Antisemitism

Perhaps I'm being too parochial, but from what I've read it's hard not to conclude that Jews have long been the targets of anger and bias (and will continue to be so). In ancient times, when they were a nation among nations, and not viewed primarily from the perspective of religion, the Jews were simply another group that had to be defeated in the perennial wars between nations. Haman may have tried to eliminate them as a religious group, but it was primarily his obsession and not typical of the times. From the points of view of others, Jewish practices were of no particular note. There may have been an interest in their land, but not in their beliefs and not in their religion.

Christianity's separation, however, was certainly based on belief, and a difference in the conception of what constituted G-d. And what grew the split that occurred, and the reasons for it, was a belief by the new group that the Jews had “killed G-d” specifically that they had killed Jesus – the “son.” They hadn't, but over time the notion became so ingrained in Christians that it became “fact.” And they believed that they had superseded the Jews as Israel, G-d's chosen people. The Jews were agents of the devil, and they were bound to eliminate them.

Next rose Islam, based on Jewish and Christian teachings. When the Jews rejected the new religion they became its targets. According to the Hadith,

The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.

With the Christian and Islamic teachings – and more than half of the world's population is either Christian or Islamic – it was no longer a military battle but a moral one. It was not only acceptable to hate Jews, it was obligatory.

There were many examples of the hatred. They included the 1929 massacre in Hebron, the Holocaust, the current Middle East conflict with various parties vowing to eliminate Israel, and the background of antisemitism.

It's frightening. The Jewish population of the world is only 0.2% of all. It's likely that the vast majority of people will never meet a Jew. Yet, according to ADL statistics, 26% of the world's population [and virtually all of the United Nations – S. O.] has anti-semitic views. I suspect that the number is significantly higher when you add in the number who view themselves as “anti-Zionist” but don't consider themselves anti-semitic. What is the origin of their hatred?

There are many causes, but the predominant ones are church teachings and the teaching in Islam that all lands in which Muslims have been a predominant group, whenever that was, belongs to them, and the Jews – and especially Israel – threaten this hegemony. The fact that neither of these religions has been able to attract large numbers of Jews contributes to the hatred.

Another contributor is the United Nations. There are numerous Islamic nations with both political and economic power. And that's more important to the other nations than right and wrong. For most it's not a question of military supremacy – although for many it is – but religious hatred. And the media are quick to promote the bias, probably because of their own prejudices and for economic reasons. According to Lord Palmerston, nations don't have friends, only interests.

And, of course, there's word of mouth. People have heard negative things from their friends who heard them from others or social media or whatever. It's hard to ignore or dispel negative stereotypes when they're passed on to you by a friend.

How would such attitudes be changed? It would take the combined efforts of religious and secular leaders, of national and international officials and organizations, to begin to reorient those with negative views. It's not going to happen soon, if at all. Hatred is too deeply ingrained in too may people.

The only reasonable reaction by the Jews and Israel is one of defense, which will, itself, be viewed as a threat from an untrustworthy people. And that makes it, I suspect, an insoluble problem – a “catch-22” – and it would require billions of people to recognize that their views aren't rational. And until such a time the Jews and Israel will have to act like Boy Scouts. More than being ideal citizens of the world, they'll have to be prepared.

June 27, 2017

At Least They Tried

About a week ago, Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik killed or injured thirty-five people during a rampage in San Bernadino, California. They had several pipe bombs with them and additional weapons, ammunition, and bombs at home. It took less than two days for the F.B.I. to conclude that this might be a terrorist act. Quoting his father, the Daily Mail said of Farook that he “was a 'momma's boy' who supported ISIS [and] wanted to see Israel wiped off the map.” His wife had pledged allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi on Facebook. The President, however, warned Americans not to blame Islam because we should be free of prejudice. It's not the American way.

The President showed admirable restraint and concern about the possibility of Islamophobia, as he had often done in the past. This was consistent with past practices. He opposes the categorization of terrorists, and all other forms of hate speech. When terrorists in Paris had murdered Jews in a kosher supermarket, he properly asserted "It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you've got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris." He carefully avoided any hint of bias by calling the Muslim terrorists “vicious zealots.” And to avoid any suggestion that anti-semitism might be involved, he said that those assassinated were shot “randomly.” They were just “a bunch of folks.” It's legitimate to be “concerned.” As long as we go no further. What a relief.

