Thursday, March 26, 2015

You only live once!

Are We the Wave or the Ocean?

Are we the wave?
or part of the ocean?
Are we ready to:
melt into the beach?
ride the wave of life?
Or fall into the breach?
 
Rather than fighting the waves,
in fear;
Maybe we should Look forward
to the peace of the Beach.
 
Christopher H. Holte

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Update on ACA and the attacks on it.

The Hard Right, dragging innocent folks with them, have been hard at work building a network of lies, spins and half truths about the ACA. The last time I wrote about it was in 2013, but I've shared a lot of other folks writings on it. It works for me. It saved my nephew's life. And it's saved my keister too. The Right Wing has no intentions of replacing it. Their followers are stirred up with lurid stories about excessive costs and trickery by RW Tricksters. And every month there is a new one. One of the more recent controversies was when the Right wing took some offhand critical remarks about ACA as proof that their goal of repealing it (and not replacing it) was righteous. The guy's name was Gruber. His comments were similar to one's I've made except he intimated that the creators of ACA were engaging in deception when they anticipated problems that they didn't broadcast.

Personally I'd prefer a single payer system or at the very least a public option. I'm tired of the whole privateering, greedy, profiteering robbery of the US medical system.

Gruber Fact Check:
http://www.factcheck.org/2014/11/the-aca-gruber-connection/

I want to supplement the medical system with a United States Health Militia and use that to train, provide and maintain the health system and make sure that everyone has access.

I plan to talk about that.

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Return of the Coat Hanger

As I noted in my post on Roe Versus Wade "RIP" , the right wing has been steadily mainstreaming increasingly strident policies on women's rights. Even as recently as a few election cycles ago the Right would disguise their end game, as I noted when critiquing Romney during his Presidential Campaign 3 years ago ["Romney's 'Evolution'"].

At this point they are pretty up front about not only wanting to criminalize outright abortion, but in using the invented notion of "life begins at conception" to also criminalize and ban most forms of birth control. The result is as predictable as it is vicious. The back alley abortion is making a return in those states where restrictions on access to Obstetrics and Gynecology services and abortion services are so great that only the wealthy have the option.

It is not only tyranny for Government to intrude into people's personal life, it is bad policy. If folks don't want women having abortions the women who wind up seeking that option need to have other options. The Right Wing are rightfully hyper-conscious about the pain and suffering of the innocent foetus, but that concern stops at birth. And there is something unbalanced, vicious and sick about the obsession with abortion. There was consensus on the subject, but that wasn't enough. We keep it legal to acknowledge that women have the right and duty to protect their own bodies and care for the young. What we are doing is barbarous.

Like all forms of prohibition and abolition, any law that impedes real needs, creates or aggravates real gaps and the wishes of the people concerned, is oppressive and creates an underground economy that criminalizes unavoidable choices. Abortion is a catch 22 decision at the best. Abort the fetus and the mother will feel awful about the incipient life she's killed. Bear it to term and she's forced to either put it up for adoption or raise it when she's not prepared to be a good mother. Taking away that choice just makes the catch 22 part even more vicious.

Further reading: post on Roe Versus Wade "RIP" [http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2015/02/roe-versus-wade-rip.html]

Viciousness, Oppression and Bullying

Viciousness, Oppression and Bullying are the Opposites of Freedom and Virtue

Liberals didn't invent Political Correctness. Actually "Political Correctness" is another term for the abuse of language. We did invent words like "1984", "newspeak", and "social dominance orientation' to describe it. In return our socially dominant types invented the pejorative "policial correctness" to characterize our depiction of oppressive speech.

"PC" is a fear reaction to Threats

We let our bullies get us so tied up in knots I heard a commentator say the other day "we need a new word to describe the bullying." That's because the gangstas in the top gang gangs started making fun of the word "PC" and of those who fought their social dominance, that those bringing up the subject have become afraid of them. But there is a nice technical, descriptive word for bullying and social dominance. It's as old as civilization and as visible as ever. It's that "Chicken Pyramid" "pecking order" I keep talking about. The Strongest get up on top and crow. Everyone else gets pecked.

Bullying:

verb
gerund or present participle:
bullying
use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants.
"a local man was bullied into helping them"
synonyms:
persecute, oppress, tyrannize, browbeat, harass, torment, intimidate, strong-arm, dominate; More

So Bullying is a "present participle" for oppressive behavior. We are talking about Oppression when we talk about bullying. And when we are talking about folks using bullying to maintain social hierarchy, power, low wages, misogyny, with all it's enabling phobias. We are talking about violence and oppression. 'nough said.

Oppression

noun
prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control.
"a region shattered by oppression and killing"
synonyms:
persecution, abuse, maltreatment, ill-treatment, tyranny, despotism, repression, suppression, subjection, subjugation; More
antonyms:
freedom, democracy
the state of being subject to unjust treatment or control.
synonyms:
persecution, abuse, maltreatment, ill-treatment, tyranny, despotism, repression, suppression, subjection, subjugation; More
mental pressure or distress.
"her mood had initially been alarm and a sense of oppression"

So PC is letting the rich and powerful bully us into tolerating their oppression

Is letting the powerful and wealthy bully us into not talking about this as oppression. And the OPPOSITE OF FREEDOM

And the opposite of virtue is viciousness, which is also a synonym for abuse and cruelty.

These people cannot preach "private, separate advantage" and wage warfare on others and call themselves virtuous.

Further reading:
Understanding Social Dominance [http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2015/01/understanding-social-dominance-theory.html]
Are you a Social Dominator? [http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2015/01/are-you-social-dominator.html]
Understanding Altemeyer and Social Dominance [http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2015/01/authoritarians-and-totalitarians.html]
Why the Myths are Bad [http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2015/01/why-myths-are-bad.html]
Fighting Authoritarianism [http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2015/01/fighting-authoritarianism.html]
John Locke on Tyranny:
Tyranny is also Bad Process: http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2013/02/tyranny-is-also-bad-process.html
First Published 3/24/2015, Minor edits later on for links and similar

Saturday, March 21, 2015

That Three fingered Thing!

When Folks don't vote, this is what happens!

It's that Three Stooges thing!

There is a reason that we should vote. The reason is that when we don't vote our very real enemies attack us, loot our goods and if we are lucky make us walk the plank before sinking our lives.

As my friend Laurel M Davila said:

-- "If one of the political parties is OPENLY promoting a return to feudalism and turning all of the 99% PERMANENTLY into hereditary serfs, while the other at least goes through the motions of maintaining a democratic state... THAT is NOT a simply cosmetic difference between the political parties!"

Both Parties are NOT the Same!

So when I hear folks telling me "both parties are the same!" "You Are sheeple." When I'm feeling charitable I tell them those accusations are a "three fingered thing." But the reality is that it's a "Three Stooges thing." This is because:

  1. Each of us have a vote. If we waste that vote we elect our enemies.
  2. We have real enemies, we need consensus to defeat them. Therefore we need to work with people we don't agree with 100% to defeat those we disagree with 100%. (or sometimes 80% each way).
  3. We have the duty to fight within our open organizations before stepping outside of them. Therefore we need to fight to replace corrupt officials and politicians at all levels of government including local. And we have the opportunity to fight city hall within the Democrats most of the time and change their attitude on subjects. This is what Gays did and it worked. They first worked on the Democrats and then expanded to Cons. That is how they won.

It's that Three Fingered thing

If You don't like the system, get to know it, tell it's leaders why. Fight it. Change it. If officers are corrupt, find people who you can trust and put them up against them. If the communications system is broke, we have a duty to form alternative media and pass the truth. If folks are playing "follow the leader" and marching towards a cliff, we have a duty not to march over the cliff with them.

Our society is the way it is because too many of us go along with city hall, don't participate, don't pay attention and so make our susceptible to propaganda, duplicitous messages, and outright lies. Instead of judging situations based on ethical evaluations and facts, we tend to go with the flow. And that lets the pirates manipulate us.

