reed writes

How Come liberals do a better job?

There's a certain weird irony to be found in the political cycle that vacillates back and forth between Liberal/Conservative/Democrat – or liberal/conservative rule.

When Paul Martin was Finance Minister in Ottawa, he and J.C. (Jean Chretien), took the Liberal Party to the right, cut spending, maintained a decent tax base, eliminated the deficitand started to pay down the national
debt. In other words the Liberals, generally speaking, took a "conservative" approach. (Bill Clinton did pretty much the same thing).

Now…8 years of Conservative government in Washington and elsewhere, including a few in Ottawa have devastated the economy…lost jobs, lost homes, lost health care coverage, lost retirement savings, caused
environmental degradation …and the list goes on. And now these "Conservatives" are attempting to solve these problems by profligate spending. Go figure.

So how come? What gives with this weird pattern? What's the difference between Liberals and Conservatives?

The conclusion can only be that Liberals/liberals/Democrats/New Democrats actually think.

My friend Charles commented on yesterday's blog post  about my Middle East Conflict pessimism. He asked a question:

My Response

I've been thinking about this question for many years but have never tried to write down my answer because it has always seemed so hopeless. I know that it's easy for people like me to be critical – to point out the flaws in any given situation – and to write about what's wrong.

It's not quite so easy to write about what might be done to make things right. Charles focused my mind with his question and I have attempted to put down some thoughts in that regard with respect to a solution. 

 My answer is terribly inadequate, disorganized and tentative. But it's a small effort to make some suggestions.

First of all, I would have the international community, (The United Nations), set up a working group (including Israelis, Palestinians and others – for example – delegates from each permanent member of the Security Council), to define a rational process, which would work towards peace. This group would be mandated to produce a plan within say, 3 months. If the Israelis and Americans refused to participate in the planning process, as well they might, then distinguished private citizens of each country would be invited. Such a process could be initiated by the Secretary General and by a majority vote of a plenary session.

The plan would outline a variety of measures and would include all matters related to security. By order of the Security Council and the General Assembly in plenary session, the plan would be binding on all parties.

The international community should pay much much closer attention to the moderate centre of both Israeli and Palestinian society. The goal would be expressed in an address to the world by the U.N. Secretary General. His main points would be implemented through an umbrella-style World Peace Council, operating under the aegis of the General Assembly, with optional participation by all permanent members of the Security Council. 

This Council would be permanent.

Such support and encouragement would come in the form of subsidies and administrative assistance to all legitimate peace movements, wherever they existed. In connection with that I would have the U.N. provide unequivocal financial and administrative support for its World Peace Council, made up of Security Council delegates and representatives of NGO's around the globe. 

I would have the U.N. and its members recognize the Palestinian rage as expressed by Hamas; and convene separate and conditional talks with all parties, including Hamas, Fatha and Israel. Again – if these groups refused to participate, then eminent private citizens would be invited. Such separate talks would be conditional on the achievement of specific objectives within a defined time-frame
.
At the outset, I would advocate a massive aid project for the Palestinians and I mean massive! A kind of "Marshall Plan", with clear and acceptable conditions and objectives.

Hamas would be required to guarantee a peace bond…no more rockets and no more violence…and commit to continuous participation in an ongoing, permanent peace process under U.N. leadership with all permanent members of the Security Council and NGO representatives taking part. This guarantee would be forged through negotiation and set down in writing as "The Palestine-Israel Peace and Security Bond" and would be signed by Hamas, Israel and the Palestine Authority.

Israel would be required to obey all international laws and U.N. resolutions with the exception of the one guaranteeing the right of return of Palestinians to their original homes. That matter would need to be settled by a reparations regime.

The U.N. would require Israel to take down the Wall or at least re-route it so it doesn't encroach on Palestinian territory.

Israel would also be required to submit to regular inspections by the IAEA and sign the NPT.

The U.N. would arrange for full reparations to be paid to all descendants of Palestinians who lost their homes and land in 1948. Both Israelis and Palestinians would be required to take part in a formally convened "truth and reconciliation" process, probably under the joint chairmanship of the Quartet or some other body delegated by The Security Council and general Assembly in plenary session,

The City of Jerusalem would be united under an International Council, with Israeli and Palestinian participation. It would become the capital city of both peoples as well as an international city open to all peoples of the planet.

The Palestinians would be guaranteed a contiguous state without roadblocks and without boycotts and with ease of transportation for goods and services by road and/or rail.

All crossings in and out of Egypt, Lebanon, Israel and Syria, would be manned by a defined security group consisting of Israelis, Palestinians, representatives of other regional governments and International Peacekeepers, drawn from both eastern and western nations. This security corps would undergo training in a neutral country such as Switzerland and would be under the command of the U.N. Secretary General and his personal delegate.

There are a number of other steps that I would also urge…including the provision of a clearly identified, fully endorsed international unarmed police force, to secure all borders and help supervise the necessary border adjustments.

