Genocide in Sudan

Genocide in Sudan (updated Sept 1st, 10:32 PM EST)

Despite the rhetoric of nearly every governing body on the Earth, there are very few cases in which governments due the morally right thing simply because it is morally right. The current genocide in Sudan, much like that of Rwanda a decade ago, is no exception. Arab militias, supported by equipment and troops from the Arab federal government, have been massacring villages of ethnic blacks in Darfur, one of the poorest and least accessible regions of the world.
The genocide broke out when members of the Fur, Masalit, and Zaghawa ethnic groups pressured the government for rights comparable to those of Arabs. In response, the government organized Arab militias into the Janjaweed and targeted civilian populations (source).

Now, tens of thousands have been forced to leave cities and villages, while thousands of others are being slaughtered by Sudanese military and paramilitary groups. What is the US and UN doing? Well, compared to the façade of no involvement, quite a bit. USAID has said that about $200,000,000 should be spent in the area, the majority of that money paying for over 100,000 tons of food for around 2 million people. All that food must be airlifted, because Sudan hasn’t bothered to build or secure roads in the region. In addition, Sudanese officials are delaying those airlifts as much as possible (source).

So, it will cost 200 million to keep refugees alive, because Sudan is preventing relief supplies in addition to supporting the militias. That 200 million won’t get rid of the militias or Sudanese government, and it doesn’t include the cost of security forces in case Sudan’s officials get nastier.


The obvious paradox is: why is the US government planning 200 million in relief, when the entire problem is caused by Sudan’s government and can be ended in a week for very little cost? The answer: the US government does not want to offend Sudanese officials or jump into another conflict that could turn into Mogadishu 2. After all, we’ve gained plenty of experience by ignoring Cuba, Haiti, Rwanda, and a long list of other 3rd world nations. UN peacekeeping forces are impotent, because the best they can do is watch the genocide from a helicopter (regulations prevent peacekeeping forces from firing at militants unless the UN troops are shot at, no matter how many innocent civilians are being slaughtered a few yards away). And, as Mogadishu proved, the US can not allow a single soldier to get a paper cut.

The only real solution is to kill the militants and destroy the Sudanese army, so that further genocide is impossible. This would take only a few weeks or months, it would be a permanent solution, and it would be much cheaper than feeding refugees indefinitely. But, in this world of international bickering and disregard for death statistics (as long as none are American), nothing will be done, while hundreds of thousands may be slaughtered.

That’s the political side of Sudan, and the world’s reactions to tragedy. I severely doubt that anything will be done quickly enough to matter, even though this genocide has been brewing for over a year. The next time you hear someone praises the importance or virtues of the UN, mention Sudan and see how they react. When Kerry next claims that he can bring America’s “allies” into Iraq, wonder what he would do in Sudan, and ponder why he has completely ignored the issue. When Bush hails his own success in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, hope that he will do something in Sudan during his next term.


update: news report. Koffi Annan wants to get as many as 3,000 UN troops involved, as well as perhaps 2,000 AU (African Union) troops. Currently, there are only 300 non-Sudanese troops in or around Darfur, most of whom are from Rwanda (which wants to prevent another genocide like its own) and Nigeria.

There is an interesting article by Jonah Goldberg here regarding the problems currently faced by the US government. Mainly, the article mentions obesity and discusses 527 groups (moveon.org, Media Fund, Swiftboat Vets, ect). Goldberg believes that these problems were developed somewhat by government intervention in other problems (or those problems were made worse by government intervention). It is a fairly interesting article, and has some useful but infrequently mentioned facts.

Time for the last article in this short series of election posts. Don’t worry, there will be other election series in the future, but I want my next article to be on something different and more interesting (if only the popular media would be so varied!).

The Kerry camp has misreported a Congressional Budget Office report. This report can be found here, with some rather nice graphs, which I’ll explain.
The first graph shows the tax rate for each income group. The lowest 20% and (after Bush’s tax cut) 21-40% actually get money from the IRS because of refundable tax credits. The difference column is simply “Bush tax cuts” minus “2000 law”. This graph shows that taxes went down for everyone.
The second graph shows how much each group pays of the overall income tax. Again, the lowest two brackets actually cost the government on tax day, while the middle 20% of the US is responsible for 5.4% of the total income tax. That middle 20% saw their burden drop by 1%, due to Bush’s tax cuts. The next group, the 61% to 80%, saw their burden drop by .1%. The top 20% are responsible for 3.8% more than they were in 2000, and now cover 82.1% of the entire income tax.

What does all this mean? It means that the “middle class”, or anyone not a member of the nations top 20%, pays a proportionately smaller amount in taxes than do the richest 20%. In other words, Bush’s tax cuts are more “progressive” than “rich-friendly”.

There isn’t much that I can say which Donald Luskin hasn’t already. Also, kudos to Glenn Reynolds of www.instapundit.com, from whom I found this story.

