Day 363- "On the brink of genocide"

Dear Mr. President,

The Cote d'Ivoire is, according to UN ambassador Youssoufou Bamba, on the brink of genocide. Ideally, I would think that the impending social implosion of an African nation a good reason to use US military power to protect civilians caught up in the violence. Of course, as we've overextended ourselves in Afghanistan, Iraq and our forays into Yemen and Pakistan, we simply don't have the military assistance to offer. We can hope that the UN or the African Union are able to keep peace and protect the innocent, but there is little, practically, that the US can do.

Perhaps it is naive of me to think that we should only use our troops to protect civillians, avoid genocide and keep peace. Perhaps chasing Bin Laden & the Taliban through caves is, in fact, a more effective use of our might, but I don't think our current military strategy has made us safer- indeed the number and complexity of our military engagements abroad seem to have left us in a strategically weakened position.

I'll admit that the proximity of The Cote d'Ivoire to Burkina Faso is heightening my anxiety about the crumbling political situation. I might not be so afraid if my best friend wasn't right next door. Still, I think that military force is best used to protect the weak preyed upon by the strong, to prevent the innocent from suffering whenever possible. I would rather see our troops in Cote d'Ivoire and Haiti than in Afghanistan and Iraq, where more stability could be achieved through education and infrastructure investment than any amount of troops and bombs.

I will hope that the Ambassador Bamba is incorrect in his assessment of the outlook for The Cote d'Ivoire, but should he prove correct it will be all the more frustrating to watch, helplessly, while my country is able to do nothing to stop it.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 357- Busses and bulldozers

Dear Mr. President,

I wrote a few days ago about the upcoming ad campaign in protest of the Israeli occupation of Palestine on buses here in Seattle. Even as I expressed my trepidation at the prospect of seeing my opinion represented I was hesitant about, I was, in a small way, a bit thrilled to see the campaign taking up the tools of our opposition to spread awareness. Since then, however, several things have happened. First, the David Horowitz Freedom Center (the name likely offers all the necessary explanation as to the group's purpose, but for my readers unfamiliar with David Horowitz, he's the despicable mind behind such classics as "The 101 most dangerous academics in America" and other twists on the idea of freedom.) proposed matching the 12 pro-Palestine buses and raising it to 25 busses bearing signs that say "Palestinian War Crimes: your tax dollars at work." Then King County Metro decided maybe the whole thing was a terrible idea and banned all non-commercial ads.

Ok. I have to get my head around the fact that David Horowitz is a bigoted, racist scumbag. I need a minute. All right, I'm mostly over that. His disciples, in inverting the message of the original ad, have not only created something that doesn't make even a little sense, they've demonstrated exactly why I don't like this form of outreach. One of my coworkers put it quite well tonight, saying that the venue didn't allow for the nuanced discussion necessary to change any one's mind. Beyond that, while I'm disappointed to see the city caving to backlash, I understand why public transit might not be the best battleground for the Israel/Palestine debate in America.

My frustration is mainly with the feeling that support for the Palestinian cause, something that can't be found in the White House, the State Department, congress or on any ballot, that has been stigmatized to be tantamount to anti-semitism, terrorism, extremism, is so inflammatory it can't even be presented to the public without causing a controversy. The Israeli occupation is bolstered when we go shopping, when we pay our taxes when we cast our votes. Israel is the 16th wealthiest country on the planet, the largest recipient of US foreign aid (more than the rest of the world combined) protected by US veto power at the UN, and still a sign on the side of a bus (or 12) in Seattle is too much of a threat for the occupation's fiercest advocates to permit.

So the busses will keep selling us movies or clothes or hamburgers. The bulldozers will keep demolishing houses. The settlements will sprawl. Maybe an ad campaign can't change that, either, but I don't believe that silencing discussion and dissent is going to help solve a situation that cannot continue for long. As President, you probably don't care what's happening on local transit advertisement, but I think that this incident speaks to a larger, national fear of approaching this issue. So long as our White House continues to stifle frank conversations and to lead with the example of avoidance, impotence and spineless complicity in the human rights abuses carried out by our ally, I don't see how individuals or grass roots organizations will ever find the an appropriate forum to say what needs to be said.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 353- Spring Break!

Dear Mr. President,

This week I'll be applying to join the US Boat to Gaza, (the ship you probably recall is named after your book.) It may not be the most conventional way to spend spring break, but I think that it's exactly as self-indulgent as I'm willing to be. I have no idea what the odds are of me being selected to actually go, but I suspect that I'll always regret it if I don't at least apply.

Even if I don't make it to Gaza in 2011, the discussion of the gaza blockade has taken to the sides of city buses right here in Seattle. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this. While I wholeheartedly agree with the message and support the intentions of those running the ads, I don't know how effective this is as a strategy. Is $1794 better spent on an ad campaign that might not change any minds, or would it have been better used to send help to the people affected by the policies being protested? The awareness created might be considerable, but I'm not sure it will lead to the public outcry necessary for any substantive policy change.

When I lived in DC, the metro tunnels were routinely home to issue ads. One was the picture of a baby (presumably Palestinian( wearing a pro-hamas headband, and said "This child could grow up to be a: ( ) Doctor ( ) Lawyer (x) Terrorist" (The ad can be seen here thanks to flickr user louko.) The ad made my blood boil. I have visceral reactions every time I passed by it. Targeting the blameless children of this conflict seemed especially sickening, and to have it shouting at me from every wall every day of my commute ensured that I began and ended each work day so angry I could barely speak. The very nature of advertising made discussion or argument or dissent with the people placing the ads impossible. I think my intense reaction to these ads has made me hesitant to feel any joy at seeing ads supporting my views. I understand that the very effective (and well-financed) tactics of the Israeli lobby and PR organizations need to be balanced somehow, but I don't feel great about sinking to their methods.

