Please, God

Posted on by

Israel, I always say, is like a Chi Wawa. A very small dog that, thanks to its mighty bark, always draws more than its share of attention. The reason why it barks so loudly is because it is surrounded by so many hostile Arabs who keep firing at it. And the other way around, of course. Normally that is all one hears. But there is another side to the matter, and that is what it pleases me to write about today.

I live in Mevasseret Zion, about four or five miles west of Jerusalem. Another mile or so to the west is an Arab village, Abu Ghosh. Some identify it with the Biblical Kiryat Yearim, the place where David took the Ark of the Covenant after it has been recovered from the Philistines. It is also where Mary was resurrected, an event commemorated by a large Benedictine Monastery where concerts are held. During the last decades of Ottoman rule it was a den of highwaymen who preyed on travelers between Jaffa and Jerusalem. During Israel’s 1948 War of Independence its inhabitants sided with Israel, which is why they did not suffer expulsion but were able to stay on their ancestral land. Today it is an Arab, mostly Moslem, village with a population of about 7,600. Economically it is doing extremely well; the reason being that, come Saturday and almost all Jerusalem restaurants are closed, Jews flood the village in their tens of thousands.

Some years ago I had an Arab student who lived with her family in Abu Ghosh. Since our two places are so close to each other, I offered her a ride and after class. She gladly accepted but said she wanted to sit in the rear seat. Feeling slightly offended, I asked her if she really distrusted me. No, she said, I do not. However, she added, it is our custom. Try it and you’ll see I am right. We did try it, many times, and it turned out that she was right. A worry less for her, a worry less for me.

On the way we used to talk. I asked her how she came to be called Osnat, which is a name Jewish, but not Arab, Israeli families sometimes give their daughters (the original Osnat, mentioned in Genesis, was an Egyptian lady whom Pharaoh gave Joseph in recognition of his services to the crown). It turned out that her father was a heavy earth-moving machinery operator. At one point in his life he had worked for a kibbutz woman who treated him very well. By way of saying thanks, he named his daughter after her.

Osnat herself was in her mid-twenties. All her cousins had married at about seventeen and were already the mothers of several children. That, she decided, was not the life she wanted. Instead she went to study and was reading for an M.A in the humanities. More typical of Jewish women than of Arab ones. Her reward was to work as a teacher in east Jerusalem; being an Israeli citizen, she made ten times as much as her Palestinian colleagues. Later she and I lost touch, so I do not know where she is or whether she is still single. Possibly she did not stay in her village but found an Israeli-Arab husband living abroad—educated Israeli Arab women often do.

Nor is this the only way in which Jewish and Arab-Israeli approaches to life often change places and merge. Some years ago CNN did a series on wedding customs around the world. One of the episodes described an Arab wedding. But which Arabs were they? Israeli ones, of course. To distinguish it from a Jewish Israeli wedding one had to be a real expert.

Or visit an Ikea shop, where you will see Jews and Arabs quietly queueing together or else sharing a table while taking a meal. Or Dabach, a supermarket and general purpose store not far from the town of Carmiel in the north that has been doing sufficiently well to spread into central Israel. Same story.

Or visit Karim, a native of Abu Gosh who owns the grocery shop where my wife regularly does her shopping. Over the years we learnt that he is actually a university graduate with a degree in agriculture. Unable to find work in his field, though, he opened a shop and did well enough to take over the one next door as well. Right opposite his place is an Israeli-Jewish plant-nursery several of whose employees are Arabs. This is where the whole of Mevasseret Zion goes to obtain its grass, shrubbery, potted plants, gardening equipment, and so on. Arab or no Arab, I love going there. So much so, in fact, that I sometimes do so with no intention to buy anything, simply for a breath of fresh air.

The recent construction of a new children’s amusement park will no doubt bring in additional hordes of visiting Jerusalemites. Nor is Abu Ghosh the only place where many of us Israeli Jews go in order to get Arab (or “Oriental”) food. My late mother, who was born and raised in the Netherlands before, aged 30, moving to Israel with her husband and three small children used to refer to Arab music as “Arab caterwauling.” Not so many younger Israelis who like to listen to it, as I myself also do; somehow it fits into the landscape in a way Western classical music never can.

Briefly, the impression of eternally squabbling ethnic groups is often misleading. It gets even better than that. Many Western countries have a problem with Muslim women’s clothes. Seeing them as religious symbols, they try to ban them from schools, the civil services, the streets, and even the beaches. Here in Israel we never had any of these problems. True, few Arab Israeli women wear the niqab or face-cover. Go to any beach, and you can see it for yourself. But a great many wear headcover without drawing attention. In any case some Jewish women have also taken to wearing a niqab.

So far, and in spite of events in Gaza, northern Israel and southern Lebanon, the peace in Abu Gosh has held. Whatever may be going on in people’s minds, Never in the four decades my wife and I have been going there did we hear one bad word said about Arab this or Jewish that. Please God, may it stay that way.

Incompetence

Posted on by

Then (based on Wikipedia):

 

The abortive Dieppe Raid of 19 August 1942 taught the Western Allies, Britain and the US, that a successful invasion of Europe could only be carried out if sufficient logistic support was made available to sustain not just the initial landing but subsequent operations as well. Next the naval commander for the Raid, British Vice-Admiral John Hughes-Hallett, declared that, if a port could not be captured, then an artificial one should be built and taken across the Channel. In this he was supported by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill who, during his tenure as First Lord of the Admiralty in 1915-16, had come up with the idea as part of his plans to capture some German islands in the North Sea.

