Muslims vs. Jews (part one)
Until recently, I didn’t have a substantial appreciation for the complexity of the situation that exists in the Middle East with respect to the conflict between Arabs and Jews. Truth in fact, the conflict, as I’ve discovered, would be better characterized as Muslims versus Jews.
As I’ve trudged my way through “From Time Immemorial…”, I’ve learned some very important distinctions. First of all, many Israeli Jews are, in fact, Arab-born. Second, the so-called “refugee problem” in the area is attributable to the Diaspora as much as it is Palestinians displaced after Israeli statehood in 1948. Third, not only have Arab countries refused to aid the Palestinian refugees over the last 50 years, but they’ve contributed to the problem by both expelling Jews in their countries and using the plight of the Palestinians as a political lever to sustain the conflict between Islam and Zionism.
The Usual Suspects
Since 1948 and the establishment of the Jewish state (of Israel), hundreds of thousands of Arab-born Jews have been expelled from their homes and their countries, separated from their possessions and their heritage at the whim of the predominantly Islamic regimes. The numbers listed herein compare the estimated Jewish populations before 1948 with those as of the early 1980s. (Source: “From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict over Palestine.”) I must admit that I had to take a moment to re-read this table several times to let the information sink in. The Jewish migration was literally orders of magnitude… The abatement of the Jews in these countries wasn’t an overnight phenomenon and not entirely due to emigration; a portion of the population attrition can be attributed to a number of pogroms.
Touted as one of the more “moderate” countries toward the Jews, Morocco currently has the most Jews of the listed Arab countries (18,000 as of 1982). In 1948, however, there were more than 265,000 Jews in Morocco. The second largest attrition of Jews was found in Algeria. Before 1948, the population was estimated between 130,000 and 140,000. By 1982, that number was between 300 and 400. Iraq went from approximately130,000 Jews to 200-300 in 35 years. Current estimates put the Jewish population in Iraq at about 20. In Egypt, the Jewish population was attrited from 75K to 250. Tunisia diminished its numbers from 105,000 to less than 4,000 (a liberal estimate). Libya has all but eradicated its Jewish community, reducing it from 38,000 to a paltry 15-20. These numbers don’t get any easier to follow, so let me simply summarize.
The total estimated number of Jews in Arab countries prior to 1948 was approximately 836,000. By 1982, that total was slashed to just over 29,000. Thirty-five years of Diaspora (Jewish emigration) and pogroms (massacres) have changed the face of the Middle East. Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Aden, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Lebanon, and Libya have all contributed to the modern-day version of the Jewish Exodus. While not specifically mentioned, there are other Arab countries with culpability. In 1948, there were no Jews living in Jordan. In addition, Saudi Arabia cannot be charged with exiling or massacring Jews; they aren’t allowed into the country. There have been rare, notable exceptions, to include U.S. State Department officials who were granted access, but even foreign journalists have been denied visas due to their religious affiliations.
What’s the deal?
So, naturally the question arises, “Why is there such enmity between the Muslims and Jews?” Certainly, Islamic fundamentalists would cite passages from the qur`An (Koran) that specifically moralizes the persecution of the Jews. Furthermore, many Muslims point to the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” as though it was a Jewish manifesto for world domination.
I believe most Muslims today would cite the Damascus blood libel of 1840. And while a number of authorities have exposed the blood libel for the fabrication that it was, some lore is impossible to excise from a culture. To this day, Syria is the harshest Arab country toward its Jewish population, denying them the right to leave their country…a fundamental human right recognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
At this point in my education, I am of the opinion that the “cradle of civilization” hasn’t matured beyond puberty. You know what I’m talking about…the pubescent adolescent who is angry at everyone and everything. In a constant condition of the “world revolves around me”, their quasi-paranoid perceptions lead them to believe that “everyone is out to ruin their lives”. Their tenuous grip on reality is threatened by those who are stronger, smarter, and more emotionally stable. In defense, they shelter themselves, and attack anyone who might even resemble a threat to their fragile stability.
In an interview in 1977, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat acknowledged that “seventy percent of this Arab-Israeli conflict is a psychological problem – it has only thirty percent substance.” Not only do I agree with Sadat’s assessment, – albeit oversimplified – but I would take it a step further and assert that their progress as a civilization is impeded by the same challenges.
