~synthesis~

humane

What does it take to shape the essence of who we are? For an individual, it is likely to be one or a series of personal experiences. For a community it might be a shared experience, more often than not a calamity of some kind. But for the whole human race? Now that's something else.

Think of what has impacted us on that scale - religious figures like Buddha or Christ or Mohamed; evil figures like Pol Pot or Hitler or bin Laden. And then I think of Gandhi and King Jr. and Mandela.

They have affected me profoundly - not just in terms of who I am, but more than that, the type of person I aspire to be; and if I have one, what I would hope is the nature of my soul. I hope they have in some small way touched the better angels of all our natures.

If you think of the essence of India - Gandhi comes to mind. If you think of the essence of America, King Jr. comes to mind. If you think of the essence of Africa, Mandela comes to mind.

We are so very lucky to have had one of these men inhabit our lifetime, to have personally experienced and been touched by his essence.

As I was driving home today, not long after I heard the news of Madiba's death, I was thinking about my own experiences with racism and intolerance (in my home country of Tanzania, and my adopted countries of Canada and the US); how I acted, and how I wish I'd acted.

I wrote this blog about Madiba a few years ago, it includes the poem (Invictus by William Ernest Henley) that accompanied Mandela during his 27 years in jail. There is immense strength and power in Henley's words, and there is even more in Mandela's actions.

If his death (and life) are to have meaning in our world, then his actions (like those of Gandhi and King Jr.) can not, must not stand alone. We have to walk in their footsteps, to demand of ourselves and of our elected leaders the tolerance and care that goes along with the word "humanity."

Humane is a powerful word. It demands immense things of us; it asks us to transcend our Darwinian urge to survive even at the cost of our fellow man, and recognize that our individual freedom and opportunities for greatness only comes when all in our community are also free and great.

Amandla Awethu.

Is Obama Cheney’s Puppet?

You’re thinking, “That Shafeen’s really gone over the edge. He thinks Cheney is evil incarnate, and he admitted to voting for Obama in 2012.”

Listen to Senator Obama’s 2004 DNC speech, and you can't help but conclude, “This man is the anti-Republican.” He certainly campaigned that way in 2008 and 2012. But actions speak louder than words, and President Obama’s actions belie his rhetoric.

When I think of Little Dick (Nixon was clearly “Big Dick”), I think of a secretive, war-mongering, manipulative person.

President Obama:

Transparency: He promised to be the most transparent President ever.

• This White House has classified more documents as Secret or above than all others. It has used the Espionage Act to not just protect our national security, but to prevent embarrassment.
• Reporters consider this to be the least open presidency in the last 40 years. (And that’s because no-one who covers the White House is old enough to go back further.)
• No White House since Nixon has more aggressively prosecuted leaks than this one. Does he have more to hide than Big Dick?

Peace: When he was elected in 2008, the rest of the world rejoiced in possibility of a less self-centered, less unilateral, more humane partner. He was even awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in anticipation of future actions.

It would be hard to find a bigger advocate of the Bush Doctrine (really the Cheney Doctrine) than President Obama. From his first actions in 2008 (dramatically increase US military presence in Afghanistan), to his lack of action on Guantanamo, to his passion for drone strikes, to his flaunting of the 5th and 14th Amendments (due process), to his persistence in the War on Drugs (Fast and Furious), our President has lived the “do it to them before they do it to us” policy (Cheney Doctrine).

Domestically, President Obama was given an “F” by the Brady Campaign on gun control in 2010. While the rhetoric improved some in the wake of Sandy Hook, outcomes have not.

Genuine: Listening to his speeches (especially during the 2008 campaign), it was hard to imagine someone more genuinely committed to being genuine. I know people who basically worshiped at their Shepard Fairey altars. Their man Barak was going to lead the world to peace and humanity.

But he hasn’t. He has distanced America from world leaders (and citizens) by spying on them; a ripple effect of which will cause American businesses to lose as much as $35 Billion in global revenue by 2016.

Even the President’s signature Affordable Care Act is premised on a Republican model, and his change in stance on gay marriage was forced by circumstances vs. a real belief in the issue.

Little Dick would be proud...

I have often railed against MBAs, accusing them of being the curse of American business success, forsaking macro-success in favor of their own macro-successes. I have similarly accused CEOs that rely on their PR department to craft business strategy based on what will “play best” as being just plain stupid.

If Obama is our Macbeth, then his advisors are our Lady Macbeth. They have subverted his intent, and acted without scruples. It would not surprise me if many of his “people” are MBA/PR wonks, but it does disappoint me. 

When you put expediency before integrity and spin before accountability, there is no high ground. If you look at its work product, this Democrat White House is disarmingly Republican.

democracide

Churchill famously said "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others."

A few months ago, I wrote that a democracy is characterized by the regular, peaceful transition of power based on equitable choice (one citizen, one vote). Voting is the act of choosing the best person(s) to represent your voice in the governing process. Governing is the enforcement of laws and creation of policies that improve the citizens’ wellbeing today and tomorrow.

How naïve am I!

The basics of democratic politics, whether in America, Egypt, Israel, or Russia are simple. The job of the candidate (and their Party) is three things:

1. Find or fabricate a means to polarize "your" people vs. "their" people - make the "us-es" hate the "thems," and create the groundswell (of $ & advocacy) needed to win.
2. Whilst in power, focus ONLY on subverting and diminishing your opponent, and 
3. Altering the rules of the electoral system to assure a win next time, and the time after that.

If you are the leader of your Party, your ONLY job is to assure more wins than the last election. There is no other objective. On the face of it, that seems reasonable - the role of a Party should be to achieve perpetual success. After all, the ONLY reward in politics comes with winning. Unlike sport or business, there is no value, or prize, or credit for being second.

Pavlov showed that a dog can be conditioned to drool (reflex action) via an environmental event (bell ringing). Politicians in a democracy are conditioned to its binary nature. Their instinct/conditioning (and more precisely, their survival) requires that they pursue winning at all costs. Losing is fatal. As is the desire to be a real public servant. You can't serve if you don't win. But once you win, your priority staying "in" - you have to keep winning.

These venal, mercenary politicians (VMPs) also understand Pavlov, and realize that they have to condition the electorate to value (and vote for) rhetoric over public service. In America, the most effective VMPs are the Tea Party; the Democrats and Republicans are trying, but they're not as good at it ...yet. Once the citizenry is conditioned vote based on fear and anger vs informed reason, the game is over.

The game in America is perilously close to over...

The natural behavior of democratically-elected politicians (VMPs) is the willful evisceration of their opponents, in order to perpetually hold power; to achieve totalitarianism. Since it goes without saying that no-one's voting for anything in a totalitarian state, it is thus that democracy leads to democracide.

What would Churchill say now I wonder?

A popular answer is term limits, which does limit the damage any one politician can do, though it has the effect of making the Party more powerful - they are the constant; and as king-maker, the puppet master is running the game, and the politician is but an empty shirt.

Another favorite is election finance laws. While this might curb election "buyers," it does nothing to regulate the candidate selection process (Primaries in the US), which again puts the control of government in the hands of an unelected few. The Tea Party in the US recognized this, and has successfully manipulated the Republican Party through the Primary process, knowing that if their candidates win the Primaries, mainstream Republicans will vote for them because of their fear and hatred of Democrats.

These and other ideas are all similar in that they attempt to fix symptoms, but not cure anything.

Is that it? Are democracies screwed?

To create a government of the people, by the people, for the people, the people must do the work. There is no other way.

Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, and all the others who have caused the tides to rise for all boats have one thing in common. They asked more of themselves (and the "oppressed") than they did of others (including the oppressors). Until we want it badly enough to do the hard work ourselves, we're doomed to voting for totalitarianism.

suppressing obsession

If a species thinks itself enlightened or evolved, it must go beyond violence to use reasoned and sustainable approaches to resolving differences.

Military actions lead to one of two outcomes - perpetual war between peoples whose antipathy grows stronger every day (ex. Israel v Palestine); or absolute destruction of one side combined with generational investment to hopefully forge peace (ex. Allies v Axis in WWII, and the resulting European Union).

Violence is a terrible answer, but if one is to use that tactic, then one must go in prepared to annihilate the other side, and then invest for decades to help create a new society. Surgical strikes, and limited engagements have proven pointless, and invariably lead to more violence.

If President Obama (or the UN or whomever) is seeking to intervene in Syria, they must either personally participate in mediating an accord between all parties, where peaceful coexistence is the outcome (unlikely); or they must eradicate all the violent elements, and prepare to spend the next several decades forging a new society (unpalatable).

There is another option. The West can urge the governments of surrounding Arab states step in. The Arab nations and Muslims in general have been under siege for years. "External" interventions have exacerbated both the internal situation, and their relationship with the rest of the world. They must come together to make their communities and peoples find lasting peace. It can not come from without.

If the majority of peaceful Arabs and Muslims in the world are not horrified by the violent acts of a malevolent minority, then the majority has a much bigger problem - their own similarly evil nature.

I don't believe this is the case, I think they are complacent because the West has always swooped in.

It is time for America and her cohorts to recognize their impotence; to suppress their compulsion to intervene; and to allow the Arabs and Muslims the room to forge their own tomorrow.

Lasting peace can not be imposed, it must be chosen.

the real school bullies

A guy walks into a bar, sees a woman, offers to buy her a drink, and she says no. Is it her fault for not liking him, or his for not being attractive to her? Does he have the right to be angry with her if he gets a yes 60-70% of the time? Does he have the right to beat her up for not saying yes?

Other than walking away, if he gets angry, blames her, or assaults her, would you agree that he should be punished? Is it fair to say that in our society we would not tolerate those actions?

Would it surprise you to learn that we DO tolerate this behavior when directed at our children?

Ben Johnson, a high school principal, consultant, author, and instructional learning coach wrote The Dos and Don'ts for Integrating iPads in Edutopia. It was revealing, but not in the way I expected:

Johnson asked his teachers why they don't use iPads, four of the seven reasons were about NOT trusting the students to stay on task; the author concluded (my highlights):

• Teachers learn quickly to not trust students
• Most of the rules, policies and procedures we teachers have set up in the classroom are because of perhaps only one student that made the rule necessary, but in the process of establishing that rule, we typically ignore all of the other well-behaved students
• One student ruins it for all students. While giving them an expensive device is a certain amount of trust, it is going too far to expect that they will use the device appropriated of their own free will
• Some teachers feel uncomfortable when they do not have complete control. To them, teacher control must be enforced and if they can't enforce it, then they will eliminate the distraction

He goes on to say, "I thought it was outrageous that teachers would not use the iPads in class because it is too hard for them to adapt or learn." That was the only thing he found outrageous. He is not outraged that his teachers inherently mistrust students; that he/they can blame one student for creating rules that harm all students; and that teachers must always be in complete control. Imagine being a student in this school.

Schools and school systems are designed by adults, prioritizing their convenience vs the kids'. From school hours (crack of dawn), to testing, to the assumption that every child of a given age is the same, knows the same things, learns at the same pace, and should be measured based on the same, arbitrary standard, everything about the system caters to adults.

There is no accounting for individuality, nor is there much tolerance for "deviation." Despite their "home field" advantage, adults (especially administrators/legislators) regard most failures in their system the fault of those untrustworthy, uncooperative children.

In 2013, California for example suspended 5.7% (366,629), and expelled 1% (9,553) of its ~6 million public school students. Most states and school boards are trying to figure out how to "manage" their own suspension and expulsions, as they try to "control" student behavior.

They use the threat of removal from school as an incentive for kids to stay in school. Ironic. Never do they reflect on whether their system might be the cause of disengaged kids. Never do they consider that the very students they're expelling are the ones most in need of care, support, and teaching.

School bullying is a big deal, but we seem to be ignoring the real culprits.

While we think it is not OK for the guy in the bar to beat the woman for declining his attention, we think it is OK for adults to take advantage of their strength, size, and authority to mistrust, and control our children, and even kick them out of school for any deviation from their arbitrary standard.

Is it really acceptable for teachers to universally mistrust students? Can the students tell? Of course. How would that make them feel?

The adults build the system, write the rules, and NEVER blame themselves for any failure. Why is it not the school's fault that children are not as engaged? Why is it not the school's fault that kids don't feel compelled to want to learn?

Perhaps it is because the bully never sees himself as anything but righteous.

americanada

My good friend Brian Singh from Calgary published this in the Globe & Mail today. It is an excellent analysis of the Conservative Party’s strategy for ascendancy, and ongoing domination of the Canadian government.

There are clear parallels between Ottawa and Washington DC. And there are lessons to be learned about effective, sustainable governance.

Canada: Conservatives rise in the wake of (despite?) years of a strong and successful Liberal leadership, which presided over budget surplus (yes, surplus!) after surplus.

US: Republicans come to the fore in 2002/3 via Karl Rove despite the economic strength of the Clinton/Democratic leadership.

How did they do it? Brian nails it with his 8 Lessons. And with his indulgence, let me add my two cents.

By definition, underdogs are smaller, hungrier, and have less to lose. They have two paths to follow - leaderless/vacuous self-pitying petulance (the road to under-underdoggery), or disciplined, pertinent leadership. Examples of the former include the anti-gun and anti-immigration advocates, whose arguments are specious and whose policies will never improve things.

Then look at how Karl Rove transformed the Republican party into a consistent, relevant, and singular force of political might. He corralled people; narrowed their focus to a handful of clear, simple issues; and created a new truth (Republicans = economic strength and success). All of which led to a close race in Bush vs. Gore, and then a decisive win vs. Kerry.

The Democrats (and the Liberals in Canada) lost their mojo because their sustained success created too many wanna-be kings, excessive infighting, and through this, a fractionalized party whose leaders spent more time trying to one-up each other vs focusing on their Conservative opponents. (Similar also to the last Republican Primary.)

Like the US Democrats, the Canadian Liberals (with the right leadership) were able to coalesce and form effective and long-lived governments. Bill Clinton and Barak Obama, Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chrétien are examples of leaders who were able to achieve critical mass.

Will Justin Trudeau be able to do the same for the Liberals in the years to come? Will Hillary Clinton (?) be able to keep Democrats in the White House in 2016?

I defer to Brian on the first question.

South of the 49th Parallel, the Republican party is in the midst of a 3-way tug-of-war. Traditional fiscal conservatives vs. the religious right vs. the Tea Party. Each seems to “control” about 1/3 of the Republican representatives in Congress, and certainly each believes they are the only hope for victory in 2016.

Try as they might, they’ve not been able to win (or even unite) under a traditional fiscal conservative (McCain, Romney), in fact, they’ve been spanked both times, and from what we’ve seen of the Primary candidate pool, they may be in line for another spanking.

Successful gerrymandering combined with trumped up voter fraud-prevention tactics will almost certainly assure them of a majority in the House, but to what end? There is no emergent House Republican winner or leader; worse, they can only agree on one thing - voting against Democrats. Other than that, they are consistently an inconsequential, and sometimes destructive (last debt ceiling fiasco) Congress.

Like the Liberals in Canada, the Republicans are mired in pettiness and infighting - they lack a consistent vision and are unable to believe in their leadership. Unlike the Liberals (who are now the third party behind the NDP), their success in Congress means they don’t believe they are underdogs. If it ain’t broke...

