Syrian intervention risks upsetting global order

By Henry A. Kissinger, Published: June 1, 2012
Henry A. Kissinger was U.S. Secretary of State from 1973 to 1977.

The Arab Spring is generally discussed in terms of the prospects for democracy. Equally significant is the increasing appeal — most recently in Syria — of outside intervention to bring about regime change, overturning prevalent notions of international order.

The modern concept of world order arose in 1648 from the Treaty of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years’ War. In that conflict, competing dynasties sent armies across political borders to impose their conflicting religious norms. This 17th-century version of regime change killed perhaps a third of the population of Central Europe.

To prevent a repetition of this carnage, the Treaty of Westphalia separated international from domestic politics. States, built on national and cultural units, were deemed sovereign within their borders; international politics was confined to their interaction across established boundaries. For the founders, the new concepts of national interest and balance of power amounted to a limitation, not an expansion, of the role of force; it substituted the preservation of equilibrium for the forced conversion of populations.

The Westphalian system was spread by European diplomacy around the world. Though strained by the two world wars and the advent of international communism, the sovereign nation-state survived, tenuously, as the basic unit of international order.

The Westphalian system never applied fully to the Middle East. Only three of the region’s Muslim states had a historical basis: Turkey, Egypt and Iran. The borders of the others reflected a division of the spoils of the defunct Ottoman Empire among the victors of World War I, with minimal regard for ethnic or sectarian divisions. These borders have since been subjected to repeated challenge, often military.

The diplomacy generated by the Arab Spring replaces Westphalian principles of equilibrium with a generalized doctrine of humanitarian intervention. In this context, civil conflicts are viewed internationally through prisms of democratic or sectarian concerns. Outside powers demand that the incumbent government negotiate with its opponents for the purpose of transferring power. But because, for both sides, the issue is generally survival, these appeals usually fall on deaf ears. Where the parties are of comparable strength, some degree of outside intervention, including military force, is then invoked to break the deadlock.

This form of humanitarian intervention distinguishes itself from traditional foreign policy by eschewing appeals to national interest or balance of power — rejected as lacking a moral dimension. It justifies itself not by overcoming a strategic threat but by removing conditions deemed a violation of universal principles of governance.

If adopted as a principle of foreign policy, this form of intervention raises broader questions for U.S. strategy. Does America consider itself obliged to support every popular uprising against any non-democratic government, including those heretofore considered important in sustaining the international system? Is, for example, Saudi Arabia an ally only until public demonstrations develop on its territory? Are we prepared to concede to other states the right to intervene elsewhere on behalf of coreligionists or ethnic kin?

Saudi Arabia Is Arming the Syrian Opposition

What could possibly go wrong?

BY JONATHAN SCHANZER | FEBRUARY 27, 2012

Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah scolded Russian President Dmitry Medvedev last week for failing to coordinate with Arab states before vetoing a United Nations resolution demanding that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad step down. Emboldened by the lack of international action, Assad's forces are now slaughtering civilians in the streets at an even greater rate. Referring to the bloodshed, the king ominously warned Medvedev that Saudi Arabia "will never abandon its religious and moral obligations towards what's happening."

The last time the Saudis decided they had a moral obligation to scuttle Russian policies, they gave birth to a generation of jihadi fighters in Afghanistan who are still wreaking havoc three decades later.

According to news reports confirmed by a member of the Syrian opposition, Riyadh currently sends weapons on an ad hoc basis to the Syrian opposition by way of Sunni tribal allies in Iraq and Lebanon. But in light of recent developments, more weapons are almost certainly on their way. After his delegation withdrew in frustration from last week's Friends of Syria meeting in Tunisia, Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, said that humanitarian aid to Syria was "not enough" and that arming the Syrian rebels was an "excellent idea." Soon afterward, anunnamed official commented in the state-controlled Saudi press that Riyadh sought to provide the Syrian opposition with the "means to achieve stability and peace and to allow it the right to choose its own representatives." Meanwhile, Saudi clerics are now openly calling for jihad in Syria and scorning those who wait for Western intervention. One prominent unsanctioned cleric, Aidh al-Qarni, openly calls for Assad's death.

Other Sunni Gulf states, principally Qatar, may be contributing weapons. On Monday, Feb. 27, Qatari Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani said, "We should do whatever necessary to help [the Syrian opposition], including giving them weapons to defend themselves." The positions of other regional actors are less clear. But whether or not they supply weapons to the Free Syrian Army -- the armed opposition composed of defectors and local militia -- all these Sunni states now want the Assad regime to crumble because it is an ally and proxy of their sworn Shiite enemy, Iran, which destabilizes the region with terrorism and nuclear threats.

For the Saudis, depriving the Russians of a Middle Eastern toehold is an added bonus. The two countries share a long-standing animus. In the 1970s, the Saudis used their enormous oil wealth to inflict pain on the Soviets wherever they could. The Saudis fought communist governments and political movements with more than $7.5 billion in foreign and military aid to countries like Egypt, North Yemen, Pakistan, and Sudan. Saudi funding was particularly instrumental in supporting anti-Soviet (and anti-Libyan) operations and alliances in Angola, Chad, Eritrea, and Somalia.

But the Saudis didn't simply counter communism. They fueled a generation of zealous Islamist fighters who later caused bigger problems elsewhere. These Islamists were instrumental to the Saudis after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in December 1979. Inspired by the strict Wahhabi interpretation of Islam and armed with Saudi funds and weapons, Arab mujahideen poured into Afghanistan. (An estimated 175,000 to 250,000 Arabs and Afghans fought there at any given time during the war, according to terrorism analyst Peter Bergen.) After a decade of guerrilla war during which the Soviets sustained heavy losses, the Red Army withdrew, and their puppet government in Kabul fell soon thereafter.

Can Saudi Arabia Avoid An Uprising?

Editor’s Note: Kathleen Sullivan is an analyst at Ergo, a global intelligence and advisory firm. The article below is based on a report Ergo recently published, entitled The Waning Era of Saudi Oil Dominance. Follow Ergo on Twitter.

By Kathleen Sullivan – Special to CNN

Saudi Arabia has thus far managed to stave off the popular protests that have led to the ouster of four Arab heads of state, chiefly due to its strategic and well-timed disbursements of oil-revenue-funded social giveaways. While so far effective in preserving the status quo, this approach has tied the fate of the monarchy to that of its oil revenues - an increasingly risky linkage.

