Cold War II

Most of us have little or no memory of what it was like to live in constant fear of the Russians. That was in the age of our parents and perhaps our older siblings. We have certainly read many books on the topic, but we have not experienced it ourselves. This could change very quickly.
We are witnessing history repeat itself. The previous century experienced two World Wars and one Cold War and there appears, at least for the sake of symmetry, to be a second Cold War on the way, if it is not already upon us.

There are several concerns that I would like to express about the brewing conflict between the West and Russia.

1) As an American (NOT as an Israeli!), I understand that we can afford to be patient with Iran, to exhaust certain if not all diplomatic options. A nuclear Iran would certainly be a threat to America and the West, but not an immediate one, not one that could not be contained or moderated. There are many uncertainties that surround the Iranian nuclear program. However, as Russia gathers against us, there are no questions. We are all too aware of their potential and they have already given us a taste of their willingness to use force in the recent continuing conflict in Georgia. Russia has been on the top before and wants to return to her former prestige. Russia is an immediate threat that must be dealt with properly and swiftly. The problem is, that in our multi-cultural, post-modern, political correctness we will lose the war from the outset if we do not react. Time is a luxury we cannot afford. The more we wait, the more opportunities we give them time to gather allies and to make plans (which they probably already have). We must not lose time in doing the same, in preparing for what we fear most. I don't know if the answer has to be militarily or diplomatically, but either way, there must be a reaction, it must be quick and without hesitation. We cannot afford to show weakness.

2) Europe. Europe is a staunch ally of America and although they are generally more liberal, which only accentuates the concern mentioned above, in the end of the day, they will side with us. However, they have stymied themselves over energy. Perhaps they were right in pursuing any and all forms of alternative or renewable energy. They are mostly dependent on others for energy, especially the Russians. The Europeans will have an extremely difficult time dealing with the Russians because if offered any provocation, Medvedev(or Putin, or whoever is really in charge) could cut off Europe's electricity in an instant. All the more reason for a quick and decisive reaction.

3) My last concern is about how far we are willing to go. In my opinion, one of the major reasons that the Palestinians are winning the media war against Israel is that they are not ashamed to lie to further their cause. Their lies are perhaps not outright, malicious ones but more subtle omissions of truths, half or twisted truths. I think that much is the same with the Russians. They are willing to tell outright lies, to tell half-truths, partial truths etc., whatever it takes. This might not be beneficial to them in the long-run, but in the short term, they come off looking better. I am not looking to support a policy of lying but I think that our leaders must be aware of this fact and must have proper guidance on how to deal with it.

In light of the information revolution (i.e. the internet) and the modern age of gloabalization there will obviously be many differences between the Cold War that ended in 1989 and the conflict that is approaching, much like there were many differences between the two world wars. It will be our job to ensure that history will repeat itself to the extent that the war will remain contained and will end without violence.

Ayal

I return...

So many people have recently asked me to continue blogging after an extended break. As I promised, I will return to the issue of oil and politics.

The price of oil (as measured in the markets per gallon) today and for the past several weeks has been hovering between 130 and 135 dollars per barrel. This is by far the most oil has been sold for, ever! As I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, there is an intimate connection between the price of oil and economy. This is because our Western economies run almost entirely on the use of oil- related energy.

I would briefly like to explain the long-term process that is happening in front of us today and hopefully by doing so I will allay some of our fears. Basically, cheap oil allows Western, industrialized nations i.e. the United States, Britain, German, China and Japan to buy and consume more oil. This fuels and sparks industry which is the basis for their economies. As expected, this causes economic growth and stability. However, the losers in this equation are the oil-producing nations who are essentially being "raped" for their oil. They are not getting full value for their product.

It must be understood, that most oil-producing nations have not developed any serious industrial infrastructure outside the oil business. They also have poor, traditional populations that are constantly growing beyond their means. Oil-producing countries are thus strapped for cash. As the oil consuming nations continue to grow at the expense of the oil producing nations, a volatile situation is created where the oil producing nations want to close the ever-widening gap between them and the industrial nations. Their method is to raise the price of oil.

It is not that they literally set the price of oil, as would a store-owner. These nations belong to OPEC, a group of the largest oil producing states. Together, they control of the price of oil by limiting production. If there is less oil in the markets, then the price naturally rises.

Now, as the price of oil rises and rises, the industrial nations can afford to consume less and less. Eventually, the price reaches a certain point and the economies of the oil consuming nations almost reach a standstill. Recently, we have witnessed telltale signs such as the price of gas in America rising above $4 and riots in Spain. What traditionally happens at this point in time, when consumption radically drops, the price of oil plunges. Then the whole process repeats itself: Low prices induce Western growth until the gap must once again be closed and so on.

It is important to note that each time the price rises and drops, it never falls to its original price. Thus, despite this process, the price is indeed on a continuous climb.

To summarize, the prediction of my professor is that the price of oil will not rise above the 140 line. What this means is that imminently, the price of oil should drop and, although it will not return to the 60 dollars per barrel that it was not so long ago, it might drop to the 80-90 range.

I hope that I was concise and understood in explaining some of the recent processes. There are several other factors that determine the price of oil. Please feel free to comment or email me with questions or responses.

A Response to John Dugard

John Dugard, the outgoing Special Rapporteur to the UN Human Rights Council on Palestine and Other Occupied Arab Territories, continued to reveal his anti-Israel bias in a recent interview published in the Jerusalem Post. (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1206632349014&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) Mr. Dugard's favoritism begins with his sources, when he adheres to B'tselem's casualty figures. B'tselem's figures cannot be considered objective when their overt goal is "to change Israeli policy in the Occupied Territories." (For more information on B'tselem's bias, see http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/b_tselem.)

Aside from Mr. Dugard's problematic sources, throughout the interview, he adopts two central arguments that further betray his bigotry. Firstly he consistently attempts to hide behind his mandate, which he readily admits is "limited to human rights violations committed by the Israeli government and the IDF." This self-imposed qualification allows him to ignore the true context in which these supposed human rights violations occur. Mr. Dugard expresses disappointment with Israeli security measures in the West Bank, such as the security fence, and the roadblocks. Both have proven to be extremely effective in preventing Palestinian suicide bombers from reaching civilian populations. Islamic Jihad leader Ramadan Abdallah Shalah even recently admitted that the fence affects their capabilities. "...they built a separation fence in the West Bank . We do not deny that it limits the ability of the resistance [i.e., the terrorist organizations] to arrive deep within [Israeli territory] to carry out suicide bombing attacks..." (http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/ct_250308e.htm)

Mr. Dugard's second argument is one that has been worn out, yet still proves a challenge for many. He refers to his personal experience as a South African, and in several contexts he compares the situation in Israel to the situation in South Africa. Firstly, he compares Palestinian terrorism to that of the ANC (the African National Congress). This is a vulgar falsity that compares violent resistance against South African government and military targets to horrific terrorism directed against innocent Israeli citizens.

Mr. Dugard continues to compare the situations and claims that just as South Africa negotiated against the backdrop of violence, Israel should not condition negotiations on the cessation of Palestinian violence. The glaring difference is that negotiations in South Africa were over laws and culture, whereas in Israel, the issue is territory. Successful negotiations in South Africa benefited all, and the violence ceased soon afterwards. An Israeli pull-out from territories (without any apparent return) would not guarantee an culmination to the violence, especially in light of the rise of Hamas. Mr. Dugard tends to focus on Hamas statements that are more moderate than their charter, political statements that speak only of ending the occupation. Mr. Dugard admits that he is ignoring the Hamas charter that explicitely speaks of the destruction of the State of Israel. "The day that enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In face of the Jews' usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised." (http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm)

We have here just another example of the worldwide phenomenon that is known as anti-Israel bias.

Democracy

Today, I want to write about democracy. I only want to explore what is known as the "democratic peace" theory. In short, the theory states that as a general rule, (there are always exceptions) two democratic states will not go to war with each other. When looking back in history, this is certainly arguable especially considering the ambiguous and dynamic definition of democracy.

Either way, there is certainly a trend that democratic states tend to be more peaceful. Not only do they tend not to fight with each other, but statistically, democracies are less likely to start wars even with non-democracies. Obviously, there are many wars and sadly we don't have to look very far to find to find prime examples of democracies vs. non-democracies but, once again, there is such a trend.

Furthermore, if democracies do decide to go to war, 80 percent of the time, they are likely to leave victorious. How encouraging is that!

There seems to be 3 explanations as to why specifically democracies are less violent. The first relates to democracy's natural structure. That there are checks and balances. The country is not run by an emotional, possibly unstable dictator, who has absolute power. The decision-making process is long and arduous. Additionally, public opinion plays a much larger role in democracies and the public has the potential to seriously affect policy.

The second explanation is that most of the time, democracy is synonymous with liberalism. Ever since childhood, we are inculcated with morals that value discussion and negotiation over violence and conflict.

The third reason has to do with economics. One of the more essential elements to democracies is a large middle class. (A large middle class is usually the result of capitalism, especially in its social democratic format.) The ultimate symbol of a large middle class is McDonalds. Thus, the "democratic peace" rule can also be referred to as the "McDonalds law." Capitalistic countries are fully aware of the costly price of war. In war, many middle class citizens stand to lose excessive amounts of time and money. They are empowered by their right to vote and they indeed influence and attempt to avoid costly wars whenever possible.

Once again, this does not mean that democracies are visions of Eden. However, when it comes to war, democracies are indeed more apt to look for peaceful ways out.
There is a statement by someone famous (I don't remember who...if someone does please let me know) that goes along the lines that democracy is, by no means, the ultimate type of government, but that in the meantime it is certainly the best of the worst.

Good night and good luck.

Oil

I'm sure we are all aware of explanations that attempt to explain entire systems on the basis of one idea. For example, some would be able to explain all of your health problems based on what you eat or don't eat.

In history and politics, I have encountered this phenomenon with regards to oil. Now, I know that often oil can be considered part of conspiracy theories, especially when it comes to the recent war in Iraq, however, we have to understand that ever since the industrial revolution of the 1800's, all modern and advanced countries are dependent on this precious resource that is known as oil, whether for personal transportation or industry. Right now, I will attempt to provide a small insight into several processes that are intrinsically connected to oil and perhaps, at a later point in time, the discussion will continue.

Oil is very important for an American living in Israel for two reasons. One, America is the largest oil consumer in the world and therefore has a tremendous effect and influence on all that happens in the oil markets, from the process of drawing the oil through its purification and to the setting of its prices. The second reason that oil is so personal is that at least 60 percent of the world's oil is found in the greater Middle East.

Now, everyone knows that the world markets are down, especially the American market. In almost every article on this subject, the price of oil has been mentioned. This is simply because all modernized, industrialized countries run on oil.

There is a specific reason Bush refers to Venezuela and Iran as the axis of evil. Both are very involved in OPEC, the organization for oil producing countries, and both are leading the calls to keep the price of oil as high as possible.

Traditionally, America was able to control the price of oil through Saudi Arabia, who, as the most fruitful country in terms of oil had a large amount of influence on the other countries. America would sell weapons and military equipment to the Saudis in return for guarantees that prices remain reasonable. Ever since the Asian market crash of 1997, Saudi Arabia's power and influence, as well as American influence in Saudi Arabia has dropped only to be replaced by Iran, who is not willing to deal with the Americans and the feeling is obviously mutual. Iran and Venezuela lead the cries that the West is taking advantage of the oil countries by bribing them with weapons. They want to ensure that those who want oil will pay its true worth.

As of now, it seems that Iran and co. are winning the battle as oil prices have been over 100 dollars per barrel. This is one factor in the current recession (or not, depending on definitions of recession) in the US. When oil prices are high, highly industrialized economies slow down because they cannot afford to purchase the same amounts of oil that they might have when the prices were lower. What will eventually happen (it has happened before) is that the prices will rise and rise, countries will buy less and less oil, until the price of oil drastically drops because there is no longer any demand.

It must be understood that most of the work in oil producing countries is done by foreign workers. There are enormous amounts of foreign workers in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar etc. When the price of oil dramatically drops, most of these workers find themselves on their way home, unemployed (see the beginning of the movie Syrianna). What this leads to is eventual waves of terror.

I am fully aware that not all terrorists are poor and unemployed, in fact, most are educated and middle class. However, it must be understood that the processes described above are exactly that, processes. They are processes that take place over several years at a time. For example, the energy crisis of the 1970's eventually let to the First Intifada in the 1980's. It must be kept in mind that obviously the energy crisis was not the direct cause for the Intifada, but it definitely had an effect and in light of other historical instances(I can't remember them now) there indeed seems to be a connection between oil and terrorism.

I could go on and on and perhaps in other posts I will elaborate. Personally, I am not sure I accept that oil can really explain everything that goes on in the world, but I am certainly fascinated by the attempts to do so and I think that even if there are other factors, it does not negate the importance of oil and energy, and there must be some truth in these attempts.

Israeli academia

A recent study has been published by the Hebrew University Shein Center for Social Sciences written by doctoral candidate Tal Nitzan. (I have not read the paper myself, all following information is based on journalistic sources.) The thesis is called, "Controlled Occupation: The Lack of Military Rape in the Palestinian Conflict." Mrs. Nitzan recognizes the fact that Israeli soldiers rape Palestinian women relatively less than soldiers in other occupations armies. For this she provides two possible reasons, none of which include any moral or religious values that absolutely forbid the act of rape. The first reason given is that the Palestinians are so intensely dehumanized that no normal soldier would ever consider raping a Palestinian, same as he would never consider raping a cat or a dog. The second answer that she gives is that Israel has such a demographic problem that if Israeli soldiers were to think of the consequences of raping Palestinian women i.e. that the children would be Palestinian, they would immediately remove all thoughts of rape from their minds.

