The changing face of Jewish fundamentalism. Haredim are shaking things up.
An ultra-Orthodox journalist recently had an audience with a Hasidic rabbi. When he left, he was asked about his impressions of the visit. "Once, when I used to visit the rebbe, my knees would tremble," he responded, "now, he is the one that trembles." This story hints at the change in the balance of power in ultra-Orthodox society, which for the time being is going on behind the scenes. Even if it is not in any way its declared goal, the existence of an extra-establishment press is gradually undermining rabbinical hegemony, first and foremost because this press shapes public opinion in a place where the voice of the ordinary citizen is completely silenced.
. . . The ultra-Orthodox public pounced greedily on the new and modern papers. The attraction for the written word is a given in this public, which is not exposed to the visual enticements of television and cinema. But it was the critical content that was the real magnet.
They are openly criticizing their leaders in
web forums as well as printed newspapers.
Self-criticism and the absence of self-righteousness are the biggest novelties in B'Hadrei Haredim. There you can follow pointed discussions of a series of issues that the Haredi public has thus far refrained from discussing in public - including among others, going to work and enlisting in the army, the problem of poverty, sex crimes (primarily in the mikvehs, i.e., ritual baths), quality of education (the level of the teachers, beatings, pirate transportation companies) and Haredi sexuality alongside sharp critiques of the press and disparagement of politicians and hacks.
(via the
Head Heeb and
Imshin)
UPDATE: While Israeli Haredim pull their skeletons out of the closet, American ultra-Orthodox Jews are
doing some soul-searching about how they relate to their gentile neighbors.
Conflicts between Orthodox Jews and their neighbors — over school taxes, zoning, Saturday traffic rules and other issues — have become a visible feature of life in New York and other cities during the last two decades, as a burgeoning ultra-Orthodox population has expanded beyond its traditional precincts in Brooklyn and established enclaves in new locations. In the past, Orthodox spokesmen commonly have spoken of such conflicts simply as cases of antisemitism. Last week's session was described by participants and observers as the first public airing by Aguda, the main public voice of ultra-Orthodox Judaism, of the possibility that Orthodox communities might bear some responsibility when such conflicts arise.
No! Ya think?
Them miles keep stoning along . . . . Gosh -
thanks Bruce! Now you all know what to give a blogger for her half-century mark - her very own
Instalanch. (Well, once removed. Glenn has never linked to Kesher Talk that I know of.)
My actual secular 50th birthday is
Feb 7th (and my
Hebrew birthday falls in parshat
Yitro - which is tomorrow), but I sent Bruce an invite to a Shabbat service next week, here in New York, where I will be marking my birthday by leading
musaf, giving the
d'var, and sponsoring the kiddush lunch. (This lay-led minyan only meets twice a month, so I couldn't do it on either of my actual birthdays. But I am getting an aliyah tomorrow at another minyan.)
I was also going to chant the haftarah, but next week musaf includes an additional prayer for the
upcoming Rosh Chodesh as well as the regular Shabbat stuff, and I will be
singing and talking continuously for over an hour as it is. (I have a decent voice, but not cantorial quality - or stamina - by any means). I do enough Torah and haftarah chanting anyway. (If you would like a sneak preview of what I will actually be singing,
this is a great online primer for aspiring
shaliach tzibburs.)
I haven't yet decided what to do on my actual birthday. I'm thinking about going back to Austin for a visit.
UPDATE:
Meryl's doing it too. And
so is Naomi. Could it be a trend? By the next blog party we'll have a minyan of liturgically-literate Jews, and we can daven
ma'ariv.
Jewish ethics -- revenge: "The Torah strictly warns us against taking revenge: "Don't take vengeance and don't bear a grudge against the members of your nation; love your neighbor as yourself". (Leviticus 19:18.)" The Jewish Ethicist looks at all facets of
Judaism's view of vengeance.
Iraq/UN agree to be excellent to each other, resolve to party on: HappyFunPundit has the
10 Cool Rules "agreed upon by Iraq as part of the full total superduper cooperation demanded by UN Security Council resolution 1441."
Tracking Joe Lieberman: I was so busy compiling
bloggers' comments on Joe Lieberman, I missed
this website from a guy who has been hounding Joe for a long time...
Daniel Pearl : 1963 - 2002. January 23rd, 2003 is the
first anniversary of the kidnapping of Jewish American reporter
Daniel Pearl. The Simon Weisenthal Center promises an internet campaign of remembrance until February 20th, the anniversary of his murder.
The weekend of February 21-23rd, the Center is also asking clergy and their congregations to remember Daniel in their services and to forward their sermons on the meaning of his life and death to the Wiesenthal Center, which will be then be forwarded directly to the Pearl family.
On Thursday evening, February 20, 2003, the Center will host a community-wide memorial program at its Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles, and on Monday, February 24th at Congregation Beit Tzedek in Toronto, Canada. Dr. Judah Pearl, Daniel’s father, will speak at both events.
For more information, contact the Wiesenthal Center's Communications department, 310-553-9036.
The SWC also
invites you to
light a virtual yahrzeit candle for him.
Sharon and Churchill. Tal G wonders what a real statesman for Israel would look like. Bandying the name of Churchill about reminded me of this email that came around after Sharon was elected over Barak (don't remember the source). Interesting comparison - It's a bit outdated but most of it still applies:
A stands for Churchill, B for Sharon.
Personal characteristics:
A) An old politican
B) An old politican
A) Hated by many British
B) Hated by many Israelis
A) Fired 19 years earlier after a military fiasco
B) Fired 19 years earlier after a military fiasco
A) Great personal courage.
B) Great personal courage
Political characteristics:
A) Considered a "war-monger"
B) Considered a "war monger"
A) Given to pissing off Hitler
B) Given to pissing off Arafat
A) Doesn't trust the Germans
B) Doesn't trust the Palestinians
Foresight:
A) Realized that Hitler cannot be trusted as his real goal is to rule Europe
B) Realized Arafat cannot betrusted as his real goal is to destroy Israel.
A) Realized that every withdrawal makes Hitler want more
B) Realized that every merely withdrawal merely makes Arafat want more
A) Did not buy Hitler's excuse that he only wanted justice for the Germans
B) Did not but Arafat's excuse he only wants justice for the Palestinians
A) Did not buy Hitler's excuse that all his aggression is really due to the unfair Versailles treaty
B) Did not buy Arafat's excuse that all his aggression is really due to the "evil Israeli occupation"
A) Warned the government repeatedly that Hitler is rearming for war
B) Warned the government repeatedly that Arafat is rearming for war
A) Realized that the "quiet" after Munich was deceptive because it was just a matter of time until Hitler would try to get more by force
B) Realized after Israel's "peace" was deceptive, because it was just a matter of time until Arafat would get want he wanted by force
His Political Opponents' replies to him:
A) "Why should we listen to the architect of Gallipoli?