For decades, Saudi Arabia’s booming oil revenues have been a safe bet in a constantly shifting region.  Proud and longtime holder of the world’s largest proven reserves, highest exports, and most spare capacity, Saudi Arabia maintained an unrivaled position of dominance in global oil markets.  However, a deeper look at Saudi Arabia’s growing domestic pressures and its external challenges reveal signs of decay in the Kingdom’s global oil market dominance, and with it, weakening defenses against a popular uprising.

The challenges confronting Saudi Arabia are both internal and external. First, domestically, Saudi Arabia’s oil reserves have long been a subject of mystery and speculation. Can the Kingdom’s oil reserves support its current level of production for the next decade and beyond, or is the country approaching its peak? Either way, many sources familiar with Saudi Aramco and Saudi geology believe the Kingdom’s access to easily extractable oil has come to an end. Its fields are aging, and light crude has become scarcer. Many oil experts believe that Saudi Arabia’s future oil production gains will depend on advances in enhanced oil recovery technology to extend the life of existing fields. While advanced techniques may increase production, these techniques can add an additional cost of $20-$60 per barrel, slashing the Kingdom’s profit margin.

Second, Saudi Arabia must accommodate its increasing population, which at approximately 28 million has nearly doubled in the past 20 years and continues to grow at an annual rate of nearly 2.5%. The Saudi youth demographic is among the country’s fastest growing, and is feeling the pain of both underemployment and an acute housing crisis. Throw in the restrictive social environment imposed by the Saudi government and you have a volatile mix resembling the climate in other Arab countries before their uprisings. As regimes crumble all around them, the Saudi people know they have leverage; demands will likely become more numerous and require more expensive pay-outs.

Third, Saudi Arabia’s growing population has increased the demand for energy, infrastructure, and water desalination. Lacking a sophisticated natural gas industry, the Kingdom must use oil for its domestic electricity and infrastructure needs, thus placing pressure on oil exports. Export revenues are critical to the government’s ability to fund massive public giveaways, and the country’s increasing domestic demands have constrained the monarchy’s ability to effectively buy off its population.

Saudi Arabia’s external challenges are no less daunting. The Kingdom faces an evolving and expanding competitive landscape. Iraq’s growing oil production, which could reach 12 million barrels per day by 2017, could significantly cut into Saudi Arabia’s exports and revenues. Even if Iraq only reaches half of its targeted production by 2017, an extra 6 million barrels per day in the global oil markets could diminish the Kingdom’s power within OPEC and possibly make the United States - its bulwark against regional hostiles - a less loyal ally.

In addition, aggressive neighbors are posing an increasing threat to Saudi Arabia’s oil dominance. In October 2011, Saudi Arabia accused an unnamed foreign power, widely understood to be Iran, of instigating violent protestsamong the Shia community in its eastern province. Iran has also been blamed for plotting to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States. Unlike many of its war-plagued neighbors, Saudi Arabia’s oil industry has enjoyed domestic stability and security. A sustained Iranian campaign to covertly destabilize Saudi Arabia by manipulating Shia populations could threaten the Kingdom’s oil infrastructure, its revenues, and its overall security.

As Saudi Arabia continues to direct resources to fending off an uprising, social reforms addressing its skyrocketing energy consumption, underemployment, and housing crisis have taken a back seat. The Kingdom must focus on the development of solutions to these critical challenges, and prioritize true social reform over transparent largesse. Unless it addresses the internal and external threats to its power, Saudi Arabia’s days as the world’s oil hegemon could be numbered.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of Kathleen Sullivan.

Global March to Challenge the ‘Judaization’ of Jerusalem

Published on February 25th, 2012 by gm2j.admin in News

Dr. Paul Larudee: Today, the world has a chance to stop an ethnic cleansing project in Jerusalem that has been under way since at least 1967, and, in the larger context, for more than a century.   The fact that the city is sacred to 4 billion Christians, Muslims and Jews seems to have made little difference.  In fact, the West – and especially the U.S. – have been accomplices in this crime.

It is called “Judaization,” which apparently does not carry the same stigma as “apartheid,” “ethnic cleansing,”“segregation,” and other terms that have been used to describe the elimination of one people in favor of another.  It should.  Racist policies by any name are equally despicable.

Unfortunately, racism against Palestinians is protected by law and even encouraged in Jerusalem today.  Most of the city’s housing is off limits to them, and the remaining Palestinian property is routinely denied building permits and adequate public services.  Many of the existing homes are under demolition orders.

Israel makes no secret of its definition of “Judaization.”  Its stated goal is to reduce the percentage of Palestinians in Jerusalem from 37% to 30%, and preferably even less.

Population reduction?  Ethnic cleansing?  The difference isn’t even semantic, and there’s no way to do it that respects human decency.

Thus, when “archaeological digs” undermine the foundations of Palestinian homes in the Silwan section of the city, demolition orders are issued, rather than building permits to shore up the houses.  No need to reflect on where the inhabitants will go, as long as the Palestinian presence is diminished.

Besides, Israel considers Palestinian inhabitants merely “residents” and not citizens, whether the families have lived in the city a hundred or a thousand years, while Jewish immigrants are welcome if they came only yesterday.  It then expels thousands of these unwanted “residents” every year by denying them work and education and then finding that their work and education outside the area no longer entitles them to live in the city.

Israel also builds illegal subsidized Jewish-only housing on Palestinian land by first confiscating the land, then offering it to Jews on attractive terms, while denying it to Palestinians.  Next, a wall is built, effectively separating the preexisting Palestinian communities from the rest of the city, and making it difficult or impossible for them to go to the jobs, schools and family members that used to be only a few steps away.

Finally, the mayor of the city, Nir Barakat, announced on Dec. 26, 2011 that he was effectively disenfranchising 70,000 Palestinians living on the “wrong” side of the wall, by revoking their Jerusalem “residency” with the stroke of a pen.  Such is the creativity of Israel’s ethnic cleansing techniques (and of the choice of date for such announcements).

In this case, however, the world has decided not to look the other way.  Hundreds of community organizations in dozens of countries spanning the globe have decided to participate in a massive Global March to Jerusalem on March 30, 2012.  The march is being organized by Palestinians and their supporters representing communities throughout all of Palestine, the surrounding countries and the diaspora, with participation by solidarity organizations around the world.  It commemorates Palestinian Land Day, when Israeli forces killed six Palestinians, wounded more than 100, and arrested hundreds more in 1976, while they were peacefully protesting the confiscation of thousands of dunams of Palestinian land from Palestinian citizens of Israel.

