SYNOPSIS OF ALAN DERSHOWITZ'S BOOK - THE CASE FOR ISRAEL - PART I

INTRODUCTION
Definition of anti-Semitism – attributing only to Jews the blame for a near universal bad trait, behavior or actions. The classic anti-Semitic story of Harvard president in the 20s –to not let the Jews in because they cheat When protests were made that other students cheat, he said, don’t change the subject, I’m talking about Jews. That’s still the story today internationally against Israel. Tom Friedman (NY Times) – Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic … but singling out Israel is.

Possibilities of peace. Can Arabs and Jews share the land or split it? There are alternatives – No Jews in Middle East, No Arabs in Israel, Palestinian federation with Jordan (or Syria!!). Or one state – binational. Noah Chomsky likes this though Lebanon and Yugoslavia failed in fratricide (oops, we’re trying to put back together like Humpty Dumpty 3 groups in Iraq). This is just the first instance where Dershowitz strikes specifically at Chomsky – I guess he doesn’t like him much.

Do facts count? Such as if and how were Arabs "pushed out" of Israel, “Sephardic” Jews out of Arab lands. Describes history – Jews always a presence in Jerusalem and holy cites. “Aliyah” – emigrations to Israel – beginning in 1880s and increasing. The “road map” of splitting Palestine with Jews and Arabs has been a continuing one – proposed in 1917, 1937, 1948, 2000 – it’s the Arabs who always rejected and the Palestinian state has only been a tactic after the 1967 war – losses of territory to Israel. Arafat to blame for peace process failure over many years, especially in 2000. A visit by an Israeli leader (Sharon) to (Islamic mosque) “temple mount” – was an excuse for Arafat to continue resistance “infitada” and scuttle the agreement for Palestinian state. Even Prince Bandar of Saudi agrees to blame Arafat. The terrorism is evil – and Israel’s self defense and targeted response cannot be compared – use the correct “moral” calculus – not simply body counts.

(RBs thoughts: These are criminal charges against Israel as well as the counter charges against Arafat, etc. But instead of proving innocence of accused to a shadow of doubt, we can examine the evidence Dershowitz will give on the “preponderance of evidence” as in a civil suit, where only minor harm may be alleged. This is only proper, as no criminal charges can be enforced in dealing with a sovereign state, not unconditionally defeated. This is to Israel’s advantage, as it is certainly not guilty of crimes against humanity, ane yet again the virtuous party when considering fault in preponderance of evidence – it is more sinned against than sinner. But what difference will this make if not in court of law – if not with Arabs, how about world opinion? , how about continuing US support depending on Americans still believing in Israel. This book comes a good time, when we are enmeshed in the Middle East as never before. What is our business there? Who are the good guys? Why do we support Israel? Why are we lumped together as imperialists?)

Dershowitz concludes his introduction on how as a “liberal” he can support the “villain” Israel. Simple, BECAUSE Israel is a nation accountable to the rule of law. Principles of morality and justice are on Israel’s side.

Chapters are Charges against Israel, in generally a chronological progression.

1)Israel created by colonial, imperial forces- as a “bastard child” of British imperialism. Truth: created by refugees of oppression – Russia, Eastern Europe, Germany, etc. How were Jews tools – they were oppressed and for most part Socialist whose Zionist selfdetermination was anathema to mainstream European thought – in fact the “powers” especially early on tried to stop or forestall the Jewish homeland or upset the balance by restricting Jewish immigration. From 1880 to 1903 – 10,000 to Palestine (while 1 million Jews to US!!) – 1st Aliyah – but no real Zionist political movement until 1897. ( We know the Biblical preceding history, then diaspora under Rome’s destruction of Jerusalem, continuing Islamic persecution then “tolerance” led to Jewish enclaves in Palestine. All thru history until Israel created state, impossible for Jews to “assimilate” in the Middle East as they have done so well in the US.

