The Haaretz website is growing ever more exasperating as a source for blogging. The paper version, however, while less useful for blogging, is growing more useful for learning things. So since I can't link to English translations of articles, nor even to Hebrew originals from previous days (until recently articles stayed up for a week: now only sometimes), I'll use the old system, the one historians have been using for about 150 years: footnotes. I'll back up the footnotes with links to research queries on the Haaretz website that tell of the cited articles, even though they can't be seen unless you pay. (I already pay for the paper version, but that doesn't help).
On Friday October 24th 2008 on page 9 of section 2, alongside the regular column by Gideon Levy, there's a letter from Dr. Yuval Or, a physician who recently returned from service in his military reserve unit. He objects to a previous column by Levy, published on October 10th 2008, in which Levy told of an IDF raid on a Palestinian home, during which one of them pushed the 60-year-old grandmother who fell, hit her head, and died. (The search result is here).
Dr. Or was part of the IDF unit that carried out the raid. He points out that it wasn't a general search, as Levy states, but rather a pinpointed raid to arrest a specific Hamas figure known to be in the house. As the soldiers entered the building, the woman was asked to sit on a low wall (60 centimeters) in front of the house. While she was sitting there she had a heart attack, fell over, and died. Dr. Or treated her immediately, assisted by the information supplied from her family whereby she was known to suffer from diabetes, high blood pressure, and... heart disease. The doctor and four medics spent more than half an hour doing their best to save the woman's life, but she couldn't be saved. The cause of her death was a heart attack, not the minor abrasions on her head that were caused by her fall during the heart attack.
So yesterday Haaretz told us that Btselem routinely supplies unreliable data about Israeli military actions. This tells us that Gideon Levy, one of Israel's harshest critics, may perhaps also not be totally reliable (some of us have known this for years, but it's nice to read in the paper, too). What about the mainstream press? Say, Ilana Dayan's investigative TV program Uvda (Fact)? Her program is probably the most influential investigative program in the history of Israeli TV, and Dayan, a doctor of law and immensely talented reporter enjoys about the highest credibility in the branch.
She's on trial right now, sued by Major R, the Druze officer who on October 5th 2004 shot and killed 13-year-old Aiman el-Hams on the perimeter of an IDF outpost near Rafah. The international media told that the officer (his name is still under a gag-order) had murdered the girl in cold blood, and Ilana Dayan did a report documenting this fact. Alas, (or perhaps, thank God, depending on your perspective), once R. was indicted, the court threw out the whole case, having been convinced that, tragic though the death undoubtedly was, the officer had behaved professionally and in accordance with the conditions and what it was reasonable to think was going on. He was fully exonerated and reinstated; it wasn't a case of lack of evidence or reasonable doubt.Amos Harel from Haaretz reported from the courtroom on October 27th on page 9 of section one (here's the search result).
Dayan is apparently furious that she's being forced to answer questions, and that her interrogators are allowed to cut her off when she seems to be straying; the judge has had to reprimand her a number of times that the rules in a court of law are different than in her TV studio. She has repeatedly responded to specific questions about her editing practice ("why did you show that and not that") with the statement that she's experienced and that's her job. She has admitted that she never visited the outpost itself and drew all her information from the raw material - the same raw material that led the court fully to exonerate the officer, one might add. She admits that journalists often don't have a full picture, but claims that if they had to wait for fully convincing evidence they would have to shut up most of the time. And so on and on.
Btselem, Gideon Levy, and Ilana Dayan are all Israelis. They know Hebrew (though pehaps not Arabic), and should be able to understand nuances, complexities and to have a feeling for what is plausible and what not. They are vastly more qualified to be doing their job than almost any foreign journalist stationed in Israel who is here today and gone tomorrow. And yet, the closer you look, the more you have to ask yourself if they're reliable. I'm not talking about their interpretations of the facts, I'm talking about the facts themselves. If they aren't reliable, how can the foreign fellows be reliable? And if the foreign professionals may not be reliable, what are we to do with the pundits, politicians, bloggers and other bloviators?
PS. Of course, none of this discussion will be relevant to the those who reject Israel's right to exist, and hence it's right to defend itself or its citizens. But then, those folks don't need facts anyway, nor are they interested in them, unless as dressing for their animosities and prejudices.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
On Being Responsible for What Happens to You
The Gemara in Kiddushin that we're going through these days is involved in a long and detailed discussion of Avdut - generally translated as slavery, though the details make it clear that actually indentured service is a more accurate translation. As with many segments of the Talmud, it seems devoid of direct relevance as the whole institution being described is long since dead. It's the indirect relevance, however, which is so interesting.
Most of the discussion so far has been highly legalistic. Today's page suddenly veered off in a different direction, and wondered how the actions of the indentured man contributed to his getting there; the assumption being that had he lived correctly, he wouldn't have.
It's a startling assumption, seen from our perspective. We live in a world where people who suffer are victims, and victims by definition suffer because of the malice of perpetrators - or at best, societal conditions which were created by malicious people. If anyone ever tries to say otherwise, he is immidiately castigated for "blaming the victims".
Sometimes you have to go back 1,700 years for a breath of fresh air.
Kiddushin 20, a-b.
This thread began here.
Most of the discussion so far has been highly legalistic. Today's page suddenly veered off in a different direction, and wondered how the actions of the indentured man contributed to his getting there; the assumption being that had he lived correctly, he wouldn't have.
It's a startling assumption, seen from our perspective. We live in a world where people who suffer are victims, and victims by definition suffer because of the malice of perpetrators - or at best, societal conditions which were created by malicious people. If anyone ever tries to say otherwise, he is immidiately castigated for "blaming the victims".
Sometimes you have to go back 1,700 years for a breath of fresh air.
Kiddushin 20, a-b.
This thread began here.
Arabs Serving in the IDF: Not what you Thought
No matter what you think is the truth about Arabs serving in the IDF, this article will surprise you: the numbers are rising, but they're small, the reasons are economic, except when they're other, and so on and on. One of the most surprising news items I've seen in a while.
And it's only available in Hebrew. I'm continually befuddled by what Haaretz translates and what not. But then I tell myself that perhaps it's not so important. If anyone seriously wants to know what Israel is about, there's no alternative to knowing the language, obviously.
And it's only available in Hebrew. I'm continually befuddled by what Haaretz translates and what not. But then I tell myself that perhaps it's not so important. If anyone seriously wants to know what Israel is about, there's no alternative to knowing the language, obviously.
France: Unilateral US Actions would be Problematic
Of course, this s a line we've all heard before, and coming from the so-called "Cheese-eating surrender monkeys", what do you expect?
Except that this time, it's the French president criticizing a potential willingness of an Obama administration to break ranks with the Europeans and go soft on Iran.
And it gets better! According to the Haaretz sources
Except that this time, it's the French president criticizing a potential willingness of an Obama administration to break ranks with the Europeans and go soft on Iran.
And it gets better! According to the Haaretz sources
Sarkozy has made his criticisms only in closed forums in France. But according to a senior Israeli government source, the reports reaching Israel indicate that Sarkozy views the Democratic candidate's stance on Iran as "utterly immature" and comprised of "formulations empty of all content."Is it conceivable that two years of elementary school in Indonesia were not enough to teach Obama about international relations? Look's like we'll be finding out pretty soon.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Btselem is Reliably Unreliable
According to the Hebrew side of the Haartez website, a new report documents that Btselem is consistently and significantly wrong in its reports. Aggravatingly, the report itself isn't yet online at the website where it should be, here. This is standard fare: when it comes to presenting things correctly we're often bumbling idiots. So once this goes online I may revisit it. In the meantime, however, two quick comments:
1. Btselem routinely reports the deaths of Palestinian combatants as if they were non-combatants, sometimes even blatantly so.
2. The research arrived at this conclusion by comparing Betselem's reports with... Palestinian reports! Which means, it seems to me, that Betselem makes Israel look worse than even the internal, Arabic language Palestinian sources do. Can you believe it? More important: can you explain it?
1. Btselem routinely reports the deaths of Palestinian combatants as if they were non-combatants, sometimes even blatantly so.
2. The research arrived at this conclusion by comparing Betselem's reports with... Palestinian reports! Which means, it seems to me, that Betselem makes Israel look worse than even the internal, Arabic language Palestinian sources do. Can you believe it? More important: can you explain it?
Saturday, October 25, 2008
The Best Endorsement so Far
Leon Wieseltier, perhaps the most articulate polemicist in America, comes out for Obama. This isn't particularly surprising, but his reasoning is unusually lucid, and his depiction of Obama is, I hope and fear, right on.
Shiva'a
This evening we went to see Shiva'a, a new Israeli film that has been getting prizes at all sorts of festivals.
I warmly recommend, though perhaps not if you're too young to understand the dynamics of families, and also not if you're into action films.
The film tells the story of a large family of Moroccan Israels sitting shiva for the death of Morris, a 40-something man who has died suddenly, leaving a wife and two children, but also seven brothers, two sisters and an aged mother. The film follows the rancorous yet ultimately loving relationships among the siblings and some of their spouses. It's January 1991, and in the background Saddam Hussein's Scud missiles are occasionally landing nearby, but this adds more comic effect than anything else; the seriousness and intensity of the family turmoil are far greater than the outside world.
Like any good story, its universal appeal is rooted in it's specifics. The family is Moroccan-Israeli, and is instantly recognizable as such by anyone who know anything about Israel - but it's probably adaptable to any family the world over where family members are capable of expressing the full range of emotions, including many destructive ones, while preserving the basic family bonds.
Now that I think of it, maybe that's not so universal. It's certainly not unique to Israelis, but I can think of some societies where not only would tensions like those in the Ohayon family irrevocably tear families apart, they'd never even be allowed to develop in the first place, for precisely that reason. I can think of a society where most people wouldn't even be able to fathom the dynamics, even if it's "only a movie".
Besides the main story, I loved the way the family used three languages (Hebrew, Moroccan-Arabic and French) in a totally interwoven way, sometimes moving from one to the next on to the third and back, all in one paragraph. (At one point two figures wandered off into a discussion in German). Also interesting, and convincing, was they way siblings of different ages, who grew up in different stages of the immigrant story of this family, look and behave differently, to the extent that the youngest brother isn't even obviously a sibling, so far removed is he from the experiences of his oldest brothers.
Ronit Elkabetz is a great actress. And, in a totally different way, so is Sulika Kadosh, the ancient matriarch who acts almost wholly without words.
Go see the film if you can. If you live here, it will make you feel good in a fundamental way. If you don't, it'll give you a perspective on Israel you're unlikely to get elsewhere - though I doubt you'll find the film in your nearby cinema.
I warmly recommend, though perhaps not if you're too young to understand the dynamics of families, and also not if you're into action films.
The film tells the story of a large family of Moroccan Israels sitting shiva for the death of Morris, a 40-something man who has died suddenly, leaving a wife and two children, but also seven brothers, two sisters and an aged mother. The film follows the rancorous yet ultimately loving relationships among the siblings and some of their spouses. It's January 1991, and in the background Saddam Hussein's Scud missiles are occasionally landing nearby, but this adds more comic effect than anything else; the seriousness and intensity of the family turmoil are far greater than the outside world.
Like any good story, its universal appeal is rooted in it's specifics. The family is Moroccan-Israeli, and is instantly recognizable as such by anyone who know anything about Israel - but it's probably adaptable to any family the world over where family members are capable of expressing the full range of emotions, including many destructive ones, while preserving the basic family bonds.
Now that I think of it, maybe that's not so universal. It's certainly not unique to Israelis, but I can think of some societies where not only would tensions like those in the Ohayon family irrevocably tear families apart, they'd never even be allowed to develop in the first place, for precisely that reason. I can think of a society where most people wouldn't even be able to fathom the dynamics, even if it's "only a movie".
Besides the main story, I loved the way the family used three languages (Hebrew, Moroccan-Arabic and French) in a totally interwoven way, sometimes moving from one to the next on to the third and back, all in one paragraph. (At one point two figures wandered off into a discussion in German). Also interesting, and convincing, was they way siblings of different ages, who grew up in different stages of the immigrant story of this family, look and behave differently, to the extent that the youngest brother isn't even obviously a sibling, so far removed is he from the experiences of his oldest brothers.
Ronit Elkabetz is a great actress. And, in a totally different way, so is Sulika Kadosh, the ancient matriarch who acts almost wholly without words.
Go see the film if you can. If you live here, it will make you feel good in a fundamental way. If you don't, it'll give you a perspective on Israel you're unlikely to get elsewhere - though I doubt you'll find the film in your nearby cinema.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Understanding the Economic Crises, Perhaps
Someone sent this to me the other day:
Once upon a time in a village, a man appeared and announced to the villagers that he would buy monkeys for $10 each. The villagers seeing that there were many monkeys around, went out to the forest, and started catching them.
