Between God and Mammon

A blog about religion, politics, business, and economics.

Category: Politics (Page 1 of 2)

Brief History of Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

November 27, 2023 /

1917  Balfour Declaration by the British Government, supporting a “national home” for the Jewish people in Palestine.

1917 – 1948  British Mandate in Palestine. British take Palestine from the Ottomans. In 1919, the newly established League of Nations gave the British a mandate over Palestine and a separate mandate over the area east of the Jordan River.

1917    Expelled Jews allowed to return.

1919 – 1923  Third Aliyah. 40,000 Jews immigrated.

1921  Jaffa riots. Arab mobs violently attacked Jewish population.

1924 – 1928  Fourth Aliyah. More than 80,000 Jews immigrated.

1929 – 1939  Fifth Aliyah. 225,000-300,000 Jewish immigrants.

1929  Palestine riots. Arab mobs attacked Jewish population centers. Triggered by a dispute over access to the Western Wall of Temple Mount.

1936 – 1939  Arab revolt. Arabs revolted against British, calling for independence and an end to Jewish immigration as well as Jewish land purchases.

1947  Approximately 630,000 Jews and 1.2 million Arabs lived in Palestine.

1947 (Nov. 29)  UN General Assembly approves a partition plan for Palestine.

1947-48  Civil War between Jews and Arabs

1948 (May 14)  State if Israel announced on the eve of the end of the British Mandate.

1948  Arab-Israeli War. Arab armies from Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq attack the new State of Israel on May 15. The war lasts until 1949, ending with a series of armistices (Egypt: 24 February, Lebanon on 23 March, Transjordan on 3 April, and Syria on 20 July). The armistice lines, called the Green Line, formed the borders of Israel until the 1967 war. Israel greatly expanded its territory. Jordan annexed the West Bank and Egypt the Gaza Strip.

            Around 750,000 Arabs fled or were expelled (Nakba, or catastrophe). Surrounding Arab countries put them in camps and refused to assimilate them. 156,000 Arabs remained in Israel and became citizens. Jordan expelled Jewish residents from the Old City of Jerusalem.

1948-1972  Large-scale Jewish emigration from the Muslim world (much of it forced). Between 800,000 and 1,000,000 Jews emigrated; 650,000 settled in Israel.

1948-1951  700,000 Jews immigrated to Israel, including 300,000 from Muslim countries.

1956  Suez Crisis. Israel, the United Kingdom, and France attack Egypt to regain control of the Suez Canal. The U.S. and the U.S.S.R. pressured the parties to withdraw.

1964  Palestine Liberation Organization founded with the goal of establishing an Arab state over all of the former Mandate of Palestine, eliminating the State of Israel. Also, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) was established

1967  (June 5 – 10)  Six Day War. In May, 1967, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, cutting off Israel’s southern port, Aqaba. It mobilized its troops and demanded that the UN withdraw peacekeepers from Sinai. Israel struck launched a pre-emptive strike against Egypt on June 5, destroying its air assets on the ground. It attacked the Gaza Strip and Sinai, which it seized. Jordan attacked Israel, assisted by Iraq, and Israel counterattacked, seizing East Jerusalem and the West Bank. On Day 5, Syria joined the war. Israel countered by seizing the Golan Heights.

            This was followed by a war of attrition between Egypt and Israel, in which each side shelled the other side’s military positions across the Suez Canal.

            The result: Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip and Sinai, Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank. Between 200,000 to 250,000 civilians fled the West Bank (out of a total population of 1,000,000). Between 80,000 and 110,000 Syrians fled the Golan Heights.

June 19, the Israeli government decided to return Sinai (but not the Gaza Strip) and the Golan Heights in return for a peace agreement and demilitarization. In September at the Khartoum Arab Summit, the Arab countries rejected it, under the motto “no peace, no recognition and no negotiation with Israel”. But starting in 1971, Egypt began making overtures through the U.S., offering peace if Israel returned the Sinai and other Arab territories.

On June 25-27, Israeli incorporated East Jerusalem into a united Jerusalem municipality, effectively annexing it.

Gush Enunim launched a settlement program in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and now there are hundreds of thousands of Israeli settlers (no longer in Gaza), which is an obstacle to a peace solution.

1968   The PLO and PFLP  began a campaign of international terror, primarily directed at hijacking El Al flights. The PLO also began to attack Jordanian interests.

1970    Black September. Jordan fights and expels PLO from Jordan. PLO moves to Lebanon.

1972    Munich Olympics Massacre. Palestinian terrorists, assisted by German Neo-Nazis, capture then kill 11 members of the Israeli Olympic Team.

1973    Yom Kippur War, October 6 – 25. Egypt and Syria, helped by expeditionary forces from other Arab countries, Cuba, and North Korea, launched a surprise attack against Israel on October 6, Yom Kippur, a high Jewish holiday. Israel was taken by surprise and suffered initial losses. It counterattacked and drove the Syrians from Golan and pushed the Egyptians back. It then crossed the Suez Canal and encircled the Egyptian Third Army.

            After the ceasefire, Egypt and Israel agreed to disengage, with the Israelis returning back across the Suez Canal but retaining most of the Sinai. A disengagement agreement was made with Syria in 1974, with Israel returning to the ceasefire line of 1967.

1975    Lebanese civil war begins, at first between Christian militias and Palestinians (PLO). Soon other Lebanese groups joined in. Fighting lasted until 1990.

1977    Egyptian president Sadat visits Israel and speaks before the Knesset.

 1978   Peace talks between Egypt and Israel, hosted by U.S. President Carter. Called the Camp David Accords after the venue, resulted in a peace agreement between Israel and Egypt. Israel withdrew from Sinai but retained the Gaza Strip. In 1981, Sadat was assassinated by angry military officers, but his successors have maintained peace with Israel.

1981    Palestinian Islamic Jihad founded. It calls for the military destruction of Israel and rejects a two-state solution. Its military wing is the Al Quds Brigade (Al Quds is the Arabic designation of Jerusalem).

1982-1985   Israel invades Lebanon to defeat PLO forces in southern Lebanon, which had been attacking northern Israel. It continued its advance to Beirut, where the PLO had its headquarters. The PLO received help from Syrian forces. Israel drove the Syrians out to the Bekaa Valley and besieged Beirut. In August and September, 14,000 PLO fighters evacuated to Tunisia, where they established their new headquarters. In 1982, US Marines landed in Lebanon as part of the Multinational Force supervising the truce between Israel and the PLO. October 23, 1983, Shia suicide bombers drove into the French and American military barracks, killing 241 Marines and 58 French paratroopers. In June 1985, Israel withdrew to a buffer zone in southern Lebanon. Conflict with the Lebanese Shia militia Hizbollah began.

1987-1993  First Intifada in the occupied territories. Much of it consisted of non-violent political actions, but there were also violent actions, and the first suicide attacks began. 160 Israelis and 2,162 Palestinians were killed, including 1,000 Palestinians killed by other Palestinians under the accusation of being collaborators. It ended with the Oslo Accords.

1987    Hamas founded as an explicitly Islamic resistance movement. The founding charter of Hamas mandates the killing of Jews, the destruction of the state of Israel, and advocates for the establishment of an Islamic state in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank.

1993 – 1995    First Oslo Accord (Declaration of Principles) agreed on in Washington on September 13, 1993. The PLO recognized the existence of Israel and Israel recognized the PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. The Second Oslo Accord, negotiated in Taba, Egypt in 1995, established the Palestinian Authority and a stepwise withdrawal of the Israeli military from Gaza and the West Bank. The West Bank was divided into three areas: A, B, and C. The Israeli military remains in areas B and C. Negotiations on a final status agreement were supposed to begin. Israeli prime minister Yitshak Rabin was assassinated by a far-right Israeli settler  in 1995.

2000    U.S. president Bill Clinton hosted the Camp David Summit between Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat. Israel offered a Palestinian state initially on 73% of the West Bank (that is, 27% less than the Green Line borders) and 100% of the Gaza Strip. In 10–25 years, the Palestinian state would expand to a maximum of 92% of the West Bank (91 percent of the West Bank and 1 percent from a land swap). Israel would keep a swath of land between Maale Adumim (7 km east of Jerusalem) and the Jordan River and would also control the border between Jordan and the West Bank. The Palestinians said this would divide their state into 3 sections on the West Bank. Palestine would also have sovereignty over the Temple Mount but not the Western Wall. An elevated highway would connect Gaza and the West Bank. The right of return remained a sticking point – the Israelis rejected it and the Palestinians insisted on it. The parties failed to reach agreement, and in 2001 hawkish Ariel Sharon replaced Ehud Barak. The discussions surrounding the Camp David Summit were perhaps the last best chance to reach an agreement.

