Godwin's Law

You won't find this in the law books. But it's an all-purpose rule that is hard to avoid nowadays, in its original form or in one of its variations. The law, which was originated by Mike Godwin, an American author and attorney (although it isn't a real law), states "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches.” “That is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or his deeds.” (Wikipedia – emphasis added by Sir Oracle.)

And it's true. The choice of Hitler is unfortunate, however, because it cheapens memories of Nazi atrocities and the Holocaust, but that's what happens. People become frustrated when others don't accept their views, and they use the worst insult they can imagine. I guess that it's encouraging that their imaginations can devise nothing more horrible than a comparison to Hitler, but that is only a symptom of a far more severe problem.

Too many people, now and in the past, have sought an all-encompassing truth. It is an answer to all questions. It is not simply a “fall back” position, but a sincere – if unconsidered – view that the one they accuse of evil is, in fact, evil. (I wonder if our fellow Americans, in their frustration, aren't now substituting Trump into the law, viewing him as the cause of anything they don't like.)

And, as I mentioned, it's a reaction that has galvanized huge numbers of people to specify the cause of all problems. “Knowing” the cause of your troubles saves a lot of time and rumination. It's far easier than thinking and analyzing. Simplify, simplify, simplify. Reduce to the absurd. Only you don't recognize it as absurd. It's all real and justified.

That's the origin of prejudice – of scapegoats and scapegoating. You remove the need for any thought or doubt if you can designate a single cause for everything that is wrong. And that provides a simple solution to every problem. Eliminate the single cause. (It's an approach that has to be controlled however. The cause can't be totally eliminated because that would leave no explanation for future problems. A remnant of “evil” must remain.)

Godwin identified what people view as evil. Hitler and Nazism were evil, and those who are on line can more easily accuse those they oppose of some kind of similarity to Hitler than they can voice their frustration in the form of logical arguments. Ad hominem arguments are simple – but they are the arguments of the simple-minded – or of those who are, themselves, evil. If you attack your opponent personally you don't have to make a solid case against his point of view, or justify your own. It has become an issue of his personal character and traits rather than a discussion of the merits of a particular view; it is a matter of rhetoric, rather than reason.

America has a history of such prejudices. They exist to this day, but are nothing when compared to the sacapegoating in which the world has participated for millennia – anti-semitism. And that, too, persists. In the middle of the last century the world established the United Nations – largely in reaction to Hitler, Nazism, and the Holocaust. Nations that had remained silent through the war, ignoring the murder of Jews, felt the need to offer a “sop” to them. But they were less interested in giving them a place to live, and the division of their homeland, Palestine, (so designated by the Balfour Declaration) to provide them with their own country was only approved with difficulty, and with the Arab countries vowing to destroy the new nation of Israel. But while the Arab countries were unsuccessful in their efforts, they have, over the years, managed to maintain instability in the region – instability which they, and the UN, blame on Israel. In fact, the nations of the world often accuse Israel and the Jews of acting like Hitler and the Nazis. Or worse. An organization founded in the wake of the Holocaust has managed to blame Israel for the world's problems.

As opposed to Hitler, however, the UN cannot entirely rid the world of Jews because they will need someone to blame afterwards. So their “virtue” will be manifested by their accusations and other words vilifying one of the world's smallest nations – the one causing them all to “suffer” even though its Jewish population is less than one tenth of a percent of theirs. Prejudice and scapegoating don't require rationality – only anger. Additionally they solve so many problems. And the UN has found a way to express their bias.

They've surpassed Godwin's law by finding an evil which exceeds Hitler. The Jews.

And that prompts the question of whether the UN is simple-minded or evil. I have my bias, but I leave that question to you.

May 4, 2017

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.)

What Would You Do?

OK. Pop quiz.

Get out your number two pencils. (Do they still use number two pencils? Do they still make pencils?)

Over the past few years there's been plenty of news coming from the Middle East, accompanied by extensive invective. It's been hard to separate the problems and to decide what we, and the participants, should be doing. In order to clarify everyone's thinking on the subject I've prepared a set of questions that may illuminate some of the issues. This is an open-book test and you're encouraged to use any publications of the United Nations, the European Union, and the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement. No other references will be permitted. The examination will consist of the presentation of realistic situations – some already experienced – followed by possible responses. You are expected to be fair to all participants and to follow moral guidelines. Two subjects are covered: proportionality and moral equivalency. Since it is often difficult to separate them, no attempt has been made to do so. But in all instances you should look for the proportional and morally equivalent action.