Friday, March 20, 2015

Subsidiarity Versus Fascism

I did a search of the Federalist Papers to make sure. But the word Subsidiarity isn't mentioned once. Even so it's an important principle of good Government. I was going to write about that subject. But then I started reading and realized that I need to write two articles. This one is about how the word "subsidiarity" entered modern Conservative Jargon. It turns out that it's from the founding fathers of our conservative movement. Just not our Founding Fathers. Google brings up this definition:

What is Subsidiarity?

"Subsidiarity is an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. Political decisions should be taken at a local level if possible, rather than by a central authority."

Subsidiarity as a component of Federalism

This principle is a principle of Good Government. It is not an absolute principle, despite it being the latest "Conservative" buzzword. It is a legitimate principle. Except that for the Framers of the Constitution the goal was "subordination" not subsidiarity per-se in their definition of "Confederation or Federation". But Subsidiarity is a "constitutional necessity" by definition:

"The definition of a CONFEDERATE REPUBLIC seems simply to be ``an assemblage of societies,'' or an association of two or more states into one state....So long as the separate organization of the members be not abolished; so long as it exists, by a constitutional necessity, for local purposes; though it should be in perfect subordination to the general authority of the union, it would still be, in fact and in theory, an association of states, or a confederacy." [Federalist 9, Hamilton]

Subsidiarity while necessary for "Local purposes" was not seen as an end in itself. So when George Will started talking about the principle years ago. The question rose in my head, "where was he coming from?"

Jonah Goldberg and Rerum Novarum

Indeed while it's not mentioned once in the Federalist Papers, though it is a concept from the middle ages. It turns out the source was the late 19th century by Catholic Activists, specifically:

The principle of subsidiarity was first formally developed in the encyclical Rerum novarum of 1891 by Pope Leo XIII, as an attempt to articulate a middle course between laissez-faire capitalism on the one hand and the various forms of communism, which subordinate the individual to the state, on the other. The principle was further developed in Pope Pius XI's encyclical Quadragesimo anno of 1931, and Economic Justice for All by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity_%28Catholicism%29]

I saw extensive references to Rerum Novarum in my authoritative references on Fascism (which are still in a box somewhere not yet unpacked), so I was desperately looking for that book while writing this. But then I realized I had another source. From a man who was trying to obfuscate the role of that encyclical! Our Good Friend Jonah Goldberg in his propaganda "Liberal Fascism" in the context of his discussion of Mussolini's fascism. However, Fascism's cult didn't start out with much definition as an economic system. And indeed the Economics of Fascist states has tended to be Right Wing and has taken a number of forms. But the Fascism of the Mediterranean was that of Salazar in Portugal, Franco in Spain and Mussolini in Italy, and all three were heavily influenced by Rerum Novarum. Which Jonah Grudgingly acknowledges:

"It’s revealing that corporatism has many of its roots in Catholic doctrine. The 1891 papal encyclical Rerum novarum proposed corporatism or syndicalism in response to the dislocations of the Industrial Revolution. ... The Church’s interest in corporatism stemmed from its belief that this was the best way to revive medieval social arrangements that gave man a greater sense of meaning in his life." [Liberal Fascism page 297]

Jonah Goldberg Mainstreaming Catholic Fascism

But what he calls "progressive Catholic Thought" based on Rerum Novarum, written by Pope Leo XIII (2 March 1810 – 20 July 1903, born Vincenzo Gioacchino Raffaele Luigi Pecci) was the basis for authoritarian Catholic policy, not "progressive" policy. Dictators from Franco to Juan Peron cited Rerum Novarum, though he influenced progressives and classic liberals alike. The Catholic Church's interest in Corporatism was to subjugate man to Church Authority, as it has been since Constantine.

