Anti-Semitism Flares Up -- Again

 The older generation, who in their youth saw movies like Gentlemen's Agreement, or witnessed the defeat of the Nazi's were hopeful that a stake had been driven into the heart Jew-hatred.  Maybe Israel would be the answer.  Not only might this Jewish state shelter Jews, it would demonstrate the kind of society Jews could create if left to their own devices.

Initially their efforts were applauded.  Books like Exodus underlined the struggle of Jews to return to their ancestral homes.  Islamic nations under the tutalege of the Muslim Brotherhood attacked the fledgeling state with high hopes of ending the Jewish delusion.  Miracle of miracles, they failed.

The Islamic Brotherhood had another card up its sleeve.  They established an organization next to  the heart of Israel to do what the Islamic nations had failed to do; namely, destroy Israel.  In this, they had the support of nations worldwide, including the U.S.  They established a terrorist organization designed to do what Egypt, Jordan, Syria and the other Islamic nations had failed to do.

The Brotherhood created the myth of a Palestinian nation.  There never was such a nation.  But under the leadership of the Brotherhood such a nation was created out of whole cloth.  The false narrative on which this newly created terrorist natiion was established was as follows:  1.  The land had always been Islamic and its inhabitants had been the Palestinian Arabs.  2. After WW II, Jews began to immigrate to this land in droves, displacing its original inhabitants, the Palestinian Arabs.  3. To rectify this injustice, land had to be turned over to the Arab Palestinians, which of course meant displacing Jews and making Israel a bit of indefensible real estate..  That would then allow for the destruction of this Zionist entity which, in their view,  had no right to exist.

To put this plan into effect, the Islamic Brotherhood had to find a suitable leader of the newly established "Palestinian People."  Their choice was excellent.  It was the clever and devious Egyptian; Arafat.  As the Jordanians soon discovered he could be brutal.  

Israel managed to drive him and his coterie of terrorists out of Lebanon to Tunis.  But for Israel it was a bit too late.  The Palestinian myth had taken hold in much of the world, including America.  It was a myth that clearly served the Muslim Brotherhood.  Though not openly acknoledged,  it also served American interests vis a vie the Russians.

Russia as it emerged from WW II was seeking to establish itself as a global power.  One area being contested was the middle east.  Although the U.S. and Russia each hoped Israel would move to its corner, Israel allied itself with the U.S.  But the U.S. also sought to maintain its influence with the oil rich Arab countries. How better to do this than by adopting the Palestinian myth and  coddling the Arab's pet terrorist; namely, Arafat.  The upshot was the Oslo Accords.  

Because the Oslo Accords, were violated by the Palestinians with frequency, they have little meaning today.  However, what they did do was achieve some of the Muslim Brotherhoods heart felt goals.  It put a terrorist in the heart of Israel and it allowed for outrageous behavior on the part of the terrorists on the theory that they had not gotten their fair share of the land.  What they want is a state of their own with military bases and weaponry.  

Here is where the Oslo Accords have led Israel:  They find themselves with a neighboring entity that through its educational system has inculcated in its people a deep hatred for Israel and Israelis.  The hatted is so unbelievably intense that it generates a constant supply of suicide attackers.  Its society is one that provides no legal protection for citizens who are Christian or Jewish.  Consequently is essentially all Muslim.  And, as  the huge funds squirreled away in Switzerland by Arafat shows, it is highly corrupt.

As we see in Haiti, it is very difficult the solve the problems of a failed state and regrettably that's what's become of the Palestinian entity.  Be that as it may, it serves the purposes of the Muslim Brotherhood.  It is the basis of attacks on Israel on campuses in America, and in towns and cities throughout America.

 

Anti-Semitism: A Pathagen

 The body carries many pathogens, but usually man survives.  His body also carries antigens, and these fight the pathogens  Usually, health is maintained.  Of the various pathogens, anti-Semitism is one of the most virulent and deadly.  

The first Jew was Abraham.  He his son, Isaac, and grandson, Jacob, made their home where God had led them; namely, Israel. a rocky, land that rarely had enough rain to make it fertile.  It was suitable mainly for raising sheep.  The story goes on with the original twelve tribes reduced to two.

The Jews survived the Babylonians, but they could not survive the Romans, who scattered them throughout Roman empire and renamed what had once been Judaea and Samaria, Palestine.  In time, the Emperor Constantine flipped the Roman religion over to Christianity.  Despite their Jewish origins, the Christians had little love for the Jews.

The Jews made their home throughout Europe in little Jewish shtetls.  Where they found themselves in cities, the Christians confined them to ghettos.  The abuse of Jews continued until it hit its apex with Hitler, the anti-Semite who murdered half of Europe's Jews, six million of them.

Christians throughout the world did little to help the Jews.  They offered them no escape throughout  this dreadful period.  There was no bombing by the allies of the rails leading to the concentration camps.  There had been no antigen for this terrible pathogen, anti-Semitism.

Hitler was defeated because he had threatened European countries.  It had nothing to do with his wonton murder of Jews.

For Jews there was only one answer; only one antigen, a country of their own - Israel.

Will Judaism survive global anti-Semitism?  We will soon find out.

The Cults And Religion

 What atheists rarely understand is that while religion is a belief system,  it is not something easily jettisoned.  First, religions are not something unique to the individual; generally, it's a belief shared by a group.  You can say "I have my own religion," but for most people it's something they recognize as a group belief even if they themselves have disengaged from religious belief.   

Consider Spinoza.  He was a member of the Jewish community.  However, when his philosophical writings appeared to deviate from traditional Jewish thought, he was excommunicated by the Jewish community from which he came.  But why was he excommunicated?  It was because the community feared that the Chistians of that time and place would find his thoughts inimical to Christianity and that they would attack not only him but the entire Jewish community.  But, regardless of what he wrote, Spinoza today is still considered very much a Jew.

We understand a love of Israel to be an integral part of Jewish belief.  Jewish prayer books from earliest times refer to the Jewish love of Jerusalem, the cornerstone of Israel .  It is mentioned in Jewish writings from very early times..  It was where King Solomon built the Jewish temple.  The temple was destroyed by the Babylonians, but it was rebuilt by King Herod.  It's final destruction came at the hands of the Romans, who expelled the Jews and renamed the land Palestine.  it's a story known to every practicing Jew.

Does one's identification with this story and the Torah where  the story of Judaism is found make one Jewish?  Most likely, yes.  But it helps to have other signs of membership.  If one is male, it's helpful to have been circumsized.  It's also helps, regardless of gender, to have had a Jewish mother.

But then there's the biblical story of Ruth.  She was a widow who wasn't born Jewish.  However, she  had a special friend, Naomi, who was Jewish and, I believe, also a widow.  In any event Naomi told Ruth, that she was going back home to her people, a people of some Jewish tribe.  Ruth told Naomi she'd join her.  Where Naomi went, Ruth wanted to go.  If Naomi's tribe was Jewish, she'd be Jewish.  Ruth ultimately married a Jewish fellow and had kids.  They must all have been Jewish because her line extended to the great Jewish king, David.

It would seem that to be Jewish one simply has to identify as being Jewish.  Some groups within Judaism aren't that casual about Jewish membership.  For Orthodox jews, a person not Jewish, has to undergo an extensive educational program, be submerged in a mikva, and, if male, must get circumcized.

For people wishing to become Christian, it helps to get baptized.  For Muslims, it's only necessary to express a wish to be Muslim. Leaving the Muslim faith is more complicated.  In some places, rejection of Islam brings with it a death sentence.

Each culture has it's own system of beliefs.  Other religions believe in a multiple of Gods.  One such religion was that of the early Greeks.  This religion was found to be so attractive that the Romans adopted it.  They simply changed the names of the Gods from Greek to Latin.

In our day, elements of the religion are being shed.  There was a time when people thought that the sun travelled around the earth.  That proved to be incorrect.  Other stories like Adam and Eve, and Noah's ark also began to be questioned.  And why were there no dinosaurs in our the tales of creation?  It became apparent that considerable reinterpretation was required.

The main feature of religion today are it's lessons of morality.  Hillel's requirement for becoming a Jew was to stand on one foot and proclaim you would not do another what you didn't want others to do unto you.  To be a Christian, Jesus told his followers to do unto others as you would want done unto you.  The two admonitions are similar, but do differ slightly in tone.

The problem we run into with religion is with someone respecting the religion of another.  Christians historically have had a problem with people who refused to acknowledge Jesus as being, not only the son of God, but a man who actually  became God.  The Islamic view is that people not acknowledging Mohammed as the last prophet of God where either people of the Book by which they meant either Christians or Jews, or others.  The "others" were considered heretics and, where feasible, put to death.

People of the book were viewed by Muslims as dhimmi, or second-class citizens.  On them a special tax was levied.  And, depending on where they lived, certain privileges were denied them such as the building of churches and synagogues.  However, it must be acknowledged that many Muslims today have progressed in their system of beliefs and live in harmony with both Christians and Jews.  Strict atheists have any number of paths to follow among religious people and still live with them in harmony.  It's not unreasonable for one to be an atheist but yet take pride in the teachings of Judaism.

A Snag For Israel

Like a Phoenix from the fire, Israel has emerged a strong, and proud nation. By dint of their brains and their bravery, its men and women have survived despite everything the Muslim Brotherhood has thrown at them.

But now the glue that held its people together is softening. Politicians, in their reach for personal power, are disregarding the central question; namely, what's best for Israel.

Israelis have tended to favor the center-right platform; that is, Likud.  Bibi Netanyahu, Likud's leader, who defeated Lapid in the last election, has done well by Israel.  But Lapid, less studied in economics and without Netanyahu's military experience, has an overwhelming desire to have the power of a prime minister.  He has one strong source of support, Israel's Supreme Court.  They are a self appointed group of eletists, who pick their own replacements.  The are beholden to no one.  They view themselves as the font of all wisdom and they lean strongly towards Lapid.

Clearly Lapid wants no change, no reform, of this court which supports him in his policies.  The Knesset, the legislative body of Israel can pass no laws of which Lapid disapproves.  Should the Knesset pass a law which does not meet with Lapid's approval, the present court will simply decide that such law is not appropriate.  And, who decides what is or is not appropriate?  The court.

Lapid cries out that Israel would be less democratic with a reformed Supreme Court.  The truth is that the present judicial system is undemocratic.  A reformed Supreme Court would make the government more democratic.

There is one other trenchant factor; namely, the Haredi vote that supports Netanyahu.  Within a democracy the Haredi have the same rights as any other citizen of Israel to vote for whom they please.  But they do present problems. First, they do not participate in the IDF.  Other Jews are obliged to serve in the military.  Not the Haredi.  Many Israelis resent Haredi avoidance of military duty.  They also see the Haredi educational system as leaving the Haredi community unable to participate in a meaningful way in the Israeli economy.  They are in essence a drag on the community.

Not only do they retard economic growth, they want to tell secular Jews how to live.  They want to decide whether public transportation should be allowed to bring the secular Israeli community down to the beach on Shabbos and to prevent work that is best done on Shabbos.  Indeed they want the last word on who is a Jew.  In short they contribute very little to the Israeli economy and to its defense, and yet they wish to have a major say in how secular Jews are to conduct themselves.  This strikes many Jews as being unfair.  Why should they be allowed to determine who gets to be prime minister.

                                    #                                                #                                        #

 

Islam

 Mention of Islam has been made in earlier posts with regard to the Palestinians.  But perhaps we should open the lens a bit wider.

Only Islam, as I see it, seems in conflict with other religions.  In the lower regions of the Philippines they have established themselves as a deadly minority.  In India, they never seem to have made peace with the Hindu population.  Muslim refugees who fled to Sweden have succeeded in having thoroughly alienated the people who invited them to their country.  The Islamic hostility to Christians in Muslim majority countries is well known.

So what's the problem with Islam?  In my opinion, it's that they lack secularization.  There are secular Muslims, but they survive only if they keep their heads down.  Islam is a religion that condones, and indeed promotes, the murder of anyone who speaks in a manner Muslims find disrespectful.  That is not acceptable in today's world.

No institution is beyond analysis and criticism; not the army, not a political leader, and not a religious leader.  It is only in totalitarian countries where critical analysis is banned.  There was a time when the Church in Rome made efforts to have Martin Luther killed.  But that was long ago.  This is now.  How dare some Ayatollah order Solmon Rushdie to be assassinated for having written a book to  which the Ayatollah takes exception. 

We see this same trait shown in the Palestinians.  They play the injured-party card.  Consider their charges.

The Jews took their place in Palestine.  The data shows this to be untrue.  Both Jews and Muslims who today populate Palestine were largely immigrants.

When the Jews were under the yoke of the Romans, many centuries earlier, there were no Muslims in the place which the the Romans had renamed Palestine.  Mohammed still had not been born.

Just as Christians appropriated the Jewish Torah and tacked it onto their Bible, calling it the Old Testament, the Muslims appropriated both the Jewish Torah and the Christian New Testament and stitched it all into Islam.  He made some minor changes, like saying Abrahams had been asked to offer Ishmael to God as a sacrifice instead of Isaac.  They acknowledged Jesus but denied him Godhood.  (The Jews would pretty much agree with the Muslims on that one, but they never made a big fuss over it.)

The Palestinians insist that the holy sites in Israel/Palestine belong to them.  Such sites include the Temple Mount which was once part of the temple that Solomon built and that Herod rebuilt after the first one was torn down.  How does that make it Islamic?  It was built by a Jewish king and, after again being destroyed, rebuilt by another Jewish king at a time before there were any Muslims.

The burial site of the very first Jew, Abraham, in a cave in Hebron, is also claimed by the Palestinians.  Again, in Abraham's day there were no Muslims.  They make the same claim for Joseph's tomb.

And how do the Palestinians treat these sites?  They first attempted to keep the Jews away from them.  But even worse, they had their sanitation crews throw waste in the temple yard.  They vandalize Joseph's tomb.  When archeologists found what appears to have been the alter that Joshua built, they work to tear it apart until stoped by Israeli authorities.  Is this how one deals with sites one claims to be meaningful to one's people?

Muslims in the Palestinian areas hate the Jews for their narrative, a narrative that is true and honest, while their's is false.  Never the less, they have managed to sell their narrative to some Americans, as well as to the UN, and anyone who doesn't care for Jews.

Conservatives vs. Liberals

 Most Americans give little thought as to the meaning of the terms "conservative" and "liberal",  although  they see themselves as mostly on one side or the other.  They'll think, I'm for open borders so I must be a liberal.  The conservatives are against it.  Liberals are for a woman's right to choose.  Conservatives are for "life."

If you think that way, you're not giving the country a fair shake.  The meaning of "conserve" is to save what is good for society.  It's what the country has fought for and what has proven to be worth the sacrifice.  To be a liberal is to take the position that we are where we are, but we can do much better.  

There's a problem in my opinion with reducing one's position down to "conservative" or "liberal."  The problem with conservatism is that much of what we've fought for is well worth holding on to.  But there's a fear of change even when it becomes clear that some sort of change is called for.  In a changing world, it often becomes necessary to change past procedures.  However to try to institute untried methods can do great harm to all that is good in our system of governance.  It can prove dangerous.  It can take a troubled system and make it worse.

There are two things that should concern today's Americans who wish to keep the positive aspects of our democratic system on course.   The first calls for a more critical analysis of current problems and the second has to do with holding in check the power that is often found in a small minority.

Examples:  

Gun control:  States with the most stringent rules on gun ownership generally have more murders in their cities than smaller, rural communities.  Both liberals and conservatives should work on this problem.  They should have done so years ago.

The country's borders:  Why is this an issue only for conservatives?

A woman's body:  Right-to-life vs Right-to-Choose (often stated simply as "Choice".  I have a problem here.  I strongly believe it's a woman's right to choose whether she wants an abortion or not.  This issue is tied up in religious theology and such issues are generally the most difficult to deal with.

The economy:  We've got a hundred experts.  Pick the one you like.

Going "green":  I can see the arguments in favor of going green.  But, it's quite obvious that if the rest of the world (say Russia, India and China) son't limit their use of fossil fuels, our efforts will have almost no effect on global climate change.  But, more than that, they'll significantly weaken us vis a vis our  enemies; namely Russia and China.

The list goes on, but I'm stopping here.

Heard from China: Surrender or Die

 "One Nation Two Systems" was the Chinese ploy. It was a stall.  China could never tolerate two systems; no  totalitarian dictatorship can.  With two systems people can not help but make comparisons. That would mean the end of the dictatorship.  Didn't Kissinger understand that?  It's really quite simple.

China has never been able to tolerate anything, any person, any idea that is not an extension of itself.

Look how it mauled Tibet.  It was so unnecessary.  They could so easily have dominated this backward country.  They didn't have to murder it's citizens.

Look at what it did to the million-plus Uighers.  It put them into a massive concentration camp.  It raped their women. Separated families. And why?  The Uighers were no threat.

Look at Hong Kong.  It contributed significantly to China's coffers.  It had been a British colony, but the days of colonies were over.  Britain knew it, and raised no objection to turning it over to China  This was done under an agreement that allowed the Hong Kong people to retain their own administration for about 50 years.  But after only 25 years, China tore up the agreement and put the island under mainland administration. At first, the people of Hong Kong resisted, but soon realized that resistance was futile.  They were now under the Chinese boot.  They could have fought against it but it would have been Tianemen Square all over again.

And now we have Taiwan.  It is a proud nation in all respects, except one.  It does not have UN recognition.  With Kissinger's approval, it was denied what every other nation is entitled to.  Nevertheless, Taiwan has prospered.  And it has prospered under a democratic government.  From China's point of view, that is their unforgivable sin.  China has made no secret of the fact that it intends to make it a Chinese territory and end it's free-thinking ways.  Imagine; giving it's people the right to vote!

Incidentally, anyone who does not realize that South Korea is next in line to fall under Chinese domination is blind.  North Korea would have collapsed years ago.  It is puppet of China.  South Korea has worked really hard to counter a threat from North Korea.  But once China has digested Taiwan, you can be sure South Korea will be next on its list.

There is a reason why the Vietnamese can not abide China.  They deny Vietnam, Cambodia, and the Philippines their rightful fishing rights.

So what can America do?  The first thing is to recognize that China is an evil force; not its people, but surely its leaders.  We must disengage in all ways possible.  It is interesting to note: that because of the Pelosi trip to Taiwan, China will no longer cooperate with the U.S. as regards to global warming.  What does this mean?   They'll now pollute the earth.  That'll sure teach us.

We must end all reliances on China.  We must become self sufficient in lithium for batteries, in the production of solar panels, and in the production of sneakers made in Uigher concentration camps.  We must support our industries.in this effort and those of friendly countries.  It's better to start now rather than wait until they've choked the life out of us.

Look at how dependent European countries were willing to become on Russian energy.  You can't wait for the dragon to strike.