You are a soldier, standing in a crowd at a bus stop. An automobile heads directly into the crowd running over, and possibly killing several people. The car stops and the driver exits with a hatchet. He then starts running after bystanders.

Do you

a. shoot the man with the hatchet,

b. protect the man from the enraged crowd,

c. help the man escape from the mob, or

d. run home, get your car, and look for a crowd in his neighborhood?

Three Israeli soldiers are approached by a civilian Arab family. The mother pulls a pair of scissors from under her clothing and stabs and kills one of the soldiers. The other family members (including four children) reach into their clothing.

Should the remaining soldiers

a. flee,

b. shoot the woman,

c. shoot the entire family, or

d. run home and get a pair of scissors?

An Israeli soldier comes under attack by a mob that corners him. He is armed with an automatic weapon. The mob begins throwing stones and Molotov cocktails at him.

Should his response be to

a. advise the mob that their acts are illegal,

b. fire at the advancing crowd,

c. pick up some stones and throw them back, or

d. consult his procedure manual for what would be approved?

Jihadists in Gaza send unguided missiles into Israel. They are aimed in the vicinity of a school but land in an adjacent field.

An appropriate response by Israel would be to

a. ignore the attack since no one was killed,

b. use the Iron Dome system to prevent future attacks,

c. remove any guidance systems from their missiles in order to ensure a level playing field if they return fire, or

d. target and attack the site from which the missiles were launched?

If in the previous scenario the attack came from a United Nations hospital which the terrorists were using as a military base, and if children in the school in Israel were killed

Should the response be to

a. consult the United Nations about the incident,

b. use the Iron Dome system to prevent future attacks,

c. return fire upon the source of the missiles irrespective of collateral damage, or

d. attack a nearby school in order to kill children and even the score?

BONUS QUESTIONS

a. Which of the above instances merits a UN or EU condemnation of Israel?

b. Which Israeli(s) should be brought before the International Court for war crimes?

c. In which cases are BDS actions not warranted?

d. Wouldn't all of the world's problems disappear if there were no Israel?

Think about these questions and answer them. The answers are obvious, but you have to reach them yourself – although the permitted references will certainly guide you to the truth. After all, we've known for millennia how to bring morality, pea,ce and goodwill to the globe on which we live.

They Speak For Themselves

There is a principle in law that certain facts essentially constitute proof. It is called “res ipsa loquitur,” and it relates to negligence and accidents, but the concept is not unique. Some statements or acts do, in fact, speak for themselves, and no additional commentary is required. For this reason I present a series of quotations without explanation. They Speak For Themselves. To wit:

Lord Arthur James Balfour: “His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” Letter from the Foreign Secretary to Lord Rothschild, November 2, 1917.

Haj Amin al-Husseini: "Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion." Mufti of Jerusalem (Appointed by the British High Commissioner in May 1921), March 1, 1944.

Harry Truman: “This Government has been informed that a Jewish state has been proclaimed in Palestine, and recognition has been requested by the provisional Government thereof.

“The United States recognizes the provisional government as the de facto authority of the new state of Israel.” May 14, 1948.

United Nations: The General Assembly, Acting in discharge of its functions under Article 4 of the Charter and rule 125 of its rules of procedure, 1. Decides that Israel is a peace-loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations; 2. Decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.  May 11, 1949.

Winston Churchill: “... you ought to let the Jews have Jerusalem; it is they who made it famous.” Letter to Anthony Eden's private secretary, Evelyn Shuckburgh, February 18, 1955.

Wikipedia: “The Temple Mount ... is one of the most important religious sites in the Old City of Jerusalem. It has been used as a [Jewish] religious site for thousands of years.

Muhammad: “[Allah] gave you that (which) He gave not to any (other) of (His) creatures.

“O my people! Go into the holy land which Allah hath ordained for you.” Qur'an, Sûrah V: 20, 21. Speaking of Moses leading his people into the holy land.

