Peter Beinart's "Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza"

At the beginning of "Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza" (2025) is a small section addressed to a "former friend".  As a Jew Peter feels his views are not compatible with many Jews, including some long time friends.  Benjamin Franklin said "For having lived long I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information or fuller consideration to change opinions even on important which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise".  At great personal loss to himself Peter Beinart over a period of time has changed his opinion.  As an outsider my views had been formed in one direction for close to 50 years.

October 7th was a shock and the initial response was horror.  As time went on some of the horror shifted to the bombardment of Gaza.  Hostages were used as bargaining chips including women, children and a few foreigners.  Some hostages noted that their greatest fear was of Israeli bombs and in truth some died as result.  We heard very upsetting accounts of what had been inflicted in the initial attack and subsequently on hostages.  

After World War II a lot of colonies wound down, however Israel was the exception where Jews took over land that was already occupied by a larger number of Arabs.  In North America we seldom stopped to realize that we took over land occupied by indigenous humans who actually co-existed better with nature.  For years we were led to believe the Arabs fled on their own initiative.  We came to learn they fled intimidation and violence.  Like being forced out of your house that your family had lived in for generations.  Actually about 750,000 Arabs were displaced in 1948 and several hundred thousand in 1967.

It was considered a problem of what to do with the Jewish Holocaust survivors.  None of the Europeans wanted to take it on.  One thought was that they should be compensated with choice land in Germany.  However there had been a political movement called Zionism that advocated settling in the Holy Land.   Nations that had blocked Jewish refugees before the war supported this notion, most notably the United States, that not only supplied money, but also weapons.

Since the formation of Israel it has gained in strength with Jews around the world viewing it as a safe haven in a world with lots of anti-Semitism.  They have developed some psychological props.  They are quick to point out how they have been victimized over centuries.  Beinart points out "There are still fewer Jews alive today than there were in 1939".

Another force boosting Israel is surprisingly (mostly 'American) Evangelicals who have interpreted Biblical verse that Christ will have a second coming, but only if the Jews control Israel.  They actively support Jewish settlers in Palestine and surprisingly some Jews join in the effort to influence American Evangelicals.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2019/12/evangelists-and-trump.html   The Evangelical voting block strongly supports Republicans who in turn support Israel

Dehumanizing is a standard practice.  Palestinians are always characterized as lazy, poorly educated, violent and most critically want Jews dead.  Since October 7th we have heard and seen barbaric acts against Jewish citizens.  Israeli citizens minimize Palestinian deaths even suggesting they are made up, but in fact they compile their numbers from actually identified.  The stories of individual Palestinians suffering are dismissed. 

Alternatives to violence were tried with little success.  The real problem is to build trust in a hateful environment.  Netanyahu boasted that he killed the Oslo Accords, an attempt for peace.  He then encouraged settlements (that are illegal) in occupied Palestine.  What some would call terrorism, others would call freedom fighting.  Are you sure you don't have a bias?

The BDS  (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement offered another way to get the world's attention.  Essentially it was an organizational attempt to use economic warfare instead of violence.  Israel saw this as an attack (which it was), but instead of countering with arguments and incentives they tried to make it illegal and had success.  Israel did everything it could for the world to ignore this non violent effort.  The world mostly ignored the Palestinian case for freedom. http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/12/the-bds-movement.html

Beinart suggests there is hope for a peaceful resolution.

One example comes from South Africa.  Afrikaners expressed disdain for the blacks, deeming them to be lower humans.  They feared that if ever they got control there would be a massacre  They fought five different African nations declaring armed groups as terrorists, but  actually after the blacks got a vote anti-government violence within almost disappeared while the armed battles against ceased. 

Palestinian doctors are 30% of Israeli doctors, 25% of nurses and 60% of pharmacists, all jobs require trust by Jewish patients. 

There are Israelis who are trying to bridge the two cultures often through music, art or sports.

