Category Archives: May You Live In Interesting Times

“I Wish For You a Most Successful Administration”

These words were written to Franklin D. Roosevelt by Herbert Hoover on Roosevelt’s overwhelming win over Hoover in the 1932 presidential election. The country was experiencing the Great Depression, when unemployment was over 20 percent, one of the highest in U.S. history. One might have thought Hoover would have been somewhat bitter over his loss. Yet he reacted as most losing candidates in the United States are expected to do. He congratulated his opponent and wished him a successful time in office.

Indeed, that’s what Biden did on losing to Donald Trump in 2024: “President Biden expressed his commitment to ensuring a smooth transition and emphasized the importance of working to bring the country together,” the White House said.

Yet after Biden’s win in 2020, Trump was quoted as saying, about Biden’s win: “He won because the election was rigged,” even though evidence indicated the election was fair and Biden’s win uncontroversial.

Strife and controversy appear to have overtaken much of our government lately. After the latest election, government workers have been fired and are supposed to stay away from their jobs. No, they haven’t been fired and are supposed to report to work. But if they try to obey and come to work, can they get in? Are the offices open? What part will an unelected Elon Musk play? Court cases have begun in an attempt to sort out the mess, but that will certainly take time.

Meanwhile, much of our foreign policy appears to be on hold. What about Ukraine? What about the Israeli/Palestinian fighting? What about tariffs? Canada does not appear amused about suggestions that they become a part of the United States and have strengthened their ties to Europe, not the U.S. What about the Panama Canal?

It’s hard to be optimistic that Congress might offer help, since the Republicans barely have a majority and would have difficulty even being united themselves. The Supreme Court appears slightly more unified than in the past, but court cases also take time.

The only thing I can think of is prayer for healing from anger and hatred and pride.

Rootless Times

According to an article in The Economist (“Gen Z has faith,” March 1st 2025, p. 22) “a long decline in the number of Christians has levelled off.” The article says the slight increase in Christians is found among Gen Z’ers, now entering or into their twenties.

Perhaps the Covid-19 epidemic contributed to the modest change, although Covid-19 is more likely to carry off older people than younger ones. Just the fact of a greater chance of dying, however, might be more unsettling to the young than to the old, who may be more likely to have accepted their ultimate mortality.

Perhaps the unsettled political times have contributed. Aging American presidents may give younger voters less faith in our political systems. Political alignments also are shifting all over the world. The United States is no longer as popular and perhaps doesn’t appear to be as firmly committed to political freedom for all as in the past.

Also threatened are the possibility of change through education and a job market seemingly made for bright young people, now becoming chaotic. Elections sometimes lead to power for unelected titans. Elon Musk appears to be a very powerful person, despite holding no elected office.

Perhaps the fact that more people, including younger ones, lack committed family ties is taking a toll. The drug epidemic surely is harder to avoid when one has fewer emotional supporters.

The Christian faith has gone through multiple lows, especially following periods of prosperity and geographical change. Yet, it has usually not only survived, but found new ways of ministering, finding in its namesake such values as purpose, meaning, and care for others.

The teachings of a genuine moral leader who not only lived but died for his teachings, summed up in “love God with all your being and your neighbor as yourself,” perhaps is simple enough to inspire in an age betrayed by the worship of technical toys.

Hints Followed by Guesses

“. . .These are only hints and guesses,
Hints followed by guesses; and the rest
Is prayer, observance, discipline, thought and action.
The hint half guessed, the gift half understood, is Incarnation.”

(From T.S. Eliot, “The Dry Salvages”

It seems several of earth’s lifetimes must have happened between 1990, the year I joined the U.S. Foreign Service, and today. The early 1990’s were an exciting watershed. The Soviet Union fell apart, and it seemed the old Cold War had ended without the devastating world war all feared. East and West Germany unified. The Berlin Wall between East and West Germany was destroyed, and tourists grabbed pieces to take home. The Baltic countries declared their independence.
Iraq invaded Kuwait, but the invasion would lead to the Gulf War the next year, with the U.S. and its allies sending troops to defeat Iraq.
In South Africa, Nelson Mandela was released from prison.
China was coming out of the destruction following the Tiananmen Square protests.
Democratic values, it seemed, had triumphed world wide.
In the technical world, though, technical advances would soon overturn our ordinary lives. The internet was on the horizon.
What happened as tech and the rest of the country overcame those bright beginnings?
Even as the world appeared militarily safer in the decades following, it seemed that in the U.S., people and their government became more and more divided between political parties and beliefs, leading to a deeply divided country.
Politically, we seem now to have found our way to chaos. Government agencies mandated by Congress fall at the drop of a hat—especially Elon Musk’s hat.
In these pessimistic days, it seems impossible that any sort of spiritual discipline could break out. Indeed, religious disciplines seem abandoned by more and more Americans, only a few practicing active religion these days.
But could those “dry salvages” or cargoes surprise? Is this salvage, a name for something preserved, waiting somewhere to be discovered?

We Need Immigrants

The United States, like many developed nations today, is facing population decline within its native born population. Fortunately, lots of people would like to immigrate here. Many of them have skills we need, such as nursing skills for an aging population and agricultural workers for our farms. Some have computer and other skills for higher level jobs.

Meanwhile, paths for legal immigration are narrow. The desire to immigrate, with no meaningful legal line to join for many, feeds irregular migration, leading to its control by gangs and sometimes drug dealers.

“States that focus on border restrictions, mass deportations, or the abrogation of legal protections for asylum seekers will fail to solve the problem. They will simply redirect it while creating a new host of problems that will, in the long term, feed the problem rather than solve it. They will empower criminal networks and black markets while leaving their own economies worse off. The system will continue to decay.” (“Migration Can Work for All; A plan for Replacing a Broken Global System,” Amy Pope, Foreign Affairs, January/February, 2025.)

Our current system feeds irregular migration, as family members migrate irregularly to stay with those already in the U.S. “That so many migrants who are undocumented find jobs in the informal markets of their destination countries signals an imbalance between legal immigration pathways and economic need . . .”

The author suggests one approach is for countries with labor shortages, such as the United States, to set up programs within the refugee sending countries to train would be immigrants for jobs needed in the receiving country. This would include preparing them for legal migration.

If reasonable pathways to migration are in place, countries will have more justification for shutting down the illegal ones. The idea is not to stop migration but to channel it, then work to shut down illegal migration traffic.

Migration from places with less possibility for improving one’s life to ones of greater possibility has been the norm since civilization began. Better to work with it for good.

In a Time of Political Change

My Oxford English Dictionary defines hubris as “excessive pride or self-confidence.”
Pride in one’s nationhood is patriotic; excess pride can lead to harm for that nation as well as others. Nations as well as individuals can be tempted by hubris. Even as we begin new political terms for the presidency and members of Congress, we might consider the history of other countries when they reached new heights of power.

In the waning days of the 19th century, Britain indeed stood at the height of world power, her empire one on which the sun never set. In a few decades, however, the world would suffer two world wars as well as the rise of new political movements, bringing great changes to former world powers. Kipling’s poem would caution any world power, including the United States, to consider responsible uses of that power while they are able to do so.

Recessional

By Rudyard Kipling
1897

God of our fathers, known of old,
Lord of our far-flung battle-line,
Beneath whose awful Hand we hold
Dominion over palm and pine—
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!

The tumult and the shouting dies;
The Captains and the Kings depart:
Still stands Thine ancient sacrifice,
An humble and a contrite heart.
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!

Far-called, our navies melt away;
On dune and headland sinks the fire:
Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!
Judge of the Nations, spare us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!

If, drunk with sight of power, we loose
Wild tongues that have not Thee in awe,
Such boastings as the Gentiles use,
Or lesser breeds without the Law—
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!

For heathen heart that puts her trust
In reeking tube and iron shard,
All valiant dust that builds on dust,
And guarding, calls not Thee to guard,
For frantic boast and foolish word—
Thy mercy on Thy People, Lord!

Greenland for the Taking?

