Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the author most recently of The End of Sparta.

The indecisive Greek elections could be summed up in two general themes: Greeks want to stay in, and expect help from, the euro zone. But they still do not want to take the medicine necessary to stop borrowing billions of euros from northern Europeans, who want a radical reform of the Greek tax code, deregulation of the labor market, fiscal discipline, massive cuts in bureaucracy, and greater transparency — all unlikely given Greece’s history and contemporary culture.

So what lies in the future for Greece as it is slowly eased out of the euro zone and its civilization goes into reverse?

In theory, with the ability to devalue the drachma and be freed of enormous debts, the Greeks could return to business as it was practiced in the 1970s. In those sleepy days before the massive transfers of northern European money, I lived in a Greece that was a Balkan backwater without advanced surgery, autobahns, suspension bridges, sleek subways, or a modern airport. In that era of genteel poverty, divorce, abortion, drug use, and crime were rare in Greece. Now, all are commonplace. Back then, rural Greece was more Middle Eastern than European.

Yet the main problem with returning nostalgically to a world long gone is not the creeping return of Third World–like poverty, but rather the psychological shock of Greeks losing the European lifestyle that is now considered a birthright. For Greeks not to live like people in Munich or Amsterdam now would be far more cataclysmic in political terms than it would be had they never gotten hooked on Mercedeses, iPhones, and lattes in the first place... 

Niall Ferguson is a professor of history at Harvard University. He is also a senior research fellow at Jesus College, Oxford University, and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. His Latest book, Civilization: The West and the Rest, has just been published by Penguin Press.

The Arab Spring has plunged Syria into a bloody civil war. Now, with allegations flying that the Russians are supplying helicopters to the odious regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, a familiar debate is underway. Should we intervene?

There can be no morally credible argument against intervention—by someone. Leaving Syria to descend into the kind of sectarian violence that devastated neighboring Lebanon in the 1980s would condemn hundreds of thousands to premature, violent death. Syria is five times the size of Lebanon. The risks of leaving it to degenerate into a failed state are surely higher than the risks of intervention.

But why should it be the United States that once again attempts to play the part of global cop?

Since the early 1970s, the Middle East has absorbed a disproportionate share of American resources. Particularly since 9/11, it has consumed the time of presidents like no other region of the world. Yet it is far from clear that this state of affairs should continue, for three good reasons...

Neve Gordon is the author of Israel's Occupation and can be reached through his website.

Be'er-Sheva, Israel - South Africa's recent demand that products originating in Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank and Golan Heights remove the label "Made in Israel" is extremely significant - much more so than the European Union's decision to deny these products preferential status and subject them to customs duty.

Indeed, in 2001, the European Commission decided to implement the rules of origin clause in its Association Agreement with Israel, noting that "places brought under Israeli administration since 1967... are not entitled to benefit from the preferential treatment under the Agreements". The EU decision aimed to correct an alleged case of massive fraud involving the regulations on rules of origin, which appear in the trade agreement. Consequently, only goods produced inside the internationally recognised borders of Israel would be eligible for a reduced tariff rate, while those produced outside would pay customs' duty as required by law....

The South African decision not only undermines the fraudulent practice of labelling products made outside Israel as if they were made in Israel, but more importantly, it empowers consumers by allowing them to shop in a way that accords with their moral convictions. If the United Kingdom and Denmark follow suit, then other countries will also likely join the bandwagon, making it possible for international civil society to help - in concrete ways - put an end to Israel's occupation.

Timothy Garton Ash is a historian, political writer and Guardian columnist.

I hope that one day ex-president Bashar al-Assad will stand before the international criminal court charged with crimes against humanity. None of the violence used by other forces in what has become Syria's civil war can diminish his primary responsibility.

Remember that this started as a wave of non-violent demonstrations, in the best manner of the original Arab spring. Assad had the option of responding with significant reforms, which he toyed with; of opening negotiations; or of allowing a peaceful transition, with an honourable, comfortable exit for himself and his family. Instead, he chose to retain power by brutal repression, as his father did before him, including the indiscriminate shelling of civilians. While his elegant, British-educated wife, Asma, trod marbled floors in her Christian Louboutin heels, his soldiers and shabiha militia thugs battered innocent women and children into the dust.

Syria's popular opposition maintained non-violent discipline for a time, in the face of extreme repression; then lost it. With defections from the army, and weapons coming in from outside, this became first an armed rising, then a civil war – with an embattled regime, fractured opposition, Alawites, Sunnis and their external supporters, all facing off in a complex, sometimes murky conflict. As well as the massacres of civilians, we now learn, sickeningly, that the army and militia have used children as human shields. Some rebels, too, have reportedly recruited underage soldiers. But as Assad himself said in a TV interview before this all started, the responsibility for what happens in Syria comes back to him... 

Andrew Meyer is associate professor of history at Brooklyn College.

Dear President Obama,

I write out of concern for the ongoing conflict in Syria. Your actions in Libya demonstrated that the United States can, in consort with our allies, effectively project armed force in support of our values and interests. The strategic situation in Syria is clearly very different, and your prudence up to this point has been well warranted by the circumstances. However, the crisis has become so dire that we are compelled to take action, despite the real risks.