B) "Why should we listen to the architect of Lebanon?
A) "We don't want a second Gallipoli"
B) "We don't want another Lebanese war"
A) "You're just scaring the public"
B) "You're just scaring the public"
A) "The people are tired of war. He won't risk his position on another war."
B) "The people are tired of war. He won't risk his position on another war."
A) "Hitler is a democratically-elected leader
B) "Arafat is the popular elected representative of the leader of the Palestinians.
(Before it became clear how bloody both Arafat's and Hitler's dictatorships were/are)
A) "Hitler is a strong leader. He will force his people to quiet down.
B) "Arafat is a strong leader. He will force his people to quiet down.
(After it became clear that both of these rule by sheer force)
A) "I bring you peace in our time"
B) "The peace process is on track"
A) "What's your alternative?"
B) "What's your alternative?"
A) "Look, it has been a WHOLE MONTH since the latest concession, and Hitler is still quiet!
B) "Look, it has been a WHOLE ____ since the latest concession, and Arafat is still quiet!"
Three Israelis are shot to death on a highway south of Hebron.
Hip Hebrews: This was the heading on an amusing letter to the editor of the Washington Times on Jan. 14:
In Suzanne Fields' column, "Celebrating compassionate cool" (Op-Ed, Thursday), she makes the following statement: "Joe Lieberman is smart, but a yarmulke is not a ten-gallon hat. He's definitely not cool. (Jews rarely are.)"
I have never taken much issue with what Mrs. Fields writes, as I enjoy her column, but where does she get off saying Jews are rarely cool?
I have been a Jew all my life and definitely am cool. I think most of the Jews in the Israeli army are. I think Ariel Sharon is cool. It must be that the Jews Mrs. Fields herself knows are rarely cool.
RICHARD ROTHSTEIN
Forest Hills, N.Y.
If you still bother reading Haaretz, go read
this.
Honk if you hate Saddam. Someone seems to be pulling ole James Taranto's leg over at
Best of the Web. He reports on an Austin talk-show host who initiated a "pro-Saddam protest" guaranteed to produce results:
Saturday and Sunday night, 8 to 10 p.m., during our show, we called for all the normal Americans who support the war against Saddam to turn on their headlights! The response was overwhelming. Numerous callers reported that every car on Austin's highways and byways had its headlights on.
Duh. In January in the northern hemisphere, if you
don't have your headlights on by 8 PM some cop is going to pull you over for endangering traffic. Wait, it gets better. Crawford then exhorts his listeners who
love America and stand behind our troops in their soon-to-be war against Saddam to participate in a motorcade Monday morning, 6 to 9, driving into Austin and filling up its roads and parking lots. We don't mean to sound arrogant, but we are confident that working Americans who cannot normally attend protests will overwhelmingly respond and turn Austin into one big traffic jam.
In other words, a typical Monday morning rush hour.
Taranto seems to be treating this with a straight face - am I missing something?
Never mind, I'll just sit in the dark. . . . I thought the
Lileks light-bulb joke was the best.
Carnival of the Vanities #18 is hosted this week by
Meryl Yourish and includes a link to
my essay on KesherTalk on Tacitus' challenge to the antiwar movement. The Carnival rotates to a different blog each week - bloggers nominate pieces they've written that they'd like to see get wider exposure. It also draws attention to the blog that's hosting it (hint, hint, Howard).
Liora Glat-Berkovitch, a prosecutor who handled the investigation into Sharon's dealings with a South-African businessman, admitted to political motives behind her leaking the information on the investigation. She said that her son is about to begin his military service, and she did not want Sharon to remain a PM. She is likely to stand trial. She has been a prosecutor for close to 30 years.
Haaretz reporter to whom the info was leaked is being investigated. An attorney interviewed on the radio said the leak is a very serious offense, but completely exonerates the reporter, saying that he was doing his job the way he is supposed to. I absolutely agree, but I don't think it is a coincidence that Haaretz was chosen for the leak. (IBA radio).
Jews in odd places: Belarus:
The East European Jewish Heritage Project wants to help you learn more about the past, present and future of the Jewish community in Belarus and help you organize your philanthropic efforts on behalf of the Jews of Belarus.
More on anti-semitic legislation in Argentina: 'Button' had this to say:
If worse comes to worse, take the oath and then do a Kol Nidre. This is a complex issue.
During the past couple of years I had to appear in a local court. They handed me a bible to take the traditional oath. I glanced casually at the bible and, to my horror, noticed it was a Christian bible with old and new testaments. I was stunned and didn't know how to proceed. It occurred to me that if I as a Jew took an oath on a Christian bible, someone could later come along and challenge my veracity and integrity and raise the issue of perjury, so I had to refuse to take the oath on that bible. I knew I was exposing myself to anti-Semitism by doing this. Which was worse-- anti-Semitism or perjury? I decided that perjury was more important. I lamely explained that as a Jew I shouldn't be taking an oath on that bible. Why not? the judge asked. Because it is a Christian bible with both old and new testaments. I knew what I was in for. And steeled myself for the coming ordeal which then unfolded. But I spent my earliest years with my extended family in PA where the Penn Dutch refuse to take oaths altogether because of their interpretation of the 10 Commdnts. So I just resigned myself to the Salam-like ritual I was about to endure.
This really is a complex issue, I assure you. Theory is one thing, but living a life and real politic can be something else. I think it is sometimes wisest not to make too much of a fuss over being non-conforming. There is something to be said about the avoidance of making waves if they are gratuitous.
But in the end, each person has to make a very lonely decision about how to proceed. And it isn't always the decision that you have expected in theory to make. You have to live and survive with the consequences which can be costly, painful or sometimes fatal. Do a lot of thinking about all this before you shoot from the hip and condemn or belittle someone else's decision on how they handle this.
Ethipian Jews want to bring relatives to Israel: Thousands of Ethiopian Jews
want their relatives to join them in Israel. About 3 000 Ethiopian immigrants demonstrated in front of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's office last week in Jerusalem to demand their relatives be allowed to join them in Israel - despite doubts about their Jewishness. The demonstrators demanded that restrictions on immigration laws be lifted.
