The Meeting of Futility in Paris

 

One might expect a meeting of about two-hundred nations in Paris, not that long following the horrific terror attacks in Paris, to at least give a moment of silence or other recognition of the deaths of innocents; but their subject was far too serious to waste time on terrorism. There is a planet almost in flames to save! They had to discuss how the developed world could cut their human induced emissions and save the world from disaster while assisting the developing world in the only way that the developed world is capable. They will not be helping them with technology for clean energy production, nor with scrubbing technology to use with any fossil fuel burning in their smokestacks cleaning exhaust smoke lowering their emissions, nor manufacturing systems which are more efficient in their use of electricity or other power; they instead are to produce funding to provide each developing nation with one-hundred-million-dollars per nation and in return the developing nations promise to spend that infusion of cash. One might expect that there would be some demand that this infusion of funds would be used for the development of clean energy, but you would be mistaken. One might expect that the funds would be used for the betterment of the lives of their people, but you would be mistaken. One might expect that the funds would be used for the increase of yields through irrigation or other agricultural technology, but you would be mistaken. One might expect that the funds would be used for the more efficient use of natural resources, but you would be mistaken. One might expect that the funds would be used for the relief of the abject poverty through modernization of manufacturing, but you would be mistaken. So what are the restrictions on this funding, only that the developed nations make sure they pony-up the funds as demanded and the recipients need not even account for the use of these funds.

 

 

 

 

What was the one most interesting event of the entire Paris United Nations Conference on Climate Change was United States Secretary of State Kerry actually saying something, probably without thinking it through, which was as profound as it was honest and thus unexpected from Secretary Kerry when he commented, “…The fact is that even if every American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, guess what, that still wouldn’t be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world.” Secretary Kerry continued being both brilliant, straight shooting and painfully honest as he added, “If all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions, remember what I just said, all the industrial emissions went down to zero emissions, it wouldn’t be enough, not when more than 65 percent of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world.” The United States may need to find a new Secretary of States as Secretary Kerry appears to have been stricken with an extended period of conscience making him insightful and incapable of making the necessary lies required by the position as proven by his comments until this past week of weakness and which Secretary of State Clinton made a requirement of the position as most of President Obama appointees have been required to perform at presenting lies with a straight face and an earnestness when telling lies that only a psychopath could match. Should Secretary Kerry utter another truth or even a truism, he may be seeking new employment by Sunday.

 

So, once again the results of a climate conference sponsored by the United Nations, also known as the pilfer from the wealthy top fifteen percenters and give to the eighty-five percent around the world, lived up to its name in spades. In numbers of actual nations there are approximately three to one developing nations against developed nations or one-hundred-fifty developing nations against fifty developed nations. This means that every developed nation will be held to pay somewhere around one-third (1/3) of a million dollars such that the remaining one-hundred and fifty developing nations will receive their one-hundred-million dollars each year with no requirements being placed on the levels of pollutants produced by these nations and no restrictions on how the funds are to be used which in too many of the developing nations these monies will simply be squandered by the elitist few closest to the dictator du jour. This is simply another Obama approved giveaway of United States treasury as it will prop up a few unsavory strong arming fascists, and other dictators and Presidents for life to which the United States would never desire or willingly send funding to without some ability for tracing the usage and placing restriction upon which future monies may be denied as there is no use throwing good money after bad as things are not likely to improve until the form of governance is far less corrupt. All that was accomplished at the Paris sponsored United Nations Conference on Climate Change was for the Obama groups and again managing for the one-hundred fifty nations to out vote the fifty developed nations demanding that they contribute to a large fund which will be paid out by the developed nations and paid out to the developing nations with no stated purpose as the developing nations balked at even the mention of placing any restriction of the monies they were to receive.