Later that year the Chief of Combined Operations Vice-Admiral Lord Louis Mountbatten, outlined the requirement for piers at least one mile (1.6 km) long at which a continuous stream of supplies could be handled. Including a pier head capable of handling 2,000-ton ships. A headquarters was set up, an organization was created, and trials were held at various locations considered suitable both because conditions were similar to those prevailing in Normandy and for security reasons.

By September 1943—just one month after Dieppe—preliminary plans for building not one but two floating harbor—one for the British, one for the Americans—were in place. So were the processes leading to the procurement and manufacturing of the most important components. Including, first, sixty-one dozen old ships designated to be sunk so they could serve as outer breakwaters; second, huge floating caissons, made of concrete and designed to be anchored to the sea bed so as to form the main protection against the waves; and, third, a roadway whose parts could be linked with each other as well as the caissons by which they were going to be supported.

Excluding the blockships, the total weight of components built to be towed across the Channel has been estimated at approximately 1.5 million tons. As was only to be expected from such a large and complex project, problems there were aplenty. However, by the afternoon of D-Day (6 June 1944) all the component parts, both towed and those designed to cross the Channel on their own power, were waiting and ready. Such being the case, construction proceeded much as had been planned—the more so because German resistance was much weaker than expected.

Known as “mulberries,” both harbors were almost fully functional when on 19 June a large north-east storm blew into Normandy and devastated the one supporting the Americans at Omaha Beach. Later it turned out that this was the worst storm to hit the coast in 40 years. So bad was the destruction at Omaha in particular that the entire harbor was deemed irreparable. Most of the constituent parts were completely destroyed, or cast adrift, and the roadways and piers smashed.

The British Mulberry harbor at Arromanches was more protected and, though damaged by the storm, remained usable. Originally designed to last only three month, for eight months it was used to land over 2.5 million men, 500,000 vehicles, and 4 million tons of supplies, providing much needed reinforcements in France. In response to this longer-than-planned use, the breakwater was reinforced by the addition of specially strengthened caissons. The Royal Engineers had built a complete Mulberry Harbor out of 600,000 tons of concrete between 33 jetties, and had 10 mi (16 km) of floating roadways to land men and vehicles on the beach. Known to the troops at Port Winston, and in spite of being built in a hurry, to this day it remains one of the best examples of military engineering in history.

 

That was then. And now?

 

Al Arabiya English, published: 3 May 2024: 07:05 PM GSTUpdated: 03 May ,2024

“The US military temporarily has paused construction of a floating pier off the coast of Gaza due to weather that caused unsafe conditions for soldiers [my emphasis], the United States Central Command said on Friday. Forecasted high winds and high sea swells caused unsafe conditions for Soldiers working on the surface of the partially constructed pier. The partially built pier and military vessels involved in its construction were moved to the Port of Ashdod, where assembly will continue and will be completed before it is placed in an unannounced location.

Once done, the badly needed humanitarian aid will be delivered by ships and then by trucks to shore. Vehicles from third parties will drive off the ship and the temporary pier to a marshaling yard ashore, CENTCOM [US Central Command] said. The aid will then be offloaded in the shore facility before being transferred to partner organizations that will distribute it inside Gaza.”

 

A month and a half has passed and the pier, while spectacularly expensive, is still not operational. Instead, parts of it, carried by the currents, have been found as far north as the beaches of Tel Aviv.

Egypt

Posted on by

 

 

As the wars between Israel and Hamas, Israel and Hezbollah, Israeland Syria, Israel and Iran, and Israel and the Houthi of Yemen keep going, the belligerents apart no country has assumed a more important role in the conflict than Egypt did and does. In this post I will try to shed light on some of the more important issues at stake as well as take a guess at what the future may bring.

*

At the time Israel proclaimed its independence on 15 May 1948 Egypt was still under British occupation, as indeed it had been from 1882 on. However, this fact did not prevent the government of Egyptian King Farouq from sending their army into Palestine with the objective, first, to appease his own public opinion—which was very anti-Israeli—and second, offset any gains the remaining Arab states might make by invading Palestine and annexing part of it. As it turned out, the calculus did not work. By early 1949 the Lebanese, Syrian, Jordanian, and Iraqi excursions into Palestine had all been halted, though not quite turned back (the Jordanians in particular remained in possession of East Jerusalem and the West Bank). Meanwhile, further to the south the Egyptian expeditionary force had come close to being annihilated; in the event, they were only saved by the threat of British intervention.

The official end of Israel’s war of independence in July 1949 did not lead to peace either with Egypt or with any other Arab country. Instead, both on Israel’s border with Egypt—now moved northward so as to leave the government in Cairo in control of the Gaza Strip—there took place any number of incidents. Most were very small; a theft here, a murder there. A few, however led full scale between Israel and its neighbors, threatening not only the Middle East but, thanks to Superpower meddling, world peace. This period lasted until late 1973 when the last Israeli-Egyptian war came to an end. Resulting in stalemate it opened the long road towards peace, albeit that this was by no means always apparent at the time.

The next stage got under way in 1977 when President Anwar Sadat of Egypt visited Israel’s capital, Jerusalem. Thanks in large part to US mediation, by 1981 a peaceful relationship between the two countries, along with a complete Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai, the peninsula’s demilitarization, and the establishment of diplomatic, economic and some tourist ties was in place and working fairly well. To be sure, things did not always proceed as smoothly as the Israelis in particular would have liked. In particular, Israel’s attempts to tackle terrorism from Lebanon by invading that country (1982 and 2007) as well as its persistent failure to move toward an end to its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza often led to grumbling in Cairo. Deliberately or not, the latter also failed to properly seal the tunnels linking the Sinai and Gaza, thus enabling Hamas to receive large supplies of money, arms and supplies. So much so, in fact, that when Israeli troops in early 2024 invaded the underground tunnels they described them as a “superhighway.” Still on the whole the peace agreement held, greatly benefitting both countries.

