Is There a Solution to the Ongoing Middle East Crisis?

For more than 75 years, since the founding of the State of Israel, there has been conflict in the Middle East, not just between Israel and Palestinians, but between Israel and most of the Arab countries surrounding it.  The cause of the ongoing conflict boils down to the following:  The Arabs who have lived there for centuries understandably consider the entire area their homeland, while Jews, Zionists, consider the land to be their homeland, it being the land of Israel in Biblical times.

Politically, the land was not part of any modern state.  Prior to WWI the land was part of the Turkish Caliphate.  After WWI, the area became a British mandate called Palestine, which after WWII, the British proposed dividing into two states - Jewish and Arab.  In 1948 Jewish Zionist leaders unilaterally declared the creation of the State of Israel within the boundaries set by the British.  The Arabs countries rejected the division and launched an attack against the new Israeli state.

Ever since that time, Israel has claimed its right to the land and has defended it, while the surrounding Arab countries and Palestinians living in the territory outside Israel claimed it was their land and sought to drive Israel back to the sea and eliminate its existence.  

All the wars that have occurred during this period - 1948, 1967, 1973, and present - were started by the Arab countries and/or the Palestinians in an attempt to destroy the State of Israel, wipe it off the map.   I should note that Egypt and Jordan signed peace agreements with Israel in 1976 and 1994 respectively.  Most recently, the UAR and Bahrain entered into a normalization of relations agreement with Israel in 2020.

After their defeat in the 1967 "6-day war" and Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza (it had been under the control of Jordan since the 1948 war), the Arab League made clear its stand once again:  no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel.

The conflict worsened when, after the 6-day war and the Arab League statement, Israel began to build settlements in the occupied territory.  Initially the Labor Party government established a small number of settlements in the West Bank for security reasons.  But the conservative/ultra-right parties that have governed for most of the time since 1977 have considered the occupied land part of Israel (it was part of the Biblical Jewish land) and have through aggressive settlement building in the West Bank, especially in the past 2 decades, made the West Bank de facto part of Israel and have made a Palestinian state almost impossible to configure.

During the late 1990s, international diplomatic efforts resulted in the PLO - the Palestine Liberation Organization headed by Yasser Arafat, the recognized voice of Palestinians for decades - removing the offending clause calling for the elimination of Israel from its charter so that the two-state process could move forward.  

Israel in fact made two offers, in 2000 and 2008, to end their occupation and for the creation of a Palestinian State, but those offers were rejected by the PLO.  Regardless, in 2005 Israel unilaterally - that is to say with no conditions or agreement - evacuated all Israeli settlements in Gaza and the army withdrew.  

That action did not result in any lessening of the conflict.  While the PLO still maintains its stance accepting Israel, Hamas, which has become the more prominent Palestinian movement, seeks nothing less than the destruction of Israel. The peace offers in fact resulted in more hostile actions by the Palestinians led by Hamas - suicide bombings, etc. with more than 1000 Israelis killed.

This ongoing conflict is an example of extremism on one side breeding extremism on the other.  As much as I understand the desperate need after WWII for Jews to finally create their own nation, to do so in a land already inhabited by Arabs, without their agreement, was an extreme action. And that extreme action was met by an extreme reaction by the Arabs – their wanting to erase Israel from the map.  

Israel's aggressive settlement building in the West Bank, which accelerated in the past two decades, has been a further extreme aggravating action by Israel, which was in turn partially a reaction to the extreme actions of the Arabs in repeatedly trying to destroy Israel.  

I should note that regardless how much I question the wisdom of the creation of the State of Israel unilaterally, once it was in existence, I certainly support its right to defend itself.  But in the current Gaza War, Israel under Netanyahu has gone beyond defense to seeing a chance to destroy Hamas regardless the civilian toll.

As a side note, Israel's aggressive actions in the Gaza War have provoked large-scale protests in the West.  However, this war is not an example, as many protesters and Palestinians claim, of genocide.  Israel is trying to eradicate Hamas and unfortunately has no concern if in the process tens of thousands of civilians are killed and homes reduced to rubble.  But Israel has no intent or desire to eliminate the Palestinian people.  Also, people need to be reminded that the war was a reaction to the invasion of Israel by Hamas on October 7.  If that had not occurred, and if Hamas' actions - rape, killing, kidnapping - not been so horrendous, the war would not be occurring and the tens of thousands of civilians and their homes would not have been destroyed.  Israel is guilty of overreach, and stopping the war is critical, but the immediate situation was caused by Hamas' action.

