Tikun Olam-תקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

George Bush’s paean to “Mideast democracy” delivered yesterday to those august members of the right wing elite at the American Enterprise Institute created a sweeping revolutionary new U.S. policy toward Iraq. He said: “The only question at hand is total, complete disarmament, which he is refusing to do,” Oh, really?? The “total” disarmament of Iraq? Every soldier & policeman? Not just those big, bad nuclear warheads which he’s having so much trouble finding? I always thought our policy was to dismantle Sadaam’s weapons of mass destruction and that we’d let it go at that. Well, this is news to me and to the rest of his Administration I’m sure.

Do we chalk this up to George’s usual imprecision & tendency to nudge reality linguistically in odd directions. Or did he really mean what he said? If he meant it & someone actually wrote that into his speech–do they realize what a radical shift in policy this is? Can anyone in the world (including those advocating war) say that we have the right to completely disarm Iraq?

And who does he think he’s fooling when he claims that with America’s shining beacon of liberty as its guide, Iraq will soon enter the “palace of nations” enjoying liberty. Iraq, while it has had some remarkable forms of government througout its history (leaving aside Sadaam), has never known democracy. Why would democracy work in Iraq? Perhaps it will work at the mouths of 100,000 M-16s. But what happens after the GIs leave?

tags george-bush, iraq, mideast-democracy

I am in the process of writing a personal and theological meditation on the issue of child abuse. I will especially focus on the role that rabbi’s might play within their congregations in identifying and ameliorating the suffering of child members. Right now, I am in the process of identifying Jewish traditional sources which deal with this problem. I am also trying to determine what type, and how much training rabbis receive both in rabbinical school and through professional education. I hope to talk to a pulpit rabbi who has counseled families suffering from abuse to try to understand what constructive roles they can play (and also what roles they cannot play, if any).

I have an ongoing dialogue with a religiously observant Israeli-American friend who disagrees with my dovish Mideast politics. He wrote to me today:

I don’t like what you wrote there [in your last blog entry]. I did not mean to “defend” or “explain” anything. I am not advocating any relaxing of moral standards [by the Israeli army]. If a soldier violates the ethical code then he should be punished, and severely if appropriate.

What I meant to say was that the IDF does enforce moral standards, but that in the real world it sometimes happens that there are violations, and that, while the IDF can be criticized for such lapses committed by individuals, your zeal to publicize them in the world at large is sending the wrong message at a time when Israel is under fierce attack from all quarters. Especially when, in the very same context (your blog) there is not a word about the horrifying demonization of Jews and Israel by the Palestinian media, and the glorification of suicide to kill as many people as possible. By speaking about the Israeli army the way you do, you (unwittingly) contribute to the defamation of Israel and give encouragement to our enemies.

The people that read your blog–and let’s face it, the only people who would even know about it basically agree with you already–are only going to hate Israel more, certainly not less because you happen to be Jewish.

In my opinion, your comments belong in the Hebrew edition of Haaretz, or even better Yidiot Aharonot or Maariv, where they might really have some influence on Israelis. Because unless your message is aimed at Israelis, it is nothing but lashon hara

My response follows:

You say the only people who ever read my blog will be those who already agree w. me. That’s not necessarily the case. There are now scores of web directories (Weblog.com, wanderlust.com, eatonweb.com, Webring) that publicize web pgs. (blogs, home pages, commercial sites). I’m not talking about search engines. These are separate sites which catalogue sites by subject & enable you to search for a site that matches your interests. So anyone on the net who does a search on the word “Mideast” might possibly find my site.

Regarding publishing my views in the Israeli press, I agree that it is VERY important to try to influence Israeli opinion. If someone in Israel asked me to write something in Hebrew for publication, I’d gladly do it. But language & geographic distance are tough barriers to overcome, esp. when you don’t know if all the work you invest in the writing & translation will end up being published.

