I AM A JEW (PART XXV - Discussion)

Happy New Year to one and all! May the New Year bring peace to all mankind and end the suffering that afflicts so many!

As the title shows this is the 25rd part (actually the 26^th, if you count the Special Bulletin) of the series. If you haven’t read the other parts I urge you to do so. They are, after all a continuum. Easy access to the others can be obtained by clicking on Part I and then scrolling upwards or by accessing the label I Am A Jew.

In my last commentary entitled "I AM A JEW (PART XXIV - Dershowitz Again)" that I posted before the holidays, on December 15, 2014, I quoted a very short excerpt from a May 2013 article by Alan Dershowitz written in May of 2013. Since most do not read the articles that are linked, allow me to quote a little more from it, for it expresses my views precisely:

There are a small number of extremely vocal right-wing Jews who believe that retaining the entire West Bank is more important than trying to make peace with the Palestinians. Some of them believe that God gave the Jewish people the West Bank and it is a sin to give any of it up. It was that kind of thinking that led to the assassination of former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin when he tried to exchange land for peace with the Palestinians. There are others who believe that because Jews lived in Judea and Samaria thousands of years ago, Israel has no right to end any current Jewish settlement on the West Bank. There are still others who believe that it is foolish even to try to trade land for peace with the Palestinians, since the Palestinian leadership has no real interest in arriving at a peaceful solution. 

This noisy clack boos disrespectfully when they hear the name of President Obama, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or anyone else who favors a two-state solution that does not compromise Israel's security. I have now joined this distinguished company of people who get booed for advocating territorial compromise in the interest of peace. I was booed and jeered at the Jerusalem Post Conference on April 28, 2013 when I proposed an idea for restarting peace negotiations with the Palestinian Authority.

I can only say amen!!!! Unfortunately, Dershowitz has now decided he will no longer take positions that are likely to produce boos.

Now let me share with you some of the comments I have received, and discussions I have had.

One person whose comment I had quoted earlier is Leonard Levenson of Manhattan, N.Y. and my previous exchange with him can be found at: "I AM A JEW (PART XXI - Voices in Defense of Israel."

Since he had raised the issue of the sharing of water rights, I could not resist sending him an article that I ran across in the Times of Israel dated February 19, 2014 with the title: “In Rawabi, the brand-new Palestinian city, both sides win” and the subheading: “Projects like this bring our peoples closer together, says Bashar Al-Masri, the entrepreneur behind an unprecedented construction project that is changing the West Bank landscape.”

When I first read the article I thought to myself, now that is the way to build peace and security.

Alas, six months later an article appeared in the New York Times dated August 26, 2014 with the heading: “Palestinian Town Awaits Israel’s Approval for Water.” 

That promising gesture by Israel toward a promising and peaceful Palestinian town had come to naught. Israel had refused to allow water to be connected.

As I said above I couldn’t resist sending the two articles to Levenson. Now what was his response? I quote:

I have read the articles and my first reaction is "infuriating bureaucracy". I suspect that you and many Palestinians suspect something more sinister at work.  I am not a big fan of Netanyahu and his party.  He reminds me of the right wing of the Republican Party.  Neither is given to compromise but in times of crisis, their mindset is needed.   

Levenson is right about one thing: I believe that something more sinister is at work. Isn’t it obvious that this is war by other means!

Terry Steichen of Fairfax, Virginia contributed this:

You say:

 So as long as the forces of decency reigned in Israel, it would have been wrong to even mention these horrendous deeds. But the Israel of its founders, the Israel of Ben-Gurion, is no more. The enemies of the Haganah, the enemies of Ben-Gurion, the very people who called Yitzhak Rabin a Nazi, and whose denunciations of him were directly responsible for his assassination, are now running the Israeli government.

 Amen.

 You also say:

 There are many American Jews who are deeply concerned that the Israel that true Zionists like my father and I, and untold survivors of the Holocaust, and their children, is no more. We want an Israel that returns to the ideals of its founders, to the people, like Levenson, who went to Israel to work on a kibbutz, but that Israel is no more. .. True Zionists seek the ideals on which Israel was founded!! Not the one of Netanyahu and Lieberman.

 Amen in spades.  I've admired the culture of the Jews.  But have come to realize that the longer that Jews "link arms" with real (but perhaps not "true") Zionists, they will split from that culture.  The current regime in Israel is destroying Jewish values.  I'm disheartened that many of my Jewish friends don't see their own self-immolation.