Trump recently demonstrated his insensitivity by suggesting the Palestinians should be sent over to Jordan or Egypt and that would leave their homeland partly into a Mediterranean resort.  It would please some of his supporters, but certainly exasperate the problem.  If American voters prefer Trump solutions, the Mideast will be in continual turmoil.  It is difficult to predict the future, but until more people understand there are two sides to the dispute it will be impossible to negotiate peace.

A previous blog about Peter Beinart  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2012/07/crisis-of-zionism-book-review.html

 Another respected Jewish thinker is Yuval Noah Harriri and he has a relevant perspective http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/12/21-lessons-for-21st-century.html

the U.S. and the Holocaust

History is full of events and opinions that do not reflect our better nature.  Canadians cannot be exempted from these black spots including ones brought to light by Ken Burns. 

 Hypocrisy has always been in good supply.  We look with horror at the Holocaust and have great difficulty imagining how it was even possible.  Americans can take solace in that they accepted more Jewish refugees than any other nation and were instrumental in militarily stopping Adolf Hitler, but there is another side to the story with parallels in the present.

 "Americans" have been welcoming European workers while pushing out the indigenous and bringing in Africans to be slaves.  Before the Civil War most immigrants came from northern Europe.  Afterwards those from the south and east of Europe came in greater numbers and at first met with resentment.  Chinese were brought in to build railroads, but also inspired an exclusion act.

Jews at one time made up almost a quarter of the population of New York City becoming the largest concentration of Jews in the world.   Problems were attributed to Jews such as crime.  Eugenics, financed by wealthy and powerful reared its ugly head.  Sterilization became legal in most American states.  

Henry Ford was a prominent anti-Semite publishing in different languages including German.  Jews were restricted in university admissions, jobs  Politicians could get elected with anti immigrant policies.  Immigration laws were enacted that favored northern Europeans.  Asian immigrants were illegal.  South Americans allowed in for labor only.

Hitler (while in prison) was pleased to learn that many Americans were advocating for a Nordic population.  Hitler felt a duty to rid the Jewish Bolshevik leaders that corrupted different parts of the world.   Mexicans were repatriated during the Depression.  In 1932 more Americans left than came in.  

By 1933 American journalists made the public well aware of Nazi anti Jewish acts.  American Jews found themselves in a dilemma--keep quiet or protest.  Regardless German Jews would suffer while Hitler thought Jewish actions only proved his anti-Jewish rhetoric.  During the Depression , the state department under Cordell Hull wanted to increase trade.  Immigration became more difficult.  Popular right wing religious leaders were blatantly anti-Semitic.  Germans modeled anti-Semitic laws on Jim Crow laws.

By 1937 fascist countries had become aggressive--Spain, Italy and Germany.  United States did not wish to intervene.  Hitler was a very stirring speaker.  By 1938 Hitler was welcomed in Austria and amalgamated.  Americans fired Jewish employees in Germany.

The world knew of the situation, but did not want to help out.  Hitler took over Sudentenland despite defense agreements involving other countries, notably Great Britain.

Kristallnacht, the night of the  broken glass November 9 and 10th, 1938- not only in Germany, but also Sudetendland-supposedly in retaliation for assassination of a German diplomat.  Businesses were destroyed, houses burnt and for the first time the Nazis rounded up Jewish males for no other reason than being Jewish and sent them to concentration camps.  This was covered on front page of many U.S. newspapers.  FDR was the only world leader to withdraw ambassador from Berlin and allowed visiting Jews on tourism visa to stay.  BUT quotas were maintained and strictly enforced.

Britain allowed 10,000 Jewsih teenagers to immigrate, but not parents.  Eleanor Roosevelt tried to support legislation to help Jewish refugees, but was strongly opposed by prominent racist individuals and organizations, backed by public sentiment.

Events accelerated with an attack on Poland resulting in World War II on Sept 1, 1939.  Germany rapidly conquered most of Europe.  They had made a pact with Soviet Union to split Poland, but in reality Hitler disliked the Jewish influence in Russia.