Without entering the discussion of occupation vs. no occupation, and ignoring the absolutely ridiculousness of her first proposition (I was a soldier myself, and no such dehumanizing occurs), I would like to address her second supposed answer. The first problem is that not everyone agrees that Israeli is in the midst of a demographic crisis. Each demographic study has different standards of who to count-to include or not to include citizens abroad etc.-as well as different ways to interpret the numbers. Aside from that, in Africa, warring tribes serially rape the women of the other tribe. This is not done for sexual pleasure, rather they hope to impregnate the women so that they do indeed give birth to as many children as possible. This is done after all the males have been brutally killed off. The purpose of the rape is to bring about the complete destruction of the tribe in the worse way possible i.e. not by killing everyone, but by completely "contaminating" all the female members. What is ridiculous about Tal's proposition, is that she assumes that Israeli soldiers so dehumanize the Palestinian women, yet at the same time, they won't rape them because they are worried about the supposed demographic problem. If Israeli soldiers are indeed as brutal as she makes them out to be, they would be raping as many women as possible if only to produce Israeli kids. If Israeli soldiers are indeed so disgusting, they would not let the product of their rapes be Palestinian. She assumes the worse, yet at the same time holds the soldiers to a higher standard in that they would have to count the children as Palestinian and not as Israelis.

This is all aside from the ridiculous fact that she ignores any possible moral and or religious reasons for not wanting to rape. In her mind, its obvious that all "brutal" occupying soldiers should automatically be looking to rape those they are occupying and there must be some reason why Israeli soldiers don't. It doesn't even cross her mind that Israeli soldiers are not brutal, disgusting pigs and that we try to be good, moral, and some, religious, people.
So, now we are getting blamed for raping Palestinians (type in something to the effect of "Israeli soldiers rape Palestinian women" at Google or Youtube and see what you get...) as well as for not raping them!

This points to the status of current Israeli academia where the Israeli Sociology Association even gave Nitzan's paper a mark of excellence. :(
Did you all know, that the British attempts last year to excommunicate Israeli academia was initiated or at least supported by an Israeli, Dr. Ilan Pappe, formerly of Haifa University?
Sorry to leave off on a depressing note.
Ayal

Truth vs. Unity

After I began blogging last week, I realized my blog was solely based on my university lectures, that, to my sorrow are supposed to finish in exactly a month. Ever since this realization, I have been pondering how, if at all, I can continue my blog over the summer. Fist of all, I will indeed have two lectures a week that are to continue after Pesach both of which provide a ray of hope. Secondly, I still have several papers that I have yet to research and write which should still provide me with opportunities to blog, albeit, less frequently. I realized this, when, yesterday, I couldn't come up with something random and interesting from my lectures until I started doing some preliminary research for one of my papers...

There are two basic prototypes that demand our attention regarding the authority that is recognized in Torah scholars. The first is the legitimacy that is granted from bottom up. This legitimacy is based upon our recognition of the scholar's superior knowledge. We thus obligate ourselves to obey this scholar only because of his knowledge and the relevance of his arguments. The second is legitimacy that is from top down. We are obligated to listen to and obey such a scholar because his legitimacy is more or less G-d given. It is our obligation to accept his words and teachings no matter what their content is.
To make a crude generalization, it seems that the second model fits the chareidi community whereas the first model seems to jive more with modern orthodoxy and others. What's interesting about this is that regarding the second model, one of the many reasons given for our strict adherence to the scholars words-no matter what they are-is that we are interested in preventing halachic anarchy i.e. that everyone does what they see fit(Sefer Hachinuch). For this reason, we find Talmudic statements to the fact that even if a scholar tells you that right is left and that left is right, you must listen and accept it. What we see is that, the chareidi community (again a gross generalization), a community that often makes claims of containing absolute truth actually has little interest in what the truth actually is, whether left is right or right is left. What concerns the chareidi community is to ensure scholarly unity in the face of anarchy. On the other hand, the first model i.e. that of a scholar's authority based on his superior knowledge, is one that is generally adopted by more open communities. These same communities are more apt to opinions and positions that negate or lessen absolute truth. Yet, in light of the model mentioned above it is specifically those same scholars who are not so much looking to protect scholarly unity at all costs. Rather they seem to be striving to reach the truth (which is ostensibly less important, or even non-existent) because it is their scholarship, their knowledge, their arguments that grant them our legitimacy.
It is important to note, that in real life, nothing is so extreme and generally we find ourselves somewhere in between the two models, or creating some combination of both.

