Maddie Got A Gun

And a Tanach (complete Jewish Bible).

My granddaughter was inducted into the Israel Defense Force last week and my wife and I were there. It was just outside of Ashkelon, right by the Mediterranean. And we were proud.

We had just arrived in Israel a few hours earlier for a planned visit, and decided that with a little help from our son (the inductee's uncle) we could get to the event. He was also visiting but had arrived about a week earlier and he planned on driving to the event. So we hitched a ride. And we didn't regret it. It all took place in a dirt field and was very amateurish, but we didn't regret it at all.

There are several reasons why people enter military service. Among them are the draft, the hope of learning a useful occupation, time out for people who don't know what they want to do with their lives, the wish to kill, and other such admirable goals.

But Maddie joined for another reason. Like many of her cohort, she did what she thought was right. Yes. Some people join the military because they believe that the defense of one's country is a noble goal. Maddie is from New Jersey, but seems to have committed to moving to a country that embodies her ideas and ideals, notwithstanding the view of others. It is a country that issues a Tanach along with a weapon, because it believes the faith and the history in that book will help inductees better understand their mission.

Patriotism and the conviction that your home and your people are worth defending are powerful motives for enlistment when there is a threat. However they're anything but the universal justifications for service or for waging war. All too often war is a quest for “things,” a wish to get more, and the actions of the opponent a desire to keep what it has. The things may be territory, resources needed by a country, a conquered population, or wealth and status for those directing the attack. They may be political, economic, or religious, but the “bottom line” is that the provokers want something that they don't already have – something that is not theirs.

According to Jewish law and tradition there are legitimate reasons for war, including defense, but an attempt should be made first to avoid the war – to find a way to attain peace. War has, for millennia, been imposed on the Jewish people not only by the nations that surround Israel but by those who want to eliminate the religion altogether. Unfortunately that mindset persists, and the primary wish of the countries that occupy the region (apart from Israel, of course) is to destroy the nation and drive its citizens “into the sea.” Indeed, the main occupation of the United Nations is to find fault with Israel which, despite its tiny size and despite the conflicts, killings, and refugees all around the globe, it has made the butt of its righteous indignation, condemning it more that all other countries put together. It's an obsession promoted by many of its members; an obsession which has been made the main distraction from the world's other problems and, very specifically, from the nations that are promoting the vitriol.

It is said that the pen is mightier than the sword, but the two together, ideas and arms, make for the best defense against the spiteful nature of wars and people who are acting with only their own benefits in mind.

They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. (Isaiah)

In the meantime, however, a gun and a bible make a good start. And Maddie has them.

Five Ring Circus

It just began last week, but even before the official opening ceremonies they were already competing. And the first gold medal went to Ginny Thrasher in the Women's BB gun competition. I know they call it an “air rifle” now, but let's be frank: it's a BB gun. Euphemisms be damned.

Would the Greek gods have used BB guns to defend Mount Olympus? I'm not sure, but I really doubt it. In all likelihood they'd have had other things on their minds. They'd probably have been more interested in playing volleyball on some Aegean beach, or, perhaps, golfing in (what is now) Thessaloniki.

That isn't what you think of when you ponder the Olympics? It's not my idea either. Neither am I sure that the Greek gods would recognize the modern Olympic Games. But that's what there is nowadays. Beach volleyball, along with the track and field, swimming, tennis, soccer, water polo, and a host of other events that expand the schedule. And even if they're on the golf course, now between ads, human interest material (not that the immortal ones are especially interested in humans), and other fillers, the gods would be able to watch the games on their iPads – or whatever they're called in Greek.

Things have changed over the millennia. Back in the old days – three thousand years ago, give or take – the games were utilized in order to promote Hellenic unity – “pan-hellenism – since the numerous independent city-states in the area were always at war. They were held every four years and included track, equestrian events (including chariot races after a while), and self-defense competitions like boxing and wrestling. Because it was a goal to promote unity, wars were not fought at the time of the contests. Nor was there battle for a while before and after the events, so as to give participants and spectators a chance to travel to and from the site of the competition safely. There was a sacred truce. And the games' success, both as sport and as an instrument of peace, led to the establishment of similar contests elsewhere in the region: in Delphi, Corinth, and Nemea at various times during the Olympiad – the four year period between Olympic games. Musical programs took place at Delphi, and dance, poetry, and drama presentations also occurred, although they were not a feature of the games at Olympia. Leo Arnaud's music certainly wasn't a feature, nor the pomp of the opening ceremonies, or the art exhibitions featured in some of the modern games. That's entertainment.