FDR claimed neutrality while deploring Nazi action  Isolationalists stopped or restricted action that would have relieved Jewish anxiety.

The St. Louis ship was organized to take Jews to Cuba, but rejected by the Cubans and in turn by Canada and others.   U.S. Germans pointed out the hypocrisy while touting their own opennesss.  Finances were organized for some of the refugees to European countries.

After the war began suspicion of German spies among the Jewish refugees became overwhelming, despite total lack of evidence.   The Lend-Lease bill opposed by anti Semitic groups and Charles Lindbergh who had helped form American First that also included Henry Ford, and Avery Brundage.  Getting visas to America became much more difficult.  

British espionage efforts uncovered German atrocities, but Churchill was reluctant to publicize as would let the Germans know they knew lots of details of German war effort.  Roosevelt tried to support the British efforts, but had a lot of political opposition.  Lindbergh even identified Jews as those wanting war and even though he was castigated by many newspapers his sentiments were shared by much of the public.

American Jewish groups helped finance efforts in Europe, allowing a few to escape and others to be hidden.

After Pearl Harbor drew America into the war, Japanese internment camps even for citizens were set up.

Germans developed concentration camps, partly for labour as soldiers reduced the labour force  -Those not productive enough were sent for elimination.  Some Nazis took pride in becoming more efficient at killing Jews and others such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Romany, gays and even some P.O.W..

Awareness of atrocities from newspapers and radio broadcasters such as Edward R. Murrow--state dept was skeptical of reports and felt efforts to rescue would be diversions  Despite the support of the Roosevelts, the state dept was obstructionist.  Henry Morgenthau, Jr., the Secretary of Treasury had protested the Armenian killings and referred to them to Roosevelt.

Eisenhower commanded soldiers to witness some of the camps as he felt it needed to be believed.

After the war for awhile immigration quotas remained in effect and Britain had restricted migrants to Palestine.  Eventually restrictions were removed.  The Nuremberg Trials were the first to try genocidal legal cases.

White supremacy is still a part of America as demonstrated on January 6th.   In truth  Civilization is fragile.  Donald Trump used racist rhetoric to get elected.  Many of his followers weren't overtly racist, but tolerated it as a means to get lesser taxes, or regulations or banning abortions.   http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2022/09/symbiotic-relationships-drive-right-wing.html

Reaction to the film included an anti-Semitic view.  One felt the Jews were too demanding and now were adding to American guilt.  We see Muslims vilified in a similar manner.  A big ruckus has been made C.R T. where politicians feel Americans should not be made to feel guilt. over racism.

Ken Burns is a key person behind this series.  He has a long history of dealing with important people and events in depth  and comprehensively such as "The Civil War (1990), "Jazz" (2001), "Baseball" (1994 and 2010), "The Central Park Five" (2012), ""The Roosevelts:  An Intimate History" (2014) "The Vietnam War" (2017). "Hemingway" (2021), "Muhammed Ali" (2021) and "Benjamin Franklin" (2022).   Check http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2022/07/benjamin-franklin-ken-burns.html and http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2022/02/muhammad-ali-by-ken-burns.html

Peter Coyote, the regular narrator for Burns' documentaries. has a lot of experience narrating, but is perhaps better known as an actor.  He adopted the last name Coyote after meeting a Paiute-Shoshone shaman in 1967.  The only American to be directed by Spanish director Pedro Almodovar where he performed in Spanish, "Kika" (1993).  As an actor he has over 150 credits including ""E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial" (1982), "Erin Brokovich" (2000) and "Le Grand Role" (2004 in French).

Some of the commentators were historians.  Others were participants as children or young adults.  One is struck that first hand information is being steadily lost

Racism is one of the major scourges of the modern world.  But we are all in this together.  More thoughts on racism:http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2021/03/racism.html

As usual I have bolded the first mention of films I have seen. 

Available through PBS and likely soon to your local library.

The BDS Movement

The BDS Movement  (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) might not have been noticed quite as much if there weren't concerted efforts to make it illegal.  The goal is for Israel to withdraw from occupied territories, removal of the barriers at the West Bank, full equality of Arabs in Israel and to promote the right of return by the Palestinian refugees.  Israel claims Arabs enjoy equality in Israel and that the movement is anti-Semitic.  Both Israel and the United States have made efforts to make the BDS illegal and use national resources to reject. 

The cause is known and for most people who consider themselves progressive liberals it is admirable enough.  Like a lot of people when I hear and believe negative things about individuals and companies I try to make a conscious decision not to support.  Other people want to take a strong stand and some of them are organizers and others looking for an organized effort.

Up until past my university years I would tell anyone who asked, that "Exodus" was my favorite movie.  I barely knew any Jews, but somehow came to admire them and how they had overcome the Holocaust.  I still grapple to understand the horror of  their ordeal.  I have watched several movies that focused on the Holocaust from many different angles.  It is horrifying to read about people who deny the Holocaust.  It not only is anti-Semitic, but also indicates rationalization (guilt feelings) for expressing hatred.

A few things happened over my adult years to change my perspective  At work I remember talking to a secretary at work about Hallowe'en.  I was telling her that I had to get home early to protect my home from tricksters.  She surprised me by saying as a born again Christian they could not celebrate Hallowe'en.  I have always considered myself secular, but Lynn was someone I liked working with and accepted her offer to read a book about Armagedden.  There seemed to be a lot of logic, but really twisting the meaning of Biblical words which I just could not accept.  But I came to understand and more frequently heard or read references to the second coming of Christ.  I kept a few details in mind such as there would be the anti-Christ who would seem to have the answers (could that be Donald Trump?), Israel would have to be run by Jews again and there was something about ten tribes that would play a role and that the true believers would ascend to heaven.

I gradually became aware of the role this belief played in American politics and other nations.  They seemed very protectionist of Israel, but at the same time saw Jews only as necessary for the prophesy.  The Palestinians were in the way and needed to be stomped down.  The fact that they resorted to terrorism only proved how undeserving they were.  Arab states and Muslims were suspect as they always seemed to be using the supposed Palestinian injustices to inflict terror on the rest of us.  Many Christians just wanted to protect the holy sites. 

The Arab oil boycott of the west was mostly seen as inconvenient.  One good thing that came out of it was a movement in part led by Jimmy Carter (who is my most admired president) who preached conservation.  Of course Ronald Reagan ridiculed the idea and reversed course.

Another factor emerged when my sister, Rebecca married a Muslim from Morocco.  She was actually married in an inter denomination ceremony.  It was over ten years and two daughters later that she decided to convert.  She is one of the people who I both love and admire.  I had come to admire Ali as well and he gave a different view of Palestinians.  He was careful not to speak against Jews and in fact pointed out to me that he would seek kosher food when halal food was not available.

My reading convinced me that the Palestinians had been taken advantage of.  While I could still admire what the Zionists had accomplished against heavy odds I began to realize they did so at the expense of the Palestinians. And the more I heard and read the more it seemed the Palestinians were being dismissed and discriminated against.  The media in my neck of the woods was almost totally picturing Palestinians as backward, dishonest, violent and undeserving.  The Israelis are pictured as besieged, but very innovative.  Perhaps there is an element of guilt from many Western countries that had allowed anti-semitism to prosper and helped set the events of the Holocaust.

After a television appearance I read a book by Peter Beinart.  It made me realize there is a lot of politics behind the support of Israel.  Check out  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2012/07/crisis-of-zionism-book-review.html

By now you realize I am sympathetic to the Palestinians, but there is more to it than that.  I am not much of a boycott participant.   I have completed two books by Yuval Noah Harari, an Israeli and have started his most recent book.  He has the best understanding of what it means to be a human of any one I am familiar with.  I am not willing to give up that.  An investment counselor was recommending a mutual fund and thought one of its highlights was that they included Israeli stocks--although like anyone else I wanted to make the most money for the least risk,  passed on it.  I watched and appreciated many movies from Israel http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/05/youll-find-arabic-and-hebrew.html  particularly the ones that seemed balanced.

My experiences with boycotts are very limited.  As a Canadian one example was when Heinz decided to stop processing tomatoes from their Simcoe, Ontario plant.  I had driven through Simcoe numerous times as part of my sales job.  I remember consciously actually driving by the plant with a distinct, but not unpleasant smell of the ketchup plant.  French's, better known for mustard, picked up the slack and I have made it a point of buying their ketchup (which happens to taste pretty good).

I was too young or disinterested to think about the anti apartheid boycott.  I am proud that Canada did participate unlike United States and the United Kingdom.  Thinking what would I buy from South Africa?  Never thought of diamonds or gold.  A little later did enjoy eating Granny Smith apples and have since enjoyed South African wines, but think of them as post Mandela (one of my very favorite heroes).

If we don't want people to settle their differences with violence we have to accept alternatives.  Every person who has a dime to spend has some power.  Once they spend that money they have lost some of their power, but the choice should be theirs.  Yes, there should be exceptions--we should not be able to physically harm someone or denigrate them. 

Israel is forgetting its values.  They have suffered at the hands of degenerates, but now they are causing great suffering that to me is counter productive.  I know there are significant elements that want to bridge the gap, but they don't seem to dominate.  Hatred and ignorance are very difficult to deal with, but others have found ways

Critics are welcome to do a counter boycott if they really want, but they have absolutely no right to impose legal restrictions on people who  feel the merits of the cause.  I think what needs to happen is more effort to reconcile the Jews and Palestinians.  Biblical prophesies can be interpreted any way that suits someone else.  The Qu'ran is interpreted very widely.  To me the boycott and such efforts to encourage Israel to take a fairer treatment of the Palestinians is a worthy cause and those that want to delegitimize it are the immoral ones.  Politics and money are a big part of the problem.

The Triumph of Christianity--a history

Christianity might have become a Jewish sect or a minor religion, but instead it changed the world.  Its core believers at the beginning were mostly illiterate.  This book by Bart D. Ehrman can be interpreted as a marketing study.

After the death of Jesus, his followers did carry on his mission, but mostly talking to other Jews who were very resistant.  The author contends that Paul was a key factor.  As a Pharisee Jew he actually had attacked followers of Jesus, but after he "saw the light" he was the first to attempt converting non Jews to the Christian faith without having to adopt Jewish customs.  Paul would visit larger population centres and pay his keep with his trade of tent making and talking to whoever would listen.  After work he would continue seeking out people to talk to.  He would try to get enough believers to establish a church which usually meant meetings in homes.  He would move on to another town and repeat the process.  Only now he kept in touch with his famous letters.

Paul, unlike the original apostles tried to convert non Jews, but had suffered beatings in synagogues and elsewhere.  Pagans did not offer life after death and tolerated a variety of Gods.   Miracles impressed many converts.  One requirement was to reject pagan beliefs and over time this gave the movement more solidarity.  Fear of hell (a new concept for most) compelled many to be converted.  Christians felt a need to service others and this often included medical assistance.  Usually when one household member joined the other members followed.  Conversions were slow, but steady and over the first three centuries became significant.

Hardships and torture actually boosted the appeal of Christianity, although not as common as has been pictured.  Believers who could endure tortures and barbarities inflicted on them became martyrs in the hearts and minds of pagans.  Paganism provided few if any martyrs.

Bart D Ehrman analyses a variety of scenarios but feels most comfortable with the notion that  conversions were mostly in ones and twos, but that over a long time they would have an exponential growth.  The greatest success was among the lower classes and more women than men. 

Constantine was born a pagan, but was converted before a major battle.  He was not baptized until on his death bed, but the author feels it was a common enough personal preference as they would not have time to sin after the baptism.  Constantine did not not try to force Christianity on others, but it was natural that some would convert to gain his favor and others felt it was a natural choice as the new religion was officially approved.  He was very involved in the religion, even holding high level meetings to sort out theological disputes.  Later Emperors were more aggressive in promoting Christianity.

