Kesher Talk: 05/12/2002

Friday, May 17, 2002

"Such A Son-in-law?": A young Jew and an old Jew are riding on a bus in Jerusalem.

The young Jew asks, "Excuse me, sir, what time is it?"

The old Jew doesn't answer.

"Excuse me, sir," the young Jew asks again, "what time is it?"

The old Jew still doesn't answer.

"Sir, forgive me for interrupting you all the time, but I really want to know what time it is. Why won't you answer me?"

The old Jew says, "Son, the next stop is the last on this route. I don't know you, so you must be a stranger. If I answer you now, according to Jewish tradition, I must invite you to my home.

You're handsome, and I have a beautiful daughter. You will both fall in love and you'll want to get married. And tell me, why would I want a son-in-law who can't even afford a watch?"

To the San Francisco Chronicle Dept. of Journalistic Standards: I received a copy of this letter to editor from Stephen Sharkansky:

I was fascinated by today's "news analysis" by Ashraf Khalil titled "Roads to Mideast Peace Diverge". (5/16)

There was something about the histrionically one-sided and selectively factual piece that was redolent of what one usually finds in a state-owned Arab newspaper. Never mind the Orwellian stunt of portraying Mubarak, Assad and the Crown Prince as a trio of peace activists. Just look closely at Khalil's discussion of Israel. For example, the opening paragraph with the information that "Israel -- having largely completed its West Bank offensive and reportedly turning its eye toward Gaza -- has opted to pursue security through force.". Really? All the stories that I've read indicated that Israel unilaterally called off any operations in Gaza in order to give diplomacy a chance.

The last paragraph, referring to the recent vote by Likud party activists to oppose a Palestinian state concludes that "Israel continues to move further to the right." Oh? The analyst seems to ignore all the signs that this party vote was merely an unsuccessful political stunt that was out of step with mainstream public opinion. Prime Minister Sharon opposed the proposal. Voices in the Israeli press ridiculed Netanyahu for painting himself into a corner of irrelevance. A leading moderate Israeli journalist who was actually at the party conference (was Ashraf Khalil there?) called it "an astonishing display of self-destructiveness [for the Likud itself]." Leaders of the rival Labor Party shortly thereafter declared their support of unilateral withdrawal from the occupied territories. An Israeli public opinion poll taken immediately after the Likud vote indicated that 63% of Israeli voters supported Palestinian statehood, and a majority of likely Likud voters continue to support Sharon over Netanyahu despite the former's opposition to the party vote. Now, in light of all these facts, who would conclude that the Likud party vote is evidence of Israel moving further to the right?

Well, Ashraf Khalil apparently did, and my suspicions about the origins of the column? It turns out that the piece first appeared in something called ... "The Cairo Times", where Khalil is the "Editor".

If one studies the Cairo Times web site, one learns that the Cairo Times is "independent", but that every issue must be approved by Egyptian government censors. I don't believe we have government newspaper censors in the US, so forgive me for insinuating that your publication of this editorial suggests that you don't understand what government censors are.

Now, to be fair to the Chronicle, you did publish a lengthy piece that covered the Israeli Labor party's peace proposals in a fair light. But do you feel such a strong impulse to "balance" every story about conciliatory peace-seeking Israelis by running Arab government-approved propaganda that paints Israel as a nation of intransigent right-wing militarists, and obscuring its source?

If you feel the need, for some reason, to publish authentic Arab journalism, you could at least help your readers understand its context by appropriately labelling the pieces, such as "written by the editor of the Cairo Times, approved for publication by the Egyptian government". But you did not do this, instead you dignified the author with the label of "Chronicle Foreign Service" I am sufficiently knowledgeable about the Middle East to be skeptical of such writing and sufficiently Internet-savvy to find out who Ashraf Khalil is. But I suspect that most of your readers need a few more hints from the Chronicle to help them put opinion pieces in their proper perspective. When the Chronicle lends its good name and credibility to "news analysis", it has the power to influence attitudes. When the mainstream local newspaper prints bogus analysis equating Israel with intransigent right-wing militarism, it might help explain why anti-Israeli protestors at SF State might feel emboldened to commit anti-Semitic violence thinking it a courageous act of fighting oppression.

I've remained a loyal Chronicle subscriber, even though I've questioned some of your coverage of the Middle East. But now I simply question the value of your newspaper altogether. I am suspending my subscription, just as I would have suspended my subscription back in the days of the Soviet Union if you had printed regurgitated editorials from Pravda under your own byline. I can get TV and movie listings on Yahoo! for free. When I'm in the mood to chuckle at Arab propaganda, I can read the Chronicle online for free, the same way I read the Cairo Times.

Stefan Sharkansky

Thursday, May 16, 2002

Rabbinical students push for Palestine: The NY Observer tells the tale of a group of rabbinical students who worry about supporting Israel b/c of the Palestinian "occupation."

They're well-intentioned, but naivete does not begin to cover it...

Jews and the Left, part II: Ken Layne (not a Jew) has his own take on the question ... well, actually it looks like several questions by now: "Why do so many Jews support the Left", "Why does the Left not give a crap about the Jews" and so forth:

I don't need to be a Jew to be outraged and repulsed by this kind of primitive bullshit. Americans aren't a race; they're a Nation. I couldn't tell you my full family tree even if you offered me delicious money. Got some English and French and Irish and American Indian and African slave in there and God knows what else. Who cares?

The only thing I believe in is Liberty and basic human decency. I don't believe in Jeebus and I don't mind if you do. And I'm not gonna kill you if you want to worship Allah, Yahweh, Buddha or Boba Fett. But I will defend those who believe in Liberty. It's the only goddamned thing that matters. Whether it's East Timor or the Czech Republic or Mexico or Mars, I'll side with Liberty. I could give a fuck if that means Jewish.

Lost? Go back and read yesterday's discussion.

Wednesday, May 15, 2002

Massacre at Jenin ... ahem, Yavin:

In a surprise move that has left the world shocked and dismayed, the Rebel Alliance has destroyed the Empire's Death Star, claiming that the latter was an instrument of oppression and violence. The Empire has issued a press release staunchly denying this, claiming the Death Star was a hospice facility, and calling for an investigation into the massacre of thousands of Imperial hospice workers at the hands of the Rebels Alliance.

A spokesman for Jabba the Hutt also issued a statement, proclaiming that such actions by the Rebel Alliance are "unhelpful to the peace process."

While you're indulging in Happy Fun Pundit's world, don't miss his take on a Monty Python approach to airport security.

Friends don't let friends buy Chinese: Middle East Newsline reports that China and Saudi Arabia are pursuing closer ties.

"China and Saudi Arabia are exploring the prospect of expanding their defense and military relationship. The two countries have held talks on launching joint projects and the purchase of Chinese weapons by Riyad. Other topics included Chinese training, logistical help and joint exercises. Saudi Deputy Defense Minister Prince Khalid Bin Sultan met a visiting Chinese delegation in Riyad. The official Saudi Press Agency reported that the delegation that visited on April 28 was headed by assistant director-general for logistics in the People's Liberation Army, Gen. Rhu Chiang. "The two men discussed important mutual issues," the agency said."

Shavuot starts tomorrow at sundown. The holiday celebrates the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai.

Traditionally, Jews stay up the first night of Shavuot and study Torah until morning. I've done this a couple of times at my friends Eric and Sue's place. While they last the better part of the night, I usually keel over and quit by 1am (that's way past my bedtime).

Unfortunately, I was blessed on those occaisions by perfect holiday timing on a long weekend. But with the holiday falling mid-week, I don't plan on celebrating properly this year. I'll be needing my vacation time for the high holidays, my wedding and then the honeymoon.

UPDATE: Read up on basics of Shavuot at Aish.

