So a Pope Walks Into a Church

What I don’t know about Christianity could fill a new testament. I am not about to pretend that I understand everything there is to know about the various conflicts and divisions amongst the various sects. But I do know that the current pope went to Jerusalem to heal the wounds of the past. Good luck with that. If Jerusalem has seen one thing it is people holding ancient grudges.

Christians from my point of view are all the same religion. Different groups have different ways of doing things but so do Jews. I see all Jews as Jews, not orthodox, traditional, heredi.

Many Christians would obviously disagree with me. And I am in no position to counter whatever their argument is. Be one religion, be one hundred religions. Whatever works for you.

Whatever you think of the pope, his mission to Jerusalem seems like a decent enough idea to me. He will likely never reach his goal but Jerusalem welcomes all anyway. It is a democratic city in a democratic country. Even a pope is free to visit.

I cannot say where the pope went exactly or anything about his itinerary but I know that he went to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Say what you will about all that murdering in the name of Jesus but that is one impressive looking church.

Was Jesus really executed there? Was he buried there? Is that where he came back to life? Each question seems less likely than the last but who cares. It is a really good looking church. Anybody visiting Jerusalem, whether Christian, Jewish or miscellaneous, should have a look.

Church of the Holy Sepulchre

That ladder they are not supposed to move

The sepulchre

Entrance to the main church

Ceiling over the main church

The smaller of the two domes

A few mosaics

Greek Orthodox choir

A mosaic near the “Stone of Anointing”
This shot is an unusual angle because it was taken from above the stone on Calvary

Chapel of St Helena

From one dome to the other

Under the larger of the two domes

Voting Against Your Own Best Interests

Everybody knows that Jacob Zuma is a corrupt asshole. This is not simply an opinion or political position. This is a given. There are court rooms full of evidence.

Some will defend him because he heads the party that they support. Only a very small minority of people actually believe he is a good leader. Fewer still actually believe that he is a decent human being. But he is the head of the ANC and that is the party of Nelson Mandela.

The ANC won the elections with a safe enough majority since most South Africans blindly support the ANC. But it was the smallest majority they have ever received, which is especially interesting when you consider that this was the first election after Mandela’s death. The nostalgia of the Mandela years likely increased support. So we can assume that were he still alive the ANC would have won with an even smaller majority.

What annoys me the most is that people who loathe Zuma still vote ANC. They vote ANC because it was Mandela’s party a long time ago. It is like Americans who vote Republican because that was Lincoln’s party. But Jacob Zuma is no Nelson Mandela. Not even close. Nobody is and it might be unfair to hold any current politician to that standard. But Zuma is the exact opposite of Mandela when it comes to corruption, theft, extortion, violence, rape, saying crazy shit. South Africa will likely never have another leader like Nelson Mandela. But we deserve a lot better than Jacob Zuma.

In a standard parliamentary system you can vote for a party and hope that the party chooses a different leader. Though more often than not you know who that person will be long before you vote. In South Africa’s system there is no way you can vote ANC without Zuma being president. If you vote ANC you are voting for Zuma, no matter how corrupt you know him to be.

The good news is that ANC support is slowly slipping and the DA is slowly growing. Educated people tend to vote DA, which forces the DA to choose better leaders. Unfortunately, uneducated people tend to vote ANC, which allows corrupt assholes to take control. Uneducated people also tend to believe whatever the party of Mandela tells them, such as the DA being a white party. It will never matter that most DA supporters are black. Simply telling uneducated South Africans that a white party even stands a chance of leading the country again is like telling Americans that a Muslim party might win. Fear and ignorance are the ANC’s best hope.

Ask the man on the street why he voted ANC and he will either tell you that it is Mandela’s party, they do not want whites to take over, or that the ANC are giving them all their welfare benefits. What too many people fail to admit is that ANC corruption has directly led to an economic culture that requires so many welfare programmes. Even a cursory look at the Western Cape and what the DA have done shows you that their economic policies are far better for everybody. The ANC will give you four fish and take back ten. The DA will teach you how to catch your own fish.

South Africans love to complain about the economy, crime, unemployment, hazardous working conditions, government corruption, police brutality. As they should. But then they vote for the party that supports, encourages and more often than not controls the most negative aspects of life in what should be a great place to live.

South Africa is not especially prone to major natural disasters. It does not lie in a challenging climate or geographic region. It is almost topographically perfect. It has more than enough natural resources to not only sustain itself but also sell to neighbouring countries. The problems of South Africa are entirely made by man. And almost all of them can be traced back to greed and domination. This is not what Mandela wanted.

Fair and Balanced

Just for fun I did a Google news search of “Israel”. These are the top results, not including blog posts and videos. I also excluded three Haaretz articles, which could have easily been for or against Israel, because Haaretz only has teaser articles and wants you to pay for a subscription to read the rest. I think that is stupid.

After Failed Peace Talks, Pushing to Label Israel as Occupier of Palestine
New York Times

This is about the Palestinian Authority plan to join the International Criminal Court in the Hague. Most of the article tows the Palestinian line that if they were part of the court then Israel would be punished for crimes against humanity for building settlements. The article only hints at what might happen to the leaders of Palestine if they were members of a court that investigates genocide, ethnic cleansing, torture and any number of crimes the Palestinian Authority practice on a regular basis.

If you read this article and knew nothing about Palestine’s crimes then you might assume that PA leaders never do anything bad.

Israel, Kerry is one of your best friends
CNN

This article tells us that “no U.S. leader has done more to help Israel gain acceptance in the international community and ensure its long-term peace and security” than Secretary of State John Kerry. I am not sure how that is at all true. But like most articles it repeats the mantra that Judea and Samaria are occupied territory without acknowledging why it was taken from Jordan, why they had it in the first place and who had it before they invaded.

Assi Dayan, a Celebrated Actor and Filmmaker in Israel, Dies at 68
New York Times

This is about the death of the actor and is neither for nor against Israel.

Candidates with impressive backgrounds to face off in Israel presidential race
New York Daily News

This is about the upcoming presidential election and Shimon Peres’ retirement. This could be seen as favouring Israel but it is mostly neutral.

Pink Floyd to Rolling Stones: Boycott Israel
The Washington Post

This is mostly about Roger Waters being Roger Waters. He has a lot of emotional opinions that have little to do with reason. And his indignation always seems to come at the most fashionable times. I do not remember him speaking out against the Chinese government before Tiananmen Square or about Wall Street during all that occupy business.

Since he has been very pro-Arab for a long time you would think he would support Israel since it is the only country in the vicinity that gives Arabs basic human rights. But he jumped on that whole boycott Israel bandwagon, probably without realising just how much he would really have to boycott.

Despite the title, David Gilmour is not involved. Though I suppose that means little to Roger Waters.

Israel's drone dealers
Al Jazeera

Nobody expects Al Jazeera to be unbiased but this article blames Israel for American drone attacks in Pakistan. The reasoning is that since Israel created the UAV technology it is responsible for how everybody uses it. Does that make Arab states responsible when anybody straps on a suicide vest? The article does not say.

Israeli PM Netanyahu: No peace talks if Abbas is backed by Hamas
CNN

This begins as an article about Netanyahu rejecting the terrorists in charge of Hamas but it quickly goes into a revisionist history of Gaza. According to the article Fatah and Hamas had a coalition before a falling out led them to go their separate ways. There is no mention of the bloodbath in Gaza when Hamas took control.

If you read this article and knew nothing about Hamas’ crimes then you might assume that Hamas leaders never do anything bad.

An interesting point about CNN is that every article about Arab states that have nothing to do with Israel are about Arabs killing Arabs. If Arabs kill Arabs in the name of killing Jews then it is Israel’s fault. But when Arabs kill Arabs in the name of whichever sect they favour then it is an unfortunate frailty of man. According to CNN.

Abbas, Hamas chief to hold first talks since unity deal
AFP

This article goes further than most, telling readers that “Hamas forcibly took over the Gaza Strip in 2007, ousting forces loyal to the president”. But there is no mention that more than a few people were tortured or murdered, including many of those who were “ousted”.

Israeli settlers launch enclave in Palestinian business hub
Reuters

This is about how evil Jews are for living in Jerusalem. It reminds us that Israel captured Jerusalem “in a 1967 war” and “most of the world views Israeli enclaves there as illegal settlements”. There is no mention of why it was taken from Jordan, why Jordan had it in the first place and who had it before Jordan invaded.

Israel approved record 14,000 settlements during peace talks with Palestine – report
Reuters

Another article about “illegal” houses on “occupied” land without any mention of who occupied the land before Israel took it back and how absolutely nobody did anything to make it a country while it was “free”.

Israeli troops destroy mosque in Palestinian village
AP

This is my favourite article of the lot. It is about how the evil Jews tore down a few houses and a mosque. That sure sounds evil. After all, no Muslims would ever damage a synagogue.

It tries to sound like an entire village was demolished, “leaving up to 30 people homeless” but fails to mention that three houses were torn down. That is not so great for those three families but hardly an act of genocide.

But a fairly important point that the article completely ignores is that these houses were built on an active live fire military test range. Imagine what would happen if the houses were not torn down and the people living in them were injured or killed the next time weapons were tested on the range. Would the International Community say that those people should not have built houses there? Would anybody point out that building your house on a military test range is probably not a great idea? For some reason I doubt it.

Why it is hypocritical to boycott Israel
The Telegraph

This is an unusual article in that it favours Israel and actually makes some pretty good points. The writer went on a bit much about British crimes but he is British and writing to a British audience.

He asks why he should have to explain a trip to Israel when he never has to explain trips to China, Saudi Arabia or the United States. I know the answer to that, and the writer probably does as well, but it is still a good question.

Of these 12 articles, 1 favours Israel and 2 are neutral. The other 9 are very much against Israel and leave out pertinent information that might otherwise cause the reader to question the author’s position. The one pro-Israel article mentions negatives against Israel in an effort to appear fair and balanced. None of the anti-Israel articles do the same in reverse.

I have never questioned why people who live in Arab dictatorships blindly follow what they are told. They have little choice. I used to always question why people in democracies with free information blindly follow what they are told. But the more people only see one narrative the more they accept it as absolute.

What Media Bias?

“The prisoner issue is an emotional one for Palestinians after decades of conflict with Israel. Palestinians generally view them as heroes, regardless of the reason for their imprisonment. Israelis mostly view them as terrorists.” The Guardian.

This “regardless of the reason for their imprisonment” is the closest I have seen from the international media admitting that these “heroes” are murderers who targeted schools and hospitals.

“The Palestinians have now abandoned an undertaking to refrain from applying for membership of various international organisations; a step which displeases Israel and the Americans.” BBC.

The BBC often go to great pains to avoid saying that any Palestinian dictator ever did anything wrong. “Abandoned an undertaking to refrain from applying” rather than simply saying they did what they agreed not to do. “A step which displeases Israel and the Americans”. It is not a massive violation of an agreement with Israel and the United States; the only countries on this planet that are keeping Palestine alive. It is merely displeasing.

“There is an identical twin of this plane. It has been sitting in a hangar in Tel Aviv, Israel, for the past couple of months. There was a shell-game played with this aircraft. It was in the south of France, and then they moved it down to Israel. Speculation is that there was some sort of false-flag plan afoot, perhaps another planes-into-buildings deception like 9/11.” Press TV.

This is about how Israel made that Malaysia Airlines flight go missing. It is easy to dismiss stories like this as the rantings of crazy people. But the more the crazies rant the more people listen. The narrative used to be that all terrorists were bad. Now some are bad and some are good. Depending on whom they murder. Someday “terrorist” will be a positive designation.

“Palestinians want an independent state in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem - lands captured by Israel in a 1967 war.” Reuters.

This is my favourite. I see this all the time. Israel took this land away from poor innocent Jordan. The international media always ignore a few key points. What prompted Israel to “capture” this land from Jordan in 1967? Why was it under Jordan’s control? Was it considered an ancient Palestinian homeland whilst under Jordan’s control? What country was it part of before Jordan captured it? Anybody who cannot answer these basic questions, which are not at all subjective, is not in the least bit qualified to discuss this issue.

I live in a world where terrorists from repressive dictatorships are given equal standing from the international media as the democratically elected representatives from a progressive liberal democracy. This same international media would never label al Qaeda and the United States as equals. Or Tamil Tigers and Sri Lanka, PLA and India, Taliban and Afghanistan, FARC and Colombia, Shining Path and Peru, DHKP and Turkey. All of those countries are the good guys whilst the terrorists who blow people up are the bad guys. Most people will agree that strapping on a bomb and blowing people up makes you the bad guy. Unless you blow up Jews. Then you are an oppressed minority, despite being part of the overwhelming majority ethnic group in the region.

As we all know, minority groups are the good guys and majority groups are the bad guys. Yet all of the terrorist examples above are minority groups in their countries and they are the bad guys compared to that country’s majority. Israel, the bad guy, is the minority surrounded by a rather hostile majority of good guys. Maybe, just maybe, being in the minority or majority does not automatically make one right or wrong.

American liberals support homosexual rights, women’s rights, minority rights, abortion rights, gun control, high taxes, science, education, oppose capital punishment, religious law, and rabidly defend liberal political candidates who say and do crazy things whilst rabidly attacking conservative candidates who say and do crazy things. The same is true in other “western” countries. Although the terms “liberal” and “conservative” do not necessarily apply.