The most I can hope for is conversation. If it gets people talking, thinking, questioning the policies supported by their taxes (often without their knowledge) I will swallow my objections and applaud the efforts of the organization purchasing the ads. The argument that a controversial, thought-provoking ad like this one is at least better than another Macy's ad is not lost on me, either. Do you think this is a helpful or appropriate forum for foreign policy conversations?

I should probably go work on my application. I know you don't agree with the mission of the US boat to Gaza and you could certainly never support it publicly, but I hope that, even if it is only in private, you find a moment to consider your own responsibility for the people who end up on this ship and for the policies that have made such an organization necessary.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

I encourage all of my readers interested (and fully aware of and prepared for the risks) to apply to the US Boat to Gaza. If you don't want to go yourself, a financial donation will help purchase supplies to deliver to the people of Gaza, as well. Other great gift ideas for those concerned with social justice can be found in Nicholas Kristof's latest New York Times column, or on etsy.com

Day 348- Secrets and Lies

Dear Mr. President,

I've never been a particularly good secret-keeper. My face gives away every emotion, every lie I try to tell. This might be why I've never had the stomach for any significant subterfuge. I've been another person's secret too many times and seen it end too badly for them and for me to have any illusion about the nobility of secrecy. If a decision cannot bear the scrutiny of others it is probably not a particularly good choice. Michael Moore recently posted bail for Julian Assange, and in his letter explaining his motivation for this decision he says

Openness, transparency — these are among the few weapons the citizenry has to protect itself from the powerful and the corrupt. What if within days of August 4th, 1964 — after the Pentagon had made up the lie that our ship was attacked by the North Vietnamese in the Gulf of Tonkin — there had been a WikiLeaks to tell the American people that the whole thing was made up? I guess 58,000 of our soldiers (and 2 million Vietnamese) might be alive today.

Instead, secrets killed them.

I think that what you once called the "deficit of trust" Americans have in our leaders is brought about by these lies we've been told throughout history. Wikileaks is not the answer to this; a government that doesn't hide behind lies is the answer. Instead of joining the chorus of voices from the right and left calling Wikileaks a terrorist organization, I think that you should take this opportunity to change some of the behaviors you've been so embarrassed to have the rest of the world discover. I think an important (though, for obvious reasons, unsavory) step toward this is to relinquish some of the sweeping expansions made under President Bush to executive powers. Aspects of the PATRIOT ACT, the power to assassinate suspected terrorists without a trial, even the new standards for screening by the TSA all contribute to the sense that the government does not trust the people. It can hardly be a surprise, then, that the people have developed our own system for dealing with a similar mistrust for our leaders. Some one has to blink first. Demonstrating a commitment to responsible, trustworthy leadership is the only way the government can regain our trust.

A friend, while commenting on a previous letter about Wikileaks, pointed out

most of the people whining are old politicians. Our generation has already seen these document releases happen with corporate and personal communication. We have an entire generation (the boomers) that have relied on "security through obscurity", and that doesn't fly in the technological world. This is a rude wake-up call for them.

Perhaps the endearing anecdotes about your addiction to your Blackberry deceived me into thinking you'd be on our side of a generational conflict. Surely the age issue is as false a dichotomy as race or religion or any other of the teams we're told to fight for in life, but I think that my friend is right in identifying an old world view of security and the conflict between those who cling to it and those of us willing to view security in a modern light. Secrets and lies may have worked (at least for a little while) for previous administrations, the unprecedented level of individual access to information simply will not allow it to continue. Secrets and lies have created the current state of international affairs, the mistrust of Americans for actions our government has taken on our behalf and often without our knowledge.

Michael Moore and Julian Assange certainly have their share of faults. They also don't have the complicated, difficult job of running a country or trying to keep the free world safe. But the burdens of your position don't justify the lying and they don't justify defending a system that is based on mistrust of Americans. Even if you can't publicly defend Wikileaks or Assange, you can take steps to change the way our government keeps its secrets and the way it spies on the American people. We can't trust a government that doesn't trust us, and it's up to you to change that.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 339-All in

Dear Mr. President,

Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas has stated that he will dissolve the Palestinian government and force Israel to take responsibility for the West Bank. Abbas is clearly a much better poker player than I would have given him credit for.

If Israel does not stop settlement construction, Abbas would be wise to follow through on this threat. Abbas is correct when he says that he cannot be expected to lead, to be responsible for a territory he has no real control over. Israel bears little of the financial or regulatory responsibility for its occupation, and forcing the government to pay (literally and figuratively) for its policies is the only way to compel change. The threat may frighten Israeli leadership enough to get an actual settlement freeze or could pave the way to a more just single-state solution, should the Palestinians begin lobbying not for statehood but suffrage.

I certainly don't envy the headache Prime Minister Netanyahu must be suffering as a result of this announcement.

With Israeli and Palestinian firefighters working together to battle a forest fire, I hope that government officials on both sides recognize the potential for all of the people in this region to live side by side, to work together, in peace. It can happen, but such an outcome is absolutely contingent upon civil rights, economic stability and personal security for all people, regardless of race, religion or ethnicity. It cannot happen under occupation, and I am glad that Abbas, at least, recognizes this. I hope that peace talks resume in a manner that is fair and respectful of both sides, but, should the intractable commitment of the Israeli right to continue the construction of the settlements prove to be insurmountable for Netanyahu, I fully support the return of administrative responsibilities for the West Bank to the Israelis. Palestinians have long been punished (often violently) for the actions of extremists within their midst while Israel has empowered, protected and elected their own fundamentalists. The price of this hypocrisy ought to be the social, financial and political burden of the occupation and oppression supported by those fundamentalists and spearheaded by settlers in the face of international law, the interest of peace and basic common sense.

