Overseas Narrative

This past week Mitt Romney has had an extremely successful overseas tour, building positive relationships in Great Britain, Israel, and Poland. I’ve watched the interviews, heard or read transcripts of speeches, seen photos. So it is an experience in cognitive dissonance to hear the news narrative that claims he’s an embarrassment, with one gaffe after another. That’s wishful thinking on the part of a biased media who want a negative outcome from this trip. But they have had to make it up.

In last Friday’s post I mentioned the supposed gaffe, where Romney was said to have criticized the London Olympics. In a very positive 9-minute interview, he acknowledges, in answer to a direct question from Brian Williams, that he is aware of concerns the Olympic planners are challenged with. He includes three main parts, two of which are very positive, and then the third, which is always an unknown until the games are underway. He was pulling for things to go well. The only thing he didn’t do was guarantee that all would be well, as though he were unaware of the specific challenges; that would have also been perceived negatively, as though he hadn’t been paying attention, when the Olympics are a huge and positive part of his record. All the rest of his public communications, and also his meeting with the Prime Minister, went well, and clearly he made a good impression there on everyone but the American press.

Here is the interview Piers Morgan had with Mitt and Ann Romney, definitely worth seeing.

Romney Pays Respects at the Western Wall of Temple Mount in
Jerusalem on Sacred Day of Mourning.
Photo from Mitt Romney Central on Facebook

The next part of the trip was to Israel, where he met with Prime Minister Netanyahu, who is a long-time personal friend. He was respectful to the man (who had been snubbed by our sitting president during his visit to our country) and complimented the people and their culture. This was considered a “gaffe,” because he pointed out that the strong work ethic and the millennia-old Israeli culture has led to prosperity for the people. The comparison was made between per capita income of Jews versus Palestinians. It’s demonstrable with data; the only error was in overestimating Palestinian per capita income by several thousand dollars. No matter what the press claim, this was a positive development between US relations and our greatest ally in the Middle East.

Lech Walesa and Mitt Romney
photo from Mitt Romney Central on Facebook

Then there’s Poland, where Romney complimented the people, who have regained freedom from tyranny, and have continued economic progress where countries around them have lately fallen into recession. Lech Walesa endorsed Romney as his choice for president—not that he has a vote, but he clearly has a preference of who he’d rather deal with. The press complaint of Romney’s Poland visit says that an aid had a meltdown. Here’s what happened: they were having a sacred moment at the tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Rather than respecting the people and the moment, US press people called out rude, taunting “questions,” and were called on it at least twice before the aid used an expletive in pointing out their inappropriateness. That’s what the press thinks Romney should be embarrassed about?

Concerning the cluelessness of the media, radio host Hugh Hewitt says in his July 31^st blog:

Press reaction to Romney's trip will make a great study in the years ahead on just how clueless and inept political reporters have become as a result on their dependency on each other and cable commentary to shape their world view. They don't talk to voters and they don't live among voters. Thus they invent stories that didn't happen and wouldn't matter if they did—a failed trip—even as they miss major events—Romney's speech in Israel—or major trends—the backlash against the enforcers threatening Chick-fil-A.

Meanwhile, back at campaign headquarters, here’s a chart showing money Obama et al. have poured into negative ads (because they can’t very well make ads about his record):

 

And this week Romney came out with this beautifully positive ad, called “Believe in Our Future”:

Obama Bent on Stopping Israel, but Not Iran

This is a brief follow-up to Friday’s post about the feckless current president. I came across Charles Krauthammer’s assessment of Obama’s AIPAC speech and follow-up. Obama followed the AIPAC speech, in which he insisted, “I do not bluff,” by admitting in a news conference two days later, (as Krauthammer phrases it) “this phrase is just a historical reference to supporting such allies as Britain and Japan—contradicting the intended impression he'd given AIPAC that he was offering special protection to an ally under threat of physical annihilation.”

So, I was right about Obama’s speech being a feckless example of rhetoric, excuses, and obfuscation. 

Krauthammer’s summary is even more direct:

Obama garnered much AIPAC applause by saying that his is not a containment policy but a prevention policy. But what has he prevented? Keeping a coalition of six together is not success. Holding talks is not success. Imposing sanctions is not success.

