Andrew Hastie - old school standards

Share |

Andrew Hastie is presented as a man of integrity who will get the job done, as the representative for the Canning electorate in WA.  The problem with Hastie is that "Special Forces" qualifications don't really pass as qualifiers for political life,  and living in some barracks in his electorate is not preparation for public life. It's a narrow government life experience, akin to school, followed by another school experience. There is little appreciation of economics, finance, accounting or anything outside of defence. Maybe he can be Minister of Defence in a liberal cabinet? Can he represent his electorate. Of course he can. The issue is whether he has the values to judge them,  and serve them fairly in his role. In this respect Hastie is destined to be 's carbon-copy failure like Abbott.
It is sad day when the electorate is becoming a conflation of liberal and democrat, and the liberal party is becoming more arrogantly anti-intellectual. They are not just conservative; they are trending the boundaries of fascism.
The Labor Party is full of chimps, however there is something disconcerting about a Liberal Party appointing a lot of Christian self-righteous puritans, with no life experience, who profess the calibre to tell Australians how it is.  It's disconcerting because whilst their rhetoric speaks of individualism, rights, aspiration and integrity; their policy prescriptions are completely on par with Labor. Like Labor, their members are professional politicians and bureaucrats like "tin soldiers" with no life experience. No skills that prepare him for the assaults on his integrity. I'll happily demonstrate as much if Abbott or Hastie ever chat with me on Facebook.
These fakers will defend their past legacy; they are not custodians of our future. The religious right in Australia are going to destroy Australia, just as they did the United States. Abbott is not even Reagan; but you can be sure he will spend on infrastructure like there is no tomorrow. That is not a bad thing, however like Menzies, there will be no other progress. It will be hapless "privileged" self-righteous leadership cowering to old values with no intellectual engagement. For those who don't fit the model, their will be repressive alienation; all for the sake of preserving the interests of liberal party sponsors.
The only defense from such a development will be a switch to the libertarian parties, namely Rand Paul in the USA and the Liberal Democrats in Australia. The ACT Party in NZ more closely approximates a 'right' conservative party. Mere appeasers to old values whilst they offer a respite to the centrist National Party.

There are several defences from such poor government;
1. Anarchocapitalism - denying these authoritarian governments a monopoly in their arbitrary use of force. That is to say no government can be trusted in the basis of the existing political structure.
2. More Liberal Democratic Party in the Senate
3. Not giving the Labor Party a chance because of the union-extortionists they are. 

I cannot see Hastie being anything other than a lackie for an Abbott coalition. The by-election  is a referendum on Tony Abbott. Hastie is his boy.  What we need is politicians who don't just talk about integrity, but who break the political whip, and actually display it because integrity means more to them than their political futures.

Scottish independence - The values for change

Share |

Scotland is taking the fateful step towards independence. The question is – should it? I’m an Australian critical analyst who has taken upon answering the questions which people in this fledgling nation cannot. They cannot for any of a number of reasons – namely:
1. Empiricism – that is an undeveloped capacity to appraise abstract ‘analytical’ arguments
2. Bias arising from a misplaced sense of identity
3. Presumptuous ideas about the issue, i.e. Knowing something about politics, but not about economics, and other pertinent subjects
4. Foresight – Not knowing the future outlook

Of course, it is not a question of possessing perfect wisdom, but simply making the best possible decision within one’s means. To this end, I’m simply providing a ‘heads-up’, with the qualification, that I’m not perfect either. In any respect, perfection is not an option open to any of us, since our political system is so disempowering it is impossible for any of us to reach it. Therein lies the illusion of this campaign; the idea that things will be better if we simply reject the British. These exponents of independence however will be functioning on the same fundamental premises as their predecessors. There is one solid reason why they will be doing that – the voter would be apprehensive if confronted by the reality of change and justice, and there is no hope in comforting millions of people, so the ‘new system’ is destined to only achieve some fraction of ‘the optimal’. The question is whether that ‘fractional change’ is worth the effort, or is Scotland destined to fall prey to the same mistakes as Britain. Some people like to gamble. I like ‘proven paths’ supported by evidence because there is actually no need to take unqualified risks. We have a mind; we need to use it. The schedule is now overtaking the events. People are destined to be engaged in the 11th hour. The ‘no team’ has only now just got serious about the campaign. That is a measure of their disrespect; but what of the implied ‘respect’ of Alex Salmond and his team. Well, Salmond has offered very little detail about the trail he is blazing for Scotland. Is that a measure of his regard for Scottish voters? It’s hard to say. He might well be avoiding controversy because:

1. He is just a custodian of the people’s interests, so he’s open to ideas
2. He just appreciates that the opposition are destined to use anything he says to create fear. i.e. Might the devil be in the detail, or the absence of it? That ultimately depends on the balance in any debate.

So let us consider the problems for Scottish secession that I have raised above.

Empiricism 

Empiricism is a philosophical perspective that compels the observer to find comfort in evidentiary sources of knowledge. It is a perspective that holds ideas or concepts as suspicious or deceptive, whilst experience is ‘grounded’ and tangible. The reality is that people who are explicit or implicit exponents of ‘experience’ at the expense of ideas are simply not well-equipped to think. The problem is not that analytical thinking is a source of uncertainty; the problem is that they never employed the methodology to the point of achieving any comfort in it, or any sense of efficacy from employing it. By implication, it became a tool that they felt compelled to deride, not because they found a better tool, but because:

1. Their relativist standards precluded them from caring whether they were ‘analytically’ efficacious
2. Their subjective perspective allowed them to simply find another tool, i.e. empiricism, which gave them comfort
3. They were able to join a ‘school of thought’ that gave them the validation to persist with the method, and the compartmentalisation to avoid scrutiny.

The fact of the matter is that sound thinking depends upon both rational ‘analytical’ and experiential (‘empirical’) engagement. The reality is that people are prone to ‘flip’ from analytical to empirical thinking, but struggle to engage both skills at the same time. One might wonder why I have not identified rationalism as a problem. The reason is that rationalism is largely confined to Continental Europe, with schools like the Austrian School and praxeology. These schools are significant, but they are not influential in politics. The empiricists reign supreme, largely because of their propensity to:

