Sympathy for the Devil

I was finishing The Looming Tower the other day and I got to the part where Al Qaeda had just attacked the US and the leaders were moving their families around so that the anticipated American response would have less of a chance of killing them.  The author had already gone into detail about some of the American characters that were killed when the World Trade Center fell and I think every American feels at least some degree of personal connection with 9/11 even if they weren't there, so when the time came for the Al Qaeda operatives to run, I certainly didn't feel sorry for them.  However, there was another aspect that bothered me. In one of the final chapters, the author talks about Zawahiri's family and how they were running to avoid the American bombardment.  I had no idea what happened to them at the time.  I knew that Zawahiri lived and so did bin Lade (obviously) but their families were something else.  However, I was secretly hoping that Zawahiri's family would die in the attack so that the son of a bitch would know what thousands of American families felt.  When it actually happened, I didn't feel a bit of sympathy for them either, even though his wife apparently had no idea that her husband was one of the leaders of the group or that he had anything to do with the attack.  To make matters worse, his 4 year old daughter had Downs Syndrome and was certainly an innocent to the conflict.  I know that it's sick, even monstrous, but I didn't care that she was killed.  I want Zawahiri and the late bin Laden to experience every type of pain and agony that is possible in this life and the loss of their loved ones will give them a taste of exactly what they put so many people through.  Honestly, part of me thinks that there are certain people out there that deserve a special room down in Guantanamo where they get tortured 22 hours a day until they beg for death.  Hitler, bin Laden, Pol Pot; certain people that have done such unspeakable things that they don't deserve to be treated humanly.

I think this relates to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict very well because I can see how an Israeli who lost someone to a suicide bomber or a Palestinian who lost their house to an Israeli bulldozer could feel unwavering hatred toward the other side and be happy when bad things happen to them.  I think its unfortunate and I think its something that can be overcome, but I also think that its simply a part of human nature.  Part of us thrives on revenge and we aren't happy until we've achieved it.

Reflections on my internship

Over the past seven weeks, I've had a chance to experience what it would be like to work in a research institute / think tank and overall, I've enjoyed it.  I like doing research, though I can't see myself doing it forever.  I can tell that Stevie has access to more information than I do when he does his research, the databases are fairly comprehensive, but I think he has developed contacts within the government and/or military that are able to fill him in on some of the finer details of the counter-terrorism world.  This would be the big advantage of working in the field for as long as he has.  I think in order to write well about current events, to have any accuracy with which to evaluate or guess how things will turn out, one has to have more information than what is reported in the newspapers and the journals.  I think it is unfortunate that most of the published papers that come out on terrorism and similar issues are often out of date or incomplete simply by the fact that they are academic and don’t have access to government sources.  I mentioned that I think Stevie has more contacts that he will admit, but, at the same time, I don’t think he is privy to any classified information from the intelligence agencies.  This is another reason that I have decided that I don’t think I want to work in academia.  I fully appreciate everything that I have learned from this experience and I think it has taught me a great deal about how to write a substantial research paper and, perhaps more importantly, how the academic community operates itself.

On an even greater level, this internship has shown me a new area of study that I had little experience in before.  Counter-terrorism has always been in the back ground of my studies, but I primarily focus on transnational security.  This is certainly an aspect of transnational security, but not a major focus.  To date, I have dealt more with counter-insurgency, which is similar, but handled in a very different way.  The fact that I have been focusing on the US is very significant as well.  Transnational deals with military threats to the US, but not with asymmetrical aspects.  I have been focusing on the home grown threats to the US, which, in my opinion, are very small.  We have some worry about immigration, illegal and legal, that bring extremist ideals into our country, but overall, there are very few instances of truly home grown terror.  Even the attacks that we have seen have usually been half baked and fairly ineffective.  As of today, we have yet to see a native born suicide bomber from the US.  The day that we do will be a critical turning point for terrorism in the US.  Britain has had this happen before, as well as a number of other countries throughout the world but the fact remains that, despite the fear American have of a homegrown attack, they are not as likely as they are in Europe, Israel, or somewhere in the Middle East. 