Secular Democrats, Jews, Kaus, Marshall, the Left, and more: Mickey Kaus asked why so many "secular Democrats" sympathized with the Palestinians:

I note the I'm a secular Democrat. Many of my friends are secular Democrats. And I don't think any of them would have told a pollster, since the suicide bombings began, that they "sympathized with the Palestinians" over the Israelis, even if they supported Palestinian's long-term aspirations to statehood. ... Keep in mind, the result for all those polled (in the Post-ABC survey Kohut seems to be talking about) was 49-14 in favor of Israel. ... There must be something funny in how "secular Democrat" is defined. Do you have to actively check off a box labeled "secular"? Are you denied "secular" status if you ever set foot in a church or synagogue? ... Either the Post-ABC poll is screwed up, or advocates for the Palestinians have been more successful than anyone thought. One Zogby or another has reason to be happy. But which one? ...

John Marshall pointed out the obvious explanation -- Mickey is Jewish and so are lots of his friends.

To further explain, this is the perfect example of why he have scientific polls in the first place.

Otherwise, we would be left to ask a bunch of our friends. At that point, flipping a coin becomes more accurate and useful as a measure of public opinion.

But while we're on the subject of Jews and the left (I'm saving my exposition on Jews and the GOP for a later date, when I have more time on my hands), why do Jews align with the left? Dennis Prager (Moment, Jun./Jul. 2002) is shaking his fists at the heavens over the issue. He has a few ideas, but nothing earth-shattering:

With few exceptions, the liberal world is at best neutral toward Israel; and with equally few exceptions, the conservative world is pro-Israel.

Examples are easy to find. The most consistently liberal institutions in America are the universities and the mainstream news media, which are either hostile to Israel or see no moral distinction between Israel and its enemies (which is hardly different from hostile).

... In the religious world, the same rule applies. The mainstream, i.e., liberal Protestant, churches are usually either hostile to Israel or neutral, while the conservative and evangelical Christians are overwhelmingly pro-Israel.

Why Jews so overwhelmingly align themselves with people, institutions, and a political ideology that is so morally wrong on the Middle East and so hostile to the most important issue in Jewish life—the well- being of the Jewish state—is one of the great puzzles of contemporary life. In the words of a friend, Jews possess a suicidal naivete.

... I want to ask liberal Jews who understand the moral gap between Israel and its enemies: How do you resolve the cognitive dissonance you must experience? Virtually every institution you revere is a moral failure when it comes to Israel (and America for that matter). The university, which you venerate, is largely an anti-Israel moral wasteland. And the New York Times, which you read avidly, has always had a cold spot in its heart for Israel. Like many liberals, the New York Times is more interested in fighting conservative Christians than in fighting Muslim anti-Semitism, as virulent an anti-Semitism as that of the Nazis. That is why, for example, it has given so much space to the anti-Jewish comments made by the Rev. Billy Graham in private some 30 years ago, yet it has ignored the revival of the blood libel in Arab newspapers.

Prager suggests there are two explanations.

One is psychological. Many Jews, scarred by the Holocaust and other eruptions of Jew-hatred, either consciously or subconsciously believe that if they side with those who hate Jews, they will not be hated. It is a form of the Stockholm Syndrome...

... The second reason is ideological. Many Jews have substituted liberalism for Judaism as their religion and source of values, and will therefore not easily give up their liberalism.

Like most such screeds, it is too short and too simplistic.

Dialogue and debate must continue.

Comments:

Mike Silverman wrote:
I think the entire premise that liberals do not support Israel is a false one. Look at the recent debate in Congress about Israel. Among the strongest supporters of Israel are such people as Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Paul Wellstone, Nancy Pelosi, and Barbara Boxer. These are among the most liberal members of Congress.

Support of Israel is bi-partisan and deep.

As for the cultral aspect of supporting liberal policies, it is simple. Jewish people have always flourished under governments that have supported cultural tolerance and progressive economic policies. I mean, sure it is great that Jerry Falwell supports Israel (for his own selfish reasons of course), but why should that require me to buy into right-wing support of gay-bashing, reduction in womens rights, and despoling of the environment?
I responded:
As I've said, I will deal with this topic in more depth later.

Support for Israel is a bi-partisan issue in much of American society, thank God. But this nation is the exception to the rule. The Left is almost uniformly hostile to Israel in other countries, and even in much of our own academia.

But I must clarify one of your points before I leave: Falwell is not just being opportunistic in supporting Israel. Evangelicals of all stripes do so for purely religious reasons. Many of them firmly believe that Jews are the chosen people and that Israel is their Holy Land.
Judith said:
I am not a conservative because I am pro-choice, a feminist, gay rights supporter, active in egalitarian Jewish congregations, and other issues I can't think of right now. Not only that, there is still a lot of anti-Semitism lurking among the far right.

The question should not be: why aren't American Jews conservative? But: why does the liberal left abandon all their principles when it comes to Jews, thereby leaving a power vacuum for the right to move in?

And Michael Gold retorted:
I think the Jewish identification with Liberalism originally began with the emergence and embrace of egalitarian ideologies like Socialism as the grand emancipator of the Jewish people from life-by-royal-fiat that we had been living essentially since Roman times. (Jews flourished under many rulers, up until the point that less sympathetic ones swept the successes away)

I think the Moment article states this but it bears repeating. Through Socialism, many Jews bought into a vision of inclusion in a "collective" that sought to replace their religious beliefs with a view towards accepting a more 'scientific' faith - that emancipation would occur through collective ('state') fiat.

This might be one explanation of the emergence of today's secular "ethnic-Jew" by the replacement of the notion of holy separateness and moral absolutes with a desire to conform to secular life.

Many facets of socialism were directly applicable and Jews identify with them, in particular notions of what we now call Social Justice or Tikkun Olam - what was originally called Tzedaka by our ancestors.

What resulted from the migration of this secularized/Socialist-leaning group to the US was a strong identification with ideology that we now term as liberal, and to the political parties that represent that point of view.

The confusion that many of my more liberal friends express as to why they perceive they are being abandoned, I believe, stems from the influence of people in that movement that adhere even more closely to those collectivist ideologies.

To those further-to-the-left, the evil is capitalism, the global economy and the erosion of the power of the state that forms the basis of their route to emancipation. America and its laissez-faire ideals is seen as anathema. Israel as a free-market democracy, and recipient of US economic largesse, also becomes anathema-by-association. Add to the mix a population of dispossessed Arabs incited to revolution and you have the recipe for left’s abandonment of Jews and Israel. What makes this dangerous is that it is so easy for the more hateful among the left to sprinkle on old racist stereotypes of Jews and money. This last point should not be taken lightly. The hate comes from all directions.

In effect, the left is not abandoning liberal Jews. On the contrary, this is the inflection point where most moderately liberal-jews have, in point of fact, abandoned the left.

Then Arnold Kling piped in:
The reason that some on the left appear to abandon their principles on Israel is that they have no principles to abandon. All they have is a crude class-warfare outlook that defines their enemies.

The worst of the left is an echo of Marxism. There is a belief that the world divides into "oppressed" and "oppressor" classes. Moral worth does not reside in behavior, but in class membership.

From there, it is an easy step to place Palestinians in the "oppressed" class where they can do no wrong and Israelis in the "oppressor" class where they can do no right.

Liberals who do hold genuine principles should distance themselves from the simplistic oppressed/oppressor model. Otherwise, I think that conservatives will hold the only reliable moral compass.

And Ralph Phelan wrapped it all up:
Where has the Left abandoned its principles?
The Left loves Castro, and they also love Arafat.

When someone defends themself against a bully, the Left sides with the bully, whether it's prosecuting homeowners for shooting burglars, (and trying to keep them from having guns) or censuring Israel for attempting to prevent suice bombers from killing them by the dozen.

So far as I can see the Left is totally consistent in how it deals with Israel.