There is a reason that Jonah Goldberg tries to obfuscate the relationship between the Church and some forms of Fascism. There is no mention of António de Oliveira Salazar, or his form of explicitly Catholic Fascism, nor of Fascisms origins in Catholic Action. Nor does he talk about how Franco merged the explicitly Catholic Fascist groups with the Fascism of the Falange created by José Antonio Primo de Rivera [http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/falange.htm]. But Goldberg makes a lot of mistakes. For example he confuses Francos failure to enforce the "edict of expulsion during the 30's and 40's with him abrogating the edict. Franco closed the border, he just didn't enforce it by gunning down fleeing Jews the way the French or other Europeans did. The Edict of expulsion wasn't abrogated formally until 1968. [http://jewishwebsight.com/bin/articles.cgi?Area=jw&ID=JW903]

Essentially Jonah and other modern conservatives are rewriting the record to separate the Fascism of Salazar and Pinochet, Mussolini and Franco, of Catholic Action from it's equal partners in the Falange and the Fascist movement. Yes the two movements were parallel. One was focused on Social Issues and power. The other on Power. Together they were indomitable. If they had some divergent goals, most of their goals were convergent.

The Fact is that Fascism grows out of Nostalgia for the Dark Ages. Jonah agrees:

"Fascism is the cult of unity, within all spheres and between all spheres. Fascists are desperate to erode the organic, legal, or cultural boundaries between family and state, public and private, business and the “public good.”

But like all good Cons he tries to project that onto "progressives." This much is true. Fascism was and is explicitly a teaching that reifies Social Dominance and the imposition of Order/hierarchy.

"Unlike communist Jacobinism (or Jacobin Communism, if you prefer), which expropriated property and uprooted institutions in order to remake society from the ground up, Fascism pragmatically sought to preserve what was good and authentic about society while bending it to the common good. Interests or institutions that stood in the way of progress could be nationalized, to be sure. But if they worked with the regime, if they “did their part,” they could keep their little factories, banks, and department stores." [Liberal Fascism page 297]

Which of course is corporatism, Social Dominance, hierarchy and Elitism [http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2015/01/understanding-social-dominance-theory.html]. And if those were also features of the mutant bolsheviks and characteristics of socially dominant wannabe "fearless leaders" of all stripes; it decidedly is not a set of progressive attributes. It's not conservative either. Fascism is about Orthodoxy, Nationalism, Authoritarianism and naked oppression.

George Will's (and Jonah's) Fascism

So Where did this concept of Subsidiarity really come from? I first heard it in an article I was reading by George Will back in 1994. My mind retained the term because it just makes sense. But it turns out that the context was George Will's nostalgia for a society with "Moral Fiber". This mention was an article; "Conservatism Will Restore Moral Fiber To Fraying Culture" November 14, 1994 |By George Will, Washington Post Writers Group

He wrote at that time, referring to the Southern Strategy "Contract With America", Gingrich Revolution of that year:

"Conservatives worry in a more contemporary vocabulary, questioning the power and ambitions of the post-New Deal state and finding a causal connection between those ambitions and the fraying of the culture. Conservatives believe government's principal functions are the preservation of freedom and removal of restraints on the individual." [http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1994-11-14/news/9411140338_1_liberalism-conservatives-worry-function-of-government]

Even the language of decline and renaissance reflects the language of Fascism more than conservatism. If Will had been resisting change he'd have been a conservative. But the Gingrich Revolution (ongoing) was about rolling back previous reforms on the premise that the "moral fiber" of the culture was fraying. Compare that to this description of Franco after he achieved power:

"Franco became caudillo, or absolute dictator, and unlike those he had accused of lacking "moral fiber," Franco tolerated little dissent. According to Ellwood, he placed a premium on "uniformity and conformity" rather than "plurality and diversity." He saw himself as the savior of the nation and therefore would suffer no one to stop him. He used military tribunals to try any manner of offense, and observers suspect that hundreds or thousands of political captives and other prisoners were executed between 1939 and 1943. Franco also used bureaucratic tools to harass the general public into loyalty. By requiring written authorizations for work or food purchases, ultimate authority rested in those issuing the cards, who, of course, owed loyalty to Franco." [Francisco Franco Dictionary of Hispanic Biography, November 6, 1996]

