The Hidden Trap in UNSC 2334, Israel and Palestine

 

The entirety of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 can be found at the end of the article for those willing to suffer through its tedious and tendentious prose and are welcome to peruse the entirety of the document. The one saving grace is it is not that long a read. The first item is that the preface, the longest section of the article, completely undermines the rest of the resolution. Had this in any way been reflective of its claims for reaffirming Res. 242, Res. 338, Res. 446, Res. 452, Res. 465, Res. 476, Res. 478, Res. 1397 and Res. 1515; then it would have called for negotiations to establish borders which would provide Israel with defendable and defined borders. If, when mentioning the settlements, it would have only pressed for limited or no additional settlements and limitation on expansion of existing settlements only to accommodate population increases, there would not have been the attempt to criminalize the settlements nor would it press for their dismantlement as was the seeming intent. Further, there would have been no mention of using the 1949 Armistice Lines, the Green Line, as the basis for any future borders. Finally, the resolution flies in the face, as did all the previous other than Res. 242, of the United Nations Charter as according to Article 80 of said Charter, the United Nations was considered the enforcing power for the Mandate System inherited from the League of Nations along with all other agreements and resolutions produced under the League of Nations which would define Israel’s borders to the east as being the Jordan River, period and end of discussion unless Israel decides to grant any claims of the validity they seek. Let us stress, that is validity they seek, not claim. The truth of the matter and the only decision under International Law any court can reach is that Israel owns all of Judea and Samaria and the Palestinian Authority and any other entity have no valid claim to one inch of the lands west of the Jordan River. This is more than our opinion as it was also the decision of the Court of Appeal of Versailles, France. Then there is the advisory opinion from the Honorable Justice El Araby, an Egyptian who sat as an adjudicator on the International Court of Justice when they were requested to make a ruling on the Israeli security barrier and whether it could be legally placed as designed. He warned the UNGA and others that filing further ran some risks, as he stated,

 

“The international legal status of the Palestinian Territory (paras. 70-71 of the Advisory Opinion), in my view, merits more comprehensive treatment. A historical survey is relevant to the question posed by the General Assembly, for it serves as the background to understanding the legal status of the Palestinian Territory on the one hand and underlines the special and continuing responsibility of the General Assembly on the other. This may appear as academic, without relevance to the present events. The present is however determined by the accumulation of past events and no reasonable and fair concern for the future can possibly disregard a firm grasp of past events. In particular, when on more than one occasion, the rule of law was consistently side-stepped. The point of departure, or one can say in legal jargon, the critical date, is the League of Nations Mandate which was entrusted to Great Britain.”

 

The entire reason for the presage of UNSC 2334 by President Obama and his administration was in order to set up this current Paris conference where his plan is to press for them to advise for the recognition of a state for the Arabs. This would need to be pushed and be ratified and presented officially before noon EST of January 20, 2017 and then taken for a near immediate vote by the UNSC on a resolution recognizing such state, setting its borders as probably the Green Line, President Obama’s wildest dream, and making it a Chapter Seven Resolution which is enforceable by military force. Such a resolution would make any attack upon Israel for the stated purpose of forcing them from the lands that the United Nations gave to the Arabs for their state as legal and fully backed by the nations of the world. Such a resolution would also place any nation aiding Israel is such a war as vulnerable to being brought before the International Courts and sued to cease and desist or face sanction and possibly military force to end their support. Basically, such a resolution would tie the hands of every nation to turn their hand against Israel bringing the Biblical prophecy of the world turning its hand being against Israel and every nation becoming the enemy of the Jewish State. We hope we do not have to remind anyone of what follows as there are four horsemen in the New Testament and the Messiah in the Old Testament and the following is not pretty at all. But that is the direction that the European Union, President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry, other select people from the Administration and many of the Arab World all would like to see become reality. President Obama is in such a rush because first he wants to get even with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu for opposing the Iran treaty and not respecting President Obama and bowing to his desires at every turn and because he realizes that since Hillary Clinton did not win the election as expected, that President Trump is not going to continue the war against Israel and might change things away from the current direction making this the last time in the foreseeable future that forcing this solution and the making of a new Arab state possible. President Obama is aware that such an opportunity to force this issue is now or never and he cannot rest without giving it everything he is able.

 

The reality is that the political winds are changing and are going to blow for a while in a completely different direction and it is very probable that the world’s attentions will be swinging away from the Middle East and become more centered on economies and containment of the troubles plaguing the Middle East to only the Middle East which will also bring the refugee immigration, or should we say invasion, to a quick and unmerciful end. The war in Syria is likely to be brought to a close with whatever agreement is necessary being imposed and likely the nation made into three states; one Alawite under Bashir al-Assad; one Kurdish which may even include some of the lands from northern Iraq included and the state of Kurdistan, which had been a promise that the British made during World War I but found oil more important than their promises, finally brought into fruition; and the final a Sunni state which could very easily be divided between Turkey and central Iraq leaving southern Iraq as either the remnant of Shiite Iraq or merged into Iran. These divisions would respect tribal and ethnic division with the Sunni with the Sunni, the Shia with Shia and the Kurds finally realizing their independence. Such a strategy would also provide the Middle East with much needed ethnic borders and potentially greater security and peace, imagine that.

 

That leaves Libya which could be divided into so many smaller states except that would create the problem of constant wars between the tribes or a larger problem of a neighboring state of terrorist forces taking hold of this dysfunctional area. This is already a problem but even the terrorists found attempting to establish a safe area in Libya to be next to impossible. Sometimes conflict is unavoidable and Libya has been a cauldron of trouble ever since the Romans and Carthage fought their wars there and during the Caliphate and Ottoman eras with the Barbary Pirates and even up to the time Thomas Jefferson sent the United States Marines into Tripoli taking the harbor and forcing an end to the pirating of American vessels, well, until the next time they thought America had been weakened and had to be taught again that they were mistaken. These were the Barbary Wars, 1801–1805 and 1815–1816, bracketed the War of 1812 where the British attempted to retake their former colony and failed. The Barbary Pirates figured such a war had weakened the United States and needed to be shown otherwise. The Italians were given Libya after World War I and the breakup of the Ottoman Empire until 1947, approximately the time many of the European nations resigned from their colonial holdings. For more on Libya and its problems through the ages, one can go here, and hopefully that will be sufficient coverage of Libya.

 

Israel, in the meantime, will eventually be granted all that which was and is still promised her. This means that the eastern border will end up being the Jordan River. The only decision the world need make is how much drama, needless suffering, necessary time to undo the damage caused by the broken promises, and the number of lives, both Arab and Israeli, will be wasted getting to the rightful and just fulfillment of promises. For those who are going to challenge about the British promise to the Arabs that they would be granted a state within the British Mandate, that was satisfied when seventy-eight percent of the British Mandate was used to make the Arab state of Jordan. The remainder, as stated in the Churchill White Papers, was to be granted the Jews for their homeland. Those claiming the division suggested under UNGA Res. 181, that division was merely a General Assembly Resolution which are suggestive in their enforcement and as soon as either side refuses such a resolution it becomes null and void and cannot be resurrected no matter how badly one desires to steal as much land and make Israel so vulnerable as to make her defense impossible just to see Jews murdered and Israel destroyed again. The Arab League refused that solution and invaded Israel on May 15, 1948; the very day Israel came into being with the Jordan River as her legal boundary.

 

