Palestine: What Are the Americans Doing?

A missile hits Tel Aviv on July 22, 2014

 So much has been written over the past few days about the appalling calamity that has befallen the people of Gaza and Israel. For those readers who are Palestinian apologists, please remember Israelis have suffered deaths too.

One theme constantly appearing in the press is, “what is America going to do?” President Obama has despatched his Secretary of State to the area. I have no doubt that diplomatic initiatives are being taken from Foggy Bottom, the official home of American foreign policy. But is this an American problem? Is this situation not one for the United Nations? Well, it has to be dumped into somebody’s lap.

The real trouble in Gaza is that Hamas are omnipotent there. They were elected to power several years ago. They have not stood for re-election. The Hamas administration’s declared policy is the destruction of Israel. Cease fires have been agreed previously only when Hamas has been brought to its knees.

You may suggest I am pro-Israel. Actually, I am in favor of peace. I do not see how Israel can begin a real search for peace while its settlements on the West Bank stay in place. The land does not belong to the settlers. I also find offensive Israel’s policy of caging the Palestinians in the Gaza strip. However, when Hamas continually launches missiles into Israel, as it has done for the past four years of an ostensible cease fire, what choice does this leave Israel? Sadly, Israel did not take advantage during those four years to negotiate in earnest with Hamas.

My professional career was spent negotiating agreements for clients. My belief in a successful negotiation was based on establishing what those with whom one negotiated really wanted, not just what they said they wanted. Once the true position was known, all that remained was finding a way to give the other side what it actually wanted. It’s a simple proposition in theory. In practice, it’s enormously difficult.

In talks with ordinary Palestinians, I’m sure Israelis could find a solid level of agreement. What most people want is safe roofs over their heads, food on the table and a better life for their children. I believe the vast majority of Israelis and Palestinians would agree these propositions.

This leads me to my essential point. The reality is that Hamas do not want peace for their people. What they seek is the total destruction of Israel, a ridiculous and totally unacceptable position which cannot be negotiated. It is complicated by the long history of atrocity and reprisal, leading to more atrocity and reprisal. This is a disaster area, a land of truly sad self-fulfilling prophecy.

Obama, Kerry and American diplomats realise that for them to step into Palestinian talks now would be a complete and thankless waste of time. So, when people ask what America is doing, no wonder the response from the administration is political hot air. But what can they do?

Who Would Be President?

In last week’s blog, I wrote about calls for the impeachment of President Obama, led by Sarah Palin and a few Congressional right wing Republicans. House Speaker John Boehner, when asked to respond to the initiative, replied briefly, "I disagree." But Mr Boehner added some spice: "Who needs impeachment? I'm suing the guy!" The Speaker has signalled his intention to sue the President over the latter’s use of Executive Orders. Frankly, there is sufficient material in this paragraph for a doctoral thesis. Impeachment, suing a sitting president and use of Executive Orders would all be fitting topics.

The Speaker is not a fan of impeaching Obama because he knows it is bad politics in an election year. True, he invites a backlash from the conservative wing of his Party who think the GOP establishment in DC is too soft on the President. These conservatives believe impeachment is the real play; they regard suing Obama as a half-measure. But how can they accuse Boehner of being soft on the President if he brings a lawsuit? Whatever chance that lawsuit has of success, it is an interesting tactic, should the calls for impeachment get out of hand.

Suing Obama might be very popular with that element of the American people who have no time for the President. Boehner would ask the courts to decide whether the chief executive has taken matters too far with executive actions. The U.S. Supreme Court has already weighed in on a similar issue — Mr Obama's recess appointments — and ruled for Boehner's position. That helps the latter’s strategy. In addition, the right wing elements of the media suggest the American people are inherently suspicious of excessive executive power. I am not aware of recent polls exactly on this topic but a CNN/Opinion Research poll in January 2014 showed by a 67%/30% margin that Americans preferred a bipartisan compromise in Congress rather than the executive acting alone. One wonders whether those who took part understand the meaning of Congressional gridlock.

The rules concerning Executive Orders may require explanation. An EO is a weapon in a president’s arsenal to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government. EOs have the full force of law when they take authority from a power granted directly to the executive branch under the Constitution. Also, they may be made through Acts of Congress that explicitly delegate to the President a degree of discretionary power. EOs are subject to judicial review and may be struck down if deemed by the courts to be unsupported by statute or the Constitution. Furthermore, EOs are subject to Congressional review and oversight.

