Never Again

I grew up among Shoah survivors.  I consider that experience my inspiration for a life of fighting for justice and against all forms of bigotry.
The motto of survivors was and is, “never again.”  This has nothing whatever to do with political affiliation, religion, or the pursuit of some advantage or profit.  It is about standing up against injustice and bigotry against any group.  As MLK put it, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”  No foot in the door should be tolerated when it comes to this.  Even the most civilized of countries can turn to the dark side as we saw throughout Europe in the last century.
This is not a matter of forgiveness or reparations or anything like that.  It is speaking up and acting in the face of bigotry and injustice in every case.  Considering that our nation has its dark side, this is an essential part of making America its best self.  It is essential in other countries too.  I have met with people who do this under the worst tyrannical governments – the USSR, China, Uganda (of Idid Amin),  P R Congo, the Philippines, and many more.  That Pakistan produced a Malala Yousafzi should show us how strong this is.
Back in the days of the civil rights movement we heard these same accusations.  The protesters are communists trying to bring America down.  The protesters are doing this for money or advantage.  The protesters are just trying to make the rest of us feel bad.
Well, I suppose that last part has some truth.  However the agonbite of inwit (as James Joyce called conscience) should lead to inspiration towards the ideals of a universal family of humanity, which is a basis of our Biblical tradition.  In fact that Bible is all but meaningless in ethical terms without that principle.  The Torah repeats 36 times, in various forms, “You shall not oppress the stranger, for you know the heart of the stranger, having yourselves been strangers in the land of Egypt.” (where we were enslaved based on a national security argument by Pharaoh).  It was Amos who wrote, “To me, O Israel, you are just like the Ethiopians.”  It was Jesus who taught the parable of the Good Samaritan (the Samaritans being a despised people in his day).  There is no cover in the Bible for bigotry.  The same is true of the Koran.  Both sdcriptures have their dark passages, but the principle of a universal humanity is the basis of ethical behavior in our Abrahamic traditions.
When I see the fight against bigotry and injustice demeaned as for profit or political advantage I am seeing attempted justification for bigotry and injustice.  This is not about the past, but about the present and the future.
I say these things as someone who has refused to be silent and who to this day stands up against what is wrong and for what is right.  That is why the survivors’ motto is…

Trump’s Inaugural Rant

Many years ago I was in the cast of a production of “Evita.”  A woman in the audience from Argentina said it reminded her of exactly how things were under Peron.  In that show (an opera really) is a song called “The New Argentina.”  Trump’s campaign rhetoric and his inaugural speech yesterday reminded me of that.  Here are two verses.

Now I am a worker, I’ve suffered the way that you do
I’ve been unemployed, and I’ve starved and I’ve hated it too
But I found my salvation in Peron, may the nation
Let him save them as he saved me

Peron has resigned from the army and this we avow
The descamisados are those he is marching with now
He supports you, for he loves you
Understands you, is one of you
If not, how could he love me?

And the chorus…

A new Argentina, a new age about to begin
A new Argentina, we face the world together
And no dissent within

What I heard and saw yesterday reminded me of every populist demagogue in the world and in history.  Some compare Trump to Hitler, but that misses the point.  Hitler is the worst of a class of national leaders.  Trump sounds like Saddam Hussein, Vladimir Lenin, Mao, Chiang Kai Chek, and many, many more.

The inaugural address was very short and consisted of hostility to those he replaces and promises he can fix everything.  He gives a dark view of America and promises to make everything right again.  This is not optimism.  Ronald Reagan was optimistic and he followed a President who was notably pessimistic.  Here are two quotes from his 1981 inaugural.

Well, this administration’s objective will be a healthy, vigorous, growing economy that provides equal opportunities for all Americans, with no barriers born of bigotry or discrimination. Putting America back to work means putting all Americans back to work. Ending inflation means freeing all Americans from the terror of runaway living costs. All must share in the productive work of this “new beginning,” and all must share in the bounty of a revived economy. With the idealism and fair play which are the core of our system and our strength, we can have a strong and prosperous America, at peace with itself and the world.

