Japan Catastrophy: What Else Should the West do About it?

A lot is going on that seems to undermine the West and its interests. The rise of China, the near-collapse of Capitalism, the loss of key allies in the Middle east, and now the near devastation of the last power standing between us and China. So I think It's time to reunite with old-Europe- France, the UK, and (even) Germany.

Two nuclear reactors are in near melt-down, whole towns were wiped off the map, and 10,000+ are dead. The unprecedented (8.9 on the Richter scale)earthquake that struck Japan, is being called the largest catastrophe that has struck Japan since WWII.

Beyond the devastation experienced by Japan, for which the West continues to respond generously, this catastrophe has extraordinary implications for America's strategic position in the Pacific. Yes, everyone has accepted that America’s place in that region is experiencing a steady decline. But the earthquake may accelerate that process. This is not to say that China will launch some premeditated action (China is very cautious and has a track record of non-interference) but rather it brings us that much closer to the point in which China will go on the offensive.

So, as in the past, we need to unite with our cross-Atlantic ideological brothers. The great alliances of the first half of the 20th century should be refurbished and a new and more powerful NATO formulated. While it will necessitate that Germany be included and that France and the UK increase their respective defense-budgets in a time of general austerity, it will not be used to make war, but to prevent it.

An emerging China and other states aligned with its goals- like Iran, Turkey, and Venezuela-should be made aware that the West is willing to support equitable distribution but will not capitulate. A united West can, and would, offer a mutual protective shield. Belligerent states -both passive and overt- respect the cumulative force of a a Dollar/Euro/Yen, and will hesitate going to war.
They -Iran, China, Venezuela, and North Korea etc.- have to be made aware that we will not budge one inequitable inch: Afghanistan and Iraq were, and are, only warning salvos for those that will resort to violence in their efforts to challenge America and the West.

Columbia University is a Voice for Disoriented Ethics and Irrational Activism

This New York Post article
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/hero_unwelcome_Zi3u1fwtRpo87vXAiAQfSN

leads me to ask:

Is it any surprise that a University that embraces “apartheid week” and hosts the likes of Ahmadinejad would also be a place where wounded veterans are jeered for sharing their opinion? Why should a man who served his country be called a racist for voicing his opinion at a forum expressly established to discuss whether the army should be allowed to recruit on Columbia’s campus? Did the veteran make the choice to accept faulty intelligence from a disaffected Iraqi –is it his fault we went to war? Does he spend his every waking hour recruiting, mostly, ignorant students to malign, libel, and demonize Israel and the American-right? Is he on record calling for the genocide of an entire nation?!

Following America’s shameful treatment of Vietnam War veterans (who also fought in a war that was imposed on them) our society was supposed to have repented. America’s abysmal treatment of its veterans prompted our government to pass an array of popular legislation aimed at ensuring that our soldiers and veterans would receive the respect and dignified assistance they deserved. Why than do ostensibly educated students –the cream of the crop- find it tolerable, if not commendable, to label our hero’s “racist”. Why do like-minded students, like the ones in this story, find it acceptable to prevent Ann Coulter, Michael Oran, and veterans from sharing their opinions, but are the first to support the proliferation of Ahmadinejad’s’ genocidal rants. Is this liberalism? How did the liberal cause become one half of the unholy alliance between "absolute freedom" Liberals and sharia-imposing Muslim extremists?

Columbia University may be an Ivy League school and an institution that I considered applying to, but it is also a collective voice for disoriented ethics and irrational activism.

Intermarriage, Divorce, and the "Great Jewish-American Wealth Transfer"

The deluge of divorce and intermarriage sweeping across the Jewish-American landscape has and will continue to impact the Jewish-American community in unforeseen ways.

No, I am not referring solely to the loss of half of our children to marriages where Jewish values, culture, and history are not passed on. Nor do I refer merely to the drop in numbers of Jewish children born due to the accelerating epidemic of single life propagated by the likes of Huffingtonpost.com. Instead I am referring to the transfer of wealth from the hands of hard working and entrepreneurial Americans who identify themselves as Jews, to the hands of others who do not.

The real consequences of this trend are already being felt. In a recent survey of the most philanthropic in America, Jews, unsurprisingly, held five of the top six spots, and there were 19 Jews amongst the top 53
(http://www.jewishjournal.org/story/news_features/survey_finds_jews_are_top_givers_in_the_u.s/). Yet most of their charity was directed at non-Jewish causes. This is, in itself, not a bad thing. After all, Jews have always contributed to larger society and such contributions are considered central to Torah-true living. On the other hand, the upkeep of Jewish institutions is a prerequisite to maintaining Jewish tradition and heritage. Day schools, hospitals, museums, houses of prayer, political action , kosher food, mikvahs (ritual baths), soup kitchens, medical assistance etc. are all expensive enterprises that have historically been considered the collective responsibility of every Jew, each according to their means (Jews are required to give 10 percent of their earning to charity, on top of taxes).

