Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Nikki Haley Is Making a List…
In the spirit of the season, and I mean Christmas, Hanukkah, and New Year’s Day, our Ambassador to the UN warned every other nation’s delegation that…
She’s making a list.
She’s checking it twice.
She’s already found out who’s naughty and nice (final list at 1:57:55). [Thanks to @arahant for screen capture.]
Santa Claus will no longer hand out American taxpayers’ cash to UNgrateful nations that disrespect US.
It is a refreshing change to have our most public diplomat represent the will of the American people to the UN and not the other way around. There are a number of nations who either are in denial or who are blinded to their own peoples’ interests because of deeply embedded Jew-hatred at the core of their foreign offices. They are now finding American elections have consequences. So…
Happy New Year: President Trump will really put US interests over the UN and his choice of Ambassador Nikki Haley ensures his intent is supported, not opposed, by our diplomatic mission. Scott Johnson of PowerLine favorably compares Nikki Haley in this moment to Daniel Patrick Moynahan denouncing the infamous “Resolution 3379, declaring Zionism a form of racism.”
Happy Hanukkah: President Trump’s move to fulfill US law and the repeated promises of multiple presidents to recognize the Jewish people’s ancient and abiding connection to Jerusalem.
Merry Christmas: President Trump brought presents of promises fulfilled. He is also clearly stating there is a naughty list his chief UN elf has prepared for him. President Trump announced moving our embassy both as a matter of honor and in the hope it might disabuse the Palestinians of their eliminationist fantasy, creating the possibility of real negotiations in search of peace on Earth, or at least in that little sliver of land where Christ was born so long ago.
.
Published in Foreign Policy
And nobody gets a pass on Ricochet for making holocaust jokes when they’re drunk.
Right?
Which is as it should be.
Hey, I resemble that remark!
But more seriously – being in your cups isn’t an acceptable excuse for anything that is seen as truly awful.
If it’s an acceptable excuse for ‘nuking Tehran’, well – how awful is that really?
I’m reserving judgement, though you may be correct.
Because it involved two distinct and (more or less) coherent polities.
Let’s say an ISIS offshoot uses WMDs in a Western country.
There’s no longer a Caliphate – so nuking Raqqa doesn’t seem an obvious solution, never mind that ISIS doesn’t care if you nuke Raqqa.
Do you nuke Riyadh? ISIS would approve.
Do you nuke Tehran? ISIS would send you thank you note.
Do you nuke Islamabad? ISIS would send you chocolates.
Do you nuke Kabul? ISIS would be pleased, but also bemused because: redundant.
Do you see my point?
But I think people (on one side of the political spectrum) would still demand that somebody somewhere be nuked, and that they would feel that this made sense at some level. Even if they couldn’t really articulate why. Amirite?
Oh, absolutely. That is, basically, America. And I’m American.
But it isn’t universal. Lots of countries have no interest in such a state whatsoever.
It’s possible that there are some Palestinians who want a unified, multi-ethnic, multi-faith state. If so, they do not appear to be in charge of things. I could be wrong, of course—maybe the MSM is uncharacteristically concealing the kindergentler face of Palestinians? Maybe Hamas is the sort of group both George Washington and Mother Theresa would approve of?
Or….there are a few Palestinians who have a realistic/liberal-democratic view of the Palestinian future and then ….there are the rest. Who have, for various reasons, been encouraged to believe in a fantasy, namely that they will one day kill all the Jews and take their stuff.
Back in the day, there were Germans—many, maybe even a majority—who had no interest whatever in murdering Jews. Who had been perfectly happy with a Germany that included and embraced Jews. But they were not…shall we say…representative. There were enough Germans who wanted to kill the Jews and take their stuff. Maybe it doesn’t have to be a majority. Maybe a minority can do it, as long as the remainder are ambivalent, cowed or weak?
Do you have evidence that the “Why Can’t We All Just…Get Along” Palestinians are in charge? Have any voice, let alone a strong influence? Are front-and-center in the Peace Process (such as it is?). If so, then I’m willing to consider the possibility that the real problem in Palestine is Israeli perfidy and intransigence rather than Palestinian violence and anti-Semitism. Which—again—doesn’t have to be universal to be, essentially, definitive.