Professor Abdul Hadi Palazzi: “After reviewing the most relevant Qur’anic passages in this connection, one easily concludes that, as no one wishes to deny Muslims complete sovereignty over Mecca, from an Islamic point of view there is no sound theological reason to deny Jews the same rights over Jerusalem.” Professor Abdul Hadi Palazzi, Director of the Istituto Culturale della Comunita Islamica Italiana (Cultural Institute of the Italian Islamic Community) in Rome, October 3, 2013.

PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas: "The Israeli occupation authorities … imagine that by this brute force they can invent a [Jewish] history, establish claims and erase solid religious and historical facts." Palestinian Authority TV, January 17, 2014.

Yasser Arafat: "We plan to eliminate the state of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian state. We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion. We Palestinians will take over everything, including all of Jerusalem." Stockholm, Sweden, 1996.

We will not bend or fail until the blood of every last Jew from the youngest child to the oldest elder is spilt to redeem our land! Stockholm, Sweden, January 30, 1996.

Peace for us means the destruction of Israel. We are preparing for an all-out war, a war which will last for generations… We shall not rest until the day when we return to our home, and until we destroy Israel. Quoted in The Times, UK (5 August 1980).

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: “They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets.” The World without Zionism, 2005.

Israel "must be wiped out from the map of the world." Quoting Ayatollah Khomeini, Cited on CNN.com, Thursday, October 27, 2005.

“We do not accept or officially recognise [sic] Israel. They are occupiers and illegitimate.” September 12, 2007.

David Ben-Gurion: "No city in the world, not even Athens or Rome, ever played as great a role in the life of a nation for so long a time, as Jerusalem has done in the life of the Jewish people."

John F. Kennedy: "Israel was not created in order to disappear - Israel will endure and flourish. It is the child of hope and the home of the brave. It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success. It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom." President of the United States

Gerald Ford: "Americans and Israelis have both been inspired by moral aims. Indeed, my commitment to the security and to the future of Israel is based upon basic morality as well as enlightened self-interest. Our role in supporting Israel honors our own heritage." President of the United States

George W. Bush: "The United States and Israel have enjoyed a friendship built on mutual respect and commitment to democratic principles. Our continuing search for peace in the Middle East begins with a recognition that the ties uniting our two countries can never be broken." President of the United States

William J. Clinton: "American and Israel share a special bond. Our relationship is unique among all nations. Like America, Israel is a strong democracy, a symbol of freedom, and an oasis of liberty, a home to the oppressed and persecuted." President of the United States

Recep Tayip Erdogan: "Everyone should unconditionally accept that Israel is an indespensable element of the Middle Eastern mosaic." Prime Minister of Turkey

Barak H. Obama: It is “undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity ...” President of the United States, June 4, 2009

Muhammad: "We [Allah] gave the Book [Torah] to the Israelites and bestowed on them wisdom and prophethood. We provided them with wholesome things and exalted them above the nations." Qur'an, Sûrah 45:17

“And We said unto the Children of Israel after him: Dwell in the land ...” Qur'an, Sûrah 17:104.

The reader will note that there are disagreements – often violent – among the authors of these statements. The relationship between Israel and its neighbors in a subject of great interest and comment. Hence the verbal, as well as military conflict. And political and economic issues are also involved. There are innumerable statements about Israel and the nations that surround it and they express a wide variety of views. The determination of their correctness is up to you.

Next episode: “Suppose” – On the art of thinking.

The Final Perek

I wrote a few months ago about my concerns regarding the relationship between Israel and the United States. I'd like to add to what I said then, but with emphasis on what I fear may be the final outcome of the conflict in the Middle East. My fear is based on both history and future demographics, in addition to the attitudes of the world's nations.

One of the most beloved of books in the Jewish literature is entitled Pirkei Avot, literally Chapters of the Fathers. It is, primarily, one of the tractates from the Babylonian Talmud – Avot – and deals with the history of the Torah and the implications of Jewish law regarding right and wrong and proper behavior on the part of individual Jews. The original tractate consists of five chapters but a sixth was added – probably in pre-Geonic times, more than thirteen hundred years ago – when it became customary to read these lessons in the six weeks between Pesach and Shavuot, the period from the escape from Egypt in biblical times until the Jews received the Torah at Mount Sinai. (The work included the period from Moses to the time of the Sages.) The chapters are arranged to educate the Jewish People, and to inspire them and improve their behavior so that they would gain the greatest benefit from the Torah, which we receive symbolically each year.