Abbas has slid his chips across the table. Netanyahu must go all-in with him, or fold and face the consequences. As Israel's ally and an advocate for peace, (not to mention a leader familiar with the costs of occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan,) I'm sure you can appreciate just how difficult Netanyahu's decision will be. Netanyahu should learn from history, freeze the settlement construction and return to the table for peace talks more willing than ever to compromise for the sake of peace. Call your friend, Mr. President, and tell him it's time to fold.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 338-The Moral Lie

Dear Mr. President,

While I am generally opposed to lying, and do not tell many lies, there are certain lies I tell all the time. I don't think this makes me much different from most people, and I usually carry on with little notice of this hypocrisy. The polite constraints we expect of one another in most casual conversations compel a certain amount of dishonesty. I think that most of the lies I tell are for the sake of politeness. But, today at least, dishonesty weighs heavily on my conscience.

I have been staring at this page for hours now, wondering if I have the courage to finish this story. I have written before about stigmas surrounding mental illness, the way a frank admission of depression and its effects can change the way people look at you, the way they treat you and the esteem they hold for you. I have experienced both sides of this disdain and am loathe to subject myself to it. To be honest about my struggle, to be honest about my history would be uncomfortable for me and for those who think they want to know about it. And so I lie, for every one's comfort. Or so I tell myself.

When I was very young, and for years after I was old enough to know better I was troubled with compulsive self-injury. It may ring falsely to those who do not understand this, those who see only the stigma, the cliché, to describe myself as passively affected, the direct object of such acts rather than their perpetrator. And I am theirs to judge, I suppose. My history with it is long and complicated and over. I have shut the book on that struggle, on that part of my life and, most importantly, on that behavior. But the evidence of it remains, and will likely remain on my skin for the rest of my life. I don't think it is fair that I should be judged by the mistakes of my younger self, that I should be defined by this aspect of my past, no matter how far it is behind me. When questioned about these old scars, I tell myself that those who ask really do not want to know the story behind them, and it gives my conscience no trouble lying to them. It is, after all, for their own good.

Today I was asked by some one I have slowly come to trust and I lied anyway, almost without realizing I was doing it. I don't imagine he is the type of person to ask questions he does not actually want the answer to. Because I look for his approval the same way I would look for that of a role model or mentor or even a brother, I realized even as I was in the process of lying that I was doing it for my own protection and not for his. I was lying because it is important to me not to be seen as weak or emotionally disturbed. I was lying because of my own ego, my own fear, and I could not pretend that there was any nobility, any honor, in this fiction.

Which brings me, once again, (and rather oddly,) to Wikileaks. As I hear each new story, as each new lie is revealed, I find myself wondering not at the government's dishonesty but at its justification for this dishonesty. The gossipy diplomatic cables I understand. I don't care if a US diplomat thinks Vladimir Putin is Batman and doesn't want the world to know. (Honestly, I'd be more surprised at this point if Vladimir Putin wasn't Batman, but I can see how it might cause some discomfort.) These are polite obfuscations that help every one save face. The body counts in Iraq, the corruption in Afghanistan, the 22 dead children in Yemen, however, are not lied about because they are impolite topics of conversation. These are lies of ego, lies of fear, lies born of the greater self-delusion that they are kept from the American people for our own good. Even the idea that bringing these crimes to light will put American troops in greater danger is, I believe, misguided. The people of Iraq and Afghanistan (and Yemen. And Palestine. And God knows how many other places.) know who is killing their children and empowering their corrupt leaders. This information is only secret to the American people, and it is kept secret from us not to protect us but to protect our government from our reaction to this knowledge. And there is no nobility, no honor, in these fictions.

My past is full of dark things and terrible stories and many people will not want to hear them. But I cannot pretend I hide the past for the protection of others. I hide because I am ashamed and I hide because I am afraid. And so do you. So does this government. Our greatest lie is not when we hide the truth from others but when we tell ourselves that we lie for a greater good.

I did not write this letter to call you out for these lies. Clearly, I have no moral high ground to claim. We are both liars and we are both deceived by our own lies. I wrote this letter because I have been quick to condemn your dishonesty while slow to notice the same tendency in my own life. I understand why you lie, and why you convince yourself it is the moral thing to do. I just don't think that you really believe it any more than I do.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 335- Dating advice from some one who really sucks at it

Dear Mr. President,

I'm really terrible at dating. I'm making my peace with this, slowly. I tend to make all of the classic missteps- I come on too strong when I should be cautious, I get too frightened or shy when I should be bold and direct. I panic unnecessarily and I talk way too much. I'm secretly convinced that if I were tiny and blonde and traditionally feminine I'd have no more problems, but I'm sure that being this insecure is just as unattractive wrapped in tiny, blonde packages. The advice I get from friends can be succinctly summed up: calm down, be brave, and stop acting so desperate.

Reading through the Wikileak diplomatic cables, and reading the latest news from the non-existent Isreali/Palestinian peace talks, I can't help but notice how we could really apply this advice to foreign policy. America seems alternately too aggressive and too passive, quick to throw itself without shame at allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and completely prone to panic over Iran. (Oh, and we definitely talk too much.) American foreign policy shouldn't seem this desperate. James Zogby has an eloquent essay discussing the highly illogical (and counter-productive) strategy of bribing Israel with aid money, arms sales and UNSC vetoes in order to get them to agree to abide by international law. Despite our boasting of our military, economic and moral prowess, we seem too cowed to stand up even to the countries we call our friends.

