Do Americans realize Trump is a traitor?

 Up front there are a lot of reasons to find Trump disgusting, but so far too many Americans accept his leadership.  He has Congress members under control as they fear how he can hurt them and his staff has been picked for loyalty, not expertise.  What could tip the scales?  How American do you think you are?  

Americans are right to be concerned about the cost of groceries, housing and gas, but international affairs are intertwined with domestic expenses.  

We are not certain if Trump just admires Putin as a fellow kleptomaniac or if Putin has incriminating evidence.  Either way he seems to do a lot of Putin's bidding.

Go back a few years to just after when the Soviet Empire was broken up.  The deal was for Ukraine to give up nuclear weapons.  United States was to protect Ukraine against a Russian invasion and Ukraine was never to join NATO.  Doesn't carry any weight today.

He calls accusations that he was helped by Russia in 2016 a "hoax", but there is a lot of evidence otherwise and even that he was aware of it.   See  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2019/06/house-of-trump-house-of-putin.html and  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2022/10/freezing-order.html

In Helsinki he said he believe Putin against 16 American agencies regarding Russian influence in the 2016 election.  During his first term he made decisions regarding Syria and Afghanistan that probably benefited Russia as much as the United States.  He also criticized NATO with a hint he could do without them.

In his second term he was better organized.  He humiliated Zelenskyy in the White House while previous administrations including Republican would have helped Ukraine against Russia.  Although many in Congress wanted to help Ukraine, Trump was able to minimize any aid and although promising he could end the conflict preferred to let it drag on.

The complaints against NATO continued having one definite outcome.  Members were encouraged to increase their military spending.  Dwight Eisenhower had pointed out that military spending detracted from health care and education, but Trump emphasized the military.  He threatened to take over Greenland, currently controlled by NATO member Denmark.  They already had a military base on Greenland and the Danish government was willing to allow more bases.

All previous American administrations had heavily supported Israel and Trump went further.  After the Hamas attack on October 7th, 2023, European and American students began to protest what turned out to be a genocide of Palestinians.  The students were branded anti-semitist.  One suggestion of his was to clear Gaza and turn it into a tourist area.  Military armaments continued.

More importantly, although previous American presidents had resisted a Netanyahu request to attack Iran he went ahead and to this point lowered American military resources that it affected its military readiness. NATO and others were condemned for the lack of support of his (illegal) attack.  Iran had supported Russia with drones and Russia has supported Iran to hold against overwhelming American forces.  Trump's decisions have led to an increase in gas prices which in turn pump up inflation.  Another long term complication is much fertilizer comes through the Strait of Hormuz.

A later development was a Trump announcement that a joint military exercise with South Korea would not happen.  At the same time we learn North Korea plans to send 50,000 soldiers to fight against Ukraine.  Surely it is no coincidence that North Korea would not want to be distracted by the American troops.   In reality, South Korea has been a useful ally--keeping an eye on both China and Russia.

Within the past two weeks Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have formed a defensive alliance as they feel the U.S. is not reliable.

Unless Americans want to ally with Russia they need to investigate instead of investigating voter fraud and political opponents.  Russia and Israel will do what they can to influence the elections later this year.

Israel: What went Wrong?

It must be said this situation is under change, but this post is intended to reflect the current circumstances and how they came to be.   "Israel  What Went Wrong" is the most comprehensive book I have come across dealing with this particular global crisis.

Jews were expelled from Palestine by Romans and scattered in many directions.  They were seen by many Christians as Christ killers.  Many were poor, but others served the elites in Europe causing resentment among the lower class workers.  The Bible forbade lending money for profit and thus some Jews were allowed to be money lenders causing further resentment.  Jews gravitated to positions requiring academic training.

There has been a serious lack of awareness about the beginning of Israel.  Most of the world is deeply aware of the Holocaust.  Jews trying to escape the Nazis had found many countries very restrictive and afterwards it induced guilt feelings.  In much of the world the Jews were very conscious of serious discrimination and a few developed the idea of Zionism long before the Holocaust.

The Holocaust was a genocide, but far from the first.  Colonizers were exploiting the resources of poor countries and sometimes found the natives could be very troublesome.  One of the early genocides was in 1904 in an area now known as Namibia under German control  One tribe the Herero fell victim to a genocide and later in 1915 Armenians also fell victim.  These and other examples of genocide did not concern Westerners, but the Holocaust was much closer to home and created repercussions unknown before.

After WW II Britain and the United Nations negotiated the setting up of Israel and Palestine.  Starting in 1947 until 1949 the Jewish military forced over 400,000 Arabs to flee Israel territory in order to assure a Jewish majority.  It is still illegal for them to return with most of their property confiscated for Jewish settlers. 

<from an earlier post:  Albert Einstein gave his support to the Hebrew University, but became concerned over Jewish attitudes regarding Arabs.   As far back as 1929 he voiced such opinions as "Should we be unable to find a way to honest co-operation and honest pacts with the Arabs then we have learned absolutely nothing during over 2,000 years of suffering." >

A constitution was promised back as far as 1947, but prominent politicians wanted to avoid it and religious elements felt it would lessen their control.  Secular Jews feel restricted.  There is still no constitution although some politicians such as Menachem Begin felt it was a necessity to protect human rights.  

Over the years there were several attempts to overturn Israel, but they all failed as United States and others provided massive military assistance.  

Settlers are a major problem as I write this.  Increasingly despite western protests settlers have moved into the West Bank and have more rights than the native Palestinians.  They have been aggressive to the point of killing significant numbers.

Then October 7th, 2023 with the focus at first on the murders, rapes and hostage taking.  It truly was a grisly event that horrified the whole world.  It was probably a small fringe of Hamas that wanted to brutalize the Israelis, but also true that many others approved the fighting back, realizing diplomacy wasn't practical. 

The author feels Biden could have stopped the escalation by refusing to provide arms, but probably felt the public would not support.  Others felt Netanyahu helped flame the resistance, feeling it would solidify his power.  Personally I feel the western protesters have opened a few eyes, but it is still an up hill battle.

Israel set out to curb Hamas and over time flattened hundreds of buildings and killing tens of thousands.  Both sides publicized the brutality towards children.  Palestine, per capita has the most child amputees in the world.  Children as young as 12 were classified as terrorists and imprisoned.

Journalists were killed in their coverage.  Israeli media minimized the brutality towards the Palestinians, much like Germans kept the horrors of the Holocaust from their citizens.

Protests around the world began against the Israeli genocide.  Initially most western politicians cried out antisemitism was the cause and took steps to punish protesters.  Undoubtedly antisemitism increased, but others were able to separate Jews, Zionism and Palestine.  Trump is now horrified by the killings, but once suggested Gaza should be emptied of Palestinians and turned into a tourist centre.  

Israeli soldiers have suffered PTSD with an increase in suicides.  Academics and professionals have started leaving.

The author brought up many suggested solutions, even conceding that Trump's 21 points have some merit.  Without discarding his suggestions I offer the following below.  All solutions will be considered radical by somebody.