The problem the world is having over Israel can be simplified to one thing; many, possibly most, of the world do not believe nor desire that the Jews be permitted their homeland. The Western World and much of the remainder of the planet are fully aware of the ancient history of the Jewish People in Israel and their Capital city, eternal Capital city, of Jerusalem. These anti-Semitic views desire the Jew to be the tiny minority which is defenseless and can be beaten, stolen from, demeaned and otherwise simply used as a punching bag by any and every nation at their whim. They want Jews not permitted to own land or have any property of their own beyond a suitcase and whatever they can carry at a moment’s notice. They desire the Jew they abused for the past twenty-five-hundred years with the brief exceptions when they revolted and threw off the yokes of Greek Rule and then Roman Rule. They want the Jew to continue to suffer the intended punishment forced upon them by the Romans with their dispersal which was intended to end the existence of the Jewish People. The Jewish fate was to be the same as every other people the Roman treated thusly such as the Carthaginians and various other tribes whose names have been lost to antiquity and are known only to those who study ancient histories and even they likely miss a good number of peoples who have been defeated by the conquering empires from Egypt, Hittite, Minoan, Persian, Babylonian and on through the ages. The Chinese, Mongols, Japanese and Indian in Asia and the Aztec, Inca and others who ruled before the European colonization in the Americas where people who were erased from history as after conquest they assimilated and disappeared. Even the Jews had their lost tribes when the northern ten tribes were carried off by the Assyrians and were never seen again though there are beliefs that these tribes are now returning to Israel from their varied places around the globe.

 

Some who desire the destruction of Israel believe that it is necessary otherwise their religion is devalued. This was the historic position of numerous Christian religious groups and was even named replacement theology. This form of preaching exists today and was exactly what was preached at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago under the direction and religious teaching of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright and what President Obama listened to during sermons for the twenty years he attended this church. His claim to never have listened or heard these preaching has actually made them even more dangerous as their effect was then subliminal and affecting President Obama’s thoughts through subconscious influences and could have been partly responsible for his determination to destroy Israel and thus the Jewish People, just saying. The damages of replacement theology was based on the supposition that the Jews had been cast off by Hashem and were now under the influence of the devil, except there is no devil or hell in traditional Judaism, and thus were replaced by the Christian Church. With time the Christian Church became the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. Then would come the Protestant Reformation where the protestant churches each replaced the Catholic Church. Somewhere off on another argument is Scientology but that gets way too complicated. The one item which was necessary for all these replacements to remain valid was for the Jews never to return to Israel as once the Jews returned to Israel, then the promise of their eventual return from exile by Hashem would be fulfilled and thus mean they were still the Chosen People and invalidate their replacement as such. Then there is Islam which basically claims to be the final and only valid religion of Hashem, except now they change the name to Allah, and according to Islam the Christians have joined the Jews as having been replaced. This is the ultimate replacement theology because the Muslim took the precaution of claiming there can never be another religion as they are the final rendition of the Abrahamic faiths. Islam also claims that Allah has promised them they will conquer the world and end all these false faiths through whatever means necessary. It all gets messy after a while but everybody agrees that the Jews are not to return except the Muslims in the Quran do accept that Jerusalem and Israel are the homelands of the Jews, just do not tell the Palestinian Arabs as they would get very upset with you. The one agreement of the Western religions is that the Jews must not be allowed to return and set up home in Israel and especially with Jerusalem as their Capital City; well, until sometime in the late 1960s and early 1970s when many decided maybe there was room to permit the Jews to return home. Thanks.

 

French President Francois Hollande and PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas

 

Anyway, apparently that short allowance has worn out and passed it use-by date and been rescinded. Now the United Nations, European Union, United States State Department (the same United States State Department which advised President Harry S. Truman not to recognize Israel but Harry listened to what his mother taught him as a child, go Mom!), numerous European countries, politicians around the globe, the Arab world, the Muslim world and many in Hollywood (where would we be without Hollywood thespians telling us what to think) and who knows who else, maybe Communists and Scientologists (though who knows anything about the Scientologists) all attempting to uproot Israel or weaken her until she cannot defend herself and find some means to eliminate the Jewish State. Did the world learn nothing from the attempts thus far to eliminate Israel and how miracles have saved her to date? In 1948 Israel did not even have a military, no chain of command, the British had taken every weapon they could find, there was no real Israeli Air Force, an Israeli tank was a car with a large caliber gun and a half dozen Arab nations and seven militias attacked within hours of the sun rising on Israel for the first time in nearly two thousand years and somehow Israel survived. In 1967 Israel was outgunned and outmanned by approximately hundreds-to-one and in Six Days took the Golan Heights, liberated Judea and Samaria from Jordanian occupation (yes, you read that right, Jordanian occupation) and conquered the entirety of the Sinai Peninsula surrounding the Egyptian Third Army. Miracle, come on, you can say it, miracle. The miracles have continued since then as in a recent Gaza conflict where there was one such event as here is one of the many articles documenting this miracle, praise Hashem. Here is what was reported by the actual Iron Dome commanding officer who related the story.

