Islam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conservatives vs. Liberals

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

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

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

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

Examples:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heard from China: Surrender or Die

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Israel: So Much Hatred For Such A Tiny Spec Of Land

 The Abraham Accords put the focus on Israel, once again.  This time, however, it was a favorable focus.  Essentially, it had Islamic nations agreeing to recognize Israel and engage in commerce with it.  It included some other import things, but this was the essence of it.

So who found themselves aghast over it?  First, and foremost, were the Palestinians.  They had wanted to be the gate keeper for all relations between Israel and other Islamic nations.  They failed to maintain this "gate keeper" position for two reasons.  The Islamic nations, who had propped up this corrupt Islamic  entity for years, found the Palestinians to be ungrateful for the aid which they had extended to them for years.  They now began to cut down on their financial aid to the Palestinians.

Then too, the Palestinian failure as gate keepers was due to their total disregard of the threat posed by Iran, a Shiite nation, to the surrounding Sunni nations.  In light of the Iranian threat, friendship with Israel was far more important to the Islamic states' concern over the Palestinians.

If size counts, it is logical to ask, how large is Israel?

Here's some data:

Singapore                381.3   sq mi         Important; but essentially a city-    state

West Bank            2,183                        Areas A, B, & C

Lebanon               4,036                        Torn apart by Hezbollah

Israel                    8,550                        A power house

Taiwan               13,976                        A powerhouse 

Switzerland        15,940                        Rich and neutral

Sri Lanka           25,332                        Terribly mismanaged 

UAE                  32,278                         Oil producer

Ireland               32,585                         Terrible history with England and       doesn't much like Israel

Jordan               34,495                          Created by Churchill from land      carved out of Palestine

South Korea      38,691                         A powerhouse constantly     threatened by North Korea

Cuba                  42,426                         A social basket case that has taken     over Venezuela

Maadagascar   226,658                          Quite large, but little known

There it is.  Israel about the size of the state of New Jersey, now the corner stone of the Middle East

                                                                                                                                                        

Why I Find Muslims Generally Unloveable

 First off, let's be clear that there are all sorts of Muslims ranging from the secular to the devout.  Then too most speak Arabic while those from Iran speak Farsi.  My problem is with the supporters of the Palestinians.

1. Their understanding as to the emergence of Palestine is deeply flawed. As the Palestinians see it, they were the inhabitants of Palestine.  Suddenly, the Jews from Europe came in and took over.

Check census figures from the mid 1880s.  You'll find that Palestine, including Jordan - then a part of Palestine - was a desolate and fairly devoid of people.   It lacked an adequate supply of water and, in parts of the land, it was covered with malarial swamps.  Jews lived in Jerusalem for its religious/historical reasons.  The mostly poor Arab tenant farmers lived mainly in the northwest.  In the early 1900s, Jews began arriving to escape the hatred of Christians in Europe and then to escape Hitler's death camps.

Money was sent to the Jews to help them sustain themselves.  Arabs were often hired to build housing for Jews.  Suddenly, an influx of people began arriving in Palestine.  The Arabs came primarily for the work.  They built housing for British troops.  Jews, however, were impeded by Britain's  White Paper.

According to the U.N., Palestine was meant to be shared by Muslims and Jews.  But sharing was not part of the Muslim mindset.  When the state of Israel was declared, Arab armies launched fierce attacks on the fledgeling nation.  When the Arab armies were defeated, the Arabs in what was to become Israel fled in great numbers.  However, only those actually firing on Jews were expelled.  Most Arabs, however, believed that the Jews would do to them what they had hoped they could do to the Jews; namely, destroy them.

At the same time, roughly 800,000 Jews were expelled from Egypt, as well as from countries along north of Africa.  Then to there was the expulsion of Jews from Syria and Iraq.  It was the new state of Israel which at considerable cost gave them a place of refuge,

Further wars were launched by Syria, Jordan and Egypt.  Israel, however, emerged victorious.  Although Israel wanted to have peace with Syria, the Syrians kept firing down on Israel from the Golan Heights.  Israel  had no choice but to take possession of the Golan.

These wars were not fought in behalf of the Palestinians.  The combatants wanted pieces of Israel for themselves.  Syra wanted Israel's north, Iraq its northeast, Jordan its middle and Egypt it's south.  There was no thought given to setting up a Palestinian state.

2.  It was only after the defeat of the various Arab nations, that under the guidance of the Muslim Brotherhood, they devised a plan for a Palestinian nation.  They chose a terrorist from Egypt, Arafat.  He entered the fray and his first goal was to take over Jordan.  In this he was defeated.  He escaped to Tunisia via Lebanon.  

