Hidden Agendas

Day before yesterday, President Trump met with law officers on Long Island. He spoke about the brutal killings perpetrated by a gang known as MS 13, and encouraged tough enforcement of the law. And there were protests. His speech, to which they were not invited (it was for law officers only), was claimed by the protesters to be a justification of his immigration policy which would exclude undocumented aliens, especially criminals, a group to which most MS 13 members belonged. The President, proclaimed the demonstrators, should be acting on educational and social programs. Those programs may have merit, but they had nothing to do with the subject of the speech. And the problems they would address existed long before President Trump took office, but those involved didn't provoke the same kind of protest marches. Their real agenda, this time, had nothing to do with education but was an anti-Trump rally.

In the past few years there have been several protests and riots focused on the killing of blacks by police. “Black Lives Matter.” That was the message and the justification for the protests. But it's clear that the killing of blacks was irrelevant, since many times the number of those they cite are struck down in street violence and warfare in the communities, yet there are no protests or riots when that happens. Their agenda was actually resistance to the police and to authority in general, and they had neither knowledge, nor concern about the particular black individuals killed. They really don't matter, even if they're a useful tool for getting adherents.

And there are loud protests of the death penalty whenever its use is scheduled, although the same defenders of life don't speak out for defense of innocent fetuses when their lives are threatened by abortion. Life and death are not the issues. But a penalty imposed by the representatives they elected is. They oppose our laws, our government, and its officials, and the death penalty is their virtuous stalking horse.

There are other examples of the same problem every day. Protesters take advantage of current problems to oppose our government, to get publicity for their cause, or to incite violence. They take advantage of high profile situations to promote their own causes and to attract additional followers. And to vent their justified or unjustified rage.

That is the way it often is with mass movements. “Squeaky wheels” have an opportunity to stir up support for their cause with little consideration of the facts or of their relevance to the message advanced. And there are many individuals looking for a cause who don't analyze the words or implications of the movement's organizers – those who are seeking their support. Bodies, noise, and political influence are what the leaders look for, and “useful idiots” are of great advantage in promoting their causes.

I don't mean to say that I oppose free speech. The Constitution guarantees that right, and I am happy that we have it. Everyone and every group, including the ones I mentioned (but much more numerous), has the right and, the freedom to speak freely and openly, and to promote whatever message seems appropriate to the situation and their views. There are limitations, however, designed to prevent harm to others. We cannot incite riots or violence; we cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theater (although Abbie Hoffman maintained that “Free speech means the right to shout 'theater' in a crowded fire”). But equally important, though not covered by law, is the obligation to say what we mean, not for ideologues to cloak their ideas in some motto that will attract attention, even if it isn't the message that their actions convey to those aware of them. Truth will strengthen our democracy. Hypocrisy and hidden agendas will not.

How can we stop such subterfuge? We can't, except by listening, and analyzing their claims and goals. We're faced by many with agendas that are more palatable when they're supported by some virtuous (even if intentionally misleading) statements, and there are many people looking for a cause to support.

The anti-Trump protesters mentioned above clamored for greater attention to education, and they were right. But the education most in need of strengthening is education in critical analysis of what publicity hunters seek and what the media are eager to promote. The “supporters” of education had less interest in it, or in stopping murders like those perpetrated by MS 13, than in fomenting anger against our government and its leader. That should have been obvious to all who listened. Those who came to support educational and social programs, even if they had not done so when the same problems existed in the past, were simply statistics generated by protest organizers, and faces to appear in the media in favor of their cause.

And their cause was not education.

Blaming The Victim

Many more Palestinians than Israelis have been killed in the ongoing war. But they picked the fight. Shouldn't we blame them?

Civilian casualties? If they cheer for the deaths of Israelis and they allow themselves to be used as shields, those civilians must know that they're likely to be targets, even if the terrorists who hid among them have already run away leaving them to receive the punishment.

Israel has better weapons and a better defense system? Hamas knew that before beginning the engagement. The victim ought not be blamed for defeating the aggressor. What Hamas seems to have wanted were graphic pictures of the death of its people, and the grief of the Palestinians, that it could “sell” to an eagerly awaiting press to illustrate the suffering of the “oppressed.” And those who claim to represent the Palestinian people will use the numbers of dead as ammunition in their effort to convince the UN to condemn Israel. But just as might doesn't make right, neither does weakness, though this is the argument of weak instigators. They attempt to attract sympathy by pretending to be a David wronged by a Goliath. And the hope is that the sympathy can be parlayed eventually into a victory by David – victory from the jaws of defeat.

There is no justification for the murder of a Palestinian, but neither was there any justification for the abduction and murder of three Israeli teen-agers for which it was unwarranted revenge. And attacks on Gaza are retaliation for rocket attacks from there on Israel. If the reaction is more effective than the original attacks, and if more civilians are killed, it still remains the appropriate response to the war being waged against Israel. And it is nothing less than war. According to the UN Charter, there is an “inherent right” of self-defense against armed attack. Those who view Israel's actions as “disproportionate” haven't been able to prescribe a more reasonable answer to Hamas's aggression, and to its declared determination to eliminate Israel.

Taking the side of the Palestinians out of concern for those flaunting their weakness is simply the bias of a party more concerned about the appearance of right than about right itself. (And by extension it raises questions about the objectivity of other opinions from the same source. I have in mind The New York Times.)

Additionally, the following AP report was on my was on Home Page this morning:

In the first indication that cease-fire efforts were underway, the office of Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi said he held "extensive contacts with all active and concerned parties" to end the fighting. It said the two sides discussed the "critical conditions and the need to stop all military action, and to stop the slide" toward more violence. It called on Israel to protect Palestinian civilians.

It apparently never occurred to him to call upon Hamas to stop using civilians as shields when their troops were sending rockets against Israel.

Sadly, this has been the pattern of coverage for many years. And it has been the default strategy of the Arab world as well. There has never been a willingness to accept a Jewish State by the countries of the Middle East. Indeed, many of those countries were created by western powers and they question the borders set for themselves as well. Although the inclination is to blame Israel for all of the unrest in the region – and elsewhere, it is difficult to connect Israel with the problems in Syria or Iraq or in other countries. To a great degree, the invective against the Jewish State serves the purpose of distracting the citizens of a nation ruled by tyrants. And the “meek” will join together to conquer the strong, and to “inherit” the world – which they will do until they begin fighting among themselves.

It's hard to see an end to the situation. The amount of distrust between the countries in the area, and the repetition of the accusations and lies and incitements to new generations makes any solution unlikely. The only hope is that the world will finally understand that the acceptance of wrong because it sounds good, and comes from those who control the fossil fuels they need, will never lead to peace. And when the media, and the world that they inform, recognize that the only path is one in which tyrants are discouraged from inciting violence, we'll have a chance.

But until then we'll blame those who refuse to give in, and there will be invective, war, and casualties. It sells newspapers.