#1,022: "Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan"

Within literally 2 minutes of word being released that Israel and Hamas had agreed to a Gaza ceasefire deal, I posted both a headline and a link to that effect on my Facebook page.  Within a couple of minutes, a fellow I’ve known down here in South Florida for more than 40 years . . . and never really discussed politics with for reasons which will quickly become obvious . . . posted a 2-word response: “Thank Trump.”  I quickly answered in 2 words “Thanks, no.” 

The fellow responded to my answer in 6 words: “He threatened them and meant it.”  Not being able to sit still, I wrote him back: “You give him far, far too much credit. It's Biden and his State Department that have been working on this for over a year.”  My friend in turn wrote “You’ve got to be kidding! A Year !!?? The only thing Hamas or Iran types fear is force. Trump made it very clear after he was elected that if these lunatics didn’t release the American hostages ( assuming they are alive) by the time he took office they would pay a terrible price. If you think they are agreeing to release them a week before he takes office is a coincidence then you don’t understand how they see the world.”

At this point, not wishing to violate what I’ve been telling my university students for nearly 30 years (Don’t beat your head against a wall, engaging in political arguments with people who will never change their mind . . . unless you’re in love with migraine headaches”), I broke off the Facebook conversation. But this was by no means the end of the “Trump-was-solely-responsible-Biden-didn’t-accomplish-Jack-your’re-full-of-it-and you’re-a-liberal-no-nothing” back and forth.

As luck would have it, one of the “Hollywood Brats” (a second generation Property Manager) who was a mainstay of our temple youth group 60 years ago, took up the cudgels for his skinny friend and wouldn’t give an inch. This Hollywood Brat is a mountain of a man . . . easily the biggest of our crowd. He looks like the epitome of a hardcore jock (well, he does play a lot of golf) but is really a very bright and literate fellow. After about 30 back-and-forth postings, both men gave up the fight. I managed to call my “Brat” friend, thanked him for his staunch efforts, told him I would be writing this blog, and promised to safeguard his anonymity (except for others of our clique who will instantly know who I am writing about).

It should come as no surprise that Felon #47 and his staunchest loyalists firmly believe that a single, conning narcissist could pull off the ceasefire almost single-handedly because he is both lethally fearsome and the world’s best negotiator. Sorry to say, but this is simply not the way diplomacy works. It is a terribly difficult artform; some have even earned advanced degrees in it, from places like Georgetown University, Johns Hopkins and the “Rolls Royce” of such institutions, the Fletcher School of Diplomacy at Tufts University. Diplomatic successes do not occur overnight, which is what IT  has tried to convince the public about . . . that he did not become involved in achieving the cease fire until the day after he won the 2025 election . . . an election in which nearly 36% of the American voting public did not cast ballots.  To hear him tell it, the reason why the ceasefire took less than 2 months to achieve is because he put fear in the hearts and minds of those he faced, and is the world’s best negotiator.  Again, this is simply not how diplomacy succeeds.  

How can I put this? Well, consider an algae (which is neither bacteria nor plant but an aquatic photosynthetic organism) doubles in size in less than 24 hours. It begins life in, say Lake Michigan, as a teeny-tiny organism which cannot be seen without a microscope. Now, let’s say it takes 20 years to become visible to the naked eye. How long would it take to completely fill the lake’s 22,300 square miles? Believe it or not, if left unabated, less than 4 months. To those who pay no attention, it would seem that the lake was overtaken by this organism in a short span of time; to those who know something about microbiology, it took over 20 years. This, in a sense, is how a successful act of diplomacy works; it seems to happen overnight, but actually takes a lot of time and many starts and stops before it happens “overnight.”

Reportage on the Biden Administration’s initial efforts to patch together a ceasefire came as early as January 21st of last year. The first article published in the New York Times on January 21st, 2024 informed readers that the President and Sec. of State Anthony Blinken (who had already made several clandestine trips to the Middle East) were sending Middle East Coordinator Brett McGurk to meet with Egyptian and Qatari leaders “in hopes of making progress toward freeing captives held by Hamas.” This was likely the first time anyone outside of the White House, “Foggy Bottom” (which is the nickname for the State Department) or Capitol Hill had ever heard the name “McGurk.” He is a longtime diplomat who has served first as the Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant under Presidents Obama and Trump, who kept him on. He resigned this position during the first Trump Administration after 45’s October 2019 withdrawal from Syria, which McGurk had strongly warned against doing. Biden brought him back at the beginning of his administration and created a new position for McGurk: National Security Council for the Middle East and North Africa. He is well-schooled in the politics, culture and historical difficulties of the Middle East. Over the past year, occasionally accompanied by C.I.A. director William J. Burns, he has been on the road dealing with the leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah, Egypt and 5 of the 7 Gulf Coast Emirates (UAE, comprised of Abu Dhabi, Ajman, Dubai, Fujairah and Ras al Khalman). Not universally loved or appreciated by more progressive members of the Democratic caucus on Capitol Hill (they say he doesn’t place human rights at the top of his agenda) he is widely acknowledged for knowing the politics, the people and the political psychology of Middle Eastern leaders.

Unlike Secretary McGurk’s years of diplomatic experience, the incoming administration’s Middle East representative, Steve Witkoff boasts no such credentials, but rather is a longtime (more than 4 decades) IT friend, business associate and golfing buddy. Like his pal, Witkoff and Jared Kusher’s father Charles (who, if approved will be America’s next Ambassador to France) Witkoff is a multi-billionaire property developer and investor. Like Jared, much of Witkoff’s investment capital comes from the Saudi’s and members of the U.A.E.

In addition to his business style and personal interests in the Middle East, Witkoff reportedly shares ITs brash personality. As an example, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that Witkoff called from Qatar to tell Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's aides that he would be coming to Israel the following afternoon in order to finalize the ceasefire deal, but was told by aides that the Israeli leader could not be disturbed during Shabbat, the Jewish day of rest. Witkoff, who is Jewish himself, responded “in salty English”, saying that he did not care what day it was. Netanyahu obliged. Whether or not this is 100% accurate is immaterial; the contretemps is already a part of the story that will be told for generations as yet unborn . . .

In the final days of ceasefire talks it came down to a triumvirate: McGurk (representing the Biden Administration and the State Department), Witkoff (representing the incoming administration and himself) and the Qatari P.M. (and chairman of the Board of “Aspire” – the Qatari Investment Company) Sheik Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani. Behind the scenes – and located on various floors of the prime minister’s palatial compound close to the old market in downtown Doha – were, among others, representatives of Egypt, Israel and Hamas. Unwilling to meet face-to-face with either the American or Israeli delegation, the people representing Hamas had negotiation “talking points” hand delivered to their rooms.

Meanwhile, back in Jerusalem, Netanyahu and his far-right nationalist war cabinet were venting, accusing and threatening to leave his coalition if he took pen to paper and agreed to any ceasefire. In other words, they were holding Bibi’s feet to the fire; without their continuing membership in his coalition, his job (and very freedom) could be at stake. It is difficult to know what deal they reached in order for the Israeli P.M. to sign on to the agreement without losing his parliamentary majority . . . a tall order, to say the least. As of yesterday, far-right national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, did resign from the cabinet and encouraged like-minded parliamentarians to do the same, which could potentially force yet another “early election.”

It is far too early to know if the ceasefire will be worth the paper (sans handshakes) it’s written on.  The first stage, if all goes according to plan (which rarely happens in the Middle East) is for a six-week cessation to hostilities.  During that time, hostages and prisoners are scheduled to be freed; the precise number on both sides has been a point of contention since day one. During the ceasefire, upwards of 600 daily trucks of food, medicines and supplies will be delivered into Gaza, as the world’s economic powerhouses begin working on how the area will be rebuilt — how much it will cost, who will do the building, in what order will structures be constructed and how to keep graft and corruption to a minimum.  All of this must be negotiated under a new American administration whose initial concern back home is the deportation of millions of illegal residents, getting a cabinet approved, and instituting a system of tariffs, not seen since the disastrous days of the Fordney-McCumber Act passed during the Harding Administration in 1922.     

Unquestionably Bibi Netanyahu has given a pre-Inauguration gift to the man who will take the presidential oath of office later today. I fear, however, that it may well turn out to be a gift that will turn out to be as stable as mercury. Yes, Bibi has given Felon #47 the ability to boast that he - and he alone - was responsible for the ceasefire. At the same time President Biden has taken a quiet, gentlemanly share of the credit. It will be up to future historians to determine precisely who was most responsible for the Gaza ceasefire and, depending on whether it holds for even the initial 6-week period, whose fingerprints are the clearest. If the ceasefire manages to work and change the face of history, let everyone take a bow; if, alas, it falls apart, all we will hear or see is the sound of silence and the pointing of fingers.

For, as either JFK, Benito Mussolini’s son-in-law Galeazzo Ciano or the Roman historian and politician Tacitus said: Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan. (JKF supposedly said this after the utter failure of the Bay of Pigs fiasco); to Tacitus (56-120 CE) goes the original: Iniquum est hoc de bello; victoria ab omnibus petitur, non uni soli,” namely, “This is an unfair thing about war: victory is claimed by all, failure to one alone.”

 Let us pray it will a victory for the many. 

Copyright©2025 Kurt Franklin Stone

Trying to Put the Genie Back in the Bottle (#1,016)

Audio Block

Double-click here to upload or link to a .mp3. Learn more

The apposite expressions “Letting the genie out of the bottle” and “Putting the genie back into the bottle” come from One Thousand and One Nights,” a massive collection of medieval folktales composed in Arabic during the Islamic Golden Age (c. 8th - 13th Century, C.E.). The main storyteller in these tales is Scheherazade, wife to the sultan, who saves her life by telling him a different story for one thousand and one nights. Many of the stories deal with genies who are either trapped in . . . or escaping from . . . a bottle. Over centuries, the parallel expressions about “letting the genie out of the bottle, and “putting the genie back in” have come to mean, respectively, doing something that cannot be undone and reverting a situation; putting things back as they were before something became a reality.

One of the most obvious examples of letting the genie out of the bottle would be August 6, 1945 . . . the dropping of an atomic bomb (nicknamed “Little Boy”) on Hiroshima, and 3 days later, the second atomic bomb (nicknamed “Fat Man”) on Nagasaki. In dropping these two bombs, the “genie” of nuclear destruction was let out of the “bottle” of human warfare; forever more, the nightmare of nuclear destruction engulfed all humanity. And despite the signing, sealing and delivering of various treaties over the past several decades, the genie has never been successfully returned to the bottle.

More recently, the genie of “Artificial Intelligence”(A.I.) has escaped from the bottle, thus unleashing incalculable problems, possibilities and challenges within the realms of academia, political campaigning and what used to be known as “the truth.” (See my January 29, 2023 piece entitled A Pandora’s Box of Existential Fears.)  Because of such innovations as ChatGPT, it has become next to impossible to know who wrote what and/or whether there is any such thing as the “objectively verifiable.” For that generation now known as “Mind Children,” (as the Harvard roboticist Hans Moravec dubbed them more than 30 years ago) the source of knowledge is no longer to be searched out in the classroom or a cavernous library, but rather by turning attention to that which one can easily hold in the palm of one’s hand.

Which leads us to the fastest growing and most omnipresent genie of them all . . . SOCIAL MEDIA.

The first true social media networking site - SixDegrees.com -  was launched in 1997, allowing users to create profiles, connect with friends, and share content. It marked the beginning of the social networking era, enabling users to see connections between friends and expand their social circles through a concept known as 'six degrees of separation.' 6 years later, Tom Anderson and Chris DeWolfe, co-founded My Space, the first social network to reach a global audience.  (Although still active today, My Space has become a ghost of its past. With no new content added since early 2022 and a disabled media player, the site's functionality is severely limited.  Nonetheless, it still occupies a spot in the “Social Networking Hall of Fame” [if indeed, there were any such thing.])  

2 years after My Space (2004), Harvard undergraduate Mark Zuckerberg started up Facebook (originally called Thefacebook). Its initial purpose was to connect Harvard students with one another. Facebook's popularity exploded; by the end of 2004, it already  had over 1 million users.  And the rest, as they say, is history.  At the end of 2024, Facebook, which is now owned by “Meta,” a publicly owned company (of which Mr. Zuckerberg owns approximately 13.5% of its 350 million outstanding shares [worth c. $120 billion to young Mr. Z.]) it has 3.27 billion daily active people (DAPs)  who access Meta-owned products including Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Messenger.  Additionally:

• Facebook, as a stand-alone platform, gets 2.11 billion daily active users, which may have accounts on other family products

• Last quarter’s investors’ report shows a 6.51% increase in daily active people year-over-year

• 80.15% of the monthly people will log in daily to one of these family-owned services

• 60.56% of the world’s active internet users access Meta-owned services daily.

• India has more Facebook users (350 million) than any other country in the world; the USA comes in second with 194 million.

There are, of course, many, many highly successful social media platforms in today’s world.  Interestingly, the younger one is, the greater the chance will be that he/she are signed up with - and make daily use of -  a greater array of platforms than one’s elders. This is to say that Baby Boomers (whom I would imagine make up the majority of this blog’s readers) are familiar with - and make use of - Facebook, X (formerly Twitter) and perhaps Linkedin, while members of younger generations make use of platforms that are largely unknown to those who are now pretirees (my term for those of retirement age who are still gainfully employed).  Like you, I have vaguely heard of "Tik Tok,” "WhatsApp,”  “Tumblr,” “Snapchat” and “Telegram.”   

These, and other platforms are where a vast majority of young people get their news and views (whether it be true, false or sheer twaddle), “meet” new people and share thoughts, feelings and fears they might never share face-to-face with family, teachers, classmates or non-cyberspace inhabitants.  You can see them all over the place using their iPhones, Androids or occasionally Tablets, in classrooms, malls, gyms, sporting events and restaurants (both fast and slow food); walking down the street, texting, chatting, listening to music, connecting with the rest of the planet. I have yet to get over seeing a table filled with teens at Dunkin Donuts, Wendy’s or some other public place, each one caught up in their own world despite the fact there may be 4, 5, 6 or more people sitting with them.  To my way of thinking, overreliance on social media has become an addiction for many.  Moreover, it represents a clear and present danger to mental health of those - especially teens - for whom it is a way of life.  

