It's Easy Being Green

My wife and I like to travel. Usually it's during the summer, and we recently returned from a tour of Ireland.[i] It's green as advertised. (But so are my lawn and meadows that I've seen along the road in many of the places we've traveled.) I suppose there were shamrocks there but I didn't look. There also were plenty of clouds and almost daily rain – though I must admit that the rains tended to last for only a few minutes each day. There was also quite a bit of sunshine between the episodes of rain. And it was cool. It was mid-August, but the daytime temperatures were usually in the sixties.[ii]

I don't say this as a matter of criticism. We enjoyed our time on the Emerald Isle, but the green on which it prides itself was nothing unusual, requiring only decent weather and fertile fields. It was nice, but it seemed to be more a marketing tool than something out of the ordinary. There were other attractions that contributed to our enjoyment – both those which gave us the feeling of being in Ireland, and those with specific historical dimensions. But familiar as it seemed, the trip itself, not Ireland, was the feature that seemed most worthy of note. And the people who accompanied us.

“Familiar as it seemed.” When we were young, my wife and I would plan our own vacations – all the details and arrangements – and go by ourselves to some unknown and, perhaps, exotic locale in which we would try to be inconspicuous as we soaked up the region's culture and enjoy its fare. We weren't very successful, however. Neither of us is all that good with languages, so our travel was mainly to places where English was the primary tongue. Even then we were recognizable tourists, not blending in very well. And because we limited ourselves to kosher food, and restaurants available to us at the time were few, we wound up having the same meals irrespective of our destination, and much of it was made by us from ingredients we either brought along or obtained from a nearby supermarket. There was a lot of work with relatively little return in terms of what we were looking for.

So we changed our approach. Beginning a couple of decades ago we started going on packaged tours. They were more expensive[iii] than what we could do on our own, but we decided that they made more sense for us. There was less planning of itineraries and bookings; there was less concern about where we'd get food; and there was no concern about being inconspicuous. We were tourists and we never hid it very well anyway.

But the tours introduced us to something we hadn't anticipated – other people. Not that we didn't expect people to be on the tours, but we didn't anticipate that they'd be so difficult to please. And their criticisms seem to extend to all parties. Some of them are even justified, but they seem to be the same irrespective of the tour. I'll list a few of them to illustrate the flavor:

1. “The food isn't good enough.” It doesn't matter how good the food is, it's never good enough.

2. “The tour guide doesn't know enough about what he (or she) is showing us.” The suspicion is that he's staying one page ahead in the guide book.

3. “There's too much time spent traveling and not enough seeing things.” What there is to see may be visible while traveling, and it was listed in the tour's brochure, but the passengers aren't interested in that.

4. “Other members of the tour are taking all the good seats on the bus and I can't see everything.”[iv] A good seat should be saved for them no matter when they come.

5. “We're not seeing what we paid for.” By and large the tourists know little about what they paid for and wouldn't recognize it anyway, and they ignore the reality that weather conditions may have dictated a change in plans, or that what they were seeing is better. If it isn't exactly what it said in the brochure they're being cheated.

6. “The tour isn't well organized.” This is a general complaint and may relate to anything – usually reflecting more about the complainer than the tour.

7. “There isn't enough consideration of the needs of the passengers.” At this point whoever is complaining tells the world of his own wishes and assumes that everyone agrees.

8. “There's too much (or not enough) time spent shopping.”

9. “They're going too fast (or too slowly).”

10. “There's too much wasted time.”[v]

It's usually the case that only a few passengers are dissatisfied, but they repeat their complaints over and over. They'll often speak about previous tours they took and how good they were, though it's hard not to assume that they did the same the last time they traveled. But most annoying is the fact that the complainers will bewail the lack of support they are getting. They'll consider their tour mates too timid to complain. It will never cross their minds that they might be wrong and that others might disagree. They seem to be trying to foment rebellion. And by doing so they make things unpleasant for the rest of us.

That's my biggest complaint – not the tour but a few of the people on it, the professional malcontents. They need to kiss the Blarney Stone and start to say nice things – even if they don't believe them.

Next episode: “In His Image” – Imagine that.

[i]          We also went to Israel but that's irrelevant to what I want to say.