 More:

 People in Israel are beginning to see the crisis that Israel has brought on itself... True American supporters of Israel, of whatever faith, must stop blindly labeling resistance to oppression terrorism, and not excuse the inexcusable, defend the indefensible, rationalize the irrational, or justify the unjustifiable.

 We can only hope - for Judaism's sake.  And real world peace.

Herb Reiner of Cedar Grove, NJ added this:

I think it's relevant to point out that what is now Israel was occupied and inhabited by many different powers and people throughout history. One justification for a Jewish state is a popular misconception that the Jews were the first there -- when in fact, they were preceded by the Canaanites - and who knows how many other tribes preceded the Canaanites. The Jews may have executed one of history's earliest recorded ethnic cleansings in Canaan because God commanded, "whoever sacrifices to any god but the Lord shall be utterly annihilated.” (Exodus 22:20) -- so I wouldn't say the Jewish kingdom was not exactly founded in a blaze of glory -- (although, unfortunately, some would). Joshua and his underlings did the job.

  The concept of a Jewish State, an Islamic, a Christian nation or a state dedicated any religion seems contrary to democratic principles. This is especially provocative in Israel where a substantial minority is not Jewish.

 Your blog on the Israel-Palestine conflict is a breath of fresh air. We hear almost exclusively about the considerable misdeeds on the other side. But most of the American Jewish community refuses to see the moat in our own eye. This is true of Congress and the media as well. Obama was soundly berated when he dared suggest that Israel halt the settlements. It's considered almost un-American to criticize Israel.

To which I responded:

“I must say that I disagree with you on this point. While I am very critical of Israel’s blatantly racist policies, I have always, and continue to support the concept of a Jewish state. Without, at this point, going into great detail, I think that the Nazi era, once and for all, showed that the world needs one state where Jews will always be welcome.

“There are many countries that are Christian or Muslim or Hindu, etc. states, so I don’t see why there cannot be a Jewish state. It need not effect any of its policies except on immigration.

“I understand that this means that there can be no right of return to Israel, but if we force the creation of a viable Palestinian state, the Palestinian diaspora, can find good homes in a country of their own, but I reject the concept of an Arab Palestininan State being denied the right to arms, or any limitations on its sovereignty.

“I don’t give any credence to a Jewish right based on the Bible, or on who was there first, only the need for a haven for a historically persecuted people.”

Finally, Pearl Duncan of Manhattan, NY raised an interesting question when she wrote:

Are you working on a book? You can collect your political commentary in a book.

Ms. Duncan, who is herself getting ready to publish a book, hit the nail on the head. That is indeed my hope.

I hope that my readers enjoyed the holidays, whether that was Chanukah, Christmas, and/or Kwanza, and that all are looking forward to a happy and prosperous New Year, with the many dark clouds lifting throughout the world.

I now welcome any comments readers care to make and will publish same, with or without attribution, as the contributor wishes. 

America’s Place in the World (Still More Discussion)

In my last post entitled "America’s Place in the World (More Discussion)" I set forth my exchange on this subject with Herb Reiner of Cedar Grove, NJ, and then set forth a somewhat lengthy exposition on the subject by Albert Nekimken of Vienna, Virginia.

I decided that I can most effectively juxtapose my views against Nekimken’s by interlineating my comments directly into his. I do so by showing Nekimken’s text in italics and my responses in bold type. Those who may want to re-read Nekimken’s views without distraction can do so by referring to my last post "America’s Place in the World (More Discussion)."

I found myself agreeing the most of your reply to Eric Offner, Did you? It doesn't sound that way! even while remembering that FDR's record was not unblemished: despite all of the admirable decisions that he made, which you summarize, he also refused to admit boatloads of desperate Jewish refugees, such as the ship St. Louis, that was ordered to turn around and return to Europe. 

I don't believe that this is a fair criticism. The immigration laws were clear, and these refugees were not eligible for entry under those laws. I don’t think Roosevelt had the power to ignore those laws. Also disappointing, recent biographical scholarship has revealed the extent to which he shared the general anti-Semitism of people of his class and times. Again I disagree! There is no indication that Roosevelt had anti-Semitic views. To be sure Cordell Hull, The Secretary of State did, but to a large extent Roosevelt was unaware of this, until much later when Morgenthau brought it to his attention Roosevelt was shocked but did not feel there was much he could do about it without shaking up his Administration and he wasn't about to do that.

Your rejection of Eric's list of historical sins of America on the world stage was justified insofar as it has been used as a justification for refusing to take action in Syria today. Nevertheless, it reminds us that nations, including America, make geopolitical and diplomatic decisions based mainly on contemporary perceptions of national interest, not according to high principals of morality. Not every Administration is equally guilty of this. Democrats are much more given to humanitarian considerations, than Republicans.  Clinton acted in Bosnia and Obama in Libya. Carter was always concerned with Human Rights.

