Unless obstinacy does to wisdom yield,

And friendly counsels rule the field,

The seeds you sow no good will bring.

                                     And of your downfall future bards will sing.


All of us know what happened. The warnings from the State Department were ignored; Rumsfeld acceded to the neoconservatives in the Pentagon; Iraq was "liberated;" our troops are now caught in a hostile environment; some - as well as the liberated Iraqis - get killed on a daily basis; there are more world-wide terrorists attacks which kill the innocent; and the U.S. is saddled with a massive financial debt, which the taxpayers of this country will have to shoulder. I do not have the gift of prophecy but all of these events were foreseeable as has been documented prior to the Iraq invasion in these pages. All that is required is to know history as it really evolved, rather than the myths which have been spun around it, and the fundamentals of human behavior which have remained constant throughout the ages.  

Unfortunately these simple truths have not yet found their place in the minds of the decision makers in Washington which include the speech writers of President Bush. The president gave two major speeches during the past month. One before the United States Chamber of Commerce - Endowment for Democracy, and the other at Westminster Palace. The speeches were not excerpted or commented upon to a great extent in the press but Fareed Zakaria (Newsweek November 17, 2003) wondered how to explain

"the churlish reaction among so many Democrats, Europeans and intellectuals to the president's speech on democracy in the Middle East last week? Whatever the problems - and I'll get to them - as a speech it stands as one of the most intelligent and eloquent statements by a president in recent memory. (Don't take my word for it: read it at whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031106-2.html.) If it marks a real shift in strategy, it will go down in history as Bush's most important speech."

Mr. Fareed ascribed the negative reaction to the Chamber of Commerce speech as, "A visceral dislike for the president is boxing many otherwise sensible people into a corner because they cannot bring themselves to agree with anything he says." Since I never "viscerally disliked" the president, voted for him, but thoroughly disagreed with his post 9/11 foreign policy here was a challenge. I took Mr. Fareed at his word and read the speech carefully. In the first part the president recalled that president Reagan had also been vigorously denounced in Europe for his vision to bring freedom to the captive people in the Soviet sphere of influence; but he succeeded nevertheless. Subsequently he mentioned "the progress of liberty is a powerful trend. Yet we also know that liberty, if not defended, can be lost." There is no doubt about that and no one will quarrel with it. Neither is "freedom is worth fighting for, dying for and standing for," controversial. But when it comes to "Our commitment to democracy is tested in countries like Cuba and Burma and North Korea and Zimbabwe,” one is beginning to wonder. Are we supposed to invade and liberate them also?

The president then turned to the Middle East and assured his listeners that Muslims can indeed appreciate democracy and that those who do not feel so as yet will soon see the error of their ways. But he also rang a note which sounded disturbing. "Dictators in Iraq and Syria [emphasis added] promised the restoration of national honor, a return to ancient glories. They've left instead a legacy of torture, oppression, misery and ruin." People who are used to reading between the lines will immediately note that here is a potential opening shot of the next war against Syrians, who are known to "harbor terrorists" and who have already been subjected to economic sanctions by the US.  "The good and capable people of the Middle East all deserve responsible leadership." Yes indeed but that cannot be imposed from Washington!

The President subsequently lectured the Palestinians that their "only path to independence and dignity and progress is the path of democracy. . . . The Palestinian leaders are not leaders at all . . . . They are the main obstacles to peace, and to the success of the Palestinian people." One might now have expected some advice for his "friend" Ariel Sharon, but neither that name nor the state of Israel was mentioned at all. It is agreed that Arafat has his faults, but to omit the role the Likud government is playing in fueling the flames of Palestinian hatred, is a violation of good sense and turns this "most intelligent" speech into a travesty. The additional fact that there was not a single sentence about how he intends to solve the Middle East problem - including the self-inflicted Iraq wound - is ample reason to label the speech as full of good intentions but without definitive substance. As we all know "the way to hell is paved with good intentions" and that it is the means to the goal which count.

The president then told us, and if he means it this is important, ". . . we are mindful that modernization is not the same as Westernization. Representative governments in the Middle East will reflect their own cultures. They will not and should not look like us. . . . We've taken a 200-year journey toward inclusion and justice - and this makes us patient and understanding as other nations are at different stages of this journey." Patience and understanding are indeed called for but it is difficult to forget that the president had called himself a "patient man" around this time last year and a few months later the tanks rolled. But since of all us are capable of learning, we can hope that there may more patience next time.   

The second speech at Westminster Palace was in the same vein. He tried to flatter the British with our common heritage and values, but couldn't help inserting a dig at the French. "President Wilson had come to Europe with 14 Points for Peace. Many congratulated him on his vision; yet some were dubious. Take for example, the Prime Minister of France. He complained that God, himself, had only Ten Commandments. Sounds familiar." The president did not mention that it was not only Clemenceau who made a shamble out of the 14 points but was ably assisted by Lloyd George of Great Britain and Orlando of Italy. It was this threesome who created a "peace to end all peace," in the words of Field Marshall Wavell.  

The president continued, and stated that it was the failure of the League of Nations to reign in dictators which led to WWII. This statement is interesting for several reasons. 1) The Carthaginian dictates of Versailles (Germany), Trianon (Austria-Hungary), and Sèvres (Ottoman Empire), which humiliated the vanquished and produced profound resentment, were not mentioned as contributory elements. 2) The fact that Congress never ratified the Versailles dictate, and that the US never did join the League, it's very own brainchild, was also omitted. 3) And this is the most telling for the disconnect we are exposed to; the successor of the League, the United Nations, has been totally ignored in the decision making before the Iraq invasion.

The lesson that Wilson's idealistic stand at Paris foundered on the granite rocks of old fashioned imperialism was thoroughly disregarded. That he came home a broken man should be forgotten because we must charge ahead bringing the gospel of democracy to all the rest of the world.

The president also told the Brits that we are pursuing "a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East," but left undefined what that consists of. Except that "our will is firm, our word is good and the Iraqi people will not surrender their freedom." The last part of the sentence surely rings true. The majority want us out of their country in short order, not just the military but also Halliburton and associates. Mr. Bush then repeated in several paragraphs his admonitions to the Palestinians. But since he was out of the country and not on the campaign trail, he allowed himself to add a sentence, "Israel should freeze settlement constructions, dismantle unauthorized outposts, and the daily humiliations of the Palestinian people, and not prejudice final negotiations with the placement of walls and fences." That would have been nice had he said it in the Chamber of Commerce, and even more importantly if he had informed Sharon in no uncertain terms that this must be done as a first step, or else no more money! That means none of the 9 billion dollars in loan guarantees, and no further funding of Israeli defense policies. Withholding $389.4 million is not a serious policy. The president concluded the Westminster speech by congratulating his hosts with, "The British people are the sort of partners you want when serious work needs to be doing. The men and women of this Kingdom are kind and steadfast and generous and brave."

Yes indeed they are brave; a crowd, estimated by the police between 100,000 and 110,000 had turned out not to hail the Great Liberator but to demonstrate against his policies. He was not allowed by his "handlers" to address Parliament, because he would have been heckled and had to be transported by helicopter to and from Buckingham Palace so that he would not see the unpleasant reception. We need to remember that these are the precautions the "Leader of the Free World" had to be subjected to.

On November 22 The Salt Lake Tribune published an article headlined, "Even in wee town, Bush can't escape protests." It printed the above quoted number of the protesters in London, whom Bush never saw, and the "wee town" was Blair's country residence. While Mr. Bush obviously lives in a bubble, shielded from the real world, this extends unfortunately also to his wife Laura who is likewise shielded from the truth. She is quoted as saying, “I don't think the protests are near as large as everyone was predicting before we got here. We've seen plenty of American flags, we've seen plenty of people who were waving at us - many, many, more people in fact, than we've seen protesters." That's true, but the reason is simple; she wasn't allowed to see the protesting crowds.  The article was also accompanied by a picture which shows a confident Bush striding to his helicopter on the lawn of the Palace. He is accompanied by a rather glum looking queen and when I first saw the picture I wasn't sure of the reason for her unhappiness. It became apparent later. Not only had three helicopter pads savaged her beautiful lawn, her roses some of them dating back to Queen Victoria did not survive the prop whirl, and even her flamingoes which had been evacuated, because of the expected noise apparently refused to come back. Well, "sacrifices have to be made" as the president assured us.

