The Never-ending Middle East Conflict

I'd love to see an end to the Middle East conflict before I die. But I probably won't. No matter what Israel concedes, there will be new demands from jihadist groups, and the governments with which Israel negotiates won't accept any peace treaty. Even if they do, there is always the loophole of Taqiyya, which sanctions lying by Muslims, making such a treaty suspect.

We can hope the conflict will end in one or two generations, but I suspect that such a wish is unjustifiably optimistic. It's likely that those who have already been infected will hang on for a long time, and that they'll retain their hatred and teach it to their own children. So I can only hope that before the Messiah comes, peace will come. But I am not sanguine.

For the reason that the dispute will persist is that it is religious. And since religion is, by definition, not rational, neither is the hatred. For many centuries anti-Semitism has been largely the domain of Christians. And they created a mythology around it, charging, among other things, that the Jews killed Christian children, caused diseases like the black plague to obliterate the Christians, and opposed Christianity itself, primarily by killing Jesus. They were children of Satan. The Muslims took over the hatred of Jews, claiming the Jews (now Israelis) killed Muslim children, caused diseases like AIDS that were aimed at Muslims, and opposed Islam by stealing their land. They are children of pigs and monkeys. There is a long history of anti-Semitism, and subsequently “anti-Zionism,” which still exists and is becoming stronger. As Santayana said (in,“The Life of Reason,” 1905-1906)

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

For a good part of his life Muhammad had a favorable opinion of the Jews (“[T]he earliest verses of the Qur[']an were largely sympathetic to Jews. Mohammed [sic] admired them as monotheists and saw them as natural adherents to the new faith” (Wikipedia, citing Bernard Lewis). Muhammad “admired them as monotheists and saw them as natural adherents to the new faith,” viewing them as the favored of G-d (Allah), but he later cursed them. It was on this later enmity that Muslim commentators built, and their hatred persists. For this reason they will continue irrationally to seek the destruction of the Jews irrespective of what they are offered. That's the goal. And they will continue to do so unless they are taught that it is their religious obligation to abandon this hostility.

But that result will be long in coming. Needed is a change in mentality of the Islamic politicians and clergy, and in the content of the schoolbooks used by Arab and Islamic children. And in the indoctrination on TV and elsewhere. It will take pressure from around the world to effectuate this but, sadly, the world has heard the indoctrination so often itself that it has learned to accept and parrot the Islamic public relations lines. Dripping water, even though the amounts seem small, eventually erodes rock. The big lie. Repeat it often enough … Even “moderate” Israeli Muslims view Israel as a belonging to them. (How would they do without the advantages of Israeli society? They receive more benefits from Israel than do their brothers under Islamic rule, and most would prefer not to give up those advantages.)

So the nations will continue to favor the Muslims and their demands. It will aid them in getting what they want by political means since they have failed militarily.

But they have not learned from history. What starts out affecting the Jews will ultimately affect others. It's happened before. Christians have already suffered (as have many Muslims). In addition, random attacks will affect whoever is around. “Islam is overtly hostile towards other religions! More importantly, Islam is overtly hostile to non-Islamic governments; we can witness it in the subterranean wars that Muslims are currently waging against the world’s Liberal Democracies.” (From “Islam Watch – Islam Under Scrutiny by Ex-Muslims” – 17 May, 2009.) Total destruction of an enemy is difficult, but they will do their best to kill all the Jews, and then the others.

What are the possible outcomes? Total victory for Islam is certainly one of them. There are over 2.118 billion Muslims in the world. That's 29 percent of the world's population and the percentage is slowly increasing. Their greatest enemies at the moment are other Muslims, since sectarian differences are responsible for more deaths among them than are caused by any non-Muslim group. Indeed, infighting among Muslim's could eventually cause more problems for them than anything else.

Another possibility is a preemptive war, originating in Israel or the United States. The problem, however, is that the world of Islam is wide, and the choice of a target will be difficult. They will all, for example, protest any attack on Iran. And, as I noted earlier, the total destruction of an enemy is difficult – especially when it involves such a large part of the world's population. Although the large majority of Muslims are not obsessed about war against the West, their clerics will continue to indoctrinate them concerning its virtue.

Perhaps there will be an end to the teaching of hatred. It would be a miracle, but miracles certainly cannot be discounted. However as long as it remains accepted Muslim doctrine that any land where Muslims live now, or have lived in the past, is theirs and must be ruled by Sharia, Muslim law, there is a risk that Islam will destroy all its enemies – or, at least, try.

To paraphrase Reverend Martin Niemöller, a German pastor during the Holocaust,

 First they came for IDF members, and I did not speak out—
 Because I was not a member of the IDF.

         Then they came for all Israelis, and I did not speak out—
         Because I was not an Israeli.

         Then they came for the other Jews, and I did not speak out—
         Because I was not a Jew.

[Fill in everyone else.]

         Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Edmund Burke said “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” The world supports them, but sooner or later the haters will come for everyone and, unless the intolerance is abandoned, there will be no one to speak for us.

Unless there's a miracle.

Next episode: “Pot Luck" — Marijuana used to be bad, but now it's good.

 

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.

Reign, Reign, Go Away

 

“Après moi, le déluge” Louis XV is reputed to have said this,ⁱ although he was not thinking about rain at the time. He was certainly not considering Cairo, where the annual rainfall averages less than a half inch. In all of Egypt it it is usually less than three and a half inches. The annual overflow of the Nile between June and September – at least until the building of the Aswan Dam in July, 1970 – provided the water needed to grow crops.

Le déluge, however, came to Cairo in January and February of 2011. It came in the form of a peaceful revolution, with protesters filling Tahrir Square (Liberation Square) and protesting until Hosni Mubarak stepped down.

