THOUGHTS

 At 68, I grapple with a profound sense of dislocation, as if I’ve been transported to a different planet. This dissonance between the world I remember and the one I see now is unsettling.

 

The sense of alienation I experience is not just about personal disorientation but also a deep-seated disquiet over the state of affairs in our society. I am confronted daily by a deluge of corruption, immorality, and unchecked greed that permeates almost every corner of our lives. The ethical fabric that once seemed so firm and reliable appears to be fraying, and the values I held dear seem to be eroding before my eyes.

The political climate, in particular, is something I’ve never encountered before. The intense polarization, the erosion of civil discourse, and the relentless pursuit of power are starkly depart from the past’s more measured and principled debates. It’s as though the very mechanisms of governance and civic engagement have been transformed into something almost unrecognizable.

In this tumultuous environment, I find myself yearning for a simpler time—a time that feels increasingly distant. I miss what I consider “planet Earth,” a place where integrity, empathy, and shared values hold more sway. It’s not just nostalgia but a deep longing for a sense of coherence and moral clarity that seems to have slipped through our collective fingers.

This sense of being out of place is compounded by the speed at which change occurs. Technology, globalization, and shifting social norms have accelerated changes in both exhilarating and disorienting ways. While progress in these areas can be positive, the rapid pace and the accompanying disruptions often leave me feeling like a spectator on the sidelines, struggling to make sense of a world that moves too quickly for me to grasp fully.

So here I am, navigating this new reality, trying to reconcile the person I was with the world I now inhabit. It’s a challenging journey, filled with moments of reflection and occasional melancholy. I can’t help but wonder if I’ll ever feel at home again or if I must come to terms with the fact that the world has irrevocably shifted—and I must find my way in this new world, even if it feels like I’m walking on a different planet. I miss planet Earth.

**********************************************************************************************

May Golan’s speech at the United Nations proves the UN’s Bias towards Palestinians.

 

The International Court at The Hague’s Decision is Erroneous

Structured And Edited by ChatGPT

 

The recent decision by the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague to indict Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has sparked global debate. To many observers, this move is not only legally questionable but also morally and strategically flawed. The court has failed to contextualize the nature of the conflict, misattributing blame and, in doing so, risks undermining the very principles of justice it purports to uphold. This essay argues that the ICC’s decision is erroneous for several key reasons: the asymmetrical nature of the conflict, the legitimate right of Israel to self-defense, the documented actions of Hamas, and the implications for international law.

---

1. Misplaced Accountability: A Case of Inverted Justice

The decision to indict the head of a democratic nation defending itself against terrorist aggression reveals a fundamental misreading of the situation. Hamas, which governs Gaza and is designated as a terrorist organization by the United States, the European Union, Canada, and other major global actors, initiated the latest round of violence with unprecedented attacks on Israeli civilians. These attacks involved murder, rape, hostage-taking, and the indiscriminate firing of rockets into Israeli towns—clear violations of international humanitarian law.

Rather than holding Hamas accountable for both initiating conflict and embedding military infrastructure in civilian areas—a tactic that guarantees collateral damage—the ICC has targeted the leadership of the country defending itself. This is not justice; it is a politically driven misapplication of international legal norms.

---

2. The Right to Self-Defense Under International Law

Article 51 of the UN Charter enshrines the inherent right of states to self-defense. Israel, like any sovereign state, has not only the right but the obligation to protect its citizens from acts of terror. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), though not infallible, undertake measures to minimize civilian harm, including warnings before airstrikes, targeted operations, and the use of precision weaponry. Hamas, by contrast, uses civilians as human shields and launches attacks from schools, hospitals, and mosques.

To indict the leader of a nation responding to terrorist violence with proportional and legally sanctioned means is to erode the legal foundations that support the principle of self-defense. It signals to terrorist groups that they can provoke wars, hide behind civilian populations, and escape legal consequence while democratically elected leaders bear the burden of blame.

---

3. Responsibility of Gazan Leadership and Populace

It must be acknowledged that Hamas holds political control in Gaza and has done so since 2007 after a violent coup against the Palestinian Authority. The group has consistently rejected peaceful solutions, including offers of ceasefires and peace negotiations. More troubling is the broad base of local support for Hamas, as evidenced by widespread public celebrations of the October 7 attacks and ongoing indoctrination campaigns that glorify martyrdom and demonize Jews.

While many innocent Gazans suffer, the root cause of their suffering is not Israel’s military response but Hamas’s strategic decision to wage war from within civilian neighborhoods. In any war, civilian casualties are a tragedy, but when one party deliberately ensures their own civilians are placed in harm’s way, moral and legal blame cannot be placed solely on the defending side.

---

4. The ICC’s Political Bias and Erosion of Credibility

The ICC has long faced criticism for selectively targeting certain nations and leaders while ignoring more egregious crimes by authoritarian regimes. The indictment of Netanyahu, absent corresponding charges against Hamas leaders for crimes against humanity and war crimes, reveals a troubling bias that undermines the court’s legitimacy.

In choosing to focus on Israel, the ICC emboldens those who view international legal bodies as tools of political warfare. Such decisions may have the unintended effect of delegitimizing international justice altogether, particularly in the eyes of democratic societies that prioritize the rule of law and the protection of human rights.

---

5. Consequences for Future Conflicts

This indictment sets a dangerous precedent. It disincentivizes responsible military conduct and emboldens non-state actors to exploit the rules of war. If democratic leaders fear legal prosecution for defending their citizens while terrorists are shielded by political maneuvering and international indecision, the global order will tilt further toward chaos.

Moreover, this decision risks conflating legitimate military actions with war crimes, confusing the legal frameworks of jus ad bellum (the right to war) and jus in bello (justice in war). Such confusion ultimately endangers civilians everywhere by weakening deterrence against terrorism.

The International Criminal Court’s indictment of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a legal misstep and a moral failure. It ignores the root cause of the conflict—the genocidal intent and terrorist actions of Hamas—and punishes a state acting in defense of its people. If justice is to mean anything, it must be impartial, contextual, and based on objective facts rather than political posturing. By indicting the wrong entity, the ICC risks turning justice on its head and undermining the very foundations of international law. A re-evaluation of this decision is urgently needed—not just for Israel’s sake, but for the integrity of the global legal system.

*************************************************************************************************************

The Hidden Cost of Communication: Time Lost in Corporate and Healthcare Bureaucracy

 

In the modern digital age, efficiency is often touted as one of technology’s most outstanding achievements. Yet, paradoxically, simply communicating with corporations, hospitals, and doctor’s offices in America has become an excruciatingly slow and frustrating experience. The time lost in navigating automated phone systems, waiting on hold, and receiving inadequate responses impacts our productivity, emotional well-being, and overall quality of life.

The Time Drain of Automated Systems

You can look at a simple scenario: call your health insurance provider to resolve a billing issue. The ordeal begins with an automated voice instructing you to “listen carefully as our menu options have changed.” This forces you to sit through three minutes of recorded instructions. Then, you must select from a list of call options—none of which may precisely fit your issue—taking another two minutes. Finally, you are transferred to the appropriate department, only to wait on hold for five more minutes. Then, the dreaded message plays: “We are experiencing an unusually high call volume. Your estimated wait time is 15 minutes.”

When an agent finally picks up, please explain your concern, only to be asked to hold once again while they check your account. Another five minutes pass. The agent returns with an incorrect answer, and it would encourage you to challenge their response. The cycle repeats, adding another five to ten minutes of waiting. After nearly 30 minutes, frustration sets in, and you are left with two choices: continue to press for a better answer or resign yourself to an unresolved issue.

Imagine going through this process multiple times daily for different services, whether a bank, an airline, an insurance company, or a doctor’s office. If each call takes an average of 30 minutes and you make three calls per day, that’s 90 minutes lost. Multiply that by five days a week, and you’ve spent 7.5 hours—nearly an entire workday—simply trying to communicate.

The Human Cost of Inefficiency

The ramifications of this inefficiency extend beyond lost time. These interactions take a psychological toll. Automated systems’ repetitive, impersonal nature fosters frustration, stress, and even a sense of helplessness. Consumers often feel at the mercy of unresponsive bureaucracies prioritizing corporate convenience over customer service.

Moreover, this inefficiency disproportionately affects those who rely on these services the most—elderly individuals, people with disabilities, and those managing chronic health conditions. For them, a delayed or unresolved call could mean missing out on vital healthcare, financial support, or other essential services. The inaccessibility of quick, human-centered communication creates additional barriers in an already complicated system.

The Illusion of Technological Progress

Corporations often justify these convoluted systems as necessary for handling extensive customer inquiries. However, this argument falls apart when businesses prioritize cost-cutting over customer satisfaction. By replacing human representatives with automated systems, companies reduce labor costs but shift the burden onto customers, who must now navigate these inefficient systems independently.

Ironically, advancements in artificial intelligence and customer service technology should have made communication easier, not harder. Instead of using technology to enhance accessibility, many companies have weaponized automation to deflect responsibility, minimize human interaction, and make it harder for customers to seek resolution.

Potential Solutions

While the current state of corporate communication is bleak, some solutions could restore efficiency and fairness to the process.

1. Government Regulation: As consumer protection laws regulate deceptive advertising and unfair business practices, policies should be implemented to set customer service response times standards. Companies should be required to offer a direct human option without excessive automated hurdles.

2. Improved AI and Customer Service Models: Businesses should invest in AI-driven customer support that is genuinely helpful rather than obstructive. AI should be designed to efficiently connect users to the correct representative rather than keeping them stuck in endless loops.

3. Consumer Pressure: Customers can collectively demand better service by doing business with companies prioritizing accessibility and responsiveness. Social media complaints, reviews, and boycotts can pressure companies to improve their systems.

4. Return to Human-Centered Service: While automation has its place, companies must recognize that efficiency should not come at the cost of customer satisfaction. A hybrid model that balances automation with actual human interaction would better serve customers.

The time lost in communicating with corporations and healthcare providers is an inconvenience and a systemic failure to prioritize human needs over corporate efficiency. Each wasted minute on hold reflects a more significant issue: the erosion of genuine customer service in favor of impersonal, bureaucratic processes. It is time to rethink and reform these systems, ensuring that technology is a tool for accessibility rather than an obstacle. Until then, Americans will continue to spend hours trapped in the frustrating cycle of waiting, holding, and ultimately, giving up.

I have always made it a point to embrace the positive side of life, even when faced with challenges. This mindset has been especially meaningful as I navigate the changes that come with aging, including the gradual decline of my memory. Surprisingly, this shift has brought unexpected joy into my life.

Take watching movies, for instance. Films that I’ve seen countless times before now feel completely new to me. When I sit down to watch, it’s as though I’m experiencing the story for the very first time. I have no recollection of the actors, the plot twists, or the most memorable scenes, which turns each viewing into a delightful discovery. What might seem like a loss to some has become a unique way for me to find pleasure in the familiar, allowing me to relive these moments with a sense of wonder and curiosity. It’s a reminder that even in the face of change, beauty and joy can be found in unexpected places.