Category: News and politics

The Hutchinson Lecture at the Universtiy of Delaware

Tuesday (April 17) I spent an enjoyable day in Newark, Delaware as the guest of the Economics Department of the University of Delaware. My afternoon, more technical, lecture to the graduate students and faculty covered my proposal for the reform of the international monetary system: http://works.bepress.com/warren_coats/25/

My evening lecture, this year’s Hutchinson Lecture, is reviewed here by the U. of Delaware newspaper (in which there is also a link providing background on the Hutchinson Lecture): http://www.udel.edu/udaily/2012/apr/HutchinsonLecture042012.html.

The War on Drugs

Like most of our elected wars, the war on drugs is producing more costs than benefits. In the United States, those drugs that were around for the last one to two hundred years have been legal at times and illegal at other times. There was no significant difference in the recorded use of these drugs when they were legal and when they were not (the data has to be rather sketchy, however). So there has been no measurable benefit.

The costs of outlawing drugs, however, have been enormous. The large expenditures on police, armies, courts, jails are nothing compared with the costs to society (on both sides of our Southern border) of creating the large criminal industry that grows, refines, transports, and markets these drugs and the lawlessness that accompanies it. Over the last thirty years 50,000 deaths have been attributed to drug related violence in Mexico alone. The Presidents of Colombia, Guatemala and Mexico are all now calling for a reconsideration of this war as an effective approach to dealing with the harm of some of these drugs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/latin-american-countries-pursue-alternatives-to-us-drug-war/2012/04/10/gIQAFPEe7S_story.html

As George Will puts it:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/should-the-us-legalize-hard-drugs/2012/04/11/gIQAX95QBT_story.html?wprss=rss_todays-opeds

Another good article in the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/from-latin-america-a-new-strategy-in-the-war-on-drugs/2012/04/12/gIQAowenDT_story.html

Marijuana should be regulated like tobacco and cocaine and opium should be regulated like alcohol. We seem to be moving in the right direction on this issue but too slowly.

The Trayvon Martin Tragedy continues

The Trayvon Martin – George Zimmerman story has a way to run.  Every day seems to bring something new. Last week’s doctoring of audio tapes between Zimmerman and the 911 dispatcher aired by NBC (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/nbc-to-do-internal-investigation-on-zimmerman-segment/2012/03/31/gIQAc4HhnS_blog.html?hpid=z6 ) are now under internal investigation by NBC (a once reputable news source).

Yesterday David Franke passed along the following article by friend Walter Williams and his own observations that:

“Walter Williams is SO good!

“Right now we are witnessing the biggest lynch mob in the U.S. since the heyday of the Ku Klux Klan.  I refer to the mob out to lynch that “white” hispanic, Zimmerman.  This is a lynch mob made up of “black leaders” and MSNBC white-as-white-bread liberals.

“I have no idea whether Zimmerman is guilty or not, but I am willing to wait and let the police and courts and lawyers on both sides—and a jury, no doubt–go through the process of determining that.  And then, based on the evidence, I might venture whether I agree or disagree with the jury and the authorities.

“Not this lynch mob, however.  They KNOW who is guilty, and don’t confuse them with any facts or due process. “

http://www.lewrockwell.com/williams-w/w-williams117.html

The Trayvon Martin Tragedy

The shooting death of an unarmed black boy, Trayvon Martin, in the Florida town of Sanford, by a white Hispanic neighborhood watch volunteer, George Zimmerman, has raised many questions and issues. The positive side of this tragedy for me is that almost everyone wants to know the truth of what happened and to proceed from there. Moreover, our system of justice has procedures and mechanisms that maximize the prospects of uncovering and sorting out the truth from what is still a very confused mix of partial facts and assertions by interested parties (the friends and parents of Trayvon and of George).

When Trayvon’s death first rose to national attention, everyone’s initial reaction was colored by his or her personal biases (“priors”). If you are black, you initially and immediately accepted the outrage of Trayvon’s parents at the failure of the police to arrest the shooter of their unarmed son. If you are one of George’s friends you immediately accepted George’s claim of self-defense (the somewhat later revealed claim that he had been attached and beaten by Trayvon and fired in self-defense).

For most of the rest of us, the fact that Trayvon’s pictures depict him as a handsome, smiling, friendly youth (looking, as President Obama ill advisedly claimed, much like his own son would if he had one), while Zimmerman’s pictures depict him as, well, more or less the opposite, activated a bias toward beauty.  Because Russian President Putin (and even more so outgoing President Medvedev) is handsome and fit, we assume he must be a better guy than fat and ugly Nikita Khrushchev (I just reviewed Khrushchev’s picture for the first time in many years and he actually isn’t THAT ugly). Because Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is handsome and speaks excellent American English, we assume that he must be right and good for Israel (despite all the evident to the contrary).

