Israeli pundit: We can say "No!" to the U.S.

Israel, we are told by various pundits and politicians, has no choice but to go along with American demands.
After all, our relationship with Washington is our greatest strategic asset and we cannot allow anything to get in its way. Hence, whatever America wants, the Jewish state must more or less accept.
Needless to say, such an approach is not only short-sighted and misguided – it is oblivious to history and perilous to our destiny. And the sooner we expose it for the misleading oversimplification that it is, the better off we will all be.
To begin with, Israel is not a vassal state, an American overseas territory or a serf that must cower before his feudal overlord.
We are a sovereign independent nation with our own national and security interests, and while we must surely take into account what our friends and allies have to say, we cannot and must not lose sight of our right and obligation to determine our own fate.( From Fundamentally Freund: Can Israel say ‘No’ to the US? Yes, we can!, by Michael Freund, The Jerusalem Post, below)
A long-standing, life-sustaining alliance between the United States and Israel can and will endure considerable strain. It is, after all, built on the expression of mostly core truths at least on the part of the Israelis, given the precarious nature of their history, and the mid-wife role the U.S. played in her origin.
Such statements, as this one quoted above, would be welcome coming from many other states, including some in the Islamic community, in which U.S. influence has been so profound as to be dominating, and even on occasion, distorting of national interests. Bigness, including a monster military complex, so deeply embedded with the culture  of the United States, can and must no longer contain the capacity to threaten, bully or manipulate even the most treasured of allies. Even a history in which that American "largesse" has fostered the development of the only nuclear weapons arsenal in the Middle East, one of the biggest and most nefarious mistakes in both U.S. and Israeli entente must now be  both unveiled officially and unpacked, if Iran is to be stopped from securing a similar capacity.
And that single step, likely to be resisted severely by Prime Minister Netanyahu and his cabinet, could and would go a long way to easing the many tensions currently putting a stranglehold on both negotiations with Palestine and also with other Middle Eastern states whose trust and confidence in the United States is lower than a prairie dog running along a deep valley, almost non-existent.
Unfortunately, Obama and his administration, have not been enough, and will not be enough, to erase the considerable damage to the American positions that developed during the Bush-Cheney years. However, the U.S. enmeshment in the Middle East did not start in 2000, the year Bush was first elected, and will not end in 2016 the year Obama leaves office.
Nevertheless, while Israeli pundits cry "autonomy" from the U.S. as Freund does in this piece, there will have to be serious work done by the Israeli government to garner, foster and sustain other friends and allies in the region if any long-term peace is to be secure with the Palestinians, or even with other Middle East neighbours.
There is such a singular and on one hand exemplary nature to the Israeli experiment, and her people are so dedicated and committed to the ideal of a Jewish state, in perpetuity, whether they live in the homeland or comprise a significant part of the disaspora. Also, their individual and collective capacity to learn, to study, to debate and to fully engage in whatever situation they might face, that most other nations would do well to emulate this feature of Israeli culture and political life. While that quality makes for considerable disharmony among the Israeli's themselves, they remain united in their dedication to the preservation of the state of Israel.
Flexing their political muscle in the face of another U.S. administration's demands, not only enhances their independence and their own development as a self-respecting nation, it also provides a role model for other states whose capacity to confront the U.S. diplomatically too often results in open conflict, rather than political debate.
While we admire and support the position outlined by Freund, we also see some light in the crevice it could open up between the U.S. and Israel, that could prove beneficial in other geopolitical negotiations dedicated to the resolution of many other conflicts in which the U.S. attempts to bring a peaceful resolution.


Fundamentally Freund: Can Israel say ‘No’ to the US? Yes, we can!
By Michael Freund, The Jerusalem Post, January 6, 2014
Amid reports that US Secretary of State John Kerry is applying mounting pressure on Israel to make significant concessions to the Palestinians, there is an increasingly common refrain that has seeped into our political dialogue which needs to be exposed for the fallacy that it is.

Israel, we are told by various pundits and politicians, has no choice but to go along with American demands.

After all, our relationship with Washington is our greatest strategic asset and we cannot allow anything to get in its way. Hence, whatever America wants, the Jewish state must more or less accept.

Needless to say, such an approach is not only short-sighted and misguided – it is oblivious to history and perilous to our destiny. And the sooner we expose it for the misleading oversimplification that it is, the better off we will all be.

To begin with, Israel is not a vassal state, an American overseas territory or a serf that must cower before his feudal overlord.

We are a sovereign independent nation with our own national and security interests, and while we must surely take into account what our friends and allies have to say, we cannot and must not lose sight of our right and obligation to determine our own fate.

And regardless of how short our memories might be, the fact is that on numerous occasions Israel has defied and resisted, flouted and even disregarded American demands when it came to matters that went to the core of our very existence.

Take, for example, the Reagan plan.

On September 1, 1982, US President Ronald Reagan delivered a nationally-televised address in which he called for a “fresh start” in the Middle East peace process. He laid out a series of proposals which included a construction freeze on Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria and a transition period leading to “self-government by the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza in association with Jordan.”

