Canadian Observer

Bryan Atinsky agreed to let us to reproduce his observations (made from inside Israel) about the recent events in Israel and Palestine. He has no affiliation with Canadian Observer. His post follows below.

A response to the question about: “In complicity with Europe and the United States, Israel Overthrows the Palestinian Authority?”

Bryan Atinsky
There has been much talk here in the last months (government ministers,
military correspondents, etc on tv and radio) about various possible
scenarios in which Israel would increase their military operations in
Gaza (there have even been a couple small commando incursions into Gaza
for specific targets such as Qassam launch pads) and acting on their
threats to target Hamas PA ministers if terrorist attacks would occur.
And, definitely, there have been many moves on many levels to pressure
the collapse of the PA.

It’s been obvious that the Israeli government/military (as if you can
ever really separate the two) has been biding their time until they
could use some incident a justification for some increased level of action.

For instance, Ha’aretz reports: “The detention of dozens of Hamas
lawmakers in the early hours of Thursday morning had been planned
several weeks ago and received approval from Attorney General Menachem
Mazuz on Wednesday. The same day, Shin Bet Director Yuval Diskin
presented Prime Minister Ehud Olmert with the list of Hamas officials
slated for detention.” (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/732528.html)

But I think that the scope of the Israeli response is somewhat of a
surprise.

Moreover, there are two elements that are going to make this invasion
problematic for Israel to justify among world opinion: The immediate
trigger for the invasion and any understanding of proportionality.

Several months ago, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni explicitly
differentiated Palestinian guerrilla attacks against Israeli military
targets from terrorist attacks against civilians. In an interview on the
US Television news show ABC Nightline, recorded on March 28, 2006, Livni
stated: “Somebody who is fighting against Israeli soldiers is an enemy
and we will fight back, but I believe that this is not under the
definition of terrorism, if the target is a soldier.”

Even taking into consideration the large amount of tacit and explicit US
and European governments backing of Israeli policies vis-a-vis the Hamas
run PA, the Israeli government ‘hasbarah’ will have a harder time than
usual trying to persuade international public opinion that the
Palestinian guerrilla attack on the Israeli military position near the
Kerem Shalom crossing point into Gaza, was, by any objective measure, a
terrorist attack. Whether this will matter or not relates to how long
the operation continues, how many casualties we see, whether or not the
Palestinians reply with an attack on Israeli civilian targets inside the
Green Line (which will then be used as a larger justification for the
incursion after the fact), and how much noise you all make about it, etc…

On another level, I think that if you look at what triggered this huge
Israeli military response, it says something significant about Israeli
society, or at least the government’s social scale of priorities. And
perhaps even more importantly, it points to what really scares the
Israeli government/military to act. Though there have been a number of
attacks against civilian Israeli targets in recent times, be they the
Qassam rockets or the recent bombing at the falafel stand near the old
Tel Aviv central bus station (which killed 7 or so), it was not these
which evoked such a disproportionate response. (First, obviously the
extensive ongoing Israeli artillery barrages and assassinations, which
have killed tens of civilians including many children, were
disproportionate to say the least, but now we are talking about
large-scale invasion with ground troops and tanks, plus the arrest and
incarceration of 60 some Palestinian government ministers). It is only
when an Israeli military target is hit, soldiers killed, and especially
the capture of a soldier, that the Israeli gov/mil is energized into
full-scale action. I can see two reasons here: One is that a successful
attack on an Israeli military installation which was taken by surprise,
is not just a specific isolated incident, a tactical setback, it is a
spear shot deep into the spine of the Israeli ideological edifice that
surrounds the institution of the military, a key component of the larger
Zionist identity (or at least it sets up a fear of a crack in the
edifice). The second reason (and I am sure there are others, but these
come to mind), relates to the agreement that was being solidified
between the Hamas and Fatah over the prisoner’s document. Among other
elements, this would include the formation of a Palestinian unity
government and an agreement to limit resistance to the Israeli
occupation to the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) (the
territories occupied by Israel since 1967). While this would seem to be
something that the Israeli establishment should recognize as a positive
step forward, it is instead taken as a dangerous change that puts
Israel’s interests in jeopardy. If the Palestinians shift their
resistance solely to military targets or targets in the OPT, they lose
their moral high ground (if Israel could really ever be seen to have
one), lose the argument that the occupation must continue and the
building of the Wall must continue, to secure the safety and defense of
the Israeli civilian population. Even though there is speculation that
the attack on Kerem Shalom was done as a way for the Palestinian
militants to show that they would not agree to the stipulation of the
agreement to not cross the Green Line (the military installation
attacked was just over the border of Gaza in Israel), it still can be
seen as significant that they focused on an explicitly military target
instead of a civilian Israeli target.
If a significant time-period passed in which only Israeli military
targets and targets in the OPT would be hit, rumblings of pressure on
Israel to move towards negotiations, move towards ending the occupation
would potentially increase in frequency. This is a danger worth fighting
against.

