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.

Give 'Til It Hurts

President Obama will give his State of the Union address later today, but he's been advertising its themes on social media and in speeches for several days. He will propose a variety of programs and benefits aimed at propping up the middle-class and the poor. The purpose of his proposals, we are told, is to set his agenda for the coming years and to initiate action so that we will know it, as will Congress, with which, he asserts, he is ready to work.

For the first time in many years both houses of Congress are Republican. The likelihood of passage of these measures is minimal – especially since his plan for funding them is to increase taxes on the “rich.” Remembering the Occupy Wall Street movement, as well as the demands of large parts of our population for more benefits and entitlements, and the threats of action by unions around the country, it cannot be denied that there is a pervasive feeling that American society is divided between the few who are rich and the many who are struggling at best, or flat out poor. The number of voters who feel put-upon is huge.

As far as cooperation with Congress, he has already threatened to veto several measures which as yet aren't even on the table. His vow to work with the Republicans, therefore, is one which many people question. The agenda he is proposing seems to be both the beginnings of a platform for 2016 and a populist heritage which the President would like to leave for the history books. It seems likely that he has neither the possibility nor the anticipation of accomplishing what he states to be his agenda, and that of the Democratic Party, but it appears to be aimed at getting votes in the next election.

Raising the stakes is Oxfam, which announced yesterday that the “Richest 1 Percent [around the world] Will Dominate Wealth Next Year.”ⁱ The problem of income inequity is international. Not only are we concerned about the one percent and the ninety-nine percent in the United States, but it is a problem everywhere.

In the article announcing the sitution, it was noted that “More than a billion people live on less than $1.25 a day.” That's $456.25 per year. In addition to other amenities which the President receives,ⁱⁱ both during and following his service, he gets a $400,000 annual salary, along with a $50,000 annual expense account, a $100,000 nontaxable travel account, and $19,000 for entertainment.^iii,iv In terms of the global one percent with which Oxfam is concerned, the President is certainly a member.^v

And so are all those in Congress, for their base salary is $174,000 annually. Add in all the sports and entertainment personalities who earn far more than the rest of us.

But speaking of “the rest of us,” it's worth mention that the majority of all Americans are members of the international one percent^vi so, in Oxfam's view, we're part of the problem. And if the “rich” of America should be taxed to pay for support of our own poor, it is reasonable to wonder to what degree the United States is responsible for ameliorating the world's poverty. Should the programs which we seek for ourselves be offered on an equal basis to all the people on earth? Should that be part of our heritage?

But there is more. There is an important, if undiscussed aspect of this situation which should be considered before we fund our own programs and spread our resources around the world. What will it accomplish? Can we feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and provide housing for the homeless, or is all we're doing punishing those who have more than we do? Might we anticipate other negative effects of such policies: whether the impoverishment of our own people – the poor as well as the rich – or the removal of the stimulus to succeed? Some – Conservatives of course – question whether taxing the rich will solve America's problems. Even if they're wrong, having only five percent of the world's population, it doesn't seem probable that our resources can solve everyone's problems. But we are the one percent. And if we are responsible to our own citizens, we have a similar obligation to all who share the world with us. If I have the right to decide that anyone with more than I is rich and should help me out, don't others have that right as well?

The problem is clear. There isn't enough to go around in a would of over 7.2 billion people. The solution is not obvious. As I pointed out, if we can decide that those who have more than we should share what they have with us, aren't others entitled to call upon us and our resources to support them? According to the Bible,^vii “For destitute people will not cease to exist within the Land; therefore I command you, saying 'You shall surely open your hand to your brother, to the poor, and to your destitute in your Land.'” Charity. It's not a very good solution since there are many who don't believe (and never will) that they have enough for themselves. But it's a solution in which each of us retains the right to decide for himself – not to have others^viii decide for him. Once people lose this right and once everyone has the “right” to decide what he needs and who will pay for it, we face the anarchy of competing demands.

It is a sad reality that short of relocating billions of people from areas in which weather conditions make them vulnerable, increasing food production, and providing sufficient industry to guarantee jobs for all – goals that are, at least for now, unattainable – we are left to rely on the hope that charity can provide some of the needs of the poor. Or we can allow others – who have their own agendas – to make all the decisions about reallocating the resources of those whom they accuse of responsibility for the world's ills.

As I noted, the solution isn't obvious. But I'm not convinced that the best way of dealing with the problem is to pander to populism.

I        © Copyright 2015 Bloomberg News. All rights reserved.

ii       Lodging, food, health care, transportation, pension, security, etc.

iii      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States

iv       Whether this level of compensation is justified is not for me to judge. The point is to put matters in perspective.

v        Indeed, his salary and benefits put him in the top one percent of American earners as well.

vi       Even our poverty-level income is more than eighty-seven percent of the world's population makes. See http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/09/the-top-1-percent-of-the-world/ Admittedly the article comes from a Conservative publication and the numbers may be off a little. But the problem cannot be denied.

vii      Deuteronomy 15:11. The translation is from the Artscroll edition.

viii     All too often a faceless bureaucracy.

Here We Go Again

 

Every four years or so the President, whoever he is, makes a well-publicized effort to settle the Israel-Palestine dispute. It usually takes place at the beginning of a presidential election cycle and is designed to show determination to solve a problem with which he has either not dealt since the last election, or failed at solving earlier. It is a political move designed to show his involvement in world affairs and his determination to solve one of the world's most heralded crises, and it is a move intended to garner votes for himself and his party. After the election and the inevitable failure of the effort, it becomes of lesser importance.

That is the background for this past weekend's flurry of activity by President Obamaⁱ and the immediate rejection of his stand by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. The demand by the President, one to which Prime Minister Netanyahu cannot accede, is for the establishment of a Palestinian State based on the 1949 truce borders.ⁱⁱ He fears that such borders would be “indefensible.” During the period that preceded the 1967 war there was constant harassment of Israeli farmers from the Golan as well as incitement from elsewhere.

