Last night, the Iranian film “A Separation” directed by Asghar Farhadi won the Oscar for best foreign film. This is a fantastic and much-needed victory for the Iranian people. They have had so little to celebrate in recent years, it’s nice that – for at least one night – they have a reason to raise their heads high. Just watch how this one Iranian family reacted to last night's news:
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Monday, February 27, 2012
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Think Before you Tweet
For class, I'm reading Walter Lippmann's Public Opinion, which examines how the irrational construction of social perception undermines democratic governance. The entire book is very thought provoking, but I'd like to focus on one line in particular for this post:
Take just two recent online myths that would've had Lippmann popping Prozac. After the Bin Laden raid, countless Internet users posted the Martin Luther King Junior quote: "I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy." Then, a blogger's assertion that the quote is fake began to proliferate just as rapidly. Except, as it turns out, the quote is not entirely made up. We went from posting, retracting, to amending a viral meme in a matter of 48 hours.
But not all internet myths are so harmless the misattribution of quotes to national heroes. A few weeks ago, the picture below began to make the rounds. It purportedly shows an Israeli Subaru ad in which a car runs over some Palestinian kids with the caption "We'll see who can stand against you." As Iran's Press TV explains with thinly-veiled satisfication, the ad "has drawn considerable outrage for its implied promotion of running over Palestinian kids."
Except the ad's fake. A company spokesperson said, "we strongly condemn these elements that are trying to harm the good name of the company.” And the Palestinian Authority, which condemned the ad, admitted "it is not clear whether this is a genuine advertisement or whether someone is making use of the Subaru logo." The picture, however, is not fake. It shows a well-known incident last year in which an Israeli ran over Arab children in East Jerusalem.
Both of these online myths exemplify, in Lippmann's words, "our normal human habit of trying to squeeze into our stereotypes all that can be squeezed, and of casting into outer darkness that which does not fit." We believed the MLK quote because our mythologized MLK would have said something just like that. Anti-Zionists believed the Subaru ad because their demonized Israeli would have boasted about running over children just like the ad.
To overcome the shortfalls of public opinion, Lippmann urged a greater role for experts in informing the press and policy in democratic systems. The problem of social media is that every tweet or post is an implicit contention that people can rely on our expertise or ability to identify expertise. We users therefore need to take the responsibility to act as if we were experts. We must check our sources before we share them. More importantly, when we do make mistakes, it's not enough to just delete them. We have to share our mea culpas in the same way we share everything else. And most importantly, we must think before we tweet.
Taking such personal responsibility will go a long way in resisting the internet's inherent susceptibility to myth and echo chambers. It'll also let poor Lippmann rest a little easier.
For it is clear enough that under certain conditions men respond as powerfully to fictions as they do to realities, and that in many cases they help to create the very fictions to which they respond [...] Let him cast a stone who never passed on as the real inside truth what he had heard someone say who knew no more than he did.I would say Lippmann wrote this with Twitter in mind but, considering Public Opinion was published in 1922, that would've required a time machine or a favor from Nostradamus. If Lippmann expressed such pessimism for traditional media, I can't imagine the levels of despondency he'd reach contemplating social media.
Take just two recent online myths that would've had Lippmann popping Prozac. After the Bin Laden raid, countless Internet users posted the Martin Luther King Junior quote: "I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy." Then, a blogger's assertion that the quote is fake began to proliferate just as rapidly. Except, as it turns out, the quote is not entirely made up. We went from posting, retracting, to amending a viral meme in a matter of 48 hours.
But not all internet myths are so harmless the misattribution of quotes to national heroes. A few weeks ago, the picture below began to make the rounds. It purportedly shows an Israeli Subaru ad in which a car runs over some Palestinian kids with the caption "We'll see who can stand against you." As Iran's Press TV explains with thinly-veiled satisfication, the ad "has drawn considerable outrage for its implied promotion of running over Palestinian kids."
Except the ad's fake. A company spokesperson said, "we strongly condemn these elements that are trying to harm the good name of the company.” And the Palestinian Authority, which condemned the ad, admitted "it is not clear whether this is a genuine advertisement or whether someone is making use of the Subaru logo." The picture, however, is not fake. It shows a well-known incident last year in which an Israeli ran over Arab children in East Jerusalem.
Both of these online myths exemplify, in Lippmann's words, "our normal human habit of trying to squeeze into our stereotypes all that can be squeezed, and of casting into outer darkness that which does not fit." We believed the MLK quote because our mythologized MLK would have said something just like that. Anti-Zionists believed the Subaru ad because their demonized Israeli would have boasted about running over children just like the ad.
To overcome the shortfalls of public opinion, Lippmann urged a greater role for experts in informing the press and policy in democratic systems. The problem of social media is that every tweet or post is an implicit contention that people can rely on our expertise or ability to identify expertise. We users therefore need to take the responsibility to act as if we were experts. We must check our sources before we share them. More importantly, when we do make mistakes, it's not enough to just delete them. We have to share our mea culpas in the same way we share everything else. And most importantly, we must think before we tweet.
Taking such personal responsibility will go a long way in resisting the internet's inherent susceptibility to myth and echo chambers. It'll also let poor Lippmann rest a little easier.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
A Pro-Lebanese Strategy
Today, I went to an event at USIP on Lebanon and the Arab Spring featuring Representative Charles Boustany (R-LA). I was generally impressed with Rep. Boustany, not because I agreed with everything he said, but because he approached the issues from a critical and sober perspective. Unfortunately that's all too rare when it comes to the Hill and the Middle East.
During the Q&A, I asked the Congressman: "It seems we do not have a policy on Lebanon, but rather a set of policies on Lebanese actors and institutions. We have a policy on March 14 and March 8, on the STL and on the LAF. But what is our policy on Lebanon? Does it matter we don't have one?"
Rep. Boustany responded first by clarifying that the US doesn't have policies for countries, but rather strategies. He then admitted that the US has not sufficiently developed a clear, unified strategy for Lebanon. While his speech emphasized the need to continue military assistance, broaden educational exchanges, and support parliamentary processes, among other measures, he did not explicitly delineate the strategy that these policies serve. So I'll instead say what I think.
As Rep. Boustany asserted, our primary interest in Lebanon is stability. As a weak state overwhelmed by foreign influences, Lebanon is both susceptible to externally-driven conflict as well as a catalyst to regional instability. We therefore simply cannot afford a flare up of either internal sectarian tensions or an external conflict with Israel - especially at this time of fragile democratic revolutions and a stalled peace process in the region.
It's at this point that many point the finger at Hezbollah and its alliance with Iran and Syria. To be sure, they have all had - some more consistently than others - a negative and disruptive effect on Lebanese and regional politics. But it is a mistake to therefore conclude a pro-stability strategy is an anti-Hezbollah strategy.
That's exactly what we have done in recent years. We've viewed Lebanese politics as a zero-sum game in which we must counteract Hezbollah's influence at every turn. We support its political rivals. We arm the Lebanese military. We push for the Special Tribunal on Lebanon. None of these policies is troubling in of itself. But our intentions to use these policies primarily as an anti-Hezbollah cudgel only escalates the political tensions within Lebanon and the region as a whole. We are sometimes acting - an external actor as we are - in ways that are just as intrusive as Syria and Iran.
In that sense, we are acting at cross purposes. We push against Hezbollah because they are a destabilizing force. But then we contribute to the very dynamic of foreign intervention that makes Lebanon unstable.
Instead, we must reformulate our approach to Lebanon from an anti-Hezbollah to a pro-Lebanese strategy. Many of our policies would remain exactly the same. We would still train the Lebanese military, promote civil society, support governmental institutions like the parliament, and provide economic and development assistance. But we would do so with the ultimate purpose of reinforcing the sovereignty, legitimacy and effectiveness of the Lebanese government.
A pro-Lebanese strategy would also recognize that Hezbollah represents a legitimate segment of the Lebanese population. They may have external patrons, but they are not an external actor. We can help shape the political, economic and social environment that determines Hezbollah's popularity, but no one can ever fully excise Hezbollah from Lebanon's future. Accepting this fact and acting accordingly will require political courage not only here in DC, but also in Tel Aviv and Beirut.
What will help make that pill easier to swallow is the realization that a pro-Lebanese strategy will cause considerable consternation in Damascus and Tehran. In recent years, Hezbollah has had greater difficulty balancing its dual identities as a regional resistance militia and a national socio-political movement. A pro-Lebanese strategy would exacerbate this tension within Hezbollah and help shift the balance towards the national. It may even help lead to a situation where Hezbollah's leadership will be given a stark choice by the Lebanese people: abandon your regional patrons or we will abandon you.
Moreover, unlike Iran and Syria, we can take comfort that our fundamental ideology as a nation does not ring hollow. Iran and Syria have little to offer Lebanon besides repression and economic stagnation. That's why they have no choice but to derive the majority of their influence by pitting one Lebanese faction against the others. But we can offer Lebanon a far more appealing example - one in which democracy and prosperity unite the country and ensure its stability. By adopting a pro-Lebanese strategy, we double down on our belief that our fundamental values are indeed universal - a bet I'm willing to take.
UPDATE: I recently wrote a paper on what a pro-Lebanese framework would look like for resolving the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict. It also lays out the argument in much greater detail and, more importantly, addresses the counterarguments. I'll be looking for a way to upload and link the paper shortly.
UPDATE 2: You can read the paper here (PDF).
During the Q&A, I asked the Congressman: "It seems we do not have a policy on Lebanon, but rather a set of policies on Lebanese actors and institutions. We have a policy on March 14 and March 8, on the STL and on the LAF. But what is our policy on Lebanon? Does it matter we don't have one?"
Rep. Boustany responded first by clarifying that the US doesn't have policies for countries, but rather strategies. He then admitted that the US has not sufficiently developed a clear, unified strategy for Lebanon. While his speech emphasized the need to continue military assistance, broaden educational exchanges, and support parliamentary processes, among other measures, he did not explicitly delineate the strategy that these policies serve. So I'll instead say what I think.
As Rep. Boustany asserted, our primary interest in Lebanon is stability. As a weak state overwhelmed by foreign influences, Lebanon is both susceptible to externally-driven conflict as well as a catalyst to regional instability. We therefore simply cannot afford a flare up of either internal sectarian tensions or an external conflict with Israel - especially at this time of fragile democratic revolutions and a stalled peace process in the region.
It's at this point that many point the finger at Hezbollah and its alliance with Iran and Syria. To be sure, they have all had - some more consistently than others - a negative and disruptive effect on Lebanese and regional politics. But it is a mistake to therefore conclude a pro-stability strategy is an anti-Hezbollah strategy.