The intention is to march from many starting points and converge on Jerusalem, either reaching that destination or getting as close to it as possible.  Although nonviolent resistance has a long history in Palestine, this is the first time the entire Palestinian community has mobilized in a massive nonviolent action since the Palestinian general strike of 1936.

Is this the equivalent of a Palestinian Tahrir Square? Or a civil rights March on Washington?  History will be the judge, but a key element will be the support and participation of solidarity groups throughout the world.  Accordingly, regional associations have been formed in Europe, Asia, North America, Africa and other regions.  These associations are helping to form delegations that will participate side by side with the marchers in Palestine and neighboring countries, and will facilitate marches and demonstrations in the major cities of their home countries.  Many of them have established regional websites and social media to coordinate these functions.

The dream of the Palestinian nonviolent resistance movement has been an irresistible sea of humanity exercising its rights in defiance of all efforts to stop it.  Neither the organizers nor the participants expect that all of the participants will reach Jerusalem on the first try, nor that Palestinian rights will suddenly be realized on the day following the march.  However, we are hopeful that it will mark a major shift toward an inexorable popular demand to restore all human rights for all Palestinians and to put an end to the “Judaization” ethnic cleansing project in Palestine that has stained human history for more than a century.

Source: http://mondoweiss.net

The Power of Education?!

By Maher S. Budron

My father was born under a tree in the Shatila Refugee Camp in Lebanon. My father, the eighth born in a family of 11 siblings, was faced with tremendous hardship that seemed almost impossible to overcome and ended up in the United States of America. When reflecting on chapters in history which have molded me into who I am today, I find that one of the most influential pages are the ones that directly and indirectly affected my family spanning back over half a century. 

While “traditional historical facts” documented by the more dominant culture (my American educational system) provide insight to the major events which took place in the past century, I find that the “undocumented history” which was traveled by word of mouth from my family can be linked to the catalyst which fuels my moral values and thirst for knowledge. At this moment, having captured your attention, I will humbly share a piece of family history, from giving you insight into how I learned about my father’s story, to how I came to be a first generation American; furthermore, I will discuss how this has influenced my take on the world growing up.

I was born in a hospital in a Chicago suburb. I lived in a much different physical culture than that of my father. Yet many of the undocumented narratives which were expressed by my family helped me become raised in a similar perspective to that of former family generations. Some of these perspectives and life lessons include hard work at a young age, the value of a solid education. The story of how I came to learn about my father getting out of a refugee camp in Lebanon began in 2004, when my family and I took a trip back to an earlier beginning- back to Beirut, Lebanon. Witnessing and experiencing conditions in the country of birth of my father, I came to find out that many of the standards of living were a struggle to cope with even in modern times. This is the moment when I truly started to understand where my family has come from and the struggles they had to overcome. My family and I rented a small Mitsubishi car, and we all crammed into the sedan and the story unfolded.  

            Driving out away from the cosmopolitan capital city Beirut and into the towns and villages throughout Lebanon, the journey started off pretty smoothly. That is of course, until we drove into almost what was a flashback of my father’s childhood. As we rode along the path we came across a little town north of Tripoli “Trablos”. Here is where many of my Budron family members that I have never met before lived, and much of their traditions and culture stayed the same for generations. Their lifestyle had not changed much, and was similar to the time when my father left to America. Basically, the main idea of how this family system worked was that all the Budrons north of Trablos lived within a tight-knit community. This was so much intertwined that when a family member was to be married, they would build a home for them right next door. Lebanon’s landscape- its ups and downs, ranging from the cosmopolitan area of downtown Beirut to the mountains of the north and the deserts of the southeast and the Mediterranean beaches of the west. This landscape was harsh but beautiful, simultaneously pulling in the brute realities of my father’s lifestyle, as well as the natural beauty and how the living conditions have improved over the years.

            Growing up in the eyes of my father, I saw that my aunts, uncles and grandparents- all had to pull together and work in order to get out of the slums of the refugee camps. From the age of five my father was out doing labor- pushing a cart of goods and merchandise up and down the streets and allies- trading and selling.  With minor variation, the same case held true for all 10 of my aunts and uncles. With the hard work and the will to succeed, my father’s family was able to finally buy property outside the refugee camps and continued emphasizing  the value of education. However many of the privileges that Lebanese citizens got to take advantage of were not offered to the Palestinian refugees despite being born in the country of Lebanon. Some of the rights that were not privileged for the Palestinian refugees were, access to quality of education, healthcare, ownership of property. More rights were denied to Palestinian refugees, such as travel passport, but instead were and still are able to obtain a “travel document” especially designated for Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. Without it, you weren’t able to go outside Lebanon, and with it you were severely restricted as to where you may go. Early on, my father found that despite growing up in Lebanon, many of the people there looked at my family differently. Despite moving up in socioeconomic class and education attainment, many of their basic civil rights were denied to them, simply because of being Palestinian refugees. There were a short list of jobs and professions that they seek, and the remaining majority of jobs and professions where denied to them. This discrimination against origin is still in practice now.

            This is how my father came to realize that simply working hard alone is just not enough to earn  sure ticket out of the suppression, but that education harnessed the power for the tipping point. Going from being born under a tree to living in a tin rooftop home crammed with 13 plus people- all living under the same leaky and at times pouring roof, to finally being able to generate enough money to live in an apartment with no leaky rooftop and electricity (that is when the main power is not in blackout). My father knew that property and money mean little when you are lacking your freedom and dignity. So translating that same hard work ethic into his education, my father was the first in his family to make it into an American university and pursue his undergraduate education in Physics and Mathematics and physics. Then, my father went on to obtain his Master of Science in Nuclear Engineering. While keeping a vibrant and demanding professional career, my father went on to obtain his Master of Business Administration (MBA), and doctoral degree (PhD) in Business Administration, with emphasis on Global Competitiveness, in addition to long list of continuing professional development programs and endeavors. Even now, my father is completing a Certificate from Cornell University in Leadership & Strategic Management: Executive Leadership.  Despite some economic hardship, solid university education and continuing professional development have served him very well and his foundation in family tradition and hard work are what kept him resilient through the tough and easy times.

            The story of how my father came to survive and emerge out of what seems to be one of the most difficult accounts that I have listened to, is truly one of the few stories that resonate with me. The vibrant tone of me seeing my family overcome such hardship has translated into complete dedication and passion towards education and learning for me, despite how inherently difficult it is for me. In growing up as a kid, the school environment has always been a challenge for me from being diagnosed with a reading deficit and ADHD along with dyslexic and dis-graphic like symptoms, I thought early on that school was just not the right kind of environment. However, in 2003, my nuclear family moved to the upscale suburb, Hinsdale, where the public educational system was much better, with a new chapter in my life to start my fifth grade year, tackling the things that challenged me the most. Then, it was recognized that this kid had more than just a short attention span and I was labeled as an “LD” student. As a result, special and focused attention was shifted towards my education; this alone was enough for me to feel a means of nonverbal oppression. I felt trapped, and just “kind of” lived with that title for a few years. Soon, I found out about my behavior and maturity as I began to abuse my ascription of hurtful oppressive language. 
            When people feel powerless, I believe that it is only natural for them to push back stand up and regain a position of power and authority advantage. In my experience I realized that many oppressive actions may have been verbal; however; it was the non-verbal stigma which really oppressed me for a period in time, and it was which motivated me the most toward effective transformation and to emerge into the liberated person I am today. I had it planted in my head that I wanted to master the educational system and overcome my weakness, and I will waste no effort and spare no expense in that pursuit. In seriously pursuing school, I found  that often things would take me three times as long in order to do the same amount of work as the average person, which meant to me that I needed to work three times harder than the normal person.

In conclusion I hope by me sharing this story you come to find the parallels between my father’s amazing ability to overcome such tremendous hard times and how that influenced my take on the world growing up. This part of my family story not only explains how I got here -being born in the U.S., but a view for where I am going- pursuing post secondary education. Both my father and I were born into hardship. For my father, it was the physical toll of the environment around him; and for me, it was the mental toll and the way I misfit the educational system around me. Although both utilizing the realm of education and developmet for self-fulfillment and pursuit of a life with freedom and dignity.

Examining the Effect of Socioeconomic Status on Processing Fluency of Advertisements

By Dima S. Budron

The focus of this study is to investigate the effect of socioeconomic status on the processing fluency of advertisements in order to decide whether or not advertisers can standardize their ads across socioeconomic audiences, or if altering the ad slightly is necessary for optimal results. In doing so, it is important to highlight what cognitive mechanisms are necessary to properly process an ad (working memory, context effects, etc) and what affects one’s processing fluency (exposure, stimulation, etc), and then flush out how these may differ between socioeconomic statuses.

Working memory is involved in one’s ability to interpret and digest advertisements. Before examining how, a definition of working memory is necessary. When talking about working memory, it is important to first classify what short-term memory is- the capacity for holding a small amount of information in mind in an active, readily available state for a short period of time, or more simply, temporarily storing information. Working memory takes short-term memory one-step further as it deals with manipulating the information that is temporarily being stored. Working memory is defined as the ability to actively hold information in the mind needed to do complex tasks such as reasoning, comprehension and learning.  

Many agree that there is a positive correlation between education and one’s ability to carry out these complex tasks. Research shows various statistics proving that those in low socioeconomic communities develop academic skills more slowly compared to children from higher socioeconomic status groups (Morgan, Farkas, Hillemeier, & Maczuga, 2009) and that the school systems in low-SES communities are often under-resourced, negatively affecting students’ academic progress (Aikens & Barbarin, 2008).  Also, studies show that children from low-SES environments acquire language skills more slowly, exhibit delayed letter recognition and phonological awareness, and are at risk for reading difficulties (Aikens & Barbarin, 2008), and that children with higher SES backgrounds were more likely to be proficient on tasks of addition, subtraction, ordinal sequencing, and math word problems than children with lower SES backgrounds (Coley, 2002). These all require working memory; thus, it can be assumed that working memory also develops more slowly in low socioeconomic status groups versus higher socioeconomic groups. Therefore, since it has already been established that working memory is used in processing advertisements, if taken one step further, it can be assumed that low socioeconomic status groups have a more difficult time processing advertisement versus higher socioeconomic groups. However, there is more to uncover before validating this argument.

A study conducted in Australia by Felicity McFarlane, Martine B. Powell, and Paul Dudgeon examined the degree to which IQ, memory performance, socio-economic status and gender predict young children’s suggestibility. To clarify, the definition of suggestibility is susceptibility or responsiveness to suggestion. In this study, the researchers were more concerned with suggestibility as it pertained to interview questions and interrogation; yet, based on their results, their findings can be used to help understand how socioeconomic status effects suggestibility in general, and then specify it to their ability to be influenced by advertisements. For the study, 250 participants were recruited through letters that were distributed to parents in 14 kindergartens in the Melbourne metropolitan area. More than half the children were from low socioeconomic status and the rest were from high socioeconomic status.  A standardized measure of suggestibility entitled “The Video Suggestibility Scale for Children” (VSSC) was used in this study. The students watched a video about a birthday party, and then the following day were asked a series of yes/no questions regarding the video such as “Was there a dog at the party?” They were told the lady asking the questions was a friend of the teacher who had shown the video.  The suggestibility scores derived from the VSSC were based on the children’s responses to the misleading yes/no questions. A week later they were given an IQ test. The scores showed that those in lower socioeconomic status had a lower IQ than those with higher socioeconomic status- that helps confirm the research discussed before regarding education level and socioeconomic status. The results showed that children who had higher IQ scores generated lower suggestibility scores than children with lower IQ scores, and children from higher SES backgrounds were less suggestible than children from lower SES backgrounds (McFarlane, Powell, and Dudgeon, 2002). Inversely, children with lower IQ and lower socioeconomic status generated higher suggestibility scores. These findings can be translated to mean they are more easily influenced; thus, concluding that they are more affected by advertising. This somewhat goes against the hypothesis that was posed earlier which stated that more educated people (generally from higher socioeconomic communities) are more able to process advertisement making them more likely to be influenced by the ads. An explanation of this could be that higher socioeconomic status groups are more intelligent thus are more likely to make their own educated decisions as opposed to being influenced by someone else. Nonetheless, these results opened another door. One that reveals that it is possibly easier to influence low IQ and low socioeconomic communities with ads since they are seemingly more suggestible in interview situations. The question still remains, will their processing fluency get in the way of advertisement suggestibility.

