Do you ever ask yourself about animal behaviour and how it relates to humans?

When your dog who appears really to like your best friend one day turns round and bites him, whose fault is it?

This may appear to be completely unrelated but I am thinking about theRohingya people of Myanmar, the already appalling behaviour towards them, the possibility of impending genocide, and the apparent defence of the country’s attitude towards them by the previously almost sainted Aung San Suu Kyi.

Perhaps this is reminiscent of the treatment of the Red Indians in the USA or of the Aborigines in Australia or of the black people in South Africa or of the Jews in Nazi Germany?

I am sure of one thing: hate and fear are hugely powerful emotions which we would do well to avoid.

Never mind about psychology; just follow the advice of the famous baseball player, best known as Yogi Berra: take it!

I get the feeling that Mr No Trump might score more games if he followed that advice instead of so frequently walking straight into the fork. Or at least to step gently forward and be all too willing to retrace his steps and take the other fork.

There’s much to be said for engaging brain before mouth. Try it, Donald, before you run out of quack and fall On the prongs.

Proteas, also known as sugarbush (suikerbos) represent change and hope. Perhaps those are the messages which are now relevant to the South African cricket team.

I have the feeling that the next step in an attempt to restore the team’s results and reputation will be to replace Faf du Plessis as Captain. This move must surely be right in no way reflecting on Faf’s talent but rather an expression of his bad luck which rebounds on his side’s performance.

Luck and temperament are unpredictable elements of the psychology which impinges on all sports. They are vital ingredients of success without which a team is likely to be doomed as are the Proteas all too frequently.

So, step aside, Faf! Bringing back AB could be the coup but that probably won’t happen. I suggest Vernon Philander as Captain.

Maybe this is unfair but I am bored, BORED by Harry and Meghan. Nothing to do with Race but background and upbringing are relevant, Meghan is not cut out for the role she has (willingly and then reluctantly) assumed.

All sounds lovely but is that true? No it isn’t! Being a high profile Royal comes with huge responsibilities.  History will surely agree that Charles’s marriage to Diana was a serious error of judgement but Harry and Meghan could prove to be equally unwise!

Common sense may yet prevail. It’s not that the EU is the answer to a maiden’s prayer, unless it so happens that the maiden is hitched to one of those senior bureaucratic fatcats based in or around Brussels.

The point is that Brexit is not working. It’s one of those uncomfortable non-solutions which most of us have experienced in our lives. And why? Because there is absolutely no reason why those BBFs should make it easy.

The trouble is that what is really needed is the renegotiation of the Brussels Sprouts so that they are cooked to perfection and served with a little butter and pepper.

But the chef needs to be very well chosen and independent. I can think of two or three.

When I was younger and in mixed company, ‘climax’ had a very clear and desirable meaning. There was a general expectation that the process from start to finish wouldn’t take no more than a few minutes.

As for Brexit, more likely we should expect a damp squib. Whatever the conclusion ‘yea or nay’ the result is bound to be unsatisfactory. Perhaps it’s like a typical mediated divorce settlement: a compromise where neither party has won a victory but will accept the result.

But here, we face the probability that both sides (1 v 27) will be dissatisfied. There cannot be a winner. Oh Dear, what a mess! Why did the UK ever get involved when foresight would have provided a convincing case that it would prove to be a terrible mistake.

How bored we must all be by the not very clear (not at all?) consequences of Brexit. Will that word, should that word survive and, in due course, take its wrongful place in the Oxford English Dictionary?

Now the cry  is getting louder for a second referendum. No but yes, rather than yes but no. Yes but no would be the result of a vote now: if the first referendum result were to be overturned, those who wanted to leave and still want to leave would rightly demand a third vote.

No but yes would be the logic of a second referendum with all the key pros and cons of the proposed settlement put out before us. Why not? That’s fair.

Democracy!?

The trouble with democracy is Democracy. Fancy leaving decisions in the hands of the masses such as Boris Johnson!

Where is the common sense? Where is the logic?  It’s true that the European Union is mightily flawed. It may be the case that the concept is unrealistic.

But it’s there. And Britain is part of it. Withdrawing is a bit like the child who won’t play because the other children won’t let her pick up the ball. It’s not helpful to withdraw from the game.

What’s helpful is to change the rules. It’s not too late to abandon democracy in favour of practicality. But not via another referendum. That’s  not government.

The Truth about JC

We might remember that THAT JC was Jewish. He rebelled against the Pharisees and paid the ultimate price. No one ever accused him of being untrue to his beliefs.

Today’s JC clearly does not have the courage to say what lies behind some, much, of what lies behind the accusation of his Anti-Semitism.

Let’s look behind his too often ill- judged remarks and behaviour. So what follows may be regarded as well- judged interpretation of the truth.

Today’s JC is fundamentally a virulent left wing socialist who thinks that he is doing his party a favour by demonstrating his support for the ‘underdog’ in the form of the Palestinians: hence leading to his not very well disguised Anti-Semitism..

JC is envious of success and resents money. He is unwilling to admit the truth and what is the consequence? The consequence is a growing, relentless attack on his credibility. The price he is paying is the fracture of his party at a time when intelligent cohesion is critical. What a price to pay for wriggling like a trapped snake!

Is there a future peace?

I wonder if anyone has accurately calculated  the costs of the past 10, 20, 30 years, more, of the conflicts in the Middle East? Not just Israel and the Palestinians. What about Egypt,  Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey?

This speculative appraisal focuses exclusively on Israel and the Palestinians, egged on by Hamas whose existence seems to work to no one’s advantage including their own.

Stephen Covey wrote: start with the end in mind. The end does not, must not be the destruction of Israel whose population has given more to the world in its 70 years than any other nation of almost any size has given in centuries.

But there must be a sympathetic and attractive solution for the Palestinians. One might wonder what the outcome might have been if the indigenous (at the time) Arabs had bought into the creation of Israel in the 1940s. If both Semitic groups had been able to live and work side by side. Perhaps if the other Arab nations had encouraged them to do so, the Middle East would have developed very differently.

To me the end should include the establishment of an enclave in Jerusalem roughly equivalent to Vatican City in Rome but with the exceptional difference that this enclave would embrace many, sometimes conflicting religions . The management of the enclave would require the most complex and free thinking diplomatic and unbiased skills. (Ca n’existe pas,peutetre?)

Plus the resettlement of 1 million plus Arabs on their former land in what is now Israel. Plus the creation of a North African Côte d’Azur stretching from Tunisia through Egypt through Israel through Lebanon generating an economic goldmine, initially supported by funding from the US, from Europe and, above all, from the likes of Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

Sure, this is a dream, probably a pipe dream but: start with the end in mind.