These are natural biases. We shouldn’t pretend that they don’t exist. What is important is that we can move beyond them when faced with contrary evidence. As allegations from each side of the Stanford tragedy (everyone agrees that it was a tragedy) along with bits of actual evidence accumulate, what seemed clear in the beginning to each of us (depending on where we started – i.e., our biases) becomes less clear. Trayvon’s past is not spotless. Did Zimmerman have blood on his cloths from being beaten by Trayvon as he claims (a surveillance video when he was taken into custody suggests not)? Whose voice was it shouting on the 911 recording (not Zimmerman’s according to two unofficial expert analyses)? ETC. ETC. With the passage of time and the collection of and vetting of more facts, the truth should clarify and emerge.

The positive side of the sad story is that virtually everyone outside of the immediate families genuinely wants to know the truth of what really happened. Hometown power figures have always been more able to bend our rules and procedures of justice to their interests than others but not without limit. Those limits in many ways have grown tighter. In this case, a southern town is bending over backward (after a slow start) to be and to appear to be fair. I suspect it would have been different fifty or a hundred years ago. Public opinion (i.e., our priors –biases), an important foundation of our conception of justice, has changed for the better.

I have no doubt that we will eventually know the truth of that night as fully as it is possible to know it.

Extra-judicial killing

We think of autocratic or despotic regimes as those operating above the law or unconstrained by the rule of law.  It does not surprise us when people like Joseph Stalin, Saddam Hussein, or Colonel Gaddafi order the death of those they think threaten their rule.  In civilized, democratic countries we have legal restraints on the use of such power by our leaders. Laws define the processes by which the lives and liberties of those living in our countries may be arrested and jailed—the nature of the evidence needed—the requirements of an independent judiciary system to judge that evident—the right of self-defense, etc.

We would be shocked at the idea that the President of the United States could order the murder of an American citizen without any of the due process required by the law. Why then was there so little out cry when President Obama declared that he has the authority to order the murder (assassination) of American’s that he considers dangerous to our Republic. It is shocking and dangerous that this declaration did not bring millions of American’s into the streets in protest. The reason it did not, I believe, is not that 9/11 has turned us into cowards willing to give up important freedoms for more security. It is, rather, that our traditions of constitutional constraint on government, with its checks and balances and explicit protections of our private, individual rights, makes it difficult for us to imagine the serious abuse of power by our President and our government.

It is not that Presidents have not from time to time abused their power (see for example my review of Arthur Burns’ Secret Diary about Richard Nixon: http://www.compasscayman.com/cfr/2011/07/19/Inside-the-Nixon-Administration–The-Secret-Diary-of-Arthur-Burns,-1969-1974/). However, such abuses have never taken root and become acceptable. Therefore we don’t really take seriously that the President would abuse the new right he is claiming in the interests of our security. Today’s quiet acceptance of his declaration of the right to murder dangerous Americans is thus almost (almost) understandable. It is unimaginable that the President would use such power in any way other than its intended purpose.  But such faith is naive and dangerous. The relaxation of due process today, makes easier further erosion in the future. The weakening of our liberties, which reside in restraining our government as much as our neighbors, is a slippery slope. Presidents do not easily abuse powers they don’t have and can learn to abuse those they do have.

Attorney General Eric Holder attempted to justify these extraordinary powers in a speech at the Northwestern University law school earlier this month. As reported by Congressman Ron Paul:

“Attorney General Holder bluntly explained that this administration believes it has the authority to use lethal force against Americans if the President determines them to be a threat to the nation. He tells us that this is not a violation of the due process requirements of our Constitution because the President himself embodies ‘due process’ as he unilaterally determines who is to be targeted. As Holder said, ‘a careful and thorough executive branch review of the facts in a case amounts to ‘due process.’’ That means that the administration believes it is the President himself who is to be the judge, jury, and executioner.

“As George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley wrote of the Holder speech:

“’All the Administration has said is that they closely and faithfully follow their own guidelines — even if their decisions are not subject to judicial review. The fact that they say those guidelines are based on notions of due process is meaningless. They are not a constitutional process of review.’”

“It is particularly bizarre to hear the logic of the administration claiming the right to target its citizens according to some secret selection process, when we justified our attacks against Iraq and Libya because their leaders supposedly were targeting their own citizens! We also now plan a covert war against Syria for the same reason.