Astonishingly, the plan was drawn up in consultation with various Arab leaders, while Israel was kept in the dark until right before Reagan’s speech.

But Jerusalem reacted quickly and with resolve.

On September 2, then-prime minister Menachem Begin interrupted a vacation in Nahariya, returned to Jerusalem and convened a special cabinet meeting, which lasted for three hours.

Afterwards, the government issued a communique that was striking in its audacity. It contained a point-by-point rebuttal of Reagan’s speech, stating that, “The positions conveyed to the Prime Minister of Israel on behalf of the President of the United States consist of partial quotations from the Camp David Agreement or are nowhere mentioned in the agreement or contradict it entirely.”

It went on to state that, “the positions of the Government of the United States seriously deviate from the Camp David agreement, contradict it and could create a serious danger to Israel, its security and its future.”

And guess what? The sky did not fall in, the sun still rose the next morning, and Israel and the United States continued to be friends, even if there was tension in the relationship.

Several days later, Begin went even further, sending a personal letter to Reagan which should be required reading for every Israeli diplomat and statesman lacking a backbone.

With a mixture of grace and determination, Begin made clear to the leader of the Free World that as much as he valued the ties between Israel and the US, he would not compromise his core principles or Israel’s national interests.

“Dear Ron,” wrote Begin, “What some call the ‘West Bank,’ Mr. President, is Judea and Samaria; and this simple historic truth will never change. There are cynics who deride history. They may continue their derision as they wish, but I will stand by the truth,” he said.

“And the truth,” insisted Begin, “is that millennia ago there was a Jewish kingdom of Judea and Samaria where our kings knelt to God, where our prophets brought forth the vision of eternal peace, where we developed a rather rich civilization which we took with us, in our hearts and in our minds, on our long global trek for over 18 centuries; and, with it, we came back home.”

After spelling out his objections to Reagan’s peace plan, Begin concluded with a paragraph as piercing as it was heartfelt. “Mr. President,” he stated, “you and I chose for the last two years to call our countries ‘friends and allies.’ Such being the case, a friend does not weaken his friend, an ally does not put his ally in jeopardy. This would be the inevitable consequence,” Begin asserted, if the president’s proposals were to become reality.

“I believe they won’t,” the prime minister concluded, before quoting from the prophet Isaiah: “For Zion’s sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem’s sake I will not rest.”

Other Israeli leaders, both before and since, have stood up to American pressure and had the courage of their convictions, just as Begin did. Confident in the justness of Israel’s cause, Begin, Golda, Ben-Gurion and others were willing to buck Washington for the sake of Israel’s future.

So, I ask you, can Israel afford to say “no” to Kerry’s proposals? Of course! Or, to borrow a phrase from President Barack Obama’s 2008 election campaign: “Yes we can!” Sure, there will be consequences, and strains in our bilateral relationship. But Israel has said “no” before and should not be afraid of doing so again. We cannot put our security at risk and forgo parts of our ancestral homeland, simply to win favor with the powers that be in the White House.

Israel must stand firm and reject any further withdrawals or retreats, regardless of what Mr. Kerry has to say. We cannot return to the 1967 borders or allow a hostile Palestinian entity to arise next door.

Believe it or not, there are some things that are more important even than American goodwill.

Survival, I dare say, is one of them.

Foggy Bottom enmeshed in a turbulent, conflicting vortex of storylines...dangerously tempting fate of millions

