Kesher Talk
Friday, January 31, 2003
Our friend India Dept. Good discussion on this LGF comment thread about India as an ally of the US. One of those threads with few flames or trolls, just a good meaty discussion with many viewpoints represented. A good example of why I scan LGF every day, and just hold my nose when the comment threads get wacky.
More elections. Lapid says that in his view it is possible to form a wide coalition, which would include Labor, or a narrow one, even without the far right and left. He says he will not "sit" with Shas, but has no objections to joining a wide coalition that will include Yahadut Hatorah ("The Torah Judaism" - an ultraorthodox party). I like this guy more every day. (Via IBA radio)
IBA radio reports that 170 members (more than a quarter) of the European parliament have signed a letter, demanding an investigation into the use the PA has been making of the European aid money. The signees are from different political parties. A French representative, who is a socialist, says that the PA has used the money to fund suicide bombings in Israel, and the bombers' families. Welcome to reality.
Cooperation can be cool: Did you know that Palestinians and Israelis worked together on a science project for the Columbia space shuttle trip? Palestinian biology student Tariq Adwan and Israeli medical student Yuval Landau combined on an astrobiology experiment to study the effects of space on cells and DNA. The findings could offer insight into whether microbes could travel between planets, bolstering a theory known as panspermia, which holds that Earth was seeded with life from the cosmos.
Thursday, January 30, 2003
The art of fiction. If you are an Elmore Leonard fan like me, read this. If you are a Robert Heinlein fan like me, read this. (both via Amygdala)
For the sake of those non-Israelis, Jews and gentiles, who are not familiar with power that the religious establishment in Israel exercises over its mostly secular population, I wrote this a while ago. There I have listed some of the areas in which that power is apparent. One important area I mentioned only briefly is the marital issues. For example, there were no civil marriages in Israel, until very recently, and their recognition is still an up-hill battle. Another, very painful phenomena, is what my dictionary translates as "abandoned wife". I don't know if this translation is accurate, but I know what it means.
An Israeli friend of mine in Missouri has a sister in Israel, who is/was (?) married, and had several children (grown up now). The marriage was OK, until her husband started going through some difficulties with his career, and, consequently, with finances. He became increasingly frustrated. Then he became increasingly violent. It was getting worse by the day. At some point, the woman decided that she had enough beatings, and left the house, taking the kids with her. Now, if this had happened in any Western country, she would have filed for a divorce, and gotten it without too many questions asked. But the Halachic law does not grant a wife the power to divorce her husband. That power is exclusively reserved for the men. Granted, even in Israel, most couples divorce after reaching a mutual understanding that they no longer wish to remain married. But occasionally, the guy decides to spite his wife, and does not grant her a divorce. That is what happened with this couple. This woman cannot re-marry. Even dating is problematic, since she remains legally married, and it is not very attractive to eligible men. Besides, her dating can give her idiot of a husband grounds to claim that she is being promiscuous, which can give him an advantage if he is seeking custody of the kids.
Unable to change the Halachic law, the civil courts tried to get around the problem by sometimes threatening especially stubborn divorce refusers with imprisonment. I guess it worked in some cases. But I know for a fact that there are several proud patriarchs who are still serving time (whatever time it is).
There are more than a few American Jews that still do not grasp the gravity of the situation. I don't blame them: it is difficult to understand some of the problems a particular society faces, until one actually get to live in that society for an extended period of time.
Already in that old post the name of Tomy Lapid came up. I further discussed him, and political religion in general in Israel here.
Many American Jews, especially those who are religiously observant, are concerned that Lapid will turn Israel into another European country. I do not deny that they have some reason for concern. In fact, Lapid was quoted as saying as much, when asked what would his ideal Israel look like (the half-joking answer was "Holland", I think). But there are several factors that those who worry are not taking into account. One of them is that Israeli political system is a parliamentary one. Which means that even if Lapid does become a PM (which is not very likely any time soon), he will be forced to form a coalition with people who are much less secular than he is. And, some of his own party's members are religious. Not only that Lapid's views are not as extreme as some would make you believe, but his most extreme views are held by a very small minority in Israel. Most Israelis are, well, like myself: agnostic on the existence of god, and observant of Jewish traditions to various degrees. Most don't want to live in Holland. But we don't want to live in Mea Shearim, either. Right now Lapid's Shinui is the only party that can begin to pull Israel towards the reasonable and civilized middle ground, away from the cultural brink, where it is now, and where it has increasingly been for many years.
An Israeli friend of mine in Missouri has a sister in Israel, who is/was (?) married, and had several children (grown up now). The marriage was OK, until her husband started going through some difficulties with his career, and, consequently, with finances. He became increasingly frustrated. Then he became increasingly violent. It was getting worse by the day. At some point, the woman decided that she had enough beatings, and left the house, taking the kids with her. Now, if this had happened in any Western country, she would have filed for a divorce, and gotten it without too many questions asked. But the Halachic law does not grant a wife the power to divorce her husband. That power is exclusively reserved for the men. Granted, even in Israel, most couples divorce after reaching a mutual understanding that they no longer wish to remain married. But occasionally, the guy decides to spite his wife, and does not grant her a divorce. That is what happened with this couple. This woman cannot re-marry. Even dating is problematic, since she remains legally married, and it is not very attractive to eligible men. Besides, her dating can give her idiot of a husband grounds to claim that she is being promiscuous, which can give him an advantage if he is seeking custody of the kids.
Unable to change the Halachic law, the civil courts tried to get around the problem by sometimes threatening especially stubborn divorce refusers with imprisonment. I guess it worked in some cases. But I know for a fact that there are several proud patriarchs who are still serving time (whatever time it is).
There are more than a few American Jews that still do not grasp the gravity of the situation. I don't blame them: it is difficult to understand some of the problems a particular society faces, until one actually get to live in that society for an extended period of time.
Already in that old post the name of Tomy Lapid came up. I further discussed him, and political religion in general in Israel here.
Many American Jews, especially those who are religiously observant, are concerned that Lapid will turn Israel into another European country. I do not deny that they have some reason for concern. In fact, Lapid was quoted as saying as much, when asked what would his ideal Israel look like (the half-joking answer was "Holland", I think). But there are several factors that those who worry are not taking into account. One of them is that Israeli political system is a parliamentary one. Which means that even if Lapid does become a PM (which is not very likely any time soon), he will be forced to form a coalition with people who are much less secular than he is. And, some of his own party's members are religious. Not only that Lapid's views are not as extreme as some would make you believe, but his most extreme views are held by a very small minority in Israel. Most Israelis are, well, like myself: agnostic on the existence of god, and observant of Jewish traditions to various degrees. Most don't want to live in Holland. But we don't want to live in Mea Shearim, either. Right now Lapid's Shinui is the only party that can begin to pull Israel towards the reasonable and civilized middle ground, away from the cultural brink, where it is now, and where it has increasingly been for many years.
Accept no substitutes! You'll swear it's genuine authentic Best of the Web!
The tarnished ideal of Marxism. Just FYI, here is the index to the Oxblog debate about Marxism's intentions vs. its achievements, which went back and forth for many posts. At one point David refers to my comments on the historical circumstances which led to many civil rights activists having Marxist backgrounds. He makes similar points:
Yes, I know the official title of the Nazi party was the National Socialist Party, and that they intended to reach their goal of "Aryan" hegemony via state socialism. I have believed for many years that entrepreneurial capitalism within a democratic republic (with equal safeguards for all individuals against state power and mob rule) is a much better petri dish for the equality and prosperity the Marxists dreamed of than the governments they eventually produced once they gained power. But along with David, I want to place the majority of social activists in a context that respects their genuine achievements and doesn't expect them to have perfect hindsight.
Although the abuses of Stalin were known by the beginning of WWII (thanks to Orwell and a few others), the evidence of totalitarian abuses and questioning of the sytem that perpetrated them (in spite of its ideals of prosperity and freedom) accumulated slowly through the 50s and 60s, and was met with the same resistance as any challenge to an existing orthodoxy. I remember being a teenage libertarian in the late 60s. Nobody was a libertarian but a few science-fiction fans, Objectivists, and campus refugees from YAF (who didn't like their positions on drugs and sex) and SDS (who didn't like their positions on economic freedom). There was no Libertarian political party trying to participate as a mature organization in electoral politics. Keynesian economics still reigned in Washington. Milton Friedman was just beginning to be taken seriously by popular culture. Solzhenitsyn had recently been published in English.