2000-2005  On September 28, 2000, Ariel Sharon’s led a Likud delegation to visit the Temple Mount. The Second Intifada began the next day, with Palestinians throwing rocks at Jews worshiping at the Western Wall. The Intifada lasted at least until 2005. Approximately 1000 Israelis and 4800 Palestinians were killed plus an additional 577 Palestinians by other Palestinians.

2004    Yassir Arafat died on November 11.

2005    Mahmoud Abbas elected president of the Palestinian National Authority (later also State of Palestine).

2005    Israel, under right-wing Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, dismantles 21 settlements and withdraws completely from the Gaza Strip. It also evacuated 4 settlements from the northern West Bank. Israel instituted a partial blockade of Gaza to prevent military and dual use supplies from entering the Strip. The next three years saw a sharp rise in rocket attacks against Israel.

2006    Hamas won legislative elections and formed a government under Ismail Haniya.

2006    Hamas raided Israel from Gaza and abducted Corporal Gilad Shalit. Israel responded with Operation Summer Rains, which consisted of increased shelling and ground incursions, with the goal of stopping rocket attacks and rescuing Corporal Shalit. Israel also destroyed Gaza’s only power station.

2006-8            Negotiations between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. On September 16, 2008, Olmert offered a plan that was more generous than the 2000 plan offered at the Camp David Summit. The West Bank would not be divided and there would be a tunnel between it and Gaza. Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem would be under the PA’s authority, which would make it possible to establish a Palestinian capital in Jerusalem. Small, isolated Jewish settlements would be dismantled. Large ones annexed by Israel, but land given to Palestinians in compensation. No right of return (only 1000 per year for 5 years), but a fund to help compensate refugees. Abbas rejected the offer, because he was not given the opportunity to study a detailed plan of Jerusalem.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ehud-olmert-s-peace-offer and https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/diplomacy-defense/92894-151119-abbas-says-he-rejected-olmert-peace-offer-in-2008-over-unseen-map

2007    Battle of Gaza, June 10-14. Armed Hamas militants violently seized PA facilities in Gaza and dismissed all non-Hamas officials. President Abbas dissolved the Hamas-led Haniya government, replacing it with a government led by Salam Fayyad.

2008-9            On February 27, Palestinian militants fired more than 40 rockets from northern Gaza. Israel responded with Operation Hot Winter, launching air attacks against militants and government facilities in Gaza. A ceasefire was negotiated. Israel broke the ceasefire on November 4 in response to finding a tunnel on the border, which it said would be used to capture more Israeli soldiers. Hamas responded by launching rocket attacks. Israel began an offensive on December 28 called Operation Cast Lead and began a ground invasion on January 3. An estimated 1,116-1,417 Palestinians and 13 Israelis died.

2011    On August 18, Palestinian militants launched cross-border attacks on civilian and military targets.

2012    On March 9, Israel carried out a targeted air strike in the Gaza Strip killing Zohair al-Qaisi, the secretary general of the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC). Israel said it was a preemptive attack to prevent a massive cross-border attack that al-Qaisi was planning. Militants responded with a massive wave of rocket attacks. Israel’s response was Operation Returning Echo. Israel bombed targets connected with Islamic Jihad and Popular Resistance Committees. In October, Israel targeted Ahmed Jabari, chief of the Hamas military wing.

2014    Gaza War. Israel launched Operation Protective Edge on July 8 in response to Hamas rocket attacks. On July 17, Israeli troops entered the Gaza Strip. This war killed 2,205 Palestinians and 71 Israelis plus 1 foreign national.

            Jerusalem Unrest on the West Bank, especially in July. Sometimes called the Third Intifada. More than 150 attacks. On November 18, the synagogue massacre, in which two Palestinians attacked worshipers with knives and axes, killing four plus a responding police officer.

2015-6 “Intifada of the Individuals” on the West Bank. Uncoordinated attacks in response to the Israeli Agricultural Minister’s public prayers on the Temple Mount. Period of unrest lasted well into 2016.

2017    Temple Mount crisis. July 14, three armed Israeli-Arabs shot and killed two Israeli police officers guarding an entrance to the Temple Mount. Israel responded by setting up metal detectors, which triggered a wave of unrest in which 11 people died. The metal detectors were removed on July 27.

            December: “Day of rage”, including protests and clashes throughout the West Bank, after President Trump announces decision to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

2018    Gaza border protests, including clashes with Israeli border troops.

2019    Multiple clashes between Israel and Gaza militants.

            November 26, “day of rage” on the West Bank and Gaza after U.S: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared that Israeli settlements were not illegal.

2021    Rocket attacks on Israel, followed by air attacks on militants in Gaza.

2022    Israel launched airstrikes on Gaza.

2023    April-May. Militants fired rockets into Israel. Israel responded with airstrikes.

            October 7, Hamas launched a well-prepared ground attack on southern Israel as well as simultaneous rocket attacks. Some 1,400 Israelis, mostly civilians, were murdered and 240 taken hostage. Israel responded with air attacks and, since October 27, a ground offensive called Operation Swords of Iron, which is ongoing. Israel’s goal is the return of all hostages and the destruction of Hamas.

Discussion of Resignation Letter by Craig Mokhiber

November 27, 2023 /

By Greg Rampinelli

Craig Mokhiber was Director of the New York Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. He resigned on October 28, 2023, due to what he calls the UN’s failure in Gaza. The letter can be found here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24103463-craig-mokhiber-resignation-letter.

Mokhiber’s Accusations

In the letter, he accuses Israel of genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza and of seizing and reassigning homes in Jerusalem based solely on race. He also says violent settler pogroms are accompanied by Israeli military units. Moreover, he claims that Apartheid rules “across the land”. In addition, he accuses “western corporate media” of continuously “dehumanizing Palestinians to facilitate the genocide, and broadcasting propaganda for war and advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, and violence.”

Accusation: Israel is committing genocide

Mokhiber does not mention the Hamas attacks of October 7, 2023, in which Hamas fighters brutally murdered some 1400 Israelis. It was this which triggered the Israeli counterstrikes and invasion of Gaza.

Article II of the Genocide Convention defines genocide as follows.

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

  1. Killing members of the group;
  2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

To qualify as genocide, the intent to destroy a group, in whole or in part, is essential. Mokhiber provides no evidence that Israel is trying to destroy the Palestinians in Gaza. It is trying to destroy Hamas, an organization recognized as terrorist by much of the world. There are, of course, enraged Israelis who would contemplate that. Hamas, by the way, still wants to destroy the State of Israel and establish an Islamic state “from the River to the Sea”. What that would mean for the 7 million Jews in Israel is easy to imagine.

Israel is conducting air and ground operations in the Gaza Strip to root out and destroy Hamas. Israel claims it is targeting military targets only. Urban warfare is very bloody, and Gaza is densely populated. In the battle for Mosul against ISIS, between 9000 and 11000 civilians died, according to the Associated Press. Those civilians who have not fled northern Gaza, where fighting is currently concentrated, are in danger of being killed in the military operations. While the civilian losses are horrific, they are not evidence of genocide.

The letter accuses Israel of genocide, not of war crimes. Mokhiber would stand on firmer ground if he had accused Israel of war crimes. Crimes occur in all major wars. Civilized countries try to avoid them and punish the perpetrators when discovered. But is Israel committing war crimes?

The International Committee of the Red Cross states these principles of International Humanitarian Law, which commanders must ensure are followed:

Distinction: You must always clearly distinguish between combatants and civilians or the civilian population as such. Combatants may of course be attacked unless they are out of action, i.e. they are hors de combat. Civilians are protected from attack but lose that protection whenever they take a direct part in hostilities for the time of their participation.

Proportionality: When military objectives are attacked, civilians and civilian objects must be spared from incidental or collateral damage to the maximum extent possible. Incidental damage must not be excessive in relation to the direct and concrete military advantage you anticipate from your operations.

Military necessity: “the only legitimate object which States should endeavour to accomplish during war is to weaken the military forces of the enemy” and that “for this purpose it is sufficient to disable the greatest possible number of men.” It allows for whatever reasonable force is necessary, is lawful and can be operationally justified in combat to make your opponent submit. 

Limitation: Weapons and tactics that are of a nature to cause unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury are prohibited. It applies, for example, to weapons designed to cause injuries that are impossible to treat or that result in a cruel and lingering death.

Good faith: The military should show good faith in their interpretation of the law of armed conflict. Good faith must also be observed in negotiations between opponents and with humanitarian organizations.

Humane treatment and non-discrimination: All people must be treated humanely and without discrimination based on sex, nationality, race, religion or political beliefs. Those who are out of action (hors de combat), such as surrendering combatants, air crew parachuting from downed aircraft, the wounded, sick and shipwrecked, prisoners of war and other captives and detainees, must be identified as such and treated humanely.

Regarding civilian infrastructure, Hague IV states:

Article 25: The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.

Article 26: The officer in command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault, do all in his power to warn the authorities.


