What always strikes me, and I speak as one formally trained in anthropology with a special focus on human origins and evolution is that the essence of our problems both at home and in our dealings abroad is the central human paradox.
We are one species, and yet throughout our history we have spend an inordinate and often quite destructive amount of time trying to amplify what we imagine divides us, almost of which is completely illusory, while determinedly ignoring what in reality unites us - that humanity.
Religion, of course, is a prime example. The other one is politics. Between them over the last five thousand years we have caused ourselves more death and destruction than any sane person would assume possible, and yet the results are clear.
And as of 1945, with the same brain and opposable thumbs that gave us the most transformative creations in all our history - the tool, the plow, the written word, the steam engine, and the computer have also given us the power to utterly destroy both ourselves and all the rest of life on earth.
One pundit I read some time ago said of the Israel/Palestine situation, sticking the nation of Israel in the midst of the Arab world after the Holocaust was at once morally necessary and politically disastrous. And so it has proven to be. But of course that is only one of the points of potential disaster with which we’ve saddled ourselves.
We may with some justification take many if not all of our Presidents to task for aspects of their foreign policy, which ignores the fact that most, along with those who voted for them, have been equally ineffective here at home in bringing this nation together with some kind of resolution.
I always think of the cartoon character Pogo’s rephrasing of James Lawrence’s announcement following the battle on Lake Erie during the War of 1812, “We have met the enemy, and they is us."
I've been unable to identify the original source, but someone once said, "All monotheistic religions are by nature intolerant because there cannot be two simultaneously correct versions of the truth." Thomas Jefferson considered the First Amendment to be his greatest achievement and defined it as "the separation of church and state." He understood that we cannot be united as one nation of many, e pluribus unum, without that.
With regard to the Israel/Palestine conflict, we probably could find quite a wide consensus regarding the objectionable actions of Netanyahu and that they possibly include war crimes, but when you frame that as genocide, you make it about two peoples defined by religion even though there are significant exceptions within each side.
My advice to that defender of Palestinians is to read the words above carefully because when you make it about a clash of civilizations defined by religion instead of politics, you isolate yourself from the support you need. Only 51% of us chose Trump, but if you attack America, more than 51% will defend it. If you object to the Netanyahu regime, I can support you, but if you show fealty to Hamas, an organization that declared its mission as genocide, I must defend my existence regardless of your becoming collateral damage as a result of standing beside those demanding we fight to the death.
One last thought:
Both sides have their religious fanatic factions with missions of ethnic cleansing. The Haredi in Israel covet only the biblical borders. The Hamas charter drew no borders from the river to the sea. Therefore, only one constitutes a direct domestic threat to America, and politicians like Jasmine Crockett, can see that.
In the last election, Democrats sought to be mediators, but the local Arab community where I live rejected that in sufficient numbers to swing the state. Our system is designed for compromise, so if you demand all or nothing, be prepared to accept nothing.
Thanks, Kristoffer. Foreign policy is hard to understand. Actually, more complicated than I thought. Yes, we "humans" do love to focus on one issue and like a snapping turtle don't let loose until it thunders and maybe not then. In foreign policy I always hoped we made "good" decisions--A good decision until it wasn't. The history of decisions made is eye opening. Lots to think about here. You always raise good questions and thoughts.
Curious why you skipped President Jimmy Carter. Also, it’s been argued that President George H.W. Bush shored up democracies in Europe at the end of the Cold War.
“I have no doubt that Jasmine Crockett cares about Palestinians and about human suffering abroad. But she is running for the Texas State Senate, and that distinction matters.
Whoever ultimately holds that seat will not be setting U.S. foreign policy, negotiating ceasefires, or directing arms transfers — they will be legislating on behalf of Texans.”
What?!? She’s running for the US Senate. Hard to believe you whiffed this.
What always strikes me, and I speak as one formally trained in anthropology with a special focus on human origins and evolution is that the essence of our problems both at home and in our dealings abroad is the central human paradox.
