Staying Together

According to Ahad Ha'am, “More than the Jews have kept Shabbat, Shabbat has kept the Jews.” Ha'am wasn't religious. He was a “cultural Zionist,” but that didn't stop him from realizing that the self-identification provided by the weekly appearance of the day of rest has united us. It didn't matter if the day was observed religiously or was simply recognized as different – something Jewish; the idea told us something about ourselves. The concept, in one form or another, has been accepted by most of the world now, but that doesn't detract from our recognition of its origin and our attachment to it.

But there are other factors that unite us – at least in terms of self-identification. Holidays do that, especially the ones that feature eating of special foods. Jelly donuts and potato pancakes on Hanukkah, hamentaschen on Purim, and, of course, all the dishes that contribute to the feasts we enjoy on Pesach (Passover). Even those who aren't observant reserve Pesach for family assemblies. Somehow it resonates. As do the life-cycle events, like Bar and Bat Mitzvot which often signal the end of formal association with Judaism. But they are an affirmation of who we are – though that affirmation is all-too-often by the parents rather than the child. It is sad to note that the absence of a formal Jewish education, the absence of any culture of belief in the house, and the attractions of the non-Jewish world frequently overpower knowledge and remembrance of our heritage.

We're also united by a common enemy. That enemy is a world that would prefer our absence. Antisemitism used to be an open, acceptable, reaction to Jewishness. In order to avoid the enemy, many wanted to assimilate but found that they weren't wanted in universities, societies, and in the world in general. Today campaigns against Israel and the Jews are everywhere to be found, in the United Nations, national governments, and among individuals. And the level of affiliation with Judaism is often irrelevant. Hitler didn't care if his victims were observant or not. They were Jews and subject to annihilation. Unfortunately, the malady doesn't end there. Nowadays people try to hide their antisemitism, claiming that they only object to the policies of Israel. But their ignoring of other countries violating whatever standards they claim to support makes it clear that to them “Israel” means “Jews.” It's interesting that the religion of Abraham is so abhorrent to the Abrahamic religions that descended from it. Together Christianity and Islam represent about 55% of the world's population while Judaism is about 0.2% (that's about 275 times, for the math-challenged). Yet they blame Judaism for the problems we all face. The Abrahamic religions reject Abraham's people.

But just as there are ideas and acts that bring us together, there are some that drive us apart. It's fruitless and misleading to blame all our problems on others. The worst enemy of the Jews is not the rest of the world. It is us. It is the Jews. There may be no Haman, Torquemada, Khmelnytsky, Hitler, or Stalin among us, but, sadly, there are many Jews who would sacrifice their people for their own benefit, or for the sake of imagined wrongs. And there are many who accept what they “learn” from the media: societal fads and ideologically-driven views.

We like to think that if everyone would leave us alone, everything would be all right. But it won't. In the words of Walt Kelly, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

We differ, among other things, in terms of religious observance and, very markedly, political philosophies. And our differences drive us apart. Unfortunately, we don't hesitate to condemn the views of our brothers and sisters (and, ourselves) to blame Israel – usually finding fault without trying to understand those views; often without even listening to them. 

Some years back the United Jewish Appeal started promoting the slogan “We are one.” Perhaps it worked for philanthropy, but we still don't always understand each other. To the rest of the world we may be one people, but the reality is that we aren't unified. We're certainly not unified in support of Israel, Jewish education, or the views of other strains of Judaism. Only 10% of American Jews consider themselves orthodox [as of 2016] and many more – perhaps three times that number – don't affiliate at all. The different movements, moreover, often have strained relations with each other and condemn the nature of the observance or non-observance of anyone not in their camp.

And our political stances are frequently violently opposed. For many there is the conviction that the most important characteristic of Judaism is liberalism, and they identify with liberal groups irrespective of what they endorse, often without investigating the meaning of a particular issue and their support of it. On the other end of the spectrum are those who invariably support Israel and increased Jewish education and base their support of conservative causes on those issues. Indeed, Israeli policies are sometimes the reason we separate ourselves from others of our religion. For too many the politics is more important than the heritage. And vehemence is appropriate rather then listening to each other while crafting a more unified approach. We're right and they're wrong. We don't compromise, and we don't take prisoners. 

Our only hope is that we will begin to listen to each other. Perhaps we can come together based on the features of our religion that keep us together and not let our disagreements, whether political or religious, drive us apart. It will take a lot of good will from our fellows, but after two millennia it's clear we're not going to get it from outsiders.