Classifying yourself ain't easy: When you're a Jew, how do you classify yourself on a race/ethnicity questionnaire? Rachel Kadish (Moment, Jun./Jul. 2002) writes that

Like so many Americans, I have more than one answer to the question of race or ethnicity. And like many, I struggle to find the single answer that feels adequate. In doing so, I am not trying to take advantage of the Affirmative Action system or use these forms to make myself sound exotic (I have never used my mother's Mexican birth to pass myself off as Hispanic, though I probably could). I am only trying to get it right. Does Jewish count as an ethnicity? Does Holocaust-survivor-family-scattered-around-the-world-from-Australia-to-Israel-to-England-to-the-United States count?

... Filling out census forms in the 21st century, we tip our hats to an ages-old imponderable: Is Judaism a religion, or an ethnicity?"

... Who—according to our employers, the U.S. census authorities, and ourselves—are we?

This time, I find my answer at the supermarket. The "ethnic" food aisle in my local grocery showcases matzah balls; Jewish foods line the shelves beside rows of Italian, Spanish, and Greek products. Nowhere is there a "Catholic" or "Protestant" food shelf. There you have it: I know I have an ethnicity because Shoprite tells me so.

Back at home, under "Other (specify)" I pen, in decisive block letters, "Jewish/Eastern European."

Then, hedging my bets, I check "White, not of Hispanic Origin"—which is, of course, the truth—and hope that my prospective employer will not file my application under:

"Perplexed."

Bedfellows: Arab News and David Duke.

Tuesday, May 14, 2002

Jews and Asians: They go together like Moo Shoo Chicken (not pork, of course) and Hoi Sin sauce or chicken soup and matzo balls. Well, at least that is what Joey deVilla argues:

We were the kids cleaning up in math and science class
We have a strong showing in the computer world
Strong family ties
Our mothers tend to be overbearing
Some tendencies towrds clannishness
Strong pressure from the parentals to get a university degree
Thick black hair requiring the strongest gel
Cosmetic surgery (Jews: nose jobs, Asians: eye jobs)
A love of Chinese food
Hiring Filipino domestic help
Run-ins with the original Axis of evil (Jews: Hitler, Asians: Hirohito, who got off too easy)
Signature cars (Jews: VW rabbit/Jeep YJ, Asians: Honda CR-V, Honda Civic)
And dammit, we own New York, baby!

Monday, May 13, 2002

What the Likkud statement on 'no Palestinian state' means: Hell if I know. Sorry, since I am not a skanky journalist, I don't pretend to know that which I do not. More than a few Kesher Talk readers and other commentators have suggested that it is part of the Netanyahu-Sharon struggle for power. Certainly, as my fiancee says, Bibi carries himself like he thinks he is still PM.

What it means for the larger issues at hand, I have little idea. Neither does anyone else.

But we do have responses. Jacob Weitz (The American Kaiser) writes an open letter to Likkud:

There will eventually be a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza; the only question is when. You were not asked to endorse parameters for peace or boundaries for a future state. You were simply asked to approve a concept, an idea which is a fundamental part of the peace process and of the Likud Party's mission: peace with security.

See the rest on his blog.

I think I'll add him to the link list.

God and "The Force": Ick. Rabbi Rabbi Shraga Simmons tries to show how Star Wars reflects Judaism and the Jewish worship of God. He refers mostly to "Phantom Menace," which makes him look a tad desperate in his search for relevance. That movie not only stunk to high hell, but it removed much of the spiritual influence by reducing "the Force" into a physical entity (I forget what they called the particles). Comparable to such disservice? "Creationists" who are so upset by science they feel they must degrade both it and their own religion.

UPDATE: While we are on the subject, Jonathan V. Last also looks at Star Wars - not from the spiritual side, but the political one - and says that the Empire gets a bum rap.

Kesher Talk

Friday, May 17, 2002

Thursday, May 16, 2002

Wednesday, May 15, 2002

Tuesday, May 14, 2002

Monday, May 13, 2002

Navigate this site

Previous Posts

Links

Archives