Sure, it's easy for me to give advice that I'm too thick-skulled to follow, but, seriously, one of us should start showing some self-respect, and soon. I'm thinking that it's a much bigger deal if America keeps getting pushed around on the international stage (or making a complete fool of itself) than it is if I stay single for a few more years. So, in full acknowledgement of my own hypocrisy, I think that you (and Secretary Clinton) need to calm down, be brave, and stop acting so desperate. The United States is a superpower (for now) and we ought to remember that, and use our clout responsibly. We should expect our allies to live up to their human rights obligations to their own citizens and to their neighbors. We should not sensationalize the threat posed by rogue states like Iran and North Korea, but should calmly and rationally rally the international community against these threats. It might be easier if we were tiny and blonde and popular like Switzerland, instead of the world's police, but I think we could manage our awkward and often unlikable tasks with a lot more dignity. Maybe America will still end up as whatever the country equivalent of a 40-year old spinster with tons of cats is, but at least we will conduct ourselves abroad with something like self-respect.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 332- Wikileaks (with a vengeance)

Dear Mr. President,

For a casual student of foreign affairs such as myself, today is basically Christmas come early. Getting a glimpse behind the veil of secrecy that obscures much of the day-to-day unscripted intrigue of international relations can be exciting, even if it likely made the last few day (and the next few weeks) pretty rough for you. While much of the information leaked concerns only trivial possibly-embarrassing frankness, some of the information is already proving to provide a new picture of our current relations with several countries. And, while I take no pleasure at seeing you or your administration embarrassed, I do think that the right of the American people to have access to the knowledge of how we are being represented abroad is more important than the impoliteness of letting foreign leaders know what we really think of them.

Certainly this latest release of information is less damning than the previous revelations about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from Wikileaks. If nothing else, it might be viewed as an opportunity to learn about weaknesses in our government's electronic secret-keeping. We might also take a moment to appreciate the importance of not bribing or bullying other countries, (not to mention mistaking aid money for pay-offs and US diplomats for spies) unless we're cool with every one knowing about it, but even I'm not so naive as to believe your administration capable of learning that particular lesson.

As with every other letter I've written you about Wikileaks, I will conclude this by saying that no damage could be done to a government acting with honest good intentions. And maybe ours is too big, our foreign policy too complicated, for that to always be the case, but leaks like these are shameful because our government ought to be ashamed of how it represents the people of the United States. We share your embarrassment just as we share the responsibility for the foreign policy decisions you would prefer be made in secret. If we're to be represented by our government we have the right to know what it does. Should the day come that our government manages to represent us well, it will have nothing to fear from the truth.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 318-It's not murder, it's a metaphor

Dear Mr. President,

While reading an article about the way our brain reacts similarly to the literal and metaphorical feelings of pain and disgust, I cam across this passage about Palestine and Israel:

in a world of sheer rationality where the brain didn’t confuse reality with symbols, bringing peace to Israel and Palestine would revolve around things like water rights, placement of borders, and the extent of militarization allowed to Palestinian police. Instead, argues Axelrod, “mutual symbolic concessions” of no material benefit will ultimately make all the difference.

This got me thinking about the military aid offered to Israel in exchange for a 90-day extension of the settlement freeze. The terms of the freeze are largely symbolic; settlement construction could continue in East Jerusalem, the ostensible future capitol of a Palestinian state, and no extension of the freeze would be requested after 90 days. The objections to this plan from the Israeli right are largely symbolic, as well. It makes me wonder how much we'd be willing to pay for symbolism. 3 billion a year in aid? Unlimited cover at the UN? What about any potential future peace in the region?

The deal you've offered is trading just that. You've sent a message to the Palestinians that they have 90 days to make peace and after that they are on their own. No US support for Palestinian statehood unless it is on Israel's terms. No US diplomatic pressure to keep the settlements from expanding again in 90 days. The unconditional agreement of those new bombers, which the US will provide to Israel regardless of a peace deal being signed or not. It's an offer so good, it should have it's own infomercial. The unfairness of the whole situation, and the utter absurdity of the Israeli right balking at such an offer is mind-boggling.

Instead of settling for symbolism, why didn't you decide to leverage our special relationship for an agreement that would have practical results? It seems as though you'd settle for the illusion of progress so long as it makes every one (except, of course, the Palestinians) feel better and look good, rather than a less popular, more difficult long-term plan that will actually hold Israel responsible for curtailing settlement activity? Instead of trading away a guarantee to do everything in our (not inconsiderable) power to prevent recognition of Palestinian statehood by international organizations, why wouldn't we threaten to do everything in our power to support it, if Israel doesn't follow international law? I just don't understand.

I would never argue that this conflict is simple or that achieving peace won't be a complicated process. But when lives and homes and the basic human rights are at stake, we can't afford to sacrifice the protection of these things for the sake of symbolism. Water rights, housing demolitions, settlements and security are practical points of disagreement that must be addressed seriously and with respect to the needs of people on all sides. Instead you have practically increased Israel's capacity for violence and symbolically granted the political cover to wield it with impunity. Symbolically, and practically, this was a total failure.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 315-Veteran's Day

Dear Mr. President,

Today we honor those who have fought and died for our country. I'm grateful for more than just the excuse to sleep in and miss class. I'm grateful for those who served in the armed forces, for the sacrifices they have made and the service they have done our country. I say all of this as an unapologetic critic of the wars we currently wage, the conduct of some of our troops therein, and of the military's anti-gay policies. I do not believe that my gratitude and my criticism are mutually exclusive.

On the contrary, I believe that the best way to support our troops is to never ask that they put themselves in harms way unless it is absolutely necessary. Unless our survival or our very humanity compels it. That we never put them at risk of torture by torturing our own enemy prisoners. That we never order them to kill in the name of an unjust war. I believe that we support our troops when we insist on allowing openly gay soldiers to serve. When we fully fund rehabilitation programs, health and especially mental health programs, education and employment opportunities for veterans. This is how we walk the walk of those yellow ribbons we wear.

I hope that today you reflect on the wars you inherited and the way they have been waged. On the kill lists, the interrogation methods, the civilian deaths that put our own troops at risk and destroy so many lives (and so many minds) on both sides. On the mistakes made, the mistakes perpetuated and the lies told to cover them up. I hope that you reflect on these things and conclude, as so many of us have, that our troops deserve better.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 314-Diplomacy or Professional wrestling?