The Democrats on the other hand have an anti-1% and anti-gun fetish that will doom them. Say what you will about the 1%, they got there by fulfilling the American Dream. Persistently vilifying them is not only moronic, it is destructive and hypocritical. It is equally naive to believe that laws will stop people bent on committing unlawful acts. There are over 300 million privately owned guns in America - background checks are not going to stop gun violence.

Bizarrely, I would advise either party to listen to Sarah Palin’s speech at the CPAC 2013. She crystalized the issues beautifully in terms of what it will take to win votes. Avoid politics, stop blaming other people, just focus on the wellbeing of the lower and middle classes - fight for them, and not against your opponent or within your party.

The Republicans should get over ObamaCare, recognize that eliminating entitlements is not realistic, and see that shrinking government creates unemployment, which further drags the economy. That is not to say we should inflate government, but rather to say that we should spend more efficiently. If they were really smart (and hungry), they’d stop the “we oppose everything Democrats support” line, and become reasoned, compromising people intent on public service. Imagine the change in how independents and liberals would regard them.

The Dems should get over hating rich people, realize that entitlements are not sacrosanct, and stop being so sanctimonious. If they were really smart, they would focus solely on, and trumpet job growth and economic growth. This would especially be effective if Hilary Clinton were to win the primary, as she could “take credit” for the economic positives in both Bill Clinton and Barak Obama’s presidencies.

In the end, I feel more optimistic about Canadian politics and government, where with the right leader, a Party can make a difference. Here in America, it seems that we are doomed to a House, Senate, and White House that will prioritize one-upmanship over governing.

To paraphrase Brian's 8th lesson - winning is easier if your opponent is dumber than you.

the pope loop

My list of questions if the Papacy was a job won via interview, and if I were on that interview loop.

1. Name the one thing you believe every Catholic must be/have - the one thing without which you would not consider that person a Catholic.
2. Name the one thing that if a person was or believed it, you would consider them a non-Catholic.
3. Beyond the "typical" officiating work of a Cardinal, what ONE thing would you (as Pope) define as your priority for the next three years?
4. As Pope, will you focus more on regions where Catholicism is on the rise or in decline?
5. If you had to strengthen the Church's relationship (alliance) with another mainstream religion, which one would you select? What would your goal be in doing this?
6. Are there any aspects of the Church's teachings (traditions/rules vs. religious tenets) that you believe should be reevaluated based on changing times (between now and when these traditions/rules were established)?

My ideal candidate's answers (bearing in mind I have no affiliation with the Catholic Church, nor am I religious):

1. A practitioner of the golden rule - do unto others as you would have them do unto you, combined with love thy neighbor, which I believe are two sides of the same coin.
2. That harming another or allowing them to come to harm is acceptable.
3. To turn our religion from a series of "No's" to a conversation about "Yes" - assuming the worst and a model that scares people into behaving seems antithetical.
4. I will focus on people in need no matter their faith or location.
5. I would pick Islam. The loudest fringe always subsumes people of moderate voices; this is and has been true in our faith, and it is so in others. It saddens me when the fringe uses faith to advance a self-serving agenda, and it scares me when they advance a violent agenda. I would seek to build a bridge between moderate Catholics and Muslims in the hope that our combined strength and tolerance will help the fringe find its way to the middle.
6. I believe Catholicism is centered on the notions of faith, love, tolerance, and service. Anything beyond this is a matter of time and place. I would look at homosexuality, contraception, celibacy, and the role of women in the Church as subject to reinterpretation.
   • I would rather people are guided by their faith in God and love for each other when it comes to which gender they should love and marry; our teachings should focus on faith and love, and we must trust in God that people will choose wisely, and then accept the guidance God gives them.
   • I would urge adults to view parenting as their most important role; one that must be entered into intentionally, and when ready. There is nothing worse in the world than a child suffering needlessly because their parents are not able to care for them; I would support the use of contraception to prevent this form of child abuse.
   • Rather than being celibate, I would like to see the leaders of our Church be exemplars of healthy, successful marriages and parenting.
   • I would hope that one day soon the person answering these questions is a woman - there is no reason why it should not be so.

who is more afraid?

