Tuesday 29th October 2024

The Case for a New Arab Peace Initiative - Foreign Affairs (No paywall)

Since the beginning of the war in Gaza, American officials have insisted that the eventual creation of a Palestinian state that would exist side by side with Israel is the only way to end the conflict in the Middle East. “The only real solution to the situation is a two-state solution,” declared President Joe Biden during his March 2024 State of the Union address. In May, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said that “a two-state solution is the only way to ensure a strong, secure, Jewish, democratic state of Israel, as well as a future of dignity, security, and prosperity for the Palestinian people.” And throughout her presidential campaign this year, including after a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in July, Vice President Kamala Harris has promoted a two-state solution, describing it as the “only path” forward.

But to many people—especially Palestinians—these calls feel divorced from reality. After suffering years of death and destruction and decades of repression, most Palestinians do not believe that a two-state solution is viable or forthcoming. In fact, polls have suggested that a majority of Palestinians now support armed resistance as the way to end the conflict. It is easy to see why, even without a year of war, they might be disillusioned. The United States has spent decades peddling a two-state solution while supplying Israel with arms, allowing it to expand settlements in the occupied territories, and permitting it to seize more Palestinian land and natural resources. Washington has backed Israel internationally almost no matter what the country does. It has, in other words, consistently ignored the rights of the Palestinian people.

Continued here

The U.S. Should Not Recognize Georgia’s Illegitimate Elections - Foreign Policy (No paywall)

In November 2004, Ukraine’s pro-Russian prime minister, Viktor Yanukovych, tried to steal the country’s presidential election, triggering the Orange Revolution protests and reactions from the West. Then-U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell memorably went to the press briefing room and declared that the United States could not accept the results as legitimate. Current U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken should do the same for Georgia now.

Georgia’s parliamentary elections on Saturday were marred by widespread attempts of “intimidation, coercion and pressure on voters,” according to international and domestic monitoring groups. Despite official results claiming that the incumbent government, led by the Georgian Dream party, retained a majority of seats, the election was not in line with international standards, according to independent observers.

Continued here

J.D. Vance Defends Racist Puerto Rico Joke From MSG Rally - Intelligencer (No paywall)

Trump’s running mate said “maybe” it wasn’t racist to call the U.S. island a “floating pile of garbage.”

Continued here

Creativity is essential. Here's how it can catalyze social justice.

Can creativity really change the world? Creativity Pioneers argue that it can. By using art, culture, and imagination, these innovators are tackling some of the most pressing social issues of our time.

From building recording studios in African prisons to using graphic novels to address homophobia, corruption, and environmental destruction, these visionaries are showing that creativity is more than just a luxury—it’s a powerful tool for global transformation.

Continued here

Einstein didn't say that: How viral misquotes evolve and replicate

As Albert Einstein famously said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Except there’s no evidence that he said or wrote those words. The earliest evidence for this quote comes from a 1981 newspaper article reporting on an Al-Anon meeting. That’s more than a quarter century after the acclaimed physicist’s death.

Einstein was, of course, an insightful thinker who made many clever and profound observations about the nature of the universe and humankind. But going by social media posts and the inspirational poster industry, you’d think he was a one-man proverb machine to rival, well, Proverbs for pithy wisdom.

Continued here

The biggest holes in NASA's suite of observatories

From here on Earth, our views of the Universe are impressive and expansive, but are also fundamentally limited. We can build observatories as large as we like — even on the highest, driest mountaintops our planet has to offer — with instruments that are as up-to-date and sophisticated as our budgets allow. However, even with those capabilities, there are only a few narrow “windows” in the electromagnetic spectrum where light can get through unimpeded by the atmosphere. While the longest wavelengths, at radio frequencies, are largely unaffected by the atmosphere, the same cannot be said for all other wavelengths.

At microwave, far-infrared, and most mid-infrared wavelengths, the atmosphere is completely opaque to light coming from the Universe beyond our planet. The same is true for gamma-rays and X-rays; one must go to space to observe them. Most of the ultraviolet and near-infrared is opaque, and — just like the optical — the parts that aren’t are severely distorted by Earth’s atmosphere. Even with the impressive advances brought by modern adaptive optics systems, sending your observatories to space offers advantages unachievable from the ground.

Continued here

Shift Your Leadership from "Power Over" to "Leading Through"

The traditional approach to leadership is best described as the pursuit and maintenance of power over people. However, this isn’t the most effective method. The “leading through” paradigm engages middle managers and employees of all levels so that leadership is a collaborative effort which leaves everyone feeling valued, seen, and in turn, more motivated. In the leading through paradigm, the soul, heart, and mind of leadership are three dimensions in one. Without the mind, the soul and heart may produce commitment and engagement but struggle to mobilize it in the right direction. And without the soul and heart, the mind may gravitate towards the “power over” paradigm. Anyone who wants to do the work of leadership — and do it well — must attend to, and learn to lead with, their own soul, heart and mind.

Continued here

Can Startups Thrive in an Age of AI?

The startup ecosystem is shifting due to the rise of artificial intelligence. AI favors larger companies, necessitating a change in mindset for startups from disruption to transformation. While startups will face challenges in accessing sufficient data and computing power, they still have opportunities to innovate by providing AI-driven services directly to consumers.

Continued here

5 Rules for Companies Navigating Geopolitical Volatility

In the last decade, we’ve seen new models of corporate leadership through more challenging geopolitical realities. These models follow five rules for businesses looking to adapt, innovate, and grow: 1) They look for a seat at the table and opportunities to shape their role; 2) They lean into geopolitical “swing states”; 3) They don’t compartmentalize crises; 4) They don’t rely on predictions; they plan around inflection points; and 5) They understand the limits to the power of commerce in geopolitics.

Continued here

Stop Making the Business Case for Diversity

Eighty percent of Fortune 500 companies explain their interest in diversity by making some form of a business case: justifying diversity in the workplace on the grounds that it benefits companies’ bottom line. And yet, in a recent study, the authors found that this approach actually makes underrepresented job candidates a lot less interested in working with an organization. This is because rhetoric that makes the business case for diversity sends a subtle yet impactful signal that organizations view employees from underrepresented groups as a means to an end, ultimately undermining DEI efforts before employers have even had the chance to interact with potential employees. Based on their findings, the authors suggest that if organizations must justify their commitment to diversity, they should do so by making a fairness case — that is, an argument based in moral grounds — but to achieve the best results, they should consider not making any case at all. After all, companies don’t feel the need to explain why they believe in values such as innovation, resilience, or integrity. So why treat diversity any differently?

Continued here