Category Archives: BLM

MLK, BLM, Glenn Loury, Donald Trump

Posted on by
Reply

Flawed human beings can do good. 

This morning, I read a moving article by Angel Eduardo on the FAIR website. It made the case that Martin Luther King, Jr. was not a saint, but he was the right man at the right time to bring our attention to injustices that we needed to address. King was a powerful orator who made masterful use of non-violent tactics to bring attention to Jim Crow laws in the south and Jim Crow sentiments in the north. Yet he wouldn’t pass muster today with people who expect leaders of both the past and present to have no earthly flaws. 

BLM employs powerful rhetoric and surely has a winning slogan, “Black Lives Matter.” Yet it clamors for justice for individuals who have somehow gotten the message that only “the system” is wrong, that their own actions cannot be scrutinized, that no one needs to obey a cop, that admitting mistakes will fail the cause. Rosa Parks was primed for her role in the fight against racism. A less sympathetic woman was passed over. Yes, the system was unfair to both, but we benefitted from the decision to use Rosa Parks to advance the cause. When individuals can readily be discredited, advancing the cause is more difficult. Knowing this, MLK hid his flaws. And he made sure to focus on people who were undeserving of the ill treatment they received.

Glenn Loury: Flawed. Intelligent. Honest about his struggles. And barely getting the attention he deserves. I look forward to the release of his memoir this spring, Late Admissions: Confessions of a Black Conservative. Glenn posts on Substack, and every other week, he and John McWhorter do a podcast on race issues in which they speak heresy and challenge each other to clarify and justify their thinking. Thomas Sowell might be more famous, but Loury is absolutely the real deal in terms of a flawed person who has overcome many struggles (drugs and infidelity in addition to poverty) accomplished a great deal, and is now sharing his insights and wisdom. Admitting his flaws elevates Loury’s message that individual responsibility is still a vital element in individual achievement.

And then there’s Donald Trump. One thing I learned when I began reaching out to Trump voters is that his supporters are able to overlook his flaws because they like his message. Or they like some of his policies. Or they like the way he stands up to elites. This lesson is why I think it’s vital that we not vilify his supporters if we feel that Trump is dangerous or is too flawed to be President. If someone tells me that MLK was a womanizer, I’m not going to let that fact drown out his important message. 

No. I do not think Trump is of the same stature as Martin Luther King, Jr. No, I do not equate Trump and King in any way. I’m not even sure that Trump has a message for America. To me, he’s all about Trump, and he’s latched onto victim status in a way that true victims can only watch with amazement.

Here, I am just addressing the fact that people who support Trump are able to overlook his character flaws, so we might do better to address issues rather than character flaws when discussing Trump. There are some, you know: No plan for health care; no follow-through on infrastructure; no understanding of America’s role in global trade and global affairs; appointment of cronies to important agencies; insistence on gutting government rather than right-sizing it. 

And lest you think you’re right about everything, here’s a nifty (short) commercial that challenges that idea. From the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression: FIRE commercial

Unlearning Fear

Posted on by
Reply

Tyre Nichols. Philando Castile. Two men, just trying to comply with police instructions, end up dead for no good reason. How do we put an end to this disgrace?

Some deaths at the hands of police are just wrong. Some deaths at the hands of police seem unnecessary, but investigations reveal reasons for police use of deadly force. Sometimes the police are clearly the good guys, and the bad guys are truly out of control, dangerous to the public, and need to be stopped. When any police shooting is caught on video, the only thing we know is that we don’t know the whole story.

Here are a few things we do know: people, liberals especially, vastly overestimate all killings by police and especially the killings of black men.* Black Lives Matter leaders have pushed the narrative of out of control police departments targeting black men. This narrative only increases fear of police to the point that more men resist and/or flee which only increases the risk that force, perhaps deadly force, will be used on them. 

