Drawing the Line Where Protests Against Israel's Attack on Gaza Become Anti-Semitic

Public protests are the product of a society that values freedom of expression.  That's written into the United States Constitution.  So, college students, gathering in a specific place on their campus to protest, regardless of what they are protesting, is protected free speech under the Constitution.  Or is it?  

From a personal perspective, there are some conditions which need to be met, and which can be called "social courtesy," or the recognition that respect for the rights of others must be a consideration those who wish to protest give to others who may be affected by some aspect of their protest, other than simply being offended by the content.  As an educator, while I respect the right of students to protest on a school campus, I also believe that the protest should not interfere with the rights of other students, those who choose either not to protest, or who disagree with the content of the protest, to continue to pursue their education without interruption.  That's a simple display of respect and recognition for the rights of others that goes a long way toward legitimizing the protesters and validating their cause. 

A second condition that I believe must be met is that a protest must not resort to violence to get its way.  That zaps the legitimacy of the cause, especially if the protest is against a war.  Usually, violence in a protest is precipitated by an incident which causes feelings to run high, or because there are infiltrators in the protest with a different agenda, desiring a different outcome.  In the past, law enforcement sometimes precipitated violence in protests, especially during the Vietnam War era, and though there has been considerable training in showing restraint and avoiding conflict when involved in protests, that still does happen on occasion.  

Respect for the diversity and differences among the human community is a third condition I believe must be met to legitimize protest as a means of free expression.  Those against whom the protest is being directed may be guilty of crimes, or discrimination, or bigotry.  But their race and ethnicity, not something over which they've had control, are off limits, as is their religion, their sexual preference or any other aspect of their personal lifestyle and the culture from which they come.  There's a distinct difference between protest, insult and insurrection.  

Perception of Protesters Distracts From the Message of the Protest 

There have been arrests, clashes with school security and law enforcement, and some ugly racial incidents, that have marred the image of "peaceful protests." In some cases, pro-Israeli protesters are present, and that increases the possibility of violent clashes.  The protests at Columbia, and at UCLA, which got a lot of media attention because they are in New York and Los Angeles, cities that are the focus of negative attention from conservative media sources, were criticized for damage to the building that was occupied, and for a massive amount of trash that was left behind.  Reports of some protesters expecting food to be delivered to them helps create an image of the protest that distracts from its intentions.  

The far right wing media is just looking for ways to discredit the protesters as a bunch of violent, spoiled liberal children, and to split the Democratic party on this particular issue.  That's laughable in light of their defense of the Capitol building's attackers on January 6th, but it's not an excuse to be careless.  A lot of the rhetoric starts out with accusations of violence and racism against protesters, so it is vitally important for protests to defy those accusations by keeping order and not letting their protests get to the point where they can be accused of violence or racism.  

There have been multiple accusations of anti-Semitism associated with the protests.  That comes largely from the influence of right wing Evangelicals who focus on a gross misinterpretation and misapplication of Genesis 12:3 by claiming that anyone who utters a critical word against the modern state of Israel, regardless of what they are doing, is subject to being cursed by God.  Criticizing and protesting against a war being carried on by the modern state of Israel does not meet the definition of the term "curse" in Hebrew, written in Genesis, nor do those verses apply at all in any context to the modern political state known as Israel.  

No doubt there are those among the protesters who are anti-Semitic.  Anti-Semitism is, by definition, hostility toward and discrimination against persons of the Jewish race, though Arabs are also Semitic, by racial definition, and many of them are also descendants of Abraham.  Some protests have individuals who do express anti-Semitism by definition, but the vast majority of them are protesting what they see as a military over-reaction, extending into vengeance, of the IDF at the orders of the Israeli prime minister and its far right wing Likud party's majority government.  I do not see protesting a violent war that has an inordinate number of civilian casualties and this large of a field of destruction of civilian property being waged by Israel as anti-Semitic.  

Yes, There's a Lot of Violence in the World

Claiming that other violence and genocide in the world goes either unnoticed by these protesters, or that they unfairly target Israel and don't care about the others because they are anti-Semitic is not a legitimate criticism.  There is a lot of other violence, and genocide, happening in the world, and that's probably an accurate description of humanity on this planet at any time in history.  This one, however, is getting protests, not because Israel is a Jewish state, or really having anything to do with Jewish nationality or identity, but because it is violence which the United States has the leverage to moderate, or control, and perhaps stop it from happening.  

The manner in which the military operation is being carried out is causing too many civilian casualties.  And that's a problem.  Though the right wants to put this, as they do everything else, in a political and ideological "us vs them" basket, always defining Israel as "the good guys" and putting all Palestinians in with the Islamic militants and terrorists, because they are Islamic, that's not necessarily what's causing the protesters to raise their voices.  There are plenty of Israelis who are opposed to the manner in which their military force is conducting this war.  

Of course, the situation is one which has been causing violence ever since the British Empire made the territory of Palestine a protectorate instead of an independent state as was the rest of the middle eastern territory ceded by the Ottoman Empire after World War 1.  The intention to set it aside and open the territory up to Jewish immigration, which increased faster than realized as a result of the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis, naturally caused controversy that has let to several wars, the displacement and impoverishment of millions of people, and to the current situation into which terrorist organizations developed out of a sense of powerlessness.  

It's not hypocritical, or anti-Semitic, to protest against this particular war and the excessive civilian casualties it is producing, as opposed to not protesting the Sudan civil war that is also responsible for a large number of civilian deaths, because those who hear and see these protests have a lot more influence over the Israeli-Hamas war than they do over the others.  It's not difficult for a news source looking to prove their point to find anti-Semitic protesters, including radical Muslims for whom the destruction of the Israeli state is a political and religious goal.  But it's less difficult to find Islamophobic, racist, hateful agitators and bigots among the far right wing protesters who are taking Israel's side.  I'm sure that those who take this seriously wouldn't appreciate being classified or characterized that way.  

Some Closing Thoughts

Any discussion or protest that leaves out the horror and the brutal, inhumane, violent, vicious terrorism of the October 7th attack, the taking and holding of hostages, the sexual violation and torment of women and children, the brutal murders, torture and total lack of humanity of the Hamas attack is subject to questions about its anti-Semitic nature.  If there's righteous anger over the attacks on Gaza and over the civilian deaths there, then there must be the same righteous anger over the October 7th attack.  And I think that's where the line on defining a protest as anti-Semitic or not can be drawn.  If those protesting are one-sidedly condeming Israel while letting Hamas off the hook or leaving them completely out of the discussion, then they're anti-Semitic by complete definition of the term.  

