|
 |
 |
|
Update: A Communitarian Letter #1 With this update we are changing the format a bit. We would love to have any comments you have about the change in format. Please send your comments to comnet@gwu.edu.
Cameras in public spaces—worse then usage? As most any one who follows the news has noticed, CCTV played a major role in identifying the terrorists in London and thus helped to track them. Cameras in public spaces in London are accompanied with notices that you are entering an area under surveillance. Though they are obtrusive, there are fair questions about the extent to which one has an “expectation” of privacy under these circumstances. In short, the limitations of privacy involved may be limited; the contribution to safety considerable. Compare this to what my liberal colleague Jeffrey Rosen wrote for the New York Times Magazine (October 7, 2001) after visiting London CCTVs: “When you put a group of bored, unsupervised men in front of live video screens, they tend to spend a fair amount of time leering at women... There are plenty of stories of video voyeurism: a control room in the Midlands, for example, took close-up shots of women with large breasts and taped them up on the walls… but there is no evidence they prevent terrorism or other serious crime .” The last line is particular artful—indeed, nothing prevents terrorism or crime, but this does not mean that they do not play a significant role in curing both.
Giuliani: Rights and Safety
How is liberty lost? Never in the way widely believed; the salami tactic of first trimming one right here and then one there. People give up on rights when they feel insecure and cherish them when they feel safe. Therefore, the best way to protect not merely lives but also rights is to ensure a reasonable level of security. People supported Putin when Russia was awash with crime. On September 12 2001, most Americans were happy to trade rights for security; now they are not (data is included in Chapter One: “How Liberty is Lost” in the above mentioned book). They supported far-reaching anti-crime measures when crime was high (ie. “shoot first, ask questions later), now they do not. It is easy to image what will happen to our rights if a terrorist uses a nuclear device on an American city. Fred Siegel’s new book The Prince of the City: Giuliani, New York and the Genius of American Life provides strong evidence in support of the thesis. Giuliani, anti-welfare state and a fierce proponent of self-reliance, is hardly the prototypical New York City politician. However, his success as mayor came from his willingness to endorse aggressive police tactics and a pre- and post-September 11 tough response to crime. “Freedom,” according to Giuliani, is “the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do and how you do it.” After Giuliani, New Yorkers elected a far less charismatic mayor with a weaker public image. They will likely continue on this path in the 2005 election, save another terrorist attack on the city. “Balance” with no center
Bad news for communitarians: the head of the Public Broadcasting Corporation announced that he is going to “balance” the programming by adding conservative voice to the liberal ones (for instance, one Paul Gigot for every Bill Moyers). Why is this bad for communitarians, and much more important, for the nation? Because such a “cure” to the alleged liberal excesses generates a new problem: it adds to polarization. Indeed, all too often the media accommodates two opposite voices, but rarely finds room for a middle or common ground. This ignored middle ground is where communitarianism thrives. Maybe NPR and the Public Broadcasting Corporation could, at least once in a while, make room for three perspectives?
Nobel Prize for Qaddafi?
During the meeting of the International Institute of Sociology in Stockholm, a colleague wondered (with a voice that made it clear that he was more critical than curious) why I dedicated my book From Empire to Community to Muammar Qaddafi? I admitted that I even nominated him for Nobel Peace Prize (actually I cannot nominate anyone as only previous recipients of the prize may nominate, but I meant to say if it was up to me I would give him one). Why? Because I join practically all those who study the matter to note that the greatest danger to our security and that of many others is nuclear attacks by rogue states or terrorists. Under Qaddafi, Libya gave up its nuclear weapon program without a shot being fired. Without that action the US and its allies most certainly would have invaded Libya. If more nations would follow Qaddafi’s example, we would live in a much safer world. For a more detailed reasoning see the report Pre-Empting Nuclear Terrorism in a New Global Order It is true Qaddafi pays little mind to human rights. We should criticize him for it with all our moral fervor. But you can celebrate a regime for giving up the nuclear option and still chastise it for not respecting human rights. However, to withhold praise for de-proliferation until a regime heeds human rights is both unfair and unwise.