3. Israel was not the powerful nation it is today.  Back then they counted on the U.S. for protection.  In such a situation, a stronger nation will often force its will on the weaker partner.  This was the case between America and Israel.  The elder Bush and all subsequent American presidents wanted to see a Palestinian nation emerge side by side with Israel.  This state was to be the equal to the Jewish.  Unfortunately, this notion was at odds with reality.  Had the American leadership studied the middle east they would have become aware of the following:

a. Arafat was a product of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Neither the Brotherhood nor Arafat wanted peace.  What they wanted was the elimination of Israel.  It was thie same Muslim Brotherhood that had Anwar Sadat assassinated for his making peace with Israel.  Any question as to what the Palestinians wanted was made clear by their rejection of Israel's numerous peace offers; some so excessively generous, they would never be repeated.  Arafat, however, knew that if he did make a proper peace with Israel, he would be eliminated by the Muslim Brotherhood.

b. The American policy makers should have been aware that no Arab state is democratic.  Israel has a population that is roughly 16% Muslim.  What Muslim state has a Jewish population anywhere near that?  What Muslim state has a Christian population anywhere near that?  What Muslim state can be described as being democratic? Or, as being as cognizant of women's rights and gay rights?

Islamic law is Sharia.  It is not simply religious in nature, it is the foundation of state law in Muslim nations.  Under Sharia, Jews and Christians are second hand citizens, or to use the Arabic word, dhimmi.

However, there is a chance that this can change.  

However, there is a chance that this can change.  Today, few Christians view Jews as the killers of Christ.  Perhaps in time Christians and Jews will no longer be viewed as dhimmi.  But as long as the Muslim Brotherhood is a force to be reckoned with, that day does mot seem imminent.  

A Sensible Gun Policy

 People seem incapable of coming to a logical solution to our national gun problem.  Our political system has broken down.  The right to bear arms is encoded within our constitution. Okay.  But what are "arms"?  Are they the muskets and front loaded pistols used at the time the Constitution was written?  Does the right to bear arms forbid our citizens from protecting them selves from people who would kill others with weapons often more powerful than those carried by our law enforcement officers?

Rights can be circumscribed.  Anyone can drive a car,  However, we do put limits on that right.  Children below a certain age are not allowed to drive.  People with inadequate eyesight are not permitted to drive.  Why not circumscribe the rights of certain people to possess a gun?

The mechanism for keeping weapons away from questionable individuals would be through licensing.  To drive a vehicle, you need a license. To hunt you need a license.  Why not license guns?  To get a gun license, you would need to be of a certain age.  Also, just as in the case, of vehicles and other licenses, you would need to pay a fee.  Your license should show the seller, the period when the license was issued and the date when the license has to be renewed.  Also, to obtain the license you would have to pass a weapons test.  Assault rifles would only be licensed to individuals with special requirements for such a weapon.

One other requirement that might be considered is to require a sponsor for a buyer to receive a license. 

America also needs another gun owners association.  An association that might be considered is the Responsible Gun Owners Association (RGO).  Why should the venal NRA be the only voice for gun owners.

Owning an unregistered gun should be made criminal.  And special penalties should be imposed on owners of "ghost" guns.

Why not?  Our constitution is being wrongly interpreted if it results in too frequent murder of our children by some deranged individual.

Muslim Xenophobia

 Let's first establish what a phobia is.  It's an unreasonable fear of something or other.  If I see a man walking a large dog.  I have little fear.  But should the dog turn and look at me and then begin to growl and pull at the leash.  I now do begin to experience fear.  Such fear is not unreasonable.  It is not phobic.

However, a lady sitting in the park with a small lap dog and smiling as small children walk by, should not arose fear.  Nevertheless, people phobic regarding dogs might well begin to show signs of panic at the sight of the dog.

Bigots who hate Blacks or Jews are not phobic.  They're bigoted and may be described as racist or or anti-Semitic,

So what's an Islamophobe?  Is it someone with an unreasonable fear of Muslims?  That's not what I see.  Is it someone who finds Muslims occasionally disagreeable?  Yes, such people do exist?  But they don't shudder in fear.  They may dislike Muslims, as racists dislike Backs.  But that's not being phobic.  That's being anti-Islamic.

So why do Islamic groups like CAIR (Committee on American Islamic Relations) hurl this word against those who have a problem with certain aspects of Islam found among some Muslims but happily not among all Muslims.

Muslims who toss about the word, Islamophobia, generally are guided by the same hatred that guides the Muslim Brotherhood, the group that assassinated Anwar Sadat and murdered Israeli athletes in Munich.  Happily such Muslims don't represent all of Islam.  They can, however, be found among  Palestinians and organizations that represent them here in America.  Happily it's not universal among Muslims.

Thankfully, the Abraham Accords ended the belief that all Muslims and Muslim nations are lined up with the Muslim Brotherhood.  True, there are parts of the world world where a hatred of Christians and Jews persists.  Fortunately this hatred is not carried by all Muslims. 

Int'l Power Politics - Dr. Mearscheimer 2015

 I caught one of the esteemed Dr Mearscheimer's presentations on You Tube.  It was a presentation he gave in 2015 and its focus was on Ukraine.  His main point seemed to be that the U.S. was responsible for the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine.  We never realized that the idea of belonging to NATO would be anathema to Russia; that it was something they simply could not accept.  America's support for Ukraine is what got us into this mess according to Mearscheimer.

Mearsheimer is considered to be a great, international thinker?

We all understand power  politics.  We see the major power players to be Russia, China and the USA.  It's when you jump from there to what's happened to Ukraine that people like Mearscheimer seem to enter into a wilderness.  True, we must admit that great powers are defined by strong and large economies, a sizable population, and military strength.

But to what purpose should one, who lives in a country that's a major power block, utilize one's position of power?  Is it to dominate one's neighbors?  Is it to have a check over what one's neighbors decide to do for their people?

Mearscheimer not only seems to recognize major powers, but seems to worship them.  This leads to peculiar situations.  Is a nation like Ukraine to belong to this power or that power?  Or, should it remain neutral.  What sort of decisions do the people of a country have a right to make as regards their country?

Mearscheimer totally disregards whether the behavior of a country is benign or hostile.  True, there were periods when land was divided up into segments and major powers often decided what countries these segments should emerge as.  The breakup of the Ottoman Empire after WW I is one example.  Sometimes the segments don't hold together, as in the case of Yugoslavia.  Does Russia have the right to divide up Ukraine?

There's this bug-a-boo about NATO.  You may recall that it was established as a defense against Russian aggression.  As evidence of such aggression wained, the significance of NATO seemed to wain.  Germany allowed itself to become more dependent on Russian oil.  NATO nations had begun to lapse on their commitment to maintain a military readiness based on their GDP.  With Russia's attack on Ukraine, NATO has gotten a new shot in the arm.  Suddenly Sweden and Finland seem to be deciding that they too want to be a part of NATO.  I doubt this was what Russia expected.

A factor that doesn't seem to be taken into much ccount when evaluating major power blocks is corruption.  In my opinions all nations suffer from corruption to greater or lesser extent.  It's like most metals.  If you want to keep them looking good, you've got to keep polishing them.  A nation that disregards the need to keep ever vigilant as regards corruption will become increasingly corrupt.  It's one of the benefits of a democracy with sound and stable institutions.  We too have corruption but to a somewhat lesser degree.

May the Ukrainian people prevail and to hell with Russia.

Israeli vs Palestinian

 A group of Israeli actors decided to boycott an award for their work in an Israeli TV series.  These actors were Israeli citizens.  They had trained in an Israeli art school. Their gripe:  They wanted to be recognized as Palestinians.

For me that's hard to fathom.  Here's why:

1, The word "Palestine" refers to a region of the old Ottoman empire in the same way that Syria and Iraq refers to other regions.  After World War I these regions were divided into individual nations.  The divisions were somewhat arbitrary.  Lebanon had been Syrian, but the French decided that the Christians living in the western part of Syria would be destroyed if left in a Muslim country.  This prompted them to carve out Lebanon from Syria and establish it as an independent country.

2. Palestine was just one more part of the Ottoman empire.  It was a desolate area with swamps and mostly arid land.  Its total peopulation in the 1800"s was no greater than that of today's Tel Aviv. (And that was back when Jordan was a part of Palestine.)  Being a land bridge from Europe to Africa was perhaps Palestine's single most notable feature.

3. In the 20th century, Jews and Muslims were both mostly immigrants.  The Jews immigrated to Palestine for two reasons:  a. It was their religious homeland and b. they had nowhere else to go.   Jews brought in funding to develop the land and drained its swamps, the land became more valuable.  As a British mandate following World War I, more economic development arose.  Suddenly, Palestine was a place for Arabs from Syria, Egypt, Iraq and elsewhere to go to find work.  The early settlers were all referred to as Palestinians - even Jews.  The Palestine Post was a Jewish newspaper.

4. For the Arab world the establishment of Israel was an unforgivable sin.  Why this should be so was not readily understood by Jews.  Weren't all the nations along northern Africa, Islamic?  Weren't all the nations in the middle east Islamic?  What was the problem with having one small nation declaring itself a Jewish state?  Add to that, 20% of Israel's population is non-Jewish.  What Islamic state has a non-Islamic population of that magnitude.  True, Egypt had a Coptic population, but it's been on steady decline as a result of their being constantly abused.

5. If the Arabs in areas A and B (Oslo Accords) wish to identify themselves as Palestinians so be it.  But what does that have to do with Israeli Muslims?

The Arab actors who are Muslim say that they identify with the Palestinians because the apartheid conditions in which they are being held.  But their governance is entirely up to the Palestinian Authority.  True the PA is well known to be corrupt.  But what can Israel do about that?  How does that make Issrael an apartheid nation?

        

Wishing Ukraine Well

What Ukraine has been suffering under the attack on its people by Putin, a mass murderer, is unconscianal.  Can it survive?  I fervently hope so.  It was just going about the business of its people, despite Russia having taken Crimea from it and Russia infiltrating Ukraine's shore on the east with  Russian paid guerillas known as the Wagner Group.  Putin knows that the nations of the world all know this.  He just doesn't care.  He knows that de-nazification and his faigned fear of NATO are known to all observers as lies.  Indeed, he has a history of assaulting neighboring countries.

What Putin may not have guessed is the fight the Ukrainian people would put up against his supposed super power.  The Russians have only one thing left in their arsenal of weapons directed at this hapless country, and that is air power.  Here all freedom loving countries must help the brave Ukarinians.  Give them jet planes, and whatever else they may need to show the Russians they can not continue to perpetrate this crime.  

What are the Russians going to do?  Start a war with the West?  Drop an atom bomb?  There comes a time when you've got to call a killer's bluff.

Chris Rock vs Will Smith

 Okay, so on this one, I'm in the minority.  I support Will Smith and his slap of Chris Rock.

Will Smith did assault Chris Rock.  For that, he should apologize.  Oh, he already did?  Well what else should we require of him?  Punishment?  Let's examine the harm done.

The physical assault was a slap that didn't even muss Rock's makeup.  Did anyone mention the public humiliation of Chris Rock?  I hope so.  Humiliation is what this is all about. And, humiliation is what Chris Rock deserved.

In the first instance, it was Chris Rock who did the humiliating.  Trying to be funny about another actor's wife's ailment is off limits, or certainly should be.  You say, that humiliating people is one of a comedian's shticks.  Wasn'[ that what Buddy Hackett was all about?

But Buddy Hackett's shtick was different.  It focused on the person to whom he was speaking, or to someone in the audience.  People in his audience had a pretty good idea of what to expect. Chris Rock's poor excuse for humor was focused on someone who was there for the Oscars; not for Chris Rock. Chis Rock's humor, or for what some think passes for humor, was hurtful to a person who didn't come to hear Chris Rock.  She came to attend the presentation of Oscars.

I was never fan of Buddy Hackett.  But, people knew his shtick and a great many loved it.  Chis Rock, however, was just being an ass.  A comedians as big as Chris Rock should give some thought as to what they're doing.  Going off half cocked is for amateurs.

Islam, The Religion

 I know a bit about Christianity.  I also know a bit about Judaism.  Islam has me stumped.

The historical record is confusing.  Greek polytheism in bygone ages attracted some portion of Hebraic youth. The were attracted to Greek scientific ideas and they enjoyed Greek athletic games. The Romans borrowed heavily from Greek theology.  But they were more militaristic, and far more were brutal.  Under the Greeks you could take it or leave it.  Under the Romans, you had to acknowledge your subservient status.  That's where the Jews got into trouble.

The Christians were an offshoot of the Jews.  Jesus Christ was a Jew.  He was a particular type of a Jew.  He was a Pharisaic Jew, which distinguished him from the Sadducees. With the Sadducees, the worship of God was obeying his commandments and offering sacrifices.  The sacrifices were given at the Temple in Jerusalem,  It was run by the Kohanim, the priestly class.  You could offer bags of grain or or a pidgin or a lamb.  What you gave was a function of how rich you were.

However, when the Babylonians conquered the Jews, many of the leading Jews were exiled to Babylonia. There they had no temple.  However, the rabbis decided that Jews could offer up to God their prayers.  After about 40 years, Cyrus conquered the Babylonians and released the Jews from their exile.  They were free to return to Israel. 