Arab dictatorships and terrorists generally want to kill or at least arrest homosexuals, kill or subjugate women, kill or at least subjugate minority groups, kill anybody who has an abortion or any doctor who performs one. They love guns, have little to no taxes, frown upon science and education, especially if girls want to get involved, absolutely love capital punishment and religious laws, and rabidly oppose any open dissent in countries where free speech is blasphemy. Liberals would not be very happy living in the average Arab state.

Israeli homosexuals, women, minorities have all the same rights as everybody else. Abortion is legal, guns are very hard to get, taxes are very high. Israel is one of the world’s leaders in medical research and technology, and environmental science. Education is open to anybody and everybody. There is no capital punishment or religious laws. The state does not demand that anybody keep kosher and does not give a rat’s ass if you honour Shabbat or not. I would argue that there is more freedom of speech in Israel than in the United States. Liberals flourish in Israel.

Yet American liberals, and often their equivalents in other “western” countries, support Arab terrorists and oppose Israel.

Aaron Sorkin has compared American conservatives with the Taliban. That is fairly extreme. But American conservatives actually agree with Arab dictatorship positions more than they agree with Israeli positions, albeit in a far more moderate form. Michele Bachmann says some crazy shit but the fact that she is allowed to speak in public shows that American conservatives are not the Taliban. And I would doubt that she has ever advocated throwing acid on a girl’s face. Yet American conservatives support Israel over these terrorists.

How does this make any sense? Has the international media mantra of Israel bad, terrorists good actually conditioned Americans to hate Jews in order to love Arabs? This would be odd when you consider that most Americans completely ignore the international media when it comes to any criticism of American actions. Also, and this might only be a minor point, the typical Arab terrorist would gladly sacrifice his own life to kill as many Americans as possible. The typical Israeli would not sacrifice so much as a bagel to kill an American. Israeli citizens and Arab terrorists might be equals in the eyes of the international media but there is a pretty big difference when it comes to our definitions of right and wrong.

I was very much on Palestine’s side before I came to Israel. Then I lived here and saw what it was really like as opposed to what the international media told me it was like. The more I saw people rationalising the murder of Jews and open support for terrorists the more I started to support Israel. Pretty soon terrorists will be like pirates. Everybody will love them and their madcap adventures. But pirates were murderers, rapists, kidnappers, thieves. In pirate movies the British Navy are the bad guys and the pirates are brave heroes who sing and dance.

Now I am not only protecting my family from people who would willingly kill their own families to kill people they hate. Now I am protecting my children from people who would willingly kill their own children to kill people they hate. I am not even a mother yet but I cannot imagine any circumstance where I would want to kill my own child just because I hate somebody’s religion or culture. I cannot imagine that it would ever be possible for me to hate any race or religion that much. I realise that racism is all the rage right now but how can hating others ever take precedence over protecting your own children?

Not only do these people hate Jews so much that they think all of this is reasonable, and they are willing to rationalise any horrors that terrorists commit against Jews, but they even take their hate a step further and complain that “the Jews” control the international media. If The Jews control the international media then I can only wonder what our devious master plan must be.

You Say Tomato, I Say Tomato

I simply do not understand the international media. Just now they are rubbing themselves raw over the announcement that Fatah and Hamas are going to be best friends. Either they have forgotten every other previous announcement and how short that friendship lasted or, more likely, they actually expect this one to take hold. Time will tell. But my money is on the no way in hell option.

The fact that members of Hamas’ Central Council have rejected the proposal should tell you something. Even if some part of Fatah joins up with some part of Hamas there will still be large chunks of both groups that do not recognise each other. They might form other organisations and call themselves something else, so technically Fatah and Hamas will be one, but realistically they will still be divided. Years of civil war tend to cause rifts between people whether they want to kill all the Jews or not.

Not at all surprisingly, the international media have decided that Israel is to blame for everything since Netanyahu backed out of “peace talks”. Ignoring that peace talks have always meant that Israel sets Arab murderers free and gives away more land just to get the Palestinian side to the table, and that the Palestinian side has so far never given anything in return. Ignoring that the only thing Israel wants from the Palestinian side is for them to stop trying to kill Israelis, and that asking somebody to stop killing you is not considered a painful concession in any other part of the world. The international media predictably lay all the blame on Israel on the rare occasion that Israel pulls out of “peace talks” but never blames Palestine for the hundreds of times that they have pulled out. When Israel backs out it is Israel’s fault. When Palestine backs out it is Israel’s fault.

The international media want nothing more than to place the legally elected representatives of a liberal democracy on the same level as totalitarian dictators who murder their own people but they can never seem to report anything that happens on anything close to an even level. The more they report that everything is always Israel’s fault the more Palestinian leaders complain that the international media are biased toward Israel and the more the international media report that everything is always Israel’s fault. One thing the media experts in Israel and Palestine can agree on is their amazement that the international media are so gullible.

Bibi has said that he and Israel do not and will not negotiate with terrorists. Somehow this is “proof” that Israel does not want peace. What country in the world is required to negotiate with terrorists? And these particular terrorists do not simply bomb embassies on the other side of the world. They fire rockets into Israel on a regular basis. They have vowed to kill every last Arab in the Levant if that is what it takes to kill Israel. Imagine if some separatists in Texas fired rockets into New Orleans. Who would ever tell the United States that not only do they have to negotiate with terrorists but that they are equal. Would the United States give them Texas and hope for fewer attacks? Or would the United States bomb the hell out of these terrorists with the international media’s full support?

But Texas and Palestine are not analogous. That is true. Texas was taken by force from Mexico and eventually became part of the United States. Judea and Samaria were part of Israel for thousands of years before being taken by force from Jordan.

Another difference, and this might be important, is that both Texas and the United States are democracies where all men are created equal. More or less. Israel is also such a democracy. Palestine is a brutal dictatorship where being Jewish, homosexual, and/or female is illegal. The United States and Israel are not interested in having a country of one race and one religion. What Palestine wants is nothing short of ethnic cleansing. But you will never hear that from the UN.

Much is being made of Mahmoud Abbas’ announcement that his dictatorship will renounce violence against Israel. All is well according to the international media. Just as it was every other time Abbas renounced violence against Israel. What the international media always ignore is the fact that Abbas has done absolutely nothing to stop the terrorist organisation that he controls and the terrorist organisations that support him from carrying out terrorist attacks against Israel. Saying that you will stop blowing people up is nice but means precious little if you do absolutely nothing to stop blowing people up.

Unless you are the international media. Then the next time Abbas’ terrorists blow somebody up it will be Israel’s fault.

Say Hello to All Those Wayward Eyes

I have no idea when Easter is celebrated throughout the world. I know it has something to do with Spring and falls at different times each year. But I know that it must be Easter time.

A group of Arabs in Dearborn, Michigan are protesting a local Presbyterian church’s Easter egg hunt, dubbed an “eggstravaganza”.

