Letter #133: How do you handle a problem like Judea?

"And if a man from another country is living in your land with you, do not make life hard for him; let him be to you as one of your countrymen and have love for him as for yourself; for you were living in a strange land, in the land of Egypt...." -- Leviticus 19 : 33 & 34

B.L.U.F. (bottom-line, up-front). Like other elements of the political left, the two-state solution has proven to be an intellectual hoax; now toward a one-state future.

lNTRODUCTION: why the two-state solution is history. The New York Times headline (https://lnkd.in/eHmJkJx) says it all: “Is Israël Abandoning the Two-State Solution?” Of course she is and, equally of course, she is not. Publicly, any Israeli support for the two-state solution is dead, at least for now. On the other hand, Israël is not abandoning this carefully orchestrated charade because she never supported it in the first place. To do so would jeopardize the Jewish state and also consign Palestine to a waterless rump of desert.

Why Settlements Do Not Work. Historically, settlements – or forced re-settlements – have rarely worked as a policy instrument over the long-term. For millennia, such intermingling of populations remained a favoured tool of colonialism, and a more palatable alternative to genocide, to keep the subjects close and detection of their revolutionary impulses closer. In more recent totalitarian states, forced re-settlements sought more than control; they also strove to defuse the historically volatile ethno-sectarian tensions that had previously precipitated many bloody wars. 

The last quarter of the twentieth century witnessed a spectacular end to these practices of subjugation and control. The most visible vestiges of colonialism fell away with the collapse of Apartheid in South Africa and the ‘Unilateral Declaration of Independence’ in Rhodesia. The sinking of parts of the erstwhile Soviet Empire and Yugoslavia into brutal conflicts proved that an iron fist had never been suitable for holding the olive branch. Even now, we see the 135 year old policies of Abdur Rahman Khan to re-settle Afghanistan into Pashtunistan as unravelling. 

So why does Israël insist on pursuing these same failed policies in the West Bank and Gaza (i.e., the occupied territories)? There are three basic reasons, at least as I perceive them. 

• First, and being brutally honest, Israël views the West Bank and Gaza as conquered territories and, therefore, under her sovereignty.
• Second, and focussing on military security, the pre-1967 borders would be impossible to defend over time with the thin middle strip, especially in view of ongoing terror attacks against the democracy by murderous Palestinean Islamists.
• Third, and existentially, Israël seeks to preserve her status as a post-Holocaust haven for international Jewry (https://lnkd.in/dQq8_5b). 

Such reasons make the settlement policy compelling, at least in the short-to-medium term. Over time, however, the consequent oppression will likely be impossible to sustain. The policy retardant to any policy change remains, from the Muslim view, the three strikes against Israël as:

• a Jewish state refusing to recognize a legitimate right of return;
• a European and, therefore, largely secular democracy; as well as,
• an Israeli culture, like those of her Arab cousins, imbued with an anti-assimilationist attitude.

Looking Beyond Apartheid. Fortunately, in view of the small amount of territory enclosed among Israël and the West Bank and Gaza, together with a strong dose of European pluralism and rule-of-law, such repressive and bellicose policies toward a conquered people is ultimately unnecessary. Unlike Afghanistan, Israël is not seeking to govern a vast domain. Additionally, if the largely Ashkenazi Jews can work together with their similarly hard-working Palestinean brethren, the economy of fourteen million people would vastly out-perform the aggregated economies of the three constituent territories (https://lnkd.in/dBNjV4t).

In truth, greater Israël would not only be a beacon of democracy and economic growth to the region but also the harbinger of harmony between Shi´ites and Sunnis, Arabs and Persians, as well as other ethno-sectarian cleavages cutting across the Muslim population. This desirable end-state appeals to moderates on both sides but will be, initially at least, scorned by Jewish and Muslim extremists alike. Many U.S.-sponsored initiatives have been tried and only one – President Carter’s Camp David accord – has succeeded. For evident reasons, the United States lacks credibility as an honest broker among the Arabs. 