[ii]          Fahrenheit. They measure in Celsius though, and 16 to 18 degrees was the usual high.

[iii]          More green, as it were.

[iv]         On some tours the seats will be rotated so everyone gets to view the sights from the front, back, and the middle.

[v]        Full disclosure: This is a complaint that I, myself, often have (and I'll list another soon) and it often results from the lack of consideration of other tour members who do not appear at the but or at other sites at the specified times.  They sometimes apologize for being late, but repeat their behavior later.

Proportionality – Part 3

Well, I've decided to accept the concept of proportionality. My problems are that I don't know to whom and to what I should apply it. One thing I've learned is that it only has meaning when Jews are involved. It's never used in other circumstances. But after that the criteria become a little vague. So I thought I'd offer some of my questions in the hope that a reader would be able to help me with them. Once I understand what is required, I'm sure a solution to the current situation will be easy.

1. Is the issue solely one of people? And if that is the case, what people are counted? Live or dead? I know Jews have to be involved, but I'm not sure if we should count Arabs or Muslims. And I don't know if our calculations should be based on all Jews, Jews in the Middle East, Jews in the land they claim for themselves, or land within the green line. Similarly, I don't know whether to include Muslims (since the Jews are defined by religion I thought I'd work with religions, but I could be wrongⁱ) in what they claim are “occupied” territories, Muslims in lands which they claim are theirs even if others rule them now, Muslims around the world, or should I use some other criterion.
   
   
2. Should there be proportionality of territory? Does the idea apply to land as well? And if the issue is Jews versus Muslims (or Arabs – see end note number 1), should lands be distributed proportionally? What about tunnels between lands? Should Israel be permitted to dig a proportional number of tunnels under Muslim lands?ⁱⁱ
   
   
3. Does proportionality apply to resources? If, for example, the Arabs control most of the region's oil, are they obliged to give a fair proportion to Israel? The same principle should, of course, apply to all resources, including territory as noted above.
4. Since it is clear that people are the primary “resource” that is being counted when there is talk of proportionality, and among Muslims some of the wealthier individuals have more than one wife, I'm not sure if wives should be given to Israeli government officials in numbers that will even things out. On the other hand, since Jewish intellectual capacity exceeds that of Muslims,ⁱⁱⁱ it makes sense to send some Israeli academics^iv to Muslim countries – not as spies but as resources.
   
   
5. Perhaps proportionality should include beliefs and practices. In Israel the Muslims make up about twenty percent of the population, and the Jews seventy-five percent. It would be a facetious suggestion that the same proportions should exist in Muslim lands, but it might be reasonable to expect that such countries should have twenty percent Jews, with the right to practice their religion openly, and with a right to serve in the government and on the courts as Muslims have in Israel.
   
   

These, though, are unrealistic question and suggestions. Indeed, they're silly. All that's ever discussed is the number of civilians killed.^v Those who speak of proportionality are either disingenuous or stupid. They use “proportionality” to cover their biases. Especially when they only apply the idea to a situation in which they don't like the outcome. European countries (and others) hitch their wagons to “oppressed” (who, in their eyes, can do no wrong) and “feel their pain.”^vi And the numbers prove their point.

But proportionality is a flawed concept. It gives the attacker the opportunity to choose weapons and decide the level of hostilities. If followed, it gives him the chance to decide what level of punishment he's prepared to accept. And no more. The attempt to “teach him a lesson” and prevent future aggression would be a violation of proportionality and a demonstration of oppression by the party he attacked in the first place. “Proportionality” turns losing into winning – at least on “moral” grounds – in the eyes of a world that is looking for a way to disguise its prejudice as virtue: as a defense of the weak – even if that world doesn't care anywhere else.

The solution is one that Israel won't, and shouldn't accept. Hamas may choose to force its people to become “martyrs,”^vii but Israel must not turn its citizens into the terrorists and victims that the “Palestinian government”seeks for its people – its political pawns. Israel must not sacrifice its people as its enemies do. Hamas may see the hostilities as a numbers game with the prize for the most deaths being the world's sympathy. If humanity accepts this idea, however, there is no hope for a just solution. The only proportionality that we should seek relating to those who die in war is 0:0.

And that all begins with an end to rockets from Gaza and the aggression of Muslims against Jews.

