The hypocrites in the Republican Party--the very same senators who said judicial filibusters were an affront to the Constitution--are now regularly filibustering every Obama judicial nominee.  This is reprehensible of course--but also expected. It's the way the Republicans play politics. Sadly, though, the Democrats also continue to play politics the way they do.  Instead of attacking the Republicans just as vocally as the Republicans attacked the Democrats, the Democrats are either completely silent or, if they say anything, are trying to make compromises with the Republicans in the name of "bipartisanship."  As a result, we are getting no liberal to moderate judges appointed to the courts. Instead, our federal judiciary remains packed with right wing ideologues. Appointing liberal judges is arguably the most important and transformative action the Democrats could take while they are in power. Instead, they are squandering their opportunity. And, given the complete ineptitude of the Democratic Party, that opportunity is almost certain to be fleeting.

Our two distinguished political parties summed up: no direction and wrong direction. One party can't seem to define what it stands for and can't seem to lead even its own members in any consistent direction. The other is very clear what it stands for and can get all its members to move forward in lock step, but the direction it insists on running in is the same direction that led us into the mess in which we find ourselves now.  If only the Democrats could get their act together, there's such an opportunity to lead the country in a new direction. But Obama is floundering and the Blue Dogs are pulling the cart off the path.  It's all very discouraging. I'm afraid, by default, the Republicans will begin winning again because at least the American people know where they're headed. Wrong direction will trump no direction, and the opportunity Obama and the Democrats have had before them will be squandered.

I admit to being completely perplexed about how health care should be reformed in this country. That there is a problem is undeniable: costs are already much higher than they are in the rest of the world and are growing at rates far above inflation, large numbers of people lack coverage, and medical outcomes are mixed. Add to this an absurdly complex administrative system that makes scheduling visits and paying bills a nightmare, and one gets a clear picture of a badly broken system. 

While the problem is undeniable, the solution remains unclear to me. And unfortunately, I find the debate about what to do about health care remarkably superficial and unenlightening. What bothers me most is that the discussion seems to focus on just one part of the problem: how we pay for care. Should there be a single payer? Should insurance companies still be involved? What is the right role for employers? How much should the government pay and how much should stay in the private sector?  All these questions about paying for care are important, but they only address one of the problems affecting health care.  And it may not be the most important problem.

A much more significant problem, in my mind, is the underlying cost of medical services.  Why are they so high in the US compared with the rest of the world? Why are they growing so fast? And what do we do about about them?  There's a tendency on the left to blame the insurance companies for all the excess cost. While the insurance companies do deserve some blame, I think it's disingenuous to attribute the entire problem to profit-taking and administrative overhead. Even if the insurance companies skim 10% to 20% of the money being pumped into the system, the remaining 80% to 90% paid to doctors, hospitals, drug companies, and other providers still represents the bulk of the huge and growing cost.

By changing the payment system, we may get more people covered and may reduce some of the cost and hassle of obtaining care--but the cost gains are likely to be temporary if we don't address the underlying cost of care problem.  I don't have a solution to the problem to offer today--but I hope my post will at least stimulate some debate on this second, and possibly more essential problem: how do we control (or adjust to) the underlying cost of health care services and products?

I am republishing this as a detailed comment on Bernard Avishai's article of June 14, "Total Settlement Freeze? No, a Border."

Anyone who regularly reads the comments to MJ. Rosenberg's numerous posts on Israel and Palestine knows that I am (or at least have become) extremely skeptical about the feasibility of the so-called two-state solution as a way to end the conflict between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs. There was a time when I was not quite so skeptical, when I believed that, while no solution was perfect, the creation of two states was an achievable objective and also a reasonably fair and effective way to resolve the problem

Over the past five or six years, however, as I have read more about the conflict, listened more carefully to the arguments of both Jews and Arabs, and observed events on the ground, I have slowly but inexorably come to the conclusion not only that the two-state solution is unworkable, but--much more important--that all attempts to advocate for or negotiate a two-state solution must increasingly be judged irresponsible (if not willfully pernincious), because all they can do is distract from and delay the work required to produce a feasible solution. 

Conditions for Success

Before explaining why the two-state solution is unworkable, let me identify what would be necessary for a solution to succeed. For a solution to this conflict to be feasible, I believe it must meet two conditions:

• First, the solution must be acceptable and reasonably satisfactory to both parties. If not, no agreement will ever be signed.
• Second, the solution must be able to endure. A signed agreement is only the first step in achieving a solution. What happens after the agreement is signed is far more important. If the situation created by the agreement is unstable and unsustainable, the agreement will collapse and the conflict resume. 

Some may object to my first condition, saying that mutual agreement is not necessary because a solution can be imposed on one of the parties by the other or on both of the parties by the international community. The problem, though, with imposed solutions is that they tend to result in unstable situations post-imposition. The risk, therefore, is that by ignoring the first condition and imposing a solution, the second condition will not be met. And the second condition is really the most important, because a solution that cannot endure is not really a solution.

