“Why support Israel?,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, August 17- 23, 2012, 17.

WHY SUPPORT ISRAEL?

As election season is heating up, the presumed Republican presidential contender, Mitt Romney, has made his way to Israel to garner Jewish support and raise funds for his campaign. The Obama administration responded with security support and loan guarantees, sending Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, to meet with his counterparts.

Are Iran’s nuclear ambitions the glue that binds Israeli and American interests in the Middle-East? Is the claim that Israel is the only legitimate democracy in the region the main focus for American support? Or, as some would have us believe, is the Jewish lobby in America (AIPAC) really that strong to secure political support?

We should recall that the USSR was more eager to support the establishment of a socialist-leaning Israel during the 1947 two-state UN resolution that the US which was uneasy at the time to get involved in the post-British Mandate.

As my American girlfriend (who is Christian) was visiting me in Israel, and as I was showing her around the holy sites of the Abrahamic religions (Jewish, Christian, Muslim), it dawned on me that despite politicians’ proclamations about democracy, they are in fact concerned about other issues. It’s not quite hypocrisy, but confusion.

Let me explain. Democracy is a valuable political ideal, especially when compared to other political systems, such as dictatorship or tyranny (military or other). Democratic nations tend to promote human rights, value equality and freedom, and are based on the rule of law.

But if Israel’s democracy were the lynchpin for American foreign policy in the region, then any other nascent democracy would do as well. How about the democratically-elected Palestinian Authority? Why are we stymied by the results of the Arab Spring? If the majority of Egyptians prefer the Muslim Brotherhood, who are we to object? Why vex nostalgically about the good old days of President Mubarak?

One could cynically suggest that at least Mubarak guaranteed the peace agreement brokered by President Carter in 1979, and provided, as of 2008 some 60 billion cubic feet of natural gas annually through a direct pipeline from Egypt to Israel. He controlled the military and the military controlled the country, hence Mubarak had his way, even when it got to Israel. American annual foreign aid ($1.55 billion) reflects this point.

If democracy isn’t the most important reason for American support of Israel, two other standard arguments remain. One has to do with strategic alliance, harkening back to the Cold War when the Soviet Union supported the Arab world while America supported Israel and Turkey. Israel could test American weapons in the region—there were many wars since 1948—and provide feedback on potential improvements. This military-alliance argument remains central in current debates regarding an attack on (almost nuclear ready) Iran, with no mention of Israel’s own nuclear capability and its refusal to sign the international non-proliferation treaty.

Given that the US has engaged in two wars against Iraq without any Israeli involvement (other than intelligence), this argument is weak. We are left with the Jewish-factor argument, one that has veiled anti-Semitic undertones. If American Jews are rich and control the liberal media, they have undue influence over politicians of both parties; in order to get the “Jewish vote,” presidential and congressional candidates support Israel. This assumes that Jews and Israelis are interchangeable, which of course isn’t true.

The casino magnate Sheldon Adelson is the poster-child of this view. Should one example be generalized about a whole minority? No. There are as many Jews who support Israeli policies as those who oppose them; there are as many poor Jews as there are rich ones; and there are as many liberal Jews as there are conservative. Not all Jews are alike.

Annual foreign aid to Israel ($3.1 billion) as well as to other Middle-East countries is in fact domestic subsidy since all expenditures are to be spent here on grain or arms, unlike the billions handed out to local chieftains in Iraq and Afghanistan. It therefore has wide congressional support; it’s pork barrel policies.

So, what is it that compels America to support Israel? It’s the religious holy sites! If America were to gamble on who would protect them, ensure that Christian pilgrims who come to Israel annually can worship peacefully (53% of 3.5 million tourists), it would be on Israel rather than any other Arab state. This is the tipping point that moves Americans of all Christian denominations to support Israel as the custodian of the holy land.

