President George W. Bush’s Historic Visit to Israel

Friday, May 16, 2008

President George W. Bush opened his historic visit to Israel on the 60th anniversary of statehood by hailing the Jewish state as “one of the world’s great democracies” and “one of the America’s oldest and best friends in the world.”

Abraham Foxman, Anti-Defamation League (ADL) National Director, joined with President Bush in Jerusalem as an official member of the presidential delegation to Israel.

Read full story.


Stand Against the Use of Child Soldiers

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Each year thousands of children are conscripted by governments, paramilitary groups, and guerrillas to serve as military combatants, human mine detectors, and sex slaves.

Sign up now the petition of The American Jewish Committee to stop these practices and cosponsor the Child Soldier Accountability Act of 2007.

Don’t let the opportunity to have your say pass by - this is your world and you have a right to make yourself heard - do not simply sit back and think someone else will tackle this issue for you - we all need to get involved and make a difference.

Take Action Now!


United States presidential election, 2008: Detecting and Deterring Electoral Manipulation

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

An American Enterprise Institute (AEI)-Brookings Institution Event

Election Fraud: Detecting and Deterring Electoral Manipulation

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

2:00 - 3:30 pm

Falk Auditorium - The Brookings Institution

Countries around the world - even long-established democracies - grapple with the fundamental issue of guaranteeing that their elections are fair and competitive. Recent events ranging from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Indiana’s voter identification law to the turmoil that has resulted from Zimbabwe’s recent presidential contest only confirm that fact. Drawing on social science research from the U.S. and abroad, Election Fraud: Detecting and Deterring Electoral Manipulation explores ways to define, measure and detect fraud, and makes recommendations for reform.

On May 21, 2008, the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution will host a discussion with the book’s editors, R. Michael Alvarez and Susan Hyde. Thomas Mann, co-director of the American Enterprise Institute-Brookings Election Reform Project and senior fellow at Brookings, will moderate the panel.  

After the program, panelists will take audience questions.

Moderator:

Thomas E. Mann, Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution

Co-Director, AEI-Brookings Election Reform Project

Panelists:

R. Michael Alvarez, Professor of Political Science, California Institute of Technology  

Thad E. Hall, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Utah 

Susan D. Hyde, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Yale University

To register for the event, please contact the Brookings Office of Communications at (001) 202.797.6105; or register online here.


Facing Tomorrow - The Israeli Presidential Conference 2008

Wednesday, May 14, 2008
World Jewish Congress president Ronald S. Lauder and the chairman of the WJC American Section, Rabbi Marc Schneier, are among the statesmen, intellectuals, businessmen and international Jewish leaders who will take part in the celebrations of the 60th anniversary of Israeli independence on 14 May 1948.

Israel’s president Shimon Peres is hosting a conference at the Jerusalem International Convention Center on the subject Facing Tomorrow, which Ronald S. Lauder and Rabbi Marc Schneier, as well as US president George W. Bush and many other world leaders, will address.

WJC president Ronald S. Lauder will join a debate on Israel-Diaspora relations while Rabbi Marc Schneier was invited as president of the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding to take part in a panel discussion on the Clash of Civilizations or Clashes Within Civilizations. Ronald S. Lauder is a member of the official US delegation to Israel’s anniversary celebrations.

At the opening of the Facing Tomorrow conference, Shimon Peres told participants and guests that Iran belonged in the past while Israel represented the future. He also emphasized the importance of discovery and science, for which Israel claims a significant role in its sixty years of existence. “This conference is the answer to Iran, it is the future that exists,” Shimon Peres said in his address. The president also asserted that scientific discovery was more important than the discovery of America, because the new world had borders while science is infinite.

The website of the conference, including video coverage, can be found here.


United States presidential election, 2008: AEI Political Report

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Here you may view the Spring 2008 issue of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) Political Report.

It features:

  • A poll-based election snapshot: Who Americans think will win, who they want to win, and where the race stands
  • What the polls say about the candidates’ strengths and weaknesses
  • What the nation and Democratic voters are saying about the Democratic race
  • Historical data on delegate counts at the convention
  • The latest data on economic insecurity
  • A collection of the latest polls on the Iraq War and the Surge

Breaking the Failed-State Cycle

Monday, May 12, 2008

A paper from the Rand Corporation questions how to break the “failed state cycle,” particularly in the triangle formed by Sudan, the Congo, and Sierra Leone.

“Insecurity in the 21st century appears to come less from the collisions of powerful states than from the debris of imploding ones. Failed states present a variety of dangers: religious and ethnic violence; trafficking of drugs, weapons, blood diamonds, and humans; transnational crime and piracy; uncontrolled territory, borders, and waters; terrorist breeding grounds and sanctuaries; refugee overflows; communicable diseases; environmental degradation; and warlords and stateless armies. Regions with failed states are at risk of becoming failed regions, like the vast triangle from Sudan to the Congo to Sierra Leone. For security, material, and moral reasons, leading states cannot ignore failed ones. While no two failed states are alike, all typically suffer from cycles of violence, economic breakdown, and unfit government, rendering them unable to relieve the suffering of their people, much less empower them. This paper aims to improve the understanding and treatment of failed states by offering an integrated approach based on two ideas: that certain critical challenges at the intersections between security, economics, and politics must be met if the cycle is to be broken and that, in meeting those critical challenges, the guiding goal should be to lift local populations from the status of victims of failure to agents of recovery.”

Read full story.


The New Russian Authoritarianism

Monday, May 12, 2008

Only a few hours after being inaugurated as Russia’s president, Dmitri Medvedev nominated Vladimir Putin to be prime minister. News reports suggest that the number of deputy prime ministers will be increased, a move that would surely strengthen Putin’s already powerful hand.

In a keynote lecture at the “Russia at the Crossroads” conference at the University of Illinois on March 27, 2008, Leon Aron argues that the ideology, priorities, and policies of the Putin Kremlin “are almost certain to inform and guide the Medvedev administration.” His chilling portrait describes the distinctive elements of “Russia, Inc.”