Those nations that would like to see a solution can band together to offer reconstruction money, materials and efforts instead of weapons or money to buy weapons.  The contingent requirement would be that Israel must contribute to the reconstruction.  In return the banded nations could also agree to defend against outsiders, including Iran and its allies excluding with restrictions, Palestinians.  Palestinians would have to agree to curb violence in order to speed up reconstruction.  Discussions between the governments of Palestine and Israel would decide the many details under guidance from the banded nations.  If the Israeli public cannot be brought on board they would lose support of the banded nations and be subject to sanctions.  All this requires good will on all sides as well as the willingness of nations to change their contributions from weapons to reconstruction.  Best bets might be the U.S. (under a new regime), and NATO nations.  Germany has been caught in an awkward situation while they feel a need for atonement they have picked up any criticism of Israel as anti semitic, but perhaps a truer atonement could involved reconciling the Jews and the Arabs.  There are sane people on all sides and as others see what a mess has been created would appreciate peace as a goal.  

Trump allowed himself to be persuaded to attack Iran alongside Israel.  The high price of energy causing food and many consumables is a price Americans and most others are paying.  Reason might gain some ground if enough suffer.  Hopefully renewable resources are seen more practical.

Hope that attitudes will change.  Westerners have accepted one side of the conflict for decades, but now some realize that has not been fair.  Encouragingly Abdul El-Sayed, an American Senator prospect has gained significant support for the Palestinians.

In the end some courageous man or woman will have to make a big move.  See  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2024/09/we-need-another-nelson-mandela-and-fw.html

The crisis has caused personal hardships, splitting Jewish friends.  One example is  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2025/02/peter-beinarts-being-jewish-after.html

"Israel  What Went Wrong?" is pretty comprehensive and I think reasonably balanced.

The jacket cover is by Violet Dine.

Put Your Soul on Hold and Walk

Sepideh Farsi wanted to cover the war from Gaza, but was blocked from doing so.  She was able  with the help of refugees in Cairo to hook on the internet with Fatima Hassouna, a photo journalist who spoke English.  

Fatima was almost always speaking with the same sort of smile seen in the poster.  She talks casually about bombing, drones and helicopters killing people, including many she knew.  Another concern was starvation and water contamination.

There were many discussions.  Fatima did not like a new Hamas leader, but felt it was important to stand up for their rights.  Also talk of Iran's history with the Shah gaining power and then being replaced by fundamentalist was not an improvement.

Fatima was able to take photos of destruction.  The title comes from a comment she said when asked about going outside;  "Put your soul on hold and walk."  A couple of times she had to evacuate, but kept her camera.

The last conversation took place April 15, 2025 when she was informed that the film had been nominated for a Cannes Film Festival and she would be invited to attend.  The very next day she and her family were killed by a targeted missile.  Research suggested it was targeted with the rationale that they were Hamas. Likely she was identified as a journalist, getting out some truth.  Israel has been accused of killing over 200 journalists, 28 of them women over Gaza, Lebanon and Israel.

There were news clips from CNN, Aljazeera and France 24.  We saw the slaughter denounced by the Hague and defended by Benjamin Netanyahu

A few key people made this documentary a must see.

Sepideh Farsi was director, writer, producer, editor, cinematographer and and one of the two main actors.  She had been born in Iran.  In 1981 two years after the Revolution, she was 16.  Although films were banned a mentor used a blackboard to explain classic films directed her toward a career ambition.  She was considered a rebel and spent a year in prison and afterwards escaped.  She ended up in France and started making films.  She has 13 credits as a director, 9 as a writer and 6 as an editor.

 Fatima Hassouna, the photojournalist, born in Gaza had earned a degree in multimedia from University College of Applied Science in Gaza.  She was a producer for "Israel and Gaza Into the Abyss" (2025).

 The conflict in Palestine continues to draw attention.  For many, who used to see the Israeli Jews as besieged have begun to appreciate the Palestinians as the ones being besieged.  It is very complex, but boils down to two emotions:  Fear and Hate.

Zionism is based on the thought that there is no safe place for Jews.  The Palestinians for over a millennium have felt this was their land.  Going back to World War I in which some Arabs did help the British defeat the Turks they had been led to believe they would get their own country.  

The Jews really do have reason to fear the Palestinians and many of their Muslim neighbours.  They feel words written in the Bible, centuries ago proclaim Israel and Palestine have been chosen by God for them.  To justify their obstinacy they may also look down upon the Palestinians as backward and provocative.

The Palestinians hate those they feel have stolen their land and humiliated them.  Further aggravated by Israel moving Jewish settlers building in the West Bank and discussing doing so in southern Lebanon.

One long term strategy for Palestinians would be to lessen the fear felt by the Jews.  Easier said than done. Since recent months Palestinians fear Israelis (and Americans) and that is not likely to change.

"Put Your Soul on Hold and Walk" is news, but more personal--not just numbers.  Such films may help to give better balance to the conflict.  Students who have rallied to the Palestinian cause are tainted with anti-Semitism which undoubtedly has some truth and there is the danger of increasing it.  Here might be one opportunity to alleviate the tension.  Older generations have difficulty seeing a new perspective among the young.  The core of the present situation seems to be anti-Zionism, not anti Semitism. but the two are too easily linked. 

The world should condemn Israeli settlements in the West Bank.  They have been denounced by international authorities, but even now, they continue.  They seem to prove that might is right.

I watched it on a Blu-ray disc.  The language is overwhelmingly English with occasional Arabic, mainly a poem written by Fatima.

Diversion by a dictator

 Trump is acting like a dictator.  We hear a few Republican congressmen dislike some of his policies, but somehow they let him do what he wants.  His chosen advisers are selected for their loyalty and are quite adamant what a great person he is--proof of their loyalty.

Some voters like much of what he has done.  They fear immigrants and are stirred by talks of eating dogs, murdering innocent people, etc. etc. although the facts are, immigrants actually have less violent crime and are hard working tax payers.  The MAGA supporters generally hate racial minorities and homosexuals.  They think taxes are always too high although they don't seem to notice that inequality is widening and the national debt is a contributor to inflation.

Some of them are willing to overlook his sexual escapades and his gender bias.  But he realizes that part of his base is Christian evangelists who normally frown upon sex outside marriage.  Many others also are disgusted with what has been suggested by the Epstein Files.  Trump has already announced that he has been completely exonerated.

That is hard to digest.  Pam Bondi years ago gave Jeffrey Epstein preferential legal treatment and seems to be delaying more information.  Melania Trump apparently was introduced to Trump by Epstein and it seems she had some sort of relationship before hooking up with Trump.  Admittedly there is a lot of gossip, but it appears truth has been blocked.

Some of his policies have upset even some of his MAGA supporters.  ICE has been more intrusive and brutal than anticipated.  His tariffs have aggravated inflation.  What to do?  He cannot admit mistakes, but blames others and exaggerates his merits.  Diversion usually works.

We all detest drug abuse and the gangsters that profit from it.  To prove how determined he is to stop it, he bombs boats that without proof supposedly are drug running.  Then he attacks Venezuela and removes its leader, admittedly a criminal himself.  Not sure how that will work out, but it seems the U.S. has greater control over oil.  They have used that control to strangle Cuba.  As an aside the Cuban Revolution got popular approval by ridding the country of gangsters and exploiters.  

Drugs like everything have a supply and demand dynamic.  There is a lot of complexity over drug abuse, but surely more effort should happen to ease the need for an illegal supply.