But that doesn't mean that the leader of the free world didn't have potent proposals about the actions we must take. Although he may not have made any suggestions, or announced any policies (nor even the consideration of them) concerning increased security at public sites, better monitoring of potential terrorists, supervision of threats on the social media, visa procedures, or enhanced review of contacts and of travel patterns of those who might be involved in terrorist incidents, the President was emphatic in his demand for stronger actions in gun control. We all know that guns kill people and we needn't be concerned about terrorists. Our greater fear should be of members of the other party who oppose what we propose.

The New York Times concurs. Noting that some countries have strict gun control laws but have killers who “obtained weapons illegally,” the American newspaper of record reminds us that “at least those countries are trying.” The terrorists in those countries had violated the law when they obtained their guns but fortunately those whom they faced, law-abiding citizens, were unarmed. That is certainly reassuring to the families of those killed. And there is no question that strong gun-control measures are obligatory for backward nations (like ours) in which regulations are either absent or not muscular enough.

But gun control is not a universal solution to violence. In some countries violence has different expressions. For example, Sayed Farook “wanted to see Israel wiped off the map” but there the preference is for stones, scissors, knives, bottle bombs, and automobiles, so different laws would be required. Let me suggest the following:

1. Stone control, making it illegal to use stones without a background check. The check would require a minimum age of four, and a determination that the applicant have no history of mental disease. All stones and sling-shots would be photographed and registered.

2. The user of scissors would have to participate in safety training, including the caution against running with scissors. All scissors would have to have rounded tips and safety catches to keep them closed.

3. The purchase of knives would require a license – whether the instrument is intended for kitchen or outdoor use. Background checks on chefs and all women would be instituted. Knives could not be concealed. The individual implements would have to be stored between murders in child-proof closets. If used for kitchen work as well as murder, washing with an anti-bacterial solution between uses is recommended.

4. Bottle-bombs are complex combinations of glass bottles, inflammable substance such as kerosene, and flame. All require controls. The bottles themselves must be approved by organizations supporting BDS to ensure their origin in an acceptable location; the kerosene would be required to have certification by OPEC; it would be necessary to register the flame. While this may be difficult, law-enforcement agencies must be supplied with tools to detect flames and they must be authorized to confiscate illegal combustion. An exception would be made for cigarettes. The banning of matches would require further study.

5. It is noteworthy that automobiles are frequently used in order to kill Jews. While existing motor vehicle regulations are extensive, it may be necessary to outlaw all motorized vehicles since they are potential killers. Camel travel should be explored.

No change would be made in current regulations involving other weapons since that would limit military training and use and, more important, would impose an unfair burden on smugglers.

In the United States, however, the answer to all violence is gun control. It will certainly be comforting to anyone who has been shot to know that his attacker, by carrying a weapon, was doing something illegal and that no one was so unpatriotic as to try to categorize, or use an illegal weapon in opposition to the attacker.

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

My intent is not to denigrate the importance of reasonable restrictions on the types of weapons available, but to suggest that the willing disregard of important parts of the problem in order to remain politically correct and to promote a political message ensures only the opportunity to blame someone else for your failures, rather than policies that deal with all of the causes of a problem will be likely to solve at least some of them. The desire to assign responsibility is probably the case. But the goal has to be to solve problems rather than fault someone else.

The Trouble With Israel

The trouble with Israel is that it's a democracy.

That's a little flat-footed and limiting. In fact there are a lot of troubles with Israel (though not as many as with its neighbors), rather than just one, but I'll emphasize democracy both because it's a problem itself, and because it causes other problems. (I'll add some other ideas in a few months.)

Israel has gotten a lot of admiration and support, especially in the United States, from the fact that it is an island of democracy in a sea of monarchies, tyrannies, and theocracies. At least until recently it has. Under the current administration – one that views dialogue with our enemies and distancing ourselves from our friends as the best foreign policy – some of our identification with it is gone, but that does not change Israel's political structure. Like the United States it is an imperfect democracy, but because of the path we have taken we now find it advantageous to emphasize Israel's faults, real and imagined, while ignoring our own, and to trumpet them to whoever will listen.