Read full story.


Jüdische Soldaten in deutschen Armeen

Friday, May 9, 2008

Oberstleutnant i. G. Jörg Barandat wies uns auf folgende Studie hin:

DOKUMENTATION DER TAGUNG DER KONRAD-ADENAUER-STIFTUNG (KAS) IN ZUSAMMENARBEIT MIT DEM BUND JÜDISCHER SOLDATEN (RJF) UND DEM ZENTRALRAT DER JUDEN IN DEUTSCHLAND.

Zur Studie.


Celebrating Israel at 60

Wednesday, May 7, 2008
A Great Gift in an Unhappy Wrapping: Celebrating (Despite It All!) Israel at Sixty

by Dr. Eran Lerman
Former deputy chief of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) strategic intelligence planning and currently director of American Jewish Committee (AJC) Israel/Middle East office

Israeli citizens may be forgiven if they look askance at the wrappings in which the gifts and joys of Yom Ha-Atzmaut (Independence Day) 2008 - our sixtieth - come ensconced.

The prime minister is facing fresh investigations into his conduct (in his previous positions), and the newspapers, based on rumors and hints, suggest that this might amount to an indictment for graft. Our former president, having reneged on his plea bargain, may soon force upon us a long and ugly trial for sexual abuse and perhaps even rape. Divided counsels in the governing coalition give the demands of Shas, and the claims of ultra-Orthodoxy to define Jewish identity, additional leverage. The influence of powerful “oligarchs” is being felt in our corridors of governance.

And despite some remarkably brave decisions recently - for example, the successful raid on the Syrian/North Korean nuclear facility, made half-public by the U.S. administration briefing before Congress - some of the questions left lingering as to the conduct of the Second Lebanon War remain unanswered. The agony of Sderot goes on and on, and with it, the challenge posed by Hamas ascendancy in Gaza. Iran continues to defy the world, racing toward the bomb, and to spew hate and terror. The challenges we face are clear for all to see.

As Israelis gather in military cemeteries across the land on Yom Ha-Zikaron (Memorial Day), which quite deliberately precedes Independence Day, they remember the sacrifice of those who fell in that war, in the eight subsequent ones - if one counts the two eruptions of Palestinian violence and the War of Attrition of 1968-70, as well as the more “conventional” conflicts of 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, and 1982 - and in the many acts of violence (as well as training accidents and other sad consequences of a prolonged military effort) in between. The unspoken, ever-powerful subtext, as always, but perhaps today with added force, is: Was it for a good cause? Are we worthy? This was expressed in a poem by Archibald MacLeish:

They say: We have given our lives
But until it is finished
no one can know what our lives gave.
They say: Our deaths are not ours: they are yours,
they will mean what you make them.
They say: Whether our lives and our deaths were for
peace and a new hope or for nothing we cannot say,
it is you who must say this.

In a certain respect, however, we are perhaps unfortunately touched by a linguistic quirk of modern Hebrew usage. For reasons rooted in the years of our pre-independence struggle and the intense experience of emergence from the valley of death of the Holocaust into the sunlight of sovereignty, Israelis have come to use the term “ha-medina,” “the State,” as synonymous with “the Country.” (In fact, Israel’s official name is not the “Republic of Israel”-as it might have been, following a firm European tradition-but simply the State of Israel.)

While “the State” in its narrower sense-the established government and its exercise of its institutional powers-may leave much to be desired at this point in time, there is much to celebrate, and indeed, with all the pain involved, much to give meaning to the price paid by “The Young Dead Soldiers” - the title of MacLeish’s poem - and to the toils and strains of our own “greatest generation,” that of the young women and men, like my two parents, who stood at the brink in 1948 and, in a desperate struggle, made this country happen.

This is a time when we may, with good reason, look beyond the painful headlines and contemplate, not the state of the State, but the broader achievements of the country, and the Jewish people, in sixty years. Therein lies a very different story - of almost constant growth; of an ingathering that produced a vibrant and multihued society; of breathtaking economic breakthroughs; of scientific and technological impact way beyond our numbers in the world (in which Israelis are only one in a thousand); of artistic and literary creativity on par with that of much larger nations.

Traveling in America recently, I was gratified to come upon the pride of place given to Israeli women artists in various forums - Sigalit Landau’s haunting work at the Museum of Modern Art in New York, and Yael Naim’s joyous music clip featured in the entertainment program on a prominent American airline. Surely they speak to a larger phenomenon, as do the imprints of Israeli technologies, from the disk-on-key flash drive to Intel chips; and as participants in AJC’s Annual Meeting last week heard from Shai Agassi, who wants Israel to lead to world in electric cars, the visionaries are still out there, even if they have moved from the meeting places of political movements and halls of government to the boardrooms of innovative corporations and the newly empowered gatherings of civil society and voluntary organizations.

An American Jewish intellectual recently took it upon himself to speculate whether Israel was “finished”-presumably because of the difficulty in solving the Palestinian problem. Similar sound bites emanate from Damascus and Tehran.

And yet the end of a phase in our history, and the loss of much of our political innocence, is just the beginning of a new chapter, possibly more energetic and more creative for being rooted in richer soil. America in 1836 was very much an unresolved set of contradictory propositions (and we must fervently hope that we shall not need to resort to what it took to sort them out, one score and seven years later). We have no ambition to emerge as a world power, as America already was by 1896.

But when our descendants in 2068 look upon this period of transition, they will little remember the political vicissitudes of the day, and will find instead the building blocks of an Israel that has become a creative force in her regional and Mediterranean environment and in the world community at large.

Reprinted with kindly permission of The American Jewish Committee.


Ziegler’s Follies

Thursday, May 1, 2008

The latest edition of the intellectual magazine Azure features the following essay by UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer.