Still the Epstein Files are gaining attention and mid-terms are not that far away.  To stay out of prison he needs to be president with legislators he can control.  Lots of efforts to gerrymander and talk of restricting voting to diminish Democrats.  

Iran is something popular to criticize.  A theocracy with fundamentalist views and corruption has been noted.  Their hatred of Israel is frightening.  They strongly support the Palestinian cause which until recently was opposed by Americans and most westerners.  United States does not have clean hands regarding Iran  see http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2025/09/king-of-kings-iranian-revolution.html Trump does not have clean hands either.  One of his acts once elected was to tear up the Iran nuclear agreement.  He criticized that Obama gave them a large amount of money, not crediting that it was money that had been confiscated plus interest.  Who knows how they might have softened Iranian attitudes if working with them?  He realized Israel feared and hated Iran and Evangelicals sided with Jewish occupation of the Holy Land.  

Yes, Iran is a terrible place where many are abused and free speech is almost criminal in some cases.  But there are other terrible places.  Trump seems to admire Putin and certainly supports his efforts regarding Ukraine.  Does he think the attacks are justified, no big deal or does Putin have some kind of hold on him.  Hopefully Ukraine would get a better deal from a different president.

News coverage has changed.  When Russia attacked Ukraine there was a lot of front page articles and many minutes on tv and radio.  When Hamas attacked Israel the coverage shifted.  Since then some Americans have realized Palestinians have long been poorly treated.  Netanyahu facing serious legal prospects stepped up reprisals hanging on to when Trump might be elected.  They are both in a similar situation and it is easy to speculate that Netanyahu encouraged an invasion of Iran and of course the terrorists supported by Iran.  

Hate can always be exploited.  Trump certainly needs to find excuses to divert attention.  It is too bad that saner minds have so little influence.  For all of us.

I hope that Iran is restored to democracy and becomes a positive influence for the world.  Might happen, but a long war might be beneficial for Trump's status quo.

It feels good to rant, but I hope more can be done to improve our situation.

A blog from Trump's first term regarding Iran:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2019/05/alarm-bells-on-iran.html

Life, Death and the Pursuit of Peace in Israel/Palestine

As an outsider what I see in the "Holy Land" is hate and fear bundled together with ignorance.  No solution will work until much greater trust is somehow generated.  Outsiders feel compelled to take sides, but that isn't really fair as there is plenty of blame to spread. 

The two authors of "Tomorrow is Yesterday" Hussein Agha and Robert Malley were insiders who had been involved with advising leaders on both sides and were involved with negotiations. 

They noted an American bias.  It really goes back to 1948.  President Harry Truman was uncertain if he should support the movement to create Israel.  One of his more trusted friends, a Jewish tailor from his home town in Missouri encouraged him to support.  After knowledge of the Holocaust many Americans felt guilt as they had made it difficult for Jews to immigrate to the U.S.  Some admired the gutsyness of the Jewish pioneers.  The Jewish Christian traditions inclined Americans to think of the Arabic Muslims as uncivilized.

Religious fervor was a big factor.  While suffering in their wanderings after an expulsion, some Jewish thinkers felt they needed to get back to the Holy Land and organized the Zionist movement.  A small, but powerful group of Christians were able to find in the Bible signs of the second coming of Christ that required the Jews ruling in Jerusalem.  They became a significant factor in U.S. elections.  Israeli settlers seemed to feel they were fulfilling a historical religious calling.  A Jewish group, the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee also provided political support for Israel.

On the other side, the Muslims felt they were owed the whole of Palestine.  Going back to World War I they had been led to believe if they helped the British defeat the Turks they would have more freedom.  The Arabs felt they had conquered Palestine and beaten off the Crusaders and Turks and had their own religious attachment for the land. 

In 1948 the United Nations had tried to set up two independent nations, but the Arabs felt they were entitled to all the land between the sea and the river and furthermore the Jews were intruders.  The Palestinians have been criticized many times for not accepting Israeli/American attempts at compromise, but they felt cheated.  

The two authors were personally familiar with Yasser Arafat, Mamoud Abbas, Ehud Barak, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Benjamin Netanyahu and many others.  The American presidents felt restricted by their four year terms forcing them to rush. 

The two authors feel the two state solution has been advocated for many years and very likely to be resisted by elements on both sides.

They feel it is time to look for alternatives.  A single state giving equality to both sides with protections for minorities might work, but has a lot of resistance.  Nearby Lebanon has a constitution that is supposed to protect Muslims, Christians and Jews that worked very well until after World War II.  For awhile Jordan controlled the West Bank, but backed away from it over (among other concerns) worry of Palestinians dominating their country.  

To me the big problem was depicted in my first paragraph.  Fear and hatred need to be tamed and trust built up.  This would take more than an American presidential term.  The western world is gradually learning to live with Muslims (many escaping from Mideast turmoil).  Arab nations with oil wealth are now trying to exert international presence.  Many are open to trade with Israel.  A lot of political rhetoric in the U.S. has been about how repulsive Arabs and Muslims are and have been generating hate in American elections.

Trust is built by interconnections.  Two areas that have worked for others, are sports and arts.  Arabs/Muslims and Jews do business with one another in the rest of the world.  Western consumers are becoming fans of Muslim athletes and artists.  Education is critical and should include such things as cultural appreciation, history and logic.

Perhaps we expect too much.  Humans distrust strangers, but we function in big cities.  The world has become much more interconnected and we have mutual concerns.  Climate change affects everyone, even those who think it is a "con job."  Pollution has invaded pretty much everywhere.  All our problems could be obliterated in a nuclear war.  We would all be better off if more people would shift their focus to things that really matter.

Bob Woodward's latest

It is frustrating that more American voters did not pay attention to many points made by Woodward.  Short term thinkers felt Biden was responsible for inflation, more so than the man who botched the pandemic.  They ignored the real dangers of climate change.  A number of responsible military and political people warned Trump was recklessly irresponsible.  His authoritative manner might seem commendable, but too often was harmful, often very harmful.

Bob Woodward is unique.  He is in a position that allows different powerful people to be honest, or at least it appears to be so.    Woodward's secret is that all his interviews (most of which are recorded) are done under the cover of "deep background" which meant the given  information could be used, but would not be attributed to anyone.  He did not get permission to talk to either Joe Biden or Donald Trump, but did have a lot of confidential interviews with key players. 

Joe Biden jumped to the defense of Ukraine, but also made it known there would be no American military combatants.  After October 7th he was quite adamant that he would support Israel, but no Americans would be fighting.  He also criticized Israeli settlements in Palestine and stated he felt there needed to be a two state solution.

You will learn about Netanyahu and Zelensky.  And Hunter Biden.  And Jake Sullivan.  And many others that have some responsibility for the way the world is headed.

All Arab leaders felt Hamas needed to be destroyed.  It also appears that Netanyahu supposed by even more extreme believers felt that not only Hamas needed to be destroyed, but that Palestine needed to be tramped down.  In the Mideast two driving forces are Hate and Fear.  I would add Face as the politicians feel locked in.  Woodward captures some of the hypocrisy that most politicians use to gain or maintain power.

He did note Biden's aging and that staff was trying to hide it.  It is unfortunate that not enough comments were made in public about Trump's deteriorating capability, but Woodward does note a few instances of it. 

The narrative goes up to the replacement of Biden with Kamala Harris.  She receives scant mention beforehand and there had to a cut off, but the debate she clearly won was not included.  Although I wish she had received more coverage,  I also regret more voters didn't get a chance to read it or at least hear discussions

It may seem that reading "War" is a waste of time after the election, but I disagree.  Woodward has given a lot of insights into people who are still making decisions that effect us all.  Perhaps more important he has also given us insights into how power works. 

An earlier blog post on a Bob Woodward book  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/11/fear-another-anti-trump-book.html

Post Election 2024

As a Canadian I look at the American election as insanity.  The two most heard excuses for their choice were the economy and immigration.

The economy really means the cost of living which certainly merits serious concern.  The big question should be "Why"?  A little overlooked history should have been noted.  Obama took over a financial crisis and over eight years turned it to a rising economy.  Trump's first action was to put in a large tax reduction that not only added to the deficit, but also increased inequality.  Others can argue about how he handled the economy after that, but in general jobs were lost and inflation moderately increased that is until the pandemic crisis that Obama warned was possible.  Not Trump's fault, but he acted almost criminal in his management--mocking experts and discouraging masks and vaccines.  Lots of jobs were lost, businesses closed and critically supply chains were disrupted.   A few businesses were able to take advantage and others went under

There are many ways a government might approach the problem--an important component would be to pump in more money.  Climate change didn't stop and agriculture suffered meaning food prices went up.  Climate instances have increased and have had a negative impact on prices.  Money was borrowed and some was printed, otherwise the job situation would have been pretty bleak.  Trump negotiated a deal with Saudi Arabia designed to increase oil prices.  These last four years of recovery have been difficult times with difficult decisions required.  Compared to the rest of the world it must be said the Biden administration made the better choices, but Americans really didn't care how other nations fared.  Did voters really think the world has fully recovered from the Covid pandemic?

Immigration does bring out emotions.  One question seems to be unasked--why the increase and desperation?  Climate change plays a role, but also so do repressive governments.  Expect more immigration pressure.  Gwynne Dyer in a recent blog pointed out the pressure definitely will increase and anticipates the borders can be sealed by actually shooting violators.  It is past time for greater global co-operation.   Read more:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2024/10/intervention-earth.html

What should have been unforgiven was Trump's efforts to discard a bi-partisan effort to deal with the immigration crisis.  Trump was pretty open about it--he wanted an issue to campaign on.  As we got closer to the election, both the economy and the border situation markedly improved, but one would not know it from the bombast coming from Trump.

It seems these two issues were so important that voters could overlook character in their assessment of who should make the national decisions for the next four years.  Trump with high priced legal help (much paid by his adoring fans) has evaded courts that he seems to realize have incriminating evidence that could put him in prison.  The fact that he intimidates those who do not cater to him--that he uses excessive bragging and blaming others.  The fact that he has a relationship with Putin that bodes ill for Ukraine (and others) doesn't seem of concern.  He also seems to favor Netanyahu who is avoiding a two state solution (and also prison).

Perhaps the biggest disappointment was that the recent victims of hurricanes for the most part voted for climate change deniers.  They had been lied to and still preferred to believe the misinformation rather than actual facts.   

Some will claim the Democrats should have ditched Biden before and found someone better than Kamala Harris.  My very personal view is that Kamala was the person with the right temperament and ability, but being a woman of mixed racial heritage probably did offend some sensibilities.  The Republicans highlighted by Trump did exert pressure on Biden, so much so that the Democrats felt they had to do something.  Although many would disagree the arrangement with the Biden administration was basically working--Biden made good decisions and took expert advice.  If he doddered around where cameras could catch him and let himself take a cold to a debate that obviously created a problem that Trump was quick to exploit.

I revealed my preference for Kamala more than four years ago.  See http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2020/02/the-iowa-caucus.html

Lots of things will happen in the next four years.  Climate change will become more evident.  Foreign powers will take advantage of American isolation.  Chinese leverage will likely be boosted.  Regulations of all sorts will be alleviated with untold effects, not all of which will be good.  Almost for certain inequality will increase.  Will the voters wake up?

College educated voters respond better to the Democrats, but in truth most did not study the facts enough.

A great plan to benefit those at the top has reached another level.  Check  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2024/05/monopolies.html

Thank you for letting me vent.  

Why do so many Arabs oppose Palestine Occupation?

On the surface the title is absurd.  Why does anybody oppose occupation and its companion, humiliation?

The occupation has a long history.  The Jews were expelled close to 2,000 years ago and not by the Arabs. They suffered wherever they went.  Some felt the only way to alleviate their misery was their own state.  They organized as Zionism and gathered support.  World War II heightened the pressure, not only by Jews wanting to escape, but also a guilty group of nations who in some ways had contributed to the Holocaust.  

At the same time Arabs were realizing national aspirations.  Some had increased their leverage with vital natural resources.  In Palestine, Arabs had contributed to the Allies.  Going back to World War I we learned that T.E. Lawrence had organized Arabs to help defeat the Turks.  

In 1948 the original intent was to establish two separate states.  The Arabs were resentful feeling Palestine was theirs and in fact they dominated the population.  The disputes seemed to go the way of Israel.  In truth they were fearful of the Arabs.  Fortunately for them they were able to have political, military and financial support for their security.  

One could say the Arabs were greedy, selfish, nationalistic, but should that be a surprise?  They wanted what a lot of western nations now take for granted after their own struggles.

Naturally the Israelis were fearful of the Arabs and set up strong defensive systems.  America has given them hundreds of millions of dollars for military equipment and been quick to shut down any efforts at the United Nations to promote Arab interests in Palestine.

Jewish immigration has made Israel stronger, but if they were to expand to more natural borders for Palestine they would be outnumbered by Arabs.  

What has the occupation been like?  Israel is partially dependent on cheap Arab labor.  Arab resistance  can result in imprisonment and shootings.   

The politics of Israel have evolved in large part around keeping Arabs under control.  We in the West have mostly heard their version.  The Arabs have been constantly pictured as violently unreasonable.

In America one group of voters who have helped decide who controls their government are labeled Evangelicals.  They are not uniform, but a strong core believes that for the second coming to happen Israel must be controlled by the Jews.  In close elections their support has been crucial and very few American politicians are willing to risk offending them.  Lately more Muslims and Arab sympathizers have supported Palestinian yearnings.  They are still pretty much a minority, but have been able to stir up idealistic people (especially youth) who see the situation a little differently.  They are mocked and criticized.  Both sides feel the other side is ill informed.

Many voters think Joe Biden is a big part of the problem.  He still is committed to Israeli independence, but made the suggestion that some variation of a two state solution should be in the works.  Plus humanitarian considerations are more prominent this time.  Some seem to feel if Donald Trump were in power the situation would soon by rectified..

Donald Trump has already contributed to the mess.  During his initial campaign he threatened to stop Muslim immigration and once elected, tried to implement that policy.  He decided that it would be a good idea to put the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem.  The White House felt it unnecessary to consult with the Palestinians.  The resistance concluded that political solutions for their ambitions were a waste of time.  As Bernie Sanders said "Talking nice doesn't work."  

Netanyahu is correct when he says that most Palestinians support Hamas.  It may be reasonable to suppose that most people would like to avoid violence, but most people have a breaking point.  Netanyahu has a history of trying to dominate Democrat politicians and they have been forced.to accept Israeli settlers.  He would prefer that Trump win the next election.  For himself another concern is his own future.  Polls suggest he would lose an election and he would likely be prosecuted and sent to jail.   Who would replace him seems very likely to be even more anti Palestinian.

In Palestine, Israel seems to have some control over the West Bank which is perceived as weak by Arabs who want more changes.  Hamas is considered extreme, but they have gained a lot of sympathy from their fellow citizens who felt more humiliation, not just in Gaza, but also in the West Bank.  Mahmoud Abbas, the P.L.O. leader may seem ineffective, but has his own reasons to maintain power.

David Petraeus expressed a concern that his military activities created as many terrorists as he killed.  That concern does not appear to have much weight with the Israelis who feel their security is dependent on suppressing the Palestinians.    

Our obsession over the Middle East has proved to be a great diversion from Russian aggression against Ukraine.  Putin would be content for the Mid-East conflict to continue.

How can the situation be fixed?  Not easily and not quickly is my first thought.  Expectations are important, but realistically more people need a deeper understanding.  There is nothing strange about the resistance of the Palestinians and their desire for independence.  Also there is nothing strange about the fear felt by the Jews in Israel who feel under attack not only by Arabs, but also by much of the rest of the world. 

Whatever legal constructs might be created the underlying requirement is to build trust.  There are a few people on both sides of the issue trying to do that in different ways.  Sports and entertainment provide some opportunities, but takes time.  Recently learned of a group called Jerusalem Youth Choir integrating  both Arabs and Jews which encouraged me to buy a tune from iTunes.  More substantial opportunities might include climate change, pollution and international crime where everyone stands to lose.   Mis- information is prevalent on all sides.  Politicians take a lead from voters, but some courageous ones lead the voters.  Yuval Noah Harriri, a Jewish intellect is one person of stature who advocates for the Palestinians.  The problem really revolves around humans. 

Trump and the Middle East continual crisis

There are many factors involved in the current Middle East Crisis with some people wanting to bomb Gaza out of existence and others rioting to give Palestinians independence.  Trump definitely has played a role, but really was a tool for other interests.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2022/07/trump-as-tool.html

 As part of his election campaign Trump would cut Muslim immigration and helped stir up anti Islamic sentiments to gain votes.

Once elected his first foreign visit was to Saudi Arabia which is a bit of mystery.  They are a big oil producer and exporter, but have not been a big ally of United States.  During the Trump reign efforts were made to create new ties between Arab nations and Israel which on the surface should be welcome by everyone.  On the negative side one of the understandings was that they were expected to accept the Israeli perspective on Palestine.

Later on the Trump administration made efforts to please Israel perhaps the biggest effort was to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem.  This pleased evangelical voters and Sheldon Adelson, the casino owner, but not so much Muslims who see Jerusalem as one of their holy cities.  Going back to Harry Truman each American president has protected Israel through their many attacks by their Arab neighbors.

Getting out of the Iran agreement apparently was done to please Israel and one casino donor.  Iran did not do anything against the agreement.  The effects are hard to measure, but are mostly negative.  Iran felt it was acceptable to edge towards the nuclear bomb which by itself would cause anxiety to its Arab neighbors.  They sought to find new friends.  More on Iran's role:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2022/10/the-iranian-dilemma.html

 Somehow when the Russians got stymied in trying to crush Ukraine, Iran decided to supply some military supplies such as drones.  They are natural enemies, but they both hate the U.S.  

Iran has been implicated in doing small things to aggravate the U.S.  One of their projects has always been to support the Palestinian cause.   They have given military aid to Hamas.

Putin needs a distraction.  Already some factions in the U.S. are wanting to cut back military support for Ukraine.  Trump denies any Russian support for his election campaigns, but that is very difficult to deny.  It is also difficult to deny that for one reason or another Trump did Putin's bidding.  See  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2019/06/house-of-trump-house-of-putin.html and       http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2022/10/freezing-order.html

Benjamin Netanyahu has been focused on changing Israeli law to protect himself.  Many are accusing him of being distracted from signs of Hamas planning a major attack.  The attack seemed aligned with another Arab country, Saudi Arabia signalling they were willing to make an agreement with Israel.  Apparently Hamas did see an opportunity.  

President Biden is locked in to past U.S. commitments and feels obligated to maintain a relationship with Israel.  He noted there have been provocations from settlers on occupied land.  He also suggested he hoped talks would get back on track for a two state solution.  This seems to be a small step in the right direction.  Americans have given Israel several billions of dollars of military equipment and have used their veto at the United Nations to squash any votes that might hurt Israel.

Nobody can be certain what happen in the next weeks or next few years.  Has mankind learned to better deal with the cycle of violence?   More thoughts:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2023/11/can-we-stop-cycle-of-violence.html

 Hatred is a powerful force that makes it almost impossible to understand how your interests have been subverted.  I keep hoping a disaster will open the truth, but hatred always seems to have the upper hand.  How can you trust your enemy when they don't trust you?

Is Israel such a bad example for proportional representation?

Those of us who advocate for proportional representation have been criticized that Israel was a bad case for the concept.  To me that is mixing up results with a tool.  Proportional representation is presented as a solution to a problem and although it has many benefits it cannot by itself solve all the perceived problems of the world.  It is an important tool that all reasonable voters should consider if they really want to solve many of the iniquities in society.

 Israel's relationship with the Palestinian people is an abomination that is a problem with a global reach.  Unfortunately the Israeli voters with a proportional system have given support to restrictive laws and practices. The Israeli rulers have set up laws that are very restrictive to Palestinians, almost certainly out of fear mixed in with some ignorance.  How the rest of the world deals with this issue is much like how we deal with the Chinese persecution of Uighers.  The main difference is there is much sympathy for Jews, but not much for the Chinese autocrats.  Although we abhor perceived unfairness most nations respect the sovereignty of other nations for practical reasons.

Each Israeli election draws a fair amount of attention and for many it is the closest they are aware of proportional representation.  We understand there are political rivals who try to establish political alliances in order to get enough power to make decisions.  Netanyahu has been very prominent for over a decade and those who follow the news are aware that by allying himself with some Orthodox elements he has been able to gain power.  For the last several years the alliances have been very fragile.   Giving power to what are considered extremist minorities is one of the charges against proportional representation.

Two developments (I am sure there are many others) have been significant.  Netanyahu has been tainted with corruption charges and many voters have become leery of supporting him.  The other development is among the Arabs who have their own factions.  Some are reluctant to co-operate  with Jewish parties that are openly anti-Palestinian.  Others have looked for opportunities to gain some leverage.  With this last election balancing efforts have opened up one such opportunity.  As has been pointed out the head of the new alliance is actually more extreme than Netanyahu, but there have been slight changes with four Arab electors essential to maintaining the current balance.  If they choose to not support any new legislation the government will fall and a new election will ensue.  They of course need to be careful to maintain the current alliance if and until something better presents itself.

One example brought to my attention by Juan Cole in his Informed Comment occurred recently:  https://www.juancole.com/2021/07/parliament-unification-palestinian.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook   Essentially the Israeli Parliament failed to renew a restrictive law against Palestinians.  Many of those who automatically would have renewed this law abstained realizing otherwise they would face another election.

There may not be too many more examples of the power of the few as it is a delicate balance that allows any leverage and there are many pressures that could disrupt it.  As in any democracy there are always many factions with their own priorities, but under proportional representation they have to consider the priorities of other parties.  Hopefully enough voters will see the results have been positive and the politicians will realize their best interest lies in respecting all the voters.

Under First Past the Post system the hard line parties would not have to pay attention to 20% of the population that Arabs represent in Israel.  We may be fortunate that corruption concerns forced voters and politicians to re-evaluate their priorities.

The bottom line is that proportional representation is a tool that can help solve a lot of problems, but other tools are necessary to solve such problems as climate change, nuclear war risks, refugees, hatred, violence, crime, etc.  Some of those other tools might be balanced education and media support.  It is reasonable that when more people are paid attention through proportional representation that society can move towards solving global problems before it is too late.

Both voters and politicians need to work together instead of maneuvering to gain disproportionate power.  More will get done, but it does require a joint effort which is something lacking today.  Proportional representation is a step in the right direction.

DONALD TRUMP AND THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE

Some have suggested that if North Korea gives up nuclear weapons and makes peace with the South, Donald Trump would be responsible for it and would deserve the Nobel Peace Prize.  Anything could happen and nuclear disarmament anywhere would be greatly appreciated by the world.   We should encourage the possibility however we can  But, maybe we should wait before awarding.  Some of the same people lauding Trump were quick to point out that Obama really hadn't done anything before winning his Prize.

A lot are suspicious not just of Donald Trump, but also of Kim Jung Un.  Lots of possibilities.  The whole world would be relieved if somehow North Korea accepts restrictions on its nuclear weapons and missiles.  If Trump's belligerent crude ways work we may have to change our established strategies.

Trump is ready to give himself full credit.  That is what I find most bothersome--not acknowledging other factors.

Some Americans say that Iran is the biggest supporter of terrorism in the world, but I think many would point to Saudi Arabia for that honour.  It is dispicable to support Bashar al-Assad as Iran is doing, but it was Saudi Arabia who supplied most of the 9/11 attackers. Right now Saudi Arabia is literally killing innocent children in Yemen with the support of the U.S.

We are on the verge, of another opportunity to break the Iran agreement.  It is true that Iran is engaged in a lot of behavior offensive to the U.S. and others (much of it including me), but for practical reasons the agreement was based on the critical issue of nuclear weapons.  It is possible to attack other bits of behavior and still maintain the agreement.  One of the claims made by Trump is that Iran was actually paid for the agreement.  Referring to some money that had been frozen)+interest) that was originally Iran's.  His idea of a good deal is to grab as much as you can--he doesn't believe in win-win.  Netanyahu keeps presenting information that has been discredited perhaps because he genuinely fears the Iranian rhetoric, but maybe it sells well domestically.

Should Trump break the Iran agreement some feel that North Korea would feel it would be pointless to trust any agreement with the Americans.  On the other hand Kim Jung Un might reason that Trump is motivated to destroy Obama's legacy, but would want to establish his own.

Rhetoric tends to get out of hand as tensions rise.  This is true of Iran as well as Israel, United States and Saudi Arabia.

A common criticism of Trump is that he is not much interested in facts and has no drive to understand complex situations.  That might explain his trade ideas.  He seems to feel if he punishes foreign steel makers it will benefit workers in the United States.  For some workers that is true but a great number will have their jobs jeopardized because they depend on foreign steel for their manufacturing.  It also overlooks that American consumers will be hit with higher prices.  In the case of Mexico it was once thought if they could establish their own manufacturing and economy it would mean fewer would feel the need to illegally migrate to America.  Like health insurance how can anyone have known that trade could be so complicated.  

Nobody likes to be bullied.  If the force is enough the bully will win for the moment, but generate resentment.  WWII started in part because of German resentment of how the Great War was settled.

China has been a protector of North Korea for their own reasons.  They have some fear that the more nuclear powers there are the greater risk of accidental wars; one of the reasons they helped negotiate the Iran agreement.  Japan has long been hated by the Koreans (North and South) and has been the only nation to actually have a bomb deliberately kill and make hundreds of thousands to suffer.  South Korea goes through cycles.  Their last election put into power Moon Jae-in, a former human rights lawyer who wants to facilitate better relations with North Korea.  He is the one who encouraged North Korea to get involved with the Winter Olympics and has made announcements to the world about what the two negotiated.  China does not want reunification as it fears American troops would be closer to their border  They also would not like the connotations of a defeated Communist dictator. .

It is true that Obama won for the hope that he represented.  Unfortunately there seems to be just as much fighting as ever and as many refugees as ever.  Perhaps if he had talked tougher North Korea would have bent.    He did increase sanctions similar to the ones that worked in Iran and tried various diplomatic efforts.

Others would argue that the North Koreans had developed their nuclear weapons to be a serious deterrent from American interference.  They saw how Muamar Gaddafi ended up after conceding nuclear powers.  Perhaps they now feel more secure and are interested to see how much they can gain from the tension they created.

Mr Trump is being hailed for his tough talk to Kim Jung Un.  Everyone prior to him let Kim Jung Un get away with abusing power.  All that was really needed was someone to talk tough with him.. People do respond to power and when it is presented in a bullying manner it often forces a response. 

Should the North Korean tiger be tamed I will be among the billions of world citizens feeling relief.  To be honest I would admit that I am disgusted with so much of what Trump has done on the environment, on health care, on financial regulations, racial relations and his sexual infidelities.  But often the evilest person can accomplish some good.  I understand Hitler helped start Volkswagen.  Perhaps the solution might be should the negotiations succeed is to award more than one person as in truth it always takes more than one.

the Canadian election of October 19, 2015

As a deputy returning officer I agreed to be neutral in political expressions in the lead up to October 22nd.  Elections involve decisions by millions of people and although we sometimes act like a herd of sheep there certainly are millions of thought processes involved.

Working at a poll station is only one perspective, but as a starting point for this election I noticed more people telling me it was their first time voting.  This included some young people.  One young man said his girl friend talked him into it.  A few others were immigrants who seemed very pleased to be able to do this.  I noted that Hamilton had attracted a good share of Vietnamese refugees and they and their offspring valued voting in Canada.  The results bucked the national trend a little, but exhibited some commonalities.  The incumbent NDP won fairly easily, but the Liberals came closer than previously.  I noted that the Green Party did worse than previously as did the Conservatives.

My underlying theory is this was more a vote against Stephen Harper than an endorsement of any particular party.  Furthermore more than in previous elections more people voted strategically.  This was to the detriment of the Green Party and the NDP.  This was complicated, but for many voters it was a question of what is the most effective way to get rid of Harper.  There were organizations devoted to strategic voting in ridings where it could make a difference.

At the beginning of the election campaign it appeared likely that the NDP would benefit the most from the anti-Harper sentiment, but in the end they suffered crucially.  Undoubtedly there were many factors involved, but two got my attention.  One was Thomas Mulcair's policy that even on a question of separation 50% +1 is enough.  This helped the other parties stir up fears.  Another emotional issue was the niqab controversy where Thomas championed the right of women to wear it at citizenship ceremonies.  Only two women challenged the government courts and their cases were not presented fairly.  But this stirred up enough racist feelings that it probably switched a lot of votes by itself, but it also made many fence sitters re-think the best way to get rid of Harper. 