And Israel's enemies do likewise. Those in the United Nations have institutionalized the condemnation of Israel. The starting point among the nations are the surrounding countries, which call for an end of Israel's “oppressive” policies. Nations that kill their own citizens, promote terrorist organizations, and make war on their neighbors, call for the destruction of the democracy on which they blame their own problems, and whose elimination they claim would solve the region's difficulties. That is the only message they permit to emanate from their borders. Reporters who state otherwise are subject to penalties, and journalists from outside those countries are openly discouraged. Consequently the only negative stories that originate there are those that cannot be suppressed. And, lacking on-site coverage, little negative information is provided the rest of the world. So the world hears little about honor killings, female genital mutilation, internecine violence, and the oppression of women and members of the LGBT community, among other horrors.

But Israel is a democracy. Freedom of the press is one of its hallmarks. And life there is much more salutary than in the adjacent countries. So members of the press, including those barred from Islamic nations, congregate there, with more reporters than in most of the rest of the world. There is a competition for headlines, and what is negative sells best. Thus, from the comfort of their hotels, foreign correspondents compete to tell the world how bad things are in Israel. It's a story that the world – even the democracies – wants to hear. With little information from other Middle-Eastern nations it is easy to construct the evil straw man that the world seeks. If Israel weren't a democracy – if it didn't allow the transmission of negative information – there would be far less for the world to discuss, although they would probably denounce the country for some press limitations, even if they don't follow that policy for those countries that practice censorship now. (But Israel should act like its neighbors. It should be undemocratic. Tyranny. No LGBT tolerance. It should exclude or limit journalists. It should lower the world's expectations. Were Israel a closed society like its neighbors, with no press freedom, it would be of far less interest to some of those who now fault it.)

The press also ignore anything positive that happens in Israeli society – at least anything that reflects favorably on Jews. But they are quick to focus on the negative. There are no beheadings in Israel, so while playing down violence against Jews, reporters emphasize occasional acts against Muslims. They ignore, however, the condemnation of such acts by the government and people of Israel. Not only is that not done in the surrounding countries, but the killing of Israelis is cause for celebration, and the killers are praised as heroes for whom streets are to be named and rewards given. Were that to happen in Israel it would be justifiably condemned, yet it is considered understandable and praiseworthy among Muslims.

There is a double standard. Israel is held to a higher standard than any other nation. Even the United States seeks unilateral concessions from Israel, ones it would never accept for itself in similar circumstances. And countries that would never “turn the other cheek” if attacked demand that those who consider themselves the chosen people do so, even though that is not a Jewish teaching and it is certainly not their approach. If Israel were just another tyranny like its neighbors and forbade democratic institutions, less would be expected.

No. That is giving too much credit to haters of Western institutions. The claim that the cause of all the problems in the Middle East is Israel – that Zionism is racism – results from the long-standing hatred of Jews by others. And Zionism is a code word for Jews. In 1929 – long before there was an Israel – Arabs slaughtered large numbers of Jews in Palestine. Between sixty-five and seventy Jews were murdered in Hebron, most of them students and their teachers, with scores of others injured or maimed. The response of British authorities, who controlled the area at the time, was to remove the Jews, ostensibly for their own safety. Jewish victims were exiled from their homes. More recently the world has demanded that the Jews be removed from their homes – and this happened in Sinai and Gaza – for the benefit of the Arabs. There is always a reason to punish Jews.

Antisemitism. The world denies it and accuses the Jew of crying antisemitism whenever Israel or Jews are attacked or criticized. But seeing antisemitism in such criticisms is usually justified. It has flourished through the ages. In the past the accusations were of various types, including the spreading of disease, deicide, and the murder of Gentile children for their blood. In 2001, Daniel Bernard, as French Ambassador to the United Kingdom, was quoted as saying: "All the current troubles in the world are because of that shitty little country Israel." He added, "Why should the world be in danger of World War III because of those people?" The French Foreign Ministry defended Bernard and dismissed the charges of antisemitism.

