Obama vs. Obama in Jerusalem

My last blog was written before Obama’s speech to students in Jerusalem. The two aspects of Obama, often so frustrating on our political home turf, were on full display.

Obama did everything he could to indicate that he and Netanyahu were in lock-step on Iran, including the option of military action; he went even further than previous administrations in increasing the enormous US investment in Israel’s military superiority in the region; he reaffirmed the blockade against Gaza and opposition to UN recognition of Palestine; he backed off from demanding that the aggressive settlement push be stopped. In sum, Obama renewed the blessings of the United States on the occupation that most of the world condemns.

On the other hand, he chose to give his main speech to the youth, not to the Knesset. He asked them to put themselves in the shoes of Palestinian youth, who deserve to be free in a state of their own, not living under an occupying army. As students interviewed by the NY Times remarked, he spoke of justice, settler violence, and occupation, words “that Netanyahu doesn’t want to hear.” He urged them to devote themselves to peace, to make their leaders change direction, to insist on renewed efforts toward “two states”. It was Obama inspiration at its best, and the students responded with enthusiasm.

Actually, the students the Times interviewed recognized both sides of Obama in Jerusalem.  Among the eight interviewed, two were Palestinian. I wish I could reproduce their comments here, because, while differing one from the other, they were generally insightful and refreshing. But I can’t give you a link to the Times article because of frustrating restrictions that limit access to subscribers — another small reminder of the “haves and have-nots” of the digital age. Nor will it help to give you the date of the article, because it appeared in an Internet version, not in any print edition as far as I can tell. The only way I can get this to you is to have the Times email the link; so, if you want it, click on comments (below this post) and include your email address.

* * * * *

A couple of thoughts more before I leave “Israel and Palestine”, for a while at least — 

1) As discouraging as “two state” prospects may now seem, it's worth asking what is meant by a “one state solution.” That idea comes from very different sources with very divergent motivations and goals. Some mean one integrated state with guarantees for full equality and human rights for all. Some mean state power in the hands of one ethnic or fundamentalist religious group, whether it be a majority or, in the case of the settlers, a minority “chosen” to rule over “biblical lands.” In any case, can anyone conceive of a “one state solution” at this stage of history coming about other than by war and conquest?

2) Netanyahu and his think-alike advocates in the United States say that Israel’s security takes precedence over every other concern, including the risks of war against Iran and the consequences of the expanding occupation. But history shows that there never can be an occupation that doesn’t evoke resistance; there never has been a movement of resistance to occupation that didn’t lead some to acts of violence against the occupiers.

What we come back to again is the central imperative, mounting pressure worldwide to end the occupation and to prevent a new war.

Israel and Palestine

“The Arc of the Moral Universe Is Long, but It Bends Toward Justice”   MLK

The long arc of history may bend toward justice, but that’s hardly self-evident in the conflict over Israel and Palestine. As time goes on, more and more “facts on the ground” are thrown in the way of hopes for a just resolution.

The “settlers” push on. On the eve of Obama’s visit, there is news: “New Apartments Will Complicate Jerusalem Issue — Israeli residences are being sandwiched into the fabric of Arab East Jerusalem…” (NY Times, March 16, 2013) By now, most Palestinians and Israelis have lost whatever faith they had in the so-called “peace process” and “two state solution.” Palestinian leadership, despite tentative unity gestures between Hamas and Fatah, remains divided on how to resist the occupation and on ultimate goals. Despite Israel’s military strength — as well as its favored status and vast support from the US government and private interests — its expanding occupation and repeated resort to massive force have isolated Israel among nations and aroused widespread condemnation.

Perhaps the recent Israeli elections signify that things are not entirely bleak. The ultra-right and religious fundamentalists were weakened. Although domestic issues were dominant, it appears that the Israeli public and most of its military and civilian leaders don’t share Netanyahu’s gung-ho attitude toward war with Iran.

* * * * *

The questions are too many and too complicated to try to consider in one Op-Ed piece. I encounter differing attitudes among my friends and in the current events discussion groups that I attend. In some aspects, my thinking is far from fixed or confident.  Here I do want to express some things I find troubling about a debate that would focus now on whether the ultimate “solution” resides in a one state vs. a two state formula. This is relevant to the way some issues of conscience are presented by philosopher Joseph Levine in a challenging article, On Questioning the Jewish State (NY Times, March 9, 2013):

"Defenders of Israeli policies routinely accuse Israel’s critics of denying her right to exist, while the critics (outside of a small group on the left, where I now find myself) bend over backward to insist that, despite their criticisms, of course they affirm it. The general mainstream consensus seems to be that to deny Israel’s right to exist is a clear indication of anti-Semitism (a charge Jews like myself are not immune to), and therefore not an option for people of conscience."