The crisis we are facing today does not require of us the kind of sacrifice that Martin Treptow and so many thousands of others were called upon to make. It does require, however, our best effort and our willingness to believe in ourselves and to believe in our capacity to perform great deeds, to believe that together with God’s help we can and will resolve the problems which now confront us.

I disagreed with much about Reagan’s political views but his appeal to the entire country cannot be gainsaid.  What did Donald Trump say yesterday?  Reagan did not make accusations about the difficulties our nation faced when he became President.  He did not lay blame, but indicated that government was not serving the people.

Now here is what Trump said yesterday.

But that is the past. And now we are looking only to the future. We assembled here today are issuing a new decree to be heard in every city, in every foreign capital, and in every hall of power.
From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land.
From this moment on, it’s going to be America First.


This is his motto: America First.  The first use of that term was The America First Committee in 1940.  It’s spokesperson was Charles Lindbergh and they were explicitly anti-Semitic.   Their claim was that the Jews (who ran everything, of course) wanted to get our country into the war against Germany for their own purposes.  I still see this accusation today (and so will you, if you read on)

That expression was then the name of a political party in the 1940s while we were at war with Germany.  They ran Gerald K. Smith, a racist and anti-Semite for President in 1944 and again, under the name Christian Nationalist Crusade, in 1948 (he got 42 votes nationally).  The name America First has been used for far-right (and I mean really far right) organizations and parties since then.  Most recently, in 2002, it was reborn when a group of Pat Buchanan supporters split from the Reform Party (Ross Perot’s).

The ADL appealed to Trump to stop using that phrase which is associated with anti-Semitism and racism.  That was during the campaign.  Trump ignored that.

Trump’s speech was co-written by Steve Bannon (did you think Trump wrote it?) who represents the right-most edge of American politics.  We can see that this political adviser is the voice of the Trump administration.

Meanwhile David Duke responded to the speech with a declaration of war on Jews.  Here is a quote from his web-site.

Trump evoked my campaign slogan I used in my successful race for the House of Representatives, and I used in my quest for the Republican nomination in 1992, America First.

This is the historic slogan of the original Alt-Right  and all patriotic Americans in days of Charles Lindbergh and the America First Party later that has stood up against both the Jewish globalist Commies and the Jewish globalist Capitalists.

Although there are a number of Jews around Trump, there is no doubt the Jewish-elite tribalist establishment hates Trump….

White people have the most basic human right of all: to live, and we have a right to govern our own nation rather than have these unelected Jewish tribalists run our politics, our foreign policy, our media, our banking institutions. An no one, no where will prevent us our right of self-preservation.

This is classic anti-Semitism and White Supremicism.  This is the political voice of the new administration as voiced by our new President.

In such times, those of us who stand for humane values must be watchful and responsive.  Silence is death.




Never Again? How About Now?

This morning I thought about writing a letter to our local daily newspaper calling for patience.  “Street demonstrations, ” I was going to say, “will only deepen the national divide.  Our President-elect said he wants to be the President for all Americans.”

Now, this evening, I have seen the news on who will likely be in the new cabinet.  Deplorables would be too gentle a term for this bunch of extremists, self-seekers, and incompetents.  How about despicables?

Let’s see.  Reince Priebus is the only reasonable choice on the list.  The leader of the GOP is conservative, of course, but he has shown himself to be level-headed and, so far as I can see, competent.  He is a reasonable choice for White House Chief-of-Staff.  Alongside of Priebus Trump has named Steve Bannon, the bigot-in-chief of the Alt-right, the home of every kind of hatred and fear-mongering movement in this country.  He is anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic, racist, misogynist – all of this is explicit from his own statements.  Bannon will be reporting to Trump, so his power will be equal to that of Priebus.  In doing this he follows his managerial policy of setting up rival forces just beneath him.  I think this is to keep any potential rivals off-balance.  Trumps own children are reportedly opposed to naming extremists to the administration.  Ivanka, who is Jewish, should be especially upset about Bannon.