Next episode: “It's Easy Being Green” – Some thoughts about travel.

I        If the use of religion is anathema, and the reader defines those who oppose Israel as Arabs, He should just substitute words as necessary. I do not mean to offend anyone, and I'm happy to accept any definition. But the questions that I have still remain.

ii       What, by the way, is a Muslim land? Does the term apply to anywhere Muslims have lived in the past? If so, Israel should be permitted to dig tunnels under Russia, France, the United States, and a plethora of other countries. The number, however, might be limited to lands that have been under Muslim rule before. Tunnels under Spain would be interesting.

iii      Muslims may refuse to accept such an idea. Fine. They will not need any Israeli expertise in their rebuilding efforts.

iv       This, of course, would require an end to the boycott of Israeli academics in Muslim countries, including England which is resembling such a land more each day.

v        Actually, what's discussed is the number of what Hamas tells the world are dead civilians killed by Israel. Various news reports tell us that the “dead” are sometimes still alive, they're not necessarily civilians, and that some of them have been killed by Muslims. Or placed in jeopardy by Muslims.

vi       Or is it that they feel their own guilt, seeing themselves as oppressors – both historically and currently. Current and historic antisemitism play a significant part in their public stand, but they cannot admit to them.

vii      Whether or not they wish to assume such a role.

Proportionality – Part 2

So here's the question. When was the last time you heard the term “proportionality,” or, for that matter, “disproportionality,” in any context other than the hostilities between Israel and the Palestinians? There are wars in the Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan; battles and kidnappings are the news from various African countries; China and other countries in the Far East exercise control over their populations that would be viewed as unacceptable anywhere else in the world.

But only Israel, responding to suicide bombings and rocket attacks on its citizens – usually civilians – is described as acting disproportionately.

During the second world war, there were no American civilian casualtiesⁱ but 350,000 Japanese civilians were killed. Over ten million Soviet civilians dies but only 700,000 Germans.ⁱⁱ In February 1945, when the war was all but over, the British and Americans firebombed the city of Dresden killing between 35,000 and 135,000ⁱⁱⁱ residents and refugees. And, of course, there was the Holocaust.

But proportionality was never an issue, although the term had been introduced in the previous century.^iv It remained for the Palestinians to reinvent it for propaganda purposes, and for the world to eagerly accept it as it seems to do for any excuse to tar Israel. It is not in vogue^v at present to blame Jews for the world's problems, but Israel is fair game. Winning a defensive war has never been seen as an evil, but that is the current view – at least in this case.

One of the “justifications” through the ages for hating the Jews (not that any was considered necessary) was that they were cruel. Antisemites were quick to point out that talion law could be found in the Torah (which, incidentally, was part of the basis for both Christianity and Islam), but it was never acknowledged that the law was understood by the Rabbis to require monetary reparations to the victim for injuries rather than physical injury of the perpetrator. And talion law was developed by the Babylonians,^vi not the Israelites.^vii

In any event, if we accept the concept of “proportionality,” it is important that we acknowledge both what should not be seen as a violation, and what we should view through this lens. As I noted last week, according to Luis Morena-Ocampo (Chief Prosecuter at the International Criminal Court),

“Under international humanitarian law ... the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law ... permit[s] belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality).”

Civilian deaths, therefore, resulting from a valid military attack, do not necessarily violate the “principle of proportionality” nor are they war crimes. But attacks against civilians, and the intentional placing of civilians in harm's way, are war crimes. And there is no requirement that the more powerful side “pull its punches” when dealing with an enemy bent on destroying it. International Law places no sanctions on ability, preparation, and resources.^viii Feelings of guilt and sympathy may carry weight from a public relations standpoint, but they are not legal principles.

Yet the high casualty rate among the Palestinians while Israel is successfully defending itself against the attack from Gaza is being used as the (current) justification for actions against Israel, and boycotts and divestment are popular so the UN, Protestant church groups, academics, “human rights workers,” and other antisemites are jumping on the bandwagon. Although they protest that advocacy for the Palestinians suffering under the oppression of Israeli colonialism does not constitute antisemitism,^ix all the groups seem to see Israel as the cause of the world's most significant problems. When questioned about why, with so many abominations from which to choose, they focus on Israel, the usual response is that they have to start somewhere. But “somewhere” is always Israel and there never seems to be any progress from there to other areas of hostility, even though most of the others are far more lethal. And there is never the acknowledgement of who is atacking and who is defending.