This wasn't the first revolution in the area: demonstrations had forced Tunisian President Ben Ali to resign just prior to the events in Egypt. In fact, the rallies in Tunisia had sparked those in Egypt. And there has been subsequent ferment in Bahrain and chaos and tragedy in Libya, with unrest in Yemen, Iran, Algeria, Morocco, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, as well as that continuing in the “West Bank” and Gaza. North Africa and the Middle East are in turmoil.ⁱⁱ It is impossible to know what other countries may be involved by the time this is printed, nor what governments will have fallen.

It cannot be denied that the free flow of information through broadcasts and via the internet and the various social networks contributed to the rapid spread of rebellion. When uprisings occurred in numerous European countries in 1848, the spread of information – and revolution – took longer, as was also the case during the fall of the Soviet bloc in Eastern Europe in the 1980s and 1990s. But in both cases the revolutionaries in one country took heart from the successes of their fellows elsewhere.

Looking at the current ongoing crisis, it is difficult to know what was the precipitating cause, although there are several factors which surely contributed. Among them are the poverty of much of the population, corruption by public officials, and the tyranny under which the people lived.ⁱⁱⁱ What do the protesters seek? Certainly not a new king or despot. They all yearn for democracy, although they may not really understand what that means.

Democracy is messy. Despotism is less so. You can make the trains run on time if those in your way are eliminated. It's not so easy if you have to contend with unions and the next election. But that is what makes a real democracy self-correcting. An orderly procedure is in place for changing governments when there is unhappiness with existing policies. It may not be as rapid as with a revolution, the knowledge that governmental change is possible, however, will usually be a good incentive for leaders not to stray too far from the will of their constituents.

But revolution does not necessarily lead to democracy. Following the Russian Revolution the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks split, and the former suppressed the latter. The resulting government was certainly no democracy. The “people” may have rid themselves of the czar, but the government they got instead was no bargain. And when the Iranians expelled the Shah, the ayatollah who replaced him did not ordain a free government and one following the will of the people.

And democracy also has risks. Differences of opinion are not easily suppressed, and may lead to unrest even in a democratic society. The American Civil War, which took place before the federal government was as powerful as it is now, is an example of such an event. But there are other risks. Not all “free” elections are honest. The election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was questioned by a large part of the Iranian population as well as by many other nations, but once in control of the government, the President suppressed opposition. So now there is new unrest in Iran and, if its leaders are not killed or jailed, the Iranian “democracy” may fall. And although Hitler came in second in the German elections of 1932, as part of the democratic process the following year he was appointed Chancellor and put in a position to totally eliminate democracy^iv from his adopted country.^v Meaningful voting is based on a culture and on education, and premature voting – especially that based on disinformation and emotion – is likely to lead to tyranny, not democracy.

And that is the problem in much of the world now in turmoil. There is no culture that can be expected to provide a base for a lasting democracy. Revolution is a rejection of existing conditions. It is a negative act. Democracy – real democracy – is positive. It does not focus solely on elimination of the old, but provides choices for the new. There are alternatives, not just the leader of an uprising. And a system like our own, with checks and balances, prevents any one individual, party, or bureau from becoming too powerful.

This is democracy as we understand it, but for many others “democracy” is simply a mantra aimed at toppling a government in power. The result is not likely to be a freely elected government, especially if a nation has been taught that religious laws, and hence religious officials, are paramount. A more probable result is a new tyranny, a military coup, or the election of a radical group which will take the country to a situation as bad, if not worse, than the current one. But what is the alternative?

The present situation has been fueled by information. The information has been of several kinds. It has included exposés of the impossibly difficult situation of a country's population and the benefits and powers of its leaders, the lives of others around the globe and the kinds of government they enjoy, and the steps that others have taken to rid themselves of the dictators who rule them. Our own government has broadcast extensively about democracy and its advantages, as well as the relative well-being of our own citizens. It's no wonder that others seek similar situations. We have given them the beginnings of an education.

This is the direction we must follow. More education. More information. We have preached democracy and we must support it. Not all the results will be favorable, but some will. And if the others relapse into new tyrannies, there will be future revolutions. It's up to us to provide the education, and perhaps eventually others will learn from it. Tranquility, unfortunately, is not at hand. We can hope for peace and real democracies, but it's more likely that additional dictatorships will follow. In the end though, the decision is theirs. Deluge or gentle nourishing spring rain. We can only hope for the best.

 

Next episode: Bowerman, Fixx And The Mexican Cartel – The worse it tastes, the better it is for you.

i     Some attribute it to Madame de Pompadour.

ii    Most of this seems to be a complete surprise to the current American administration and there seems to be no plan for dealing with it except to condemn Israel. The UN Security Council tried to do so but the United States, bowing to the large majority of American public opinion, vetoed the resolution, only to denounce Israel afterwards. It has since condemned Libya but it remains to be seen if this censure is, like most actions against countries other than Israel, a one-time affair.

iii    It's interesting that although most of the problems in the area are attributed to the issue of Palestine, this was not a matter of great significance to those who rebelled. All politics is local. The Palestinian issue seems to have been a smokescreen used by leaders of the countries involved to distract their own citizens from the difficulties which existed locally. That is not surprising. It is shameful, however, that other nations, under the cover of the United Nations, have abjectly surrendered to the Arab position and, while Middle East tyrants oppressed their own people, only displayed an interest in destroying the area's sole democracy. Those nations demonstrated a greater concern for Arab oil than Arab freedom and lives.

iv    He turned Germany into a military dictatorship.

v     Hitler was an Austrian who got German citizenship – and the right to run in German elections – because he served, as a result of an appointment, as administrator for the Brunswick state's delegation to the Reichsrat (with the Reichstag, one of the two German legislative bodies) in Berlin. Citizenship came with the appointment.