March 19, 2017

Various Thoughts XVI

Today – October 31, 2017 – is the 500^th anniversary of the beginning of the Reformation. It recalls the nailing of Martin Luther's 95 theses to his church's door. What is the significance to Catholics? To Protestants? Does its appearance on Halloween indicate anything positive or negative? What was the significance of Halloween during the sixteenth century? Was Luther trying to make a point by posting his complaints on this date or was it strictly a random choice?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

That was written a few days ago, but while going through old notes I found some thoughts I had written a few years ago, on November 10^th, the anniversary of Kristallnacht – much more recent, than 1517 – a time when history records numerous deaths and other evidences of vehemence rather than simply an expression of theological views. What I wrote then noted the fact that I found no mention of that more recent violent event in the New York Times. Martin Luther was an antisemite, there's no doubt about that, but he left it to others to do the dirty work.

The Times was first published in 1851 and has been owned since 1896 by a German-Jewish family. The culture of the German-Jewish community was to be American – to flount Judaism – to minimize its significance – rather than flaunt it. And though founded as a conservative organ, it is now a proudly liberal publication (it last supported a Republican for president during the Eisenhower era) and, like all good “modern liberals,” it is Pro “Palestinian” (anti-Israeli) and mildly antisemitic. That, however, isn't new. During the Holocaust the Times didn't show much interest in that historic issue. It did its own dirty work then, before, and since.

Antisemitism has existed for millennia. It wasn't started by the New York Times. But the “Gray Lady,” America's “newspaper of record,” has an obligation to be objective. It isn't.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Houston Astros won the World Series last night. It was the first time since their establishment in 1962. (That was the first year for the Mets as well.) In fact it was the first time that any Texas team has done that.

Over the years there has been a discrepancy in the fortunes of the various athletic teams – in baseball the real hero has been the New York Yankees, although other New York teams (including the Brooklyn Dodgers, the New York Giants, the New York Mets) get a lot of attention because of this city's media predominance.

But the big driver of our sports teams – college as well as professional – is money.

Sports makes money.

That's not a surprise. You knew it. And you paid the money. Ticket sales, with prices going up annually, and the profits they produce, provide the impetus for the problem. The bigger the city, the more people who fund those profits, and the more money available for the unseemly salaries earned by sports figures.

Can there be an equalization of salaries? Should there be? Or at least an equalization of talent. Should sports “scholarships” be forbidden? Right now the attitude is that we have a free society. So suck it up and pay for the ticket.

Perhaps that's the proper position. But the economics of sports might benefit from a thorough review.

November 2,2017

Various Revelations IV

A few days ago, as a response to Syria's gas attack on its own citizens, the United States struck the airfield from which the planes dropping the gas had come. The attack was roundly condemned by those nations that routinely condemn us for any action and applauded by some of our allies. Interestingly it was not condemned by other countries that usually find fault with us. And that includes many states in the Middle East.

This morning (April 9, 2017), I heard on the radio a criticism of the action by one of our “experts” who claimed we had acted without a strategy. It has become clear that the Syrian regime, among others, takes inaction as irresolution and it provides a background for the furthering of its goals. A few years ago, after a gas attack, President Obama declared the use of gas a “red line” that couldn't be crossed without response. Of course it was crossed and the “response” was a pact with Russia to demand the removal of all chemical agents from Syria. Russia opposed any action against Syria, which was its ally. So Syria was free to act, and it did. Our threat about crossing the red line was not followed up by any real action even though Assad had challenged the president by his continued use of chemical agents.

I don't know the response of the expert mentioned above to the failure of the US to take more definitive action earlier, but it is clear that the “strategy” that accompanied our pact with Russia failed. Perhaps a show of force will have more long-lasting effects than a verbal display of anger. That appears to be the assessment of Middle East nations which have remained silent. They're better aware of the situation than we, and they haven't protested our actions, although they usually join together in opposition to anything we do in the area if it doesn't contain criticism of Israel. Are they beginning to recognize the risks of terrorism? Are our strength and determination welcome signs? Can they identify a strategy we're missing? We'll see.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Two Coptic churches in Egypt were blown up today, Palm Sunday, by ISIS members. (How typical to attack on someone else's holy day, but that's the way you make “holy war.”) Imagine. There are still Christians in the Middle East despite the attempts of some Islamists at ethnic cleansing. It's clear they're not welcome since there has been war against Christians in the area for years. Numbers are dwindling for which the world usually blames Israel. The smallest of the Abrahamic religion is blamed for the attack on the largest, while the one like to take over the lead in a few years is pitied and defended. Meanwhile the Christians seek a place in the region where they can pray openly – and only Israel provides that.