 

“A missile was fired from Gaza. Iron Dome precisely calculated [its trajectory]. We know where these missiles are going to land down to a radius of 200 meters. This particular missile was going to hit either the Azrieli Towers, the Kirya (Israel’s equivalent of the Pentagon) or [a central Tel Aviv railway station]. Hundreds could have died.”

“We fired the first [interceptor]. It missed. Second [interceptor]. It missed. This is very rare. I was in shock. At this point we had just four seconds until the missile lands. We had already notified emergency services to converge on the target location and had warned of a mass-casualty incident.”

“Suddenly, Iron Dome (which calculates wind speeds, among other things) shows a major wind coming from the east, a strong wind that…sends the missile into the sea. We were all stunned. I stood up and shouted, ‘There is a G0d!’ I witnessed this miracle with my own eyes. It was not told or reported to me. I saw the hand of G0d send that missile into the sea.”

 

The truth is Israel cannot surrender a single inch of the land the world demands she grant to those sworn to her destruction. Read yesterday’s article and view the pictures there and at the look provided and you can see how if Israel gives the Arabs the Judean Hills all of Tel Aviv to the Mediterranean Sea is visible. The same goes for Haifa and Ashdod and Netanya. The entirety of the central Israeli coastal plain would become uninhabitable as shoulder fired wire guided anti-tank rockets which are guidable could be utilized to target individual structures up to half way across Israel. Rocket and artillery fire could be sight adjusted targeting central downtown Tel Aviv. Jerusalem would be completely cut off from the remainder of Israel and West Jerusalem could be starved into submission. Ben Gurion International Airport would become a shooting gallery and no plane could land or take off with any degree of safety. All of Israel could be brought to a standstill at the mere whim of Mahmoud Abbas, assuming he remained in power. The chance that Hamas or Islamic State would replace the Palestinian Authority would be more than probable; the only question would be which one would move first as that would be the reality Israel would face within months of such an eventuality as is being considered in Paris. Finally, there is one saving grace for as long as the world does not force Mahmoud Abbas or anybody who would follow him as leader of the Palestinian Authority to accept such a peace, they would have to turn down any offer which left anything of Israel intact and should the world manage to remove the Jews, then they would flee from such a situation. The reality is that once Israel is removed from having the IDF provide security in all of Judea and Samaria, then whoever leads the Palestinian authority and the rest of the security and leadership would be dead within six months as whichever terror group replaced them just as what happened in Gaza. Abbas knows this and that is why he may talk of peace but he will never accept any peace as he has enriched himself and plans to live well and spend the stolen funds as do the rest of the Palestinian authority kleptocrats. Ridiculous as it may seem, but Mahmoud Abbas is an ace in the hole as he will never accept peace whether it comes from the European Union, United Nations or whatever council the future provides, and that is something Israel has counted on in the past though few will admit such.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Nation State or International Integration

 

The election this fall is not about Islamic State, al-Qaeda, Taliban, or other security. It will not be about most of the items the media is talking about. What it is about is the economy, jobs, employment, wages, and everything about the economy but not in the obvious ways being discussed. Where will this next Presidency balance? The main item is which way does it benefit the United States most, continuing internationalism or returning to nationalism.

 

The media and most politicians are pushing this global economy, global integration, global cooperation, global solutions while hiding a dirty little secret, they are selling global as the solution while having the United States and the advanced nations pay for everything while equalizing the global playing field, whatever that means. We had a debate last night and we heard more of the same. Clinton claimed more globalism and taxes on the rich and Trump tried and may have meant to sound like Reagan. What they were not telling the people is that Clinton was using the same internationalism where the world matters more than the United States so in order to equalize the world the United States and the advanced world has to bleed to allow the rest of the world to catch up and then all will be well and how wonderful the world can be. Trump is actually claiming that every nation take their own and put them first and attempt to allow the nations who are leading the world to continue to be the leaders and then assist other nations in making gains and follow and give them access to advances as they are able to implement these advances. So, which way will work best. That depends on which nations one decides should be permitted to advance their own interests than to share with the world.