And in 2015, a few days after others attacked the French newspaper Charlie Hebdo, a Muslim terrorist fired on and killed shoppers in a kosher delicatessen. President Obama attacked the [Muslim, though he didn't say so] assassins at the newspaper and the one in the delicatessen as “vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.” The killing of Jews by a Muslim was a random act. They shouldn't have patronized a kosher delicatessen. Jews are belittled, and Islamophobia is to be condemned.

The trouble with Israel is that it is a Jewish state. And the world does not like Jews.

Next episode: “Insanity” – Maybe not.

Me, Too

The hot topic at the moment seems to be Iran, so I though I'd comment on it as well. I oppose the treaty for a wide variety of reasons – it's a bad deal, parts of it are being kept secret from those who have to evaluate it, the President has termed it an “agreement” rather than a treaty to evade the Constitutional requirement that the Senate advise and consent – but they're not really the point. What I've really been mulling over is the reaction to the treaty. On two levels. What are the feelings of Americans and how will our representatives vote, and what are the reactions of other nations and why?

It seems clear that the American public opposes the pact – in part, perhaps, because of Israel but moreso because of mistrust of Iran. The agreement is viewed as a defeat for us, and it is with a country that calls for our destruction and doesn't hesitate to brag of accomplishments that seem to us to be in violation of the published agreement. And some Americans are concerned that Iran may not even adhere to its terms. Taquia and all that.

It is equally clear that the President is not concerned about the people's opposition. Only that in Congress. He continues to maintain the position that the agreement is good and its implementation is warranted irrespective of any concerns. It is crucial to his prestige and his “heritage,” and any faults will be the problem of one of his successors (and all of us).

From the perspective of the Representatives and Senators, the conditions of the treaty are important, but not as important as several other considerations. Perhaps the most important of these is party loyalty. It may be blind loyalty to the party and the President, or it may be forced loyalty based on future campaign support, projects, vote trading, misinformation, or other forms of pressure. Members of Congress are also responsive to the preferences of their constituents because they want to be re-elected. And, of course, they are human like the rest of us and have their own biases. For better or worse, antisemitism remains in our country.

It has certainly regained its strength around Europe, as “anti-Zionism” (antisemitism) is gaining in power there, and elsewhere. Increase in the numbers of Muslim immigrants around the world is contributing to a political response which caters to their prejudices, those of the media, and the various governments as well. Add to that the interest they have in gaining the favor of the Arab bloc in the United Nations, as well as their craving for oil and economic opportunities, and the perceived benefits are numerous.

What seems to be lacking, however, as they all fall in line is, to a degree, the same situation we see in our own country, and that is a consideration of the long-term effects of the treaty. What will be the results of Iran having nuclear weapons and the missiles required to deliver them anywhere in the world? Short-term effects should not be permitted to blind our eyes to the predictable results of a surrender to Iran. Adopting the attitude that the situation will be different by the time the treaty expires is a struthious response to an ongoing threat.

In short, it seems likely that one way or another the treaty will be put into effect in the United States as it has already been in some other countries. The Satans, great and small, will be repudiated by the rest of the world. And our country will contribute to its own humiliation. We're our biggest enemies. It's the American way.

Identity Unknown

It all started with religion. It often does. That's not to say that it isn't built into us from the beginning. It's in our DNA. But it's probably expressed more now than in previous times. No big surprise. Society promotes it. To one degree or another we're all unhappy with things as they are. And we're not always happy with who we are. Things can always be better. It's time for a change.ⁱ

Remember Abram?ⁱⁱ He was raised as a pagan. His father made and sold idols.ⁱⁱⁱ But Abe viewed idol worship as misguided. He rebelled, and he destroyed his father's constructions. Then, following the direction of G-d, he left his father's homeland – his homeland. He had adopted a new faith, the belief in a single unseen deity Who had created and Who ruled over the entire earth. And Abram spread his new faith wherever he went. He proselytized and converted large numbers of people, the first neophytes of the new “Abrahamic” religions.^iv

Many people subsequently changed both their outward identities and their internal beliefs and views of themselves. They did so voluntarily, based on an altered view of truth and reality. But religious conversion, which has a long history, arose from many causes – violence and military conquest,^v,vi political changes,^vii prejudice,^viii and convenience^ix are among the reasons in addition to conviction. Assimilation, and the entire concept of the “melting pot,”^x produced innumerable “self-reinventions.” And there were those who rededicated themselves to the religion in which they were born but which they had not followed. They were “born again.”