Among others being named as possible cabinet members are Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich and (no joke) Sarah Palin.  Palin is likely to be the only woman in a high position in this administration.  Giuliani and Gingrich have both shown themselves to be men of poor character both in their personal and political lives.  For Secretary of the Interior the name being mentioned is that of an oil industry executive – the fox guarding the chicken coop.  Actually foxes in charge of chickens is pretty much everyone on the list of possibilities.

There is no hint of any attempt to unify our bifurcated people unless he means, “Everyone must do it my way.”  This is historically the danger of electing populist demagogues of any political stripe.  Minorities and women (who, of course, are not a minority) always suffer under populist regimes.

I am sometimes asked how the most civilized nation in Europe, Germany, could descend to such depths of national depravity.  I suggest that we are seeing how that happens right now.  Watch one of Hitler’s campaign speeches from 1932.   The parallels with the Trump campaign are striking.  Watch Leni Riefenstal’s “Triumph of The Will” to see how familiar a 1935 film of a 1934 Nazi rally looks and sounds.

Anti-Trump demonstrations are promised for every day leading up to the inauguration.  I now hope we see that happen.  It was the silence of too many Germans that gave Hitler’s Nazi Party so much power.  It was the self-delusion of German industrialists and her military that they could control Hitler that made them collaborators with evil.  It was the collection of human misfits Hitler surrounded himself with that led Germany astray.

So what are those of us who are appalled by all of this to do.  Violence is never the answer but neither is silence.  If Trump’s followers will not extend their hands to heal the national divide then we must.  Every action and policy that violates human dignity and decency must be met with public protest and with intelligent legal and political response.  Basic to all of that is the power of love.  Every human being is made in the Divine Image and that must be respected.  Respecting that means appealing to that divine spark in everyone, even those who are against us.

I hope my fears are unjustified.






This tour is not like most. We will be visiting many famous sites, but we will also be meeting people who can tell us about living in Israel and Palestine as people of faith. Having two tour guides – one Israeli and one Arab – will make this tour one that will provide a depth of understanding and experience that is not part of the usual Israel tour. I know it is expensive, but my research says this is what a tour costs these days. I am confident that this tour will be worth every penny. Please watch the video for an explanation of the philosophy behind this project.

Syrian Refugees

In today’s local newspaper this was published on the editorial page.  The author is Ronald Stephens, a member of Hendersonville’s city council.  My response to the author follows.


In a Times-News editorial (Sunday, July 3), the headline admonished “Get the facts before reacting,” referring to my comments on hearing that St. James Episcopal Church is exploring the possibility of hosting Middle Eastern refugees in Hendersonville.

I had said in a television interview that I was concerned that St. James’ activities could open the door for Syrian refugees to be housed here.

The editorial did not tell the whole story, and it failed to support the conclusion it insinuated — that those speaking against what St. James is considering have a “witch-hunt mentality.” That’s untrue, and I applaud those in our community who are speaking out on this matter. Opinions I’ve received through social media, phone calls and in person are thoughtful and heartfelt.

Perhaps an article about “getting the facts before making a decision on bringing Middle Eastern refugees here” might be in order.

• Fact 1: Mayor Barbara Volk indicated our concerns were “overblown” because it would take a long time for St. James’ plan to come to fruition. But that doesn’t mean a plan isn’t going forward.

Overcoming the one hindrance cited — Hendersonville’s distance from an approved resettlement office — is exactly what is being considered. In a June 23 email, Mayor Volk said: “… They (St. James) are applying, through the Episcopal Church, to be a refugee resettlement agency.”

• Fact 2: There is good reason to believe that the refugees St. James would host would be Syrian.