But let us return to the end of the Chamber of Commerce speech where the president assured his audience that the "freedom we prize is not for us alone, it is the right and the capacity of all mankind." Yes that is correct, but how do we achieve it, by patient diplomacy and balancing the needs of all parties, or invasion of the lands of those who do not see the wisdom of our ways? Freedom is the great slogan today but our politicians and media pundits don't seem to understand that it cannot be imposed from above. When one does so one tends to get anarchy which is likely to prevail in Iraq for the foreseeable future. If and when we leave there may well be civil war from which another dictator is likely to emerge. That is also the lesson of history. The problem is not that the people of Iraq are not ready for democracy but a tribal society with religious animosities cannot be expected to rally around a government which lacks legitimacy in their eyes as the current Governing Council demonstrates. Neither they, nor our other prime example of liberation, Karzai in Afghanistan, can show themselves outside government compounds unless guarded by Americans. This shows, more clearly than anything else, the bankruptcy of our post 9/11 foreign policy.

Unless this is openly admitted to and constructive steps are taken, which may, unfortunately, already be too late, the brave rhetoric by our administration will remain just that. Even Goethe wrote at the end of Faust II "das ist der Weisheit letzter Schlusz: Nur der verdient sich Freiheit wie das Leben, der taeglich sie erorbern muss." This is wisdom's final conclusion: only he deserves freedom as well as life itself who has to reconquer it on a daily basis. Freedom cannot be brought on a platter it must be worked for by the people who want to be free.

The 22^nd of November was also the 40^th anniversary of President Kennedy's assassination and the History Channel devoted an entire week to that event. Numerous conspiracy theories and witnesses supporting each one of them were procured and in the end one remained just as confused as before. Although the official government pronouncement is still that the lone deranged Oswald killed the president with rapid fire of 3 bullets from his Mannlicher, the idea is highly doubtful. The Zapruder film clearly shows that the president was hit twice. With the first shot he stiffened and raised his arms to his throat while the second and fatal one exploded the right posterior portion of the skull. For a physician this is troublesome. If the fatal bullet was fired from the 5^th floor of the Book Depository building, as the government steadfastly asserts, the entry in the back of the head should have been small, and the exit would large. This is axiomatic in forensic medicine. The only reasonable explanation seems to be that the bullet came from the front and exited in the rear. This is why there was such massive damage to the back of the head. Since this would invalidate the lone assassin theory and indicate a conspiracy of what ever size and by whomever, the government is loath to admit it. Everybody can readily understand that in the panic and danger of the moment in November 1963, at the height of the Cold War,  any idea of a conspiracy might have had a profoundly negative effect and this is why the "patsy," as Oswald called himself to reporters at the Dallas police station, had to be pronounced guilty.

But forty years have elapsed, the Cold War is over, and the government still refuses to open the files to independent investigations.  This is the additional tragedy and points out how unreliable official history really is. If we are not allowed to learn the truth about such an important event, as President Kennedy's murder, which had profound consequences including the Vietnam War, there is something deeply wrong with our government. As mentioned repeatedly we are also denied the truth about the events leading up to the 9/11 catastrophe, about who forged the Niger documents, and numerous other aspects leading to the Iraq invasion.

November 19 was the 140^th anniversary of the Gettysburg address where President Lincoln said that "these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth." One hundred and forty years later "this nation under God" is not allowed to mention the word God in public schools and we have a country that is governed by a handful of people who are not necessarily elected and beholden not to the citizens at large but a to variety of special interests which dish out enormous sums of money for their pet causes.

But there is a ray of hope and it comes, of all places, from California. Arnold Schwarzenegger was sworn in as governor and runs now the most populous state in the Union. This is a truly remarkable phenomenon. A boy from a small place in Austria decided to make something out of him and started with body-building. He succeeded, got to America, found his way into the movies as Conan the Barbarian (which always irritated me, because I thought that Austria deserved better representation), and then realized the ancient Austrian dream. There is a Latin sentence all of us learned in history about how the Austrian empire came into being, "bella gerant alii, tu felix Austria nube." Others wage war, you happy Austria marry! The empire was not built by war; as a matter of fact the Austrians lost most of them, but by strategic marriages. To a boy from Thal in Styria to marry into the Kennedy clan surely must have seemed the "impossible dream." But he succeeded. The recall election, which was bitterly denounced by the incumbents, was indeed by the people for the people and an expression of grassroots democracy. Will the entrenched powers allow him to achieve his current goals as governor? We don't know yet, but he has made an excellent start. With Maria Shriver, JFK's eloquent and attractive niece at his side he can woo the Democrats, and his moderate Republican stance, which actually shades over to the liberal side anyway, allows him to govern from the center. When one adds to this a style which tends to make friends rather than enemies he should have a good chance, although Gary Trudeau author of the Doonesbury cartoon can't let go of Arnold's past history of petting desirable young women and demands an accounting. Trudeau was considerably less perturbed about President Clinton's escapades, but that's politics. The problems of California including its massive budget deficit are truly daunting but when one considers what Schwarzenegger had to overcome to get to where he is, he might be able to meet even this challenge and he deserves our best wishes.

Finally November is also the month of Thanksgiving and it might be appropriate, especially for our so called "secular citizens" to remember what this last Thursday of the month is supposed to be really all about. The last paragraph of the Proclamation as signed by George Washington on October 3, 1789 states,

"And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just and constitutional laws, discretely and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows best."    

That was the prayer of the first president of our republic, and in the current climate of intense strife nothing seems more important than to devote ourselves to the realization of that goal. We cannot leave it up only to God; the work must be done by ourselves.

After several years of writing and another few years of trying to find a publisher The Moses Legacy; Roots of Jewish Suffering is now finally available through Internet commerce. It had to be published through the “print on demand” medium because I no longer have a life expectancy that will allow me to pursue reluctant publishers or agents for several more years. In as much as the content of the book does not conform to current political ideology editors of well known publishing houses are reluctant to tackle a topic that is not only highly emotionally charged but also presents both sides of Jewish-Gentile relations.

On the other hand I do feel sufficiently strong about the ideas expressed in the book that one should be willing to “put one’s money, where one’s mouth” is and make them available to the public. This attitude has to do with my upbringing where I saw injustices being done to the Jewish members of our society and was unable to do anything about them. I shall never forget the sense of shame I felt one day while traveling on the Stadtbahn in Vienna during WWII when I saw a Jewish girl of my age with a downcast demeanor and the Star of David on her overcoat, as was required by law. I did not decide then and there to rectify injustice all over the world wherever it might exist but the impression was lasting, kept resurfacing intermittently throughout my life and the question kept nagging me why such hatred against Jews could have existed.

After retirement from executive duties, and seeing patients, time was available to study the “Jewish question” with the book under discussion the result. After reading a considerable amount of Jewish literature it became apparent that the problem of anti-Jewish attitudes is an ancient one and there were reasons why people felt the way they did. I shall refrain from using the European term antisemitism, spelled currently anti-Semitism in America, for their feelings because the term implies a racial homogeneity which is inappropriate. When people express dislike or hatred of Jews it is directed against Jews, regardless of racial background, and not Semites in general.