Personal reinvention, however, has a long history and has many faces. There has been rebellion against the ways of parents^xi since there have been children. The goal is often for children to be as different from the parents, and from the way they were born, as possible. It has resulted in different political philosophies, life-styles, food and clothing preferences, and the like.

People also change because of dissatisfaction with themselves. Charles Atlas made a fortune catering to the insecurity of “97 pound weaklings,” and nowadays plastic surgeons remake many who are dissatisfied with their appearances. As Tom Lehrer said, they “do well by doing good.” Cosmetics manufacturers and those in the fashion and clothing industries also profit from the desire of so many to be other than they are.

More radical are those who those who are, to one degree or other, unhappy with their gender or with the expectations that accompany it.^xii Some feminists fall into this latter group, the group that questions the expectations associated with their gender,^xiii but so do some men who would rather stay home and be supported by others. They argue – and their argument is not completely without merit – that the expectations are societal and are unfair and unrealistic.

More extreme in their rejection of usual gender roles are gays and lesbians. Bisexuals have the best – or worst – of both worlds. Proud declarations of their sexual preferences have become common. Their desires are different from what others may expect, but they demand that their practices be validated and considered unexceptionable.

And we accept those desires. We are sympathetic to them and sensitive to most of those whose self-images require changes in ways we may have once questioned. We were wrong. They are right. (Anyone has the right to define himself.^xiv At least to a degree. There has long been concern over immigration policies and the current bugaboo in this arena is that over “illegal immigrants.”^xv Admittedly many don't seek citizenship, but others do wish to change who they are.)

More radical among those wishing to change who they are are members of the transgender community. Reinventing their identity is a prime concern and, since Christine (George) Jorgensen's pioneering efforts, an identity change including anatomic alteration is possible. The reality, however, is that they may change their identities, but their DNA remains the same. One can make up a new identity, but not change genetic makeup.

The same holds true for race. However one may “feel,” however he may identify, his race is the one of his birth. We may admire people who choose the lot of those they consider less fortunate, or those oppressed by society, but they fool themselves – and, perhaps us – when they pretend to be other than what they are. The same is true of those who try to “pass” as members of another race, though we must recognize that our prejudice is usually the reason.^xvi

So who are we? It's not an easy question. We're lots of people – some are adopted identifications that we can change for whatever reason whenever we want, and some are inborn. The real problems arise when we can't distinguish between one and the other.

Nor between ourselves and the other. As Reinhold Niebuhr wrote:

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,

The courage to change the things I can,

And the wisdom to know the difference.

And give us the disposition to accept it of others.

Next episode: “The Lesser Of Two Evils” – Life as it really is.

 

 

 

 

I        “Mid-life crisis” is one example of identity crisis, but there are other reasons.

ii       He was later renamed Abraham.

iii       You won't find that information in the Bible. Much of what we are taught about our biblical ancestors is derived from Midrashim, explanatory stories that fill in the gaps left by the biblical narrative. If you can't find in the Bible some of what follows which refers to biblical characters, it is based on Midrashim.

iv        Initially Judaism, but, millennia later, Christianity and Islam.

v       Islam spread largely as a result of conquest and violence, and violence and terrorism remain striking features among many Muslim clergymen and their followers.

vi       Interestingly, some who are oppressed begin to identify with their oppressors. It's called the “Stockholm Syndrome.” Thus many of the conquered were forced to convert, but some did so willingly, even eagerly.

vii      The rapid growth of Christianity was aided by its adoption by Armenia as the state religion in 301 CE and, shortly thereafter, in 313, by its legalization in the Roman Empire. In later centuries, whatever variety of Christianity was followed by the ruler was often accepted by his subjects – voluntarily or otherwise.

viii     Because of societal biases, it was necessary for many to convert in order to gain benefits. Thus Mahler converted to Christianity because the law of the time barred Jews from directorship of the Vienna Opera. Such laws and various prejudices forced many others (for example the Mendelssohn family, including musical greats Felix and Fanny) to convert. And some of the later generations accepted the beliefs of their new faith, such as the Marranos who converted rather than leave Spain. [Apropos this situation, a Spanish village named Castrillo Matajudios (“Camp Kill Jews”) has officially changed its name back to Castrillo Mota de Judios (“Jews’ Hill Camp”) following a public referendum and approval by the regional government in 2014. The original change, in 1627, reflected anti-Jewish bias and has taken nearly four centuries to correct.]