Whether or not the Israeli public are cheering the invasion and arrests
on??? Well, the Israeli public are sheep by and by and will almost
invariably back defense policy even if they have doubts, fears,
critiques. From what I have been hearing, it seems that though a
significant portion of the Israeli population thinks that something
should be done, there is a lot of apprehension from them about
re-entering Gaza, the fear that once in, we won’t come out, or fears of
a relatively large amount of casualties as in the case of Jenin. Also
fears remembering botched hostage ‘saving’ episodes such as in 1994. I
think that the Israeli people’s willingness to back the incursion is
related to how it pans out in the next week, how long the incursion goes
on, number of casualties, etc…will determine the Israeli public’s mood.

The stench was too much. We had to move all things Kinsella to its own container. Our serious readers were not amused with having to wade through a top 10 list about a guy they had never heard about until we started in on him. So if you are looking for the Top 10 reasons why Kinsella needs a punking click here. We will however post the # 1 reason on the main page in about a weeks time.

How can you not want to punk someone, who when punked, does not even know he is being punked? That is pretty bad for a punk; perhaps that is why he is post-punk but not past being punked…post continues here

Ginger Goodwin,

Please be advised that Mr. Warren Kinsella has requested information
from Progressive Bloggers on how to contact you….post continues here

Thanks for the Graphs. I guess we have to write some poetry now.

Yes Warren Kinsella has more than any other trend-chasing hipster could want….

Please Navigate to the Kinsella Top 10 page to view the post

Please navigate to the Kinsella top 10 page.

By Goodwin Ginger

Is anyone out there taking seriously the proposition that the seven young black men living in a storage facility were doing anything more than talking loud and talking proud as young men are want to do especially when being coached along by a professional whose job it is to get people to say what they want them to say? Are we really to believe that these young men would have been doing anything other than engaging in fuck-the-man fantasies in absence of coaching by the FBI? Are we really to believe that these young men which have no military or industrial training in explosives or indeed even in marksmanship and who appear also to the lack the means to purchase any materials of significance are really to be taken seriously?

Yes, Yes, Yes, of course if coached appropriately by O’Brien, if given training by O’Brien, if given cash by O’Brien, if directed to the requisite supplies by O’Brien, if supervised by O’Brien in the construction of an explosive device, these young men might have made the long trip down that road. But these men made no such trip and their fantasies about sticking it to the man would have remained exactly that in absence of O'Brien’s intervention and seduction.

So what we have are seven disaffected young men who dreamt perhaps of justice and retribution for real or perceived past injustices. They will be tried for thought crimes. And perhaps there they will find the only kind of sublime freedom on offer in these times:

“The voice from the telescreen was still pouring forth its tale of prisoners and booty and slaughter, but the shouting outside had died down a little. The waiters were turning back to their work. One of them approached with the gin bottle. Winston, sitting in a blissful dream, paid no attention as his glass was filled up. He was not running or cheering any longer. He was back in the Ministry of Love, with everything forgiven, his soul white as snow. He was in the public dock, confessing everything, implicating everybody. He was walking down the white-tiled corridor, with the feeling of walking in sunlight, and an armed guard at his back. The longhoped-for bullet was entering his brain.

He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.”

–1984–

"Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."

"He had won the victory over himself." If you are not weeping now will you ever weep?

Top Posts

By Goodwin Ginger

The Spin

With so many options to finance today’s higher education costs who would not want to go to university? The federal and provincial government say they are dedicated toward helping students invest in human capital. With Student loans, interest relief, scholarships and an Income tax credit on the interest you pay on your loans, whom can’t afford to go to university and help Canada upgrade the nations human capital?

The Facts

Helen decides to pursue a career in the social sciences and humanities. Helen works summers, gets scholarships and graduates with an honours degree in four years. After completing her undergrad degree she decides to go on to graduate school and pursue a masters. She completes this in 1 year. She then decides to pursue a Ph.D., Which she completes in 6 years.

Her total time in school is 11 years at a cost of tuition, books and living costs of $12,000 per year or $132,000 total cost not including forgone income while in school. How does Helen finance this $132,000 you ask? Well she is a bright young woman so she receives scholarships, bursaries and TA employment. Even so she can only manage to rustle up $96,000 of it herself so she borrows an additional $36,000 from the federal and provincial governments.

