Obama's Dirty Secret

In today’s modern world, technology seems to be not only taking over our lives, but also growing at a rate that the public and government is having a hard time keeping up with it, especially in regards to privacy and regulation issues.  The largest of these concerns is the use of drones; and what is even more surprising is that it is does not seem to be a conservative’s legacy that will be the controversial usage of covert drones but instead a Democrat’s.  Instead of leaving a legacy of job creation, increased green jobs, and the closing of Gitmo, President Obama’s legacy may very well be the disturbing issue of Drone use in the name of  “national security”, and how, and if,  their use have really increased America’s national security making its citizens safer.

Let us compare the use of drones during Conservative President George Bush’s presidency from 2001-2009 versus President Barack Obama’s presidency from 2009-present.  When one thinks of conservatives and their national security policies, many would figure that under the Bush administration drone usage was at an all time high.  The harsh reality is this is untrue, and the difference between the two administrations, in regards to drone usage, is shocking.  From 2001-2009 the Bush administration conducted less than 250 drone attacks that killed about over 400 people.  President Obama’s administration as of Jan 2014 conducted 390 covert drone attacks that resulted in over than 2400 deaths in less than 5 years.  (The Bureau of Investigative Journalism January 23, 2014).

Many conservatives believe that the Obama Administrations stance on drone attacks has given them a way out of detaining terrorists.  AS Jo Becker and Scott Shane of the NY Times said, “Mr. Obama has avoided the complications of detention by deciding to take no prisoners alive.”   In essence the current administration, via covert drone operations, doesn’t have to worry about habeas corpus.  Conservatives also have worries that as drone technology increases, there is the possibility of the use of them in America which, in their eyes, would be a huge infringement on American civil liberties and the 2^nd amendment.  For example, if a covert drone operation were to be used on a certain group or person of interest, what will happen to the info inadvertently collected on an innocent person during that operation? 

Then there is the matter of public safety.  Currently there are about 18,000 local law enforcement officers in the United States, and some believe that drone usage would not only cut down public safety costs when it comes to police enforcement, but also help save lives of police officers.  For example a police helicopter costs around $20 million, while a drone could cost a city $20,000.  Then there are also the benefits of the usage of drones to help journalists bring more accurate reporting to the mainstream like in cases of natural disasters and environmental issues.  But on the other side, there is the issue of groups like the paparazzi using drones to further infringe on the privacy of celebrities; and as with the death of Princess of Diana back in August of 1997, everyone is well aware of how dangerous the paparazzi can be in their pursuit of the perfect celebrity story.  Would drone usage make this danger worse?  

Lastly, there is the argument of regulations.  As drone technology becomes more advanced and more available to the public, how will the usage of them be regulated?  There are even $100 “do it yourself” drone kits, and Wire Magazine estimates that by 2015 the drone industry can be a $30 billion dollar industry, even though currently the commercial usage of drones is illegal in America.  The FAA is expected to take over regulation of national drone usage by 2015, but they will only be dealing with the air space management of their usage not the political, ethical or legal aspects of the matter.  Unfortunately, I think our government; especially with the over usage by the Obama administration has created a “Trojan Horse” in regards to covert drone operations.  I do not think we will not be able to stop the domestic use of them or fully protect our civil rights as Americans when this time comes.  Once again,  Americans have allowed fear to take over and allow the introduction of another instrument that will destroy our right to privacy and civil liberties; and no matter how much they try,  the Obama Administration will not be able to spin their way out of the part they played in this. 

The Conflict of the two houses of Abraham

Israel and Palestine: two words that incite such emotions in so many hearts; two words that after being mentioned and discussed has been known to destroy lifelong friendships, incite arguments that can make a whole facebook feed go on for what seems miles, and now, not only endangers a whole region, but maybe even the peace of most of the world including the United States.  Who would have ever thought that when the British and French Empires selfishly broke up the Ottoman empire in the beginning of the 20th century in order to gain control of a valuable trade route to India and the Suez Canal, that over 200 years later, most of the world would be suffering repercussions from that action? Now the world is left with the conflict of a sovereign state created in hopes to settle the great atrocity of the Holocaust on the foundation of a whole group of people being pushed out of their homes and land, restricted to a small piece of land twice the size of the District of Columbus, while suffering apartheid policies.  Sounds like a story from the Roman times right?  Well it’s not.  It’s happening today in the treatment of the Arab Palestinians by Israel, and Israel’s refusal to stop playing the victim and recognizing it’s responsibility as the aggressor and key factor in the hope of obtaining any resolution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict.  It is time that Israel is not only held responsible for the lack of peace, and the Hamas attacks in Israel, but that the rest of the world hears the Palestinians cries and not only holds Israel responsible while also making sure it’s sovereign state and people are protected, but also provides for the Palestinians the land promised to them in the original agreement and boundaries agreed upon before the 6 days war of 1967.