 

This is the reality of climate change, the advanced world will be forced to make payments to the developing nations and so that eventually these developing nations will bankrupt the developed world’s nations simply by taking that funding which could have provided so much and so many remedies for the people, benefits which would have boosted the economies of these nations getting them off the ground and potentially into space but instead most of these funds will be squandered needlessly and the people of these nations will continue to suffer. The reason their suffering will continue is as simple to see as to why once people were placed on Welfare and all the accompanying programs such as food stamps, Medicaid, and a host of other programs to care for their every need often better than many of those paying for their care received from their employers. When people towards the lower end of the tax scale heard from their neighbors the advantages to not producing and simply living off the government, they joined the ranks of the nonproductive. This, of course, eventually forced the producers to act as it was getting more difficult for them to support the unproductive. In this case there is one difference, once one is rated as a developed nation it is all but impossible to become an undeveloped nation and, as such, there is no going the opposite way, once a developed nation, always a developed nation. The undeveloped nations will actually become very protective of their status as it pays the leaders very well and as the unproductive nations also happen to hold majority status amongst the nations in the United Nations, they control these empowered organizations such as the climate control, industrial development funding and any other tag they can assign themselves which requires the developed world to give largess in funding to the undeveloped but developing world in order to assist them in becoming a developed nation. Of course no nation from the undeveloped world ever crosses the threshold and becomes a developed nation, and they see to it that not even Greece can become an undeveloped nation though they have given it a good go and are now being treated by the European Union as if they had succeeded. Once a nation goes on the dole from its more economically productive neighbors it will never manage to make its way to productive as it will no longer be paid for their lack of efforts. Success is guaranteed to never occur because then they would be tapped to pay their former friendly nations who turned on them as soon as they were capable of paying them which meant more for them and too bad for the unlucky nation which succeeded. Imagine this, welfare at the United Nations representing a perfect model for why larger and larger segments of the developed world’s populations end up on government support rolls each year and the number of workers supporting those payments shrinks and may soon fall below two workers per recipient which is probably when a revolt by the working will take place as for them it will become easier to be unproductive and soon you have the fifteen percent supporting the eighty-five percent just as it is with the nations at the United Nations. Once the unproductive can force the productive to support them and also make it impossible for a producer to become a nonproducer, then you have the slavery of the working class, or as the United Nations is calling it, support of the underprivileged world which just cannot seem, no matter how much funding they receive and they are constantly voting for more, more, more yet never showing any progress towards joining the developed world, imagine that if you will. The secret will be to watch the nations described as “in transition” to see how many, if any, make it into the classification of developed world and I am betting except for those in Europe, none of the rest will ever quite make that transition willingly.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

The European Boycott Threat to Israel

United States Secretary of State Kerry has repeatedly “warned” Israeli leaders, and in turn the Israeli people, that should the peace talks fail to result in a peace which establishes a Palestinian state, then Israel could be facing political isolation, economic boycotts and potentially a third Intifada, all of which was implied would be completely justified. There has yet to be a single word from Secretary of State Kerry of any consequences for the Palestinians should they not take any of the needed steps nor make any compromises in order to facilitate an agreement. The entire fault has been laid at the feet of the Israelis which will only serve to empower the Palestinians to be steadfast and unyielding when it comes to meeting the Israelis partway and simply holding to their maximalist demands. This has been the bane of all previous peace negotiations, the refusal by the Palestinians to accept any peace which leaves Israel intake with a Jewish majority. This has been the impetus behind the demand to return millions of refugees and their descendants into Israel producing an Arab majority which will effectively vote the Jews off their one sanctuary on planet Earth. But the next most controversial of the threats hanging over the Israelis’ heads is the economic boycott by the European nations, especially should it be declared by the European Union thus forcing it upon all of its members. But what is the truth behind this threat, does it hold water or are those using this threat all wet?

