ThinkProgress Logo

Security

Do Further Conditions Equal An ‘Acceptance’ Of The Road Map?

Our guest blogger is Peter Juul, a Research Associate at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

bibiIsraeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is scheduled to give a speech this Sunday at Bar-Ilan University outlining his government’s policy toward Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians. Israel’s Haaretz reports Netanyahu is expected to embrace the 2003 road map while adding new conditions to its implementation, and rebuffing the Obama administration’s call to freeze all settlement construction. While acceptance of the road map –- and therefore the existence of a future Palestinian state -– represents a significant step by Netanyahu, it should by no means be recognized as a “concession.” It is simply a recognition of Israel’s past commitments.

But by accepting the road map without acceding to one of its key components –- halting all settlement growth –- Netanyahu is in effect undermining the viability of the road map. President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have rightly held fast to a settlement freeze, fending off the dubious arguments for “natural growth” (which is impermissible under the road map anyway). Despite whatever concessions Netanyahu offers in his speech this weekend, the Obama administration should not bend in its insistence that all settlement growth stop and both the spirit and letter of the road map be adhered to.

It seems clear that Netanyahu is playing a difficult two-level game now: he is attempting to appease Israel’s indispensable patron, the U.S., which has taken a harder line on settlements and other issues relating to an Israeli-Palestinian agreement, while maintaining his governing coalition in Israel, which doesn’t like the idea of a Palestinian state at all. This balancing act is tricky, and Netanyahu’s track record suggests he might not be able to pull it off.

Some of Netanyahu’s other conditions -– demilitarization of a Palestinian state, airspace control, and the like –- have been discussed as part of negotiations. Presenting these as conditions for negotiation rather than subjects for negotiation simply adds an additional, unnecessary hurdle to restarting serious negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. It’s basically asking the Palestinians to surrender some of their bargaining chips before entering into negotiations.

Netanyahu’s last and most contentious condition is largely symbolic –- the demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Considering that the Israelis themselves haven’t been able to pin down what a Jewish state is –- religious? ethno-nationalist? -– putting the Palestinians on the spot to recognize it as such simply confuses the primary issue of Palestinian recognition of Israel’s right to exist, which the PLO has done since the late 1980s. After all, if Israel has a right to exist, who outside of Israel cares whether or not it defines itself as a Jewish state or not? That should properly be a matter for Israelis themselves. Ironically, by demanding the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state, Netanyahu is basically inviting the Palestinians to become intimately involved in the domestic debate over the self-identity of the Israeli state. This does not strike me as a smart move for an Israeli leader concerned about his country’s long-term future.

From a domestic political perspective, such a recognition demand simply amounts to red meat for Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition partners. And it may work to keep Netanyahu in power by stalling Israeli-Palestinian negotiations over an ultimately pointless semantic distinction. But for U.S. interests, such an impasse would have deeply negative consequences.

Unless Netanyahu surprises everyone this weekend and fully embraces the road map without further conditions, the Obama administration should stick to its current policy of demanding a settlement freeze. It cannot allow the Israeli government obfuscate and play semantic games in order to break free from the obligations it has assumed over the years.

Politics

Buchanan argues against affirmative action: ‘One prefers the old bigotry.’

Today, in a Human Events column titled “Miss Affirmative Action,2009,” MSNBC’s Pat Buchanan continued his attack on Judge Sotomayor. He declared that affirmative action is worse than the “old bigotry” against African Americans:

Thus, Sotomayor got into Princeton, got her No. 1 ranking, was whisked into Yale Law School and made editor of the Yale Law Review — all because she was a Hispanic woman. And those two Ivy League institutions cheated more deserving students of what they had worked a lifetime to achieve, for reasons of race, gender or ethnicity.
This is bigotry pure and simple. To salve their consciences for past societal sins, the Ivy League is deep into discrimination again, this time with white males as victims rather than as beneficiaries.

One prefers the old bigotry. At least it was honest, and not, as Abraham Lincoln observed, adulterated “with the base alloy of hypocrisy.”

This is the newest in a series of racist comments made by Buchanan since Sotomayor’s nomination. He has told senators to oppose Sotomayor’s nomination and “stand up for the white working class.” He even went so far as to assert that, because of affirmative action, “what is happening now to white men right now is exactly what was done to black folks for years.”

Claire Teitelman

Politics

ThinkProgress’ Amanda Terkel appears on MSNBC to discuss the fractured state of the GOP.

This afternoon, ThinkProgress’ Amanda Terkel appeared on MSNBC with conservative blogger Brian Faughnen to discuss the new Time article arguing that a “GOP ice age is on the way” because of Republicans’ inability to reach out to Latinos and young voters. Amanda noted that the current “race-based politics” surrounding the Sotomayor nomination “may have a very long-term impact on the Republican Party” with Latino voters, and said that conservatives had to stop “swoon[ing]” over Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, and Rush Limbaugh. Watch it:

Indeed, a McClatchy-Ipsos poll released today found that “37 percent of the general population and 42 percent of Hispanics said they’d feel less favorably toward the Republican Party if Senate Republicans ‘overwhelmingly oppose’ Sotomayor.”