On giving your cake—and enjoying it too
Can an agreement made by the Palestinians and the Israelis, with American encouragement, be dead wrong? You bet. Both sides just agreed that the Israelis will demolish the houses of the settlers before the IDF withdraws from Gaza. The fates of other assets, especially the greenhouses, are still being negotiated. The question as to what is to become of the residences, clinics, schools, and greenhouses of the Israeli settlers once they leave Gaza this summer may seem like a minor subplot in the epic struggle for a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, the disposition of these settlements is so rich in symbolism and affect that it is correctly viewed as a significant factor in determining what will be Israel and Palestine’s next steps on the long and torturous road toward becoming two states and living in peace next to one another. Specifically, will the retrenchment make it easier or harder to remove some settlers from the West Bank? The best way to proceed is to turn all these assets over to select Palestinian groups and NGOs once the Israeli settlers leave (hopefully few will have to be removed) but while the IDF still remains in control. Schools would go to local educators, clinics to medical authorities, greenhouses to farmers, and residences to poor and/or senior citizens. Ideally, this should be done in collaboration with the Palestinian authority. If it refuses, a third party (such as the UN or a foundation, as has been suggested by President of the Aspen Institute Walter Isaacson) should be willing take them over and ensure a peaceful transition. If no such organizations render themselves available, due to fears of retaliation from extremists, the departing Israeli authorities should determine who will be invited to assume possession of these buildings. Such a controlled transfer by the Israeli government (as opposed to a scenario in which it merely walks away) would avoid two evils. First, it would help to prevent a situation in which the families of known terrorists move into the houses recently left by the Israeli settlers. For some, this possibility evokes numerous images—all deleterious in their potential effects and foreboding in their implications for security. In such visions, Israelis see Palestinians raising their flags on the same masts where until the day before Israeli flags flew and turning synagogues into mosques or Hamas meeting halls. Before the Israelis, materializes the sight of Palestinians dancing in the streets that they themselves paved. And they can imagine the sounds of guns firing wildly into the air in victorious celebration, coupled with the Palestinians’ claims of having driven the Israelis out of Gaza—just as Hezbollah did in south Lebanon. Yet all this would be avoided if the settlements were already occupied by select Palestinians when the IDF finally leaves. Indeed, the scene would prove quite different: Palestinians enjoying their newly acquired homes, farmers tending to roses and tomatoes growing in the greenhouses, and children on their way to their recently gained schools. Second, the same controlled turnover would also prevent the severe damage to Israel’s reputation that would surely occur if all these structures were dynamited, as was done to Yamit when Israel turned over the Sinai to Egypt in 1982. The fact that an agreement was reached over the destructions of the houses, would not prevent Arab media from playing up the pictures of settlers leaving behind nothing but piles of rubbles where yesterday there were well-appointed villages. Note that not only those on the Israeli right favor such demolition; some of the doves are also concerned that if these settlements are used to house the families of suicide bombers whose homes were leveled by the IDF, any future removal of Israeli settlers from other contested areas would become even more difficult. In contrast, turning the assets over to elderly people, welfare cases, etc. should assuage this fear. Oddly, Palestinians have agreed that the Israelis should demolish these “illegal” settlements before they leave. They argue that Gaza needs high-rise buildings and not the one or two story ones found in the settlements. They point out that the greenhouses are water intensive and hence not suited for dry Gaza. It just goes to show how hostilities can pervert anything good in the Middle East. There is plenty of room in Gaza to construct such high-rise buildings. In the meantime, the low rises could serve to house some of those who now live in, at best, one story shanties. And although water is in short supply in Gaza, employment is even scarcer. Palestinians might be well served by keeping the greenhouses busy for now. In the end, some kind of message will be sent regardless of how the settlements are disposed and what was agreed upon in a closed meeting. Thus, a controlled turnover of all the settlements’ assets would show that once in while, when all the stars are properly aligned and careful preparations have been made, reason and good can find a place, even in the Middle East. It may even (one is entitled to hope) invite similar handlings of other sore spots in the future—of which there are quite a few in the small land that Jews and Arabs must to learn to share. ************************************************************************ Communitarian Calendar THE SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF SOCIAL PROBLEMS Publishers of the Journal Social Problems 55th Annual Meeting August 12-14, 2005 Crowne Plaza Hotel, 1800 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA Author Meets Critics Saturday August 13, 4:30-6:00 Room Independence A Moderator: Joshua Gamson, University of San Francisco Critics: Omar M. McRoberts, University of Chicago Shu-Ju Ada Cheng, De Paul University Robert Perrucci, Purdue University ********************************************************************* As I said from the onset, I am looking forward to hearing from you on these and other matters. Please send messages to comnet@gwu.edu. Best Amitai Etzioni |
|
The Communitarian Network |