Does Circumstances Make Morality Irrelevant?

I have been engaged in an interesting conversation with an individual in regard to the war between Israel and the Palestinians (actually more akin to a slaughter than a war due to the huge disparity in power).  During this discussion the individual refused to condemn any of Hama’s actions.

Their reasoning was that due to what the Palestinians have suffered, not just now but for decades, and due to the almost hopeless situation on October 7^th, 2023 in regards to finding other ways to receive justice, correct wrongs, and make their voice heard, that the those of us who were not in that same situation were therefor not in a position to pass judgement on what Hamas did.  When I brought up the immorality of some of Hamas’s actions their response was that because of this oppression and hopelessness morality does not matter in this case.  They would neither promote nor condemn these actions.  My impression of the argument is that if the oppression is so bad and so long then it is in a category by itself and it is not for anyone outside to pass any moral judgement on the actions the oppressed think necessary. 

I was rather struck by the idea that in certain situations morality does not matter. Or perhaps, it is not as relevant. It is the first time I have ever had someone seriously argue this.   After some thought and research – for which I am grateful to this person for motivating me to do –  I found that both my thoughtful consideration and my initial reaction were in accord –  I disagree.  While understanding why an action was done is important, the why does not shield it from being evaluated for its morality.  Nor should it.

The reason why I disagree is because we are highly social creatures.  In fact, this is essential to our nature.  It is one of the two reasons why our species has survived and flourished, our ability, indeed our need, to form groups.  Coupled with our high intelligence and our ability to form not just groups but very large groups, morality is an essential part of forming and maintaining any and all groups.  It helps provide the guidelines and standards necessary for the formation of any group.   To disregard the morality of any given action is to ignore an essential part of being human. 

Some will say that morality is largely subjective, and dependent upon a particular culture and society.  That to view the actions of one group through the moral lens of another, especially that between an oppressed people and the oppressor, is wrong and flawed.  To which I would acknowledge that there is an element of truth to that.  But not the whole truth. Or even most of it. 

Morality is a fuzzy thing.  However, it is a fuzzy thing that has an objective basis.  This basis is twofold – the traits we evolved to cause us to be social creatures, such as empathy, reciprocity, a sense of fairness, etc.  And then those social structures resulting from these traits form and shape those traits and, with trial and error wind up promoting good societies that can survive. Something that is on always on-going project, especially given the size and complexity of our societies.  

I am not going to go into all the  intricacies of morality.  At the end of this blog there are some references for your reading pleasure should you wish to pursue further.

Instead though I am wanting to emphasize that it is our ability to form societies that has led to human survival.  Without that we would be extinct.  And our morality is an essential part of that survival trait.  To say that morality has no role to play in evaluating the actions of humans in some situations is to say that we cannot use our common humanity to evaluate human actions.  That seems nonsensical to me. 

I think this is clearly seen if we take this idea that no judgement can be made on the actions of an oppressed people who are fighting their oppressors to its logical extreme. 

Imagine that one of the many groups of Jewish partisans in Nazi Europe decided to start kidnapping German citizens who had no connection to the military, politicians, war industries, or law enforcement.  They kidnap whole families, including children and babies.  Then then they stripped them, make them labor on short food and water for weeks with frequent beatings before packing them all into gas chambers.  Would their actions be moral?  Should we avoid condemning these actions because the Jews were most definitely oppressed during this time, to the point of being almost rendered extinct in Europe?

This points towards another aspect of the necessity of moral judgements.  Solutions are going to have to be moral, and just. Otherwise, the problem will continue on and only the veneer will have changed.  In trying to atone for their treatment of the Jews over thousands of years, Europe and the US created another injustice and immoral act. Which is why we have our current bloodshed.

Two final points on this. 

First, immoral actions never make other immoral actions moral or right.  The immoral actions committed by Hamas on October 7^th do not justify the current actions of Israel.  Not in the slightest. 

Second, while saying a given action is immoral, understanding why it was done is just as important in deciding how to act and react to that immoral act.  In ignoring the cause of Hamas immoral actions – the decades long series of injustices being committed by the Israel against the Palestinians – no true solution will be found.  Only more pain and suffering and needless deaths.  Only more immoral actions and immoral reactions.

Some interesting reads on a very complex subject.

“Seven Moral Rules Found Around the World“, Oxford

“Is There a Universal Morality? Introduction and Overview of Responses“, Prosocial World

“Culture and the Evolution of Human Cooperation“, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

“The Evolution of Morality“, Evolution; education and outreach

Read Full Post »

Solving One Injustice by Creating Another is No Solution. Israel and It’s Creation

In several of my discussions about the war in Gaza I have had those defending Israel’s actions bring up some variant of the argument that the Palestinians had their chance to vote when Israel was created, but chose not to.  Saying in effect that the Palestinians had a chance to peacefully resolve this on day one, and chose not to.  However, that is very much a perversion of history.  Israel’s creation was immoral and unjust.  Period. 

Now, before going further into why this is true, let me say that after having existed for 75 years now, and the vast majority of its citizens having been born and raised there, often being the second or even third generation, to try to destroy it or undo it now would be to create an equally great immorality and injustice.   You do not correct one injustice by committing another. 

So, now on to why it is wrong to say that the Palestinians had a choice in the beginning to be part of a great compromise, and that everything that has happened since is due to their refusal to be a part of that.  And that Israel has a moral and legal right to be created. 

Now, moving on to why the creation of Israel was wrong, a good starting point is the Palestinian Mandate.  The Palestinian Mandate was created by the League of nations in 1920 and ceded control of Palestine, which had originally been under Turkish control, to Britain.  It required Britain to put into practice the Balfour Declaration with the goal of creating a Jewish state.  One that would exist alongside the Arabs.  I should mention that the Balfour Declaration was very much the work of European Jews, and not those still living in Palestine.

The drafting of this mandate was done without any – repeat, without any input from Arabs.  Or the people living on the land.  In fact, at least four times a delegation from 4th Palestine Arab Congress, composed of people who actually lived in the Palestine, tried to present their views that the Balfour declaration was wrong and should be struck down, that favoritism should not be given to European Jews, and that any state in the Palestine area should be affiliated with other Arab states.  All of these objections were rejected. 

In looking at the wording of this mandate, the intention was also for Britain to then help create a country ruled by the majority Arab population in Palestine.  This mandate stated that once the area has “… reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.” 

This was widely understood to mean an Arab nation by those living in the Palestine area.  The Palestinians took some hope from that.  Based on what happened soon after though that hope was totally misplaced. Instead of creating an Arab state, Britain, with the help of the UN,  eventually gave it over to European Jews. 

Fast forward to 1947.  The UN passed a resolution, Resolution 181, creating a Jewish state and setting up what it called a “compromise”.  However, I will point out that it too was created without the input from those already living in Palestine, and over their objections.  Further, it gave 56% of Palestine to the European Jews, and only 43% to those who had been living on the land for generations.   Even though there were twice as many Arabs living in Palestine as Jews.  Even though the Arabs owned the majority of land in Palestine. And as the Palestinians and other Arabs said at the time, this violated the principle of national self determination that said the people living on the land should be the ones who determine their own fate.  I should also mention that the Arabs who did not become citizens in the Jewish part were to be evicted. 

Some defenders of Israel say that the residents of Palestine did not even bother to vote on this compromise.  But why should they?  The residents of Palestine would not have been voting on whether to allow these outsiders in.  They would have been voting on the best way to divide up the land for these foreigners to come in.  And that was not what they were wanting.   Before voting on a “compromise” there should have been a vote among those already living in that land on whether they would allow European Jews to come in and create a new country out of land the Palestinians were living on. That never happened. There was no consent. Just a “compromise” offered after the fact.

Does that strike you as just?  

Let me now provide a what if analogy to help make this injustice even clearer, I hope.  An analogy based upon American history. 

I am not sure if you are from the United States or not but let me illustrate why it is not using some American history. 

