I Admit It

Well, I didn't get it quite right yesterday. Today's New York Times headline was:

Brief Lull Ends In Gaza Crisis; Strikes Resume

It didn't mention Israel in the headline. It doesn't bother to mention that Israel had accepted the cease-fire. And not until the sub-headline did it note that Hamas had rejected the cease-fire. The “Lull” mentioned above was, in fact, only on the Israeli side. The “proportional” response to that moderation by Israel was rocket fire on southern Israel by Hamas. And then it tells us, “Israel and Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip resumed on Tuesday the all-too-familiar rhythm of their latest battle.” The first mention that Israel had accepted the truce came from the first person quoted in (the sixth paragraph – the last on the front page) of the article. It was by Norman Thrall, “an author of the [objective?] International Crisis Group report on the situation.”

“Egypt helped its ally, Israel, achieve a face-saving unilateral cease-fire – that's what happened. … We had an Israeli unilateral cease-fire to which Hamas never agreed and”

Continued on Page A6

“Egypt helped Israel market it.”

The Times article continues, “The lopsided battle claimed its first Israeli casualty [actually it was the first death, not the first casualty] Tuesday night” while Israeli strikes continued, “bringing the Palestinian death toll to 189 over eight days.” And later it added, “Israel had little to lose by initially approving Egypt's proposal.” That's The New York Times's version of “fair and balanced.”

CBS radio, to which I listened a few minutes ago, talked about the fact that Israel was now targeting the homes of Hamas leaders, and it reported how many Palestinians had been killed, while The Wall Street Journal's front page headline was:

Palestinians Told to Clear Out

Israel Warns Thousands to Leave Gaza as Army Readies Broader Offensive

Sure Hamas had rejected a truce, but you had to start reading the article to actually find that out.

So the message of yesterday's essay may not have been quite right in the particulars, but the overall idea was on the mark. The press underplayed any Palestinian responsibility, while emphasizing Israel's, and the suffering of the Gazans.

I'm not sure why I get upset about what is so predictable, but I do.

In The Eye Of The Beholder

Israel Resumes Bombardment of Palestinians

Observes truce for only six hours

That's the headline I expect to see on the front page of tomorrow's New York Times. Perhaps somewhere in a lower paragraph, or on an inside page well beyond the view of someone whose main interest is in headlines and lead paragraphs, there will be a brief mention of the fact that Hamas didn't accept the truce at all, and that it continued to aim rockets at Israel during the time that no fire was being returned. (I speak primarily of the Times, by the way, because of its influence, but the situation is far more extensive.)

And the article will be accurate in terms of presenting facts. But it will completely mislead the readership. Actually, it won't mislead the readership, who are used to this kind of misplaced emphasis and who approve of it. For them this is the truth that's fit to print; it's the truth they want to read. The Times sees Israel as the source of the problem in the Middle East, and trumpets the victimhood of the Palestinians who fight on bravely, though, despite the billions contributed to the PA, they lack modern weapons and defenses. It is a land blockaded by Israel which is starving the Palestinians and making the area uninhabitable. There is little notice of the long border of Gaza with Egypt nor the large number of smuggling tunnels from both Egypt and Israel.

And in addition to the frequent front page articles bemoaning the fate of the Palestinians, there are regular editorials and “Op-Ed” columns which describe the steps Israel must take if there is to be peace. There are two problems with those columns, however: they imply, wrongly, that only Israel must act in order for there to be an end to hostilities, and, even more wrongly, they lead the reader to believe that if Israel acts peace will result. The refusal of Hamas to accept the present cease-fire, and the long history of failures by the Palestinians to respond to Israeli offers of peace make it clear that agreement is not what Hamas and the PA seek. And the continued indoctrination of their children to hate Israel and Jews makes it unlikely that a positive result will be brought about by anything Israel does.

But that's not what “spin” is about. “News” articles have become editorials and reporters are now advocacy journalists. All you need to do to “subjectivize” the facts is to make whatever supports your view prominent, and bury what brings it into question. The last place to look for the news is in the “objective” media. Better to look in publications that don't hide their bias. At least you know what you're getting.

