Short Critical Summary: As Winter Ends, Temperatures Rise for Israel

The major theme that came through in my newspaper articles was that of rising temperatures and tensions for Israel. Twelve of my articles elude to such, as they summarize and highlight the major issues Israel is facing today. Numerous high-ranking officials in Israel's government have come under accusation and investigation for various misconducts, and many have subsequently resigned, been removed or suspended, contributing to the dark cloud that is covering the Israeli parliament. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's approval rating is at an all-time low of 3% (I don't even think George W. has seen an approval rating that low yet) and many are calling for him to be replaced. The Palestinian Fatah party, whose leader, Mahmoud Abbas, was setting the table with American and Israeli officials for serious talk and action toward a peace plan, has formed a new "unity" or "coalition" government comprised of mostly Hamas (a known terrorist organization) leaders, and Israel has boycotted the new governemnt. This unity government also refuses to recognize Israel's right to existence and refuses to denounce violence and terrorism. Additionally, the commission report on the investigation of this past summer's conflict with Lebanese Hezbollah is set to be released in mid-April and the results will less than likely be pleasing. All of these elements are going to converge, putting Israel in sticky situation, as tensions continue to rise. At the beginning of the semester, when I began following this issue in my blog, the major elements of this theory had to do with the corruption issues within the government, and then progressed to talking about the new Palestinian government and its platform, as well as the Israeli boycott of it and then it progressed to talking about the commission report and its probable findings. I think that these three major elements will converge and cause difficulties for Israel. I think that Israel will find itself in a position where it has to make quick and effective decisions and will have to act. This is why i think it would be a bad idea for the Israeli people to replace Olmert right now. The transition time necessary for a new Prime Minister to be elected and a new party (which is probable as Olmert's Kadima party doesn't have really anything to offer by way of a candidate). The time it takes for a new Prime Minister and cabinet to adjust to office would open a huge and dangerous opportunity for terrorism and more. Enemies of Israel would see the weakness in the transition and strike. This is an especially scary thought with the new Palestinian government being headed by Hamas leaders. The commenting and blogging process has been very beneficial in my understanding and following of this issue. The comments I received forced me to further think about and analyze the situation so as to better understand it from all sides. Reading other peoples' blogs on the same (and even different) topics has helped me to have a broader understanding of global issues and reading other peoples' opinions on them has helped me to better form and understand my own.

France 24--24 hour international news

http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/administration/afp-news.html?id=070322182612.2vkmlbzt&cat=null

"Israel's Peres opposed to starting Lebanon war"

Israeli deputy prime minister Shimon Peres said that he opposed starting the conflict that took place in Lebanon this summer. This statement was made in a hearing investigation into last summer's war with Lebanon. "If it had been up to me," Peres said, "I would not have gone to war. If it had been up to me, I would not have made a list of objectives for this war... We were attacked and we had to defend ourselves. That's all." The testimony, given by Peres on November 7 were made public by the investigating commission, which is expected to release its findings in mid April. Along with Peres, some 70 poiticians and military leaders (including PM Olmert, defense minister Amir Peretz and former chief os staff Dan Halutz--who resigned after this summer's battle) appeared before the commission as well. The commission to investigate the Lebanon war was born out of pressure from "thousands of military reservists who demanded a full-scale inquiry into the conflict," the article says. The war went from July 12 through August 14, ended by a UN brokered ceasefire. It was launched by Israel against Shiite Hezbollah militants in Lebanon after the capture of two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid on July 12. The conflict has come to be known as "The Second Lebanon War", the first being in 1982 when Israel launched an operation codenames "Peace in Galilee".

Being that the issue in question is so far back, it is hard to place judgement on Peres now for this statement. Had Peres publicized this view last summer while the war was going on or right after, he would have received a lot more attention than he is now, when the commission report is about to come out. Still though, Peres, while holding a great amount of prestige in the Israeli parliament, is not the one who gets to decide whether or not the country goes to war. Saying he didn't support the military action in Lebanon 8 months after the fact really doesn't matter anymore. His opinion doesn't change what happened, and is not wholly unpopular either.

Olmert interrupted in speech, Soldiers still in Palestinian captivity, Peace talks with Arabs later this month

Haaretz.com
"Man interrupts PM speech; slams efforts to release IDF abductees"
March 22, 2007
by: Eli Ashkenazi

During a speech in Tel Aviv Thursday, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was interrupted by an audience member asking about his efforts to secure the release of three IDF soldiers captured by Palestinian forces this past summer. The soldiers in question are Gilad Shalit, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. The interrupter was Danny Valla, a member of Kibbutz Yotvata. In response, Olmert said, "A day doesn't go by without me making efforts to resolve this painful issue. It takes time. There's no instant solution in this case. I regret that I cannot elaborate on this topic." The speech that was interrupted was at a conference of the Kibbutz Movement. In regards to peace efforts, Olmert said that Israel would be happy to make peace with Syria, expressing hope that conditions will come to facilitate negotiations. He said that Israel is willing to make "sweeping, painful and tough concessions" to create a setting for dialogue with its enemies. The current peace plan Saudi Arabia is posing, which may be a starting point for Israeli-Syrian conversation calls for "full diplomatic relations between the entire Arab world and Israel in exchange for full Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and East Jerusalem," the article says. When this plan was first proposed in 2002, Israel rejected it outright and became more even oppositional when the Arab League also demanded that Palestinian refugees and their descendants be allowed to return to their former homes in Israel, but now, with negotiations reaching a stopgap, Israel has begun to show slight interest in the plan. Arab leaders are excited to revisit the proposal at a summit in Riyadh later this month. Part of this push to revisit the 2002 Saudi plan comes from moderate Arab governments who are worried about the rising tensions in the region and sees progress between Israelis and Palestinians as a way to lessen tensions in the region and lessen the growing influence of Iran. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said that Israel has no intentions of accepting the Arab peace plan as it currently stands, but will work to revise it--particularly the part allowing displaced Palestinians from the 1948 Independence War to return to their homes inside Israel, while Arabs hold strong to their land-for-peace ideology.

I believe that as long as Israeli-Arab negotiations do not result in an increase in violence, or a greater and more galvinized band of Arab nations against Israel, they will be good for all countries involved. I do not think that an actual workable peace plan will be reached, as the Arab countries coming to the table are pretty firm on a plan that is not acceptable to Israel. Still, however, the opportunity to open conversation and express a desire for peace with these countries is a step in the right direction, just it is important that steps be taken very carefully and strategically, especially at this early stage in the game.

New Palestinian Government boycotted by Israel, US taking baby steps

The New York Times
"U.S. and Israel Differ on Contact With Palestinians
by:Isabel Kershner
March 19, 2007

The Israeli cabinet has voted to boycott the new Palestinian government, but the US consulate in Jerusalem "refused to rule out contacts with some moderate Palestinians who are now serving as ministers," the article says. The US position does not reflect a change in policy, but does add weight to the notion that the new government may have "openings" in the West for the resumption of international aid, which would hurt Israeli efforts to maintain the boycott. Britain also has not completely shut their ears to the new government. France has already invited its foreign minister in for a visit, and Norway has officially recognized it and is in the process of lifting sanctions and reinstating aid to Palestinians. The unity government is still mainly Hamas run, but has a few Fatah figures involved, as well as a few independents in the cabinet. In a vote on Sunday, the Israeli cabinet voted to boycott the new government, saying it "objected to any dealings with the new unity government because Hamas is a part of it," the article says. The American position on the issue is not to change policies of not dealing with terrorist organizations, Hamas included. Still though, the US has also said it will not rule out contact with certain individuals in the new government. There was, though, initial disappointment from American officials when they first found out about the new government's platform. It had been the hope of Israel and the West that the new governemnt would reconize Israel and its right to exist, and renounce the violence that has come from Palestinian militant groups. Instead, howerver, the unity government only agreed to obey the constraints of previous areements, and did not endorse the two-state solution that was previously being worked out between Israel and the Palestinian Fatah party. In an interview Sunday, Olmert said, ''The platform of the new government includes very problematic elements that cannot be acceptable to Israel or the international community.'' Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian president under the former Fatah government and a "partner for dialogue" for both Israel and the US is not a member of the new government, so Olmert has said taht Israel will now limit their talks with him to humanitarian issues.

