The Occupation

 

The “Arab Spring” is still upon us. There is an outpouring of frustration about the sad situation in which many peoples find themselves, and there is anger directed against the leaders of their existing governments. The rebellions – and there are many of them – are directed against tyrants who have, for so long, held power and used it for their own gain. As if in reaction to an old story – the continuation of treatment like that suffered in ancient times – news of the uprisings has been spread by modern means like the social media on the internet. Even if the results of their rebellions won't be significantly different from those of the past, new technology will be used to circulate information about it.

The “Occupy Wall Street” movement bears many similarities to the Arab Spring. Like the unrest in the Middle East there is frustration about the situation in which the protesters find themselves, and there is anger against the one percent of the population who, they feel, are the cause of their situation. Like the protests far away, the social media and the internet are being used to publicize both the movement and the way individuals can join it. The goals of the movement may be unclear, but the passion is not.

There is the impression, common among participants, that the executives of Wall Street firms, and all of those who earn large incomes, are responsible for the difficulties of the rest of the people. So those with debts for their education or homes, those either without jobs or unsatisfied with the ones they have, and people interested in social justice in general, feel the need to express their dissatisfaction, and they do that by establishing tent cities, by marching, and by getting themselves arrested. The movement has become widespread and it is garnering the publicity desired. It has become a national movement and a national obsession.

Lacking focused goals, however, there is no obvious end point. People who insist that the government have a strategy for getting out of a situation before embarking on it, seem to be without any strategy for ending their own protest. It will last “as long as it takes,” although what “it takes” means, remains undefined. The only thing clear – to others if not to them – is that increasing the tax on that “one percent” will not have much effect on the national debt or on their individual situations.ⁱ Perhaps they'll feel better, but it will be based on the suffering of the “rich” rather than on anything more substantive.

More to the point, though, is that the protesters don't – or won't – recognize that on a global scale they are among the rich. They live in a country that provides them with resources that most of the world envies. Indeed, most of the world's population have no access to the level of education of whose cost they complain; most of the world can't even think about the homes which the protesters find too expensive; and the cost of gasoline – a sore point with the owners of automobilesⁱⁱ – is actually lower in the United States than in most parts of the world. And those who demand free health care for all don't seem to recognize that our health care is among the best in the world – even for the poor and undocumented. If some countries provide “free” socialized medicine, it is only because taxes are higher in order to pay for it. Nothing is free. The cost must come from somewhere.ⁱⁱⁱ

It is sobering to consider the financial situation of America and her citizens. While those who are demonstrating express the idea that the “rich” should be taxed to pay for the standard of living to which they feel entitled, they do not think about the fact that they are far better off than most of the world's people. According to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, in 2009 the US GDP was more than 58 times that of Argentina, the lowest rated of the G20 nations. And the list doesn't include developing countries and the Third World. If we consider the global perspective, many of those who are unhappy with their status are actually themselves in the top one percent. What are their obligations to the rest of the world?

My intent is not to minimize the problems faced by those who protest, nor to belittle them, but rather to provide some perspective. Whatever their difficulties, they are vastly better off than most of the world, and complaining about the greed of others is not the answer to the problem. A recognition of our favored position and an adjustment of expectations would be far more realistic and practical than living in tents and communicating with each other over their computers. It's time to go home and deal with the problems. And to consider the problems of others as well as themselves.

As Pogo Possum said,^iv “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

i     According to the National Taxpayers Union (NTU), in 2008 the top one percent already paid 38.02 percent of all personal income tax.

ii    Which, of course, are unaffordable for much of the world's population and they don't have adequate roads for their operation anyway.

iii    The real question is who pays for what. The method of collecting the revenues to pay the bills will be determined based on that. If equality of income, health care, and housing are considered appropriate, income taxes will to be raised while consumption taxes will remain the same or be lowered. According to the NTU the top fifty percent of earners (with incomes greater than $33,048 in 2008) already paid over 97 percent of personal income taxes, but these would have to be raised.

iv    Actually it was Walt Kelly.

The New Egypt

 

There's a new wind blowing through the Middle East. It is the wind of change, and it's called the Arab Spring. There are uprisings in several countries, and old leaders are being overthrown. The changes result from the frustration of the populations – populations long dominated by dictators whose main interest was in maintaining their own power. And the populations suffered under such rule, with poverty and repression, conditions which finally resulted in rebellion.

What the people in the affected countries proclaimed was a wish for democracy. It was a form of government what the United States had long wished to spread. We proselytized the rule of the people, but, simultaneously, we often supported the dictatorships. In a world where conflicts between nations can affect political power, it's best to have as many allies as possible. And quantity is more important than quality. Numbers count. A dictatorship that favors you is better than a democracy that opposes you.

And the American model of democracy is one that many find confusing – especially in places that have never had a tradition of democracy. The idea that a minority may have rights seemingly contradicts the whole idea of elective government. What's the point of popular rule if there are those who don't have to follow the popular rules. In addition, while we may proscribe the involvement of religious doctrine in our government and laws, for many it is second nature to accept theological teachings as the basis for all aspects of life. They will favor the imposition of those teachings on others as part of the basic law. And they will do so democratically, even if their understanding of those doctrines, and their votes, simply mimic the ideas of the local cleric. Whether they mimic what is a proper understanding of their religious law or a biased impression is unimportant. They want what they are told to want, and they expect everyone else to want the same thing. Or at least to follow the laws as they are imposed.

Egypt is a good example of this kind of democracy. Christians may represent 10 to 20% of the Egyptian population,ⁱ but they must follow the same rules. And they will never win an election. So they will have to tolerate the edicts of Islam and Muslim clerics – if they want to live in peace. Even so, they will still suffer discrimination. The Egyptian “democracy” will be no more than a theocracy. And the killing of Christians will be tolerated.

One evidence of this is the threat – one which is likely to turn into a reality – is that oil from Sinai will be more difficult and expensive for Israel to obtain. When Israel, after it was attacked by the Egyptians in 1973, and as part of a peace treaty, returnedⁱⁱ the largest piece of captured Arab territoryⁱⁱⁱ, it included the Alma oil field which Israel had discovered and developed, and by doing so in the name of peace, gave up an asset that would have allowed itself to be self sufficient in terms of energy by 1990.^iv According to the New York Times,^v “An arrangement was also made to insure Israel a right to buy oil from the fields without interruption” but, of course, that insurance, and the return to Egypt of land, and of an oil field which had never existed, guaranteed nothing. According to Reuters, “Egypt's Prime Minister Essam Sharaf said a peace deal with Israel was not 'sacred' and could be changed for the benefit of peace or the region.” Egypt's definition of “the region,” presumably means a region without Israel.

There's a new wind blowing, but there's a lot that's old as well. The antagonism of the Egyptians toward the Jews hearkens back to biblical times – long before there was a State of Israel – so it is reasonable to be suspicious of claims from Egypt that the establishment of Israel is the source of current problems and that it can abrogate a previous agreement for the benefit of the region.

And lest anyone believe that Egypt's argument is with Israel and not the Jews, the actions Egypt is taking to block the export of lulavim^vi will clearly affect Jews around the world. It has nothing to do with Israel. Even if they relent,^vii the point has been made. The Jews are the target. The wind may be new, but the bias is old. Antisemitism has existed for millennia, and the politics of the Middle East includes it. A “democratic” decision among believing Muslims would include this doctrine. From childhood, believing Muslims have been so indoctrinated. The region, with the exception of Israel, understands “democracy” differently from the way we do. But despite this we shall woo her, and all of the other governments that are blown in on the new wind as well.

However the new Egypt is really the old one; the wind, an ill one. Danny Kaye said of the oboe, that it was an ill wind that no one blew good. An ill wind blows in Egypt. It is called democracy. But the bluster of antisemitism, however popular, will be played well^viii by those who are coming into power. The Arab Spring cleaning is simply a substitution of leaders, not of prejudices.

i     Estimates vary. Hard numbers are difficult to obtain in a tyranny or a country in the midst of a revolution.

ii    In 1979.

iii    91% of the territory captured in the Six Day War.

iv   Jewish Virtual Library: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/peace_with_Egypt.html

v     March 27, 1979.

vi    Palm branches used as part of the ritual for the Jewish holiday of Sukkot.

vii   They cost themselves money by refusing to sell the palm branches.

viii   But not for good.