Among print materials Mayor Volk received from St. James were two articles specifically referring to Syrian refugees: “Syrian Refugees Don’t Pose a Serious Security Threat,” published by the Cato Institute, and “Myths and Facts: Resettling Syrian Refugees,” from the U.S. Department of State.

 Fact 3: Notwithstanding those two articles, there is serious concern that Syrian refugees cannot be properly vetted.

On Nov. 17, 2015, the Washington Post reported in part:

“FBI Director James Comey (said) in congressional testimony last month that ‘a number of people who were of serious concern’ slipped through the screening of Iraq War refugees … . ‘There’s no doubt that was the product of a less than excellent vetting,’ ” he said.

“Although Comey said the process has since ‘improved dramatically,’ Syrian refugees will be even harder to check because, unlike in Iraq, U.S. soldiers have not been on the ground collecting information on the local population. ‘If we don’t know much about somebody, there won’t be anything in our data,’ he said. ‘I can’t sit here and offer anybody an absolute assurance that there’s no risk associated with this.’ ”

• Fact 4: Not being able to properly vet refugees increases the risk of bringing in potential terrorists.

It is reported that in the past fiscal year, 1,682 Syrian refugees were admitted to the U.S., and roughly 23 percent were adult males (U.S. Department of State: “Myths and Facts: Resettling Syrian Refugees”). That may seem like a low percentage, but applying it to President Barack Obama’s goal of admitting 10,000 this fiscal year, we’d be admitting 2,300 men.

• Fact 5: It is unlikely that bringing refugees here is the best means of helping them.

In “The High Cost of Resettling Middle Eastern Refugees” (November 2015), the Center for Immigration Studies stated that resettlement in the United States for one Middle Eastern refugee costs American taxpayers an estimated $64,370 over the first five years, 12 times the U.N. estimate for caring for one refugee in a neighboring Middle Eastern country.

Dr. Steven Camarota, the center’s director of research and lead author of the report, commented, “Given limited funds, the high cost of resettling refugees in the United States means that providing for them in neighboring countries in the Middle East is more cost-effective, allowing us to help more people.”

• Fact 6: In today’s environment, with people understandably concerned with matters of security, the question should be asked: Is helping refugees more important than helping with the needs of our community, i.e., homeless children, fallout from domestic violence, adequate/affordable housing, meaningful employment, to name just a few?

The refugees’ plight is terrible, but there are real hardships here just as worthy of concern. No doubt the people at St. James are honestly seeking to help with a serious problem, but I don’t believe it is witch-hunting to suggest that there may be safer and more cost-effective ways to apply our time and treasure.


Mr. Stephens

Your column in today’s T-N reminded me immediately of Richard Nixon’s maiden speech to Congress in 1947.  It was nominally about one individual but the context was the common suspicion that European refugees MIGHT be communists and therefore visas should not be issued for them to come here as refugees.  This was two years after Ike had films made at the newly liberated concentration camps for newsreels shown in almost every movie theater in America.  Everyone knew the truth about who these refugees were.

It reminds me of Breckenridge Long, a member of FDR’s administration before and during World War II and was in charge of immigration.  He did everything he could to obstruct Jewish refugees from coming here because, he said, some of them might be German agents.   He justified this in his diary by referencing the contemporary strict laws in the United States imposing quotas on the number of immigrants from particular countries, and his great concern about the possibility that Germany and the Soviet Union would introduce spies or subversive agents into the United States amidst the large numbers of refugees.


I wonder how many Jewish lives would have been saved if it were not for this hostility based on appeals to reason and security.


It reminds me of a dark side in American history going back to the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.  It reminds me of a history of legislation, political demagoguery, and mob violence against immigrants ever since then.


You are no different from them.