But in addition to the travails of the Jews before the epiphany at Sinai, the time since as been marked by a long campaign of defamation and oppression. There is no need to review specific incidents, though they were many, for it is clear that the history of antisemitism is a long one. What has become obvious, however, is that the battle against the Jews has entered a new, and perhaps concluding, phase. And Avot is not up-to-date, but it still guides us.

It's interesting, though coincidental, that Islam originated in the same era as the weekly reading of Avot. Islam traces its roots back to Abraham and has adopted Jewish teachings within the Qur’an, though Muslims view the Qur'an as “The Final Testament.”  While he originally admired the Jewish People, when his attempts to convert them all to his faith were unsuccessful, Muhammad formed a less favorable view and his followers have hardened their positions further. Jews and Christians, “people of the Book” (he viewed the “old” and “new” testaments as components of the Bible and the basis for the Qur’an) were considered dhimmis, potentially protected – though second class – citizens of a Muslim state, who were required to pay a special tax. They were tolerated – but barely. We may have had the same ancestor, but we have very different outlooks.

Despite their origin geographically and historically, therefore, there are many differences between Muslims and Jews, only two of which are worth mention at this time because they have implications in regard to the final outcome of the current contention. One relates to the view of life. First, although for Jews a threat to life justifies the violation of Sabbath laws, and self-injury or placing one's life in jeopardy is forbidden, for the Muslim, death is preferable to violation of Shariah (Islamic law). Hence the following from the London Times:

A man was arrested in Dubai after he fought off lifeguards trying to save his drowning daughter, telling them that he would rather she die than be “dishonoured” [sic] by having unknown men touch her.

“Honor killings,” based on the perception that a woman has dishonored her family by being courted by a man not chosen or approved by her family, or even being raped, are, sadly, more common than we might want to believe. And the use of children as shields in some military actions – with their deaths predictable and often desired for political reasons, further reflects a view of life and death different from our own. As does the whole idea of martyrdom and its rewards.  Dying to kill Israelis is martyrdom.

I am also troubled by the whole idea of taqiya. Dan Perkins wrote in “The Hill,” a Washington newspaper “for and about Congress,”

“One of the guiding forces is called taqiya. This principle is sometimes referred to as dissimulation. Dissimulation, is a form of deception in which one conceals the truth from an infidel -- in our case America is the infidel. It consists of concealing the truth, or in the case of half-truths, concealing parts of the truth.

Muslims are taught from a very young age, that when they deal with infidels they do not have to do what they have said they’re going to do.

The concept stems from the words of Muhammad in the Qur'an: “War is deceit.” A treaty with a Muslim government is suspect. Relying, therefore, on the Iranians to inspect their own military installation in Parchin, for example, is not wise.

Adding to the deceit that Islam promotes, and the eagerness to die that it espouses, are the realities of Islam's numbers and high birth rate, and the readiness of the rest of the world to please Islamic nations for reasons of their economies and their preference for Muslims over Jews. Although all proclaim that the Jews control their governments, finances, and the press, most of the world's nations oppose Israel, those nations favor the Islamic world for economic reasons, and the world' media is tilted against Israel.

With the world's support, “The Final Testament” appears to be the one that will prevail. No one will fight it, irrespective of the implications for their own countries and religions. There are increasing numbers of Muslim voters who must be courted. Short-term benefits are their goal. Long-term aims must take a back seat.

But Israel cannot accept that approach. Their existence is at stake. With surrounding hostility, and facing an ever-enlarging and more powerful enemy presence, blind trust is not an option. Only certainty, if that can be obtained. The issue is not a two-state solution, but the question of whether there will be any Jewish State.

The final perek in the history of the Jews will either include the miracle of the coming of the Messiah and their rescue from the oppression of those who would destroy them, or the destruction itself. Only G-d can decide what is right. So we hearken back to the words of David ben Gurion: “In Israel, in order to be a realist you must believe in miracles.”

Next Episode: “Conflicting Rights” – You're right too.

