The Push for Arizona-Style Immigration Law in Wisconsin is Ongoing
Posted in: Domestic Politics | Comments (0)
The push for Arizona style immigration laws, according to some may be stalling out. Bloomberg’s Businessweek June 6th edition, ran the article titled “A Push for Arizona-Style Laws Stalls Out”. The article provides a nationwide assessment of how far controversial immigration laws had caught on and propagated emulating Arizonas’ controversial SB 1070. The article informs that during the 2010 legislative period and the 2011 up to date, 28 states have attempted to reshape immigration enforcement laws in this direction and only four have passed laws. The four States listed are Georgia, Utah, Indiana, and Arizona. While these figures may give the impression a push to implement Arizona-style laws throughout the nation has stalled out, such a conclusion is premature as efforts have been ongoing for close to a decade.
An example in point is the current attempt in the State of Wisconsin to enact legislation that would require state and local law enforcement departments to enforce civil immigration laws, just as AZ’s SB 1070. Conspicuously, mention of Wisconsin as one of the states attempting to reshape immigration laws in this direction is missing from Businessweek’s article. LRB-1116, now AB 173, introduced by Rep. Donald Pridemore in the Wisconsin state Assembly, would require state and local law enforcement departments to enforce civil immigration law in such instances as in the course of ordinary traffic stops. Wisconsin’s AB 173 is moving forward through the legislative process and is currently under evaluation in the Assembly Committee on Homeland Security and State Affairs chaired by Rep. Karl Van Roy (R- 90th Assembly District).
Attempts by 28 States to enact immigration enforcement laws emulating Arizona’s SB 1070, is not in whole it must be made present, an attempt to challenge Federal law as is often mentioned. Sure enough, the federal government has claimed sole authority to enforce civil immigration law throughout most of the nation’s history, but that has changed in recent past. For over a decade federal legislation has provided pathways to deputize state and local law enforcement agencies to enforce civil immigration law. Amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) enacted by Congress in 1996 have maintained a door open to shape immigration law in this direction since then. The 1996 amendment to INA, Section 287(g) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) mandates States to implement the legal means for State’s resources, state and local law enforcement departments, to be utilized to enforce civil immigration law.
Section 287(g) of INA / IIRIRA:
“The Attorney General may enter into a written agreement with State, or any political subdivision of a State, pursuant to which an officer or employee of the State or subdivision, who is determined by the Attorney General to be qualified to perform a function of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention of aliens in the United States.”
Section 287(g) of INA clearly demonstrates States alone ought not be seen as the primary authors shaping immigration law in the direction exemplified by AZ’s SB 1070. Sure enough, in the instance the federal government mandates individual States to shape or implement law to accommodate federal priorities, States individually exercise their own discretion in the extent to which they meet with federal mandates. States may choose to meet fully with federal mandates, they may choose to meet only partially, or not at all, often bringing about penalties in the form forgone federal financial contributions for example. Section 287(g) of INA makes clear however, States ought not be seen as the primary authors shaping immigration law in the direction exemplified by AZ SB 1070; clearly the federal government has opened, kept a door wide open, and even coaxed States to legislate in this direction.
Businessweek’s article “A Push for Arizona-Style Immigration Laws Stalls Out”
Section 287(g) of INA, incorporated and enforced by ICE within the department of Homeland Security
admin @ June 29, 2011
Miss-appropriation of IIRIRA: Conflating Immigration and Terrorism
Posted in: Domestic Politics | Comments (0)
How the Department of Homeland Security gobbles the INS, and ‘conflates’ Immigration and Terrorism.
Passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) by Congress in 1996 is one of several key contributing elements to how and why the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is now responsible for shaping and enforcing immigration law in the U.S. Unbeknownst to many, is the fact that the Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS), the federal agency created in 1933 and entrusted with the responsibility of shaping, and enforcing immigration law ceased to exist in 2003, close to a decade ago now. As part of a major government structural reorganization following the September 11 attacks, in 2001, the INS was incorporated into three sub-departments of the newly created DHS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection).
Transfer of authority and powers to shape and enforce immigration law previously vested in the now non-existent INS into the Department of Homeland Security carries major implications. Implications of this significant government restructuring do not lend themselves to being easily communicated through the format of conciseness that pervades mainstream media. In addition to mainstream media’s handicap and lack of interest to bring clarity to many of the issues surrounding immigration, prevailing discourse about immigration has become, or been for some time, a ‘no fact zone’ where myth and prejudice prevails. For these reasons among others, the far-reaching implications of this major governmental restructuring are not very likely to be present in the minds of most individuals in the U.S.
