Category: racism

Law and Order

Every evening when we are not hosting or attending a dinner party, attending a play, concert, or conference, we lie down in bed and watch a movie or a few episodes of a TV series. Ito pushes a button and our large TV screen rises just beyond the end of our bed. Over the last few months, we have watched over 200 episodes for the original Law and Order show, starting for some reason with season 5 (1995). I want to explain why we have found this show so interesting.

The first half of each show follows the search by the police (two regulars) for the perpetrator of a crime (usually a murder). The second half presents the trial to convict the accused perpetrator conducted by two regular justice department characters. The stories themselves can be quite intriguing and the crimes and the issues around them explore every conceivable social issue in America today (e.g., affirmative action, gangs, capital punishment, same sex marriage, abortion, race and sexual discrimination, treatment of minors).

The regulars in the show—police and prosecutors –are “real” people, i.e. flawed but honestly trying to do their best. Aside from the acting being superb, what impresses me most is that for each controversial issue the arguments on both sides are strongly presented. To say the episodes are thought provoking would be an understatement. I don’t always understand the bases on which the judge allows or disallows evidence but we do learn a lot about what the law says and how it is applied. The show is still being produced and is now in its 25th season. To last that long, it must be good. We have many episodes to go and will eagerly watch them all.

Tolerance

Tolerance is an essential feature of a flourishing society, but it is a low bar. Jesus of Nazareth told his followers that they should “love thy neighbors as themselves.” This view is widely shared among most religions.

My Afghan friends say Islam is rooted in both love and peace. The Qur’an and Islamic teachings emphasize God’s love and compassion as central, motivating principles, with believers encouraged to love God and one another in return. The Prophet Muhammad is portrayed as a model of mercy, kindness, and tolerance, teaching forgiveness and respect for others, regardless of their beliefs. But the Quran also demands harsh punishments of transgressors, and we have seen horrible acts perpetrated in the name of Islam by radical wings of the religion (e.g. Wahabis in Saudi Arabia and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan).

Like the Qur’an, the Christian Bible also demands harsh punishments of transgressors. Radical wings of Christianity have also undertaken horrible acts. For example, the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol involved participants motivated by radical Christian nationalist beliefs, blending religious rhetoric with calls for violence and anti-democratic actions. Leaders within certain Neo-Charismatic Pentecostal movements promoted the idea of “spiritual warfare,” which helped justify extreme actions among followers.

Most Christians and Muslims ignore these demands in their holy books, which would send them to jail most anywhere in the world. My favorite presentation of the bible’s horrible demands was a scene in the TV series “West Wing”:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CPjWd4MUXs.

My question here is how best to promote Jesus’s call to love our neighbors. We are born with the protective instinct to trust those we know and distrust “others”. But with the huge increase in wealth from trade and other interactions and cooperation, dealings with “others” increased. The siloing of religious and racial groups gave way to tolerance, and with greater exposure, tolerance gave way often to friendship. Though some of us were born with an urge to explore and meet new and different people, most are not. Their natural aversion to “others” requires social encouragement to overcome it.

Look at almost any of today’s TV series (especially British). The total mix of black, white, brown and yellow has now become the norm and feels natural. A white man’s boss is as likely to be a black woman as the other way around. This is a wonderful development in which each person is judged on their own talents and character. It is also a more interesting world. But how did we get from the culture of tribalism to our more exciting world of today?

Teaching our children the rightness of treating each person individual on the basis of their talents and character and then exposing them to those not like them was the path. As more white people encountered blacks, they became more relaxed around them. TV shows like the Bill Cosby Show were incredibly important in making normal blacks seem “normal” to whites.

Gays became more fully accepted as more and more families discovered that one of their members was gay. But the TV show Will and Grace played the incredibly important role played by the Bill Cosby Show of demystifying Gays and making the straight public more understanding and comfortable with them. Combined with Jesus’s call to love our neighbors, actual exposure to all types does the job. Companies that want a more interesting (and productive) work environment will go out of their way to hire from all races and creeds. This is an area in which real progress has been made toward a fairer, and more interesting society.

DEI—a nuanced assessment

DEI — “diversity, equity and inclusion” programs or policies are efforts to promote fairness and full participation of people who have been historically underrepresented or subjected to discrimination. The normal standard of fairness when employing workers is that they are hired (or admitted to college) on the basis of merit—who best satisfied to the requirements for the job. This is what taxpayers who want the best results from their tax dollars, want as well.

