A breif history of Zionism

Friday, 22 April, Passover began at sunset. And every Jew prayed, 'Next year in Jerusalem.' But, after being evicted from Palestine by the Romans, and the Jewish Temple destroyed, the prayer was NOT for the Ottoman city of al-Quds, but for the eschatological Jerusalem, the City of Peace (which is what Jerusalem means).

***

The Zionists would like to have a Jew as the instigator of Zionism, and quite a few people have suggested various Jews, but the first influential person to advocate Zionism was the British WASP Lord Keith.

In the first half of the 19th century, the British discovered mercantilism: raw materials (including food) would be imported from colonies (at below world market prices) and paid for by selling finished products to the colonials (at above world market prices).

If one reads British novels from the 19th and early 20th century, they wanted young WASPs to volunteer as Imperial Officers to supervise the colonies, ensuring that plenty of raw materials flowed into the UK and the colonials bought all their finished products from the UK.

But the UK did not want Jews (or Roman Catholics for that matter) as Imperial officers; however, Lord Keith came up with the idea that all the Jews in the UK should go to Palestine and sell corn and tropical fruits to the UK at below world market prices, and use the money to buy finished products from the UK.

***

The Ottoman Empire had the notion of property ownership, and the state could not take it away.

In Palestine, most people were tenant farmers. The families stayed on the same plot of land, eating 1/3 of what they grew and giving 2/3 to the owners of the land as rent. The owners sometimes sold the land, but the tenant farmers remained, and just sent the 2/3 they owed as rent to the new owners.

But a very few British Jews took Lord Keith's admonition that they had enjoyed British hospitality long enough, and bought land in Palestine. They evicted the tenant farmers and began farming with modern equipment, producing lots of corn and tropical fruits to sell to the UK. The evicted tenants were annoyed, but no one cared. The Ottomans figured the Jews had purchased the land legally, and could do whatever they wanted with it.

Another feature of the 19th century were some Jews who wanted to change the way Judaism was practised.  Judaism required all practising Jews to be bilingual. The Hebrew language was sacred, the language of the Torah and prayer, and was not to be used to haggle with the greengrocer. For secular use, Jews were supposed to use a language that was not Hebrew. But some Zionists wanted all Jews to be monolingual Hebrew speakers.

***

In 1918, the Ottomans lost WWI, and their empire was split between the UK and France. The US President Wilson said the US had gone into the war to end all Imperial Empires (except for the tiny US Imperial possessions, of course) but he was ignored by everyone, including the US Congress.

So Britain got Palestine, and, as a colony, they sent British WASPs as Imperial Officers. They also strongly encouraged all British Jews to go there, but they didn't get many takers. The idea was to get a mix of Jews and Palestinians who hated each other, so both would prefer to have Britain keep the peace. In practice, both Jews and Palestinians set off bombs to kill the British Imperial officers, but Britain was too strong, and remained.

***

In 1933 the German voters gave Adolph Hitler's party a plurality, and the German leadership made him Chancellor. Hitler's platform had been anti-Semitic. At first, this meant that, if a Nazi assaulted a Jew, the law wouldn't do much, if anything, but Jews who could see that things were getting worse and worse, and who had a little money, tried to leave. The ship St Louis tried the countries it could reach that were not in Europe, but all refused to admit them.

In 1938 came Kristallnacht, after which it was perfectly legal to kill Jews in Germany. But no one would allow the Jews to leave. Britain, the US, and many Latin American countries refused to admit them. Britain said Palestine was ONLY for British Jews. So 6 million out of 11 million Jews in Europe were killed by the Nazis, when many could have been saved had the world not been anti-Semitic. The only innocents were the Jews (of course) and the colonials who were subjugated by the Imperial powers, since they could not allow Jews in, even if they wanted to do the right thing, since the Imperial powers banned Jews from entering.

When Europe was liberated in '45 by the Soviets and the Americans, the Concentration Camps became Refugee Camps. Jews were not allowed to return to the properties they'd owned before the war. There still wasn't enough food, but at least, when Jews in the Refugee camps died, they got a proper Jewish funeral instead of cremation.

President Roosevelt had told the British and French they would have to give up their empires after the war. They tried to convince him that that this would be a disaster, but Roosevelt was not convinced, nor was President Truman.

In '47, every poll showed that Truman could not possibly be elected president in '48 (he had been elected vice-president, then became president when Roosevelt died, so it wasn't a re-election).

