Jihad is really a way of life

Jews can learn from it

By Ralph Dobrin

My wife and I recently renovated our bathroom. It’s amazing how much work such a small project involves. It took a lot of hard physical labor, resoluteness and intelligence on the part of the workmen who made it all possible. Three men did most of the work: a pumber called Danny, who brought two other men, both of them Arabs from suburbs in the eastern part of Jerusalem. There was Yusuf, who helped Danny strip away the walls and floor tiles and dismantle the pipes, which were old and corroded; and Hassan laid the floor and wall tiles.

And what a huge effort it was on their part! True, they were paid for their efforts, but nevertheless, I had to appreciate that for a few days of their lives they dedicated their strength, intelligence and and experience to me personally. For a while these three men became a central part in our life. So we cared for them. We cared that they were drinking and eating enough; that they were sufficiently rested from their grueling work from time to time. We weren’t just being nice. After all, if you expect people to do a good job for you, you’ve got to care about their physical well-being.

From time to time we would chat with them. Sometimes we praised their work and occasionally we would ask them to pull out a tile that hadn’t been placed absolutely straight. Each time they obliged very willingly. Yusuf spoke Hebrew fairly well, while Hassan had a little difficulty. My wife and I once had a fairly basic command of Arabic. So we practised our rusty Arabic with them. They seemed very happy that we could converse, albeit very haltingly, in Arabic.

Every day I prepared lunch which we ate together, while chatting about work, family, health and the Israel-Arab conflict. About this latter issue, they said a few things that I didn’t agree with, and I countered calmly, to which they responded calmly.

The fact that they are part of a nation with which my nation is locked in a desperate, mortal struggle, seemed to have no bearing on the degree of amiability in our relationship, even though I made it clear that nationalistically I have views that place me more Right Wing than Avigdor Lieberman.

I had noticed that Hassan took himself to a corner a few times a day and prayed. Sitting down to have dinner with him on the evening that he finished his work, I touched on the subject of religion.

“Religion is an important part of your life?” I asked rhetorically.

He nodded.

I continued: “I saw you praying.”

His expression seemed to say, “So what?”

I proceeded: “A lot of people in Jerusalem are religious. Isn’t that so? There are Muslims, Jews, Christians.”

“We all have the same rab” (master of the universe), he replied.

I reckoned that we were on friendly enough terms for me to be able to say: “You undoubtedly know that many people all over the world are worried about Islamic fanaticism.”

He just stared at me impassively. His docile manner emboldened me and I continued: “A lot of people are acting like crazy madmen in the name of Allah. Hamas, Hizbollah, El Khaida. They kill thousands of innocent people. They kill Jews and Christians. They kill Muslims and they even kill themselves.” I smiled to try and maintain a friendly discourse. After all, the man had helped make a marvelous bathroom for us and he was now sharing a meal with me and my wife at our dinner table. But it is not every day that I can engage a devout Muslim in a conversation on this crucial issue.

He responded: “The people who do all this killing are so badly mistaken. The Koran is against such acts. That is not really religion. The people who do these things are not real Muslims.”

“I had the impression that they are very dedicated Muslims,” said I. “And they call what they do Jihad,”

“That’s not jihad,” he responded.

I replied cheerily: “Oh, I thought that jihad was waging war in the name of Allah.”

He was cautious with his words. Slowly, in his imperfect Hebrew, interspersed with Arabic words that we happened to understand, he explained: “Jihad is not just making war to defend Islam. Jihad is really service to God. I serve God through humility, modesty and the way I support and raise my family. I do this by trying to be honest, hardworking and productive. And the way that I can support my family and be productive is by laying floor tiles and wall tiles in people’s homes. This is my jihad. That’s why I work as cheerfully and as well as I can. That’s why I take care to lay every tile as straight and as perfectly as I can. At the end of the day I want to be able to say that I did a good day’s work. That, for me, is jihad.”

How can anyone not be impressed with this outlook, I concluded. Later I checked the Wikipedia and in different words it more or less confirmed what Hassan had said.

All this leads me to recall conversations that I have had with Haredim. Quoting freely from the Scriptures and Sages, they always give me the impression that they reckon that everyone else is out of step and that only they have the right answers. And I bet that Hassan, like the Haredim or like any other religious group, thinks that his religion is the only right way to commune with God.

But the main difference between Hassan and a very large part of the Haredi men is that for Hassan and his peers, working hard for a living is part of their credo. And they are the ones who build Israel’s cities, grow the produce, fix the cars, repair the plumbing, work in our factories and clean our streets. Without their hard work, Israel couldn’t function as an orderly state. On the other hand, while some of the Haredim do work – like the rest of the Jewish population in Israel, but mainly in jobs that don’t require too much muscle, sweat or soiled hands and clothes – to a large extent many Haredim make a lifestyle out of sponging off the rest of society, using Torah study as a reason.

Now I bet that Hassan is no less devout to the rab (it has the same meaning in Hebrew) as any resident of Meah Shearim, Bnai Brak, Betar Ilit, etc. He prays five times a day. He does so quietly. Some of the content of his prayers is similar to Jewish prayer. But he spends little time on his duvenning. Most of his time is dedicated to being as decent and trustworthy a human being as possible. And as productive!

Now, please don’t get me wrong. I am not trying to promote Islam. Some of the nastiest, most evil scoundrels in the world are those who intone “Allah hu’akbar!” five times a day.

But as a way of life, Hassan’s personal take on Jihad, which can be summed up briefly as “be a real mensch,” is what the rabbis should be emphasizing to their communities and to the students in the yeshivot. They should be drumming into their heads the importance of productive labor in order to earn their living; not to be too proud to dirty their hands in the course of an honest day’s work; to strive for perfection in whatever they do; to practise humility; and for God’s sake, not to expect hand-outs from the rest of society.

Surely, that’s how they would come closer to tikun olam (repairing the world.) And surely, as Hassan said, that is how one really serves the rab. Indeed, all Israeli Jews should digest that.

See also: www.israelandtruth.org

The ultimate immorality

Trying to destroy a nation

through lies

 By RALPH DOBRIN

 All over the world there are a lot of people who are very angry with Israel – and that’s the truth. In 1948 hundreds of thousands of Arabs who had been living in Palestine became refugees – and that’s also the truth. Another truth is that Israel launched an intense military attack into the Gaza Strip on December 27, 2008, which lasted for about three weeks. I think that every rational person – no matter who and no matter where – can accept that these statements are true; they are all easily verifiable and the wording as such does not reflect any bias. They reflect The Truth.

But what exactly is The Truth? One doesn’t need to be a great thinker to know what is meant by the truth on a day-to-day level. After culling various dictionaries in order to get a concise definition, I think most people could agree that the truth about something requires exact conformity to fact or actuality. To this I would add that any notion or belief, no matter how strongly felt, doesn’t necessarily represent The Truth.

Now, apart from measurable items and certain things that have happened to me personally, I can’t really be sure that I have the absolute truth about very much. My life is based mainly on assumptions, most of which seem to work pretty well for me. For instance, I assume on the basis of what I’ve heard and read, that eating  fresh fruit and vegetables is beneficial to our health; so is cutting down on meat and refined products. Also pollution and global warming are said to be real threats to our future. So, even though I don’t have the academic training to verify these claims myself, my common sense acknowledges that I should eat accordingly and also conserve electricity and water and gasolene usage for my transportation. In doing this I think that I am abiding by a growing consensus all over the world.

 But let’s take a subject that doesn’t have a complete consensus – like the Holocaust. How can I be sure that the conventional view about the Nazi genocide of Jews in Europe does indeed reflect The Truth? After all, I wasn’t in Europe during those terrible years. And maybe controversial historian David Irving, or Bishop Williamson or President Ahmedinijad have actually got it right when they declare that the Holocaust is really a hoax. But as a Jew my immediate reaction is that these prominent people are very wrong. On the other hand, if I take into consideration the tendency for bias that most of us have as a result of years of mental conditioning, I should consider that as a Jew I might actually have a distorted view of the events of the thirties and forties of the last century. Let’s face it, more and more people throughout the world agree that the claim of Holocaust is a lie. Can they be right? Let’s see if we can check it out as honestly and objectively as possible.

 Firstly, the Holocaust was thoroughly documented by the typically orderly German government itself. After the Nazi defeat, millions of documents were found by the Allied forces, recording the transports to labor and death camps, as well as the daily numbers of Jews killed and where these killings took place. The Nazis had also produced films on the killings.Furthermore, overwhelming evidence was  given by survivors and liberating soldiers on the death camps, gas chambers and mass killings.

Also, Post-World War II Germany has fully accepted that during the Nazi regime, about six million of Jewish civilians throughout Europe were murdered. If the Holocaust deniers were indeed right, would Germany as an official, free and independent state be willing to admit to such an inordinately heinous legacy?

There are many issues in life that one can’t prove in accordance with absolute, scientifically conducted criteria. Often, the best that the individual can do about certain vital issues, is to conclude without a reasonable doubt – in the same way that is accepted in a court of law. And if I also consider the countless other readily accessible data regarding the Nazi period, it is clear that David Irving, Bishop Williams and the President of Iran, together with all the other Holocaust deniers are in fact engaging in falsehood.

But the lie of Holocaust denial is taken one step further. Israel is accused of doing to the Arabs what the Nazis had done to the Jews. And again, let’s not jump to immediate conclusions – let’s consider that maybe this is indeed The Truth. After all, huge crowds of people often take part in massive protest demonstrations against Israel, not only in Arab and Islamic countries but in Europe and the whole American continent. So, there must be something to justify their indignation against the Jewish state.

 One of the accusations against Israel is that it is an aggressor nation. On the face of it this seems to be a valid statement. After all, Israel has often acted aggressively against Arab countries. This is the Truth and I would be lying if I said otherwise.

But what should be asked is: does it make sense for Israel, with a population of a mere six million Jews to take on the whole Arab world, now hovering at the 300 million mark, thus making it about fifty times more populous than Israel – and possessing a large part of the world’s oil reserves. There are other factors in the Israel-Arab conflict which clearly put Israel at a ridiculously impossible disadvantage. So, are the Jews of Israel crazy to be fighting Arabs, which includes enraging a large part of the rest of the billion-strong Muslim world?

 No, the Jews are not crazy. Neither are they deluded about any superhuman abilities or convinced that the Messiah will appear and save them. Furthermore, they are not intrinsically an aggressive nation. But  they are forced to defend themselves against the continuing Arab quest to uproot Jewish sovereignty from the sliver of land that constitutes a tiny fraction of the original Palestine. For over 90 years Arabs have attacked Jews in their ancient homeland. At first the Jews were quite helpless against the assaults and the killings. But they quickly learned how to defend themselves. Since Israel’s Declaration of Statehood, neighboring Arab states have twice launched full-scale invasions against Israel and once (in 1967) were arrayed on Israel’s vulnerable borders for yet another invasion which was pre-empted by Israel in order to prevent the annihilation that the Arabs had promised over and over again. Apart from the invasions, there has been hardly a single day when an Arab country or terrorist organization wasn’t bombarding Israeli towns and villages with rockets or sending terrorist squads to cause mayhem, or engaged in the planning and preparation of a future onslaught.

This is a very brief background to why Israel has needed to act aggressively from time to time. (Incidentally from the outset, Arab aggression against Israel has always led to more and more misery of Arabs. The Arab refugee problem was totally unnecessary and would never have happened had they not launched a war of annihilation against the Jews in the first place. This is a Truth that very few people mention.)

Anyone who ignores Arab aggression against Israel in this conflict is in fact engaging in selective omission. That’s the same as falsehood. That’s being a party to lies. And there are plenty more false accusations that are constantly directed at Israel by the Arabs, their fellow-Muslims, and shamefully, by a large percentage of people in Europe and the Americas.

An accusation echoed frequently at anti-Israel demonstrations around the world and in almost every international forum, is that Israel is an apartheid state. Well, if Israel were really an apartheid state, then the Arabs in Israel (20% of the population) would not be free to visit restaurants, cinemas, beaches, nor vote in national elections. A dozen highly vituperative Arab representatives are members in Israel’s Knesset. If Israel is really an apartheid state, then how can the number of Arab students at Israel’s universities reflect the ratio of the general population? How can there be Arab lecturers and professors teaching Jewish students? How can there be any Arab patients in Israel’s hospitals, and Arab doctors as well as Arab heads of departments? So, accusing Israel of being an apartheid state is yet another of the multitude of crude lies intended to depict Israel as a pariah state and isolate it even more, thus advancing its planned destruction.

Another common accusation is that Israel is expansionist and wants to conquer Arab lands! But if Israel is expansionist, then why did it cede the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt, not once but on three separate occasions – each time after Sinai had previously been used as a staging point by Egypt for invasions against Israel? Similarly, if Israel were expansionist, why did its armed forces withdraw from a large part of Judea and Samaria (aka West Bank) in the framework of the Oslo Peace Accords? Here too, the army has needed to return from time to time to the ceded areas in order to cope with the intense terrorist activity. We have seen exactly the same pattern regarding Lebanon. Clearly, claiming that Israel is expansionist is yet another crude fabrication.

TERRIBLE IMAGES OF GAZA

But let’s face it – the recent war in Gaza, seen on TV screens around the world, showed without a shadow of doubt that Israel launched countless airstrikes on Gaza, together with large tank and infantry incursions. The colossal devastation was upsetting and infuriating to any decent, caring person, no matter who and no matter where. Cameras do not lie. But they don’t tell the whole story. For that one needs unbiased newspaper, radio and TV journalists, presenting honest background commentary.