The Syrian civil war, ISIS, and the rise of Iran are all direct results of our invasion of Iraq in 2003, a predictable result, by the way.  This is a mess we made and which will trouble the region for some time to come.  The Muslim countries in the region have taken in hundreds of thousands of refugees.  Those countries, including Turkey, Jordan, and Iraq, are overwhelmed.  There are 7.6 million refugees still within Syria and 4.1 million in neighboring countries.  Europe has taken in 348,000.  According to your essay we have taken in 1682 in the last fiscal year.


After the Viet Nam War we took in about 800,000 Vietnamese refugees and have taken in millions since.  There might have been security concerns, but those were set aside because of the human crisis which was largely our creation and our responsibility.


Your “facts” are taken from The Center for Immigration Studies, which has been cited as a nativist hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.  This organization is biased and not reliable, yet you cite them as authoritative.


This again places you on that dark side of American history.


This is not about political parties or ideologies.  It is about morality.  St. James congregation is answering the call of our faith traditions, which is very much founded on people taking care of each other including strangers and including even enemies.


Frankly, Mr. Stephens, I would rather have a family of refugees living next door than someone like you.  The immigrant families I have had as neighbors appreciated and loved this country for accepting them.  I think you take it for granted not recognizing what makes America something special in human history.




Rabbi Philip J Bentley


PS When I sign as “Rabbi” I am writing as a member of the clergy, not just as a citizen.


PPS I hope you will respond to this letter and in a civil manner.  I have tried to be civil about something that is deeply disturbing to me.


PPPS  Without doubt you are familiar with the following poem.  You may not realize it was written by a young aristocratic Jewish-American woman on seeing the conditions of immigrants arriving in New York.


The New Colossus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

“Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she

With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door


Abraham’s Legacy Tour

I have wanted, for a long time, to lead an interfaith tour of Israel and Palestine.  Now I have that opportunity.  I discovered MEJDI tours which specializes in this kind of event.

Here is a description of this tour from its web page.

Abraham is the spiritual ancestor of Judaism, Christianity, aPeaceCoffeend Islam including all their varieties and off-shoots.  Nowhere in the world is this more clear than in The Land of Israel.  This tour not only takes us to historic places but will bring us together with people of all three faith traditions and those who do the work of bringing together communities of the three Abrahamic faiths.

This tour will provide a fresh vision of the Holy Land. Led by two guides, an Israeli and a Palestinian, we will visit communities, holy places, and homes of three faiths. We will have opportunities to meet with many kinds of people and break bread wWestern Wall and Dome of Rock at nightith them while learning about their lives. Whether this is your first visit or your tenth, we are offering an experience that will both teach and inspire. Travelers who are seeking to understand this common heritage in all of its variety will find this tour an informative and exciting experience.


The site is at

Having been to Israel many times I have learned that just sight-seeing is not going to a traveler a good knowledge of that state.  The same goes for Palestine.  The best tours are those that provide opportunities to meet the people there.

By the way, the more people who sign on, the less the per person cost will be.

If you know people who might be interested, please pass this on to them.



Survey from Looking at Zion

This project sent me a survey asking my opinions on Israel-Diaspora relations.  This is a subject I have long been interested in.  Here are the questions and my responses.

The World of Jesus of Nazareth

[This is a new kind of presentation for me and I hope I get this right]

A local church asked me to give a lecture series on the world that Jesus was a part of.  I had two purposes.  The first was to give historical background to the Gospels (especially the three synoptic Gospels – Matthew, Mark, and Luke).  This will help Christians reading their scripture a clearer sense of the reality of the people, time, and place of these books.  The second is to dispel the anti-Jewish aspects of these Gospels and to explain how such passages became official Christian scriptures.  My talks were about Jesus the human person, not the theological figure.  Christian doctrine about Jesus is that he was both human and divine.  I spoke only of the human side.  I do not see this as affecting the theology at all.


There were four lectures.  For each of the lectures I used, for the first time, Power Point slide shows.  Each audio file is followed by the slide series for each lecture.









The first lecture is a survey of Jewish history from the death of Alexander The Great until the takeover of Judea by the Romans.   From beginning to end it was a period of conflict among Jews.  There was the matter of how much of Hellenism to adopt.  At one extreme were the wealthy and aristocratic (including the Kohanim/Priests) who went to great lengths to acculturate to Greek ways.  At the other were the Hasidim (not those Hasidim) who wanted to preserve the old traditions and rejected this newfangled civilization that now surrounded them.  This is what the famous revolt of the Maccabees was about.  Because the Seleucid emperor wanted everyone under his rule to assimilate, he suppressed local traditions.  The Jewish revolt succeeded and the priestly family that led it, the Hasmoneans, became the High Priest (who served as a national leader) and then also the king.  These kings were all tyrants, except for their one queen Salome Alexandra.  There was a party, known as the Scribes, who protested the Hasmoneans and suffered horribly at their hands for it.  Eventually a series of civil wars between Hasmonean rivals created an opening for Rome which took Judea as part of its empire.

The second lecture is about the four schools or four parties that arose during the period of the first lecture and into the lifetime of Jesus.  They were

1 – The Saducees (from the Hebrew TZadokim) who were the priests and aristocracy.  They maintained the Temple in Jerusalem as the focal point of Jewish tradition and they claimed to represent tradition.  They believed only in the written law, i.e., the Torah, and denied the existence of an Oral Torah.

2 – The Pharisees (Protesters or even protestants) who believed and taught that when Moses received the Torah he also received the Oral Torah which is the actual set of rules and principles by which Jews should live.  They taught that there is a life after death in which reward and punishment are meted out.  This was a new idea which is not found in the Jewish scriptures. They argued and taught about the rules by which Jews should live according to the Oral Torah.

3 – The Zealots – This was a party of violent revolutionaries who fought the Romans and those Jews who collaborated with the Romans (the Saducees).  The theives (or robbers or bandits depending on the translation) of the Gospels were Zealots not common criminals.  This party had its origins in the Galilee.

4 – The Essenes – We know very little about this group except from the reports of Josephus and Philo Judaeus.  It is not certain that the Qumran community which produced the Dead Sea Scrolls were or were not Essenes.  What we know of them is that they believed the Apocalypse (the End of Days) was coming soon and they had to separate themselves from the other three groups and the Romans to prepare.

So where did Jesus fit into this picture?  That was the subject of the third lecture.  It seems to me that Jesus had to be a Pharisee.  In the third lecture I presented sayings of Jesus from the Gospels and also parallel rabbinic texts (the Scribes became the Pharisees and they became the Rabbis after the Romans destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem).  Jesus argued with the Pharisees but my reading is that he argued with them as one of them about subjects that often were not settled for some time afterwards.

Part of this lecture was about the Good Samaritan.  Who were the Samaritans?  The short version is they were a people who believed they were the real Jews (they still do) and they were looked down upon by the Jews of the time.  The slide show gives the Jewish context of the story.  Making the Samaritan the good guy in the story and the priest and Levite the bad guys was very significant.  This is an example of Jesus going against the Saducees and saying even the Samaritans were better than they.  I also included the quote about rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesars because that has very great significance in this reading of the Gospels.

The fourth lecture was one I was nervous about.  In it I was to show that the trial of Jesus was not a real trial and that Caiphas, the High Priest, was basically a Roman official.  Jesus’ behavior in Jerusalem at Passover time was frightening to the Romans and the Saducees, especially overturning the money-changers’ tables.  In the slide show you will see the context.  The depiction of Pontius Pilate in the Gospels is utterly opposite the character of the historical person.  Pilate is presented as reasonable and forgiving.  He actually crucified thousands of Jews during his ten years as Procurator (Governor).  Claiming messiahship was tantamount to declaring oneself king and only the Emperor had that authority.  The penalty was crucifixion, a torturous death reserved for enemies of the Empire.  I note that who was responsible for Jesus’ crucifixion has no bearing on the theological meaning of the crucifixion.