The Features of a Two-State Solution as Currently Conceived

So what does this mean for the two-state solution? Most supporters of the two-state solution argue that its features have been known for a long time and that the primary reason for the inability to reach agreement is merely a kind of stubbornness among the two parties or the result of poor leadership on one or both sides or in the international community. I'd argue that, in fact, the reason the two-state solution has not been agreed upon despite decades of discussion and negotiation is that:

• Its features are actually not known because the details of the solution have never been fully explored, and these details must be known before before any agreement can be had.
• If its features were known (i.e., the details were fully explored), the solution would be neither mutually desirable nor capable of producing a lasting, peaceful arrangement, and would therefore fail to be agreed upon or, if agreed upon, collapse soon after the solution was implemented.  

I might even go further and argue that the constant attempt to put off "final status negotiations" reflects a tacit understanding among negotiators that a two-state solution is impossible and that the negotiations will collapse as soon as the final status issues are raised. Two-state negotiations, in one form or another, have gone on for decades without reaching any agreement. Furthermore, whenever final status details are discussed, the negotiations become tense and, eventually, collapse. Empirically, this should be strong enough evidence to convince any rational person that there is something significantly wrong with the two-state proposal. Yet, discussions continue and the conventional wisdom remains that a two-state solution is both desirable and acheivable. 

So let's look more closely at the outlines of the supposed solution. Most say that the three basic features of the solution are:

• Borders approximating the 1967 green line
• East Jerusalem the capital of the Palestinian state
• Compensation (but no or very limited return) for Palestinian refugees

The problem with this vision is that the first two featuers are no longer possible to implement because of Israeli settlements and the third, while possible, is likely to be agreed upon by the Palestinians only if they receive much more than they are likely to be offered.

Let's look at each of these features of the imagined two-state solution individually and explore the details more closely.

Borders

First, borders. To really understand this issue, you should review this map and also these population statistics.  If you look at the map, you'll see the geographic extent of Israeli settlement. Especially significant are the large settlement blocks near Jerusalem, near Qalqiliya, and near Hebron, but there are settlements large and small scattered throughout the West Bank. If you look at the population statistics you will also see that the number of people living in these settlements is approaching 300,000.  Returning to the 1967 borders (or even anything close to them) will require the removal of more than a quarter of a million people from hundreds of locations across the West Bank. This is simply impossible for Israel to do. Not only will the effort create something like a civil war in Israel, removing and resettling 300,000 unwilling people is a daunting and politically disasterous task, which no Israeli leader would ever agree to undertake. 

In fact, the impossibility of returning to 1967 borders is now widely accepted. This is why all proposals for two-state solutions now suggest that land will need to be swapped. The problem here is which pieces of land are to be swapped? To understand the complexity of this problem, one must know something of the geography of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. One could divide the land in of this region into four categories. Category A is the fertile land along the coastal plain, in the Jezreel Valley, around Gallilee, and parts of the northern Jordan River valley. This is the most valuable land, most suitable for growing crops. Most if it is in Israel. (In fact, one reason the Arabs reacted so badly to the original UN partition is that nearly all of this best land was given to the Jewish state.)  Category B land is also suitable for agriculture, but it's drier or more mountainous and therefore has more limited capacity. Much of this category B land is found in the western portion of the West Bank and in some areas of Israel. Category C land is near desert. This makes up much of the Eastern portion of the West Bank and much of the southern part of Israel north of the Negev desert. Finally, there is Category D land, which is true desert. This is found in the Negev and the southeastern part of the West Bank.

If one looks at the Jewish settlements in the West Bank, one sees that most of the settlements are on category B land. Some smaller (in population, but not area) settlements have been built in the bit of category A land in the Jordan River valley north of the Dead Sea (land which Israel says it wants to keep as a "security zone" even after a Palestinian state is established). So most of the land swap provisions in two-state solutions require the Palestinians to relinquish category A or B land. Typically, what they get in return is category C or D land. After all, it is C and D land that is sparsely populated and hence open in Israel.  So most of the land swaps not only fragment the West Bank, they reduce the overall quality of the land in the Palestinian state.

This has significant consequences. The population of the West Bank and Gaza is about 4 million. Those 4 million need to eat. If the agricultural land is poor, growing enough food will be challenging. In most proposed versions of the two-state solution, Israel retains control of most of the water. So irrigation will be difficult for the Palestinians. And the soil is relatively poor in many places anyway. So Palestine will need to import much of its food.

This means Palestine will need to have an industrial base to generate the wealth to buy food. But Palestine now has little industry. And there is no reason to see why the West Bank and Gaza will attract much industry. Palestine is not like Singapore or Hong Kong--city states with important ports that were significant to the world trade of the British Empire and that therefore were able to develop viable economies despite a paucity of good land.  Palestine currently has no deep water port (there have been plans proposed to create a deep water port in Gaza, but that's a major undertaking); and it has none of the business and other infrastructure that a Singapore or Hong Kong had because of their historical economic importance. Palestine would be building its industrial base from the ground up, facing significant competition from richer or more established economies, and with few natural advantages to build on. The prospects--realistically--are not promising. The likely scenario for a Palestinian state is actually continued poverty for many, many years, with at best a marginal agricultural base and a weak industrial base. This doesn't bode well for the long-term stability of the Palestinian state.