Regarding lashon hara, I guess we have very different definitions of this. Lashon Hara (in my view) is not just words that injure; it is words whose intent is to injure. My intent is not to injure Israel. My intent is to heal it. When a patient is in severe jeopardy from illness, sometimes the treatment requires great stress, pain & discomfort. This is sometimes the only path to healing. That’s what I’m doing—providing “physical therapy” to an injured Israel. Calling my blog entry nothing more than lashon hara (unless directed solely at Israelis) is a bit harsh, don’t you think?

Do you feel that a society (any society) should try to represent itself to the world at large in the most appealing way possible by omitting a blemish here or there? “We need to shave a bit off here; touch up a bit over here to make us more appealing to the world.” It reminds me of that old saw you hear from Israelis & Jews whenever Israel faces a crisis: “all we need is better, more aggressive hasbarah [public relations].” That’s ridiculous because it isn’t the lack of hasbarah that causes the crisis; it is the actual events themselves. The only way out of such a crisis is a serious & immediate negotiation w. one’s enemy. Possibly you could conceal your national blemishes before there was satellite communication & 24/7 cable TV. Now, almost everyone in the world can find out about almost anything at any almost any time. If the IDF murders an unarmed Palestinian, the world knows within minutes. My focus on this act in my blog does not reveal a blemish that no one would notice if I didn’t point it out. Do you believe that I should leave it to the anti Semites to criticize Israel’s blemishes? That’s not a credible argument. Your friends, when they are honest, give you the ability to examine your behavior & correct it when it is wrong. An enemy attacking you does not encourage you to change.

You contend that I present Israel to the world at large in an unbalanced way because I do not explain the serious jeopardy it is in which puts these breaches of human rights into a better context. In political debate & discussion (as I have in my blog), you don’t always have to finely balance every argument that you make with pros & cons. Not every issue requires deep context. Unlike you, I believe that almost everyone in the world (except for anti Semites) knows the danger that Israel faces. And also unlike you, I believe that the number of people who discount Israel’s jeopardy is very small compared to the number who recognize it. So why in this environment do I have to warn my reader that Israel is in severe danger? They know that. Do you, when you present your ideas about Israel always make sure to explicitly represent the Palestinian position & place it in context w. Israel’s positions? If you don’t, then why should you require me to do so? BTW, my attempt to balance my argument [in an earlier blog entry] involved a discussion of the ethical values of Israel’s founders. In this, I was trying to put Israel in a good light (or at least acknowledge that at one time Israel really tried to live up to these values in a serious way). That was my attempt at “balance.”

I acknowledge that you & your IDF comrades do try to adhere to the highest values you can given the situation you are in. That is admirable. But I contend that the very situation in which your government has placed you—occupying, oppressing & killing the Palestinian people—is inherently unstable & untenable. Yes, I understand that none of you are there because you want to be; and that many of you feel that the Palestinians have forced this Occupation on you. But that’s almost beside the point. The present military policy is bankrupt. It will not stop terrorism for any length of time; it will not bring peace, security or stability to Israel (just the opposite in fact). The longer people feel that they have no choice but to occupy Palestine, the longer this bloody conflict will last. Israelis feel that if they can outlast the Palestinians & force them to bleed for every Israeli they kill, then eventually they will keel over fr. exhaustion & give up. I just don’t see that happening & anyone who harbors an illusion that it will is in for tremendous disappointment.

After several nominations in previous years, the wunderkinds of Nickel Creek finally won this year in the Best Contemporary Folk category. It’s a bit odd they were nominated in this category since they seem to me to be more country than folk. Allison Krauss is their producer & patron after all. But it doesn’t really matter, since they are greatly deserving of this award. If you like thoughtful, literate, original songwriting talent combined with remarkable musicianship–then buy their new CD and enjoy!

First, let me say that even a Scorcese near miss is more interesting, more challenging than 95% of Hollywood “successes.” As a director, Scorcese is always pondering the deep questions about human existence & presenting it onscreen in a terribly compelling way.

In Gangs he set out to make a great epic on a scale w. the David Lean films like Zhivago or Lawrence of Arabia . No question, the cinematography is extraordinary. You feel you are right in the midst of the streets of old New York, a place that once was but will never be again. You can almost smell the food fr. the stalls, smell the horse dung in the streets, etc. So Scorcese succeeds in establishing the tone of the great epic films. But what about characterization & plot? Here he falls down in my opinion.

Yes, Cutting is an extraordinary character–totally compelling & riveting for every moment he is onscreen. He is the film’s anchor. But where are the other characters? Di Caprio is miscast in his role as a sullen youth seeking to avenge his father’s murder. Nothing compelling about his performance at all. And Cameron Diaz, beautiful, touching Cameron–where is her character in all this? Almost never to be found I’m afraid. She has a few good scenes, but then Scorcese seems to tire of her & she disappears for the rest of the movie. Too bad.

Other problems: in my opinion, the real drama here is not the rivalry between the two gangs; but rather the Civil War & Draft Riots raging through NYC & the nation, simultaneously to the gang violence. Scorcese does provide some background on the rising level of ethnic & class tension in the city. But he doesn’t connect the Civil War to the action at all. And the Battle of Gettysburg took place only ONE WEEK before the Draft Riots. All Federal troops dispatched frantically to New York came directly from Gettysburg! Scorcese focuses on hatred between ‘Know Nothing’ German immigrants & Irish Catholic immigrants. But the hatred and violence shown to Blacks was more severe, more lethal & should have been acknowledged more seriously. After all, the Draft Rioters focused their most serious vehemence against Blacks (not whites…not even immigrants) who were murdered & humiliated in horribly disfiguring ways.

Why doesn’t someone do a film about the Draft Riots? That would be a great drama.

My wife & I just had the good fortune to see Far from Heaven. It is a wondrous, but terribly, achingly sad film. Much has been written about the connections between this film & Douglas Sirk's tearjerker melodramas of the 1950s. If I were to use shorthand, I'd say that while "Pleasantville" was a great satiric/parodic sendup of the period; Far from Heaven functions as a tragic/dramatic reflection on it. What is interesting about Todd Haynes' screenplay is that the dialogue & plot developments are not merely a reflection of the 1950s, they are an extreme ...

Would it be a contradiction in terms to say that a film essentially about depression could be a beautiful, elegant & eloquent work of art? The Hours is one of the most intense works of art I've ever experienced. A note of warning: whatever the greatnesses of this film (& they are many) there are many things this film is not: it is not happy, falsely optimistic, sentimental or anything that almost every other Hollywood film is. It is brutal, it is cruel, it is, well goddamn depressing! That's all there is to it. But if you do not see this film because it is hard or depressing, then you will be missing one of the great films of this ...

Israel is a nation founded on the high ideals of the Biblical prophets. Human rights and civil liberties are enshrined in its Declaration of Independence. Israel's army (the IDF) has embraced the Hebrew concept of tohar neshek, the idea that minimum violence is used to attain an objective, that military force is only used in self-defense, and that unnecessary bloodshed is to be avoided at all costs. One can certainly argue that many, if not all of these wonderful founding principles have been shredded in Israel's attempts to defend itself from Palestinian terror. One of my earlier blog posts recounted the horrifying story of the unarmed Hamas militant who was pursued across rooftops by the IDF ...

Republican Presidents seem to love to dismiss people and cities that disagree with them. Remember that great 1970s Post headline: "Ford to City: Drop Dead"? Well, George said last week that listening to the 1-million U.S. anti war protesters would be like conducting policy by focus group. I've never heard of a focus group consisting of millions of people. Guess, this is another example of George's muddled thinking. The anti war movement is NOT a focus group. And if this war goes badly for him, he'll find out how wrong he is. It will rise up & smite him hard.

Just what the Democratic Presidential race needs: a politician who lost her last bid for elective office, made a mess of her campaign finances & was being investigated by federal officials. Now, that's a strong candidate!! Talk about muddying the waters! She must think that the Party is so desperate it would turn to a failed politician like her. And what about Dennis Kucinich? I'm just scratching my head about this one. A Congressmember who ran & lost a U.S. Senate campaign wants to run for President??