1. Proven success. Empiricists have been able to draw credibility from successful application in the ‘basic’ physical sciences, i.e. People simply took a leap of faith that they could apply seemingly ‘non-analytically’ methods to the human sciences. They do ‘conditionally’, but derision for analytical thinking gave the empiricists an ‘easy path’. The problem is that the human sciences entertain far more complex problems and there is less scope to experiment with humans in ‘closed systems’. This meant they could not ignore the broader context, so instead they derided ideas or our ability to know anything, i.e. scepticism. 
2. The tangibility of empiricism. Empiricism is more tangible, since you can refer to data, and larger data sets have even greater appeal. What seems lost on people is that it requires an ‘analytical’ frame of reference, or a methodology, however that is just a rationalisation to comfort people. People are only really interested in ‘results’, and methodology is gives scant consideration. Most research is peer-reviewed by empiricists, and controversial research goes untested. It is a leap of faith in the methodology of testing research and the results of research. 
3. Derision for ideology. The empiricists have been very successful in deriding ideology. There is a good reason why this is so; “everyone appreciates the self-evident”, whether it’s the candy bar, the tax concession, the cash back. The point of these ‘tangible’ values is that people get them, and don’t appreciate the long-range, the conceptual, or the unidentified benefit that does not take a form they can immediately perceive. Practical extortionists have therefore reigned supreme in politics, journalism, business and other modes of engagement. They didn’t have to account for their methods, as long as they had practical outcomes that trumped all but the largest ‘inconvenient, obstinate ‘extortive’ oppositions, like the union movement and Greens. This didn’t make these oppositions right; it just made them an obstacle to prevailing powerful interest groups. Practical people then had to suppress any respect for ideas that contradicted their practices, so they needed an intellectual framework for attacking ideas’. i.e. Empiricism.
4. Appeal to authority. There is an expectation that results sanctioned by some body is a sufficient measure of its validity. In a world of competent practitioners of scientific method, you would hope for that, but we should have no such comfort. The irony is that they call their method ‘the scientific method’. The reality is that it’s a political sanction for ‘appeal to authority’ or ‘faith in non-analytical scientific method’. This of course serves exponents of the status quo (conservatives) and modern liberalism (‘liberals’). Interesting, for practical reasons, these counterparts hold sway over different public policy areas. Conservatives hold sway with economic interests, so classical liberal ideas dressed up as utilitarianism prevail, whilst liberals have been able to win over social policy with their popularity among the unions, churches, welfare lobbies and even conservative sympathisers. Both sides of politics therein stand opposed to analytical thinking because its ‘ideological’ and it’s derided as such because they can’t use it; but it can powerfully be used against them unless they can construct oppressive political agencies to curtail it. The reason analytical thinking is so distrusted is because even ‘specialist’ rationalists cannot make sense of the world. They are not generalists, or even if they are, too few of them are raised in a world offering sufficient ‘detachment’ from tragic ‘experience’ that they are destined to be shaped by it. Of course there can be a contrary explanation for those experiences, however finding such an explanation before analytically-minded people have had a chance to elucidate a ‘world view’ is a challenge, and then to expect any validation thereafter, is a challenge that most idealists won’t make.  

For these reasons there is an undeveloped capacity within ‘specialists’ to appraise abstract ‘analytical’ arguments. 

Various forms of bias

There are a number of forms of bias that makes people prone to poor decisions. These include:

1. Material bias that lend support to poor decisions. i.e. If you were a banker which was destined to lose their job, or vulnerable to adverse outcomes because of your position, then you might be compelled to make a decision that serves your short-range interests rather than your long-range interests. This can be extended to a material loss because your judgement was wrong, and you attempt to avoid acknowledging that by denial. 
2. Abstract bias arises where people are compelled to accept outcomes that avoid their sense of intellectual ambivalence or the necessity for them to learn, or change their position. The bias arises, not from material consequences, but moral apprehensions about a person’s capacity to solve a problem, whether themselves, or to convince others of the plausibility of the solution identified.

In either case it’s an attempt to avoid bad consequences or avoid ‘hard effort’ where one clearly has no sense of efficacy, and where such efficacy is not considered ‘practical’ under the contemporary political system. Efficacy is a source of motivation because it’s a source of validation, whether pride and reward. You can see that in our extortion-based political system that rationality does not get much validation simply because most people don’t or can’t (with confidence) engage in logical debates, and because rationality is not the standard of value. Such people are invalidated, whilst the unthinking are vulnerable to false arguments by political representatives who would manipulate them. Efficacy is instead depicted as a ‘social skill’, so rewards are bestowed upon one on the basis of one’s capacity to get along and placate others. Egoists are considered mentally ill or deficient under this scenario. It’s a straw argument that collectivists and statists are not accountable for. They care deride people readily with impunity because there are so many more of them.

Presumptuous ideas 

We have already described the problem of people ‘knowing a little bit of something’, therein thinking they are capable of engaging in any related endeavour. The problem with knowing a lot, but not everything, is that the thing you don’t know might be the ‘differentiating idea’ that makes the difference in how you think. There are basically two sources of presumption in society:

1. Entrenched ideas – Traditional ideas or values which were not questioned. There are a lot of these, and there are powerful institutions in the world dedicated to preserving these ideas. They are called ‘schools of thought’, but really they function more as ‘barriers to thought’ since they validate everyone entombed within, granting them the discretion, but not the compunction to engage with the outside world. Consider the power and influence of the churches. These institutions are still shaping the way kids are raised. Most adults think that their child should have a religious instruction to ensure they get ‘ethics’. For an atheist like myself, this is corruption from the first gasp of air. The church however is merely the first step towards a multiple of false dichotomies across the political spectrum.
2. Specialist ideas – I’ve already alluded to the folly of people who know a little, and who have come to accept as a ‘leap of faith’ the ideas of others. Clearly they don’t know enough to critically appraise those ideas. These are related problems because if something is not critically appraised it’s because it’s not so ‘superficial’ that it’s being popularly questioned, or because the critique is not so controversial or ‘popular’ that people are open to entertaining it. People still consider the popularity of an issue the measure of its value. When you are raised with a special skill you inadvertently accept peripheral knowledge upon which that idea depends. We have been doing that since birth, and most people don’t question those ideas; even seasoned philosophers and scientists. This is a source of presumption that is difficult for most people to overcome because most people are ‘practical people’ who don’t like to undermine their practicality in terms of their presupposed identity, values and purpose. Of course we are open to some change, but not change that would change our identity or loyalties. 

Perhaps the greatest threat or obstacle to intellectual reform or enlightenment are the entrenched values underpinning the humanities. The reason why these values are so entrenched is because the humanities is a deeper or more complex subject that the physical sciences. The struggles in the physical sciences arise not from the complexity of the variables so much as the absence of data. We are remote from data; whether data which depicts the furthest reaches of the universe, the depths of the lithosphere or the depths of the ocean. 

In the case of the humanities, we are clueless, not because of our inaccessibility to humans, but rather the multitude of variables that shape their lives, and their dispensation to dishonestly or defensively to avoid moral judgement or condemnation. This is understandable. If it becomes hard to understand people, then it becomes easy to judge them unfairly out of context. In political systems which treat us unfairly, we readily spurn those judgements which inadvertently make us feel vulnerable. Politics deals with issues that remain intractable after 200 years. We are still no closer to reconciling the issues of Adam Smith and Karl Marx. Not because there is no evidence, but because some people are permitted the luxury of circumventing evidence for something more pressing – the right to extort influence over others. Yes, we are talking about representative democracy and the state’s power to coerce and tax. 

It helps politicians no end that the field of economics is equally open to question, because it is also complex and controversial. Again, people are divided into ‘schools of thought’ and are barely pressed to reconcile their ideas. Their political exponents are far better off by not performing any reconciliations, for they would surely surrender their bargaining position. There is no ‘position’ in settlement, only in the intractable problem. 

For this reason, the most ‘practical’ field of science or pseudo-science is surely the ‘behaviourist’ school of sociology, which studies the advanced nature of humans with proclivities towards certain tribal groups. This field of ‘pseudoscience’ is certainly validated by a political system which gives a sanction to ‘extorted’ tribal or collective values, and it is indeed interesting how even the concept of ‘individualism’ can be corrupted or twisted to recognise the ‘specificity’ or uniqueness of minorities, but never the smallest minority – the individual, on the premise that anything spurned or affirmed for others is morally ‘good’ an anything wanted for oneself is necessarily bad. i.e. The ego is spurned as a ‘corrupting influence’. The problem here is their psychological values, or their poorly developed conception of humanity, or human motivation. This is of course part of the presumptive, tragic context in which they ‘frame their science’. The tragic and sceptical world-view clearly reinforces the idea of the tribe being the standard of the good. The human conscious cannot be trusted, so any mind becomes a foundation for deceit or ‘greed’. This is the type of thinking that spurns human achievement in any person. Any good is only affirmed as a ‘collective achievement’. There is no room for personal glorification, and it doesn’t serve society to falsely affirm one’s personal responsibility when it was indeed a ‘collective contribution’, but neither does it serve anyone not to acknowledge the discrete contribution of individuals, and to so differentiate those contributions as a basis for validation or justice. 

