Monday, May 13, 2024

Three Intractable Dilemmas


For the last four decades I have been on a journey of discovery, traveling along the highways and side streets of three cultural/political/historical worlds. First, the world of western culture, its history, philosophies, literature, achievements, and current reality. Second, the world of Arabic-speaking societies, their history, traditions, religious heritage, factions, literature, and current reality. Third, the world of Judaism, which took me on an extensive journey through Jewish scriptures – the Torah, Talmud and other books of the Old Testament; the history of the Jews in general and of German and East European Jews in particular; how the project to establish the modern state of Israel unfolded, from the Dreyfuss affair to the Partition Plan of 29 November 1947, which divided historical Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state; and, finally, the history of Israel from May 1948 to the present day.  One of the conclusions I drew from my journey through these three worlds is that each is living a dilemma that needs to be addressed and resolved. If we are to avoid the negative fallout from the continued existence of these dilemmas, researchers and scholars from around the world should embark on an in-depth study of their underlying causes in order to come up with means of overcoming them.


- The first dilemma concerns the societies of western civilization, specifically the societies of Europe, the United States, Canada and Australia, and is represented by the sharp contradiction between the way they ferociously defend their values on the one hand and their failure to defend these same values outside their geographical borders on the other. For example, while the United States stringently defends its interests and values within its society, it is strangely tolerant of practices outside its borders that are in total opposition to the values it upholds on its domestic front. There are countless examples of this dichotomy but it is sufficient to cite just one of the most glaring. American society, which calls its political leaders to account for any transgression, big or small, has no qualms about dealing with, indeed, befriending, regimes that ride roughshod over values developed over the course of human progress. Thus American society, a vociferous advocate of human rights, women’s rights, transparency and accountability, turns a blind eye to the excesses perpetrated by the rulers of regional allies like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, who violate these values a thousand times a day. I believe that this contradiction is the source of the hatred felt by most Arab societies towards the United States and other western nations. I also believe that it could become a major threat to the very existence of western civilization.



- The second dilemma concerns modern-day Jews. I would like to begin this section by acknowledging certain facts. One, the Jews suffered a great deal over the last two centuries, in ghettos and death camps, from persecution and genocide. Two, their victimization served to energize Jewish men and women scattered throughout the countries of the world and stimulated them to develop remarkable talents. Three, their historical experience led to a dynamic sense of enterprise and allowed them to score great achievements in many fields. But while their collective experience may have equipped them with the tools necessary for survival and preeminence, it has also placed them in a historical impasse. I am talking here of the legacy of fear it has generated. Although I understand the fear, this does not prevent me from realizing that it is one of the main factors preventing the Jews from achieving a genuine peace with the peoples of the region in which they want to live in a state of security. While aspiring to reach a settlement with its geographical surroundings, the legacy of Jewish fear makes Israel insist on achieving all or most of its demands to guarantee the security it craves. This all-or-nothing approach is self-defeating: a negotiator who will settle for nothing less than the fulfillment of all his demands will end up achieving none of them.

Nothing illustrates this attitude better than Golda Meir’s words to Henry Kissinger in 1973, when she told him that it made her very angry if, when she asked Washington for something, she got only 90% of what she wanted!


- As to the third and final dilemma, it concerns the Arabic-speaking peoples of the Middle East. The culture, legacy and traditions of these societies rest on a number of pillars, most notably a strong sense of pride in self, in one’s ancestors, legacy and traditions. For the most part, this pride is grossly exaggerated, not to say unfounded. The poetry written in the vernacular of the Arabian Peninsula is filled with hyperbole, with overblown rhetoric and excessive self-praise, overstating past and present glories (which are mainly imaginary). At the same time, however, this pride is offset by the awareness of the peoples of the region that their contribution to contemporary science and progress is virtually nil. In modern times, the Arabs have made no contributions whatsoever in the fields of medicine, pharmaceuticals, engineering, communication technology, space, arms manufacture or any field of scientific research or technology. Even as they constantly boast of their past and present achievements and heroic exploits, the Arabs know full well that they are forced to buy the fruits of human progress without participating in their creation. This contradiction between an instinctive tendency to brag and the awareness of their modest, not to say non-existent, contribution to the march of human progress creates an unhealthy mental condition in which they exhibit external signs of superiority and grandiosity while in reality suffering from a sense of inadequacy and inferiority. It is a condition that can give rise to fanaticism, violence, terrorism, and paranoia – a feeling that the world is conspiring against them. It also creates feelings of animosity towards humanity at large, of alienation from reality and a sense that there are no solutions to the massive problems they are facing and no hope of catching up with the march of human progress.




First published on 9/16/2011 


Monday, November 27, 2023

The focus of my intellectual project



Plurality is the first and greatest reality of life. It is a realization of the diversity within nature, geography, and organisms, including the multiplicity of human forms, thoughts, and behaviors.

Pluralism obliges us to accept “otherness” for without an acceptance of “the other,” the alternative is rivalry, fighting, and war.

Pluralism and otherness in turn require a belief in and acceptance of a third tenet which is “coexistence.”

These three basic cornerstones: pluralism, otherness, and coexistence necessitate an acceptance of four additional laws, which are:

* Relativity.

* Human Rights.

* Women's rights as human beings who enjoy equal rights (full equality) with men, and any ideas and systems that contradict this are cultural yields of other ages.

* Scientific thinking, as defined in the nineteenth century by the famous French philosopher Auguste Comte, eliminates everything that is not scientifically proven from the circle of scientific thinking to become a “personal matter.”

 

Tuesday, August 1, 2023

Humanity’s first goal: GOODNESS


It is strange that the meaning or connotations of the expressions “good and evil” differ from the meaning of the expressions “permitted and forbidden.”  Logic dictates they should coincide. But the vast difference between them today confirms it is the “historical”, “manmade”, and “masculine” mind which produced the concepts of “permitted and forbidden” whereas the concepts of “good and evil” have a human dimension to a large extent.

 I invite the reader of this article to review the list of what is counted within the societies of our region as “forbidden” and they will discover specifically what is meant by the “historical”, “manmade” and “masculine” mind which is responsible for codifying the sanctity of dozens and hundreds of things.
 
I have no doubt that the mind which distinguishes between “good” and “evil” is superior cognitively, intellectually, and culturally to the mind which looks at things from the perspective of “permitted” (halal) and “forbidden” (haram).
 
There is also no doubt that the references used by the people of “halal” and “haram” are based not mostly but exclusively on “texts” and the sayings of “those before them” rather than on the basis of reason, thought, and logic.
 
I have never written or spoken the above without my ears ringing with the name of “Abu Hamid al-Ghazali” (died in 1111 AD). He is the one who established in the minds of Muslims in general and in the minds of “jurists” in particular that the human mind is incapable of perceiving these facts on its own!  I devoted fully two years of my life (during the eighties of the last century) on the study of the logic of Al-Ghazali through reading all of his writings.  This was immediately followed by another two years of intensive study into the complete writings which pronounced a contrary (even opposite) logic to that of Al-Ghazali—by whom I mean the logic of Ibn Rushd (died in 1198 AD), which I read with the utmost scrutiny.
 
It is a shame for the people of our region not to honor (deservedly) the works and thinking of Ibn Rushd but rather follow that of two jurists, (neither of whom reaches 1% of the value and stature of Ibn Rushd), namely Ibn Taymiyyah (died in 1328 AD) and Al-Jawziyya (died in 1350 AD).  The reader should also not lose sight of the fact that the hegemony, control, and influence of the clergy class is (absolutely) in full control of defining what is “halal and haram,” thereby guaranteeing their position as the “main reference source” while eliminating the capacity of all others, including senior scholars, thinkers, and encyclopedic intellectuals, from having input on what is permissible and what is not.
 
As is no secret, the logic of “halal and haram” does not allow for the concept of humanity to exist! In contrast, the logic and “good and evil” fully allows for the wide expression of humanity. At its core, the “logic of halal and haram” has and always will be the pillar of the US & THEM mentality with all of its negative consequences.
 
The author of these lines still dreams of an educational, cultural, and intellectual project that promotes the mentality, culture, and logic of “good and evil” using a human formula.  I have even dreamed that the logic of “good and evil” be used as a guide and compass to replace the logic of “halal and haram” as the reference through which one lives a humane life. This cannot be achieved before bringing all jurisprudence in line with the saying of the founder of the science of jurisprudence, Abu Hanifa al Nu’man: “We learned this opinion, so whoever brings us one better, we accept it.”
 
There is no doubt who will fight against this call, including individuals and institutions that will see a reduction in their power and influence, who have used holiness as their first and last reference!


Saturday, May 27, 2023

Egypt's Cultural Project--a recent interview with Dr. Suha Ali Ragab



Q: It has been said that the biggest cultural problem Egypt faces is what it takes and what it does not take from Western societies. What is the solution to this problem from your point of view?

A: Western civilization has developed through a combination of what is a cumulative human crop and what is purely European. It is not difficult to differentiate between the two. The values of progress are a cumulative human product of the march of human civilizations. These values are the reason for the progress of Western societies. The most important values of progress are pluralism, altruism (acceptance of the other), coexistence, women's rights, human rights, relativism, secularism, and modern education centered on creativity not indoctrination.  As for the cultures composing Western societies, which are the fruit of the history of these societies, it is neither possible nor logical that this can serve as a guide for Western civilization.

Q: How can cultural industries become a source of national income in Egypt?

A: We are facing a great tragedy when Egypt, with its geographical advantages and historical treasures, is not among the most attractive countries in the world for visitors and tourists. The nature, weather, and beaches of Egypt; ancient Egypt, Coptic Egypt, Mamluk and Ottoman Egypt and modern Egypt are an enormous wealth, which Egyptians can use to achieve economic abundance. 

Q: What are the requirements for the development of cultural industries?

A: What is required, according to the terminology of modern management sciences, is called "vision". Proceeding from this vision, strategies are developed to serve as a reference for a package of policies to take the Egyptian collective mind from its present medieval state to the horizons of modernity.

Q: “We succeeded in ending the organization of the Brotherhood, but the battle is long to eliminate their ideology.” This was your saying. Does this represent an obstacle to Egypt's cultural project 2030?

A:  Yes.  The continuation of this situation finds a society that got rid of the rule of the Brotherhood but did not rise to the horizons of modernity, with the survival of many ideas of fundamentalism common among the sons and daughters of its people. This makes Egypt vulnerable to historical setbacks with a potential for ominous consequences.

Q: In your book "Critique of the Arab Mind," you assert that there are erroneous cultural concepts. What are these concepts?

A:  The most dangerous of these concepts stems from teaching the essence of indoctrination and not scientific thinking and creativity, the rampant religious obsession, the incompleteness of the  civil state and the transgression of some institutions to its borders as part of the Egyptian state.

Q:  What is the role of youth centers and cultural palaces in raising the horizons of modernity?

A:  What youth centers and cultural palaces do is almost "nothing". Ten years ago, I spoke during a televised interview on this very important subject. I said that the total number of these centers and palaces is the same as the number of Egyptian villages, i.e., four thousand. You can imagine what these centers and palaces can do of great cultural work that pulls millions of Egyptians out of the trap of the Brotherhood and the Salafists and their reactionary fundamentalist discourse. But a systematic plan must be put in place to make this happen. And as alienations can be made, so can attraction. They are centers and palaces that must attract audiences with interesting activities such as old and new films and plays, not with lectures that the audience will see as something ridiculous.

Q: How can Egypt’s Cultural Plan 2030 be implemented?

A: I doubt the existence of "vision", "strategies" and "written programs" in the conventional sense of Quality Management. Without that, we will remain in the world of good intentions that cannot achieve the desired end. Therefore, we have to start by setting and formulating these things: vision, strategies, and programs.  This is the only way to create and implement any cultural plan.