Harper's party used a lot of negative ads.  I had been offended by his attack ads against Michael Ignatieff, but he was persistent in their campaign that Justin Trudeau is "just not ready."  I think a lot of people agreed, but in the end voter's expectations were greatly surpassed by Trudeau's debate performance and his campaign.  After awhile the Conservative insistence on the "not ready" campaign (which intruded on the Blue Jay playoffs) made people resent it and wonder why there was not more emphasis on their own messages.

For me there are a lot of reasons to oust Harper.  Like conservatives around the globe his real agenda was economic and his campaign was financed by big money interests intent on increasing their share of the profits.  This was most evident perhaps with the oil industry.  It could be argued that at the time looking at Canadian resources, the tar sands was the best bet to boost the Canadian economy.  As time went on more people realized the many problems.  The tar sands were in an awkward location, they were relatively expensive to work and of course they were environmentally one of the worst offenders.

The anti-science stance taken by the government kept people uninformed not only about climate change, but other scientific concerns.  Libraries closed while scientists were discouraged from publicly presenting their findings.  Scientists should be providing counsel so we and the politicians can make better decisions.  Canada fell behind even other reluctant nations in the battle against climate change.

At the same time the economies of the oil business hurt other businesses by inflating our currency. Manufacturers found it much more difficult to compete with other nations.  Farmers found it difficult to get freight transportation against a tremendous increase in oil train freight.

Conservatives in the United States found the best way to attain power was to align themselves with social conservatives.  Take advantage of fears.  The Niqab issue was only one example. Stephen Harper stood against an investigation into the deaths of aboriginal women.  They resisted the national urge to help the Syrian refugees again using fear of Muslim terrorists as their excuse.  Near the end they set up a telephone line to report barbarian cultural practices.  Many people saw this as Harper trying to create a wedge item that really had very little importance on the real priorities.

To satisfy their base voters the Conservative government threw out the long form census despite complaints from many business and social agencies.  They were against marijuana and drug injection clinics in an almost puritanical stubbornness.  Trudeau undoubtedly increased the youth vote with his policies in these regards.

Canada for decades had been accepted as a peacemaker, but Harper wanted a more militant image.  In the Middle East we used to be considered neutral, but Harper became a steadfast supporter of Benjamin Netanyahu no matter what injustices were suffered by the Palestinians.  Other experts feel that the solution to Mid East problems was a two state solution, but Harper stood by those who worked against that idea.

The Conservatives understood our political system far better than most voters.  With only 39% of the votes they gained over 50% of the seats and the power to impose their views on the rest of us.  They had gotten very sophisticated and knew they could have success by ignoring the masses and pleasing their base instead.  Only a few years ago Conservatives actually had two variations--a softer kind like Joe Clark and the harsher kind like Stephen Harper.  Obviously they had much in common and were tired of losing because of splitting the vote.  Our first past the post system gave a union of the two factions a big step up.

One promised policy would be to get serious about proportional voting.  It is very hard to get the winners to radically change the system that helped them attain power.  As it turns out only 39.5% of votes cast were for the Liberals.  Fair Vote Canada reported that 51.8% of votes went to candidates that lost.  Harper had been promising legislation to make it more difficult to get proportional voting.

In the end there is a pendulum of opinions.  We are happy as long as our private plans unfold as expected, but get upset if things do not.  Too much freedom can be as bad as too little.  I don't know how the Liberal majority will work out, but I am sure there will be some improvements that will benefit more people.

King Abdullah II and his solution to the Mid-East Conundrum

The Mid-east is usually described in terms of turmoil.  We like to think that it is far away and doesn't affect us, but in a global world that is less true every day.  In every conflict there is by definition at least two viewpoints and in the Mid-East it should be acknowledged there are many more.  We mostly listen to very few perspectives and ignore and even dismiss most of the other views.

The Western powers have had a big stake in the oil kingdoms of the Middle East and going back further our religious ties have resulted in lots of violence.  The problems of Palestine have a long history, but really it has been brought to global attention with immigration of Jews back to the area starting in the early years of the twentieth century after suffering persecution mostly in Europe.

In the United States there are big concerns about immigration.  It seems to be most concerned about Latin Americans and Muslims.  Palestine faced a more overwhelming immigration with Jewish immigrants actually becoming the dominant demographic.  The British terminated their Mandate after a number of terrorist incidents (involving a future Israeli Prime Minister, Menachim Begin) deferring to the United Nations who advocated a two state solution.  There are many disputes over the exact details, but there can be no mistake there was an Israeli effort to expel Arabs and resistance from their part.

King Abdullah II recounts his family and Jordan's role in the unfolding conflicts.  His perspective might not exactly reconcile with other versions more commonly heard, but they have the ring of truth.  His mother was American and he was educated in England and America.  First king to have only one wife.  She is of Palestinian origin, but lived in Kuwait for much of her upbringing.

Palestinians as well as other refugees were accepted, but all too often Jordan had to deal with trouble makers.  The PLO under Yassar Arafat used to attack Israel from Jordan and after awhile tried to overtake the Jordan government.  Jordan provided asylum to Saddam Hussein's daughter.  They have since taken in a large number of Syrian refugees.

Ariel Sharon and Benjaimin Netanyahu were two Israeli rulers who gave lip service to the two state solution, but in the end found ways to sabotage the notion.  In fairness to them if a lot of Israeli voters did not share their feelings they would not have been in a position to block efforts.

Unlike in Britain the first newborn royal child is not automatically heir to the throne and in this case an uncle was named, but when the time came, Abdul had proved himself in the military (and a bit diplomatically) and was named Crown Prince.

9-11 changed everything.  The American priority was to punish the perpetrators and then extended a war into Iraq.  The Palestinians ended up being classified as terrorists in many American minds.

After the Iraq invasion of 2003 Jordan attempted to be neutral, but had talks with American politicians and military leaders.  King Abdullah tried to advise Paul Bremer against de-Baathification and dissolving the Iraqui army to no avail.

Trying to be a moderate does not protect from assassination attempts.  King Abdullah II has been fortunate to have an intelligence agency that has been able to warn him in advance.  Some of his relatives and colleagues have not been so fortunate.

The key plank of the book is the two state solution be implemented as soon as practical.  As King Abdullah II states, "Al Quaeda won't disappear the moment a Palestinian state comes into being.  But it will have a harder time finding new recruits and winning support for its criminal actions."  King Abdullah recognizes there would have to be all sorts of confidence building steps and reassurances, but the goal has to be to arrive at an independent Palestine.  Arabs at one time had offered more economical connections such as connecting railroads through Jordan and Syria which in turn would allow rail transport from Israel to Europe.   Better communications and accessibility would benefit all.

Aside from excessive violence against Palestinians the big obstacle is the continuous settlements in occupied territories.  On the Palestinian side there is not unity and of course there are many who would try to sabotage negotiations.  Israelis and their sympathizers have a very strong lobby.  In addition there are evangelicals in the States who strongly believe the Jews must control Jerusalem before the second Coming of Christ.  There is genuine fear amongst the Israelis and they are supported by many Jews who see Israel as a sanctuary.