Driving from Nazareth and the Sea of Galilee to Jerusalem, it became clear that a free Israel welcomes pilgrims from around the world, inviting them to worship safely and respectfully, with guards in every gate and on every rooftop.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com

 

      

 

“Mandatory service,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, August 10 - 16, 2012, 17.

MANDATORY SERVICE

Years ago one of my daughters thought she wanted to become a politician. When asked what would prepare her for the job, she confidently answered that she’d need to enlist in the military. If I’m going to approve funding for wars, she said, I should know what it’s like to fight in one.

Perhaps she was influenced by her father who served in the IDF, where there is mandatory service of three years for men and two years for women. There is something quite reassuring when you look around you and know that everyone served in the military, just like you. Perhaps she was simply young and idealistic, wanting to serve her country.

Unlike the voluntary American military service and its two-tiered system of enlistment, the IDF enlist everyone at the private level and then promotes through the ranks according to merit. Even the Chief of Staff began as a private.

There is something to say about this egalitarian system where everyone gives according to his/her ability (my brother-in-law had a leg problem and worked in the computer center) and in return has his/her security needs met.

But what if you are a conscientious objector or pacifist? You can always opt out and join instead one of the many civil-service agencies. Contributing to the whole binds the population together in ways that foster a sense of citizenship and a stake in one’s country, unless you are an ultra-orthodox Jew.

For some reason—concern for the ability to fully practice religion?—orthodox Jews were exempted from military service since the founding of the state in 1948. Year after year, a brokered deal was in place with weak coalition governments (in which minority religious parties traditionally hold the balance of power for parliamentary control) that prolonged this exemption.

Now its extension has expired (August 1^st) by order of the Supreme Court as a discriminatory practice that violates another, more basic law, about human rights and equality (except Arab Israelis whose rights and duties differ from those of their Jewish counterparts—but this is another issue altogether).

As long as religious leaders were able to cut their own deals behind closed doors and prop up prime-ministers whose majority rule was so slim that their support was crucial for surviving a no-confidence vote, there was little public outrage. But as the centrist party, Kadima (Forward), made it a condition of its continued participation in the current coalition government it has to leave the coalition.

With fourteen political parties making up the 120 membership Knesset (parliament), one can imagine the ongoing mayhem of bringing together competing ideological stances and delivering on promises to constituents. And this doesn’t even include the twenty-one parties represented in municipalities but not in the Knesset. It’s a mess, lively and active, personal and contentious.

Kadima left the ruling coalition, bringing a comfortable super-majority government of 94 down to 66. The Supreme Court’s decision went into effect, and the Knesset is on summer recess till mid-October. The defense department, headed by a member of the ruling coalition, has already suggested it’s not ready to deal with such a large influx of soldiers all at once, so a wait-and-see policy is in effect by default.

Do principles matter? Or does political reality necessitate pandering to those who wield disproportionate power to form coalition governments? Between principles and practice the gap is so wide that nothing will be accomplished soon. But this doesn’t mean that these principles are irrelevant or should be compromised. It’s almost as bad as claiming that “all men are created equal” and overlooking slavery or women’s rights. It took us almost two centuries to get it right; let’s see how quickly the Israelis catch up.

Israel is a young nation that needs guidance. Stubborn and self-righteous as it is, it does have serious national security issues unlike those we have faced in America, primarily because of the proximity of enemy states. Its legitimacy as a state is continuously questioned, and some of its neighbors are bound to annihilate it when the opportunity arises. Numbers do matter when it relates to land-mass and population size.

Perhaps it is with this in mind that it’s puzzling to see a large minority of self-proclaimed religionists enjoy the fruits of the state—claiming educational and welfare rights and funding—while refusing to share in the burdens and duties facing every citizen. If it were only unfair and hypocritical, it would be lamentable; but it’s dangerous as well, and that is unforgiveable.

Equality among people is a religious principle, after all, since we are all equal in the eyes of the Lord, right? Why not extend this to duties as well?

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS who served in the IDF. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com

 

“The right, and duty, to bear arms,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, August 3 - 9, 2012, 25.

GUN RIGHTS AND DUTIES

Admittedly, one has a different perspective when writing from the most militarized nation on earth, Israel. National security isn’t simply a political excuse for parliamentary debate but a real survival matter for a tiny country surrounded by enemies who publicly declare their intention to destroy it. Military might is a watchword even for peace-lovers who’d give up the West Bank in a two-state solution to the Palestinian right of independence.

Whatever one reads here, there is no mention of personal gun rights or the ideology of a lone rider shooting his way through Indian (or Palestinian) territories. Instead, there is shock and horror over the Aurora shooting. One hears a relieved sigh, It can only happen in America.

Perhaps it’s the fact that most public places have guards that check one’s backpack and purse; perhaps it’s a greater awareness that suicide-bombers have caused enough damage over the years; it might even be a general psychosis that informs everyone about living in a military zone, despite exterior conviviality. The fact is, one must be vigilant and keep a watchful eye on one’s surroundings.

This is in no way to say that someone could have prevented a nut-case from opening fire in a crowded movie-theater. The consensus is that with enough intent and planning, one can cause harm anywhere in the world. But there is also a consensus in Israel that cultural cues and training may help create an atmosphere and mindset where citizens can expect to live a normal life under abnormal conditions.

The new normal in Israel differs from that of Colorado when it gets to guns and security, patrolling one’s borders and airports. But public debate about such issues is radically different, and perhaps informative.

While Americans of all stripes—see both Obama and Romney on the issue—publicly declare their support for gun ownership and the right “to bear arms,” in Israel the issue revolves around duties to protect one’s country. Israeli media is enmeshed in a parliamentary debate over the duty of ultra-Orthodox Jews to join the Israeli Defense Forces and bear equal burdens as secular citizens.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution has two versions, one passed by Congress that states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” the other ratified by the states and authenticated by Jefferson, Secretary of State at the time that reads: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right…”

In his Law’s Empire (1986), Ronald Dworkin spends an entire chapter to the different punctuation of the this amendment, claiming that if one follows the grammatical conventions of the time, the right to bear arms was associated with the formation of militias and not attributable to individuals. This, of course, isn’t what the Supreme Court decided in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller when it reaffirmed the right of individuals to bear arms, overturning the District’s restrictions.

What gets lost in the American debate, especially when intellectual light-weights join the conversation from both political parties, is the realization that in a democracy that holds the rule of law paramount, there are no rights without duties. One’s right ought to be proportional to one’s duties. The assumption is that we are dealing with responsible adults.

Will the horrific Aurora case change anything? There are 49,762 licensed gun dealers in the US and 7,261 pawn shops that sell guns; about 30,000 people die annually from firearms, half are suicide cases (NYT). To some extent, we have to change the public discourse if we want to have a useful conversation with the National Rifle Association.

First, gun ownership shouldn’t be understood as an absolute right. Just as equality isn’t an absolute principle—we have laws and policies about equal opportunity—so must our understanding of gun rights be circumscribed with greater regulations (perhaps a few weeks of waiting period is reasonable, just as we wait for liquor licenses).

Second, gun rights should be accompanied by duties. These duties shouldn’t be limited to the permit fee, but also to training and annual classes where gun owners should reconsider why they own their guns and under what circumstances they should or shouldn’t use them.

Third, gun ownership should be understood as a personal responsibility to one’s community. As such, each gun owner should contribute ten hours a year to help law-enforcement agencies, for example, or participate in mandatory exercises, depending on each community’s needs.

One needn’t be for or against guns, but rather approach the topic as a political issue worthy of public debate with reasonable solutions.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com

 

 

 

 

“Let’s just follow Denver,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, July 27 – August 2, 2012, 19.

FOLLOW DENVER

As I arrived in Israel, I was thinking about a tale of two cities, but not Dickens’. Though I was born in Haifa, I’m staying in Tel Aviv, about one hour south. These two cities parallel Colorado Springs and Denver, respectively, one hour by car but light-years apart.