 

Checking the statistics for the past decade chronicling trade between Israel and the European nations, it has generally trended upward and even more so as Israeli high tech industries have blossomed. The main story line has been one of ever increasing relations and interactions. The crowning element of the interconnections in the high tech fields was the recent Israeli acceptance as a full partner in CERN. This arrangement holds great promise to benefit both Israeli research as well as their opportunity to give assistance to other CERN teams in pursuit of their research. All evidence is that there has been very little if any appetite among European industries and businesses to boycott Israel. On the other side are the governments and those industries either completely owned subsidiaries or closely tied to European nations’ governments. There the boycott infestation appears to have begun to eat away at cooperation between Israel and some European government entities. The situation stands with the governments being pressured by the BDS movement which is well funded and even supported by NGOs who are funded by those very same European governments. The question that rises from this unique situation is whether the European governments will be willing to cut off what are mutually beneficial relations that have built and evolved between the engines of the European economy and the Israeli economic engines. Such a boycott would prove to be a disaster for both the Europeans as well as the Israelis. The governments, if they decide to actually succumb and force a boycott, would be giving in to pressures of an organized, well-funded, methodical, multinational, and politically extreme lobbying effort which has at its financial and organizational heart a core of Jew-hating interests who use propaganda, half-truths, misrepresentations, hyperbole, indoctrination and duplicity to influence uninformed people willing to accept at face value these one sided accusations and allegations of misdeeds all backed by misrepresentations of international law in order to enlist them to push their perverse agenda. The results could very readily backfire with some of their companies deciding to move their headquarters to one of their remote offices or factories in order to continue their trade relations with Israel. Even if this somewhat far-fetched result did not materialize, the loss of trade from a boycott works both ways and the nations deciding to boycott Israel could very easily find the unintended consequences turn out to be far more costly than they had anticipated.

 

On the Israeli side, there is little Israel can do beyond expressing their side of the argument, something which is already well known by the majority but unfortunately that majority is not made up of people who readily go out and protest and lobby as they have other life pursuits which press on their time leaving little enough time for family. Israel, on the other hand, would continue to trade with the willing, share developments and discoveries with those who remain and care to listen, seek new ventures and friends to exchange in trade and other relations. Those claiming that Israel does not seek peace need to be challenged to explain how such can be true as Israel returned all of the Sinai in order to cement a peace with Egypt, offered to return the Judea and Samaria (West Bank) to Jordan despite the reality that Jordan’s annexation of West Bank was not universally recognized. Truth be told, only Britain and Pakistan recognized the annexation of the West Bank by Jordan and even the rest of the Arab and Muslim worlds as well as the United Nations refused to recognize Jordan occupation of Judea and Samaria. Another question that comes to mind is, exactly who did Jordan illegally occupy Judea and Samaria from after occupying the area after the 1948 War to annihilate the nascent Jewish State of Israel where seven Arab nations attacked Israel the morning after she declared her existence and return to her ancestral homelands. The answer to that question is obvious as long as your mind is open to what are obscure facts which have been ignored and left to echo silently as the media finds covering the reasons why Israel is legal when settling in Judea and Samaria. Israel has returned over ninety percent of the lands occupied resulting from the 1967 Six Day War, more than sufficient to satisfy United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 which required that Israel return only those lands which after their surrender allowed Israel to retain defendable borders. When that resolution was ratified the common expectations were that Israel would retain all of Judea and Samaria, all of the West Bank. The idea that anything different was expected only came about in the late 1980s with the First Intifada, an offensive insurrection directed by the PLO under Yasser Arafat. Truth can be a surprising experience which often sneaks in when we least expect such. Perhaps such a reformation of truth will soon become the new norm, just perhaps.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Israel as the State of the Jewish People

One of the major hurdles that are causing an impasse in the peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority has been the demand for the Palestinians to recognize Israel as the State for the Jewish People. Under Islamic law, Sharia, any land that was once under Muslim rule must never fall under other than Muslim rule and if it should then forcing a reversion back under Muslim rule becomes an imperative for the entirety of Islam. But this tenet of Islam is only the excuse behind the Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel as the Jewish State; their real motivations are simply the destruction of Israel as being Jewish and that is the driving force behind their refusal. The refusal by the Palestinians to recognize the Jewish nature of Israel is actually a secondary problem facing those who insist that Israel be defined as a democratic Jewish state. Their major difficulty is the secular Jews who do not view Israel as Jewish but simply desire that Israel be defined as a multiethnic pluralistic democratic state and to simply ignore any reference to the Jewishness of the majority of the citizens of Israel. Many of these Jews are simply secularists who happen to have been born of Jewish parents but who do not follow the commandments and traditions of the Jewish faith to a greater degree.