That's exactly what we have done in recent years. We've viewed Lebanese politics as a zero-sum game in which we must counteract Hezbollah's influence at every turn. We support its political rivals. We arm the Lebanese military. We push for the Special Tribunal on Lebanon. None of these policies is troubling in of itself. But our intentions to use these policies primarily as an anti-Hezbollah cudgel only escalates the political tensions within Lebanon and the region as a whole. We are sometimes acting - an external actor as we are - in ways that are just as intrusive as Syria and Iran.
In that sense, we are acting at cross purposes. We push against Hezbollah because they are a destabilizing force. But then we contribute to the very dynamic of foreign intervention that makes Lebanon unstable.
Instead, we must reformulate our approach to Lebanon from an anti-Hezbollah to a pro-Lebanese strategy. Many of our policies would remain exactly the same. We would still train the Lebanese military, promote civil society, support governmental institutions like the parliament, and provide economic and development assistance. But we would do so with the ultimate purpose of reinforcing the sovereignty, legitimacy and effectiveness of the Lebanese government.
A pro-Lebanese strategy would also recognize that Hezbollah represents a legitimate segment of the Lebanese population. They may have external patrons, but they are not an external actor. We can help shape the political, economic and social environment that determines Hezbollah's popularity, but no one can ever fully excise Hezbollah from Lebanon's future. Accepting this fact and acting accordingly will require political courage not only here in DC, but also in Tel Aviv and Beirut.
What will help make that pill easier to swallow is the realization that a pro-Lebanese strategy will cause considerable consternation in Damascus and Tehran. In recent years, Hezbollah has had greater difficulty balancing its dual identities as a regional resistance militia and a national socio-political movement. A pro-Lebanese strategy would exacerbate this tension within Hezbollah and help shift the balance towards the national. It may even help lead to a situation where Hezbollah's leadership will be given a stark choice by the Lebanese people: abandon your regional patrons or we will abandon you.
Moreover, unlike Iran and Syria, we can take comfort that our fundamental ideology as a nation does not ring hollow. Iran and Syria have little to offer Lebanon besides repression and economic stagnation. That's why they have no choice but to derive the majority of their influence by pitting one Lebanese faction against the others. But we can offer Lebanon a far more appealing example - one in which democracy and prosperity unite the country and ensure its stability. By adopting a pro-Lebanese strategy, we double down on our belief that our fundamental values are indeed universal - a bet I'm willing to take.
UPDATE: I recently wrote a paper on what a pro-Lebanese framework would look like for resolving the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict. It also lays out the argument in much greater detail and, more importantly, addresses the counterarguments. I'll be looking for a way to upload and link the paper shortly.
UPDATE 2: You can read the paper here (PDF).
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
The Muslim Brotherhood and Bin Laden
There has been some controversy over the Muslim Brotherhood reaction to the death of Osama Bin Laden. So I thought it'd be useful to translate their Arabic press release and explain what's going on.
Let's address the statement point by point. First, there is no doubt many conflate Islam with terrorism. Now I don't think it's as pervasive as the MB implies, but no one can deny it exists.
Second, condemning assassination does not mean the MB has decided to "stick with Bin Laden" and refused to "moderate." Quite the opposite in fact. For years the MB has struggled to definitively prove it has internalized democratic principles and rejects terrorism. Their condemnation of assassination must be understood in that light. If it supports the killing of Bin Laden, why wouldn't it support the assassination of rival politicians in Egypt? Moreover, this sentiment reflects a broader Arab and Muslim feeling that while they are happy he is gone, they are uneasy in how he was dispatched. As a movement competing in elections in Egypt, we can't expect the MB or any other Egyptian party to stray from public opinion.
Third, what is extreme about asking for fair trials for criminals, even bloodthirsty terrorists? We hear the same arguments here in the U.S. all the time.
Fourth, the MB has always sought to separate "legitimate resistance" against "occupation" from Al-Qaeda style terrorism. Of course, for Israelis facing indiscriminate rocketfire or American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, this distinction is entirely meaningless. But for the future of Egypt, it's hugely important. The Brotherhood views Al-Qaeda and like-minded individuals as a threat to its mantle as the primary Islamist movement in Egypt. It considers the AQ philosophy as an existential threat and treats the group accordingly.
Fifth, the demand for withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan and the recognition of the rights of Palestinians is not a unique MB demand. It's a near universal demand of Arabs and Muslims alike. The demand for the respect of sovereignty also reflects a broad societal concern over the history of colonialism and leadership pliant to foreign interests. The important question is not one of ends, but means. It's hard to criticize the MB for demanding such core planks of their political platform in a press release. The more important question is whether the MB will gain enough influence to fundamentally alter Egyptian foreign policy, and even more uncertain, whether it would choose to do so even if it did gain that capacity.
Understanding the Muslim Brotherhood is difficult enough. In fact, it's not even clear that the Muslim Brotherhood understands itself. Yet there's no doubt that hysteria over mundane press releases only makes the job harder.
Statement from the Muslim Brotherhood on the Assassination of Sheikh Osama Bin Laden (May 2, 2011)Eric Trager read this statement and oddly concludes "Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood Sticks with Bin Laden." He goes on argue that this statement casts doubt whether the MB will "moderate" in post-revolution Egypt. As Marc Lynch tweeted, "this is a bizarre reading." But that hasn't stopped others to agree with Trager.
The entire world and especially Muslims have experienced and been concerned by a malicious media campaign that conflates Islam with terrorism and describes Muslims as violent since connecting the events of September 11th to Al Qaeda.
Today, the American President announced that special forces from the American Marines successfully assassinated Osama Bin Laden, a woman, and children along with a number of companions. We now find ourselves facing a new situation.
The Muslim Brotherhood announces that they are against the use of violence in general and against the method of assassination. They instead favor fair trials of those accused of any crime.
The Muslim Brotherhood calls for the entire world and the Western world - both the people and especially its governments - to stop tying Islam with terrorism and to correct the false image of Islam that has been deliberately promoted for years.
The Muslim Brotherhood affirms the legitimacy of resistance against the foreign occupation of any country guaranteed by divine law and international conventions. To confuse legitimate resistance and violence against innocents has been the intention of the Zionist enemy in particular.
So long as occupation remains, so will legitimate resistance remain. America, NATO and the EU must quickly announce the end of the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq and recognize the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.
The Muslim Brotherhood calls for the US to refrain from intelligence operations against its detractors and to refrain from entering the internal affairs of any Arab or Muslim country.
Let's address the statement point by point. First, there is no doubt many conflate Islam with terrorism. Now I don't think it's as pervasive as the MB implies, but no one can deny it exists.
Second, condemning assassination does not mean the MB has decided to "stick with Bin Laden" and refused to "moderate." Quite the opposite in fact. For years the MB has struggled to definitively prove it has internalized democratic principles and rejects terrorism. Their condemnation of assassination must be understood in that light. If it supports the killing of Bin Laden, why wouldn't it support the assassination of rival politicians in Egypt? Moreover, this sentiment reflects a broader Arab and Muslim feeling that while they are happy he is gone, they are uneasy in how he was dispatched. As a movement competing in elections in Egypt, we can't expect the MB or any other Egyptian party to stray from public opinion.
Third, what is extreme about asking for fair trials for criminals, even bloodthirsty terrorists? We hear the same arguments here in the U.S. all the time.
Fourth, the MB has always sought to separate "legitimate resistance" against "occupation" from Al-Qaeda style terrorism. Of course, for Israelis facing indiscriminate rocketfire or American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, this distinction is entirely meaningless. But for the future of Egypt, it's hugely important. The Brotherhood views Al-Qaeda and like-minded individuals as a threat to its mantle as the primary Islamist movement in Egypt. It considers the AQ philosophy as an existential threat and treats the group accordingly.
Fifth, the demand for withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan and the recognition of the rights of Palestinians is not a unique MB demand. It's a near universal demand of Arabs and Muslims alike. The demand for the respect of sovereignty also reflects a broad societal concern over the history of colonialism and leadership pliant to foreign interests. The important question is not one of ends, but means. It's hard to criticize the MB for demanding such core planks of their political platform in a press release. The more important question is whether the MB will gain enough influence to fundamentally alter Egyptian foreign policy, and even more uncertain, whether it would choose to do so even if it did gain that capacity.
Understanding the Muslim Brotherhood is difficult enough. In fact, it's not even clear that the Muslim Brotherhood understands itself. Yet there's no doubt that hysteria over mundane press releases only makes the job harder.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
The Propaganda of Birthright Israel
Several times this week, I've stumbled into a discussion about Birthright Israel and propaganda. According to Taglit Birthright's website, it strives to:
The truth lies somewhere between. To explain why, we need to look at the difference between propaganda of commission and propaganda of omission.
To illustrate the difference, let's take the less controversial example of propaganda in Vietnam. While backpacking through the country a few years ago, I visited two memorable sites of anti-American propaganda: the Cu Chi Tunnels and the War Remnants Museum (formerly the American and Chinese War Atrocities Museum).
The Cu Chi Tunnels is a museum where tourists can experience life as a Viet Cong fighter, crawling through Labyrinthine subterranean tunnel networks and fighting the American imperialists. Before the tour, everyone watches an introduction movie that lauds one VC who earned the "American Killer Hero Medal" for holding off a dozen "American aggressors" with only a pistol, a grenade, and the courageous determination of the Communist cause. This is propaganda of commission: weaving a narrative that glorifies your cause and demonizes your enemies. Exaggeration and distortion are welcome.
The experience at the War Remnants Museum is quite different. The exhibits, with decent accuracy, simply describe what Americans did in Vietnam during the war. Agent Orange. My Lai massacre. Torture chambers. These actions speak for themselves and therefore the exaggeration and distortion of propaganda by commission is not needed.
But the War Remnants Museum is propaganda nonetheless - propaganda by omission. By only telling one side of the story without context, it ignored not only all the positive aspects of American intervention but also all the horrific crimes and atrocities committed by the Communists. There was no mention of the massacres at Hue, the summary executions of government collaborators, the reeducation camps, the torture and murder of POWs, etc.
The subtlety of propaganda by omission makes it more effective than propaganda by commission. I didn't need to know anything about Vietnam to recognize Cu Chi as propaganda. But recognizing the propaganda at the War Remnants Museum requires a foundation of pre-existing knowledge. It'd be very easy to leave that museum and not realize how it insidiously inculcated in me a narrative that, while not detached from reality, certainly distorts the actual historical record.
Birthright exercises propaganda by omission. The program takes young Jews and lets them experience all the great things about Israel - and there are a lot of great things to experience. But it does not let them experience all the bad things about life as a Palestinian in Israel - and there are a lot of bad things to experience.
Just as with the War Remnants Museum, it's very easy to participate in Birthright and not realize how the experience subtly influences your opinion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Importantly, this propaganda is at work whether Birthright intends it or not.
It may not sound like it, but I'm actually quite sympathetic towards Birthright. I'm generally tired of this tit-for-tat mindset that everything about Israel and Palestine must be framed within the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict that carefully balances the conflicting narratives in an even-handed manner. There's an Israel beyond the IP Conflict, just as there's a Palestine beyond the IP Conflict.
