The Atheist view of the world would have to disapprove on principle every regime that has a religious basis behind its “right” to rule. Such rule would by definition be discriminatory. That would leave out all the “Islamic” republics such as Iran as well as the Taliban in Afghanistan and indeed even the Saudi Arabian monarch. It would rule out all those states that base their rule of law on “Sharia Law”. An Atheist would also have to question the idea behind such nations as Israel which likes to equate the Jewish religion with the state of Israel so that antisemitism is the same as anti Israel. Then again all throughout the Western World when one goes to court one is asked to put your hand on the bible and sware to “tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me God”. The motto of the United States is (since 1956) is “In God We Trust” which appears on the Dollar. Interesting that when the USA was founded the motto was E Pluribus unum or “Out of many one”.
Some Russians today believe Putin is a “Gift of God”. Some Americans believe the same is true about Donald Trump. Some religious types who admit Trump’s evils take the position that “God sometimes chooses people with obvious faults to work his will”. The great thing about religion is that you can bend it to prove just about anything you want. In that context we see Evangelicals who look for the “Rapture” – the return of Jesus once Israel of old is reestablished give support to the state of Israel. When asked what happens then to the Jews and everyone else who is not an Evangelical the answer is simply ‘oh they all die’.
For the last several thousand years religious history has come to accept the idea of One God is better than multiple gods. Yet the many thousands of years before – it was accepted there were many gods. The ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Romans etc etc. However, the idea has been perverted. In Christianity we have the “Son of God”, the Holy Ghost, Mary, the Saints, the Pope, the Devil so in effect humanity is once again reverting to the ancient practice of many gods. The same is true in the “monistic” religions of the East. I personally saw people line up to give money to a concrete Elephant to “bless” their business deal the next day.
For me, I can never understand why anyone would proclaim “Allahu akbar”’ when a child is saved from the rubble but his/her family all perished under the same rubble. Makes no sense. Also the idea of one God only means ALL things both good and bad have to be attributed to that one idea. Again, I dont get it. The biggest problem of the One God idea as opposed to the many gods of old is that if there is only one then opposing views must be wrong. Hence the India-Pakistan animosity, the Palestine-Israel issue and the past hostilities in Northern Ireland. At least with many gods one is more likely to accept someone else’s gods.
If “money” is the root of all evil, “religion” is not far behind.

Moscow Margery. Its amazing how gullible people can be.

As usual, everyone in the Middle East has buried their heads in the sand – talks past each other and only thinks from their sole point of view. As an American – the principle of the US government Constitution starts with “We the people”. It does not start with we the Muslim people, or we the Christian people or we the Jewish people. A principle of the USA – though admittedly not accepted by everyone – is “all men are created equal” These principles had to be arrived at due to the knowledge that many of the people in the various states had different views. Freedom of speech and the press was to deal with that. Meanwhile all accepted the idea that religious freedom – one of the reasons people came to America in the first place had to be accepted. It was also agreed that there should be no unlimited power to any one individual so a plan for checks and balances was adopted. If one starts from those principles than the government of Iran, Hamas and Israel are not founded on those principles. Iran calling itself an Islamic Republic means it has an agenda to push one religion and governing is secondary. Likewise, Hamas wraps itself in Islam as a guiding principle. Israel calls itself a ‘homeland for the Jews’ and as Senator Rubio said a few days ago referring to Israel as “the Jewish state” infers that it is a country for Jews only. Iran does not make an ethnic distinction only a religious one. Israel no one is quite sure if it is religious or ethnic as the word “jew” can mean either. The point is that – unlike the principles that the USA stands for – not everyone in Iran, or Israel is the same. Neither Government believes in the idea of ‘all men are created equal’. Rather they believe all men are created equal as long as they are Muslim or Jewish.
What is needed is a secular movement in Gaza, Israel, Palestine, Iran and the Middle East generally that is modeled on the US Constitution. We had to deal with conflicting positions and religions and find a way to work with them. The people of the Middle East likewise face the same issues that we did long ago. Any nation that basis itself on one religion or one race is setting itself up for problems.
What will not work is for each side to NOT accept that their positions might not be taken but that everyone will have the right to free speech and religion and decisions will be on the basis of one person one vote. etc.
We can blame Iran for its “unfortunate” positions and hope the regime will change or fall. But we cannot just assume that Israel is blameless. It too has positions that are “unfortunate” and will not lead to a settlement to a long standing dispute. People do not all think one way. They don’t do that in Iran nor Israel. They dont all think one way in Gaza either. Race and/or religion should not be part of a country’s governing principle. Until the people of the Middle East accept this the conflicts that exist today will continue.

The Iran regime is not a regime that should be supported in any way BUT at the same time lets get the facts straight. John Bolton has always had hawkish views but he also is a selective student of history. The point is simple. Whether we like the regime or not, we accept the fact that if a country is attacked then it has a right to respond. Israel attacked the Iranian consulate in Damascus (by international law an embassy or consulate is to be considered a countries’ territory). Israel knew that Iran had no option but to respond. Iran did respond. Now John Bolton says Israel has to respond to Iran’s response. He tries to equate what the US would have done if it were attacked. Of course the US would respond as it did after Pearl Harbor. But the US did not attack Japanese land before the attack on Pearl Harbor. That is the point.
The other historical fact that John Bolton chooses to not mention is that from Iran’s perspective – right or wrong – Israel has not played nice in the region and has in fact -right or wrong – continued to make the situation worse by taking more and more land on the West Bank contrary to International law and stated US foreign policy. Netanyahoohoo has often stated that there will be no Palestinian State under his watch. How much difference is there between not wanting to recognize the existence of Palestinians and not wanting to recognize the existence of the Israeli state? Not seeing the issue from the perspective of one party and totally seeing only the perspective of the other is no way to solve a problem. The Iran hard liners undoubtedly do the same thing as John Bolton and the same thing as the Israeli hard liners as well.
I wonder what John Bolton would say if Mexicans in Texas decided to rejoin Mexico – or declare independence? Historically Texas WAS part of Mexico.
Meanwhile John Bolton also neglects to mention that the Iranian response was telegraphed well in advance so Israel and allies were given time to prepare a defense. Hardly the move of a regime intent on delivering a fatal blow on Israel. Iran is a bad regime but it is not completely stupid. He also harps on the Iranian nuclear program – not mentioning that Israel has an estimated 110 nuclear bombs and history shows over and over again that a nuclear capability on both sides prevents a war. Russia would not have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine was a nuclear power. India and Pakistan are careful not to be too aggressive towards each other. Same with Russia and the USA, China etc. From an Iranian perspective I am sure the question is asked ‘why is the world so upset at Iran getting a nuclear bomb when Israel has them? From what we have seen on our TV sets over the past few months does not give comfort that Israel is any less crazy than the Iranian regime.

Interesting to hear Senator Marco Rubio on CNN discuss the Iran-Israel news of yesterday. He refers to Israel as the “Jewish State”. By definition he calls it a state based on one ethnic group/religion. Very different from how the US Constitution defines the US. Very different from “sharing our values”.
He rightly states that many Northern Israeli families near the border with Lebanon have been evacuated South. He does not mention that the same thing has happened to the Lebanese families on the other side of the border. They too have had to move. away from the border. Rubio states that Hezbollah is launching rockets across the border but does not mention that Israel is often the one starting the shelling going the other way.
As usual – its often a situation of semantics. Israel hit the consulate in Damascus killing Iranian generals. Rubio says its “not a consulate but a building next door” Consulates can have an annex so who is to say its a consulate or not? The point is Israel attacked Iran and made it impossible for Iran not to respond. Now that Iran has responded the news is calling for Israel to respond to last nights attack (which turned out to be rather pathetic with very little damage). A recipe for more and more tit for tat. Biden is correct. “Call it a win” and move on.
Meanwhile, news of Israelis attacking Palestinians in the occupied West Bank continue unabated and get little news coverage. Also we keep hearing of the “brutal” actions of Hamas on Oct 7. and accusations of burning babies etc but have we ever seen any proof of any of those accusations? No, they are just accepted as fact. Meanwhile we DO question the numbers of Palestinian dead in Gaza coming from Hamas. The truth is both sides have an incentive to exaggerate and now we see with our own eyes the degree of destruction the IDF has inflicted on Gaza it seems pretty apparent that if Hamas is exaggerating the numbers of Palestinian dead they are probably underestimating NOT exaggerating. Meanwhile Israel has prevented Western journalists from entering Gaza to document what Israel is doing. For good reason apparently, because Western journalists might find that much of the horror stories that Israel is pushing are exaggerations or even worse, just untrue.
In all of this, the issues of the Middle East are complicated and no side, including ours is above playing politics, exaggerating, lying, favoring one group over another, avoiding the truth, turning a blind eye or whatever. Religion is to blame for much of it – Iran, Israel, Lebanon are all guilty of using religion to advance their bullshit. And lets be honest – the US is headed the same way.

It is amazing and a great lesson in marketing that if one is prepared to outright lie it is a great advantage and nearly impossible to counter. In politics we have no restrictions like we do in product advertising. You cant say a bottle of sugar water will cure cancer – we have ‘truth in advertising laws to prevent that. It is why when we see a drug advertised all the possible bad side affects are presented. Its why products have to list the contents. So when a master no holds barred teller of lies like Trump says “It wouldn’t have happened IF I was president” no law stops prevents him. He is at liberty to say whatever he wants. And the bigger the lie the more it seems to work.
The other fact that is so apparent these days is just how much people can forget even a few short years ago. Todays facts can be completely obscured by yesterdays lies.
As a pundit said not long ago. There are “alternative” truths.

Israelis must be scratching their heads in disbelief these days. Most governments and Westerners generally have been too afraid to criticize Israeli for fear of being branded “anti semitic”, Israel has become used to getting away with anything. The IDF in Gaza and Netanyahoohoo have changed all that. Now Israel is just like any other country, good and bad; stupid and smart, and capable of genocide and racism like any other country.

The US Constitution was written before the realities of today were known. Checks and balances is a great idea BUT there are no checks and balances when it comes to Lobbies and lets face it, lobbies and interest groups are rarely evenly matched with opposing ones. The NRA and the Israeli Lobby are cases in point. Money talks and politicians are often more interested in being re-elected than in taking a moral position.
If a lobby can get out the vote of even a point or two that is enough to make it powerful and a force that has to be considered if one wants to be elected. Wonder why Israel thinks it can get away with whatever? Look to the Israeli Lobby. Wonder why the US gun laws are so lax? Look to the NRA lobby.

Meanwhile PEACE. Something everyone says they want. Problem is it has often been the case that those that push hardest for “Peace” are actually most responsible for delivering War. People talk about a negotiated peace to end the Ukraine war, or the Hamas Israeli conflict. Wouldn’t it be nice if people actually talked and negotiated? Problem is, suppose one or both sides are not on the same page? Nevil Chamberlin tried to negotiate with Hitler “Peace in our Time”. He meant well and was prepared sacrifice for the sake of peace. Hitler however was not on the same page and learned just how much Chamberlain wanted to avoid a war. Chamberlain actually said it was Winston Churchill who was the “war monger” and not Mr Hitler. We all know the result. Would it have made sense to negotiate with Hitler after he had invaded Poland? We know Hitler had already planned to invade Russia.
Putin has made it very clear what he wants. How does one negotiate with someone like that? Same goes for Israel and Hamas. Both have agendas that do not believe in a compromise. Both think they are right and “God” is on their side. If they make peace it will only be until they can get the full package of what they want. Such is the reality.

Sat April 6

What is the difference between Hamas and Israel? Each side points fingers at the other and both miss the point,
1. Israel is a state built as a “homeland for the Jews” . Zionism is all about creating a place for Jews – and Jews alone – to live and Palestine is the preferred place because “God gave us the land”. So the first principle of Israel is Jewishness – The issue weather Jewishness is a religion or a race is obscured on purpose because a portion of the Israeli population, like every other population is secular and/or does not believe in the idea of a God.
2. Hamas too bases itself on a religion first and foremost and to some degree a Palestinian identity which they – just like the Israelis, like to merge with religion (in this case Islam) to give themselves a God validation. Unlike Israel Hamas wraps itself totally in religion and not race. Israel does not wrap itself totally in the Jewish religion which takes many forms AS LONG as one is ethnically Jewish.
3. Hamas is not kind to women and sees them as lesser to men. Some Israeli fundamentalist groups do the same thing but not the majority of Israelis. Women have played a big part in Israel, not so in Hamas.
The problem with both is this: True “Western Values” means open to ALL religions and ALL races and NOT limited to one group only. At the moment Western Values also sees equality between women and men – or at least says so in principle. The idea is ALL human beings are equal and politically its all about one person one vote. Thats the idea anyway.
So given the division based on race and religion it is virtually impossible for both groups to live together or next to each other as neither accepts the other and both think they are right and both think they are backed by “God”. Meanwhile neither wants to consider if God actually exists. To do so would pierce the very reason both exist in the first place.