The hallmark of a civilized society is not the sophistication of its technology. The hallmark of a civilized society is higher-ordered thinking and behavior that reflects it.
Tuesday, December 30, 2003
Tuesday, December 09, 2003
Traditionalism vs. Secularism
Once again, I lay awake watching FNC and wondering what I’m doing on this planet. The topic for the moment on The O’Reilly Factor is, in effect, whether to return the country to Traditionalism or Secularism as a result of next year’s election. And once again, I have to ask… “Why does it have to be one or the other?” Polar opinions are starting to drive me crazy. I appreciate the value of presenting opposing opinions, but let’s dispense with the pretense that one of the two will be victorious. Ultimately, the Middle Way will prevail because nothing else will be effective.
Am I supposed to believe that by electing Bush that we’ll become a “traditionalist” country? I’m sure in some part that’s true, but it’s impossible to apply it universally. And why do you suppose that is? Because there is enough support for the opposing opinion to “reinstall” it in 4 to 8 years (or at least try).
When will we realize that the Middle Way is what we’re operating to and focus less on political affiliations and more on effecting the appropriate changes in our society?
Once again, I lay awake watching FNC and wondering what I’m doing on this planet. The topic for the moment on The O’Reilly Factor is, in effect, whether to return the country to Traditionalism or Secularism as a result of next year’s election. And once again, I have to ask… “Why does it have to be one or the other?” Polar opinions are starting to drive me crazy. I appreciate the value of presenting opposing opinions, but let’s dispense with the pretense that one of the two will be victorious. Ultimately, the Middle Way will prevail because nothing else will be effective.
Am I supposed to believe that by electing Bush that we’ll become a “traditionalist” country? I’m sure in some part that’s true, but it’s impossible to apply it universally. And why do you suppose that is? Because there is enough support for the opposing opinion to “reinstall” it in 4 to 8 years (or at least try).
When will we realize that the Middle Way is what we’re operating to and focus less on political affiliations and more on effecting the appropriate changes in our society?
Thursday, December 04, 2003
Wednesday, December 03, 2003
Social Decay and the Middle Way
Are we regressing as a society to completely digital thinking? Must everything be black and white, right and wrong, good and evil? Zeros and ones?
When I look at the political landscape in this environment of impending presidential elections, I’m reminded that the country is fairly evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans (red and blue, respectively). While they aren’t truly polar opposites on the political scale, the are certainly closer to the middle than other, more eccentric political groups. It is amazing, however, that we ever get anything accomplished.
So today, I hereby proclaim a new political ideology that I shall call the Middle Way. All right, so it’s not really a new ideology - I stole it from Buddhism - but it would be new to the majority of people in this country. It shall be based upon the simple precept that truth will only be found where our collective perspectives coincide.
It is commonly accepted that a compromise is a lose-lose proposition. When two parties compromise, they sacrifice their positions to meet a middle ground. We must first and foremost dispel this for the sake of the greater good. If we are going to ever accomplish anything we must stop clinging to our polar positions with pride. It is time to respect the views and opinions of our “opponents” and begin the journey to the Middle Way. The fastest flow of the river is in the middle…
Of course, we’ll need a slogan… Rome wasn’t built in a day and if there’s anything I’ve learned, it’s that cultural change is painstakingly slow. Members of the Middle Way answer the question “Is the glass half-empty or half-full?” by replying that “The glass is too big.” (Of course, I intend no offense to Buddhists, who might take a more philosophical approach.) So there it is: “The Middle Way...because the glass is too big.”
I know what you’re thinking… No, I’m not on drugs (unless my wife slipped something into my eggs this morning). It’s just that I’ve been worn down by divisive politics, divisive social commentary, and destructive criticism, in general. Has our myopia gotten so bad that it’s incurable? That we’ve become incapable of seeing the bigger picture?
I admit that 10 years ago I would have said, “Screw this! Why are we spending money to fix problems in foreign countries?” I was an isolationist, but largely because I couldn’t see the big picture. I lacked the perspective to realize that America, with one of the strongest economies in the world, had a significant impact on global economies and cultures. And the cultural impact is the one that has really hit home. As I learn about the perceptions of the billions of much less fortunate people in this world, I realize that we are a victim of our own success. “Corporate America”, while a distinctive group within our society, is axiomatic to a large part of the rest of the world. Consequently, we have fostered a sentiment of pathological jealousy that has risked our lives and the lives of others affiliated with us.
Let's take a common "big picture" issue that can seem to come to a satisfactory closure. How can we combat the simple economics of narcotic trafficking if we can’t offer an equitable alternative? The morality of it notwithstanding, (an issue I won’t begin to debate) the simple landscape of the situation reveals that if we destroy the cocaine, marijuana, and opium crops of Columbian farmers, we have effectively rendered them unemployed. And what do unemployed people do to feed and shelter their families? Anything they can…
Let’s take another simple example of foreign economics. Provide a country with tools and resources to instantiate twentieth century technology in their society and you’ve just created a new customer for services to support it. In addition, this customer can be served by the growing number of other global service providers. By creating a simple demand in a ‘burgeoning market’, you’ve substantiated the foundation of a global economy.
Want more “big picture”? Let’s talk about “trickle down economics”. It’s a term that was popular during the Reagan administration, but largely unpopular with the Middle Class. The oversimplified outline of this concept is based upon putting more money into the hands of the wealthiest so that they, in turn, will invest in the companies that employ the nation’s work force. By default, or so it seemed, the working Middle Class will then benefit from the company’s new-found cash reserves. Like many economic policies (communism, for example), it’s only flawed in its application. The key to making Reaganomics (as it was coined) work is the Labor Unions’ ability to squeeze those reserves out of the tight fists of company executives.
Now, while I’m at it, I’m going to return fire at those who find it necessary to vilify the “wealthiest 10%”. Let’s talk about the wealthy, shall we? In October 2001, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report that showed to be among the wealthiest 20% a household need only to report an annual income of $88,000. To make the Top 10 List, you merely have to make $122,300. Scrape up another $44,200 (to sum to $166,500) and you be among the elite Top 5 percent!
While we’re at it, let’s talk about tax liability. Household incomes totaling $50K or more shoulder the burden of 92.8% of the federal income tax burden (under 2000 law). Change that number to $100K and the number drops to 67.8%. When the truth falls out, household incomes summing more than $200K per year bear 45.2% of the tax burden.
How about this:
You know, if these people continue to cast epithets at those who aspire to be wealthier, then where is the social incentive? Isn’t that what we aspire to in this country? To be wealthier?
I’m not a Democrat or a Republican, by affiliation, but it is because I share the perspectives and views of both that I’m considered a Moderate…a member of the Middle Way.
Enough for now...
Are we regressing as a society to completely digital thinking? Must everything be black and white, right and wrong, good and evil? Zeros and ones?
When I look at the political landscape in this environment of impending presidential elections, I’m reminded that the country is fairly evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans (red and blue, respectively). While they aren’t truly polar opposites on the political scale, the are certainly closer to the middle than other, more eccentric political groups. It is amazing, however, that we ever get anything accomplished.
So today, I hereby proclaim a new political ideology that I shall call the Middle Way. All right, so it’s not really a new ideology - I stole it from Buddhism - but it would be new to the majority of people in this country. It shall be based upon the simple precept that truth will only be found where our collective perspectives coincide.
It is commonly accepted that a compromise is a lose-lose proposition. When two parties compromise, they sacrifice their positions to meet a middle ground. We must first and foremost dispel this for the sake of the greater good. If we are going to ever accomplish anything we must stop clinging to our polar positions with pride. It is time to respect the views and opinions of our “opponents” and begin the journey to the Middle Way. The fastest flow of the river is in the middle…
Of course, we’ll need a slogan… Rome wasn’t built in a day and if there’s anything I’ve learned, it’s that cultural change is painstakingly slow. Members of the Middle Way answer the question “Is the glass half-empty or half-full?” by replying that “The glass is too big.” (Of course, I intend no offense to Buddhists, who might take a more philosophical approach.) So there it is: “The Middle Way...because the glass is too big.”
I know what you’re thinking… No, I’m not on drugs (unless my wife slipped something into my eggs this morning). It’s just that I’ve been worn down by divisive politics, divisive social commentary, and destructive criticism, in general. Has our myopia gotten so bad that it’s incurable? That we’ve become incapable of seeing the bigger picture?
I admit that 10 years ago I would have said, “Screw this! Why are we spending money to fix problems in foreign countries?” I was an isolationist, but largely because I couldn’t see the big picture. I lacked the perspective to realize that America, with one of the strongest economies in the world, had a significant impact on global economies and cultures. And the cultural impact is the one that has really hit home. As I learn about the perceptions of the billions of much less fortunate people in this world, I realize that we are a victim of our own success. “Corporate America”, while a distinctive group within our society, is axiomatic to a large part of the rest of the world. Consequently, we have fostered a sentiment of pathological jealousy that has risked our lives and the lives of others affiliated with us.
Let's take a common "big picture" issue that can seem to come to a satisfactory closure. How can we combat the simple economics of narcotic trafficking if we can’t offer an equitable alternative? The morality of it notwithstanding, (an issue I won’t begin to debate) the simple landscape of the situation reveals that if we destroy the cocaine, marijuana, and opium crops of Columbian farmers, we have effectively rendered them unemployed. And what do unemployed people do to feed and shelter their families? Anything they can…
Let’s take another simple example of foreign economics. Provide a country with tools and resources to instantiate twentieth century technology in their society and you’ve just created a new customer for services to support it. In addition, this customer can be served by the growing number of other global service providers. By creating a simple demand in a ‘burgeoning market’, you’ve substantiated the foundation of a global economy.
Want more “big picture”? Let’s talk about “trickle down economics”. It’s a term that was popular during the Reagan administration, but largely unpopular with the Middle Class. The oversimplified outline of this concept is based upon putting more money into the hands of the wealthiest so that they, in turn, will invest in the companies that employ the nation’s work force. By default, or so it seemed, the working Middle Class will then benefit from the company’s new-found cash reserves. Like many economic policies (communism, for example), it’s only flawed in its application. The key to making Reaganomics (as it was coined) work is the Labor Unions’ ability to squeeze those reserves out of the tight fists of company executives.
Now, while I’m at it, I’m going to return fire at those who find it necessary to vilify the “wealthiest 10%”. Let’s talk about the wealthy, shall we? In October 2001, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report that showed to be among the wealthiest 20% a household need only to report an annual income of $88,000. To make the Top 10 List, you merely have to make $122,300. Scrape up another $44,200 (to sum to $166,500) and you be among the elite Top 5 percent!
While we’re at it, let’s talk about tax liability. Household incomes totaling $50K or more shoulder the burden of 92.8% of the federal income tax burden (under 2000 law). Change that number to $100K and the number drops to 67.8%. When the truth falls out, household incomes summing more than $200K per year bear 45.2% of the tax burden.
How about this:
- 7.8% of the population are among the wealthiest Top 10 percent and bear the burden of 62.1% of the Individual Income Tax Liability.(under 2000 law)
- 15.4% of the population are among the wealthiest Top 20 percent and bear the burden of 75.0% of the Individual Income Tax Liability. (under 2000 law)
You know, if these people continue to cast epithets at those who aspire to be wealthier, then where is the social incentive? Isn’t that what we aspire to in this country? To be wealthier?
I’m not a Democrat or a Republican, by affiliation, but it is because I share the perspectives and views of both that I’m considered a Moderate…a member of the Middle Way.
Enough for now...
Tuesday, December 02, 2003
Parity in Discipline
The more I read Schechter, the more I realized that he (and others like him) are incapable of recognizing simple contradictions. Aside from the arguments about the pre-war planning and the lack of pre-war planning, there are more generic, global contradictions that are ignored.
As the reasons for the war were promulgated, there was constant push-back about the lack of parity being addressed. “So what if Iraq has WMD, so does Korea, Isreal, Pakistan, India, and other countries. Do you plan to invade them too?” This argument suggests that a consistent approach be taken with each “offending country” in violation of the non-proliferation treaty. While I agree to an extent, the issue that I have is that these are the same people arguing about how wrong the U.S. Attorney General was to suggest that courts not deviate from federal sentencing guidelines for criminals (i.e. consistent sentences for the same crimes). If you don’t want to apply it nationally, why would you want to apply it globally? This contradiction seems to go unnoticed.
For any given infraction of the law (nationally or internationally) there are a number of factors (both mitigating and aggravating) that guides the sentencing rationale of the presiding authority. Some criminals, for example, can be recognized as being beyond rehabilitation, remorse, or reconciliation. I am, of course speaking of both national and international criminals. Contrary to “popular belief” (a concept I abhor), all people are not the same. They may be ‘created equal’, but they are not ‘equally created’.
I don’t want to leave the impression that I support the application of universal consistency. Quite the contrary, it is completely appropriate to relate to friends and enemies with the temperament with which they deserve. Remember the first logical fallacy, “All things being equal”… I'm sorry, but my position is that Justice is only blind when she's sleeping. Equal treatment under the law is bereft of compassion and neglects the human condition. When Justice is no longer doled out by humans, THEN we'll have equal treatment under the law...and won't that be fun...
The more I read Schechter, the more I realized that he (and others like him) are incapable of recognizing simple contradictions. Aside from the arguments about the pre-war planning and the lack of pre-war planning, there are more generic, global contradictions that are ignored.
As the reasons for the war were promulgated, there was constant push-back about the lack of parity being addressed. “So what if Iraq has WMD, so does Korea, Isreal, Pakistan, India, and other countries. Do you plan to invade them too?” This argument suggests that a consistent approach be taken with each “offending country” in violation of the non-proliferation treaty. While I agree to an extent, the issue that I have is that these are the same people arguing about how wrong the U.S. Attorney General was to suggest that courts not deviate from federal sentencing guidelines for criminals (i.e. consistent sentences for the same crimes). If you don’t want to apply it nationally, why would you want to apply it globally? This contradiction seems to go unnoticed.
For any given infraction of the law (nationally or internationally) there are a number of factors (both mitigating and aggravating) that guides the sentencing rationale of the presiding authority. Some criminals, for example, can be recognized as being beyond rehabilitation, remorse, or reconciliation. I am, of course speaking of both national and international criminals. Contrary to “popular belief” (a concept I abhor), all people are not the same. They may be ‘created equal’, but they are not ‘equally created’.
I don’t want to leave the impression that I support the application of universal consistency. Quite the contrary, it is completely appropriate to relate to friends and enemies with the temperament with which they deserve. Remember the first logical fallacy, “All things being equal”… I'm sorry, but my position is that Justice is only blind when she's sleeping. Equal treatment under the law is bereft of compassion and neglects the human condition. When Justice is no longer doled out by humans, THEN we'll have equal treatment under the law...and won't that be fun...
Guerrilla Warfare, Freedom Fighters, Insurgents, Terrorists, et al
The “raiding” that is being employed in Iraq has been a topic of criticism of late. Not by American media, ironically (or perhaps not), but by Iraqi citizens themselves. The operations being prosecuted in the Sunni Triangle are following a simple precept: Arabs are motivated by greed and humiliation. They are, by and large, emotional human beings whose spirit and drive swings quicker than the mood of a menstrual woman. When the armed forces got as much as they could through the appeal of easy money, they switched tactics. During recent events, where property was “disposed of”, it became a tactic that addressed BOTH greed and humiliation. Now, it is openly recognized that this tactic can either leave them feeling defeated or raise their ire to a fevered pitch. In either case, rational, calculated thought goes right out the window...and the resulting mistakes mean victory for the troops.
I can’t count how many times I have said that the administration's understanding of the culture of these people is feckless? This is a simple illustration of that, is it not? Even I can see that these actions have the potential to further bolster the indignity of the people. The problem is that while everyone screams that this is a terrible and awful way of prosecuting an operation, no one is coming to the table with an effective alternative.
But these “decent people” (as they’ve been deemed) are, by and large, simple-minded people of the same ilk regularly recruited to sacrifice their lives for the sake of honor. And while I'm chiefly referring to militants and terrorists, I contend it applies to members of the armed forces of any country. And while they are away from their families they do unspeakable things that even their closest family will never know.
To the defenders of those “decent people”, I say “Don't be naive.” Those people of Tikrit are just as capable as anyone of being the next suicide bomber that kills tens, hundreds, or thousands of people. In fact, they represent the typical profile. Under-privileged. Uneducated. Disenfranchised. Suffering from poverty of dignity. Moreover, the Arab terrorist is pathologically jealous. Internally they feel unredeemable, except through acts of self-sacrifice.