I therefore see nothing wrong with Jews experiencing all the best Israel has to offer. But I also would urge Birthright participants to fulfill a personal obligation to study the conflict on their own time, to understand that there's more to the Holy Land than what Birthright shows, and thereby to be able to identify propaganda by omission when they encounter it.
diminish the growing division between Israel and Jewish communities around the world; to strengthen the sense of solidarity among world Jewry; and to strengthen participants' personal Jewish identity and connection to the Jewish people.Despite this mission statement, some argue that Birthright's true mission is to strengthen a particularly hawkish construction of Israeli identity amongst American Jews. For these critics, Birthright is a summer training camp for the dreaded "Israel Lobby."
The truth lies somewhere between. To explain why, we need to look at the difference between propaganda of commission and propaganda of omission.
To illustrate the difference, let's take the less controversial example of propaganda in Vietnam. While backpacking through the country a few years ago, I visited two memorable sites of anti-American propaganda: the Cu Chi Tunnels and the War Remnants Museum (formerly the American and Chinese War Atrocities Museum).
The Cu Chi Tunnels is a museum where tourists can experience life as a Viet Cong fighter, crawling through Labyrinthine subterranean tunnel networks and fighting the American imperialists. Before the tour, everyone watches an introduction movie that lauds one VC who earned the "American Killer Hero Medal" for holding off a dozen "American aggressors" with only a pistol, a grenade, and the courageous determination of the Communist cause. This is propaganda of commission: weaving a narrative that glorifies your cause and demonizes your enemies. Exaggeration and distortion are welcome.
 |
| Me at Cu Chi Tunnels |
 |
| War Remnants Museum - Use of Water Torture |
 |
| War Remnants Museum - Replica of S. Vietnamese Prison |
But the War Remnants Museum is propaganda nonetheless - propaganda by omission. By only telling one side of the story without context, it ignored not only all the positive aspects of American intervention but also all the horrific crimes and atrocities committed by the Communists. There was no mention of the massacres at Hue, the summary executions of government collaborators, the reeducation camps, the torture and murder of POWs, etc.
The subtlety of propaganda by omission makes it more effective than propaganda by commission. I didn't need to know anything about Vietnam to recognize Cu Chi as propaganda. But recognizing the propaganda at the War Remnants Museum requires a foundation of pre-existing knowledge. It'd be very easy to leave that museum and not realize how it insidiously inculcated in me a narrative that, while not detached from reality, certainly distorts the actual historical record.
Birthright exercises propaganda by omission. The program takes young Jews and lets them experience all the great things about Israel - and there are a lot of great things to experience. But it does not let them experience all the bad things about life as a Palestinian in Israel - and there are a lot of bad things to experience.
Just as with the War Remnants Museum, it's very easy to participate in Birthright and not realize how the experience subtly influences your opinion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Importantly, this propaganda is at work whether Birthright intends it or not.
It may not sound like it, but I'm actually quite sympathetic towards Birthright. I'm generally tired of this tit-for-tat mindset that everything about Israel and Palestine must be framed within the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict that carefully balances the conflicting narratives in an even-handed manner. There's an Israel beyond the IP Conflict, just as there's a Palestine beyond the IP Conflict.
I therefore see nothing wrong with Jews experiencing all the best Israel has to offer. But I also would urge Birthright participants to fulfill a personal obligation to study the conflict on their own time, to understand that there's more to the Holy Land than what Birthright shows, and thereby to be able to identify propaganda by omission when they encounter it.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Terror Attacks, Israeli Reprisals, and Arab Democracy
We've seen a disturbing escalation of violence in Palestine and Israel over the past few days. Rockets from Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Shelling from Israel. Indiscriminate bombs from, so far, an unknown source.
If this trend continues, what will be its effect on the pro-democracy movements across the region?
We should first consider the motives behind the attacks. Arab dictators have long used attacks on Israel to distract from domestic problems. Currently, neither Hamas nor Fatah enjoy significant popular support. Just last week, Human Rights Watch criticized Hamas for violently suppressing peaceful protests in Gaza. Is it a coincidence that, just as people began to liken Hamas to Mubarak, rockets began to fly? Doubtful.
Until we have evidence about who bombed the Jerusalem bus stop today (there was also a pipe bomb two weeks ago), we shouldn't jump to conclusions over who is to blame. It may well be a Palestinian faction. Less likely but still possible, it could be a disillusioned lone actor. Perhaps more intriguing, some have suggested it very well could be a foreign government, such as Syria which has suddenly seen an uptick in unrest.
Regardless of who is responsible, it is far from clear that the violence will achieve its objective of displacing domestic discontent upon foreign enemies. For one, such old tricks have lost their effectiveness over time (fool me once...). But more importantly, for the first time Arabs believe they may finally have a real opportunity to effect change in their countries. Absorbed in their own righteous struggles, they will not be easily distracted. Just as Iranians have chanted "Neither Gaza, nor Lebanon, I will give my life for Iran," so are Arabs giving their lives - quite literally - for the sake of their own countries.
Thus while an Israeli-Palestinian flare-up may dampen Arab democratic movements, it will be far from a fatal blow. That, of course, does not mean that Arabs no longer care about the plight of the Palestinians. Quite the opposite, as many directly link the overthrow of their dictators to the eventual liberation of Palestine. But at least for now, focus has been turned inward.
While the violence will not end Arab demands for democracy, it will likely color how Arabs interpret American and European military intervention in Libya. Already, the Arab world - with the obvious exception of Libyans - has split on whether to support the mission in Libya. See, for example, how the outgoing Arab League head Amr Moussa has played rhetorical twister over the past week. That uneasiness will turn to outright indignation if violence escalates in Israel and Palestine. Many Arabs will simply not distinguish Israel F-16s flying over Gaza from American F-16s flying over Libya.
We have three purposes in Libya: protect civilians, preserve democracy's momentum in the region, and garner good will for joining the right side of history. If violence escalates in Israel and Palestine, the humanitarian component will remain, as well democracy's momentum for reasons described above. However, any good will we may have earned will be lost. Such perceptions of the U.S. will become increasingly important as Arab countries democratize.
Stopping the violence now is therefore essential. Because we have no influence over Palestinian violent extremists, we will have to primarily focus our efforts to ensure Israeli restraint. This will not be easy. Already, Israel has entered a bunker mentality, especially after the overthrow of Mubarak and the empowerment of Hezbollah. It is no coincidence they will likely ask for $20 billion more in U.S. foreign assistance. Moreover, as President Obama just affirmed, Israel clearly retains the right of self-defense. But sometimes the best defense is heroic restraint. And we will have to win that argument with the Israelis.
UPDATE: Hussein Ibish writes about the same topic here at Foreign Policy. He correctly points out that while increased Israeli-Palestinian violence "won't stop the reform movement dead in its tracks," it will alter the tone of these movements by adding fuel to an anti-Western Islamist narrative.
If this trend continues, what will be its effect on the pro-democracy movements across the region?
We should first consider the motives behind the attacks. Arab dictators have long used attacks on Israel to distract from domestic problems. Currently, neither Hamas nor Fatah enjoy significant popular support. Just last week, Human Rights Watch criticized Hamas for violently suppressing peaceful protests in Gaza. Is it a coincidence that, just as people began to liken Hamas to Mubarak, rockets began to fly? Doubtful.
Until we have evidence about who bombed the Jerusalem bus stop today (there was also a pipe bomb two weeks ago), we shouldn't jump to conclusions over who is to blame. It may well be a Palestinian faction. Less likely but still possible, it could be a disillusioned lone actor. Perhaps more intriguing, some have suggested it very well could be a foreign government, such as Syria which has suddenly seen an uptick in unrest.
Regardless of who is responsible, it is far from clear that the violence will achieve its objective of displacing domestic discontent upon foreign enemies. For one, such old tricks have lost their effectiveness over time (fool me once...). But more importantly, for the first time Arabs believe they may finally have a real opportunity to effect change in their countries. Absorbed in their own righteous struggles, they will not be easily distracted. Just as Iranians have chanted "Neither Gaza, nor Lebanon, I will give my life for Iran," so are Arabs giving their lives - quite literally - for the sake of their own countries.
Thus while an Israeli-Palestinian flare-up may dampen Arab democratic movements, it will be far from a fatal blow. That, of course, does not mean that Arabs no longer care about the plight of the Palestinians. Quite the opposite, as many directly link the overthrow of their dictators to the eventual liberation of Palestine. But at least for now, focus has been turned inward.
While the violence will not end Arab demands for democracy, it will likely color how Arabs interpret American and European military intervention in Libya. Already, the Arab world - with the obvious exception of Libyans - has split on whether to support the mission in Libya. See, for example, how the outgoing Arab League head Amr Moussa has played rhetorical twister over the past week. That uneasiness will turn to outright indignation if violence escalates in Israel and Palestine. Many Arabs will simply not distinguish Israel F-16s flying over Gaza from American F-16s flying over Libya.
We have three purposes in Libya: protect civilians, preserve democracy's momentum in the region, and garner good will for joining the right side of history. If violence escalates in Israel and Palestine, the humanitarian component will remain, as well democracy's momentum for reasons described above. However, any good will we may have earned will be lost. Such perceptions of the U.S. will become increasingly important as Arab countries democratize.
Stopping the violence now is therefore essential. Because we have no influence over Palestinian violent extremists, we will have to primarily focus our efforts to ensure Israeli restraint. This will not be easy. Already, Israel has entered a bunker mentality, especially after the overthrow of Mubarak and the empowerment of Hezbollah. It is no coincidence they will likely ask for $20 billion more in U.S. foreign assistance. Moreover, as President Obama just affirmed, Israel clearly retains the right of self-defense. But sometimes the best defense is heroic restraint. And we will have to win that argument with the Israelis.
UPDATE: Hussein Ibish writes about the same topic here at Foreign Policy. He correctly points out that while increased Israeli-Palestinian violence "won't stop the reform movement dead in its tracks," it will alter the tone of these movements by adding fuel to an anti-Western Islamist narrative.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Trading Settlements for Gilad Shalit
Some of what I plan to post here will actually be op ed and letter to editor submissions that were not published. Here's one I wrote way back in October about trading a settlement freeze in exchange for the release of Gilad Shalit, an IDF soldier imprisoned by Hamas.
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu should publicly offer to extend the settlement freeze in exchange for the release of Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier held hostage by Hamas. Whether Hamas says yes or no, Netanyahu will come out the winner.
Despite the best efforts of the Obama administration, the current round of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority has reached an impasse. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas refuses to negotiate so long as Israel continues to build settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Meanwhile, Netanyahu claims domestic politics precludes him from extending the freeze, especially after the Palestinians failed to negotiate until the waning weeks of the original freeze.