I could find better quotes but the point is that the notion that society is falling apart and order must be imposed to restore it to past glory is a feature of Fascism along with Imperialism and other characteristics. And note, Franco talked extensively about Rerum Novarum and pledged his fealty to the Catholic Church and to the Monarchy. Jonah is right about the features of Fascism and this "Restoration of Moral Fiber" is one of them. And if you read carefully his next passage and decode it you see the same "need for order" theme that is symbolized in the Sticks and Axe that are the symbol of Fascism:

"One count in conservatism's indictment of liberalism is that liberalism takes too much for granted, including those habits - thrift, industriousness, deferral of gratification - that make free societies succeed. Conservatives worry that the severest cost of solicitous government is not monetary but moral: the diminution of personal responsibility and private forms of social provision." [http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1994-11-14/news/9411140338_1_liberalism-conservatives-worry-function-of-government]

Contrary to the propaganda of Conservatives, it's not "liberalism" that seeks to impose order; "thrift, industriousness, deferral of gratification" on people. It is authoritarianism. And Will for all his talk about liberty and Freedom is usually a hypocrit on the subject. He condemns eminent domain when the Government uses it for urban renewal but calls for it when the Canadians impose a pipeline on the country.

And his mention of "subsidiarity" was in this context:

"The first business of the next Congress, the balanced-budget constitutional amendment, will promote, even compel, subsidiarity. This is because, as entitlements devour the federal budget, the central government will have a steadily shrinking sphere of discretion, so powers should devolve from Washington to lower governments." [http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1994-11-14/news/9411140338_1_liberalism-conservatives-worry-function-of-government]

Like I said I like the idea of Subsidiarity. But Will isn't really talking about giving more local authority to local decision makers. He claimed that Churches and local authorities will take over the role of charity, but in practice we now know that is a vicious lie. It just doesn't get done. And local government can be every bit as oppressive as Federal Government.

There were other laughing points (from hindsight) such as his claim that the government should attack "unfunded mandates" which was soon followed by off the books Defense spending and other accounting gimmicks.

Sadly the con notion that "relimiting government" would "strengthen society" proved to be a vicious lie too.

I'll have to write about subsidiarity again. I find it sad when reading Conservative sources takes me to Fascist ideology. I'd like to believe Jonah Goldberg wasn't lying because Fascism is a set of attributes about movements and government and there are "red fascists" as Bernard Levi teaches. It's just that folks like Goldberg are rewriting history so they can obscure efforts to repeat the worst of it.

The Trouble with the definitions

The trouble with the Right Wing's definition of "liberty", "individual Freedom" and subsidiarity, is that for the Right Wing everything is qualified with the word right. "Liberty" is for the "Right People". "Individual Freedom" means that property owners and corporate Tyrants rule their employees. And Subsidiarity depends on your definition of "competent authority", since authoritarianism usually creates some kind of aristocracy and puts power in the hands of Authorities, who usually are your Socially Dominant types. It's not "all the people" but "the right people."

References:
Jeffrey T. Schnapp, ed., A Primer of Italian Fascism (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2000), pp. 3–6;
My Hard copy is of this book:
Charles F. Delzell, Mediterranean Fascism, 1919–1945 (New York: Harper and Row, 1970)
Liberal Fascism [https://t.co/uWCgnyG6q3]
I have a copy of this one too:

http://www.amazon.com/Left-Dark-Times-Against-Barbarism/dp/0812974727
Hannah Arendt: "The Origins of Totalitarianism"
Related Pages
http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2015/01/understanding-social-dominance-theory.html
Are you a Social Dominator?
http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2015/01/are-you-social-dominator.html
First wrote this on 3/20/2015, updated title to "Subsidiarity Versus Fascism" as I understand the concept better.

