Daniel Lubetzky

This speech is a must-read. It obviously was given to a constituency solely concerned with strengthening Israeli-American bonds and alignment and is clear the President had to counteract opponents who seek to distort his record. It doesn’t do enough (or anything) to share with the Israeli people, and the American Jewish community, the necessary sacrifices and compromises that Israel will need to make to achieve comprehensive and permanent security and peace. But in an election year a speech before AIPAC need not do so.

What the speech does in a principled and lucid way is highlight that President Obama is a solid ally of Israel and all the myths and distortions in the world cannot deny his record.

Most important, President Obama convincingly demonstrates that his engagement offer to Iran at the beginning of his Administration, as much as many of us were skeptical about, was a prerequisite to give him and the US the credibility to align the entire international community behind sanctions against the Iranian regime when it refused to deal constructively and concretely to cure its nuclear proliferation violations. 

I personally do not believe the present Iranian regime will abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons capability under any circumstance, no matter the pressure exerted, no matter whether overtly or covertly (the assessment would be the same both for a fanatical AND a rational actor in this case). But I agree that President Obama has to exhaust diplomatic options as part of the process, even as time runs out because a military confrontation once Iran has crossed the rubicon will be more dangerous to America, to Israel, to Iran’s Arab neighbors and all its neighbors, and to civilization.

[Read more →]

Ginia Bellafante wrote about the absurd politicization of food coop purchases, where the extremist “BDS” boycott Movement (which, incidentally, even Norman Finkelstein recently exposed as being a “cult” that seeks to destroy and replace Israel with a Palestinian State, rather than a realistic solution of two states for two people) is seeking to ban Israeli grocery products from the shelves of the Park Slope Food Coop, and pro-Israeli groups are countering it, turning the whole experience of buying kale into an extraordinarily uncomfortable one.

In her story, Bellafante mentions PeaceWorks’ products, made through cooperative ventures among neighbors striving to coexist, including Israeli Jews, Israeli Arabs, Palestinians, Turks, and until recently, Egyptians.  As the founder of PeaceWorks and the OneVoice Movement, I have noticed not just the silliness of those extremist efforts by BDS, but more so, the negative impact these fights have on the very Palestinian farmers these people purport to support.  Never mind that Palestinian farmers have never heard of these BDS people, who out of the comfort of their armchairs in Berkeley, can afford to advocate extremist positions.  What has happened over the last few years is that anti-Israel activists have begotten anti-Palestinian activists and both of these negative groups, rather than thinking how to strengthen moderates seeking peace on both sides and join forces to achieve a solution, have instead attacked one another publicly and sought to boycott each other’s products at grocery stores across the USA.  Consequently, many friends of mine in the grocery industry are uncomfortable importing Palestinian products or promoting Palestinian or Israeli products, hurting the very people that need this trade most.  Retailers just don’t want to be dealing with these extremists and the headaches they bring.

[Read more →]

So much of our challenges in life has to do with balancing short term and long term priorities. Do we accept some pain up front in order to be stronger in the future, or do we defer the necessary but painful steps, only to make the problem increasingly bigger? 

A human being may face that tension in terms of a health matter that needs to be addressed (a painful treatment may be deferred, with potentially devastating repercussions if the disease ends up spreading), or in terms of a personal financial or business decision (ie, starting a business may take much longer to pay off than taking a job, but could in the long term be more rewarding). 

In the international fora, much of what we are facing today can be framed in terms of those choices.  Egypt, for example, presents enormous challenges. The repressive military regime is perceived to support the peace treaty with Israel, so both the Israeli and American Administrations support a strong alliance therewith.  The perceived (and in some ways real) threat of an alternative is accentuated by the rise of Islamic parties and their dominance in the first open elections in Egypt.  But those who rather promote the safety of the status quo ignore that military rulers are then incentivized to manipulate extremist parties and turn them into a bigger threat, as they help the military junta justify its existence and rally support for their continued control of the levers of power. 

Representative democracy has a way of building accountability into the system, thereby moderating those doing the representation in the longer term.  But that does not come overnight.  It requires enormous patience and will most likely involve a lot of pain and a lot of wrong turns along the way. 

Most worrisome, representative democracy can be used by authoritarian leaders to achieve power, only for them to cut the cord of representative government and cling on to power – as the Iranian Ayatollahs did after their revolution, as Hugo Chavez did in Venezuela and as many others tempted by absolute power often seek to do. 

The beauty of the US Government system is not representative democracy on its own– but the checks and balances of the system – guaranteeing relatively fair transitions of power.

Below is an interesting article that discusses the challenges the US Administration is facing in balancing its support of Egyptian democracy with its desire for stability.

[Read more →]

This article tells the inspiring story of a soccer team that unites Arabs and Israelis in pursuit of lofty goals on and off the field.  As the article states, “[w]ith football you can do peace, the Arab and Israeli living together.”

