Hoping for peace

Today, Benjamin Netanyahu's government approved the construction of 500 more settlement houses in the West Bank.  The US government, the Palestinian Authority, and much of the international community has condemned Netanyahu's decision.  An aide of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called the move "unacceptable".


Clearly, Netanyahu's decision moved us further away from a much-needed peace agreement to end the unsustainable occupation of the Palestinian Territories by Israel.  So why, when he himself has called a one-state solution "disastrous" for Israel, has Netanyahu put up another obstacle in the way of peace?

Netanyahu's response has been three-fold: to claim that this new settlement construction is focused in existing large communities that would remain with Israel in any peace deal; to criticize the international community for quickly condemning Israeli settlements while being slow to condemn the murders of the 5 Israelis; and, all the while, to posture as opposed, on some level, to the very construction he approves in order go seem open to compromise in the peace process.

This is unacceptable. This editorial in Haaretz, written a few days before Netanyahu's decision today, questions Netanyahu's ability to lead Israel to a permanent peace agreement with the Palestinians after words and actions showing his inability to compromise. He continues to blame Abbas for making unreasonable requests as preconditions to peace talks - while claiming that he himself has done much to bring Israel back to the table. Both of these views, along with being basically false, are incompatible with the conciliatory efforts necessary to address the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

But there is a reason for it: Netanyahu faces great pressure from the right wing within his government to encourage settlements in the West Bank and maintain a hard line in the face of calls for compromises from Israel. Many in Israel fear compromising with Arabs now, when the Arab world is becoming more politically vibrant and, likely, more anti-Israel, will put Israel in danger.

Furthermore, the US, while claiming to be on Israel's side by voting against a recent UN resolution condemning the West Bank settlements, is encouraging Netanyahu's actions. As Stephen Walt points out, Obama's tentative chastisements of Israel's actions are not protecting Israel, but instead alienating Arab opinion away from both the US and Israel. And why is Obama so tentative?

Because he wants to get reelected. End of story.

So, as in so many other cases in our world today, politics has gotten in the way of peace. Let us hope that Netanyahu, Abbas, Obama, the Israelis and the Palestinians see the light and work towards the hope of lasting peace in a region sorely in need of it.

Education: It's not everything

This past Friday, March 4, President Obama gave a speech at Miami Central High School alongside former Florida Governor Jeb Bush about the growing importance of education in our economy.  As we emerge from the recession, he argued, companies will be looking with unprecedented force for highly-educated workers to increase productivity and create a new generation of American prosperity.

Unfortunately for us humans, many companies have already found these high-skilled workers, and they work for free.

Paul Krugman, in a recent column entitled "Degrees and Dollars", refutes the conventional wisdom that receiving a college degree will dramatically increase your chances of getting a well-paying job.  Instead, citing a recent article in NYT, Krugman notes that rising levels of technology have allowed companies to efficiently carry out tasks for a fraction of the costs associated with college-educated human labor.

Today's economy in America is often described as increasingly "hollowed out".  This means that more jobs are available at the lowest and highest levels, but that middle-income jobs are less prevalent.  Technology has been blamed for this hollowing out, since mid-level jobs can often be completed by computers with much more efficiency than with humans.  But now, as the NYT article shows, technology has begun to fill higher-level jobs formerly done only by those with college and even doctorate degrees.

And, as this editorial from NYT shows, unemployment among college-educated Americans under 25 line up with average unemployment levels almost exactly.  So, nowadays, a college degree doesn't guarantee a job.

Still, as someone who anxiously awaits college notifications, I firmly believe that college is the best path to success, as it always has been in America.  First of all, America's universities are among the best in the world, and the innovation that has fed America's prosperity for decades is in large part due to their integral nature in our culture.  Second, innovation is predicated on humans with critical thinking and entrepreneurial abilities, things computers can never replicate.

But that doesn't change the fact that technology will increasingly hollow out the economy, creating greater class separations and eliminating the middle class, if not kept in check.  As I read through the hundreds of comments on Krugman's column, I noticed a great one making the connection between this hollowing out phenomenon and Karl Marx's prediction about capitalism.  He argued that, eventually, technology and globalization would drive down wages to the point that the proletariat would rebel and socialism would emerge.

Both Krugman and the NYT Editorial Board argue that health care reform and more collective bargaining rights for workers, to name a few, can help revitalize the middle class, keep wages up, and keep American capitalism working for everyone.

Now, how can education play a role in that success?  Although a college degree may not guarantee a well-paying career today, it can bring about the innovation that is key to the success of the American middle class in the future.  And the government must take an active role in improving primary, secondary, and higher education accessibility and standards for this innovation to take hold.

So, to sum up, Krugman is right, and so is Obama - but for different reasons.