I would propose that this entire project be financed by a special levy on all U.N. members, consisting of 5% of their military budgets. That figure could easily be in the one to two trillion dollar range. Moneys that are collected but not spent on the Middle East Project, would be dedicated to the solution of other so-called intractable problems in other parts of the world.

Finally, I would fire Tony Blair.

Time is running out

I’ve visited the Middle East often – to most Arab countries, the Palestinian Territories and Israel.

I’ve always felt a deep sympathy for both Israelis and Palestinians, as they pursue their tortured way through history. Each travels a historic path isolated from one another, except for a few contacts at the edges of their societies.

A Rabbi I know says that she longs for peace and weeps at the impossibility of ever achieving it. I have acquaintances in the Israeli peace movement, from all sectors of society and they’ve have become increasingly pessimistic.

I know some soldiers, who have refused to serve where Palestinians live; they believe that the “occupation” is wrong. They’ve done time in prison because of their stand and Zionist Israelis call them traitors, insisting that the occupation is necessary because of Palestinian terrorism. The soldiers say, well – if your country were occupied by someone’s army, you’d probably fight too.

I once believed in the so-called “two-state solution” – one for the Palestinians and one for the Israelis.

• But that would mean obedience to international law.

• It would mean changes that the Israeli government won’t make. 

• It would mean dismantling the illegal settlements in East Jerusalem and
  the West Bank – not an option; that would cause violence between the
  Israeli settlers and the army.

The second option is the one-state solution. A country shared by both Palestinians and Israelis.

The problem with that is that it would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state; so that’s not on the table, even though such prominent Jews as Martin Buber advocated it more than 60 years ago and Avraham Burg is writing about it now.

Most Israelis say they would rather fight forever.

The third option – often discussed, is the transfer of all Palestinians to Jordan. That’s the position of Benjamin Netanyahu, now running for the Israeli presidency. He says that Jordan should be designated as the Palestinian Homeland. But the forced removal of all Palestinians from their remaining land would have repercussions of the most devastating kind.

I no longer believe in the 2-state solution.

The situation will become much worse before it gets better – if it ever does – unless Obama puts his foot down.

When I first went to the Middle East, there was no “jihad” – not much in the way of “Islamic extremism”, but there was terror – by Palestinian factions and by Israeli settlers; both extremist groups that claimed to be fighting for their “rights”.

It's all so different now…and it's the fault of both sides…but mainly, it's the fault of a negligent, careless, selfish and indifferent international community.

The conflict has become a “religious” war that has brought in Iran, the Lebanese Hezbollah, Jewish Settlers and others – including al Qaeda. This religious extremism on the part of some Muslims and some Jews has come about because the international community has failed to implement a just peace.

That failure has brought the world to a very dangerous place of never-ending conflict. 

60 years ago Harry Truman said this:

It now seems that even the wisest of leaders cannot reverse the march of history.  President-elect Obama has said he will support Israel’s present course, regardless of the consequences.

But Obama Ought To Remember This:

I hereby take back anything negative I may have said or thought about Barrack Obama

He is proving to be a true leader.

But apart from any mea culpa I might be expressing, as a Canadian I have what some might consider to be a rather mundane sense of collateral satisfaction about this whole business. It's not unlike the warm feelings that flowed through me as Conrad Black was trundled off to his Florida Retreat.

We are now finally, I hope – rid of David frum once and for all.

No more will we be subjected to the rhetorical nonsense that sweet david wrote for the Boy Prince.

No more "Axis of Evil" Tripe.

No more angry nonsense about "them" and "us".

In his first few days in office, Barrack Obama, the first African American President of the United States is behaving in a civilised way. Obama has – in a few short hours – transformed the United States from a nation of narrow-minded selfish neocons, to a world class nation, which believes that the future of our world depends on mutual respect and "mutual self-interest".

OUT is the belligerence…the mailed fist…the mantra of – "You are with us or you are against us".

IN is the language of understanding, rationality and compromise.

Lets just hope and pray that he has the inner steel to stick to his values.

Lets hope that he will continue to refuse to bow to the reactionary forces of the men and women who sucked up to and profited from the administration of his predecessor.

And Lets pray for him in whatever ways we can.

I think it's safe to say that the hopes of humankind are in Obama's corner.

As for David – may he be consigned to the dustbin of history where he belongs.

And may his Mother Barbara rest more easily in her heaven.

Best Move Yet Toward Solving The Palestine-Israel Conflict

Obama's appointment of this man 

to be his Middle East Envoy, shows one thing about the new President: he is very smart.

The appointment means that the United States is serious now about moving forward in a more balanced way and offers hope for a new direction.

The question is this: will Obama have the will, the endurance and the resilience to stand behind his envoy, give him 100% support – and back him up with the right action. Because words alone are not enough.

What is needed now is action.

• That means:  a massive aid and construction programme in Gaza.
• an international presence in The West Bank to protect the weak
• a requirement that Israel act in both the spirit and the letter of international law.

Israel must be protected too. But not at the expense of fundamental human rights and decency.

You can read more about George Mitchell Here