The mote in the Muslim eye remains as obvious to most neutrals as it likely is undetectable among Muslims: the unrelenting violence. The Jewish state has been encircled for decades by adversaries apparently united by a desire to drive Israël into the sea, now dissipating slowly with familiarity over time and emerging tribalism and other divisions among Arabs. Arguably, one should be impressed by the region’s lone democracy standing steadfastly by the principles of a robust and representative government (including for Arab Israelis). 

Perhaps the most insidious consequence of the outgoing Administration’s refusal publicly to identify ‘IslaMaoism’ as Radical or Militant Islam that enables a continually growing worldwide bias against Israël. The recent U.N. resolution condemning Israël’s morally questionable settlements policy becomes ludicrous in the face of an appalling carnage in Syria, public depredations in the Sudan and Darfur, as well as growing death tolls in Iraq and Yemen. So, Israël must continue to chart her historically lonely path and the United States should stand shoulder-to-shoulder with her. 

Stride toward Freedom; Struggle toward Unity. Israël must progress beyond a settlement policy that negates the fairness of the right-of-return. The Jewish state will have to make policy choices that assume risks and require courage. (Truthfully, what follows is the same old thesis that I have been advocating for fifteen years. If you have been dubiously blessed with these views in the past, you can end right here to avoid a repeat of the ordeal of reading it.) 

The road-map from Point-A of the status quo to Point-B of a peaceful pluralistic democracy entails twelve steps which, together, resemble giant stride toward freedom.

1. Israël sets up an even number provisional provinces across the country proper and the occupied territories.
2. Israël announces a policy of the right of return, either through direct return or, more likely, compensation based on current market values for up to one trillion U.S. dollars (or three times the current G.D.P. of Israël proper and the occupied territories, together ‘Greater Israël’).
3. Said compensation would not be directed toward individuals; the total would be set aside in a trust to promote infrastructure, education, etc. in the Palestinean provinces.
4. The United States, drowning in liquidity from Quantitative Easing, redeems 30% of the circular certificates to pull dormant greenbacks created out of thin air out the money supply, and places them in a collateral account to back Israël’s commitment (https://lnkd.in/bnhKMDT). 
5. Israël announces the immediate annexation of the occupied territories together with an amended Federalist Constitution that splits the provisional provinces evenly among those with Islam as the provincial religion and those with Judaism as the provincial faith.
6. There is a division between church and state at the national level.
7. A united Jerusalem becomes the neutral capital territory under the stewardship of a Christian patriarchate.
8. Jewish provinces can allocate funds for cultural activities and education of Jewish minorities in the Islamic provinces while the Muslim provinces can do the same for Islamic minorities in Jewish provinces.
9. The Christian Patriarch has the tie-breaking vote voting in the Parliament and among provinces as well as being the chief Justice of Supreme Tribunal over an equal number of Justices from the other two faiths.
10. Any tie-breaking vote by the patriarch applies only to questions split along non-sectarian lines in Parliamentary voting, or substantial 'bi-partisan' voting on each side of a deadlocked question; otherwise, the motion is defeated.
11. If voting on questions is recorded by provinces casting one ballot each, the tie-breaking vote applies only when at least one Palestinean province votes with a Jewish majority on one side of the question and one Jewish province votes with a Palestinean majority on the other side.
12. The Israeli Defense and Police Forces continue as they have in the past but integrate their Palestinean counterparts through direct hiring and training of new recruits.

While such a road-map is radical, with audacity and perseverance, the moderates of all sides can make it work. This arrangement should be able to hold together for two generations; enough, for the culture to change and stamp out belligerent militancy on both sides. Such violence is more frequent and less restrained among Muslims than among Israelis.

CONCLUSION: Bravery or Blood? The largest measure of courage will be whether moderate Muslims will repudiate their violent co-religionists and endure the murders by these extremists sure to follow. Islamic jihadists are, like most gangsters, interested less in their stated beneficiaries than the power over, and wealth from, those same supposed constituents. As for the elements (i.e., provincial boundaries, provincial but not national religions*, etc.) contemporary arrangements and history provide precedents indicating that fulfillment of these policies is not only achievable but also desirable – right here, right now.