The man bought thousands at $10 and as the supply started to diminish, the villagers stopped their effort. He then announced that he would now buy at $20. This renewed the efforts of the villagers and they started catching monkeys again.
Soon the supply diminished even further and people started going back to their farms. The offer increased to $25 each and the supply of monkeys became so little that it was an effort to even see a monkey, let alone catch it!
The man then announced that he had to go to the city on business and when he returned, he would buy monkeys for $50 each.
He left his assistant in charge and departed for the city.
In the absence of the man, the assistant told the villagers, "Look at all these monkeys the man has collected and put in the big cage. I will sell them to you at $35 each and when the man returns from the city, you can sell them to him for $50 each."
The villagers rounded up all their savings and bought all the monkeys.
They never saw the man or his assistant again, only monkeys everywhere!
Now you have a better understanding of how the stock market works!
_______________
Actually, if you're willing to spend a few hours time reading something serious that tries to understand what's going on, the Economist has a special report for you.
Once upon a time in a village, a man appeared and announced to the villagers that he would buy monkeys for $10 each. The villagers seeing that there were many monkeys around, went out to the forest, and started catching them.
The man bought thousands at $10 and as the supply started to diminish, the villagers stopped their effort. He then announced that he would now buy at $20. This renewed the efforts of the villagers and they started catching monkeys again.
Soon the supply diminished even further and people started going back to their farms. The offer increased to $25 each and the supply of monkeys became so little that it was an effort to even see a monkey, let alone catch it!
The man then announced that he had to go to the city on business and when he returned, he would buy monkeys for $50 each.
He left his assistant in charge and departed for the city.
In the absence of the man, the assistant told the villagers, "Look at all these monkeys the man has collected and put in the big cage. I will sell them to you at $35 each and when the man returns from the city, you can sell them to him for $50 each."
The villagers rounded up all their savings and bought all the monkeys.
They never saw the man or his assistant again, only monkeys everywhere!
Now you have a better understanding of how the stock market works!
_______________
Actually, if you're willing to spend a few hours time reading something serious that tries to understand what's going on, the Economist has a special report for you.
Two Presidential Endorsements
The NYT has endorsed Barack Obama (next to a picture of Abraham Lincoln. Hint hint). Charles Krauthammer has endorsed John McCain. (And before you jump down my throat for the audacity of positioning Krauthammer as the equal of the editorial board of the New York Times, bear in mind that Krauthammer is one talented commentator with a few assistants, and the editorial board of the NYT is a small group of journalists, none of them individually as influential as Krauthammer - so positioning them next to each other isn't so outlandish).
Neither of these endorsements is remotely surprising. Any other result would have been news so startling it would have made the front page of the New York Times (ah... Well, forget I said it). Actually, the only serious endorsement out there that is in any way not fully obvious in advance is that of the Economist, next week, and they're going to flow with the tide and endorse Obama, just wait and see.
Still, one can make a number of comments about the Krauthammer-NYT comparision. In a nutshell, the NYT backs Obama for being a healer; Krauthammer supports McCain for being a fighter. These two preferences are the result of a deeper difference of opinion, where the NYT feels that top-notch human-relations skills, such as they think Obama has, will tame the world, while Krauthammer feels that at this moment in time (and perhaps always) the world is a very dangerous place, no matter how good the American president is at diplomacy.
So that's an interesting contrast.
Does history prove the consistent veracity of either set of propositions? Is it possible to make a general rule that this side or that is more convincing, given the precedents? No. Not that I can see. The world really is a nasty place and will remain so, but healers can make a difference sometimes and when so it's a fine thing; fighters sometimes heal the world without fighting, and healers sometimes go to war. Just some obvious examples off the top of my head: Johnson was a healer who went to war. Reagan was a warrior who contributed more than most to healing the world. De Gaulle was a warrior who healed. Wilson was a healer who went to war.
The non-interesting contrast is about the way they interpret the campaigns. I don't think anyone would dispute that Obama has run a magnificent campaign, one of the best ever. The NYT feels this proves his ability to manage the world, which is more or less what the president of the US tries to do; for the life of me I can't say why they feel this. They then lambast McCain for running a nasty campaign, and deduce from it that he has lost the qualities they liked about him for decades, and disqualifies him to be president. Hogwash, of course. The first George Bush ran an extremely nasty campaign (remember Willie Horton), then went on to run the world in the way the NYT yearns for Obama to do, with diplomacy, coalition building etc, and still the NYT was against him. Campaigns are narrowly focused things: you know who you're up against, you know the rules of winning, you know the date of the decision, and that's it. Doesn't resemble the real world in any parameter.
Neither of these endorsements is remotely surprising. Any other result would have been news so startling it would have made the front page of the New York Times (ah... Well, forget I said it). Actually, the only serious endorsement out there that is in any way not fully obvious in advance is that of the Economist, next week, and they're going to flow with the tide and endorse Obama, just wait and see.
Still, one can make a number of comments about the Krauthammer-NYT comparision. In a nutshell, the NYT backs Obama for being a healer; Krauthammer supports McCain for being a fighter. These two preferences are the result of a deeper difference of opinion, where the NYT feels that top-notch human-relations skills, such as they think Obama has, will tame the world, while Krauthammer feels that at this moment in time (and perhaps always) the world is a very dangerous place, no matter how good the American president is at diplomacy.
So that's an interesting contrast.
Does history prove the consistent veracity of either set of propositions? Is it possible to make a general rule that this side or that is more convincing, given the precedents? No. Not that I can see. The world really is a nasty place and will remain so, but healers can make a difference sometimes and when so it's a fine thing; fighters sometimes heal the world without fighting, and healers sometimes go to war. Just some obvious examples off the top of my head: Johnson was a healer who went to war. Reagan was a warrior who contributed more than most to healing the world. De Gaulle was a warrior who healed. Wilson was a healer who went to war.
The non-interesting contrast is about the way they interpret the campaigns. I don't think anyone would dispute that Obama has run a magnificent campaign, one of the best ever. The NYT feels this proves his ability to manage the world, which is more or less what the president of the US tries to do; for the life of me I can't say why they feel this. They then lambast McCain for running a nasty campaign, and deduce from it that he has lost the qualities they liked about him for decades, and disqualifies him to be president. Hogwash, of course. The first George Bush ran an extremely nasty campaign (remember Willie Horton), then went on to run the world in the way the NYT yearns for Obama to do, with diplomacy, coalition building etc, and still the NYT was against him. Campaigns are narrowly focused things: you know who you're up against, you know the rules of winning, you know the date of the decision, and that's it. Doesn't resemble the real world in any parameter.
NYT Presidential Endorsements
The New York Times has put up a cool web-page that show's who they've endorsed in every presidential election since they endorsed Abraham Lincoln in 1860.
It's lots of fun to play with. In the past 38 presidential elections the NYT has supported Democrats 26 times (well, make that 25, because in 1896 they supported John Palmer of the National Democratic Party). Back in the 19th century they endorsed illustrious Republicans such as Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant; in the 20th century they also went for a famous (lite) Republican General-War-Hero-turned-politician, Dwight Eisenhower. Since Eisenhower, however, they've never found a Republican they could like. Moreover, the last two times they did endorse Republicans, their choices were a bit odd: Wendell Willkie, in 1940? Huh? Thomas Dewey in 1948: heh heh. And they were against Theodore Roosevelt, back in 1904.
So looking back, how good has the NYT been at choosing fine presidents? Mediocre, I'd say. In spite of them being The Grey Lady.
It's lots of fun to play with. In the past 38 presidential elections the NYT has supported Democrats 26 times (well, make that 25, because in 1896 they supported John Palmer of the National Democratic Party). Back in the 19th century they endorsed illustrious Republicans such as Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant; in the 20th century they also went for a famous (lite) Republican General-War-Hero-turned-politician, Dwight Eisenhower. Since Eisenhower, however, they've never found a Republican they could like. Moreover, the last two times they did endorse Republicans, their choices were a bit odd: Wendell Willkie, in 1940? Huh? Thomas Dewey in 1948: heh heh. And they were against Theodore Roosevelt, back in 1904.
So looking back, how good has the NYT been at choosing fine presidents? Mediocre, I'd say. In spite of them being The Grey Lady.
A New Blog You Needn't Read
Some months ago I offered the Argentinian fellow who hides his true identity behind the title Ibrahim ibn Yusuf the option of sharing a blog. The idea - or at any rate, my part of it - was to have a thoughtful, systematic discussion between two people who radically disagree about Israel. I intended to look into Ibrahim's methodology, his thought processes, his relationship to facts and sources, and eventually also his motives. I don't know what his intentions regarding me were, but it was a free platform and he could have taken his part of it in whatever direction he wished. Theoretically, he could have bested me, though I admit I didn't think he would. The little I'd seen of hs work and the much I'd seen of others of his ilk left me mildly confident that most careful readers of our blog would find him to be the second most convincing of the two of us.
Shortly after we started some serious doubts began to accrue regarding Ibrahim's honesty in presenting himself. He himself admitted that it would have been easy to dispel the doubts, had they been based on falsehoods, but he was adamant in his refusal to do precisely that, eventually telling me that in the meantime the whole exercise no longer interested him. Personally I felt at the time and feel still that he feared he'd gotten into something he hadn't reckoned on so he ran, but I can't prove that, obviously.
What I can do, however, is to point you at his new blog, The Hasbara Buster. In one of his recent comments he said he's glad he has pro-Israeli readers and commentators, because that way he gets to understand how they think. Interesting comment, given his past behavior, and I'd suggest that what he really means is that he looks forward to talking to such people in an environment that he controls.
There's a pro-Israeli blogger named Yitzchak Goodman, author of Judeopundit, who is doing an admirable job of responding to the Buster's posts. I wish him luck, though I ask myself if he's not wasting his time. The Buster is way out there on the fringe of anti-Israeli bloviating, and it's unlkely that he makes any difference in the world. People such as myself, and also Goodman, need to ask themselves each year if any of the following three things are happening:
1. Are there more Jews in Israel than there were the previous year?
2. Is Jewish cultural (or religious) creativity as strong as it was last year, or perhaps even stronger?
3. Is Israel's economy, and with it the condition of the Israelis, better than it was last year?
In any year where the answer to any one of these questions is positive, we're doing alright, no matter what the Busters of the world do. Since most years all three questions have positive answers, why care about what those feverish folks think or say? Enemies of the Jews have been spewing their ire for millenia, and the Jews keep on doing their thing; these days, their thing is pretty miraculous, all in all, in spite of the blemishes.
The question that does remain, however, is why. Why should an instructor of language (Catalan, I think) in Rosario have this urge to "bust" things Israelis say about themselves. It's not because he has a good case - you're free to go visit and see for yourself how sloppy and often silly he is. It can't be because Israel is uniquely worse than other societies, because it isn't. Sometimes he tells that he's compelled to unveil Israel's crimes because the Israelis claim they're better than others. OK: and the Israelis are the only ones in the world who claim they're better? And even if they were the only ones, why should this be such an obsession in faraway Rosario?
In a recent post the Buster said I'm engaging in character assassination for posing this question. I don't agree. Not given the history of the Jews and their detractors these past few millenia.
Shortly after we started some serious doubts began to accrue regarding Ibrahim's honesty in presenting himself. He himself admitted that it would have been easy to dispel the doubts, had they been based on falsehoods, but he was adamant in his refusal to do precisely that, eventually telling me that in the meantime the whole exercise no longer interested him. Personally I felt at the time and feel still that he feared he'd gotten into something he hadn't reckoned on so he ran, but I can't prove that, obviously.
What I can do, however, is to point you at his new blog, The Hasbara Buster. In one of his recent comments he said he's glad he has pro-Israeli readers and commentators, because that way he gets to understand how they think. Interesting comment, given his past behavior, and I'd suggest that what he really means is that he looks forward to talking to such people in an environment that he controls.
There's a pro-Israeli blogger named Yitzchak Goodman, author of Judeopundit, who is doing an admirable job of responding to the Buster's posts. I wish him luck, though I ask myself if he's not wasting his time. The Buster is way out there on the fringe of anti-Israeli bloviating, and it's unlkely that he makes any difference in the world. People such as myself, and also Goodman, need to ask themselves each year if any of the following three things are happening:
1. Are there more Jews in Israel than there were the previous year?
2. Is Jewish cultural (or religious) creativity as strong as it was last year, or perhaps even stronger?
3. Is Israel's economy, and with it the condition of the Israelis, better than it was last year?
In any year where the answer to any one of these questions is positive, we're doing alright, no matter what the Busters of the world do. Since most years all three questions have positive answers, why care about what those feverish folks think or say? Enemies of the Jews have been spewing their ire for millenia, and the Jews keep on doing their thing; these days, their thing is pretty miraculous, all in all, in spite of the blemishes.
The question that does remain, however, is why. Why should an instructor of language (Catalan, I think) in Rosario have this urge to "bust" things Israelis say about themselves. It's not because he has a good case - you're free to go visit and see for yourself how sloppy and often silly he is. It can't be because Israel is uniquely worse than other societies, because it isn't. Sometimes he tells that he's compelled to unveil Israel's crimes because the Israelis claim they're better than others. OK: and the Israelis are the only ones in the world who claim they're better? And even if they were the only ones, why should this be such an obsession in faraway Rosario?
In a recent post the Buster said I'm engaging in character assassination for posing this question. I don't agree. Not given the history of the Jews and their detractors these past few millenia.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Postville - a Review
A few months ago I wrote about the scandal (it really is a scandal) at the kosher slaughterhouse at Postville, Iowa. Now I've read the book, and have put up a review of it here.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Pilar Rahola, Fighter
The other day Haaretz had an interview with Pilar Rahola. Unfortunately they never translated it to English, and didn't even put the Hebrew original up on their website. Freudian, perhaps, and too bad, because it was interesting.
Ms. Rahola, it appears, is a Spanish columnist. She comes from the political Left, and has an impressive pedigree of anti-establishment free thinking. A great uncle was executed for being against Franco, and the family hasn't become more docile since then.
The reason she's of interest is that one of her main themes and bones of contention with her environment in general and the Left in particular is their obsessive interest in Israel, which they see as the greatest of the world's evils, comparable perhaps only with the United States. This is not particularly novel; actually it's quite banal. Still, when it comes to her analysis, it is rather interesting, even if not new: The Left is obsessed with Israel's crimes. Admittedly, not everything Israel does is justifiable, but there is no rational proportion between Israel's actions and the criticism of them, and certainly nothing to lead to a blanket condemnation of Israel's right to exist. Nor is there any rational proportion between the bestialities of all sorts of other regimes and societies and the lack of the Left's interest in them. Most people of this sort think in shallow slogans, and know next to no facts.
When Rahola tells of personal experiences, it gets more interesting. She tells, for example, of the indoctrination in Jew hatred she imbibed in that free thinking family: think what must go on in the conformist families. She attributes the blanket rejection of Israel to this antisemitism (though this doesn't explain the parallel animosity to the USA). Most interesting, since she's a long-standing fighter, she's had scuffles with loads of people who disagree with her, but the only topic where differences of opinion have led to severing of friendships is... you guessed. Her insistence on defending Israel.
Her website is here, and some of it is in English.
Long time readers of Ruminations will have noticed that we have our own in-house example of what Rahola's talking about. We've got a self-described "progressive academic" from distant Rosario, home town of that murderer Che Guevara, who has nothing better to do with his time than to seek, and occasionally invent, Israeli misdemeanors, as justification for his theory that Israel shouldn't exist. Since even he knows there can be no rational explanation for his obsession, he has apparently even invented himself an Arab identity, to give his problems a veneer of plausibility. Yep, you guessed: our very own Ibrahim ibn Youssuf.
Ms. Rahola, it appears, is a Spanish columnist. She comes from the political Left, and has an impressive pedigree of anti-establishment free thinking. A great uncle was executed for being against Franco, and the family hasn't become more docile since then.
The reason she's of interest is that one of her main themes and bones of contention with her environment in general and the Left in particular is their obsessive interest in Israel, which they see as the greatest of the world's evils, comparable perhaps only with the United States. This is not particularly novel; actually it's quite banal. Still, when it comes to her analysis, it is rather interesting, even if not new: The Left is obsessed with Israel's crimes. Admittedly, not everything Israel does is justifiable, but there is no rational proportion between Israel's actions and the criticism of them, and certainly nothing to lead to a blanket condemnation of Israel's right to exist. Nor is there any rational proportion between the bestialities of all sorts of other regimes and societies and the lack of the Left's interest in them. Most people of this sort think in shallow slogans, and know next to no facts.
When Rahola tells of personal experiences, it gets more interesting. She tells, for example, of the indoctrination in Jew hatred she imbibed in that free thinking family: think what must go on in the conformist families. She attributes the blanket rejection of Israel to this antisemitism (though this doesn't explain the parallel animosity to the USA). Most interesting, since she's a long-standing fighter, she's had scuffles with loads of people who disagree with her, but the only topic where differences of opinion have led to severing of friendships is... you guessed. Her insistence on defending Israel.
Her website is here, and some of it is in English.
Long time readers of Ruminations will have noticed that we have our own in-house example of what Rahola's talking about. We've got a self-described "progressive academic" from distant Rosario, home town of that murderer Che Guevara, who has nothing better to do with his time than to seek, and occasionally invent, Israeli misdemeanors, as justification for his theory that Israel shouldn't exist. Since even he knows there can be no rational explanation for his obsession, he has apparently even invented himself an Arab identity, to give his problems a veneer of plausibility. Yep, you guessed: our very own Ibrahim ibn Youssuf.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Spinning the Mayor
A week after Obama gets elected next month we have municipal elections in Israel. In Jerusalem there are three candidates of interest, along with various irrelevancies no-one's ever heard of (such as the candidate of Likud. Kadima and Labor apparently aren't even running anyone). The three, in alphabetical order, are Nir Barkat, Arkadi Gaydamak, and Meir Porush. Barkat is a very wealthy hi-tech intreprenuer who can afford never to work again and still his great-grandchildren will be covered. Since he doesn't have to make money he wishes to make the world better, and he's been concentrating on Jerusalem for about ten years. Last time (municipal elections come around once every 5 years) he came in second, with 44% of the vote, which was pretty good seeing as almost no-one had ever heard of him. He has spent the ensuing 5 years as the head of the municipal opposition, thus convincing many people that he really means it, and apparently he has a reasonable chance of winning this time. He's about 50, by the way, maybe a bit less.
Gaydamek is a mystery. He's Russian. No-one knows when he got here - probably sometime in the early 1990s. He's super rich, probably far more than Barkat, but no-one knows how he made his money. Something to do with the demise of Communism, perhaps. Or weapon running. Or both. Or neither. Apparently he has a 30-something son who owns an English football club (Chelsea?). The Israeli police have been muttering about his being a crook ever since he first appeared, but they have yet to indict him for anything. He's been on the scene with great intensity for five years or so. He's famous for throwing large sums of money at problems the politicians can't deal with, especially if there are cameras around. Most famously, he's the fellow who in July 2006 set up a five-star camp of air conditioned tents in the south, and hosted thousands of refugees from the Gallillee while Olmert&Co. ineptly didn't manage to destroy Hezbollah. That alone made him one of the most popular people around, except with the socialists who believe that solutions must be paid for, always, by the goverment. For those folks Gaydamek is the epitomy of all evil, a fact which probably does him no electoral damage.
No one knows why he wants to be mayor of Jerusalem. Knesset members enjoy legal immunity until they don't (ask Olmert), but mayors don't even have that. No-one has any idea if he knows anything about running a city the size of Wassila, and Jerusalem, believe me, is more complicated than Wassila. Probably more complicated than all of Alaska. Actually, almost no-one knows anythng about Arkady, especially since the only language he speaks, apparently, is Russian. (He communicates with Israeli non-Russian journalists in pidgin-English). So his handlers have invented a very simple message for him: they've plastered his face all over the city with the slogan: "Arkady Gaydamek. He doesn't talk, he does". And some wags have altered some of the signs to say "Arkady Gaydamek. He doesn't talk Hebrew".
I think (and hope) he doesn't stand a chance.
Meir Porush is the scion of a well-known family of Haredi politicians who happen also to be rather wealthy. His father was in the Knesset for many years; Meir replaced him quite a while ago. People tell me it's possible to be a US senator of the first rank for decades and still have only limited name recognition in most of the US. Well, it must be a big place, what can I say, or perhaps people don't pay attention. In Israel it is impossible to be an active Knesset member for a term or two without everybody knowing all about you (or thinking they do), so Porush has name recognition most American politicians would kill for. Alas: everyone knows he's Haredi, a fanatic, with a great big white beard, black overcoat, 11 children or more, and no-one except his own kind would vote for him.
So why is he running? Two reasons. First, his own kind constitute some 30+% of the Jerusalem electorate, and they vote early and often. Second, the other 70% don't vote hardly at all (the Arabs), or only in a lazy sort of way (all the rest). So all Porush has to do is convince a few non-Haredi folks to vote for him, and to reinforce the rest in their reluctance to drag themselves to the polls (usually about two blocks away), and he's in. That's how his predecessor, Haredi Uri Lupoliansky, won in 2003. Except that Porush is recognized, unlike Lupo, as being full-fledged Haredi. Lupo was sort of Haredi-light.
Purush's handlers have dealt with this handicap in a very cute way: unlike any politician you've ever heard of, they're not showing his face. Instead, they're smothering the city with a cute little cartoon figure with a benign smile and twinkling eyes, and the slogan "Jerusalem will like Porush". If you visit his website, here, you can see what I mean. The website also has his real picture, but websites aren't very important in Israeli politics. Everyone uses the Internet, but not for politics (nor for blogging). All those secular looking people on his homepage are exactly what you'd think: secular folks saying Meir's a great fellow. Not a single Haredi face there, notice. Heh.
Ah. In the name of even handedness, here's Barkat's website (the English part). I don't think Arkady has a website (Google doesn't either). So here's something else, instead.
Gaydamek is a mystery. He's Russian. No-one knows when he got here - probably sometime in the early 1990s. He's super rich, probably far more than Barkat, but no-one knows how he made his money. Something to do with the demise of Communism, perhaps. Or weapon running. Or both. Or neither. Apparently he has a 30-something son who owns an English football club (Chelsea?). The Israeli police have been muttering about his being a crook ever since he first appeared, but they have yet to indict him for anything. He's been on the scene with great intensity for five years or so. He's famous for throwing large sums of money at problems the politicians can't deal with, especially if there are cameras around. Most famously, he's the fellow who in July 2006 set up a five-star camp of air conditioned tents in the south, and hosted thousands of refugees from the Gallillee while Olmert&Co. ineptly didn't manage to destroy Hezbollah. That alone made him one of the most popular people around, except with the socialists who believe that solutions must be paid for, always, by the goverment. For those folks Gaydamek is the epitomy of all evil, a fact which probably does him no electoral damage.
No one knows why he wants to be mayor of Jerusalem. Knesset members enjoy legal immunity until they don't (ask Olmert), but mayors don't even have that. No-one has any idea if he knows anything about running a city the size of Wassila, and Jerusalem, believe me, is more complicated than Wassila. Probably more complicated than all of Alaska. Actually, almost no-one knows anythng about Arkady, especially since the only language he speaks, apparently, is Russian. (He communicates with Israeli non-Russian journalists in pidgin-English). So his handlers have invented a very simple message for him: they've plastered his face all over the city with the slogan: "Arkady Gaydamek. He doesn't talk, he does". And some wags have altered some of the signs to say "Arkady Gaydamek. He doesn't talk Hebrew".
I think (and hope) he doesn't stand a chance.
Meir Porush is the scion of a well-known family of Haredi politicians who happen also to be rather wealthy. His father was in the Knesset for many years; Meir replaced him quite a while ago. People tell me it's possible to be a US senator of the first rank for decades and still have only limited name recognition in most of the US. Well, it must be a big place, what can I say, or perhaps people don't pay attention. In Israel it is impossible to be an active Knesset member for a term or two without everybody knowing all about you (or thinking they do), so Porush has name recognition most American politicians would kill for. Alas: everyone knows he's Haredi, a fanatic, with a great big white beard, black overcoat, 11 children or more, and no-one except his own kind would vote for him.
So why is he running? Two reasons. First, his own kind constitute some 30+% of the Jerusalem electorate, and they vote early and often. Second, the other 70% don't vote hardly at all (the Arabs), or only in a lazy sort of way (all the rest). So all Porush has to do is convince a few non-Haredi folks to vote for him, and to reinforce the rest in their reluctance to drag themselves to the polls (usually about two blocks away), and he's in. That's how his predecessor, Haredi Uri Lupoliansky, won in 2003. Except that Porush is recognized, unlike Lupo, as being full-fledged Haredi. Lupo was sort of Haredi-light.