The outbreak of the next major round of Israeli-Palestinian hostilities on 7 October 2023 appears to have taken Egypt by surprise, causing it to try and follow a number of different courses simultaneously. Formally the peace between the two countries, including diplomatic relations, trade, and limited military cooperation against the independence-seeking Bedouins of the Sinai, remained in place. Faced with problems in the west (anarchy in Libya), the south (anarchy in the Sudan, Ethiopia’s attempt to divert the Nile), the southeast (the Red Sea where the Houthis’ have been mounting attacks on maritime traffic, causing a decline in Egypt’s income from the Suez Canal), and the east (where Iran has been doing whatever it can to stir up trouble) Cairo knew better than to add another country to its list of enemies. Yet it did not mind the Israelis learning some bitter lessons concerning the limits of their military power and the need to enter into some kind of relationship with Hamas; if teaching those lessons meant at least partially closing an eye to the vast inflow of money, supplies and arms from the Sinai to Gaza, so be it.

Above all, official Cairo has its own public opinion to consider. Especially but by no means exclusively that prevailing among the better educated and professional classes in the cities. Starting at least as early as 1982, it has been these classes which were most vehemently critical of Israel. If not to the point of actually abrogating the peace treaty and preparing for war, certainly by limiting contacts with it and putting them on hold.

*

Prediction is difficult, especially of the future. Faced with the ongoing war, essentially there appear to be three courses of action Egypt might take. They are as follows:

  1. Stick to its present course of working with the US and Qatar to lean on both Hamas and Israel to end the shooting war in one way or another. This would probably be the preferred policy, except that it does not appear to stand much of a chance of achieving its objective anytime soon. One thing, though, appears certain: the longer the war, the harder it will be for Egypt to keep doing what it has been doing or trying to do up to the present.
  2. Take a much stronger pro-Israeli line in all that regards to a. the Israeli prisoners in Hamas’ hands; b. an eventual cease fire; and c. the weakening of Hamas control over Gaza. Given how unpopular Israel is in Egypt right now, and also how obdurate both Israel and Hamas have been and still are, such a change seems rather unlikely.
  3. In everything pertaining to the war, turn against Israel (and the US). In case the present regime continues in force, any such change will probably proceed slowly and gradually. However, in a dictatorship such as Egypt a sudden upheaval, most likely in the form of a military coup, can never be ruled out. Right now, sitting in my study I can see the balcony on which, years ago, I received two Canadian intelligence officers who had previously gained long experience serving in Egypt. To my question whether a coup aimed at unseating then President Hosni Mubarak was possible, both of them hastened to reassure me it was not.

As has been said, no one believes there is a plot to kill the emperor until he is killed.

 

Cutting the Hype

Posted on by

These days it is all but impossible to open the Net without stumbling over zillions of references to artificial intelligence (AI). What it is; the things it can and will do; the good things it will bring about; the fortunes it will make for those willing and able to make the fullest use of it; and, above all, the disasters which, thanks to God the Computer and His human acolytes, are just around the corner and, unless countered in time, may yet bring about the destruction of mankind.

In what follows, I want to cut the hype a little by providing a very brief list of some of those things. And, on the way, explain why, in my view, either their impact has been vastly exaggerated or they will not happen at all.

Claim: AI can and will make countless workers superfluous. The outcome will be massive unemployment with all its concomitant problems. Such as a impoverishment, a growing cleavage between rich and poor, class struggles, political upheavals, uprisings, revolutions, civil warfare, and what not.

Rebuttal: Much the same was said and written about the first computers around 1970, the first industrial robots during the 1950s, and so on backward in time all the way to the first steam engines during the first few decades of the 19th century in particular. Fear of technologically-generated unemployment may indeed be tracked back to the Roman Emperor Vespasian (reigned, 69-79 CE) who had the inventor of a labor-saving device executed for precisely that reason. World-wide, during the almost 2,000 years since then, employment has often gone up and down. However, taking 1900 as our starting line, not one of the greatest upheavals—not National Socialism, not the Chinese Revolution not decolonization, not feminism, to list just three—has been due mainly, let alone exclusively, to technological change. As my teacher, Jacob Talmon, used to say: I know all that stuff about history, anonymous political, economic, social, cultural, and, yes, technological forces. But, absent Lenin, do you really think the Russian Revolution would have taken place?

Claim: AI and the ability to manipulate and spread information of every kind (spoken, written, in the form of images) will make it much harder, perhaps impossible, to distinguish truth from falsehood, honesty from fraud.

Rebuttal: True. But so did the invention, first of speech, then of writing (see on this Yuval Harari Sapiens, which helped inspire this post), then of print, then of newspapers, then of photography, then of film, then of the telegraph, then of electronic media such as radio and TV. Every one of them was open to abuse by means of adding material, subtracting material, and plain faking. And every one of them often has been and still is being so abused day by day. Long before the invention of “intellectual property” thieves and counterfeiters were forging ahead. Photoshop and Deepfake themselves are computer-generated. But what one computer can generate another can counter; at least in principle.

Claim: In the military field, AI will help make war much more deadly and much more destructive.

Rebuttal: The same was said and written about previous inventions such as the machine gun, the aircraft, and the submarine. Not to mention dynamite which its inventor, Alred Nobel (yes, he of the Prize) hoped would be so deadly as to cause war to be abolished). In fact, though, it is not technology alone but politics, economics and various social factors—above all, the willingness of individuals and groups to fight and, if necessary, die—that will govern the deadliness and destructiveness of future war, just as they have done in the past. Caesar’s conquest of Gaul is said to have caused the death of a million people. Tamerlane in the fourteenth century wiped out perhaps 17 million. And even that is easily overshadowed by the number Genghis Khan, using nothing more sophisticated than captured mechanical siege engines, killed a century and a half earlier. Here I want to repeat a statement I have often made before: namely that the one invention that has really changed war, and will continue to make its impact felt in all future wars to come, is nukes.

Claim: AI will put an end to art and artists.

Rebuttal: A little more than a century ago, the same was said and written about film bringing about the end of the theater. Starting almost two centuries ago, the same was said and written about photography sounding the death-knell of painting. Need I add that photography and film, far from causing art to disappear, have themselves turned into a very important art forms?

Claim: “AI-powered image and video analysis tools are used for a wide range of social impact applications. They can detect anomalies in medical scans, assess crop health for farmers, and even identify endangered species from camera trap images, aiding conservation efforts.”

Rebuttal: as if all the things, and any number of others like them, were not done long before anyone heard of AI.

Claim: AI has changed/will change “everything.”

Rebuttal: Back in the 1990s, exactly the same things were said of .com. Yet looking back, it would seem that the things that did not change (the impact of poverty, disease, natural disasters, war, old age and death e.g, as well as that of love, friendship, solidarity, patriotism, etc.) are just as important as those that did.

If not more so.

Mexico

Posted on by

Back in the spring of 1994, the CIA was in a bad way. Not because of a threat to national security; after all, the Soviet Union had just fallen apart, most of China’s rise was still in the future, and the US continued to enjoy the protection not of one ocean but of two. Rather, it was the lack of “peer competitors” to spy upon and warn against. Saddam Hussein and Iraq having been defeated, probably never in human history had a single colossus appeared to be so dominant and so powerful! And what, pray, do you do when you do not know what to do? Short answer: you bring in a consultant. Or, better still, entire teams of consultants to consult with.

That is where I got involved. Three years earlier I had published The Transformation of War, a book President Clinton was said to have read or at any rate ordered. Now someone at the CIA contacted me and asked me to give a short talk about “the most important threat facing the US” as well as write a paper on the same topic. Arriving at Langley at the appointed day and hour, I was ushered into a meeting hall where the analysts were waiting. Most appeared to be in their mid- to late thirties, meaning they were no longer at the entry level but had much of their careers still in front of them. Following my pearls of wisdom, which took about 45 minutes to deliver, we launched into the Q&A. En fin, the usual staid format many of us are familiar with and take more or less for granted.

What they did not take for granted, and saved the meeting from being staid, was one single word that kept recurring: Mexico. Not because it was in any sense a peer competitor—it was not and still isn’t. Not because it had nuclear weapons—it did not and still doesn’t. Not because it had the armed forces to invade the US—it did not and still doesn’t. And not because it was strong, united, highly developed, and determined to confront the US. But precisely because it was not strong, and not united, and not highly developed; let alone determined to confront the US.

When the Q&A started it was my turn to be surprised. Of the fifty or so persons in the room not a single one seemed to agree with me; then and later quite a few told me I had been spouting… well, you know what. After all, the US was much larger and stronger than Mexico. In terms of GDP (both total and per person), industrial capacity, armed forces, capacity for innovation, human capital (basically, literacy and the number of years spent at school) and, last not least, the “soft power” which at that time was being touted by Professor Joseph Nye at Harvard there simply was no comparison. True, Mexico with its 88 million people and 761,610 square miles of territory was not exactly a pigmy. Further south, some Latin American politicians even let loose an occasional reference to it as “the giant of the north.” But the most dangerous problem facing the US? Come on.

Twenty-two years later, in 2016, Nye’s fellow Harvard professor Samuel Huntington published Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity. Like Nye, Huntington focused less on material factors—so and so much of this, so and so much of that—as on cultural values. English rather than Spanish or some other language(s). Individualism versus a more family-oriented society. Respect for the law, normally seen not as an instrument for oppression but as a necessary framework for imposing justice and enabling society to function. The kind of society that in some ways helped turn most people into quasi-Protestants even without them knowing it. All these were being undermined by hordes of immigrants, either Mexicans or, increasingly, other Latin Americans originating in countries further to the south. Many immigrants did not even try to assimilate. Instead, entering ghettoes that were at least partly self-imposed, they proudly pronounced their original identity and their determination to stick to it even while defying the surrounding “native” population.

Nor does Mexico itself have much to be proud of. In 2021 the human development index (HDI), which is the one used by the United Nations to measure the progress of a country, stood at 0.758 points, leaving it in 86th place in the published table of 191 countries. Contributing to this sad state of affairs is a fairly low per capita GDP of $ 11,500 per year, just one sixth of the US figure. Next come widespread violence (the seven cities with the world’s highest per capita homicide rates are all located in Mexico); a large but inefficient government apparatus; wealthy and powerful drug cartels that are often both integrated into the government machinery (and the military, and the police) and capable of standing up to them. To these, add corruption; limited freedom of the press (in 2024 Mexico occupied place number 121 out of 180 countries); an exploding population that, between 1994 and 2024, went up 48 percent, in many ways making it necessary to run like hell just to stay in place; and a geographical position that made it a conduit for countless additional people from all over Central and South America.