I don't know how much corruption was involved then, but now the records for are truly impressive. Because of the anticipated revenues from tourism, there is bribery of Olympic officials by those desiring to hold the games in their cities (although they never seem to finish preparations on time, and the illusion of riches doesn't always reflect the reality). As a result, many officials have gotten rich in the modern world. They can swing a good deal of revenue to the place awarded the event. When the games were in fixed locations, that wasn't a problem.

As for steroids and other “performance-enhancing” drugs, I doubt that they were an issue. Even if some herbs were believed to make one a better athlete, that was considered desirable. And how would they have tested for illegal substances anyway?

All in all, it's hard not to conclude that the ancient games were far more in keeping with the idea of what they should be than the ones we hold now. Apart from the fact that they were men-only events. There was no debating over the issue of amateur versus professional when it came to determining eligibility – although we've stopped worrying about that. And the idea that a truce accompanied each set of games is very appealing, one that might benefit us. It's certainly something to think about. For the most part, I consider the games to be an overly long waste of time, but if wars did not take place during the competitions I'd be willing to accept wall-to-wall Olympics. Even with the bizarre events that they've interpolated into them. As a matter of fact, why not Olympic three-legged races?

I never thought I'd say that.

Sharing And Caring

According to the Washington Post a few weeks ago (August 1, 2014), “The United Nations slammed Israel for possibly committing war crimes in its fight against Hamas – and then backed that accusation by suggesting the Jewish nation ought to be sharing its Iron Dome defensive technology with the very terror group it's fighting. U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said to members of the media at an 'emergency' meeting of the U.N. Human Rights Council that Israel was falling short in its duty to protect citizens in the Gaza Strip from getting killed by its [sic] rockets.”

Without specifying who might be responsible of individual acts, Commissioner Pillay suggested that the deaths of Palestinian civilians might represent war crimes. Crimes, of course, attributable to Israel.

Not surprisingly there were howls of rage from around the world, and a lot of laughing, too. The idea that one side in a war should share its weapons or defense systems with its enemy seemed to be parody rather than reality. But with time to consider the implications of the idea and its justification, it becomes clear that the accusation by Commissioner Pillay is both logical and rational. Indeed, it is so obvious that one is hard put to understand why it has taken this long for it to be expounded. The problem, however, is that with Jewish control of the media there will never be a fair hearing given to the Islamic perspective. And since there are far more Muslims in the world than Jews it makes sense to understand that perspective. For it is much more in line with International law than the rationalizations given by an outlaw state that was admitted to the U.N. in a moment of weakness.

Let's review the law. Islamic and Jewish law apply. International law, in accordance with Sharia, recognizes all lands ever occupied by Muslims as Islamic – whether or not there are Muslims there at present. (It is axiomatic that Islamic presence, however it was achieved and in whatever numbers, qualifies a country as Islamic.) And there is a mandate to wipe out the Jews. As the Koran says, "The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing 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.” (Note that it is “the Jews” who are to be eliminated, not the Israelis. It's a worthy goal, but at the moment the primary enemy for us all is Israel.) If Muslim civilians die during the hostilities they are martyrs, even if they are being used unwillingly by honorable jihadists as cover for military actions.

Jewish law, however, forbids killing. It's one of the Ten Commandments. Perhaps the killing of soldiers during a war is understandable, though not forgivable, but the murder of civilians, or their death resulting from the hostilities, cannot be justified no matter what rationalizations the Jews make. Civilians must be protected at all times. So the deaths of those not in uniform when photographed by Hamas photographers or properly screened colleagues constitute war crimes. Commissioner Pillay was right.

How can such a situation be addressed? It's unlikely that the outlaw nation will stop responding to missiles launched against their people from Gaza, even if the death of civilians is inevitable. But the deaths of Palestinian non-combatants can be limited if the Iron Dome system is used to protect them from misdirected Hamas rockets (the fire from Israeli planes is not the type for which the system is designed, but the poorly designed and inaccurate Hamas missiles intended to kill Israeli civilians sometimes fall in Gaza and kill Muslims). That must be the meaning of “its rockets,” the terminology in the original statement. When Israel, which has Muslim citizens (making it an Islamic state subject to Sharia), does not protect Gazans from Hamas rockets it is committing a war crime. Indeed, defending itself at all is repugnant.

The U.N. and the world are right in condemning Israel for its actions. Their advantage over the Muslims is unfair and fully deserving of our censure. As long as they exist they are obligated to ensuring the safety of those they battle.