To answer the question that was just posed, an analysis of what affects processing fluency of advertisements is needed. Based on the mere exposure effect, it has been shown that repeated exposure to nonsense syllables, words, slogans, abstract drawings, pictures, faces, and clothing increases positive affect toward these stimuli (Janiszewski & Meyvis, 2001). While many studies conclude that there is a logarithmic relationship between frequency of exposure and the affective response to a stimulus, there are also results of other studies that either prove the opposite or that find no relationship between the two. This leaves researchers to believe that there is more to it than simply just mere exposure. Chris Janiszewski & Tom Meyvis conducted four experiments to test whether two-factor theory or dual-process theory provides a better explanation of the source of the processing fluency, and their findings are both interesting and valuable to the world of advertising. Before continuing, a definition of these two theories is necessary to understand the study.  The two-factor theory suggests that processing fluency resulting from a series of exposures is a function of learning that occurred during exposures, which can be negatively affected if satiation occurs during the exposure. The dual- process theory states that processing fluency resulting from a series of exposures is a function of a response potential determined by the perceptual and semantic characteristics of the stimulus.

Based on studies of object recognition and categorization, when exposed to stimulus people either use recognition by component-based models or view-based models to recall and recognize it, which then allows them to formulate perceptions and judgments of the stimulus. The recognition by components-based model is generally more accepted over the view-based model because it is simpler and requires less memory, but both have their strengths and weaknesses. Regardless of what model is followed for object recognition, the process/fluency model that is underlined in the Janiszewski & Meyvis article is applicable: Repeated exposure to a stimulus inputs a representation of the stimulus in memory and the more someone is exposed to a stimulus the more fluent they are in interpreting it. Studies have shown that generally a misattribution effect occurs and the person attributes the fluency of processing the stimulus to liking. These attributions of fluency are automatic, effortless, and do not require conscious or strategic processing of the stimuli (Janiszewski & Meyvis, 2001). Thus, if I were in charge of advertising for a company, I would strategically place my logo or product in as many media outlets and billboards as possible. Let us use Apple as an example. Due to their branding and flooding exposure tactics they are known around the world. Even their products have distinct shapes and design that can be recognized as an iPhone, iPod, or even now, an iPad. I recently saw a Chevy commercial that had people holding up different images of their Chevy car, and one person held up what appeared to be a picture on an iPad. Even though it did not have the Apple logo, the distinct shape and design of the button and product as a whole was recognized by my memory to be an iPad. These subtle but effective strategies used by Apple are what etch the Apple brand in peoples’ minds and make their product internationally liked and desired by millions of people.

While exposure is definitely tied to processing fluency and judgment, there is more to it, and that is what Janiszewski & Meyvis were determined to narrow down. Exposure to stimuli has been shown to create two types of fluency: perceptual fluency (feature based) and conceptual fluency (meaning based).  Researchers have explained how to positively affect both types of fluency by either using Berlyne’s Two-Factor Model (which stresses the importance of learning and boredom when exposed to stimuli- meaning it is more favorable to have an ad that is packed with info and sensory stimulation to prevent boredom) or the Dual Process Theory (which stressed the importance of sensitization and habituation when exposed to stimuli- meaning there must be a balance between how much sensory stimulation is occurring in the ad and how frequent it is being exposed). Janiszewski & Meyvis started out with two hypothesis: H1) Initial exposures to single-meaning and multiple- meaning stimuli should result in increasing preference for the multiple-meaning stimuli relative to the single-meaning stimuli, whereas subsequent exposures should result in decreasing preference for the multiple-meaning stimuli relative to the single- meaning stimuli, and H2) Initial exposures to single-meaning and multiple- meaning stimuli should result in decreasing preference for the multiple-meaning stimuli relative to the single-meaning stimuli, whereas subsequent exposures should result in increasing preference for the multiple-meaning stimuli relative to the single- meaning stimuli (testing the two-factor theory-boredom versus learning). They then conducted two experiments to test these hypotheses. In the first experiment, people received zero, one, two, three, five, eight, 12, or 16 one-second exposures to single-meaning and multiple-meaning brand logos. They were then asked to express a preference between single-meaning and multiple-meaning logos that had been presented an equal number of times (Janiszewski & Meyvis, 2001). In the second experiment, they examined the influence of increasing the duration between stimulus presentations on the relative preference between multiple-meaning and single-meaning stimuli. They used an identical procedure to experiment one. The only difference was that the exposure to a stimulus from each of eight stimulus groups (four experimental, four filler) was rotated so subjects could not be exposed to the same stimulus more often than every eighth screen. The assignment of stimuli to exposure frequency and to the single-meaning or multiple-meaning condition was random. The dependent measure was the relative preference for multiple-meaning stimuli at a given level of exposure (Janiszewski & Meyvis, 2001).  The results of these two experiments both favored dual-processing theory in that they found “boring” single-stimuli over multiple-stimuli was more conducive to learning and fluency. More simply put, single stimulus at more repetition is preferred. This then led them to pose two more subsequent hypotheses: H1a) Two-factor theory: Initial exposures to both novel and familiar meaningful stimuli should result in increasing preference for the novel relative to familiar stimuli, whereas subsequent exposures should result in decreasing preference for the novel relative to familiar stimuli, and H2a) Dual-process theory: Initial exposures to both novel and familiar meaningful stimuli should result in decreasing preference for the novel relative to familiar stimuli, whereas subsequent exposures should result in increasing preference for the novel relative to familiar stimuli (Janiszewski & Meyvis, 2001). They then used two more experiments to test these hypotheses. The third experiment tested the influence repeated exposure had on one’s preference for a novel versus familiar stimuli. Twenty-four of the novel, single-meaning logos used in experiments 1 and 2 were matched with familiar logos from the same industry.3 People received zero, one, two, three, five, or eight one-second exposures to novel and familiar logos using a massed (as in experiment 1) or distributed (as in experiment 2) stimulus exposure schedule (Janiszewski & Meyvis, 2001). In following, the subjects were presented with pairs of novel and familiar logos from the same industry and asked to select the logo they preferred more. Lastly, experiment four was a copy of experiment three, however subjects were asked to determine which of the two brands they were presented was more expensive. There was a belief that consumers will often make a judgment about which brand costs more in a similar way that they often judge what brand they prefer. They believed that if judgment regarding expensiveness mimicked the judgment of preference, then additional evidence would be obtained that shows processing fluency is the factor influencing judgment. In conclusion, the data collected from this study was more consistent with the dual process theory that predicts neural stimulation and responsiveness to structural and semantic properties of a stimulus will lead to perceptual and conceptual fluency (Janiszewski & Meyvis, 2001).  In other words, stimulus meaning, stimulus familiarity, and the stimulus presentation schedule will influence sensitization and habituation, which will in turn influence the processing fluency and consumer judgments.