We can therefore see that presumption is a serious problem in society, and we can also acknowledge the origin of the problem. There is two forms of ‘the good’. There is ‘the good’ as defined by science that recognises within humanity certain capacities to achieve value, just as all species of life seek to achieve some value from bacteria to the primates. There is also the personal, specific context in which every living thing acts or exists, including humans, and we ought to respect the importance of each human by acknowledging the importance of their values to them. When we seek to collectivise values, when we enshrine a code that forces people to seek or support (through taxation) collective ‘social values’, we are saying that the good is a distortion or a repudiation of self. This is a betrayal of self that cannot be permitted because it ultimately undermines human freedom. The depravity of this system becomes even more serious when you look at the political system of representative democracy, because this system proselytises this system as ‘virtuous’, when in fact, it disempowers humans from their values, goals and ultimately an objective notion of ‘the good’. It betrays them by doing so, but also by seeking some bureaucratic conception of ‘the good’ from an array of ‘expert’ public servants with scarcely any life experience, and raises their views upon a pedestal. So you can expect a government to defer to a litany of ‘authority figures’ in government who are sought to be express their views on ‘your good’. i.e. Oil executives, bankers, fund managers saying this will cost money, but it’s your money, and its being spent divorced from your values, and you are expected as a matter of faith, to expect that your interests will be served eventually. 

This is the type of thinking of course that leaves decision-making estranged from you, or Scottish voters. In the context of Scotland, the bankers are not interested in the long range interests of Scottish people. They are concerned with their short term interest as banking executives. They are interested in curtailing the bank’s expense and inconvenience. Most of them are expressing ‘exaggerated claims’ as to the impact of independence to achieve their ends. Nothing could be more disingenuous. In most cases, the impact will depend on how Britain and Scotland conduct themselves; and the answer to that question will not be known until after the referendum. Their Scottish assets could be veritable prizes after the referendum.

One of the entrenched values that can serve as a source of presumption is an entrenched sense of identity. We are born in a certain context or ‘environment’, and that environment embodies a package of experiences, people, values and institutional provisions that define the nature as human beings and of course the sameness of those around us, as well as the specific context which allows for differences as well. Humanity has for a long time been a growth proposition, which is accompanied by change. Such change ultimately threatens our values. Clearly we are accustomed to some measure of change and difference between us, but we have entrenched ideas about what is open to change, and what is not, in accordance with our values.

Foresight

One of the travesties of the public education system is that it has encouraged everyone to become specialists. Those people who become “generalists” like me are a betrayal of the system because “specialists” don’t appreciate the value of ‘informal’ education. Moreover they don’t welcome being reproached by ‘un-credentialed’ persons who challenge their values. They think ‘all good comes from government’ because they have come to view all standards as coming from government. Society is a complex system that demands understanding not simply one subject or ‘specialisation’, but a large number. There are two problems:

1. The “specialist” draws a great deal of confidence from the fact that they have ‘high degrees’, but those high degrees and any resulting analysis was based on ‘assumptions’ drawn from other fields. It is a problem because they are not destined to identify the nature of any contradictory values, nor seek to explain them, after all it’s not their ‘expertise’. They instead seek out ‘like-minded’ specialists with a compatible ‘world view’, and incorporate their research into their findings, happily citing the compatible evidence, and selectively and ‘conservatively’ ignoring the incompatible or irreconcilable research or findings.
2. There are no implications for a researcher ‘getting it wrong’. It’s not their money; they are not going to get fired unless they breach ‘common practice’, and these are the values that define their ‘identity’ resulting in a culture where everyone is systematically ‘in error’. This is a systemic failure of state-sanctioned education, where government standards have been imposed upon all education institutions, and everyone has been raised under the same model.

This is of course simply the institutional failure that is underpin by a epistemic and ethical value system that betrays the individual. The egoist is tolerated as a ‘rogue’ contributor, who is never validated because their values are considered to be a repudiation of the collectivist values of others. Rather than acknowledging the contribution these egoists have to make, these people are ‘invalidated’ and even ‘spurned’ as a cancer upon society. They don’t get the recognition or empathy they deserve, not because they don’t deserve it, but because they don’t need it. They are healthy despite their persecution as ‘greedy egoists’. But this is not the nature of every conflict. In the case of Scotland, we have one collective group seeking to differentiate itself from another collective group. Each attempts to extort some influence over another. The British parliament wants to hold the Scottish people to ransom, and Scottish politicians bemoan Scottish marginalisation, so they can do to the Scottish people what British politicians did to everyone in centuries past. They aren’t a repudiation of the British system, they are building a new franchise under it, and posing it as a solution to the system of old. If they want to disavow the past, they should take some time to disparage the old and formulate the system which would give people confidence in the ‘new’. 

This attempt at secession for Scotland lacks any respect for those people whom they profess to be custodians for. There is nothing compellingly new to justify secession. It rests not on love of certain values, but derision for contemporary custodians without standards. It leaves people accepting one group on faith simply because they are ‘not the same faces’ as before.  

Asian property markets outperforming Japan Foreclosed Guide Philippines Property Guide
Profit from mining with Global Mining Investing eBook

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

The destabilisation of the Western security alliance - how Kim Dotcom challenged Western security agencies and the TPPA

Share |

Today was a big day in global politics, most particularly for two countries:
1. New Zealand - which faces an election in 5 days (20th Sept 2014)
2. Scotland - which faces a secession referendum in 3 days (18th Sept 2014)

The events arose because of a telecast by three men in effective political exile - Julian Assange (stuck in an Ecuadorian embassy for 2 years, fighting extradition to Sweden, who are obliged to send him to the US), Edward Snowden (holding effective asylum in Russia) and Kim Dotcom (a NZ resident who is fighting extradition proceedings) to the United States. They stood tonight together along with Glenn Greenwald, the Canadian journalist who published on the mass surveillance scandal in the USA, Dotcom's international lawyer Bob Amsterdam, Laila Harre (NZ Internet Party) and lastly Kim Dotcom. Harre is a former NZ Labour MP, who has joined Kim Dotcom to restore her political career by helping Kim Dotcom create a 'scandal'. Well, they achieved what they intended to do. They did several things:
1. They shone a light on the travesty which is global intelligence gathering
2. They no-doubt elevated apprehensions about the TPPA and the lack of consultation that is allowing governments to 'manage' global trade in ways that aid privileged interests, as opposed to 'free trade'. We are instead getting 'managed unfair trade'.
3. They were able to depict NZ PM John Key as a liar.

Having watched the entire event, there is good reason for John Key to worry. The reasons he will need to worry is because:
1. The TPPA is a source of uncertainty that will make the Conservative Party, and possibly even Winston Peter's NZ First more popular.
2. His credibility has taken a hit. The good news is that most NZ'ers are equally circumspect about Kim Dotcom and anyone who associates with him. Many NZ'ers are uncertain about the events that transpired, but are unlikely to think that the breaches of privacy laws are going to hurt them. i.e. People just don't see innocent people being placed in prison because the NZ government gathers intelligence. This might be the 'end result' in years to come, but they are just as worried about not voting him in, and giving power to a left alliance.
3. Many people are going to preserve their belief that Labour-Greens-Internet-Mana Parties have staged this event to 'cause an upset'. They staged this event just before an election. This is destined to be viewed as irresponsible and opportunistic, as if people would not already be thinking that Kim Dotcom did not have an agenda by staging the event, i.e. He wants to avoid extradition.