Purush's handlers have dealt with this handicap in a very cute way: unlike any politician you've ever heard of, they're not showing his face. Instead, they're smothering the city with a cute little cartoon figure with a benign smile and twinkling eyes, and the slogan "Jerusalem will like Porush". If you visit his website, here, you can see what I mean. The website also has his real picture, but websites aren't very important in Israeli politics. Everyone uses the Internet, but not for politics (nor for blogging). All those secular looking people on his homepage are exactly what you'd think: secular folks saying Meir's a great fellow. Not a single Haredi face there, notice. Heh.
Ah. In the name of even handedness, here's Barkat's website (the English part). I don't think Arkady has a website (Google doesn't either). So here's something else, instead.
Friday, October 17, 2008
The Road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions
Timothy Garton Ash argues against the growing European trend to legislate what must be remembered. True, the legislators would have us remember various atrocities and never deny them, but is this really the job of legislatures? Why?
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
The Economist on Daf Yomi
Someone at The Economist has been reading Ruminations, and has been moved to write an article about Daf Yomi. In the midst of the world's worst financial crises in 70 years, mind you. Even at the Economist they can distinguish between the ephemeral and the permanent.
We've been writing about Daf Yomi ever since this.
We've been writing about Daf Yomi ever since this.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
An Iranian Child in an Israeli Cancer Ward
Haaretz has a touching story about a 12-year-old Iranian child who's apparently dying of cancer but has been brought to an Israeli hospital, international politics aside, as a last chance.
The story is unlikely ever to appear in any of the forums that regularly tell about how nasty Israel is in general and to Palestinian children in particular. On the other hand, should any of our own homegrown haters ever stumble across the story - you know, the Gideon Levys, Amria Hasses - well, they'll use the story to tell you how one-sided our propaganda machine is. Here we routinely crush Palestinians for the fun of it, and then run to the world to tell how great we are because we helped one Iranian child, who actually isn't more than a cynical fig-leaf.
The true irony is that the entire story, from top to bottom, is all wrong. Not the specifics about this poor child. I have no doubt about them. What's all wrong is not that he's a fig leaf for our general bestiality, but rather that there are so many of his sort that there's no story. In the case of this particular hospital I know, because my daughter spent two years of her life working in the same cancer ward this child is now in, and saw large numbers, not of Iranians, but of children from many nationalities including many Palestinians. (Before Hamas took over Gaza they were mostly from families connected to the PLO. And afterwords, they were mostly from families connected to Hamas, because now it was Hamas deciding who'd get sent to Israel, not the PLO - that's what she told me at the time: now let's see the Guardian get their minds around that concept).
But truthfully, I didn't need my daughter to know this. It's enough to visit my nearby hospital here in Jerusalem, which I've done rather a lot recently because of this and that: The proportion of Palestinians in the departments is quite high. Some of the staff are Arab too, because in spite of what they tell you, capable Arabs in Israel can be physicians just like anyone else, and then get jobs in "Jewish" hospitals.
So that's the real story: that Israelis routinely treat ailing Palestinians in their hospitals, and the number of Palestinians who have been healed by Israelis is vastly larger than the number of Palestinians ever injured or killed in the wars they've foisted on us.
Ah, and there's another story: that Iran may be reaching for nuclear power, for whatever reason, but until then Iranian children ought seek top-class medical care elsewhere. As ought children from just about the entire Arab world (Iran's not Arab, I know). When you start hearing about ailing Swiss children seeking succor from Syrian hospitals, or even Saudi ones, drop me a line.
The story is unlikely ever to appear in any of the forums that regularly tell about how nasty Israel is in general and to Palestinian children in particular. On the other hand, should any of our own homegrown haters ever stumble across the story - you know, the Gideon Levys, Amria Hasses - well, they'll use the story to tell you how one-sided our propaganda machine is. Here we routinely crush Palestinians for the fun of it, and then run to the world to tell how great we are because we helped one Iranian child, who actually isn't more than a cynical fig-leaf.
The true irony is that the entire story, from top to bottom, is all wrong. Not the specifics about this poor child. I have no doubt about them. What's all wrong is not that he's a fig leaf for our general bestiality, but rather that there are so many of his sort that there's no story. In the case of this particular hospital I know, because my daughter spent two years of her life working in the same cancer ward this child is now in, and saw large numbers, not of Iranians, but of children from many nationalities including many Palestinians. (Before Hamas took over Gaza they were mostly from families connected to the PLO. And afterwords, they were mostly from families connected to Hamas, because now it was Hamas deciding who'd get sent to Israel, not the PLO - that's what she told me at the time: now let's see the Guardian get their minds around that concept).
But truthfully, I didn't need my daughter to know this. It's enough to visit my nearby hospital here in Jerusalem, which I've done rather a lot recently because of this and that: The proportion of Palestinians in the departments is quite high. Some of the staff are Arab too, because in spite of what they tell you, capable Arabs in Israel can be physicians just like anyone else, and then get jobs in "Jewish" hospitals.
So that's the real story: that Israelis routinely treat ailing Palestinians in their hospitals, and the number of Palestinians who have been healed by Israelis is vastly larger than the number of Palestinians ever injured or killed in the wars they've foisted on us.
Ah, and there's another story: that Iran may be reaching for nuclear power, for whatever reason, but until then Iranian children ought seek top-class medical care elsewhere. As ought children from just about the entire Arab world (Iran's not Arab, I know). When you start hearing about ailing Swiss children seeking succor from Syrian hospitals, or even Saudi ones, drop me a line.
Jewish Genetics
Hillel Halkin, who always has interesting things to say, discusses what the rather new science of genetic genealogy apparently tells us about the Jews. Bottom line: yes, the Jews came originally from the Middle East, just like they always said they did. But while they were away, there was a substantial amount of intermarriage with locals, whether through conversion, rape, or simple hanky-panky. Which isn't surprising either, human nature being what it is and always has been.
Traditional accounts of Jewish history, it would appear, are part true and part myth. Despite their dispersion in space and time, the Jews have continued to be that most curious (and in the eyes of many, preposterous) of combinations: at once a people or nation, fellow communicants in the world’s oldest monotheistic religion, and a family or tribe belonged to only by those born or married into it. They could not have remained such an amalgam had they not clung to strict rules of membership and admission.
Yet these rules were not observed everywhere or always. There were periods and places in which a blind eye was turned to them, most often when violations were not remediable. Had a rabbi arrived in Yemen or Bukhara soon after the founding of its Jewish community, he might have been able to insist on the halakhic conversion of its handful of Jews. But this would no longer have been practicable after several generations had gone by, especially since Yemenite and Bukharan Jews would have forgotten by then that their maternal progenitors were not halakhically Jewish and would have reacted with resentment to such a demand. Similarly, Khazars identifying themselves as Levites were accepted as such without inquiries into their past. It is an old rabbinic adage that one does not inflict demands on the public that the public is incapable of meeting. Better a tolerated myth than an intolerable truth.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
A Small Fortune in Israel
When I was a teenager the joke was that the way to make a small fortune in Israel was to bring a large one. Those were the days when American Jews were willing to donate money to Israel, but never to invest here.
That was then, and now is now. With stock markets the world over plunging in an interlocked world, the Tel Aviv exchange has been going up and down rather erratically, more down than up, but nothing serious compared to most of the big guys.
Or compared to the not-so-big-guys, either. Here's a report at the well-known-Zionist-propaganda-station, the BBC: Middle East stock markets plunge. It's the usual doom and gloom, except for this:
That was then, and now is now. With stock markets the world over plunging in an interlocked world, the Tel Aviv exchange has been going up and down rather erratically, more down than up, but nothing serious compared to most of the big guys.
Or compared to the not-so-big-guys, either. Here's a report at the well-known-Zionist-propaganda-station, the BBC: Middle East stock markets plunge. It's the usual doom and gloom, except for this:
While billions of dollars were wiped off share values in the Arab world, the Israeli stock exchange rose sharply after the central bank cut interest rates...Meanwhile Israel's TA-25 index rose by nearly 4% after the Bank of Israel announced a 0.5-point cut in its base rate to 3.75%. Its tech stock index performed even better with a rise of 6.75%.
OK, it's the stock market, what goes up today can go down tomorrow. But then again, perhaps we're really doing something right? Perhaps even better than most others? This might be why our economy has been growing faster than most of Europe and America since the beginning of the 1990s; it might explain why the Shekel insists on rising and rising and rising?
I'm not an economist by any measure, but here are some things that may have helped: we're still enjoying the effects of the gigantic wave of immigration from the disintegrating Soviet Union in the early 1990s. Binyamin Netanyahu's Milton-Friedman-inspired policies earlier this decade put new pizazz in the economy just as the effect of the immigration was beginning to wane. Hi-tech innovation fits perfectly with the chaotic insistance of Israelis never to do things the standard way if a short-cut can be devised, coupled with their intense determination to push so as to better their conditions.
Slichot at the Western Wall
Tomorrow is Yom Kippur, the culmination of 40 days of spiritual introspective reflection. We just got back from the Kotel (the Western Wall), where they've been saying slichot every night (except Fridays) for almost seven weeks; slichot being the (mostly medieval) prayers recited at this time of year. There were easily 50,000 people there, perhaps double, and with masses of people coming and going all night long the total will probably be 200-250,000. Who are they? Jews. Mostly Israelis, though you heard some English from the Teaneck crowd of young Modern-Orthodox students here for a year or two. I'd say that well more than half were non-religious, or at least non-religious in their daily lives. At about 11pm the sephardi Chief Rabbi arrived (or was it his far greater predecessor, the Rav Ovadia?) and one of his fellows was leading the services through the PA system, and it was clear that many of the obviously secular folks knew the services by heart. Ten of thousands of people singing together is quite impressive.
Meanwhile, large numbers of tourists were wandering round the old city (and not only the old city), hearing tales of Jerusalem. They'll get to the Wall later tonight. By tourists, I mean of course Israelis; the groups are mostly secular.
While tonight is probably more crowded than most, the phenomenon has been going on since Tisha Be'Av, exactly two months ago; it's a custom that has been growing year by year in popularity: some night in August or September the Israelis go up to Jerusalem, tour the city, and eventually, late at night, they converge for slichot at the Kotel. There's no way their number is smaller than 5-600,000 people, and it well may be more; this, from a Jewish population of about 6,000,000. That young Arab who ploughed his car into a group of soldiers late one night a few weeks ago: they weren't on duty, they were touring, and were on their way to the Kotel for slichot. Not that any of the foreign media mentioned this, because even had they known it's most likely a phenomenon they can't even begin to fathom.
But I expect the forbears of these tourists, the past 80-100 generations, they'd appreciate it.
Meanwhile, large numbers of tourists were wandering round the old city (and not only the old city), hearing tales of Jerusalem. They'll get to the Wall later tonight. By tourists, I mean of course Israelis; the groups are mostly secular.
While tonight is probably more crowded than most, the phenomenon has been going on since Tisha Be'Av, exactly two months ago; it's a custom that has been growing year by year in popularity: some night in August or September the Israelis go up to Jerusalem, tour the city, and eventually, late at night, they converge for slichot at the Kotel. There's no way their number is smaller than 5-600,000 people, and it well may be more; this, from a Jewish population of about 6,000,000. That young Arab who ploughed his car into a group of soldiers late one night a few weeks ago: they weren't on duty, they were touring, and were on their way to the Kotel for slichot. Not that any of the foreign media mentioned this, because even had they known it's most likely a phenomenon they can't even begin to fathom.
But I expect the forbears of these tourists, the past 80-100 generations, they'd appreciate it.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Obama vs. McCain, Summary
The New Yorker has an editorial up that starts thus:
On October 16th 1901 - that's 107 years ago next week - President Theodore Roosevelt invited Dr. Booker T. Washington to join him for dinner at the White House. Washington was black, it was an unprecedented event, and Roosevelt drew so much public ire for his audacity that he never repeated it. More than 60 years later, President Lyndon Johnson, he who was hounded out of the White House because the Baby Boomers couldn't stomach his foreign war, was braver than Teddy Roosevelt, and did more than is reasonable to expect from a politician. Barack Obama needs to be qualified enough to do the job; the color of his skin isn't a reason to vote him into the most difficult job on earth. Since I'm not convinced he's qualified enough, I'm not going to vote for him. But then again, I'm not convinced he isn't qualified enough, and actually think that after a disastrous 18-24 months he may learn to do it well; add his race to that and I don't see how I could vote against him.
PS. There is one twist that could make Obama far the better choice. If, as I rather expect, his foreign policies will be closer to what I think they should be, and further from those the Guardian is so fervently praying for, this will have a salutary effect on the way the world operates. McCain can't do that, because he'll always have at least 45% of Americans and 80% of everyone else against his foreign policy.