The findings of Janiszewski & Meyvis’s study are crucial in the investigation of cross-socioeconomic status advertising because it highlights how people process ads and makes it known where things may need to be adjusted based on the education level and working memory abilities of the target audience.  Returning to the Apple example, it is now easy to see why they are so successful. Their ads usually have a close up shot on their product (single sensitization) and there is a person’s hand maneuvering through the product and showing how it works (learning).  This ad is simple and effective and supports Janiszewski & Meyvis’s findings. Nevertheless, the next step is to conduct a study to see if Apple’s advertisements cross any socioeconomic boundaries and are equally affective in low and high socioeconomic communities. Based on our research alone, we can hypothesize that the lower socioeconomic communities would be more susceptible to advertisement influence-especially if the ad follows the findings of the Janiszewski & Meyvis study- but let’s take an extreme case and question what if they don’t even know what an iPad does or how to use a computer? Would they still desire what is advertised?

         In a study by Kiran Karande, Khalid A. Almurshidee, Fahad Al-Olayan, advertising in a culturally similar market with socioeconomic differences was examined. They investigated two types of ad content – culturally normative and product-related – and show that culturally normative ad content, such as the depiction of women consistent with societal norms, is predominantly culture driven, and standardization is appropriate, regardless of socio-economic differences (Karande, Almurshidee, Al-Olayan, 2006). On the other hand, they found that product-related content such as information content are influenced by both cultural and socio-economic factors; thus, standardization is not recommended for these types of ads. Although the study didn’t blow anything out of the water as far as what it revealed, it just reaffirmed that socioeconomic status does effect how ads are interpreted when it comes to product-related information.

         The research uncovered and discussed implicates that socioeconomic status does affect processing fluency of advertisements. Standardization of ads can be used across socioeconomic communities if it stays in line with the dual-process theory meaning it consists of frequent exposure of one single stimulus. The only thing to keep in mind is whether or not the ad is dealing with culturally normative content or product related content. Strategic planning and research of the target audience will yield optimal processing fluency, and in turn increase consumer sales in both low and high socioeconomic groups. 

Syrian American Organization Condemns Top pro-Assad Cleric’s Odious, Delegitimizing Threats

http://www.free-press-release.com/news-syrian-american-organization-condemns-top-pro-assad-cleric-s-odious-delegitimizing-threats-1318701878.html

 October 14, 2011 Oak Brook, IL: Arab Spring for Syria (ASFS) condemns Syrian Grand Mufti Ahmad Badreddin Hassoun’s October 11 avowal to direct suicide bombings across Europe and the United States should NATO support the anti-government uprising against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s embattled regime.

Hassoun, the country’s top state-appointed Sunni Muslim cleric and staunch al-Assad loyalist, promised indiscriminate, “eye for an eye” suicide attacks on civilians in the event of Western intercession on behalf of the Syrian people. In the strongest terms possible, the ASFS condemns Hassoun’s unpardonable incitement of violence.

Despite NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen repudiating the possibility of Western intervention on October 5, al-Assad fears the pro-democracy, populist tide of the Arab Spring could engulf the 40+ year-old regime.

With death tolls exceeding 3,000 innocent civilians, al-Assad has relied on increasingly savage measures to suppress the egalitarian and socioeconomic aspirations of the Syrian people. In throwing his full weight behind al-Assad’s morally indefensible actions, the Grand Mufti himself deserves unequivocal condemnation.

Furthermore, the ASFS believes that Hassoun’s odious endorsement of al-Assad’s draconian crackdown on Syrians and his own belligerent incitement of violence deeply delegitimizes his religious credibility and authority. In addition to standing firmly against the democratic ambitions of Syrian civilians—who he putatively represents—his direct threats of suicide bombings are utterly irreconcilable with Islamic teachings.  They are only equatable to the repugnant rhetoric of terrorist groups.

The governments of China and Russia have also bloodied their hands by vetoing a U.N. Security Council resolution on October 4 to sanction al-Assad’s regime for deploying military violence against the Syrian people. By failing to take action, the ASFS strongly believes these votes embolden al-Assad’s grisly determination to retain power at any cost.

The ASFS strongly believes that international support is critical to facilitate a democratic future for the people of Syria, who today face unremitting tyranny and state-mobilized terror in their pursuit of freedom.

The ASFS calls on the United States and the international community to double-down on efforts to defend the human rights and popular sovereignty of the Syrian people. The ASFS strongly supports U.S. President Barack Obama’s position that dislodging the al-Assad regime is an inevitable and desirable outcome.

Additionally, the ASFS calls on the Syrian National Council (SNC) to remain a strong opposition coalition representing the diverse people of Syria and promoting their liberty. With a unified voice, the SNC can help accelerate the inexorable collapse of al-Assad’s regime and move Syria forward into a free, dignified, and democratic civil society that protects all ethnic and religious groups and fulfills the rightful aspirations of the Syrian people.

Arab Spring for Syria, based in Oakbrook, IL, uses democratic principles to support the interests of Syrian Americans and Syrians through education, outreach, grass-roots community-building, and advocacy while also providing humanitarian aid to the Syrian people.

Contact:
Dr. Shafic M. Budron 
(847) 489-7999        
smbudron@agssi.com

Dr. Jawdat Abboud 
(708) 299-6627

War Without End: Sermon for Yom Kippur 5772

Posted on October 9, 2011 by Rabbi Brant Rosen| Leave a comment

 

US Global Command and Control System

In 2006, I was approached by JRC’s Peace Dialogue task force and asked if I would consider adding something to our Shabbat prayer for peace. Could we, they asked, introduce the prayer by reading the names of three American soldiers, three Iraqi civilians and three Afghan civilians who had been killed in these two ongoing wars?

The reason, they explained, was to remind ourselves that peace is not just an abstract concept. If we’re going to say a prayer for peace, we should own up to the stakes – we should acknowledge that we are citizens of nation at war, that war comes with a very real human cost, and that as American citizens, we are complicit in all actions made by our country.

So for the past five years, that’s how we’ve begun our prayer for peace every Shabbat evening: a JRC member will stand up and bring the names of real people into our sanctuary. Three will invariably be American teenagers or twenty somethings, followed by six Iraqis and Afghans with harder-to-pronouce Arabic names.