Many events having global reach and ramifications have taken place during this past decade and have overtaken and overshadowed attempts to engage in a consistent public debate of the main issues surrounding immigration. A slight amount of honesty would permit the estimation that unless a person in the U.S. has but the slimmest chance of being directly affected by the current arrangement, the chances of being aware or being interested in the implications would reasonably decrease in some significant degree. However implications of the fact the DHS is and has increasingly in recent years shaped and enforced immigration law ought not be dismissed lightly. It may be realized in a not too distant future that such an arrangement provides precedents that degrade constitutional protections and civil rights and civil liberties of non-citizens, and U.S. citizens alike.
Political and economic climates which gave birth to the IIRIRA in the late 1990’s provide marked contrasts to social and economic conditions and political rhetoric of the same topics today, a decade an a half later. In the late 1990’s the perceived end of communism, the dawn of a new millennium, market stability, some may say market exuberance, and low unemployment averaging 4.4 % all gave cause for optimism. These among many other reasons may explain why the IIRIRA after being enacted into law remained for all intended purposes dormant.
Section 287(g) of IIRIRA stipulates:
The Attorney General may enter into a written agreement with a State, or any political subdivision of a State, pursuant to which an officer or employee of the State or Subdivision, who is determined by the Attorney General to be qualified to perform a function of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention of aliens in the United States.
IIRIRA broke away from the longstanding principled approach of reserving civil immigration law enforcement to the federal domain. Section 287(g) of IIRIRA provided the means to empower local and state law enforcement offices of individual States to enforce civil immigration law. It made it possible for the U.S. Attorney General to in essence deputize local officers through a joint Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to enforce federal civil immigration law (http://www.ice.gov/news/library/factsheets/287g.htm#signed-moa). As mentioned though, political and economic climates of the 1990’s redirected public and political concerns to other issues. Financial and housing markets were perceived positively, dot-coms provided a chance of becoming a millionaire overnight, newly developed and marketed drugs designed to treat ADD promised a more functional and improved quality of life to many. Understandably, in this political, economic, and social climate, section 287(g) of IIRIRA remained dormant for all practical purposes.
In the hands of a representative body charged with the ordinary tasks of governance; managing public funds, creating and maintaining public infrastructure, creating and maintaining a healthcare system, and entrusted with shaping our laws to facilitate sustainable growth, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) may not have amounted to much. In the hands of a representative body in crisis mode, as the U.S. government found itself on September 11, 2001, and for a considerable amount of time thereafter, section 287(g) of IIRIRA became a powerful tool. Section 287(g) of IIRIRA provided a means to extend federal law enforcement capabilities. In incorporating the INS into the DHS, the law paved the way for the new agency to reach out and shape immigration law and immigration enforcement in each individual State.
IIRIRA in the hands of the DHS, a government agency entrusted with the power to carry out covert operations, among which include intelligence and counter-intelligence on a global scale, and to carry out targeted killings of individuals abroad, it is not surprising that the law would be taken to some extreme. By August of 2007, ICE, under the Department of Homeland Security implemented ACCESS (Agreements of Cooperation in Communities to Enhance Safety and Security) (http://www.ice.gov/access/), a program intending to increase State and local law enforcement agency cooperation with federal agents in enforcing federal immigration law. By 2008 immigration raids throughout a number of states had detained, questioned, tried and sentenced individuals en masse. Not all individuals detained and questioned were in fact undocumented immigrants but were none the less caught in the net so to speak.
At this point such an arrangement begs the question, why an agency intended “to unify the federal government’s capacity to deal with terrorism, major disasters, and other emergencies” be charged also with the responsibility previously rested on the now non-existent Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS)? If one may equate immigrant and terrorist, then one may arrive to a certain set of answers. If one however objects to a conflation of immigration and terrorism, one may arrive at a differing set of answers.