“I should make it perfectly clear that I believe any individual who is engaging in violence against this country or its citizens should be brought to justice. But as Attorney General Holder himself points out in the same speech, our civilian courts have a very good track record of trying and convicting individuals involved with terrorism against the United States. Our civilian court system, with the guarantee of real due process, judicial review, and a fair trial, is our strength, not a weakness. It is not an impediment to be sidestepped in the push for convictions or assassinations, but rather a process that guarantees that fundamental right to be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law….

“Sadly, many conservative leaders were silent when Republican President George W. Bush laid the groundwork for this administration’s lawlessness with the PATRIOT Act, warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detention without trial, and other violations. Similarly, as Professor Turley points out, ‘Democrats previously demanded the ‘torture memos’ of the Bush administration that revealed poor legal analysis by Judge Jay Bybee and Professor John Yoo to justify torture. Now, however, Democrats are largely silent in the face of a president claiming the right to unilaterally kill citizens.’ The misuse of and disregard for our Constitution for partisan political gain is likely one reason the American public holds Congress in such low esteem. Now the stakes are much higher. Congress and the people should finally wake up!”

Afghanistan: Koran burning

Updated February 26, 2012

Associated Press: “More than 30 people have been killed in clashes since it emerged Tuesday that copies of the Muslim holy book and other religious materials had been thrown into a fire pit used to burn garbage at Bagram Air Field, a large U.S. base north of Kabul.

The death toll from days of unrest includes four U.S. soldiers – two killed last week by an Afghan soldier, and two military advisers shot Saturday at the Interior Ministry.”

By AMIR SHAH, Associated Press, February 23, 2012

“The unrest started Tuesday, when Afghan workers at the sprawling American base noticed that Qurans and other Islamic texts were in the trash that coalition troops dumped into a pit where garbage is burned. Some Afghan workers burned their fingers as they tried to salvage some of the books. Afghan government officials said initial reports indicated four Qurans were burned.

“The materials had been taken from a library at Parwan Detention Facility, which adjoins the base, because they contained extremist messages or inscriptions. Writing inside a Quran is forbidden in the Islamic faith, although it was unclear whether the handwritten messages were found in the holy book or other reading materials.

“A military official said it appeared that detainees at the prison were exchanging messages by making notations in the texts.

“A delegation of Afghan religious leaders, lawmakers and government representatives visited Bagram as part of the investigation. They issued a statement late Thursday calling for an end to protests and accused insurgents of infiltrating the gatherings to foment violence. They said they expected those responsible for the Quran burning to be prosecuted through the U.S. military court system.”

In response to these events I addressed the following question to a group of young Afghan intellectuals in Kabul:

“I am very interested in your comments on the Koran burning event in Afghanistan.

“The U.S. military made a regrettable mistake in burning some Korans at Bagram airbase. It was the result of ignorance of Afghan and Muslim attitudes toward the destruction of their holly book.  It was not the results of malice. President Obama personally apologized for the act to President Karzai, an extremely rare thing for American Presidents.

“In the West, idolatry is not respected. What is holly in the Bible, Koran, or Torah are their words, not whatever pieces of paper they might be printed on. Thus the reaction of some Afghans to burning some Korans is incomprehensible to us. Over a dozen lives have been lost because of this reaction.

“The Washington Post reported the following yesterday: “Those behind the act should be asked about their deed and must be punished,” said an officer near a U.S. military base in Kabul. “If I find the opportunity, I would shoot them in the head.” For us it is truly barbaric to put the burning of a book on the same level as taking a human life. I assume such views do not represent modern Afghan thinking and seriously doubt that Islam teaches such things, but I would be grateful for your views on these questions.”

Here is the resulting exchange followed by some non-Afghan comments first:

Diba Hareer

Warren Coats, you are right. For us, the educated Afghans, it does not make any sense at all. The incidents and the killings, which happened, cannot be justified. How on earth you could say, “We are killing each other, destroying buildings because our holy book was burned”. It’s unfortunate that we have very few educated people in our country. Our elites are getting out of the country and living in the west, as they cannot tolerate the chaos in Afghanistan. Their security is also at risk at times. We have only 34% literate men and 13% literate women. In our schools students are not taught the right values. If we teach our kids love, respect and patience, we can prevent these incidents to a high extent. The illiterate isolated masses can easily be manipulated. The manipulators took advantage of this opportunity and further encouraged the public to get crazy. I still believe the educated youths even few can bring a change since its proved that you can make a difference with as few as two persons. I hope those of us who are studying right now, get together and find a way to get Afghanistan out of this situation.

Masoud Dost

Miss Diba,
With respect to those elites that realize value of our holy Books.
It seems you are in big misunderstanding that our elites are out of country, it might be your own perception.
Any how, I really condemn those who do not respect holy books whether it’s mistakenly or with full understanding.
I accept that the illiterate isolated masses can easily be manipulated. The manipulators took advantage of this opportunity and further encouraged the public to get crazy.
The questions arises who pave such illiteracy, low level or high level, educated or uneducated, elite or …?