Most of these relatives who were left behind belong to the Falash Mura community, Ethiopian Jews who converted to Christianity about a century ago and are concentrated around Addis Ababa and the north-eastern Gondar province. More than 20-thousand of them have applied for immigration under Israel's law of return, which says that Jews anywhere in the world have the right to make the ascent to Israel and claim citizenship.
Later that day, the Prime Minister's Office
ordered the immediate resumption of Ethiopian immigration, after a month-long hiatus due to security concerns triggered by terror attacks on Israelis in the African country nation of Kenya.
The recent Bukharan Jewish immigrants in Queens are
beginning to confront domestic violence. I previously mentioned this ancient Jewish community with roots dating back to the Persian empire of Cyrus the Great
here.
When I first raised the idea of transfer (I mean first on my blog, of course), the first thing I expected to hear was: "This is immoral, and you are a fascist for even thinking about it". Instead, the first thing I heard, and, in fact, almost the only thing I keep hearing (with few exceptions) is: "Where will you transfer them to?" The short answer is "I don't know". The somewhat longer one is: "I don't know, not because I don't have any ideas on the subject, but because I have no idea how the war in Iraq will play out. More importantly, I have no idea what the Middle East will look like after that war".
I may have not made it clear in my posts on transfer, so I'll clear things now: I think that right now there is absolutely nothing Israel can, or should do about the Palestinian problem, other than it is already doing, i.e. catching as many terrorists as it can, before they manage to kill Israelis. No walls, no negotiations, no major offensives, no withdrawals (except for dismantling illegal outposts) - nothing. We have to wait until after Iraq. I am sure that is what Bush asked Sharon to do. But I am also sure that Sharon's major reason for obliging is not avoiding pissing off America. The major reason is that he knows that after the war circumstances will be much more favorable to Israel than they are now. The big question is, of course, what then?
Many on the right in Israel and the American Jewish community are weary of the fact that Sharon has in principal agreed to a Palestinian state. In a way he did, but only to the extent that Bush did in his June speech. But what Bush did in that speech, is to set the bar as a condition to such a state so high, that anyone familiar with the Arab world knows it is way too high, at least in a foreseeable future. The Arabs, Palestinians included, would have to completely change their entire culture and mentality to reach that standard. I have no idea whether Bush or his advisors see it that way. But I am sure Sharon does, and I would venture as far as to say that the majority of Israelis feel that way as well, although many would hate to admit it (not for PC reasons, but because it is just too depressing to admit).
My motive for opposing to a Palestinian state in the Territories is not religious, or historical (although I do use history to justify such opposition morally). It is practical. I simply do not believe it is going to work. Farthermore, I believe it will constitute a real threat to the very existence of the state of Israel. I see absolutely no evidence to show otherwise. I do not hate Arabs, or their culture. In fact, I would hate to see an Israel where there are no Arabs and other minorities. One of the reasons I am afraid of having a Palestinian state where it is usually proposed, is because it surely will lead to at least as many dead Arabs, as dead Jews. It could also lead to a forced and ill-conceived transfer of the Palestinians, something I would like to avoid.
So every time I say, “transfer”, people say “where?” And I some times say Jordan, and maybe other Arab countries, and part will stay, and they say, “Right, dream on”. So then I ask: “What is your solution?” I do not get much. Nothing, really.
To be sure, they do have a point. It is a fantasy in today’s world.
No Arab country existing today will take them (not all Arabs are suicidal, you know…), least of all Jordan, which had quite an experience of its own with the Palestinians. Lebanon did, too. But the Middle East is bound to change. It has no other choice. Neither Jordan, nor Lebanon, nor Syria, and of course Iraq, and maybe even Saudi Arabia will stay the same. Regimes will fall, and rise, and fall again. People will be moving across borders more than they did in a long time. And even borders themselves may change.
I am not saying that transfer will be the only possible solution. It might become only a part of some other plan. Or an entirely different possibility that no one ever thought about might emerge. I don’t know. All I am trying to do is to try and think ahead, so that when an opportunity to solve this problem with the least possible casualties on all sides, or at least to start working towards a solution, presents itself, we can be open-minded enough to recognize it.
I am listening live to Sharon speaking live to astronaut Ilan Ramon on the phone. He is asking him "What do you see from there, that we cannot see here?" Answer: "The Earth is beautiful. The amazing thing is how thin the atmosphere is...". Sharon mentions the fact that part of Ramon's research is dust storms so common in the Middle East, and that right now Israel is getting an unprecedented amount of rain.
The blogosphere comments on Lieberman's presidential run: Contributors to Kesher Talk have
had their say. So have the
journalists and pundits. But what about other bloggers? Here is a compendium of those we could find.
- Patrick Ruffini commented on a "Zionist America":
Now that Joe Lieberman is running for President in his own right, his Judaism seems to be the elephant in the room for only one group: Jewish Americans. Anecdotally, the evidence is everywhere that a significant number of Jewish Democrats are reluctant to support Lieberman for fear that his doing too well would stir anti-Semitic resentment, or worse, that his defeat in a general election would be blamed on his religion. Now, I generally don't share the Senator's views or think much of his chances, for reasons far-removed from his faith. Nonetheless, this reluctance to stir the pot with a Lieberman candidacy seems altogether unbecoming — and unwarranted. This defeatist sentiment is an insult to the millions of Americans whose support or opposition to Lieberman is based exclusively on his political philosophy.
The appropriate reaction in the face of doubts surrounding Lieberman's religion and criticism of Israel is best encapsulated by two words spoken by Daniel Patrick Moynihan as U.N. ambassador when conferring with the Israelis about the U.N. delegations pushing the resolution equating Zionism with racism: "F-ck 'em."
- JB Armstrong looks at the prospects for Lieberman based on polling data: "...Lieberman is going to be leading in the polls (mostly due to Gore residue), but isn't likely to win any of the first primaries-- at least from how the date of events looks now (which isn't firm at all)..."
- Jeff Jarvis worries about Joe being holier than thou: "I hope (and pray) that we are beyond the day in America when being Jewish could hinder an American from running for the White House. If Joe Lieberman has religious problems in his race, they may not be with his faith but with his orthodoxy. We are not an orthodox nation; we don't understand orthodxy; we don't trust it."
- Charles Edward is not going to vote for Lieberman because his campaign is cramming spam down his throat: "Hey Joe: I don't shop from spammers, I don't contribute to spammers and I don't vote for spammers. Go away."
- Joseph Duemer has, um, choice words for Joe: "Joe Lieberman, who announced today that he will seek the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, said during his press conference that he is "a different kind of Democrat." Yeah, the Republican kind. Who needs this sanctimonious prig?"