Ziegler’s Follies

by Hillel Neuer

On March 26, 2008, to cheers and acclaim, Jean Ziegler was elected by the newly formed United Nations Human Rights Council to serve as one of its expert advisers. It was hardly an unexpected development.

Switzerland had announced his nomination in December 2007, beginning an unprecedented lobbying campaign by the Swiss government on behalf of its nominee, featuring, among other things, a glossy booklet sent to capitals around the world documenting his “unwavering commitment to,” “excellent knowledge of,” and “unstinting support for” human rights. Not for the first time, Ziegler, a former sociology professor, a member of the Swiss parliament, and currently the UN Human Rights Council’s Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, stood at the center of a perfect storm of adoration and acclaim. It was one more triumph in a remarkable career.

Granted tenure in 1977 by the University of Geneva, Ziegler founded and directed its Social Laboratory of Third World Civilizations. He has taught at numerous European universities, including the Sorbonne, where he served in 1984 as an associate professor of sociology and economics. In March 2004, he was awarded an honorary doctorate by Belgium’s University of Mons-Hainaut, where he was hailed as “the modern-day Condorcet”–the great Enlightenment philosopher of human rights. Ziegler is also the author of more than twenty books for popular audiences, most of which are dedicated to asserting that hunger and other human miseries are the inevitable products of Western capitalism and globalization. His works The New Rulers of the World and The Empire of Shame, for example, have become European best-sellers, distributed by leading French publishing houses and discussed by Ziegler in such forums as TV5, the international French-language channel. His literary success was officially recognized by the French Republic in 1994, when the Ministry of Culture named him a Knight of the Order of Arts and Letters. This prestigious honorific is awarded for contributions to the “radiance” of arts and letters in both France and the world as a whole. Not surprisingly, Ziegler lists the accolade prominently in his curriculum vitae.

Ziegler has found his greatest success, however, in the European media, which considers him a highly credible and well-respected authority on human rights. Leading newspapers such as France’s Le Monde, Le Figaro, Libération, and La Croix as well as Geneva’s Le Temps quote him regularly. Profiles of Ziegler have also appeared in premier European magazines, such as the German weekly Der Spiegel. In Switzerland, the Foreign Press Association granted him its “Most Popular” award. “You are a little miracle,” declared journalist Daniel Mermet when he interviewed Ziegler in April 2007 for Là-bas si j’y suis, a popular program on the public radio station France Inter. “[You have] an amazing… taste and feeling for denunciation and revolt.” In sum, Jean Ziegler is a darling of Europe’s academic, literary, and media elite.

To be sure, none of this would be problematic if Jean Ziegler were simply an innocuous idealist. But he is not. Besides being one of Europe’s most successful celebrity activists, Ziegler is also one of the continent’s most industrious anti-American and anti-Israel ideologues as well as a prominent apologist for a rogues’ gallery of Third World dictators, including Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi, Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, and Cuba’s Fidel Castro. During Ziegler’s tenure as Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, the cause of world hunger consistently took a backseat to the promotion of his anti-Western ideology. At a time when the UN is heralding the reform of its human rights apparatus, replacing the discredited Commission on Human Rights with a new council which it has described as the “dawn of a new era,” the case of Jean Ziegler casts grave doubt on the possible success of this reform and reveals the precipitous and accelerating decline of the UN human rights system and the international human rights movement as a whole.

Click here to read full essay.


Freedom of the Press 2008 Survey Release

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Freedom House’s 2008 report on press freedom shows a clear decline in both authoritarian countries and established democracies.

PRESS RELEASE

Washington D.C., April 29, 2008 - Global press freedom underwent a clear decline in 2007, with journalists struggling to work in increasingly hostile environments in almost every region in the world, according to a new survey released today by Freedom House. The decline in press freedom - which occurred in authoritarian countries and established democracies alike - continues a six-year negative trend.

Freedom House will formally present findings from Freedom of the Press 2008: A Global Survey of Media Independence today at the Newseum in Washington. Freedom House Executive Director Jennifer Windsor will also unveil the Map of Press Freedom 2008, a central exhibit featured in the Newseum’s Time Warner World News Gallery.

While the survey indicated that setbacks in press freedom outnumbered advances two to one globally, there was some improvement in the region with the least amount of press freedom: the Middle East and North Africa. The survey attributes the gains in the Middle East and North Africa to a growing number of journalists who were willing to challenge government restraints, a pushback trend seen in other regions as well.

“For every step forward in press freedom last year, there were two steps back,” said Windsor. “When press freedom is in retreat, it is an ominous sign that restrictions on other freedoms may soon follow. However, journalists in many countries of the world are pushing the boundaries, crossing the red-lines, demonstrating commitment and courage against great odds and we are seeing a greater global flow of information than ever before.”

Out of 195 countries and territories, 72 (37 percent) were rated Free, 59 (30 percent) Partly Free, and 64 (33 percent) were Not Free, a decline from 2006. However, the study found that declines in individual countries and territories were often larger than in years past.   Key regional findings include:   

  • Central and Eastern Europe/ Former Soviet Union: This region showed the largest region-wide setback, with Russia, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan, and several Central European countries, among others, showing declines. Only 18 percent of the region’s citizens live in environments with Free media.
  • Middle East and North Africa:  More unrestricted access to new media such as satellite television and the internet boosted press freedom regionally. Egyptian journalists showed an increased willingness to cross press freedom ‘red lines,’ moving the country into the Partly Free category.
  • Asia-Pacific: Restrictions on media coverage were imposed in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka, and Vietnam’s government cracked down on dissident writers.
  • Americas: Guyana’s status shifted from Free to Partly Free, while Mexico’s score deteriorated by a further three points because of increased violence against journalists and impunity surrounding attacks on media.
  • Sub-Saharan Africa: The region accounted for three of the year’s five status changes: Benin declined from Free to Partly Free, while the Central African Republic and Niger moved into the Not Free category. Political conflict and misuse of libel laws were key factors behind a number of country declines.
  • Western Europe: The region continued to have the highest level of press freedom worldwide, despite declines in Portugal, Malta and Turkey, the only country in the region ranked Partly Free.

The survey, released annually in advance of World Press Freedom Day on May 3, assesses the degree of print, broadcast, and internet freedom in every country in the world. The 2008 ratings are based on an assessment of the legal, political and economic environments in which journalists worked in 2007.  

“Improvements in a small number of countries were far overshadowed by a continued, relentless assault on independent news media,” said Karin Deutsch Karlekar, Freedom House senior researcher and managing editor of the survey.

“We are particularly concerned that while abuses of press freedom continue unabated in restrictive environments such as China, threats are also apparent in countries with an established record of media freedom and in newer democracies in Central Europe and Africa.”

The key trends that led to numerical movements in the study include:  

  • Unrest and Upheaval: Media played a key role in covering coups, states of emergency and contested elections in countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh and Georgia, and as a result, journalists became prime targets during government crackdowns.
  • Violence and Impunity: Violence against journalists and, in many cases, corresponding impunity regarding past cases of abuse was a key factor in determining press freedom in countries as diverse as Mexico, Russia and the Philippines.
  • Punitive laws: Media freedom remains seriously constrained by the presence and use of numerous laws that are used to punish critical journalists and outlets.The abuse of libel laws increased in a number of countries, most notably in Africa. Satellite television and internet-based news and networking sources are an emerging force for openness in restricted media environments as well as a key target for government control.
  • New media: The world’s worst-rated countries continue to include Burma, Cuba, Libya, North Korea, and Turkmenistan. In 2007, Eritrea joined the ranks of these exceedingly bad performers, while a crackdown in Burma worsened that country’s already repressive media environment, leaving its score second only to that of North Korea worldwide.

Detailed information from the survey are available here and by contacting Laura Ingalls at ingalls@freedomhouse.org.


UN Hears from Jewish Refugees of Arab Lands

Monday, April 28, 2008

The history of Palestinian refugees deserves international attention. So does the history of one million Jewish refugees from the Arab-Israel conflict.  Yet the United Nations has devoted countless resolutions and debates to only one side of this story, completely ignoring the other.

For the first time ever in the UN Human Rights Council, at its recently concluded session, the suffering of Jewish refugees from Arab lands was also placed on the international agenda. Shortly thereafter, the U.S. Congress adopted a historic resolution recognizing that all victims of the conflict must be treated equally.

Racism and Historical Truth: Jewish Refugees from Arab Lands

UN Watch Oral Statement

Agenda Item 9: Interactive Dialogue with Special Rapporteur on Racism Doudou Diène

UN Human Rights Council, 7th Session, March 19, 2008

Delivered by Regina Bublil Waldman

Thank you, Mr. President.

We thank the Special Rapporteur for his work against racism, and address two areas of his report.

Dr. Diene, in Addendum 1 you mention Libya’s treatment of ethnic minorities. In Addenda 3 and 4, you envision a multicultural society based on two principles: respect for historical truth and non-discrimination against minorities.

As a victim of Libyan discrimination, I agree: only with historical truth can we build a better future.

Today I wear my traditional ethnic dress to celebrate my heritage, but also to mourn its destruction.

One million Jews lived in the Middle East at the turn of the century. Today, less than five thousand remain.

Their plight has been ignored by the international community.

Their story is my story.

In 1948, there were thirty-six thousand Jews living in Libya. Today, there are none.

During the 1967 war between Israel and her Arab neighbors, mobs took to the streets and shouted, “Edbah el Yehud!” - “Slaughter the Jews!”

They burned my father’s warehouse and came to burn our home.

An honorable Muslim neighbor stopped them, and saved our lives.

The government ordered the expulsion of all Jews from Libya, where my family had lived for hundreds of years. They confiscated our homes and all our assets.

We were given this one-way travel document - never allowed to return.

My family was put on a bus to the airport. The bus driver got out, and tried to burn the bus with us in it. We were rescued from death by two Christian friends.

I come here today bearing no hatred — only these historical truths:

  • Jews have been an indigenous people of the Middle East for over 2,500 years.
  • On the basis of race and religion, Arab regimes subjected Jews to arbitrary arrest, confiscation of property and expulsions. This is fully documented in this report by Justice for Jews from Arab Countries.
  • The UNHCR has ruled that Jews fleeing from Arab countries were ‘bona fide’ refugees, victims of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Dr. Diene, your report envisions a future of tolerance and equality. Applying the principles you set forth, we trust you will examine the actions of Libya and other Middle Eastern countries that forced out their Jewish minorities.

Like in South Africa, only the acknowledgment of truth and history will lead to reconciliation.

Thank you, Mr. President.


Israel at 60: Reason to Celebrate!

Friday, April 25, 2008

An op-ed by David A. Harris
Executive Director of The American Jewish Committee
The Jerusalem Post, April 24, 2008

Israel is about to mark its sixtieth anniversary.

Some friends say they’re in no mood to celebrate. The timing isn’t right, they complain. The country’s political circuitry is overloaded. Danger lurks on the Gaza and Lebanon borders. Iran’s nuclear ambitions and annihilationist threats loom large. Disputes over the current peace talks with the Palestinian Authority are daily fare. Israel continues to take a beating in UN forums. The drumbeat of anti-Zionism grows louder. A fractious social climate creates long-term and seemingly insoluble fissures between Arab and Jew, not to mention Jew and Jew. And global market volatility spells trouble for the Israeli economy.

All true, perhaps. But the story mustn’t end there. Milestone anniversaries offer the chance to step back, however briefly, from the news of the moment and take stock of the larger picture. By my reckoning, Israel is quite a success story. Actually, Israel itself is nothing short of a miracle.
Think about it.

Just three years, almost to the day, after the end of the lowest point in Jewish history, the sovereign State of Israel was established. From the most vertiginous fall in the life of the Jewish people to its greatest ascent all in a matter of just over one thousand days.

Few gave the embryonic state much chance of survival. Faced with larger armies determined to eliminate the new nation in its infancy, the 650,000 Jews defended themselves and emerged victorious.

Against all the odds, they built a state. Not an easy task by any stretch of the imagination.

A land with pitifully few natural resources required the industry and talent of its human resources. Surrounded by forces bent on its isolation and destruction, the fledgling nation couldn’t let up its guard even for a moment. And a country defined as a home for Jews everywhere faced the challenge of absorbing millions of immigrants from the four corners of the earth, even as its infrastructure was stretched to the breaking point.

And it wasn’t just any state that was built. It was a pulsating democratic state, reflective of a country where just about everyone believes they have a Ph.D. in survival methods, leadership, and diplomacy. Through thick and thin, Israelis have benefited from free and fair elections, smooth transfers of power, an independent judiciary, a feisty press, and political parties covering the ideological gamut. No other country in Israel’s rough-and-tumble neighborhood can make similar claims.

True, the military plays a critical role in the life of a nation that couldn’t survive a single day without it, but civilians control the armed forces, not the other way around.

Israel has no oil or gas reserves. Isn’t that the reason, according to the joke, why Moses and the Jews wandered in the desert for forty years? To find the only place in the region without any energy resources.

Sixty percent of the land surface, in fact, is desert. Yet Israel has created a dynamic economy that, on a per capita basis, puts it squarely in the middle of the pack of European Union nations and, in the realm of high-tech, places it among the world’s top innovators.

All this in a nation that has never known a single moment of true peace, yet carries this unfathomable psychological burden with extraordinary resiliency and irrepressible optimism.

Imagine what it must be like to live with the Sword of Damocles hanging over a nation’s head from the get-go.

Imagine facing enemies who deny your very existence and teach contempt to children before they’re old enough to read.

Imagine adversaries who have no compunction about using women and youngsters as human shields to protect terrorists; target civilians; celebrate murder; use ambulances to transport armed gunmen and weapons; employ mentally retarded children as suicide bombers; and target their own energy suppliers so they can then accuse Israel of collective punishment.

These are, of course, the same foes who have never had an interest in solving the Palestinian refugee problem, an outgrowth of two wars triggered by the Arab world in 1948 and 1967.

Are Palestinians the first refugee population in history? Hardly. But they are surely the first refugees who, as a group, have categorically resisted resettlement, instead living for decades as wards of the international community.

Indeed, in Gaza today, years after Israel renounced any territorial claims, there continue to be refugee camps. Why? Why other than to serve as incubators for hatred that produce recruits bent on martyrdom and mayhem are there Palestinian refugee camps in Palestinian territory?

Some argue that the foundational problem of the Arab-Israeli conflict is the Israeli occupation. I beg to differ. That’s not to say the occupation, the result of Israel’s 1967 war of self-defense, isn’t a problem. Of course, it is. I don’t for a moment underestimate the difficulties resulting from it for both Palestinians and Israelis alike. But it has a potential solution a two-state solution, tried first in the Oslo Accords of 1993 and then in the Barak-Arafat-Clinton talks of 2000-1. Tragically, both failed.

The common denominator was Yasser Arafat. When the critical moments came, he made it abundantly clear that he was neither a Gandhi nor a Mandela. Jimmy Carter may think it fitting to lay a wreath at his gravesite, but, at the end of the day, Arafat was a failed leader. He could have ushered in a Palestinian state living alongside Israel. Instead, he opted to speak with a forked tongue, intoning the rhetoric of peace in English while speaking the language of armed struggle in Arabic. And when presented one last chance at the end of President Clinton’s second term, Arafat chose to declare that there never was any historical connection between Jerusalem and the Jewish people, once again denying legitimacy to the Jewish presence anywhere in Israel.

That’s been the biggest obstacle to peacemaking the failure to recognize Israel’s inherent right to exist, whatever its final borders, as a non-Arab, non-Muslim sovereign presence in the region.

Peace requires an enduring foundation of mutual respect. That will come only when Palestinian textbooks begin to describe Jews as an integral part of the Middle East, with a three thousand-year historic and spiritual connection to Jerusalem and the land, and not simply as modern-day colonialists, imperialists, or crusaders.

Israel’s journey as a state cannot be complete until peace with all its neighbors is achieved. Peace is a strategic necessity. Peace is central to the Jewish mission on earth.

Today there are peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and, more quietly, it appears, between Israel and Syria. Could there be a better birthday present for Israel than peace accords on both fronts?

Wishing for peace and achieving it, however, are quite different. For Israel, the challenges are many.

For example, world leaders can talk all they want about the need for a democratic and demilitarized Palestinian state living next to Israel, but realizing those twin goals may not be so easy. When a top American strategist was asked how to ensure demilitarization, a position he advocated, he had no answer. And given the strikingly short distances, a new Palestinian state could be in a position to wreak havoc on Israel’s population centers. Those who assert that an international force can serve as a buffer may be right up to a point, but the experience of UNIFIL in Lebanon is a sobering reminder of the limitations of peacekeeping forces. Iran and Syria smuggle weapons to Hezbollah, and UN forces largely look the other way.

But because I believe in Israel, I believe in miracles. Few could have imagined full-fledged peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan thirty-five years ago, yet today both are realities. In point of fact, had Palestinian and Syrian leaders taken a page from the late Anwar Sadat and King Hussein, who convinced Israelis that they were true men of peace, there could have been agreements long ago. Perhaps tomorrow will be different.

Meanwhile, Israel, the miracle, continues to inspire awe for its very being and for being the vibrant country it is.

No, it’s not perfect. Israel has made its share of mistakes and faces more than a few unresolved issues. Statecraft, at the end of the day, is an imprecise science no matter where it’s exercised.

But Israel operates in a context, not a vacuum. It reflects both domestic and global realities. And the vagaries of decision-making don’t bypass Israeli leaders any more than leaders of other democratic countries. Still, Israel, like other democratic societies that benefit from a robust political culture and vibrant civil society, has the self-corrective mechanisms that invite both appraisal and improvement.

