Why Have So Many Left-Wing Groups Condemned Israel?

 

It seems strange that organizations such as Black Lives Matter, Harvard University student groups, and La Raza (open border advocates) would broadcast their support or tolerance for Hamas while sharply condemning Israel for its response to October 7.

What could be their motivations? One could defend their support by citing the Left’s claimed sympathy for the underdog (Hamas in this instance) or ignorance of the details of the massacre.

 But more likely, it's mostly ideological based on hostility to principles of modern democratic Western civilization: individual freedom, including the rights of free speech, respect for different points of view and religious tolerance.  The Left and its various subgroups are united in that perspective. Their sympathy for the cause of fellow leftists is shared.

 In most respects Israel practices these principles and they are all anathema to the far left in America and elsewhere. [(so-called "progressives")]

 Think of the collection of attitudes on the left which in shorthand are known as “woke”. The holder of anti-leftists views is subject to "cancellation"; those expressing approved sentiments are granted access to "safe spaces" free from disagreement. Those uttering proscribed points of view are prevented, sometimes by force, from expressing themselves.

 Israel may indeed be a special case due to the prevalence of anti-Semitism in the world which has existed for at least three millennia.  But more important, maybe the key is that it is an island of Western civilization in a sea of antagonism. The left would condemn it for that reason alone.

 Consider the matter of homosexuality:  Support for it is seemingly mandatory in left-wing circles in the West and accepted in Israel. But its practice is a capital offense in most of the Muslim world. That fact does not mitigate leftist opposition to Israel however.

 Same scenario exists for other topics as well:  A woman's rights? Same attitude. Attacking those same Western values is more important. Democracy lives in Israel. Hamas killed it in Gaza

 Those critical of the US stance on the Jewish state might be termed "anti-American". What America wants, they oppose. But I suggest that is too restrictive. The left can be seen as opposed to American policy when it promotes and protects Western values. Thus, pro-Israel nations such as Britain and France have also incurred the wrath of Hamas and its supporters.

Israel

 

The Sensible Conservative is back and needed now more than ever! 

I apologize to my many faithful readers for my absence. Alas, a major health crisis hammered my family several months ago. Fortunately, the person of concern is recovering nicely – but the road still stretches on. Although the progress is accelerating, I can't deny that the crisis was too draining – in all respects – for me to focus on anything else. But I'm recovering as well. Thank you for your patience. 

Israel is in a pickle. The US under Biden after the October 7 massacre promised  unqualified, steadfast support for the ally to do whatever it deemed necessary to destroy Hamas. But, in a few weeks, via Secretary of State Antony Blinken, equivocation began. In the face of widespread Arab protests over Israeli military action.  The administration urged caution and restraint “too many Palestinians are being killed", Blinken noted one hopes the softening of America’s support is for public consumption only. If Israel is to accomplish its mission of destruction, of course death will be a companion to the effort – some intentional, some not. 

[Certainly, there is no incentive to kill Palestinians for no purpose.  Murderous anti- semitics may kill Jews merely because they exist, not the other way around.] 

As for the Arab reaction, are they not aware of the sheer horribleness of the Hamas slaughter? Given the extensive publicity to the events of October 7, ignorance is not an excuse.  But simple hostility to Israel's existence is probably a large part of it. Details don't matter.  Hatred is justification enough for siding with Hamas. 

In spite of America’s expressed trepidation, Jerusalem, so far, seems determined to continue its campaign through to completion. 

Victory, however, will not be a long-term solution to the underlying worry that  perpetually plagues all thoughtful Israelis. Can the country survive as a virtual island in a sea of hostility? 

Certainly, the apparent easing of American support is troubling. This worry is greatly increased by the fact that a substantial portion of America's population under the age of forty oppose the war against Hamas.  By contrast, older Americans are strong backers. Thus, the prospect of future support is not the given it once was.  

What does this mean? For its survival, Israel must reduce its dependance on American military support.  It isn't likely to be as dependable as it has been in the past. And as for Europe, it will likely follow America's lead, for better or worse. 