Thus, the book stresses first of all clarity of language. Imprecise language is associated with muddled thinking and subsequently inappropriate behavior. This will be discussed further in the second part of this essay. It may seem strange to connect a religious figure like Moses with 21^st century politics but when one reads the book the reasons will become obvious.  Without the figure of Moses there would be no Judaism, no state of Israel, no Christianity and no Islam. Historians and theologians can argue whether or not Moses existed as an individual, what laws he promulgated and what benefit accrued thereby to the world. For the purposes at hand these questions are not relevant because The Moses Legacy deals only with ideas which are expressed in Jewish literature about Jews and their place in the world. The book is about Gentile-Jewish relationships since the inception of the Jewish religion.

Currently it seems to be no longer polite in official American society to speak of a Jewish tradition and a Christian tradition. The two religions have been amalgamated under the term Judeo-Christian thereby blurring the differences between them. It may, therefore, come as a shock to some well meaning Christians that observant Jews not only reject the term but one of them has even regarded it as “an antisemitic lie.” As Neusner has pointed out the “the two religions … really are totally alien to another.” Thus, the purpose of the first part of this book was to explore how such a fundamental misunderstanding between well-meaning people had come about.

One of the fundamental misconceptions Christians harbor about Judaism is that it is a religion like others and has no political implications. Yet Moses intent was not to create a religion but to make an enduring nation out of the diverse group of people he had led out from Egypt. Again it doesn’t matter whether or not the Exodus is a historic reality, it has become so by being enshrined in the Bible and millions of people around the world believe in its veracity. The purpose of Moses’ Law was to set the Hebrews apart from the rest of their neighbors and to make them into a “holy nation [Ex. XIX.6];” “a kingdom of priests” and as such a society unto themselves. But inasmuch as the Hebrews, and later on their descendants the Jews, always lived in the midst of people who worshipped other deities not only was constant strife foreordained but so were increasingly more stringent regulations over all phases of daily life. Once the Jews lost Jerusalem and the Temple the rabbis were confronted with a massive problem how to keep their people together in the Diaspora. The answer was the creation of the Talmud, which has become the “central pillar” of authentic Judaism.

Christians have very little, if any, information on the Talmud and this ignorance has given rise to the misconceptions about the essence of Judaism. The importance of the Talmud for Gentiles lies not necessarily in its religious doctrines but in what has been called “Talmudic thinking,” which differs markedly from that of the Gentile world. Only when one is aware of this fact can one understand Ben Gurion’s comment about the British. He explained to some of his friends that, “You can do many things with an Englishman but you cannot change him into a non-Englishman. The Englishman does not see things with Jewish eyes, he does not feel things with a Jewish heart, and he does not reason with a Jewish brain.” The term Englishman referred to a specific situation but really means Gentile in general and perpetuates a theme of separateness.

The Moses Legacy shows why Ben Gurion’s statement is true and the consequences that flow from it. As mentioned the book is divided into two sections. The first part starts with definitions so that all of us know what is being discussed at a given moment. This is necessary because “Talmudic thinking,” which assigns the meaning of a word to whatever a given person wants it to mean at a particular point in a discussion, pervades the literature. This has to be shunned in a scientific exploration of a topic. The chapter on definitions is followed by what is known about the origins of the Bible, the cornerstone of the religion. Its importance for current political events cannot be stressed enough. This is the reason why various key biblical figures are subsequently examined for their actions and their capacity to serve as role models for behavior in our day and age. Specifically it is shown what type of conduct has been reported, who was rewarded or punished by God and for what reasons.

As a result some rather surprising findings became apparent and demonstrated how the past, present and future intersect. Since the present is based on the past the future is not totally unknowable. It can be predicted to a certain extent, barring divine intervention, if one knows the character and motivations of key players. The first part of The Moses Legacy ends with a discussion of the Pharisees and the essential features of the Talmud. This section demonstrates how Jewish authors during the first century A.D., prior to the establishment of Christianity, responded to attacks. The means with which they defended their views will be found remarkably similar to present day practices.

The second part of the book shows how the world-view, which was derived from the biblical stories and the Talmud, has now been put into practice in America. Its influence on the domestic as well as foreign policy of the United States is documented by quotes from contemporary Jewish authors. It explains why the Constitution of our country is currently constantly re-interpreted and why aspects of American life, which have been constitutional for two hundred years or so, are no longer tolerated. The prime example is the vigorous enforcement of separation of Church and State and re-interpretation of the “free speech” amendment. These are largely driven by “secular” Jewish legal professionals (i.e. atheistic, or “non-Jewish Jews” as Deutscher called them), although atheists coming from other religions have also joined the fray.  The subsequent chapters deal with Jewish perceptions of the past and future, attitudes on justice and death, and Jewish power. As mentioned these observations are presented in discussions of relevant books by Jewish writers, and show how these authors perceive the difficulties their people are confronted with and the ways to overcome them. But as the final chapter, “Are anti-Jewish attitudes curable?” demonstrates the proposed remedies fall short of the mark. The chapter, therefore, presents suggestions which, if adopted, would not require state or other legal intervention. They would cost nothing and simply make us humane beings who work for the benefit of all rather than persisting in a “them and us” attitude where “us” is obviously favored over “them.”

The book clearly reveals that a great many Jewish authors see their people as a beleaguered minority in a hostile environment, which has to be either shaped to conform to their views or, whenever feasible, opposed militarily. The examples presented make it quite apparent that militant nationalistic Jews operate on different assumptions from Christians, Muslims and members of other religions. Fanatic, radicalized Muslims are currently regarded as the greatest threat to the U.S. and the world but the equally grave potential danger not to but by the state of Israel is not being addressed publicly. The main reason seems to be that the “Judeo-Christian tradition” puts us into the same boat as the Israeli leadership and any criticism immediately leads to cries of anti-Semitism by well organized Jewish organizations. Anyone in professional life can ill afford a label of this sort and the injustices perpetrated by Israeli policies against the Palestinian population in the occupied territories, for instance, are only rarely commented upon by the media and ignored by our political establishment.

The book can be obtained through amazon.com or booksurge.com. Excerpts are available on this site and by simply clicking on the book cover on the Contact page a direct link to booksurge is established.

This brings me to the second part of this essay. Our current War on Terrorism is a classic example of inappropriate language. The term serves only to arouse passions but hides the true battle, which is going on behind the scenes. This obfuscation is useful for politicians but a disservice to our citizens, who pay in blood and money for this war. Terrorism is a means towards an end rather than an end by itself. A war on a tool makes no sense and in reality we are dealing with a war between ideas. This cannot readily be admitted to because ideas cannot be defeated militarily and that is the way this war is being conducted.

In order to deflect attention from this war of ideas we are being told, in print and on the TV screens that people around the world hate us because we are rich and powerful, which has always led to resentment and jealousy. But this is not the real cause of America’s current dilemma. It is, instead, how we are using our resources and the fact that the Bush administration has created the world-wide impression that Americans are above the law and do not have to abide by internationally recognized norms. Unless this perception is rectified, not by propaganda but concrete actions which the world can see and agree with, the very real war we are engaged in cannot be won.

We are also being told that this is a war between good and evil where good must triumph regardless of length of time or cost. But good and evil are philosophical concepts and no agreement can be reached on this basis because good is “us” and evil is “them” regardless which side of the conflict you find yourself on. Mohammed Atta, the purported leader of the 9/11 attack, did not regard himself as evil. On the contrary he prayed to God that “all doors may be opened” to him while carrying out his mission. This consisted of delivering to sinful America, which is promoting “secularism” over spiritual values, a foretaste of the punishment it deserved.

Our leadership, politicians and media people, will also have to recognize that the idea of the “One God” is putting us into a dilemma vis á vis the Muslim and Jewish world. The Muslim creed, “There is no God but God, and Muhammad is His prophet,” establishes unequivocally the unity and identity of God for all three monotheistic religions. For an American general to tell his Muslim counterpart that “My God is bigger than your god” betrays utter ignorance. Unfortunately this ignorance is pervasive and bodes ill for the future. To cast this war into apocalyptic terms makes good propaganda but cannot lead to a satisfactory resolution of the conflict. The Jewish creed (Shema) which is to be recited twice daily also asserts, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is One.” This establishes the unity of God and theoretically all three monotheistic faiths should have equal access to the “One.” But if the emphasis in the Shema recitation is on “Our” all non-Jews pray to the wrong deity. They are idolaters and as such unacceptable.