I know how Arabs in the United States feel. More or less. I grew up in South Africa. Not exactly a bastion of Judaism. Most of the people around me were Christians. Mostly because I was not allowed to spend any serious amount of time with any black Africans and their less than Christian religions. Actually, I have no idea how Arabs in the United States feel. They can hang out with whomever they want.

I was surrounded by Christians through no fault of my own. People in the United States can surround themselves with pretty much anything.

I never understood the Easter egg concept. Rabbits laying coloured chicken eggs symbolise Jesus rising from the dead somehow. But I was never offended by Christians having an Easter egg hunt. The children seem to enjoy it and it hurts absolutely nobody. Unless you are vegan it should not be a problem.

The issue in this fabricated controversy is supposed to be that pamphlets for this egg hunt were handed out at a local school. The United States has a separation of church and state. Supposedly. That means that the state is not allowed to tell people how to worship. Supposedly.

I can get behind that. I do not want any government anywhere in the world telling me how to pray. Whether I voted for you or not it is absolutely none of your business. But in this instance no American government agency was handing out pamphlets or advertising this event. The local church did that and, this part might be important, the egg hunt was open to anybody and everybody, regardless of religious persuasion. Muslim children were just as welcome to dig around for chicken eggs as anybody else.

The school was not at all involved. As far as I know. Pamphlets were handed out at the school because this is a neighbourhood event for children. Schools are a good place to find flocks of children in their natural habitat. The school did not force anybody to worship anything in any way. It did not force anybody to attend the egg hunt. Blaming the school for this is like blaming the road when your car runs out of fuel. And once you take the school out of it there is no church and state issue.

Far more troubling than the Easter egg hunt is that many Christians eat ham for dinner on a day set aside to honour Jesus. Did Jesus eat pork? Even more disturbing is that this event was called an eggstravaganza. That alone deserves an honour killing.

No Pill’s Gonna Cure My Ill

I have been prone to headaches since my accident in 2002. I rarely talk about it because there is little I find more tedious than when people whinge about minor medical issues. I have received all manner of magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, and even computed axial tomography back when those were popular. The hospital in Alaska was especially thorough, as any hospital should be after such an impact trauma, and assured me that there was nothing wrong with my brain. From the accident, at least. I have been to the best hospitals in Israel and they have all assured me that everything in my head is where it should be. Apparently nobody fully understands the human brain or why it does what it does but mine is not trying to kill me.

Recently the headaches have increased in frequency and duration. So, living in a country where medical treatment is not considered a luxury item, I went in for another round of tests. They put more radiation in my brain and told me that everything looked as it should. Then they moved on to other tests.

During all of these adventures in modern medicine, Dara had her own medical announcement. My sister is pregnant again. They tried for years to get pregnant the first time and assumed that it would likely never happen again. Her second child is due two months before her 41st birthday.

Then the doctors figured out what is making my brain explode. Tests revealed that my body is flooded with human chorionic gonadotropin. The two most likely causes of this are testicular cancer, which the doctors pretty much ruled out straight away, and pregnancy. I seem to have got knocked up.

More tests revealed that I do in fact have a living creature growing inside me. Hopefully not in a John Hurt sense. Either way it will take some getting used to. I am generally only accustomed to having somebody inside me for very limited periods of time. They always consider it a long time, but let’s face it, nine months of something growing in you is far longer than one or two minutes.

The first time in my life that I thought I was pregnant, I was not. This time, pregnancy never crossed my mind. I was too busy trying to keep my head from exploding. Every mother in the world, mine most definitely included, can tell you that children are a headache. This one simply started the process early.

To make life more amusing, Dara and I are due at pretty much the same time. Maybe not the exact day but close enough. I like the idea of cousins growing up together. In theory, at least. I never had any cousins so I have no idea what they are actually like. Yoel, their oldest cousin, will hit 19 just before they are born. Dara’s daughter will be 4 just before her younger sister or brother is born. So we went from a family of only one child for a very long time to a family of three young children all at the same time.

Neither Dara nor I know if they will be boys or girls. We do not want to know and it is too soon to tell anyway. They are currently sexless blobs. Not unlike many members of Congress. I hope they each have more common sense.

Now I have to read a bunch of pregnancy and baby books. Have you ever read any of these things? They are not the most exciting reads. On the plus side, I do not have to deal with itchy balls.

Hotdish for Jesus

Michele Bachmann said that Jewish Americans hate Israel. If we ignore for a moment the fact that Michele Bachmann is legally insane, she accidentally makes a good point. I have never understood why Jewish Americans routinely vote for Democrats and why Democrats routinely favour ruthless dictatorships over progressive democracies. I have been told by Americans that I cannot understand this because I am not American. In other words, you have to be American to understand the twisted American logic. But that does not explain why so many Americans, many of whom are not nearly as batshit crazy as Bachmann, are just as confused as I am. Americans by definition, regardless of political party affiliation, are supposed to favour progressive democracies over ruthless dictatorships. But we all know that history has shown otherwise.

Bachmann’s main argument is that Jewish Americans should not have voted for Obama because he is the antichrist. Clearly, she knows very little about Jewish theology. Obviously there is no antichrist in Judaism. People like Mel Gibson would even argue that all Jews are anti-Christ.

Bachmann’s secondary argument is that the United States should continue with sanctions against Iran. She and her gang do not want to sanction Iran just because Israel wants to sanction Iran. Their position has nothing to do with Israel. They simply hate Iran. They would hate Iran even if Israel and Iran were friends.

Bachmann assumes that all Jewish Americans should vote according to whatever is in Israel’s best interests. This makes no sense to me. These people are American, not Israeli. Most Americans, Jewish or otherwise, have no idea what life is like in Israel. I would hope that they vote according to whatever is in America’s best interests. Do all Catholic Americans consider how Italy might feel when they vote? How often do Hindu Americans consult with India before voting?

Some people think that there is a separation of church and state in the United States. And some people want to revise their own history to make all of the founding fathers bible fisted televangelists. Either way, Americans of any religion are still Americans.

What people like Michele Bachmann will never understand is that being Jewish does not mean one has to automatically agree with everything Israel says and does. In fact, the vast majority of Israelis will never agree with everything Israel says and does. Unlike our ruthless dictatorship neighbours, we are a democracy. We can complain about our government. And we do it all the time.

Your Very First Kiss was Your First Kiss Goodbye

Oscar Pistorius may or may not have murdered his girlfriend. I was not there so I cannot say. What I know is that he fired at a closed door into a room without having any idea who or what was in the room. According to him. That would make him an exceptionally reckless person who should not under any circumstances be allowed to handle any firearms.