Article 27: In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.

It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand.[2]

Hospitals, schools, and the like must be spared unless they are being used for military purposes. If a school is used to store large amounts of ammunition, for example, it becomes a legitimate military target. Power stations are legitimate military targets if enemy forces are drawing power from them. The principles of proportionality and military necessity apply, but these are judgment calls.

Israel’s military operations are clearly causing massive civilian casualties. Israel is not carpet-bombing Gaza: It selects its targets based on its understanding of military necessity. But in an urban environment, “collateral damage” is inevitable. If civilians share an apartment block with a Hamas commander, Israel can attack the commander, which will cause civilian casualties. This is not a war crime, unless it is militarily unnecessary or collateral damage is unproportional, which is subjective. We will probably not know until after the war whether Israel committed war crimes, but war crimes are common in such wars, and are not genocide.

Mokhiber also accuses Israel of seizing and reassigning homes in Jerusalem based solely on race. He gives no specifics, but he might be referring to cases such as that of Ghaith-Sub Laban. https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-jerusalem-old-city-evictions-east-c53ae70f2fa76e4b1f4b528bca4ff35e

Her apartment used to belong to Jews, who were forced to flee when Jordan conquered East Jerusalem in 1948. Israel annexed East Jerusalem after the Six-Day War in 1967, and decided to return property to Jews who were expropriated in 1948. Germany did something similar after reunification in 1991. Of course, this principle does not apply to Palestinians who were forced out of their homes in Israel in 1948, who are not allowed to return, so it seems unfair. But it’s not genocide.

Mokhiber claims that settler pogroms are accompanied by military units. He gives no specifics. Israeli settlers in the West Bank have attacked Palestinian civilians, and Palestinian civilians have attacked them. It is a problem, but violence is not one-sided. Jewish settlers have also attacked Israeli soldiers https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israel-palestinians-jewish-settlers-storrm-town-pepper-spray-soldiers-rcna53240. If Mokhiber has specific cases of Israeli settlers being accompanied by Israeli military units when attacking Palestinians, he should cite them.  

Accusation: Apartheid rules “across the land”

Does Israel practice Apartheid? If we define Apartheid as in South Africa (or the U.S. South under Jim Crow), it does not practice Apartheid in Israel itself. Arab Israelis are citizens and have essentially all the rights that Jewish citizens have. There are currently nine Arab members of the Knesset plus one Arabic-speaking Druze member. As there are 120 members of the Knesset in total, Arabs are underrepresented, but they are present. An Israeli Arab, Khaled Kabub, was appointed to Israel’s Supreme Court in 2022.

As of March 2023, Israel’s population stands at approximately 9.73 million. Jews make up the majority at 73.5% (about 7.145 million individuals).[3] The Arab community, spanning various religions excluding Judaism, accounts for 21% (around 2.048 million). An additional 5.5% (roughly 534,000 individuals) are classified as “others”. This diverse group comprises those with Jewish ancestry but not recognized as Jewish by religious law, non-Jewish family members of Jewish immigrants, Christian non-Arabs, Muslim non-Arabs, and residents without a distinct ethnic or religious categorization.[4] 

Regarding education, more and more Arab-Israelis are attending college, both in absolute terms and proportionately.  In 2021, they were about 17% of all students in Israel, somewhat less than their 21% share of the population. https://che.org.il/en

Israeli Arabs, both Christian and Muslim, can serve in the Israeli Defense Force, but are not subject to conscription.

Israel is an explicitly Jewish state, established to be a homeland for Jews worldwide, so there is some discrimination, especially regarding immigration. Israeli Arabs may very well experience discrimination in employment and housing, which is a common experience of minorities everywhere, but this is improving. This is not Apartheid.

If Mokhaber is referring to the West Bank, he could make a much stronger argument. The West Bank is still occupied, and its residents are not Israeli citizens, except for the settlers. Israel considers them an unfriendly, possibly enemy population, and keeps them under control for security reasons. The solution is to end the Occupation, but this requires a peace agreement. Ehud Olmert’s proposal of 2008 was the best chance yet to achieve this.

Western “corporate media” continuously dehumanizes Palestinians

Is he talking about Fox News?

In my opinion, much of the western media is very sympathetic to the plight of Palestinian civilians, but not to Hamas. The media outlets I watch try to present both sides and are somewhat skeptical about Netanyahu and the Israeli military’s account. This is a matter of perception, of course. Both sides accuse the media of bias toward the other side.

Here’s an interesting anecdote about an NBC journalist who took Hamas’s side in the October 7 attacks: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/nbc-journalist-arrested-by-israeli-police-for-cheering-on-hamas-during-horrific-terror-attack/

Mokhiber’s Solution

To remedy the problem, Mokhiber recommends the following:

  • One state based on human rights
  • Return and compensation for Palestinian refugees
  • Disarmament of Israel’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons

One-state based on human rights

The UN in 1948 established a Jewish state and an Arab state in the British Mandate of Palestine west of the Jordan River. Since the Balfour Declaration of 1917, Palestine was supposed to become a homeland for the Jews, where they could be safe. The Holocaust showed that a Jewish state was essential. Jews have been safest in western Europe and the U.S., but even there, anti-Semitism is rising. A Jewish state is needed now as much as before.

The conflict between Arabs and Israelis prior to 1948 showed that a unitary state would be filled with conflict: One side would dominate and oppress the other. This is what Mokhiber accuses Israel of doing. If the unitary state were dominated by the Arabs, would they suddenly treat the Jews fairly? Recent history shows they would not!

As for “based on human rights”, where do we find that in the Arab world? That is totally unrealistic. A unitary state in Palestine would turn the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into an internal one, a civil war. Is that a good solution?

Many Palestinians want a unitary state because they believe they would dominate it. According to the Arab Center in Washington, D.C., the estimated number of Palestinians at the end of 2021 was about 14 million: 5.3 million in the State of Palestine (3.2 million in the West Bank and 2.1 million in the Gaza Strip), 1.7 million in the 1948 territories, and nearly 7 million in the diaspora (6.3 million live in Arab countries and 750,000 in foreign countries). https://arabcenterdc.org/resource/brief-report-on-the-population-of-palestine-at-the-end-of-2021.

There are 7 million Jews in Israel. Even if none of the Palestinians in the diaspora returned, the number of Palestinians would equal the number of Jews in a unitary state. Israel/Palestine would no longer be a Jewish state and would not be safe as a homeland for the Jews.

Far-right Israelis also want a unitary state “from the river to the sea”, but they want it to be Jewish, with the Arabs expelled.

Both Jews and Palestinians have legitimate historical claims to the land. Palestine “from the river to the sea” was the land of Israel in biblical times. Even after the Bar Kochba revolts in 136 A.D., Jews remained the majority of the population. Eventually, the land became Arab and Muslim, but Jews maintained a significant presence in the land. Palestinians, of course, have also lived there for centuries. If they cannot live together in peace in a unitary state, a two-state solution is best, as the UN envisioned in 1948. Ehud Olmert’s plan of 2008 would have been a good solution, but the Palestinians rejected it.    

Return and compensation for Palestinian refugees

During the 1948 War, 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled Israel. Since the surrounding Arab countries refused to assimilate them but insisted on return, the descendants of the original refugees are also considered to be refugees. Accordingly, about 5 million Palestinians are considered refugees. If they all returned to Israel, it would no longer be a Jewish state and not a safe homeland for the Jews.

At the end of World War II, millions of Germans fled eastern Europe to what remained of Germany. They were assimilated. Do they have legitimate claims to return to their ancestral lands?

Reasonable compensation of Palestinian refugees would be appropriate, and Israel has offered that as part of a peace agreement, but a right of return, if fully exercised, would destroy Israel.

Disarmament of Israel’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons

Israel has never admitted to having nuclear weapons, but it is very likely that it has them. Israel probably does not have chemical or biological weapons, although it could make them. As long as Israel is threatened, by Iran, for example, it will not voluntarily give up its nuclear weapons. That would be national suicide. The United Nations realistically cannot make that happen.

Conclusion

Hamas’s attack on Israeli civilians on October 7, 2023, was horrific. It murdered some 1400 peaceful, unarmed civilians in shockingly brutal ways. And given the chance, it will do it again. Ghazi Hamad, a senior Hamas official, told the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation on October 24, 2023: “We must teach Israel a lesson, and we will do it again and again. The Al-Aqsa Deluge [the name Hamas gave its 7 October onslaught – ed.] is just the first time, and there will be a second, a third, a fourth. Will we have to pay a price? Yes, and we are ready to pay it. We are called a nation of martyrs, and we are proud to sacrifice martyrs.”

For the peace of Palestine and the security of Israel, Hamas must be destroyed, just as the Nazis had to be destroyed in World War II.

An opinion poll of Palestinians conducted by Birzeit University, Ramallah (West Bank) showed that some 75% of Palestinians support the Hamas-led slaughter of Oct. 7. Likewise, 75% of Palestinians seek the annihilation of Israel. They want a Palestine “from the river to the sea.” This position is distinct from a position of supporting a Jewish-Arab state from the river to the sea, or the so-called “one-state solution,” which only 5.4% of Palestinians support. Another 17.2% support the two-state solution.

Right-wing Israelis cite this to support their own preference of a Jewish state from the River to the Sea, but that would require the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their ancestral home, which is morally unacceptable. The current situation in the West Bank is morally unacceptable and will continue to breed terror attacks. Palestinians need a greater degree of self-rule so they can develop economically and socially. But they need to give up their dream of driving Israel into the sea.

One option would be for Egypt to take over the Gaza Strip and Jordan the West Bank. Israel would probably welcome that, but neither the Palestinians nor Egypt and Jordan want that. The most feasible solution is a two-state solution with a demilitarized Palestinian state subject to some kind of outside monitoring. Prime Minister Olmert’s proposal in 2008 would have been a fair solution. Perhaps it can be resurrected.

If Mokhiber really wants peace in Palestine, he should support a negotiated two-state solution. In the meantime, he and other “human rights activists” should try to be more even-handed. Israelis don’t consider the United Nations a neutral actor. In that, I believe Israel is right. If the UN cannot condemn the Hamas atrocity of October 7, 2023, without reservation, it has lost all moral authority.

Brief History of the Jews in the Holy Land Up to 1917

November 27, 2023 /

Abraham (ca. 2000 B.C.) “To your descendants I give this land, from the Wadi of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates – the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites.” (Genesis 15:18-21)

“I will establish your borders from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean Sea, and from the desert to the Euphrates River. I will give into your hands the people who live in the land, and you will drive them out before you. Do not make a covenant with them or with their gods. Do not let them live in your land or they will cause you to sin against me, because the worship of their gods will certainly be a snare to you.” – Exodus 23:31–33

Israel ultimately conquered this territory under King David, but never occupied it completely – that would have required them to live in Syria and Lebanon as well.

Ca. 1445 to 1405 B.C. Exodus (alternative: 1245-1205 B.C.).

Ca. 1405 B.C. to 1385 B.C. Conquest of Canaan

Ca. 1385 B.C. to 1050 B.C.Wars of the Judges (including Samuel)

Ca. 1050 B.C. Monarchy established

722 B.C. The Assyrians sent the Israelites in the Northern Kingdom into exile. The ten northern tribes were then lost to history.

The remaining inhabitants of the Northern Kingdom are probably the forerunners of the Samaritans, who considered themselves the descendants of Israel and worshipped on Mount Gerizim. The Jews did not consider them true descendants of Israel, and there was enmity between the two peoples.

608 – 538 B.C. Babylonian Exile (alternative: 586 – 516 B.C.).

516 B.C. Rebuilt Temple dedicated

445 B.C. Walls of Jerusalem completed

332 B.C. Alexander the Great conquers Judea

167 B.C.  Antiochus Epiphanes, the Seleucid (Greek) King of Syria, bans Jewish religious practices and dedicates the Jewish Temple to the Greek god Zeus. Maccabees rebel.

165 B.C. Maccabees retake Temple.

152 B.C.  Hasmonean dynasty established.

67 B.C. Romans under Pompey conquer Syria and Judea.

37 B.C.  Herod the Great appointed King of the Jews

66 – 73 A.D. First Jewish rebellion. Romans destroy the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

132 – 136 A.D. Bar Kochba revolt. Judea and Galilee devastated. Jews barred from Jerusalem.

From 4th century A.D. Christianization. Jews remain a significant minority (possibly a majority)

438 A.D. Eastern Roman Empress Eudocia removes ban against Jews praying at the Temple site.

5th century A.D. Increased Christian immigration due to collapse of Wester Roman Empire.

614 A.D. Sassanids (Persians) conquer Jerusalem with Jewish help.

628 A.D. Byzantine Emperor Heraclius retakes Jerusalem with Jewish assistance. He reneges on his promise of restoring Jewish rights and carried out a massacre of the Jewish population, devastating Jewish communities of Jerusalem and Galilee. Jews flee the area or hide in mountains.

638 A.D.  Arab/Muslim conquest. Gradual Arabization of the population (many remained Christian). Jews allowed back into Jerusalem and maintained a significant presence in the region.

720 A.D. Jews banned from worshiping on the Temple Mount. Ban remained for 1000 years.

Subsequent centuries: Jewish emigration due to discrimination and persecution. Jews remained a significant minority.

1099 – 1291 A.D.  Crusades. Jews often fought on the side of the Muslims. Multiple massacres of Jews.

1187 A.D.  Saladin conquers Jerusalem and Palestine. Lets Jews return to Jerusalem.

1260 A.D. Egyptian Mamluks take control. Mamluks oppressed Jews (and Christians) and destroyed coastal cities, where many Jews lived. Despite this, there were waves of Jewish immigration to Palestine over the next centuries.

1517 A.D.  Ottomans conquer Palestine and make it part of the province of Syria. About 5000 Jews in Palestine, many in Safed in Galilee.

17th century  Decline in Jewish population due to economic and security problems.

1834 Peasants revolt in Egypt. Looting of Safed and Hebron massacre.

19th century Ashkenazi Jews immigrated from Eastern Europe and Sephardic Jews from Bulgaria, Turkey, and North Africa.

1880   The Jewish population of Palestine numbered around 20,000 to 25,000, of whom two-thirds lived in Jerusalem. About 10% of the total population.

1881-1903  First Aliyah. About 25,000 to 35,000 Jews immigrated to Palestine.

1896  A majority of the population of Jerusalem is Jewish.

1904 – 1914  Second Aliyah. 35,000 Jews immigrated, mostly from Russian Empire.

1909  Tel Aviv established as a modern Jewish city.

1914-1918  Ottomans deported many Jews as enemy aliens.

1917 Deportations of all Jews from Jaffa and Tel Aviv

1917  Balfour Declaration by the British Government, supporting a “national home” for the Jewish people in Palestine.

Book Review – Divided We Fall: America’s Secession Threat and How to Restore our Nation

March 4, 2021 /

By David French          2020, St. Martin’s Press, New York

David French is a lawyer and conservative columnist, formerly for the National Review, and now senior editor of The Dispatch. Before becoming a political commentator, he worked as a religious rights attorney at the American Center for Law and Justice and the Alliance Defending Freedom. He also served as president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which defended freedom of speech and conscience of students and professors at mostly liberal universities. He served in the U.S. Army in Iraq in 2007 and was awarded the Bronze Star.  Unlike most other evangelical Christians, he has consistently opposed Donald Trump.

Two scenarios

Imagine the United States in the near future under a Republican president. Reacting to a mass shooting at a school, the California legislature bans private ownership of most guns. Gun owners appeal through the courts, and finally the U.S. Supreme Court declares the California law unconsitutional. The state government, with strong support of its citizens, defies the ruling and continues to confiscate semi-automatic weapons. The federal government tries to enforce the ruling, and the situation escalates. Finally, California declares its independence. Oregon and Washington quickly join their West Coast neighbor. Northeastern states follow suit and likewise secede, joining together into their own new country. What was once the United States of America is now three separate countries.

Or another scenario: The U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, and the abortion issue is returned to the states. Many Republican-dominated states already have laws on their books banning abortion, and these become effective. Democrats take control of the White House and both houses of Congress. Democratic Senators end the filibuster, pass a strong gun control bill, and expand the Supreme Court from 9 to 15 justices. Democrats then pass single-payer health care and a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity while eliminating all religious freedom objections. Finally, they pass a law that makes abortion legal throughout the country, from conception to birth. Republican-dominated states object vehemently, and the situation quickly spirals out of control. After a series of escalations, Texas declares its independence. It is quickly joined by other southern and western states.

In both cases, the result is the same. The United States falls into a deep economic depression as economic ties are sundered. And the U.S. pulls back from the world stage, which emboldens Russia, China, and other actors to pursue their goals through force. Russia takes over the Baltic states and eastern Ukraine. China threatens Taiwan, which allies itself with Japan. War in the Pacific follows. The era of relative peace and stability, established since World War II and upheld by American military power, is over.

These scenarios, described with a novelist’s skill, were published in this book before the election. If they might have seemed farfetched then, they certainly don’t now, especially after January 6.

The problem

French argues that America is in danger of dissolution. We are politically and culturally divided, and this division follows geography. Most states are solidly Republican or Democrat. Moreover, the solidly Republican states are geographically contiguous, dominating the south and much of the west and extending into the upper midwest. The solidly Democratic states are clustered on the west coast and in the northeast. These regions are large enough and prosperous enough that they could be viable and economically powerful countries.  Red states (Republican) differ from blue states (Democrat) not only by politics, but also by culture. In blue states, religion is still especially important and dominated by conservative or evangelical churches. In red states, religion is widely considered a personal matter that should not intrude on public life. Fewer people go to church, and those who do often join more liberal, mainstream churches. Guns are another difference: People in red states value the “right to bear arms”, so they can protect themselves and their families. People in blue states want gun control to prevent further mass shootings.

Geographically based political and cultural division aren’t enough to tear the country apart, according to French:  two more elements are needed. A third element is the belief that one’s culture and essential liberties are under threat by those who “hate us”. Conservatives point to progressive corporations’ decisions to “sanction states that protect religious liberty or pass pro-life laws”. French argues, quite correctly, that conservatives see these as “expressions of hatred”. Progressives, on the other hand, see conservatives’ opposition to any restrictions on gun ownership as a threat to their safety and view religious liberty laws as permitting unjustified discrimination against LGBTQ citizens.

Finally, a fourth element is the conviction that the other side threatens our lives and property. We’ve always had politically motivated violence in America, but it seems to have spiked in the Trump years. White nationalists have recently attacked and murdered Jewish worshippers in synagogues and African American churchgoers in Bible studies. On the left, a Sanders supporter opened fire on Republican members of Congress practicing for a baseball game. This past summer, after the book was published, widespread protests against police brutality often degenerated into riots. In French’s words, both the left and the right conclude about their opponents that “they” are violent, “they” are dangerous, and “we” are innocent.

In other words, the four elements that made the American Civil War possible in 1860 are with us again. The extreme polarization of recent years, promoted by social media and both right-wing and left-wing media, but also by homogeneous churches, universities, and housing patterns, has broken the emotional bonds that held us together as a country. My group against your group. We are good, they are evil. And now the polarization is also geographical. Secession and disintegration are possible.

Pluralism, tolerance, federalism

David French argues that we need three related practices to avoid a break-up: pluralism, tolerance, and federalism.

Pluralism means more than just diversity, which we already have. French defines it as defending the rights of others to do what you would like to do yourself – even when they are your opponents. You should also defend the rights of communities to govern themselves according to their values and beliefs as long as they don’t violate the fundamental rights of dissenting members. For example, progressives should defend the right of conservatives to speak on college campuses, which has often not been the case. Conservatives, on the other hand, should defend the right of football players to take a knee in protest during the national anthem.

Tolerance is like pluralism but goes beyond it. It means showing respect and kindness toward people who are out of your group. An example of tolerance is the friendship between Ellen DeGeneris, a politically progressive lesbian, and George W. Bush, a conservative evangelical who opposed gay marriage.

Finally, French argues for federalism – less federal government influence and more local control, so communities can live as they wish.  This would make Washington less important in people’s lives and move many of our current political battles to the state level, where cultures and values are more uniform. For example, most conservatives oppose single-payer health care, while most progressives support it. If California could use its share of federal health care funding to introduce single-payer health care in the state, this would not hurt conservatives living elsewhere and would, presumably, make most Californians happier. On the other hand, America’s shoddy history with civil rights for African-Americans shows that federalism must have limits. French argues that essential civil liberties, written into the Bill of Rights, must be guaranteed throughout the country.

This would require politicians and judges to refrain voluntarily from using the power of the federal government to impose their preferred solution on the entire country. It would require pluralism and tolerance.

But problems remain

But a problem remains: We don’t agree on what constitutes fundamental civil rights, especially on the three major issues of abortion, religious freedom, and guns.

For pro-choice progressives, the right of a woman to choose what goes on inside her body, including the right to have an abortion, is a fundamental human right that should not be infringed. Hence, any laws restricting abortion violate this fundamental human right. Pro-life conservatives, in contrast, argue that the unborn child’s human right to live must take precedence over the mother’s right to choose, except to preserve the life and health of the mother.

Religious freedom is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, but it can conflict with the rights of minorities, especially LGBTQ Americans, to be free from discrimination. The Masterpiece Cakeshop case illustrates the conflict. The evangelical owner of the bakery believes that gay marriage is sinful, even though legal, and so did not want to participate in it by baking a cake for a wedding. For him, it was a matter of conscience. The gay couple argued that they were being discriminated against. For them, it was a matter of fundamental civil rights. Progressives come down on the side of the gay couple, while conservatives supported the baker.

Finally, we have guns. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms but can be interpreted differently. Conservatives argue that this right is essentially absolute. Hence, people have a right to own assault weapons with large magazines. Progressives, on the other hand, disagree, and point out the cases of mass casualty shootings in which semi-automatic weapons with large magazines were used. For conservatives, the right to own guns without restriction is a fundamental human right. For progressives, the right to live without fear of dying in a mass casualty event is the true human right.

So, federalism alone won’t save us. We must return to pluralism and tolerance. If we truly accept the rights of people to think differently, perhaps we can find a way forward.

Roger Fisher and William Ury of the Harvard Negotiation Project published Getting to Yes in 1981. It quickly became a classic. They argue that negotiators should follow four principles: separate people from the problem; focus on interests, not positions; invent options for mutual gain; insist on using objective criteria.

If we separate people from the problem, we accept that our opponents are people with legitimate concerns, and we should build a good relationship with them. This is the essence of pluralism and tolerance. Focusing on interests, not positions, means understanding what’s most important for the other side as well as for yours. If you do that, you might be able to options for mutual gain, finding a solution in which both sides get what they fundamentally need, even if it’s not everything they want. Using objective criteria may be difficult, but at a minimum it means taking reality into account. The purpose is to have both sides follow agreed-on principles and accept objective facts rather than use power to force the other side to accede. When these four principles are followed – if they can be followed – no side loses.

French ends his book by citing Micah 6:8, which he calls humankind’s purpose: do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God. Progressives and conservatives both want to do justice, but they differ on what this means. If they love mercy, they will have tolerance for their opponents, even if they believe they are wrong. Finally, walking humbly with God means being humble enough to understand that our side might be wrong, and the other side might be right. If we follow these principles, perhaps we can hold our country together.

The High-Water Mark of Trump’s Insurgency

January 16, 2021 /

Trump’s Capitol insurgency on January 6, 2021, has some things in common with Pickett’s Charge at Gettysburg on July 3, 1863. Both failed.

Germany, January 13, 2021

It was July 1863. The American Civil War, launched by the Confederacy at Fort Sumter, South Carolina, had been going on for over two years. While the Union’s General Grant was attacking Vicksburg, Mississippi, in the west, Confederate General Robert E. Lee had been marching his Army of Northern Virginia toward Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, in his second invasion of the North. His goal was to seize Harrisburg, Pennsylvania’s capital, then move on to Philadelphia or Washington D.C., in the hopes of destroying the Union Army of the Potomac and forcing the North to accept peace on the South’s terms.

When word came that Lee had marched his army through the Shenandoah Valley into Maryland and Pennsylvania, the Union’s Army of the Potomac marched north to meet it. Elements of the two armies met near Gettysburg on July 1. After hard-fought battles, Union forces abandoned the town and established defensive positions on Cemetary Ridge, just to the south. The second day of battle was bloody but inconclusive, with Lee’s army trying in vain to take the Union flanks and roll them up. On the third day, July 3, General Lee decided to make one more massive attempt to destroy the Union forces by attacking their center, which he assumed was now weaker.

At 1:00 p.m. Confederate General Longstreet launched a massive artillery assault on Union positions on Cemetary Ridge. At 3:00 p.m. his troops, including Major General Pickett’s division, began to march across open territory for about a mile toward the Union lines. This assault is now called “Pickett’s Charge”. They were met with massive artillery fire and Union musket fire. Some of the troops reached the Union lines and broke through at the “Angle”, but a Union counterattack repulsed them. The furthest Confederate advance is called the “High-water mark of the Confederacy”. Longstreet’s forces failed to achieve their objectives, and when they returned to their lines, about two-thirds of the 12,500 soldiers were missing. Lee withdrew to higher ground on July 4, Independence Day, and then marched the survivors back south to Virginia. To the west, Vicksburg surrendered on July 4, giving General Grant control of the Mississippi River and splitting the Confederacy.

The war would continue for almost two more bloody years, ending when General Lee surrendered at Appamatox Courthouse on April 9, 1865.    

It is now January 2021. Two months ago, Democratic candidate Joe Biden defeated Republican President Donald Trump by a large margin: 306 electoral votes to 232. The popular vote, which doesn’t determine the winner, was also lopsided: Biden received 7 million more votes nationwide than Trump. Unwilling to accept defeat, Trump claimed the election was stolen through widespread voter fraud. His only evidence was some affidavits from supporters, who complained about apparent irregularities. His campaign filed 60 lawsuits: it won only one, a judgement to let poll watchers get closer to poll workers counting ballots. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected out of hand the two suits it received. But Trump persisted, repeating his false claims of fraud. And many of his followers believed him.

The electors cast their votes in the states on December 14, with the results as expected: 306 for Biden, 232 for Trump. The only remaining step in the process was scheduled for January 6, when both houses of Congress would meet to certify the results. This was normally a formality, although Representatives and Senators could object to results from individual states. Trump saw this as his last chance and, through Twitter, called on supporters to come to Washington D.C. on that day: “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”

Heeding the call, thousands of Trump supporters gathered in Washington on January 6. Trump gave a speech at the Ellipse in the National Mall, in which he repeated his claim that the election was stolen. He called on supporters to march to the Capitol, which many of them did. The first clashes between police and Trump supporters started at about 1:00 p.m. The police were prepared for a peaceful demonstration but not a violent assault. They gave way. At about 2:00 p.m., Trump supporters broke into the Capitol building itself. Police whisked Senators and Representatives from their chambers and offices to safe places in or near the Capitol, while the mob roamed through the building, vandalizing offices, stealing and smashing objects, smearing excrement and urinating. Five people died, including two police officers. Reinforcements from the D.C. Metropolitan police, federal law enforcement agencies, and National Guard troops finally arrived and pushed the intruders out of the building and off the Capitol grounds.

With Pickett’s Charge, General Lee failed to dislodge Union forces and suffered heavy casualties, which forced him to retreat. The insurrection at the Capitol disrupted the vote to certify the results, but it continued after the mob retreated, and Joe Biden was certified the winner. Donald Trump finally admitted that there would be a transition to a new administration on January 20. He has now been impached by the House and will be tried by the Senate, although the date for that is uncertain.

Trump’s attempts to overturn the election, accurately called an insurrection, peaked in the storming of the Capitol. This was its high-water mark. The consequences of the storming of the Capitol will become clearer as time goes on, but one thing is already apparent: Like Pickett’s Charge, it was a strategic defeat for Trump and his supporters.

Lee’s army, though defeated, remained dangerous and fought on for almost two years, even threatening Washington D.C. in 1864. Trump’s ragtag mob, including QAnon conspiracy theorists, white supremacists, Christian nationalists, and others, also remains dangerous. New riots are planned for January 17 and again on January 20, Inauguration Day.

The analogy between Pickett’s Charge and the storming of the Capitol is striking in many ways, but it’s not perfect. The Confederate soldiers fought for white supremacy, as do many of Trump’s followers. But when the Confederates attacked, they did it as disciplined soldiers who knew they would pay an awful price. Trump’s mob was anything but disciplined, and its members believed they wouldn’t have to pay a high price. Let’s see if they’re right.

By Jan Fidler from Prague, Czech Republic - Prague New Year 2016 fireworks. Happy New Year!, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=46100832

Welcome, 2021!

January 1, 2021 /

Germany, New Years Day, 2021

Earlier today, people throughout the world celebrated the end of 2020, which many describe as a terrible year. History will remember it as the year of the pandemic, in which societies throughout the world practiced social distancing, throttled back their economies, and even introduced curfews and lockdowns. The human toll from Covid-19 has been enormous, with deaths worldwide approaching two million.

But for some, 2020 was a good year: Couples got married, students graduated from school or college, children were born. And for many people, 2020 ended on a positive note: President Trump lost his reelection bid, and Joe Biden will replace him on January 20. But storm clouds are gathering for the world’s oldest democracy: Many Republicans believe that Trump lost due to voter fraud, even though there is no evidence for it, and before the election polls had predicted he would lose by an even greater margin. Some Republican members of Congress have announced they will vote to reject the results of the electoral college. If they somehow succeeded, which is unthinkable, it would spell the end of the American constitutional order and possibly lead to civil war.

The situation in the American church in America is not much better. Christians are bitterly divided between left and right, with white evangelicals still supporting Trump. Franklin Graham, Billy Graham’s son, persists with the disproved argument that Biden won through fraud, simply because he believes Trump. He predicts disaster for the country if Democrats win the Senate on January 6, because they will immediately pass the Equality Act. This would “change our nation at its very foundation,” Graham argued in a Facebook post.

The Equality Act would prohibit discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation or gender orientation (i.e. LGBTQs). Whether the Equality Act as proposed is a good idea or not is a legitimate question. Given the case of the baker in Colorado who was sued for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, I can understand the concern about religious liberty. But can Christians really support discrimination?

Evangelicals should negotiate with progressives to find a reasonable solution that protects people from discrimination but protects religious liberty and freedom of conscience. Instead, both sides demonize each other and predict the end of the country if the other side wins. Consequently, many on the right, including evangelicals, refuse to accept the results of the presidential election. When the evidence-free fraud argument is brushed aside, they are clearly ready to jettison democracy to keep the other side from gaining power. And while most on the left aren’t yet ready to go that far, intolerance is growing among them as well. Each side sees the other as the enemy, and how can we compromise with evil?

The cliché says that the night is darkest before the dawn. In Matthew 16, Jesus says the gates of Hell will not prevail against his church. He doesn’t say we won’t have conflict – the history of Christianity proves otherwise. But regardless of how bleak things look, God’s purposes will ultimately prevail.

We have reason to hope that 2021 will be better than 2020. And if it’s not, we can still be sure that things will turn out well in the end. Jesus promises that.

The Ongoing Coup

December 11, 2020 /

Trump and his supporters are trying to overthrow the election results. That is a coup, which would destroy our democracy and have unforeseeable results. Christians must not support it.

December 11, 2020

When a revolution begins, you never know how it will end. The French Revolution began in 1787, when French aristocrats, objecting to new taxes levied on them to pay for France’s debt (much of it from helping the United States achieve independence), forced King Louis XVI to convene the Estates-General. In 1789, the Third Estate, which represented the commoners (including the new middle class of business owners and professions), insisted on a National Constituent Assembly to write a constitution for the country. Events took their turn, and soon the king was deposed and executed, and the aristocrats scattered.

After almost three years of bloody and fruitless war, liberals in the Russian Duma launched the February Revolution of 1917. But this was followed eight months later by the October Revolution, in which the Bolsheviks took over the reigns of power. They won the ensuing civil war and established a Communist dictatorship, which lasted until Gorbachev began his reforms in the 1980s. As for Gorbachev, when he launched his liberalization measures (Glasnost and Perestroika), little did he know that these modest reform measures would culminate in the end of the Soviet Union.   

The United States is a constitutional republic, a representative democracy. The guiding philosophy is rule by the majority, with minority rights protected. We have often failed to live up to these principles, as American Indians and African Americans can confirm, but over the years we have become more inclusive and have righted many of the most egregious wrongs, such as slavery and Jim Crow. Majority rule is based on elections, and elections have consequences, as Republicans have frequently reminded us. Minority rights are based on the rule of law, which most Americans claim to support.

Events since the presidential election of November 3, 2020, have been frightening. Donald Trump has ceaselessly complained that systematic voter fraud has stolen a “landslide victory” from him. For three weeks, he prevented the General Services Administration from assisting with the transition. Even today, his administration’s cooperation with the president-elect, Joe Biden, has been lacking. Refusing to succeed, Trump has directed his lawyers to launch lawsuits in all the swing states, alleging voter fraud and asking the courts to overturn the election. But the evidence they have supplied has been unconvincing, and the courts have rejected virtually all Trump’s claims.

Now Trump is following another strategy: He is trying to convince Republican-dominated legislatures in these states to overturn the election results and send Trump electors to vote for him when the Electoral College meets. In all of these states, this would violate state law, which awards electors to the winner of the popular vote. Since most Republican legislators are loyal Americans and committed to the rule of law, it is hard to imagine they would do this.

But what if Trump succeeded and these legislatures nullified the election? That would be a coup d’état. It would be a revolution that ends the American republic. And as in many revolutions, the ultimate outcome would be unpredictable. The only thing that we could predict with certainty is chaos. Civil war would be likely.  

In Romans 13, Paul tells us that we should be subject to the governing authorities, which have been instituted by God to let us live a peaceful life, protected from wrongdoers. Some Christians have taken this to mean that we should be unshakably loyal to Donald Trump. They are mistaken. If God put Trump in his position, he also put Obama in the same position. But did Trump supporters say we should be subject to President Obama?

The governing authorities in the United States are those who faithfully execute their duties under the Constitution of the United States as well as federal and state laws. Those in authority who break the laws and undermine the Constitution are not legitimate authorities: They have broken their oath. If Donald Trump somehow pulls off his attempted coup, he is no longer the legitimate president, but a lawbreaker and an enemy of the Constitution.

What I find especially painful is the many evangelical Christians who STILL support Trump, even though he is clearly trying to overthrow the Constitution. Not only are they failing as American citizens to support and defend the Constitution; they are aiding a politician who is trying to destroy the republic. They are helping to overturn the true governing authorities, instituted by God, who may be Republican or Democrat, but who uphold the rule of law.