Diba Hareer

Masoud, by elites who are out of country I was pointing to those whose knowledge can contribute to reconstruction of our country but they do not want to work with the corrupt government. The majority (if not all, while I think so) are working with the government only to serve their pockets by taking the advantage of the corrupt system. Azizullah Lodin the chairman of high office of oversight and anti- corruption was complaining from corruption at his own office. I and you know that many of the current and ex-ministers’ files are with the office of Attorney General who are accused of corruption.. I wish I was able to tell u who the elites are. I am sure neither you nor I want to argue over those figures. The point here is to confirm that, killing and injuring one another and destroying the buildings are not sensible ways of showing that you are angry over burning Quran. What can u achieve by killing your country folk? I doubt if even a few number of these protestors know what is written in Quran and what does that mean. Besides that, they are destroying the image of Islam. They once again represented us as barbaric to the world.

Shoaib Rahim

‎Warren Coats i’ll try and share an observation on why this reaction took place then. The Jihad against the soviets created a new identity for the majority of Afghan population; i believe this identity to be obsessively revolved around a very specific and rigid interpretation of Islam. We were occupied, slaughtered and kicked out of our country during the Soviet war for being Muslims..and on the flip side, we were funded, armed and supported by all for strengthening the same identity. After the soviets left, although we failed to form a nation and keep the peace, Islam was the only alleged uniter among our people and more or less still is since notions of nationalism are still in its infancy. Secondly, life is not valued in our society and a life lost in the path of ‘defending islam’ is a virtue…it was enshrined in our value system during the Jihad against the soviets and this value lives on strong. This essentially means that you can’t compare Afghan society with other non-war afflicted societies because the values differ greatly. Third is a very strong notion of victimization by the ‘imperialist west’ and its anti-islamic agenda. Neo-conservative policies during Bush, Guantanamo Bay, constant targetting of muslims by western media..all play its role in demonizing the masses with anything “western”…and the US forces have had many instances of killings and quran burnings which have made the image worse. so we have Rigid Religious Interpretations + Cheap value of life in our society/celebration of life lost for religious cause + anti-western sentiments. Add in foreign hands and opportunists and you get the reality behind Afghan riots. At least I would see it like this.

Alessandro Califano

Warren Coats, I’d like you to focus on a different setting on regard of your question. Let’s imagine a Western country (why not the US?) being occupied by armed forces of a different religion and culture. Let us now imagine someone among these “alien” forces throwing a New Testament copy in the garbage can, along with used kleenex tissues and potato peels – are you really sure that locals would say: “Oh, please, we are strongly against idolatry, keep going in your doing…”? In my humble opinion, malice or not, people have been mowing down reciprocally for much less in some un-barbaric Western countries… Ever heard anything about Northern Ireland, yourself?

Two non Afghan comments. The first comment, from a Saudi friend, sheds light on the seeming anomaly of the routine practice of the Saudi government burning Christian Bibles confiscated in the Kingdom with no public outcry from anyone.

Yousef (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia)

I think the main cause of outrage in Afghanistan is because of “who” did it. As of my knowledge, the only way to dispose Quran in Islam is to actually burn it. It is not to be thrown with other waste since it contains the words of god. Basically because it’s holy.

I think if they let Muslims do the burning and clarified the reasons behind it before actually doing it it wouldn’t have had the same public response.

Tom Lutton (Washington DC)

Warren, thank you for sending this; it is good to hear from you.  Your simple act of asking a question, listening to the response, and sharing the response with others is a welcomed start to bridging a cultural divide that has been so wide for so long.  The lack of education on both sides certainly does contribute to the deplorable violence.  Honest communication and consistent efforts to understand differences ironically seem to be the weapons of choice to eliminate the cycles of violence.

Peeing on corpses

It is not difficult to imagine a bunch of scared 20-year-old urinating on the corpses of enemies they killed first. In today’s Washington Post Sebastian Junger thoughtfully explains the environment in which the disturbing video of American Marines urinating on dead Taliban solders was made : http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/were-all-guilty-of-dehumanizing-the-enemy/2012/01/13/gIQAtRduwP_story.html

Whether we can understand such behavior or not, it has harmed our goals in Afghanistan and increased the danger to other solders. Marine Capt. Timothy Kudo, explains this perspective well in today’s Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/as-a-marine-and-afghan-war-vet-im-insulted-by-the-desecration-video/2012/01/12/gIQAswIrwP_story.html.