In the 1830s the United States wanted the land the Cherokee tribe was living on.  There were several reasons for this desire.  Gold had been discovered in that area.  It was also prime farming country.  Add to this the growing  US population, slavery, and the fact that the Indian nations were independent of state control, well, it became obvious that the Cherokees had to go. 

The Cherokees fought it in court but lost.  In 1838 President Jackson ordered their expulsion from their land – that covered part of Georgia, Alabama, as well as part of North and South Carolina – to go to the new Indian Territory in Oklahoma.  This expulsion is called the Trail of Tears due to how many Cherokees died on this journey.  Out of the around 17,000 forced to leave their homes, approximately 6,000 men, women and children died on their march to Oklahoma. 

So, let’s move forward to today.  Imagine that some Cherokees have petitioned the UN to be given some of their land back due to the extreme poverty of their reservation and the discrimination that still goes on against them.  They want a homeland set up in their ancestral homeland where they can better control their fate.  In addition to it being their homeland, they also point out that there are still a few Cherokees still living in that area. 

The UN then comes up with a Resolution that gives Cherokees some of their land back – the part that covers northern Georgia and northeastern Alabama.   After all those areas are their ancestral homeland.  As part of this resolution any Americans living within that area would have to leave, no matter if they and their families had lived on that land for over a hundred years.  No vote is taken among the Americans now living on that land. No consent given.

How do you think those Americans would react?  Do you think they would participate in any vote on this?  I imagine they would say hell no, no one is voting to kick me off mine and my families lands. 

This would be similar to that in regards to Palestine. But with Palestine it is much worse.  The vast majority of the Jews entering into Israel at this time – and I mean the massive majority – came from Europe. Their ancestors had not lived in Palestine for hundreds, even over a thousand years.  And they would be displacing people who lived in that land now. Whose families have lived in that land for many generations going back hundreds if not thousands of years.  This compromise of two states is rather akin to asking would you rather get knifed in the stomach or back.  Most would say I vote for neither. 

The creation of Israel was not right, it was not just, it was not moral.  And it set up the current conflict. 

Now, let me also say that I do not blame the European Jews for going.  After having been persecuted for thousands of years, a persecution that culminated in the Holocaust, the idea of their own country where they would be safe from such atrocities  is overwhelmingly appealing. 

No, I don’t’ blame them for choosing this, although their choice was wrong.  More wrong though was Europe and America’s treatment of the Jews, and how they then decided to rectify that by creating a homeland for the Jews.  A homeland is a good idea, but it should not involve the involuntary removal and displacement of those already living there.  Look to the lands the European countries already owned and work out something there instead of what they actually chose.  As I have said earlier in this blog, correcting one injustice (their treatment of the Jews) with another (against the Palestinians) only creates more problems.  Usually larger ones. And we are seeing that play out now, with those consequences made even worse by many other bad choices along the way.

Read Full Post »

Breaches in the Wall of Separation

Currently we are riding a wave of threats to our liberties coming from the religious right. A woman’s right to control her body, struck down.  Tennessee passing a law allowing public officials, government officials, to refuse to perform gay marriages due to that official’s religious beliefs.  And Alabama’s ruling that a fetus is a person, even using quotes from the Bible as part of its reasoning. 

Given all of this I thought it appropriate to again go over why the separation of church and state is not only important but also critical to the protection of all our rights.  I did so once using history to show why.  This time I plan to use current examples, namely China, India, Israel, and the US. 

China

Some, perhaps many, will be quick to point out that China is not religious.  It does not endorse Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, or any other religion.  It is an atheist state.  Which is exactly the point.  It proclaims a position on something considered religious – whether God exists.  While in one definition of the term secular China is indeed secular.  However, in another definition, the one I am using, it most definitely is not. 

What many do not realize is that there is a difference between being secular and being atheist.  Secular actually comes in three types.  However, in regard to government, it means that that government takes no stance on purely religious issues. They neither promote nor discourage any one religious view.  Even atheism.  And it is that meaning that I will be referring to in this blog when I say secular.  Let me also mention that as with all human institutions, there is no perfection.  There are several secular governments but some are more secular than others.  And many proclaim themselves to be secular but are not.

China though is not a secular government.  It officially describes itself as being atheist.  And although they recognize five religions – Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Catholicism, and Protestantism – party officials have to be atheists.  And even the officially recognized five religions are closely monitored and restricted.  And if your religion is not one of these five – well, good luck. 

Through the years Chinese actions in regard to religion have changed.  However, they have always been regulated and those considered dangerous condemned and outlawed, while atheism has always been favored. 

The current government of China is “urging all religious groups in China to adapt to socialism by integrating their doctrines, customs and morality with Chinese culture.”  They also have to pledge loyalty to the state. 

They have tightened controls on all the official religions – detaining Uyghurs (Muslims) in Xinjiang and cracking down on underground Quran study groups,  reinforced its ban on unauthorized Protestant worship sites, forcing house churches to join a state-run association and detaining Protestant religious leaders who refuse to cooperate and other actions.  They have though been more lenient towards the native religions – Buddhism and Taoism, allocating money for different projects relating to these two religions. 

So, unlike in secular governments, religion and religious thought and belief is heavily regulated.  Limits are applied to speech and to associations.  All flowing from the lack of separation of church and state.

One point of interest here.  Laws against homosexuality are often said to be related to religious beliefs. Yet, in China, an atheist state, while it is legal to be gay it is still illegal for them to marry or to have civil unions.  Further there are no protections against discrimination in regard to housing and employment, conversion therapy is allowed, gays are not allowed to donate blood.  And can only adopt a child if they are single.   

India

India is officially a secular state.  It says so in its Constitution.  However, in that same Constitution the government is allowed to interfere in matters of religious belief and actions.  Some of this though was necessary and good, such as the abolition of the untouchable caste, and opening up the Hindu temples to lower castes.  Others though, such as the partial funding of religious schools as well as religious buildings are not, are dangerous cracks in the wall of separation. 

An even more dangerous crack in that wall is their allowance of the individual states to make their own laws regulating religious institutions.  And unless they conflict with the central government laws, they stand.  This has led to a variety of laws in regard to religious rights within India, and greater breaches to the wall.  These laws include 11 states outlawing religious conversions.

This mix means that India is more of a quasi-secular state than an actual one.  And just as in the US, there is a conservative religious movement working to have India declared a Hindu nation, with motions to have their Constitution reflect this.  It is no surprise that there has been a rise in religious violence, – Muslims mainly, but also against Christians and Dalits.  As exemplified by the many violent acts during the recent inauguration of the Hindu Ram Temple. 

Israel

Israel is not a secular state.  It proclaims itself a Jewish state and Jews are favored over other groups within Israel.  It does not allow civil marriages and non-religious divorces, the Chief Rabbinate controls all Jewish weddings, divorces, conversions and answers questions on who a Jew for purposes of immigration is.  The ministry of education oversees both the secular and religious schools of all faiths, giving them only a limited degree of independence along with a common core curriculum.  And although it protects some faiths, others are not so favored.  Including some Jewish groups. 

However, despite all of this, it does come closer to realizing the protections within its political structure for other religions than either India or China.  But that is trending downwards. Especially the rise of the religious right in Israel, the rights of non-Jews is becoming more precarious.

Even worse it is this religious belief on the part of the Jewish religious conservatives that is one of the main reasons why Israel continues to expand into the West Bank and controlling Gaza, with the claim that they both are part of the Israel in the Bible. 

Finally there is the fact that their religious identity conflicts with their identity as a democracy.  Currently that is not a pressing issue. Although it means that if Israel does formally make the West Bank and Gaza strip part of Israel they will be faced with a decision.  Name do they allow the Arab and mainly Muslim inhabitants to vote with the very real possibility that items related to Judaism and government may be changed?  Do they also formally make them second class citizens without the right to vote?  Or do they do a massive deportation?   None of those are good options, but that is what Israel will be facing someday, even without annexing the West Bank and Gaza. 