——————————


Dr. Suha Ali Ragab conducted with me today the aforementioned talk, which will be published by “Cairo” in its next issue. Cairo is a weekly magazine published by the Egyptian Ministry of Culture.

Monday, May 15, 2023

The Arab-Israeli Conflict Between Reason and Hysteria

 




There are those in the Arab world today who do not recognize Israel’s right to exist in the first place,  and whose ultimate aim is its destruction. Despite our complete rejection of their logic and the premises from which they proceed, and our conviction that they have set themselves a goal that is not only unattainable but one that will bring about unimaginable loss and destruction, we will content ourselves here with  merely expressing our profound disagreement with their viewpoint, without resorting to the mud-slinging tactics they do not hesitate to use against whoever disagrees with them. We want to state for the record that, on the one hand, their logic is seriously flawed and that, on the other, they are, thankfully, in the minority. The vast majority in the Arab world, at the grass roots level and at the level of political movements and organizations, favours a settlement along the lines of the Arab initiative endorsed by the latest Arab summit in Beirut. Initially launched by Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, it was previously known as the Saudi initiative. In other words, the majority of Arabs would like to see a final settlement based, either in absolute or relative terms, on the following five points"

  1. The creation of a Palestinian state on all or most of the territory occupied by Israel in June, 1967.
     

  2. The establishment of a capital for the Palestinian state in Arab Jerusalem, and an end to Israeli control over important Muslim and Christian holy places.
     

  3. A unanimous Arab recognition of Israel, an end to the state of hostility and the establishment of normal political, economic and cultural relations between the Arabs and Israel.
     

  4. Removing all Jewish settlements from the Palestinian state, which are a tinder-box waiting for a spark.
     

  5. Solving the issue of Palestinian return in a manner acceptable to both parties, not on the basis of the absolute right of return but on the basis of a set of compromise solutions (and indemnity agreements) agreeable to both parties.

It is to this majority that the present article is addressed. If the vision  outlined above is acceptable, it follows that political negotiations conducted around an agenda made up of the five points proposed as the basis for a settlement  are the only way to end this bloody conflict. It also follows that if the Israelis are not ready to conduct peaceful negotiations, the Palestinians are entitled to resort to armed struggle to bring an end to the occupation and achieve their national aspirations. However, I believe the right to armed struggle is subject to limitations, the most important being that it be directed against the occupation forces, a limitation that was strictly observed in the first Palestinian intifada. Overstepping the limits and focusing on suicide operations against civilians inevitably swells the ranks of Israeli refuseniks opposed to a peaceful settlement; it also erodes international sympathy for the Palestinian cause and alienates global players who might otherwise have played a more forceful role.   As I write this article, the BBC has just broadcast a statement by a group of prominent Palestinian intellectuals, including Hanan Ashrawi, condemning the suicide attacks in principle, and accusing them not only of not serving the Palestinian struggle but of provoking a backlash detrimental to the Palestinians. This viewpoint is shared by most of the Palestinian intelligentsia, whether those in the Diaspora or those who did not leave their towns and villages since 1948, who are now known as Israeli Arabs.

In my opinion, and notwithstanding the unforgivable excesses and atrocities committed by the Israeli side, the Arab side  urgently needs to make a sober reappraisal of its positions and policies and to realize that years of allowing itself to be driven by passion, years during which it suspended its critical faculties and turned its back on reason and common sense, has sucked it into a vortex of tragic losses and missed opportunities. For example, if reason had prevailed in 1947, the Arabs would have accepted the Partition Plan; if it had prevailed in 1948, they would not have been led into a war by  leaders who knew, or should have known, that the outcome of a military confrontation would not be in their favour.  Similarly, creating a climate that led to the 1967 war was far from rational. We are still reeling from the devastating effects of that war,  still  scrambling  to recover part of what the Arab side lost in less than one fateful week in June 1967. Lack of reasoned judgement, of the ability to make a sober assessment of political imperatives, manifested itself once again with the stand taken by most of the Arab world against Anwar Sadat in the late nineteen seventies. It was also evident in Yasser Arafat’s  decision to abort the efforts made in Taba in early 2001 to work out an acceptable and balanced framework for a final settlement, when common sense dictated that he accept what was on offer in principle while announcing that a number of issues remained unresolved

This aversion to allowing considerations of rationality and wisdom to prevail is one of the main reasons why Sharon and his like-minded cohorts were able to come to power in Israel in February 2001, running on a platform that defies all modern political norms.  For they represent a political ideology predicated on theological considerations running counter to all that humanity has achieved, invoking what they call ‘religious rights’ and others see as beliefs rooted in mythology and legend to pursue what is clearly a political agenda.

 In focusing on Arab mistakes and miscalculations, I am in no way absolving the Israelis of blame for missed opportunities. A great deal can be said about the number of times Israel has slammed the window of opportunity shut, the way it has seized every chance it could to abort any settlement, starting with Ben Gurion in the early fifties up to Sharon half a century later. But our concern here is with our own mistakes; for it is only by correcting those mistakes that we can hope to move forward.

To that end, we must first review the file of how the Arabs have been dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict from the nineteen forties to the present day in order to avoid repeating the same mistakes. An objective and neutral person looking through the file will discover that the position adopted by the Arab communist parties in 1947 (as well as by a number of prominent Egyptian politicians like Ismail Sidki and Hussein Heikal, even by Mahmoud Fahmy el Nokrashy before he too succumbed to the war fever, and by the renowned thinker and writer Taha Hussein as defined in his literary review, “The Egyptian Writer”) was the most rational and sensible position, even though we  all attacked it in the past. A review of the file will also lead to the inescapable conclusion that the Palestinians are in dire need of a new  leadership that is very different in terms of background and educational and cultural formation from the cadre that came back from Tunisia after Oslo. Not only does the current leadership have a dismal record of missed opportunities, but  it has been instrumental in reinforcing the status of the Israeli right.  To watch the members of the current leadership spouting the resounding slogans of which they are so enamoured is to realize that they are fossils from  another age, exactly like the representatives of the extreme right in Israel, some of whom are even more out of step with the times.     

It is essential for the countries sharing common borders with Israel-Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Palestine and Egypt- to realize that ending the Arab-Israeli conflict is the gateway through which they need to go before overcoming the many other problems they are facing, the only way they can embark on a process of democratic reform, economic development and social peace and not fall prey to forces opposed to education, civilization and modernity, indeed, to the values of  progress in general. Long before the conflict attained its present unmanageable proportions, that is precisely what the Egyptian Marxists were advocating in 1947 and 1948. We condemned them for their stand, but we now know that theirs was the voice of reason. As we see the predictions they made at the time turning into reality before our eyes, we can only admit that they were among the few whose  vision was rational and far-sighted.   

The time has come to translate this vision into reality. This can only come about if Arab public opinion is made to see that the five points outlined at the beginning of this article, which are the essence of the initiative endorsed by the Arab summit in Beirut, are a matter of life or death for the region. The Arab public must be made to realize the dangers of blindly following the school of ‘big talk’ which has cost the countries and peoples of the region dearly and which is capable of costing them even more if they continue to follow slogans which, though apparently nationalistic or religious, are in essence an invitation to remain in thrall to a conflict  that is destroying the very fabric of our societies.

To that end, we need to focus on forming new generations driven by reason rather than by volcanic passions fuelled by voices which give themselves the right to speak in the name of religion or nationalism. It is a task that is rendered all the more difficult by the victim mentality that has developed in our part of the world, where a deep conviction  has built up over the last few decades in the minds of many  that everything negative in their lives is the result of conspiracies hatched against them by the outside world. True, conflict and competition are facts of life, and the annals of history are rife with conspiracies. But what is certain is that our responsibility for the negative aspects of our life is far greater than that of anyone else. What is also certain is that the world is not made up exclusively of wolves waiting to pounce on us. Here we must have the courage to ask ourselves an important question: Four decades ago, India, China, Japan and Russia (the Soviet Union at the time) supported us on many issues, including the Arab-Israeli conflict. Today, these countries are not only no longer as close to us as they once were, but have moved closer to Israel than ever before.  Why is that?   The answer to that question holds the key to a solution of many of our problems.  Most societies are concerned today with improving their lot by optimizing their potential in all areas: industry, construction, services, economic life and social welfare. We, for our part, are locked in a time warp. We alone continue to talk in the language of the Cold War, not realizing that no-one today can remain in a cave isolated from the rest of the world. We must wake up from the dream that any country can be important outside its own borders  without  first ensuring that it is internally strong, stable and solid and without contributing to the march of history. Any country that is weak on the domestic front can only be weak on the international front; there can be no exceptions to this rule.

It is all too easy to get caught up in the big talk syndrome, to succumb to the resounding slogans and impossible,  not to say illogical, demands made by those who pass themselves off as warriors battling against impossible odds, when in fact they are nothing but false prophets drawing the gullible into a net of false hopes and dreams. The worst of it is that it is not they who bear the consequences of their irresponsible talk, but the destitute denizens of the refugee camps. What is more difficult is to adopt a position based on reason, common sense and a realistic assessment of the situation, and which does not involve making enemies of influential parties capable of affecting the course of events. Big talk deals with impressions and generalities, common sense with facts and specifics. The record of the former is abysmal; the latter can be the way to a brighter future.

I am well aware that in writing this article I am inviting trouble. The self-appointed knights in shining armour riding on their steeds of big words and empty slogans will rush to fire their arrows of insults against my person and accusations against my integrity.  For personal defamation is the fate of all who dare to cross them, regardless of whether their proposals have any merit. This will not deter me, however, from calling on Arab public opinion and on those responsible for shaping it to turn their backs on meaningless slogans in favour of reason and common sense. It is all too easy to play to the gallery, to tell people what they want to hear. But  the task of any intellectual who is consistent with himself is not to pander to his readers but to write what he believes can contribute to creating a future better than the dark days our region has lived through for over half a century by suspending its critical faculties and allowing meaningless slogans  rather than rationality to shape its destiny.  


This text is the original English version of an article published in Ha'aretz newspaper in Hebrew on July 5, 2002.


Monday, April 24, 2023

Why Hate America?



I was invited (a few days ago) by one of the most important British political and strategic research centers (in London, where I live) to give a speech in which I try to answer the classic and popular question: Why do billions of people hate the United States of America. This text is my literal account of the words which I delivered, as I attempt to summarize decades of thinking about this question. I hope to have succeeded, in part, in my response to this question, which is one of great importance.

I have visited the United States about forty times since 1985. These visits covered about half of the states as well as most of its regions. I can say that the themes of my visits centered around the following six cities: New York and Washington D.C., Boston, Houston, Dallas, and San Francisco. In these visits, (during my presidency of one of the largest multinational oil companies), I dealt with many large oil leaders in the state of Texas. I visited and spoke in the largest research centers for political and economic studies in Washington D.C. and New York, as well as speaking at more than twenty universities including Princeton, Columbia, California Berkeley (and others). I was also received by the State Department, the National Security Council, and the Congressional Committee on Religious Freedom. Editions of some of my books were also issued in the United States (in Portland, Oregon). Throughout this time, I’ve thought carefully about one of the questions that I heard the most in my life, which is: Why do many people around the world hate the United States? Whenever I heard this, it raised many questions in my mind.  

Why do most young people in societies which hate the United States dream of immigrating to it and becoming Americans? Time spent in dialogue with those haters of America show that most of them are "extremely impressed" with the "American dream,” with “public freedoms in the United States,” with the adherence of all to its constitution and laws, and to the value of the American citizen who is treated “as a human being.” When I hear expressions of hatred and loathing for the United States from many in various parts of the world, including people representing all political, economic, social, educational, cognitive, and cultural spectrums, I am also reminded of two things. The first is that dimension of human nature which makes the inferior exaggerate its criticism for the more advanced and wealthier.  The second is the wellspring of "leftist hatred” of America. It is appropriate for me, in particular, to know the nature, raw material, sources, and goals of this "leftist hatred" as I wrote my first three books on the subject of Marxism!  And the truth is, none of the above succeeded in getting me to share the feelings of these haters of the United States, so that I hate it as they do. 

It is difficult for me not to see aspects of American superiority in dozens of fields, or to ignore the elements that make most of those who hate America dream of immigrating to it and becoming citizens of the United States themselves. 

It is also difficult for a man who knows the subtleties of the techniques of modern management science not to admire the mechanisms of work, creativity, and superiority of American economic entities, or to not admire what American universities are doing in terms of improving science and human lives. However, I cannot deny the presence, urgency, and strength of the important question: Why does the United States receive so much hate from most of humanity? 

During the years of the last decade (2001-2010), the real cause of this hatred began to appear clearly to me.  As I traced it, meditated on it, and examined it, my certainty increased that I discovered the real reason for this hatred, even if no one has yet expressed it clearly, which I hope to now provide in this article.

The source of this hatred is the inability of the leaders of American society to consider the “values of American society” as an integral and organic part of “American interests.” The United States, whose foreign policies serve “American interests,” did not realize, since the United States of America became the largest power on earth on the eve of Japan’s surrender in August 1945, that “the values of American society” must be among and even at the top of the list of “American interests.” The following factors contributed to the exacerbation of this schism between “American values” and “American interests”: 

(1) the pragmatism (purely practical nature and spirit) that characterizes the American mind. 

(2) the relative lack of the American mind in the sense of history and the sense of culture for historical and geographical reasons that do not need clarification. 

(3) The predominance of the financial motive within the American culture. 

As Voltaire said, “the more often a stupidity is repeated, the more it takes on the appearance of wisdom!”  The folly of American politics and politicians since August 1945 was that no one stood up and shouted: Gentlemen-- our values are our most important interests! The dichotomy between the values of American society and its interests is not only the source of this hatred but is also bringing harm to the American states in a way that American politicians still do not understand to this day! 

How do we explain to any human being the relationship of the American administrations for years with the rulers of the banana republics in Latin America? And how do we explain to any sane person the shameful American silence towards violations of human rights, women's rights, and the rights of minorities in the allied societies of the American administrations? How do we explain to any human being the knowledge of the American administrations about the terrifying stories of corruption of its partners around the world, and the silence of these administrations for decades about these amazing cases of corruption? In short: How do we justify to billions of people that what America accepts for non-American peoples, it would never tolerate for 1% of its own citizens!? 

From here stems the hatred, which is definitely justified. The strange thing is that the American political circles do not see this gap between what is accepted abroad and what cannot be accepted at home; that they do not see how this produces huge waves of hatred for the United States, and that they remain blind to the fact that the values of American society should be the cornerstone of American interests and policies.  Excluding the values of American society from the list of American interests will bring enormous harm and huge losses to American society.



London, January 10, 2013

Saturday, April 15, 2023

Ezer Weizman : An excerpt from my autobiography

During my many visits to Israel, I met dozens of important Israeli personalities in the political, academic and cultural arenas. A person whom I much admired was Ezer Weizman, who (when I met him for the first time in 1994) was the President of Israel. 




Born in 1924, Ezer Weizman was the nephew of Chaim Weizmann, the first president of the State of Israel, who had a major role in establishing the state in 1948. Ezer Weizman is a great historical figure.

In addition to our meetings at his official office in Jerusalem, I visited his home in Caesarea on several occasions.  I remember that during my first visit there, I saw two side-by-side pictures on a table, one of which was of the former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and the other was of his only son Shaul who was struck by a bullet fired from an Egyptian sniper across the Suez Canal. 

On that day, I said to Ezer: two side-by-side photos, one of your son and the second of the supreme commander of the Egyptian army, one of whose soldiers fired a bullet across the Suez Canal from its western bank, hitting your son in the head while he was present as an Israeli soldier near the eastern bank of the Suez Canal! 

Ezer's comment at that moment was: despite the accuracy of your comment, what Anwar Sadat did remains a legendary historical act, one which laid the foundation stone for peace between Israel and Egypt.