2)Did Jews displace Palestinians? Truth: - no it was underpopulated, no local govt., little control from Ottoman Empire (Turkey). Untilled land, migrant people – the Arab population only increased when Jews improved the area with agriculture, towns, European health and sanitation. King Abdullah said : “Arabs are prodigal in selling their land … and weeping over (it)”

3)Was there a Zionist plot? Truth: In the 2nd Aliyah 1904 -1914, more refugees came to Israel. There was born a Zionist philosophy, a political movement of self determinism. And yet they were still refugees, an oppressed minority within the Middle East, only controlling certain segregrated towns. Europe and Ottoman were allied against any real power to Zionist – but then came World War I.

4)Balfour Delcaration – Palestine belonged to Turkey – how could Britain give it away? Truth: Simple, Ottoman empire / Turkey lost the war to Britain. Jews “earned” a piece of the pie by sweat and blood by fight alongside the British and continuing to build an infrastructure of development and health improvements. League of Nations when created, the international body before the UN, took the Balfour Declaration as part of its mandate – 80 % of the land to Hashemite Transjordan (the core of this is still Jordan – but some to Syria, Iraq) – and 20% of Israel.

5)The Jews were unwilling to share the land!! Truth: it has always been otherwise. By their minority position – lack of strength, admittedly, as well as European cultural norms of tolerance allowed for Jews to generally not abuse their neighbors but to assist. Meanwhile, in the interwar period, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was rising in power, and initiated or allowed “pogroms” – persecutions, riots, and and massacres of Jews. His plan – destroy, intimidate, deport – whatever worked to limit or eliminate the Jews.

6)The Jews rejected or worked to override the 2 state solution? Truth: Jews accepted, Arabs have always rejected. 1937 – British Peel Commission investigation into persecution of Jews. A plan in 1938 to support Jewish immigration in face of rescue from Nazi Europe. But by eve of war – 1939 – British undercut this with limit of 75,000 from Europe over 5 years!!

7)Jews exploited the Holocaust to gain sympathy over the years for Zionist plans in the Middle East. Palestinians, after all, were not at fault for the Holocaust. Truth: Dershowitz really warms to this charge since it gives a chance to expose the Grand Mufti and so many other Arab leaders as Nazis and supporters of not only Axis war plans in the Middle East but specifically the “final solution” of eliminating Jews from Europe and the Middle East.

I’ll end Part I at this historical juncture before the establishment of Israel

What's up with the ICRC? Here's the Manchester Guardian quoting a spokesperson for ICRC

Can or should the ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) be telling the US and Iraq to follow the rules or let Saddam go?

In no way should Saddam be let off on a technicality and no international organization should be alluding to such, even in the name of neutrality!!.


And here's what the ICRC statement says at their site a few days later, seemingly a vague bureaucratic backpedaling


What do you think?
And what's the connection with our American Red Cross?

I think we need to support what our American Red Cross does - the blood, the disaster relief, all the great things it does as a volunteer organization. But can we learn exactly how the American Red Cross affiliates and operates within the international organization, and ask how much goes to the ICRC?

The ICRC though certainly trying to be a "neutral" party, shouldn't be above accountability to the donors from the democratic countries, many of whom have sent armies to liberate Iraq and shed blood in that cause. Saddam's capture is a symbol of that victory and Saddam's trial to be decided by his people before the world is a symbol of that victory.

Can they be made aware of one simple truth:
In no way can we have Saddam let off on a technicality!!

If you feel the same way, what can you do?

Here's some email addresses:

bagdad.bag@icrc.org
pres.qva@icrc.org

info@usa.redcross.org (American Red Cross)

secretariat@ifrc.org (Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent)

Let them know of the simple truth:
In no way can we have Saddam let off on a technicality!!

Reagan's other side - or liberals' sneaky side?

Reagan's other side - Bill Bell, Whittier Daily News

argument excerpt: "So as not to trust my sometimes faulty memory, I went to the Internet and purely at random came up with these words by Cassi Feldman: "California's desperate shortage of psychiatric facilities dates back to the late 1960s when then-governor Ronald Reagan slashed 1,700 hospital staff positions and several state-operated aftercare facilities ... (now) while applicants wait in line (police are) cracking down on the mentally ill.' And physician Dr. Tod H. Mikuriya wrote not too long ago a paper on the "Breakdown of American Healthcare:' The breakdown of America's health care system began in the '60s with the rise of Republicans led by Gov. Ronald Reagan, who presided over the emptying of California mental hospitals under the guise of community psychiatry.' He went on to say, "The poisonous dogma of deregulation and privatization allowed corruption and altering government policy to suit special-interest groups that crafted self-serving regulatory policy.'"