We are one species, and yet throughout our history we have spend an inordinate and often quite destructive amount of time trying to amplify what we imagine divides us, almost of which is completely illusory, while determinedly ignoring what in reality unites us - that humanity.
Religion, of course, is a prime example. The other one is politics. Between them over the last five thousand years we have caused ourselves more death and destruction than any sane person would assume possible, and yet the results are clear.
And as of 1945, with the same brain and opposable thumbs that gave us the most transformative creations in all our history - the tool, the plow, the written word, the steam engine, and the computer have also given us the power to utterly destroy both ourselves and all the rest of life on earth.
One pundit I read some time ago said of the Israel/Palestine situation, sticking the nation of Israel in the midst of the Arab world after the Holocaust was at once morally necessary and politically disastrous. And so it has proven to be. But of course that is only one of the points of potential disaster with which we’ve saddled ourselves.
We may with some justification take many if not all of our Presidents to task for aspects of their foreign policy, which ignores the fact that most, along with those who voted for them, have been equally ineffective here at home in bringing this nation together with some kind of resolution.
I always think of the cartoon character Pogo’s rephrasing of James Lawrence’s announcement following the battle on Lake Erie during the War of 1812, “We have met the enemy, and they is us."
I've been unable to identify the original source, but someone once said, "All monotheistic religions are by nature intolerant because there cannot be two simultaneously correct versions of the truth." Thomas Jefferson considered the First Amendment to be his greatest achievement and defined it as "the separation of church and state." He understood that we cannot be united as one nation of many, e pluribus unum, without that.
With regard to the Israel/Palestine conflict, we probably could find quite a wide consensus regarding the objectionable actions of Netanyahu and that they possibly include war crimes, but when you frame that as genocide, you make it about two peoples defined by religion even though there are significant exceptions within each side.
My advice to that defender of Palestinians is to read the words above carefully because when you make it about a clash of civilizations defined by religion instead of politics, you isolate yourself from the support you need. Only 51% of us chose Trump, but if you attack America, more than 51% will defend it. If you object to the Netanyahu regime, I can support you, but if you show fealty to Hamas, an organization that declared its mission as genocide, I must defend my existence regardless of your becoming collateral damage as a result of standing beside those demanding we fight to the death.
One last thought:
Both sides have their religious fanatic factions with missions of ethnic cleansing. The Haredi in Israel covet only the biblical borders. The Hamas charter drew no borders from the river to the sea. Therefore, only one constitutes a direct domestic threat to America, and politicians like Jasmine Crockett, can see that.
In the last election, Democrats sought to be mediators, but the local Arab community where I live rejected that in sufficient numbers to swing the state. Our system is designed for compromise, so if you demand all or nothing, be prepared to accept nothing.
Thanks, Kristoffer. Foreign policy is hard to understand. Actually, more complicated than I thought. Yes, we "humans" do love to focus on one issue and like a snapping turtle don't let loose until it thunders and maybe not then. In foreign policy I always hoped we made "good" decisions--A good decision until it wasn't. The history of decisions made is eye opening. Lots to think about here. You always raise good questions and thoughts.
An interesting read, to be sure. I hope you didn't injure yourself with all the patting yourself on the back.
Remember, more than one thing can be true at the same time.
A meaningless generality and not true in the same context. Some truths are binary. Don't muddy a serious discussion with semantic games.
Curious why you skipped President Jimmy Carter. Also, it’s been argued that President George H.W. Bush shored up democracies in Europe at the end of the Cold War.
Apart from the focus of the article, the last part (half? third?) was a repeat of what was previously written. What did I miss?
“I have no doubt that Jasmine Crockett cares about Palestinians and about human suffering abroad. But she is running for the Texas State Senate, and that distinction matters.
Whoever ultimately holds that seat will not be setting U.S. foreign policy, negotiating ceasefires, or directing arms transfers — they will be legislating on behalf of Texans.”
What?!? She’s running for the US Senate. Hard to believe you whiffed this.