Following the events of 1945-1960, when most of the former colonial countries in Asia and Africa achieved their independence, there was a widespread expectation that “they” (the countries in question) could and would become more like “us” (the “developed” west). So, for example, President Johnson’s National Security Adviser Walt Rostow (served, 1966-69) in his influential 1959 volume, The Stages of Economic Growth, which laid out a program for doing exactly that. In fact, though, the opposite is happening. A vast and apparently unstoppable influx of people is moving from south to north. With their number estimated at 2,4 million in 2023 alone, they either undermine or overwhelm the ability of American institutions, from the police to schools to hospitals to welfare systems, to cope. Instead of “they” becoming like “us,” “they” are well on the way of turning “us” into “them.”

Mexico’s recent elections, which for the first time put a woman at the helm, has been keenly followed both in- and out of the country. And rightly so; who knows, maybe she will start moving her people in the right direction. Meanwhile, though, America’s southwestern states in particular are begging for help so they can cope with exactly the situation I and others predicted thirty years ago.

And what has the Federal Government been doing? For decades on end, the answer was nothing.

 

Capitalism

Posted on by

M. Hodgson, Conceptualizing Capitalism: Institutions, Evolution, Future, the University of Chicago Press. Kindle edition, 2015

What capitalism is everyone knows, or thinks that he/she/they know(s). It is an economic and social system under which ownership of the means of production on one hand and labor on the other are largely separate (commenting on this, Marx once said that the reason why bourgeois dislike prostitutes is because the latter cannot be separated from the tools of their trade). One under which the main means of production such as factories, machines, roads, communications etc. are in large part privately owned and may, operating through a somewhat chaotic system known as “markets,” be more or less freely transferred from one owner to another. One under which the factor that ties those resources together, enabling them to function, is money rather than, say, barter or faith or charisma. One in which economic initiative is given free rein and consequently takes the form of competition among owners, actual or would-be, that in time is almost certain to lead to gross inequalities between rich and poor.

One that operates, and to a large extent can only operate, within a framework of rights and duties, freedoms and prohibitions, known as law, the task of creating and administrating which is the province of an overarching organization known as the state. One whose origins have deep roots in history—especially ancient Rome where private ownership, in the form of so-called cattle slavery, reached heights (or lows) to which subsequent generations had little to add. One that, originating in the Netherlands and England between about 1600 and 1800 and having resoundingly defeated communism as its most important opponent, has spread all over the world. To the point where, at present, it faces only limited competition even in countries, such as China, whose official ideology points in a different direction.

As the common saying has it, whatever goes up must go down. Rome, which as I just said in some way represented the acme of capitalism, ended by biting the dust. As it did so, it was replaced first by the various Germanic tribes and then by feudalism; based on entirely different principles, between them they lasted for almost a millennium. Panta rhei: to anyone with the least historical consciousness, the collapse at some future time of capitalism appears inevitable. Some may even see it as desirable. Do we really want to perpetuate a system that allows a handful of temperamental tycoons to control much of a country’s wealth, as it does both in the US and (more surprisingly) in Switzerland? But what will its successor look like? Science fiction apart, to-date the only really serious attempt to answer this question was provided by Lenin, Stalin and Mao. From them it passed to their successors or imitators. But that attempt, too, has hit the dust. If not in theory—a small number of die-hard Marxists still persists—then at any rate in practice. So the question is, what comes next; and it was the hope of obtaining at least some answers to that question that first made me turn to Hodgson’s book.

As I read along, I found that the relevant material is distributed between two separate chapters. They are number 14, “The Future of Global Capitalism;” and 16 “After Capitalism.” Chapter 14 is an attempt to guess what forms capitalism may yet take in various countries and the relative success of those forms: e.g Taiwan (supposing it does not fall to China, a possibility Hodgson does not even mention) and South Korea versus India; the United States versus China; the European Union versus Russia; and so on. All this while taking into account, or trying to take into account, a vast number of relevant factors such as birthrates, labor force participation, per capita GDPs, social and cultural attitudes, government interference (including R&D and subsidies on one hand and taxes and corruption on the other) and so on. Briefly, the kind of socio-economic analysis that, coming complete with countless tables and figures, may be found in a thousand other works.

Taking up the lead, chapter 16 deals with three questions. They are, 1.”Will the Great Global Diffusion Lead to a New Economic Hegemonism?” 2. “The Role of Law and Economic Development.” And 3. “The Persistence of Varieties of Capitalism.” Needless to say, the answers to each of these issues will play an important role in shaping the future. As with chapter 14, the author’s discussion of each of these issues is backed up by reams of facts and figures. One can imagine the author chewing his way through them, leaving no bone untouched. His main interest, though, comes through in the second issue; from beginning to end, he is determined to show that law and good government, far from merely forming a Marx-type “superstructure” that covers the economic “base” and justifies it, forms an essential part of capitalism’s nature or, at the very least, a prerequisite without which it could not exist. Presenting his case in some detail, he is probably more often right than wrong; what I found almost totally missing, though, was a more global –meaning, not country by country—oriented discussion of any fundamental changes capitalism may undergo.

To my mind, some of the most important early twenty-first century questions concerning capitalism are as follows. Given how powerful, how omnipresent ad by now, how persistent capitalism is at the present historical moment, what factors could push it off course and make humanity move into a different direction?  Suppose an alternative to capitalism is found, what will it look like?  Will inequality among rich and poor, individuals or countries, decrease or increase? Will the future resemble Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World? Or George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four? Or Anthony Burgess’ 1985? Or some combination of the three? Who loses? Who gains? Unfortunately Hodgson does not provide even the beginning of answers to any of these and similar questions.

Leaving his work, however well researched and rich and nuanced it may be, hanging in the air.

Guest Article: Sitzkrieg?

Posted on by

Sitzkrieg?

By

William S. Lind*

Several people have inquired why I have not written a column for TR in some time. Let me assure them I am in good health and face no lack of material as our world speeds towards destruction. The reason I have not written is that the TR website is being wholly revised and much improved. That work should be done soon, and once it is I will fire more barrages at my usual target, folly. I think readers will find the revisions to the website worth the wait.