Reagan Inspired Generation Of Youth - Jennifer Nelson
counter-argument excerpt : One of the fallacies liberals like to foster about Reagan is that our homeless mentally ill population is his fault. One Bay Area news report Saturday night presented this charge as fact during a story about Reagan's death and legacy.

In 1963, Kennedy signed legislation that created a national movement aimed at closing mental-health institutions and moving patients to community-care facilities and general hospitals with psychiatric wards. A few years later, Congress created a new program that provided funds for community-based nonprofit organizations to provide services to the nation's mentally ill population. Reagan was governor as these changes were being implemented at the state level. Later, when Reagan was president, he opposed continuing federal government-run mental-health programs. Instead, during his two terms as president, he signed several pieces of legislation that created block grants, giving the states more flexibility in how they spent federal dollars meant to help the mentally ill, and developed rules for the protection and advocacy of population.

Reagan also signed legislation creating the Stuart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act to help states provide housing to homeless mentally ill people. For him, a former governor, federalism -- limiting the federal government's authority in favor of state's rights -- was a major priority during his presidency. He aimed to give the states the flexibility they needed to tailor state programs to fit the needs of their mentally ill.

For the past four decades, as a nation, we've moved beyond simply institutionalizing people with mentally illnesses, but we've not been successful in creating an alternative care system. A large number of policymakers at both the state and federal levels share the responsibility for that failure. It is simply unfair to lay the blame entirely at Reagan's feet, as his critics routinely do.



Bill Bell borrows "randomly" from Cassi Feldman, another liberal columnist, the SF Gate article I googled on the internet was from Dec 2000. And apparently the Bay Area specializes in this because a little more "random" searching finds a potent counter-argument from one, Jennifer Nelson, who also posts on SF Gate (San Francisco Chronicle) who dislikes the little aside by a news report that Reagan pushed thousands of mentally ill on the street.

I'm not sure if either one has the total truth, of course, but for Mr. Bell in So. CA and the SF media to blithely just tell half the story at the time of his death seems a bit crude, but maybe the irony of Alzheimers "made" them do it. Rich irony always beats tastefulness in the news biz.

Certainly how one governors cuts in the sixties caused the downfall of an entire system is a strain on credulity by Mr. Bell. So is the total lack of context to the "community psychiatry" he refers to, where liberal jurisprudence and legislation and mental health philosophy made the patient's rights to avoid detention paramount if he was not threatening others and not acutely suicidal.
Just how do you structure community health care for the homeless - send the psychiatrists and their couches out to the cardboard boxes??

Thank you, Jennifer

Is Los Angeles - Our Lady Queen of Angels - Legal!!?

Could L.A. be crossed out? by Troy Anderson
Staff Writer
Saturday, June 12, 2004 - No L.A. It's no joke.
A strong legal argument can be made the name of the city of Los Angeles - even worse its formal name, "The Town of Our Lady the Queen of Angels of the Little Portion' - violates the separation of church and state. Some constitutional law experts say the American Civil Liberties Union's campaign to remove a small cross from the Los Angeles County seal and similar efforts elsewhere in the country help build a foundation for challenges against communities like San Francisco, San Diego or Santa Barbara.

"That's absolutely right,' said Joerg Knipprath, a professor of constitutional law at the Southwestern University School of Law in Los Angeles. "The cross is a minor symbol on the county seal whereas Los Angeles is the 'City of Angels.' San Clemente, Santa Monica, Sacramento, San Francisco, etc., are all religious references. "It's far-fetched at this point. I don't think it's going to happen in the next 10 years. But if somebody said 10 or 20 years ago that we were going to challenge the Pledge of Allegiance or this tiny little cross on the county seal, the argument would have been that was far- fetched too.'

