BDS- Boycott Double Standards

By: Eli Verschleiser

As a horrifying wave of stabbing and shooting attacks against Israelis producing an almost daily body count, the United Methodist Church has decided to take decisive action.

A boycott aimed at Israel.

The church has announced that it will not allow its $20 billion pension fund to invest in five Israeli banks that have financed construction of housing in the West Bank.

In the wake of UN leader Ban Ki-Moon’s suggestion that violent Palestinian frustration is only a result of “human nature” and the Obama administration’s consistent policy that building apartments is as bad as or worse than terrorism, this particular approach to the problem should not surprise.

Other churches have flirted or grappled with similar boycotts, including the Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Mennonites, the Church of England and the World Council of Churches. Academic and student groups, and even a grocery co-op in Brooklyn have put resolutions past their members, and some musical performers, notably Roger Waters, have declared they won’t appear before Israeli fans on either side of the Green Line.

There are many double standards at play here. Let’s take stock of them.

First, when it comes to so-called moral voices trying to impose peace, the onus always falls squarely on Israel, because the more powerful side is always assumed to be the one at fault. As mentioned before, it’s hard to place any economic pressure on the Palestinians, given their trade status. But what if the UN and EU, as a precondition to development funding, took a serious stand to push them to, at minimum, come to peace talks without preconditions? Maybe they could also crack down on violent incitement of youth who, no longer able to smuggle explosives past the security barrier, are now resorting to stabbing attacks.

Second, there are no such boycott, divestment and sanctions movements against countries that oppress their own people or others that match the scope and intensity of the boycott push against Israel.

Third, these moralists would like to pick and choose what they boycott. If you’re in, go all in. Don’t just boycott Israeli universities and banks and food products made on the West Bank.

Boycott the research pouring out of those universities every day that stand to greatly alleviate or cure diseases, from cancer and diabetes to malaria.

Boycott pharmaceuticals patented by Israeli companies like Rafa or Teva that greatly control symptoms and improve quality of life for the sick or injured. Boycott the Pentium chips, Motorola phone systems and Microsoft OS technology developed in partnership with those companies by Israelis.

And if you’re in California, stay thirsty rather than drink the water from the San Diego desalination plant Israelis are building to help alleviate the drought there.

Does it not seem disingenuous to denounce a country as belligerent and in great need of moral rectitude while availing yourself of all the wonders resulting from Jews unencumbered by fear of being chased out of their jobs, universities, homes and countries? That scenario happened to their parents or grandparents, and there are even those who experienced it personally, either in Europe or Arab countries.

Perhaps the Palestinian boycott organizers would also like to declare that they won’t use Israeli hospitals, like Rambam Medical Center in Haifa, which recently helped save the life of a 17-year-old suffering from a rare endocrine condition. Not likely. Even stick-in-the-mud Hamas will look the other way when it comes to quality Jewish medicine in the Middle East. Relatives of top Hamas officials have sought, and received treatment for serious diseases.

Israel’s government sees the BDS movement as nothing short of an effort to destroy the country as it exists today in favor of an untenable two-state solution that would leave the Jewish half within impossible borders. There may be some well-meaning activists who naively believe something positive can be accomplished by applying economic pressure on one side of the equation (the less violent half.)

But on the whole it seems plain that the pro-boycott movement isn’t after a just outcome in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, as much as a reversal of fortune for the Jews and an end to their contemporary self-determination.


If those folks really want to make a difference in the world, they should start by cleaning up their own house. Because when people are being stabbed to death in the streets, or on the receiving end of rocket attacks, and your only reaction is to pull money out of their banks, something’s not quite right with your moral center.

Originally Published: The Huffington Post

North Korea and Iran: Brothers in Nuclear Terror

By: Eli Verschleiser

North Korea hadn’t been in the news much lately. The world was fixated on the economic woes in China, strife between Iran and Saudi Arabia and ongoing efforts to contain and defeat Isis. Then came the literally earthshaking news, and that card-carrying member of the Axis of Evil was back on our radar, having tested a hydrogen bomb believed to be about 1,000 times more powerful than an atomic bomb (opinions vary).