But that was more than four decades ago. Weapons are better now – both military arms and political propaganda – and harassment and incitement have turned to aggression and murder. There is constant rocket attack from Gaza, which Israel gave to the Palestinians in the hope of peace – a hope that was quickly discredited. There is the likelihood that the Palestinians will secure from an ineffectual and fearful UN a declaration of “statehood.” It will be the statehood of a power sworn to destroy another UN member.

And, not surprisingly, there is now a threat from Egypt that its new government will scrap an existing treaty with Israel – a “peace” treaty for which Israel gave up the Sinai and its oil fields. The abrogation of treaties, however, is not new to Islam, dating back to 630 when Muhammad attacked and took Medina in violation of the Treaty of Hudaibiya which he had made with the Quraysh in 628. There is a religious rationalization of this position since it is based on a general Islamic concept of Taqiya, lying to those whom you consider your enemies, and there is also a lesser form, Kitman, in which deception involves telling only part of the truth. Thus Israel is wary since it is, at best, risky to enter into any agreement with those who hold such beliefs, and even more so to do so when your “partners in peace” refuse to recognize you and vow your destruction.

That, however, is what President Obama asks Israel to do.ⁱⁱⁱ He feels that Israel should take some “risks” for peace. Use the old borders for a start and trust the Palestinians to agree to a fair bargain and a mutually acceptable two state solution. The President is intent on showing America's respect for Islam and the Arab countries, even though those nations don't trust the United States and would be happy to see our country's power and culture crushed. The contention is often made that you must negotiate and conclude peace agreements with your enemies, not your friends, but doing so – loving your enemy – is not synonymous with hating and sacrificing your friends.

The world calls for a two state solution in the Middle East, one that would include a Palestinian state with its capital in Jerusalem. Indeed, from the perspective of international powers bent on accommodation of the Palestinians, division of Jerusalem – Ir Shalom, the City of Peace – makes sense – at least the public demand for it. I wonder, however, how successful the world's experience has been with divided cities. My recollection of places like Berlin, and of Jerusalem during the time of its division suggests that this is a sure road to failure. And has there ever been a city that was the capital of two different – and warring – nations?^iv If so, how did that work out? We are cautioned to remember history, and not to repeat its mistakes. The Middle East is no place to experiment, especially in the name of cynical politics.

There are those who would eliminate Israel; many who deny the occurrence of the Holocaust; and some who disingenuously deny any relationship between the Jews and Jerusalem (or "Palestine"). There are those who hold the Jews (Israel) responsible for all the problems in the Middle East, or even the world. Some claim anti-Zionism is not the same as anti-Semitism. That's true in theory, but most "anti-Zionists" use that label as a justification for anti-Semitism.

The upcoming UN debate over the recognition of Palestinian and the deligitimization of Israel, along with the upcoming Durban clone^v are certain to attract the attention of the media and, through them, the public. As to whether the questions raised are themselves legitimate, there can be much debate. The real issue, however, is why there is so little attention paid to the crimes perpetrated by the various Arab States – to their racism, sexism, homophobia, corruption, and lack of regard for human rights.^vi There is no attention to the issue of whether, for example, Syria should exist. Like Israel it is a creation of an international body, but unlike Israel it has no historical basis. And whether or not there is a historical basis for a particular state, there is at least as much reason to question some of its neighbors as Israel itself. But there is a dearth of critical thinking and discussion by other countries; no criticism of those neighbors as the real causes of unrest in the area. Only the rush to blame it all on Israel.

And that is basis for the current situation. Sadly, rather than take a firm stand based on America's principles, President Obama is using his “bully pulpit” to give the appearance of strength as he demonstrates his weakness. Like so many other nations he is yielding to the demands of the region's tyrannies. Perhaps he views it as being in America's interests. Perhaps he considers it good politics. But, as the saying goes, it's bad policy. It's a sure recipe for the distrust of any nation with which we have a treaty.

Presidential politics can take a terrible toll.

 

i     That and the current turmoil in the Middle East. The turmoil, in many nations, demonstrates that the causative problems have nothing to do with Israel – only to the difficulties in those countries themselves. All of the accusations that Zionism is responsible for all their problems was meant to distract their own citizens from the tyrannies that controlled them and the deplorable conditions which they had to suffer.

ii    They are described as the 1967 borders to make them sound more contemporary and to suggest that the 1967 War is the source of all the current disagreements.

iii    Israel is certain to mistrust the Arab nations and anticipate violation of any agreement with them. But it is sad that she cannot rely on a commitment of the United States. In 2004 President Bush stated that the truce lines now being promoted could not serve as the basis for any peace negotiations. If America renounces her commitment not to use “the armistice lines of 1949” as a basis for such negotiations – a position supported by then Senator Hillary Clinton – how can Israel rely on any other nation to honor any promises to her? After all, if the United States, a “friend,” doesn't have to live up to commitments to Israel, why should anyone else. And, for that matter, why should anyone live up to any commitments to the United States?

iv    A period when the destruction of synagogues may have been important, but none of the Arab powers gave any thought to the city as capital of a Palestinian state. In fact, no interest was even displayed in the establishment of a Palestinian state when the Arabs held large parts of the country, including much of Jerusalem. Only when Israel ruled the area did they discover that there was a Palestinian people and a land they should rule.

v     Scheduled for September 22, 2011 in New York. It's nominally a conference on “racism” but, like the UN in general, it seems to have as its main goal the discrediting of Israel.

vi    These are usually passed off as internal affairs which should be of no concern to “outsiders.” Israel, on the other hand, …