Israel, as it has been doing, must accelerate its effort to make peace with Saudi Arabia and other states alarmed by the nature of their enemies, Iran, et al. 

Non-aggression pacts with the likes of Egypt and Jordan are valuable, but more substantial and intertwined agreements are better. 

Undoubtedly none of these observations or predictions constitutes new thoughts for Israel's leadership.  But is the same true for its citizens who must welcome the need to pay more money for defense (to cover the shortage from America) and the wooing of former enemies as friends.

Fox Needs to be Less Tolerant of Trump’s Nasty, Divisive Language

 

In the wake of Donald Trump’s generally negative influence on the congressional vote of last year, there was a noticeable reduction in the number of plaudits from Fox News, et al.  Florida’s Ron DeSantis appeared to be the beneficiary.  Although polls reflected a dip in the former president’s Republican base soon thereafter, more recent samplings of party opinion suggest not only a halt to the erosion but even a return to prior levels of majority GOP support.

For those who believe the renomination of Trump would be a Republican and national disaster (TSC firmly included), Fox needs to heighten efforts to thwart his plans.

How?  Besides highlighting the candidacies – announced or otherwise- of competing conservatives, Fox can contribute to a revived weakening of Donald Trump’s support by being less tolerant of his nasty and divisive language which so poisons political discourse.

A good example of how his words should not be treated occurred recently when the black New York City prosecutor then considering Trump’s indictment was called an “animal”.  On one level, the term as applied was silly and reminiscent of a middle school student.  But it was more condemnable when the target was a black person (historically labeled “apes” by many bigots).

A second tier Fox anchor commenting on the statement lamely noted that he wouldn’t have said that but agreed the prosecutor was displaying bias.

Not good enough.  Trump’s remarks were simply not to be tolerated or excused, but rather strongly condemned as being “beyond the pale”.  Standards of acceptable behavior or speech (routinely ignored by Donald Trump) deserve to be re-established.  Pointing out his breach is appropriate and it should be forcefully done.  Maybe such rebuke from a trusted network will serve the conservative cause.

 

Why Does Donald Trump Remain Popular with So Many Republicans?

 

TSC has never been a fan of Donald Trump.  I’ll admit that I voted for him last time – how could I not, given the alternative.  But my ballot was indeed cast with reluctance.

Personally, I do not like him.  He is not a good person.  He treats people deplorably who refuse t do his bidding or display less than 100% loyalty (a character trait he demands but does not reciprocate).

Yet, there are millions of my fellow Republicans who do not share my disdain for our former President.

Why not?  It’s not as if the deficiencies just recited are concealed.

I suggest that Trump adherents fall into two basic categories.  The first  smaller one, is actually attracted to the former leader’s crude and mean ways.  They are people who are angry- with considerable justification – with the way the Left depicts them (deplorables) and delight that Donald Trump can “dish it out” against them as they would like to.

Other Republicans ignore his manner (unlike the first group) but they really don’t care about politics or focus on Trump’s deficient personal qualities.  Rather, they judge Donald Trump by how they felt when he was president. 

That attitude was best illustrated by a postal worker I know.  She’s plainly middle class in upbringing and friendly and pleasant in manner.  She knew that I was interested in politics and a conservative.  One day recently she asked what I thought of Trump.  I told her of his character flaws.   “I don’t care about those things,” she replied, “but when he was President, I felt safe.  With President Biden, I don’t.”

Millions of good people feel that way. 

The GOP’s task is to nominate a candidate who can foster the same reassurance without the Trump baggage which alienates political independents and others.

 

Perspective on Mass Murders

 

There is an understandable reaction of horror when learning of the latest slaughters in New York State, Texas and Tennessee.  This is followed by a cry of incredulity:  Again?  When will the seemingly senseless violence end?  A list of past massacres is recalled:  Columbine in 1999, Sandy Hook in 2012 and Parkland in 2018.

But our present outrage and recall distort reality.   It may sound callous to say so, but the total of 87 killed in the mass murders above are far fewer than the homicides occurring each year in major cities such as Chicago (758), Los Angeles (352), Indianapolis (230).  [Source: 2021 FBI statistics]  While not all of these victims were shot, most were.

