A suggestion for that great Brazilian of the Economy (Meirelles)

I have a deep intellectual and moral respect for Henrique Meirelles. His simultaneous global and microscopic vision of problems involving the economy is so accurate that all governments, irrespective of whether they are “right” or “left”, seek to hire him whenever things are difficult, or impossible. Meirelles is a human and conjugated example of telescope with microscope. He is always calm and coherent; the logic of numbers and facts, tempered by his long-standing experience in dealing with the human race, of which there is only one. There is not one communist “race” and another that is capitalist.

In fact, by the way, even though I do not work in the economics area, I think that these two terms (capitalism and communism) are outdated, given that money, in itself, has no ideology. Money is money, purchasing or investment power, just that. After birth, it has no knowledge of its parents. What human beings essentially want – when they are not involved in a power struggle – is satisfactory gain (isn’t it?); adequate housing, enough to eat, a good school for their children, satisfaction in love, owning a car and a sensation of reasonable liberty. Even in the indoctrinated Soviet Union and its satellite countries, innumerous citizens joined the Communist Party thinking of ration cards, which were more generous for party members, than the phrases of Karl Marx. I was surprised at the lack of significant protest, on the part of the Russian people, when communism was replaced by capitalism, although preserving some traces of its origin. Any government, irrespective of political leaning, that satisfies the aforementioned desires regarding consumption, will have the full approval of the electorate. This explains why Meirelles accepted an invitation to work for Lula da Silva and now works for Michel Temer. He knows the truth and the relativity of statistics. He knows how money circulates or hides itself, its internal logic and, principally, the minds of people when they intend to earn it and spend it. And therein lies his greatest problem: he knows perfectly well what the right thing to do is; but how is he to convince those who do not know but think they know? 

Why am I writing this introduction which, despite being full of praise, is also sincere? Because, without any intention of criticizing him, I would like to present him with a suggestion, a further remedy as a way out from the tremendous crisis that is ravaging us; a suggestion that I have still not seen mentioned in newspapers or on television. Not by Meirelles or anyone else. Perhaps this silence can be explained by the fact that the suggestion is mere repetition of that which already exists. Nevertheless, I am making it all the same, considering the hypothesis, not altogether rare, that sometimes an “outsider” - exactly because he or she does not work in the area, is able to show a new way out, or a new way of improving a policy that is already in effect.

I refer to the problem (politically highly dangerous) of the long-term patience required of the restless Brazilian people to see our economy mended, which has been progressively devastated for more than a decade of incompetence, demagogy and negligence. Finally topped by the poisonous cherry on the cake: widespread dishonesty in the use of public funds, revealed in the “Carwash” investigation. So “normal”, routine, that many even say, or do not say but think: “Okay, there has been generalized thievery, yes; but at least there was employment, production, consumption and collection of taxes. Brazil “functioned”, despite the corruption, or exactly as a result of it. Perhaps it would be better to close my eyes to dishonesty as long as the country is moving forward… and I have a job! How long will my family be able to endure the long and grueling treatment proposed by the new federal government? It’s too harsh and has repercussions on states and municipalities!”

In theory, whoever thinks like that is not thinking correctly, but when need is great, it pushes logic aside. One day (and this day has already passed), the euphoric excessive spending of the Workers’ Party would have to come to a halt, stopped by the economic force of facts. It so happens that millions of Brazilians, of inadequate schooling (it being no fault of their own that they are poorly educated or ill-informed judge their governments by their ability to generate immediate results. They think that, with a change of government, Temer would have to “make things improve” at the snap of a finger, in a few months, forgetting the long slow process of impeachment. Months lost because of a stubborn woman.

They think like this: “What is Temer promising, sacrifices? “Blood, sweat and tears” were inspiring words in Churchill’s England, fighting alone against Hitler, but it was a time of bombing, a daily struggle to escape death, running to air-raid shelters before the Nazis came back to drop more bombs, on the same day. Blood and rubble on a daily basis. But Brazil has not reached such an extreme point…”. A significant percentage of the Brazilian population thinks exactly in this way. Principally the percentage most affected by a remedy that is logical but difficult to swallow.

I am sorry to say that, within a year, there is a danger of “ordinary folk”, and even part of the middle class, not experiencing a solution to their financial plight in their pockets or jobs. Lula and Dilma – skilled in saying that which is pleasing to simpler ears – could re-take power in the 2018 election. Just beckoning with an “attractive” increase in consumption and employment. “The good old times of Lula! Carefree spending! Public debt can go to hell! They say it’s 70% of the GDP, but I never felt it in my pocket. However, I felt it in my bones, because I didn’t have meat any more during the time I was unemployed”.

And so “LuloPTism” comes back to power. And, one month later, it could even give itself the luxury of boasting, in the media, of its “competence” regarding the economy because it will then be in a better situation, thanks to the harsh corrective measures adopted previously by Temer and Meirelles.  These two public figures will involuntarily prepare a “bed” for Dilma or Lula to lounge on, posing as great economists. A situation similar to that which occurred when Lula succeeded Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who handed over a country with fiscal responsibility and no inflation to Lula. I repeat: with a protracted economic recovery plan, Temer and Meirelles would inadvertently end up giving prestige to the irresponsibility that so disorganized the country. Brazilians, in the majority, are still unable to think in the cold, patient manner of Nordic countries.

All economic measures mentioned to date by Meirelles and Temer deserve approval, because they are logical. It is unnecessary to go into them all. However, there lacks one in particular that I suggest below, which would be very powerful in attracting the trillions of dollars that float hesitantly, like a golden mist hovering over the planet, searching for the most lucrative point to touch the ground. Brazil could make the most of this moment, rather unattractive in global terms, for solid investments. Think of the United Arab Emirates, Singapore and even the European Union and the USA, where the money invested generates returns with a certain degree of certainty, although it could generate even greater returns if it were invested in Brazil, if there were also greater certainty and a fiscal bonus not granted by other countries, if I am not mistaken.

The European Union is moving slowly, almost at a standstill. It is not a good place to invest. The USA is attracting investments again, but not to the same extent as previously. The same is occurring in the case of China and Japan. South America is seen with complete distrust. Africa – not even considered in terms of investment. But what is the reason for this lack of confidence in Brazil? The very real possibility of a Brazilian government, irrespective of political leaning, not keeping its promises in order to attract investments. With good reason, large individual and company fortunes, throughout the world, are wary of investing in Brazil. They could lose the investment, despite being well managed. In the wide world, just asking for investments is not enough to attract them. In black and white, there is a need to offer some kind of advantage.

As this article is already too long, I will explain – without legal and quantitative details – exactly what my suggestion entails: Brazil, after not very prolonged studies of percentages, would publish a law, or constitutional amendment – focusing on the international community – stating that any foreign persons (physical or legal) inclined to invest in this country, in industry or commerce, in excess of several hundreds of millions or billions of dollars, will pay a lower rate of Income Tax, “y” percent – perhaps a generic 10% - for “x” years (ten, fifteen, for example), as Vladimir Putin did a few years ago.

In this consultable legal standard, it would also be stated that the aforementioned fiscal incentive, at a lower rate when compared with First World countries, would only exist if the investment were located in the northern and northeastern regions of Brazil. It would stimulate construction of factories in these regions, generating immediate jobs (at least in the construction industry) and, subsequently, probable income. In all certainty, this offer of work in the northeastern region of the country, for example, would encourage the return of “nordestinos” (northeasterners) to their regions of origin, which they only left due to local unemployment and low rates of pay. Thousands of northeasterners and northerners would prefer to return home, instead of remaining in “favelas” (shanty towns) in the south and southeast of Brazil, alarmed at the violence involved in wars between drug traffickers or between bandits and the police. Living in the southeastern region is no longer a guarantee of employment.

The proposed law would also be able to create a variation, with the advantage of lower taxation, allowing foreign investment to be made in other regions of Brazil, although with a lesser degree of reduction of income tax, given that the greatest stimulus should be directed to the poorest regions. It may be, for example, that the United Arab Emirates would like to invest in Brazil, but only in São Paulo. What is of interest here is that there is a large-scale influx of investments, in excess of half a billion or one billion dollars, for example. All the quantitative details would have to be duly studied.

One could say – there are always those against such an idea – that such a reduced rate of income tax would be unjust for the notional investor. It would not be, because what is of interest to Brazil is its ability to attract foreign capital, new wealth. Extending this fiscal incentive to national companies would result in a decrease in tax levies – a problem. But this is an issue that will also be able to be examined by Meirelles and his team. It should be remembered that simply initiating the construction of factories already means an increased in the number of jobs and spending on the part of those employed on the high street, with an increase in tax levies.

It is an undeniable fact that, without a special, original Brazilian fiscal incentive, guaranteed by law or constitutional amendment – and even by treaties, if necessary – not much of “golden mist” mentioned above will run the risk of touching ground in Brazil as long as the current state of affairs continues. Brazil is in a hurry. Principally before 2018. If necessary, prepare international treaties, as something that would enhance the peace of mind of future investors, after all, there are more than enough jurists to consult. I would recommend Prof. Francisco Rezek. I write this without his authorization. 

Besides the possible law, it is essential to mention that any judicial demands related to this “invitation-law” would be processed and judged by an international court, or a court chosen by the parties involved, considering that the laxness of our justice system (the result of inadequate legislation) would weaken the aforementioned incentive.

I have no idea whether Meirelles – already up to his eyes in resolving problems – would at least have just a quick peek at this suggestion, made by a layman. But, if he does, his recognized capability will allow him to create a further remedy for attracting investments that will shorten the time necessary to repair our economy. You can be sure; nobody risks their investing their money in something that is uncertain.

I will close here. It is impossible to read more than this, in a single text, on the internet. I hope that a divine hand makes the miracle happen of allowing these inexperienced lines to end up in the hands of Temer or Meirelles, who represent the well-intentioned hope of all Brazilians of good will.

(09-10-2016)

Modern art

On concluding my article of the series “The age of mediocrity”, I classified Pablo Picasso more as a skillful psychologist and expert in marketing and advertising than a painter. I never envisaged him as a great painter because - in my sinful ignorance - I believed, and still believe that a necessary qualification of any painter is the ability to draw very well indeed. I repeat: very well. A talent that is not widespread and perhaps inaccessible solely through “muscular” obstinacy. Something like the “musical ear”, a gift. In reality, it is not easy to reproduce a true likeness of a face, a galloping horse, a human figure in a less than conventional position, the movement of waves on the sea, a waterfall, etc.

However, of all the items of a generic “age of mediocrity”, that which gave me the most work in order to arrive at some kind of conclusion - on my own account - was the definition of what art is; how to interpret the reaction of the public when faced with a painting or sculpture; the difficult “explanation” of the sensation of beauty and the vast nomenclature that arose following classicism. Anyone who wants to understand the meaning of Impressionism, Post-impressionism, Fauvism, Cubism, Expressionism, Futurism, Dadaism, Surrealism, Concrete Art, Abstraction, Primitivism, Pop Art, Minimalism, etc., will face great difficulty in establishing boundaries between these various “schools”. And to further complicate such a slippery subject, the “post-” variations should also be taken into account, given that the artistic species is highly mercurial.

There is, however, a common thread in all these movements: the more modern the work, the less the need for the physical and mental “sweat” of the artist. To put it another way: the more modern the painting, the greater the degree - dispensing with effort - of abstraction, subjectivism, valorization of quantity over quality, and absolute need of advertising for sale of the “product”. Without advertising, nobody is a “genius”. Actual genius is the brain behind the promotion of the painter.

If, just for fun, someone who had never before wielded a paintbrush - and even despised the art of painting - made some quick marks on a canvas, with closed eyes, and asked Picasso to sign it, the painting in question would be worth millions of dollars, thus proving that it is not the picture that is important, but the “brand”. In this hypothetical experience, so-called and perhaps naive “connoisseurs” of the style of the famous painter - seeing the authenticity of the signature, by Picasso himself, a joker - would say that, with this canvas, the “genius” once again showed the versatility of his talent.

Vincent Van Gogh only sold one painting in his lifetime. Those few people who purchased his paintings, for next to nothing soon after his death, had the maximum financial interest in exalting the genius of the painter. The more highly they praised his work, the greater the value paintings would have that were acquired after his passing. Without doubt, Van Gogh was an extraordinary person, but it is strange to think that his pictures only came to be so highly valued after his death. Further proof that “financial psychology”, so to speak, has an immense influence on the valorization of works of art. The question must be asked whether the genius of the Dutch painter, when he was alive, was so non-apparent to connoisseurs of the time, that it was necessary for his pictures to change hands in order to be worth a fortune? Do “art dealers”, who are only familiar with the business of “dealing in art”, have a better “eye for art” than real scholars of art?

I would feel more comforted if I knew that the genius of Van Gogh had been recognized when he was still alive. He was a tragic man who suffered greatly, which only inspires our sympathy. And with a detail: he knew how to draw. His good character, sensitivity and personality deserve the greatest respect, but his example is proof of the fact that money has contaminated and dominates the world of the arts. Paintings and sculptures have become more of a financial issue - just like the actions of corporations -, than an issue of actual art. Here lies the explanation of why I have included visual arts in my series of articles on mediocrity in general. Money has introduced mediocrity into the arts.

Leonardo da Vinci took five years to paint the “Mona Lisa”. He painted for just a few hours in a single day, continuing little by little on others, striving to achieve perfection in details. In any case, a considerable amount of time to paint a single picture. In counterpart, Picasso even said, according to quotes on the internet, “Give me a museum and I'll fill it”.

As any museum is always vast, only a fast-working and roguishly “abstract” painter could fill it alone. With some twenty or thirty paintings a day, Picasso would be able to deliver the goods in a few months. Proof of the fact that it was quantity that interested him, and the mere declaration, by the artist himself, of the existence of  a deeply emotional “meaning” in those few brush strokes. So profound that it was only felt by him. Believe it if you want to. 

Tom Stoppard, an observer of modern art, even said that the only criterion for distinguishing a painting from a modern sculpture would be the following: “if it hangs on a wall it's a painting, and if you can walk around it it's a sculpture”.

Richard Schmid, probably a connoisseur of the subject - because he is mentioned on art sites - said that “I honestly believe students of painting in the next century will laugh at the abstract art movement. They will marvel at such a drawn-out regression in the plastic arts”.

Al Capp, in his distinctive, more brutal and direct style, said that “abstract art is produced by the talentless, sold by the unscrupulous, and bought by the utterly bewildered”.

Another harsh critic of modern art even said that “trying to understand modern art is like trying to follow the plot in a bowl of alphabet soup”.

And, finally, what did the prince of painters, Leonardo da Vinci, say? He said that “where the spirit does not work with the hand, there is no art”. Elitism? No, simple recognition of the fact that the artist should add some emotion to the perfect technique of drawing and painting.

In other words: without the “hand” of the true artist, the subjectivism of the painter is just not enough, however much he sincerely feels excited - the great excuse for the modern painter who only trusts in what he feels, not in that which may be sincerely felt by the public.