So to answer the question posed in this post's title, there is no solution to this conflict so long as the Arab countries and the Palestinians do not accept Israel's right to exist.  Only then is the 2-state solution imaginable.  Because, understandably, only then will Israel feel secure in turning the occupied territory over to a Palestinian state.  

As has always been the case, the ball is in the Palestinians' hands - either they truly accept Israel and seek to live in peace next to Israel or they maintain their position and be subjected to the eternal enmity of Israel.  There is nothing Israel can do other than once again being on record as being in favor of the 2-state solution (that is not currently the case) on condition that the Palestinians and surrounding Arab states accept the right of Israel to exist and cease all hostile actions.  At such time, Palestinian citizens of Israel should no longer be second-class citizens but be given equal rights and responsibilities with Jewish citizens.

Is Trump Stupid or Is He Just Sowing Discord?

I have always thought that Trump was a shrewd person who saw it was to his advantage to sow discord.  But recently Trump was invited to appear at a conference of Black journalists and he was interviewed by three journalists.

His most oft-quoted remark from that interview is that Kamala Harris is not really Black.  Questioning her identity, he said that she was totally Indian until recently when she decided to be Black.  The implication clearly was that she made this change for political advantage.

I am not aware of the reaction of Trump allies to his statement (I found nothing on the internet).  All others have trashed the statement as a misstatement of fact.  The Vice President said it was "divisive and showed disrespect."

Yes, it was a misstatement of fact.  Ms Harris' mother was Indian and her father was Black.  While it's true that she identified strongly as a child with her Indian identity, and still does, she also identified, certainly since she was a teenager, as a Black, attending Howard University, a Black college. Her identity as a Black is thus not recent.

The reason why I raised the question of whether Trump is stupid, as opposed to just divisive, is because it's quite possible that he truly doesn't understand what it means to be bi-racial, to have two identifies. 

Maybe that's why it comes so natural to him to vilify immigrants –  he truly cannot understand being, for example, Muslim and being a proud American.

Which means that he doesn't understand most Americans.  Most Americans have an immigrant background and a large percentage are either the child of immigrants or immigrants themselves.  In 2013, Census data shows that 13% of all Americans were foreign born, 12% were born here but the child of an immigrant, and 56% were the grandchildren of immigrants.  All Americans have an immigrants in their background.

While immigrants to the United States have in the past always worked to assimilate into the larger culture (that is less true recently of Hispanics), many have tried to retain their ethnic identity as well.  So they were both proud of their ethnic background and proud to be an American.

To not understand this basic characteristic of most Americans and the nature of American citizenship makes him unfit to be President, on top of all the other reasons why he is unfit.

 

The Real Facts about Donald Trump’s Domestic Record as President

Under Trump, COVID became a pandemic, the economy and the working class suffered, racism and antisemitism increased, and low- and moderate-income people were worse off than before. These are the real facts, not the fake facts that come from Trump and his allies. For proof, read on.

COVID - Trump’s mismanagement of COVID was a disaster. The U.S. government learned about COVID on December 31, 2019, one year before the end of Trump’s term in office. In the first few critical months, the U,S, government did nothing to stop the spread of COVID, other than stopping flights from China. The result was that by April, 2020, all 50 states declared disasters because of the spread of COVID. Had all travel from overseas been screened as soon as the danger was known, the pandemic could have likely been prevented. Had masks been mandated uniformly, the spread could have been greatly curtailed. By the time the vaccine was available - incredibly fast, within one year, which is a credit to Trump’s determination - COVID had reached epidemic proportions which the vaccination of only part of the population (10% fully vaccinated within the first few months, 62% within a year) could not stop, especially when combined with the relaxation of COVID restrictions which was encouraged by Trump. In the end, more than 1 million Americans died of COVID.

The Economy - The economy suffered under Trump. He enacted huge tax cuts for the rich which ballooned the deficit and did not bring the promised growth. His trade war with China caused a spike in prices and did not bring back jobs to the U.S. To deal with a possible recession, the Federal Reserve slashed interest rates, which while stimulating growth led to the growth bubble, increased prices, and inflation which we have been suffering from.  And the pandemic, which was much worse because of Trump’s actions or inaction, was a huge drain on the economy. As a result, working class Americans suffered and were worse off.

Racism - Both in his 2016 presidential campaign and during his term in office, Trump vilified Hispanic and other immigrants in the harshest of terms, claiming the undocumented were causing a host of problems, which in fact they were not. In many instances, they were actually a benefit to the economy, providing employers with workers to do jobs that Americans, including Blacks, did not want, especially in farming. Trump also vilified American muslims, that is to say American citizens who were Muslim. And Trump catered to the White Supremacist movement saying, after the riot in Charlottesville, VA, that there are “many very fine people” in the movement and in other statements.