Love you, dude, but you aren’t dealing with that big, giant problem, Zarfar.
It does just happen. In Islam. They do it to each other, the latest is a mosque. They do it to churches. It happens in the US when a crazy person shoots up a concert, or church etc. After WW 2 it seams only governments in Islamic regions do this. Can you point out a Western Gov that has massacred a group of people since WW 2 ?
Agree with Arahant’s post on this
War is very ugly business. Once it is declared and mutually declared, all parties expect hell to be unleashed upon them. WW 2 is the best example of this. Bombing cities was done to speed the end of the war. I would understand a principled argument for not doing that. I also understand why it was done. War is hell. nuff said.
I don’t want anyone to be nuked.
People can “demand” all they like—a lot of it is hyperbole. But the reality the “demanders” are gesturing toward is that terrorists—whether the low-level “lone wolf” sort or the WMD-blow-up-New-York type—do not exist in isolation. Not in Nazi Germany, not in modern Europe or modern Syria. or Boston There are people who know what’s up, people who knew something—not everything, but enough. There are people who could’ve stepped up and said “yeah, we’re not doing this, we’re not killing women and children…” They didn’t.
What do you think the Palestinians are responsible for? Have they done anything wrong? Is any of this on them, or is it all on the US and Israel?
Truly realistically, in the long run?
We’re fair. Because unfairness is inherently unstable.
If we want peace we work for justice.
In your case, a citizen of a superpower with relatively more power over the world than most people have and therefore perhaps with a relatively greater responsibility:
Consistently vote for your tax dollars to support justice rather than injustice.
If you’re not sure what justice is in this situation, perhaps take on finding out?
(But be careful! It’s America’s third rail.)
A lot of people here don’t trust the mainstream media – I’ve come to believe that they’re often justified. So perhaps don’t trust the mainstream media, or the ‘assumed narrative’, about Palestine and Israel – seek out alternative news sources, and be sceptical about them. What’s their agenda? What other beliefs do they have about Israel/Palestine/Bible/Colonialism/American Empire/Judaeo-Christian civilisation/End Times/Marxism?
How does that colour their curation of the news?
What does your still small voice say about whether their reporting pov is moral or intellectually/emotionally self-serving?
I’ve mentioned these two books as good places to start, imho:
The Other Side of Israel; and
Drinking the Sea in Gaza
But I think you should bring your scepticism to bear on these as well. It’s all written by fallible human beings.
Let’s review.
There are two broad political coalitions that are “in charge” (and I use that term very loosely) of the two chunks of Palestine that aren’t ruled directly by Israel:
.
The PA’s fundamental purpose is to keep a lid on anti-Israeli violence that the settlement enterprise provokes – and they basically fulful this purpose. It’s called ‘security collaboration’, and you can bet is has nothing to do with the Palestinians’ security.
Hamas is essentially keeping a lid on it in Gaza – last heard of, torturing Salafists to stop them from sending tin cans with firecrackers (aka bombs) into Israel.
Both of these essentially rule with Israel’s more or less grudging acceptance (the PA belongs to them, Hamas is better than Islamic Jihad for sure.)
Neither of these, currently, enjoy any democratic legitimacy. Yet they both enjoy some level of cooperation and funding from Israel (the PA directly, and Hamas indirectly).
What is that about?
More to the point: have you been told any of this by the MSM that repeatedly tells you that it’s incitement rather than settlements that cause anti-Israeli violence?
Look, great line, but what actually happened was that the Jews killed the Palestinians and took their stuff. And they’re still taking it.
That is the “big, giant problem” that I’m afraid you are not dealing with.
There are, doubtless, many Palestinians who want their own stuff back. As would you, I imagine, in their situation. Does that make anti-semitism or massacring civilians okay? Of course it doesn’t. But what justifies Israel taking Palestinians land out from under them (thinking more and more and more settlements)? Something that you’re paying for, and which – to add insult to injury – you apparently don’t even think is a big deal, or perhaps you haven’t noticed?
I admit, it sort of bothers me that you feel comfortable (entitled?) asking for proof for things to be acceptable to you, but feel no need (in our rather long conversation) to offer that kind of proof to me in response.
Perhaps I haven’t asked directly? Let me do so now:
Why is only anti-semitism the problem but taking Palestinian land and civil and political rights not a problem?