In this instance it is anti-Semitism.

There is a disproportion, but the response by Israel has not been disproportionate. There is a war, and attacks are being met by defense. It is disingenuous to fault a country under attack simply because it is winning, and those who do can only be seen as seeking an excuse to do so. The world is either unaware of Morena-Ocampo's views or consciously ignoring them. The reason may be ascribed to political necessity or economics but it is hard not to see antisemitic bias and an antisemitic basis to the actions. The question is not one of disproportionality.

Next episode: “Proportionality – Part 3” – Bottom line.

I       All WWII statistics (except Dresden) from http://warchronicle.com/numbers/WWII/deaths.htm.

ii       Admittedly 1000:1 (or whatever) is just as much a proportion as 1:1, but the latter is more in line with the desires of those who promote the concept. Actually, those who do so would like to see only Israeli deaths and would not raise the issue of proportions were the numbers reversed.

iii      http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/bombing_of_dresden.htm

iv       See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(law)

v        Indeed, it is illegal in some places.

vi       See http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/581485/talion

vii      Another point of interest: Although the death penalty was permitted in ancient Israel, it was difficult to justify, very rarely used, and viewed with disdain. In modern Israel capital punishment is prohibited – Adolf Eichmann was the sole exception. Would that the death penalty and cruelty were forbidden in the surrounding Islamic countries and by Sharia law.

viii     There are laws and guidelines that deal with justification for battle and responsibility for war in general, but they have no bearing on proportionality once war is declared.

ix       Those involved rarely have an adequate defense for their action and are quick to claim that whenever Jews suffer any penalty for their actions they accuse others of antisemitism. While their accusation is not true, in all too many instances – and this is one of them – the charge of antisemitism is accurate. It is hard to attribute any other explanation to the uniformity of the attacks on Israel and the blindness to violence around the world.

The Happy Restaurant

Chapter One

There was once a small town on a lake. The sun always shone and the people were happy. 

In the town there were several eating houses, but one, a restaurant named “Home,” was more popular than all the rest. And that was for good reason. Its central location was ideal. It was well-lit and very roomy. The restaurant was welcoming, and there were many chairs and tables – all very comfortable. The staff were happy and worked well together. They didn't always agree about everything, but they knew that they were better off than those who worked in the other restaurants.

 

Almost as soon as it opened, and as soon as it agreed to pay dues, Home was accepted into the restaurant guild. It was viewed as “a welcome addition to the restaurant scene.” It brought “a perspective on food that has been absent for too long.” And that perspective was popular, and one sought by many in that town and, even moreso, in surrounding towns. So even though there were many who were opposed – especially the other restaurants in the area – Home became the meeting place for diners from all over.

But the real reason that people flocked to that restaurant was that the food was good. Everyone loved Home cooking. It was delicious. In fact it was so good that the management of the eating house, which already shared many of its recipes with other restaurants, started to package its products and sell them in retail stores, both in the town and elsewhere.

Of course some people went to the other restaurants – and some even liked what was served there – but most of those who could, ate the majority of their meals at Home. They often wrote critical reviews of the restaurant – that's what critics do, and some of those who ate there were restaurant critics – but they kept coming back anyway. They might, from time to time, go to one of the other restaurants to taste the food, but even if they had to write about one of those other places they usually did so while sitting at a table in the happy restaurant, in which they preferred to be. Sometimes they even wrote about the other places without bothering to visit them. They had overheard the conversations of their friends – friends who occasionally visited the others because they liked the food there – and that was all the information they needed. After all, if their friends said they were good, what could be wrong? In fact, some of them believed that the other places were probably better than Home, where they themselves ate, but the light was better here.

Of all the dishes served at Home, one of the most popular was the Chef's Soup – a recipe that dated back as long as anyone in his family could remember. It contained a creamy blend of green garden vegetables spiced just right with just a hint of rice to thicken it. The vegetables gave it a beautiful pastel green color, the pureed rice added body, and the spices provided a delicate flavor. It was the specialty there, and almost everybody loved it.