What's most striking is the lack of world response. It's not an issue of consequence to most nations. Christianity may, for the time being have a lead over Islam in number of adherents, but most Christian leaders seem to have little interest in the problem. It seems to be better for liberal church leaders to overlook the actions of Islamic terrorists and blame all problems on Israel and the Jews. Islamophobia is sinful, but antisemitism is not. Antisemitism has a long history and takes precedence over the deaths of Christians, and condemning Israel and the “zionists” overrides any other consideration.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It strides me that Big Brother had the right approach – at least in one way – although he didn't apply it the way I'd prefer. “Newspeak” (and “doublespeak”) makes a lot of sense conceptually. According to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, we can only think about things for which we have words. For example, nadi in Balinese refers to the idea of “temporarily inhabit[ing] another dimension” (Rheingold, They Have A Word For It) which is not an idea that has much meaning among westerners. We wouldn't think in such terms.

Big Brother redefined words, giving them meanings that suited his political agenda. “Minipax,” which is the “Ministry of Peace” is actually the ministry of war and responsible for perpetuating conflict as justification for the actions of the government and for its longevity; “Miniluv” (the Ministry of Love”) is in charge of brainwashing. After a while people accepted concepts which might be contrary to common sense, but, repeated often enough while excluding all other uses of particular words from public use, became the only meanings that could be associated with those words. Those were the definitions and that became the only thoughts imparted by them.

It works the same way for the rest of us, especially with the rapid changes that occur in slang (and abbreviations and solicisms in the social media). As an example, what used to be “good” or “great” became “bad.” Repeated often enough, and with adequate manipulation the definition could be made to change. And with time, pejorative uses of the word would disappear from our consciousness.

If Sapir and Whorf were correct, and we changed the meaning of “war” to relate to positive interactions of nations – if the idea of fighting were made to disappear – perhaps the reality would disappear with it. Similarly, by establishing a “national language board” or its equivalent, charged with the responsibility of changing the language to meet social and political “needs” we might, at the cost of language, civilize civilization. We have a violent vocabulary much in need of softening. Some changes might be beneficial.

Various Revelations III

I had a little too much wine tonight. I guess that means I'm drunk, although there's no way that I'll ever find out what my blood-alcohol level was. Interestingly my recognition of a problem centers on the physical aspects of my problem rather than an attack on the intellectual. I guess that's why so many accidents are caused by people who thought they were capable of driving. There may be all sorts of recommendations about drinking and driving, but they're of no interest to those who consider themselves sober. Rational judgment is gone.

Me? I'd be a hazard on the road right now. But fortunately I have no place to go so there's no problem. I had three glasses of wine instead of my usual one or two, so I'm unfit for further activity. At least in public. In addition, irrespective of my current perceived lucidity, I doubt that I have the reflexes and physical control necessary to operate a motor vehicle. (Indeed, my ability to write this essay is provided by the spell-checker in my word processor; and more attention than I usually pay to things I write. I think I can think clearly, but my unsteadiness tells me that I'd be a peril were I to try to take a position behind the wheel. Unless I were in a self-driving car of some kind. (Notwithstanding the fear people have of them, I suspect they're safer than the human-driven ones now on the road.) People tend to overestimate their own capabilities, and to deny that they are in any way compromised. If they can still think, they can still drive.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Our army is in Iraq. A few days ago one of our bombing missions killed 14 members of ISIS. I think that's the number. Unfortunately one to two hundred civilians were also killed. We killed ten times more people we were “protecting” than the number who threatened them. We claim that the civilians were “human shields” for the combatants, but they didn't help. No threat to our country was cited. There is no protest that I've seen in the media or among our citizens.

When Israel was under direct rocket attack from Gaza in 2014 and fought back (Operation Protective Edge) with bombing of the sites of origin of the rockets and the sites of storage of armaments – often in schools or hospitals as shields – some civilians were killed. They,too, were human shields. The world protested. “Disproportionality.” Only a few Israelis were killed by the Hamas attacks. So it wasn't justified.

