Tag Archives: Palestine

Sartre, Gaza, and the power of doing nothing

1 Reply

Jean-Paul Sartre was a Catholic who did not believe in God or external morality, but believed in socialism and being true to ones self without having to do anything for anyone. His most famous work, “Being and Nothingness” was written in France in 1943, during the Nazi occupation. The last 200 pages of the book deal with freedom and its limitations. Sartre points out that there are always limitations (prison guards, Nazis, your own body, etc.) It is dangerous and impractical to oppose these guards, or or to oppose your own body. Sartre’s advice is to go along in body, but oppose them in your mind. Thus, he believed, he was being true to himself to the extent of rational choice. He was totally free because he was free in his mind and in his reactions to the limitations. “Freedom is what we do with what is done to us.” This was his version of existentialism, and many Frenchmen agreed that this was the right way to behave under the circumstances. Many Nazis agreed and enjoyed his writing and plays. If they didn’t totally like what Sartre had to say, they didn’t object enough to send him to a concentration camp. In practical terms, he thus survived better than Jews and oppositional Frenchmen.

Sartre had eyes that pointed in different directions. Some try to claim this related to his philosophy

Although there is a stink of cowardice and collaboration hanging over Sartre and his outlook, it could be worse. A Sartre Joke: Sartre had just finished talk at a restaurant, and sat down. A waitress who understood the talk better than most, asked if she could get him something. Sartre said, “please bring me a coffee, no sugar, no milk.” The waitress came back and said, “we’re out of milk. I can get you coffee with no sugar and no cream.” The point of the joke being that Sartre’s freedom of choice can only be among the choices he could reasonably make. If he’d asked for milk, it’s irrational to expect that the restauranteur would run out and buy some, so it was pointless to ask for no milk.

As the Germans were leaving, Sartre took French antisemites to task in a short book, “Antisemite and Jew” (1944) where he discusses the inauthentic logic of French antisemites and the motivations behind their behavior and beliefs. He claimed the motivation was a sort of mob empowerment where the antisemite, by oppressing Jews sees himself as noble, and comes to feel himself as the heir of all France, its history and its culture. They the thus imagine themselves empowered and enriched by their hatred of he-who-isn’t-them. This motivation he inferred in the liberal Frenchman as much as in the thug; the liberal objects to the yellow star, not out of sympathy for the Jew or justice, but for an inauthentic reason. It makes him feel small by his inaction, and it crates, in the Jew, an identity that is beyond the essence they prefer; he’s more than just ‘not-them’. As I read him, the main character in “Catcher in the Rye”, Holden Caulfield, is a Sartre stand in, a privileged kid bothered by the “phoniness” around him, Like Sartre, he complains and does nothing for anyone, but he does no harm either.

Sartre didn’t join the resistance, even after the Germans were losing, nor did he hide Jews or gentles, or help anyone but himself. After the war, he pushed for the execution of those who were insufficiently anti Nazi, like Tintin author, Hergé. Hergé survived, many of those he attacked were killed in post war purges. Sartre’s philosophy actually works for prisoners in extreme circumstances. Similar philosophies were created by Victor Frankl and Primo Levi during their stays in Auschwitz. It helped them survive and stay sane. Frankl’s “Man’s search for meaning”, was alternately titled, “From concentration camp to existentialism,” a lot concerns the importance of keeping your mind clear – of not becoming an animal.

Simone de Beauvoir & Jean-Paul Sartre with Che Guevara, a favorite Communist murderer, in Havana, Cuba, 1960 (photo by Alberto Korda).

After the war, Frankl became a successful psychologist helping people by helping them to see that they had a reason to exist. This is a more positive version of Sartre’s existentialism, where there was no reason. Primo Levi seems to have followed Sartre’s line more and become ever more depressed; eventually he committed suicide. Eventually, Sartre found a reason to exist in socialism. He believed that, while life was a cruel joke, socialism was pure. People could die in the millions, and he acknowledged that, the leaders were brutal thugs who did murder millions, but he believed that socialism and communism must live on. He tried to keep the bad truths hidden. So what of the killing and torture. So what if writers were imprisoned or shot — in Russia all the Jewish ones were shot in the same day — Sartre said they should have written better books, more pro-communist. Sartre would never have willingly lived in communist Russia, China, or Cuba — he stayed safe in France, and championed the oppression.

Gays for Gaza are not interested in a queer state of Palestine; they attack Jews to make themselves feel generous and powerful — it gives their lives meaning.