Almost everybody.

Warned in advance that the place wasn't what they'd like, some of the customers didn't take to the cooking there as much as that of some of the other restaurants (or at least couldn't admit that they did), but they went to this one anyway. And the managers of the competing restaurants resented the happy restaurant's success and they coveted its location. But the only way that they could achieve their wish was to drive the happy restaurant out of business and take over the site. How could they do that?

Together they arrived at a plan. And by their plan they hoped to make the customers unhappy and cause them to write terrible things about the restaurant in which they had enjoyed so many tasty meals and in which they were so welcome. The plan was simple. They would make sure there was too much salt in the soup. It would be so salty that even the employees wouldn't eat it.

It wouldn't be that hard to do. Some of the restaurant's staff – especially the waiters – had friends in the other restaurants and they were happy to help them out. All they had to do was to slip in some extra salt when the chef wasn't looking. So that's what they did.

But the chef never let anything leave the kitchen unless he had tasted it first, and he knew immediately that there was something wrong. The soup was salty. But that could be fixed quickly, and without anyone knowing. All he had to do was to add some tomatoes and potatoes and a little brown sugar and water. It wouldn't taste quite the same but most of the customers wouldn't notice. Since the waiters were involved, however, and some were on the salt team, they managed to slip the additional flavoring into a few of the bowls after they had left the kitchen.

While there were some who did, most of the customers didn't notice. A few thought there might be a slight change, but they weren't sure. They kept the change in mind, but they kept quiet and kept coming back to the restaurant.

Chapter Two

The plan hadn't worked. That didn't mean that it wasn't a good idea, but it was clear that some changes would be necessary.

It was obvious what should be done. And it wouldn't require any great variation in what they had already decided. All that was needed was to increase the amount of salt. Surely that would make the soup so bad that no one would eat it and soon the restaurant would go out of business. When that happened the location would become available for one of them to move into it.

More salt.

Okay. If that was what was necessary, that's what they would do. Dissatisfied staff members were happy to help. It took a little more distraction of the chef to allow them to slip the salt into the soup, but they found ways to do it. Even so the chef managed to discover it before any of the customers was served. With all the salt, Home's cooking wasn't the same as before. Solution? More tomatoes, more potatoes, more brown sugar, more water. Not much more, but enough so that the beautiful pastel green color was starting to get murky and the flavor was beginning to change. And some of the customers were beginning to notice. Now it was not just a slight variation, but a greater one – one that deserved a response. For the critics the response was to fault the chef for altering the soup. They had heard rumors about the salt, but they laid the blame for the change on the chef and the restaurant. They said nothing about the assault on the restaurant's reputation because they were predisposed to find fault with Home, and this gave them the chance to do so. If there was too much salt in the soup it was up to the chef to remedy that in a more acceptable manner.

The chef, of course, knew about the salt, but he could not stop the sabotage. All he could do was to try to repair the damage as it occurred. The repairs, however, became an additional source of criticism from the patrons. The customers still came, but they were more vocal in their appraisals of the chef and the restaurant. They didn't like tomatoes and potatoes anyway, and this gave them the opportunity to criticize the restaurant without offending (at least not openly) those who did like them. They, and everyone who read their reviews, took great satisfaction in the opportunity to castigate the restaurant's management for ruining the food. And they chose to find fault with all the food since they had found a reason to criticize the soup. They may have been aware of the salting, but they chose to lambaste the chef rather than ascribe any responsibility to those who put in the salt. The chef, they claimed, should have found a way to repair the soup without making so many changes in it.

The sales of all of the restaurant's other products were affected as well. There was a great effort to prevent people from buying the packaged products – opponents of the chef urged people not to buy the ones sold in the retail stores – as well as to limit attendance at the restaurant itself. The people kept coming however. In fact even more came so they could personally confirm the trouble. And the word spread about bad job done that the chef had done. However unfortunate the salting may have been, the steps taken to repair it were deemed unwarranted. That's what everybody said.

The constant criticisms had their effect. Those who made them benefited from them, because the terrible reviews that they wrote sold a lot of newspapers. But there were many others affected by what had been written. There was a rising tide of disapproval offered by those who were already predisposed to find fault with anyone who could tolerate tomatoes and potatoes – while no one seemed at all interested in the salting that had necessitated the changes made in the recipe. That salting was something that should have been anticipated and tolerated, and even that was brought about by pride displayed by the happy restaurant as well as its arrogance in taking the best location in the town. It was the chef's fault.

Chapter Three

By now, almost all of the customers were convinced that there was something wrong. Everyone else said so, especially the staffs of the other restaurants. And they should know. They were in the same business and in the same town. It was time for action.

The first complaints were brought to the restaurant guild. The guild was only too happy to accede to the suggestions of so many dues-paying members, especially since it wondered, in retrospect, whether it hadn't been too hasty in accepting Home's application in the first place. Perhaps it seemed like a good idea at the time, but it was obvious now that it had been a mistake. They had been duped. Allowing a restaurant like this one to join them had been an unfortunate, and foolish, reaction to its closure in its original location where it had lost its lease, with justifications that were unclear. Considering everything though, it was probably closed for good reason then, and similar action should be considered now. The restaurant's management ignored the rules set for them by the guild, claiming that they should not be held to requirements that were not applicable to all the other members. They protested that the guild never looked at the performance of any of the other restaurants, only at theirs.

And in an attempt to cause further damage, guild members were cautioned against any actions in concert with Home. There would be no joint advertising, no neighborhood improvement, no cooperative programs. They maintained that in any event a restaurant of that sort was out of place in that vicinity. They agreed with the guild that it shouldn't have been opened there in the first place. They had been trying to discourage such a foolish act for years before it actually took place, and now it was clear that they had been right all along.

The other establishments educated their employees about all of the faults of the happy restaurant – not that they needed to be educated since they already knew that its management was only there to take advantage of everyone else and Home, itself, should never have existed. Members of their staffs were discouraged from purchasing any of products that the restaurant marketed. Even the cooking school that it sponsored was considered off-limits. As were all the people who had, in the past, supported it.

Home appealed to the restaurant guild. The guild had a committee that considered any problems related to the business – a committee that had never accepted Home to its membership (although the town's other eating places served on it) – but without discussing any of the complaints that Home made, it debated and substantiated the charges made by all of the other restaurants in the town. That was the committee's pattern, and one that it had been following for years. In fact, the guild had several committees whose sole purpose was to review the policies and actions of Home. After all, they were responsible for the bad food in the area.

The restaurant had some advocates, though. Most of them were located in other towns – some very far away. A few local organizations were also supportive, however they were very quiet about it. They recognized that opposition to one restaurant, even one where tomatoes and potatoes were tolerated, might later be turned into actions against themselves, and they realized that it was in their own interests to make sure that those who were threatening Home didn't later turn against them. Their position was not based on idealism, only on self-preservation. Advertising it would be too risky for them to even consider.

But even those who may have been sympathetic with Home's position began to have second thoughts. Not because they doubted what was happening in and to the restaurant, but because, from a realistic point of view, it made sense not to come down too hard on the majority of eating places which might, in the future, be the only ones available. It would be better to lose one good eating spot than gain a long list of places where they wouldn't be welcome. A complete turnabout might not be advisable, but it would be sensible to go to that restaurant less frequently and to start patronizing the others. The food might not be as good, but that was not the issue.

And the message was not wasted on other patrons of Home. They stopped coming. People were willing to sell materials to the restaurant, but not to buy from it. And members of the management were scorned by other restauranteurs and banned from other towns. It didn't take long for all hope of continued success to be lost.

Chapter Four

With all the opposition to the restaurant, it eventually went out of business. Those on the staff who had participated in the salting took over the site and established their own restaurant. They dismissed all of the other members of the staff, especially the chef. In addition, they destroyed all the equipment that had been used in the restaurant before that and which had been left there. And they appealed for support to the managers of the other restaurants, and to those beyond the town, who similarly questioned the worthiness of the happy restaurant and its products. They needed new equipment, and it was the responsibility of those others to satisfy their needs. They were doing a service for all of them.

Under the new management the food was too salty for most of the patrons, especially the critics, so they stopped coming and business declined rapidly. The fare in the other establishments was also too high in sodium to attract many customers, even though the printed reviews were favorable. (The same writers who had downgraded Home were generous to them in order to justify their previous reports.) But there was general satisfaction at the elimination of the happy restaurant.