Over the past decade, numerous peer-reviewed academic studies have found a strong link between heavy social media and an increased risk for depression, anxiety, loneliness, self-harm, and even suicidal thoughts. Social media may promote negative experiences such as: Inadequacy about one’s  life or appearance, as a skewed view of the world itself . . . which can lead to feelings of doom.  In May of last year, United States Surgeon General (U.S.S.G.)  Dr. Vivek Murthy released a new Surgeon General’s Advisory on Social Media and Youth Mental Health - PDF. In it, Dr. Murthy and his research colleagues noted in the reports introductory paragraph: While social media may offer some benefits, there are ample indicators that social media can also pose a risk of harm to the mental health and well-being of children and adolescents. Social media use by young people is nearly universal, with up to 95% of young people ages 13-17 reporting using a social media platform and more than a third saying they use social media “almost constantly.”

Dr. Murthy and his colleagues further noted “Children are exposed to harmful content on social media, ranging from violent and sexual content, to bullying and harassment. And for too many children, social media use is compromising their sleep and valuable in-person time with family and friends. We are in the middle of a national youth mental health crisis, and I am concerned that social media is an important driver of that crisis – one that we must urgently address.”  In other words, the Genie has escaped from the bottle. 

The question becomes: is there anything currently being done to put the Genie back in the bottle? Attempts to do so are in their early stages here in the United States. According to the Age Verification Providers Association website: As of June 2024, 10 states have passed laws requiring children’s access to social media be restricted or parental consent gained. 3 more are currently injuncted (e.g. restrained by a court order). Here in Florida, H.B. 3 goes into effect on July 1, 2025. The bill, the Online Protections for Minors Act, requires social media platforms to verify users’ ages, obtain parental consent for users under 18, protect minors’ personal data, and limit their exposure to harmful content.

Doing things on a state-by-state or city-by-city basis does not do away with the Genie; it merely creates a series of different sized bottles . . . most of which will be too small to hold a gigantic Genie. To date, one country (which happens to be a continent) has done something on a national basis: Australia.

Less than a week ago, Australia, the “Land Down Under,” imposed a sweeping ban on social media for children under 16. After sailing through Parliament’s lower house on Wednesday, November 27, the bill passed the Senate the very next day with bipartisan support. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said that it puts Australia at the vanguard of efforts to protect the mental health and well-being of children from detrimental effects of social media, such as online hate or bullying. Not every “Down Under” agrees with the legislation: some claim it will stifle freedom of thought and expression; others are of the opinion that it does not go far enough. I find nothing surprising about this; after all, Australia is a robust democracy. The one good and hopeful thing to note is that at least one non-authoritarian country on the planet has decided that it may well be possible to put the Genie back in the bottle.

Could this ever work in the United States on a national level? I highly doubt it . . . and for several reasons. First and foremost, there’s the matter of the makeup of the new, incoming 119th Congress. Unless something drastically changes in the next 32 days, the first resolution that body will consider is Rep. Nancy Grace’s (R-SC) bill to ban transgender people from using bathrooms of their choice in the U.S. Capitol.  (It just so happens that on January 3, 2025, the nation's first transgender lawmaker, U.S. Rep.-elect Sarah McBride, D-Del., is set to join Congress). In her obviously disingenuous remarks about the reason behind the resolution, Rep. Grace told the press; "The sanctity of protecting women and standing up against the Left’s systematic erasure of biological women starts here in the nation’s Capitol. We are standing up for women, protecting their spaces, and restoring a bit of sanity to Capitol Hill." She added, "The Left screams TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) politics, we call it putting women first."  There likely won’t be enough serious-minded legislators on Capitol Hill to get beyond the “Attack on WOKE” legislation that holds their base in thrall.

Then too, when one considers that IT’s new BFF, Elon Musk, is not only the richest person on the planet, but also owns X, the planet’s largest money-losing social media platform.  And to make matters worse, who just came by to  kiss the ring at Mar-a-Lago?  Meta owner Mark Zuckerberg, that’s who.  Can you see him being in favor of losing money by putting legal strictures on his platform?  I rather doubt it.

Having said the obvious, I still believe that for the sake of our children . . . and the generation of leaders they will someday become . . . we must follow in the footsteps of our Aussie cousins and doing whatever we can to put the Genie of Social Media (which is inherently anti-social) back in the bottle.  Our future depends on it.

 Copyright©2024 Kurt Franklin Stone