Wednesday, June 30, 2010

When Will the International Community Defend the People of Gaza!

Yesterday a factory in the South of Israel was destroyed by a rocket launched from Gaza. Whether this was a serendipitous strike or a demonstration of Hamas' ability to hit specific targets, is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that in recent weeks there has been an up-tick in mortar and rocket attacks from Gaza, and Israeli retaliation.

Does the Huffington Post, the New York Times or the plethora of anti-Israel media-outlets from Russia to Britain, or UNHRC report this or other "minor" events?

Where is this going? If Israel is attacked continuously eventually even Israel will respond. But its response will not only reflect the most recent rocket attacks ("only a few rockets, that have no aim and do little damage"), but the months or even years of provocation (6000 rockets, that have not killed many by pure chance, but have reduced whole cities into trenches and traumatized thousands).

What does this mean for the million plus Gazans? Does it mean the blockade will be lifted? Does it mean that somehow Israel will disappear and HAMAS will have what its Charter declares?

No!

It means that hundreds of teenagers turned terrorists will be killed, and along with them scores of human shields that inevitably "happen" to be in the vicinity. It means that hospitals, schools, and jobs will be destroyed. It means that Palestinians will suffer, not just the shame of being searched for terror weapons that some carry when entering Israel, but that in their own homes they will be die as sure as their roof is used for launching pads.

When will the international community protest HAMAS' and other terror groups' methodical, predictable, and repetitive use of yellow journalism BEFORE blood has been spilled?
Instead of falling prey to the chicanery of HAMAS and like minded terrorists -responding retroactively to the mayhem and destruction- condemn HAMAS for every rocket.
Let there be no question amongst their leadership, population, or region what will happen if they continue.

Today it is a handful of rockets and the destruction of a tunnel, tomorrow...

When will the international community defend the people of Gaza?

Who Gains from the Demise of the Russian Spy Ring?

Many News sources and blogs are speculating as to timing of the FBI's decision -less than one week after the "warm" visit to America, by Russian President Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev- to take down the Russian "scouting for talent” spy ring.

The New York Post quoted a FBI spokesman who explained that there are many classified reasons for the timing of the FBI's action. One unclassified reason was that "one of the 10 spies was about to leave the US". Another explanation prominent in left-wing American media and state-run Russian media is that it was American officials attempting to embarrass Obama and at the same time counter his call for a "reset" with Russia.

Are these explanations sufficient?

The first reason, offered by the FBI spokesperson, is full of holes. The FBI was following this spy ring for 10 years, do you expect us to believe that this is the first time that these well-camouflaged fake-Americans decided to leave the country. Furthermore, the intermediary between the ring and Russia’s spy agency, the SVR, was arrested in Cyprus, after their officials were notified of his presence. In other words, the fact that one of the spies was planning on leaving the US could not have been even a secondary reason -he/she could have been arrested anywhere. That is unless they were tipped off and planned to run to Russia, the one place where they would, presumably, be safe. But who would tip the spies off? A double agent in the FBI? If that is the case it could explain why the FBI waited 10 years to roll up the spy-ring. Namely the FBI suspected that there was a mole and waited patiently for him/her to expose themselves. When the mole informed the Russian spy that the FBI was on to them, the spy ran, was caught, and is probably being interrogated right now, about who his FBI friend is. Assuming all this arbitrary speculation has some truth to it, it still does not answer the question. Why did the mole inform the spy to run NOW?

Which leads us to the "embarrass Obama" explanation.

Why didn't these "officials" attempt to embarrass Obama when he was signing the nuclear arms reduction treaty (START), back in April?

Which leaves us with the possibility of another potential player, the former KGB spy and current prime minister, Vladimir Putin. Putin is being left out of the rampant media speculation and is basically being ignored.

Could it be that Putin, who many perceive to be the real leader of Russia, resents his protégé Medvedev's increasing power and his diminishing relevance?

Indeed in April during the START signing, “American officials” could really have embarrassed Obama. Putin was ubiquitous (and embarrassing Obama would not serve his purpose), but since then he seems to have disappeared. Was he mentioned during Medvedev's visit to the G-20, or during his visit to America? No and no, in both cases and more Putin has been inconspicuously absent.

Yet like sex-loving Bill , Putin continues to try to make himself relevant, for example, with his recent but irrelevant visit to Turkey, to meet with the Ahmadinejad and Erdogan. To no avail, Putin’s power is slipping and he knows it. Obama and Medvedev want to continue Russia's democratization, and Putin, well we don't really know.

So Putin goes ahead and flexes his political muscles, and reminds Medvedev, Obama, and the free world that he is still in a position of power, at least as a spoiler. Putin knew that the spy ring was compromised, (in fact America/Russian reciprocal spying has accelerated since the end of the cold war, and is blatant but tolerated) pulled some strings in Russia, or even here in America, and low and behold America and Russia are reminded that their relationship is more like Putin-Bush struggling over missile defense then it is Obama-Medvedev devouring cheeseburgers. Don't be surprised if you see the anti-American sentiment in Russia coalesce around Putin, i.e. making Putin relevant.

Am I sure? Of course not! But at the same time why should we accept that it is anti-Obama elements in AMERICA attempting to embarrass him or that other “was going to leave the US” hogwash?

It is more likely that Putin is the one that orchestrated this event. After all who is to gain from the demise of the Russian spy ring?








Putin of course.

Monday, June 28, 2010

In short, one more reason to vote Obama out of office.

Have you heard of Sholom Rubashkin? He is a philanthropist, father, husband, son, brother, and entrepreneur; The man who transformed a small kosher meat plant in Postville, Iowa into the biggest and most successful kosher meat operation in the world. That is until he was convicted on 86 counts of bank fraud and sentenced to 27 years of prison. Murderers, like Lemrick Nelson the man who stabbed Yankel Rosenbaum to death during a Black on Jewish riot- often receive single digit sentences. The fact that this is Rubashkin’s first conviction of any sort raises the question:

Why was a 51 year old man, basically given a life sentence, (if this ruling stands Rubashkin will be 77 when he is eligible for parole), for a first offense, when others convicted under similar circumstances were not?

Many in the Jewish community have offered the hackneyed, but substantial explanation, that anti-Semitism is at play. They offer historic evidence of America's legal record of dealing with high-profile Jewish criminals. For example the Rosenbergs, Jonathon Pollard , and Bernie Madoff. All of these infamous Jews were convicted criminals, and received severe sentences. Despite what Huffington Post and like-minded commentators will have you believe, Jack Abramoff was an exception not the rule, because of his connections in the white-house.

Others, mainly a few legal scholars, argue that the judge (who also happens to be the second harshest sentence producer in the nation)didn’t really have a choice.

Still there is another possible explanation.

It takes us back to 2006/2007 when two powerful organizations, PETA and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, confronted Rubashkin.

PETA, the extremist animal-advocacy organization, has been targeting and besmirching kosher slaughter as inhuman for over a decade. This despite the fact that kosher slaughter is practiced as it is because it is considered the most humane manner of slaughter. Rubashkin's Agriprocessers, like most kosher slaughter houses practicing a millennia old tradition, refused to bow to PETA. Next, PETA turned to the far-left advocacy block to help them bring down Rubashkin.

The second organization, and by far the most significant, was the labor union which tried to shake Rubashkin down and at the same time force his employees to join their union.

This is key to understanding the Rubashkin case. After all who are the two biggest groups supporting Obama? Our president, a community activist, was put in power not so much by Jews as he was by the still-powerful unions. Who supported Obama in his bid for the presidency? The Unions and the far-left (not that the far-left is homogeneous, but PETA draws strongly from far-left ideology) of course.

This argument is bolstered by recent history -Obama has not shied away from putting his weight behind the unions before.

After a series of over-publicized Toyota brake mishaps, the administration's transportation secretary Ray Lahood, testified in front of congress on February 3rd of this year that “if anybody owns one of these vehicles [Toyota], stop driving it.” Anyone in the industry can tell you that all companies experience problems of the same magnitude.

The Obama administration had no problem interfering with our “free” enterprise and gave a tremendous edge to Toyota’s major competitor in America -owned by America- GM.

It should come as no surprise that the Rubashkin conviction was a result not only of a law and order judge gone-wild (with tenure), and residual anti-Semitism, but more so as a consequence of the unions/Obama partnership.

No I'm not saying this is Obama's fault, only that Rubashkins sentence would have been a lot less likely under a president that wasn't in bed with the Unions.

In short, one more reason to vote Obama out of office.

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Poetry with an Explanation: "Cut-off shorts and designer shirts"

Cut-off shorts and designer shirts.

Nice apartment, no occupation,

mixed up devotion.

“Do you work?"

“No, but I went to college."

“Do you like the neighborhood?"

“Yeah but it’s not for the weak at heart."

I’m confused. You’re drinking Starbucks.

Shouldn’t you be buying your coffee at the bodega,

nameless sign white cup?

Your wearing a wife-beater and shorts that were once long?

Are you a yuppie or a hipster?

An urban aristocrat or,

a Crown-Heights citizen who is just white?


It’s interesting observing the emergence of yet another sub-type of urban dweller. First you had the stereotypical Park-Slop yuppie: a city dweller from lower-upper-class suburbia. Or the formulaic Bed-Stuy hipster the the child of “middle-class" suburbia with no front lawn. The former loves a wild-night out, without the threat of violence. The latter walks late at night and mingles with the “local” population.


But what about that period of transition? The time when a part of the city begins to gentrify. Changes from a mix of shanties interspersed amongst dozens of monotonous red brick buildings with ominous entrances and perpetual loitering?