I have the sense of a double standard. The world doesn't care unless it can express its righteous indignation at Israel. Massacres in Africa, killings in the Middle East outside of Israel, wars elsewhere, are all understandable and not subject to the attention and wrath that the world's nations, and the United Nations, display when some perceived wrong involves Israel. In 1975 Eric Hoffer wrote

Civilized countries fell over each other to court Hitler even as he turned Germany's Jews into pariahs. The same countries are falling over each other to court the Arabs, who are determined to destroy Israel. The world feels no shame when it betrays Jews. It is as if fate has placed Jews outside the comity of mankind.

Nothing has changed in the eighty years since the Holocaust, or to the pandering of mankind to Arab interests that Hoffer decries.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Is it time to think small? Many years ago I used Super Scripsit on my TRS-80. The learning curve was long, but it did everything I needed. It was a small program and lacked some of the bells and whistles on the word processor I'm using now, but most of those are of no interest to me. Then Radio Shack discontinued it and I've been through several word processors since. They're much bigger, fancier, and more expensive but I can't recall anything that was lacking in Super Scripsit, or what the new programs provide that I need. And the files I created on the TRS-80 are now closed to me. I haven't noticed the loss but there are likely to be some documents that I'd benefit by having back.

And the same is true not only of many other programs but of technological progress in general. I'm not a Luddite wed to the idea of stopping scientific advancement, but it seems to me that some of the less complex programs should be allowed to live, and machines should be made to understand and work with some of the older and smaller ones. I realize that such an action would lower profits, and that's un-American, but it would improve people's views of companies that make the new products, and might pay off in the long run.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

There's nothing earth-shattering here, but the issues have been annoying me and I decided to annoy you. More next time – whenever that is.

March 30, 2017  (begun on March 28, but I was in no condition to continue.)

Nostra Culpa

Yesterday some Muslim terrorists killed at least twelve people in an attack on a French satire publication. The search is underway now for the killers, and there is fear that additional attacks may occur. Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, while condemning the attack, urged readers to “avoid religious profiling.” Specifically, he cautioned against blaming Muslims, “the most courageous, peace-loving people in the Middle East.” Since they are by far the most numerous people in the Middle East, it is likely that there is peace there.

But wait. There are also Jews there, and everyone knows that they are neither courageous nor peace-loving. That's not religious profiling. That's fact. (If there is not peace in the region it must be their fault.)

So when an article appeared this morning in the International Business Times (India edition) that suggested that Mossad was responsible for the attack, it put matters more in perspective. The story was subsequently removed but it is likely that the action was taken because of pressure brought on the paper by the Elders of Zion.

It is sad that antisemitism, an irrational stance that had for so long been the domain primarily of the Church, has taken over the world's politics as well – largely promoted by supporters of Islam. The world has no interest in reality when it is in conflict with prejudice and politics. And as long as there is a convenient scapegoat. That's all Israel has going for it.

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 Case Against The Jews

On Tuesday, March 27th, members of the Park Slope food coop, an organization formed to provide low cost products, will decide on a political issue -- whether or not to vote on a boycott of Israel. The claim will be made that Israel, which has citizens of all faiths, is racist. On March 30th people from countries that deny religious freedom, citizenship, or land ownership to those who don't practice the state religion (and many who do) will march on the only democratic country in the area -- the Global March on Jerusalem. It will be hailed widely as a demonstration of "virtue" and "justice." Its hypocrisy will be ignored as so many tyrannies deny freedom to their inhabitants, and as people are starved and murdered around the world. Perhaps there is a hidden message.

That's the body of a letter I sent to the New York Times this morning. They won't print it, but I feel better. In fact it will be a surprise if they have stories about either of the two events I mentioned. In the event there are articles about them, I suspect they'll be at the bottom of an inside page. It's even less likely that the Times will take editorial notice, but if they do, they'll probably express sympathy for both. They'll clothe whatever they say in “evenhanded” terms, but it will be clear that they approve of both the boycott and the march.

With all the disasters going on in the world – both those that are natural and those produced by tyrants, terrorists, and other murderers – the nations have always seemed to favor the scapegoating of Jews irrespective of any other factors. Thus they claim that there would be peace in the world if Israel didn't exist or if if the Jews allowed the “Palestinians” to turn it into another Muslim state. No one takes such claims seriously, but modern anti-Semitism is usually euphemized as “anti-Zionist” or “anti-Israel” opinion. The aim is no different, but the words are more acceptable to some, especially those who view language as a tool to be used in the war against the Jews. And the immediate goal is the destruction of a Jewish state by whatever methods work. That is the crux of their campaign around the world and, especially, in the United Nations. And their public relations effort – one far more effective than their military one – is well received by a public eager to fault those they envy.

Anti-Semitism has been with us for millennia, with the most vicious manifestations expressed by members of religions derived from Judaism. Their goal was to eliminate and replace the Jews, and the failure to do so has resulted in their continued hatred. But the need to have someone to blame for their own failures means that they cannot eliminate the Jews entirely. That would be counterproductive. They would have no one left to take responsibility. It's better to maim than to kill, and to try to destroy the spirit of the remaining Jews.

Because a show of concern for the weak and downtrodden is popular, especially among those considering themselves liberals, and hatred for those accused of causing the suffering of the less fortunate is more persuasive than thought, the United States and Israel have been targeted by those who fashion themselves as caring. It's far easier to have a single simple answer to many questions than to consider them individually. And there are many problems that the nations don't want to face, so they prefer to focus their attention on a single “villain” while ignoring those problems. And because anti-Semitism is so pervasive, Israel is disproportionately blamed for perceived faults – far more than any other nation. In fact the United Nations rarely condemns anyone else for anything.

Perhaps after another couple of millenia this kind of scapegoating will subside. Perhaps not. Maybe the world will face up to its real problems, but I doubt it. As Tom Lehrer put it in National Brotherhood Week, “Everybody hates the Jews.”

The New Egypt

 

There's a new wind blowing through the Middle East. It is the wind of change, and it's called the Arab Spring. There are uprisings in several countries, and old leaders are being overthrown. The changes result from the frustration of the populations – populations long dominated by dictators whose main interest was in maintaining their own power. And the populations suffered under such rule, with poverty and repression, conditions which finally resulted in rebellion.

What the people in the affected countries proclaimed was a wish for democracy. It was a form of government what the United States had long wished to spread. We proselytized the rule of the people, but, simultaneously, we often supported the dictatorships. In a world where conflicts between nations can affect political power, it's best to have as many allies as possible. And quantity is more important than quality. Numbers count. A dictatorship that favors you is better than a democracy that opposes you.

And the American model of democracy is one that many find confusing – especially in places that have never had a tradition of democracy. The idea that a minority may have rights seemingly contradicts the whole idea of elective government. What's the point of popular rule if there are those who don't have to follow the popular rules. In addition, while we may proscribe the involvement of religious doctrine in our government and laws, for many it is second nature to accept theological teachings as the basis for all aspects of life. They will favor the imposition of those teachings on others as part of the basic law. And they will do so democratically, even if their understanding of those doctrines, and their votes, simply mimic the ideas of the local cleric. Whether they mimic what is a proper understanding of their religious law or a biased impression is unimportant. They want what they are told to want, and they expect everyone else to want the same thing. Or at least to follow the laws as they are imposed.

Egypt is a good example of this kind of democracy. Christians may represent 10 to 20% of the Egyptian population,ⁱ but they must follow the same rules. And they will never win an election. So they will have to tolerate the edicts of Islam and Muslim clerics – if they want to live in peace. Even so, they will still suffer discrimination. The Egyptian “democracy” will be no more than a theocracy. And the killing of Christians will be tolerated.

One evidence of this is the threat – one which is likely to turn into a reality – is that oil from Sinai will be more difficult and expensive for Israel to obtain. When Israel, after it was attacked by the Egyptians in 1973, and as part of a peace treaty, returnedⁱⁱ the largest piece of captured Arab territoryⁱⁱⁱ, it included the Alma oil field which Israel had discovered and developed, and by doing so in the name of peace, gave up an asset that would have allowed itself to be self sufficient in terms of energy by 1990.^iv According to the New York Times,^v “An arrangement was also made to insure Israel a right to buy oil from the fields without interruption” but, of course, that insurance, and the return to Egypt of land, and of an oil field which had never existed, guaranteed nothing. According to Reuters, “Egypt's Prime Minister Essam Sharaf said a peace deal with Israel was not 'sacred' and could be changed for the benefit of peace or the region.” Egypt's definition of “the region,” presumably means a region without Israel.

There's a new wind blowing, but there's a lot that's old as well. The antagonism of the Egyptians toward the Jews hearkens back to biblical times – long before there was a State of Israel – so it is reasonable to be suspicious of claims from Egypt that the establishment of Israel is the source of current problems and that it can abrogate a previous agreement for the benefit of the region.