In the absence of political and economic analyses that would enable them to think about social problems in a different way, and then later the reluctance to throw over their entire world-view for a radically different one, activists could only imagine the achievement of their goals of freedom and equality in Marxist terms, so they needed to explain away Stalinism (and Maoism, and Pol Pot-ism, and others) in a way that wouldn't undermine Marxism. The numerous biographies of prominent activists, writers, musicians, etc. of the last 50 years which contain statements like "dabbled in Communism before moving on to. . . " or "was a member of the Communist Party in his youth before breaking with the movement over . . . " or "was a life-long socialist, but disavowed Communism after such-and-such traumatic experience," not to mention the rise of the New Left, testifies to the lameness of those explanations.
Even in the absence of an alternative vision, totalitarianism struck a wrong note with too many people. Eventually too much had to be explained away, and the free market critique of socialism permeated popular culture sufficiently that those holding those views were no longer considered kooks. The growing unease with A.N.S.W.E.R. (which has reached such liberal mainstays as NPR's Fresh Air, Salon, and the NYTimes) reflects the fact that in the US at least, Marxism isn't cool anymore. The feminist and civil rights movements in America were enormously successful because - although the media likes to make a big deal out of colorful exceptions - the mainstream leadership of these movements explicitly rejected a Marxist infrastructure or analysis.
But I've been talking about America. David points out that the critique of Marxism hasn't penetrated inside the Continent to the same extent it has here:
. . . there were many idealistic Communists, especially in the 19th century, who turned their ideological commitment toward the ends of social justice. . . . one has to reckon with the fact that Communism had "a tendency to churn out murderous despots", and thus, you add, "deserves our scorn." Frankly, it's hard to scorn a tendency. Do we scorn Christianity because it had a tendency to launch crusades and pogroms? Islam because of its terrorists? In the case of such complex phenomena, I prefer to hold invididuals accountable for their own actions and beliefs, thus preserving a sense of the ways in which controversial ideas can produce different outcomes in different situations.For 150 years Marxists envisioned an ideal of peace, prosperity, and equality. However, it was based on economic and historical premises which have proved to create the opposite type of society from what most of its adherents intended. Fascism was never a social-justice movement at all - in fact, it was deeply reactionary, drawing its power from nostalgia for an imagined era of ethnic vigor.
Yes, I know the official title of the Nazi party was the National Socialist Party, and that they intended to reach their goal of "Aryan" hegemony via state socialism. I have believed for many years that entrepreneurial capitalism within a democratic republic (with equal safeguards for all individuals against state power and mob rule) is a much better petri dish for the equality and prosperity the Marxists dreamed of than the governments they eventually produced once they gained power. But along with David, I want to place the majority of social activists in a context that respects their genuine achievements and doesn't expect them to have perfect hindsight.
Although the abuses of Stalin were known by the beginning of WWII (thanks to Orwell and a few others), the evidence of totalitarian abuses and questioning of the sytem that perpetrated them (in spite of its ideals of prosperity and freedom) accumulated slowly through the 50s and 60s, and was met with the same resistance as any challenge to an existing orthodoxy. I remember being a teenage libertarian in the late 60s. Nobody was a libertarian but a few science-fiction fans, Objectivists, and campus refugees from YAF (who didn't like their positions on drugs and sex) and SDS (who didn't like their positions on economic freedom). There was no Libertarian political party trying to participate as a mature organization in electoral politics. Keynesian economics still reigned in Washington. Milton Friedman was just beginning to be taken seriously by popular culture. Solzhenitsyn had recently been published in English.
In the absence of political and economic analyses that would enable them to think about social problems in a different way, and then later the reluctance to throw over their entire world-view for a radically different one, activists could only imagine the achievement of their goals of freedom and equality in Marxist terms, so they needed to explain away Stalinism (and Maoism, and Pol Pot-ism, and others) in a way that wouldn't undermine Marxism. The numerous biographies of prominent activists, writers, musicians, etc. of the last 50 years which contain statements like "dabbled in Communism before moving on to. . . " or "was a member of the Communist Party in his youth before breaking with the movement over . . . " or "was a life-long socialist, but disavowed Communism after such-and-such traumatic experience," not to mention the rise of the New Left, testifies to the lameness of those explanations.
Even in the absence of an alternative vision, totalitarianism struck a wrong note with too many people. Eventually too much had to be explained away, and the free market critique of socialism permeated popular culture sufficiently that those holding those views were no longer considered kooks. The growing unease with A.N.S.W.E.R. (which has reached such liberal mainstays as NPR's Fresh Air, Salon, and the NYTimes) reflects the fact that in the US at least, Marxism isn't cool anymore. The feminist and civil rights movements in America were enormously successful because - although the media likes to make a big deal out of colorful exceptions - the mainstream leadership of these movements explicitly rejected a Marxist infrastructure or analysis.
But I've been talking about America. David points out that the critique of Marxism hasn't penetrated inside the Continent to the same extent it has here:
there are many on the Continent who "no longer wear the badge of Communism" but are still suspicious of those who refuse to recognize the distinction between Stalinism and Western European communism.(I guess most Americans would wonder what the difference is, or argue that any supposedly "liberal" communism is going to lead invariably to totalitarian abuses.)
"No Blood For Oil" reflects the transition of Marxist analytical thought from intellectual paradigm to common sense throughout much of Europe. . . . one will not find oneself alone on either the left, the right or the center if one identifies the search for wealth as the foundation of foreign policy, especially American foreign policy. In contrast, Americans think of foreign policy in terms of security and ideology. It is this divide, no less than the one between multilateralists and unilateralists, that has prevented the Western democracies from coming together to bring justice to Saddam Hussein.This suggests to me that many Europeans still imagine there is some essential difference between the Communisms which have failed so far, and the shining ideal Communism that we haven't tried yet, and this may indeed be a significant factor in the current divide over forcing regime change in Iraq.
Updates on the Judenrein antiwar movement. My previous posts on the participation of Jewish groups in the antiwar movement garnered some email.
Arthur Waskow had written a very thoughtful article about the subject on the Shalom Center site, which I had linked to. Someone emailed me quoting this passage:
IsThatLegal? went poking around in A.N.S.W.E.R.'s website to find out their position on Israel, and found a page with the usual boilerplate about the dispossessed occupied Palestinians with no context for how that situation came about. He also sent me A.N.S.W.E.R.'s call for a commission to investigate "U.S. Backed Israeli War Crimes in Palestine," with more of the same. Commenters on my post on the A.N.S.W.E.R. march and Michael Lerner added the following:
I sent an email to the Shalom Center complaining about the UFPJ page on the Israel-Palestinian conflict, which is incredibly one-sided and perpetuates the usual lies. Today I got an email from Rabbi Waskow, which I think is okay to share, since it is a formal reply in his position as Director of the Center:
In the meantime I emailed Jim Henley about the UFPJ site, since he is a thoughtful antiwar guy who doesn't write in jargon, and who was hopeful about the new coalition. I haven't asked permission to reproduce his email, but I can say that he repeated the usual defense that "criticism of Israel isn't automatically anti-semitic." I sent him Arthur's comments on the UFPJ site, and added:
UPDATE: Further developments.
Arthur Waskow had written a very thoughtful article about the subject on the Shalom Center site, which I had linked to. Someone emailed me quoting this passage:
In November, despite A.N.S.W.E.R.'s internal politics there seem to have been no anti-Israel speeches from the podium in Washington. Reports from the West Coast indicate that there were one or two passages that were. Hundreds of groups, local, regional, occupational, and national, took part in those marches in a pro-American, anti-war spirit. Most carried no banners or signs about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Some were critical of the Sharon government's policies, as they were of Palestinian terrorists, but did not demonize Israel. A few had signs that criticized Israel with no sense of empathy for Israelis' fear and despair.My correspondent replied to me:
I watched the entire November rally on CSPAN, and feel the Rabbi [Arthur Waskow] must have been part of/heard/seen a totally different event than I did. I heard many anti-Israel comments, one after another, and visual shots of the crowd abounded with the worst kind of anti-Israel sentiment (swastikas equated with Mogen Davids, "Zionist this", "Zionist that, " etc.)He says he also sent a version of this email to the Shalom Center.
I differentiate, too, as does the Rabbi, between criticism of Sharon or a particular policy, but the statements and exhortations that I heard were not of this type; rather, they were of the very type that the Rabbi said did not "seem" to be. While the January events in Washington and SF did seem to have much less of these types of expressions (though they were still notably there) it is more, to me, a reflection of the fact that there were less of them in January, not that they were minimal in November. While I would not wish this on someone I respect in other ways, Rabbi Waskow might want to view of tape of the November CSPAN broadcast if he has not already.