The hipster cannot afford the raise in rent nor the dearth of block-parties next-door. The yuppie despises the construction, the noise, the new building, and the gym on the first floor, but not doorman. Or the moment they/you/us realize that your view of the bridge from your breezy balcony is about to be cut off by the gray brick, “luxury apartments” next door. Who fills the void during the transition from hipster to yuppie?

From Crown Heights to Prospect Heights?

Then it occurs to the observer that

the word is out; The neighborhood is changing and

the hipster has moved on -

three subway stops to the left.

The yuppie is waiting for the amenities.

What is this that remains?

Is it possible?

Have the hipster and the yuppie converged?

Is this what is confounding the onlooker?

Starbucks and improvised shorts.

Cut-off shorts and designer shirts.

Yuppie and hipster...

What do you know? It's a "yipster"!

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

The Moral Compass: Are the PKK, HAMAS, and Irgun Terrorists?

Following the string of attacks on the Turkish military by the PKK, the Turkish government was quick to remind themselves and the world that the PKK is a terrorist organization. At the same time Erdogan and other like-minded leaders in the Middle-East label HAMAS and Hezbollah “political resistance groups”. America has labeled all three groups “terrorist”, while Israel labels HAMAS and Hezbollah, and now the IHH terrorists it does not the PKK.

So is there is one universal way to define terror, if only to generate a moral compass?

Political Definition:

It is obvious that all the name calling by these governments is simple political expedience. America is allied with both Turkey and Israel, and so it terms Hezbollah, HAMAS, and the PKK terrorist. While Turkey, who is allied with both HAMAS and Hezbollah, calls them legitimate political resistance groups; but the PKK… THEY are terrorists. Israel labeling the IHH terrorist, only recently, is equally difficult to explain except politically (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-adds-ihh-to-terror-watch-list-1.296629). Politics are inherently partisan and patently self-serving therefore it can simply not serve as a universal metric for defining terror.

One Man's Terrorist… Perspective:

This definition was made famous in part by Al Jazeera director general Wadah Khanafar (see Youtube clip minute 47 http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/07/al_jazeera_dire/) who argues that terror is a matter of one’s point of view –one man’s terrorist is another's freedom fighter; and thereby justifying Al Jazeera’s extensive coverage of Bin Laden and co.

The justification perspective, as Khanfar correctly observed, is inherently subjective and therefore cannot be universalized. Furthermore, one potential reason Khanfar and people like him, argue this perspective is to force us into labeling everyone terrorist or nobody a terrorist. This results in the obfuscation (note the precise definition) of any moral compass by placing the perpetrator and the defender in the same box, by way of various justifications. Its sole purpose is to cloud the moral compass.

Intentions vs. Results:

This perspective offers more depth and substance.

On one hand a terrorist could be anyone who deliberately acts in way that causes terror. Therefore any purposeful action that RESULTS in terror, even if it is not intended to terrorize, could be termed a terrorist act.

Or

The act itself must be done in a way that is INTENDED to cause terror.

The practical difference (hava amena, for my Talmud-oriented friends) between these two theoretical definitions can be understood from the following, familiar, “ hypothetical”: A country goes to war with its enemy and attacks a school (after warning civilians with phone calls and fliers to avoid people launching rockets) that is being used to fire rockets.

Based on the results definition that act can be termed terrorist, because it caused terror, even if it was clearly not intended to do so. Based on the intention definition, the act was not inherently meant to cause terror but rather to respond to terror. The fact that civilians become terrorized because the location happens to be a school is not in itself sufficient reason to term it an act of terror.

However even this distinction is problematic, because any individual could claim that they did not intend to terrorize but to attack the enemy. I.e. we can never really judge intent (for more perspective on intention vs. result please see posts http://factoru.blogspot.com/2009/12/unifying-factor-understanding-goldstone.html, and http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/01/haiti-intentions-vs-results.html).

The axiom that one cannot judge intent, is compounded by context -the nature of terror and the confusion it creates. Not only can the perpetrator lie about their true intent, but they may actually believe that their act is not intended to terrorize but to wage a legitimate war. Either way, intent alone cannot serve as the defining element.

Civilians vs. Militants Perspective:

This approach seeks to identify the target of an act using evidence of target-location and stated intent.

Going back to our hypothetical. Let us say that the one shooting from the school is asked where his rocket is supposed to land, and he responds around a given town filled with civilians. The soldier firing at the school is asked who are you firing at? The soldier answers at the man firing the rocket, militants.

Thus the target of the attack is an objective distinction. He is targeting civilians, he is targeting militants. The first is a terrorist the second is not.

Three points and their counterpoints:

1.Some will respond that this is the only weapon the “militants” have, using imprecise weapons aimed at civilians.

So that means that they are not intending to terrorize civilians?!

2.Their weapons are less accurate and do not cause many casualties

But they CAN kill, and therefore they DO terrorize.

3.Many of those people in that town are reserve soldiers, have children in the army, or give moral support to their family members in the army i.e. they are not civilians?

Where do you draw the line? Your logic justifies killing the tax payer who pays for the army and the baby who motivates their parent to be an effective soldier.

CONCLUSIONS:

Many do not want to accept this definition; because a moral compass gets in the way of political expediency. Recently, the PKK targeted military personal and the Irgun, even in the oft cited and condemned attack on the King David hotel (which then served as British Mandates Command Center- was preceded by an ignored call to the hotel warning them 25-27 minutes prior to the explosion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing), only targeted military personal/installations. Likewise labeling the IHH "terrorist" does not serve the purpose of moral clarity -on the contrary it further justifies hypocrisy. This hypocrisy is enabled by lack of moral clarity, and is a standard tool used against Israel. Why should Israel do the same?

Either way one thing is clear HAMAS/Al-Qaeda/Hezbollah and a myriad of other groups do not make a distinction. Instead they primarily target civilians because their aims are not to defeat the enemy but to terrorize anyone connected to their opponent. That makes them terrorists.

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Politics with Humor: What happens when you elect a health-freak/businessman as your mayor?

What happens when you elect a health-freak/businessman as your mayor?

Mayor Bloomberg who is in fact a health-freak, is the healthiest mayor New York City has ever had. Frankly, I don't mind. I am, after all, a gym-loving-healthy-food-craving citizen of this rather indefinable city myself.

But my appreciation for the mayor's personal belly-busting fixation does not mean I support his unremitting effort to impose ALL his habits on the city.

Yes, I can’t help but like that he spearheaded the effort to get rid of trans-fat from chain restaurants; or his efforts to reduce sodium use in foods. In the long run I haven’t heard anyone complaining about the way KFC tastes different –and I assure that here in Brooklyn you hear every type of complaint. And I can attest to the fact that replacing the salt in your morning omelet, say with olives and garlic, becomes as obvious as the "watery" fat-free milk that after two weeks is just better milk.

All that said, I can’t help but gripe about Bloomberg's anti-cigarette, tax-revenue boosting methodology.
Yes that’s right, I’m taking a break from the usual and ranting about local, relatively unimportant, issues.

I concede cigarettes are cancer sticks; the crutch some use to escape social-settings; and even functions to wash down that grainy morning cup of Joe.

And I agree that ads like the one with the Marlboro man (he is now dead from lung cancer) should not be displayed in public. At the same time I strongly disagree with the latest episode of The Simpsons being interrupted by disturbed middle-aged men who explain to you in a mechanical voice the reason that they speak out of their neck is cigarettes. Most of us know how bad cigarettes are from the unavoidable poster at the corner bodega, with a blown up but vividly clear image of a yellow/green lung, if not from the sanctimonious, never-tried a cigarette, “I don’t get it…” person -yes we all agree cigarettes are terrible.

However our mayor has taken the fight against cigarettes to a whole new level. Enter the “Bloomberg Business Approach” (BBA, an acronym only found here) to raise revenue.

You see when the city was riding a wave of pre-housing-bubble wall-street revenue, Bloomberg argued that a big tax increase on tobacco products would help convince people that now was the time to get off the cigarette and onto free nicotine patches offered by the city.

Now Bloomberg, after somehow managing in the interim to make three dollar packs of cigarettes into 10 dollar bills, pushed and got a one dollar plus tax hike on cigarettes. This time to fund anti-cigarette ads in a time when we can longer rely on Wall Street to pay for our big fat -except for Bloomberg- bureaucracy.

On both occasions Bloomberg added “besides smokers are a burden on our public health-care costs”. Never mind that it mostly individuals on private health care, or young people with no health care smoking 10 dollar packs. I am still waiting for Bloomberg’s attempt to rain in the epidemic of old people already adding significant fat, no pun intended, to our health care costs.

Mayor, many otherwise healthy people enjoy an occasional cigarette, just like they enjoy an infrequent beer, or a rare saturated with saturated-fat burgers for that matter. If you want to drive cigarettes off the streets -because it is a public health threat- then make it illegal, but don't make us, or the hard core smoker, your personal cash cow. Remember that the cigarettes are bad not the people smoking them!

Then again this is what happens when you make a businessman/health-freak your mayor.

Is the Flotilla Fiasco Connected to the PKK Attacks on Turkey?

Turkey and the “outlawed” Turkish Workers Party (PKK) have been in a period of unofficial detente –no major attacks for some time. Until PKK militants, attacked a Turkish navy vessel in Iskenderun on the very same day as the flotilla fiasco. This particular Turkish naval vessel also happened to be closest, proximity-wise, to the very same flotilla.