Strategy And Its Victims; From Now To The Election

Well, I didn’t have much intention of writing about this incredibly boring “Vietnam controversy” that is rippling through the media and has already cut into the Kerry campaign. Instead of the ubiquitous “this is a controversy, let’s make it more controversial so we can repeat the story tomorrow!” I might as well try to predict what the next moves will be against the Kerry campaign, and consider the long-term effects of those moves.

Swiftboat Vets, or whatever its name is, has planned to release a second commercial soon. However, the Swiftboat Vets have already been paraded through the media for long enough, and a new group may appear to pile up more accusations against Kerry. This will add more credibility to those accusations, and give the impression that there are a ton of people vehemently anti-Kerry (which is true, but they haven’t been very vocal).
Around this time, the Kerry campaign will finally realize that they will lose if they only have a war record, which isn’t particularly clean anyway. Kerry will try to stick to the issues and his plans, but that will be unsuccessful for two reasons. First, Kerry’s plans do not resonate with the average voter, and Kerry can only preach them to his already-cheering diehards. Second, Kerry’s plans are laced with Bush-bashing, which is becoming a major turn-off, because there is nothing the average voter has not heard, and the remaining swing voters have not yet been attracted by insults, so there is no reason for them to follow the bashing now.
I doubt that Bush will say anything bad about Kerry’s military record during the convention, and will present either a Churchillian message (“it is bad now, but we will make it better”), or full-fledged optimism based on the many improvements over the last year and/or months. This should be just what voters are hungry for, and Bush will be able to use his moral character to influence voters, despite all the rhetoric coming from the Kerry campaign and its well-funded supporters.

In the weeks after the GOP convention, we may see a microcosm of the first democratic primary. Like Dean had the disgustingly over-estimated Deaniacs, Kerry will have overestimated Kerryites (many of which were former Deaniacs). Don’t get me wrong, Kerry won’t come off worse than Dean, and certainly won’t crash and burn like Dean, but the public will realize that Kerry’s base is mostly of career diehards (“career” since Gore’s loss in Florida, which too many refuse to shut up about). A base of diehards does not connect to the mainstream, sensible voter. However, Bush’s base has conservatives (there are twice as many conservatives in the US than there are liberals. Thus, conservatives are much closer to the mainstream) and a wide range of battle-tested supporters. If those supporters didn’t give up despite endless insults since the 2000 campaign, they certainly won’t give up in the next few months. So, Bush's base should be better at attracting the few swing voters.

Kerry should have switched to the real issues in the DNC convention, or at least used it to prepare for a switch before the GOP convention. But now, it is the republicans who have all the attention, and they will use it wisely. It seems that Kerry has been moving toward the issues over the past few days, but that strategic shift will instead be seen as a retreat from the attacks on his Vietnam record. The soonest Kerry can reach the issues will be the week after the GOP convention, and Bush will have a good lead, which Kerry is unlikely to make up.


So, assuming I am right (which even I have reason to suspect but not entirely dismiss), why did Kerry wait? Is it possible that he personally enjoyed the splendor of his military service, and tried to savor it for too long? Politicians and generals have both been victim to this problem, but would this be the first time it can influence an election?


update: Here is an excellent article not teribly different from mine. It's an excellent story. Read it.

2004 Economic Plan Challenge

Does Either Candidate Really Have a Plan For the Future?

One of the more common insults to Kerry is that he is running entirely on his Vietnam record, and that he has no or little plan for the future, because the media seems to cover only Kerry’s Vietnam record. The question behind the media controversy is: does either candidate actually have a plan for the future, and how much does that plan really matter?
I believe that an agenda is the most important part of a campaign. After all, Kerry was rarely mentioned before the primaries, while Howard Dean was both the media lightning rod and the expected winner. However, Dean’s entire campaign was centered on Bush-bashing, and there was no mention of a way to improve the nation (media analysts believed that the first primary was the perfect time for Dean to switch to the issues and say how he would be better than Bush, but he never did). Kerry, on the other hand, combined future goals and occasional Bush-bashing, which was quite capable of grabbing attention. I believe this is why Kerry won the primaries, and Dean’s rapid fall from grace defied the law of gravity.

Having proven that plans or goals really do matter, it is time to see who really has more/better plans on a leading issue, the economy. I will jump right to the major proposals of each side, as presented by each side, and explain my filtering technique at the end of this post.
And now, to present the 2004 Economic Plan Challenge!