At the end of the day, for me, the meaning of Israel is perhaps best encapsulated in three enduring images.

In 1991, I went to Israel at the start of the Gulf War, as Iraq fired Scud missiles at the Jewish state. During a visit to Ben-Gurion Airport, I was struck by the arrival of Soviet Jews during this tough period. They weren’t afraid to come, and Israel didn’t miss a beat in welcoming them. In other words, even as Israel faced the uncertain prospect of full-scale war with Iraq, it never faltered in its commitment to serve as a home and haven for Jews seeking a new start.

In 2000, during the so-called second intifada, I was in the northern part of Tel Aviv. I passed a construction site. On the sidewalk nearby a Palestinian Muslim laid out his rug and began his prayer ritual as he faced in the direction of Mecca. No one interfered with him in any way. Even as Palestinians elsewhere were attacking Israelis, this scene spoke volumes about Israel’s commitment to democracy and pluralism.

And in 2006, after Hezbollah started a war with a cross-border raid, an AJC delegation, the first to arrive from the U.S., visited Rambam Hospital in Haifa. The emergency room was ready to receive casualties, be they military or civilian, Arab or Jew, and it received them in droves. Elsewhere in the hospital, though, even as Hezbollah-fired missiles rained down on northern Israel, medical researchers continued their investigative work regularly interrupted by the need to rush to bomb shelters in the fields of cancer, diabetes, and stem cells.

In other words, as Hezbollah and its Iranian backers were seeking to shorten life for Israelis, Israeli scientists were seeking to extend life for all.

Yes, there is much to celebrate, starting with our good fortune to witness what countless generations before us could only dream about the sovereign State of Israel.

It makes me want to jump for joy.


Global Warming Nonsense

Monday, April 21, 2008

In an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, Roger Bate (American Enterprise Institute, Washington D.C.) and Paul Reiter (Institut Pasteur, Paris) discuss myths regarding the relationship between global warming and public health concerns such as the spread of malaria.

Read full story.


China’s Secret Signs of Democratic Change

Friday, April 18, 2008
An Interview with Philip Levy, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
This summer, China will host the summer Olympics for the first time. Its international debut as a superpower is already being hampered by protests in Tibet and Xinjiang, demonstrations along the route of the Olympic torch, and pledges by some Western leaders not to attend the games’ opening ceremony.

The Chinese leadership’s crackdown no doubt chagrined those in democracies who advocated giving China the games. In 2001, the New York Times editorialized that even though China’s human rights record was poor, “there is reason to hope that the bright spotlight the Olympics can shine on the Chinese government’s behavior over the next seven years could prove beneficial to those in China who would like to see their country evolve into a more tolerant and democratic society.” Now that the People’s Republic is in the spotlight, there is little in the way of visible evolution toward democracy.

But might China be evolving subtly toward democracy? That is Philip Levy’s intriguing argument in a new paper, Economic Integration and Incipient Democracy. Whereas conventional democratization theory focuses on benchmarks and indicators of progress on the road to popular rule, Levy suggests that we are overlooking an increased potential for change. “The enhanced potential for progress comes from an increase in the means for achieving democratic change,” he writes. Levy freely acknowledges that “China’s on the absolute bottom” on scales of democratization. But he points to three changes within China that may indicate the growth of democratic potential–there and elsewhere.

The three elements of democratic potential are also necessary for the dramatic–upwards of 10 percent–economic growth that China has enjoyed. They are communications technology, the rise of alternative leaders, and rule of law. All have sprung up in China along with greater integration into the world economy, and all pose, to some extent, a threat to the Chinese regime. If you were the Chinese leadership, Levy says, “you would not want 400 million cell phones floating around.” It’s difficult to reverse these trends, leaving the Chinese government in a potentially perilous situation. “They face some difficult choices,” Levy adds. “To the extent that they are gaining legitimacy from the economic well-being and the prosperity, a lot of these tools of democracy come with it. They’re essentially dual-use technologies.” These potential tools for democracy build up subtly, in ways not factored into conventional democracy measurements, for some time until they suddenly become apparent. “In short,” says Levy, “they can be seen. We’re just not looking.”

Which is not to say that incipient democracy happens fast. Levy pointed to the centuries-long incubation of liberal traditions in Great Britain and its colonies. “If you’re measuring year by year,” he adds, “you wouldn’t expect to see much.” In an echo of Zhou Enlai’s assessment of the French Revolution as “too soon to tell,” it may have been far too presumptuous to have expected visible democratic progress in China in the years before the Olympic Games.

***

Levy did not work closely on China issues until joining the State Department’s policy planning staff in 2005, where he worked on, among other things, the Bush administration’s “responsible stakeholder” policy toward Beijing. Levy had previously focused on trade issues, first as a senior economist at the President’s Council of Economic Advisers and as a professor at Yale. And there is indeed a trade component to Levy’s theory. The emergence of these subtle indicators of incipient democracy has been a result of China’s growing trade ties with the outside world. “Free trade has been having an effect,” he said. “It’s very hard to imagine that you’d see things like the Xiamen protests [over pollution], like [the protest over the monorail] through Shanghai . . . in the time of Mao.”

The response from the developed world, then, should be to continue trade with China. “You have a substantially greater chance of democracy in China with the kind of economic integration–the trade–that they’ve had than you would if China had been off in isolation.”

Concerns about human rights, security issues, and product safety in China, combined with fears of globalization and the weakening dollar, have clouded the outlook for further free trade. With a potentially disastrous Olympics coming up, will there be any stomach for closer economic integration with China? Levy warns against throwing up our hands on democratic change in China: “The danger is [that] if you rely on you on those conventional measures, you may reach the erroneous conclusion [that] ‘we’ve achieved nothing through this opening policy, and we’d be more true to ourselves and to our principles if we just shut off trade with China.’” He continues: “Something has happened [there]; you can document it; you can look and see what happened; and we have every reason to think that this has increased the extent to which people’s voices are heard–without crossing the threshold.”

Beijing’s Olympics may themselves be a sign of this incipient democracy. The Olympics represent China’s wealth, which was driven by the “dual-use” indicators of democratic potential. They are also occasioning flashes of protest within China, a hint of something “incipient” growing just out of sight.

Click here to read Economic Integration and Incipient Democracy.

Reprinted with kindly permission of The American Enterprise Institute.


The End of U.S. Hegemony

Friday, April 18, 2008

In an article in the Financial Times, Richard Nathan Haass, president of The Council on Foreign Relations, argues that the age of unprecedented U.S. dominance is over. The transition to a nonpolar world will have mostly negative consequences for the United States.

“Why did it end? One explanation is history. States get better at generating and piecing together the human, financial and technological resources that lead to productivity and prosperity. The same holds for companies and other organisations. The rise of new powers cannot be stopped. The result is an ever larger number of actors able to exert influence regionally or globally. It is not that the US has grown weaker, but that many other entities have grown much stronger.”

Read full story.


China’s Exchange Rate Policy

Thursday, April 17, 2008

An excerpt from a new book by two experts at the Peterson Institute for International Economics looks at the main policy issues dominating discussion of China’s exchange rate.

Read full story.


Swiss energy deal with Iran finances Terror

Thursday, April 10, 2008
The Wall Street Journal, April 8, 2007
In an effort to draw attention to Switzerland’s $30 billion energy deal with the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism - Iran - the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has taken out advertisements in major international newspapers and in leading Swiss dailies with a message to the Swiss government that, “When you finance a terrorist state, you finance terrorism.”

The series of ADL ads, appeared on April 8, 2008 in The New York Times, The International Herald Tribune, The Wall Street Journal  and The New York Sun.  Additional ads will appear in Switzerland in Le Matin Bleu and Le Temps and Neue Zürcher Zeitung.

ADL is concerned that Iran’s profits from the energy deal could help the regime to accelerate and complete its nuclear weapons program and provide tens of thousands of additional missiles to Hezbollah and Hamas, two terrorist groups and sworn enemies of Israel who routinely benefit from Tehran’s largess.

These concerns about the Swiss-Iran energy deal, as well as Switzerland’s foreign policy record vis-à-vis Israel, are explained in the following op-ed by Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director.

Swiss Err on Iran, Israel

by Abraham H. Foxman
National Director of the Anti-Defamation League
This article originally appeared in the JTA on April 7, 2008

Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey’s visit to Tehran was billed as an opportunity to deliver a stern message about the need for Iran to end its human rights violations and its threats to destroy Israel. This was according to the government’s official announcement of her March 17 diplomatic visit.

As a secondary matter, the announcement noted, Calmy-Rey would attend the signing of a gas deal between Iran and a Swiss energy company.

But Calmy-Rey herself inadvertently exposed the flimsy human rights pretext when she acknowledged on the day of her departure that she was traveling to Tehran in response to Iran’s invitation.

It is highly unlikely that Iran invited Switzerland’s foreign minister to chat about Iran’s bleak record on human rights or its belligerent statements about Israel. The real purpose of the visit, which included photo ops with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was to raise the profile of a $28 billion energy deal, one that has consequences for Iran’s continued pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability.

The Swiss are not alone in signing gas contracts with Iran, but the size of the deal and its timing so soon after the latest round of United Nations sanctions will surely encourage Iran on its march toward nuclear weapons and in its defiance of international demands to stop enriching uranium.

If Switzerland were committed to ending the Iranian nuclear threat, it would join with other responsible countries to reinforce the isolation of the ayatollahs’ regime. If Switzerland were serious about supporting an effective strategy, it would join the movement to target Iran’s energy industry.

This gas deal is just the latest example of Swiss actions that are out of step with the West’s determination to confront Iran and commitment to the security of Israel.

Switzerland joined Saudi Arabia, Cuba and other dictatorships in support of the U.N. Human Rights Council resolution that condemned Israel’s reaction to the rockets from Gaza while ignoring the actions of Iran’s terrorist client, Hamas. The resolution was so biased that Canada, an international leader in human rights promotion, voted against it, and every European Union member of the council abstained.

The Swiss ambassador feebly explained that the importance of condemning Israel’s alleged wrongdoing outweighed all other considerations.

That decision logically followed from Switzerland’s apparent policy of censuring all Israeli military operations, no matter how justified. In their condemnations, the Swiss invariably invoke international humanitarian law, with which they are closely associated as the depository for the four Geneva Conventions. Missing, though, is evidence of understanding the proper application of those laws of war.

In one egregious example, Israel’s 2006 raid on a Palestinian prison in Jericho was denounced for “violat[ing] the principle of proportionality.” In that incident, Israeli soldiers had surrounded the prison, in which armed terrorists, including the assassins of an Israeli government minister, were granted free reign and permitted to communicate with the outside world.

One prisoner and one prison guard were killed in an exchange of fire, but the terrorists and other Palestinian prisoners were convinced to surrender without any further hostilities. Even that successful operation the Swiss condemned as a disproportionate use of force.

Switzerland hasn’t been content to undermine Israel’s right to self-defense. Calmy-Rey has also tried to undercut Israel’s diplomacy. Brazenly disregarding Israel’s sovereignty and democratically elected government, Switzerland sponsored negotiations between private Israeli and Palestinian individuals, known as the Geneva Accord.

Unlike the Oslo negotiations, which were backed by the Israeli government after the first couple of private meetings, the Swiss project was officially rejected by Israel and the Swiss ambassador summoned to receive a protest.

Regardless of the content of the resulting document, the Swiss action represented an inexcusable intrusion by a foreign government in the peace process and an end run around the “road map” that reflected the will of the international community and demanded an end to Palestinian terrorism as a condition of further Israeli steps.

Some of the above examples of unfriendly behavior toward Israel could be explained away as soft-headed do-goodism. But one incident in particular punctures that theory.