The bottom line is that the essential function of art is to give rise to pleasure. Real pleasure, not the false pleasure required by fashion. At a piano concert of classical music, a pianist, even cold in feeling but endowed with an uncommon technique - so uncommon that it overwhelms the audience - will be a better piano artist than a key-hammerer, tremendously excited, sweating, groaning, eyes on target, but by playing everything wrong, almost punching the keyboard.

If, in the case of modern art, that which matters is the emotion of the artist - and not the effect of the product of his hands on others - it is possible to imagine that science has invented a device capable of recording the degree of emotion and inspiration during performance of a musical piece. A device, of proven effectiveness, similar to that used today to measure blood pressure. Or similar to a current lie detector. The difference is that the latter indicates the existence of lies, whereas the other, more modern, would prove the real sensitivity of the artist. Let us continue, giving an example.

The arrival in London of a new musical genius is announced with great fanfare; a foreign pianist - so brilliant that few listeners would have the ability to “understand” the profound nature of his art. His manager would say that the artist’s inspiration cannot be feigned, given that the aforementioned infallible device would be attached to his arm, showing evidence of the maximum degree of feeling that a human being can endure. 

In the advertising that would precede the inaugural concert of this newly discovered genius, there would be a warning that individuals lacking an exceptional degree of musical sensitivity should not even purchase tickets, as they would probably not be able to “capture” the depth of the art hidden in simple appearances. The presence of the great artist in the country would even be doing a favor to Brazilians. It would show our own people an artistic wealth that they had not noticed in their old folklore. Such a lack of interest in selling tickets to people without any artistic sensitivity would even stimulate demand for such tickets. Everyone buying tickets would be demonstrating how sensitive they are to artistic beauty.  

On the announced day, with a packed Royal Festival Hall, a “sincere emotions detector” would be attached to the pianist’s arm. After an impressive silence, the artist would begin to play, using only one finger: “Oh, can you wash a sailor's shirt, Oh, can you wash it fine? Oh, can you wash a sailor's shirt and hang it on the line?”

The audience, dumbfounded, wanting to laugh but dreading being considered ignorant, would maintain a straight face but continue to observe the immense electronic panel - connected to the “sincerity detector” - in the hope of seeing an inadequate “sincerity” result that would authorize the booing imprisoned in everyone’s throat. The device, however, would confirm the maximum level of artistic emotion felt by a human being. The extraordinary inspiration of the pianist would thus be duly demonstrated. With this, those in the audience would only complaint silently to themselves: “I really am extremely ignorant, but I would not confess this to anyone. I will give a standing ovation”.

And if the artist suffers a stroke, his heart unable to withstand so much emotion, and drops dead on completing the special concert? There would be a long theoretical discussion on the brilliance of pianist and the mysterious reasons that made the artist choose this style and not another. Among others, the questions raised would include “Why was it necessary to ask whether someone can wash a sailor’s shirt? What is the symbolism involved?”, and so on.

Of course, I am exaggerating in this example; however, in substance, it is that which occurs with the excuse that artists only have to think about what they feels in order to express their art. Only think about themselves. They are not concerned whether or not the public felt authentic pleasure. If there is pleasure on the part of the public, it will be the pleasure of “being up-to-date, one of the crowd, a follower of fashion”.

Going back to painting, everything was going very well in Classicism, until a technical novelty arose, outside the art world, which shook the pacific panorama that emphasized the art of drawing things as they are seen by the eyes: photography. With a simple “flash”, anything could be “drawn” with an accuracy of line and balance of proportions that only a Leonardo da Vinci could achieve. The spread and improvement of photography was the saving excuse of many artists who, despite their enthusiasm for painting, could not draw.

The path - or shortcut - was open for the man who admired the arts, identified himself emotionally with them, and would like to be part of that mysterious world, full of temptations. The women of the time - the late 19th century and early 20th century - felt a special attraction for artists, generally impetuous and free of restrictions in matters related to other men’s wives. Today, they probably prefer the “artists of finance” and mass sports; far more profitable, or should I say attractive to them. Painters were, then, almost always men.

The art world - when sincere and authentic - really has an interesting facet. Its insights are frequently right. Freud confessed that he rarely made some kind of discovery without  some poet having been there first. True art is good in this respect: it attains “without deliberately wanting to”, by intuition, areas not yet reached by science. It flies, although falling frequently, whereas the scientist goes on foot.

With the advent of photography, there was also the emergence of “smart painters”, who only wanted a quick and easy path to fame and its by-product: money. It was artistic “democracy” that would allow any audacious artist, without any drawing talent, to bold facedly “appear” and draw attention. “The order now is to scandalize!”. The more shocking his work - in non-conformance with the normal appearance of objects - the greater the “scandal” capable of attracting attention, with good business consequences.

With as view to confronting the most distrustful or skeptical observers, who said that there was only audacity in the work, not art, there were two clever excuses: 1) those who want the exact reproduction of a landscape or object should take a photo; and 2) in the arts, what really matters is the feeling of the artist, not the visible physical product of this emotion.

It was Pablo Picasso who, with great frankness, raised the argument that, in painting and sculpture, what really matters is the emotion of the artist, not what we know as “mere reality”. In his opinion, the painter can even paint with his eyes closed, provided that he is “inspired”. The general public should not be concerned with appearances. It should only “feel” the same as that “felt by the artist”. He stated this nonsense with such conviction - extraordinary psychologist that he was - that some millionaires began to buying his paintings, thus giving rise to immense valorization of any picture with the signature “Picasso”. He afforded himself the luxury of saying that he was not sufficiently rich to have a “Picasso” in his home.

There follow some of his quotes, taken from the internet:

“I paint objects as I think them, not as I see them”.

“Painting is a blind man's profession. He paints not what he sees, but what he feels, what he tells himself about what he has seen”. Remark: he was a joker.

 “The people who make art their business are mostly imposters”.

“The world today doesn't make sense, so why should I paint pictures that do?”

“To draw you must close your eyes and sing”.  

“Who sees the human face correctly: the photographer, the mirror, or the painter?”

What explains, then, the permanence of modern art and its high economic value, even though easy, brief, shocking and out of touch with visible reality?

In my opinion, the explanation lies in the personality of the artist. In audacity, firmness, bold faced effrontery, “charisma” and “marked personality”, as was the case of Picasso, a great psychologist. Or in integrity and compassion, as in the cases of Vincent Van Gogh and his friend Paul Gauguin. It is impossible to read the biography of these two without being touched by such sensitive souls. Did they know how to draw? They knew enough; more than the average attained by people who are not artists. However, they were people of immense integrity. 

The character of artists “contaminates” their work positively or negatively. It has a great influence regarding their acceptance by the public. Including their political leanings. Picasso himself benefitted from this. He had interesting ideas and was frank in his opinions, as we can see in the above quotes. If he had been a man of right-wing sympathies or a Nazi, he would never have been considered a famous painter. “Guernica” gave him a boost. The same occurs in other arts: the personality of the artist “contaminates” his or her work, for better or worse.

Abstraction is more appropriate ground for philosophy, not painting. I think that, at least for a long time, human beings will still require some degree of virtuosity, difficulty and hard work on the part of all painters. In sports competitions, the circus, cinematographic performances and the writing of tales, novels, chronicles and poems, it is expected that artists express themselves with an extraordinary degree of skill. I cannot accept that a writer just “feels” refined emotions in his mysterious head, only writing nonsense, or even things that are incomprehensible to the writer himself. Hence the general well-founded prejudice against modern art that is not pleasing to look at and can mean anything: - “It’s too easy. Based on this, even I deserve a prize...”, more sensible people think.  

Now a brief word about music. Of all the arts, I think that it is the less susceptible to deceit. Musical mediocrity cannot stay afloat for very long, as it can be assessed in a matter of minutes. It sinks because there is no financial advantage in keeping it afloat, when it pleases practically nobody. It is only necessary to listen to a new piece of music for one minute in order to decide whether it is worthwhile to continue listening. The scale of its production and the size of its public are such that it is not worth spending on advertising for music that nobody wants to hear, or even less buy in disc form. On the other hand, in the case of modern painting, there is a restricted market of rich buyers, the paintings functioning as a store of value, when the name of the painter is very well known. The painting is physical, palpable, concrete and exists, as if it were a negotiable instrument. On the other hand, music that nobody wants to hear is mere noise, of no interest to anyone; there is no way that it can be turned into a gemstone.

There only lingers a doubt with respect to jazz. Most people do not like it, as there is no identifiable melody. In my opinion, jazz should only be used as a composing technique. The musicians would continue improvising without an end in sight, but when, by chance, the errant instrumentalists “stumble upon” a new melody, they would develop it, thus composing a “normal” piece of music.

Summing up, modern art has its use in the manufacture of decorative items, toys, furniture, book covers, etc. Not as great painting or sculpture.

This article was written in Portuguese and translated by John Upson (www.wetranslate.com.br)

Disinformation Regarding Syria and Putin

There is an impressive amount of dubious information circulating in both Brazilian and global media regarding the situation unfolding in Syria. Everything indicates that this disinformation is part of an enduring and well-developed plan on the part of a notorious enemy of this Arab nation - Israel. It involves artful dissemination of a deformed, hostile political image of Syria (an ally of Iran), rapidly adhered to by the United States and its European puppets, a little unsophisticated when compared with Israeli strategists. It should be noted that nothing happens in the Middle East that could affect Israel in some way without the knowledge of its information and security agencies (the word “security” being used here in its most wide-ranging sense).

American and European interests, without the slightest ethical concern or sense of justice, distort the reality of a country and its leader, Bashar Assad, describing him as an “enemy” of his own people. They intend to reach this objective through mere daily repetition, counting on receptive, poorly-informed ears and eyes. Up to now they have been successful, given that, unlike its opponents, Syria does not have access to a rich and powerful media or the international press. Most editors of magazines and newspapers are not willing to risk contradicting their bosses.

At the present time, solely Putin courageously defends the Syrian president who studied to be a peaceful ophthalmologist, but ended up as the successor of his father, when his brother (chosen to take the place of his father in the future) died in an automobile accident. For reasons of filial duty, he abandoned medicine and, with the passage of time, came to be marked as the “killer” of his own people, much to the convenience of his enemies. In highly complex, multifaceted political situations, there is always some kind of material available to describe politicians according to “customer” preference.

Assad a “killer”, why? Because, with evident risk to his own life (remember the lynching of Gaddafi?), he defends his mandate as president of Syria, elected in two referendums (2000 and 2007) and an election (2010)? “Killer”, because he defends the sovereignty of his country? Because he refuses to renounce his post, obeying his aforementioned foreign enemies? “Killer”, because an unknown percentage of Syrian citizens, in the vast and vague “Arab Spring”, generically demanded more democracy in the always highly unstable Middle East?

Ask yourself: prior to mass international “hostilization” and the economic siege against Bashar Assad, by the USA and its discrete political advisor, Israel, did the Americans, by chance, show any concern for consulting the Syrian population in order to ascertain whether the majority were in favor of Assad’s exit? If such a question had been asked, the evidence indicates that the reply would be negative.

By the way, in Brazil, which is now home to thousands of Syrian refugees, two or three institutes dedicated to public opinion polls would do well to consult these refugees regarding their degree of approval or rejection of Assad before his opponents “require” his exit in the name of democracy. Of course it is clear that now, after all hell has broken loose in the country, nobody wants to remain in Syria any longer. Not due to fear of Assad, but fear of what will happen after he is gone.
I would even go so far as to say that if the Syrians who are currently in chaotic flight throughout the world, fleeing from the terrifying Islamic State, were asked whether they lived relatively happily during the government of Bashar Assad, prior to the “Arab Spring”, the reply would be favorable to the “tyrant”. This is due to the fact that the “tyrant” had been driving the country in the direction of modernity and secularism, separating state and religion and progressively diminishing the significant influence of the most negative aspect of Islamism. This religion also has a spiritually comforting positive side, although it has lately shown an irrational, intolerant and pitiless facet. This is represented by the so-called Islamic State or ISIS, the simple mention of which sends a shiver down the spine of more sensitive people.

It is known that, in the not so distant past, Catholics and Protestants killed one another in Europe. This came to a definitive end many decades ago. Today, in terms of violence, the notorious Islamic State outclasses all the most violent religions of the past added together. No other uses such a practice as slow decapitation with a knife, sometimes wielded by fanaticized children, as already reported and shown on television.

The terror spread by ISIS is so deep-rooted that hardened military men, of all countries, are afraid to become involved in ground combat with these terrorists. The explanation is simple: in normal, more or less “civilized” wars, captured soldiers are under the protection of international treaties, preserving their lives and physical integrity. This does not occur in the case of the Islamic State. Prisoners of war can be decapitated or summarily executed with a shot in the back of the head, or even something worse. If surrounded, they would prefer to kill themselves prior to the onset of their own personal martyrdom. It is surprising that, according to recent reports, Russian veterans who fought in East Ukraine have volunteered to assist the Syrian army, on the ground, in the fight against the Islamic State, which does not hide its intent to terrorize.

Does any fool imagine that, with the deposition and flight of Assad (he will have to flee rapidly, if he does not want to be killed in the cruelest of manners), Syria will suddenly begin to enjoy true democracy? Is it really to be believed that there will be gentlemanly power sharing between the “moderate” Syrian opposition, “gentle” Al-Qaeda combatants, “amiable” members of the Islamic State, American soldiers, Israeli advisors, the Kurds, Hezbollah fighters and everything else imaginable in that region known for its “tolerance”? For the United States, Syria would be an Iraq in triplicate, which it would not be able to govern. For this reason, it is going to regret the bad guidance received. A further, confused American mire in overseas policy is foreseeable if the rendition of Assad occurs.

With regard to the Syrian opposition, every country, irrespective of whether it is a dictatorship or a democracy, has an opposition, that’s normal. Did the opposition by any chance represent the majority of the population prior to the “Arab Spring”? Nobody knows. From that which I am able to deduce, through reasonable daily accompaniment of what is happening in the world, the answer appears to be no. There had been no formal or informal poll of the degree of internal approval of Assad at the time. Would his approval rating have been 70% or 80%? Did the Obama administration by any chance concern itself with this small detail before concluding and deciding that Assad “had to go”, violating the sovereignty of a country?

The stated US intent of forced installation of an American-style democracy in Syria (extremely dependent upon campaign financing) cannot be allowed to prevail over the right of self-determination of peoples. Regions of the planet differ greatly in terms of history, tradition, religion, political habits, use of violence, etc. And it cannot be alleged that it would not have been possible to conduct such a prior survey in Syria, via referendum, because Assad was a “dictator” and would  falsify its results. The USA did not give Syria any chance to provide evidence of sufficient support on the part of the population before the opposition, financed, trained and armed by the CIA, went on the attack.
Modern public opinion polls, conducted by specialized entities, are impressively precise, with a margin of error of 3%. Would it not have been essential for a referendum to be held by the “suspect” Syrian government. The Obama administration had no interest in knowing, even informally, about the preference of the population. Perhaps because there was a high risk of the poll showing that Syrians would prefer to live as they had lived to date, without exchanging the certain for the dubious. If the specialized poll had shown that opposition to the government did not attain 20%, this would have been too much of an impediment to the plan to use force to remove Assad from power. They would have had to invent another reason.