Kerry’s 7-point plan (as edited by me). Details of the plan are in the column on the right:

1: strengthen the middle class by: tax cuts on Health Care, Child Care, and Education, create a New Jobs Tax Credit, lowering energy prices (through investment in new technologies), lower tuition costs, making housing more affordable, ensure equal pay for men and women, raise the minimum wage, and help balance work and family by creating after-school-programs (which may keep schools open until 6 PM).
2: improve worker’s rights by: reversing Bush’s new overtime law, oppose efforts by companies to replace unions, extend and improve unemployment insurance, improve workplace safety, ensure whistleblower protection, protect worker’s ability to form a union, and expand Trade Adjustment Assistance programs.
3: create good-paying jobs by: strongly enforcing trade agreements, investigating China’s workers rights abuses and ending its illegal currency manipulation, close international tax law loopholes that encourage outsourcing, create a one-time tax holiday (10% tax) for companies to bring profits back to the US, establish corporations to invest in manufacturing businesses, lower corporate tax rates by 1.75% (official website uses somewhat-distorted numbers), support jobs in America through “Buy American” guidelines, enhance job training, increase funding for Manufacturing Extension Partnership (website is slightly misleading), improve math and science education, pump more money into No Child Left Behind, promote Universal Broadband Access, reform the Advanced Technology Program, and develop new manufacturing technology at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
4: Restore fiscal responsibility by: cutting taxes for 98% of American, roll back Bush’s tax cuts on the “wealthy” (those who make more than $200,000 annually), restore discretionary spending caps of the 1990’s, cut corporate welfare, freezing or cutting non-priority programs to fund discretionary proposals, and giving the president constitutional power to sign a bill while vetoing specific spending items.
5: new opportunities for small businesses by: creating a "Small Business Opportunity Fund", allowing greater federal contracting for small businesses, simplifying taxes for small businesses, giving small business a cabinet level position, cut health care costs by two-thirds, exempting investments held for five or more years in small businesses, enacting a new "Small Business Retirement Initiative", and creating tax credits for called-up reservists.
6: help for freer and fairer trade by: holding A 120-day review of all existing trade agreements, Increasing resources for trade enforcement, and opening foreign export markets
7: help work and family by: increasing The Child Care Tax Credit to cover $5,000 of expenses

Now those are what I call plans! It’s hard to believe the media is missing all of this to report on some Vietnam controversies. Looks like Bush will need a brilliant proposition to put Kerry’s ideas to shame, and justify the media’s neglection of them.


Now, time for Bush’s 6-point plan (also as edited by me):

1: Make health care costs more affordable and predictable by: allowing small businesses to join together to purchase healthcare at lower rates, allow workers more control over their health care insurance and costs, and reduce frivolous lawsuits that drive up health care costs.
2: reduce the overall lawsuit burden by: allowing more class action and mass tort lawsuits to be moved to federal courts and ensuring that most benefits from a settlement actually go to people who are injured (instead of to the lawyer).
3: ensure an affordable and reliable energy supply by: upgrading the nation’s electrical grid, promote energy efficiency, increase domestic energy production, and provide enhanced conservation efforts, all while protecting the environment.
4: streamline regulations and reporting requirements by: simplifying and streamlining regulations, and ensuring that well-intentioned requirements do not cost jobs.
5: open foreign markets to American products by: continuing to work to open new markets around the world.
6: Enabling Families and Businesses to Plan for the Future with Confidence by: urging Congress to make vital tax reductions permanent.


Well isn’t this interesting! Not only does Kerry’s plan have an extra point, but also it is far more detailed. The question now is: why is Kerry’s economic plan, which is more comprehensive than Bush’s, getting snubbed by the media? It seems that Bush justifies his lack of substance with far superior style and clarity. Most of Bush’s points are written in the same pattern: the problem, the proposed solution, and an example. Meanwhile, Kerry’s solutions have the detail of Bush’s examples.

It appears that Bush has written guidelines or a policy which all his plans will follow, while Kerry has a step-by-step instruction manual. And, I believe the American people can understand basic guidelines more than precise directions. However, the disparities between these plans compensate for each other fairly well, so the winner must be determined by further analysis.

The candidates, like all good politicians, try to stay one step ahead of their detractors.
Kerry does this so well that he even has a chart here. However, there is one major problem; it shows Bush’s history compared to Kerry’s plans. Dare I mention that Bush’s column can be copied into Kerry’s, because Kerry served in the senate the entire time Bush was president, and he had an ability to change national policy just as Bush did (of course, he had less power, but that power covered a wide enough range)? After all, both the getaway driver and the perpetrator are held responsible for a crime (to make an insulting metaphor).
And Bush revealed the trick up his sleeve here. This page defends Bush’s history, explains his reasoning, and concludes with a bit of Kerry-bashing. That bashing happens to be against Kerry’s plans, not his past. And that is the winning point in the 2004 Economic Plan Challenge.

After three pages of summary, analysis, and debunking, it comes down to a technicality in bashing. I can’t wait to do this for the next election :).