Everybody who knows anything about firearms knows that you never fire at something you cannot see. Shooting the bad guy through a door might make for a nice dramatic movie moment but it should never be done in the real world. The very obvious consequence of firing at something you cannot see is that you will likely hit somebody or something that you never intended to hit. Even if you know with absolute certainty that the bad guy is on the other side of the door, you cannot control shots fired into a blind location. If you have no idea what is on the other side of the door, you just might end up killing your girlfriend. Pistorius lived with somebody who could have easily been in that room at that time. Assuming that the noise you hear in a room from which you cannot see must be an intruder is stupid. Firing blindly into that room is criminally reckless.

I have no idea if he murdered his girlfriend or simply killed her accidentally. But I do know that any legal right for him to operate a firearm should be revoked permanently. We all hear bumps in the night. Anybody who shoots first and ask questions later should not be allowed to even hold a gun.

Oscar Pistorius was a star athlete. I say was because no matter what happens in his murder trial, his career is over. The only thing we love more than putting celebrities up on pedestals is shooting them down.

Lost In Translation

After several years of various civil wars, revolutions, coups in Arab states somebody decided that Israel needed another fabricated controversy attached to it. The initial attempt to blame the “Arab Spring” on Israel failed miserably as soon as it all started. Something had to be done.

I am disappointed to see that this month’s wedge issue is about a beverage company.

American actress Scarlett Johansson did an advertisement for an Israeli beverage company. Clearly she was looking for trouble.

In the interest of full disclosure I will point out that I am not much of a Scarlett Johansson fan and I think that SodaStream sucks. I thought she was better before she became an action star. Something happens to them after they do action movies. Remember when Liam Neeson was a real actor?

The whole SodaStream concept is queer to me, though I do appreciate the environmental aspects of their organisation. If you want a carbonated beverage then you should buy a Pepsi. Making your own is like making your own helicopter. It might seem a good idea at the time but it won’t fly.

After Johansson started filming adverts, her friends at Oxfam complained. They did not have the balls to drop her but they were more than willing to complain about her despite all the work she did for them. Apparently they hold firmly to their convictions up to the point of not trying to upset celebrities too much. So Johansson dropped them.

Up to this point I do not particularly care. What any celebrity advertises is none of my concern. What got my attention were the calls to boycott SodaStream and close down its factory.

The narrative is pretty simple. SodaStream is an Israeli company. Therefore it is evil. It has a factory in Ma’ale Adumim. Therefore it is evil. Ma’ale Adumim was part of the British Mandate land handed over to Israel. Therefore it is the new historic ancient Palestinian homeland. If that does not make any sense, ask people who want to return to the 1967 borders why they refuse to even consider the 1948 borders. I know the answer to that one but sometimes it is amusing to see how they rationalise Jordan’s invasion and occupation of land whilst decrying Israel’s control of land it owned before Jordan invaded the first time.

What all the liberal peace activists who love human rights and favour brutal Arab dictatorships over a liberal democracy with human rights fail to realise, or more likely fail to care about, is that closing the Ma’ale Adumim factory would put about 1000 Arabs out of work. SodaStream may be an Israeli, ie evil, company but it pays those Arab employees Israeli wages and gives them Israeli benefits. No Arab company in Judea and Samaria pays anything close or provides evil socialist health cover.

Israeli companies are also forbidden by law and common decency to murder homosexuals and treat women as property. Closing the factory would be bad news for any homosexuals or women working there who do not want to be murdered property. Can anybody tell me why none of the liberal peace activists who love human rights ever comment on how the Palestinian Authority treats homosexuals and women? I have never heard any plausible explanation for this. Or even an implausible explanation. They simply ignore how much their heroes ignore peace and human rights.

Closing the factory would also cause unnecessary unemployment in a time and place that would not benefit from even more unemployment. And even if a few of those thousand people could find other jobs they would likely make far less money and work in Arab working conditions. If you think that all Arabs are oil millionaires driving their racing cars up sand dunes then you should join the liberal peace activists who love human rights and are equally as clueless.

And closing that factory would virtually guarantee a UN resolution condemning Israel for closing a factory and putting 1000 Arabs out of work. There would be a separate resolution against Israel after any former factory employees are murdered by their Arab dictators for being women or homosexuals. Or any former employees for being “traitors”. The Palestinian Authority loves to execute “traitors”. I would think that liberal peace activists who love human rights would be against that. But I would be wrong.

Why do human rights advocates hate the Arabs of Judea and Samaria so much? I cannot say. Perhaps for the same reasons that other Arabs seem to hate them so. I can understand hating the Arabs of Israel. After all, they live with a bunch of Jews. But is their hatred of Israel truly strong enough to condemn all Levant Arabs? Time will tell.

Anybody who wants to boycott Israel either knows that damaging Israel’s economy is very dangerous for Yosh Arabs or is too caught up in their academic indignation to see how much Israel provides to Judea and Samaria. Or they simply have no idea what is going on here.

And if you want to boycott Israel then I sincerely hope that you also want to boycott China, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Qatar, Myanmar, Russia, Syria, Bangladesh, Uganda, Sudan, Egypt and a few dozen other countries. Or is there some way in which Israel is different from those countries?

Touched By Jesus

I have not read the UN’s report about the Catholic priest sex issue and have no intention of doing so. The UN is intellectually dishonest and their reports and condemnations are a joke more often than not. The UN telling countries how to live are as impotent as people arguing politics online. But I am surprised that they found the time to criticise somebody besides Israel. It is not as though Israel and the Vatican have historically been best friends.

I realise that “Vatican” and “Holy See” are not interchangeable but I call it the Vatican anyway. Deal with it.

From what I gather the UN is opposed to priests raping children. Mazel tov. I know of no person or organisation that supports priests raping children. Even a few popes have spoken out against it. I have never come across anybody in favour of it. Though to be fair I rarely associate with sociopaths.

How long did it take the UN to arrive at this groundbreaking decision? Why did this report come out now and not 20 or 100 years ago?

Apparently the UN thinks that the Vatican is legally responsible for the actions of priests all over the world. My first thought was that yes, of course they are. There is a hierarchy in the Catholic church with Vatican leaders and the pope at the top of the ladder. But is that true? Is a priest living in Indonesia bound by Vatican law or Indonesian law? Obviously he should follow his church’s rules, which likely do not include raping children, but if he ignores the laws of where he lives in favour of the laws of his religion then he can find himself in an uncomfortable position. Raping children is often acceptable in places like Saudi Arabia. Does that mean a priest in Saudi Arabia is free to practice local customs?

Obviously I know the answer to that last question but I sincerely have no idea about the others. My religion has no such international hierarchy. Rabbanim are hired and fired by the community and answer to their shul, not to any committee in Israel or anywhere else. A rabbi in Saudi Arabia could theoretically eat at KFC every day and tattoo a giant swastika on his forehead. That is if being Jewish in Saudi Arabia was not punishable by death.