The essential target of Levine’s challenge “is found in the crucial four words that are often tacked on to the phrase ‘Israel’s right to exist’ — namely, ‘… as a Jewish state’.”

I agree fully that no state should define itself by institutionalizing favored status for a particular ethnic or religious populace. Nevertheless, many states fit that description to one degree or another, and where they do, discrimination against the “other”, inequality and oppression are always present. Israel is no exception. As an occupying power ruling by force over Arab populations, it has earned comparison to former colonial and apartheid regimes. 

There surely are issues of conscience here, but to conflate them with the question of whether Israel should exist can only divide people of conscience. It deflects from urgent problems where conscience should weigh in now.

The way in which states may evolve, and new ones may arise, will be determined not by formulas, but by people, their struggles and some unforeseeable events. Whatever one conceives of as the eventual solution, conscience should drive people to fight for change in Israel, Palestine, and, probably above all, in the USA. Both for people unwilling to give up on the possibility of two viable states and, I’m sure, for people who think as Professor Levine does, the givens are: an unrelenting fight to end the occupation and reverse the settler grabs; support for a unified state of Palestine; the fight within each and every country for full equal rights and the separation of church and state.

Perhaps the most vital matter of conscience and humanity, especially in the United States and Israel, is absolute resistance to war against Iran or anywhere else. Today, the first day of Obama’s trip, puts in focus the biggest obstacle to progress: the unprecedented scale of US military investment in a regime that is committed to expanding occupation and acts of war.  

Of drones and war

The weird, treacherous world of drones….. 

The first genuine old-fashioned filibuster in a very long time …. Rand Paul, supported by a few GOP colleagues, bravely resisted the pressure of his bladder for 13 hours!

The object of the heroic protest was restricted: the Administration’s ominous refusal to promise that drones would never be used to assassinate Americans on American soil. That’s no small matter in these bizarre times when the incredible often becomes commonplace. Yet, as Bishop Tutu has angrily called to attention, that’s hardly the voice of conscience; rather it can be taken as another unashamed avowal of “American exceptionalism”.  Drones can take “other” lives on “other” soils on demand from Washington — overriding sovereignty, legality, due process and concerns about the “unintended” elimination of all who happen to come within target range.

Now that land wars have proved unwinnable (from Vietnam to Iraq to Afghanistan), the attempted alternative is assassination (without borders) by drones and Special Forces under command of an unprecedentedly military CIA. But it may turn out that drone and CIA warfare will prove as counterproductive and unsustainable in present times as traditional war. For one thing, drone attacks are only practical when the target is in countries too weak or underdeveloped to retaliate. So as Africa and parts of Asia become expanding targets, blowback also expands against superpower arrogance and perceived contempt for the lives of people of color. The Gallop poll finds that 92% of Pakistanis, whose country suffers the highest concentration of drone strikes, now condemn the United States. 

Of course, the new weapons featured in this latest theory and practice of war can’t be contained “for US use only”. Here and abroad, military, police and control freaks all want drones. And they are accessible in all conceivable varieties. As with computer hacking, another potential instrument of intervention and modern warfare, the necessary imagination and skills are not exclusively American.

If the CIA can conduct global war operations without legal or moral restriction, may not others act or retaliate in kind? Just the other day, the US military disclaimed authorship for two drone attacks that occurred in Pakistan; it must have been the Pakistan military…. or somebody else!

This is a tough world and answers often seem out of reach. What we know is that in our times the mindset of war as a solution— whether by armies, drones or doomsday weapons — makes things terribly worse. Problems and enemies proliferate; friends are lost.

Whatever forms of narrowly focused force may sometimes be necessary and legally justifiable, any promise for a better future demands breaking with war and all its reinventions. Only rabid hawks are never ready to give up on war.  The hard part is to overcome the entrenched global policies of military and economic interventionism that, decade after decade, drag us down the path to war.

headlines...

Sometimes headlines tell a whole story. 

These are clipped from the front page of the New York Times on two successive days, Monday and Tuesday of this week. (Click to enlarge.) And the headline to come on Wednesday? Here's the preview via digital news:         

Record High Close for Dow 

Who can take a look at what's happening and still be in denial? Nothing hurts the 1% — recession, sequester or "recovery"; the billions keep coming, no limit. No limit either to the burdens put on the rest of society, especially those who struggle the most. They take hit after hit from the skewed priorities and values of the obscenely unfair system that calls itself "free enterprise."