The regime of Bashar al-Assad, with its recent indiscriminate massacre of civilians, has fallen back on the use of unrestrained terror as the last remaining bulwark of its sovereign power. Such a government has put itself beyond the reach of any genuinely political process, it is not an entity that can be engaged diplomatically. The only way to revive a political process in Syria and to restore effectiveness to diplomatic means is to aid the development of a robust military alternative to the Assad machine. It is thus imperative that the international community rally to support the Free Syrian Army with funding, training, and weapons, so that they may protect the Syrian populace and force the Assad regime to refrain from committing wholesale slaughter.

Arguments against such a policy are of course valid. We do not know the precise composition of the Free Syrian Army, and some of its members are no doubt hostile to the U.S. and Israel. Support of the Free Syrian Army would anger Russia and antagonize Iran. Such caveats are undermined by the dramatic nature of the current crisis, however. Little can be done to destabilize the situation further than it has already become, and there is nothing that can be done to ameliorate the crisis that will be accepted by either Russia or Iran.

This being an election year, any action you take will no doubt come under unfair criticism from your political opponents. I would urge you, however, to show the same strength of leadership in the case of Syria as you showed in Libya. If the Assad regime is able to reestablish itself through naked terror, the cause of the Arab Spring will be set back dramatically, a consequence that will rebound to the severe detriment of the U.S. and her allies. Audacious action is required to secure the progress that the people of Syria and the Arab world at large have fought so bravely to achieve.

I hope this message finds you well. Thank you for your attention on this matter.

Sincerely,

Andrew Meyer

Jim Sleeper, a writer and teacher on American civic culture and politics and a lecturer in political science at Yale, is the author of The Closest of Strangers: Liberalism and the Politics of Race in New York (W.W. Norton, 1990) and Liberal Racism (Viking, 1997, Rowman & Littlefield, 2002). More of his articles and commentary are available at jimsleeper.com ^↑.

When the Yale College Faculty passed a resolution in April ^↑ condemning the "lack of respect for civil and political rights in the state of Singapore, host of the proposed Yale-National University of Singapore College" and urged "Yale-NUS "to uphold civil liberty and political freedom on campus and in the broader society," Yale's president Richard Levin declared that the resolution -- passed in his presence and over his objection -- "carried a sense of moral superiority that I found unbecoming."

Daniel Martin Varisco is professor of anthropology at Hofstra University.

The news today is that Yemeni government troops and local tribal militia have finally dislodged the ultra-conservative Ansar al-Sharia from their base in the southern towns of Ja’ar and Zinjabar. These cities had been under de facto control of the rebels for over a year, with the military weakened during the long drawn-out political turmoil that eventually led to the removal of Ali Abdullah Salih. According to al-Jazeera, “Since the offensive began, 485 people have been killed, according to an AFP tally combined from different sources. This includes 368 al-Qaeda fighters, 72 soldiers, 26 local armed men and 19 civilians.” Without question this is a major blow to a group that used foreign fighters and was increasingly at odds with local tribes. During their tenure both towns had become virtual ghost towns where a distinctively non-Yemeni form of Islamic law was mandated by force. Details thus far are rather skimpy. but it appears that the remaining individuals of Ansar al-Sharia fled east to al-Shaqra.

The question remains, of course, of whether this is a major blow to Ansar al-Sharia and its affiliated partner al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula or a skirmish. Given the massive external support now being given to the central government, I strongly suspect that this is the beginning of the end for Ansar al-Sharia as a fighting force. It has survived thus far on weapons looted from the army with almost no direct outside support apart from an influx of foreign fighters from Afghanistan and Somalia. The agenda of Ansar al-Sharia, like that of AQAP, has failed to find fertile ground among the bulk of the population with outright antagonism from most tribal leaders. It has flourished primarily due to the weakness of the government over the past year.

Yet, as a historian, I am reluctant to sign an obituary for this or any other violent anti-government movement in Yemen. For the past week I have been reading the 14th century Yemeni historian al-Khazraji’s account on the rise and fall of the Rasulid dynasty in Yemen. The Rasulids were Turkish retainers that came along near the end of the 12th century with the Ayyubid soldiers of Turanshah, the brother of the famous Saladin. When the last Ayyubid ruler left Yemen in the middle of the 13th century, the Rasulid dynasty took off and became quite wealthy and unmolested by outside forces for the end of that century. Indeed, Marco Polo called the sultan he had heard about in Yemen, namely al-Muzaffar, one of the richest rulers in the world. With a kingdom based largely in the Red Sea coastal region and southern highland town of Ta’izz, the Rasulids were able to extract major customs revenues from the busy port of Aden, a major stopping point along the Red Sea/Indian Ocean trading network. Like modern Yemen, they even created a coast guard to protect ships involved in the trade from the pirates of that day.

