The Fading American Jew

"Who is a Jew?" once went a line in comedy.  Answer: The person who has Jewish grandchildren.

But, jokes aside, American Jews and their values are under threat as never before.  To understand this it helps to have a point of reference and our Jewish cousins in Canada help us here very nicely.  "The Canadian Jewish community (nearing 400,000, now ranks as the fourth largest in the world, after Israel, the United States, and France".)  This per Michael Medved writing in the Nov. '13 issue of Commentary.  By many common metrics - ritual observance, visits to Israel, Jewish education, marrying other Jews, etc. - Canadian Jews are more Jewish than American Jews.

Medved suggests this might be because the Canadian Jews are less assimilated than American Jews.  The Canadian Jewish families came to their country some 30 or 40 years later than typical American clans  (This is in part because Canada remained more open to Jewish refugees in the days just before the Holocaust.)  Today, one in every four Canadian Jews was born abroad.  In the U.S., that figure is one in ten.

A reported 74 % of Canadian Jews have visited Israel.  Less than a third of American Jews have made this trip.  "It makes sense that those who view traveling to Jerusalem as a personal priority will also prove more likely to consider support for Israel an important factor" in their various political decisions.

Then too the environment in which Canadian Jews find themselves is more threatening than what American Jews find here in America.  In Canada, Muslims make up more than 3 percent of the electorate (nearly 4 times their percentage of the presidential vote in the U.S. in 2012).  Since Muslims amount to less than 1% of the U.S. population, American Jews can more easily disregard the political role of Islamic communities.

There is one other aspect to this comparison of American Jews and Canadian Jews worthy of note and that is the Evangelical Christian factor.  Despite their proven record of support for Israel, American Jews are generally very fearful of the Evangelicals.  It can be argued that this helps explain why Ronald Reagan, the most ardently Zionist president to that point in history, lost 67% of Jewish voters to Walter Mondale in '84.  Reagan enjoyed the massive support of the Evangelicals.

Fear of Christian power and influence helped guarantee that leaders like Reagan and the second Bush would find their love for the Jewish people unrequited.  But to Canadian Jews, Evangelical Christians are far less threatening.  In Canada, they make up less than 7% of the population.  (In America, 26% of the people queried in exit polls after the '12 presidential elections identified themselves as "as white evangelical or born-again Christians.")

The irony is that in Canada, their Prime Minister, Harper, is an Evangelical.  He is also one of Israel's staunchest defenders.  As a Jew, let me suggest that perhaps we American Jews might want to reconsider our position regarding Evangelicals.

Anti-Semitism Comes To America

Sure, we've seen anti-Semitism before.   But it wasn't official.  In the early days of America, anti-Semitism was decisively rejected by George Washington.  It is true that during WW II America's State Department was peopled by individuals who didn't like Jews and stifled all efforts to save them as they were being consumed by the Holocaust.  Today, however, we find something very different.

Today, Jews are attacked for their association with Israel.  Anyone favoring Israel is a supporter of a Nazi regime, a supporter of an apartheid nation.  We are charged with supporting a nation that  occupies lands that don't belong to it.  These attacks are channeled through the BDS (boycott Israel, divest from Israel, and sanction Israel) movement.  What's really scary is that this movement has had a degree of success.

On December 16, 2013, the NY Times reported on a vote taken by the American Studies Association to isolate Israel and promote an academic boycott of Israel.  Let me take this article and point to shameful behavior which it describes, starting at the end of the article.  There it reads,  "In May, the physicist Stephen W. Hawking withdrew from a conference in Israel in support of the boycott."  Really?  And, where did Mr. Hawking learn anything about Israel?  And, where did he learn about the Palestinians?  And, is he aware that the Jewish recipe for matzos never included the blood of Christian children?

"In Britain, in 2002, two academic journals fired two Israeli professors from their boards because of their nationality."

"The American Association of University Professors (AAUP), with 48,000 members, has reiterated its stance against academic boycotts, which it says, 'strikes directly at the free exchange of ideas,' and not at those responsible for oppression, stifling precisely the kind of interaction that would aid human rights.  The association has noted that during the apartheid era, it backed economic boycotts of South Africa, but not academic ones."

Can a Jew take solace from the AAUP explanation as to why why the AAUP stands against the academic boycott of Israel?   Certainly, not I.  The AAUP suggests that a boycott such as that promoted by the BDS fails to strike against those responsible for oppression and would fail to aid human rights.

What a lot of convoluted nonsense!  Who is it that is responsible for oppression in the Israel-Palestinian dispute?  It is Hamas in Gaza as it oppresses its people; not Israel.  And, is the situation any different in the West Bank where the PA grossly overstates its just dues and historically has launched terrorist actions that have created almost as much as animosity toward them by Israelis, as the animosity towards Israelis which the Palestinians drill daily into the minds of Palestinian children.  As to human rights,  I would be proud to compare Israel's record with that of the Palestinians.

Let's now end our review of this article by going further to the front where it says, "(Curtis Marez president of the American Studies Association and its almost 5000 members) did not dispute that many nations, including many of Israel's neighbors, are generally judged to have human rights records that are worse than Israel's or comparable, but he said, 'we have to start somewhere.' "

Interesting.  It's like saying that family services have to begin working on spousal abuse -- somehow, somewhere.  So what does family services do?  They begin by locking up spouses who use strong language to their spouses and leave until some later date families who have practiced honor killing.  Curtis Marez makes no sense.  But, then anti-Semitism never does.

Mandela and Arafat

The world mourns the passing of Nelson Mandela as well it should.  He freed his black county men from their apartheid rulers and did so in a manner that made possible a reconciliation between blacks and whites.  While the reconciliation wasn't perfect, it was better than could have been expected.

I find, however, one short coming in the vision of Mandela and that is in his inability to distinguish between personal relationships and national interests.  Three of Mandela's greatest friends were Arafat, Gadhafi, and Castro.  And, those personal affinities are perfectly understandable.

Mandela's friendship to Gadhafi is the easiest to understand.  Providing Mandela with his greatest support were the Soviet Union and the Arab states.  But, among these states, it was Gadhafi who probably supplied the most money needed to wage the war against apartheid.  Of course, Gadhafi also supplied funds to other Africans such as Zimbabwe's Mugabe.  It was part of Gadhafi's plan to create a united Africa.  The fact that Gadhafi ran a dictatorship, or that he supported the likes of Mugabe didn't matter.  And, that's understandable.  Upending a state, as entrenched as was the apartheid state of South Africa, isn't easy.  When a friend like Gadhafi shows up, you don't check too carefully as to how he runs his country.  In Mandela's own words, "We have no time to look into the internal affairs of other countries."

And that pretty much explains his relationship to Castro.  This was a time of the cold war and Mandela's support came from the Soviets and their allies.  Castro's entry into the Angola conflict is also relevant.  Here the fight was between U.S. and South African backed proxies and Russian backed proxies.  Ultimately, the Cuban military forces and the South African military forces left Angola to the Angolans.  The South Africa of that time was the apartheid South Africa, so one begins to understand Mandela's warm relationship with Castro.

As to Arafat, he served as the man representing Arab interests.  That was after Nasser of Egypt made him the official spokesperson and leader of the Palestinians.  And, that was after Egypt's defeat in the Yom Kippur War.  With Arab support for Mandela, Arafat emerged as one of his best friends.  There were both similarities and sharp differences in the nature of these two men.  Both struggled against superior forces and both were designated as terrorists.  However, it should be noted that Mandela was seeking equal treatment within his country.  South Africa was to remain South Africa.  It was only apartheid that was to be removed.

In the case of Israel, its place among nations had been established by the UN with positive votes cast by a majority of nations, including the Soviet Union.  Efforts to have Israel live in peace with the Palestinians failed only because of the refusal of Arab nations to recognize the new state.  And, indeed, they launched several wars against it..  Only after the Arab nations conceded the defeat of their armies did they hand over to Arafat their continuing  effort to destroy Israel.

It is clear to any objective observer that the failure of the Palestinians to gain statehood has been entirely of their own doing.  By now, working in harmony with all their neighbors, including Israel, Palestine might have become a prosperous and advanced nation.  It's not the Jews who held them back, but rather their allies in the Muslim world who find working with Jews to be an anathema.  How sad when one considers that in Israel, street signs are written in both Hebrew and Arabic.

What the Arabs are now trying to do is conflate the Palestinian desire to bury Israel with Mandela's work in eliminating apartheid.  But, in fact, there is no apartheid in Israel for anyone to eliminate.  Israel's protective barrier the Palestinians argue hems them in.  But clearly it has kept terrorists from blowing up Israeli busses and killing members of the Israeli public.  Had the Palestinians made peace with Israel, there would have been no need to erect this barrier.  It's in Gaza and the West Bank with its family clans that establishing a peace with the Jewish State of Israel seems a bridge too far.

Yes, Virginia, Anti-Semitism Exists And Is Alive And Well

Anti-Semitism?  Really?  How can you say you're being discriminated against?  Are you maligned?  Are you set upon?  It doesn't seem so.  Not in America.  If you are a Jewish medical school graduate with appropriate grades, chances are you'll have no difficulty finding a residency.  Nor will you generally have difficulty finding a job if you have a good education; or, at least, no greater difficulty than a person who is not Jewish.  You may be considered a bit pushy, but that's a plus if you're a smart lawyer.  Can you find a golf club that will deny you membership?  Maybe, but I don't know of any.

Yes, a vein of anti-Semitism once gushed through America's body politic.  Consider, however, that America also had periods of anti-Irish sentiment, anti-Italian sentiment, and, of course, the infamous Jim Crow attitudes towards African-Americans.