- Green party supporter Peter Merholz concurs: "That odious fundamentalist toad pretty much shows up everything misbegotten about the Democratic party.)"
- Erik Botsford questions Joe Lieberman's sanity: "Thinking that Americans are hungry for a croaky, faux-Republican, warmongering, proselytizing Orthodox Jew in the White House, Joe Lieberman has thrown his hat into the ring."
- Jack O'Toole marvels at Liebmerman's fundraising potential: "Since 1984, the candidate who has raised the most money during the primary process has ended up being his party's standard-bearer every single time. Three things make it likely that Lieberman will be that man in this cycle: (1) His recent VP campaign; (2) his proven ability to bring in "new money" from Jewish voters; and (3) his leadership position in the DLC, which is (among other things) a corporate fundraising machine. That scenario, as the record shows, would not only make Joe Lieberman a credible candidate for his party's nomination -- it would make him the Democrat to beat in 2004."
- John Tole (of Balloon Juice) thinks Joe is a nice guy:
I am listening to the Imus interview with Joe Lieberman, and the one thing that stands out about the man is that you just get the feeling he is a fundamentally decent person. A good guy- someone you would trust with your kids, someone you would want on your jury were you accused of something, someone you would like to live next door to you. I dump on Lieberman for being so preachy (I really have little or no taste for people constantly professing their faith- live by your beliefs and quit talking about them), but you can't help but think he is a good man. He kinda reminds me of an old friend of the family who recently passed on. This man was built like Lieberman, and he was a wonderful person- but physically, he was very awkward. Manual labor was not his specialty. Despite all that, every time there was a town clean-up, or everytime the Boy Scouts needed someone to lead a camping trip, this man was there. I just get the feeling that Joe Lieberman is the same way- a good man.
In other words, the Democrats will never vote for him.
- Andrew Olmsted thinks character is king: "I think it's unfortunate to see yet another man who was once regarded as a moral exemplar having to choose between his principles and his desire for power."
- Dima worries about a different kind of affirmative action: "How can one choose a Head of State based on anything less than the candidate's ability to run a country? As a CITIZEN, one has only ONE obligation-to choose the best person for the job! There shouldn't be any "affirmative action" on the White House!"
- Matt P. worries about being bored to death: "I must have missed the groundswell of grassroots excitement for a tedious, moralizing Neo-Republican, stupor-inducing bore, and campaign-trail deadweight to enter the race... Seriously, can you imagine much worse than a debate between Dick Gephardt and Joe Lieberman? I think I'd rather chew off my own right hand than endure 90 minutes of these tedious dolts droning back and forth. I'd vote for a cardboard cut-out of FDR before I voted for Lieberman. Hell, I'd vote for an inanimate carbon rod before I voted for Lieberman. Al Gore is Jim Carrey compared to that stiff... I guess now we know how depressing it must have been for GOP voters in 1996, forced to choose between racist Pat Buchanan, boring Bob Dole, creepy Gary Bauer, dorky Steve Forbes, and crazy Alan Keyes to run against Bill Clinton... Is it really too much to ask for a candidate who is unapologetically liberal, articulate, exciting, and likable? Apparently so..."
- Michael Allen Smith sees a Lieberman candidacy as a "Jar Jar" strategy:
He doesn't have a clue. He thinks he is electable. The only reason he got the VP nomination in 2000 was because Gore needed someone so dull and effeminate that even he would appear interesting. Al's plan backfired and he lost the election.
... I'm reminded of Star Wars - The Phantom Menace. All in all it was a good movie, but it was plagued by this whiney annoying character known as Jar Jar Binks. Joe Lieberman was the Jar Jar Binks of the 2000 election. However, George Lucas is smarter than the Democratic Party. He pushed Jar Jar in the corner, kept writing the Star Wars saga, and returned to make a superior film. Come 2004 the Democrats will ignore the wisdom of The Force and instead send Jar Jar Lieberman forth to be their next leader.
- Matt Mardle is concerned about Joe Lieberman's dark side:
Joe Lieberman is Darth Sidious (Emperor Paltpatine).
Palpatine was an unassuming yet ambitious Senator in the Galactic Republic.
Liebermann an unassuming yet ambtious Senator in the United States Government.
Palpatine promised to reunite the disaffected, and bring order and justice to the government.
Liebermann promised to reunite the disaffected, and bring order and justice to the government.
Palpatine voted leader of the Republic
Liebermann, will he be voted president of USA? (he recently announced that he's running for prez in 2004)
- And Hencio asks if Joe Lieberman led a double life as Willie Tanner in the 80's sitcom Alf?
Update:
"Are you now or have you ever been? . . . Tacitus'
thorough airing of A.N.S.W.E.R.'s support to noxious regimes is well-done and certainly bears repeating for those who still harbor any naivete about the extremists behind today's peace movement. (And the extremely long comment section has some good bits too.)
However, when he starts to "call out" various (mostly moderate) anti-war bloggers for participating in A.N.S.W.E.R-organized marches, his self-righteousness gets the better of him. In my youth, which overlapped the tail-end of the J Edgar Hoover era, we called this "red-baiting." If you wanted to discredit someone's politics, you could always point to known Communists (or other equally extremist fellow-travellers) and perform guilt-by-association. (As indeed J Edgar attempted to do to MLK.) Since many of the early anti-Vietnam War movement were people who were active in the labor and civil rights movements, and many of those activists were, or had at one time, been members of the Communist Party, this was hard to deny. The only useful response was "so what?" (I remember various socialist splinter groups hanging around campuses in the early seventies, hawking newspapers, trying to get signatures for petitions, denouncing equally obscure splinter groups. Nobody took them seriously. We all thought it a prime example of Hoover's obtuseness that he thought these pathetic creatures were influential.)
As Gary Farber notes in
his post on a new book about civil-rights activist Anne Braden, from the turn of the century up to WWII, if you thought segregation and Jim Crow were wrong, if you thought women should be able to get birth control and credit in their own names, if you didn't think Modern Art was the harbinger of social chaos, and if you wanted to find others like yourself and maybe even do something to further your ideals, you ended up hanging out with Communists. That's where the action was. Although its flawed ideas and the application of those ideas by fanatics led to economic ruin and enormous human-rights abuses which I have no desire to whitewash, Communism was at its core an ideology of human rights at a time when social inequalities were vast and many still believed in the divine ordination of social and gender heirarchy.