Meanwhile, the two wars the United States is involved in, those in Ukraine and in the Gaza strip, seem caught in strategic Sitzkrieg. In the former, Russia grinds slowly forward in a war of attrition Ukraine is doomed to lose. In Gaza, Israel digs itself ever-deeper into the Fourth Generation war trap in which a state defeats itself. But this seeming strategic stability is deceptive. Below the surface lurk factors that portend upheavals.

In Ukraine, NATO must soon face the fact that Kiev is losing and will continue to lose unless it can create a war of maneuver. It had its chance to do that in the summer of 2023 and blew it at the operational level by duplicating Operation Barbarossa; it launched three divergent thrusts, which is to say there was no Schwerpunkt. No Schwerpunkt means no decisive result, which is what Ukraine got.

Kiev’s defeat need not shatter world peace. But NATO’s response to defeat in Ukraine may do so. Panic is already showing its head in Paris, where French President Macron is suggesting NATO might send in troops to fight Russia directly. Berlin says no, but the traffic-light coalition government is weak and can be pushed around. London is in a belligerent mood and Warsaw is always eager to launch a cavalry charge against Russian tanks. The decisive voice will be Washington’s. That is not good news, because the Dead Inca has no idea what he’s doing and his advisors will be terrified of the charge of “losing Ukraine” in an election year. Can NATO just swallow hard and say, “We lost?”  If not, the alternative is escalation in a war against nuclear power.

In Gaza, Israel has destroyed itself at the moral level of war, which is what states usually do against non-state opponents. Martin van Creveld’s “power of weakness” is triumphing again. Hamas will emerge from the war physically diminished but not destroyed, while most of the world sees it as “the good guys” because the massacres on October 7 have been overshadowed by Israel’s destruction of Gaza. Hamas will rebuild quickly, and not only in Gaza. Recruits and money will flow to it in a veritable Niagara.

The threat of a wider war lies to Israel’s north, not its south. While Hezbollah’s operations have been restrained, they have nonetheless driven 80,000 Israelis from their homes, along with tens of thousands of Lebanese who have fled Israeli airstrikes. The latter don’t matter strategically, but the former do because Netanyahu needs their votes. As always, he will put himself above his country’s interests. That suggests he is likely to launch a ground invasion of Lebanon, which Hezbollah apparently is anticipating and ready for. Hezbollah is much stronger than Hamas, and recent events suggest Iran will also be forced to get involved directly. 

If Israel is able to degrade Hamas but not destroy it while an Israeli invasion of Lebanon does not go well (it didn’t last time) and Iran is sending presents to Tel Aviv, what does a panicky Netanyahu do?  Don’t rule out his pushing the nuclear button. That might destroy Iran’s nuclear program, and maybe southern Lebanon as well. But it would leave Israel a pariah in a world where all bets are off.

The current strategic stability is an illusion. Wars move in fits and starts, and Sitzkrieg tends to be followed by wild swings and dramatic breakthroughs. The fact that gold has risen about $500 an ounce in a few months says I am not the only one seeing danger ahead.

*William S. (“Bill”) Lind is a well-known American author and commentator on political and military affairs. This essay was posted for the first time on Traditional Right, May 13 2024.

Good Luck

Posted on by

S. Feynman, ‘Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman,’ Kindle ed, 2018.

V. Ramakrishman, Why We Die; The New Science of Aging and the Quest for Immortality, Kindle ed., 2024.

Both of the above-listed books have this in common that they were written by natural scientists and are aimed at non-specialists. They also have this in common that their authors were awarded a Nobel Prize: Feynman in physics (2008), Venki Ramakrishnan in chemistry (2009). Not having taken more than a cursory look at either discipline since I graduated from high school—not college, but high school—exactly sixty years ago, I cannot say I understood everything I read. Not the quantum physics which, I am told, is something very few people have really mastered. And not the unfathomably intricate chemistry of life. Far from it, in fact.

What I did, or thought I did, understand was what the two highly respected professors have to say about the kind of atmosphere they did their best to create around themselves as well as the way they approached their respective disciplines and made the discoveries they did. “Way,” in fact, may be too strong a term. Neither book contains a systematic exploration of the scientific method and how to use it to make new discoveries; let alone has a separate chapter on those topics. Nevertheless, the more I read the more I felt there is a lot that, reaching across our very different fields, they and I have in common. So here are a few of the things that, joining the books and taking some leaves out of both, seem to me essential for any kind of career involving discovery, however humble.

– Mixing with people coming from different backgrounds, disciplines, directions, and approaches. To be sure, solitude may have its uses at times. However, no man is or should try to be an island unto himself for very long. Much the same applies to societies. As Feynman in particular explains in some detail, it is the mixing, not the formal talks and Q&A, that is the most important part of many of the scientific/academic conferences taking place all over the world today. Much of the time, all the talks do is provide a framework that endows the entire thing with a timetable that holds it in place. Without them, all the participants would get is chatter—kaffeeklatsch, as the Germans call it.

– As you go along in your work, leave some room for the unforeseen and the accidental. One of the scientists mentioned by Ramakrishman is a Russian molecular biologist by the name of Alexey Olovnikov. Going back to the 1970s, he got his most important idea concerning the way DNA duplicated itself while standing on a platform of a station in Moscow and watching a train go by. Likewise the best ideas often occur as a result, not of focused, systematic study—trying to drill holes in a cushion—but of sudden flashes of insight: the kind some people compare to a stroke of lightning and others call the “aha” moment. Yet this moment itself would not be possible without the problem at hand having been given deep, if often nebulous and even confused, reflection.   

– Don’t hesitate to challenge established views, including those of your superiors. Telling truth to power demands tact and is seldom easy. Still, very often for any kind of progress to be made it must be done. Politely, of course, and, whenever possible, with the aid of humor. But also firmly. A superior, or supervisor, or mentor, who always sticks to his guns and does not allow himself to be persuaded is not worth having.

– Prepare to change your mind when new evidence arrives. As has been said, too often it is not old opinions that die; it is those who hold them, still clinging to their antiquated views, who do. This is not a fate you want for yourself and for your work.

– Of all the various ways of learning, none is better than teaching. During my forty-something years of doing so I sometimes felt as if the University, or Israeli society, or God Himself, had created students less because He wanted them to study but in order that my colleagues (those who care about such things) and I might use them as whetting stones to sharpen our ideas on. Feynman in particular provides some good examples of ideas that were first proposed to him by his students. Blessed is the teacher who has students who, rather than just sit there and maybe take notes, will argue with him. Never mind that they seldom form more than a small proportion of the total. Conversely, a student who merely repeats his teacher’s ideas simply repays good with evil.

– When you are stuck, as you are almost certain to be at one point or another in your research, take a break and strike out in a different direction. During the Middle Ages the opportunity to do so was sometimes provided by going on a pilgrimage. Nowadays a visit to some unfamiliar country or culture can often do a lot of good; especially if you take the time not just to ogle a few important “tourist attractions” but to immerse yourself in the culture in question. Operating on a more modest scale a walk or a game, provided it takes your mind off the problem at hand, can do a lot of good.

– Have fun while you are doing it. If you don’t, then you are almost certain not going to get results. So go and seek the company of graves, worms, and epitaphs.

– None of the above is to suggest that the books in question are perfect. As the title indicates, ‘Surely You Are Joking’ in particular bristles with jokes, practical and not so practical, the author has played on his fellow scientists at one point or another. Not only were some of the jokes childish, but at times I could not help but feel that he was trying to boost himself at the expense of others. Hardly a very attractive thing for anyone, let alone a famous professor, to do.

Good luck.

Checkmate

Posted on by

Dvora and I have a grandson. Only child of Efrat and Jonathan, he is called Avishai, a Biblical name meaning “my father’s [or God’s] gift.” Like all grandchildren he is the cutest little boy in the world. With unruly blond curlers and mischievous eyes that are almost always laughing. He loves playgrounds, running about, and ice cream. And chocolate balls too! He is a chatterbox who even as he adds new words to his already quite extensive vocabulary sometimes finds his thoughts outrunning his ability to express them, causing a slight but touching stammer. In a few weeks he will be four years old.

For those of you who are not familiar with the geography of this country, the answer to your question—is his life in any great danger owing to the war—is no. The distance from Gaza to Rehovot where Avishai and his parents live is about 54 kilometers. Their flat is located on the 12th floor of a high rise building. Not only is there no way they can reach the ground floor on time, but there is no point in trying to do so; the building does not have an underground shelter. Instead the flat is provided with a reinforced room that will hopefully protect its inhabitants against anything but a close hit.

But that does not mean that, both in Rehovot and elsewhere, the ongoing hostilities do not make their impact felt. Our oldest grandson, Orr (“Light”) is a junior IDF officer. Though not of the kind where his life is in any greater danger than that of most people here. But three of his cousins, two boys and a girl, are rapidly approaching the age where they will have to reflect about what they are going to do when the call comes as, it surely will. Rehovot itself, located as it is near a major air base, has been attacked many times, luckily resulting in very limited casualties and damage. There and elsewhere other reminders of the war include the rather frequent roar of IsraeIi fighter bombers flying overhead; the somewhat muted atmosphere in what is normally quite a boisterous country; and the growing number of wounded men—hardly any women, fortunately—one comes across in the streets.

When the guns fire, the kids cry. On both sides of the front, mind you. That is why I am posting the following poem, originally written in Hebrew by the late Israeli poet, publicist and playwright Hanoch Levin. But dedicated, on this occasion, to the children of both Israel and Gaza.

 

Checkmate

O where has my boy gone

My good boy where has he gone?

A black pawn has killed a white one.

My daddy won’t return. My daddy won’t be back

A white pawn has killed a black one.

There’s weeping in the homes, there’s silence on the green

The king is playing with the queen.

My boy won’t rise again. He sleeps, he won’t grow

A black pawn has killed a white one.

My daddy is in darkness, no more will he see light

A white pawn has killed a black one.

There’s weeping in the homes, there’s silence on the green

The king is playing with the queen.

My boy once at my breast is now a cloud of snow

A black pawn has killed a white one.

My father’s kindly heart is now a frozen sack

A white pawn has killed a black one.

There’s weeping in the homes, there’s silence on the green

The king is playing with the queen.

O where has my boy gone

My good boy where has he gone?

All soldiers black all soldiers white fall low.

My daddy won’t return. My daddy won’t be back

A white pawn has killed a black one.

There are no white pawns left nor any black ones

There’s weeping in the homes, there’s silence on the green

The king is playing with the queen.

There’s weeping in the homes, there’s silence on the green

And still the king keeps playing with the queen.

 

You can find the song at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d70p5EpwKC0. I have listened to it many times, and each time it makes me want to tear out the few hairs I have left on my head. What have we humans done, what are we doing, to each other! Skip the accords and start at 1.47 minutes.

The above translation is based on the one at the website with some changes of my own.