                          

This situation is far more than just a bothersome and tedious argument between the religious and/or Zionist sectors of Israeli society with the secular, post-Zionist sector of Israeli society; it is a struggle for the heart and soul of Israel as to whether or not it will be justifiably defined as the Jewish State. This dispute over how to define the nation of Israel has become more heated over the last couple of decades as more and more Israeli Jews are returning to their faith and roots and the study of Torah has become more mainstream. The original large majority held by the secular and often socialist Zionists who held the controlling hand in the formation of the governance after Israel was founded in 1948 has seen their majority dwindle away until they are facing the fact that Israel has become increasingly religious and Zionist. This is taken as a direct threat to the comfort of those who purport that the government should be purely secular and that in order for Israel to be considered a partner in what they see as the civilized world, they hold dearly to the principle that there must be a separation of the state from any religious influences. Unfortunately, their belief that there should be no religious influence on the government does not hold in the other direction, they also hold the opinion that the state should have the final say and ability to overrule and control the functions of religion within the society. Needless to say, they see absolutely no discrepancies in holding these two opposing views as they view religious observance and religious influences on the nation and the society as a detrimental effect fraught with superstitions and antiquated ideas and ideals. Their actions reflect a trepidation that the growing influence of religious ideas and ideals into Israeli society might rub off on them and corrupt their pure core concepts of good governance and its need to be completely removed and independent of the evil influences of religious principles, especially Jewish religious principles, as their fear is that the society will favor Jews over non-Jewish citizens. Much of this unwarranted fear stems from their lack of understanding of Jewish laws, traditions and the importance it places on equal treatment with an emphasis on equality before the law.

 

Any competent and complete study of Jewish law, Torah, reveals commandments that Jewish society is required to treat the stranger no differently that it treats another Jew. The stranger amongst the Jewish People has the same rights and actually a few additional rights stemming from not having to fulfill certain religious duties which a Jew is expected to fulfill. The stranger has every secular right that a Jew is allowed and is to be treated fairly by the courts, allowed security in their possessions, respect given their religious practices providing such does not cause Jews to break any commandments or violate the Noahic Code, and generally see no difference in any legal pursuit or action. These secularists also refuse to acknowledge that it was from Jewish societal laws that much of modern western civilized laws are based. This is even more true when one refers to the founding basis of the United States and its laws of governance and rights granted the people. It is also the basis for why in the United States any legal immigrant has near equal rights and responsibilities as an American citizen enjoys or is obligated. The ideas and ideals of a limited government comes from Torah which insists that any King of the Jewish People is forbidden from acquiring great wealth, horses, cattle, lands or other trappings of advantage or benefit over the peoples that they rule. Needless to say, these laws worked as well as the United States Constitution has limited the rise and overpowering of the Federal Government trampling over the individual States’ rights and powers. Any ruler of the Jewish People is also directed to spend inordinate amounts of time studying Torah so that they will be familiar with its restrictions and follow the law in an exemplary manner as an example for the population to also act according to Torah and keep the commandments. The secularists by attempting to reduce, if not eliminate, any religious influence over Israeli governance and also impede those who have strong religious beliefs from attaining high office, especially in the judiciary, are actually going against Torah and its guidelines of equality and acceptance of others who have different beliefs.

 

There have been some notable instances recently which exemplify this struggle for the heart and soul of Israel. Not the least has been the arguments over how to include the Haredi in the mandatory induction of youth into the IDF or National Service. Despite his campaigning as a pro-Zionist, pro-settler and renunciation of his father’s animosity of the religious, Yair Lapid has recently made numerous statements of positions which are diametrically opposed to his campaign promises. Just as his father before him, Yair Lapid has shown contempt for the Haredi and spoken out against dedicated Torah study as an unnecessary and wasteful endeavor which has little place or service of the nation of Israel. His most recent rant declared that his Yesh Atid Party would leave the government, presumably forcing new elections, if any new enlistment law covering the Haredi youth did not include sentencing them to incarceration and not simply calling for a fine or loss of government benefits. Any law which called for a loss of government benefits on any Haredi refusing a lawful draft would actually be even worse than a jail term as it would preclude their ability to study Torah full-time, the argument at the core of this debate. The Supreme Court declared the Tal Law unconstitutional voiding it thus removing the automatic deferment for anybody who studied Torah full-time in a structured arrangement from IDF or National Service. The Tal Law had been in effect since the formation of the State of Israel in 1948 and had just recently been challenged by leftist organization on the grounds that it was discriminatory. I am unaware of any people other than Haredi who had attempted to utilize the Tal Law to gain deferment from service on the grounds of full-time Torah study but if such were permitted then the law was not discriminatory. The leftists claimed that the law discriminated against secular Jews and non-Jews unfairly but since nobody from either group ever attempted to have the Tal Law applied to them, there is no case of it being denied to any other than Haredi draft age youth. Perhaps there is the solution to drafting a replacement law for the Tal Law, simply pass a new Tal Law that is worded almost exactly the same but include specific guidelines which make the law applicable to anybody who desires to take up full time Torah study in a structured environment. By allowing such a deferment to go to any citizen of draft age would remove any discriminatory application. It might be necessitated that an additional allowance be included determining that Haredi Torah schools be opened to other than Haredi who desire to study Torah full time. I would hope that the Haredi would welcome the additional interest in Torah study and willingly allow such applications and look upon them favorably.

 

Israeli Minister of Finance Yair Lapid has also taken a pro-two state peace plan position which is diametrically opposed to his campaign statements of support for those communities east of the 1949 Armistice Lines, the Green Line. He has praised United States Secretary of State Kerry and Israeli Justice Minister and lead negotiator Tzipi Livni on their efforts to forge a solution which will be tailored such that Mahmoud Abbas and the rest of the Palestinian leadership will approve and sign said agreement. Yair Lapid has made statements degrading and ridiculing Naftali Bennett of the Jewish Home Party, the same man with whom an agreement was reached that either both or neither would join the coalition and also agreed to back the Jewish residents beyond the green line and fully support a Zionist agenda. I wish I could say that this contemptible reversal by Minister Lapid is surprising but he appears to be following and walking in the exact same footprints as his father, Tommy Lapid, walked in his brief political career. Just like Tommy Lapid and his Shinui Party, Yair Lapid is leading his party in a path that castigates the Haredi community and compromises a true Zionist view for the rights of the State and people of Israel. The polls have reflected this similarity as his father’s party entered the Knesset with six seats in its first election and failed ever after from returning and Lair’s party had an impressive nineteen seats in his first elections and polls have shown a steadily decreasing strength over time to where they are indicating that the Yesh Atid Party would only receive half that number if elections were held today. One can expect that number to continue to dwindle if Yair continues to fall away from his campaign promises and aligns further to the left and post-Zionist positions.

 

The erosion of support for Yair Lapid and his Yesh Atid Party is further proof that the people of Israel are returning to their religious roots and supporting a Zionist settling of all the lands of Israel and departing the leftist, socialist roots that ruled supreme for over fifty years after the founding of Israel. Where this will eventually lead has yet to be made clear. The optimistic side tells me that we will not need wait too much longer before we witness a change in the direction and attitudes of those who decide the path that the governance of Israel will take. The “old guard” will soon be replaced by a younger generation who appear to be less restrained in their enthusiasm and display an enviable level of energy and vigor. The future appears promising providing Israel can survive the remaining years of trial by fire and onslaught of an orchestrated drive to eradicate the Jewishness of Israel. Much of this has been aided by the absence of the full and unbridled support from the administration in Washington.

 

Beyond the Cusp