Reading Time: 4minutesRethinking Plato’s Influence on the Modern World
Plato has ruled the world for 2500 years through his lasting influence on philosophy, politics, and religion. It’s time we paid attention to Plato’s influence on our world. He is considered an authority on politics, even though in his lifetime, his writings were not compatible with the politics of his home country, Athens. Some of the worst attitudes of the modern world can be traced to him. He proposed a so-called link between societal ‘decay’ and race. He was also a misogynist. And yet he can’t be easily discarded. He is too much a part of us. Instead, I believe Plato’s influence has to be explored, discussed, and evaluated for its usefulness to contemporary society.
I am going to try to follow Karl Popper’s moderate approach to Plato. Popper admits there is some good in Plato’s works, but objects to specific ideas which have caused lasting damage. On page 517, for example, he talks about the mischief–a term used by Samuel Butler–done to mankind by our secondary schools and universities. These were virtually invented by Plato. In this article, I would like to discuss Plato’s emphasis on perfectionism.
Plato’s Influence and Motives
Plato took his cue from Hesiod and other early Greek philosophers, but especially Heraclitus. Heraclitus ‘discovered’, during a period of political turmoil, that every sensible thing changes constantly. He eventually became disillusioned about the changes he observed and argued against the belief that the existing social order would remain forever. But Heraclitus was not giving up on the existing social order. This fact becomes clear in another element of his philosophy with the potential for a new kind of turmoil. According to Popper, 1 the emphasis on change in Heraclitus’s philosophy was combined with a belief in an immutable law of destiny.
After Heraclitus, philosophers including Parmenides, Democritus, Plato and Aristotle dedicated themselves to solving the problem of a changing world. Both Parmenides and Plato relegated this world world to a phantom-like existence. They theorized ‘that the changing world in which we live is an illusion and that there exists a more real world which does not change‘. (p. 127) In other words, the world we live in is just a copy of that perfect world. The world we can’t see is more real than the world we live in.
The Capture of Western Thought
One wonders how, in 2500 years, this has not been identified as blatant trickery. How odd that we never get around to questioning the relevance or theoretical usefulness of perfection itself. How strange that no one objects to their world being superseded by an ideal world in Plato’s head.
It is true that Plato didn’t invent the idea of perfection. Previous to the ancient Greeks, Hinduism saw perfection as its primary spiritual goal. But in the Western world it was Plato’s realm of perfect things that influenced Christianity.
Plato wrote that one had to transcend the imperfection of reality; Aristotle defined perfection as potential being fully realized and expressed; St. Thomas Aquinas concluded from Aristotle that perfection should be one of Christianity’s highest goals.
Plato’s ideas have also mingled with Jewish and ancient Greek mystical cults to create the tradition of Western mysticism, including Hermeticism and Gnosticism, Theosophy, Freemasonry, and some forms of modern Paganism. In addition, Theosophy influenced the early Western perception of Tibetan Buddhism.
Plato’s Influence on Education and Career Choices
Fortunately, context is becoming more clear regarding the effect on individuals of perfectionist beliefs. In an article entitled The Illusion of Perfection, Robert Fritz acknowledges that perfectionism carries built-in assumptions that remain unquestioned. For example, he questions Richard Bach who said, “There is such a thing as perfection… and our purposes for living is to find that perfection and show it forth…”
One common result of this belief is the responsibility it puts on people to strive for unreachable or undesirable goals. “It reminds me of what Lucy said to Charlie Brown when he told her that we are here to help others. ‘What are the others here for?’ She asked.” (as cited by Fritz)
Fritz’s article follows perfectionist thinking to its cultural conclusion. “Schools give their students aptitude tests designed to measure their abilities. Then, guidance counselors sit down with these students, and give them advice. Their advice usually suggests pursuing a career based on their aptitude. If the student is good at math, become an engineer; if you are organized, become a manager...”
In this way many end up in careers they never cared about because they thought they were obligated to develop their talents and abilities without regard to other possibilities.
Another result of this approach is that many people believe they can’t learn and develop unless they already have gifts to develop. And if they do have gifts, their identity becomes tied to this purpose. They think they are defined by how well they develop their gifts. Since there is no way to reach the ideal of perfection, there is no way to win.
Democratic Utopias
If may be that the idea of perfection can be discarded without any great loss of culture or history, but we don’t know that yet. We haven’t explored it thoroughly enough. Democratic versions of utopianism also exist. For example, Sir Thomas More’s book, Utopia. In addition, American colonists created several utopian communities. They all emphasized spiritual perfection, although they differed in their beliefs. From the American example, we can see that the meaning of perfection differs from one group or individual to another, and also from one era to another.
Today, it is assumed that ‘the American Dream’ is economic. However, that is not how it started out. “The concept of the ‘American Dream’ was created by Puritans in the early 18th Century American colonies. It was also based on the idea of perfectionism. Puritans viewed this New World as a fresh start from the old World of Great Britain and strived to create a society of elite people held under the highest standard of God.”
A neoconservative attempt at self-perpetuation can be seen in two of the Star Trek series. According to David Greven, the Enterprise series is the first Trek series to openly break with Trek’s core liberal values. Regardless of whether this was intended to manipulate, this is just one influence driving American culture to the right. It’s likely that popular culture manipulates the public.
“Enterprise appears to be a Trek series for those who felt Trek had undergone an appallingly ‘sensitive’ makeover in its incarnations of the late-80s and 1990s… “
Restore America and Star Trek
This break had a purpose. Greven cited Daniel Leonard Bernardi’s recognition of an effort called ‘Restore America’. However, Bernardi associated The Next Generation, which originally aired in 1987, with this ‘neoconservative moment’. In his opinion, racism, sexism, and heterosexism worked together to ‘roll back’ the political gains of the 1960s liberalism, such as civil rights, women’s rights, and gay rights.
Greven also cites Richard Chase, who thought Hermann Melville represented the ‘new liberalism’, as opposed to ‘Bad, ‘old’ liberalism. Neoconservatives preferred the new liberalism because it was ‘unequivocally’ opposed to totalitarianism. Suddenly these former liberals decided their old liberal goals of ‘progress,’ ‘history,’ and ‘the liberation of the masses’ was ironic. In other words, it was doubtful they could ever be realized.