The event is sad but America has demonstrated to the world how a mature democracy openly discusses and deals with its mistakes. We may be proud of that.

The Invented Palestinians

Five years after a previous visit to Israel and the West Bank and Gaza (or the OPT—Occupied Palestinian Territory—as the UN and the Palestinians call it), I am once again residing in the charming American Colony Hotel. As on my two most recent previous visits (in 2005 and 2006) I am advising the Palestine Monetary Authority that I helped set up in the mid 1990s on strengthening its capacities as a central bank and preparing to issue its own currency should the political and economic situation ever justify doing so.

The American Colony Hotel, now decked out for Christmas (see pictures), has a long history here—over 150 years—and has hosted many interesting guests. There are the politically important visitors such as Winston Churchill, Mikhail Gorbachev, Senator George Mitchell, George Shultz, James Wolfensohn, Kofi Annan, and T. E. Lawrence. There are the artistically important visitors such as Graham Green, Leon Uris, Saul Bellow, John Steinbeck and Marc Chagall. There are some big names in the media business such as Ted Turner and Barbara Walters and in music such as Sting and Juan Baez (my personal favorite). The list of movie starts is long, including Sir Ben Kingsley, Lauren Becall, Peter Ustinov, Ingrid Bergman, Omar Sharif, Richard Gere, Uma Thurman and Vanessa Redgrave. But the one that tickles me the most is Peter O’Toole, who visited here many decades after the visit of T.E. Lawrence who he portrayed in Lawrence of Arabia.

The Hotel is in East Jerusalem, that part of the city that is in the West Bank, OPT, or Palestine as you wish, that was occupied by the Israelis in the Six Day War of 1967. Following that war, famous visitors were generally making a political statement in favor of peace. The American Colony was considered neutral territory. I have written a lot in the past about the Israeli-Palestinian situation and if you are interested I urge you to reread earlier blogs (posted here for the first time): “The View from the West Bank – a history of the conflict”, “Jerusalem in august 2006”, “Leaving Israel August 11 2006”.

While here this past week, American politicians demonstrated again a lack of balance and/or understanding in addressing the truly difficult situation here. In the case of Newt Gingrich, who brushed aside the desire of Palestinians (Arabs or whatever you want to call the people driven out of their homes by Zionists sixty years ago and the Israeli Defense Forces almost 45 years ago) to return home, it is surely blatant dishonestly and vote pandering, as he knows better. The Israeli Press is ablaze with debate about Newt’s comments (as it always is about something), and Israel’s political relationship with the U.S. more generally.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit and comments about women are still reverberating.

Balancing America’s commitment to the military defense of Israel with promoting the peace in the region that we rightly see as essential to Israel’s well being, has grown particularly difficult of late. President Obama stated the obvious several times during his administration (Israeli settlements being build in the West Bank are illegal, and the border between Israel and a new Palestinian state should be based on the borders of Israel approved by the UN long ago) then rolled over dead in the face of Israeli President Netanyahu’s (who we know from French President Sarkozy is a liar) shouts of outrage.

I had not appreciated before that when some Israelis quote Hamas and some other Palestinians as refusing to recognize Israel’s right to exist (which sounds rather like the desire for another holocaust) they are referring to the Palestinian demand for their “right to return” to their homes, the other insoluble issue preventing a resolution of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Two articles on the front page of Monday’s The Jerusalem Post illustrate the issue. The banner article was titled: “Cabinet approves plan to fight illegal infiltration; Netanyahu: We will close businesses, so that the enterprise known as the State of Israel does not close – PM to consider repatriating workers when he visits Africa.” What is this all about? Statements by Israel’s Justice Minister, Yaakov Neeman, in the article just below the one quoted above help clarify that question.

Reacting to criticisms from visiting American participants in the Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA) leadership mission to Israel of pending legislation containing loyalty oaths, the Minister scolded the American’s with raised voice saying: “There is no discrimination in any of the legislation…. We will have a majority of non-Jews if not. This is a Jewish state. If you don’t like it, you can move to another country.” He followed this with: “All Jews need to come home to Israel. I want them here. A Jew who doesn’t live here in Israel is not doing the most important thing.”

The Minister and many Israeli’s want a democratic Jewish state. That required them to drive out those living here who were not Jewish and preventing them and other non-Jews from returning (about 20% of Israelis are Arab). The refusal of Hamas and some other Palestinian’s to accept the legitimacy of the Israeli state is not anti-Semitism, it is an expression of their demand for their “right to return” home. It is anti-Zionist.