If the above is not 100 percent clear, I apologize. I am not even sure it is clear to myself. But when I read it, I thought that it reflected a certain inconsistency in our understandings of the different communities and/or perceptions of halachic authority.
Have a good night.

"Scholars, take care with your words!"

The Mishnah in Pirkei Avot warns the chachamim to take care to monitor the words that they speak. The reason given is that the scholars have an enormous responsibility to ensure that their words and teachings are understood properly, that they should not be taken out of context. This, according to the Mishnah leads to eventual exile. I think that this is a lesson we can all apply to our daily lives and discussions. We have to make sure that we use the proper terminology, otherwise we may not be understood in the way we had originally intended.
In the realm of politics (of course) one such example is the separation of religion and state. The differentiation must be made between Arab and secular calls for separation of religion and state in Israel. We must understand that the dry, simple meaning of the concept refers to a complete and utter detachment of all religion from the state. In the case of Israel, this would mean the discontinuation of the "Jewish State" as we know of today, where most (if not all) of our national symbols are based upon the Jewish tradition. Even many of our laws are based upon Jewish law. As you can imagine, this is the type of state that many Israeli Arabs call for; a state for all of its citizens. The concept that is most commonly intended when discussing the separation of religion and state, especially in Israel, is the struggle between the religious and the secular. When those from Meretz and others like them call for separation of religion and state, they have absolutely no intention to negate Israel's Judaism! They only want to remove the power of the religious institution, that they not be coerced to get married and divorced according to specific religious regulations etc. that do not particularly have any meaning for them.
As we have seen, we must be careful when using certain terminology, that everyone knows what we are referring to. Keep in mind that when discussing the separation of religion and state in Israel, most often the reference in only to institutionalized religion as it exists today, and not to the absolute disconnection between religion and state. If you partake in such a discussion, perhaps clarify in a sentence or two to what exactly you are referring.
As a side point, its interesting to note that there are even modern religious philosophers that make claims in support of separating religion and state in Israel, something which seems to contradict our entire concept of religious zionism as normally viewed by Rav Kook and others.
Have a good night.
Ayal

Random Pieces of Information = RPI

So I have wanted to start a blog for a while now and I only recently thought of something that I could regularly or at least semi-regularly write about. The nature of studying Political Science and Middle-Eastern History is that I am bound to come across random pieces of information that I (and hopefully others) find especially interesting. From all my lectures, I think that I can provide about one "rpi" per day. Once again these will random pieces of information that I found particularly interesting and ones that I would want to remember so that I can use them in future conversations etc.

I would like to start off with something from a lecture called "Islamic Jurisprudence." The class delves into the different school of Islamic thought and legislature, their basic tenets, the differences between them etc. This past Wednesday we were dealing with the strictest of the four schools of thought, the "chanbalim." One of the more famous students of Ahmed Ibn Chanbal (the founder) is a scholar by the name of Ibn Taymiah. He is know for his strict adherence to the sacred Islamic texts and his dramatic rulings regarding Jihad. He was the first to categorize non-observant Muslims as heretics, therefore opening the door for the permission to fight against them. He was essentially the first to officially sanction the killing of Muslims by other Muslims. Ibn Taymiah is known as the philosophic father of all modern fundamentalists. This is most interesting when considering his opinions and rulings regarding the status of Jerusalem. Despite popular Islamic belief that Jerusalem is the third holiest city in Islam, there are many scholars that disagree and give little sanctity to Jerusalem. Ibn Taymiah is one who harshly opposes the giving of any sanctity to Jerusalem on the account that he considers it one of the best examples for "bid'ah" which in Arabic means innovation and is something that strictly forbidden. This all just goes to prove that the Jerusalem issue is only political and has nothing to do with religion. The fact that there are opinions that sanctify the Holy City and others that don't, just goes to prove that the Muslims that do claim sovereignty over Jerusalem do so for political reasons only. Furthermore, the issue of Jerusalem reappeared in Islamic scholarship only after the start of Zionism.
As a side point, Muslims do not have the same conception of consistency when it comes to following one scholar or one opinion. They are known for legitimately picking and choosing, something which is generally looked down upon from a strictly Orthodox perspective. So for them there is no real contradiction between adopting the policies of Ibn Taymiah in one area and completely ignoring them in another. Either way, I thought this was a particularly fascinating random piece of information.
I would appreciate any and all feedback.
Shabbat Shalom