Who Deposessed Whom In Palestine

 Consider the population figures in current day Israel (2020) *

               Tel Aviv           440,000

               Haifa                260,000

               Jerusalem         600,000

                                                                             *  These are reasonable estimates.

Now consider the total population of Palestine in 1882 :     roughly 300.000

The cities of Tel Aviv and Haifa today, each hold almost as many people -- and in the case of TelAviv more -- than the entire population of Palestine in 1882.  As for Jerusalem, it holds today twice as many people as were in all of Palestine in 1882.  Note too that Palestine, then, included the area of present day Jordan.

It's quite apparent that Palestine back then was greatly underpopulated.  The reason: Much of the land was arid.  Land that doesn't get much rain isn't worth much for farming.  True, there was a mountain range.  But, again, not great for farming. It should also be noted that there were extensive swamp lands loaded with malarial mosquitoes. 

That the land held little promise is evidenced by the fact that great swaths of land were held by the Ottoman Empire, headquartered in Istanbul.  The government held this land because no one had any interest in buying it.  That changed with the arrival of land-hungry Jews, who purchased a considerable number of acres of government held land.  They also bought land from Arabs willing to sell it at elevated prices.

The Jews were determined to make the land flourish and began draining swamps.  They introduced fish that fed on mosquito larvae.  Nevertheless, many did succumb to malaria.  The Arabs who worked the land were largely tenant farmers with little incentive to drain these swamps.

A final hardship afflicting the Arab farmers were the Bedouins on their annual trek from today's Jordan down to the Sinai.  Along the way they'd raid the poor farmers and steal their grain and livestock.

The Jews introduced modern farming implements and water saving techniques.  They also banded together and fought off the Bedouin.  With increasing abuse of Jews in Russia. and Europe in general. more Jews made their way to Palestine.  The Balfour Declaration served as a green light.

However, with the rise of Nazism, things began to work against the Jews.  One third of Europe's Jewish population was killed under Hitler's reign.  An equally vile hater of Jews was Haj Amin Husseini.  He admired Hitler and consorted with him.  He founded the Muslim Brotherhood and served as a mentor to  Arafat.  Despite all that, the British catered to his wishes.  They wanted him on their side in the fight against the Germans and, later to blunt Russian influence in the middle east.

They failed on both counts.  The Ottman Empire had been destroyed in the First World War.  And, the Jews in Palestine worked far harder to serve British interests in the middle east than was ever the case with Haj Amin Husseini.  The British, however, felt that Husseini had the numbers on his side; namely, the many Arabs in the middle east.  They therefore bowed to his wish that Jewish immigration to Palestine be restricted. No such restriction was ever placed on Muslims from Syria, Iraq, Lebenon and Egypt.  With the British establishing offices and stationing troops in Palestine, the influx of investment suddenly grew and made Palestine more attractive to poor Arabs from surrounding countries.  Jews, however, were kept out.

Despite all these many obstacles Israel came into being.  It was voted in as a nation by the U.S. and by Russia.  The U.K. abstained.

 

Trump - Great and Small

 Trump shook up the presidency by hearing the voice of the people.  He didn't have to be a genius to understand that unfettered immigration  (open borders) would be a disaster for America.  Americans are not only favorably disposed to immigration, generally speaking, they welcome immigrants. But to invite a million plus, with no screening, to enter this country illegally, is placing a burden on American citizens that has not yet been fully tallied.  Trump understood this.  He came up with a solution: the wall.  It might not be a perfect solution, but it was far better than anything else.  Bottom line:  It was well on its way to solving our immigration problem.  (Because it was a Trump initiative, Bidden killed it.)

Covid:  Trump incentivized the drug companies to come up with a vaccine to fight this lethal variant of the flue faster than it had ever done before.  Under his direction they came up with a vaccine in less than a year.  (It generally takes 2 plus years.)  He also reconized that this pandemic had started in China, he stopped travel from Chine sooner than any other western country.)

Trump realized that the Palestinians had been creating obstacles to peace.  Hamas in Gaza had become an arm of the Iranians.  Fatah in the west bank was totally corrupt.  (Abbas was in his 14th year in office.  An office which had a term of 4 years.)  Trump recognized an undivided Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel.  He consequently moved the U.S embassy from TelAviv to Jerusalem; something a number of previous presidents had promised, but had never done.

His desire to get out of Afghanistan was a strategic error.  He viewed our presence in Afghanistan as putting us in a never-ending war.  It was not.  It was simply a military deployment.  Actually, we had won the war.  A viable government had been established.  It had its problems but nothing like the problems that arose when Bidden actually with drew our troops.  True,  Trump also wanted to withdraw, but it was unlikely he would have bungled the job as badly as Bidden.  

Trump took a number of other initiative to which liberals objected.  Included were our posture vis a vis Iran, climate change and oil drilling.  But that's not why Trump lost, so I'll skip those for now.

The Democrats were after Trump the day he entered office.  They were after him for connections to Russia which never existed.  They labeled him a racist and most ludicrous of all their charges was that he was an anti-Semite.  If that ridiculous charge were true, I'd be the first to say,"give us more anti-Semitic presidents like Truep." He's now out of office but the Democrats continue to hound him.  Currently, they're trying to tie him to the Jan 6th attack on the Congressional Building.  And, most bizarre of all is that he is somehow tied to Qanon.

Trump downfall was his manner.  I, for one, was outraged when he said McCain was no hero.  His remark might have been characterized as something said in a school yard brawl.  But there was no excuse for it.  In connection with Covid treatments, he made mention of bleach.  It was a stupid remark.  But, I judge a man more by what he does than what he says.  Others, the elites, the media, etc.  will take any stupid utterance and tar you with it.  It's a pity.  I would vote for Trump again, but I hope he won't run a second time.  He'll lose.

The Other Shoe Now Falls

We now see the Bennett/Lapid team for what it is.  Just this morning I read the following:

  Bennett proclaims that Jews have no right to pray on the Temple Mount.

  Lapid asks for a delay in removing an Arab village built illegally in Jerusalem.

Is any further comment needed?

 

Eyes That Can't See

 It's human to err, but to harm the State of Israel over personal pique is traitorous.  I refer to Israel's Bennet.  He was a man of the right; a man who was a part of the Likud party.  Then, because of some difference with Netanyahu, he decided to take the premiership away from Netanyahu.  To do that he had to stitch together most of Israel's remaining parties, including the Communists and other left leaning groups.  Indeed, he even had to get the Arabs to join and with their their impossible demands.

Here is the situation:  most Israelis lean to the right.  Between Bennet and Netanyahu there is no contest.  Most Israelis favor Netanyahu.  Bennet, when he parted company with Netanyahu, brought few Likud representatives with him.  In the recent election, he beat Netanyahu by a hair.  If he loses one or two supporters, Israel will go into a new election.  So what are the chances?

Bennet's Arab supporter says that the Temple and all surrounding areas belong to Muslims.  That means that the rickety and dangerous bridge up to the Temple Mount will not be repaired.

Lapid of the center-left, and the man alternating the premiership with Bennet has assured the Americans that there will be no surprises.  That is widely understood to mean that if, and when, Israel finds it crucial to protect its land and its people by striking Iran preemptively, it will not do so without first getting approval from America, the same American who forced a past prime minister, Rabin, to enter into the disastrous Oslo Accords.  Note: These same Americans who Naftali is now negotiating with are the Obama team who lost no love for Israel the last time they were in power.

How much damage must the Bennet/Lapid team do before Israelis call for a new election?  Abbas has already submitted his list of non-negotiable demands to the Americans.  Abbas seems to have figured out who's now really in charge.   Why bother negotiating with the Israelis. 

So, You Want A Great President?

 Choosing a U.S. president  isn't easy.  Look at what we chose in the past.  JFK, was a man that bedded every skirt that came in his direction.  Of course, even Ike had a thing with his driver.  But one affair counts for nothing, compared with JFK and Lyndon Johnson.  Truman and Nixon were true to their wives.  Okay, so fidelity to one's spouse is not the best yardstick.

And, of course, we don't want a man prepared to engaged in a crime, and, covering up for a crime is a crime.  That's how they caught Nixon.  His staff committed the Watergate break-in.  He had nothing to do with that, but he tried to cover for his staff and that indeed was a crime. But a lot of civil rights legislation was passed on his watch.  And, while it is true that he bombed trails the Vietcong used in Cambodia, he and Kissinger did negotiate the end of the Vietnam War.

Historically one of the biggest blunders the U.S. made in modern history was the Vietnam War.  It amazes me that more attention isn't given as to how we got into this war.  It is true that a great deal of political pressure was put on Eisenhower to start a war with the Vietcong.  But he dealt with that pressure in a political way without actually getting into the war.  His solution was to say he needed ever more information. He announced that he'd send in observers.  And, so he did; maybe a hundred or so servicemen.  (David Halberstam in The Best And The Brightest laid it all out.)

JFK upon becoming president decides this is a war he wants to get into.  As a French colony, the southern part of Vietnam had become Catholic.  This introduced a conflict with the indigenous Buddists.  When the French implored the U.S. to help them keep their colony, JFK decides to join the conflict.  But how to do it without Congressional approval?  To get what he wanted he decided to use the American observers.  However, if he was going to get into this war, he needed to increase the number of observers many fold.  Also, his observers needed more than pads and pencils.  They came armed to the teeth with the latest in military equipment.

In the end, Johnson got the Tonkin Gulf Resolution through Congress making the war now legal, but it took Nixon and Kissinger to end this disaster.  It was an ignominious end to this adventure, but it was the only thing available to America.

Less noted by most Americans except Cuban Americans was the Bay of Pigs disaster.  Under Eisenhower the Cubans, who had escaped Castro's state, arrived at an invasion plan.  However, they never realized that their plan would have to be executed during the subsequent administratio; namely, the JFK administration.  JFK didn't like the invasion planned for the Bay of Pigs.  However, he didn't want to take the responsibility for calling off this operation.  Cancelling was not politically acceptable.  What he did was not cancelling the operation, but simply denying it air cover.  Even Abe Goldman, JFK's close friend, later told him that to allow such an operation to proceed without air cover doomed it to failure.  It meant sacrificing the lives of virtually all the attackers.  Cuban-Americans have not forgotten.

A successful American president needs to look and sound well.  Writing a book helps.  Remember Portraits In Courage? Or, that stirring line, "Ask not what your country can do for you.  Ask what you can do for your country." The American elite liked that far more than Truman's "The buck stops here."

We now come to Trump and Biden.  There's a lot to dislike about Trump.  My pet peeves regarding  Trump are as follows:  Right-to-life (I favor a woman's right to choose.)  Demeaning the Corona Virus shots and the wearing of masks.  (The irony here is that Trump did a fantastic job of getting the drug companies to develop a vaccine far faster than anyone had thought possible.)  He also runs down people who annoy him in a counter productive way.  (I was horrified when I heard him say that John McCain was no war hero.  McCain may not have been the ideal presidential candidate for the Republicans, but he most certainly was a war hero.)

So what do I like about Trump?  He not only got the economy running, he got Black and Latino unemployment figures to historically low levels.  He and his fence reduced illegal inflow across our southern border to historical low levels.  He incentivized drug companies to develop vaccines against the Corona Virus at record speeds.  His moves in the Middle East were brilliant and led to the Abraham Accords. (Regrettably the current administration-- Obama holdovers -- are peddling in the opposite direction.)

As for Biden, he's Obama light.

War In The Middle East

 I see it coming.  

I see Israel bombing the nuclear sites in Iran.

Israel doesn't want war, but what choice do they have?  Does Iran want to eliminate Israel?  If it were easy for them, they would probably have already done it.  What about Saudi Arabia?  Iran has already seen to the bombing of a Saudi refinery thanks to their surrogate, the Houthi.

Does any of this concern the Biden administration?  It seems not.  When they see the Houthis fire missiles into Saudi Arabia, the Biden administration chalks it up to "tribes will be tribes."  They seem unaware that the primitive Houthi, who have no infrastructure to produce 21st century military weaponry serves at the behest of Iran.  Why the Biden administration favors the gay-hanging Iranians over the Saudis puzzles me, but clearly they do.  I don't get it.

But for the Israelis, it is not a matter of figuring out the convoluted thought process of the Biden administration.  For the Israelis, it's a matter of survival.  Maybe the Iranians won't try to eliminate Israel Immediately but you can be sure they will demand their pound of flesh.  Do the Israelis want that hanging over their heads?  I think not.

Why can't the Biden Administration figure this out?  My guess is that they hate Trump's Abraham Accord.  They figure that with Iranian ascendancy, this accord will begin to fall apart.  And, maybe, and maybe not, the U.S. will step in to save the situation and save Israel.  Does Israel want to be beholden to an administration that can think this way?

There is one other factor that should be considered; namely, what Putin thinks of this ever evolving chess game.  No two countries understand each other better than Israel and Russia.  It seems that the way that Russia sees this chess table, it has nothing to lose by letting Israel bomb Iran.  It would make Israel and the Sunnis, including Saudi Arabia beholden to Russia.  And, Israel would have a great deal to offer Russia.  Russia and Saudi Arabia have long communicated with regards to oil output.  And, finally, as I see it, Russia would love to stick it in America's eye.  

I'm rooting for Russia.  America won't go to war over this, so no harm would befall American service men.  And the Middle East would be free of Iranian tyranny.

                                      #                                 #                            #

Guidelines For Censorship In America

 For a democracy such as ours, all points of view deserve to be heard.  Censorship is anathema.  And yet, there are times when censorship must be exercised.  Military and state secrets are one such example.  However, we have now run into a situation were things are a lot less clear.

People would have public media be censored.  Specifically, Twitter and Facebook, social platforms, should do censoring. And, indeed, Twitter and Facebook are already censoring their sites and if someone says something that they believe should not be said, they will bar any such individual from their site.  Who are Twitter and Facebook to exercise such power?  They may be private companies, but they are also monopolies.  

With newspapers, or TV stations you have alternatives to choose from.  But an individual's opinion might be quite unique and well expressed on social media.  Do we want to allow Facebook and Twitter to do the censoring?  Are they to be the judge and jury as to what is proper for us to say and what is not.  No, no, no.

But, I can see where some things would best be censored.  Maybe we should leave it to Twitter and Facebook.  However, I would make one important exception.  We should not allow the censoring of any bonafide politician.  I realize full well that some politicians do not come across all that well.  But let the public decide, not Twitter or Facebook.