Success is halting and reversing the program. Yet Iran is tripling its uranium output, moving enrichment facilities deep under a mountain near Qom and impeding IAEA inspections of weaponization facilities.

So what is Obama's real objective?

"We're trying to make the decision to attack as hard as possible for Israel," an administration official told the Washington Post in the most revealing White House admission since "leading from behind."

Revealing and shocking. The world's greatest exporter of terror (according to the State Department), the systematic killer of Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, the self-declared enemy that invented "Death to America Day" is approaching nuclear capability—and the focus of U.S. policy is to prevent a democratic ally threatened with annihilation from pre-empting the threat?

Obama isn’t just occasionally wrong; he is consistently wrong. When he’s that consistent, it has to be purposeful. He is purposefully making America less strong and the world less safe. If this is true, then the next speculation is why? I don’t think he’s insane, and I don’t think he’s stupid. That means he has reasons for weakening America and endangering the world. His actual reasons are what we need to know—and have the public know—before there is another election that could risk irreversible harm to our freedom and prosperity, and safety in the world for ourselves and our allies.

Resolute vs. Feckless

Today is, in part, about adjectives. I was entertained a couple of days ago listening to Hugh Hewitt’s radio show. He noted that Phillip Rucker andDavid Farenthold had written a news piece (not an opinion piece) for the Washington Post in which they referred to the “famously genial” Mitt Romney. That means that the description is so widely accepted as to be considered fact rather than opinion.

It’s a positive term, and reinforces the theory that the most cheerful candidate is likely to get elected. Hewitt went on to conduct an exercise, to see what word(s) would be so widely accepted as to be considered fact about Obama. Callers contributed a number of suggestions, mostly negative about Obama, and also mostly very unlikely to pass the editorial rules of the Washington Post. The closest to being generally accepted was “thin skinned.” I would add (as some callers did) “narcissistic,” “arrogant,” and “condescending,” regardless of any editorial board. But then I came across another I think is fitting: “feckless.”

The word is used in an editorial in Monday’s Washington Post by Mitt Romney, in reference to President Jimmy Carter during the time when “U.S. diplomats were held hostage by Iranian Islamic revolutionaries for 444 days while America’s feckless president, Jimmy Carter, fretted in the White House.” Romney reminds us that a new president made a big difference: “On Jan. 20, 1981, in the hour that Reagan was sworn into office, Iran released the hostages. The Iranians well understood that Reagan was serious about turning words into action in a way that Jimmy Carter never was.”

The editorial looks at the similar, but possibly more dire, situation concerning Iran today. The response now, as ever, is to be strong and resolute:

The same Islamic fanatics who took our diplomats hostage are racing to build a nuclear bomb. Barack Obama, America’s most feckless president since Carter, has declared such an outcome unacceptable, but his rhetoric has not been matched by an effective policy. While Obama frets in the White House, the Iranians are making rapid progress toward obtaining the most destructive weapons in the history of the world.

Romney then lays out a “peace through strength” policy. It’s nicely done. But there’s even more about this piece that indicates some brilliance. This was the day before the Super Tuesday vote, but it was written for a  Washington plus national audience, not one of the target states. And it didn’t at all follow the narrative Obama had been prescribing for the past week or two: “those evil Republicans want to take birth control away from women,” which is absurd on its face, untrue to the nth degree, but a surprisingly effective reframing of the actual issue: coercion against religious freedom. Romney simply doesn’t let Obama decide on the narrative.

Obama had two speeches this week, one of which was on Israel (and so peripherally about Iran policy as well), which was exactly what you’d expect from either Carter or Obama: rhetoric, excuses, obfuscating. Nothing convincingly strong. But you can decide for yourself.

I agree with Romney’s assessment: “We can’t afford to wait much longer, and we certainly can’t afford to wait through four more years of an Obama administration. By then it will be far too late.”

Why Civilizations Die: Part III

This series on David P. Goldman’s book How Civilizations Die (And Why Islam Is Dying Too) starts with Part I on population decline, and Part II on the connection between secularization and population decline. Today we’ll cover what works for a lasting civilization.

Goldman proposes that religion is important in “culture,” because “culture” is about dealing with our own mortality.