The Obama administration hasn’t given up hope yet. It has offered Netanyahu a package of incentives to reinstate the freeze while pressuring Abbas to acquiesce to some compromise less than a complete freeze. But neither side seems ready to budge.
Therefore, the ultimate success of these negotiations currently hinges upon Netanyahu’s willingness and ability to surmount right-wing opposition to extending the settlement freeze. For negotiations to continue, Netanyahu needs new sources of domestic support. More pessimistically, Netanyahu also needs a scapegoat should negotiations collapse.
A public offer to Hamas to exchange a settlement freeze for the release of Gilad Shalit would achieve both of those ends.
In the summer of 2006, Hamas militants crossed the Israel-Gaza border and kidnapped then-Corporal Shalit. Mounting international pressure, multiple military clashes, and several rounds of negotiations have all failed to bring Shalit home. Currently, Hamas demands the release of approximately 1,000 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Shalit’s freedom.
That is a tough pill to swallow for many Israelis, who balk at the large number of prisoners and fear that such a deal would encourage further kidnappings. But at the same time, the Gilad saga has resonated deeply within Israeli society. Nearly every Israeli household has some father, mother, son, or daughter serving in the military and can only too well imagine the tragedy that has befallen the Shalit family. If there is any cause that could rally Israelis to support a settlement freeze, it is the freedom of Gilad Shalit.
Plus, Israel has already shown a willingness to seek creative solutions with its offer to extend the freeze in exchange for Jonathan Pollard, the Israeli convicted of spying against the U.S.
Unfortunately, it is not clear Hamas would be interested in a Gilad-for-freeze deal. Through Gilad, they gain leverage over the Israeli government. It is unlikely Hamas would want to give up that leverage for the sake of a peace process sponsored by their Palestinian rivals. They much rather force Israel to release Hamas members from prison. Or just as likely, they might simply prefer to maintain a state of tension with Israel to build popular support for their armed resistance platform.
Yet Hamas would refuse the deal at its own peril. Palestinians desire an independent state above all else. The building of settlements precludes the realization of their aspirations in the most tangible of ways: the physical usurpation of the land of their future nation. Moreover, these negotiations represent the best chance for Palestinians to achieve statehood in the near-term.
Hamas would be left with a stark choice. Should they do what’s best for their organization and refuse the deal? Or should they do what’s best for Palestinians and release Shalit? Palestinians would be watching carefully to see where Hamas’ true interests lie.
Moreover, a Hamas refusal would allow Netanyahu to displace much of the blame for the negotiations collapsing. In this way, Netanyahu wins whether Hamas says yes or no. Either negotiations go forward or Hamas gets the blame.
This win-win situation works whether Netanyahu truly desires peace or not, a matter of contentious debate. Assuming Hamas would refuse the deal, Netanyahu could cynically make the offer to solely create a scapegoat that would obscure his own insincerity. If by some surprise Hamas does accept the deal, Netanyahu could easily find other obstacles to peace beyond settlement building.
For that reason, the United States should exert pressure to ensure that such an offer is extended with sincerity and that any resulting freeze is both comprehensive and durable. Moreover, the U.S. cannot allow such an offer to preclude other avenues that might allow talks to progress. President Obama must continue to think creatively about how the U.S. can prod, bribe, and compel the parties to return to the negotiating table. A trade of a settlement freeze for Gilad Shalit’s freedom is only one among many options.
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu should publicly offer to extend the settlement freeze in exchange for the release of Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier held hostage by Hamas. Whether Hamas says yes or no, Netanyahu will come out the winner.
Despite the best efforts of the Obama administration, the current round of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority has reached an impasse. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas refuses to negotiate so long as Israel continues to build settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Meanwhile, Netanyahu claims domestic politics precludes him from extending the freeze, especially after the Palestinians failed to negotiate until the waning weeks of the original freeze.
The Obama administration hasn’t given up hope yet. It has offered Netanyahu a package of incentives to reinstate the freeze while pressuring Abbas to acquiesce to some compromise less than a complete freeze. But neither side seems ready to budge.
Therefore, the ultimate success of these negotiations currently hinges upon Netanyahu’s willingness and ability to surmount right-wing opposition to extending the settlement freeze. For negotiations to continue, Netanyahu needs new sources of domestic support. More pessimistically, Netanyahu also needs a scapegoat should negotiations collapse.
A public offer to Hamas to exchange a settlement freeze for the release of Gilad Shalit would achieve both of those ends.
In the summer of 2006, Hamas militants crossed the Israel-Gaza border and kidnapped then-Corporal Shalit. Mounting international pressure, multiple military clashes, and several rounds of negotiations have all failed to bring Shalit home. Currently, Hamas demands the release of approximately 1,000 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Shalit’s freedom.
That is a tough pill to swallow for many Israelis, who balk at the large number of prisoners and fear that such a deal would encourage further kidnappings. But at the same time, the Gilad saga has resonated deeply within Israeli society. Nearly every Israeli household has some father, mother, son, or daughter serving in the military and can only too well imagine the tragedy that has befallen the Shalit family. If there is any cause that could rally Israelis to support a settlement freeze, it is the freedom of Gilad Shalit.
Plus, Israel has already shown a willingness to seek creative solutions with its offer to extend the freeze in exchange for Jonathan Pollard, the Israeli convicted of spying against the U.S.
Unfortunately, it is not clear Hamas would be interested in a Gilad-for-freeze deal. Through Gilad, they gain leverage over the Israeli government. It is unlikely Hamas would want to give up that leverage for the sake of a peace process sponsored by their Palestinian rivals. They much rather force Israel to release Hamas members from prison. Or just as likely, they might simply prefer to maintain a state of tension with Israel to build popular support for their armed resistance platform.
Yet Hamas would refuse the deal at its own peril. Palestinians desire an independent state above all else. The building of settlements precludes the realization of their aspirations in the most tangible of ways: the physical usurpation of the land of their future nation. Moreover, these negotiations represent the best chance for Palestinians to achieve statehood in the near-term.
Hamas would be left with a stark choice. Should they do what’s best for their organization and refuse the deal? Or should they do what’s best for Palestinians and release Shalit? Palestinians would be watching carefully to see where Hamas’ true interests lie.
Moreover, a Hamas refusal would allow Netanyahu to displace much of the blame for the negotiations collapsing. In this way, Netanyahu wins whether Hamas says yes or no. Either negotiations go forward or Hamas gets the blame.
This win-win situation works whether Netanyahu truly desires peace or not, a matter of contentious debate. Assuming Hamas would refuse the deal, Netanyahu could cynically make the offer to solely create a scapegoat that would obscure his own insincerity. If by some surprise Hamas does accept the deal, Netanyahu could easily find other obstacles to peace beyond settlement building.
For that reason, the United States should exert pressure to ensure that such an offer is extended with sincerity and that any resulting freeze is both comprehensive and durable. Moreover, the U.S. cannot allow such an offer to preclude other avenues that might allow talks to progress. President Obama must continue to think creatively about how the U.S. can prod, bribe, and compel the parties to return to the negotiating table. A trade of a settlement freeze for Gilad Shalit’s freedom is only one among many options.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Tags and the Israeli Psyche
I read the Israeli newspaper Haaretz every day. Here's the opinion page from 12/16.
Now, take a closer look at the tag cloud on the right.
Tags are keywords used to organize data, in this case the topics of newspaper articles. Tag clouds offer a visual representation of the most-common themes. Words in larger fonts on the top are more common than smaller fonts at the bottom. In this case, "Israel News" is the most frequent topic in Haaretz op eds (obviously), with Netanyahu the least common of the list provided.
Now, notice the higher frequency of the word "Holocaust" compared to the phrase "Peace Process."
So long as we Jews fixate on the horrors of our past and not the prospects for our future, we will not have peace in the Middle East.
PS Obviously using shallow evidence here, but I stand by the conclusion.
PPS I haven't found an English Arab newspaper that uses a tag cloud for comparison, but the conclusion applies to them too.
PPS Happy birthday Dad.
Now, take a closer look at the tag cloud on the right.
Tags are keywords used to organize data, in this case the topics of newspaper articles. Tag clouds offer a visual representation of the most-common themes. Words in larger fonts on the top are more common than smaller fonts at the bottom. In this case, "Israel News" is the most frequent topic in Haaretz op eds (obviously), with Netanyahu the least common of the list provided.
Now, notice the higher frequency of the word "Holocaust" compared to the phrase "Peace Process."
So long as we Jews fixate on the horrors of our past and not the prospects for our future, we will not have peace in the Middle East.
PS Obviously using shallow evidence here, but I stand by the conclusion.
PPS I haven't found an English Arab newspaper that uses a tag cloud for comparison, but the conclusion applies to them too.
PPS Happy birthday Dad.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Arab Israeli Women At Work
As explained by Himmat Zoabi in Haaretz, Israeli Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz recently sought to explain high unemployment amongst Arab Israeli women. Citing low female employment across the Arab world, Minister Steinitz partially blamed conservative Arab culture.
However, Zoabi argues that this argument obscures a more important truth. Namely, not only do Arab Israeli women work less than other Israeli women, but they even suffer from higher unemployment than woman in other Arab countries. According to Zoabi, 21.1% of Arab Israeli women are employed compared to 51.3% of all Israeli women. Meanwhile, 29% of Saudi women, 27% of Omani women and 42% of Moroccan women are employed.
The question, therefore, is, "why do fewer Arab women have jobs in Israel than Saudi Arabia?"
Zoabi primarily blames the Israeli government and its "policy of deliberate and consistent discrimination against Arab citizens." Specifically, compared to their Jewish counterparts, Arab villages have insufficient access to public transportation and employment training programs. Furthermore, Zoabi cites:
the shortage of day-care centers in Arab towns (of 1,600 day-care centers for children under 3 that receive government assistance, only 25 operate in Arab communities) and government-supported industrial zones (only 3.2 percent are in Arab areas). In addition, Arab women constitute a mere 3 percent of civil servants, even though the civil service is the largest employer of women in Israel.
Importantly, Zoabi does not dismiss the problems posed by Arab culture, but urges the government to "leave the social barriers to us." And, in fact, I have personally seen the efforts undertaken by Arab Israeli women to make a better life for themselves and their families. During a recent trip to Israel, I visited the women of the Sharikat Haya program, which trains Arab women and helps find them employment. Specifically, the women learn a range of practical skills, such as how to write a resume and use a computer, as well as Hebrew language courses.
But the truly inspiring part comes from listening to their stories. Most of them are under the age of 25, already have at least one child, and have decided to attend the program against the better judgement of their spouses. They are driven. They want to help their families. And they seek to discover their potential.
Importantly, the funding for Sharikat Haya comes from the Abraham Fund Initiatives that "seeks civic equality for Israel's Jewish and Arab Citizens as a moral and pragmatic imperative." Therefore, significant amounts of the financial support (I'm sorry but I can't read Hebrew to be certain of exact numbers) comes from the Jewish community. And that's great, the more the better.