ix        As an example – one of many – some convert for the purpose of marriage. Change is not always based on an inner need. Some make changes to please those with whom they wish to associate.

x        Popularized by Israel Zangwill's play of the same name in 1903.

xi        Including their religion.

xii      A good example can be found in Isaac Bashevis Singer's “Yentl der yeshive-bokher.”

xiii     They agree with Sigmund Freud's dictum, “anatomy is destiny,” and resent the situation. Not everyone accepted Freud's view. Karen Horney was one of the leaders of the revolt. She attributed the “destiny” to beliefs of society, not to any inherent quality of women. (Freud was speaking of women when he chose to attribute personality traits and their consequences to sex.)

xiv      Political definitions, like nationality, are, at least for the moment, somewhat different.

xv       Not that there shouldn't be rules and a clearly defined path to citizenship, but the long-standing fear of “foreigners” that has long permeated our society – a country of immigrants – requires education and change. Still we're more sympathetic to those who follow our immigration laws.

xvi      The problem of people trying to adapt to society's biases is the same as that of those who try to “pass” as members of another religion.

Niggers Ain't So Bad

“A spade, a spic, a kike, and a wop walk into a bar.”

No. Wait. Scratch that. This isn't going to end well. Let me start again and find a different way to introduce my subject. Dysphemisms make for a bad start.

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

“When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'”ⁱ

That's better.

When we speak (or write) we communicate using words. And that, by itself, is a very complicated process. It involves not only a speaker and a listener, but the words themselves, and their meaning. And their meaning, or at least their planned meaning, derives from the intent of the speaker.

But their understood meaning is determined by the listener.

One way to explain the difference is by a lesson I learned when I was young. It consisted of the idea that when a non-Jew told a Jewish joke it was evidence of anti-semitism. That wasn't always the case, but whatever the intended meaning, it was understood by the (Jewish) listener to be a slur. While that understanding was usually correct, it was not invariably so. When the same joke was related by a Jew, however, it was funny.ⁱⁱ

An analogous truth relates to other words. Nowadays it's “the N word.” Whereas “nigger,” when used by a white, is understood to be evidence of prejudice, when used by a black in a conversation among blacks it may be neutral.ⁱⁱⁱ   "People of color" is acceptable, though never "colored people."

But even that overlooks some of the other misuse of language.

According to Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, "For us, Hamas is not a terror organization; it has never committed any act of terror." But that was not Ankara's first sleight-of-hand for an entity that vows to kill every last Jew on earth. President Erdogan has repeatedly described Hamas militants as "freedom fighters." ^iv

As the saying goes, “One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.” Words mean different things to different people. Or, perhaps, this illustrates a fourth meaning of a word – the one that a listener wants to convey as his understanding, even if it's not. Perhaps PM Davutoglu understands “terror” as most other people do, but he wishes to make a political statement. Notwithstanding our own President's avoidance of the terminology, Muslim extremism exists.^v

Discounting the political, however, where a conscious effort is made to use words to convince the listener of a “truth,” our words are generally an unconscious part of what we say and, for the most part, reflect unconscious ideas, often colored (that's probably a bad choice of words), rather than premeditated slights. I don't mean to suggest that everyone would prefer to be unbiased and sensitive to the feelings of others. That, sadly, is not the case. But more often, ill thought-out comments reflect a lack of thought rather than a plan. We live in an age of speed, of rapid response, of short attention spans. We do not take the time to craft everything carefully. We express our thoughts thoughtlessly – without refining or filtering them. We pay too little attention to meaning – to what is explicit and to what is implicit. And words hurt.^vi  But don't blame them. They're not really the problem. It's us. It's what we do to them.