The United States

I came across this description of the state of secularism (from the above link about secular) in the United States and liked it.

“The United States is a secular country in theory, but it falls short in actual practice. The U.S. is a self-described secular state and is often considered to be constitutionally secular. The U.S. Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Additionally, keeping with the lack of an established state religion, Article Six of the U.S. Constitution states that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

On the other hand, many official U.S. materials still include clear references to religion. The Pledge of Allegiance includes the line “one nation under God,” which is undeniably non-secular. Also, the phrase “In God We Trust” appears on all United States currency (both coins and paper bills) and became the official United States motto in 1956. While religious references such as these are common in many countries, their presence inspires understandable debate about the separation of church and state, as well as whether the U.S. is truly devoted to secularism.”

There are many threats to rights from many different directions and with many different motivations and causes. Breaking the wall separating religion and state though is a common route for such threats to become reality.  That is because it involves matters of conscience and morality, and beliefs that most consider very important.

Once a state starts to identify with a religion then anyone not of that religion becomes, at the very least, slightly suspicious since they are not a good “insert name of state here”.  Worse case, they are persecuted.  Their speech is limited, their ability to associate with others limited, their ability to build houses of worship limited, their ability to hold office limited, their ability to marry and raise children limited.  Eventually these limits turn into being jailed, or forced to move to camps. 

When religions is used as the primary basis for passing laws then we see what we are seeing play out in the US – book bannings increasing, restrictions on bodily autonomy, making the fetus equal in the eyes of the law with a person, allowing government officials to refuse to marry gays, etc. 

The separation of church and state is not only important for the right of individuals to believe as they think best but also to protect us against unnecessary laws based upon other’s conscience. It is why there has to be a secular basis for laws.  It may coincide with a particular religious view – in fact it most often will. With several religious views in fact. But the basis for the law has to be secular not religious 

People look at the small things that encroach upon that wall of separation –  police cars with “In God We Trust”, a cross in a public school classroom, allowing students to fly the Christian flag on the public school flagpole, opening public meetings with a prayer, etc. – and think this is minor.  It is not a big deal.  However, it is through such small things that rafts are created that lift some people above others – those of the right religious beliefs.  The rest get left behind to swim, or more likely, sink. 

As a bit of an aside, for those who call us a Christian nation and who say our country was founded upon Christianity, you need to consider why I chose this time to write my blog.  My idea for this blog actually came about when listening to a Christian religious talk show discussing how the government of India was no longer protecting the religious rights of non-Hindus and of the dangers of “Hindu Nationalism”.  I think they should have used a mirror during that discussion. 

Read Full Post »

Israel, Hamas – Significant Differences, a Significant Commonality

Since Hamas attacked and massacred about 1200 Israeli men, women, and children, as well as kidnapped another 240 men, women, and children on October 7^th there has been in large increase in antisemitic attacks across the US and the world.  Harassment and assault, vandalism, and more have increased by 338% over the same time last year in the US.  Australia has had a 591 % increase.  Germany, a 320% increase.  Brazil has seen a 961% increase in antisemitic incidents. 

Within the US there has also been a large increase in Islamophobic incidents.  One of these resulted in the targeted death of a six-year-old boy just because he was Palestinian.  His mother, though wounded, survived the attack.  Three college students from Palestine were shot while taking a walk before the Thanksgiving meal.  While all three of these students survived one is permanently paralyzed.  From October 7^th through October 24^th there has been an increase of 182% in Islamophobic incidents in the US. 

I keep meaning to not do another blog on the war between Hamas and Israel, and yet I keep doing another one. This is a situation which ignites the torches of a great deal of emotions on both sides.  One with seemingly great moral clarity, but what that clarity is depends on who you ask.  More importantly it is one in which both sides, ironically, share a common trait – both are victims, both are the creation of unheard voices.

What do I mean by that statement?  This meme provides a starting point on what I mean. 

Currently it is very easy to see how this applies to the Palestinians.  Their land, the land that they had lived on for generations, was taken from them.  In fact, the UN mandate that created Israel and separated the land into Jewish and Palestinian, actually gave the European Jews more land than the resident Palestinians.  In 1944 Jews owned only 6% of the land in Palestine.  The UN mandate would give incoming Jews 56% of the land and relegate the already there Palestinians to just 42 % (the remaining 2% were enclaves such as Jerusalem).   

Since that time the Palestinians have lost even more land, been restricted to increasingly small areas, with their borders and lives controlled by Israel.  Israel controls the borders of Gaza and all the drinking water, electricity and shipments into and out of it.  And in the West Bank, which is growing smaller and smaller as illegal Israeli settlements are allowed to take hold of more Palestinian land, the Palestinians live under Israeli military law whereas the illegal Jewish settlers do not. Palestinians do not have the same rights and protections as the Jews, with the military, for example, being able to arrest and hold a Palestinian indefinitely without charging them.  For years.  In fact, around 2,500 Palestinians are in this limbo.  Israel controls the good jobs, the money flow in both Gaza and West Bank, entry into Gaza and the West Bank, policies done under the banner of security, but which means that both areas are among the most impoverished in the world. 

Over the decades there have been times where there was real hope for a viable two state solution.  But then it always faded (sometimes due to the leaders of the Palestinians, more often due to Israeli actions, or inaction). Thus, things became worse instead of better, the future dark and increasingly without hope among the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.  Worse the fickle world no longer paid attention to their suffering and the injustices being committed against them daily, a tacit approval of what Israel was doing.

This all led to the creation of Hamas, and then its October 7^th atrocity.  The one in which over 1200 Israeli people died, mainly civilian, and often women and children.  The one in which around 240 men, women, and children were taken hostage.  Ironically, some of those killed were Jews who had protested the Israeli government and its actions and were working with Palestinians to improve lives. 

There is no excuse for this atrocity.  There is nothing that can make this immoral act moral.  Period.  Which is what too many seem to be doing on.   However, what there can be, and should be, in addition to the condemnation, is understanding.  And this understanding can best be summed up by a quote from MLK when he called the violence of many of the protests in the US as being “…the language of the unheard”. 

Here is the point at which the commonality Hamas shares with Israel comes in that I mentioned in my title. Just as with Hamas, Israel too was created as a result of being “unheard”.  Unheard and unheeded for millennia. 

This is the reason that the Zionist Jews created Israel, their voices were not being heard.  Not heard when they starved, when they were herded into ghettos, when they were killed by the thousands, when they were forced from country to country, when their property was taken again and again, when they were denied jobs, forced to wear special clothing identifying them, when they were spat upon and slurred.  Their cries for justice and protection were not heard. No one cared enough.  And so, they created Israel, a Jewish homeland so that they would not have to depend on someone hearing them again. 

The Holocaust finally thrust these terrible injustices into the faces of those who had ignored the Jew’s voices for so long so that they finally heard them.  The deaths of six million men, women, and children make for a very large shout. 

After World War 2, due to guilt and Zionism, and possibly, for some, seeing it as an opportunity to get rid of an unwanted minority without fuss and bother, the European powers and the US accepted the solution of the Zionist movement and supported the creation of Israel. 

Out of guilt, out of horror, out of a need to find security, Israel was born. But it was born on the back of injustice, immorally taking lands that were not theirs and forcing those who had lived there for generations off their lands.  Creating another homeless people such as they had been. 

This history of being unheard is why Israel reacts as it does to attacks such as that done by Hamas.  This memory of when they were unheard and a determination not to ever be so again, reinforced by the fact that antisemitism is still very much a force to reckon with outside of Israel, created and maintains their basic identity of a people persecuted but who are fighting back.

However, understanding is, again, not excusing.  Not for Hamas, not for Israel.  But it can lead to better and more informed actions.  Both sides would do well to remember their history of being unheard victims, and then recognize the same in the other. 

The true, easily said solution is for each to work on both being heard, together.  To recognize that commonality.