The British agreed to end the colonies in the Raj and Palestine (they gradually got rid of most of the rest in the '60s, '70s, and '90s, but in '47 they freed Palestine and the Raj).

And Truman ordered every Jew in every Refugee camp in Western Europe, 2 million of them, sent to Palestine (whether they wanted to go or not). And Truman got almost all the Jewish vote in the US, which led to his totally unexpected victory in the '48 election.

The King of Jordan, who had become King of both the Transjordan and Palestine, said he could take 500,000 or so Jews, but not 2 million. But Truman didn't listen to the King of Jordan, and 2 million Jews were sent to Palestine, and they displaced many Palestinians.

Fearing the heavily armed Zionist army, many Palestinians fled Palestine, hoping the Arab armies would defeat the Zionists and give them their homes back. This never happened.

The eastern part of Palestine, including the city al-Quds (the Old City of Jerusalem to the West) remained part of Jordan. The western part of Palestine became the new country of Israel, recognised by the UN (and the US, of course, and many other states).

Every Muslim country, most of which had many, many Jews, up to 1/3 of the population, ordered all their Jews to leave. Or else. And most went to Israel, because no other country would take them.

So Israel had a huge number of Jews, and needed more land. Any Palestinian accused of harbouring anti-Zionist feelings had his house destroyed, and a new house erected on the spot and given to a Jew. Many of the Jews forced to travel to Israel did NOT want to go, they had no choice in the matter. But the ones forced into Israel needed a place to live, and sending the Palestinians to other countries, ANY other countries, seemed like the only choice.

The Palestinians want their old homes back, and some tried to fight (without any success).

Except for Jordan, most Muslims countries say the Palestinians must never be given citizenship, the world must return Palestine to them.

In '67, saying they knew the Arabs were about to attack, the Zionists took over the third of Palestine that had been part of Jordan and Egypt. Those Palestinians are all colonials, to this day, with almost no rights. Those in the part of Palestine that formed Israel in '47 are citizens, but only second class citizens, and are (officially) banned from entering any Muslim country (since they have Israeli passports).

With support, first from France and later from the US, the Zionists have made life terrible for the Palestinians.

Of course, the Zionists ask, 'What choice did we have?' and that is a VERY good question. The world said Jews were not welcome, and the Nazis wanted to exterminate every single Jew. The only place the world would let the Jews go was Palestine.

And the Palestinians still resent losing their land, and only Jordan allows them to become citizens (but second class citizens, with limited rights). So what can they do?

Much of the world is guilty, but it's hard to fault the Zionists OR the Palestinians, since the rest of the world won't give either the Zionists or the Palestinians any other choice.

***

Passover started last Friday at sunset. Every Passover, every Jew must read from the PASSOVER HAGGADAH. And one of the prayers is:

As our Passover meal draws to an end, we take up our cups one last time.
The redemption is not yet complete. Not everyone in our world is yet free.
This fourth cup reminds us of our responsibility to be G_d's partners in
bringing freedom to all those enslaved, peace to all those at war, food to all those
who hunger. This is our purpose as Jews. May we live to fulfil it.

This prayer was written by a very Reform Rabbi, but it encompasses what the Passover should be: a conviction that, since G_d freed the Jews from Pharonic slavery, all Jews must strive to bring peace and freedom for everyone, including freedom of religion, freedom from want, and freedom from oppression.

It's not at all clear to me how the Zionists can make the required Passover prayers.

The New York Times Magazine on how Hawkish Secretary Clinton Is

The official New York Times policy is that:

a) The evil Syrian dictator has single-handedly murdered 300,000 innocent, peaceful, unarmed protesters, thousands with poison gas, and must be removed; and
b) Secretary Clinton is the only one running for a nomination in this campaign who is qualified to be President of the US of A.

Over and over the 'stories' and columnists and editorials support these two points.

But sometimes the New York Times Magazine runs articles that don't quite fit.

Theo Padnos went to Syria to interview the peaceful, unarmed protestors. He was planning to interview them for a week or two, but was 'invited' to stay for a year or so, during which time the Free Syrian Army he had gone to interview all turned out to be al-Qaeda, and they kept teasing him, saying they planned to sell him to Daesh (ISIS in English) to be beheaded on YouTube. As it turned out, Mr Panos was lucky: al-Qaeda doesn't usually kill unarmed captives who have broken no Islamic law, they follow a less sanguinary version of Islam than the Daesh. So he finally managed to get out of Syria and write his report, and then, miraculously, it made it into the New York Times Magazine.