All the evidence indicates that the hidden goal of toppling Assad is that of isolating Iran, that true ally of Arab Palestine, which cannot achieve the status of a country because this is not in the interest of Israel. The far-right Israeli government does not turn against Assad because he is a dictator. Although if Syria came to enjoy full democracy, with continued support for Iran, it would be attacked. However, being a “hardened” regime, this is better for the United States and Israel, given that worldwide public opinion always have an aversion towards dictatorships or semi-dictatorships.

Furthermore, other questions can be put to those who demand the renouncement or downfall of Bashar Assad. These questions are the following: were Afghanistan and Iraq better places after the invasion led by the United States? Only someone who is out of his mind and a liar would say yes. Was Libya a pacified and prosperous country after the fall of Gaddafi? It was much worse, with widespread anarchy, the Arab African country disintegrating into tribal fighting. Did Egypt, after the fall of Mubarak, by any chance become a model democratic country, respecting the result of the only presidential election? No. The elected president, Mohamed Morsi, was deposed and condemned to death by the military because he had incited the population, in a public square, to disobey the armed forces, which did not want to accept the decision of the ballot boxes.

Another more theoretical question: does the USA, solely due to the fact that it is the greatest power on the planet, have the right to say who stays or goes in the government of any country? Is the far from modest idea of North-American “exceptionalism” an order (as Obama seems to intend) or solely a good example to be followed, voluntarily, by other countries, considering the advantages of an authentic non-corrupt democracy? With regard to this, experience has shown to date that the American administration approves or disapproves governments with democratic weaknesses according to American interests at the time. For example, it never tried to depose Pinochet in Chile. Much to the contrary.

Happily or unhappily, Bashar Assad has found assistance that perhaps makes precarious survival possible for him: the “quasi-tyrant” Vladimir Putin — a head of state also widely judged unfairly with respect to his defects and qualities. He has his defects, as in the case of all other heads of state and government, without exception, but he does not abandon defenseless peoples victimized by injustice. It should always be remembered that Putin is openly assisting Syria because its leader, Assad, is being attacked and asked for help. Such an action is legitimized by International Law. To the contrary of the USA and its “friends” (with no opinion of their own), which are interfering in Syria with the precise intent of bringing down the government, without the authorization of the United Nations Security Council. Everyone knows that the “moderate” opposition is trained, armed and financed by the CIA, as amply disclosed in the media. 

Putin is widely criticized because he supposedly “invaded Ukraine” and “took possession” of Crimea. In fact, he only complied with the explicit desire (as demonstrated by a referendum and formal request) of the inhabitants of Crimea of Russian origin, most of whom speak Russian. Putin did not close his ears and eyes to the appeal made by thousands of Ukrainians. What he did in Crimea is what the USA would do in Mexico, if thousands of blond, English-speaking Mexicans of American origin, living at the American border, were to ask for assistance and American citizenship when faced with a Mexican government hostile to their American origin. It should also be noted that Viktor Yanukovich, the president-elect of Ukraine and favorable to Russia, was forcibly removed from power not long before the inhabitants of Crimea asked Putin for Russian citizenship. At this point, mention should again be made of that old maxim of political philosophy: is it not that supreme political power lies in the people?

In their articles, newspaper columnists, almost always with surnames of Hebrew origin, usually label Putin, patriotically, as a “wily fox”, striving for personal prestige. If he is a fox, he is a fox that shows consistency and solidarity with the forgotten and humiliated Palestinian people, the distant origin of the confused mess that the Middle East has become.  Al Qaeda is a by-product of the Palestinian situation and it is Al Qaeda that gave rise to the Islamic State.

A few days ago, I read an interesting analogy on the Internet of what happened regarding the large number of Jews who sought a home in Palestine: imagine a hotel in flames (anti-Semitic Europe in the 1930s); a Jewish guest, on the third floor of the hotel, finds himself on the balcony, cornered and terrified, expecting that he will soon burn to death; the only alternative is to jump from the balcony, as it is impossible to wait for the arrival of the fire brigade; he decides to take a risk and jump, with eyes closed, and by chance falls on a passer-by (a Palestinian), who ended up with various broken bones but saved (although involuntarily) the life of the Jew, breaking his fall.

The Jew, only slightly hurt, leaves, happy to be alive and, months later, receives a visit from the Palestinian who, rather crippled, arrives on crutches and asks for compensation as it is almost impossible for him to work. The Jew says that he cannot help him because he did not act with deliberate intent to cause harm, stating that he could not be required to stay on the balcony and burn to death, simply in order to avoid being a nuisance to a possible passer-by. The Palestinian argues that he did not set fire to the hotel. The Jew becomes irritated, saying that he also did not set fire to the hotel. This tragic discussion has lasted for more than half a century. And the Palestinian still continues to walk on crutches, dragging himself along in a miserable life, full of restrictions, whereas the jumper with no parachute proudly exhibits his efficiency and wealth to the world. Seeing this on his ancient television, the Palestinian, crippled and resentful, only murmurs: “He should be ashamed of himself with so much wealth...”.

For how long? Until the world, very stupid and with little imagination, concludes the following: firstly, that Palestine is too small to be home to two nations that came into being in such different ways; secondly, that the African continent, for example, is immense and, in territorial terms, is capable of absorbing more than one hundred Palestines; thirdly, that Obama and the rich countries would do better if they promoted the innovative and ultimately problem-solving idea of using part of the territory of Africa (through negotiation with some African country) in order that part of the Palestinian population (or Jewish population) may be able to live, work and progress there, relieving semi-arid Palestine which, the way things are going, could lead to a third world war. After 60 years of tension, a solution to the problem is ever more distant.

Poor countries of East Africa with coastlines bordering the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean, for example, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania and Mozambique, which are terribly lacking in jobs and resources, could be interested in “selling” — that is to say “negotiating” — a smaller delimited part of their extensive territory for installation of an overseas Jewish or Palestinian “province”.

This “implant” in Africa, freely negotiated and paid for by the international community, will make it possible for the conceding or “selling” African country to achieve enormous relief from its customary shortages, developing its economy, creating jobs, etc. 
Barack Obama, with this bold idea, just as promising as the recent “Trans-Pacific Partnership”, would resolve the Palestinian impasse which, in the final analysis, is a physical and territorial problem rather than a religious one. It would be the crowning jewel of his administration, if only for the idea and initiation of its planning.

Who knows? Maybe Putin, this consistent little man, being more audacious than his American equivalent, could come to cogitate this possibility. Of course, a concrete solution would still take time, due to the complexity of the objective in question, but the interested parties (Palestinians and Jews, Europeans and Americans) would at least know that there is a possible encouraging future on the horizon. Instead of spending their time hating and killing one another and planning revenge, both Jews and Palestinians would occupy themselves conducting studies, visiting Africa and contacting African governments. Whoever acts first, Obama, Putin or Angela Merkel, enhancing this idea, would deserve a Nobel Peace Prize. Even two.

This suggestion, perhaps subject to ridicule, is no so absurd as it seems: prior to independence, was Brazil not “part” of Portugal? Were the English colonies in North America not “part” of England? Was Spanish America not a Spanish “implant” in the New World? The difference between yesterday and a possible tomorrow lies in the fact that yesterday, new lands were conquered and colonized with gunpowder and blood. Now it would be achieved with visits by engineers, geologists and diplomats, discussing the costs and details of drawing up treaties. They would use measurements, set squares and pens rather than grenades and machine guns.