There is a long standing Jewish tradition of philanthropy. The 19th and early 20th century Rothschilds have been replaced by the 21st century Lev Levaivs. The biblical tabernacle built in the dessert, the two temples of Jerusalem, and almost every single past and present Jewish institution was funded by Jews who stepped up to the plate and continued the historic use of Jewish wealth to benefit the global Jewish community.

Until now.

For the first time since the era of Ezra and Nechemya (the end of Babylonian/Persian exile) assimilation and divorce has become the norm in the Jewish diaspora. This new norm has in-turn impacted the entire Jewish community in unforeseen ways.

Jews are disproportionally wealthy and, in most cases, happily shoulder the burden of corollary taxation. However, public schools, fast food, and churches do not assist the Jewish community in passing on 3000 year old traditions. Many Jews pay for public schools but send their children to private schools; Jews don’t eat cheap fast food, but pay close to double for (often equally unhealthy) kosher food. Jews close their businesses on the busiest consumer day of the week. Despite all the above challenges the Jewish community has committed itself -for over 2000 years with little complaint and out of love and devotion- to propagating Jewish tradition.

Every intermarriage that ends in divorce or results in offspring who eschew Jewish tradition engenders an unquantifiable, and often undesired, transfer of wealth from Jewish hands. The ramifications are felt across the nation and globe, and have been further compounded by the general economic malaise. Many Jews turned their back on their secular coreligionists, but that was wrong both from a humanitarian perspective and from a Jewish-legal viewpoint (Rabbi Hillel said “love your neighbor like yourself, this is the great law of the Torah”), and now the tangible economic implications are clear. Jews continue to be leading philanthropists, but many Jews are unable to educate and pass on their traditions. Many Jews eat only Kosher, so they don’t buy meat which they can’t afford. Many houses of prayer and study-halls (Beit Knesset, Beit medrash) want to provide a relaxing and comfortable milieu for prayer and study but they close their doors do to the lack of funds.

Where is all that famous Jewish wealth? Just look at the wonderful New York Philharmonic and billion dollar endowments of Harvard and Yale.

Yes this is a free and integrated country, yes all have a fundamental right to choose their own destiny, and yes Jews are not required by secular law to provide for their brothers and sisters. But the Jewish community should at least be made aware of the implications of the continued failure to educate and pass on our millennia old tradition to the next generation. Our failure translates into the continued transfer of Jewish wealth into the hands of others -from Jewish synagogues and schools to libraries and universities. This is not just about losing a generation of "other" Jewish children, this is about our own children!

From Hurriyet.com: "Turks rise up against dictators! Well, some dictators…"

Great article out of Turkey

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=turks-rise-up-against-dictators-well-some-dictators8230-2011-02-01

It’s wonderful news! Islamist Turks have finally discovered the vices of the autocratic/kleptocratic regimes of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia and Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. But why do they hate Mr. Ben Ali, whose name they had not heard of until a fortnight ago, or Mr. Mubarak, whose undemocratic credentials are well older than a week?

In the Maghreb case, the Islamist Turks have just learned that the distant country with “a flag similar to our” was not run by just a dictator, but by a secular dictator. They also learned that that shameless dictator had sent into exile a man whose name they cannot remember – but anyway – that good Muslim now talks about taking the Justice and Development Party, or AKP, as a role model for democracy. Mr. Ben Ali could not have been allowed to oppress the Tunisians. In the future, Rashed Ghannoushi can because he will be “our” dictator.

And in the case of “Pharaoh” as the Turkish protestors refer to Mr. Mubarak, Islamist Turks are angry not because he has undemocratically ruled Egypt for 30 years, but because the largest Muslim nation in the region has been at peace with Israel, not at war.

It was not a coincidence that at the weekend’s anti-Mubarak demonstrations in Istanbul and Ankara, protestors carried Mr. Mubarak picture with the Star of David superimposed over it. The usual gathering of “Islamic” NGOs (this time joined by a leftist one, too) protested him for “not having flown Egyptian fighter jets to defend Gaza.” Ahmet Faruk Ünsal, secretary-general of Mazlum-Der, an “Islamic” human rights organization (how bizarre of a mission, “Islamic” human rights…) voiced a rich menu of pleasantries about Egypt’s possibly departing leader because “he guarded Israel by shutting the gates of Gaza.”

But some of the protest language was encouraging. Demonstrators in front of the Egyptian Consulate in Istanbul shouted that “they were standing for resistance against dictatorship.”

Abdurrahman Dilipak, a prominent Islamic intellectual and writer, generously talked about “our Muslim brothers who live under oppression…” The rare non-Israeli-related language at the protests gave us hope for democracy – the one that does not come with a faith-based adjective.