The revelations are not overtly new, however they do appear to show that John Key lied, or downplayed the significance of NZ surveillance. I don't really think NZ'er conservative voters and fellow pragmatists are going to be too worried about the live telecast. I think most have made up their minds, and they are going to think that:
1. John Key is lying to protect 'privileged information' as all the leaders have done before Key
2. If Labour is full of integrity, then let Helen Clark step forward and defend John Key or allow herself to be buried with him.

What is interesting about the event is that it really avoids the question that it was designed to raise - why people shouldn't vote for John Key. Of course, by association, people are supposed to wrote for the Internet-Mana Party, and their cohort of candidates, most of them anti-intellectual leftists. What was lost from this presentation was that:
1. Edward Snowden depicted himself as a libertarian in the traditions of John Locke. He spoke of natural rights inherent in human nature. He did not describe social rights bestowed by govts. For this reason his values belong to the ACT Party.
2. Julian Assange did not express any loyalty to Kim Dotcom, but he clearly shares a platform with him because they are both the subject of attempts at extradition. Assange is also a libertarian of sorts, but more confused than Snowden. There is no question he believes in accountable government, and may well gravitate to the ACT Party or the Internet-Mana Party.

The fact is that, given the controversy over John Key this week, and the perception that all of his 'conservative' pragmatic mates are 'in bed with Key', its possible that there could be a destabilising event in the National Party. These voters are unlikely to go to Labour. Some will go to the Greens, a lot will go to Colin Craig's Conservative Party (on issues of land ownership and TPPA) and NZ First (blatant nationalists). The Internet-Mana Party is simply a conduit for Kim Dotcom's vested interests. His candidates, other than Laila Harre are unlikely to poll well, and people won't want proxies for Kim Dotcom in government.

The fact is that the natural custodian of people's apprehensions in this issue are Dr Jamie Whyte and the ACT Party. ACT might agree to some extent with the National Party, and seek fiscal discipline, on the question of personal rights and law, the ACT Party stands closest to Edward Snowden. Jamie is a classical liberal, and is the embodiment of Edward Snowden's values. Julian Assange is more ambiguous, but he could go either way. Snowden even joked about the manner in which Assange had released a lot of information, so there could be an intellectual divide there.

The point is that:
1. Jamie Whyte of the ACT Party has the opportunity to seize the initiatie and not simply win a greater share of the party vote, he could actually be the only plausible leader in a minority coalition. You might wonder how that would be possible, but given the context, its possible he is the only plausible 'personality'. More likely however is Bill English. Business are far more enamoured with Bill English. In a recent CEO survey he polled 4.8/5.0, compared to 4.23 for John Key. Jamie was not even considered. Still, this is Jamie's opportunity to shine. Will he seize the initative?
2. John Key is probably going to resign after the election. On the one level, you might expect that he would welcome the opportunity to engage in positive policy with people, but I suspect he is over all the controversy that been dragged up of late. So Bill English would be the new leader.
3. Alex Salmond could plausibly seize upon this issue as just one more reason to shirk an association with Britain, given that Britain is one of the members of the Five Eyes Surveillance Program along with Canada, Australia, NZ and the United States. Salmond is howevera pragmatist like Key, so if there was any attempt to use the issue, you could be sure it would only be on the basis of a 'technicality'.

Asian property markets outperforming Japan Foreclosed Guide Philippines Property Guide
Profit from mining with Global Mining Investing eBook

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

The cost of human decency - its not a line to draw

Share |

It strikes one as an expensive indulgence in international diplomacy when your government is committing to the identification of a missing plane in your region. Notwithstanding the opportunity to map the sea floor, there is every reason to believe that the Tony Abbott government is paying a high price to avoid a moral censure for not doing enough to secure the 'certainty' of some lost 290 passengers (mostly Chinese) on a KL-Shanghai flight. The problem of course is that its not Tony Abbott's money, but he has everything to lose by not spending public funds. Rest assured that he will accept, as will most people, that there is no limit to the cost burden. Of course there is 'a limit', but it will never be so stated. Instead, there will be some acceptance that 'everything has been done'. Of course it hasn't. Not every stone has been turned, and of course it never it. So what did we buy besides a map of a slice of sea floor that no one will ever use? Well, China loves us now, whereas before they only loved our cuddly koalas.
The problem of course is that emotions carry a great deal of sentiment in national politics. Everyone, barring his wife, consider Tony Abbott a heartless bastard. So we just paid an expensive price to prove otherwise. The reality is that politically, there is probably little gained from such endeavours. There is no evidence to suggest it was a mechanical failure that sank flight MH370 . The implication is that Australia paid a premium to relieve a few hundred grieving families who will probably not leave China bound for a holiday in Australia. Of course other Chinese will, and they will come with a high regard for Australia, and its loving PM.
This is not a new situation, and its not just about pleasing the Chinese. In fact, if anyone needs pleasing, it should be us. China has an international reputation as 'rogue thug' predisposed to pressing every and any unilateral advantage to extort concessions around the world, whether its commodity prices (i.e. issues with Rio Tinto), sea boundaries in the South China Sea (in conflict with Malaysia, Philippines, Japan, Vietnam) or its opportunistic gas price contracting with Russia. So why are we attempting to please them? Are we scared of them? Might it be construed as wasting precious resources to placate the bully that China is? I suggest that China has exhausted its right to any concessions, and rather than paying the price tag, Australia should simply be saying 'sorry, its not worth it'.
Do we need to care whether China loves or hates us? The answer is 'No' simply because China doesn't care whether we love it or not. I'm willing to convey instead that China needs the West, or even just Australia more than we need them. They need our markets and they need the resources we supply to them. It could well be argued that China is more able to diversify its supply of resources more than ever. So perhaps we are not in the strong position that we once were. But then China needs options as well. Australia has a huge role in the seaborne coal trade, and its destined to be important in a number of other markets. China does need us. In fact, we all need each other. But more than anything else, we need to stop being solely concerned with 'buying respect for nations' and start thinking about respecting the long-suffering taxpayer. After all, we don't need to offend China; what we simply need is a 'Dear Xao' letter than reads:

"Dear Xao, sorry we will not be funding an exhaustive search for missing flight MH370 because we presume the passengers were killed because planes seldom go missing and we value the living considerably more than the presumed dead. We extend our 'conditional love' to those grieving from this apparent mishap'. All the best, Tony.

This is the type of diplomacy we need; but it won't come as long as extorted wealth is the foundation for political discourse. Of course, I expect this letter with less relish that the following:

"Dear Andrew, you will have anticipated this letter with great trepidation. We acknowledge that your grievance with the tax office has come back in your favour. Sorry to say we have inappropriately extorted wealth from you for the last 30 years. Please find a cheque for $2000; your share of proceeds recovered from selling off the assets of public servants who have profited from your incessant victimisation. Best regards, former tax commissioner & incarcerated felon charged on organised crime...belatedly 2018.

Oh that was some dream going there!

Of course someone's bad news is another's good news. A NZ company is looking to win a lucrative contract to find the plane. Perhaps with such confidence China can pay them on the basis of 'results'.

Asian property markets outperforming Japan Foreclosed Guide Philippines Property Guide
Profit from mining with Global Mining Investing eBook

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

G20 Conservation - Government wants to set the issue for the 'conservation'

Share |

Australia is the host and president of the G-20 Group of Nations. It is holding a conservation with intellectuals from around the world who want to participate. The website is here.

I think openness and transparency is not the issue; in fact I think its one of those red herrings created by government to make it look like you governments are 'pro-people', or pro-democracy. If government really wanted to help people, they would actually make the voters accountable, and while where doing that, the politicians as well. Unless people can do that, then there is no education, no system improvement. Its really just sanctioned repression by a 'dumbed down' population.