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.

Past, Present, And Future

Arnold Toynbee, British historian (and well-known anti-semite: his most notable views expressed after the Holocaust were condemnations of Zionism and Israel for “the vicious disease of nationalism” and for committing atrocities on the Arabs, in addition to numerous references to “Judaic zealotry”) amazed by the longevity of the Jewish People, viewed it as anomalous. In volume 1 of A Study of History (1934), he wrote:

“There remains the case where victims of religious discrimination represent an extinct society which only survives as a fossil. .... by far the most notable is one of the fossil remnants of the Syriac Society, the Jews."

“Fossil” was one of the less pejorative terms Toynbee used, but Ezekial's prophecy was more accurate than Toynbee's history:

“I prophesied as I was commanded and the spirit entered them [the bones which represented Israel] and they revived. They rose on their feet, a very great multitude.”

That spirit has reentered the Jewish People, but the world is not happy about it.

Toynbee's bias, though shared by much of the world, was not universal. Eric Hoffer wrote,

“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 Frenchmen. 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.

Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this world.”

Earlier, Mark Twain had written

"If the statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one quarter of one percent of the human race.  It suggests a nebulous puff of star dust lost in the blaze of the Milky Way.  Properly, the Jew ought hardly to be heard of, but he is heard of, has always been heard of.  He is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk.”

“The Egyptians, the Babylonians and the Persians rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greeks and Romans followed and made a vast noise, and they were gone; other people have sprung up and held their torch high for a time but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, and have vanished.

“The Jew saw them all [and] survived them all.”

And even earlier, our first (and arguably our greatest) President wrote of the Jew

“May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.”

But I am afraid.

Since its founding, the United States has had what can only be viewed as a sympathetic relationship with the State of Israel, and one that is mutually beneficial. And there has been a great deal of identification with Israel by the American public. In Gallup Polls, there has been a consistent preference shown by our citizens for Israel over the Palestinians, with the edge shown in 2013 as 64% to 12%.

Foreign policy, however, reflects the preferences of the President, rather than the people. During World War II, the Roosevelt Administration denied Jews on the St. Louis the opportunity to save their lives by entering the United States, and Roosevelt refused to bomb the railroads leading to Auschwitz – another course that would have saved Jewish Lives. On the other had, his successor, Harry Truman, recognized the State of Israel only a few minutes after it was proclaimed.

When Israel, in response to the request of Britain and France, joined in the effort to retake the Suez Canal after Nasser nationalized it, President Eisenhower threatened sanctions. But more recent Presidents have been increasingly sympathetic to Israel and have supported it. As Lord Palmerston said, however, “Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” In our country, those “interests” are decided on by the President, and our current President has decided that it is in our interest to side with Israel's enemies. As the President's Secretary of State put it, "We are gathered here because our leaders made a courageous decision to stop being prisoners of history." He spoke of Cuba, but it has been a hallmark of this administration to ignore past principles and seek “courageous decisions” which the President hopes will form a heritage for him. Agreements with Iran and other tyrannies in the Middle East, he feels, are among the “permanent interests” of our country. Our people's views and our history are irrelevant. Whether or not that history is principled, it is now inconvenient.

Perhaps the policy reflects his personal worldview, or perhaps it reflects a changing world – one in which the Muslim population, already very large, is increasing faster than others, a world in which there is extensive anti-Israel sentiment everywhere (especially among academics and their students), where antisemitism, one the world's few constants, is increasing in strength, as is the need for oil.

Our adherence to Palmerston's philosophy, however, is likely to make our other “friends” and “allies” nervous, since we have demonstrated that we place expedience over principle; we can't be trusted. And if Israel cannot rely on its most trusted ally, I am worried.

Repairing The Breach

No question about it. PM Netanyahu and Israel's voters have painted themselves into a corner. They may have felt that they had no choice – that they had to go it alone – but the result is that they have thrown down the gauntlet in front of their oldest and most influential ally. In the face of a world that favors the Palestinians, the Israeli electorate has chosen to demonstrate its lack of confidence both in the world, and in its American ally.

It is a basic rule of argument that, even when all “right” is on your side, you do not paint your opponent into a corner if you ever hope to achieve some agreement in the future. There has to be a way out that does not involve a total loss of face. And you certainly don't allow him to corner you.