This brings me to the pro-Palestinian authors of today, and of 1973. Fifty years ago on Yom Kippur, Iraq, Syria, and Egypt attacked Israel by surprise simultaneously with aid from Russia. Communists and socialists supported the Arabs. Among them was Sartre, though he knew these states to be brutal dictatorships. Pretty soon Sartre discovered that his friends motivation was that they liked attacking Jews, a phony motivation, said Sartre in an interview, and he found he could not join them

I detect the same phony motivation in today’s demonstrations. The loud feminists for Palestine, the Gays for Gaza, those attacking Jews for complicity. Very few of them would willingly live in these countries or among Hamas or ISIS, and fewer of those would survive. Their love of Palestine is an excuse to hit Jews. The better version is Sartre’s he did nothing then, and would likely have done nothing today. You have to have authentic thoughts, at least.

Robert Buxbaum, November 13, 2023

Shrunken clothes and keffiyehs: anti Trump fashion

Leave a reply

Donald Trump has a lot of signature behaviors, including his “America first” politics, his hair, his ‘tan,’ his way of speech, and his way of wearing suits. Half of America finds them attractive or at least OK, while the other half finds them super-unattractive. Trump seems to have a super-power, that there is no middle. Those who dislike him dislike everything about him to his policies to his clothes. Let Trump propose immigration control, and the opposition demands open borders. Let Trump propose tariffs, an ole Republican approach to diplomacy that is thought to bring in Jobs, and the opposition (even unions!) goes crazy for free trade.

Trump likes dark colors, long ties, long jackets, and long sleeves on his suits.

In the book “Fear”, by Bob Woodward’s first story is about folks on Whitehouse staff stealing Trump’s first tariff proposal from his desk in an effort to prevent it being signed. Whatever they thought of the tariff (it was not that weird, and didn’t do much) the fact that they stole it showed the dramatic reaction people have. In this case, folks who otherwise understood that they are there to serve the president, not to overturn his policies.

LeBron James in the Thom Browne, Anti Trump look. The pants are too short, as are the sleeves and jacket. Note the dull grey color and the short, dull-grey tie. The fellow behind him is dressed normal or Trumpish: dark clothes, long sleeves, bright, long tie.

In terms of fashion, the anti-Trump fever is to react against Trump’s choice of suits in dark colors, paired with bright ties that hang below the waist. The anti men’s fashion has moved to dull grey suits and short, grey ties. Trumps’s suits’s typically have extra-long long sleeves and long pant legs that hit the shoe-top. He likes long jackets too, that to me look vaguely like Lincoln’s. The fashion back-lash is men are wearing ridiculously short pants and jackets, with socks showing.

LeBron James, at right, is wearing a complete mens, anti-Trump look, likely a Thom Browne suit, a very expensive ill fit. This suit doesn’t look comfortable, but it’s fashion, and as I’ve said before, you’ve got to suffer for fashion.

There is also a woman’s version of anti Trump fashion. The Trump women wore feminine, closely fitting clothing and wore their hair long. The anti-Trump women’s look is the opposite; it includes short hair and masculine, often covered. This is paired with loose fitting male clothes: cargo pants or combat fatigues. Topping it off, ideally ideally is a checkered, keffiyeh scarf, either over the head or around the neck. The style of scarf was made popular by former PLO head, Yassar Arafat. This look is particularly popular on college campuses and at demonstrations. It implies that the wearer supports Palestine (Trump supported Israel), and shows you are part of the cool set. The wearer, herself, is typically is not in favor of kidnapping or rape or putting babies in oven, but they are so strongly anti Israel and Trump that they are OK with it, especially if it is Jews being kidnapped, rabed, or cooked alive. They will call for Jews to be gassed or tortured. It’s part of being in the in-crowd, and antisemitism is what’s in these days — it’s been popular for many centuries.

The women’s anti-Trump look includes short hair and a keffiyeh scarf. Photo from WRLN Florida.

It is a misconception to think that those wearing the keffiye don’t understand that they would not live long if they had to dwell among the Arabs they support. These feminists do understand, as do the ‘Queers for Palestine’. They’d never want to live in even the most moderate Arab country, the same way that those supporting Mao would never want to live in China under Mao. It is fashion, and like all fashion, it’s a mob behavior that exists only for fashion’s sake. In this case there is the added advantage that you get to hit Jews and break their windows — something that is particularly attractive for feminist women, I notice; the majority of people at the Palestine protests are women.

Robert Buxbaum November 7, 2023.

Is the right the source of antisemitism in America.