The problem is much deeper than can be understood as a political contest between the GOP and the Democratic Party. Major constituencies that favor the Democratic Party certainly want to change the miserable state of affairs. They are trying to move the country in a more progressive and humane direction, although the record and role of dominant Democratic leadership is often part of the problem, It is itself too cozy with and complicit in the enormous power that big money holds over Washington and all of the country's politics. Still, if we are to move forward, it's necessary to face up to the absolute need to break the GOP's stranglehold on Congress, its dog-in-the-manger blockade of government.  That's very hard to accomplish even though the GOP seems to be in desperate straits. Whatever progress can be achieved right now if public anger is brought to bear on Congress, it's not too early to look to next year's mid-term elections. Conventional wisdom says low voter turnout is inevitable in an off-year election, and shameless gerrymandering has the game fixed in advance.

Can the pundits be proved wrong (once again)? Given what the economic royalists have done to the country, is there enough public anger (and the will to organize) to beat the odds? 

What do you think?

Something Old, Something New

For first visitors, some background:

This website picks up where Leon’s Op-Ed left off when Mac closed down its website services a couple of years ago. The previous website was established soon after September 11, 2001 with the operational input of a computer expert, nephew Fred Taub of Seattle, who contributed all the technical know-how to keep it going. There were numerous postings over the years, and many of the commentaries written after 9/11 and during the first years of the second Iraq War were compiled in a book published in 2003.

This reincarnated website provides the tools with which even an amateur can run the whole thing, and that’s what I’m now doing.  As before, my themes will vary: current events, books, music, movies and some personal reflections on a long life — probably in that order. If I don’t change my mind, topics on the near horizon are drones, my reaction to Ian McEwan’s latest book, Sweet Tooth, and a beautiful movie, The Sessions.

For now, it’s two short items: about a statue on Treasure Island, San Francisco, and an email exchange of opinions about Harry Truman.

On Treasure Island, there is a huge and marvelous statue of a dancing woman. It’s called “Bliss”. It has been there since 2010, but we saw it for the first time recently and were bowled over by its beauty, size, spirit and imaginative design. We went over to the hangar where it was created and where different artists are working on very large sculptures of various kinds. Our luck was to find the creator of  “Bliss”, Marco Cochrane, in his work place. He’s a great person. He told us all about his work and his model for “Bliss.”  He told us of the life experiences that shaped his strong social conscience and his perception of women. He celebrates women’s capacity to overcome against age-old constraints and, for very many, personal encounters with extreme brutality. If you haven’t been to Treasure Island, the view of San Francisco and the Bay is one of a kind. And “Bliss is not to be missed.

   

* * * * *

Here’s a comment a friend emailed to me about Harry Truman and my comment in response:

Dear Leon,

I’ve been reading David McCullough’s biography of Truman and now have new respect for Truman.

 
Here’s a portion that really interested me.  It is just after the end of the war.  Speaking of Truman it says:  “His troubles had begun with his first postwar message to Congress, only days after the Japanese surrender ceremonies.  Sent to the Hill on Sept. 6, the message was 16,000 words in length and presented a 21-point domestic program that included increased unemployment compensation, an immediate increase in the minimum wage, a permanent Fair Employment Practices Committee, tax reform, crop insurance for farmers, a full year’s extension of the War Powers and Stabilization Act, meaning the government would keep control over business and federal aid to housing to make possible a million new homes a year.”  And Truman added “We must go on.  We must widen our horizon further.  We must consider the redevelopment of large areas of the blighted and slum sections of our cities so that in the truly American way they may be remade to accommodate families not only of low-income groups as heretofore, but every income group.”

A couple of pages further, there is this:  “For those Republicans and conservative Democrats who had been happily claiming that the New Deal was as good as dead, that the “Roosevelt nonsense” was over at last, because they “knew” Harry Truman, it was a rude awakening.  Not even FDR had ever asked for so much  “at one sitting,” complained House Minority Leader Joe Martin, and many of Truman’s own party in Congress were equally distressed, equally disinclined to go along with him.  The same conservative coalition of Republicans and southern Democrats that had stymied Roosevelt since 1937 stood ready now to block his successor.  The House Ways and Means Committee, with 14 Democrats and 10 Republicans, voted to reject the unemployment compensation proposal, and shelved any further consideration of aid to the jobless.”

Sound familiar?

J. R.

Dear J.R.