But the worst possible result is when you do the job for him.ⁱ “Right” and “wrong” are irrelevant issues if an ultimate reconciliation is desirable. If that reconciliation is to be achieved, one side will then have to blink. It will have to back down on an action or a principle that it had theretofore observed or announced – a “red line.” Absent some kind of condition in the original position,ⁱⁱ such a backing down will be an admission of error, and it will trigger a loss of confidence by those who had supported that position until then.

Sadly, however, that is where we are now. A nation that appeared to be weak and adrift when facing terrorism around the world; one that had been signaling its wish to be “evenhanded” in negotiations for a two-state solution to the Israel/Palestine impasse – a nation which initially pledged that Iran would not be permitted to have nuclear weapons, but is now willing to accept them while somewhat delaying their assembly – is seen by Israel as abandoning it. Whether or not the premises and the conclusion were correct, it was foolhardy for the Prime Minister not to take a patriotic stance that was so inflexible rather than one that still had some wiggle room in it. And it was dangerous for a significant part of the electorate to base its choice on that stance. It appears that a chasm has been opened – an irreparable rift between nations that share basic values. And that is a chasm that must be closed.

But how do you do that? Clearly the United States must “win.” If Israel prevails it will be further “proof” to an anti-semitic world that the Jews control our country, and they are the source of all evil. Israel will lose by winning. Our country, which is perceived as weak and leaderless, one already losing the respect of the world, will suffer a further decline in prestige and see its role in world affairs further diminished.

Netanyahu, and Israel, must “lose.” The challenge will be to find a way to do so in a way that can be presented to the voters as a political necessity rather than a disavowal of the promise he made to them. Even if the best result would be a stronger stand by the United States, and that is Israel's goal, Israel will not be permitted to defeat our country in a head-to-head confrontation. Ideally we will recognize the importance of good relations with Israel and the strengthening of our image around the world – it may take years and a change of administration to reach this point – but a breach in our alliance now will make rapprochement in the future more difficult.

Are there any plausible steps that can be made at the present? Perhaps. It's not likely that either side will recant – at least not willingly. Some modifications may be possible however. Most important, though, for the moment at least, not very likely, will be the restoration of American prestige. It will take time for our friends to trust and rely on us again, and it will take time before those who disagree with us take our wishes seriously. We do not project the power and resolve that was, once, our hallmark. But regaining that image is critical to our influence around the world. It has nothing to do with Israel. It's all about us.ⁱⁱⁱ

Israel, however, is a small state. However valuable it may be to us, it must recognize its role as our follower, not as our leader. Netanyahu has pledged not to have a Palestinian state during his time as Prime Minister, but the Knesset can overrule him.^iv Or he can initiate steps that will result in such an entity following the completion of his term.^v Alternatively, Netanyahu, in building a coalition, may be “forced” by potential partners to accept modifications of his pledge, in order to prevent the establishment of a left-wing government that might be worse for the country. And there are, I'm sure, other scenarios that can be adopted.

But Israel must act quickly, before the United States takes any steps by which it paints itself into a corner. Before the United States does anything irreversible, like voting in the UN to authorize a Palestinian State within borders unacceptable to Israel, healing must take place. It's not impossible, but it will be to everyone's best interests if we don't simply sit around and watch the paint dry.

I        It does not matter if your opponent (friend? – the one you are debating – one with whom you might wish ultimate reconciliation) is completely wrong. In fact, if he is completely wrong it's even more important that you leave him a way out.

ii        A “back door” – a condition under which you might modify your position. Or at least a hint that can be “spun” into proof that you have achieved your aim.

iii      The possibility that Iran will develop nuclear weapons must be taken more seriously by us. Initially President Obama pledged that it would never happen (the American people have learned that a leader's pledges aren't worth much, and the Israeli people must learn the same lesson) but those words have been forgotten. Initially, however, the risk was primarily Israel's – the country which Iran had vowed to eliminate. And Israel is expendable. But with Iran's development of intercontinental missiles, the nuclear threat to the United States is a consideration we must factor in. In this case the danger faced by the United States may make it more sympathetic to that facing Israel.

iv       This would result in a new election, but that provides another opportunity for the Israeli electorate to speak its mind.

v        Ideally a strengthened United States will be able to convince the Palestinians to accept a defensible Jewish state within borders agreeable to Israel. And guarantees will be provided for the survival of Israel. Perhaps the possibility of a state when Israel has vowed there will be none, will make the PA more amenable to an agreement.