Since then there have been a number of serious attacks targeting Turkish soldiers. The Kurdistan Freedom Falcons (TAC, allegedly a front group for the PKK), took responsibility for the latest, a remote controlled bomb that resulted in the deaths of four Turkish soldiers and one civilian.

Was it a coincidence?

In Turkey, it seems, most have already concluded that the May 31st attack was not a coincidence (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=did-israel-orchestrate-terror-attack-in-iskenderun-2010-06-03). On June 1st, one day after the flotilla fiasco and the first PKK salvo against Turkey, one of the PKK’s leaders, Abdul Ocalan, said in a statement from prison that his calls for dialogue with Turkey had been ignored and that he was giving his consent to the PKK in northern Iraq to determine which course of action to take (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2010/06/201062034424526682.html). Even this is interpreted as part of an Israel/USA move against Turkey.



I agree but not for the same reasons.

The predominant Turkish perspective (I have spoken to some Turkish acquaintances, besides the usual press) is that Israel’s Mossad and even the United States' CIA, are behind these attacks, were effectively using the PKK as a weapon to punish Turkey for its support of anti-Western forces in the Middle-East. Some point to decades old allegations, that Israel supported the PKK, as "evidence". Then again America once supported the Taliban. Where is the hard evidence?

Maybe it was Iran which feels that its anti-Israel rhetoric, that helped portray themselves as the “savior” of the Middle-East, has been overshadowed by Erdogan’s antics? Indeed, Iran has its own Kurdish problem, so it makes sense for them to direct Kurdish anger at their Muslim competitor in the region. Maybe, but where is the evidence?

On the other hand, there is evidence for the contrary: In the past, Israel provided Turkey with vital political assistance, by lobbying the Americans on Armenian issues and arms sales that were hampered by Greece(http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/8/jewish-community-ends-support-turkey-capitol-hill/print/). Israel also provided essential intelligence and helped modernize Turkeys military- a modernization that ironically continues today. Some sources even claim that it was Israel that helped Turkey capture imprisoned PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan (http://www.sptimes.com/2003/02/20/Worldandnation/Turkey_and_Israel_thr.shtml).

Then, in 2002 following the AKP’s assent to power, Israel’s relationship with Turkey plummeted, to the extent that some blame Israel’s lack of preparation for violence by the flotilla activists on the false Israeli presumption that they still had intelligence partners in Ankara (http://www.debka.com/article/8824/). Israel's “partners” either didn’t pass on the information, or were kept out of the loop by a military-wary Erdogan (please see post http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/05/erdogan-and-turkey-are-israels-right.html).

The collapse of Israel/Turkey relationship has no doubt severely hampered intelligence sharing. This is a given considering Turkeys burgeoning relationships with Israel’s enemies in the region -Iran, Syria, HAMAS, and Hezbollah.

Without Israeli intelligence, Turkey’s intelligence apparatus is simply incapable of battling the PKK, as is evident from the fact that Turkey seems to be responding to threats, not preventing them. But it doesn’t stop there. Turkey's no vote on Iran sanctions in the UNSC, angered and embarrassed Washington which was looking to at least match the “inept Bush administrations record” which actually passed three rounds of sanctions against Iran, two of them unanimously (please see post http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/06/what-do-latest-unsc-sanctions-on-iran.html). This could not have strengthened Americas willingness to use its comprehensive intelligence resources in Iraq to tip off Turkey about the impending cross border PKK attack that killed 12 Turkish soldiers.

Indeed if there is a time that Turkey is vulnerable it is now. Turkey wasn't bulletproof when it had Israel/American support, but without that support the suppressed vulnerability became a glaring opportunity. The PKK leader did not overlook this, and the results are stark.

So was the flotilla fiasco connected to the rash of attacks on Turkeys military? Absolutely. Not because of Israeli or American engagement with the PKK, but because of their disengagement with Turkey.

Monday, June 21, 2010

Understanding the Israeli Exhortation "Why Not Them" (2)

2. The Higher Standard or Thomas Friedman, Perspective.

This perspective was offered by Thomas Friedman. Friedman, a New York Times columnist, is despised in the pro-Israel community for his decades of outspoken criticisms of Israel -even during the waves of homicide bombings unleashed by Arafat and HAMAS, following the collapse of the Oslo accords. I must admit that I was often turned off by what I perceived to be the (unsurprising)perpetuation by a Jew of a biased perspective in an already biased Newspaper. That is until I “discovered” his journalistic expose called “Between Beirut and Jerusalem”. There, Friedman asserts that Jewish Israel must hold itself to a higher ethical standard. I will not go into the details of his argument here but it is a compelling explanation of his excessive criticism.

Still the question for the “higher standard perspective” is not whether Israel must hold itself to a higher moral/ethical standard of warfare but rather whether Israel is already meeting this standard and is still being criticized. For example, following Operation Cast Lead to stop years of HAMAS rocket fire on Israeli cities, the expected trend of Israel bashing again emerged. Israel, as usual, contended it could not have fought the war in a more moral/ethical manner.

This YouTube clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX6vyT8RzMo, is of a retired British general testifying in front of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) affirming that Israel did in fact meet this self imposed higher standard.

So from this perspective a question arises: “I can understand that you hold Israel to a higher standard but even after Israel has, or at least made its best effort to, meet that higher standard, why does the disproportionate criticism continue?” Thus critics focus excessively on Israel because they expect more, but the “more” – lift the embargo on Gaza/trust HAMAS; don’t respond to rocket fire when it is shot from amongst civilians; eliminate checkpoints- are simply unrealistic expectations. To meet this higher standard would effectively mean the destruction of Israel. Indeed, the only difference between this perspective and the first is that the latter one focuses on unrealistic expectations and the former is about anti-Semitism.

3. The Quantitative/Qualitative Perspective.

This perspective takes a bifurcated approach to understanding why it is that Israel is the focus of so much negative attention when it is not amongst the major human rights violating states (Congo, Sudan, Iran etc.).

Quantitatively speaking, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict pales in comparison with other conflicts if we compare the number of casualties, illegal acts, and human rights violations caused by other conflicts.

Conversely, if we evaluate this conflict qualitatively –the larger ramifications of the conflict- then one could make the argument that the Israeli/Palestinian does deserve all the attention.
The Darfur, Sudan crises can assist in understanding the difference between the above approaches.
Darfur has seen over 300,000 killed in the past 15 years. From a purely quantitative perspective Darfur is an infinitely more pressing human rights issue then Israel/Palestinian/Arab, where about 15,000 were killed over the past 20 years. However, from a qualitative perspective, the fact that Israel is Americas biggest ally in a region with significant strategic value makes Israel a target of any nation that wants to weaken America's dominant position in the region. Whereas, Darfur is seen, falsely I should add, by these same political forces as “just another episode of Black on Black violence”, i.e. there is relatively little strategic value in making Sudan a big human rights issue.

This perspective offers a rather simple explanation to the underlying question.

Israel receives disproportional criticism, not because of the relatively minor, Israeli/Palestinian conflict and the alleged human rights abuses, but rather as the result of a larger strategic tug-of-war over the Middle-East. In other words the pervasive focus on Israel’s perceived crimes is a superficial manifestation of a deeper more conscious struggle that has a lot less to do with human suffering then it does with economic and strategic interests. The result is America’s support for Israel, defending it from spurious attacks because of Israel’s strategic value to America (please see three part series http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/03/linkers-and-thinkers-is-americas_25.html). While other nations and NGO’s persistent attacks reflect the desire to weaken Israel and thereby weaken America's position in the Middle-East.

All of the above perspectives ask the same underlying question, “why not them” but the individual conclusions they offer -anti-Semitism; your higher standard is unrealistic; and strategic value- are very different.

So now, from these three perspectives, is the rhetorical question, "why not them" a legitimate response to the excessive criticism?

In my opinion it depends on the specific critique.


In other words the cumulative critiques of Israel is really the conflation of three streams of criticism.

In theory, if it was possible to eliminate all the critique stemming from the argument that Israel should be held to an impossible standard, or that Israel has no right to exist, leaving only the strategic component then the response “why not them” would have no bearing on the issue.

The difficulty is knowing when this answer is justified i.e. where the criticism is actually stemming from.


Thus on the surface Harris, was correct in his response to a specific criticism. Because that criticism was perceived to come from one of two arguments. Either from the argument that Israel has no right to exist/defend itself, or that Israel should be held to an impossible standard - After all the Free Gaza Movement wanted to break a blockade that was essential for Israel’s survival. At the same time there was/is clearly a larger strategic influences at play, namely the struggle for control of the Middle-East.

So why didn’t Harris include in his article a response to a valid source of excessive criticism –namely that there is another level that has nothing to do with human rights violations, anti-Semitism, or Israels right to exist, and everything to do with larger strategic interests?

Unfortunately, like Harris, many in the pro-Israel/American community, understand the, anti-Semitic, impossible standard, and quantitative side of this argument but do not appreciate the significance of the qualitative side –the specifics of which I will leave to the astute reader's imagination.

Understanding the Israeli Exhortation "Why Not Them" (1)

In a recent piece published in Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-harris/to-the-free-gaza-movement_b_602061.html),one amongst many, David Harris, the President of the American Jewish Congress (AJC), asked the now infamous question of the Free Gaza Movement, "why not them".

The Free Gaza Movement was one of the major organizers of the "provocation with a bad ending" flotilla. Harris asked them, rhetorically, why don't you organize to stop mass human rights abuses all over the world -why Israel? His conclusion, is that they do not seek to help Gaza but to hurt Israel.

