Antisemitism

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

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 And they believed that they had superseded the Jews as Israel, G-d's chosen people.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 27, 2017

Redoing The UN

[This will be a little longer than usual. I hope it's worth your time.]

Reality time. I got all huffy and indignant last week at the failures of the United Nations, and I indicated additional costs to New York from maintaining their headquarters here. I indicated the advantages both to the United States and to New York City of terminating an association with the organization. But I did not actually propose that we do so.

Would we be justified? What I said about the organization's failure still stands. The high hopes I, and others had for the United Nations have, unfortunately, not proved to reflect its actual accomplishments, but the path of withdrawal, however warranted it might be, would likely take us where we don't want to go. A stick without a carrot may be effective in the short run, but it is not liable to provide the long term results we desire.

Murphy, whoever he may have been, predicted that whatever we tried to do would fail. He did not say so, though others have, that every action has unanticipated consequences. Unanticipated and undesired. Withdrawal from the UN certainly would. “What if” analyses would uncover a lot of them but not all. If we wait until all results are predictable, however, no action would ever be taken, so we have to work with best guesses.

Some things are clear. Those nations – and there are many of them – that distrust the US or dislike us for any reason will certainly detest us even more. And it's also certain that people will remain people and they will continue to place personal and national interests above those that are international. It's easy to speak piety, but practicing it isn't likely unless there is something to be gained thereby. The rich will remain rich, and the poor, poor. The strong will continue to be powerful and want to dominate the weak. Because people – and now I'm talking about national leaders, but we're all the same – won't change. There has to be something that convinces the population that they will benefit from what is offered, or a tyrant will have free rein.

Carrots are indicated. An unsupervised infusion of money won't do the trick, since those leaders will often find a way to siphon off most of it for themselves, but development and training programs for the uneducated and for those without a way of earning a living may be helpful. One possibility is for the United States to send to the poor nations, perhaps the poorest first, a group capable of evaluating what resources or services can be developed in each nation – preferably to fill a need that is not being filled already and is thus “needed” by the rest of the world – and then a team to supply needed materials and help them implement the recommendations of the group. Other countries must be discouraged afterwards from trying to compete. The goal would be to have each nation able to provide some things the world needs and thus make cooperation between countries to everyone's benefit. Mutual dependence may help nations; development will help individuals and make them less susceptible to the promises of tyrants. New nations that apply for UN membership should be required to submit development plans that will benefit their own citizens.

We might also send materials and workers to assist in the building of homes and other necessary buildings in countries that are too poor to be able to do so on their own. The Peace Corps and Habitat For Humanity are among the models which might be considered. The personnel performing this function would also be useful in teaching farming and other techniques that would aid individuals and families in areas that are not national priorities.

Another inducement – and one that would lessen the strain on New York City – would be to move the UN to somewhere accessible nearby where land is less expensive. The sale of property in mid-Manhattan, both land and buildings, would bring in a large bankroll which might at least pay for the beginnings of the establishment of a UN campus, more modern and congenial than the one imagined in the 1940s, close to the city but outside it, with buildings (including a museum in which nations would be able to display whatever about their countries that they deem significant), residences for representatives of all nations, and the conveniences of a small town (restaurants, grocery stores, clothing stores, etc.) and would lessen the congestion in the city while turning Turtle Bay into taxable property. And it would lessen the city's security costs and the abuse of our laws by those with diplomatic immunity. Payment by the various countries involved, of less than they were paying for rent and other expenses in the city would also contribute to making the campus viable. (And they'd have to work with each other in governing themselves.) Such a facility would also provide privacy for the workings of the organization. True, the diplomats would be separated from fancy restaurants, theaters, and expensive shops, but the purpose of the UN is not to amuse diplomats, but to get the world's work done. And it's also a sad fact that school class trips to the UN would be all but eliminated, however it would be for a good cause.

As for the UN's functions, security should be provided for all nations, possibly based on agreement that all borderlines are sacrosanct and a standing UN army will be activated automatically, and with only limited discussion, whenever one country's troops, “irregulars,” or ordinance, cross a border without permission. It would constitute a universal military alliance, making local pacts irrelevant. We always search for ways to avoid confrontation. It's certainly virtuous to do so, but there are some “red lines” we must draw and enforce if we hope to get nations to respect each other's borders. Sanctions may be good warnings, but assured action is more likely to achieve the purpose.

A single international economic body makes sense and would eliminate the need for multiple, often competing agreements. All nations should contribute to it, with contributions based on territory, population and some fiscal measure like gross national product. All monetary grants (except as noted) should be in the form of programs that are paid from its funds. Forensic accountants should be employed to make sure that the money used doesn't go into the pockets of officials and other skimmers. Money may be disbursed when a country's economy demands, but the forensic accountants should monitor this as well. (And, perhaps, the accountants should also be monitored.)

Steps should be taken as well to help the organization act more honorably. One of its goals is the promotion of human rights. So says its charter, but the UN doesn't always live up to its ideals. The UN Human Rights Commission regularly contains nations that have poor records – they are among the worst offenders of the UN principles – but their democratic election is appropriate. However member nations should be required to appraise each other's record annually by completing a rating form of all members annually. Their appraisal can be evaluated by everyone to see if it is unbiased and if the choices of members in the commission corresponds to it; and if the agenda and the views of the group seem to make sense. Of course some nations may decline to perform evaluations, but this, too, should be public knowledge.

Similarly every nation should evaluate the performance of the other nations in regard to their compliance with other rulings by the UN. Here, too, the evaluations would have no purpose other than to educate the world's population about what members believe – or at least say – about each other. And it may put some countries in the position of having to justify and live up to their claims.

A single judiciary should be established making it both unnecessary and impossible for individual nations to prosecute “war criminals” from other countries. Many prosecutions are justified, but others are primarily for political purposes.

Perhaps the published evaluations (the UN already publishes a great deal) would put nations in the position of rethinking their stands on various issues and various procedures. It would certainly help the public understood the stands of the member nations which would be the case if their biases (points of view, if you prefer) are already known. As such it will lessen the need for prolonged and repetitive arguments in the General Assembly. Discussion of real issues is warranted, but prolonged vituperation can be avoided.

And that brings us to the worst problem – the one that led me to consider the UN in the first place. It is the veto which is used to provide a stumbling block to action. Whatever its original justification, its primary implementation is for the purpose of preventing the UN from taking action. What might be useful is to turn the founding nations into a crisis committee of five and require only a majority vote for it to bring any item to the full Security Council at which two vetoes would be necessary to block any action. Speeches made in the Council could also be evaluated by the world's population in the light of previously stated positions. It would still be possible to block action but it would be harder and political causes would be more obvious.

Would such changes help? Would they have the effect of making the UN into a true advocate of world peace? Are they practical? Are they practicable? Of course not. There are many consequences I haven't foreseen or considered.  But discussion of them may cause members to rethink both the procedures of the organization and the decisions it reaches. And it may be enough to hold us over until meaningful changes can be made. And it may provide time for us to revise our parking laws.






February 12, 2017

UNdoing The World's Business

The United States is the center of the diplomatic world. That's been the case for quite a while. Woodrow Wilson was instrumental in establishing the League of Nations – even if the United States never joined. And the establishment of the United Nations during World War II was, in large part, based on American initiatives. In 1945 that newly-organized body was formally established when the United Nations Charter was signed in San Francisco, and eventually was headquartered in Turtle Bay on land donated by the Rockefellers. It was a noble endeavor.

There were many reasons for constituting the organization – initially it derived from the formation of an alliance to defeat the Axis powers, but, by the time it was finally established, the war was over. Nonetheless it was believed that a forum where all nations could meet and talk would be preferable to multiple discussions and multiple treaties between nations, and it was felt that problems could be talked out and wars averted. Honorable goals, indeed.

Declarations of rights followed, and agencies were formed in order to deal with particular problems – problems whose solution would benefit us all, but primarily the impoverished, oppressed, and needy around the world. We might approximate Wendell Willkie's goal of One World.