Support for Low- and Moderate Income People - After enacting huge tax cuts for the rich, Trump proposed massive cuts to basic assistance that millions of families struggling to get by needed to help pay the rent, put food on the table, and get health care. The cuts would have affected a broad range of low- and moderate-income Americans, including parents, children, seniors, and people with disabilities, both people of color and white, both urban and rural. These cuts were not enacted because of the Democratic majorities in Congress.

Abortion Rights - This is the one area where he speaks the truth; he is responsible for this disaster.  Trump appointed 3 justices to the Supreme Court using a litmus test of whether they would overrule Roe v Wade and end the constitutional right for women to have an abortion within reasonable parameters. When an abortion case came before the Court in 2022, the new conservative super-majority overruled Roe v Wade and ended the right to abortion.

These are the real facts; except for abortion rights, very different from the lies and hype that come from Trump and his allies.

Is this someone you want as your President?

Misinformation is Hurting Biden

Misinformation is always a problem in elections.  Specifically, misinformation generated by Republicans about themselves and Democrats.  And as I’ve written previously, both in my book, We Still Hold These Truth, and in blog posts, Democrats have been amazingly ineffective at setting the matter straight for the voters.

Why do Republicans always do this?  The answer is that they know that if the voters knew the truth about them, they would lose national elections because their policies do not in fact support the middle and lower classes, whether white, hispanic, or black.  They are hypocrites posing as the party of the people, and they are expert at this deception.  Unfortunately, they have been very successful in this deception, never more so than under the leadership of Trump.

Democrats must find a way of getting most Republican-leaning voters to understand (forget Trump’s core base - they are lost) that Republicans are not the party of the people.  That they promote policies that support corporations and the upper classes.  A new stump speech must be developed; and a scorecard should be developed showing key measures that support the middle class and poor and Republicans’ position against those measures.

In the current presidential election, there are two major matters of misinformation that have to be countered by Biden and Democrats.  Admittedly, these are not matters that the Republicans can be blamed for.

First, many voters blame Biden for current interest rates and high prices.  This is not unusual - the sitting president is typically blamed or gets credit for current economic conditions, regardless of the actual facts.

When Democrats argue the economy, they tend to focus on jobs and unemployment.  But Democrats must recognize something – it doesn’t matter that the economy by most measures is strong, the job market good, unemployment down, we have not gone into the expected recession. Why do these facts not matter?  Because the middle class and poor are suffering from high prices, and high interest rates make it impossible for them to get the loans that they need..  That is what concerns them most and will impact their voting.  That the economy is strong is irrelevant to them

So while it’s fine to tout Biden’s credit for jobs, their focus must be on saying to voters, “We feel your pain; we know how you are suffering from high prices and interest rates.  Unfortunately these are matters beyond the control of any president.”  They must make clear that while Biden policy initiatives can take some credit for the strong job market and lower unemployment, not only is he not responsible for inflation and high interest rates, but there is virtually nothing he can do about either.  It is instead a function of corporate greed.

Corporations in most areas of commerce found during the pandemic that the old laws of supply and demand no longer apply; that they can raise their prices and have almost no impact on sales - people will pay the increased prices.  And so greed has led them to increase prices far beyond what is justified by their costs and so increase their profits.  Which is good for increasing share prices and thus investor wealth.

So what can the President do to set the matter straight?  He can point the finger of blame where it is appropriate - at corporations.  And which party is the main supporter of corporations and their desire to be free of any regulation?  Republicans.

Regarding high interest rates, that is within the sole control of the Federal Reserve and there is no way for Biden to influence their decisions.  They are historically and legally independent in their mission and authority.  That is a fact and Biden must make that clear.  And here too, the reason why the Fed's high interest rates have not had much of an impact on inflation is because corporate greed is not impacted by interest rates; regardless how high the interest rate, corporations will raise prices out of greed.

Second, a just-out poll reveals a truly shocking finding:  17% of voters nationally blame President BIden for the reversal of Roe v Wade.  This is shocking because Republicans, quite accurately, have taken credit for this reversal; it is something they have fought for for years and Trump as president appointed justices to the Supreme Court who would reverse Roe.

So how can such a large percentage of voters be so confused of something so clear?  The only thing I can think of is that, as with the economy, Biden is the sitting president and so uninformed people are blaming him for the Supreme Court’s reversal.

What can the Democrats do?  They must do even more - they are already focused on this - to pin the blame for Roe’s reversal squarely on Trump by focusing on his nominations to the Supreme Court.  The speeches and ads they have developed are obviously not effective enough or are not reaching this uninformed audience.