Never in living memory has an election been more critical than the one fast approaching— that’s the quadrennial cliché, as expected as the balloons and the bombast. And yet when has it ever felt so urgently true? When have so many Americans had so clear a sense that a Presidency has— at the levels of competence, vision, and integrity— undermined the country and its ideals?
The incumbent Administration has distinguished itself for the ages. The Presidency of George W. Bush is the worst since Reconstruction...
You're free to believe that, of course, but I don't. Not that the Bush's presidency has been the worst in 140 years, nor that the upcoming election is the most important in 80 years (that's Jan Assmann's definition of living memory in his seminal book Das kulturelle Gedaechtnis).
The issue was barely discussed in last month’s foreign policy debate. But in recent interviews with The New York Times, the two candidates made clear that they would confront the challenge in starkly different ways.
In the interviews, Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain offered conflicting visions of how to shrink the American military presence in Iraq, the best way to encourage further political progress there and what it would mean to succeed after more than five years of war.
They also provided telling clues about how much flexibility the next commander in chief would grant to his generals...
Alas, I don't believe a word of that analysis, either. It's not that Gordon is out of touch with reality, as the editors of the New Yorker apparently may be. Rather, I don't see how anything the candidates have to say these days can be much of an indicator of what they'll do when they find themselves behind the desk where the buck stops. As a voter, I've been watching Israeli politicians for decades as they spend a lifetime saying whatever they say, with or without conviction, and then they do otherwise once they're prime minister. As an historian, I've been watching that happen for centuries, you could say. It's not that circumstances always force leaders into decisions irrespective of where they came from, but it's very often so; to a degree, it's almost always so. And some of the more obvious exceptions - Hitler is at the top of the list, but Lenin is on it also - are the kinds of leaders you'd rather not be living under.
So what's a chap to do? Unfortunately, it seems the best place to go these days is The Economist. If you want cool-headed and dispassionate analysis, that is. They offer large portions of it, most noticeably this week in a very long special report, here if you're reading online, in which case you need to keep on clicking at the end of each page, or here if you want to print it out and read off dead trees. They'll endorse a candidate on November 1st, and I get the feeling they'll endorse Obama, but I could be wrong. Their report is calm, balanced, nuanced, and informative. A-Mechaye, as they say in Yiddish.
Personally, I have decided to sit out this election. I always vote in Israeli elections, as a matter of principle, since it's my society and country. Although I'm a tax-paying American citizen, I don't live there, don't understand many of the issues, and won't pay the price for being wrong, so it seems a bit unethical to cast my vote in local or state-level ballots. Especially as I'm registered in California, where I've never ever lived. Presidential elections are different, however, especially the ones where foreign policy are central, so sometimes I do vote in them. But only when I feel strongly. This time I don't.
Why don't I, in spite of what the New Yorker tells me? First, because as I've said often enough, both McCain and Obama seem honorable men and worthy candidates. It's a choice between two good options.
Second, because of the Amotz Asael criteria. Asael, an Israeli journalist who went to school one year below me, he has suggested that from an Israeli perspective the single most important thing about an American president is that he (or she, someday) keep America powerful. And confident, I'd add. Does anyone know who'll do that better this time?
On the narrow "How would he relate to Israel" question, by the way, there's no discernable difference between the two, so far as I can see. On Iran, which is a crucial issue, I also can't see who will be better - we'll have to wait and see what happens when that buck comes to the Oval Office.
The economic issues I don't understand and rather doubt either of the candidates do, either. So it's a question of which of them will put together a better team of advisers, and then have the intelligence to overrule them. The only way to know that is by electing one of them and hoping.
Some of the cultural issues are beyond me and irrelevant to my life. Gun control, for example. The Swiss and Israelis both prove that you can have an armed populace with little violence, and the periodic rise and fall and rise of American crime doesn't seem much affected by the availability of guns, but I'd never vote for president based on such an issue, which has no connection to my life. I wouldn't vote because of same-sex marriages, either, even though I'm against them. I like the Israeli solution, which gives wide legal equality and freedom to homosexuals, and even recognizes partnerships for all sorts of purposes, but doesn't tamper with the institution of marriage, an institution which goes beyond the legal construct of two people living together.
Abortions are likewise not an issue I'd vote on, though I'm mostly against them but not always - which is the Jewish halachic position. Incest, rape, the real health of the mother (but not her "feelings"), these can all be reasons to abort what will otherwise become a living human being. Framing the issue as one of "choice", however, seems like a cop-out. It's a question of responsibility. If you don't want the responsibility for launching life, keep an aspirin pill between you knees, or whatever other system you prefer. Once it has happened, however, it has nothing to do with "a woman's control over her body", or her choices about what to do with it, since it's the child's life, not hers.
Anyway, the real issue is probably quite different anyway: who decides such matters, the (supreme) court, or the voters? I'm a staunch supporter of democracy, and don't think courts should decide such things. We've got this same question in the Israeli public discussion, with the same groups on each side: those who think they know the truth better than everybody but need the courts to decide because the voters just don't get it, versus those who want the polity to decide.
Yet before you write me off as a die hard Republican, I must add that when it comes to that other major issue in American politics, health insurance, I'm far to the left of them all. No matter what's going on with the economy right now, seen with historical perspective the United States is one of the richest societies in human history, perhaps the richest alongside Western Europe, which has been free of the costs of defending itself for decades because the Americans do it for them. There is no possible defense of the fact that millions of Americans don't have reasonable medical insurance. I don't care how it happened, who's to blame, or even which precise mechanism is chosen to rectify it, nor by which candidate or party. It has to be rectified. But I wouldn't vote on the issue because I don't understand the mechanics of fixing it, and anyway I mostly won't be paying for it nor using it. (Israel has a reasonably good universal health system).
So since I vote on foreign affairs, and have the feeling but not the certainty McCain is a safer bet, why not do what I always do in Israel: focus my attention on all the available data until I can make a decision? Because Obama is black.On October 16th 1901 - that's 107 years ago next week - President Theodore Roosevelt invited Dr. Booker T. Washington to join him for dinner at the White House. Washington was black, it was an unprecedented event, and Roosevelt drew so much public ire for his audacity that he never repeated it. More than 60 years later, President Lyndon Johnson, he who was hounded out of the White House because the Baby Boomers couldn't stomach his foreign war, was braver than Teddy Roosevelt, and did more than is reasonable to expect from a politician. Barack Obama needs to be qualified enough to do the job; the color of his skin isn't a reason to vote him into the most difficult job on earth. Since I'm not convinced he's qualified enough, I'm not going to vote for him. But then again, I'm not convinced he isn't qualified enough, and actually think that after a disastrous 18-24 months he may learn to do it well; add his race to that and I don't see how I could vote against him.
PS. There is one twist that could make Obama far the better choice. If, as I rather expect, his foreign policies will be closer to what I think they should be, and further from those the Guardian is so fervently praying for, this will have a salutary effect on the way the world operates. McCain can't do that, because he'll always have at least 45% of Americans and 80% of everyone else against his foreign policy.
Creativity Under Persecution
Mishna: When someone has been thrown into a pit, and only his voice can be heard saying "Give my wife a divorce", whoever hears him may write a get (divorce letter) and give it to the wife.
The Gemara then goes into what I insist is a humorous discussion: What if the man's voice is being impersonated by a demon? When the observers saw a human form. Maybe the demon impersonated the human form, also? When they saw the form's shadow. Maybe the demon impersonated the shadow, also? Rabbi Hanina countered with by telling that his son Yonatan told him demons don't have shadows.
At which point one of the rabbis from the school of Rabbi Yishmael put an end to the fooling around, and reminded everyone that it's a serious subject: at a time of widespread persecution, it's necessary to stretch the rules in order not to have women stuck in uncertainty and legal limbo.
You can literally hear the jokers with the black humor - after all, they also know how bad things are, but refuse to be cowed by it; the last fellow is too serious for such things.
The next page adds another dimension to the dire situation and the rabbi's insitence on defining the law no matter how bad things are: in a discussion about how many men need to hear the wish of the husband in order to allow them to write a get, Rabbi Meir has an opinion which is then reinforced by the opinion of rabbi Hanina of Ono, even though he has to send it from his cell in a Roman jail, where he was awaiting execution for his part in the insurgency.
Gitim 65a,b
This thread began here.
The Gemara then goes into what I insist is a humorous discussion: What if the man's voice is being impersonated by a demon? When the observers saw a human form. Maybe the demon impersonated the human form, also? When they saw the form's shadow. Maybe the demon impersonated the shadow, also? Rabbi Hanina countered with by telling that his son Yonatan told him demons don't have shadows.
At which point one of the rabbis from the school of Rabbi Yishmael put an end to the fooling around, and reminded everyone that it's a serious subject: at a time of widespread persecution, it's necessary to stretch the rules in order not to have women stuck in uncertainty and legal limbo.
You can literally hear the jokers with the black humor - after all, they also know how bad things are, but refuse to be cowed by it; the last fellow is too serious for such things.
The next page adds another dimension to the dire situation and the rabbi's insitence on defining the law no matter how bad things are: in a discussion about how many men need to hear the wish of the husband in order to allow them to write a get, Rabbi Meir has an opinion which is then reinforced by the opinion of rabbi Hanina of Ono, even though he has to send it from his cell in a Roman jail, where he was awaiting execution for his part in the insurgency.
Gitim 65a,b
This thread began here.
Friday, October 3, 2008
See'ya later, Sarah Palin
Vice Presidential candidates are important, I'm told, three times only. The day they're chosen, at the convention, and at the VP debate. Well, Sarah did fine at the first, even better at the second, and my impression (I didn't watch) is that she did quite well at the third.
And that's the end of that. It's pretty clear her boss is going to come in second, which means that on a Wednesday in early November she'll be going back to Wassila, a place none of us had ever heard of until 5 weeks ago. I expect, however, that once there she'll take out a subscription to the NYT, the Economist, and a few other important news outlets. She then has about two and a half years to work on her main weakness this time, namely that she knows nothing about the world and not too much about the USA. She seems intelligent, so 30 months will easily be enough to fix that. Expect her to be back with a vengeance next time round, perhaps even taking on President Obama himself.
In which case, John McCain's most important legacy at the presidential level will have been to invent Sarah Palin. Whether this will be good or not, I have not the faintest idea.
And that's the end of that. It's pretty clear her boss is going to come in second, which means that on a Wednesday in early November she'll be going back to Wassila, a place none of us had ever heard of until 5 weeks ago. I expect, however, that once there she'll take out a subscription to the NYT, the Economist, and a few other important news outlets. She then has about two and a half years to work on her main weakness this time, namely that she knows nothing about the world and not too much about the USA. She seems intelligent, so 30 months will easily be enough to fix that. Expect her to be back with a vengeance next time round, perhaps even taking on President Obama himself.
In which case, John McCain's most important legacy at the presidential level will have been to invent Sarah Palin. Whether this will be good or not, I have not the faintest idea.
Monday, September 29, 2008
"Nothing Will Hurt Me"
We spent the morning preparing for Rosh HaShana - we're having lots of guests over the two day holiday. The radio was on the whole time, and we listened to the summarizing hit parade of the year's Hebrew songs. Near the top of the list was a song titled "Nothing Will Hurt me". It was written by Erez Stark - whose names means Strong Ceder, and it is preformed by the Knessiat Hasechel rock band. Their name, in English, comes out something like Church of Reason.
In my free and unstructured translation, the words of the song go more or less like this:
Nothing will hurt me, nothing,
Not a woman, nor a terrorist's bullet, nothing,
Because that's what I swore to my brother, my sister, my parents
And I cried by night and took care by day
Because I was afraid something would damage my parents
My father's voice echoes in my head
If anything happens to you
I have no reason for tomorrow
No reason for life
No reason for tomorrow
If you're standing above me now
I must not have kept my word
I'm sorry
I'm sorry
I'm sorry
If anything happens to you....
Nothing will hurt me
Nothing,
Not a woman, nor a terrorist's bullet
Nothing...
----------------------
Erez was killed in action a few years ago, a young lieutenant.
May the coming year be better than the previous ones.
In my free and unstructured translation, the words of the song go more or less like this:
Nothing will hurt me, nothing,
Not a woman, nor a terrorist's bullet, nothing,
Because that's what I swore to my brother, my sister, my parents
And I cried by night and took care by day
Because I was afraid something would damage my parents
My father's voice echoes in my head
If anything happens to you
I have no reason for tomorrow
No reason for life
No reason for tomorrow
If you're standing above me now
I must not have kept my word
I'm sorry
I'm sorry
I'm sorry
If anything happens to you....