The Universal Scapegoat

 

This essay is going out a little sooner than I had expected in recognition of the likelihood that later this week the United Nations General Assembly will declare a Palestinian state.ⁱ Political and economic considerations,ⁱⁱ conditioned by two millennia of antisemitism, will make the vote easy for most member nations, who will ignore the facts that the formation of the United Nations was prompted by the Second World War and the Holocaust, and that the Palestinian entity that now exists has been acting aggressively toward Israel – a member of the United Nations – throughout its existence. Apparently most nations and most people, including Jews, either believe or want to believe that there will be peace in the world if the Palestinians, the Iranians, the Syrians, and other similar agitators, get what they demand. I do not share that view.

======================================================

Before Jesus was born there were Jews in Rome. Certainly there was a Jewish settlement before there was a Popeⁱⁱⁱ or a home for the Church It originated in 161 BCE, and the Jews were free, and without any special restrictions – just the ones imposed on all foreigners. Only later, when they destroyed the Temple of Solomon, did the Romans treat the Jews as a conquered people. But the victory over them was nationalistic, not religious. And there were Jewish communities in what is now Iraq and Iran, and in Egypt and Saudi Arabia long before Muhammad was born and Islam originated. Whatever ill feeling existed toward the Jews by individuals was not specifically related to their religion, but to personal grievances and the perception of threats posed by the Jewish nation.

Subsequently both Christianity and Islam declared that they superseded Judaism, and each claims it now represents the true faith. And both of them have, through the centuries, belittled Judaism and worked actively to eliminate Jews. They have used philosophical arguments and terminology that hide their underlying hatred, emphasizing the view that the ideas they have expressed and the actions they have taken represent the Divine Will – that, to be clear, they harbor no animosity toward the Jews but they are doing G-d's work, and the Jews have brought it on themselves.

When both new religions were small and struggling themselves, they posed little threat to the Jews. Not that the Jews were without enemies, but communities that were, themselves, being persecuted or trying to deal with internal dissension, had little time to pick fights with others. It wasn't long, however, before both of these new religions gained adherents by one means or another,^iv and, having done so, they have developed theologies that involve blaming a religion that comprises less than a quarter of a percent of the world's population^v for most of the world's problems. And if the fault cannot be placed on the Jews in general, it certainly must rest with Israel or Israel's Prime Minister. In a post-Holocaust world, long after the end of accusations of poisoning the wells and the killing of Christian children for their blood, and even after the rethinking of charges of deicide, there remain the stories of the Jews controlling the banks and the media, of Israel being the cause of all the problems in the Middle East,^vi and of Jews holding sway over the American government and thumbing its nose at everyone else.

Yet the truth contradicts these slanders. The Jews and Israel have contributed far more to the world in which we live than vice versa. But the world refuses to accept the people it has persecuted. It ignores the problems existing around the world – problems it cannot solve – while it focuses on Israel and the claimed injustices, supported by an extensive public relations campaign, of the Palestinians. In the words of Eric Hoffer,^vii a twentieth century philosopher,

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 Frenchman. 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 .

Hoffer was probably not Jewish^viii but he recognized what so many others have ignored – that the world doesn't have a single standard when it comes to bias and self-interest.^ix

And that bias lacks any logical consistency.^x To the capitalists, the Jews are communists. To the communist, the Jews are capitalists. To Arab nations, and, for a time, to the United Nations as a whole, Zionism (read Judaism and Israel) was racism, and even now the idea of a Jewish state is anathema^xi to nations that honor Islamic^xii and Arab^xiii Republics. Israel, which includes, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and other religious groups of all races in its population, is “racist” because it views itself as a Jewish state. Yet countries that are proudly judenrein^xiv are free of taint.

What can be done about the problem? Very little. What can be done about the specific accusations? Virtually nothing. Denial is defensiveness, and proof of their validity. Rationality is irrelevant when bias is the issue. If the “cause” for the accusation or treatment is shown to be fallacious, another will be found. Treatments will always be one-sided since blame must be addressed, and fighting back against lies with words will be viewed as defensive, and an attempt to deflect valid criticism. So other means must be found.