How does the Catholic church deal with local laws that contradict their own rules? Staying with Saudi Arabia as an example, since it is a such a fun loving country, how do priests ignore their mission to proselytise in a country that will happily kill them for proselytising? I would assume that Vatican leaders have already thought about such issues but has the UN? If the UN is saying that all priests are under the direct supervision of the Vatican then have they considered the international differences in cultures and customs? Somehow I think the Vatican has whilst the UN, ironically, has not.

The UN report demands that the Vatican do things their way. This is common practice for the UN. It is their version of the American policy of spreading democracy to weaker countries whether they want it or not. I even think the UN is genuinely surprised when countries choose not to do things their way.

The one part of the report that I read calls on the Vatican to change its teachings to bring them closer to the 20th century. While I do agree that some Catholic rules are painfully out of date, as are some rules of Judaism and Islam, I find it laughably appalling that the UN is telling any church how to be a church. I thought the UN was supposed to favour freedom of religion. Does that only apply to religious teachings of which they approve? Is it not exceptionally dangerous for the UN to be the arbiters of religious dogma?

If the UN decided that all Jews should pray a certain way, which they more or less already do from time to time, then there would be a large collection of middle fingers rising in the air.

Some people say keep your religion out of my bedroom. I agree with that. I would also add to keep the UN out of religion.

Crimes and Misdemeanors

The only thing we love to do more than put celebrities up on pedestals is tear them down. When a celebrity is accused of anything, they are automatically guilty. Sometimes their careers can survive. Richard Gere never suffered professionally from all those gerbil rumours that some people still believe. If the accusation is especially bad then they are probably finished. You can ask Fatty Arbuckle all about that.

Actually, this applies to the rest of us as well. The court of public opinion never renders an acquittal. And now with the internet we can all express our completely uninformed opinions on all the evil things that other people do whilst making ourselves feel superior. The world wide web is the greatest ego inflater ever invented.

In 1992 Mia Farrow found out about Woody Allen’s relationship with Soon-Yi Previn. She was upset by all accounts. Mia and Woody had dated off and on for about 12 years. I can call them Mia and Woody because I have seen their movies and read about them, therefore I know them intimately enough to be on such a familiar level. Right?

Mia Farrow immediately sought sole custody of their three children, Satchel, Moses and Dylan. Andre Previn has always been the father of her older children. Woody refused to annul his adoption of Moses and Dylan. Then things got ugly.

According to Mia Farrow, Woody visited the Farrow summer home in the middle of this bitter custody battle, took 7-year-old Dylan up to the attic and molested her. Mia then videotaped an interview with Dylan over the course of two or three days and then alerted the authorities.

The public immediately went apeshit. And this was long before Twitter. Woody was now a monster. Never mind the fact that there had not been a trial or any form of investigation at this point. He was merely accused of doing something monstrous. That is enough.

This is when the public decided that Soon-Yi was Woody’s daughter, that Woody and Mia were married, that Soon-Yi was a child when she and Woody started dating. So it was rumoured and so it shall always be. What is wholly irrelevant is that Woody Allen has married three times in his life. His first marriage ended badly but provided a good deal of stand up comedy material. This was back when Woody was a stand up comedian. His marriage to Louise Lasser ended amicably and they worked together several times afterward. His third marriage was to Soon-Yi. They are still married.

Woody and Mia adopted two children together, Moses and Dylan. Soon-Yi was adopted by Mia and Andre Previn before Woody and Mia ever met each other. And Soon-Yi was born in either 1970 or 1972. She was young when she started dating Woody in 1992 but not a child.

The Connecticut police launched a full investigation into Mia Farrow’s accusations against Woody. Connecticut is one of those states that is not at all impressed by celebrity and will nail you to the wall if they think you are guilty. They get none of that California and New York movie money. Their investigation concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute Woody and that Dylan’s story changed too many times to be credible. They also took into account the complete lack of medical evidence and the testimony of one of the nannies that Dylan was with her the entire time Woody was at the house. Another nanny said that she was pressured by Mia to say terrible things about Woody.

Less significant are the facts that everybody who has ever met Woody Allen can tell you that he would not do such a thing. Even his son Moses, who grew up in Mia’s anti-Woody house, has said that he did not do it. That is not evidence but people who know him obviously know him more than the rest of us. Woody has always famously been a breast man. Watch any of his early movies. Men who are attracted to full figured adult women are rarely inclined to molest 7-year-olds in a house full of people.

Woody and Soon-Yi went on to adopt two girls. There is a thorough investigation process to adopt children in the United States. Even more so when a man who has been accused of molesting a girl is trying to adopt a girl. The people who approved of both adoptions knew that they would be crucified if anything happened to either child. Both girls are now teenagers and their only complaint about their father is that he knows as much about Justin Bieber as they do about macroscopic quantum phenomena.

There is also the issue of Mia’s questionable moral choices but that does not prove guilt either.

Custody of all three children was given to Mia but Woody’s adoption was not annulled. Satchel changed his name to Ronan and Dylan became Malone. Moses remained Moses. The whole sordid affair died away, save for the rumours that Woody married his own daughter. That will live forever.

Then Ronan got a job on a TV programme. Suddenly Mia wanted to work tirelessly to warn people about how evil Woody is. Dylan, who had always publicly been unsure about what happened, declared that it was all true. Mia announced that Ronan is probably Frank Sinatra’s son and that she and Frank had never stopped knocking boots. Ronan became a household name just in time for his TV debut.

Call me a cynic but if I were Mia and I truly believed that my boyfriend molested my daughter I would never stop telling people about how horrible he is. I would not wait 20 years until my son had a new TV deal to start it all up again. I would also not Twitter about how horrible Woody is and then praise my good friend Roman Polanski on the same day. That is simply bad form.

For the record, I am a Woody Allen fan and not at all a Mia Farrow fan. Other than her work in Rosemary’s Baby, The Purple Rose of Cairo and Broadway Danny Rose, I think she is overrated. I was relieved when they broke up since it meant Woody would be working with other actors. Some of his movies with her, especially September, Another Woman, Alice, would have been better with a different lead.

I was also not present during the crime for which Woody was never charged. Neither was anybody else who is talking about it. The only person who truly knows what happened is Woody Allen. He probably never reads all the blog and Twitter posts about him. He probably does not know what a blog is.

Obviously I hope that this horrible rumour is untrue. I say obviously because it seems to me that no reasonable person would want any of this to be true. The damage to Dylan/Malone has already been done. She has been told for most of her life that something horrible happened to her. Whether she was molested or not makes little difference to her psyche at this point. But there is still time to save Woody. If he did it then he should be castrated. But if he did not then he should be allowed to live his life and make great movies. Being accused of something should not be enough to ruin somebody’s life.

It would be nice if people could be innocent until proved guilty. Too bad that never happens.