Dear Mr. President,

Weird things are happening. A few days ago I saw a headline that read "Obama leads world chorus against Israel plan for Jerusalem." I was surprised by the implications of this headline, but I sort of brushed it off as typical media sensationalism. Then I saw the Huffington Post article describing the way you "slammed" the settlement activity. I read over your remarks. Nothing about them evoked the image of a pro-wrestling move, or, for that matter, a chorus of condemnation. Calling the settlements not helpful isn't exactly strong condemnation, or at least not the kind that would warrant this sort of media language.

It is incredibly surreal to see the right wing and the Israeli Prime Minister criticizing you for being too tough on Israeli settlement activity when, from my perspective, you haven't said or done nearly enough. It's one of those stories told so consistently that it begins to make me doubt my own perception. I think it's also indicative of how unacceptable criticism of Israeli policies, (even international law-breaking, immoral, hypocritical policies,) has become in our national discourse.

I think what you said about the settlements in East Jerusalem was right on the mark. Especially while Palestinian homes are being bulldozed in the same part of the city, there should be no new settlement activity. Palestinian leaders have already demonstrated a patient commitment to this peace process, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that they do not have equal partners in the Israeli leaders. While Palestinians crack down and temper the extremists in their midst, Israelis are electing and empowering their own.

I know that you place a high importance on the state of US-Israeli relations. I just don't believe that true allies get this up in arms over such small criticism. The Israeli government is never going to make the tough calls necessary to a successful peace without strong urging from the US. I sincerely hope that your remarks indicate a toughening of our line against settlement activity, and a move away from the unconditional support that perpetuates and excuses the kind of oppression preventing peace in a region that needs it so badly.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 297- Israel and the rest of the world

Dear Mr. President,

Eric Cantor has proposed separating US aid to Israel from the rest of the foreign ops budget. Israel already receives an obscene amount of aid, especially in comparison to the rest of the world, and Cantor's proposal is clearly an attempt to safeguard that funding while Republicans seek to cut or abolish aid to other countries all together. Funding a wealthy country's brutal occupation (and insulating the taxpayers of Israel from the true costs of their government's policies) is clearly a high enough priority that Cantor and other Republicans have realized they can't go after foreign aid without safeguarding Israeli aid.

Your administration has already promised $3 billion a year to Israel in aid- a decision I have objected to often enough to accept that we're never going to see eye to eye. However, I believe that you, like me, want to see the aid we send to other countries for agriculture, infrastructure, health and education projects increased, or, at the very least, maintained. If Cantor is successful at disentangling the Israeli aid from the rest of the foreign ops budget there will be nothing to stop Republicans who would see it cut. Foreign aid represents about 1% of our budget and places us well below most developed nations in terms of the amount spent as a percentage of GDP. Jeopardizing this funding further by distancing it from the most politically acceptable segment of our foreign ops budget will not improve America's image abroad, it won't help us to reach the millenium development goals and it absolutely will not make American's safer. As much as it disgusts me to admit this, the stigma against backing off on our support for Israel does help protect the rest of the foreign ops budget. And while I have no problem admitting that I would be happy to see our aid to Israel reduced and even outright suspended, I do not wish to see the rest of the foreign aid money affected.

I think that there are a number of improvements that might be made to the amount of money we spend on projects abroad, and the way that money is spent. Given that my own views are so far outside of the mainstream, I don't expect, realistically, to ever see them in practice. And so expediency compels me to compromise. If we must continue spending $3 billion a year funding Israel's oppression of the Palestinians, we should at least also continue funding the education, infrastructure and health projects in developing countries around the world, as well. Dividing the appropriations imperils the funds that would go to nations unable to lobby congress as effectively as Israel. I hope that you do all you can to see that Cantor's proposal does not go into effect.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 285- Water

Dear Mr. President,

Tonight I'm writing a paper on the inequality of water access for Palestinians as compared to illegal Israeli West Bank settlers. Papers like this are difficult to write, because I've seen the inequality I'm writing about, I've seen the suffering that results from it, and the nature of the assignment requires that I write in dispassionate abstract terms. I want to write about the disbelief I felt when I realized that water doesn't always come out when a faucet is turned on during dry summer months. The way we walked through the July heat and the settlements loomed above us from the hilltops. The contrast between their swimming pools and irrigated orchards and the dry land. I can write about the disparity in water consumption and the unfairness of consistent availability and subsidized rates enjoyed by settlers, but it doesn't feel personal enough.

Water is incredibly easy to take for granted, growing up the Pacific Northwest. More than enough of it falls from the sky. Even more flows from the mountains and still more waits just underground. It is always green here, I am always able to take long, hot showers and I have never once had water shut off because there just wasn't enough. In Palestine, I felt like I was waiting for weeks, expecting rain that would never come. While I was away, Seattle had it's own hottest, driest summer weeks, but the green trees, the lush gardens and the car washes never suffered the want of a single drop. On the fourth of July a woman not much older than me spent all afternoon bringing up water from her well and heating it so that I and the other girls I walked with could wash once we arrived at her home that evening.

How do I explain that in an academic paper? How do you explain it? When you ask representatives of these two peoples to come together and talk about peace, do you ever consider that one side lives on 70% of the WHO's estimate for basic water needs, while the other lives on 300%? Do you ever consider that, in 27 years, Israel had granted permits for only 16 new Palestinian wells, a number that doesn't even begin to keep pace with the number rendered useless by drought in that same time, let alone the increasing demand of a growing population?

International affairs are complicated. The nuances of peace negotiations are surely more complicated than some one like me can appreciate. But water is simple. Water is basic, a necessary component of survival, health and economic stability. Access to water is something that no one should be denied because of their race, religion or nation of origin. Palestinians are already kept off of 60% of the West Bank controlled by the IDF because of settlements, settler roads, or military zones, specifically because of their status as non-Jews. That their access to water resources is similarly (and in fact, more dramatically) curtailed makes Israeli apartheid practices even more offensive.

I'm going to try to distance myself enough to write this paper without emotion. But I can't help feeling deeply ashamed of my own lifestyle, as I do so. Americans consume water at a rate unmatched in the rest of the world, and we do so as we support the denial of even basic water access to others. Some days I feel so incredibly hopeless, I just don't know where to even begin working toward making it better.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 277- Why the peace talks will not continue

"President Barack Obama rises at the UN and calls for a further moratorium on building in the settlements, as if it’s a crime for peaceful people to have children and add rooms to warm and hospitable homes." Shmuley Boteach, Jerusalem Post

I'd like to know if the peaceful people of East Jerusalem having their houses bulldozed are entitled to these things? Or the Bedouins? Settlement expansion is part of the same manifest-destiny mentality that makes people like Mr. Boteach feel entitled to the entire West Bank. And I wouldn't call this an act of peace.


Dear Mr. President,

Rumor has it you've been writing your own letters lately. I don't know if this account is true or not, but I do believe that you are desperate enough to continue the peace talks that you would make the offer you're rumored to have made to Prime Minister Netanyahu. Increasing our aid money, our weapon sales, our UN-veto frequency in exchange for a 2-month extension on the settlement freeze might seem like a good deal. Let's be honest, the US was going to veto those resolutions, sell those weapons and send that money anyway. I'm sure you still will, and so is Netanyahu, which is why he rejected your offer. I suppose in this sense you had nothing to lose by making it.

But the nature of your offer to Netanyahu highlight the utter foolishness of our policy toward Israel. Unconditional veto of UN resolutions? What does that say about our respect for the UN, the Security Council, or the process of seeking international justice? That no matter what Israel does, the US will use our veto to defend it. I suppose I was foolish to think that your administration had more respect for the UN than the previous one, but it really is disappointing to see how little you care for the institution and its purpose. Your alleged offer makes it clear that Israel may commit whatever human rights violations it sees fit and count on US support. Just like your reaction to the Mavi Marmara. Or the Goldstone Report. Or the Gaza war. Just like your complete lack of outrage over the cold-blooded murder of Palestinian children by Israeli troops. Your policies make it impossible to defend your administration against those on the left who wonder what the point of voting is, any more.

So the settlements will expand. The peace talks will break down. You can't ask President Abbas to abandon his already fragile legitimacy for peace talks that Israel has done nothing to indicate sincerity about. I am sorry, if not surprised. This is why it doesn't matter if you really made that offer to Netanyahu or not. The US cannot continue to pretend to play an honest broker while being this cozily in bed with one side of these negotiations. If you are serious about peace, if you want to earn your Nobel or secure your legacy or if you honestly want to ease the suffering on both sides of this conflict and leave the world a little safer for Sasha and Malia than you have to cease the charade of neutrality. The US can be neutral, it can be an honest broker and can lead both sides to a just and peaceful future. But it has to be more than just lip-service. We have to end the funding of Israel's occupation forces and insist that the Israeli people pay the bill themselves. We have to end our unconditional defense of Israel to the world and base our positions on the values of the United States of America- respect for human life, human rights, and for international law. We have to stop selling weapons to a regime that targets civilians and stop giving tax breaks to us groups funding illegal settlements. If we can practice real neutrality, we can achieve real peace.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 238- Talk

Dear Mr. President,

I talk too much. Ask any one who knows me. I talk out loud, I talk online, I talk in writing. I speak when I should be silent. I process things out loud in conversations with others. Even when there are no answers, even when I have no better option besides wait and see what happens, I will keep talking about things just to keep myself calm. What I mean to say is that in general I am a fan of talking. When it comes to countries talking, especially when talk is substituted for violence or oppression, I'm almost always going to think it's a good idea. I do think that direct talks between Israel and Palestine are necessary and that the steps taken by your administration recently are at least well-intentioned.

Still, I have to say that today's Op-ed from former ambassador Martin Indyk is way off of the mark. His forced optimism about upcoming negotiations is painfully evident in his biased and poorly reasoned argument. He cites as a reason for optimism the low number of Israeli deaths due to terrorism in the last two years, (eight), but neglects to mention the number of Palestinians killed at the hands of Israelis in the same time period, (1,497.) I can see why this information wouldn't fit into his roses and sunshine picture, but that he doesn't even mention the recent decrease in Palestinian deaths (which are down to about 100 since the end of Operation Cast Lead) as a factor is telling that he doesn't consider them to be as significant as the Israeli deaths. Indyk also declares "The demolition of Palestinian houses there is also down compared with recent years." without any supporting evidence or statistics to place such a statement in context. In 2010 about 232 homes have been demolished so far, though that number does not include the four Al-Araqib demolitions. (In case there is any confusion I don't mean 4 houses, I mean the entire Bedouin village has been demolished 4 times.) While that is a significant decrease from the more than 5,000 demolitions in 2009, I think the number is still large enough to make Mr. Indyk's readers uncomfortable with citing it as a hopeful indicator.