The Jews are alone in the world. If Israel survives, it will be solely because of Jewish efforts. And Jewish resources. Yet at this moment Israel is our only reliable and unconditional ally. We can rely more on Israel than Israel can rely on us. And one has only to imagine what would have happened last summer [1967] had the Arabs and their Russian backers won the war to realize how vital the survival of Israel is to America and the West in general.

I have a premonition that will not leave me; as it goes with Israel so will it go with all of us.

Should Israel perish the holocaust will be upon [the rest of] us.^xv

But there is a positive side to the whole thing. It pays to be a scapegoat. The blaming of Israel and the Jews for everything is reminiscent of more than two millennia of such scapegoating. The upside is that a scapegoat must be kept alive. If it is eliminated, the real problems– the ones avoided by shifting the blame – must be addressed, and the world doesn't want to face them or do that. So Israel will live to be faulted for something or other another day.

i     The regular weekly schedule will resume on Sunday, September 25^th.

ii    The need for affordable oil and for Arab favor.

iii    Peter was the first Pope and the “Rock” (Cephas) upon which Jesus built his church (Matthew)

iv    Often by the sword.

v     The number of Jews who actually identify with Judaism is, of course, far less. According to numbers found on line, the number of unaffiliated and secular Jews is about 30%. My unscientific impression is that it is higher.

vi     Indeed, throughout the world.

vii    From 1968. Cited by The National Review Online (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fnews/1675470/posts)

viii   I am unable to find any specific information on this subject although his genealogy suggests that he wasn't.

ix    Hoffer, ibid:

Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this world. Other nations when they are defeated survive and recover but should Israel be defeated it would be destroyed. Had Nasser triumphed last June [1967] he would have wiped Israel off the map, and no one would have lifted a finger to save the Jews. No commitment to the Jews by any government, including our own, is worth the paper it is written on .

There is a cry of outrage all over the world when people die[d] in Vietnam or when two Blacks are executed in Rhodesia. But when Hitler slaughtered Jews no one remonstrated with him. The Swedes, who are ready to break off diplomatic relations with America because of what we do in Vietnam, did not let out a peep when Hitler was slaughtering Jews. They sent Hitler choice iron ore, and ball bearings, and serviced his troop trains to Norway.

The bracketed material was added for clarification and because the quote is from 1968. Sadly the double standard is as prevalent as ever.

x     In that respect it's like all biases.

xi    “Don't order us to recognize a Jewish state. We won't accept it.” Mahmoud Abbas

xii    Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Mauritania

xiii   Egypt, Syria

xiv    Free of Jews.

xv    Hoffer, ibid.

The Flotilla

 

Another flotilla is plying its way to Gaza, nominally with the goal of delivering “humanitarian” goods to a territory blockaded by Israel. Here is a part of the report of that event that appeared in the EU Observer yesterday (June 27, 2011):

All 27 EU countries in Brussels on Friday signed a statement saying: "Humanitarian assistance ... [to Gaza] should be in accordance with the relevant framework and decisions of the UN and should take care not to endanger human lives."

There are ulterior motives, however, and endangering human lives is the flotilla's goal, notwithstanding the declarations of its supporters.ⁱ Indeed, the need for a flotilla to provide “humanitarian assistance” is imaginary, since there are legal means for delivering needed resources – both through Israel and Egypt.ⁱⁱ

Also included in that article:

The IDF's [Israel Defense Forces spokeswoman Avital] Leibovich said it has a right to stop the boats under the maritime law, the San Remo convention. She added that three months ago a ship claiming to be carrying food to Gaza, the Victoria, had bullets, mortars and ship-to-shore missiles on board.ⁱⁱⁱ

But that is irrelevant to the situation which is really intended as a propaganda measure at a time when more are anticipated.

As I noted a few weeks ago, "The upcoming UN debate over the recognition of Palestinian and the deligitimization of Israel, along with the latest Durban clone,^iv are certain to attract further attention by the media and, through them, the public. Whether the questions raised by the debate are themselves legitimate is arguable though. The real issue, however, is why there is so little attention to the crimes perpetrated by the various Arab States – to their racism, sexism, homophobia, corruption, and lack of regard for human rights. There is no attention to the issue of whether, for example, Should Syria exist? Like Israel it is the 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^v to question some of its neighbors as Israel itself.^vi"  This effort, like many previous ones and, sadly, like many to come, is linked more to public opinion than to fact, logic and equity.

Whatever the arguments of Muslims, Jews, and “bystanders,”^vii there seems to be a dearth of critical thinking and discussion of other countries – countries which already possess hundreds of times the area and population of Israel – and by other countries. Is it purely a matter of selling papers or is there more involved? The vast majority of the media will probably not notice the cautions sent by the European Union, Israel, the United States, and other nations to those participating in the provocation. The press's stories will be based on whatever propaganda releases come from the ships or Palestinian sources.

What is the reason for such attitudes? Different people will have different explanations for the desperate call to discredit and delegitimize Israel.  I know I have my own.^viii  But they're not relevant.  They're all focused on Israel. They don't address the real problem. They don't ask the right questions.

i     Extensive publicity was gained from the last flotilla when members of the IDF, attacked by passengers on one of the ships, fought back and killed some of them.

ii    Egypt recently opened its border with Gaza. While smuggling of weapons into Gaza from Egypt took place before that, the new situation makes such acts easier.

iii     Israel has also been forced to stop other ships containing weapons from reaching Gaza and Hamas, an organization whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel. It is disingenuous to suggest that Hamas will be willing to make peace with Israel. They proclaim loudly that they will never do so.

iv     In polite society the question will be raised as “Should Israel be delegitimized?” At the “Durban” conference it is more likely that it will be “Shouldn't Israel be delegitimized?”

v     Actually there are many more reasons.

vi     Syria is only intended as an example. There are other tyrannies in the Arab world that oppress their own citizens, as the “Arab Spring” is demonstrating. Whether those tyrannies are legitimate is a subject that is worthy of wider debate.

vii    “Objective” observers whose views are formed by the media and other Palestinian propaganda. Sadly there is a pro-Palestinian bias in the media, and the vast majority of “news” from the Middle East satanizes all actions taken by Israel, and sanitizes those of the Palestinians.

viii    It's hard for me not to see anti-semitism as part of the hidden agenda of those who want to see Israel destroyed.

Full Disclosure

 

Time to come clean. By this time you probably know my biases (especially if – and it's a very unlikely possibility – you've read this blog before), but I thought I'd spell out some of them just in case. That will allow you to disregard whatever doesn't correspond to your own faulty ideas when reading some of my other musings. And it my help to explain some of what appears to be perverse. But like most people I have a more comprehensive grasp of the problems than the solutions. Anyway, this is I.ⁱ

My father was apolitical. It wasn't that he couldn't decide on a particular philosophy or general outlook, nor decide regarding specific issues. He just wasn't interested. At least he never conveyed any interest to his children. My mother, however, was a staunch liberal, and weⁱⁱ learned that perspective from her.

In college almost everyone is a liberal. Especially the professors. So I fit in fine. There were a few conservatives on campus – very few. At least that's what I heard. No one ever admitted to being one.ⁱⁱⁱ Clearly they didn't know the difference between right and wrong. Fortunately I did. I knew that the hungry had to be fed and the naked clothed. They were as much religious concepts as they were political, but religion was praiseworthy then.

Times have changed though. I'm less sure now than I was then. Black and white have become gray. I still want to care for the needy, but I'm not convinced that it's always up to the government to do so. I deplore the selfishness of individuals who have to be forced to give charity by the government's taking of their tax money and turning it into “entitlements,” but I'm not completely convinced that societies were established to enforce philanthropy. I understand our obligation(s) as individuals to help those in need but I recognize the failure of our citizens to fill that need. Does that make it the responsibility of the government? I don't think so, but somewhere along the line the government grew and, like an amoeba, engulfed everything in reach. And with the demands of so many groups for help – and the increasing power of political blocs – it seems likely that there will be more programs instituted to provide for those demands. That provision means bigger government, greater expense, and the loss of more liberties. But that doesn't seem to be a major concern to most citizens.