The effort to perpetuate this view in The Next Generation was apparently more successful than Enterprise. The Next Generation ran for seven years; Enterprise ran for less than 4. There was immediate resistance to beliefs expressed by the Enterprise crew. Viewers complained about the series’ direction, and stopped watching it. This led the writers to make hasty changes. However, according to Greven, Enterprise remained ‘a deeply misogynistic, reactionary Trek series.’ According to fans, the neoconservative fantasy expressed in Enterprise, was a ‘return to a time before progressive, politically correct new values ruined things for everybody and policed the expression of good, salty, enjoyable, essentialist, racist and sexist views.’
Is Donald Trump part of the Restore America Agenda?
Greven’s article makes me wonder if there have been ongoing neoconservative influences in American popular culture. If Donald Trump is the latest attempt at a course correction for liberal values, it stands to reason there have been continuous attempts since Star Trek: The Next Generation, and Enterprise. No wonder so many people are mesmerized by this agenda.
Harold Kaplan said ‘humanist aspirations’ are the dominant American intellectual tradition. 1 But an abstract notion of democratic humanism is only part of the story. Kaplan explains democratic humanism in the context of writers of the American classics: Emerson, Thoreau, Cooper, Poe, D. H. Lawrence, Hawthorne, Melville, Whitman, Twain, and Henry James. They composed the American classics and the poetry of democracy, and in their works we see hints of the strange continent that confronted them. Kaplan deciphers their experience through the historical context, their own letters and the works of European sympathizers. Their response to this unique time and place was to create a body of literature recognized today as the American Classics.
Humanism and America’s Citizen Poets
“How does one define humanism then? In the American context the necessary assumptions were that man was both the first cause and the final end of his experiences and that he has in some unmentioned respect a dominance over his history, his present state, and his future.” (p. 3)
Emerson, Thoreau and Whitman were citizen poets. But this is also true of Melville and Hawthorne, who had opposing temperaments. They were all critics of their civilization, but beneath the criticism was a deep allegiance. ‘If we have a moral tradition that supports democracy, it is largely their creation’. (p. ix)
The Metaphor of the Frontier
The ancestors of these authors had arrived on the American continent with their heads full of the old world. By the 18th century, they were finally ready to formulate a debate with that world and distinguish themselves from it. This might account for the way American culture developed on a parallel track with native culture. They wrote about the native inhabitants, but they were obsessed with the burden of creating a new, non-European culture.
Kaplan says that in some respects, modernity came to America at the beginning of its history. ‘The frontier supplied the best historical metaphor for both crisis and inspiration in a world without sovereign moral authorities’. These American authors ‘faced the deep insecurity of a quarrel between man and his civilization’. They took the cultural initiative of defining the terms of their own freedom, and for that reason, they seem like an avant garde for the modern consciousness.
The Poetry of Democracy in Debate With the Old World
Democracy was part of the debate with the old world. And freedom. And morality. And it wasn’t confined to American writers. That’s also true today. Hannah Arendt, for example, interpreted Hermann Melville’s Billy Budd as a rebuke against the French Revolution. That may be what Melville intended. However it seems to me that when conservatives disapprove of the French Revolution, they are trying to erase it from history, and that is more troubling than the Revolution itself. And Arendt was a conservative.
An important contributor to our conversation is Chris Hedges, who often quotes Hannah Arendt. Hedges often quotes Melville’s Moby Dick as well. This is fitting because Hedges is a Calvinist, as was Melville’s mentor, Nathaniel Hawthorne. In our conversation, we are fortunate to have Hedges’s view of the American Classics in addition to that of Harold Kaplan and others. We need all of these voices and literary sources together to orient ourselves and our democracy in this time and place.
Billy Budd
The following is Harold Kaplan’s commentary on Billy Budd. This is a spoiler alert. If you haven’t read Billy Budd, you might want to read it before continuing.
“In fact the ability to appreciate him (the ‘Handsome Sailor’) is what marks the line between good and evil, faith and despair… It is clear, from such expressions, as well as the longer development in Billy Budd, that the ‘Handsome Sailor’ was a man who reflected for other men their best sense of themselves...
“The effect is to say that the ‘Handsome Sailor’ is universal in his humanity, and superior at the same time. He is, significantly, a democratic hero in another sense. In his various embodiments he is associated with revolutionary action, with mutiny, and the over-throw of authorities… The tension between resistance and conformity dominates the long development of the theme, a point which fulfills expectations for a democratic hero. In the last complete incarnation, Billy Budd cheers for the ‘Rights of Man,’ but also dies affirming Captain Vere.” (p. 189)
It may seem surprising that Hermann Melville is a model for our contemporary neoconservatives. They appreciate what they see as Melville’s superior resistance to authoritarianism. I hope we can look at these authors through our own eyes and decide for ourselves what they were trying to tell us about our world. Maybe we can also expand on their vision.
Was the Enlightenment democratic? According to Harold Kaplan, Americans do not question the effects on the United States of the Reformation and the Enlightenment. He wrote:
“We do not question that the twin roots of American national history were the religious revolution, which broke the Catholic hegemony, and the secular Enlightenment, which finally broke the traditional political structures, monarchical and hierarchical, of Europe…” (p. 14)
((Harold Kaplan, Democratic Humanism and American Literature, University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1972, p. 14)) (T
When I first started thinking about the social effects of America’s mythology, I questioned the religious basis of the Enlightenment. Now I’m questioning its democratic basis. There is no question that those events made the United States possible. But there have always been concerns about the Enlightenment. The question is, are we capable of talking about these concerns in the Enlightened United States?
The short answer is, not necessarily. One faction of our enlightened forefathers, the federalists, wanted a continuation of Britain’s monarchy with a king-like president. Others wanted to create a new kind of government unlike Britain’s. Unfortunately, the new-government faction lost the debate. The best they could do was add the Bill of Rights to curb federal power.
Although we might wish the anti-federalists had been successful, they were part of the same class as the federalists. One result of their class outlook was that they did not see a problem with inequality, slavery in particular.
American Politics versus Enlightenment Governance
Was the Enlightenment Democratic?
As stated above, America’s government is an Enlightenment creation. In this light, it was interesting to discover that during the 2016 presidential election that we are not allowed to elect our chosen presidential candidate. After loudly objecting to our defeat, most of us accepted our limitations, unlike the Trump faction. That is who we are.