Now we can cultivate further hope that the Turkish Islamists may in the future rise up against all oppressive regimes – the regimes that oppress their fellow Muslims to begin with.

How about starting with our next-door neighbors, Syria and Iran? For sure, Turkish democrats should be protesting Bashar al-Assad’s regime, which he inherited by blood rather than winning at the ballot box. How about showing some solidarity when President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad’s guards systematically kill dissidents including, most recently, Zahra Bahrami, who was arrested after taking part in anti-government protests and was hanged for “drug possession and smuggling.” Beware, Iranian diplomatic missions, next time Mazlum-Der and Mr. Dilipak may show up in front of your buildings to protest your government’s anti-democratic behavior!

What about protesting in front of the Embassy of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in Ankara? Do our Saudi brothers not deserve democracy and free elections? Are we not going to “stand for our oppressed brothers”? Are we not going to “stand for resistance against dictatorships”?

The awakening Turkish soul is bad news for Sudan’s President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, too. Sooner or later, Islamist Turks should start protesting Mr. al-Bashir, wanted by an international court for genocide and crimes against humanity. Surely the Turks will stand for their Muslim Sudanese brothers mass-murdered by Mr. al-Bashir’s vigilantes.

In the meantime, the Democratic Turkish Resistance Solidarity Movement should turn its angry looks on the kings, emirs, sheiks and sultans of the Middle East… only to help liberate their fellow Muslims from dictatorships of all possible tags. Bad news for the kings, emirs, sheiks and sultans…

I am not the one to teach the Islamists Islam. All the same, the Tunisia/Egypt protestors should better refresh their knowledge with one verse: “O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to God, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be [against] rich or poor: for Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts [of your hearts], lest you swerve, and if you distort [justice] or decline to do justice, verily God is well-acquainted with all that you do.” (Quran, 4:135).

Iran and Egypt: Why did Mubarak Fall?

Despite conventional wisdom and realistic expectations, the Egyptian riots have nearly pushed Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian dictator, out of office.

How did a leaderless protest movement successfully challenge one of the longest serving and savviest leaders in the Middle East? Adding to the mystery, how did the support of America, Jordan, and the Gulf states, for Mubarak, become moot?

I am not the first to ask this question, and the explanations abound. One compelling account asserts that America was planning an overthrow of Mubarak in 2011, under Bush in 2008.
True or not, Obama has not shied away from vaguely, but unambiguously (as only an American politician can) supporting the Egyptian street. And for the first time since the abortive Oslo Accords, Americas “meddling” is being applauded (or at least not be condemned) by the average Arab and Muslim. This lack of anti-America hate may be due to the fact for the first time in recent years America is turning away from an autocratic (in this case 30 years of loyalty) leader in favor of the common Arab.

Obama, for his part, supports the Arab/Muslim street because of realpolitik. In other words throwing a long standing ally to the wind simply serves America’s best interest. The Saudis, Israelis, Jordanians, and every other ally of America should take this lesson to heart.

That said, why did Obama not come out in support of the Green revolution in Iran? Instead, according to some intelligence sites like debka.com, Obama sent a private letter of support to Iran’s “elected” leader Ahmadinejad. The question is compounded when you consider that Mubarak was a friend while the Mullahs of Iran were our sworn enemies.

One may respond that the Green movement did not reflect the majority of Iranians - just look at the mass pro-Ahmadinejad protests. A fair point, but one could counter that the only difference between the Mullah’s response to the Green movement and Mubarak’s response to the Egyptian protests was political fortitude and strategy.

Thus the Mullahs of Iran expected protests immediately after the disputed elections, and were ready to respond, they also had no qualms about resorting, almost, immediately to mass violence. The anti-Mubarak elements may have learned a lesson. They surprised Mubarak months after the disputed elections, and also reached out to the Egyptian army so as to prevent them from becoming a tool of repression. Another key difference, as pointed out by Debka.com, was that the Iranians regime had a target- the opposition leaders- whereas the Egyptian protesters were leaderless, at least superficially.

Perhaps the difference is simple. Obama only supports movements that he believes will actually succeed because "to support the projected victor is to gain the allegiance of the winner". Or it may be that Obama was a freshman president with little experience when the Green movement emerged, whereas now he is a seasoned politician.

Regardless of Obama's inconsistencies (or consistencies). The real question is will this movement coalesce into an effective Democratic movement that is friendly to America and peace, or whether the ominous silence of Iran heralds a Middle-East that sees a certain genre of Islam, not stability, as the primary objective. The answer to the above question will likely explain why the Egypt movement succeeded while the Green movement failed?

Will the Anger of the Arab Street Cross the Atlantic?