This problem is evident throughout the world. Currently in Thailand we are witnessing the Thaksin govt being subjected to some measure of 'accountability'. This is a govt known for its blatant corruption; recognised to be squandering taxpayer resources to placate the poor voters, who just happen to be the 'rural majority'. No wonder the so-called 'Bangkok and southern provincial elite' are supported by the military in their endeavours to depose the 'immorally-elected', though of course 'legally-sanctioned' government. It highlights the point that representative democracy is not democracy at all in any real sense. Its an extortion racket that dumbs down and disempowers people, so they renounce their minds as our god in effect tells us to do, and communists have implored us to do. Renounce the self. Not working for you? Keep renouncing! Well, Thailand was never conquered by the British, and so I recognise that, despite its mysticism, that it still appreciates the value of the individual, and thus does not renounce so readily. Whilst they are not a nation of the greatest intellectuals, they don't glorify US founding fathers, they honour a king instead. Ok, they are not perfect, but then even their king from centuries past, when the missionaries attempted to influence them, they recognised that we need only science and logic from the British. Unfortunately, we missed that lesson and devolved into a legalised extortion racket. So I wish the Thai people well; because they might just become the first 'real democracy'. I don't expect it, given their mysticism, but I have no reason to trust government. The British made that lesson to their 'subjects' centuries past. The spectre of the 'right to be taxed unwittingly' tells me nothing has changed. For something resembling the same reason in fact, if we recall the Boston Tea Party.

Asian property markets outperforming Japan Foreclosed Guide Philippines Property Guide
Profit from mining with Global Mining Investing eBook

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Chile - a degrading liberal state?

Share |

All the signs suggest that Chile is destined to degrade into a liberal state. The cards were always on the table when you consider the anti-intellectual foundations for the nation. The modern 'successful' state was born out of intellectual repression. As it turns out repression can be good, when the ideas being repressed as are socialism. General Pinochet is criticised broadly for suppressing and killing political activists. Those who lost loved ones are however fond of forgetting that the activists were extortionist socialists intent on turning Chile into a socialist paradise. They might soon have their way. So we will explore the question of - cost or 'opportunity cost'.
There are of course those who will argue that life is an intrinsic value; but actually everything we understand about life tells us that it is objective and conditional upon humans recognising the requirements or life-affirming values to sustain and prosper. So how is Chile destined to fail?

Pinochet should be a national hero because he denied individuals rights to those who spurned their value. How can the socialists of the 1960s, like those of today:
1. Be critical of human right violations when they were no less intent upon curtailing said rights. The difference is only one's choice of victims. Pinochet curtailed the victimisation only to the socialists who threatened the rights of others, rather than the socialists who threatened to takeover the country and renounce everyone's rights.
2. Avoid the correlation between personal freedom and prosperity. Since Pinochet's transformation, the nation has achieved outstanding growth. It is true that a lot of the prosperity has resulted from the mining boom. That said, the nation will struggle to sustain the levels of spending being considered by the new socialist government.

The regime of Pinochet is not without its problems. The greatest threat is posed by low standards of education. The truth is that no nation around the world conveys a healthy framework of human values. Chile is no exception in this regard. It however can be considered to be very vulnerable because:
1. Spanish cultures were never famous for their personal or intellectual discipline
2. Spanish cultures always gave primacy to lifestyle considerations
3. Spanish cultures have always been firmly collectivist, spurring the rights of individuals for the sake of social harmony.

Does this suggest that we are destined to see another oppressive political step by the military. Well, that is possible. This government is relatively popular. The implication is that:
1. Chile could see a return to oppressive militarist rule - but this time round the military may be more corrupt than under Pinochet
2. The socialist coalition of 7 parties might well break down, so it loses credibility, and is unable to implement much of its program

In the favour of the socialist government is the health of the Chilean economy as well as the underlying disparity of wealth. Commodity prices have likely seen the bottom, so we can expect export revenues to have reached their low. Chile will however be going against the international trend of austerity. Partially this will serve to debase a currency that is destined to be a 'hard currency' at a time of robust mineral prices and devaluing international currencies (i.e. EUR, JPY & USD). The problem lies in the potential impact of state education. In some respects the reforms could be construed as positive, however given that it could greatly enlargen the state bureaucracy, there needs to be considerable scepticism about the direction of said policy. Nothing can be taken at face value. It matters less than education is state or privately run; it matters more that the values conveyed are healthy. So what exactly is the nature of this program?

Currently, education in Chile relies upon household funding. The implication is that the poor are precluded from entering 'skilled' work which pays higher. The implication is that Chile is trying to elevate its standing as a 'skilled nation'. That is admirable. The problem is that there is only so much demand for skilled labour. You therefore have to wonder whether Chile's skills development will be as beneficial as in other countries, which already have skilled trainers. This is a threat. The opportunity presented for Chile is that they might well be able to position their nation to be the 'skills capital' of the Latino world. That is a strategic opportunity. There is really no centre of commerce in the Latin world. The Australian Stock Exchange, the Johannesburg and Toronto/Vancouver Stock Exchanges are centres of finance serving their respective markets. There is every reason to believe Santiago could displace Toronto, Sydney, NY and London as the Latino centre of capital, particularly given its growing importance to mining and its shared Latino language.

The negative aspect is the expectation that any wealth created can be pilfered by the state 'in the interests of the common good'. In fairness to Chile, the government is only talking about raising its tax rate from 20% to 25%. This might be construed as recognising its improved sovereign rating - barr immense changes like this. The government is also talking about dropping tax concessions on capital works. Large scale mines tend to undergo expansion. Tax deductions on further capital expansion therefore favours further 'expansion' to defer mining profits, and therefore taxes, until later years. In Chile, the mines are immense. So the miners are able to defer taxes. Deductibles are bad policy as they greatly complicate and distort a 'user pays' system, but so does relying on income taxes. The question is for how long will miners be able to defer tax through deductibles. It is fair to say it will not make much difference because they will merely restructure their spending accordingly. In that case, we can expect 'corporate loopholing' to leave the budget under-funded, demanding more tax increases. The nation should move towards a consumption tax with user pay charges on identifiable and privatised services. Education, if it must be state-funded, should be on the basis of a voucher system, so that people's education dollar is discretionary. If families don't use their education coupon, then perhaps it should carry over towards their social security. The funds should go into a resource fund to protect future savings from inflation. Of course must depends on the nature of education policy; however a state solution is generally a bad idea. Is there any reason to think it will be worse than any other nation? No, but relativism is hardly a solution to what might be construed to merely a 'funding problem' for education. This is a justification for a coupon system - not a Western style state system which has decimated student's capacity to learn. One could be forgiven for hoping for a crisis of confidence from rising inflation to precipitate the suspension of the Bachelet-government's program.

Her other reform initiative is constitutional reform to adopt an electoral system. The problem with representative democracy is that it causes bitter in-fighting over an issue which is really superfluous. Representative democracy is extortion. Policy development should be about 'good rational ideas', not extorting influence as a 'numbers game' or strategic manipulative game-play, that electoral politics ultimately descends into, with lobbyists buying votes. This is not a paradigm that has served any Western nation in the last 80 years. It will never achieve its stated goals - because its is institutionalised corruption, on a poorly conceived idea. Its not stable government; its repressive, disenfranchising, alienating tyranny. The fact that it constraints political leaders almost as much as its citizens is not a saving grace. It is a capitulation that is destined to end in tyranny by forcing the renunciation of the human mind. Having said that, her proposal for reducing the entrenched power of the mainstream parties could be construed as a positive. If they adopted a system like NZ or the Philippines MMP list seats, or even Australia's proportional electoral preferencing system, then minor parties would have greater voice. It would still however be a 'extortion-based' system, where parties are rewarded for extortion. In fact, we might argue that it affirms the wrong value. It says that any competitive system is fair, even though the system rewards or affirms extortive imposition of force.