However, the terrible scenes on TV screens around the world, showing what Israel wrought on Gaza, seldom if ever related to the preceding eight years of constant rocket attacks coming from the Gaza Strip against Israel’s southern towns and villages. It’s hard for someone not living in Israel, especially not close to the border with Gaza, to appreciate the horrors of daily barrages of rocket fire on ordinary civilians. This was the grim reality faced by Israel’s southern citizens. The situation was totally unacceptable and any other sovereign state would have retaliated far more promptly. But few media outlets related seriously to these long-lasting attacks on Israeli citizens. Terrorist squads from Gaza would attack Israeli towns and villages on a daily basis. But it was only when Israel retaliated, that the media focussed on the conflict, spurring decent, concerned folks of the Western World to voice their understandable indignation against Israel. Few demonstrators fully realized (or wanted to be informed) that Israel’s invasion into Gaza was launched because nothing else had stopped the rockets (not even the complete withdrawal of every Jewish presence from the Gaza Strip in 2006).

Also, largely ignored by most of the international media was the Hamas tactic of forcing their own people to be human shields, using homes, mosques and schools as firing positions, as was the fact that Gaza had been rendered virtually unassailable by any means, because of the enormous amount of booby trapping and tunnels within and under private homes. Only concerted armed incursion and air strikes could halt the terror against Israel. Failure to relate to all these factors meant that only part of the Israel-Gaza war was told. It was indeed an exercise in selective omission and as part of the overall conflict, a large part of a large part of humanity is constantly being duped.

GLOBAL IMMORALITY

The reality is that Israel, one of the smaller nations in the world is trying desperately to prevent yet another genocide on its people, while being hamstrung by international sanctions, boycotts and censure every time it tries to defend itself. Also, unlike any other nation facing constant military aggression, Israel is invariably restricted in its scope to defend itself by it’s supposed friends when it needs to prevent military aggression or retaliate.

What can one conclude about a world in which people who are being constantly attacked and threatened with annihilation are paradoxically the ones who are branded as the aggressors and prevented from defending themselves adequately? How can one define a world in which readily exposed lies are accepted as the truth, and thus further the aims of genocide? A word that sums up the whole tragic situation is Immorality!

Like any other country, Israel is far from having a perfect society and not everything done by its citizens, leaders or its defence forces is above reproach. Like any other country, Israel is most certainly open to criticism. But there is a difference between valid criticism and condemnation based on lies, half-truths and selective omission. No other country in the world faces continuous condemnation in the various forums of the United Nations as well as by the international media, universities, trade unions and some of the mainline churches.

The caring, honest person should ask himself or herself a question regarding Israel: am I being duped by falsehood or am I indeed spreading lies. Can it be that I have been corrupted by self-righteous snares of political correctness or influenced by sloppy, biased journalism or possibly it’s anti-Semitism that’s influenced my perception. Or most dismayingly, if my ancestry is Hebraic, could it be that Jewish self-hate has warped my attitude?

It is important, not only for Israelis, but for every person who cares about the future, to realize that the charters of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the terror armies of Hamas, Hizbollah and El Khaida, make it abundantly clear that the existence of the the State of Israel will continue to be vehemently and violently opposed. Iran, now poised to acquire military nuclear capability is a moving force within this unholy alliance, which is condoned or supported by a large part of the rest of the Arab and Muslim world.

Finally, this mortal conflict doesn’t just concern Israel and the Arabs and Muslims of the world. Those charters make it clear that Israel is just the beginning of the latter-day jihadic conquest of the infidel nations by Islam. What happens now will have a crucial bearing on the future of humanity as a whole. A major tool in this jihad is the spread of lies, half-truths and selective omission. For all this falsehood to be effective, it needs patsies. Conversely, in order to ensure a sane, wholesome world people need to stop being patsies and reject and oppose the falsehood. As an honest, honorable person, I’m sure you are making the right choice.

For more on the subject of truth: http://www.israelandtruth.org/truth_1.htm

 

Israel does have friends …

Guess who!   

By RALPH DOBRIN

No other country needs friends as badly as Israel – a country that has been constantly threatened with attack and destruction from the very day of its revival as an independent modern state. Facing the ongoing wrath of hundreds of millions of people around the globe who happen to possess most of the world’s oil reserves, Israel is the only nation threatened declaratively with nuclear annihilation.

Despite all this, Israel is condemned in United Nations and other international forums more often than all the other countries combined. Much of the world’s media adds to this condemnation. Also the staff and students at many universities as well as trade unions all over the world stridently call for sanctions agains Israel. Maliciously, the hostility is based largely on lies and hypocrisy.

Nevertheless, there are people of all nationalities and religions around the world who oppose the roguish ganging-up against Israel. There are also a few countries that sometimes risk the wrath of Israel’s many enemies, when they cast votes against proposals in the United Nations plenum or Security Council that are patently unjustifiable and tendentious.

But actually, apart from a few very tiny states, such as the Marshall Islands and Micronesia, there isn’t a country in the world that Israel can say without reservation: “These people are real friends.” Not even the USA, which on countless occasions has come to Israel’s aid, can be considered a constantly dependable and true friend. Throughout Israel’s modern history, the USA has frequently stopped Israel from winning a battle or a war decisively against her enemies. Also, the USA and most of the countries that are not overtly hostile to Israel, have usually studiously refrained from condemning Arab aggression against Israel.

And maybe it’s understandable. After all, friendship between nations cannot be like friendship between individuals. While many of the principles apply, international amity is far more complex. Nations must be careful not to jeopardize their own international commercial and political interests. So perhaps the USA is being as friendly as she can be towards Israel. After all, the USA does provide Israel with $4 billion dollars in aid every year. (It provides billions of dollars to other countries as well – including Israel’s enemies.) But the USA provides foreign aid because of its own national interests – in the context of global politics, international trade, oil supplies and defence strategy.

ISRAEL IS A TOUGH PLACE TO LIVE IN

Jewish independence in the Land of Israel after almost 2000 years of exile and persecution might possibly conjure up a stirring and romantic image for people sympathetic to Jewish history. But actually life in Israel presents a harsher reality for the individual trying to contend with high taxation, mandatory military conscription and reserve duty and ongoing military threats. Also the population of over seven million is not the most polite or considerate in the world. Society is enormously heterogeneous, with people originating from a vast array of countries, with different backgrounds, cultures and mentalities. Religious observance and belief, together with political differences cause ever more fragmentation. And all this hubbub is concentrated in a tiny area, about the size of Wales or New Jersey, with scant natural resources, apart from some salt and potash.

One can be tempted to ask oneself: “Why on earth am I living in this crazy place.” After all the religious Jew can practise his faith in Brooklyn or Golders Green or any number of pleasant cities on three continents where vibrant synagogue and yeshiva activities exist together with kosher facilities. On the other hand, the Jew who has no interest in religious observance can readily find alternate domicile and with more of the benefits of modern life, but without the hassles one so often faces in Israel. So why should a Jew live in Israel with all its problems? Why shouldn’t he look for a place to spend his life in the most convenient way possible and offer his family the best chance for personal happiness and comfort, free from undue external threats?

In truth that’s precisely what half the Jews in the world are doing – including hundreds of thousands of people who were born in Israel. Nevertheless, Israel continues to grow and flourish in every way. For many people the bugbears don’t outweigh the gut-feeling that “This is my Land” or “this is where I belong,” and that “no one can call me a Dirty Jew here.” For others, living in the Land of Israel is actually a religious duty. Then there is the incredible realization that we are fulfilling a two-millennia dream of sovereignty in our ancient homeland, and that my grandparents wouldn’t have ended up in places like Bergen-Belsen and Auschwitz if the State of Israel had existed in their time.

 These are the factors that generated the idealism that came to be called Zionism and that sustained a spirit which transformed deserts and malaria-infested swamps into lush farmland and bustling cities. It was this spirit that enabled the State of Israel to be established and fight against impossible odds. But this spirit began to wane about two generations ago. Nowadays many people have lost faith in themselves and in their leadership. There is an egocentrism that parallels the self-absorption found throughout the Western World, and actually weakens the resolve needed to face the challenges of life in Israel that include standing up against a large part of humanity that seeks our destruction or abets that quest.

THE UNITY VITAMIN

And yet, there is still one factor that keeps pushing Israel to grow and develop, and that strengthens the resolve of its people. It is precisely that factor that seeks Israel’s destruction. Paradoxically it is Arab hostility that provides the vitamin enabling the Jews of Israel to stick together and put aside our differences. For about a hundred years the Arabs have tried to stymie our efforts to rebuild ourselves as a nation in our ancient homeland. From the outset Arabs were more prone to assert themselves physically, readily attacking Jews and waging fully-fledged pogroms that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Jews.

So naturally Jews began to organize defence groups. From being a traditionally docile – even cringing – people the Jews here were to go on to learn how to strengthen themselves as a society in a very effective manner. At every step that the Arabs opposed the Jews, it led to more Jewish growth, development and communal strength. In 1936 the Arabs organized a general strike that lasted three years. One of the things they did was to close down Jaffa Port. The Jews responded by building Tel Aviv Port. Meanwhile they organized themselves into effective fighting groups that would enable them to prevent annihilation in the future.

In 1947 the United Nations voted to partition what was left of Palestine. (77% of the region had already been lopped off 25 years earlier to create an Arab state in Palestine – the Kingdom of Jordan.) But the Partition Plan was met by categorical Arab rejection. Instead of sharing what was left of Palestine with the Jews (who were to be accorded with three tiny slivers of land), the Arabs launched a full scale war with the declared promise of killing or banishing all the Jews. But they failed and again the Jews benefited from Arab hostility. Instead of acquiring only 15,000 square kilometers of dismembered territory in accordance with the Partition Plan, the pan-Arab invasion paradoxically resulted in Israel getting 21,000 square kilometers of continuous territory that included Western Jerusalem. The region mooted for Arab independence that remained in Arab hands – Judea and Samaria, aka as the West Bank – was annexed by the Kingdom of Jordan.

Arab hostility continued, mainly in the form of state instigated terrorist attacks from Egypt and Jordan and intermittent artillery barrages on Israel’s northern farming communities by the Syrians. Therefore, Israel had to continue developing an effective defence system. In 1967 it was evident just how effective when all the neighboring countries, together with more remote countries prepared to launch yet another massive invasion on Israel with the stated aim of obliterating the Jewish State. But again Israel benefitted. Their victory in the Six Day War meant that no longer would Arab Legion tanks and infantrymen be able to position themselves a mere ten or fifteen miles from Tel Aviv and Netanya. And the eastern part of Jerusalem – that had had tough Arab Legionnaires perched on the Old City Walls, aiming their rifles at the Jews of western Jerusalem – now became part of Israel. So did many of the places most precious and holy to the Jewish people. Furthermore Israel’s entire territory expanded three-fold. The Sinai Peninsula was subsequently relinquished as part of the peace process with Egypt.

But the threats and attacks against Israel continue, now manifested mainly by Hizbollah, Hamas and Iran. Ultimately, this hostility benefits Israel because it helps blur internal differences among the Israelis themselves and acts as a powerful unifying influence. People from all parts of the population are brought together when they serve in the army. When Israeli citizens are hurt or killed in terror attacks, the whole country – irrespective of socio-economic status, or religious or political affiliation – shares the dismay.

 One must bear in mind, however, that the Israel-Arab conflict has nevertheless divided Israeli society politically. Since the British Mandate days, there has always been a heated polemic among the Jews on how to deal with Arab demands for Jewish capitulation and how to retaliate to their aggression. How far can one compromise? To what extent should Israel withdraw from Judea and Samaria, if at all? When is retaliation justified and to what extent? What is the best way to achieve a secure, binding peace? The issues are as emotionally-charged and divisive as religious differences and generate bitter mutual acrimony.

But as always, whenever Arab aggression becomes untenable, like when the Hizbollah or Hamas terrorist armies continually bombard peaceful Israeli towns and villages with hundreds of rockets and mortars, the vast majority of level-headed Israelis, irrespective of religious or political conviction, stand together as one united nation.

For Israelis hit by these attacks, it is often a terrible personal tragedy. But for the nation, ironically, it is really a blessing because it is precisely Arab hostility that helps unite and build us up as a nation. Israel, with its deeply heterogeneous society, has needed a few generations to become an adequately unified, integrated nation. Without this hostility, it is likely that the many sharp differences within Israeli society would have rent it asunder.

With enemies like these, who needs friends?

See also: www.israelandtruth.org

Herbert Hoover’s solution for Palestine

The Three-state

Solution

By BRUCE BRILL
 

Ralph Dobrin comments: Bruce Brill reminds us of an idea for a solution to the Jewish-Arab conflict that was suggested by Herbert Hoover over 60 years ago. So far none of the solutions suggested by anyone else has been viable because there are too many parties involved, with very different aims that are additionally bedevilled by religion. Eventually, in five years or five hundred years, there will be a solution, just like other interminable conflicts that were eventually resolved. A day might come when truthfulness and common decency become the guiding light for all parties. That’s another way of referring to the Messianic Dream. Or conversely Jihad will prevail and life in the whole world will become purgatory. However, assuming that we will be smart enough to overcome the Jihadist threat, Herbert Hoover’s ideas could become relevant. Bruce Brill is a freelance writer on Middle East security issues. His articles have appeared in The Christian Science Monitor, The Jerusalem Report, The Washington Times, The Jerusalem Post, The Jewish Spectator, Midstream and Jewish American weeklies.

All agree the humanitarian crisis today in Gaza is critical. Even prior to Israel and Hamas’ slugfest earlier this year, the Palestinian Independent Commission on Human Rights reported that “80% of the population in Gaza are living on less than two dollars a day, while unemployment hovers at 60% and just 195 factories remain open out of 3900.

The International Committee of the Red Cross says that Gaza is suffering what it calls a full-blown humanitarian crisis and it is reported US humanitarian aid may top 900 million dollars. Amnesty International states that “Since June 2007, the entire population of 1.5 million Palestinians has been trapped in Gaza, with dwindling resources and an economy in ruins.” AI’s Director of Middle East and North Africa Program, Malcolm Smart adds that Gazans “need immediate respite.”

The International Middle East Media Center stated. “Gaza has slowly fallen into one of the worst humanitarian crises that exist anywhere in the world today.”

Herbert Hoover and Palestine

If the greatest humanitarian in history happened to have a program to relieve the plight of Palestinian Arabs, shouldn’t it be heeded? Known to historians as “The Great Humanitarian,” U.S. President Herbert Hoover saved tens of millions of people from starvation and homelessness.

He also had an engineering plan to relieve the plight of the Palestinian Arabs. Hoover’s plan called for an extensive damming and irrigation program in Iraq to create adequate arable land for Palestinian settlement – for their benefit as well as for Iraq’s good. Hoover’s 1945 plan is even more relevant today: the Palestinians’ current economic and security state is desperate, particularly for “the 1.5 million Palestinian trapped in Gaza” (in Amnesty International’s words).

A November 2004 survey done in cooperation with the respected Palestine Center for Public Opinion showed that 71% of West Bank Palestinians would emigrate with certain financial inducements and 40% have considered emigrating permanently even without such inducements. A Birzeit University survey conducted by veteran pollster Nader Said shows that in September 2006, over 50% of young Palestinian men are willing to relocate. One would assume that with the present humanitarian crisis in Gaza, these figures would be even higher.

Hoover’s plan would guarantee a better life for the Palestinians and also help Iraq, since Palestinians excel in agriculture and construction. It would provide the relocated Palestinians good homes, respectable income, a decent education for the children, and security.

Pulitzer Prize winning author and political analyst Leslie Gelb and the Council of Foreign Relations maintain that a three-state solution is needed to provide this security. Iraq must first be divided in three: Kurdish, Sunni, and Shiite. The necessary population transfers have already begun with the internally displaced Iraqis who left their homes in hostile areas for safer abodes. Once the border lines are drawn on the map, these borders should be made impregnable to insurgent passage, much as the border fence the Saudis are constructing along their own border with Iraq. Newly-elected Vice President Joseph Biden and some U.S. Congressmen agree with CFR’s recommendations: divide Iraq and bring US troops home.

The Democrats will be happy seeing their desired withdrawal along with implementation of Biden’s plan. Since Hoover was the spokesman for Republican Party principles for much of the 20th century, the Republicans should be happy implementing his plan: humanitarian and — at the same time — face-saving. Most importantly, Iraqis and Palestinians could be happy.

Real Jewish-Arab friendship

I nearly killed a good man

in Jerusalem’s Old City

By Ralph Dobrin

It was the summer of 1967. The Six Day War had been fought a few months earlier and Jerusalem was a unified city once again. The huge concrete barricades and barbed wire fences that had divided the city for 19 years had been torn down and the mine fields cleared. Jews and Arabs were pouring into each other’s parts of the city.

I was working at The Jerusalem Post as a linotype operator and aspiring freelance journalist, when the management accepted a government proposal to set up an Arab-language newspaper called Al-Anba.

And suddenly one day we Jews found ourselves sharing space with a large crowd of Arabs. In the editorial offices and in the press room, there were lots of strange guys, jabbering in the language of people with whom we had been at war a few months earlier. Three additional linotype machines had been squeezed into our already cramped space. We found ourselves, waiting in line at the Ludlow headline machine, while someone called Mansour or Ibrahim was operating the machine. We shared the same equipment, as well as the dining hall during the meal breaks. We shared the washrooms, toilets and locker rooms.

At first there was an atmosphere of strained politeness in the air. But we had one thing in common. We were all guys engaged in the business of printing newspapers, sharing the 500-year tradition of the great pioneer of printing, Johannes Gutenberg.

Among the Jews were half-a-dozen workers who about 15-19 years earlier had immigrated from Iraq, Egypt, Yemen and Morocco. Soon they were having friendly conversations with the Arab workers. Also, many of the Arabs spoke English, so most of the people in The Jerusalem Post building were able to converse with each other.

Good working friendships developed, which led to visits to each others’ homes. The Arabs told us about their experiences during the war and their fears, as well as their surprise and relief when they realized that the conquering Israeli soldiers weren’t going to brutally kill them all.

I became especially friendly with a young guy whom I will call Samir. He told us that the day after the shooting ended an Israeli army lorry pulled up outside his house and soldiers jumped out of the back.

“The soldiers came banging on our door,” he recounted grimly. “We were afraid that they had come to kill or imprison us or do something terrible to our wives and sisters. Then two soldiers brought boxes into our house. In the boxes were bread and milk.” He shook his head, clearly still amazed that the Zionist army would do such a thing.

I left The Jerusalem Post in 1969 and subsequently opened my own publishing business. Samir also left the Arabic newspaper and set up a store selling souvenirs and jewelry in the Old City marketplace. My business often took me into East Jerusalem and the Old City, so I frequently visited Samir and we became very close friends. “You are like a brother to me, Rafi,” he said a few times.

Samir had charisma. A burly fellow with a broad, handsome, cheerful face, he was very chatty and had a sharp sense of humor; he usually showed that he was delighted to see you. Three cousins were usually in his store, serving customers or sipping Turkish coffee. Also, invariably there would be one or two really good-looking blondes from Scandinavia or Germany, smilingly cuddling with one of the cousins – their long, bare, shapely legs incongruously spread over a Beduin-style divan.

Whenever I came into his shop Samir would shake my hand gleefully, then give a playful punch at my midriff and invite me for a cup of coffee. I would return that playful punch at his belly, which was as hard as steel. As a karate instructor Samir was clearly in excellent physical shape. He often talked about his karate club.

He also liked to discuss politics and seemed to have a high opinion of the Israeli army. He appreciated that the army usually acted without undue brutality when dealing with the Arab population. He admired the country’s democratic government and the legal system, which from personal experience, he claimed was very fair. Samir had read the biographies of many of Israel’s military and political leaders. We also talked about our families. His wife had cancer and he had great appreciation for the treatment she had received at Hadassah Hospital.

We talked with each other in three languages. Apart from English, he had become quite proficient in Hebrew and my endeavors to learn Arabic were becoming manifest in our conversations. He would sometimes say, “Rafi, if it were up to you and me, there would be peace in the Middle East.”

I would see Samir sporadically. Sometimes a few times a week; sometimes every few months – depending on my own business schedule. His store in the marketplace was one of my favorite places in Jerusalem. The neighboring stall keepers would see me walking down the stairs of the market lane to his place and they would greet me as an old friend.

I AM ATTACKED IN THE SHUK

One day in the late-eighties I happened to be doing a stint of reserve duty. My batallion was training at Ze’elim in the Negev. Late on a Friday afternoon an order was given for us to be transported to East Jerusalem in order to boost the forces in case of armed violence. Arriving that night, we were billetted at the Kishle Police Station next to the Citadel. Early in the morning, before breakfast, my squad was sent out to begin a six-hour patrol in the alleyways of the Old City.

Across the road from the Kishle was a kiosk selling corn on the cob and felafel. As we hadn’t eaten any supper the previous night nor any breakfast, we each bought a felafel or corn from the rather sleepy-looking vendor. We stood there munching our breakfast for a few minutes, before dividing into pairs and toting our rifles, dressed in battle gear, we cheerfully began to saunter down the main alley in the shuk.

After about an hour my partner said he felt ill. I suddenly realized that I too, needed to go to a toilet urgently. It must have been something we had eaten at the kiosk. We were near the big public toilet in the center of the shuk and rushed in to relieve ourselves – just in time. We exited and continued our patrol. But I began to feel billious. So did my companion. We retraced our steps to that blessed toilet and this time I also vomitted. Clearly, I was sick. But a combat soldier in the Israeli army doesn’t readily succumb to a bit of billiousness and vomitting. So we continued trudging painfully up and down the alleyways. Hour after hour. And each hour was an eternity. I said to myself, “This is really silly. If there is any attack on tourists I will be absolutely useless. In fact I feared that I might crap in my pants if something happened … and not because of fear.

And just then it happened. My companion had gone into a restaurant to use their toilet and I was standing by the entrance, when someone jumped at me from behind. In my weakened state I found myself being held in a vise grip around the neck, with my rifle jammed uselessly against my side. But my reflexes immediately kicked in and I vigorously tried to shake off my assailant. He was very strong but I was desperate and I slipped out of his grip. The whole thing took perhaps three or four seconds. I swung around to face my assailant. To my amazement the guy laughed at me. Then I noticed that it was Samir. “Rafi, Rafi, ya sharmoota,” he chuckled. “What are you doing, dressed up like that?” He put his arm around my neck again, gave me a big hug and kissed my cheek.

“Samir, you fool,” I shouted, extricating myself from his grip. “I could have shot you. For God’s sake, man, I could have killed you.”

“Haki faadi,” he replied. “Nonsense. We are brothers.” Then he noticed that I wasn’t well. “Rafi, you look sick. What’s the matter?” I told him. He ushered me into the restaurant where my companion had gone. He sat me down at a table and ordered a sage tea. When my companion came out of the toilet he was surprised to see me, sitting there with an Arab. Indeed, we had been given orders not to sit in a restaurant during our patrol. But I felt so ill that I didn’t care about rules and orders.

Samir also ordered a sage tea for my friend. We slurped it down as quickly as possible, thanked Samir, who insisted on footing the bill, and returned to patrolling the alleyways.

“Come and visit me when you finish the army, ya sharmoota,” Samir shouted.

Samir’s friendship for me obviously transcended any concern he might have had for what his fellow-vendors in the shuk thought of him hugging an Israeli soldier. It was undoubtedly a spontaneous act of genuine affection for an old friend – even one dressed in the army uniform of the accursed occupier of his country. Or perhaps he didn’t see my uniform as that of the accursed occupier. Not at that time.

AN ENCOUNTER WITH THE ENEMY

A few weeks later I was released from my reserve duty and visited Samir as soon as I could as an ordinary civilian again. He greeted me with obvious amusement and pleasure. A sleepy-looking blonde in crotch-clinging shorts and low-cut blouse was slumped against the chest of one of the cousins, reclining on the divan. The guy languidly nodded at me and his other cousins got up and shook hands with me while Samir poured me a cup of tea. Soon we were chatting like old times.

Just then a tall guy with piercing dark eyes and a don’t-mess-with-me moustache to match came into the shop. Politely he shook hands with Samir and his cousins. He avoided looking at the smooth legs and teasing curves of the blonde on the divan. But he did cast a searching glance at me. Samir said in Arabic, “Ya Rafi, meet Mustafa. Mustafa this is Rafi. A good man.” Then Samir laughed and added for my benefit: Mustafa is a Hamas man. Dir Balak, Rafi. Be careful.” I nodded calmly and said in Arabic , “That’s interesting. But violence won’t get you anywhere.”

The man looked at me coldly, moved towards me and to my surprise, stretched out a hand to shake mine. I got up and shook his and he promptly turned around and walked out the shop.

Samir seemed very amused by the encounter. He said, “To tell you the truth, Rafi, I can agree with some of the things that Hamas does. They help my people in many ways, but I don’t agree with their violent methods.”

NOT IN A MILLION YEARS

Not long after this visit the First Intifada broke out in December 1987. I visited Samir once and then there was a period of a few months that I didn’t visit him. Not because I was afraid. After all, his stall was a mere hundred meters from the beginning of the shuk and I knew that the shuk vendors were not happy about violence because it was harming their livelihood. But at that time I was too busy struggling to ensure the survival of my own business and so it was about five months after the previous visit, that I entered Samir’s shop again. He was sitting there, morosely with his cousins. There was no blonde this time. Just the four of them looking very serious. They now had beards. Samir, who had always had a very trim body from doing karate, looked somewhat flabby. He saw me and nodded without saying a word.

“Hello Samir,” I began with my usual enthusiasm. “How is everything?”

No answer.

“Business is very weak, I guess.”

He nodded and said quietly, “Come sit down, Rafi. Where have you been all this time?”

“I’ve been very busy,” I replied honestly.

“Well, we haven’t had much work,” he said. “But I don’t care. Everything is in the hands of Allah.”

Allah!!! In all the years that I had known Samir he had never once mentioned Allah.

“You look different,” I said, playfully jabbing at his belly like I had done on many occasions. But now it was soft. For a fleeting moment he looked a little annoyed. Then a slight smile appeared. Not the usual good-natured, mischevious, zest-for-life kind of smile. It was a smile of resignation. He said. “Yes, a lot has changed for me. I am now doing what is really important. I go to the mosque five times a day. I pray. I study. And I have never been so happy in my life.” His cousins nodded.

We began to talk about the intifada. Samir said: “I am proud of the young Arab boys who stand up to the Israeli army. I cannot join them now because I have a family to think of. But three of my nephews have been in jail and we are all very proud of them.”

Samir kept telling me how wonderful Islam was. “It is a religion that teaches charity, honesty and respect for others,” he told me in Arabic.

“And what does Islam say about peace?” I asked.

“Islam is all about peace,” he said emphatically.

“Oh come on, Samir,” I raised my voice. “I’ve read the Koran and yes it talks about the things you mention – charity, honesty, etc, but for god’s sake, man, the Koran is mostly about damnation and jihad.”

He looked at me impassively. “You know nothing, Rafi,” he said.

I wanted to regain the rapport that we once had as real friends. So I repeated what he himself had often said: “If it were up to you and me alone, there would be peace in this land.”

That seemed to agitate him quite considerably. He leaned forward towards me and said loudly, “That is absolutely, absolutely not true. As a Muslim I cannot ever make peace with Israel. Never!  Never! Never!“

“You must be joking!” I yelled out in dismay.

He shook his head emphatically. “I can never make peace with Israel. I can like you as someone that I know personally. But I can never make peace with Israel. Forget about it!”

Then he added a clincher. “Not in a million years! As a Muslim I can never ever live in peace with a country called Israel that has stolen my land.”

I sat there shocked. We stared at each other. I sighed and shook my head and said slowly in English: “If that’s the case then … Islam … is … the … religion … of … the … devil.”

“What did he say?” one of the cousins asked Samir, apparently not sure that he had heard correctly.

So I repeated the sentence in Arabic. It was a very stupid thing to say because suddenly the three cousins jumped up and grabbed me roughly. There was rage in their eyes. Samir shouted something at them and they reluctantly released me. Then he looked at me, breathing heavily. “You better go,” he said escorting me to the door of his shop. I tried to say something, but he put his hand to my mouth and shook his head.

A CALL FOR TRUCE

I didn’t see Samir for a few years. Then one day, just after the end of the First Gulf War, I happened to be driving through Jaffa Gate on my scooter and saw Samir walking slowly towards the Shuk with his head down. He looked tired and sad as I passed him. I called out to him. He looked up, saw me and immediately rushed at me. It looked as though he meant to harm me. I accelerated to get away, but he caught hold of my shoulders and yelled: “Rafi! Rafi! Where have you been all these years? Why have you abandoned us? You must come to my shop! My cousins will be pleased to see you!”

I wasn’t so sure of that but he wouldn’t let me go. So I parked the scooter and reluctantly accompanied him to his shop. Arriving there, his cousins, two of whom were now clean-shaven – as was Samir – also greeted me with hugs, kisses and happy handshakes. We sat down. A glass of coffee was promptly put in my hand and we talked. As usual, business was very bad, they said. The intifada and the Gulf War had been disastrous for them economically.

Samir kept repeating: “We must have peace. We must have peace.”

I said, “Samir, I remember the last time I was here you said that there can never be peace with Israel – not in a million years. Now all of a sudden you want peace.”

He smiled sheepishly. “We can’t continue like this,” he said. “We need business. We need tourists. We have to feed our families.”

“Then stop making war with us,” I raised my voice slightly. “You could have had your Palestine years ago; you could have had prosperity and peace, but you keep making war with Israel.”

He repeated, “We must have peace.”

“What about those million years?” I challenged.

He repeated: “We must have peace.” Then he added, “At least for a long period.”

“How long? Six months, a year or two?” I prodded sarcastically.

“No, not a short period,” Samir said loudly. “A long period … something like a hundred years, maybe two hundred years!”

“That’s very kind of you,” I said sarcastically. I finished my coffee and got up to go.

One of Samir’s cousins also got up and blocked my way. He was the one who still had a beard. He looked at me triumphantly and said, “What you don’t understand, is that Israel is a small nation. Only six million Jews and we are over a billion Muslims.” Then he sneered: ”How long can you stand against us?”

I remembered the previous time when he had seemed ready to do me serious bodily harm, but I challenged, “And how long will it be before you learn that every time you attack Israel you hurt your own people worse than you hurt Israel? When will you learn?” And pushing past him, I walked out, very alert to the possibility of a sudden flurry behind me. But nothing happened.

I have seen Samir and his cousins a few times since then. That fine friendship that we once had has not been revived. For a brief period after the Oslo accords and the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from parts of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, it seemed that our friendship could be picked up again. But too many buses, restaurants and shopping malls had been blown up by Arab suicide bombers, followed by Israeli retaliations. The Second Intifada that broke out in September 2000, drove us even further apart.

I sometimes pass Samir’s store and see him standing at the entrance waiting for customers. He nods his head coldly. I greet him politely without stopping. The fact that we are no longer friends is most unfortunate, not just for us. It has implications beyond our own personal relationship.

Writing these lines I have come to a personal conclusion. Friendship is too precious to be stopped by something stupid like religious dogma. Especially friendship that fostered harmonious relations between rival communities. I am resolved to set aside a day with the express purpose of going to the Old City and calling on my old friend Samir. I will stand at the entrance of his shop and greet him quietly and ask him how he is, and his family, and his business. I very much hope that he will find it in his heart to answer my questions and invite me into his shop for a chat so that we can begin again to play out his wonderful words: “Rafi, if it were up to you and me, there would be peace between our people.” If he doesn’t invite me into his shop I shall nevertheless suggest that we go to a nearby cafe and have a tea or coffee and some knafe. Hopefully the events of the last two decades haven’t extinguished completely the appreciation and fondness that we once had.for each other.

I doubt that we’ll ever have the kind of friendship that we once had. Too much has happened in this region. Also with the passing decades we are no longer the kind of guys we used to be. But any kind of friendship multiplied over and over again by others as well, could help prepare the ground for real peace one day.

Jews and Arabs: www.israelandtruth.org

 

 

Hating Israel

The blessings of Anti-Semitism

By RALPH DOBRIN

You might not believe this but stadiums with 80,000 fans screaming hysterically over some yoboes running after a ball, is probably a carry-over from our pre-historic days when people huddled in caves as families and small clans – fearful of the wild men that roamed just over the hills, and who were probably equally apprehensive of them. Those antediluvians clawed and clubbed each other to death just because they were afraid of each other and also because they had a natural animal instinct for territory.

Since those desperately vicious times humanity has come a long way. We no longer automatically club each other to death. We’ve learned the art of communication and the establishment of orderly society. But the instincts of fear and possession of territory of those cave-dwelling days are still ingrained in us in the form of racial antipathy and disdain for others. So is the need for a feeling of security. If the team that I’m cheering wins, it reinforces my sense of security because it infers that we are superior to the others; we will defeat them. I can also suppose my own superiority over another group, country, or religion – simply by deeming that they are stupid, or selfish, or cruel, or dishonest, or have crinkly hair or smooth blond hair or speak a different language.

I believe that rare is the person who feels absolutely no negative sentiment for others with different ethnic, national or religious connections. While laws in all democracies and many totalitarian states prohibit any blatantly inflammatory expression of this negative sentiment, it is nevertheless there. Even the nicest, kindest, most tolerant and broadminded people catch themselves from time to time, needing to subdue or suppress some mild dislike or disdain, that suddenly surfaces as the result of a sectarian difference.

The Nazis developed racial antipathy into unprecedented heights. By targeting gypsies, homosexuals and Jews, they could readily illustrate their own purported superiority. However, gypsies and homosexuals were small fry as far as the Nazi Party machine was concerned. But a person could really get a kick out of despising Jews. In the beginning of the Hitler period most Germans were not rabid anti-Semites. While some were, most were simply nice, polite and considerate people. But officially-promoted anti-Semitism was like a virus that just kept spreading, so that more and more Germans were infected.

And the conditions were ripe. In economically devastated Post-First World War Germany, the owners of the big departmental stores happened to be Jews. So where many of the senior lecturers and professors at the universities – far more than their tiny proportion in the general German population. The average German couldn’t help notice that many of the pharmacies, clothing and shoe stores were owned by Jews. Well known authors, musicians and artists happened to be Jews; Jewish journalists were overly-well represented in the newspapers; among the doctors, lawyers, architects and fashion houses you’d all to frequently find Jews. And they drove big, expensive new automobiles, lived in luxurious houses and their wives flaunted fur coats. What people didn’t consider was, that while most ordinary Germans – with a greater fondness for the gemütlichkeit of the beer hall – generally didn’t readily avail themselves of the opportunities in education or business, the Jews did. That’s why as a community they prospered (as was the case wherever Jews lived).

If you were what Hitler called an “Aryan” you could feel good by believing the official line that Jews had money and good positions because they cheated, lied and thought only about making money. Also, you were told that the Jews were the cause of all Germany’s woes and that they were planning to take over the world. So it was natural to hate them – to really hate them!

Too many German people liked Hitler’s ideas about the Jews and readily accepted his plans for dominance in much of the World. Their support led to a Dark Age that lasted for one dreadful decade. When the darkness dissipated, fifty, sixty or more million people had died violently and Germany had been utterly devastated. Among the many horrendous images of the War, it was the endless heaps of gruesomely emaciated naked corpses of Jews, discovered in the Nazi death camps, that jolted many of the nations of the world into understanding how dangerous racism can be. For the first time since antiquity, Judeophobia, or its modern appellation anti-Semitism, was commonly deemed totally unacceptable.

Soon afterwards, against all odds, the Jewish people regained their independent statehood in the Land of Israel. But they have never been accepted by the surrounding peoples. Despite peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, Israel does not enjoy normal relations with any of its neighbors. Most of the people living in the 22 Arab states as well as those living in Gaza, Judea and Samaria hate Israel and the Jews. This hatred is shared by a large part of the rest of the Islamic world.

THE ARAB VERSION IS A DELIGHT FOR

ANTI-SEMITES

Much of History has been about territorial dispute and controversial borders. Sometimes these disputes last for hundreds of years. Usually they are settled militarily, at least temporarily, by the more powerful side. Sometimes a major regional power might feel it’s expedient to back one side. But seldom if ever are issues of morality or international law bandied about in territorial disputes like they are in the Israel-Arab conflict.

Although, let’s face it, morality and international law are probably the best criteria by which to judge any international dispute. However, truthfulness must be the main – and in fact only – yardstick. But from the outset, the Israel-Arab conflict – as dealt with by the Arabs themselves and much of the international community – has little connection to truthfulness.

The conflict is basically about a small people getting independent sovereignty in its ancestral homeland during a period when other peoples of the region were also getting their independence. These other people totally rejected that the Jews had any right to any part of the Land of Israel. The ratio between the sides is absurd. The Jews of Israel are outnumbered 50-1 by 22 Arab states who hold a land-mass 500 times larger than Israel, on which are a major part of the world’s oil reserves. The Arabs have employed every means at their disposal to destroy the tiny Jewish state. They have launched three full-scale invasions with the declared intention of genocide; terror has been employed for generations; they have initiated an international boycott and also recruited every possible international agency, including the United Nations to condemn and demonize this small nation that bequethed the world a code of ethics. The Arabs’ main weapon in all their extra-military endeavors has been falsehood.

Yet another ploy has been to deliberately attack civilian Israeli targets from heavily populated Arab areas, including schools, mosques and residential areas, thus thrusting their own women and children in the line of Israeli fire with the express purpose of getting them killed. In this brutal, callous and monumentally cynical manner they generate global condemnation and pressure against Israel. It’s a ploy that works with stunning success. It’s all based on the Big Big Lie. That the peoples of the world have turned a blind eye to all this unspeakable evil, clearly says something about the international community’s own ethics and attitudes towards Israel.

It’s clearly a highly anomalous situation. No other nation on earth suffers ostracism, condemnation and isolation to the same extent as Israel. We have seen crowds of thousands of people in countries all over the world, weathering the freezing winter to demonstrate angrily against Israel during the recent war in Gaza. Granted, that many of the demonstrators were Arabs who find themselves emotionally part of this mortal struggle. But the majority of demonstrators were usually not Arab or Muslim.

Now there are good explanations for the widespread indignation against Israel: the terrible images on the TV screens, showing devastation of Arab towns and shattered bodies as a result of Israeli bombing raids; or the acceptance by the mainstream media of the untruthful Arab narrative that Israel stole Palestine from the Arabs and caused the refugee problem, while providing scant reference to the ongoing terror attacks against Israel; or the massive funding from oil-rich Arab sources into Western universities and research faculties that has encouraged anti-Israeli sentiment by their staff; or the growing Muslim minorities throughout Europe, Britain and the Americas, propagating ever-more anti-Israel rhetoric. For governments the motive for condemnation of Israel is pragmatic considerations for smooth, evenly-priced oil supplies and the preference of good diplomatic ties with 22 Arab states and 56 Muslim States, rather than with one lone, controversial, frequently-castigated Jewish state.

But there is clearly an egregious double standard here. In recent years there have been dozens of territorial disputes in various parts of the world, that have erupted into mayhem far worse than Israel’s recent incursion into Gaza. Yet, there have been hardly any public demonstrations calling for a boycott or divestment from China, Russia, Iran or Sudan, to mention just a few of these reprobate countries.

So why is Israel always singled out for continuous widespread condemnation by people all over the world? Why that unique double standard? Why has the perfidious Arab narrative always been the accepted version when the Arab role in the devastating Islamic terror, that might plunge the world into a Dark Age, is so abundantly obvious to any honest, clear-thinking person?

Why do the universities, churches and city councils In Europe, Britain and North America, that call for divestment from Israeli universities and businesses, cynically overlook what really started and what perpetuates the Israel-Arab conflict; why do they choose to ignore the continuous threats against Israel’s very existence?

Is it really Anti-Semitism?

I’m reluctant to immediately label any criticism of Jews or Israel as “anti-Semitism,” because I know that we Jews, often due to having personally experienced racial hostility, can be overly sensitive to criticism. Also, there isn’t a nation on earth that can’t be open to criticism and Israel is no exception. But it does seem that there’s far more to all that continuous and intensive world-wide condemnation than mere, well-meant censure or just ordinary racial antipathy.

There’s something else here that transcends ordinary racial antipathy. It’s that nasty, old thing that is so familiar to most Jews. It is anti-Semitism!

Now, some people say that the double standard demanded from Israel stems from its biblical connections. In other words it doesn’t necessarily stem from an intrinsically hostile attitude towards Israel because it is a Jewish state, and therefore cannot be seen as anti-Semitism. I can accept that there are people who have a special expectation of Israel and I have deep respect for them. Although if armed with all the facts they would realize how impossible it is for Israel to do act much differently from the way she has been till now.

Also, I don’t believe that every gentile is an anti-Semite. That would overlook the many genuine friendships between Jews and gentiles, as well as the many people in other countries who support Israel in every way that they can.

However, real anti-Semitism can be identified by the ease and readiness of people to find fault with the Jews or a Jewish state without taking into consideration any mitigating circumstances, and suggesting or imposing upon them some form of penalty, whether it be censure, rejection or some other form of overt hostility. That’s exactly what we’ve been witnessing all these years.

Is there something more to anti-Semitism than just the natural tendency for disdain towards others? After all, Jews are not the only people to have suffered discrimination or persecution. People all over the world have experienced some form of persecution. Dark-skinned people, especially, have suffered unspeakable atrocities at the hands of others, although unlike the Jews, they have never incurred international condemnation for trying to defend themselves.

This seems to be one of the differences between ordinary racial antipathy or racism and anti-Semitism. Another difference is that even when Jews become totally assimilated – behaviorally, culturally or in appearance – history has shown again and again how fragile is their acceptance by others.

Can it be that is actually a cosmic thing? Does God come into the equation? Is anti-Semitism meant to be a divinely-inspired lesson for the Jews to become a truly righteous people? Or are the Jews being used as a tool by the Almighty to provide the nations of the world with a lesson of apocalyptic consequences?

Whatever the answer, one thing is certain: anti-Semitism feeds on falsehood and breeds ever-more falsehood. Throughout history this has been the case. And it leads, not only to Jews being hurt, but everyone else as well. Ultimately anti-Semitism is very bad for everyone. That should be the lesson for the people who demand double standards when relating to Israel. That’s what all anti-Semites should remember.

However, for the Jews and for Israel there is also a great lesson to be derived from anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism forces Jews to strive for national unity and the betterment of themselves in every way as individuals and as a society. In the long run, anti-Semitism – if we relate to it appropriately – might even be a blessing.

For Jewish self-hate and anti-Semitism see:
http://truthandsurvival.wordpress.com/2008/07/05/the-shame-of-disloyalty/

This present blog is a follow-up on the previous blog which claimed that the international pressure on Israel to withdraw from Judea and Samaria has nothing to do with morality or international law. http://truthandsurvival.wordpress.com/2009/03/16/the-call-for-israeli-withdrawal-from-judea-and-samaria/

The call for Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria …

Peace and international law

have nothing to do with it

By RALPH DOBRIN

It’s easy to be fooled into thinking that Israel is indeed a pariah state. After all, not since Nazi Germany began seizing neighboring countries for herself in the second half of the nineteen thirties, has any one nation been so widely vilified and condemned as the State of Israel. And maybe all that condemnation is understandable. After all, the general impression that most people around the world get from what they see on their TV screens, is that Israel keeps bombing helpless Arab refugees, causing terrible death and destruction – all this after the Jews had stolen Palestine from the Arabs and chased them out of their own country.

Unfortunately, there is very little credible background appended to the images that people see on their TV screens or read in the newspapers and blog sites. Little is ever mentioned about the Arab intentions and attempts, at the outset, to wipe Israel off the face of the map. Full-scale invasions against Israel and terror attacks aren’t considered relevant factors in the ongoing conflict. Neither are Israel’s repeated withdrawals in order to facilitate peace in the region. And when any background material is actually presented, it is invariably the slanted Arab narrative that is told – sans the provocations against Israel but with lots of hyberbole and outright lie.

But two facts are indisputable. Firstly, Israel has indeed waged a number of full-scale wars and military campaigns against Arab states and terrorist organizations (deemed liberation organizations by many). Secondly, Israel occupies lands that were once under Arab rule. No doubt about this. Thus the perennial call of most leaders – Arab and non-Arab alike – as well as public figures, political commentators and journalists throughout the world, that Israel must withdraw from all these said lands as quickly as possible. Also, there is a broad consensus that Jewish settlement in any of these areas is totally unacceptable and in fact illegal.

However, when considering all this less-than-favorable focus on Israel, one would expect her detractors and other well-meaning observers to look around at what’s happening elsewhere and ask themselves why is Israel constantly singled out for condemnation, when at this very moment there are a dozen dreadful situations of warfare or the imposition of intended deprivation on whole populations in many parts of Africa and Asia, while hundreds of unresolved conflicts between neighboring countries or ethnic differences simmer on all continents of the globe. There are killings numbering in the tens and even hundreds of thousands of non-combatants.

One would also expect all the good folks from Western Europe and in other democracies around the world, who are so intent on pressuring Jews to relinquish Judea and Samaria (a.k.a. West Bank or “the occupied” or “conquered territories”), to question their own record of human rights. For hundreds of years the British, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch and Belgians sent ships to the other sides of the world and appropriated the lands of other nations, in many cases accompanied by terrible acts of cruelty and ruthless mass killings, and in the case of Britain and Spain – whole continents! So it seems like extreme hutzpah for these people to single out Israelis for criticism, especially when Judea and Samaria constitutes the Jews’ ancestral homeland, and bearing in mind that Israel’s adversaries have launched wars of intended genocide against her!

The hutzpah is more blatant when one considers the general complacency regarding continental-sized countries like China, hungry for ever more territory, annexing placid Tibet. Or Russia, with the largest national land-mass in the world, stretching over almost half of the length of the northern part of the globe, but nevertheless insisting on holding onto lands of many other nations, including in the east – the southern Kurile Islands, formerly belonging to Japan, while on the country’s extreme west, it keeps Karelia which it captured from Finland in 1939, as well as Chechniya and a whole array of other ethnic areas.

Who among all those concerned folks around the world, who refuse on principle to buy Jaffa oranges, are doing any demonstrating or boycotting against Russia or refusing to buy any “Made-in-China” products, that are often manufactured under the harshest, most exploitive and inhuman conditions.

We could go on and on about the millions of square kilometers of land that many scores of additional countries on every continent have grabbed from other nations. Indeed, there are very few borders in the world that were not drawn up (and redrawn) as the result of armed conflict at one time or another. At the moment there are over 200 territorial disagreements all over the world. Whether they are dormant or the scenes of armed conflicts, the territories in question are almost always termed by the media and in various international forums as “disputed territories.” But Judea and Samaria are called “occupied” or “conquered territories” – which are denigratory, politically loaded terms, expressing a flagrantly double standard with regard to Israel.

Countries have seldom lost any international trade or diplomatic standing by grabbing some neighboring or not-such-neighboring territory – especially when such land-grabbing had no global implications or bearing on power bloc manipulations. In the last generation, apart from international intervention in a few strategic trouble spots, or demonstrations accompanying torch bearers to the recent China Olympics and the boycott of Apartheid-era South Africa, censure, if forthcoming, might be limited to a few debates in the U.N. general assembly or security council. Usually even that is absent.

While the recent, well-attended conference to combat Anti-Semitism in London, indicates that many democratic governments are beginning to understand Israel’s plight, probably because of suicide bombings and growing Islamic unrest in their own countries, their continuing pressure on Israel to keep making concessions towards its hostile neighbors, expresses the double standard traditionally pinned onto Israel.

It’s a unique phenomenon. Israel, one of the smallest nations in the world, sitting on a scrap of ancestral land – 20,000 square kilometers in size, with the sea or a border to a hostile zone never more than about an hour’s drive away from any point within it, faces the enmity of one of the largest nations on earth, over 600 times larger in land mass and 50 times larger in population than Israel, and backed by yet another billion fellow-Muslims. Probably in all history there has never been such a disproportionate ratio between two conflicting sides. There has never been such an unfair expectation of one of the sides by the rest of humanity, nor such pressure, politically and economically imposed on any one side of a conflict. Even Israel’s major friend, the USA, continually limits Israel’s scope to defend herself. Seldom in history has any one nation been so thoroughly, unjustifiably and unfairly condemned by a large part of humanity, nor hampered over and over again in its struggle to defend itself militarily.

There are a number of logical reasons for all this. It’s Israel’s bad luck to find herself in a territorial confrontation with a nation that constitutes over 20 independent states controlling most of the world’s known oil reserves, while being backed by over a billion co-religionists, who also happen to share a large portion of the remaining oil reserves. Together, these two enormous groups constitute almost half the states in the world and therefore have tremendous political clout in the United Nations. All this means that any major outbreak of warfare in the Middle East jeopardizes the global supply of oil and can send prices to unmanageable levels. This alone can explain the readiness of many countries to please the Arab and Muslim world, or conversely not to flagrantly oppose it. Is it any wonder that Israel’s standing in international affairs will always be shaky? Indeed, one should admire those countries that don’t always capitulate to the strident demands of the anti-Israel line-up.

It is important to understand that this is the background to the hype about Israel’s conquest of Arab lands and the determined international quest to truncate tiny Israel even more. The legality of Israelis living in Judea and Samaria has nothing to do with moral rightness or wrongness; it has little to do with international law, even though legality is invoked all the time in international debate on Israel. If you have any doubts I suggest you visit the websites of the United Nations Organization, click “U.N. Charter”, and find “military occupation”, “occupied territories”, “international disputes”. Also click “Resolutions 181, 242, 339” as well as the “British Mandate of Palestine” and you’ll be hard-pressed to find any solid material to incriminate Israel. Also a visit to the official English-language websites of Hamas and Hizbollah will provide you with a candid perspective of their aims, not only against Israel but regarding the fate of the whole world. You will be able to understand very clearly why Israel cannot dare relinquish Judea and Samaria.

It is imperative that all who care about Israel and indeed the future of the world, keep contesting the big lie about “Israeli occupation” or the “conquest” of the “West Bank” or the “Territories.” All media outlets and personalities and ordinary people everywhere should be reminded over and over again that the region in question is called Judea and Samaria and that it is the Jews’ ancestral home, where Jews have always lived and where they have every right to live today. People should be reminded that seven-eighths of Palestine had already been alotted to the Arabs, and that rather than accept an independent Jewish state in the Jews’ ancestral land, they sought to obliterate it – over and over again – thereby actually casting doubt on any legitimacy for yet another Arab state in this region.

Another point that must be acknowledged is that even total withdrawal of any Israeli presence from formerly Arab-held territories does nothing to foster real peace. This has been expressed by the Arabs themselves time and again. Israel has withdrawn from Southern Lebanon, Gaza and parts of Judea and Samaria a few times.Yet the attacks on Israel continue from these areas. And the promises to destroy Israel get ever-more shriller.

While many Israelis and well-meaning friends of Israel might consider partial or full withdrawal from Judea and Samaria expedient for pragmatic, demographic reasons, it has nothing to do with its moral and legal right to these areas. Indeed, if Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria were deemed illegal by international law, then half the countries of the world have built up illegal cities, towns and farming communities in areas that had once been ruled by another ethnic or national entity.

The fact is that few people yearn for peace as much as the Jews. They would be mad not to yearn for peace after all they’ve been through as a people, and especially in the present ongoing confrontation against such a large part of humanity. But seldom has there been such a just struggle waged by any one people. Seldom has the Big Lie and Selective Omission been used against any nation by its friends and enemies alike, like it is in Israel’s case. That is what people all over the world must be told over and over again – until sanity and common decency prevail.

See also www.israelandtruth.org

 

How to ensure a better future – Part II

We’ve got to stop lying to

 ourselves

By Ralph Dobrin

Future generations – if there are any – will have every right to condemn present-day humanity for stupidity and cravenness in the face of greed and evil. That’s if we continue our present course of allowing global warming and pollution to worsen, while failing to develop cleaner energy sources and adequately combat militant religious fundamentalism. At the moment, judging by attitudes and actions of world leaders and humanity in general, it seems that the best we can hope for in the not-too-distant future is the beginning of a grim Dark Age for humanity, far worse than the last. Another distinct possibility is a totally lifeless planet.

But there is still time to stop this steady slide towards catastrophe. A major player, of course, is the USA. But even if the newly-elected President Obama keeps all his noble-sounding election commitments, the threats to life on this planet as we know it will continue unless humanity as a whole learns a very important lesson – the meaning of truthfulness. This might sound like a glib yet naïve claim, but think about it. Rogues, tyrants and would-be-saviors have always fed on the inability of most people to recognize falsehood – which is the antithesis of truthfulness. (We are not talking about “Truth,” which though related to truthfulness, is too abstruce and controversial a subject for the purpose of this article.)

Any ten-year-old child can tell you that truthfulness means simply not to lie, nor exaggerate (too much), and not to hide facts and details that are relevant to any issue. Furthermore, everything has its opposite, and the opposite of truthfulness is falsehood. Falsehood means not only lie or exaggeration, but also the shrewd omission of relevant details (selective omission).

To be able to recognize falsehood we have to first ask ourselves: how we relate to what we hear, observe or read? Do we accept as a fact, everything that we read in black and white, if it happens to appeal to our personal mood or world view? Do we automatically believe everything we hear on the radio or see on TV, that tallies with what we want to hear? If we do, then we probably enable falsehood to flourish.

To trust everything we read, hear or see would indeed be fine if the world was inhabited only by benign, completely honest people, governed by wise, selfless, ethical leaders. But it isn’t. There are too many shysters posing as nice guys and too many shysters among the leaders. And they are all leading our world towards a grossly unhappy future.

We should always try to keep an open mind. For instance, when we first heard that the earth was heating up, we needed to take seriously the reports that substantiated this claim as well as those that refuted it. It’s easy to get relevant information. Just surf the internet. Relevant statistics and reports from dozens of official sources, as well as the palpable poundings from ever-worsening storms, increasingly numerous floodings and killer droughts – are very convincing that there are indeed critical changes in weather patterns. All this evidence begs the questions: What is causing all this? And what can be done to reverse the process?

MAKING VALUE JUDGEMENTS

While it seems that most scientists claim that ground, sea and river pollution, carbon gas emissions and rain forest depletion are the cause, there are those who say that global warming is part of a regular planetary cycle and they tend to downplay the urgent need to find alternative energy sources to fossil fuels. Granted, these detractors represent a small minority. But minority opinions have often been proven correct in the past. So, in the interests of truthfulness, I choose not to dismiss these claims outright.