IsThatLegal? went poking around in A.N.S.W.E.R.'s website to find out their position on Israel, and found a page with the usual boilerplate about the dispossessed occupied Palestinians with no context for how that situation came about. He also sent me A.N.S.W.E.R.'s call for a commission to investigate "U.S. Backed Israeli War Crimes in Palestine," with more of the same. Commenters on my post on the A.N.S.W.E.R. march and Michael Lerner added the following:
"ANSWER's fact book (distributed at a Feb. 2002 meeting I reported on) contains an essay on "Palestine" (not "Israel") that begins: "Contrary to the Zionist myth..." and doesn't improve. The essay is a nasty piece of work. It manages to trace the history of Israel from 1917 to the present, lingering over what ANSWER considers the colonialist imposition of Zionism in 1948....without mentioning that little thing known by some as the Holocaust. "They don't come out and say "Palestinians have the right to self-determination but Jews don't," but their jargon is consistent with the international Left's analysis of Israel since the 1967 war, which has included: advocacy of a secular multi-ethnic state, totally ignoring the track record of treatment of Jews within Arab-dominated states or the consistent absence of secular and democratic states in the Middle East, appropriating denigrating stereotypes of Jews, refusing any Jewish self-definition which includes the 3000 year old Jewish connection to Israel, and applying double standards to Palestinian and Jewish aspirations for a homeland, all of which has to be propped up by very distorted readings of Middle Eastern history. They use code phrases which function the same way as racist code phrases by old-time Southern Democrats. Although they are not explicit, you can connect the dots, observe these people's actions over the decades, and you know what they stand for.
"International ANSWER's homepage refers to "the dispossession of the Palestinian people to make way for the state of Israel." If this doesn't call into question Israel's right to exist, it comes damn close. "
I sent an email to the Shalom Center complaining about the UFPJ page on the Israel-Palestinian conflict, which is incredibly one-sided and perpetuates the usual lies. Today I got an email from Rabbi Waskow, which I think is okay to share, since it is a formal reply in his position as Director of the Center:
Yesterday my attention was called for the first time to that piece of the Website. I agree that some of those paragraphs are totally unacceptable.So we'll see how it goes.
The paragraphs and their summaries are NOT UPJ policy. They were never adopted or approved by anyone at UPJ.
Upon seeing that section of the Websiste I talked immediately with Leslie Cagan, the co-chair of UPJ. She said she had never even noticed or read the whole column of "Related Issues." (Neither had I.) She said the Website was inherited from Global Exchange when UPJ was formed -- They said, "We've got a Website going; why don't you just absorb it?'" She said she has no idea who put that stuff on, or even the mechanism by which it was approved or put on, since it all happened before UPJ began operating the site.
She was totally responsive to my and The Shalom Ctr's (and I spoke on behalf of Michael Lerner & Tikkun also) [emphasis mine -ed.] concern, which I made very stark. She said she would check right away on how that piece of he Website was/ is shaped and reshaped, and asked me to send her an Email explaining what is problematic. (She understood, but needed the Email to go to others.) Nothing I wrote before about UPJ is incorrect; this piece needs to be addressed, and is being.
L' Shalom, Arthur
Rabbi Arthur Waskow, Director
The Shalom Center
In the meantime I emailed Jim Henley about the UFPJ site, since he is a thoughtful antiwar guy who doesn't write in jargon, and who was hopeful about the new coalition. I haven't asked permission to reproduce his email, but I can say that he repeated the usual defense that "criticism of Israel isn't automatically anti-semitic." I sent him Arthur's comments on the UFPJ site, and added:
The SC and Tikkun are the most left-leaning Jewish organizations in the country that support Israel's right to exist as a Jewish homeland. If you read the Shalom Center articles - not to mention Tikkun - they are very critical of many Israeli policies.Stay tuned for further developments.
And even they find that webpage biased, and it sounds like the UFPJ people are receptive to their concerns. So I hope from now on you will not brush off these concerns with the pat answer about how Jews see any criticism of Israel as antisemitic. This has never been the case, and it is a typical leftist canard about us, a straw man the left pulls out to defend its biased and unfair criticism of Israel and to refuse to examine the biases behind its criticism. The issue is not criticism of Israel, the issue is perpetuating lies about Israel, and calling criticism of those lies "refusal to let anyone criticize Israel."
If you want to see how Jews on the left who love Israel and Judaism, and are knowledgeable about both, criticize Israel -read the other articles on the SC website. I totally disagree with most of them at this point - I migrated right on Israel as new evidence and actions by Palestinians and Arabs convinced me that the Oslo policy was a mistake - but at least their analysis isn't based on lies, and I respect it.
UPDATE: Further developments.
A Jewish-supported VA government boondoggle:
Why is it an "immediate priority"?!
This is lobbying nonsense. There's no obvious need for this agency being publicly-funded.
Perhaps these organizations could better spend their money by starting the agency up as a private non-profit instead of lobbying to have it paid for by the taxpayer?
Jewish political activists in Virginia are mobilizing to save the Virginia-Israel Advisory Board, after Gov. Mark Warner (D) cut all funding to the group in his proposed 2004 budget. Local Jewish community organizations are urging Virginians to contact their state legislators and register their support for continued funding of the state agency, which seeks to improve economic and cultural links between Virginia and Israel.
"It's an immediate priority" of the Jewish community during the current 45-day Virginia legislative session, said American Jewish Committee Washington-area director David Bernstein.
... VIAB was originally created in the mid-1980s but reinvigorated and made a permanent entity of the governor's office in 1996 under former Gov. George Allen (R). The agency first thought its $175,000 appropriation in 2003 would be trimmed by 15 percent, or $26,250. The decrease matched cuts that Warner was ordering for all state agencies to make up the $1.5 billion budget shortfall the commonwealth is facing over the next two years. But when Warner submitted his budget to the legislature, funding for VIAB was completely missing, surprising agency supporters.
Why is it an "immediate priority"?!
This is lobbying nonsense. There's no obvious need for this agency being publicly-funded.
Perhaps these organizations could better spend their money by starting the agency up as a private non-profit instead of lobbying to have it paid for by the taxpayer?
Table fixed: Thanks to the generous aid of Zac and Meryl, the coding problems with my table illustrating the Israeli vote have been fixed.
IDF radio reports that Israeli Labor pary leader Mitzna and Lapid were unable to reach an agreement. Lapid says that Mitzna is more concerned with the future of the Labor party more than he is concerned with the current situation in Israel. He likens Mitzna's optimism to a man who jumps from the 20st floor, and when he reaches the 10th, he says that he is still feeling well.
Palestinian columnist condemns rocket and mortar attacks against Israel: Sounds good, right? Except...
Talal Okal, who writes on a regular basis for the Palestinian Authority's daily Al-Ayyam, condemned Hamas for firing 16 Kassam rockets over the weekend. "This is an unsuccessful method in the ongoing confrontation," he argued. "The mortar shells and rockets that are fired every now and then have no impact and cause no losses. They also lack a deterrent capability."
It is so good to know Talal is such a pacifist.
Talal Okal, who writes on a regular basis for the Palestinian Authority's daily Al-Ayyam, condemned Hamas for firing 16 Kassam rockets over the weekend. "This is an unsuccessful method in the ongoing confrontation," he argued. "The mortar shells and rockets that are fired every now and then have no impact and cause no losses. They also lack a deterrent capability."
It is so good to know Talal is such a pacifist.
Counter-intuitive voting strategies: An Arab-Israeli village, Abu Ghosh, voted for Shas, the Sephardi religious party. Why? The support for Shas stems from practical political legwork.
A village leader explains, "they came here, they discussed nicely with us, they made speeches, and they understand the position of minorities like us... Labor failed to send anyone. Perhaps they think we're too small to matter." He said he considers himself an Israeli Arab, not a Palestinian or a Palestinian Israeli. "I was born here, I grew up here, and I work with the Jewish Israelis here, so I can't change."
In Abu Ghosh, residents like their status as Israeli citizens and balk at any suggestion that some Arab towns and villages could be ceded to a new Palestinian state in some form of land-swap deal.
A village leader explains, "they came here, they discussed nicely with us, they made speeches, and they understand the position of minorities like us... Labor failed to send anyone. Perhaps they think we're too small to matter." He said he considers himself an Israeli Arab, not a Palestinian or a Palestinian Israeli. "I was born here, I grew up here, and I work with the Jewish Israelis here, so I can't change."
In Abu Ghosh, residents like their status as Israeli citizens and balk at any suggestion that some Arab towns and villages could be ceded to a new Palestinian state in some form of land-swap deal.