By Adeena Schlussel

[Read more →]

I have heard Saeb Erakat say the same thing at the World Economic Forum in Jordan a few years ago, and now  – in this interview – Prime Minister Fayyad reminded the world that the Palestinian cause gets hurt when the Iranian regime tries to hijack it for its own benefits.  Extremists should not be allowed to incite hatred and division for their own divisive purposes.  Moderate Israelis and Palestinians need to wake up to the need for them to work together to build two states that respect one another and fulfill the aspirations of their people.  It is the only way.

[Read more →]

Jeffrey Goldberg writes in Was the Arab Spring a Victory for Extremism? that Mubarak warned him a dozen years ago, “"My people expect a firm hand. If we don’t lead strongly, they will turn to the mosque for leadership."  Goldberg concludes that it turns out Mubarak was right – that he was the only thing standing between Egypt and the rise of fundamentalist Islam. 

The above analysis is probably factually correct in the short and mid term. But it is the wrong or incomplete question or issue to focus on. 

The bigger question is what did Mubarak’s (and other equivalent dictators’) rule do and does to help those populations evolve into more democratic and tolerant societies? And does turning to Islam for guidance have to equate with a closed society? The dictators aggravate the push towards Islamist power, as well as the notion that their government and all it pretends to stand for is anything worth supporting.  In the short term, Mubarak put a cap on extremist groups that used Islamic tenets to justify their often intolerant views.  But at the same time, their very actions increased the pressure away from moderation in the long-term because they foster more resentment and more hatred of the ideologies supposedly espoused by the West that subjugated and oppressed them with injustice.

Just lifting the lid is not a workable solution, I agree.  It is not workable not just because it will put the Islamists in power.  If that is all it would do BUT the Islamists would respect democracy and permit elections and accountability and democracy in another round, then 4 years of pain would arguably be tolerable to start building true democracy rooted and buttressed by freedom and protection of minority interests, etc.  as any abuse of power (and closing of society) would probably be disliked by a majority of Egyptians.  But as they did in Iran, once in power, it is possible Islamists will then support “One Man, One Vote, One Time” as Bernard Lewis once wrote, and will then prevent future elections and the self-correcting power of democracy.

What is the answer? As sad as it may seem, it may well be SOME role for the military (or another enlightened ruler who oversees the military) to be the arbiter for fair government and elections – to ensure that the elected government will be accountable to the people and will accept defeat in future elections if they are not re-elected.  

Managing this process may be (and probably is) too much to ask of the military rulers, who above all want to protect their privileges and what amounts to essential control of the country.  But if you were to find a progressive military ruler or leader, or one that would have the vision and enticement to modulate a steady move towards accountable government, then Islamists could win one or two rounds of elections but be accountable to their people and unless they enacted the policies that will build a better future for their people, which I affirm requires openness and freedom, then they’d be voted out in the next round…or certainly within a generation. 

The question are a) whether we can have enough patience to wait at least one election cycle and possible a generation, and b) whether a force that can act as the right arbiter and selfless ensurer or democracy and openness and freedom will emerge and not be corrupted by power.

All of my thinking presupposes that people will ultimately price and covet freedom, justice, openness, respect, and democracy.  Is it possible that they will actually prefer the rule of a few clerics if given the choice? I guess so, but that is rather unlikely.  Is it possible that foreign policy will be far more aggressive against the US or Israel? Very likely, but it doesn’t have to remain that way as long as interests end up being aligned and the West and Israel end up working with respect with their counterparts.  It will be a painful correction process – and it all has to entail a resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.  But as a long term proposition, it seems to be the only way for true stability, peace, tolerance and respect to come about in the Middle East.

Is it possible that they will choose conservative policies that to many in the West will be abhorrent, subjugating women or minorities or people with sexual preferences they disagree? Yes.  But in the West, including here in the US, we also face all those challenges.  The key is to balance democracy with constitutional rights protected by a separate branch of government, and that will only come with time.

[Read more →]

This article by Ari Shavit explains how Netanyahu’s leadership is hurting Israel in every way.

[Read more →]

Hezbollah means ‘party of God’ and it claims to be pious. But it doesn’t mind destroying the lives of millions by addicting them to cocaine as it controls South American drug routes and benefits from criminal enterprises. The below recent exposé is a must read.

[Read more →]

According to a message from All for Peace radio, the organization will be going off air due to false allegations from the Israeli police accusing the group of incitement, and will be petitioning the Supreme Court accordingly.

Spotted by Daniel Lubetzky, by Adeena Schlussel

[Read more →]

This article about settlers’ “price tag” attacks on Palestinians and peace groups is alarming.  While there is undoubted complexity to their situation, violence is never the answer.   As the article states, “All forms of incitement and violence, the mortal enemies of peace, must stop.”

Spotted by Daniel Lubetzky, by Adeena Schlussel

[Read more →]