Israeli Jews are divided on this issue. Palestinians are divided as well. Those in the West Bank and living in Jordan as Jordanian citizens lead relatively prosperous lives and are prepared to give up their past claims on their homes and move on. These Palestinians are generally well-educated and hard-working. For them some token return of a few hundred thousand of the almost 5 million Palestinians driven out of their homes would be enough. But those 1.4 million still living in refuge camps after all these years (largely in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria) have little to gain from, nor interest in, moving on. This split in the Palestinian ranks largely reflects the Hamas – Fatah divide.

Why then hasn’t the U.S. and the Quartet (U.S., EU, UN, and Russia) focused more on better treatment and integration of refuges in their host countries, largely Lebanon, following the good example of Jordan? And why has Israel so often frustrated the economic development of the West Bank and especially Gaza where most of the refugees still living in camps can be found. There in lies a very complicated story of conflicting interests among Israeli Jews, and among Lebanese political groups. The Lebanese do not allow Palestinians to work or become citizens for fear they will upset the delicate, existing balance between Christian, Sunni Muslim and Shea Muslim political groups and interests. The political conflict in Israel between those wanting a greater Israel and turning a blind eye if not actually encouraging illegal settlements in the West Bank and the peaceniks who favor a “two state solution,” is complicated by monopolistic business interests who continually use their economic and political influence to stifle (if not crush) economic competition from often very adept Palestinian enterprises. Thus no proposal for peace with the West Bank and Gaza can gain wide-spread support in Israel or in Palestine.

The Governor of the Palestine Monetary Authority told me at dinner last night that he feared that the resent wave of so-called “price tag” attacks on Palestinians and mosques in the West Bank and on the IDF (Israeli Defense Force) by right-wing Ultra Orthodox Jewish settlers risked turning what is now a territorial dispute into a religious dispute (Muslims vs Jews). For decades Ultra conservative Jews would park their campers in target areas of the West Bank and stay. When they were harassed by Palestinians for being on Palestinian property, the about to become settlers would seek protection from the IDF, which has occupied the West Bank since the Six Day War. Some months later they would demand adequate water and waste disposal, and then electricity and a few years later they would demand permission to build homes their on the grounds that they had already been living there for some time.

Many Israelis have lost patience with these settlers and periodically the IDF remove them from their illegal settlements. The settlers have dubbed their current attacks on the IDF as the “price tag” for being evicted from their illegal settlements. But right-wing Israeli governments have tolerated the continued advances of these settlements for years. The mystery is that the U.S. seems to tolerate it too. Netanyahu’s sharp rebuke of President Obama’s criticism of the settlements last year and Obama’s quick back down is a case in point. For the moment, the Israeli government seems to be creaking down. According to the Jerusalem Post: “IDF feels that to tackle ‘price-tag’ phenomenon, the gov’t needs to toughen legislation, increase policing, send a clear message.”

The United States has already faded as a major influence on events here. Speaking the truth would be the best way to serve the best interests of our friends in Israel, Palestine, and region. It would help if Newt Gingrich and other politicians stopped pandering to the Jewish and religious right voters in America who ally with them with unprincipled and inaccurate characterizations of the situation here in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory. “Look who is talking about ‘invented’ peoples”

Leaving Israel, August 11, 2006

This is the re-posting of an earlier note:

Hi from Home

Sorry for two notes so close together, but travel conditions today warrant an update after British authorities arrested 24 terrorists who planned to blow up 10 planes over the Atlantic yesterday. I left Israel this morning on Lufthansa with the Governor of the PMA heading for Washington DC. We assumed that we were on the same flights all the way. Thus in Frankfurt I followed him to his gate. After one hour of extra security procedures we arrived at the gate to discover that we were on different flights and I was in the wrong terminal. Thus I passed through another security check point in the correct area and boarded my flight. To my disappointment the plane lacked the sleeper seats I was expecting. I am afraid that I grumbled about it to the steward. Half an hour later my name was called along with 5 other first class passengers and informed that we were being moved to another flight using a 747 with proper seats. The steward whispered that it was because of my complaint. This, however, meant that we had to go through the original security check point yet again. This time they took away my toothpaste and other similar items from my PC bag. They were not impressed when I told them that all of these items had passed through there three hours earlier. Go figure. Anyway, I am home safe (except for the security warning about demonstrations in Washington against US support of Israel’s war against Lebanon).