Many universities set aside the admission of the best qualified students to reflect the fact that may blacks who might have greater potential than their past performance test score indicated because of racial discrimination should be given preferential treatment. But these “affirmative action” programs where struct down by the Supreme Courts 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and its companion case against the University of North Carolina, which effectively ended race-based affirmative action in college admissions.

To make room for more blacks, Harvard had raised the bar and thus discriminated against Asian applicants with higher scores. It is appropriate that the standards of equal treatment and merit should be observed for government jobs and public universities.

But private firms and colleges should be able to hire or admit whoever they want. Both firms and colleges may well want the social benefits from greater diversity. Not only can it make the workplace more interesting but the broadened understanding of different racial and religious groups generates greater social harmony as well.

I don’t know what DEI programs generally did or aimed for and am quite willing to believe that they wasted human resources. However, that is quite different from the desirability of properly educating our children about different races and cultures and the history of slavery and harms of racial discrimination. Along with civics, such instruction belongs in elementary school curriculums. Just as the enlightened treatment of gays, blacks, Muslims and other groups in movies and TV shows has led the way toward better understanding, exposure and education are important for building a better and more accepting society.

The government should not interfere in the choices of private firms and university about the composition of their work forces and student bodies.

War movies

The Holocaust was such a shocking atrocity—effecting far more Jews than the 6 million murdered in Nazi ovens—that it is almost impossible to communicate it meaningfully to new generations. Many outstanding movies have done their best to do so. The pictures of thousands of rotting bodies do not have the same impact as the personal stories of individuals and holocaust films have done an outstanding job of telling them. The Diary of Ann Frank introduced most of us to the Holocaust’s horrors in 1959. But “Europa Europa,” “Schindler’s List,”  “Life is Beautiful,” “The Pianist,” “Son of Saul,” among others each present poignant and original examinations of the ugliness and heart wrenching harm of antisemitism. Just this last week I was moved again by yet another approach to the story in the recent film “White Bird.”

It is important to confront such ugliness in the hopes of reducing the prospect of repeating them. Hitler convinced his countrymen (to the extent that they even knew what he was doing) that the best way to get rid of the “Jewish problem” was to get rid of the Jews. Sadly, Israel itself is propagating yet another genocide this time in Gaza, and West Bank and possible beyond, by convincing many Israelis that the only way to get rid of the “Palestinian problem” (and to have a “democratic Jewish state”) is to get rid of the Palestinians.

War presents a tougher challenge because many believe they might find glory in war. But the reality of war is ugly and tragic. Every country must defend itself against attack, but the United State has not fought a war on its own territory for over one hundred and sixty years. None the less we have been at war somewhere most of the time. Most movies about war have faithfully reflected its ugliness—not only for those killed by them but for their surviving loved ones and the wounded survivors who live on without limbs or with other impairments. But we continue to wage them most of the time.

Movies like “The Bridge on the River Kwai” (the film site of which I visited in Sri Lanka), “Lawrence of Arabia”, “Dunkirk”, and “1917”, depict the heroism in war that might seem attractive but also its ugliness. “All Quiet on the Western Front,” Paths of Glory,” “The Deer Hunter,” and “Grave of the Fireflies,” explore in greater depth the horror of war. Last night I watched the heart wrenching story of a WWII Irish solder’s return to Dunkirk many years later, which wonderfully depicts the absurdity of most wars.

So why do we fight so many of them and in far away places? Much of my work has been in war zones such as Bosnia, Afghanistan, Israel, Iraq, and Kosovo. While I have never been in the tranches, I have certainly heard gun fire. But more importantly, I have witnessed the aftermath of war and embarrassingly the bumbling incompetence of attempted American rule of conquered territories. “Warren’s travels to Afghanistan, Bosnia, Iraq, Israel, Kosovo and beyond”

But why do we so readily go to war? Perhaps because they are “over there” it is too easy to send our youth off wherever and “thank them for their service.” Unfortunately, there are also too many people who think we must flatten our enemies, ala Adolf Hitler, rather than diplomatically cultivate peaceful, get along relations with them. If American’s understood more clearly the ugliness of war, and the futility of taming neighbors via suppression or even eradication, we could have a more peaceful and prosperous world.  

From the River to the Sea

The subtitle of my memoire is “From the River to the Sea, All should be Free.” I deliberately chose this potentially provocative statement to warn readers to expect to encounter my political views and to refuse to allow the English language to be twisted by the political views of others. In the same spirit, I always stated that “All Lives Matter” rather than the more restrictive “Black Lives Matter.”  I have always defended the rights of All people to peace, justice and equal rights.

I asked my AI search engine the following:

What different groups chant “From the River to the Sea “ and what does each group mean by that?

The reply was:

The phrase “From the River to the Sea” is used by various groups with differing interpretations:

  1. Pro-Palestinian Activists: For many, it symbolizes the aspiration for Palestinian liberation and equality across the region from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, often seen as a call for peace and justice.
  2. Jewish and Pro-Israel Groups: Many perceive it as a threat to Israel’s existence, viewing it as a call for the elimination of the Jewish state, especially when used by groups like Hamas.

“When someone says from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free, I question, ‘Where do you see the Jews going?'” said Yair Szlak, president and CEO of Montreal-based Federation CJA. ‘That is hate speech, right, because it is into the sea that they seek to send the Jews.’”

Take a close look at this amazing statement. Mr. Sziak implies that the only way Palestinians can be free is by getting rid of the Jews!!  Aside from being a absurd statement, it is sadly revealing of the thinking of some Israelis.

“Yousef Munayyer, head of the Palestine-Israel program at the Arab Center Washington D.C., has written extensively about the meaning of the slogan before and since Hamas’s attacks on Oct. 7, which led to Israel’s current bombardment of the Gaza Strip. 

“Munayyer says today, the phrase is used to reference the lack of freedoms Palestinians have in the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, which includes the state of Israel as well as the Gaza Strip and the occupied territories of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. 

“’That’s what has to change. That doesn’t mean that there should be any violence against Israelis,’ Munayyer said.” https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/from-the-river-to-the-sea-palestine-1.7033881

From the River to the Sea–One State

Under Benjamin Netanyahu and his far-right coalition government, Israel is committing suicide. These are my thoughts on how it might be saved.

Israel’s response to Hamas’s brutal attack on Israel on Oct 7 has been the most inhuman effort to wipe out a people since the Holocaust. Netanyahu called for revenge “implementing a ‘full siege’ of the densely populated Gaza Strip — ‘no electricity, no food, no fuel,’ said Defense Minister Yoav Gallant — as part of a campaign that is aimed at destroying Hamas’s military capabilities” Wash Post “Israel-Gaza war Hamas”  As of May 14th “Palestinian health authorities say Israel’s ground and air campaign in Gaza has killed more than 35,000 people, mostly civilians, and driven most of the enclave’s 2.3 million people from their homes.” https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/gaza-death-toll-how-many-palestinians-has-israels-campaign-killed-2024-05-14/

Virtually every country in the world except the US has condemned Israels genocide as have many Jews. The Washington Post has an excellent account of a mother and son coping with opposite views on these events: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/05/19/israel-gaza-university-protests-arrests/

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has applied for warrants for the arrest of Hamas leader Yehiya Sinwar, Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades leader Mohammed Diab Ibrahim al-Masri and Hamas political chief Ismail Haniyeh, as well as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in their conduct in these attacks. US congressional and administration officials have attacked the ICC’s initiative (though it is supported by every legal authority I respect) and threatened retaliation in a display of the hypocrisy increasingly undermining US status in the world.

Patrick Leahy, author of the Leahy Law, which “prohibits U.S. aid to any unit of a foreign security force if the secretary of state has “credible information” the unit has committed a gross violation of human rights: murder, rape, torture, forced disappearance or other flagrant denials of the right to life, liberty and personal security.” states that Israel is guilty of such violations and the law should prevent Biden from sending weapons to Israel. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/05/20/israel-leahy-human-rights-aid/

The recent attack and counterattack were continuations of 70 years of unresolved relations between the areas Palestinian and Jewish residents. Netanyahu remains adamantly against revising the Two State Solution (Oslo Accord) future and Saudi Arabia is equally insistent on it. Ireland, Norway, and Spain will officially recognize Palestine as a state from next week and other countries are expected to follow. 

The so far unsurmounted challenge was not a result of the gathering of Jews in what is now Israel, but the determination to make it a democratic Jewish State. Religious states, such as Iran, are always problematic. Israel can only be a democratic Jewish state by eliminating one way or another most Palestinians. American’s founding fathers had the wisdom to prohibit that by putting the separation of church and state in our constitution.

If Israel gave up being a Jewish state it could remain democratic and absorb the entire area from the River to the Sea. And every resident would receive the same protection of the law and equal rights. It should consider a federal structure in which smaller districts with local administrations might well be predominately Muslim or Jewish. https://wcoats.blog/2024/01/19/one-state-solution-for-palestine-israel/

Anne with an E

Several weeks ago I complained that the biggest winners of this year’s Emmy awards were series I had stopped watching after a few episodes because there were virtually no characters in them to like and the real world already has enough bad apples. In response to my complaint my former IMF colleague, Marta Castello Branco, who had been a member of the IMF technical assistance missions that I led to the central banks of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan in 1992-3, recommended that I watch “Anne with an E.”  Boy was she right.

In three seasons with ten episodes each, “Anne with an E” follows the adventures of a brilliant, well-read but socially inept orphan girl adopted at the age of 13 by a relatively old brother and sister who had never married. The drama takes place in Canada around 1800. Anne is super smart and used her expansive imagination and extensive reading of the classics to survive the cruelties of 12 years in an orphanage before her adoption. She talks faster than a speeding bullet and is rarely quiet. The series is essentially about the coming of age experiences of children in a small farming community as seen largely through Anne’s eyes.

Being a homely red head, Anne’s growing up challenges are more than most, which can be difficult enough for the average child.  The series frankly and honestly treats the racial biases toward blacks, native Indians, gays, and other minorities at the time, the ugliness of school bullies, and the ridged moral codes of the towns people. But through the ups and downs of life most members of the farming community learn and grow in their understanding of their fellow community members.  Anne plays a large role in the struggle to make the world a better place while trying to understand her own place in it. There are plenty of people to like. The show is excellently cast and performed and gripping and uplifting. I can’t recommend it highly enough. Thank you Marta.

The Houthi’s and Us

After almost a decade of trying to end Saudi Arabian bombing of the Houthi government in Northern Yemen, President Biden has ordered multiple American bombing attacks on Northern Yemen because of Houthi attacks on ships sending arms to Israel in support of its genocide in Gaza. You might need to read that sentence again to get all its parts.

The first point is that once again the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that the Congress must authorize war before the President can launch one, has been violated. And why did Biden think it necessary to bomb Yemen? Because the Houthi attacks were interfering with our shipment of weapons to Israel in support of Israel’s vicious murder of Palestinians by bombing and starvation. “The group’s official spokesman reiterated that attacks on vessels transiting the Bab el-Mandeb Strait toward the Suez Canal will continue until “Gaza [receives] the food and medicine it needs.” That shouldn’t be hard to accomplish.

Even if the US Congress authorized the American bombing of Yemen, it would be bad policy for the U.S., for the Palestinians, and for Israel. “Weighing additional US responses to Houthi Red Sea attacks” America’s interest should be peace and prosperity for all in the Middle East (and all the world). Supporting Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza does not serve that goal and makes the U.S. complicit in Israel’s genocide. Moreover, Europe’s relative silence and the silence of any of us to Israel’s inhuman war in Gaza (including Biden, Trump and Nikki Haley) makes them all complicit. “War in Gaza exposes European philosophy ethically bankrupt”

The march toward the aridification of Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank is too unbelievably savage to spell out. Such a fate should not be wished on any people. “Unfolding genocide as ever single person in Gaza goes hungry” “Israel’s Netanyahu its Cromwell”

But this war, following a century of Zionist mistreatment of Palestinians in their homeland, is destroying Israel. “Israel is facing existential threats from inside and out-there’s one solution” Israel is committing suicide. To survive, Israel must become a secular democratic state that give equal rights and fair treatment to all who inhabit it. “One state solution for Palestine/Israel”

U.S. leadership is failing once again and is waning. The lust for war by the hawks has overpowered American self-interest once again. War with Iran can’t be far behind. Taiwan can wait (a bit).  “Gaza and Yemen sound death knell for US led rules based global order”

From the River to the Sea

I oppose the death penalty, but on occasion have said (and perhaps written) that I am tempted to relax my opposition for those who deliberately spread lies (or bomb babies). This is my cherished right in the U.S. where we enjoy (still to some extent) our freedom to say whatever we want. I strongly oppose antisemitic statements as well as false claims that condemning acts of the Israeli government is antisemitic. But I defend the right of people to says such things (but would never invite them to my home). It is also my right to condemn their rudeness.