After WWII, the abuses of the Soviet system were becoming clearer, but if you came back from the war to legal segregation, women forced out of jobs, and Cold War hysteria about sex and literature, where were you going to go? As Gary points out (and as I have pointed out in numerous LGF threads where people have seriously tried to sell me the totally ahistorical idea that Republicans have
always been the Jews' best friend)
The Republican Party, with a few exceptions, was not a part of the civil rights movement of the 20th century that led to the integration of the Armed Forces, the attempted desegregation of schools (in practice, many areas remain more segregated in schooling and housing than in the 1960's, a fact not nearly enough attention is paid to), the Voting Rights Acts, the armed intervention of the Federal Government with troops and tanks to enforce judicial civil rights decisions, the Civil Rights acts which made discrimination in public accomodations a violation of law, the long, slow, striking down of Jim Crow, and the eventual overall increase in minority opportunity. . . .
If you basically supported these goals but weren't much of an activist, you probably voted Democrat and left it at that. If you were more of an activist, you had the same dilemma as recent "progressive" types about Gore vs. Nader or some other candidate, and your activism would inevitably bring you into contact with certified Socialists and Communists (who were at war with each other as well), some of whom were genuine American patriots who sincerely thought that more socialism would support the American ideal, and some of whom were Soviet agents.
The debate goes on about how much of each was going on and how much difference it ultimately made. No one can deny that at their peaks the anti-Vietnam War and civil rights movements were broadly based and profoundly American. Indeed we now take so many of their lessons and goals for granted that some of us try to claim them for the political groups who were opposed to them at the time (much like radical Islam claims Jesus and Moses as Muslims retroactively).
Up to a certain point, political purity is self-defeating. On this very blog, I disagree with Alisa about transfer, and several of us disagreed with Rami about Shinui, but we have enough in common that we all call this blog home. Meryl and I wade into LGF almost every day and swat at ignorant self-righteous commenters who assume that everyone who favors invading Iraq also rejects a liberal domestic social agenda, but we both value LGF for other reasons (maybe we even think those folks are educable!). I disagree with Orthodox Jews about women's roles but sometimes I will daven with them. Jewish and Black feminists have challenged anti-semitism and racism within the Western feminist movement, and all feminists have challenged sexism within various political movements. Many of the Jews at the anti-war protests were holding their noses every time they passed an anti-Israel sign.
However, past a certain point, if we want to have credibility, we have to challenge egregious violations within our movements of the values we claim to profess. The civil rights movement succeeded in the 60s because it morphed into something beyond the politics of 30s Communists into something that
mainstream America could respond to, largely because its non-violent tactics begat respect and because its unassailable justice was not obscured by fringe politico antics. The political origins of early civil rights activists became irrelevant. (Romantic revolutionaries call this co-optation, and they're right. Any social goal that millions of ordinary Americans can sign on to will have migrated away from their pure revolutionary vision, and a good thing too.)
Since the 2000 elections, when I began to see anti-semitic rants on Nader websites, I have not seen much sign that the "progressive" movement has matured to the point where it has credibility with mainstream America. On the contrary, it has become degraded - by anarchist violence, reflexive anti-Americanism, and really bad arguments for every one of its positions, as well as anti-semitism. If A.N.S.W.E.R. is orchestrating the public manifestations of the movement, then A.N.S.W.E.R. has to do just as much explaining as Trent Lott (and if I know these splinter politicos, will do just as bad a job of it), and progressives have to start building a movement that isn't run by A.N.S.W.E.R.
So although I find Tacitus' call for political purity a bit too self-righteous, if rants like his force the left to do some house-cleaning, it will only benefit the antiwar movement's cause, and progressive politics in general.
(via
Sullivan)
UPDATE:
In Context and
Winds of Change have examples of the antiwar movement compromising itself.
Lileks has some observations.UPDATE: Tacitus
publicizes an alernative. Will the antiwar movement take advantage of it?
UPDATE: If you want to know how the antiwar movement rank-and-file are (not) dealing with the A.N.S.W.E.R. issue,
read the
comment threads on
No War Blog. (They
trash Kanan Makiya too. In the 60s they would have trashed Solzyienitzen. Hell, maybe even now they would trash Solzyienitzen.) And
resident troll David Byron continues to be treated with serious respect. This is what today's antiwar organizers look like, folks. It ain't pretty.
UPDATE: Diane is back! With
choice comments on Tacitus' post.
UPDATE: *sigh* As I browse
Gotham (now back at its old URL) for the first time in 3 weeks, I also find that - although I have linked to and sided with Diane on this blog on
several occasions - because she disagrees with Alisa on transfer (which I do also, BTW),
we are all now lumped together as "Kesherites" (presumably under the mind control of our cult guru "Harold") who "don't link to her" (??? - I guess this means the blogroll?), not because, hey, she never asked, but because the Kesherite hive-mind doesn't like her dovish Israeli politics. Diane, get a good night's sleep and a clue, okay?
I say to you today, my friends, that in spite of the difficulties
and frustrations of the moment I still have a dream.
It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. . . . Some tributes for
MLK Day. Charles Krauthammer - Jew and wheelchair user - understands
what was unique and compelling about King's vision.Martin Luther King succeeded in taking a liberation movement that could easily have turned irredeemably divisive and deeply anti-American--note the bitter endemic conflicts engendered by other liberation movements around the world--and dedicated it instead to a reaffirmation of American principles. The point is not just what King and his followers did for African-Americans, but what they did--by validating America's original promise of freedom and legal equality--for the rest of America.
. . . the civil rights movement forever set the standard for social transformation in America. We owe to King--his vision, his courage and his discipline--the fact that every subsequent social movement from environmental to gay rights to antiwar has almost automatically embraced nonviolence. Political violence has, of course, not been abolished. But the nobility and success of the civil rights movement has delegitimized the very idea of political violence . . . .
Andrew Sullivan - gay man with AIDS - pays tribute to
King's gay mentor and right-hand man, Bayard Rustin.Rustin never wavered in his belief in true racial integration. He saw the civil rights movement not as a protest against America or an indictment of it but as a way for America to live up to its own principles. In stark contrast to Malcolm X, with whom he civilly debated, Rustin emphasized not what white Americans owed blacks or what blacks could do in a separatist ghetto but what blacks could contribute in a truly equal and integrated America. "I believe the great majority of the Negro people, black people, are not seeking anything from anyone," Rustin told Malcolm X in 1960. "They are seeking to become full-fledged citizens." The simplicity of that statement is as impressive as its moral clarity.