However, the whole process would be closely accompanied by the United Nations, as it is well known that, in all negotiations, there is a tendency for abuse of the less astute party.

(13-10-2015)

Veríssimo, readings, etc.

A good charge by Luis Fernando Veríssimo was published in the Brazilian newspaper “O Estado de S. Paulo" on Sunday, September 13, 2015, and titled "The Brazil Family".  In it, a father-in-law, talking to his son-in-law, tries to convince him that the printed book is still better than the eBook: — "A book does not need a power source, does not depend on softwares or passwords, and is always ready to be read anytime... “— when the young man interrupts him: —”So where is the fun in that?"

The "fun" in this new technology lies in the fast manipulation of a sophisticated and colorful “toy”. The content of the information does not matter as much as the sentences being very short, thus excusing any critical reflection from the toy’s owner.

I think the writer Luis Fernando Veríssimo is one of the most lucid thinking heads of Brazil. He is worshiped by his readers, as well as being a great character.  I have never read or heard anyone criticizing him - he is a national unanimity. From what I have read in the media, at one point he was even sought out to occupy a chair at the Brazilian Academy of Letters (ABL). However, in his authentic modesty, Veríssimo gently thanked being remembered by the Academy but declined the honor. He allegedly said that the ABL would not be his "turf".

I believe he refused the aforementioned honor because as an academic — it is certain he would have been elected — his naturally playful and irreverent spirit would be somewhat inhibited and would not fit seamlessly with the seriousness of the Academy. Such refusal is something rare in Brazil - many people would pay a lot of money to become an academic "immortal", if it was possible to pay to be bestowed with such a privilege.

Writers or actors who are comically inclined tend to see people and the world as more comical. Their associations of ideas tend almost automatically to the caricature expressed in words. With such preference it is only natural they occupy most of their time of rest reading comical texts, which then pile up in their subconscious, just waiting for a provocation. 

With this natural inclination to the continuous mental "record" of news and amusing facts, there can be only one result: the interpretation of the world as a vast "comedy".  As it indeed is, in a philosophical view of our civilization, at the same time advanced in technology but tragically ridiculous in human coexistence: wars and more wars, theft and more theft, crimes and more crimes, lies and hypocrisy at all levels. Balzac knew what he was doing when he chose "The human comedy" as a title for one of his works.

I have a personal example about preferred choices of certain readings. Concluding that the knowledge of the English language would increase my general culture – something that has always attracted me much more than the Science of the Law - I decided, when I was already a sixty-year-old retired judge, to learn English through the most pleasant method: reading jokes and anecdotes in this language, with the help of a dictionary. I must have read over 1,000 jokes. I achieved my language goal, i.e., being able to read in English, despite not having the same talent for speaking the language due to the lack of practice. Nevertheless, a corner of my mind was permanently "contaminated" by the mischievous virus of comedy.

As the time passed – and it still does - the following phenomenon occurred: every time I talk to someone, even about serious matters, whenever I hear a fact, word or sentence which reminds me of an especially clever or nonsensical joke, the uncalled for remembrance makes me miss some seconds of whatever my interlocutor is saying. That, of course, forces me to try to fill the missing gaps with conjectures about what the person might have said – something that distracts me even more and forces me to ask him or her to please repeat what they have just said. In these occasions, I usually pretend to be a little bit deaf, or else very worried about some other serious private subject, as I naturally cannot say that the disease of his mother-in-law (which he has just reported to be in a very mournful mood) reminded me of a great joke of mothers-in-law.

Nobody has complete control over his own mind. We can control our tongue brake, our fingers on the keyboard, our hand using a pen, but never the spontaneous flow of ideas. I guess after this confession I will never be able to ask anyone to repeat something to me in a conversation, as now that the truth has been revealed my interlocutor may very well reply, annoyed - "Was the joke at least good?"

 Veríssimo, as well as being very clever, has a fantastic supply of general information in at least two languages, English and Portuguese (I dare say he is fluent in Spanish and French too). Therefore, he is able to arrange with superior ingenuity his huge mass of scattered information, which is just lying there, waiting for connections. When he was very young, he lived in the USA, which has enabled him to be at ease in the most loaded with information language in the world.

There are currently more Chinese people speaking English than Americans speaking their own language — an amazing fact which is explained by the enormous population of China. Neither Mandarin nor Cantonese combined can provide the same volume of knowledge as the English language can.

The only (and dangerous) restriction I can make regarding the aforementioned writer — "one should not play with fire" — is the fact that he is a huge jazz enthusiast. As someone who knows almost nothing about jazz, I wonder if jazz is by any chance the equivalent of modern art, in which the painter does not need to know how to draw. I guess I should buy a jazz CD - if there are any available — in order to try to understand his enthusiasm for that apparently very messy sound.

Anyway, the comedy of Veríssimo is not only intelligent: it also never resorts to vulgarity. I stress that fact because the humor or style of a comic may sometimes, despite showing great levels of intelligence, have a flaw: a steady abuse of swear words and sexual descriptions, which may offend more sensitive ears, especially those of women.

A lady at a party shall, out of mere politeness, hear the first verbal atrocities and then depart as soon as possible, claiming some urgent matters. In these cases, they usually do not even wait for the end of the anecdote, which may be clever but is hindered by the generic stench of the subject. Therefore, due to the vulgarity of the joke she may lose the thread of narrative and its surprising (and perhaps smart) conclusion.

This limitation of the humorist who is almost exclusively pornographic is perhaps due to a limited supply of information. He lacks a stock of "good material", a supply large enough to extract the sparse "gold" out of the best humor. Such comic will have, of course, an audience, usually restricted to men of calloused noses. Such comedians would of course never be invited to join the ABL - or any other academy of the most remote town, for that matter.

Why am I agreeing with Veríssimo? Because his charge reveals that the computer technology is not, in fact, helping much to enhance the culture and sensibility of our people, Brazilian people.

 Especially the youngsters who — shaped by advertising — are more interested in consuming goods and services, attending nightclubs, dressing well and watching soccer. Not even playing soccer, but most of the time only roaring, swearing and shouting names. Not to mention the constant clashes among football supporters, using slats and iron bars. Not to mention the terrible spectacle of teenage girls rolling on the floor — the uglier girl always fiercer than the prettier one —, contending lovers with fisticuffs, nail scratching and tug of hair.

Many young people are certainly disgusted with their disadvantages and the bad economic situation they inherited — especially when compared to the "spoiled rich brats".  Hence, they do not have great hopes for their future through study, which is rarely free when of good quality.

Notwithstanding my flourished writing, I guess if I were a Brazilian teenager nowadays I would think something like the following: — "Life is too short. Jobs are rare and very disputed, even those with very low wages. Stray bullets are as common in the air as killer wasps. Schools are boring, they take years to teach us things that will not give us money and we waste a long time in transit to and from school. What "helps" a little bit is when there is a teacher´s strike, but then it always results in a worse punishment: the compensation of classes during the holiday season".

“Studying and working is such a burden… Attending schools is no longer the path to real “success”.  Just see our former president, a man who does not like to read, had no proper education and, despite all that, became a "doctor honoris causa", fawned over in several European universities. Plus, the final touch in his triumph: the media says he is now a millionaire. After leaving the office of president, he now gives advice to economists with a Harvard doctorate. So why should I spend time listening to lessons that bear no interest to me at all? I know a guy who patiently studied Law but failed the BAR exam five or six times. That possible future lawyer is already thinking of giving up - he has tried to be a taxi driver but not yet succeeded, due the lack of money to buy a license, or something like that.”