 

Internationalism is wonderful if your country is on the receiving end and not so wonderful if you are being bled to bring the other nations up to their level. The problem with that are many of these nations that are presumably being given advances in order to raise them to the same level are led by dictators who are enriching themselves and not making their nations any closer to the advanced world as that does not directly benefit them. What these dictators are not being intelligent about is that had they advanced their nation they would have enriched themselves in the process. They are not even thinking nationally rather than internationally. Internationally is a recipe for disaster as it inhibits the leaders from leading and demands that the least efficient be granted the largess while the leaders are placed in financial straight-jackets. Internationalists place a stop sign where all nations must park their own business and park their nation by the side of the highway and wait for the rest of the world to reach an equal position. The problem is that many of these nations, which they are waiting for to reach the same point, are themselves broken and not gaining and will never catch up as they are not even making any effort to reach the next level. Internationalism believes that making all nations equal will solve the world’s problems and inequalities, despite it not ever bringing the rest of the nations to first world status.

 

 

World Map with Borders Deemphasized

 

Nationalism is the opposite view which allows each nation to advance at their own rate and still demands that the first world assist the developing nation but does not demand they try to make equal those nations so dysfunctional that they are the closest thing to an economic black hole as can be found. Nationalism rewards each nation for their efforts and allows each nation to gain at their own speed. Allowing the leaders to lead gives other nations a target and proven path they can emulate but without national gain by the wealthiest nations to blaze the trail for the others to follow. The basis for nationalism is it allows each nation to set their own monetary policies and is against unifying monetary policies as such a system is flawed and destroys the lesser productive nations which has been proven by the European Union Euro which has benefited Germany while leaving Greece behind. Nationalism allows each country to do the best for their own people and society. That does not mean that nations which are developing should not be aided and it is in the interest of the most advanced nations to assist those nations who are developing and making the right choices and allowing them to benefit from the experiences of those nations who have traveled those roads before them. But those nations which are completely dysfunctional cannot be assisted as long as their governance is broken and until the nation decides to change their dysfunctions there is no reason to throw good money after bad.

 

Internationalism is a wonderful, feel-good policy filled of kind words and low on actual results. Internationalism demands that all nations be made to give according to their ability and the funds are granted to countries according to their needs. Internationalism demands open borders allowing free immigration with no limits or criminal and other background checks or other limits or restrictions. The policies sound as if they will allow all nations equal opportunities in word while defining this policy as bringing all nations up to the same level and making things fair for all nations. The truth is that this is accomplished by tearing down the greater nations while benefitting some of the least deserving nations who are corrupt criminal enterprises more than they are actual functional nations. Rewarding the worst while impeding the best prevents progress and will constantly restrict progress and the discoveries of new technologies and new systems which would result in assisting those nations seeking a better future to implement the proven methods. To get an idea on the difficulties caused by internationalism there is a perfect example which we can observe, the European Union. How has that equal currency been working for over half of Europe who are not Germany or Britain but are Greece, Spain, Italy and even France and many of the former Warsaw Nations. The common currency has taken the small differences of economic production where the agrarian economies which work on a different production level having to survive with the same policies of the industrial and other highly developed nations.

