Day 268- BDS? Droid Does.

Dear Mr. President,

I got a smartphone because it seemed like a good idea at the time. After owning it for a few weeks, I realized that my already troubling addiction to the internet was getting completely out of hand. I still haven't figured out a reasonable balance, or summoned the self-restraint to limit my usage. Despite my mixed feelings about this technology, I had to smile when I saw the story of the Israeli bloggers against illegal settlements who developed an app to let consumers find out if their purchases come from West Bank settlements.

President Abbas has already warned Israel that the negotiations will fall apart without the continuation of the settlement freeze. These Israeli bloggers are acting responsibly to demonstrate their objection to these illegal settlements by changing the way they spend their money (and by helping others to do the same.) I think a theme of my political philosophy, almost surely lifted shamelessly from your own writing, is that the way we spend our money reflects our values as individuals and as a society. The BDS (boycott, divest, sanction) campaign against the Israeli occupation is an effective, non-violent strategy for expressing opposition to injustice. These same settlements are officially opposed by your administration. Economic sanctions have been used by the US to nonviolently oppose the human rights abuses of unjust regimes around the world. The US should officially adopt a policy making it illegal to import or purchase goods produced by Israeli West Bank settlements, or to provide material support to these settlements which are illegal under international law and a major roadblock to our stated foreign policy goal of a viable, sustainable peace between Palestinians and Israelis.

I was pretty reluctant to type that last sentence. Not because I don't believe it. Not because I don't think you already know it's the right thing to do. I think that if we are serious about our foreign policy goals we ought to write laws and spend our money in a way that reflects this. My reluctance comes from my general preference to leave that choice up to the consumer. I don't enjoy being told where I can and cannot spend my own money, and it isn't something I'd want to impose upon another person, no matter how convinced I am of the necessity of such an imposition. Unfortunately, the difficulty faced by the average consumer trying to determine the origins of their purchases is significant enough to prevent all but the most conscientious from doing so. Official policy is the only way to ensure that consumers are aware of what they are buying and what those purchases support. I call for such a policy without the faintest hope that the political will exists to implement it. Even encouraging consumers to makes this decision on their own would be an act of political suicide. But until your administration is prepared to do more than gently discourage settlement activity, it will continue and it will dismantle any hope of real peace for Palestinians and Israelis. For those of us who aren't willing to wait for our leaders to find the moral courage such a stand would require, well, at least now we've got an app for that.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 162- Is it a stomach bug, or is Chuck Schumer talking agin?

Dear Mr. President,

Senator Schumer has inspired me. Instead of just a tepid boycott of Arizona, let's close off the borders, (I'm sure we can get Mexico's cooperation on this from the South.) We can keep out all but the most essential medical supplies and some food. (No potato chips though, at least not until we get some heat from the international community.) We'll allow a few Arizonans out, if they need medical treatment, but they'll need to apply for permits and not be on any lists of registered voters. You see, I think their immigration law is indicative of a dangerous trend of radicalized, religiously-based extremism, and, as Sen. Schumer propses, we ought to "strangle" them, (economically, of course,) until the population can be made to see the error of their votes.

If it works in Arizona (and, I'll admit, the obesity rates might mean it will be years before the blockade has any real effects,) we can put this into use anywhere we see these dangerous trends; if Carly Fiorina wins a Senate seat, we should definitely do the same to California, though obviously the coastline will make it more difficult. What about Massachusetts? The people electing Scott Brown should definitely be punished for their poor decision making skills. If we don't really have the troops to keep these rogue states in check, or to effectively restrict travel in and out of them, maybe we could consider building a few more walls? After all, many Arizonans have family living in other states, and it's important that we make sure they don't become agents of their radical relatives.

I know many of your legislative proposals have been controversial, but I'm confident this would satisfy at least 98 members of the Senate (and John McCain really shouldn't count, anyway. He's never satisfied with sanctions, he'll be calling for a regime change.) It can even be spun as a jobs bill! Imagine all the employment opportunities for construction workers to build a wall around an entire state! I know, Arizonans might devise a tunnel system to smuggle Ensure in from Mexico, but we've got bombs for that, I'm sure. Knock down a few retirement centers, and once they realize no building materials will be forthcoming, they'll be scrambling to vote for whoever you tell them to.

Anyway, Mr. President, I'm sure that Senator Schumer will not be worried about the White House calling his words reprehensible, but you might want to reassure him, just in case.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 39- Iran

Dear Mr. President,

I'm not a fan of President Ahmadinejad. I find his policies infuriating and his rhetoric dangerous. I have strong doubts, if not outright disbelief, in the legitimacy of the election that empowered him. I'm also not a fan of nuclear weapons. I think it's probably a good idea to try to prevent, whenever possible, their creation and use. So, while I clearly agree that it is essential to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear power, I don't think you're going about it the right way.

I'll admit straightaway that my foreign policy knowledge doesn't live in the same galaxy as your own. You probably know better. But from the perspective of one who doesn't get daily intelligence briefings, let me just say that I think we could get more success with a different approach. For one thing, it's foolish to pretend that Israel isn't already or at least very close to being a nuclear power itself. Not only does this make our anti-proliferation stand sort of a joke, it overlooks a very real threat to Iran. Israel may be our ally, but they demonstrate, year after year, their willingness to fight threats, real and otherwise, by punishing civilian populations. The people of Gaza, Al-Khalil, and Beirut have experienced this first-hand. The people of Iran may wonder if they are next.

Also, the more we isolate Iran, the more popular support Ahmadinejad will have to go nuclear. For one thing, The Bomb can be seen as the only defense against an alliance of so many other nuclear powers. Wouldn't it make more sense to bring Iran to the table? To work with them directly instead of reinforcing the idea that the whole world opposes them? If Ahmadinejad and his ilk didn't have America and Israel to vilify, where would they generate the fear they need to stay in power?

Maybe it's hopelessly naive, but I honestly think that we'll make more progress by treating Iran as an ally- and expecting the Iranian government to behave accordingly, both with regards to nuclear power and human rights- than by more sanctions and isolation.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey