Updated Gun Control Suggestion

Violence and mental health are certainly issues that must be addressed. But while guns do not cause violence, they enable an escalation resulting in a much more dangerous environment.

There are several facts that cannot be ignored when trying to find a solution to specifically firearms violence.

Availability – An incredible number of firearms are already available (in the hands of citizens). Even if all gun owners had already passed stringent background tests, even if no new weapons of any type were manufactured or sold, the incredible size of the arsenal in private hands today already assures gun violence for generations to come.

The NRA – The NRA is a powerful political force in American governance that is not likely to decline in the foreseeable future. The stance of the NRA has been getting more and more extreme and currently embraces the concept that government should have no laws limiting the citizen’s right to bear arms.

To meaningfully affect the level of gun violence in the U.S we need to reconcile these two facts – dramatically reduce gun availability while satisfying the NRA and its adherents.

I would propose eliminating virtually all restrictions on gun ownership. I would place a sweeping restriction on gun storage. I would propose that, with certain exceptions, all firearms must be stored at a privately run, government licensed facility. I believe that the government should partner with the NRA to establish such facilities (possibly as franchises) throughout the nation. In addition to storage, these facilities would provide firing ranges, training, ammunition and anything else that the gun enthusiast community desires.

Removing a weapon from the facility would be allowed under certain defined circumstances:

Hunting – The NRA, the government, and the various hunting associations would determine which weapons are appropriate for hunting which game. During hunting season, an owner of such a weapon could withdraw the weapon, together with an appropriate quantity of ammunition (not to exceed 5 times the number of game which can legally be shot) for the duration of the season or for a defined period of time.

Protection of Home or Place of Work – Every household would have the right to keep one weapon at home with up to five rounds of ammunition. These weapons would not be used for practice, target, shooting, hunting, or any other purpose other than to afford protection in case of intrusion to the home. These weapons, along with their ammunition must be stored in a fixed locker which will be provided and installed by the local gun facility. These lockers will be equipped with phone capability such that opening the box automatically calls 911 on a speaker phone. The 911 operator will be able to dispatch the police as well as provide advice and assistance to the homeowner. Workplaces would be similar with the number of weapons to be determined by the size and type of workplace.

Competition – The facilities will provide training ranges for all types of weapons and purposes. Competition weapons may be withdrawn from the facility for the period of the specific competition and with the appropriate quantity of ammunition.

Protection against tyranny – While it is generally agreed that the chances of the U.S. government being overthrown is very unlikely and that armed resistance to a government sponsored tyranny would probably be futile, The NRA could allow the release of all weapons in the case of an overthrow of the democratically elected government. The conditions and procedures for this unlikely event would be established in advance in full detail.

Records – The NRA (or whatever organization maintains the weapons facilities) will keep records of gun ownership as well as which weapons have been released, for how long, and to where. These records will be made expeditiously available to the government either when 911 calls are made or when a request is made by law enforcement.

Gun Sales – When a weapon is sold it must be delivered to the weapon facility of the purchasers’ choice, not to the purchaser directly. The need for or the extent of background checks will be determined between the government and the NRA and carried out by the weapons facilities.

Existing Weapons – Every gun owner will have the opportunity to:
1) Turn in their weapons for destruction and receive a tax credit
2) Bring their weapon(s) to a storage facility
3) Collectables and souvenir weapons may be kept at home if they are irrevocably disabled.

Failure to comply with one of the three options would entail severe penalties.

This proposal does not specifically address the issue of farms and ranches but provides a direction for those weapons as well.

Thoughts for November 7

Is it possible that November 7 had no small influence in the implosion of the Soviet Union.

The birth of the Soviet Union is marked by the October Revolution, which is celebrated November 7. Why November 7? Because in 1922 the Soviet Union’s adopted the Gregorian Calendar which had a 13 day difference in relation to the old Julian Calendar.

Rational explanation notwithstanding, it just doesn’t seem right. Israeli Independence day falls every year on the 5th day of Iyar. Even if almost no one uses the Hebrew Calendar, and the 5th of Iyar falls on a different civil date every year, there is something solid, reassuring and understandable about having a defined date.

Simply stating that the celebration of the Great October Revolution falls in November begs the question “Why?” or in today’s parlance “WTF?”. And once people question the discrepancy in the dates, perhaps they’ll also question the collectivization of agriculture, or the centralization of economic planning. Maybe even democratic centralism?