* The idea for a separation of Church and State on the national level, together with provincial religions, draws upon the persistence of U.S. state religions among many individual states for up to fifty years (e.g., the Episcopal Church as the state church of the Commonwealth of Virginia) following the split between Church and State on the national level under the 1787 Constitution.

Letter 132: Why the 19th of December will be interesting but likely insignificant

“The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.”

--Constitution of the United States of America:
Article II (Executive), Section 1, Parapgraph 3;

as ratified on the 21st of June 1788, as amended the 15th of June 1805 
and the 23rd of January 1933.

   

BLUF: The Electoral College vote to be taken at the State Capitols on Monday the 19th of December will almost certainly ratify Mr Trump’s election. It would be difficult to justify overturning the constitutional machinery, particularly in favor of Senator / Secretary Clinton.

Scenarios. There are three manners by which this situation will unfold:

• ratification of Messrs Trump and Pence as President and Vice President;
• switch-out to Mrs Clinton to inaugurate a Clinton-Pence Administration; or,
• switch-out to another Republican for President and, perhaps, Vice President by moving that determination into the House of Representatives voting state-by-state and, if necessary for selecting the Vice President, into the Senate.

The most likely outcome is that a sufficient number of Electors will vote for the candidate for whom they are pledged to ratify Mr Trump’s election. On a subjective basis only, I would assign a ninety-five per cent (95%) probability for this eventuality, which I deem as the worst case for reasons I have stated ad nauseam and need not be repeated in this essay. In all three scenarios, Governor Pence is assumed to have no problems in being ratified for Vice President and, in one case, President.

Also falling under this scenario would be the case where at least thirty-seven (37) ‘Trump’ Electors abstained and no one else received an Electoral vote. In this theoretical latter case, the final vote would go into the House of Representatives to be balloted state-by-state. Nevertheless, with a decisive thirty to twenty margin of those states with the majority of the Congressional delegation being Republican, Mr Trump would almost certainly still win the the White House. 

The second most likely scenario is that a sufficient number of Electors in states where Mr Trump won switch their votes to make the Senator / Secretary the President. Though with only a four (4%) per cent subjective likelihood, this would be the scenario I would view as the base case. The highly unlikely event of the Senator / Secretary being awarded the Presidency would not change the post-election reality too much since Governor Pence would be confirmed in the Electoral College as the Vice President. It would make continuing grid-lock more likely with a Clinton-Pence Administration.

The final, best case scenario remains the least likely at a one per cent (1%) probability, subjectively assigned. That would be enough Electors switching away from Mr Trump to other candidates for the House of Representatives to vote state-by-state to pick from the top five. This scenario would require ample coördination to solidify a Republican alternate to Mr Trump and his Democratic rival who would be able to carry a majority of the states. While my preference – and that of many Republicans – of that alternative would be Governor Bush or Kasich, the House would be under some moral obligation to select a change-minded Republican, probably Governor Pence.

If Governor Pence ascended to the Presidency, the Senate Republican majority would be under pressure also to select another change-oriented Republican (e.g., Governor Walker or Mrs Fiorina) for Vice President. If a Republican other than Governor Pence were selected for the Presidency, the Electoral College ratification of Governor Pence as Vice President would proceed. As I stated, this selection of a change-committed Republican would be a ‘soft’ moral obligation since the American electorate repudiated the establishment candidate, Mrs Clinton, by a margin of four million votes on November 8th.

Conclusion. Mr Trump will be our next President. The positive value of all of this protesting, bickering and, more recently, calling for the Electoral College to exercise the discretion constitutionally vested in it – as well as separate calls for audits to clear Mr Trump of conflicts of interest, particularly with Russia – is to lay the cornerstone of accountability. Call it prudent protest.

The incoming Administration is now on notice that America has the constitutional machinery in place to prevent a usurpation of power or traitorous collusion with a foreign power. Should that machinery break down, we Americans have the natural right to overthrow tyranny. Personally, I believe that Mr Trump will act in good faith; this fear and caution, while understandable and necessary, will prove to be unfounded in subsequent acts or events.