Amongst his supporting evidence is the assertion that if they wanted to help Gaza, they should have delivered the aid the fastest way possible, via established land routes.
For the sake of balance, the Free Gaza Movement responds that they organized to help Gazans not other victims.

But this essay is not about this specific article or event. Rather it is meant to offer a number of perspectives on Harris’s underlying argument, as his observation is not new. Pro-Israel, and watch-dog groups covering NGO's, human rights groups, and of course the UN Human Rights Council - (UNHRC) in response to habitual and sustained criticism of Israel- regularly make this same accusation .

The "why not them argument" boils down to the question of why so much energy and resources are expended on criticizing Israel while the other more sever human rights violations are ignored?

Is this a legitimate argument?

Before that can be answered a more expansive understanding of this oft cited rhetorical question and the corresponding answers offered is in order.

Here I will attempt to analyze and expand the underlying question from three perspectives.

1. The implications perspective.

The implications perspective is always offered rhetorically and is historical in nature. It asks what can possibly explain the obsession with Israel, and the disproportional negative attention it engenders, except history? History explains the criticism of Israel as it comes from the same quarters that perpetrated the crusader riots, the wave of expulsions of Jews from almost every nations-state of Western Europe and later the Arab world, ghettos, and of course the holocaust.

Some in the Jewish community point to the Talmudic maxim, “Esiv Sonei et Yaccov” Esau hates Jacob –the decedents of Esau -commonly understood to refer to the descendants of Rome -as part of their nature hate the descendants of Jacob, the Jews (please see post “http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/05/why-do-i-hate-jews.html).

The implications perspective argues that the disproportionate criticism of Israel, is explained by the source of the criticism, i.e. much of criticism is not of Israel but of the Jewish nature of the state of Israel (please see post http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/04/i-have-no-problem-with-jews-its-just.html). The implications are that good old historical anti-Semitism is alive and well, as evident by the, otherwise unexplainable extent of criticism of Israel, to the detriment of 10’s of millions really being oppressed across the globe. The point being that anything Israel does, short of disappearing, is open to attack.

This is one way to understand the “why us not them argument”. In part two we look at two others and attempt to draw a concrete conclusion.

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Are the Jordanians, Saudis, and Egyptians Really Pursuing Nuclear Weapons, Or...

Over the past year the “moderate” Arab nation block of Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia have patently publicized their intent to pursue “peaceful” nuclear energy.

Jordan's nuclear ambitions stretch back to 2007 when King Hussein of Jordan declared their nation's peaceful ambitions to acquire nuclear energy (http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=178500). Recently Hussein has ostensibly ratcheted up his attempts, and even publicly admonished Israel for using its international political connections to hinder Jordan's nuclear ambitions (news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/10321361.stm).

Meanwhile the Saudis too, are already in the process of establishing the prerequisite infrastructure, which the Saudis call "a renewable energy complex" (www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=173730).

Additionaly, there has been some Egyptian movement towards acquiring "peaceful" nuclear technology going back almost two decades. More recently, Egypt has displayed a new found earnestness when they signed a contract with an Austrian firm to find a suitable location in Egypt for the construction of an experimental nuclear energy plant (http://www.nuclearsafety.org/index.php/component/content/article/15-headlines/291-egypt-signs-160-million-deal-with-australias-worleyparson-for-nuclear-energy-plan).

It is no surprise that as the Shiite non-Arab Iranians move closer to becoming a nuclear power, the "moderate" Sunni Arab nations increase their efforts to acquire weapons in order to stave off Iranian domination. It is not an arbitrary correlation.

Of course the assumption is that the Arab states are not all of a sudden pursuing peaceful nuclear energy, but rather, like Iran, they use that terminology to cover up their true intentions. In other words as the Iranians get closer to developing "peaceful" nuclear power we can expect increased efforts by Arab states to acquire “peaceful” nuclear power.

But how credible are the attempts of these Arab states -all members of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT)- to obtain nuclear weapons?

Iran is one thing. It has actively pursued weapons since the 1979 Islamic-revolution (please see Khomeini’s Ghost, for more on this). Iran has significant international alliances with nuclear powers willing to share. Like China, Pakistan, Russia, and especially North Korea, Iran has an exponentially growing domestic know-how. They are succeeding for these reasons, and these reasons alone.

The Saudis, Egyptians, and Jordanians, have NONE of the above. So if the Arab nations have unrealistic ambitions, what is behind their nuclear rhetoric?

Their motives can be interpreted in two ways.

1. The Arab nations are notorious for their delusional rhetoric. For example during their 1967 and 1973 wars with Israel they reported great victories over the radio, prompted at times by their leaders, while in actuality they were suffering extraordinary defeats (please see the Arab Mind by Raphael Patai). I do not want to go into more detail here, because, despite the many blood libels and propaganda commonly spread in these countries (MEMRITV), I believe that this time they are more calculated in their actions.

2. By ratcheting up their talk of pursuing nuclear energy, aka nuclear weapons, they indirectly, but unambiguously, affirm the notion that Iran's nuclear drive is creating yet another problem -a regional nuclear race, lending further credence to the anti-proliferation argument applied to Iran.

In other words they do not want Iran to have weapons and are doing everything to focus the international community’s efforts on stopping Iran.

What does this mean?

There are two ways at looking at this -from a sanctions standpoint and from a tactical strike perspective.

On one hand their actions are helping galvanize the sanctions movement supported by the Obama administration and most other countries.
Yet the more sanctions that are successfully passed (passed is not synonymous with effective), the more passive the international community becomes in actually stopping Iran. This is because they feel like they are doing enough (please see post http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/06/what-do-latest-unsc-sanctions-on-iran.html ).

This passivity in turn makes it more difficult to take the only action that will actually stop Iran, a tactical strike.

Or the international community may get the hint and recognize publicly what they know privately: A nuclear Iran would cause such a range of negative consequences that they may actually not repeat history, and support a strike. Not that they would have to raise a finger -Israel will, as usual, do the dirty work. On the contrary, don’t raise a finger, against Israel that is.
Predictably the skeptic will respond:

1.“Let Israel disarm first”. Or, “Iran is only protecting itself from Israeli/American nuclear aggression”.

The very fact that the Arabs, yes the Arabs, have responded to Iran’s actions as a real and immediate threat, should give us a clue as to the real difference between Israel and other countries. Israel will not be the first to use weapons, or use weapons as an umbrella to protect themselves from international terror and Iran… As for America, America could have already attacked Iran.

2.“Look at North Korea, there nuclear weapons are not such a big problem."

Oh, but you forget that it was North Korea that helped Iran along the way to near nuclear armament. The consequences of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons will only accelerate that process.

If the Arabs are on to Iran's game what excuse does the rest of the sane world have?

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

The Politics of the World Cup

Yesterday I walked into the locker-room of my gym in Park Slope, Brooklyn and immediately looked for an update on the NBA finals -which I expected to be displayed on the off-color TV. Instead, I was greeted with the image of a bunch of hazy figures running up and down a massive field accompanied by a cacophony of otherworldly sounds.

Why, I thought, was this and not the sports I grew up with, basketball, playing?

With all due respect to my many foreign friends and my fellow -however recent- citizens, I just don't get all the hype.
So the whole world is going berserk. So South African merchants ran out of ear-plugs- and not jerseys or other sports apparel. So vuvuzelas, the noise-making horns, were actually going to be banned because their use was being abused. So?

Yes, some in and outside America would like us Americans to be more like the rest of world. But I don't want America to be like the rest of the world. That doesn't mean we should automatically oppose the world. Neither should we ban the viewing of the world cup by once a year fans who are just looking for an excuse to get wasted at the recently bedecked -with an array of national flags- soccer showing pub on the corner. There are many other global trends, like Israel bashing, civil rights depriving, and populism that America should continue to avoid. If the world cup is forced down our throats what’s next? Just joking.

The point is that America has good reason to maintain its unique culture, whether it be NFL football or a pragmatic approach to international-affairs.

Domestic/nativist perspectives aside, I find the international politics of the world cup fascinating.


For example, most of the sane and free world was rooting for Brazil to defeat North Korea, even though historically, I am told, Brazil is one of the most successful teams. As if North Korea as a country, is defeated when its sports team is defeated. The reasons why most of the free world rooted against North Korea, probably has to do with North Korea's abysmal domestic and regional behavior. In other words politics trumped the fans desire to win!
Of Course there were over a thousand red-uniformed Chinese "volunteers" directed by an maestro (no I'm not joking, a maestro) at the game cheering on North Korea. When asked if they were following the game, they responded that they were not, just there to support their brothers (http://www.newser.com/story/92710/north-korean-fans-actually-chinese-actors.html). Talk about politics.

Let us hope that the despotic, Kim Jung-Il does not mimic deposed dictator, Saddam Hussein, who was known to torture Iraqi Olympians and their families if they failed to win.

Then let us not forget the unusual brouhaha between America, under the left wing Obama administration, and Cameron’s, now conservative Britain. On the world-cup front it centers on the unexpected 1-1 tie. But the name-calling by fans was fanned by British Petroleum’s (BP) failures, and the Obama administration's ineptness. Why Obama, is Anglicizing BP's failures, and why the English are interpreting the predictable left-wing/environmentalist backlash (except, of course, for Al Gore’s conspicuous silence on the matter) as personal, probably has more to do with our stressed economies and scapegoat-hunting leaders, then anything else.

On to the usual and frustrating -to many live-and-let-live Muslims- Islamic component. Why, I ask, must Somalia execute two fans for the inexcusable sin of watching the world-cup? And why is the Muslim street, which of course jumped on the recent "flotilla provocation with a bad ending episode", not demanding justice for their entertainment-hungry brothers?


Soccer/football, holds no significance for me and many Americans. At the same time you simply can’t deny or be surprised that this international sports affair has an intriguing political side. It is interesting enough for me, and for many disinterested Americans, to know that the Anglo-American match resulted in a 1-1 tie.

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

THE COLDEST COLD WAR (3) a part of The Unifying Factor:

I just cant let go of the notion that America and China are in the midst of a covert war.
Nor can I ignore the feeling that this war is intimately connected to many political events that, ostensibly, are not commonly discussed in relation to both America and China.

Please bear with me.

I don't mean that the coldest cold war is the cause of these events -events that I will elaborate on in the coming weeks- but rather the war is a major component and relatively discernible part of a larger trend.

I believe that the coldest cold war and the many other pieces of the diffuse puzzle are in fact part of a global shift towards a new world order. Some would have you believe that a new world order has inherently negative connotations, and/or reeks of conspiracy theories, I couldn't disagree more.

Historically speaking there have been a number of world order shifts from East to West, and vis versa. All long term victors, had their detractors, but in retrospect contributed significantly to societies progress. The Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman, the Far-Eastern nations like China and India -under the great unifier Chandra Gupta-, Ottomans, and now Western civilization. All the above civilizations, and many which I out of ignorance missed, contributed essential parts to global progress.True they all committed their unforgivable crimes, but the good, usually, outweighed the bad.

My point is simply that any long term world order shift does not necessarily denote negative progress. Nor were they in retrospect figments of societies imagination or as some term conspiraces.

At the same time these shifts all came about through instability and destructive force.
Thus when advocating for a new world order, we need to take into account the price vs the potential benefit.

That being said the development of an hypothesis, that I call the "coldest cold war", led me to the realization that the nature and impetus for this war reflected a larger motivation; an attempt to shift the world balance of power i.e a new world order. The first cold war had the same goal. Essentially this is what the Soviets attempted. They failed as a result of the consistent, and ultimately successful, implementation of the "Truman doctrine" (Communist containment).

The point is that however big the Chinese-American struggle it is only one part of a larger trend towards a new world order.

Another way of explicating the development of my perspective is that the coldest cold war was a clue that led me to the belief that nearly every major political event since 9/11, and perhaps from before can be traced to a larger motivation, a shift towards a new world order.

It may explain everything from the religious tension in the middle east, to Russia's recent moves in Eastern-Europe, (please see post, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, and Poland: Who’s Next?) to the "Bilderberg conspiracies". All issues that I have written on with a local perspective, not observing that the local reflects the global.

Conspiracy? Absolutely not!

The skeptic may contend that this is too big, too many details, too diffuse, for it all to reflect one story? I agree. I don't believe that some group meeting in Spain, or what not, is orchestrating this. Indeed my point is not to uncover some insidious plot to divide and control the world. Not only because I don't think that any one group, or consortium of groups, has the global insight to implement such a big and infinitely complex operation, but also because new world order shifts have happened before. They were the result of a series of unpredictable and disparate events that culminate with a shift. Who imagined that Rome would decay and fall or that the great Ottoman empire would drown in corruption? Were that orchestrated by some unseen human-hand, not according to most historians. Rather past shifts unfolded a seemingly natural progression of events that can be explained, retrospectively of course, by the combination of a series of coincidences, and human efforts to harness those coincidences.

I do not know who or what is behind this global trend, all I am attempting do is connect many seemingly separate events/effects with a common cause. Perhaps this will allow me to offer a different perspective, we shall see.

At the moment my observation is that the attempt at a new world order is the unifying factor.

I will attempt to further delineate/defend this perspective in the coming months.

Monday, June 14, 2010

THE COLDEST COLD WAR (2) A New World Order?

In part one of this series we looked at an example of the coldest cold war between America and China, as well as the economic reasons why this war is so much "colder" then the last cold war.

In part two I would like explore the question of why our society is hell bent on ignoring the realities of our relationship with China. As well as the question of which is the greater force in the China-West coldest cold war, economy/stability or influence/change in the world order.
Our close economic ties prevent out government from calling, for example, the North Korean provocation what it is –a proxy event. But the question still remains, why has our diverse, vaunted, and conspiracy-prone media ignored the realties?

One potential answer is that our media and even the public, have justifiably reconciled with the fact that China is now our partner in power. Thus China’s covert actions around the world are part of Chinas right as a super-power. Indeed, this theme is given sufficient if not obsessive coverage.

My question is not why hasn’t the media and larger society at acknowledged the ramifications of China as an emerging super-power. Rather why is there no discussion about the manner of how China is going about their war? Chinas anti-Democratic belief system, allows it to easily support North Korea, a county that literally starves and kills its own people by the 1000’s, and that habitually commits acts of war, but China supports is so long as it weakens American influence.

While we do not even acknowledge the link, China is challenging us in ways that we last saw during our cold war with Russia. We should be aware of the parallel, if only to apply the lessons of the past to the present, but we ignore them, why?

This may all boil to social-psychology; society is experiencing a form of collective Freudian defense mechanism -repression.

Just as the child who has a negative experience in the bathtub may have an aversion to all water as they mature so too the trauma of the last cold war has affected our collective psyche to the extent that we refuse to acknowledge the realities we face. This despite the fact that we "won" the last cold war -akin to the mature individual who "survived/won" their child-hood trauma, but still manifests, perhaps unknowingly, symptoms of that trauma.

Our analogy, like all analogies is imprecise. In this case, the ramifications of our self imposed ignorance are unlike the implications of the individual with an aversion to water. While the person who dislikes water, can choose to avoid his phobia, and if he/she were to encounter the water they could choose to disengage from it, we, America and the west, can ot simply disengage. This lack of choice may be at the heart of why we refuse to acknowledge and confront the issue in the first place.

Now on to the second question.

Will this remain a coldest cold war? Put otherwise will our economic marriage with China -and the ensuing superficial stability it produces- trump the struggle for global supremacy and the forces that seek a new world order.

But before we can answer this larger question let us establish that the nature of the coldest cold war centers on the establishment of a new world order. Currently this is less obvious because the the current benefits, to all sides, of our economic ties relegate the proxy aggressiveness e.g. North Korean actions to the back burner, i.e. The current economic benefits outweigh the push for a new world order. (You could even say that China sees the economic ties and the corollary buildup of its economic might as a necessary step in the push for its new world order).

Either way as the benefits diminish and/or the "new world order" gathers strength and coalesces the symptoms of the coldest cold war will become more pronounced and more cold war-like. In other words, the fact that the coldest cold war is so cold is because there are powerful mitigating factors. As those factors become weaker say as Americas economic might becomes mired in crushing debt, or becomes, relatively, less significant, say as Iran, Turkey, Russia, Brazil, and China coalesce into a potent economic/military force, then we can expect that the push to realign the world order to be more urgent and overt.

To the extent of direct war? Probably not. It is more likely that the degree that a cold war is evident would match the potential benefit of that change to those seeking the change.

From this perspective, the North Korean provocation, Iranian president Ahamdinejad call for a new world order before embarking to Turkey to meet with Erdogan of Turkey and Putin Of Russia (http://www.infowars.com/ahmadinejad-stresses-need-for-new-world-order/) , and Brazil and Turkeys failed attempt to broker a nuclear swap deal -to head off sanctions on Iran- are part of a larger and accelerating trend.

It is no coincidence, then, that this trend is becoming increasingly evident as the America and the West flounder economically, and militarily.

At the same time the fact that Brazil and Turkey failed, and that sanctions, however inane (and even insidious, please see post on http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/06/what-do-latest-unsc-sanctions-on-iran.html) passed against Iran are both indicators of a emerging and definable coalition opposing the old American dominated word, and that America is still the leader and a potent force. Which in turn explains why we are still involved in the coldest cold war, with China.


Taken as a whole it seems that we are in the midst of a calculated and predictable progression from coldest cold war to cold war; from covert war to thinly veiled overt war. This reflects an underlying consensus in both China and America, acknowledged or otherwise that should there be a shift in the world order it should unfold in a stable and progressive manner. Let us hope that it is China and not its less pragmatic partners that continues to guide and lead the coalition for a new world order.

For our part, we in America need to recognize the signs. We are in the midst of deeply veiled war, in the past we were victorious, we can be so again. For those that look forward to Americas down fall, remember that the now powerful nations of Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union were once Americas defeated enemies. America is pragmatic not vengeful -it elevates those it defeats- can we be certain that China and its minority partners will do the same?

Sunday, June 13, 2010

Saudi Arabia and Israel! Really?

The Timesoline ://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7148555.ece reported Saturday that Saudi Arabia has established a narrow corridor for Israel, or America, for use to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. Intelligence sources (http://www.debka.com/article/8845/) are reporting that the Saudis have run drills preparing to stand down their comprehensive air defenses for just such an eventuality. Predictably, the Saudis denied the "accusation".

Though Israel and America continue their petty quibbling over the flotilla debacle -spurred on by an inept Obama administration- and are unlikely to take advantage, I would like to attempt to evaluate the Saudis offer, from the Israeli perspective.

First, Israel should never forget that it was the Saudis, not the Iranians, who first helped establish the framework and infrastructure for international Islamic terror that plagues Israel. Moreover, the Saudis, though improved, have an abysmal human rights record. For that reason alone Israel should be weary.

Two, the Saudis, and most Arab nations, refuse to recognize the state of Israel, but now realize that it is precisely the non-existent Israel that stands between them, the Sunni Arabs nations (excluding Lebanon, and to a lesser degree Syria), and the tyrannical Shiite Mullahs of Iran.

Three, the Saudis as well as the other Arab nations were shocked by the speedy emergence of the non-Arab alliance that sandwiches them between Iran and Turkey (http://www.debka.com/article/8845/). Past Ottoman oppression and Iranian aspirations may be overlooked by the deprived Israel-hating Arab street, but the elites of the Arab nations know who their enemy really is.

So what should Israel do?

First, should Israel make the necessary decision to attack Iran, there will be serious repercussions for Israel. On the diplomatic front, there is no shortage of anti-Israel sentiment. Even in America, there are those on the far-left who savor the opportunity to bolster their highly questionable claim that Israel is a strategic liability America (please see post series "the thinkers and the linkers", for more on this). Ironically, the very Arab nations that Israel will save will likely be the first to condemn Israel.

On the military front, while it is not clear that an Israeli attack will be completely successful, it is clear that Iran will let loose its proxy terror apparatus, Hezbollah and Hamas. These organizations have amassed a spectacular arsenal of terror weapons that can reach every part of Israel. What many do not realize is that if these terror organizations do what they do best -kill civilians- successfully, Israel will be forced to step back from its usual highly measured a restrained approach to battle. Perhaps replicating what NATO and all other countries do on regularly -put their Israeli civilians and soldiers first. This would necessitate the complete elimination of Hezbollah, Hamas, and countless human shields.

Who knows how Erdogan-dominated Turkey would react?

Therefore.

Israel should make it clear that the Arabs -who will benefit greatly from such an attack- that Israel will not be both their whipping boy and their savior.

Israel should attempt to gain concessions from the Arab nations. Recognition may be a pipe-dream, but putting pressure on Hamas, the PLO/PA, for peace- real peace- is a legitimate option. Also, written guarantees to completely halt all anti-Semitic anti-Israel incitement (thus blood libels/organ harvesting, kill the Zionists, bad, criticism, like that found in the New York Times, ok, for more on this please see post “http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/04/i-have-no-problem-with-jews-its-just.html) that is regularly displayed and taught in all Middle-Eastern Arab nations (check out memriTV). Finally, the establishment of direct economic ties which is a prerequisite for Middle-Eastern development and eventual peace.

Of course the Saudis may not agree to such concessions, which is why Israel needs the Obama administration to wake up and reassert America’s rightful role as the only great AND just power in the universe. Many Americans, the pragmatic ones anyway, see the opportunity here, we should not overlook it. Besides, as in the past, Israel will be on the front line defending Western interests. But America needs to do its part.

Hopefully the above steps if taken and carried out may actually turn the Iranian crises, into a pivotal moment in history that could prevent another Iran from arising in the Middle-East.

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

What do the Latest UNSC Sanctions on Iran Mean?

After months of negotiations between the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) -America, Britain, France, Russia, and China- a watered down (for lack of a better term) resolution, sanctioning Iran, was passed.

The bottom line is that the UNSC failed to pass sanctions with teeth. By teeth I mean making it illegal to export refined gas/oil products to a country that, surprisingly considering all its oil reserves, imports 50% of their refined oil/gas.

So we must ask what does this fourth round of sanctions actually mean?


First, the very fact that Russia and China -who both have strong economic ties with Iran- signed on to this resolution reveals three points. 1. The Western powers, led by America, had to make serious concessions. Concessions, that no doubt affect missile defense in Eastern Europe, and Americas actions vis-a-vis Taiwan/North Korea in the East. 2. For once Ahmadinejad was telling the partial (I will explain partial in a moment) truth when he said the sanctions are "valueless" and should be thrown "in the waste bin like a used handkerchief". Otherwise China/Russia would not have signed on. 3. The Obama administration needed this diplomatic "victory", a need that Russia and China surely exploited, further explaining the worthless provisions.

Second, the Russia's decision to sign on to the resolution was most probably agreed upon between Putin and Ahmadinejad, when they recently met in Turkey. Thus when the Russia's Foreign Ministry announced that the measures in the resolution "exclude the possibility of employing force", he meant that this resolution was only worthless to those opposed to Iran's nuclear ambitions (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_nuclear_iran). In essence, this resolution is an umbrella protecting Iran from an attack by Israel. After all "Iran was sanctioned, what more can you, Israelis, possibly want"!?

Third, America, under the Obama administration, will not only not use military force to stop Iran, but it will also do all it can -as Nixon/Kissinger did leading up to the Yom Kippur war of 1973- to prevent Israel from doing what it feels it must. Including agreeing to meaningless sanctions to show that America is doing all it can, and that Israel should further delay any strike. This is not a critique of America, but rather a frank conclusion that the Obama administration agreed to this resolution in a misguided attempt to assuage China, Russia and Israel.

Put otherwise it is true that America does not have the ability now to open up a third front in Iran, at the same time America can work with its real allies, the Western powers, and sanction the export of gas to Iran. After all America and the EU, are the number one and number two consumer blocks, they have pull.

From this perspective, this resolution is part of a trend not an exception. Obama's is attempting to befriend Russia and China, and continues to place Americas real allies/friends second. Poland and the aborted missile defense- Russia. South Korea/Japan, and no action on North Korea - China. Now sacrificing Israels interests.
Why? For the sake of the pipe dream that America can be both a leader and a friend of Russia and China.

What do the latest UNSC sanctions mean? They mean a lot.

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Why Helen Thomas Resigned:

Helen Thomas was the longest serving journalist in the White House Press Corp. At the ripe old age of 89 she resigned from her post, after she candidly was recorded as saying that the Jews should get the hell out Israel, and go back to Poland and Germany.

While Thomas, the daughter of Lebanese immigrants was never, or ever tried to be, seen as pro-Israel, she was always given the benefit of the doubt that her views were political by nature. That is, she opposed Israel not because it is a Jewish state, but because of the usual political arguments.

Yes the Jewish and Israeli community both here and abroad is very sensitive to criticism, but there is still a small majority which believes that criticism of Israel is not synonymous with anti-Semitism. I dealt with this very issue in a previous post “http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/04/i-have-no-problem-with-jews-its-just.html which I hope you will read.

This despite the disappointing and confused responses by some in the Jewish community, posting on Huffington post (which relished the opportunity to publish that article) and other less significant media outlets. Please, when you are dealing with such an important issue, you have to argue coherently and effectively. Stick to the issue!

With that necessary digression aside, I accept the majority position, with the caveat that just because anti-Semitism is not inherent to criticism of Israel does not automatically mean that anti-Semitism is not often behind that criticism. Indeed many astute followers of the news have become adept at distinguishing the two.

Thomas was one of these respected journalists, and was beleived to reflect the above nuanced position -criticism without anti-Semitism.

Until.

Until she made her comments.

But even now let us not jump to conclusions.

What did she say?

Did she make a distinction between Israeli's and Jews? Did she make a distinction between Israeli's from Europe and Israeli's that lived in Israel and surrounding Arab nations in an unbroken chain for over 3,000 years? No and no. After all it was only some Jews who came from the death camps of Germany and Poland. But she said “they” should get the hell out of Palestine.

Did she differentiate between pre and post 1967 borders? Did she mean that only the West Bank and Gaza is Palestine? No, and no. If she meant to, then she should have said “let them go back to Israel proper”.

What I infer from her comments is that she

1. She denies the existence/legitimacy of the State of Israel, akin to HAMAS’s extremist position.

2. She does not distinguish between Israelis and Jews, which means that decades of her extreme criticism of Israel were inherently directed at Jews.

Does the above mean that Thomas is an anti-Semite? Certainly not the conventional type that Jews are all too familiar with, you know the Neo-Nazi or frothing at the mouth protester at an ant-Israel rally. If she is an anti-Semite, she is more like the sophisticated Mel Gibson type. You know, making movies that indirectly affirm anti-Semitic notions, or effectively hiding beliefs until that one candid moment when it all comes out.

However her resignation was justified. Not because of the insidious Israeli lobby, our oversensitive culture, or even her almost blatant anti-Semitism, but because

3. she completely lacks, or perhaps recently lost, the sensitivity that is integral to the fair, honest, and democratic exchange of ideas that the majority of Americans cherish.

and

4. she is not capable of objective reporting on Israel, and who knows what else. This is not to say that she has no right to her personal opinion, however egregious and extreme, but rather that her views compromise her ability to report to us in an as unbiased manner as possible (please see inside.ptribune.com for more on this point)

Finally, her resignation proves, that America, despite all its imperfection, is still a great and blessed country. At the end of the day that's why Helen Thomas resigned.

BP, the Wedding, and the Lesson.

BP.

When it comes to the unfolding catastrophe, known deceptively as the "BP oil spill", here are the common subject tags. Katrina, Obama, Gulf Coast, tourism, off-shore drilling, corporate greed, economy, environment, and environmentalist.

You can easily discern the thesis of each tag, and how each tag is a brick (or floor, insert your own analogy) in the larger, depressing, narrative.

Thus this is Obama's Katrina, caused by corporate greed which motivated the search of oil off-shore, where it was not made illegal by environmentalists and led to the destruction of the environment and negatively affected tourism and the economy on the Gulf-coast.