The common response in the last few decades has been to accept the use of euphemisms and coded speech, and to avoid any word or idea that may be “painful” to the hearer.  In all likelihood, however, it is more painful to the advocate of euphemisms than to the object of his pity. The person who is blind knows he is blind, not “visually impaired.” And to call someone who cannot walk “differently abled,” rather than disabled, is most generously viewed as condescending. The problem is not with the words nor, usually, with the audience. Even when the speaker is “sensitive” and words are carefully chosen – even when politically correct language is used to spare their feelings – people usually understand what is said.^vii

And what is meant.^viii

The problem is not simply what people mean, for all-too-often people haven't even thought about what they mean. The problem is mean people. A limit on free discourse by the prohibition of “hate speech” will not solve the problem. It will only lead to even greater misunderstanding complicated by the restraint of all of our constitutional rights.

The problem with our society is our society. Our moral standards, as reflected in the news media, on television and in the movies, are less restrictive than in the past. We assume that all politicians are crooks and we don't trust our government. We can't anticipate any legislative answer.

And laws cannot end prejudice any more than Prohibition ended alcohol consumption. Perhaps the solution is education or time. More likely it is a problem that will never be solved except by our understanding of it, and our rejection of its practitioners. There will always be prejudice by those who feel inferior or put upon – people looking for an excuse for their own inadequacies. The only answer is the marginalization of those people by the rest of us, rather than efforts to limit their words. Their ideas may be abhorrent, but let them give themselves away.

Next episode: “Nota Bene 4” – Your turn.

I        Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There, Lewis Caroll, 1871

ii       Actually, it wasn't always funny. Some of the jokes were just plain bad. But they (usually) weren't anti-semitic.

iii      The Oxford English dictionary describes the term as “usually contemptuous,” “[e]xcept in Black English vernacular, where it remains common.”

iv       Excerpt from Hamas in Turkey: “Humanitarian Activity” by Burack Beckdil, Gatestone Institute, March 6, 2015. Cited in CIJR Isranet Daily Briefing, March 12, 2015.

v        Ignoring reality doesn't make it cease to exist.

vi       Actually that “truism” is false. Words don't hurt, people do. (This is not a Second Amendment argument about guns, but a different point which I'll make shortly.)

vii      Intent usually can be determined by content and context – not by vocabulary.

viii     If anything.

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.

Just The Facts Ma'am

That's all Joe Friday ever wanted. Just the facts. But I think he was asking more of people than they could give. His aim was to take all opinion out of the story being relayed to him. The only thing he was interested in was a description of the events that the witness observed. Just the facts.

That's not how things work however. Distinctions between “fact”ⁱ and “belief” may be difficult to identify, and there are also the problems of “opinion”ⁱⁱ and previous experiences unrelated to the current question entirely, but governing the way one interprets it. Not to mention confabulation and prevarication secondary to potential benefit from remembering an event in a way favorable to one of the participants, or fear of the consequences of an accurate recounting of what was observed.

And all of this presumes that the observer is accurate and remembers what he saw. But that's not at all certain.ⁱⁱⁱ What we see is based on what we expect to see, what we want to see,^iv and what we have seen in the past, as much as what has actually taken place. Numerous studies call into question the accuracy of eyewitnesses. Juries may believe the word of an “honest citizen” rather that of a “criminal,” but eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

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

One of society's big problems nowadays^v is bullying. The most obvious kind relates to physical abuse, but it's not the most common. Chalk that up to verbal violence.^vi One child will belittle the ideas of another as evidence of his own superiority, often using “facts” that he has made up. Whether we agree with his view or not is beside the point. We may not believe there is a Tooth Fairy, but that is not proof that there is none; we may personally doubt the existence of Santa Claus, but as Francis Church pointed out to Virginia,^vii in fact, there is one. Scientific documentation may not always be obtainable, and it is not always necessary.

The most important question then is what constitutes a fact. The word itself is from the Latin factum – something done – and, consequently, refers to something that is true: provable, demonstrable, observable, repeatable, and has predictive value.^viii Most of the definitions are variations on this idea – that a fact is true and verifiable.

But that's not all on the subject. For example, Collins's World English Dictionary^ix includes in its definition of fact: “philosophy a proposition that may be either true or false, as contrasted with an evaluative statement,” and, when it comes to legal issues, “(q)uestions of fact are decided by the jury, questions of law by the court or judge.” And one of the statements of the Merriam Webster Third New International Dictionary^x is that a fact is a statement “purporting to contain something having objective reality.” Purporting. So the claim that something is a fact doesn't make it true, and it doesn't guarantee that it should be believed. Label something as a fact, though, and most people will consider you a fool if you don't accept it. Evaluation is no longer necessary.^xi Once everyone believes something is a fact, it is a fact.