Why have so many branches of the human family lost the will to live? They have lost the cultural resources that enabled them to cope with their own mortality. From awareness that we will die arises culture—the capacity to order our behavior consciously rather than by instinct. Culture is the stuff we weave out of the perception of immortality, the bridge between generations. Every echo of our earthly footsteps will die out unless those who follow us inherit more than our genes. To speak of a “search for meaning” is pointless unless that “meaning” endures beyond our lifetime. With sad frequency, ethnic groups will die rather than abandon their culture. And their culture is failing many peoples in the modern world (p. 20).

Religion, Goldman says, isn’t just an aspect of sociology; it is the primary factor; he uses the word theopolitics. But there is a difference between pagan religion and the covenant God of Jews and Christians. In pagan religions, faith in their god(s) is tentative, depending on success. As Goldman puts it,

Pagans worship their own image in the person of gods who are like them, only better. Pagan faith is everywhere and always fragile, according to Spengler’s [his online columnist name] Universal Law #15: When we worship ourselves, eventually we become the god that failed. The function of pagan gods is not to redeem us from death, but to bring us success. Pagan gods do not love men and women…. Absent success, pagan societies lose their faith; the religion of the ancient world is a carnival-parade of new gods introduced by winners to replace the failed gods of the losers, as defeated tribes were absorbed into their conquerors (p. 122).

He adds, in Spengler’s Universal Law #19: “Pagan faith, however powerful, turns into Stygian nihilism when disappointed.” In the modern world, pagan gods may not be the same as in ancient religions; they might be the tribe, the culture [Kultur was the word used in Nazi Germany], or self. All are fallible, and therefore will eventually fail.

But the Judeo-Christian God makes a covenant with man. “The American founding notion of ‘inalienable rights’ stems from the Hebrew concept of covenant: a grant of rights implies a Grantor, and an irreversible grant implies a God who limits his own sovereignty in covenant with mankind” (p. 80). This difference means that God isn’t available depending on specific seasonal outcomes, but is there throughout life and into eternities. And there is hope for peace and happiness beyond this life if we obey God’s laws in this life.

Goldman spends a fair amount of time explaining why he sees the Muslim God as more “pagan” than “covenant.” He says the idea that Allah would limit his powers for the sake of a human is repugnant to Muslims. They do not have a relationship with their creator; they rather simply try to appease and hope for good fortune. But their behavior doesn’t affect what happens; all is Allah’s will. I do not understand Islam enough to know whether this assessment is true. But the evidence of cultural failure when moving from traditional (agrarian) societies to modern (urban) societies is evident in the Muslim world as it is in Europe and Japan.

But America hasn’t failed. Its fertility rate holds steady at replacement. Israel is another exception. What makes the difference? Faith.

It is not that Americans in general are having children, but that Americans of faith are having children, and there are more Americans of faith than citizens of any other industrial country. According to a 2002 survey by the Pew Research Institute, 59 percent of Americans said that religion was important to them, against 11 percent in France, 21 percent in Germany, 27 percent in Italy, 33 percent in Great Britain, and 36 percent in Poland. In both Europe and America, people who practice a religion have far more children than those who do not. It’s just that there are far more Americans than Europeans practicing a faith (pp. 191-192).

Here’s some of the data comparing religion among childless vs. large families:

·         33% of childless families say they are not religious; only 12.5% of families with 4+ children are not religious.

·         41% of childless families say grace before meals; 62% of families with 4+ children say grace.

·         45% of childless families “strongly agree” that there is a “God who watches over me”; 80% of adults with four children “strongly agree.”

·         50% of families that never take part in religious activities have no children, but only a third of families with 3+ children do not. (p. 194).

There are differences among different religions in America, even among different Christian religions. If we separate them into “mainline” and “fundamentalist” Christians, we see some patterns. Fundamentalists who attend services weekly have a fertility rate of 2.7 (27% higher than the national average). But mainline Christians, such as Episcopalians and Presbyterians, average 1.3 children—the same as failing European societies.

