I AM A JEW (PART XXVIII - Discussion 4)

As the title shows this is the 28th part (actually the 29^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.

At this point I depart from my debate with Albert Nekimken to give other voices space.

Joel Wiener, of Falls Church, Virginia, reacted with this, after reading "I AM A JEW (PART XXV - Discussion)":

I am a bit overwhelmed by your essays and of course, I admire your search for the facts.  I'd like to comment on one of your replies: 

  "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."

 But does modern Israel fulfill that promise, or does it rather create an opportunity for the world to see what it is like when Jews are in charge of such a state, and to conclude that they are fundamentally a racist and bullying people, and are therefore to be despised?   This troubles me, and the recent resurgence in overt anti-Semitism seems, in my mind, to correlate with the rise in power of the Israeli government and the rise in the use of military might by the Israelis against the Palestinians.    

 It seems to me that Jews have, for thousands of years, lived as a nomadic people who remain physically apart, but are bound together by their cultures and ethnicities, and yet many choose, to a certain extent, to assimilate.   In Israel, there seems to be less incentive to assimilate, so there has been a more dramatic rise in sects and polarization.   I suppose that Israel has not been in existence long enough, or I have not read enough to correct or adjust my perceptions, but you have and I'd like to hear your views about whether Israeli actions foment anti-Semitism.

To which I responded:

The short answer to “whether Israeli actions foment anti-Semitism” is yes, yet your questions raise some interesting and disturbing question that should not be disposed of so simplistically.

Much of what you say is true. But like all, or at least most things in life, there is a balancing act.

Let me break your questions into their component parts.

But does modern Israel fulfill that promise?

When it comes to the primary purpose for which it was formed, i.e. to be a haven for Jews fleeing oppression, the answer is a resounding, yes!

While it has attracted many American Jews, who were not fleeing persecution, “Aliyah”, particularly religious ones, it has been a haven for far more who were fleeing persecution, e.g. from the Arab states, though perversely, to a large extent their need to emigrate was caused by the creation of the State of Israel, since that creation made the Jews of the Arab/Muslim world, pariahs.

Even before Israel became a Nation, and despite attempts to prevent their entry into Palestine, many Jewish refugees succeeded in finding a haven there.

Many Jews who had come out of Nazi concentration camps, and who felt they could no longer live in the nations that were the hosts of their persecution, and who like the persecuted Jews before them, had no other place to go, found a haven in Israel.

The Russian Jews, persecuted by Stalin and his successors, too found a haven in Israel.

So the primary purpose for the founding of Israel was accomplished, and even more important if such persecutions arise again, e.g. in the US, Israel would be an essential haven.

or does it rather create an opportunity for the world to see what it is like when Jews are in charge of such a state, and to conclude that they are fundamentally a racist and bullying people, and are therefore to be despised?  

That is not a fair way to phrase the question! The Jewish State is in many ways better than innumerable states throughout the world, for they are legion. Many of them are Arab and/or Muslim.

But the standard for the Jewish state is different. From my point of view, I expect that state to live up to my ideals, because as a Jew I have a special connection to it, and as an American I don’t want my country to spend untold billions to support policies that I find abhorrent.

A charge has been made that because the world holds Israel to a higher standard than other countries with far worse policies, that this reflects the inherent historic and ingrained anti-Semitism of the world. In one sense the demand that a Jewish should have higher standards is a compliment rather than hostility.

But more important, what is infuriating much of the world, is that while other countries are criticized, ostracized, sanctioned for their behavior, e.g. Russia, Myanmar, South Africa, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, and Iran, to mention a few, Israel is given a free pass, and is the recipient, by far, of more American aid then any other country. I believe that it is resentment for this free pass that has started the BDS movement.

Furthermore, Israeli and their apologists’ propaganda has tried to demonize all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic, and when it comes from Jews, as “Self Hating Jews” It is because of the latter that I headed my series as “I AM A JEW” and led into my presentation by demonstrating that I am a proud Jew. I think that demonization has backfired, and the world has accepted the notion that criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism go hand in hand, but instead of deterring criticism of Israel, the world has accepted the Israeli concept that Israel and Jews are one and the same. Of course if Israel and Jews are one and the same, then anger at Israel will lead, inevitably to anti-Semitism.

There are times when it appears that Israel welcomes anti-Semitism, because it wants all Jews to emigrate to Israel, and what better way to drive them to it, than anti-Semitism. It is interesting to note that Israel’s reaction to the attack on the Jewish supermarket in Paris, is to urge France’s Jews to emigrate to Israel

I don’t accept your premise that Jews are fundamentally a racist and bullying people, and I don’t think the world actually sees them that way, because as I have said, Israeli policies are not really worse than most countries, the difference being that unlike other countries Israel has consistently been given a free pass.

I now invite any comments, questions, or corrections from readers. However, in the coming posts I plan to take a break from my focus on Israel, and to address other issues that are at least as important.

I will, in due course, return to the subject of Israel and give Albert Nekimken a full opportunity to air his disagreement, together, of course, with my rebuttals, always interspersed.

Our Planet - It Is The Only One We Have (Discussion)

On May 5^th 2014 I posted my latest commentary on my blog under the heading "Our Planet - It Is The Only One We Have." This can be accessed here.

Almost immediately comments started coming in.

Nicole Scheller of Lawrenceville, NJ reacted with this:

An issue close to my heart. I even keep a stash of bags at school, so if I take the kids shopping, we're not forced to use plastic. I'm still considered weird for this, but I'm ok with that. I do hear a lot of folks excusing their use of plastic bags because they are recyclable now, but as you know recycling takes energy and the end product will find itself in a landfill eventually.

Joel Wiener of Arlington, Virginia expressed the view:

Some stores charge for plastic bags, while others give the customer a small credit for using their own bags.  I prefer to use paper bags since they decompose quickly and I use the empty bags for recycling newspapers.

Plastic bags can be recycled if disposed of properly.  

The problem, like with most things, is with compliance and a sense of personal responsibility.

To which I replied:

You are making an assumption that is commonplace. Please read the article here where you will find that paper bags don’t really have much of an advantage over plastic. To quote from part of the article:

“Before you brown bag it, consider these environmental disadvantages of paper:

•                Causes pollution: Paper production emits air pollution, specifically 70 percent more pollution than the production of plastic bags [source:Thompson]. According to certain studies, manufacturing paper emits 80 percent more greenhouse gases [source: Lilienfield]. And, consider that making paper uses trees that, instead, could be absorbing carbon dioxide. The paper bag making process also results in 50 times more water pollutants than making plastic bags [source:Thompson].

•                Consumes energy: Even though petroleum goes into making plastic, it turns out that making a paper bag consumes four times as much energy as making a plastic bag, meaning making paper consumes a good deal of fuel [source: reusablebags.com].

•                Consumes water: The production of paper bags uses three times the amount of water it takes to make plastic bags [source: Lilienfield].

•                Inefficient recycling: The process of recycling paper can be inefficient -- often consuming more fuel than it would take to make a new bag [source: Milstein]. In addition, it takes about 91 percent more energy to recycle a pound of paper than a pound of plastic [source: reusablebags.com].

•                Produces waste: According to some measures, paper bags generate 80 percent more solid waste [source: Lilienfield].

•                Biodegrading difficulties: Surprisingly, the EPA has stated that in landfills, paper doesn't degrade all that much faster than plastics [source: Lilienfield].

But that doesn’t mean that plastic is better, as the article goes on to say:

However, plastic didn't get a bad reputation for nothing. Here are some environmental disadvantages of plastic: (and then lists many).

There simply is no substitute for making use of re-usable bags, which we should all do voluntarily as I, my wife and my daughter do. 

But this issue is far too important to allow for voluntarism.  As my original post has indicated many governments have instituted action to discourage the use of disposable bags of any kind and that we need to do the same.

I personally would favor a significant tax on every bag issued by a retailer. I would urge a minimum of 25¢ per bag and preferably a $1.00 assessment. That would be an effective inducement to the use of re-usable bags. It is essential that we, as a society take action against the blight of waste and its devastation on the environment."

Which prompted this response from Wiener:

I suppose that canvas bags would also have an environmental impact due to their manufacture and the printing found on them:

The common message throughout all of these facts is to re-use bags, and the more they are re-used, whether paper, plastic, canvas or mesh, the less impact on the environment.

I think that the addition of a per bag tax would not be much of a deterrent, since even at a buck a bag, most people will forget to bring their bags and will have no choice but to pay the tax and get the bag, as opposed to carrying an armful of loose groceries. 

Which prompted this further observation on my part:

Your point is well taken. The key is "to re-use bags”.

But I don’t agree that a "buck a bag" would not be a deterrent. Even 25¢ a bag would be. We can see this from the extent to which people clip coupons and use store member cards to get discounts. But the common 2¢ or even less a bag does nothing.

The idea that "forgetting has its costs" is a wonderful way to jolt the memory.

(Some good slogans there.)

Albert Nikemkin of Vienna, Virginia chimed in with:

Thanks for sharing this.

IKEA has the solution to this problem. I was at a local store yesterday: it doesn't provide any bags at all for purchases. However, it does SELL reusable bags at the checkout counter for those who want them and/or forgot to bring one. I think that would certainly get the message across and solve the problem. However, a single merchant can't make this work. A municipality or state needs to outlaw the free distribution of plastic bags. That would either mean a return to paper, or adoption of the IKEA approach.

Prompting me to write:

Ikea is the correct solution. But as you point out an occasional responsible retailer or an occasional responsible consumer will not solve the problem. It is a societal issue and must be dealt with societally. Only a tax on disposable bags, both plastic and paper of at least 25¢ and preferably $1.- will begin to deal with this issue.

Elaine Krigsman of Montclair, NJ prompted this exchange by writing:

While I agree with you that a tax would be the best way to solve this problem, the chances of this actually happening are slim to none.  We can't even get a gas tax passed here in NJ that would begin to address our needs.  Stores should just stop providing free plastic or paper bags, as they do in many countries in Europe.  IKEA's system is not original but it is effective, even if it is just one customer at a time.  

Which caused me to reply:

Unfortunately, the likelihood of stores no longer "providing free plastic or paper bags, as they do in many countries in Europe” is also slim to none. First it is up to us to act individually to use re-usable bags, and second we need to keep working to achieve societal and political goals even if at the moment they seem out of reach. The stupidity of not raising the gas tax is beyond compare, as was the failure of Christie to allow new rail tunnels between NJ & NY even though the Federal government would pay for it, a project that was first proposed by Christie supporter, former mayor, Giuliani.

And then Christie won by a landslide. 

Simply throwing up ones hands accomplishes nothing.

Prompting this final concurrence:

I agree with you on all points!

And finally Joanna Cooke of Jackson, Wyoming expressed this view:

I haven't commented in years, largely because I feel way out of my league in terms of understanding the issues you've explored. But this one I have an opinion on. We regularly use cloth bags--some have been in use over eight years at this point. I also reuse the plastic bags for when we get things in bulk for new bulk purchases. Whatever bags we do use, plastic or paper, get reused in some fashion, for example, for garbage in the bathrooms (and I often simply empty out those bags and use them again for the same purpose).  I support both plastic and paper bags having fees, but do wonder about the economic concerns and what the best forms of education are on this topic. Our local natural food store gives a credit that can be donated to local community foundations, and even the box grocery stores give some kind of credit, a few cents per bag or something. I support both plastic and paper bags having fees, but do wonder about the economic concerns and what the best forms of education are on this topic (emphasis added).

To which I replied:

Allow me to address some of the concerns you raise. You "wonder about the economic concerns." I don’t see that there are any realistic ones. Even a dollar tax on each bag would not cause people to shop less, but it would, in most cases, cause them to bring their own bags.

As for your question as to "what the best forms of education are on this topic” I really don’t know. The environmental community must spend resources on education. Unfortunately they have not invested very much on this issue. I do not have any influence in this community. Those who do should use that influence to get them to speak out more aggressively.

The main obstacle to imposing a significant tax on disposable bags is the general aversion of the public to all taxes and the antigovernment mood created by Reagan’s slogan, “Government is not the solution, Government is the problem” and the anarchic anti-societal attitudes that have arisen from it, particularly within the Tea party, but within the Republican party in general. They have a no lose strategy, because the more outrageous their behavior in the councils of government, the more they bring government into disrepute, which strengthens their anarchic and anti societal agenda. Since the public instinctively hates taxes, this too feeds into their opposition to all tax increases and supports their constant call for fewer taxes until in the words of, Grover Norquist, "I just want to shrink it (the government) down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”

Politics has its cycles, and in time the public may recognize that without government to regulate our food and drug supplies, to protect our environment and to guarantee competition, etc. capitalism cannot function.

I will be happy to entertain any further comments anyone else cares to make.