Israel Trips Over Basic Economics

Bureaucrats with vision can be helpful.  Without vision, and when lacking understanding, they can be disastrous to a county's economic health.  Consider Israel's oil and gas finds in the Mediterranean.  The news sounded great.  Assured fuel for Israel.

But, then the bickering began.  How much gas for Israel and how much for export?  Not all that easy a question, but one that was dealt with.

Now, some bureau that deals with monopolies steps in.  "We're giving these big oil companies a monopoly."  Monopoly, oligopoly, schmolopoly -- sure, but what are the underlying issues?)  Yes, a free market is generally the most efficient market.  Restraining a free market leads to inefficiencies and poorer economic growth.  Okay, so much for economics 101.

Now, let's turn to the real world where we sometimes find situations where a perfectly competitive environment doesn't exist.  In the old days, GM, Ford, and Chrysler had a virtual lock on the American automotive market.  This did, in fact, result in an unhealthy economic state of affairs that was corrected only when the Japanese finally got a foot in the U.S. market.  That would, of course, seem to justify attacking oligopolies.

Not quite.  Consider airplane construction.  Consider Boeing versus Airbus.  These are industries of an even larger dimension than automotives.  It's an industry where American manufacturers contributed over $118 billion, in 2012,  in an export surplus.  And, this from and industry that was largely monopolistic.  Note: The U.S. production of cars and parts in 2012 amounted to $32 billion -- a big number but one, nevertheless, over shadowed by aeronautics.

What distinguishes these industries is the huge capital investment needed to be a player.  It must also be noted that, when you get to companies of this size, the cooperation of governments that profit from their services becomes critical.  That brings us to the oil and gas industries.  Here again, only very large companies have the assets needed to participate.  And, by participate, I mean to participate on a global scale.

Let's turn our attention to Israel and its off shore discoveries.  To those of us who love her, Israel is the most important spot on the earth.  And, in terms of acreage, it is indeed a "spot".  But, its discoveries amount to just one discovery among many when you consider exploration on a global scale.  It nevertheless took an enormous amount of money to make the find.  It will take lots more to exploit it.  "Exploiting" will take more than simply retrieving it and sending the oil and gas to eager customers.  It will mean protecting this resource against attacks from Israel's numerous enemies.

How many companies do you imagine would want to get involved with helping Israel in the face of opposition from oil-rich, Islamic nations who would be delighted if Israel never got to retrieve a spoonful of its bounty of gas and oil?  There are probably less such companies than you can count on the fingers of one hand.  These stalwart companies should be viewed as valued partners rather than as blood-sucking monopolies.

The Palestinians: A Disenfranchised People?

Are the Palestinians a disenfranchised people as Roger Cohen contends?  The answer is both yes, and no.  But, why this ambiguity exists can be understood only if one looks at the behavior of the Palestinian leadership, or would it be more accurate to use the word "dictatorship."

The Palestinians and the Israelis might have lived together in peace, if it had been left to the people.  But that was not to be.  Arafat, hand picked by the Egyptians, led a war against Israel under the guise of seeking an independent Palestinian nation.  Using the usual tools of all totalitarian leaders; namely, coercion and propaganda, he inculcated hostility towards Israel on the part of the Palestinians.  His two-faced successor Abbas, has followed in his footsteps.

Israel must work everyday to ensure it's survival.  Not so Arab societies.  They fight not so much to ensure  the survival of their Arab culture, but rather to gain supremacy over their ethnic Muslim groups within the context of Arab society.  It's the Sunnis versus the Shiia.  It's the secular Muslims versus the Islamists.  It's the Alawites trying to maintain their perch over all the others.  It's Fatah vs. Hamas.  It's clan against clan.  Israel's only part in this drama is that virtually all Muslims, of whatever orientation, are hostile to Jews.

It was once said that Polish anti-Semitism sprang from the mother's milk.  That may be changing.  But, Islamic hostility to Jews is easily traced to the Quran.  Giving land to Abbas changes nothing other than to weaken Israel and make it more vulnerable.

Some suggest that we should work with Fayyad rather than Abbas.  Not a bad idea, if there were the slightest chance he might ever gain a position of leadership in the Palestinian community.  Until that happens the Palestinians will continue to stew in this mess of their own making.  Israel can only stand and watch.

Obama's Cuban Move: Good or Bad

Good or bad regarding America's Cuban Move depends on whose interests are being served.  Here's the run down:

1. Obama -- For him this is a great move.  It's a feel good more.  It meets his twin criteria of "hope" and "change."  It's turning a charitable face to Cuba.  Who can be against that?

2. Fidel and Raoul Castro -- It's a brilliant move.  The Castros hated America, and probably still do.  Nevertheless, they're pragmatic.  Their first sponsor, Russia, went broke.  As luck would have it, Venezuela with it's bountiful supply of oil stepped in and and took over the support of the Castros and their island nation.  The Castros supplied the muscle Chavez needed to keep his people in line and Chaves supplied the oil.  (The Castros also threw in a few teachers and doctors to help out the Venezuelians.)

But, now with oil prices going down to the floor, it was clear that Venezuela's role in supporting the Cuban economy would be greatly diminished.  For Cuba it would be curtains.  But, wait!  The Americans had been panting to reestablish relations with them.  This was Obama's big chance to do a Nixon-in-China shtick and Cuba would magnanimously agree.  Ironically, the hated Americans would now pull Castro's chestnuts out of the fire.  (The Castros have no problem with irony.)

3. The Cuban people --  On one hand, their living conditions are bound to improve.  But, the rather more important question is how much?  Cuba will remain a dictatorship ruled by the Castros.  Their economy will remain stretched over the economic framework of Communism.  Yes, some of the money will trickle down to the people, but it would appear most will remain with the Castros who will use it to strengthen their control over the people.

What The Palestinians Want; What They'll Likely Get

The Palestinians aren't stupid people.  But, having said that, it's clear that they've taken many a wrong turn.  How is that?  Well, first and foremost, it's probably their clan culture.  You conform to the mores of your culture or  your finished.

Okay, so all cultures have a clan element.  The British nobility and aristocracy has elements that can be viewed as being clan-like.  In America's egalitarian culture, what fraternity you belonged to, or what golf club has extended  you a membership, can make a difference.  No culture is entirely egalitarian, but America has done a pretty good job of rewarding merit without favor.

Okay, so what does this have to do with the Palestinians?  For them the larger clan circle is Islam and while there are some Muslims who are good folks,  most harbor cultural prejudices.  Especially strong is their prejudice against Jews.  A degree of this prejudice stems from the Koran where can be read how Mohammad murdered a number of Jewish tribes.  More of this hatred of Jews stems from the fact that the Jews, many a polyglot of Holocaust survivors, succeeded in defeating Egyptian, Jordanian, Lebanese, Syrian and Iraq armies -- all Muslim.

Truly a Nakbah!  The Arabs in Palestine were used to being lorded over by fellow Muslims, but to have Jews planting a flag on what they viewed a Islamic soil -- unthinkable.

But, the Jews still had a problem.  What could they do to make friends of their neighbors?  The answer, in a word, nothing.  To have Jews leave Gaza, where they had established legal homes and businesses and had raised their children, meant nothing.  Actually, it did mean something.  It meant that the Jews were weak.  For one people to give up something to another people was a clear sign of their weakness.  Being friends with the Jews?  Never.  And, if they harbored even the slightest inclination towards friendship, powerful Islamic nations in the region rewarded the Hamas leaders royally to have them inculcate hostility in their people towards the Jews.

Fatah had much in common with Hamas, but also differed in certain respects.  For Hamas the religious aspects of the struggle with the Jews was paramount.  The Jews were to be nowhere on what was once Arab soil.  Fatah was more corrupt, which is why they lost to Hamas in Gaza.  They had to be satisfied with a base in the West Bank.  Had they negotiated with the Jews, they could have improved their people's fortunes considerably.  But, it was not their people they thought of.  It was their own fortunes made by maintaining a hostility to Israel that determined their behavior.  They personally profited as long as they could maintain hostility towards Israel, hence their disinterest in negotiating any sort of peace agreement.

It took a long time for the Israelis to get this.  Arafat was offered considerably more than what his Palestinians now have, or are ever likely to get.  Olmert, for example, offered to take into Israel thousands of Palestinians under the rubric of "the right of return."  The offer was rejected.  Do the Palestinians realize that such an offer will never again be extended to them.

There had been some talk of ceding a portion of Jerusalem to Palestinian rule.  Today, no such thoughts would ever again be entertained by any Israeli other than the most left-wing of politicians and whatever minuscule following might support them.

The Palestinians are quite aware how their bargaining position has eroded. But, do they realize how much they have lost by their own behavior?  It's hard to tell.  But, they do know that they will never get what at one time might have been thinkable.  And, that's why they are now turning to the U.N., a place ever hostile to Israel and the Jews.  Although Obama has been wonderful at raising doubts among America's friends as to the strength of America's support of their needs,  those who love Israel remain confident that the American people will continue to support them and that this support will be reflected in the American Congress.

The News: What You'll Learn And What You Won't

This morning 11/23/14, I heard on a respected new show, political analysts cogitating over where the country will go from here now that the Republicans won the Senate.  On analyst suggested that now the Republicans will make a strong effort to show the American people that they can make the Congress work.  They will now reach out to their Democratic counterparts and come up with legislation that can be agreed upon by both political parties.  Areas on which progress should now be possible include immigration, taxes, and more important areas.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.  Yes, the Congress might now finally do the things they have been unable to do in the past -- important things, things that really do need doing.  However, road blocks in the past were not, for the most part, put up by the Republicans.  They were created by Obama and his hit man, Harry Reid,  who permitted no discussion on bills sent to the Senate by House Republicans.  And, the press ran with that narrative.  They pushed aside entirely, any discussion of the bills sent to the Senate by the Republican House.  In this matter, Obama and Harry Reid won.  Congress was to blame for its inability to act and that was largely the fault of the Republicans.

Now it becomes more complicated -- for the Democrats --  not for the Republicans.  Some bills will fly through the Congress, e.g. the XL pipeline bill.  Will Obama be able to veto it.  Maybe, but I believe that in this case the Congress will easily over ride his veto.

A comprehensive immigration bill should also be possible.  Sure, there are different voices among the Republicans.  But, the Republican Party has a number of Latinos.  They know what's to be gained and what will be lost if they don't come up with something creative -- something that includes a sealing of our border with Mexico;  something that relies not on the alligators suggested in one of Obama's moments of sarcasm, but rather on technology.  Congressional bills, once passed, get the kind of attention unavailable to bills that don't make it out of the Congress.  This now becomes a problem for the Democrats.  Before the Republicans won the Senate, all the negative remarks as regards the Congress were assigned to either (1) a dysfunctional Congress as opposed to the President,  or (2) to the Republicans for having made the Congress dysfunctional.   Those story lines will no longer work.
The possible winner: the American people.

Figuring Out Obama

Okay, there are parts of Obama that are easy to figure out.  He's a man of the left.  (The Federal government knows best.)  He also subscribes to cultural equivalency.  (We're no better than any other nation.)

But, let's get down to specifics.  What's he doing usurping the authority of the Congress?

That question is not all that complicated.

He has no interest in working with the Congress.  There are two reasons for this, in my opinion.

First, it's not his style.  He's got the mindset of a community organizer.  Congress, in his mind, represents the fat cats who run the city and state.  He sees himself as a Saul Alinsky, someone who's going to get what he wants by kicking them in the shins.

Second, he sees himself as a lame duck and maybe he is.  If so, he sees no point in building bridges with Congress -- especially now that the American electorate has just turned its back on him by turning the Senate over to the Republicans.  His best bet, as he sees it, is to narrow his objectives  down to trying to ingratiate himself with those groups he thinks he has a chance of dropping into his pocket.  Labor is already pretty much in his pocket.  African-Americans are, of course, also in his pocket.  But, even they are becoming discouraged by his ever more tarnished image.  The group he is now focused on are Latinos.

He may, however, run into some problems.  First, is the enterprising nature of most immigrants.  They know where they came from.  They came here because  here they can find opportunities not available to them in the countries they just left.  Do they want a country that is leaning in the direction of the one they just came from?

They know the nature of the governments they just left.  Do they want their new country to become a mirror image of the place they just came form?

Obama's nightmare?  That Latinos will vote Republican.

A Retrograde Religion: Islam

Few people with any sort of education in history, can deny that the human race, by and large, has become more generous to its fellow man.  We accept one another's positions in religion and politics.  Of course, the two are generally closely related.  To put it another way, we have become more secular.

That doesn't mean we have caste aside religion or religious thought or religious philosophical concepts.  We don't have to caste aside our religions whatever they might be.  Religions continue to provide a cultural framework for the lives of a great many people.

Secular individuals are generally willing to consider ideas, often coming from work in the sciences, that either defy religious dogma or enter areas not previously contemplated in religious texts.
The Big Bank Theory is an example of a scientific concept at variance with the creationist views of our various religions.  Some will simply disregard the contradictions, especially when they have little bearing in how they conduct their lives.  Others will reinterpret the religious writings of their faith until the contradictions are resolved.  And, yet others will simply deny scientific findings such as the one that holds that earlier creatures we now call dinosaurs once roamed the earth.

But, regardless of our faith, or lack thereof, we now a days generally don't kill one another over  differences in views or differences in faith.

This was not always the case.   Nicolas Antoine. born to Catholic parents, was burned at the stake for subscribing to Judaism.   Katarzyna Weiglowa was another person to die at the stake.  She was set on fire in Kracow Poland in 1539 for converting to Judaism.  These are but two examples.

In Islam, leaving the faith, warrants execution according to Sharriah.  Whether this be by stoning or by decapitation is not clear.

But the difference between Catholicism and Islam is that Christianity gave up the murder of individuals leaving the Catholic faith for another faith centuries ago.  For Jews there was never such a prohibition.  But, hundreds of years ago, Jews did practice bigamy and did allow for the stoning of disobedient children.  But, of course, no more.

Only in orthodox Islamic belief (Salafism) do you still have large numbers of followers adhering to honor killings and other such practices long abandoned by other faiths.  Here we have a religion where believers often described as "very religious" still present the rest of us with a real threat.

The Ebb And Flow Of This Blog

I'd like to make a post once a week.  But, I find that to be impossible.  I'm an inveterate writer of letters to newspaper editors.  It takes from one's time but provides considerable satisfaction.

The NY Times provides so much grist for the letter writer.  I could easily devote all my days to addressing it.  Their articles, most especially on subjects having to do with Israel, are generally so biased, it inclines me to utter profanities.  Better to send a letter.  Their Op-Ed pieces too often feature writers with a strong dislikes of Israel.  Another letter.

But, I must confess that the NY Times has never published one of my letters -- least ways, not that I can recall.  So why keep writing?  True, writing them gives me some satisfaction.  But, looking beyond myself, there is that chance that someone at the NY Times actually reads the stuff I send them.  It's a remote possibility,  but I can hope.

I wonder.  Does this reader of mail at the Times, should he, or she, exist, enjoy my letters?  Is the reader at all taken by my arguments?   I'll never know.

And, perhaps an even more remote possibility: does the reader at the NY Times ever send my letters up the line?  Have any of my letters actually actually reached the editor?  Were that to have ever happened,  I know what his verdict would be -- not fit to print.

And, so, I share my writings with my friends, who think as I do.  We have a beer, or a glass of wine and forecast the imminent demise of that once noble publication, the New York Times.

I also write letters to The Jewish Week.  And, there, a number of my letters have been published.  But, then, unlike the NY Times, we're now speaking of a Jewish paper.  They may lean left.  Still,  I find they try much harder to be fair and balanced.  Not as fair and balanced as Fox News.  More like "Morning Joe."  Regrettably, that show has recently become less balanced.  But, then, why worry about them.  Their viewership ratings are going down.

Finally, there are the letters I send to universities that rescind honors to worthy speakers or disallow speakers like Ayaan Hirsi Alli o address their students.  Then too there is the BBC, and other foreign media.  I wonder what they think of my letters.  But, of course, I should not even expect to know.  They speak an entirely different language.

But, despite readers of my letters keeping themselves hidden from my view,  I love thinking of how my opinions are received.  I suspect these readers, or editors, or whatever they are,  number somewhat greater than those who read my blog.  But, none of it matters.  I'm having fun.

Ashamed To Be An American

I never thought I'd ever hear myself saying I'm ashamed to be an American.  But, that's where Obama has driven me.  Our feckless, mindlessd positions are so indescribably stupid.

Consider the Ukraine.  The Ukrainians are up against far superior arms.  Why in the world don't we give them proper tanks and proper field pieces?  Do we expect them to clean out the Russian "volunteers" now on their soil  with machine guns and a few mortars?  If we fear that the Russians will fly over the Ukraine and bomb whatever tanks we might give the Ukrainians, why not base a few fighter plans in the Ukraine.  If Russians fighter planes fly over the Ukraine our planes could blast them.  But, that may not be necessary.  We surely must have suitable anti-aircraft equipment to do the job.

The same things goes for the Kurds in Syria.  ISIL is taking over Kurdish towns in Syria, killing their men and making sex providers of their women.  The Kurds too need tanks and artillery pieces to counter ISIL's tanks and artillery.  Why are we not helping our friends?

We now expect the Sunnis to help us fight ISIL.  Why?  We've screwed them twice.  We failed to reward them when they helped us drive out Al Qaeda.  We now want them to help us get rid of ISIL.  Why should they?  So that they can exchange the ISIL yoke for the Shiite yoke?  Is is after all the Shiites who want to dominate every one living in the mystical state of Iraq.

Ray Rice, Not A Jean Val Jean; Not Quite, But . . . .

Jean Val Jean received a stiff jail sentence for stealing a loaf of bread.  Well, we don't have anything like that today, but it can be argued that we do have something very much like mob rule that can approximate a mob lynching.  I'm thinking of Ray Rice who punched out his girl in an elevator.

At first, the league suspended Rice for two games.  Clearly an inadequate punishment.  Then the feministas got into the act.  Rice found himself banned for life.  Insane!  Clearly, taking two games away from an athlete is punishment hardly severe enough to get him to come to terms with his awful behavior.  But a life-time expulsion is clearly way, way too excessive.  Expel him for a year, and require that he take treatment for his anger and misogynistic behavior -- that would make sense.

If Rice's life-time suspension from football is intended to be a lesson to others, why not go back to hanging thieves in the public square?

A Teachable Moment: "In Defense of Christians"

The booing of Ted Cruz, the person chosen to give the keynote speech at a meeting of a newly formed group, "In Defense of Christians,"  should awaken us to certain realities of which some Americans were unaware of, and others in high places have chosen to disregard.

Why would a group despised by Muslims in various Middle Eastern countries boo an American speaker when he suggests to them that they should recognize that the discrimination and oppression they experienced in Muslim lands is shared by other minority groups?  That they should unite with other such groups that are equally despised; notably, the Jews.  Ted Cruz went further, he suggested that they give recognition to the fact that the only country in the Middle East where Christians have flourished is Israel.  And, for this Ted Cruz was booed.

How this could happen is something that Americans must begin to understand.  It all comes down to Middle Eastern clan mentality.  Under the reign of the Ottoman Empire, local fiefdoms could do pretty much what they wanted as long as tribute was paid to Istanbul.  These fiefdoms were pretty much run by local clans, or what we in America would describe as extended families.  Some clans were better, some worse, but if you wanted to get along, you didn't mess with the dominant clan.

Since all the dominant clans were Muslim, the other religious groups were obliged to work out their relationships with them as best they could.  They had learned to show suitable deference.  They were required to pay reasonable taxes (or whatever you might want to call it) to the dominant Muslim clan in your area.  And, over time, the non-Muslim ethnic entities took on the coloration of the dominant Muslim.  The shared, in large part, the same cuisine, and similar prejudices.  The fact that the Christians were as discriminated against as the Jews by the dominant Muslims was not as significant to the Christians as the fact that they shared with the Muslims equal disdain for the Jews.

A similar pattern of behavior was found among red necks in America's south in Jim Crow days towards African Americans.  The red necks (crackers) were also placed in an inferior position by the dominant, wealthier whites, but they could never accept the fact that their position in the social order had many similarities with that of the blacks.

That Middle Eastern Christians should share similar prejudices with the Muslims should come as little surprise to Jews who live in Jewish neighborhoods that have, in recent years, become home to Jewish immigrants from Iran -- or Persia as they are fond of calling the place they came from.  Mistrusting  local institutions, they often deal in cash even when the transactions are quite large.  They establish their own synagogues where long-time Jewish residents feel unwanted.  Marriages between cousins, where the marriage has been previously arranged, remains for them a popular custom.

In one instance of which I am keenly aware, a drug addicted, youth from a Jewish, but Persian, home killed another Jewish man, not Persian, as he was crossing the street.  The Persian youth was driving under the influence of the drugs he had just taken.  Jewish-Iranian families in the community (including their rabbis) did all in their power to keep the boy from being found guilty of the crime they all knew he had committed.   (I should add that this crime was not the first committed by the Persian youth.)

The Jewish families who had lost a son, and a father and the Jewish community that had lost a most remarkable doctor could not understand how other Jews; indeed, other rabbis could behave in this manner.  But, if you understand the Middle East it's not really surprising.

Getting back to the incident at the meeting of the group, "In Defense of Christians," we should note that in attendance was one of the sponsors of this group, a Dr. Zogby of the Arab American Institute.

The Ungluing Of The World

I sometimes think I've gone mad.  We're preoccupied with defeating ISIS or ISIL or whatever,  But, we give no stake to those who might become  our greatest allies.  It's obvious.  Let Iraq divide into three parts with the Kurds in the north, the Sunnis in the middle and the Shia in the south.

The Kurds would protect their boundaries.  The Sunnis, who just want to be left alone, would be the main force against the Islamists.  And, the Shia would be happy to live and make money in Iraq's south. So why doesn't this ever occur to our deep thinkers in the State Department?  (Forget about Obama.  He's off on another planet.)

Why don't we give serious armaments to the Kurds instead of asking them to soldier on with inferior weapons and inferior  military assets?  Why do we prevent the Kurds from selling their oil, and define this oil as somehow belonging to a defunct Iraq?   Why don't we tell the Sunnis that they are now free of the Shia in the south?

Of course, American policy in Iraq is not the only sign that people have taken leave of their minds.  Consider that once noble idea, a forum where all the nations could thrash out the problems of the world -- the UN.  Clearly this is an idea which has come apart.  Consider some of the world's problems; the continued abuse of women and gays, the trafficking of children, the taking of the land of one country by a more powerful neighbor, the proclamation of one country of its dedication to  destroy its neighbor, discrimination of minority ethnic groups by majority ethnic groups.  But, where does the UN focusess its attention?  On Israel, a state that offers the highest standards of human rights to women, to gays, and to minority ethnic groups within its borders.  This is not to say that Israel is free of any flaws.  But, when two fires are to be put out, one in a wastepaper basket, and the other in a house where flames are shooing out the basement windows, to which fire should the UN be directing focusing its attention on first?

ISIS or ISIL: A Really, Really Simple Solution

You won't hear this from any of TV's talking heads and don't ask me why.  But the solution to ISIS, or whatever, is to acknowledge the ethnic differences in Iraq.  Acknowledge freely that the Kurds have a claim to nationhood in the north.  Acknowledge that Sunnis have a claim to the middle and, indeed, into parts of Syria.  And, acknowledge the rights of the Shia in the south.

What's the big deal with such acknowledgements?  We acknowledged the rights of the Serbs, the Croatians, and the Bosnians in what had been formerly Yugoslavia.  That's worked out relatively well.  Why not do the same for the people of this cobbled together mess of a nation called Iraq.

Let's also acknowledge the religious dimensions of this, as is the case with so many of these failed states.  If you restrict yourself to describing it as solely a terrorist matter, you obfuscate the problem.  It is of course a terrorist matter, but it's also a struggle within the Islamic community.  (I'm not going to even try to use an Arabic word like, "uma," or "uhmah.")  The Iranians and the Saudis hold one another in contempt.  They're both Muslim countries.  Hamas and Hezbollah are both supported by Iran, but one is Sunni and one is Shiite.  The only thing that allows them to work together is their common hatred of Jews and, by extension, their hatred of Israel.

Al Queda, ISIS, and the Sunnis all share more or less the same Islamic religious views.  However, the Sunni people are a more secular people.  They do not necessarily hate the west.  Al Queda does hate the west, and, in the final analysis, was not found acceptable by their Sunni co-religionists.  ISIS is al Queda on steroids.  To win the fight against ISIS, we need the Sunnis, and that means giving the Sunnis something to fight for.  That's what the Sunni Awakening was all about.  That's when the U.S. told the Sunnis that we understood their desire to be rid of Shiite domination.  And, that's when the Sunnis began to fight alongside the Americans against al Queda.  Regrettably, the promise was not fulfilled.  (Something we should have easily foreseen.)  In other words, the Sunnis got screwed.

So why should the Sunnis work against ISIS?  Many of the ISIS military people had served under Saddam Hussein.  How driven they are by Salafist theology, I do not know.  They do, of course, fight under the Salafist banner.  And, in the end, that's all that really counts.

We really do need Sunni support.  So let's give them something to fight for and stop with this nonsense of building an Iraq nation.

The Racial Mess in America

When it comes to the racial mess in America, a few things can be said.  First,  it depends on the location.  Many, if not most, places in America, do not have a race problem.  Second, the fact that an ethnic group is not adequetly represented on a particular police force does not have to result in the situation we see playing out in Ferguson, MO.  And, thirdly, we see in this situation a lot more people running around with lit matches than we see firemen.

As to the situation, we know little other than that a white policeman shot and killed a young black man.  Policemen, as we well know, do shoot and kill men -- both whites and blacks, and on occasion, I presume, women.  That's why they wear guns.  And, in most instances, the use of the policeman's gun is more than justified.

So what's going on in Ferguson?  This crime is just now being investigated, but the community has already reached the conclusion that the officer is guilty of unjustifiably killing a black youth.  They want "justice."  So what is justice?  Is it looting small businesses in downtown Ferguson?  Sure, not each and every black person participated in the looting.  But, where were the black voices trying to stop this looting?

I see black people on TV telling their children to be extra careful when being stopped by a patrolman.  As a kid I never had to be told this, and it wasn't because I'm white.  It was because I had observed my dad when he was stopped by a patrolman.  In that situation, a more subservient individual would have been hard to find.  This wasn't my dad's normal demeanor.  But, he knew not to get wise with a cop.  I think this is not so different from other ethnic groups.  Are blacks an exception?

There is every possibility that the policeman in this case was guilty of murder.  It's equally possible that he was not -- that he was acting in line with duty.  Apparently, blacks have no confidence in the American system despite America having put a black man into the Oval Office.  This does deserve examination.  In the meantime, I would suggest that Al Sharpton put his cigarette lighter back into his pocket.

America's Dumbest Department: Its State Department

The public doesn't hear much regarding its State Department other than pronouncements by its head; namely, John Kerry.  Let me lift the veil a bit.  The President has his attributes; namely, he's a darn good compaigner.  But, clearly, he lacked the necessary experience when he entered the Oval Office.  As for Kerry, he's a man whose overall score at Yale was even lower than that of George W. Bush.

So how do these individuals make decisions on America's foreign policy.  First, of course, they turn to what they know best; namely, politics -- what will play best in the next election.  But, that gets you only so far.  For more information and advice they turn to their "experts" -- the U.S. Dept. of State.

The Dept. of State is where we presumably find the smartest foreign affairs people in Washington.  And, yet, these brilliant people seem unaware that, overseas, among peoples who have never gotten far beyond an authoritarian form of government, democracy, as we know it, isn't something that comes within days, or months, or even years.  All such people know is who their buddies are, who's in their extended family, and who shares their religious beliefs.  And, it's there that they turn in uncertain times.

And, we have examples of that; a prime one being Yugoslavia.  Through brutal means, a dictator, Tito, tied it together and presented it as a single country.  But, when Tito died, it all came apart.  Croatia went its way,  Serbia, its way, and Bosnia, its way.  It took brutal fighting -- virtually genocidal -- to make it abundantly clear that these peoples would never work together as a single nation.

Czechoslovakia did it much better.  The Czechs and the Slovaks decided it would be best if each went its own way.  Was that the best thing for the people of the former Czechoslovakia?  Who knows?  But, that's what they wanted.  And they did it in a fairly peaceful way.

Had our State Department learned nothing from seeing how people of different ethnicities relate to one another?  What possessed them to think that a nation could be cobbled together from Shiites, Kurds, and Sunnis?  Yes, Saddam Hussein, a man more brutal than Tito -- if you can imagine that -- did manage to force these people into a single nation, just as Tito had done with Yugoslavia.  But, when he died, it all came apart, just as happened in Yugoslavia.

Had these people -- the Kurds, the Shiites, and the Sunnis -- been allowed to  form their own countries, it is unlikely that we would have seen the emergence of ISIS.  Stupidity has a price, and now, in Iraq, we will have to pay for it.

Why Israel Must Vanquish Hamas As Per The NY Times

The New York Times in an article on Friday, July 25, 2014, titled, "Spectators to War, West Bank Residents Hail the Hamas Fight Against Israel" clearly demonstrates why Israel must unequivocally vanquish Hamas.  This may not have been the intention of the NY Times, when it ran this article.  But, that, nevertheless, is what Isabel Kirshner's article  makes crystal clear.

The article was written in the  "Al Amari Refugee Camp."  So, what is it with these "refugee" camps that they should be found operating not for years, but for generations.  Jews, expelled from Arab nations in equal or greater numbers, found support and sustenance among their fellow Jews.  The treatment of Palestinian "refugees" can only be explained by Arab desire to lock Palestinians into an  eternal struggle against Israel, regardless to how such camps beggared their  fellow Arabs. But, let's get on to the article.

Cited is a Maher al-Naden, a street cleaner, who describes himself as "just one of the people."   He claims to belong to no political faction.  This man has become so angry with Israel that he's decided to stop drinking Tapuzina, an Israeli orange flavored soft drink.  He is quoted as saying, "I give my children to Hamas."

Hamas, in the words of the article, "is being hailed in the West Bank as the champion of armed resistance.  And, that Abbas is being "excoriated for having failed to achieve a Palestinian state after 20 years of intermittent Israeli-Palestinian talks."

Mr. Muhammad Abu Leila, a grocery store proprietor, is reported as saying that the people do not wait for Mr. Abbas's permission to demonstrate.  That while there may be various factions among the Palestinians, there is no division (as regards Israel).

Jafar al-Najajirah, a 26-year old engineer is quoted as saying, "Even among ordinary people like myself, the camp of resistance now has the upper hand."

Really?  And, why would he say that?  Could it be that the assault (referred to as "resistance") by Hamas with it's thousands or rockets on major Israeli cities, and by means of its many tunnels into Israel, has given Hamas an upper hand?  Is it that having driven Israeli citizens into bomb shelters several times a day has given Hamas an upper hand?  Is it because, with their rockets, Hamas succeeded in cowing foreign airlines into suspending flights to Israel, even if only for a period of days?  Is it because they see Europeans, by and large, protecting the back of Hamas in its assault on Israel in a conflict where they believe Hamas has the upper hand?   To all of the above, I would say, yes -- definitely, yes.

Supporters of Fatah might not much care for Hamas, and vise versa, but all would like to see Israel destroyed.  If that's true why wasn't there the same kind of "resistance" to Israel from the West Bank that there was in Gaza?  I would argue that it was because they didn't have the means to launch that kind of offensive.  But for the "man in the street," Hamas is believed to have gained the upper hand in its offensive against Israel.  The West Bank Palestinians want to join in this campaign to destroy Israel.  West Bank streets have long been renamed for terrorists.  West Bank children have been taught in Palestinian schools that Israel is a vile and ruthless enemy deserving to be put to death.  Speeches by Fatah leaders (in Arabic) and by Muslim imams say much the same thing.  People subjected to such propaganda over their life time would delight in seeing Hamas gain the upper hand and seeing them destroy Israel.

Although the West Bank Palestinians haven't had the means to do what Hamas has done, in their  minds they see the possibility of that changing.  Will Hamas succeed?  Only Israel can keep that from even coming close to happening.  And, as per usual, they've got to do it pretty much by themselves.  Most Americans understand Israel's position.  But, regrettably, the administration of Pres. Obama seems not to.

The only way to build a proper relationship with the Palestinians is to demonstrate that their concept of "resistance" is one built on anti-Israel propaganda.  How does one convince Palestinians that the many noncombatant Palestinian casualties are the result of them having been used by Hamas as  human shields?  What can you say to a people who mourn not for the scores of children who died digging underground tunnels and storage facilities for keeping Hamas rockets and other weapons safe from Israeli fighter planes?  I don't have the answer to any of those questions.  But, what the NY Times article does show me is that Hamas must derive absolutely no benefit whatsoever from its attack on Israel.  Palestinians must be shown that so called "resistance" will only bring the people of Gaza more death and destruction.

Re Hamas/Israel: Hey, Kerry, Here's The Deal

Truces, schmuses, if the parties want peace, here's the deal:

1.  Hamas revises its charter deleting passages that call for Israel's destruction.  Gaza's borders are not in dispute.  It must accept them.

2.  Hamas forswears the use of the word "resistance," their code word for engaging in hostilities against Israel.

3.  Israel eliminates the sea blockade around Gaza and permits Gaza controlled egress and ingress for purposes of traveling to other countries or visiting Israel.

4. Israel will assist Gazans to revive their economy and infrastructure through technical assistance in any area where Israel has expertise.

5. Hamas must end hostilities and demilitarize.  That means no more rockets, no more tunnels, no more subterranean bunkers, and no more military ordinance of any sort.


The benefits that would derive from such a deal would be substantial.

a. Gaza may well have gas or oil off its shores under the Mediterranean.  If so, this would be a fine source of revenue.

b. Israel had developed a thriving flower export business.  When Sharon ordered Israelis out of Gaza, the Israelis did not destroy their hot houses.  The left them in good order for the use of the Gazans.  It was the Gazans who destroyed them.  (But, what purpose does it serve to digress?)

c. Israel has considerable expertise in desalinization, and the recycling of grey water.

d. If the energy and enterprise the Gazans showed for building tunnels could be diverted to peaceful and productive ends, there is no telling how much progress they might make in bettering their lives.

This deal depends on verification.  At present, there exists no trust.

i. Inspection at Gazas borders must include Israeli inspectors.
ii.  Israelis must be permitted to also inspect what's happening within Gaza.  Clearly, this must be done in a nonintrusive way.

Why this absence of trust?  A people who have lived many years under a charter that calls on them to eliminate the Jewish State of Israel will, no doubt, find it wrenching to suddenly be told that the Israelis are their friends.

However, Israeli can point to deeds within its country.  In the Israeli universities, there is an affirmative admittance policy that mandates that so many seats be set aside for Muslims, so many for Druze, so many for Ethiopians, etc.  The seats are set aside in proportion to their numbers in the population.  Israel can also point to various ethnic individuals of high rank in the courts, in other arms of the government and in executive positions in hospitals.  This contrasts sharply with Islamic attitudes towards gays, women and other segments of their society.

So what's holding up this deal?  Hamas hates Jews.  Hamas wants the land which Israel occupies.
For Hamas, Gaza simply isn't large enough.  How do you change that mind set?  How do you nullify the hatred of Jews drilled into the minds of their children by years and years of brainwashing?

What are your thoughts, Secretary of State, John Kerry?

NY Times: Just Sit Back And Enjoy Its Nonsensical Reporting

The NY Times, Wed, July 16, ran the following piece on Page A6, "Gazans, Wanting Deep Change, Are Ambivalent on Egypt's Truce Plan."

Enjoy these exhibits of reporting by the NY Times:

" . . . . when Israel resumed airstrikes after a six-hour pause on Tuesday . . . ."  No mention of why airstrikes were resumed.  Could it be that Hamas took the initiative in resuming hostilities by firing more of its rockets?  For the NY Times, that's not relevant.

"Every time, they have a cease-fire, but then everything comes back: the siege, the closures," (a Gazan grandmother) is quoted as saying.  "Then they bomb again."

Who wants to press a kindly old grandmother for answers that everyone, other than this grandmother, seems aware of.  Namely, the resumption of rocket fire by Hamas.  The siege, the closures are instituted by the Israelis to keep Gaza free of the rockets supplied by Iran or other parties friendly to Hamas.

If the NY Times wants to replicate the Jay-Walk style of interviewing when  it speaks to people hostile to Israel, that's their business.  But, is this the best way of catering to the interests of their elite readers?

"Short, but devastating wars deepen the misery," reports the writer, Anne Barnard.  Okay, but who exactly is it that begins these wars?

"(Hamas) demands that Israel release prisoners, and, along with Egypt, lift border restrictions that have gutted a weak economy," reports the writer.

Terrorist organizations, which is what Hamas is, order suicide bombings of Israeli citizens.  When Israel manages to catch the perpetrators, it imprisons them.  The sentences are based on the culpability of the terrorist.  (Did the terrorist plant the bomb, or did he simply drive the bomber to where the bomb was to be set off.)  Why in the world should Israel release these criminals?

The restrictions on Gazans are unquestionably onerous.  But why are the restrictions put in place in the first place?  Maybe the Egyptians aren't happy to have Hamas offer aid and comfort to the Muslim Brotherhood.  Maybe the Israelis are puzzled as to why Hamas would expect Israel to act any differently towards them when the the Hamas constitution calls for its citizens to wipe out Israel and Israelis.  Do you think?

"Who would want to be bombed ?" asks a Gazan doctor.  Well, what about Hamas.  Hamas knows that they can't vanquish Israel militarily.  So, why fire rockets at the Israelis?  Is it possible that they would hope that the UN and their European supporters would issue edicts that would hobble Israel's efforts to protect itself?  Then too, it brings Hamas leaders bushels of money from sympathetic donors.  As it once enriched Arafat, and then Abbas, it now enriches the Hamas leadership.  This as their citizens suffer.  

"We have a right to defend ourselves against occupation," one Gazan is quoted as saying.

Really?  What occupation?  Ending the Israeli blockade is the simplest thing in the world.   Just end the Hamas campaign to destroy Israel.  Work cooperatively with the Israelis for the betterment of both peoples.  But, that's not really possible, is it?  Not while the Hamas charter calls for the destruction of Israel and Israelis.

If the NY Times wishes to act as propaganda sheet for terrorist organizations, not a million letters to the editor will change anything.  So, just sit back and enjoy the show.

On Iraq; Biden Was Right

I'm not all that impressed with Joe Biden, but early on -- some years ago -- he said Iraq should be divided into three parts; namely, a part for the Kurds up north, a part for the Sunnis in the middle, and a part for the Shia down south.  And, while l don't have a crystal ball this is what now seems to be happening  except with a great deal more blood letting than was necessary.

Under Hussein, the Sunnis dominated Iraq.  Then after knocking over Hussein, we turned it over to Maliki who ruled it in behalf of the Shia.  Neither arrangement worked well.  If the Croats, the Serbs, and the Muslims can's live in together in a place once called Yugoslavia, what makes anyone think that the Sunni, Shia and Kurds can pull off this trick in Iraq?  We know Obama isn't very bright, but how do you account for the continuing stupidity of the U.S. Department of State?  These were the same idiots who said that anyone in Iraq who had been in the Baath Party could no longer hold a government job.  They couldn't be teachers, policemen, sanitation workers, etc.  So what happened? The place went to hell.

When you're dealing with countries that have no tradition of democracy, it's going to come down to a contest between two extremes.  In Chile it was the forces under Pinochet versus the leftists under Allende.  In Egypt it was the Muslim Brotherhood versus the Army.  And, in the middle of Iraq we set it up so that it would be the Sunnis versus the Shia.  (The Kurds, for all practical purposes, had already set up their own government.)

Under Pinochet, Chile evolved into a nation that we would recognize as a democracy.   In Egypt, with the defeat of the Muslim Brotherhood, the process has just begun.  In the middle of lraq, an extremist group has entered into the fray to dislodge the Shia from lands traditionally Sunni.  Should this come as a surprise?  The question is whether once the Sunnis have secured the land traditionally theirs can secularism be again established?  Or, will it become another Saudi Arabia?  To be continued.

Evolution to democracy seems to take far longer under communist control.  Look at Cuba.

Eric Cantor And Immigration

It would be wonderful to be a political talking head.  They spew such nonsense and get paid so well for doing so.  My apologies to exceptions such as Joe Scarborough.

Despite all the ridiculous explanations as to Eric Cantor's defeat in Virginia, it will not be the reason for an immigration bill to fail this session.  Immigration may indeed fail to move forwards, but it has nothing to do with Cantor's defeat.

Cantor's defeat was due to a duffer's error.  It's one he should never have made, but, regrettably,  he did.  He failed to campaign.  He failed to organize town halls.  He failed to visit Rotary meetings and the like.  He failed to press the flesh.  Why?  His polling numbers showed him as a shoo in.  Numbers can be useful, but they're not the end all and be all of politics.  You've got to get out and campaign.  You've got to get out and tell the citizens what you've done and what you hope to do in your next term.  You can't do that sitting in Washington and think you can leave the heavy lifting to your ad campaign.  Regrettably, no one explained this to Cantor.

As to immigration:  That's a totally separate issue and one that's rarely presented properly to the American public.  Everyone gets tied up with the word, "amnesty."  That's ridiculous.  The key to this problem is "borders."  When a thousand unsupervised kids cross the border from Mexico into Texas, you know something's gone really wrong.  If a kid can do it, presumably anyone can do it.  What in the world is going on?

The president loves issuing his presidential initiatives.  Why hasn't he issued one of his initiatives to close the borders?  It doesn't require a ditch filled with alligators.  Electronic fencing, drones and a few helicopters will do nicely.  Anyone can get an immigration bill passed if they first assure the public that they have the will to seal the border.   This administration has failed to show the American public that they have the will to do it.

My goodness, our president, can free five of the worst Taliban fighters we had in Guantanamo in exchange for a turncoat, but he can't free a hapless U.S. marine who took a wrong turn at the Mexican border and now rots in a Mexican prison.  What sort of neighbor is this Mexico?

Doesn't anyone connect the dots?

When Friends Abandan You -- Pivot

America was and remains one of Israel's staunchest supporters.  European support largely eroded because of ancient prejudices and modern multiculturalism.  This is relevant in light of the Islamic fundamentalist's fervent hopes and wishes that a mighty Nakba will be visited on Israel and its people.

Unfortunaely, with the current administration's foreign policy, matters become more complicated.  The American people continue to support Israel.  Unfortunately, this posture doesn't seem reflected in the posture of the administration which now seems to be identifying itself most closely with European attitudes.

A few facts:  France is proceeding with the construction of advanced battle vessels for the Russians. Why should they take the brunt of the damage that would result to their economy by now scuttling this enormous contract?  Germany is reluctant to make any serious moves against Russia because of its dependance on Russian gas and oil.

Israel ordered some ships from German ship yards.  Germany now appears to be in the process of rejecting these order because of Israel's intensions to build homes beyond the Green Line.

What the Europeans conveniently forget is that the current status between Israel and the Palestinians (Call it the Peace Process if you will, but it has precious little to do with "peace.") has stemmed from the Oslo Accord entered into by Israel and the Palestinians.  What the Palestinians -- more precisely, Arafat -- got from Oslo was the right to establish the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank.  What the Israelis got was (1) relinquishing the need to administer most of the affairs of the Palestinians and (2) to leave the boundaries for further negotiations.

The problem is that there was little incentive for Arafat to negotiate the final borders.  He was getting lots of money for himself and his extended family.  That situation didn't change with the ascendancy of Abbas.

Europeans have decided, on no legal basis, that the boundaries should be such-and-such.  Their opinions on these matters strongly favor the Palestinians.  Now it appears our administration is leaning in the same direction as the Europeans.

So what is Israel to do?  I'm not sure I know, but I do feel I see where they are going.  I see them turning to Russia and China.  (Note: Israel did not support an American resolution in the UN on Crimea and the Ukraine.  Israel's excuse:  their foreign service was on strike at the time and they couldn't cross picket lines.  Really!  Note: Israel and China have agreed on a very large research development institute to be located in China and staffed by Chinese and Israelis.)

I realize full well that the Russians and the Chinese don't share America's values.  Putin's move on Crimea was pretty much the moves of Hitler in his Anschluss with Austria.  (Had Hitler played his cards right,  Austria today might be a part of Germany.)  And, what's China doing sitting on Tibet?  But, even more frightening, what's China doing claiming an entire ocean?  Scary.  Then too the internal legal systems of these two nations seem, to put it kindly, under developed.

But look at it from Israel's point of view.  Historically, Ukraine never had much use for Jews.  And, however the Russians-speakers got there, those in Crimea seemed to have favored breaking away from Ukraine and becoming a part of Russia.   It's not a situation in which Israel needs to get itself caught up in.  And, as far as China goes, the ocean to which China is laying claim is very far from Israel.

And, what do the Arabs have to offer Russia and China.  In the case of China, the answer is easy:  oil.
But China's been taking care of its oil needs.  They recently concluded a huge deal with the Russians for Russian oil.  It's true that China buys a lot of oil from the Middle East.  But, the Middle East has the same need to sell to China as China has a need to buy.  China is trying to reduce their need for coal.  Maybe they're concerned with pollution.  However, our administration's attack on coal as a fuel might also have given the Chinese some second thoughts.

Although Iran would seem to be a competitor to the Russians in the oil market, what are the Iranians doing with their oil money?  Why, of course, they're buying weapons from Russia.

Then consider the Saudis.  Their interests seem to line up better with those of Israel then they do with those of the current American administration.

So what are Israel's choices?  What China wants is the latest in technology and the means to get on top of technology issues.  Israel has a track record and China knows this.  That could make for a great relationship between China and Israel.  What does Russia want?  Petty much the same as China.  They do have one other interest; namely, a finger in Israel's new found energy pie.  And, here, Israel seems willing to play with them in a manner agreeable to the Russians.

And, where do the Palestinians fit into all of this.  They're still counting on the Europeans and, now, the Americans to support them.  Let me ask  you?  If you knew you were getting into a knife fight, who would you want to have on your side?  The Europeans and the Americans, or the Russians and the Chinese?  You and I don't have to answer this question, but the Israelis do.

Brussels Jew Murderer Follows The Pattern

They caught the murderer of Jews in the Brussels Jewish Museum.  Mehdi Nemmouche was his  name.

His life confirms the pattern by which a Muslim turns into a Jew-hater and murderer:

1. The Muslim finds himself growing in religiosity.

2. He encounters a personal economic crisis that he attributes to discrimination against Muslims.

3. Ideological radicalization occurs under the influence of a local preacher.

4. Enlistment in a terror organization.

If Muslims in America wish to shed the taint of any connection to radical Islam, they must intervene in "1" and "3" above.  In the case of "1," it's their responsibility to guide anyone moving towards greater religiosity onto a path of peace.  In the case of "3", it is their responsibility to neutralize the influence of local preachers who would lead Muslims down a path of fundamentalism.

Muslims in America probably have little, or no, influence over outside terror organizations.  Also, to counsel against increased religiosity would, no doubt, violate basic tenets of their faith.  But what they can do, as mentioned above, is not inconsequential.

Pope Francis Tours The Middle East - No Surprises

Some Jews are annoyed with stops made by the Pope in the course of his visits to the West Bank and Israel.  They couldn't understand why he'd want to focus on the wall of separation which has saved so many Israeli lives.  And, why was he effusive with Peres and essentially gave a cold shoulder to Netanyahu?  And, why did he refer to the "State of Palestine," when clearly the West Bank has not yet achieved statehood?

Should any of this surprise an observer with the slightest bit of sophistication?  Of course not.  Pope Francis did what can be expected of any pope.  He did whatever he felt he could to sustain and support the Christians in the Middle East.  The Christians in Israel are of little concern to him.  They're doing just fine.  It's the Christians living under the rule of the Palestinian Authority.  They've had their land stolen from them.  They and their families have been subject to assault.  Pope Francis is aware of how their numbers in Bethlehem and other places on the West Bank, where they were once numerous, are now in decline.

I have no idea what understandings the Pope arrived at with Abbas, but would it be any surprise if he let Abbas know that if he protected Christians in the West Bank and Christian holy sites,  he'd do whatever he could for Abbas to swing advantageous publicity in his direction?

Don't get angry at the Pope.  If you were Pope, you'd probably do the same thing.

Eeny, Meeny, Meiny, Moe . . . . .

Eeny, meeny, meiny, Moe . . .  watch the bird, now where'd he go . . .  flew to where the roses grow . . . grab him quick, then let him go . . .  that's my bit and now you're it.

Ever hear that said.  Of course not.  Except, perhaps, for the first four words.  The original version of that childish doggerel comes from a time best forgotten.  But, of course, there was such a time.

There was also a time when little back Sambo met a tiger and ......    It ends happily, however.  The tiger turns to butter, little black Sambo gets his clothes back, and moma, daddy, and little, black Sambo all get to eat stacks and stacks of pancakes.  Was that a racist story?  Don't know.  Possibly.

Then there was big, heavy, Aunt Jemima smiling broadly as she was pictured on a box of powdered pancake mix holding a plate piled high with pancakes.  Since then, she's been redrawn as a svelte African-American, who, in real life, would probably avoid pancakes.

What I'm saying is that when some big, British TV celebrity was caught mouthing the Eeny, meeny, meiny, Moe bit, as he stood there on the sidewalk seeing which taxi was most likely to pick him up, he came within a hair's width of getting fired by BBC.

Old men aren't necessarily racist; they're just old and can sometimes be caught mumbling weird shit.

To Clipper's Owner Don Sterling: She Got You

I was tempted to stop the publication of this blog.  I felt, and continue to feel, that the information on issues relating to the Democrats vs the Republicans, about Obama and his administration, and about the war being waged by Europeans and the Palestinians on Israel as they try to weaken and bring down that democracy is becoming so abundant that it's difficult for someone like myself to add much, if anything at all, that is new and not easily found elsewhere.

But, today I came across an issue that, in my opinion, is not being presented fairly.  It's the issue of the Clipper's owner, Don Sterling, and his racism.  What I've read is all nonsense.

I gave little thought to this matter until I heard the tape given to the news media by his girl friend (I heard it on a Yahoo news posting).  Anyone for whom this matter has any importance should listen to the actual tape.  If they do, I believe they will realize that Don Sterling is an idiot -- but he's not a racist.

The guy's immensely rich and consequently knows, or should know, how society works.   You should not -- I repeat, not -- become involved with a girl 20 years younger than yourself.  Why this isn't apparent to older guys is a mystery to me.  Sure, I understand that the urges that propel one to the opposite gender generally continues long after the power of a man's testosterone has abated.  It's a trick that nature seems to enjoy playing on men as their hair whitens and their muscles begin to slacken.  It matters not that they are now on heart medicines and goodness knows what other kinds of medicines.  They remain addicted to the warm, soft feel of a young lady's skin.  They still enjoy fondling those firm breasts and thighs and to be caressed by those soft, moist lips.

But, if you're not super rich you quickly realize that it'll never happen.  You're old.  You realize, if you think about it, that the girls you desire are the age of your children, or more often, your grandchildren.  It's time to give it up.  Find another interest.  If you still desire a wet kiss, get a dog.

But, when you're super rich, this doesn't seem quite so obvious.  Hot babes will share your bed with no qualms.  They know, if they do it right, there will be a nice payoff.  They might inherit lot's of money, or, if they're really bright, a share in a profitable company.  Their payoff can come in many forms.  But, again, the payoff can be really substantial.  Why don't guys like sterling get it.

Listen to the tape of Sterling and his girl friend.  It become immediately clear that the girl made the tape.  And, for what other reason than to hand it to the press.  Listen to the tape and you realize that, after expressing his opinions as to her dating, he really wants to end the conversation.  But, she maneuvers in such a way that she keeps him talking.  She tries to get him to say the most awful racists things possible.  But, he doesn't.

When I listened to him on tape, what I heard him say was that he didn't want her to be associating in public with black men.  If she did it privately, that was okay.  If she chose to be intimate with a black guy, even that was okay with him.  All he asked was that she keep it private.

And, he made clear the reason for his request.  He felt that whites believed that blacks had a special affinity for other blacks.  Whether that's true is neither here nor there.   If she were to date a white guy, he could imagine people wondering whether she was being faithful to him.  But, if she mingled and dated black guys, that question might more likely be raised.  Is it really be so difficult for one to envision a player saying to fellow athletes,  "He's got us playing for him, but, hey, bro I got his girl."

That this young lady cared not a whit for Sterling is crashingly obvious.  She made the tape.  She gave out the tape.  And there could have been only one purpose; namely, to humiliate Don Sterling.
And, his humiliation is fully justified.  Not because he is a racist, but because he ought to know better than to be involved with someone who presumably could be his granddaughter.  How in the world could he expect any reciprocity of affection!

Tom Steyer Vs The Koch Bros.

George Soros has bankrolled one liberal project after another.  His projects include launching a de facto effort to eliminate the American Electoral College.  And, of course, let's not overlook the  project that led to the establishment of J Street. How little attention the American press pays him and his involvement in these efforts.

The Koch brothers however are written about incessantly.  Imagine the nerve of these billionaire brothers to be funding the campaigns of those individuals they'd like to see get elected!

Oprah Winfrey was one of Holiwood's major financial supporters of Obama.  There was an occasional mention during the campaign, but little else.

Now, we have a new name, Tom Steyer.  This billionaire environmental extremist has promised $100 million to support the campaigns of Democratic candidates opposing the Keystone XL pipeline.
No one is arguing that Mr. Steyer does not have the right to spend his money in this way.  No doubt, Robert Redford and other supporters of the Green Movement are delighted.  They, in every likelihood, have added a few dollars to Steyer's cause.

But here's the problem:  A. The XL pipeline is a shovel-ready works project that would cost the government (American tax payers) zero dollars.  B.  The sand oil that American economists would love to see being refined in American facilities and sold by Americans to domestic and overseas customers will leave Canada. one way or another.  The only question is whether the oil will go to American facilities or to Chinese facilities via Canada's west coat ports.  C. Canadian tar sand is already being shipped in some amounts to southern refineries, by rail.  But, the XL pipeline would be cheaper and safer. D. The energy extracted from Canadian tar sands would be one more source of fuel.   In a small way it would contribute to the world's energy supply which would hopefully have a depressing effect on the price of Russian oil and gas, one of Russia's few exportable products.

Republican legislators understand the value that the XL pipeline offers this country.  So do a number of Democrats.  These Democrats include the following:

Mark Begich, Alaska
Mark Udall, Colorado
Mary Landrieu, Louisiana

These Democratic politicians would profit quite directly from the XL pipeline.  But, many  Democrats, not as directly affected by Obama's delaying action on this project, can easily see the merit of this pipeline.  So where are we?  We're watching a Democratic president who favors taking a $100 million-dollar, political payoff rather than doing what's in the best interest of Americans.

Team Obama

Anyone leading a large and important enterprise, be it a major American company or something as complex as our nation requires a dedicated team to carry forth his vision and implement those things that need implementing.  It's almost impossible for leader to do the job all by him or herself.  So let's take a moment to call forth the members of Obama's team, the men and women who work the long, hard hours carrying forth Obama's goals.

White House Advisor: Valerie Jarrett (Father-in-law worked closely with Communist Party leader, FrankMarshal Davis.  They worked with front groups during the Cold War.)

Political Aide: David Axelrod (Mother worked with Communist organ in New York. Mentor was the       Soviet agent, David Canter)

Green Jobs Czar:  Van Jones  (Admitted communist hired by Valerie Jarrett.)

2012 Obama's foreign policy debate coach: Anita Dunn (Listed Mao Zedong one of her two favorite philosophers, who "(She) turn(ed) to most" when questions arise)

Regulatory Czar:  Cass Sunstein  (Advocates redistribution of wealth through climate change policy.)

Ambassador to the UN:  Samantha Powers (A 9/11 apologist.)

Former State Department policy chief: Anne-Marie Slaughter (Advised Obama to apologize for the War on Terror.)

Mideast envoy:  Rashad Hussein (Defended a convicted terrorist.  Drafted Obama's Cairo speech.)

Chief nuclear arms negotiator: Rose Gottemoeller (Felt America had to unilaterally disarm to preserve the peace.)

Assistant HUD secretary for fair housing:  John Transvina (Had once headed the radical Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund, whose co-founder made racist statements about
whites.)

Head of White House domestic policy: Cecilia Munoz (Previously worked for La Raza, the militant Latino group that advocates illegal immigrant rights.)

Bureau of Labor Statistics chief:  Erica Groshen  (Sends her children to Camp Kinderland, where kids during the Cold War sang Soviet anthems.)

Science czar:  John Holdren (Once advocated adding sterilant to "drinking water" to control  population.)

Former State Department general counsel: Harold Koh  (Sees nothing wrong with Shariah law in U.S. Courts.)

Associate attorney general overseeing Gitmo policy:  Tony West (Defended Al Qaida and Taliban terrorists.)


We give thanks and honor these men and women who fill all Americans with pride.

Apres Vous Great Britain

Ve vill punish zat evil lout and dastardly criminal, ze Russian Putin said, in essence, Laurent Fabius, Foreign Minister of France.  More precisely, he said that France would halt its 1.2 billion Euro contract to supply two Mistral helicopter carriers to Russia as one of the steps to be taken to show its anger regarding Russia's behavior in Crimea.  There was but one caveat.  Other western nations would have to take equivalent steps. In particular, the Minister called on the UK to take steps of equal magnitude regarding the assets of Russian oligarchs in London.

The stakes for western nations are quite high.  Anything done against the assets of the Russians in London, would impact the London financial market quite severely.  Nevertheless, the stakes are equally high for the French.  The assault ships and helicopters represent 1,000 French jobs at a time when the French military budget is shrinking.

It's a very, very big deal and France is quite correct in demanding that its allies take like measures.

St. Scarlett Vanquishes Oxfam

Oxfam never saw it coming.  That’s what happens when you get complacent.  

It seemed like it would be so easy.  Didn’t everyone beat up on Israel — the UN, the Europeans, and hoards of NGO’s?  So what happened to Oxfam?  In a word, Saint Scarlett.  Scarlett Johansson that is, a  once spokes lady for Oxfam.

This sweet little girl, shilling for SodaStream, seemed like she’d be such an easy target.  Wasn't she already a promoter of Oxfam's altruistic goals?  Wouldn't waggling their finger at her suffice to bring her into line?  So they waggled and waggled until St. Scarlett turned around and tore off the offending finger.

Sure, SodaStream made its product in factories, some of which were located just over some line and on the West Bank.  But, SodaStream also employed hundreds of Palestinians who they paid on the same scale as Israelis and with exactly the same benefits.  It gave these workers far more income than they could hope to earn elsewhere on the West Bank.

“What kind of NGO is this Oxfam?” asked Scarlett.  Hadn’t they been created to help downtrodden people?  What were they doing involving themselves in a political dispute.  And, then Scarlett Johansson delivered her coup de grace.  She removed from Oxfam her seal of approval. 

The Sami and The Jews

Everyone knows all about the Jews, so let's start with the Sami.  These are a people close to the Arctic.  In a sense they're somewhat like the Inuit of Canada and Alaska.  The Sami are found in the northern most areas of Sweden, Finland and Russia.

The current attitude of the Swedes toward their Sami population is quite benign.  Indeed, while rules regarding he slaughter of various animals have been tightened and now requires that the animal be stunned (knocked out) before it is killed, the Sami people have been  granted an exception.  Their slaughter of reindeer requires no initial stunning.

Indeed, the Sami have been granted the right by Sweden to herd reindeer as they did in days of old.  There are, however, some modern twists regarding the herding.  They often use helicopters to drive the deer into close quarters.  The sound of the low flying copter will generally cause the herd to panic and bang into one another, leading to broken legs.

But the Swedes are an understanding people.  The Sami have herded reindeer for hundreds and hundreds of years.  They allow the Sami to continuing the herding the reindeer and slaughter in ways they have always followed, because the Sami are a "protected minority" under Swedish law.

But, what about the Jews?   Aren't they a minority in Sweden?  And, don't they and their Jewish ways also deserve protection?  It is important for Jews that their meat be kosher.  It means slaughtering the animal in the correct way.  If the animal to be kosher, it must have a knife drawn across its carotid arteries.  No stunning allowed.  The animal is unconscious within a second or two and death follows.  There is no herding involved, no animal abuse; simply a fast death that is virtually pain free.

But, Sweden has passed the same laws disallowing kosher slaughter and requiring that the animal be first stunned as have other European countries.  There is no Sami exemption for Jews despite their small numbers in Sweden and their desire to remain faithful to their Jewish beliefs and practices.  The practice Sweden towards the Jews is clearly discriminatory.  Indeed, it is anti-Semitic behavior.  Shame on you Sweden.

Soft Predjudices

The other night my wife and I shared a pizza with a lovely couple we had recently met.  The wife of the other couple was from Lebanon.  She had immigrated to this country not that long ago and had a strong middle eastern accent.  Her husband was from New England.  It was the second marriage for both and both seemed very happy.  I should further note that the wife, let's call her Betty, was Lebanese Christian.  The husband, let's call him Jake, was Jewish.

In the course of our conversation, we learned that Betty's father was relatively wealthy.  He owned Lebanese fabric mills and orange orchards.  These assets kept him and his sons anchored to Lebanon.  Betty would visit the family once a year.

Our conversation, not all that surprisingly, drifted to Israel and the Arabs.  Betty mentioned that Sharon had been put on trial.   Her English, not being all that polished, led me to believe she was referring to a trial that Sharon might have been put on for his responsibility in the Sabra and Shatila massacre.   I tried to frame her comments by reminding her that this massacre of Palestinians had been committed by Lebanese Christians in retaliation for the murder of a Christian leader by the Palestinians.

"Oh, no, it wasn't the Christians," replied Betty.  "Christian leaders in Lebanon killed one another.  They kill each other's families.  They didn't kill Palestinians.

She had me stumped.  I only knew what I had read in the newspapers and that was was quite different than what she was now telling me.   But, than again, I had read this quite some time ago.

I pointed out that if the Arabs had accepted Israel in '48, they would have had far more territory than what they where now trying to get.  I also pointed out that Jews absorbed their fellow Jews from the various Islamic nations from which they were forced to flee and I further noted that the numbers of these Jewish refugees was equivalent to the number of Palestinians displaced by the conflict between Israel and the various Arab countries that had attacked Israel.

And then suddenly it came; that old, soft anti-Semitism.  "But, the Jews had money," said Betty.

"Really?  I responded.  "Well, no doubt, some did.  In any population, some will be poor and some wealthy.  Possibly, because of their greater literacy, the Jews might have been better off than the average Arab.  But, of course, when they were forced from their homes, they could take with them nothing but the clothes on their back and whatever they managed to stick in a suitcase.  They were forbidden to take out any money, or gold, or jewelry.  And, even if they managed to sneak out some money, how much could it have been?  Their property and fixed assets which had been accumulated over generations were lost."

"They had money," repeated Betty.

I then brought up those Arabs who enjoyed good relations with the Jews; namely, Druze, Kurds, and Bahai's.   "They Druze, " said Betty, "they are not so nice."

"Really?  What's the matter with them?" I asked.

"They have their secrets," she replied.

I laughed.  "Yes, indeed.  They keep their religion a secret from others.  So?"  I asked.

"They have some strange ideas.  Their spirit comes out ......"  said Betty finding it difficult to explain in English exactly what she wanted to say about the Druze belief system.

"Yes, I know," I said.  "They believe that when they die their spirit flits over to a baby just being born."

"Yes," confirmed Betty, "They believe that."  She was happy that I now showed that I understood just how peculiar the Druze were.

"But the Jews are pretty nasty to the Palestinians," offered Jake.

"Really?  How so?" I asked.

"They destroy Palestinian homes.  The force the people out into the street and then blow up their house," he replied.

"I suppose they will do that on occasion," I said.   "But why do you imagine they'd do that?" I asked.

"They don't like the Palestinians," he replied.

"Wrong," I said.  "They do it when the building was put up illegally.  You can't just put up a building and move in.  You can't do it in New York, you can't do it in Florida, and you can't do it in Israel."

"Well, what about the settlements where they take over Palestinian land," asked Jake.

"Ah, yes, Palestinian land," I replied.  "Help me out.  Do you mean land that belonged to individual Palestinians or to land that had been owned by Jordan?"

"Does it make a difference?" asked Jake.

"Certainly," I replied.  "If it was Jordanian land, Israel had every right to take it.  If it's the land of some Palestinian, Israeli's have to buy it.  They can't just take a Palestinian's property.  They've got to buy it."

"Who's to say the land belonged to Jordan or to some Palestinian?" asked Jake.  "What's to keep Israelis from saying that the land belonged to Jordan, even if it didn't?"

"Good question.  Here's the answer.  Before the English and French cut up the territories, all the land was under the rule of the Ottoman Empire.  All land deeds, even after the French and British took over, continued to be filed in Istanbul," I answered.

"That's right," said Betty.  "My father's land is filed in Istanbul."

What the above conversation told me was that Betty and Jake are fine people.  They're not against Israel, and certainly not against Jews.  But they've been exposed to years and years of Palestinian  propaganda.  What's surprising is that what prejudices they may have are relatively "soft" prejudices. They really don't hate Israel, they're just poorly informed.

The One-Eyed Thomas L. Friedman

Friedman has done some fine reporting.  But, he's also said some awfully dumb things.  I was reminded of this when I read his item, "Breakfast Before The MOOC," an Op-Ed piece in the NY Times, Feb. 19, 2004.

Some explanation: MOOC refers to any "massive open online course."  In his Op-Ed piece,  Friedman describes a MOOC being taught by Prof. Hossam Haick, an Israeli Arab.  Prof. Haick is teaching a MOOC on nanotechnology under the auspices of Technion University in both Arabic and English to students who have registered to take this free online course in such places as Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the like.

Prof. Haick's Ph.D. is from the Technion.  (His father also graduated from the Technion.)  Prof. Hossam Haick is 38 and is described by Thomas Friedman as a science prodigy.  Twelve years ago, Israeli Arabs made up 9% of Technion's students.  Mr. Friedman points out that today the figure is 19%.

It's all good, and I would challenge nothing that Mr. Friedman said up to this point.  However, let me now point to information Mr. Friedman did not provide.  First, what kind of Arab is Prof. Haick (Anyone who speaks Arabic as his first language is an Arab, and this could conceivably include Jews.  I doubt it does include Jews because of the Jew's love of their Hebrew language.  But, it would not be amiss to describe a recent Jewish immigrant from Yemen as an Arab.  Again, while it might technically be correct to do so, it is unlikely that even an Arab-speaking Jew would be referred to as an Arab.  It would simply be too confusing.)  It is not inappropriate to ask whether Prof. Haick is Druze, or Bahai, or Sunni Muslim, or Christian.  As Mr. Friedman must know these differences among the Arab populaltion are relevant and do matter.

Mr. Friedman also really ought to tell his readers that Israel practices affirmative action.  In other words, that their universities set aside places for non-Jewish students, roughly in proportion to their  numbers in the Israeli population.

What Mr. Friedman can not help but share with his readers are references to Israel's "ugly West Bank occupation," and "economic discrimination against Israeli Arabs."   Here, Mr. Friedman must be seeing things through his blind eye.  The ugliness of conditions in the West Bank result not from Israel's administrative efforts so much as from the history if Palestinian intifadas,   from their assaults  on Israeli vehicles,  from their murder of Israeli citizens, and from the desire of a significant number of Palestinians to blow up buses carrying Israeli women and children.  The hatred that drives this behavior is carefully nurtured by the Palestinian leadership through their news organizations, through their schools, and through any other means of communication available to them.

The separation between Israel and the West Bank, whether by electric fence, or by concrete barrier, is not particularly attractive.  I don't believe the Swiss have any such barriers between themselves and their German, French, or Italian neighbors.  But, then, it should be pointed out, these neighbors don't go around trying to kill Swiss citizens.

And, what exactly does Mr. Friedman refer to when he says that Israel discriminates economically  against Israeli Arabs?  If Mr. Friedman didn't suffer from his optic affliction, he'd recognize that economic well being varies greatly between Jews as it does between different Israeli Arab groups.  He must know that secular Jews educate their daughters to the same extent as they do their sons.  Secular wives generally go out and work.  Hassidic Jews, however, generally finds the men studying Torah all day.  The education they give their daughters tends to be inadequate in the face of today's needs.

The situation is somewhat similar with Israeli Arabs.  Druze and Christian Arabs generally give their daughters an education equal to that of their sons.  As a consequence, the standard of living of these families matches that of secular Jews.  The same is very likely true for secular Muslims.  But, poor Muslims with no education other than their memorization of verses from the Koran and perhaps some knowledge of the Hadith and Sunnah act pretty much the way the Hassidim do.  They educate their daughters poorly and then marry them off as soon as possible.  Although it is in violation of Israeli law, a number of Muslims continue to practice polygamy.  This life style, as Mr. Friedman should realize is not conducive to a family's economic well being.

The problems of the Palestinians on the West Bank has little to do with the Israelis and everything to do with the corruption of past and present Palestinian leaders.  What motivation did Arafat have to make peace with the Israelis?  He was piling up mountains of money in his Swiss bank accounts.  Peace would have undermined his economic well being.  The situation has not changed, except that today, it is Abbas who is piling up the money.

One can only wish that Thomas Friedman had two good eyes.

A Peace Treaty Between The Palestinians And Israel: Unlikely

The other day, the administration had Thomas Friedman, of the NY Times, launch a trial balloon regarding a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians.  Anyway, that's what I'm guessing.  I might be wrong.  Friedman's article might have sprung full strength from his own fertile mind.  But, whichever the case, it doesn't really matter.  It's not likely to happen.

The deal envisioned includes the following:

1. No return of Palestinians to homes they claim in Israel.
2. Recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.
3. Establishing east Jerusalem as the Palestinian capitol.
4. No permanent presence of Israelis along the Jordanian border.
5. Using the '79 truce line between Israel and the Jordanians as the basis for drawing the boundary between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

The first problem we meet, however, is the division in the Muslim leadership between Hamas in Gaza and the Fatah leadership on the west bank.  Are the Palestinian people one people or are they two peoples?  it's a question of considerable consequence.  Clearly it figures into a number of the issues listed above.

But putting aside for a moment questions raised by Hamas in Gaza, let's turn to the 5 issues listed above.   Right of return is a dead issue.  It would change the character of Israel and I don't see Israel letting that happen.

Israel is what it is; namely, a Jewish state.  If Israel is to give unconditional recognition to the Palestinians then that is what the Palestinians must do vis-a-vis Israel.  There is some irony in the Palestinian position when one considers that Israel has Muslims in its state, whereas the Palestinians will accept absolutlely no Jews in theirs.

The '79 border issue is also a none issue.  It was merely a truce line between Jordan and the State of Israel arrived at after the Jordanian army failed in its effort to destroy Israel.  This border may be considered holy by the UN and the global Arab community but that does not make it so.

East Jerusalem is a side issue to the border issue, but one with far greater relevance to Israel and Jews everywhere.  Jerusalem, the city of David, has been forever in the prayer services of the Jews.  It is never mentioned in the Koran.   Is Israel now to give up a piece of its sacred city to the Palestinians?  That's ridiculous.  And, one more fact: Divided cities don't work.  Name one.

But a factor as important as all the other factors named above is that Israel simply can not trust the Palestinians.  Consider the Arab spring and what it tells us about todays Muslims.  In Egypt the secular Muslims found it intolerable to live under the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood.  But, suppose the Muslim Brotherhood had retained power.  Their support of Hamas would have made Israel's border with Gaza far more dangerous than it already is.

Consider the events in Syria.  At one time some Israelis considered returning the Golan to Syria, if some sort of peace treaty could have been struck.  We can now see what a dangerous idea that was.  It will never happen.

The situation in Syria teaches us another lesson; namely, radical Islamists will flock to whatever Muslim struggle invites them in.  Today, Muslim radicals from Europe, some from the U.S., more from the Balkans, from Australia and from Malaysia have come into Syria to do battle with Shiite forces.  And, of course, Assad, Iran and Hezbollah represent the Shiites.  Suppose, at some future time, hostilities were to break out between Israel and the Palestinians?  You might ask, why would you even contemplate such a scenario?  The answer is simple.  While Israel has been trying to lay a foundation for peace, the Palestinians have been sowing hatred of Israel and Jews in their schools and among their people.  They speak in pacifist tones when they speak in English.  In Arabic, they incite hatred.

When they elevate Nakba to a national holiday, they do not mourn Muslim defeats at the hands of the Israelis; they mourn the very founding of the State of Israel.  When they elevate the status of terrorists to that of national heroes, what chance does peace have?  When israel tries to develop economic ties with Palestinian business people -- opportunities that result in Palestinian employment at wage levels that equal those of the Israelis -- Fatah objects.  They view it as "normalization."  I can see their point.  But, unless the process of building trust is allowed to begin, how can trust ever be established?

It appears Gaza can be contained if Israel exercises sufficient diligence.  Hopefully, the same is true of Hezbollah to the north.  And, then, we have Syria.  But, if the west bank is allowed to become one more base of Islamist operations against Israel, that will be one base too many.

And now we have an administration in America, which seems not to know where its own best interests lie in the Middle East.  Can Israel allow such an administration to set the terms under which Israel must proceed?  Obama can help but notice the acclaim given Jimmy Carter when Sadat, defeated in war against Israel, made peace with Israel. (Carter just happened to be in the right place at the right time.) Obama and Kerry now want a Peace Prize trophy of their own.  (Actually Obama already has one.  Why?  Ask the Swedes.)  If it means that Kerry, with Obama's backing, has to hang Israel out on a line, neither could care less.  And, the Israelis know it.

Bowman's Stunning Appeal for Jonathan Pollard's Release

In his NY Times Op-Ed of Jan. 15, 2014, M.E. Bowman, a former deputy general counsel for national security law at the FBI and a former deputy of the U.S. Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive clearly intends to slam Jonathan Pollard and convince readers of the NY Times that Jonathan Pollard is to be kept locked up and not released.  But while that is unquestionably his intention, like Balaam, in the Old Testament, he woefully fails to deliver the fatal curse on Pollard.  Instead, whether he intended to or not, he winds up delivering a powerful argument for Pollard's release.

Presumably, for his purpose to fully disclosure, Mr. Bowman informs us that Lawrence J. Korb, the assistant secretary of defense at the Pentagon at the time of Mr. Pollard's arrest, has said that (Pollard's) punishment was disproportionate to his offense.  We are further informed by Mr. Bowman that R. James Woolsey, a former director of central intelligence, echoed that sentiment at a security conference in November (2013).   Clearly, people at the highest levels of the government in those areas that concern themselves with intelligence and the defense of this nation are of the opinion that Jonathan Pollard, having served as long as he has, deserves to be released at this time.  And, furthermore, as Korb sees it, Pollard has served a sentence far greater than appropriate for his offense.

So, who is this Mr. M.E. Bowman, who disagrees so vehemently with Korb and Woolsey?  He apparently has good credentials.  But, are they any better than Korb's or Woolsey's?  I hardly think so.  

Bowman opens his comments with an attack on the character of Jonathan Pollard.  Pollard, he claims, is someone "who imagines his life is greater than it was."   Quite possibly Bowman is correct.  "(Pollard) told fanciful tales to peers while at Stanford (over 40 years ago)," writes Bowman.  Very possibly Pollard did.  "By the mid-1980's, (Pollard) used his position as a civilian navel intelligence analyst to become an enthusiastic and willing spy for profit by passing state secrets to Israel."  So what is Mr. Bowman saying here?  Is he aghast that Pollard did his spying as a civilian navel intelligence analyst?  No one denies that he did this.  If you're going to spy, it's generally helpful to be in a position where you can put your fingers on those secrets you might wish to steal.  That's kind of like Spying 101.

Spys have all sorts of motivations.  The spy might be threatened with the exposure of some secret that he doesn't want exposed.  He might be doing it for ideological reasons.  There are all sorts of motivations.  If Bowman says Pollard did it for money, who am I to dispute him?  But, where are we going with this?  Are Pollard's motivations relevant to his crime?  Should the enthusiasm with which Pollard carried out his spying net him an additional 10 or 20 years?

Mr. Bowman's comments suggest that Jonathan Pollard not only acted criminally, but also pretty much played the role of a fool.  And, again, I have no reason to disagree.  Pollard did act criminally.  I also believe that because Pollard was less smart than he thought he was, or because of some emotional dysfunction, he acted not only criminally, but behaved like a fool.  From earlier readings of his case, I believe the excessive sentence given him was the result of acting foolishly when mounting his defense.  Quite possibly, he was given truly abysmal legal counsel.

As to his crime:  He gave state secrets to Israel, and, for that, he deserved to be punished.  But, the extent of the damage which Pollard did is stretched beyond the point of credibility by Bowman. He cites Seymour Hersh as as the source of remarks by William J. Casey, former director of central intelligence,  charging that information stolen by Pollard had been traded to Russia for Jewish emigres.  Really?  That's quite a charge.  And, where do we learn of this charge?  Why, of course, from the reporter, Seymour Hersh.  This charge is truly serious and deserves being authenticated.  But, what is Bowman's source -- the hearsay of a reporter known to delight in un-authenticed information.  I'm afraid Mr. Bowman is going to have to do a great deal better than that.

Clearly, Mr. Bowman doesn't like Mr. Pollard.  He would, no doubt, like to see him hanged.  Baring that, Mr. Bowman is delighted to see Mr. Pollard serve as many years as possible.  And, I can understand his feeling of patriotic indignation at the theft of state secrets by Jonathan Pollard.  I too abhor people who spy on America in behalf of other nations.  But, are men like Lawrence J. Korb and R. James Woolsey any less patriotic than Bowman?  Are they any less informed of the facts regarding Jonathan Pollard's crimes?  I think not.  I don't know what sort of axe Mr. Bowman chooses to grind, but I think it goes way beyond Jonathan Pollard.