Recently, some American politicians have resurrected a policy from the past: colonialism: that is, nations annexing other less powerful nations. An idea was floated suggesting America might annex Greenland, and perhaps even Canada. Needless to say, neither Greenland nor Canada was amused. In fact, a few Canadians are now suggesting joining the European Union, perhaps less enthused about North American alliances.

Why this reversion to days when countries grabbed territory without permission from the inhabitants? Countries expended wealth and even worse, the lives of citizens, theirs and those of the other country, in decisions by often unelected officials to expand territory.

No sooner did Columbus and other explorers discover the New World, as well as rediscovering Asian nations, than European leaders began thinking of the new territories as theirs to exploit as they wished.

The concept of self rule by all citizens was just beginning to be discussed by a few. At the time, customs accepted throughout history were generally retained. In the past, strong leaders often led armies to take over weaker neighbors—sometimes for slaves, sometimes for products the other country produced, sometimes for strategic geographic advantage.

However, as the Middle Ages waned, a few thinkers began exploring something new: the idea of more citizens having input into leadership. In the beginning, this new concept didn’t include everyone but only an elite—only owners of land, perhaps, or only descendants of kings and nobles. One of the earliest was England’s Magna Carta in 1215, in which the king signed a document stating that the English king was subject to the rule of law.

These new forms of governance were far from our idea of democracy. Often left out were those without white skin or European origin. But even if they were imperfect, they expanded the control of many ordinary people over their lives.

Eventually, after two world wars, ideas like self rule for others outside Europe and North America gained traction, even if never perfectly carried out. The United States led in many of these movements.

Now, however, some Americans seem to be questioning self rule for all nations. Do we want to return to the days of nations battling nations with no regard for what the people caught in between might wish for their future?

To Make a Better Life

Sometime back before the American Revolution, my ancestors, probably including those of both English and Irish nationalities, immigrated to what would become the United States.

They were part of the great migration of European peoples to the Americas. Native Americans would suffer greatly, pushed further and further into less fertile areas, forced to give up sovereignty and lands.

Slaves and their descendants suffered also, shackled by prejudice that denied them the American dream.

For people like my ancestors, however, the new lands allowed them to flourish as they probably never would have in Europe. Like other immigrant families, some of my ancestors did better than others. A few became well-off, others became small farmers, others eventually landed in urban areas, becoming workers and small business owners, surviving both depression and times of war.

My own parents kept their home during the Great Depression of the thirties, saved by one of President Franklin Roosevelt’s new deal programs. Later, they managed to send my brother and me to college. We both enjoyed middle class American lives.

Not surprisingly, I have sympathy for immigrants. I think one of the greatest gifts the country has been granted is renewal brought about by managed immigration. Indeed, the castoffs of Nazi Germany, given sanctuary in the United States, helped power the defeat of that same regime.

Some of my beliefs, I freely admit, come from my Christian faith, a belief that those who are blessed are obligated to bless others. We the blessed, are called to share those blessings.

This country has allowed some to amass great wealth. I don’t believe that being rich is in itself a sin. I do believe it is a great responsibility. The responsibility is to choose between the path of the rich man in Jesus’ parable who ignored the poor seeking crumbs from his table, or that of the one known as the Good Samaritan, who chose to help the needy one he happened to meet.

Humor, a Good Time, and the Christian Faith

Jesus apparently liked a good joke. He certainly showed humor in the ways he sometimes talked about the, perhaps, overly serious religious folks of his day.

He talked of people so concerned about the sin of their brother that they are unconcerned about their own sin. (“Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?” (Matthew 7: 3, RSV) Someone walking along with a log sticking out of their eye becomes concerned about a speck in their brother’s eye.

Jesus apparently liked having a good time socially, too. He often was invited to banquets and feasts and seemed to enjoy them, sometimes taking opportunity to teach while attending them.

He also taught us to despise the rich man who refused to share his food with the poor man next to his table, while we are to welcome back the sinner who repents, inviting him in for feasting and rejoicing.

I grew up in a teetotaling Southern Baptist church, but we shared numerous picnics and dinners together. The Christians I knew liked laughing and jokes. My father never drank a glass of alcohol in his life, but he often attracted neighborhood friends by inviting them into our house for sharing jokes and fellowship on a cold winter evening. As a child, I sat next to my mother’s chair and enjoyed all the conversation and laughter.

In summer, we pulled up yard chairs on our porch and enjoyed the long summer evenings together.

I believe Jesus would have us share the Christian faith by having a good time with our friends and neighbors, whom we care for as Jesus did the people around him.

Print versus Digital

A long time ago, my home town of Nashville, Tennessee, had two print newspapers. The editorial boards were usually on opposite sides of issues—local, national, international. One paper generally favored the Democrats while the other cheered for the Republicans.

Today, Nashvillians are fortunate to still have one print newspaper, though you can read it digitally as well. Of course, a great many people don’t read any newspaper. Their news comes from the internet.

That practice gives freedom to anyone to express political and other opinions. No editorial board or owners oversee what goes into public space.

Of course, one is free to lie, if they wish. “Fact checkers” can’t possibly keep up with all of us spouting opinions, as, indeed, I am doing here.

Giving anyone with a computer access to public space is both freeing and dangerous. All sides of any issue can be debated. Unknowns as well as the powerful can join in.

Newspapers printing lies can be sued and, if found guilty of falsehood, may be required to compensate the one they maligned. While one can still sue someone who spreads falsehoods about them on the internet, individuals tend to lack resources to do so.

Centuries ago, the invention of moveable type gave rise to an explosion of new ideas and eventually to more political freedom for ordinary individuals. Unfortunately, the journey to this freedom included wars and terrible suffering for some.

Today’s internet may be yesterday’s moveable type. Let us hope we respect its power and learn to use it wisely. In fact, returning to that print newspaper (via internet or delivered to our homes as a paper copy) for our first look at the news may be wise: it takes more time but tends to call for deeper reflection.

Digital versus Personal

The Covid virus hit about the same time new computer technology increased our ability to connect digitally to other people from our homes. Ever since then, society has struggled to return to personal communities, including back into our offices but also into our religious and social groups.

Our family structures have been challenged for decades. The computer revolution further challenged other personal interaction. It’s tempting to burrow down further and further into our personal nests.

What are we called to do to grow community? Perhaps the old adage about simply showing up applies. Start attending religious and community meetings again. Go play pickle ball or restart that book group. Knitting? Crossword puzzle groups? Support groups for those attempting to overcome addictions?

Pick your own, but come out of the burrows and into community again.

Citizenship, Not Worship

Christians have a mixed relationship with nationhood.

Some of the first Christians, in the days of the Roman empire, were persecuted by the Roman government. Their leader was accused of seeking to bring in another kingdom. Even though Jesus said his kingdom was “not of this world,” the Romans were skittish about any kind of movement that might threaten their hold on Palestine, where the first Christians appeared. The Jewish people had always been restive under Roman rule.

Eventually, the religion of Jesus conquered the Roman world, not militarily but with its message of love and care for all, even enemies, over selfishness and material gain. Loving your enemies is a terrible weapon against them.

The breakup of central power as tribes from beyond the empire broke through to settled areas brought more challenges. Christians had to wrestle with varying amounts of power and what to do with it.

As Christianity became a majority religion, its leaders began a struggle, still with us, as to how important political power would be to the religion. In Europe, varying groups committed horrendous crimes against each other supposedly for the cause of their particular brand of “Christianity.”

The discovery of new continents gave dissenting religious groups places of refuge. Perhaps the numbers and variety of the dissenters is what led eventually, though not evenly, to our much praised “freedom of religion” in the United States.

Surprisingly, the number of Christian groups in the new country mushroomed for several centuries, despite the absence of a state religion. Could it be that giving freedom to believers for their own religious directions actually made Christianity stronger? Perhaps it freed them from political power struggles.

New challenges of war and the struggles of people in countries formerly governed by absolute rulers led to new ways of thinking. American Christians, having become more numerous as a result of their freedom to believe without government oversight, greatly influenced the country as it grew in both population and in size.

