Disarming America's obsession with guns

Yesterday, President Obama addressed the nation on the outcome of VP Biden's task group to enforce immediate and common-sense measures to limit gun-related massacres following the elementary school shooting at Sandy Hook, which was only a month ago. 

Since Sandy Hook, 900 Americans have been killed at the point of a gun. Such a tragedy and a sad statistic perhaps may have prompted many congressmen, gun-enthusiasts and particularly the NRA to reflect on the culture of gun obsession in America. Instead, they have used the shooting as a rally cry for morel lethal weapons in schools, more assault rifles and more "constitutional" protection in a country saturated with arms ownership. 

Advocates of less gun control have many justifications. Essentially though, they argue that citizens have an entrenched right in the Second Amendment to protect themselves and their properties from criminals, the threat of government tyranny and to carry on the fine Davey Crockett tradition of pioneering the outdoors.

Let's get this straight, and drop the dogma that the Constitution was drafted by enlightened prophets. The Second Amendment, the bastion of all gun laws in the Union, was drafted at a time of the feared British colonial army, infant settlements next to suspicious natives, a time when Republicanism was a revolutionary idea to the absolute monarchist norm and of course, when all men were born with the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (except the blacks and the red Indians of course). This carried through to the pioneering days and cowboy culture of the 19th century up until modern times.

Today though, the arguments in gun politics are set in a two hundred year old advanced democracy and in a world where the only British invasion on US soil was by a bunch of Liverpudlians in the 1960's wanting to "hold your hand". There is no threat of tyrannical (or even federal) governments taking away private land. 

Okay, so then the premise is that more good citizens with guns will stop the bad guys with guns and prevent another Sunday Hook or violent crime? Having come from the most dangerous continent in the world, I can say that more guns in society does not make it safer. Mozambique has the AK-47 on its national flag, and yet is still one of the world's most under-developed countries, with millions of amputees, orphans and hijacked cars from across the border. Guns in the hands of authorities and licensed citizens involved in security reduces crime. Arming up citizens in a free-for-all only exacerbates violence. 

What I will give to the gun lobbyists is that there is something more sinister in American society, beyond armed weapons, which leads to a Columbine and Virginia Tech. It is something more deep-rooted within American culture than the Second Amendment. This is the idea that every American deserves his or her 15 minutes of fame. A society that revers entrepreneurs, boldness and recognition also has a darker undercurrent that makes people obsessed with being noticed. 

What fuels Adam Lanza or James Holmes' fantasies is their twisted belief that they are dark knights, sidelined by the American dream but hungry for their share of the spotlight. The thought of the media flashing their names gives them the sense of notoriety that they sought or the poetic commentary to their suicides.  Psychotic delusions coupled with access to an assault rifle  provide a legal cocktail.

America's founding fathers had muskets instead of semi-automatic M-16s and Paul Revere instead of Twitter and CNN's breaking news. America's obsession with guns and fame must be addressed. There is no reason why any person besides licensed security personnel should have automatic rounds or machine guns. Similarly, American media should think twice before naming deranged killers, making them infamous and thereby incentivising would-be killers to seek the lure of their 15 minutes of carnage. 

If John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington were around today, would they accept the literalist view of the Second Amendment? Even worse, would they condone the infatuation of using violence to seek fame?

 

Zionism is dead, long live Zionism

Friends of Politics 2.0 would have noticed a long hiatus of posts but the upcoming Israeli elections is a perfect time to dig my teeth into politics and controversial stances.

Israeli elections will be held on 22 January 2013. The countries' political landscape and politicians' fortunes are as temperamental as a stock market. In some elections the candidates win the popular vote but cannot get a co-coalition, some are elected and then indicted, while some are down and out one year only to become prime minister in the next one. With the incumbent Benjamin Netanyahu leading the race at the moment, it looks like the next Knesset will be with him at the lead, flanked by a myriad of parties and deal making.

Two recent minor events prompted me to write about Israeli politics. On Friday night, I sat next to a girl from Yavne - Israeli by all means, with her own opinions which ironically are the same as all other Tel Aviv metropolitans I come across. The other event was merely watching a speech on YouTube by new comer and teenage heart-throb Yair Lapid.

In my casual chat with the girl from Yavne, we got on to the topic of public buses on Shabbat. Being a Jewish State, I argued that all government-run agencies should remain closed on the Jewish Sabbath. She advocated that it should be a matter of choice for the individual. Lapid's comments, far more eloquent than my Friday night banter, revolved around Haredi Jews "winning" the cultural war within Israel and urging a crowd of Haredi technicon students to contribute to shaping Israeli society in all forms and means. 

Two conversations, pulling on one comment string. What is Israel today? 

Labour Zionism, the basis of the State of Israel and a socialist-secular-European idea, is over. The concept of a kibbutz is slowly being phased out by more free-market lifestyles. The majority of Israelis, although aspiring to become another European Mediterranean hub, are largely from Arab lands. And a secular harmonious society underestimated the tribalism that lingers from Diaspora days.

If Zionism, or at least the traditional version of Zionism is hallowing out, then again, what is Israel? 

The future of what is Zionism, is reflected through its elections. Since Menachem Begin was elected in 1977, there has been a successive right-wing shift in Israel's leadership, barring brief the intervals of Rabin, Peres and Barak. 

Similarly, the 2013 elections will see the right keep its hold, with the Labour still at sixes and sevens on how best to turn the tides left.

Netanyahu will win because the new face of Zionism today is in the heart of the settlements, the growing religious demography and a populous skeptical of dropping swords for olive branches. An apathetic middle class Tel Avivian in many ways is no match to the devoutness and commitment showed in the centre of the country.

The majority of Israel's population does not match the new emerging face of Zionism, and there lies the asymmetry between its elected leaders and the populous. However, just as the Haredi Israelis should take heed of Lapid's advice to take on more social responsibility as their status and numbers in society grow, so too should secular Israelis realise that Israel without Judaism is nothing. Getting on a private bus is a private matter on Shabbat, but when the State operates a public service on Shabbat, what does that say about the State?

These are issues that are being debated by the different parties right now. As trivial as it may seem, the election ultimately will define the very character of what Israel is, or at least should be.