Bogie At 2 O'Clock

“American Secretary of State John Kerry, who came here very determined and operates based upon an unfathomable obsession and messianic fervor, cannot teach me anything about the Palestinians. I live and breathe the conflict with the Palestinians. I know what they think, what they want and what they really mean. The American security plan that was presented to us is not worth the paper it was written on. It contains no peace and no security. The only thing that might save us is if John Kerry wins the Nobel prize and leaves us be.”

Defence Minister Moshe Ya’alon scratched some thin skin this week. As he has been doing for a long time. When will these sneaky Jews learn not to speak ill of their American saviours?

The funny part is how the American leaders are so terribly hurt and offended. Is this really the worst thing anybody has ever said about them? These people would not last a day in our shoes. This reminds me of the first time somebody called Obama a liar during some congressional speech. Obama’s people were twisting their panties over that one. I bet they look back on those days with longing.

John Kerry, for his part, has only given diplomatic responses as far as I know. It is others who are trying to fuel this, not him. Like him or not, Ya’alon is a military expert in this field and he will tell you what he thinks of your agenda. Obama’s team has no choice but to attack him.

Now many Americans, largely ignorant of their own foreign policies, will once again say that the United States should stop giving money to Israel. I think they would be very surprised if they knew how all that military aid actually worked.

Some Israelis will say that while Ya’alon makes an obvious point, we should be nicer to our closest ally. Especially when that ally is so sensitive.

Many Palestinians will say this is proof that Jews are evil and should all be exterminated. There is nothing new there.

But what people should think about after this is all old news next week is that there will never be peace here as long as the United States tries to dictate that peace. There is nothing wrong with bringing in mediators to negotiate between Israel and terrorist leaders but those mediators should be somebody whom both sides trust, for lack of a better word, to some degree. Nobody trusts the United States. They are in it for their own corporate interests. And for the Nobel prize to a certain extent. They do not give a rat’s tuchas about Israel’s desire to not be murdered or about Palestinian terrorists’ desire to murder Jews. Neither Jews nor Arabs are at the top of America’s list of favourites. We are barely a notch above Africans as far as they are concerned.

I always wanted Thabo Mbeki to come here and do his thing. He was a skilled mediator. But then that corrupt asshole Zuma did his thing. Maybe it is unfair to blame Jacob Zuma for the troubles in Judea. But he is a corrupt asshole. Nobody can deny that with a straight face.

Moshe Ya’alon has never been my favourite person in the world. He was Chief of Staff when I was at Bahad 1. He said some things about female officers that can safely be described as ridiculously stupid. But his frustration at American presidents and secretaries of state who come here with academic theories about life in the Levant and tell us how we should exist is understandable. Sooner or later the United States is going to have to realise that trying to force everybody to do it your way has failed miserably. Every continent in the world can attest to that.

Dear Sir or Madam Will You Read My Book

Letters To Friends is finally available in paperback. I say finally because it took a long time. The e-version came out several months ago.

It is at Amazon of course. Everything is at Amazon. It should be at other outlets soon. The Amazon price seems to change daily. I have no control over that. I wanted it to be lower but I am not in charge. I merely wrote the thing.

Out With the Old

Ariel Sharon finally died. I say finally because he was not especially active the last few years. The doctors were trying to keep him alive at the end but my personal point of view is that after eight years in a coma it might be time to move on. I can see where his family did not want to let him go but when you are in a persistent vegetative state there is little reason to stay alive. If recovery is not an option and you will spend the rest of your life in a coma then what is the point.

There were mixed reactions at his death. It surprised nobody. Most people are pretty amazed that he lasted as long as he did. Some will mourn him deeply while others moved on a long time ago. He was one of those people that most either loved or hated. I think he was an important military commander but only an average politician.

Palestinian terrorists praised his death, of course. He was a Jew, after all. Some predictably called his death a punishment from God. It seems queer to me that when an old and sick Jew dies it is Israel’s fault but when an old and sick Arab dies it is Israel’s fault. I also have to doubt that God sides with terrorists who target schools and hospitals. But what do I know.

Even some Palestinians who might not be considered terrorists were seen rejoicing in the streets when they heard about Sharon’s death. I do not think Sharon was the best prime minister in the history of the world but I have to wonder what is wrong with people who rejoice at another’s death. Sharon was no friend to terrorists but he did more than anybody else to take Israel out of Gaza. You would think that would make the people who wanted Israel out of Gaza happy. Obviously it only made them angry. Terrorist activity from Gaza increased dramatically as soon as Israel left. Maybe the terrorists wanted Sharon to stick around. Maybe they are not praising his death but giving thanks that his family’s long suffering is finally over. That might be unlikely.

Sharon was prime minister when I moved to Israel. I found it hard to label him at first because I was still looking at Israel the way people outside of Israel try to define it. He was very conservative in some ways and very liberal in others. It all makes sense to me now but he seems like an odd character when everything is BBC black and white. In some ways I miss having Sharon as prime minister. But it is right that he is no longer on the political scene. A lot has changed since he was in charge. From my point of view the worst thing about Sharon’s stroke, aside from the eight years in a coma, was that Olmert became PM. I never missed that guy once he was gone.

Speaking of Christmas Shopping

Since I know that everybody will want to buy my new book for Christmas I should probably point out why I did not list every Amazon site. The book is available at Amazon UK, Amazon Canada, Amazon North Korea, of course, but I would actually prefer it if everybody could buy it from a single version of Amazon. Or from another site. It seems that Amazon has found a clever way to avoid paying people what is rightfully owed.

If you sell a book on Amazon and live outside of the United States, as many of us do, Amazon will only pay you after you reach US$100 in sales. After all of their fees and taxes, of course. $100 does not seem insurmountable but there is a catch. Amazon divides each national website. If you sell enough to make $99 at each of their 12 sites they do not pay you $1188. They pay you absolutely nothing. If you make $100 at one site and $99 at the other 11 they do not pay $1189. They only pay the $100.

I seem to be more populat at Amazon US and Amazon UK. I make money from those sites but nothing from the others. I have sold a lot of copies from Amazon Germany but not $100 worth, so I might not see that money for years, if ever. I have currently sold one copy from Amazon Mexico. I will never see those 98 cents. Most sales are from Amazon US, so it makes the most sense to only advertise that site.

So if you are one of the five people who are thinking about buying this thing from Amazon, all I ask is that you use amazon.com.

As long as I am spamming my own blog I might as well remind everybody about the first book. It is still available. What better way to say Happy Christmas to loved ones than to give them a book by somebody who does not celebrate Christmas.

Barnes and Noble
Amazon
Kobo
Sony
iTunes
Bookworld
distributor

Fortnight in the Philippines

So it turns out my blog post about the Philippines was long enough to be a book. It is a bit of a short book but a book nonetheless.