Israel needs realize that now it is the Palestinians who are not being heard, and Israel the one not hearing them.  They have taken on the role of their persecutors.  And the Palestinians need to realize that Israel was born out of the same history they are experiencing now.  And that after being here for 75 years not only will Israel not be destroyed, it would be immoral and wrong to do so.  You do not solve one injustice with another. That only creates more fear, pain, and hatred. 

The words of Nelson Mandela’s seem to apply here: 

For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”

As I said, a solution easily said but difficult to do. Even more so in this case given the history and the emotions. And the fact that both share the same motives too – protection of their families and friends.  Perhaps given all of this such a thing is impossible and, instead, wound festering that will erupt into violence again and again until a final end. I think that there can be a solution though. One not easily attained, and not one that is going to come about quickly. It will be a long term project requiring dedication, commitment, and risk. But if true peace and justice is ever to come about, it needs to be attempted.  Again and again and again.  The unheard need to be heard.    

Read Full Post »

Existential Threats

In the war between Hamas and Israel I have often seen Israel’s actions justified by stating that Israel is facing an existential threat.  And they are.  But it is not of the type of existential threat that those defending Israel’s actions mean though.  Israel’s existence is not under threat by the actions of Hamas, but by its own reactions to what Hamas has done.

The Palestinians are also facing an existential threat. 

For that matter, so is the United States. 

Let’s me say now that I am expanding, or perhaps better put, modifying the definition of existential threat from what most people mean when using those two words together.  For most, and for me too, it means a threat to their very existence.  Their lives.  Of the three mentioned above – Palestinians, Israel, and the United States – only the Palestinians meet this classic definition of existential threat. 

However, I believe that when it comes to countries, existential threats can also apply to their identity as a nation.  For example, were the United States to become an Orwellian dictatorship then, although there would still be a nation of that name, I would say that the United States no longer truly exists.  The ideals that caused its creation and formed its identity for almost 250 years, would have died.  Whatever would cause that to happen is then an existential threat. 

Obviously, some existential threats are more immediate and dangerous than others.  So, let me start discussing these threats to US, Israel, and the Palestinians in reverse order, starting with the one posing the least danger – which is far from saying no danger, this is comparison only -to the one that is the most immediate and dangerous.

The United States. 

The United States’s existential threat is one of identity and not of actually being wiped out.  So, what is the identity of the US?  As with all identities, it is the one we (not others) identify ourselves with.  That can best be summed up with two quotes:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  The Declaration of Independence. 

“…that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” Gettysburg Address. 

In other words, we see ourselves as a freedom loving democracy.  Of course, the first thought many have is that we had a basic conflict to our ideals when we were created. Slavery. Slavery was one of our basic institutions, especially in the southern states.  Along with that was the fact that women did not have the right to vote, among lacking other rights.  Our reality did not match up to our identity. 

This conflict between our ideals and our reality has greatly shaped our history as we worked to make our reality conform more closely to our identity.  It is why there was a Civil War, the Civil rights movements, women’s rights movement, and so forth. And this is still in the works today.  We have made great progress, but much more needs to be done to realize those ideals in order make our reality conform to our identity. 

Today though we also have an in process fundamental threat to our identity as a freedom loving democracy – the extremists who have taken control the Republican party, and their leading spokesman trump.  They are threatening our identity as a democracy by attacking the most basic institution of all democracies – voting. 

They falsely claim that the 2020 elections were fraudulent and have been and continue to be working to undermine the institutions and the people who ensure that our elections actually are fair and free.  They are also working to limit who votes and who doesn’t by controlling the size and shapes of voting districts, and the number and locations of polling places.  And limiting the ways voters can vote. 

All of this is a very real threat to our identity as a democracy. 

As for our identity as freedom loving, here is what their chief spokesman had to say recently:

“We will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country”.

He would do this by eliminating the protections provided by our Civil Service system and would do many, many more direct appointments of those who would support his agenda.

He would do this by limiting the freedom of the press, which he often calls “fake news” and, more concerning,  “ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!”.  Just as authoritarian governments do. 

He and his would also take over education and make it a vehicle for installing his version of patriotism. Witness Florida and the battle on school boards in regards to curriculum which would present only the best and deny the worst, and thereby ignore the history of millions of Americans.  Not to mention that trump is calling for a certification program for teachers who “embrace patriotic values”. 

And that is only a very small partial listing.  Trust in our institutions, especially those related to voting, is at an all time low. That is always a basic goal for those promoting a more authoritarian style of government.  On his own trump would be a two bit blowhard ideologue hate monger.  However, he has a fervent mob set that is set up to support him no matter what.  And they have taken over the Republican party. Those who are not part of the mob either are afraid of it, or think they can control it and trump (like Germany’s leaders when they allowed Hitler to become Chancellor), so that instead of denouncing the lies being told about election fraud, denouncing the January 6^th attempt to overthrow our government they go along and voice support for both. 

However, trump did say something I agreed with.  Trump also said this, “The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous, and grave than the threat from within.”  I totally agree.  Our identity as a freedom loving democracy is under threat. And given that trump is most likely going to the Republican nominee and has a fair chance of winning the Presidency again, it is an imminent and serious threat.  One that has a good chance of resulting in violence before being resolved. 

Israel

Israel’s physical existence is not under threat.  Hamas and the other terrorist groups and their supporters do not have the military and economic resources to destroy Israel.  That can be seen quite clearing in the current war.  Like the US, Israel’s existential threat lies in its identity.  

Like the US, although not as widely acknowledged, Israel also has conflicting identities; that of being both a Jewish state and a democracy.  However, unlike that of the US, theirs is not so easily resolved. Nor, to my mind, resolvable. 

Just consider this question to see why – how does Israel stay a Jewish state if the number of citizens who are not Jews is greater than that who are Jews? 

In fact, in a 2015 Pew Poll 48 % of Jewish Israelis believed that Arabs should be expelled from Israel. In the same poll 79% of Israeli Jews also believed that Jews should have preferential treatment over those who are not Jewish. I have not looked at that number for today, but does anyone doubt that it is much higher now? And the current Hamas war is only accelerating that trend towards restricting the rights of the non-Jewish.    

This is one reason why Israel will never go for a one state solution to the issue of the Palestinians.  In fact, more broadly, this is one reason why any country that has identified itself with a religion – regardless of the religion, Christian, Islam, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Atheist, any and all – winds up trampling on the rights of its citizens and limiting freedoms.  This has nothing to do with Judaism, but with the joining of a religious point of view with the power of the state. 

Of the two identities, democracy and Jewishness, I believe for most the Jewish identity is the stronger. This is not surprising given the history of their persecution, culminating in the Holocaust, that the Jews have suffered.  Not to mention the antisemitism that is still a large issue today.  Israel was created as a place of safety and refuge from that history. 

Israel also has one other identity though.  One that is almost as integral to them as being Jewish.  That of being persecuted.  And of being a haven for the persecuted. Now though that identity is also under threat due to them becoming the persecutors. 

“When my grandmother arrived here in Israel, after the holocaust, the Jewish agency promised her a house. She had nothing. Her whole family had been exterminated. She waited a long time, living in a tent in a very precarious position. They then took her to Ajami in Jaffa, in a wonderful house on the beach. She saw that on the table there were still the plates of the Palestinians who had lived there, and who had been driven away. She returned to the agency and said “take me back to my tent, I’ll never do to someone else that which has been done to me.” This is my heredity, but not everybody made that choice. How can we become that which we were oppressed by? This is a great question.“ Hadar Morag,

“The fate of Israel depends on two things- its strength and its righteousness.” Ben Gurion. 

Israel today is using its strength.  Its righteousness is lacking though, and that is the existential threat to Israel. 

The Palestinians. 

Of the three the Palestinians is the much greater and most immediate danger.  Unlike Israel and the US, theirs is not to their identity but to their actual existence, to their lives. 

They have been evicted from the land that they had lived in for hundred if not thousands of years.  Most have been forced to live in only part of their original lands.  And those parts are not only the poorer tracts lacking natural resources, but they are also becoming smaller in regards to the West Bank.  This despite promises by Israel and the international community.  And in both the Gaza and West Bank, who and what goes into those Palestinian areas is tightly controlled.  Access to good jobs and money is severely lacking, and also largely controlled by Israel.  And those Palestinians living within Israel usually are treated as second class citizens.  And now, with the war against Hamas, third class or as not even as not being citizens (think about how important Israel’s Jewish identity on this and see how that starts to wind up limiting the rights of the non-Jews). 

To be clear, what Hamas did was immoral and an atrocity.  And Israel has a right and duty to strike back at them to protect its citizens. However, what many who defend Israel’s current actions overlook is that there is more than one way to strike back, even when considering solely military actions.  The way Israel is choosing to strike back does not consider the civilians and innocents.  And so, the civilians and innocent are slaughtered.  As of 11/20/2023 over 16,000 Palestinians have been killed in a month and a half time- the distance between October 7^th and November 20^th.  Of these around 70% have been women and children. 

Israel’s actions do not consider the Palestinian situation, the situation that gives rise to and support to terrorist groups such as Hamas.  And which, if not addressed, will result in more such groups acting against Israel.  Especially if Israel continues to provide only a window dressing concern for civilian casualties in their attacks on Hamas.  If the course is not changed the death toll will rise to many tens of thousands, and possibly even hundreds of thousands.  Especially when you consider the deaths resulting from those who died for lack of water, lack of medical supplies and attention, to the lack of electricity.  All of which are controlled by Israel.  Is it any wonder that charges of ethnic cleansing are being pressed against Israel.  Whether purposely or not (for my part I do not see it as being part of a plan) the result is the same – the death of the Palestinian people. 

What is to be done then?  Short answer – both the US and Israel need to reaffirm and support their self-identity as being both freedom loving and democratic.  Israel needs to remembers its identity and history of being the persecuted. The cry of Never Again needs to apply to more than just the Jews of the Holocaust. 

Read Full Post »

We Do For War What We Will Not Dare for Peace

It seems to me that for all of our talk about peace, about how much we value it, strive for it, work for it, and desire it, that we really do not.  Instead we talk about how wonderful and much needed it is, but are not willing to risk much to attain it. Unless peace can come with unconditional guarantees we often want no part of it.  Without assurances that any peaceful solution will absolutely work with no chance of failure, we reject those actions that would most likely lead to peace. 

Or so it seems to me.

Now, for war, for forceful and violent actions, for deaths and loss  – yes, for that we will take risks, will accept that the consequences may not be certain, that we will need to make sacrifices.  We will even go to war to create peace – a paradox that is most often (if not always) a lie. We go to war for many reasons, only a very few of them good, but not to make peace. Unless it is to deliver the peace of the vanquished, and that is an unstable peace indeed.

What made me start thinking on this, again (it’s a thought I have had for many years now), was the current situation with Hamas, the Palestinians, Israel, and the hospitals.  Specifically, the argument over whether Hamas is hiding in, or under, or around the hospitals.  Hamas and many Palestinian supporters say no.  Israel and their supporters say yes, and then use that fact to justify Israel’s actions in bombing and attacking the hospitals. 

For myself, I do think Hamas is deliberately using hospitals as cover.  Given the vast disparity in power and the type of warfare that has to be done on the part of Hamas, it would only make sense, even if immoral and illegal.  However, my thought from there is…so?  How does that justify what Israel is doing now? 

For those who use this to justify Israel’s actions, they automatically leap to the claim that this an illegal act on the part of Hamas and thus justifies what Israel is doing.  However, there are two (actually three, but I am only discussing two in this blog) very important considerations that are being ignored.  Basic ones in fact. 

First, they assume that full out attacks are the only option to move forward.  There is no consideration of other possible actions that could be taken, ones that might reduce the number of civilian casualties, lighten world criticism, and be more moral.   

The second important consideration is their goal.  Without good goals and then keeping an eye on how your actions affect the realization of that goal, you can go disastrously astray.  So, what is the goal of their military actions in Gaza?  Is it to defeat Hamas?  Or is it to gain peace for the people of Israel so that they can live their lives without fear and in safety?  

Those defending Israel seem to assume that these two are one and the same.  In reality though they are not.  In fact, they are largely in conflict here, with the best way to win the war is not the best way to win the peace.  In the former, destroying Hamas is the whole goal.  In the latter, destroying or controlling Hamas is just one of the many necessary means.  They are not equivalent. 

If Israel really wants peace they are going to have to stop engaging in all-out war, do narrower and more focused uses of force that take full cognizance of civilians and does everything it can to minimize any deaths among them.  And then start working on the many justified serious grievances that the Palestinians have against Israel. 

Now, I am not going to go into what all those grievances are.  Nor provide more than this very, very simple basic guideline to what Israel needs to do to achieve peace. That is not the purpose of this blog.  Instead, this blog is meant to answer those who point out that doing what I just mentioned – reigning in the military, a more narrow and focused use of force, along with allowing water, food, medicines, electricity, and so forth into Gaza – would put Israeli soldiers at greater risk, and most likely some Israeli’s citizens too. 

First off, I agree.  Stopping the all-out war, using more limited and targeted uses of force, and also providing food, water, energy to the Palestinians living in Gaza would definitely increase the risk to the Israeli military, and also, likely, to Israeli citizens.  At least in the short term. 

And if that is all Israel is concerned with, winning the war, then this is the way forward.  However, if they want to win a peace, which should be the goal of all good governments, then short term risks need to be taken. 

In a war, both the civilian and military leaders recognize that soldiers will die.  That there will be times, usually many times, when they will be sent to into very high risk, high losses situations in order to advance the chances of winning the war. 

D Day is one prominent example of this.  Troops parachuted behind the lines and faced massive amounts of fire. Of the 2000 paratroopers attacking that day, half of them died.  Many thousands more allied troops stormed the mined beaches through heavily mined waters to attack German fortifications placed atop almost 100 foot cliffs and 10 foot sea walls. During the first 24 hours alone 9000 troops were killed or wounded.  And of course the numbers continued to go up in the days that followed.  Yet that price, and the accompanying real risk of being repulsed and losing those men for no gain, was deemed worth it in order to win the war.  And it was worth it.  The allies won the war much sooner because of it.    

However, the war did not bring the peace that followed.  And that is where the confusion and conflation occurs, both here, and now with Hamas/Israel. 

Winning the war did not win the peace. War has been an integral part of European history until 1945.  Since then it has been nonexistent within Europe. That is the longest stretch of peace in Europe throughout its history.  The Hundred Years Wars, the Napoleonic Wars, Crimean War, Astro-Prussian War, Franco Prussian War, Serbian Ottoman War, and more, all the way up to World War 1.  The war that was to end all wars.  And yet, although the allies won and imposed harsh conditions on the losers, it did not end all wars.  Instead, it set the stage for a larger and more horrendous war – World War 2. 

Suffice it to say that defeating the Axis powers in war alone would not have brought peace.   That took something else with its own dangers and risks. Winning the war did not win peace in WW 1.  It did not in the American Civil War.  It did and does not in most wars. Instead, after WW 2, the US and allies spent money and time building back both Germany and Japan, even though it risked being for naught if either country decided to go back to war again.  Several countries thought that likely in the case of Germany – Russia, France, Netherlands, etc. Yet, it worked.  And this blog is too short a medium to go over all that was done and why it worked. Here are just a few short articles – here, here, here, and here –  if you are interested.

This is relevant today to what is happening with the Israel/Hamas war.  Israel is only concerned with winning the war, and fully protecting its troops.  However, winning the war alone will not win the peace. And risks must be taken to win the peace.   

Now, the situations are not exact, which means the actions needed to win the peace with the Palestinians and Israel will not be exact to those of WW 2.  The main, most relevant differences are, first, the vast disparity in military force, economic power, and geographic power between Israel and Hamas.  There is no comparison between the two in regard to these. 