There is no question in my mind that if voters knew the truth, Biden would win the election handily.  That must be Biden’s and the Democrats’ task.

Israel's Self-Inflicted Damage

The response by Israel to Spain's, Norway's, and Iceland's recent recognition of Palestine have been predictable.  “A reward for terrorism" has been the criticism and Israel has halted the disbursement of Palestinian tax revenue.

Recognition by these member-states of the EU is not a reward for terrorism.  It is a rebuke of Israel for its overreaching response to the acknowledged horrific Hamas attack of October 7.  It has gone far beyond “an eye for an eye” to unrestricted warfare.

As I stated in my recent post, "The Palestinian/Israel Conflict - A Reality Check"  the international community (at the least the western part) was behind Israel after the attack.  And it understood why Israel had to make a military response.

But as the response turned into a new war and civilian deaths mounted, together with wide-spread destruction and a humanitarian crisis, the sympathy of the world, including a significant portion of the West's population, went to the suffering Palestinians.

What to do when you, either as an individual or a country, strongly support the state of Israel, but have serious problems with its actions.  I must note that this is not just a problem of the current Netanyahu government.  This is a problem that has existed with all Likud-leaded governments and they have been in power for all but 9 years since 1977.  

The international community can no longer ignore what has long been clear - that the current and former Likud-led Israeli governments have and have had no intention to even minimally protecting Palestinians and their interests in the “occupied territories.”  And they have intentionally made the two-state solution almost impossible geographically.

Israeli governments have long snubbed both the international community and international law in its continued occupation of and expansive settlement policies in the West Bank.  Recognition is the one symbolic tool countries have to indicate the extent of their disapproval of Israeli government policy, of a country they otherwise wholeheartedly support.  Would Israel rather countries take more direct action? 

Man - Agent of Disharmony

The natural world, the product of the miracle that is the universe, is a model of harmony.   There is not one element of it that is not symbiotic with another.  Yes, there is violence in nature, both in the animal world and in other aspects of nature, but it is all part of the balance within the grand scheme. 

Enter man. In the beginning, man was in harmony with nature; he respected it, even if that respect was partially born of fear, not just wonder.  The elements were sacred and reverence of them was central to man's early religious beliefs.

At some point in man's evolution, however, he came to have the belief that he needn't fear nature because he could adapt and control the manner in which nature impacted him and his needs.  He no longer respected it, felt that it was the controlling force on Earth; man now felt he was the controlling  force.

This new belief is reflected in the Bible.  In Genesis 1:28. it says,  “And God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish in the sea, and over the foul in the air, and over every living thing that moveth on the earth.”  [emphasis added]

Later in Genesis, after having seen the wickedness of man and sending the flood to destroy all living beings save those in the ark, God repeats this message with an even stronger statement.  “And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs.”  Genesis 9:1-3

There in a nutshell is the spiritual basis for what has become man’s relationship with himself and the rest of planet Earth.  Man is the controlling force on Earth.  Everything else that God placed on Earth is there for man’s benefit and use.  End of story.

How convenient for man that God gave him such license.  Could the contemporary despoilers of the Earth come up with any more powerful and unquestionable language to spiritually legitimize their actions?

"But how can you say," the reader may ask, "that this language reflects man's changed relationship to nature?  The Bible is God's word."  Think about it.

If God created the world and all that is in it, would God have had such little regard for all the life and beauty that He created, for the miracle of life, that He would essentially say to man, "do with it what you will, subdue it, rule it?"  Especially having just had experience of what wickedness man is capable of.

I think not.  I would argue that if the Bible were indeed God’s word revealed to man, it would say something more like, “Be fruitful and multiply but always be mindful of your duty to your fellow man, your fellow creatures, and the bounty of the earth that I have created.  Every living thing must be honored and respected; no life shall be taken by you except when in need.  Use the bounty of the earth for your benefit but in so doing you must honor and respect it; any action by you should leave the earth whole and pure.”  (See my post, "The Bible - God's Word or Man's.")

Now that sounds like something God would say.  But the Bible doesn’t say that because it would be inconvenient for man.  It would not give him free reign over the creatures of the earth and its riches.

For the first millennia of man's developing civilization, man was still mostly in harmony with nature because he did not have the means to wreak havoc upon it.  The one exception was his ability to conquer other peoples and subject them to his will.  Whether it was the slave trade (which had been going on for millennia before the southern American colonies started importing slaves) or things such as the Spanish Inquisition of Jews, man gained power by subduing other men, not just subduing but torturing.

But with the Industrial Revolution, man 's capacity to destroy the harmony, the balance, of nature became manifest.  The age of major pollution of water bodies began and the tearing up of land for the exploration of the minerals that man needed for his industry was undertaken with abandon.  In so doing, man had absolutely no concern for the impact of his actions on nature.  He was given the right by the Bible,  and he took it.