The First Amendment bans the government from making an "establishment of religion,' so Los Angeles' name - a reference to Mary, the mother of Jesus - could be construed as illegal. On those grounds, a federal appeals court ruled in 2002 that the phrase "under God' was impermissible in the Pledge of Allegiance if teachers led schoolchildren in reciting it. That ruling was put on hold until the U.S. Supreme Court hands down a final ruling in the California case, which could come by July.

This month, bowing to the ACLU's Southern California chapter, Los Angeles County supervisors agreed to replace a Christian cross on its 47-year- old official seal with depictions of a mission and indigenous people. Douglas Mirell, an attorney and ACLU board member, said he doesn't have insight into where the next "battleground' will be but he "doesn't see' anyone challenging the name of California cities or counties. ACLU boards decide whether to challenge crosses and other religious symbols on public property after someone makes a complaint to them.

"The ACLU has been fairly selective about the religious battles it has taken on over the years,' Mirell said. "It's obviously a question that divides people, sometimes bitterly. And except in those cases where the law is clear, the ACLU frequently decides its resources are better spent elsewhere.' However, some attorneys and activists expect the ACLU or other groups to bring more challenges against cities and counties nationwide unless they remove crosses and other religious symbols on government seals and public property.

"I think the ACLU may very well bring similar cases in future years all over the country,' said Erwin Chemerinsky, a professor of constitutional law at USC.
Since 1999, the ACLU, other groups and individuals have been successful in getting crosses on government seals removed in Los Angeles County, Redlands and La Mesa; Zion, Ill.; Stow, Ohio; Bernalillo, N.M.; Rolling Meadows, Ill.; and Edmond, Okla. A federal court allowed Austin, Texas, to keep a cross on its seal after a legal challenge. During the same period, the groups have successfully argued that crosses on public land must be removed - or forced public entities to give up their ownership of land with crosses - in Ventura, Simi Valley and the Mojave National Preserve. Douglas Kmiec, a constitutional law professor at Pepperdine University School of Law, said that if the past is any guide, he expects the ACLU or others to challenge the mention of religion at graduations and the names of cities with religious identification.
"The logic of the ACLU's reasoning would suggest that Santa Monica should be renamed Monica, San Diego should be renamed Diego and on down the line. Los Angeles is a similar reference to angels. The full title of Los Angeles is a distinctly religious name.'

ACLU spokesman Tenoch Flores said the organization only becomes involved in issues when contacted by people who believe there is a problem, and he doesn't expect anyone to challenge the name of Los Angeles or other communities.
"That has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Nobody is considering suing to change city names. If anybody were to bring such a suit, it would laughed out of court and rightfully so. We don't go around looking for things, but we certainly don't back down in the face of criticism if it's determined that a constitutional issue is at stake.'

Bruce Einhorn, chairman of the Anti-Defamation League in Los Angeles, which supported the County supervisors' decision to remove the cross, said the ADL doesn't file lawsuits and doesn't know if there is a good legal argument to challenge the name of Los Angeles. "It's very hypothetical and distinctively different from very specific symbols of religious faith, whether they be Stars of David, Christian crosses or Islamic crescents,' Einhorn said. "We'd have to cross that bridge when it's built. We would rather not stoke fires that haven't been started.'

Jay Seculow, a radio host and chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, a Virginia-based public interest law firm founded by religious broadcaster Pat Robertson - which had offered to defend the Los Angeles County seal in court - said the fight over the seal is part of a trend. "(The goal is to) purge all religious observances and references from American public life. Will (opponents) try to get the name of Los Angeles changed Sure. Why not, if they can get the cross removed from the seal?'
-- Troy Anderson can be reached at (213) 974-8985 or by e-mail at troy.anderson@dailynews.com .

DA VINCI CODE


Pasadena Star-News
Historians jump on 'Da Vinci Code'

By Marshall Allen Staff Writer


Saturday, June 12, 2004 - PASADENA -- There is virtually no historical evidence to support the theories breathlessly presented in the novel "The Da Vinci Code,' according to Bible scholars. But the credence many readers give the thriller's assertions including the one about the progeny of Jesus and Mary Magdalene who led a secret society noted for its sacred sexual rites are prompting an unusual amount of interest in church history.