Now, the rules.
Part 1: the source
A: the plan of each candidate will come from their respective official website, in text, or from another official text document claiming to contain the economic plan, with that claim supported by the candidate and/or his campaign, if a candidate does not have a website or that website does not have the required information.
B: if a candidate or his campaign does not have a written economic plan, then the Economic Plan Challenge can be delayed until said plan becomes available. If no plan is made available, said candidate loses by default.
C: the entire plan must be in a single document (of any number of pages) or must be found through a single webpage. That webpage can include links to other pages with specific parts of the plan. However, the linked-to pages must be labeled or named appropriately, and be in a convenient location. The linked to page(s) must contain part or whole of the economic plan and/or a breakdown of the plan, with links to the broken-down parts (“broken-down” is the past tense of “breakdown”, not a reference to an inoperable page).
D: Information that can be found only through a search engine, or through part of the website not limited to the economy, does not count unless it can also be reached as described in 1 C.
E: if a web page does not have a section specifically for economics, but the plan is reachable from the home page, then the home page can be considered the required economic page.
F: If the source is modified during the Economic Plan Competition, then the original (unmodified) version will be used, unless the modification was to correct a legitimate error (broken or incorrectly targeted hyperlink, spelling, and incorrect nouns or verbs count as legitimate errors). Other corrections of content should be ignored if possible.

Part 2: what goes into the summary.
A: Only items written in the future tense (or with a reference to their use in the future) go into the summary. Records of what has already been completed will be ignored, unless it is said that similar events will be attempted in the future.
B: If a point is repeated or reused, then only its first use is included in the summary. “first is determined by the standard method (top before bottom, left before right, or in accordance to a numbered or lettered order as provided by the source). By the way, this one counted against Kerry a few times
C: Any detail or item complying with both 2A and 2B must be included in the summary. The summarizer may not make any changes due to knowledge or belief of inaccuracy, error, a possible correction (if the item is corrected during the summarizing process, that item can be changed in the summary), or any other element that can introduce bias, whether it is justified or not.

Part 3: analyzing the summary.
A: because candidates are chosen based on popularity and not accuracy, the summaries must be judged based on how well they appeal to potential voters. That appeal can be based on clarity, detail, verbosity or conciseness, and the extent to which the average voter may understand the plan.
B: Analysis should have no mention or consideration of the accuracy of any particular item. Even if an item is a blatant lie to the summarizer, it should be assumed that the average voter does not suspect any inaccuracy in that item, and thus accuracy or lack thereof is irrelevant.
C: if one plan is clearly superior to the other, as determined in accordance with 3A and 3B, then the superior plan is the winner. If both plans appear equal or somewhat equal, then they can be further analyzed as described in part 4.

Part 4: further analysis.
A: additional information must be found in the procedure described by part 1, but justification or reasoning for the plan (or any item or detail within it), further evidence, items intended to convince a voter to agree with the plan, and/or bashing of the other candidate’s plan can be sought.
B: items bashing anything (or anyone) other than the plan of a candidate should be ignored.
C: the determination of whose plan is best is based on the items mentioned in 4A and 4B, and the procedure for determining which plan is best should follow the guidelines of 3A and 3B. In other words, the winner is the candidate who best supports his plan over that of his opponent(s) in the eyes of the average voter.



Comments are welcome. However, please refrain from criticizing either plan, unless you have some credibility to do so (in which case, I would love to get a bit of material for a follow-up post).

New overtime law and how it's being distorted

Here’s the promised US-centric post: overtime pay! Well, it’s not as much about overtime pay as it is about misinformation and plain old lies that politicians are famous for.

Let’s start with a John Edwards (absolutely no relation to me, by the way) quote: “Today, millions of workers will find out that instead of getting time-and-a-half, they're going to get a hard time from their government… More than 60 years of protecting overtime work have been wiped out with the stroke of this president's pen.” source.
Of course, what Kerry/Edwards speech could be complete without a nice Bush-bashing? “Taking away the right to overtime pay and doing nothing while paychecks shrink and jobs go overseas makes sense only to someone who does not understand American values and does not respect what work means in this country,” (from the same source).

Now, there is something to this story other than the Kerry/Edwards speeches. No, it’s not a moveon.org ad, and it has nothing to do with Vietnam.

It’s (dramatic pause) the facts! Those pesky, oft-forgotten little things that most politicians try to ignore. But, it’s now time to delve into a few of them, in a friendly question-and-answer format.

Q: just how many people will be affected by these changes?
A: According to the administration (Bush and his friends), 107,000 workers will no longer have guaranteed overtime, while 1.3 million workers can be assured of overtime pay. Source: the New York Times. On the other hand, a liberal ‘think-tank’, which may be suffering from the same “group think” that plagued the CIA and FBI, claims up to 6 million people may lose overtime.

Q: What new qualifications have been set for overtime pay?
A: First off, everyone who earns an hourly wage receives overtime protection. In addition, salaried employees who make less than $23,600 per year should qualify for overtime pay, while salaried employees who make more that $100,000 per year get no overtime. Overtime provisions written in union collective bargaining agreements are also protected. For people who earn between $23,600 and $100,000, it all depends on your job description, because the government will match up your job description with a recently revised government-made description to see if you qualify. Source: South Bend Tribune, which seems to have decent stories, though this is the first time I’ve ever heard of it.