One year ago, when President Obama when announced a reduction of American combat forces in Iraq, I was tempted to finally stop reading the names of Iraqi civilians.  It felt to me as if the war effort was finally winding down and transitioning into a fundamentally different kind of operation. I was also eager to shine a brighter spotlight on our war in Afghanistan, which had officially become the longest war in American history, with no end in sight. (Yesterday, by the way, marked the tenth anniversary of that war – a milestone that managed to pass our nation by without much fanfare.)

I ran this idea past several Peace Dialogue members and got different kinds of responses, both pro and con. In the end, I was prevailed upon to continue. After all, Obama himself said that our active combat presence would be maintained until the end of 2011. And as long as this is the case, I realized, we’d be hard pressed to deny that we were still a nation at war.

As I think about my response to Obama’s announcement, I realize, somewhat shamefully, that I had fallen prey to a very convenient form of naivete.  Or at best, wishful thinking. Because the painful truth is that we going to be in Iraq well past even 2011.  The truth is no one really knows when our military is going to leave Iraq, but even when it does, there can be no doubt that we will remain an armed presence in that country for a very long time.

Our government actually makes no secret of the fact that we’re digging in.  All the signs are there, even if they are not widely reported by the media.  Most Americans don’t know, for instance, that the US mission in Baghdad is the world’s largest embassy – built on a tract of land the size of the Vatican and actually visible from space.  Why? Because after the military withdraws, the State Department expects to have 17,000 personnel in Iraq at some 15 sites. If those plans go as expected, 5,500 of them will be armed “security contractors.”  Of the remaining 11,500, most will be in support roles of one sort or another, with only a couple of hundred in traditional diplomatic jobs.

In short, when the military leaves, the US presence in Iraq will shift over to a heavily militarized State Department presence. But make no mistake: we’re in Iraq for the long haul.

And when it comes to our presence in Afghanistan, the news is even worse, I’m afraid. In 2009, President Obama said 2011 would be the “transition point” for bringing the troops home. One year ago, NATO announced that it would be moving the goalposts to 2014. Now just two months ago, we’ve learned that the US and Afghan governments are negotiating an agreement that will allow US military forces to remain in Afghanistan until 2024.

This, even though a new poll shows fewer Afghans than ever support a US presence in the country or believe we are making their country any safer. This, even though a CNN poll earlier this year revealed that 63% of Americans “completely oppose” this war.

The hard truth about all of this – the very hard truth – is that our nation is now essentially entrenched in a permanent state of war: war without end.  It is our new normal.

I find it all the more frightening when you consider the sheer magnitude of this “permanent war condition” – and how far its reach actually extends.  If are to truly gauge our military presence honestly, it does not end with Iraq and Afghanistan. Our nation is also engaged militarily in Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen.  The Washington Post reported last year that US has deployed special operations forces in 75 countries, from South America to Central Asia. We are also expanding drone wars throughout the Horn of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula.  And none of these “operations” show any sign of winding down. On the contrary, by all appearances we’re just getting started.

How did it all come to this? Well, students of US history can can surely chart a course leading from the earliest days of manifest destiny to our first overseas military adventures in the 19^th century, through World War I, World War II, the Cold War and now, the huge buildup in the aftermath of 9/11.  In each period of history, our military reach has extended greater and greater across the world. And in each period, our national mission – our sense of our place in the world – has slowly but fundamentally shifted.

It’s not quoted that widely any more, but George Washington, in his farewell address to the nation urged his country to cultivate its own garden and avoid foreign entanglements at all costs. That notion seem utterly quaint today, particularly in the post 9/11 world. Today, America is world’s only superpower – and such we are wielding that power with impunity literally all over the world.

Consider these facts:

- The Pentagon currently spends approximately $700 billion annually – more than the entire rest of the world combined.

- We have approximately 300,000 troops stationed abroad, again more than the rest of the world combined. According to the Department of Defense, we have 761 military bases in foreign countries around the world. (And that number might actually be higher than 1,000, depending on which report you choose to believe.)

- The Pentagon has literally divided up the planet, maintaining armed readiness under what it calls “Unified Commands.” Each command headed by a four-star general or admiral. The “Pacific Command,” which comprises 50% of the earth and more than half its population; the “Central Command” (namely the Greater Middle East); the “European Command,” which was established in Germany following World War II, the “African Command,” created in 2007, which conducts military activities and operations in 53 African countries; the “Southern Command,” which encompasses Central and South America and the Caribbean; the “Northern Command,” namely North America, established in the wake of 9/11; and finally, “Space Command,” responsible for the largest region of all.

While all this information is technically public domain, I wonder how many Americans really know these facts about their country. My suspicion is that we know just bits and pieces of the puzzle, but are simply too overwhelmed by the enormity of it all to contemplate it for very long.  And most of us who do think about it for a second longer generally throw up our hands and say, “Well, that’s just the way of the geopolitical world.”

Of course it’s all well and good when we Americans say things like this. But rarely do we stop to consider how the facts I just listed for you are experienced by the rest of the world’s inhabitants.  I’ll put it plainly: while our pursuit of military entitlement around the world may help us feel safe here at home, it is fueling anti-American attitudes around the world. We know this. Every international poll tells us this in no uncertain terms. And yet the buildup continues.

And that really is the crux of the issue here. For some Americans the most salient lesson of 9/11 was that the world is a dangerous place and we must use military power to mitigate the danger.  I include myself among those who learned a very different lesson: 9/11 taught us that when we intervene militarily abroad, we beget blowback here at home.

Many of us had hope that Obama truly believed this as well – that he would turn back the Bush doctrine and steer our nation’s foreign policy toward a saner course. But as it has turned out, the very opposite has happened. He has embroiled us in even more Mideast wars and has deployed even larger numbers of special operations forces to that region.  He has also transferred or brokered the sale of substantial quantities of weapons to these countries and has continued to build and expand US military bases at an ever-increasing rate.

He also promised to prosecute the so-called “War on Terror” with greater attention to civil liberties, but that hope has been fairly dashed as well.  During his campaign, note what he had to say about this subject:

As president, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act, and adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.

Well, it’s over two years later and Guantanamo is still open. This past March, the Obama administration announced it would be resuming military tribunals there. And just last week, we learned that our President did something truly unprecedented – our President actually approved the extra-judicial assassination of an American citizen in Yemen.

Now I know there are many out there, including many liberal folk, who aren’t expressing over-concern about this incident. It is certainly true, Anwar al-Awlaki was a radical Muslim cleric, and yes, his language and speeches were incendiary. He may even have plotted against the United States – but we will never know that for sure because he was never indicted for a crime. What we do know is that Yemen experts said he was a minor player – and that he likely had no operational connection to Al Qaeda. But again, we’ll never know that for sure. What we do know is that Mideast extremists now have a new martyr and we have crossed a terrifying Rubicon: our government now openly assassinates its own citizens without due process.