In December 2006, Tehran hosted its infamous Holocaust denial conference, which responsible nations condemned unequivocally. Switzerland’s reaction was different. A week after the Tehran conference, Calmy-Rey met with Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Said Jalili in Switzerland.

According to the Swiss government’s minutes of the meeting, subsequently leaked to the Swiss press, she proposed that “a seminar about different perceptions of the Holocaust could be organized in one of the Geneva centers.” Public outrage killed that idea, but the fact that Calmy-Rey made the proposal provided encouragement to the Holocaust deniers in Iran and elsewhere.

In the battles against the Nazi regime during World War II and communism during the Cold War, Switzerland pursued its narrow self-interest by professing neutrality.

Today the Swiss appear to be taking the same approach in the current global war against the radical Islamist threat, spearheaded by Iran, which menaces Israel’s existence and the security of the West. But neutrality isn’t an option. And for Switzerland, a country that takes pride in its liberal democracy and claims to have learned from its history, it shouldn’t even be considered.

***

Abraham H. Foxman is the National Director of the Anti-Defamation League and author of “The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control.”

The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world’s leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.


Showdown on U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement

Thursday, April 10, 2008

United States House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi has signaled she will take the unusual step of changing House rules to effectively stop the 90-day clock on the Colombia free trade deal after President George W. Bush had submitted the measure for action.

The Brookings Institution examines the showdown on Capitol Hill over the U.S.-Colombia free-trade pact and says Colombian leaders may react sharply if the deal is shot down by the U.S. Congress.

Read full story.


Turkey as a U.S. Security Partner

Thursday, April 10, 2008

A new report from the Rand Corporation looks at Turkey as a strategic ally of the United States of America in its security operations across the Middle East. It says a shifting focus in Turkish interests should command the attention of U.S. policymakers.

“Turkey has long been an important U.S. ally, but especially with the end of the Cold War, the relationship has been changing. Divergences between U.S. and Turkish interests have grown, in part because of Turkey’s relationships with its neighbors and the tension between its Western identity and its Middle Eastern orientation. Further, relations with the European Union have also deteriorated of late. As a result, Ankara has come to feel that it can no longer rely on its traditional allies, and Turkey is likely to be a more difficult and less predictable partner in the future. While Turkey will continue to want good ties to the United States, it is likely to be drawn more heavily into the Middle East by the Kurdish issue and Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Consequently, the tension between Turkey’s Western identity and Middle Eastern orientation is likely to grow even more.”

Read full story.


Tocqueville on China

Tuesday, April 8, 2008

Perry Link, professor of East Asian studies at Princeton University, unmasks the thoughts of the Chinese about their government.

Corruption and Indignation - Windows into Popular Chinese Views of Right and Wrong

by Perry Link

How is it possible to know what Chinese people think and feel about their government? Western naiveté shows its strongest colors in the belief that one can just go over to China and ask, get people to say what they think, then compile the answers.

Groups like World Values Survey, AsiaBarometer, and the Pew Survey on Global Attitudes have been using this method and getting some startling results. Large majorities of Chinese support their political system, these surveys find, and virtually everyone finds it “legitimate.” When Pew asked people around the world “Are you satisfied with the state of your nation?” 81 percent of urban Chinese said “yes.” This put China first in the world in positive answers to this question. Fewer than 30 percent of Americans, when similarly surveyed, answered “yes.”

The problems with using the “do ask, do tell” method in China are as layered as an onion. The first problem is that it is valued in Chinese culture to give “the right” answer (rather than a frank answer) whenever one is asked any formal question in public. I first learned this in 1979 while doing a purely literary survey on reading preferences among university students in Guangzhou. Nearly every student said Dream of the Red Chamber, a classic eighteenth-century Qing dynasty novel, was his or her favorite work of Chinese fiction. Later in the survey, it emerged that few had read the novel.

They just “knew” that it was the best, and that it was the “right answer” to the question. Such problems are compounded when the question is asked by a foreigner, or the representative of a foreigner, because that introduces the issue of national “face,” making it is even more important to give the right answer. When topics are politically sensitive, the fear factor enters and indeed dominates: Would I dare say that I oppose the Communist Party, even if I felt that way? Would my family (who would join me in suffering the consequences of a wrong answer) ever forgive me for being so stupid? And in addition to these psychological impediments to gathering accurate survey research, government rules add practical barriers: no foreigner can do surveys in China without an approved Chinese partner, and all results must be reviewed and approved by Party officials before publication.

If we interpret the word “legitimacy” rigorously–to mean not just “Do I like what my government is doing?” but “Do I recognize the right of my government to be my government?” then the average Chinese citizen has probably never asked himself or herself the question and might even have trouble understanding it. In daily life, the Communist Party is like the weather: you deal with it, but you don’t–you can’t–entertain alternatives.

But people do have feelings, opinions, and complaints–and how! There are a number of ways that one can discover and study them.

Popular Political Thought in China

If Alexis de Tocqueville could visit China today, he might find that his simple method of watching and listening to people, then inferring their thought from their behavior, still works quite well. A few months ago a distinguished Chinese writer named Sha Yexin wrote an essay that might be viewed as borrowing Tocquevillian method.

Sha tells of an incident that occurred on a public street in the Wanzhou district of Chongqing city, Sichuan province, at 1:00 in the afternoon of October 18, 2004. A coolie named Yu Jikui accidentally bumped a woman named Zeng Qingrong with his carrying pole. The woman’s husband, Hu Jieao, became incensed, seized the pole, and began beating Yu Jikui’s legs in what appeared to bystanders to be an attempt not only to hurt the man but to deprive him of his future livelihood as a coolie. When a few onlookers tried to intervene, the irate husband yelled, “I am the chief of the Housing Bureau! Even if I kill him, to me it’s only a 200,000 yuan fine!” This brazen comment added fuel to the flames. A mob surrounded Zeng and Hu, trapping them u