BOSTON, BOMBS, GUNS, CARS and SOCIETY

The inevitable happened in the form of a bomb blast at the prestigious Boston marathon. A single evil deed grabbed the world headlines. A couple of backpacks, pressure cookers or whatever with explosives needed only a few crazed individuals to put the carnage into effect. By so doing they put whatever cause they espoused onto central stage.

All of a sudden the rogue nation, North Korea, threatening to blow up the world with nuclear capabilities was no longer in the news in favor of two sociopaths that effectively paralyzed a whole nation. (Do you believe North Korea had called it quits because they were in a the middle of a bad news week for them? Or rather did the media, initially, magnify the North Korea issue, as they had nothing else to run with? There must be a reason why the whole issue just went away.)  

SOCIETY HAS HAD TO ADAPT

We live in a different world that has changed our lives forever. It is impossible to prevent an occasional incident such as this from breaking through the ever-tightening security. As Peter Bergen, the renowned security analyst, comments there have been very few bomb incidents in the US since 9/11. No- one had died in a bomb attack since 9/11 till this Boston marathon carnage. He states that there have been 380 individuals convicted for acts of this nature – in fact mainly for conspiring to commit these acts. 

Society has responded swiftly and uncompromisingly to the horror of a bombing killing the innocents. All large sales of fertilizer are monitored as well as hydrogen peroxide.  The safety provisions put in place have resulted in only one letter bomb being sent off in the past ten years. No –one has objected to the inconvenience caused by the checks at airports or anywhere else where they may be instituted. Nor has Congress questioned the vast sums of taxpayer money that is being spent to fund the anti – terror program.

Never the less the impact of Boston is shattering and far reaching. Not only has everyone a fear of going into public places, the tragedy of three deaths, one an eight year old, the hundreds maimed, the blood, the gore are imprinted on the psyche of a nation. The nation mourns the loss of life and limb. Whatever money is needed to prevent another such an incident will be voted unanimously by Congress and so it should.

But bombing is also linked to guns. The two suspects were immigrants from Chechnya. Rapid firing weaponry, illegally obtained, was part of their arsenal and was instrumental for the death of one policeman and several others injured. Also the fact that a suspect escaped and held Boston to hostage for a day was because of illegal firearms.

DRUNK DRIVERS, SEAT BELTS, CAR SEATS FOR CHILDREN, AND GUNS

Drunken driving and the deaths they cause have decreased dramatically as a result of strict enforcement of legislation that takes away your right to drive while under the influence of alcohol. In fact society will deny you the right to drive at all unless you meet the requisites demanded by it and obtain a license. Also specially adapted car seats, legally enforced, have reduced pediatric car deaths by 75%.  This followed a decrease in the overall death rate that was as a result of legislators taking away your right not to wear seat belts. (Put another way you are forced to wear seat belts even though it is surely your right to decide on an issue that will only affect your health?). Yet somehow 17,000 mentally unfit individuals commit suicide each year with guns and Society is doing nothing to stop this.

Generally speaking society has been ever vigilant about preventing preventable deaths other than guns. As Jon Stewart pointed out that one person falling or jumping of a bridge spanning a Highway resulted in protective fencing being put up across the country.

Congress does not hesitate to legitimize restrictions on purchases of all natures. If you wish to purchase Sudafed, a cold medicine, you have to produce a photo ID, enter your name and address in a book and only obtain a certain number of tablets per month. This is to prevent the illegal manufacture of methamphetamine. Yet the same purchaser can go across the road and buy as many AK 47’s as he or she likes with as much ammunition and not even have it recorded.

As we have also seen the introduction of security for preventing bomb attacks has dramatically decreased these events since 9/11. Yet the biggest killer of them all – guns we ostensibly can do nothing about. There are approximately 30,000 automobile deaths a year, 3 bomb deaths in 10 years and 31,000 gun deaths a year. The former two dramatically reduced since legislation that impinged on society’s freedoms was introduced. ( There were 55,000 deaths from motor cars in 1972, USA population 210 million versus 32,000 in 2012, USA population 315 million).  Society can monitor fertilizer sales but not gun sales.  It is salutary to think that the monthly death toll from firearms is equal to the total mortality of 9/11. All the American deaths in Vietnam are the equivalent of just over 2 years of gun deaths but those succumbing have not had their names etched in stone and are forgotten,

LAME ARGUMENTS

 Second amendment rights are used as an excuse not to monitor society’s right to buy whatever guns they like, as often as they like, without having background checks or having to register or license them! Nowhere in the second amendment does it give you the democratic right to buy a death-creating weapon without even registering it. You cannot even buy a car without registering it. So what if a register is created and every sale monitored like that of fertilizer?

Other arguments include the unsubstantiated baloney that that the government wants to creates a register so as to take away your guns. That argument is as facile as saying the car registry is a guise for the government to take away your cars. Then they maintain it is senseless controlling guns, as the bad guys will get them anyway. On the basis of that argument all law is a waste of time. No drug laws as the cartels will market drugs anyway. No burglary laws as crooks are going to steal anyway. The only areas that are, apparently, ok to legislate on, are female reproductive rights!

Why is every legislator terrified of stricter background checks and a register of every sale? This, when 90% of the electorate is in favor? Why are they so anxious to prevent car and bomb deaths and every other death but not gun deaths?

What is behind the US Senate’s reason to continue this insanity to not even legalize compulsory background checks for the purchase of weapons? To exacerbate this sense of unreality there were not even enough votes to even bring the banning of semiautomatic and other rapid firing weaponry to the floor.

THE SIMPLE ANSWER

The simple answer is money. The NRA gun lobby does not represent gun owners they represent gun sellers. Obama directly placed the blame of legislative failure of gun legislation on the NRA and its allies. The NRA bully and threaten candidates to do their bidding. They hide behind the Constitution and pay lip service to safety. They would turn the country into the Wild West in the name of greed. As they read the situation, more guns should protect schools, these would have to be bigger and better guns than the ones owned by the bad guys. No longer will we have High Noon or Gunfight At OK Corral but rather the shootout at Springfield High School.

With the advent and availability of more and more sophisticated guns the NRA’s attitude becomes more and more dangerous. In turn the non- response of the legislature becomes more and more irresponsible. What is it about 90% of the electorate’s opinion they don’t understand?

The profits from all these guns and their ammunition are unbelievable.  This is really why legislators would rather back fertilizer registration and not gun registration. This is what this is all about and the posturing is sickening. How do the legislators look the parents of 20 dead children straight in the face and talk about second amendment rights in the abstract? Who would want to be reelected without making any meaningful attempt to control this carnage? One does not have to ask has it reached the stage where lives are secondary to profits? It has. While everyone knows politics is the art of the possible there have to be some issues on principle that legislators will risk their careers for.

The media also have failed in their responsibility by not keeping this carnage front and center of the public’s awareness. One week after the Boston bombing there were five killed in a Seattle shoot out. This was not even in the public eye for half a day. It is if those who die by shooting are not worthy of any notice and are irrelevant. Instead on and on, on every news channel, the FBI video was played and replayed. Pundits discussed ad nauseam whether the suspect should be charged as a criminal or an enemy combatant. All those Senators who went on and on about the bombings are ironically the same ones that will do nothing about gun violence.

THE ONLY SOLUTION

Jay H. Ell has blogged on guns for years. Initially he was mildly hopeful that the NRA would actually help, (Blog: The Tuscan Massacre and American Culture- Can There Be a Solution? – January, 2011). However, even after Newtown, Jay H. Ell, gave up hope, (Blog: Guns: Obama,The NRA, GPO = Stalemate- January 2013).

The irony is that it is only going to be more money that will ultimately defeat the NRA, not principles or children’s lives. Domestic philanthropists will join Mayor Bloomberg and his group of mayors and law enforcement officers and outbid them at election time. Pro gun candidates will feel the weight of this money. The influential Gifford’s have turned this into their lifelong crusade.

As Bloomberg has already shown the NRA has not all that much money – it is all relative you see. And finally, market forces will win out and surely that is what the NRA believes in.

The electorate, then hopefully, with the knowledge of who supports what, will make guns a defining issue at election time.

THE FLAWED ABU DHABI DIAMOND AND PEDIATRICIAN CYRIL KARABUS

  ABU DHABI OF THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES

Abu Dhabi has been hailed as THE number one wonder of the world of the twenty–first century. This is the new Middle Eastern paradise – dare Jay H. Ell say – Garden of Eden or more probably  - An Arabian Nights Fantasy. Everything is bigger and better than everywhere else. The unabashed objective is to make Dubai the number one tourist destination as well as the cultural, shopping and business center of the world.

Their succession of feats is endless. The Arabian rich archeological heritage has been made into a treasure trove of history and is juxtasupposed with the most modern avant-garde architectural structures, including the tallest building in the world. The Sheik Grand Mosque and the Emirates Palace are the showpieces of Emiratian Culture. The Yas Viceroy Hotel is built half on water and half on land and is covered by a grid shell with curvilinear glass and steel that drapes the two hotels. The most modern Formula One racetrack surrounds the hotel. It also has the world’s largest theme park and the fastest roller coaster. The Yas water world is the most futuristic in design and in its rides the most imaginative and exiting. There is the first hydro – magnetic six-person tornado power slide and also the largest area for surfing in the world. Man made islands. The list is endless.

In addition the top players in the world attend their tennis and golf opens. These are the only sporting events where, it is rumored that, some players’ appearance money approximates the overall winning purse. There are art exhibitions, currently a Picasso event and cultural activities that rival any major city in the world. To maintain their cultural connections they have donated millions to the Guggenheim, Louvre and New York University. Such is the desire to appear number one to every “value” the West holds dear. Even alcohol is freely available and presumably with everything else that accompanies it.

And on and on and on. ……

WHO and HOW.

Obviously all this has taken endless money and endless labor at both ends of the employment spectrum.  There has been cheap labor from the East and highly skilled professionals from wherever they can get them, mainly the West. Human Rights Watch has focused on the worsening situation of the unskilled laborers and arbitrary detentions of civil right activists. These have been followed by show trials.

On the recruitment of professionals many architects, businessmen, lawyers, doctors and bankers have been lured by lucrative contracts to spend various amounts of time there. This is where Jay H. Ell’s story begins of one, the seventy - eight year old Professor Cyril Karabus. (Karabus is not the only individual to find himself in the type of plight Jay H. Ell is about to detail. There have been numerous others)

CYRIL KARABUS

Dr, Karabus is a pediatric oncologist. He worked all his life at the famed Red Cross Hospital in Cape Town, South Africa. The latter serves as a referral center for virtually all of Africa below the Equator. He is highly regarded, soft spoken and dedicated. All his life as a University employee in Cape Town he never received fees for the management of patients just his salary. With the advent of the “new” South Africa all government personnel were forced to retire at sixty – five years of age. Karabus would thus be left with a Government pension to live on so one can easily see why he was tempted to a do a six-week stint in Abu Dhabi in 2002.

On his way back to Cape Town in August 2012, flying Air Emirates, the plane stopped in Dubai. He was promptly arrested, having already been tried, unbeknown to him, in absentia and sentenced to three years in prison for having murdered a patient he treated in 2002. The patient, a three year old, had suffered from the devastating affliction of acute leukemia and died of a brain hemorrhage. He languished in jail for a month and after finally obtaining bail has been languishing in Abu Dhabi ever since. The Judge finally dismissed the case after being presented with the expert witness of several doctors but for reasons “unknown” Karabus is back in court on April 23, 2103.

WORLD MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (WMA) EXAMPLE

The WMA are not known for their radical stands on principal. In fact it is extremely difficult to prod them to do anything. However Karabus’s plight moved them to condemn his situation and called on the United Arab Emirates, (UAE), to guarantee a “fair trial”, -according to “international” standards. They have since gone further advising doctors thinking of working in the United Arab Emirates to note the working conditions and the legal risks of employment there.

If Abu Dhabi, in particular, and the UAE, in general, are serious about joining the twenty - first Century they should get all their ducks in a row. It is not enough, in this day and age to put on the greatest futuristic show on earth and simultaneously wallow in medieval legal norms. In one-way or another they should be made aware of this and WMA has made a great start. What about other professional bodies? What about pressure being put on recruiting agencies at both ends of the economic scale? What about going to Disney World and Epcot instead? What about letting your local UAE Embassy know how you feel?

Cyril Karabus has unwittingly become the focus of a major human rights issue. He, who has so unstintingly and caringly served others, does not deserve to be the victim of such injustice. Those like Jay H. Ell who witnessed his caring attitude, humility and commitment have an added responsibility to plead his cause.

THE IRON LADY JOINS REAGAN

Margaret Thatcher, who was the first and, as yet, only woman Prime Minister in the United Kingdom, passed away at the age of eighty- seven years. As much as Churchill dominated the thirties to the near sixties, Thatcher ruled the roost in the UK in the latter part of the twentieth century. While Churchill’s crowning achievement was stemming the tide of totalitarian fascism that was enveloping the world, Thatcher’s centerpiece achievements were predominantly related to the UK where she changed the social and financial fabric of that society. 

Whenever the name Thatcher is mentioned the name Reagan follows. They were soul mates, two peas in a pod, orchestrating, in tandem, the social and financial changes of their respective countries, only separated by what is affectionately known as “the pond”. They both fervently believed in deregulation, privatization of everything and anything, ridding society of the Trade Unions and decreasing “welfare” while encouraging society to pull itself up by it’s boot straps. In the latter endeavors they both achieved lasting success. 

Many still point to Thatcher's seminal successes such as the resuscitation of the auto industry by enticing the Japanese automakers to enter the UK and manufacture motorcars there. Also she allowed the sell off of British luxury cars, such as Jaguar, to the international markets that brought capital and rid the UK of never ending losses. 

So as much as Churchill and Roosevelt were the Anglo – American axis in the mid century, Reagan and Thatcher were the team at the close of the twentieth century.  Thus, inevitably discussion of Thatcher will involve comparisons with Churchill in the UK and comparison with the “Gipper” Reagan in the USA.

IN MEMORIAM

Generally time mellows the legacy of politicians - certainly not so with Thatcher. (As Marc Anthony would have said, “The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred in their bones; so let it be with Maggie.”) The mere mention of her name conjures up the most divisive responses. To the believers she bailed out the moribund British society and made the UK great again but the left are unashamedly rejoicing that the “wicked witch” is officially and finally dead. The sale of the song, “Ding dong the Wicked Witch is Dead” has skyrocketed as a result of a Face Book campaign. The popularity of the song is so great that the BBC could not officially ignore it on its music channels. The BBC compromised by just playing a portion of it on their airwaves. 

No – one, not even Merryl Streep, in her Academy Award winning sensitive portrayal of “The Iron Lady” could soften her public persona. Streep on learning of her death maintained that Thatcher just displayed her British reserve not to display emotions in public. Streep said this role was as significant to her as “Sophie’s choice.

Time has not blunted the sharp edges of her image. Like Reagan she was inflicted with Alzheimer’s disease in the last decade of her life. Unlike with Reagan this devastating affliction evoked scant sympathy and empathy for her plight. Reagan’s death resulted in respect and grudging acknowledgement from his opponents while it was the signal in Thatcher’s case for of a rekindling of the vitriol that accompanied her “reign”. 

MAGGIE’S MAJOR ACHIEVEMENT

What has to be Thatcher’s most miraculous feat was, in 1975, being elected leader of the Conservative Party and thus the Premiership when the Conservative Party won back power in 1979. She broke into what has to be literally Plato’s original “Old Boys” Club”. In so doing she changed the Conservative party forever.

The irony was she defeated Edward Heath who, in 1965, had been the first elected leader of the Conservative Party. Up until 1965 the party leader was anointed as a result of “consultation” of the inner caucus of the Conservative Party. The latter was made up of a few of the Establishment who had all gone to Eton. The change in the manner of election had been brought about as a result of the “Old Boy’s” nomination of one of their own, the then Lord Hume as Prime Minister. Hume who dropped his peerage and just became a knight, turned out to be a disaster. The inbreeding had finally produced a leader that had no hope of ever gaining credibility.

The Establishment did all in their power to thwart this grocer’s daughter throwing Heath out of the leadership. However, it was to no avail and for the second time in the twentieth century a non - establishment candidate had been elected as the leader of the Conservative Party– the first being Winston Churchill.

THE PERSONA OF THATCHER AND REAGAN

There is not much left to be said about Thatcher that does not sound like a cliché – her unashamed bluntness, her profound lack of empathy, her open ruthlessness, her defiance at making any attempt to be "likeable”. Her refusal to budge on any position of principle and her brutal, condescending arrogance were to be her final undoing in 1989 when Michael Heseltine did to her what she had done to Heath. What you saw is what you got. It was said that the softest part of her was her teeth. 

The irony was she was the very antithesis of Reagan’s public persona. The latter coming across like your Uncle in the furniture business who would get you the best possible deals.  He was softly spoken and hid his toughness behind a jovial façade.  The end result was the same. Both, for example, broke the Trade Unions. Both established themselves as an ism – Reaganomics and Thatcherism and left as their legacies distinct and recognizable political philosophies.

Both of their ascensions to lead their countries were reflective of the workings of politics in their respective countries. Thatcher could never have been elected to the American Presidency.  There has never been a prospective candidate with so little public appeal.  The “likeability” of a candidate is so crucial in a US Presidency. That is why Reagan parlayed his screen appeal to the electorate at large. First he did this to be Governor of California and then to become President. Maneuvering within a caucus, canvassing individuals and power blocks was not Reagan’s chop so he might just have to have continued his movie career had he been in the UK.  Maggie likewise in the USA would have to have joined one of those prestgious law firms where her inpolitical skills would have got her to the top.

Margaret Thatcher served three terms as Prime Minister to Reagan’s two as President. There is little doubt that Reagan could have been elected to a third as his Vice President daddy Bush romped home.

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Both were heavily involved in foreign policy. The pair was credited with the ending of the cold war. Both believed that you had to take a tough line to achieve détente. Thatcher was labeled the “Iron Lady” by the Soviets and Reagan labeled the Soviets the “Evil Empire”. Reagan, with the blessing of his UK partner, built up a massive arsenal that preceded détente. He then negotiated, he believed from strength, with Gorbachev on nuclear reduction.

Thatcher, against the current of opinion in the UK and even her own Party, saw the UK’s future in Europe. Reagan concentrated on bolstering his anti communist allies. Both too did not hesitate to take on smaller enemies and smash them -Thatcher in the Falkland Islands and Reagan in Granada.  Thatcher allowed Reagan to fly over the UK when the latter was on his way to bomb Libya.

Thatcher was the first British Prime Minister to visit in Israel in 1995.  She was an unflinching ally of Israel and fought the British support of the Arab boycott of Israel. 

IN REQUIEM

Whichever way one looks at it Margaret Thatcher was a remarkable person. If she could view the response to her death she would not give a hoot one way or another. Never one for pomp and ceremony she would have liked to have missed her own funeral that the faithful attended and paid homage. She would have barely glanced at the hordes that used the occasion to protest what they believe she did in transforming the UK from a caring society to a financially efficient one. The wounds of the smashing of the Trade Unions, that were the bedrock of security for middle class UK society, are still gaping. She led this destruction of the Unions not only in her own country but with her bosom buddy Reagan influenced the whole world. She will be parodied in death, as she was in life – who can ever forget the forever-running satire that bore her husband’s name in the title, “Anyone for Dennis”?

Sadly, for her family, she has another item to add to her, already long, resume, -no public figure, on his or her demise, in a Western Democracy, has ever been subject to so much bile. This even before she had been buried.

Perhaps the most significant compliments paid to her came from Merryl Streep. She maintained that Thatcher was not sans humanity and that she could not tolerate injustice, Streep, was “elevated” at playing, what she described as, one of the most significant and dynamic characters of the twentieth century. Now an actress’s vocation includes getting into the soul of the character she is portraying. Merryl Streep, who played Thatcher sparing none of the sharp edges, is acknowledged by many as the greatest at her art to the same generation that are vilifying Thatcher and giving Reagan a pass. This makes Jay H. Ell wonder how much of the criticism of Thatcher relates to her behavior of a ruthless man in a then even more man's world. The comments like that she had the biggest b..lls in the only British Cabinet were rapant and there far more crude allusions to her "manliness".

History will, of course, be the final arbiter. The further away from the death the less likey that her arrogance and strident manner will be a factor and the more the actual policies she effected.  Meanwhile 30 years later her detractors have, if anything, become far more virulent and her supporters more vocal.

THE FIRST FIRST LADY- SPIELBERG'S MARY LINCOLN.

Mary Lincoln, who was the first President’s spouse to be known as the First Lady, was to put it gentilely, a very complex individual. She was ever present in Spielberg’s epic movie, Lincoln, adding a complicating dimension to the Patriarch’s life. Unlike Lincoln’s character, which is laid out for all to see, Spielberg leaves everyone to fill in the blanks as to Mary's and what role she played as Lincoln’s wife and in the political landscape generally.

FIRST LADY

Today one is more than aware of the role of the First Lady. The latter is an essential component of the package that a potential Presidential candidate runs on. When a President is elected, she, (thus far only she), is under constant scrutiny and carves out a niche where she is able to serve and initiate in her own right. Also in each and every case the spouses are reported to be a support to their husbands through thick and thin. In living memory there is no First Lady that did not lend dignity to the Office of Presidency and meet these standards. In fact with each successive Presidential term the Office of First Lady has grown in stature and importance. However, as the first First Lady, Mary Lincoln seems to have been a disaster.

AT THE WHITE HOUSE RECEPTION

Mary challenged Lincoln maintaining that his motive to have a White House reception was to “invite radicals into my home” as he needed their support to pass the 13^th Amendment to abolish slavery. At the White House reception she is blatantly and publicly rude to Thaddeus Stephens, a radical in the Republican Party, whose support Lincoln could not do without. Stephens also headed  the House Committee that vets White House expenditure. Mary was a renowned spender who exceeded her budget by several multiples. The First Lady chastised him for his audits of her expenditure and reminded him of how puny he was next to her husband. Next she blatantly snubed Congressman Ashton whom Lincoln needed to lead the fight for the Amendment. Ashton had been loath to proceed and had told Lincoln previously that there was no hope that the amendment would pass. Mary’s response to it all was to feign that she had never met Ashton or even worse didn’t even recognize him. 

It is difficult not to interpret Mary's behavior as being that of  aggresion towards Lincoln. This especially so as she was at odds with him over his failure not to discuss the Amendment with her and his final refusal not to stop their eldest son Robert from enlisting in the army.

THE HISTORY OF THEIR POLITCAL RELATIONSHIP.

Mary Todd was well educated for a lady of her times. She moved in with her sister in Springfield, Illinois. There she had several suitors one of whom was Stephen Douglas the famed Democratic Senator whose debates with Lincoln put the latter on the national map. Although Douglas won the Senate Seat Abraham Lincoln won her heart. In the process Lincoln’s anti slavery oratory made him a national figure - important enough to be the successful Republican Party contender for Presidency against three other far more qualified candidates.

Mary, although a Southerner who had brothers who fought for the Confederates, was a fervent abolitionist. A recent book by Jennifer Fleischner entitled, “Mrs. Lincoln and Ms. Keckley”, gives the latter two much credit for Lincoln’s views. What Spielberg’s Mary shows is a First lady attending crucial Congressional debates on the 13^th Amendment,  (Not even Hillary Clinton attended important debates). There Mary follows each vote with full knowledge of which ones were crucial or not. So there is little doubt that they shared the same views and was Lincoln’s confidant and political soul mate.

This is illustrated in a scene where Mary complains that Lincoln  - “…. I am your soothsayer, I am not to be trusted …. I know what it is about …….  Its about the amendment to abolish slavery…”.

It is obvious that she feels left out.  Lincoln obviously knew where Mary was coming from and didn’t consult her for the reasons that become explicit in the following dialogue:

 “ You think I’m ignorant of what you’re up to because you have not discussed this scheme with me as you ought to have done. When have I ever been so easily bamboozled?”

  “ I believe you when you insist that amending the constitution and abolishing slavery will end this war. And since you are sending my son into the war, woe unto you if you fail to pass the amendment.”

She also was his biggest admirer of his political stature.

“No one’s loved as much as you, no one’s ever been loved so much, by the people, you might do anything now. Don’t, don’t waste that power on an amendment bill that sure of defeat.

HISTORY OF THEIR PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP.

Most of the Spielberg’s Lincoln confrontations relate to their children, particularly Robert their eldest son. Lincoln, having finally, conceded that Robert was entitled to join the North in the fight, is confronted by Mary:

“The war will take our son! A sniper, or a shrapnel shell! Or typhus, same as took Willie, it takes hundreds of boys a day! He’ll die, uselessly, and how will I ever forgive you. Most men, their firstborn is their favorite, but you, you’ve always blamed Robert

for being born, for trapping you in a marriage that’s only ever given you grief.”

This is heavy stuff. It underlies Mary’s insecurity and her need to blame Lincoln for not controlling their own son from making his own decisions. Also she even now is uncertain of Lincoln’s commitment to her and belittles him as to why he married her.

Lincoln responds finally standing up to her in her desire to control him:

“I must make my decisions, Bob must make his, you yours. And bear what we must, hold and carry what we must. What I carry within me – you must allow me to do it, alone as I

must.”

In an argument about grief at the loss of their second son Willie, Lincoln responds that Mary has not the monopoly on grief:

“Mary. I wanted to crawl under the earth, into the vault with his coffin. I still do. Every day I do”.

In Spielberg’s Lincoln Mary’s sanity is brought up by Lincoln in relation to her behavior while she was mourning  Willie’s death and her rejection of their youngest son Tad at the time:

 "And his, (Tad’s), mother won’t let him near her, ‘cause she’s screaming from morning to night pacing the corridors, howling at shadows and furniture and ghosts! I ought to have done it. I ought have done for Tad’s sake, for everybody’s goddamned sake, I should have clapped you in the madhouse!"

MARY’S AMBIVALENCE TOWARDS HER HSUBAND

The interactions between Mary and Abraham that intrigued Jay H. Ell were the ones where Mary’s ambivalence towards her spouse is exhibited. She maintains a dominant attitude in relation to the children and at times belittles him and treats him with contempt yet on the other hand feels totally inferior in relation to Abraham as a person. Lincoln on the other hand never has a cross word unless provoked beyond endurance.

 Mary: “All anyone will remember of me is I was crazy and I ruined your happiness”. Lincoln responds, “Anyone who thinks that doesn’t understand.”

  Mary:“ When they look at you, at what it cost to live at the heart of this, they’ll wonder at it. They’ll wonder at you. They should. But they should also look at the wretched woman by your side, if they want to understand what this was truly like. For an ordinary person. For anyone other than you”. Lincoln reassures, “We must try to be happier. We must. Both of us. We’ve been so miserable for so long.”