The demonstrations of Jewish (Israeli) and Arab (Palestinian) students condemning Hamas’ Oct 7 attack on Israel and Israel’s subsequent attack on Gaza (and increased violence against Palestinians in the West Bank) are understandably intense. To be clear, violence from demonstrators toward anyone (such as blocking access to class) is not protected by our First Amendment right to free speech and would be certainly condemned by me. But shouting death to the Palestinians or to the Jews without actual threats of violence is protected. The First Amendment is not needed to protect speech we agree with or like but speech we disagree with and/or are offended by. The benefits of such freedom in our society are huge but seem to need renewed support.

I am particularly annoyed by deliberate distortions of the meaning of chants like “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” I share that aspiration. Indeed, everyone from the river to the sea should be free. Representative Rashida Tlaib, Democrat of Michigan, was censured by House lawmakers for saying it.

Unfortunately, disapproval and disagreement have morphed into inappropriate sanctions:

“The brother of a British-Israeli man who had been killed during Hamas’ attack on 7 October… told the BBC that he found the marches in the UK for Gaza upsetting and intimidating. Chants like ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’ were, he observed, evidence of deep-rooted and growing antisemitism in British society.

“The problem is not just that many British Jews assume the UK has an antisemitism problem based on a highly dubious interpretation of the chant’s meaning. It is that establishment media organisations are echoing that misunderstanding and treating it as more newsworthy than Israel killing Palestinian babies, with the UK government’s blessing. It is just one illustration of a pattern of reporting by western media outlets skewing their news priorities in ways that reveal a racist hierarchy of concern. Jewish fears are of greater import than actual Palestinian deaths, even babies’ deaths. 

“The hypocrisy is especially hard to stomach, given a central Israeli justification for its subsequent genocidal rampage through Gaza. Israel promoted the claim that Hamas had beheaded 40 Israeli babies on 7 October – a story that was widely reported as fact, even though no evidence was ever produced for it.”  “Israel-Palestine war: Gaza slogan bigger news than murder of babies”

New York Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik’s attack on the President of MIT, Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania for defending free (if repugnant) speech was particularly disgusting and alarming. The President of the U of Penn, Liz Magill, was evening forced to resign. While there may be some grey areas between shouting that all Arabs or all Jews (or Trumpeters) should die and actually threatening their lives, the attacks we have been seeing on the freedom to say nasty things is dangerous to a valued American institution. So is the increasing loss of civility (good manners). To preserve (or reestablish) the society we cherish, we need to use our freedom to speak to defend both speech and manners.

One of our Strengths

Two sights/thoughts are sure to bring tears to my eyes. One is seeing a child loose hope for its future. Almost nothing is sadder. The other is seeing people fighting for causes they believe in to help another person or society more generally. These happy tears are a response to the goodness in people.

But not everyone shares the same view of what the right cause is. Our founding fathers had the great wisdom to know that only by confronting the arguments for opposing views could we hope to find common ground or at least to understand and respect other views even if we did not share them and thus live peacefully together. So, in the very first Amendment to our constitutions (the Bill of Rights) they established that:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

We seem to be coming out of the sad generation over protected by “helicopter moms” who were so afraid of hearing something they might disagree with that they tried to ban such speech or demonstrations in direct violation of our Constitution. But the dangerous and pathetic Woke generation seems to be passing. The sharply different views over the tragic war in Israel and Palestine are testing our commitment to the wisdom of free speech and step by step that wisdom seems to be winning.

While the Millennials (the scardicat, afraid of their shadows generation mom kept from developing protective skins) tried to shut down and prevent encounters (speeches, demonstrations, etc.) that might offend their views (sought “safe spaces”), Gen Z seems to be reverting to the openness and search for the truth championed by our founding fathers.

There have always been some dissenters in every generation. Sadly a few people are just nasty (redneck fascist types). It’s hard for me to know how to characterize an adult like Governor DeSantis who cancels the self-governance contract with Disneyland and ordered the ban of the pro-Palestinian student group Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) from university campuses in Florida, because he doesn’t like what they are saying. “A Land of Immigrants”

We should go out of our way to hear views we might disagree with, but to be construction we should urge our “opponents” to debate politely, to be civil, and do so ourselves.  Name calling, for example calling criticism of the Israeli government “antisemitism,” does not contribute to better mutual understanding of difficult issues. Our demonstrations should always be peaceful. We have work to do on those fronts, but the urge to ban seems to be retreating. The following article about the evolving situation of opposing views on the Israeli/Hamas/Gaza wars is encouraging to me and well worth reading. https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-palestine-war-facing-suspension-mit-university-students-continue-pro-palestine-advocacy