Saddam's Suicide Strategy: Jay Leno on Jan 20: "Saddam Hussein said in an address that he is urging the Iraqi people to fight. He told his people that US troops will commit suicide when they get to the gates of Baghdad. ... That's when you know you have a bad army, okay? When your only hope of winning is that the other army all kill themselves."
Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Hey, guys - mommies can work too! Eve Tushnet rediscovers Betty-Friedan-era feminism. (Must .... not .... be .... condescending .....) On the one hand, I love the way Eve gathers up a bunch of viewpoints on an issue and analyzes it into the ground. I do. I'm a very analytical person - I enjoy watching her mind work. On the other hand, must women reinvent the wheel every generation? Can't we figure something out and have it stay figured out, without everybody misinterpreting it, stereotyping it, rebelling against it, burying it, and then painfully digging it up again?
The new era of leftist anti-semitism is the same way. Read Letty Cotten Pogrebin or Melanie Kaye-Kantrowitz on anti-semitism in the women's movement of the 70s and 80s, for example. (You will learn more about international women's NGOs than you ever wanted to know.) I recently bought a used paperback that was published in 1973, an anthology of 60s political writing called Jewish Radicalism. Every single issue being thrashed out today on college campuses and in the antiwar movement is in this book: the demonization of Israel, Jews told to feel ashamed of their Jewishness while other groups are urged to own their ethnic identities, Blacks and Jews pitted against each other . . . .
What's really sobering is when you read the feminism of the 1920s: they figured out everything we did, and then - it all got submerged somehow until the 60s.
My new maxim of political life: nothing stays figured out. That's how we'll know when moshiach comes - everything we've figured out will stay figured out.
The new era of leftist anti-semitism is the same way. Read Letty Cotten Pogrebin or Melanie Kaye-Kantrowitz on anti-semitism in the women's movement of the 70s and 80s, for example. (You will learn more about international women's NGOs than you ever wanted to know.) I recently bought a used paperback that was published in 1973, an anthology of 60s political writing called Jewish Radicalism. Every single issue being thrashed out today on college campuses and in the antiwar movement is in this book: the demonization of Israel, Jews told to feel ashamed of their Jewishness while other groups are urged to own their ethnic identities, Blacks and Jews pitted against each other . . . .
What's really sobering is when you read the feminism of the 1920s: they figured out everything we did, and then - it all got submerged somehow until the 60s.
My new maxim of political life: nothing stays figured out. That's how we'll know when moshiach comes - everything we've figured out will stay figured out.
A reader sends this e-mail:
Go read, if you have the stomach.
...just wanted to bring to your attention a ridiculous screed by a compatriot (sigh), which is published in today's issue of Alexander Cockburn's rag Counterpunch... The author, an Emily Zitter-Smith, is spending time in the hospitable elitist confines of the American University in Cairo, where she finds it fitting to rail about the outcome of Israeli democracy and, for good measure, in the article she disavows both her American citizenship and her Judaism.
Just as Hosni Mubarak announces his intent to meet with Sharon, his American guest recounts her desire to dance on Sharon's grave (Yigal Amir, anyone?).
Ms. Zitter-Smith deserves a good fisking. I'll do my part, but I hope you can spread the word so that by the end of the day the contents of her inbox overwhelm her with shame or, indeed, convince her to return her passport to the US Embassy and permanently adorn the chador (which she seems on track to do here).
Go read, if you have the stomach.
Pro-Israeli demonstration in Oslo: Nearly 1000 demostrators rallied outside the Parliament Buildings (Storting) in down-town Oslo Sunday, as part of a pro-Israeli demonstration in the streets in the centre of the capital. In a speech to the demonstrators, the leader of the right wing Progress Party, Carl I.Hagen, said that he could not understand why Israel had not received more support from the Norwegian public opinion. "I hope Norwegian media will stop the one-sided criticism of Israel," Hagen said. A smaller number of counter demonstrators called for Israel to stop terrorism and said that Israel had blood on its hands. (NRK/Nettavisen)
The state of the Israeli union: For those of us less interested in President Bush's State of the Union, there was an election in Israel yesterday to keep us occupied. The New York Times felt that they were Suffering Through Election Day. Me, I was waiting for the exit polls and figures for voter turnout.
For a change, exit polls seemed to get their predictions reasonably correct. Below are the actual election results (not including votes of soldiers), courtesy of the JCPA Daily Alert. The leading parties are Likud with 37 seats, Labor with 19, and Shinui with 15. The right and religious bloc won 67 seats, while the center, left, and Arab party bloc won 53 seats.
Update: Thank you very much to Zac and Meryl for helping me figure out the coding problems with this table!
For a change, exit polls seemed to get their predictions reasonably correct. Below are the actual election results (not including votes of soldiers), courtesy of the JCPA Daily Alert. The leading parties are Likud with 37 seats, Labor with 19, and Shinui with 15. The right and religious bloc won 67 seats, while the center, left, and Arab party bloc won 53 seats.
Update: Thank you very much to Zac and Meryl for helping me figure out the coding problems with this table!
| Party | Ideology | Leader | Seats 1999 | Seats 2003 (change) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Right and Religious Bloc: | 67 | |||
| Right Parties | 46 | |||
| Likud | Will talk peace with Palestinians only after a cessation of violence | Ariel Sharon | 19 | 37 (+18) |
| National Union | No Palestinian state | Avigdor Lieberman | 7 | 7 |
| Yisrael b'Aliyah | Palestinian state only if democratic | Natan Sharansky | 6 | 2 (-4) |
| Right Religious Parties | 21 | |||
| Shas | Ultra-Orthodox and traditional Sephardim | Eli Yishai | 17 | 11 (-6) |
| United Torah Judaism | Ultra-Orthodox Ashkenazim | Yaakov Litzman | 5 | 5 |
| National Religious Party | Religious Zionism, emphasizing army service and the Land of Israel | Effi Eitam | 5 | 5 |
| Center, Left, and Arab Party Bloc: | 53 | |||
| Left Parties | 25 | |||
| Labor | Resume talks on Palestinian statehood before end to violence | Amram Mitzna | 26 | 19 (-7) |
| Meretz | Withdrawal to 1967 borders | Yossi Sarid | 10 | 6 (-4) |
| Center Parties | 19 | |||
| Shinui | Separation of religion and state | Yosef Lapid | 6 | 15 (+9) |
| Am Ehad - One Nation | Workers' rights | Amir Peretz | 2 | 4 (+2) |
| Arab Parties | 9 | |||
| United Arab List-Ra'am | Dominated by Islamic movement, supports Palestinian state | Abdulmalek Dehamshe | 5 | 2 (-3) |
| Hadash-Ta'al | Formerly Communist party, supports Palestinian state | Mohammad Barakeh | 4 | 4 |
| Balad | Cultural autonomy for Arabs, supports Palestinian state | Azmi Bishara | 1 | 3 (+2) |
Taking risks in Israel: No, not leaving the house... Brian Blum penned "An Open Letter to Amram Mitzna on the Matter of His Beard."
(He doesn't seem to have any permalinks, so scroll down to Thursday Jan. 23).
(He doesn't seem to have any permalinks, so scroll down to Thursday Jan. 23).
Tuesday, January 28, 2003
Meeting a minyan: Just got back from a quick kaddish for a co-worker on the other side of my building. I have a question for the more knowledgeable Kesher Talk readers - does a minyan have to be of Jews, or just men?
Shacharit, mincha, ma'ariv, shacharit, mincha, ma'ariv, shacharit, mincha, ma'ariv. . . . Kesher Talk has been following the progress of Israeli astronaut Ilan Ramon, but I don't think we've indulged in any jokes yet, so here goes.
(The title of this post refers to an old Jewish astronaut joke. Hint.
. . . Any other problems?There's more.
Well, I am having withdrawal symptoms.
Withdrawal? From what?
Smoking and talking on my cell phone … Wait a minute … hold on …
[Long pause]
Ilan, are you there?
[Long pause]
OK, I’m back.
What happened?
It was just Shabbat. But now it’s over. The next one doesn’t start for 16 minutes. Go ahead.
(The title of this post refers to an old Jewish astronaut joke. Hint.
Turnout figures for the Israeli elections: The final figure for how many Israelis turned out to vote today stands at 69% of eligible voters, the lowest rate in the country's history, The Central Elections Committee announced. Some 3.2 million out of 4.7 citizens voted.
Not great, but certainly better than we usually manage here in the U.S. ...
Not great, but certainly better than we usually manage here in the U.S. ...