And lest anyone believe that Egypt's argument is with Israel and not the Jews, the actions Egypt is taking to block the export of lulavim^vi will clearly affect Jews around the world. It has nothing to do with Israel. Even if they relent,^vii the point has been made. The Jews are the target. The wind may be new, but the bias is old. Antisemitism has existed for millennia, and the politics of the Middle East includes it. A “democratic” decision among believing Muslims would include this doctrine. From childhood, believing Muslims have been so indoctrinated. The region, with the exception of Israel, understands “democracy” differently from the way we do. But despite this we shall woo her, and all of the other governments that are blown in on the new wind as well.

However the new Egypt is really the old one; the wind, an ill one. Danny Kaye said of the oboe, that it was an ill wind that no one blew good. An ill wind blows in Egypt. It is called democracy. But the bluster of antisemitism, however popular, will be played well^viii by those who are coming into power. The Arab Spring cleaning is simply a substitution of leaders, not of prejudices.

i     Estimates vary. Hard numbers are difficult to obtain in a tyranny or a country in the midst of a revolution.

ii    In 1979.

iii    91% of the territory captured in the Six Day War.

iv   Jewish Virtual Library: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/peace_with_Egypt.html

v     March 27, 1979.

vi    Palm branches used as part of the ritual for the Jewish holiday of Sukkot.

vii   They cost themselves money by refusing to sell the palm branches.

viii   But not for good.

The Universal Scapegoat

 

This essay is going out a little sooner than I had expected in recognition of the likelihood that later this week the United Nations General Assembly will declare a Palestinian state.ⁱ Political and economic considerations,ⁱⁱ conditioned by two millennia of antisemitism, will make the vote easy for most member nations, who will ignore the facts that the formation of the United Nations was prompted by the Second World War and the Holocaust, and that the Palestinian entity that now exists has been acting aggressively toward Israel – a member of the United Nations – throughout its existence. Apparently most nations and most people, including Jews, either believe or want to believe that there will be peace in the world if the Palestinians, the Iranians, the Syrians, and other similar agitators, get what they demand. I do not share that view.

======================================================

Before Jesus was born there were Jews in Rome. Certainly there was a Jewish settlement before there was a Popeⁱⁱⁱ or a home for the Church It originated in 161 BCE, and the Jews were free, and without any special restrictions – just the ones imposed on all foreigners. Only later, when they destroyed the Temple of Solomon, did the Romans treat the Jews as a conquered people. But the victory over them was nationalistic, not religious. And there were Jewish communities in what is now Iraq and Iran, and in Egypt and Saudi Arabia long before Muhammad was born and Islam originated. Whatever ill feeling existed toward the Jews by individuals was not specifically related to their religion, but to personal grievances and the perception of threats posed by the Jewish nation.

Subsequently both Christianity and Islam declared that they superseded Judaism, and each claims it now represents the true faith. And both of them have, through the centuries, belittled Judaism and worked actively to eliminate Jews. They have used philosophical arguments and terminology that hide their underlying hatred, emphasizing the view that the ideas they have expressed and the actions they have taken represent the Divine Will – that, to be clear, they harbor no animosity toward the Jews but they are doing G-d's work, and the Jews have brought it on themselves.

When both new religions were small and struggling themselves, they posed little threat to the Jews. Not that the Jews were without enemies, but communities that were, themselves, being persecuted or trying to deal with internal dissension, had little time to pick fights with others. It wasn't long, however, before both of these new religions gained adherents by one means or another,^iv and, having done so, they have developed theologies that involve blaming a religion that comprises less than a quarter of a percent of the world's population^v for most of the world's problems. And if the fault cannot be placed on the Jews in general, it certainly must rest with Israel or Israel's Prime Minister. In a post-Holocaust world, long after the end of accusations of poisoning the wells and the killing of Christian children for their blood, and even after the rethinking of charges of deicide, there remain the stories of the Jews controlling the banks and the media, of Israel being the cause of all the problems in the Middle East,^vi and of Jews holding sway over the American government and thumbing its nose at everyone else.

Yet the truth contradicts these slanders. The Jews and Israel have contributed far more to the world in which we live than vice versa. But the world refuses to accept the people it has persecuted. It ignores the problems existing around the world – problems it cannot solve – while it focuses on Israel and the claimed injustices, supported by an extensive public relations campaign, of the Palestinians. In the words of Eric Hoffer,^vii a twentieth century philosopher,

The Jews are a peculiar people: things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews.