As I have said in previous blogs, I support the decisions of Israel and the US to boycott and tread delicately with this new Palestinian government. Still though, I think its weird that the US is dealing with only members of the government and not the government as a whole. This could complicate things, although the reasoning behind it is understandable. The US can't refuse to negotiate with them on the basis of not dealing with terrorists, because they are not specifically Hamas, but they cannot actually deal with them directly, because the majority of the government's leaders are members of the Hamas party. The US would be looked down upon for boycotting the government outright, but at the same time, is Israel's strongest ally and is engaged in a huge war against terrorism, so they must tread carefully when even coming close to dealing with Hamas, who they and others have deemed a terrorist organization.

Israel boycotts "new" Palestinian government -- Hamas in disguise?

The Mercury

"Israel sticks to boycott"
AP

March 19, 2007

The Israeli cabinet has overwhelmingly approved PM Ehud Olmert's call to boycott the new Palestinian unity government. The vote was 19-2 in favor of the boycott. Olmert has totally ruled out peace talks with the Palestinians, limiting contact to humanitarian issues until the new unity government renounces violence and officially recognizes Israel. Norway immediately recognized the new Palestinian government, and is lifting economic sanctions against Palestinians. Britain and the UN have also "signaled flexibility but the US reacted coolly to the prospect," the article says. The government's platform is more moderate than the previous Hamas overnment, but still falls short of Olmert's international demands (as mentioned above).

"We can't maintain contact with the government or its ministers when you consider this is a government that does not accept the conditions of the international community and sees terror as a legitimate goal," Olmert said.

I agree with Olmert and the Israeli cabinet's decision to boycott the Palestinian unity government. Even if the new government is more moderate than the former Hamas government, they are still majority led by the Hamas party, a terrorist organization, and still refuse to renounce violence or recognize Israel's right to existence. At least the Fatah party was trying to make it look like they were up for negotiations. The new unity government seems like a big ploy to put Hamas back in power, and Hamas cannot and should not be trusted. They are terrorists, end of story. No matter what they say, no matter what they call themselves, no matter what they do to try to make the rest of the world think they are legitimate, their outright refusal to commit to ending violence, and their refusal to recognize Israel are glaring red flags of warning.

The Dead Sea is drying up... what do we do now?

The Economist
"Better red than dead? Israel"
March 17, 2007

The dead sea, which is famous for being the lowest geographical point on the globe, so salty no life exists below its waters; people who swim in it simply float, and people from all over the world flock there to bathe in its therapeutic minerals faces a problem. Every year the surface level drops by about a meter. It is evaporating away. Fresh water from the Jordan River is transferred into the dead sea to replenish its supply, but that is not sufficient. "Studies suggest that the world's lowest body of water won't vanish altogether, but will stabilize at about 100m lower than it is now," the article says. That could lead to environmental disaster, as well as disaster for the tourism industry associated with it. A plan, originally brought to the table by Shimon Peres, proposes the building of a 200 kilometer long conduit to bring water from the Red Sea (at Israel's southern tip) to help stabilize and replenish the Dead Sea. Some of the water flowing through the conduit will be used to supply fresh water to Jordanians, Israelis and Palestinians as well. Peres is pushing the project, which could cost up to up to $5 billion, as part of his vision of peace through economic development. Environmentalists are wary, however, saying that "sea brine added to the hyper-salty, denser Dead Sea will float on the surface mixing in only over years or decades. If so, what draws the tourists in will be lost, and algal blooms could turn the water from blue to reddish-brown," according to the article. The water from the Red Sea would have to climb 125 meters before running downhill into the Dead Sea. It would have to be desalinated and then climb another 1.4 kilometers to reach Jordanian, Palestinian and Israeli cities to provide fresh water to the three aforementioned peoples. The cost of all the pumping could possibly outweigh the energy gains of the downhill run. More studies are being conducted to try to answer these questions.

There are definite pros and cons to this situation, but at this point it is difficult to side with a course of action because there is not enough scientific information to prove either side's case. The idea, in theory, is good, especially if it can bring clean water to towns in the West Bank and Gaza, who have a constant problem getting it, but it may be too idealistic. I would most likely be against the plan if it compromised the integrity of the Dead Sea. As long as the sea will stabilize at some eventuality, and never dry up completely, it might just be best to leave it as is. All in all, however, this is definitely NOT the biggest issue on Israel's plate.

Saudi Arabia once again reaching out to America to reset '67 Israel borders

Haaretz.com "Bush talks with Saudi, Egyptian leaders about Mideast peace" By Reuters On Friday, George W. Bush thanked King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak for taking part in the recent conference on Iraq. According to the White House, the three also discussed Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts. Bush talked to Abdullah about, "the effort to advance toward a Palestinian state and also peace between Israelis and Palestinians," said White House spokesman Tony Snow. Bush also spoke with Mubarak about Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's upcoming trip to the Middle East. Egypt, Jordain and Saudi Arabia said this week that they will "seek a new push on an Arab peace plan with Israel at an Arab League summit later this month in Riyadh," the article says. The US and its allies are looking to push a Saudi initiative picked up in 2002, seeking for Israel to normalize relations with the Arab world in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal to the borders that existed before the Six Day War in 1967.

Once again, any negotiations prefaced on Israel retreating to the 1967 borders are totally unrealistic and pointless. That would require Israel to cede a HUGE amount of land to Arab control-- land they fought for and won, land they have inhabited and made useful, land that has contributed to agriculture and the economy, and probably most importantly, land that provides a physical, geographical shield, protecting Israel from its spiteful neighbors. Furthermore, the '67 borders take Jerusalem out of Israeli control-- something you'll be hard pressed to find an Israeli, Zionist or Jew to agree to. Giving this land into Arab control would only further galvanize the Arab world in their quest to remove Israel from the map. Israel has earned the right to the land it holds claim to, and while a Palestinian state could be a solution to the conflict, it should not be according to the 1967 borders. They didn't work then, and they definitely won't work now.

Israelis back out of negotiations to release captured IDF soldier

Haaretz.com "PRC: Israel backs out of Shalit release deal at the last minute" by:Jack Khoury, Haaretz Correspondent and Haaretz Service 3/17/07 Government officials in Jerusalem denied reports saying that Israel backed out of negotiations with the PRC (Popular Resistance Committees) for the release of IDF soldier Gilad Shalit in exchange for imprisoned Palestinian officials. According to Israel Radio, Abu Mujahed, a PRC spokesman in the Gaza Strip, said Israel backed out of negotiations at the last minute. Shalit, an Israeli soldier who was captured last June in the Gaza Strip, was a major point of contention during the war with Lebanon over the summer. The prisoner exchange Israel reportedly backed out of was set to include all the leaders of Palestinian factions jailed in Israel, including renowned Hamas and Fatah leaders. Mujahed said the PRC is waiting for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's approval, but that if Israel rejects the offer, "we would then return to the starting point." The exchange includes plans to free prisoners, some of whom are serving life sentences, which was a major point of dispute in negotiations. The Palestinian negotiators refused to compromise on their position, and, according to Mujahed, Israel refused to negotiate as well, calling on Noam Shalit, father of Gilad Shalit, whose return was being negotiated, to pressure Israel into agreeing to the negotiations. He also assured Noam Shalit that his sons' captors are treating him humanely.
This is definitely a complicated issue for Israelis, seeing as their need for security and their desire to have Shalit freed are butting heads. At the time of Shalit's capture, I recall watching a TV interview with his father, who said he'd rather see the Israel defend herself as a nation than see them give up Palestinian militants for his son. In this light, I support Israel backing out of these negotiations, especially knowing that Shalit is in no immediate danger. While the circumstances are horrible, the negotiations were completely unfair, with Palestinians demanding the release of multiple high security and significant prisoners in exchange for only Shalit.

New PA Unity Government leaves loose ends in rleation to

March 15, 2007
Haaretz
"Abbas, Haniyeh finalize PA unity government deal despite fresh clashes"
by:Haaretz Service and News Agencies
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/837793.html

At the same time the PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh agreed on the composition of the new unified government, nine people (including two children) were wounded in an outbreak of factional violence in the Gaza strip. Still however, according to Haniyeh, "Today is an occasion to celebrate."
But who is celebrating? Definitely not Israelis or Americans whose peace talks in the past weeks failed to be productive because of the build up to this moment.
The full lineup of the new unity government cabinet will be made public Thursday, and submitted for parliament approval Saturday.
The fighting that emerged at the same time the unity government was formed began, according to a Fatah commander, after Hamas men had abducted a gunman during a shootout. Four Hamas men and one Fatah man were taken hostage, according to the general.
Under the new government, Hamas will will have nine cabinet posts, and Fatah will get six (Yet another intricacy the US, Israel and probably the EU will have problems with, seeing as they all three have deemed Hamas, who will be holding the majority stake in the new government, a terrorist organization.). The new government will hold a special session on Saturday morning to discuss the political platform of the newly formed government and hold a vote of confidence.
Israel, who previously got along with Fatah government officials to a significant degree, has sworn to boycott the unity government, including the non-Hamas officers, unless the government officially recognizes Israel, renounces violence and accepts interim peace deals.
The agreement of the unity government, "contains a vague promise to "respect' previous Israeli-Palestinian pacts. It does not commit the incoming government to abide by those pacts, nor recognize Israel and renounce violence," the article says. A failure to recognize Israel, end violence and engage in peace plans would put the newly formed government out of sorts with the US, EU, UN, Russia and Israel, among others.
The factional fighting put Abbas and Haniyeh under pressure to cut the deal quickly. Hamas blamed Fatah-loyal security forces for a killing in Gaza City, but Fatah denied any responsibility, this being only one of several attacks between members of Palestinian factions in the West Bank/Gaza region.

In my opinion, the new PA unity government is not a good thing for Israel. First off, the new PA government is mainly controlled by Hamas, the group Israel had been fighting to get out of power, and who was replaced by a more (supposedly) cooperative Fatah government. Regardless of the fact that Fatah was supposed to be a more favorable party in the face of Israelis, Hamas still had informal control of Gaza and the West Bank. With Hamas having nine of 15 spots in the new government, they are basically regaining control. It is obvious from the violence that has emerged between Hamas and Fatah party members and that continues to go on between them that the two parties are not united in ideologies, aside from their dislike (outright hatred and denial on the Hamas side) for Israel and its very existence. The government is either going to be short-lived due to the inability of the parties to get along and make unified decisions, or a takeout by Israel because of continued violence. I don't see this government bringing any sort of additional peace to the troubled region, or otherwise improving the situation for Palestinians or Israelis.

Israel airs dirty laundry as courts look for end to stench

"The Economist"

"Bad smells and fresh air - Israel"
March 10, 2007

There has been a ridiculous amount of talk about the corruption of Israeli government officials in the news over the past number of weeks. Everyone from the president, to the prime minister, to the police chief, to the minister of justice has come under fire for allegations ranging from rape to money laundering to falsification of testimony. It is, no doubt, because of this, that Israel has been slipping in the annual perceptions index kept up by Transparency International, "a Berlin-based anti-corruption watchdog." Back in the 70s, then PM Yitzhak Rabin resigned just because of allegations that his wife had some money in (then-illegal) overseas bank accounts. Today an accusation like that would barely make the news, the article says. It goes on to question, "is the putrefaction really worsening or are more people just noticing the smell?" A little bit of both seems to be the verdict. One opinion is that as Israel has become "less ideological, idealist and egalitarian than its pioneering early days, politics has become more of a personal career and politicians abuse their positions more often." But at the same time that the army and the presidency have come into this new and scrupulous light, the coutrs and state comptroller have gained strength and the public is "no longer willing to excuse leaders for improper behavior."--personal or political. More Israeli women are reporting sexual harassment in the workplace, and issues are being given more publicity than ever before. The corruption, however, needs to be fought so as not to lower the country's moral standards. Recommendations from a former supreme court justice include giving the parliament's ethics committee the power to fine legislators who step out of line, or bar them from certain jobs and chairmanships. There would definitely be more constraints put on them than in other countries, but that could also be seen as a check to make sure they don't have too much power.

So Israel definitely has some dirty laundry-- but who doesn't. And then again, things like the Lewinsky scandal draw a lot of interest. I think at this point, since SO many officials have been brought up for corruption, and so much attention has been paid, something definitely needs to be done. The suggestion that constraints be placed on politicians is a good one, provided that it is actually enforced and executed in a reasonable way. It is within the reasonable expectations of the people to have a representative government that is moral and upstanding, and it is the duty of the courts to ensure that. While I do feel, as I have said in other posts, that this entire thing has become trivialized to a point of nausea, there is some definite action that needs to be taken here. A system needs to be set into motion that will sanction these actions, and prevent future acts of this type from recurring within the Knesset.

Israeli Economy Booms Despite Setbacks

"Israel's economy leaps upward despite unrest; Growth in 2006 at 5.1 percent"
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Abraham Rabinovich

Feb 26 2007

2006 marked the third straight year of economic growth above 5 percent for Israel, even despite conflict with Lebanese Hezbollah and Palestinian militants. The cost of the war was only reported to be 0.3 percent of the Israeli GDP, and not the previously estimated 1 percent, making the growth rate for 2006 5.1 percent. According to the article, "The three consecutive years of strong growth have been accompanied by high levels of foreign investment that has been relatively unaffected by violence in the Palestinian territories and intermittent attacks on Israelis." Prime Minister Ehud Olmert declared in a speech in December, only four months after the war with Lebanon, that Israel's economy had never been healthier and that the small nation's exports exceeded their imports by billions of dollars for the first time.

"This is the first year in the history of the state in which exports exceed imports by billions of dollars," he said.
Additionally, The Economist has ranked Israel among the five fastest-growing emerging markets in the world, up 12 places from 48th largest economy in the early '80s to 36th largest from 2001-05, during which period it survived two Palestinian intifadas and two wars with lebanon, the Gulf war and numerous attacks from Iraqi missiles.