I don't want to sound this cynical, and I do hope that these talks find success, however unlikely it may seem. Talking to one another is the best option for all parties. Until the true power dynamics are discussed plainly, however, I fear these talks will be all for show. I think true indicators for optimism would be an end (not just a superficial easing) to the blockade of Gaza, withdrawal of the illegal settlements in Hebron and throughout the West Bank, and anything resembling a workable solution for the long-suffering populations of refugees still living in camps. Those would give me hope that talk might lead to peace. Instead, I think that this is all an elaborate performance designed to boost confidence in your administration's foreign policy and to allay Israeli concerns at their waning American support. I hope that I'm wrong. I hope that this time talk leads to actual change, but I've yet to see any signs to inspire real optimism.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 230-Cars and ditches, or how I beat a metaphor to death

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Dear Mr. President,

As the last of the combat troops were pulled out of Iraq today I thought about the night the war began. I was driving home from coffee with a friend when I heard the news, still a junior in high school. A friend and I had been drinking chai tea at Starbucks, an activity that felt vaguely subversive in itself as the chain had opened only recently in our small town, and my father still didn't approve of us spending so much time there. I was too young to vote, but still, I felt responsible for what was happening. For not doing more to stop it. My best friend had gone to anti-war marches in Seattle- what if I had gone, too? Would it have made a difference? I'd had this belief my entire life that my opinion mattered, by virtue of being an American. A naive faith in the power of Democracy to ensure that my country would always act with good intentions. So much of that youthful hope was dead by the time I arrived home. Suddenly, instead of being an empowering, inclusive force for goodness and wisdom and justice, our government seemed hostile, unyielding and frightening. I don't know if my government changed that night or if I did. Lately I've heard you refer to the country as a car the Republicans drove into a ditch; for me, that was the night we lost control.

What I felt today seeing Operation Iraqi Freedom end was not happiness. It's what you feel when you've gotten the car out of the ditch and surveyed the damage. Grief. Anger. Self-reproach. Relief. I'm grieving for the lives ruined by this war- the lives lost, the families broken, the maimed and traumatized and homeless and broken on all sides. I'm angry that this was done in my name, under my flag, associating me with it forever. Still, I wonder, could I have helped? Could I have stopped it or made it less awful even for one person if I had been more involved? This is not a moment of joy, this is not a victory for the left. A mistake of this magnitude cannot be corrected, it can only be prevented from getting any worse.

When you mention this car and ditch metaphor what you are asking is for Americans to understand that the reason your legislative victories and accomplishments don't feel like progress is because they aren't. We haven't made any progress because you've been trying to repair the damage. Real progress, you contend, will only begin once the repairs are complete and we can drive again. The first 3 or 4 times I heard you use this analogy I admit, I rolled my eyes and brushed it aside as more talking-point nonsense. But today that all changed. In my personal life, I've been waiting for a long time for progress. I've been doing the hard work that has to be done and feeling like I'm in the same place I left off. Today I realized this is because I've been trying to make repairs. I've just gotten the car running again. I haven't gone anywhere, but it's ok, because at least it's fixed. I'm in the same place, but I'm not the same person. And all I've got ahead of me for miles and miles is road.

This war might be over, but you've still got a difficult job ahead. I think I was losing faith in you, for a while. I didn't like that feeling and, even if it turns out to be misguided, I'm glad to feel hopeful again. I'm sorry I had to feel it on a small, personal scale to understand and appreciate what you were saying. It hasn't been easy, and it isn't going to be for a long time. I think that you've got an important message, Mr. President, but your greatest challenge is returning a sense of control (and the responsibility that goes along with it) to people disillusioned by so many years feeling like we can't make a difference. Like we don't have the wheel. Finding a way to involve and empower the people of this country (to do more than just show up on election day) is the only way forward if your Presidency is ever going to be about more than just cleaning up your predecessor's crash sites.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 210- 20 schools

Dear Mr. President,

Sometimes I'm surprised by my own naive certainty that you're always going to make the right call. Before tonight, if any one had asked me about the discrepancy between what we spend on defense and what we spend on all the things that would make defense spending less necessary, I would have suggested it was large. I had no idea how large. 1 soldier or 20 schools? Nicholas Kristof asks in his latest column. I am often skeptical of such scathing criticism of your policies, Mr. President, but it is difficult to deny the facts Kristof cites about the unforgivable cost of this war.

I think it's funny, in that way that things like this are not funny at all, that you can give a speech on education in which you decry the current state of American education as "morally inexcusable" and remind us all that "education is an economic issue -- if not “the” economic issue of our time", and then continue to pretend like the key to Afghanistan's stability is an even bigger Pentagon budget or more US troops. Call me crazy, but if education is important to the future of America, might it not also be a better strategy for a politically and economically stable Afghanistan? Maybe you should have replaced General McChrystal with Greg Mortenson? 20 schools seems like a much better deal than a single soldier, and not just because schools are less likely to kill civilians, but because our military operation can only offer stability while it is present, while the positive effects of an education system will outlast even the schools themselves.

I know, it's more than a bit silly to read a single op-ed and feel like I've got the best plan for how to fix Afghanistan. I guess what surprises me is that I always assumed this was sort of your plan. Fewer guns, more schools. That kind of thing. I don't think I misjudged your values and I don't think your values have changed. I think it's harder to stop an object (or military industrial complex) in motion, and that sending troops and weapons looks a lot better to swing-state voters than building schools. I just hope that you read Mr. Kristof's column, and that, the next time you give a speech about the paramount importance of our own education system, you also consider how that logic might apply to the countries we've invaded, ostensibly for the sake of their own stability.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 206- The Audacity

Dear Mr. President,

This morning I woke up to news of a US organization working to send their own aid ship in defiance of the Gaza blockade. This ship will be called The Audacity of Hope, and, because it has also been endorsed by Rashid Khalidi, it is being linked to you by some right-wing media sources. I can see why it might be annoying to suffer the criticisms of political convictions you don't actually have, so I would imagine that you viewed this news as one more headache. I heard it, and, for a moment, all I wanted to do was throw out my plans for the next year and join the crew.

I've spent the day talking myself out of it. As much as I want to go, to stand with those brave people willing to defy the unjust and cruel policies of the Israeli government toward Gaza, I have obligations. Completing my education this year is something I need to do, not only for myself but for all of the people in my life who believe that I can. Going out into the world to fight oppression and injustice is something that will have to wait another year. Still, I believe with all of my heart that this is the right thing to do, and so I am donating what I can to their efforts. The magnitude of Israeli crimes toward the Palestinian people and the people of Gaza, especially, demand resistance.