I would like to share with you the experience last week of one of my fellow advisors at the Palestine Monetary Authority (PMA). He was leaving Gaza, where the PMA has a branch, to return to Ramallah where I was working when he and his driver come under fire from an Israeli tank. This occurred at the Palestinian side check point of the border crossing from Gaza into Israel (the only way to get to the other part of Palestine in the West Bank). The gun fire lasted three hours during which he spoke by phone from the floor of his car to the Governor of the PMA and the U.S. Embassy. He is a fellow American and was born and raised in Virginia. You will be shocked, as he and I were, at what the American Embassy said to him. The woman on the phone said that his name, Akram Baker, sounded Arabic and asked if he was of Palestinian decent. He said yes. She asked what he was doing in Gaza and informed him that the Israeli government does not want American’s of Palestinian decent in Gaza and that the U.S. government would not help him. Israel basically keeps Palestinians living in Gaza prisoners within Gaza and makes it very difficult for Palestinians to enter and leave Gaza. The PMA Governor contacted the Palestinian President Abbas who got the Israelis to call off their tank. We seem to have a new second class American citizen.

The day before this incident one of the PMA employees in Gaza and her daughter were killed by an overhead Israeli helicopter. Akram asked me how I would define terrorism and answered his own question by saying the UN defines it as terrorizing (intimidating, frightening, even murdering) civilians in order to promote some political or ideological goal. Doesn’t that describe, Akram asked, Israel’s continued use of collective guilt and pressure against Palestinians to pressure their government to control terrorists in their own midst. For example, placing dozens and dozens of check points throughout the West Bank to make it difficult for Palestinians to travel around their own homeland (I had to go through two permanent check points every morning and again every afternoon between East Jerusalem and Ramallah—all in the West Bank—plus the occasional impromptu ones). Or closing the border to Palestinian day workers in Israel whenever a suicide bomber blows himself up in Israel? Or by arresting Palestinians legally and fairly elected to the Palestine National Authority (PNA) Parliament for simply being members of the Hamas political party because some terrorists affiliated with some members of Hamas held an Israeli solder. Or by destroying vast parts of Lebanon’s infrastructure and killing over a thousand of its men, women, and children to punish them (Christians included) for not being tougher against Hezbollah fighters in their midst (before the current war, a majority of Lebanese opposed Hezbollah and now a majority support them). Or, killing the PMA employee and her daughter as they walked down the street because they “tolerated” Palestinian terrorists in their midst who held an Israeli solder hostage.

For Palestinians, Akram said, Israeli solders are terrorists. That is why Palestinian children sometimes throw stones at the Israeli solders as they drive through their neighborhoods. It is the only weapon they have. A few become suicide bombers.

But what is Israel to do to defend itself when so many of its neighbors do not accept its right to exist. Become a better neighbor perhaps? But what does it mean that many Arabs do not accept Israel’s “right to exist?” This is a sanitized reference to the desire of many Palestinians to drive Israelis back off the land they took from Palestinians in 1948 and 1967. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other Palestinian terrorists are the small minority that cannot get over that historical fact and move on. Most Palestinians—everyone I have ever met—have moved on and would just like the Israelis to withdraw from the territories the UN demands them return (West Bank and Gaza) so that they can get on with their lives. In fact, like almost all political movements anywhere, Hamas really simply wants to govern like any other political party and has separated itself from its militant wing (sounds like the IRA of old). It is in Israel’s interest to make normal political participation more rewarding for Hamas than terrorism—to let Hamas or any other elected government succeed or fail on their merits and to hold them accountable for their performance. Israel and the rest of us should do all possible to help the Palestinian government succeed. A successful Palestine would be a safer neighbor for Israel. Instead, Israel has stopped transferring the taxes it collects for the Palestine government on imports through Israel, proliferated walls and checkpoints throughout the West Bank and made proper administration by the Palestinian government impossible. Now the failure of the PNA will be blamed on the U.S. and Israel. When will they ever learn,… when will they ever learn.

Jerusalem in August 2006

This note was written in August 2006 following the earlier (October 2005) posting of a brief history of the Israeli Palestinian conflict: “The View from the West Bank – a history of the conflict”

Hi from Jerusalem (East Jerusalem for those of you in the know),

After leading the IMF technical assistance teams that helped establish the Palestine Monetary Authority in 1995 and 96, I returned a year ago to prepare a blue print for the steps needed for the PMA to introduce its own currency some time in the (ever more) distant future. People in the West Bank and Gaze largely use the Israeli shekel and to a lesser extent the Jordanian dinar for payments and contracts. Keeping the notes in good condition and clearing checks in shekel requires arrangements with Israeli banks. These banks recently notified the PMA that they intend to end these arrangements soon. I have returned to help the PMA figure out what to do.

The political situation in and around Israel has gone from bad to worse, to much worse. You may substitute Iraq for Israel in the previous sentence as well. When Palestinians democratically elected representatives of Hamas in enough numbers to take over the government of the West Bank and Gaze (the Palestine National Authority) from the ineffective and corrupt government of Al-Fatah (Arafat’s party), political life for Israel and the West became more complicated. The military wing of Hamas is on the U.S. list of terrorist organizations, as is Hezbollah, the Lebanese terrorist group sponsored by Iran and Syria. Hezbollah also has democratically elected representatives in the Lebanese Parliament.