More troublesome was your conclusion that the world needs a policeman and the U.S. should accept the mantle of that role because it can.

While I accept and even applaud some of our recent interventions, such as in Bosnia that were a relative success, or in Somalia, which failed, Somalia didn't fail! We didn't act! Overall I think your conclusion is flawed for the following reasons:

The listing below I think is the crux of your argument.

·As Eric's comments suggested, the reputation of the U.S. has been tarnished. The rest of the world is quite suspicious of American motives and tends to fly into a frenzy of conspiracy speculation about them rather than admire us for spending money and taking risks to "do the right thing" wherever that motive takes us. True! , But we can change that perception, if we follow a consistent policy that puts greater emphasis on human rights than national Rights. Can we do that politically, doubtful, but it is worth striving for.

·We also can't undertake the responsibility of being the world's policeman because most of the world rejects our authority in this role, even if a minority welcomes it. This ambivalence results in a high potential that our efforts will continue to have unintended, or counterproductive results. Not so! Neither Bosnia nor Libya had that effect.

·We can't afford to be the world's policeman in terms of either money or manpower. How reminiscent of the mood in 1939. Expensive foreign interventions risk pushing our debt to arguably unsustainable levels while our economy remains weak and the need for domestic spending rises due to demographic changes, globalization, automation and other factors that are shrinking the size of the tax-paying workforce to historic lows. Limited intervention does not have very high costs and non-American lives have just as great value as American ones. Neither Bosnia nor Libya had a major impact on our budget. Iraq is always the bugaboo but that was the wrong war with the wrong commitment.

Also important, we can see from the results of the Iraq and Afghanistan interventions that the detrimental effects on our own military--individual soldiers, preparedness infrastructure and stockpiles--have been considerable and were likely understated. At least one-third of the soldiers returning from those battlefields bring with them serious, lifetime mental and physical disabilities that will require expensive attention for many decades.

But you and those likeminded keep coming back to Iraq and Afghanistan.  Those are not relevant models and references to those are misleading and inapplicable.

·For this reason, new initiatives that put the U.S. in the role of world policeman will inevitably catalyze the trend now underway to replace human soldiers with increasingly automated drones and other robotic equipment. 

This will happen regardless of anything else. Technology, not policy drives this. 

·Even if this trend shows some success on financial and tactical grounds, it exposes us to very dangerous moral dilemmas. Automated drones are being now prepared for global deployment that will either not require human direction, The will always require human direction though from a remote location. or will prevent it as a measure to counter cyberterrorism. As this trend accelerates, so does the probability of error, collateral deaths and anti-American agitation. Only a Defense Department order prohibiting the use of self-piloted drones has prevented their deployment for now.  I don't understand this. Self piloted drones are in use. However, this prohibition will not last indefinitely and it has no effect on the rest of the world where the cost of conducting ever more deadly terrorist operations continues to fall along with fading moral scruples against launching strikes with inexpensive drones or chemical weapons. But this is not relevant to policing atrocities.

Worse, automated drone warfare risks depriving attacks of any identifiable geographical address. We attacked Afghanistan and Iraq because they were perceived to be harboring terrorists. In the future, we may not be able to identify either the source location or even the identity of the sponsors of terrorist activity. It's difficult to be an effective policeman when you can't locate the criminals. Now you are talking apples and oranges. Dealing with terrorists is something we are doing, and will continue to do. It has its challenges as you point out. But it has nothing to do with intervening when mass slaughter on the scale of the Nazis, or in Bosnia and/or Kosovo or in Rwanda, takes place, and as we saw in Bosnia and Libya, it does not require boots on the ground, or even huge expenditures. You are raising a great many irrelevancies and bugaboos.

·Returning to Syria, there seems to be general agreement that, if it had been possible for the U.S. to use military force to quickly eliminate Syria's chemical weapons, we probably should have done so. However, to attempt to do this without a U.N. mandate, without good intelligence about the location of the weapons (which have already and obviously been dispersed or hidden), there was a high probability that our effort would have failed and only worsened the situation. Chemical weapons have not been the issue until now! It has been the slaughter of peaceful demonstrators. Right then and there we should have told Bashar al-Assad, stop or there will be consequences, followed by drone attacks on airfields and on anti aircraft batteries until his capacity to use those weapons was suppressed. Anti tank weapons, to the secular forces would also have made sense.