Many of the returning Jews concluded that if prayer was a suitable form of worship in Babylonia, it was equally suitable in Israel.  Needless to say, there was considerable strife between the Sadducees and the Pharisees.  The destruction of the temple by the Romans ended the Pharisees.  From that time on, Judaism was carried forth by the Pharisees.  Indeed, Jesus was a Pharisee; a Jew in conflict with the Sadducees.  

After the death of Jesus, at the hands of Pontus Pilat, the teachings of Jesus were spread by his disciples.  Their message didn't have a great impact on Jews.  They were, however, received with some favor by the non-Jews in Greece and Turkey.  The disciples found it necessary to drop a number of Jewish practices, such as circumcision and the prohibition against eating pork. So as not to offend the Romans, the disciples presented the cruel Pontus Pilot as an unassuming Roman Governor.

Early Christians were persecuted as heretics by the Romans.  However, when the Roman empire came under relentless attack by various gothic tribes from the north, Emperor Constantine decided to make peace with the Christians who were found throughout Turkey and who had multiplied by converting the people around them.  Constantine worshiped the sun god until the time of his approaching death. He then  converted to Christianity.  However, some years earlier, Constantine assembled various religious leaders in the city of Nicea.  All Christians, he decided,  had to subscribe to one Christian faith.  The creed they authored was the Nicene Creed.  It remains to this day the statement subscribed to by all Chistian denominations.

Let's now turn to the Muslims.  Most know about the Quran, the book dictated to Mohammad by the angel Gabriel, and committed to writing by Mohammad's wife.  There are two other books arguably as important; namely, the Hadith and the Sunna.   Some observations:  Mohammad was not born until many generations after Jesus.  How then could he designate the first Jew, Abraham, as the first of the Islamic prophets?  How could he view Jesus as another Islamic prophet?  How could he claim the ruins of the Temple in Jerusalem as an Islamic site, when it was built by Jews, for Jews?

To be honest there is little consistency in any of the western faiths and probably within any of the various religious faith.  The only thing that has been observed is the historic propensity of the various faiths to fight one another.  The struggles between the Protestants and the Catholic have been bloody.  An equal level of enmity can be found between the Shia Muslims and the Sunni Muslims.  And, both faiths have been atrocious towards the Jews, the people who started it all.  The treatment of Druze and Bahai hasn't been much better.

Many, if not most of this religious strife has ebbed.  But how do we distinguish between the secular Muslim and the Sharia committed Muslim? 

The Darkness Ahead

 The book that is Ukraine lays out for us the pitch black darkness ahead.  

Chapter 1

What happens in Europe does not stay in Europe.  China also reads this book.  And they begin to  realize that they can move us further to the forthcoming disaster.  Their book will be titled Taiwan.  Nations whose people choose democracy will, it now becomes clear, be overthrown in favor of tyrants.

America, much as it may wish, can not isolate itself within its borders.  The Atlantic and the Pacific no longer serve as protective borders. The development of ICBMs should have taught us that lesson long ago.         Ukraine now adds a lesson.  It  teaches us that one tyrant with nuclear weapons can defeat all democracies.  And why should anyone think that this evil will end with Ukraine?  Imagine if Hitler had had the atom bomb.  His rockets were not quite as good as today's, but they were able to  reach London.

This book has a preface.  It is Chechnya.  But no one could read it.  It was written in a dark place; a place lacking light and television coverage.  And, did anyone notice Belorussia?

Chapter 2

People suffer when their leaders are inept.  Obama drew a red line in Syria.  It was washed away in the first rain.  Biden's withdrawal from Afghanistan made it clear to tyrants that they had nothing to fear from our country.  They saw how little it cost them to shove out Americans when the cost of remaining there would have been less than the cost of withdrawing.  

Most decisions have a positive side and a negative side.  We now face climate change.  To reduce carbon emissions is a good thing.  The downside is that wind and solar panels, while they put us on the right path, are not nearly adequate to meet the nation's energy needs.  If you cut off carbon emissions too soon, our citizens will suffer.

And to reduce our output of gas and oil, when confronting a despot who has plenty of oil to sell to a world deficient in energy is lunacy.   Biden's failure to support a gas line from Israeli waters to Italy via Cyprus and Greece is beyond comprehension.

Chapter 3

Iranian supply of energy and their ongoing development of an atom bomb leaves democracies with few options in the face of Islamic aggression.  And it leaves Israel with no options.  Iran is hell bent to destroy Israel and they have made no secret of their intentions.  The solution is to destroy Iran's atomic development.  It would have been easier early on.  But late in the game though it is, it must be done.

So why hasn't it been done already.  Answer: America's disapproval.  It's size and economy make the U.S. a power.  Then too it has atomic bombs.