Next, the Palestinians do not have a country.  They have some land that the Israeli’s suffer them to live on all the while controlling their lives for the worst.  In Gaza for example, they control water, food, energy and supplies.  Totally.  Even worse, Israel is working to take away some of the land the Palestinians still have in the West Bank.  Further, many Palestinians are also citizens of Israel too. But are treated as either second or third class citizens. 

Finally, there is the difference that 75 years ago the land that Israelis live on now was one the Palestinians lived on for generations.

These are all important differences that will shape the specifics of what needs to be done.  However, the very broad outlines of what needs to happen to win the peace can be seen in what was done during WW 2.  Things such as providing economic support not just for living but for creating their own industries so that they can be self-sufficient.  Creating an independent democratic and functioning government.  And having secure boundaries. 

There are more specifics that will need to be done to win the peace.  But this gives the basic idea – defeat Hamas with very minimal civilian casualties and then build up the Palestinians to have their own, independent country capable of surviving on its own. 

Currently Israel is winning the war but losing the peace.  Israel, so far, is unwilling to accept the risks needed for winning the peace – losing more soldiers now, and probably civilians too, in order to avoid a much greater loss of lives in the future, for both Israeli’s and Palestinians.  And while Israel will win the war, it will be like Europe after WW 1, setting up another and worse conflict to come.  Given the way they are progressing now, in winning the war they will lose the peace.  And probably much more – their identity.  But that part is for my next blog. 

Read Full Post »

The Hard Road Not Being Taken

“I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.”

“The Road Not Taken” by Robert Frost

I had told myself that I would not do another blog on the Hamas/Israel war. I have already done two this last month. Interestingly enough I found myself being strongly criticized by both sides on those blogs – by those who are strongly pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian (to the point where I was being called antisemitic) and by those who are strongly pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel (no labeling from that side at least). Given my message in those two blogs I consider that a sign of success. Not a full success, but still.

It seems though that I have one more blog to write on this, what I think Israel should do instead if I am against what they are doing now. I say Israel because, as I wrote in my earlier blogs, Israel is by far the stronger of the two groups, both in military power, in geography, and in economic power. And in the strength of their international support. Given this the onus is on them to find a better solution. 

Let me start though by stating some things up front lest I be accused of antisemitism again.

I believe Israel has the right to exist.

I believe what Hamas did was not only wrong but evil.

I believe that Israel not only has the right to but the obligation to defend its citizens, including going to war if needed.

However, even though Israel has the obligation to defend its citizens such an obligation does not give them carte blanch to do anything and everything in the prosecution of that war. The on-going atrocities being committed by Israel is not justified by the atrocity committed by Hamas.  No atrocity excuses the commission of another atrocity. That is true in the case of the current conflict, and it was true 75 years ago when Israel was created. After 75 years though, to undo Israel’s creation now would be to create another atrocity. Europe’s and America’s attempt to atone for their role in the Holocaust by creating another injustice has led to this situation today with the war between Hamas and Israel. Removing Israel would only create more injustice, hatred, and violence. In other words, make the problem worse.

Let me also state that I don’t know if there is a good, or rather a practical way out of this morass. But I do think if there is it is going to have to be something along the lines of what I outline here.

First, there needs to be a firm realization that there is no military solution that will lead to a good outcome.  Even if they take all of Hamas out in the way they are going now, not only is it immoral but the fact that it was will also lead to other groups, probably larger and more numerous ones, rising.  In fact, one of the reasons for the rise of Hamas was the heavy-handed military occupation of Gaza by Israel in the 1990s and early 2000s.  This occupation led to massive suicide campaigns against Israelis and their eventual withdrawal.  It  also lead to massive support for Hamas which resulted in them winning the 2006 election.

Purely military actions are very rarely the solution. They might make up a part of the solution, but to rely on them as the whole is a mistake that usually creates more problems.  Again, immoral actions and injustices do not correct problems, no matter the size of the military or the ruthlessness of the attack.  It was not the solution for WW1 for example. Which is why we had a much worse WW2.

Second Israel needs to start to address the root causes of the anger of Palestinians. Causes such as their second-class status, heading to third, within Israel.  The continued encroachment and taking away of land promised to the Palestinians – both in the West Bank and in Jerusalem.  The grinding poverty of the Palestinians in the West Bank largely caused by Israel’s control of their resources and their entry/exit, as well as their jobs.  All of these and more are why the Palestinians support Hamas, not only in Gaza but in the West Bank and all other areas. 

Third this needs to be an international effort, and Israel needs to push this.  As does the US.  Neither side trusts the other, and so outside help, as well as outside resources will be needed.  It will need to include the neighboring countries such as Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar and others. 

Fourth This needs to start with an immediate ceasefire. Then Israel should not only allow but also support, provide, and help bring in needed medical supplies, food, clothing, etc. 

Fifth Israel totally needs to change their military tactics and stop their genocidal attacks on targets such as hospitals and refugee camps just in order to kill, or attempt to kill, some who are actually Hamas.  This killing of the innocent, including children and babies, the crippled, the elderly, this might wind up eventually eliminating Hamas.  But the cost of doing so is increased hatred, justifiable hatred considering the atrocities being done.  And that will lead to larger and more deadly problems for Israel in the future. 

Military actions need to be finely targeted and done with one of the major intents being not to kill civilians, so that the avoiding civilians and innocents become an important part of any military operation instead of being ignored as non-important and non-essential concerns. 

Sixth  In addition to food, medical supplies, water, etc. Gaza will need a government.  One not chosen, created, or controlled by Israel.  I would suggest that the UN help the Palestinians with this and help provide support and advisors for this.  And monitoring and helping for more than just a few weeks or months. But, rather, possibly for years.  

The same could be done for the West Bank, once Israel evicts the illegal settlements on land promised to the Palestinians. 

More could be listed, but this gives the very simplified gist of it. To reach a real solution there needs to be both military and political actions happening at the same time.  Of the two, the political ones are of more importance.  And the military actions needs to be carefully targeted and narrowly focused. 

This is not a quick fix.  There are no quick fixes to this – despite what Netanyahu’s government seems to think about its military actions.  In fact, even with a purely military and genocidal approach that is on -going now, Netanyahu has said this will be a long term action.  What he doesn’t realize though is that his is an eternal one as it will never create safety for the Israeli people, only more violence and uncertainty. 

Something similar to what I laid out above would be a long term solution too.  But one that is much more likely to result greater peace and certainty for both Israelis and the Palestinians. 

Unfortunately I do not think this is likely to happen.  If Netanyahu’s government goes, and a more rational one put in its place – maybe.  But even then…well, Vegas would not give good odds. 

Read Full Post »

Questions for Hamas. Questions for Israel

Questions for Hamas:

1. You state that your goal is the eradication of Israel.  Given Israel’s economic and military power, and the international support it gets, along with the fact that it has now existed for 75 years, do you think this a realistic goal?
2. If so, how do you think this can be achieved?  Details would be good instead of just a very generalized response.
3. Either way, do you think this a moral goal?  It would involve displacing a whole people, the vast majority who had nothing to do with creating Israel and most being third or fourth generation with Israel being the only home they know.  This action would most likely wind up killing many thousands, including civilians, the old and disabled, women and children.  Do you consider that moral? 
4. Do you see Israelis as being human, on a par with yourself and your family?
5. Do you think that one atrocity justifies the committing of another atrocity?  That injustice done to a person justifies that person killing those who were not involved, including children and babies? 