Maybe we as a nation have become numb to these facts.  Plainly, the impact of learning that a young person was a victim of a drive-by shooting on Chicago’s crime-ridden southside doesn’t generate the emotional ire of a slaughter at a school in small town Texas.

And that’s where the distortion comes in.  The former is a typical event; the latter remains unusual and dramatic.

Apparently, we view the routine and common event as merely a part of life to be tolerated and factored in to our activities (“be careful where you go at night”). School shootings, however, generate demands to do something!

Perhaps they are related. Don’t all these events result from a breakdown in order?

The school shooters were undoubtedly deranged and on the fringe of society. As such, they would seem to be especially vulnerable to the Internet and other outlets that foster attitudes of permissiveness and tolerance for deviant behavior. The deterrence to killing is weakened if not simply demolished.

Susceptibility to the allure of permissiveness would also seem a strong factor in the broader society as well.

A permissive attitude would affect the Chicago gang shooter in a different way than the Texan slayer. He’s not crazy. But he does see that permissiveness connotes leniency and reduced risk of consequences. It is not coincidental that reduced police presence and cutbacks on law enforcement were accompanied by a deterioration in order and respect for the law in the wake of George Floyd’s death.

Would that wanton killings could be ended by stricter gun controls. People who want to murder always seem able to find a way.

Are there real solutions? Increased security for schools would seem required, including police and armed teachers. But remember that such targets are rarely hit. Culture also needs to be less tolerant of disorder.

But that sentiment is too general to be applicable across our country of 330 million people.

If changes in murder rates are a barometer of the culture’s attitude toward law and order, consider the following statistics:

Between 2011 and 2019, the U.S. murder rate (per 100,000 people) rose 10%, a significant change but not dramatic. And in states like Maine (20% down), Wyoming (31%) and Kansas (33%), the murder rate declined sharply.

On the other hand, during the same period, rates skyrocketed in the District of Columbia (up 34%), Missouri (54%) and Maryland (32%).

These numbers suggest that we should narrow our focus to understanding why cultural attitudes toward murder may be influenced by the setting: urban, suburban or rural. Are politics and policies involved? Missouri contains St. Louis and Maryland has Baltimore. We know what needs to change.

Reflections on the Iraq War – Twenty Years After It Began

 

9-11 was the catalyst for America’s military involvement in Afghanistan where initial success led to the U.S. invasion of Iraq with the purpose of deposing Saddam Hussein and destroying so-called weapons of mass destruction.  The tyrant fell and the WMD concerns proved illusory.  None was found.

President George W. Bush announced the success under a banner hanging from the bridge of an American warship proclaiming “Mission Accomplished”.

If the U.S. had then withdrawn then from Iraq, history now would view our Middle East campaign as having been accomplished.

Success having come so speedily and with relatively little cost in lives and resources, we became emboldened in a sense the ancient Greeks would have termed hubris.  Why not inculcate liberal democracy into the Middle East, starting with Iraq?  The “mission” expanded from the initial objective and the U.S. failed to fulfill it. 

That should not have been a surprise.

One of the great ironies of recent American history is that a Republican administration – led by a president who proclaimed himself to be a compassionate conservative – pursued policies that were neither conservative in principle nor compassionate in the result.

George Bush et al. should have known better. 

Edmund Burke, the father of political conservatism, argued that human nature is not malleable.  Our attitudes are usually set by tradition and are attachments are conservative by definition.  They are not changed by fiat.

The Middle East does not – unlike the U.S. and Western Europe – have a tradition of liberal democracy.  The tragedy – the thousands of lives lost – ours and far more of the Iraqis – was the inexcusable presumption that this time tradition could be supplanted.  [This, of course, is the utopian, revolutionary expectation that is at the root of so much evil in the world – which Burke had in mind in his Reflections on the French Revolution.]   

But, of course, this time was no different.  The verdict of history was not to be favorable.  That burden rightly falls on the shoulders of President George W. Bush and his team of neo-conservatives who were exposed as not being conservatives in any sense.                                                                   

Praise for the Other Side

 

As partisanship has deepened in recent years and bitterness toward those perceived to be in the opposing camp became more pronounced graciousness between foes has withered.  Credit is rarely given to the other side when due.

