Two Paragraphs: Zakharia Interviews, Also Iraq and Syria

This morning I watched Fareed Zakharia GPS on CNN. There were 2 interviews that particularly interested me, Hassan Rouhani, the president of Iran, and Shimon Peres, the former president of Israel. The contrast was striking. Although in fairness, there is a difference between being a former official and a sitting official. I think the difference would have been obvious even if both were still in office. When asked difficult questions, like why people were being detained and put on trial in Iran for foolish or unknown reasons, Rouhani avoided answering the questions. When Zakharia said to Peres something to the effect that an Arab statesman would promote the cause of a Palestinian state, Peres said unequivocally that he also would like to see a Palestinian state. It illustrates that although one might disagree with some steps taken by the Israeli government, Israel is a democracy in which a significant part of the population is looking for a way to come to terms with the Palestinians and the Moslem world and has the freedom to say it openly and without hesitation. On the other hand, Iran is a country ruled by fundamentalists where the part of the population that is craving modernity is suppressed.
I am a fan of Fareed Zakharia GPS and more often than not agree with Mr. Zakharia's ideas. But Mr. Zakharia says something to the effect that we need to come to terms with Iran in order to fight ISIS. Maybe, but what does that entail? If it means saying it is OK for Iran to develop nuclear energy to the point where it can make a nuclear bomb, there might be more danger from that than from ISIS. And is it really necessary to put together the Humpty Dumpty state of Iraq to defeat ISIS? Unfortunately, the Bush misadventure in Iraq put us on that road years ago, but if the predominantly Shiite Iraqi government can't or is not willing to include the Sunnis and the Kurds, then perhaps we should allow Iraq to split up. We certainly should support a strong Kurdistan in the North including as many oil fields as possible. If Iran wants to keep the Shiites in the South safe from the Sunnis and ISIS, let them take on the fight. Why should the USA fight for their interests? As for ISIS, if they want to continue plotting against the USA, they can continue to be bombing practice targets for the US Air Force. As for their lack of humanity, their neighbors and possibly some local Sunni tribes will have to do the ground fighting. As for Syria, like Iraq it is a nation of various tribal groups hobbled together by Europeans which somehow came under control of the Alawites who are a minority there. After the terrible massacres which the Alawites did to the other Syrians, they can not submit to a Syria ruled by the majority without being massacred themselves. So perhaps they should be allowed to maintain a shrunken Alawite Syria in whatever part they can maintain a majority. As for the rest of Syria, I don't think it makes a difference to us who rules it as long as it isn't ISIS. So maybe a non-ISIS Sunni nation in what used to be Eastern Syria and Western Iraq might be OK. The question is would and could the local Sunni tribes there take on ISIS with the help of US air support? Maybe it would be possible if the US and Europe gave up the idea of propping up the old Humpty Dumpty nations of Syria and Iraq.

Israel's Predicament

I would like to recommend reading the Aug 15, 2014 entry on the blog of Rabbi Jonathan Wittenberg at http://jonathanwittenberg.org/post/94806816757/after-gaza-these-wounds-go-very-deep . Rabbi Wittenberg is a Masorti English rabbi who visited the Gaza border recently. The entry illustrates the predicament faced by Israel. The immediate response to attacks on Israel by Hamas has to be military. Israel can not turn the other cheek and get pounded by rockets and terrorists coming out of tunnels. But the long term solution can not be achieved by military might alone. There appear to be 2 streams in Israel, one forward stream that sets up hospitals to treat anyone sick or injured, Jew or Arab, even treating Arabs wounded in the Gaza war. This is the stream that pushes for inclusiveness in Israel, including all Jewish forms of worship, Reform and Conservative as well as Orthodox. This stream tries to bring Israeli Arabs into the mainstream of Israeli life and realizes that a strong country does not marginalize 1/4 of its population. Unfortunately there is also a backward stream. The backward stream pushes exclusivity inside Israel and pushes for expansion of settlements in the West Bank even though that makes coming to terms with the Palestinian Arabs impossible. There also appears to be 2 streams in the Moslem world, an unfortunately large stream which can not come to terms with the existence of Israel. But there is also a strong forward stream among Israeli Arabs who want to fully participate as equals in the modernity of Israel. There is also a glimmer of hope in small pockets of progressive Islam like the Suffis, the Ahmadis, and the Druze who are willing to accept a predominantly Jewish Israel. Another interesting development seen in the recent Gaza war was Jordan and Egypt if not siding with Israel at least remaining neutral. Let us hope that the forward streams on both sides will prevail. It won't happen over night. Hatreds will have to be overcome. Trust will have to be established. It might take generations, but one has to start.

If I Had Unlimited Money

Many of the Jews living in settlements on the West Bank live there because they get cheap rent. The money to supplement their rent must come from somewhere. If I had unlimited money, I would build towns in the Negev and offer cheap rent to lure away those people from the West Bank settlements and instead settle them in the real Israel. The Negev is the future of Israel. The Negev will make Israel stronger. The settlements will not.

I Recommend Bernard Avishai's "The Hebrew Republic"

Last year, I read an intriguing book by Bernard Avishai, “The Hebrew Republic: How Secular Democracy and Global Enterprise Will Bring Israel Peace at Last,” and I read it again this year. I very much recommend it. Although I don’t agree with everything in Mr. Avishai’s book (when could you expect 2 or more Jews to agree on everything?), I agree with the general idea that Israel should become more inclusive and be based more on the Hebrew language and culture than on the Jewish religion. That includes among other things giving the Israeli Arabs equality in more than just equality before the law and the ability to vote. I agree that non-Arab, non-Jewish people (like the Thais and Filipinos) who come to work in Israel and would like to stay as productive citizens and raise their children as Hebrew speaking cultural Israelis should be allowed to do so as long as Israel has the resources to accommodate them. Greater inclusiveness would turn the demographic clock in Hebrew Israel’s favor and make Arabism less threatening. I also agree with his idea that science, technology, and participation in the global technology are Israel’s greatest hope for the future.

Mr. Avishai says in his title that “secular democracy and global enterprise will bring Israel peace at last” (from his mouth to God’s ears). I believe that the ideas proposed by Mr. Avishai will make Israel stronger. A strong military is only one component of power. Full equality and full inclusion of all the citizens of a nation are equally important components. But will it bring peace? Maybe yes and maybe no. I think most Israeli Arabs would be happy with greater inclusion in their country. I don’t know what Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank would think about it, or Arabs living elsewhere who consider themselves to be Palestinians, or non-Palestinian Arabs, or other Moslems. I don’t think it will make Moslem fundamentalists happy. They might find that they missed an opportunity by not coming to terms with an inward looking Jewish theocracy with limited goals within what it considers its own borders (as much as possible of Eretz Yisrael?). An inclusive Israeli Hebrew Republic, if and when it actually comes to pass (and I think it will because it has already started), will hit them like a tornado. They might at some time in the future find themselves allies with a disenfranchised Jewish Orthodoxy.

Mr. Avishai and I probably look at Israel from a different perspective. He is a North American Jew who chose to live in Israel. I am a Diaspora Jew who has lived his whole life (76 years so far) in the USA (other than 1 year doing military service in South Korea). I like it here in Southern California and have no desire to live the rest of my life elsewhere. My interest in Israel is my belief in “kol Yisroel achim,” in other words all Jews are related, we have each other’s backs, and 1/3 of all the Jews in the world live in Israel. In fact a number of Israelis actually are my relatives (my nephew and his family as well as some cousins). I really am concerned about their welfare and safety.

I know that Mr. Avishai is a Jew like me, but I don’t know what his more specific religious beliefs are. As a non-fundamentalist Jew, I believe in God. As I have written in previous entries in this blog, I think the important issue is not whether or not one believes in God but why one believes in God. I believe religion is a human endeavor to grapple with the meaning of existence. The details are less important. God is not a real estate agent who assigns this or that building, monument, or piece of land to certain people. As Mr Avishai alluded in his book, there is a religious vacuum in Israel between state supported fundamentalist Jewish Orthodoxy and the absence of organized religion, and therefore many Israelis travel to Hindu and Buddhist countries to temporarily fill the vacuum. I believe that the promotion of non-fundamentalist Judaism like Reformed and Conservative (perhaps a misnomer because American Conservative Judaism is actually liberal) can fill the vacuum.

Last year I had occasion to be in Chicago during Yom Kippur and had to find a synagogue. I stumbled on a synagogue called Mishkan. I went there because at a reasonable price one could buy a ticket for only Yom Kippur or only Rosh Hashonah. Mishkan does not own a building, but meets in various places and attracts a large congregation. It is not part of any movement. It is wonderfully inclusive (gays, mixed marriages, travelers, anyone). It is particularly attractive to young people. The services are vibrant, emotional, very Jewish, without the sterile Goyish feeling one might get in some ultra-Reform synagogues. It’s almost like a very liberal, non-fundamentalist Hassidism without the stifling conformity of real Hassidism. In fact, Mishkan at times partners with a local Hassidic synagogue in some of their programs. If there were a Mishkan in the San Fernando Valley, perhaps I would join. The reason I mention Mishkan here is that I believe that Mr. Avishai’s Hebrew Republic needs a religious component to fill the vacuum between Orthodoxy and nothing in order to keep Judaism alive there when the present world fundamentalist fad fades. Thinking about God without the political crap is a real human need and will not disappear because basic unencumbered religion deals with a real issue posed by the temporary existence of conscious life which will not soon (if ever) be answered by science alone. I believe any non-fundamentalist Judaism will do, but I mention Mishkan because it seems particularly inclusive and could be a model to attract unaffiliated Jews in Israel as well as the Diaspora. Also, just as some Israeli Moslems are attracted to Israel’s technology and globalism, a non-fundamentalist inclusive Judaism could stimulate Moslems in Israel to develop their own non-fundamentalist inclusive Islam. And if you cut out the details, is there really such a difference between Judaism and Islam?

 

Lancet Political Letter

I recently became aware of a letter, An Open Letter for the People in Gaza, published in the British medical journal, Lancet, which denounced Israel in its recent conflict with Hamas. The main authors are members of anti-Israel organizations and did not disclose that fact in the article. The letter completely ignored the the guilt of Hamas in attacking Israel with rockets and tunnels into Israel for the purpose of killing Israelis as well as putting their own people in harms way for the political goals of Hamas. The building materials that they claim Israel has kept out of Gaza were used by Hamas to build terrorist tunnels for attacking Israel. The blockade of Gaza would not exist if Hamas were not stockpiling weapons to attack Israel. Unfortunately, collateral damages kill civilians in any war. What do they expect the Israeli people to do? Passively wait for the rockets and suicide bombers to kill them without a response?
A scientific journal should not be used as a one sided political platform. As a physician, I will be a little more skeptical of anything published in the Lancet.