There probably is nothing to this little theory of mine, so I’ll still wish to all my friends and comrades out there, a happy November 7.

But next time, let’s get it right.

Women At The Wall

The ultra orthodox Jews are often just as intolerant as fundamentalist Muslims. Women reading the Torah and wearing Talitot at the kotel are about as likely to change this intolerance as is a Christian minister burning the Koran. Have we solved all the other women’s issues – trafficking and slavery, the right to equal education as a child and equal pay as an adult, the right to make decisions concerning their own bodies, freedom from sexual harassment, and the myriad of others? The concept of a “holy place” is fundamentally foreign to Judaism. Supposedly God hears all people’s prayers wherever and however they are offered. In my eyes, this issue is not about an individuals’ right of religious freedom but rather no more than a part of the power struggle between different Jewish factions. This should net be construed as endorsing the bigoted actions of the Israeli ultra orthodox establishment, but poking a thumb in their eye is not the way to build respect and tolerance between people. In the context of the ongoing struggle for women’s rights, this is playing the violin while Rome burns.

Israel Considering Deporting Children of Foreign Workers

A eight year old boy, told that he was no longer welcome in the land he was born, was forced to leave his home for a far away land he didn’t know, whose language he didn’t speak, with no idea of how his family would survive.

My great great grandfather moved to Austria from Galicia seeking a better life, worked hard and provided for his family. My grandfather fought for the Kaiser in World War I.

When the forces of evil came to Austria, all this counted for nothing and my family was one of the lucky few to find refuge on a foreign shore.

I never liked the term coined by Yehoshua Leibowitz “Judo-Nazi”. Yes, many of the actions of the Israeli occupation forces often resemble those taken by the German occupation forces in Europe, but not to the depraved extent of the Nazi regime. Somehow, comparing the Israeli occupation to the Nazis both diluted the pure evil of one and misrepresented the other.

As I read about the Israeli government’s decision to deport 400 children of foreign workers, mainly born in Israel, I can’t help but think that the Nazi evil did not begin and end with the crematoria, but was an entire system of hatred and persecution, all carried out in the name of the good of the Aryan race. Deporting 400 Israeli born, Hebrew speaking children to countries they have never known does not compare to Auschwitz and Treblinka, but it is certainly an act worthy of the evil that should have been erased in the spring of 1945.

Mid East Peace - A Different Approach

The greatest obstacle to a Palestinian Israeli peace settlement today is the notion of a two state solution. Never a good alternative to begin with, the two state solution has monopolized peace making efforts to the point that no other alternative is being explored.

Recent history has frowned on political solutions based on the separation of people along racial or ethnic lines. Apartheid in South Africa, segregation in the U.S., the partition of the Indian sub-continent, the breakdown of Yugoslavia into warring factions are all examples of the long run futility of building fences rather than bridges.

The most compelling argument against the two state solution to the Arab/Jewish conflict is the simple fact that it hasn’t yet happened. The idea has been officially on the table in various versions since the 1930’s. The objective conditions today are such that the likelihood of a lasting agreement of the partition of mandatory Palestine is much more unlikely than any time previously, and with every passing day becomes more unlikely.

The modern history of Palestine is complex, the sources of animosity are myriad. By expending all our energy in a single direction, we’ve lost the ability to cut through the fogof mutual recriminations to isolate the core issues.

The first prerequisite to moving forward is an open mind. Rather than trying to bend the facts to meet our ideological or emotional leanings, we need to be able to identify the sources, recognize the outstanding issues, and create solutions that will satisfy all parties.

The second prerequisite is the recognition and acceptance that justice will never be achieved. Too much blood has been shed, too many lives disrupted and shattered, and far to many chains of horror woven to ever be unraveled. The goal is not justice for all but solutions for all. The accrued debts may never be repaid but the cycle of violence can and must be broken.

Finally, we must recognize that a true peace may not satisfy the desires of all parties but it must address every party’s needs. We live not in an age of majority rule but of minority veto. A single Jewish fanatic with a revolver was able to halt the Oslo peace accords in their tracks. A handful of Palestinian suicide bombers were able to bury the process.

What are the core issues? Can they be addressed without mutually contradicting each other?