Wasn’t North Korea supposed be giving up its nuclear bomb program, you ask? Didn’t it sign a treaty with the United States to suspend construction of nuclear weapons reactors in 1994? And after it backed out of that agreement, didn’t it once again declare in 2007 that it was shutting down its main nuclear reactor as a result of multinational talks, ushering in new relations with the US? That one lasted until 2009, when the North Koreans began testing missiles that could carry nuclear warheads.

As recently as 2012, we were still dancing with Pyongyang, hoping for a deal to suspend uranium enrichment in return for much needed food aid (uranium isn’t very edible) and more normalized relations. More long-range missile tests put an end to that dance. And this week’s underground test shows that Kim Jong-un is unabashedly determined to play with nuclear toys.

A couple of takeaways here: Crazy regimes who have the ability to develop nuclear weapons won’t stop until they do. And deals and understandings to thwart them are worth less than the paper they are printed on.

Analysts are beginning to assess what this means for our newly inked agreement with Iran. The Obama administration said for years that “no deal is better than a bad deal,” but then proceeded to accept one anyway. The Iran deal released tons of frozen assets and opened the door for Russia to flood the Middle East with more weapons now that sanctions are lifted while Iran is largely allowed to self-monitor its dubious promise to keep uranium enrichment to levels used only for nuclear energy, not for weapons.

It didn’t take long for a test of the framework. Iran has been shooting off long range missiles, including one that came dangerously close to a U.S. aircraft carrier. The White House was prepared to slap some sanctions on Tehran but, quickly changed course under the apparent pretense that damaging President Hassan Rouhani wasn’t in our best interest when worse hardliners are sniping at his heels.

The problem for the U.S. is our lack of credibility when it comes to standing up and enforcing our stated interests, epitomized by President Obama’s pathetic “red line” warning against Syrian chemical weapons, a transgression now going into its third unpunished year. The coalition that reached the Iran deal has no real interest in enforcing red lines or re-imposing sanctions if inspectors somehow manage to stumble across a violation of the nuclear deal, and Tehran has to be very closely studying how the U.S., the U.N. and NATO react to North Korea’s openly flaunting its nuclear weapons. Admittedly, options are limited.

It may fall to Russia’s Putin to make a difference. Vladimir Putin has visited North Korea and in November sent a military delegation to conduct high-ranking talks about mutual interest. In 2012 Putin forgave billions in North Korean debt in order to foster better ties. But the possible H bomb is a game changer.

Russian officials have expressed grave concern. "Such actions are fraught with further aggravation of the situation on the Korean peninsula, which is anyway marked by very high potential of military and political confrontation," said foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, according to the Moscow Times.

If Russia has a chance to play the good guy here, it can do so for its own interest, exerting global influence, upstaging the U.S. and perhaps diverting attention from its role supporting Bashar Assad in Syria and its bullying of Ukraine. Polls have reportedly shown that Russian citizens have a largely unfavorable view of North Korea, believing that its nuclear ambitions are a menace. Maybe Putin can come up with the leverage needed to talk some sense into Kim Jong-Un.

Then we’ll still have to worry about Iran. Analysts are concerned that ties between Tehran and Pyongyang, and the presence of Iranian scientists at past North Korean tests and their sharing of missile technology. Iran would not have to conduct its own tests if it could gain easy access to North Korea’s data. Doing so may not even be a violation of the vague terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty with Iran, Thomas Moore, a former non-proliferation expert for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told Business Insider.

If the world continues its tepid reaction to North Korea’s test, it will send a strong message to an Iran that is likely already biding its time to go nuclear, either in secret violation of the agreement or when its term is over.

Quite a frightening scenario to consider. It’s hard enough to put one nuclear genie back in the bottle. What are the chances we’ll be able to do it twice?

Originally Published by: The Hill

A tragic war with no end in sight

Fighting ISIS means difficult, unsatisfying choices.

By: Eli Verschleiser

Our revulsion at the Paris attacks and subsequent Isis violence was palpable, and our reaction almost universal. We want action.