The Scenarios

Scenario A: the best of all possible worlds

Upon successful completion of her Ph.D., in Liberal Pre-emptive War she receives a tenure track position at the Munk Centre for International Studies at a starting salary of $74,000. Wow you say that is one helluva salary. Not really her brother got one of those trade degrees in law and is earning well over $100,000 a year (5^th year call and he works for the Empire). In any case Helen receives a letter informing her that it is time to pay the piper. She decides that she wants to pay her loan off as quickly as possible so as to minimize the amount of interest she will pay. So she decides to amortize her loan over 5 years at the government’s interest rate of 8.25% for a monthly payment of $847.50 per month. This means that in addition to the principle Helen will pay $14,850 in interest. For a total cost of borrowing of 50,850 and total education cost of $146,850.

Scenario B: the most likely in this world

Helen, although she be bright and quick of wit made the fatal mistake of doing a degree in Why the American Empire is a Plague Upon Human Progress. As such she receives a 3 year contractually limited appointment at York University teaching in a field far, far away from her major research interest at a yearly salary of 55,000. Helen receives her consolidation agreement form from the provincial and federal governments and quickly realizes she really has no choice but to accept a 12 year amortization period @ an annual interest rate of 8.25%. Helen makes equal payments of $497.50 for a total borrowing cost of 71,640. Here is the math: $36,000 in principle + $35,640 in interest = 71,640 for a total education cost of $168,640. What you say, Helen has to pay back almost twice her principle amount because she choose to study why the American Empire is a Plague Upon Human Progress. Yes Helen dear, one way or the other you are going to work for the family.

The unknown knowns

Ah you cheeky little devil you failed to mention the government’s generous Income Tax deduction for interest paid on student loans. Quite right you are chap! Lets do the math.

Take scenario A. Why scenario A, you ask? Because in scenario A Helen’s top marginal tax rate is around 45%. This means we can calculate the maximum value of the generous tax credit. Here is the Kicker. You can only claim 17% of the total interest you pay per year on your student loan. In Helen’s case this works out to $504.90 which means Helen will get a refund of …wait for it … $227.20 per year or $1136.02 over 5 years. Which drops her total education cost from $146,850 to $145713.98. Wow what an inducement to invest in human capital.

I would do the calculation for scenario B but I am afraid Helen will faint.

Forgone income: the real cost of education

Let us assume, as Helen is bright and ambitious, she could have been earning $2,000 a month for the eight months she was in school per year during her undergrad. That works out to $16,000 per year for a total of $64,000 which must be added to the cost of her BA which was $50, 000. For a total cost including forgone income of $114,000.

Let us assume for her Ma year with BA in hand she could have earned $3,000 a month for the 12 months she was enrolled which comes to $36,000. Adding this to our total above we get $150,000.

Let us assume for the 6 years she spends as a graduate student she could have been earning $48,000 a year, which sums to $288,000. Adding this to our running total we get $438,000.

Wait you say, that is not a fair accounting of forgone income because she would have had to pay for her living regardless of what she was doing. Quite right. Let us subtract 132,000 for subsistence costs over the 11 years ($1000 per month). That gives us a total of $306,000. Yes, kids that is the total value/cost of your human capital.

Well, ok, $306,000 may be the total cost of her education including forgone income less living costs but you said she got scholarships so it is not the total cost to her. Quite right you are. Helen did receive a total of $5,000 in scholarship money during her BA, $4,000 during her Masters and $72,000 during her Ph.D. for a grand total of $81,000 in free funding. This brings Helen’s total cost out of pocket to $225,000.

That tax credit is still looking like a scam of the first order. And what you have not considered is the obscenity of charging 2.5% above the private banks prime when the government borrows money much cheaper than that. Yes kids the government is making money off of student loans. Not only have they raised our taxes by allowing the cost of education to increase (it is a user fee on a public good), but they have also added insult to injury by making money off the money that they have loaned us to pay for the initial increased tax levy on education.

How are those marginal tax rate reductions looking now?

What is to be done?

In the short run, pay off that student loan as fast as possible. There is no financial or tax incentive to prolong your payments. You can amortize over the full 12 years in order to guard against unforeseen living expenses but make additional payments whenever possible.

In the medium run, tell your government to quit the bullshit and fund education by reducing the cost of tuition. Education would be expensive without tuition. In our example above, tuition only accounts for $66,000 of the total cost of education (assuming $6,000 a year in tuition).

In the long run, as Keynes said we are all dead, but tuition should be free.