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.

The Anniversary

Today is November 29^th, 2014. It is the 67^th anniversary of the United Nations General Assembly's approval of “Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine.” Included in that resolution was provision for the establishment of “[i]ndependent Arab and Jewish States.” It called for a “Jewish” state. The United Nations General Assembly authorized the formation of a Jewish state.

The Jewish government-in-formation accepted the plan, although there were some who felt that by doing so they gave away some land that should have been part of a new state, since it had been ordained by G-d to be theirs. The “Arab” statesⁱ unanimously rejected any division, with the view that any Jewish state in their region was unacceptable.

For its entire historyⁱⁱ the State of Israel has been under attack by its neighbors, and by the world at large. In 1947 a majority of the UN may have approved the formation of a Jewish state, and in 1949, based in part on a recommendation of the Security Council, it may have admitted Israel to membership,ⁱⁱⁱ but the Arab nations have taught their children that Israel and the Jews are their enemy and that it is their^iv obligation to give their lives to destroy “the sons of pigs and monkeys.” And, benefiting from their numbers and from their oil, they have launched an extensive campaign^v to isolate and destroy Israel. The world has funded this effort with its contribution of billions of dollars, ostensibly for the improvement of the lives of the Palestinian people, but somehow not finding its way into that work.^vi The work the Palestinian officials do is far more important.

It is of interest that there is much concern among the nations that Israel may define itself as what the United Nations sought to form: a Jewish State. According to Wikipedia, “A state religion (also called an established religion, state church, established church, or official religion) is a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state.” It lists twenty-one countries as Islamic.^vii There are also several with one variety or other of Christianity defining them or with Buddhism as the state religion, and this doesn't seem to trouble anyone. But Israel's claim is racist and a cause for outrage around the world. One Jewish state is too many.

It doesn't seem likely that there will be resolution of the problem in the near future – if ever. A few million people in a tiny land, however dominant they may be militarily at this time, cannot hope to prevail forever. Even if Israel were to find a substitute for oil^viii it would still have only one vote against dozens of Islamic states, and those states would be courted by the world's nations; and even if Israel could mount an informational campaign to illustrate the falsity of the accusations against it, there would be countless people who would continue to believe and spread the libels. It would take Israel's demise, and that of all Jews, with the world's problems continuing, to make it clear that in reality there are other causes which they are ignoring. But by that time it will be too late, and they will still believe that somehow or other the Jews were the cause of the troubles. Unfortunately, there is no obvious answer. Unless ...

Billions support them. All we need is One.

I        For the most part they are led and peopled by Muslims, but there are a few others as well.

ii       And before. Of course prior to 1948, when the state was declared, the aim of annihilation was directed at the Jews in general – by the Christians and the Muslims. That aim has, since the Holocaust, and since overt anti-Semitism has gone out of fashion, been directed against Israel. At least nominally.

iii      “Admission of Israel to the United Nations, General Assembly Resolution 273 (III), 11 May 1949”

iv       Primarily Muslims.

v        In the media, in public and political fora, on college campuses (including both faculty and students), among church leadership, and in those in whom they recognize the existence or potential for anti-Semitism.

vi       Much of it seems to have disappeared, so Hamas and the Palestinian Authority are seeking additional funding from nations around the world.

vii     The Organisation [sic] of Islamic Cooperation, which considers itself "the collective voice of the Muslim world,” comprises 57 member states. Afghanistan, Iran, Mauritania, and Pakistan are officially “Islamic Republics,” and others limit participation in any substantive aspect of public life of any but Muslims.

viii    And I suspect it will. Israel is a modern technological island in the middle of an area focused on the medieval era and its practices.

Addendum

Add this to yesterday's post.

Headline Shocker Implicates Israel in Ceasefire Breakdown   The Daily Telegraph's headline on the attempted Gaza ceasefire implicates both Israel and Hamas as equally responsible for its breakdown. Read more...

And, of course, it lists Israel first.