Meanwhile, the food was too salty as well in restaurants in the surrounding towns. But no one noticed or cared. There was no longer a need for the critics to continue an assault on the senses. They had moved on. There were other things on their agendas. And, once there was no longer a Home, its managers were under less pressure. People still disapproved of tomatoes and potatoes, but they moderated the tone of their objections. And a new cause for the bad restaurants had to be found. (It was probably the management of Home, even though no direct connection could be found.)

Moral: Go with the flow even if you have to kill yourself to do so.

Proportionality

When my sons were still young, a while back, I used a method of discipline for violence which, I suspect, would now be at best frowned upon and, at worst, would subject me to punishment by protectors of “abused” children. The method was simple. If one of my sons struck the other, the penalty was that the injured party, under my supervision,ⁱ was permitted to strike the aggressor in the same way – as hard as he could.

My wife and I were blessed with childrenⁱⁱ who accepted the system and agreed that it was fair, and who ultimately accepted their sib's blows with resignation. They knew the rules and they knew the consequences of violating them. There were no excuses. They may have tried to justify their actions but, in the end, admitted their faults and acquiesced in the resulting turnabout. They knew that an appeal to a different judge – their mother – would be fruitless, and they knew that they could not manipulate the system. Perhaps we were just lucky or perhaps the system contributed to their behavior, but the level of violence and acting out was low.ⁱⁱⁱ

The subject comes up because of the extensive criticism that Israel has been receiving regarding its actions in the ongoing hostilities in the Middle East. (Today is August 8th, but this won't be published for a while.)  Proportionality is a complex and loaded subject – one that I've avoided until now – but the debate on the events there seems to be centered on it, rather than the situation which has triggered the fighting, so I can no longer ignore it.

Proportionality. Perhaps the most conspicuous, but least understood, concept related to the story. So the most useful start in what will probably turn out to be a two or three part^iv discussion of the subject has to be historical, political, and linguistic. According to Wikipedia,^v

“The proportionality test was first developed in the High State Administrative Courts (Oberlandesgericht) in Germany in the late 19th century, to review actions by the police. The proportionality test originated systematically with the jurisprudence of the German Constitutional Court, the Bundesverfassungsgericht.”^vi

And in terms of current international law,

“The harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated by an attack on a military objective.”^vii

These words are well-crafted, like most diplomatic verbiage, but may yield varying (and contrary) interpretations. But what is “right?” What does it mean?

According to Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecuter at the International Criminal Court,

 

“Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv)).

“Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes: Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated; Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are "clearly" excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:
(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
(b) the anticipated military advantage;
(c) and whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b).”^viii

It remains a little opaque, but it seems to prohibit “Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.” Hence it permits such actions if reasonable in relation to the anticipated military advantage. It does not seem to permit, however, causing the deaths of civilians for political purposes.

As I noted, the interpretation of these criteria may be confusing^ix but, as I'll indicate next week, there seems to be a disconnect between what the world says, and what is actually happening.

Next episode: “Proportionality – Part 2” – More of the same.

i        To make sure the injured party himself played fair, lest punishment result.

ii       And still am.

iii      I don't mean to suggest that my children (two sons and a daughter) saw eye-to-eye on every issue, but they learned how to manage their disagreements in a reasonably civilized manner. As I said, we were blessed.

iv       Or maybe more. I hope you don't get too bored.

v        See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(law)

vi      According to that nugget, “proportionality” was a concept invented and developed by the nation that gave the world the Holocaust. While invoking the Holocaust to shed light on other situations trivializes it, it is worth mention that those who speak of proportionality frequently raise the issue, and condemn Israel for “Nazi-like” behavior.

vii       See note iv.

viii     Moreno-Ocampo, Luis (9 February 2006), OTP letter to senders re Iraq, International Criminal Court.

ix       As I mentioned, it isn't even clear what “proportionality” means – or, better, “proportional and not excessive.”

Text And Pretext

 

Like so many Americans, I have been disenchanted with the media. More accurately, I don't believe what I see and read. John Peter Zenger risked his freedom and his life for the right to publish what he considered to be the truth. The first amendment to our Constitution guaranteed that right. It was a right that could lead to an informed public – a public that was objectively apprised of events and could practice democracy in the knowledge that they could make informed choices.