I'm also noticing a tendency in the right-leaning media in this country to pull this in and try and make a political issue out of it to raise doubts over Biden's leadership capability in order to try and suppress his potential vote total in the fall.  Finding fault lines among differences in race, ethnicity, culture and religion to create the image that the Democratic party is "fracturing" over this particular issue is a big part of what we're seeing in the media right now.  I would not be surprised if there's some Russian interference happening as well.  

However, it's pretty clear that issues in middle eastern conflict are not high on the voters list, and it seems to be even more clear that while younger voters are found on both sides of the issue, it's not causing the lack of enthusiasm for voting that some pollsters and news commentators want to make us think is happening.  It's certainly not doom and gloom, and, thanks to the commentators and reporters who work for MSNBC for digging it out, it does not seem to be the kind of issue that spells disaster for Democrats in November.  In fact, it looks like it might actually be something that brings voters in.  Biden, while not setting aside long standing American policy regarding Israel, is also doing more than anyone else to work for a permanent cease fire, increase the humanitarian aid to Gaza's residents and use the influence and power of the United States to resolve this particular conflict at the negotiating table. 

He's steered clear of accusations of anti-Semitism, and has affirmed the decades-old commitment to a two state solution in Palestine.  His opponent wants to bulldoze Gaza and build beach resorts.  So when it comes down to it, staying home or voting for Trump is not going to help this cause that Democrats want to pursue.  

  

Dragging Christian Nationalist Views Into Politics Calls Evangelical Christian Credibility Into Question

Baptist News Global: And a Biblically Illiterate Congressman Shall Lead Them

As we approach the 2024 election, with the news media still trumpeting uncertainty about the outcome, there should be rising concern about the infusion of Christian nationalist perspectives into the campaign rhetoric.  The alarm bells should already be ringing about the potential threats a second Trump administration poses to Constitutionally guaranteed individual liberties and to American constitutional democracy in general.  Throw the various aspects of Christian nationalism and white supremacy into that mix and it brings me to the point where I just don't understand how half the country could still be so deluded and so uninformed.  

The addition of perspectives on a foreign war, the conflict between Israel and Gaza, have added a whole new element of concern to the potential loss of freedom we are facing.  The linked article from Baptist News Global, reporting on the exchange, in a congressional hearing, between Representative Rick Allen, a Georgia Republican, whose spewed out ignorance should come as no surprise, and Columbia University President Dr. Minouche Shafik, is an egregious example of exactly what we may be facing if the ignorance and misinterpretation of the Bible that leads to Christian nationalism is ever elevated to the point where it has the favor of the political power of the Presidency.  

Though my purpose in writing here is to point out to those Christians who do read this blog, and who do, from time to time, express doubts and reservations about conservative, white Evangelical support for a politician whose lifestyle exhibits the exact opposite of the characteristics of Evangelical Christian theology and practice, it is also to affirm, for those Americans who are either outside the church altogether, or who are in Christian traditions that aren't going down the heretical path created by the blending of far right wing politics with fundamentalist, conservative, Evangelicalism, that the latter are promoting a false, errant view of Christian faith and practice.  That includes the idea that the founding fathers intended for the United States to be a Christian nation in the same way Israel was a theocracy in the Old Testament, and that the modern state of Israel is a restoration of that theocracy, which justifies what it is doing to Gaza.  

There's also the idea, as Representative Allen asserts, that because of modern Israel's special status, the United States is motivated to protect Israel, and to provide it with all the weaponry it needs to blow Gaza to smithereens and scatter its civilian population because God will withdraw his blessing from the United States if it doesn't support Israel.  Even though that completely and totally contradicts just about everything Jesus taught as his gospel, which is all the substance of what the United States should be, when it comes to Israel, no doctrine or theology applies to them.  They are, according to some conservative Christian eschatology, part of another "dispensation" which will bring them salvation by a different means than the Christian church teaches applies to the rest of us.  

False Eschatology and False Views Related to the Modern State of Israel 

The incoherence of Representative Allen's questioning Dr. Shafik on the subject is, perhaps, the best illustration we currently have to point to the problems created by blending far right wing Christianity with far right wing politics.  Allen's remarks are a rambling testimony of ignorance of both the Bible he claims to believe and claims as the "word of God," and the United States Constitution.  Dragging that particularly ignorant perspective into a position on the Israeli-Hamas war, and subsequently on the campus protests against it by college students,  Allen bases his entire perspective on false, uninformed, incorrect beliefs about what the Bible actually says, and what the constitution actually says.  

The piece in Baptist News Global does an excellent job of pointing out exactly where Allen is mistaken. 

If I'd been one of Congressman Allen's English teachers, I'd be embarrassed for anyone to know it.  And if he belonged to the same church I did, I wouldn't admit it.  Allen, through the incoherence, appears to be interpreting a few scattered biblical prooftexts through a doctrinal position on eschatology, or the study of "end times" theology, known as pre-millennial dispensationalism.  

In terms of the overall picture of Christian theology and doctrine, pre-millennial dispensationalism is a relatively new development, mostly 20th century origins, that depends on a literal interpretation of related Bible passages and completely ignores the cultural context in which the words were written, and their original intent and meaning.  It falsely connects passages that were never intended to be connected, altering any chance at getting an accurate perspective but creating an entirely new conclusion based on something never intended to be understood in that way.  

The errors made by those whose interpretation of the Bible comes out as pre-millennial dispensationalism are found in their complete lack of consideration of the multiple historical contexts in which the Bible was written.  Each book in the Bible was written to people in a specific time and place, and addresses their specific spiritual and historical context.  There are no hidden meanings, double meanings or dualist interpretations that make the words of the Bible mean something different, for different people in a different age, than they meant originally.  

So, citing a scripture from Genesis 12:3, from the historical period when the Jewish race was only just beginning to develop, and applying it in the same literal way to the modern state of Israel, is an errant use of scripture.   Though many fundamentalist Christians would insist that it is, the modern state of Israel in no way resembles the early, tribal people the scripture in Genesis is referencing.  In fact, the words recorded there are a promise from God to Abraham, about his future descendants, not specific to those who would eventually form into the Israelite nation.  Some Palestinians, too, can trace their ancestry back to Abraham, through his son Ishmael, who is not excluded from this prophetic statement.  