Haifa and CS have about the same size population, one half million, and their own reputations: Haifa has traditionally been the labor stronghold, the proud home of the Technion (Israel’s MIT), and the world center of the Baha’i (with gardens meandering down the hill to the Mediterranean Sea), while CS is a conservative stronghold with Focus on The Family headquarters, the USOC, AFA, and UCCS.

Tel Aviv and Denver have populations that exceed one million (depending on how one counts), and their own reputations: TA is the party mecca of Israel, competing with Paris and London for all-night clubs, high fashion, high-tech, banking, and cosmopolitan sophistication, while Denver has successfully climbed up the national ladder as a convention center, communication industries, professional athletic teams, and overall commercial appeal.

Haifa has always been the ugly sister of TA, just as CS remains the secondary city in Colorado. Haifa stayed the course of isolation and self-loathing, internal community squabbles, and lack of leadership or vision. After decades of false starts, it lags behind its ascending counterpart to the south.

CS has likewise not kept up with the growth of Denver, choosing instead to maintain a parochial approach to its self-image. A friend who bought a house in CS and one in Denver about fifteen years ago for the same price reports that while his CS’ house has doubled in value, his Denver place has appreciated ten-fold. Anecdotes, when factual, capture much.

Denver had a visionary mayor who is now our governor, John Hickenlooper. Yes, he is a Democrat by party affiliation, but if you were to judge him on either Coast, he’d definitely be considered a Republican centrist. He is so pro-business that he’s letting fracking (hydraulic fracturing), for example, go on with limited regulation till proven that more is needed.

But even this pro-business politician was keen on raising taxes in Denver in order to ensure a strong infrastructure (with voters’ approval). This, incidentally, didn’t deter corporate America from flocking into town, but rather was a necessary ingredient in their decision to move there. Why?

Tax-burden on corporate entities is only one of many variables that figure into choosing a location. Good roads and bridges, public transportation, police and fire departments, schools and universities, hospitals and concert halls, restaurants and bars, athletic facilities and parks, are much more important!

If a broad tax base ensures all of the above and is used judiciously to provide a wide-range of options for people, the sting of taxes is not only acceptable but even welcome. Cities have to offer the foundation, and private enterprise will follow. It doesn’t work the other way around.

Until the Waldo Canyon fire CS played the “let the marketplace do its thing” game: private enterprise will fill the gaps left by inadequate public funding, from the symphony and FAC to USOC and Uncle Wilbur. Isn’t Pikes Peak enough?

Despite its quirky reputation for religious headquarters and mega-churches (all of whom enjoy special tax status), CS still owns a hospital and utilities. MHS is being sold (unless some genius in CS’ leadership derails this), but CSU is still proudly managed by incompetent, small-town executives who are way over their head.

Follow Denver! That’s all we need to do if we plan to be like our big sister to the north rather than Pueblo (which has a nicer downtown river-walk and historic buildings). Denver got it right: it has a great infrastructure with multiple museums and a core downtown that draws tourists and conventioneers.

Recall the Broadmoor derailing a downtown convention center for decades, as if two are not better than one. An old professor of mine taught me years ago: there is plenty of room at the top; it’s not a pyramid. Recall decades of studies that yielded no results because downtown development would necessitate floating bonds. No financial infusion of city funds, no local development—the equation is easy to figure out. But as real entrepreneurs know: there must be more than one equation worth checking out.

As Councilman Leigh is willing to challenge CSU’s operations, old, small-town minds keep silencing him, worrying that back-room contracts might see the light of day. No matter how hard CSU circles its wagons, let’s follow Denver and keep a water department while selling all else. If we don’t, we’ll turn into another Haifa where the sidewalks are rolled up early to ensure a good night’s sleep.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com

 

   

“Simple questions about water,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, July 20 - 26, 2012, 19.