My younger and pessimistic philosophizing version would continue:

 — "Did Airton Senna, the Formula One champion, study? No! Has the great soccer player Neymar studied? Also no! If Senna had studied, he might still be alive today, but without the glories he had. Earning now very little money – worst-case scenario, using his driving abilities to deliver pizzas. Neymar, dribbling and kicking, has won the equivalent to several Nobel Prizes — the money part — and that´s only in a month. Furthermore, I must confess: it is very hard for me to concentrate when I have to read something more complicated or too long. I abhor books. Maybe I am too restless. The fact is I cannot concentrate on reading. I know I am not stupid, just practical. Something, in my sight or in my brain, gets me confused and keeps me away from reading more complex subjects”.

After “hearing” the last confession, or catharsis, of the hypothetical Brazilian lad, I would like to suggest, now to the Brazilian legislator some ideas in order to try to increase the interest of the youth in reading more and better.

As this article is already too long, I will be concise from now on, without the previous rambling way of dubious taste or convenience. I do this concisely, forced by the need of brevity in the internet.

In short, I would suggest the following:

1) that the Brazilian Congress publishes a law that allows self-taught people — or people who are educated in private, of any age — to prove they have the knowledge required from all students of the same level and who have studied in schools;

2) that the Government, at all levels, encourages and facilitates to young people with limited resources the treatment at the public health network of any kind of health problem, whether it is visual, hearing or glandular, that might hinder their learning ability (e.g., a lazy thyroid slows down mental processes);

3) if the young people, even technically cured of any physical problems, still reveal difficulties in understanding texts compatible with their level of knowledge, they shall be sent to specialized professionals in learning problems. This is the solution to the so-called functional illiteracy, very common in the world, chiefly in developing countries. 

Let me give you, reader, an example: if someone can read the words of a line with his left eye, but with the right eye he sees "blurry" words  (even with corrective glasses), this inequality of vision — including peripheral — hinders the understanding of what is being read. Thinking this difficulty is related to a lack of intelligence, the person might abandon the book and instead do something else, doubting his own capacity.

 He does not realize that his "lack of concentration" or understanding has its origin in the "bad association" of his left and right eyes. However, there is a very simple "trick" to overcome such problem. If the person uses his good eye — the left one — to take a glance at the right side of the page, or line, before actually reading it, this “glance” will allow him a better comprehension of the text. If the difficulty persists, another glance can be done, without properly reading. By alternating between reading and “glancing”, the person´s peripheral vision shall be improved. Just a little trick which can be useful in special situations. An optometrist, explained to me that when a patient loses an eye in an accident he is instructed to overcome the lack of it by training his other eye, and with time he might be able to read just as well as other readers.

I shall stop here. I admit I am forcing myself to do so. After all the internet is the place of brevity, so I had to cut and file reasonable dissertations about readings, intelligence, politics and related matters. At the end of the day, all questions in this crazy planet are correlated, even if remotely. Perhaps what I have kept on the computer for use in some other occasion is more interesting than what I´ve used here. We shall see. 

 (September 24, 2015)

The Third Temple. A book about the Arab-Israeli conflict and the oil struggle”. Author: Ivan Sant’Anna, journalist

Initially, I must justify why I am suggesting "Roda Viva" — a very interesting Brazilian talk show broadcast on the channel TV Cultura — at 10 pm every Monday — to invite journalist Ivan Sant'Anna to talk about his latest book.

For me, this "book/synthesis" is quite enlightening, as it connects and explains political and economic facts that are usually talked about in the newspapers without the proper contextualizing. The book "puts together the pieces of two large puzzles” derived from the Middle East. Few people, even well-informed ones, know the backstage and sequencing of the political and economic struggle surrounding the oil dispute. The causes and effects. The rise and fall in the price of that black and oily soup of an organic origin — cooked in the hot bowels of the planet - and still irreplaceable, despite the pollution it causes. This is the main merit of the book, which also helps understand the Arab-Israeli conflict itself. There is no similar political problem on Earth in terms of complexity, because both sides are right. The problem is essentially physical: two bodies cannot occupy the same space.

For years, I have followed what happens in the world through the press. As television already gives us plenty of information about national politics, I always start reading newspapers from the international news section. However, the newspapers seldom offer a complete, step-by-step or even summarized view of what has already happened in the Middle East. Every newspaper, I insist, is essentially fragmented, as the space it has to inform is limited, addressing the issues of the day or the week. But only a book, or at least a booklet, can synthesize something which has happened and/or been happening in the course of decades. The result: our destiny is being built — or destroyed ... — without our knowledge and in very distant places. If the humankind is destined to be “fried”, then at least we should know, after the disaster, why it has happened. After all, there will always remain a few ragged survivors, sitting in the rubble, reading some leaves that escaped the great fire.

With the ever-increasing globalization — which needs some regulatory improvement and rational organization — a "war" seemingly minor, "just another one", be it in the Middle East or in Ukraine, could very well become a nuclear conflict. Since the beginning of the Cold War, the atomic risk has at least managed to prevent the air we breathe from being radioactive. We cheer, thus, for this unexpectedly virtuous side of the atomic fear that inhibited both Russian and American presidents from starting a Third World War. However, this positive effect of nuclear danger exists only when the fear is mutual. Something that does not happen in the Middle East.

When two or more nations hate one another, cultivating old resentment and the nuclear power is in the hands of only one of them, arrogance grows. The feeling of having a formidable and compelling force stimulates abuses, even unconsciously. This occurs both in the animal kingdom and in the “humanimal” one. A leopard does not eat another leopard. Instead, it eats the fragile gazelle but does not even try to eat the rhino, despite its protein abundance. Teeth and claws; weight, horns and aggressiveness are what define who can live or die. Men use some more sophisticated instruments, better known as politics and power.

See, for example, the case of North Korea, ruled today by a young, eccentric and murderous dictator who would never be elected by citizens with a minimum of judgment and freedom of expression. He is the by-product of a strange form of aristocracy: the communist one, the power transmitted through blood, an archaic system of governance that supposedly has been rejected since 1789 with the French Revolution. The current "leader" of North Korea was "anointed" president by his father, who dictatorially ruled the country for decades. However, with all its whims and vendettas — the young "Monarch" eliminates opposing ministers with complete aplomb — the international community does not dare to take measures of force against that country, fearing the nuclear warheads North Korea possesses. In short: he who has atomic force is always respected and feared. It is not accidental that the five countries with permanent seats and veto power in the UN Security Council are all nuclear powers.

The mention of the nuclear issue naturally reminds us of what occurs in the Middle East, where the only country in the region with atomic power, i.e., Israel, "requires" that the international community prevent its biggest political rival, Iran, from developing nuclear technology.  Israel requires the atomic privilege to itself with such confidence that it promises to use all means necessary — obviously violent, at its sole discretion — to prevent any activity that allows Iran to develop nuclear technology of any kind, be it civil or military. Even after the major powers recently reached a new agreement in Vienna — a diplomatic effort which took more than ten years —  allowing Iran a minimum level of pacific evolution in the atomic technology. This arrogance — challenging even his old ally, the United States (at least under the government of B. Obama) — is further evidence of the intoxicating effect caused by the possession of nuclear weapons.

The "book/synthesis" (as a matter of speech) written by Ivan Sant'Anna has forced me to rectify an argument I have repeated on the internet for several years about Israel.
This correction regards the sincerity (or else insincerity) of the pronouncements of the Israeli government when it justified its tough policies against Iran, Syria and Palestinians as a whole. Let me explain: Benjamin Netanyahu has often justified his dislike and intransigence against the creation of a Palestinian state on the grounds that the Arabs have never accepted the existence of Israel, to the point of promising to "wipe it off the map." Therefore, as the Arabs do not accept Israel's existence, there would be no reason to talk with the Palestinians about any form of division of the Palestinian land. In other words: "How could we help create a country that intends to destroy us?"

