Followup about the Response to Rabbi David Godis' Article

This is an addendum to the article which can be found in the archive, at left, of 26 February 2016, entitled "Major American Jewish Leader Changes His Mind about Israel".

Although Rabbi David M. Gordis is a highly respected person within any American community, that hasn't stopped the ideological political zionists from, in their own words, dumping "disingenuous gobbledygook" on him because of his article.  I can't say how much BS was dumped on him because of it, but I will comment, here, on one article as an example, and provide a link to it.

There is a 15 July 2016 article online entitled "Israel and American Liberal Jewry: The Real Reasons for the Rift" by Martin Sherman.  The ludicrous comments would almost be funny if they weren't intended to be so denigrating.. 

Approximately a third of the way into the article after bemoaning who he tells us are the  miguided Jewish youth of America, he gets to work on "perverse" Godis with this bit of whimsy:

"[. . .] the moronic — and often self-contradictory — lament by David Gordis [. . .] as to Israel’s alleged moral degradation [. . .]"

Then under the heading of "Totally detached from fact & reason" we find another zionist lump of coal: [Any use by me of the singualr term "zionism" on my part refers to the stategic movement that is ideological political zionism.] 
"[. . .] Gordis then goes on to elaborate on his abstruse indictment of Israel today  [. . .]"

Next, an even more illustrative zionist lump of coal:
"[. . .]  Then in a wild diatribe, totally divorced from any semblance of reality, he blares: [. . .]"

Next: 
"[. . .] This is merely a small sampling of how intellectually dishonest the derogatory drivel of Israel’s “liberal” detractors has become. [. . .]"

And another
"[. . .] This narcissistic hypocrisy was aptly exposed in a perceptive piece in a Washington Post blog by David Bernstein, professor of Law at George Mason University. [. . .]"
Sherman then he goes on to quote Bernstein who falsely suggests Israeli Arabs are living the good life.  That may be true compared to their brothers and sisters in occupied Palestinian Territoty (oPT), but it is not true compared to Jewish Israelis.

Then we get to the heading "Beneath the disingenuous gobbledygook" where he finally comments about Israel occupying Palestinian Territories, where he wants to firmly trounce "disenchanted 'liberal' Jews" who denigrate Israel because of "Israel's interaction with the Palestinian-Arabs across the pre-1967 Green line (a.k.a. the 'Occupation')"

"Interaction"? And he isn't joking.  Please. Not wanting to call the occupation what it is, an occupation, does not make Israel's "interaction" with Palestinians in oPT (like instances of genocide in Gaza) any less criminal.  But of course his purpose is to criticize Gordis' for speaking the mild truth he did speak, which did not include comments about the Gaza genocides.

Then Sherman moves on another flight of fancy with:
"[. . .] wildly irrational in terms of its internal logic [. . .]"

Another doozy from Sherman "[. . .] unswerving doctrinaire zeal “liberals” cling to the perilous prescription of touting tyranny  [. . .]" as his article segways into seemingly putting Godis in the position of carrying the banner for the parade of "American Jewish liberals" he repeated trots out to criticize, without identifying any by name, of course - other than to suggest they are American Jewish youth.

And of course he would be remiss if he didn't trots out this one: 
"[. . .] But if US 'liberal' Jews frown upon the coercive measures that Israel is compelled to use against the Palestinian-Arabs, were they to apply the same criteria to their own country, they would have good reason to feel even more disenchanted.  [. . .]" which is the launching into  of a verbal attack on U.S. - for doing Israel's evil in the region (without saying as much, of course), as if he doesn't know that a the reality of the zionist problem the American Jews he finds faults with, actually recognize.

Then under the heading of "Expose and inform", as he nears the end, he shows us that he wants to keep his credibility as an ideological political zionist, by trotting  out the obligatory poor Israel card which he does with this passage: 
"[. . .] Sadly, Israel has done inexcusably little to harness the facts to rebuff the attacks on its democratic credentials and has allowed imperative coercive actions to ensure the security of its civilians against an implacable foe, to be portrayed as racist brutality. [. . .]"

Who can not refrain from a brief chuckle at the foolish, predictable irony of his infuriating words that lose touch with reality?  Of course, there is not only "little" done by Israel, but absolutely nothing Israel can credibly say or do to make its actions any less "brutally racist" against it's unarmed "implacable foe" which repeatedly results in Israel's  "imperative coercive actions" primarily in the form of attacks on the most vulnerable - the women and children, and very young children, who Israel allows settlers and soldiers to harass, hurt, maim, and kill, jail and torture, all in the name of its lawless alleged "democracy", and "security".

Then in conclusion Sherman, too, criticizes Israel - by saying Israel does not fulfill its "obligation to aid pro-Israel advocacy on university campuses".   Well let's hope that trend continues.  It is likely too because some University campuses have become more astute about identifying blatant bigotry than they once were, after their students made an issue of the actuality of Israel's shenanigans being bigoted, lawless, murder (including by American citizens who are also Israelis living in illegal settlements in oPT - a can of worms most avoid with a 10 foot pole, but shouldn't).  Thus University campuses are no longer as tolerant of the prevaricated, twisted-truth hasbara pro-Israel advocates want to spout on their campuses in efforts to justify  Israel's criminality. 

So, needless to say, there have been unpleastant reverberations from the ideological political zionists in the form of vicious efforts to give Gordis grief because he had the courage to mildly, I repeat "mildly", point out the problem of the Israeli government's ideology of political zionism even though he didn't label it as such.  I hope do those who have cheered on David Gordis' change of mind and heart about Israel's criminal duplicitous ways have chosen to be there for him as his support system to fend off the zionist BS.

The Matter of "Territorial Imperative"

"MEANWHILE : Does Territoriality Drive Human Aggression?"  The question is the title of a 14 April 1999 article by Steven Levingston (@SteveLevingston) and International Herald Tribune (the genealogy, DNA, evolution of IHT), posted online at the New York Times opinion page.   It is worth reading,, currently, because it addresses an always pertinent issue.

Anyone who has a problem understanding the current pertinence might try substituting, "Syria" (or Iraq, or Palestine) for "Kosovo", and substituting "the M.E." region for "the Balkans".  Or "Sudan" (or Rwanda) and the region of "East Africa" could be substituted; or Viet-Nam (or Korea) and "SE Asia"; "Afghanistan" and "NW Asia"; "Germany" and "Europe";  . . . the list goes on.  Most are sure to find at least one conflict of familiarity to substitute, if necessary, because of it having occurred during a time of paying attention to the interrelated global complexities of the causes and effects of armed conflicts.

But, first consider if there is an answer to the question "does territoriality drive human aggression".   I think we can consider it to be an easy and simple answer - that being "yes". 

Does anyone really imagine that territoriality does not still drive human aggression?  Unfortunately, there is paltry evidence to suggest otherwise.  Co-existing peacefully by sharing space and resources, equitably (repeat - EQUITABLY), remains the lesson to be learned by our species.  Many species of animals have clearly learned the lesson but, demonstrably, the human species has not.

When herds of the human species want to increase the contiguous extent of their territory, with the intent of increasing the space and resources which they control, they do so with the intent of subjugating or annihilating the inhabitants.  The lawlessness of refusing to respect the rights of others as much as our own rights, is visible at all levels from local bullying to global conflict.  

Clearly, human herds have yet to learn how to co-exist equitably and peacefully.  However, it is not as if human herds are unaware of how to do so.  Instead, simply put, it is a matter of a willful disregard for other herds (including non-human species) which embraces the intent of either subjugating them, as the "merciful" option no matter the extent of it's cruelty, or annihilating them through short-term genocides (most often deadly armed attacks of many types), and/or long-term genocides which in addition to short-term instances of genocide also embrace a larger variety of slower means to the same end. (often many forms of health-eroding deprivation and/or pollution).

Demonstrably, many of the human herds find it to their advantage to "divide and conquer" by fomenting unrest as a way of encouraging resident herds to annihilate one another.   Then they swoop in to make the territory their own by subjugation and/or annihilation of it's remaining inhabitants.  Of course when resident herds call on other herds from outside their regions, it complicates matters by making acquisition more of a gamble for the herd wanting to expand control of adjacent territory.  It creates a paradox which, over time, could potentially result in a much larger prize of more territory , or, instead, a potential loss of much more than the territory of immediate interest. 

Acquiring territory is always a very high-stakes gamble.   Gambling is another weakness of human herds which seem unsatisfied with enough, or in mathematical terms with being "equal to".  Instead they want "more than" solely for the purpose of personal exploitation intended to result in wealth by control of, and limiting of other herds' access to resources.  Clearly,  co-existing peacefully by sharing spaces and resources, equitably, without doing so because of either subjugation or annihilation, remains the lesson our entire human species still needs to demonstrate has been learned and is being successfully applied.

Regardless of the claims of some human herds who believe they are civilized and/or religiously motivated in their subjugating and annihilating endeavors, subjugation and annihilation  are neither civilized, nor religious in the sense of being spiritually enlightened and evolved.  Neither subjugating nor annihilating is the way to demonstrate that the lesson has been learned of co-existing peacefully by equitably sharing space and resources, regardless of any justification used as an excuse for using them as the means to a desired end.

The passage of time, in terms of millennia, in which the same problems continue occurring, seemingly indicates there are resistant problems that plague our species.  Consider those of our species who demand recognition as leaders for the purpose of acquiring the power of decision making for other individuals, collectively.  They do not take a turn serving for the purpose of fostering peaceful coexistence between and among herds but, instead, compete viciously to further the goals of their own personal greed at the expense of whatever human herds they believe they can succeed at scapegoating.  Greed - that problem, alone, indicates our species has a resistance to learning anything that interferes with the addiction to greed.  As such, the human species does not seem to be nearly as intelligent as it likes to imagine it is.

Additionally, leaders in government whose self-interest is their over-riding reason for being recognized as leaders, along with their appointed side-kicks, and the elected leaders who are tasked to represent constituent needs, are all often given too much power as leaders.  Too many are willing to give up their own power of personal decision-making, as individuals and as members of their herds even when, as individuals, we are all recognized by agreed upon law as being empowered to provide input which must be considered in the decision making processes at all levels of government.  Simply put, our laws entitle us to contribute our opinions to government decision-making but too many of us don't do it.  Not accepting the right and responsibility of self-governing by contributing to decision-making - that problem, alone, indicates a resistance to learning why free-will is acknowledged as empowering individuals to contribute to collective decision making.  As such, the human species does not seem to be nearly as intelligent as it likes to imagine it is. 

The article reminds us there is much work for everyone to do when it comes to the as yet unsolved problem of territorial imperative.  Once more, if there is a problem understanding the current pertinence of the 1999 article, then simply substitute a conflict and region of familiarity.  Because, the foundational problem is simply a matter of the same repetitive problems of unfettered human weaknesses often motivated by greed coupled with the weakness of clinging to sacred ignorance, which are occurring within the same region - our home our planet - throughout the decades, centuries, and millennia during which time the various herds of our species have had ample opportunity to truly thrive by learning to co-exist together, equitably.  What does it say about collective human intelligence when, after untold millennia, human herds continue to fail in that respect?