Q: I love to read government documents that are as boring as tax code. Do you have any source like that?
A: sadly, yes. You can go here for an official site.

Q: your style of both asking and answering the questions is freaking me out a bit. Can you go back to a more common, less multiple-personality-disorder-ish style?
A: Sure



I don’t quite know what John Edwards is complaining about, since the earlier version of this law guaranteed overtime for workers who earn less than $8,060 per year, as was set in the 70’s. In addition, democrats complained that Bush was giving more money to “the rich”, who democrats defined as people earning more than $100,000 per year.

Now, here’s a pleasant statement from the Bush side (Matt McDonald, quoted from my first source), “The only loser under this reform is the trial lawyers who have created an overtime lawsuit industry that costs our economy $2 billion per year”. Of course, this statement has its healthy counterdose of Kerry-Edwards bashing, because Edwards earned a few tens of millions as a trial lawyer.

The re-emergence of Anti-Semitism

I wasn’t planning to write up this story until the weekend, but, when the New York Times writes a perfect article to supplement, a blogger has good reason to change his agenda.

Here’s the NYT text:

Anti-Semitic Attack on Jewish Community Center in Paris
By CRAIG S. SMITH

PARIS, Aug. 22 — Fire swept through a Jewish community center in eastern Paris in the early morning hours today after arsonists broke into the building and scrawled swastikas and anti-Semitic slogans inside. It was the latest in a wave of neo-Nazi acts sweeping the country.

The center, which prepares kosher food for needy Jews, occupies the ground floor of a five-story residential building. There were no casualties.

President Jacques Chirac and other politicians were quick to issue statements condemning the attack and vowing to find and punish the perpetrators. Mayor Bertrand Delanoe, visited the site today and said he felt "shock and horror."

The attack comes at a particularly sensitive time for the city, falling between two emotional anniversaries. On Aug. 18, 1944, the Red Cross entered a Nazi detention camp outside of Paris, freeing about 1,500 Jews awaiting deportation to extermination camps in Germany. A week later, Paris itself was liberated from the Nazis.

Much of this year's neo-Nazi activity in France has been concentrated in the eastern region of Alsace, a traditionally German-speaking area along the German border. Officials there say Alsace's neo-Nazi movement is an extension of a broader movement in Germany. On Saturday, about 3,000 people took part in a neo-Nazi march in the German town of Wunsiedel, about 250 miles from Alsace, to commemorate the death, in 1987, of Adolf Hitler's deputy Rudolf Hess.

More than a dozen neo-Nazi acts have taken place across France this year, in some cases by lone copycats with no clear relationship to an organized movement. Earlier this month, for example, an emotionally disturbed man named Michael Tronchon attacked a North African man with a hatchet and desecrated a Jewish cemetery in Lyon before turning himself in to the police in Paris. He told the police that he had been inspired by an earlier case of neo-Nazi vandalism in Alsace.

France's neo-Nazism appears to have no clear ideology beyond anti-Semitic slogans and the lyrics of white supremacist, heavy metal music by such groups as Ninth Panzer Symphony, Kontingent 88 and Elsass Korps. Adherents are mostly men in their teens or early 20's, people who monitor the movement say, and their targets are as often Arabs as Jews. France is home to Europe's biggest Muslim and Jewish communities.

But the rise in neo-Nazi acts is particularly disturbing to France's Jews, who are already concerned about increasing anti-Semitism among the country's Arab youth. They fear that both anti-Semitic strains are growing.

In July, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel set off a minor diplomatic crisis between France and Israel after he urged French Jews to move to Israel to escape the growing anti-Semitism. He later revised his remark to say that Jews should move to Israel because it is their homeland.

According to France's interior ministry statistics, there have been 135 acts of physical violence against Jews so far this year and 95 against Arabs and other ethnic groups, though there are nearly 10 times as many Arabs as Jews in France.

On Aug. 14, vandals drew a swastika and wrote "death to the Jews" on a low wall in front of Paris's Notre Dame cathedral.

France has toughened punishments for anti-Semitic and anti-racist crimes. Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin, visiting the site of today's attack, said the arsonists could face life in prison under the new law.

The Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France issued a statement urging "authorities to promptly arrest and sanction in an exemplary manner the perpetrators of this odious act that besmirches France."

And here is a nice Newsmax article for comparison. Some auxiliary sources can also be found here and here.

As Mr. Smith described so well, anti-Semitism has been a growing problem in Europe for several years. France is the hub of these problems, but Britain and Germany are not too far behind. Germany’s punishments for advocating or committing racist crimes are probably has the strictest in the world, and these measures have indeed helped suppress racism.
France, a historical home of anti-Semitism (as I mention at the start of my earlier post), will likely bear the brunt of racism within the next decade. Much of this racism is caused by immigration from anti-Israel nations. As immigration increases, and as Europe wishes either limit US power or build a counterbalance to it, Europe will increasingly dislike Israel to separate the US from its non-European allies. The US is preparing for this challenge by calling for a separation of anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel’s government, but this plan is unlikely to succeed.