I've just read what I wrote in the paragraphs below in answer to your comments on Truman. I fear I'm in my new blogging mode, thinking a little more of some abstract general audience rather than carrying on a conversation with you. Writing op-eds is something I like to do, but a face-to-face talk would be a lot more comfortable.

Relying on my memory (not very good, especially when pushed back some 65 years), I think there is a strong parallel between Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson. Both took on the presidency suddenly and unexpectedly. Both were conservative Democrats and both surprised everyone by championing significant domestic policies in the New Deal tradition. Although both were Southerners and neither had previously been considered unfriendly to the racist Dixiecrats, both were associated with important reforms that seriously challenged Jim Crow, and it was Truman who banned official segregation of the US military. Truman's embrace of liberal domestic policies became particularly pronounced in the 1948 election campaign in response to Henry Wallace's challenge from the left. 

Lyndon Johnson's presidency ended in dismal failure because his administration became defined by its stubborn commitment to the Vietnam War, its "anti-communist" rationale and false domino theory. However, Truman's reputation as a successful president has actually been embellished over time, even though he did things in the name of "anti-Communism" that should never be forgotten or, in my opinion, forgiven. We can't know what was uppermost in his mind when he ordered the atomic cremation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. How much weight was given to preventing the potential loss of American lives (in exchange for masses of destroyed Japanese civilian lives)? How much was political, acting before the Soviets could join in an invasion of Japan and stake a claim to a significant role in post-war arrangements? Whatever... to justify the use of the atomic bomb back then would be to suggest that there may be circumstances that justify the use of nuclear weapons in the future.
 
With the beginning of the Cold War, which both sides fueled, Truman's Administration ushered in the National Security Act of 1947 and the Attorney General's list of "subversive" organizations. This was the beginning of the far-flung "red scare" that did so much damage to civil liberties and reached its peak in McCarthyism. 1947 was also the year of enactment of the Taft-Hartley Act, which set the foundation for the union-busting crusade that reaches new extremes to this day. Truman opposed Taft-Hartley and it passed over his veto, but he used it twelve times as President.

As you see, I can't cheer for Truman. But life is complicated. Somehow we're compelled to get our heads around the fact that some presidents, political leaders and even movements may do some good things and some horrible things as well. 

Best,

Leon

The Blog is Back

After a long lay-off, I've decided to go back to blogging on a more or less regular basis. I need something to challenge me in my 10th decade. Since I'm not an artist or a poet and I can't sew or make quilts, blogging will have to do. Please bear with with me as I fiddle around for a while trying to make this website a bit more attractive and interesting. I hope that as the new blogs start appearing, my friends and others will sign in, comment on my comments, and send in some suggestions.

Ladies of the Lake

To begin with today, I want to learn to insert photos now and then. Here's a try...
This past Friday there was a ribbon cutting ceremony for the big upgrading project around Lake Merritt in Oakland. Highlighting the celebration was a fleet of boats - dragon boats, kayaks, a gondola and two surf boats from the Oakland Women's Rowing Club. At stroke, in the front facing the camera, is my wife, Gail Weininger. The bond-funded project is making Oakland strikingly beautiful and a first-class people's park area. It has also provided jobs and a good example of public policy for the rest of the country.

Now, changing the subject, I want to remember Leon Taub, my brother-in-law, who died last month. He was a beautiful character, gentle and kind, exemplifying shared ideals of social justice in the way he lived his 87 years. His obit appears at the end of this blog. Here is a picture of him with Roz, my wife of many years, who died in 2009:

                                          * * * * * * 

To include some politics in this experimental post, Julie Mandel, Leon's loving companion for the last twelve years of his life. wrote to me after listening to Rubio's GOP rebuttal to the State of the Union speech:
I just finished reading Paul Krugman’s column today about Rubio’s speech the other night, and about the path the Republicans seem to be taking.  I’m really puzzled.  The Republicans can’t be that stupid.  Why don’t they seem to learn from their mistakes?  Didn’t the last election tell them anything?  I really don’t understand why they don’t change their tune.  Do they really think the American public is that stupid?

I tried to come up with an answer to Julie's question:

I had just finished reading the Krugman column when I opened my email to find your note...As usual, I agree with Krugman. As for Rubio and the Republicans, the main faction seems to think that by tinkering a bit to soften the GOP image on a few social issues (immigration, gays, etc.), they can become more acceptable while not giving an inch on their economic ideology. Unfortunately, there still are an awful lot of Americans whom they've convinced that government debt and spending are our biggest problems.