Why is Palestinians killing Jews a problem, but Jews killing Palestinians not a problem?
Or in the words of Phillip Weiss:
Because Israelis aren’t firebombing mosques in Sweden, or murdering Palestinian-French children in France.
That’s the big giant problem I’m talking about. This behavior strongly indicates that the Palestinians have been encouraged to see their problem not as specific and local (and therefore negotiable) but universal and existential. Non-negotiable: it only ends when all the Jews are dead. You can’t negotiate that.
Given a choice that is not between abstractions ( “fairness” and “unfairness” or “justice” and “injustice”) but rather between facts on the ground, I support the side that has a flawed-but-recognizable liberal democracy with a free press, equality between the sexes, tolerance for religious minorities and LGBTQ people.
By the way, might doesn’t make right. But might doesn’t make wrong, either.
Truly, realistically and in the long run, the multi-ethnic secular, peaceful liberal democracy that you and I would prefer to exist may be more likely to come about if Israel simply wins.
This isn’t a might-makes-right argument or a “Go Israel Rah Rah…” argument. It’s more pragmatic: being conquered outright by a secular Western-style democracy (again, however imperfect) that considers itself to be part of—and therefore accountable to– the community of democracies can be a whole lot better than any number of alternatives, including the persistent, festering state of conflict that is now impoverishing ordinary Palestinians in every possible way.
I actually think it quite likely that Israel will, in the long run, be a multi-ethnic state, simply because the demographics are pointing that way. If the people in that region are very lucky, it will still be a Western-style liberal democracy of the sort you and I both have the privilege of dwelling in.
I didn’t ask for proof, Zafar. Just evidence. You know more about this than I do, so it is quite possible that there is good reason to believe that if the Palestinians were to receive everything they believe themselves entitled to, the result would be a peaceful, secular, tolerant, happy, prosperous place. Which is—absolutely—what I would find acceptable. And yes, I am extremely biased; if I were in charge of the world, everybody would get to have what I have as an American.
The principle, the moral obligation, is to inflict the minimum amount of damage, consistent with the speedy conclusion of hostilities. That we sometimes fail isn’t an excuse for adopting expediency in justifying means.
Agreed in principle. The thing about war though. How does that filter thru when your national survival is at stake ? For instance, Britain in WW2. The Germans are bombing your cities, is it moral to not respond in kind ? or vice versa. Or, the President of the US is told Russian nukes have been unleashed. Do we not respond in kind. This is why war is hell and not a simple proposition. Moral principles get blurred very quick as the stakes get raised. Just sayin.
Fair enough, Kate.
So what is the evidence that the Israelis would ever preside of a secular state where Jews had the same rights as non-Jews? Where’s the evidence that if Israel wins there is a greater chance of such a state where everybody is equal?
Has this ever happened where Israel had the power to make it happen?
Apart from hasbara, the answer is: no.
Consider:
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/02/israel-racism-law-160224111623370.html
And more systematically:
https://www.adalah.org/en/content/view/7771
So why are we so optimistic about the results of an Israeli ‘victory’ and a Palestinian ‘defeat’? Is this stance based on reality? I’d say it isn’t, in which case: what is it based on?
Two things:
One: I can’t see the logic of your implied statement: Israelis aren’t firebombing mosques in Sweden so it’s okay for Jews to kill Palestinians. Really? Why? How?
Two: are the Palestinians firebombing synagogues in France and killing French Jewish children? Somebody is, but is it “the Palestinians”? (Who is it?)
And another two to ponder:
Is Israel ‘the Jewish State’ or not? If it is, do its actions reflect on all Jews, do all Jews have any responsibility for Israel’s actions, positive or negative? I tend to think that this ‘Jewish state’ thing is an ambit claim and that Jewish communities and individuals in the rest of the world only have the complicity in israel’s actions that they choose on the basis their own actions [just like Muslims and the Islamic State, actually] but people propagating or buying into this ‘Jewish state’ thing actually undermine that separateness of responsibility by conflating all Jews and Israel.
The Palestinian cause strikes a strong chord in the hearts of many many people – not all of them Arabs, not all of them Muslims, the vast majority of them not even anti-semites – because: much of the world, and many of the the people of the world, suffered through colonialism and its aftermath, and: Israel is the last colony.