·Even Israel next door was ambivalent about the wisdom of a unilateral attack on Syria's chemical stockpiles by the U.S.  Nobody has suggested an attack on the chemical weapons.  Such action would only have pleased Saudi Arabia, which continues to sit on its hands and treasure, refusing to risk either--and Turkey whose president, Erdogan, has deployed only his big mouth and volunteered the U.S. to undertake all the risks and costs.

·Erdogan complains with justice that no country has even stepped up to help the refugees who have fled Syria and are living under desperate situations in neighboring countries. Erdogan is absolutely right! His country is bearing the brunt of caring for Syrian refugees, while we are doing nothing to help them. He is in no position to unilaterally take on Bashar al-Assad. (Apparently, such spending doesn't pump money into the hands of defense contractors or create many jobs in American congressional districts, so it has little appeal.) This last is unworthy of you! As you well know I am not looking for spending more on armaments and the humanitarian actions I am urging, have nothing to do with defense contractors. They will do very well regardless.

The slaughter of innocent civilians, whether Jews in Germany or the Soviet Union, or Slavs, or Africans, cannot be permitted. Better that we can unite on it, but it cannot be tolerated unless you feel that the worlds polices toward the Jews in the Holocaust was right. Russia or for that matter China cannot be allowed to be the dogs in the manger, who continues the defense of the indefensible and the absolute obstacle of humanitarianism.

It seems to me your instincts are pacifist and even suggest isolationism, which after Iraq and Afghanistan has gripped the country, just as it did after the WWI.

Final comments, questions, or corrections, are welcome and will be responded to, but not distributed.

America’s Place in the World (Discussion)

Hopefully, many of you have by now read my recent commentary entitled “America’s Place inthe World."

I have had a number of comments and exchanges as a result of that posting, and would like to share that discussion with you.

Janet Cooke of Philadelphian, Pennsylvania wrote:

I was just thinking about your blog and that I was missing hearing what you might be thinking about this budget/healthcare/threaten to shut down the government fiasco we are witnessing in Washington now!  I was planning to communicate with you this morning about missing your commentary -  and then I opened the email from you and found the comments from Eric re: Syria, etc., and your response.   

 Not the topic that was on my mind but good to hear your thinking!  I'm always glad to learn what you're thinking about situations and behaviors that amaze and overwhelm me.  The budget stuff and the ridiculous but dangerous(?) behavior of the Republicans is of great concern.  Maybe, because like you, I've wanted to expect so much better behavior from members of our government, it's especially upsetting. I am tuned in.

To which I responded:

With respect to the shutting down of the government and the even more serious imminent failure to raise the debt ceiling there is not much to say. It is akin to a father, (or a mother) taking one of their children hostage and demanding ransom for not harming such a child. Will the mother (or father) pay! Probably yes. But when that happens again and again, without any assurance of the safety of the child or even children, there comes a time when it is necessary to say no more. These are our children. This is our economy. This is the world economy. You can't use that for blackmail.

The trouble with paying ransom to hostage takers is that the more one pays, the more it encourages the hostage-taking. No matter what the cost, at one point one has to refuse or there is no end to it. The ransom will just keep going up. 

However, even though you feel this crisis is front and center, I would still like to have your input on my exchange with Eric Offner on the Syria debacle.

Nancy Vieira, who works for the National Institute of Health, and is domiciled in Silver Springs, Maryland, contributed the following:

So good to read your column once again! Thank-you for deciding to respond to your friend’s provocative email and for posting it on your web site for us (always!) interested readers.  

It never ceases to amaze me how cruel and barbaric the “civilized” human species can be. I will never forget watching a live broadcast from a hut in Rwanda and, as the journalist spoke in the doorway of the hut, seeing in the background, down the dirt road, 2 men with machetes hacking away at “something” on the ground (a fellow human being was my presumption). Striking with a machete and seeing up close what it is you are actually doing to a “living thing”, to me, is mind boggling enough. But, dropping a bomb of chemical weaponry on your own citizens, innocents, while comfortably sitting at home with plenty of food, water, all the comforts of modern day living and family and friends, not ever having to see the chemical damage inflicted upon the human and other animal species up close and personal, their suffering, is unconscionable.   

And, to turn one’s head and say, “it’s not my problem” is also unconscionable. I cannot imagine how a human being can justify condoning these acts of vicious cruelty. I can only hope that, one day, we will all live in peace on this planet.

Prompting me to reply as follows:

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

You are one of very few, who has seen barbarity up close. Every time we close our eyes we become accomplices. It is so easy to say there is nothing we can do. There is always something we can do. Where there is a Will, there is a Way. 

It is high time for us to take the words, "NEVER AGAIN" seriously". But it isn't only chemical weapons that should arouse our ire, as horrible as they are. Every time we condone atrocities, and in Syria we should have acted after the Hama murders in 1982, which few people even remember. (I might add that I had not remembered it until I read Thomas Friedman's book "From Beirut to Jerusalem" published in 1989, but not read by me until three years ago. It is still an eye opener.

Again thank you for taking the time to write.

And finally, Herb Reiner, of Cedar Grove, NJ expressed this view:

Glad to hear from you that you’re well and glad to see that you have not lost interest in expressing your political views despite the lack of response to your last commentary. I will just add a few observations to chew on. 

  

Firstly, the distinction between a civil war and a revolution is nebulous and in the case of Syria one can truly say it is both. The Syrians are certainly not fighting against a foreign occupying power. 

  

Secondly, even from the early stages of the conflict, Obama realized that the Opposition was fractured and disorganized. The most motivated and well organized among them were the Islamist, who today appear the strongest among the opposition groups. Obama was always left with bad choices, but I believe his reluctance to supply heavy weapons was justified.  The secular groups, it seems are welcoming all the support they can get from the Islamists and it is not clear who would control our heavy weapons.  Let's not forget how the Stinger missiles we supplied to Pakistan were used to shoot down our own aircraft.  

  

Thirdly, it may be beyond the power of even the most powerful military in the world to alone help "people being slaughtered," without engendering even worse consequences. We should be thankful that Obama did not have to carry out his threat against Assad crossing the red line with the fantasy of a quick in-and-out punishment, which would kill even more innocent victims and could plunge the whole region into chaos.  As for overthrowing Assad  -- be careful what you wish for, you just might get it!  

 Best wishes and keep writing and thinking.

Prompting this response on my part:

It’s so good to hear from you and to have the benefit of your views.

It is so easy to find reasons to close one's eyes. Maybe, because of my background as a Holocaust survivor, who remembers, and who has studied the history of that atrocity while the world found just as many reasons to close its eyes. There were worse things than Hitler they said. We should be worried about the Communists, not the Nazis. What business is it what happens to German Nationals? We must not interfere in their sovereign affairs.

Above all we have our own problems with high unemployment, and didn't we have enough getting involved in European affairs in World War I.

Even when Britain was on its last legs, they argued it is only about protecting the British Empire, what do we care. 

I fear that what we are witnessing is neo-isolationism.

Yes, I hear the arguments that you are making. But that was not true in the beginning. In the beginning we witnessed peaceful demonstrations of an oppressed people and we saw Hama of 1982 all over again. That was the time to say NO - NOT AGAIN! This will not stand!! At the very beginning a no fly zone, which could have been attained with weapons fired from off shore at airbases, should have been imposed. It would not have been 100% successful. So what. It would have made a difference.

Yes, a lot of extremist elements have reared their ugly head. But that is because we stood aside. If we wouldn't help them others will jump in. And so they did. But even now we see battles between secular groups and religious ideologues. Why don't we help the secularists? The longer we don't help them, the more a desperate people turn to the Jihadists. Our failure has helped the Jihadists and continues to help them. But above all where is our sense of compassion; our sense of justice.

Now as to Stinger missiles. The problem is not that we supplied them to Pakistan. We supplied them to the Taliban to shoot down Soviet planes in the Soviet-Afghanistan campaign. Was that a mistake? NO!!!!! At a time when we were in a life and death struggle with the Soviets, handing them a major defeat was the first, and possibly only, priority. In any case Stinger missiles have not been our major problem in Afghanistan. Very few of our planes have been shot down by Stinger missiles. In fact we have lost very few planes. The weapons that have bedeviled us are IEDs, the roadside bombs, not Stinger missiles. That is a phony argument that is being used. But, carefully selected groups would minimize the risk if any. 

Does anyone really think that if we stand aside and don't try to influence events that things will turn out better than if we do? That doesn't work in private life and it doesn't work in public events. Trying, even if sometimes failing to influence events, is almost always the better course. 

As for "plunge(ing) the whole region into chaos" this is not what our action would do. It is our non-action that is doing this. Our non-action is destabilizing Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, and possibly others. Both Turkey and Jordan have been begging us to help.

This argument is essentially one to be left to the Right. Laissez-faire is an argument that should be left to the proponents of the Right. Pacifism sounds good. But is has never worked. Isolationism has its appeal, but it too has never worked.

I continue to invite comments, questions, or corrections, and will respond to them. I will distribute such exchanges with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified.