How to ensure the future of Israel and the planet!

How to ensure the future of Israel and the planet

The key is actually very simple

By Ralph Dobrin

In Israel and all over the world, there are a lot of very serious problems, some of them even existential. Clearly, unless these problems are properly dealt with, the future for everyone could be very grim indeed. Now, I believe that the best way to deal properly with any problem is by facing it as objectively and as truthfully as possible. And this is the key to ensuring the future of Israel and the entire planet. Sounds naïve? Overly simplistic? Ridiculous? Well, let’s think about it!

If we examine any serious problem, especially if it’s a conflict, we’ll often find that it was the opposite of truthfulness – it was falsehood – in some form or another that was a factor in starting it, and that falsehood is also a factor, often even a major factor, in blocking the way to any decent solution.

The Israel-Arab conflict is a classic example. While there have been valid claims and understandable grievances by the parties involved, it was falsehood that played a definite part in igniting the conflict over 90 years ago, and to the present day the falsehood continues, with exaggerated and unfounded claims, half-truths and blatant lies, that create false perceptions, distrust, contempt and deep enmity between Arabs and Jews. And all this untruthfulness has made any real peaceful resolution to the Israel-Arab conflict quite impossible

BEWARE OF POLITICAL SNARES

With any issue that has a political bearing – especially if there is a nationalistic factor involved – most people tend to stick adamantly to their old ideas and sentiments, no matter how things change or what new information emerges. Bring up any issue with a political bearing and any tendency to objectivity quickly fades in favor of denial, wishful thinking and other forms of cognitive dissonance. Even normally level-headed, intelligent, honest people can easily have their ability to think objectively and comprehensively, noticeably diminished. Whether right wing or left wing, liberal, conservative or centrist, it doesn’t matter – intellectual integrity and rational thinking are often seriously compromised. Not always, not with everyone, but all too often.

About the Israel-Arab conflict, there is a great deal of false misinformation that is spread around the world by the media, by governments and by political and ideological organizations in Israel, among the neighboring Arab countries and farther abroad. Much of this misinformation is generally adopted as the basis for policy by other countries and international organizations that try to influence what happens in this part of the world, but which invariably damage even further, any chance that there might be for a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

It is this same pattern of falsehood – actually it’s a general failure to face all facts honestly – by so many people in the Middle East and all over the world, regarding the Israel-Arab conflict, that is also preventing humanity as a whole from dealing more sensibly and effectively with all the other serious existential issues that threaten the future of our planet – such as pollution, climate change, demographic turmoil, economic instability, rampant militant jihad and a lot of other serious issues – that keep getting worse because they are not being addressed honestly by all parties involved.

As far as Israel is concerned, in order to contend with its enormous threats and challenges, the nation needs to make the right decisions regarding every aspect of its national well-being and security. And that is possible only if the people running the country, and the general public, get their facts straight and come to honest, rational conclusions about those facts. But getting the facts straight is possible only if people, as a rule, follow all the principles of truthfulness.

For this, it’s essential that first we our get facts straight and our perspectives clear. Otherwise much of our thinking will be based on false, misleading data and mistaken assumptions, and on such a basis it’s impossible to deal properly with any problem. Problems will probably get worse. And here’s the clincher. Only complete truthfulness can enable the objectivity and lucid discernment that are necessary in order to get our facts straight and our perspectives clear, so that we can figure out the best possible solutions for our problems.

ARE PEOPLE GENERALLY HONEST OR NOT?

So, the keyword is truthfulness. Actually, I think that most people will not tell an outright lie under normal circumstances. But apart from outright lies, there are many other ways that people are untruthful or not entirely honest, even among the most respectable members of society. There’s a lot more to the concept of truthfulness than merely refraining from lying. Incidentally, truthfulness and “truth,” while connected are not the same and we don’t need to go into any deep philosophical theories regarding the full meaning of the word “truth.”

Truthfulness means telling the truth in the sense of being honest about what we’re saying; it also means avoiding undue exaggeration and refraining from expressing half-truths or indulging in selective omission of relevant facts and factors. Furthermore, a truthful person will not make any gesture, facial expression or action with the express purpose of deception.

A common form of untruthfulness is when we hoodwink ourselves – through wishful thinking or denial. We sometimes cling rigidly to old ways and ideas, no matter what happens or what new information emerges. Many people automatically block themselves off from anything that might not tally with their perception of things – no matter how logical or convincing. We sometimes make claims or conduct ourselves in accordance with these forms of cognitive dissonance, without even realizing that in actual fact, we are lying to ourselves.

There is an obverse side to all this. It is gullibility. While excessive cynicism is not an ideal attitude, one should nevertheless be alert to falsehood expressed by others – including and especially when what is said or claimed, might initially appeal to our sentiments. We should always ask ourselves questions such as: does what is being said really make sense? In what context is it said? Is it a half-truth? Is it consistent with what had been said beforehand? Does it have any political, religious, ideological or commercial connection?

In the limited framework of this blog, I don’t have space to mention all the ways that people twist, mangle or hide the truth. There are many more ways, which I deal with in my book. In many cases people don’t even realize that they are lying or pandering to falsehood.

However, it is abundantly clear that falsehood in all its many aspects, together with gullibility, are the major causes of muddled, illogical and flawed reasoning – on an individual basis and also at a broader, higher level by governments and other public offices in all countries, and especially in the United Nations. That’s why many of the big problems in our world are never resolved and even get worse.

SO WHAT CAN WE DO?

Obviously, it is the ultimate folly for humanity to continue in its present dangerous course. Never, throughout history, has there been such a need for clear, sensible thinking and wise action. However, encouragement can be taken from the fact that it had been clear, sensible thinking that enabled humanity’s present ever-growing understanding of how the world functions on a physical and biological level. Most, if not all, the great discoveries and inventions from Archimedes’ Principle to crop rotation, DNA, the microchip, flush toilets and countless other examples of human ingenuity would have been impossible without uncompromising truthfulness regarding every question, detail and stage of each issue.

The overriding challenge for all humanity today is how to employ that same uncompromising truthfulness in the quest of dealing properly with the pressing existential issues mentioned earlier. How are we to maintain a high level of truthfulness among people and nations, regarding disputes, rivalries and conflicts – that are understandably, emotionally charged? How can the cold, self-serving imperatives of industry, finance, politics and government be addressed truthfully by all the interested parties and the public? How can truthfulness become a prerequisite in the workings of the United Nations and other international organizations purportedly working for the good of humanity?

There is only one clear, obvious answer. We need to announce – and keep announcing – the simple fact that the key to all these questions is truthfulness – and explain, suggest, even demand that it be learned and practiced everywhere, starting from us ourselves and the people close to us. Every section of society must eventually be imbued with this insight, including leaders in every field. Clearly, this won’t be easy and it will take a lot of time. And time might be running out.

Everyone knows the avenues taken in promoting any idea: Being in contact with all forms of the media, presenting talks and seminars at schools, places of work and every possible public venue, appearing on radio and television and utilizing all the internet tools such as Facebook. Indeed, because of the immediacy offered by modern communication systems, promotion can be facilitated much quicker than ever before.

Also, we should remember that over the years many concepts that had once been totally unthinkable, eventually became widely acceptable. Such as men with long hair and ear-rings; or explicit physical intimacy in movies, or single women intentionally having babies, to mention just a few previously totally taboo concepts. So, if these things could become mainstream norms for society, then surely it should be possible to promote truthfulness, which is actually a rather simple concept, not to mention the fact that it is absolutely essential for the future of humanity.

A group is being formed in Jerusalem to get this hallowed work started. If you’re interested I can be contacted through Facebook.

My book, “How to Avoid Armageddon” is available in some bookstores in Jerusalem and through Amazon or Kindle.

Redeeming the world through truthfulness

We all lie or pander to lies

in some way or another

By RALPH DOBRIN

Author of “How to Avoid Armageddon”

Available through Amazon

There are probably very few people on the face of the earth who don’t on a regular basis, engage in some form of untruthfulness, falsehood or deception, or who consciously accept questionable claims and lies, or who fail to act appropriately to hazards and dangers, whether they are imminent or not. In other words, from time to time, most of us are participants in the realm of falsehood in some way or another.

Here are a few of the many forms of untruthfulness and falsehood:

EXAGGERATION: If I say I waited for a bus for half-an-hour, when in fact I waited for only 20 minutes, I was telling a lie. Admittedly a minor infraction, but nonetheless a lie. It distorts the reality of what I’m discussing by inflating figures (or deflating them) or by embellishing details about incidents and situations. Exaggeration can become a very habitual thing.