Working at the ICT has taught me a few things about and what we need to look at in terms of how to protect ourselves from violence.  The first thing we have to do, and something that we already do very well, is keep integrating our minority populations into society.  I think part of this is the overwhelming sense of nationalism that we experience as Americans.  A recent immigrant to the US does not typically think of themself as a Pakistani living in America with a US passport, they think of themself as a Pakistani-American and an American citizen.  Because they can integrate into society so well, though, they are less likely to throw away the life that they can give their family by adhering to radical principles and ideologies.   Even the Muslim Brotherhood, which is present in America, is less concerned with violence and terror than with creating organizations that can provide development assistance to needy people in the Middle East.  There have been instances, such as the Holy Land Foundation and some of their umbrella organizations, that funnel money to Hamas and Hezbollah in violation of US policy, but most of those monies go to the charity arm of the organizations.  Unfortunately, this allows more money to go to the military arms and that is, of course, a threat to regional stability, but I also think that some of the work that they do is important.  I think it’s too bad that the Israel is unable to do more of this for them and thus defuse the power of the terrorist supporters by providing them with what they need.  In all honesty, Israel is probably the worst country to provide this in terms of it being accepted and being seen as some sort of underhanded plot to overthrow the PA or exert a greater influence than they already do, but I certainly think that someone has to fill that void and the longer they keep NGOs out of Gaza, the harder it is going to be to uproot Hamas.  We specifically speak of two different components to CT strategy:  Motivation and Capacity.  It is easy enough to reduce capacity.  Border fences and checkpoints do that very well, but eliminating motivation is incredibly hard.  I feel like US CT strategy keeps that in mind, even if they don’t do it very well.  Israeli strategy is more concerned with simply destroying capacity.  That’s the rub, too.  If you institute programs that try to reduce motivation, the odds are that you are not doing everything you can to reduce capacity by funding projects and allowing for local funds to go towards enabling that capacity rather than the projects that we are funding.  Also, like I mentioned with the fences and checkpoints, restrictions on the civilian population are great for limiting capacity but only succeed in increasing motivation.  I think the only other way to reduce motivation is to get the population into a position where they have too much to lose to attempt an attack. 

This strategy only works in areas of the world like the Middle East, Chechnya, Colombia, and other developing countries.  The attack yesterday in Norway is a great example of what we just can’t really prevent.  Oklahoma City and Northern Ireland are others.  How do you reduce the motivation of a crazy radical living among you that has a good job, maybe a family, but just believes so strongly in a political structure or religion that they can throw away everything that they have in exchange for influencing the opinions of others.  I think that the only way we can begin to combat these are by extending community outreach programs.  It has worked in the Muslim American communities in the US (more than 40% of all attacks that are diverted are the result of someone in the community coming out and telling local police or the FBI). 

All of this knowledge that I have just written about is new to me.  I have a much better understanding about how a modern democracy operates a successful CT strategy and I think this is really going to help me in whatever career I decide to follow.  I am hoping for something in the IC community or some branch of the DOD.  Terrorism is a huge, hotbutton issue within the government and will stay that way for the foreseeable future.  It is helping to give me a much more rounded view of the security field in general and will make my resume that much more appealing.  Especially since I’ve spent some time editing papers for Dr. Ganor.  I have been told that he will be personally writing my letter of recommendation because he was very impressed with my work on his articles.  The contacts that I’ve made here can’t hurt either.  Half of getting a job is knowing the people that can get you through the door and, while most of these people work in Israel, they know people in the States and work with them regularly.  In this field, there is also a lot of moving about and the US is always a popular destination because we pay so much more than anyone else.  So, all in all, I have had an excellent experience with this internship and I would highly recommend it to anyone in future programs if I were you. 

Egypt

The Egyptian military just came out and said that they are going to maintain their position in the new government basically irregardless of what happens in the elections.  They have also said that they won't allow international inspectors to monitor them.  I know that everyone at the ICT is jumping for joy at this prospect because it lessens the chance of a fundamentalist government taking control.  I'm of two minds about it.  On one hand, I agree that it is certainly the best thing for the US, Israel, and regional stability.  However, the ingrained democratic ideals of being an American chaffs at this thought.  It is my hope that some sort of a middle road will come about, where the military allows a civilian government to grow slowly.  Democracy is a dangerous thing in developing countries and the transition from authoritarian to democratic is the most dangerous time for it.  If it can be done well (slowly) while maintaining GDP and job growth, it raises the possibility of this turning into a very solid government.  Turkey did much the same thing under Ataturk and then in the 80's (I think it was the 80's) when the military over threw the government in a bloodless coup because they refused to support a non-secular regime.  Their power has been gradually limited over the past few decades, but I still think they are the overwhelming force behind the throne.  I know that Dr. Ganor at the ICT will disagree with me, but I don't think that Turkey will allow a fundamentalist government any more than we would.  There is too much to lose financially.  Turkey is one of the rising stars within the international markets.  If they join the EU (and after this last year with the meltdown, I'm not sure they even want to) then they would have even more incentive to stay secular because they will have to adhere to European protocols for civil rights and freedoms.  Egypt could be the same way.  It could follow much the same route as Indonesia and Turkey.  The only problem is that they don't have the infrastructure and resources that those two countries have, and that is going to be the limiting factor.  No matter what government takes hold, there is still going to be high unemployment and a large, educated youth cohort with nothing to do.  With the proper amount of aid, a new age Marshall plan to build up the country, I think that those jobs could be created and disaster averted.  Egypt would be my first target for this plan.  Tunisia as well, and then maybe Syria, depending on what happens in the next few months/years.  I refuse to be pessimistic about it, however.  I'm hoping for someone in the military to realize that they can't avoid change forever and that if they don't allow some concessions to the protesters, they will either have to brutally repress them (Syria style) or they will have another Arab Spring in 10 years that may be more violent and damaging than the first.  I've never been good about predicting the future, but I don't think I can be wrong every time.  Hopefully this is the one of those times.

Issues with counter terrorism

I mentioned in my last blog how someone at Craig's internship suggested that Israel was supporting Syria so that they can have Hezbollah as a source of fear to keep the population in line.  As I stated, I certainly don't think this is the case.  At work we deal with Hezbollah and Hamas quite a bit and I don't think that there is any way, shape or form that they could take to make Israel want to work with them.  Originally, Fatah was also a terrorist organization as was the PLO, but both have since renounced violence and are trying to work with the Israelis.  Now I think that we will begin to see Hamas do the same.  Hezbollah will always be a guerrilla movement until they take control of Lebanon.  Beyond that, I think we can hope for greed and political pressure to mollify them a little.  As we have seen in the past, even religious fanatics are susceptible to the draw of money.  The Ayatollahs in Iran talk about spreading Islam and condemning Israel for its treatment of the Palestinians, but they just do it to keep their position within the government and the country.  I think the government in general wants to establish itself as the hegemonic power in the region and this is why they constantly condemn Israel, to get the Arab world on their side or to at least identify with them.  Does Iran really give a shit about Israel or the Palestinians?  I think not.  Hezbollah and their support for them is just a way to put a thorn in the side of it's enemies (the US and, by proxy, Israel). The Ayatollahs are all rich old men who make their living by controlling the vast tracks of land that have been bequithed to them over the generations and they don't want to risk losing that.  They also, of course, want more.  I think the same will be true of Hamas and Hezbollah.  The leaders of Fatah are known for corruption and are not opposed to working with Israel so long as it maintains the status quo. As Hamas moves into the picture, they will take a greater stake in the monetary aspects of running the country and they will molify their beliefs if they think that it will perpetuate their economic well being.  The same can be said for Hezbollah.  When it comes right down to it, I think both of these organizations are rational actors.  True, Hamas supports suicide terrorism and Hezbollah likes to fire rockets at Israelis, but we have seen that they are also victims of their own terror.  The leader of Hezbollah has come out and said that if he had known that Israel was going to invade in 2008 following the kidnapping of the IDF soldiers, he never would have ordered it.  The war cost Hezbollah and the Southern Lebanese people billions of dollars in damages to infrastructure and thousands of lives.  They can respect the cost benefit ratio of these actions and, so long as they don't underestimate the response, they will come out ahead.  If the retaliation is greater than the initial attack, they won't be willing to perpetuate further attacks.  Instead, diplomacy is the more effective tactic.  They can still keep the support of the people and enrich themselves by playing ball internationally.  Honestly, if they were willing to renounce violence and form a political party (this would entail changing their charter and recognizing the State of Israel) I have a feeling that the US would gladly give them economic aid in return for it.  It's like Iran.  There has been talk of basically buying the Iranian nuclear program.  Would the US cut a check to Iran for X many billions of dollars for them to give it up, allow inspectors, and have all their highly enriched uranium shipped to a facility outside teh country?  I think we absolutely would.  It's way cheaper than military action in terms of blood, treasure, and the effect it would have the economies of the region and, therefore, the rest of the world.  The biggest problem, like the rest of the conflict, is getting from point A to point B.  The negotiations and the political capital that must be expended to do so.

Arab jobs

One of the things that struck me when I went to visit Craig's internship was that he was talking about how Arabs had more difficulty getting jobs.  Now, this in and of itself, doesn't really surprise me, but I was under the impression that the Palestinian Israelis that had been here since the 40's were generally well employed and making equal wages.  When he told me the percentage of people who were out of work, I was really surprised.  What also struck me was how they enforce the discrimination.  He was telling me that when someone applies for a job, the employer always asks for proof of military service.  Obviously, since Muslim Israelis don't serve, they can't do this and it's an easy way to ask if someone is a Muslim or not.  Actually, from the Israeli point of view, this is ingenious.  Asking if someone is Muslim or not is obviously segregation based on religion.  Asking if they have served is just national interest.  Like asking a US employee if they have registered for the draft.

What also struck me was that, apparently after the war, large sections of land were zoned as government/public land despite the fact that there were already villages there.  Using this as an excuse, the government doesn't supply the communities with water or electricity in an attempt to drive them off the land.  If this would happen, they don't have many options to build new villages.  Craig's boss was already saying that it's really difficult for even Israeli Arabs to get building permits.  I understand why they don't allow the Arabs in East Jerusalem to build, but I think they are asking for trouble by not taking care of all those Arabs who are holding Israeli passports and are complete citizens.  They are a sizable enough minority that they could cause serious problems in the event of an uprising/civil rights movement.  I can see it being very bad for the economy when/if this ever happens.  This is why the peace process is so important now rather than later, to address these issues before they can have a serious effect on the country.

Nazareth

I visited Craig's internship today in Nazareth.  He seems to work for a really good organization.  Their central goal is to further the Arab-Israeli community within Nazareth in terms of community development and empowerment.  It seems like they are the non-criminal version of ACORN in Israel.  They help out women seeking a divorce from their husbands and convince them to fight for alimony.  They help train them for jobs in the community and they assist others with issues with their pensions and rental prices.  They also seem to deal with a lot of legal issues such as people being taken to small claims courts, mortgage problems, and pushing for policy change.  Mostly they are working to reduce inequalities between Jewish Israelis and Arab/Bedouins in terms of employment and income.  Apparently 30% of men and 60% of women in Nazareth are unemployed and the number of unemployed single mothers is especially bad because the community doesn't typically accept them due to traditional Arab values.  

All in all, it sounds like a great organization.  Craig's boss has some interesting ideas, though.  Sarah Hook came with me and she likes to ask lots of questions about the conflict.  That is certainly not a bad thing, but some of the questions are just asking for a problem.  She always brings up 1 vs 2 state solution and the right of return, both items that always get to people and are basically pointless questions in my mind.  I like hearing their answers, but I don't think that it address the real issues.  There will never be a 1 state solution in our lifetimes and there will absolutely never be a returning Palestinian population.  This got him off on a tangent about how there will never be a peaceful solution and war is inevitable.  That, I believe, is a more likely scenario.  However, he then began to talk about how Israel is working to keep Hezbollah in power because they are able to use them as an excuse to maintain a security state.  I fully agree that they use Hezbollah as an excuse for this, but I seriously doubt that Israel would shed a tear if the organization up and disappeared.  He also said that Israel likes the current Syrian government.  Again, I agree that they probably feel more secure with the devil they know, rather than the devil they don't know, but I don't think that they would intervene to support Assad as he proposed.  That would be international suicide.  I think Israel is happier now that the Egyptian military has said that they will ensure that their presence in the government will be maintained.  Syria is a different story.  Syria might get a new, more hostile government, but that is nothing that Israel can't handle.  

Border fence mark II

We took a group excursion to the border fence today with the IDC Executive Masters program.  Very similar to what we did on the first day and while in Hevron, but this time we visited it with a more liberal minded, career army officer.  That certainly made for an interesting experience.  He was very pro-wall and was very impressed with how much good it had done.  What surprised me the most was the way that he was very candid about the downsides on the Palestinian population.  He basically said that he and other career officers were quiet about their rank when they visited the Hague because there are people out there who want to try them as war criminals.  A lot of that had to do with the wall and the checkpoints within the West Bank.  He basically said that a lot of people called it a violation of human rights and he kind of agrees with them.  It must a be a huge hassle, but his job is to make sure that Israeli citizens aren't killed and the wall and occupation are the best ways to do that.  I am of the opinion that there are two sides to that argument.  The reduction in suicide bombings also happened when Abbas took power from Arafat.  He has a much more peaceful outlook on the whole process and, while corrupt, is doing more for the people of the West Bank than Arafat ever did.  He was also fully in support of a two state solution and brought up something that I never would have expected a military man to suggest:  that Israel surrender some of the Arab majority cities that they control to the new state.  Basically, it was a suggestion that would severely reduce the number of Arabs in the country and help keep the Jewish majority strong.  I certainly see his logic, though I don't know that many of them would want to give up on their health care, pension funds, and risk their economic well being to a Palestinian controlled state.  However, it would introduce a large number of prosperous, educated Arabs into the new state which could potentially have some good effects on the rest of the population of the new Palestine.  At least they would be Israeli educated and have the potential to be sympathetic to the peace process, if nothing else than because their economies would be so intertwined with Israels.  However, I'm not sure I see that happening as a viable solution.  Any territory swap that was arranged would lose some of the Israeli population along with it and that seems to be unacceptable to most of the people.  The security issue is another factor, though I think it could certainly be mediated. However, Israel holds all the cards.  If they give up a substantial portion of their Arab population, it will give them that much more leverage in the future because it would delay the inevitable loss of their Jewish majority that much longer.  Giving some concessions to the Arab populations might also mollify them in future negotiations.  And if things go to shit, Israel still has the most powerful army in the Middle East and the backing of the most powerful country in the world.

Back of the bus

I noticed something over the past few weeks.  The seats in the front half of the bus have substantially more legroom than the ones at the back.  I know in Jerusalem, there are Orthodox Jews who want there to be separation between the sexes, even on buses and they want the government to provide them.  It makes sense that if they want to run their own bus lines, they should have to pay for it.  However, I'm guessing that when the buses were designed, they were made to accommodate this.  Maybe it's just a coincidence, but I'm assuming that they did this on purpose.  I just think that it's strange that there are so many little examples of inequalities left in such a, generally, progressive society.  I know, just from talking to people in the city, that the Orthodox are looked down on by many of the Israelis and especially the people in Tel Aviv, but its little things like that that serve to remind us that there are still aspects of society that are not equal.  I suppose it's kind of a ridiculous thing to say when you consider the obvious inequalities that are demonstrated with the Arab-Israeli and Palestinian populations, but this is even something going against the Ashkenazi Jews.  No, there isn't a law making them sit in the back of the bus, but the reminder is there that it is a very religious society and if some people had their way, it would be much more strictly controlled.  To me, it hearkens back to what it must have looked like back in the 50s and 60s when there were separate water fountains for blacks and whites and what it must have been like to see both of them side by side after even after the civil rights movements ended up legislating equality.  What's ironic with this is that there was never any legislation enforcing this, it's the companies doing it themselves to meet a market demand.  Or, I suppose there could be another explanation.  Maybe they just want to fit more seats into a bus.

Refugee camps

After visiting the internship in Bethlehem, we arranged a tour of the refugee camps in the city.  A couple of guys who live in the camp took us around and showed us the housing areas and explained a bit about it.  Really, it looks like any other part of the city as I'm sure you know.  One of the guys took us to his apartment in the city and we met his parents, got lots of tea and we all sat down and had a long discussion.  The other guy that was with us said that his old apartment had been destroyed by the Israeli military a few years ago and he'd been living with family ever since spread out across the camp.  They also mentioned that nearly 20% of the people there had been in prison at one time or another.  Both of the guys giving us the tour had.  One for 18 months and the other for 6.  When asked why, his mother said it was because they love Palestine.  Turns out they were throwing rocks at soldiers.  I don't get the idea of throwing them in jail, that's just going to make things worse in my opinion.  On returning home, the boys were heroes, too, which doesn't help either.  They showed me a youtube video of the night that he returned and it was a huge party in the streets.  That actually brings up another point.  It is obvious that Bethlehem is not the poorest region of the West Bank because according to them, they have all been to college, his sister is studying in England, and they had cable and internet in the house.  It was obvious that they weren't as well off as the people in Israel, but they were certainly getting by.

