medical centers find it more difficult to reach specialists.
Any chance that American politicians will support reforms to bring their country into line with other upper income democracies?
An analyst should never say never, but . . .
Standing in the way is the intensity of opposition to government control, apparent in the fierce opposition to Obama's proposal. Somewhere in that opposition were insurance companies, hospitals, and HMOs looking after their interests. Also complicating the picture were complex proposals not readily understood that pushed the hot buttons of abortion, fertility, and government rationing, which the nay-sayers painted as more threatening than existing rationing by insurance companies.
It does not help that health reform comes at a time of massive deficits traced to wars and an economic crisis. Without wrenching cost controls that may be beyond the capacity of the White House and Congress, government outlays for health would increase, and some individuals would pay more for what they receive. Those are tough sells in a culture more committed than those in other western countries to individual choice and low taxes.
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Tel: +972-2-532-2725
Fax +972-2-582-9144
irashark@gmail.com
Money, money everywhere, but not enough. That's the message from the massive deficit already apparent and projected for the United States. It comes from too many wars, too many tax cuts, too many entitlement programs, and too much exploitation by highly paid capitalists who forced the government into unprecedented bail-outs. Who's to blame is problematic. Any quest for responsibility will produce a political dog fight that worsens the chances of getting cooperation to deal with it.
A newspaper headline captures the strategic threat, "Huge Deficits May Alter U.S. Politics and Global Power." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/us/politics/02deficit.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
At stake is the war on terror, health reform, tax and spending leverages to increase employment, along with prosaic domestic programs that are suffering on account of financial problems among states and localities. There is also a prospect of Chinese influence on American policy due to government bonds they have acquired from selling consumer and industrial goods to Americans, Europeans and others. The same changes in international commerce have also brought about the closing of factories throughout countries where shopping is a favored pastime.
It is too early to write finish to the power of North America and Europe. The Chinese cannot unload their bonds without reducing their value, and hurting themselves along with the United States. America and Europe are wealthy, and may be wise enough to avoid disaster. Yet signs of trouble include the interruption of medical evacuations from Haiti to the United States due to arguments as to which institutions would pay for treatment, and the president's comments that the country could not afford an endless war in Afghanistan, a country his experts warned was unrepairable.
The dismay over deficits may be more important for the prospect of health reform than the loss of a Massachusetts Senate seat. The country with the best medical facilities in the world may continue to have them unavailable to much of its population. Large numbers will get only emergency treatment in public hospitals, and others who think they have paid for decent care will suffer the stinginess of insurance companies.
While avoiding the temptation of indicating which president or which bloc of Congress has contributed what portion to the deficit, it is useful to identify some traits of the United States that contribute to its problem.
The financial problems of the United States (national, state, and local governments) suffer from taxes that are lower than those of other western democracies, as well as from the costs of its overseas commitments. Americans concerned to deal with their deficits should not focus on their domestic programs, which generally are less generous than those of other democracies.
Wealth may be the single most important factor responsible for American prominence in international conflicts. Resources per capita in the United States are lower than in Luxembourg, Norway, Switzerland, Ireland, Denmark, Iceland, The Netherlands, and Sweden, suggesting that the average individual in those countries is better off than the average American. However, the America population is larger, and the overall wealth of the United States is greater than those countries. This gives the American government leverage not possessed by others. Military power derives from the total wealth of the United States, as well as its being the greatest surviving western power at the end of World War II, and then one of the two major players in the Cold War.
Being the lone superpower left standing in 1990 invited endless appeals for assistance, and made the United States the most attractive target for those who take aim at capitalism, individualism, rich, and non-Muslim. The World Trade Center fell as a result of the second attack on the icon of all that was viewed to be evil. The Gulf War of 1991 was a prelude to major military investments, largely American, in the area from Iraq eastward and southward. Iran's animosity to the United States dates from intense opposition to the friends of the Shah, the hostage taking of 1979-81, and does not seem to be diminishing under the Obama effort at engagement.