Biblical Illiteracy Affects Attitudes About the Israeli-Hamas War in Gaza

From a Christian perspective, while the 66 books of the Protestant Bible that are recognized as canonical constitute what is defined as the inspired, written word of God, they are not meant to be interpreted literally, word by word, or "verse by verse" as some Christians define their interpretation.  There is a clear theological context which determines how the whole Bible is seen from the current point in human history.  

The Baptist Faith and Message of 1963, a doctrinal statement produced by the Southern Baptist Convention, in Article I, The Scriptures, states, "The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus."  The current, 2000 version further elaborates that "All scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is himself the focus of divine revelation."  So in interpreting any part of the Bible by Christian practice means that the words of Jesus must be consulted and interpreted with regard to determining the meaning of any other passage of scripture. 

Jesus did make a clear statement regarding his view of what was considered the authoritative religious doctrine of his time, found in the Old Testament. 

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets.  I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill.  For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass away from the law until all is accomplished."  Matthew 5:17-18, NRSV

That's a key, interpretive statement from Jesus, the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted.  And that criterion is saying, clearly, that all prophecy, which at his time was found in the Old Testament, was fulfilled in him.  He was the object of it, and is saying that the law is also fulfilled in him.  The modern state of Israel is not, in this regard, a "restoration" of the theocracy of Israel or the monarchy of the Old Testament.  That covenant relationship was replaced by the Christian gospel, the end of the old covenant, predicted by Jesus, was fulfilled in 70 CE by the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, exactly as he predicted.

There is no covenant connection between the modern state of Israel and the covenant theocracy of the Old Testament. There's no passage in the Bible that even alludes to such a restoration. Modern Israel is a secular state, by design, a democracy with a parliamentary form of government modeled after the UK, not homogenously Jewish, granting religious liberty to its citizens, 21% of whom are Arabs practicing Islam.  About 2% of Israelis are Christians, and the vast majority of the Christians are also Arabs of Palestinian origin.  Although 75% of Israeli citizens are Jewish, mostly Ashkenazi, or "German influenced", only about 20% of Israeli Jews practice any form of Judaism. 

But pre-millennial dispensationalists take a complicated and convoluted turn and twist through prophecies found in Revelation, the gospel accounts and the Old Testament book of Daniel, to come up with what I call an Armageddon Calendar that leads to the second coming of Christ and elevates the modern state of Israel into a "restored" Davidic kingdom that becomes the center focus of prophetic, end times events.  

As a result, it becomes a matter of course to allow Israel the right to destroy all of its neighbors who don't get with the program, because they deserve it and because they are already ungodly Arab Muslims worthy of destruction because the won't acknowledge Christ, and because they are in the way of his return.  And in defending Israel's right to blow Gaza to smithereens and murder many of its civilian population, it's these Old Testament verses from the Bible that are cited.  

Let's Set the Religious Record Straight

In spite of all of the complications involved in the manner in which the state of Israel came into existence in 1948, Israel's right to exist has been established.  There is little that can be done to change those circumstances at this point.  

The attack on October 7th against Israeli civilians was clearly for terrorist purposes.  No military objectives were achieved and no war was declared.  Israel has the right to defend itself against such attacks, and the right to make sure it is safe from similar attacks in the future.  

It is not anti-Semitic to protest against Israel's war against Hamas when the perception has reached the point that it is no longer about defending its people, but seems to carry with it the goal of vengeance, which is not acceptable.  It's OK to point out when something looks like it has gone out of the bounds of responsible defense.  It's clear that no resolution is coming out of what's happening now.  

The student protests occurring in the United States, largely peaceful unless some right wingers show up to cause trouble, are practicing constitutionally guaranteed free speech.  As long as they do not block access to education on campus, and permit those students who choose not to become involved the personal freedom to do so, and do not disrupt the educational purpose of the institution where they are taking place, leave them alone, please.  

Members of the United States Congress who want to have a hearing so they can have a platform for their views should not open their mouths unless they know what they are talking about, lest they embarrass themselves and the office they serve.  

 

Peace in Israel is Elusive; It Defies Rational Thinking

There is far more to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than the terrorist attack by Hamas on Israel on October 7th, and the bombing, destruction and invasion of Gaza by the IDF that followed.  It goes back even further in history than the events surrounding the rise of European fascism leading to World War 2 and the antisemitism which led to the Holocaust, eventually causing the opening up of Palestine, under British control, to increased Jewish immigration and the formation of a Jewish state.  

It's complicated, and that's far too simplistic of a description.  There are multiple, powerful, intense interests that keep crossing each other, including the struggle for dominance between the totalitarianism of Russia and China, and the free market democracies led by the United States and Western Europe, the struggle for validation and affirmation between three major world religions which centers on Jerusalem, and the open questions of racial and cultural superiority in determining who has the right to ownership and residency of land and the resources that go with it based on history or modern precedent.  

It's not antisemitic to give consideration to whether or not the current attack by Israel on Gaza is simply Israel defending itself, or whether it has turned into a display of vengeful destruction that is a disproportionate response to the ugly, inexcusable terrorism perpetrated by Hamas against Israel on October 7.  And it is not anti-Palestinian to call the Hamas attack terrorism, and to consider whether or not Palestinian leadership in Gaza gave aid and abetted the terrorists in their attack, and must shoulder the blame and accept the consequences for subjecting the civilian population in Gaza to this attack. 

It is not un-patriotic, un-American or antisemitic to protest the full scope of the Israeli attack on Gaza, nor to see it as excessive retribution, any more than it is to march in support of Israel, believing that it has a right to exist, and to defend itself.  By the same token, it is against all principles of American liberal progressivism to demand preference and full loyalty and support for one side, while disparaging and demeaning the other side.  The goal of progressive liberalism, applied to this particular conflict, is peace, equally applied to all, including the full recognition of human rights and the equality of all people.  

Resolution Must Recognize Reality

A peaceful resolution of all issues which have led to war and conflict for most of the last two centuries must recognize the fact that there are some things which cannot be changed.  The state of Israel is not going away.  Circumstances created it, the world powers supported it, financed it and militarily and politically protected it, and the alliances of the major world powers lined up by supporting either Israel, or one of the Arabic political factions.  