But at the same time, we cannot neglect the other half of the problem that Zoabi outlines. For to truly solve the problem of high female unemployment, we need to tackle all its aspects - political, cultural, economic, linguistic, pragmatic - all at once.
Since 1989, Israeli's GDP/capita has more than quadrupled, but it has done so by and large without the participation of its Arab minority, both male and female. Imagine what might happen if the Israeli government addressed even half the issues Zoabi identifies. Imagine what might be accomplished if 20% of the Israeli population finally began to fully contribute. And imagine the implications for peaceful coexistance and, yes, even cooperation.
However, Zoabi argues that this argument obscures a more important truth. Namely, not only do Arab Israeli women work less than other Israeli women, but they even suffer from higher unemployment than woman in other Arab countries. According to Zoabi, 21.1% of Arab Israeli women are employed compared to 51.3% of all Israeli women. Meanwhile, 29% of Saudi women, 27% of Omani women and 42% of Moroccan women are employed.
The question, therefore, is, "why do fewer Arab women have jobs in Israel than Saudi Arabia?"
Zoabi primarily blames the Israeli government and its "policy of deliberate and consistent discrimination against Arab citizens." Specifically, compared to their Jewish counterparts, Arab villages have insufficient access to public transportation and employment training programs. Furthermore, Zoabi cites:
the shortage of day-care centers in Arab towns (of 1,600 day-care centers for children under 3 that receive government assistance, only 25 operate in Arab communities) and government-supported industrial zones (only 3.2 percent are in Arab areas). In addition, Arab women constitute a mere 3 percent of civil servants, even though the civil service is the largest employer of women in Israel.
Importantly, Zoabi does not dismiss the problems posed by Arab culture, but urges the government to "leave the social barriers to us." And, in fact, I have personally seen the efforts undertaken by Arab Israeli women to make a better life for themselves and their families. During a recent trip to Israel, I visited the women of the Sharikat Haya program, which trains Arab women and helps find them employment. Specifically, the women learn a range of practical skills, such as how to write a resume and use a computer, as well as Hebrew language courses.
But the truly inspiring part comes from listening to their stories. Most of them are under the age of 25, already have at least one child, and have decided to attend the program against the better judgement of their spouses. They are driven. They want to help their families. And they seek to discover their potential.
Importantly, the funding for Sharikat Haya comes from the Abraham Fund Initiatives that "seeks civic equality for Israel's Jewish and Arab Citizens as a moral and pragmatic imperative." Therefore, significant amounts of the financial support (I'm sorry but I can't read Hebrew to be certain of exact numbers) comes from the Jewish community. And that's great, the more the better.
But at the same time, we cannot neglect the other half of the problem that Zoabi outlines. For to truly solve the problem of high female unemployment, we need to tackle all its aspects - political, cultural, economic, linguistic, pragmatic - all at once.
Since 1989, Israeli's GDP/capita has more than quadrupled, but it has done so by and large without the participation of its Arab minority, both male and female. Imagine what might happen if the Israeli government addressed even half the issues Zoabi identifies. Imagine what might be accomplished if 20% of the Israeli population finally began to fully contribute. And imagine the implications for peaceful coexistance and, yes, even cooperation.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
The Haredim Conundrum
Bernard Avishai at TPMCafe reports on a telling story about an Intel facility in Israel. Last Sabbath, ultra-orthodox Haredi rabbis and their disciples descended upon the Intel compound and vandalized it. After a meeting with the Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat and Knesset Speaker Ruby Rivlin, who Avishai calls "rightists tied to Haredi voters," the groups came to an agreement. Only 20 of the usual 120 employees would come to work on Saturdays and none of them would be Jewish. But, as Avishai informs, the compromise apparently did not go far enough and the Haredi "mobs were back yesterday demanding a complete shut down."
The Haredi Jews present a difficult conundrum for the Jewish State of Israel. On one hand, they claim that studying Torah is their profession. And, after all, what Jew can be against that? But on the other hand, studying Torah is their profession. In other words, they don't work. According to data from the Israeli and Housing Construction Ministry, approximately 70% of Haredi men are unemployed.
Not only do they fail to contribute to society in any material way, but Israel society actually has to pay them through various welfare programs. In fact, according to Meirav Arlosoroff, the Haredi Jews are offered such a large subsidy to study Torah that they have no economic incentive to seek regular employment. While there has been discrimination against the Haredim in the workplace, it is clear many are quite happy living off the largess of the state.
Beyond economics, the Haredim conundrum plays directly into the Israeli struggle of how to define the Jewish State and Judaism more generally. Ask a typical Haredi rabbi in Meah Shearim and he'll define Judaism in exactly the same way a rabbi would have in 17th century Eastern Europe. Obviously, most Jews in Israel (and elsewhere) have trouble with such an uncompromising definition.
The problem is not in the difference in opinion, but in the suggestion that Haredim maintain the sole prerogative to define Judaism to the exclusion of other equally-valid possibilities. It is this belief in their exclusive right to define Judaism that motivates their "defense" of the Sabbath, as exemplified with the protests at Intel (or, for anyone secular who has ventured too deeply into Haredim territory, the all-too-real threat of rock throwing).
I visited Israel for the first time this summer after an extended stay in the Arab world. Coincidentally, I visited at the same time the Haredim were protesting a parking lot that was open on the Sabbath. It is odd to admit that, after exploring countless Arab neighborhoods, I felt the most unwanted when visiting Haredi areas. But it is downright sad to admit that, after visiting so many mosques, I felt the most alien when visiting the epicenter of Judaism - the Wailing Wall - surrounded by Haredim, Jews that I do not fully understand nor fully understand me.
Below, I've added a picture from my excursion into Meah Shearim. Among other announcements, a flier exclaims, that people are "murdering" the Sabbath and calls for protests.
The Haredi Jews present a difficult conundrum for the Jewish State of Israel. On one hand, they claim that studying Torah is their profession. And, after all, what Jew can be against that? But on the other hand, studying Torah is their profession. In other words, they don't work. According to data from the Israeli and Housing Construction Ministry, approximately 70% of Haredi men are unemployed.
Not only do they fail to contribute to society in any material way, but Israel society actually has to pay them through various welfare programs. In fact, according to Meirav Arlosoroff, the Haredi Jews are offered such a large subsidy to study Torah that they have no economic incentive to seek regular employment. While there has been discrimination against the Haredim in the workplace, it is clear many are quite happy living off the largess of the state.
Beyond economics, the Haredim conundrum plays directly into the Israeli struggle of how to define the Jewish State and Judaism more generally. Ask a typical Haredi rabbi in Meah Shearim and he'll define Judaism in exactly the same way a rabbi would have in 17th century Eastern Europe. Obviously, most Jews in Israel (and elsewhere) have trouble with such an uncompromising definition.
The problem is not in the difference in opinion, but in the suggestion that Haredim maintain the sole prerogative to define Judaism to the exclusion of other equally-valid possibilities. It is this belief in their exclusive right to define Judaism that motivates their "defense" of the Sabbath, as exemplified with the protests at Intel (or, for anyone secular who has ventured too deeply into Haredim territory, the all-too-real threat of rock throwing).
I visited Israel for the first time this summer after an extended stay in the Arab world. Coincidentally, I visited at the same time the Haredim were protesting a parking lot that was open on the Sabbath. It is odd to admit that, after exploring countless Arab neighborhoods, I felt the most unwanted when visiting Haredi areas. But it is downright sad to admit that, after visiting so many mosques, I felt the most alien when visiting the epicenter of Judaism - the Wailing Wall - surrounded by Haredim, Jews that I do not fully understand nor fully understand me.
Below, I've added a picture from my excursion into Meah Shearim. Among other announcements, a flier exclaims, that people are "murdering" the Sabbath and calls for protests.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Thinking About the Temple Mount
Earlier this week, I called out the Lebanese newspaper The Daily Star for mislabeling Israeli soldiers as "Jewish troops." It was a clear example of journalism gone awry.
While writing the post, I almost included another example of sloppy journalism, but I left it out for stylistic reasons. So I'm glad that Evelyn Gordon at Commentary has spotted the same mistake and taken the effort to correct it.
In a recent New York Times article, Isabel Kershner reviews an interesting new book about the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, entitled "Where Heaven and Earth Meet: Jerusalem's Sacred Esplanade." According to Kershner, the book combines Muslim, Christian and Jewish experts to discuss the "history, archaeology, aesthetics and politics of the place that Jews revere as the location of their two ancient temples, and that now houses the Al Aksa Mosque, the third holiest site in Islam."
Everything was going great until I reached this sentence: "The lack of archaeological evidence of the ancient temples has led many Palestinians to deny any real Jewish attachment or claim to the plateau."
While there's no question some Palestinians have dubiously questioned the Temple Mount's Jewish roots, Kershner unfortunately phrases the sentence to imply that there is, in fact, a paucity of evidence. Except there is plenty of evidence.
As Gordon points out, the Jewish temple is "well-documented in extant writings from the period" and there are several walls still standing. I have physically touched the evidence, walked around the evidence and ventured beneath it - as have millions of other tourists who visited the Western Wall. It's existence is not in question to anyone who can see.
Gordon goes on to explain why such an important archaeological site has not received the amount of archaeological scrutiny it deserves. Namely, since the 1967 War and the capture of East Jerusalem, Israel has allowed the Temple Mount to remain under Muslim authority, making excavations impossible due to political and religious sensitivities.
And then Gordon makes a mistake, I believe, more damaging than the New York Times article she sets out to correct. She writes, "perhaps Jerusalem needs to rethink its tactics - and start demonstrating the Jewish connection to the Mount in actions rather than words [...] letting Jews pray on a designated section of the Mount devoid of mosques would be an excellent place to begin."
This would undoubtedly start the Third Intifada. As is, tensions are incredibly high throughout the Holy Land. Palestinians and Israelis are already clashing over the Temple Mount, with Muslim leaders calling to "defend the Temple Mount from conquest by Jews" as right-wing Jews flock to the Mount to raise holy hell. Meanwhile, scholar Steven Cook concluded this week that "a third intifada is likely to erupt in the near future" if the political situation continues to deteriorate. Nor should we forget what instigated the Second Intifada: Ariel Sharon's ill-fated visit to the Temple Mount.
In other words, the gasoline has already been poured over the tinder. All we're waiting for is a spark, one that Gordon seems ready to provide.
In the long-run, sure, it seems fair to let Jews pray on the Temple Mount in a cordoned-off section. After all, it's both a Jewish and a Muslim holy site. But until cooler heads prevail, political realities dictate otherwise.
*FYI, I read another bad idea today. From Sarah Palin. She argues for continued expansion of settlements in the West Bank because Israel's population "is going to grow [...] in the days and weeks and months ahead." Blake Hounshell at Foreign Policy does a good job summing up why that's a horrible idea.
