Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Haiti: Intentions AND Results

Why has America been so robust in its response to the Haiti crisis? The official line is that we have a responsibility towards the Haitian community, both because Haiti is in our "sphere of influence" and because of the large Haitian-American population. Yet as expected there are a multitude of perspectives emerging from the usual corners.

Danny Glover was interviewed on Democracy Now, a far-left news service. Glover argued that Haiti was being militarized by America reflecting a trend that hearkens back to the turn of the 19th century. Glover offers the fact that the copious supplies provided by the international community are not being channeled by the Haitian authorities. On the other side of the spectrum are those who see domestic politics at play. Afghanistan and health care are off the front page and congress and the president are temporarily off the hook. Yet an obvious reason for American involvement has been completely ignored. With 30,000 undocumented alien Haitians about to be deported, the United States is keen on avoiding a massive influx of Haitians to these shores. Thus our efforts in restoring order and helping.

This selfish line of thinking may explain most of the international communities actions. The burgeoning economic power-house, China, donated a mere 1 million dollars. I mean China is still dealing with the repercussions of the Sichuan earthquakes and the international aid that came along with it! Saudi Arabia offered a heartfelt condolence. The EU provided over 420 million euro, and Israel as they did following disasters in Turkey, Indonesia, and China, activated their roving hightech field hospital.

Each nations actions can, in theory, be expalained in pragmatic terms. Thus Haiti is outside China's sphere of influence, plus Haiti doesn't have any natural resources. The last time Saudi Arabia, offered more then words the twin towers were smoldering, AND they were being blamed by some for the attack. The EU is dealing with colonial guilt and an, albeit, smaller immigrant concern. Israel IS attempting to offset a constant stream of negative publicity.

It is no surprise that nations respond pragmatically. The question is whether nations should be judged based on their intentions or their actions? Is America doing good or acting selfishly?

On that note when dealing with others should we judge an action by the results or the intention? In courts of law we distinguish between man-slaughter and premeditated murder, between intentions and results. On the other hand in international legal situations like the the Goldstone report on Gaza(see blog entree "understanding the Goldstone report")the international communities conclusions reflect the results.

On the face of it our society likes to apply a logic of appropriateness, i.e. a subjective choice with a logical explanation. Some times results are what count other times it is the intentions. Seeing as we are so good at rationalizing the most pernicious acts, this should come as no surprise. We do it with ourselves all the time.

Perhaps, in this case it is not intentions vs. results but rather intentions and results. The unprecedented unity displayed by the international community, may be the arbitrary convergence of a multitude of intentions yet the result is unprecedented international unity, an unexpected unifying factor, how did that happen? I don't know.

But my Haitin buddy is asking me right now whether this resulting unity will translate into a better Haiti? I don't know.

Monday, January 18, 2010

Turkey and Israel: Two perspectives (part 1)

They say it started in Davos when the Turkish prime minister Recyap Erdogan stormed off the public stage after he was prevented from continuing his criticism of Israel's operation cast lead. Others argue that it was the collapse of Syrian-Israeli peace talks spearheaded by Turkey. Turkey claims,that Israel's attack on Gaza led to the collapse of Syrian-Israeli negotiations. This was compounded by what many considered to be an insult, considering that Erdogan was not informed by Israel that they were about to respond to 3 years of mortar attacks from Gaza. Furthermore, Erdogan claims he was assured by the Israeli that no attack was forthcoming. But my Turkish friends tell me it is part of a larger regional strategy begun before Erdogan Islamic-leaning Justice and Development Party (AK) came to power.

So I decided to talk to some of my more informed Turkish friends to gain some perspective.
The following is a very rough transcript of our conversations.

Me: What is going on with Turkish Israeli relations?

Friend: You mean the TV shows?

Me: Yeah. Valley of the Wolves and that other one that came out a couple of months ago, their so stereotypical and fictitious.

Friend: It's not like the government sponsored these shows.

Me: Yeah but the government would never have allowed them to be shown two years ago.

Friend:I hear you it is unnecessary.

Me: Hey don't get me wrong I'm all for complete freedom, but this reflects a deeper shift in the Turkish-Israeli relationship.

Freind: Yeah, Turkey wants to redevelop its regional dominance. It's overtures to Iran,agreement with Armenia, softening of restrictions on the border with Syria, and meetings with Lebanon are all part of the same strategy pushing Erdogan to be so critical of Israel, both formally and informally, such as Turkish TV.

Me: That I understand, but does Turkey really want to give up its strategic partnership with Israel? After all Israel is constantly providing Turkey with military hardware and assistance. Remember the 2006 PPK conflict, Israel provided key intelligence to Turkey. Now Israel is selling 10 of the most advanced UAV's in the world to Turkey.

Friend: Still, many in Turkey remember when the Mossad was providing material support for the Kurds against Turkey.