WATERWORKS

As the Waldo Canyon Fire made abundantly clear, we need to think about water in the arid high desert in which we live. To the question “How much water consumption do we have in CS?,” Mark Murphy, of CSU’s Public Affairs Division, responded: “Our average annual consumption in recent years has been about 27 billion gallons/83,000 acre-feet.”

Gary Bostrom, who is the Chief Water Services Officer at CSU, refused to answer any questions regarding water consumption or conservation. It took two weeks to move from one department to the other to get simple answers to simple questions. Is this the most efficient manner to respond to public inquiries?

Perhaps CSU needs to justify its bloated Public Affairs Division’s budget. How many employees does it take for Mr. Murphy to respond? One is tempted to throw in a joke about screwing a light bulb, but perhaps this would hit too close to home. Did CEO Forte or the big boss, Mr. Hente, the chairman of the CSU board, gave such orders to make sure no one knows what is done at CSU. Circling the Wagons?

Apparently, efficiency and transparency are not on their agenda. No, this is not picking on anyone in particular, just pointing out a culture of waste that probably will be shoved under the rug now that the big fire consumes all our attention. Isn’t it petty to pick at CSU when CS is burning? On the contrary, it’s what should be done.

Do we have enough reserves, long term contracts, or is this an annual matter? According to CSU’s spokesperson, “We currently have about two years of demand in storage, which we feel is adequate. We typically do not lease water from other sources other than our yield from the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, which is an annual purchase; all our water is yield from the many water rights the city owns. We have on occasion purchased water from other providers, but those have been on a spot market basis and not long-term arrangements.”

How much does CSU charge (in the aggregate) for water, and how much does it pay for it? Answer: “As a not-for-profit, municipal utility, our goal is to recover only the cost of service and keep rates as low as possible.” But what are the numbers? Why bother asking if CSU refuses to answer those who are actually paying? It didn’t seem like a tricky question. Perhaps as users we should just trust CSU. Really?

What conservation efforts have you undertaken lately? A lengthy answer here: “State drought conditions have increased customer awareness for the value of water.  Additionally, we offer a number of free resources - from xeriscape classes to online conservation tools. Our customers may also qualify for money-saving rebates for installing or upgrading irrigation equipment and efficient appliances (http://www.csu.org/residential/water/Pages/waterefficiency.aspx).

Of note, we continue to help the Colorado Springs Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department modernize its irrigation systems and update [its] water efficiency practices for sustainable water savings. Our staff members have conducted water audits, made landscape changes and system upgrades, such as installing more efficient sprinkler heads, rain sensors and irrigation controllers to help save water while benefiting our community. These improvements, along with a water conservation rate applied to more than 130 parks, ha[ve] resulted in healthier turf and a decrease in parks water use by nearly 20 percent.

Our customers continue to conserve. The combination of ongoing customer information, rebates, and tiered water pricing based on use has resulted in a 21.5 percent decrease in water use per person compared to 2001.”

And, finally, is there a correlation between rate increase and decrease in consumption? What's the tipping point? The answer: “There is a price for essential indoor use, a moderate price for typical outdoor use and a higher price for excess use. Calculations are based on monthly use.  One cubic foot (CF) equals 7.48 gallons. Up to 999 CF 2.51 cents/CF; 1,000 to 2,499 CF 4.68 cents/CF; More than 2,500 CF 6.91 cents/CF. Average monthly water use is 1,100 cubic feet (8,228 gallons), resulting in a bill of $46.08. This is equal to about six-tenths of a cent per gallon.” No answer to the question at hand.

This trend is in line with an article titled “Residential water use trends in North America” (2011) that concludes: “when controlling for weather and other variables, the evident decline in residential use was pervasive among the national and regional components of the study. A household in the 2008 billing year used 11,678 gallons less water annually than an identical household di in 1978.”

Except for PR silliness, the Water Department is on board with the rest of the country. It therefore seems reasonable to follow Denver’s lead and keep it, while selling the rest of CSU.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com