Letter 131: Remembering Pearl Harbour -- what it was and what it was not

"Yesterday, December 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan." 

--President Franklin D. Roosevelt; 8th December 1941

"I can hear you! I can hear you! The rest of the world hears you! And the people -- and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!"

--President George W. Bush; 14th September 2001

On September 10th of 2001, I spent time in Detroit, Michigan getting ready to bury my Uncle Henry. My cousin, Nancy, a successful investment banker on Wall Street, made a fateful remark as she reflected on the fact that a decorated war hero of Okinawa in 1945, her father, would be laid to rest on September 11th. She noted that we were facing the end of an era.  

The next day, of course, the United States suffered the worst foreign attack on her soil since the sneak-attack of the Japanese on Pearl Harbor, nearly sixty years before. The horrific events of that morning overshadowed my uncle’s funeral that coincided with them. My cousin, Peter, summed it up well by counselling a respectful good-bye since his warrior-father would want us to kick some ass.

With the funeral complete, I drove my sister back to her daughters in Annapolis post-haste since my brother-in-law was stuck in Montreal. Then, shedding the Avis, I Amtracked it back to New York, wondering where the usual land-mark of the city was. There was a factory, somewhere beyond view, belching smoke; something I had not noticed previously. But no twin towers. Then, I remembered. Oh, my God.

After a forever ride under Lincoln Tunnel – one never knew where these suicidal sociopaths would strike next – I found that the fastest way from Penn Station through the newly minted Pottersville to my apartment was simply to walk. After a run and vain offer of blood, I settled in my desk at the bank. As the Global Industry Credit Manager for Insurance at the world’s largest bank and overseeing a $35 billion portfolio, I knew I would have my work cut out for me.

What I did not expect, however, was the touch of international diplomacy that I would have to bring to the maelstrom of work, speculation and contingency planning. My rapidly calculated estimate of losses insurers would have to indemnify, from the ground up would eventually prove to be one of the best across Wall Street (within 5% of industry losses after five or six years). 

Luck of the Irish, I suppose – actually, I know.  On that estimate and analysis of expected impacts of the sneak terror attack, I had to append a cover-memo to twenty managers around the world reporting to me providing guidance for the days to follow.

The Ghost of Pearl Harbour. Along the way, the Japanese credit manager e-mailed me that he was very hurt by the comparisons between 9-11 and the sneak attack on Pearl Harbour of December 7th of 1941. My heart went out to him since the two attacks seemed different, at least intuitively. Having spent some time in Australia as a kid, I also figured the Aussies were flakking him mercilessly.

That evening, days after 9-11, I stayed in very late researching Pearl Harbour and what we knew about the mass murders in New York for that cover-memo. As I released my coincidentally accurate estimate, I decided to be very firm with these managers. With British, German, American, Australian and Canadian managers among others receiving my guidance, I had to be sensitive to all sides.

Consequently, I concluded that 9-11 was not Pearl Harbour; it was worse, far worse. While Pearl Harbour was certainly an act of war, for which the Japanese paid mightily, to equate the two attacks was to dishonour the Japanese. Why? Because 99%+ of the people killed on December 7, 1941 were U.S. military personnel, primarily sailors and grunts.

Most of the few civilians not affiliated with military facilities who had died were hit by falling anti-aircraft flak. In New York, suicidal sociopaths using religion as a rationale for murder had slaughtered thousands of innocents; thankfully we would find out that the death toll was 20-30% of what we had feared initially. Nevertheless, that massacre had been deliberate and that planning had made it a monstrous evil. 

The Japanese, however, had limited their attack to military targets sixty years before. In that memorandum, I made it clear that to compare the two attacks would be to dishonour the Japanese airmen by equating the opening gambit of war with wantonly killing civilians. I closed with a warning that said, in effect, “Such prejudice is utterly unacceptable and I will not hear it as we proceed through the difficult days ahead.”