Of course, the Bachelet-government can be praised for its initiative to liberalise abortion and gay rights. She is not exactly a new face in politics, having led a coalition government from 2006-2010. In that time, she was undoubtedly challenged by her thin majority and the global financial crisis, even if commodity prices were relatively high in this period. On reflection, it does not seem that the Bachelet-government poses such an immense threat given that she will have to rely on the Right for some concessions, and her 7-party coalition might end up being a substantial vulnerability regardless.

It is difficult to compare Chile to Nixon's New Deal. There might be 'centre-left' protesters clamming for change. But at this point there is no crisis demanding such policy. This might however occur by necessity. If Westerner governments are going to continue to poor USDs on the global market, then 'relatively' hard currencies like Chile will be forced to debase their own currencies to remain competitive in international markets. We can expect therefore some profligate spending. The positive news might well be the plan to direct this spending towards 'value-added' education. The question is whether the nation's leader is able to pull off that feat. Its plausible that Chile will be a Mecca of learning for the region. The question is - how well will they do. This demands some understanding of the current value of Chilean education. Perhaps the outlook is positive given its 'discretionary' funding model to date. That question demands investigation.

For more information on the Chilean economy, read BBC News.

Asian property markets outperforming Japan Foreclosed Guide Philippines Property Guide
Profit from mining with Global Mining Investing eBook

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Israel's Occupation of Palestinian Territory - a critique of a liberal soldier

Share |

I don’t profess to have a complete knowledge of the Israeli Occupation of Palestinian Territories, but it does not strike me as ‘rocket science’ to give some moral appraisal of the issues at hand. I have just listened to a video interview by Yehuda Shaul, a former soldier who performed military service with the Israeli Defence Forces for a little less than 3 years in Israel & Occupied Palestine. He has since the end of his service come out to strongly oppose 'The Occupation' of Palestine. He has set up a Facebook page to ‘Break the Silence’. He has also written a book “Our Harsh Logic”, which includes testimonials from some 950 Israeli soldiers who are against the nature of the govt’s military campaign.
It is an appealing interview because he is an articulate man and he has first-hand experience of the conflict. However upon listening, based on my ‘peripheral knowledge’ and his argument, I find myself less than supportive of his campaign for several reasons. He makes a number of moral failings:
1. Empiricism – He argues that “the facts are not in disputed” – The fact is that they don’t have to be.
2. Democratic ‘conservatism’ – He seems indifferent to the nature and disposition of the political regime in Palestine, and the fact that Palestinians choose to live in the Occupied Territories rather than "unoccupied" Palestine. Why? Because they are in effect, economic refugees, who settled in 'Occupied' Palestine.
3. Moral ignorance – Yehuda honestly concedes that he was ‘righteous’ whilst in the military. He thought he was a ‘good person’. He thought this way for over 2 years. So are we to believe that he has passed from morally ‘lost’ to moral crusader in a few months; or might we instead expect that there is no reason to expect ‘moral certainty’ since he has had no ‘new education’. He only left the military. That’s not an education in ethics. I have already argued that he conveys a very ‘empiricistic view’ citing ‘undisputed facts’. I will explore the issue further.

He argues that the military ‘has its own logic’; but might he be construed as ‘having his own as well’, and that his logic changes as ‘rapidly as the seasons’. I have always argued that ideologically liberals and conservatives are 'one and the same' people; since they merely approach a problem from two different perspectives:
1. Conservatives from a repressed sense of optimism
2. Liberals from an indulgent sense of tragedy

Perhaps coming out of the ‘safe’ military life he was at a loss of what to do. Military men often feel lost coming out of the military, partially because military life (i.e. In his case "searching houses") does not prepare them for career life. His ‘apprehensions’ about his future might be construed as a foundation for a ‘flip’ to the tragic path of a liberal. There does not need to be any deeper moral appraisal of the issues in the Occupied Territories. “The facts are not in disputed”. Indeed they are not; and nor are they new. So what otherwise would account for his change in thinking. This strikes me as a plausible rationale for the ‘flip’, which he does not really elucidate. I would however like to get his perspective. Many retired Israeli soldiers become ‘hire mercenaries’ in other countries, working for other governments, or even private corporations. Was he simply facing a ‘career crisis’? Anyway, this might explain, apart from the Western liberal media’s penchant for attacking conservative governments, why he has launched this ‘new career’ attacking conservative governments; whilst has culminated in tours to Western countries and 'a book'. The fact that there is a ‘conflict of interest’ here, is not in itself an issue, and yet this does not stop liberals from constantly attacking ‘Big Oil’ or ‘corporate lobbyists’ for having a ‘conflict of interest’. There is that false conservative-liberal dichotomy rearing its ugly head again. A bit of pot-kettle I’d say; although this criticism applies to most liberals - not necessarily all of them. Nor does it need to end the debate because there is plenty of material upon which to build a case.
Of course it is easy to criticise people as traitors. Smear is par for the course of ‘conservative-liberal’ politics. I’ve been smeared as ‘anti-American’ by Conservatives because I think constitutions are a bad thing. No deeper argument, and so I have at least some appreciation for his attempt to make a case. It just strikes me as hopeless at best given the selectivity of his case. Yes, we might well expect more of 'civilised Israelis'; but he would have us believe that Palestinians are of equal standing. Well, it must be conceded that Palestinians do not exactly 'show their traitors' do they? How often have Palestinians surrendered information about their colleagues and family members who have 'conspired to injure Israelis'. Now, in fairness, they might well fear reprisals, or even unempathetic treatment by Israel, but I suspect the very few. Yet in contrast, Yehuda is free to criticise Israeli's role without adverse consequences.

Yehuda makes the point that these practices were a deliberate ‘campaign strategy’, not the actions of rogue soldiers. Typical measures included random raids on Palestinian houses, though he also argues that inspections at checkpoints were dehumanising or degrading to Palestinians. If I reflect on these policies, I would conclude that:
1. The borders of Palestine are ‘porous’ so there is a need to patrol.
2. The military cannot allow Palestinians to develop ‘safe houses’ from which to launch offensives against the Israelis
3. These policies are similar in intensity to the screening of passengers who board flights in any city around the world.

Perhaps the biggest failing of the interview, and perhaps this question is addressed in the book, is the question of what alternate policy Yehuda would suggest. Surrendering the Occupied Territories strikes me as ridiculous because:
1. Giving sovereignty to Palestinians would allow Hezbollah to mount rocket launchers on the borders of Israel.
2. Palestinians in the Occupied Territories are probably thankful for Israeli security; as much as they might resent the intrusion into their homes at ‘inconvenient’ hours….just as most of us would hate getting out of bed at 4AM each morning, if that was our life. We might even curse the world for it.
3.     Concessions to Hezbollah would only fuel Palestinian nationalism, and embolden them to the point of precipitating more violence.

It raises in my mind what alternatives the Israelis have. I would think that:
1. Israel relies on US support for the actions it takes because the withdrawal of a US sanction could prove harmful
2. Israel is challenged by the need to balance offensives against Hezbollah with the threat of injury to ‘innocent civilians’.