Another
tribute to Rustin.Apparently, the famous
"Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend" is
not authentic, but we know that King frequently
spoke out against
anti-semitism in the civil rights movement of his time.
Many progressive Jewish communities celebrate together with Dr. King's birth, the yahrzeit of
Abraham Joshua Heschel, who marched with King and was
a prophetic figure of social justice to many Jews in the anti-war movement. Professor at the Conservative seminary for 30 years as well as
carefully nurtured scion of a Hassidic dynasty, Heschel brilliantly applied his Eastern European rabbinic training and lineage, and his secular education, to the
malaise of American Jewry in the 50s and 60s, and subsequently had enormous influence outside that community as well. Says his daughter, noted Jewish feminist Susannah Heschel,
The famous photograph of my father marching with Martin Luther King, Jr. at Selma is now reprinted in children's Jewish history textbooks and the Jewish community today proudly declares that it was at the forefront of the civil rights movement. The campaign to free Soviet Jewry, which began with a speech my father delivered that was bitterly attacked in the Jewish press, eventually became one of the great success stories of modern Jewish history. Nostra Aetate, the declaration repudiating anti-Semitism that was issued by the Second Vatican Council, is hailed as a milestone in Christian-Jewish relations; it was my father who convinced Pope Paul VI to eliminate a call for the eventual conversion of the Jews from the final version of the declaration.
According to Susannah, Heschel's closeness with King was born from
the similarities in their theologies.The primacy of the Exodus and the prophets and the relative absence of references to Jesus lent the Civil Rights Movement an ecumenical, and even a philosemitic image in the eyes of major segments of the Jewish community. Heschel, for example, was particularly touched during the march from Selma to Montgomery by King's references to the Exodus in his sermon, describing three types among the Israelites who left Egypt and he viewed King's choice of the Exodus over Jesus as a significant moment in Christian-Jewish relations. Shortly after returning from the march, he wrote to King: The day we marched together out of Selma was a day of sanctification. That day I hope will never be past to me -- that day will continue to be this day. A great Hasidic sage compares the service of God to a battle being waged in war. An army consists of infantry, artillery, and cavalry. In critical moments cavalry and artillery may step aside from the battle-front. Infantry, however, carries the brunt. I am glad to belong to infantry!
Heschel later described the march in these words:
For many of us the march from Selma to Montgomery was both protest and prayer. Legs are not lips, and walking is not kneeling. And yet our legs uttered songs. Even without words, our march was worship. I felt my legs were praying.
Latest on the Temple Mount. The ongoing destruction of archeological artifacts on the Temple Mount - by Muslim officials authorized by the Palestinian Authority - is an
intermittant news story, one which only arouses outrage among
archeologists and
Jews and
Christians who care (sometimes fanatically so) about the physical evidence of their heritage. But the unnecessary loss (in fact, willful destruction) of the heritage of three major world religions should galvanize world opinion at least as much as the
Taliban's demolition of the Bamiyan Buddhist sculptures. Perhaps what is needed is a bloggy effort similar to the one that pushed the Trent Lott story into mainstream news. Some of us were discussing a blogburst on this issue last fall, but the
30th anniversary of the Munich Massacre and the 1st anniversary of 9-11 were more compelling at that point. The ideal blogburst date for symbolic reasons would be
Tisha B'Av, but that's not for another six months. Any ideas on an upcoming memorable date for a blogburst? And if you are interested in writing about this, let me know and I'll organize one.
Main site for news about the Temple Mount destruction. Two
excellent overviews of the
history of the Temple Mount destruction.An archeologist's
point of view.Typical Al-Guardian twist, including the thoroughly debunked claim that Sharon's visit to the Mount "provoked" the Al-Aqsa intifada.
Another chronology of events, up to last fall's news about the Bulge.
Ah yes,
the Bulge. Here's a loose chronology (some news articles are no longer available on the web):
The bulge
14 months ago.The bulge
6 months ago.The bulge
4 months ago.The latest on the bulge.
PS. And the Israeli government also
sacrifices priceless archeological sites to immediate needs.
Ha'aretz caught with fishhook in mouth. I love it.
First of all, somebody at a news-story-choosing level at
Ha'aretz reads
LGF. Let's pause for a moment and digest that little bit of bloggy influence.
Next, said somebody uses LGF as a news source
for an article. Hey, LGF is a great place to check the latest Islamist rantings and other Middle East newsbits, and find vigorous discussion of same, but it's not a newspaper, it's a blog. If you are a major newspaper and you value your rep, you want to fact-check anything you find on LGF.
Finally, said somebody reads said post without realizing
it's a parody. Okay, at first glance I was fooled too. But said somebody is an editor. At least a reporter. And unlike, radical Islamists, Israelis do have
a strong sense of humor. And the article is full of hints that it's a parody. that is, if you take the time to read it carefully. My guess is that the guy (or gal) skimmed it quickly and slapped it up on the site.
Meanwhile, the story
grows legs . . . .
UPDATE:
More legs. Tee-hee-hee.
And now for a bit of blog gossip. . . . It's always a pleasant surprise to run into old friends on the web.
Adina Levin is blogging at
GreaterDemocracy.org, which also includes
Jon Lebkowsky, a loose acquaintance via intersecting
Austin EFF and
Bruce Sterling social circles. Until recent layoffs, Adina was researching business development strategy for a well-respected Austin internet company, which means she got paid to peer into the future of the Web.
This post describes some research which suggests that people use internet filters to reinforce their existing prejudices rather than to learn anything new.
Adina questions this conclusion. I would too, in fact I think blogs act to keep people aware of contrary viewpoints via comment sections, as well as those blogs which link to a wide-range of political stances.
Speaking of networks, I used to virtually "know"
Valdis Krebs from a
lively email list which I reluctantly left because it threatened to swallow my life. I know Adina (in person!) through
an old friend from my years in Philadelphia, and our primary socializing was through
the Jewish community, but it makes sense that she also knows Jon because 1) they're both into Web futurism and 2) Jon knows everyone.
With Friends Like These Dept. According to a commenter on
Damian Penny's blog, Scientologists
have joined "mainstream religious organizations" in protesting the war on Iraq. However, Rick Ross of
Cultnews points out that
This looks like a cynical effort by the controversial church to network contacts and curry favor amongst mainstream religious leaders. . . . the controversial church plays both sides of the political spectrum. Scientology had close ties to the former Clinton White House ,but now seems friendly with the Bush family and Secretary of State Colin Powell.
I have never seen any evidence that Scientology stands for anything but aggrandizing its own power, so I'm not surprised.