Health

Rebutting AMA, Doctors Speak Out In Support Of A ‘Robust Public Option’

Responding to the American Medical Association’s recent rejection of a robust public health care plan that uses Medicare prices and Medicare’s leverage to lower health care costs, Matt Yglesias argues that “medical doctors don’t really have a big interest in making health care more efficient“:

After all, what looks like inefficiency to health care wonks looks like “income” to doctors. Defense contractors don’t like procurement reform, and when school systems try to reform their labor practices to better reward quality teaching, teacher’s unions tend to oppose it. Such is life. Incumbent stakeholders don’t like change, but when you have an inefficient system—like health care in the United States—it’s often very helpful to push change that incumbent stakeholders don’t like.

But some doctors have distanced themselves from the AMA’s statements. Doctors For America (DFA)grassroots organization of doctors in all fifty states — issued a statement and hosted a conference call in support of a robust public option. Unlike the AMA, which has been steadily loosing power and currently represents “maybe 20% of physicians in this country,” DFA is “a grassroots organization” putting forth the views of “thousands of physicians” rather than “a small group of organizers.”

For these doctors, payment reform that prioritizes care quality and patient access to affordable coverage supersedes the issue of provider reimbursement. “What concerns physicians more than are they being paid enough is really what they’re being paid for,” DFA President Vivek Murthy explained:

You know, right now we have a system that rewards volume and procedures and doesn’t necessarily reward quality of care or the time that physicians take to spend with their patients. I think what’s a priority for all physicians—whether they’re a generalist, whether a specialist, whether academic physicians or private physicians—is that we restructure payment in a way that does reward quality and does reward time spent with patients, and that’s the kind of system that we’d be willing to support

Listen:

Indeed, unlike a co-op or some kind of state based arrangement, a robust public option would not only drive down costs but also begin implementing payment system reforms that could help doctors deliver better care to their patients.

Climate Progress

After Bonn, a safe future for youth still in doubt

Today’s guest blogger is Kyle Gracey, Chair for SustainUS and a graduate student in public policy and geophysical sciences at the University of Chicago.

In 2050, I’ll be 77, and given the pace of the climate talks in Bonn these two weeks, I’ll likely spend most of my retirement either under water or on fire.

If finalized in the next climate agreement, the weak targets offered so far by developed countries virtually ensures that greenhouse gas concentrations (and sea levels) will rise to levels well beyond what science says are safe limits to ensure the survival of peoples and nations. Over 100 youth from 6 continents (the Antarctic youth called in sick) participated in the Bonn negotiations, watching our leaders draft an increasingly costly and damaging climate for us to live through.

Daily at the negotiations, youth have shown our governments how vulnerable our generation will be to the warming and climate change they are creating with their short-sighted proposals. We literally brought two camels and tons of sand to the negotiation entrance to highlight the drought and desertification many of our countries increasingly experience. We rapped and rhymed about the threatened survival of nations and developed countries’ weak financing proposals. Youth tracked key negotiators to remind them the next generation is watching, and blogged to their peers in multiple languages.

Read more

Yglesias

USA Today Talks to Ray LaHood

Ray LaHood (official photo)

Ray LaHood (official photo)

Plenty of good stuff in this interview:

You’ve spoken about drawing on the Portland, Ore., model of transportation as a “livable community” that emphasizes public transit and walking and biking paths. But is it exportable to all kinds of cities, even the largest?

I think it can be replicated in some cities. I also think you can replicate parts of it in neighborhoods in cities. Chicago is so spread out and so big, but you could connect neighborhoods, perhaps with light rail. And they’ve been connected by “rails to trails.”

So much of why we haven’t done these things yet seems to stem from a culture of driving in America. Is that really changeable?

We’ve spent three decades building an interstate system. We’ve put almost all of our resources into the interstate system. This is a transformational president, and the department is following the president’s lead. People haven’t really been thinking about these things. They have been thinking about how to build roads, how to build interstates, how to build bridges. People now are thinking differently about where they want to live, how they want to live, and how they want to be able to get around their communities.

I would only add that the idea that “the largest” cities can’t support walkable urbanism would seem to quickly founder on the fact that New York City is (by far) the nation’s largest. And it’s not a coincidence that both NYC and the Greater New York metropolitan area are unusually transit-oriented (again, not just in terms of the city, but also LIRR, NJ Transit, MetroNorth, etc.) and unusually large. It’s precisely the density-facilitating properties of transit that have allowed the region to support so many people.

The point of bringing up Portland is more to show that different models of land use and planning can work even in relatively small cities. Portland’s not close to being the largest or densest city in America, but with sound planning it still encourages a lot of different transportation modes.

Politics

Bush DOJ Failed to Enforce Federal Law Protecting Abortion Providers from Anti-Abortion Extremists

President George W. Bush shrugs his shoulders at a presserIn the wake of the murder of Dr. George Tiller by an anti-abortion extremist, the very real problem of extremist violence against abortion providers and clinics has gained a fresh spotlight, even though that violence is not new. After the 1993 murder of an abortion provider, Dr. David Gunn, Congress passed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which made any use of “force, threat of force or physical obstruction” against doctors and patients a federal crime. The law was an attempt to put an end to the constant wave of death threats, acts of vandalism, and clinic bombings.