You see this in France (unsurprising) and in Ireland (if you think about it, also unsurprising – perhaps Israel isn’t quite the last).
To some degree this conflict resonates so widely because it’s possible for so many people to legitimately recognise some of their own concerns and issues in it. (With a very broad brush: Colonised people: a continuation of colonialism’s inustices; European/North American Christians: countering the Holocaust by being anti-anti-semitic, fulfilling Biblical prophecy, justifications for colonialism, racism; fascists: anti-semitism; anti-imperialists: American Empire; the list could just go on.)
All of this stands in the way of people just making the best of a bad job and moving on. (Even if they could, which often the Palestinians really can’t.) Which might be the best option:
I see it’s time for the quarterly “get the Jews out of Israel” discussion with Zafar.
Like negotiating with the Palestinians, nothing much useful comes from it.
I never start these convos Chris. I’m always drawn in somehow.
Merry Christmas, regardless.
Merry Christmas back at you!
It certainly could. And on. And on. Do the Vietnamese boat people’s descendants get their grandparent’s lives and stuff back? Is the world wildly unjust until they do? Why are the Palestinians the only refugees who get to hand down their refugee-ness in perpetuity?By that measure, incidentally, the Palestinians certainly do have leverage. Oppressed persons without leverage tend to end up dead or dwelling in the U.S. like the displaced Vietnamese.
“The Palestinian cause strikes a strong chord in the hearts of many many people – not all of them Arabs, not all of them Muslims, the vast majority of them not even anti-semites – because: much of the world, and many of the the people of the world, suffered through colonialism and its aftermath, and: Israel is the last colony.”
Unfortunately for the Palestinians—unfortunate in the long run, IMHO—their plight and resentment is useful to other actors—the usual, self-aggrandizing progressive college students in the West, and the various folks in the Arab world many of whom have their own little colonialisms (not, by any means, an exclusively Western, white-on-brown phenomenon) to be added to the list.
(Oh, I am cynical. I read the link you provided above, to the essay by Philip Weiss, and thought “ahh… and such a photogenic victim.” )
But anyway, what your list says is that human beings are deeply flawed. All of us. There are plenty of innocent people but vanishingly few innocent peoples.
This is not to dismiss any one person’s claim for justice, only to say that real justice can only happen in real time between the particular human being(s) involved. History can not and will not be corrected for (something you implicitly acknowledge when referring to the role of the Holocaust in the creation of Israel).
“The Palestinian cause strikes a strong chord in the hearts of many many people – not all of them Arabs, not all of them Muslims, the vast majority of them not even anti-semites – because: much of the world, and many of the the people of the world, suffered through colonialism and its aftermath, and: Israel is the last colony.”
As to the last: Don’t count on it.
I hear in your posts a yearning for cosmic justice (as Sowell puts it), a desire for all the unfairness in the world (well, the specific unfairnesses you feel personally identified with) to somehow be corrected. I would gently suggest that seeking cosmic justice is, at best, a quixotic distraction and, at worse, creates the context for yet more atrocity and suffering.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/12/the_case_against_mahmoud_abbas_.html
December 26, 2017
The Case against Mahmoud Abbas
By Dan Calic
There’s been plenty of rancor since President Trump declared Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel. Some are saying his remarks have brought the peace process to a halt.
To such accusations I say, “what peace process?”
Exhibit 1- Munich Olympics
Who will ever forget the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre where 11 Israeli athletes were held hostage by Arab terrorists and lost their lives. The financier of the operation was Mahmoud Abbas.
In 1982, he wrote his PhD thesis entitled: “The Other Side: The Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism.” The topic was denial of the Holocaust. Such views are associated with anti-Semitism. Aside from Israel, 21 countries have made Holocaust denial a crime. The United States does not criminalize it.
In January 2005, he was elected to a four-year term as president of the Palestinian Authority. Here’s a short list of what’s taken place during his never-ending four-year term:
hile several Israeli prime ministers, including Benjamin Netanyahu have acknowledged acceptance of a ‘Palestinian’ state, Abbas has repeatedly said he will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Demanding recognition of a Palestinian state while rejecting Israel’s right to exist proves he is not serious about peace. Moreover, he has no business talking about a “just solution. Most recently Abbas challenged Israel’s right to be recognized as a state by the international community saying it is “invalid.”
