Daniel Lubetzky

The Daily Star wrote a compellingly sad editorial on how Hamas and Fatah are killing the Palestinian dream. Both have cared more about their power than the Palestinian cause, but it is not a balanced blame. 

Fatah is indeed embroiled in corruption and ineptitude because it lacks a system to give young emerging locally respected leaders representative power, but Hamas is the party that staged a coup and killed hundreds of Palestinians.  Hamas is the party whose "Foreign Minister", Mahmoud Al Zahar, recently said it alone was the representative of God on Earth. 

Under President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, the West Bank is experiencing some level of development, growth, order, and an admirable push for transparency. Under Hamas, Gaza has become a Taliban-like enclave of terror against ordinary citizens, suppressing all freedoms according to Palestinians living there.

[Read more →]

Today was a very bloody day in Gaza, yet the Western media barely reported it, partly because Hamas has blocked them out, so instead of redoubling efforts to cover things, many in the media just move on.  In the meantime, apparent infighting within Hamas is being blamed on Fatah sabotage, even though Fatah is pretty much inoperative in Gaza.  More alarmingly, Hamas rounded up hundreds of people, not just Fatah-aligned politicians, but also unaffiliated civil society groups.  People are terrified and have no recourse – or voice!

[Read more →]

If you are struggling to understand why Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, both Shiite, are so popular among Arab masses from Egypt to Palestine and Saudi Arabia, where the predominant religion is Sunni, think of it through a different prism: the culture of Resistance.

The culture of Resistance trumps the schisms of religion, as well as other divisions like nationality, ethnicity, and political persuasion.

The Arab world has been so impregnated with an anti-West, anti-colonialist, anti-occupation, anti-invasion, anti-globalization, anti-Israel ethos, that anything or anyone who stands at the vanguard against these modern suppressors will be greeted with enthusiasm.

The challenge for the good of the Arab Middle East and the world at large is how to channel all of these very real frustrations, that have only been deepened by lack of political accountability and continued authoritarian rule seen as imposed by the West on the Arab population, into a constructive path for progress within the Arab Middle East and outside.

It is not an easy challenge to overcome.  If anyone figures it out, they will hold the key to progress and popularity.

At present, you either drive for revolution and cry against oppression in the name of "resistance", or you are part of the establishment and hence seen with suspicion by ordinary Arabs that are not part of the elite.

Great leaders like Palestinian Prime Minister Fayyad or Jordanian King Abdullah, who are bringing economic progress to the poor in their country, will have difficulty getting credit, because they are seen as agents of the West.

Democracy and other concepts that should ordinarily appeal to the human quest for freedom similarly have difficulty because they are seen as Western impositions, and part of a cultural colonization.

The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.

- SENATOR BARACK OBAMA, speaking in Berlin.

In OneVoice form, he also said:

This is the moment when we must defeat terror and dry up the well of extremism that supports it.  This threat is real and we cannot shrink from our responsibility to combat it.

If we could create NATO to face down the Soviet Union, we can join in a new and global partnership to dismantle the networks [of terror]

If we could win a battle of ideas against the communists, we can stand with the vast majority of Muslims who reject the extremism that leads to hate instead of hope.

China seems intent on using its veto at the UN to minimize any interference with national sovereignty, even at the expense of basic human rights and values, to the point of again vetoing a UN resolution against Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe’s atrocious dictator, and seeking to fight an ICC warrant against Sudan’s genocidal President.  Howard French just wrote an excellent article on this issue.

But what seems to also be missing from most analyses on this topic, is that China is not just trying to limit ‘foreign interference’ in national affairs but also just plainly trying to avoid having to pay any commercial price for being a global citizen.  The United States and other Western countries incur a tangible cost for taking certain moral stances.  Sometimes these principles are worth more than trade.  It is truly immoral to pursue trading interests at all costs. The policy-making community, and CONSUMERS, have not weighed in enough on this issue.

[Read more →]

Nicholas Kristof considers using schools and education, rather than military force, to combat terrorism.

[Read more →]

An interesting discussion of human rights in the context of Spain’s "Great Ape Project."