It didn't take long to discover, however, that serious problems existed. Perhaps the most obvious of these was the veto, that allowed certain nations to block decisions of the Security Council – the most important action organ of the UN. The veto, itself, however, made sense on paper. It was clear that when the organization admitted more members – members who may not have aided in the defeat of the Axis – they might outvote the “heavy lifters” who had done the bulk of the fighting and dying during the war, the nations that founded the UN, and those nations might use the UN for their own purposes. Giving the founders, nations large in power but small in numbers, the power to block actions that might involve them in popular whims, more war, or anything else undesirable, was considered a wise action.

The result, however, was that these powerful nations, with different national interests and agendas, used their veto in the service of political aims, and they have done so to the present. Vetoes provide bargaining leverage when that is needed, and the illusion of being in control, although they know that countries that were once their allies could also veto their own favored programs. Perhaps these were unintended consequences, but they should have been anticipated.

What's left, then, is a General Assembly quite capable of righteous indignation and of talking, but a Security Council that can stymie any meaningful action – and almost invariably does. And the result is that the founders have “protected” their interests in the Council, but the other nations have hijacked the General Assembly. (And they've manipulated it – for example, making Israel the scapegoat for all the world's problems while they ignore the wars, genocides, and tyrannies around the world. Their words result largely from antisemitism and economics, but are framed in the jargon of political correctness and liberal ideology. It's Israel now, but could be another nation once Israel is out of the way.)

That is not to say that the UN doesn't have useful projects which, when not used as political tools, help the disadvantaged. There are efforts to improve health and to feed the needy; there are scientific projects and programs that provide aid in time of natural disaster. But when it comes to man-made disasters – actions and situations that might be viewed as suggesting responsibility – the UN is likely to be paralyzed by one or more of its members. And that's the case when conflict benefits one of the founding nations. Nations are more concerned about their own interests than the benefit of the world.

What are our interests? Specifically, how do we benefit from the UN? Has that organization achieved what it aimed at? Unfortunately there are still many wars, and there have been many murderous attacks to which the UN has not responded. The organization may have provided a forum for talk, but it has not prevented war, because war, murder, and even malicious speech are the acts of people – even if only a minority of people – people who have only their own interests at heart. And while they may try to affect the words and actions of the United Nations, they will not be affected by it. Their personal, and to a lesser extent their national, interests are all they care about. And they want the world to care about them too.

Has the UN made other alliances unnecessary? NATO, the EU, Confédération Interalliée des Sous-Officiers de Réserve (CISOR), the Islamic Military Alliance, the Peninsula Shield Force, and numerous other organizations suggest that this is not the case. Many such treaties and alliances exist outside the UN even though they should have been eliminated long ago.

Sad to note, however, the UN failure has not come cheap. The United States is assessed more than all the other founders combined for “peacekeeping” operations. Erin R. Graham , in an opinion essay in yesterday's Washington Post – one attempting to minimize and justify the cost to the US, – notes that “The United States also pays an estimated 28 percent of U.N. Peacekeeping budgets, due to its position as a permanent, veto-bearing member on the Security Council” but omits any mention of the far smaller assessments for the other “veto-bearing member[s].” It is of interest that our country, which supplies a home for the organization, also pays 22 percent of its total annual budget.

And there are costs to New York and to New Yorkers. In addition to the loss of valuable property in mid-town Manhattan, and the taxes that would accrue from it, there is the inconvenience of street closings and traffic congestion during General Assembly sessions. Not to be overlooked is the fat that the diplomats from many countries have immunity to all our laws, and, most annoyingly, are exempt from the parking and other regulations which we must observe.

The UN has failed, and we are all paying a high price for that failure. One solution (and I'll have more to say on the subject next week) is withdrawal from the UN and utilization of the property on which it stands. The billions saved by not supporting its bureaucracy and operations could be used to fund the kinds of health and agriculture projects which have been successful – without a “middle man” to drain off some of what we offer. And the absence of an outside controller would give us a greater ability to act in a timely manner.