My feeling is that if Israel is to survive as a Jewish state they will have to accommodate the Palestinians and to a lesser extent Arabs and Muslims in their neighborhood.  They are justifiably afraid, but too many have a feeling of entitlement in that the occupied lands are theirs to fulfill Biblical dictates.

Note that this book was written in 2011 and I don't see much progress towards his objectives.  The settlements continue to expand.  Many of the key elements of obstruction remain in place.  It may already be too late, but if more people read this book they would understand the situation better and realize there is urgency.

SUPPORT FOR THE PRESIDENT

The recent address by Benjamin Natanyahu to the American Congress illustrates vividly the hypocrisy of the Republican party.  It certainly appealed to deeply felt emotions and to significant fund raisers. Still it is a step too far.  The Republicans are entitled to their perspective on domestic arguments and should do their best to present their viewpoints on important issues for the American people.  They should also examine foreign issues carefully and do their duty to present alternative strategies to protect their country.

BUT they should not try to undermine the president when dealing with foreigners in very difficult negotiations.

A simplified synopsis of the Iranian negotiation crisis is subject to bias and prejudice, but here goes.  There is doubt in all quarters as to how far one should trust Iran.  Are they just trying to inch their way to having nuclear weapons?  Are they using that fear as leverage to get more of what they really want?  Can outsiders really prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons if they are really determined short of war?  Could the west win a war?  Each question is complex and there is far more to it.  Each side has members who want the negotiations to fail and nobody can really be sure of the consequences.

My suggestion would be that tensions should be turned down.  Israel ought to be exploring steps to relieve the dangers.  A greater danger might be increasing resentment of how they treat the Palestinians.  Iran is potentially an ally in a war against ISIS.  It is not a backward civilization and its citizens do not all hate the West.  There is a lot of history involved and Americans need to acknowledge they were responsible for replacing an elected Iranian with a dictator.  Should Iran develop a nuclear bomb it would likely cause other Middle East powers to do the same.

There are plenty of delicate international issues with plenty of differing views.  At some point someone has to represent the whole nation when confronting these issues.  That person is logically the President.  That does not mean that everyone has to agree, but it should mean efforts to undermine a united front are not acceptable.

The Republicans understood this when they made the decision to invade Iraq.  They ridiculed dissenters and shamed fence sitters to get bi partisan Congressional approval.  Politicians and the media were very strident against any differing views.  Traitorous was a common epithet for people who did not support military efforts or security changes.  It was unpatriotic to question decisions.  Anyone else remember that environment?

The Iraq War turned out to be disastrous, not only because of military considerations, but because of the essential dishonesty involved.  Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 disaster, they did not train Al Quaeda terrorists and they did not have weapons of mass destruction.  Although claims are made that intelligence pointed to a guilty Iraq, they were to a significant degree manufactured with plenty of dissenting opinions expressed.  They even revealed a secret agent in an effort to discredit one of the dissenters.

All politicians find it helpful to project a patriotic image and some like to denigrate the opposition's patriotism.  Voters are responsive to this image battle.

To my viewpoint, the Republicans were attempting to undermine delicate negotiations for what they thought would be political advantage.  Paint the Democrats as weak and poor negotiators and stick up for the Israeli victims.  Netanyahu cannot be totally blamed for trying to take advantage of an opportunity to present his undoubtedly sincere concerns, but he too was trying to portray himself as a tough negotiator for an election of his own.  Republicans would have been better advised to avoid seeming to take sides in another nation's election.

Republicans are not alone in their concern about the Iranian negotiations, but at some point they have to stop undermining the president and the voters have to trust the man the majority of voters supported in the last two presidential elections.

A lot of the conservative rhetoric is blatantly unfair and ridiculous.  For instance as a Canadian it is hard to stomach the misinformation that is shouted about Obamacare.  It is noted that once the same plan is identified as the Affordable Care Act it gains greater approval.  There are many difficult issues, but it is hard not to be impressed with how superior Obama's results have been compared to his Republican predecessor.  Republicans have a lot of chutzpah to not owning up not only to their Iraq debacle, but also how they messed up the economy.

As outsiders we can only express our opinions, but have to realize we will never know everything a president has to deal with.  Our judgment and our vote has to be based on what we do know and perhaps the key element is deciding who to trust and then respect the majority.  When difficult decisions have to be made at some point we have to trust and respect elected officials.  I do not believe the Republicans, particularly in the House of Representatives demonstrated that with respect to the recent visit by a foreign leader.

The photo at the top is of muralist Lester Coloma working on a fence painting that unfortunately is no longer there and I thought it should be remembered.

"The Crisis of Zionism book review

As an outsider (in the sense of not being Jewish and not having ever visited Israel) I can easily be accused of ignorance.  On the other hand we all benefit from understanding what outsiders think even if they are totally wrong.  I grew up thinking of  "Exodus" as one of my favorite movies, however as I got older I became aware that it represented only one viewpoint.  I am now aware of other viewpoints.

Peter Beinart, who I have found in other contexts to be intelligent and objective has more of an insider perspective on Israel and is very concerned.  Peter might be described as a liberal Jew who sees Israel as not treating Palestinians fairly.  Most Jews in the United States seem to vote Democrat, but because they tend to be liberal they also tend to inter-marry more and are losing their Jewish identity.  Other Jews, especially older ones see themselves as victims and view Israel as a possible refuge or at least as a beacon.

The author is concerned that Israel is losing its democracy.  Many Israelis emphasize that they are victims and don't realize that they now have power and are using it to impose hardship on others.  A significant segment of American Jews support the right wing approach which essentially is to keep the Palestinians from having their own state.  Many of those who feel more liberal are gradually losing their identification with Israel.

Beinart is concerned that the current Israeli government is turning the world against Israel.  Including the occupied lands Palestinians are likely to become more populous in the near future and this will force a difficult choice.  Will Israel remain Jewish and will it also remain a democracy?

Barack Obama has a personal perspective on Jews which surprised me.  One of his early mentors was Arnold Jacob Wolf who believed Israel and American Jewish organizations had to be democratic and felt Jews should de-emphasize victim-hood.   Some liberal Jews were closely tied to Obama's education and to his political rise.  Obama spent part of his upbringing amongst Muslims and is well read on their perspective.  Beinhart thinks Obama was out maneuvered by Netanyahu and sees danger.

Benjamin Netanyahu  has a different vision for Israel and its role in the world. He sees the Palestinians as an obstacle to Israeli and Jewish security.  The settlements in the west bank are seen as a necessary and desirable move although Palestinians and many others see them as a threat to peace. There is a feeling amongst some hard liners that Jordan was taken away from them.

Evangelicals, particularly in the United States have an influence on the dynamics.  They believe Christ will come back, but only while Israel is ruled by Jews.  Several years ago at one  of my jobs I had my eyes opened by a fellow worker who I respected that the second coming was moving forward and would take place in Israel.

It is all very scary, but I believe Peter Beinart has a valid perspective that should be seriously considered.

for a more recent Peter Beinart post after the Hamas attack and Gaza followup  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2025/02/peter-beinarts-being-jewish-after.html