Abbas demands the “right of return,” for so-called “refugees” from the 1948 and 1967 wars, along with their descendants. Their numbers vary, but suffice to say this would eliminate the Jewish majority in Israel. Thus the only homeland the Jewish people have would cease to exist as such, and become the Middle East’s 23rd Muslim Arab-dominated country while the Jews would have none.
There are well over 1 million Arabs who live in Israel with full benefits of citizenship. They vote, own businesses, own property, are doctors, lawyers, professors, etc. They are elected to the Knesset and have even been members of the Supreme Court. They also have complete freedom of worship. There are mosques throughout Israel. Yet Abbas says not one Israeli [Jew], civilian or soldier will be tolerated in any future Palestinian state. Ironically, he’s accused Israel of being an ‘apartheid state.’
He is head of the Fatah Party. Their constitution calls for the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state.
………Read the whole article @zafar.
Proportionality is one principle of Just War Theory.
Ask them. You and I can’t decide for them – and certainly the Vietcong and its ‘successor state’ in Vietnam today [and its supporters] can’t decide because: obvious conflict of interest. No?
Are you sure? I don’t think that’s the case.
But wrt Palestinians: the reason they’re still refugees is – no country has taken them en masse (except for Jordan) and they remain in significant part stateless. (Even the majority inside Palestine, which is an anomaly.)
No. Oppressed peope with leverage (and luck) are re-settled (if they’re very lucky in the Rich West), and move on from being refugees to being citizens of another country.
Oppressed people without leverage end up in multi-generational refugee camps.
Which option would you choose?
(Also, before blaming Lebanon for not giving the Palestinian refugees citizenship, it’s reasonable to ask why countries like the US or Australia didn’t. In fact, why didn’t Israel resettle them? Lebanon didn’t create them, why is it responsible for resettling them?)
Every injustice is useful to some agenda or the other.
Why do you think it is particularly unfortunate in this case?
There are no innocent peoples, so why even demand a whole peoples’ “innocence” as a precondition for justice? How is this ever anything but avoidance?
My actions have consequences that last. When do I stop being responsible for these? Why? Who decides? Can I break your legs and refuse to be liable because ‘life isn’t fair’?
The creation of Israel and the support it has gotten are a direct result of the Holocaust and the West’s (deserved) guilt. It seems absolutely like an attempt to correct (a) history (of violent anti-semitism).
Why?
Apart from the Palestinians, which other groups do you think should be satisfied with injustice?
(Imho we can only decide on accepting injustice for ourselves. We can’t decide for other people.)
That’s an interesting instinctive (?) response to a story that involves the arrest of a 16 year old in this particular context.
Are there other instances where your response to a story like this (but not involving Palestinians) was the same?
Here is (of course) more Weiss on how perceptions are shaped around this.
But I do agree, how the conflict is shown really can shape perceptions:
HEBRON, WEST BANK – DECEMBER 7 : Israeli forces detain Palestinian Fevzi El-Junidi, 14-year-old, following clashes after protests against a decision by US President Donald Trump to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, in the West Bank city Hebron, 07 December 2017. (Photo by Wisam Hashlamoun/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)
Hi @kayofmt
I guess predictably, I found it an incoherently argued and somewhat foolish article whose only objective was to argue that it’s all Mahmoud Abbas’ fault for not accepting Israel’s arguments about how it’s right. Isn’t that basically like Palestinians blaming Netanyahu entirely because he doesn’t accept the Palestinian point of view about things like the Nakba or refugees or Jerusalem? Preaching to the choir only works for the choir, I guess.
http://www.thetruthaboutisrael.org.il/
You might find these easier to understand @zafar
Many of us don’t believe the Palestinians have been the recipients of “injustice”.
Kay – first of all, thank you for an extremely gracious response. To an, I will admit, less than gracious comment. That was good of you.
I propose an exchange. I will undertake to go through the videos on that website, with an open mind, if you agree to read a book (that I will send you) with a similarly open mind. If you think this is a reasonable proposition, PM me your PO Box/mailing address, and it can happen. (Quietly, or not, as you wish.)