It was such a unique experience that writing about it was both very easy and a bit of a challenge. There is so much to say about what happened, what we did, the ongoing situation. I could have made an epic that rivaled War and Peace. In length. Not so much in artistic value. But who has time to write such a thing. And, frankly, who would ever read it.

It is currently available in a variety of digital formats. Print versions will likely take a while. I am still trying to get Letters to Friends in paperback. That one is flying off the shelves like a zeppelin. This one might have to wait.

Kindle
A bunch of different formats

Barnes and Noble, Sony, Apple are all coming soon.

Tagalong Writing

I started writing about my time in the Philippines. I’ve yet to finish. I cannot say what will happen with it whenever I am finally finished. It is already too long to be a blog post. But I doubt it will ever be long enough to be a book.

I suppose I could add more to it to make a book length but that would take some time and I have no real desire to do such a thing. My current plan is to write whatever comes out and decide what to do with it later.

Stay tuned. Maybe there will be an epic multipart post in the coming weeks.


Update: Nevermind.

Nelson Mandela

Nelson Mandela was internationally known as a peace activist. The world will remember him as the first black RSA president. When I was a child he was known as a hero by blacks and a criminal by whites. He helped found Umkhonto we Sizwe, which was a terrorist organisation by anybody’s definition. Mandela freely admitted to the treason and sabotage for which he was imprisoned. MK killed countless civilians in bombings and guerrilla attacks. Their victims were black, white and everything in between. I vividly remember their attack at Durban’s Golden Mile just after my seventh birthday, although I did not know any of the people killed or injured. I do not think any 7-year-old should have to deal with the racial injustice of apartheid but I do not think any 7-year-old should have to know about terrorism either. Mandela has since acknowledged that he and MK violated human rights.

People who want to deify Mandela tend to whitewash his early terrorist activities but I think it is important to know where he came from in order to understand where he went. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. To the radical blacks he was helping to free them from oppression. And there was serious oppression under apartheid. It was not simply segregation and inequality. Blacks were treated as common criminals simply for being born black.

But killing people who have nothing to do with your inequality has nothing to do with freedom. Killing blacks to free blacks from oppression simply makes no sense. There were a lot of whites who campaigned against apartheid. Whites were subject to banning just as easily as blacks. It was far easier to be white but most whites had no control of the government at the time, just as most blacks have no control today. Then and now it was a very small group of people who wielded the most power.

Fortunately for everybody, Mandela mellowed out during his years in prison. He gradually evolved from advocating radical urban warfare to a more moderate approach. By the time he was released he sounded less like Malcolm X and more like Gandhi. I never would have voted for the ANC just after my seventh birthday, were that possible. But I campaigned for them just before my fifteenth. I did not vote for obvious reasons. We were all pretty excited when they won and Mandela became president. I would doubt that I knew anybody who had a problem with it. We were glad that South Afrika had finally become South Africa again. Mostly we were happy that apartheid was truly dead.

The reason Nelson Mandela is so well known throughout the world and we are all talking about him now is not because of anything he did in office. His presidency was not very noteworthy save for being the first democratically elected president. He became famous for being in prison and stayed famous for what he did after he left office. He did more for human rights than all the other former South African presidents combined. Though in retrospect that does not say much.

I think Mandela was a good president. He did what he could to unite the races. No minor feat at the time. And no one can deny that we all get along much better than before he was president. There are certainly fewer necklacings. His biggest mistake was ignoring AIDS, as his predecessors and successors have done.

But I still think de Klerk was a braver president. It is much harder to end an entrenched corrupt system than to start a new one.

Mandela did two great things as president. One was to force reconciliation down our throats. Weather we liked it or not. There were more than a few people who wanted to kill all whites. Or at least kick them out of the country. Mandela knew that such a thing would destroy the economy permanently. No country outside of Africa would ever trade with us if we were so hostile to such a large minority of our own citizens. Especially when they are white people. You can disenfranchise whatever minority group you want but if they are white then you lose all support from Europe, North America, Australia, Japan. Trading only with African countries is a horrible fiscal model.

Mandela was willing to trade with absolutely anybody, regardless of traditional allies and enemies. He did not care if you were communist, socialist, capitalist. He reached out to dictators, democratically elected representatives, military strongmen. If you were willing to trade with and invest in die Nuwe Suid Afrika you were golden. Some people did not feel that was the best policy. Getting in bed with the wrong sort usually has lasting consequences.

But Mandela’s government spent a lot of money trying to lift blacks out of apartheid. All those new social programmes were not free. They did a great deal of good but somebody had to pay for them. Raising taxes on people who make $1 a day is not an option. Taxing the hell out of whites would only lead many to leave the country, which a lot of blacks wanted, but would be almost as economically reckless as kicking them all out. Countries like the US and UK were more than happy to criticise apartheid and praise Mandela’s release but they were not so enthusiastic about new investment in the new government. They were happy to hurt the economy with sanctions but far less interested in helping the country when the sanctions were lifted. Symbolically jumping on the hero bandwagon is a lot easier than actually spending money on that which you claim to believe. Mandela’s government had little choice but to seek investment from international leaders who never increased their own popularity by praising Mandela.

Mandela’s other great achievement as president was to serve only one term. He voluntarily retired when he could have easily been elected several more times. Lesser men would have worn out their welcome. Others would have tried to make themselves dictators. Mandela probably could have given himself far more power but he was obviously serious about making his country a democracy.

Nelson Mandela was our George Washington. Neither was a great president but both were necessary for the country to grow and move forward. Both could command attention and respect by simply walking into a room. Everybody liked both men and now historians treat them as noble heroes while ignoring their serious flaws. In many ways both countries need them to be as elevated as they are. We need our heroes to be larger than life.

What I Did On Thanksgiving

I have returned from the Philippines. It was an amazing experience and I am still processing the tsunami of information floating around in my head.

The IDF sent 234 people, including 150 doctors, nurses, medical technicians. We set up a field hospital, found a lot of survivors, found even more dead people, built schools, created entire water systems. The doctors treated 2686 patients, including 848 children, and delivered 36 babies. Two of the children were brought back to Tel Aviv for cleft palate surgery that could be better performed at an actual hospital.

My team spent a great deal of time flying over islands and being endlessly impressed with how powerful a typhoon can be. The mayor of one of the smaller cities said it looked like a war zone. Some areas looked like pictures of Hiroshima after the atomic bomb. There would be a lone tree trying to stay up surrounded by debris as far as the eye could see. One of the big differences was that most of the dead in Hiroshima were incinerated. In the Philippines there were dead bodies everywhere.

On an ironic note, the Japanese delegation in the Philippines landed next to a monument dedicated to the people of the Philippines who died in the Japanese invasion.

I will have much more to say about this later. By this I mean the typhoon and our relief mission, not the Japanese.