I'm sick of hearing the expression "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". It's bullshit and blurs the line of what little morality there may be in open, armed conflict (a.k.a. WAR). While I don't support the guerillas in the article below, I don't classify them as terrorists. They clearly target military forces and not civilians. Make no mistake, however, they are combatants and, as such, are not protected as civilians under the Geneva Conventions. Furthermore, if coalition forces are raiding homes of engineers, wholesalers, and retired generals, then by Jove, they're on the right track.
This is war. It isn't over. No one said it was over. Bush said there was an end to major combat operations (defined as company-sized (or greater) conflicts between opposing forces). That's not an end to the war. You can look for two indicators for the war to be over; the release of all prisoners of war and the replacement of the occupying force with a peacekeeping force. Those things will define the war's end regardless of the return of Iraqi sovereignty. No, I contend that the condition that exists in Iraq is akin to Martial Law, and by definition certain civil liberties are superceded until common law is in force. And they haven’t earned that right, yet.
(Take note of the surprise of the family at the admission of complicity by one of the people being interviewed. How could they not know?)
AP: Iraqis Say Saddam Not Leading Attacks
The “raiding” that is being employed in Iraq has been a topic of criticism of late. Not by American media, ironically (or perhaps not), but by Iraqi citizens themselves. The operations being prosecuted in the Sunni Triangle are following a simple precept: Arabs are motivated by greed and humiliation. They are, by and large, emotional human beings whose spirit and drive swings quicker than the mood of a menstrual woman. When the armed forces got as much as they could through the appeal of easy money, they switched tactics. During recent events, where property was “disposed of”, it became a tactic that addressed BOTH greed and humiliation. Now, it is openly recognized that this tactic can either leave them feeling defeated or raise their ire to a fevered pitch. In either case, rational, calculated thought goes right out the window...and the resulting mistakes mean victory for the troops.
I can’t count how many times I have said that the administration's understanding of the culture of these people is feckless? This is a simple illustration of that, is it not? Even I can see that these actions have the potential to further bolster the indignity of the people. The problem is that while everyone screams that this is a terrible and awful way of prosecuting an operation, no one is coming to the table with an effective alternative.
But these “decent people” (as they’ve been deemed) are, by and large, simple-minded people of the same ilk regularly recruited to sacrifice their lives for the sake of honor. And while I'm chiefly referring to militants and terrorists, I contend it applies to members of the armed forces of any country. And while they are away from their families they do unspeakable things that even their closest family will never know.
To the defenders of those “decent people”, I say “Don't be naive.” Those people of Tikrit are just as capable as anyone of being the next suicide bomber that kills tens, hundreds, or thousands of people. In fact, they represent the typical profile. Under-privileged. Uneducated. Disenfranchised. Suffering from poverty of dignity. Moreover, the Arab terrorist is pathologically jealous. Internally they feel unredeemable, except through acts of self-sacrifice.
I'm sick of hearing the expression "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". It's bullshit and blurs the line of what little morality there may be in open, armed conflict (a.k.a. WAR). While I don't support the guerillas in the article below, I don't classify them as terrorists. They clearly target military forces and not civilians. Make no mistake, however, they are combatants and, as such, are not protected as civilians under the Geneva Conventions. Furthermore, if coalition forces are raiding homes of engineers, wholesalers, and retired generals, then by Jove, they're on the right track.
This is war. It isn't over. No one said it was over. Bush said there was an end to major combat operations (defined as company-sized (or greater) conflicts between opposing forces). That's not an end to the war. You can look for two indicators for the war to be over; the release of all prisoners of war and the replacement of the occupying force with a peacekeeping force. Those things will define the war's end regardless of the return of Iraqi sovereignty. No, I contend that the condition that exists in Iraq is akin to Martial Law, and by definition certain civil liberties are superceded until common law is in force. And they haven’t earned that right, yet.
(Take note of the surprise of the family at the admission of complicity by one of the people being interviewed. How could they not know?)
AP: Iraqis Say Saddam Not Leading Attacks
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