Withstanding the aforementioned, it is reasonable to ask, why is a government agency entrusted with the authority and power to carry out secret rendition programs, covert operations including espionage on a global scale and targeted killings of individuals abroad entrusted with the task of shaping, regulating, implementing, and enforcing immigration law in the U.S.? It is the humble opinion of this short article that if immigration reform is to occur, it must begin by transforming the current arrangement that contributes to conflating terrorism and immigration. Under the guise of programs intending to increase national security, immigrants were through media, in the eyes of the American public, and through actual legislation in fact conflated with terrorists. And so again, if immigration reform is to take place, shouldn’t reform also attempt to create a new arrangement, one that doesn’t contribute to immigration and terrorism being conflated?
admin @ June 20, 2011
Triangulating Capitalism
Posted in: Culture | Comments (0)
The different units of analysis chosen by Weber, Marx, and Schumpeter to inquiry about social change and change in the kinds of economies used, may not individually provide for a universal or holistic conception about what drives human motivation and collective action. Each is, to different degree and form, a reductive view of a universe that speaks from different historical and cultural groundings. Weber (1864 – 1920), Marx (1818 – 1883), and Schumpeter (1883 – 1950) as different individuals whose lives span close to a century and a half came into the world and were very likely impressed by largely differing realities. And so one could reasonably expect each one of them to perceive different primary contributing factors in the emergence and dynamics between capitalism, socialism and democracy and in addition perceive each one of them in a different manner. Weber acknowledges this before engaging with a definition of the ‘spirit of capitalism’ and presents the disclaimer – “this point of view is … by no means the only possible one from which the historical phenomena we are investigating [the emergence of capitalism] can be analysed. Other standpoints would, for this as for every historical phenomenon, yield other characteristics as the essential ones” (Weber p. 14)
However, Weber does consider Protestantism, theology, a system that ascribes meaning to behavior, a reasonable unit of analysis that helps to explain the emergence of capitalism. Weber defines the ‘spirit of capitalism’ as a mind frame, a philosophy of life, as an “attitude which, in the pursuit of a calling, strives systematically for profit for its own sake.” (Weber p. 19) Protestantism in Weber’s view, constructs over time and presents to each adherent a way in which the world is to be seen / interpreted and a regimented / methodical rational code of conduct in the form of a “calling”. The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism do not emerge overnight but as Weber mentions it is a view that is over time gradually adopted always supporting itself and leading to a kind of “rationalism on the basic problems of life.” (Weber p. 37)
One could consider Weber’s unit of analysis, ‘the meaning of behavior’, as a reasonable contributing factor when it is presented in its outmost definition as a significant contributing factor to the emergence of an ethic supporting capitalism.
“If God show you a way in which you may lawfully get more than in another way (without wrong to your soul or to any other), if you refuse this, and choose the less gainful way, you cross one of the ends of your calling, and you refuse to be God’s steward, and to accept His gifts and use of them for Him when He requireth it; you may labour to be rich for God, though not for the flesh and sin.” (Weber p. 108)
However reasonable criticism of Weber’s proposition would bring into question rigorousness and uniformity with which these beliefs were observed and the degree to which each individual and/or collective lived within that universe that called forth these associations and ascribed such meaning(s) to behavior. Throughout the time span Weber is concerned with, Protestant individual adherents where motivated by religious beliefs and congregations acted as collectives in objection to indulgences, or in affirmation of providence, and predestination to varying degrees. But to claim that Protestantism was the one and only contributing cause for the emergence of capitalism would be as spurious a claim as saying that Islam is the one and only contributing cause for the emergence of terrorism today. While a religious belief may provide a set of principles which help humans in collective associations guide and judge actions, these principles generally are not all overriding. As man may by the nature of his physical / organic existence experience phenomena that lends itself to the otherworld man is also one ought not forget a temporal being, making use of different systems of meaning.
Personal gain in pursuing a calling may occur within the Protestant universe however, that is, when surrounded by individuals who hold and closely adhere to the same values and beliefs. Positive affirmations from one’s peers when following commonly held mores contribute to group cohesion and to profitable exchange or transfer between individuals which do not necessarily include monetary gain. Man, as a social being seeks primarily a social standing and recognition in the group he/she is a part of. If in choosing ‘the gainful way’ an individual is seen by others in the community as a sign of acceptance to be God’s steward, a guardian and pursuer of the increase of His reign on earth he or she achieves this social recognition and status. I do admit that it may generally be hard to acknowledge an adherence to such beliefs, as not everyone throughout time has sought rationally and methodically monetary gain for the purpose of increasing God’s reign on earth but did so driven by practicality / pragmatism and dare I say greed.