I have always interpreted this Israeli claim as a pretext, taking political advantage of a merely demagogic sentence often uttered by the then Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as well as other fanatical enemies of Israel. Considering the size of Israel, with its more than eight million inhabitants, the Arab promise of a second Jewish Holocaust — something as sick as the first  — would be unthinkable, just a veiled threat, nothing to be taken seriously.

However, after reading the summarized story of the creation of Israel – according to the detailed explanation made by Ivan Sant'Anna in his book - I realized that for two or three decades after the creation of the Jewish State, the Arabs have really had the intention of destroying that country. It was not mere demagoguery from the more radical Islamic wing.

Sant'Anna’s book describes, with numbers — the tanks, soldiers, aircrafts etc. — the huge war effort undertaken by the Arab nations which were determined to destroy Israel but failed because the Jews fought with rare determination, skill and the urgent support from the Americans. Israel was indeed on the verge of disappearance, even coming to the point of considering the use of the atomic bomb, of which it probably had only one or two at the time (it is impossible to know the real number with certainty because Israel is like a black box).

According to the same book, on its page 132, at the War of the Six Days, in 1967, Israel´s Defense Minister, Moshe Dayan, distressed about the inferiority of forces, went on to say at a meeting with the Israeli summit: "There is only one last resort left: to prepare for the nuclear showcase". To that, however, the more sensible and levelheaded Golda Meir immediately replied: "No way." This fact proves that since 1967 Israel has had at least one atomic bomb. And until now it wants to remain with the exclusive privilege of having that power.

These details are, among other things, what make Ivan Sant'Anna´s book especially instructive. Another interesting aspect is that the author paints personality traits of people who have influenced the rise and fall of the oil price, explaining why such oscillations occur. Former oil minister of Saudi Arabia, Ahmed Zaki Yamani, who used to appear in the headlines every week, decades ago, has his tactics to keep oil prices at the most convenient level to the interests of his country and other producers explained. He was a very intelligent and sensible man, playing his role as he maintained his influence with the king of Saudi Arabia. With the shift of the King, Yamani changed his relationship with the monarchy.

Returning to the Arab mantra of "sweeping off Israel" from the Middle East, one must, however, remind the Arabs that if they at first had some degree of moral justification to try to stop the Jewish “invasion”, the passage of time has made their claim obsolete. Israel has grown, consolidated and become an accomplished and undisputable fact. In civilizational terms, there is no sense, now, to talk about its destruction.

The only solution today for everyone in the region to be able to coexist would be the settlement of borders established by the international community — as Israelis and Palestinians seem unable to reach an agreement — after the demands of the parties are heard. The final decision of the deadlock would inevitably have to come from a "third party", i.e., the International Court of Justice, or else a special court, created ad hoc especially for the case with wide powers of equity and not merely to check if treaties, many of them the result of pressures of all kinds.

As for the issue of the return of the expelled Palestinians – who have been living precariously in shelters in neighboring countries - and the excess of Jews wanting to live in "their country," the solution must also come “from the outside", i.e., an international body, and not by a unilateral decision of either party. The judiciary might not always offer the ideal decision, but it is always a better solution than letting gross, sheer strength filled with blood and ruins all over prevail.

Any future non-conformities against an international solution may be covered or mitigated with the payment of compensations to those people affected by the judicial solution — perhaps the amount of money necessary to reach an adequate reparation will be high but the continuation of death and destruction will be even greater. For instance, the purchase of two areas in Africa would allow both the Jews and the Palestinian Arabs to live in peace without forced contacts, something that now is almost impossible in Palestine. Of course, the Africans would have to be heard about that. It is not an easy solution, but it is possible as long as there is patience.

In the past, large areas were offered to the Zionist movement for the installation, whether temporary or permanent, of a Jewish homeland. Lands in the Congo, Uganda, Mozambique and other regions were proposed. Uganda, which has a climate similar to the south of the Mediterranean Sea, i.e., not too hot, was rejected by the Zionist leaders for three reasons: the existence of many wild animals; the proximity to a savage tribe; and religious reasons, related to the "need" to return to a place considered sacred. According to the Zionists, only Jerusalem could host the new nation. It is fair to say the refusal was reasonable, at that time, due to distance, the hot African climate, as well as the difficulty of transport and access.

Now, however, it is the lions, and not the humans, that need protection; African tribes nowadays use mobile phones more often than arrows, and most of the Jewish people are agnostic anyway. Considering the size of Africa and the technology available these days against the excessive heat in shops, homes, factories and offices, both Jews and Palestinians could very well live and work there, and consequently help immensely the economic progress not only of themselves but also of Africa, which lacks investment and skilled labor. The gigantic size of Africa and the minimal utilization of its potential, today, is further evidence of the political stupidity of humanity as a whole.

Ivan Sant'Anna, at the end of his book, considers impossible a peaceful solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and his reasoning is based solely on the terms of the Palestinian size and land occupation. But who knows? If we include the African wilderness to solve the problem — as well as the opinion of Africans themselves, who would also have its advantages with the emergence of large-scale jobs —, perhaps the old racial, political and cultural conflict might end.

The Palestinians are not comparable, culturally speaking, to the Native Indians — who lived in the USA and were expelled by the British colonizers — reduced today to a few thousand individuals living in Indian reserves. The Palestinians are much more educated than the Indians of the Old West at that time. They will never forget the offense, expulsion and meanness with which they were treated by the Israeli. This recollection of suffered injustices keeps brewing in their minds. They long for revenge in the same manner as the European Jews - trampled, beaten and murdered in extermination camps - yearn for vengeance, or justice, until today, more than sixty years later, demanding jail or gallows for old Germans who followed Nazi orders despite knowing what was going to happen.

The Jews – a well-educated, multilingual and specialized in finance people (specialization which is mostly due to the very fact that in some countries they were prevented from becoming industrialists and farmers) — need to understand and be tolerant to the reaction of the most impatient Palestinians against the massive occupation of their land. Should the opposite occur, with Palestinians arriving in waves to Israel after an absence of centuries, the local Jews would probably react in the same way.  Terrorism was also a last resource used by Israelis against English authorities in Jerusalem, to the point of blowing up a hotel in 1946, the Hotel King David in Jerusalem, which served as housing for the British officials who were responsible for administering the Palestine, after the First World War ended.

According to the media, there has been an upsurge of anti-Semitism in Europe. It runs mostly because of the truculent and arrogant style of the Israeli Prime Minister, who thinks he is beyond good and evil.

Netanyahu explains nothing and relinquishes nothing. He only reacts with brute force, crushing the enemies of Israel with planes and tanks, even though the enemies are inferior in weapons. For each Israeli killed, ten or twenty Arabs die. He represents only strength and an imaginary racial superiority, forgetting that his strength is not only his own, having had the previous US support.

Netanyahu considers himself a patriot, but a patriot at its narrowest sense, a primitive one, who never tries to understand the motivation of the opponent. He loves Israel — but let us not forget that Hitler also loved his Germany. And Hitler “loved so much" that he had a sad ending. If the Israeli had treated better the Palestinian population, providing them basic services such as healthcare, education, transport and whatever else is usually necessary for a dignified life, such a conduct would have obviously led the Arab population to gradually decrease their animosity. It is not with vinegar that one attracts humble hummingbirds and bees. We cannot forget that bees carry honey, but they also have stingers.

(July 18, 2015)