Israeli exit polls: Don't get me started on the reliability of exit-polling... take these #'s from a Channel One exit poll with a grain of salt:
Likud 36
Labor 18
Shinui 14
Shas 13
National Union 8
Meretz 5
Yisrael B'Aliya 3
National Religious Party 5
United Torah Judaism
Hadash 4
United Arab List 3
Balad 3
Am Ehad 3
And here are the #'s from Channel 2:
Likud - 32
Labor - 19
Shinui - 17
The Center-Right camp parties will receive 45 seats
the Center-Left Camp 26
the religious parties 19
other centrist parties 20
Arab parties 10.
Likud 36
Labor 18
Shinui 14
Shas 13
National Union 8
Meretz 5
Yisrael B'Aliya 3
National Religious Party 5
United Torah Judaism
Hadash 4
United Arab List 3
Balad 3
Am Ehad 3
And here are the #'s from Channel 2:
Likud - 32
Labor - 19
Shinui - 17
The Center-Right camp parties will receive 45 seats
the Center-Left Camp 26
the religious parties 19
other centrist parties 20
Arab parties 10.
I am getting tired of Haaretz. Their Hebrew edition's readership is the lowest among the 3 major Hebrew dailies. But they are selling their left-wing propaganda through their English edition on the web as Israeli mainstream. Consider this headline: "Expert: low voter turnout favors smaller parties; Likud said concerned". It is quite misleading, since the reality is that Labor is "said" to be just as concerned. In fact, IBA radio reported today that both Likud and Labor asked judge Cheshin to permit them to publicly call on Israelis to get out and vote, while there still was time. Then there is this:
Well, there is really no contradiction here. The truth is that people vote with their feet, not just their ballots. When one stays home and does not vote, he/she still casts a ballot of sorts. Problem is, I don't think that is what Haaretz had in mind. I think what they are doing here is preparing their English-speaking readers to Sharon's next win, which everyone, including Haaretz, thinks is inevitable.
As a side note, and speaking of voting with one's feet: on the radio today they interviewed Nativa Ben-Yehuda, the daughter of Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, who is considered the father of the modern Hebrew language. She was boasting that she had voted in all of the 16 Israeli elections, since the establishment of Israel. She mentioned, however, that several times she placed a blank ballot in her envelope. After she went off the air, some of the guys went wise-cracking about that last detail: "Nativa, darling, you know that placing a blank ballot is the same as not voting at all, don't you?" Well, guys, better shut up, and listen to the old lady. Maybe it is the same as being undecided. But it is definitely the opposite of being lazy, or indifferent, or spiteful.
I wish I could vote in these elections, but I cannot. In Israel we don't have absentee ballots, except for diplomats and such, and I think this is the way it should be. When I lived in Israel, I voted in all elections since I was old enough to do so, and I was never undecided. I hope I get to vote in many more Israeli elections in the future, and if there is no one I can consciously vote for (which I hope will never happen), I will vote with my blank ballot.
Update: Ooops...it turns out Mrs. Ben-yehuda is not Eliezer's daughter, but she is a celebrity, and is about 75 years old - long story. (Thanks to Imshin for the correction).
Turnout has often spelled the difference between victory and defeat in Israeli elections. In 1996, for example, many Labor Party supporters refrained from voting, assuming that favored incumbent Shimon Peres would win re-election against underdog Likud challenger Benjamin Netanyahu. In a nail-biting result, Netanyahu edged then-prime minister Peres by just 27,000 votes out of more than four million.I would not know - I was not following Israeli politics at that time. So, let's say, so far so good. Then it goes:
Turnout has also been strongly affected by "sectarian" factors, with voter percentages in such sectors as Israeli Arabs, immigrants from the former Soviet Union, and the ultra-Orthodox, having a potentially crucial impact on the outcome of elections...Hmmm...Except for the ultra-Orthodox super-enthusiasm, what do "sectarian factors" have to do with elections? Aren't members of these "sects" equally Israeli, and their votes are equally valid? Apparently, Haaretz thinks not:
...The ultra-Orthodox have exhibited particular success in mobilizing high voter turnouts - at times flying in chartered planes full of voters registered in Israel but residing in New York
In 2001, Israeli Arabs, angry with incumbent Ehud Barak over the handling of October, 2000 riots in which Israeli police fire killed 13 Arabs, boycotted the prime ministerial elections, which Ariel Sharon - buoyed by strong support from immigrants - won in a landslide.Now I get it: Sharon won last time not because the majority of Israelis wanted to kick Barak out of office for his willingness to reward terrorism with concessions, and even not because many Israelis hoped, at least secretly, that Sharon will "clean up" the hornet's nests in the territories once and for all. He won because Israeli Arabs did not show up, and new immigrants from Russia showed up in droves. But what do those stupid "Russians" know? They don't really count, mind you.
Well, there is really no contradiction here. The truth is that people vote with their feet, not just their ballots. When one stays home and does not vote, he/she still casts a ballot of sorts. Problem is, I don't think that is what Haaretz had in mind. I think what they are doing here is preparing their English-speaking readers to Sharon's next win, which everyone, including Haaretz, thinks is inevitable.
As a side note, and speaking of voting with one's feet: on the radio today they interviewed Nativa Ben-Yehuda, the daughter of Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, who is considered the father of the modern Hebrew language. She was boasting that she had voted in all of the 16 Israeli elections, since the establishment of Israel. She mentioned, however, that several times she placed a blank ballot in her envelope. After she went off the air, some of the guys went wise-cracking about that last detail: "Nativa, darling, you know that placing a blank ballot is the same as not voting at all, don't you?" Well, guys, better shut up, and listen to the old lady. Maybe it is the same as being undecided. But it is definitely the opposite of being lazy, or indifferent, or spiteful.
I wish I could vote in these elections, but I cannot. In Israel we don't have absentee ballots, except for diplomats and such, and I think this is the way it should be. When I lived in Israel, I voted in all elections since I was old enough to do so, and I was never undecided. I hope I get to vote in many more Israeli elections in the future, and if there is no one I can consciously vote for (which I hope will never happen), I will vote with my blank ballot.
Update: Ooops...it turns out Mrs. Ben-yehuda is not Eliezer's daughter, but she is a celebrity, and is about 75 years old - long story. (Thanks to Imshin for the correction).
Today is election day in Israel: Israelis go to the voting booths today. The latest opinion polls point to a reasonable number of Parliament (called the Knesset) seats going to Sharon. The remaining question, if those polls are correct, is with whom his Likkud party will form a coalition government. I'll try to post more information as the day progresses.
Update: Renatinha is excited to vote: "I was voting for someone in which I believe, I was voting freely, because I WANTED and not because I HAD TO like in Brasil. New sensations for me."
- Because he will be out of the country on business, Tal G will not even be able to vote...
- Hebrew University professor Avi Diskin, who is in charge of the voting turnout sample, predicted that only 72 percent of Israelis with the right to vote would cast their ballots. That would be the lowest figure ever, and 6.7 percent lower than the 1999 election. The voting turnout for the election of the prime minister in 2001 was 62 percent. Diskin said he thought the apparently low turnout might be due to voter disaffection with the politicians as well as “voting fatigue.”
Update: Renatinha is excited to vote: "I was voting for someone in which I believe, I was voting freely, because I WANTED and not because I HAD TO like in Brasil. New sensations for me."
- Because he will be out of the country on business, Tal G will not even be able to vote...
- Hebrew University professor Avi Diskin, who is in charge of the voting turnout sample, predicted that only 72 percent of Israelis with the right to vote would cast their ballots. That would be the lowest figure ever, and 6.7 percent lower than the 1999 election. The voting turnout for the election of the prime minister in 2001 was 62 percent. Diskin said he thought the apparently low turnout might be due to voter disaffection with the politicians as well as “voting fatigue.”
The Sweet (Kosher) Science: At a November bout in Las Vegas the crowd had to wait. Why? Because it was Saturday night and Dmitry Salita hadn't recited Havdalah yet. He was waiting for the Sabbath to end. When it did, Salita went into the ring and knocked out his opponent. Meet Dmitry Salita, the 20-year-old boxing phenom who won't fight on Shabbat.
And while we are on the subject of the "sweet science," Moment magazine profiles Jackie Kallen, manager of numerous boxing champions and inspiration for a soon-to-be released major motion picture starring Meg Ryan called Up Against the Ropes.
And while we are on the subject of the "sweet science," Moment magazine profiles Jackie Kallen, manager of numerous boxing champions and inspiration for a soon-to-be released major motion picture starring Meg Ryan called Up Against the Ropes.
Monday, January 27, 2003
The Shalom Center ran full-page newspaper ads urging people to email leaders of the liberal Jewish community asking them to denounce the war. Last week I linked to Josh Chafetz' letter template for emailing said leaders asking them to support the war.