However, the success of religious groups in the United States may have led to a possible loss of influence. As Christianity became, practically speaking, a sort of “state” religion, perhaps its members became more like members of European established churches. Christianity may have lost some of its vitality, just as established European churches did.

At any rate, supposing any country, including the United States, is a “Christian” nation, or ever has been or ever could be, tempts us with a weakened Christianity. We tend to worship America instead of Jesus.

Jesus doesn’t need nationalistic trappings. Indeed, movements which lead in that direction only weaken the Christian message.

How to End Wars

One way to rid the world of war might be to increase democracy, according to an article by Michael Doyle (“Why They Don’t Fight; the Surprising Endurance of the Democratic Peace,” Foreign Affairs, July/August 2024).

Academics and politicians have become interested in “democratic peace theory,” the article states. Are democracies less likely to go to war? Of course, the United States, a democracy, certainly has attacked other nations in its almost 250 year history. So have major democracies in Europe.

However, according to the article, the difference is the general absence of war between democracies.

After all, states ruled by one individual or a few strong individuals do not have to ask their citizens to vote on going to war or much of anything else, as their citizens generally don’t vote, at least in free and fair elections.

The article not only delves into the current differences between strong democracies and more autocratic states but also between states with different degrees of democracy.

At any rate, the evidence of support for peace by citizens of democracies seems intuitive. A democratic form of government, by definition, gives the people the power of going to war or not. Why would I or any other citizen want war? The exception, of course, is after an obvious attack by a hostile power. Even then, our response should be proportionate, targeted at the perpetrators only, a matter of self-protection.

Testimony by Jon Ward

Testimony: Inside the Evangelical Movement That Failed a Generation by Jon Ward is a heart- felt indictment of certain aspects of conservative American churches during the 1980’s and 1990’s.

Growing up in that period, Ward was raised by his family in a conservative evangelical church culture. During that period, many sincere Christians, like the Jesus Movement people of the time, believed God would lead America to a time of justice for “the poor, the weak, the unborn, the neglected, and the downtrodden.” Unfortunately, churches like the one Ward was raised in did not pay enough attention to the ever present temptation to power by a few leaders, as happens when any movement gains strength.

Submission to God, Ward states, is a noble intention. However, a traditional anti-intellectual stance meant that some Christians of this time rejected the place of the mind in their religion. “The call to surrender to God was used to strong arm me and my peers into accepting, without question, what we were told by adults.”

While fighting against abortion, some did not pay enough attention to “fighting for the welfare of the born, for those who made it out of the womb, and into a world of poverty, suffering, and systemic injustice.”

The sincere desire for authentic religious experience is a noble pursuit. However, Ward points out, in his own life, too much emphasis on an emotional experience can encourage a faith that becomes a “self-centered, consumeristic, emotion-focused pursuit.”

In his conclusion, Ward states: “seeking truth alone is not enough. Truth must be accompanied by love.”

Alexei Navalny’s Death

The death was widely reported and commented on:

“Alexei Navalny, leader of Russia’s opposition, was killed in jail by the regime on February 16th, aged 47.” (“Obituary Alexei Navalny: Better Russia, where are you?” The Economist, February 14th 2024)

Russell Moore, “What a Murdered Russian Dissident Can Teach Us About Moral Courage,” Christianity Today, February 21, 2024.

Moore, in his column, tied Navalny’s death to the death of other Christian martyrs. “Before the world forgets the corpse of Alexei Navalny in the subzero environs of an Arctic penal colony, we ought to look at him—especially those of us who follow Jesus Christ—to see what moral courage actually is.”

Interesting that Navalny’s courage and comfort and purpose was increased by his Christian faith. Safe to say that many, perhaps most of the dissidents against Putin’s Russia, are not Christians.

Also, Putin and many of his supporters say they are Christians, too. Indeed, some of them oversee Christian churches.

One of the temptations we Christians experience is the temptation to betray our calling by the need to belong. Why do regimes like Putin’s put people in solitary places like Siberia? Often in solitary confinement?

Perhaps those who most suffer for Christ are those who suffer alone. Take a Christian away, not only from family but from Christian community, and they become increasingly vulnerable.

Yet the bedrock of Christian belief is based on Christ carrying out his marvelous work of suffering and redemption when alone—after the disciples had fled.

Christian community, from the beginning, has comforted and grown us in our Christian faith. It is a bedrock of Christian growth. Yet, ultimately, it isn’t the most important piece of our Christian faith. The most important is the indefinable friendship with Christ our brother.

Unity In a Divided Time

A long time ago my parents were suddenly awakened one Sunday morning by a neighbor’s phone call. “Turn on the radio,” the neighbor pled with my father, apparently herself awakened by bad news.

My parents did, of course, and learned of the attack on U.S. naval forces in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on December 7, 1941. Though Europe had been at war since 1939, many Americans hoped to stay out of this latest European confrontation. Europeans had been fighting for centuries, many figured, and it needn’t concern us. Now it did. Americans are rightly skittish about committing their young men and women to battlefields, but not when their own country is bombed.

One of the few other times I remember such unity was after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Virginia. Another plane crashed in Pennsylvania when passengers fought a fourth group of hijackers. I watched the newscasts that day on a TV screen at a U.S. consulate in Saudi Arabia, wondering how we would handle this awful challenge. Whether we correctly handled these attacks in the long run may be open to question, but for a long while, we were definitely united. Americans bought flags and gathered in patriotic groups and supported rescue groups and firefighters in New York City.

But how do we react to wrongs when they involve few of our own citizens, like the attacks in Israel and Gaza and Ukraine?

How do we remain united in working out these and other problems when we have such vastly different opinions about many issues, like abortion, aid for Israel, and immigrants?

Our country’s government is over 230 years old. We have almost foundered on different ideas, directions, and yes, sins, more than once, but we are still here. If we can learn one thing, it’s that we can continue only as we respect differences and continue to work together. We need each other, because none of us has all the answers.

Living By Ourselves

One of the greatest threats to our societies today is our growing lack of community.

The normal family for most of recorded history has seen family members either living with each other in a single household or close by. Whether living in the same house or merely a short walk away, however, children usually grew up knowing their grandparents and other kin.

Major changes began a century or two ago. Some of it happened to immigrants leaving native countries to settle in places with better opportunities, an understandable choice.

However, the coming of suburbs to developed countries led to a great sifting out. The more well-off parents and their children moved to newly built suburban houses while other family members stayed in the old neighborhood. As time passed, the suburbs increased and grew further from the city center. Fathers and then mothers spent more of their time commuting. More separation increased the distance between these families and those with less opportunities and talents.

In the past few decades, separation has increased due to many factors. More young adults went away to college or to distant jobs and stayed away. Most recently, the ability to work hundreds of miles from the big city where the jobs traditionally were located was increased by both computers and the Covid pandemic.

Alienation has increased and no doubt contributed to our epidemic of harmful drug use. Surely our decreasing human contact and caring have fed alienation and a feeling of purposelessness.

Lately, some worry about artificial intelligence leading to less and less need for human input.

Regardless, for the first time, a record number of people live alone. Any community must be sought out: Vocational? Political? Religious? Leisure?

The new arrangements often have nothing to do with families. Singles may marry or establish relationships, but they tend to produce fewer children, often none at all.

Interestingly, immigration, which is feared by many, has been a blessing to those societies who tend more and more to not reproduce themselves.

Has our striving for ultimate independence finally reached the breaking point? How do we come back together?

Rainy Day Soldier

“THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.” (Thomas Paine, Common Sense, January 1776)

Thomas Paine wrote these words in a pamphlet after the American army under George Washington had suffered serious defeats by the British at the beginning of the American war for independence. Though the war had barely begun and other hard times like Valley Forge lay ahead, Paine’s words may have made the difference between an early defeat of the colonists and eventual independence.

We can find parallels today in choosing to slog along and not give up. Ukraine’s war for independence from Russian leader Vladimir Putin is an example.