Nothing will hurt me
Nothing,
Not a woman, nor a terrorist's bullet
Nothing...
----------------------
Erez was killed in action a few years ago, a young lieutenant.
May the coming year be better than the previous ones.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Why was Judea Destroyed?
The destruction of the Jewish communities of Erez Yisrael in the first century of the common era, with the destruction of the 2nd temple at its heart, followed by the genocide of the Jews of Judea 70 years later, were a catastrophe of epic proportions. All the while as they were happening, Jewish creativity never slowed down for a moment; indeed, the mishnaic era is rightfully regarded as one of the peaks in a history of millenia of cultural creativity. Yet while the creativity was never blunted, the echoes of the catastrophe reverberate resoundingly all the way into the main political discussions of the 21st century.
Page 55b of the Gitin tractate launches a long discussion of the catastrophe, its causes, its outlines, and its results. These 4-5 pages deserve a book-length analysis, which I'm not about to undertake. Still, here's the first story, that launches the discussion; it's very well known by many educated Jews, whether they've studied Gitin or not. I find it fascinating on many levels, one of which is the total lack of the feeling of victimization the powerless or weak are so supposed to revel in these days, as if weakness is a moral trophy. Well, those Jews sure proved to be the weaker side, and they sure were persecuted, but for the next few thousand years they told themselves stories about all the things they did wrong to bring their suffering upon themselves. So here's perhaps the single most important story of all, the story of Kamza and Bar Kamza, because of whom Jerusalem was destroyed:
There were once in Jerusalem two men, one named Kamza and the other named Bar Kamza. And there was a third man who's name has mercifully been lost, who was a friend of Kamza and an enemy of Bar Kamza. This man hosted an important social event, and told his servant to invite Kamza. The servant mistakenly invited Bar Kamza. When Bar Kamza arrived, the host threw him out. Bar Kamza, publicly mortified, begged to be allowed to stay, offering to pay the cost of his board, or even the entire cost of the event, but the host refused. Bar Kamza was especially furious that the high society of the time, the scholars, watched this happen and didn't do anything to save him from humiliation, and so he went to the Romans and told them the Jews were plotting a revolt, and this set the whole story in motion.
The moral of the story, the Talmud tells us, is that Jerusalem was destroyed because of sin'at hinam, unnecessary animosity between people. Not, say, occupation, or the heavy weight of Roman rule, or a wish for freedom or liberty or any sort of noble action one could attribute to the Jews or ignoble policy to attribute to the Roman. The Jews were punished, according to their own version, because they deserved it.
Page 55b of the Gitin tractate launches a long discussion of the catastrophe, its causes, its outlines, and its results. These 4-5 pages deserve a book-length analysis, which I'm not about to undertake. Still, here's the first story, that launches the discussion; it's very well known by many educated Jews, whether they've studied Gitin or not. I find it fascinating on many levels, one of which is the total lack of the feeling of victimization the powerless or weak are so supposed to revel in these days, as if weakness is a moral trophy. Well, those Jews sure proved to be the weaker side, and they sure were persecuted, but for the next few thousand years they told themselves stories about all the things they did wrong to bring their suffering upon themselves. So here's perhaps the single most important story of all, the story of Kamza and Bar Kamza, because of whom Jerusalem was destroyed:
There were once in Jerusalem two men, one named Kamza and the other named Bar Kamza. And there was a third man who's name has mercifully been lost, who was a friend of Kamza and an enemy of Bar Kamza. This man hosted an important social event, and told his servant to invite Kamza. The servant mistakenly invited Bar Kamza. When Bar Kamza arrived, the host threw him out. Bar Kamza, publicly mortified, begged to be allowed to stay, offering to pay the cost of his board, or even the entire cost of the event, but the host refused. Bar Kamza was especially furious that the high society of the time, the scholars, watched this happen and didn't do anything to save him from humiliation, and so he went to the Romans and told them the Jews were plotting a revolt, and this set the whole story in motion.
The moral of the story, the Talmud tells us, is that Jerusalem was destroyed because of sin'at hinam, unnecessary animosity between people. Not, say, occupation, or the heavy weight of Roman rule, or a wish for freedom or liberty or any sort of noble action one could attribute to the Jews or ignoble policy to attribute to the Roman. The Jews were punished, according to their own version, because they deserved it.
Philip Mendes on Benny Morris on 1948
Philip Mendes has a fine review of Benny Morris' new book, here. If you don't have the time or inclination to read the full book, this seems like a reasonable synopsis, and can be useful to counter the many myths (=lies) often told about the war of 1948.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Tsipi Livni?
Gerard Baker has an article in the Times of London speculating that whoever wins the upcoming elections in the US will fail dismally, and things will get better only with the next fellow (gal?). I wouldn't know about all that, but he's got an interesting underlying question: who in his sane mind would want the job right now? The reason I ask is because the situation in Israel could easily fit the same description. The job of Israeli prime minister is easily the second trickiest job in the world, trailing only after that of the American president for the things you can do wrong and the ease of messing up on a grand scale (can you think of any other such position? Let's say the chancellor of Germany screws up, not to mention Canada: who'd ever even notice?). That's in normal times. Right now, whoever's occupying that house up on Balfour st. will have to deal with all of the usual, plus making the decision about Iran. What sane person would want the job?
The other day I got a phone call from a pollster, who grilled me on my opinions and positions (in Israel. She never asked me about Palin). Part of the interview included a long series of questions where I was to rate the aptitude of Bibi, Barak and Tsipi to do this that and the other. Graded between 1-10. I consistently gave Bibi 2 out of 10 (been there, done that) except for as minister of the treasury, which he did extraordinarily well. Barak got a consistent 4 out of 10 (been there, no need to go back). Tsipi? I gave her a consistent 6 out of 10. As I said to the pollster, who groaned her agreement, what do we know about Livni? Almost nothing, but we hope for the best.
The Americans wonder what they know about Obama, and almost all have made up their mind (this way or that) about Palin. Well, Livni has been near the center of our limelight for a decade already, in various ministerial positions, thus trouncing all four American candidates combined, but no-one has the faintest idea if she's up to the job. With the possible exception of the 70-year-olds who ascended to the job between 1994-2001 (there were three of them), the only way we know if someone is up to the job is by letting them have it, and watching them fail.
Livni has the tremendous advantage that she's apparently not corrupt, and not even all that dirtied as a political hack. Exactly a set of abilities that are irrelevant to success at the job she seems likely soon to have. So we hope for the best.
By the way: if and once she gets the job, which seems rather likely, Israel will be the only country in the world with women at the head of all three executive branches: Dorit Beinish is the head of the supreme court, Dalia Itzik is the head of the knesset, and Tsipi. It's nice to be so much more progressive than all those liberals.
The other day I got a phone call from a pollster, who grilled me on my opinions and positions (in Israel. She never asked me about Palin). Part of the interview included a long series of questions where I was to rate the aptitude of Bibi, Barak and Tsipi to do this that and the other. Graded between 1-10. I consistently gave Bibi 2 out of 10 (been there, done that) except for as minister of the treasury, which he did extraordinarily well. Barak got a consistent 4 out of 10 (been there, no need to go back). Tsipi? I gave her a consistent 6 out of 10. As I said to the pollster, who groaned her agreement, what do we know about Livni? Almost nothing, but we hope for the best.
The Americans wonder what they know about Obama, and almost all have made up their mind (this way or that) about Palin. Well, Livni has been near the center of our limelight for a decade already, in various ministerial positions, thus trouncing all four American candidates combined, but no-one has the faintest idea if she's up to the job. With the possible exception of the 70-year-olds who ascended to the job between 1994-2001 (there were three of them), the only way we know if someone is up to the job is by letting them have it, and watching them fail.
Livni has the tremendous advantage that she's apparently not corrupt, and not even all that dirtied as a political hack. Exactly a set of abilities that are irrelevant to success at the job she seems likely soon to have. So we hope for the best.
By the way: if and once she gets the job, which seems rather likely, Israel will be the only country in the world with women at the head of all three executive branches: Dorit Beinish is the head of the supreme court, Dalia Itzik is the head of the knesset, and Tsipi. It's nice to be so much more progressive than all those liberals.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
An Antisemitic Speech (Yawn)
Iran's President Ahmadinejad has just made an overtly antisemitic speech. Here's the full text of the English version, as published by his own office (I make the point of linking to the Iranian official website because sooner or later Juan Cole will tell us the man didn't say what he said).
He's the president of a largish country, not a blogger from San Francisco or an anonymous comment writer from the Guardian's CIF. He made the speech in the full glare of a United Nations General Assembly session. Many media outlets were there, and each chose to report on the section of the speech they felt most interesting.
Very very few of them put the man's primitive antisemitism at the center of the report; actually, many didn't seem to have noticed it. Although at NRO the did - but then, NRO is hardly a mainstream outlet, is it.
He's the president of a largish country, not a blogger from San Francisco or an anonymous comment writer from the Guardian's CIF. He made the speech in the full glare of a United Nations General Assembly session. Many media outlets were there, and each chose to report on the section of the speech they felt most interesting.
Very very few of them put the man's primitive antisemitism at the center of the report; actually, many didn't seem to have noticed it. Although at NRO the did - but then, NRO is hardly a mainstream outlet, is it.
The lives, properties and rights of the people of Georgia and Ossetia and Abkhazia are victims of the tendencies and provocations of NATO and certain western powers, and the underhanded actions of the Zionists...
The dignity, integrity and rights of the American and European people are being played with by a small but deceitful number of people called Zionists. Although they are a miniscule minority, they have been dominating an important portion of the financial and monetary centers as well as the political decision-making centers of some European countries and the US in a deceitful, complex and furtive manner. It is deeply disastrous to witness that some presidential or premiere nominees in some big countries have to visit these people, take part in their gatherings, swear their allegiance and commitment to their interests in order to attain financial or media support.
This means that the great people of America and various nations of Europe need to obey the demands and wishes of a small number of acquisitive and invasive people. These nations are spending their dignity and resources on the crimes and occupations and the threats of the Zionist network against their will.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
BBC Reports from Alternative Universe
Earlier this evening there was another attack by an Arab driver on pedestrians in Jerusalem. 15 of them were injured, most of them not seriously. The attacking driver was shot to death, as is customary in these cases.
The BBC report's title, and I quote: Jerusalem car "attack" hurts 15.
After all, maybe it wasn't an attack? Perhaps the young Arab accidentally careened into lots of pedestrians. Such things happen, don't they?
Update: I wrote this post after 1am, last night, and forgot to link to the BBC report. This morning I see that it has been replaced... by an even more pernicious report. Now the title tells about an attack on troops, while still refraining from saying anything about the attacker (a Georgian militant from Tibet, perhaps?). The article itself goes out of its way to minimize the number of casualties, giving the mistaken impression that they were all soldiers, which isn't true. The severest casualty appears to have been a civilian woman, for example.
The BBC report's title, and I quote: Jerusalem car "attack" hurts 15.
After all, maybe it wasn't an attack? Perhaps the young Arab accidentally careened into lots of pedestrians. Such things happen, don't they?
Update: I wrote this post after 1am, last night, and forgot to link to the BBC report. This morning I see that it has been replaced... by an even more pernicious report. Now the title tells about an attack on troops, while still refraining from saying anything about the attacker (a Georgian militant from Tibet, perhaps?). The article itself goes out of its way to minimize the number of casualties, giving the mistaken impression that they were all soldiers, which isn't true. The severest casualty appears to have been a civilian woman, for example.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Why McCain?
A friend and reader sent me an alarmed e-mail recently, after I said in a recent post that I have a small preference for McCain over Obama - though actually, the thrust of my sentence was that both candidates are worthy.
In that post I had linked approvingly to Jeffrey Goldberg's Atlantic Monthly profile of McCain. So by way of explanation, here are some of the quotes in the article that I approved of:
In that post I had linked approvingly to Jeffrey Goldberg's Atlantic Monthly profile of McCain. So by way of explanation, here are some of the quotes in the article that I approved of:
His constancy is noteworthy. Nothing in his experience, recent or not-so-recent, has moved him away from his essential belief that the president has a duty to confront perceived threats well before they reach American shores. I asked Kissinger whether he thinks that McCain can be too inflexible on the subject of preemption. He said McCain will not change his mind if he feels that the nation’s defense is at stake. Much of this, Kissinger continued, is related to McCain’s sense of national honor, and personal honor. “He will not do the easy thing,” he said....