Obviously it's not that simple. But the first step is acknowledgment that our hopes for unity and world peace have not been met. Perhaps we'd be better off if we were not at the center of the diplomatic world.

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

Trick Or Treat

I heard on the radio a few days ago that Americans will be spending 3.1 billion dollars on Halloween costumes this year.

For children and adults, as well as dogs and cats and other pets. 3.1 billion dollars.

People around the world are starving, thirsty from lack of clean water, suffering preventable diseases – and we have set aside 3.1 billion for Halloween costumes.

Our problem is focus. We think, primarily, about ourselves. We rarely pay attention to the problems of others. If we tolerate someone else telling us about his problems, we're not really listening: we're mentally preparing what we'll say about our own difficulties – a description intended to show how much worse off we are than he. We have to be better – or in this case worse – than anyone else. We're always competing.

So it is with our Halloween costumes; and fashion; and technology and everything else. We have to be best. We have to be better than anyone else. It's not enough to keep up with the Joneses, we have to do better. The cost isn't important. Nothing is too good for us. And there's nothing left for others – for the Smiths locally or for the poor elsewhere. Charity? It begins at home.

I'm not a fan of the UN. It exemplifies bias and Realpolitik. Right and wrong are irrelevant to it. But they got it right with “Trick or Treat for UNICEF.” (Actually they get credit for something they didn't really do. The event was created by the U.S. Fund for UNICEF.) Not that it's so successful – they've raised 188 million dollars since 1950 which is far less than we spend on ourselves – but it has taught the lesson that even when we're celebrating we should be mindful of those who are suffering. There is a concept of hiddur mitzvah in Judaism – of enhancing or beautifying the observance of a commandment or “good deed” that this represents (even though Halloween is emphatically not a Jewish observance). An observance is enhanced by caring for others, not just for yourself. Perhaps the extra money that we spend to beautify the commandment would be better spent if we used it to better the lives of others.  Sadly, however, a concern for others is far from universal.

Perhaps the reason for this is that we don't think about others and the difficulties they face. Perhaps we'd be more generous if we faced the problems which confront others daily. Every year in my synagogue, and in many others, on Yom Kippur, a fast day on which we seek atonement for our sins, there is an appeal for support of charities that have the mission of feeding the hungry. On a day that we are hungry we can better relate to the issue and the people who suffer from it. Our hunger is but a “taste” of theirs, yet it is enough to remind us of its pain, and to prompt us to do our part to help those in need. However we should not need such prompting; we should be concerned about all of the needs of others at all times. And we should not only be concerned, but we should offer help to those who require it – wherever they are, and without the prompting to do so.

On January 20, 1961, John Kennedy, in his Inaugural Address, said

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

The same is true of our other obligations. It is a challenge to fulfill our human obligation to others not as fortunate as we. People as well as country. We're blessed to be in a rich country, not controlled by a dictator and, for the most part, not subject to the hardships faced by so many people around the world. It is our obligation to help when we can. It is better to be a superhero than to dress up as one.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Proportionality – Part 2

So here's the question. When was the last time you heard the term “proportionality,” or, for that matter, “disproportionality,” in any context other than the hostilities between Israel and the Palestinians? There are wars in the Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan; battles and kidnappings are the news from various African countries; China and other countries in the Far East exercise control over their populations that would be viewed as unacceptable anywhere else in the world.

But only Israel, responding to suicide bombings and rocket attacks on its citizens – usually civilians – is described as acting disproportionately.

During the second world war, there were no American civilian casualtiesⁱ but 350,000 Japanese civilians were killed. Over ten million Soviet civilians dies but only 700,000 Germans.ⁱⁱ In February 1945, when the war was all but over, the British and Americans firebombed the city of Dresden killing between 35,000 and 135,000ⁱⁱⁱ residents and refugees. And, of course, there was the Holocaust.