 

World Map and Relative Wealth of Nations

 

Permitting each nation to perform at their highest level and to their full potential will set target paths for other nation to follow along the proven road set by the highest performing nations. Progress is the fuel that raises all nations in turn. Progress provides the test paths and allows developing nations to benefit from their more advanced nations but only when they decide to advance. No nation could be forced to grow their economy and advance their national infrastructure and when a nation refuses to advance itself then forcing the rest of the world to wait for such a nation to reach an equative level is ridiculous and counterproductive. Internationalism is wonderful idea if it could function as promised. Nationalism is the dirty sounding word which is accused of being selfish because it benefits the wealthy nations and prevents developing nations from ever reaching the top level. The obvious fault is that accusation is completely false. If nationalism prevented up and coming nations from ever becoming the top nations were true then China would have ruled the world, Spain would be a leading nation, Greece would be the top nation in Europe, Egypt would be the most advanced nation in construction and engineering, Persia would still control East-West trade routes, Portugal would be a great power with colonies throughout the world, and the Hittites would be the great power in the norther worlds of Europe through to Turkey. Top nations change and have changed throughout the history of the world while nationalism was the rule of the world. Internationalism has caused massive stagnation as the world as a whole is not permitted to advance because the leading nations are held back presumably for the benefit of the lesser nations. This will always be a supported philosophy as there will always be more developing and undeveloped nations than leading nations as only a few nations will be in the top ten percent, which is why it is referred to as the top ten percent. Internationalism has been working so well over the past twenty to thirty years since 1979 while the rest of history was pathetic and without economic advancement advances by all nations and we are still using salt as a currency, aren’t we? The progress from salt as money to salt as something on almost every dinner table was a result from nationalism, not internationalism.

 

Compare the two with eyes open and the preferable form, open competition or controlled advancement, the choice could provide opportunity or a slow decadence and eventual decimation. Internationalism is welfare on an international scale much in the form of the Soviet Union and the initial Plymouth Rock Colony which would have starved if not for the Native Americans who grew and hunted for surplus for the winter and had sufficient to teach and feed the Pilgrims. After that experience of all get all they need, while most gave nothing in effort, they introduced a new program where each family kept a percentage of what they grew and the remainder was shared, the amounts of food skyrocketed. That is the balance which nationalism can produce, the most advanced achieve at their highest level and those developing nations learn from those leaders and in time some will replace them as they eventually falter. That is the secret of effort based economies, the people or nations at the top changes with time when another makes decisions which make them even more profitable as the other sinks under likely bureaucratic waste. You decide.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Why I Accept Most Inequality

 

Inequality is part of existence and no matter how hard those who believe all inequality must be eradicated, inequality is a part of the human existence. Accepting inequality does not mean that you accept all inequality as there are certain areas where inequality must not be tolerated. The foremost of these is justice and treatment under the law and in access to services and other areas where inequality is an anathema. We must have equal application of the law, equal access to legal defense when charged with a crime and equality in all applications of the powers of government. But even in this there are limits which we must address and decide whether these areas of unequal treatment are acceptable. We can easily give an example where even the most adamant proselyte of equality likely will confess to their acceptance of an inequality. The tax code and such support programs such as food stamps, unemployment insurance payments and welfare payments are all areas where society has agreed to not only allow inequality but to strictly enforce and apply these inequalities in perpetuity. There will be candidates running for office in the United States this fall who will base much of their campaign on the application of inequalities in how the government treats members of the American public. They will favor supportive programs which apply largely to their electorate and against any supportive programs which are not applicable to their electorate. An obvious example would be any candidate running for office in the areas around Washington D.C. will support increased wages for Federal Government employees while somebody running for office in central Nebraska or central Montana would call for limiting or even freezing government workers’ salaries. Somebody running in an area where there are a majority of union employees would favor pro-union legislation and programs and probably also the raising of the minimum wage to $15.00/hr. as many union salary scales are figured using the minimum wage as a scaling point.

 

Inequality is a fact of life and the sooner people understand that, equality in all things can never be accomplished. What one should not accept is inequality which is unnatural or selective in manners other than those inequalities which are a result of natural abilities or differing efforts or difficulties of task. Obviously the greeters at the neighborhood box store and a brain surgeon will not receive equal income. Though the greeter interacts with and potentially can make a positive influence on more people; if you or a friend or relative needed brain surgery, the greeter would not likely have the necessary expertise. The brain surgeon invested a large part of their life and developed a specific and vital skill which may only have an effect on a smaller number of lives. The inequality of skill levels and number of people mastering the skills of the brain surgeon is a much smaller and more elite group of people. Of course there will always be the equality in all things who will make the claim that had the greeter had similar opportunities and training they too could have become the brain surgeon. Where that could be accurate, there would be no means of discerning the reality because, believe it or not, life itself is not equal; but if we are lucky, it is fair.