Democratic nations need to have a big brother.  For Europe, as well as democracies elsewhere, America has served in that role.  And it hasn't been an easy role.  First, until the Russian's destruction of Ukraine, most European nations believed Russia to be benign.  They now see their error and are trying to catch up.  But for Ukraine, it seems too late.

When today's tyrant seeks to take over a democratic state, he weaves together a tale of lies.  In the case of Russia, they declared that Ukraine was a military threat to Russia.  That most observers found this ludicrous didn't keep Russia from spouting this nonsense. To this lie, they added another; namely, that Ukraine was fascist state run by Nazis.

In the middle east, sharia-bent Muslims spouted their own set of lies.  The first lie, in a long list of lies, is that Israel's population of Jews is not indigenous whereas the Palestinians are indigenous.  In truth, both groups came largely as immigrants.  Around 1880, the total population of the area known as Palestine - and that includes Jordan, which did not exist before it was created by Great Britain - had a population no larger than today's city of Tel Aviv.  Only a few Arab, tenant farmers could be found scattered here and there.  And the Jews, for the most part, were situated in and around Jerusalem.  It was not until European bigotry and Hitler's madness took hold that Jews sought to immigrate to Palestine in growing numbers.  As Jews drained swamps and began building a country, the place began to be viable for raising a family.  The Arabs took note and also began to immigrate. The  British however, under pressure from the Muslim Brotherhood, waved the Arabs in while keeping the Jews out.

Other lies followed.  One held that the Jews sought to destroy Arab homes when it was the Arabs who built munition stores and warehoused weapons under hospitals, schools and along side Arab homes.  The Arabs tried to sell Israel to the world as a racist state that practiced apartheid. When it was Israel that has a population that is roughly 16 % Arab and where Arabs have risen to positions of judges, and members of the Knesset. 

 It is the Arabs, who proudly proclaim that no Jew will ever live in an Arab Palestine.

America forced Arafat onto the State of Israel.  America now seeks to make a nation out of Fatah and position it alongside Israel.  Iran is not Arab.  It is Persian.  But it is a sharia Islamist state that hangs gays.  This is what the U.S. wants to bring into polite society.  In the end Israel can rely only on itself if it wishes to survive.

 

Online Reading List As Regards Israel

If you're looking for online sites for information as to what's happening vis-a-vis Israel, try the following:

Gatestone Institute

Middle East Forum

JNS Daily Syndicate

United With Israel

World Israel News

The Jerusalem Post

Stand With Us

MEMRI

Honest Reporting

Islamist Watch

CAMERA 

( You can also get Daniel Pikes on Twitter )

AIPAC

Campus Watch

_____________________________________

There are also websites where you can not only read but also see interviews.  I enjoy the following:

Caroline Glick   exceptional

Middle East Forum

ILTV 

__________________________________________

 On your TV

     i 24      on my TV this is station 1118

The Frog And The Scorpion

You know the tale.  The scorpion wants to  get across the pond, but he can't swim.  He sees a frog and asks for a ride.  "Are you crazy?" replies the frog.  "One sting from you and I'll be dead."

"Hey froggy, use your brain.  If I sting you, you'll die.  But if you die, you'll slip under the water and so will I.  I'll drown.  Do you think I want to die?  Why would I sting you?"

The frog has a big heart.  The scorpion makes sense.  He takes the scorpion on this back and starts swimming.  Half way across the pond, the scorpion stings the frog.  The frog dies and the scorpion drowns.  

So why did the scorpion sting the frog?   The conventional answer is, "That's the middle east."

The true answer is that these creatures are both very religious.  The frog's god tells him to be kind to all creatures.  The scorpion's god tells him worshippers of other gods should be killed.  If the scorpion dies killing a frog, it will be to his credit and he will promptly go to scorpion heaven - a far better place than the sandy patch he now lives in.

So now you know the real answer.  Never give a deeply religious scorpion a free ride.

The "Greens": Destroying Global Democracy

 Global democracy has only one champion; namely, the USA.  The Europeans have morphed into something unrecognizable.  Great Britain, Australia, Japan, India, South Korea and Israel are all democracies allied with the U.S.   But none is strong enough to withstand the two global thugs; namely, Russia and China.  Clearly, this is a time for democratic nations to stand against the bullies.  But to do this they need strong and intelligent leadership.  Russia and China don't see one.  The aging Biden certainly hasn't impressed anyone with his qualities of leadership.