But, today, what hostility we find between Jews and other groups is based mainly on socio-economic differences.  In neighborhoods in Brooklyn where orthodox Jews live in close proximity to African-Americans you may find divisive attitudes.  When one group is further down in terms of socio-economics than another, you may well find a certain hostility.

On the whole, however, we find there to be little anti-Semitism in America today.  So what's the worry all about?  It's about the concern we have for our brothers and sisters living in parts of the world far more hostile to Jews.  I'm not talking about the Congo, or Zimbabwe.  I'm talking about Europe, I'm talking about the Middle East, and I'm talking about places like South Africa.  We tend not to worry much about anti-Semitism in Africa, because there aren't a great many Jews there.  (South Africa is an exception.  I would add that not only will you find Jews there, but that many of these Jews  were in the forefront of the fight to end apartheid.)

Be that as it may, you find in South Africa, the preacher,  Reverend Tutu, accusing Israel of practicing apartheid.  This is especially shameful, because Tutu, more than anyone, should know what apartheid is.  Let me explain: it was the discrimination of black South Africans within their own country.  They were denied participation in the political life of their country by being relegated to areas within South Africa where they were denied educational opportunities and services provided to white South Africans.  They were also denied the vote.  That, most certainly, is not, nor has it ever been, a picture of Israel.

Let's face it, while Jews today are scattered around the world, most of us Jews are found in Israel and in the United States.  Sure, the Europeans do have their Jewish populations, but, frankly, they're small in number.  And, yet, we find Europeans beleaguering their Jews.  They are now assaulting the Jewish religious ritual of Brit Milah (circumcision), a ritual practiced by Jews for thousands of years.  Then too you have the assault on Shechita, the ritual slaughter of Kosher animals.

Israel has always played fair.  It was never a place you'd confuse with South Africa.  When the Arab armies attacked the Jews, most Arabs sought to get out of the way.  In some places, such as Lod, which harbored Jordanian troops, and where the Arabs took up arms against the Jews,  such Arabs were indeed forced to leave.   (By some irony,  the Jews who were forced to leave their homes in Egypt, Iraq and other Arab lands, equaled in number the Palestinian Arab refugees.

Today, Arabs who number roughly 20% of all Israelis enjoy the same rights as do Jews,  Indeed, they have one special privilege; namely, they are not required to do national service in the military.
To refer to Israel as an apartheid state is nothing less than slander.

Today, attacking Jews head-on is not seen by anti-Semitic activists as being effective.  Far better, they find, is to undermine specific Jewish targets including their precious Jewish state.  To this end, they seek soft targets; namely, Israel's commerce with other nations, Israel's standing in international forums, its standing in the world of entertainment, and in academia and on campuses throughout the world.  In short, anti-Semitism has moved from agitating among the lumpen proletariat (to use communist jargon) to agitating among the world's social elites.

Today's anti-Semitism is sleek and modern.  It's far more sophisticated than in the good old days of inquisitions and church inspired pogroms.  That all happened a long time ago when the Church could not forgive the Jews for not signing on to Christian theology.  Jews then went on to disappoint Martin Luther.  He figured that after what the Jews had suffered under the Roman Catholic Church, they'd be flocking to his Protestantism.  When that didn't happen't, he gave them the back of his pastoral hand and joined the oversubscribed ranks of anti-Semites.

When discussing anti-Semitism, we find we must pause at the Holocaust.  Here was anti-Semitism on steroids.  It called for special chambers to be built.  It called for a special poisonous gas.  And, it didn't end there.  Special ovens were needed to get rid of the mountains of corpses produced by the, oh, so efficient gasing.  It's not that the anti-Semites had given up on plain, old bullets, or the use of CO produced by truck exhausts, or simply starving Jews to death.  They did that too.  But, the gas chambers represented a scientific advance in genocide on a scale that has yet to be matched.

So what were the Jews charged with back then?  It was their lack of racial purity.  The Germans seem to have forgotten that Jewish soldiers had fought valiantly, shoulder-to-shoulder in the first World War (WW I) with Christian Germans.  The big lie hammered home time and again by the Nazis was that all the ills that had befallen Germany were the fault of the Jews.  It was the Jews who had caused Germany to lose the war.  It was Jews who had brought down on Germany the disastrous Versailles document that had set forth the conditions of German surrender after WW I.  It was the Jews who were responsible for the Great Depression that had also fallen on Germany.

These new allegations seem to have overridden the older anti-Semitic allegations of Jews having killed Christ.  (Note: Some Christians continue to make this allegation.  No surprise there, when this  falsehood can be ound on the pages of the Christian's New Testament?)   At about this time, Czarist anti-Semites put forth the Protocol of the Elders of Zion which set forth the plans of the Jews for dominating the world.  From Czarist Russia also came the noxious allegation that Jews killed Christian children for their blood needed to make matzos.

Some of these charges, crazy as they may be, have persisted to this day.  Jews continue to be charged with controlling the media.  They are still charged with controlling the world's banks.  And, they are still charged with controlling America's politicians.  But, now with the establishment of the State of Israel, anti-Semites have added new allegation to their long list of Jewish "crimes."  The new charges center on their mistreatment of Palestinians.  They allege that Israel has stolen the land of the Arabs and expelled Palestinians from their homes.  Also, they find that Israel casually murders Palestinian men, women, and children.  Add to that, that they are an apartheid nation.

Refuting these charges helps little.  No amount of contrary evidence will ever convince an anti-Semite that Jews really don't control the banks, that they really don't control the world's politics, and that they really don't control the media.  For those who may have forgotten, here is a quick listing of the facts:

1. Israel was granted statehood by the UN,  just as the UN granted the Arabs their portion of Palestine.
The Arab nations refused to accept the UN's decision.  The best trained army in the Middle East, thanks to the British, was the Jordanian army.  They were joined by the Egyptian army, the Iraqi army, and the Syrian army in attacking what became the State of Israel.  

2. At the root of the conflict was the role played by outsiders.  Pan national Arab refusal to accept the fact of Israel's statehood let to a number of wars.  They attacked in '48, they fought Israel again in the Six-Day War ('67), and they attacked Israel in the Yom Kippur War ('73).   (Note: It was apparent from preparations made in Egypt, Jordan, and Syria that the Arab states were about to launch an attack on Israel in '67.  Israel, realizing that the Jewish state might well be obliterated if the Arabs gained air superiority, preemptively destroyed the Egyptian air force as Egypt's planes sat on their landing strips.  Rebuked by western nations for having struck preemptively, they did not do so in '73, even though military intelligence informed them of impending attacks by the Arab nations.  Israel survived, but at a cost far greater than would have been the case if they had taken preemptive action.)

3. The PLO was not created until 1964.  It was an organization conceived by Arab states in the course of the first Arab summit (the Arab League summit in Cairo in '64). The original PLO Charter stated, "Palestine with its boundaries that existed at the time of the British mandate is an integral regional unit" and sought to "prohibit . . . the existence and activity" of Zionism. It is interesting to note that the first leader of the newly created PLO was Yasser Arafat, an Egyptian.  Based on the mountains of money Arafat secreted in Swiss banks for his family in the course of his reign, we can see that being a leader of the PLO has its rewards.

4. As to the apartheid charge: Human rights are respected in Israel for members of all religions including Muslims.  It would be nice if we could say the same for Muslim countries. In Israel all people and that includes gays and people of color enjoy equal rights.

5. As to the expulsion of Arabs from Israel: For the most part and at the urging of the surrounding Arab nations, a great number of Arabs left Israel so as not to get killed in the cross fire.  A small number of Arabs were indeed forced to leave Israel as a result of their taking arms against the Jews.  However, some Arabs decided to stay put.  Those Arabs now enjoy the same rights as all Israeli citizens.  Most Arabs are Muslims, but a good number are Christians and Druze as well as members of other religions.

6. Displacement of Arabs:  Determining ownership of land in pre-Israel Palestine required searching through land records kept in Turkey (a legacy of the Ottoman Empire.)  Israelis have been scrupulous in settling only lands not owned by Arabs.  (Note: Land in the West Bank was owned by either the state or by private parties.  State owned land, which later reverted to Jordan, can be claimed by Israel as losses incurred by Jordan for waging war against Israel.)

7. What injustice, unquestionably  done to Palestinian Arabs of the Muslim faith, has been done to them by their fellow Muslims.  The Jews thrown out of their Jewish homes throughout Arab lands were resettled in Israel.  Other peoples thrown from their homes throughout the span of history have always managed to get resettled.  This goes for Greeks tossed out of Turkey, Turks tossed out of Greece, Germans tossed out of Czechoslovakia, and on and on.  Only the Palestinians have been refused the opportunity to integrate into other lands.  Citizenship was denied them by Lebanon, by Syria, by Iraq, by Egypt and so on.  And, indeed, the UN has been complicit in allowing this unjust behavior to persist.

So much for the facts.  Listing them will do little to end anti-Semitism.  It's instructive however to look at the areas being targeted by anti-Semites.

Commerce

Caterpillar has been targeted by BDS (the group agitating for boycotting Israel, divesting from Israel     and sanctioning Israel) for supplying earth moving equipment to Israel.  TIAA-CREF, a major investor,  did drop Caterpillar from its investment portfolio, but they did so because TIAA-CREF had found fault with Caterpillar's position regarding a union issue.

Veolia, a  Paris based water and water waste systems/construction company and a transportation systems company removed itself from contention for work on the Jerusalem Light Rail project.  lobbying against Veolia by BDS, as well as a human rights suit brought against the company in France, may have prompted Veolia to withdraw from a Sacramento, CA project.    Note: Saudi Arabia had no problem providing Veolia with one of their lucrative project.

Olympia Food Coop in Washington State, in 2010,  became the first American food chain to boycott Israeli goods.  (It is important for all Jews to become aware of this situation and do a bit of research as to what happened here.  Only then can one fully appreciate the invidious nature of BDS and the professionalism they bring in their attacks on Israeli interests.)

Max Brenner, a wholly owned subsidiary of Strauss Group, and a business developed by two Israelis has been under severe attack by BDS, especially in Australia.

SodaStream, boycotted by BDS experienced a fourth quarter, anti-SodaStream event at a Superbowl Sunday promotion in 2013.   The efforts to injure SodaStream by BDS have happily been a failure judging by the continuing growth and profitability of this Israeli company.  SodaStream has at least three plants, one of which is in Maale Adumim.  The plants employ hundreds of Palestinians as well as Israelis.  The employees word together and eat together in friendship.  It has driven the BDS people crazy.

SEIU Local 721 is touted as an ally by the BDS people.  And that may well be true.  However, I was unable to find any connection or agreement on basic principals between this union representing government workers of Southern California and the BDS people.      Note: BDS was rejected by AFL CIO President Richard Trumka.

These BDS efforts make clear that business connections favorable to Israel should anticipate BDS attacks. These attacks will very likely prove to be sophisticated and well funded.  However, even Arab oil money only goes so far.  And, its efforts have only garnered it only limited success.

Entertainers

Dustin Hoffman, Carlos Santana, Elvis Costello, Stevie Wonder, and Snoop Dogg are among those entertainers who, either have never visited Israel professionally, or who have demonstrated an overt hostility to Israel.  Perhaps the greatest stars among the Israel bashers are Harry Belafonte,  Alice Walker, and  Emma Thompson.

So what gives?  How did Israel become a villian in the minds of these celebrities?  There are a number of possibilities.  In the case of black performers, they appear to have conflated the history of African-Americans with that of the Palestinians.  That the two narratives have almost nothing in common seems to make no difference to black anti-Semites.  In the case of slavery, it was in large measure African Muslims who went into the depths of Africa to hunt down Africans to sell to slave ship captains.  Enslaving blacks has a long history among Muslims of the Middle East.  Roughly 8% of African slaves were shipped to America.  (48% went to Brazil and roughly 44% were distributed among the nations of the Caribbean.)  White men fought to keep America's slaves enslaved.  But, white men also fought to end slavery.  What then followed was Jim Crow.

But what does that dismal history have to do with the Israelis?  Are the Ethiopians rescued by Israel from Islamic Ethiopia any less black than America's African-Americans?

Today we find Islamists using the Palestinians to continue their war on Israel.  They phony up photos to show Israeli soldiers shooting Palestinian children.  Never mind that these photos were clearly Photoshopped and show whatever serves the purposes of the Muslim leadership.

Go figure.  Maybe Alice Walker took exception to Sammy Davis's conversion.  Maybe she was ill-served by a Jewish lawyer or a Jewish agent.  Who knows?  Does it matter?  The Nazis had Richard Wagner.  Today's anti-Semites have Harry Belafonte.  I believe that of the two, Wagner's music will have greater staying power.

Academia and college campuses

Endorsing Islamic chairs at universities throughout America has paid off big time for oil rich Islamic nations.  How can Jewish youth argue with an anti-Semitic professor or an anti-Semitic thesis advisor?  Less understandable is why grants from the U.S. Government are often found supporting Islamic propaganda.

So how to explain the anti-Israel sentiments of Stephen Hawking?  But, then, how is one to explain the moral obtuseness of Heisenberg or the active anti-Semitism of Johannas Stark or Philipp Lenard, both supporters of Nazi mythology.  Yet, both were Nobel class scientists.

Churches

Among Protestants, we find several puzzles.  First, in the West Bank, we have  the renown anti-Semite, Rev. Naim Ateek of the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center in Jerusalem, and author of the infamous book, Justice and Only Justice, A Palestinian Theology of Liberation, 1989.  Yet the Christian population has been sharply declining in the Palestinian territories from 15% in 1950 to under 2% today.  This due to Muslim persecution.  I would guess that the price for this Christian Judas has been considerably greater than 13 pieces of gold.

Yet among Presbyterians, Episcopalians and other "high" Christian churches, the Rev. Ateek is a rock star.  How does that figure?  I've heard two theories.  First, it's possible, I suppose, that these churches have actually swallowed the anti-Semitic Palestinian propaganda.  More likely is the second hypothesis; namely, that because of falling membership, these churches are reaching out for something to reinvigorate their followers.  When America fought for the equal rights of African-Americans, these churches did great work.  They rolled up their sleeves and entered the fray. And, to their  credit, they fought valiantly against the evil that  was Jim Crow.  These were also the days of protests against the war in Vietnam.  This was a war that everyone hated and spurred the retirement of LBJ.  Here again. the high Protestant churches could be found in the forefront of many of the demonstrations.

But, what crusade can they now fight to reinvigorate and revitalize their followers?  Why, of course, the occupation and colonization of the Palestinians by Israel.  The story line here is, of course, nonsense and could easily be refuted in open and honest debates.  But, it seems to be the hope of these churches that fighting in behalf of the Palestinian cause will once again fill up their depleted pews.  They may also believe that in following the Palestinian's noxious mirage they are demonstrating their superiority to the Evangelical upstarts whose membership seems to be mushrooming.  One can't but help wonder which bothers the high churches more; the burgeoning membership of the fundamentalist churches, or the affection these churches show for Israel.

One might raise one other question regarding the position of Presbyterians and likeminded churches as regards the middle east; namely, their lack of concern regarding what happened to the Christians in Iraq, how the Christians are treated in Pakistan, and what has now been happening to the Christians in Syria.

Yes Virginia, Anti-Semitism is still with us.

My Promised Land - The Triumph and Tragedy of Israel by Ari Shavit

God bless the NY Times.  They never disappoint; if they can stick it in the eye of Israel you can count on them to do so.  This time it was the review of Ari Shavit's book, "My Promised Land - The Triumph And Tragedy Of Israel" reviewed by Leon Wieseltier.

Okay, so what was the tragedy of Israel?  As reported by this review, it was that "(t)here was another people living on the same land. 'The miracle is based on denial.'  … 'Bulldozers razed Palestinian villages, warrants confiscated Palestinian land, laws revoked Palestinians' citizenship and annulled their homeland.'  Shavit's narrative of the massacre and expulsion of the Arabs of Lydda by Israeli forces in the war of 1948 is a sickening tour the force, even if it is not, in his view, all one needs to know about the war or the country."

If you know nothing about Israel's history Shavit's words as reported and amplified by Wieseltier, paint a horrific picture of Jewish behavior.  Since I am not a historian, I had to do a bit of research.  The facts are these:  Lydda (now Lod) sat at the intersection of east-west, and north-south roads.  The quickest and easiest way for the Jews to supply their fellow Jews who were fighting the Jordanians in Jerusalem was to travel the road through Lydda.  But, that was not possible because local Arabs and Jordanians had taken up positions in Lydda.  To support the Jews fighting off the Jordanians in Jerusalem, the Jews had to find an alternate route.  This was the one referred to as the Burma Road because of the difficulty in traveling on it.  To defend themselves the Jews ultimately had to clear out Lydda.

But, was all this necessary?  Not if the Jews and the Arabs had accepted the division of land as determined by the UN.  And, the Jews had accepted the UN's division of the land (as ridiculous as it was), but not the Arabs.  The Arabs made it clear that if the Jews declared a Jewish state, they would "drive the Jews into the sea."  And so it was that the Jews facing forces from Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq (have I left anyone out?) had to fight back and fight back hard.  With some Jordanian forces sitting in Lydda, the Jews had no choice but to clear out this city.  If this is "sickening" then perhaps it's war that's sickening.  And, Israel certainly did not want war.

People should realize that the Middle East is no Switzerland.  It's not a place were people speaking different languages have d learned to live together.  Without question, displacement is difficult on the displaced.  Jews know this because as soon as the UN voted for the creation of a Jewish state, Arab nations rushed to expel their Jews, Jews who had lived in places like Egypt and Iraq for generations.  By some great irony, the number of Jews made refugees by the Arab nations numbered essentially the same as the Arabs who fled or were displaced by the Jews.  I might add that the Arabs fleeing of their own accord outnumbered by far those who were forced out.

It didn't have to be that way.  There would have been enough land to go around.  Palestine was no Singapore or Hong Kong teaming with people.  It was pretty much as Mark Twain had described it on his travels.  It didn't have to be; but it was.  And, I might add that despite Arabs living in relative comfort in Israel, Abbas has announced that no Jew will be allowed to live in a Palestinian state.

(I trust the reader of this piece will be sufficiently informed to understand that before the State of Israel was founded, everyone on that land was Palestinian including the Jews.  It changed only afterwards.  It must be understood that if one state declares war and then loses that war, it must pay a price.  No price was paid by the Egyptians.  No price was paid by the Jordanians.  Only the Syrians paid a price.  Their loss of the heights from which they fired on the Jews below must remain forever Jewish.  I would further point out that the Druze who lived there, now live at peace as Israelis.

Footnote:
On C-SPAN Book TV, on November 24, I saw Ari Shavit, along with the author of "Lawrence In Arabia," Scott Anderson.  A question posed to Ari Shavit at the end of the program showed him not to be quit as leftist as reading Mr. Wieseltier would suggest.  The question by someone from the left was essentially this:  Do you, Mr. Shavit, see any hope that someone more peace oriented than Netanyahu will emerge who can finally make peace with the Palestinians?

Mr. Shavit replied as follows:  Israel on three occasions reached out to the Palestinians, on each occasion, they were met with either rockets from Gaza or seeing Jews blown up in Israeli buses.  Israelis, based on their experience, see little reason for holding out hope for a peace with the Palestinians.

Israel Served Up Without Controversy

I was invited to join the Israel information committee at my Temple.  Fine, I thought, and went to my first meeting.  They discussed this and that.  And, in the course of their discussions, one committee member warned, "We don't want anything contentious."  (Or, for that matter, controversial.)

That unleashed a flood of thoughts.  Was it really possible to think of Israel without evoking something of controversy?  Were Russian pogroms controversial?  Was the Dreyfus Affair controversial?  Was the Holocaust controversial?  Was the vote in the UN with Pres. Truman having to over ride his state department controversial?  Was Israel declaring its statehood controversial?  Were Israel's efforts to defend itself controversial?  Was the conflict between Ben-Gurion and Begin a matter of controversy?  What is there about Israel that isn't controversial?

Its very narrative, as set forth in the book Exodus, has become controversial.  I hear it said that the book is really not a very good piece of literature.  (I leave that up to lit majors.)  But, it did inspire hundreds of thousands of Jews.  Did the author posssibly get a detail wrong here, or perhaps there?  Perhaps.  But, in the main, it's true to life and captures Israel's struggle to survive.

Let's turn it around.  Let's try to avoid controversy.  You have the wonderful Jewish museums.  But, again don't peer at things too modern.  You have the kibbutzim.  But, again, they're not what they once were.  They're now very much into specialization.  You have kibbutzim that serve tourists much as any warm and friendly hotel would.  You have kibbutzim that have specialized into dairies.  Others have gone into furniture making.  And, of course, the number of kibbutzim is very much reduced.

Israel developed the drip method of irrigation.  It's now used around the world.  Israel has gone into the hybridization of plants as well as their genetic modification.  But that too is controversial.  It's pioneering work in UAV's (drones) has put it in a leadership position in the design and operation of these devices.  Then too it has extended its work into robotics.  (When you think about it, you realize that the drone is little more than a flying robot.)  Oops, all of this is controversial.

You want to visit the grave of Abraham.  That means going to Hebron.  Again, you find yourself in the midst of controversy.

You go to the Dead Sea and find it's disappearing.  Yes, there is a solution; namely, pumping water into it from the Gulf of Aqaba.  But, the Palestinian Authority disapproves.  Again, you have controversey.

I could go on, but I think you get my drift.  Israel is controversial.  And, why not make the most of that?  Why not visit Hebron and Sderot?  Why not visit towns and cities across the green line?  Why not walk the length and breadth of Jerusalem -- east side, west side, all around the town?  Controversial?  You better believe it.  But, you'll have fun.

Israel As The Linchpin For The Entire Middle East: The Debunking Of A Myth

A myth popular in Obama's circle is that, if only the Israel-Palestine conflict could be resolved, everything else in the Middle East would fall in place.

Well, kiddies, consider this:  Israel has for years been rumored to have one, or more, atomic bombs.  It remains a rumor only because Israel has never admitted to the rumor.  In other words, Israel has worked hard to maintain deniability.  Okay, but who actually believes that Israel has no atomic bombs?  (Golda Meier, at the time of the Yom Kippur War, warned that she would unleash Israel's atomic weapon, if she found Israel being destroyed.)

In any event, it is clear that Islamic nations are quite confident that Israel does, in fact, possess one or more atomic bombs.  And, that includes Saudi Arabia.  But has it prompted Saudi Arabia to acquire an atomic bomb?  No.  But, how the situation changes when Iran appears on the verge of producing such a bomb.  Saudi Arabia has made it clear that if Iran acquires the bomb, Saudi Arabia will buy one from Pakistan.  Indeed, the Saudis have already let it be known that they've made preliminary arrangements.

Let's recap: Israel with an atomic bomb leaves Saudi Arabia unperturbed.  Iran with an atomic bomb has Saudi Arabia running over to Pakistan to buy one for themselves.  Who worries Saudi Arabia the
most, Israel or Iran?

Less dramatic (perhaps) but equally compelling is what's happening in Syria.  Israel has been very careful to keep out of this conflict, with one exception; namely, when rockets are shipped to Syria for transfer to Hezbollah, Israel tries to destroy them (usually with some success).  But that's strictly between Israel and Hezbollah and, of course,  with their sponsor; namely, Iran.  The many thousands of Syrian dead and the hundred of thousands of Syrian refugees starving and without shelter is a truly horrible situation.  But, it's got nothing to do with Israel.

Then there's Egypt where the Egyptian government is working with Israel to keep the Sinai free of Islamists.  The only one upset with that situation seems to be Obama.

If that man would only stick to community organizing.

When People Quote Statistics, Beware

Was it C-SPAN, or PBS, or ..... Well what does it matter?  Their "expert" economist was explaining why, when you have a large public debt, the best course of action may not be austerity.  To make his case he compared Iceland with Greece.  Both had large public debts.  Iceland chose not to follow the path of austerity.  It has been doing quite well in terms of the employment for its citizens.  Greece was put on austerity and has bee suffering grievously with unemployment unimaginably high.

Hmmm.  Maybe there is something to spending your way out of your debt.  Perhaps, the medicine of austerity is not all that it's cracked up to be.  It then occurred to me that Iceland and Greece may not be quite as alike as the "expert" had implied.  I did a bit of research and this is what I found:

                                     The Ratio of Public Debt to GDP
                       
                               2008                2012                 20013
Iceland                  28.5 %                                        96.2 %
Greece                105.4 %             170.3 %            156.9 %
USA                     64.8 %                                      101.6 %


Well, isn't that interesting.  We see that in 2008 Iceland had a relatively modest ratio of debt to GDP.
Their debt ballooned due to the collapse of American real estate -- the one that resulted from its securitized mortgage debacle.

Greece on the other with its early retirement for workers and other entitlements was clearly on a collision course with the debt collector.  Its debt-to-GDP ratio went up to 170.3 % in 2012.  When the Germans forced it to undergo austerity, the ratio began to fall to 156.9 %.  But that's still incredibly high.

At 101.6 %, America's debt is really too high.  But, it's not simply that we're high, it's that we've been on an upward path due mainly to growing entitlements.

The lauded Icelanders apparently believe that their debt to GDP at 96.2 %  is too high.  We're at    101.6 % and still climbing.  But, who's worried?  Not economists on the left.

Bottom line:  When experts quote statistics, beware.

Healthcare, America's Debt, and the GOP

Steering a nation on a proper course, requires leadership.  But, even the best leaders can be hobbled by public perceptions clouded by misunderstandings.  WWII, where the public's isolationist views prevailed until the Japanese hit Pearl Harbor is one example.  Another example was JFK's surreptitious introduction of troops into Vietnam under the guise of their being "observers" (all to help out the French colonialists).  In that situation, the public never saw coming the disaster that followed.

The problem is not unique to America.  When the liberal politicians, who followed Churchill, took the reins in Great Britain, they put their country on a path to economic disaster.  It was not until the Brits voted in Margaret Thatcher, the "Iron Lady,"  that affairs got righted.  But, it was not without pain.  In that instance, it was the miners who probably suffered most.

America is a great country and can continue to be a great country, but it is also one capable of stupidity (prohibition) and a remarkable short memory (how we happened to enter into Vietnam).  Remember the Simpson-Bowles Commission?  Allow me to jog your memory.  It was when there was a concern in the country that our debt was growing to such an extent that it was only a matter of time before we'd begin to experience inflation and a subsequent destruction of our economy.  Today, with the debt having grown far above what it was when this commission submitted its report, no one seems worried.  Were we wrong back then?  Or, are we now much closer to a precipice we haven't yet fallen over?  Or, is it something in between?

One thing is clear.  We're not Greece facing the problems of Greece.  First, we're much bigger than Greece. (Putting an arrow into a mouse is going to do much more damage to the animal than doing the same to an elephant.)  Second, our currency serves as the world's reserve currency.  This allows us to behave in a manner uniquely favorable to the United States.  (A number of other nations do, in fact, resent our privileged position, but to date no other nation is able to offer those features uniquely American; namely, a relatively large and free market and relatively high transparency in financial matters.  Of course, the freedom of our markets and our transparency are somewhat related.)

If you accept the above, how do you bring governmental spending under control?  In truth, this is not a GOP vs Dems problem.  Both parties have been responsible.  And, why is that?  Because of log-rolling (you do this for me and I'll do that for you).  In addition, there has also been a monstrous misapplication of the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes, which calls for relatively free government spending in a depressed economy and niggardly spending in a robust economy.  Entitlements and log-rolling generate huge and wasteful spending in our economy even when it is going ahead full blast.

Let's first look at entitlements.  First, we have social security.  (I put this first because it's relatively easy to fix.)   Social security is essentially a kind of life insurance.  If you die before 65 you don't get to collect.  If you live beyond 65, you begin collecting very nicely.  The problem with this program is that too many people have been living beyond 65.  This was the age when in earlier times most people had died.  The solution is easy:  make people wait a few years longer before allowing them to collect their payments and/or require somewhat higher contributions to the system when people are working.

Medicare and medicaid.  These programs, with medicare being the larger of the two, suffers not only actuarially, but also from costs that have risen at a rate far greater than our inflation.  This has resulted in a degeneration of medical care in America.  There is, for example, the growing number of doctors who opt out.  There is the growth of concierge medicine, where you pay an annual fee to a doctor who will then allow you to see him for that year for treatment for whatever ails you.  Then too there are the many doctors that prescribe for you treatments only available at facilities in which they have a financial stake.  There is the practice of hospitals charging $5 for an aspirin or a band-aid.  This is designed to make up for the underfunded governmental programs in which they are required to participate.  Clearly, our medical system is sick and seems to be getting sicker.

We have neither the time or space at this point to recommend solutions to the problems besetting the delivery of medical care in America.  But, clearly, it deserves the soonest possible attention.  However, instead of doing serious work on this problem, we introduce a new system under the Affordable Health Care Act which is highly complex and understood by almost no one, including virtually all the lawmakers who voted for it.

And, last, but not least, we come to log rolling.  And, here we find the GOP and the Dems equally guilty.  (You approve my spending bill and I'll approve yours.)  True, lobbyists will try to move lawmakers this way and that.  But, lawmakers are adults.  They ought to know what they're doing.  And, whatever they decide to do, they ought to be doing it for the country.  (Does this sound naive?)

And finally a word on the Tea Party.  I love them.  They understand the damage being done to our economy by log rolling and want desperately to put a stop to it.  They are people with a vision, who regrettably are short on tactics.  In the Washington arena where only power counts, they find themselves getting creamed.  They reach for the only lever they see; namely, denying funds to the spenders and log rollers.  What happens?  They find themselves vilified as trying to bring down America, a charge brought by the very people who are eating away at this country's foundations.

The  GOP has a big job ahead of it.  It's got to pursue the vision of the Tea Party, but it's also got to educate them on matters of strategy and tactics.  And, for goodness sake, find a new direction on social issues.

Commemorate Israel's Victimes Of Terrorism

Israeli victims of Islamic terrorism deserve to be remembered and honored.  But, how?  Here's one idea.

Pick out one or more panels of Israel's wall of separation and inscribe on these panels the names of all Israelis, and visitors to Israel, whose lives were taken by Islamic terrorists.

The inspiration for this idea came from a discussion I heard recently, on an American radio station, of the monument to America's fallen Vietnam War soldiers.  It's the monument that has inscribed on it the names of all of the men and women who died in that conflict.  This monument is, of course, Washington D.C.'s  well known "wall."

Then it hit me.  Israel too should have a wall to commemorate it's heroes.  I realize that in Israel there are already a number of monuments to the men who were killed in the various wars into which Israel was dragged.  But, what about the war carried on by Islamic terrorists?  The victims of such terrorism also deserve to be commemorated.   And, what monument would be better than a panel or two found in the wall of separation, a wall that has served to so greatly reduce the number of victims.

What are your thoughts?

Credit Obama For Bringing Arabs And Israel Together

My source is the Debka Newsletter -- its report of October 2, 2013 -- where it writes, "Associates of PM Netanyahu leaked word to the media that high-ranking Gulf emirate officials had recently visited Israel, signaling a further widening of the rift between Israel and President Barak Obama over his outreach to Tehran.  These visits were in line with the ongoing exchanges Israel is holding with Saudi and Gulf representatives to align their actions for offsetting any potential American easing-up on Iran's nuclear program.  This is the first time (DEBKAfile reports) Israel official sources have publicly aired diplomatic contacts of this kind in the region.  They also reveal that Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates have agreed to synchronize their lobbying efforts in the US Congress to overrule the Obama administration's moves on Iran."

Saudi Arabia and Israel synchronizing their efforts......!  Perhaps peace will come to the Middle East after all.  And, who do we have to thank?  Obama.

(I imagine there's also a message in all of this for Palestinian leader, Abbas.)

Obamacare: The Elephant

I was recently asked by a friend what I thought of Obamacare.  Good question.  But, how to answer?

First, I'm not in government.  I'm neither a senator nor a representative.  But, that shouldn't matter.  Few of our elected representatives have actually read the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare).  Why should they have?  Writing bills and, later, proof reading them is for staff workers; not for elected representatives.  (I heard that the bill is over 20,000 pages.  Who can blame them for not going through all that dull verbiage?)

Maybe we should borrow from the story of the blind men and the elephant.  One took hold of the tail and said the beast was a rope.  The second grabbed the trunk and said it must be a snake.  The third ran his hand over a leg and said the beast was a tree.  Well, maybe this isn't the best way to examine Obamacare, but what else have we got?

Consider the following:

1. Obamacare was passed by a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House of Representatives under the instigation of a Democratic administration.  It was kept under wraps until it was submitted to the Senators and Representatives for their vote sight unseen.   Am I suggesting the obvious when I say that this probably isn't the best way to pass legislation.

2. The Obama administrations has been quite busy granting exemptions.  (You have a law passed that you're quite proud of.  Then you immediately grant the right of this party, that party and the other to be exempted from the law you're supposedly so very proud of.)  Exempted parties include administration and congressional staff members and dozens of major corporations.  It smells.

3.  Cost:  What little I know of Obamacare is that you don't have to sign up for a health insurance plan if you choose not to.  I also know that you can't be rejected for healthcare insurance if you have a pre-exisitng condition.  So how does this play out?  Well, generally, young people don't see themselves as dying in their foreseeable future.  Diseases like cancer, dementia, or heart disease seem remote.  Buy health insurance?  Why bother?  Even if you're fined, the charge will be considerably cheaper than the insurance bill.  But, suppose you're 60 or older and find you've got cancer, or emphysema, or you need a hip replacement?  Hell, you're going to sign up post haste.

Do the math.  You insure sick people, but you get no premiums from healthy people.  That's going to cost -- really, really cost.  Unless the government shovels gazillions in taxpayer dollars into Obamacare, it's going to collapse of its own weight.

Actually universal healthcare is quite a good idea.  But, first, you've got to set things right..  First, you've got to bring healthcare costs down.  American healthcare costs are so much higher than they are in Canada, or in Great Britain, or in Europe, or in Israel.  Doctors sending their patients to MRI facilities in which they hold a significant financial interest.  Drug companies selling new, more expensive drugs, to replace older drugs that work just as well.  Hip replacement hardware in America that costs three times more than similar hardware used in Belgium; hardware that performs just as well as the American hardware.  The disparity of healthcare in different parts of America makes no sense.  The Mayo Clinic providing healthcare at reasonably low cost compared to the far more costly charges of healthcare facilities in New York City.

Bringing down healthcare costs is not easy.  The people that have grown wealthy from our current system are not going to give up their advantages without a fight.  But, that's why we vote for our representatives.  That's their job; namely, to correct the system.  After they've done the hard work, they can then begin to take up the worthy job of building a proper universal health care system.

Speaking Clearly On Islamic Extremism Would Have Much Reduced The Flack Obama Is Getting On Egypt

American liberals have made "Islamic Fundamentalism" and "Islamic Terrorism" politically unacceptable terms.  As they see it, it's "Terrorism" not "Islamic Terrorism."  Islam being a religion much like all other religions, e.g. Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. should not be called out in a public discussion.   And, to an extent, that's true.  But, the fundamentalist branch of Islam today is very different from the Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, or Buddhist fundamentalists.  Members of other religions may have no choice, but to die as martyrs, but only extremist Muslims actively seek out martyrdom.  Who else has caused death to civilians by causing planes to crash?  That's martyrdom?

Now we see fundamentalist Muslims in Egypt behaving much as they would wish to elsewhere in the world.  The choices before the Egyptian people had been relatively simple.  Did they want a dictator like Mubarak continuing to run the country and torture, imprison, and murder political adversaries?  Did they want to see Mubarak's buddies run all major businesses in Egypt and reward friends with wealth that belonged rightly to the nation?  No.

As opposed to that state of affairs, the Egyptians clearly preferred virtually anything else.  Moderate Islamists (or, at least, that's how the Muslim Brotherhood described itself) seemed far preferable.  And, when they had tossed Mubarak out of office, that's who they installed -- Morsi, a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood.

But, once the Islamists were in power, ordinary Egyptians began to realize that the Muslim Brotherhood was too  extreme for them.  They wanted their women to continue living as they had before; enjoying certain freedoms.  (Perhaps not what they enjoyed in Western nations, but far more than what they were granted most Islamic nations.)  They had lived for generations in a Muslim culture strongly influenced by secular, Western values, and they didn't want that to change.

Now, with Morse elected to the presidency, they see he has no plans to improve the economy.  All they see, is his party moving in the direction of Shariah.  It's not simply that he's acting as an Islamic president.  It's more.  He's beginning to shape all of Egypt's institutions in a way that will allow them to become more fundamentalist.  He wants the judiciary and the Egyptian parliament to reflect more closely fundamentalist thinking.

That's not what the people wanted.  And, when Gen. Sisi deposed Morsi, he did so with the support of more than 50% of the Egyptians.  The 10% of Egyptians who were Christian rejoiced.

Of course, there was push back by fundamentalist Muslims.  They obstructed daily life by camping in various city squares.  They abused Christians and burned their churches.  What was General Sisi to do?
When he attempted to clear the city squares, the fundamentalism Muslims put their women and children in the front lines to serve as human shields.  This, of course, resulted in high casualties.  When the army finally entered the camps, they discovered that the fundamentalists had tortured Christians and secular Muslim.  They also discovered weapons and ammunition; the ordinance they had used to fire on Egyptian troops.  And, now international  opprobrium is to be heaped on General Sisi?

Had Obama, upon entering office, identified the true enemy of Western values, as Islamic extremism, he would now be in a far better position for pursuing a coherent foreign policy.  Instead, he  finds himself bogged down in the quick sand of political correctness.

Free elections are a tool of democracy.  They are not, of and by themselves alone, democracy.  If that seems too obscure, consider the elections that installed Hitler, or Hamas, or any number of like elections won by anti-democratic forces.

The Zimmerman Distortion

You'd think that with a trial open to all -- who chose to view it -- and with a verdict handed down by a jury that, to most, seemed fair, the issues of this Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman trial should have been resolved.  But, that's not what's happened.  Racial agitators won't let it happen.

The facts brought forth during the trial is that the neighborhood where the incident took place was one where there had been a rash of break-ins.  That's why there was a neighborhood watch group in the first place.  Also, Trayvon Martin had walked between buildings and had been looking from a certain distance into nearby home windows.  That is, of course, no proof of intended unlawful behavior.  But, it does explain why such behavior would attract the attention of someone in a neighborhood watch group.

Despite that background, the incident might never have come to such an unfortunate end, if Trayvon Martin had not assaulted Zimmerman.  (From the evidence brought forth at the trial, Trayvon Martin was sitting on top of Zimmerman; battering his face to the extent that blood flowed freely from Zimmerman's  nose, and banging his head on the concrete on which Zimmerman was lying.)  Principles of self defense made it appropriate for Zimmerman to grab his gun and shoot Trayvon Martin dead.

But racial terrorist are not letting it end there.

1. They are agitating for a repeal of Stand-Your-Ground Laws -- laws that were never invoked in this incident.

2. Many in the African-American community are convinced that this incident shows once again that they are victims.  And, indeed, Obama has fed into this narrative of their victimhood.

3. Racists such as Al Sharpton have linked Trayvon Martin to Medgar Evers and other true victims and martyrs of racism.  That is shameful.

African Americans want something, but what?  Do they want greater advantage over whites in being admitted to America's colleges?  Why do they not address black-on-black violence?  Why do they not focus on the relatively sorry state of black schools?

I would argue that these are reasonable thoughts.  People like Sharpton aren't into reason.  Racial turmoil is what he feeds on.  It's what puts money into his pockets

Philandering Politicians

We love to be titillated by the amorous adventures of our politicos.  Consider the following: Bill Clinton, JFK, Mark Sanford, Eliot Spitzer, and Anthony Wiener.

Mark Sanford went on a trip with his girlfriend in South America while telling his staff he was hiking on the Appalachian Trail.  The voters reelected him as their governor.

Bill Clinton opened his zipper, took out his erection, and had his intern give him oral sex in the Oval Office of the White House.  The American public continues to love him.

JFK bedded a lot of women while president.  He also bedded a hooker, the Judith Exner woman.  But, he didn't pay.  Didn't have to.  The Chicago gangster, Sam Giancana, picked up the tab.

Anthony Wiener, to the best of my knowledge (based on NY newspaper accounts) never committed adultery.  His transgression was more serious.  By putting a shot of himself in his shorts on Facebook, he was acting childishly.  NY voters have yet to be heard from.

Eliot Spitzer patronized fancy hookers in Washington DC.  How does this compare with the other politicos?  It seems hardly less noble than wielding the highest office in the land over some simple minded intern to gain a sexual favor.  Mark Sanford had a girlfriend, who he referred to as his soul mate.  One can only wonder whose wife felt more betrayed, Sanford's or Spitzer's.

As to Wiener -- he's just childish and ought to be sent back to the third grade.

Why Can't The Egyptians Be More Like Us

Everyone wants Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood to sit down and compromise with the secular Egyptians.  Ah, yes, another fairy tale.

Secular people can't understand why people of goodwill can't sit down and work out their differences.  What they don't seem to understand is that compromise with religious people is nigh to impossible.  Religious people follow God's will.  How can you compromise with that.  For Muslims, God's will is set forth in the Quran and in Sharia law.

For Christians it's right-to-life.

America has one big advantage.  We have a Constitution which specifically separates Church and State.  But people, whenever they feel strongly about something, try making an end run around the Constitution.  Right-to-Life is one such attempt.  For generations, we conferred personhood only after the fetus emerged from the womb -- not before.  This may please Christians, or not, but this is the way it's always been.  But, of course, Christianity posits the Immaculate Conception.  And, for Christians, this is when life begins, and, by extension, personhood.

Christians and many other religions believe that a child is a gift of God.  More technically minded people feel it's what happens when a sperm hits an egg.  Most people are repulsed by the idea of forcing a woman, and especially an 11-year old, to bring to term a fetus resulting from her father's or other family member's sperm.  A non-family member raping the female is even more repugnant (if that's possible).  And, yet, under the child-is-a-gift-from-God theory, some would argue that aborting the victim's fetus can not be allowed.  If this kind of thinking won't turn a God fearing person into an atheist, I fear nothing will.

What does God have to say about in vitro fertilization?  What does God have to say about a husband and wife who go to India to rent the womb of some poor lady for purposes of implanting their fertilized egg and then taking the baby when the Indian lady gives it birth?  Are we really going to tell a woman that she must bring her fetus to term, not because she wants to, but because God insists on it?   In Texas, the answer apparently is "yes."

Morning Joe: A Good Show Gone Bad

I used to enjoy Morning Joe.  Their guests, though leaning a bit to the left, were reasonably well balanced regarding their political views.  In other words, one could hear both sides.

But, then two things happened.  They started inviting as a guest the notorious Al Sharpton; correction, the notorious Reverend Al Sharpton, generally recognized as a racial extortionist, a man who'll clear you of charges of racism despite your seeming to hire remarkably few African Americans in your business, if you make a generous donation to one of the "charities" he operates.  I was still watched Morning Joe except when Sharpton appeared. When his face came on the screen, I changed channels.

Mika, always a bit odd, was tolerable until she began abusing the production staff.  I didn't see this myself, but a friend, whose veracity is beyond question, told me of a show where crulnuts (some sort of combination of crullers and donuts filled with some sort of delicious, but highly caloric filler) was brought on the set.  When invited to do so, the stage hands ran over to the crulnuts and took some.

This seemed to incense Mika.  How dare they enjoy baked goodies that might lead to obesity.  She ran over to the crulnuts and turned over the tray.  But that didn't stop the stage hands.  They slipped pieces of the baked confection out from under the tray and kept eating.

Mika flipped her cork.  She dragged over an industrial waste container and then slid the tray, pastries and all into the garbage.

Who can possibly want to watch such a woman.  And, of course, her father the genteel, anti-Semite, Prof Zbigniew Brzezinski is no prize either.

Goodbye Joe Scarborough.

NSA Data Mining: Good or Evil?

Data mining was thrown into the spotlight by Edward Snowdon when he disclosed it to the American public.  As with any new and important subject matter, the media has been struggling to get it's arms around it.  Let me see if I can help.

Is Snowdon merely a whistleblower (he disclosed a government project, but, unlike the Wikileaks gang, disclosed no details)?  Hardly.  The project he disclosed was classified and highly confidential.

But, does confidential mean important?  In this case, it clearly was.  Casting a net for gathering information as wide as what the U.S. government was able to do required an enormous investment in time, people and money. In addition, it relied on remarkable computing technology.  We can well imagine the extent to which China, Russia and other totalitarian governments would love to copy it, and, now, no doubt will.

The history of weaponry goes back a long way.  From sling shot, to cannon, to atomic bombs -- data mining is simply a part of the progression.  Culling data on the scale the U.S. has been doing is simply one more tool of war.  As with most weapons, it can be used either offensively or defensively.  So how do we deal with it?

The atom bomb provides a useful model for discussing this new informational weapon.  Nazi scientists were the first to give serious thought to an atomic bomb.  Fortunately, it slipped through their fingers when, towards the end of WW II, they were unable to marshal all the necessary supplies and resources needed for this project.  (Driving out leading Jewish scientists didn't help them much either.)

But, could America be trusted to be the sole possessor of such technology?  Julius and Ethyl Rosenberg thought not.    For them, Russia, then under Stalin, was a better kind of government.  I believe most historians today would disagree.  But, what about America as the sole possessor of such a powerful weapon?  Who knows?  But what we do know is that through their spies Russia knew America had the bomb and were quite comfortable with us using it on Japan.

Once again:  Is Edward Snowdon a whistleblower or a spy?  Here is where the media must get it's facts straight.  Thomas Andrews Drake was a true whistleblower.  He was appalled by the wastefulness of our government in the pursuit of new technologies.  He reached out to all the appropriate people.  And, in the end was hounded by our government for doing what any right-thinking American would do -- provided they also had nerves of steel.  (Going up against the government is not anything for the weak of heart.)

Today, you'll hear some U.S. representatives and senators complain they knew nothing about America's data mining of phone calls and internet activity.  But, they clearly know, or should know,  that it doesn't work that way.  Special congressional committees are set up specifically to review this kind of information.  Others in congress now say they should have known of it too.  Nonsense.  The American public has on a number occasion voted into office some pretty questionable people.  A special committee is therefore exactly the right way to go.

But, can the government be trusted to collect such information?  Good question.  I'd normally say yes.  But recent disclosures regarding the behavior of people within the IRS toward groups that speak against the administration suggest that this question not all that cut and dried.  The president's lenient attitude toward those in the IRS most closely associated with the agency's questionable behavior is especially troubling.  Obama must learn that like Caesar's wife, you not only have to be pure, you have to look pure.

Oh, and lest I forget the greatest irony of all:  Where does Edward Snowdon hightail it to?  Why, of course, to Hong Kong, a territory under the political domination of China -- that great citadel of human rights and free speech.  Give me a break.   Does Edward Snowdon, and his buddies who find him to be a noble soldier in the battle for transparency and human rights, have no shame?

  

Tom Friedman: Need I Say More?

What prompted this posting regarding the man who made famous the metaphorical expression, "The World Is Flat"; namely, Thomas Friedman, is his Op-Ed piece of 6/5/13, Israel Lives The Joseph Story.  Let me begin with his conclusions at the end of his piece.

He writes, "Three reasons (for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict):  1) to reverse the trend of international delegitimization closing in on Israel; 2) to disconnect Israel as much as possible from the regional conflicts around it; and 3) to offer a model (of democratic government)."

His reasoning regarding resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict show the same blindness as his the-world-is-flat story.  In that story, he suggests that the internet and other modern means of global interaction have put all nations on a level playing field.  What Tom fails to see are the formidable mountain ranges of cultural differences that remain.

But, let's get back to his flawed reasoning as to what, in his opinion, makes resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict so imperative.

1. Reversing the trend of international delegitimization closing in on Israel.
Anyone following world events knows full well that efforts to delegitimize Israel has very little to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Mocking those who point to anti-Semitism has become increasingly popular.  But, who can deny that for decades Saudi oil money has gone into establishing Islamic organizations, one of whose key messages has been the denigration of Jews.  (The late Senator Fulbright joined in this effort when he became a registered lobbyist for the Saudi government.)

The Swedes who have their hands full with their sizable Muslim immigrant population, nevertheless find time to denigrate Israel which has done a far better job bringing Israeli Christians and Muslims into the Israeli body politic.

And, does anyone think the Irish will ever become friendly to the Jews?  They, who failed to join in the western effort to battle the Nazis in WW II.

Current, and future, efforts to delegitimize Israel have little to do with sympathy for the Palestinians.  If it did, the pathetic Palestinian refugees in their deplorable camps would have been integrated long ago into the various surrounding Islamic nations and indeed also into West Bank communities.  And, what, one must wonder, accounts for western sympathy for Gaza when it rockets Israeli communities?

2. Disconnect Israel as much as possible from the regional conflicts around it.
Impossible, and it has nothing to do with the Palestinians.  Indeed, the Jordanian king retains his throne only because the majority Palestinian population in Jordan does not want Jordan to be seen as the Palestinian nation that it is.

3. Allow Israel to provide a model (to Islamic nations)
A model for whom?  The ever diminishing Christian population in the West Bank makes clear that  Muslims see things differently than Jews.  The best chance that Abbas had to emulate the Israeli model was to have allowed Fayyad to forge ahead with his plans for developing a future Palestinian nation.  What did Abbas do?  He dumped Fayyad.

Tom's comments on Stephen Hawking seem to me to be meant to simply develop a bit of reader interest.  The only thing Tom seems to have to say on this matter can be summed by his quote from the Boston Globe,  "(Hawking's decision to boycott Israel was) a reasonable way to express one's political views.  Observers need not agree with Hawking's position in order to understand and even respect his choice.  The movement that Hawkins has signed on to aims to place pressure on Israel through peaceful means."

Dear Tom, someone ought to let the Boston Globe know that no one is arguing that Hawking's didn't express his political views in a reasonable way.  It's his views on the Palestinian issue that I and many others would take issue with.  What does it mean to "understand" his choice.  What I understand is that a great scientist has been bamboozled by a flawed Palestinian narrative.  It wouldn't be the first time that important men of science have gone astray politically -- not to mention ethically.  Respect his choice?  How, pray tell, is one to respect such foolishness?

The Evil Whose Name May Not Be Spoken

Today's major threat is one well understood, but one we aren't supposed to mention.  If this sounds weird consider the NY Times of May 23rd, 2013.  More specifically, consider the following three stories:

Page A10, World Briefing:  "Sweden: Riots Continue in Immigrant Neighborhoods --
Hundreds of young people burned cars and attacked police officers this week in three nights of riots in immigrant neighborhoods of Stockholm, Sweden't capital."

Let's stop here for a moment.  The NY Times, adds, for those who don't already know this, that the place that's experienced the rioting, Stockholm, also happens to be Sweden't capital.  However, the exact locations in Stockholm, where the rioting took taken place, were referred to simply as "immigrant neighborhoods."   The Times saw no need to mention that these immigrant neighborhoods are, by and large, Muslim neighborhoods -- neighborhoods to which Muslims have flocked from various Islamic nations to enjoy Sweden's social entitlements.  These immigrant neighborhoods are, essentially, Islamic communities.

So why the rioting?  "The riots appear to have been started by the police killing of a 69-year old man wielding a machete in (the neighborhood of) Husby this month, which prompted accusations of police brutality."  So the man wielding the machete was 69 -- good to know.  But, what about this 69-year old man wielding a machete?  What kind of 69-year old goes around wielding a machete?  Isn't that dangerous?  And, what's with the machete?  Hint, hint: Muslims favor something large and sharp when they decide to commit a bit of mayhem.  (Of course, serious kitchen cutting tools including a meat cleaver were used by two Muslims who hacked to death an unarmed British soldier in London.  See below.)

This sorry kind of reporting may not be entirely the fault of the NY Times.  They very likely took the story from a Swedish source and the Swedes are, if anything, more politically correct than the Times.

Page A26 Court Documents Detail A Deadly Family Feud From Brooklyn to Pakistan
"She (Amina Ajmal) fled her husband and her family, sneaking out of her home in Pakistan to take sanctuary in the American Embassy, which then whisked her to a secret hideout in the United States."
Amina, having been born in America,  was "an American citizen who said she had ben held captive for years by her own relatives in Pakistan and forced to marry a man there who only wanted an American visa."

A transcript of a recorded phone call her father made to Amina has her father saying the following, "I will not end this until I find you.  I will kill their entire family."

Per the article, "(Two people) (r)elatives of the man who had helped her escape ... were gunned down while riding a motorcycle through the streets of Gujrat."

Further transcripts of Mr. Choudhry, Amina's father,  has him saying the following: "Even if I did kill him, isn't a person supposed to kill that being, when he finds out that his daughter ran away because of him? .... My name is tainted everywhere in newspapers, on TV channels, that I am a man with no honor, my daughters are whores."

"The Brooklyn house (of Mr. Choudhry)" the NY Times goes on to explain, " (is) a modest, cluttered home full of children's toys and adorned with verses from the Koran ........"

Mr. Choudhry is not without supporters.  One individual (a member of the Pakistani National Assembly" wrote in an affidavit that Mr. Choudhry's  family was 'famous for helping the poor people of the area, and always stood for the rights of women in our society.' "

So, what have we here, a good Muslim, a Muslim who helps the poor, attempting to redeem his "honor?"

Page A6 'Barbaric' Attack in London Renews Fears of Terror Threat  -- Man Near Barracks Is Hacked to Death    "LONDON ---  In an attack that raised new fears of terrorism in Britain, a man walking near a military barracks in south London on Wednesday was rammed by a car and then hacked to death by two knife-wielding assailants, according to witness accounts carried by British news media."

"ITV News showed a video taken with a cellphone at the scene in Woolwich, in which a man who appears to be in his 20s or early 30s holds a cleaver in one of his bloodied hands.  He offers what seems to be a political message before the police arrive."

"Organizations representing Britain's 2.5 million Muslims were quick to condemn the attack."

Three points:  (1)  The incidents above all involved Muslims creating mayhem because of their understanding of their Muslim faith,  (2) Muslim organizations have in some cases spoken out against  acts perpetrated in the name of Islam, and (3) news articles, such as those cited here, largely skirt the role of Islamic religious behavior in these various atrocities.  In the case of Swedish media, no mention is made of Islam although a close reading of the news makes abundantly clear that the rioting was by Muslims in response to the fatal shooting of a Muslim waving a machete.  And then there is the Pakistani man in Brooklyn, who allegedly ordered the killing of individuals in Pakistan to redeem his "honor," in pursuance of his code of proper behavior.  Where does one acquire such a code, especially if one lives in a home that features framed sayings from the Koran?

Terror is what you experience when a tsunami rushes towards you.  Terror is what you experience when your airplane has to make an emergency landing.  Terror is what you feel as a gunman demands your wallet.  But, the terror on which we are supposedly waging a war are not from acts of nature, or something one experiences when one's plane appears not to be performing properly.  Nor is it when you find yourself threatened by a criminal.  The war, such as it is, represents our effort to defend ourselves against Islamic extremism.  It is the hostility of Muslims being directed against non-Muslims or towards Muslims of a different persuasion.

The value of calling Islamic terrorism what it is is that it would hopefully prompt stronger action from moderate Muslims.  Who better than a Muslim to preach to a fellow Muslims what is allowed by their mutual faith and what is not.  It is unseemly for one faith to preach to another.  Islamic terrorism is, or should be, a challenge first and foremost to fellow Muslims.  Yes, they have on occasion spoken out against fanatical behavior.  But they must do more -- far, far more.

Jews, Indigestible; Israel, An Indigestible Nation

Why do they hate us?  It is a question Jews have been asking for some time..  The answers arrived at often include the following: (1) non-Jews are jealous of us, (2) we are cultural outsiders, and outsiders are generally unwelcome, (3) if Jews lack respect for other cultures, why should others respect theirs, (4) Jews think they're special; chosen, etc. etc. etc.  And, now, once again, an author tries to come to grips with this question.  In his book, From Ambivalence to Betrayal, Robert S. Wistrich grapples with the question as to how and why the European Left is anti-Jewish.

Repeated waves of Czarist anti-Semitism, in the opinion of Mr. Wistrich, caused leftist, Jewish radicals, to "embrace(d) Socialism or Communism with the fervor of neophytes."  It was a way of shedding an "unwanted residue of an anachronistic tribal past."

As early as the time of Theodor Herzl, he notes, Jews on the left were in the vanguard of those making anti-Zionist arguments.  They not only criticized their Jewish faith, but also the idea of Jewish nationalism.  But, how, asks Wistrich, did anti-Semitism find fertile ground, not simply among Jews, but also among non-Jewish fellow travelers?

In his search for answers, Wistrich offers a number of anecdotes.  He points out, for example, that Karl Marx and Moses Hess, two German Jews, were clearly estranged from their Jewish faith.  And, in their criticism of capitalism, it was almost inevitable that Jews would come in for criticism for being  capitalists.  Add to that Jews were adherents of a primordial religion based on the faith of their forefathers.   (Voltaire and d'Holbach, in their attacks on the Old Testament, held Jews responsible for the Catholic Church's barbarism, fanaticism, and intolerant obscurantism.)

At the time of the Boer War, British socialists accused South African Jews of attempting to influence public opinion against them and to discredit the Conservative government.

On one hand, Jews were bashed for being wealthy and for assimilating, on the other, for clinging to a clannish religion that set them apart from others.  Communists attacked them for being politically reactionary and for having survived as a unique people rather then vanishing into the multi-ethnic "classes" over which Marxists loved to pontificate.


Karl Kautsky, a Jew from Prague and editor of Die Neue Zeit, concluded that Jews had been subjected to pogroms because of their isolation  in the Pale of Settlements and their consequent disenfranchisement.  From this, in his mind, it followed that the Zionist movement, by  segregating itself would only serve to strengthen anti-Semitism.

Rosa Luxemburg, a Jewish left-wing revolutionary who had clearly disassociated herself from fellow Jews, is quoted as asking, "Why do you come with  your special Jewish sorrows?" She then goes on to declare, "I feel just as sorry for the wretched Indian victims of Putamaya, the negroes of Africa ... I can not find a special corner in my heart for the ghetto."  In other words, for reasons best understood by her, sympathizing for others left no room for Jews.

The reviewer of Wistrich's book, Seth J. Frantzman, writing in The International Jerusalem Post,  Dec 14 - 20, 2012, finds that the various anecdotes don't really connect into some sort of unified theory.  But, in my opinion, a theory can be found even if Wistrich didn't manage to put his finger on it.

The key lies in "respect for the other."  That's not really as simple as it might sound.  Consider the   economics of "free markets."  You can't just will free markets; too many people want to manipulate them for personal gain.  Once manipulated, a market ceases to be free.  Free markets require laws to safeguard them; for example, anti-trust laws to prevent monopolies, and anti-insider trading laws to ensure transparency.  Then too, you will need a body of commercial laws.  In other words, you need a relatively honest and sophisticated nation.

In much the same way, respect for "the other" also requires a body of law to which all citizens willingly subscribe.  Jesus may have given gave us the "golden rule"; namely, to do to others as you would have them do to you."  And, before that, the Jew, Rabbi Hillel, preached that to be a good Jew, don't do to anyone what you wouldn't want done to yourself.   But, quite frankly, you need more than a good sermon.  You need a body of law; namely, laws safeguarding human rights, and laws prohibiting discrimination.

Americans tend to think that our political system sprang full blown from an egg; that our exceptionally brilliant forefathers fought with one another over questions of ideology, but, in the end, got it right and set it all down as the American Constitution.  That, of course, is not quite how the American system emerged -- not really.  Our forefathers were keenly aware of Europe's religious wars and wanted to be sure our government stayed clear of establishing a religion.  In this they deviated a bit from the British, who established the Anglican Church as their Church of England.  Nevertheless, they were much indebted to British law.  And, while they didn't much care to be taxed without representation, they were aware of the Magna Carta and the subsequent evolution of British law.  Those laws became the foundation of America's laws.

The lot of the Jews in earlier ages was precarious at best.  But, as western governments evolved along lines that would bring them into the 20th century, Jews would benefit enormously from the progress being made in human rights.  Indeed, German Jews began taking pride in their German identity.  But, German democracy proved fragile.  It couldn't withstand the suffering that the German people experienced after the WW I.  In their  midst, emerged a man, Hitler, who sold them on the idea that all of Germany's problems stemmed from the Jews.  Germany would be made whole again if Germany could only rid itself of its Jews.  The manner in which Germany set forth to do this was truly monstrous.  Indeed, it was genocidal.

Here in the U.S., the drafting of our Constitution left incomplete the task of safeguarding human rights.   It took a horrific civil war to rid our country of slavery.  Other tasks that remained to be undertaken were the elimination of Jim Crow, the elimination of child labor, suffrage, gay rights, etc.  Jews participated in all these struggles.  And struggles they were.  American anti-Semitism remained quite palpable prior to WW II.  Nevertheless, the lot of Jews became better than it had ever been before.  Today, Jews participate in all of America's affairs and are represented across the entire political spectrum.

But what about Europe?  There Jewish rituals have come under attack.  Jewish newborn boys are still, by and large, circumcised on the eighth day after birth.  Some in Europe would ban this.  A number of European countries would also deny Jews the right to kosher meat -- meat from kosher animals that has been ritually slaughtered.  Ritual slaughter involves slitting the animal's throat.  Death is virtually immediate.  Nevertheless, one European country after another is requiring that an animal be stunned prior to having its throat slit.  This violates Jewish law.

Then too the influx of Islamic immigrants has made many European streets unsafe for Jews.

Liberal minds, it seems, are comfortable with other cultures, provided they are not Jewish.  They are tolerant of nations with the most horrendous record on human rights abuses, but find fault with that Middle Eastern nation, Israel, that extends far greater tolerance to Muslims and Christians than its Islamic neighbors.  Whatever it is that makes Jews unique -- it's that which seems to offend people everywhere. With the exception of Israel, America, and of other English speaking countries, Jews find themselves under attack.  Ireland is of course the exception.  They may speak English, but have little love for Israel.  But, of course, the stayed neutral during WW II.

Terrorist Killers -- Why They Murder

Terrorist killers including Mir Aimal Kansi, Ali Abu Kamal, Hesham Mohamed Hadayet and Nidal Malik Hasan do, it seems, have something in common with murderers such as  Eric Harris, Dylan Klebald, Seung-Hoi Cho and Adam Lanzi.  For insights into these people and their common attributes we are indebted to Assistant Professor  of Criminal Justice at University of Alabama, Adam Lankford, whose findings appeared in a NY Times, Op-Ed piece, Dec. 18, 2012.

Like most rampage shooters, suicide terrorists are motivated to kill and be killed.  It is Adam Lankford's informed opinion that we should think of rampage shooters as non-ideological suicide terrorists.  "In some cases, they claim to be fighting for a cause, e.g. neo-Nazism, eugenics, masculine supremacy, or an anti-government revolution."  But to really understand their motivation, we must look elsewhere

Lankford points to a triad of factors generally found in mass shooters.  He lists them as (1) Mental health issues that produce a desire to die, (2) a deep sense of victimization, and (3) a desire to acquire fame and glory through killing.

The mental health issues that create a desire to die can vary from clinical depression and post-traumatic stress disorder to schizophrenia and other forms of psychosis.  Lankford points out that in 2010 the suicide rate in the U.S. was 12.4 per 100,000 people.  This is fairly low, but it is even lower in Muslim nations.  In other words, the pool from which most suicide terrorists and rampage shooters emerge is relatively small.

Per Lankford, "the second factor is a deep sense of victimization and belief that the victim's life has been ruined by someone else."  In their minds, they have been bullied, oppressed, or persecuted by someone or something.  Mental issues can inflame these beliefs.  The perceived victimizer might be an enemy government, or the victim's boss, his co-workers,  fellow students, or family members.  In the "victim's" mind, he has been terribly mistreated and that violent vengeance is justified.  Also, the victim often generalizes on his oppressor and extends the oppressor to include an entire category of people he believes responsible for his pain and suffering.

We then come to the third factor, the desire to acquire fame and glory through killing.  Lankford notes that over 70 percent of murder-suicides occur between significant-others and take place in the home.  Attackers who commit murder-suicide in public are far more brazen and unusual.  Also, most suicide terrorists believe they will be honored and celebrated as "martyrs."  And, indeed, many are encouraged in this belief by terrorist organizations who create martyrdom videos and other memorabilia so that other desperate individuals will volunteer to blow themselves up.

Rampage shooters too are often captivated by the idea that they will become posthumously famous. Eric Harris, the Columbine shooter, was heard to say, "Isn't it fun to get the respect that we're going to deserve."

Lankford notes that American mass killers are not that different from mass killers in other countries. The differences between them can be found in cultural forces that determine which destructive behavior the killers  seek to copy.  If Adam Lanza had lived in Gaza and had been subjected to the propaganda of Hamas, would he have strapped on a suicide vest?  Lankford guesses the answer to be yes.

In the light of this analysis, it is clear that many impressionable people have been motivated by hostile organizations to kill Jews, Americans, and Israelis.  Pakistanis have been sent to kill Indians and Afghans to kill westerners.  But, it also worth noting the damage done by presumably "peace loving" individuals like the Reverend Tutu, who refers to Israelis as Nazis and contends that Palestinians live under Apartheid conditions.  These accusations are not merely false, they impede a peaceful resolution to the conflict between Israelis and their Arab neighbors.  It is odd indeed to find a Palestinian such as Fayyad providing greater hope for peace and stability for Palestinians and Israelis than that "great" South African, the Rev. Tutu.