There is neither constitutional provision nor statute that explicitly permits Executive Orders. The term "executive power" in Article II of the Constitution, relates to the chief executive. The President is instructed to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed", else he faces impeachment. These Constitutional provisions are the basis of authority for justification of EOs as part of the President's sworn duties. 

Has the President abused his powers? Has he used EOs to circumvent a hostile Congress? Until the particular EOs are specified in a lawsuit, comment would be fruitless. However, the Republicans have charged that Mr. Obama has made excessive use of this power. Looking at post-World War Two presidents, the evidence points the other way. According to American Presidency Project data, the average number of EOs per year signed by Mr. Obama’s predecessors is as follows:

Jimmy Carter:                          80.00

JFK:                                        74.40

Gerald Ford:                           68.92

LBJ:                                        62.90

Richard Nixon:                       62.30

Ronald Reagan:                      47.63

Bill Clinton:                            45.50

George Bush:                          41.50

George W. Bush:                    36.38.

Barack Obama:                       33.58

No doubt the Speaker will concentrate his lawsuit on the nature of Obama’s EOs, not their quantity. Undoubtedly, immigration policy will be examined, as the President has halted deportation of those who arrived in USA as minors, those who care for children and those who have no criminal record. Climate change has been the subject of EOs, as had gun control, which has been the target of 23 separate orders by Mr. Obama. 

As the evidence shows, other presidents have used the EO power more freely than Mr. Obama. Bill Clinton banned the import of all kinds of weapons, as did George Bush (41). Reagan gave the NSA the right to collect e-mail and internet data by executive order. He also used the power to ban federal workers from using drugs, both on and off duty.

I cannot remember a time when a sitting president has been the subject of so much pressure for doing his job. If the lawsuit against Mr. Obama proceeds, the case will undoubtedly reach the Supreme Court. The Supremes will be asked to decide whether the President has usurped and overreached his authority. Nixon brought his time of trial on himself. Clinton wasn’t fighting lawsuits and impeachment at the same time. (The lawsuits were deferred until Clinton’s presidency was over.) Why does the current President invite so much vitriol? 

Just in case you thought that all Mr. Obama’s difficulties stemmed from right wing Republicans, he also has to cope with attacks from within his own Party. For example, Senator Mark Bergich, the Democratic junior Senator from Alaska, says he will be a thorn in the President’s side. Why would a Democrat want to create trouble? In a word, politics. Bergich is a Senator in a red state and his only mileage with the Alaskan voters is to distance himself from the President in the most unpleasant way. 

With all the domestic pressures of office, not to mention the problems in Palestine which have dropped into his lap, together with the rest of the Middle East issues, is it any wonder that Mr. Obama wants to get away from DC? He describes himself as a caged bear. Partisan gridlock and the pressures of public life have got to him.

However, the President is not shy about taking pot shots at his political opponents. “I don’t have to run for office any more so I can just let it rip,” he has declared. I can only think that some of the hatred shown to Mr. Obama by his political opponents arises not so much from politics and power but from the color of the President’s skin. If so, no wonder he recently gets so testy. Hopefully, he will regain his equilibrium while giving the Speaker the political finger!

Palin the Preposterous

This week, Breitbart News published statements by Sarah Palin who said “the illegal immigration issue was the tipping point for her in deciding that “Obama”, as Mrs Palin terms him, not “Mr. Obama” or “President Obama”, needed to be impeached for a pattern of lawlessness.” This shows a lack of respect for both the President and the presidency. Palin added that “illegal immigration hurts American workers of all backgrounds” and “he [the President] is not an imperial president.” She is also quoted as declaring that Mr Obama has already committed at least twenty five impeachable offences, including lying to the American people and fraud, especially on policies like Obamacare and the federal debt. Unsurprisingly, Fox News gave Mrs Palin airtime.

Breitbart is a conservative news and opinion website which seems to delight in controversy. I must assume this is their reason for making Mrs Palin’s comments public, however nonsensical her views may be. Let us remember this is the woman who once said she knows how to handle the Russians because she can see their country from her house.

I will not go into the numerous Palin gaffes since 2008 when John McCain chose her to join his ticket for the presidential race. Mrs Palin is to political nous what Richard Nixon was to selling used cars. Remember the 1968 slogan: “Tricky Dicky, would you buy a used car from him?”

In her diatribe, Palin fails to give any details of the alleged offences committed by the President. In 1974, when the House of Representatives voted on Bills of Impeachment against President Nixon, there was a wealth of detail, supported by evidence. Mrs Palin makes empty charges.

Does La Palin know the provisions of the Constitution? Has she read the relevant articles concerning the removal of the chief executive? Does she not understand that the benchmark set by the Framers for proof of crimes is high? Furthermore, has she got any sort of understanding that impeachment is more a political process than a legal one? Let us remember that the President has to charged of offences by a majority in the House and to be found guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours by a two thirds majority plus one of the Senate.

I also want to know details of the lies the President has supposedly told. If this charge relates to the Affordable Care Act, surely those lies would have been exposed in the Act’s passage through Congress and the microscopic scrutiny it received in the hearings before the Supreme Court. And how has the President lied about the federal debt? Surely, what he did was to tell it exactly as it was both to Congress and the electorate, as the Republican legislators in DC played “chicken” with raising the debt ceiling.

Mrs Palin, if you want to make such a serious allegation against President Obama, put some beef into it or shut up. You need to specify exactly what Mr Obama has done. Then you have to seek support from your Party in Congress. The Republicans have a majority in the House but the Speaker is against you. Even if the House votes for impeachment, would you get a bill of impeachment passed in the Senate? No, you silly woman, of course you would not. I have to question whether you have any political sense at all. Let’s be frank. You are merely making cheap shots for the publicity.
The essential difference between you and the President is that he is a sensible politician and you are just hot air. The sooner publications like Breitart stop giving you space, the better for us all. Going Rogue? I think you are Going Doolalley!

The Civil Rights Act 50 Years On.

 

President Johnson signing the Civil Rights Act, 1964

Fifty years ago, Lyndon Johnson showed what a politically skilled President can achieve when facing a hostile Congress. Despite strong Republican and Democratic opposition in both the House and Senate, LBJ, ably assisted by Vice President Hubert Humphrey, brought some long overdue black civil rights laws into existence. The major provisions of the Civil Rights Act, 1964 are listed:

• The Act outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations; however, it exempted private clubs without defining "private," thereby allowing a loophole.

• The Act permitted Justice Department to bring lawsuits to secure desegregation of stated public facilities.

• The Act encouraged the desegregation of public schools and authorized the U. S. Attorney General to file suits to force desegregation. Despite the 1954 Supreme Court ruling in Brown v Board of Education, Topeka, many public schools in the South remained segregated.

• The Act authorized but did not require withdrawal of federal funds from programs which practiced discrimination.

•  Discrimination in employment in any business exceeding twenty five people was outlawed and an Equal Employment Opportunities Commission was created to review complaints, although it lacked meaningful enforcement powers.

•  The Act barred unequal application of voter registration requirements, but did not abolish literacy tests, sometimes used to disqualify African Americans and poor white voters. LBJ knew that any stronger legislation at that time would be a step too far for Congress. However, following his landslide victory in November, 1964, LBJ pressed forward with the Voting Rights Act, 1965.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 demonstrated the constraints on the president of the United States in the area of domestic policy. Both President Kennedy and President Johnson had to deal with severe opposition to civil rights legislation in Congress, especially within their own Democratic Party. The so-called Southern Democrats railed against weakening of racial discrimination in the South and the defeat of Jim Crow. But the passage of the Act also illustrated the effective powers the president had at his disposal once he committed himself to a particular course of action. Both Kennedy's and Johnson's use of television to dramatize the nature of the black civil rights crisis to the American people was outstanding. Those members of Congress opposed to the Act were effectively put in the stocks of public opinion. 

Fifty years on, has the 1964 Act remade US politics? Let’s look at the history. In June, 1964, the “Freedom Summer,” a black church near Philadelphia, Mississippi, was burned to the ground. Three civil rights activists, Freedom Riders, investigated while challenging civil rights abuses. The book and movie, Mississippi Burning, tells the story of their murders. Suffice it to say that not until 2005 was Edgar Killen, a KKK member, convicted of the murder of the three activists.

LBJ showed a lot of foresight shortly after the passing of the 1964 Act when he told White House Press Secretary Bill Moyers, “we just delivered the South to the Republicans for a long time.” In 1980, Ronald Reagan, then the Republican candidate for the presidency, came to Mississippi. He spoke at a County Fair, not far from where the murders had taken place but said not one word about the deaths or civil rights. Instead, he spoke about state’s rights, music to the ears of Confederate apologists. For the black community, Reagan’s message was hardly subtle. It seemed to favour the right of the state to continue black oppression.

Reagan was the beneficiary of Richard Nixon’s “Southern strategy,” a policy to reach out to Southern voters by appealing to their culturally conservative instincts and segregationist desires. From 1968, the Republicans won a majority of Southern states, save in 1976 to Jimmy Carter, a Georgian.

But it is clear that the politics of equality and integration, the bedrock of the civil rights movement, have triumphed over the politics of oppression and contempt. The days when whites were in the majority everywhere throughout the United States are over. Whilst the African American population has remained static, the rise of the Latinos and the votes they bring are highly influential. Nowhere is the influence of racial minority more apparent than in the White House. For the past six years, President Obama has risen above racial slurs and prejudice to preside for all US citizens. If evidence is needed to support this claim, one need only consider the Affordable Care Act, bringing some 40 million Americans into the health insurance net. The Act does not discriminate.

Would Mr Obama have been elected? Would statutes have passed through Congress that do not discriminate against race? Would the anti-racial movements have survived without the 1964 Act? History will judge but laws to promote equality have made America a better place to live for numerous American families, black and white.

Mississippi Burning Revisited

This blog was intended to celebrate the passing of the Civil Rights Act, fifty years ago. However, the murder of three Israeli boys, Gilad Shaer and Naftali Fraenkel, both 16 and Eyal Yifrah, 19, brings to mind a shocking event in 1964, three weeks before the passing of the Civil Rights Act.

In the early 1960s Mississippi, like most of the South, was in defiance of federal authority concerning black civil rights. The National Guard was called upon frequently to quell civil disturbance. Supreme Court rulings, particularly Brown v Board of Education, Topeka,  had infuriated the white establishment which responded with bombings, murders, vandalism, and intimidation. Mississippi was no stranger to such outrages.

The establishment of the Freedom Riders, blacks and whites alike, usually from the northern United States, challenged the segregation laws and voting rights imbalances in the South and supporting the black underclass in its demand for change. Among the Freedom Riders were three young men, Michael Schwerner, James Chaney and Andy Goodman, who in June, 1964, headed for Mississippi.

The White Knights, a splinter group of the Mississippi Ku Klux Klan, militaristically prepared for the anticipated Freedom Rider invasion. Media reports overstated the number of youths coming to Mississippi to set up voting registration drives. The reports influenced many white Mississippians who joined the White Knights. More belligerent than other KKK groups, the White Knights had a following of nearly 10,000.

On Memorial Day, 1964, Schwerner and Chaney spoke to the congregation at Mount Zion Methodist Church in Longdale, Mississippi; they talked of setting up a Freedom School and a voting drive in Neshoba County. The White Knights learned of the event and plotted to hinder the work and destroy efforts to help the black community. The White Knights beat the congregation members and then torched the church, burning it to the ground.

On June 21, 1964, Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner drove to Longdale, Mississippi, to investigate the destruction of the Mount Zion Church. After visiting Longdale, they headed west on highway 16 to Philadelphia, planning to take the southbound Highway 19 to Meridian.

Their station wagon had barely passed the Philadelphia city limits when they were stopped. Chaney was arrested for driving 65 mph in a 35 mph zone; Goodman and Schwerner were held too. They were taken to the Neshoba County jail. There is no need to go into gory details. Suffice it to say that Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner were shot, soon after their release from the jail. Their bodies were taken to a remote farm and buried.

Now, some fifty years later, three more young boys have been found murdered on the Israeli border. It seems they were abducted while hitch-hiking. Whilst Hamas has not claimed responsibility for the atrocity, it has praised the kidnappers. Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, has accused Hamas, the Palestine Islamist group, of the murders. Israel has bombed Gaza. Palestine now holds its breath as more Israeli reprisals are expected.  As yet, the collateral damage, a euphemism for innocent civilian casualties, is not known.

Why are young men, whether American or Israeli, pawns in a larger game? How can white supremacists fifty years ago or Palestinian “freedom fighters”, otherwise known as thugs, possibly justify the abduction and murder of young people as a proper way of advancing a cause? And how is further killing in the name of reprisal warranted.

Both killings, albeit fifty years apart, are appalling and inexcusable. In the case of the Americans, guilty men were brought to justice, one as late as 2005. In the case of the Israelis, how many more innocent Palestinians will lose their lives in revenge attacks for the loss of three boys?

And so the self-defeating acts of reprisal against violence continue, creating to an intransigent history as violence begats violence. Will those who fight these fights ever learn that killing for peace is futile? They might as well proclaim the virtue of the sex act to preserve virginity!