 

Scales of Life in the Balance

 

Equality is one of the important qualities we should use as the basis in how we treat one another. We should not accept biased treatment in our societies, from our judicial system, by law enforcement, in service in public areas such as restaurants, in residential opportunities and numerous places all of which have some relation to interpersonal interactions or opportunities. Even when a society achieves equality in all of these areas, there will still be inequalities for which any solution would require the force of government and would in and of themselves be a form of unequal treatment. Where equal pay for equal work can be a sticky area, equal pay for all people is not actually equality, it’s communism. The problem with full equality for all incomes is that many people will choose the easiest work rather than work harder at a more difficult profession and not receive greater remuneration. What would be the reason to work at some taxing job requiring great exertion of physical energy or years of training and constant continuing education to learn the most recent developments or techniques rather than seek easier employment such as the greeter’s job we spoke of earlier? Granted there are those driven few who seek the challenge but there would be far too many capable people who would not work to their fullest if there were to be no opportunity for additional remuneration. Enforcing universal equal pay would result in losing one of the main incentives which drives many to achieve greater achievement. Without inequality in pay scales there would be little incentive to attempt to advance or perform at a higher level than your fellow employees. Across the board equal pay no matter the level, difficulty or dedication of an employee in their choice and enthusiasm and commitment is the quickest path to across the board disinterested and lazy employees who have little drive or will to exceed or even succeed.

 

Most of the inequality we find in our day to day world has a direct relation to effort, level of education, difficulty of vocation or physical requirements. The one inequality we most often hear people complain over are the huge salaries paid to professional athletes. Every time the same point needs to be driven home. The discussion usually starts off asking if the top salespeople working on commission making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year selling top products such as real estate, high end jewelry or other high end items deserve what they earn. The answer is always a definitive affirmative. Then we ask about the top medical physicians who perform the most difficult procedures such as heart surgery deserve their high paychecks? Again we hear the answer stating of course. We then mention CEOs and the other heads of industry. Then we point out that all these people have one thing in common, they are in the top five to ten percent in what they do and so are professional athletes. People at the top of their professions, and especially in the top of high money making professions such as sports, make the large salaries in proportion to the money flowing in their line of work. Are ticket prices ridiculous, yes but on the other side the average person can have a better than front row seat with slow motion replay and professional commentary watching the same game or event on television. Pay for view being one of the most expensive television viewing protocols still is often no greater than one hundred dollars and if you have a party with nine friends then it costs only ten dollars each and you get a front seat and reasonably priced refreshments with a wider range of foods from which to choose, and you’re watching it with your closest friends, what could be better.

 

Equality is something which is a target which we aim to satisfy as best as we are able. Will we ever attain complete equality in those areas where it serves society? Very likely not but that allows for improvement which gives us a reason to try that much harder. We need to fall short from time to time such that we have reason to improve and find new and better means to achieve equality. The one caution we need to remember is that equality in all things should never be the goal. Equality in measure to difficulty, level of performance, importance to society and other considerations will always provide inequality in payments to individuals who satisfy the most demanding needs of the society. Sometimes the inequalities may not be apparent to all people but as long as there is a segment of society willing to put out the money, there will be those who will find the means to satisfy those demands. The good side is that as long as there are these opportunities which offer unequal pay scales, there are opportunities for anybody to find such a niche and make some of those higher paychecks for yourself. Most of us will not take the high risk route and settle for a more equal salary which is guaranteed steady and less risky, which is our choice to make. Sometimes we can make inequality work for us but the one thing we need watch is that we deal with greater equality with the people whose paths we cross. As long as we deal with care and equality we can expect similar treatment ourselves and if we have quality friends and business associates, then we can consider ourselves fortunate and thank Hashem for such goodness in our lives. As a last note, we are all equal before Hashem and Hashem alone judges our goodness.

 

Beyond the Cusp