The Fall of the Jerusalem Wall

On January 11, 2013 a group of Palestinians erected tents in an area designated E1, which is east of Jerusalem. They set up this tent city, named Bab Al-shams, to protest the building of an Israeli settlement that is scheduled to go there later this year. The reasoning goes that Israeli settlements are still standing because by the time anybody told the settlers to move, “facts on the ground” already existed. Almost immediately, Israeli police arrived on the scene with eviction papers. As is to be expected with a protest, the residents of Bab Al-shams refused to move. Later that day the Israeli Supreme Court ordered a stay of eviction for six days while they sorted out the issue. Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister, objected to the stay and demanded the Courts to lift it. Rather than wait for the Court to lift the stay or make any other decisions, Netanyahu sent in police to arrest everyone in the camp and remove them from the property. Fortunately nobody was killed and only six people reported minor injuries.

There are a couple major themes in this set of developments that I would like to take a deeper look at. The first is that Palestinians have finally starting organizing large non-violent protests. The second is that Benjamin Netanyahu specifically, and Israel in general, is unwilling to make up their mind about which is the lesser of two evils: an independent Palestinian state or full acceptance of all inhabitants of the Holy Land.

Israel has been unwilling to deconstruct the wall for security reasons. Palestinians have done themselves absolutely no favors in this regard. Consistent support for the terrorist group Hamas has alienated the international community and Israel can point to incessant violence to quiet critics. Mahmoud Abbas, the Chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, has made statements in recent months condemning the use of terrorism and violence in the struggle for independence. Much of the Arab Spring movement has centered around a shift to nonviolent protest to create government change. Extremist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood are now finding themselves in a new position: power. The Taliban is a prime example of a group of people that were very good at fighting the powers that be until they became the powers that are. In fact, the history of Taliban rule in Afghanistan is what the international community is afraid will happen in Egypt now and potentially happen in Palestine if they become a country.

The Carter and Reagan doctrines promised religious extremists that if they denounced communism they would money, weapons, and other aid. The Taliban in Afghanistan and the Ba'ath parties in Iraq and Syria jumped at the chance to fight for independence. Twenty years later the United States fought against the very people we had put into power. Even in Egypt, the secular National Democratic Party was supported by the United States and imposed authoritarian rule on its people. Violent people were willing to claim democracy over socialism in order to gain access to guns, food, and money. Democracies were set up in countries all over the Middle East even though there was rarely any real opposition and never a chance for a religious minority to attain office. Only one of these countries has built a wall to cordon off the minorities to remind them that they are not welcome in their homeland.

Bab Al-shams is a great start to a protest movement. The problem is that there are over 100 officially recognized Israeli settlements with over 300,000 inhabitants. If the PLO organized a sit-in of 1,000 Palestinians at every settlement it would very quickly be seen as an attack on Israel. The history of violence between the two groups is so long and well-documented that it would only make sense that such a large movement of people could only mean trouble. I have another idea in mind. Similar to the Hands Across America movement of the 1980's, Palestinians should stand facing the wall, hand in hand, silently protesting its existence until the world takes notice. It won't take long. As soon as everyone shows up and begins the protest, Mahmoud Abbas should appear before the United Nations imploring them to recognize both the plight of the Palestinian people and their right to govern themselves. This move would still provoke a response from Israel but it would be less likely to be seen as a possible attack. Israeli Defense Forces would immediately demand the people to clear away from the wall and disperse. Again, the point of a protest is specifically to not respond to such demands.

Best case scenario is that the United Nations declares the settlements to be illegal and that the settlers must return to Israel while the PLO becomes the officially recognized government of the new Palestinian nation. Worst case scenario is that a lot of peaceful protesters will be killed before the world moves to action. Either way there is one country that stands in the way of all of this: the United States. Both President Obama and Vice President Biden have made public statements condemning continued building of settlements. In fact, the E1 settlement is seen as a slap in the face of the US government after the presidential election. Patience has grown thin among many in the administration. American foreign policy is being focused on reducing the military role in Afghanistan and preventing a nuclear Iran. Responding to peaceful protest with continued violence or oppression would not only respark Islamic anger towards the US but would also push Ayatollah Khomeini to change his mind on his budding nuclear program. After a well-publicized protest, akin to the movements of the Arab Spring, the United States would be hard-pressed to maintain their current level of support. As President Obama has famously said, “After my election, I'll have more flexibility.”