The prominence of the United States, as opposed to that of Britain, France, Germany, or Russia in international politics is not only a product of wealth and military power. The structure of American government also has made its contribution to the role the country has chosen for itself. The separation of power, and the competition between Congress and the presidency adds to the heroic defense of national values not so apparent in the parliamentary regimes of Europe. The unity between executive and legislature may facilitate the willingness to accommodate hostile forces, most apparent in going along with Muslim and Third World demands in the United Nations, or abstaining alongside American nays.
Somewhere in the American mix is the power of the Jewish lobby. One must be careful of exaggerating. It is far from dominant. Insofar as Israel is often a target of Muslim and other Third World countries, however, Jewish influence in Congress and the White House is among the factors responsible for United States vetoes in the Security Council, and votes against resolutions in the General Assembly and other UN organs where European governments are generally not as outspoken.
While on the subject of Jews, it is appropriate to continue with the advantages of a country that is beleaguered, but also small and limited in its responsibilities. Israel devotes three or four times the percentage of its resources to security as the United States, and has suffered perhaps 10 times the casualties on a proportional basis since World War II, but it has advantages that the American giant can envy. While American troops fight from bases on every continent but Australia and Antartica, Israel's military operations are restricted to a couple of hundred miles from the center of its country, plus the occasional operation further afield. The cultures and languages of America's enemies are beyond the ken of its intelligence capabilities, while Israel has operated throughout its history with agents in places not so foreign to those who direct and analyze the gathering of intelligence. Israel can get credit for the quick dispatch of a few well trained people, with appropriate equipment to Haiti and other disaster areas. The United States starts slower, but does the heavy lifting of prolonged care and the refurbishing of infrastructure. Israel's airport and national airline led the world in security, but they deal with a smaller number of flights than those at a sizable American or European airport, and need not bother with inflated demands to treat every passenger as posing the same risk. Israeli security personnel pay less attention to aged Jews than to young Arabs.
--
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Tel: +972-2-532-2725
Fax +972-2-582-9144
irashark@gmail.com
The front page headline of Ha'aretz is that Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, about to visit Israel, comes with a recommendation that giving up the Golan would add to Israel's status in international politics.
Italy is a great place to visit. The food and wine are first class, the clothes and shoes well made and attractively displayed, and it is a comfortable place to enjoy scenery, historical landmarks, and cultural variety. The Roman Catholic Church has made the Papacy multicultural, and friendly to Jews. The country has come a long way since World War II, but as arbitrator for Israel's problems, it is in a huge crowd of semi-informed meddlers.
The secondary headline in Ha'aretz notes that Berlusconi is up to his neck in corruption and sex scandals, and implies that he would be wise to keep his own finances orderly and his trousers fastened.
More than other unresolved disputes, Israel's attracts the curious and creative. The attention comes partly from Muslim countries' adoption of the Palestinian cause going back to the 1930s. For these participants, it is a way to excite their own locals to demand justice for fellow Muslims, and to distract them from local shortcomings. Islamic theology and its history of conquest is part of the mix. Israel is only one of the targets. Some of the faithful would return Spain to Muslim control, and extend their rule to Britain, Switzerland, and other places where they have migrated.
Israel has been an issue for the United Nations from its birth, and together with the still-born Palestine is on the organization's agenda more than places with greater poverty, ill health, and other miseries.
Religion adds to the prominence of Israel and Palestine. The Biblical prophets wandered on the Judean landscape I see from my window. Jesus was born and died within six miles from these fingers, Muslims believe that Mohammed ascended to heaven from a rock only two miles from here, which is that same place that Jews claim Abraham prepared to sacrifice Isaac, and a key location in ancient Temples.
Israel required outside help at several stages in its history. The pantheon of those who provided diplomatic recognition and aid with financial, food, and military needs has featured the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, France, Britain, Germany, and the United States. The United States has been the most prominent source of support, and occasionally the only source since Richard Nixon took on the role of Israel's patron. American presidents, secretaries of state, and special advisers have been the most intense providers of solutions since then.
Has any outside resolution, suggestion, urging, and pressure helped Israel solve its problems with Palestinians or other Arabs?
Most impressive was Jimmy Carter, not currently among Israel's warmest friends. His presence and prodding at Camp David may have been what was necessary to bring Israelis and Egyptians to consummate their ground breaking peace agreement. Representatives of the two countries had done most of the work prior to Camp David, and Henry Kissinger may deserve as much credit as Carter on account of what he did during and after the 1973 war, but the pieces may not have come together without Carter.
The most recent and continuing efforts of other American presidents have paled in contrast. Bill Clinton may claim some of the credit for the Israeli-Jordan peace treaty, but that was largely in place and represented by the unsecret visits between Israeli and Jordan leaders going back to the 1940s, which continued despite bouts of serious fighting.
America's recent contributions to Israel's dealings with Palestinians and other Arabs have been closer to the accomplishments we can expect from Prime Minister Berlusconi's visit than to Jimmy Carter's work at Camp David. Good intentions without doubt. Financial aid always welcome, and more free of corrupt siphoning off in the case of Israel than in the case of Palestine. The status of the United States in the world assures that its advice gets a serious hearing, and some kind of positive response. President Obama's calls for a total freeze of settlement building, including the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, is the best recent example of a polite hearing following by partial compliance and partial refusal. The same initiative illustrates how outsiders complicate the prospects for peace, and might actually push Israelis and Palestinians further apart. Obama brought the Palestinians to harden their demands, caused Israeli settlers to escalate their building plans, and added to the feelings among Israelis as well as Palestinians that the American administration was hostile and naive.
The countless resolutions coming out of the United Nations and its various commissions may demonstrate the strength of Muslim votes in those councils, but have not moved Palestine closer to statehood or done much to improve the life of Palestinians. The Goldstone report is the latest effort doomed from the start by one-sided commitments and only the most superficial gestures at balance.
UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency provides food, education, housing, and other assistance to Palestinians claiming refugee status in the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and elsewhere. It has don at least as much harm as good to the Palestinians' national cause by inducing their dependence on others.
Mahmoud Abbas, like Yassir Arafat before him, is assured a welcome, hand shake, smile, and photo op with many heads of state, at least on those occasions when Palestinian comments or operations have not proved embarrassing. The public does not know what is said--if anything--in the private meetings between Palestinian, Arab, European, American, African, or other dignitaries. Whatever it is has not been helpful in any dramatic sense.
The bottom line is that Palestine is still where it has been for a long while, and Gaza noticeably worse. Israel is no longer an impoverished and weak supplicant. It remains a laggard with respect to the richest countries on a number of economic and social indicators, but it does well on those which measure health, higher education, technology, and the quality of its security forces.
Prime Minister Berlusconi will come and go without moving the Golan Heights from Israel to Syria. Today the flags of Italy are on the lamp posts of Jerusalem. Next week it will be those of some other country, and the week after yet another set of flags. Until the Palestinians can solve their own disputes, and think beyond the dogma promoted by religious and political extremists, those expecting inspiration would be advised to look at the first verse of Ecclesiastes rather than the comments of important visitors. Among other things, it counsels,
What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Tel: +972-2-532-2725
Fax +972-2-582-9144
irashark@gmail.com
Here is something that President Obama and his advisers should consider before spending any more of their time nudging Israeli and Palestinian leaders to negotiate a peace.
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=167194
The details are not entirely clear, but reinforce the larger story of corruption in high places of the Palestine Authority, the lack of popular confidence in the Authority among Palestinians, and the likelihood that Hamas would take over the West Bank if Mahmoud Abbas and his people were not propped up by Israel, Jordan, and the United States.
The article resembles what I heard from a lecturer at a Palestinian university who visited me at the Hebrew University. The lecturer's biography featured numerous consulting activities with Palestinian companies and public authorities that had been financed by European and North American governments. When I probed the details and asked if any of the consulting had produced improvements in administration, the answer was negative. My visitor confirmed my impression that a great deal of foreign aid given to Palestine does nothing but provide employment for a few Palestinians. The article in the Jerusalem Post indicates that a fair amount of the aid ends up in the overseas bank accounts of Palestinian officials. It is more public relations for the donors than anything that helps to develop the Authority. "Is the Authority a serious entity?" I asked my visitor. The answer again was negative.
Other news includes revelations from ranking Palestinians of what they claim Ehud Olmert offered close to the end of his service as prime minister, and what the Palestinians rejected. The acceptance of one thousand refugees from 1948 was not enough to justify a response. Neither was what Olmert offered with respect to transferring neighborhoods of Jerusalem to Palestine, and other territorial swaps. The Palestinians were not willing to accept Israel's control of Maale Adumim, a suburb of Jerusalem where 30,000 Jews have made their homes.
We cannot be sure about the above details, insofar as disinformation is as much a part of Israel-Palestine relationships as it is of other political feelers that may be preparing the road for serious negotiations, or preparing the way to avoid negotiations. However, they fit the image of an Authority that is more comic opera, or Greek tragedy, than serious entity.
The best guess is that Palestinians are willing to turn the clock back to 1967, 1948, or 1947--depending on who is talking--but not to engage in their share of concessions in order to end the dispute.
So what should Israel do? And what should be the posture of the Obama administration?
Nothing is the answer appropriate to both questions.
The Palestinian leadership--whether the corrupt figures who claim to be in charge of the West bank or the religious fanatics in Gaza--are not appropriate managers of a state alongside Israel. They may continue to manage what they have, but Israelis do not want them to acquire the authority to import arms and formulate international agreements appropriate to a state.
Doing nothing appears to be the policy of the current Israeli government, learned from the frustrations of negotiations in 2000 and 2008. Israelis do offer lip service about their willingness to negotiate, and to make certain concessions, as befits a supplicant of the United States. Israelis might be gaining a point or two among friendly audiences from the hardening of Palestinian demands as conditions for beginning negotiations.
Insofar as Obama is Obama, we can expect a continuation of efforts, tweaking this way and that, in the hope that something will produce flexibility from Israeli and/or Palestinian leaders. Think of Obama as Sisyphus, and the prospect of getting that rock to the top of the hill.
As far as Israel is concerned, the stand-off is harmless. It is as secure as it has ever been. Iran looms, but no matter what the Iranians claim as their concern for Palestine, their nuclear efforts are beyond the parameters of Israel's dispute with Palestinians. The stand-off is also harmless for most Palestinians of the West Bank. As long as extremists remain quiet, or neutralized, economic development can continue. Gaza is something else, but the people voted for Hamas and many cheered the rockets being sent toward Israel. Neither the German negotiator concerned with Gilad Shalit nor Egyptians concerned to resolve the disputes between Hamas and Fatah have produced any flexibility that is apparent. Egypt is concerned with the spread of Hamas' enthusiasm to its own extremists, and is constructing barriers meant to frustrate smuggling of arms and other material into Gaza.
We remain with the problem of Barack Obama's itch for achievement, and for that there is no solution on the horizon.
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Tel: +972-2-532-2725
Fax +972-2-582-9144
irashark@gmail.com
President Obama's State of the Union address dealt almost entirely with domestic issues, despite American troops active in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and now Yemen, as well as highly touted efforts with respect to Israel-Palestine and Iran. Also, the focus was heavily on the economy, and lightly on what had been his iconic health initiative. The style was vintage Obama, if the term vintage can be used for an individual with less than three years in the Senate and one year in the White House. The president was self-confident, but with enough modesty to preserve the image of the neighborhood friend who plays basketball.
Indicative of a familiar Obama is his selection of three high profile targets: bank reform, budget cutting, and unemployment. One can hope that he will do better than he did with the challenging issues of his first year, but each will be difficult.
As a policy wonk the president knows the problems and the substance of likely solutions, but he is less than savvy about political obstacles. While banks may need a stronger hand on the regulatory tiller, they can make a case that responsibility for economic crisis was as much that of policymakers enamored of home ownership as of finance companies (many of them not banks) that responded to incentives. The health industry unleashed a fire storm of hysteria about excess government regulation, and the banks might be able to do something similar. Instead of bashing the thought of rationing health care, there will be bashing the government's rationing of mortgages and small business loans.
Budget cutting as a political strategy has been around for a long time, along with the defense mechanisms of bureaucrats and clients. The most that is usually obtainable is slowing the growth of domestic budgets, rather than actually cutting into the money that supports established activities. The president may trim the budget he requests, but the final score will only be apparent after Congress has finished its initial work, and then supplemental appropriations.
If the president does succeed in reducing government spending on domestic programs, it will not be easy to increase employment. Unless, perhaps, he can enact a series of measures to induce investments by lowering taxes on high income households and corporations. But that will not help with the deficit, and might provoke opposition from a Congress that wants to preserve the Democratic ethos.
The basic problem of a liberal Democrat like Obama is that Americans are not liberal. An article in a professional journal of political science begins with a cogent statement of the problem.
"Put simply, here is the conundrum of the modern American state: It is expected to solve or prevent a great variety of problems - from toxic microorganisms in fast-food hamburgers to homeland defense - all against a backdrop of citizens who do not believe that leaders in Washington can walk and chew gum at the same time." http://www.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1342&context=forum
Anyone doubting this should think more about the opposition to improving health insurance. It provides a caricature of American politics. A president trying to move one of the richest countries in the world with miserable health indicators toward every other western democracy had his prime issue hooted off the stage and nearly out of his State of the Union address.
It is not only in health where the United States is a laggard. On three measures of the size of government in relation to the economy (expenditures, revenues, and taxes) compiled by the World Bank, it scores
25th, 26th, and 28th among 28 of the richest democracies.
One might applaud the president's efforts to speak life into an Israel-Palestine peace process that died ten years ago, and to engage with countries his predecessor defined as evil. His supporters may blame others for the lack of movement, but the simple view is that the president's savvy in foreign politics is no better than in domestic politics.
President Obama won election with a dramatic campaign, but it was made easier by his opponent's selection of a running mate. The world that depends on American leadership is still waiting to see if he knows how to govern.
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Tel: +972-2-532-2725
Fax +972-2-582-9144
irashark@gmail.com
One of my internet friends objects to my calling Europe the enlightened continent.
"What in the blazes are you talking about.? Europe, the hot-bed of modern antisemitism...enlightened? The Netherlands with a de facto, maybe de jure euthanasia policy! France being so overrun with rebellious Muslims that there are scores of areas throughout the country that are goverened by Shariah! Britain is verging on the same disasterous policy...de facto, or de jure
"The 'enlightened continent' and their American running dogs have finally shown their true intentions: give Iran enough breathing room through years of meaningless and unproductive sanctions and treatened sanctions that they are now within spitting distance of nearing the "break-out" point for weapons grade nuclear weapons material."
There are problems, both within Europe and in the actions--or lack of actions--that European governments are willing to take toward others. Yet a superficial look at history justifies the most positive of adjectives.
Until 1945, warfare, rigid class lines, and limited personal opportunities were the prominent traits of Europe. Thanks largely to the United States, but with no little help from Britain and the Soviet Union, the worst ended for Western Europe. The results were a gradual emergence of the European Community, the refurbishing of German universities that had dropped from the peak to the bottom of intellectual prestige during the Nazi period, the opening of new universities throughout Western Europe, the lowering of class barriers, as well as a single currency, free migration, and decent social policies throughout much of the continent.
Bargaining and vote trading, rather than saber rattling is now the medium of exchange among governments. The institutions of the Community are no more perfect than the United States Congress, and European bureaucrats are not clearly better or worse than those of the United States or the individual European governments. Individuals and organizations complain and mobilize their forces, but the language is politics rather than war.
Sections of European cities have been made unpleasant by migrations from Muslim countries and other places where limited opportunities provide the push that used to send migrants from Western Europe to North and South America. Currently nine Western European countries score higher than the United States on a widely used measure of economic well being, and all countries of Western Europe score as more egalitarian than the United States. There are also European advantages in lower rates of violent crime and longer life expectancy, as well as more effective ways of providing medical care.
The United States remains attractive. The flow of migrants from Latin America, as well as from Africa and Muslim countries testifies to that, with social problems similar to those in Western Europe, as well as the benefits of many hands to do the dirty work that "natives" (whoever they are) do not want for themselves..