Regards
Zafar
I get that, but how many people who believe this have their minds made up as an article of faith – and how they see themselves and their religious tradition in the world – and how many are rationally open to facts and persuasion?
That’s easy. My position is rational. Yours is an article of faith.
Not belonging to any of the three religions represented in the area, perhaps I am a candidate, and I must say that I more agree with MWM than not.
The Arabs have repeatedly started wars with Israel, and repeatedly lost. The Palestinians have backed those wars – and attempted to start a few of their own – and have also lost repeatedly.
Losing has consequences. It was repeatedly within Israel’s grasp to make those consequences far more onerous than they have actually been. The Arab states (pointedly leaving out Persian Iran) have learned from the bloody noses, and adopted attitudes towards Israel ranging from armed truce to quiet alliance (cough – Saudi Arabia – cough). What they have NOT done is made any effort to clean up the Palestinian mess left after their losing efforts. (Kuwait tried a bit and got kicked in the nuts for the effort.) They are content to leave the situation in place as a running sore, seemingly for their own domestic political advantage.
If all Palestinians on the ground were like Zafar, this could probably be worked out. But I suspect there’s a reason he’s not on ground.
In actuality, a ‘one state’ solution would be national suicide for Israel as such, and it’s ludicrous to expect the country that has won all of these confrontations to take that course. Calling for that outcome is either an exercise in moral preening (the Left) or futility (the Palestinians).
‘Two states’ is the logical outcome, but has a glaring problem with the actual population on the ground: The time elapsed between the recognition of a formal Palestinian state, and its providing Israel with a legitimate causus belli is likely no more than weeks, if not days or hours. And given the past history, when Israel finally took up that gauntlet, the outcome is not in doubt.
Until that almost inevitable outcome of two states can be somehow forstalled, the current situation will continue on. If I was to fault Israel for anything at this point, it’s that they have not punished the Palestinians sufficiently for their wars and attacks. Seemingly insoluble grudge matches end when one side is beaten and knows it is beaten – see Nazi Gemany or the Confederacy – and decides to make peace and find a way to live with it. Other than some miracle (pick your God to ask for it) that’s the only way I see out of this.
@zafar, I sat stunned, sickened, and in total despair on the morning of 9/11/2001. I had some knowledge of Islam but not much. In Dec. of 2001, I went to New York and visited Ground Zero. The devastation again stunned me. My immediate thoughts of retaliation was to bomb Mecca and Medina out of existence. People who worship a black rock, and could destroy the world’s Trade Centers had to be the most evil people on the planet. I tossed all Muslims into the same pot.
However, my knowledge of Islam was scanty so I started studying to determine why Islamist believed it was okay to destroy 3,000 or more people. I started with the Koran, then different versions and interpretations and discussions of it. I read books written by Karen Anderson and others who promoted Islam. Then I discovered Citizen Warrior, Robert Spencer, Bridgett Gabriel, Pamela Geller, Geert Wilder, and others.
I went back and studied the histories of Islam from the beginning. I was also very familiar with the Hebrew bible and with the Christian portion attached to the Hebrew portion.(Called the New Testament) Indeed, my mother had a master’s degree in theology, working on her PhD, and spent a year in Israel in 1959-1960. I have read all of her work and thesis. This is just background to let you know there isn’t much I haven’t read regarding Islam, Christianity and Judaism, and lots of discussions of different ideas about them.
I appreciate your offer of sending me a book to read with an open mind, but there is nothing I could read that would convince me that Islam has any redeeming qualities. Mohamed was a viscous pedophile, rapist, thief, and killer. The early parts of the Koran in Mecca is just a rehash and mishmash of Judaism and Christianity, supposedly told to him by an angel. Did a different angel in Medina start relating to him the evil stuff which was supposed to be better?
I offered you some short videos to watch to explain what Israel and Judaism is all about but you are a Muslim even tho you don’t practice all aspects of it. The Jews have had a presence in Israel for 3500 years, you don’t want to believe. That is your prerogative.
Oh, at age 12 I also had a dream visit from a personage, about 8 feet tall, in a white robe, who picked me up and held me. Told me I was loved. I believed I was in the arms of G-d. I have never forgotten that the Jewish and Christian G-d is a G-d of love, not hate and evil.
I’m not hearing a no :-)