But are we prepared to accept the difficult truth? The only answer to brute force by evil and depraved fanatics is brute force by the good guys -- working with some of the not-so-good guys.

The French wasted no time launching counterstrikes against ISIS targets in retaliation for the brutal slaughter of over 130 citizens at multiple Paris locations. At the same time, the Russians, once confirming their airliner was brought down by a terrorist bomb (Isis took responsibility) have unleashed some heavy ordnance on targets in Isis’ growing territory. There will be no shortage of payback for these outrages, and the ones sadly to come, and the U.S., under increasing pressure to take leadership, will keep up or increase its own strikes.

The burning question: Will it matter?

This is not a war over territory that can be easily won by controlling airspace, ports and resources and by depleting the other side’s troops. It’s a war against an ideology that almost effortlessly gains new recruits and sympathizers, not just people in bunkers in Iraq and Syria, but well-educated people in Europe, in peaceful Mideast states and even in the U.S., willing to give their lives in a conflict that we can barely understand, let alone contain.

There are those who believe we are playing right into Isis’s hands with our response. More bombings create more civilian casualties, and more angry orphans to join Isis. Our suspicion of and, on the part of some, hostility toward Muslim refugees in Europe and those trying to enter the U.S. also creates radicals. The Russians, always with an agenda of their own, stand to benefit from this too: The refugee problem boosts the fortunes of right-wing political parties in Europe more inclined to align themselves with Vladimir Putin, and less concerned about his subjugation of Ukraine.

If chaos is what Isis craves, it is meeting its own objectives handily. Despite the above concerns, we have no choice but to drop bombs, and no choice but to carefully scrutinize the refugees to weed out potential terrorists, despite the notion on the left that it is un-American not to quickly open our doors.

Leaving us with so few choices, Isis is outmaneuvering us.

ISIS

But there’s one aspect of this no-choice conundrum that, as perplexing as it may be, could lead to the eventual defeat of Isis. They are gripped by a powerful delusional vision of what some call “volcanic jihad” that can establish a beachhead in the Middle East that spreads radicalized Islam around the world, and that vision affects everyone around them, creating the unlikeliest bedfellows.

Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Kurds, even Hezbollah in Beirut, Sunni tribes in Iraq and of course the Russians all have the same interest in excising this cancer, as do the U.S. and its NATO allies. Can they all join together in a workable coalition? Do we dare even work with Bashar Assad’s forces? Or is keeping him in power too bitter a bill to swallow?

It may be precisely because of the odds mounting against them that Isis operatives have struck or so many times in recent weeks – the Russian airline, Paris, Beirut -- and may be planning new attacks in Brussels or the U.S.

According to a New York Times analysis, nearly 1,000 deaths have caused by Isis outside Iraq and Syria so far in 2015. A former CIA official told the paper the group is moving beyond inspiring “lone wolf” attacks by sympathizers, and now seems to have the ability to coordinate its own operatives.

It remains to be seen if this power could withstand the disruption of focused attacks by a coordinated coalition of enemies, which could break off communication from the stronghold in Raqqa, Syria, to its operatives abroad. Perhaps in the best case scenario, such force reverts Isis to inspiring the lone wolves again through brutal videotapes and fundamentalist rantings, and there will be fewer recruits if they see the cause losing steam rather than ascendant.

But if inciting a global, apocalyptic war is a key goal of Isis, uniting some of the most disparate powers can achieve exactly the opposite effect.

To achieve this coalition, western powers must step up their efforts to convince Arab powers to take an active role, not just cheer-lead, meaning, troops and logistical support, including use of airspace and bases. It should not be the job of French or American troops to clean up their neighborhood for them. A key strategy for Isis is to rely heavily on fence-sitters to be scared into silence and inaction.