I do regret any political problems this mission will cause for your administration, if only because I think it is a shame you haven't adopted official policies that would warrant this criticism from the right. In your book, you talk about the courage it takes to keep having faith in our country, in change, in a better future. Your whole moral and philosophical worldview seems to demand equal rights, freedom, and the end of oppression. So I don't think you should be offended by the name of the ship. Hope has been an audacious thing for Gaza, and for those who would see it freed. That the Americans organizing this act in the spirit of your writing is not nearly as surprising or difficult to accept as your own willingness to set that spirit aside when convenience or politics demand.

I know, my provocation likely falls on deaf ears. You will not support this ship, if anything, you are likely to denounce it and seek to distance yourself from Khalidi. I know this. But I have the audacity to believe, still, that I could be wrong. That your courage and your convictions might not be strangers on this issue forever. I have faith that you could change your mind, and see that, no matter how hopeless, the fight against this kind of injustice is always worth whatever criticism it will face. The people of Gaza deserve the same justice, opportunity and hope that you promised to America. Can you fault the Americans who would invest time and money, put on hold their lives, risk physical safety and freedom to make it happen? Does it make you, even in secret, even just a little bit proud?

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

If you'd like to donate to the Audacity of Hope, please visit US to Gaza.

Day 204-HR 1553

Dear Mr. President,

What we absolutely need right now, more than anything, is a war between Israel and Iran. This is why I was so pleased to see House Republicans doing their legislative best to egg on the most hawkish elements on either side. Do the ramifications of their votes, the lives and blood and suffering that they are calling for ever occur to them? Or does it stay hidden, disguised in legislative language and washed out in clean black letters on clean white paper?

Like school boys crowding around two arguing fellows to scream "FIGHT!", these petty, small-minded individuals are playing politics with the kind of war that people of Iran (and, for that matter, much of Israel) live in constant fear of. It's disgusting and it is beneath even the House of Representatives, who, in their childishness, cannot claim that about very much, these days. While I am gratified to see that leveler heads are prevailing, at least at the DOD, I am still too afraid of the power of neoconservatives lusting after more Islamic blood. John Bolton, and every Republican signing on to this bill, ought to be made to spend one night as a civillian in a war zone before they ever call of that kind of violence with this kind of casual disregard for the consequences.

While I am optimistic in thinking that this bill will not make it to a general vote, I sincerely hope that, should it gain more traction, the White House will put its political influence to use and discourages any Democrats from supporting this awful piece of legislation. This is not what I elected my public servants to do. Mr. President, I understand that you cannot possibly dignify every republican spasm of absurdity that comes out of the House of Representatives with a response, but I hope that you will do what you can to see that this bill is not allowed to reflect the views of the government, or the people, of this country.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey


Send your letter demanding that House Republican Leader John Boehner denounce the Iran War Resolution

Click here for a list of co-sponsors to see if your representative is on the list.

Day 198- Octavia Nasr

Dear Mr. President,

I wasn't going to write to you about the unfair dismissal of Octavia Nasr from CNN. Your responsibilities may be varied and numerous but, clearly, making HR decisions at CNN is not one of them. Thomas Friedman's column today linked this decision to the Bush-era mentality that requires loyalty over skill or qualification. He asserts that, in a time when we are hindered by our lack of understanding in the the Middle East and Afghanistan, we need people like Octavia Nasr to help us better understand these societies and people. I don't think Mr. Friedman goes far enough; I would extend this indictment beyond the staffing of the Iraqi green zone, to most of our foreign policy decisions, especially toward the Middle East. We prop up or install parties and regimes based on their loyalty to us and not their abilities. The Lebanese cleric Fadlallah, whose death Nasr was fired for publicly mourning, is a perfect example of this. A man who spoke for women's rights in the home and in society; a man who wanted to see the worst beliefs of the organization he founded moderated; this man might have had opinions America disagreed with, and he might have overlooked or even encouraged violence, something that many of us and I personally could not condone. However, by reducing him to a Terrorist, by simplifying and distilling the complexities of this man to a single noun that makes it inexcusable to mourn his passing, we failed to see what we might have learned from him. But this isn't why I changed my mind about writing to you.

What signal are we sending young people? Trim your sails, be politically correct, don’t say anything that will get you flamed by one constituency or another. And if you ever want a job in government, national journalism or as president of Harvard, play it safe and don’t take any intellectual chances that might offend someone. In the age of Google, when everything you say is forever searchable, the future belongs to those who leave no footprints.

This passage changed my mind. I have often joked at my own inability to enter professional politics due to the radical opinions I have expressed as a young person. George Bush could walk away from an undistinguished life story, business failures, drug and alcohol problems, and who knows how many crazy frat stories, because he never said anything too offensive. Elena Kagan has a senate confirmation hearing that is as easy as it is boring, because she has kept her opinions moderate and acceptable, or entirely silent. It reminded me of something my department advisor recently told me, about how a class I'd taken at a previous school was "too political" to count toward my degree.

I think this is why progress seems like such a constant uphill fight. I think we need outspoken, courageous public servants, academics and journalists, even if what they say is challenging and controversial and disagreeable. I think we need to listen, to engage, and learn from those we might otherwise write off as too radical or too extreme. I'd rather disagree honestly than avoid difficult conversations entirely. And, while you probably can't get Octavia Nasr her job back, you can encourage us all to keep the courage of our convictions by demonstrating that you have the courage of yours. As for me, I may change my mind as I get older, but I'm never going to walk away from the mistakes I've made in the past. Even if it means I could never sit in the Oval Office or work for CNN. And, just for the record, I think that Nasr's sentiments were incredibly human and full of compassion. I think a journalist keeping her humanity and appreciation for the complexities of human nature is a minor mirale, but certainly not grounds for dismissal.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey