Canada and Israel are very different countries, but they have a few things in common. One of them is the fact that they are both nation-states founded and built by immigrants. The Dominion of Canada was founded by the British Empire, whereas Israel was founded by Jews who immigrated to Palestine, which coincidentally was also controlled by the British Empire. But of course, I would not make an exact comparison between the Europeans who colonized what became Canada and the Jews who immigrated to Palestine, because it's not like Jews were going to a place they had never been. They were actually returning to the land that has always been their ancestral homeland: the Land of Israel, unlike the first European settlers in North America, who did not have any historical roots to the land that they had colonized. The words "return" and "returning" in Zionist ideology are synonymous with Jews coming to Israel. Zionism uses this terminology in order to emphasize the fact that Jewish immigration to Israel is not like regular immigration where someone goes to live in a country where neither he nor any member of his family, past or present, has ever been before. In fact, one of Israel's most important laws is called the Law of Return. This law gives any Jew, wherever he or she may reside, the right to live in Israel. It is a testament to the fact that the State of Israel was created to restore the Jewish people's independence as a nation-state and to give Jews from around the world a safe place of refuge - the kind of refuge that was not available to the Jews during the Holocaust. As an adamant supporter of Israel, I do believe that every Jewish person, wherever he or she may live, has the right to return to the land of their forefathers, so I have no problem with the Law of Return. I do, however, have a problem with the entitlement that a person immigrating to Israel under the Law of Return has - that entitlement being Israeli citizenship.
Contrary to popular belief, the Law of Return does not accord Jews with immediate Israeli citizenship. It is rather Israel's Nationality Law that gives Jews the automatic right to citizenship upon arrival in the country. In other words, a Jewish person who just got off the plane at Ben Gurion International Airport, Israel's main air travel hub near Tel Aviv, can not only claim the right to stay in the country, but also the right to Israeli citizenship and all the rights it entails, including the right to vote in Israel's elections. Neither I, nor any self-respecting Zionist would refuse entry to any Jewish person into Israel, unless of course he or she was a danger to the country (thankfully, the Nationality Law does preclude granting status to such people). But I do resent the fact that any Jewish person who just got off a plane from another country could theoretically go and vote in an Israeli election the next day and therefore having a say in how Israel is governed. I believe that although residing in Israel may be a Jewish birthright, Israeli citizenship is not. In a modern, democratic country, citizenship is something that has to be earned. The only generally agreed-upon exception to this rule is when the citizen of any given country has children, those children are automatically entitled to the citizenship(s) of their parents. Ironically, Israel's Nationality Law has a different set of rules for people who immigrate to the country but are not Jewish. Any non-Jewish person who wants to become an Israeli citizen has to be in the country for at least three years. As I said before, I do believe that Israel, as the nation-state of the Jewish people, should accord Jews the special right to live in the country, but I also believe that everyone in Israel, Jewish or not, should have an equal path to citizenship.
This path to citizenship should be similar the ones taken by immigrants in other modern, democratic countries. Many countries, like Canada and the U.S. require, for example, that would-be citizens take a citizenship exam that tests a person's knowledge of the country's history, culture, laws and institutions. In some countries, one is required to pass a separate language exam that measures a person's ability to speak, read, write and comprehend a country's official language(s). Hence, I believe that before anyone, Jewish or not, can become a citizen of Israel and be entitled to all the rights, privileges and duties that come with being an Israeli citizen, he or she should have to pass an exam that tests his or her knowledge of Israel's history, its laws, its culture, and its institutions. He or she should also have to pass an exam that determines competency in one of Israel's two official languages.
Israel cannot be a truly modern and democratic state unless it stops giving automatic citizenship to people based solely on their Jewishness, because giving Jews a fast track to citizenship while making everyone else wait three years, as is the case today, goes against the fundamental democratic principle of equality before the law. Instead, Israel must enact a new nationality law that allows everyone who is permitted entry into the country and who wants to become a citizen an equal opportunity to do so.
Saturday, May 17, 2014
Friday, May 16, 2014
Israel is a Jewish State. Okay, Now Tell Us Something We Don't Know.
Anyone who knows anything about Israel surely knows that it was intended to be a Jewish state; the national homeland of the Jewish people. Its Declaration of Independence proclaims it to be a Jewish state. Its flag is a Jewish flag, its coat of arms is a Jewish coat of arms, and its national anthem is a Jewish anthem. Furthermore, whenever the media refers to Israel, they frequently refer to it as the Jewish state. Yes, I know that Israel is the only Jewish state in the entire world. Then again, Estonia is the only Estonian state in the entire world, so why doesn't the press ever refer to it as "the Estonian state". Okay, maybe Estonia doesn't get a lot of press time, but Japan certainly does since it's the world third biggest economy and it's the only Japanese state in the world. But of course, no one in today's media call it "the Japanese state". I honestly wish the press would stop referring to Israel as "the Jewish state" because it's just another way of singling us out, and usually when Jews are singled out (by other people, rather than by G-d), it doesn't bode well for them. I can't really blame the media for this, however, because it's Jewish leaders, both inside and outside Israel, that encourage the use of the term "Jewish state" by the media and everyone else that talks about Israel, instead of just using the country's name as they would do if they were talking about any other nation-state. You would think that with everyone always referring to Israel as "the Jewish state" and with all of Israel's state symbols being Jewish, Israel would be secure in its Jewish identity. But you would be wrong.
In fact, the Israeli government has recently put forward a new bill that would define Israel as a Jewish state. And for those of you who follow what seems like the never-ending saga that is the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, you know that Israel's government has demanded that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Clearly, Israel has a real complex about its Jewish identity. I'm not surprised, however, because anyone who knows Jewish history knows that Jews have always been under threat. Indeed, being paranoid about keeping one's national identity is a characteristic associated with all nations or members of those nations who feel under threat. Just take a look at Quebec. Ever since the fall of New France, the Quebecois have always made a fuss about protecting their French identity, no more so than in the latter half of the 20th century up until today. They have endured a history of oppression at the hands of English-speakers and continue to feel threatened by the fact that they are an island of French language and culture in a sea of anglophones. These are the facts that drive all forms of Quebec nationalism, from the independence movement to the province's strict language laws. There is one major difference, however, between the Quebecois' struggle to keep their identity and that of the Jewish people. No one today talks openly of wiping Quebec and its people off the map. In contrast, some world leaders to this day talk of wiping Israel from the face of the Earth and slaughtering its people. In other words, Israel faces an existential threat while Quebec does not. In fact, the Jewish people are the only people in the world today whose nation-state faces an existential threat. And with the Holocaust still fresh in the psyche of the Jewish people, it's no wonder that Jews do not feel secure about their identity. That being said, Jews both inside and outside of Israel have failed to make any distinction between the physical threat to Israel and the threat to Jewish identity, and this is something that I think has to change.
Perhaps right now you're thinking, "how can you separate the physical threat to Israel and the threat to its Jewish identity? You can't have one without the other!" That's absolutely correct. Obviously, Israel cannot maintain its Jewish identity if it is destroyed. Hence, Israel must do everything necessary to ensure the security of its borders and the safety of its people. But what Israel does to ensure the physical security for herself and her people has to be distinguished from what measures are taken within Israeli society to preserve the country's Jewish identity. I believe that Israel should take measures to protect its Jewish identity within its own society, but I also believe that for the most part, these measures have already been taken. As I already mentioned, we have Jewish national symbols that the vast majority of Israelis are proud of. We have also managed to revive Hebrew, the Jews' national language, as a modern vernacular, and finally, Israel's cultural and religious institutions have succeeded in reviving the Jewish existence that was nearly lost in the Holocaust. But most recent attempts to reinforce the country's Jewish identity have crossed the line between what is rational and what is overkill. These attempts include the current government's decision to put forward a bill strictly defining Israel as a Jewish state. Such a law, I believe, is not only redundant, but a waste of time and energy. As I said before, I think we and the rest of the world know who we are by now.
What is worse is when the cause of preserving Israel's Jewish identity serves a pretext to exclude Israel's non-Jews. Some politicians on the far-right, for example, have proposed that Arabic be eliminated as an official language in Israel. Contrary to what these fascists believe, eliminating rights and privileges for minorities does not make Israel any more Jewish. Quite the contrary, it drives us further away from Jewish values. Our Talmud, for example, states: "What is hateful to yourself, do not do to your fellow man. That is the whole Torah; the rest is just commentary. Go and study it." (Talmud Shabbat 31a). Indeed, the premise of treating others as you would want them to treat you is a value beholden not only to Judaism, but to other religions and philosophies as well. Based on this premise, I would contend that to make Israel more Jewish is to do our best to provide reasonable accommodation to our non-Jewish citizens and to do our best to include them in Israeli society and its national narrative rather than taking measures to exclude them.
On the subject of the Palestinians recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, I believe that this is also a useless requirement designed to exclude the Palestinian people from any right to the land that is as sacred to them as it is to us. What I do think should be required of the Palestinians is not a concrete declaration by them that Israel is a Jewish state, but rather a promise by them that they accept the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in the State of Israel and that they will not attempt to compromise Jewish independence in any way. Such a declaration would enable the Palestinians to claim certain rights in the State of Israel, but not the right to flood Israel with Palestinian refugees so as to change the demographic make-up of the country and compromise Jewish independence.
Indeed, preserving Jewish independence is what I think should be the goal of any measure to promote Israel's Jewishness. In other words, Israeli leaders need to ask themselves, "is what I'm trying to do necessary to preserve the independence of the Jewish people?" And unless they can answer this question in the affirmative, chances are that whatever measure they are thinking of taking to preserve Israel's Jewish identity, it is probably overkill and not necessary.
In fact, the Israeli government has recently put forward a new bill that would define Israel as a Jewish state. And for those of you who follow what seems like the never-ending saga that is the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, you know that Israel's government has demanded that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Clearly, Israel has a real complex about its Jewish identity. I'm not surprised, however, because anyone who knows Jewish history knows that Jews have always been under threat. Indeed, being paranoid about keeping one's national identity is a characteristic associated with all nations or members of those nations who feel under threat. Just take a look at Quebec. Ever since the fall of New France, the Quebecois have always made a fuss about protecting their French identity, no more so than in the latter half of the 20th century up until today. They have endured a history of oppression at the hands of English-speakers and continue to feel threatened by the fact that they are an island of French language and culture in a sea of anglophones. These are the facts that drive all forms of Quebec nationalism, from the independence movement to the province's strict language laws. There is one major difference, however, between the Quebecois' struggle to keep their identity and that of the Jewish people. No one today talks openly of wiping Quebec and its people off the map. In contrast, some world leaders to this day talk of wiping Israel from the face of the Earth and slaughtering its people. In other words, Israel faces an existential threat while Quebec does not. In fact, the Jewish people are the only people in the world today whose nation-state faces an existential threat. And with the Holocaust still fresh in the psyche of the Jewish people, it's no wonder that Jews do not feel secure about their identity. That being said, Jews both inside and outside of Israel have failed to make any distinction between the physical threat to Israel and the threat to Jewish identity, and this is something that I think has to change.