The prevailing narrative ramps up fear to what might be an irrational level, but the deaths of Nichols and Castile illustrate that some amount of fear is rational. Many police departments are trying to train and retrain officers to interact in ways that reduce the violent and intimidating tactics we associate with anyone being arrested. The goal is for everyone to come out alive at the end. Ideally, black men would know that this is happening, understand that the goal is for everyone to chill, cooperate with police, and end up alive, either released when appropriate or working their way through a justice system that is fair to all. 

The recent death of Tyre Nichols helped me understand why fear is still rational if you’re stopped by police. The question is when is it rational to let go of rational fear, that is fear based on reasonable evidence that police just might kill you? 

We, as humans, are not that good at judging risk, yet we do it all day every day. What’s truly challenging is recalibrating our level of fear when the calculations change. Yet, we can do this. Even I, with my long-standing fear of flying, flew on four airplanes in 2022 without any white knuckles. Somehow, the safety record for flying became so compelling that I had to dial back my fear, especially when it was obvious that the only way I could get where I wanted to go was to fly. Fortunately, no recent disasters occurred that would have interfered with my new-found confidence.

This is not the case however, when it comes to interactions between police and the public, especially the black and brown public. I can only imagine the emotions that ran through police departments that were making a serious effort to alter the tone of interactions with suspects in non-violent situations. Decent cops must surely have been devastated to see the videos of the beating of Tyre Nichols. Decent black men may surely have thought that things are never going to change. 

Fear can absolutely be rational. It can also be irrational. One of the challenges young women face is learning to calibrate their level of fear to the social situations they encounter as they enter the world outside their home. (I’m skipping the fear some children learn at home for now.) We’ve all heard about “the talk” that black mothers give to their sons in hopes that they will emerge unscathed from encounters with police. Calibrate your fear. Your best bet to emerge alive is to follow instructions.

And then, Tyre Nichols. Was Nicholas an exception? Yes. But how much of an exception? Were other examples simply not filmed for our viewing? How many examples? How long will it take for young black men to begin to let go of rational fear? If deaths as senseless as those of Castile or Nicholas happen only once a year, or once every two years, or five years, it will be enough to sustain the fear that lingers. Police must intervene to stop their peers who overreact. Young black men could benefit from recalibrating their fear of police, knowing that change is happening. Dialing back the violence and the rhetoric could occur at the same time from both sides. No, the burden shouldn’t be on young black men to unlearn their fear. But the reality is that their chances of sustaining permanent injuries or being killed are low enough to take a chance on compliance. I get why everyone might disagree with me, but I hope both sides will give peace a chance. 

* Sources:

Washington Post Data Base

Roland Fryer studies of use of force

Public estimates of police use of force

BDS vs Israel: Peace, Anyone?

Posted on by
Reply

As I write this, the US news is silent regarding antisemitic crimes. No recent shootings of Jews in synagogues, no take-downs of Jews eating at outdoor cafes in LA. I assume that Hasidim still get harassed on the streets of Brooklyn, and that swastikas still get sprayed onto any structure that might be Jewish, but that hardly qualifies as news nowadays.

The actually urgent news is coming from the streets of Israel where thousands of people are protesting Netanyahu’s plans to remake Israel’s supreme court such that he will have control of it. Until Netanyahu’s return to office last fall, it was fairly easy to be pro-Israel while wishing someone would put an end to the settlements in the West Bank. The rationale went something like, “all countries do deplorable things, but Israel is still the only democratic state in the Middle East.” If the current government succeeds in their judicial overhaul, will we lose that talking point?

Meanwhile, the people behind the BDS movement (Boycott, Divest, Sanction) aim at putting economic pressure on Israel to be nicer to the Palestinians. They have succeeded in gaining support across college campuses and beyond. Perhaps BDS is so successful because it seems to be the primary voice of Palestinians. Regrettably, IMO, it doesn’t support a two-state solution. This comes a shock to many because they are so successful in focusing on Israel’s bad acts that supporters often don’t dig deeper into their information. Essentially, they want Israel to cease to exist, to replace it with a single state with “equal rights for all.” In other words, no Jewish state in a country with an Arab birth rate much higher than the Jewish birth rate. 

If there are any Palestinians and Israelis who still support a two-state solution (I suspect there are and that they are keeping a low profile), they are not organized in the way that BDS is organized. 

Meanwhile, Jews within Israel and abroad have many opinions about the Jewish state, they have many different organizations to promote various opinions, and they have countless journals and websites to promote their views and elicit support.  (I’ll confess that I’m envious of a community in which disagreement is expected; I’m frustrated with people who are so settled on an answer that they don’t look for, and cannot reflect on, new information.)

When I write an article like this one, I generally spend days searching for information about different perspectives. I watch YouTube videos, scour websites, read articles and occasionally an actual book. I’ll share links to some of my sources at the end. One thing that has impressed me this time, is the rhetoric that now defines the BDS campaign and is used by some Jewish organizations as well. 

About the rhetoric: let’s start with settler-colonialism. I tend to think of settlers as people who willingly left one home in search of a better life in some new place many years ago. Nowadays, people migrate, but we don’t tend to think of today’s migrants as settlers. Unless you’re Woke and talking about Israel or white people anywhere at all.

I think of colonialism as the adventures of powerful countries searching for resources or trading opportunities in lands far afield from their point of origin. Colonial powers generally had advantages that enabled them to impose their will on residents of territories they exploited. These are not scholarly definitions, just my personal takes. Do Israelis count as settler-colonialist interlopers? 

Huh? Well, they are certainly not a colonial power; settlers, perhaps, at least back in the late 1800s when many Jews began immigrating in noticeable numbers to areas they associated with their biblical history. This migration enabled them to leave behind frequent, devastating pogroms in Eastern Europe that had prompted them to seek opportunities elsewhere. Some Jews have always lived in the Middle East, and the Arabs were not necessarily enemies. Jews lived successfully within the rules of the Ottoman Empire, though not as equals. Thus their biblical homeland seemed like a logical place to go.

What about charges of apartheid? I would suggest you read this article by the Council of Foreign Relations about Arab Citizens of Israel. Apartheid hardly seems like the right word to me. Does it to you? If so, please take time to comment. Israeli Arabs are not second class citizens under the law in the way of the Jim Crow era in the US. On average, they have larger families, less education, and less income that Jewish Israelis, but in much the same way that black people in the US have not yet caught up with white people on a variety of metrics. I suspect the BDS movement uses the term apartheid because they want people to conjure images of the brutality of the Apartheid regime in South Africa and they want BDS to be blessed with an assumption of the righteousness of its cause.

Then there’s the term occupation. Israel has occupied the West Bank and Gaza since 1967. Rules are never the same in occupied territories as they are in unoccupied areas (ask a Ukrainian if you doubt me). It’s likely that an occupying army will be visible in occupied territories. People might have some amount of autonomy, but that is always subject to the whim of the occupier. Israel’s occupation has been contentious. They have allowed many Israelis to create settlements within the West Bank, a policy that is certainly cringe-worthy to most of us who consider the settlements illegal and want peace. 

Palestinians have a very long list of injustices done to them by Israelis, and the fact is that many Jews in America as well as Jewish Israelis criticize state actions. The Israeli state generally responds that its actions are in response to terrorist actions of Palestinians; often they are correct. But are state actions disproportionate? 

What does BDS say about occupation. BDS demands three things from Israel. #1: Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall. As I’ve said, “colonization” doesn’t make sense to me. So, on to occupation. “all Arab land” deserves some scrutiny. Perhaps they’re just referring to lands occupied after the 1967 war, but actually, BDS supporters say that all of Israel is on Arab land, and they want it all “from the river to the sea.” 

Demand #2 is for equal rights for all citizens of Israel. Funny, that. Some Israelis want equal rights for all citizens, meaning that Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox Jewish citizens would have to serve in the armed forces and give up other special considerations. In any event, I refer you back to the Council on Foreign Relations article.

Demand #3 is for the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties in accordance with UN Resolution 194:

“refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.”

So, here’s some math: Current population of Israel: 9,000,000; 20% of current population are Israeli Arabs: 1,800,000; BDS claims there are 7,250,000 people with the right of return. Population if all return: 9 million Jews, 9 million Arabs. Hmm. That could work, though, half them, half us? Peace on Earth? If the Jews didn’t want a Jewish State, that could work, but they do want a Jewish State. And why not. Iran? Saudi Arabia? Qatar? 

Here’s another perspective, “What Do Palestinians Want,” from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. How many words have been spent on Israel and Palestine since 1948? More words than bullets, I’m sure, and many bullets have been fired over that time. I find it exhausting. My sentiments have shifted more than once over the years. For now, I still support the idea of Israel, situated where it is, with some sort of peace between Israelis and Palestinians. I’m absolutely angry that the citizens of Israel have elected Netanyahu again, and that he wants to take over the courts. I hope the protesters are able to prevent this. 

That said, I don’t support BDS. I’m OK with one Jewish state in the world. I don’t see anything constructive in the BDS program, and I see Jewish students on campuses across the country now fearful of “outing” themselves as Jews, Meanwhile, the de-platforming battles are ongoing with both sides scoring wins here and there.

The BDS movement has begun linking to the Black Lives Matter movement in the US claiming that Palestinians are in the same marginalized status as black people in the US. I don’t buy it. For one, I don’t buy the BLM narrative. The status of BIPOC people in the US has improved since the passage of civil rights legislation in the 60s and the end of red-lining in the 70s. 

Without getting hung up on that issue, the situation of the Palestinians in occupied areas is simply not comparable to the status of minorities in the US. Within Israel, Arab Israelis have full citizenship. Within the West Bank they live in an occupied territory and have limited rights. Gaza is its own mess and would do well to stop firing rockets into Israel. Israel, meanwhile, is surrounded by many millions of people who do not acknowledge its right to exist. 

Palestine could have become an independent state in 1948 but chose not to because they wanted Israel gone. Perhaps with the strength of the BDS movement, they will get their wish. But honestly, I think making peace with Israel would be the better path forward. 

Is the BDS movement antisemitic? Short answer: yes. My reasoning is this: I get how Jews came to want, and need, a Jewish state. The Holocaust was a plan to exterminate Jews. When I think about that, and about the antisemitism that exists even here, in a country that has been relatively accepting of Jews, I get why Jews want a Jewish state. They don’t trust us, and they shouldn’t. Sentiments can change, rapidly, in fact. 

Having a “safe place” is something that today’s college students should relate to. Just last week, Stanford Law School students shouted down a judge, Stuart Kyle Duncan, who’s a member of the 5th Circuit. He’d been invited to speak to students, but the heckler’s veto won out because some students claimed to feel unsafe. Prior to that a Hamline University professor, Erika Lopez Prater, was fired for showing, complete with trigger warnings, a classic painting of Muhammed that led a student to feel unsafe. Surely these students can understand how Jews, both in Israel as well as in the Diaspora might feel unsafe given the ancient rhetoric that lies just below the surface today, bubbling up at the first opportunity. 

Palestinians are not without agency in fashioning their own future. Jews are certainly expressing their opinion in the streets of Israel. If they don’t win this week, they won’t be giving up. No one is optimistic regarding Israel and Palestine, but surely people are getting tired of the ongoing conflict. Do conflicts only end when people are exhausted? Or can they end when new leaders appear who are willing to chart a new path forward?

Further reading:

Anticipating Israel’s Counter-Attack: Make the “One Democratic State” Mainstream Again

Critical Race Theory and the Hyper-White Jew

There’s Hope for Israeli-Palestinian Peace

Palestine lost: It’s up to the Palestinian people to share their future now

And a book:

Woke Antisemitism: How Progressive Ideology Harms Jews, by David L Bernstein, 2022