To debunk the book and answer questions about Christianity, Bible scholars are presenting seminars on "The Da Vinci Code' throughout Southern California. A June 3 seminar at St. Joseph's Conference & Evangelization Center in Alhambra had an audience of 240 people, a record for such meetings. At La Canada Presbyterian Church, a recent seminar attracted about 500.

"The Da Vinci Code,' by Dan Brown, has been incredibly successful. Its rapidly paced plot blends elements of art and church history with the mysterious legends of secret societies. It has been on the New York Times best-seller list for 63 weeks and has more than 7.5 million copies in print. A movie is also in the works.

John Thompson, professor of historical theology at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, said he would dismiss "The Da Vinci Code' as "psuedo-history' except that so many people do not know where the novel ends and the truth begins. "Talking about 'The Da Vinci Code' as a historian is like shooting fish in a barrel,' Thompson said. "Some pages have so many errors you don't know where to start. You get compounded errors. It is wrong in so many layers it leaves one speechless.'

The Rev. Marcos Gonzalez of St. Andrews Catholic Church in Pasadena called the novel a "hodgepodge of early church heresy.' Thus, he is dismayed that people in his congregation are swayed by the book's theories. "Some of the devout, faithful Catholics in our congregation were asking me about it,' Gonzalez said. "I looked at them with disbelief and said, 'You're not really taking this for true, are you?'' Modern Americans know so little about church history and biblical studies that they take the book seriously, he said.

The book's intriguing plot questions the foundational teachings of Christianity. The protagonist, Robert Langdon, Harvard professor of religious symbology, is on a quest to continue the mission of the secret sect, the Priory of Sion, after its guardians have been murdered by Vatican operatives. Langdon asserts that the reliability of the Bible and the authority of the Roman Catholic Church are not what they seem. He tells his love-interest and pupil, cryptologist Sophie Neveu, that the divinity of Jesus was not part of the earliest church history. It was first proclaimed at the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325, he claims.

Scholars say it could be considered ridiculous to question the credibility of a work of fiction, but the book is presented as a thoroughly researched novel based on fact. "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate,' says a statement of fact that opens the book. Some readers believe the book's theories.

Chy Lewis, 50, a teacher who also works at Vroman's Bookstore in Pasadena, said she hopes the allegedly suppressed truths in "The Da Vinci Code' are real.
"It would be wonderful to believe, as a Catholic, that there is a living legacy of Jesus rather than just the blind faith one that we live by,' Lewis said. "... I think it's more than likely (Jesus) left a human legacy. And who better than Mary Magdalene to be his wife?' Julie Battaglia of La Canada Flintridge, an avid reader, said she does not believe Jesus was married, but Brown's book is persuasive. She believes the book's assertions "to a degree.'

"I think 'The Da Vinci Code' sort of sparks your imagination for what could be,' she said.

Theology and the Bible are presented as absolute truth, but "it may not have been a completely divinely inspired role,' said Battaglia, an Episcopalian. "There could be some human hands involved in what we take as Gospel-truth now.' Battaglia said she thinks "The Da Vinci Code' confirms what people already want to believe. If they are feeling cynical about organized religion, they will use the book as a basis to discredit religion, especially the Catholic Church, she said, but if a reader has an established faith, the book will be seen as entertaining fiction.

Thompson and his wife, Marianne Meye Thompson, Fuller professor of New Testament Interpretation, spoke at the seminar at La Canada Presbyterian Church. The Thompsons said the audience seemed unhappy with them for questioning the credibility of the book. Marianne Meye Thompson said novel's key assertions such as Jesus' alleged marriage are supported neither by ancient texts nor history. In other instances, Langdon's absolute statements are described as "according to scholars' when they are highly disputed points, she said. And in some places the statements in the book are plain wrong, John Thompson said. The book ignores the fact that the Roman Catholic Church was not an independent institution until A.D. 1054. And John Thompson said the early church did teach the divinity of Jesus long before the Council of Nicea, when 300 bishops gathered to clarify certain points of theology.