Questions for Israel

1. You have either ignored the plight of the Palestinians and/or taken steps to make life worse for them.  Now you are going all out with a military attack with little to no regard to civilians in the Gaza strip.  When you “win” this, which you will because your military is too powerful and the Palestinians in Gaza too weak, not to mention you having total control of all resources into Gaza, do you really think this will solve the problem of the Palestinians and with terrorists? 
2. If so, then do you consider such actions as being moral.  It would involve killing many thousands of people, including civilians, the old and disabled, women and children.  Do you consider that moral?  
3. If you do not think the military solution will actually be a solution what do you think needs to be done in addition to the military response?  Details would be good instead of just a very generalized response. 
4. Do you see Palestinians as being human, on a par with yourself and your family? 
5. Do you think that one atrocity justifies the committing of another atrocity?  That injustices done to a person justifies that person killing those who were not involved, including children and babies? 

Let me close these questions with two thoughts.

First, despite what is said, the Hamas attack was not unprovoked.  It was provoked by the injustice of their land being forcibly taken from them in the creation of Israel 75 years ago. And since then by their treatment as second class citizens within Israel and the broken promises of inviolate land to those herded to the West Bank and Gaza. Not just once, but, despite some periods of hope and progress, over and over again.  And with the establishment of the current right wing government these actions, these violations, have become worse and worse.  The Hamas attack was definitely provoked.

But so too are Israel’s current actions.  It was not the military or government that were targeted, but civilians.  Deliberately and cruelly so.  This included the killing of children, up close and personal and not as a result of an errant missile aimed at a government or military site.  All governments have a duty to react to and protect their citizens – it is their reason for existing in the first place and their foremost responsibility. 

However, the provocations, the causes of this really do not matter right now. No cause, no provocation justifies the atrocities happening on both sides. Causes matter now only because they point towards possible ways forward. They act as a means to inform and guide actions that need to be taken to provide greater justice and peace to all, and to no longer provide anyone a cause to kill. And to commit further atrocities.  So far both sides are using causes only to justify that which will continue the hatred and violence.

Second, during part of my five hour drive to visit the grandkids the other day I was listening to an interview done on NPR with a Rabbi and an Imam.  It was very good and informative, both in their answers to the questions posed and their interactions with each other.  I was though especially struck by this comment (in my own words) that both agreed with at the end. 

The divide in this war is not between the Palestinians and the Israelis.  It is not between the Jew and the Muslim.  Instead, it is between those that think violence is the solution and those that think something other than violence is needed and necessary. 

Read Full Post »

Hamas, Israel, Palestinians, Root Causes, and MLK

“But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard.”

MLK

While the situation of the blacks during the Civil Rights movement (and continuing on to today) and that of the Palestinians have some significant differences, and while the attacks carried out by Hamas have some very significant differences with that of the riots during the Civil Rights Movement, there is one fundamental similarity – both are the language of the unheard and powerless. 

There is one critical difference too, one that makes the whole situation between Israel and the Palestinians deeply and heartachingly ironic.  That this whole situation was the result of one group of nations trying to atone for atrocities and injustices they perpetuated and allowed by creating another great injustice.  Thus setting the stage for the oppressed and persecuted to, in turn, start to become oppressors and persecutors in the name of survival. 

Let me also state at the beginning that I unequivocally condemn the actions of Hamas, especially those directed at civilians.  To target civilian families, including children and babies, personally not with missile strikes and to take hostages, again including babies and children – there is no justification for this.  No matter what was done to them, to the Palestinians, nothing justifies this.  It is immoral and wrong.  It is evil. While I can understand the causes, understanding is not the same as condoning and accepting. 

And Hamas’ actions, coupled with their goal of the complete eradication of Israel, will only make a terrible situation worse by helping the hard liners and those most wanting to use force to solve the Palestinian “problem”.  While it is hard to see a good way forward, it is all too easy to see many ways that will make things even worse.  Hamas has already started upon the path of one of those ways.  And it looks as if Israel may be too. 

Violence tends to beget violence and atrocity begets more atrocities, with the result that fear and hatred wind up ruling the hearts and minds then instead of reason and peace. 

But, instead of looking at specific solutions I am going to look at something else.  In my days as a manager, when significant problems occurred we usually tried to look beyond the most immediate cause to see what set that immediate cause up.  For example, did an employee make an expensive mistake because they were not trained correctly, were the written instructions vague, unclear, or just wrong, was there some design flaw in the machinery that lends itself to operators making those sorts of mistakes and so forth.  It is an often useful tool in pointing towards possible solutions.  And while it might not point to solutions now, it can provide illumination for preventing creating further such situations. And possibly help identify ways forward.  That is something I will deal with a bit more towards the end. 

In the case of the Hamas attack the root cause lies in anti-Semitism.  But not that of the Arabs, but within Europe.  Anti-Semitism that, after over a millennia of persecutions, discrimination, and pogroms resulted in the Holocaust and the murder of over six million Jews.  And then came the guilty almost knee jerk reaction of both America and Europe to the atrocity of the Holocaust and to the role they played in it, whether large or small.  A knee jerk reaction that did not take account of the desires and needs of the people already living on the lands that were to be gifted to make a Jewish nation. In their attempt to assuage their guilt over the injustice they had perpetuated against the Jews, they did committed an injustice against the Arabs, especially the Palestinian people.    

This was the root cause.  Over a thousand years of persecution that culminated in the Holocaust.  And also birthed the rise of Zionism as Jews tried to create their own answers to their seemingly eternal persecution.  From this history we wind up a land with two victims – Jews and the Arabic Muslims.

That is the historical root cause.  As for the more proximate causes, they are several. 

Palestinian leadership has been both corrupt and inept. This includes both the PLO and Hamas.  Neither has served their people well in finding a solution that will result in peace. 

Palestinians have continued to carry out attacks on Israelis. I acknowledge that thee are reasons for this, but they still contributed to the current situation. 

Israel has been gradually taking away land promised to the Palestinians in the West Bank and Jerusalem . Under the current right wing government in Israel this has gotten much worse.  The West Bank is now so divided and cut up that trying to make it a whole country is almost impossible without making Israel give back some of the lands the Israeli settlers have taken.

Both the West Bank and the Gaza strip have been kept impoverished by the policies of Israel.  Done in the name of security, “justified” by continued Arab attacks upon Jews in Israel, these policies nonetheless create greater and greater frustration and anger. Far from solving the problem they make it worse.    

Israeli attacks upon Palestinians. 

Land taken away by Israel, impoverished by Israel, many of their family and friends imprisoned by Israel – some justly, many not.  And an Israeli government that shows less concern and more disdain for the Palestinians than most before.  A government of right wingers, many of who believe that the West Bank and Gaza strip are Israeli lands and that the Arabs who live there have no rights and should be either evicted or made second class citizens. 

I believe that this quote from the same speech that MLK gave where he spoke the words that started this blog is relevant:

“Certain conditions continue to exist in our society, which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation’s summers of riots are caused by our nation’s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention.”

Until these issues in regards to the Palestinians are addressed, humanely and completely, then these atrocities, this cycle of violence will continue.  Unless Israel decides to resort to a Palestinian Holocaust.  Something that the vast majority of them do not want, but under fear and hatred, may wind up doing in  following the lead of those who do, who see this as the only way to preserve Israel. 

A final quote from MLK: 

Violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral. I am not unmindful of the fact that violence often brings about momentary results. Nations have frequently won their independence in battle. But in spite of temporary victories, violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones. Violence is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding: it seeks to annihilate rather than convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue. Violence ends up defeating itself.”

I do not have a specific way forward but will make a couple of observations.  First, MLK’s observations about how effective, or rather ineffective, violence is something that needs to be heard by both sides. As should his words about achieving justice and of delivering the promises of freedom.

And now let me refer to my root cause, the injustice of Europe’s atonement for their persecution of Jews.  In their unjust solution they did not stop violence, but merely changed the form and the roles of victim and persecutor.  It solved nothing.  Something that Hamas and the other Palestinian terror groups who advocate for the total destruction of Israel should also learn from    

To my mind though, the more powerful should be the one most willing to take risks. In this case, the most powerful by far is Israel.  During these conflicts look at how many Jews were killed, and then compare that to the number of Palestinians killed.  They are almost always not even close. 