Has Europe's anathema to conflict gotten in the way of appropriate efforts to save the world from evil? It is Russia and China, rather than Western European governments, that have most clearly dragged their feet on sanctions against Iran. France and other European governments opposed the Bush invasion of Iraq, on the ground that sanctions had limited Saddam's aggressive capacities. Remember the American response, which included the renaming of "French fries?"
Insofar as several years of assiduous looking turned up no stocks of weapons of mass destruction, one can say that the Europeans were wiser than Americans with respect to Iraq. And the same Europeans have been less than supportive of Bush and now Obama in their efforts to occupy and reform Afghanistan. Until Iraq and Afghanistan (as well as Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia) turn a corner toward stability and democracy, one should be chary of concluding that the Americans were right and the Europeans wrong.
What to do?
It would be great to ratchet down the excess patriotism, and to add a bit of modesty to the anyone's aspirations for leadership. The world is complex, with both evil and poverty. Neither Europeans nor Americans have the key to Paradise. Israelis are fated to maneuver between demands coming from powers greater than themselves. They are strong enough to respond in part, and to obfuscate where necessary.
So where are the most enlightened? I know of no summary measure. Neither do I know a cure for those who insist that it is them.
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Tel: +972-2-532-2725
Fax +972-2-582-9144
irashark@gmail.com
For those who are not sure that the devil is in the details, here's an example. An insurance company and hospitals are arguing about an administrative procedure. It has reached the point where one state legislature has enacted a law about the clerical details to be allowed in its jurisdiction, patients are being warned that they may have to change physicians, and there is a court case that could affect one million people who think they have health insurance. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/health/policy/25insure.html?hp=&pagewanted=all
Meanwhile, Congress is marking time while the administration ponders a strategy appropriate to the loss of that Massachusetts Senate seat. The proposals on the table amount to more than two thousand pages of patchworks that will add to the efforts of insurance companies and HMOs to find opportunity in the muddle. We all may hope that some patients will be better off, but no one should bet a lot of money on the prospect. Those who guess about such things are saying that the administration will have to reduce the number of people to be newly insured in order to get some Republican cooperation. What is happening in that squabble between the insurance company and hospitals provides ample indication that insurance companies will be looking after themselves while they say they are looking after patients.
The economic concerns of insurance companies should come as no surprise. That's capitalism, and they are in business to make a profit. That they pursue profit via a concern for what they are willing to pay for medical services, and check thoroughly to be sure that each patient does not get more service than appropriate (by their criteria) means considerable outlays for administration.
They also spend a great deal on public relations, most recently to attack the president's proposals on the grounds that it would make government a rationer of health care.
For those having trouble seeing the irony, you are on the wrong page.
The greater irony is that many Americans--enough to frustrate the president--share a fear of big government. Some of my correspondents have written about the threat of being governed like European countries as if they have not absorbed anything about that enlightened continent since the descriptions of Germany in the 1930s.
My bet is that none of them has experienced serious medical treatment that is paper free for patients. Not money free, but with fees and co-pays deducted from salaries or bank accounts, with the care providers and institutions that pay them sorting out the transfers. It helps that the rules are hammered out between the peak associations of care givers, insurance companies, and government departments. The process is not without demonstrations by groups of patients with special needs, complaints and criticisms prominent in the media. But with the ultimate decisions made by elected officials and senior bureaucrats, the process is more open to scrutiny, and arguably more fair than when decisions are taken by insurance companies concerned with their profits, and those who object must complain to their families, and seek the attention of someone who might help. Systems that suffer the label of "socialist" are simpler for patients to understand than when hundreds of HMOs and insurance companies define their own rules about coverage, co-pays, and how patients must seek care, and decide how to apply those rules to individual cases.
For those who sing the song of free enterprise, may you enjoy the paper work. You have my wishes for good luck next time it is necessary to dial an 800 number. Those of us with the benefits of health care dominated by government will get by with a plastic card that does the work for us.
And remember that residents in the bastion of free enterprise and individual freedom rank 48th on life expectancy.
--
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Tel: +972-2-532-2725
Fax +972-2-582-9144
irashark@gmail.com