I hope posting all of this on my blog will be of interest to my readers.

I will try to remember to post more often…






Three Faiths in One

The following is in response to a post from my friend Tony.  We were talking about Zorba (the film, which he had just seen for the first time).  We have discussed the natures of Christianity and Islam.  My latest post to him reflects my current thinking.
Hi Tony

By the end of the first century there were already over a dozen versions of Christianity. Most of the differences were on two issues – the nature of Jesus (divine and human, only divine, only human, etc.) and the relationship with the OT in the new faith (all of it, selected parts of it, none of it, etc.). Gnosticism was an important element in bringing Christianity into the pagan world as were the mystery religions. Syncretism (adapting other faith systems, customs and symbols into Christianity) goes on to the present day. The Gnostic influence is the basis for Christianity’s dark view of this world, such as original sin. Trinity is a concept developed over two centuries following the establishment of the NT canon. I have read some of that literature including Augustine’s long essay on the subject. It is still a doctrine that leaves some theologians discomforted. I understand it as a way of seeing the theological problem of God’s connection to this world – Father is transcendent and distant; son is immanent and close; Holy Spirit is the connector. This same set of ideas is present in both Judaism and Islam, along with the problems and issues connected (for example theodicy, the problem of divine justice). Decades of study and experience have shown me that the three Faith’s are really three faces of one faith. All the conflicts among them and within them are not really about faith no matter how much faith is used to promote and justify them. The only reason, I believe, that this does not happen for Jews is we are so few in numbers. Our own sources say there is nothing intrinsic about us that is better than other peoples. God chose us to play a role in human history and much of the time we might wish, as Tevye says in “Fiddler,”. “Can’t you choose someone else for a change?” I am very proud to be a Jew because of all the good we have done in our assigned role (which I think includes the creation of both Christianity and Islam), but that does not mean I feel superior. It just means I have burdens of responsibility to teach and promote a way for people to be good to each other. My political and social views come from that place.

On vacation my mind seems to open up. I think I may post this message on my blog…

Another Reason to Support The Iran Agreement

The biggest objection to the Iran Agreement on nuclear weapons is that Iran cannot be trusted to abide by it. I disagree. My training and experience in negotiations and in conflict resolution have shown me that anyone can be trusted to do what they believe benefits them. This is true whether among individuals or on any size group including nations. Look at this agreement with that in mind.

The true measure of the Iran agreement is the extent to which everyone gets what they need or see themselves as needing. (As the Stones sing it, “you can’t always get what you want,but if you try sometimes you might find you get what you need.”). We need for Iran not to get the bomb which is also what the other five on our side plus IAEA need. what Iran needs is an end to the sanctions. The question raised by critics of the agreement ask whether Iran can be trusted to comply with the agreement. Which does Iran need more, a strong economy or a nuclear arsenal?

Here is a thought that came to me which I have not seen in any source. Iran needs for their economy to work more than they need nukes. They seek regional hegemony. No power can have that without a healthy economy. Can anyone think of any great power in human history that did not have a strong economy? Iran cannot afford continued sanctions. If the agreement falls through because of American politics the USA will lose credibility with our five co- negotiators and also the sanctions will collapse because four of the other five need Iranian oil. The fifth, Russia, will have been handed a bigger relationship with Iran which they have sought for a very long time and which they are now actively pursuing.

Furthermore the Islamic rulers of Iran are very much aware that they came to power through the overthrow of the Shah which, before 1979, no one thought could happen. The immense Green movement that opposed Ahmadinejad’s re-election is still functioning and still actively opposing the regime. It is secularist and committed to non-violence and is exactly the kind of movement that has a history of bringing down tyrannies. The regime knows that the weak economy due to the sanctions is a basis for widespread opposition, too big for them to suppress. The regime needs to fix the economy more than it needs nukes.

The agreement gives everyone what they need, if not everything they want. That is how negotiations work.