Europe already views Israel as one of the greatest threats to the world, because it has a strong military and nuclear weapons, and the US is the only nation that can restrain Israel. My claim that Europe fears any nation it can’t restrain is supported by the fact that it also views the US as one of the greatest threats to the world. Europe is, for the first time in centuries, feeling a bit insecure because its military is weak compared to potential enemies. Even in the Cold War, Europe was the fulcrum that the US and USSR tried to balance on. Insecurity breeds fear, and fear breeds anger, so European culture will be increasingly susceptible to both anti-Semitism and its anti-American counterpart.


My next article should be something a bit more America-centric, so be sure to check back tomorrow.

The reasoning behind the assassination of Ahmed Yassin.

The reasoning behind the assassination of Yassin.

Structure:
I: The situation of Israel
    A: General situation
    B: the mid-east’s view of Israel
    C: Europe’s view of Israel
    D: America’s conflicting diplomacy
    E: the rest of the world
II: The War
    A: why body counts don’t matter
    B: The great military vs. unorthodox ‘militias’.
III: Goals of the assassination
    A: Timing of the attack
    B: provoke an instant response
       1: force a Madrid-like plan to be abandoned
IV: Sharon’s paradox
    A: withdrawal will show weakness
    B: aggression will prompt escalating responses
    C: Minimal actions will force him to leave office
    D: Status quo may be the best situation for Israel and the world
V: how to end the fighting
    A: a complete renovation of Islam


I:
A:     The founding of Israel takes root in the Zionist desire for a Jewish nation. Zionism was forged in an effort to combat the persecution of Jews, notably in France’s Dreyfus Affair in 1894. This issue left divides in France until 1940, when France was conquered by Nazi Germany. After the tragedies of WWII, Zionism gained incredible support.
     The nation of Israel was founded in 1948 with the help of the United Nations, which never considered founding another nation due to their initial mistakes. Almost immediately, Israel fought a war for its survival. An excellent history of Israel’s wars can be found at http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/ink/israel/findex.htm so I will not recite Israel’s past military history (an excellent account of the 1973 Yom Kippur War is in Henry Kissinger’s book Crisis, also).
B:     This war was fought over the right of Muslims to control all of the Middle East, which they occupied and controlled almost since the discovery of dirt. Muslims viewed Israel as both a colonizing nation, because it was supported by Europe and the US (the colonizing powers), and a modern crusade, because the nation was only for ‘infidels’ (non-Muslims) and attempted to control Muslim land. These reasons still form the basis of the Israeli-Arab conflicts.
     In addition, Arabs have also gained a desire for revenge after losing many wars to Israel. The US military and monetary support of Israel has further bolstered the view of Israel as a colonizer.
     Common claims, such as an unfair occupation of Palestinian territories or revenge for civilian casualties during Israel’s military actions, are mere excuses for continued suicide bombings. In fact, the claim of occupied lands adds evidence to the fact that Muslims see Israel as a colonizer. In addition, the often-repeated claim that Israel subjugates Muslims in its territory is inaccurate and is based only on the suspicion that Israel is a colonizer. More Palestinians work in Israel than in neighboring Egypt (which fought against Israel many times), and Palestinians in Lebanon, now occupied by Syria, have become helots, while the Lebanese themselves form a lower class to Syrians (my source is Between War and Peace, by Victor Davis Hanson, page 82). Indeed, Israel is probably the most successful nation in the mid-east, and it is far more accepting of Muslims than its neighbors are accepting of Jews.
     Thus, the Muslim view declares that Israel is a foreign invader and colonizer. However, this claim is proven wrong by the fact that Israel has exercised restraint and treats Muslims better than Muslims treat Jews in other nations.
C:     The European view of Israel is a combination of several factors. First is economic profit by trading with Muslim nations, second is the growing populations of Muslims throughout Europe.
     Israel exports more than it imports, and is on the cutting edge of technology, so a profit-hungry Europe can offer little that Israel really wants. The Muslim world, on the other hand, exports little except oil, and imports everything else. This means that Europe can profit much more from trading with the far more numerous Muslims, who have an unending desire for products ranging from cell phones to oil drilling machinery. In order to facilitate this profit, Europe tries to stay on the best possible relations with Muslim nations. An easy and cheap way to be friends with a Muslim nation is to hate Israel.
     Europe’s population of Muslims is steady rising, mainly due to immigration from the mid-east and northern Africa. As evidenced by a sharp increase of anti-Semitic crimes, some of these immigrants carry a hatred of Israel and its Jewish population. Those individuals can spread anti-Semitic beliefs, and political candidates may claim a dislike for Israel in order to gain popularity (the Muslim population in many European nations far exceeds their Jewish population).
     These two factors have caused Europe’s moderate dislike for Israel, and may strengthen it over time.
D:     America’s relationship with Israel is a hybrid of supporting a democratic ally (formerly the only democracy in the mid-east) and maintaining friendships with Israel’s oil-exporting neighbors. Throughout the Cold War, the US supplied Israel with weaponry, much to the chagrin of the Soviets and their pet mid-eastern nations. However, since the end of the Cold War, the US has been free to provide financial and military aid to nations that are willing to export their oil. Anger for supporting Israel has subsided somewhat as Arab nations learn that Israel will exist for a long time, whether it’s supported by the US or not. Also, Arab nations understand the phrase “no greater friend, no worse enemy”, and attempt to stay on America’s good side politically. However, the populations of Arab nations seem to rarely agree with their government, resulting in Saudi Arabia’s paradox of a friendly government but hostile populace. After the events of 9/11 (in which most terrorists were of Saudi origin), Arab nations have worked to balance formal relations, to ensure national safety from the US army, and the popular opinion, so to avoid US reactions to a future attack and to uphold some support for the government.
     Because of these factors, the US will not support Israeli expansion and is attempting to please oil-wielding nations by slightly restraining a spread of democracy and providing excessive financial aid (in a very similar way to bribery, by no extraordinary coincidence). In the less-generous, more-threatening hand, America has its military, the threat of spreading democracy, ability to cut aid (or, more simply, end the bribes), and a possibly loose grip on Israel’s leash. Arab nations can threaten an oil embargo and more state-sponsored terror (though this threat would go rather unspoken, but diplomacy has its backchannels). An oil embargo has immediate threats, and can be catastrophic during an election year, while the US’s options will take more time.
E:     The rest of the world views Israel with caution, because it is a barometer of how much a major power will interfere with smaller nations. Nations in Africa or southeast Asia will tend to dislike American support for Israel because they also don’t want interference from the United States. Thus, this opinion is one of long-term survival, and very different from the conditions of Israel’s neighbors.