Why did this occur? From my perspective, liberalism failed – or, more accurately, liberals failed. They seemed to switch their concerns with fads and “squeaky wheels.” It became more important for them to address the demands of those they considered to be oppressed, than to determine if their demands were justified. They failed in matters of both national^iv and international^v interest. Like the rest of us, they are inconsistent in their claims and crusades, but the operating principle seems to be that if you're poor^vi you're needy and oppressed, and if you're not poor, you're an oppressor. Except for themselves.

Speaking of international issues, as I mentioned above in passing, it's hard to ignore the disorders around the globe – some of them out-and-out tyrannies and wars. Except for sporadic American involvement though, many of them tend to be ignored by our own liberals and those of other nations, who are focused on blaming Israel for most of the world's troubles.^vii Lest there be any question, I am a Jew and a Zionist.^viii My sympathies are not with OPEC and others who would control the world.^ix Consequently I usually walk to shul each day^x for morning services not only for the health benefits^xi but also in order to decrease the amount I send to the oil producing states – many of them rich Arab kingdoms that would rather condemn Israel than help those they call their Palestinian brothers.^xii

A final note which will tell you a little more about me: I'm a hermit. I don't especially care for people and certainly have no interest in talking about them or to them. I'm a lousy guest since I am unlikely to spend much time conversing with others. I particularly dislike small talk. So I'm not the hit of any party. But if that knowledge means fewer invitations that's fine with me. It's hard to keep coming up with original reasons for refusing them. (A couple of other things. I'm retired – a lapsed radiologist. As you can guess from this blog, I enjoy writing, and reading and listening to music . And choral singing.^xiii I've been doing that since college. It's a good way to sing without being heard individually so I don't embarrass myself too much. Of course choral singing means that I have to interact with other people but I keep that to a minimum.)

In summary, then, I'm an antisocial Zionist neocon with little regard for a government that is moving leftward toward greater control. I'm not as happy as most seem to be in sacrificing our liberties and the assets of our grandchildren so we can feel good and generous now – with their money.

Now you know. But I suspect that most people don't care.^xiv Certainly, for the most part, the “younger generation” doesn't care about my opinions^xv They don't realize that wisdom comes with age. They'll learn that later – when they're older and are ignored by those younger than they.

Next episode: “Writer's Bl...” – Whatever.

i     Correct grammar often sounds funny.

ii     My older brother and I.

iii    It was claimed that you could put all the school's Republicans in a telephone booth. (I don't think public telephones exist any longer in this age of cellular communication.) I suspect that the characterization was far from accurate, but it was quite colorful.

iv    Public responsibility for all the “ills” of the poor – both physical and economic.

v    Although selective in the causes they espoused – mass annihilation of black Africans seems to escape their notice – the general pattern is to trumpet the plight of selected population groups. At present they espouse the “Palestinians,” a group that didn't exist before 1967 (except to indicate the Jews in pre-1948 Palestine), and parrot their anti-Israel propaganda while completely denying any Arab or Muslim responsibility for the situation. Such would be contrary to the message they are trying to send.

vi      And a member of one of the groups they are currently supporting.

vii   Interestingly therefore, but not surprisingly, liberals have adopted the poor, “humiliated” Palestinians as their poster children for victims of oppression. Nothing that they do, however barbaric it may be, is worthy of note or condemnation. Only the actions of the Israelis, their “oppressors,” merits censure.

viii   I suspect that makes me part of a vast conspiracy though I never thought of myself that way.

ix      Others, who would like to control both geography and the world's economies, accuse the Jews – minute in numbers and influence in comparison to themselves – of doing that, but they are only trying to distract the world from reality.

x       A little over half a mile in each direction.

xi      If in fact there are any. I'm not fully convinced.

xii    I have been accused of trying to “shaft the sheiks,” but, unfortunately, I lack the power to do so. In any event, though, I feel better for what I'm doing. I just need a few billion others.

xiii    The latter few you probably can't guess.

xiv   Which is why I don't tell anyone about this blog. I do it for myself, not for them.

xv    Indeed, I doubt that my own generation gives a damn.