I tried asking them about the Arab Spring and they all said that they supported it, but that it would never happen in Palestine.  I didn't quite get that.  It was obvious that they were more supportive of a violent resolution, but when I asked them about how they thought a peaceful protest would work in the West Bank, they just said that the IDF would kill them all.  I have to say that I disagree.  I'm sure there would be lots of deaths, and I thought it would be inappropriate to say that they should do it anyway and risk being shot, but it couldn't last.  There is absolutely no way that Israel would get away with a Syria style suppression for long and I would think that there are too many areas where Palestinians could disrupt Israeli life to get a decent amount of concessions out of them.  I had to wonder what would happen if thousands of Arabs sat on the Israeli highways in the West Bank, blocking traffic, but not throwing rocks or anything.  I'm sure that teargas and rubber bullets would be used, but things like highways are too long to adequately patrol.  If they could disrupt the flow of commerce to the settlements, they would make a huge impact internationally.  I also don't think that Israelis could get away with too much violent non-leathal suppression before they had to give in.  I wasn't about to suggest all of this to him.  I can't imagine being responsible for the idea that started the third intifiada.  That would look good on a US govt application.

Bethlehem internships

I visited Ben and Roxanne's internship on Wednesday.  It sounds like a decent organization, but very liberal and a little idealistic.  It was obvious that they are very anti Israeli, but it sounds like they are trying to do good.  Overall, he said that they are opposed to the many of the aspects of the peace process, but mostly the two state solution.  It makes sense.  His argument is basically that Palestine can't function as a country made up of piecemeal sections of desert and small urban centers.  Israel has already grabbed most of the valuable land and is unlikely to give it up.  I think this is probably true.  The Jordan Valley gives them access to the water and effectively shuts off the West Bank from the rest of the world.  If they went ahead with the two state solution they would probably end up being only the second country (excluding Vatican City and others like that) which is completely surrounded by another country.  However, there aren't any other solutions in my mind.  The work they do isn't very political and they seem to be more concerned with putting patches on a wound than actually curing it.  Mostly, because there is no cure yet and all the treatments are very hypothetical.  However, any indication that a one state solution is on the table is just ridiculous.  I was also interested in how he handled the Hamas issue.  He was very timid about even saying their name out loud where people could hear him.  I guess that doesn't surprise me too much since they probably didn't understand everything else that he was saying and he does have to live there and be a visible part of the community.  However, I was surprised when he said that they had worked together before, at least I'm pretty sure he did.  Maybe it was that he had been offered work by them.  However, I'm really glad I didn't end up somewhere where that is a possibility.  With as crazy as America is lately about going after organizations that support Hezbollah and Hamas, I wouldn't want to be affiliated with any of them when I try for a security clearance, even if they are squeaky clean and have the best intentions.