If reports on the most recent fighting in Iraq are to be believed, that  Prime Minister Maliki's Shia government is being actively supported by Iran, while the AlQaeda-linked Sunni terrorists are being actively supported by Saudi Arabia, and the Sunni goal of establishing an Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has credibility, then, how does the United States presume to provide drones and intelligence for the Maliki government to fight the Sunni while at the same time negotiating with Iran on the dismantling of its nuclear program?
Isn't that a stretch too far, to be able to negotiate in good faith on one file, while actively supporting a military enemy on another?
Talk about fight a war on two fronts simultaneously, with two deeply embedded opponents, while holding the world hostage to the containment of AlQaeda and the termination of the Iranian pursuit of a nuclear weapon. And, these two "proxy" combatants (Saudi Arabia and Iran) are also deeply engaged in the civil war in Syria, where AlQaeda-linked terrorists, once again presumably supported with money and weapons by the Saudis, are engaged in a battle to the death against Syrian president Assad, once again supported by the Iranians and Hezbollah.
The upshot of these fragmentary pieces of information is not only that the Syrian conflict is spreading into Iraq, and the Iraqi-based conflict threatens to merge with that Syrian conflict, effectively shoving the United States to the sidelines on both fronts.
How can the world put any faith in the U.S. representatives who tell us that they are making progress on the Iranian nuclear negotiation front, while they are also telling us that they are supporting Maliki against the Saudi supported Sunni rebels? Playing a duplicitous role of handing weapons, intelligence and cash over to Maliki would make the Iranians quite happy, while the Saudi's would feel betrayed following decades of U.S.-Saudi alliance that was, of course, based almost exclusively on the American need for oil. We all remember too that it was also the current United States Secretary of State, jumping on the Russian suggestion that Syria dump all chemical weapons, that shoved Putin to the forefront of the diplomatic world's agenda for that moment, and relegated the Americans to a supporting role.
And then, added to this mess that is much more complicated than a gordion knot, the U.S. is also attempting to negotiate a framework for peace negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israeli's, adding additional fuel to the fire-pot that Foggy Bottom has become under Kerry. One question: Which Islamic side speaks for the Palestinians in those negotiations? And, then if there is any clear statement on that distinction, how would U.S. negotiators "know" that such a declaration had veracity and reliability?
Over-achievers, unfortunately, are burdened by their own need for approval, which makes them also dependent on their need for success in the manner in which the world measures such things. Attempting to attend professionally, cautiously, prudently and confidently to so many boiling and conflicting pots is beyond any one Secretary of State, no matter how competent he and his deputies are. He is, if not already, then very soon, going to get "played" by his potential enemies, like Putin, whose narcissism is only exceeded, apparently, by that of the U.S. Secretary of State.
Of course, Kerry would argue that he is only doing his job! And the world generates these "opportunities" not the State Department of the U.S. So, building high and impenetrable fire walls between each public statement coming from the mouth of the Secretary of State may convince his Public Relations people that they are "on-top" of the many files that converge on his head. However, they do not ring "true" or credible from the perspective of one looking on from the north shore of Lake Ontario.
This is not only "high stakes poker" on the global stage; it is also foreshadowing a monumental Greek tragedy, of the epic proportions that the world has witnessed when too ambitious men over-reached, carrying the hopes, dreams and security of millions of people like an erupting volcano spewing giant chunks of "ash" into the atmosphere, dashing those hopes, dreams and security.
We used to hear and read of "No Drama Obama" before Kerry landed at Foggy Bottom. Now, we are hearing and reading too many conflicting headlines and storylines that simply do not and will not compute, no matter how large and how technologically advanced in the human and the digital computers that are attempting to keep all these balls in the air simultaneously.
Some one or two of those balls are going to fall tragically and fatally on the head of the Secretary of State, and bring both his term and his ambitions ringing down around his (and our) ears.
And that day will prove sad and irreversible for both the United States and the western world.

Refections on Quitting, prompted by a new book, Mastering the Art of Quitting

Mastering the art of Quitting, (from the Amazon.ca blurb selling the new book by Peg Streep and Alan Bernstein)
In a culture that perceives quitting as a last resort and urges us to hang in, Mastering the Art of Quitting tackles our tendencies to overanalyze, ruminate, and put a positive spin on goals that have outlived their usefulness.

Bestselling author Peg Streep and psychotherapist Alan Bernstein demonstrate that persistence alone isn't always the answer. We also need to be able to quit to get the most out of life. They reveal simple truths that apply to goal setting and achievement in all areas of life, including love, relationships, and work:

• Quitting promotes growth and learning, as well as the ability to frame new goals.
• Without the ability to give up, most people will end up in a discouraging loop.
• The most satisfied people know when it's time to stop persisting and start quitting.
• Quitting is a healthy, adaptive response when a goal can't be reached.

