The Politics of Altruism: What Obama can Learn From the Judaism

The Politics of Altruism: What Obama can Learn From Judaism

By Dovid Efune

As widespread unrest throughout the Muslim world continues, A Case for Democracy by former Soviet dissident and Israeli politician Natan Sharansky is a must-read. Almost prophetic in nature, he outlines and expertly presents multiple arguments and counterarguments relating to the building and maintaining of a free society. He authoritatively concludes that the power of freedom can overcome tyranny and terror.

In the introduction to the book, Sharansky arguesthat the Nixon/Kissinger Realpolitik approach to handling the Soviets was in fact fundamentally flawed:

"The term détente, a French word meaning "relaxation" was used during the cold war to describe a policy approach that was supposed to 'ease tensions' between the superpowers. Its detractors saw it as a euphemism for appeasement. "

It was Reagan, he says, who got it right, in understanding the fundamental weakness of a society whose population lives in fear. He pursued "an activist policy that linked the Soviet Union's international standing to the regime's treatment of its own people."

Upon reflection, it seems that political policy is very much a manifestation of the specific worldview of those individuals who are responsible for its implementation.

Nixon and Kissinger practiced the politics of realism, seeing the world for what it was; their primary concern was how to maintain the status quo and preserve their interests, hence the implementation of policies such as 'containment' and 'détente.' These policies were largely reactionary and pacifist and ultimately self-defeating as Sharansky continues to explain in his book.

Reagan, on the other hand, was a forward-thinking visionary, who practiced the politics of altruism, seeing the world for what it could be. He demanded more from friend and foe alike. Decisions were implemented based on what was right and moral, not on what was safe and predictable. It was Reagan's policies that facilitated the unleashing of the power of freedom on the Soviet regime and hastened its demise.

Today as history repeats itself once again, this conceptual view has renewed significance. But as many turn towards the leader of the free world to take a stand for morality and justice, they will be disappointed to find that President Obama seems to be more concerned with the politics of realism.

Obama has displayed repeatedly that what is right is not the determining factor; what is moral and just is not the priority. Failing to utter a word of support in favor of anti Islamist movements in Iran and Libya and rallying against a staunch ally in Mubarak, he has hedged his bets, and congratulated the winner.

As Jeffrey T. Kuhner points out in the Washington Times:

"Even today, as brave Iranian democrats battle the forces of tyrant Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president cannot muster the indignation he demonstrated toward former Egyptian autocrat Hosni Mubarak. Mr. Obama refuses to demand that the Persian strongman step aside - as he did with the Egyptian pharaoh."

This week saw one of the administration's more morally perverse moments. Ambassador Susan Rice sided in principle with a UN resolution that condemned Israeli settlement building as she sat alongside a Libyan representative, whose government was indiscriminately massacring unarmed dissenters in Tripoli.

Under president Obama the United States has lost its moral standing, trust, and status as a voice of freedom in a world of tyranny and terror. For now, the politics of altruism is all but lost.

Perhaps this also explains why the relationship between the Obama administration and Israel has been under constant strain. Belief in a better future and in the altruistic nature of human beings is fundamental to the Jewish worldview. The concepts of striving towards a perfect world and the belief in the innate goodness of man are ingrained in Jewish tradition and thought. Judaism demands altruistic politics and America was founded on Jewish values.

It may be up to America's Jews to lead this country back to its roots.

The Author is the director of the Algemeiner Journal and the GJCF and can be e-mailed at defune@gjcf.com . Please visit www.algemeiner.com.

Algemeiner Journal Launches Jewish Answer to Huffington Post

Algemeiner Journal Launches Jewish Answer to Huffington Post

The Algemeiner Journal, the legendary Yiddish icon, has now been referred to by Fox News as the fastest growing Jewish Newspaper in the United States.

Beginning last month, readers have been wowed by a cutting edge new design that is completely unique in the world of Jewish media. Additionally 15,000 new homes around the tri-state area received complimentary subscriptions to the paper.

Simultaneously a new website, Algemeiner.com, styled as a Jewish version of the Huffington Post, has been launched, with a large and rapidly growing database of prominent contributors and bloggers, Including Dr. Elie Wiesel (who is also chair of the advisory board), Ed Koch, Dore Gold, Ronn Torossian, William Rapfogel, David Brog and many more. Additionally many new young talented Jewish writers from around the world have been recruited as contributors to the site, and it is has rapidly become a hub of activity and conversation.

Following the launch of the English edition 18 months ago, the NEW English Algemeiner has experienced unprecedented growth. Building on the extensive history as a trusted source for news and commentary, coupled with the most advanced media tools and cutting edge methods of proliferation.

"The majority of our staff is under 30" said Dovid Efune, the paper's young director, "we intimately appreciate the shifting new age media environment and are able to harness cutting edge media tools and strategies to that end." He continued, "Businesses are constantly looking for new and creative ways to generate interest and we have had a very positive response from our advertisers."

But the success is not only in the business model; "we are filling a serious market gap" said publisher Simon Jacobson, "On the one hand people are looking for an authentic Jewish perspective on the news, but on the other hand, many feel alienated by the insular style of many of the orthodox papers, we have been successfully able to bridge that gap."

The NEW Algemeiner is under the umbrella of the Gershon Jacobson Foundation, based in New York, the foundation is mandated to 'serve as a valiant media voice addressing the most compelling issues of our time, with vision, integrity and moral clarity, informed by the power of 4000 years of Jewish experience and wisdom.' Advisory board members include, Malcolm Hoenlein, Abraham Foxman, Arthur Schneier, Israel Lau, Julius Berman, Norman Lamm and others.

Democracies Dancing with the Devil

Democracies Dancing with the Devil

By Dovid Efune

The continuing chaos that has drawn all eyes to Egypt, has led many to pontificate the flaws of democracy. More specifically called into question, is the universal value of a democratic system. Perhaps, the argument goes, not all are ready or capable of making their own decisions, after all, Hitler was democratically elected, as was Hamas in Gaza. And, the argument continues, that if Egyptians are left to their own devices, who is to predict the 'devil we don't know ' that will arise.

This ongoing debate is of great interest and relevance to leaders and heads of state. But what is perhaps of greater interest to political observers, is what the Egypt scenario has brought to light in terms of the dealings of democracies and free nations, with autocrats, theocrats and dictators around the world.

Of course the governments of any country are responsible for the overall safety and security of their citizens, and at times it appears that this may necessitate an occasional 'dance with the devil.' It is rare that even long established democratically elected governments make altruistic decisions, and as such, it comes as no surprise that President Mubarak of Egypt has been propped up by the West for over 30 years. Now that power is shifting, and Mubarak has less to offer, Western powers are looking elsewhere for a broker that will facilitate their needs.

In the world of realpolitik, it is unlikely that this scenario will change in the near future. However there are certain lessons that need to be garnered from the Egypt situation, that have extreme relevance to the way democratic governments interact with dubious regimes around the world. Although to some it may seem elementary, one lesson that has relevance to Israel more than any other country is that there is no such thing a permanent agreement with an undemocratic government.

One of the simple reasons that this is the case is that an agreement between the governments of two elected democracies is an agreement between two peoples. A treaty with a figurehead or dictator or unelected leader is dependent on the whim of that individual or the ruling elite and thus can never be guaranteed. Additionally as we are seeing in Egypt, the ruling elite themselves are bound to be overthrown at some point or other and it is highly unlikely that the new leadership that takes control will want to preserve any remnants of their predecessors' legislation and dealings.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently announced that 'he expects any new Egyptian government to keep the peace treaty with Israel.' He 'expects,' and what if that expectation is not carried through? Did Israel really pawn the Sinai and forever jeopardize the safety of its citizens in return for an 'expectation'?

What makes matters worse for Israel is that it is constantly under pressure to formulate agreements of various kinds with Syria, the Palestinian Arab Authority and other Arab dictatorships or theocracies. Thomas Friedman of the New York Times naively went so far as to suggest that now is the best time to engage in treaty signing. What drivel! Arab figureheads do not represent their people and can't be taken seriously in any long term treaty.

Additionally, for years Arab leaders have misled Western governments, declaring one position when in their company and a drastically different one to their own people. The flip side benefit is that in the rare event that true open democracy takes hold in the Arab world, the will of the people will be more transparent and Western leaders will have a much better idea of exactly what and who they are dealing with, as is the case with Hamas in Gaza.

This clear lesson from Egypt is very straightforward. While backhanded handling with imposed leadership structures throughout the world may be a sad necessity for democracies; comprehensive agreements with concrete commitments including the ceding of land is downright irresponsibly dangerous.