The Gospels found in the Bible state that Jesus was divine, Thompson said. And anti-Christian writer Celsus made fun of Christians in A.D. 180 because they claimed Jesus was divine, Thompson said. Another, he said, early church critic, Porphyry, wrote in A.D. 303 that Christians believed in the divinity of Jesus.
"The gods are hostile to you not because you worship the all-powerful god, but because you allege that a being who was born a man and who died on the cross (a death which would bring shame on the lowest of men) was god,' Porphyry wrote.

The Thompsons seemed most baffled by the comment of one member of their audience who said: "Just because all these things aren't written down doesn't mean they didn't happen.' The problem is that readers assume that one person's claims or opinions are as good as anyone else's, John Thompson said.

The Fuller professors are theological conservatives, but liberal scholars also have their doubts about "The Da Vinci Code.' Dennis MacDonald, professor of New Testament at the school of theology at Claremont, said he doesn't believe Mary Magdalene even existed. Lewis, the Vroman's employee who said it is possible that Jesus was married, is nonplussed by scholars who question the historical veracity of her beliefs. There is evidence to support a variety of theories, she said. "When the scholars take it on and try to repudiate it, what they are actually doing is giving it more power,' she said.

-- Marshall Allen can be reached at (626) 578-6300, Ext. 4461, or by e-mail at marshall.allen@sgvn.com .

War and Peace – Part 1 – Russian society and our “heroes” situations

check out the translation at a Russian / US "friendship" site

Why does the story start with a boring party? It opens with Anna Pavlovna Scherer holding a “soiree” even though she has the “grippe”. What are we to make of these social affectations, as even the characters seem bored or “out of place” at the gathering?
The aristocracy of Russians sees itself as European nobility – but in effect, they are but its step-children perhaps – the “French” is ingrained in the language of the upper class of Moscow society but is still almost as foreign to the Russian soul as to the American. Indeed, the 2 leading male characters of this story show themselves to be uncomfortable in these surroundings – Prince Andrey Bolkonsky and Pierre, bastard, but I guess only, son and heir to become Count Bezuhov.

Russia and America in some ways look like mirror images especially in the 19th century – continental powers in scope, multiethnic, rich in resources if it can harness them, both struggling with gross inequities, but both with a heart for their land and a belief in progress. But Russia is burdened with an autocratic and feudal system of government and economics, their patriotism and their faith is stronger but more paranoid than typical in the West because of the multitude of powers, both European nations and Asian hordes that have always surrounded them. Upon the historical background where the Russians have felt that they and their Orthodox tradition have truly been the Holy empire dating from Constantine that have fought the heathens and preserved the West for nearly a thousand years. Then comes Peter the Great. While east Asia had to be forced to be open by colonial powers, and only then did Japan most famously adopted modern culture and technology, Peter the Great as all powerful Tsar pushed his own people (from strength and not from being weak from outside pressure) to become a modern European power.

But now as the 19th century (1805) begins -- what to make of Russia? And what to make of Europe? Revolution, the reign of Terror, and the rise of Bonaparte have made France a radically different nation than the one they were trying to emulate. The Tsar of course makes common cause with the other monarchs trying to defeat Napoleon or at least bring him under control. But while England still rules the seas, no one seems to be able to stand up to Napoleon in central Europe. Ironically enough then, the stage is set for Russia alone, the stepchild of European culture to defend the traditional monarchical values against Napoleon, a “pretender” to be Emperor. But there is envy and admiration for this Napoleon who does create his own Empire. And built on ruins of the French revolution this new kind of empire, led by a “great man” not a royal, still offers ideas, at least for Pierre and some of his generation, of progress and even “liberty, fraternity, equality”.

Pierre, though, will inherit the title “Count” and wealth and land and responsibility. How will he handle this? From what sources will he find wisdom – from the French revolution, from the Orthodox faith, from Freemasonry? For Andrey, even with a pregnant wife, life seems to have no fulfillment – but then he goes off to war and we may see his true nobility begin to shine. So consider again Anna Pavlovna’s opening words: “the atrocities of this Antichrist, upon my word, I believe, he is” and see how Russia and these Russians must confront their enemy as well as the limitations of their own society.