It would be interesting to make a table with 2 columns of the cult groups which attach themselves like leeches to both the pro- and anti-war sides. Which column would be longer?
Keeping kosher in orbit: Kesher Talk tackled this issue
many moons ago. With our Israeli astronaut now launched into space, Steve Sachs, an American Jew at Oxford University, has delved
even deeper into the question: "How do you keep the sabbath in space?"
Big Al seeks Jewish money... and may get it: Al Sharpton, who can't stand Israel and may or may not loathe Jews, has no qualms about going after Jewish funding for his political campaigns.
Former Bronx Democratic Party chairman Roberto Ramirez told the
Forward that Sharpton's "progressive, populist and clear message" would attract Jewish campaign dollars despite his often dicey relations with the community. The civil rights firebrand is anathema to many New York Jews because of conduct many Jews viewed as inflammatory during two local racial incidents: the 1991 Crown Heights riots and the demonstrations that preceded the 1995 torching of a Jewish-owned clothing store in Harlem. Eight people died in those incidents.
Nevertheless, Ramirez said Sharpton's platform of "not going to war unless it's a last resort, on challenging government to be responsive to poor people and to women and to people who cannot speak for themselves" would gain him money in the "progressive and... also Jewish community."
"I would hope and argue that in there lies a wealth of support," Ramirez said in an interview in his New York office Monday.
Joe Lieberman's spine(lessness):
Stephen F. Hayes has some examples of Joe's wishy-washy approach to policy these days (which I discussed
last week).
For instance, did you know that Lieberman, whom the media considers a strong supporter of Israel, used money from his PAC to support the failed re-election bid last spring of Earl Hilliard, an outspoken opponent of Israel and the war on terror?
Last spring, as he waited for Al Gore to decide whether to make another bid for the White House, Lieberman telephoned Eddie Bernice Johnson, then head of the Congressional Black Caucus, to ask which caucus members he might support with his PAC. She gave him a list of the CBC members thought to be most vulnerable, and Lieberman contributed to almost 20 of them. Among his contributions was a $1,000 check to the reelection effort of Rep. Earl Hilliard of Alabama.
Hilliard had a long record of hostility to Israel. He refused to sign a resolution in support of Israel's war on terrorism, and sponsored a bill, after September 11, that would have lifted sanctions on states that sponsor terrorism. Columnist Cynthia Tucker called Hilliard "a loose cannon, a dimwit, and perhaps a crook" who "gained a reputation for trying to persuade his colleagues to vote against pro-Israeli initiatives." Hilliard lost in a nasty June primary in which his opponent solicited and received large sums from Jewish Democrats. After the race, he warned of a "future with a great deal of conflict between African Americans and Jews in this country" and suggested African Americans would seek "retribution" for his loss.
Lieberman's advisers point out that the money was given in late March, several weeks before the primary turned into a bitter referendum on the Middle East. But the senator's critics say the Hilliard contribution is one example of just how far Lieberman is willing to go to win support among black politicians and voters.
And, did you notice how Joe is a big proponent of affirmative action? He wasn't always:
Lieberman blasted the Bush administration for filing a brief with the Supreme Court opposing the University of Michigan's affirmative action program. "I am deeply disappointed by the president's decision today," Lieberman said. "This was an opportunity for the president to demonstrate his commitment to achieving real equality in education. Instead, he sided with the right wing of his party, and sent a signal that equal opportunity in higher education is a low priority for his administration."
It's a shot that might be expected from any of the other Democrats running for president. But Lieberman's own views on racial preferences in the mid-1990s put him arguably to the right of where President Bush is today. And the admissions programs at Michigan, particularly at the undergraduate level, could hardly provide a clearer example of a racial preference. In an admissions process in which applicants generally need 100 out of a possible 150 points to be accepted, some students are awarded 20 bonus points purely for their membership in a racial group. Others, because they're the wrong color, are not.
In 1995, Lieberman had strong words for such a system: "Affirmative action is dividing us in ways its creators could never have intended, because most Americans who do support equal opportunity and are not biased don't think it is fair to discriminate against some Americans as a way to make up for historic discrimination against other Americans. For after all, if you discriminate in favor of one group on the basis of race, you thereby discriminate against another group on the basis of race."
Lieberman went further. He infuriated many in his own party when he said he would support California's Proposition 209--a 1996 statewide ballot initiative that banned racial preferences--taking a step then Governor George W. Bush would not.
... Those comments, and countless others like them, led the Hartford Courant to report that Lieberman had become "the Democrats' national symbol for this white frustration" caused by affirmative action. Representative Maxine Waters said Lieberman must be "vigorously opposed" because "what he's doing is dangerous." A local Connecticut Democratic party chapter circulated a petition to oppose Lieberman's efforts, and Jesse Jackson teamed with the National Organization for Women to sponsor an anti-Lieberman rally at Yale University, Lieberman's alma mater. Jackson also fired off a four-page letter to Lieberman calling the senator's remarks "particularly irresponsible," later adding that on affirmative action "Lieberman and Jesse Helms are indistinguishable."
Helms or not, Lieberman had to explain himself to some skeptical Democrats when Al Gore picked him as his running mate. Maxine Waters, the liberal California Democrat, and others pitched something of a fit about Lieberman at the Democratic Convention. Lieberman sought to put their concerns to rest, declaring: "I have supported affirmative action. I do support affirmative action. And I will support affirmative action." These assurances, although they settled the issue for Democrats politically, were never entirely convincing because Lieberman had always tended to speak about racial issues in terms of deep beliefs about what it means to be American.
"The fact is that some programs grant benefits based on group membership instead of individual ability," he argued in 1995, "and that runs against the grain of a basic principle of American life."
Those powerful words were the reason many conservatives paid close attention last week to Lieberman's thoughts on the Michigan case. Michigan's program, after all, is quite clearly one that "grants benefits based on group membership," the kind of program Lieberman once couldn't square with basic American principles. Would he now, absent any obligation to mimic Al Gore, return to the Old Joe?
No. Lieberman argued that the University of Michigan's admissions process, with its 20 bonus points for preferred pigmentation, is necessary to "realize the promise the Constitution makes to every American."
Gone is the Lieberman who could say in 1995, "You can't defend policies that are based on group preferences as opposed to individual opportunities." His successor does precisely that.
And here are some more of the pundits' reactions to Joe's presidential run.