Why won't they give ground on the economic front?  I can think of a few reasons: 1) Their bottom line really is their absolute commitment to the "free enterprise" system of inequality where the rich get richer, no matter the consequences for the rest of society. 2) They see the great recession as their best opportunity to dismantle the social programs (sneeringly labeled  "entitlements") which the GOP and the plutocrats have hated and fought since the beginning years of the New Deal. For this purpose, blaming "big government" and busting trade unions are crucial. 3) They are afraid that if they compromise on the debt and budget front, the Tea Party  caucus will explode and split the GOP beyond repair.

It's interesting that the election results and the demographic changes in the country have convinced some GOP pundits to try to appear a bit more reasonable on some social issues, while they hold fast to their "austerity" mantra. After all, the recession hasn't hurt the 1%, far from it, as profits exceed all-time highs; nor has it altered the insatiable greed that's in Wall Street's DNA.

You ask whether the Republicans "really think the American public is that stupid."

Who can tell when so much that's irrational is pumped out by the highly financed right-wing  propaganda media? At least the elections gave ground for hope that things may be moving toward a more rational course. Before the elections, I had a more negative feeling about the probable outcome than Leon and you. Thank goodness, the "public" proved that I was too pessimistic."

Future blogs will not be so long — just experimenting.

LEON JEROME TAUB

1925-2013

Leon Taub died after a short illness on Thursday, January 17, 2013. He was 87.

Leon was an engineer, a teacher, and a musician. He never retired, remaining fully engaged until the short illness that took his life. He had a deep lifelong commitment to civil rights, equality and social justice. He was lovingly devoted to family, not only his own, but extended by his warm and remarkably wide outreach.

Leon was born in the Bronx, the son of Chaim and Mollie Taub.  His parents were Jewish immigrants from Poland, laboring long hours in a small tailor shop while caring for Leon and his older sister, Rosalind. They instilled in both children a love of learning and a rich appreciation of music.

Leon was a graduate of the High School of Music and Art, where he formed lifelong friendships and met his future wife, Rena. He also studied at the Manhattan School of Music. In 1950, he became the first Music Editor of Sing Out Magazine, which was a major promoter of the upsurge in folk music that became so vital a part of the emerging civil rights and peace movements. Leon composed songs over the years, even more in the last years of his life. He put poems that he loved to music, translated some to Yiddish, a language he became increasingly fond of. He wrote music to accompany the publication of children’s poetry and art of Helen Webber, a friend since they were students at the High School of Music and Art. Leon left a beautiful memento of his music and of his own sweet self in a website: http://staff.washington.edu/fredtaub/Leon_Taub/Home.html

Leon graduated from CCNY (now CUNY) with an engineering degree. During World War II, he served four year in the US Navy. After the war, he got a Master’s Degree in Engineering at the Stevens Institute of Technology.  For many years, he was Chief Engineer designing air conditioners for the Welbilt Company. He gave up work in private industry in 1978, preferring to take a job he loved, teaching mechanical engineering at SUNY Farmingdale. Until his death he was still active as Professor of Engineering at Farmingdale and his students were devoted to him. His textbook, based on the courses he taught at Farmingdale, was published in 2012.

After leaving the Navy, Leon married Rena Richter, an artist and children’s therapist. They had two sons, Paul, now a music professor and flutist, and Fred, a computer specialist, both living with their families in Seattle. Rena died in 1998. Leon leaves a grandchild, Dana, daughter of Fred and Beth.

Leon was a resident of Valley Stream, Long Island since 1957. He was President of the Valley Stream Board of Education during the tumultuous late sixties and early seventies.

During his last twelve years, Julie Mandel Dachs has been Leon’s loving companion. Julie is a composer, and they enriched each other’s lives in musical projects and in every way, including the shared embrace of family and friends.

Listing facts doesn’t tell the whole story. Some things about Leon were special almost to the point of being unique. To appreciate him fully, you would have to have seen him with children. In his presence, they would be laughing and joyful, immediately responsive to his interest in them, his gentleness, playfulness, humor and whimsy.

Beneath Leon’s self-effacing ways, there was also an unusual measure of personal courage and perseverance.  He kept his trademark optimism despite political disappointments and personal ordeals. He never accepted gloom and doom, not when McCarthyism reigned nor when the Tea Party raged. Colon and prostate cancers and two open-heart surgeries did not keep him down. Moreover, he won a struggle with depression when he was a young adult and never turned back. He attributed his success in that battle to help he sought out from psychologist Alfred Adler. Leon and Rena became active in the Adler Institute, and contributed original papers at its conferences.

Few people can keep going strong, not slowing down, until death at 87. Few people gave and received more love in a long and admirable lifetime.