II:
A:     As explained in I: B, the war between Israel and Palestine is one of ideals, and bodycounts do not matter. Though Palestine claims 4 times as many civilian casualties than Israel, many Muslim nations have killed more of their own Muslim citizens than either bodycount can claim. Let us not forget the mass graves of Iraq (and the gassing of thousands of Kurds), the current genocide in Sudan, the actions of Milosevic, Qaddafi, the Assads, and the Taliban. The truth is, bodycounts only have a purpose if the victims died for a reason. What did the victims of the aforementioned slaughters and slaughterers die for? Palestinian casualties, however, are considered martyrs. This, again, shows that there is something behind the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a reason for which these people are claimed to have died.
     Thus, bodycounts only matter to those foolish enough to believe that the side with more victims must be righteous. If WWI began with the assassination of a single man, yet no nation acted during the genocide of Rwanda, then casualties are certainly not of equal importance. For these reasons, the numbers of victims is of little meaning, and people should examine just what those victims died for.
B:     It is not difficult to argue that Israel has a great military, while Palestine’s terrorist groups operate similar to an unorthodox militia. This means that Palestine will never fight on a battlefield, and that unconventional methods of warfare must also be used. Could one argue that providing jobs for some of the ‘enemy’ and allowing traffic between warring nations between busy checkpoints, while targeting specific buildings or individuals with precision weapons, is common during wars? In conventional warfare, Israeli tanks would simply drive over Palestinian buildings, shooting every person in range. However, Israel’s methods of targeting specific vehicles and demolishing individual houses shows a precision in warfare rivaled only by the US’s actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.
     Militants pick this style of fighting because it gives them the advantage of civilian casualties. Terrorists and militants in Palestine attempt to hide behind innocent civilians, forcing Israel to either risk civilian casualties or allow enemies to walk free (and keep killing Israelis). By the conventions of warfare, Israel should risk killing civilians in order to eliminate the threat to Israeli citizens. After all, Israel’s military is made to protect Israel, not Palestinians who get caught in the crossfire. In addition, those conventions of warfare were set partially by the US in Mogadishu, in which thousands of civilians may have died in an effort to save the lives of a few dozen American soldiers.
     This method of fighting leaves some problems. For example, Israel can conquer Palestine without much difficulty, while Palestine is secure only because Israel would face an international response. Palestine has nothing to offer the world, except suicide bombers and media reports, so it has no trade partners to defend it. Thus, the survivability of Palestine rests entirely on the sympathy of foreign nations, and that sympathy is heightened at every new claim of oppression or civilian casualties. This is the situation in which Israel and Palestine fight.