The author notes that before Christianity became the majority they favored the separation of church and state, but afterwards many advocated Christianity as the state religion.  Pagan statues were mutilated.  Anti Semitism was boosted as many Christians thought of Jews as God killers.

The book stops at the fourth century when Christianity had overcome many obstacles.  Obviously Christianity has had a major impact on civilization starting in Europe, but as Europeans conquered and colonized much of the rest of the world it grew in strength.  There are many historical observations and the author draws on the studies of many other scholars.

For a related perspective on how things become popular:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/02/hit-makers.html

Why blame the Middle East problems on Obama?

Americans or at least some prominent ones are quick to criticize Obama's handling of the various Middle Eastern problems.  He is too soft, too indecisive and just plain wrong.

It is easy to fault any one action, but one should realize the choices are not all that clear.  People tend to forget the background to the decisions and overlook some of the critical details.

Where to start?  Palestine might be one logical place.  The Palestinians are continually pictured as less civilized and controlled by terrorists.  Why do they seem so ungrateful and hateful?  If you realize the fight is for land and for freedom you might understand why.  They too were promised things, but either they weren't forceful or clever enough and they have been effectively stifled.

Israel has an ancient history and we Westerners rightly consider it one of the essential sources of our culture.  Jews gave the world a monotheistic view.  They were forced out of their land and spread mostly across Europe and later around the globe.  By hard work, intelligence and focused behaviour they were successful to the point of stirring resentment some of which was expressed as anti-Semitism.  The Nazis took it to a new level of hate and after World War II the world realized six million were killed under horrifying circumstances.  Jews did not feel safe in Europe and worried about anti-Semitism wherever they located.  Political movements, mainly Zionism sought out a permanent home and the most logical was Palestine.  The only problem was that other people already were living there.

The world felt guilty and ironically anti-Semitism also played in role in agreeing to set aside land for the Jews in Palestine.  The newly formed United Nations had a vote which declared specific land for the Jews, but also land for the Palestinians.  An article by William R Polk reminds me that the British presided over the independence of India including partitioning off Pakistan that resulted in millions dying.  The British also controlled Palestine when it was divided and literally thousands also died and many others relocated.  Through a series of events (some self inflicted by the Palestinians) the Jewish territory expanded and the Palestinians never did get their promised share. Although oil rich Arabs surrounding the area did invest some of their money and lot of their rhetoric to support the Palestinian cause they never got the support that the Jews did from America, Europe and the rest of the world.    There is a mix of resentment and fear also mixed with some Biblical self-rightiousness.  Some of the significant support for the Jews actually comes from American Evangelicals who await the second coming of Christ and believe that for that to happen the Jews have to control the Holy Land.

An obvious source of distrust is that the Israelis persist in making Jewish settlements in occupied territory although they have been told (it is hard to believe they would need to be told) this is very offensive.  They restrict Palestinians in countless ways at the borders not only for crossing, but for business.  Yes Israeli Arabs are better off.

The Palestinians have been ignored and abused for many decades and they are pictured in our media as uneducated with an insane desire to kill Jews.  There very definitely are a lot of fanatics who hate Jews and unfortunately this number is probably increasing. They have their own version of the situation, but it hasn't gotten much credence in the American mainstream media.  But if you think about it there are some grounds for their resentment.  Other Muslims around the world use what they see as very unfair treatment of their co-religionists by Westerners in their fight against us.

Syria and Iraq.  Let's go back a few years.  Both countries had their borders defined after World War I to the convenience of the wheeling and dealing winning powers.  Ethnic and religious concerns were not considered as important as oil and European maneuverings for colonial power.   The western powers felt dealing with relatively secular dictators superior to fairness to the teeming masses.  It seemed likely that any alternative to the dictators might be religious fanatics who would be much more difficult to deal with.