This week,  the New York Times Magazine has an article about Secretary Clinton, pointing out that she is the most hawkish candidate they have ever seen. Of course, being the New York Times Magazine, they conclude in the very last, short paragraph (of a very long article that is mostly scary) that, in our world with the Daesh threatening an attack on the US much worse than 9/11, with the Soviet Union trying to expand and overrun all of Europe, and with China trying to take control of all of East Asia, the US desperately NEEDS a very strong Hawk who will stand for no nonsense from the Daesh, Russia, or China, but will send as many divisions and fleets as necessary to keep us all safe, and the Republicans (and Sanders) aren't nearly as willing and able to send troops (or nukes, if necessary) to make the world safe for Democracy.

US Election, mid-March

At this point, the best guestimate is that Trump will win about 50% of the delegates to the Republican Convention. Maybe 49%, maybe 51%. Not much difference in the percentage, but, under Republican rules, if he has 51%, they have to make him the nominee, while with a large plurality of 49%, they don't.

Douthat of the New York Times says the Republican leadership MUST change the rules to make it impossible for Trump to win the nomination. Douthat thinks that Secretary Clinton would be rejected if she were running against ANYONE. Except for Trump.

This is, of course, not at all clear. African-Americans love the Clintons. Or at least Bill, and figure Hillary gets them 'two presidents for the price of one.' Of course, a majority of African-Americans preferred Obama to the Clintons (but Secretary Clinton is getting a slightly larger majority of the African-American vote than Obama did).

The great majority of women over 40 think they HAVE to vote for Secretary Clinton. And the great majority of women under 40 won't vote for any Republican (but they'll stay home if Secretary Clinton is the Democratic nominee).

The vast majority of non-Cuban Hispanics won't vote for any Cuban. All Cubans, if they can somehow make it to the US from Cuba, get green cards right off the boat, and a passport in a very few years (even if they haven't learned any English). For Hispanics who are NOT Cuban, it's hard to get a tourist visa to the US, almost impossible to get a green card, and insanely difficult to get a passport (although their children born in the US get passports, and, after the children turn 18, they can try to get their parents a tourist visa, but usually fail). The vast majority of non-Cuban Hispanics vote Democratic.

The demographics mean there's been a change since '04 when Bush, jr won. Today, the Republicans have a lock on most state governments, and the patriotic Gerrymander gives Republicans a near lock on the House, but in the '16 election, odds strongly favour Secretary Clinton and a Democratic Senate (the US Senate is one institution that can still change parties from one election to the next, since they have a unique electorate, one that is less predictable than the presidential or House electorate).

Trump for president?

British newspapers assume the US system works like the British system, where, in each district, the candidate with a plurality wins, and the party that wins the majority of MPs becomes the governing party. But the US system is much more complicated. And so it is not at all clear whether Trump is or is not on track to win the nomination.

In some states, all delegates go to whomever has the plurality. In others, one needs a majority to win all the delegates, with delegates awarded to all those who get a significant percentage of votes.

Trump's support has a floor of at least 30%, and what looks like a ceiling of about 40%. But, with just 35% of the votes in the first four contests, Trump won 64% of all the delegates assigned.

After Super Tuesday, Trump had just 46% of the assigned delegates, and now he has just 44%.

But, on 15 March, two big states will assign all their delegates to whichever candidate has the plurality, so Trump could win both, and, with the votes he's sure to pick up  in the rest of the states, he'll have enough delegates to almost guarantee a majority at the convention and the nomination.

Of course, he could lose both, in which case he'll have a very hard time getting that majority. Without a majority of the delegates, he can't win the nomination.

But the most likely result on the 15^th is that Trump will win one and lose one, and his nomination will still be very much up in the air, which is, of course, what all the news media are hoping for, since a continuing contest will sell more page views.

Meanwhile, all the US newspapers are terrified that Trump will actually win. Their columnists say that Trump will definitely start a war that the US cannot win, so no one should be dumb enough to vote for Trump.

This in spite of the fact that Trump is one of the least hawkish candidates (Rand Paul was the most anti-war candidate, with Trump and Senator Sanders tied for second-least hawkish). But US newspapers stopped writing the truth after their unpatriotic truth-telling lost the Vietnam War. By writing that the war was unwinnable and stupid (just because it was), the US news media convinced voters to elect Congresscritters who voted to withdraw. Had the US news media continued to write patriotically that victory was very close, and only a little more effort would prevent a Communist take-over of the US, voters would have elected Congresscritters who insisted the president continue to prosecute the Vietnam War, and US troops would still be in Saigon to this day.

Fortunately, the US media all report that Bush, jr did a great job turning Iraq from a terrible tyranny into a peaceful and prosperous Democracy, and Obama did a similarly great job for Libya. And the US news media are all waiting for President Clinton to bring that same peace and prosperity and freedom and Democracy to Syria, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China!

US Elections: Super Tuesday

Before 1972, thousands of delegates were chosen to go to the party conventions every leap year (plus 1900, which was an election year but not a leap year), but only the state party leaders had a vote, and they cast all the votes for their state for whomever they chose. Once upon a time, they usually voted for a 'favourite son,' on the first vote, i.e., someone from their state who was more-or-less running for president, and after that, they got serious and haggled in smoke-filled rooms. But in '68, the Democrats chose the vice-president (the usual choice when the president was not running for re-election) AFTER the president had resigned since his presidency was NOT going well, and his doctors had diagnosed a fatal illness. The 'usual choice' proved a disaster for the Democrats. So in '72, they actually let the voters choose using the British algorithm, where the person supported by a plurality of the Democratic voters got all of the states' votes. Just 25% of Democrats managed to nominate a candidate who was not supported by many Democrats and almost no Republicans, and he lost almost every state.

This year, the Democrats pick more than 4,000 delegates who get to go to the party called the Democratic Convention, and the Republicans pick more than 2,000 delegates to go to their party's party. As before, the heads of the state party cast all the votes, but (on the first round) they must cast votes for the candidates to which their delegates have been pledged.

And today, 661 Republican delegates will be allocated, and 865 delegates for Democrats. Maybe. Different sites have different numbers. Another site counting delegates at stake today says that 632 Republican delegates … will be awarded…[and] 1,007 … Democratic delegates… are at stake. So it appears that no one is sure how to count the delegates at stake today.

But in any case, today the largest number of delegates will be pledged of any single day during the 2016 nomination process. Of course, the Democratic candidate needs more than 2,000 delegates to win, and the Republican needs more than 1,000, and the process is supposed to be proportional, but, with 30% of the vote, Trump has 64% of the delegates from the first four nomination contests. 

The Democrats are more proportional (to avoid another disaster like '72). After Obama pulled ahead (having counsellors who knew where the smallest amount of money and effort would produce the most delegates), even when Senator Clinton won a state, she only won a few more delegates than Obama, and could not close the gap.

So today, Secretary Clinton will get most of those 865 - 1,007 delegates, and Trump will get at least the plurality of those 632 - 661 delegates, if not the majority. Neither will have enough delegates to win, but Secretary Clinton will be far ahead of Senator Sanders.

Trump is harder to predict. If, after today, all but one anti-Trump Republican drop out, and that sole survivor runs against Trump, he'll probably win. But all four anti-Trump Republicans show no sign of quitting before the bitter end. And a recent poll says Trump's share of Republican voters has risen from a plurality of 30% to a majority.

Of course, that's only one poll, and it's an outlier.

Today's contest is much broader than any we've seen so far, and sometimes actual votes don't tally very well with polls at the state level. The Democratic contest is fairly easy to predict: Secretary Clinton should win almost everything except for Vermont. There will be no surprises.

The Republican contest is much harder to predict. Trump is almost certain to get a plurality of delegates, but is not so certain to get a majority, and he needs a majority to win. So the Republican contest could be very interesting today. If Trump gets more than 60% of the delegates today, he'll be very hard to stop. If he gets only a plurality that's not a majority, it means he will not be the nominee.

23 Feb: Half-way though Nevada and South Carolina

There was always a good chance that Senator Sanders would win New Hampshire (national coverage0 and Vermont (mostly ignored), and the press were hoping for a New Hampshire win, since a race where Secretary Clinton is the obvious, foregone conclusion won't sell many newspapers pageviews. And so he did.

Next came Nevada, and Secretary Clinton won.