The Sensible Conservative intends to resist that trend.  Many on the right are tempted to be sanctimonious when viewing the Left.  “We are morally superior, after all”.  But that is, at times at least, a distorted view that can result in moral blindness.  When we err, we grant ourselves abundant excuses and demand that we be granted the benefit of the doubt as to our good intentions.  No quarter is given to the opposition, however.

So here is some unexpected, but deserved, praise.

*** Vice President Kamala Harris gave an excellent speech recently at a NATO security conference in Munich.  She looked into the camera and said, with passion, “Russia is committing crimes against humanity”.  Her manner was forceful and commanding.  Indeed, it was a remarkable performance and gave a hint of what President Harris might be able to do. 

*** CNN has devoted many hours of sympathetic coverage to Ukraine’s fight for survival, much of it including on-the-scene reporting, and analysis from former military personnel as to prospects for success.  No other network has approached the extent and quality of its coverage.

[Interestingly, Fox News’ coverage has been uneven.  It, too, has reporters in Ukraine who are seemingly doing a professional job, but the coverage is not extensive.  Further, some of the opinion hosts – Tucker Carlson in particular – prefer to focus on Ukraine’s perceived deficiencies involving corruption and leadership.  His comments leave the impression, not pro-Russian as such, but of ambivalence, as in Ukraine does not deserve our sympathy.]

*** President Joe Biden.  He has America standing with Ukraine.  Some on the right have accused his support of being “too little” and, maybe too late.  But he has largely “come through” in so far thwarting the aims of Putin’s Russia.

                    *                  *                  *                  *

No, The Sensible Conservative is not going soft.  But we conservatives have no claim to the moral high ground if we’re not fair in evaluating the bad and the good.

The Problem with Extrapolation

 

There is a natural tendency of people – well documented by social science - to extrapolate events seen on TV as being representative of the same even in numbers much greater than reality.

As an example, media coverage of homosexuals in various guises has resulted in public opinion that gays constitute 10% of the general population.  Surveys place the actual number at less than half of that.

Thus, when the media broadcasts seemingly incessantly  the video of the Memphis assault as a motorist pulled over ostensibly for a traffic violation, the impression is created that the conduct shown is engaged in by police more generally.

The consequences flowing from this perception can be deadly.  Think of the widespread rioting and deaths following the killing (determined by a jury) of George Floyd.  That there was no evidence that the Minnesota police officer was truly representative of police across the nation didn’t seem to matter.  Extrapolation took place and apparently motivated “protests” from Philadelphia to Atlanta.

The lesson for the media is that without balance or caution the press can be implicated (intentionally or not) in promoting extrapolation and attendant violence.

This is not to suggest that news of such a negative sort should not be reported.  But it should be aired in context to counteract the tendency to extrapolate unless such is unnecessary  

For example, ISIS terrorists are sworn to kill infidels.  Thus, reporting that an ISIS member killed an “infidel” need not be qualified.  Extrapolation is appropriate since the conduct is consistent with ISIS policy.  ISIS members carried out its objective.

Back to the assaults committed by five members of the Memphis Police Department.  Extrapolation should be discouraged by any responsible news organization.  Fox News in particular has provided balance by showing the video and featuring law enforcement authorities emphasizing   that the misconduct shown is not typical of police in general and is certainly contrary to their training.

Alas, there seems to be a strong anti-police attitude among certain left-wing elements in our nation, including some media “stars” featured on MSNBC and elsewhere.  They want to inflame, not provide balance.

 

Are We Responsible for the Past Sins of Others?

 

Periodically, America is confronted with demands that we atone for the past sins committed by its government or citizens.  Reparations are demanded for descendants of slaves, the children of Japanese Americas interred during World War II or the heirs of Native Americans driven from their homeland by U.S. soldiers.  Only affirmative action for blacks has actually been implemented – and relatively briefly – as a remedy for America’s perceived sins.  Even the late and highly esteemed conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote that a nation, the people, can be collectively guilty, and thus saddled with collective responsibility for wrongful conduct in their name.