With the creation of a new Arab state, there will be plenty of leadership needed to make sure that things go smoothly. There will need to be many press conferences declaring that the existential crisis in Israel is over and that the Jewish state has nothing to fear from the Arab world at large. Mohammed Morsi, President of Egypy, and Recep Erdogan, Prime Minister of Turkey, are looking for way to both calm tensions at home and also express their power in the international realm. The Arab League has begun to show that they want to be considered as prestigious as NATO or ASEAN and this would provide them with the chance. Thus the creation and maintenance of an independent Palestinian nation might have a real chance this time. With the safety and security of both Israelis and Palestinians no longer in question, there will be no future need for a security wall to separate them. Similar to the fabled city of Jericho, I hope we shall someday see the fall of the Jerusalem Wall.

Cliffhanger

I try very hard to never tune in to CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, CSPAN, or really... anything else that tries to tell me what is going on.  I read a LOT. Sometimes too much but I'm sure there are a couple English professors and comic book nerds who would argue that you can never read too much.

I keep hearing some nonsense about a fiscal cliff. Something about tax increases and spending cuts that will come so quickly that they will devastate first quarter spending and hiring and plummet the country into another recession.  I've been paying attention for long enough to remember that every time the democrats want to raise taxes the republicans say it will ruin us, conversely every time the republicans want to cut spending the democrats say the same. You'll have to forgive me for the terrible reference, but when someone tells me that Sylvester Stallone is in another action film stuffed with peril... I must be in for a Cliffhanger.

I loved early Stallone stuff, he always knew how to keep the intensity up and he could throw out a good line.  When I heard that Cliffhanger was coming out I shrugged and shuddered and stayed away from it.  I started hearing pundits preparing their parachutes and decided to shrug and shudder again.  They have to keep up the intensity to sell newspapers and commercials.

The republicans are going to come to the table in the next three weeks and we're going to see something similar to the proposals made three years ago when we started this recession but didn't have the... cliff... to fall from.  Three years ago republicans saw the White House and the Senate within their grasp if they could just hold out and make the democrats look bad.  Unfortunately for the republicans, in a mud fight everyone gets dirty.  Sure, the democrats in congress looked bad for not getting anything done, but so did the republicans.  They didn't win anything and now are trying to save face.  Good for them. I know what it's like to lose and put on a strong show.

We need to lower a lot of taxes, payroll and property chief among them. We need to raise a lot of other taxes (long list that I don't want to make at 5am sorry). We need to cut spending. This means that we need to go through the budget at every level and decide which projects are more important than others. This means that nobody will be happy because everybody is going to lose a little bit. Sorry, if I could make the world a better place I would, but I'm not Superman ;)

We need to stop electing politicians who govern like Thelma and Louise.  The time to test the brakes is on the open road and not pulling up to a cliff. I know it's fun and easy to vote for people who say all the right things but this isn't American Idol... though that would probably increase turnout.

Does anybody remember what happened to Thelma, or even more importantly what happened to Louise? It's kind of important because the voters are a lot like the car. I don't want to spoil the ending for you, so find the movie on Netflix and check how it ends. Sorry for the... cliffhanger?

Syria-sly?

I'm not sure how to start this article with anything witty or funny.  Thousands are dead in Syria.  The Arab Spring has found itself stopped at the edge of the seas of oil.  People are attempting to use non-violent protests against a government that has no problem killing its own citizenry.

So what do we do?

Does the United States invade, like it did in Iraq, to oust a violent dictator propped up by a false democracy?  No.  Does the United States provide weapons for the rebels, like it did in Libya, hoping that the good guys come out on top?  No.  Do we try to convince someone else that it's their turn to do something?  Have fun trying.

The world still has a bad taste in its mouth from our last foray into not-quite-war war.  Generally speaking, sending an army into a country with the sole purpose of killing its leadership and setting up a new government means that you are going to war.  We didn't.  I'm not quite sure how but that's for another article.

Russia and China vetoed a UN resolution that sounded too much like what happened in Libya.  Apparently saying you're trying to stop the violence and then going in with warships and bombs turned a couple of people off.  Last time I checked, overstepping the mandate of UN resolutions and ousting a government was a prime example of war crimes.  I'm still waiting for those indictments to come out of the ICC.

I guess the United States' hands are tied on this one.  I almost forgot to mention that unilateral intervention in another Middle Eastern nation may get on Iran's last nerve and cause them to: 1) close the Strait of Hormuz and cause oil prices to (I'm guessing) double, 2) kick their nuclear weapons project into high gear and have a dirty bomb in (Still guessing) 8 months, and 3) retaliate with strikes on Israel.  I believe that any of these three actions would be seen as an act of war by us and we would cry foul and attack Iran.  Does anybody remember what happened the last time we attacked two middle eastern nations at the same time?  Little thing called World War 1, you guys should read more books.

So who can stop the killing?  Who can step in and make Bashar Al-Assad step down?  I know! Vladimir Putin!  He'll save the day!  He'll make sure that a populace isn't politically quieted.  He'll put his foot down and make sure that racial minorities are represented equally... oh wait... he doesn't even do that in his own country.  He's also facing pressure from protesters who are completely unable to change the status quo.  I could be wrong though, this guy thinks it's a good idea.  I'm not very good at knowing what Putin plans to do though, I've never predicted an international incident of his before.  Though I do, strangely, have Georgia on my mind.

Maybe Mini-Russia can do something.  China has a long history of promoting human rights abroad and supporting democratization efforts... Foiled again!  The country is going through the long process of trying to legitimize the exchange of power from Hu Jintao to Xi Jinping so I don't think they intend to strain the will of the People any more than they have to.  I seem to recall that there is also a small group of people trying to get political recognition from the Chinese, also known as the populations of Tibet, Taiwan, and China.  This guy thinks China is being hypocritical by vetoing a measure that supports the safety of Syrians because it supports the safety of Syrians.  Really?  I've never heard of a politician saying one thing while meaning something completely different.  See: Politics.

Ok, so we have established that the US can't do anything.  Russia and China won't do anything.  Perhaps a neighboring country with similar religious beliefs and historical distrust of outside powers.  Turkey, you say?  They have been trying to get into the EU for a while and this would look REALLY good on their resume.  They seem to be completely disinterested.  Might as well be high school Spanish class...

I hate to be the "blogger of no," so I guess I should say what should happen and what will happen.  Otherwise why would you read this right?

Turkey and Iraq should close their borders to any weapons trafficking and allow only refugees out, nobody in.  Israel will have to be told to stay out of the issue but I don't think that Jordan or Lebanon will want to face the impending sanctions of joining what should be termed an internal struggle.  This is where it gets nasty.  What follows is called a revolution.  Not a coup, an overthrow, or an ousting.  A revolution.  The kind that the Russians and French know about.  The kind where the currently governing don't get to go to another country to keep pecking at the legitimacy of the soon-to-be governing.  The kind where lots and lots of people die.  It's ugly and it's not fair.  It does, however, get to a finish sooner than thousands of people dying unarmed in the streets because they are waiting for the President to step down or the rest of the world to intervene.

What will happen is much less clean.  The problem will continue to be discussed in committees by men and women who are not Syrian.  The Arab League will continue to send in observers who will observe mass killings.  Eventually the people will give up like they did in Iran because oil money is good.  In a few years everyone will forget that any of this happened and thousands will have died in vain.

I, personally, am much more worried about Iran getting a nuke... (I don't know if the sarcasm came through or not so I'll mention that the last statement was satirical.  It destroys the joke but proves the point.)