Israel is now at war with Hezbollah and more or less with Hamas. At least one well-known American commentator argued that Israel has a moral right to defend its borders and thus to attack Lebanon (its bombs have fallen on far more than its Hezbollah enemy). This totally and tragically misses the point. Israel is again acting against its own interests, which in the case of Hezbollah is to help build a strong Lebanese government and army that can disarm Hezbollah (as demanded by the UN) and enforce a peaceful and secure border with Israel.

I shudder at those who argue that (if you are strong enough) you just need to smash your enemies. Be tough. They don’t seem to live in the same world I do. Can the Shi’a Muslim Iraqis who now dominate the Iraqi government really wipe out all Sunni Muslim terrorists in Iraq or can the Sunni and Christian Lebanese and the Jewish Israeli’s really wipe out the Shi’a Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon? Walid Jumblatt, the leader of Lebanon’s Druze community and a harsh critic of Hezbollah stated Saturday that “We have to acknowledge that they [Hezbollah] have defeated the Israelis….” Being tough and launching war on Hezbollah/Lebanon has greatly weakened Israel (militarily, economically, and politically), just as the miscalculated U.S. attack on Iraq has weakened America (militarily, economically, and politically). These acts of war have weakened the security of both of our countries, not strengthened it.

Wars between tribes and religious factions can only be “won” diplomatically. The infamous Hatfields and McCoys ended their vicious cycle of feuding only when they mutually came to accept that they would never succeed in totally exterminating the other. There would always be a son, or a relative, or a friend of a son left somewhere to carry on the hatred and revenge. The famous feud ended only when a combination of carrots and sticks and harsh experience led both sides to accept a credible truce as the best that they could do. Read or watch again Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet and weep.

A few weeks ago I watched a TV reality show called “The Nanny” (please done ask me why). In the show the well-meaning and conscientious parents of three little monsters were sinking into despair as their spoiled and confused kids walked all over them. The parents were not dumb, but they were failing as parents. My first reaction was that the Third Geneva Convention (on the Treatment of Prisoners of War) should be suspended for these awful brats. Where is George W when we could really use him? The British Nanny brought in to save this family, was wise indeed. She found as many ways to pull out and encourage the cooperation of the children (carrots) as she did to establish clearer and more consistent rules and punishments for violating them (sticks). In short, she found the right balance of incentives that encouraged these children to redirect their considerable energies into positive and pleasant behavior that became a joy to be around. It was brilliant. It is what societies need as well—values and rules under which everyone can get along. I am sure that you have seen perfectly behaved but regimented and dull children and laud, rude and out of control ones and said to yourself, please don’t make me have to be around either.

My boss in Baghdad emailed me last week: “Please don’t go to Jerusalem.  I don’t think that you will be safe there.  Come back to Baghdad.” She has quit a sense of humor. The security situation in Iraq has finally degenerated beyond my comfort level and I have not returned to Baghdad since December despite many requests to do so. I have been highly critical of that war, when we should be fighting Al-Quaeda in Afghanistan and elsewhere (they didn’t exist in Iraq until we attacked it). And I have been even more critical of our ineffective follow-on efforts to establish a stable democracy there. However, there is one aspect of our conduct of that war I am proud of.

Every war has produced atrocities (torture, rape, murder, etc). It is a tragic and unavoidable part of war. We are again seeing examples of this ugly fact with the revelations of the killing of 24 Iraqis, mainly women and children, by American Marines in Haditha in the heat of war. The rape of an Iraqi girl and murder of her family by an American solder (Steven D. Green) in Mahmoudiya was purely criminal. Four of his U.S. Army buddies have also been arrested in connection with those crimes. Iraqis are not surprised that Americans have done these things (in very limited quantities). But they are surprised at the openness with which we expose and punish them. We can be very proud of that. It gives credence to our belief that we try to live by high principles.

Our principles of government revere openness and honesty—what more recently has come to be known as “transparency.” We can thank our free press for making that principle meaningful. While the most professional, well-trained, and well armed military in the history of mankind protects our freedom from attacks from abroad, the most professional and dedicated press in the world protects us from attacks on your freedom at home. Our practice of transparency is the ultimate check and balance on government (or corporate or labor) abuse. When combined with the high standards that guide our military leaders, transparency has helped contain the abuses of power that exist in every military, police force, and government. Three cheers for our free press.

I hope that all is well with you.

Warren