As I mentioned, the Shalom Center's irrepressible director Arthur Waskow is always emailing various Jewish lists with calls to protest this that or the other. The latest that showed up in my inbox was via the National Havurah Institute list. I replied to the list with the Oxblog URL and a suggestion that people who didn't agree with Arthur take advantage of Josh's template.
This is a very liberal-left organization, heavily populated by aging hippies who founded Judaism's havurah movement 30 years ago. I got two private emails thanking me and expressing misgivings about Arthur's political direction. No one on the list argued with me or denounced me.
I also got an email from the man himself, politely informing me he tried to get to the site but got an error message, so I sent him the URL again. (As I said before, I like Arthur. I disagree with some of his politics and his prose style is frighteningly easy to parody, but he's a mentsch and has a sense of humor about himself.)
Here is Arthur's take on Jews and the antiwar movement. He says some encouraging things about the new coalition rising up in response to A.N.S.W.E.R.'s domination of the antiwar movement.
Since I am convinced that invading and disarming Iraq is the least bad of all the alternatives, I don't have to face the moral quandary of deciding which anti-Jewish antiwar organization is the least obnoxious. But it is not yet the scandal it should be that Jews who oppose the war can't participate in political action as proud Jews without being subjected to anti-semitic violence, lies about Israel's history or marginalization by a "multiculturalism" in denial about its own biases.
UPDATE: The saga continues: Arthur claims the UFPJ is cleaning up their website, and more about A.N.S.W.E.R.'s positions on Israel.
As I mentioned, the Shalom Center's irrepressible director Arthur Waskow is always emailing various Jewish lists with calls to protest this that or the other. The latest that showed up in my inbox was via the National Havurah Institute list. I replied to the list with the Oxblog URL and a suggestion that people who didn't agree with Arthur take advantage of Josh's template.
This is a very liberal-left organization, heavily populated by aging hippies who founded Judaism's havurah movement 30 years ago. I got two private emails thanking me and expressing misgivings about Arthur's political direction. No one on the list argued with me or denounced me.
I also got an email from the man himself, politely informing me he tried to get to the site but got an error message, so I sent him the URL again. (As I said before, I like Arthur. I disagree with some of his politics and his prose style is frighteningly easy to parody, but he's a mentsch and has a sense of humor about himself.)
Here is Arthur's take on Jews and the antiwar movement. He says some encouraging things about the new coalition rising up in response to A.N.S.W.E.R.'s domination of the antiwar movement.
UFPJ has no coalition position on the Israeli-Palestinian question. Though some member groups may at some point urge that it should, I think that is likely to happen only if some turn in the two conflicts brings them into much closer connection than is yet the case.Well, it would have been even better if no one had to suggest it to them in the first place, they support divestment campaigns, and yes, they do have a position on Israel which promotes the usual historical distortions. So far UFPJ doesn't look much more hospitable to Jews than A.N.S.W.E.R.
UFPJ has been most responsive to questions we in The Shalom Center have raised. For example, we raised the question about aiming at Saturday Feb. 15 — Shabbat — as the main demonstration day for NYC. . . . The steering committee took the question very seriously, appointing a subcommittee (on which I was a member) to explore the possibilities. . . . When a statement was being considered that denounced racism & anti-Muslim, anti-Arab bias, I was the 2d to suggest adding anti-Semitism. There was no disagreement.
Since I am convinced that invading and disarming Iraq is the least bad of all the alternatives, I don't have to face the moral quandary of deciding which anti-Jewish antiwar organization is the least obnoxious. But it is not yet the scandal it should be that Jews who oppose the war can't participate in political action as proud Jews without being subjected to anti-semitic violence, lies about Israel's history or marginalization by a "multiculturalism" in denial about its own biases.
UPDATE: The saga continues: Arthur claims the UFPJ is cleaning up their website, and more about A.N.S.W.E.R.'s positions on Israel.
Euroweenie idiotarian watch Dept. Some dish on our peppy debutante Gretta.
. . . as the Dutch paper De Telegraaf reported last June, her social circle centered around a left-wing think tank in Amsterdam peopled by activists of various bloodthirsty Marxist liberation fronts, Trotskyites, apologists for Castro, and suspected terrorists such as Eqbal Ahmad. De Telegraaf reports that "Gretta was a confidante of Philip Agee. This ex-CIA agent became public enemy number one after he'd betrayed the identity of American secret agents in the Soviet Bloc. Some of them were then liquidated." Before Agee was deported from the Netherlands, he "asked Gretta to be a witness at his wedding."So charming.
The thoughts of an Israeli voter: I received the following from a friend of a friend. I suddenly realize how easy it was, by comparison, to defend how I voted in 2000, because I could only choose between a few parties and candidates.
In Israel, as this voter demonstrates, it is not so simple:
Update: Stefan Sharkansky's father has another lengthy commentary on the Israeli elections.
In Israel, as this voter demonstrates, it is not so simple:
1. After long deliberation, I decided to vote for Natan Sharansky and Yisrael B'Aliyah in the elections on Tuesday.
2. I initially intended to vote Likud. What brought an end to this idea was the series of Likud scandals. This 28 year old Inbal Gabrieli, the daughter of a wealthy casino owner with underworld connections, and with no real life accomplishments of her own, if elected, would be a disgrace to the Knesset. But what really iced the cake for me against Likud was Sharon's "Cyril Kern" speech, in which he said that his son 36 year-old son Gilad "was a talented businessman, who has a gift for making money." This is outrageous. Any close relative of a Minister of National Infrastructure, and later Prime Minister, can make a buck from influence-seeking contractors like Dudi Appel. When Sharon said that, "Gilad is a trained economist, and deserved every shekel that he earned for the economic study that he wrote," when the fee was several hundred thousand dollars, I could not help but to roll my eyes. That Ariel Sharon cannot understand that Gilad massively benefits in his professional life from being the son of a famous and powerful politician, is simply facetious and disingenuous. Ariel Sharon gives me the impression that he does not really believe that the laws of Israel apply to him. He feels that he is honest, moral and good intentioned, and that is enough for him. He feels that he is a special case, different from us.
3. In general, though, I feel that Sharon has done an excellent job during the past 2 years. He inherited a disaster, a war that Barak and the Oslo architects brought about. For Labor supporters to deride Sharon now because Israel is not prosperous or at peace, is analogous in my mind to supporters of Neville Chamberlain criticizing Churchill in 1944 for V2 rockets landing on London, as well as military fatalities and food rationing. It was Chamberlain who got Britain into the mess that they were in during WWII, and it was the Barak, Peres and the Labor Party who got Israel into the mess that we are in right now. Churchill got Britain out of the Nazi mess, and Sharon, for lack of a better choice, is the guy getting Israel out of our PA-Arafat- Hamas-Tanzim mess.
4. I hosted MK Mudi Zandberg of Shinui at our home two weeks ago. I worked with Mudi when he was in Tzomet. Mudi is a brilliant, charismatic, ethical, honest and idealistic politician of great potential. The difference between Mudi, a "secular" Shinui MK, who happens to put on tefillin every morning, and the best and the brightest Likud MKs, is quite small. I see, or "saw", at least, great potential for Shinui to bring together secular and those "kippa sruga" Israelis, such as us, who work, pay taxes, and serve in the army.
5. I readily confess that I often feel a greater kinship with secular Zionists who build this country and risk their lives defending it, than Haredi Jews who do neither. I see Haredi Jews in our synagogue, but I do not see them on my military base. Most of the people that I serve with are Shinui-like secular people.
6. The Shas and Yahadut HaTorah mentality, in my mind, is that they are simply too holy to dirty their hands doing things like work and army service. They obviously think that we Zionist Jews, both religious and secular, who send our children to the army, must not love our children as much as they love theirs. Their mentality runs contrary to my sense of justice. [To be fair, there is a small population within Shas that does actively participate in Israeli life (workforce-army)].
7. I fully identify with Shinui's anger at the injustices done to Israel's secular, hard working, tax-paying, miluim-serving population. The fact that we, the knitted-kippa population, do not speak up against the religious coercion that secular Jews feel, let alone against the haredi military exemption status quo, is something that greatly embarrasses me. This is why I chose to experiment and invite a Shinui representative to speak in our home.
8. Shinui's Mudi Zandberg was as brilliant and idealistic as ever, but I was disappointed. I expected Mudi to convey to us that we, a community of taxpaying, army serving, religious Israelis are natural allies. That we, together with them, are the "good guys" in Israel that they represent. But Mudi instead conveyed discomfort with us. We are a community that destroys Tommy Lapid's "good guys vs. bad guys" thesis. We prove that "good guys" can wear a kippa, but Shinui is not yet ready to recognize that. This may change in the future, though, as the Shinui party matures.
9. Why Yisrael B'Aliyah? Because Natan Sharansky is a brilliant, courageous, incorruptible man of integrity, who has a talent for correctly reading the political map. He brings together the Jewish people worldwide, and does not divide us. He was opposed to Oslo far before I understood this. He is a reasonable man who is capable of compromise when conditions warrant this, and tough when there is no choice. He does not succumb to group-think and unwarranted dreams. He brought down the corrupt and inefficient Soviet Regime, and he can do the same thing here, by cleaning up our statist, lazy bureaucracy.
10. I am also a close friend of Eli Kazhdan, #5 on the Yisrael B'Aliyah list. Eli is one of the most decent, brilliant, personable and modest people that I know. Only in his early 30s, he has been Natan Sharansky's right hand man ever since Sharansky entered into politics in the mid-90's. Natan thinks the world of him. Eli Kazhdan will be an excellent influence on Israeli politics, and bring pride to Anglo-Saxon immigrants, American Jewry, as well as Russian Jewry (before America and Harvard, Eli originally comes from the CIS.)
11. I am in favor of religious Jewish pride, but also in favor of secular Jewish pride. Shinui, unfortunately, only believes in secular Jewish pride. Like me, Yisrael B'Aliyah believes in both.
12. Why am I voting to the right of the middle? Because of Oslo. The Labor Party and Meretz screwed up big time. Every single person connected to that disaster should have resigned in shame from public life. This is what Lyndon Johnson did in 1968. Anthony Eden did the same in 1957. Menachem Begin resigned as well in recognition of his own mistakes in 1983.
13. Why am I not voting Ichud Leumi? Because Avigdor Lieberman is not my cup of tea. He means well, and his clear thinking often impresses me, but he seems to be obsessed with military power. MK Benny Elon is a cultured man of reason, though. In general, I like the way religious and secular Zionists cohabit this party in an environment of mutual respect.
14. Why not Mafdal? Because they don't understand free market economics or have a sophisticated view of Clean and Efficient Government. I like their Jewish-Zionist pride, though. I wish people like Adv. Yaakov Neeman were on their list - people of the world who combine learned religiosity together with accomplishments in the business-academic arena.
15. Am I COMPLETELY satisfied with Yisrael B'Aliyah? No. They are not moving fast enough out of their ethnic immigrant shell into mainstream Israel, in my opinion. But they are the best party available this time, for me at least. If there was a single police investigation into Yisrael B'Aliyah, then I would hold my nose and vote Likud. But it appears that Natan Sharansky is a completely clean and honest politician, as is everyone else over there. That's good enough for me. (A personal message to future MK Eli Kazhdan: Eli - you're getting my vote - you better stay clean! No bribes, no free vacations, no posing in jacuzzis! In all seriousness, you are the pride of AngloSaxon-Russian-kippa sruga aliyah. Congratulations on having gotten so far. I know that you will be an excellent MK. I take my hat off to you.)
Update: Stefan Sharkansky's father has another lengthy commentary on the Israeli elections.
Anti-semitic conspiracy theories running out of steam:
...Jews have cropped up in almost all of the major 19th and 20th-century political movements - many of them completely contradictory. They are cited as leading forces in liberalism, neo-conservatism, socialism, bolshevism and market capitalism. The only two movements that Jews don't seem to have led are fascism and Islamic fundamentalism. Still, they were the guys behind Reagan, the guys behind Clinton - either ever mutating, ever powerful (if you're a conspiracist), or ever disagreeing with each other if you're not.
The other difficulty for non-conspiracists is that there just aren't that many Jews in America. Six million is the latest figure (3.9% of the population in Florida, and 128,000 out of 21 million in Dubya's Texas), and probably declining. The Muslim population is about 3.5 million and growing. (David Aaronovitch, The Guardian, Jan. 15)
Interesting discussion in this thread on Jonathan's blog The Head Heeb. I have some problems with general definitions there. It seems to me that while one cannot choose his ethnicity, he can certainly choose his nationality or religion.
I was born in Russia to a Jewish mother and a non-Jewish father. In the Soviet Union they went by the father's ethnicity, so I was considered Russian. In Israel they go by the mother, so I am considered Jewish. In America, I am an American. By choosing where I live (as much as one can choose), I choose my nationality.
8opus is right in that when a person converts to Judaism, he joins the Jewish nation (BTW, there is a cognate word in Hebrew for religion: "dat"). The conversion does not change that person's ethnicity, of course, but Judaism is not really concerned with ethnicity in the first place. Furthermore, I'd go as far as to argue that it is not really concerned with religion all that much, as far as acceptance of new members into the community/nation is in question. It sounds like a paradox, but if you know secular Israel, you can easily imagine a gentile going through the whole tedious religious process of conversion, being accepted into the community, and not observing a single religious rule thereafter. In fact, such a person could theoretically convert to any other religion later on. It probably would be problematic socially, but not much more than if the person was ethnically Jewish to begin with. And I doubt it would jeopardize that person's Israeli citizenship. This, of course, would be unacceptable if the community in question was a religious one, but an ethnic Jew's secularity would be just as unacceptable. My point is that at least as far as new member acceptance, religion acts simply as rite of passage, rather than a continuous condition.
A person can become an Israeli citizen under three alternative conditions:
1. Having had one's ancestors living continuously in Palestine before and after the establishment of the state of Israel.
2. Being ethnically Jewish, i.e. born to a Jewish mother.
3. Having been converted to Judaism, without the need to actually practice the Jewish religion afterwards.
Thus I really see no problem with a Jewish democratic state, where non-Jews enjoy equal rights to those Jews do. The real problem is the proportions in the population: what happens when Jews, ethnic and otherwise, are no longer a majority in Israel.
I was born in Russia to a Jewish mother and a non-Jewish father. In the Soviet Union they went by the father's ethnicity, so I was considered Russian. In Israel they go by the mother, so I am considered Jewish. In America, I am an American. By choosing where I live (as much as one can choose), I choose my nationality.
8opus is right in that when a person converts to Judaism, he joins the Jewish nation (BTW, there is a cognate word in Hebrew for religion: "dat"). The conversion does not change that person's ethnicity, of course, but Judaism is not really concerned with ethnicity in the first place. Furthermore, I'd go as far as to argue that it is not really concerned with religion all that much, as far as acceptance of new members into the community/nation is in question. It sounds like a paradox, but if you know secular Israel, you can easily imagine a gentile going through the whole tedious religious process of conversion, being accepted into the community, and not observing a single religious rule thereafter. In fact, such a person could theoretically convert to any other religion later on. It probably would be problematic socially, but not much more than if the person was ethnically Jewish to begin with. And I doubt it would jeopardize that person's Israeli citizenship. This, of course, would be unacceptable if the community in question was a religious one, but an ethnic Jew's secularity would be just as unacceptable. My point is that at least as far as new member acceptance, religion acts simply as rite of passage, rather than a continuous condition.
A person can become an Israeli citizen under three alternative conditions:
1. Having had one's ancestors living continuously in Palestine before and after the establishment of the state of Israel.
2. Being ethnically Jewish, i.e. born to a Jewish mother.
3. Having been converted to Judaism, without the need to actually practice the Jewish religion afterwards.
Thus I really see no problem with a Jewish democratic state, where non-Jews enjoy equal rights to those Jews do. The real problem is the proportions in the population: what happens when Jews, ethnic and otherwise, are no longer a majority in Israel.
Sunday, January 26, 2003
Update on French academic boycott of Israel. Some good news on the attempted boycott of Israeli academics by a Paris university. First, some juicy details on the boycott move:
PS. Historical background: Bigwig's list of wars lost by France over the past 2000 years.
(via Shark)
. . . a rump contingent of the board seized the opportunity afforded by the absence of their colleagues, most of whom had already departed for the holidays. The group--computer scientists and medical researchers, mostly--passed a motion lamenting the fate of the Palestinians and urging the European Union not to renew its cooperation agreement with Israeli scientists, researchers, and universities. The boycott motion had not been on the council's agenda; it was discussed with only 33 of the group's 60 members present; it passed with just 22 votes.Zut alors! Zey sneaky Frenchie intellectuelles! Zey play ze same game in l'academie Concordia d'Montreale, non?
The CSU Council meeting was held Monday, December 2, the last day of classes for the fall term and on the eve of the university's examination period. The resolution was considered at approximately midnight. Only 9 of the 27 CSU counsellors were present and the resolution passed by a margin of 8 to 1.Aha! Quelle sophistication, eh? Baise les juifs, eh? Mais non!