Huffingtonpost.com just posted some extraordinary photos of protests in Egypt. The Egyptian protests follow two weeks in which the Arab street has exploded in anger against their respective governments. Tunisia, Yemen, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iran, amongst others, are all experiencing political turmoil. Yes, we are used to seeing the Arab street explode over an array of minor issues –like the Muhammad cartoon saga. But this time is different, the street is not (yet, anyways) protesting the “meddling Americans” or the “Zionist occupiers”, this time they are directing their collective anger inwards -against their own governments. Moreover, this is the first time that so many Arab and Muslim nations have simultaneously experienced political unrest. There are no jobs, the government is unable, or unwilling, to end the economic woes, and there is a complete disconnect between the people and their governments and elites.

The narrative of the Arab protests is familiar. There is rampant unemployment, extremely low government approval ratings, and individuals willing to do more than sulk at home. In Greece and Ireland, two western states, the street exploded, and their respective governments have been hit hard. Who’s next?

From this perspective, the economic woes of the past two years have spawned a global wave of protests. Wikileaks exposure of routine two-faced political dealings by governments has added fuel to the fire of mistrust and dissatisfaction so prevalent in many societies. The real question is whether we can expect the same results in America?

It is true that Americans have historically weathered economic malfeasance and ineptitude –like during the great depression- with relative calm. But America has changed since the 1930’s, and nobody can say with certainty that a single digit approval rating of our government will not translate into burning tires and bodies on the streets of New York and Chicago. The Muslim Brotherhood and other such Islamic groups have not yet hijacked the protests. Just as the far left –or right- in America have not yet coalesced into an effective anti-government apparatus. But the possibility exists.

So I ask: Will the Anger of the Arab Street Cross the Atlantic?

Copts, Muslims, and Democracy: America Needs to Start Making the Right Choices

I recently had the privilege of meeting an Egyptian doctor in a Starbucks in the city. He had overheard my conversation with a Muslim friend, and decided to join. Amongst the interesting perspectives he offered on Egypt and the region was the issue of Mubarak as a dictator vs. Mubarak as a pacifier. He argued that one of the reasons why Egypt is as stable as it has been since the Camp David accords was due to the secular stability that Mubarak implemented. What I found to be most interesting was that this doctor was a Christian-Copt.

For those that don’t know, the Copts are an ancient Christian denomination; the largest minority in Egypt; and a group that has experienced terrible discrimination at the hands of the Arab-Muslim majority. Yet despite the oppression of the Copts, this highly educated individual was supporting Mubarak. Why? Because, Mubarak has kept Islamist extremism in check, maintained Egypt’s leadership position in the region, and has offered a relative degree of economic well being –primarily through American funded subsidies- to its citizens. The alternative, he argued, was an Islamist government closer to Saudi Arabia in nature i.e. few churches, no political rights, and little freedom

My new friend's perspective raises a larger and relevant question:

Should we in America advocate for Democracy even in cases where that freedom will be hijacked by Islamic-extremist or other anti-Democratic elements? Should we support dictators in Tunisia, and Yemen, so long as they suppress terrorist entities from using their territory as training camps for attacks on the West?

America has always been involved in the spread of Democracy, but we have also, mostly, tempered our Democratic expansion with an unapologetic realism (this realism is what explains why we didn’t try “Iraq” before hand and why we are not going to try it again). Yet the populations in question –in this case the Arab street- are not blind to the obvious contradiction. On one hand we in America portray ourselves as the leader of the free world; with the other hand we pass millions of dollars to autocratic and oppressive governments who support our interests. Yes we may call that political realism, but in the Arab-world our opponents label it hypocrisy.

My Egyptian friend felt that a sudden Democracy movement in Egypt that overthrew Mubarak would be appropriated by non-Democratic elements -as it was in Iran, Gaza, and now Lebanon- who would then use it to keep themselves in indefinite power. But many participants and observers disagree; they see no ideological component to the Tunisian protests only a citizen population that is fed up with the economic ineptitude of their autocratic government.

Indeed there is no one formula: In some cases, like Iraq, Pakistan, Lebanon, Gaza etc. we see Islamic-extremists capitalizing on general dissatisfaction. However, that does not mean that every Muslim and Arab nation that goes through a popular upheaval will invariably end up like Iran or Gaza.

The problem for us in America is we don’t understand the Muslim world enough to know when to stand behind a dictator and when to stand behind Democratic movements. Why did Obama ignore the Green revolution in Iran? Why did we think we could make Iraq a functioning Democracy? Why did we remove our support from Musharraf in Pakistan? Why did we support elections in Gaza? Why did we look the other way when Hezbollah joined the Lebanese political process?

Some of you reading this may respond: “That’s the point, America should mind its own business”. I disagree; the world needs America, which means we should start making the right choices.