Each of the democratic nations mentioned above has a weakness they must deal with.  But all seem ready to weaken themselves fatally thanks to the current Green mirage.  What are the strengths of the bullies?  In the case of Russia, it's their copious stores of gas and oil.  Insufficient energy can bring the world's democracies to their knees.  In the case of China, it's their overwhelming store of military assets.

Russia's economic structure might have been much more powerful if it had adopted a political structure of a more democratic nature.  Nevertheless, Putin has organized his military structure brilliantly.  The democratic states have let their military arm become enfeebled.  The NATO nations have failed to meet their military commitments.  Germany the strongest European nation won't even let arms be flown over their nation to help the Ukrainian nation as it prepares for the impending Russian assault.

Energy is the lynch pin to the Russian strategy.  What has America and the rest of the free world been doing?  They've been chasing the Green goose.  America has been failing to uphold the energy independence they had once achieved.  Instead, they're asking Saudi Arabia and other oil producing states to increase their production.  In pursuing their cockeyed policy, the U.S. is now turning to the Saudis for help.  The U.S. which has neglected its own energy needs is now turning to a country they've treated quite shabbily.  True, the Saudis were once a leading proponent of a Salafic Islam.  But that's yesterday's news.  The Saudis are now showing quite clearly that they recognize the need to pursue goals of a more modern nation, a nation more secular in orientation.

It behooves America to recognize that its pursuit of turning Green must not turn its back on reality.  If there's oil in the Caribbean, let's pump it.  If more oil can be taken out of Alaska, let's take it out.  If a pipeline from Canada to a Louisiana refinery can give us a source of cheap oil, let's build it.  If steel requires coal, let's dig it.  It's better to lose some of our shoreline than to become subject to the whims of the likes of China or Russia.

Wind and sun are wonderful sources of energy, but they're inadequate.  Electric driven vehicles are also a great idea and should be pursued.  But as right-minded as these pursuits are, they are insufficient to meet the free world's energy needs.  If we weren't faced by imperialists like Russia and China ready to eat our lunch, we might be able to pursue the objectives of the Greens.  All we'd lose would be a notch or two on our standard of living.  But in a world with the likes of these totalitarian states, the mindless pursuit of getting  Green is a prescription for disaster.  Better to lose some shoreline than become slaves to Russia and China.  

Middle East: There Is Always Hope That Reality Will Win

 The old story: Jews came to Palestine and developed it.  They had been stateless long enough.  Palestine was essentially empty except for some Jews in Jerusalem and some Arab tenant formers near the northern coast.

The Muslim Brotherhood was created by an anti-Semitic s.o.b. who got the British to bar further entry to Palestine by Jews while Arabs continued to move in and capitalize on what was being built by the Jews.

The middle story:  Five Arab states (maybe one or two more) attacked the fledgeling state of Israel.  Surprise, surprise, Israel survived.

The story that set the stage for today:  Failing to destroy Israel, the Arab states gave support to a terrorist by the name of Arafat.  Despite his terrorism, Israel managed to get him out of Israel and then out of Lebanon.  But the U.S. (yes, the U.S.) rescued this bastard.  They made Tunisia accept him and then twisted Israel's arm to readmit to the west bank as leader of the Palestinians.  He continued with his bloody intifadas as the U.S. stood by and watched him turn down peace proposals that would have done grievous harm to Israel.  But that's not what Arafat wanted.  He didn't want Israel weakened. He wanted Israel destroyed.  When he died, the world saw what he had done with much of the aid given him for the Palestinians.  He had socked it away in Swiss banks for this family.  "His Palestinians" be damned.

The story today: begins with Abbas, Arafat's successor:  Every bit as ruthless and corrupt as Arafat, he began to encounter an entity even more ruthless and corrupt; namely, Hamas.  And as bad as Abbas is, Israel judged him as more acceptable than Hamas.  Their battle cry: Remove all Jews between the river (Jordan River) and the sea (Mediterranean).  They work for the day when they can say, "Bye, bye Isreal."

Current:  Instituted by one of our most hated American presidents, we have the Abraham Accords.  This comes just as our ever-stumbling, current U.S. presidents is clearing the path for a country that hates us to acquire an atomic weapon.  But, with the Abraham Accords, a way has been opened for Arab countries, willing to live peacefully with Israel. to confront every one's worst nightmare; Iran with atomic weapons.

Now comes the latest development:  Hamas and to a lesser extent, Fatah, support a proxy for Iran, namely the Houthis.  And, what does our current U.S. president do?  He takes the Houthis off our list of  terrorist nations.

Stay tuned.

