Reviewing My Position on Israel

Now that we are a few days past the "acceptance" of the cease-fire in the Middle East involving Israel and Hezbollah and have had time for some commentary, I am reminded that many of my friends and others whom I respect seem to be more sympathetic to the Arab/Muslim cause than to that of Israel. I decided I should review my position--as briefly as possible.

When the UK gave up its mandate over Palestine, the UN voted to partition Palestine into two states, Jewish and Arab. The Jewish population opted to become Israel. The Palestinian population chose not to become a state. As far as I can determine, this is not an issue. Both Israel and the US favor statehood for Palestine but of course do not insist on it. The creation of Israel, however, obviously seemed unreasonable to Arabs/Muslims, and war broke out. There had been waves of Zionism and there was ongoing fighting prior to 1948 as well. I don't know what would have been more fair. The Jews did have a considerable history in the area and, as everyone knows, had suffered mightily in the Holocaust of WWII and had been pushed out almost everywhere. Thus the partition seemed to many to hold out promise of providing a reasonable homeland for the Jews. Should there have been a better arrangement? That could well be, but I am not aware of any more reasonable suggestions.

Palestinians and other Muslims, however, vowed to drive Israel into the sea, and following the establishment of the state of Israel, there have been several wars, usually initiated by the Muslims. The military successes of Israel in earlier years came to appear as less than successful, at least the last two times, when they were fighting Hezbollah. In 2000, as I understand it, Israel withdrew from Lebanon and had the withdrawal inspected and approved as complete by the UN. Hezbollah, however, at that time declared victory and began to rearm, with the resulting capture in 2006 of two Israeli soldiers and the killing of three. Israel responded with a strong attack, said by many to be an over-reaction, which may well be true, but which nonetheless was not successful in stopping Hezbollah despite terrible devastation and heavy casualties. Would a milder response, or none at all, have led to peace? That seems most unlikely.

The US, as everyone knows, has been supplying Israel with arms and other aid, while apparently Hezbollah has been armed by Iran and Syria. Hezbollah itself, however, has been lauded for being forthcoming with all kinds of services to its population. It seems to have gained approval from much of the Arab world even though at least at first the attack was frowned upon by some. In any case, Hezbollah has again declared victory, as perhaps it might inasmuch as it has withstood the might of an Israeli attack. In any case, what is Israel to do now? Simply arm in anticipation of another attack?

One might well say that the Israeli military offensives are not working. One would have to add, however, that its peaceful posture never has worked either. Not the Oslo accords, not the Carter or the Clinton negotiations, nothing has worked. Only an intifadah has resulted. Probably the proposed partitions have been unreasonable. In any case, the situation of the Palestinians--the unemployment, the restrictions on movement, and so on--is clearly intolerable and is no doubt creating more anger on their part and more support for suicide attacks. The situation of Israel, however, is also unaccaptable. For them there is apparently no road to peace. It even appears that offers of negotiation may be viewed as a sign of weakness.

Should Israel, even so, take the initiative by offering to change its borders back to where they were in 1948 and by proposing that the US and the UN and others offer aid to the Palestinians in an effort to offer hope for the establishment of a viable community? Would the Palestinians then agree to let Israel exist? To me this would be worth a try. It is regrettable that the Bush administration and the US Congress have declared support for Israel in the present conflict. They should have remained neutral, as Carter and Clinton did, so that they could be a broker. Should Israel, then, appeal to the UN to try to negotiate a boundary change?

I'll just add this. I have admired and continue to admire Israel because it has established a democracy, accepting Arab residents as citizens, educated its population, and developed the arts and sciences and the technology to "make the desert bloom like a rose." It would be much easier to favor the Palestinian cause if they exhibited such values. I can accredit, of course, the sympathy for the underdog and for those who are living in intolerable conditions. But I retain my support for the state of Israel. They too have certainly suffered enough and have put forth an amazing effort to establish a community, with considerable success.

Three Book Reviews

Dakota, by Kathleen Norris, is a sensitive, insightful description of the experiences and impressions of a New York City poet who moves to Lemmon, SD, which is right on the North Dakota border. A large part of it chromicles her search for a spiritual geography, in which she is quite successful. Of considerable interest to me is her impression that the western part of the Dakotas is in economic decline. Clearly that is the case as she writes in the 1990s. One wonders, however, if Information- Age technology, which permits workers to live anywhere, might change that. Of interest also is her assessment of the residents' being so different from mainstream Americans. Yes, they are different, especially from a New York poet, but perhaps not as different from most Americans as she seems to think. In any case, this is a wonderful book.

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, by John Perkins is a must-read for any one who wants to understand what is going on in America in this age of corporate globalization, or the Corporatocracy, as he terms it. Perkins is one who knows, having been a part of it at a rather high level. It all fits what I know about the corporation and about the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, about how they make big loans to underdeveloped countries and then impoverish them in trying to force repayment, which totally chokes off development while enriching the corporation. After his conscience got to bothering him so much he couldn't stand it, he resigned his position, and, finally, was able to write about it. It is a shocking story, one that is, unfortunately, quite believable. One wonders how, if ever, Americans will be able to get back on track. It's clearly not what we're doing now, which is my assessment as well as his.

The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time, by Antonia Juhasz, is another believable and shocking description and assessment of what is going on, from someone well qualified and positioned to know. Beautifully researched and fact-filled. Should there be any doubt, now we know why Bush invaded Iraq: for corporate profit. After the invasion, Bremer privatized most of the economy by fiat (192 state-owned companies), including such functions as electricity and city services, before the elections put in place a sort of Iraqi government. Little or no effort has been made to make anything work, just an effort to siphon off appropriations to particular corporations, which she identifies and describes. After a devastating description of this, Juhasz describes the incipient Middle East Free Trade Area agreement, designed to siphon off the profits, again, for multinationals. It is extremely important that Americans understand this.

Minimum-Wage Increases: Help or Hurt the Economy?

Defeat of a minimum-wage package in Congress, passage of a "living wage" of $10.00 an hour in Chicago, and a proposal in Colorado to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $6.85--these measures raise questions anew about the effect of wage increases on the level of employment.

Typical is the argument that raising wages increases the level of unemployment. It seems obvious that an employer required to raise wages ordinarily would have to lay off workers. But this is looking at a "micro" model, whereas what is required is a look at the "macro" economy. The argument here is that raising wages increases demand, which in turn raises the level of employment. This is the stronger argument; what is required is a look not at only one firm but at the economy as a whole.

The relevant questions here are the rate of unemployment and the structure of income as a whole. Would the market support an increase in wages? At the present time unemployment is sufficiently high--at 4.8 percent-- and disparities in income are so great that a lessening of the disparities would be expected to raise demand. Wages are clearly too low for maximum economic performance.

Data from previous wage increases indicate a positive effect of wage increases on the level of employment. Rarely if ever are wages in the U.S. too high for optimal economic performance.