On the Jewish side there is an overwhelming concern for physical security. 2000 years of persecution culminating in the Nazi holocaust have led to a situation where the Jews, both in Israel and in the Diaspora will not accept a situation that would enable a repeat of the horrors of the death camps. Along side this history of persecution is the collective memory that the so-called enlightened democracies of the world did little or nothing to aid or save the Jews from Hitler’s hell. Any solution must guarantee both the physical security of the people of the region as well as that of Jews worldwide.

For the Palestinians, the 1948 civil war was a catastrophe, the catastrophe. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were displaced from their homes. The decades leading up to 1948 were years of fear and mistrust, based on both real and imagined threats. Any solution with a chance of success must both provide for their return as well as create an atmosphere of trust and security .

Any conceivable two state solution will either leave sizable, alienated and disaffected minorities in both states or will require the uprooting of tens or hundreds of thousands of people from their homes. Either scenario is a recipe for the continuation of the conflict.

The only realistic outcome that could fill the needs of both peoples is a single political entity between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, based on the following principles:

1) The land between the Jordan and the sea is the historical homeland of the Jewish People, a people with long history of discrimination and oppression. As such, the new State shall guarantee in perpetuity, shelter to any person, anywhere in the world, persecuted for being Jewish.

2) The Palestinian refugees from the wars of 1948 and the ensuing conflicts have an unalienable right to return to their homeland.

3) No new refugees. In the course of over 60 years homes and entire towns and villages have disappeared. New homes and settlements have been constructed in their stead. The Israeli settlement policies of the last six decades have created a situation where in most cases, the return of refugees to their original homes would either be impossible or would require the displacement of the present residents. In most cases, the reparation of Palestinian refugees shall be carried out in the framework of constructing homes and towns as close as possible to their original site without the uprooting of their present occupants.

4) The political structure of the new state can be decided through negotiations between the elected officials of Israel and the Palestinian Authority or through any number of consultative processes. The structure, important as it may be, is secondary to a basic, unalterable social contract, guaranteeing the basic rights and responsibilities of the citizens. The new state would not be "Jewish" nor "Palestinian", nor even Bi national. While recognizing the historical significance and encouraging the cultural development of the peoples living within its borders, it would primarily be a state, caring for the common good of its citizens, providing the services and protections necessary for life in our age.

The implications of the above points are far reaching. The first point requires the Arab population to accept and internalize a Jewish connection to the land while banishing fears of displacement or marginalization. Guaranteeing safe refuge to any person persecuted for being Jewish actually provides more protection than the present Israeli “Law of Return”, which offers automatic citizenship to anyone defined as Jewish by religious law, but does not offer protection to those considered Jewish by anti-Semites that do not meet the requirements of Halacha.

The second point should be time-limited and would require massive construction/reconstruction as well as expansion of physical and economic infrastructure. This may seem daunting but so was the absorption of over a million Jews from the Soviet Union by Israel in the 1980’s.

While the Jewish population will have to come to grips with the return of the Palestinian refugees, the Palestinians must accept the status quo of the Jewish settlements, both in Israel proper and in the occupied territories. Proper compensation must be made to all those that lost land to the settlements, but the no new refugee clause implies no wholesale evacuations of civilian population.

The concept of government sanctioned Arab and Jewish settlements must come to an end. While it is natural that people of similar backgrounds, language and beliefs tend to stick together, choice of where to live is individual and must not be restricted on racial, religious or ethnic grounds. Communities have the right to determine their character, as long as they do not impose on the basic rights of the individual.

Peace making efforts have largely focused in the past on trying to build a consensus around the center majority. The key to success will be the drafting of a plan that is acceptable to the extremes of both camps. The above plan addresses the demands of the Israeli right wing to allow Jews to live anywhere in “Eretz Yisrael”. It also addresses the demand for the return of all Palestinian refugees. The status of Jerusalem, another point of contention becomes irrelevant in the framework of a single state situation.

At first the above proposal may seem utopian and unachievable. In addition to putting behind us a century of fear, mistrust and hatred, both peoples will need to redefine their national goals and identities. Zionism and the connection of the Jewish people to the land of Israel will need to be rethought and renewed. The concept of the Palestinian national identity will need to be reexamined in light of the new reality. The process itself, the establishment of a political and social order in the new information age is in itself both daunting and exciting.

All that being said, we would do well to remember the words of Arthur Conan Doyle, “When you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.“ as well as the words of Theodore Herzl, “If you will it, it is no dream”.