During the course of the 20th century and continuing into the current one, man's destructive capacity has increased exponentially, whether the result of new inventions, new methods of exploitation such as in mining, or chemical products such as fertilizers. The magnitude has also been affected by the explosion of the population, because that has created a need for more and more industrial products; thus increasing industrial pollution and destructiveness.

As for the impact of man's wars, while war has always been destructive of harmony and the killer of men, the scope of war – they are now world wars – and technological advances, beginning with the machine gun and perhaps culminating in the atom bomb, have greatly increased war's destructive impact  It is now possible that man could destroy all life on earth by pushing a button in a moment of madness or panic.

But the disharmony that man has brought about goes beyond his impact on nature and the torture and death of his fellow man.  Perhaps even worse is the disharmony and suffering man has brought to his own immediate family.  (See my post, "Creating a Safer World for Our Children,.")

Man's mind has become a hotbed of neuroses, fear, and anxiety as his ego has reacted to his life experiences.  It has been a chain reaction that began in historical times but has increased dramatically with modern man's total lack of self-sufficiency.  It impacts almost everyone, every family, and spans generations, as each generation of insecure parents raises children who are insecure who become insecure adults who raise another generation of insecure persons.

And as I've written in the past, this insecurity is at the root of much if not most of the violence that is happening today, whether within the family, in the community, in the nation, or internationally.  See my posts, “The Root of All Abuse and Violence - Insecurity” and “Insecurity as the Cause of Social Conflict and International War.”  

Added to that is the violence and suffering caused by the presence of evil among us.  See my post, "Ending the World’s Dysfunction - Exorcising the Devil in Us."  The Devil has been called "the personification of evil."  And evil is defined as, “profound immorality or wickedness, morally reprehensible, cruelty, intentionally causing harm or suffering - a lack of humanity.”  

Look around you carefully and you will see that the existence of evil is everywhere..  People often think of evil only in terms of extreme examples. such as the holocaust.  But the dark force of evil is present in even “small” examples of inhumanity, such as often occurs within the family.

The insecurity and evil present in man close the circle of  disharmony that I have described.  It is at the center of it all – power, greed, cruelty, inhumanity.  Man has gone so far down this dark path that it is hard to imagine that anything, not even the second coming, would reverse the trend.  

I've written before that the time has unfortunately come  for another flood to wipe mankind from the face of the Earth.  The animal and plant world, as well as the physical forces of the universe, deserve to be free of the influence of man.  Earth deserves to be free of his influence.  Indeed, man himself deserves to be free of his influence.

That is unlikely to happen.  So all one can do is in one's own small way build a world around you that is filled with humanity – love, light, faith, trust. compassion, humility, gratefulness, joy, contentment, courage, and strength.

In the Supreme Court, Has It Become Politics Over Law?

In the recent Supreme Court hearing of arguments for and against Tump's claim of absolute immunity from prosecution ("4 Takeaways," April 25), three of the conservative judges - Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavenaugh - put forth questions/arguments which were almost ludicrous in their lack of relevance to the issue at hand.

These three conservative judges basically said that a president should not be subject to politically motivated prosecution by a vindictive successor.  We can all agree with that.  But this argument is not relevant to judging Trump's claim to immunity.  The fact that in rare instances a criminal statute could be misused is no reason not to provide for prosecution of the crime.

First, the question is whether a past-president should be immune from prosecution from potentially criminal acts committed while in office.  The further question is whether this should apply to both official and non-official acts, or just non-official acts.  

Prosecution for criminal action has various bars that must be met to justify prosecution.  Regardless how zealous the prosecutor or vindictive the successor, there has to be alleged criminal action.  This is not about challenging a president's motives for his official acts in office, regardless how criticized he or she may be.  Supporting particular legislation or arguing for a change in regulation, regardless of the motive, would not constitute criminal action under anyone's definition.

Which brings me to the second point.  All the conservative justices refused to look at the facts involved in this case.  Yet in judging whether a claim of immunity is appropriate, the facts of the case are extremely relevant.  You have first the theoretical question of absolute immunity, and once that is decided, whether the case before the court warrants such immunity. Trump is alleged to have defrauded the government by denying the results of the election – not by challenging them in court which is his right and which he did – but continuing to contest them after losing the court cases and further by attempting through various means to subvert the election and remain in the Presidency.

These facts are relevant because they show why the grant of immunity requested is not appropriate, why such matters must be subject to criminal prosecution.  They go to the heart of the strength and validity of our democracy.