A 2004 manifesto written by the precursor group to Isis, entitled “The Management of Savagery,” as reported in a recent essay by Scott Atran and Nefess Hamid in the New York Review of Books, calls for followers to “diversify and widen the vexation strikes against the Crusader-Zionist enemy in every place in the Islamic world, and even outside if possible, so as to disperse the efforts of the alliance of the enemy …”

“diversify and widen the vexation strikes against the Crusader-Zionist enemy in every place in the Islamic world, and even outside if possible, so as to disperse the efforts of the alliance of the enemy …”

Divide and conquer is a time-proven strategy, and it has made Isis more powerful, but as the conflict grinds on, it may backfire as disparate enemies have no choice but to work together.

It may be a long, sad and often terrifying conflict, with no immediate end in sight, and the ideology behind Isis will never be completely eliminated. But with the right amount of determination and unity a coalition could disrupt its leadership, disperse its elements, dissuade volunteers and, most importantly, save thousands of future innocent lives.

Originally Published by: The Hill

A Heated Debate

By: Eli Verschleiser

Like a jolt of caffeine from a five-dollar macchiato, the controversy surrounding Starbucks’ coffee’s modification of its holiday season cups was intense.

Maybe the company was trying to be more inclusive by removing Christmas decorations from the cups, or maybe they just wanted a simpler design. In any case, it nicely kicked off this year’s complaints about a war on Christmas, and even if our attention has been subverted by terrorism around the world, this controversy signifies a growing concern that religion is increasingly so unpopular that is no longer commercial, unless thoroughly watered down.

I do not dismiss those who feel their most important holiday is increasingly secularized, reduced to inclusion with “the holidays,” Santa Claus obfuscating Jesus and sales at the mega-mall overshadowing spirituality and prayer.

America is increasingly diverse but still overwhelmingly Christian, and Christmas is the only religious observance recognized as a national holiday.

However, the Pew Research Center’s poll on religion and public life, released in May, found that Unaffiliated is the fastest growing faith (or lack thereof) in the U.S., at 22.8 percent second to Evangelical Protestants, and just above Catholics. Those identifying as unattached to any particular denomination (which does not necessarily make them atheists) grew by 6.7 percent since 2007. Catholic affiliation dropped 3.1 percent and mainline Protestantism dropped 3.4 percent in that time. Even Evangelicals shrank slightly, 0.9 percent.

The coffee cup change would barely be noticed if not for the larger sense that not just Christianity but all religion is under attack in some form.

Outside of the feel-good Christmas season, when those doing good deeds are likely to be highlighted, religion in the news the rest of the year it is almost always in a negative context: corruption or sexual abuse by a clergy member, intolerant acts or statements by people in the name of religion, and of course, violent terror attacks in the name of fundamentalist Islam. Headline writers seem to delight in them.

When religion is displayed in pop culture, more often than not it’s a comedic turn (Seinfeld’s Festivus) or perhaps “torn from the headlines” depictions of religious misdeeds or silliness. This year, Seth Rogen vomiting in a church while wearing a Chanukah sweater may be the most memorable image of the holiday movie season.

We will never stop investing as a result of Wall Street scandals, or marrying as a result of prominent adultery and divorces, but somehow we are quick to give up on religion because we keep hearing about misbehaving clergy.

Every faith has its bad apples, as do atheists. But the fact is, no one goes around the world to fight AIDS or Ebola or dig wells or save children, or respond to disasters in the proud name of atheism. Faith-based groups do so routinely.

Members of the Jewish faith who observe rituals and customs that are strange to others typically do not face open scorn, per se, in media and pop culture.

Nevertheless, they often find themselves under a media microscope, with articles, books, films and TV news shows making them objects of curiosity, displayed for gentiles with anthropological commentary.

At the same time, calls for inclusion and recognition of diversity from the left seem much more inclined toward watering down anything religious in the public sphere, rather than increasing recognition of the symbols of multiple faiths.

That’s why those offended by the generic “Happy Holidays” and the Starbucks cups worry about a slippery slope.

Next thing you know Christmas is an optional work holiday, In God We Trust comes off the currency, the President is forbidden from using the Bible for his oath of office, and houses of worship lose their tax exempt status, all sacrificed on the altar of the ascendant Unaffiliated tribe.

We’re a long way from that point, but we do need more tolerance of religion and recognition of what it means in a positive way for millions of American individuals and families.

Yielding to pressure, Starbucks may well come up with an appeasing Christmas cup (although they seem to be ignoring pressure to open stores in Israel, which is another story).

But I’d rather see the coffee giant invest in printing up Yuletide, Chanukah, Kwanzaa and other cups to choose from, along with a plain one for the unaffiliated. This would be welcome corporate recognition that diversity does not mean bland secularism and “holidays-ism.”

And it would send a nice message that being proud of identity, faith and country all meld nicely together, and can be just as American as an overpriced macchiato.

Originally Published on: The Huffington Post

Modesty Is Not Bigotry

By: Eli Verschleiser

A society should be judged by how well we treat the vulnerable and minorities in our midst.

But society must also be judged by how we balance the rights of all people to coexist together. Reasonable accommodation for some should never amount to violation of the rights of others.

When it comes to the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender Americans, change is happening quickly and, post legalization of same-sex marriage, in an almost cascade effect. We must be cautious of the road ahead to maintain that balance.

The transgender flag. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

When it comes to the accommodation of religious observance, for example, now required by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and similar legislation, a worker who wants to observe holidays or wear religious garb must be accommodated reasonably up until a point where an employer can demonstrate that such accommodation poses undue hardship to the business despite attempts to compromise.

The Americans for Disability Act also has exemptions for changing infrastructure or service provision if it poses undue hardship to a facility.

But when it comes to fully accommodating youth who identify as transgender, not only must accommodation be immediate and absolute, but it can be imposed not by carefully crafted legislation, but by the fiat of the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights.

In ordering that an Illinois school district must not dare to interfere with a biological boy’s unfettered access to the girls’ locker room, this office of appointed officials has set a precedent for every school in the United States.

And it will have far reaching implications. Already several other similar cases have arisen.

What is most striking about these controversies, from my point of view, is the tolerance gap.

By all accounts, school officials and students have proven sympathetic to the transgender student, while seeking reasonable accommodation. The unnamed student in the Illinois case was offered a private area to change to avoid the apparently unbearable scenario of having to use the boys’ locker room, while still protecting the girls’ privacy.

That led to the civil rights complaint, with the ruling declaring that this accommodation violates the transgender student’s rights – despite the fact that no one questioned the student’s orientation or pointed the student back to the male locker room.

A similar case became more heated, in the small town of Hillsboro, Missouri, where Lila Perry, born male but now identifying as female, has insisted on using the girls’ locker room for gym class. A large number of students, male and female, staged a walk-out protest against such an accommodation.

Hillsboro also offered a private changing area, which Lila refused.

Numerous students and parents interviewed said they did not question the sincerity of Lila’s identification as a girl. They just wanted their feelings to be taken into account in the matter.

One astute Hillsboro high school senior, Sydney Dye, told CNN: “Some girls already have insecurity problems getting dressed in front of other girls as it is, much less having to get dressed in front of a boy."

But Lila wasn’t having any of it, blanket accusing every last one of the student protesters and their parent supporters as bigots: “I don’t believe for a second that they are [uncomfortable]. I think this is pure and simple bigotry. I wasn’t hurting anyone and I didn’t want to feel segregated out.”

And so we are enmeshed in a rather sudden national debate about whether one’s desire for locker rooms and bathrooms to be segregated according to biological gender is akin to hating gays, people of color, Jews or immigrants.

I suspect that even a majority of liberals won’t get caught in that trap. As many commentators pointed out, voters in Houston, a city that heavily supported Barack Obama and elected a lesbian mayor three times, recently defeated an ordinance that included allowing transgender people to use whatever public bathroom they wish.

In the absence of written laws on this subject, or a uniform definition of a transgender student, school officials are left in the unenviable position of trying to find the wisdom of Solomon in these cases and, if they’re lucky, avoid getting sued or federally de-funded.

The only solution that will satisfy everyone involved is a redefinition of the contemporary bathroom and locker room. Public men’s and women’s rooms will eventually give way to banks of private cubicles and stall showers that allow privacy for everyone, similar to what is being done in private health clubs. This is especially important in schools. Equal rights means equal privacy for those who want it.

Only in that way, in today’s cascade of political correctness and bureaucratic redefinition of discrimination, can a girl be spared the dual indignities of being forced to shower with a boy at school, and being labeled a bigot for her discomfort.

Originally Published: The Algemeiner

Israel’s Iron Dome Supporters Deserve Our Thanks

gettyimages -  Israel Iron Dome

By: Eli Verschleiser

Congress understands that stopping anti-Israel rocket attacks saves lives on both sides of the conflict.

Imagine going to bed worried that an alert will go off in the middle of the night and you’ll have to gather up your family and scramble to a shelter.

Imagine sending your kids off to school worrying about their safety from airborne threats on the way, and when they get there. Imagine living through air raid alerts on a regular basis, huddled in your sealed room, wondering if, should destruction rain down from the skies, your shelter will be strong enough to protect you from harm.

Imagine shopping for a home or apartment and, in addition to price and location, needing to ask about a panic room.

Millions of Israelis don’t have to imagine this scenario. Whether Jewish, Arab or Christian – rockets can’t discriminate- this is their reality day to day: In the south, rocket attacks from Hamas in Gaza; In the North, from Hezbollah in Lebanon. In the center of Israel, a country no bigger than New Jersey, safety is relative as rockets with increasing sophistication and power project terror at longer and longer ranges.

So far in 2015, there have been 23 rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza, most recently on Oct. 21, when a projectile landed in Sh’ar Hanegev. Last year, which included the summer conflict that started Israel’s Operation Protective Edge, the number was 4,005, resulting in 8 deaths, 60 injuries and 1,663 Palestinians killed in counterstrikes.

Striking back at the launch sites doesn’t solve the problem. Had Gazans applied the same devotion to productive endeavors like agriculture and tourism as they do toward bloodthirsty rocketry, the area would be thriving today, rather than the blockaded ruin.

The situation would be far worse for both sides if not for the technology of Iron Dome, shared by Israelis and the United States. The ability to track rockets as they launch, calculate their trajectory and eliminate the most dangerous projectiles saves lives, likely many thousands of them. When rockets do not reach their intended targets, Israelis are the obvious beneficiaries, but innocent Palestinians are spared the threat of collateral damage from a counter strike that would be tactically necessary after any lethal attack.

Members of the United States Congress understand this and since 2009 have consistently voted to increase funding for this technology. It should be a political no-brainer. No matter where you stand on Israel’s politics and policies, decent people and particularly leaders should agree that everyone has a right not to blown up by a rocket.

Moreover, it serves the higher purpose of the Israeli Palestinian peace process (such as it is) to decrease the incentive and effectiveness of this senseless violence. Whether Hamas and Hezbollah will one day realize the futility of this strategy is anyone’s guess, but it’s our sacred obligation to send that message.

That is why I am proud to be a part of the Congressional Tribute honoring standout members of Congress on both sides of the aisle who have supported Iron Dome – with up to $371.2 million in this year’s Defense Authorization bill. The honorees are Ed Royce (R-CA) , Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Middle East and North Africa; Doug Lamborn (R-CO), Vice Chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces; Nita Lowey (D-NY), Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Committee; Ted Deutch (D-FL), Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa; Hal Rogers (R-KY), Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee; Peter Roskam (R-IL), Co-chair of the House Republican Israel Caucus; Eliot Engel (D-NY) Ranking Member of Foreign Affairs Committee; Mike Rogers (R-AL), Chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.

Investment in Iron Dome has never been more important, given our lack of leadership in the Middle East that has created a dangerous void easily filled by Isis on one side and the Russians on the other. With billions of post-sanction dollars flowing into Iran courtesy of the nuclear deal, Iran may well increase their own investment in Hezbollah in the form of upgraded weapons.

Those same weapons could easily make their way south to Gaza. With anti-Jewish bloodlust on the rise in Israel, missiles may, God forbid, soon become the new knives. And how long before they get their hands on biological or radioactive payloads?

All the more reason to keep close tabs on your representatives and senators. Thank them if they have already boosted Iron Dome. If not, ask them to close their eyes and picture themselves dashing to one of those sealed rooms in the middle of the night as a piercing siren sounds.

Originally Published: The Observer

All Lives Matter

By: Eli Verschleiser

It’s heartbreaking to see a movement in 2015 based on the slogan Black Lives Matter. It seems a throwback to the days of the civil rights struggle in the 60s. Fundamental truths should never have to be asserted through slogans.

It’s equally alarming when the president of the United States feels compelled to say, as Barack Obama did last week, that “Targeting police officers is completely unacceptable — an affront to civilized society.” Does any rational person believe otherwise?

Modern America is an overwhelmingly tolerant and sensitive society, with better rights and protections for all than any other country, but we still somehow manage to seem like a balkanized, deeply divided place.

The most disturbing phenomenon of all is what seems like a back-and-forth between Black Lives Matter and Police Lives Matter camps. This takes on a more volatile tone after a white cop in Texas was shot by a black suspect, possibly having been targeted just because of his uniform. He leaves behind a wife and two small children. A similar incident happened in New York City late last year, leaving two victims.

There have, of course, been numerous incidents in the past year or so involving black suspects or detainees who have died at the hands of police, some resulting in charges against the officers, others bringing no action and some still under investigation. I will not delve into any of these highly emotionally charged cases, several involving video extensively aired before the public.

I will only say that it’s important to study each case individually – the circumstances, the people involved on both sides of the altercation, the timing and every conceivable detail. They should not automatically fall into a narrative that cops view any life as less precious because of race.

It’s important to consider that police officers simply do not inhabit the same world and think the same as civilians who are never called upon to risk their lives. It’s easy to expect them to always calmly and rationally make decisions in a split second as if they had hours to contemplate their response and consult with others, as most of us generally have the luxury of doing in matters of far less consequence. People in dangerous situations can sometimes act in ways completely inconsistent with their usual character, including cops when they perceive their lives to be in danger.

What may not appear to be a life threatening situation in the calm viewing of a video appears completely different to the officer who carries a photo of his family, or a prayer, inside his hat and leaves the house every day fearful that he or she will not make it back.

This, of course, is not a blanket excuse for the behavior of all cops. Stress and danger come with the territory. But just as it would be wrong to assume all cops involved violent encounters with black suspects, detainees or innocent bystanders are inherently racist, it would be just as foolish to assume that this is never the case.

There are people who become cops for the wrong reason – drawn to power and authority for its own sake, not as a means to an altruistic end. There are good cops influenced by bad superiors or peers. And there are cops who grow up with bad perceptions of minorities -- influenced to some extent by selective news coverage, pop culture and lack of personal experience -- who never shake off their biases. It’s also important to recognize that bad cops aren’t inherently white, as black officers have recently been charged in violence against black suspects, notably in the Baltimore Freddy Gray case.

Better training and increasingly diverse police forces may, in the long term, address some of the biases and public scrutiny will inevitably force cops to be more conscious of street confrontations, how they respond to them and which ones may be unnecessary in the first place. (Do untaxed cigarettes really warrant an armed task force?)

Body cameras, already being phased in in Dallas and Los Angeles, will likely one day be standard issue along with the gun and badge. I worry that this technology, while it stands to benefit cops by vindicating their actions in some situations, can have a detrimental effect in causing hesitation to get involved in avoidable situations for fear of making a bad call and having it immortalized.

Technology can make a better contribution: Non-lethal weapons -- which can range from Tasers (already widely in use) to blunt-force projectile guns, chemical agents and even flashing, disorienting light -- have the power to immobilize a civilian and put a quick end to a confrontation without the mortal consequences.

Cops should still carry conventional guns to match force with force when needed, but the non-lethal option could greatly reduce the number of police-related fatalities while still getting criminals off the street and into custody. And, there’s a margin of error that can result in lawsuits, but not funerals.

At the end of the day, it’s important for us all to avoid being dragged into opposing camps, but instead stand behind the single most timely slogan: All Lives Matter.