Other examples of holding on during a bleak time are less clear cut. For all of my life, the Middle East has experienced one crisis after another. Indeed, even long ago, soon after the time of Jesus’ life on earth, the Jewish people attempted to rebel against the Roman Empire and were completely defeated. Most have continued to live in other countries ever since, but a remnant has always sought to return. After the trauma of Hitler’s attempted murder of all Jews, the historic trickle of Jews returning to their ancient land became a flood.

Of course, other people live there, too, as indeed they always have. Today we are called to a harder but much more necessary task: to work for a just peace between all who call the Middle East their home.

Today’s rainy day soldier is not one who fights but one who is a peacemaker. The lines are not clear cut, as is usual in a physical war. Winning is not physical conquest but working so that every man, woman, and child in that historic place has a chance to peaceably make a life.

 

Exiting Gaza

“After decades of failed international engagement in Gaza, we owe it this time to the Palestinians, Israelis and Egyptians—and to ourselves—to get this right.” (Yair Lapid, speech to Israeli Knesset, October 16, 2023, as reported in “A Positive Exit Strategy From Gaza,” The Jerusalem Strategic Tribune, by Robert Silverman, October 2023.)

In his speech, Mr. Lapid outlines steps for achieving a real victory. “The real victory comes not from defeating our enemy but from achieving a better place for Israel and our Palestinian neighbors.”

Further, “Instead of taking the easy way out of town by dumping Gaza on some set of beguiling expatriates, the multinational governance team should be prepared to work with the local Gazans to build governance capacity—over the course of years.”

Mr. Lapid calls for withdrawing the Israeli Defense Forces as soon as possible. They would be replaced by a multinational force “with two separate missions . . . under a single head.”

One mission would be a multinational force “to maintain order and begin training a new Gazan police force . . .”

The other mission would be “a multinational civilian governance to help the Gazans rebuild economically and begin the process of governing themselves politically.”

Israeli-Palestinian issues became a tangled web due to the interests of numerous groups, nations, and historic events over centuries.

Mr. Lapid’s suggestions would seem a fair start toward a practical solution.

Timeout

Israel/Palestine; Republicans/Democrats; labor/management; Russia/Ukraine—and so on.

Perhaps it’s time to sit back and breathe deeply. Time to stow the rhetoric. Time to watch an eclipse and marvel at our solar system and our universe. Time to take a walk with family/friends. Time to read a book for fun.

Obviously, solving problems requires engaging with them, but sometimes we become so involved that we think the universe can’t succeed without us.

Best to understand that we’re part of the process, not the whole answer. We have choices as to how we engage. Perhaps we can develop a bit of modesty—we’re all of value but none of us has a perfect solution.

Best to listen before we spout off. We might ask divine guidance once in a while, perhaps even for the gift of loving our enemies.

The Parenting Dilemma

A survey finds that the more formal education a mother has, the more likely she is to opt out of the work force, or to work part time. This finding seems intuitive. Women with more education are more likely to marry better educated men. Their husbands are likely to have higher salaries and can support wives who don’t wish, at least at certain times in their lives, to work in a full-time career, or perhaps some prefer non-salaried work for a charitable group.

These women, however, have a greater choice of careers, if they want one, and of better paying ones. Their salaries would more likely pay for top notch child care. Why do some of them opt out?

Would more mothers of small children prefer to spend increased time with them if they could afford to do so?

We fear a return to the days when women were relegated to suburbia and made to feel guilty if they wanted to follow careers. Yet, if a mother wants to spend time with a child in the child’s early years, isn’t this worthwhile work?

Studies have shown the value of mothering in early childhood. What policies, both corporate and government, might encourage this kind of work for any mother who desires it?

But even here we are missing the truer picture. What about fathers who want more time with their children? Maybe a lessening of career as end all and be all for them, too, would allow them more time to father.

Perhaps in our emphasis on mothering, we’re in danger of losing the bigger need for parenting. Judging by our lowering birthrates, we certainly appear in need of this essential skill.