This is the interpretation given by some of the settlers on the West Bank. One of them told Jeffrey Goldberg (The New Yorker May 31, 2004), “All my ideas are formed from the Torah. It’s not complex. This land is ours. God gave it to us. We’re the owners of the land.” This mentality leads also to the destruction of Palestinian olive groves, which as Goldberg points out, is a grave sin in Judaism even if the trees belong to an enemy. When Goldberg confronted the rabbi of the settlement, whose youths were carrying out the destruction he said, “I’m not hearing you. I’m not hearing what you’re saying. You don’t understand me. I’m not hearing and I will continue not to hear.” Another person from the settlement when asked about the cutting down of the trees was more concerned with access to Joseph’s tomb. “What is an olive tree compared to the burial place of Joseph, the son of Jacob?” When Goldberg pointed out that those trees are the livelihood of the farmer and his family, the reply was, “But the farmer is an Arab [italics in the original]. He shouldn’t be here at all. All this land is Jewish land. It is meant for the Jews by God Himself.” Thus, the God of Israel is not the God of the Muslims and the settlers in the occupied territories are right while everybody else who disputes this is wrong! Can peace occur with a mindset of this type?

But the internal Palestinian problem is not the only festering sore which infects body politics. There is also the concern of Israeli politicians with external security. There is no doubt that every nation has the right to internationally guaranteed secure borders. There is also no doubt that Israel is a small country and vulnerable to assaults from the neighbors. It is, therefore, equally understandable that in the 1950’s Ben Gurion wanted to have a deterrent against aggression from Arab countries by developing a nuclear bomb. The details about how this was accomplished can be found in Seymour Hersh’s 1991 book The Samson Option. Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy.  But what may have made sense in the second half of the previous century when even Soviet missiles could be targeted on Tel Aviv is now becoming an increasingly dangerous liability.

This brings us back to today’s events and nuclear proliferation. We are currently in Iraq not because Saddam was a threat to U.S. security but he was a potential threat to Israel. This is not yet admitted to in public but it may be only a matter of time before it will be. When I published the essay “The Neocons’ Leviathan” in April, 2003 on this website hardly anybody had heard about “neocons” and what they stood for. Now everyone knows and although their ideas stand discredited because of the Iraq problems, the full implications have not yet been drawn. Israel’s security concerns are still identified with those of the U.S. and although we have been willing to remove the Iraqi threat we are now supposed to eliminate potential threats from Syria and Iran. Neither of these countries presents a danger to America and even the threat to Israel appears exaggerated. The Syrian army is no match against the IDF and Iran does not share a common border. Even if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons the country could not use them against us because we would obliterate Tehran in an eye blink and the mullahs know it. The idea that because they support terrorists they will, therefore, send a bomb via willing helpers to our shores also does not make sense. These men are not stupid; they know that nuclear terrorism cannot destroy America and that the retaliation would be unacceptable. So why do they seem to be willing to build themselves a bomb? One reasonable answer may be that they regard it as the “great equalizer” against Israel’s arsenal of WMDs. Once we have nuclear capability, they might reason, we can no longer be shoved around by the Americans. This is likely to be also the rationale for the North Koreans. Let us remember that we have officially branded these countries as members of an axis of evil. The United States has declared a preemptive war strategy and followed through by invading the first of the three evil ones. They may thus think that they need bargaining chips to assert their independence, just as France did when she developed her bomb and then took a leave of absence from NATO in the nineteen-sixties.  Since Israel is determined that no rival nuclear power will be allowed to exist in the Middle East the risk for a showdown is becoming increasingly higher. There is no doubt that the Iranian Mullahs represent a highly repressive regime and the world would be better off without them. The question is not whether or not they should be put out of office but only how. Bombs and/or military occupation will not work. The change must come from within the country, even if it takes longer than impatient American policy makers would like.

In the current issue of The New Yorker (June 28, 2004), Seymour Hersh writes about Israel’s “Plan B” in Iraq. According to Hersh Israel had warned the United States early last summer to seal the border against Iran because Iranian intelligence officers and foreign fighters were crossing at will in increasing numbers. The border remained open and the Iraqi insurgency gathered steam. One may ask why the U.S. military did not follow through with the well meant advice but one likely reason may be that we simply didn’t have enough boots on the ground to do so.  Israel’s preoccupation with security against a potential Iranian threat has now led to a highly dangerous “Plan B.” Hersh stated, “Israeli intelligence agents and other military operatives are now quietly at work in Kurdistan, providing training for Kurdish commando units and most important, in Israel’s view, running covert operations inside Kurdish areas of Iran and Syria.” It seems obvious that the Israeli government is not doing this for love of the Kurds, so that they may enjoy a Greater Kurdistan, which encompasses all the Kurdish people who have been parceled out between Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. It is simply using them to destabilize Syria and Iran. But in the process the Israelis are likely to undermine America’s effort to establish a democratic Iraq in its current borders and bring a semblance of order to the region. The Kurds are already concerned that they will lose rights once a strong central government is installed again and demands for autonomy, if not outright secession, are going to become increasingly louder. But the establishment of an independent Kurdish republic will be opposed by Turkey, Syria and Iran out of fear of uprisings within their own Kurdish population. While we can ignore Syria’s and Iran’s concerns, Turkey is a NATO partner and if it were to get involved in major military operations against the Kurds we would have a real problem on our hands. Israeli actions of the type reported by Hersh are clearly against the best interests of America. The newly installed interim government of Iraq will also need all the help it can get to hold the country together rather than encouragement of separatism. Furthermore, if Turkey, Syria and Iran were to get involved militarily innocent Kurdish people would again be slaughtered just as they have been in the past.

There is another potential tragedy brewing in the Middle East and America stands by helplessly. We have an election coming, while the Israeli government is stirring the pot in Iraq, and no one can tell Jerusalem to “cease and desist.” Yes, Israel should be able to live in security but the current security concerns are exaggerated. There is no army that can invade the country and if a missile were to strike one of its cities not only Israel but the United States would retaliate. The fear-mongering needs to be curbed by responsible Jews both here and in Israel so that a degree of sanity can finally emerge in political conduct. A second Auschwitz, Israel’s recurrent nightmare, is not around the corner unless irresponsible Israeli politicians yield to paranoia, or religious fantasies of a Greater Israel, and initiate policies which will escalate the dangers rather than defuse them. While the turning over of even limited authority to the Iraqis two days prior to the promised date is cause for hope meddling with the Kurds is surely not what America and the new Iraqi government need.

It may seem incongruous that after a month during which such major events occurred as: the turnover of “full sovereignty” to Iraq, the Senate’s report on the “intelligence” failure leading up to the Iraq invasion, the 9/11 Commission’s report and the Democratic convention in Boston, that I should instead devote an essay to happenings, which transpired more than a hundred years ago. But as will become apparent, all of the past month’s events are to some extent related to thoughts hatched in Vienna during the end of the nineteenth and beginning twentieth century. Events were set in motion at that time, which will affect not only us but our grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

I have put full sovereignty and intelligence in the previous paragraph in quotation marks because they represent typical examples of the misuse of language that was discussed extensively in The Moses Legacy. The secret services of various countries around the world do not produce intelligence, they produce information. It would have taken intelligence to sift facts from fancy, but that quality was sorely lacking in our leadership. Full sovereignty is, of course, another euphemism for what has happened in Iraq.The name of the person Dr. Allawi  reports to is Negroponte and the U.S. wouldn’t be building its largest embassy in Baghdad if it didn’t have the intention to retain its influence over Iraqis regardless whether they like it or not.

Now what has all of this to do with a Viennese journalist who was hungry for fame as a playwright? And why does he have to be remembered at this particular time?  It just so happens that this July was the one hundredth anniversary of Herzl’s death and a Symposium was held at Vienna’s City Hall to commemorate the event. I have a certain affinity with Dr. Herzl (he had a law degree from the University of Vienna) because 1904 was not only the year he died but also when my mother was born and my grandfather opened his first leather goods store in the Währingerstrasse, a few blocks from Haizingergasse 29 where Herzl used to live.

Herzl, whose parents had come from Hungary, was deeply perturbed about his Jewishness and the anti-Semitic sentiments he encountered at the university as well as elsewhere. Initially he thought that the cure for anti-Semitism would be complete assimilation. But try as he might he found out that there was no escaping from being regarded as a Jew by others. This fact of life subsequently led him to the opposite extreme by embracing nascent Jewish nationalism and over a period of about eight years he became its most fervent apostle. He traveled from one end of Europe to the other to drum up support from the ruling circles of the day for his intent to solve the Jewish question, as it was called, by an organized mass exodus of European Jews to the land of their ancestors. From rich assimilated Jews he wanted money for his project; from Germany and England he wanted guarantees that the Jewish state he envisioned would not only be accepted but also politically protected; from Russia he wanted exit visas for the millions of the “huddled masses” that were to be the backbone of the emerging country, and from Turkey’s Sultan he wanted to buy the land.

With the assimilated rich Jews he struck out immediately. They obviously saw no reason to give up the privileged positions they had finally attained, even in spite of anti-Semitism. In addition they regarded the idea that Jews are a nation rather than merely a religion as highly dangerous and grist for the mill of anti-Semites. The Sultan was equally adamant. As mentioned in the September 2003 issue (For the goyim they sing) he let Herzl know that the land his ancestors had fought for and conquered with their blood, was not for sale and that the Jews should keep their money.

Anybody else might have given up when it became apparent within the first year of  trying that persevering with this dream would not gain one fame only notoriety, and might actually bring harm to oneself as well as others, but Herzl soldiered on. When no money was forthcoming he convened the first International Zionist Congress in Basel. In Munich, where he had really wanted to hold it, the local Jews told him that he and his ideas were not welcome so the venue had to be changed to the more hospitable climate of Switzerland, where there were hardly any Jews and no Jewish problem. The Congress resolved that the Jewish people needed a Heimstätte in Palestine and its creation was the goal of political Zionism. I am saying political Zionism to mark the contrast with religious Zionism, because religious Jews, as individuals, were always allowed to live and die in the Holy Land if they so desired. The word Heimstätte, a term which is only partially translatable into homeland, was chosen because the word state would have lead to political repercussions the Congress wanted to avoid. “National home” became also the official term in the Balfour declaration of 1917, although everybody knew that a state was really meant rather than a place where Jews would live on ancient soil under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire. Living as Jews with Jewish customs was already possible in the Pale of settlement in Russia but there were, of course, intermittent pogroms and those Jews from the Pale who wanted to escape from its restrictive environment and enter Holy Mother Russia proper did not find a warm welcome there. These were the sentiments Herzl banked on.

But the idea of political Zionism did not originate with Herzl. He had several fore-runners although he claimed to have been unaware of them. One of the most interesting ones was Moses Hess who published in 1862 a treatise Rome and Jerusalem. A study in Jewish Nationalism. The book was inspired by the emergence of European nationalism and for Hess Rome was the symbol for the unification of Italy Garibaldi was engaged in. If the Italians could get their state why not the Jews? seemed to have been the thinking. There are several points in the book which deserve to be quoted because they reflect how the idea of Jewish nationalism was to be sold first to Jews and then to the Gentile world. Hess wrote:

“Fortified by its racial instinct and by its cultural and historical mission to unite all humanity in the name of the Eternal Creator, this people [the Jews] has conserved its nationality, in the form of its religion and united both inseparably with the memories of its ancestral land. No modern people, struggling for its own fatherland, can deny the right of the Jewish people to its former land, without at the same time undermining the justice of its own strivings. …

The great teachers of the knowledge of God were always Jews. Our people not only created the noblest religion of the ancient world, a religion which is destined to become the common property of the entire civilized world, but continued to develop it, keeping pace wit the progress of the human spirit. And this mission will remain with the Jews until the end of days …
The Jewish race is one of the primary races of mankind that has retained its integrity, in spite of continual change of its climatic environment, and the Jewish type has conserved its purity through the centuries. …

The pious Jew is above all a Jewish patriot. The ‘new Jew,’ who denies the existence of the Jewish nationality, is not only a deserter in the religious sense, but is also a traitor to his people, his race and even to his family….

In reality, Judaism as a nationality has a natural basis which cannot be set aside by mere conversion to another faith, as is the case in other religions. …  “

When one reads these words not from a Jewish point of view but that of a German of the second half of the nineteenth century it is understandable that they would raise eyebrows among the educated and create anger and hate in the mob. Let us summarize what we have been told here. In contrast to Count Gobineau’s books, published in the previous decade, which had extolled the virtues of the Aryan race as the main bearers of culture, Hess had asserted that it was the Jews who had been the major benefactors of the world. Classical Greece and Rome, which had found a renaissance in German culture was not the inspiration of the Western world but Judaism. Furthermore, not only are Jews primarily a race rather than a religion but their religion nevertheless is destined to become the one acknowledged as the true one throughout the world. The assertion that a pious Jew is a traitor to his people if he does not accept membership in the Jewish nation also had to immediately raise questions about loyalty to the countries Jews were citizens of. When one is aware of this aspect of Jewish literature it should come as no surprise that the Nazis took these Jews at their word and regarded race as the determining factor in legislating who is a Jew.

But Hess, Pinsker, Birnbaum, and others who wrote in this vein during the last half of the nineteenth century were ignored until Herzl came along and energized the masses. While Birbaum’s pamphlet Die Nationale Wiedergeburt des jüdischen Volkes in seinem Lande, als Mittel zur Loesung der Judenfrage (the national rebirth of the Jewish people in its country as a solution to the Jewish question), published in 1893, had no resonance - Herzl’s Der Judenstaat (1897), saying essentially the same all the others had previously said, did make an impact. The difference was that while the others had been content to publish their thoughts, Herzl created an organization and relentlessly pursued his course to the detriment of his health as well as his personal and his parents’ finances. He was scrupulously honest and it was this reputation, as well as his position with the Neue Freie Presse, which inspired trust and gained him access to high political circles. This particular newspaper was the equivalent of The New York Times or the Washington Post and as such respected throughout the world

As mentioned above, before Herzl became what one may call a professional Zionist he wrote plays. While still in Paris as foreign correspondent for his newspaper he wrote in 1894 during 17 hectic days and nights what was to be his last play, Das Ghetto. The play, which has been renamed Das Neue Ghetto (the new ghetto), is of considerable interest in the current context because it was Herzl’s first attempt to tackle the Jewish question publicly. The action of the four act drama took place in contemporary Vienna. The protagonist, Dr. Jakob Samuel, is an honest, just married young Jewish lawyer, who devotes himself to progressive social causes and defends the less fortunate in court. He is obviously modeled on Herzl’s view of himself. His major antagonist, Rittmeister von Schramm, is an aristocratic cavalry officer who had insulted Samuel on two occasions. Once for a minor altercation but when he accused Samuel of cowardice and for having been responsible for his financial ruin Samuel lost his temper and slapped him on the cheek. This insult required satisfaction obtainable only by a duel in which Samuel got killed. Herzl used this condensed plot to highlight the Viennese Jewish scene of the day. Samuel’s best friend, Dr. Wurzlechner, is a Christian of impeccable character, who as Samuel states had been his model how to conduct himself in upper class society, took leave of him before going into politics because after Samuel’s marriage he had become too involved with his Jewish family. By maintaining their close friendship Wurzlechner would be seen by his political enemies as a friend and lackey of Jews (Judenknecht), which would have been harmful to his career. While Samuel’s parents were honest, middle income, hard working God-fearing people, the family he had married into represented Jewish upper class wealth with money as their main concern. Hermine, Samuel’s wife who called him Jacques instead of Jakob, was also more concerned with clothes and jewelry, which Jakob couldn’t afford to buy her, than her husband’s work. In addition there is a Mr. Wasserstein, the quintessential parody of the Jewish venture capitalist who is obsequious when down on his luck but arrogant once he had made money again on the stock market.