Palestinians intifadas and two wars in Lebanon in addition to being on the fringe of the 1991 Gulf War, in which it was hit by dozens of Iraqi missiles. S&P updated Israel's credit rating this month from "stable" to "positive", reflecting the "improved resilience of Israel's public finances and economy to geopolitical shocks after a three-year period of fiscal consolidation and strong economic growth."
On the negative side of things, the Histadrut, the Israeli labor federation, has called for a broad general strike this week which will likely effect government offices, and even public transportation, airports and schools. The strike is a result of the government's failure to pay thousands of municipal employees because of issues with the transfer of funds between the national government and municipalities.
Israel's GDP is significantly reduced by the vast amount of money it spends on its military forces, but a good amount of Israel's money comes from foreign investment--with the country attracting a total of $20 billion last year alone, most of which goes into the technology field, in which Israel has always excelled, with many of Israel's technological advancements being spinnoffs and innovations from the military division. The Tel Aviv stock market, the article says, has gone up about 25 percent since the war, even with the threat of more fighting with Hezbollah, Syria and possibly Iran. The economy's buoyancy can be explained by "free-market policies, budgetary restraint, tax cuts, privitization and the opening of the market to the free movement of goods, services and capital. Inflation is near zero, and reserves stand at $28 billion."

Nehemia Shtrasler, economics editor of the Ha'aretz newspaper, said the economy's buoyancy is explained by free-market policies, including budgetary restraint, tax cuts, privatization and the opening of the market to the free movement of goods, services and capital. Inflation is near zero, and reserves stand at $28 billion.

I think that Israel's economic growth just further proves the resiliency and strength of the country. The Israeli economy's growth over the past 5 years has been far greater than that of any western country, and especially that of any other country in the middle east. Their ability to sustain such a significant and well-trained and equipped army in addition to bearing the weight of a war and numerous attacks, and all the while still being able to grow economically shows the country's strength even more. A huge amount of this growth can be attributed to foreign investment and the tourism industry. Still though, Israel's strong economy proves its stability and gives weight to their side in the argument over their right to existence.

Reading Response Paper #3--"We Wish To Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families"

The Hutus and the Tutsis are the two major tribes that live in Rwanda. The tribes have been engaged in a continuous battle over the years, with each one, at times, having the upper hand. The tension between the Hutus and the Tutsis is historical, with the presence of a mutual disrespect for the other tribe, and a battle for social dominance ever present. The tension between the tribes grew and intensified over the years, eventually bringing about a violent and bloody genocide. The historical conflict between the Hutus and the Tutsis is hard to exact, as it has been passed down orally through the generations, but it is an accepted fact that both tribes were immigrants to Rwanda. The Tutsis, who originate from the Nile Region—probably Ethiopia—moved in from the East and North. The Hutus came from the Bantu family and were the first of the two tribes to come to Rwanda. The difference in where these peoples came from, globally, lends to a significant difference in their physical appearances, with the Tutsis typically being tall and gangly, with slim faces, and the Hutus possessing the complete opposite characteristics, being known as short, dark colored, round faced people with big lips. Throughout the years, however, a generation of mixed race has emerged—children who have one Hutu and one Tutsi parent—have made it difficult to distinguish between the tribes. This generation emerged as a result of one-time friendly relations between the tribes. These good relations can be attributed to the fact that they were able to speak the same language and share land, leaders and mutual enemies against whom they could unite. This mixed race that has emerged from the inter-relations of the two tribes makes it difficult to label the Hutus or the Tutsis as a distinct ethnic group. Their respective gene pools have been so intertwined that their distinctions no longer set them apart as separate ethnicities. The harmony between the tribes gradually evaporated, as the Tutsis attained greater status than the Hutus in public social spheres and distanced themselves from the Hutu people. The Hutus were modest famers, while the Tutsis raised cattle (a far more glamorous profession). In 1860 when King Mwami Kigeri Rwabuiri, a Tutsi, gained power, he brought immense wealth and political strength to his people. After his death in 1894, Germany assumed control of the country and, knowing very little about Rwandan culture or societal structure, embraced the pre-existing structure of the country, rather than trying to overhaul it. This only added to the upper hand the Tutsis already had on the situation, because of the German reinforcement of their position. At the end of World War I, authority over the German colony of Rwanda was transferred to Belgium, and the new ruler made life even harder for the Hutus. Tutsis could pretty much make Hutus their slaves, and had the authority to tax them as well. Hutu disdain toward the Tutsis intensified—turning to hatred and the Tutsi mindset that looked down on the Hutus intensified as well, creating a crash course bound to end in fighting. This situation can’t really be looked on as a caste system, as there was a significant degree of social mobility, until Rwanda lost its autonomy to Germany and then Belgium. The distinction between the two groups has definitely changed a lot over time. In today’s terms, it has become more of a distinction of origin and social status, as well as one of political rights and restrictions, than race or ethnicity.

Synagogue Encouraging West Bank Settlement of Jews Draws Protesters; Gets National News Coverage

The New York Times Monday, February 26, 2007 "Seeking New Israeli Settlers, Synagogue Draws Protesters" By: Trymaine Lee

A real estate fair in Teaneck, New Jersey, sponsored, in part, by Bnai Yeshurun synagogue, that encouraged Americans to buy homes in the West Bank prompted protests, while Rabbi Steven Pruzansky, of the Bnai Yeshurun synagogue, called it a success. The fair aimed to get American Jews to buy and possibly occupy moderately priced homes in the West Bank's Jewish settlements. Homes that were bought, but whose buyers did not want to live in them would be returned to Jewish settlers of the area. Pruzansky considers the act "fulfilling a biblical commandment"--the commandment for Jews to settle in the land of Israel.
Still though, part of the 2003 "road map" to peace (drawn up by the US, UN, EU and Russia) to which Israel agreed stated that Israel would halt all settlement growth in the West Bank, and that in return, Palestinians would disarm militant groups there. Not un-historically, however, the plan stalled shortly after its introduction. The US sees Jewish settlements in the West Bank as obstacles to peace, as they are on land the Palestinians hope to one day call their state.
Pruzansky puts it in less optimistic, yet possibly more realistic terms, saying, "Peace is an illusion already... By having Jews live there, we are strengthening the land, adding a safeguard."
Israeli government, probably to Pruzansky's dismay, however, has all but cut off funding for new homes in Jewish settlements in the West Bank (one of the reasons for "real estate fairs" such as the one in New Jersey have come into being-- to reallocate money from the pockets of wealthy American Jews into the settlements of the West Bank).
The real estate fair was criticized by both Amnesty International and pro-Palestinian groups. Protesters chanting "racists, racists, racists" assembled across the street from the synagogue during the fair. Protesters said that "what, in essence, we are protesting--that you have a group taking land away from Palestinians, Muslims and Christians and givin it to Jewish people from all over the world." According to Pruzansky, however, these protesters didn't sour the fair, they just gave it "some free publicity".
The Amana Settlement Movement, the Israeli housing group at the fair, said the homes would be built on land owned by the Israeli government and that is designated for settlement. It is not land that is currently being inhabited, and it would not displace anyone.