In my conversations with McCain, however, he never appeared greatly troubled by his shifts and reversals. It’s not difficult to understand why: tax policy, or health care, or even off-shore oil drilling are for him all matters of mere politics, and politics calls for ideological plasticity. It is only in the realm of national defense, and of American honor—two notions that for McCain are thoroughly entwined—that he becomes truly unbending...
McCain’s father, Kissinger said, saw the world the same way McCain sees it. “He was a military man, not a diplomat. Both men grasp the notion of consequences. From about 1967 on, we were experiencing a national trauma, with obsessive doubts about the fitness of government and with a yearning to just get out of Vietnam and get it over with, with a refusal to look at the consequences. Both of them understood that withdrawal without honor has costs. The son knows this from his own experience and from his father.”
I once asked Lindsey Graham to name something unusual about McCain in the context of the debate about Iraq; he said that McCain believes, among other things, that “some political problems have military solutions.” A related McCain belief that’s even more out of sync with America’s current mood: wars are quagmires only until someone figures out a way to win them...
Friday, September 19, 2008
The Big Lie
The New York Times has an article claiming that people often believe things that are demonstrably false. I expect the timing has to do with the fact (probably even a true fact) that the McCain campaign has been telling more lies recently than the Obama campaign (tho neither side is blameless, and the picture isn't black and white, if you'll pardon the pun). Anyway, the NYT informs us that there are all sorts of mechanisms at work here, and wonders if fact checking has any practical value. (I.e. will it help against McCain...).
One of the people it has interviewed notes that even fact checkers can have biases. Huh. Or should I say, Humphh?
There's nothing much new about all this, of course. The Church spent most of its first 1,500 years systematically lying about the Jews and just about everyone went along with it; even once there was a growing group of, shall we call them fact checkers, the Church mostly kept at it for another few centuries; in some corners it still does. In the previous century Goebbels may have been the world's top expert at demonstrating that if you say something often enough and stridently enough millions will believe you no matter how ridiculous you're being, but he had many competitors and companions in evil. But why reach so far as Goebbels: Have you ever listened to the BBC reporting on Israel? Not too much truth there, is there, especially when you get into body language of reporters and commentators. Regular readers of this blog are regularly exposed to my ire at the Guardian, but that will never make the Guardian any more committed to truth.
Lest you think, as the NYT article subtly suggests, that susceptibility to lies is greater with less educated people or whatever: Bah! The most committed believers (and creators, and disseminators) of the Nazi lies were an identifiable social-economic group that was far more intelligent and educated than the masses of German citizenry. This is probably equally true of the Communists, though I have fewer of the facts at my fingertips. The readership of the Guardian, in any case, is definitely more educated than the average Briton, so apparently the case can be made that more education means more susceptibility to lies.
Just switch on your TV, or reach for a magazine and let your eye flit by the first advertisements you see: if they were really true you wouldn't buy their products. Me, I've had enough contact with marketers to know that telling the truth is never on their agenda, though admittedly, getting caught blatantly lying isn't either. Have you ever noticed how fundraisers never use the word 'problems', for example, always preferring the term 'challenges'? Yep. Of course, that's but a small subset of the nexus between marketing jargon on the one hand, and the pernicious phenomenon of Political Correctness, a theology of lies if ever there was one, invented, mostly, not by McCain's side of the American cultural wars, even if it is grounded by deep roots in Calvinism and Puritanism.
It's vastly better to tell and hear the truth. But don't lets pretend our side is necessarily better at it, unless we can back up this claim with.... facts.
One of the people it has interviewed notes that even fact checkers can have biases. Huh. Or should I say, Humphh?
There's nothing much new about all this, of course. The Church spent most of its first 1,500 years systematically lying about the Jews and just about everyone went along with it; even once there was a growing group of, shall we call them fact checkers, the Church mostly kept at it for another few centuries; in some corners it still does. In the previous century Goebbels may have been the world's top expert at demonstrating that if you say something often enough and stridently enough millions will believe you no matter how ridiculous you're being, but he had many competitors and companions in evil. But why reach so far as Goebbels: Have you ever listened to the BBC reporting on Israel? Not too much truth there, is there, especially when you get into body language of reporters and commentators. Regular readers of this blog are regularly exposed to my ire at the Guardian, but that will never make the Guardian any more committed to truth.
Lest you think, as the NYT article subtly suggests, that susceptibility to lies is greater with less educated people or whatever: Bah! The most committed believers (and creators, and disseminators) of the Nazi lies were an identifiable social-economic group that was far more intelligent and educated than the masses of German citizenry. This is probably equally true of the Communists, though I have fewer of the facts at my fingertips. The readership of the Guardian, in any case, is definitely more educated than the average Briton, so apparently the case can be made that more education means more susceptibility to lies.
Just switch on your TV, or reach for a magazine and let your eye flit by the first advertisements you see: if they were really true you wouldn't buy their products. Me, I've had enough contact with marketers to know that telling the truth is never on their agenda, though admittedly, getting caught blatantly lying isn't either. Have you ever noticed how fundraisers never use the word 'problems', for example, always preferring the term 'challenges'? Yep. Of course, that's but a small subset of the nexus between marketing jargon on the one hand, and the pernicious phenomenon of Political Correctness, a theology of lies if ever there was one, invented, mostly, not by McCain's side of the American cultural wars, even if it is grounded by deep roots in Calvinism and Puritanism.
It's vastly better to tell and hear the truth. But don't lets pretend our side is necessarily better at it, unless we can back up this claim with.... facts.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
A Non-convincing Wave
I expect most of you have heard about "The Wave": A true story of a very charismatic teacher in a California high school who in 1967swept his students into a frenzy of fascist-like behavior based on charisma, group cohesiveness and discipline.The teacher, Ron Jones, later wrote up the story,and it was made into a fine movie. My old colleagues in the education department of Yad Vashem liked to use the film to demonstrate the potency of group pressure.
Well, it seems the story has now been turned into a German feature film.
Personally, I never found much in this story to be of real significance. The thing about Nazi Germany was that it wasn't the act of a class of teenagers, but rather of millions of adults; it didn't last a week, but rather many years; and the Germans never snapped out of it until the Allies had bombed them back into the Middle Ages, abolished all levels of their state from mayors to the national government, and then slowly started putting it all together again.
Well, it seems the story has now been turned into a German feature film.
Personally, I never found much in this story to be of real significance. The thing about Nazi Germany was that it wasn't the act of a class of teenagers, but rather of millions of adults; it didn't last a week, but rather many years; and the Germans never snapped out of it until the Allies had bombed them back into the Middle Ages, abolished all levels of their state from mayors to the national government, and then slowly started putting it all together again.
Thinking in Politics
I've been greatly enjoying the high drama of the American presidential race. Personally I'm edging towards McCain these days, and Jeffrey Goldberg's profile of him in The Atlantic Monthly has contributed to this, but I could live with either result, since the American voters this time must choose between two honorable and capable men; in spite of the torrents of verbiage that say otherwise, I think both candidates are worthy.
And no, I don't think either Vice Presidential candidate is the issue. Nor are the campaign tactics either side uses or doesn't use.
Still, those torrents are lots of fun. I've become an addict of RealClearPolitics, a website - evenly balanced, so far as I can see - that links to lots of stuff that's being written. One of the more interesting things I've noticed is the degree to which almost all pundits, on all sides of the debate, can't be trusted to tell it as it is. Try as they may, their personal preferences color what they see. The upshot is to emphasize the large extent to which these elections are about cultural issues, not political ones, and most people's likes and dislikes stem from these cultural differences.
Somewhere in my reading I came across this, an article by Jonathan Haidt, a young professor of Psychology from Virginia. He's an avowed Democrat and liberal (in the American use of the term - never forget that the Europeans use the same word for something almost opposite), and he desperately wants "his side" to win elections - but he has managed to go beyond that need and try to be empiric and rational. Although his title, "What makes people vote Republican" literally oozes of left-wing arrogance, his answer is that ultimately, it's the Republicans who have richer thought capacities, and Democrats need to understand this.
Given what it is, a professional article by a young academic, there is more jargon and academic affectation than necessary. Too many of his definitions (or those of his teachers) are not convincing. Still, eventually he gets around to this:
And no, I don't think either Vice Presidential candidate is the issue. Nor are the campaign tactics either side uses or doesn't use.
Still, those torrents are lots of fun. I've become an addict of RealClearPolitics, a website - evenly balanced, so far as I can see - that links to lots of stuff that's being written. One of the more interesting things I've noticed is the degree to which almost all pundits, on all sides of the debate, can't be trusted to tell it as it is. Try as they may, their personal preferences color what they see. The upshot is to emphasize the large extent to which these elections are about cultural issues, not political ones, and most people's likes and dislikes stem from these cultural differences.
Somewhere in my reading I came across this, an article by Jonathan Haidt, a young professor of Psychology from Virginia. He's an avowed Democrat and liberal (in the American use of the term - never forget that the Europeans use the same word for something almost opposite), and he desperately wants "his side" to win elections - but he has managed to go beyond that need and try to be empiric and rational. Although his title, "What makes people vote Republican" literally oozes of left-wing arrogance, his answer is that ultimately, it's the Republicans who have richer thought capacities, and Democrats need to understand this.
Given what it is, a professional article by a young academic, there is more jargon and academic affectation than necessary. Too many of his definitions (or those of his teachers) are not convincing. Still, eventually he gets around to this:
A Durkheimian ethos can't be supported by the two moral foundations that hold up a Millian society (harm/care and fairness/reciprocity). My recent research shows that social conservatives do indeed rely upon those two foundations, but they also value virtues related to three additional psychological systems: ingroup/loyalty (involving mechanisms that evolved during the long human history of tribalism), authority/respect (involving ancient primate mechanisms for managing social rank, tempered by the obligation of superiors to protect and provide for subordinates), and purity/sanctity (a relatively new part of the moral mind, related to the evolution of disgust, that makes us see carnality as degrading and renunciation as noble). These three systems support moralities that bind people into intensely interdependent groups that work together to reach common goals. Such moralities make it easier for individuals to forget themselves and coalesce temporarily into hives, a process that is thrilling, as anyone who has ever "lost" him or herself in a choir, protest march, or religious ritual can attest.
In several large internet surveys, my collaborators Jesse Graham, Brian Nosek and I have found that people who call themselves strongly liberal endorse statements related to the harm/care and fairness/reciprocity foundations, and they largely reject statements related to ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. People who call themselves strongly conservative, in contrast, endorse statements related to all five foundations more or less equally. (You can test yourself at www.YourMorals.org.) We think of the moral mind as being like an audio equalizer, with five slider switches for different parts of the moral spectrum. Democrats generally use a much smaller part of the spectrum than do Republicans. The resulting music may sound beautiful to other Democrats, but it sounds thin and incomplete to many of the swing voters that left the party in the 1980s, and whom the Democrats must recapture if they want to produce a lasting political realignment.
If you have the time, read the whole thing and ponder it. There is much in there that is diametrically opposed to most people's pat assumptions (and pet one, too). It need not be read only in the context of American politics, and it fits much of the Left-Right discussion in many democracies, certainly including Israel.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Despicable Jewish Thugs
I am too busy for much blogging at the moment, but this story needs to be related to. It's about the turmoil near Yitzhar yesterday. In this particular case the violence was started by a Palestinian would-be murderer, but that doesn't change the fundamental structure of the story. There are a small number of well-known Jewish settlements on the West Bank - Yitzhar, Tapuach and the Jewish Quarter of Hebron spring to mind as the most obvious, but there are a few more, only slightly less malicious places - which are dominated by violent evil men, thugs of the worst degree. These thugs terrorize their Palestinian neighbors, and do so mostly unrestrained by the Israeli security forces who are in charge of those areas. The thugs are a blemish on our face and defilers of our honor, but the long-standing inability or unwillingness of our security forces to stop them is even worse, as they have the power to do so, but don't use it.
In future posts I'll go back to facing down our detractors for their indefensible depictions of us, but for today I'm setting aside whatever they may make of this story, and telling it as it is.
In future posts I'll go back to facing down our detractors for their indefensible depictions of us, but for today I'm setting aside whatever they may make of this story, and telling it as it is.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Thinking Democrats
Camille Paglia is what the Germans call a Querdenker - someone who thinks across the lines. I generally like Querdenkers for their intellectual honesty, even when the base from which they cross lines is all wrong in my judgment. Right now she has a piece up at Salon which amply demonstrates her Querdenker-ism: while she's a staunch Democrat, she's cheering for Sarah Palin for being a far better model of feminist than what the feminists have to offer. Here are some cute quotes:
As a dissident feminist, I have been arguing since my arrival on the scene nearly 20 years ago that young American women aspiring to political power should be studying military history rather than taking women's studies courses, with their rote agenda of never-ending grievances...