Until the modern era, there was only a very small presence of Jewish communities in Palestine.  Since the Roman conquest and destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, the vast majority of the world's Jewish population lived outside of Palestine, mostly where the survivors of the Roman destruction travelled and settled, including the Eastern Mediterranean, Greece, the Egyptian coastline, Asia Minor, now Turkey, and even westward into Italy and Spain, and northward into what is now Eastern Europe.  The vacuum left behind by their fleeing Roman oppression completely changed the racial, ethnic and cultural makeup of Palestine, the Promised Land.  

So what we are facing here is the unique historical situation where a group of people, displaced from their ancient homeland in ancient times more than 2,000 years ago, with just a remnant of the population remaining, who kept their ethnicity and cultural identity intact through religious practice wherever they were scattered, have been restored to their ancient homeland by the circumstances of world events and the force of political and economic power.  This restoration occurred in spite of the fact that there were people of a different religious and cultural heritage, though similar ethnic background, living in this same place.  

I can't think of a similar situation anywhere else in the world where an independent, sovereign nation existed in ancient times, was conquered and its people scattered, yet they managed to preserve their culture, through a powerful connection to their religion, and to some extent, also preserved their ethnicity, though there are some variations and mixing that did take place, especially in deep Eastern Europe.  Or where those people, from the various places to which they were scattered, would gather together again in their ancient homeland that they had not ruled or occupied for over 2,000 years.  

Yet, that is the situation surrounding the modern existence of the state of Israel.  And that is exactly the situation that has led to the current conflict between Israel and Hamas.  This is just the most recent in a series of wars, conflicts and terrorist acts that have occurred as a result of crowding a small piece of territory with adherents of two of the three world religions who claim sacred sites within the same small quarter of the same city.  

The reality that must be recognized is that the people who now live on this small patch of land at the junction of three world religions, and three continents, must figure out a way to coexist, carry on their business, and somehow, economically, socially, culturally and racially, recognize individual rights and collective equality.  It's either that, or continue to experience destruction, war, terrorism, and serve as a constant, potential catalyst for a major world war.  

Legitimate Questions

Violent human behavior means the one committing the violence has given up on resolving a problem from a rational perspective which aspires to the application of a higher set of values derived from the discipline of an educated intellect.  If peace is to be achieved, then one of the sides in a conflict must be committed to introducing it, and then remaining committed to it in order to make it work.  That's a high road to take, some might say it is too high for human beings to achieve.  

It was the major world powers, primarily the UK and US, who opened the door to the influx of Jewish immigration into Palestine following the Second World War and the aftermath of the Holocaust, and it has been the United States who has taken over the role of the pre-war British Empire in terms of influencing world politics.  So the first question is whether the United States, who is the chief financial supporter of Israel, has the ability to pressure the Israeli government into taking the initiative to make peace and making the sacrifices required to achieve it.  There is no question that the United States has the power to make this happen, but with our political situation being what it is at the moment, the question is whether our politicians will do it.  

We've facilitated Middle Eastern peace between Israel and its neighbors before.  President Jimmy Carter brokered the biggest peace deal to date when he got Israel and Egypt to the negotiating table at 

Camp David and facilitated that peace deal, which still holds.  It will depend on the leadership of the Democratic party to make this happen in the future, since the GOP does not recognize the legitimacy of any Palestinian claim or sovereignty.  

So, to those of you protesting Israel's destruction of Gaza, keep that in mind when the November election rolls around.  If you really are interested in the people of Gaza, and in pressuring the US to put a stop to the destructive bombing and killing, staying home because Biden hasn't jumped to your command or voting for Trump out of protest will definitely affect the ability of the US to pressure Israel into making peace.  It will lead to the complete destruction of Gaza and the loss of any hope for the Palestinian people in Gaza or the West Bank.  

It's not anti-Semitic to protest against Israel's attack on Gaza.  At this point, six months since the brutal attack on Israel, and the murder of over a thousand Israelis that resulted, Hamas has not surrendered, been captured, or been eliminated as an opponent to an independent and sovereign state of Israel.  It's becoming pretty clear that's not going to happen.  The result of the war has been the murder of over 30,000 civilians, a small percentage of whom were military combatants or terrorists, the majority of whom were innocent civilians who happened to get in the way of the fighting and bombing.  Being opposed to that, to the point of protesting against it, doesn't constitute a denial of the right of Israel to exist.  

The Quakers have proposed a peace plan that would require, as noted above, one of the sides being committed to make it work.  The desire for peace cannot be coerced, because whatever it was that motivated the coercion is the thing that is desired, not peace itself. I'm not optimistic when it comes to depending on human intellect and reason to establish peace.  I don't know if humanity is yet capable of understanding how to make this happen.  When we have a politician in this country whose run for the White House is attracting followers because of the opportunities he offers to commit violence and bring destruction on their enemies, it's hard to see peace happening.  

The twentieth century was the bloodiest in human history and the twenty-first is shaping up to be even worse, unless there is a commitment to peace and powerful peacemakers.  

Can the Media's Hype of the 2024 Election Be Taken Seriously?

The coverage of the election of 2024 is a sensational drama, being played out between internet podcasts and information sources and the business of 24 hour network news cycles.  Developments and scoops occur on an almost hourly basis, with banners running across the bottom of screens.  Whatever theme that seems to be attracting attention that day gets repeated at the top of every hour and the beginning of every change of program.  On one side, different commentators and consultants try to outdo the other channel's coverage while on the other side, the whole emphasis is different because the viewership is not able to handle balance or fairness, and everything is biased to their perspective.  

The impression that we are given is of a close rerun of the 2020 election, polls shifting back and forth as the GOP makes it clear Trump will be renominated, and the Democrats go with Biden.  Trumpies are planning violence at their candidates insistence that he's not being treated fairly, third party candidates and independents are being given a huge share of media time, far beyond what their support warrants, and the fact that the GOP's presumptive nominee faces 88 indictments and is now on trial, giving all kinds of fodder to the sensationalism.  

But, is that a realistic perspective of what's actually happening?  

My own observations, based on past experience, on having watched politics for a long time, and on a stretch of having taught it, among other social studies subjects, leads me to make the observation that things are probably not quite the way the news media makes them seem.  I've thought, from the very beginning, that the polling data is not accurately reflecting the way people plan to vote, something that has been effectively confirmed in the primary elections held so far, where pollsters are scratching their heads trying to figure out, or cover up quickly, how they have missed the mark, in some cases very badly.  

I'm OK putting my view out there, and allowing it to be evaluated by the results on election day.  There are, of course, variables and factors for which I have no way to account, but that's OK.  I think I'm pretty close, and I can explain why I think so.  If I'm wrong, I'll say so.  It's on the record here.  

Enthusiasm for Trump is Clearly Down

In every possible way voter enthusiasm can be measured, it's clear that enthusiasm among Republicans for Trump's candidacy is way down.  Whether it is the anecdotal evidence observing that his rallies aren't drawing the crowds they did in 2020, or that along stretches of roadway in "Trump country" that were littered with his banners, flags and yard signs in places like Southern Wisconsin or Western Michigan at this point in the 2020 election cycle are virtually empty of evidence he's even running, it's clear from the GOP primaries that a significant segment of Republicans aren't supporting him, continue to not support him even after all his opponents have dropped out, and are planning not to support him in November.  That's showing up in primary elections everywhere. 

Even in the face of protest votes being organized by those who are protesting Israel's attack on Gaza, Biden's showing among Democratic voters is much more enthusiastic.  The numbers are holding in spite of the fact that he's the presumptive nominee.  The differences, from 20% to 25% in most places, are pretty obvious, baffling pollsters who use their news media flunkies to try and defend their polls and downplay their mistakes.  Voter enthusiasm is a big factor in polls predicting election outcomes and that may explain why there's been a shift in the data lately.  

Republican voters are telling the pollsters they're not supporting Trump, they want someone else, and they'll not vote for him even if he is the nominee, if he has been convicted.  I don't expect a lot of honesty here until we get close enough to the election that it will look like a mistake if they get it wrong.  Trump cannot afford to lose 10% of the GOP vote, out of the more than 30% he has lost across the primary season.  The media pays a whole lot more attention to the much smaller percentage of Democrats, basically fewer than 10%, who are protesting by voting "uncommitted."  The other announced candidates together aren't getting enough votes to swing the percentages.  

Do a couple of drives across Trump country, in the absence of yard signs, banners or flags, mean a lack of enthusiasm of support for Trump?  

I made a couple of drives across the southern part of Wisconsin in 2020, in late spring, and noticed Trump signs, banners and flags along the way.  There were Biden banners and signs too, but the Trump signs were proportionate to the support he got in those counties.  I made that same drive, Kenosha to Madison, two weeks ago, and there's nothing.  I didn't see one sign, banner or flag for Trump, though I did see several Biden-Harris signs, and a scattering of bumper stickers.  Nor did I see any Trump evidence along the roads in western Michigan, when I spent a couple of days there during the early part of last week.  The Biden campaign is running ads on local television, during the local news.  From Trump, nothing.  

And I think there's a media bias against Biden that's deliberately avoiding factoring in the enthusiasm that is showing up among Democratic party voters who, in spite of the foregone conclusion of his nomination, are still turning out strong.  The uncommitted vote notwithstanding, his percentages and numbers are significantly better than Trump's.  There are over forty polls feeding data into the various composites, and while they're all over the place, a fact that legitimately questions their accuracy, the Democratic party has, during the Biden administration, finished an unprecedented mid-term election performance and has won the most impressive string of off-year and special elections since well before the turn of this century.  

The Media Misses a Lot of Potential Coverage

Joe Biden is the President of the United States.  Donald Trump is a former President with a record of mostly failure and incompetence during the four years he spent in office.  But he's a social media celebrity, an invention of his own worldly image.  And the current crop of reporters and news media commentators, raised on social media with a phone in their hand at all times, don't know how to cover the Presidency.  So Trump, who does the most ridiculous and outlandish things, and makes the most controversial, and idiotic remarks gets almost all the attention.  

If Biden got the kind of coverage from the mainstream media, forced to report on everything he has accomplished as President, and appeared on television in sensational reports as often as Trump, he'd have buried his opponent in despair by now.  Contrasted with the previous administration, which achieved very little in terms of beneficial legislation, and whose policies wound up creating high unemployment, high inflation, supply chain problems and kicked the can down the road on its tax increases for the middle class to fund the tax cuts it created for the wealthiest of the wealthy, the Biden Administration, left to resolve those problems, not only did that, but got some major initiatives of its own through Congress. 

But where's the reporting been on those achievements?  We know as much about Biden's age, his speech impediment and his personal health, as we have known about any President's, mostly in a way intended to be critical and damaging.  But how much do we know about all of the infrastructure repair, which I see in multiple places every day, noted by signs showing how much of the money for the project is being paid for by federal dollars, or about how he resolved supply chain problems, or about how his economic policies have dealt with the inevitable inflation caused by a booming economy flush with paycheck dollars from workers who are being paid a living wage and who are on the job?  

What we know is everything that happened along every step that Trump took on his way to the courthouse.  We know about every derogatory and disparaging statement he has made about judges, attorneys, their families, and their social media posts. We know when he tweets idiocy in the middle of the night on his failing social media network.  We know when he falls asleep in the courtroom and when he passes gas.  And while the more we know, the more disgusted we should be with this man who has nothing but contempt for people who aren't like him or aren't loyal to him, and that he thinks his followers must be the world's stupidest people, it's not like any of this is worth the space it takes up or the time it takes to read it.  

I'd rather hear from Joe.  

And that's why I have serious doubts that much of anything we're hearing is worth listening to.  

What I Think We're Going to Find Out

I have little hope that Trump will ever be held accountable for any of the massive crimes he has committed, including sedition and inciting an insurrection against the United States.  If that decision had been left up to me, and to most of the rest of the American people, he'd have been in jail for about two and a half years now, with no hope of ever seeing the outside again.  But justice in this country never interferes with the lifestyle of people like that.  They get away with everything, and so will he.  

What I do think will happen is that President Biden will comfortably win the 2024 election.  He'll carry all the same states he did in 2020, expanding his margins of victory in Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin and Michigan, he'll pick up North Carolina and Florida, and has a good chance of adding Ohio.  He'll get a Democratic House of Representatives by a comfortable margin and he'll have a senate in which he won't have to worry about the whims and whines of Joe Manchin or Kristen Sinema.  

I don't think that's just wishful thinking.  I think that's a fairly accurate analysis, based on doing some digging, applying logic and listening to the few independent media sources who seem to be on the ball when it comes to finding out what is really happening.  It seems, by observation, that Trump has lost more than he can afford to lose from his party, whether their current, out of touch leadership is willing to admit that or not.  He already lost independent voters, and isn't doing anything to get them back.  His campaign of retribution and vengeance is even turning off some notable conservative, Evangelical support.  He has to increase his base to win, not decrease it, and with the electoral college relic still a factor, he has no place to go to make things any different than they were in 2020.  

And no, those who are protesting the war in Gaza will not turn to Trump when they don't think they're getting their way with Biden.  There might be a few of them who will, out of frustration, say something like that, which sensation-seeking reporters love to report.  But most of them are intelligent enough to know that if Trump gets in there, their own lives will be in danger in this country, and Gaza's and the West Bank's Palestinian population doesn't stand a chance.  

So be smart.  Ignore the mainstream media's attempts at ratings.  Dig out the truth and watch what happens.   

 

Right Wing Trumpism is a Denial of the Christian Gospel

 "I am your retribution."  

These words have become one of the main themes of Trump's campaign for the Presidency in the 2024 election.  He is clearly running, not for the benefit of any group of Americans, including his own base, but to use the power of the Presidency to avoid prison for crimes he has committed, and to get revenge against those who crossed him during his four years in office and who assisted in his losing the election in 2020, something his lack of character and a good dose of psychosis won't allow him to admit.

That's a novel approach to a political campaign.  It offers nothing, really, to those who support and follow him, because it's not about them, its about him.  Does he really have the kind of contempt for what appears to be a shrinking base that keeps cheering these ridiculous remarks at his rallies?  Because that's what it looks like.  Is it just political rhetoric to get votes?  Or is it really the trauma of an electoral defeat in 2020 that fractured his ego and drove him to commit sedition and incite an insurrection against "We the people," empowered by the Constitution?  

It is Taking His Evangelical Christian Supporters Into Heresy and Apostasy 

Far right wing politics has gathered a lot of support from among the white, conservative, Evangelical branch of American Christianity for a long time.  What that support has become during the Trump campaigns is taking many of those Christians and their churches down a path to the complete destruction of their biblical mission and purpose, leading them to a doctrinal heresy that is separating them from the core values and doctrines of the Christian gospel, and causing them to deny Jesus, the Christ, an apostasy beyond imagination.  

There's been a lot of debate, among this white, Evangelical constituency, of the "lesser of two evil" choice in Presidential elections for quite a while now, with a very singular definition of "evil" being applied to candidates who support abortion rights.  It's been more difficult to bring in support for the recognition of constitutional rights for those of differing sexual orientation or gender identity, since there is a sizeable segment of the Republican party that doesn't see how denial of those rights accomplishes anything when it comes to their long since abandoned "family values" rhetoric, but generally, that's been the standard they've used to justify voting for candidates who don't always reflect their lifestyle or their theology.  

At one point, the personal lifestyles of political candidates were at the top of the list of evidence that the Democrats they didn't want to support were the greater evil.  They used the example of former President Clinton until it lost meaning, and until some of their own favored GOP politicians turned out to be just as scandal prone.  The man who led the push-back against Clinton, under the "family values" theme of "Contract with America," Newt Gingrich, turned out to be just as morally bankrupt and selfish as they claimed Clinton was.  So the "greater evil" has, for the most part, always been the push for support for the pro-choice position, when the GOP's own fallen politicians turned out to be worse than Bill.

Then There is Trump

Some of the same critics of Clinton who emphatically declared that Christians who supported him were denying their own claims to the faith are now some of the more visible, vocal supporters of Trump.  There's really no distinction made anywhere in biblical doctrine that defines evil in greater or lesser terms, but there's little comparison between Bill Clinton and Donald Trump when it comes to worldliness and moral bankruptcy.  Clinton has been repentant, personally and from a Christian perspective, and even though his critics downplay it, belittle it or flat out ignore it, he has also made restitution that is a demonstration of his sincerity, and acknowledged his faults.  

Trump has openly and repeatedly denied his need for any kind of repentance from the womanizing and worldly behavior that he has made his identifying brand, and has made the denials directly to some of the Evangelical "leaders" who support him and desperately want to claim he's been converted.  So, since they can't really do that, they give him a pass, risking their credibility every time he says or does something that demonstrates his lack of a genuine Christian conversion experience, including his open denials of the Christian gospel and of Jesus Christ himself.  

"I have my own idea of God," and "I've never done anything that I need to ask God to forgive," are among his many statements that, when measured by the biblically recorded Christian gospel, are open denials of being Christian that a six year old in a Baptist Sunday School class can recognize as being anti-Christian.  

"I am your retribution," is an open denial of one of the basic principles of the Christian gospel, one of the core doctrines at the heart of both Christian conversion and evangelism.  

"But I say to you who listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.  If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from anyone who takes away your coat, do not withold even your shirt.  Give to everyone who begs from you and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again.  Do to others as you would have them do to you."  Luke 6:27-31, NRSV. 

This same teaching is also found in Matthew's gospel.  And where does "I am your retribution" fit anywhere into that?  

There are many principles found in the biblical record that are not easily discerned when it comes to their place in the individual practice of Christian faith, in spite of the fact that American Christianity, including conservative Evangelicals, have an abundance of pastors, Bible colleges, theological seminaries, and divinity schools who think they've found the answers others haven't, and fight with each other over who really professes truth and practices true faith.  This is one of the more difficult principles to accept, though Jesus makes it very easy to discern and understand, because it goes completely against human nature, and it's not visible among the warring factions and sects of the American church.  Many Christians find it difficult to love each other, much less love their enemies and if, according to Jesus, they're not even able to do that, it's no wonder they think an antichrist is a better political candidate than a sincere Catholic.  

But, to make it perfectly clear, Jesus didn't make any exceptions to this principle.  It's as clear as every other core principle which makes up the body of the Christian gospel, the new covenant in Christ.  So, from a Christian perspective, when a politician says, "I am your retribution," it means that those who think he is are following him, and not following Jesus.  

Christian Supporters of Trump Must Pick Up and Carry His Baggage

So, be honest.  If Trump is a Christian's retribution, then that Christian has failed to acknowledge and practice this basic, core principle of his or her faith.  And it means that all of the other evil that goes along with Trump, his adulterous affairs, his pathological lying, his cheating, the hatred and vitriol he spews against those he perceives as disloyal to him, also belongs to those who support him and accept this rhetoric.  There's no way around it.  And there's no Christian theological or doctrinal argument that can be made from biblical evidence to support this position.  

Jesus told his disciples and followers, "If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me."  So, in Christian practice, following Trump as retribution is denying Christ as redemption.  And it is not taking up a cross, it is taking up the adulterous affairs, greed that perpetrates dishonesty in business dealings, pathological lying, and all of the worldly evil that Trump claims as his identity.  

The support this man receives as a candidate for this nation's highest office is evidence that many conservative Evangelicals are no longer sincere Christians, if they ever were, but in believing what amounts to heresy, are in a state of apostasy.  

It's Time to Pack the Supreme Court

The political nature of the Supreme Court is telling us that the time has come for the Democrats in the Senate to pack the court with justices who are committed to the rule of law.   Impeachment and removal of corrupt and incompetent justices like Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Neal Gorsuch is the best way to go, but with the sharp partisan wall that now exists in Congress, getting a two thirds majority would require Republicans voting with integrity instead of by their politically driven opinion, and there aren't enough Republicans with integrity left, if any at all, for that to happen.  

So, packing the court with more justices, by amending the Judiciary act, is the only recourse.  

Democrats Must Have the Political Stamina and Strength

It may take some pressure from constituents to get it done, and it will take some boldness on the part of Senate Democrats but it must happen.  To get the act amended will take using the very narrow senate majority to break the filibuster and then to appoint the judges who will change the course of the court.  It must be done.  Where the weak links are located, and we pretty much know who those people are, pressure needs to be applied to make sure they get on board and vote with the rest of the Democratic party.  

Everyone in Congress clearly has a price.  Find out what it is for those who are needed to move this forward and make it happen.  This is one of those times when the President and the Vice-President can use their bully pulpit and make something happen.  I don't know that they will, both have been in the Senate and both seem reluctant to change its outdated way of doing business.  But those old majority plus rules are just a disadvantage for Democrats now.  Republicans, if they were in charge and wanted this, would do it in a heartbeat.  So why not?  

This is also a place where the President can make some strides in gaining support among progressives in his own party.  There's not a better way to ensure progressive influence for a generation to come than to nominate judges for the federal bench committed to that particular perspective.

Can It Be Done?

Yes.  

The Senate must break the filibuster first, which will allow for majority votes to pass legislation, not two thirds.  Then, it must amend the Judiciary Act to increase the number of seats provided for on the court.  Once the filibuster is broken, it only needs a majority vote to do so.  This means that Sinema or Manchin must be convinced to get on board, so that the VP can cast the deciding vote.  

Once amended, the President can appoint judges to fill the vacant seats.  We hope those would be liberal, left leaning, progressive and young.  The Supreme Court cannot stop the process.  

The key is for Democrats to gain, and keep a majority in both houses of Congress in order to keep a future Republican congress from doing the same thing.  So the other question that must be asked is whether the risk is worth it.  And whether the current Democratic leadership, including President Biden, is willing to see this move forward and push it.    

Is It Worth the Risk Taken to do This?

The only requirement, after the legislation is amended, is for the President to make the appointments, at least, that's all the Constitution requires.  The hearings in Congress are just to campaign for their vote.  But if we know the outcome of this in advance, we can dispense with the debate and move right on to the appointment.  We need enough judges to over-ride a conservative majority and neutralize their shenanigans, ruling on the law instead of with political bias.  They need to be young enough to be around for a while.  And they need to have a record indicating that they are willing to make bold rulings that benefit the American people over narrow, self-interests.  

The risk is that down the road, inevitably, there will be another President who wants to buttress his political perspective with the court's power, so another political court made up of a majority of Republicans could come along.  And the fact that taking this risk is now part of the discussion may be an indication that public opinion is beginning to think the Supreme Court cannot be reformed and cannot ever again be an objective body.  On the other hand, this could be a dash through the flames, something necessary to stop a fascist oligarchy from taking hold, and once the country comes back to its senses, it won't be necessary.  

Will we ever come back to our senses?  You tell me.

In a legal system, justice system and government that is committed to cumbersome procedures which make it difficult to do anything quickly, this can be done fast enough to stop the current chaos and confusion of the Roberts court, and save the rule of law before this court destroys it.  With the vote of Vice-President Harris there if necessary, this could be done in a matter of a month or so.  Whether it will be, or whether it would even be considered, is uncertain.  I'm just adding this voice to those who are now calling for it to happen.  

Visionary leadership requires taking bold, courageous steps to make things happen which sometimes result in saving the country from disaster.  And this is one of those steps.  

If the three Trump appointees were really interested in preserving the court's integrity, and in enforcing the rule of law, they would have recused themselves from this case.  The fact that they haven't completely discredits them as attorneys and judges.

A Values-Focused Faith Produces a Plan for Israeli-Palestinian Peace

Quakers Propose Israeli-Palestinian Peace Plan 

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the children of God.  Matthew 5:9

The biggest difference between Quakers and conservative Evangelicals is in how they live by their faith.  Evangelicals tend to be doctrinal purists, and, in spite of vehement denial, focus their belief in Christian conversion on getting all the details of a convoluted, twisted set of doctrinal standards and theological beliefs right.  Then that leads to God's acceptance and forgiveness.  

The Quakers, on the other hand, leave doctrine and theology up to the individual Christian.  They believe conversion is the spiritual connection that occurs when "that of God within," that part of human existence that is created in God's image, connects with the spirit of God, uniting the believer with both God, and with others who believe.  And that leads to a faith that is focused, not on "getting it right," but on living by a visible set of values, found in the Christian gospel, which define one's life, and which give it mission, purpose that includes valuing, caring about and loving all other people as fellow human beings created in the image of God, and making human existence better.  

The core values defined by Quakers are derived from the same biblical text Evangelicals claim to believe.  These values, which, when lived out, define one as Christian according to Quaker doctrine, and include simplicity, peace, integrity, community, equality and stewardship.  It's easy enough to find several Quaker sources that will define and explain those values.  But I want to focus on the values Quakers are bringing into this particular discussion of resolving the long, ongoing conflict in the Middle East, caused by opening up Palestine to Jewish immigration following World War 2 and the Holocaust.  Personally, I think what they have to offer here is not only worth considering and implementing, but I think it has the potential to work, provided a similar set of values is instilled within, and observed by those who are directly involved.  

It's Time to Set Aside Those Whose Rhetoric Ends in Violent Failure, and Listen to Those Who Have Experience and Success in the Application of Peace, Equality and Justice

"For centuries, Quakers have worked for peace," according to the April 12th article by the American Friends Service Committee.  "This mission is a practical expression of the nonviolent message of the gospels, 'Love your neighbor as yourself''."