[Read more →]

Hamas continues to institute more draconian and totalitarian impositions on Palestinians living in Gaza, including heavy monitoring and filtering of internet and telephone communications.

Mainstream media is not reporting about this.

This article from the Christian Science Monitor summarizes pretty well the political developments that have for now kept the current Israeli parliamentary coalition afloat.

Instead of recriminations and fights for personal political advancement, for once these considerations were borne in mind:

…it’s not as if we don’t have a few other things to keep us busy… …Israel’s shaky truce with Hamas, which is just six days old and already being tested by militants who fired rockets into Israel Tuesday; possible negotiations with Hezbollah over Israel’s captured soldiers; indirect talks with Syria; and nuclear tensions with Iran.

…not to mention the little detail about Olmert’s commitment to achieve a framework agreement with Abbas within 2008.

[Read more →]

– As we gear towards the general election, a word of caution for US Presidential candidates about an important constituency that will not vote for them –

According to conventional wisdom, Presidential candidates can take campaign stances that will curry favor with particular constituencies of voters, only to be forgiven for adjusting campaign positions once they face the realities of the highest office.

The truth is that a campaign defines how the electorate will see their President – and this all the more true when shaping the President’s image in the eyes of the largest constituency that will actually not vote for them: the international community.

While domestically the President may be able to somewhat reshape his/her image through defining moments and actions, this is far less feasible internationally.

Only Americans vote for their President, but foreigners care almost as much – and sometimes more – about who will lead the most powerful nation in the world.

International impressions about a candidate are forged quite early, and they are far harder to change. Longer distances yield local media coverage that tends to be more one-dimensional and absolute, less nuanced, and more sporadic. Foreign coverage will also tend to be defined more narrowly from the prism of a particular nation’s foreign affairs agenda, as opposed to a plethora of domestic issues.

President Bush caused particular suspicion abroad during his 2000 campaign mocking Al Gore, and then again John Kerry in 2004, for their ‘multilateralism.’ He made it a pillar of his campaign to emphasize he would only pursue narrowly-defined American interests. He rejected the Kyoto protocols not only on their substance but on what they implied – that American policy would be harmonized with – or subservient to – global agendas for climate control.

Perhaps this stance helped him win over nativist constituencies. And he had little to fear about alienating foreigners who by definition could not vote. But global karma caught up with him and has as much to do with his Administration’s ultimate ineffectiveness as any other factor.

Foreign Heads of State in rare uniform fashion viewed him apprehensively, and large swaths of people reviled him across the globe. They could not vote him out. But they could vote with their policies and their currencies. Not only did Bush struggle to build his coalition in Iraq, but the ‘America’ brand was tarnished, American goods disfavored, and the dollar weakened.

America’s perceived weakness today is directly connected to displeasure with Bush’s unilateralist policies, whose perceptions were cemented during his campaign pronouncements even more than through his Administration’s work.

Even when Bush did positive international work, his image (and that of his Administration) had been unalterably shaped. He funded the fight against AIDS and pressed against poverty through far greater foreign aid than his predecessors. But he got no credit for it. Once international personas are shaped, it is close to impossible to alter them.

The same is true with foreign leaders from other nations – Putin vs. Gorbachev, Chirac vs. Sarkozy, Sharon vs. Peres – they are a brand unto themselves and will be hard-pressed to change it abroad no matter what different policies they may enact.

Starting with this general election, future candidates for the US presidency will hopefully bear in mind that the world is watching, and their statements will not be forgotten after the dust settles.

Both Obama and McCain seem to be more in tune to the foreign-policy-shaping impact of their campaign statements than President Bush was. Their visions for foreign policy could not be in greater contrast. McCain projects unwavering strength against militant absolutism and nihilism. Obama urges soft power and diplomatic engagement in tandem with military might. Neither perspective can be dismissed as unfounded or demagogic. Not even history will help us judge such a poignant question to such complex and dire circumstances.

But both will do well to remember that their campaign pronouncements will shape their international personas and will thus have almost as much impact on their ability to advance American (and possibly global) interests as the policies they enact thereafter if elected.