Bill (and the Secretary) have most of the African-American vote, and most of the non-Cuban Hispanic vote (not many of either one in New Hampshire or Vermont). Also most of the working-class Democratic vote. So Secretary Clinton is sure to win South Carolina. And most of Super Tuesday on 1 March. By the end of March, Secretary Clinton may have enough delegates to guarantee herself the nomination. Or Senator Sanders will see that it's hopeless and drop out.

The Republicans have dropped from 17 to 6 candidates. Normally, in a race without a president running for re-election, or a vice-president hoping to 'continue the good work', most of the candidates have almost zero name recognition as the campaign starts. Reagan had 100% name recognition from his film and TV career, and so was a sui generis. Reagan was also very popular with Republicans and many Democrats and quickly secured the nomination and then the election.

Trump is a very different sui generis. Again, 100% name recognition, but only 1/3 of Republicans like him, the other 2/3rds hate him, but the 2/3 were splitting their vote 16 then 12 and now 4 ways.

Trump has gotten less than 1/3 of the votes, but the weird way the Republicans assign electable delegates, he has 62.5% of them. (Of course, there are a LOT of Super Delegates who are appointed, not elected, and few of them support Trump.)

As of now, Senator Rubio and Governor Kasich are the last two mainstream, establishment Republicans. Senator Cruz, Mr Trump, and Dr Carson are single-player 'teams'. The Bush, jr votes will all accrue to Senator Rubio and Governor Kasich, but that's still not enough to give either of them a plurality. It's not clear how long both Senator Rubio and Governor Kasich will stay in the race, but as long as both are in, neither will come close to a plurality. If one drops, the other will probably acquire a permanent plurality and the plurality of the delegates, if not a majority. But neither has shown an inclination to drop out anytime soon. And if both remain until the bitter end, they could give Trump the election (not likely, but possible). Or they could prevent any candidate from having a majority of the Republican delegates, and the winner will get decided in a smoke-filled room (but vape now instead of cigars).

The other three are all different anti-establishment candidates, and it's not clear where their votes will go if any of them drop out.

So, at this point, the odds are very much against Trump, but it is impossible to say who is the most likely winner of the nomination.

(Not that it matters, barring an unforeseen obstacle, Ma Clinton will be the First* Woman President of the United States, and Bill will, once again, have full access to the White House interns, a privilege the US voters agree he's earned and deserves.)

US Presidential Election 8 Feb 16 (the day before the New Hampshire Primary)

Senator Sanders might win New Hampshire. Every US news agency hopes so. To sell, news agencies need news, and if Secretary Clinton is sure to win, there's nothing worth writing about. So they want a contest. Most want Secretary Clinton to win, but all want a contest that will sell newspapers and ads on broadcast media (and web news sources).

Most African-Americans voted for Bill. If Bill had been able to run in '08, he would probably have lost. African-Americans like Bill. A lot. They liked Obama better. And so Hillary lost.

But there is no Obama in this race. The African-American turnout won't be a big as it was for Obama, who attracted African-American votes even more strongly than Bill, but it will be significant, enough to guarantee Secretary Clinton the nomination.

After which, both Trump and Bloomsberg have said they'll run as Perots to help Hillary win the election.

Senator Sanders is news, but I don't think he's a foil trying to make Hillary look better than she is. He's a pacifist who wants to really end 'enhanced interrogation' and US neo-imperialism.

Bush, jr bragged about what he was doing to the 'proven enemies of the US.' Proved because a) the US offered 100 years median income to anyone who would point out a terrorist; and b) those identified as terrorists all confessed under 'enhanced interrogation.'

Once upon a time, Americans were taught that confessions obtained under 'enhanced interrogation' were unAmerican and unreliable, that they belong to medieval times and the Inquisition. But that was then. Now, Americans are taught that Torquemada knew some of the most advanced forensic techniques, and used them to keep Spain safe from terrorists.

Obama said he ordered that all torture cease, and punished severely anyone who tried to reveal the current interrogation techniques used by the US against suspected terrorists. So we haven't heard much about 'enhanced interrogation' since Obama took office. Of course, most Americans agree that, when the US does it, it's not torture, it's legal 'enhanced interrogation' of heinous villains who would have otherwise set off thermonuclear devices in most American cities.

Secretary Clinton says Obama is a wimp, and she'll be much tougher. So Senator Sanders would be a MUCH better President of the US. Pity he doesn't have a chance.