American Jews show similar differences. “Nine-tenths of American Jews belong to the liberal denominations (Reform and Conservative) or to none at all. A generation ago, the Orthodox Jews seemed like a vanishing remnant of old country life. An observer looking at the configuration of American religion circa 1970 well might have forecast the end of faith in America, for the churches and synagogues that embodied faith at that moment in time were in decline. But the fervor of the evangelical Protestants, Pentecostals, and others [Mormons] has filled the vacuum left by the mainline denominations, and Jewish Orthodoxy is growing rapidly in part by attracting adherents from liberal denominations, but mostly through its own fecundity. Although traditionally observant Jews remain a small minority in terms of overall numbers, a third of synagogue-going Jews below the age of thirty attend Orthodox services (p. 196).

In other words, growing by attrition includes some conversion, but it is fueled by large families. Similar growth is happening in Israel. Among secular Jews, fertility has increased in a generation to 2.6, the highest in the industrial world. Ultra- Orthodox Jews have a fertility rate of 8.5, bringing the national fertility rate to 2.9. Meanwhile, “Arabs births in Israel remain steady at around 39,000, while Jewish births rose from 80,000 in 1994 to 120,000” in 2009. In another 60 years (two generations), Israel’s population will be larger than Poland. Poland’s median age will be 57 (as many older as younger), while Israel’s will be 32 (p. 201). And in the wake of this fertility by more orthodox segments of society, the shift of the culture as a whole is toward orthodoxy. The desire to live, and to have the culture live on, is strong. It bodes well for that little nation.

But, back to America. If Europe was made up of Christian nations originally, why have they failed to remain Christian, and then also failed to continue the will to have their individual cultures live on? And why, facing the same modern world, has America remained Christian at its core? Goldman says,

America is different because it was founded to be different. America remains a Christian nation because it overcame the centrifugal forces of ethnic rivalry through a radical and unprecedented device: the creation of a new country founded on a proposition—rather than commonality of language, race, or history. At the moment of Europe’s most catastrophic failure, people of faith chose to risk everything to found the country that became the United States of America.

The proposition that America was founded on is that our Creator has granted us unalienable rights, among them: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property, and our own choice of ways of seeking it). And the Bill of Rights spells out what was understood at the founding, that God granted us freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom to protect ourselves, freedom from oppressive government. We do not delegate to government powers beyond what is necessary to secure our rights.

The principles are eternal. They are based on promises from an unchanging, unfailing Creator. Unlike civilizations that base their meaning on love of something ethnic or otherwise ephemeral, the proposition will not fail. Only people fail in their understanding, and in their desire to value—to love—the covenant with God.

Goldman points out that we cannot export what we have in America, because it requires Americans—people who love the covenant with God. What we can do, and have done, is “evangelize,” or tell the world about the freedom concepts. Then, as has always happened, people select themselves out of the world to join the American covenant by immigrating, or to develop their own covenant based on God-given rights, as Israel has done.

This leads to a fair amount of foreign policy discussion. Goldman is persuasive and logical, but I don’t understand enough yet to know whether I can fully agree with his “therefore, we must” conclusions. Still, there is enough here to keep a person thinking a long time. And especially there is a lot that is hopeful about the long-time survival of the America that we love.

Israel, Part V, Refugees and 1967 War

Today is Part V of (at least) a six-part series on Israel. After a week break, you may want to review. Starting August 11^th, Part I was on ancient history, Part II was on Zionism (the return of Jews to their ancient homeland), Part III was on conflict and violence, and Part IV was on the Holocaust and statehood.  

As I wrote today’s piece, I realized it would have been wise to split it. Again it is long. But we’ve been waiting long enough for this section to move toward the current day. I hope the information is worth the additional length today.

Palestinian Refugees

The refugee problem began at the time of Israel’s War of Independence in 1948. To review, David Ben-Gurion declared Israel’s statehood from Tel-Aviv, May 14, 1948. Immediately the new state of Israel faced enemy armies from surrounding Arab nations: Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, as well as smaller portions of a number of other Arab nations. 

The new Israel was not comprised only of immigrant Jews, but also many Arab Palestinians. The new Jewish government promised all rights would extend to Arabs. They promised safety and no hostility to any Arabs living among them. But the attacking armies, totally confident in their goal of “driving the Jews into the Mediterranean,” pressed the resident Arabs to get out of the way. The Jews encouraged them to stay; they had no reason to make their fellow Israeli citizens their enemies. These residents hesitated and didn’t know what to do. 