Thursday, March 19, 2015

Bibi Comes Out of the Closet

Bibi came out of the closet as an extreme chauvinist nationalist the other day. In a way it settles things. The pretense is gone that Israel is committed to a "Two State Solution." This means that Israel as it is known now is fated to be gone, one way or another. But in the short time it's great for Bibi's political career. He no longer needs to pretend to be dealing with Arab leaders in the West Bank. And now they can join forces with Hamas and launch even more rockets! Win/win for the arms manufacturers who fund both sides!

I admit I was rooting for Herzog. I've never been a Bibi Fan. I spotted him as a hypocritical, two faced Poseur years ago, back when he was still one of Ariel Sharon's deputies and Ariel Sharon was doing the same two faced provocative tricky things.

My wife, however, was a Bibi fan, though we had some nice discussions on the subject and we were able to disagree nicely. But I think even she would be angered by what he did this past week, were she still around, because what dominated her life was a sense of fairness and a concomitant commitment to multiculturalism and fairness. She worked with the USA Kulanu groups which sought justice for ancient and excluded minority groups around the world like the Ethiopian Jews, the Lemba, and crypto Jews scattered and oppressed by the Inquisition and both Christian and Muslim repression for centuries. She could see parallels between the Jewish Diaspora, the Irish, Black and yes the Palestinian diaspora. She was even more able to understand the people in the Palestinian diaspora than I was. My wife was for people working together to understand one another. I know she understood what is happening. But I also know she wouldn't have approved.

Injustice and Diaspora

When injustice is done, grudges can last for centuries. There are still people whose ancestors lived in Spain whose descendents have a grudge against Ferdinand and Isabella. It's not that they didn't move on. It's that what occurred was a massive injustice. And injustice is like a psychic wound that never heals until it is either rectified, or time buries it under other injustices. Yesterday's post involved a song that expressed the longing of people who'd lost their homes 500 years ago. To expect people to just "forget" and move on is callous. Adio Kerida [http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2015/03/adio-kerida-goodbye-dear-love.html]

This is true whether one is talking about Slavery, Jewish Diaspora, Armenian Diaspora, or yes, the Palestinian Diaspora. Yes, with opportunity and access to resources people will move on. But that doesn't mitigate the injustice of neighbors and former friends who tried to kill them or said "just go." Israel has a right to exist because Jews have a right to live somewhere where authorities can't tell them to "just pack up and go." Sadly, Bibi has just made that future harder to attain.

Many Jews like my wife understand this because their relatives experienced it in Europe. My late friend Malvina Burstein experienced this twice. Once when the Nazis came. A second time when she tried to return to her home in Slovakia and the family that had occupied it refused her a return to the neighborhood her family had lived in for centuries. My other holocaust survivor friends all experienced the anti-semitism of local people who, even if they didn't approve of Hitler's "final solution" only wished it had been more final.

The conflict between the principles of civitas and tribal identity can only be resolved with a strong legal and social sense of fair play. Our world is suffering with the consequences of many injustices, and if we want this world to be a better place we have to set them right -- and also stop rewarding the unjust authoritarian predators among us. Until we wake up to the injustices of the past and set them right, the wheel of injustice will just keep turning. The aggrieved feel justified in committing their own crimes. As we've seen with Al Qaeda and ISIL, they will do their best to get revenge. We don't need revenge, we need justice.

Ending the Palestinian Diaspora

The Chauvinistic, prejudiced extreme nationalism that is emerging right now is bad for Israel and threatens Israel's future. With the deliberate help of the Arab nations, Israel and the Arabs decided to create a diaspora of the (more or less) indigenous people of Palestine, and to oppress others of them as prisoners in their own enclaves. To expect them to "just move on" without help is callous and barbarous. And the world is moving on to where a country can't get away, long term, with the sorts of things that my Holocaust survivor friends experienced in Europe before migrating to the USA or Israel.

Israel is going to have to change. When they claimed they supported a "two state solution" that reflected their knowledge that eventually they'd have to admit that most of them were the immigrants and that the people already there had a right to be there too.