While I'm not sure that I am in favor of the existence of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, I definitely do not take the side of the protesters of the real estate fair either. The issue has nothing to do with racism of any kind. It has to do with the Jewish religious belief that the Jews are entitled to and meant to inhabit all parts of the land of Israel. That's why the fair was held at a synagogue and not a consulate. While there is a looming possibility of the West Bank becoming part of a Palestinian state, the area is currently one under Israeli control, and one in desperate need of modernization and development--something the Amana Settlement Movement would bring to the area. Additionally, in the "road map for peace" plan, the Palestinians did not stick to their end of the deal either, with the West Bank being the primary area for secret operations of Palestinian militant groups, and they are definitely not disarmed, so they are just as guilty as Israel in not maintaining the peace plan. The homes being sold in the West Bank are not being sold at rock bottom prices, as the protesters, one of whose signs (in the article's photograph) reads "Support Ethnic Cleansing-- Buy Stolen Palestinian Land CHEAP" would have you believe. The mean price for one of the Amana homes is in the $117,000 range-- near the same price a modest suburban home in the American Midwest would cost. On the contrary, the land is not stolen, and has nothing to do with ethnic cleansing. The land is under the authority of the Israeli government, and no one would be displaced from it to build these homes or to put Jewish settlers into them. Additionally, many Jews who want to move to Israel can not afford to live in areas such as Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, due to the almost astronomical cost of living there, and would not be able to realize their dream of making aliah (immigrating) to Israel otherwise. The West Bank is not the most appealing of real estate, it is, as of now, still the right of a Jew or Israeli citizen to live there, even if the Knesset isn't in full support.

Israel Enforces Curfew on West Bank Town of Nablus after two Bomb Laboratories are Found-- Palestinians find "aggression" against peace efforts...

Accompanying an article appearing in the Monday, February 26, 2007 New York Times titled "Israeli Troops Place Curfew on West Bank City", there is a picture of a desolate looking West Bank street, lined with run down Arab shops, and depicting two army vehicles patrolling down the street as, as the caption states, "A Palestinian youth ran from Israeli military vehicles yesterday in Nablus after a curfew had been imposed."--inciting the reader to look at the Israeli forces as oppressors of the poor, peaceful, disenfranchised Palestinian people. To the contrary, however, the military operation (the biggest in the area in two years) came about after Israeli forces discovered two explosives factories in two days in the city, and, if I may be so bold as to say, it looks like the kid is about to pick up a rock and throw it.
In these factories, soldiers found pipe bombs, a hand-held Lau guided missile and launcher (that had belonged to the Israeli Army), and lots of bomb-making materials. The operation to enforce the curfew began Saturday and intensified throughout the night, with 100 Israeli Jeeps and armored vehicles blocking Nablus roadways and troops began sweeps of the historical city. Palestinian responses ranged from people throwing chunks of concrete and stones to the firing of weapons, wounding two Israeli soldiers. Six Palestinians were wounded as well, by rubber coated Israeli bullets, fired in defense.
Nablus, a large city in the West Bank, is known to harbor numerous Palestinian militants, and the Israeli army regularly patrols the area, but this new operation was devised to "trim back" militant groups who were stock piling materials (such as the explosives and rockets found in the bomb factories earlier in the week). Hamas, which is much more secretive in the West Bank than in Gaza has been secretly organizing in Nablus and has been secretly recruiting for a "police force", as the one in Gaza is dominated by the rival Fatah faction.
Some 10,000 people in central Nablus were said to be under curfew, with schools being cancelled and Israeli forces taking control of the TV and radio waves. The crackdown was said to remain in effect for several days. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said this situation will, "undermine the efforts that are being made to sustain the cease-fire with Israel." Additionally, Abbas has said, "This aggression by the Israeli occupation government is like cutting the road forward after all our efforts to find peace." Hamas officials say the raid had meant to undermine efforts at creating a unified Hamas-Fatah government.

Honestly, I see nothing wrong in Israel's actions here. They found BOMB factories--- it is their duty to protect themselves, especially from a group of decentralized guerilla fighters who are ready and willing to sacrifice their own lives to kill Jews and Israelis. How can the Palestinians say that Israelis protecting themselves from bombings is undermining cease fire efforts, when these Palestinians who claim to be in a cease fire are mass producing explosives?
Additionally, I'd like to express my extreme dislike of The New York Times. Its crybaby liberal bias against Israel is pretty ridiculous. First a huge string of articles outlining how corrupt the Knesset is--when there is other more important Israel-related news to print, followed up by articles with a strong bias to the Palestinian cause. All in all, I see nothing wrong with the preventative measures taken by Israel in this situation, and I think the response of Palestinian and Arab leaders to this issue just goes further to show how untrustworthy and unwilling to compromise and reform they really are.

Police official resigns after investigation into '99 dealings with crime family

The New York Times
"Top Israeli Police Official Resigns Amid Charges of Dereliction"
by Steven Erlanger
February 19, 2007

The police commissioner of Israel resigned Sunday night after his actions in a 1999 case involving an Israeli crime family were severely criticized by an investigating committee. Police commissioner, Moshe Karadi's term would have ended in August said he was making his resignation immediate, "to set a personal example," and spare the police the damage a scandal would cause, while still insisting the allegations to be false. Yaakov Ganot, the current director of the prison service, will be his replacement. In addition to Karadi, the deputy police commissioner, Benny Kaniak, is also being removed from his position and being offered Ganot's former job in an effort to better the Israeli police system. While the case dates back to '99, the scandal is the latest in the country, already reeling from political scandal: President Moshe Katsav had to resign because of rape charges, PM Ehud Olmert and his suspended office director Shula Zaken are under suspicion of corruption, the director of the Tax Authority, Jackie Matza resigned Sunday night in response to an ongoing investigation, finance minister Abraham Hirshson is under investigation for embezzlement from a nonprofit organization and Olmert's predecessor, the deathbed-comatose Ariel Sharon was widely suspected of political corruption, and his son Omri has been sentenced to jail but is allowed to remain free because of his father's coma. These do not even account for all the recent political scandals in Israel. The investigations are part of an effort to change what is becoming a tradition of political corruption, but it has been badly interrupted by this past summer's war with Lebanese Hezbollah, followed by the resignation of Israel's military chief of staff.

The corruption in Israeli government has reached a level of ridiculousness and is beginning to interfere with the country's ability to govern. While the investigations do bring out a bad side of the government to the public, they seem to be necessary to correct the problems at this point. Still though, I feel that there are more pertinent issues the news media could focus on than government corruption, or at least report on in addition to these stories.

Saudi Arabia reaches out to Israel and American Jews, but sadly could be stuck in 1967

In a front page article appearing in the February 12 edition of USA Today, the article headlined "Arabs try outreach to Israel, U.S. Jews--Saudis, others seek to counter extremists" paints a hopeful picture of the current situation between Israel and her neighbors. Saudi Arabia is leading Arab states in making public overtures to Israel, as well as American Jews in an attempt to "undercut Iran's growing influence, contain violence in Iraq and Lebanon and push for a Palestinian solution," the article says. The outreach objective coincides with the role the Saudis played last week in helping to broker a deal for a coalition Palestinian government.
Last month, the article says, a departing Saudi ambassador to the United States made an "unprecedented appearance" at an event hosted by a number of American Jewish organizations to honor a State Department diplomat appointed to combat anti-Semitism.
Saudi Arabia is among a group of countries including Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates that have "stepped up contacts with Israel and pro-Israel Jewish groups in the USA," with "the Bush administration's blessing," of course. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said that a peace deal between Israel and Palestinians would weaken militant groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Rice has also stated that six gulf states, Jordan, Israel and Egypt are a "new alignment of moderates to oppose extremists backed by Iran and Syria," the article says.
The intensification of these contacts has been part of a strategy that aims to undercut extremists and help usher along an Israel-Palestinian peace deal. It is of great concern that Iran is setting the political agenda of the region.
Of the 21 Arab countries on the map, only three--Egypt, Jordan and Mauritania-- formally recognize Israel. A Saudi peace plan offered up in 2002 offers diplomatic relations with the other 18 Arab states if Israel agrees to withdraw to the borders proposed in 1967--which would require Israel to give up the West Bank and Golan Heights. The proposition would turn this land into a Palestinian state.