Further, Israel has the economic resources and political resources to actually make a difference.

It is up to the Israelis to engage in a credible peace process, something that would allow the Palestinians to feel hope.  Currently they and the Palestinians are in a cycle of ever increasing violence. And as I said earlier, the only sure results of such is more fear and more hate, and more lives lost and destroyed. 

Having said that let me also state that Israel not only ahs the right but the duty to use military force to protect the lives of its citizens.  But they need to be prudent in their use of that force, in their targeting.  Something I am very concerned they will not be, given the horrendous nature of the Hamas attack and the current right wing government in power. They have already totally blockaded the Gaza strip from all food, water, medical supplies, which is not a promising start to a prudent use of force. 

More importantly though is what actions should be taken afterwards.  Will it be one that heeds the words of MLK.  Or one that continues to  perpetuate hatred and fear, blood and suffering.  I hope for the former but fear it will be the latter. 

Read Full Post »

Lines and Spaces

The correct answer to the above cartoon is that we are both.  Both our spaces and our lines define us – who we are,  what we are. This not so deep insight can be thought of in many ways, but I want to look at it in terms of forming beliefs and the role of reason and emotion in such forming.  Both reason and emotions define us, define our lives and our living.  One without the other is like trying to identify with just the lines in the cartoon,  or with the spaces only.  Either is wrong and will leave an incomplete understanding.  And possibly an incomplete life. 

Of course that brings up the question of whether reason is the lines and emotions the spaces or is it vice versa.  To my mind reason is the lines and emotions the spaces.  The lines provide an outline. But the emotions fill and shape that outline.  To milk this analogy for all its worth, and then some, a life of reason only, in which reason alone decides everything, would be a flat line – boring and lifeless, devoid of meaning. 

Many believe that reason should be the final decider on what we believe, on what we like, on all our opinions and thoughts. Emotions should only be one piece of datum in the use of rationality and evidence to do the actual deciding.

I disagree. 

Reason provides the boundaries, but those boundaries are often set by other considerations.  In other words, there are times when emotions such as love, hope, urges, faith and such should take the drivers seat in determining what we believe, what we think, with reason taking a back seat in such decisions. 

Reason and evidence should not always, or even mostly, be the sole basis for defining your beliefs and values. In fact, there are times, and many of them, when such should not be the deciding factor.  When reason and evidence should be overruled even. Let’s start with a look at a more minor belief and work up to a major one for examples of what I am talking about: what foods you like to eat.

What foods you like are based upon emotions, not reason.  One does not sit down and gather evidence and then make an informed, rational decision on what foods you like.  Otherwise, cheesecake, nachos, fries and bacon cheeseburgers would not be some of my favorite foods and asparagus, broccoli, and all sorts of fish among my least favorite foods (almost hated actually).  After all, it is irrational to like what is not healthy for you, and to dislike what is.  And yet my choice of food is often irrational. 

Now, what I choose to eat can be influence by rational thought and evidence.  For example, two checkups ago I was diagnosed as pre-diabetic.  Because of this I changed some of my eating habits and increased my exercise routine.  However, I still eat those foods I mentioned, and more, that is unhealthy for me.  Just a bit less than before and added a bit more greenery into my diet as well as more fruits.  I lost some weight and have been exercising consistently for two and a half years.  All my check ups since that first have shown me to no longer be pre-diabetic. 

The rational thing for me to have done upon receiving this diagnosis though would have been for me to totally revamp my diet and eating instead of only slightly modifying them.  After all, it would probably benefit me in the future.  But that is rather the point.  I chose not to because I found not doing so of value to me.  Rationality is my lines defining how much.  The spaces that define those lines though are largely non- rational choices and beliefs.  The rationality and evidence defines the limits, the emotions and irrational the shape. 

Other examples would be things such as what do you find more attractive in potential spouses in regard to appearances (blond or brunette dark, skinny, tall, short, etc.), do you like snow and winter or heat and summer more, etc.  At first, if a boss or colleague backstabs you at work, or a friend betrays you you do not rationally decide what to do. Your first reaction is an emotional one.  Rationality comes in when deciding how to act upon that emotion – whether to deny it and ignore, to confront, or any other of a myriad of responses.  And even then, you emotions will work with your reasoning to decide which is the best course of action for you – as I did in my eating.  Your emotions play a major role in the shape that the rational considerations will draw.  Your motivation then is not rational belief, but emotions. 

Of course, this is not the same as holding a more significant belief without evidence and reason.  In fact, it is not even the same as saying that nachos are a healthy food.  However, it does indicate that there is more of importance to our lives than living it totally rationally, totally by evidence.  And that those areas are equally as, and possibly more, important than rational evidence based beliefs. 

And that is good.  It is necessary.  Many decisions should be based on something other than rational thinking.  And despite such lack of rational basis, they can be equally valid beliefs. 

I can hear many say that irrational beliefs are dangerous ones.  For example, the belief that the election was stolen.  Or that vaccines are dangerous, or prayer should take the place of medicine.  So, yes, irrational beliefs can be very dangerous.  But not always though.  That is the mistake many make. For example, whether I prefer sunny and warm, or cold and snow, or who I find attractive are not.  And in regards to the more major beliefs reason does provide the lines, the areas beyond which irrational beliefs can become dangerous. 

To my mind an irrational belief is not dangerous and can be accepted as a valid reason for believing something if it meets the following conditions:

• There is no clear, overwhelming evidence showing it to be wrong (although there can be exceptions to this one which I will mention in an example later)
• It does not lead to destructive outcomes.
• The person holding the belief recognizes its irrationality.
• The person holding the belief does not proselytize, due to recognizing it is an irrational belief based on emotion, specifically their emotion. 

So, how does this play out in real life?  Two examples. 

First example, several years ago I was very involved in on line groups where creationists and those who recognized the evidence for evolution got together and talked.  Well, usually argued (it was fun).  During this time, I met one young earth creationist who met those guidelines (not in those groups, but elsewhere). 

This person firmly and absolutely believed in young earth creationism.  However, he also recognized that the evidence firmly supported on old earth, an old universe and evolution.  Because of this he agreed that in science courses evolution and not creationism should be taught.  He did not try to convince others of a young earth or of creationism because there was no evidence and he recognized it was by his faith alone that he believed.  He also believed that someday science would turn up the evidence showing this to be true, but until that time it should teach evolution. 

I have a great deal of respect for this person and, while I think it wrong, his basis for this belief is valid.  He does not quite meet the first criteria I outlined above, that of being no overwhelming and clear evidence contradicting it, but he met the others so strongly that I was fine with this.  This is a valid reason for believing something – faith. 

In his case, he did not try to proselytize.  It did no harm, he strongly argued that schools should continue to teach evolution in science classes. 

Second example, Martin Gardner.   Martin Gardner was one of the major founders of the moder skeptic movement and many of his books such as “Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science” are considered classic.  A recognized magician and mathematician, writing a column for many years for Scientific American.  Most would have thought him an atheist, or at least agnostic, based upon this background.  However, he firmly believed in both a God and an afterlife. 

Based on the evidence he thought all the religions – Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc – were wrong. But due to his faith and need he believed in both a God who created and  in a life after death.  He freely admitted there was no evidence for either and that his belief was irrational.   Possibly even counter to some evidence. He freely admitted that this belief that there has to be somewhere to correct the unfairness of this life, to correct the pain and suffering of this world, and to continue on was based upon things other than reason, other than evidence.  It is why he did not try to convince others and proselytize. 

I think his belief and reason for it are valid. 

As I said earlier, we are more than just reason and evidence.  In fact, that more is what most often gives our life meaning and purpose.  A sense of justice, a sense of fairness, a sense that there is more, a hope of seeing loved ones, or whatever else.  Using that more as a basis for forming beliefs is equally as valid as using reason and evidence.  Within the limits I mentioned above.  Reason provides the lines; emotions provide the spaces.  Both are needed. 

Read Full Post »