Trump
Trump’s base apparently missed that demonstration of how democracy works. He used our act of good will to promote himself. Now we are observing billionaires and Freemasons trying to claw back democracy, while Trump’s supporters don’t bat an eye.
You could say the aftermath of the 2020 election has been a Free-masonic temper tantrum. And it’s not going away. Freemasonry is part of our political history. The important lesson here is that our system offered no protections against a candidate like Donald Trump.
Biden
On a positive note, the Biden Administration has responded to many of our demands. It’s not what we envisioned in 2016. We thought a complete change of direction was needed to address climate change and the shortage of resources. But the truth is, no politician, including Bernie Sanders, can run a campaign on a platform of lower living standards and personal sacrifice. And this is what we need. If some mythical self-sacrifice candidate were to win anyway, the markets would remove him in short order.
However, Biden’s political situation has been complicated by events in Palestine. As a recipient of AIPAC money, he supports Israel’s attack on Gaza. In addition, AIPAC is threatening to primary any political candidate who criticizes Israel’s bombing campaign. And our government does not object to this tactic. Perhaps the most worrying part of this is that it is taking place over the objections of people all over the world. This is yet another lesson about American politics.
Class Structure in America
America has always had distinct social classes but no one bothers to explain how this came about. Immigration, of course. Groups immigrating to the colonies included Puritans (religious fundamentalists), Quakers (religious liberals), and Borderers. This last group wanted personal liberty without interference from society or government, a demand that is familiar to us today. However, the largest group of English immigrants to the United States arrived between the years 1642 to 1675. They consisted of 45,000 Cavaliers of King Charles I, and their indentured servants. They had lost their former status in England because they were on the losing side in the English Civil War. However, they remained royalist, Anglican and Aristocratic.
Some say they wanted to re-create in Virginia the hierarchal, farming society they had left behind. When their servants began to die, the Cavaliers’ descendants imported African slaves. Cavalier immigrants included ancestors of George Washington, James Madison, James Monroe, John Marshall, and other first families of Virginia.
The descendants of the Cavaliers only stopped supporting the Stuart kings during the reign of Charles II. They turned against King Charles because he appointed his own people to offices in Virginia and gave cultivated land to his favorites, among other perceived injustices.
Summary
Was the Enlightenment a democratic movement? Not as much as it could have been. It seems Ben Franklin was not quite honest when he said democracy is ours if we can keep it. In my opinion, it is reasonable to question our form of government and the Enlightenment ideals that made it possible.
When Recep Tayyip Erdogan defends Gaza, he is one of the few leaders in the Middle East to openly criticize Benjamin Netanyahu for his callous bombing campaign. In addition to providing hope for Gaza in her ongoing trial, Erdogan also reminds us that the Levant has seen better times. Palestine was under Turkish rule for four hundred years prior to the days of the British Mandate of Palestine. Apparently, Erdogan has not forgotten this long-lost child of the Ottoman Empire. On November 29, after Netanyahu continued to spew his vile threats at Gaza, Erdogan called Netanyahu the ‘butcher of Gaza‘.
During his time as president of Turkey, Erdogan has helped the Palestinians in many ways. His humanitarian relief to Gaza is probably his most important effort. This relief has been desperately important during Israel’s continuing blockade of food, water, medicine and electricity. Without his help and the help of the United Nations, the population of Gaza would have starved to death long ago.
It is shocking that Netanyahu’s blockade remains in place even during his bombing spree. Erdogan’s courage is all the more admirable because his criticism may have cost him politically and monetarily. He is tied up, with the rest of the world, by the manipulations of dying energy markets. In fact, an energy war surrounds the upcoming climate summit.
COP28
It has been reported that the COP28 president secretly used his climate summit role to push oil trade with foreign government officials. The COP28 president is Sultan Al Jaber, chief executive of the national oil company ADNOC and the Chairman of MASDAR, the United Arab Emirates fossil fuel and renewable energy companies. In this article by Rachel Donald of Planet: Critical, she explains that much of the behavior we see in the oil markets is due to the fact that oil is no longer a good investment. The costs are too high for profitability.
However, gas is another matter. But this only refers to the lower cost of gas compared to oil production. Renewable energy is the obvious way of the future. However, the West is determined that renewables will not prevail. The West claims gas is a transition fossil fuel that will move the world toward renewable energy. But that’s not at all what gas represents.
The fight to end fossil fuel use threatens the political world order
The market for both oil and gas have decreased, but gas is still relatively inexpensive to produce. This motivates producers to artificially increase the demand.
The sheer size of gas reserves would enable another 125 years of burning fossil fuels. For rational people, continuing to use gas in stead of renewables makes no sense as a policy. The motivation for its continued use is that the transition to renewable energy will diminish the power of Western nations.
Due the high costs of constructing the international infrastructure, developing nations are forced into partnerships with Western countries to exploit these natural resources. Renewables, on the other hand, are within the reach of developing countries. Renewables would give them energy independence from Western countries. But this threatens the political world order. And it is this fact that is missing from the climate energy conversation.
China has cornered the renewable energy industry, but…
The energy war is the Global North’s biggest investment. But while the U.S. and its allies have been focused on fossil fuels, China was busy gaining access to precious minerals needed for renewable energy. China has also been expanding supply chains. Under the right circumstances this would assure China’s power over the West. Unfortunately, China still needs energy to supply the world with renewable power.
China is the biggest customer of ADNOC. If China’s gas supply were cut off for some reason, it would cause an oil crisis for China. But the crisis would spread. In retaliation, China would stop its exports of materials to the allies’ industries. By the time the markets sent their lobbyists to Washington, it would already be too late. The economies of both superpowers would be in free-fall.
Erdogan’s courage in context
Turkey had just renewed relations with Israel after a decade-long rupture. The two countries had been discussing developing closer trade relations and working on new energy projects that could have helped build longer-term trust. But as mediators were trying to extend the truce between Israel and Hamas, Netanyahu kept insisting he would eradicate Hamas. Erdogan accused Netanyahu of complicating the process. After Erdogan called him the ‘butcher of Gaza’, Netanyahu recalled all diplomatic staff from Turkey and other regional countries. And Turkey has withdrawn its Tel Aviv envoy. This is an example of the price paid when Erdogan defends Gaza.
How should the world gage the threat of Benjamin Netanyahu?
