Companions in Conflict

I re-read this rewarding book from five years ago that viewed the Palestinian experience through different animals who live in the region (donkeys, cows, camels, and so on). The author is an American who has lived in Palestine since the 1980s, staying after what was supposed to be a year-long sojourn. She married and started an extended academic career.

The author resides in the West Bank. Gaza had long been mainly off limits. The latest news:

Israel has clamped Gaza back under near-total siege, barring desperately needed humanitarian aid and other goods from entering the hungry and bomb-decimated enclave. Food, medicine, tents, fuel — for the past week and a half, supplies have not been permitted into Gaza, where some two million Palestinians are trying to survive in the wreckage.

Gaza has long been akin to a prison for the two million people in that godforsaken piece of land. 

Daniel Sokatch's Can We Talk About Israel, written from the perspective of a liberal Jew, is one helpful introduction to the region. This includes how the West Bank is confusingly split into three parts (A, B, C).

Just what our forefathers did envision, or would have envisioned had they foreseen modern conditions, must be divined from materials almost as enigmatic as the dreams Joseph was called upon to interpret for Pharaoh. 

Justice Jackson's warning about originalism can be applied to all predictions. I was named for my grandfather. I don't have the power to interpret dreams, which are not predictions of the future. I often can't even predict Family Feud answers. 

We are not in a prison in the United States akin to Gaza, but we are prisoners of our fates in some sense. I'm sorry. Is that a bad bridge? Oh well. I do think there are general lessons to be had here.

The immediate political issue is what to do with the continuing resolution. Should Senate Democrats not vote for "cloture" to allow it to come to a vote? Senate Republicans have a majority. If a vote is allowed, it will pass. Senate Democrats can have messaging votes, but that is all they will be.  

The biggest federal employee union, which would particularly be harmed by a shutdown [which is always threatened and never truly obtained], says "no." The House bill simply is that bad. 

The budget is a moral act. It tells us what we are as a country. What is paid for? What is cut? What do we care about? Will we just let Trump continue to burn through the federal government akin to Sherman marching through Georgia? 

Josh Marshall's analysis is convincing. No path is good here. We can't go on and on about how horrible Trump's actions are and think that responding to them by simply allowing them to continue is painless. 

If we are at a constitutional crisis moment, we have to do something scary to respond. I get it's scary. We are deep down conservative. Read the Declaration of Independence. We are inclined to suffer instead of boldly going into new paths. It's human nature.

Marshall discussed ongoing events without knowing for sure what would happen. He predicted what will happen next election in response to the Democrats "caving" here. A few people in the comments are convinced we won't even have an election. 

Again, I'm not a prophet. Twenty months is far away.  I do think we have to at least factor in the possibility of elections. We are continuously in election cycles. Next year's elections are already in the works in various respects. We have to think about how to win them, even while dealing with the here and now.

Some people are very angry at Chuck Schumer. Schumer has overseen a U.S. Senate that accomplished a lot with 50 or 51 votes in the last few years. Democrats are in a different position now that they are in the minority. They can do only so much.

I don't know exactly what people expect Schumer to do. There are Democrats who are very wary about going into the unknown of a shutdown. What magical power does he have to convince them otherwise? I think people have some magical thinking.

Who can lead them who will do something that would result in something else happening? Only a few Democrats have openly opposed voting for the continuing resolution. They don't seem to have convinced others in closed-door meetings. 

I asked what power he has. I was accused of "running cover" for the guy. No. I'm serious. Trying to be realistic. There is no savior here. It's a group effort. 

One person talked about committee assignments (he's not in the majority), leadership positions (voted by the caucus, not just him), and corporation board recommendations (seriously?). 

I'm open to him being a horrible leader in these times. Who should replace him? What power will they have and use? The strategy in the Senate won't be the same as in the House. And, surely, a part of this is that people want Schumer to be more vocal, more leading from the barricades, so to speak. But is that his role? 

Maybe I need to find a book about our companion animals in conflict. More than donkeys and elephants.

ETA: Schumer and Gillibrand decided to give in and support the continuing resolution. Uh-huh.