So from Lincoln’s point of view Mary is a challengeable equal and he loves her. From Mary’s world on the one hand he is a God and the other a husband that she finds deficient in not prioritizing their children, for example. Mary feels inadequate and expresses herself in no uncertain terms. One wonders whether the anger, contempt and meanness that she expressed was not exacerbated by this insecurity and how many marriages suffer when one or other spouse feels insecure as a result of this perceived imbalance of the difference in their status?

When a marriage breaks up between a celebrity and his or her spouse, intuitively the belief is that the celebrity tired of the “ordinary person” when the situation can be far more complex. Had Lincoln’s marriage broken up the belief would have been that he had had enough of Mary and outgrown her when, if Spielberg’s Lincoln is to be believed, it would have been rather Mary’s destructiveness that caused the split.

THE SUPREME COURT, GAYS,OBAMA, REPUBLICANS AND SOCIETY

This last week saw a fascinating interplay between Lesbian – Gay rights, the Obama administration, the changing mores of society and the Judges of the Supreme Court. It all came about as a result of two interrelated cases on the marriage rights of the group that has now become known by the acronym LGBT, (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgenders). The first case was the Appeal against the constitutionality of California’s 2008 Proposition 8, where the Californians had narrowly voted down the marriage rights of the LGBT group. The second related to the constitutionality of the United States Congress’s 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The latter restricted marriage to heterosexual couples.

PARTIES TO THE LITIGATION.

The Plaintiffs in both these cases were, as one might expect, members of the LGBT group who had complained that they had been discriminated against by these laws. 

In matters of this nature the defendants are usually the Governmental Administrations, whose responsibility it is to enact the legislation that is being appealed against.  In the Proposition 8 Case, the Arnold Schwarzenegger’s, State of California, declined to defend Proposition 8, as did Obama’s United States of America in the DOMA legislation. The defendants were thus independent parties. ProtectMarriage.com and the Campaign for California Families defended Proposition 8 and the Boehner Republican House of Representatives defended DOMA.

Chief Justice Roberts reflected his displeasure at the Obama administration not defending DOMA. He maintained that Obama was a coward in that he was not even arguing that every State should allow same sex marriage. Judge Scalia was scathing on the failure of the Administrations to defend their laws. He maintained that a “new world” had been created in that Administrations could nullify legislation by failing to defend it. Of course that was patent nonsense as the Court could the rule whatever it saw fit regardless of who the defendants were.

In order to cope with the failure of the Obama to defend the DOMA legislation the Supreme Court took the unusual step and appointed Counsel to argue the case that the Supreme Court should not hear the case at all on the grounds that it had no jurisdiction as DOMA was not being properly defended. The Supreme Court similarly appointed a Law Professor to argue that they should not hear Proposition 8 either.

Jay H. Ell had the distinct impression that Chief Justice Roberts felt manipulated into carrying out Obama’s dirty work in nullifying this legislation.

The Court itself had only itself to blame that it was hearing these cases as at least four Justices agreed to do so the first place. It is more than likely that those accepting the cases were the Conservative Judges as the Federal Appellate Courts had ruled to throw DOMA and Proposition 8 out. Therefore had the Supreme Court elected not to hear the LGBT cases the Appeal Court rulings would have been the law of the land. So the Conservative Judges anger, as to the situation they were in, was misplaced. They obviously had wanted another opportunity to reassess the situation and were now not happy at their decision.

COURT ARGUMENTS

Besides the verbalized anger at even hearing these cases there were sharp interchanges on the constitutionality and merits of the cases.

The general argument by the defendants of the legislation was that they were defending State rights in both cases. An added argument of the defendants was that the principle purpose of marriage was procreation.

An exchange took place clarifying the motive of the legislature for the DOMA legislation. Chief Justice Roberts enquired as to whether there had been any “animus” against homosexuals in the enactment of the legislation. The purpose of this question was to ascertain if there had been that could be reason to strike the law down. The Supreme Court had ruled in 1996 that the moral disapproval of a group was an unconstitutional reason to enact legislation. Counselor Clement for the defendants maintained there was no animus involved. Justice Kagan, who is emerging as the sharpest tool on the bench, quoted from the House of Representative record on DOMA. To Clement’s dismay he learned that Congress had expressed their “collective moral judgment and disapproval of homosexuality” in enacting DOMA.

Justice Kagan also demolished another defendant defense of DOMA. Counselor Clement had argued that the sole purpose of marriage was procreation. Justice Kagan countered if that was so then DOMA should exclude marriages where the couples were over the age of fifty- five years as there was no way that they would be able to procreate.

JUSTICE KENNEDY

However, the most telling arguments would have to come from Justice Kennedy who was emerging as the swing vote. He had a special interest in this issue as in 1996 he authored the opinion that the State of Colorado had acted unconstitutionally by barring homosexuality. He maintained that this was discriminatory. He also in 2003 had authored the reversal of the1984 Supreme Court decision that had given the State a right to violate the homosexuals’ right to privacy.

Kennedy crystallized the issue as being between equal protection of individuals under the Constitution versus the States’ right to legislate. There were powerful arguments that those partners that were unmarried suffered financial harm. This was in fact the basis for the challenge on DOMA, where an individual, who had been in a forty -three year old relationship, was subject to a Federal estate tax bill of over three hundred thousand dollars. Had she been married to her significant other the tax bill would have been nothing. It was revealed that there were eleven hundred Federal Provisions relating to marriage. So it was obvious that failure of the Federal Government to recognize same sex marriage resulted in discrimination. This discrimination ranges from the right to visit a partner in hospital to vast financial disadvantages,

Kennedy who has also been a champion of children’s rights placed emphasis on the appeal of the 40,000 children who are in same sex marriages. He balanced all these statements with the fear that DOMA had intruded too deeply into State rights.

SOCIETAL CHANGE

All this is taking place in a societal milieu that has within less than a generation or even a decade has given the LGBT group acceptance. If one realizes that in 1970 homosexuality was declared a mental illness by the psychiatrists and as late as 1984 the Supreme Court held a State’s right to invade individuals’ privacy to prosecute consenting adults for sodomy the change in societal attitudes has been dramatic. In fact as recently as 2008 the Californians narrowly voted for the selfsame Proposition 8 that is subject to the current Supreme Court challenge. All the opinion polls show that if the Proposition would be put on the 2014 ballot it would be rejected by a to two to one majority,

Within the space of 2 decades attitudes towards LGBT marriage have changed from about a 20% acceptance to about a 55% acceptance. This acceptance is considered a fundamental issue by the youth, where over 70% believe in same sex marriage. Of particular interest is the statistic that 60% of all people believe that the Federal Government should recognize same sex marriage enacted by States. Polls also that 90% believe that the LGBT group should not be discriminated against. Over 80% believe that same sex marriage will become law.

The Supreme Court Justices had noted this societal change where everyone and several institutions filed amicus briefs in favor of making the legislation unconstitutional. Nearly 200 leading Republicans have done so as well as the military, commercial entities and several non- governmental agencies. According to Chief Justice Roberts politicians were lining up to support the LBGT cause.

WHY.

Why this incredible change in societal attitude? Obviously there are a number of factors. Jay H. Ell believes that the principle one is that more and more LGBTS have come out of the closet. In so doing the society they live in have noted that they come from all walks of life and are no different from anyone else. The public acceptance has grown and grown as more and more people found that they were personally connected to an LGBT person either as family members or as a friend. Even the National Football League has a self - confessed gay. LBGT members formed advocacy groups where they soon became political and economic forces to be reckoned with.

Prominent individuals particularly from the Republican Party recognized LGBT individuals on the basis of having a member of their family being homosexual. This all added to their acceptance.

 Perhaps, the major awareness of their plight became evident as a result of the evolution of their acceptance in the military. First came the, “Don’t ask don’t tell” legislation. This was enacted in 1993. As offensive as this legislation was it prevented the witch-hunt and discrimination against LGBTS in the military unless they openly declared that they were gay. In December 2010 Congress agreed to repeal the act on condition that the President, Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chief of Staff agreed. This they did and in addition a Federal Court declared it unconstitutional and the ban was lifted.

Nine States have now recognized Gay marriage including, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New York, Washington and New Hampshire as does the District of Columbia.

Politically the movement gained its biggest fillip when President Obama, in 2012, announced that his position had evolved to advocating the legalization of same sex marriage. While the majority of States, thirty in all, have statutes on their books, making same sex marriage illegal there is little doubt that the momentum for countrywide acceptance is growing.

AT THE END OF THE DAY.

What does this all mean? - to quote the most powerful Republican media moguls – not much. Both Rush Limbaugh and Fox’s Bill O’Reilly have told their viewers that the issue of LGBT marriage is lost to the Conservative cause. However, there are a number of constituencies that this issue still impacts. (The fact that the 40% who do not support it are concentrated in certain states, certain areas and in certain groups will make universal acceptance of same sex marriage a long battle).

While no serious observer or legal commentator will ever predict the outcome of Supreme Court decisions on the basis of oral arguments, but as Jay H. Ell is batting a 1000 on Supreme Court Predictions, (Blogs: The Robert’s Supreme Court and Obamacare in April and June 2012), he will venture a prediction. The court will declare that the Californian Proposition 8 is improperly before it. This will mean that that the Federal Circuit opinion that is unconstitutional will stand. With regard to DOMA there will be a 5- 4 opinion in favor of declaring it unconstitutional.

Where does this leave the Republicans especially that Boehner is the nominal defendant of DOMA? Well the Republican Establishment wants this behind them but remember there are about 40% of the Americans are still support DOMA. The problem for the establishment Republicans is that most of that 40% opposing gay marriage are the Republican base that will be deciding the Republican electoral candidates. Those candidates would have no hope in a General Election. So whatever way this goes it is only going to exacerbate the Republican problems.

Obama cannot lose. He has staked out his position in favor of same sex marriage. Even if the Supreme Court rules against DOMA he has not lost anything and history is on his side. This will then become a central issue with the electorate, whom where it matters, on his side.

The Conservative Supreme Court has the most to lose whatever happens. The recent performances of Scalia, in particular, and the normally imperturbable Roberts have not enhanced the legacy, dignity and independence of the court. Alito is not adding much and Thomas has been an intellectual liability ever since the word go. Roberts is also going to live with the fact that the way the wind is blowing Hillary Clinton will be elected President and within 12 years all the geriatrics of both sides will no longer be on the Court and he will be leading a 6 – 3 liberal court.

THE LAST WORD

The irony has not escaped Jay H. Ell that it is the LBGT group that are fighting for the right to marry at the same time that half the heterosexual marriages end in divorce and fewer and fewer heterosexual couples are even bothering to marry in the first place. 

THE IRAQ WAR DECEPTION AND ITS AFTERMATH

The acclaimed Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC’s documentary entitled, “HUBRIS – Selling the Iraq War”, is based on a book by highly regarded investigative journalists, David Corn and Michael Isikoff. Both journalists have been responsible for several well researched stories that have had proved spot on and have thus had profound effects on modern American history. Corn, for example, broke the Romney story where the latter wrote off 47% of the electorate and with that wrote off any chance he might have had of becoming President while Isikoff broke the Monica Lewinski story that nearly broke the Clinton Presidency. So what they have to say is not to be taken with a pinch of salt.

There are two aspects worth noting with regard to Maddow’s documentary; firstly it capsulated the naked deception, that the GOP establishment, perpetrated on the American people and secondly, Jay H. Ell believes, that this deception is the final nail in the coffin of the Republican establishment. Whatever respectability or credibility they had left has been drained by this episode.

THE DECEPTION.

The documentary shows that every piece of evidence used by the Bush establishment to justify their preemptive war on Iraq turned out to be bogus and that the decision to attack Iraq had been a priority long before even 9/11. What is more the 9/11 tragedy was also cynically manipulated to bolster the arguments for the war.

The rationale for the Iraq war is dispassionately and systematically broken down by objective evidence provided to Maddow by Corn and Michael. The Bush regime had no concrete evidence whatsoever that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction or that he was cooperating with Al Quaeda. Worse was that the evidence they offered was either bogus or so unsubstantiated that it was criminally negligent to use it to embark the United States in a war that resulted in 4,500 American deaths, 30,000 Americans disabled, 100,000 Iraqi deaths, 3 trillion dollars in cost, millions overpaid to Dick Cheney’s Halliburton company in non compete contracts and the ensuing chaos it has left Iraq in to this day  - not to mention that it has thrown the Iraq government into the arms of the Iran regime.

The evidence obtained that Saddam was building a nuclear program, had mobile chemical weapon production units, had other weapons of destruction and was cooperating with Al Quaeda was considered by members of the CIA and governmental agencies to be unreliable and suspect. For example Saddam and Osama Bin Laden were at odds. Osama also regarded the secular, Scotch drinking womanizer Sadam as an infidel and is said to have been grateful that the Americans, by their actions, saved him the trouble of “taking him out”. Yet the Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Wolpowitz axis soldiered on and bullied, shamed and embarrassed Congress, in the post 9/11 milieu, to give them a blank check to wage war.

Powell went to the UNO organization and fed them the party line, even though he had expressed the gravest reservations to his Undersecretary of Defense.

WHY?

Why did everybody cave into this obvious garbage and why did the Bush establishment do this?