While writing the post, I almost included another example of sloppy journalism, but I left it out for stylistic reasons. So I'm glad that Evelyn Gordon at Commentary has spotted the same mistake and taken the effort to correct it.
In a recent New York Times article, Isabel Kershner reviews an interesting new book about the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, entitled "Where Heaven and Earth Meet: Jerusalem's Sacred Esplanade." According to Kershner, the book combines Muslim, Christian and Jewish experts to discuss the "history, archaeology, aesthetics and politics of the place that Jews revere as the location of their two ancient temples, and that now houses the Al Aksa Mosque, the third holiest site in Islam."
Everything was going great until I reached this sentence: "The lack of archaeological evidence of the ancient temples has led many Palestinians to deny any real Jewish attachment or claim to the plateau."
While there's no question some Palestinians have dubiously questioned the Temple Mount's Jewish roots, Kershner unfortunately phrases the sentence to imply that there is, in fact, a paucity of evidence. Except there is plenty of evidence.
As Gordon points out, the Jewish temple is "well-documented in extant writings from the period" and there are several walls still standing. I have physically touched the evidence, walked around the evidence and ventured beneath it - as have millions of other tourists who visited the Western Wall. It's existence is not in question to anyone who can see.
Gordon goes on to explain why such an important archaeological site has not received the amount of archaeological scrutiny it deserves. Namely, since the 1967 War and the capture of East Jerusalem, Israel has allowed the Temple Mount to remain under Muslim authority, making excavations impossible due to political and religious sensitivities.
And then Gordon makes a mistake, I believe, more damaging than the New York Times article she sets out to correct. She writes, "perhaps Jerusalem needs to rethink its tactics - and start demonstrating the Jewish connection to the Mount in actions rather than words [...] letting Jews pray on a designated section of the Mount devoid of mosques would be an excellent place to begin."
This would undoubtedly start the Third Intifada. As is, tensions are incredibly high throughout the Holy Land. Palestinians and Israelis are already clashing over the Temple Mount, with Muslim leaders calling to "defend the Temple Mount from conquest by Jews" as right-wing Jews flock to the Mount to raise holy hell. Meanwhile, scholar Steven Cook concluded this week that "a third intifada is likely to erupt in the near future" if the political situation continues to deteriorate. Nor should we forget what instigated the Second Intifada: Ariel Sharon's ill-fated visit to the Temple Mount.
In other words, the gasoline has already been poured over the tinder. All we're waiting for is a spark, one that Gordon seems ready to provide.
In the long-run, sure, it seems fair to let Jews pray on the Temple Mount in a cordoned-off section. After all, it's both a Jewish and a Muslim holy site. But until cooler heads prevail, political realities dictate otherwise.
*FYI, I read another bad idea today. From Sarah Palin. She argues for continued expansion of settlements in the West Bank because Israel's population "is going to grow [...] in the days and weeks and months ahead." Blake Hounshell at Foreign Policy does a good job summing up why that's a horrible idea.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
When Leads Mislead
According to Reuters, Israeli soldiers killed a Palestinian and wounded two more near the Gaza border on Friday. An Israel Defense Forces spokeswoman stated the soldiers opened fire after suspecting the Palestinians were planting explosives near the security barrier. In turn, Hamas claimed that the wounded teenagers were out on a hunting trip.
The Lebanese English-language newspaper The Daily Star also reported on the same shooting. In fact, the paper printed the syndicated version of the Reuters article verbatim. Well, that is, except for the title.
In the original Reuters version, the title reads, "Israel kills Palestinian in Gaza confrontation." But The Daily Star editors opted for, "Jewish troops shoot Palestinian dead in Gaza confrontation."
Calling Israeli soldiers "Jewish troops" is both misleading and damaging.
It misleads because many non-Jews serve in the Israel Defense Forces. Israeli Druze and Circassian men fall under mandatory conscription laws like any Jewish Israeli. Furthermore, many Bedouin voluntarily join the IDF, often as a means of social mobility. Non-Jewish IDF soldiers have risen to highest ranks of the military, disproportionately volunteer for combat positions, and have fought and died for the state of Israel. Therefore, it's no surprise that IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi has praised minorities in the military, specifically calling the Druze "our generation's Maccabees."
It damages because it perpetuates the widespread conflation of Judaism and Zionism. For one, some of Israel's greatest critics are Jewish while some of its strongest supporters are not. But more importantly, it recasts the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from a political struggle of competing nationalisms into a religious struggle of irreconcilable faiths. While we can compromise to find a political solution, only God can resolve a dispute between religions.
The Lebanese English-language newspaper The Daily Star also reported on the same shooting. In fact, the paper printed the syndicated version of the Reuters article verbatim. Well, that is, except for the title.
In the original Reuters version, the title reads, "Israel kills Palestinian in Gaza confrontation." But The Daily Star editors opted for, "Jewish troops shoot Palestinian dead in Gaza confrontation."
Calling Israeli soldiers "Jewish troops" is both misleading and damaging.
It misleads because many non-Jews serve in the Israel Defense Forces. Israeli Druze and Circassian men fall under mandatory conscription laws like any Jewish Israeli. Furthermore, many Bedouin voluntarily join the IDF, often as a means of social mobility. Non-Jewish IDF soldiers have risen to highest ranks of the military, disproportionately volunteer for combat positions, and have fought and died for the state of Israel. Therefore, it's no surprise that IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi has praised minorities in the military, specifically calling the Druze "our generation's Maccabees."
It damages because it perpetuates the widespread conflation of Judaism and Zionism. For one, some of Israel's greatest critics are Jewish while some of its strongest supporters are not. But more importantly, it recasts the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from a political struggle of competing nationalisms into a religious struggle of irreconcilable faiths. While we can compromise to find a political solution, only God can resolve a dispute between religions.
*Out of curiosity, I also checked Al Jazeera English, which reported "Israeli troops kill Palestinian."
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Food War Continues
Over the past few months, Lebanon has struck against Israel along several culinary fronts, claiming the world's largest plate of hummus, tabbouleh salad and kebbe dish.
But now, Israel is on the counterattack. The northern Israeli town of Shfaram is trying to reclaim the record for biggest tabbouleh salad. When finished, the salad will weigh four tons and use 1,540 pounds of tomatoes, as well as inordinate amounts of parsley, lemon juice and olive oil.
In a previous post, I worried that a simple food fight between Israel and Lebanon was taking on overblown proportions. Food should be used for enjoyment, not symbolic salvos. Well, I was wrong.
You see, the town of Shfaram isn't seeking the record to spite Lebanon. They are pursing a more noble goal of bringing together the town's disparate Muslims, Christians and Druze for a common cause. Earlier this year, riots broke out between the disparate groups over accusations of religious defamation. Now, according to the event organizer, they are cooking together "for the union of the town."
So, I've changed my mind. Using food as symbolic salvos is okay with me, so long as they're aimed at bringing people together, not keeping people apart.
But now, Israel is on the counterattack. The northern Israeli town of Shfaram is trying to reclaim the record for biggest tabbouleh salad. When finished, the salad will weigh four tons and use 1,540 pounds of tomatoes, as well as inordinate amounts of parsley, lemon juice and olive oil.
In a previous post, I worried that a simple food fight between Israel and Lebanon was taking on overblown proportions. Food should be used for enjoyment, not symbolic salvos. Well, I was wrong.
You see, the town of Shfaram isn't seeking the record to spite Lebanon. They are pursing a more noble goal of bringing together the town's disparate Muslims, Christians and Druze for a common cause. Earlier this year, riots broke out between the disparate groups over accusations of religious defamation. Now, according to the event organizer, they are cooking together "for the union of the town."
So, I've changed my mind. Using food as symbolic salvos is okay with me, so long as they're aimed at bringing people together, not keeping people apart.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Sanctioning Shalom
According to Deena Jawhar in the Middle East International, Bahrain's elected lower house of parliament has unanimously passed a bill sanctioning all contact with Israelis. If also passed by the upper house, a simple Shalom could result in fines up to $25,000 or five years of imprisonment.
Jawhar explains that while Bahrain's government (read: King Hamad) does not officially recognize Israel, it has taken several measures in recent years such as
As such, the King views the bill as an affront to his prerogative to formulate foreign policy. In fact, the crown prince has argued that normalisation with Israel could bring economic benefits to the country - an argument to which the lower house of parliament and its constituents obviously don't give much credence. However, the upper house may have little choice but to follow the government's line, given that they are appointed by the King himself. Therefore, it is unlikely the bill will ever become a law.
This episode serves as a reminder about how deeply and pervasively hatred towards Israel flows through the Arab world. I can understand why Arabs feel so strongly about the plight of the Palestinian people. I can even comprehend why, at the cost of their own economic welfare, the Bahraini parliament is willing to shoot symbolic salvos at Tel Aviv. But what I don't understand - and what I don't think they have considered - is how their anger also hurts the very people they ostensibly seek to help.
An Israel that feels under siege will not and cannot make peace. Nor is there any shortage of reasons for Israel to feel in danger. If not Hamas, then Hezbollah. If not Hezbollah, then Iran. Then let's not forget Syria. Oh, and al Qaeda-inspired Sunni splinter groups. So does Israel need to feel threatened by Bahrain's lower house of parliament? No, but it's just simply one more excuse to retreat into a psychological bunker.
For there to be a political peace, there must first be a minimum level of mutual trust and mutual confidence. And there can be neither trust nor confidence without contact between the Arabs and Israelis. That is why it is so essential, as President Obama has urged, for both sides to offer gradual confidence-building measures to undergird any political negotiations.
But episodes like these make me wonder whether the anger is simply too great right now to move forward. While President Obama was correct to make the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a top priority from the get-go, it might now be better for everyone to take a breather and try again after tempers have cooled.
Jawhar explains that while Bahrain's government (read: King Hamad) does not officially recognize Israel, it has taken several measures in recent years such as
the closure of an Israel boycott office in 2005; a proposal by the foreign minister last year to establish a regional forum including Israel; a call for dialogue with Israelis made by Crown Prince Sheikh Salman bin-Hamad in a Washington Post article published in July; and King Hamad's regular meetings with pro-Israel groups during trips abroad.
As such, the King views the bill as an affront to his prerogative to formulate foreign policy. In fact, the crown prince has argued that normalisation with Israel could bring economic benefits to the country - an argument to which the lower house of parliament and its constituents obviously don't give much credence. However, the upper house may have little choice but to follow the government's line, given that they are appointed by the King himself. Therefore, it is unlikely the bill will ever become a law.
This episode serves as a reminder about how deeply and pervasively hatred towards Israel flows through the Arab world. I can understand why Arabs feel so strongly about the plight of the Palestinian people. I can even comprehend why, at the cost of their own economic welfare, the Bahraini parliament is willing to shoot symbolic salvos at Tel Aviv. But what I don't understand - and what I don't think they have considered - is how their anger also hurts the very people they ostensibly seek to help.
