Daniel Lubetzky

Egypt does indeed have someone firmly at the top.

Avarice is different.  It means setting your heart on money, a thing that no wise man ever did.  It is a kind of deadly poison, which ruins a man’s health and weakens his moral fiber.  It knows no bounds and can never be satisfied.  He that has not, wants; and he that has, wants more.

- Sallust, In The Jugurthine War and the Conspiracy of Cataline, discussing how the Roman Empire was overtaken as ‘the disease [of

[Read more →]

Related to an issue I had blogged about 6 weeks ago, Daniel Henninger writes in the WSJ that Obama’s real vulnerability is not his past connection to the Reverend Wright but his simplistic formulas on Iran:

Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, collector of centrifuges, makes

[Read more →]

In a very serious development, Hamas has passed an edict that any gathering of more than 20 citizens anywhere in Gaza must receive official written pre-approval.  This includes any gathering, even if non-political. This will of course intimidate ordinary citizens and civic groups.

The media has not yet reported on this worrisome impingement on the freedom of Palestinian citizens.  Iran’s regime created a repressive totalitarian state by ferreting out any and all freedoms to congregate or express oneself.  If Hamas gets away with this measure, it will start imposing other measures until it destroys any possibility of a democratic process to reunite Gaza and the West Bank, let alone for Palestinians in Gaza to vote on a possible two-state-solution referendum.

Philip Stephens wrote an excellent column in the Financial Times about our craving for simple theories and categorizations to describe the new world order of the day, and the uncomfortable reality that geo-political

[Read more →]

Charlotte Allen writes in the Wall Street Journal about the creation of ASMEA, the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa, as an counterweight alternative to the highly-politicized MESA, the Middle East Studies Association.

Towering scholar Bernard Lewis, described by Allen as the "eminence grise" of Islamic studies, is oddly enough the founder of both.  He was prompted to create this new body because MESA’s orientalist "political correctness" stifles true analysis, with all MESA activities – panels, papers, symposia – nowadays evaluated through rigid and cartoonish anti-Israel, anti-US filters.

What is disturbing and perhaps inevitable, as Allen observes, is that ASMEA may end up being hijacked by the opposite extreme.  Few university academics attended the inaugural meeting, perhaps for fear of being ostracized by "liberal" dogmatists that rule today campuses.  Military and defense specialists were prevalent, as were think tank researchers with hawkish "know your enemy" perspectives.  ASMEA Vice-chair Fouad Ajami and Professor Lewis have been vilified as "pro-Iraq-invasion" neo-cons.  ASMEA research may end up equally uncritical and trite as MESA’s, just from the opposite political spectrum. 

A week ago I wrote about a potentially similar development in the area of "pro-Israel" advocacy and lobbying, with JStreet seeking to rise as the flag-bearer of left-wing pro-peace DC US-Israel constituents to counteract their perception of AIPAC as the right-wing, anti-Arab DC US-Israel alliance, potentially leaving less platforms for moderate, centrist voices.

A disturbing pattern emerges making it harder for centrist voices to be heard and represented.  Mainstream moderates may make up the overwhelming majority in almost every area of discourse, but they are often overshadowed by the more passionate extremes, and their natural constituencies ready to embrace a black or white side of the spectrum.

Nuanced, balanced thinking has no natural constituency.

The same problem exists with the media.  News Corp’s FOX and Wall Street Journal are primarily platforms for conservative thinking – and you rarely if ever will see an op-ed contribution that challenges the inclinations of an orthodox readership.  NPR, CNN and The New York Times are primarily platforms for liberal (in the left-wing sense) thinking – and their editorials tend to be painfully unimaginative and caricatured.  (Alas, it also tends to be that the more "entertaining" shows and moderators have definite political slants – whether it’s the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, Colbert Report and Real Time with Bill Mahr for the left, or Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly for the right; centrist thinking is much more "boring").

Each media platform increasingly caters to audiences primed for "affirmation" rather than "information" – G’d forbid if some new data point challenges our assumptions. 

It is not just the institutions that are to blame, but all of us as products of these institutions. I am fascinated to notice how "news" developments are interpreted with such extraordinary bias by people who have formed an opinion. 

I remember during the Bush-Gore elections debacle how every development, decision or institution that favored George Bush (US Supreme Court, Florida Administration) was seen as correct by Bush supporters and as an afront to justice by Gore supporters.  Conversely, every development that favored Gore (Florida Supreme Court, Palm Beach or Dade County officials) was viewed as perfectly just and logical to Gore supporters and irredeemably flawed by Republicans.

Over the last two months I’ve also asked Clinton and Obama supporters to reflect on the bias of a news source or behavior from one party or the other.  Almost never does an Obama supporter admit that the Obama campaign may be fallible, and almost never does a Clinton supporter admit that their candidate may have done something wrong.

Lack of critical thinking and unbiased analysis presents a major challenge to society.

The Jerusalem Post reports that Olmert is again being investigated on allegations about political fundraising activities that took place well prior to his tenure as Prime Minister.

Some opposition lawmakers called on him to resign because of the investigations.

Prior investigations that started with a lot of bravado have gone nowhere, as Knesset member Yoel Hasson (who serves on OneVoice’s Board) noted.

To me the plethora of failed investigations is evidence of the politicization of the legal process, as opposed to evidence of wrongdoing.

ALL of these investigations relate to the period when Olmert was running for Mayor of Jerusalem, as part of the Likud party, and with a far more hawkish stance of things.  Much of his financial support presumably came from very conservative Jewish sources that are not happy with Olmert’s peacemaking efforts.

It seems quite possible, or likely, that some of Olmert’s past donors are disenchanted with his goal to strike a framework agreement with the Palestinians this year, and they are trying to "cooperate" with the Israeli police to derail the hope of a two-state-solution. 

Is this a proper outcome of the democratic process? 

As is most common in stable democracies, shouldn’t the Head of State have a significant degree of immunity from politically-inspired allegations, particularly if dating back to before the Head of State’s tenure, and particularly if not dealing with national security issues?

Is it me or did anyone else notice the extreme bias of the media against Barak Obama this Sunday in all news shows?  Whether it’s just a media circus game to extend the political party with a longer nomination fight, or whether it was Senator Clinton’s machine that appealed to the media establishment, it is fascinating how biased the media was.

The clearest and most patent example of downright dishonest coverage came this Sunday around 1:40pm EST when Jim Acosta from CNN covered the Indiana contest as follows:

[Read more →]

It sounds so crazy.  With growing climate change, planet earth as we know it is on the brink of a radical transformation that could endanger the very survival of the human race, if not at best require the most painful and radical adjustments for us all.

Why then would any rational human being want to stand in the way of finding solutions to prevent an epic catastrophe?

[Read more →]

It is undeniable that AIPAC has tilted to the right over the last 10 years, almost hijacked by hawkish constituents.  Perhaps then the birth of JStreet is an unavoidable outcome.  My concern though

[Read more →]