...the student, the parent, the teacher, the principal, the university admissions officer, the employer?

I guarantee that of these six, the one least afraid of anything is the student.

As we mature, two things become very important - change and control. We hate the first and love the second. This is true as individuals and as organizations. Take our education system - it began with apprenticeship, and the master’s need to create a successor. This is the most successful teaching model ever.

Over time, education has “evolved” into a hideous creature that cares not at all about children, creating successors, or even the idea of learning. Instead, it is about building a standardized machine whose mission is put bums in seats, and impose tests on those poor bums that measure nothing meaningful.

The public education system in America is the last place you should look to find evolved thinking or a genuine commitment to give our children the means to be successful as adults. Of course there are (rare) exceptions, some teachers and school leaders do try to give their kids more than our feckless system prescribes; they are heroes, and they are a small minority.

My very good friend Larry Rosenstock (CEO of High Tech High) and Rob Riordan (President of the HTH Graduate School of Education) just published a brilliant and inspired essay entitled Changing the Subject. It, much more eloquently than I could ever, sets out a vision for what learning should be, and what a school ought to look like if we adults genuinely cared about our children.

Less than a quarter of a millennium old, America has accomplished amazing things. But much of the credit for this country’s greatness comes from those of the 19th and early 20th centuries. The late 20th and early 21st century is a nadir - from the Baby Boomers to the Gen Xs, and now the Gen Ys, we have vilified change and embraced control. We have normalized and standardized and homogenized our way into insipidity.

There is a way to climb back up the mountain. Larry and Rob’s essay shows us how to build what our children deserve. It is time.

If we can learn from our children how not to fear fear, we just might have a hope of turning them into the adults we wish we could be.

the NRA is right - it’s not about the guns...

...it’s about the gun owners. According to Wayne LaPierre (head of NRA), “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” It’s hard to argue with that, just as it is hard to implement an “only good guys may have guns” policy.

Proponents of gun control will say that access to certain (or all) weapons + ineffective buyer "qualification" are the issues. This might be true, but so what - it will not prevent gun violence in a country where there are ~9 times more gun dealers than McDonalds restaurants; where there are already ~300 million guns in circulation, and where 5-10 million guns are purchased every year.

The American Bill of Rights protects an individual’s right to bear arms; changing that is nigh impossible, so the real question is not how to prevent gun ownership; it is akin to what LaPierre said, how do we prevent bad guys from wanting to use guns.

I think the anti-gun lobbies/organizations are wasting their time and money. They ironically draw strength and impetus from killing sprees (especially where young people are involved), and sure they create a feverish signing of anti-gun petitions and calls to Congresspeople, but in the end, the outcome is status quo. And then comes another spree, the process begins anew, with the same outcome - status quo.

Back to LaPierre, who are these “bad” guys? The killers are almost always male, they often are killed or kill themselves in the process (society gets no justice), and they are deranged.

So most gun violence is committed by men; these men buy/get guns as an extension of their penis/machismo. They use guns to assert their maleness, and as a conduit for their anger and bravado. Their role models are gun-toting archetypes, like John Wayne/Rambo/etc., revolutionaries, survivalists, gangstas, soldiers, other spree-killers, etc.

They crave the luster of strength, confidence, coolness, assertiveness, heroism, etc. that comes from wielding a gun. Guns are perceived to be a supremely manly accessory.

Rather than relentlessly pursing the pointless cause of legislative relief, let us instead change the perception of guns. Let us reposition gun ownership and gun usage as something other than an expression of machismo.

It would take time; it would take persistence; it would certainly take creativity; but compare that to the multi-decade failure of every anti-gun organization to meet its goal. It is time to try a new approach.