I’m focusing these observations exclusively on our Commander-in-Chief, but of course I realize that this issue is much, much larger than just one man.  I know it’s natural to look to our primarily to our President, but in truth what we call “Washington” is really a massive bureaucracy that includes a myriad of interests. It’s a far reaching power elite that includes not only the federal government but the national security state, as well as the intelligence and federal law enforcement communities. It also includes big banks and other financial institutions, defense contractors, major corporations and any number of lawyers, lobbyists former officials, and retired military officers, all of whom hold enormous influence over our foreign policy.

This, in short, is what empire looks like in the 21^st century. It may differ from empires past, but if you have any doubt, just take a look around: just like all empires, our nation has has positioned itself to fight war without end, and like all empires, we’re starting to buckle here at home under the weight of our own power and ambition.

As I’m fond of pointing out, we Jews actually know quite a bit about empires. Whether it was the Babylonian Empire, the Roman Empire, the Byzantine and Ottoman Empires, we’ve experienced them directly over the centuries. We’ve lived among them, we’ve been oppressed by many of them, but most critically, we’ve seen many a mighty empire rise and fall throughout our history.

As a Jew, I’ve always been enormously proud of the classic rabbinical response to empire. The Jewish people have been able to survive even under such large and mighty powers because we’ve clung to a singular sacred vision.  That there is a power even greater. Greater than Pharaoh, greater than Babylon, even greater than the Roman empire that exiled us and dispersed our people throughout the diaspora. It is a quintessentially Jewish vision best summed up by the venerable line from the book of Zechariah: “Lo b’chayil v’lo b’koach” – “Not by might and not by power, but by my spirit, says the Lord of Hosts.”

Indeed, the Prophets give us a powerful paradigm for understanding these kinds of issues.  In the Hebrew Bible, we read that after the Israelites enter the land, they eventually come to the prophet Samuel and tell him they want a king – to be “k’chol ha’goyim – like all the other nations.” God considers this to be a personal rejection, but tells Samuel to tell the nation, essentially, “Fine if you want a King, I’ll give you a King. But just you wait and see what happens.”

Of course as they come to discover, kingship in Ancient Israel doesn’t go so well for the nation. It becomes focused on militarism, becomes incorrigibly corrupt, splits in two and eventually gets overrun from within and without. During this period, it is only the prophets who speak the hard truth to power, who rail against the toxic ambitions of Israelite empire, who warn that this path will eventually be their downfall. And so it becomes.

Given all this, it would seem to me that as American Jews, we find ourselves in a paradoxical situation. Because for the first time in our history we find ourselves, by and large, as the beneficiaries of empire.  Even more than that, I’d say we American Jews have firmly hitched our wagon to it.  The state of Israel represents our major military proxy in the Middle East and the American Jewish establishment is very well enmeshed in the political power elite of our country.  There is no getting around it, at the dawn of the 21^st century, Jews have firmly cast our lot with empire.

But it’s certainly worth asking: in doing so have made a kind of Faustian bargain? Are we bucking the most central lesson of our survival over the centuries?  We more than most, should understand the limits and dangers of nations that venerate unmitigated power. After all, aren’t we quite literally living proof of this fact? We know full well that although mighty empires will rise, it is not by might and not by power that they will be sustained.

If this is so – if this is truly so – then we of all people should be helping lead the charge for a new direction.  We should be proclaiming the lessons of our own historical experience for all to hear. We’ve seen this before. We’ve seen what happens to powerful nations that depend exclusively upon military might to make them strong. We know what happens to countries that neglect the needs of their own citizens while pouring more and more blood and treasure into foreign wars. We know that when nations attack and occupy other nations, it doesn’t make them more secure. It only isolates them further, creating more enemies than allies in the end.

I know that many feel it is hopelessly naive to say these kinds of things.  Those who challenge the status quo of permanent war today are dismissed as out of touch, over-idealistic or just plain oddball. Anti-war activists are generally treated by the political establishment – by liberals and conservatives alike – with condescension, if not downright contempt. We just don’t understand the way the “real world” works. The real world is a “dangerous place.”  In the real world, things get messy.

But I can’t help but think that as things get messier for us here at home, we might actually start to see a change in this mindset. When it comes to our various wars, the middle class has gotten something of a free ride up until now. The government has gone to great lengths to ensure that we don’t feel the pain of permanent war. We’ve instituted a poverty draft where only half a percent of Americans actually serve in the military. We are outsourcing military service more and more to private security contractors – and are increasingly using drone technology to fight our battles, so that no matter how much violence we mete out, our citizenry experiences war as little more than a video game. All of this has served to anesthetize us. The reality of war is just not that real to most most Americans.

But it may get real before too long. As these wars continue to draw out with no end in sight, with no discernible progress – and as economic hardship starts to affect more and more of the middle class – growing numbers of Americans may well start to connect the dots.  The Occupy Wall Street protests forming around the country may represent an early indication of this – the nascent stirrings of a new movement that finally challenges the culture of empire that has been gripping our nation.   If not now, however, it will come. It will come because we are, quite simply, on an unsustainable course. At the end of the day, there really is no such thing as war without end. Sooner or later, something has to give. It is only a matter of  when – and how.

In the meantime, I believe the most important thing we can do is to educate ourselves. To learn, as Americans, the truth about the wars our nation is fighting. To understand the suffering it inflicts on others. To grasp the costs we are paying ourselves here at home in so many unacceptable ways.

And I hope that as Jews, we might at least be able to have this conversation: as citizens of a nation engaged in war without end, how seriously will we honor a spiritual tradition that demands we pursue peace at all costs?  How seriously will we heed a historical legacy that has witnessed all too well the price of empire?  Is this really the kind of Jewish voice, Jewish vision, we want to hand over to the next generation? Or do we want to reclaim our prophetic voice and vision – one that speaks truth to power and points out the hard lessons of history? All good questions for Yom Kippur.  This is, after all, the season in which we are commanded to ask hard questions together as a community. As American Jews, it seems to me, as members of two communities, we do this twice over.  As Americans, as Jews, how are we betraying the values we hold dear? As Americans, as Jews, how are we accommodating ourselves to a life of war without end? Are we really, truly prepared to bear the consequences of our acquiescence?

This year, let us pursue peace.