It is not a popular view to support a Palestinian state verbally or publically in America.  Sometimes it is viewed as Anti-Semitic, and if you are a politician, you better wait until voted in before you even mention or hint to such a view.  Why do you think the Obama administration has waited until 2014, halfway into Obama’s second term as president, to finally speak up against Israel’s apartheid policies? But there is also a legitimate fear as to why Israel, along with many Western countries fear expansion of any Arab state west of the Jordan.  As stated by Daniel J. Elazar on the JCPA (Jewish Center for Public Affairs) website  

“The often bewildering shifts in relationships among Arab states and political leaders appear to most Westerners to be simply a chaotic mélange of shifting alliances and seeming betrayals. Students of Arab politics, however, understand that this particular way of relating to one another is characteristic of Arab political entities from Bedouin tribes to the Arab summit and that there are indeed rules to the game. Those rules, however, are not those that non-Arabs would want to live by.2 Those rules also make it especially difficult to accept any Arab agreement involving the concession of territory believed to be rightfully Arab as more than a temporary expedient, to be abandoned as soon as it seems possible to reclaim additional territory. Hence any Israeli concession in the way of A Palestinian entity west of the Jordan River must be accompanied by as close to iron-clad devices to prevent that as possible.”

Also, many feel that had Palestine agreed to the original armistice lines, instead of demanding total ownership of the Holy Land, between 1917 and 1948, they would have had their Palestinian state long ago.  (Elazar, JCPA.org).  Another component that is making the Two-State Solution hard to be approved is Israel’s very own leader, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  Netanyahu is very conservative, and he comes from a Revisionist Zionist background that calls for no negotiations with Hamas, which practically makes the passage of the solution impossible as Hamas is the main Palestinian voice when it comes to this political issue, believes that any agreement to give up any of Israel’s land up for a Palestinian state would threaten the state of Israel as it will make it harder for Israel to defend itself against her enemies east of Jordan, and who really does not think that Arab Palestinians are inherently capable of peace.  As quoted in The Week back in June of 2011, Netanyahu stated, “Arabs by nature are incapable of any peaceful compromise or agreement.” Some would look at Netanyahu has too hard lined and unwilling to compromise, but when looking at this background of being a member of Israel elite special-operations unit Sayeret Matkal, his history of being a soldier in the Yom Kippur War, and the fact that his brother was murdered while trying to rescue the passengers of a hijacked plan by radical Palestinians in 1976, one can understand why he is unwilling to compromise with a group like Hamas whom he feels is a terrorist organization. (The Week, June 2011).  

So what is the next step?  One thing is for sure: the Israeli/Palestinian conflict cannot continue to go on as it is.  While I can understand the need to protect an Israeli state in the Middle East, I also believe that A).  the apartheid policies against Arab Palestinians must end immediately and B.) it is time that both parties compromised as the ignorance of the development of a Palestinian state can no longer continue; anything else will keep peace from really being attainable in the region East of Jordan and it will continue to endanger National Security in the United States.  We must not forget that during the 1300 years of the spread of Muslim rule in the Holy Land after the Battle of Yarmouk (636 CE) Jews were treated with great respect  by the Islamic Empire, far better than by the Christians, and were allowed to practice their religion freely.  This was even considered the “golden age.” (Early History of Palestine).  I do not believe that Palestinian Arabs are inherently unable to agree to peaceful coexistence with a Jewish state as their history has shown differently for over 1300 years during the ancient times.  We also must not forget that Christians, Muslims, and Jews are in essence “religious cousins;” we all come from the house of Abraham, and if we would for a moment stop fighting and treating each other with distain and hatred, we would see we have more similarities than differences.  For as Ibtisam Barakat said, “To Alef, the letter that begins the alphabets of both Arabic and Hebrew-two Semitic languages, sisters for centuries.  May we find the language that takes us to the only home there is-one another’s hearts.”