Personally, I find the 2002 Saudi proposition ridiculous, and if the peace deals the Saudis wish to broker now even remotely resemble the 1967 border plans, there is no way the proposition will go through a committee of Israelis or American Jews. The Golan Heights especially are an invaluable asset to Israel, providing physical protection as it is at the border with both Syria and Lebanon. It also carries an emotional attachment because of how hard Israelis have had to fight to keep this land--much of which was abandoned after the Syrians turned it into a minefield, and refused to turn the maps over to Israel. Also, a huge majority of Israel's fresh water comes out of the Golan Heights--not something they really want to turn over to the control of countries who have denied their existence for the past 58 years, referring to Israel just as the "Zionist entity". It is a great step forward for Arab countries to reach out to American Jews and Israel, but it is unrealistic for them to come to the table with a failed plan from 1967 and expect it to work today.

Reading Response Paper #2

Reading Response Paper #2: Stewart argues that it was the difficult interactions and meetings between the coalition officials and Iraqis that ultimately determined the fate of the early years of the occupation. Provide one example of a meeting from both Nasariyah and Amara that occurred between Stewart and a local Iraqi figure(s). What was difficult about these two meetings? Were the meetings difficult for the same reasons? Did these difficulties impact the outcome of the meetings? How could these difficulties have been overcome more productively?

Rory Stewart, author of The Prince of the Marshes, describes his time as Deputy Governorate Coordinate over the Iraqi provinces of Amara and Nasariyah. In this position, Stewart met with Iraqi Sadrists of the area whose tense meetings with Stewart and stubborn dispositions set the stage for the difficult interactions that ultimately set the tone for the early years of the occupation. In both his handlings of Amara and Nasariyah, however, Stewart’s own actions are quite sloppy, with Stewart exuding too much confidence and not nearly enough tact to carry out these already complicated meetings and interactions in the most befitting manner.

The first of Stewart’s meetings, took place in Amara, a town where most of the secular middle class—who held aspirations of living in a peaceful liberal democracy—had fled, was brought about by a large, spur-of-the-moment, demonstration in front of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) compound. Stewart invited representatives of the protesters into his office to speak on the concerns of the people. This was merely a façade though, as Stewart took no mind to the list of grievances they prepared for him. He continuously interrupted the men, and aggressively cut off the representative’s objections with comebacks of his own, before giving up and angrily showing them the door.

Stewart’s other botched meeting was in Nasariyah, where the provincial council was adamantly opposed to the Coalition. This time, three thousand Sadrists had assembled around the CPA compound. Looking for Stewart, Jawad and Sheikh Muwayad, two representatives of the protestors, risked arrest as they entered the compound to present Stewart with another outlined list of their grievances. During their recitation of the preamble of these grievances, Stewart cut them off and urged them to get to the point. Once they did make their points, however, Stewart exhibited no real effort to understand them, and spent little time trying to explain his own position. As a result of the discontent Jawad and sheikh Muwayad felt after their meeting with Stewart, the two planned and carried out a series of terrorist attacks throughout the country.

It is extremely clear that Stewart mistreated these people. Yes, there was a large degree of resistance, and the people were hard to negotiate with, as their goals were pretty opposite to Stewart’s, but still, Stewart could have handled these dealings in a much more appropriate manner. These people were disempowered, disenfranchised, frustrated, and militarily mobilized for action, and Stewart, regardless of all these factors, treated them inappropriately. He could have leveled with them—he could have dropped his façade of superiority and come off his high horse to speak with them on a more respectful and befitting level. While many of the requests of the people he was working with were not probable or realistic, Stewart could have still given them more patience and attention. The delicacy of the situation was, even at this point, very obvious, and Stewart failed to take the rising tensions into account in his dealings with his subordinates. Rather than shooting down these people, he should have used this time as an opportunity to show them the kindness of the foreign forces and to teach trust and cooperation. Stewart realizes this, albeit a little too late, saying, “I should have seen it more from their perspective. They had walked into a coalition base—taking the risk of being arrested…I had not allowed them to read out the manifesto they had written with such care. And now, I insisted on knowing what they wanted,” (Stewart 321). This situation can easily be looked at as Stewart failing to realize a rare and crucial opportunity to enhance the image of the occupying foreign forces in the eyes of the Iraqi citizens.

Another Article on the Rabid Misconduct of Israeli Government Officials... As if there's anything else to talk about

The article at left, appearing in the Thursday, February 2, 2007 New York Times informs on the conviction of former Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon on charges of forcibly kissing a female soldier. Ramon stepped down from his position last August, when the charges against him arose.
In light of this conviction, which came January 31, many speculate that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will re-shuffle his cabinet, after the country's government has been brought down so much by criticism of its handling this summer's war with Lebanon, and the scandal that has surrounded numerous government officials within the Knesset.
President Moshe Katsav (whose office is largely ceremonial) is enduring the beginning of a three-month suspension while facing charges of rape, sexual assault and more.
Prior to the passing of a sexual harassment law in 1998, these charges were extremely rare in Israel's "macho culture," the article notes. Since then, however, there have been numerous such charges brought against Israeli officials.
Ramon, a 56 year old divorcee, was charged with kissing a 21 year old female soldier at a government office on July 12, the day the war between Lebanese Hezbollah and Israel began. Ramon claims the two were flirting and the kiss was consensual, however the soldier claims otherwise, and the three judges assigned to Ramon's case did not take kindly to his testimony, siding with the soldier.
Ramon's sentencing hearing is in about three weeks, with a maximum sentence of three years, but Ramon plans to appeal, and many speculators say it is unlikely he will do any time.

In my opinion, the Israeli officials coming under fire are no worse or better than those in power in the United States, or any other country. Yes, we put these people in office, and expect them to exemplify our ideals and serve as upright citizens, but the fact of the matter is, people are people. Does that excuse the alleged actions of Ramon, Katsav, Olmert, Clinton, and whoever else has come under fire for various misconducts? ABSOLUTELY NOT. My point is that had Joe Shmoe, a regular citizen not in the public eye, having his every action scrutinized, forcibly kissed a woman 35 years younger than him, the world would do no more than shake a finger at him and all would be forgotten by the next day. Politicians RUN for their jobs. They know what they are getting themselves into, and they know the scrutiny they are putting themselves under, so the question I am left with is, knowing all of this, why do they still do it?
The part that concerns me even more though, is why is this petty garbage actually news? The New York Times has had a regular series of articles detailing the corruption of Israeli officials, yet has made little to no mention of other events going on in the country-- and we all know there is always something going on over there. A brief perusal of today's headlines in Haaretz (a leading Israeli newspaper, published in Hebrew and English online at www.haaretz.com ) looks like this:
-"Quartet of Middle East Peace Brokers begins Meeting in US"
-"IDF Soldiers Wound Palestinian near Checkpoint in West Bank"
-"PMO: Peretz has no Authority to choose Missile Defense System"
-"Egyptians blame Hamas as Ceasefire Fails"
So Mr. New York Times, Mr. American News Media, where are these stories? Why do we only see news pertaining to the corruption of those who run the State of Israel, and no real, viable, important news pertaining to this controversial state? We get in-depth reports on the war in Iraq every day, we hear about the 500+ illegitimate candidates vying for the White House, we hear about Nancy Pelosi's fashion choices, and even about TV celebrities calling other TV celebrities "faggots". Why is this news less important, so much so, in fact, that the only coverage we get is on piddly misconducts by government officials that have become so astronomically blown out of proportion that the important issues get, literally, lost in translation?