Bibi disavowing a two state solution means that Israel as a Jewish State is going to have to end. One way or another. It can't keep fencing out families that used to live there while begging Jews from around the world to move in. Israel can't keep doing that forever. Bibi's decision means open Apartheid. It also means that the "West Bank" can no longer be labeled as "occupied territory" and it's people treated as prisoners there under that fiction. They are going to have to be admitted as Citizens of an actual State. Same with Gaza. Fences only last so long. One can never kill everybody. And Apartheid is a waste of time. Sooner or later Israelis are going to have to mend fences with Arab speaking Palestinians, or the country will collapse and all those weapons be scattered among fighting warlords, and maybe even used against Jews. Worse, one mistake and huge swaths of Israel will be unlive-able. Netanyahu may think that Iran with the bomb is bad. But events at Chernobyl and Fukushima have demonstrated that reactor complexes are possible bombs too. Dimona is more dangerous to Israel than her neighbors. Heaven Forbid anything happens there!

Guaranteeing the Collapse of Israel as a Jewish State

A two state solution wasn't going to work anyway, so maybe Bibi is just doing the world a favor. An Israel with it's capital in Jerusalem is Israel. Calling the capital after the Roman name is a continuing affront to historical justice. But now that capital is going to have to admit that the people of the West Bank and Gaza have rights too. Conflict is expensive. Those walls cost money. Wealth going to guns, gunships, helicopters and drones is wealth not spent on food and water. People see what is being done to fellow human beings and they stop trading with, buying from, selling to people. It looks bad. It smells bad. It hurts. Apartheid will collapse the Israeli State before they could ever be defeated by Palestinians or bombed by Iranians. If they started engaging in actual genocide that would just lead to their own genocide. So one way or another Palestinians will have to be accorded the same rights as Jews. And one way or another rule of law will have to replace rule of Jihadi nutcases and angry young men. And for that to happen justice will have to be dispensed. Some Folks will have to be helped "move on" and folks will have to apologize and let other folks move in. But it has to be through a Just practice or the death toll will be unconscionable.

One Voice versus Apartheid

I think the movement "One Voice" and Obama will have the last word. I'm not optimistic anymore, but I am certain that one way or another there will be peace. If It were me, I'd redivide Israel into Cantons subdivided into departments and municipalities and give each considerable self government, but that's just me with my principles of subsidiarity and bottom up legislation and independent courts. Israel needs enforceable constitutional protections for both Jews, Christians and Muslims. And Israel owes people it's hurt some restitution for taking their property and some kind of earned amnesty for the two sides atrocities. The Palestinians haven't been exactly saints either. All that is going to take a younger generation and folks a little more immune to false propaganda. But my Wife's spirit would make the difference. She was proud of her uncle who fought against the Egyptian Army and died defending a Kibbutz in the Negev in '48. But she also was someone who wanted justice for everyone.

The last time we visited Israel we visited the Cemetery next to the Israeli Holocaust Museum. There was a marker for her Uncle. We can have two kinds of peace. One is the Cemetery.

Further Reading:
http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2015/03/what-is-one-voice-who-is-tom-cotton-and.html
One Voice: http://www.onevoicemovement.org/
Miko Peleg:
http://www.gtigazette.com/?p=23604
J Street:
"J Street said that the manner in which the Prime Minister secured his victory – shredding the broad bipartisanship that underpins American political support for Israel and preying on fear and racism at home – demonstrated that he willingly put his own political interests before his concern for Israel’s relationship with the United States and his commitment to Israel’s democratic character. Moving forward, J Street will be unwavering in making the case that Israel’s security and survival as the democratic homeland of the Jewish people require a change in course." http://jstreet.org/blog/post/yesterdays-election-israels-future_1
Marwan Bishara, Moderate Arab reaction:
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/03/israel-chose-palestinians-150318081743116.html
Centrist and Palestinian reaction:
“Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas also took aim at Netanyahu’s pre-election rhetoric, saying the prime minister’s reversal of his previous support for the creation of a Palestinian state was 'very worrisome.'” [http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/centrist-runner-up-says-he-wont-join-new-israeli-coalition/2015/03/19/47cddd8c-ce0d-11e4-8730-4f473416e759_story.html]