We live in a free society. We can elect representatives and we can influence their policies to some degree by the expression of our beliefs and our wishes. Indeed, our country is great because it reflects, at least in part, the attitudes of a free people.

Attitudes, however, are based on information. Some of that information comprises the views and biases of those who rear us. These color our opinions by predisposing us to accept certain ideas while rejecting others. It's a sad fact that xenophobia, racism, antisemitism, sexism are often ingrained: they are truth, “common knowledge.” The new information we seek, the ideas which we accept or reject, however, are given us by others. And to a major degree, they are the members of the media.

Unfortunately, however, we have reason not to trust the media. A Gallup Poll taken in December of last year indicated that only twenty percent of the population viewed television reporters [and, presumably, other journalists] as demonstrating a high degree of ethics. That's down from thirty-six percent in 1981 – not very impressive figure itself. But, as the press knows, notwithstanding its low credibility it's the only game in town, and people react to what it says. So even if they don't trust the source, the ideas are absorbed, becoming part of their stock of accepted facts. If they are not exposed to other ideas, they can neither react to them nor incorporate them – only to what they are told.

So if there is little mention of the abduction of Christian girls in Africa, or the killings occurring in Iraq, they cannot be of much consequence. If little space is given to the nuclear threat from Iran or the invasion of Crimea, it is not our concern. But if an inordinate amount of space is devoted to a single subject – and here I refer to the situation in Israel and Gaza – that becomes the topic which is most worthy of our attention, whether we believe everything we are being told or not.

And there is good reason for cynicism. The story from Gaza presented by most of the media – a very serious affliction of the New York Times and many other sources – is unbalanced. It includes official Palestinian government reports with the claims unchecked, stories by Hamas sympathizers hewing to the party line, reports of those who fear injury or loss of credentials for accurate reporting, and censorship of uncomplimentary reports. And only certain events may be covered, with only authorized scenes photographed. The “creation” of reality that supports the Hamas narrative is encouraged. In short, propaganda is freely mixed with news. And news that does not support the propaganda is squelched or denied.

I understand both the underlying biases and the pressure to protect sources. Truth is not merely discouraged, it is dangerous. The lives of journalists are at stake. That is the reason that the information coming from Gaza and from similar venues is limited and censored. Those who wish to stay report the story the way Hamas wants it, and the others live in fear, only describing the true situation when they are out. Even then they are often reluctant to tell the whole story out of concern for friends and colleagues still there. And all too often, those reporting from Israel find it easier and safer to report Hamas's claims rather than to risk going to the scene. It also fits their own liberal stereotypes and biases, and the wishes of their editors and advertisers. “Advocacy journalism” has become the norm.

It is also difficult to ignore the complicity of Europe and the UN. The changing demographics in Europe, with increasing numbers of Muslims, means that anti-Israeli (actually antisemitic) sentiment is rife, and there is a good market for those newspapers that tell and sell Hamas's story. No version inconsistent with the Muslim narrative is ever told, so all that the people know and believe is what Hamas tells them. Will the Europe with which we are familiar exist in twenty-five years, or will it have become “Eurabia?”

As for the UN, it is largely comprised of Muslim states and sympathetic countries around the world that either have increasing Muslim populations or are dependent on the Arab states for oil and investments. In addition, experience has shown that UN troops and organs do better in Muslim countries, and fewer are abducted or killed, when they overlook the faults of their hosts and blame Israel for all the problems that exist. That they ignore storage of rockets in UN schools and hospitals in Gaza, with the knowledge of UN representatives, while blaming Israel for destroying them, is an example, as is the use of antisemitic texts in UN schools.

The problem is gigantic, but the solution is straightforward. Tell the truth. The whole truth. A serious description of the problem – reporting what reporters who have left Gaza have seen – would be a good start. The recognition and citation of media distortions would be helpful, although it would not be surprising if no branch of the media wanted to criticize another. Facts should be checked before publication, and when this cannot be done readers should be informed that they are simply claims. It has to be clear that journalists take their responsibilities seriously if they want to earn back the trust of the public.

For if people cannot believe one set of stories reported by the media, they may question the remainder of what they are told. And that is what is happening.