Israeli President Refuses to Step Down--The Party's Over but Katsav is Still Dancing

The article at left, appearing in the Thursday, January 25, 2007 edition of The New York Times, speaks about the current turmoil within the Knesset, the Israeli Parliament. on Jan 24 Prime Minister Ehud Olmert called for the resignation of President Moshe Katsav, after the announcement that he was to be indicted on criminal charges for rape, obstruction of justice, abuse of power, breach of trust, fraud and sexual harassment.
Last Wednesday, at which point calls for his resignation were already being made, Katsav asked for a leave of absence, so as to deal with the numerous accusations springing up against him. A committee will vote to approve or deny Katsav's request for leave, but with a huge portion of parliament calling for his resignation, it is hard to call what their decision will be. The committee may even decide to begin the impeachment process, although Katsav's term is up in July.
Katsav strongly denied the accusations, which go back to 1998 when he was Israel's minister of tourism, also saying that if indicted by attorney general Menachem Mazuz (which seems highly likely), he will resign.
Katsav, an Iranian born Sephardic Jew (Jews who trace their ancestry to Spain and the Iberian Peninsula), claims that the charges have sprung up as part of a plot against him started by Ashkenazi Jews (Jews who trace their ancestry to Europe), who make up most of Israel's governmental elite.
Katsav's televised speech was one full of "anger, accusation and self-pity, remind[ing] some of Richard M. Nixon's 'Checkers' speech of 1952," the article says.

In my opinion, this situation has reached a point of ridiculousness. Katsav should just resign and be done with it. First of all, the post of President in Israeli government is mostly ceremonial anyway, and it is petty of Katsav to drag this issue out. Secondly, other Israeli officials have respectfully resigned their posts for far lesser accusations rather than let themselves become a public and international spectacle. For example, in 2000, then President Ezer Weizman resigned following allegations that he received half a million dollars as a gift from a wealthy Frenchman--a far lesser alleged crime than rape, fraud, obstruction of justice and the rest of the charges Katsav faces. Even if the charges are, as Katsav claims, false, he should step down and take the time to properly clear his name without taking up the time and resources of the Knesset, and causing a national and international tabloid fanfare. His yelling on TV, refusal to take questions from the press, and overall defensive and angry attitude are completely inappropriate. This is the behavior we have come to expect from whiny Hollywood celebrities--not the president of Israel.... and now at least the celebs are checking themselves into rehab.

Reading Response Paper # 1

Reading Response Paper #1:Should we be concerned about what happens to the countries/individuals of the “unflat” or “half-flat” world? If not, why? If so, what should be done by NGOs? Corporations? Private citizens?

Since the end of the first World War, until the start of what Thomas Friedman, New York Times columnist and author of The World is Flat, calls Globalization 3.0, the United States has held itself in high esteem as the self-proclaimed (and, for the most part, rightly so) strongest nation in the world. Americans have become quite comfortable with this status, and have, in my opinion, begun slacking off, allowing many jobs to be exported, or outsourced, to other countries where the labor can be done at cheaper rates with the same, or sometimes even better, standards of quality. These jobs, going mostly to India, China and Japan, have lead to these countries’ rise on the global economic horizon, causing them to rapidly catch up to the United States. This comfortable security Americans have felt for generations is now proving dangerous, with far fewer American college students seeking degrees in the fields of Math and Science, and increased numbers seeking these degrees in other countries. The flattening of countries such as India, China and Japan has contributed to a global marketplace and the leveling of the global playing field.We know the challenge this poses to the United States, but what threat does the flattening of previously under-developed countries pose to the rest of the not (yet) flat world? What role will these countries play in a global economy, and how will globalization affect them? Why is it our job to care?First of all, it is, without doubt, the responsibility of flat countries to take an interest in the welfare of the non-flat world. Not only do the events and situations in non-developed countries affect the dealings of those living and doing business in a non-developed world, but as modernized peoples who appreciate and love our rights and freedoms, it is our duty to care about those who do not have those rights and freedoms, and do the most we can to extend those luxuries to them. We possess the ability to help these people, whether they suffer under war, genocide, disease, poverty or any other unfavorable circumstance, so why shouldn’t we? Yes, if we help to flatten these countries it will create more competition for us in the newly flat modern world, but it would be foolish of us not to realize that as globalization reaches further and further, and more of the world catches up to the standards we Americans have put on a pedestal since the end of World War I, the welfare of the global economy will become just as important, if not more important, than personal, or national economic progress, as individuals find their niches in the new global market place. By helping these non-flat and partially flat countries to globalize, giving them the potential to grow, develop and flatten, too, we create competition for ourselves, but this risk is far outweighed by the potential contribution these countries could make toward a global economy. The well being of all humanity should be at the forefront of our goals as citizens of a flat world. As Friedman says in The World is Flat, each region of the world has its own strengths and weaknesses. It is our job as a stronger region to aid other regions in developing their strengths by overcoming their weaknesses. A huge part of this is education; especially in America, where education in the fields of math and science has decreased. In general, however, education is a leading element that will aid in broad globalization. Private citizens, Non-Government Organizations and Governments alike should contribute to all of this through actions rather than blindly throwing money at countries who need to be shown the way with infrastructures such as education reform, encouraging a capitalistic free-market economy, privatizing certain state-run facilities, and regulating the environment in which much of today’s business is run to allow for individual citizens, small corporations and businesses, as well as big business to all exist on an even playing field. It is the duty of the flat world to not only help the non-flat world, but also to ensure that it is doing so in a way that is actually beneficial in the long run.

(Sorry for the late post, as I said when I emailed you the paper, Blogger was down when I went to post the assignment. Thanks for your understanding! -Samantha)

End of Israeli-Syrian Silence in Sight? Temperatures set to rise over Golan Heights.