An Israel that feels under siege will not and cannot make peace. Nor is there any shortage of reasons for Israel to feel in danger. If not Hamas, then Hezbollah. If not Hezbollah, then Iran. Then let's not forget Syria. Oh, and al Qaeda-inspired Sunni splinter groups. So does Israel need to feel threatened by Bahrain's lower house of parliament? No, but it's just simply one more excuse to retreat into a psychological bunker.
For there to be a political peace, there must first be a minimum level of mutual trust and mutual confidence. And there can be neither trust nor confidence without contact between the Arabs and Israelis. That is why it is so essential, as President Obama has urged, for both sides to offer gradual confidence-building measures to undergird any political negotiations.
But episodes like these make me wonder whether the anger is simply too great right now to move forward. While President Obama was correct to make the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a top priority from the get-go, it might now be better for everyone to take a breather and try again after tempers have cooled.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Which is Safer?
Last night, I got mugged a few blocks away from my Columbia Heights apartment. Maybe I looked like easy prey in my Halloween attire. In any case, a taser, gun and stolen wallet later, I began to ask the question: was I safer in the Middle East?
On one hand, I never felt unsafe in any of the countries I visited. It didn't matter what time it was, what I street I was on, what I was doing or who I was doing it with. I was safe (admittedly, girls often have a different experience). All in all, the only muggers in the Middle East tend to be the thieves who run the government and the thugs who work for it.
On the other hand, there is no hiding the political and religious violence that troubles nearly every country. While I was in Cairo, terrorists bombed the famous market/tourist trap Khan Khalili. When I was in Dubai, I met a dozen Palestinian children maimed during the January war in Gaza. In Israel, I saw a bomb removal squad detonate a suspicious package. And then there's crossing the street, an all together different kind of terror.
In comparison, political and religious violence is relatively rare in United States. But miscreants, muggers and murderers abound. They're so common place that a police officer told me to not bother reporting my mugging - too many of them to deal with.
So which is safer? The sporadic, sensational, arbitrary violence of the Middle East? Or the frequent, common, ho hum violence of the United States?
Objectively, I'd have to go with the Middle East (I have no data, just anecdotal evidence). But safety hinges not so much on objectivity but on a psychological state of mind. There is a certain perverse logic to mugging. They took my money so they can spend it. I can understand that. In contrast, it's much harder to rationalize a bomb that indiscriminately kills civilians to make a political or religious point. It is that incomprehensibility that makes terrorism so frightening. And, in turn, it is what gives the Middle East its over-exaggerated reputation for danger.
On one hand, I never felt unsafe in any of the countries I visited. It didn't matter what time it was, what I street I was on, what I was doing or who I was doing it with. I was safe (admittedly, girls often have a different experience). All in all, the only muggers in the Middle East tend to be the thieves who run the government and the thugs who work for it.
On the other hand, there is no hiding the political and religious violence that troubles nearly every country. While I was in Cairo, terrorists bombed the famous market/tourist trap Khan Khalili. When I was in Dubai, I met a dozen Palestinian children maimed during the January war in Gaza. In Israel, I saw a bomb removal squad detonate a suspicious package. And then there's crossing the street, an all together different kind of terror.
In comparison, political and religious violence is relatively rare in United States. But miscreants, muggers and murderers abound. They're so common place that a police officer told me to not bother reporting my mugging - too many of them to deal with.
So which is safer? The sporadic, sensational, arbitrary violence of the Middle East? Or the frequent, common, ho hum violence of the United States?
Objectively, I'd have to go with the Middle East (I have no data, just anecdotal evidence). But safety hinges not so much on objectivity but on a psychological state of mind. There is a certain perverse logic to mugging. They took my money so they can spend it. I can understand that. In contrast, it's much harder to rationalize a bomb that indiscriminately kills civilians to make a political or religious point. It is that incomprehensibility that makes terrorism so frightening. And, in turn, it is what gives the Middle East its over-exaggerated reputation for danger.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Gaza Tunnels and Rockets
Time Magazine just released a great photo album about the Gaza Tunnels. To give a quick background, Gaza has been under a strict blockade by both Israel and Egypt since the militant Islamist Hamas took control. The effect on the everyday lives of Gazans has been devastating, with up to 80% of the population reliant on some type of assistance.
In response to the blockade, Gazans have constructed countless tunnels underneath the Egyptian-Gaza border. Originally intended for military goods, a veritable boom economy has sprouted around the tunnel system. All kinds of products now make the subterranean trip beneath the border, including animals for the Gaza zoo (though it was cheaper to paint stripes on a donkey than bring in a real zebra) . If you're interested in taking a trip yourself through the tunnels, check out this video by Current TV contributor and Gaza resident Zouheir Alnajjar.
However, we shouldn't forget why the blockade was originally instituted. Israel has been under intermittent but terrifying rocket attacks for years, both from Gaza and Lebanon. Besides his video on the tunnels, Alnajjar also provides an unsettling glimpse into the process of building and firing a Qassam rocket. But I'll embed this video by Jaron Gilinksy, also from Current, that shows a Katyusha rocket attack from Lebanon in 2006 that hits as he conducts an interview about that very topic.
In response to the blockade, Gazans have constructed countless tunnels underneath the Egyptian-Gaza border. Originally intended for military goods, a veritable boom economy has sprouted around the tunnel system. All kinds of products now make the subterranean trip beneath the border, including animals for the Gaza zoo (though it was cheaper to paint stripes on a donkey than bring in a real zebra) . If you're interested in taking a trip yourself through the tunnels, check out this video by Current TV contributor and Gaza resident Zouheir Alnajjar.
However, we shouldn't forget why the blockade was originally instituted. Israel has been under intermittent but terrifying rocket attacks for years, both from Gaza and Lebanon. Besides his video on the tunnels, Alnajjar also provides an unsettling glimpse into the process of building and firing a Qassam rocket. But I'll embed this video by Jaron Gilinksy, also from Current, that shows a Katyusha rocket attack from Lebanon in 2006 that hits as he conducts an interview about that very topic.
Friday, October 30, 2009
I'm Not the Next Great Pundit
The Washington Post is hosting a contest to determine America's Next Great Pundit. Almost 5,000 people submitted op-eds to become one of ten finalists, who will now go on to duke it out in a Survivor-like competition. The ultimate winner gets a column in the paper for 13 weeks. Considering one of the finalists is a Nobel laureate, it's not much of a surprise I didn't get chosen. In any case, here's my failed submission:
I recently visited the Israeli Holocaust Museum Yad Vashem that memorializes the victims and honors the countless heroes who resisted the Nazi genocide. The museum cuts like a chasm on top of Mount Herzl, creating a near-overwhelming feeling of constriction as the walls close ever tighter around you. By the end, it’s hard to breathe.
I thought I had left the Holocaust behind me when I returned home to the United States. I was wrong.
Apparently now in Washington, issues are too cumbersome, earnest debate too burdensome. It’s much easier to claim you caught the other side practicing their best “Sieg Heil!” in front of the mirror. Like Yad Vashem, American politics has become suffocating.
When Jews discuss the Holocaust, we often invoke the mantra “Never Again.” We promise ourselves that never again will the Jewish people submit to subjugation and annihilation. We promise ourselves that never again will the Jewish people precariously cower behind the inconsistent protection of other nations. Most importantly, we promise ourselves that never again will the Jewish people allow a similar fate to befall another group.
Listening to the rhetoric, it appears some American politicians have adopted the same “Never Again” creed. In fact, it seems they see a looming Holocaust everywhere they look, exaggerating comparisons to inflame emotions. Thus, intellectual integrity is sacrificed for political points.
Take for example Congressman Grayson’s (D-Fla.) speech blaming Republicans for the “Holocaust” of allowing thousands of Americans to die from lack of healthcare. While letting so many Americans slip through the cracks is simply despicable, it hardly compares to a system designed to efficiently murder six million people. But at least Rep. Grayson seeks to address a real problem, unlike the ridiculous and harmful myth of Nazi-inspired death panels.
Every spurious claim of genocide not only cheapens the political debate, it also dishonors the memory of the victims of the real Holocaust. Worse yet, for every real genocide we allow on our watch – like Cambodia, Rwanda and Sudan – we fail our moral obligation to humanity that underpins the “Never Again” creed. Clearly, some politicians have lost the right to ever again say “Never Again.”
When visitors of Yad Vashem funnel out of the museum, they suddenly find themselves atop Mount Herzl overlooking the lush Israeli countryside. Both figuratively and literally, they can finally take a breath of fresh air – a gift we desperately need now in Washington.
I recently visited the Israeli Holocaust Museum Yad Vashem that memorializes the victims and honors the countless heroes who resisted the Nazi genocide. The museum cuts like a chasm on top of Mount Herzl, creating a near-overwhelming feeling of constriction as the walls close ever tighter around you. By the end, it’s hard to breathe.
I thought I had left the Holocaust behind me when I returned home to the United States. I was wrong.
Apparently now in Washington, issues are too cumbersome, earnest debate too burdensome. It’s much easier to claim you caught the other side practicing their best “Sieg Heil!” in front of the mirror. Like Yad Vashem, American politics has become suffocating.
When Jews discuss the Holocaust, we often invoke the mantra “Never Again.” We promise ourselves that never again will the Jewish people submit to subjugation and annihilation. We promise ourselves that never again will the Jewish people precariously cower behind the inconsistent protection of other nations. Most importantly, we promise ourselves that never again will the Jewish people allow a similar fate to befall another group.
Listening to the rhetoric, it appears some American politicians have adopted the same “Never Again” creed. In fact, it seems they see a looming Holocaust everywhere they look, exaggerating comparisons to inflame emotions. Thus, intellectual integrity is sacrificed for political points.
Take for example Congressman Grayson’s (D-Fla.) speech blaming Republicans for the “Holocaust” of allowing thousands of Americans to die from lack of healthcare. While letting so many Americans slip through the cracks is simply despicable, it hardly compares to a system designed to efficiently murder six million people. But at least Rep. Grayson seeks to address a real problem, unlike the ridiculous and harmful myth of Nazi-inspired death panels.
Every spurious claim of genocide not only cheapens the political debate, it also dishonors the memory of the victims of the real Holocaust. Worse yet, for every real genocide we allow on our watch – like Cambodia, Rwanda and Sudan – we fail our moral obligation to humanity that underpins the “Never Again” creed. Clearly, some politicians have lost the right to ever again say “Never Again.”
When visitors of Yad Vashem funnel out of the museum, they suddenly find themselves atop Mount Herzl overlooking the lush Israeli countryside. Both figuratively and literally, they can finally take a breath of fresh air – a gift we desperately need now in Washington.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Draw the Match, Win the Day
The West Bank town of Al Ram is little different than the countless unimposing towns just like it scattered throughout the Palestinian territories. Israelis and Palestinians mostly know Al Ram for the series of High Court cases that deliberated over the construction of the separation barrier that looms ominously near the outskirts of the town. While fences and barbed wire makes up most of the barrier elsewhere, in Al Ram the barrier is a forbidding, concrete wall. Security is of the utmost concern here. After all, Jerusalem lies just on the other side of the barrier.
But after this week, there will now be a much better, uplifting reason to remember Al Ram. As The New York Times reports, a "cheering, flag-waving, anthem-singing crowd packed into the soccer stadium" this week to watch the first home match of the Palestinian women's soccer club. After a "feisty" match, the underdog Palestinian women - veiled and unveiled, Muslim and Christian - tied the Jordanians 2-2 to the ecstatic surprise of the raucous crowd.
The result, however, is not as important as the symbolism. One player explained, "We can't say oh we have to sit in our homes, in the kitchen like our moms, you know? We have to change it. We have to say the Palestinian women are free and they can do whatever men do." And in fact, they can do what men can do. The last time the men's team played Jordan, they tied as well with a score 1-1.
The Palestinians deserve this moral victory, after enduring a difficult year of stalled peace talks, failed reconciliation deals, political blunders and war. But the players weren't thinking about such things on the pitch. As one explained, "There are no politics involved. We play only for Palestine."
Yet nothing in Palestine can completely escape politics. For one, Gazans are not allowed to play. Israel bars them for security concerns while Hamas, who rules Gaza, shuns female participation in sports. Then there are the massive, gaudy billboards of Yasser Arafat that surround Al Ram's stadium (you can see them in a video at the NYTimes link). In one of them, a young, sunglasses-sporting Arafat looks dreamily into the distance with the caption: "Our promise is Jerusalem."
But for me, the promise lies not in Jerusalem, but with inspirational events like this one. Events that foster a sense of pride. Events that boost self-esteem. Events that improve daily life. Events that, while in the shadow of the security barrier, transcend the psychological and emotional barriers of conflict.
But after this week, there will now be a much better, uplifting reason to remember Al Ram. As The New York Times reports, a "cheering, flag-waving, anthem-singing crowd packed into the soccer stadium" this week to watch the first home match of the Palestinian women's soccer club. After a "feisty" match, the underdog Palestinian women - veiled and unveiled, Muslim and Christian - tied the Jordanians 2-2 to the ecstatic surprise of the raucous crowd.
The result, however, is not as important as the symbolism. One player explained, "We can't say oh we have to sit in our homes, in the kitchen like our moms, you know? We have to change it. We have to say the Palestinian women are free and they can do whatever men do." And in fact, they can do what men can do. The last time the men's team played Jordan, they tied as well with a score 1-1.
The Palestinians deserve this moral victory, after enduring a difficult year of stalled peace talks, failed reconciliation deals, political blunders and war. But the players weren't thinking about such things on the pitch. As one explained, "There are no politics involved. We play only for Palestine."
Yet nothing in Palestine can completely escape politics. For one, Gazans are not allowed to play. Israel bars them for security concerns while Hamas, who rules Gaza, shuns female participation in sports. Then there are the massive, gaudy billboards of Yasser Arafat that surround Al Ram's stadium (you can see them in a video at the NYTimes link). In one of them, a young, sunglasses-sporting Arafat looks dreamily into the distance with the caption: "Our promise is Jerusalem."
But for me, the promise lies not in Jerusalem, but with inspirational events like this one. Events that foster a sense of pride. Events that boost self-esteem. Events that improve daily life. Events that, while in the shadow of the security barrier, transcend the psychological and emotional barriers of conflict.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Jewish Settlers Save Gay Palestinian
YNet reports on "such a remarkable story [that] could only happen in the midst of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." A young gay Palestinian named T, who has been living in Israel with his Israeli partner of ten years, recently returned to the West Bank to visit his ailing father. Because the local Palestinians do not approve of his sexual orientation, T met his father outside of their village for safety. When T tried to return home to Israel, security forces did not allow him to cross the border for purported security reasons.
T was stuck in no-man's land, trapped between overzealous border officials and homophobic neighbors. So he turned to the only other person he knew in the area: an orthodox Jewish settler. Thus, for the past ten days, the gay Palestinian T has found refuge within a Jewish West Bank settlement. A remarkable story indeed.
Writing at the Commentary blog, David Hazony argues this story teaches that "what makes them [Palestinians] different from us [Israelis/Jews] is not merely quaint or alien but reprehensible. That we are in effect extending a hand of tolerance to those who expressly renounce tolerance, and who make little effort to hide their murderous side."
There is no doubt Arab and Muslim homosexuals face tremendous difficulties. Sometimes their existence is denied, as Iranian President Ahmadinejad has ridiculously claimed. More often, they confront religious, social and political persecution. And too often, they face a fate far worse. In Iraq, for example, the marauding Mahdi army has tortured and murdered homosexuals using most gruesome, unspeakable methods.
T was stuck in no-man's land, trapped between overzealous border officials and homophobic neighbors. So he turned to the only other person he knew in the area: an orthodox Jewish settler. Thus, for the past ten days, the gay Palestinian T has found refuge within a Jewish West Bank settlement. A remarkable story indeed.
Writing at the Commentary blog, David Hazony argues this story teaches that "what makes them [Palestinians] different from us [Israelis/Jews] is not merely quaint or alien but reprehensible. That we are in effect extending a hand of tolerance to those who expressly renounce tolerance, and who make little effort to hide their murderous side."
There is no doubt Arab and Muslim homosexuals face tremendous difficulties. Sometimes their existence is denied, as Iranian President Ahmadinejad has ridiculously claimed. More often, they confront religious, social and political persecution. And too often, they face a fate far worse. In Iraq, for example, the marauding Mahdi army has tortured and murdered homosexuals using most gruesome, unspeakable methods.
But Hazony lets Israel somewhat off the hook here. While homosexuals in Israel enjoy far more freedom and acceptance than the Muslim world (and even the U.S.), there are still problems. Take, for instance, the recent shooting at a Tel Aviv gay youth center that left two dead and many more wounded. The incident sparked massive outrage and spurred Israeli politicians of all persuasions to take a firm stand in favor of homosexual rights. Thus, Israel isn't special because its homosexual population does not face persecution, but because there is a societal and political consensus to fight for their equal rights.
Hazony took a wrong turn by viewing the story of T through the lens of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and thereby compelling him to try to score political points for Israel. In fact, besides T's inability to re-enter Israel, the story has very little to do with the conflict.
Instead, we should take the story for what it is: an uplifting story of how religious Jewish settlers likely saved the life of a gay Palestinian man because of the common humanity they share. Furthermore, we should draw inspiration to continue fighting for the human rights of all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, nationality and sexual preference, no matter where those rights may be threatened.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Less Borders, More Exchanges
The Beirut39 contest that honors 39 of the best Arab authors under 39 have announced their nominees. But as the Arabist points out, there's a problem. Two of the winners are Arab Israelis and therefore unable to travel to Beirut to participate in the event. The Arabist laments the predicament of "culturally cut-off Arab Israeli writers, whose publishers and audiences may reside in countries they can't visit."
Arab Israeli musicians face similar difficulties. The hip hop trio DAM, the self-proclaimed first Arabic rap group, are from the Israeli city of Lod. While they enjoy popularity throughout the Middle East, they're forced to only tour in Israel, Europe and the United States because of their Israeli passports. Given that the majority of their songs focus on Palestinian rights, it is especially ironic that most Arab countries treat them no differently than Israelis.
But the Arabist fails to point out the larger and obvious fact: it's not only Arab Israelis who cannot visit Beirut or other Arab countries. All Israelis are barred entry (e.g. tennis players). Nor can most Arabs visit Israel (even Arab Americans sometimes have difficulty). And everyone is worse off for it.
But even if laws were changed to allow for travel, there would still be political, cultural and religious barriers between Israel and the Arab countries. In one telling example, Egypt barred the Israeli film "The Band's Visit" from entering the Cairo International Film Festival last year. The Egyptian Culture Minister Farouk Hosni (the failed candidate for UNESCO chief) privately viewed the film, calling it "excellent," but objected to its public screening out of his purported fear of riots in the streets over Zionist infiltration. Eventually Egypt caved and allowed a screening of the film in Cairo.
Oh, and by the way, the film tells the heartwarming story of an Egyptian police band who lose their way while traveling through Israel, and in the process, discover the warm hospitality of an Israeli town.
Episodes such as these exemplify how Egypt, despite formal relations with Israel, still exercises a cultural boycott of all things Israeli - except, of course, for the lucrative business of ripping off Israeli tourists. But more importantly, it shows that if everyone stopped worrying so much about where people and things come from, and instead consider what benefit they may bring, the entire Middle East would be better off.
As I've argued before, so long as Arabs and Israelis only interact within the context of conflict, we will never see peace in the Middle East.
Note: The Time article about DAM confuses the meaning of their name. DAM is Arabic for "eternity" and Hebrew for "blood," not the other way around.
Arab Israeli musicians face similar difficulties. The hip hop trio DAM, the self-proclaimed first Arabic rap group, are from the Israeli city of Lod. While they enjoy popularity throughout the Middle East, they're forced to only tour in Israel, Europe and the United States because of their Israeli passports. Given that the majority of their songs focus on Palestinian rights, it is especially ironic that most Arab countries treat them no differently than Israelis.
But the Arabist fails to point out the larger and obvious fact: it's not only Arab Israelis who cannot visit Beirut or other Arab countries. All Israelis are barred entry (e.g. tennis players). Nor can most Arabs visit Israel (even Arab Americans sometimes have difficulty). And everyone is worse off for it.
But even if laws were changed to allow for travel, there would still be political, cultural and religious barriers between Israel and the Arab countries. In one telling example, Egypt barred the Israeli film "The Band's Visit" from entering the Cairo International Film Festival last year. The Egyptian Culture Minister Farouk Hosni (the failed candidate for UNESCO chief) privately viewed the film, calling it "excellent," but objected to its public screening out of his purported fear of riots in the streets over Zionist infiltration. Eventually Egypt caved and allowed a screening of the film in Cairo.
Oh, and by the way, the film tells the heartwarming story of an Egyptian police band who lose their way while traveling through Israel, and in the process, discover the warm hospitality of an Israeli town.
Episodes such as these exemplify how Egypt, despite formal relations with Israel, still exercises a cultural boycott of all things Israeli - except, of course, for the lucrative business of ripping off Israeli tourists. But more importantly, it shows that if everyone stopped worrying so much about where people and things come from, and instead consider what benefit they may bring, the entire Middle East would be better off.
As I've argued before, so long as Arabs and Israelis only interact within the context of conflict, we will never see peace in the Middle East.
Note: The Time article about DAM confuses the meaning of their name. DAM is Arabic for "eternity" and Hebrew for "blood," not the other way around.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