Before we move on to East Jerusalem, let's return to the issue of fragmentation of the West Bank. I mentioned in passing that the settlements kept by Israel would leave the West Bank fragmented. In fact, those settlements would likely bisect the West Bank into separate northern and southern sections. And this is a "best case" scenario: some proposals would actually divide the West Bank into three or four or even five pieces.  Fragmentation creates significant challenges. Already, the problem of connecting Gaza with the West Bank is thorny. Now multiply this problem several times over. If the Palestinian state is so fragmented, Palestinians will continue to have to pass through Israeli checkpoints to move within their state. This will be a huge economic inconvenience that will discourage businesses from locating in Palestine and, maybe more significantly, will mean constant tension--and potential violence--between Palestinians and Israelis. Fragmentation makes a Palestinian state highly unstable and likely unsustainable.

To conclude the discussion of borders, we must acknowledge that the 1967 border is no longer possible and that the actual possible borders are really nothing at all like the 1967 border. Worse, the borders that actually are possible result in a fragmented and economically disadvantaged Palestinian state. This state will not be stable and is unlikely ever to be a peaceful neighbor to Israel, which means repeated Israeli blockades, incursions, or even re-occupation should such a state ever be created.   

East Jerusalem

The Israelis have been creating large Jewish neighborhoods within East Jerusalem. The populations of these neighborhoods now approach a quarter million. Furthermore, East Jerusalem is almost completely surrounded by Jewish settlments. It will be detached completely from all other parts of Palestine should a two-state solution be agreed upon. It will therefore make a very poor capital for the Palestinian state. In fact, making East Jerusalem a practical capital of the Palestinian state seems impossible without vast transfers of the Jewish population living in and around it and the dismantling of at least some of the settlements that separate East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank. I don't see how any of these actions will ever occur. Because of this, East Jerusalem is no longer available to be the capital of Palestine so this feature of the two-state solution is as completely unreaslistic as a state on borders approaching the 1967 borders.

Refugees

Israel insists that either no or very few refugees will be allowed to return to Israel. Already the population of the West Bank and Gaza is 4 million. Palestinian refugees living outside the West Bank and Gaza (in Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria) could potentially increase the population by another 1 to 2 million. This creates a very crowded Palestinian state. As we explained above, there is neither an agricultural or industrial base to support this many people. The crowded, impoverished conditions of Palestine will tend to make the state unstable and will also likely result in conflicts with neighboring Israel. This kind of weak state will almost certainly need to be attacked or re-occupied at some point by Israel, which means a quick return to today's status quo.

Of course, the Palestinians are very reluctant to agree to give up what they view as their right to return to Israel for reasons of justice and emotion. But were they ever willling to compromise on this point, they would still need something in return to help avoid the kind of economic and political disaster that would result from overcrowding and poverty. No proposals for compensation that I have seen even come close to addressing this economic need. And the border problem--which further reduces the agricultural capacity of Palestine--only exacerbates the difficulties. The refugee problem--oft mentioned, but rarely seriously addressed--is a major sticking point. And if solved in the way most of the proponents of the two-state solution assume it would be solved, it will only increase the economic instability of Palestine.

Maintaining the Illusion

For all the reasons outlined above (and many others too such as, water rights, control of airspace, or the nature of the Palestinian military), a two-state solution seems completely impossible.

Two questions then arise:

• First, why do we continue to cling to the illusion that a two-state solution can be effected?
• Second, what alternatives are possible if we ever relieve ourselves of the two-state delusion?

The primary answer to the first question is that the two-state solution superficially seems like a good one and most people (including a large number of Israeli Jews and Palestinians as well as much of the international community) don't carefuly examine the details. So most people continue to accept its feasibility as fact. A second answer is that the illusion of the possibility of a two-state solution is attractive to two groups within the Jewish community. Liberal Jews in Israel and elsewhere who want to preserve a Jewish state find it emotionally attractive to think that a solution other than a bi-national state or outright ethnic cleansing is possible. On the other hand, certain conservative Israeli Jews may have come to realize that pretending to be interested in the impossible two-state solution provides useful cover for a more cynical strategy of delaying a solution indefinitely in the hopes of wearing down the Palestinians. On the Palestinian side, the supporters of a two-state solution seem to be hoping that they can garner support among the international community and use this support to obtain more from the Israelis than the Israelis would like to give them (a highly unlikely possibility). And of course, there are corrupt and/or ineffectual Palestinian politicians who depend on the West for money and power and who must publically back the two state solution to continue to be supported by their Western sponsors. So for all these reasons, the two-state delusion continues to remain attractive (or at least useful) to many minds while, in fact, being effective only at delaying and even interfering with progress toward any real solution. 

Alternatives

There are really only two alternatives to the impossible two-state solution. One is some kind of bi-national state or federation that re-integrates the two populations into one economic community. This solution would solve all the problems of borders and would make the transfer of populations unnecessary since everyone in both groups would be free to live and work where they like within the region (it negates both the refugee problem and the settler problem). Better yet, a bi-national or federated solution would allow the Palestinians to once again find jobs and work in Israel, creating economic hope for those impoverished populations and helping to create a more stable and peaceful Palestinian community.

The other alternative is removing the Palestinians to some other part of the world. This of course is generally unacceptable. However, an argument can be made that if the two-state solution is unworkable and no one will agree to a bi-national or federated solution, then ethnic cleansing is the only answer. If this is the case, one has to ask whether continuing to argue for a two-state solution is in any way defensible. All it does is delay justice (the bi-national state or federation) or prolong the suffering of the Palestinians while still condeming them to the ultimate injustice of  ethnic cleansing.

For all these reasons people who truly believe in the sanctity of human rights need to begin to challenge the two-state delusion and create a new and more realistic path toward justice and peace. I recommend some kind of bi-national state or federation. I'll leave it to others to argue for ethnic cleansing or for continuing to maintain the two-state delusion for another 60 years, while the injustice and suffering continue unabated.      

When I get some time, maybe I'll do some statistical analysis, but intuitively it seems to me that having a Supreme Court of nine people with lifetime appointments results in a rather stagnant court, with a high probability of having disproportionate representation not only of things like gender and race, but even more significant, of legal thinking. Right now, we have four of the nine seats filled by men with very similar ideas, which significantly limits diversity of thinking. Worse, these seats may be occupied for years, preventing new ideas from reaching the court and possibly making the court's perspectives anachronistic as legal thinking evolves, but the court continues to be occupied by men with old, stale, and out-of-favor ideas.

Now some of this calcification is good--it prevents change from happening too rapidly--but maybe we should have some better balance between preserving the old and giving the new a voice?  And also bring more diversity in thinking and background to our court?

How about increasing the size of the court? Nothing in the constitution prevents that and the Democrats are powerful right now and so may be able to do this.  I suggest increasing it to 15, with 2 new seats opened during the Obama administration, and 2 new seats opened in each of the succeeding presidential administrations. (I know adding two seats during the Obama administration is a bit of a strong-arm tactic--the more politic thing to do would be to add the first two new seats in the next administration, but maybe the democrats should exert some muscle here? The republicans have been pushing them around for too long on these issues--hitting back might be healthy, actually, if not 100% fair.)

In addition to creating a more diverse and dynamic court, the addition of a few more justices might help ease the workload that weighs so heavily upon the current justices.

Let's hope the Democrats start thinking about this. It's a damn good way to spend some political capital.

 

 

Yesterday was town meeting. I love town meeting. Yes, it's long and often tedious. It kills a whole Saturday in May, sometimes two. And with the weather finally warming nicely and the fresh buds starting to burst on every tree, spending the entire day inside the dreary high school gymnasium is hardly appealing.

But nothing restores your faith in America and American democracy like town meeting. Yesterday, the big issue was a huge development project proposed for our town center. A large corporate developer was behind the project and our elected town officials--the selectmen, the advisory board, and the planning commission--were all supporting it.

But the project would transform our small, residential town into a major commercial center. Many in the town were for the project. It would raise millions in new property taxes. And it would bring new jobs at a time when employment is dwindling across the state. But the project would also mean more traffic, more crowding, and the end of the quaint, quiet, still slightly rural community we love. And so many of us were against it.

For those not from New England, open town meeting is the common form of government for smaller and medium-sized communities here. Once a year, the citizens of the town assemble together to discuss the town's business and vote up or down every expenditure and every significant change in town policy.

About halfway through the meeting, the big issue came to the floor. The planning board was recommending a change to zoning laws that would allow the big development project to proceed. The developer made a slick presentation telling us about all the benefits of the project and emphasizing the tax revenues for our community and how the money would help the schools. Then the planning board, the advisory board, and the selectmen all spoke in support of the project.

But direct democracy is very different from the representative democracy we're used to at the state level and in Washington. In representative democracy, the slick corporate lobbyists meet in private with our representatives and present their arguments, all too often gilded with offers of campaign support. The ordinary citizen remains unheard. And only the representative gets to vote. But in town meeting the back room doors are swung open and the ordinary citizen not only peers in but stands up to speak. 

So one by one, they lined up before the microphone. Car mechanics, construction workers, engineers, housewives, school teachers, store owners, accountants, mid-level executives, farmers, and retirees. Always lots of retirees. And they had their say. Some argued for property tax relief. Some argued for more jobs. Many more argued for keeping the town the way it is: uncongested, clean, quiet, and a good place to live.

Two types of speaker always strike me the most at town meeting. The first is the ordinary man or woman--a farmer or a mechanic or an engineer--who walks to the microphone, notes in hand, and then proceeds to give a remarkably articulate, even eloquent, presentation filled with indisputable facts, impeccable logic, and moving rhetoric. Who knew there was such talent, such wisdom, such statesmanship among the ordinary middle class Joes and Jills you see everyday at the local grocery?

And then there's the second type of speaker. This one is unsophisticated, uneducated, not a good speaker, but still possessing the courage and the commitment to get before the microphone and speak honestly about what she believes. And I am almost moved to tears, when this speaker, stumbling, confused, mixing her words, makes a strong point and the whole town meeting rises to applaud. Where else could such heroism arise from such humility?

And so the town votes. Two-thirds are required to change the zoning laws. The debate has shown the room quite divided. But the proponents of the development sense the mood is against them. So they motion to postpone the vote. The motion fails. More debate ensues. Another motion to postpone. Three times the cycle is repeated. But finally, the moderator moves to the vote. Hands are raised. The tellers walk through the room. The tally is presented: 275 for, 345 against. The motion to change the zoning laws fails. The big-box development is stopped. (I emit a sigh of relief.)