What has all this to do with the ghetto and the events of the first decade of the twenty first century? The ghetto resides in Samuel’s mind. He knows that the external walls of the medieval ghetto have disappeared but in spite of emancipation Jews are still segregated, although not quite so overtly any more. As he sees it there are two barriers. One is external as represented by anti-Semitism but the other is internal and resides within the minds of Jews themselves. The external barrier can be removed by working with well-meaning Gentiles but the internal can only be overcome by Jews themselves. The play ends when the mortally wounded Jakob floating in and out of consciousness, surrounded by his family and Wurzlechner, who had been his adjutant at the duel,  murmurs;

 “Mother forgive me this pain … (kisses his father’s hand) You will understand father! You are a man! ... (With stronger voice) Jews, my brothers, one will only let you live again - when you … Why do you hold me - so tight? (murmurs) I want – out! …  (With very strong voice) Out – Out from the ghetto!”

The drama is, therefore, both the end of one phase and a prologue for the final phase of his life. He would bring the Jews to the Promised Land, cost what it might, thereby ending anti-Semitism and earn the gratitude of the world.

But this dream had a fatal flaw it ignored reality on two counts. One was the Jewish people themselves whom he saw as an idealistic brotherhood who would follow his call towards a better future and the other that he regarded Palestine as an empty land. He also assumed that the few Arabs who did live there would welcome the Jews as bringers of modern civilization and accompanying prosperity. Jews were to be the colonizers, the Western bulwark against Asiatic hordes and at the same time providing the gateway for the West, especially England, to India. The notion that nationalism might not be limited to Jews but could also affect Arabs, Herzl was not willing to entertain.

He did create a Jewish state but its present condition is a far cry from his imagination in 1902 when, in his novel Altneuland, he foresaw a prosperous state in which the deserts bloom as a result of technologic marvels and most importantly where Jews and Arabs live in peace and harmony together. In the conclusion of this novel, people recount their good fortune after the funeral of one of their revered elders who had passed on in peace.

“In this mood Friedrich Lőwenberg raised a question which each one answered in his own manner. The question was: ‘we see here a new, a truly happy way of cooperation among people – who is responsible for this?’

The old Littwak said: ‘Distress’ [Die Not. The word could also be translated as necessity or grief].

Steineck, the architect, said: ‘The reunited people.’

Kingscourt said: ‘The new means of transportation.’

Dr. Marcus said: ‘Science’ [Das Wissen. It could also be translated as knowledge].

Joe Levy said: ‘The will’.

Professor Steineck said: ‘Nature’s forces.’

The British pastor Hopkins said: ‘Mutual tolerance.’

Reschid Bey said; ‘Self-confidence.’

David Littwak said: ‘Love and suffering.’

But the old rabbi raised himself solemnly to his feet and said: ‘God!’’

It is noteworthy that Herzl put “mutual tolerance” into the mouth of the Christian rather than the Arab who stressed “self-confidence.” It is obvious that this hoped for state of affairs did not arrive and if Herzl were to return today he would be appalled at what he had wrought and say, like Wilhelm II at the end of WWI, “das habe ich nicht gewollt” (I did not intend this). Herzl’s goal was to “have a state, not according to the European model, but a community joined on a voluntary basis with mutual cooperation.” A state of this type does not exist anywhere in this world. Although Herzl didn’t mention it, the idea behind the creation of the United States of America might have come closest to it. But as we all know our country is also sorely rent apart with conflicting interests.

Three and a half years ago when the Bush administration arrived I was still hopeful that a solution to the perennial problems of the state of Israel could be achieved with America acting as the impartial arbiter between Arab and Jewish claims. This is why I wrote Whither Zionism? and sent it to the powers who control our lives. It was not of no avail. Today we in the U.S., the Israelis, and other countries around the world are worse off than in February 2001.

Even in Israel the Jews have not escaped from the Ghetto, as Herzl thought they would. They continue to live now not only in their mental ghetto, but are actually in the process of building a physical one by the creation of a wall to separate themselves from Arabs. This wall is regarded as essential for the security of the country. Although it defies international law some writers like Mr. Zuckerman, editor of U.S. News and World Report, supports it with articles like “Good fences make good neighbors.” If Israel were to build its ghetto wall within the pre-1967 war borders nobody would object. But if Mr. Zuckerman’s neighbor were to build a wall which takes in part of Mr. Zuckerman’s backyard he would surely take the neighbor to court. This is the problem in a nutshell. As long as Jewish writers and politicians see only expected benefits for the members of Jacob’s tribe and ignore the legitimate aspirations of others, the Jewish people and their benefactors are condemned to dislike, hatred and ostracism.

Why has America, which was admired four years ago, sunk so low in the eyes of the world? The true answer, which no one wants to admit to, is our unconditional support for Israel’s policies. It is this support in addition to a quest for oil and a personal vendetta of President Bush against Saddam Hussein which has driven us into the Iraq war. Now we are stuck with a failed dream, just like the Israelis, and are hated for it.

What I am writing now will never be admitted to by the Bush administration even if it were re-elected because it would offend their “base.” But the Democrats can’t say it either, at least during the election campaign, because they would be tarred and feathered as anti-Semites. This is America’s dilemma and this is what Herzl’s followers did to us. It was the neoconservatives in the defense department who hatched the Iraq strategy on the model of Herzl’s dream: we will bring culture to a civilization which actually preceded ours by millennia and our soldiers will be welcomed with open arms by happy Iraqis. As mentioned in the essay on “The Neocons’ Leviathan” (April 2003) the foreign policy of the Bush administration did not originate from its legitimate source, the State Department, but from the Defense Department’s ex-Marxists. They first wrote for incoming Prime Minister Netanyahu a document “Defense of the Realm” and subsequently they simply exchanged the word Israel for United States of America. They were the ones who brought us “angst” and as long as our main friend is a pariah nation we cannot succeed.

Senator Kerry gave an excellent acceptance speech and there was no “angst” during the convention. All of the participants brimmed with optimism for a bright future and great expectations. But for those to be translated into reality senator Kerry, if he were to be elected, would need the same courage he has shown on the battlefield at his desk in the Oval Office. He would have to recognize the existence of “the Jewish brain,” as ben-Gurion has called it, and deal with it in a constructive manner. This would include a full disclosure of the sources which led the British, the Russians and Americans to believe in Saddam’s weapons of mass destructions. The Senate’s report did not address this question and Americans are led to believe that the Mossad, the best spy agency in the Middle East if not the world, had no role. As mentioned in “The Niger Forgery” (August 2003) I don’t know whether or not it did, but to hide behind “sources” only feeds conspiracy theories and these are anathema to a well functioning informed democracy. Indeed, much is at stake in the November elections and it is a sad fact of life that the most important issues cannot be publicly discussed at this time. 

This installment appears a few days earlier than usual because we will take a week of vacation visiting the Caribbean.

As the November elections finally draw nearer the American public is deluged by claims and counterclaims from the two major parties. These tend to leave the average citizen in a state of bewilderment, unless one is a faithful party hack who does what one is told. But for those of us who like to think for ourselves the question of: what is fact and what is fiction? does become important. I shall deal with the dilemma of the American voter, which results from this problem, in next month’s installment and intend to limit myself here to how we perceive reality or, if you like, the truth. This is the fundamental issue from which all else flows.