Jackie Mason: "By parading with the mantle of Orthodox Judaism, Lieberman had a much easier job of masking his true character than any other politician. He knew that this was the perfect time for a Jew to run for office. This is because the same gentile who would run as if he were on fire if a Jew were to move into his neighborhood or try to join his country club, would nevertheless vote for a Jew for high office to absolve himself of any guilt he might feel because of his instinctive distaste for Jewish people."
Robert Borosage: "Lieberman won’t put forth an agenda that blocks the dangerous road the current administration is on. Against Bush, he’ll offer more of an echo than an alernative."
Marc Kermisch: "As a Jew, I feel obligated to support Lieberman. He is a fellow Jew, breaking down barriers in America for Jews here and around the world. Here is a man who is willing to subject himself to public scrutiny, to put his country before himself, all the while testing his commitment to his faith. I also question my obligation to support Lieberman. As a responsible citizen, I must put aside Lieberman's religion and evaluate him on his politics."
Howard Kurtz: Lieberman is a decent guy, but sometimes too decent to take the necessary partisan shots. Remember his yawn-inducing performance in the debate against Dick Cheney? You don't get to be president without throwing some punches. Yet he ducked yesterday when asked how he differs from his Democratic rivals. And will normally liberal Democratic primary voters go for someone who strongly backs Bush on invading Iraq, who's flirted with school vouchers, who's teamed up with Bill Bennett in scolding the entertainment industry? Unless Kerry, Gephardt etc. split the liberal vote, Lieberman could have a tough time getting what the pros call "traction." In fact, Lieberman's more moderate appeal might make him a stronger general election candidate – if he could make it to the November finals."
Ben Shapiro:
I did hope that Lieberman's exposure could help change the media-created perception of Orthodox Jews as closed-off-to-the-world, ghetto Jews who could not function in the secular world. I hoped that Lieberman would provide an example of Orthodox Jewry at work. Thousands of Orthodox Jews like me hoped for the same thing. Lieberman let us down.
Ariel Natan Pasko: "What concerns me is an American Jewish President willing (as have been Israeli Prime Ministers), to give up parts of the ancient Jewish homeland to foreigners (the Arabs). An American Jewish President willing to create a 'Palestinian State.' This President, unlike Bill Clinton or George Bush, will probably tell us that as 'a religious Jew' he 'knows' that Judaism holds PEACE as the highest value, and that its acceptable to give up claims to parts of our 'Holy Land' for the promise of PEACE. We've all seen where the 'peace process' has taken us (almost 700 killed and almost 5,000 injured in just the last 2 years alone)."
This seems to further prove what I have been
arguing for a while now: it is not Islam, it is the
Arabs.
Update: There is more
here. The key sentence so far (long article): "It [Islamism] offered solace, seduced the young, and provided the
means and the
language of resentment and refusal." (Emphasis mine)
Israeli company Tulgal will supply concrete cutting equipment to American military, which will use it in urban combat, if it is to take place in Iraq. (IBA radio)
Diana from Gotham has some thoughts on transfer.Transfer is a fantasy. Transfer would be bad for me. Here is why it is a fantasy, and here is why it would be bad for me.
It is a fantasy because even if it could be done (which it can't, but let it pass) moving three million Arabs beyond the borders of Israel would only be moving the problem, and not taking care of it. So three million Palestinian Arabs are transferred to a place somewhere beyond Israel's new, improved border. So what? They'll only take up residence there, even more aggrieved, even angrier, to plan and work for the day that they can finally take care of this intrusion into the Arab Middle East. Transfer will turn all of the Arab Middle East irremediably against the United States, Israel's proxy. It isn't now, but just give the Alisa's time, they will be.
It seems to me that the scenario Diana is describing is already taking place. Even more aggrieved? Even angrier? Really?
Who will they turn to? There's no one on the horizon now, but I could think of two possibilities for the future: Russia, and China. (China, with its rapidly growing economy, insatiable thirst for oil, amoral policies and huge population. Not a bad candidate. Not to mention a trade surplus with the US.)
So let me see: we should not upset Arabs, lest they unleash China on us. OK...
Why is transfer bad for me?
For those of you who don’t live in a mental ghetto, for those of you who aren’t isolated in the back of a limousine, Israel has marketed itself as a liberal democracy, the only one in the Middle East. Now, anti-Zionists have published reams of stuff “proving” that that’s not true; and I’ll get to all that at some point; it’s a subject that I really should deal with, but not now. The point is, the image has been created, and if three million Arabs get expelled from their homes in a great big Kosovo redux, that image will be destroyed forever, or, as the anti-Zionists would put it, the truth about Israel would finally be on display, for all the world to see. Even Instapundit and James Lileks would disapprove.
That would be very bad for me, because it would then lead to a furious anti-Semitic backlash in the US. The majority of Americans are neither born-agains nor Jewish. They are reasonably neutral, nice nominal white Christians who have satisfying private lives and a certain amount of equity. Detonate a Middle Eastern Armageddon and watch all of that go up in smoke. Then, well, I don’t really care to speculate what would happen, because it’s not going to happen.
What, you were expecting some invocation of ethics, morality and universal human rights? Go read David Hume, or the Shorter Edmund Burke. Go read Isaiah. Others may call themselves warbloggers, pundits, cranks-without-portfolio (thank you, Jim Henley), I call myself a schmuck without a trust-fund. That's why I am so important to myself.
Fair enough.
Alisa looks at the map and has decided that separation isn’t quite to her liking. Well, too fucking bad, missie, it’s about the best you can do. Your problems with the fact that the place is full of Arabs aren’t my problems. You’ll have to find a way to get along with them.
Not fair. If it's Diana's ass or mine (because I want to move back to Israel), guess who's ass is more important to me?
Oh, but Alisa says that there won't be an Armageddon, she's talking about transfer, not expulsion. To which I say: bullshit, she is either a flat-out liar, or living in a fantasy world.
I prefer to think that her idea of transfer is a self-deluding fantasy. Of course, Alisa doesn’t think, or say out loud, that Arabs would be violently expelled, or spoliated in any way, perish the thought. They’d be, well, transferred, a much nicer, more sanitary word. Apparently their singular lack of enthusiasm for this option up until now is just a clever negotiating tactic; the purpose of which is to raise their price. That’s why I say that Alisa in Wonderland is the right name for her. I guess all these suicide bombings are a form of government-subsidized performance art, too.
This is the only valid point that I hear so far, not only from Diana. Maybe I do live in a fantasy world, but I do think it can be achieved relatively peacefully. However, if it cannot, I see no other option, but a forced transfer. Like I wrote in my original
post on the subject, transfer is the only solution except genocide (on either side). And it is the only way to separation.