So town meeting goes on. People begin to file out. The big issue has been addressed and the day is getting late. People have dinners to cook and children to care for. The crowd dwindles from 600 to 400 to 300 to maybe 100. It's now nearly an hour since the big vote. A hand is raised. One of the supporters of the development project--a burly bearded guy in shorts and a Harley-Davidson T-shirt--rises to present a motion. It's a motion to reconsider the earlier vote.

A parliamentary maneuver--from a biker guy! Yes, town bylaws allow any vote to be reconsidered as long as the motion to reconsider is raised within one hour after the vote. The petitioner knows the rules, and he's met the time limit.  The crowd is smaller, different. The outcome could be different too!

Debate ensues. Townspeople rise to object. We had a fair vote! The town has made it's decision! This isn't right! But the bylaws are the bylaws and the petitioner is within his rights. But before we can revote on the zoning laws, the motion to reconsider must pass. And that motion requires a two-thirds vote.

So we proceed to vote. "All those for" cries the moderator. Hands go up. The count begins.  I look around the room. A lot of hands are up. I'm nervous. "All those against." I look around--a sea of hands!  It's obvious--the motion fails. It's now an hour and a half past the original vote. The vote to end the development is final. It can't be changed. It's safe to leave.

But who wants to leave? There's more to vote on. And suddenly nothing in the world seems more important than raising my hand to approve the appropriation of $200 to repair the ballfield fence.  

Many moderates among the chattering classes are now arguing for restraint in prosecuting those in the last administration who authorized or participated in the torture of detainees. The usual argument of these moderates is that, while the torture that occurred is deplorable, prosecuting its perpetrators would be too disruptive and divisive for our nation, particularly at a time like now when we face so many other serious challenges. Many also question whether prosecution of a prior presidential administration by a new one would create a dangerous precedent. And finally, some argue that the prior administration was struggling in good faith to keep Americans safe from a new and not fully understood threat, and so some mistakes should be forgiven given the circumstances.

To those who make these arguments, I have to ask two questions:

First, if we excuse war crimes in situations where there is an exonerating circumstance or when prosecution of the war crime is disruptive to the nation to which the war criminals belong, aren't we simply excusing war crimes in nearly all cases in which high officials of a country are involved?  Certainly, the prosecution of high-level officials and prominent political figures is always disruptive to any country. Are we really willing, then, to apply universally to all countries a standard that essentially says war crimes will be ignored if prosecuting them will be inconvenient to the nation whose officials are involved in those crimes?  And since war crimes by definition always occur during war and therefore always occur as officials are trying to defend against threats, wouldn't most war crimes automatically be forgiven by the standard being proposed? If we adopt such a lax attitude toward war crimes for ourselves, then we must apply it to the rest of the world. In doing so, we are essentially saying to the international community that war crimes no longer really matter.

Second,  if we exonerate the past administration for their war crimes, what message are we sending to future administrations?  Is it truly wise to set a precedent that war crimes will be forgiven just because prosecuting them is inconvenient or uncomfortable or otherwise problematic? If we do that, what administration will hesitate to commit war crimes when it believes doing so is politically expedient? Just as war crimes will no longer be taken seriously internationally, so will they be ignored domestically.

The only effective restraint on torturers and other war criminals is the threat of prosecution. If we exercise too much restraint in the prosecution of torture, therefore, we should not be surprised if the result, both at home and abroad, is torture unrestrained.

 

I listened to Geithner on This Week and Meet the Press this morning. On both shows Geithner contrasted his bank bail-out plan with two others: (1) doing nothing and just letting the market handle the banks and (2) buying all the banks' bad assets ala Hank Paulson. Sadly, neither of the interviewers (Stephanopoulos or Gregory) was quick enough or prepared enough to ask Geithner about a third option: receivership (or nationalization). So a huge opportunity to hear Geithner respond to Krugman's ideas was missed. Oh well, I guess we can't expect anything better from our lame-ass press. 

 

Update: I should add that I got the impression that both Stephanopoulos and Gregory thought that Geithner was addressing Krugman's criticisms of the Geithner plan when, in fact, Geithner was completely avoiding discussing Krugman's ideas and was instead comparing his plan to two different alternatives that have nothing to do with Krugman's ideas: doing nothing and adopting Paulson's plan. Stephanopoulos and Gregory were therefore woefully unprepared for their interviews.

On Meet the Press this morning, Louisiana governor and GOP rising star Bobby Jindal is standing by his decision to refuse to accept unemployment relief for Lousiana's laid off working men and women while demanding capital gains tax cuts for wealthy bankers and investors. That's the Republican party in a nut shell, isn't it? Tell working people to go to hell and give huge tax breaks to the plutocrats who largely caused the economic crisis we're in today.

 

 

 

I just read in James Fallows's blog that Chicago labor lawyer, author, and all-round good guy Tom Geoghegan is running for Rahm Emanuel's seat in congress.  I know Tom a bit--a friend of mine used to work for his law firm (Despres, Schwartz, and Geoghegan)--and I don't think there's a person more committed to labor rights than Tom, nor can I imagine a better person to send to Congress.

Here's some of what Fallows has to say about him:

To the extent Tom is known publicly, it's mainly because of his books, like Which Side Are You On?, The Secret Lives of Citizens, and In America's Courts. These really are masterful and original pieces of thinking and writing, which most writers would be content with as their entire contribution to the human endeavor during the period Tom has turned them out. Which Side, which was published in 1991, begins this way:

'Organized labor.' Say those words, and your heart sinks. I am a labor lawyer, and my heart sinks. Dumb, stupid organized labor: this is my cause.

The remarkable thing is that in Geoghegan's case writing has been a sideline. Day by day for several decades he has been a lawyer in a small Chicago law firm representing steel workers, truckers, nurses, and others employees whose travails are the reality covered by abstractions like "the polarization of America" and "the disappearing middle class." Geoghegan's skill as a writer and an intellectual are assets but in themselves might not recommend him for a Congressional job. His consistent and canny record of organizing, representing, and defending people who are the natural Democratic (and American) base is the relevant point.
 

It has often been said you can judge a person by the company he keeps. With that in mind, it's worth mentioning that the senior partner and founder of Tom's law firm, Len Despres, was the long-time alderman from Barack Obama's Hyde Park district and, for many years, the only Alderman with the courage to oppose the elder Mayor Daley. Back in 2005, the University of Chicago awarded Len the Benton Medal for Distinguished Public Service. Here's an excerpt of the University's description of Len's accomplishments: 

Despres, considered the liberal conscience of Chicago politics for decades, was born in Chicago in 1908, attended the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools and graduated from the College in 1927 and the Law School in 1929.

In addition to attending school at the University, Despres also taught classes at the Law School . . .

In 1955, Despres was elected to the Chicago city council to represent Hyde Park as 5th ward alderman, the same year that Paddy Bauler famously uttered that "Chicago ain't ready for reform." But that is exactly what Despres delivered. One of the few independents on the council and the most liberal alderman in the city, Despres ushered in 20 years of reform efforts. His demand to cut out the corrupt sale of city driveway permits made him enemies from the very beginning, particularly among the administration of the late Mayor Richard J. Daley.

Over the years, Despres, 97, has crusaded to ban discrimination, preserve Chicago landmark buildings and gain equality for African-Americans. After serving for 20 years with great distinction as alderman, Despres worked as a parliamentarian for the Jane Byrne and Harold Washington administrations, as well as as an attorney, teacher and lecturer.

He is also the author of the recently released Challenging the Daley Machine: A Chicago Alderman's Memoir. In his political memoir, Despres offers a first-person account of the corruption and cronyism that defined Chicago politics, and his efforts to stand up to the machine, frequently facing 49-to-1 defeats in the city council.

I believe Tom would bring to Congress the same spirit of independence and reform Len brought for so many years to the Chicago city council.  If you are committed to progressive politics, this is a candidacy you should support.

 

Amnesty International is asking people to join in sending the following letter to Secretary Rice. If you want to send a copy, just visit the AI web site.  ___________________________________

 

Secretary Condoleezza Rice

Amnesty International USA is deeply concerned about the escalation of human rights abuses following the series of Israeli air strikes on the Gaza Strip that began on December 27th. Since the beginning of the offensive, some 390 Palestinians have been killed, including scores of unarmed civilians, including some 62 women and children. Some 1,900 Palestinians have also been injured.

Amnesty International is also concerned about the rocket fire by armed Palestinian groups including Hamas. These attacks are against international law and have killed four Israelis and injured scores more.

But Amnesty International USA is particularly dismayed at the lopsided response by the US government to the recent violence and its lackadaisical efforts to ameliorate the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Amnesty International, as indeed other human rights and humanitarian organizations, is concerned about attacks directed at or resulting in harm to unarmed civilians. We expect the US government to share this concern for all unarmed civilians, be they Israeli or Palestinians, who are caught in this conflict, and we urge the US government to spare no effort to pressure all sides in the conflict to immediately cease indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks which cause civilians fatalities and casualties.

Without diminishing the responsibility of Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups for indiscriminate and deliberate attacks on Israeli civilians, the US government must not ignore Israel's disproportionate response and the longstanding policies which have brought the Gaza Strip to the brink of humanitarian disaster. While Israel has the right and the duty to protect its citizens, it must do so in accordance with international human rights and humanitarian law. International law takes security concerns into consideration and allows states to use reasonable means to confront legitimate threats. However, operations must be strictly necessary, proportionate and make every effort to discriminate between combatant and civilian. The least intrusive means must be selected to confront the threat.

In its latest bombing campaign, Israel is completely failing to meet these requirements under international law. The Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated areas in the world. The attacks also come at a time when the civilian population already faces a daily struggle for survival. According to reports authored by Amnesty International, UN aid agencies, OXFAM, CARE, and several other organizations, the humanitarian crisis is at an all-time high level and is now worse that it has ever been since the 1967 Israeli military occupation. Rising unemployment, crippling prices of food and basic supplies, and inadequate medical facilities have created a man-made disaster. According to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, "The civilian population, the fabric of Gaza, the future of the peace process, stability in the region, and goodwill among people throughout the world: all are trapped between the irresponsibility displayed in the indiscriminate rocket attacks by Hamas militants and the disproportionality of the continuing Israeli military operation."

At present there is an urgent need for access to humanitarian aid, food and essential supplies - as both aid agencies and residents of Gaza have long ago run out of provision reserves due to the Israeli blockade which has so restricted the flow of goods into Gaza for months. The quantities which the Israeli army has allowed into Gaza in recent days are nowhere near what is necessary to meet the basic needs of the population of 1.5 million.

AIUSA is further concerned that weaponry and military equipment supplied to Israel by the US (or developed with US military assistance) have also been used in the recent Israeli strikes against densely populated civilian residential areas of Gaza, resulting in scores of unarmed civilians fatalities and hundreds of casualties, in violation of US law. The U.S. Arms Export Control Act of 1976 requires governments that receive weapons from the United States use them only for legitimate self-defense.

The U.S. government can play an important role in ending this crisis by strongly condemning unlawful attacks by both Hamas and Israel which indiscriminately and/or disproportionately kill and injure civilians.

The U.S. must also take an active role in reversing the dire humanitarian crisis in Gaza by exerting pressure on Israel to open the crossings into Gaza to allow adequate quantities of humanitarian aid into the strip - including food, water, medicine and fuel. Humanitarian and human rights workers as well as media must be allowed to enter to aid in the recovery and to serve as neutral, third party observers. Israel must also grant the wounded access to hospitals in Israel and to Palestinian hospitals in East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank.

The United States should also take steps to insist that the Egyptian authorities open Egyptian hospitals to those in need of medical care which is not available in Gaza and ask that Egypt guarantees that its border guards do not resort to excessive use of force against those fleeing the bombing. Hamas must also ensure that its security forces and militias do not, under any circumstances, hinder or prevent the passage of the wounded or others patients trying to leave Gaza.

Finally, it is vital that the United States suspend the transfer of weapons to Israel immediately and conduct an investigation into whether U.S. weapons were used to commit human rights abuses.

Thank you for your consideration of the above concerns and recommendations.

Sincerely

The Times of London has this reprint of a 1951 article on its website today (excerpt below). How is it that so little progress has been made in 57 years?

 

Homeless In Gaza

From a Correspondent lately in Gaza

To most people the name of Gaza brings a picture of blind Samson pulling down the pillars of the house upon the Philistines and himself. Today the reputed tomb of Samson is inhabited by a family of Arab refugees. They form part of the horde of some 200,000 people from Palestine who poured into the Gaza Strip  in 1948, during the troubles between the Arabs and Jews which broke out after the partition plan was announced. Many moved out under orders from their leaders, although implored to stay by Jews with whom they had been on friendly terms for years. Others, particularly the townspeople of Jaffa, were driven to flight by the brutality of the Irgun terrorists, and a massacre of innocent villagers at Dir Yassin, magnified by rumour, struck panic into the hearts of thousands. The refugees in the north gravitated to the Lebanon and Syria, those to the east to Judea, the Jordan valley, and Transjordan, while those in the south turned towards Gaza, which was held by the Egyptians and is now under military government. The " Strip," only 25 miles long and five miles wide, runs from Gaza to the Sinai frontier at Rafah. Last August the total number of Arab refugees receiving rations from the United Nations was 860,000, and because of the high birth-rate this number is steadily increasing. Roughly half of these are in the Kingdom of Jordan, a quarter in the Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, and a quarter in Gaza . . . .

 .  . .The only exit from the Gaza Strip, which is hemmed in by Israel, is to Egypt, and there the refugees are not welcome. They are virtually imprisoned in the area, their only means of escape being a dangerous moonlight flit through Jewish territory. Meanwhile, 70,000 of them have crammed themselves into Gaza town, more than doubling its inhabitants. Over- crowded rooms are let at extortionate rents and those unable to afford them have taken to tents, makeshift shelters, even holes in the ground. On every bit of spare ground pitiable shacks can be seen, made of canvas, sacking, boughs of trees, and bits of tin. Outside the town huge scattered camps have grown up round the villages and two former British Army camps. In Breij about 8,000 refugees are in tents or makeshifts and 6,000 in buildings of varying degrees of soundness. Many of these are large barracks with fairly sound walls and roofs but lacking doors and windows. Inside each is a honeycomb of 30 or 40 cubicles, divided by mud walls or partitions of blankets. In each cell live one, two, or three families, the lucky ones being those with a window. In the larders and kitchens of these ex-Army canteens the refugees huddle among the sinks and stoves, and in the bath-houses they lie down to sleep among the showers or in the boiler rooms. Those under canvas have fared no better, for many tents which were in reasonable shape when issued quickly rotted in the rain and gales of winter, and total replacement was im- possible. The tents, too, are over- crowded, and even the small ones are often divided by a canvas partition separating two families. Privacy, even by Arab standards, is impossible in such con- ditions. In addition, there is the corrosion of idleness and despair, eating into moral fibre and breeding bitterness and discontent . . . .

There are no possibilities of agricultural or industrial development, and all the Clapp Commission could sug-gest was some road works and tree planting to prevent the encroachment of the sand. The United Nations rations keep the recipients above starvation level, and there are extras for those who can afford them; but resources are running out, and hunger makes the temptation to cheat and steal overwhelming. A few hundred are employed on weaving and tailoring and 1,500 on relief work, but many thousands of able-bodied men have no occupation whatever. Bodies as well as hearts grow sick with hope deferred, and though there has been no major epidemic there is a high incidence of tuberculosis and respiratory diseases and inadequate means of treating them . . .

The effect of such conditions among the children is tragic. In the schools the teachers, mostly very young, are doing a fine job against great handicaps; but only about a quarter of the children of school age go to school, the rest run wild, and many cannot attend because of lack of clothes . . .  

Colonel Howard Kennedy concluded his report to the United Nations Political Committee on November 1 with the words: As Director of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency I feel it my duty to bring these matters to the attention of the United Nations, because explosive forces are being generated which should be dealt with before the point of detonation is reached . . . the United Nations is on trial in its handling of the Palestine situation, and wise and sympathetic handling of the current refugee problem is imperative if the situation is not to experience further deterioration. Grave difficulties and dangers elsewhere should not blind us to this great human tragedy of the Middle East. The Clapp Commission recognized that, though the measures it recommended to reduce the refugee problem would not of themselves bring peace, yet "if the refugees be left forgotten and desolate in their misery, peace will recede yet farther from these distracted lands."

As we hear the barrage of news reports demonizing the Palestinians for attacking civilians, let's recall our own history here in the US, where we once demonized in very similar language the Native Americans whose land we were appropriating for ourselves. Native Americans were viewed as "savages" (an old word for terrorist) who indiscriminately murdered the European men, women, and children--the "innocent" civilians--who were settling Native American lands. These words from our own declaration of independence perfectly express the sentiment:

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

Looking back, we are now embarrassed at the way we demonized--and cruelly destroyed--Indian lives and cultures. I wonder if the settler-colonialists in Israel will some day look back on their current attitudes and actions with the same sense of shame?

Over the past week or so, MJ Rosenberg has produced a flurry of posts on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, many of them expressing optimism about the possibility of achieving a two-state solution now that President-elect Obama is about to take over the White House.

At the same time, in the general media, a number of commentators have expressed opinions that the obstacles to achieving a two-state solution are large and that expecting one any time soon (or any time at all) is foolish (Aaron David Miller's op-ed in the JPost is just one recent example of this line of thought).

Last week, long-time TPMCafe reader Dan K commented (with sarcastic humor) that all these debates about Israel and Palestine and what the Israelis need and what the Palestinians need were debates exclusively among Jews. There wasn't an Arab voice to be heard. While Dan K was being funny, his observation was serious: in the West, at least, we hear the opinions of lots of Jewish organizations and Jewish pundits, but we rarely--if ever--hear Palestinian voices. Sure, every once in a while, NPR will broadcast a three-minute interview with a Palestinian (usually University of Maryland professor Shibley Telhami), but compared with the volume of opinions from Israeli and Jewish sources, the thoughts of Palestinians are practically unheard.

So, motivated by Dan K's comment, I spent some time trying to find some kind of recent Palestinian statement on the two-state solution. Thanks to an article in The Guardian, I discovered that just this August, an organization funded by the European Union and called The Palestinian Strategy Study Group, published a very interesting analysis of the options for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict called: Regaining the Initiative: Palestinian Strategic Options to End Israeli Occupation.  After reading the report, I think it is actually one of the better analyses of the situation that I have read and deserves more currency in the West. I encourage anyone with an interest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to read the report directly. Even if you disagree with its conclusions, at least you will be exposed to a well-articulated Palestinian viewpoint.

Here are what I believe are the main points of the report--though, again, please read the report directly since the Palestinians speak for themselves better than I can speak for them:

• The repeated negotiations toward a two-state solution are primarily a delaying tactic that helps Israel maintain the status quo while expanding its occupation and settlement of Palestinian areas
• Israel is willing to prolong negotiations indefinitely because it believes that there are more desirable options than a true two-state solution. (These options include continuing the occupation indefinitely while appropriating more land and making a Palestinian state impossible; allowing the creation of a weak provisional Bantustan-like Palestinian state while still maintaining effective control over Palestinian territory; pursuing unilateral separation on Israeli terms without any concessions to other Palestinian demands; or working for the incorporation of Palestine into Jordan and Egypt).  
• The Palestinians believe that a two-state solution is still desirable, but only if three strategic ends are acheived by it (ending occupation, establishing a fully independent and soverign Palestinian state within the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital; and honouring the right of return of Palestinian refugees). 
• Palestinians also believe that a one-state solution (a bi-national state or a unitary democratic state) is an acceptable outcome.
• As interim measures to the resolution of the conflict through the creation of two states, a bi-national state, or a unitary democratic state, the Palestinians should reconstitute or abolish the PA (the authors see the PA as a facilitator of the occupation) and would be willing to consider some kind of UN Trusteeship as a transition to independence.
• The Palestinians should focus their short-term efforts on making the occupation as costly as possible to Israel so that the current status quo--endless negotiations and continued occupation--is no longer a viable or desirable option for Israel.  Other alternatives (weak Bantustan-like state, unilateral separation, and incorporation into Jordan and Egypt) must be resisted. By making the status quo painful for Israel and by firmly closing down paths to alternatives undesirable to the Palestinians, the Palestinians hope to force Israel to quickly settle on a two-state solution or to be forced into the alternative of accepting a one-state solution.

We've all heard about McCain's lecherous proclivities before, but this is unexpected indeed!

(Kudos to the Daily Telegraph)