But, as James Randi said, “No amount of belief makes something a fact.”^xii Randi has spent his life disproving beliefs, maintaining that only scientifically approved facts are worthy of acceptance. Facts like the four elements and phlogiston. Facts like the centrality of the earth in the universe. And, of course, facts about matters visible to all and known by all – like the fact that the earth is flat. That's certainly reproducible. But not all of science's past judgments are still believed.

For facts are really beliefs, some of which have mathematical or scientific basis and some of which are demonstrable and observable. But there are other facts for which there is no scientific foundation. That doesn't mean they are untrue. There were electrons before they were first demonstrated, and the sun was the center^xiii of our solar system even before Copernicus, but we couldn't prove it. And there were cells before Hooke, and laws of physics before Newton. There was even Truth before there was mathematics.

But we consider facts to be theories until we have the tools to “prove” them. Whether the proof is by direct visualization or an inference from mathematical theory, it takes a tool^xiv to make something into a fact. And it takes belief, Randi notwithstanding.

For some, the written word constitutes fact. Will Rogers averred: “All I know is just what I read in the papers.”^xv Unfortunately newspapers have their own agendas, and most reporters adjust their dispatches to coincide with the publication's philosophy. And many – “advocacy journalists” – present their own biases intermixed with the hard news. Even stories of scientific advances are notoriously unreliable.

Others prefer to make their own decisions without direction from journalists who may be biased. All they want to see are the pictures, whose content they'll judge for themselves. No captions are necessary. They ignore the fact that the pictures may be censored by some regimes, and those that do appear in the papers are chosen by the same people they don't trust for text. And Photoshop has ended the reliability of photos forever.

What, then, are facts? The best I can do is to view them as strongly held beliefs which may or may not have evidence to support them. Skeptics like Randi will often dispute the evidence anyway, but no one is required to accept his definition of truth any more than he accepts that of others. Before Einstein, Newton's laws of physics were indisputable. Who knows if Einstein's will be disproved. What we now believe science proves, may ultimately be shown to be wrong, but we are not compelled to use the scientific playing field in any case. The spiritual field is just as valid, as is the perspective of a particular culture. Facts are not as cut and dried as Sgt. Friday would have us believe.^xvi Nor are beliefs.

One thing is clear however. No amount of fact invalidates a belief. Even Randi's belief in the incontestable credibility of science.

Next episode: “Proportionality” – The measure of all things can't be measured.

I        As will become clear, I don't always place what people call “facts” in high esteem. I usually view them as having scare quotation marks, but using those at all times would be unwieldy in an essay of this sort. So don't look for them, but understand that I often don't take them seriously, and neither should you.

ii        Some might even say bias.

iii        You can fool some of the people all of the time.

iv        And we remember what we want to remember.

v        It's not a new problem at all, but all of a sudden it's become one of our major concerns. We should have dealt with it a long time ago.

vi       The persistence of this form of abuse into marriage is beyond the scope of this endeavor.

vii      Editorial in the New York Sun, September 21, 1897.

viii     Actually that's not completely accurate (though it will do for our purposes). “Fact,” comes from “factum” derived from Latin facere, and describes something that has happened. Already. So it's not really a fact that “the sun will come up tomorrow” – despite Annie's protestations. Based on our experience, however, we believe it to be true. But fact and truth are not synonyms.

ix       www.collinsdictionary.com

x        Springfield, Massachusetts, 1971.

xi       You can fool all of the people some of the time.

xii      http://www.atheistrepublic.com/gallery/no-amount-belief-makes-something-fact-james-randi

xiii     Well not really the center, but close enough. Certainly all the planets rotate around it. As far as we know.

xiv      Like a magnifying glass or electron microscope.

xv      Rogers only feigned his simplistic trust. He knew the papers were full of nonsense and used them as a comic prop. In fact, he viewed “just what I read in the papers” as “an alibi for my ignorance.”

xvi      You can't fool all of the people all of the time.