The Author is the director of the Algemeiner Journal and the GJCF and can be e-mailed at defune@gjcf.com. Please visit www.algemeiner.com.

The Israeli Vacuum: What Happens Next?

The Israeli Vacuum: What Happens Next?

By Dovid Efune

In the recent past there seems to have been a decline in overt aggressive hostility towards Israel. Defense Minister Ehud Barak was even prompted to announce that 2010 had proven to be the "quietest in many years." Few, however, have serious expectations about the long term sustainability of the status quo, and many are anticipating imminent escalation.

The looming dangers that Israel faces are numerous and complex in their nature, as is the array of individuals who have been tasked with addressing them. As we enter another new calendar year, perhaps an assessment of what some of the key players are currently preoccupied with will grant us a glimpse into what the future holds.

Ehud Barak - heavily engaged with growing discontent within his own party and with strong voices calling for them to boot the veteran of dovish Israeli policies, there seems to be a possibility that Barak will withdraw Labor from the current governing coalition and join the opposition. Netanyahu could save his coalition and secure a narrow Knesset majority that leans even further to the right by bringing the National Union party on board. Either way, while working to survive politically, the good news is that Barak is hardly focused on driving policy.

Barak Obama - after months of relentless pressure on Israel and flurries of heated activity, a deafening silence is emanating from Washington. Almost as if completely stumped, the White House is reevaluating its position and there is speculation that a new plan will soon emerge. One can have no doubt that whatever they come up with will be far from innovative, and many expect the arm-twisting to restart. There is a good chance however, that their expectations from Israel will be less presumptuous.

Benjamin Netanyahu - busy playing the blame game at the moment, he blamed the US for not going through with an extension of the settlement freeze, although it clearly should have been his default position, he slammed the PA for what he termed the 'new three no's policy.'  No to recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, no to dropping their demand for a Palestinian refugee "right of return," and no to agreed-upon security arrangements on the ground. Netanyahu is still operating in the world of reactionary politics and his coalition looks shakier. Whilst still high in the polls, the future is beginning to look a little bleaker for the Prime Minister.

Palestinian Authority - whilst mourning the loss of his brother, Chairman Mahmoud Abbas is struggling to enforce his position as the propped up public figurehead stewarding the Palestinian Arab fantasy narrative. Abbas recently cracked down on a supposed coup attempt said to be orchestrated by Fatah strongman Mahmoud Dahlan. However, his duality will only be sustainable as long as his position is enforced by Western world leaders, as the very Palestinian Arab populace that he has fed anti Israel and Anti-Semitic poison to for years, won't support his false overtures of reconciliation.

Ahmedinejad and Assad - these two are leopards with unchanging spots, orchestrating a token gesture here and there to keep the West wistful. This week Assad welcomed American Jewish leaders to Syria and Ahmedinejad invited some European leaders to tour Iran's nuclear facilities 'as a gesture of goodwill;' it is however clear that their maniacal ambitions will not be stunted.

Hamas and Hizbullah - these growing terror organizations have recovered exceptionally well from their recent confrontations with the IDF and have restocked their arsenals to frightening capacity with new anti aircraft machinery and state of the art new weaponry from Iran. Whilst publically all but ignored by Western leaders, their street popularity and military prowess leave Israel with much to worry about. With their finger on the trigger, it is only a matter of time before they unleash a barrage on Israeli towns and cities. This time it won't just be the north and south.

Avigdor Lieberman - shunned by many world leaders and the cause of many sleepless nights for American Jewish leaders, Lieberman is the most prominent Israeli leader with a plan B. Recognizing that the Peace Process is a fallacy, he wants to formally stabilize the current situation. A master strategist, his star is rising and in the event that new elections are forced, he will be ready and waiting to gobble up the scraps.

When weighing in on the factors of the current players, it seems that Lieberman is best poised to gain from the outcome of events; he is proactive, out of the box, and forward thinking, bringing new ideas on how to deal with Israel's threats. His suggestions, however, are also temporary and cosmetic.

In conclusion, the frustration and stagnation on important issues affecting the security of Israel has opened a gaping vacuum in the world of Israeli leadership. The stage is set for a new leader to emerge with new ideas and solutions, and sweep the country off its feet.

The Author is the director of the Algemeiner Journal and the GJCF and can be e-mailed at defune@gjcf.com. Please visit www.GJCF.com for more information.