Let's talk a little about some experiences learning to quit.
It is a beautiful July day in 1984, sunny, warm and a little breezy when I receive an invitation to an interview for a new job. I have  been teaching in private and public schools for some twenty years, and this is the second time this particular position has been offered. The first time I turned it down. On this occasion, there is a family "meeting" to talk about whether or not to go to the interview, and also whether or not to take the position if it is formally offered. My then spouse and three young children and I are sitting on a beach on the shore of Georgian Bay just prior to my driving some 100 kilometers north for the interview.
It is our thirteen-year-old who speaks first and most memorably.
"You are a teacher and no matter what you do you will always be a teacher!" she pleads, not wanting any disruption in her or our lives. The eleven-year-old is more detached, preferring to support whatever it is that I really want to do. The six-year-old plays blissfully in the sand on the beach, without voicing either support or opposition. My then-spouse is a little sheepish, believing that, since I rejected the offer the previous year, and now seeing it back on the family horizon, perhaps there is something more to the cosmic forces, is diplomatically weighing the options, the risks and the opportunities.
After some considerable rumination (quick and easy decisions have never been my strong suit) I attempt to calm the fears of those seeking the status quo while opening the door to disclose my own natural instinct to "move forward" into something new and different.
"I know that I can teach," I begin, "but I do not know if I can do what is required in this new position. It is a public relations job where I will be required to write and to present the college's position on issues to the public. While I have been free-lancing as a journalist for a few years, I have no specific training for this job, except my experience. So there is some risk that I will not have the required skill set for the job, although it is still in 'education' in the broadest sense. So, if I were to be offered the position, I would think it would be a smart idea for me to take a leave of absence from the teaching job and keep that option open, in case I want or need to return to the classroom."
"Does that mean you are going to take the job, if it is offered?" inquires the teen-ager.
"Probably," I reply, hoping that her fears are not so high that she will reject me or my decision.
Resigned, she sighs, and looks off onto the waves blowing onto the beach from the west wind.
When the meeting ends, I get into the car for the 90-minute trip to the interview, where the job is formally offered, and where I formally accept. Subsequently, I apply for and am granted the leave of absence from that teaching post.
For three years, I performed the tasks in the new position, modestly successfully, while ruffling a few political feathers from some others in the college employ who act as if they believe that I have been given special privileges in the leave of absence. However, following a college administrative re-structuring, during which process, I was encouraged to apply for two of the new positions, and upon foreseeing that the incumbent president, to whose office my position was attached, would be retiring within a short time, probably not more than two years, I became quite restless about whether or not a new president would be even remotely interested in retaining my services instead of hiring his or her own Assistant.
My life has changed over the thirty-six months, having learned more about myself through multiple interactions, exchanges, encounters, including supervising an office staff that grew from one to three as the volume of the workload increased. I became much more conscious that the marriage was in difficulty, entered into joint therapy without much success, and learned from my sister that she would be interested in sponsoring a return to graduate school.
The last several months of the three-year college appointment was a period of considerable reflection, especially about choices to pursue going forward, about "quitting" the marriage, "quitting" the college employ and returning to the classroom, or potentially petitioning for an extension of the leave and going off to grad school. When I learned that I would not be appointed to one of the new positions, outside the president's office, receiving the reason that the president wanted me to continue working in my current post, and upon some reflection that my life had been one series of actions without much time or attention paid to my "inner life", (what I considered then, and still do to be my 'spiritual life'...including my relationship with God, with death, with the universe and with my part in that picture) I began to reflect on the words of the president of the college in a private meeting in which I inquired about being supported as a doctoral candidate in college administration.
"I will send you anywhere where they will teach you patience!" came the rather abrupt and yet frank response.
A life of action, without reflection, I was finding, felt like a gnat must feel flitting over the surface of a still pond: busy, difficult to catch or to reach or to get to know, and fairly short-lived. One, not even an insect, cannot sustain such a constant flitting for very long, and the "patience" lecture was deeply embedded in my thought process. I did learn that I wanted change in a large bureaucracy much more quickly that was possible to achieve. I had attempted to bring about a cessation of smoking in a community of some 3000, of which 500 were faculty and staff many of whom smoked, and 2500 of which were students also many of whom smoked and I was impatient that the change was not happening fast enough. I also fought for an increase in the college offerings in the French language, believing that there was a substantial student base in the considerable francophone population in the region served by the college. That too was taking longer than I would have preferred. A third initiative that I worked actively to achieve was a substantial increase in the ratio of female to male hires in the college administration, again with only marginal progress in those three years.
Was it time to "quit" once more?
After much thrashing, many sleepless nights, several months of therapy and the realization that my life had to change substantially, I drove to my office one early morning in March, typed out my letter of resignation and placed it on the desk of the president. I did not know what was going to happen next, but I knew that I had to "quit" and move on with my life. Generously, the president amended my termination date, extending my stipend some three months.
It was during those three months that I applied for and was granted admission to theology school, after discussing my leaving the marriage with my then spouse on the basis of the question, "If I were to leave the marriage, which I plan to do, would you prefer me to continue to live in this city or to move out of it?" Her unequivocal response was, as I recall, "I would prefer you to leave here; I think that would be best."
Quitting a marriage, however, is much more complex and traumatic than quitting a job. I recall arranging, by phone, my decision to pick up my belongings from the house, at a time and on a day when my then spouse agreed. I would arrive on a Tuesday afternoon, at approximately 2 p.m. and would require not more than one hour. Just prior to my arrival, I picked up a U-Haul trailer and hitch for the Subaru I was driving, and then nervously drove to the house, backed into the driveway and with a prepared list in hand, proceeded to remove only those things like clothes, books and a few kitchen items from the house, throwing them in large plastic garbage bags. It was both eerie and exhausting, almost frightening, now that I look back some twenty-seven years later. I did not see a single person in the neighbourhood while making that last stop, before leaving the city. It was almost as if I was preparing to drive the car and trailer off some cliff alone without knowing what was at the bottom of the escarpment. By the time I picked up a few things of a young man who had requested residence, I continued to drive south on highway 124, at 2.00 a.m. The time is significant because I recall vividly twice falling asleep and driving on the wrong side of the road before waking and stopping the car, slapping my face a few times, in order to keep going safely. It was the last week of August when the temperature dips from its summer highs, the moon is clear and the air brisk. There were, thankfully, no cars on the road that night, and I made it to my destination, grabbed some sleep and proceeded to London, some six hours more driving the next day.
Separated, but not yet divorced, is not how one would normally seek admission to study ministry, especially in the Anglican church, as it both frowns on and suspects such a candidate. In 1987, the church was not accustomed to knowing how to integrate such a candidate; in fact, there was considerable consternation from the chaplain to such candidates, as he urged me to "get out of theology and return home and to into therapy" unceremoniously. Feeling urgings to discern and to follow these long-held intimations of a "call" I resisted to the chaplain's great displeasure. I learned new things about my strengths and weaknesses that would not have surfaced had I not taken these steps. I also met others, females, who too had left their marriages and families, to enrol in theology, although their "acceptance" seemed much more readily available than that of a male candidate among the church hierarchy.
It took the better part of two years to complete the divorce and there are still deep and seemingly unchangeable ramifications to that decision, a quarter century later. Some of the those ripples of rejection, especially from two of those daughters from the "beach" discussion continue to this day. Nevertheless, life has found and taken me down roads through death vigils, marriage preparations, funerals, an autopsy (probably the most moving spiritual experience of my life, outside of the birth of three daughters!) opportunities to work outside my own country, encounters with the most frozen people on the planet with whom I naturally came into significant conflict, requiring, once again, the decision to "quit" or to die psychologically.
But that is another story for another time.
There is merit to learning to quit, although it is never an easy decision. For those considering it, I would strongly and respectfully suggest a confidant, friend or professional, a thought-out strategy and some deep and lengthy reflections, including prayer if that is your tradition, as you discern your motives, your goals, your aspirations and your capacity to withstand the inevitable shocks.
Looking back, especially at this time of year when the movie The Sound of Music is on too many channels to be missed or avoided, I have reflected that, to some extent like Maria in that movie, I was using my enrolment in theology as an escape from my broken marriage, not so much out of guilt, but more out of protection of those left behind and a process of seeking space and time for contemplation and for growing self-awareness of who I am as a child of a God, Himself beyond knowing and comprehension. There had been too few mysteries and too little time spent on penetrating those mysteries in my life, as I had attempted, like so many others of my acquaintance, to prove my worth to the world, and lost my soul in the pursuit.
Looking back, I am profoundly grateful to have taken the "road not taken" many times, and found, to my amazement, there were actually people who supported my eccentricities and my exploration. It may not be as exciting as the Life of Pi, on a physically stormy sea with large dangerous creatures; nevertheless, it had its own disrupting and disquieting storms, conflicts, enmeshments and embarrassments, without all of them, the journey would have been both bland as white bread and virtually useless and without purpose. I learned especially that I do not "do" abusive authority very well, and in an institution built on the authority of a hierarchy that operates literally with impunity, as well as immunity, I do not and did not "fit". And that has been the greatest gift of all...that I no longer play the role of sycophant to a single person, a single party or a single cause! And that is the most liberating of experiences I have found in these seven decades, for which I am eternally grateful to God and to all those whose support sustained me throughout, especially Michelle and Sarah!