Positioning is a powerful, powerful tool. It allows a thing to be conceptualized or re-conceptualized in a way that will endure. I wrote this a couple of years ago - if you have a moment, read it, and more importantly, watch the two videos. They are outstanding, and they are exactly what is needed to redefine the lure of “bearing arms.”

How would “men” feel if guns were associated with tampons, or as an indicator of erectile dysfunction? Will this happen overnight? No. But look at how we view cigarette smoking today vs. during the era of Mad Men.

If America’s love of guns is to be diminished, it will NOT be with laws; it will be because we redefined the notion of gun ownership to be insipid.

stimulating peace

America is a generous country - from 1946-2010 (in 2010 $), she has given just under $2.1 trillion in foreign program and military aid. Impressive, and well... it makes me proud to be an American.

Over this period, the #1 beneficiary of American largesse is Israel ($185 billion or 8.9% of all aid).

Israel receives American aid with good reason - they are the longest-standing democracy in the Middle East, and they have the most effective lobbyists in the world. The value proposition is the preservation of Israel in the face of their anti-Zionist neighbors.

I’ve spent time in the Middle East, and except for the (very) rare zealot, the people I’ve met care little about the Jew/Muslim issue - their focus is their family (health, economic, social wellbeing). This is because the people I knew were gainfully employed and had something besides zealotry to live for.

Are there freaks on both sides that are filled with hate? Of course, but not as many as we might think. Do some of them wish to create armies with which to wreak violence? Yes - on both sides. The media’s relentless and gawky focus on the ugly side of humanity is why we think they represent the majority.

America also has it’s share of hate-filled people, but it’s not so easy to achieve critical mass here - most Americans have too many other things to live for/distract them. Even the Occupy Wall Street movement petered out because people soon had better things to do than sit in tents and be irritating.

In 2010, America gave Israel $2.8 billion ($386/person or 1.3% of Israeli GDP) in aid. The West Bank/Gaza received $693 million - $4/person or 10% of GDP. Israel’s GDP/capita is ten times that of their poorer neighbors; the average income in Israel is just over $30,000/year vs. just under $2,000/year in the West Bank.

Is it any wonder that it’s easy to recruit Arab “soldiers” - they literally have nothing better to do, and very sadly, nothing to live for but dying. Having just $5.50/day will lead anyone, however civilized or educated, to desperate acts. It’s not hard to see how a Palestinian parent might join a terrorist organization, or “volunteer” a child to the “cause” - it’s the only available way to feed their family - they’re that poor.

Has the $185 billion in American aid done anything to create a (self-) sustainably peaceful Israel? No. Should we stop? No. Should we continue doing the same thing? No. So...?

Our goal is the long-term preservation of Israel; we should then stop funding their ability to kill Arabs (majority of US aid to Israel is military), and instead help Israel by enabling the Arabs' economic viability.

Employment is the offspring of the marriage of demand with capacity. If America were to proffer large tranches of demand (we will buy $X millions of products Y1, Y2, etc. for the next Z years) to the Palestinians, the result would be widespread employment in Gaza and the West Bank. We would phase out our investment as they became self-sustaining.

This would profoundly change the dynamic in the region. If you had two ways to feed your family - send your daughter to her suicide-bomber-death, or work at a job, which would you choose?

If the majority of Palestinian families are earning enough money to cover shelter, food, education, healthcare, etc., and if they are then earning just a bit more so as to buy that new iPad Mini or a TV, I guarantee you they will not reelect Hamas. They will choose a commerce-minded government bent on improving their economic situation even more. Israel won’t matter except as a trading partner; they’ll be too busy playing Angry Birds, watching Desperate Housewives, and thinking about what they’ll buy with their next bonus.

Now think of how much more stable and peaceful Israel would be. The best way to end war is to give people something more valuable to live for.

America should never weaponize other countries. Peace through prosperity should be our foreign policy motto.