The time period was the post 9/11 era. Americans were angry, humiliated and fearful. What was more comforting than linking the unashamed admitted 9/11 perpetrators, Al Quaeda, with Saddam Hussein. The latter was part of the trilogy of evil and Hussein was evil incarnate. So the facts that he was harboring weapons of mass destruction and trying to assemble nuclear weapons was a recipe made in heaven to rally the country. The Democrats were wary, with an election in the offing, to appear “unpatriotic”, - Dick Gephardt, Democratic leader of the House was preparing for a presidential run and Tom Daschle, Democratic leader of the Senate caved in on the smear that the Democrats were soft on terror. Even Hillary Clinton folded and gave Bush the go ahead.

The media cruised along accepting explanations without question. Lead by the liberal New York Times, the overwhelming majority of the fourth estate gave their go- ahead. They too were wooed in the context of the patriotism and the understandable paranoia that the 9/11 attack had engendered.

The Bush establishment had other objectives. Iraq was still an unresolved issue after Bush 41’s “Dessert Storm”. There was Saddam, with all that oil. alive and well and flourishing and leading Iraq after his Kuwait adventure. Wolpowitz, the chief establishment apologist had told Congress this was not going to cost the US much. All that Iraqi oil would pay for it. So in the absence of any other rational explanation this was nothing but naked imperialism and a desire to control all that oil. Not to mention that there was a settling of old scores on a despot who had threatened daddy Bush with assassination.

THE AFTERMATH – THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE TEA PARTY AND THE DEATH OF THE ESTABLISHMENT.

When Bush went to war there was no Tea Party. One of the major reasons for the formation of the Tea Party was that Bush was spending like a drunken sailor. They were for small government and Bush had left the “tax and spend” liberals in the shade. The Tea Party’s "Contract with America" emphasized that Government had grown too big, too arrogant and too spendthrift. (Blogs: The Tea Party, The New Congress, - All You Need To Know and The Tea Party – The New GOP?).  Obama was elected and the Tea Party blossomed, as they saw no difference between him and Bush. To this day the Tea Party would have a tough time choosing between Bush and Obama on government size and spending. Bush is persona non grata. No Republican in any race would ask him for his endorsement and with the demise of Bush, Jay H. Ell believes, we have had the demise of the Republican Party as we know it.

Now Bush was THE ESTABLISHMENT. Besides being daddy Bush’s son with all the patronage that came with that, it was the establishment that pressured him to stand. There was a procession to Crawford Texas prevailing on “dubbayu” to bear the party standard. Even Kissinger was brought out of cold storage to prevail on him.

Now in the Iraq fiasco the cream of the establishment were involved. There was Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice all right in the thick of it. When it was obvious that their credibility was suspect they threw the last Republican establishment hope under the bus in the form of Colin Powell. No one else other than the respected Powell could have sold UNO that bill of goods. Powell was fed the garbage and in spite of his reservations, like the good soldier he was, impressed the world of the urgency of intervention. In so doing Powell was rendered impotent as the obvious future standard bearer of the Establishment.

None of the Bush establishment has been much in evidence to defend the war. When they have, they appear to have changed the narrative as to the reasons for the war. There is not much offered on weapons of mass destruction but rather bluster on the democracy they have brought to the Middle East.

So who is the Republican establishment today? What new blood can lead the Party as it was known in the twentieth century? There are Boehner and McConnell and Jed Bush who is defending “dubbaya”. In fact there is no- one. Christie is the only non tea party candidate around but he can hardly be called establishment. The Republican National Chairman can bleat about the message but in fact it was the arrogance, the hubris that killed the Establishment. What can be more arrogant than to mislead a country into a war to fulfill your own agenda?

So these revelations have to repulse the most sober minded Republicans. The establishment is literally an “old boys club” with a few doddering souls left with some respectability like James Baker 111. Of course one could always bring back Bob Dole….

SO WHO CAN OPPOSE HILLARY IN 2016?

Hillary was one of the first victims of the Iraq fiasco. Obama slammed it down her throat that she had voted for the war and he had opposed it. But much has happened since and remember she was duped and did not do the duping. The Republicans are already running against her, and cannot stop blaming her for the death of the four Americans in the Benghazi Embassy. (Blog: Stopping Clinton in 2016 Starts in Benghazi). All of that is pretty rich in the light that none of them have come out to criticize the deception and or negligenc resulting in tens of thousands of Americans wounded or killed in Iraq.

So assuming that Karl Rove and company can do what they did in the last Republican Primary and produce an establishment candidate, whom will it be? (Romney The Grand Old Party’s Last Hoorah). Jay H Ell would like to venture a guess as to who they must be working on  - Condi Rice. 

Rice is highly intelligent, likeable and articulate. She has written an autobiography cataloging her struggle to reach the top. -great stuff and yet another example of the elusive American dream. She is also a she and an African American, two of the constituencies that the Republicans are way behind on. Rove and company will first have to persuade her to run, get her elected in the Primary over Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Mark Rubrio and the like and then the hardest part of all, get her elected to the Presidency.  

Under normal circumstances Condi would be the best candidate to run against Clinton. However, these are not normal circumstances and Jay H. Ell believes her central role in the Iraq fiasco would be front and center in any run she might make. Even in the Republican Primaries she would get flak from the Tea Party types.
The Iraq deception will go down as the final nail in the coffin of the Republican Establishment.

  

OBAMA RECRUITS NETANYAHU TO HIS "TEAM OF RIVALS"

Guess what - Barack and Bibi are kissing buddies. This time the dynamic has changed Obama is calling the shots. True to Obama style Netanyahu has been invited to join Obama’s “Team of Rivals”.  (For the uninitiated Obama has followed Lincoln’s example of bringing into his inner circle former rivals). So forgiven is Bibi for his attempt to undermine Barack in his own backyard by trying to recruit Congress in his battle against the US President. (Blog: Obama, Reagan, Clinton, Netanyahu and the Week That Was, January 2013).

NETANYAHU’s AND OBAMA’s STANDING IN ISRAEL

It serves no purpose for a weakened Netanyahu to grandstand in the US when he is now battling to maintain control of his fragile coalition. Obama had defended Israel’s attack on Hamas at UNO. Also every Israeli was aware that America had footed the bills for the highly successful Dome that intercepted Hamas missiles. (Blog: Iran Behind Israeli Conflict In Israel? November, 2012). Obama’s approval rating in Israel is higher than Bibi’s so, ironically, any help Netanyahu can get from Obama to bolster his image is deeply appreciated.  Also the popular Israeli President Simon Peres and Obama have always been on the same page.

 A strengthened Obama, for his part, happily welcomed the opportunity to reaffirm his support for Israel. AIPAC, the American pro Israeli Lobby group has never had any doubt as to where Obama’s loyalties lay. But Netanyahu appealing to the American right wing over the head of mainstream Jewish opinion had created a talking point for the right wing, that Obama was soft on Israel. This Netanyahu had done in order to get Obama in line with a preemptive attack on Iran. An attack that Obama politically believed was premature and unwise at that point in time.

SO OBAMA GOES TO ISRAEL

So with as a background Obama set of to Israel as his first foreign policy initiative in his second term. This gesture dripped with all the symbolism that results from the uncommon occurrence of a sitting American President visiting Israel signifies. In Israel he made it quite clear: - that Israel’s number one ally was America, that America had Israel’s back, that America shared Israel’s fears on the Syrian uprising getting out of control and giving Hezbollah chemical weapons – that was a red line in the sand, that there was no daylight between Israeli and American policy on Iran’s nuclear aspirations – another red line in the sand and that Israel could start negotiating American arms for Israel prior to the agreement that runs out in 2017.

Obama on landing in Israel was met by anybody who was everybody in Israel. On the tarmac Obama was flanked by Netanyahu and Peres whom were part of a massive crowd. His microphone was on when he asided to a chuckling Netanyahu, “It is good to get away from Congress”.

Obama did not venture into the Middle East by himself. There was a whole entourage including his Secretary of State and his entourage. Every move that Obama made would be followed up in spades by John Kerry. There is also little doubt that that Kerry would inherit all the goodwill that Hillary Clinton bequeathed to him in her tireless background efforts in this region.

OBAMA GOES TO THE WEST BANK AND RETURNS WITH A MESSAGE OF SANITY

Obama also visited two other Middle East entities– the Kingdom of Jordan and the West Bank headed by PLO Chairman, Mahmoud Abbas. Abbas has gained status by negotiating Nation and Observer recognition at UNO. (Blog; Netanyahu Has Lost It, December 2012).

Obama, after returning from Ramallah reaffirmed his belief that that there should be a two State solution. In a keynote speech he asked the Israelis to empathize with the Palestinians who he, Obama, believed had been treated unfairly. He maintained that they too were entitled to a State. He once again verbalized his opposition to new Israeli settlements. He spoke to the youth and asked them to put themselves in shoes of Palestinians and told them, what he has said in the USA – change must come from the grass roots. This was Obama at his heroic historic best and the tumultuous reception he received for these views reflected the opinions of the majority of Israelis on the subject as was manifested in the most recent Israeli election.

Abbas is on record as saying that the Palestinians should have accepted the UNO Security Council resolution for partition in 1947. Instead they, joined by the whole Arab world, unsuccessfully attacked the rag tag Israeli army who did not have a friend in the world. This they did not in spite of Ben Gurion’s pleas to accept the two state solution and so here we are now.

WHERE ARE WE NOW?

It serves little purpose to go over all the other wars and betrayals that both sides claim and rather look at the status quo:

• The average Palestinian still lives in poverty, squalor and fear.
• Israel persists in allowing settlements to infringe what is generally accepted would be Palestinian territory.
• Palestine is divided into two – The Hamas controlled Gaza and the PLO controlled West Bank.
• Eighteen of the 22 members of the Arab League do not recognize Israel’s right to exist.
• There is the presence of two designated terrorist organizations in the area, Hezbollah and Hamas. Both the latter are under Iranian influence.
• Iran’s unashamed threat to wipe Israel of the face of the earth coupled with its potential nuclear ambitions stands out there for all to see. ((Blog: Iran Behind Israeli Conflict, November 2012)
• A changed Israel where Netanyahu’s grip on power must be tenuous.
• Netanyahu and Obama have a changed relationship. If nothing else they both need each other.
• Netanyahu has a far more dovish cabinet not to mention electorate and if history is anything to go by most peace accords in this area have come from Right Wing Prime Ministers.
• All this is taking place in a climate where anti Semitism is increasing at an alarming pace throughout the world.

WHAT HAS THIS TRIP ESTABLISHED AND ACHIEVED?

Obama has waded into the Middle – East quagmire boots and all. You cannot get this involved and walk away from the expectations that you have created. Obama’s actions are in line with his modus vivendi. Obama makes his moves from a political position of strength and when public sentiment is ready for change. The reception he received from an audience that was said to have been potentially hostile to his views illustrated in, no uncertain terms, that Israelis are receptive to peace.

Also there is no way he could duck the regional powder keg situation forever. The intransigent Iran is on a one-way path to nuclear confrontation. He and Netanyahu have to be ad idem on their approach. The changing political situation has allowed Obama to be the senior partner. If Netanyahu can run in American politics Obama can run in Israeli politics as he has shown. The Syrian situation is going from bad to worse and who knows how the cookie is going to crumble there.

So Obama has two agendas one is to take control of the potential chaos that is brewing up in the Middle East and not march to Bibi’s drummer. The second is to tackle an elusive Middle East solution between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Ironically, the latter is a far tougher nut than to sort out a road map to the Iranian and Syrian variables. If Obama is able to achieve this then not only will it justify his premature award of the Nobel Peace Prize it will do Israel an incredible favor. It will take away one of the biggest sticks it is being beaten with. Bibi could also end up with a Peace prize!

But a two State solution has a long long way to go. The Palestinians are not even united. However, Obama has to give it a full go. He is committed and will have to provide resources as well as some of his own valuable time.  He is also totally committed to Israel for a host of reasons: It is his most reliable ally in the Middle East as a beacon of stability in a sea of chaos; politically it would be untenable in the US not to be totally committed; (this visit has given the Democrats a leg up in the 2014 election and taken away any credible criticism the right wing might have that Obama is throwing Israel under the bus), and as, anyone who is close to him knows, he is personally committed to the State of Israel and all it stands for. Obama, in Israel, compared, as Martin Luther King had done before him, the exodus of the Jews from slavery with the emancipation of the Negroes from slavery in the United States.

Obama's last port of call will be to Amman where he will shore up his initiatives with the expected support from King Abdullah from Jordan. Obviously Syria and Iran will also be on the agenda.

FOX AND FRIENDS – THE SAME OLD SAME OLD

It is worthwhile to note that Fox news concurrently with The Obama Israeli visit was still running features with the theme of, “With friends like Obama Israel does not need enemies”. This in the teeth of the standing ovation Obama received when he reaffirmed his commitment to Israel and asked the Israelis to empathize with the Palestinians. That very night Obama received, from President Peres, the highest honor the Israeli government can give any citizen - the Presidential Medal of Distinction. He is the first American President to receive this award. President Peres then said President Obama had done more for Israeli security then any other individual in history.

Jay H. Ell is personally sick and tired of the smears Obama has had to endure on the internet, from right wing talk show and TV hosts and other fanatics, in and out of the political limelight, that Obama is an imposter about to sell out America and Israel to the radical Muslim extremists. It would be too much to hope for that his historic trip to Israel would change their behavior.

Also with his usual largesse he did not rub Netanyahu’s “nose in it” and he welcomed him into his “Team of Rivals”. Netanyahu having in addition to trying to outmaneuver Obama in the USA had openly backed Romney against him in the last Presidential election.