Those who chose to get out of the way fled their homes and awaited their Arab brothers’ victory—which, against all odds, didn’t come. Israel miraculously prevailed. Arabs that had remained in their homes had promises kept with them (about 100,000 near Nazareth, mainly), and they retained the rights of Israeli citizenship including their own representatives elected to parliament. But those who had fled became known as the Palestinian refugees. They fled to neighboring states of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon.  

The neighbors who had urged them to get out of the way had not expected to have to deal with them long term. Suddenly, here were these former Israeli Arabs, homeless. They had declared their allegiance with Israel’s enemies and renounced their citizenship rights. One of the most difficult problems was that among them were the terrorists who had been antagonizing the Jews for decades. So, among innocent, confused refugees were dangerous militants; the other Arab countries didn’t want them.  

Unlike refugee problems just about anywhere else in the world, these refugees did not become part of the countries they fled to. The relatively peaceful (in recent decades) country of Jordan could have easily solved the refugee problem by inviting the refugees to leave their camps and join in the economy. They did not. No one else did either. So, these unwelcome refugees became wards of the United Nations. 

Traditionally, these refugees have become a political tool. The blame for their existence has been placed on Israel, even though Israel neither created them nor forced the surrounding countries to enclose the refugees in permanent camps. The only thing you can say against Israel is that they chose not to welcome declared enemies back in as full citizens, and they have protected themselves against attack.  

One thing you might not be aware of is that, in surrounding countries Jews were forced to flee to Israel, many of them in poverty. Israel solved the issue by training the refugees and putting them to work. If the Arab nations that pressed the Palestinian people to become refugees had behaved similarly, these refugees would have been a short-term problem that would have disappeared about 60 years ago.

Up to and through the 1967 War

One of the biggest problems perpetually facing the new state of Israel has been trying to broker peace with the surrounding Arab countries. But some of the hostility was related to countries far beyond the Middle East itself. 

Britain’s retreat from protecting Israel at the end of WWII was a signal of its retreat as a world empire. Wherever it retreated, there was left a power vacuum, and at that point the prime candidate vying for that power was the Soviet Union.  

The US approach was to encourage individual nations to fulfill their own national destinies, urging Greece, Italy, and Turkey to be responsible for their portions of the Mediterranean. And the US urged individual Arab countries to stabilize politically and economically. The US offered protection for these purposes, but did not impose authority over them. 

The Soviets, on the other hand, used subtle methods to incite violence and revolution. The US recognized what its Cold War enemy was up to, and in 1955 encouraged Arab nations to sign the Bagdad Pact, with the intent of communicating to the USSR: “You are welcome to trade and visit and so forth in peace, but not in war—not with espionage and sabotage and subversion.” Unfortunately, the US did not gain full cooperation of the Arab nations. Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and Great Britain joined the US in signing the pact. But Jordan, Lebanon, and a conflicted Saudi Arabia leaned toward the Communists. And while Iran wavered and came our way, Iraq wavered and went to the enemy.  

Egypt, with Nassar new to power, signed an arms pact with the USSR. But the US countered with help building the Aswan Dam, plus wheat, food, and other aid to show friendship. For a while Egypt tried to balance friendship with both, but eventually leaned toward the Soviets. The US then withdrew help on the Aswan Dam under construction, so Nassar seized the Suez Canal and used resources from that acquisition to finish the dam. At that point Britain and France held interests in the Suez Canal, so they did what they thought was necessary to maintain trade there. 

In 1956 Nassar attempted to unite the Arab world by attacking tiny Israel. Israel, under the direction of a young General Moshe Dayan, launched a defensive attack, and Egypt retreated, in the fashion of Old Testament battles where the God of Israel went before them. Israel expanded beyond their original 1948 borders as a result of their defensive 1956 War, to cover the Sinai Peninsula. 

It was the US, threatening sanctions against Israel, in support of Nassar despite his affronts, that caused Israel to return to her original borders. The deal was, if Israel would remain within the original borders, the Aqaba Gulf would become international waters and would never again be closed.

As soon as Israel consented to this arrangement, the Soviets staged more power moves. They participated in murdering Iraq’s king, so that they could place their chosen people in power. And they attempted to take over Lebanon and Jordan. US Marines and Air Force, along with British forces, saved those two countries.

Back to the refugees. These Palestinian refugees, some of them previously successful and well-educated, were held as prisoners in the UN-sponsored camps. They were not allowed to get jobs; they lived in poverty. So it’s not surprising that from these hotbeds came a lot of violence. Attacks against Israel were continual. Ben-Gurion spent a long time urging his people not to retaliate, and he went through the UN to have grievances addressed. Finally, he gave the UN an ultimatum: either put a stop to the violence against us, or we will stop it. 

Since the UN continued ineffectual, Israel began to retaliate—hard. Jewish planes and tanks struck in the Golan Heights, north of the Sea of Galilee, both causing and suffering heavy casualties. Now, at last, the UN acted—by immediately condemning Israel. This became the pattern in and around Israel: Palestinian refugees and others attack Israel; Israel suffers in patience and then strikes back; and international condemnation of Israel ensues. 

During building-to-building fighting on the ground, one of the Arab tactics on the verge of defeat was to rip off their uniforms, down to pajamas, and hide under beds, saying “Shalom” to Israeli soldiers as they came. This led to confusion, causing a number of civilian, even Christian, casualties. Finding ways to make Israel look savage, and feed such images to the media, continues to be a basic tactic. 

In 1967, this ongoing fighting became a full assault. Israelis raced across the desert with the specific goal of destroying or capturing tanks and artillery provided by the Soviets to their enemies. There was no intention to capture and take over Egypt; there were certainly no additional resources for such an offensive strategy. The speed of the Israelis did allow them to seal off the Suez Canal, keeping the tanks from making an escape. Then Israeli aircraft bombed one of the lead tanks—with a guided missile that made a direct hit. The other tanks stopped, their hatches opened, and their crews made a run for it across the desert—leaving their boots behind, as the story goes, because running barefoot was easier in the desert. 

So, the Israelis captured over 350 tanks for their own future use, some of them so new they hadn’t even been painted with camouflage yet. 

Here’s an interesting detail. Unlike David Ben-Gurion, who was religious, most Israeli soldiers were not. They were Jewish ethnically, but mostly non-religious. Some believed in the destiny of Israel, but not Biblically, more patriotically. Following their amazing victory in the desert, however, these hardened soldiers returned to the city and joined their religious countrymen in tears and prayers at the Western Wall.  

During a religious service held at the wall, following the brief June 1967 War, a chaplain named Rabbi Gorin said this: “We have taken the City of God! We are entering the Messianic era for the Jewish people! And I promise the Christian world that we are responsible for, we will take care of, all the holy places of all religions here for all people! I promise them, we will take care of your holy places.” 

Prior to the war, Jordan had held all the land east of the Jordan River, plus some land on the west side. But their efforts to take more were thwarted. Israel held not only Jerusalem, but Bethlehem, Hebron (south), Nablus (north), and all the way to the Jordan River. The Jews fought in the north up to the Golan Heights and headed toward Damascus, which they could have taken at will. The Jews had suddenly increased their territory four-fold, without ever having been the aggressors. By the end of that week of fighting, Jordan, Egypt, and Syria had all retreated. 

Within a year, rather than wield authority over new territories, Israel ceded the entire Sinai Peninsula, keeping only the additional portions west of the Jordan River. The borders of Israel have continued to change over the decades since 1967, usually with Israel ceding land in an attempt to make peace with never satisfied neighbors.  

Tomorrow we’ll finally get to the current situation.

Israel, Part II: Zionism and Migration

This is part II of a several part series on Israel, to give background to the conflict there today. For part I, see Thursday's post here.

Zionism

Somewhere during the 19^th Century, there began to be a worldwide desire among individual Jews to return to their homeland. Several influences caused this feeling to grow, mainly to escape the nationalism and anti-Semitism in Western Europe, and, even worse, the violent persecutions (pogroms) of Eastern Europe. 

Jericho Market *

In 1956 the first group of Jews tried to set up a Jewish-owned orange grove near Jaffa. This first wave of migration to Palestine (the Roman name for this Ottoman territory, not a Palestinian state) included about 25,000. But it didn’t work out well. These weren’t experienced farmers, and they were just about done in by malaria, the typical plague of swampland. But during this time the idea of Zionism grew around the world, thanks in large part to a mane named Theodore Herzl. 

During this period, freedom loving liberals in France (liberal in the classic sense, in favor of Republicanism instead of monarchy, with guaranteed individual rights) recognized persecution against Jews as wrong. A spy case against a man named Dreyfus was a catalyst; Dreyfus was falsely accused and twice convicted, when the actual traitor was liberated. The people recognized the wrong, replaced the leaders, and reinstated Dreyfus. It was the biggest issue of its day, and led to the end of state religion in France in 1905. 

Herzl dedicated his life to raising funds from Jews around the world to buy land in Israel to be settled by Jews. He died in 1904, but his influence had multiplied greatly to a worldwide movement, and others continued to seek an independent secular Jewish state in the area of Palestine. 

In Basel, Switzerland, August 1897, the First Zionist Congress set out the following formula: 

Zionism seeks to establish a home for the Jewish people in Eretz-Israel [land of Israel] secured under public law. The Congress contemplates the following means to the attainment of this end: 

1. The promotion by appropriate means of the settlement in Eretz-Israel of Jewish farmers, artisans, and manufacturers.
2. The organization and uniting of the whole of Jewry by means of appropriate institutions, both local and international, in accordance with the laws of each country.
3. The strengthening and fostering of Jewish national sentiment and national consciousness. Preparatory steps toward obtaining the consent of governments, where necessary, in order to reach the goals of Zionism.

Jewish communities all over the world lit up over this idea, including in the US. Rabbis around the country became strong leaders in the movement. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said, “This is a cause to which I will give my life.” He eventually stepped down from the bench and lobbied for the Jewish cause. He set up the Palestine Land and Development Company, the Palestine Economic Corporation, and the American Zion Commonwealth. He evidenced a rather new idea, ethnic American Jews, with the idea that “to be a good American meant that local Jews should be Zionists.” 

Migration

The Second aliyah—wave of immigration--was made up of several segments. The first was from Russia, escaping pogroms (bloodbaths), from about 1904 to 1914. These people were intrigued by some of the socialist ideas taking root at that time in Russia. They were interpreted in Israel as the kibbutz, a collective farm where everyone did manual labor. The people benefited from a natural willingness to be industrious. By the outbreak of WWI in 1914 there were 85,000 Jews in the Palestine region, compared to a mere 5,000 when the Ottoman Empire took control. 

Balfour Declaration

During WWI, the Zionists supported the Allied Powers, including the Jewish Legion under the British Army, and served in intelligence for the British. 

If you’ll recall, the Palestine region had been under the Ottoman Turks for 400 years or so. When there was finally hope that the British would be able to overcome the Turkish forces in Palestine, the Zionists sought reassurance that the British would commit to supporting Zionist goals. This was successfully done in the Balfour Declaration. In a letter from Lord Balfour representing the British Cabinet sent to Lord Rothschild representing the Zionists in Eretz Israel, the November 1917 declaration said this:  

“His Majesty’s Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

Following the Balfour Declaration, the aliyah (immigration waves) came in three segments: 1919-1923 mainly from Russia, about 35,000, mostly manual laborers, continuing the establishment of rural settlements. The next was from Poland between 1924-1932, adding small businesses and light industry in cities, mainly Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem.  The last segment came mainly from Germany during the 1930s, about 165,000, in response to Hitler’s rise to power. This group included professionals and academics, contributing significantly to education and intellectual culture. 

The significant cultural development in Eretz Israel is one of the main sources of conflict in the region. The native Arab peoples willingly sold land to Jewish immigrants; they were selling swamplands and worthless rocks. But then the Jewish communities drained the swamps, planted orange groves, and developed farmland—so it looked to the former owners that they were deprived unwittingly of valuable land. 

As the cities began to develop, there was the additional conflict between developing civilization and the nomadic Arabs, who preferred the simpler way things had been for millennia.  

That leads us to Part III next time, as conflict led to violence.

_______________________________
* The photo of the oranges in the Jericho Market comes from a beautiful photo book called, The Way, the Truth, and the Life: Images of the New Testament, text by S. Michael Wilcox, photos by Floyd Holdman and Don O. Thorpe, 2002, Covenant Communications. This photo is from p. 64, taken by Thorpe. This is merely a photograph of the page, which doesn't do it justice.