One of the failings of Western observers, and perhaps also Israelis, is to forget that Palestine is already (in a sense) an Occupied State, in the sense that it is a ‘tyranny under the authority of Hezbollah and other militants. Now, “modern” liberals will support them because:
1. They are the legal or legitimatised authority of Palestine
2. They are weaker; so in their minds ‘powerful interests’ are the oppressors

This is the type of thinking that underpins liberal disdain for ‘dictators’ like Pinochet in Chile; whilst welcoming or sanctioning the extortionary demands of socialists, who in fact pushed Pinochet to a brutal crackdown. Socialists will castigate Pinochet for killing thousands; but rather than describing these 'innocent victims' as hostile, socialistic revolutionaries intent on overthrowing the government, they are simply 'honored indifferent victims'. That is of course the same selective 'collectivist' lie you get from liberals.
The issue is that, in the absence of an all-powerful Israel in the Middle East; the liberals would be supporting the oppressed people of Palestine against Hezbollah. But in the current context, they consider Israel the aggressor simply because ‘they are more powerful’ and able to defend themselves. i.e. Israelis are 'unethical' simply because they have a life-affirming value system, i.e. Western democracy. The modern liberal will romanticise the ‘hapless Palestinian’ because they are ‘exploited’ or ‘have nothing’, or plausibly because they ‘have lost everything’; but the reality is that they are poor and destitute because their philosophical values are a repudiation of life. i.e. They have always been poor. If you look beyond Palestine, the entire region is poor; except where Western technology has made possible, with a little good fortune from the earth, the ‘blessings’ of rich oil discoveries. The region should thank those ‘Big Oil’ companies; but instead they invest the proceeds in the subjugation of their people (rather than education) and hateful propaganda of the West, who made it all possible. Understandably the West is only too happy to see Arabs 'disempowered' under Arab autocracies if they take that view. Critics might say I am engaging in 'Arab hate'. No. I don’t hate these people; I just think that they are ‘spoilt’, ‘entitled’ unthinking ‘savages’ who are victims of their religious values and sabotaged education. There is a good reason why Hezbollah has not raised the education of their people. They want them indolent, vengeful serfs who take the war to the West. The expectation that ‘surrendering the Occupied Territories’ will result in a peace is naïve. I hope they can learn to understand the nature of their geopolitical destitution. Until that day approaches I will be sure to keep this entire region at 'arms length'. I am pleased to say that I've met charming Arabs, including Palestinians, and I'm sure they all have their moments, as all people do. But on points of conviction, there is simply a great deal of moral treachery in this reason, and Israel is right to 'contain the problem'. Of course they should not thwart the chances of their development; only their illegitimate power. By no means do I think Israel should subsidise the development of the Palestinian people. That would only betray their own value. Palestinians have to become self-reliant and recognise their own potential. Foremost is getting out from under the oppressive 'tyranny' of Hezbollah, in the same way that Syrians are challenging President Assad.

I do have some questions which some people can perhaps answer. Is there any evidence to suggest that the Israeli government is preserving its vigilance in order to preserve its administration? The question is: Does Israeli policy serve to:
1. ‘Psychologically pacify’ the enemy? It seems this is not going to be the case; at least psychologically; though it might be argued that their measures are effective at securitising the Palestinian Occupied Territories and Israel to keep the conservative govt in power. The occupation therein could possibly serve as a ‘sore point’ to preserve the fight.
2. Facilitate the permanent annexation of Palestinian lands. I’m not sure if Israel has land pressures’ but certainly the military action could serve as a strategic rationalisation to ‘keep their land’. It might be argued that ‘Palestinian attacks’ need to be compensated, and occupying Palestinian land is a way of recouping some level of financial loss, as well as serving as a security buffer. It is noteworthy that Israel is barely occupying Palestinian lands, i.e. It is really a 'military zone' rather than an 'Israeli housing estate'. This I think is not true for the West Bank.
4. Simply preserve a ‘security buffer’ around Israel, to prevent mortar attacks on Israel.

Just as interesting of course is the US justification for Israeli support. Of course there is an alliance; and Israel is the ‘lighthouse’ of Western democracy in the Middle East. There is a lot of support for Israel in the USA; however liberals are largely unsympathetic. Is the US going to be sympathetic to the annexing of Palestine land? I would think not. You do have to wonder have to wonder where the US is getting value from the relationship. What exactly is the nature of the US ‘support’? Cheap weapons? Certainly satellite intelligence.

Yehuda Shaul, Co-founder of “Breaking the Silence”: “I was trained in the Israeli defence force to defend the country (whether Syria, et al start a war against us), to defend our borders, but what I did at the end of the day was enforce our military rule over the Palestinian people….to make sure they are stripped of dignity and freedom….[so they] don’t live as equals to us. 

Perhaps Yehuda presumes too much. There is no question that Palestinians will not appreciate being woken up in the middle of the night. If the question was ‘wake me up for Israeli security’, they would probably take the security and wonder how waking them up at 2AM in the morning helps to preserve it. That is the luxury of indulgent thinking; you need not be drawn on points of detail. The issue however is; is Yehuda’s disdain, and is the disdain of the ‘oppressed Palestinian’ justified? I don’t think so. I think its very selective thinking. The Palestinian lacks dignity because Israelis identify as enemies of Palestine, and the Hezbollah identify as being Palestinian nationalists. Perhaps if the Israelis identified as ‘Arab nationalists’, seeking a better world for Arabs, then perhaps they might be seen in a different light. I personally believe they will be cursed as ‘heathens’ because of their religious differences and their history.

Yehuda Shaul, Co-founder of “Breaking the Silence”: “At the end of the day, when I served for 14 months in Hebron…, my job was very clear, to protect the Israeli settlers who live in the city of Hebron…Which is very different from defending Israel. When I served on the Lebonese border in the north, my task was very clear….protect/defend the northern border of Israel”. 

I disagree because this ‘buffer zone’ serves as shelter for aggressors to mount attacks. It is the unpredictability of the Israeli occupation that serves to protect Israel. As long as Palestinians in the region are free to leave (to Palestine) I see no moral dilemma; and I’m sure no one would have it any other way. Either you lock people into Palestine or you lock people out Israel. No security is otherwise possible for Israelis. These people identify as Arabs; so you lock them out of Israel, and you deal with them on your terms; which just happen to be ‘commensurate with the security interests of the Palestinians’ in the Occupied Territories…that’s why they stay and settle there.

Yehuda Shaul, Co-founder of “Breaking the Silence”: “In the Occupied territories he saw himself crossing lines he never thought he would be crossing….until the point where every Palestinian in front of him was no longer a human being to him….an enemy, a potential terrorist”. 

Well, given that he professes a moral ambivalence, that’s perhaps not surprising. At the end of the day, his role has to be precautionary because he does not know who the enemy is. We see even in the West that police are intimdatory and disrespectful to ordinary citizens. I’ve often wondered why this mode of engagement; but at the end of the day, it’s likely that it reflects the ‘need for operational discipline’ in military and policing roles. It’s not comforting for those who observe it, because like police & military personnel, we also think we are good people. i.e. We like to be treated as humans. So by no means is this a ‘Israeli problem’. Perhaps the problem is the need for more education in military (as well as police) zones. There is certainly a role for empathy on all sides. We need to empathise with the role of police. Surprisingly, Yehuda seems to have lost sight of this perspective.