The gun-toting Sarah Palin is like Annie Oakley, a brash ambassador from America's pioneer past. She immediately reminded me of the frontier women of the Western states, which first granted women the right to vote after the Civil War -- long before the federal amendment guaranteeing universal woman suffrage was passed in 1919. Frontier women faced the same harsh challenges and had to tackle the same chores as men did -- which is why men could regard them as equals, unlike the genteel, corseted ladies of the Eastern seaboard, which fought granting women the vote right to the bitter end...
It is certainly premature to predict how the Palin saga will go. I may not agree a jot with her about basic principles, but I have immensely enjoyed Palin's boffo performances at her debut and at the Republican convention, where she astonishingly dealt with multiple technical malfunctions without missing a beat. A feminism that cannot admire the bravura under high pressure of the first woman governor of a frontier state isn't worth a warm bucket of spit...
The witch-trial hysteria of the past two incendiary weeks unfortunately reveals a disturbing trend in the Democratic Party, which has worsened over the past decade. Democrats are quick to attack the religiosity of Republicans, but Democratic ideology itself seems to have become a secular substitute religion. Since when did Democrats become so judgmental and intolerant? Conservatives are demonized, with the universe polarized into a Manichaean battle of us versus them, good versus evil. Democrats are clinging to pat group opinions as if they were inflexible moral absolutes. The party is in peril if it cannot observe and listen and adapt to changing social circumstances...But the pro-life position, whether or not it is based on religious orthodoxy, is more ethically highly evolved than my own tenet of unconstrained access to abortion on demand. My argument (as in my first book, "Sexual Personae,") has always been that nature has a master plan pushing every species toward procreation and that it is our right and even obligation as rational human beings to defy nature's fascism. Nature herself is a mass murderer, making casual, cruel experiments and condemning 10,000 to die so that one more fit will live and thrive.
Hence I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful. Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue. The state in my view has no authority whatever to intervene in the biological processes of any woman's body, which nature has implanted there before birth and hence before that woman's entrance into society and citizenship.On the other hand, I support the death penalty for atrocious crimes (such as rape-murder or the murder of children). I have never understood the standard Democratic combo of support for abortion and yet opposition to the death penalty. Surely it is the guilty rather than the innocent who deserve execution?
So far, so fun. She's an iconoclast, this lady. Then, at the end, she spoils the whole effect with this strange statement:
But the one fundamental precept that Democrats must stand for is independent thought and speech.
Huh? Democrats think, Republicans don't? That's the fundamental truth?
Mount Tabor
I'm slowly making my way through the Bible with the rather new modern Orthodox interpretation of Daat Mikrah, an interpretation put together over the past 30 years or so, and completed in the 1990s. I started sometime last year, and am currently reading Judges. The other day I sat on the porch of this cabin we rented, high on the shoulder of the front ridge of the Upper Galilee, with most of the Lower Galilee spread out below me, and read chapter 4 which describes the battle of Barak and Sisra, Barak's battle plan having been inspired by the prophetess Devorah.
In modern terms, Barak's army was a militia of infantry, while Sisra had 900 tanks, so Barak convened his men at the top of Mount Tabor, a steep hill, unaccessible to the tanks; once he went down to do battle he was assisted by a fierce rainstorm that turned the valley below into a sea of mud which immobilized the iron chariots. The Daat Mikra interpreter helpfully points out that precisely such a heavy rainstorm occurred at the same place and same time of year in 1953. Josephus wrote the same thing about a thousand years after the event, and two thousand years ago.
While I read I occasionally raised my eyes from the book and glanced at the vista below me; Mount Tabor was the 5th ridge to the south, standing out clearly because of its unusual outline: steep slopes on all sides, cut off from any neighboring ridge.
Such an experience is of course quite standard when you read the Bible in Jerusalem, but I was on vacation, getting away from it all. There is an endless supply of fools who talk about how this is all an artificial construct of cynical Zionists et.al, but at the end of the day, that's all they are: fools.
In modern terms, Barak's army was a militia of infantry, while Sisra had 900 tanks, so Barak convened his men at the top of Mount Tabor, a steep hill, unaccessible to the tanks; once he went down to do battle he was assisted by a fierce rainstorm that turned the valley below into a sea of mud which immobilized the iron chariots. The Daat Mikra interpreter helpfully points out that precisely such a heavy rainstorm occurred at the same place and same time of year in 1953. Josephus wrote the same thing about a thousand years after the event, and two thousand years ago.
While I read I occasionally raised my eyes from the book and glanced at the vista below me; Mount Tabor was the 5th ridge to the south, standing out clearly because of its unusual outline: steep slopes on all sides, cut off from any neighboring ridge.
Such an experience is of course quite standard when you read the Bible in Jerusalem, but I was on vacation, getting away from it all. There is an endless supply of fools who talk about how this is all an artificial construct of cynical Zionists et.al, but at the end of the day, that's all they are: fools.
The Guardian Warns America
Jonathan Freedland (who can at times be rather reasonable by Guardian standards) warns America that if Obama isn't elected, the rest of the world will have had it, and will be fed up. And Mighty Peeved.
It's not clear what the actual implications will be, but apparently they're dire.
It's not clear what the actual implications will be, but apparently they're dire.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
On the Passage of Time
Frankfurt airport. Three or four elderly Israeli women and one well-dressed elderly man reached the checkpoint (I think it was the fourth so far) by electric golf-cart: a service offered by the airport for elderly passengers who might have problems walking the distances. The driver of the golf cart was a courteous young woman who seemed heartened by the fact that these particular charges spoke German; and if it was German with a not fully recognizable accent, it made no difference. They were nice old people.
At the checkpoint she unloaded them and assisted them up to the barrier, where she handed them over to the young Israeli security person; this was a dark skinned young woman with whom the elderly man briefly flirted, in a grandfatherly way. “And from where in Czechoslovakia do you come?” she asked him, referring to a country that exists still in his memory but no-where else. Behind the young woman stood a uniformed young German policeman wearing body armor and a sub-machine gun. As the elderly folks passed through he smiled at them, and gave a ghost of a salute.
Do Holocaust survivors think through all the ironies of such moments? Probably not, I expect. This won’t have been their first trip through a German airport, and the novelty will probably have worn off. They seemed mostly interested in getting through the process so as to find a seat in the lounge beyond. But the ironies are there, even if no-one dwells upon them.
Postscript: Someday Israeli air passengers won’t have to be screened through four layers of security more than anyone else. When that happens you’ll know that peace may be a reality. No speech by any politician of any nationality at any venue will do the trick, unless it manages to carry off that one. Putative peace arrangements that leave the need for those special airport precautions are perhaps better than nothing, but they won’t be peace arrangements.
At the checkpoint she unloaded them and assisted them up to the barrier, where she handed them over to the young Israeli security person; this was a dark skinned young woman with whom the elderly man briefly flirted, in a grandfatherly way. “And from where in Czechoslovakia do you come?” she asked him, referring to a country that exists still in his memory but no-where else. Behind the young woman stood a uniformed young German policeman wearing body armor and a sub-machine gun. As the elderly folks passed through he smiled at them, and gave a ghost of a salute.
Do Holocaust survivors think through all the ironies of such moments? Probably not, I expect. This won’t have been their first trip through a German airport, and the novelty will probably have worn off. They seemed mostly interested in getting through the process so as to find a seat in the lounge beyond. But the ironies are there, even if no-one dwells upon them.
Postscript: Someday Israeli air passengers won’t have to be screened through four layers of security more than anyone else. When that happens you’ll know that peace may be a reality. No speech by any politician of any nationality at any venue will do the trick, unless it manages to carry off that one. Putative peace arrangements that leave the need for those special airport precautions are perhaps better than nothing, but they won’t be peace arrangements.
Only Two Americas?
Here's a link to an article that drives the cutting edge for silliness even at the Guardian.
The conviction by the left that the right is stupid is one of the defining and least attractive characteristics of contemporary politics. Assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is too dim to get your point is not itself a particularly brainy way to win others over to the essential correctness of your views. But it is true that to small-town Republicans the world is not a complicated place, because they have seen so little of it.
Translation to English: it's not nice to be snotty about Republicans and their voters, but it's inevitable.
I'm not going to parse this piece, merely to link for future use.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Ghosts - and the World that Moved on
September 1st, 2008. The weather is beautiful here in Warsaw, probably the best we've seen in the 9 days since we arrived. It's the 69th anniversary of the German attack on Poland that began World War 2, or at least the European part of it. No sign of this on the streets of Warsaw, so far as I could see. Apparently Polish high-schoolers go to their first day of the new school year dressed in finery, or so it seemed on the tram and the main thoroughfares. I did briefly note a black-and-white film on Polish TV earlier, with a plane dropping bombs, so some people have noticed the date even if by now you have to be elderly in order to remember the original event itself.
In previous posts I've mentioned the Stalinist monstrosity that stands at the very center of Warsaw, straddling the line of the Warsaw ghetto at its south-eastern corner. Here's a picture of it, followed by some ruminations.
First, when it was built it wasn't intended to have all those glass-and-steel capitalist skyscrapers behind it. Nor was it supposed to have that red-and-white roofed structure in front of it, that contains a supermarket and dozens of small stalls that sell perfume, sports shoes and fired chicken. The parking lot in front of the supermarket also wasn't envisaged by the architect. Come to think of it, the advertisement placards hanging on the facade were not foreseen, either.
The Nazis who invaded 69 years ago today also foresaw none of this, although they were the ones who razed all the previous structures and created the large empty expanse Stalin then used. To their real credit, the Poles are busy overcoming their nightmares and are getting on with life.
If you focus on the street to the south of the monstrosity, there's also an interesting story. It's called Jerozolimskie Avenue, and you can't get any more central in Warsaw than that. But back in the 18th century it was a few miles to the south of the city. Jews had been banned from the city for about 250 years, but in the mid-1770s, just as the English colonists in Massachusetts were throwing teabags into the port of Boston, someone allowed Jews to settle in the fields to the south of town. A few years later he changed his mind and threw them out, but in the meantime their nickname for the road leading east from their settlement had stuck, and remains to this day Jerusalem Avenue.
You cannot tell the story of Poland without telling about its Jews. You can't even go to the central train station.
A few minutes walk to the north, not more than one block away from the Stalinist billboard for beer, the ghosts still reside.
On the left, a bland residential building. In the top right hand corner, a new high rise going up, with a crane above it. And wedged between them is a ghost from the past.
Two buildings that somehow were still standing after the ghetto was destroyed, and are standing still, to this very day. Too fragile for anyone to live in, of course, so the windows are blocked. The ghosts, however, are still there, and haunt us from the dead windows and the bare brick walls.
In previous posts I've mentioned the Stalinist monstrosity that stands at the very center of Warsaw, straddling the line of the Warsaw ghetto at its south-eastern corner. Here's a picture of it, followed by some ruminations.
First, when it was built it wasn't intended to have all those glass-and-steel capitalist skyscrapers behind it. Nor was it supposed to have that red-and-white roofed structure in front of it, that contains a supermarket and dozens of small stalls that sell perfume, sports shoes and fired chicken. The parking lot in front of the supermarket also wasn't envisaged by the architect. Come to think of it, the advertisement placards hanging on the facade were not foreseen, either.The Nazis who invaded 69 years ago today also foresaw none of this, although they were the ones who razed all the previous structures and created the large empty expanse Stalin then used. To their real credit, the Poles are busy overcoming their nightmares and are getting on with life.
If you focus on the street to the south of the monstrosity, there's also an interesting story. It's called Jerozolimskie Avenue, and you can't get any more central in Warsaw than that. But back in the 18th century it was a few miles to the south of the city. Jews had been banned from the city for about 250 years, but in the mid-1770s, just as the English colonists in Massachusetts were throwing teabags into the port of Boston, someone allowed Jews to settle in the fields to the south of town. A few years later he changed his mind and threw them out, but in the meantime their nickname for the road leading east from their settlement had stuck, and remains to this day Jerusalem Avenue.
You cannot tell the story of Poland without telling about its Jews. You can't even go to the central train station.
A few minutes walk to the north, not more than one block away from the Stalinist billboard for beer, the ghosts still reside.
On the left, a bland residential building. In the top right hand corner, a new high rise going up, with a crane above it. And wedged between them is a ghost from the past.
Two buildings that somehow were still standing after the ghetto was destroyed, and are standing still, to this very day. Too fragile for anyone to live in, of course, so the windows are blocked. The ghosts, however, are still there, and haunt us from the dead windows and the bare brick walls.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