HALF TRUTH: A common form of deception, it constitutes the selective omission of relevant facts. There are many ways that this form of deception is practiced. It is often more deceptive than the outright lie because often, what is omitted is something of over-riding importance, which the listener won’t be aware of. Example: if I’m going into partnership with an existing business and my accountant checks the bank reports and other projections, which look sound. But the owner omits to mention that he owes a loan shark a sum of money far in excess of the value of the entire business, it is clear that I will be throwing away my money.

WISHFUL THINKING: Self-deception has many forms – wishful thinking; denial; clinging to old notions no matter how things have changed; refusal to heed anything that doesn’t tally with our perception of things. Example: A person has toothache, but is afraid of dentists and balks at the price of treatment. The person kids himself that he doesn’t need to go to a dentist. He’ll take a painkiller for the pain, and his teeth, he reckons will be okay. What a painful, expensive form of lying of lying to himself this wishful thinking can turn out to be for him for years to come.

AUTOMATICALLY REJECTING WHAT OTHERS SAY: Some people automatically reject or ignore anything, no matter how plausible or probable, if it doesn’t conform exactly to their point of view. Thus they often block out what might be the truth about something. This is especially so with anything that has a political connection.

AUTOMATICALLY AGREEING WITH WHAT OTHERS SAY: Sometimes we automatically agree with something even though it is questionable, unfair or obviously false. We agree, despite its falseness or unfairness, because it appeals to our political sentiments, pet theories or a prurient interest in cheap gossip.

DECLARING AN ASSUMPTION AS A CERTAINTY: When we say something with certainty even though we’re merely guessing or don’t really know what we’re talking about, we often spread false information. We’re engaging in falsehood.

SANCTIONING FALSEHOOD: People who hear a blatant lie and fail to oppose or question it. All the delegates at the U.N. who kept quiet or even applauded when the leader of Iran repeated the canard that the Nazi Holocaust never occurred, were actually participating in the lie.

FAILING TO ACT APPROPRIATELY ACCORDING TO A KNOWN OR PROBABLE TRUTH : People who keep the lights or air conditioning on unnecessarily in their homes, or who drive a gas-guzzling SUV for ordinary use, indicate that they’re ignoring all the warnings about pollution and global climate change. By doing this they are ignoring or rejecting what is probably the truth; they do not honor the truth at everyone’s peril.

It is through these aspects of falsehood, that most man-made problems in the world are caused and perpetuated – whether they are small or large. This incomplete list of ways of twisting, ignoring or manipulating the truth, or fostering falsehood, should be internalized by every person concerned about the future of our world, because by assessing his or her degree of untruthfulness we can all work on ourselves and raise the level of truthfulness in the world, and thereby in the long run, redeem it.

SOBER VOICES FROM ISRAEL – 5

MARTIN

SHERMAN

“The Two-State solution” is the constantly repeated remedy for bringing peace to the Middle East. Solemnly declared over and over again by world leaders, public figures and journalists throughout the world, the Two-State solution calls on Israel to let the Palestinians have their own independent state, and thereby at long last, Israel will be accepted by the neighboring Arab peoples. It has been declared so many times that it has become a global mantra, a hallowed principle that brooks no deviation or obstruction – from Israel. But in its insistence, an enormous amount of history – past and current – is ignored, as are the declarations of intent made by Israel’s many mortal enemies. Also overlooked are the dangerous consequences to Israel’s security with each step it has taken in order to comply with the conditions for the Two-State idea.
The alternative to the two-state paradigm would appear to be a single state for all the people in the region of post-1922 Palestine. But demographically, this could lead to the end of Israel as a Jewish state. Another idea is transfer of Arab populations to neighboring countries. However, forcibly imposed this would undoubtedly end any chance of peaceful co-existence with the Arab and Muslim world – probably for generations to come.

Is there another solution? Martin Sherman offers a bold answer in a series of articles, which have appeared in The Jerusalem Post. He says that all policy must contend with prevailing realities as they are and not as we wish them to be. He cautions: “As policy input, political correctness is a poor substitute for factual correctness. Similarly, good intentions are no guarantee of good policy. Indeed, often quite the reverse is true.”

Martin Sherman, who grew up in South Africa, has had an eventful academic, military and public career. Graduating from the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg in 1970 with a B.Sc. in Physics and Geology, he also has a degree in Business Administration, as well as a Ph.D. in Political Science and International Relations from Tel Aviv University. He has lectured at numerous universities and written papers for many prominent academic journals. He is the author of two books: Despots, Democrats and the Determinants of International Conflict; and The Politics of Water in The Middle East, (Macmillan). Dr. Sherman is currently the academic director of Jerusalem Summit. 
His opinion pieces have appeared in most major newspapers in Israel (both in English and Hebrew). He has also been interviewed on radio and TV including CNN and BBC.

See website: http://www.martinsherman.org

We present here a slightly abridged version of an article about the Two-State solution and its alternatives, which appeared on January 6, 2012 in Sherman’s regular Jerusalem Post column “Into the Fray.”

To be or not to be – that is the

question

By MARTIN SHERMAN

“The maximum any Israeli government can offer is less than the minimum any Palestinian leader can accept. The real gap between both sides is much greater than perceived, and that gap is growing.”

Maj.-Gen.(reserve) Giora Eiland,
former head of the National Security Council, 2009

The Jewish people is rapidly approaching a crucial juncture. It will soon have to decide whether or not it is willing to maintain its nation-state; whether it is willing to forgo over a century of unparalleled sacrifice, effort and achievement to satisfy the cynical and hypocritical dictates of political correctness; whether it is prepared to surrender substance for form; to forsake real national freedoms for the artificial facade of feigned individual equality.
As the infeasibility of the two-state paradigm becomes increasingly apparent, even to the staunchest of its erstwhile supporters, the need to formulate a cogent alternative that will preserve the Jewish nation-state is becoming increasingly pressing.
It is not only the disillusioned among the Israeli Left who are expressing ever-more despair at the prospect of implementing the two-state solution. It is increasingly being dismissed as a realistic – or even desirable – aspiration by Palestinians, and not only radical Islamists who reject it because it entails recognizing a Jewish state. Thus for example, in his recent book, What is a Palestinian State Worth? even Sari Nusseibeh, a show-case “moderate,” expresses “heretical” doubts as to whether the struggle for statehood merits the effort.

Significant shifts

This should be seen against the shift in the general Palestinian attitude toward the two-state principle, reflected in a strangely under-reported and grossly misreported poll conducted recently for The Israel Project by Stanley Greenberg together with Palestinian Center for Public Opinion.
According to the poll, there was a “huge drop in acceptance of a two-state solution.” 52% said they would not accept such a solution – up from 36% less than a year previously – while two-thirds rejected the principle that one of the states should be a Jewish homeland. A similar proportion said, “The real goal should be to start with two states but then move to it all being one Palestinian state;” and 84% said that “Over time Palestinians must work to get back all the land for a Palestinian state.”
Only the grossly undiscerning will fail to notice the tangible change in official Palestinian negotiating strategy in recent years. The pursuit of a two-state solution has become a leisurely distraction rather than a seriously sought after end-of-conflict arrangement. Far-reaching concessions – difficult for Israel to accept even as part of a final agreement – are being presented as conditions for merely resuming negotiations, delaying them for extended periods – hardly a rational tactic for a people eager to extricate themselves from onerous “occupation.”

Facing the inevitable

In view of accumulating evidence, it would be imprudent for Israel to continue deluding itself that Palestinians entertain any serious intentions as to the two-state solution – other than in the two-stage sense. Indeed, the accelerating erosion of support for the idea makes the formulation of operational alternatives a pressing imperative.
The alternatives that have been discussed most often fall into two categories. Those which entail: (a) conferring Israel citizenship on the Palestinians – i.e. various versions of the one-state approach; and (b) transferring civilian rule over the Palestinians to some non-Palestinian Authority Arab administration – such as Jordan or prominent local clan-leaders traditionally well-disposed to Israel, who would preside over scattered enclaves.
For a variety of reasons, neither of these offers a stable long-term formula. As a detailed critique of these alternatives is beyond the scope of this article, I will restrict myself to the following observations.

Fatal flaws

Regarding the first category, the inclusion of the Palestinian Arab population across the 1967 Green Line into Israel as fully fledged citizens would create an unbearable socio-economic burden on the country that would not only jeopardize its character as a Jewish state but as an advanced Western democracy as well – a problem many EU countries are beginning to experience, even with proportionately far smaller “discordant” populations.
It is a measure that would create difficulties far more complex and profound than could be dealt with – as some naively hope – by adopting a regional electoral system and gerrymandering the boundaries of the constituencies to minimize the impact of non-Jewish voters. Quite apart from the legal challenges – before an inherently amenable Supreme Court – as to the equity of such an arrangement, and possible mass relocation of voters to other constituencies, the cultural and economic disparities would tear society apart.
Regarding the second category, it is wishful thinking – especially in the wake of the Arab Spring – to hope that any “traditional” regime would consent to be seen as “pulling the Zionists’ chestnuts out of the fire.”
It is more than doubtful that any Arab ruler – whether a clan leader or the Jordanian monarch – would be willing, or indeed able, to function for any length of time as what would be perceived as a perfidious “prison warder.”
Moreover, in light of the instability in the region, it would irresponsible to adopt a long-term policy based on the assumption that the regime in Amman would not be replaced or at least dominated by elements inimical to any cooperation with Israel.
In both cases, the consequences of these alternatives are liable to be worse than those they are designed to avoid.

The humanitarian paradigm

These factors – the eroding relevance of the two-state paradigm, the ominous emergence of the one-state paradigm and the inadequacy of proffered alternatives – led to the proposal in my two preceding columns (in The Jerusalem Post) of the humanitarian paradigm, which addressed the fate of the Palestinian Arabs in a comprehensive, non-coercive manner. Operationally it comprised three constituent elements.

• Ending discriminatory treatment of the Palestinian refugees by abolishing or transforming UNRWA.
• Ending discrimination against Palestinians in the Arab world and the prohibition on their acquiring citizenship of countries in which they have been resident for decades.
• Providing generous relocation finance directly to individual Palestinian breadwinners to allow them to build better futures for themselves in third countries of their choice.
Unsurprisingly, numerous reservations were raised as to the feasibility of the proposal. These will now be addressed – at least in part.

The feasibility factor – I

The proponents of the Oslowian two-state principle are the last who can invoke feasibility as a precondition for the admissibility of an operational proposal –at least as an item on the agenda of public debate. After all, this is a formula that has been tried for almost two decades, and despite massive international endorsement and financial support, has wrought nothing but death, destruction and despair. Surely a proposal that has proved so disastrous should by any rational yardstick be branded unworkable and hence unfeasible. And if the demonstrable infeasibility, futility and failure of the two-state paradigm has not disqualified it as meriting serious consideration, why should a conceptually consistent, untried humanitarian paradigm not be accorded the same opportunity – at least as a legitimate topic for debate.

The feasibility factor – II

Inevitably, any radical departure from long-established conventional wisdom will be met with stiff resistance. However, the existing configuration of public opinion should not be considered immutable. Indeed, imagine how hopeless the notion of a Palestinian state was in the late 1960s in the wake of Israel’s sweeping Six Day War victory. Even in the late 1980s the idea was dismissed as unrealistic, unreasonable radicalism by all but a minuscule albeit determined minority on the far Left. However, it was a minority that managed to enlist the resolve, resources and resourcefulness to transform the marginal into mainstream in remarkably short order.
Given the paltry funding and the puny efforts that have characterized Israel’s public diplomacy in the past two decades, the current public perception can hardly be taken as persuasive gauge of what might be achieved with adequate financing and appropriate focus. Today the entire public diplomacy budget is reportedly of the order of magnitude of what a medium-to-large Israeli corporation spends on promoting fast-food or snacks.

The feasibility factor – III

According to the International Monetary Fund, Israel’s GDP is approaching a quarter trillion dollars. If it were to allot less than one half of 1% of GDP to public diplomacy, that would be over $1 billion – enough to swamp anything the George Soroses of the world devote to Israel’s delegitimization.
Given the nation’s achievements in many other fields of human endeavor, one can only surmise what impact a determined assault on the authenticity and legitimacy of the Palestinian narrative, financed by an annual $1b. budget over two decades – the length of the post-Oslowian era – might have on the acceptability of a humanitarian rehabilitation of Palestinian Arabs, cruelly misled by their leaders for decades.
Indeed, important elements of the humanitarian paradigm are already gaining international legitimacy. The anomalous and detrimental role of UNRWA – a pivotal element in the proposal – has been recognized by countries such as Canada and the Netherlands which have either curtailed their funding to the organization or are considering doing so. It is distinctly plausible that the US could be convinced – especially in these days of austerity – to terminate its funding for this wasteful and counter-productive body which perpetuates the Palestinians’ dependency and statelessness.
Likewise, the brutal discrimination against Palestinians in Arab states, allegedly to “help preserve their identity,” is also the subject of increasing international attention and censure. Pressure should be brought to bear on Arab regimes to end this unacceptable practice, even if it means temporarily channeling budgets formerly allotted to UNRWA to facilitate their integration as citizens of the countries of their longstanding residence.
These elements cannot be detached from the overall thrust of the humanitarian paradigm, which is to focus on ameliorating the situation of the individual Palestinian rather than promoting the nefarious goals of an invented national entity.

Estimating costs

The estimated cost of implementation is strongly dependent on the level of compensation and the size of the Palestinian population in the “territories,” which is the subject of intense debate.
A few years ago, the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research conducted a survey on the level of compensation Palestinian refugees considered fair to forgo the “right of return.” If we take more than double the minimum amount specified by most pollees as fair compensation for relocation/rehabilitation, and if we adopt a high-end estimate of the Palestinian population, the total cost would be around $150b. for the West Bank Palestinians and $250b. if Gaza is included. This is a fraction of the US expenditure on its decade-long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which have produced results that are less than a resounding success.
Spread over a period equivalent to the current post-Oslo era, this sum would comprise a yearly outlay of no more than a few percentage points of current GDP – something Israel could well afford on its own.
If additional OECD countries were to contribute, the total relocation/rehabilitation of the Palestinian Arabs could be achieved with an almost imperceptible economic burden.

How to solve your problems … and save the world – Part 3

Based on talk on how to prevent a doomsday situation

Continued from Part 2:  https://truthandsurvival.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/how-to-solve-your-problems-and-save-the-world-part-2/  

A new stage in humanity’s

development

By RALPH DOBRIN

Author of “How to Avoid Armageddon”

Can be ordered through Amazon

This is the third part my talk, whose full title is: “How to solve your problems … and save the world”? In the earlier installments we offered the key to avoiding and solving most of our own personal problems, through the understanding and practise of truthfulness as a way of life.

And similarly, it is truthfulness practised by more and more people everywhere that will save the world? Oh come on Ralph, the reader might say. Be serious for goodness sake. How is truthfulness going to solve pollution and poverty? How is truthfulness going to cope with the likes of Ahmadinijad and Zawahiri? Well just think about it. Throughout history it has usually been the opposite of truthfulness and honesty – it has been lies and deceit that bungling, inept leaders, scoundrels and tyrants have used to gain and keep power and to wreak havoc and bring boundless misery into the world.   

Even in the more benign democracies of the world, political factors make truthfulness among all the aspirants to power, something very conditional, even a handicap. To a large extent, gaining power, even in these democracies, is a game, a contest in which, very often, the winner takes all. And the gullibility of the general public panders to these games. Consequently, governance – which is really management on a large scale – governance is mediocre at best, and sometimes quite pathetic. In totalitarian states, not only public gullibility enables a self-serving dictatorship, but dread and fear as well. But for the moment, I’m talking about Israel and other democracies.

In our earlier blogs on this subject, we had talked about wishful thinking and holding onto old ideas and concepts no matter how things change or what new information emerges? And automatically rejecting any ideas or even events and developments that might not tally with our own perceptions. It’s called cognitive dissonance. It’s really a form of lying to ourselves. And we mentioned how these very common tendencies can prevent clear and sensible thinking.

Well, with any issue that has a political bearing, cognitive dissonance readily prevails, and often, even normally level-headed, intelligent, honest people can have their ability to think objectively and comprehensively, noticeably diminished. Right wing or left wing, religious or liberal, conservative, centrist, socialist – it doesn’t matter. Bring up any issue with a political bearing and intellectual integrity and rational thinking are often seriously compromised. Not always, not with everyone, but all too often.

If we take a brief, candid look at Israel’s situation we find that Israel faces bigger, far more dangerous challenges, probably than ever before; quite probably no other country in the world faces such colossal threats and challenges. That’s why the people of Israel have to figure out how to make the right decisions regarding every aspect of their national well-being and security. The trouble is that just about every issue in Israel has a political bearing, arousing heated, divisive squabbling along party lines and coalition hanky-panky. And this makes wise, sensible, crucially-needed decision-making extremely difficult, if not impossible. On the other hand, if government decisions were based primarily on honest, objective imperatives, truthfully debated, and based only on what’s good for the country and its people, it would have a better chance of overcoming the many threats and challenges facing us. But for this to happen, integrity and truthfulness must become the dominant qualities among all sectors of Israeli society, because it’s from this society that Israel’s politicians emerge, bringing with them, for better or for worse, all the general mores. For the moment Israeli society has a long way to go before integrity and truthfulness become the dominant qualities among all its sections.

Also compounding the gravity of Israel’s situation is its standing with the rest of the world. It’s interesting that Israel has been condemned – not just criticized – but actually condemned, in the various United Nations agencies and forums far more often than any other country in the world, and that includes some truly repressive, murderous regimes such as Sudan, North Korea, Syria, Libya, Iran, Somalia, etc., etc. And Israel heads the condemned list by far. Also, the media all over the world, including in Western democracies, is quick to pounce on Israel every time it tries to defend itself against military attacks. And there are many Jews in these countries as well as in Israel itself, who see Israel as largely to blame for the conflict with the Arabs. And of course, a major criticism is Israel’s occupation of Judea and Samaria and settlement construction.

What is largely ignored or downplayed by the leaders and people of the world and the media, is the multitude of infractions inflicted upon the Jews of Israel by the neighboring peoples. Over ninety years of unrelenting enmity and enormous efforts, to physically destroy Israel, using military invasions and terror, backed by commercial and academic boycott as well as the cynical manipulation of the United Nations.

Also ignored or downplayed are the incredibly disproportionate statistics. The Arabs outnumber the Jews of Israel by over 50 to one. They are backed by another billion Muslims. They have most of the world’s oil reserves. They have the second largest land-mass in the world, larger than the USA, Canada or Australia. On the other hand Israel, one of the smallest countries in the world, has needed to defend itself in half-a-dozen full-scale wars – all of them with the express purpose of either immediately or incrementally, destroying Israel. One would think that this enormous disparity would arouse some appreciation among the nations of the world and the general media regarding Israel’s desperate struggle to survive.

But no, it is Israel that is castigated, condemned, boycotted – not just by its sworn enemies, but by governments, trade unions, church organizations, municipalities, even highly educated, cultured folks at universities in North America, Europe and Britain, with seldom a word of disapproval towards those seeking the destruction of Israel.

Might all this be a case of double standards and bias? Well, when one also considers that seldom throughout history, or quite probably never, has a country been called upon by the nations of the world to return territories that it conquered in wars of defense, as is the case with Israel, it’s hard not to see bias. And in order to try and make peace with the Arab world, Israel has repeatedly ceded lands it conquered in these wars of defense … and yet with every concession that Israel has made, certainly in the last two decades, the enmity of Israel’s adversaries has kept growing, and peace has become less likely than ever before.

So it seems very clear that bias and double standards have blocked common sense and common decency on the part of many people all over the world. Ordinary people and their leaders and the opinion-makers in the media. But why is this? It’s a big subject, and it can’t fit in the scope of this talk. But briefly, let’s say that the bias and double standards are largely due to the concern for regular oil supplies, international politics and commerce, vested interests in certain journalistic circles and intellectual liberalism that might have tripped over itself, and oh, something to do with feelings about those pesky Jews. But no matter what the reasons, bias and double standards pop up when facts are not faced honestly; when falsehood is propagated and honored. That in a nutshell is the big picture regarding the Israel-Arab conflict, which incidentally got started and is perpetuated, to a large extent through falsehood. And yes, also through an inordinate degree of ignorance.

This series of blogs has been about a most basic value – truthfulness. Something that is clearly not fully understood, appreciated or practised … possibly anywhere. In briefly bringing up the Israel-Arab conflict, I have tried to show the connection between falsehood and conflict. How falsehood can start conflict and perpetuate it and prevent its resolution.

And the terrible thing is that it is this same general inability to face facts honestly by so many people, regarding the Israel-Arab conflict, that is also preventing humanity as a whole from coping adequately with all the other serious, pressing existential threats and challenges to our planet that we had mentioned earlier.

 

How to solve your problems … and save the world – Part 2

Continued from:  https://truthandsurvival.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/how-to-avoid-problems-and-save-the-world-part-1/

Crucial insights in the way

we all lie

By RALPH DOBRIN

Author of “How to Avoid Armageddon”

Order it through Amazon

We all hate it when people lie to us or aren’t absolutely honest. Isn’t that so? One reason for our resentment towards any kind of falsehood – in others – is that it indicates that we cannot trust or depend on this other person. In family and friends it hurts even more, because we sense that the trust we automatically felt because of our kinship or fraternal ties, has been betrayed and could even be the source of harm to us.

But I think that our aversion to falsehood is probably instinctive. It’s a universal sentiment, like the disgust caused by exposed feces. I’m sorry to draw this unpleasant comparison, but that’s how repugnant lying can be. I think that our disgust with exposed excrement stems, not only from the smell and the messiness, but also from our innate knowledge that uncovered, it can be a source of disease. The smell and appearance exude a warning – watch out this is dangerous for your health! And while lying might not reach our olfactory senses, and although most of us might not be sensitive to its perniciousness when we ourselves lie, we instinctively recognize that something stinks – figuratively – when we are lied to.

Now, to a large extent it is belief that determines our routines and attitudes. Regarding every-day issues, my beliefs are largely based on empirical experience. I’m not talking about religious belief now. I turn on a switch – like I’ve done countless times, and a light comes on, even though I might not know anything about electricity. And I reckon that I can get to my office by 9 o’clock in the morning if I get out of bed early enough so as to catch a bus at 8.20, because I have done this hundreds of times. I acknowledge, truthfully, that I need to be at the bus stop before 8:20, otherwise I might miss the bus and be late for work. My truthfulness to myself is based on an empirical premise. Now, if I lie to myself, suggesting that I can stay in bed a little longer in the morning and that it’s fine if I get to the bus stop a few minutes after 8:20, because of my untruthfulness to myself, I could end up losing my job.

This is a small, very mundane example of the importance of truthfulness on a personal level. Employed as an unbreakable principle for every aspect of our lives, as well as for society as a whole, the practice of truthfulness can give us far more control in our lives, bring us less frustration and stress, and fewer personal problems and invariably ensure more fulfillment. Indeed the practise of truthfulness on a large scale can redeem the world. I’ll talk briefly about this later.

Now, I like to believe that most people are pretty honest most of the time. Don’t you think so? That’s wishful thinking on my part? Maybe! Look, I’ll agree that most people might exaggerate a little from time to time. Yeah, we know that. But under normal circumstances most people will seldom knowingly tell an outright lie. Under normal circumstances. But there are times when the large majority of ordinary folks … might twist the truth a little! For instance, as drivers, if caught not heeding a stop sign, many folks will swear to the policeman that they did indeed stop at the stop sign. Or when criticized or scolded for something, many people often lie about what they did or didn’t do or what they heard or didn’t hear or what they thought they understood.

How often have we ourselves given some kind of cockamamie excuse for coming late to an appointment or for not keeping a promise? I’m not talking about telling a little white lie so as to spare the feelings of someone. No, I’m talking about not being truthful, in order to impress someone, or to get out of an embarrassing or costly situation – and not even realizing that we were lying.

The thing is that if we … occasionally twist the truth a bit, and even though usually, very little harm might be done directly, fibbing can become a habitual thing. And if we fib about small things we’ll most likely have little problem lying about more serious things. And in any human framework, no matter how large or small, whether it’s a family or a factory or a large company, when the level of truthfulness is kind of shaky, and if there’s more than just a little deceit and lying, then trust and harmony will be undermined, and the prospects of success in whatever is being done, will be diminished.

I reckon that many of you know all this from personal experience. As for myself, I am standing here this evening presuming to know what I’m talking about because of my own personal experience, which includes being both a purveyor of untruthfulness, a lightweight purveyor if you please, and a recipient or target. I admit that in the past I have indulged in a lot of exaggeration; I have fibbed and lied – for many reasons; I have tried to impress people, especially womenfolk, with fib and fantasy – on a scale that makes me embarrassed when I think of it. But today, I think I’m more honest and truthful than I used to be because I realize more fully than ever before the paramount importance of truthfulness. And yet, sometimes, even now I still catch myself about to regurgitate one of my old fibs or even tell a lie. But I usually catch myself in time. At least I hope so. It’s an ongoing challenge to be a fully truthful person.

However, there are great dividends to truthfulness. In itself, being an honest person can have its rewards in the form of self-esteem. Why not? As long as we don’t become self-righteous prigs. And we’ll earn the respect of our friends, neighbors, work associates and family. Also, a spirit of truthfulness in whatever we do, is likely to have positive results. We might not make a lot of money all at once, but in the long run whatever we do will have a better chance of turning out fine.

And there’s a good reason for this. Firstly, we won’t be so prone to kidding ourselves about the prospects of whatever it is that we want to do, or our own ability, or what is needed; we won’t be kidding ourselves about the budget needed, or the risks involved, and a whole lot of other details and issues. For instance, we might have our hearts set on buying a new car or a house with a garden, or opening a business or expanding our business. And it’s wonderful to have aims, ambitions and dreams, and to try and make them come true. But if we’re not completely honest with ourselves about all the details and issues, then instead of a dream coming true, we might find ourselves in a nightmare.

To make the best possible decisions, whenever there is some kind of dilemma, or an ambitious project, what we can do is take all the facts and factors, see them as objectively and honestly as possible. Then, if we have a problem deciding what to do, we can use the old system of making two columns – pro and con. Then give each item a rating according to the scale of likelihood – ranging from definite, probable, possible, unlikely to absolutely no chance. Add to this equation personal feelings about the issue. What does our heart say? Try to assess how much weight this aspect carries in our ultimate decision. Then, even after coming to a final conclusion, it might be helpful to mull over the question for a little while longer – if the issue is not too urgent. Then we will probably have made the best possible decision. And it will have been personal honestly and truthfulness that enabled us to do so.   

Truthfulness, integrity, honesty – these are serious principles. But please bear in mind that abiding faithfully to these principles, doesn’t mean that we have to constantly be absolutely objective about everything; it doesn’t mean that we have to be unmitigatedly cautious all the time, or unimaginative, humorless, inflexible and puritanical. We can still be our true selves. We can still joke if that’s what we like doing, or smile and laugh if we feel that way. We can even tell tall tales – as long people can understand that our stories are not meant to be taken literally, but just for the purpose of amusing others.

By the way, truthfulness won’t solve all our problems, especially if there are serious, incurable illnesses involved, or if we have unsolvable problems with crazy neighbors, or very rebellious children, or a nasty spouse, or overwhelming financial woes. Although truthfulness might help us reconcile ourselves to a difficult situation, or keep us from making things worse, and yes, maybe even find the best way out of our problems. And we might even be able to convey to any adversary of ours, the fact that being straight with each other might help us resolve our differences.

There is an important additional aspect involved in the practise of truthfulness. It has to do with the way we speak. In any discussion or argument, if we shout, we might be heard, but we won’t be heeded. It’s usually best to talk quietly, calmly and politely. If you need to raise your voice to be heard, then raise your voice until you are being listened to, and then revert to a less confrontational tone. By continuing in this way, it is likely that we will be responded to in a similar tone. A modulated decibel level is invariably more conducive to honest discourse. I bet that for many folks this would be a new approach, uh?

To continueClick

How to avoid problems … and save the world – Part 1

Based on one of the most

important talks you’ll

ever hear

By RALPH DOBRIN

Author of How to Avoid Armageddon

Available through Amazon

Good evening ladies and gentlemen and thank you for coming to listen to me.
How to avoid problems and how you can solve problems when they arise … and how to save the world! Yeah, yeah! This might all sound very presumptuous. But in the course of this talk, you’re going to get answers. Answers that deep down you probably already know. But they’ve simply been buried, forgotten, ignored … and need to be brought to light. And by the time this talk is over everyone here this evening will have the key to bettering our lives … and the world, for that matter.

To give you an idea of what I’m talking about, let’s take an example from real life. I’ve changed the details a little to avoid any embarrassing identification. Anyway, a woman applies for a job as the assistant manager of a small, family-owned hotel in a seaside resort. The owner needs an assistant manager because his wife, who used to help him run the hotel, has become chronically ill. The woman who has come for a job interview is very pleasant, youngish, nice-looking, well groomed. She tells the hotel owner that she had been assistant manager at a five-star hotel in the French Riviera. Wow! The owner asks the woman a few questions about the name of the hotel where she had worked, the number of rooms, size of staff, prices and the exact nature of her duties. But some of the woman’s answers just don’t make sense. She’s vague about the duties. Also, while the staff ratio in his hotel is one worker for every six guests, she stammered a ratio of one to twelve, which seems very unlikely for a five-star hotel anywhere. Also, she has no diplomas or degrees in book-keeping or accountancy, hotel administration or any kind of management; not even cooking. And she has no letters of recommendation. He’s about to say he’s sorry but he can’t hire her, but she cuts him short and says, “I always give 150% of myself wherever I work. And I learn very quickly. I will be an asset to your hotel.” She says this with a smile that looks sincere and full of respect and compassion. Boom – all the owner’s experience and common sense is dulled and he ignores all his well-founded doubts about her and takes her on as his assistant manager.

Well very soon it turns out to be a disaster. After four days, there aren’t enough supplies to prepare meals; not enough linen to make the beds, kitchen and dining room staff are very unhappy with her bossiness and her obvious incompetence. And never have there been so many complaints from the guests. Before the week is over, she is looking for another job and the hotel owner still needs an assistant manager.

Now in this story we have examples of different forms of lying. Firstly there was the woman’s false claim about having been the assistant manager in a five-star hotel. And such lies are usually exposed sooner or later. And that results in a loss of credibility, frustration, unpleasantness and eventually total rejection. The other example of lying in this story is the wishful thinking of the hotel owner. The woman who applied for a job was so pleasant that he lied to himself about her suitability and in hiring her, he lowered the standard and reputation of his hotel and needed to deal with dissatisfied guests.

And here in a nutshell, is the answer to our question – how to avoid and overcome our problems. Don’t lie to others! Don’t lie to yourself! And another pointer that would have helped the hotel owner: don’t be taken in by another person’s dubious statements. Especially when what is said is clearly unlikely.
The keyword is truthfulness. Being truthful in our dealings with others and being truthful to ourselves. And also being alert to untruthfulness in others. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the answer to our question – how to overcome our problems. Okay, so, we have finished our talk … yeah, we’ve finished. And we can all go home now. Or if you like we can have a party.

But wait a minute – before we all rush out of here or get ready to do a hora, or salsa or a waltz, we need to know that there’s a lot more to the concept of truthfulness. It’s actually a fairly big subject. And we need to acknowledge that just about everyone, from time to time does indulge in some form of untruthfulness.

You see, apart … from always telling the truth in the sense of being honest about what we’re saying, truthfulness also means not expressing half-truths or indulging in selective omission. For instance, let’s say that I’m going to sell my car to someone. The car had a tune-up a few days ago and seems to be running just fine. But the garage mechanic had told me that the transmission is badly worn-out and might break down at any moment. Now, if tell the prospective buyer that my car is in excellent working order, that might be part of the truth at this moment. But by not mentioning the worn-out gear box, I am indulging in a half-truth. True, the buyer could have the car checked by a garage before he buys, but I’m still being devious by not telling the whole truth up front. And what if the buyer feels that I have the kind of face that he can trust, and that he doesn’t need to have the car tested by an authorized garage? So, okay, I’ll make some money by selling a car that might break down at any moment. I’m making money. That’s what counts, no? Yeah, but I will have compromised on my integrity.

A lot of people might not think that’s not important – when making money is concerned. But, I might also have stirred up a hornet’s nest in the form of a very angry buyer, and I might find myself needing to spend a lot of money on legal fees and time in unpleasant court hearings. All unnecessary had I simply told the truth. I could have sold the car eventually, but at a lower price or paid to have the transmission repaired and then sold the car at its market value. The point is that by indulging in half-truth, I was not being truthful and I opened myself up to the possibility of some time-consuming trouble. Who needs it? Also, I had behaved unethically and dishonorably. In fact I had become a bit of a scumbag.

There are other ways that we lie. For instance we often lie to ourselves. One way is through wishful thinking. Like if I have toothache and I tell myself that the pain will pass and my teeth will be okay. I don’t need to go to a dentist. Now, that’s wishful thinking! And what an expensive, painful form of lying to myself this has been for me over the years!

Another way that we lie to ourselves is when we cling rigidly to old ways and ideas, no matter what happens or what new information emerges. Many folks automatically block themselves off to anything that might not tally with their perception of things … it’s called denial. These are tendencies that can lead to families breaking up; businesses crash; people get unnecessarily sick because they rejected advice on healthy living, or ignored bodily danger signs and left medical attention too late. On a larger scale, national economies have spiraled out of control; governments have fallen; there have been terrible wars because of the stubbornness of people in charge, who refused to even listen to any new ideas and developments. But don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that every old idea or way is necessarily faulty and must be changed. Of course not. But whenever we automatically close ourselves off to anything new or different, or anything that doesn’t exactly tally with our current perception, we should check to see whether we are really facing facts with complete honesty. Because the consequences of not doing so, can be pretty grim to say the least.

Being truthful also means refraining from saying things that we are not absolutely sure of, and if we do say or claim things that we are not quite sure of, we should make it clear that we either heard or read such and such, or that in our opinion, maybe such and such is the case. There are factual issues and there are value judgments.

Many years ago a controversial issue was the fluoridation of water. Do you remember? It had to do with prevention of tooth decay in younger people. I had read a few articles in health magazines that claimed that the serious dangers to general health caused by fluoridation of water far outweighed any possible dental benefits. So I became a vociferous, really vociferous activist against fluoridation in Jerusalem’s water system. One day the head of the Government Health Ministry’s Dental Health Department, Dr Kelman, invited me to his office. After a short discussion with him it was obvious that I really didn’t know what I was talking about. While I was in his office, Dr. Kelman said that he had a large collection of books and scientific papers on the subject – for and against fluoridation, and he invited me to read the material. And ask questions. Well, I did just that. For about two or three weeks I sat in a room next to his office and tried to study the material on fluoridation. I had majored in science studies at high school, but it wasn’t nearly enough to enable me to fully understand the issues involved. But I quickly concluded that I couldn’t know really determine that fluoridation was hazardous to health. Although from all my reading, I did get the feeling that the miniscule quantities of fluoride added to the municipality’s water system, posed no danger to general public health. I couldn’t say for sure. But I did come to a personal conclusion, weighing the pros and cons according to a scale of likelihood ranging from probable, to possible, to unlikely and surely not, that my opposition to fluoridation was unjustified.

Incidentally, two areas that open us to untruths are gossip and generalizations. About gossip, it’s not for me to say that we shouldn’t gossip. After all, everyone loves gossip. No? And most of us indulge in it. However, this talk is about truthfulness, and gossip can very easily stray into the realm of unfounded fabrication. And that is something wrongful. Especially if it’s malicious.

Another area that can lead us away from truthfulness is when we generalize about something. Like saying that “all politicians are liars and cheats.” Oh yes? You know all the politicians? Some of them might be liars. Indeed, quite a few have been proven to be liars and cheats in a court of law as well as by their statements and actions over the years. But that doesn’t mean that all politicians are liars and cheats. And if we say that all politicians are liars, that possibly makes us liars ourselves.

Truthfulness also means being able to admit when I am wrong. No matter what the issue, If I suddenly realize that I had indeed, done something wrong, or said something I shouldn’t have said, or made any kind of mistake – if there is a discussion on it, I should be able to admit: “Yes, I was wrong!”

Now, as we indicated earlier, truthfulness should be complemented by yet another important aspect and that is how we receive … how we choose to understand … what others say. We need the ability to sense in others, whether what they are saying is factually valid, or maybe questionable, or unlikely or downright false. We should be able to consider the credibility of things even when what is said or claimed, might initially appeal to our political, religious or ideological sentiments. We should always be able to sense when something might seem glib, or contrived or just doesn’t make sense, and we should have the ability and the integrity to question or reject it. And it doesn’t matter if it’s our best friend, favorite singer or politician, or our parents.

Although if we do catch our parents not telling the truth, we should temper our reactions to them with due consideration. Like: I’m sorry to ask, Dad, but are you sure that what you’re saying is really so? Actually this is a good response in most cases when we feel someone is lying to us. Because when we blatantly or indignantly challenge someone’s honesty, they will probably become very defensive and reject our question and paradoxically, even see us as being in the wrong for daring to question them. And if that happens we will have lost an opportunity to set the record straight and in fact, lost the opportunity to plant the seed of the importance of truthfulness in the other person’s mind.

Incidentally, when we speak about truthfulness, we’re not necessarily talking about “truth,” which while connected, is not quite the same as truthfulness and we don’t have to go into any abstruse philosophical theories about the full meaning of the word “truth” – which granted can be a fascinating subject, if one has the time and inclination. But I do want to say that the often repeated phrase that everyone has his own truth, actually mangles the meaning of the word “truth”. What everyone has in actual fact, is his or her own notion of what one might think is the truth about something, but that notion, all too often lacks pertinent facts and might include half-truths and quite a bit of wishful thinking. And no matter how deeply felt, it is often – not always, but often – just a notion. Not necessarily the truth.

To continue Click

TALKS BY RALPH DOBRIN

GLOBAL SURVIVAL AND

THE ISRAEL FACTOR

I give talks on dealing with the serious challenges facing humanity and how to ensure a better future for everyone.

If we examine the root source of most man-made problems in the world, we will find that falsehood in its various forms plays a significant part. Throughout history inept leaders, scoundrels and tyrants have used half-truths, lies and other forms of deception to gain and keep power and wreak misery and devastation all around them. And it has usually been the gullibility and indifference of the general population that allowed this to happen.

Accordingly, it follows that we can prevent and solve most man-made problems by calling for complete truthfulness in all human discourse, while being alert to any form of falsehood and categorically condemning and rejecting all who concoct or spread it.

While most people will seldom knowingly tell an outright lie, untruthfulness in its various forms frequently touches our lives without us even realizing it. We are often subjected to half-truth, selective omission and confidently-proclaimed – but false – rumors and assumptions by political leaders, the media and even our friends, while many of us unwittingly lay these and other forms of falsehood on others. Also, most people indulge from time to time in wishful thinking, denial and other forms of cognitive dissonance that cloud our perspectives and befuddle our thinking. All this leads to flawed reasoning and unfortunate consequences for all.

But it is the Arab-Israel conflict, which so patently shows how falsehood can lead to conflict in the first place, perpetuate it and prevent its resolution. It follows, therefore that the only way to even begin to resolve this tragic conflict is through an approach based on truthfulness by all parties involved. Any approach that lacks this essential factor will ensure a continuation of the conflict – as has been so abundantly shown by the events of the past and the present.

However, the Israel-Arab conflict has ramifications far beyond the region. The understanding and practice of truthfulness on a global scale is the only way that humanity will have any chance of coping adequately with all the other serious existential challenges that humanity must contend with, such as climate change, pollution, demographic problems and Jihadic expansionism – to mention just a few of the crucial issues.

And that’s what my talk is all about.

A few words about myself: I have lived in Israel for over 50 years, worked as a printer, writer, editor and publisher. I am author of the book “How to Avoid Armageddon,” published by Old Line Publishing.

To give an idea on my style and deliver you can watch a short introductory video. Click: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVX53jHtibY

I will be happy to address any audience anywhere and talk about the most important thing for all people at this  crucial time — the fostering of truthfulness among more and more people.

Ralph (Rafi) Dobrin, e-mail:   dan-dob@zahav.net.il

  

 

 

 

 

 

THE ROOT OF MOST EVIL – 2

Continued from: https://truthandsurvival.wordpress.com/2011/10/11/the-root-of-most-evil-%e2%80%93-1/

How to handle lies?

(Based on talks on the subject of global survival)

 By RALPH DOBRIN

Author of “How to avoid Armageddon”

Available through Amazon, Click:  www.amazon.com   type: how to avoid armageddon

A problem that we all face is how do we know when what is being said or claimed is really the truth? How can we be sure that something we read or hear is factually correct? That it’s not a mistaken assumption or an outright lie? This is an immensely important question. And there is no foolproof answer. While I don’t think that we should always automatically be cynical or skeptical about everything, we should be sensitive when half-baked claims are made; we should be able to detect disinformation and other forms of falsehood no matter who or what is the source. That means recognizing demagoguery and glib propaganda, especially when it’s used to promote political or ideological interests. We should pay attention, not only to the appearance and style of the speakers, but to their actual words – what is really being said, what is omitted, what is inconsistent with previous statements, what doesn’t really make sense, what appeals to our sense of wishful thinking? Above all, we must be critically honest with ourselves. And if we do identify any form of falsehood – if it is obvious that someone is lying to us, we must expose it. Granted, this is a very complex expectation. But it is very important.

Often, the best we can do is simply assume the validity or falsehood of what is claimed. We might be able to assess the likelihood according to a scale of credibility, ranging from probable – I can’t be absolutely sure, but it’s probable that such and such is the case … or … there’s a possibility that it’s so … or there’s a slight possibility, or no way!

This scale of credibility can help us think more clearly. It can help us make sensible decisions and value judgments on just about every aspect of our lives – family and work matters, as well as issues of a wider social, national and even global significance.

Let’s take global warming, for example. Many scientists warn that it’s the extensive use of fossil fuels and other pollutants that is causing global warming and climate change, and that could well lead to widespread disaster, unless drastic changes are made … now! But there are other scientists, albeit a minority, who argue that the whole issue of global warming is really a hoax and that fossil fuels have little or no bearing whatsoever on climate change.

So what am I to believe? This is a very serious issue. But I don’t know much about chemistry, meteorology and other related environmental sciences, so how can I reach a fair conclusion? Well firstly, I can get a layman’s grasp by reading material on the subject, including opposing viewpoints, while trying to keep an open mind. But in the end I can only rely on my common sense and intellectual integrity, which might enable me to come to a conclusion one way or another, or at least an assumption on which I can base my stand on the issue. An assumption based on the scale of credibility.

Whatever conclusion I reach, should have little to do with whether it matches the stand of whatever political or ideological movement I follow. If it matches, then well and good. If not, I need to consider the issue on its own merits. And there’s another parameter that I can use to assess the credibility of something. Simply ask the question: Does it make sense? Does it make sense that pouring millions of tons of carbon gases into the atmosphere won’t have any effect on the climate? Does it make sense that pouring millions of tons of waste matter into our rivers, lakes and oceans won’t cause dreadful damage to the ecological balance? The questions often become rhetorical and therein can be found our answers.

An important aspect of thinking clearly is how we relate to disagreement. When someone disagrees with us, do we see it as a challenge to be met and won at all costs, or as a personal slight that must be firmly righted? This is how most people react to disagreement, whether it’s on a trivial subject or something of definite personal, ideological or professional importance.

But this kind of response to disagreement is seldom productive and can be disruptive to say the least. Now I’m going to say something that might sound strange to many of you. I’m going to say that we should welcome disagreement and see it, not necessarily as an argument to be won … at all costs, but rather as an opportunity to clarify something. Perhaps the other person really knows what he or she is talking about and is able to put us right about something. If that is the case we might have gained something through this other person’s disagreeing with what we had said, and we should always be ready to admit that we had been wrong and even respond with something like: “Thank you for putting me right.” Especially if it is something that might help us in our lives. Losing an argument shouldn’t be seen as losing face – but rather as an opportunity to learn something.

I’m not saying that we should always readily agree with what other people say. Of course not. If, for example in the course of a discussion or an argument, the other person seems to have a point, but we are not fully convinced, we can still continue reasoning with each other. We can see it as a joint search for correct answers. We might even find that additional argument and counter-argument will help substantiate our point of view; that yes, we might even see that we had it right all the time; that what we had thought, was indeed the case. And if the other guy can’t get it he’ll be losing out, whether he realizes it or not.

The tendency to argue, that is so common, is often a case of choosing to ignore readily observable facts or even discard the rules of plain logic. This tendency to try to always win an argument, to never admit that the other person might have a point, is actually pursuing denial and twisting facts. And no matter how honest we might generally be, when that’s what we do in the course of an argument, we are in fact pandering to untruthfulness.  To be continued.

To order “How to avoid Armageddon” click: www.amazon.com  type: how to avoid Armageddon

THE ROOT OF MOST EVIL – 1

It isn’t necessarily money

Based on talks by Ralph Dobrin

Author of “How to avoid Armageddon”
Available through Amazon
Click: www.amazon.com  type: how to avoid armageddon

We all demand that people not lie to us, even though we all occasionally engage in some form of untruthfulness towards other – through exaggeration, half-truth and other forms of twisting of the truth. Note how indignant we become when someone lies to us. We loathe hypocrisy. Friendships – even long-lasting friendships – are sometimes terminated on the spot if we feel that someone has hidden the truth from us. And with family, lying and any form of deceit hurts even more, because the trust that should be even more inherent and forthcoming, has been betrayed.

Our aversion to falsehood might be an instinctive thing, something like the disgust and revulsion caused by … exposed excrement. I think that our revulsion from exposed excrement stems from our innate knowledge, alerted by the smell, that uncovered and exposed, it can be a source of disease. Our instinct tells us that it poses a danger and therefore must be avoided or effectively disposed of. In a similar way, falsehood in any of its various forms, is perceived by all people as a threat in some way or another. Untruthfulness might not reach our olfactory senses, and although most of us might not be sensitive to its perniciousness when we ourselves lie, we instinctively recognize the potential for harm and detriment when lied to – even when the issues are quite innocuous. The saying that, “something stinks here,” when talking about deceit might be more apt than we realize.

This brings us to a question. Aren’t there times when twisting the truth or telling a little white lie might be preferable to telling the absolute truth? I think that, like just about every principle, there are exceptions to the rule. Depending on circumstances. In a life or death situation, like during the Nazi era for instance, lying about one’s ethnic roots made perfect sense if you wanted to stay alive.

But let’s take a less drastic situation – like if we’re visiting friends for dinner and the hostess asks us whether we are enjoying the casserole that she served up. But if the casserole tastes like burnt rubber, should we be honest and answer, “Oohh, it’s awful!“ Or is it better to lie and say that it’s very tasty, or pretend to have toothache or indigestion. Which is worse from a moral point of view? Either tell the truth and hurt someone’s feelings … or tell a white lie so as to spare her feelings. It’s a form of value judgment that we would have to make. There is often a third alternative and that is by simply nodding with a non-committal smile, which is more or less the same as telling her that you don’t like her casserole. Just you’re not being blunt about it.

The outright lie is not the only way that people deceive each other. People also use half-truths, which can be even more deceptive. And many of us also deceive ourselves. Through wishful thinking and denial we often choose to ignore pertinent facts that might be staring us in the face. This is closely related to yet another form of self-deception, which is when we stubbornly cling to old ideas, ways and attitudes, while refusing to consider events and developments that don’t fit our perceptions, and by doing this we can come to wrong conclusions and make disastrous decisions. It’s all part of what’s called cognitive dissonance. Actually it’s a form of lying to ourselves! And most of us – if not all of us – have this tendency from time to time.

* * *

In any human framework, no matter how large or small, when truthfulness and integrity are the factors that determine the general tone, you can be pretty sure of mutual trust and respect, appreciation and cooperation. Whether it’s in the family or any kind of business or organization, such an approach makes the smooth flow of information and sensible decision-making far more likely than when deceit and lying prevail. No doubt about it whatsoever – integrity, honesty and truthfulness help create a far more pleasant, efficient, productive and successful entity in any human framework.

Problems that arise will be more openly discussed and worked out and people will tend to concentrate on doing whatever they are supposed to be doing, to the best of their ability, instead of doubting orders and data, or expecting to be double-crossed. And it would be the same in any form of local or national government.

And the same goes for international relationships. When there’s deviousness on the part of one or more parties, there’ll be no mutual trust, and that can lead to all kinds of serious problems that needn’t have arisen, and which can have awful consequences, as history has so often shown. On the other hand, when there is mutual trust, brought about through openness and honesty, most issues between countries can be more readily and satisfactorily dealt with, which means better commercial and cultural exchange and cooperation, and far less likelihood of tension and conflict, all to the benefit of people everywhere.

But let’s keep things in perspective. These positive qualities – as essential and commendable as they are – won’t solve all problems. Truthfulness won’t prevent an earthquake or ensure success in everything we do. But it will lead to more objective reasoning, less delusion, less suspicion, less mistakes and far, far less corruption, and therefore a much better chance of success in any human endeavor. Actually, if we do keep things in perspective, we might find that truthfulness … is indispensable if we want to redeem our planet.

After all, things are becoming far less manageable than ever before. There are too many people on the planet. Too many stomachs to fill; too many mega-tons of human and industrial waste to dispose of; too many automobiles spewing out noxious fumes, adding to the immense pollution caused by industry and power stations, all fueled by insatiable commercial and political interests. We keep subjecting our planet to unpardonable abuse. There have been clear warning signs for almost a generation that unless we change course, all life on this planet will be harmed and might even go the way of the dinosaur and the dodo. Not tomorrow or the next day, but some time in the not-too-distant future. To compound all this cynical disregard for the future well-being of our world, is a crazed and vicious form of religious fundamentalism, craving the End of Days as a portal to Paradise, and that is now to poised to acquire nuclear weaponry.

What all this means is that humanity must begin to face facts. Every thinking person must begin to face these facts with a maximum degree of honesty and then act accordingly. We are courting peril if we fail to do so. 

Continued: The root of most evil – 2 (https://truthandsurvival.wordpress.com/2011/10/12/the-root-of-most-evil-%e2%80%93-2/)

To order “How to avoid Armageddon” click: http://www.amazon.com type: how to avoid Armageddon

Using lies to try and destroy a nation

The ultimate immorality

By RALPH DOBRIN

Author of “How to Avoid Armageddon”

Available through Amazon

In 1948 hundreds of thousands of Arabs who had been living in Palestine fled their homes and became refugees – and that’s the truth. During six days in June 1967 Israel attacked Jordan, Syria and Egypt and enlarged its territory considerably. This too, is 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. All these statements are all easily verifiable and every rational person – no matter who and no matter where – with a little basic knowledge of the past or the means to check it out can accept that these statements are true.

Behind these truths are many other truths about the Israel-Arab conflict – that are just as easily verified as the above-mentioned ones, but which most people either don’t know or choose to ignore.

For instance, Palestine used to be a much larger country – almost six times as large as present-day Israel within the “green line.” Another fact is that in 1922, the League of Nations confirmed a resolution to set up a Jewish national home in Palestine, based on the famous Balfour Declaration. A few weeks earlier, Britain, which had a mandate from the League of Nations to facilitate this resolution, cut off 77% of Palestine in order to establish a purely Arab state, Trans-Jordan, which was to become the Kingdom of Jordan. Then, in 1947 the rest of what remained of Palestine, was to be further partitioned in accordance with United Nations Resolution 181, which would enable the establishment of yet another Arab state in Palestine, and that long-awaited promised homeland for the Jewish people would be set up on about one-eighth of what had originally been Palestine.

But there was a serious snag. The Arab nations categorically rejected Jewish sovereignty on any part of Palestine, and launched a war with the loudly declared aim of destroying the nascent Jewish state. However, the Jews did what any other nation would have done – they defended themselves, and despite general predictions of defeat and destruction, the Jewish forces more than held their own and eventually repulsed most of the Arab armies, with the exception of the Jordanian Army, which took over the Eastern Part of Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria. There is no problem verifying these claims in any dependable history book of the Middle East, whether Jewish, Arab (written in those times) or by any other neutral source.

But once the war was over, Jordan did not pull its forces out of Arab Palestinian territory. Instead, it actually prevented the establishment of an independent Arab state of Palestine by unilaterally annexing its territory, in a move that was not internationally recognized. This is something that most people today either don’t know or choose to ignore.

So, how did Israel get to occupy the West Bank? Again, what many people either don’t know or choose to ignore, is that in June 1967, all the neighboring countries suddenly massed their armies along Israel’s borders, making it absolutely clear that they were about to invade Israel and put an end to the Jewish entity once and for all. Interestingly, there was absolutely no Jewish presence in the West Bank then.

Vastly outnumbered and outgunned and with its central border a mere nine miles from the sea, Israel once again faced annihilation. Israel tried diplomacy, turning to the United Nations and countries with good contacts in the Arab world. But the U.N. responded to the crisis by summarily pulling out its peace-keeping forces from the Egyptian-Israel border, while Israel’s friends in the family of nations – predominantly France (at that time), and the USA, had suddenly forgotten or even abrogated signed commitments and diplomatic agreements with the seriously threatened state.

So, what was Israel to do? It could not allow itself to be invaded, because it would have literally been swept into the sea by the vastly superior Arab forces poised on its long, indefensible borders. Consequently, Israel launched a blitz-krieg – in the south pre-emptively (although Egypt’s closure of the Straits of Tiran represented an act of war), and against Jordan and Syria after they had first launched massive bombardments.

By repulsing the enemy armies, Israel gained an area almost three times its size. Interestingly, when Israel’s very existence had been gravely threatened, apart from warning Israel not to attack, few countries and the United Nations itself, seemed unduly perturbed. But now, after the Arab armies had been vanquished and Israel’s armed forces had taken over territories from which Israel’s destruction was to have been launched, the international community promptly reacted with great indignation. Dozens of non-Arab and non-Islamic states broke off diplomatic relations with Israel. There was a demand for Israel to immediately withdraw from these territories.

Strange, this sudden concern by the nations of the world, for the territorial integrity of Arab countries that had been about to destroy a fellow-state. Many of these nations had time and again forcibly taken territory from neighboring peoples. And anyway, throughout history, in war, it has always been the winning side that kept the territory upon which battles had been fought, or at least decided what to do with the territory. But not in Israel’s case. Even though, unlike most wars, this one had not been caused by some mundane disagreement on borders or shipping or commercial rights. This had been a war brought on by the Arabs’ repeated, unequivocal declarations and actions to destroy a neighboring country.

Over the years since then, there have been more wars between Israel and the neighboring Arab countries and militia armies; there have been thousands of terrorist attacks against Jewish civilians; Israel has built Jewish towns and settlements in the West Bank; Jordan relinquished its right to the West Bank; there have been peace treaties – sans much friendliness – with Egypt and Jordan. There have also been peace negotiations with the Palestinian Arabs, which have progressively led to ever-more hostility on the part of the Arabs, no matter how many concessions Israel makes to Arab demands.

Yet the focus of international attention on Israel has never been more intense. Neither has the onus on it for Arab-Israel conflict. Many of the accusations leveled against Israel are easily refuted by historical record and by current events, yet selective omission of vital facts lead to the felonious perceptions of Israel. For instance the claim that Israel is expansionist and wants to conquer and keep Arab lands, is easily countered by asking why, if Israel were really expansionist, has it returned over 90% of the lands it conquered in its many wars of defense? Tellingly, it has ceded 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 really expansionist, why did its armed forces withdraw from a large part of Judea and Samaria in the framework of the Oslo Peace Accords? But here too, the army has needed to return from time to time to the vacated areas in order to cope with the intense terrorist activity. We have seen exactly the same pattern regarding Gaza, where in 2005, Israel dismantled all its settlements and withdrew all its armed forces – only to face an immediate intense escalation of missile attacks, which was checked after Israel’s Gaza invasion in 2009. Therefore, claiming that Israel is expansionist is yet another gross misrepresentation of the facts and ignores the part played by Israel’s adversaries in exacerbating this conflict.

The present hullabaloo about Gaza and the repeated headline-catching attempts of activists from Europe and America trying to break Israel’s blockade with “aid ships” presents a classic example of a totally one-sided approach against Israel, giving support to one of the most wantonly warlike and brutal regimes on earth. These activists completely ignore the endless rocket attacks launched against Israel’s towns and villages from Gaza; they deny Israel any right to defend itself (which is the only reason for the blockade), while making unfounded assertions about international law; they claim a humanitarian crisis when none exists and turn a blind eye to the fact that Israel facilitates daily supplies of food and other commodities to a regime bent upon its own destruction – surely a unique situation in the annals of history.

The truth 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 media bias, international sanctions, boycotts and censure every time it tries to defend itself.

There are a number of pragmatic reasons for this peculiar situation. There’s oil, which the Arab countries have in greater supply than anyone else, and which therefore gives them enormous wealth and global political influence. Then there’s the United Nations, which has a very large number of Arab, Muslim and Third World member states, which automatically form a strong anti-Israel bloc. There are also the terrible images of devastation of Arab towns presented in the media whenever the conflict escalates, and that seldom offer much objective commentary on what prompted Israel to launch these bombings in the first place. Furthermore, judging by the far harsher singling out of beleaguered Israel for condemnation in comparison with the truly repressive, belligerent countries such as Sudan, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Indonesia, Myanmar, China and others, anti-Semitism is probably yet another factor. Although, in today’s world where overt racism in the media and in all government capacities is unacceptable, anti-Semitism has taken on an anti-Zionist and anti-Israel twist.

Israel’s vulnerability is seriously aggravated by the enormous stockpiles of hundreds of thousands of rockets of all sizes in all the neighboring countries, in addition to Iran’s nuclear weapons programs. Furthermore, the regime changes throughout the Arab world might very well lead to even more fundamentalistic Islamic influence and fury, heralding a situation in which Israel will find its back to the wall with very little chance of defending itself.

And yet, despite this precarious situation, the pressure on Israel to unconditionally relinquish even more territory to its foes, has never been greater. Clearly, it is not morality and justice that the nations are concerned about in this uniquely uneven conflict. It’s regular oil supplies at stable prices, global power struggles, international politics and old fashioned racial antipathy. It’s a gigantic degree of hypocrisy. In other words, it’s mainly lies, half-truths, cynical selective omission of vital factors and blinkered vision that form the basis of international acquiescence to the generations-long Arab and Islamic gang-up against Israel. In short, it’s plain dishonesty and immorality – on a monumental scale.

That is what people everywhere should realize when they take sides in this mortal conflict.

Ralph Dobrin is the author of “How to Avoid Armageddon,” published by Old Line Publishing and available through Amazon.