It's not like this is some outside group making a political statement on the Israel-Gaza war.  The Quakers are there, starting refugee work in Gaza in 1949, and are still there, along with the West Bank and in Israel.  They've operated a school in Ramallah for 150 years, which, according to the AFSC, was one of the first educational institutions to provide education for Palestinian women, and have a meeting house in Ramallah as well.  So, the AFSC, as a Quaker voice, have first-hand knowledge of of the entrenched inequality, violence and injustice that has persisted in Palestine for decades.  According to the committee, they have known that violence would eventually result from desperation, and have been there every time it has, with relief, and with the application of the values of equality, peace and justice.  

You could say that, when it comes to the Middle East, Quakers are "woke."  And that's a good thing, because the hatred and violence that is advocated by those who are critical of, and opposed to this kind of societal wokeness only makes the problems worse.  Being woke is the only hope there is to resolving them and to bringing peace.  

So the Quakers are speaking with first hand knowledge, from a position that has a foundation undergirded by real values that are actually practiced, and not just talked about, and from the experience of having actually helped to bring about peace, equality and justice in those places where they've been able to minister and apply the resources available to them.  They speak with authority.  And instead of listening to those whose vision for both Israel and the Palestinian people always end in violence and have failed over and over, maybe it is time to listen to those who actually value peace, equality, and justice, and have the integrity to be consistent in their application.  

The Quaker Peace Plan Will Work, But it Will Take Commitment, Time, Resources and Integrity

So what's different about what the Quakers are proposing that gives this the potential for success? 

First of all, there is recognition and acknowledgement that the situation which has been created has produced violence from both sides of the conflict.  It's not just the immediate situation, prompted by the October 7th attack on Israel, that is at the core of the violence which is taking place.  Problems caused in a place where three different religions have a focus on the "sacredness" and importance of the geographic location go back to even before the time when the restrictions on Jewish immigration were set aside and the state of Israel was established.  This solution addresses the root causes, and it is based on a very honest assessment of those causes, rather than on the typical finger pointing and the political and religious bias that contributes to the violence and hatred.  

Second, this plan includes neutralizing the religious and political bias that is at the heart of Middle Eastern terrorism and violence.  It will take the empowerment of leadership committed to doing this to make it work.  There is a clear recognition in the plan that identifies those who have the power to make this plan work, and what they must do in order to achieve this, including the Israeli government, Hamas and other armed Palestinian groups, and the governments of the Western Allies.  Rather than attempts to de-legitimize each other, blame each other or get some kind of advantage, this plan assigns equal responsibility for using the power they have to make things happen.  The research they've done on how possible it is for each of those groups to do what they are required to do is remarkable.  

A Lot to Ask

This plan is not advocating for a cheap, easy peace.  There is a recognition of sacrifice required from all parties.  Hamas, and other Palestinian militant groups born out of the tangle of Middle Eastern politics, must deny their own nature, and hold those who have committed human rights violations, or who broke the law, accountable.  This means they must take responsibility for the October 7th attack by bringing those responsible to justice.  That's a gigantic ask, but a necessary one if peace is to be achieved.  

Likewise, Israel must release Palestinian political prisoners, and it must recognize independent, autonomous Palestinian territory, which means giving up settlements in the West Bank and extending full civil rights to all Palestinians who are in its own territory.  The Western Allies, specifically the United States and the United Kingdom, must assume responsibility for backing these policies, treating Palestinians and Israelis equally, supporting and helping enforce the ICJ restrictions on Israel and basically guaranteeing the original two-state solution.  

I would add to this that it means a full denial of mistaken, errant Evangelical eschatology which basically states the belief that Israel is entitled to all the land and the Palestinians should be run off, because they're not entitled to it, even though they've lived there for thousands of years. This belief is based on some convoluted, false connections between the Old Testament covenant, the book of Daniel in the Old Testament and the book of Revelation.  It's pretty clear that this misinterpretation of biblical prophecy is neither accurate, nor is it "infallible," because it has helped produce violence and hatred, and has contributed to a problem rather than resolving it.  That's clear evidence, from any Evangelical perspective, that it's not God's will. 

Eliminating the Profiteering on War and Destruction 

One of the points made by the AFSC, as part of the direct and immediate action taken by the Quakers themselves is to "Divest from corporations profiting from militarism, including the occupation of Palestine."  

By including this particular statement in their overall plan, the Quakers have identified one of the root causes of war in the world today.  Someone benefits from this, through the sale of arms and equipment required to wage war.  They have a vested interest in keeping this war going and they have placed a lower value on the life of some human beings than they have placed on the dollar amount in their bank account.  To get to that point in one's thinking requires the complete abandonment of any values, and shutting down the cash flow is not only an action advocating for peace, but one of the quickest ways to get there.  If the warring parties only have enough weapons to defend themselves, and not enough to wage an aggressive war, the fighting would end long before anyone has to come around to a more peaceful way of thinking.

Protesting United States aid to Israel is not equal to undermining the existence of Israel.  As surely as Iran and Russia have helped provide weapons for aggression to Hamas, what the United States provides for Israel has enabled this extensive invasion of, and destruction of Gaza.  If either group only had enough weapons for their own defense, and not enough for an invasion or all out war, this would be over by now, and we'd be at least one step closer to peace.  

This Plan is Not Perfect

The plan is based on a belief in the equality of human life, on the exercise of free will, and in a dependence on something, whether it is a higher power, or just human intellect finally figuring out the futility of injustice which only leads to violence, destruction and death.  It also involves the use of existing international law, which has worked to resolve the whole Israeli-Palestinian conflict over the years, and which has proposed solutions which the major western powers have either not enforced, or modified to suit their own politics.  

There are Jewish and Palestinian voices calling for peace and expressing a willingness to have it.  Those voices need to be supported and strengthened by those who have power and influence and can support their initiatives and their desires for peace.  

I think one huge part of this involves the United States getting hold of itself, and figuring a path out of the confusion and chaos we are now experiencing as one of our political parties has lost itself and its American patriotism, and is contributing to the chaos and instability that causes these violent flare-ups for the purpose of advancing their own political causes.  We currently have a Supreme Court that is willing to let the rule of law fall into ruin, and politicians who favor a Russian autocracy because it has the potential of taking away power from their political enemies.  This same kind of autocratic fascism plunged the world into disaster in the 20th century and that's where it is headed now, if we don't do something to stop it.  

Thank you to the Quakers for having the virtue to allow values to speak truth to power.  I hope power is listening and willing to make the commitment.