Me: That's Israel. Yet I think they tried to make up for that by sending medical and search and rescue teams to Turkey after that earthquake.

Friend: That was important, but expected. Remember Turkey has a long history of protecting its Jewish minority.

Me: No question about it. Following the Christian expulsion of Jews from Spain in 1492 and the subsequent explosion from Portugal, Turkey accepted the Jews,and has treated them relatively well, for close to 5 centuries.

Me: The bottom line is that Erdogan has taken every opportunity to bash Israel. That "admonition" to Turkish students that "they should learn from Jews how to make money", and his public statement, to President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, that he didn't believe the ICC's (international criminal court) indictment to be true because, "Muslims cant commit genocide", are not helpful to regional dialogue.
Don't get me wrong Ayalon's treatment of the Turkish ambassador, placing him on a lower couch and admonishing him publicly, was plain stupidity.

Friend: Yeah what was that about?

Me: That was an immature explosion following months of passive aggressive behavior on the part of Israel. What Israel should have done was challenge Erdogan following specific instances of, what Israel deemed, abuse. Not wait and then act impulsively.

Friend: Agreed. Why can't Turkey, Israel, and Iran just establish a non-Arab alliance?

Me: Yeah right.

Friend: I know.

Me: Does Turkey see Israel as standing in their way of a Turkish dominated Middle East? If so Iran seems to be the bigger threat to that hegemony?

Friend: I think Turkey sees Iran as the other power broker in the Middle East. Besides, Turkey just completed a very successful summit with Russia. As Turkey moves away from their bid to join the EU it makes sense that they are reorienting towards
Russia, another quasi-ally of Iran.

Me: Yet Turkey is part of NATO, how does that jive with a Turkey-Russian-Iranian pact?

Thursday, January 7, 2010

The Politics of Semantics: Fences and Terrorism

In, "Ethics of our Fathers", the late first century scholar, Rabbi Akiba defines the word fence by the role it plays. For example, "a fence to wisdom is silence" or "a fence to wealth is charity". The word fence is used interchangeably with "protect" because a major role of fences is to protect.

A more recent example of semantic adeptness was displayed by the Obama administration. Thus the Fort Hood massacre was a "crime" and the recent Christmas attempt to blow up a plane was "terrorism". Yet, it would seem that the only real difference between the two cases is that the later was unsuccessful.
Is partial failure the only determining factor in whether the term terror is employed?
If so, does that mean that 9/11 wasn't a terrorist attack?

Alternatively, politics is the determining factor. In that case, one CAN be a politically viable candidate if a terror attack is unsuccessful, whereas one losses their chance at a 1012 election if the terrorist act is successful, in that case it becomes imperative, for the politician to make a distinction and label it a crime.

What is interesting here is that Rabbi Akiba used words to foster inclusiveness whereas the Obama administration, ostensiby, views words as an opportunity to exclude.

This difference could boil down to the subject at issue, which allows us to be more or less honest in our word usage. On the other hand it may reflect an outlook that is geared towards differentiation whether those differences are real or just a matter of semantics.

Is this condusive to unity?

Monday, January 4, 2010

Who is Jimmy Carter?

I have often wondered, who is Jimmy Carter? After all here is a man who has devoted his life to public service and private philanthropy. Jimmy Carter's name is synonymous with the "Camp David Accords", (peace between Egypt and Israel), Habitat for Humanity, Peace not Apartheid, and, and "his apology to the Jews".

On the face of it it would seem that Carter offers a coherent face, a personality that is both altruistic and honest.

Yet there is room for confusion.

1)"Camp David Accords": Dennis Ross and David Makovsky's book Myths, Illusions, and Peace: Finding a New Direction for America in the Middle East, seems to indicate that Carter was actually an obstacle to Egyptian-Israeli Peace, and almost derailed the process!

2) Habitat for Humanity: joined by Carter in 1984, Carter has been a major force in fundraising and advocating on the organizations behalf, but it was founded in the 70's

3) Peace not Apartheid: Carters magnus opus, if you will, but 14 individuals on the advisory board of the Carter Center resigned in response to a book replete, they say, with inaccuracies, and politically motivated wording. Think apartheid.
This last gaff, wasn't helped by Carters continues overtures to groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. Or his somewhat abstruse rational displayed in interviews with the likes of Charlie Rose.

4) "Apology to the Jews": Finally, we get to this inane apology by Carter to the Jews for his insensitivity? What? While his son is running for election!

Here there is room for interpretation: 1) Carter feels bad. 2) Carter is offering the greatest evidence of what he terms the insidious Israeli lobby "even I, the champion of the Palestinians, the man who called it what it is 'apartheid', even I have to bend". Could it be that Carter sees this as an ironic opportunity to affirm his beliefs?

I don't know, but I think its time someone ask "who is Jimmy Carter"?