In May of 1980 I published in The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease an article on, “The Reality of Death Experiences. A Personal Perspective.”  It was prompted by a rash of publications on near-death experiences, which were taken as proof for survival of the soul after death. The question whether we are simply electro-magnetic-biochemical machines, which have to decay and perish, or whether there is an additional element in the human being which survives the destruction of the body is obviously important for how we conduct ourselves in our lives. Inasmuch as the idea of “ashes to ashes” as the end all and be all has always been unpopular, religious thinkers and philosophers have come up with various models of an afterlife. In our skeptical and agnostic society these ideas have lost credence because scientific evidence for retention of consciousness after destruction of the brain is lacking. The near-death experience by survivors of catastrophic life situations was, therefore, hailed as the long sought proof. Reputable physicians and psychologists published books on the narrations of these obviously sincere people who stated that during the time when they were regarded clinically dead, or were in extreme life-threatening circumstances, had been aware that they had died. They were welcomed by deceased relatives or other helpers, but were eventually told to return to earth, which they reluctantly agreed to. The near-death experience (NDE) had all the intensity, if not more, of waking life rather than dream consciousness and became the ultimate reality for the particular person. It affected future conduct because fear of death was lost and the people directed their lives with foremost regard to the benefit of others, rather than strictly selfish purposes.  

I would not have written the article had I not experienced earlier in life the knowledge of, “I am dead, I am free,” accompanied by an indescribable feeling of bliss. The circumstances under which this arose are detailed in the paper (reprint available on request) and need not be repeated here but the important aspect is the word “knowledge.” I did not “believe” that I was dead; I “knew” that I was dead and it was wonderful. The subsequent awakening in a hospital bed, wracked with pain, was a severe disappointment. I never talked about it to anyone except for my wife, Martha, who stood at the bedside and heard me say as my first words, “let me die, let me die.”  

The experience convinced me that the people who claimed to have had a NDE were indeed truthful and had experienced something that is out of the realm of the ordinary; but it also demonstrated the fallibility of human knowledge. The knowledge of that moment, which I will remember for the rest of my life, was wrong because I had not died I only thought so. Life altering as the experience was it also confronted me, as a neurologist, with: what do we call knowledge or reality? If absolute knowledge, experienced as beyond any shadow of a doubt, can subsequently be proven patently wrong it behooves us to look for the reasons. I tried to come to grips with the problem in the mentioned paper because it was obvious that the NDE phenomenon cannot be taken at face value for survival of the soul after death.  Although the experience occurs under clearly altered brain function, the brain is not dead and the question what consciousness, if any, survives a dead brain remains unanswerable.

This problem is, however, not urgent and is likely to remain unsolvable in the foreseeable future. The question of how we perceive our internal and external environment can be examined, however, and conclusions can be drawn. In the mentioned paper I made a distinction between: subjective reality, shared subjective reality and objective reality. In my own situation I was dead subjectively but alive objectively to everybody else. Thus, subjective and objective reality can be vastly different and should not be confused. In everyday life we tend not to make this distinction. Subjective impressions tend to be relegated to dreams, daydreams and fantasies and we act as if they were unimportant. The fact that our subjective reality, unconscious bias resulting from previous life experiences, flavors how we perceive objective reality is only rarely fully acknowledged. We believe that we act on objective reality, or facts, when we actually conduct our lives on shared subjective reality. This fundamental point needs to be grasped and kept hold of.

As mentioned we like to think that we conduct ourselves in an objective, dispassionate, manner most of the time, but this is a fallacy. Unless we are engaged in a specific task which requires fullest concentration our thoughts wander into daydreams and fantasies. These tend to reinforce each other and provide the background for how we meet the next life situation.  Thus the question arises: how do we know when something, anything, represents objective reality? The term is defined here as an observable fact, which does not involve judgment, and is verifiable by anyone with a healthy central nervous system who uses the same means by which the particular fact was arrived at in the first place. For instance the content of this essay is my subjective reality, which you may or may not share, but that it contains a definable number of words can be verified by anyone and is objective reality. This is, of course, what science strives for but this is not how we live our daily lives because it would require pure reason and that commodity is not readily used by the human being most of the time.

This brings up another question: how do we know what we think we know? As a result of the experience mentioned above I began to examine my thoughts in the waking as well dreaming state rather carefully and the result was quite surprising. In general we do not accord to dreams the same reality as to waking consciousness. So: how do we know that a dream is “only a dream” rather than waking reality? Recently the movie “Oh God,” with John Denver as a supermarket assistant manager and George Burns as God, was shown again on television and I was struck by the following conversation:

Denver: “How do I know that you are real and I’m not just dreaming this?

Burns: “What color are my eyes?”

Denver: “Blue”

Burns: “Do you dream in color?”

Denver: “No.”

Burns: “So, there you have it.”  

Well, for me and some others this type of reality testing would not work as the following example shows. I dreamt that it is a Saturday morning. I am heading down the pier at the marina to my sailboat to get ready for the race when the thought hits me, “could this be a dream?” Then I look up and say to myself, “No; the sky is so blue, the clouds are so white, I feel the wind on my cheek; this can’t be a dream.” When I woke up eventually I found out that it wasn’t Saturday after all and I had to go to work. Thus, this type of reality check doesn’t work. With continued examination of my dreams I found out that during the dream it is impossible to draw a distinction between waking and dream consciousness. Whatever test one may devise is futile as another example shows: It is a Thursday afternoon and I find myself walking around in my neighborhood rather than being at work. I have no memory whatsoever why I am not a work and this raises serious concerns. The neurologist then confronted himself with two possibilities: either I have a serious brain disorder or I am dreaming. I concluded that I was dreaming, woke up contentedly in the knowledge of having dreamt and got up to shower. But even this was merely a continuation of the dream as I found out when the alarm went off at 7 a.m. 

There are also sometimes so called “lucid dreams” where the dreamer realizes in the dream that he is dreaming. This has happened to me on a few occasions and was actually quite hilarious. For instance: I am talking with a group of people when the knowledge hits me: this is a dream! I then proceed to tell the bystanders that they don’t really exist; they are just pictures in my brain. You can readily imagine the expressions on their faces that resulted.

This fundamental fact of life that we cannot tell during the dream whether we operate on dream or waking consciousness has profound repercussions for our last moments of life. The distinction that “it was a dream” becomes apparent only upon awakening, but when we die there is no awakening, at least not on planet earth, and whatever pictures our brains choose to conjure up during the process of dying will be taken as objective reality although it exists only in our heads. This leads to the remarkable conclusion that we are indeed immortal to ourselves. By definition the human being cannot experience unconsconsciousness. Even if the thought, “I am unconscious” were to occur it would be a conscious experience. Since we are subjectively immortal to ourselves the content of consciousness during our dying moments may be of crucial importance but that is for each individual to ponder about.

The reason why we cannot distinguish objective from subjective reality in our dreams is probably due to relative absence of activity in what is called the prefrontal lobes. These portions of our brains are the latest acquisition in human development and are present only to a rudimentary extent in the monkey. They endow us with foresight, judgment, concentration, critical thinking and what is generally called executive function. The prefrontal lobes, rather than the rest of the brain, enable us to act potentially as Homo sapiens. The tragedy of the human race is that they are not always put into gear. We tend to operate on automatic pilot and this is where perception comes in.

When a sensory impulse travels from its specific peripheral receptor organs via specific pathways to the specific central receptor stations it does not remain there but gets subsequently relayed to a variety of other brain structures. These may or may not allow the sensory impression to reach consciousness. It could be shown experimentally that there are two types of responses in the brain to a peripheral stimulus. These have been called the primary and the secondary. While the primary is limited to the specific brain sensory area, the secondary response is widespread and can be changed by conditioning. Pavlov has shown this in his animals more than a hundred years ago on a behavioral level and we can now study its electrophysiological basis. Conditioning is not limited, however, to producing salivating dogs at the ring of a bell but goes on constantly in our brains. This is how habits are formed and this is the grist for the mill of politicians who want to us to think the way they do. Conditioning proceeds in an entirely unconscious manner and there is nothing we can do about it unless we are fully aware that it is indeed happening to us. Once this insight is reached we can act in a rational rather than impulsive, conditioned, manner. We stop being, in the words of our President, “gut-players” and put our prefrontal lobes into gear.

How can this be done? Buddhist philosophy provides the answer. The seventh point of the “Eightfold Noble Path” is “Right Mindfulness.” I have always had a problem with the precise meaning of the term until I came across a book by Nyanaponika Thera. The Heart of Buddhist Meditation (available on amazon.com) is a superb example of how a Ceylonese monk, who explains two thousand five hundred years old thoughts, can benefit modern Americans. The first and most important aspect is the effort needed to “Know Thyself;” an admonition which also graced Apollo’s temple at Delphi. Only when we understand how we as individuals operate can we hope to understand others by noting the similarities and differences. To achieve this goal the Buddha has proclaimed the “Four Foundations of Mindfulness.” They deal with the accurate perception of one’s internal world. Namely: one’s body, one’s feelings, one’s state of mind, and the pictures the mind produces. Once this has been accomplished one can deal appropriately with the external world. For the purposes of this essay only the first three aspects dealing with action will be discussed at this time. These are: bare attention, clear perception of purpose, and clear perception of suitability of means for achieving that purpose.

Bare attention exhorts us to register only the primary sense impression without jumping immediately to the conditioned secondary responses which are judgmental. For instance when one is stuck in traffic one is not supposed to get exercised over the consequences of being late to wherever one is headed but instead register the fact and direct one’s attention to the car ahead of one. Its color, its make, its license plate and so on can be examined in detail. All of this is to be done in a objective way as if one were expected to report it to someone else. In essence: look at each event as it occurs with a scientific, detached mind and move on when the situation changes. Immediate judgment, which is the conditioned response, needs to be held in abeyance. This is also what “living in the present” really means. When a new action needs to be initiated, the second principle ought to be adhered to and one should ask oneself immediately: “what is the purpose?” Once that question has been examined and a decision has been made to move ahead the final question arises: are the means to be employed to achieve this purpose really appropriate?

When we look at our world in this manner we can immediately see how wrong the Bush administration’s response to the 9/11 tragedy was. Had our leadership been reared on the above stated principles instead of the Old Testament they would have spared us and the world untold suffering. Bare attention would have registered as: Two buildings were completely destroyed, one partially, four commercial jets were lost and nearly three thousand people were killed. Those were the facts and our so-called Judeo-Christian heritage cried out for vengeance. Not on the people who actually committed the crime, because they were dead already but on those who had sent them on their mission. Some response was obviously required and this is where the next two aspects of mindfulness should have come into play.

The prime purpose of a reaction should have been to a) compensate, to the extent possible, the victims and b) take measures that will minimize the chances of a recurrence. A fund for the victims was indeed set up but the measures to prevent a recurrence did not take “suitability of means” into account. The appropriate means to deal with bin-Laden’s organization would have been through international cooperation to deprive it of its finances, as well as limited specific special forces operations to destroy his sanctuary in Afghanistan, and make life difficult for him, wherever he moved to subsequently. Only the financial route was pursued but for the rest ulterior motives came into play. The Taliban regime had to disappear and for good measure the whole Middle East has now to be turned into reliable American satellite states under the name of democracies. Clear perception of purpose and especially “suitability of means” would immediately label these fantasies as serious delusions.

This brings us back to shared subjective reality. Since the vast majority of the American public has only limited awareness of Buddhist thought it can easily become prey to propaganda which feeds feelings of vengeance, fear, and pride. Our reality is not supposed to be dominated by rational thought but by emotions and conditioned reflexes. This is the true evil in our society and it will destroy us unless taken cognizance of.

The next two months may become some of the most dangerous in the history of our republic. If the “swift boat” attack on Senator Kerry misfires, Karl Rove may yet push for some Iran mission to save his boss’s re-election, or engineer some homeland disaster. The way he has been described is that for him winning is everything and defeat is “not an option.” The book Bush’s Brain by James Moore, which depicts the workings of Rove’s mind, has now been made into a movie and one hopes that it will be widely shown. Only when the bright light of public awareness is directed into the murky shadows of the corridors of power, where policies are hatched in secrecy, can we hope that a more reasoned approach to world affairs will emerge. In this way reality perception will stick closer to observable facts and we can rationally develop proper solutions to our problems.

This installment appears again a few days earlier because I shall be attending another international conference on clinical neurophysiology later this week. The main advantage of these meetings is that it keeps the mind grounded in science, which is conducive to realistic rather than wishful thinking. The disadvantage of this particular one is that I shall be literally in the air, flying over Quebec, during the first of the three Presidential debates.

As every one knows the upcoming election is one of the most crucial ones Americans have faced in the past fifty years. Yet, it is also one of the most polarized and voters can find significant problems with either of the two main contenders. These render an intelligent decision so difficult. Let us, therefore, look at the two candidates in the light of what we know rather than how they wish to be seen. 

When President Bush came into office on January 20, 2001 he stated in his inaugural address, “And this is my solemn pledge: I will work to build a single nation of justice and opportunity. . . .  We will reclaim America’s schools. . . .  We will reform Social Security and Medicare. . . .  We will reduce taxes. . . .  We will build our defenses beyond challenge. . . .  We will confront weapons of mass destruction.  . . .  I will live and lead by these principles: to advance my convictions with civility, to pursue the public interest with courage, to speak for greater justice and compassion, to call for responsibility and try to live it as well.”

This was the agenda of “compassionate conservatism” Governor Bush had campaigned on. The speech dealt entirely with domestic issues and the problems of foreign policy were notably absent. No other country was mentioned by name and neither was the word terror or terrorism.

The President’s lack of interest in foreign affairs became soon apparent when he refused to engage constructively in the Middle East’s hot spot – the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Furthermore, as Richard Clarke, President Clinton’s chief advisor on international terrorism noted, “al Qaeda just wasn’t a priority.” When the President was briefed on August 6 about bin Laden’s plan to attack the “homeland” the message was disregarded and he continued with his vacation for the rest of the month. While everyone is entitled to a vacation there is hardly any American who can afford to take off for four weeks. Even if it was a “working vacation”, as it has been billed, one might have expected that he would call the man with the greatest experience in the area of counterterrorism, Richard Clarke, to the ranch in Crawford; order him to get to the bottom of that threat and provide recommendations as to what should be done about it. There are no records to indicate that the President did so.

With the tragedy of 9/11 the country rallied and we were for one brief moment indeed “one nation under God.” This was the opportunity to look into the causes of the disaster; to come up with a measured response that fit the crime and begin work that would minimize the chances for a reoccurrence of a similar one. This course was not pursued. Instead a policy of “liberating countries that harbor terrorists” was initiated.

Afghanistan’s Taliban leadership was rapidly eliminated and a regime friendly to the U.S. installed in Kabul. This would have been fine had the President subsequently concentrated on pacifying and rebuilding the country. This was not done because the neoconservative agenda, the President and Vice-president had endorsed, demanded pre-emptive wars on the model of Israel to “secure the realm” (see The Neocons’ Leviathan on this site). Thus, the focus shifted immediately to Iraq. The reasons for this shift in policy have been discussed at length in previous installments and sad to say practically everything I have written from October 2001 on has come to pass. Afghanistan is still a battle zone and its main export consists of opium and heroin. This keeps warlords in business and finances international terrorist organizations. We are told that Afghans will be able to vote for a democratic government next month but what powers this government is going to have in the provinces is far from clear. In Iraq Saddam sits in jail but there is also for all practical purposes a guerilla war going on against which our “smart weapons” are useless.