Perhaps right now you're thinking, "how can you separate the physical threat to Israel and the threat to its Jewish identity? You can't have one without the other!" That's absolutely correct. Obviously, Israel cannot maintain its Jewish identity if it is destroyed. Hence, Israel must do everything necessary to ensure the security of its borders and the safety of its people. But what Israel does to ensure the physical security for herself and her people has to be distinguished from what measures are taken within Israeli society to preserve the country's Jewish identity. I believe that Israel should take measures to protect its Jewish identity within its own society, but I also believe that for the most part, these measures have already been taken. As I already mentioned, we have Jewish national symbols that the vast majority of Israelis are proud of. We have also managed to revive Hebrew, the Jews' national language, as a modern vernacular, and finally, Israel's cultural and religious institutions have succeeded in reviving the Jewish existence that was nearly lost in the Holocaust. But most recent attempts to reinforce the country's Jewish identity have crossed the line between what is rational and what is overkill. These attempts include the current government's decision to put forward a bill strictly defining Israel as a Jewish state. Such a law, I believe, is not only redundant, but a waste of time and energy. As I said before, I think we and the rest of the world know who we are by now.
What is worse is when the cause of preserving Israel's Jewish identity serves a pretext to exclude Israel's non-Jews. Some politicians on the far-right, for example, have proposed that Arabic be eliminated as an official language in Israel. Contrary to what these fascists believe, eliminating rights and privileges for minorities does not make Israel any more Jewish. Quite the contrary, it drives us further away from Jewish values. Our Talmud, for example, states: "What is hateful to yourself, do not do to your fellow man. That is the whole Torah; the rest is just commentary. Go and study it." (Talmud Shabbat 31a). Indeed, the premise of treating others as you would want them to treat you is a value beholden not only to Judaism, but to other religions and philosophies as well. Based on this premise, I would contend that to make Israel more Jewish is to do our best to provide reasonable accommodation to our non-Jewish citizens and to do our best to include them in Israeli society and its national narrative rather than taking measures to exclude them.
On the subject of the Palestinians recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, I believe that this is also a useless requirement designed to exclude the Palestinian people from any right to the land that is as sacred to them as it is to us. What I do think should be required of the Palestinians is not a concrete declaration by them that Israel is a Jewish state, but rather a promise by them that they accept the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in the State of Israel and that they will not attempt to compromise Jewish independence in any way. Such a declaration would enable the Palestinians to claim certain rights in the State of Israel, but not the right to flood Israel with Palestinian refugees so as to change the demographic make-up of the country and compromise Jewish independence.
Indeed, preserving Jewish independence is what I think should be the goal of any measure to promote Israel's Jewishness. In other words, Israeli leaders need to ask themselves, "is what I'm trying to do necessary to preserve the independence of the Jewish people?" And unless they can answer this question in the affirmative, chances are that whatever measure they are thinking of taking to preserve Israel's Jewish identity, it is probably overkill and not necessary.
Friday, April 18, 2014
Putin Uses Gas Exports as a Political Weapon. Let's Turn That Weapon Against Him
For those of you following the events surrounding Russia's growing takeover of Ukraine, you've probably heard about Europe's dependence on Russian gas and how Russian dictator Vladimir Putin takes advantage of it. What you might not know, however, is that this dependence works both ways. The Russian economy is heavily dependent on gas exports, so not having customers to export their gas to would severely damage the Russian economy and Putin's regime, which relies significantly on support from rich oligarchs, many of whom are involved in the Russian gas industry. Putting an end to Russian gas exports would cost these oligarchs a fortune and so if they were threatened with the possibility that Europe would no longer depend on them for their gas supplies, they would likely press Putin to end his megalomaniac conquests. In fact, they may even be able to force him from power should they feel that keeping Putin in the Kremlin is no longer in their interests. So ironically, the gas exports that Putin uses as political leverage to continue his conquests can also be used against him. But in order for this to happen, Europe must expunge itself from dependence on Russian gas, and the only way to do this is for the continent to find other suppliers.
One potential supplier is Azerbaijan, a former Soviet state that seeks to take advantage of its own vast oil and gas reserves. The Azerbaijanis plan is to build a pipeline that would run from their country, through the former Soviet republic of Georgia, then through Turkey all the way to southern Europe. This pipeline would bypass Russian territory and give Europe a new alternative to importing gas from Putin's Russia. Click here for an article about this proposed pipeline.
Further to the south may lie another alternative in a country that up until recently few people would think of as a major gas exporter: Israel. Within the last decade, the search for oil and gas off the Mediterranean coast of the Jewish state has turned up huge reserves of natural gas; enough for Israel to become a major exporter. Indeed, there has been talk of building an undersea pipeline from Israel to Turkey. A recent article in the Israeli press discusses this possibility, along with the prospect of Russian opposition. Click here for the full article.
So there are potential alternatives to Europe's current dependence on Russian gas. But of course, pipelines take time to build and before any shovels get put in the ground, there needs to be political will on the part of the leaders of countries that have an interest in seeing these pipelines realized. I certainly hope that this political will materializes soon, because the sooner the politicians in the West decide that they no longer want to depend on Russian tyrant Putin for their gas supplies, the sooner the pipelines can be built and the gas can start flowing. There's no time to waste as Putin continues to use Russia's gas reserves as a blackmailing chip to further his conquests.
One potential supplier is Azerbaijan, a former Soviet state that seeks to take advantage of its own vast oil and gas reserves. The Azerbaijanis plan is to build a pipeline that would run from their country, through the former Soviet republic of Georgia, then through Turkey all the way to southern Europe. This pipeline would bypass Russian territory and give Europe a new alternative to importing gas from Putin's Russia. Click here for an article about this proposed pipeline.
Further to the south may lie another alternative in a country that up until recently few people would think of as a major gas exporter: Israel. Within the last decade, the search for oil and gas off the Mediterranean coast of the Jewish state has turned up huge reserves of natural gas; enough for Israel to become a major exporter. Indeed, there has been talk of building an undersea pipeline from Israel to Turkey. A recent article in the Israeli press discusses this possibility, along with the prospect of Russian opposition. Click here for the full article.
So there are potential alternatives to Europe's current dependence on Russian gas. But of course, pipelines take time to build and before any shovels get put in the ground, there needs to be political will on the part of the leaders of countries that have an interest in seeing these pipelines realized. I certainly hope that this political will materializes soon, because the sooner the politicians in the West decide that they no longer want to depend on Russian tyrant Putin for their gas supplies, the sooner the pipelines can be built and the gas can start flowing. There's no time to waste as Putin continues to use Russia's gas reserves as a blackmailing chip to further his conquests.