Life and Death

I just saw The Sunset Limited with Rush.  If you have never seen it, it is about a poor black man who saves a professor from jumping in front of a train and they go back to his apartment and have a discussion where the poor man (Samuel L Jackson) tries to convince the professor (Tommy Lee Jones) that he should find God and give life another chance.  The movie progresses and I wont say the end, but the professor gives a monologue where he talks about the futility of life because no matter what happens, life always ends in pain and suffering so why shouldn't people look forward to death.  He is an atheist in the movie and I see some relevance to what he is saying as far as the conflict goes.  I think that part of the problem is and always has been religion.  I know that I just wrote a long blog on how religion isn't the problem, but there is a deeper issue beyond Islam vs. Judaism.  Regardless of the faith, both religions boil down to heading god's word and living forever in the afterlife.  I, myself, am an atheist as well.  However, I can't imagine that, despite all the inevitable pain and suffering in life, it isn't worth it.  Mostly, because there is nothing left afterwards.  Religion teaches us that we need to be kind to our fellow man because that is what god wants us to do.  I disagree.  Religion also says that god will forgive you if you commit a sin.  That you can do almost anything and still live forever in eternal bliss.  In my life, only the person you wrong can forgive you.    You have to make the most of life because there is nothing after it.  I haven't lived the life I would have imagined, mostly because I'm not the person I imagine myself.  But I have come to peace with the man I am and I am happy with that.  I enjoy life.  Even the smallest bits of it, that one moment of happiness in a sea of misery makes it all worth it.  And life is certainly more than a sea of misery.  I love life.  I don't want to hurt anyone else because that is something that I can't take back.  If I end someone's life, however it happens, they are gone and I have taken away those small moments of happiness that make life worth living.  That is why I can't imagine hating someone so much that you want to kill them, to take their home, to cause them pain.  Life is too short for that.  Sometimes I wish that I had gotten my degree in education so that I could travel the world for the rest of my life teaching English in other countries.  To see the whole world for what it is.  Instead, I think I'll do one better.  I'll travel the world trying to make it a better place through hard work and a good example.  I'm not a priest, I'm not a saint, I'm just a man.  But I like to think that I'm a good man and by helping others, I can make this world a nicer place to live.  If I make a difference in even one person's life, it will all be worth it.  If I can find love, even for a day, it is worth a lifetime of loneliness.  And, honestly, I've already done that.  I've seen the world, I've loved a woman, I've been loved by that woman, I've made an impression on a host of different people.  I don't know that it is any type of immortality, but I think it is something.  I would like to think that if I saw a train coming towards me and I had five seconds to live, I would think back on all I've done and be happy.  But I don't have to do that.  I figure I have as much time as I've already lived twice again before I finally have to face that.  I certainly don't want to die old in my bed, but I have so many moments of happiness left to live, that I have no reason to fear death.  I still have a lot of work to do, but I'm ready to do it.  I just wish that the world saw things through my eyes because I think there would be much less pain and suffering.  Much less hate if people lived their lives to their fullest instead of filling themselves with rage and greed and animosity.  But that is a part of life as well.  It will never change.  Religion makes some people love each other and makes another want to kill.  Love does the same.  However, maybe if I can make one other person feel the way I do and they, in turn, make someone else see that way, then I truly have found life eternal.

Mandatory Government Service

I think there are some pros and cons to mandatory government service.  To begin with, I think it makes people here more health conscious.  Sure, you see overweight people.  Some of them are even in the army still, but I think that, all in all, the majority of the people are used to some sort of regular exercise and it probably makes for a healthier population.  The other reason that it is nice is because everyone experiences a full time job at least once in their life.  This is one thing that I would like to see in the US.  I don't think that people can contribute meaningfully to society if they just live off of other people their entire lives.  By this I'm thinking trust fund kids and other rich, spoiled people.  

However, there are some downsides that I had never thought of before that I think are certainly true.  First of all, I think it changes the national mentality.  Israelis are very cold and blunt for the most part.  I don't know if it is an aspect of spending three years in the military, but I don't think it helps.  I think it also makes people more independent, which is good, but it also makes it hard to meet people and break the ice.  Secondly, I think it perpetuates a culture of fear.  Developed countries have enough of a problem with the fear concept.  I think it's because there is so much to lose in a developed country, especially in Israel where you can drive for an hour and see a mirror image with people living with nothing.  Having people in the military living daily with the knowledge that they can be called up to war at a phone call and training for that war makes people constantly think of it.  We have cable news and papers in the States, but only a small section of society has experienced the military.  

Something else that bothers me about mandatory service, something that inspired me to write this blog, was seeing a female IDF soldier get on the bus with a stuffed duck hanging from her backpack.  I know it sounds sexist, but I don't think that girls should be forced to be in the military.  I think that there should be a different service that they can enter such as Americorps back home.  For that matter, I don't think that you should force men to serve either.  I think that, as there is a high demand for soldiers here, it would make sense to offer incentives for men and/or women to join to fill the demand.  Military service should be for 2 years, other service should be for 3 and there would be financial or educational incentives to get people to join the military over the civil service.  The duck tells me that she has a desk job, isn't a cold blooded killer, and is probably filling some mundane job that I have a hard time believing is worth the time and money of the state to fill.  It also makes IDF soldiers look weak.  No hard core terrorist who was riding that bus with us is going to think twice before messing with her.  Maybe she doesn't care.  Is there truly a demand for that many people working for the military?  Put them to work planting trees, doing road construction and other civil projects.  They learn a useful skill, work for the state for a few years, the state gets cheap labor, teachers, etc and not everyone has to join.  I think you could still maintain an active reserve by making all the men do boot camp and then move then onto other support type roles and keeping a full contingent of combat troops ready.