When the motion was reported, there was a predictable uproar. Predictable, that is, to everyone but the board members, who declared themselves shocked, dismayed, and deeply hurt that their Nobel prize checks were not already in the mail. Biochemist Anne-Marie Leseney, who voted for the motion, remarked indignantly to the French press that "in the mail which I receive, they treat me like an anti-Semite; I am scandalized!" Alas for Leseney, being scandalized is something of a spécialité de la maison for French academics.Aha! Zere is un explanation tres sophistique pour cette action. Les intellectuelles Francais possess - q'est que-ce le bonne mot? - un grande passion pour le power - oui, le power internationale!
Opposition to the boycott was led by Bernard-Henri Lévy, the popular public intellectual who, when not appearing on television to discuss the finer points of French philosophy, dabbles in cinematography (he directed a soft-porn film starring his own wife). BHL, as he is styled, launched a petition denouncing the motion that swiftly attracted more than 21,000 signatures.
France seeks to play a major role in world politics; given that it has no hope of expressing this aspiration through military might, it must do so through diplomacy. To have any influence in the Middle East, France must at least appear to be an honest broker. . . . The government was well aware that particularly coming from France, with its bleak historic record of participation in the destruction of European Jewry, such a motion was apt to appear to the world to be precisely what it was: unconscionable and repellent.Exactemente! Zeze are my vrai sentiments! Les Frenchie intelletuelles aimez les juifs! **smooch!** Cette resolution, it vaz all un grande misunderstanding!
. . . Over the course of a single day, in a carefully choreographed series of statements, Education Minister Luc Ferry described the motion as "inappropriate"; the Education Ministry indicated its hope that French and foreign universities might amplify their exchanges; the Foreign Ministry took pains in a press conference to disassociate official France from the caprice of a few misguided academics.Mon couer, c'est overflowing with pride pour la belle France! Vive la France! Liberte! Egalite! Fraternite!
Shortly thereafter, the mayor of Paris denounced the motion as a "shocking act and a tragic error"; Jack Lang, the Socialist deputy of Pas-de-Calais, declared that "Israeli universities are oases of tolerance, fraternity, freedom and democracy" and that "the proposal for a boycott is an act that encourages fanaticism and obscurantism." For good measure, the Quai d'Orsay reminded the press that "French authorities do not feel bound by the decisions of Paris VI university," and Le Monde published an editorial deploring the motion.
PS. Historical background: Bigwig's list of wars lost by France over the past 2000 years.
(via Shark)
The new Judenrein antiwar movement. The most prominent progressive Jewish organizations were absent at last week's antiwar protests, for a simple reason: no matter how left-wing you are, if you believe Israel has a right to exist as the homeland of the Jewish people, you aren't invited to speak.
So - do you want A.N.S.W.E.R. running your antiwar protests? Let's see whether United for Peace forces Jews to leave their identity outside the big tent.
Kind of makes you nostalgic for the days when Michael Lerner was the peace movement.
PS. My previous comment about Instapundit never linking to KesherTalk has been superceded by reality. (Glenn says he did link to Kesher Talk before. Must have been before my time, in the late Cretaceous or thereabouts.)
UPDATE: Lynn alerts me to one of her posts the eve of the march which I missed at the time. Turns out Lerner did summon theTikkun crowd to the march, in his inimitable nerdy wordy style. When read more closely, the Jewish Week article infers from Lerner's statements that he was going to boycott the march, but he doesn't actually say that himself. He does say in his pre-march sermon to the troops:
You know, now that I think about it . . . . it would take Lerner 15 minutes to make a point anyone else would make in 10. He needs one of those self-marketing courses which includes how to make a 30-second elevator speech.
Someone in comments asks where the article claims A.N.S.W.E.R. doesn't believe Israel has a right to exist. It's true I am inferring that, but my assumption is based on several years of reading statements by people at their point on the political circle. Also, Lerner is about as far as you can get on the Left and still believe Israel has a right to exist, so if they won't give him 15 min, and all the other speakers on Israel are from A.N.S.W.E.R.'s stable, what other conclusion am I supposed to draw?
UPDATE: Keep reading about the Shalom Center's attempts to maintain a principled approach to the anti-semitism of the antiwar movement.
The list of endorsing organizations for Saturday’s march is full of Arab and Muslim groups, but there are no Jewish organizations listed. The Shalom Center in Philadelphia, a Jewish Renewal outpost, will participate in a Friday night Tu B’Shvat service and seder [that was January 17th] and a “nonviolent civil disobedience action against the war near the White House” on Sunday. But the group will not have an official presence at the rally — in part because of concerns about the anti-Israel themes.Even Michael Lerner is avoiding these marches.
“I do feel uncomfortable with the way that ANSWER deals with Israel, and for that reason have declined to speak at the event unless I was given enough time to present a case for those of us who are anti-war but pro-Israel,” said Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of Tikkun magazine. . . . Another Jewish activist said that “those of us who oppose the Iraq war are cut off. . . .Read the whole thing.
So - do you want A.N.S.W.E.R. running your antiwar protests? Let's see whether United for Peace forces Jews to leave their identity outside the big tent.
Kind of makes you nostalgic for the days when Michael Lerner was the peace movement.
PS. My previous comment about Instapundit never linking to KesherTalk has been superceded by reality. (Glenn says he did link to Kesher Talk before. Must have been before my time, in the late Cretaceous or thereabouts.)
UPDATE: Lynn alerts me to one of her posts the eve of the march which I missed at the time. Turns out Lerner did summon theTikkun crowd to the march, in his inimitable nerdy wordy style. When read more closely, the Jewish Week article infers from Lerner's statements that he was going to boycott the march, but he doesn't actually say that himself. He does say in his pre-march sermon to the troops:
We approached the A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition and asked to be given enough time (minimum 15 minutes) to put forward our more complicated analysis, but were turned down.which is consistent with the Jewish Week article.
You know, now that I think about it . . . . it would take Lerner 15 minutes to make a point anyone else would make in 10. He needs one of those self-marketing courses which includes how to make a 30-second elevator speech.
Someone in comments asks where the article claims A.N.S.W.E.R. doesn't believe Israel has a right to exist. It's true I am inferring that, but my assumption is based on several years of reading statements by people at their point on the political circle. Also, Lerner is about as far as you can get on the Left and still believe Israel has a right to exist, so if they won't give him 15 min, and all the other speakers on Israel are from A.N.S.W.E.R.'s stable, what other conclusion am I supposed to draw?
UPDATE: Keep reading about the Shalom Center's attempts to maintain a principled approach to the anti-semitism of the antiwar movement.
Josh Chafetz has a great suggestion. Which I endorse with much feeling, since I get lots of unwanted email from the Shalom Center. Trying to get off their email list is practically impossible, and they crosspost to many Jewish lists, so everywhere you go, there they are. Arthur Waskow, the somewhat prolix author of these emails, is a dear man whom I respect deeply, who is worth 50 Michael Lerners, who has done and will yet do much good in the world, whose writings are wonderful sources of Jewish vitality and renewal. But I have two problems with him:
1) I don't want to get 4 duplicates of 5 emails from him every week announcing political protests.
2) He is full of shit on the war on Iraq.
So Arthur & Co. placed a full-page ad in several newspapers urging everyone to email Jewish leaders to denounce the war (and hijacking quotes by King and Heschel on Vietnam that have no parallel to Iraq). If you, however, believe the war is the least bad of all the alternatives, you can use one of these letter templates provided by Josh of Oxblog to email those same leaders and tell them so.
UPDATES: More recent posts on Jews in the antiwar movement here, here, and here. My essay about the antiwar movement and A.N.S.W.E.R. is here.
1) I don't want to get 4 duplicates of 5 emails from him every week announcing political protests.
2) He is full of shit on the war on Iraq.
So Arthur & Co. placed a full-page ad in several newspapers urging everyone to email Jewish leaders to denounce the war (and hijacking quotes by King and Heschel on Vietnam that have no parallel to Iraq). If you, however, believe the war is the least bad of all the alternatives, you can use one of these letter templates provided by Josh of Oxblog to email those same leaders and tell them so.
UPDATES: More recent posts on Jews in the antiwar movement here, here, and here. My essay about the antiwar movement and A.N.S.W.E.R. is here.
A breath of fresh air at No War Blog. Her name is Amy. As a commenter said of her post on NoWar:
Wow – an article that honestly expresses opposition to war, yet manages to be completely spin-free and lacking in hypocrisy – am I on the right site?
It's not about oil. For the US, anyway. Bookmark this for those arguments with "No war for oil" types.