The demands, thus far, for compensation are largely unmet.  That is not because they lack merit.  They don’t.  But, apart from the expense, determining who is entitled to receive what is a legislative nightmare.  How far down the hereditary line do we go and how do we calculate the entitlement of a person whose family tree is mixed?  Some of those on it will not qualify as descendants of the “favored” class.

But there is a far more important reason to oppose placing a burden on a nation of people for the sins of their ancestors’ individual responsibility.

Western liberal classical tradition focus is not only on the group but on the individual.  Both rights and responsibilities reside there.

Other traditions are different.  The Eastern world, as a general concept, values the group over the individual in many respects.  Thus, a person from a social perspective is not independent.  What he does reflects on the group and all its members. In a simplified sense, members of the group derive their identity from it.  The tribe is foremost.

In practice, that means that conduct of a member is attributed to all.  Misdeeds, therefore, can be avenged – and are – by retribution against any member since culpability is not restricted to the individual wrong-doer. Collective guilt thereby warrants collective responsibility.

That is not the American way.

What to Do with Trump

 

Of course, he’s got to go.

But that’s really – for now – only a heartfelt wish.

One has to start with the certainty that he doesn’t want to go.  And persuading him otherwise seems impossible.

Maybe not.

But, perhaps I’m ahead of myself.  Why does he have to go, after all?  Sure, he says dreadful things as a matter of course and from a character perspective seems a horrible human being.  Yet he was elected President only six years ago and his many flaws didn’t seem to matter much.

Or perhaps they did, just not enough to outweigh voter antipathy toward Hillary Clinton.

Many of his supporters back then certainly were motivated to vote for the lesser of two evils (and hasn’t Mrs. Clinton done much in the interim to justify that choice?).

However, it seems now that many of those who previously backed him reluctantly have become fervent supporters.  That is obvious from the recent GOP primaries where his support for certain candidates was crucial to their success.  He’s their man.

Will their enthusiasm wane in light of the November results.  Not without some help.  The opposition of long-term Trump foes such as the media and Republican politicians like Larry Hogan and Liz Cheney can’t provide it.  His base is strengthened by their hostility.

These sorts were never on his side anyway.

On the other hand, voters in the general election made plain that their warranted disgust with Donald Trump is shared by larger numbers than his base can produce.

Thus, the election prospects for conservatives in America alone, independent of the former president’s myriad personal deficiencies, compel that he be denied any future political role.

Can there be an intact Trump base without Trump?  Sure.  The task is to persuade the third to a half of Republicans who currently align with him that they can go elsewhere without disowning the former president.

There are so-called political experts who think that Trump can be driven from the scene by denunciation.  Hardly.  Such tactics will be counter-productive by generating a defensive reaction.  Better approach - persuade the base to give up on Trump without implicitly condemning its prior support for him.

One is inclined to listen to one’s friends for advice and resist guidance from those who are not.

The major source of affirmation for Donald Trump has been portions of the conservative media, principally the Fox News opinion hosts.  That has not included the intellectual side of the Right such as the Wall Street Journal and National Review magazine.

Although Fox and the Journal are both owned by the News Corporation, they go their separate ways editorially (well, at least, that certainly has been the case since 2016 when it comes to Donald Trump).

Fox’s primetime line-up headed by Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity has been staunchly pro-Trump and unwilling to recognize his political weaknesses.  Until they do, their pro-Trump audience is unlikely to waiver in its support.  Yet there are promising signs from other Fox opinion leaders, such as Laura Ingraham and Jesse Waters, that the former president may not be the best fit for the future GOP.  The hints have been mild so far but cracks are prone to expand.

Smashing the wall of support won’t succeed.  People don’t respond well to attacks on objects of their attention. They perceive them to be assaults on themselves, personally.

The suggestion of The Sensible Conservative is simple and straightforward.  Remind people that there is nothing wrong with getting old; that’s life.  Of course, the former president did many positive things but the need to move on can’t be ignored.  Remember him fondly and with gratitude but look elsewhere for new leadership.  Donald Trump’s time has passed.