Something For Everyone

                                                                            

Whatever happened to compromise? When I was young (don't you hate ideas that begin this way?), politics was viewed as the art of the “possible.” By that it was meant that even if you didn't get everything you wanted – nor did those who opposed you – both sides got enough through bargaining give and take to be able to accept a deal without losing face. Everyone won.

To be sure, on occasion there was a filibuster in the Senate, but it ran its course. Those who participated were exhausted, and the rest of the chamber got some extra sleep. And then they all moved on – perhaps to pass whatever was being filibustered, or to alter it to make it acceptable to those who were unhappy, or to consider the next item. But they moved on and accomplished their work. Even a “do nothing” Congress got work done, if not always to the pleasure of all observers. The good of the county seemed to be the top priority.

Conference committees debated differences between House of Representatives and Senate versions of legislation, and usually managed to formulate a text acceptable to both. Having put some “wiggle room” into their positions, the various sides in a dispute could magnanimously concede points here and there and still claim victory when agreement was reached. And agreement was usually reached. It was generally the case that public opinion was in the “middle of the road” and the eventual solution of whatever problem was at issue found its way to that place.

Unfortunately, though, we have become more and more polarized. Our leaders maintain that they cannot give in to views that are wrong – out of touch with our country's needs and with the position of the American People. In reality they are staking out their positions for the next election: they're populists who are “standing on principle.”ⁱ There's no compromise between right and wrong.ⁱⁱ And they're hoping that the principle will garner the support of enough of the voters to bring them victory. Just to be sure, they use polls and focus groups as the sources of those “principles.” Before they take a position it's important to be sure that it will play well. The good of the party is the top priority. And the result will be that nothing gets done because the other side wouldn't compromise. At least that will be the claim. The reality will be that nothing gets done because neither side will compromise.

But that's fine with the participants. They don't want anything avoidable to get done.ⁱⁱⁱ At least not before the election. After that the lame ducks can defend the principle (if they lost in their bid for reelection) or vote on remaining legislation for what they declare to be the good of the country (if they won). At the very least, the election results will serve as a guide for what positions they should be taking on the various issues.

But it is a mistake to view pig-headedness as solely an affliction of politicians – at least those we usually think of as politicians. Some of the labor strikes and lockouts have a vituperative edge which seems to be brought on by unions and management with “my way or the highway” positions. Notwithstanding difficult economic times, unions may refuse to (publicly) consider givebacks of gains they made in better times, even when the cost to the public is difficult to defend. And in the face of large profits, some businesses deny any intent to share their wealth with those who have earned it for them. And taxpayers are becoming more and more frustrated when they see benefits going to public employees that far exceed those they receive. Even so, no one will look for a satisfactory middle ground. Take no prisoners.

There is even less consideration given to the negotiated settlement of international disputes. “To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.” That may have been Winston Churchill's approach but it's so old-fashioned. More accept the (older in age but more in keeping with the goals of modern tyrants) idea that "War is an extension of politics by other means."^iv So the threat of war always looms over negotiations – especially those which include non-negotiable demands. ^v The intent, clearly, is not to negotiate, not to engage in a process which may require compromise, but to have your way no matter what it takes. We're back to the “my way or the highway” method of “give-and-take” except that it's all “take” and there's no “give.” And the highway is mined.

But what is probably the most vicious, and the least thought-out, example of the phenomenon is divorce. A “partner”^vi scorned can create a hell of a situation. And a divorce for another reason can lead to the same result. Too often there's no room within the fury for compromise. The goal is to penalize the other party and no concession by him or her will be acceptable, nor is there any chance that any concession will be offered, because the passion to punish is shared by both participants, and it is fanned by their representatives. “Collateral damage,” even to their children, is a price they're willing to (have the children) pay. For a variety of reasons, divorce is far more prevalent now than when I was young – perhaps in part because of the belief that compromise is something only the other party should do. We live in an all or nothing world. And we all make the mistake of backing our opponent into a corner. Or maybe it's not a mistake but done intentionally. You can be sure that tactic will make compromise impossible.

That's the way to be sure there will be nothing for anyone.

Next episode: “The Continuity Of Humanity" -- Toward a better future.

i      The mere threat of a filibuster is enough to end the debate and establish the patina of principle.

ii     As Barry Goldwater said in the Presidential election of 1964, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” It's all a matter of how you frame the debate and the positions to be compromised.

iii    What's not avoidable are bills that the voters want passed and for which they fear they'll be blamed if things are still up in the air on Election Day.

iv     On War by Carl von Clausewitz.

v      It's even more difficult when the non-negotiable demands are the precondition for negotiations on other issues, as is the case with the Palestinians demands of Israel.

vi     Man or women. Same or opposite sex.

Make War, Not Love

                                                                                  

It's said that “Man is the only animal that makes war.”ⁱ Don't believe it. We're not alone in that respect.ⁱⁱ

War is inevitable. It's what evolution has given us.

War and aggression are common in animals, and for the same reasons as in man: territory, power, sustenance, resources,ⁱⁱⁱ sex, self-protection (including – and especially – the protection of offspring). We may not like those reasons. We may view them as immoral, but that's the hand we've been dealt.

An animal stakes out his territory and attacks another that impinges on it. Split-off groups and neighbors are enemies. Male animals fight for dominance of a group and for the sexual favors of the females. Females defend themselves and their offspring, even at great risk. Animals kill for food, and sometimes just to kill. When a cat drags in a dead, but uneaten squirrel or bird, it's demonstrating a killing for killing's sake,^iv though it is merely acting on instinct. Perhaps that's not war, but it informs human actions.

People need “space. That's our claim on territory. We cannot tolerate others who are “in our face,” whether that attack is reflected in their physical presence or by their words. “Freedom of speech”^v wasn't instituted simply because it was a “Good Thing.” It was a result of the need to keep others from reacting legally or physically to what someone thought, but they disliked.^vi The verbal expression of opinions, however unpopular, was to be protected. Conscientious objection, on the other hand, – turning the other cheek – and the belief that if you use methods that are more extreme than you might want you become like your enemy, have a noble sound but they result in disaster. Your enemy doesn't concern himself with such ideas. He wants to kill you. “An eye for an eye leaves everybody blind” suggests that after our enemy blinds us in one eye we should turn our heads so he can blind us in the other. Then only we will be blind, but he will see. Isn't that much better?

People didn't invent war but they did invent

1. Guilt. We try to satisfy ourselves that we are fighting a “Just War,” even though we're just fighting a war – usually for some other benefit. We consider the enemy to be worthy of death by attributing to him some evil. Too often, this is in the form of a general – and usually unformed and uninformed, prejudice – such as a hatred of all immigrants, of gypsies or foreigners; or it may be well formed. For example, Jews are racially inferior – they are sub-human and killing them is no more to be condemned than stepping on an ant. With that as a background there is no need to feel guilt.
2. Sacrifice of others. When aggressors hide among non-combatants for their own protection they risk injury to those others. They consider that to be justified to satisfy their aims even if those are not the aims of those among whom they hide. When they do so in order to win public opinion through the injury or death of those others they are employing a tool not used by any “lower” animal. Evolution may condition an animal to give up his life for the group, but not to select others to do it for him.

Even if we recognize and deal with mankind's two inventions, there will be many who will still be ruled by the instincts they have inherited, and they will continue to make war. It's “in their blood” and they feel no guilt about it. If they have to invent justifications or adopt existing prejudices, so be it. They follow ancestral patterns and there is no need to seek alternative methods for attaining their goals.

There's a special kind of aggression for members of a group that has split off from yours, and there is antagonism toward you that is felt by those who leave your midst. It may not develop initially but it does develop. There is hatred of a “turncoat.” The justification for the change of allegiance doesn't matter. It is irrelevant if the cause was money or philosophy, or even the malfeasance of leaders of your group. There is contempt, for example, for dissidents, even if the reasons for their unhappiness make sense. Too often the result is their further oppression. So there are revolutions, and the ruthless response to them.

On the other side of the dispute, as is obvious, there is a hatred by those who have changed positions for those who have not done so. It's a form of self-justification. Sometimes it's rational, but that's not really the basis for the animosity. The fiercest anti-smokers (or anti-anything else) are those who were once smokers (or supporters of something else). They tend to be intolerant of those who have not renounced the habit, and they are hypersensitive to second-hand smoke. And it's been noted often that those who adopt a new religion are often more observant than most of those born into it.

And there are those who need to be destroyed because they have what you want, whether it is land, resources, or power. Why should they have what you lack?

Depressing. It's likely there will always be war. There's not much to be done about it because we're human. We'll always have a reason to hate or fear someone else – or they, us. So when others speak of peace – when they try to convince us that there is a more rational approach to whatever the problem is that they face – it is evidence that they're living in a dream world, a non-existent Utopia.^vii Rationality has nothing to do with the issue. And, morals aside, there's only one basic rule of war.

It's better to win than to lose.

Next episode: “You Get What You Pay For” – Perhaps it's the piper.

Go back to August 7, 2011. This one is out of place.

i      Mark Twain: “Man is the only animal that deals in that atrocity of atrocities, War.” I don't think he meant it to be humorous, but it certainly isn't factual.

ii     Or, if you prefer, “disrespect.”

iii    Nowadays that's oil.

iv     Another commonplace is that man is the only animal that kills for sport.

v     As noble as that sounds.

vi    However dangerous, stupid, or ill-founded their beliefs were, they are entitled to them as long as they are not dangerous to others. The ACLU makes a point of protecting the views of those who may support (selected) causes inimical to most others.

vii  Actually, that's redundant. All “Utopias” are non-existent. That's the definition.

Pride And Principles

 

It must be unusual to think about Gary Cooper and foreign policy together, but the two are really related – whether or not that was not intended. The link is the movie High Noon.ⁱ It's a pure American movie – wild west, gunslingers, and all that sort of thing. There's nothing in it that deals with anything foreign, especially foreign policy.

But the idea behind the movie – the conflict – is between Will Kane's pride, and his sense of right and wrong, and Amy's principles – her Quaker sense of right and wrong. The pride, despite his fear, is that of a marshal who is ready to die rather than lose face,ⁱⁱ and the principles are those of his wife, who rejects violence for any reason. Perhaps I'm oversimplifying. There's more than pride involved. There is the eternal tension between good and evil, and the need to stand up for what is good irrespective both of the consequences and of who will fight with you against evil. And the principles are someone else's. Clearly Will doesn't subscribe to them to the same degree as Amy. He is willing to accept them,ⁱⁱⁱ but they must yield to the reality he perceives. They must be subservient to his “duty,” even if no one else, including his new bride, will support him. Others would rather take the easier and the safer way out – and the people of the town warn him about a battle they themselves are not willing to fight.

It all reminds me of America, of the way we approach the threats we face, and the problems in the world in which we live. In a way it makes me proud of that approach – standing up to what we consider wrong even while we're aware of the hazards we face. And it's not just a single man, but the courage and self-sacrifice of the numerous men and women who defend us all. And those who support them deserve our gratitude as well.

But despite the threat to our values, we are reluctant to become engaged in military actions.^iv We, too, have principles. For us, as for Amy, killing is wrong. But in the end, our country's pride and it's recognition of responsibility take precedence over other considerations. Like Will Kane, we'd rather be left alone and allowed to attend to peaceful pursuits, but that isn't always possible. Like Amy we abhor the need to violate our principles, to kill, but we are prepared to do it if that is what is required in a time of crisis, even if we wish it were not necessary and we resent the fact that it is.^v Amy returns and saves Will's life even though it means killing someone. It's in violation of her principles, but so are the actions of those attempting to kill her husband.

The townspeople of Hadleyville, for reasons of fear, expediency, and profit, make no attempt to help their marshal, although many of them praise him greatly. It's hard not to compare them to the nations of the world, many of whom are grateful to the U.S. for aid, who mouth agreement with the need to take action, but who shy away from their own involvement. Some critics understood the film to be an allegory depicting the cowardice of those who feared to protest the Hollywood blacklist of the time and the House UnAmerican Activities Committee, or the nations who were happy to accept American support during World War II, but who feared any engagement with Communist powers afterward. They would not join with us in the defense of Korea. Both were major issues at the time of the film's release. Perhaps these ideas reflected more on those who expressed them than on the movie itself,^vi but it is the mark of a classic if it sheds light on a situation far removed from its times, or if it enables viewers to see other events in that light.

Corny isn't it? Ignoring possible harm to himself, he stood up for what he considered right. In retrospect, the marshal's actions were those of principle, not pride. Yet they make me proud.

Next episode: “Full Disclosure” – Time to come clean.

 

i     1952. Gary Cooper and Grace Kelly.

ii    He maintains, as well, that his antagonist will follow him wherever he runs, so any attempt to escape the confrontation will fail sooner or later.

iii    At the beginning of the story (by John Cunningham) he gives up his badge and tells of his plans to become a storekeeper.

iv    “A leader who doesn't hesitate before he sends his nation into battle is not fit to be a leader.” Golda Meir, then Prime Minister of Israel.

v     “We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children.” – Golda Meir again.

vi    Whether evaluating the Bible, a work of Shakespeare, or a movie – or anything else for that matter – analysts sometimes see much more than what was intended. Perhaps what they find below the surface was there unconsciously rather than consciously intended, perhaps it is simply the product of their imagination, but whatever the source, real or imagined, their commentary enlarges the scope of the work.