According to the National Abortion Federation, the “FACE law has had a clear impact on the decline in certain types of violence against clinics and providers, specifically clinic blockades.” Under the Bush Administration, however, criminal and civil enforcement of the law by the Department of Justice declined dramatically, the Washington Independent’s Daphne Eviatar reports:

The day after Dr. George Tiller was murdered, TWI obtained data revealing that under the Bush administration, criminal enforcement of the federal law designed to protect abortion providers and clinics had declined by more than 75 percent over the last eight years.

But there’s also a civil component to that federal law, known as the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or FACE Act. That part of the law allows the attorney general to seek an injunction and compensatory damages for anyone who’s been harmed by any activity that violates the law. And it turns out that the Department of Justice over the last eight years didn’t use that part of the law to protect abortion providers, either.

Eviatar found that, according to DOJ statistics, the Bush Administration “brought only about two criminal prosecutions per year in the entire country under the FACE Act, and never more than four in any single year.” In contrast, under President Clinton the Justice Department “prosecuted 17 defendants for violations of the FACE Act in 1997 alone, and an average of about 10 per year since the law was enacted in 1994.” Evitar reports though that the Bush Justice Department had an even more abysmal record of enforcing the civil component of the FACE Act:

Yet despite these broad powers that Congress granted the attorney general in 1994 to prevent and combat violence against abortion clinics and providers, the Bush administration almost never used them. From 2000 until 2008, during the eight years of the Bush administration, the Justice Department filed only one civil case under the FACE Act. From 1994 until 1999, in contrast, in just five years of the Clinton administration, the Department filed 17 civil cases under the FACE Act — in addition to its much heavier load of criminal cases that we’ve reported before.

Between 2000 and 2008, the National Abortion Federation recorded 3,291 acts of violence against abortion providers and “at least 17 cases of ‘extreme’ violence against abortion providers in the United States, such as arson, stabbing and bomb attacks.” However, the Bush Administration’s Department of Justice “prosecuted only 11 individuals for any acts of violence against abortion clinics or providers.”

Ben Bergmann

Climate Progress

Keeping Cool and Staying Green

Personally, I’m keeping cool with a weekend trip to Newport, RI for a wedding (which is why I didn’t blog much today).  But traveling to keep cool may not be the greenest way to go.  Following the eighth warmest winter on record, the summer of 2009 is looking to be a hot one (see Breaking: NOAA puts out “El Ni±o Watch,” so record temperatures are coming and this will be the hottest decade on record). Constantly using your air conditioning to keep cool can consume a great deal of energy and release greenhouse and ozone-depleting gases into the atmosphere, but you can maximize your energy efficiency by following these six tips that will help you stay cool (from a post first published here):

Consider other options before cranking up the AC. Save energy and money by using ceiling fans or portable fans, which can make a room feel six or seven degrees cooler. On milder days, fans alone may keep you cool enough, but on particularly hot days, try setting the AC to 80 degrees and letting the ceiling fan to do the rest of work. Remember, though, fans cool you, not the room, so running them when you aren’t in the room is just a waste of energy. Before holing up inside your home and turning on the AC, you could also consider going somewhere that already has it. After all, businesses and public buildings run their AC whether you are there or not. Libraries, movie theatres, and coffee shops are just a few places you could go to keep cool and entertained.

[JR:  I have six (!) ceiling fans in my home!  We also have a retractable awning, a popular feature in Europe, but hasn't quite caught on in the U.S. -- yet.  And don't forget that white/reflective roof (see "What is geo-engineering and adaptation and CO2 mitigation all in one?"]

Read more

Yglesias

The Good That Won’t Come Out

Most of the coverage of today’s digital television (DTV) transition has focused on the transition-related hassles. But it’s worth joining Farhad Manjoo in recognizing that whatever problems do or do not emerge with the immediate transition, the consequences of this move will be very good:

For all these problems, there are a couple of amazing advantages to digital TV, benefits that you hardly hear about in the apocalyptic coverage of the transition. The first one: The switch is going to free up a vast share of public airwaves that can be used for much better things than TV. Last year, the government auctioned off the “spectrum” that TV stations will give up once they stop broadcasting analog signals. Verizon and AT&T won the radio space, though Google, in its first big foray into lobbying, managed to convince the Federal Communications Commission to require that the telecom companies keep the new space “open”—meaning that they can’t restrict what software or hardware customers use on the airwaves. As a result of the switch, we’ll soon get a much better wireless Internet—wider coverage, faster downloads, and with fewer restrictions. That’s much more worthwhile than a snowy local channel showing reruns of Golden Girls.

The extra spectrum ending up in the hands of AT&T and Verizon wasn’t totally ideal, as I think a lot of people were hoping that it would end up elsewhere and strengthen competition among the major wireless service providers. But despite its problems, the US wireless market isn’t totally uncompetitive either, so as capabilities expand, so should the quality of the offerings. In recent years, the United States has started to fall behind the technological curve in terms of Internet speed and putting this spectrum to high-value uses will be an important part of picking the pace up again.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up