The fact that Yehuda is ‘confronting Israeli beliefs’ and not hearing contrary arguments strikes me as suggestive that there is:
1. A great deal of moral apprehension in Israel and Palestine
2. A great deal of cynicism that precludes intellectual engagement – simply because the political policy or agenda thwarts debate and any hope or motivation for change.
For these reasons, I sense that he is not finding the counter-arguments he needs to hear. I hope he hears them when he travels around the US and Europe. I do however tend to think that due to the nature of such events, that he will end up ‘preaching to the converted’.
Yehuda accepts that others have a different opinion….I guess its easy to do that because he once believed what he is doing is ok. People get angry because militarism has long been apart of the Israeli (as well as Palestinian) identity. It is actually more so for the Palestinians, because at least Israelis lead productive lives and are able to run sophisticated businesses. Palestinians are living in the dark ages; living under propaganda and a degraded education system, with no protection of basic rights, and no expectation of basic services. For this reason, the Palestinian government seems to have an even more pressing ‘vested interest’ in preserving a police state. In fact, far from saying that we should leave Israel alone; or negotiate a peace, the Palestinians seem determined to extinguish Israelis…and preserve ‘the flame of discontent’. How is the Israeli government going to thwart that paradigm without invading the country? Surely, liberals will be up in arms. Personally, its hard to imagine any sense coming from the resulting power vacuum. That would be a huge investment for Israel to make.

“This is a fight over the soul of our country….this is a fight over the moral values which will define whom we are as a people”.  

Agreed; but is it not he who is ambivalent about these questions…insofar as he went almost 3 years through a process of risking his life before he seems to have asked those questions. Yehuda assembled a list of 950 combat soldiers who are against ‘occupation’. But even in a ‘democracy’ this is a minor ‘contingent’ compared to the thousands of others who accept it. If this is so ‘oppressive’, how come the Palestinians are still able to kill so many Israelis? If this is ‘ineffectual’, what does he suggest will kill fewer Palestinians, insofar as Hezbollah’s soldiers are not going to be any less determined? Is not the reality that the Palestinian enemies are not the ‘general populous’ but those ‘militia’ hiding among them? In this case, does not their fear of their privacy invasion by Israelis stand in small contrast to the fears of death from betraying Hezbollah? There is no freedom of speech in Palestine.

Yehuda does not think it’s possible for an Israeli soldier to serve in the Occupied Territories with a clear conscience….”because there is no way of treating Palestinians as equal humans to you”.  

During Yehuda’s 14 months serving in Hebron, they would randomly enter the homes of Palestinians to ‘make their presence felt’. They do this ‘so they will be afraid to attack’. These random attacks entail separation and searching of the houses. That is only a little more ‘violating’ than the body searches done at all Western airports; albeit a lot more ‘inconvenient’, and the first time, ultimately a little scary, particularly if you had not heard third-party accounts. The intent is ‘to create the feeling of being persecuted”. Is that really the intent of government policy? Or just a ‘liberal’ former-soldier’s interpretation? If not, what in the intent? Might it simply be to thwart planned attacks?

Yehuda Shaul: “If this is your mission, there is no way of doing it nice”.  

The issue is not whether its ‘nice’; the issue is whether it’s justifiable intrusion. From my research, I note that the Israeli authorities have actually reduced the inconvenience over time by reducing the number of checkpoints substantially.  These changes would surely have allowed them to develop a database to determine the effectiveness of their measures; and they have probably used this to reduce administrative costs, as well as inconvenience to all concerned.

Another issue is whether Palestinians have a choice about it. I would of course hope that the Israeli government is sensitive to the needs of the Palestinians; as it serves the Israelis to keep the Palestinians ‘onside’. But there is perhaps another reason why the Israel administration might want the military to ‘treat them all the same’ (i.e. subhumane). It strikes me as likely that the military command does not want its solidiers to get ‘careless’ by diminishing the risk posed by Palestinians who ‘appear nice’. If they start treating them ‘differently’, or as ‘humans’, then they become vulnerable to manipulation, and then vulnerable to the threat of Israelis turning against their government. This is the price any government pays for preserving a morally ambivalent fighting force. Rather than offer a moral education; contemporary military wisdom is that you ‘ensure your military command remains ‘repressively’ servile and obedient. i.e. That they follow orders withour question. The video interview by Yehuda alludes that ‘culture’ and value system. He is repressed until he is placed in an unfamiliar challenging environment, where he along with other Israelis is compelled to make an income outside of the military. So it’s understandable that Yehuda only started to question the policy once he left the military. That might be a reason to change the ‘military culture’; but actually the problem is the greater moral ambivalence even among civilians. And in this regard, I’m afraid Yehuda is not helping his country or the Western countries, where he is sharing a deluded Western interpretation of his nation’s military affairs.

It’s worthwhile considering exactly what Palestinians could do. Let’s consider their options:
1. They can move to Palestine to be under ‘Palestine authority’ – which I suspect is not so good because its oppressive.
2. They are not permitted to move to Israel; so the best they can do is work for Israeli-Palestinian enterprises in the West Bank. That’s far more than they can get than in ‘peaceful’ Palestine.
3. Living in the Occupied Territories gives them work and relative security from the Palestinians; albeit at a highest cost than would otherwise be necessary if Palestinian authorities did not preserve with their ‘power games’.

The point I think is that they are settling in the ‘Occupied Territories’ themselves; for work, and that by necessity means, ‘living on Israeli terms’. If the Israeli terms were worse that Palestine’s, then Palestine would be a beourgeoning democracy, not Israel. Like Yehuda himself argues ‘he is not persecuted as a traitor’ for defying Israeli policy, despite this being a question of ‘identity’ for their respective people. What does that say?

“This is our national project for 46 years…all our resources are put into controlling another people”.

Would he prefer a more ‘decisive’ acquiescence or belligerent attack upon the Palestinian hard-liners? It is possible that this has been ruled out by the US government, which provides support to Israel.

Yehuda argues that they are raised with an ‘instinct for violence for which you answer everything…in ruling others, and used to not see others as equal to you”.  

Well, this is perhaps a good thing if it keeps the nation safe. After all; Israel is still a free country.

Yehuda Shaul believes his analysis is in the minority; but he argues that “the facts are not in dispute”.  

The political idea is not the problem…it’s the political mission…When we send our military to preserve a prolonged occupation, that’s how it looks [i.e. occupation].
Israelis are prohibited from entering the Occupied [Palestinian] Territories, except if they are soldiers, diplomat or journalists. The implication is that:
1. There is no concealment
2. There is no attempt to occupy these lands by Jews
I am not sure why he calls his book ‘Breaking the Silence’ insofar as he argues that the facts are not in dispute. If that is the case, he should have called his book “Israel Occupation: An alternative (liberal) thesis”. From his own account, there is ‘no silence to break’. The implication is that he is a traitor of soughts, even if a self-righteous, well-intended, articulate one. The problem with Yehuda Shaul is that he offers a sanction for the liberals in the West who hate Israel’s conservatives. That is why he is going to find a lot of support from them, including the media. He already has 24,000 likes on Facebook, as any good populist is destined to attract, given his media support.

If you are interested in connecting with Yehuda’s cause, you can find him on Facebook. I hope he takes the time to read my blog and address the shortcomings I have with respect to his campaign, because at this time, I was not convinced by his attack on Israeli policy. The best thing that he could do would be to articulate a realistic alternate mode of engaging with Palestine. His well-articulated interview seemed to skirt any mention of Palestine, or the nature of its government. Palestine lies under an oppressive regime. Syria is in a civil war. Palestine is under an even more repressive regime.

Sources:
1. “Israeli Soldiers Speak Out About War Crimes Committed On Palestinian Civilians”, XRepublic.tv, website, October 13, 2013.
2. “Palestinian freedom of movement”, Wikipedia, website, retrieved 12th Oct 2013; “Easing of Restrictions in Judea and Samaria in 2009”, Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, website, 9th July 2009.

Asian property markets outperforming Japan Foreclosed Guide Philippines Property Guide
Profit from mining with Global Mining Investing eBook

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com