Of course a predictable mosaic of agendas informed our beloved main stream media -and their disgruntled children in the blogoshere- decision to focus on specific elements/tags. Why it happened, who is ultimately responsible, and what should our policy be in the future, are questions that I will leave to the usual "experts".

What I like to ask is what lesson can we the average person learn? I do not mean an insight into human greed, that has already been covered, nor do I refer to a lesson in mob-psychology ,that too has been discussed -politics as usual. I refer to a universal lesson, one that can inform our larger understanding of what we are and our limitations, not for the sake of blame or even human elevation, rather for the sake of intrapersonal communication ( the language use or thought internal to the communicator).

Human collective political/social innovation is aimed at perfection. So we had empire, when that didn't work we said oh the problem is in the system. Then we had feudal fiefdoms, they failed to bring perfection and again we shouted “this system is flawed”. Then we built Democratic-capitalism, and communists responded with a revolution, pointing to its imperfections. Then communism fell, because of its own failings.

The point is that we humans justify our pursuit of perfection, by arguing that the flaw is in the system, and it is only a matter of building the perfect system. This means that whenever something doesn’t work as planned, we retrospectively claim we could have prevented this -“the problem is our approach not us”!

Yet I wonder, could it be that we are inherently imperfect and therefore that which we create will always reflect that imperfection? For those who wonder why I do not separate the creator from the created? I respond, who or what is perfect?…

Then again it may difficult for certain elements of humanity to accept this notion. Probably because it takes away our absolute control of our environment, and places it in the hands of a higher force -call it nature, G-d, the universal subconscious, or Gaia. This does not mean that everything is out of our hands, only that we cannot help but use our hands in a way that creates, the law of, unintended consequences (see The Black Swan, 2007 Nassim Nicholas Taleb, for more on this subject).

So how does the individual and society as a whole prepare for manifestations of our imperfection? How should society respond to BP, the economic meltdown, and the unexpected death of 9 violent activists?

The wedding.

My younger sister recently got married. At the conclusion of the Chupa ceremony -wedding canopy under which the the groom places the ring on the bride and the union is publicly affirmed- the customary vessel was broken and all the guests exclaimed "mazal tov"!

My uncle, at the weeding, offered two explanations for this tradition.

Here is the relevant interpretation.

“In the process of marriage, the bride and groom will sometimes break things (literally and metaphorically), remember your response should be mazal tov”!
But you just lost our entire financial nest egg? You just destroyed the livelihood of 1000’s?

Mazal Tov?

Let us remember Mazal Tov means good luck. Should we launch an inquiry, investigate what happened, try to prevent failure in the future, of course. Will our retrospective actions, unpredictably create unintended consequences, YES.

The lesson.

THEREFORE.

Accept what happened, mourn, cry, express anger but remember you/we cannot control everything -we need the higher force to bestow good luck on us and our future. Let the unintended consequences be positive.

So I say to all of you reading this post “MAZAL TOV”!

Sunday, June 6, 2010

Poetry with an Explanation: "The Introvert in an Extrovert's World"

The Beer is cold and my mind is clear.

There he sits in his chair.

Facing the brick wall, reading a book, or

listening to the extrovert's converse?

To be recognized as a thinker, or

to be seen -to be around others.

Otherwise why read, sit at home?

Dear sir, are you indulging in who you are, or

are you wishing to be otherwise?

Are you independent or dependent?

Do you face the wall because you thrive in singularity

or do you face the wall to attract -

desperate loneliness?

In our culture the introvert, the thinker, the reader is so misunderstood,and the observer is confounded. Here we worship independence, leadership, and exceptionalism. All terms that imply separation, singularity, introversion. If an American sees one fish swimming separate from a school of fish, they see a leader leading. The Easterner, sees a fish lost -separated from the consensus.

Yet we love to socialize to be connected, face-book, twitter, and sex. For the introvert there is confusion and doubt. I was brought-up to prize independence, but when I spend most of my free time alone I am different, strange, even anti-social!

Do you face the wall in a crowded bar

because you are in a state of flux -

contradiction, paradox, enigma?

What am I, what are you?

A thinker, a reader, independent,

face the wall.

Friendly, passionate, social,

In a crowded bar.

An introvert in an extrovert's world.

Friday, June 4, 2010

I could not have said it better myself!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/03/AR2010060304287.html

Iran is the True Winner of the Turkish-Israel Break.

Can it be that Erdogan, the savviest of savvy politicians, and Israel, the country of Nobel-prizes are being manipulated by Iran?

Certainly, there is a clear trend.

1. Turkey has distanced itself from Israel since Davos, defending Hamas, an Iranian proxy. Strengthening Iran's proxy while weakening Turkey and Israel by beginning to separate them.

2. Turkey attempted to "broker" a nuclear deal, that had no chance of being successful, distancing Turkey from America, while allowing the Iranians to again delay. Weakening Turkeys, prestige and political connections with America, Israel, and many in the West. Also further separating Israel from Turkey.

3. Turkey helps launch an anti-Israel flotilla. The results Israel and Turkey are weaker without each other, for all the reasons both sides refuse to acknowledge (militarily, economics, political, etc). Remember the Arab street may like Turkey now but, the Arab government are clear about who they do not want to have nuclear weapons.

Not to say that Iran created the seeds of this conflcit, but rather that it is watering the seeds of enmity with great alacrity.

So I ask again is Iran's influence lurking in the background? Is Iran the answer to all the conflict between the Turkish and Israeli narratives? Coincidence or planned, Iran is the true winner of the Turkish-Israeli break?

Thursday, June 3, 2010

Angry, Frustrated, Vengeful? Either way the Conversation Must Go On!

I know for some of my friends/acquaintances, it is surprising how much time I am spending on the most recent Israel-Turkish spat. Please understand, it’s about understanding.

I know the wave of emotions that my Turkish friends are experiencing. Anger, frustration, shock, sadness. They are completely justified, expected -human.

I know the feeling, because I have experienced it on so many occasions. On 9/11, after the countless suicide bombings in Israel. After my friend was jumped, one Friday evening, and beaten mercilessly by five bat wielding thugs, screaming anti-Semitic epithets. Yes, the anger was palpable. I wanted vengeance, I wanted to hate, I felt vindicated in the explosion of carnal-rage –fury!

Yes, hate, targeting a specific group/groups. Blacks, Jews, Arabs, Muslims... But then you walk into your classroom, into work, or your friend calls you. This person being Muslim…
Your friend comes from THAT group. Is he/she and exception “they are different”? Or do “they” represent a true reflection of a significant and righteous segment of a given group?

Under certain circumstances hate is normal and even justified, but it should not permanently cloud the individuals thoughts. Of course the hate is there. I see it in my own community, and others tell me about it in their communities. I know this because I make it my business to communicate with others, not to convince them or even influence them, but because I like to understand other perspectives.

Let us not criticize others for feeling the way they do, even if we think that ONLY our strong feelings are justified. Let us not be surprised that Turkey, following this recent incident, is almost unanimous in their expression. After all, was our media or congress explaining 9/11 right after it occurred, of course not! It was a time of necessary emotion, of unity of us vs. them.

Later we saw the true greatness of America (the day after their was already a peace demonstration in New York!), those who criticized -were allowed to criticize- the war. Those that offered us a difficult perspective, whether we agreed with it or not, one that went against the consensus, one that may of ringed of ancient lies and hate.

Of course 9/11 can never be compared to the recent events. I use it only to provide a perspective, to understand.

I say let Turkey grieve. If there is evidence that Erdogan/Iran were behind this we can only hope that Turkey will have its own 9/11 commission. Either way the conversation must go on!

Wednesday, June 2, 2010

Israel Should Stop Delivering Aid from Ships Running the Gaza Blockade

Until recently Israel could afford to both display its humanity and sympathy for the Gaza population (despite its masochistic decision to elect the Terrorist HAMAS group), and stop arms smuggling. Israel achieved this by stopping ships, sifting through the aid material and then sending the aid, minus any materials that could be used for weapons or weapons-making, via Israel-Gaza border crossings. Thereby showing that it is not seeking to punish Gaza with the blockade but only to prevent another war.

Yet I wonder, with all the anti-Israel sentiment out there it would seem foolish to think that "activists “have any interests other than to publicize and challenge Israel’s blockade. They disguise this by brining aid, implying that aid is needed or the starving Gaza population.

If these “activists” really cared about the "starving" Gaza population then they would deliver their aid like most truly caring nations -through Israeli channels, because it would reach Gaza's faster.

But the activists care more about depicting Israel in a negative light then they care about helping Gaza's population (who according to all credible reports are receiving all basic necessities minus HAMAS political opponents who are deprived of international aid). Considering Israel’s determination not to be cowed by these moral hypocrites, and not to end the unfortunate but necessary blockade, this, like past attempt, had zero chance of braking the blockade.

At the same time the activists have every incentive to increase the tempo of delivering aid in this twisted manner, especially after the recent provocation.

Israel should turn the tables on them and expose them from what they are, how? By implementing a policy to stop delivering aid from ships running the Gaza blockade. At least, when the tsunami of flotillas continue, and they will continue, it will be clear to all what their intentions are.

Should Israel End the Gaza Blockade? Three Answers and Two Ironies

There are reports emerging that the Turkish Foreign minister Ahmet Davutogu, has offered to normalize relations with Israel if Israel lifted the blockade of Gaza (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/turkey-to-normalize-israeli-ties-if-gaza-blockade-ends-1.293757).

I should ask whether Israel’s relationship with Erdogan’s Turkey has ever been normal, but I won’t, instead.

What if Israel did lift the blockade?

Probably three interrelated developments.

1. If Israel were to allow Hamas to decide what comes into Gaza then Hamas, as it did in the past, would bring in readily available weapons, from Iran and Syria. Then they would use those weapons against Israel. Then after, say, a year of terror attacks Israel would respond with a cast-led-like war. How many will be victims? Many more Israelis and Gaza-Arabs, then the nine "peaceful activists" killed in self defense on-board the Turkish vessel.

2. If Israel again needs to suppress Hamas terror, and Hamas does what it does best –using civilians to shield their attacks. Than the international fallout and leftwing/Islamist PR campaign against Israel will make this latest tsunami of anti-Israel sentiment look like a water fountain.

3. Every time Israel comes under international condemnation it is weakened. One because it distracts the international community from the real problem, Iran and its nuclear weapons. Two, because Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, Syrian, and now Erdogan can galvanize the mass hate that is so prevalent in the middle-east for their own gains. Of course their gain would be Israel’s loss...

Israel’s blockade also offers up two ironies:

1. as most Israel's and rational people know. At the end of day is Israel is sacrificing its own security, and tremendous material and political resources so as to prevent a war with HAMAS, and the terrible civilian deaths that are an inevitable consequence of war with terror. In other words Israel is being condemned as inhuman for doing the most humane thing possible, under these circumstances.

2. Turkey which is condemning Israel’s brutality, while completely excusing their role in the provocation, is again setting up Israel for another fall. Put otherwise just as Erdogan’s Turkey is to a large degree responsible for the violence and then condemn Israel for it. So too would ending the blockade of Gaza foster violence, which Erdogan’s Turkey would no-doubt condemn.

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Has 60 Years of Israeli-Turkish Ties Died in a Hale of Provocation and Bullets?

In many discussion, a good friend (who happens to be Turkish, and frankly makes all Turkey look good) and I have often discussed Israel-Turkish ties since Davos.

We have always recognized that an Israeli-Turkish alliance, had great benefits. As of yesterday Israel and Turkey had over 20 billion dollars in deals.

Now the question is not only whether these strong strategic/economic ties will weather this violent storm, but also whether this is a new development, or just a keystone event in a larger progression?

In other words, despite my great respect for modern Turkey and the Ottoman empires contributions to larger society, I can not help but feel that this recent, monumental, error by the Israeli government, only accelerated a trend that has been evident since Davos (for more on this please see post "Erdogan and Turkey: are the Israelis right, has Ataturk’s legacy failed Turkey").

The very fact that Turkey gave its tacit support for a flotilla that was bent on causing a provocation, reflects this larger trend.

Some in Turkey and Israel concede, that Turkey and Israel will both lose if the relationship is ended. Yet no one in Turkey raised the question on May 30 as to whether it served Turkey and the regions interest for this Turkish dominated flotilla to move ahead. Is it because Turkey has been silenced by Erdogan or because Erdogan speaks for Turkey?

I don't know.

At the same time I feel that it is only after such a tragic event that the nature of a nation-state can be discerned. It will only be a matter of time before we see if the ties will be truly cut, and what the Turkish-Israeli relationship really means.

Meanwhile I feel strangely confident. I say this only after speaking with my well educated friend and reading Hurriyet online (a Turkish English daily). I feel encouraged by the fact that many Turkish people remain pragmatic and rational. After 9 people were killed while NOT launching rockets, what more can any Jew, American, or Israeli ask of the Turkish people?

PS

There are "rumors" that more Turkish sponsored Flotillas are going to launched! I don't think this serves anyones interests.

Abraham, Christopher Hitchens, and the Unifying Factor

There is an interesting story recorded in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 102b Yalkut). Rabbi Ashi, one of the two who compiled the entire Babylonian Talmud, was teaching his students about the kings of the First Temple period who, because of their iniquities, were denied a portion in the world to come". At the end of his lesson he told his students “tomorrow we learn about our 'comrade' (chaver) King Manasseh". That night the king appeared to Rabbi Ashi and exclaimed angrily who are you to call me "comrade", do you even know the right place to cut the bread after making a blessing? The Rabbi responded no. The king then told him "it is the place where it finishes baking first" (the ends?). The Rabbi was taken aback, and asked how is it possible that someone as knowledgeable as you worshiped pagan idols? The King responded "had you been in our generation, you would have picked up the bottom of you robes to run there” (i.e. to serve the idols). The next day the Rabbi began the lesson "and now we will learn about our "master" (Rabbenu) King Manasseh.

While one would be hard pressed to find people who worshipped Molech (Middle eastern deity which, as the greatest sacrifice, required that your baby child be placed on the metal hands and the hollow idol would be filled with fire heating the hands until the child was burnt to death, meanwhile the priests would drum to cover up the shrieks of the baby) or Bal (the idol of the Sun), there is certainly pagan worship all around us.

Where? Let me explain.

The underlying difference between polytheism and monotheism:

But first we need to explore how pagan worship differs from monotheistic worship.
The former is premised on the belief that there is no singular force controlling this world. Instead there are a number of governing forces each of which controls elements of our existence. For example "mother nature", human innovation, zodiacs, etc.

Some who believed/believe this, argue that there was One all powerful G-d but that G-d had removed himself after creation, for whatever reason, from day to day administration of this world. The idols where thus deserving of devotion. At the core of this belief is that there is no one unifying force governing existence -polytheism.

On the other side is Monotheism which argues that there is one G-d and nothing else. G-d then created forces of nature that served as mediums for his divine infinite light. This is an analogous to the sun shining through stained glass windows. The same light differs depending on the color of the window. But the color and the window would be meaningless without the singular light shining through. In other words G-d created finite windows -the sun, trees, fire etc.- that color his infinite light in a certain way, heat, food, air etc. so as to allow the existence of the finite, and to provide for the finite. But these colored windows require the constant administration of G-d's light in order for them to fulfill their purpose and to even exist. Thus G-d is intimately involved with every detail of existence, from the leaf falling off the tree to the sinking of the South Korean navy vessel (for more on this please see posts on divine providence and choice, as well as posts concerning the soul).

King Manasseh may have referred to a specific desire that we, like Rav Ashi, cannot comprehend. Still the underlying difference between polytheism and monotheism can be explored in a contemporary light. Just as there exists a contemporary form of polytheism, that you and I may be serving at this very moment.

The point is that that anything that detracts from the belief in G-d's unity and absolute providence is a form of idol, and one who believes in this force can be termed a polytheist.

Money for example, if seen as anything more than a vehicle for divine blessing or tool, can be deemed an idol. Specifically if is seen as a great or the greatest ends to achieving. In other words that money has inherent value and "gives" power (as opposed to out window analogy)). Pride and human innovation, is another common form of polytheism –if one believes that they created or achieved by themselves, they are in essence rejecting that they are in fact a window –a cog, if you will, in the larger organism that we call the universe.

If the belief in the popularity/importance of idols is anything like the belief in the popularity/importance in money today, is it any wonder that King Manasseh was enticed by the pagan idols of his day? This may explain the wise king’s admonition of Rav Ashi.

A common mistake:

If we place pagan worship in this light it seems less insidious. It’s one thing to sacrifice your children to idols of stone and copper, it is another to pursue personal success and fulfillment. In other words it seems that the real evil of idol worship has passed, and plays a more positive role in society -the pursuit of happiness or material possessions. One can go so far and declare that this pagan drive that sees money as a real force, amongst many in this world, is at the heart of capitalism.

True many are discovering that, like the idols of old, money does not have any innate power, and does not bring real happiness -only temporary elation. Non-the-less the mistake of attributing power to money just seems, at worst, greedy and individualistic. So why not pagan worship?

The implications of the above conclusion:

It goes back to Abraham the first monotheist. Abraham, the first Jew, taught not the belief in Judaism, but the belief in one G-d and the 7 Universal laws (AKA, the Seven Noahide laws These laws are do not kill, steal, belief in one G-d, set up courts of justice, do not commit adultery, do not be cruel to animals, and do not use/curse G-d's name). While many may know about these laws, here is an interesting fact. Maimonides, the great philosopher and Rabbi, explains that one can only fulfill the seven universal laws if they accept that they come from G-d.

I hope you are asking,

"why should that matter, who cares as long as they are followed for rational/moral reasons" (as Hitchens and co. would indignantly exclaim)? The answer is clear, if we use rational as the foundation for not killing, then what stops an angry man with a mustache from writing a book rationalizing the murder of millions of Jews and others. In other words by not accepting the belief that the seven laws must be followed without exception, i.e. because an unseen force said so, we leave a proverbial loop hole for the continued murder, war, and depravity (think the man/boy love association of America [NAMBLA], seeking to rationalize then legalize pedophilia).

Abraham introduced the one potential cure for all war and violence, belief in the One immutable power.

This perspective asserts that the danger of polytheism does not lie in a specific kind of worship that can be measured on s subjective scale of good (money) and bad (sacrificing children). Rather it points to the danger of attributing inherent power to any finite creation, because that attribution undermines the belief in the unity of the one higher force. Abraham understood and foresaw the ability of that higher force to be a source for universal laws of good, that are beyond human rational and therefore equally applicable to all, and was/is a prerequisite for world peace.

Monotheism is the foundation of the unifying factor, without it we cannot discover that all of humanity, all of the world, is really one. It is high time that the "kings" amongst us considered this.

PS: I do not refer here to eastern beliefs, 1. because I know very little about them. 2. The little I do know seems to indicate a belief in a underlying cause that affects everything, i.e. providence.