Most evangelicals support Trump because he does what they ask him to: oppose abortion, support religious liberty, and appoint conservative judges. But that hardly justifies a coup. And from a pragmatic perspective: If the revolution really takes place, can they predict where it will end?

A liberal democracy, in which the majority rules and minority rights are protected, is the system most likely to protect our rights over the long term. For Christians, religious liberty is an important good, to be cherished and defended. But if a dictator promises to uphold religious liberty, can you be confident he will keep his word? Unconstrained by the rule of law or the voice of the voters, what dictators give you today, they can take away tomorrow.

Evangelicals, repent of your devotion to Trump.

What Else You Get with Trump

October 27, 2020 /

Why Evangelicals Should Think Twice

October 27, 2020

Most white evangelicals support Donald Trump for reelection. Ignoring some of the craziest arguments, like Trump is “God’s chosen one”, Trump’s evangelical supporters emphasize his opposition to abortion, support for religious liberty, and appointment of conservative judges. Fair enough. Most Democrats are pro-choice and favor LGBTQ calls for acceptance, including the right to marry, over conservative Christians’ rights to not participate in something they believe is sinful, such as gay marriage.

But abortion and religious liberty are not the only issues that Christians should care about. What you also get with Donald Trump is a man with a narcissistic personality disorder. He has an inflated sense of his own importance, an excessive need to be admired, and little or no sense of empathy. As a result, his administration is the epitome of incompetence and corruption. More specifically, the Trump administration has given the country a disastrous foreign policy, a catastrophic climate change policy, a fiasco in health care, and poor stewardship of the economy. Even worse: Trump is dividing the country, attacking the rule of law, and threatening our democracy.

The Trump administration is fundamentally incompetent. While Trump began his term with competent people, such as General Mattis as defense secretary, he has since replaced them with sycophants, such as Pompeo and Barr. From the start, he surrounded himself with family members, as if the U.S. government were his family business, or a Mafia syndicate. Because of his grandiosity, he refuses to listen to his advisors unless they tell him what he wants to hear. The botched response to the Covid-19 crisis is an especially glaring, and deadly, example of the administration’s ineptitude.

The Trump administration is corrupt. As a narcissist, Trump believes the normal rules of political behavior do not apply to him. And so instead of putting his business assets in a blind trust, as his predecessors did, he turned them over to his sons. Foreign governments curry favor by booking events at his hotels and golf courses, as do domestic and foreign businesses. According to Forbes senior editor Dan Alexander, Trump daughter Ivanka’s trademark requests in China were approved 40% faster than before his election. Just a week ago, the New York Times reported that Trump has a secret Chinese bank account. Corruption, of course, is not just about money: Trump’s strongarming of Ukraine’s president to get politically usable dirt on Joe Biden is a prime example. There are good reasons why Democracy21’s Fred Wertheimer calls the Trump administration the most corrupt in history.

Moving on to foreign policy, the record is somewhat better. Trump did have some successes: for example, he brought the campaign against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, started by President Obama, to a successful conclusion. But his abandonment of our Kurdish allies, who spilled most of the blood in the fight, may have undone everything he accomplished, and it certainly smashed our reputation. Trump has also managed to avoid new wars, although he came close to starting one with Iran by killing General Soleimani. Moreover, Trump did sell tank-busting Javelins to Ukraine, but the sales agreement prohibits Ukraine from using them against the Donbas separatists. These successes are overshadowed by the Trump administration’s strategic failures. From the start, Trump has cozied up to dictators, such as Russia’s Putin, North Korea’s Kim Jong-Un, and Chinese Communist Party chairman Xi Jinping. At the same time, he has attacked long-standing allies, such as Germany, and ignored others, such as Australia, which had to wait two years until an ambassador was appointed. As China continues its economic and political global expansion, backed by a growing military capability, the U.S. needs its allies more than ever. Instead, Trump has trashed our alliances. Can we count on them when we need them?

With the command to “till it and keep it”, God gave humanity dominion over the earth. Our stewardship of the planet has not been good. Climate change, driven by the burning of fossil fuels, is already causing droughts, fires, and extreme weather patterns. It will continue to get worse. For that reason, world leaders came together and signed the Paris Agreement to keep global warming below 2° by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Despite the counsel of scientists, Trump denies climate change and so withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Agreement. While China has overtaken the U.S. as the world’s greatest polluter, there is no hope for success in the fight against climate change if the U.S. is not onboard.

On health care, Trump has promised to repeal the Affordable Care Act – Obamacare – and replace it with “something better”. At the end of his first term, his promised replacement is still a secret. But the threat to Obamacare is real, with a lawsuit pending before the Supreme Court to overturn the law.

Trump’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic is a classic case of dishonesty and incompetence. Trump knew back in January that the novel coronavirus was a serious public health threat, but he chose to downplay it to protect his reelection chances. When Democratic governors took action to limit the damage, he attacked them, calling on supporters to “Liberate Michigan!” Even now, amid the predicted autumn wave of rising Covid-19 cases, he still argues that the virus is going away. The U.S. leads the world in Covid-19 cases and deaths, largely because of its slow response to the pandemic. Trump’s narcissistic focus on reelection has killed thousands of Americans.

Polls show that Trump gets his highest marks for the economy, which was doing well until the pandemic hit. But he does not deserve credit for it. Trump inherited a strong and growing economy from the Obama administration and juiced it up with massive tax cuts. But as any economist will tell you, an economic boom is not the time to increase the deficit. Trump’s tax cuts have raised the government’s debt immensely. When interest rates rise, which will happen someday, the interest burden will be hard to bear. Moreover, due to the high levels of government debt, which the tax cuts fostered, Trump’s Republican allies in the Senate refuse to pass a second stimulus package, which the economy now desperately needs. To maintain its position as the world’s strongest economy, the United States needs to invest in infrastructure – roads, rails, communication, and education – and in industries of the future, such as renewable energy. We are falling short. Another massive economic problem is the growing gap between the rich and the rest. Rising inequality threatens our social cohesion, which threatens our economy. But he does not seem to care about it, nor do his fellow Republicans.

Trump has been called the “Divider in Chief”. He has attacked Mexicans, calling them rapists and criminals. He has banned immigration from Muslim countries. His signature policy is to “build the wall” to deter illegal immigration and has taken money from the Defense Department to do it. Trump is anything but forthright in condemning white supremacists. Not surprisingly, racial incidents against Latinos, Blacks, and Asians have climbed substantially since Trump took office.

Trump denies that Blacks are more likely than whites to be victims of police violence. And when a 17-year-old white male shot a protestor in Kenosha, Wisconsin, Trump supported him. Instead of trying to calm the country in the wake of George Floyd’s murder in police custody, Trump fanned the flames. The result was a wave of protests that sometimes turned violent. Trump responded by sending DHS paramilitaries into Portland, Oregon, and encouraged the white nationalist Proud Boys to “Stand back and stand by!”

Trump’s disdain for the rule of law is painful to see. It began early in his presidency when he demanded personal loyalty from the FBI director, James Comey. Trump then obstructed the Muller investigation into his 2016 campaign’s alleged collusion with Russia. His widespread corruption has already been noted. Trump has pardoned the likes of Sheriff Arpaio and Roger Stone. Under Attorney General Barr, the U.S. Justice Department has been degraded into Trump’s personal law firm, which now wants to defend him in a civil suit.

But the worst evil of Trump’s presidency is his threat to American democracy. His strongarm response to peaceful protesters so he could have a photo op in front of a damaged church in Washington D.C. was an attack on our consitutional right to protest. He has called for an “army” of poll watchers to descend on voting precincts, presumably to intimidate people who would otherwise vote against him. But worst of all, he refuses to say that he will honor the will of the voters by leaving office peacefully. Instead, he says that, if he loses, it is proof of voter fraud, even though the polls favor Joe Biden to win.

If the loser does not accept the election results, but tries to cling to power, American democracy faces an existential threat. And if he would succeed in staying in power despite losing the election, America is no longer a democracy. We would have descended to the level of Belarus and become a dictatorship. The people would not take this lightly – massive civil unrest, with many casualties, would result. We could even have a second civil war.

If you believe that abortion kills a human being, it makes sense to oppose it energetically, and protection of religious liberty is an important part of our American democracy. But the reelection of Donald Trump would put our country and its democracy at grave risk. The price is too high. Instead, politically conservative evangelicals should strive to reform the Republican Party and renew its commitment to democracy and the rule of law. Then, in good conscience, they can try to win the next election. The country might support them.

Illiberal Liberals

June 29, 2017 /

Liberals are supposed to be liberal. Some are not.

June 29, 2017

I think I’m a liberal, at least in the American context:

  • I support health care for all;
  • I favor low-tuition – or even tuition-free – education at public universities;
  • I want the federal government to take strong measures to fight unemployment, promote higher wages, and reduce inequality;
  • I support the right of gays and lesbians to marry;
  • I’ve consistently voted for Democrats since 1992.

I was – and am – appalled by the intolerance, ignorance, and closed-mindedness of many Trump supporters and others on the right. But I used to think intolerance was mainly on the right. I was wrong. A few things have happened recently to change my mind.

The shooting of Republican congressman Steve Scalise by a deranged Bernie Sanders supporter is certainly one of the worst atrocities by an American “progressive”. It would be easy to write this off as the random act of a crazy person with a gun. But some Twitter posts by “progressives” have applauded it, or at least argued that Scalise had it coming. Kathy Griffin’s photo shoot holding Trump’s decapitated head might have been a lame attempt at humor – she’s a comedian – but it was worse than just poor taste.

On a less gruesome note, but also of concern, was Sen. Bernie Sanders’s questioning of Russell Vought, Trump’s nominee for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget. A year before, Vought weighed in on a controversy involving Wheaton College, his alma mater. The evangelical college had fired Larycia Hawkins for stating that Muslims worshipped the same God that Christians do. Vought supported the college, arguing that Muslims reject Jesus Christ, and so are condemned. Sanders questioned him hard on this, and then argued that Vought was an Islamophobic bigot who should not be confirmed. As a somewhat more liberal Christian, I disagree with Vought – and Wheaton College – but their arguments are based on reasonable interpretations of the Bible and should be treated with respect. Bernie Sanders applied a religious test to the appointment, essentially rejecting Christians with evangelical beliefs as unfit for public office. The Constitution, fortunately, prohibits this.

The problem wasn’t just with Bernie Sanders. On its Facebook page, the normally responsible “Being Liberal” site condemned Vought for his “incredibly Islamophobic” statements. Many of the commenters agreed.

Jaelene Hinkle, the conservative Christian goalkeeper for the US women’s soccer team, withdrew from the roster for “personal reasons”. Her likely reason was that the team’s jerseys included numbers in the LGBT rainbow and replaced the player’s name with “Pride”. Ms. Hinkle, like many other conservative Christians, opposes same-sex marriage and probably felt her witness would be compromised by wearing the jersey. She was skewered as a bigot in social media for her very discreet decision.

There’s more, of course. Liberal universities have canceled speeches by right-wing speakers, such as Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter. In academia, “political correctness” threatens free speech.

Liberal intolerance can also be found outside the US. Tim Farron, an evangelical Christian, resigned from his post as the head of Britain’s Liberal Democrats after a campaign where his views on whether gay sex was a sin were the subject of repeated press questioning.

It’s easy to object that the other side is worse, and it most certainly is. But that doesn’t excuse us who call ourselves liberals when we speak and act illiberally. Liberals are supposed to support freedom, especially the freedom to dissent from the prevailing views of society. That’s why freedom of thought, press, and religion are dear to liberal hearts, as is tolerance for people who think and act differently. In other words, illiberal liberals are hypocrites. They also provide ammunition to the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, who are pleased to trumpet any examples of leftist bigotry.

More pragmatically, left-wing intolerance undermines our ability to compromise with reasonable people on the other side. For a democratic system to survive, it’s essential that people who disagree find compromises that most people can live with. But when we’re intolerant toward those who think differently, we add fuel to the fires of polarization and make compromise impossible. After all, isn’t it immoral to compromise with evil? Many on the right are guilty of this, of course. But when people on the left do the same, it reinforces the radical right in their obstruction and uncompromising stance.

We liberals hope to regain power in Washington and the states, so we can begin to solve the massive problems our country has. Realistically, though, we can’t do this without stripping away some of the right’s supporters. White evangelicals, who voted 80 percent for Trump, are a group we can make inroads with. Jesus told his followers to feed the hungry, cure the sick, visit those in prison – in short, to love our neighbor as ourselves. Liberals’ compassion for the poor and dispossessed has its origin in Christ’s teachings. Christians who support Ayn-Rand-type libertarians, such as Paul Ryan, do so mostly out of ignorance. If we focus on helping the poor and middle class, we can win many evangelicals over if we don’t treat them as enemies.

This means we need to respect evangelicals’ beliefs, even those we disagree with. But respecting other people’s opinions has always been the essence of tolerance, and liberalism.

What Happened to Us?

May 19, 2017 /

Terror on the Right: What happens when the pursuit of power trumps patriotism.

May 19, 2017

I guess you could say I was a child of the sixties, a decade marked by turmoil. It started with the Civil Rights Movement, led by Martin Luther King, Jr., which ultimately led to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ended the infamous Jim Crow laws in the American South, our version of Apartheid. The Civil Rights Act, while a huge step forward, didn’t create equality, justice, and peace overnight, as the decade’s numerous race riots and the assassination of Dr. King vividly show.

The other great movement of the sixties was the anti-war movement, opposed to American involvement the Vietnam War. Because of the draft, thousands of conscripts were pulled from American cities and towns into the military and sent to fight in the jungles of southeast Asia. As casualties mounted, so did opposition to the war. The anti-war movement gained strength and spawned other leftist movements, which opposed just about everything in America. I spent my teenage years in Ann Arbor, Michigan, a hotbed of left-wing radicalism and anti-war activism. I remember a march where someone waved the Viet Cong flag. The Students for a Democratic Society – founded in Ann Abor – called for revolution to overthrow “capitalism”.

Most Americans back then, including many who opposed the Vietnam War, were appalled by the excesses of the far left. We could disagree on politics, but for most of us, our allegiance to the country was never in question. And once the war was over, many of the long-haired hippie types cut their hair, put on suits, and joined the “establishment”. Many of them became Republicans.

So, let’s fast-forward half a century. In 2014, rancher Cliven Bundy and his armed supporters, self-proclaimed “militiamen”, threatened to do battle with law enforcement officers attempting to enforce a court order to impound his cattle to pay grazing fees owed to the federal government. Amazingly, the insurrectionists were supported by a number of Republican politicians. As the 2016 election approached, some right-wing “militias” were training for civil war in case Hillary Clinton got elected. But Trump’s election hasn’t brought peace. With opposition to Donald Trump growing throughout the country, some of his supporters are still talking of civil war against “left-wing terrorists”. And at the end of April, a self-described conservative walked into a campus coffee shop in Lexington, KY, and asked customers what their political affiliation was. If they answered Republican, he left them alone. If they said Democrat, he attacked them with a machete.

Mainstream sixties conservatives would have been appalled by this. William F. Buckley Jr., for example, steadfastly opposed the John Birch Society for its conspiracy-mongering and extremism. If he were alive today, he’d certainly have harsh words for the Tea Party, militiamen, and Trump supporters. But today’s Republicans can’t find it in themselves to condemn advocates of sedition and extremism, as long as they vote Republican.    

We now have a “conservative” Republican president whose ties to a hostile Russian government are suspect and about whose incompetence there is no doubt. The Justice Department has appointed a special counsel to investigate the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. How have Republican leaders reacted? With a few honorable exceptions (such as Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain), the silence has been deafening.

In the “good old days”, Republicans and Democrats could work together. Both parties supported the space program. Both parties voted for the Civil Rights Act. On foreign policy, the norm for both parties was, “politics stops at the water’s edge”. Shutting down the federal government was unthinkable, as was refusing to raise the debt ceiling. Back in the sixties, America worked, even during the depths of the Vietnam War.

What’s happened to us? The same thing that happened to the Roman Empire after Marcus Aurelius died. Power, not patriotism, reigned supreme, and the Empire descended into a period of civil strife. But today, everything happens much faster, thanks to modern media. The media could be a force for educating the public, but many Americans have no use for education. Rather, they tune in to TV and talk radio commentators who confirm what they already believe. Roger Ailes, who died on May 18, built Fox News into a “conservative” kingmaker. He combined right wing ideology with flashy entertainment, which hooked much of the white middle class. Rush Limbaugh and others were even wilder, hatching conspiracy theories and blaming all the country’s problems on “progressives”. Amazingly, new media outlets, like Breitbart, opened to the right of Fox News, as if there were much space there!  

Republican politicians soon learned that compromising and negotiating with Democrats would get them a primary challenger for the next election. The key to a long career as a Republican member of Congress was to fight everything Democrats supported. And when voters elected the first African-American president, the very moderate Barack Obama, Republican politicians tried their best to make him fail, despite the harm that did to the country.

Hindus believe in Karma. Christians prefer to say, “you reap what you sow”. The laughable presidency of Donald Trump could well mean the end of the Republican Party, as Americans turn away with disgust from the lies, corruption, and incompetency of this administration. We can only hope that some principled conservatives start a new party or sweep up the shards of the broken GOP. But if we don’t want to go the way of the Roman Empire, we must never forget what happens when the pursuit of power overwhelms patriotism.

« Older posts

© 2024 Between God and Mammon

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