Those of us who can only watch it happen are suffering too. My own opinion is that Netanyahu is more than a threat to Gaza. He seems to take pleasure in broadcasting threats and administering public cruelty to the Palestinians. He has no problem with horrifying observers all over the world. And this is in spite of world-wide calls for a cease-fire. Benjamin Netanyahu is not exhibiting the behavior of a rational person, let alone a prime minister.
In addition, AIPAC is threatening to run candidates against American representatives who criticize Israel. All things considered, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that Netanyahu, with Western backing, is a threat to the entire world.
This is the context in which Recep Tayyip Erdogan defends Gaza. It seems to me that he is our only hope for an end to Israel’s hostilities against Gaza and the rest of the world.
Control of gas and oil supplies is the main weapon of Israel’s U.S. ‘protectors’. It appears this is the motivation for the bombing of Gaza. The story of Gaza’s natural gas field and the U.S. military are missing in reporting of the bombing of Gaza. A natural gas field was discovered off the Coast of Gaza in 1999 by BG Group, a multinational oil and gas company headquartered in Reading, United Kingdom. And this gas field is not the only one on Israel’s radar.
Secret U.S. military base(s) are also missing from the story of the bombing of Gaza
It has come to light that the United States has a military base in Israel. This was reported in the Jewish Virtual Library. JVL sources were listed as Barbara Opall-Rome of the Defense News and The Washington Post. The Post’s article is no longer on its website. Actually, there is more than one. The chronology is complicated and will be discussed in more detail below.
Israel is claiming rights to several gas fields, but who really owns them?
Several gas fields have been discovered off the Mediterranean coast in recent decades. In fact, while the Israelis were bombing Gaza, Israel granted twelve licenses to six companies to explore for natural gas in that area. Total oil and gas reserves were valued at $524 billion in 2019.
But did Israel have a right to award these licenses? According to a UN report, Israel is not entitled to all of the gas. Some of the reserves are in the occupied territory of Palestine. Much of the rest is outside of national borders and should be shared with relevant parties. In fact, the UN report questioned whether Israel has a right to any of it. After all, the gas fields took millions of years to form and the Palestinians occupied the entire territory of Palestine for thousands of years before the Israelis arrived.
The question of the hour is, who owns this particular gas field off the Gaza coast? It won’t be surprising to anyone that the majority owner, the Palestinian people, have no access to its income.
Gaza swims with sharks
The Palestine National Authority has maritime jurisdiction up to 20 nautical miles off of Gaza’s coast. This is according to the Oslo II Accords. The PNA signed a 25-year contract for gas exploration off the Gaza coast with BGG in November 1999. Long story short, Gaza ended up with nothing. Here are the details as described by Rachel Donald of Planet Critical.
Ehud Barak
Palestine’s Prime Minister at the time, Ehud Barak, authorized BGG to drill the first well in July 2000. And of course, BGG struck gas. Then Palestine and Israel began to negotiate. They agreed on a deal that was thought to be fair to both Israeli demand and Palestinian supply. But then…
Arial Sharon
Arial Sharon became Prime Minister. His government rejected a supply deal between the Palestinian gas field and the state-owned Israel Electric Corporation.
Tony Blair to the rescue
Enter UK Prime Minister Tony Blair in 2002. As a result of Blair’s influence, Sharon agreed to negotiate an agreement. He agreed to take an annual supply of 0.05 trillion cubic feet of Palestinian gas for a period of 10 to 15 years. But in 2003 Sharon decided the money might be used for terrorism. So he changed his mind.
Hamas scuttles a new deal with Ehud Olmert
Ehud Olmert’s government made a new deal with the Palestinians that was supposed to start in 2009. Israel would purchase 0.05 trillion cubic feet of Palestinian gas for $4 billion annually. However, the 2007 Battle of Gaza changed the deal again. This battle began when Hamas took control of the strip. They supposedly did this because they wanted to increase the original 10% Palestinian share in the BGG deal.
I have no inside knowledge of Hamas’s motivation. However, In my opinion it is curious that an attack by Hamas also justified Israel’s 2023 bombing campaign. In both cases Israel benefitted by claiming entitlement to self-serving retributions. In 2023, Israel took the opportunity to award exploration licenses off the Mediterranean Coast. Now back to the saga of Palestine’s gas field.
Israel nullifies the 1999 contract that BG Group, the Palestinian government and the PNA agreed to
An Israeli team of negotiators was set up by the Government of Israel to formulate a deal with BGG, bypassing both the Palestinian government and PNA. This nullified the contract signed in 1999 between BGG and PNA. However, in December 2007, BGG withdrew from negotiations with the Israeli government.
In 2008, Israel belatedly tries to restart negotiations with BGG
In June 2008, the Israeli government recontacted BGG to urgently renegotiate the deal. But it seems this was a cover for at attack on Gaza, which was already planned. The UN report states: “The decision to speed up negotiations with BGG coincided, chronologically, with the planning of an Israeli military operation in Gaza, whereby it would appear that the Government of Israel wished to reach an agreement with BGG prior to the military operation, which was already in an advanced planning stage.”
Israel confiscates Palestinian gas fields in 2008 invasion of Gaza
The invasion of Gaza by Israel in December 2008 brought the Palestinian gas fields under Israeli control—without regard for international law. Israel’s government has been dealing with BGG ever since. The UN estimates billions of dollars in loss for the Palestinian people.
The military base(s)
According to the Jewish Virtual Library and Defense News, there is a new U.S. military base located at the Israel Defense Forces Air Defense School near Beersheba. When construction began in 2017, its stated purpose was to support a contingent of soldiers who would operate systems to help Israel defend against rocket and missile attack. In this base, the plan was for U.S. soldiers and Israeli airmen to be living and working side-by-side. But these articles also mention a U.S. independent facility in the same general area of Israel’s Negev desert.
Pentagon awards contract for expansion of the joint base in August 2023.
The dates reported by the various websites are confusing. I believe construction of the joint U.S. and Israeli facility began September 16, 2017, while Donald Trump was in the Whitehouse. The JVL says ground was broken for the initial construction in 2017. And this one seems to be the one that was expanded in 2023. But before this base was built, the U.S. already had a military base in Israel.
Making sense of the dates
The Intercept says the Pentagon awarded a multimillion-dollar contract for construction of a base in August 2023. However, this contract must have been for its expansion, because the JVL and Defense News says construction was begun in 2017.