Pity Today's Cuban Refugees

 I read an AP item today (Feb 6, 2022) about Cuban refugees that really tore at my heart.  The refugees, ten of them, were rescued at sea by an American patrol.  Their boat had turned over at sea and they had no life vests or any sort of safety gear.  By being spotted and rescued their lives were saved.

Three of the refugees were sent to a hospital in Florida.  That cheered me.

The rest were returned to Cuba.  That outraged me.

I know America's policy in this matter.  If Cuban refugees are able to reach an American beach, they are allowed to stay in our country.  If they are caught at sea, they are returned to Cuba.

That policy may have made some sense when promulgated years ago.  But today, with hundreds of thousands illegally crossing our border with Mexico, it's stupid.  And, it's needlessly cruel.

I guess the authorities reckon the Cubans will probably vote Republican.  With those crossing our southern border, the Democrats figure they will have a better chance picking up a few votes.

What a world.  What a country.

Book Review: Caste - The Origins of Our Discontents by Isabel Wilkerson

 I had a lot of problems with this book.  It had received so many outstanding reviews.  It was featured by Oprah's Book Club.  But, I hated it.  I'll try to explain.

At the very beginning, the author feels she must denigrate Donald Trump.  Okay, she doesn't like Trump.  I know many people who don't like the Donald.  But what has that got to do with her book?

Let me digress for a moment.  The charges against Trump generally include having a potty mouth and being  a misogynist.  But consider this:     

Pres Lyndon Johnson gave press briefings while seated on the White House toilet as he moved his bowels.

Pres. Jack Kennedy had a parade of ladies visit him in the White House for sex while supposedly a happily married  man.

He may have wanted to, but to the best of my knowledge, Trump never succeeded in getting as low as the standards set by these two men.

When you get beyond what the author has to say about Trump, you get to her recitation of the evils of slavery followed by the evils of Jim Crow.  And, here she is on solid ground.  These period were indeed dark.  They were periods of unbelievable cruelty.  But they were not unique in the annals of history.

The Inquisition in Spain and Vlad the Impaler were but two chapters in the sorry history of mankind.

My problem with the book and various other books of this ilk is that it doesn't give the picture in full.  Consider the first instance where Black people were taken out of Africa for enslavement in the New World.  White men didn't get off their ships and rush into the African jungles to find slaves.  They didn't have to.   They dealt with tribes that did the job for them.  There were tribes that didn't care much for some of the tribes around them.  They'd capture them and sold them to ships from Great Britain, Holland, the U.S., Spain and other nations.

Caribbean nations used as many slaves as America and Brazil brought in twice as many.  But there's no need to restrict the ill treatment of Blacks to slavery in the New World,  Rhodes, now known for his scholarships, treated his Black laborers in African mines atrociously,  Mention should also be made that slavery continues to this day, but is rarely mentioned.

But, I don't disagree that slavery and Jim Crow in America must be addressed as having an American uniqueness about it..  And who can fail to sorrow over the fact that the many lives lost in our Civil War failed to more thoroughly end the negative stereotypes of Black people.

I'd like to make two more points; namely, the positive things Americans have done to bring Blacks into mainstream American culture, historically and currently.  Consider the NAACP in the fight for the civil rights of Black people.  This was an organization put together by a white Jew.  Consider too the work done by the chairman of Sears and Roebuck who in the early years after slavery, created over 500 schools for Black students.  Consider too the Catholic bishop from New York and the noted Jewish rabbi who marched with Martin Luther King Jr. over the Edmund Pettus Bridge.

Hollywood and the many TV sitcoms such as All In The Family and The Jeffersons held a mirror to white beliefs and prejudices.  They were effective, especially among younger people.  I'm not saying Americans today are free of prejudice.  But we see commercials today featuring many more Blacks than was ever the case previously.  However, Black Lives Matter and people like the Rev Al Sharpton have the potential for creating divisions between whites and Blacks.

Americans divide themselves along many lines.  There are union families and those against unions. There are those who favor charter schools and those opposed.  There are military families and those who shun the military.  America is unlike any other country.  Some see Americans as better people.  But many don't.  We have fought in righteous wars as well as in stupid ones.  But, we want to move ahead and be better.  And, if we can help other people, so much better.

But concepts being put forth in this bookwork against these ambitions.  For example, connectivity which holds that everything is related; that South African apartheid is related in some was to present day American race relations is nonsense. We then have the author's concept of caste.  This concept is a cultural aspect of Hindu society as noted by the author.  It has also been a part of Japanese society (but I digress).  Caste despite the authors musings is not a part of the American psyche.  To introduce caste as a part of Black-white relationships in American may sell books but it is a misapplication of a nonAmerican concert.