Thursday, April 17, 2014
How to Stop Putin Dead in his Tracks
After easily taking over Crimea, Russian dictator Vladimir Putin is ready to chalk up another conquest in eastern Ukraine. This time, the Ukrainian government is putting up some resistance, but it doesn't seem to be enough. Putin's grip on the eastern part of the country seems to be growing stronger by the day. And for all Putin's talk that he is fighting fascists in Ukraine, it's his supporters that seem to be the harbingers of fascism. Recently, a leaflet was distributed in the city of Donetsk calling on all members of the Jewish community there to register their religion and property with the government of the self-proclaimed "people's republic" of Donetsk, or face deportation and loss of citizenship. Click here for full details.
History tells us that a similar policy was carried out against Jews and other minorities in Germany before World War II. It was only the first step before the Nazi death machine began working in full swing. After all, a holocaust does not begin with mass extermination - it ends with it. In other words, threatening Jews and other minorities with deportation and loss of citizenship could just be the beginning of worse things yet to come, so it's important that those who have the power to stop Putin in his tracks do so immediately without wasting any more time.
U.S. President Barack Obama may be a modern-day Neville Chamberlain, but he was right about one thing. The Russia of today is not the Soviet Union of old and does not lead a large bloc of countries - yet. Indeed, Russia's military strength is not equal to what the Soviet Union once had and she is not ready to challenge the military might of NATO, which is why Putin will limit his conquests to non-NATO members, at least in the near future. Hence, NATO members' commitment to step up air and sea patrols in the Black Sea and beef up military deployments in NATO and EU members bordering Ukraine and Russia will do nothing to stop Putin as he will not pursue a head-on confrontation with the West anyways.
The only way to contain the Russian dictator is for NATO troops to deploy in Ukraine itself and any other country whose territory Putin has eyes on, such as Georgia or Moldova. Better yet, the West should fast-track countries threatened by Putin on the road towards full NATO and EU membership. In other words, there should be NATO boots on the ground wherever the Russian despot is likely to attempt additional land-grabs. The message to Putin will be loud and clear: If he wants to conquer more territory, he will have to go through NATO troops to get it.
But would doing this provoke a war with Russia? Not likely. Putin may be a tyrant and a murderer, but he is not insane and he is still capable of rational thinking. He knows that a war with the West now would be unwinnable and would most definitely lead to his downfall. And if there's at least one thing all dictators care about, it's staying in power, which is why Putin would be incredibly foolish to risk a military confrontation with NATO and its allies, for now.
As I said in a previous blog post, Battlefield Ukraine: Stop Putin Now!, force is the only thing that can put an end to a dictator's aggression. Hence, threatening Putin with force by placing NATO troops and hardware in countries and territories where he may try to make new conquests will ensure that he will not pursue those conquests. The bad news, however, is that this will only work for awhile. As long as Putin remains in control of Russia, he will be able to strengthen his military forces and solidify alliances with other friendly dictatorships, such as China and Iran, so that eventually he will be ready for a military confrontation with the West. In essence, containing Putin is only a temporary solution. The only permanent solution is to remove him from power. But how can this be done without provoking a war? I sincerely hope the leaders of the world's democracies will put their heads together and try to come up with an answer to this question. Otherwise, war could be inevitable.
History tells us that a similar policy was carried out against Jews and other minorities in Germany before World War II. It was only the first step before the Nazi death machine began working in full swing. After all, a holocaust does not begin with mass extermination - it ends with it. In other words, threatening Jews and other minorities with deportation and loss of citizenship could just be the beginning of worse things yet to come, so it's important that those who have the power to stop Putin in his tracks do so immediately without wasting any more time.
U.S. President Barack Obama may be a modern-day Neville Chamberlain, but he was right about one thing. The Russia of today is not the Soviet Union of old and does not lead a large bloc of countries - yet. Indeed, Russia's military strength is not equal to what the Soviet Union once had and she is not ready to challenge the military might of NATO, which is why Putin will limit his conquests to non-NATO members, at least in the near future. Hence, NATO members' commitment to step up air and sea patrols in the Black Sea and beef up military deployments in NATO and EU members bordering Ukraine and Russia will do nothing to stop Putin as he will not pursue a head-on confrontation with the West anyways.
The only way to contain the Russian dictator is for NATO troops to deploy in Ukraine itself and any other country whose territory Putin has eyes on, such as Georgia or Moldova. Better yet, the West should fast-track countries threatened by Putin on the road towards full NATO and EU membership. In other words, there should be NATO boots on the ground wherever the Russian despot is likely to attempt additional land-grabs. The message to Putin will be loud and clear: If he wants to conquer more territory, he will have to go through NATO troops to get it.
But would doing this provoke a war with Russia? Not likely. Putin may be a tyrant and a murderer, but he is not insane and he is still capable of rational thinking. He knows that a war with the West now would be unwinnable and would most definitely lead to his downfall. And if there's at least one thing all dictators care about, it's staying in power, which is why Putin would be incredibly foolish to risk a military confrontation with NATO and its allies, for now.
As I said in a previous blog post, Battlefield Ukraine: Stop Putin Now!, force is the only thing that can put an end to a dictator's aggression. Hence, threatening Putin with force by placing NATO troops and hardware in countries and territories where he may try to make new conquests will ensure that he will not pursue those conquests. The bad news, however, is that this will only work for awhile. As long as Putin remains in control of Russia, he will be able to strengthen his military forces and solidify alliances with other friendly dictatorships, such as China and Iran, so that eventually he will be ready for a military confrontation with the West. In essence, containing Putin is only a temporary solution. The only permanent solution is to remove him from power. But how can this be done without provoking a war? I sincerely hope the leaders of the world's democracies will put their heads together and try to come up with an answer to this question. Otherwise, war could be inevitable.
Sunday, April 13, 2014
Israeli-Palestinian Peace Talks: It's About More Than Just Peace Between Two Nations
After another round of negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians under U.S. mediation, talks seem to have reached a dead end....again. Last year, Israel, the Palestinians and the U.S. all agreed on a deadline looming at the end of this month to lay the groundwork for a peace agreement that would give the Palestinians an independent state and give Israel peace, security and diplomatic recognition from its Arab neighbours. I don't have to tell anyone who has at least some general knowledge of the Israeli-Arab conflict that a lot is at stake with these talks. In fact, a lot more is at stake than many people would believe, because peace between Israel, the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world, or lack thereof will determine the balance of power for the world as a whole.
As I said in a previous blog post, a new cold war is on the horizon, one that is similar to the old cold war but is also different in respect to its major players (see The New-Old Cold War). The success or failure of the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks will likely determine whether it is the new Western bloc, led by the U.S. and the European Union, or the new eastern bloc, led by Russian and China, who hold sway in the world's most significant oil-producing region. Should the talks succeed and a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement is eventually achieved, the result will be warming relations between Israel and most of the Arab world. The bulk of the Arab states will eventually form a strategic alliance with Israel supported by the U.S. and E.U. as a collective security arrangement to protect the region from Iranian aggression supported by Russia and China.
But, if the talks fail, there will be grave consequences for the West and the rest of the free world. The Americans will lose what little credibility they have left in the Middle East, most of it having already been lost by the Iraq War, the Obama Administration's misguided policy during the Arab Spring, and its perceived weakness against Iran. The failure of the Americans to broker a deal between Israel and the Palestinians will most likely push Arabs in the direction of the Russians and the Chinese. In fact, Russia is even now using the Americans' increased weakness in the Middle East to re-establish the foothold that the Soviet Union once had on the region (see, for example, this article in the Russian press, Egypt Seeks to Bring Friendship with Russia to "Soviet Level").
Russia currently has the power to blackmail much of Europe through its control of natural gas supplies. As Russian power in the Middle East grows and American power in the region wanes, it is very feasible to imagine a situation in which Russia could use the same kind of blackmail against the West by managing to withhold vital oil and gas supplies, thus bringing western economies to a crashing halt. Moreover, if this new, emerging cold war ever gets hot, we in the West would be at a significant and possibly fatal disadvantage should our military forces not have access to Middle Eastern oil and gas to fuel our planes, tanks and ships.
In fact, I believe that control of the Middle East and its vast oil and gas resources will determine who wins this new cold war, or for that matter a real war. Hence, for the sake of the entire free world, it is crucial that the Middle East, or at least the majority of it, remains firmly in the pro-Western camp. For this to happen, Israel and the Palestinians must continue negotiations, for however long it takes, until they can reach a permanent peace agreement, ending their conflict and the Israeli-Arab conflict as a whole. Yes, that's right, the fate of the free world may ultimately depend on two small nations whose people make up a tiny fraction of the world's population making peace. So in a way, the Israeli and Palestinian negotiators and the Americans mediating the talks between them hold the free world in the palm of their hands. As if they didn't already have enough to think about.
As I said in a previous blog post, a new cold war is on the horizon, one that is similar to the old cold war but is also different in respect to its major players (see The New-Old Cold War). The success or failure of the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks will likely determine whether it is the new Western bloc, led by the U.S. and the European Union, or the new eastern bloc, led by Russian and China, who hold sway in the world's most significant oil-producing region. Should the talks succeed and a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement is eventually achieved, the result will be warming relations between Israel and most of the Arab world. The bulk of the Arab states will eventually form a strategic alliance with Israel supported by the U.S. and E.U. as a collective security arrangement to protect the region from Iranian aggression supported by Russia and China.
But, if the talks fail, there will be grave consequences for the West and the rest of the free world. The Americans will lose what little credibility they have left in the Middle East, most of it having already been lost by the Iraq War, the Obama Administration's misguided policy during the Arab Spring, and its perceived weakness against Iran. The failure of the Americans to broker a deal between Israel and the Palestinians will most likely push Arabs in the direction of the Russians and the Chinese. In fact, Russia is even now using the Americans' increased weakness in the Middle East to re-establish the foothold that the Soviet Union once had on the region (see, for example, this article in the Russian press, Egypt Seeks to Bring Friendship with Russia to "Soviet Level").
Russia currently has the power to blackmail much of Europe through its control of natural gas supplies. As Russian power in the Middle East grows and American power in the region wanes, it is very feasible to imagine a situation in which Russia could use the same kind of blackmail against the West by managing to withhold vital oil and gas supplies, thus bringing western economies to a crashing halt. Moreover, if this new, emerging cold war ever gets hot, we in the West would be at a significant and possibly fatal disadvantage should our military forces not have access to Middle Eastern oil and gas to fuel our planes, tanks and ships.
In fact, I believe that control of the Middle East and its vast oil and gas resources will determine who wins this new cold war, or for that matter a real war. Hence, for the sake of the entire free world, it is crucial that the Middle East, or at least the majority of it, remains firmly in the pro-Western camp. For this to happen, Israel and the Palestinians must continue negotiations, for however long it takes, until they can reach a permanent peace agreement, ending their conflict and the Israeli-Arab conflict as a whole. Yes, that's right, the fate of the free world may ultimately depend on two small nations whose people make up a tiny fraction of the world's population making peace. So in a way, the Israeli and Palestinian negotiators and the Americans mediating the talks between them hold the free world in the palm of their hands. As if they didn't already have enough to think about.
Thursday, April 3, 2014
Why Toronto Shouldn't "Chow Down" or "Drive a Ford"
If you're wondering why folks in Canada are so cynical about politics these days, look no further than the City of Toronto. This fall, Toronto's municipal elections will be held and the choices could not be more stark - or more uninspiring. The two frontrunners, Olivia Chow and current mayor Rob Ford, are two polar opposites, but they share one thing in common: the potential to destroy Toronto as we know it. It's just a question of how.
Let's say we re-elect Mayor Rob Ford. What would that mean for Toronto? Well, the first thing that comes to mind is another four years of circus acts and vulgar behaviour that will continue to tarnish the city's image as the last four years of Ford's antics already have. But this isn't even the worst of it. Throughout his term as mayor of Canada's largest city, Mr. Ford has shown a clear inability to work with others, weather that be city councillors or anyone else that doesn't agree with him. His arrogance is always on public display whenever he brags about what he thinks he's done for Toronto, like advocating for subways instead of LRTs. But of course, for all the hot air he's put out talking about how great subways are, he hasn't managed to build any. In fact, he hasn't even once told Torontonians how he's going to pay for all his glorious subways. Perhaps the one billion dollars Ford claims to have saved Toronto taxpayers would help? - That is, if he actually did save the city a billion dollars. Click here to find out what I mean.
Still, even if Ford saved just one dollar of Torontonians' hard-earned tax dollars, it would be more than I could say for Olivia Chow, who will no doubt lead Toronto on a path to bankruptcy. Electing Chow as Toronto's next mayor would spell disaster for the city's finances. Like all left-wing politicians, she means well, but can't keep her hand out of the pockets of Toronto's taxpayers. Whereas Ford, with all his arrogance and bad behaviour, still has the courage to say no to the multitude of special interest groups looking for free money, Chow always plays the yes-man when it comes to Torontonians' tax dollars. Click here for a sample of this spendaholic's record.
So basically, Toronto's upcoming election is very much a choice between allowing Rob Ford to continue his comedy tour and reign of arrogance, or letting Olivia Chow pig out at the trough filled with your tax dollars. Pick your poison, Toronto. But wait. Am I forgetting something? Oh right, there are other candidates in this election, like David Soknacki, the guy who was the budget chief under former mayor David Miller - the same mayor who presided over that seemingly never-ending garbage strike and who was the conductor of the gravy train that Rob Ford was elected to derail. Then there's Karen Stintz, the quintessential flip-flopper, who turned from Rob Ford's trusted ally into his arch nemesis overnight because she couldn't (and still can't) make up her mind as to whether she wants subways or LRTs. And let's not forget John Tory, who's hoping that the third time's the charm after already losing one mayoral vote where he was initially the frontrunner and also losing a provincial election. He failed to inspire twice and I'm not sure if he'll be any more inspiring this third time around. That being said, he may have a chance if he can get his message out about moving Toronto forward instead of to the right or left, like Ford and Chow respectively.
I'm not sure who will win this election, but whatever happens, I don't think Toronto should either "Chow Down" or "Drive a Ford". I just hope other voters feel the same way I do.
Let's say we re-elect Mayor Rob Ford. What would that mean for Toronto? Well, the first thing that comes to mind is another four years of circus acts and vulgar behaviour that will continue to tarnish the city's image as the last four years of Ford's antics already have. But this isn't even the worst of it. Throughout his term as mayor of Canada's largest city, Mr. Ford has shown a clear inability to work with others, weather that be city councillors or anyone else that doesn't agree with him. His arrogance is always on public display whenever he brags about what he thinks he's done for Toronto, like advocating for subways instead of LRTs. But of course, for all the hot air he's put out talking about how great subways are, he hasn't managed to build any. In fact, he hasn't even once told Torontonians how he's going to pay for all his glorious subways. Perhaps the one billion dollars Ford claims to have saved Toronto taxpayers would help? - That is, if he actually did save the city a billion dollars. Click here to find out what I mean.
Still, even if Ford saved just one dollar of Torontonians' hard-earned tax dollars, it would be more than I could say for Olivia Chow, who will no doubt lead Toronto on a path to bankruptcy. Electing Chow as Toronto's next mayor would spell disaster for the city's finances. Like all left-wing politicians, she means well, but can't keep her hand out of the pockets of Toronto's taxpayers. Whereas Ford, with all his arrogance and bad behaviour, still has the courage to say no to the multitude of special interest groups looking for free money, Chow always plays the yes-man when it comes to Torontonians' tax dollars. Click here for a sample of this spendaholic's record.
So basically, Toronto's upcoming election is very much a choice between allowing Rob Ford to continue his comedy tour and reign of arrogance, or letting Olivia Chow pig out at the trough filled with your tax dollars. Pick your poison, Toronto. But wait. Am I forgetting something? Oh right, there are other candidates in this election, like David Soknacki, the guy who was the budget chief under former mayor David Miller - the same mayor who presided over that seemingly never-ending garbage strike and who was the conductor of the gravy train that Rob Ford was elected to derail. Then there's Karen Stintz, the quintessential flip-flopper, who turned from Rob Ford's trusted ally into his arch nemesis overnight because she couldn't (and still can't) make up her mind as to whether she wants subways or LRTs. And let's not forget John Tory, who's hoping that the third time's the charm after already losing one mayoral vote where he was initially the frontrunner and also losing a provincial election. He failed to inspire twice and I'm not sure if he'll be any more inspiring this third time around. That being said, he may have a chance if he can get his message out about moving Toronto forward instead of to the right or left, like Ford and Chow respectively.
I'm not sure who will win this election, but whatever happens, I don't think Toronto should either "Chow Down" or "Drive a Ford". I just hope other voters feel the same way I do.
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Battlefield Ukraine: Stop Putin Now!
Having lost the fight to keep his stooge, Victor Yanukovich, in power in Ukraine, Putin has launched an outright invasion of the former Soviet republic. He's made it clear that despite the strong desire of the Ukrainian people to become part of the European Union and the democratic world as a whole, Ukraine will not be allowed to leave Russia's sphere of influence. But why should Putin care what the Ukrainian people want? He doesn't even care about what his own people want. That's why he routinely has folks who disagree with him beaten, jailed, or even killed. After the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, many Russians believed that their country would finally be ruled by its people rather than by czars, oligarchs and other kinds of dictators. FAT CHANCE! Russia today is not the people's Russia - it's Putin's Russia. He, with the help of his allies, including a few wealthy business elites and the Russian Orthodox church now controls the country and he's determined not to let anyone change that.
But as with most power-hungry dictators, controlling one country simply isn't enough, even if that country is as large as Russia. And so it's no surprise to see Putin now trying to grab territory from his neighbours. It's not like he hasn't done it before. In 2008, Putin sent his troops into the breakaway territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, both formerly controlled by Georgia, under the guise of protecting the people of the two regions from Georgian aggression. But protection was not Putin's true intention. Rather, he was simply seeking to expand Russia's borders. Today, Abkhazia and South Ossetia are de facto Russian protectorates with puppet governments answering to Putin, not unlike the puppet states of Slovakia and Croatia created by Hitler's Nazi Germany. Yes, it's true that the Abkhazians and South Ossetians have legitimate aspirations towards independence, just as many Slovaks and Croats had during World War II. But these aspirations are not fulfilled by becoming tributary states of Russia.
Now, Putin is using the same kind of excuse to invade Ukrainian territory, saying that he is only trying to protect the country's large Russian-speaking minority and that he was invited to do so by Yanukovich, whom he still sees as Ukraine's legitimate leader. Putin believes that his fellow Russians in Ukraine are oppressed in the same way Kosovo's Albanians were by Serbia. Indeed, Serbia's actions against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo was what prompted Western intervention, which eventually led to Kosovo's independence. So Putin may argue that if the West saw fit to intervene to protect Kosovo's Albanians, he should have the right to do the same in Ukraine on behalf of its Russian minority. But this argument simply doesn't hold water. In Kosovo, Serbia's dictator, Slobodan Milosevic, who was also a strong ally of Russia, waged an all-out campaign of ethnic cleansing against Kosovo's Albanian population, killing thousands and driving thousands more from their homes. In Ukraine, there is no mass campaign of ethnic cleansing or genocide against Russian speakers. In fact, even a recent effort by some members of Ukraine's parliament to cancel the special status that the Russian language enjoys in regions where it is widely spoken was vetoed by the interim president. The vast majority of Ukrainians know that if they want their country to be a democracy and become part of a united Europe, they must respect the rights of minority communities. Yes, there are some extreme nationalists amongst the Ukrainians, but they are a minority. The same is true for Ukraine's Russian-speaking population where it is a minority of extreme Russian nationalists that are demanding unification with Russia. Many Russian-speaking Ukrainians actually oppose Putin's invasion. Unfortunately Putin, like all other dictators, will do what he wants and will not listen to anyone who tells him to do otherwise.
As I said before, Putin's actions should not surprise anyone and they certainly did not surprise me. In fact, even before Ukraine's popular will overthrow Putin's puppet, Yanukovich, I suggested how an invasion could be prevented - by allowing regions of the country in which Russian speakers form a majority to hold a referendum and choosing to remain part of Ukraine, seek independence, or seek a unification with Russia (see my post entitled, De-constructing Multi-ethnic States and Creating Real Nation-States: My Personal Take on Redrawing International Borders). But one former work colleague of mine, who I've found has much more knowledge of Ukrainian and Russian history than I do, told me that such as solution would be unjust because most of the Russian-speaking population that resides in Ukraine resides there because the south and east of the country was Russified by Stalin. In Crimea, for example, Stalin uprooted most of the population of the peninsula's indigenous Tatars, deporting them to central Asia and moving Russians in to replace them. So why should Putin be able to use the Russian-speaking population in Ukraine adjacent to Russia itself as an excuse to grab more territory? Thanks to my former colleague, I now know that the correct answer to this question: Putin must not be allowed to use such an excuse to invade Ukraine and annex its land. If anything, it's Russia that owes Ukraine territory since, as my former colleague also informed me, some of what is now part of Russia was once part of Ukraine and was also subject to Russification.
In fact, Russia has no legitimate claim over most of the land it has jurisdiction over. All the territories that Russia holds east of the Ural mountains and near the Caucus mountain range is land conquered over the centuries by Russian despots - land that once belonged to the Yakuts, the Tatars, the Cherkassians, the Chechens and several other peoples who have been living under the boot of Russia for centuries. It is these people that have the legitimate right to have their territory - and their independence - returned to them. For now, however, we must concentrate on ensuring that Putin's Russia does not encroach further onto Ukrainian territory.
Unfortunately, I have little faith that a strong international response is forthcoming. Europe is extremely dependent on Russian gas for its energy needs, so a tough response from the European Union is unlikely. As for the Americans, their Neville Chamberlain-esque president, Barack Obama, has already surrendered to Putin's growing clout on the issue of Syria's civil war, which is why Bashar Al-Assad is allowed to continue butchering his own people. Hence, I find it highly unlikely that the Americans will mount a strong response, opting instead for a lot of talk and perhaps some economic sanctions, which have generally proven ineffective when dealing with aggressive dictators, like Putin. At the end of the day, there is only one thing that can stop a dictator dead in his tracks - force.
But neither the U.S. nor Europe is ready for any new armed confrontation, especially with a nuclear-armed Russia. Europe is still going through its worst economic crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s. As for the U.S., although its economy is showing signs of recovery, the world's lone superpower (at least for now) is still facing a mountain of debt, which American politicians are now planning to pay off, in part, by reducing the size of their military. And as the Americans weaken their military, Russia, along with other major U.S. rivals, like China and Iran, will strengthen theirs.
What is now happening in Ukraine is only the beginning. The Crimea and eastern Ukraine are for Putin what Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland was for Hitler. And anyone who knows their history knows that allowing Hitler to take the Sudetenland did not prevent him from taking the rest of Czechoslovakia and eventually conquering most of Europe, nor will allowing Putin to take the Crimea and eastern Ukraine prevent him from taking over the entire country...and perhaps waging further conquests in the future.
But as with most power-hungry dictators, controlling one country simply isn't enough, even if that country is as large as Russia. And so it's no surprise to see Putin now trying to grab territory from his neighbours. It's not like he hasn't done it before. In 2008, Putin sent his troops into the breakaway territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, both formerly controlled by Georgia, under the guise of protecting the people of the two regions from Georgian aggression. But protection was not Putin's true intention. Rather, he was simply seeking to expand Russia's borders. Today, Abkhazia and South Ossetia are de facto Russian protectorates with puppet governments answering to Putin, not unlike the puppet states of Slovakia and Croatia created by Hitler's Nazi Germany. Yes, it's true that the Abkhazians and South Ossetians have legitimate aspirations towards independence, just as many Slovaks and Croats had during World War II. But these aspirations are not fulfilled by becoming tributary states of Russia.
Now, Putin is using the same kind of excuse to invade Ukrainian territory, saying that he is only trying to protect the country's large Russian-speaking minority and that he was invited to do so by Yanukovich, whom he still sees as Ukraine's legitimate leader. Putin believes that his fellow Russians in Ukraine are oppressed in the same way Kosovo's Albanians were by Serbia. Indeed, Serbia's actions against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo was what prompted Western intervention, which eventually led to Kosovo's independence. So Putin may argue that if the West saw fit to intervene to protect Kosovo's Albanians, he should have the right to do the same in Ukraine on behalf of its Russian minority. But this argument simply doesn't hold water. In Kosovo, Serbia's dictator, Slobodan Milosevic, who was also a strong ally of Russia, waged an all-out campaign of ethnic cleansing against Kosovo's Albanian population, killing thousands and driving thousands more from their homes. In Ukraine, there is no mass campaign of ethnic cleansing or genocide against Russian speakers. In fact, even a recent effort by some members of Ukraine's parliament to cancel the special status that the Russian language enjoys in regions where it is widely spoken was vetoed by the interim president. The vast majority of Ukrainians know that if they want their country to be a democracy and become part of a united Europe, they must respect the rights of minority communities. Yes, there are some extreme nationalists amongst the Ukrainians, but they are a minority. The same is true for Ukraine's Russian-speaking population where it is a minority of extreme Russian nationalists that are demanding unification with Russia. Many Russian-speaking Ukrainians actually oppose Putin's invasion. Unfortunately Putin, like all other dictators, will do what he wants and will not listen to anyone who tells him to do otherwise.
As I said before, Putin's actions should not surprise anyone and they certainly did not surprise me. In fact, even before Ukraine's popular will overthrow Putin's puppet, Yanukovich, I suggested how an invasion could be prevented - by allowing regions of the country in which Russian speakers form a majority to hold a referendum and choosing to remain part of Ukraine, seek independence, or seek a unification with Russia (see my post entitled, De-constructing Multi-ethnic States and Creating Real Nation-States: My Personal Take on Redrawing International Borders). But one former work colleague of mine, who I've found has much more knowledge of Ukrainian and Russian history than I do, told me that such as solution would be unjust because most of the Russian-speaking population that resides in Ukraine resides there because the south and east of the country was Russified by Stalin. In Crimea, for example, Stalin uprooted most of the population of the peninsula's indigenous Tatars, deporting them to central Asia and moving Russians in to replace them. So why should Putin be able to use the Russian-speaking population in Ukraine adjacent to Russia itself as an excuse to grab more territory? Thanks to my former colleague, I now know that the correct answer to this question: Putin must not be allowed to use such an excuse to invade Ukraine and annex its land. If anything, it's Russia that owes Ukraine territory since, as my former colleague also informed me, some of what is now part of Russia was once part of Ukraine and was also subject to Russification.
In fact, Russia has no legitimate claim over most of the land it has jurisdiction over. All the territories that Russia holds east of the Ural mountains and near the Caucus mountain range is land conquered over the centuries by Russian despots - land that once belonged to the Yakuts, the Tatars, the Cherkassians, the Chechens and several other peoples who have been living under the boot of Russia for centuries. It is these people that have the legitimate right to have their territory - and their independence - returned to them. For now, however, we must concentrate on ensuring that Putin's Russia does not encroach further onto Ukrainian territory.
Unfortunately, I have little faith that a strong international response is forthcoming. Europe is extremely dependent on Russian gas for its energy needs, so a tough response from the European Union is unlikely. As for the Americans, their Neville Chamberlain-esque president, Barack Obama, has already surrendered to Putin's growing clout on the issue of Syria's civil war, which is why Bashar Al-Assad is allowed to continue butchering his own people. Hence, I find it highly unlikely that the Americans will mount a strong response, opting instead for a lot of talk and perhaps some economic sanctions, which have generally proven ineffective when dealing with aggressive dictators, like Putin. At the end of the day, there is only one thing that can stop a dictator dead in his tracks - force.
But neither the U.S. nor Europe is ready for any new armed confrontation, especially with a nuclear-armed Russia. Europe is still going through its worst economic crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s. As for the U.S., although its economy is showing signs of recovery, the world's lone superpower (at least for now) is still facing a mountain of debt, which American politicians are now planning to pay off, in part, by reducing the size of their military. And as the Americans weaken their military, Russia, along with other major U.S. rivals, like China and Iran, will strengthen theirs.
What is now happening in Ukraine is only the beginning. The Crimea and eastern Ukraine are for Putin what Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland was for Hitler. And anyone who knows their history knows that allowing Hitler to take the Sudetenland did not prevent him from taking the rest of Czechoslovakia and eventually conquering most of Europe, nor will allowing Putin to take the Crimea and eastern Ukraine prevent him from taking over the entire country...and perhaps waging further conquests in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)