As a concerned citizen I need to come to a personal conclusion on how to contend with the question. Yet how do I, an ordinary guy with very limited background in meteorology, chemistry, physics or other environmental sciences, make a value judgement?

The answer is to gather as much pro and con information from different sources. So, it’s back to the internet to collate material. I must use my common sense and be as objective as possible. The conclusions that I come to, whether scientifically proven or not, or whether based on a complete understanding on my part of all the scientific parameters, must lead to an uneducated conclusion that there is a very strong likelihood that gas emission pollution is the main cause of global heating and alarming weather patterns, as well as the rising incidence of many dreadful illnesses. Therefore I must do whatever possible on a personal basis to participate in overcoming the problem. So I check out what I can do, and again the internet can provide a wealth of information, that was totally unavailable to previous generations.

To combat falsehood we need to be able to recognize demagoguery and glib propaganda, and withstand the charm of smooth speakers. We must be wary of the pernicious comfort lurking in any wishful thinking that we ourselves might have. We must be critically honest with ourselves and recognize the difference between really knowing the truth about something and just believing it or wanting it. These guidelines are especially important for national leaders and parliamentarians.

A good example of political gullibility is the story of Neville Chamberlain, Britain’s Prime Minister between 1937 and 1940, who faced a dreadful dilemma with Germany’s growing military power and the bellicose statements and demands of its leader Adolf Hitler. Hitler had made his aims clear in Mein Kampf, as well as in his rabble-rousing speeches. He had built up an unprecedently powerful army and his ruthlessness and brutality were obvious from the way he had annihilated all his political rivals and his savage treatment of the Jews, gypsies and other despised groups in Germany. Any child could have known that there was serious trouble ahead. Yet Neville Chamberlain, together with most of the leaders of the other powers in Europe and America, as well as the media, opted to downplay the obvious, imminent perils. It is, however, easy to understand the prevailing “let’s-hope-for-the-best” attitude because the terrible memories of the First World War were still painfully vivid. Nevertheless, wishful thinking won the day and led to the most dreadful slaughter and destruction in history.

 JIHADIST CANDOR

 One of the most serious current issues is the rising influence of global Jihad. It is quite probable that a Muslim who firmly believes the Koranic demand to spread Islam to all the peoples of the world, while fully accepting the more militaristic strictures in his holy book, might have no problem justifying the bombing attacks, causing mass slaughter of ordinary people in places like the Twin Towers in New York, London, Madrid, Bali, Mumbai and other places. Also the believer in this credo sees that the State of Israel must be dismantled – by any means possible, even by nuclear bombs, and even if in the process millions of innocent Muslims are killed.

 The Jihadist bases his belief on the Koran, which repeatedly promises delightful rewards in the hereafter to the believers who actively participate in spreading Islam, especially for those who die for the cause. But who is to say that the Koran is less valid as the authentic word of the Almighty, than the New Testament or the Torah? After all, it boils down to a question of belief and it’s hard to argue with belief because for most people, belief is too deeply-felt, visceral and personal to allow sufficient objectivity.

It is quite plausable that whenever a Jihadist has suddenly plunged a knife in the back of some placid Jew somewhere in Israel, while yelling “Allah hooa Akbar” (God is Great), he (or she) feels as certain of the absolute righteousness of this action in the eyes of God, as the religious Jew or devout Christian would be when donating a kidney to a stranger on dialysis.

This last paragraph, which might raise stern protest from many a good person, concerned about even-handedness or unfair racial profiling, is nevertheless based on reality. Think about the countless times Jews have been stabbed by devout Muslims, or blown to smithereens by a suicide bomber in an Israeli town. Then think about the number of times that the reverse has happened. Not often! Also think about the number of towns in Europe and Great Britain that have suffered suicide bombings in the name of holy jihad, or the countless suburbs being taken over by Muslims. Think about the violent demonstrations and riots staged by Muslims in what was once regarded as Christendom. Think about the Iranian quest for nuclear weapons.

A natural response to this might be to allude to Israel’s recent bombardment of Gaza. One could deduce from the devastating scenes appearing on our TV screens that this was utterly reprehensible and unforgiveable. But the pictures on our TV scenes omitted almost entirely the background to this episode in the Israel-Arab conflict. Failure to understand the background is really pandering to a gross distortion of history.  

Here’s a useful website on the subject: http://www.israelandtruth.org/peace_1.htm

PATTERNS REPEATED

Human events seem to follow a pattern. Today the disturbing signs of the nineteen thirties are in evidence again. Hitler wanted to rule over half the world, Jihad aims at the conquest of the entire world. Hitler used crude lies about the supposed evil of Jews as part of his campaign to gain the leadership of Germany. The Nazis taught that the Jews were responsible for most of the woes of mankind. The idea that Jews were vermin to be tramped upon (and at a later stage to be exterminated) resonated readily in the hearts of a large percentage of the people of Germany and elsewhere in Europe.

Chillingly, again the Jews are being used in this same harrowing role by the Jihadists. Again, the Jews are said to be responsible for the woes of humanity. But this time the censure is far more voluminous than ever before, swamping cyberspace, as well as in college forums all over the world, in parliaments, city councils, churches as well as in the mosques and Muslim religious schools. But this time the Jews are also represented by a very tangible entity – the State of Israel. In Hitler’s day, the Jews were a helpless entity, unable to defend themselves. Today, Israel can fight back against attacks on its people and its territory, albeit always suppressed by warning strictures of its purported friends among the more enlightened nations of the world.

And each time Israel defends herself against its attackers, the forces of Jihad gain ever-more international support – ironically from the very people in Dar el Harb (the non-Muslim world) that the Jihadists aim eventually to subdue and conquer. And as always, the use of falsehood to condemn the Jewish state abound – the lies, half-truths, distortions and selection omission characterize most of the anti-Israel censure.

If you think that all this is paranoid, I suggest you go straight to real sources. Find out what the Jihadists themselves are saying. Just access a search engine and type out words such as “hamas” or “hizbollah” and enter their own websites. They will inform you exactly how they feel about their quest to conquer the world as well as your future as an “infidel.” In less than 20 minutes any average person caring about his or her freedom will be able to understand just how precarious that freedom really is, and stop taking it for granted. Other readily available information can be found by typing keywords such as El Khaida, Taliban and Iran.

While the Jihadists are all candid about their intentions regarding the destruction of Israel and the conquest of the entire world, their censure regarding Jews, Israel and the USA, as well as other western countries and ideals, is based largely on myth, mendacious hyberbole, selective omission and outright lies. Therefore the dire need of the moment is for people all over the world to recognize falsehood in all its various guises. This applies not only to religious fundamentalism, but also to the other imminent perils such as pollution, climatic changes, the need for cleaner energy sources, over-population and starvation in many parts of the world.

All these perils have been allowed to remain and get worse by shrewd, self-serving people in politics, international power struggles and big business. The apathy and frivolousness of too many ordinary people all over the world are equally to blame. The keywords to combatting all this are truthfulness, the perception of falsehood and appropriate action.

For more on falsehood click: http://www.israelandtruth.org/truth_1.htm

For part 1 of this series click: http://truthandsurvival.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/things-used-to-be-really-bad/

THINGS USED TO BE REALLY BAD

How to ensure a better

future – Part I

By Ralph Dobrin

Not so long ago – in our grandfather’s great grandfather’s day – this was a world where a tiny proportion of well-connected sycophants lived in pomp, luxury and indolence, while the vast majority of people endured a grim, precarious existence, either in stench-filled towns and cities, where sewage often flowed outside people’s doorsteps, or on farmland that demanded unceasing, herculean efforts to eke out a living, while fending off merciless creditors and the vagaries of nature. It was a world where many seven-year-old children worked fourteen hours a day in the most grueling jobs and the average life expectancy was about 30. It was a world where you could have your head chopped off at some stupid duke’s whim.

Life has undoubtedly improved immeasurably in the last few generations – at least in the westernized, developed countries, because many of the conventions and concepts were discarded. Each change showed how stubborn, stupid and nasty people had been.

For example, in the mid-nineteenth century Dr. Ignaz Semmelweiss created a furor in the general medical profession because he urged doctors to wash their hands with disinfectant before treating their patients. For daring to question the authority of the luminaries of the time, he was ousted from his position as chief of obstetrics at the Vienna General Hospital. It took decades before his ideas were commonly accepted by the medical profession. And not too long after that, the first horseless buggies generated great amusement and ridicule among everyone, until suddenly it dawned on people that here was a good, swift alternative to the modes of transportation of the time. And voting rights for women was still an outrageous concept in much of the western world less than eighty years ago. This is just a tiny, tiny sampling of the countless ideas and changes that were initially rejected by the elites and by the general populations.

And now, as we face immense, multiple global challenges and perils, the validity of many time-honored concepts and conventions has to be seriously questioned, and many bold changes are needed.

A REAL EDUCATION

Clearly, the standard and nature of education everywhere will be a vital factor for the future of all humanity, but especially for Israel, which faces demonic challenges.

A main consideration when considering how to improve the level of education should be the fact that most pupils don’t like going to school. They aren’t interested in what’s taught and spend their classroom years in resentful boredom. The natural curiosity that all toddlers display and the eagerness to learn about the world and to ask questions, is quickly knocked out of them once they begin school. That means that for many pupils, the type of schooling imposed upon them could actually be self-defeating.

Yet surely, schooling is something that should build on the natural curiosity and eagerness to learn things, that the child is born with! Here are a few suggestions to maintain and nurture that curiosity. Some of these ideas might seem drastic, but the situation calls for vigorous change.

The present kindergarten system catering for small children up to the age of five or six should continue. It is usually a fun enviroment with lots of interesting things to do, and where many basic skills are learned. However, good eating habits should be encouraged at this stage. Lunch boxes with junk food, white flour products and sugar-doused drinks should be strongly discouraged, if not forbidden. Parents should be coached in the vital importance of sensible nutrition, at least for their children. This is not an overzealous health-food freak’s attempt at missionizing. Many surveys all over the world have shown that decent nutrition contributes, not only to more energy and good health, but also to better concentration and a far lower chance of hyperactivity. Coming to kindergarten or school with a decent lunchbox should be as imperative as coming with clean clothes. It goes without saying that all meals provided by kindergartens and indeed, the entire school system should follow the principles of proper nutrition.

A smooth step from kindergarten to school

What usually happens when children progress to the first grade, is that they start with enthusiastic anticipation. But the sudden change to a more serious, disciplined regime, often in a larger framework, leads to astonishment and then disappointment. Stern teachers, a set curriculum including subjects that are often not of much interest to the pupils, limited attention spans and tests that lead to pressure as well as humiliation for the less successful pupils, all readily lead to disinterest, dislike and boredom, setting an unfortunate pattern for the rest of their scholastic careers.

This situation can be changed by providing a more gradual transition from kindergarten to grade or primary school. For the first two years of regular school, the style of teaching should continue to reflect the fun and joyfulness that is characteristic of the kindergarten. It could begin to change gradually into a more conventionally pedagogic mode at the age of seven. Pupils would learn reading, writing, arithmetic and nature studies and be introduced to other subjects such as history and geography. But, as much as possible, everything should be taught in the context of something topical. For instance a popular TV children’s program or book could be used as a the basis to introduce the pupils to the geography of some country where the program took place. Arithmetic skills could be honed by asking questions regarding the number of actors, how many children, how many other countables, etc.

Good, sensible education for young children demands imagination on the part of the curriculum designers and the teachers. (More on the quality of teachers later.)

Towards the end of the second grade, at the age of eight, all children would begin to do a daily one-hour work shift – cleaning the premises and the areas around their classrooms, keeping the pavements around the school clean and working in the neighborhood public gardens. Thus, already at an early age they would begin to learn how to work together, how to share duties, a stronger awareness of being part of a community and the meaning of responsibility.

Two separate programs from an early age

At the age of eight or nine, upon entering the third grade, schools would offer a choice of two different programs. There would be a program that emphasizes study and knowledge (it can be called “academic”), while in an alternate program (can be called “practical”), the pupils would go out to work. Yes – work! It would still be within the framework of the education system. Children in this program would begin by working one or two hours a day, with the shifts getting progressively longer as they got older, and culminating in a six-hour work day when they reached the age of fourteen.

Pupils in this “practical” stream would continue to receive lessons (one or two hours a day) in writing, arithmetic and the ability to express themselves properly. In addition, there would be sessions discussing general topics connected with their lives, society, the country and world events. There would also be talks connected with whatever field they work in. For instance a group working in a factory would participate in talks supervised by a factory manager, on subjects such as the products being manufactured, the various jobs of the staff, marketing, transport of merchandise to outlets, costs, salaries, labor unions, etc. This would be a wonderful way to build up general knowledge and encourage curiosity. This alone would open the children up to numerous subject on the regular school curriculum such as arithmetic and geography. Compare this to the situation prevailing today, where many pupils know very little about the world around them. Most know hardly anything about their parents’ work.

Pupils in this “practical” stream would also spend an hour in the school library, during which time they could read books or other periodicals, play chess or participate in a debating group. Also at least another hour every day would be spent on sport, or lessons in music, art and handcrafts. By the time they reached the age of thirteen or fourteen they would be spending less time on lessons, sport or other activities and more time on actual work. The daily working shift would reach six hours. A year or two previous to this point they wouldbegin to be paid a nominal wage for their work.

These pupils would be given opportunities to work in as many fields as possible – including hotels and restaurants, factories, offices, building construction sites, garages, workshops, factories, plumbing and electrical work and agriculture, etc. They would be rotated between a wide variety of jobs. At the age of fourteen they would be able choose an occupation or profession that they might want to specialize in. They could go on to a vocational college or join the work force.

However, at any point during this whole period, they could opt to join the academic stream – even at the age of fourteen or later. (Even after they had started a regular job they could request to go into an academic mode.) Their request to change to the academic stream would be checked for intention and aptitude. But once in the academic stream they could be returned to their previous program if they displayed any disruptive behavior or an inability to study properly.

There should be no disgrace or humiliation attached to the non-academic “Practical” stream. It should not be considered inferior in any way. Indeed, in a future world, manual work must become regarded as respectfully as any other kind of work.

In the academic stream, learning would be a lot more different than today. Firstly, only pupils genuinely eager to learn would be admitted to this stream. Therefore there would be less need for tests and examinations, because the teachers would know that the pupils are not laggards. It is important to realize that apart from classroom boredom, tests and examinations are the bugbears of the modern school system. While the pupils would all be very proficient at reading, writing and basic arithmetic, they would also acquire a sound general knowledge of all the usual school subjects as well as current events. However, those not particularly interested in certain subjects, like the sciences or mathematics, would not have to study these subjects in undue detail. They would receive only introductory tuition in these subjects and be able to concentrate on other subjects that really interest them. Similarly, pupils who find little interest in history or literature, but are fascinated by science or math would touch on the main points of world history and culture and be able to concentrate on the sciences.

The entire education system, academic or practical programs alike, would have four main goals – (1) To be a supervised framework for the young during the hours that their parents are at work or study (as it is today). (2) Developing the natural desire for ever-more knowledge, as well as good communication skills and preparing the young for a life of personal satisfaction. (3) Providing a broad general knowledge, as well as the ability to objectively analyze situations and think for themselves. (4) The means to become decent, honest, caring, productive citizens and participate in the growth and stability of the nation.

All pupils would be taught values, common decency and good manners as well as civics. Religious instruction would be available, with consent of their parents. In Israel pupils would be taught their historic roots and receive a comprehensive, objective overview of the Israel-Arab conflict. All Jewish pupils would study Arabic.

In addition, all pupils would receive lessons in health, nutrition and how things work. In both programs the pupils would learn how to do basic maintenance in the home, such as basic plumbing, and carpentry, etc. All pupils would learn basic computer skills as well as touch-typing. Serious first aid courses and self-defence skills would be part of both programs. Pupils in the academic program would also spend some time working in hospitals, municipality and government offices as well as on farms.

It is quite probable that under the system suggested here, many pupils would be ready for university education by the age of 15 or 16. The matriculation or final school-leaving exams could be abolished. Those wanting to study at universities would do special university entrance exams. Furthermore, today’s demand by many work places for a matriculation or equivalent 12-year-schooling certificate by work applicants is not necessarily a suitable criterion for job suitability. Preparation for these exams does not provide a good, comprehensive education nor a love of learning. Yet these are two of the criteria that should be expected by job applicants. Plus spirit and dependability. That’s precisely what the system being suggested here would inculcate.

 Teaching – A Unique Profession

Teaching would be regarded as an especially prestigious profession. Salaries would need to be a lot higher than they are now. Aspiring teachers would need to have special talents and characteristics. Erudition and intelligence alone are not enough to be a good teacher. Teachers would also need to be able to empathise with pupils and parents. They would need better than average communication skills, have an abundance of patience and be readily cheerful and friendly. They would need to be imaginative and have acting skills in order to keep their lessons alive. Finally, they would need to be thoroughly decent people with no hint of nastiness or malice, and an attitude that teaching should be a mission in life. Only people with the above-mentioned qualities should be accepted for teachers’ training colleges.

Until sufficient numbers of such people have entered the teaching profession, there would be a need for volunteers, probably from among suitable pensioners from various walks of life.

WHO’S GOING TO DO THE MENIAL WORK?

Two factors prompt this question. Firstly, the aging of societies in the developed countries and the fact that the locals aren’t interested in taking menial jobs, thus necessitating the need for the import of foreign workers. And secondly, the cynical unfairness of a system, whereby a large segment of the population is fated to spend their entire lives stuck in low-paying and undeservedly unappreciated jobs. The unskilled factory worker, security guard, stevedore, agricultural worker or street sweeper, to mention a few such discriminated workers – are largely invisible to the rest of society, who obtusely fail to realize that these people are performing vital, indispensable tasks for society. They spend five years, twenty years, or their entire lives doing jobs that most people shun because they are too boring, too arduous too unpleasant and far too unremunerative. The chances are almost nil that they will ever earn a decent wage or even enjoy an average standard of living. Often they got themselves into these jobs in the first place, because of the socio-economic situation in which they grew up, and their children will quite possibly follow the same unrewarding path. In Israel it’s largely Arabs and immigrants from Ethiopia who hold these menial jobs.

It is easy for people fortunate enough to have acquired an advantageous education, well-paid jobs and a respectable position in society, to say something like: “This is a free country. Everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed. All they need to do is work and not waste their money on booze and drugs.” And true enough, many people are stuck at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder because of their own laziness and self-indulgence. But many got stuck there in the first place because of the environment in which they grew up. The socio-economic set-up in most western countries is based on the large difference in salaries between the different classes. It’s a cynical exploitation of disadvantaged people by the more privileged, better connected and more fortunate members of society. I don’t think it’s something planned by the leaders. It’s just a fact of life – a grim, self-perpetuating, cruelly unfair situation that enables one fortunate class of people to acquire wealth and luxury at the expense of those at the bottom of the sociological heap. That such a situation still exists even in the so-called enlightened world, is a blot on all decent society and it can be solved without too much upheaval or cost.

There are two possible solutions. The first is simply to pay wages to those doing menial work on a level with other more fortunate members of society, and even add extra compensation for job tedium or arduousness. It is quite probable that most societies would be economically unable to make such a change. In the interests of fairness, however, one should remember that many professionals invested significant sums of money and time in their university training. Therefore higher wages for them is justified. But it’s all a question of proportion.

The other solution lies in the system once used in all the kibbutzim in Israel. Everyone used to share in the all menial tasks. From the kibbutz manager to an army general home on leave, and to the most ordinary of people, every few months every able-bodied kibbutz member had a turn doing communal chores. That included peeling potatoes and washing dishes in the community kitchen, cleaning the public latrines and garbage removal. People on the kibbutz did these duties quite willingly because that’s how their society was run. True, most kibbutzim stopped functioning in that quintessentially socialistic form over two decades ago. But it presented an example of egalitarian fairness. No one was demeaned or humiliated by the system. It engendered a community spirit and kept personal ambitions and self-assessment in a healthy perspective

Translating the kibbutz model into practice, here is how general society’s menial tasks could be handled: The work could be done on a roster basis. It could be a form of national service, for those not already doing army reserve duty. Everyone would be called up for a week or two every few years to work in those menial tasks. It would be seen, not as something demeaning. On the contrary it should be regarded as a form of national loyalty. Everyone would receive the same remuneration for their week’s work. Tasks could also be rotated if desired – e.g. one year in sanitation, the next year repairing roads and infrastructure, the following year in agriculture, and so forth. After something like five or six weeks of national service, one would have completed one’s civil duty for life. This duty could be done in one complete stint or on consecutive years or every two or three years or more. University students, not doing army reserve duty, would be exempt until they graduated.

Except regular or reserve army personnel and hospital doctors and nurses, no able bodied or able minded person one would be exempt. It would do society good to see the millionaires, company directors, members of parliament or congress and other high echelon folks sweeping streets, working as unskilled laborers in a factory, planting vegetables or shoveling cow manure. The Prime Minister and his ministers as well as the President, would not be expected to be called up while in office.

What would happen to the people already employed permanently in menial jobs. They would be trained to oversee or manage the projects and be paid higher wages. Also, those who wished and who had an aptitude, could be given the opportunity to train for other less menial jobs.

Most western-style democracies are having very slow or even negative population growth rates. Also very few people are willing to do the menial jobs, often preferring to go on welfare, thus costing the state huge amounts of money. This suggested system would lower or even end the need to import foreign workers. Furthermore, it would be marvelous for the personal image of any company director, senior politician, sports or entertainment celebrity to be seen rolling up their sleeves and sweeping, digging or shoveling for the benefit of society.

BEING SENSIBLE ABOUT THE LAW

Nowadays jail – which should serve as a deterrent to law-breaking – is often a seminary for ever more crime. Also jail is often a place where violence is at its most vicious – even worse than on the street.

On the other hand, the very laws, which are supposed to protect the safety and the rights of all citizens, often prevent the police from arresting dangerous criminals. Also loopholes in the law are used by shrewd lawyers to evade appropriate punishment for their nefarious clients, thus enabling them to continue their mayhem.

These two anomalies must be changed. Police must be allowed more empowerment, especially when crime becomes more rampant. And loopholes in the legal system must be closed. This doesn’t mean an assault on democratic principles or human rights. On the contrary, it means giving what every citizen is entitled to – more personal safety from ruthless criminals. It’s a question of common sense and reviewing principles that might have been totally valid a few generations ago, but are no longer sensible, given the influence that organized crime has nowadays on the establishment and on society. Changes must be made in laws that enable known gangsters to remain free.

Also, prison systems in many countries need serious overhaul. It should be remembered that the purpose of jail should be more than mere deterrence and punishment or “payment of a debt to society.” Jail should be regarded as a center of learning – not of how to be a sly criminal – but a place where the occupants learn about decent values, increase their general knowledge of the world, acquire training in order to hold a decent job once they finish what should really be their period of rehabilitation.

Jails should not be dungeon-like cells with a slop bucket in the corner. While they needn’t resemble a three-star hotel, jails should be clean and offer decent shower and toilet facilities. No one, not even the worst criminals should be treated as though they are animals. Every person should be treated with a basic level of respect. That means no malicious teasing or cursing on the part of the prison wardens, no nasty sarcasm or pushing and certainly no violence. Also, all prisoners should be fully protected from the other inmates. Furthermore, convicts should not spend most of their time lying on their bunks. They should be kept occupied with work, study or lectures in common decency and civics.

There should be two kinds of prisons: One kind of prison for first-time offenders or for detention before hearings before trial. Here, most of the time should be spent on lessons, cultural activities as well as different kinds of work. Any unacceptable behavior should result in a conversation with a specially trained warden who would try to probe the source of any untoward attitudes. The warden would also issue a clear explanation of dire consequences for any future infringements.

The purpose of this type of prison would be rehabilitation that would enable the prisoner to enter or return to normative civilian life and avoid sliding back into any form of lawlessness or perversion. This procedure should help drastically lower the number of prisoners who keep returning to jail over and over again.

The second kind of prison would be for those who keep breaking the law as well as for people sentenced for serious premeditated crimes. While the conditions of imprisonment should always be humane, the daily routine in this stricter kind of prison should include daily 10-hour shifts of hard labor, as well as occasional sessions dealing with values and common decency and vocational training for those without any work skills.

Also, jail sentences should be longer, especially in Israel, where terms are often ridiculously short and with time off for acceptable behavior as well as periodical furlough, even for murderers. This is truly stupid. There should be no time off for any kind of behavior. In order to encourage acceptable behavior, prisoners should know that any untoward behaviour could lead to prolongment of their sentences or a removal of some of the comforts and privileges. Also, there should be no furlough under any circumstances.

All jails should serve nutritious meals. Not in order to mollycoddle the prisoners, but as part of their rehabilitation. Research has shown that diet has an influence on behavior. The extra expense involved in providing better food would probably save funds by preventing future crimes. See:
http://larryjamesurbandaily.blogspot.com/2007/06/nutrition-and-behavior.html

Certain heinous crimes should carry the death penalty (when there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever of guilt). Crimes carrying the death penalty would be acts of terror, premeditated murder, repeated acts of violence that led to permanent disability, including especially brutal cases of rape.

Too many cases of crime are exonerated because of a supposition of mental or emotional disability. This loophole should be drastically reviewed. The main consideration should be society’s safety.

In cases of violent kidnapping, hostage-taking, drug dealing, protection money extortion and cynical embezzlement or theft of money or assets from pensioners, repeat offenders should also be faced with the death penalty.

Many travesties of common sense are committed in the name of political correctness or liberalism. For example, freedom of speech, one of the basic principles of democracy, should nevertheless be severely penalized either by fine or imprisonment, whenever it is abused by the media. Journalists, editors and publishers must be reminded of their great responsibility to society. Cases of disingenuous libel or false reporting by the media should not be allowed in the name of freedom of expression.

Laws must be modified in order to enable swifter apprehension of scoundrels. Also, lawyers, defending a lawbreaker, should themselves be liable to prosecution if it is found that they knew at the outset that their clients had in their testimonies.

Ordinary citizens needing legal counsel should not be prevented from getting effective counsel because of limited budget. In the same way that many countries have sick funds that offer medical care, there should also be such funds for legal care.

Terrorism, drug cartels and other types of organized crime have made alarming inroads in our lives. Society must be able to defend itself against all types of violence and plunder. As the 21^st Century gets under way, society will need to marshal its human and financial resources in order to counter the many serious economic, environmental and jihadic challenges ahead. We cannot afford the drain on our economies imposed by crime and by criminals who are not properly challenged because of legal systems with too many loopholes and channels that enable the scoundrels to continue wreaking havoc.

THESE ARE JUST A FEW ISSUES THAT NEED THOROUGH REVIEW.

Other issues that need rethinking are health, governance, coping with old age and dying, religion, the environment and energy sources. Interestingly, all the issues are connected with each other. We will deal with them in future blogs.

This is the first part of a series on ensuring a better future for us all.

The Israel-Arab conflict comes to the supermarket

“I won’t take any oranges from

 damn Israel!”

By RALPH DOBRIN

This scene is based on a true story. Jack Cohen (not his real name) is a middle-aged economics lecturer and writer living in Oxford, England. It’s the second week in January 2009 and the war in far-away Gaza has been going on for over two weeks. He goes into a supermarket to buy a few things. There’s a pleasant atmosphere. Like most places in Oxford, it’s not very big or bustling and the people – shoppers and attendants alike – relate to each other with easy-going cheerfulness. Jack finds what he needs and stands in a small queue by the check-out counter.

A pleasant-looking woman is standing in front of him. When her turn comes to check out her purchases she exchanges greetings with the clerk – all smiles and that sing-along tone so characteristic of the folks in this lovely part of the world. She puts her purchases on the counter. Tomatoes, lettuce, a can of sardines, paper towels …

Then as she puts a bag of oranges on the counter she suddenly lets out a loud shriek. “Oranges from Israeeeel!” She flings the bag to the side and yells, “I won’t take any oranges from damn Israel.” She pays her bill, while the check-out clerk calls an assistant to come and take the oranges away.

Then the check-out clerk turns to Jack, giving him a pleasant smile. “It’s your turn, sir,” she calls out and he begins to put his purchases on the counter.

But Jack is flustered. This is not the first time he’s witnessed a scene antagonistic towards Israel. Living in Oxford, he’s often come across anti-Israel sentiment. Even by other Jews in the academic world of which he is part. But he knows enough about the Israel-Arab conflict to recognize that it is largely the Arab narrative, composed to a large extent, of disingenuously selective omissions and untruths, that everyone is exposed to by the mainstream media, and which clearly implies that Israel is the villain – especially now with the dreadful scenes of the Israeli bombardment of Gaza.

Jack realizes that what this woman did was seen by others in the supermarket, probably even admired and conceivably seen as a role model. Her outburst might have influenced others to resolve never to buy anything made in Israel. As an economist, he knows the damage that an economic boycott can cause. But what could he have done? Even though he was standing right next to her, he felt helpless in the face of such indignation.

Actually he wasn’t really helpless. There were two ways he could have reacted, apart from the lame passiveness which he exhibited. One way would have been to react reflexively and aggressively. He could have told the woman loudly that she obviously didn’t know the reality of Gaza, and accused her of being an ignoramus or an Anti-Semite. That would have been a bad response because it would have led to a shouting match and a further deepening of the woman’s hostility towards Israel and the Jews, probably leading to even more damage to Israel’s image among the onlookers.

A different scenario

The sensible thing to do in such circumstances would have been to try to engage the woman in a conversation. The issue of setting the record straight is so important that it would have warranted even leaving one’s turn in the queue to confront her. But one would need a good basic understanding of the Israel-Arab conflict. Jack happens to have a good grasp of the background to the conflict because he is a long-time Zionist, having frequently visited Israel and he has family there.

Here is a possible dialogue that Jack could have tried to pursue. It is suitable for anyone living outside Israel or traveling as a tourist. It can also be used in Israel itself under certain circumstances. But apart from a good knowledge of the background of the conflict, one would also need a disposition enabling calm confrontation with angry strangers.

Our imagined scene proceeds with the woman hoisting the strap of her shopping bag on her shoulder, and Jack catches her eye and nods: “Pardon me for saying so, madam, but I think that was quite impressive what you’ve just done.”

She throws Jack an angry look. It’s nothing personal. She’s just all het up. “That was impressive,” Jack repeats, leaving his purchases near the check-out counter and walking alongside her in the direction of the exit of the supermarket. Reaching the exit door she mutters: “Those bloody awful Israelis. God, how I hate what they are doing to the poor Palestinians.”

Jack holds the door open for her and says: “Yes, I know, it’s terrible what’s happening in Gaza.” She walks out the supermarket and he follows her, saying: “Any decent human being must be apalled by the death and destruction.”

“I wish there was something more I could do,” she says walking along the pavement towards her parked car, “apart from boycotting their rotten oranges.”

“Oh there is,” says Jack.

She stops: “What? What can we do? There are demonstrations. I’ve been to one. But what else can we do?”

Jack says: “You can learn more about the subject of the Arab-Israel conflict.”

“Oh, I know all there is to know,” she retorts. “I watch the BBC and Sky News and I read The Guardian. She’s about to reach her car. It’s a critical moment because if she gets into her car Jack won’t be able to continue the conversation. He knows he has to say or do something right now in order to keep holding her attention.

He says, “It’s obvious that even though the conflict is far away from us here in Oxford, it is of great importance to us.” She looks at him as though she can’t make him out. He continues: “It’s very important that we get the whole story correctly, don’t you think so?”

A lot of things cross her mind. Firstly – who is this man? She’s thinking about getting home on time to take her daughter to riding lessons. But she is also wondering what Jack meant by “getting the whole story correctly,” and she’s thinking that maybe he has some extra juicy and nasty details about those damn Israelis.

Jack continues: “Getting the whole story of what’s happening in Gaza is especially important if you’re a decent, concerned and honest person. And obviously you are a very concerned person, otherwise you wouldn’t have rejected those oranges.”

She nods with a smile.

“That was really something,” Jack smiles back. Yet he is somewhat uneasy about this line of approach because he feels that he is being sneaky. It’s almost like trying to seduce someone, but he reckons that this is his part in the war for Israel and that we must all try to minimize the number of Israel’s adversaries and win over as many people who understand better what Israel is really up against. Now he’s going to be more direct. It’s yet another critical moment in this encounter.

Expressing reality

“Hamas,” he declares, “is a very formidable, dangerous, devious and ruthless enemy!” She looks at him with a blank stare. Jack continues: “You probably know that the Arabs of Gaza had been firing rockets – every day onto Israeli towns and villages for the last eight years. Thousands of rockets! They’ve caused a lot of death and devastation.”

She frowns. Jack realizes that this isn’t what she wants to hear and he doesn’t want to antagonize her. So he suggests: “The Israelis probably deserved it, wouldn’t you say?”

Puzzled, she shakes her head. She can’t figure out what Jack means. He continues: “Well just for the sake of comparison, if the Welsh government started firing rockets on a daily basis from Cardiff onto some of the neighboring English towns like Exeter or Plymouth, or for that matter onto Oxford – which is only about a minute away by rocket, then you could say that we English deserved it – isn’t that so?”

“That’s absolute rubbish!” she scoffs. “What on earth are you talking about?”

“Actually I’m talking about the Hamas government in Gaza attacking Israel and killing ordinary people,” Jack answers. Substitute Gaza for Wales and Hamas for the Welsh government and Israeli towns and villages for Oxford. What do you think our government would do in such a situation?”

“That’s absolutely ridiculous,” she chides him. “I’m sorry to say this, but you are being ridiculous.”

“Maybe,” says Jack. “But that is exactly what has been happening to Israel for the last eight years.”

She looks warily for a moment, suddenly realizing that this guy isn’t what she thought he was. He doesn’t share her attitude about those awful Israelis. So she changes the tone of her voice to express her displeasure: “But Israel stole the land from the Palestinians. They kill women and children. They use the most modern jet fighter planes and tanks against young boys armed with sticks and stones.”

Jack has to be careful now. At the outset he knew that it was unlikely that he could turn this woman into a sympathizer of the Israeli cause. His aim for the moment was merely to make her realize that her attitude about Israel was based on a very one-sided view. He wanted her to have second-thoughts. It’s the first step in persuading people to stop hating something.

But by bringing up the old accusations about plundered land and the killing of innocent women and children, she has, probably unwittingly, ensared Jack away from Arab attacks on Israel. If he is not careful he will squander what he’s said so far. He’s got to get back to Hamas. If he discusses her latest assertion that Israel stole the land from the Palestinians and kills women and children, even though he’s got very convincing arguments, he will get himself into a heated squabble and lose the little rapport that he had built up with her.

Explaining convincingly that Israel didn’t steal any land from the Arabs and that women and children are killed in every modern conflct (especially when Hamas uses them as human shields) will take up too much time. He’d have to go over the whole sequence of events starting from biblical times, through the Ottoman era, the British Mandate, the creation of the Kingdom of Jordan and the United Nations Partition Vote of 1947. Then he’d have to discuss the many wars, and who initiated them. He’d need to dwell on the Arab refugee problem and emphasize that the world has never related to the fact that there were also about 900,000 Jews who had to flee Arab countries at the same time that the Arab refugee problem emerged – which in any case resulted from the Arabs’ own attempt to utterly destroy Israel. All this would take time that is scarce, and would create arguments – and arguments are seldom won by anyone. But he can’t ignore what she’s just said. He has to relate to it.

But he takes a different tack: “How do you know that Israel stole the land from the Palestinians? And that the Israelis kill women and children?”

She blinks, shaking her head as if to convey that she thinks this is a stupid question: “It’s in the news all the time. Don’t you watch TV or read the newspapers?”

Jack nods. “Yes, indeed I do. And I get the distinct impression that Israel is an aggressor nation. Most of the news media conveys the impression that the Jews in Israel have robbed the Palestinians of their land. Israel is a danger to world peace. Israel makes war all the time. Yes, I pick all that up from the newspapers and the television.”

“Well, there you are,” she sang out.

Jack continued: “But there’s something that I don’t understand. There’s something that just doesn’t make sense. Maybe you can help me”?

With mock patience, she says, “What don’t you understand?”

Jack takes a deep breath and asks: “Do you know …” He hesitates briefly and continues: “What is the Jewish population of Israel? And what is the population of the Arab countries?”

She doesn’t have a clue. Jack continues: “And how big is Israel? And what is the combined land mass of all the Arab countries?”

She shrugs her shoulders and says, “How should I know, and in any case, what’s it got to do with anything?

Jack says: “It’s got to do with everything.” Then he tells her the statistics. “There are about six million Jews in Israel. That’s a lot less than the entire population of London. And there are about three hundred million Arabs in the world, many of them more or less surrounding Israel. In other words there are about fifty times as many Arabs as there are Israelis. Also in size Israel is one of the smallest countries in the world. Its about the same size as Wales. While the Arabs have the second largest land mass in the world – larger than the USA or Canada or China. And they have the largest oil resources in the world …”

She stops Jack. “So what? That’s all the more reason why the Israelis want to steal land from the Arabs. They are so full of themselves, these J…” She eyes Jack for a moment, trying to sum him up. Then she continues: “… these Israelis. They think they are God’s chosen people.”

Jack shakes his head. “Most Israelis aren’t religious. They don’t take that kind of stuff seriously. But just think about it for one minute. Israel’s Jewish population is about half a percent of the total Arab population in the world. If you add another billion Muslims, most of whom really hate Israel for whatever reasons, ask yourself candidly: does it make any sense whatsoever, for Israel to want to pick a fight when they are so dreadfully outnumbered in every way? Think about that. Does it make any sense?”

She shakes her head irately, thinks for a moment and replies: “Well I know what I see on the TV and read in the newspapers and I get a completely different picture from what you’re saying.”

Jack: “Well three hundred million Arabs controlling most of the oil in the world make a lot more noise than a few million Jews. That’s one of the reasons why you see mainly the Arab point of view on the news. There are other reasons, but that’s one of the reasons why Israel looks so bad on the news.”

She begins to open the door of her car. Then she turns to Jack and asks almost accusingly: “So tell me, how do you know all this?”

He’s not sure how she will relate to what he’s said if she realizes that he’s Jewish. He looks at her piercing blue, almost hostile eyes and they help him make up his mind. “I’m a Jew,” he says simply. “That means that I have to know a lot of stuff – just to survive.”

She nods coolly, pouting her mouth and screwing up her eyes. Jack adds: “The Jews have been connected with the Land of Israel for over three and a half thousand years. All that Israel wants more than anything else in the world is to live in peace with all its neighbors. But when attacked, Israel does what any other country would do and that’s defend her citizens. This latest war in Gaza actually started eight years ago when the Arabs of Gaza began to fire rockets at Israel’s towns and villages. Israel never retaliated properly. There hasn’t been a single Jewish soldier or civilian in Gaza for over three years. But the mortar and rocket attacks kept increasing all the time. At a certain point the people of Israel couldn’t take it anymore. That’s what this present war against the Hamas terror army and government is all about.”

She’s about to get into her car and shakes her head. “I don’t know. You’re too glib.”

Jack says, “I’m not suggesting that you automatically believe every word I’ve said. Just think about it and come to your own honest conclusions. Check it out on the Wikipedia. If you like I’d be very glad to further our conversation.”

Jack gives her a visiting card. She sits behind the steering wheel and is about to close the door when he adds: “By the way, if you’re already boycotting Israel’s oranges there are other things that you should avoid. For instance, be sure not to use your cell phone, because the voice mail technology used in it was developed in Israel. So were many of the components and programs in your computer. Also be very wary of what medicines you take or what medical procedures anyone in your family takes. Many of the breakthroughs in modern medicine were done in Israel.”

She looks puzzled as she begins to pull out of the parking space and drives away. Jack waves and she nods her head. There’s so much more that Jack wanted to say. He had wanted to talk more about Hamas’ ultimate aims, tactics and ruthless cynicism. But there just wasn’t time and anyway, there is a limit to how much a person can be expected to change his or her attitude during a brief conversation. But at least she was exposed to a few home truths. Maybe the next time she watches the BBC or reads the Guardian she’ll be able to relate with less gullibility to slanted presentations and with more openness to reality. Also the more, people with a good knowledge of the Arab and Islamic fundamentalist quest to eradicate Israel, become vocal, the better chance this woman and others like her will know which side she must join in the coming global struggle for sanity, common decency and freedom of the spirit.

Jack had followed all the rules of engagement:

1. He never shouted or belittled the other person.

2. He appealed to her sense of self-respect and suggested that he was sure that truthfulness is an important issue for her.

3. He tried to avoid confrontation until some minimum form of rapport had been made.

4. He suggested an opposite conclusion to the obvious. (England would deserve being rocketed by terrorists.)

5. He focused on one main issue and avoided dealing with too many other issues at once.

6. He realized he couldn’t change her mind in one short conversation. The aim was to get her to have second thoughts.

7. He ended the encounter amicably with the suggestion of a future chat.

See also: www.israelandtruth.org