I mention the Rasulids because by the middle of the 14th century there was major rebellion within Yemen against their rule. The sultans ruled with an iron fist combined with incredible largesse in trying to win friends. Local emirs and tribal leaders were wooed with colorful robes and cash or else had their heads chopped off if they rebelled. Yemen at that time was impossible to control, so the various mercenaries of the sultan would be sent out on forays with the right to pillage to their heart’s content. The main concern of the Rasulid leaders was to extract revenues from the population and this was often burdensome. In all of this the sultans maintained an outward show of Muslimness, sending gifts to Mecca and building mosques and religious schools. But they were ruthless and fought much among themselves. One sultan, al-Mujahid, had almost all of his adult sons rebel against him at one point or another.

If anything, Ansar al-Sharia was created in the mode of the Rasulids rather than the local people. They talked religion but ruled with contempt for the lives of anyone who dared go against them. Yet the Rasulids were shrewd in a way that Ansar al-Sharia has not been in practice. If a rebel was cornered and sued for peace, he was often granted it, to live and fight another day. The sultans knew that they did not have the manpower to physically enforce their commands across the country, especially in the mountainous tribal north, where the Zaydi imams were usually able to gain the support of the powerful tribes. The Rasulids also thrived on trade and so worked to make the roads and sea lanes safe for merchants. But they hanged rebels and lopped off heads as though such a public display would discourage further rebellion. For the most part it did not, just as reinstituting harsh “medieval” penalties has not made friends for Ansar al-Sharia.

Pundits who think that Ansar al-Sharia and AQAP represent a wave of terrorism sweeping Yemen fail to understand Yemen’s history and diversity. It is not surprising that Ansar al-Sharia evolved in the south, which has had major grievances against the government of Salih. Unification turned out to be a disaster for southerners and the port of Aden, with its great potential, languishes. But channeling anger against the government in the north is not the same as calling for a new caliphate. Any historian who knows how all the previous caliphates and wannabe political ummahs actually worked would certainly not want to bring back such a travesty. Past Muslim rulers, as the many writings of learned Muslim scholars attest, were often ruthless brutes far worse than contemporary dictators. A Taliban-style wave is not about to emerge in Yemen, despite the economic and political problems facing the country. In large part this is because so much of the country is still rural and local communities operate on the basis of customary law, which still has powerful sanctioning capability. There are regional differences, to be sure, but no major ethnic divides as one finds in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Nor has the Sunni-Shi’a split been a major rallying point in Yemen’s recent history, apart from the imported anti-Shi’a salafi support engineered by Saudi Arabia.

Is Ansar al-Sharia on the ropes? I certainly hope so and the advancement of government troops on the remaining fighters will soon tell us how soon this nightmare will end.

Over the last six months, reports of the faltering U.S. jobs market have inundated the media. Last Friday's bleak numbers showed unemployment ticking up a tenth of a point, from 8.1 percent to 8.2 percent. But largely absent from the discussion are the American cities where the jobs crisis is nothing new -- areas that have been experiencing an ongoing unemployment nightmare since well before the financial crash.

We can call them America’s "dead zones" —metropolitan and micropolitan areas where the unemployment rate has been at least 2 percentage points higher than the national average for five, 10 or 20 years.

Conventional wisdom assumes that economically distressed areas exist only in inner-city slums or rural backwaters. But dead zones, although plagued by persistent high unemployment, rarely fit those stereotypes. Rather, they come in all shapes and sizes; these cities are not necessarily crime-ridden or poverty-stricken. In fact, many dead zones have median incomes at or even above the national average. Instead, they share sustained, and in many cases are begrudgingly resigned to, high unemployment rates regardless of the national business cycle.

In general, between 25-35 percent of their residents’ incomes are provided by government aid, compared to 17 percent nationwide. Between 25-40 percent live on $30,000 a year or less. The workforce in most dead zones has a low education level, with more than 50 percent possessing just a high-school degree or less. Most jobs in dead zones are in low-end service industries, especially retail. Such jobs offer few prospects for upward mobility or skill enhancement.

A few dead zones are on the right track, while others are clearly headed down the wrong track. Shining a spotlight on five specific cases gives us clues to the scope of the predicament, and also potential solutions. We'll compare Henderson, North Carolina; Seneca, South Carolina; and Kokomo, Indiana with dead zones that seem doomed to further stagnation – Hanford, California and Natchez, Mississippi....

Julian Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. He is the author of "Jimmy Carter" (Times Books) and of the new book "Governing America" (Princeton University Press).

Princeton, New Jersey (CNN) -- President Barack Obama's re-election campaign got off to a rocky start with his attacks on Mitt Romney's record at Bain Capital, the private investment fund....

But the first few weeks of attacks have backfired. Newark Mayor Cory Booker, a rising star of the Democratic Party, said that he didn't agree with the strategy, calling the ads "nauseating" and defending venture capital. Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick made similar statements about private industry, fueling the impression Obama's surrogates were not on the same page as him....

In short, the attacks don't seem to be working, at least thus far. Why? The first reason is that these kinds of ads are tricky for Obama to pull off since they open him up to attack as much as they allow him to inflict wounds on Romney....