I Stand Amazed

Posted on by

C. R. Hallpike, How We Got Here: from bows and arrows to the space age (2008).

Until about 10,000 years ago our ancestors lived in small exogamous groups consisting of 25-50 persons each: men, women and children. Inside each group all members were tied to each other by blood or marriage. All were in daily contact with each other, and all were almost indistinguishable in terms of wealth of which, in case, case, there was only as much as peo0le could carry or preserve. Having long mastered fire and learnt to cook food, and armed with stone tools as well as wooden spears and bows and arrows, they roamed over what, to them, must have looked like almost limitless space. As a result, except under exceptional circumstances such as droughts and the like, most of the time they had enough, not seldom even more than enough, to eat. The same factor, i.e the abundance of available space, prevented warfare from doing serious, long-time harm to those who engaged in it. The more so because the normal objective was prestige and revenge, not extermination or permanent subjugation. The last of which, given the way these societies were structured, was impossible to establish in any case.

Fast forward to the early years of the twenty-first century. Our numbers, which 7,000 years ago are said to have reached perhaps 5 million people, have increased to the point where the earth’s population is around 8 billion and growing still. Practically all of them live in millions-strong states where only a very small percentage are related by bloodlines and/or have personal knowledge of each other except, perhaps, in the form of sounds and images emitted by some piece of electronic wizardry. Far from our wealth being equally—let alone, equitably—distributed, we range from penniless beggars always on the verge of starvation to the likes of Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk. In terms of the technology at our disposal we have reached the point where we are now actively drawing up plans for colonizing not just the moon but Mars as well. All this within what in evolutionary terms, let alone geological ones, amounts to a mere blink of an eye.

How could it, how did it, happen? This is the question that Christopher Hallpike, a long retired Canadian professor anthropology who at one point moved to Oxford, took it upon himself to answer. Not that he is the first to do so. One is reminded of the Jacob Bronowski’s The Ascent of Man (TV series, 1973), Bill Bryson’s Short History of Nearly Everything (2003), and Yuval Harari’s Sapiens (2011), among many others. Equating cultural development with biological evolution, almost all of them drew on Darwin as their source of inspiration. With him in mind, almost all started with two basic ideas. First, that cultural change—mutation, to use the language of evolutionists—is more or less accidental, taking place spontaneously now here, now there. Second, that whether or not any innovation persists and spreads depends on how useful it is—the extent to which it makes those who are in charge of it, more comfortable, more powerful and, last not least, wealthier.

By contrast, Professor Hallpike takes it as his starting point that human development, aka culture is not blind. True, some minor changes may have come about more or less by accident. However, he says, for them to persist and to spread there is a need for a conscious effort on the part of both originators and beneficiaries. First, it requires the kind of mind needed to contemplate a new and different reality—precisely the one that, as far as we can see, animals ranging from mosquitos to chimpanzees do not possess. Second, it requires an open society in which different people, coming from different directions and possessing different skills, can meet, exchange ideas, cooperate and, where necessary criticize each other. Third, it requires an investment. If not of money, which only appeared around 600-700 BCE, long after some of the most important discoveries and inventions were made, then at any rate of time and effort. Very often, and this is a point that Hallpike does not emphasize as much as he could and perhaps should have, it also involves taking a risk. The story of the monk Berthold Schwarz inventing gunpowder and being blown up for his pains may not be rooted in fact. Nevertheless, it does present people with a “lesson learnt.”

Another basic point with which Hallpike takes issue is the common belief, famously caricatured by Charles Dickens and his infamous creation Mr. Gradgrind, that it is only material “facts” that either cause change or are affected by it. Standing in front of the blackboard—after all, Gradgrind is a teacher—swish, and away goes religion. Swish, and away goes our senses of beauty, of order, of awe in face of the mysterious and the unknown. Swish, and away go curiosity and inspiration. Swish… Never, so Hallpike, has there been a human society which did not have all those things. Judging by the expression on the face of my cat when he first discovered a new opening we had made in a kitchen wall, even many animals experience some of them.

Finally, judging by his books, including some of his (very funny) fiction I have read, I trust that Hallpike would not have been the man he evidently is, i.e one who loves to play devil’s advocate, if he had overlooked the greatest provocation of all: namely the idea of distinguishing “primitive” from “modern” man. Had he not been long retired, no doubt that alone would have brought on his head severe sanctions on the part of the politically correct thought-control mob. In fact, though, his use of the term is perfectly reasonable. Lacking as they did modern, observation-experimental-mathematically based science, our pre-literate ancestors perforce had no choice but to base much of their understanding of the world on folk wisdom much of which in turn rested on symbolism, religion, magic and intuition as well as every kind of contrast or affinity, real or imagined. It is in this sense, and in this sense alone, that Hallpike calls people and the societies they formed “primitive.” But not once in some 650 pages does he suggest that they were mentally retarded.

I cannot end this essay without noting two other points. First, as an anthropologist who has spent some years living with some of the “primitive” societies he mentions—first in East Africa, then in Papua-New Guinea—Hallpike, discussing such societies, has the immense advantage of knowing exactly what he is talking about. This alone is a good reason for taking what he has to say about them seriously. Second, I find his knowledge of societies, material objects and processes truly incredible; starting with metallurgy—and ending with the history of the alphabet, mathematical notation, alchemy, government, warfare, philosophy, monotheism, astrology and the scientific method there is hardly any field about which he does not have something interesting to say.

The book’s title notwithstanding, its journey through history ends about 1914. As a result, subsequent developments such as relativity, quantum mechanics and chaos theory are mentioned barely if at all. That is a pity; could anyone come up with better examples of sheer curiosity, rather than material gain, driving history into new and unexpected directions? Still I stand amazed. And also, I confess, a little jealous in front of so much knowledge so engagingly presented.