Other nations drive out thousands, even millions of people and there is no refugee problem. Russia did it, Poland and Czechoslovakia did it, Turkey threw out a million Greeks, and Algeria a million Frenchman. Indonesia threw out heaven knows how many Chinese-and no one says a word about refugees.

But in the case of Israel the displaced Arabs have become eternal refugees. Everyone insists that Israel must take back every single Arab. Arnold Toynbee calls the displacement of the Arabs an atrocity greater than any committed by the Nazis. Other nations when victorious on the battlefield dictate peace terms. But when Israel is victorious it must sue for peace .

Hoffer was probably not Jewish^viii but he recognized what so many others have ignored – that the world doesn't have a single standard when it comes to bias and self-interest.^ix

And that bias lacks any logical consistency.^x To the capitalists, the Jews are communists. To the communist, the Jews are capitalists. To Arab nations, and, for a time, to the United Nations as a whole, Zionism (read Judaism and Israel) was racism, and even now the idea of a Jewish state is anathema^xi to nations that honor Islamic^xii and Arab^xiii Republics. Israel, which includes, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and other religious groups of all races in its population, is “racist” because it views itself as a Jewish state. Yet countries that are proudly judenrein^xiv are free of taint.

What can be done about the problem? Very little. What can be done about the specific accusations? Virtually nothing. Denial is defensiveness, and proof of their validity. Rationality is irrelevant when bias is the issue. If the “cause” for the accusation or treatment is shown to be fallacious, another will be found. Treatments will always be one-sided since blame must be addressed, and fighting back against lies with words will be viewed as defensive, and an attempt to deflect valid criticism. So other means must be found.

The Jews are alone in the world. If Israel survives, it will be solely because of Jewish efforts. And Jewish resources. Yet at this moment Israel is our only reliable and unconditional ally. We can rely more on Israel than Israel can rely on us. And one has only to imagine what would have happened last summer [1967] had the Arabs and their Russian backers won the war to realize how vital the survival of Israel is to America and the West in general.

I have a premonition that will not leave me; as it goes with Israel so will it go with all of us.

Should Israel perish the holocaust will be upon [the rest of] us.^xv

But there is a positive side to the whole thing. It pays to be a scapegoat. The blaming of Israel and the Jews for everything is reminiscent of more than two millennia of such scapegoating. The upside is that a scapegoat must be kept alive. If it is eliminated, the real problems– the ones avoided by shifting the blame – must be addressed, and the world doesn't want to face them or do that. So Israel will live to be faulted for something or other another day.

i     The regular weekly schedule will resume on Sunday, September 25^th.

ii    The need for affordable oil and for Arab favor.

iii    Peter was the first Pope and the “Rock” (Cephas) upon which Jesus built his church (Matthew)

iv    Often by the sword.

v     The number of Jews who actually identify with Judaism is, of course, far less. According to numbers found on line, the number of unaffiliated and secular Jews is about 30%. My unscientific impression is that it is higher.

vi     Indeed, throughout the world.

vii    From 1968. Cited by The National Review Online (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fnews/1675470/posts)

viii   I am unable to find any specific information on this subject although his genealogy suggests that he wasn't.

ix    Hoffer, ibid:

Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this world. Other nations when they are defeated survive and recover but should Israel be defeated it would be destroyed. Had Nasser triumphed last June [1967] he would have wiped Israel off the map, and no one would have lifted a finger to save the Jews. No commitment to the Jews by any government, including our own, is worth the paper it is written on .

There is a cry of outrage all over the world when people die[d] in Vietnam or when two Blacks are executed in Rhodesia. But when Hitler slaughtered Jews no one remonstrated with him. The Swedes, who are ready to break off diplomatic relations with America because of what we do in Vietnam, did not let out a peep when Hitler was slaughtering Jews. They sent Hitler choice iron ore, and ball bearings, and serviced his troop trains to Norway.

The bracketed material was added for clarification and because the quote is from 1968. Sadly the double standard is as prevalent as ever.

x     In that respect it's like all biases.

xi    “Don't order us to recognize a Jewish state. We won't accept it.” Mahmoud Abbas

xii    Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Mauritania

xiii   Egypt, Syria

xiv    Free of Jews.

xv    Hoffer, ibid.