III
A:     With all these considerations for Sharon and his advisors, it is certain that the assassination of Yassin was well planned and thoroughly considered. Therefore, it is probably not a coincidence that Yassin was assassinated shortly after the bombings in Madrid. After all, Israel was able to track Yassin himself, and there must be some good reason to target an old and wheelchair-bound ‘spiritual advisor’ (formerly the founder of Hamas).
     It is my opinion that Yassin was targeted in order to prevent him from organizing or approving of a Madrid-like attack on Israel. Israel, with only a few million people, would be forced to respond dramatically to any attack that causes hundreds of deaths. By “response”, I mean a lot of tanks moving into a lot of Palestinian land, with a lot of civilian casualties and a ton of whining from a lot of nations across the world (not to mention Palestine itself). Israel would be forced to respond in this way by a vengeance-seeking population and its own flawed government. Israel’s group of advisors to the prime minister has demonstrated many times that, when Israel may act aggressively, they all try to one-up each other, escalating the incursion (often until the US restrains Israel).
B:     It is also a possibility that Israel assassinated Yassin not to prevent him from encouraging a major attack, as his influence and power is limited, but to provoke Palestine to respond rapidly and before a major strike could be prepared. This action follows the idea that a conflict can be started before an opponent is ready. If WWII were declared against Germany in 1937, for example, the Allies would enjoy a quick and relatively easy victory, because Germany was not prepared for a war that early. Thus, I believe that Israel may have wanted to enrage terrorists, so that they would plan quick suicide bombings and abandon time-consuming preparations for a much more powerful strike.
     Though this concept is rather disturbing in general terms, it is militarily and politically correct. The reason this strategy is rarely used is because nations can never be certain a rival will attack, and nations tend to delay a war as long as possible, often in hopes that they can prepare better than their enemy. However, the attack on Pearl Harbor may be a fitting, and very well known, example of striking before the opponent is ready.

IV
     Sharon, the Prime Minister of Israel, faces a very difficult situation when he writes policy with his neighbors. If he retains parts of the Gaza strip, he is called an occupier or colonizer, and fuels hatred of Israel. If he withdraws from the occupied territories, he looks weak and may invite an attack. If he responds strongly to terrorism, he only creates more martyrs, but he does get more support from Israel’s population. However, if Sharon does not respond, he again looks weak, may invite more suicide bombings, and losses the support of Israel’s population.
     For these reasons, Israel may be in a fairly decent condition right now. Israel is not threatened with a major war, Arab nations no longer have the support of the USSR, the US can restrain Arab nations a bit, and Israel has the option of waiting for more a more favorable environment to expand or consolidate power. During the cold war, the great powers were constantly trying to balance power between Israel and its neighbors (neither of which seemed to act rationally to political analysts). Now, however, Israel has some time to rest, and it has the hope that democracy will spread throughout the mid-east. The rest of the world would certainly appreciate a ‘stable’ middle east, even if that stability means only that there will be no formal wars.

V
     The only way to end the Arab-Israeli conflict is to start a complete renovation of Islam. Such a renovation would allow the belief to greater recognize the endless changes of the world, and remove Israel’s stigma of a colonizer. This renovation has already begun, and can be seen in two major factors; economic development and some form of representative government (democracy).
     The most popular economic change to the mid-east is the rapid introduction of consumer products, such as cell phones, televisions, and air conditioners. Each of these items happens to be in high demand in the mid-east, and they have dramatic changes on culture (DVDs in particular have fueled the demand for television much more than classic VHS, because plastic tapes can get damage quickly in arid climates). We’ve even seen Bin Laden, the leading opponent of Western technology, use cell phones, and we know he has benefited from cameras and television. Technology changes people’s lives more than any other factor, and a change to the lives of many individuals is the forerunner of a major cultural change, just like the printing press helped revolutionize the Catholic religion. In time, we will see Islam slowly westernize as Muslims westernize. However, this will take time, and the mid-east needs its oil supply might not outlast the semi-revolution it is fueling, because Islam has proven that it is very slow to change. There are also millions of resistors to westernization, with Bin Laden at the head of them, who set the price for changing the mid-east.
     Democracy, however, spreads rather slowly but changes the population quite rapidly. The nation of Israel, soon to be joined by Iraq and Afghanistan, is the only full-fledged democracy in the mid-east. Soviet, and later US, support for Arab governments have helped suppress the spread of democracy. Iraq, however, will help spread democracy to its neighbors. Once US troops leave, terrorists will be left with Muslim security forces as targets. If they continue attacks, they will face a backlash from the majority of Muslims, which will virtually destroy Al Qaeda and similar organizations.
     Therefore, the terrorists in both Iraq and Palestine will face the inevitable spread of western ideals. The only question is how long it will take. It seems that Sharon is willing to weather the storm, and has both the wisdom and patience to wait for the mid-east to eventually accept Israel. In the meantime, Sharon’s goal is to prevent suicide bombings whenever possible, and he is especially worried about a major attack which may force a response which throws the mid-east into greater instability.