3 Replies

Hillary Clinton famously called Trump supporters “a basket of deplorables” and went on to explain that half of them were “unredeemable”, Nazis and Klansmen, while the other half “needed reeducation.” Her statement was applauded on the left, and taken as an insult on the right. To this day, Biden and his group make the claim that Republicans are antisemites and a threat to American democracy. The proof here is a 2017 video of Klansmen carrying torches, saying “Jews will not replace us,” as they protested the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee in Virginia. A further claim is that the rise in antisemitic incidents, shootings, beatings, etc., are the result of Trump and the Republicans. Things are not quite so black and white, or course, e.g. during the ANTIFA protests/riots four synagogs were attacked in LA alone, and the Crown-Heights neighborhood of Brooklyn was torched. Many of the attackers of Jews have Islamic names and left association, things that don’t suggest Republicans but Democrats.

CNN has claimed that the difference is intent: Trump’s intent is evil, while ANTIFA’s is to elevate black and Moslem lives by allowing them to vent their righteous anger (on Jews). The Moslems who attacked Jews in Monsey, India, Paris and elsewhere are acting for justice, while the marchers in Charlottesville march for hate. In a special program on “Antisemitism in American”, CNN made the claim that no Jew should support the Republicans or Jewish Israel, an apartheid, colonial occupation in their view. This appears to be the view of the Biden White House too. They have yet to congratulate the winner of Israeli presidential elections, 5 days after the election. They contacted Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader instead, to discuss joint efforts to enhance Palestinian security. Obama did the same, seven years ago, not congratulating the Israeli election winner (Netanyahu), and snubbed the Israeli delegation on their visit, leaving them to sit alone without food or photographs.

According to the CNN expert on Antisemitism, the lefts’ dismissal of Israel’s leaders is because European Jews are not Jews at all, but Russians with no connection to the land. To my thinking claims like this against a group’s identity are horribly hurtful — CNN’s expert was claiming, essentially, that the jews were lying about everything since the beginning. If Jews are not from Israel, why have we prayed in that direction for return, and in the language of that land. If we did not build the old synagogs, when did we displace the builders and take over their language and culture? Attacks on Jewish identity are more serious, in my mind, than any march for Robert E. Lee. (I’ve written in favor of the peace hammered out between Grant and Lee).

Perhaps even more damaging is the left’s attack on Jewish education. The New York Times ran three-page article claiming that Jewish education abuses the students by not teaching real science or history, and by enforcing religious and sexual norms that are counter to the children’s rights — rights that include LGBQT+ expression. While it is true that Jewish education is not a fan of LGBQT+, but neither is Moslem education, or Catholic, or Mormon. Education is how a culture survives. Some Catholic leaders have noted that they have a stake in this.

The left is anti Israel and anti Jewish education, yet claims to be the defenders of Jews because they can’t stand Trump.

Speaking of survival, about half of all Jews now live in Israel, a state established by the UN in 1947 in part as a response to the mass murder of Jews in Europe. Along with Europeans, about half of the Israelis today are exiles from communities wiped out by Moslem governments: from Egypt, Tunisia, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and Yemen. If Israel becomes Islamic as Obama favored, they are likely to exile all the Jews as they did in 1968 in Jerusalem, and as the surrounding countries have done. Where would the Jews go? It’s not a problem for Obama-Biden, but it’s a survival problem for Israelis. My sense is that the left is, by far, the more antisemitic, both in terms of culture and physical safety.

Robert Buxbaum, November 7, 2022

Hong Kong and Palestine; what makes a country?

5 Replies

As I write this, Hong Kong protesters are battling for a degree of independence from China — something China seemed to have agreed to when taking over the province in 1997. While there is some sympathy for the protesters, not one country so far supports them. Meanwhile, by a vote of 138 to 9, the United Nations has accepted Palestine as an independent, observer state, the same status as the Vatican and Switzerland. A majority of nations have further stated that it is illegal for Israel to erect a wall between itself and Palestine as the wall implies a de-facto border. Why the differences, and what’s wrong with borders?

Distinctive dress, traditions, or physiology can justify a country's independence, as can a military tradition.

Britain has been shaved of many of its possessions since WWII, The possessions have demanded independent nation status based on their distinctive dress, language, history, traditions, or physiology.

Perhaps a good place to start is with British ownership of Hong Kong and Israel/Palestine. Britain acquired both by war, and both were possessions during World War II. Hong Kong island was ceded to Great Britain by the Treaty of Nanking ending the first Opium War. British control of Israel/ Palestine was achieved by invasion in World War I and confirmed by the League of Nations. Following WWII, British Palestine was split into several nations: Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia … Israel declared independence in 1948 — and was accepted to the United Nations in 1949 following its war of independence. Hong Kong did not fight any war, but was handed to China in 1997 in return for guarantees of autonomy. If Hong Kong had not been handed over, it would probably be independent today, like Ireland, Canada, Jamaica, Belize, Micronesia, Malaysia, Bali, Indonesia, etc.

Clearly part of the reason no one accepts Hong Kong as a country, while a majority of the UN accepts Palestine (and Israel?) as countries, is that both Arab Palestine and Israel have fought wars for independence, while Hong Kong has been a peaceful go-along. Another difference is related to how the world perceives China and Arab Palestine. China may be a semi-autocratic, one party oppressor of Inner Mongolia and Tibet, but its economic and military power helps insure that China is considered the respected, socialist owner of semi-democratic HK. Israel is much weaker, and much less-well regarded. It is viewed as a dispensable, European annoyance stuck improbably into the Middle east, and thus its claim on existence is weakened. The UN resolved in 1975 that Zionism is racism, and world leaders routinely called Israel a racist or apartheid occupier, as a state religion is considered anathema to freedom — they don’t have this problem with the state religions of the Vatican or Saudi Arabia. Ex-president Jimmy Carter calls Israel an occupier state, suggesting that Israel has no right to exist, and many western religious and academic groups agree or have voted to treat it as such. In 2013 alone, the UN passed 21 resolutions of protest against Israel, and only 3 against all other nations combined (A historical list is presented here). But disdained or not Israel goes on, in part by military might, in part by meeting the Montevideo requirements of 1933.

Comparison Hong Kong and Gaza

A map used to support Hong Kong Independence showing that Hong Kong is roughly 4 times the size of Gaza; and about twice the population. The government is more stable, and less divided too.

The UN’s grudging acceptance of Israel rests in part, on its meeting the four Montevideo conference (1933) requirements. A country must have: 1. a fixed population (more-or-less met) 2. fixed borders (war gains are an issue here, as is Palestine’s claim to all of Israel). 3. an internal government with internal control (here Israel exceeds Arab Palestine having a stable government. While Palestine manages to keep some law on a local level there are no unified elections, and only minimal education and healthcare. The two halves would likely shoot each other if they could shoot over Israel). The final Montevideo requirement, 4 is that a country must have the ability to make binding foreign treaties. This something Israel has, while neither Hong Kong nor Arab Palestine does. Both Palestine and Hong Kong are prevented from making treaties– with Israel and with China. Some in The United Nations have seen fit to waive this requirement for Palestine, but not Hong Kong.

While neither the Montevideo protocols nor the UN requires that a country must be democratic in any sense (most every country signing was a monarchy or dictatorship, and many still are (Jordan, Syria, Cuba, China….), there is a growing consensus that the age of kings is over, or ending. That a united Palestine would likely be a dictatorship, or kleptocracy thus runs afoul of another, uniquely American approach to state-hood — natural law, and the Rights of Man.

The United States, at its inception, appealed to the self-evident, Rights of Man, as a justification for its independence. That is to Justice, and to “Nature and Nature’s God.” We never claimed to have clear borders, or a fixed population, or any other Montevideo requirement. Instead we claimed nation-status by “the powers of the earth.” It was never clear what the legal limits of these powers were, not what Nature’s God demanded, but the idea is not mere poetry, but shows up throughout the policy speeches of Lincoln, Wilson, and Kennedy and Reagan. I’ve speculated that the poor reviews Lincoln got for his Gettysburg Address were due to the foreign-ness of these claims back in 1863, but 150 years later many thinkers seem to accept, at least as an ideal, that the legitimacy of a county rests on the will of its people, freely exercised. It’s a standard that hardly any country of the 19th century met, but that Israel meets, while Arab Palestine does not.

And that brings us back to the first and oldest basis of statehood: force of arms; self-preservation as a raison d’estat. If the people see death around them and are willing fight hard enough to keep out an enemy, they become a country. Even if they can not keep fixed borders, and even if they disband their army later, the fight for independence makes them so. (Micronesia has no army, but presumably would fight if they had to, and while Costa Rica had army once, the president disbanded it after he took over by military coup — it’s a threat to his life-long leadership). This view is the grim side of Nature’s law, that country is any organized horde who manage, by any means, to keep from being killed or disbanded. So long as the group survives, anywhere, it’s a nation. The Confederate States are not any sort of country, largely because the union has had such a stronger military that their army could operate against us, nor could the paramilitary remnant (the KKK) remain as an operational horde within our borders. China so over-matches Hong Kong that there can be no independent Hong Kong without China’s approval. Israel’s army, similarly, is strong enough to defeat any likely invasion or civil insurrection, though it might lose land, or gain it. It’s the dark version of natural law: the strong and vigorous survive at the expense of the weak and willing.

My observation is that neither Hong Kong nor Palestine is ready for independent statehood, via any of the justifications above, while Israel is a country by all of them. As for when to step in to create a state, my answer is only rarely; see my essay, when to enter a neighbor’s war.

Robert Buxbaum, December 4, 2014.