George Bush Sr was confronted by a problem and was able to organize a coalition to force Iraq to give up Kuwait.  He stopped short of conquering Iraq and replacing Saddam Hussein and that upset some right wingers in the United States.  It was a very delicate situation.  The American government had received United Nations authorization and had negotiated a coalition of many nations with differing perspectives.  Saddam Hussein proved himself adept at taking advantage of the situation to restore himself to full dictatorial power.

9-11 caught a lot of people off guard.  Why would anyone want to do such a horrible thing?  There really is no justification for killing so many innocent people.  Ignorance, resentment and hate played a role.  Quickly it was realized that the deed had been organized in Afghanistan (a story in itself) and Americans planned to attack in order to root out the terrorists.  Nobody much quarreled with that decision, but others saw it as an opportunity to get back at Saddam Hussein who they felt had suckered Americans in their last conflict.  Saddam had more reason to fear Al Qaeda than did Americans, but nonetheless some political factions claimed there was a tie-in.

The Iraq invasion proved to be an expensive distraction that has hurt America immeasurably.   They had not captured Osama bin Ladin and although they had greatly diminished the Taliban, they had not replaced it with anything solid.  On one side the Taliban (with help from Pakistan, a supposed ally) rebuilt itself and became a major factor again.  On the other side where Iraq had not harboured Al Qaeda  now became a recruiting base for them.  Religious and ethnic factions became unbottled and in effect a civil war resulted.  The Americans made at least two big mistakes--they had been advised to go in with a much larger number of ground troops, but authorities ridiculed that notion.  They were never able to clamp down enough to control the situation.  The second big mistake was to get rid of the bureaucratic and military infrastructure, men and women with necessary skills and knowledge to get things done.  Underlying these game changing errors was a basic ignorance of the country.

Iran is another country often depicted as uncivilized.  Americans forget they engineered a coup d'etat of a democratically elected Iranian ruler.  If this is brought up, the right wing points out that the Iranians were planning to nationalize their own oil as if the Westerners should have total control over it.  The Western powers favoured the Shah of Iran who with their help set up a harsh secret police force to control the masses.  As the Pope helped bring down Communist dictators so Ayatollah Khomeini helped bring down the Shah.  The Americans were delighted when the Iraquis  decided to invade Iran and supported them with amongst others things poisonous gas.  We, in the West  looked at them as fanatics who stormed and controlled the American Embassy for 444 days.  So each side blames the other, but they had begun to work together for mutual concerns.  Although they had received some Iranian help in the fight against terrorists, the Americans thought to frame Iran as one of the "Axis of Evil."  Now Iran is trying to assert itself to become a nuclear power causing fear in the rest of the world.

The so-called "Arab Spring" opened up another big can of worms.  Many factors were involved such as food prices, youthful unemployment and political agitation.  The results are very mixed and again a lot of factions have seized the opportunity to force their ideas on others.  Americans could probably had been more helpful if their credibility and resources had not been depleted by mistakes before.  From a conservative point of view Egypt, Libya and Syria were all better off before, except even conservatives wouldn't accept dictatorships in their own country.

Obama has a very complicated mess and limited resources.  It is very easy to offend a faction who feels Israel should be the focus of American foreign policy or those who feel fanatics should be killed at every opportunity  or our energy needs ought to be protected.

Conservative Americans think we ought to forget George Bush Jr's mistakes as if they have no impact on today's circumstances, but how could they not?  Obama has to work with the little credibility we have and try to develop more trust.  He has to balance a lot of domestic (unemployment, inequality, immigration, climate change) and other foreign (Ukraine, North Korea) concerns when his party can easily be blocked by the Republicans in the House of Representatives.

The biggest problem is ignorance and it is on most sides.  Most Middle Easterners and Muslims around the world have many higher priorities than killing Jews or Americans.  Most Westerners have many higher priorities than killing Muslims.  Unfortunately most of us let those with an agenda dictate our agenda.  There are some bridges between cultures, but not nearly enough.  Shed enough light on the situation and you will realize we have more in common than we differ on.