At that time, the U.S. had another military site independent of Israel that was not the subject of an expansion. The Intercept was able to report the monetary value of this older site because it was mentioned in an August 2 contract announcement by the Pentagon. The intercept reports that this site is a $35.8 million U.S. troop facility.
The two sites share a code name
The U.S. military has operated this independent facility for more than a decade in the same general area of Israel’s Negev desert, according to the Jewish Virtual Library, Defense News and the Intercept. But Ken Klippenstein and Daniel Boguslaw of the Intercept report that both sites are part of code-named Site 512.
The Americans operate the independent site without an Israeli presence. Its purpose is to house the U.S. AN/TPY-2, an X-Band radar that is integrated with Israeli search and track radars to augment early warning in the event of ballistic missile attack from Iran. The Intercept article specuates that these sites did not warn against the Hamas attack because they were focused in Iran.
One of Israel’s Iron Dome systems is in the U.S.
One of Israel’s operational Iron Dome systems is now in the U.S., according to the Defense News article. It is competing with U.S.-proposed systems as a possible solution to the medium and short-range air defense requirement.
Reading Time: 4minutesThe Dictatorship of Christian Zionism
If you’ve wondered during the last twenty years at the overheated rhetoric of both Israel and the Western powers, Dr. Stephan Sizer will connect the dots in a video entitled The Historical Roots of Christian Zionism, It’s Theological Basis and Political Agenda. According to Sizer, Christian Zionism is the culprit behind the militant turn. Christian Zionism explains everything.
What do I mean by everything? From the policies of the George W. Bush administration to the current crisis in Israel and Palestine, the relationship between Israel and the United States has remained important. Also in this period, the Middle East and the rest of the world have criticized U.S. policies. Muslims are painted as the enemy, and there is a reckless drive for war with Iran.
Definition and influence of Christian Zionism
Christian Zionism is a movement within Protestant Christianity that views the modern State of Israel as the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. It follows that we owe it unconditional economic, moral, political and theological support.
The Christian version of Zionism began 50 years before the Jewish version. It is a political effort for the most part. But the theological agenda is also important, and far more troubling. Two of the most frightening talking points are the idea of using nuclear weapons on Palestine and going to war with Iran. These can both be explained by the theological influence of Christian Zionism.
The theological and political agenda
The theology of Christian Zionism is tied to a literal interpretation of the Bible. But it is as if the birth of Jesus is irrelevant. Key beliefs include the belief that Jerusalem will be the capital of Zion, that the temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem, and an antipathy to Arabs and Muslims. There is also the belief that the final battle is immanent. This accounts for the similarities in warlike rhetoric and racist hate speech in American administrations.
Politically, the Jewish Zionists are aware that they depend on Christian Zionists to influence politicians and pay the bills.
History of Christian Zionism
Zionism began with the Puritan movement and the consequences of the Protestant Reformation. The Puritan worldview included the belief that the Jewish people had a place in God’s purposes. Specifically, Puritans believed the Jews would come to faith in Jesus and be returned to Palestine to become a Christian nation. The main proponents were George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards.
In 1808, the London Jew Society was formed as part of the Restoration Movement. Its purpose was to relieve the suffering of Jews, especially in East London, and to identify Jewish communities around the world. They believed Jews and Gentiles would be one people of God.
This view was dominant in Evangelicalism, but this changed with the rise of the French empire. Napoleon was the first ruler in 2,000 years to promise the Jews a homeland. Napoleon called himself King of Kings. However, his detractors called him ‘the anti-Christ’. The return of the Jews to Palestine was part of his strategy for world domination.
Napoleon was not successful with his campaign in Palestine, but his proclamation led to millenarian hopes among certain nonconformist circles in England. From a political point of view, it marked the beginning of a renewed interest of the Western Powers in Palestine as occupying an important international position.
The Albury Circle
According to Sizer, the Albury Circle developed the idea that God had a separate purpose for the Jewish people, apart from the Church. For them, Britain’s Manifest Destiny included controlling the Middle East and assisting the Jews’ return to Palestine. They believed the Jews would then assist Britain in colonial endeavors.
John Darby and The Brethren fashioned these ideas into Dispensationalism. This sect taught that the Church and Israel were separate people. The Church represents God’s heavenly people, and the Jews represent God’s earthly people. This is now the dominant theology of U.S. Evangelicals, Fundamentalists and Pentecostals. These groups are now underwriting financial and political support for the Zionist Lobby, and are a major obstacle to peace in the Middle East.
Britain had ulterior motives
Britain did not deliver on its promises to the Zionists because of its secret agreement with the French to divide the Middle East between them. They actually left a written record of this intention, including their admission that they didn’t think it was necessary to consult the Palestinians. However, this agreement did not come to pass either, and eventually the British tried to solve the ‘problem’ by partitioning Palestine equally between Palestinians and Zionists. Because the Palestinians’ proposed share would be half of what they already had, they rejected the plan. The Zionists accepted it.
Zionist presidents
The Rev. Jerry Falwell had come from a tradition that was intolerant of Jews, but he changed his view toward Israel after meeting Menachem Begin in Jerusalem. This was the beginning of a coalition between the Christian and Zionist right, overseen by Falwell.
Sizer calls Jimmy Carter ‘the first born again president. However, when Falwell co-founded the Moral Majority in 1979, one of his chief aims was to defeat Carter. Falwell argued that Carter was on the wrong side of abortion, homosexuality and prayer in public schools. Carter was also the only U.S. president to identify Israeli apartheid.
However, most U.S. administrations since 1948 have been supportive of the Zionist agenda. They include those of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Ford, Nixon, Reagan, Bush Jr., Obama, Trump, and Biden. The last president to challenge the Israel lobby was Bush Sr.
Five parties are involved in the carnage in the Middle East. They are Israel, the United States and her allies, the Zionists, AIPAC and Hamas. It’s no surprise that it’s complicated. All of the parties have real reasons for being there, however in some cases the real reasons are not stated outright. I believe this is largely due to the long history of the Jewish people and the way they were shaped by their experiences. Many factors have gone into the present turmoil, but there are two sides to every story. Peace is the only choice for Palestine and Israel.
Reason not the need
Israel’s stated claim to ownership of Palestine is based on the Old Testament story of Abraham. It is supported in this claim by Christian Zionists. This biblical gift of Palestine to Israel has been debunked by both Jewish rabbis and Christian theologians. (See also: Stephen Sizer on Christian Zionism) However, it is true that there was a desperate struggle by Zionists to relocate Jews to Palestine, and this desperation was as real as it gets. As King Lear said to his daughters,
“O, reason not the need! Our basest beggars are in the poorest thing superfluous. Allow not nature more than nature needs...” (King Lear Act II. Scene IV. Line 264.)
The British mandate restricts immigration
One cause of desperation in Palestine was British immigration restrictions and the Mandate’s perceived indifference to the immigrants’ safety. The Israeli’s got their way in the end. From at least one point of view, this was unfortunate. Increased immigration resulted in regrettable changes to the Jewish population in Palestine. However, the events leading to this wave of immigration were unfortunate as well.
Jews were living in Palestine before the Zionists arrived, but they were religious communities who spent their time studying. They did not participate in farming or trade. They were supported by Jews in the diaspora. Today, both Israelis and supportive politicians play on biblical promises to the Jews as Israel’s reason for being, but Zionism has always been a secular project. I believe this fiction has begun to work against them, mostly because it hides their real reasons for immigrating to Palestine. And mistrust of the outside world prevents them from saying what needs to be said.
From a religious to a secular society
The secular movement has been blamed for Israel’s more recent history. According to Wikipedia, Zionism didn’t exist in Palestine before 1882. The term Yishuv refers to the Jews living in Palestine before that time. The Old Yishuv residents were religious Jews, living mainly in Jerusalem, Safed, Tiberias, and Hebron. There were smaller communities in Jaffa, Haifa, Peki’in, Acre, Nablus, Shfaram, and until 1779, in Gaza. In the final centuries before modern Zionism, a large part of the Old Yishuv spent their time studying the Torah. But Israel changed from a religious to a secular society.
The term ‘New Yishuv’ refers to those who adopted a new approach, based on economic independence and various national ideologies, rather than strictly religious reasons for settling in the ‘Holy Land’.
These were the Zionists. The first New Yishuv immigrants began building homes outside the Old City walls of Jerusalem in the 1860s, followed soon after by the founders of the moshava ofPetah Tikva. Growth was in full swing during the First Aliyah of 1882. Neighborhoods and villages were founded from that year until the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. The Zionist aliyah and the New Yishuv, were more socialist-leaning and secular, emphasizing labor and self-sufficiency.
The Haganah
In the British Mandate for Palestine, the Haganah was a paramilitary force founded in 1920 to protect the Yishuv. Although it was an underground organization until 1947, it was the main Zionist military organization. It remained so until the 1948 Israeli Declaration of Independence and then integrated into the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF).
The Haganah took many forms over the years, but its activities were moderate until after World War II. The Zionists were prepared to fight anyone and everyone to establish their new homeland. After the War, when the British refused to remove their restrictions on immigration, the Haganah led an insurgency against the British Mandate in Palestine.
Poland supports Zionism as a way to get rid of the Jews
Sadly, much of the help they did receive, for example from the Polish government, was motivated by the wish to get rid of them. The Second Polish Republic supported a Jewish state in Palestine to aid in ridding itself of its Jewish population during the interwar period. The Poles provided military training and weapons to Zionist military groups, including Haganah. Eventually, the British pressured the Polish government to stop the deliveries.
The United States recognized Israel immediately after the Israeli Declaration of Independence. However, for two decades, it was not Israel’s strongest ally and did not offer the diplomatic cover it does today. When Israel invaded Egypt with the British and French during the 1956 Suez crisis, Washington joined Moscow at the United Nations to force Israel and its allies to withdraw. For many years, US aid to Israel was limited to loans to buy food through the economic hardship in the years after independence.
But Israel did have at least one strong ally. Prior to 1967, Israel’s primary foreign ally was France, which supplied almost all of its major weapons including planes, tanks and ships as well as building the nuclear plant from which it developed atomic weapons.
The U.S. alliance
It wasn’t until Israel’s victory and occupation of Gaza that Washington decided Arab nations had moved into the Soviet camp. The U.S. increased weapons sales to the Jewish state, including Phantom jet fighters. President Johnson committed the US to maintaining Israel’s “qualitative military edge” and opened the door to decades of weapons sales. This helped build the Israeli military into the strongest force in the Middle East.
Can we tell the truth? Can we listen to the truth?
In the process, the Zionists continued to cite a religious history that was no longer important to them. In fact, it seems they told as many stories as they needed to gain sympathy from a world that had already shown itself to be unsympathetic. Many have recognized that the enforced isolation and abuse of the Jewish people for 2,000 years caused them to share certain physical and personality characteristics, including shrewdness and a sense of mistrust. It shouldn’t be surprising that they took these traits with them when it was time for them to make their way in an unfriendly world.
However, as sympathetic as we may be to Israel, Palestine is about to disappear in 25 miles of smoke and fire. This focus on Israel is important not only for Israel’s well-being, but for the well-being of her neighbors.
Israel can’t be expected to disappear. But it can’t continue to live in an unfriendly world either. Our world has structure. Some, if not all, of that structure rests on shared history, shared beliefs, mutual love and sympathy. To corrupt those things is to destroy the society you claim to love. There, I said ‘the society you claim to love’. This is the language of mistrust. Are we prepared to tell the truth? Can we listen to the truth?
Israel’s challenge
Israel’s biggest challenge at this time is to learn how to live peacefully in Palestine. At this time, the Israelis have succeeded in earning the world’s hatred, so they will have to take the first step. But if I’m right, their history and experience will forbid it. They will need the help of their allies. There is no way around this requirement. If the United States is pressuring Israeli policies, the U.S. must back off. And Israel must be encouraged and helped to earn the trust of the Palestinians. But this won’t happen until there is a just distribution of land and resources. And a just distribution won’t be possible until the settlers and the present Israeli government get out of the way.
In addition to a responsible government, we need people with the proper training to help in this process. I’m not only talking about diplomats. I’m talking about people who understand the human soul.
We are outraged about the behavior of Israel toward the Palestinians. At the same time, atrocities that are happening in other parts of the world don’t demand our attention. Apparently, we have high expectations for Israel. The question is, are these expectations realistic?
My own opinion is that they are not realistic. How can they be? For one thing, it is difficult to see Israel and her enemies clearly. First, the biblical story of ancient Israel influences our thinking. Second, there is the more recent history of Judaism and its struggles, which we think we understand, but we don’t. Most of us only know about these things superficially.
Paying Lip Service to Solve a Complicated Problem
Unfortunately, we have been paying lip service to solve a complicated problem. After October 7 we mention the Holocaust in passing to demonstrate how sympathetic we are, and then we commence pleading with the Israelis to cease firing on the Palestinians. In a previous post I even said I hoped God would save the Palestinians from Israel.
The most glaring problem with asking God to save the Palestinians is that during the Holocaust the Jewish people also prayed for help. Instead of helping them, God allowed them to be tortured and killed. That is a tragedy in itself and there is simply no explanation for it. But if God had saved the Palestinians in October 2023, it would have been the cruelest shock of all.
The logic of the biblical narrative is another problem. Saving people from the Israelis does not fit the biblical narrative from which Israel takes its meaning. Yet that is the situation we find ourselves in. This turn of events merits a comment at least. Who would have guessed in 1948 that Israel and Palestine would find themselves in this impossible position?
Actually, many people guessed something like this would happen. It would make more sense to ask what the world has been doing to promote peace since 1948. The answer is, nothing. The world has done nothing to promote peace in Israel. Why? Peace is not the purpose of modern Israel.
Morris Jastrow on The Future of Palestine
In 1919, Morris Jastrow Jr. wrote a very helpful book about Zionism. It’s called Zionism and the Future of Palestine: The Fallacies and Dangers of Political Zionism. 1 You might wonder why I would recommend such an old book about Zionism. I recommend it because it explains key facts about Zionism and Judaism that no one pays any attention to. They involve lost opportunities, harsh judgements, withheld love, ostracism, isolation, fear, and social degradation.
The Jewish people are familiar with these facts, but they will remain in the background. For the most part, I will be talking about the facts in the text, which are harrowing in their own way. The book begins with the Hebrew religion and explains how it became Judaism and then Zionism. Jastrow concludes in Chapter 2, “Judaism and Zionism are thus mutually exclusive, but for all that passed down the ages linked to one another as inseparable partners.”
So, if Zionism is not Judaism, what is it?
Religious, Economic and Political Zionism
There are three varieties of Zionism: religious, economic and political zionism. According to Jastrow, the older Zionism was religious, but now it’s political. If this sounds too obvious to mention, recall that Jastrow was writing in 1919.
Zionism started out as an ameliorative measure for Jewish “self-emancipation.” But it was already becoming political in Jastrow’s time. The Zionists purposely created the impression that Political Zionism was part of Europe’s 19th century movement for the reassertion of nationalities. However, Zionism did not fit that pattern. Many Jews were settled in countries where they had the same rights as their fellow-citizens. Only a small percentage were interested in Zionism. Nevertheless, the Zionists declared victory even before the Paris Peace conference.
Vague Definitions of Zionism
Confusion increased because of the vague Definitions of Zionism. Arthur J. Balfour, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in a declaration dated Nov. 2, 1917, used the term ‘National Homeland’. According to Jastrow, this term was not political. It was merely diplomatic policy.
By 1918, Balfour stressed sentiment and amelioration, and still there was no sign of political Zionism. The same was true of the French and Italian governments, and President Wilson. They were merely in sympathy with the humanitarian phases of the Zionistic movement.
However, there were concerns among the Palestinians even before the end of the War. Christians and Muslims protested the program of the political Zionists, and they sent their objections to the Paris Peace Conference. And there were others who objected. They included Sir George Adam Smith, Herbert Adams Gibbons, the Honorable Henry Morgenthau, Ex-Ambassador of the United States to Turkey, and others with direct knowledge of the East and Eastern conditions.
The French Government’s Commission was not Favorable to Zionism
In 1918, the French government sent a commission to investigate economic conditions and attitudes. The commission’s report was unfavorable to Political Zionism. As a result, the Zionists put pressure on M. Sylvain Levi, a member of the commission, to retract his report. He refused, which brought the English Zionists down on him. However, it did have an effect on the terms the Zionists were using. They began to speak of the Jewish State as a possibility in the distant future. Zion would now be called the Common-wealth of Palestine.
Additional terms for the aims of the ‘Common-wealth’ project varied from Jewish Nation to Jewish culture to Jewish spirit. Sadly, many of the leaders knew nothing of Jewish history or literature. The result has been that every Zionist feels free to manufacture his own definition. This is especially true when it comes to defining a Jewish State.
Zionism in Orthodox Judaism
Orthodox Judaism has four pillars, which include the belief in one god, the belief that the Jews are His people, belief in the Messiah as God’s messenger and the belief in the return of the Jews to their native land. The Zionism of Orthodox Jews assumes an indissoluble bond between religion and nationality. But the national bond is theoretical until the time of restoration. And none of this is to be brought about through human agency. However, the orthodox longing for the return to Zion is one of the chief roots of the modern movement. (p, 17)
Economic Zionism
The movement was largely inspired by the economic aspect of Zionism. The aim was supposed to be amelioration of the pitiful condition of Jews in such countries as Russia and Romania. These Jews had no rights of citizenship and were subject to all manner of oppression. Oppression alternated with persecution and officially sanctioned pogroms. (Pogroms are the practice of the government when it turns its people loose on a minority population.)
The Jewish population in this area formed half of the entire number of Jews in the world, but the Russian Jews were the most miserable. Russia is where the modern Zionistic movement began. So, first it was aimed at amelioration for Russian Jews, and then because of the Russian government’s actions the goal became self-emancipation for the Jews.
Dr. Leo Pinsker’s Self-Emancipaton for the Jews
A Physician, Dr. Leo Pinsker, living in Odessa, introduced this project in 1881. He called it ‘Self-Emancipation’ for the Jews. It was his solution to what had become the ‘Jewish Question’. Pinsker had in mind an effort by the Jews to secure a new home in some soil where they might live safely and develop freely without the pressure of the constant struggle. This project was given more urgency by an anti-Semitic outbreak in Germany and Austria, which threatened even the Jews of more politically advanced countries. (p. 19)
However, most of the Russian Jews went to North and South America. Only a small number went to Palestine. Pinsker’s proposal lead to organizations throughout Russia, known as ‘Lovers of Zion’. Their purpose was to encourage colonization of Jews in the Holy Land. These organizations then spread to Germany and Austria due to the wave of anti-Semitism mentioned above. Finally, because of sympathy for the Jews in the East, additional branches were formed in Europe and the United States.
Jastrow was sympathetic to all of these developments. In his opinion, if Zionism had confined itself to the economic realm, the establishment of Jewish colonies would have been viewed as beneficial.
At the time of writing Jastrow reported that there were 40 Jewish colonies in Palestine, with a population of somewhat over 10,000. He believed these colonies improved agriculture and technical arts in Palestine.
Political Zionism
Herzl took this approach because he believed the existence of a “Jewish Question” in the enlightened nineteenth century was due to the fact that the Jews actually formed a separate nationality. He wanted to create a visible focus for this Jewish nationality. But this step caused more problems than it solved.
Jastrow believed religious and economic Zionism were harmless and also helpful to the economy of Palestine. But political Zionism was another matter. “When the Zionistic sentiment of Orthodox Judaism is divorced from its attachment to religion, the result is mischief. It involves difficulties that the Zionists recognize, but also dangers serious enough to condemn the entire movement as unfortunate and as threatening the position of Jews throughout the world.” (p. 25)
The Roots of Modern Zionism
According to Jastrow, three factors contribute to the rise and growth of modern Zionism: the persistence of the longing of orthodox and also of unorthodox Jews for the old homeland; the persistence of the retention of the nationalistic aspect to Judaism, even though inconsistent with the basis on which that religion rests; and the conditions under which Jews were formerly forced to live. At the time Jastrow wrote these lines, many Jews in Russia, Romania, and Poland still lived in those miserable conditions.
Sentiment is a powerful force, and attracts Jews with all aims, whether they want to make Jerusalem a nation for religious or political reasons, both orthodox and unorthodox. And sentiment had a stronger pull at a time when other nations were about to gain national independence.
Also influential were the feelings of Christian Zionists who were encouraging the movement for a return of the Jews to Palestine. Jewish Zionists seem to have overlooked the reason Zionism was important to the Christians. The restoration of Palestine is supposed to bring the second coming of Jesus. This will be followed by the disappearance of the Jews through their acceptance of the Messiah.
Jastrow thought Christian believers involuntarily placed themselves on the same plane as the anti-Semitic agitators of Germany and Austria. They were considered anti-Semitic because Zionism was a means of getting rid of the Jews in their lands.
Unorthodox Christians, on the other hand, were influenced by romantic sentiment, for example, novelist George Eliot. (p. 29) Jastrow had sympathy for the sincere Christian believer, but he called for caution:
We should in a similar spirit respect this doctrine of orthodox Judaism, though unable to subscribe to it, but this must not deter us from recognizing the source of this doctrine, and if we do so we will see the serious mischief that the Zionistic longing is bound to work when it is divorced from its attachment to religion, as is done by the leaders of political Zionism, particularly by the American and English leaders and by many of those who have become Zionists just because of this divorce.
(p.30)
Jastrow also objected to those who encouraged others to go to Israel, but who had no intention of going themselves. He called them ‘Zionists by proxy’.
The Religious History
The religious history will be discussed in a separate article. I want to make sure I get it right. Hopefully our Christian friends will make sure I do.
Back to the Present
We have high expectations of Israel. Are our expectations for Israel realistic? I don’t think so, because we don’t understand the pressures the Jewish people are under. And even though we acknowledge the terror of the Holocaust, we expect the Israelis to act as if there are no threats in the world.
If we were to go back to the period after the Enlightenment, when the Jews suddenly enjoyed the same political rights as their neighbors, we would see them blossom and begin take part in the cultural life of their various countries. Considering everything they had endured, the subsequent outbreaks of anti-Semitism must have been painfully disillusioning. And then came the Holocaust. There was the sheer terror of it, but also grief, humiliation, disbelief, and unendurable sadness. Most of all there would be lasting fear and mistrust.
And then what happened? After the War, they went to Palestine to become a military outpost for the United States and her allies. Now they are supposed to spend the rest of their lives accomplishing several impossible things a day. And what if they don’t succeed? Who is going to help them then?
A Call for a Time-Out
This is a call for a time-out. A time-out would obviously involve a cease-fire, but it would have a more inclusive understanding. We would have to make ourselves familiar with the last 2,000 years of Jewish history. But our aim would be the survival of both Israelis and Palestinians. To this end, we would have to acknowledge Hamas as party to this conflict.
Unfortunately for the time-out proposal, there is mistrust on both sides, and with good reason. Each side would expect the other to use the time-out to further its own preparations, meaning that both sides would cheat. However, we have a lot to make up for, and it’s best if we don’t blow ourselves up before we begin.
And we can’t forget the colonizing nations who have helped create Israel for their own purposes. This part of the problem will involve peacemaking on a much larger scale. Hence, a time-out.
Jeffrey Sachs says Ukraine is a lost cause. Please watch his interview regarding Ukraine. The United States’s maneuvering has led step by step to war and the destruction of Ukraine. The entire Russia/Ukraine War is the result of a U.S. regime change venture, courtesy of U.S. neoconservatives, namely, President Biden, Victoria Nuland, Anthony Blinken, and Jake Sullivan.
When Victoria Nuland first discussed replacing the Ukrainian president, she was motivated by the fact that President Yanukovich had passed a neutrality agreement to head off war. The Biden administration chose war instead. Nuland’s meddling is common knowledge–her phone call was intercepted by the Russians and replayed in the U.S. Even so, there were several opportunities to avoid this war before it started, and the Americans refused to try.
On December 17, 2021 President Putin put on the table a draft U.S. Russia security agreement to avert the war. The agreement called for several things but the most important was an end to NATO enlargement. Jeffrey Sachs urged Biden to negotiate at that time, but the U.S. declared that the expansion of NATO is none of Russia’s business. Subsequently, Zalinski called for negotiations based on Ukraine’s neutrality, but the U.S. blocked negotiations.
This video lays out in more detail the reasons Jeffrey Sachs says Ukraine is a lost cause. The transcript is included in the video notes. Please take note of the steps that must follow the end of hostilities for true peace with Russia.
Cookie Consent
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using our site, you consent to cookies.