In a January 20, 2007 article, The Economist highlights the precarious situation between Israel and Syria, and the possibility of peace talks taking place in the near future. Some optimists venture far enough to say that if Israel negotiates peace with Syria, "it could be the key to peace in the whole Middle East," according to the article.
This week, Haaretz, a major Israeli newspaper, broke the news of secret dealings between Syrians and Israelis for the past two years, producing the outline of a possible peace deal between the two nations, who, to put it lightly, are not on speaking terms.
It has been said that this secret communicative channel developed after Israelis refused an offer for talks in 2004. The talks took place between former ambassador Alon Liel and Ibrahim Suleiman, a citizen of Syria residing in Washington, DC., who is presumably close with Syrian President Bashir Assad. The two held eight meetings, mediated by a Swiss diplomat. The plan calls for the return of all of the Golan Heights to Syria, making it a demilitarised national park, into which Israelis can enter without obtaining visa. Israel's water supply would be safeguarded, and both countries would have zones of reduced military presence along their borders. The plan fails to address some major issues, such as the Syrian refugees who were expelled from the Golan, or the pending status of the Israelis currently living there, but it is definitely progress.
This news has proved controversial, causing people to consider whether or not a real peace deal could be around the corner. The major topic of contention between the two countries, the Golan Heights, is a region in the northern part of the country which Israel took from Syria in the '67 war. The nations talked throughout the '90s, but in 2000 Israel, the only non-Arab democratic state in the Middle East, having a landmass smaller than the state of New Jersey, refused to cede back a "ten-metre-wide strip of the Golan Heights bordering the Sea of Galilee, to guarantee Israel's control of the source of 40% of its fresh water. " This refusal marked the cessation of talks between then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and Syrian President Hafez Assad, who died shortly after. Assad was succeeded by his son Bashar. The countries did not exchange discourse, largely at the will of the Israelis, until earlier this month when top Syrian legal adviser Riad Daoudi said that his country was now ready for talks, with a quote from a Syrian delegate saying the Syrians are ready to negotiate without preconditions and that they will "come to the table with all that we are and all that we have, including our relationships", which could elude to ties to Hezbollah, Iran and Hamaas.
Current Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, and his predecessor, Ariel Sharon have repeatedly shot down any advances Syria has tried to make toward them, but the current Israeli parliament is divided on the issue. Those in favor argue that the possible benefits outweigh the risks of dealing with Syria, while skeptics say Bashar Assad is only pretending to want a peace deal as an attempt to gain American support.
In the aftermath of this summer's battles with Hezbollah, and Lebanon's sloth-like recovery from the damage, Israel may soon be engaged in another battle with Lebanon, which would push them even further from any Palestinian peace agreement that may or may not be in the makings, causing some to see Syrian peace talks as the best, if not only, alternative to more military action.
Both Israeli and Syrian governments have issued "strong denials" of their knowledge of these proceedings, but there are reports that Syrian officials had some indirect involvement. Olmert runs the huge risk of "being eaten alive by hardliners in his increasingly fragile coalition if he were seen to entertain the idea" of negotiations with Syria. There is no clear answer as to how this story was leaked, or as to how the politics of the proposed deal would work themselves out, especially with an Israeli people so opposed to negotiations with Syria.

My personal opinion, having spent 10 days in Israel over winter break, visiting the Golan Heights, coming a little too close for comfort to the Syrian border (after getting lost on a hike through the mountains of the Upper Galilee), and learning firsthand from Israeli citizens and soldiers about this disputed region , is that perhaps it would be beneficial for Israel to stop turning a deaf ear to Syria's requests, and to possibly come to the table and draw up plans for peace agreements. I am, however, extremely wary of the degree to which Syria should be trusted or considered an ally by any means. Driving through the Golan Heights today, there is very little to be seen apart from mine fields that remain active, due to Syria's refusal to turn over the maps of them, and abandoned Israeli settlements. Yes, the natural beauty and general quietness of the area still attract a good number of tourists and vacationers, Israeli and foreign alike, but the overall existence of the area has become one of resentment that can be sensed in the Israeli attitude toward Syria. Much of the vastness of the Golan Heights serves as a training site for the Israeli Defense Forces, and off-road jeeps take tourists through cleared paths in the minefields to educate them on the situation, and allow them to overlook the borders with Syria and Lebanon, but overall, the quietness of this land comes from a bitter silence between Syrians and Israelis, both of whom feel an attachment to it. I also feel that it is in Israel's best interest to keep this land, as it offers them a physical wall of protection against military attack, separating Israel's cities and industry from Syria and, in parts, Lebanon. While negotiations may be beneficial in that they will break the long silence between the two countries' governments, I see them being long and drawn out, and not reaching an end until one of the two countries accepts a deal vastly different from the ideal.

The Economist "Why Can't They Just Make Peace? Israel and Syria" 20 January, 2007

Rice Sets Table for Peace Talks, Bringing Baggage in the form of US Agenda

The article at left, appearing in the Friday, January 19, 2007 edition of USA Today speaks of efforts of US and other international officials to mediate peace between Israelis and Palestinians. US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, who just recently visited Britain and the Middle East, plans to return to the region next month to begin peace talks with both Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Fatah Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
It has been commented that both of these leaders are much weaker than their predecessors (Ariel Sharon of Israel and Yasser Arafat of the Palestinian Authority), which could create difficulties in peace talks, but, however, there is a much greater general willingness among Israelis to cede land to form a Palestinian nation. Olmert is under heavy criticism for his handling of this summer's conflict with Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas, and with the recent resignation of Israel's Military Commander, Olmert has only a 14% approval rating from his citizens, not to mention the shadow being cast over him by the investigation into his possible foul play in the sale of Israel's Bank Leumi and other actions taken by Olmert during his term as Israel's finance minister. At the same time, Abbas faces pressures from his people, who have shown greater support for the Palestinian Hamaas Party, deemed a terrorist organization by the US, Israel and the European Union, which clashes with Abbas' Fatah party agenda.
In the past, peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians have gone off with varied degrees of success, but it seems as though difficulties at this time may arise from a separation of interests between the people of these countries and their governments, as well as a lack of support for government leaders on both sides.
A main goal of Rice's trip to the Middle East was to bolster Arab support of the US position in Iraq, which, according to the USA Today article, she was able to do with only a few lingering doubts. A main concern of both Sunni and Shiite Arab leaders was the threat of a crackdown on Shiite militias throughout the Arab world and the treatment of Sunnis and Shiites living together under sectarian governments. This concern arises, from a good degree, out of a comment made by Rice last week to the Senate Foreign Relations committee saying that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was on "borrowed time", a comment al-Maliki fears will "boost the morale of terrorist efforts." Rice, in a weak response to the biasing statement, blamed it on the translation and tried to rephrase her slip up and cover herself saying that she meant to express the sentiment that "both sides want the same thing."
Looking ahead to these future talks, it is somewhat troubling to think that the main US goal in Israeli-Palestinian peace talks is to gain support for the US efforts in Iraq. Regardless of any personal position on the situation in Iraq, I feel that the Iraq conflict and Israeli-Palestinian peace talks should be treated as two entirely separate entities, both of which require careful and attentive handling, but which should not be inter-related for the benefit of the United States. With the bloody and brutal history of Israeli-Palestinian relations, and the current circumstances casting shadow over the upcoming peace talks, it is unwise of Rice to come to the table with a US agenda, when she should be sitting down to focus solely on the precarious relationship between these two warring countries.

Knesset's Internal Pressures Climb After Military Chief's Resignation

The article at left, appearing in the Thursday, January 18, 2007 edition of USA Today highlights some of the internal problems Israel is facing in the wake of this summer's military failure and the very recent resignation of the country's military chief, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, already weakened by accusations of foul play in the privatization of Bank Leumi, Israel's second largest bank, in 2005 as the country's finance minister, as well as calls from numerous colleagues to step down, regretted Halutz's resignation.
Hamas leaders have picked up on the stress within the Knesset (Israeli Parliament) since this summer's conflct with Lebanon and see this "Zionist weakness" as a possible opportunity to gain American support, as well as an opportunity "to continue resistance and jihad," or in other words, the string of violence and contention that has defined the Palestinian/Israeli relationship through the generations.
The commission looking into this summer's conflict is expected to release a preliminary report within the coming weeks, but Halutz seemed to have no interest in sticking around to see the findings, and handed in his resignation earlier this week, pushing the pressure further onto the shoulders of Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz. According to Alex Fishman of the Yedioth Ahronoth daily, no Israeli chief of staff has ever stepped down of his own free will because of a military failure. Noting the stubborn disposition Israelis have come to be known for, this may very well be the case in the current situation, with approval of Olmert and his administration currently dropping among his colleagues.