Weber’s exposition does not explicitly provide, as Prof. Anderson suggests, “a clear argument for pinpointing the birth of democracy”. (Lecture notes) But if one were drawing from his narrative to formulate a theory about the shift from dictatorship to democracy, one could emphasize the importance he gives to shared beliefs about the meaning(s) of behavior. Acceptable, commonly ascribed meaning(s) to behavior is at least to some degree one of the requisites for purposeful and constructive collective action. A transition from dictatorship to democracy may require gradual recognition that some values and behaviors may be more beneficial than others, that for example collective action made up by individual choice may lead to a equitable state of affairs for a majority. A transition of this kind may also require that individual and collective assessment of cost vs. gain in everyday decision making changes measures of gain and cost; the adoption of a different socially acknowledged system with which meaning of action, social roles, and status are measured.
Marx on the other hand engages in inquiry of social change by choosing “class” as the principal unit of analysis, as in his view it is constituted by individuals with uniform interests that determine uniform collective action. Individual motivation is not explicitly acknowledged, nor precluded in Marx analysis, but exists only as far as the individual belongs to a class and acts in unison with all other members that are part of it. The individual chooses generally in the same fashion as all others that find themselves in the same material condition as he is. Essential to Marx’s sense of collective action, to class behavior, is the supposition that a relation to a materiality necessary for a kind of subsistence will inevitably guide reason and choices made. Through his inquiry the different classes behave primarily motivated by a desire to maintain their relationship to those materials which are essential for their current mode of subsistence and that motivation translates to support for the one party which will increase the chances that that will occur.
His conception of class and the conflicting / antagonistic stances that may be taken by one against another arises of such opposing material conditions and is illustrated for example by the Orleanists, a royalists subgroup under the party of Order. Orleanists’ interests are tied to capital and relies on large bureaucracy to protect them. Orleanists appreciated the protection that monarchy provided, as it kept the lower classes relatively restrained and regulation of commerce and property use was favorable to them. As Anderson points out, the bourgeois supported a strong bureaucracy regardless of whether it emerged through monarchy or through a federalist system because through both it facilitated the creation of jobs for the bourgeois, because it increased the income of banks, factories and farms owned by members of the bourgeoisie. But at the same time as Marx tells us, while a large bureaucracy in the federalist form provides the means to advance bourgeois’ interests, it also threatens their lot. “Instinct taught them that the republic, true enough, makes their political rule complete, but at the same time undermines its social foundation, since they must now confront the subjugated classes and contend against them without the concealment afforded by the crown.” (Marx p. 49)
Marx’s epistemological approach determines the shape, form and boundaries of knowledge gained through inquiry. Marx’s unit of analysis presents human motivation and collective action as largely if not wholly prescribed by the “material conditions of existence”. How can someone today at the start of the 21st century determine to what degree material conditions determined / influenced human motivation and collective action a century and a half ago? Was society composed by the same degree of stratification that exists today? To what degree were individuals able to transition from a kind of subsistence to another? To what degree was social mobility socially permissible? Through Marx’s eyes it seems there was little stratification and the material condition classes found themselves in determined their ‘social conditions of existence’ completely. Material condition of the different classes is seen to create “entire superstructure of distinct and peculiarly formed sentiments, illusions, modes of thought and views of life.” (Marx p. 47) In reaching such conclusions I believe Marx goes beyond the kind of knowledge attainable through his method of inquiry, and is as Weber’s inquiry a reductionist view of human motivation and collective action.
However reductionist, Marx’s analysis does provide useful conceptions to shape a theory about the shift from dictatorship to democracy. By morphing Marx’s conception of class and party interdependence, it could be said that representative government is essential to democracy. The problem or handicap each class faced as conceptualized by Marx was an incapacity to conceive self-betterment through representation and the protection of the interest of another. Classes are presented in a hyper-antagonistic stance that precludes interclass action in the pursuit and defense of the greatest possible number of interests. A transition from dictatorship to democracy would require an increased sense that government representation is being carried on behalf of the greatest number of classes possible. The transition would require in essence the gradual transformation of what Marx calls “false consciousness” into a consciousness that does not see itself dependant or inextricably tied to one kind of material condition, but sees itself able to “move in and out of various classes”. (Anderson p. 14) The processes of transition from dictatorship to democracy, depending on how polarized sentiments and interest may be in a society may or may not include Adam Przeworski’s notion of democracy. But a more complete or fuller expression of democracy would contradict his conception of democracy and include individuals who freely act in pursuit of their interest through if necessary different collective organizations.
In Schumpeter’s exercise the unit of analysis, the process of ‘creative destruction’ presents human motivation and collective action in constant flux and transformation. Human motivation and collective action is constantly being redirected as it is influenced by a world that is constantly being transformed through innovative processes. Schumpeter sees the entrepreneurial spirit as a critical element of the process of creative destruction, as it aims at “getting things done” in new more efficient manner. However the increasingly routinized manner I which innovative methods are developed to manufacture and distribute goods and services leads to an increase in impersonality within emerging industries.
It is through increasing depersonalization, a decrease in the importance of individual character, and the increasingly rationalized order, that Schumpeter sees the progressive disappearance of a bourgeois class and of independent entrepreneurs. Their disappearance occurs through a process of subordination and absorption into a new rational structure organization where the previous bourgeois function and entrepreneurial independence are eventually reduced to an administrative contribution and salaried labor. Both the Bourgeois and the entrepreneur are absorbed by bureaucratized giant industrial units and are transformed to wage laborers.
Schumpeter’s unit of analysis presents human motivation and collective action as faced by constant competition and the choice to conform to existent modes of production or be outdriven from the market. Human motivation and collective action is faced with a world that functions in a social Darwinistic manner; it includes dynamics both of positive and negative in selection. Social and economic order both, positively selects those individuals who have the skill and are endowed to perform adequately in a competitive environment, and excludes those who lack the skill and endowment that would allow them to compete.
Capitalism inherently exposes the individual and collectives to pressures to bring about further rationalization of organization, innovation, depersonalization, that lead eventually to a decline in competitive capitalism and to an increase in monopolistic control. In Schumpeter’s view both individual and collective are caught in a world that threatens self-preservation if pressures are not conformed to.
A theory about the transition from dictatorship to democracy drawing from Schumpeter’s narrative would also in similar fashion require an establishment and surrendering to a competitive environment – “to a kind of competition for leadership which is to define democracy, to free competition for a free vote.” (Schumpeter p. 271) It is in this fashion that as free competition for a free vote is jeopardized / restricted, in Schumpeter’s view, that “the democratic method shades of into the autocratic one”, and vice versa as competition is unfettered democratic method emerges. (Schumpeter p. 271) Inclusive, since competition for votes is carried through advertising are the risks unfair and fraudulent behavior posses to free competition for votes.
In summary, the exercises carried by Weber, Marx, and Schumpeter are all to varying degrees reductionist about the dynamics contributing to social change over time. However each provides insight into social change, about the requirements of democracy, its boundaries with dictatorial forms of government, and the character of capitalism. Importantly too, are the insights they afford about the different systems through which human beings may be motivated to act as individuals and as participant in larger social collectives.
admin @ June 9, 2011
Normalization of Relations: Contributing to a Kind of ‘Stability’
Posted in: International Politics | Comments (0)
The opening of the Egyptian-Palestinian border-crossing at Rafah on Saturday May 28th 2011, as mentioned in the NY Times (May, 29th), is “a reminder of how things are changing between Egypt and Israel after Mr. Mubarak’s ouster.”
One may ask, why the drastic change in course ending the 4 year-long blockade of Palestine implemented primarily by Israel. One would not have to dig too deep to unearth events of distant past and argue about who did what first to envision a possible answer. The recent ouster of Mubarak and dissolution of the power-base on which his regime stood is key to understanding why Egypt has opened a door to its neighbor. The popularly energized movement sought regime change and the ouster of Mubarak as its first goal, but inherent in this, envisioned and sought the creation of a new Egyptian government guided by different principles and priorities.
The opening of the border-crossing at Rafah may be seen as a signal to the world that Egypt’s interests, as they are perceived by the citizens who mobilized to oust Mubarak, and perceived by the country’s incoming political leadership, do not depend on or rely to the same extent on the repressive tools and infrastructure the U.S. was willing to assist with and provide. The shift may further be seen as a signal that the Egyptian incoming political leadership and its popular power-base see no advantage and benefits from aiding the blockade of Palestine established primarily by Israel and supported indirectly by the U.S. through unsurpassed military aid to Israel.
Nabil el-Araby, Egypt’s interim Foreign Minister has principally headed the political effort to make the opening possible; a move that reflects pervading popular sentiment. The substantive effort and change in direction ought to be recognized as a signal that popular sentiment should not be disassociated completely from discontent with the repression and violence directed towards Palestinians. Indeed the popular movement, which ousted Mubarak, fueled by discontent with repressive policies and economic stagnation within Egypt, may be said to have been fueled by discontent with repressive policies and violence directed toward Palestine as well.
Some media within the U.S. has for some time accurately informed about the extent to which Middle-Eastern regional political rhetoric is shaped by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or as it is also referred to, the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Events within Egypt seem to confirm this perspective and provide a substantive reference to predict possible paradigms in the near future. On one hand, a paradigm that is immediately visible is the continuation of a status quo, as the conflict has not been resolved and is ongoing. Until it is resolved in some adequate fashion, granting a share of dignity and security deserved to all involved, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will continue to factor into assessments made by individuals in the Middle East about their political condition and their capacity to be self-determinant.
Another paradigm concerning U.S. involvement in the region may include a reformulation of policy towards Egypt, which has been for the most part consistent over the past decades. As it is not in the interest of the U.S. to retreat completely from existing agreements and ongoing discourse with Egypt, this paradigm may include a shift in tone in the future. Egypt’s geo-strategic importance has enticed the U.S. for decades, to maintain a dialog with Egypt’s leadership headed by the now ousted Mubarak. To put it bluntly, the U.S. has paid to have a seat at the table to argue and persuade in favor of its interest in the region, vis-á-vis the Suéz Canal and the U.S.’ proxy military base in Israel. As disclosed by USAID, the U.S. has worked with Egypt through “programs supporting economic development and regional stability” and through financial aid totaling “$28.6 billion since 1975.”
Thomson Reuters’ reporting on aid estimates, based on data released by the Congressional Research Service informs the U.S. “has given Egypt an average of $2 billion annually since 1979, much of it military aid”. By this second account, U.S. aid to Egypt would surpass and more than double the reported aid by USAID totaling over $60 billion to date. Calculating total aid over the previous three decades as these two examples illustrate, would be difficult, as this would require different governmental institutions to be on the same page on many issues and different programs, some of which possibly could not be spoken about publicly. What is certain, however, is the fact that the U.S. has paid the Mubarak headed regime to have a seat at the table; paid to have a seat at the table largely by providing military hardware and by facilitating contracts for military equipment purchases.
A possible change in tone in this paradigm could bring about change to this well-established pattern spanning now several decades. An instructive or useful question that may be asked concerns the extent to which having a seat at the table facilitated the protection and furthering of U.S. interest in the region. Having a seat at the table does not always automatically translate into the ability to shape outcomes to one’s advantage. The consistency of policy toward Egypt for decades may suggest however that the U.S. saw a benefit, or a valuable return for its investment, and was persuaded to stay the course. If the investment was successful overtime in creating and maintaining relationships which lent a kind ear to U.S. interest, why would the U.S. publicly claim to support regime change if its calls were and had been answered all this time. Mubarak’s regime reserved a seat for the U.S. and kept it warm, why would the U.S. support his dismissal? Could one in this framework consider U.S. public support of regime change genuine? Or should one reserve the possibility that U.S.’ interest when articulated in private could be opposite to the publicly stated.
The opening of the border-crossing at Rafah may be accurately referred to as a reminder of how things are changing between Egypt and Israel, but also by extension when considering the above mentioned, a good predictor of how U.S. policy towards Egypt could possibly change to included a different set of incentives. These set of incentives are not likely to attempt a re-set of the clock prompting the new Egyptian leadership to continue to participate in the blockade of Palestine. To do so would be tantamount to asking the incoming political leadership to turn its back on the large segment of the population that legitimizes its existence. Yet many alternate set of contributions and allowances remain available to both Egypt and the U.S.
What is certain and welcomed is the substantive step taken on the part of Egypt towards normalizing relations with its neighbor Palestine. Such a step could have no detrimental effects; on the contrary, normalization of relations with its neighbor is a more productive route, one that empowers both Nations. Maybe, just maybe, opening the border at Rafah may contribute to such things as increased availability of mere necessities in Palestine, and provide a path for inflow of resources, material and economic necessary for economic growth. Maybe, just maybe, the opening of the border at Rafah may contribute to a more dignified Palestinian existence bringing about in some ironic twist of fate, a more surely footed kind of stability. One may only hope the options currently being considered by Israel and the U.S. may contribute to change in this same direction.
admin @ June 9, 2011