Al Qaeda threatens a new Islamic State of Iraq and Syria...and the world's response is....?

With Al Qaeda-linked groups taking control of the Iraqi city of Fallujah, and seeking also to control the western province of Anbar, and similar if not identical groups seeking to create the Islamic State of Syria and Iraq, merging parts of both Syria and Iraq, this is no time for the Maliki and Obama governments to permit whatever distrust and disharmony that has existed  between them to prevent their joint and mutually supportive resistance of the Al Qaeda actions and especially of their motives.
Maliki's government is Shia, and it is the Sunni rebels who believe they have  been mistreated by his regime; Syria's government, under Assad, an Alawite a sect of Shia Islam, is also fighting rebels of various pedigrees, both pro-western and pro-Al Qaeda.
There are some reports to the tribal leaders in Anbar, also Sunni, could be brought into the fight against Al Qaeda insurgents, on the premise that they, too, feel more aligned with Maliki's government than do the rebel, terrorist insurgents.
Maliki, while seeking support from the U.S. and having achieved both intelligence and drone surveillance, is suspicious of U.S. secretly gathering information that would undermine his government.
Obama, on the other hand, has to  be pondering just how far his government can and should become engaged in this most recent attempt to establish a new Islamic state, comprising parts of both Iraq and Syria.
The U.S. is in no mood to march back into another ground war in the Middle East. While there are and always will be hawks in Congress urging action by the administration, the prospect that the recent spike in violence in Iraq foreshadows the departure from Afghanistan of U.S. troops in 2014 must leave Obama and his generals and Secretaries of both State and Defence in a quandary as to just how to manage their exit, and the ensuing violence that Al Qaeda-linked terrorists would seek to bring to that country.
Obama is in one of the tightest spots on foreign policy of his two terms. If he steps up military support for Maliki, against the Islamic terrorists who are determined to establish their new Islamic state, he will find his forces mired amidst forces that could be considered "friendly and forces that would obviously be "enemy" without there being adequate distinctions to tell the differences. Already weapons for the rebels in Syria who are 'western-leaning' have fallen into the hands of the AlQaeda-linked forces, embarrassing the U.S. whose motives were honourable and transparent, yet whose actions were subverted by the terrorists.
There is nothing the terrorists will stop at to achieve their new Islamic state, and the creation of such a state will alter dramatically the political, military, economic and legal landscape of the Middle East.
However, for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons will also dramatically alter the Middle East
Both prospects face the Obama administration, without clear and readily available options for maintaining the level of "purchased influence" the U.S. has "enjoyed" over the last half century, under the multiple regimes of U.S. puppet dictators.
Perhaps, the ubiquitous behemoth known as the U.S. is now finding, in real time, and in real places, that its behemoth military and its behemoth bank accounts, and its behemoth arrogance are no longer adequate for the foes and the forces of those foes it faces in a very different kind of war of sectarian insurrection.
For the superpower to have and to maintain significant influence among these combatants, whether they consider themselves friends or foes, or are trying to play both roles simultaneously (as Pakistan has does for decades) the U.S. will need more than its hard power arsenal, and its "purchasing power" and its historic reputation as the world policeman; it will need something that heretofore has been something it could purchase, trust.
And if that trust is lacking, especially among those like Maliki, who have come to power through the substantial and sacrificial efforts of the U.S. government and its military, then one has to wonder just what accomplishments the Bush intervention in Iraq achieved. If the new regime that could only hold office as a direct consequence of U.S. invasion and engagement in their civil war, following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, is no longer willing or able to negotiate in good faith with their once-benefactor and mentor, then what good has come of the thousands of lives that have been lost, and the thousands of other lives that have been permanently maimed through the Iraq war?
And if the common enemy, Al Qaeda, is not enough to bring both the western world, including the U.S, and the Iraqi government to the table to join forces to defeat that enemy, then just who is the U.S. and the western world to trust among the many faces of Islam?
And if the many faces of Islam, including those who espouse and are committed to random acts of terror, are essentially in league, then the west has to prepare for a century-long period of excessive insecurity and turbulence, without knowing if and when the violence we can expect will recede, if not end.

"Angry assertions of moral absolutes"..not governing at home or abroad

...most of the Conservative approach is centred on angry assertions of simplistic moral absolutes that play well to certain domestic constituencies, but contribute nothing to the world or to unifying Canadians behind a positive vision of their place in it.
With issues such as Israel, Iran, religious freedom and more, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government is not interested in what Canada can actually do to help in any modest way. It is interested in what bluster and noise it can make to impress a key domestic constituency that it hopes to attract or retain as part of its “base.” (Peter Jones, Canada’s bitter, small-minded foreign policy,
Globe and Mail, January 2, 2014, excerpted below)
Selling Canada out, on the foreign policy side, as well as on the domestic policy side, to a core political base it hopes will continue to elect it to power, can only be described as the most narrow and most narcissistic, not to mention short-sighted of forms of governance Canada could describe. It certainly has earned it, having given Harper a majority the last time we voted.
"Angry assertions of simplistic moral absolutes" not only contributes nothing to the world, it also does nothing to resolve the complex and disturbing social issues we face right here at home. Surrendering national parks, for the first time in Canadian history to the plight of development, walking away from environmental protection for the areas most impacted by the tar sands, walking away from open public commitments to engage with First Nations, after a period of front-page assaults by those same people, in order to remove the story from the public's consciousness,
walking away from the poor and the unemployed and the underemployed....while all the time shouting loud simplistic assertions (using public funds) about how they are creating jobs and underpinning a sound economy....these are not approaches that benefit Canadians.
We (Canada through our national government) have become a hollow monkey both on the world stage and at home, and the media, including the National Post, and the Globe and Mail, continue to render this government a "good" report card, all the while ignoring their major and toxic failures.

Canada’s bitter, small-minded foreign policy
By Peter Jones, Globe and Mail January 2, 2014
Peter Jones is an associate professor in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa. He is also an Annenberg distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

........Working to strengthen multilateral organizations, supporting the development of norms of conduct in international affairs and contributing to peace and good governance around the world are not simply “nice” things to do – a rules-based international order, expressed through an interlocking web of institutions and commitments, benefits Canada.
A predictable world order where things like trade and security play out according to rules (admittedly something observed more in the breach in many parts of the world) is a world in which smaller countries have a better chance of advancing their interests. This is quiet, patient, painstaking work that rarely generates headlines. Progress is incremental and measured in years. It is less emotionally satisfying to some than yelling at the world from the rooftops. But it makes a contribution, over time, to creating a world that serves Canada’s interests.
The Conservatives have stood this on its head. In making foreign policy a reflection of their domestic approach to governance – finding wedge issues with which to detach segments of the population and play to their fears and angers – the Conservatives have given us a bitter, small-minded foreign policy. There are a few notable exceptions, such as the promotion of gay rights internationally, but most of the Conservative approach is centred on angry assertions of simplistic moral absolutes that play well to certain domestic constituencies, but contribute nothing to the world or to unifying Canadians behind a positive vision of their place in it.
With issues such as Israel, Iran, religious freedom and more, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government is not interested in what Canada can actually do to help in any modest way. It is interested in what bluster and noise it can make to impress a key domestic constituency that it hopes to attract or retain as part of its “base.”
Ironically, all of this undercuts what the Conservatives should recognize as an overriding foreign policy objective: good relations with the United States. For example, President Barack Obama’s administration currently has a tough job trying to both find a nuclear deal with Iran and promote compromise between Israelis and Palestinians. Both issues are key to avoiding wars in the Middle East in the next decade. The administration needs friends and allies who will quietly roll up their sleeves and help look for answers. What it gets from Canada is bluster and intransigence, as the Conservatives hew to the dictates of the Israeli right in hopes of securing votes in Canada.
Of course, Mr. Obama does not represent the totality of the U.S. political scene. In taking the views they do, the Conservatives are mirroring elements of the U.S. right, especially its Tea Party segment. But is this in Canada’s interests? Has anyone checked out the Tea Party’s views on things like protectionism and free trade recently? It would be a disaster for Canada if this faction ever came to power.
This drives home the central reality of Mr. Harper’s foreign policy: It is about his party’s short-term, narrowly defined domestic political interests. It is about negative campaigning and the politics of fear and division. The only good thing one can say (and it is a pretty damning indictment) is that the Conservatives have managed to make Canada so irrelevant to the key issues on the world stage that we can do little damage by taking these positions – except to ourselves.

Differences can indeed inspire, and not frighten...are we up to the task?

It's a New Year, but the same old stories about "ethnic cleansing" are erupting in many regions of the planet, prompting this scribe to wonder about the motives and the "framing" of these conflicts.
Israelis and Palestinians are attempting to find an accord that will permit them to live in peace, amid stories of ethnic cleansing on the West Bank. The African continent is rife with stories of more 'ethnic cleansing' and distaste for the "other" continues in some futile yet incessant attempt to render the "other" expendable.
Attempting to make any region pure from "others" who do not belong, who were not born there, who do not worship at the same altar, who may not even speak the same language or dialect only shouts more vociferously the fears of those attempting this futile "cleansing".
While there are clearly some advantages to a spirit of nationalism that bring some people together, those advantages are far outweighed by the dangers of "a superiority" or a special status for those whom we consider "native" indigenous.
We have all manner of means to distance ourselves from "the other" including body language that demonstrates our distaste for their very presence, language of racism that includes monikers like "alien" or "DP" or "foreigner" or "Paki" or "slant eyes" or....and the list takes on the narrow parochialisms of each region on the planet.
Sometimes, these differences go far back into a distant past in which a tribal incident saw someone "stealing" the prize female from another tribe, and the insult continues for decades, if not centuries.
Long before there was writing and books and newspapers, people told "tales" of those who offended the honour of  "our culture" by some kind of invasive measure, by some insult, or even attack, or robbery or ....fill in the blank. And, predictably, humans never forget!
And we carry our grudges over into the succeeding generations, like spiteful, and "wronged" children.
Also, the manner of the telling of those stories is too often from the victim's perspective, as if the insulted party had no part to play in the rupture. This kind of telling of our stories is often the case in marriage and family breakdowns, in which the "dumper" is touted as the criminal or the wrongdoer especially by the "dumpee", the one whose perceptions of the state of the "union" were that nothing was wrong and that it would last until death. Victims are the loudest voices in our human communities, and they are often the voices that shape the culture of the family, or the tribe, the village and even the nation.
Having spent some time in a "foreign" country, although the differences between the U.S. and Canada are minimal, on the surface, having been seen and called an "alien," I am familiar with being the "outsider" the one who does not really 'fit' into our way of doing things. Canadians are not regarded in many U.S. quarters as much more than boutique "socialists" who are tarred with the brush of a national health care system, that most Americans consider the most dangerous of all forms of governmental interference. Canadians are also reputed to have originated the violent game of hockey in which fights break out frequently, and blood is spilled on the ice, and people pay good money to watch such an indecent spectacle.
On the other side of the coin, too many Canadians rush to Texas as their example of everything American, Texas where everything has to be larger and louder than it is anywhere else in the world, and they conclude that Americans are all boastful braggards full of their own importance and their own "specialness" that the world needs in order to be more like the U.S. In fact, much of American reputation around the world comes from the Texas stereotype, as does the American version of the Canadian culture find itself spread around the globe.
Both countries are guilty of this kind of parochialism, and "otherness" in order to preserve some vestige of national identity, national pride and national distinction on the global stage.
However, subsuming our differences, in order to accommodate the best interests of each is the task of both education and diplomacy. Exchange programs of university and college students, even between the U.S. and Canada are not as frequent as are those of Canada with Australia, for example, when the costs of such programs would be significantly less if Canadians and Americans were more "open" to each other. Canadians probably feel they would be drowned by any joint project with American colleges and Americans probably consider Canadians beneath their standards, as compared with, for example the Brits, or the Germans.
With all countries, there are also groups who suffer indignities because of their differences with the "majority" culture; among these groups are blacks and Hispanics in the U.S. and First Nations in Canada. For all the propaganda about being advanced and developed countries, both Canada and the U.S. have a long way to travel to acceptance of their own people, especially those "different" people whose demographics are the fastest growing demographics in both countries. The next century, hopefully, will witness a much more authentically integrated culture on both sides of the 49th parallel.
And if such differences continue to plague both Canada and the U.S. with little if any progress over the last century (notwithstanding the election of the first black president!) imagine the deep cultural and ethnic divides that plague countries whose people are deprived of even a modicum of education, decent work, adequate health care and enough to eat. Their many poverties can only exacerbate their cultural and linguistic and religious differences.
Humans are going to have to "grow" the length and the breadth of their "mental landscape" if we are to achieve any kind of harmony on the political and diplomatic issues facing all countries, especially those issues that are becoming common to most if not all countries.
We will have to find those things that unite and that inspire us about the "other" and not just those things that keep us finding ways to remain apart and separate and at odds with those differences.
Imagine a world in which all people thought, perceived and believed in the same way about everything and one incarnation of HELL!
No one would consider such a world even barely interesting and all of us would succumb to its boredom.
However, on the other side, managing and employing our differences to the advantage of our people, including those whose lives are different from our's is a task so monumental, if our history is our guide, that our education system will itself have to transform into a kind of mini United Nations, in each classroom, in order for our children to come to the place where they can, without fear, prejudice or enmity, accept the gifts of "the other" as part of the beauty and blessing of living in a complex and often frictional, and not fractious, world culture.
And our politics will have to lead the way, through more Charters of the Rights and Freedoms of all people in each country! (Just a little hubristic national horn-blowing from a Canadian perspective!
(:lol)

Reducing voters and students and patients and clients to mere consumers....ugh!

Susan Delacourt, speaking on New Year's Day about her recent book on Canadian politics, Shopping for Votes: How Politicians Choose Us and We Choose Them  on CBC's Power and Politics, delivered an analysis that, we believe, applies not only to Canadian politics, but to too many interactions in our culture. Delacourt says that politicians, especially Harper conservative politicians, consider voters as shoppers, and thereby justify their focus in every public statement on their number one agenda item: the economy.
Transactional is a word that, tragically, defines so many of our interactions, from employer-employee, to doctor-patient, to lawyer-client, from private college owners-students....all of the assessments focus on the "pay-off" or the "cost" of the interaction.
Sadly, I once worked for a private career college in northern Ontario, the owner of which was a young man striving to become part of the community elite, analogous to the presidents of both the local university and the local community college. And even more tragically, the owner of the career college could not see past the "fees" he could generate from public funds for students seeking additional career credentials, using the federal government funds to fill seats. In a somewhat conflicted conversation, I attempted to focus the owner on his responsibility to his clients as "students" and not as consumers.
There is no doubt that this owner had no concept of the complexity of the education process, and tilted his operation toward one singular motive: profit, at the expense of the learning process of his students, none of whom he knew or cared to know, in the complex and subtle "business" in which his operation was engaged.
He had taken no education toward achieving his own understanding of the complexities of education; he had invested no time and energy in learning any of the advantages he could have been able to provide, especially when compared with competitors, if he were to have offered individual coaching, career assessments, learning styles, and even learned the prospect's learning history. Filling seats, generating advertising and marketing programs that attempted to vacuum up unemployed candidates from the streets, or the occasional transitional candidate seeking to add business credentials to a general arts degree.
In short, this business operation was nothing more than a corner store of meagre and often irrelevant an redundant 'skills development' all of which was being doing much more successfully at the local community college, in an environment that could be described as "a learning atmosphere" with faculty trained in their subject expertise, often with post-graduate degrees, in addition to teaching experience. Ten or twelve weeks of exposure to this "career college" atmosphere could do very little to render its "graduates" more worthy of employment or of additional training.
Pay your fee, show up in class, and grab that certificate, pin it on the wall, and wait for the phone to ring from a prospective employer...easily summed up the business model. It could not be included in any discussion of "learning models"....and its owner was despicably engaged in filling his own bank account, with public funds, 'donated' over the names of 'consumers' without any form of monitoring, on behalf of the public.
Harper's transforming the political process into little more than a visit to the supermarket, fits well with his reductionistic approach to purchasing political power through extensive fund raising, even more exhaustive marketing and advertising even using public dollars to promote his "Action Canada" program for job creation, the contents of which program have escaped most of those who have researched the details of the program. It also seriously insults the voters, painting them as "easily seduced" and without a memory or a set of values to which they are committed, and thereby easily purchased, if only the message is controlled, through the intensive repetition of stock phrases like "law and order" a "strong economy" and "doing better than all other countries" after the 2008 recession.
What is true about the Delacourt analysis is that voters no longer hold a high degree of political party loyalty, and are therefore merely shopping in an "a la carte" manner for the various "goodies" offered to them by the parties.
For the 2015 election, the political party and leader who takes the voters seriously, not reducing them to mere 'consumers' fixated on their pocket books, leaving all the many complexities of the federal government's responsibilities aside, and succumbing to the seduction of a "rock star" (Justin Trudeau) or the blatant manipulation through seductive advertising (Harper) could reclaim the substance ground, the relationship ground that is required for a country to function in the modern world where and when there are many different and complex issues facing all governments.
Harper would consider an electorate of those private career college owners, and their consumers filling seats one he could easily win because both have reduced the process of learning and living to a sham, as he has reduced the process of governing a modern country in a dangerous and rapidly transforming world.