But proportionality was never an issue, although the term had been introduced in the previous century.^iv It remained for the Palestinians to reinvent it for propaganda purposes, and for the world to eagerly accept it as it seems to do for any excuse to tar Israel. It is not in vogue^v at present to blame Jews for the world's problems, but Israel is fair game. Winning a defensive war has never been seen as an evil, but that is the current view – at least in this case.

One of the “justifications” through the ages for hating the Jews (not that any was considered necessary) was that they were cruel. Antisemites were quick to point out that talion law could be found in the Torah (which, incidentally, was part of the basis for both Christianity and Islam), but it was never acknowledged that the law was understood by the Rabbis to require monetary reparations to the victim for injuries rather than physical injury of the perpetrator. And talion law was developed by the Babylonians,^vi not the Israelites.^vii

In any event, if we accept the concept of “proportionality,” it is important that we acknowledge both what should not be seen as a violation, and what we should view through this lens. As I noted last week, according to Luis Morena-Ocampo (Chief Prosecuter at the International Criminal Court),

“Under international humanitarian law ... the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law ... permit[s] belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality).”

Civilian deaths, therefore, resulting from a valid military attack, do not necessarily violate the “principle of proportionality” nor are they war crimes. But attacks against civilians, and the intentional placing of civilians in harm's way, are war crimes. And there is no requirement that the more powerful side “pull its punches” when dealing with an enemy bent on destroying it. International Law places no sanctions on ability, preparation, and resources.^viii Feelings of guilt and sympathy may carry weight from a public relations standpoint, but they are not legal principles.

Yet the high casualty rate among the Palestinians while Israel is successfully defending itself against the attack from Gaza is being used as the (current) justification for actions against Israel, and boycotts and divestment are popular so the UN, Protestant church groups, academics, “human rights workers,” and other antisemites are jumping on the bandwagon. Although they protest that advocacy for the Palestinians suffering under the oppression of Israeli colonialism does not constitute antisemitism,^ix all the groups seem to see Israel as the cause of the world's most significant problems. When questioned about why, with so many abominations from which to choose, they focus on Israel, the usual response is that they have to start somewhere. But “somewhere” is always Israel and there never seems to be any progress from there to other areas of hostility, even though most of the others are far more lethal. And there is never the acknowledgement of who is atacking and who is defending.

In this instance it is anti-Semitism.

There is a disproportion, but the response by Israel has not been disproportionate. There is a war, and attacks are being met by defense. It is disingenuous to fault a country under attack simply because it is winning, and those who do can only be seen as seeking an excuse to do so. The world is either unaware of Morena-Ocampo's views or consciously ignoring them. The reason may be ascribed to political necessity or economics but it is hard not to see antisemitic bias and an antisemitic basis to the actions. The question is not one of disproportionality.

Next episode: “Proportionality – Part 3” – Bottom line.

I       All WWII statistics (except Dresden) from http://warchronicle.com/numbers/WWII/deaths.htm.

ii       Admittedly 1000:1 (or whatever) is just as much a proportion as 1:1, but the latter is more in line with the desires of those who promote the concept. Actually, those who do so would like to see only Israeli deaths and would not raise the issue of proportions were the numbers reversed.

iii      http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/bombing_of_dresden.htm

iv       See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(law)

v        Indeed, it is illegal in some places.

vi       See http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/581485/talion

vii      Another point of interest: Although the death penalty was permitted in ancient Israel, it was difficult to justify, very rarely used, and viewed with disdain. In modern Israel capital punishment is prohibited – Adolf Eichmann was the sole exception. Would that the death penalty and cruelty were forbidden in the surrounding Islamic countries and by Sharia law.

viii     There are laws and guidelines that deal with justification for battle and responsibility for war in general, but they have no bearing on proportionality once war is declared.

ix       Those involved rarely have an adequate defense for their action and are quick to claim that whenever Jews suffer any penalty for their actions they accuse others of antisemitism. While their accusation is not true, in all too many instances – and this is one of them – the charge of antisemitism is accurate. It is hard to attribute any other explanation to the uniformity of the attacks on Israel and the blindness to violence around the world.