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. 

Control of the Weather (Discussion)

My last post "Control of the Weather" was distributed on March 23. I was greatly gratified when Eric Offner, impresario of Jazz concerts, author and lecturer on the law, humanist and mental health advocate (See here for a description of Offner in Who's Who in America) seconded the compliments from Pearl Duncan writing:

I agree with Miss Duncan. I learn a lot from your articles.

And then added:

Today I disagree with you. The price of gas is set by speculators. I would outlaw speculation on most commodities.

To which I responded:

I am glad to receive your disagreement. I receive disagreements so rarely, and yet differences of opinion are useful in arriving at intelligent conclusions.  

Your view on speculators is not unique and you may have noted that in the discussion on the PBS NewsHour referred to in my post and accessible here, Daniel Weiss, of the Center for American Progress (a left wing think tank) mentions Wall Street speculators as one of the causes for the high prices, and speculators are a favorite target of the Left for everything that may go wrong in our economy. But who are speculators? They are the people who buy and sell stocks and commodities. They are people like me, who invest in the stock market in the hope of making a gain, but sometimes sustain a loss. They are the union and other pension funds who invest in the market. They are as much to blame, or rather deserve credit when prices go down. Without them there would be no market in anything, because all traders, and that in effect means all merchants are speculators. You say you "would outlaw speculation in most commodities,” but you can't do that without outlawing all trading in commodities. 

They are a convenient scapegoat whenever anything undesirable happens in the market, but they reflect market conditions, they don't create them. 

What I have not mentioned, heretofore, and which needs mention, is that another factor that drives up world oil prices is the saber rattling about Iran. Netanyahu with his threats drives up the price of oil, and so do the Republicans with their demands that we use military force, again. They play a clever political game, because the are complicit in driving up the price of oil, and then seek to profit politically from the higher prices, which they helped to generate, and finally Obama himself, when he says we will use military force if that is necessary to stop Iran from getting the bomb, a position he was forced into, as the only way to keep Netanyahu from his own military action. And of course Iran, every time they talk of closing the Strait of Hormuz. 

Surprisingly, OPEC, which used to be the culprit in past oil rises, is not complicit this time.  

Next time I want to tackle a very important and complicated subject, i.e. the role that race plays in American life and politics. It will be entitled: “It’s All About Race”, but I am postponing that discussion because it will, of necessity, be long, and multi-parted, and so, rather that append it to this concluding discussion on the price of oil, I will let it go till next time.

Comments, questions, or corrections, are welcome and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified.

Control of the Weather

My last post "The Culture Wars Resume" was published on March 16, 2012. For those who may want to re-read it, just click on the title above and it will appear.

In response thereto I received a message from Pearl Duncan of Manhattan, NY which read:

You columns are fabulous. Your column about the culture wars was not only insightful and enlightening, it was educational, especially for young people who just started voting and were too young to have noticed the last go round. Keep writing. 

And then added:

Because I write about culture and you express such keen political insights in your article, I forward them to my nephews and nieces who are in college and to other readers and young people on my list. Keep writing. Your insights and analyses are very valuable. 

Let me say that this comment is particularly appreciated, because I get so few comments of encouragement and it is very hard to keep researching and writing without a clear indication from my readership that my efforts are appreciated and that they serve the purpose of being informative and mentally challenging. But I particularly appreciate the kind words from Ms. Duncan, because she holds the distinction of being a published author of poetry and short stories, has been written up in the New York Times and is a recognized expert and lecturer on the use of DNA in research on genealogy. Other references to her work appear here and here and many others references which a search through Google quickly reveals.

This post’s title, “Control of the Weather,” will undoubtedly cause the reader to wonder what the weather has to do with a column that concerns itself with politics. I chose this heading to illustrate the irrationality of the voter going back to 1858. The story is told about Queen Victoria and the then Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, as related on the following web site. I want to quote from it because it is so apt.

Queen Victoria tells Disraeli that she is proud to have him as her friend. Dizzy tells her that he is afraid that he will not be her Prime Minister for long. No, not because of his health. The nation has had five bad harvests in a row and the voters can't forgive the party in power for not being able to control the weather. Victoria says that this means that she may have to put up with you-know-who:  that opinionated, half-mad, fanatical, old man Gladstone. Disraeli says the worst part of it is that Gladstone believes God has put him in charge. 

But I guess that is a lot of verbiage to make my point, that in fact in often made by our punditry; namely that the President will be blamed for whatever is amiss in the country, regardless of whether it is in his control or not.

Right now much is made of the rising price of gasoline and the media has pointed out that as the price of gasoline goes up, the President’s approval rating goes down. Republicans, led by their putative candidate, Mitt Romney, have made every effort to reinforce such irrationality and as I have pointed out in my addendum to my post "Social Security – An Honest Evaluation."

The reader should note that in 2008, near the end of the Bush Presidency, gas prices were higher than they are now. They then dropped precipitously at the beginning of 2009, just as Obama took office, as a result of the recession. As the economy recovered the price went back up, so that now it is almost as high at it was before the recession.

What we can quickly see from this is that the price is tied to demand and supply like all commodities. When the economy is strong demand goes up and so does the price of gas, when the economy tanks demand goes down and so does the price.

But of course the demand/supply is not limited to the US. It is a worldwide phenomenon. Whether we give more drilling rights to the oil companies, or build more pipe lines, may some day have an impact on oil prices, but it is, and always has been far in the future. The fact is that oil production in the US has increased substantially since Obama became President, as can be seen from the graph below which can be accessed on the web along with a good discussion here.

The credit for this increase in production cannot be claimed by the Obama Administration, though it has granted more permits than the environmental community feels comfortable with. There is always a substantial lag of time between permits granted and actual production, but it does show, that increased production does not necessarily produce lower gasoline prices. In fact, strange as it may sound, the opposite is true. When prices are low many wells are not profitable. When prices rise such wells become profitable and more oil is produced.

As for the Republican drive to gut environmental laws, this recognizes the importance of energy to our economy, but it ignores that as important as energy is, the purity and availability of our water supply is far more important. We are even now running into clean water shortages and this is leading into fights between cities and farming communities vying for the diminishing supplies of clean water, even as our aquifers run down and in some places run dry. As for the purity of our air, it is hard to imagine anything more important. Just one aspect of the Clean Air Act, which by the way was the proud achievement of a Republican Congress led by President Nixon (oh how times change) would according to Earth Justice prevent up to 8,100 premature deaths, 5,100 heart attacks and 52,000 asthma attacks every year, and that is just from cleaning up industrial power plants and that does not even begin to address the dangers faced by future generations from global warming.

Can anything be done about the high price of gasoline at the pump? The PBS Newshour had an interesting discussion on this, which you can find on the web here beginning at 2 minutes and 11 seconds into the video or of the reader prefers set forth in the transcript, where Kenneth Green of the American Enterprise Institute, (a Right Wing Think Tank) sets forth how prices at the pump could be lowered. He summarizes this as follows:

About 75 percent of the price of gas is the world price of oil, reflects the world price of oil. But there's a federal gas tax that can be changed. There are EPA requirements for specific fuel blends that can be changed. So it's not quite true to say the president has no power, but it's not as big as some people might like.

First it should be noted that he agrees that the President's power to effect the price of gasoline is limited. But then he sets forth two ways that the price of gas can be effected and he is absolutely right. As he says the: “federal gas tax that can be changed.” That tax is now 8¢ a gallon so the repeal of the tax would lower the price of gas by 8¢, not a huge reduction, but it would help and in fact Ron Paul advocates this repeal. See here. But first of all it is not within the power of the President to repeal the tax – the power lies with Congress, but more important this tax is designated to go into the highway trust fund and it is falling short of its need, or as USA Today says in its headline: “Gas tax falling short in paying for transportation needs” See here. So while this could be done it is not desirable to do so.

As for the second suggestion: “There are EPA requirements for specific fuel blends that can be changed” this is again true but the effect on prices would be small and the impact on the environment large.

Which summarizes the situation better than anything that can be said by the Administration.

For those who might be interested in reading more extensively on this subject I would commend an article which an be found here and another that can be found here.

Comments, questions, or corrections, are welcome and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified.