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

George Bush is having more than a political crisis. It appears he’s having an identity crisis as well. How else to explain this picture of Bush and his “double” at the annual White House Correspondents dinner? I guess if I had so many people hating me and my policies I might find a doppelganger a consolation. Tired of taking the heat? Let the other guy fry a bit for you.

I guess people can no longer say of Bush that he feels “comfortable in his own skin.” Seems he feels more comfortable with someone else wearing his skin these days and who can blame him? The impersonator in his makeup looks waxy–like a model from Madame Tussaud. It’s almost like Bush is posing with a wax figure of himself. Eeeww creepy! The picture conjured in my mind the odd title of that Ronald Reagan autobiography Where’s the Rest of Me (based on a line his characater spoke in King’s Row).

The NY Times story is inadvertently (or advertently) hilarious. In this section, the Bush impersonator’s manager speaks of the first time Bush met his double:

Mr. Nolen said that Mr. Bush greeted Mr. Bridges by opening his arms and asking, “Is this me?” and that the president and the impersonator spent 20 minutes together. Mr. Bridges did his imitation of Mr. Bush and talked about the two and a half hours it takes to apply the makeup he needs to morph into the president.

“Everything but his eyes and teeth are fake,” Mr. Nolen said.

That’s not just true of the impersonator…Is there a genuine personal or political bone in the real George Bush’s body??

This particular joke raised my eyebrow quite a bit and must’ve made people laugh awkwardly:

One line, delivered by Mr. Bush, was particularly topical: “I’m feeling pretty chipper tonight — I survived the White House shake-up.”

One has to wonder how long Bush himself can last if he has to make a joke like this.

tags george-bush, steve-bridges, white-house-correspondents-dinner

One of Haaretz’s veteran correspondents, Gideon Levy, writes yet another scathing denunciation of Shaul Mofaz’s tenure as Israeli defense minister and before that, IDF chief of staff. Yesterday, I wrote about Akiva Eldar’s portrayal of Mofaz’s brutality and ineptitude in both government posts. But if anything, Levy’s attack is more scabrous and doesn’t stop short of accusing Mofaz of war crimes:

During the eight years in which Mofaz headed the defense establishment - four years as chief of staff and four as defense minister - he did everything he could to derail any chance of an accord with the Palestinians. We are not only talking about his inhumane policy toward the entire Palestinian people, but also his systematic effort to destroy the Palestinian Authority and not leave a trace of it, lest Israel have a partner for peace. Mofaz is not only responsible for countless unnecessary victims, but also for the destruction of the infrastructure of moderate Palestinian leadership. From this perspective, the Hamas government and the impasse we now face are the direct result of his policy. The person who called for liquidating Yasser Arafat and ordered the bombing of the PA’s installations bears heavy responsibility for the rise of the Hamas alternative. If only for this failure, Mofaz should have paid the price with his cabinet seat long ago.

But there is also something else, which we do not discuss often: It is called morality…The heritage Mofaz left for the IDF, and via the IDF to society as a whole, is wholly based on the exercise of force and violence. During Mofaz’s days, force had no limitations. The IDF opened fire, bombed, liquidated and destroyed on an alarming and unprecedented scale. The moral image of Israel was completely distorted…The purity of arms became an annoying and archaic concept, the IDF almost completely stopped investigating incidents involving killing, and the finger on the trigger became frightfully light. Mofaz’s spirit of command prevailed over everything.

What is to be done with Mofaz now?…The mark of shame on his brow will only become evident to Israeli society in another generation. In the meantime, he should not be a minister. Here is a challenge for the interim prime minister: Leave Mofaz out and even explain why. Tell citizens that there is no place in your government for someone suspected of being responsible for war crimes…

Last February, Daily Telegraph reported that Mofaz was in high dudgeon over the fact that one of his senior IDF officers had to cancel a planned trip to Britain for fear of being arrested for war crimes:

The affair prompted an angry response from Israel’s defence minister, Shaul Mofaz, who…called on “countries that suffer from terrorism at home” not to take legal action against “soldiers and officers who acted legally against vicious and atrocious terror”.

Mofaz of course makes the mistaken assumption that Britain would pursue the same policy choices he and his government made in prosecuting Israeli policy toward the Palestinians. My cherished hope is that Mofaz himself will be one of the those current and former IDF officers who cannot make overseas trips without fear of the same thing happening to him.

It is only fair to note that there could be no “Shaul Mofaz” unless he served a useful purpose for the political echelon which appointed and supported him. Sharon must’ve wanted a brutal beast of a chief of staff. And that’s what Mofaz gave him. Certainly, Mofaz improvised new riffs on brutishness which his sponsors may not have expected. But largely he did their bidding.

With Amir Peretz as defense minister things must get better. But how much better? And will they improve enough to breathe some semblance of life into Israeli-Palestinian relations which have withered with the ’scorched earth’ policies of his predecessor.

tags gideon-levy, haaretz, idf-chief-of-staff, israeli-defense-minister, palestinians, shaul-mofaz

I’ve never seen the Kronos Quartet in concert before and decided to see them tonight at Seattle’s Moore Theater. But my main reason for going was not to see Kronos, but to hear their collaboration with their newest world music performer, Rahman Asadollahi. Asadollahi is the world’s greatest garmon performer, an Azeri form of accordion. Both in sonic temperament and performance style, the instrument reminds me of Astor Piazzola and the bandoleone. As Asadollahi plays it, he uses the same fierce, dynamic and slashing style of attack. It is utterly powerful and commanding. The Azeri musician performed two songs in concert. One with the Quartet and another accompanied only by his percussionist. The first one, Mugam Beyati Shiraz, was a tour de force of virtuosity. Despite performing seated, I thought at times that Asadollahi might levitate his body into the air together with his instrument. This was the performance that reminded me most of Piazzola. The second song, Garmon Yanar Odlaryurduna, was a more contemplative piece that evinced its eastern origins in its prolonged musical phrasing and minor key tonalities.

Tonight’s performance was their last U.S. date on this tour. Kronos and Asadollahi continue their tour next month in Europe.

Carnegie Hall’s program notes for the March Kronos performance offered biographical context on the great musician:

Politically exiled from his native country, Rahman Asadollahi, an Iranian artist of Azeri descent, shares his people’s story of repression. To hear his music is to taste the dreams and laments of the Azeri people. Though profoundly tragic, his is a celebratory music that marvels at the beauty of being alive in spite of suffering. Technically brilliant, he conveys an amazing understanding of human pain and ecstasy. His music has a dreamlike quality, blending Middle Eastern rhythms with a European melodic structure to create a sound unlike anything common to Western ears. Many songs are slow and mournful, with drawn-out notes that tremble with emotion. The harmonica-like sound of the garmon is echoed by other instruments, in tandem with the staccato beat of the nagara, a high-pitched drum…

Rahman Asadollahi is one of the world’s premier performers on the garmon, a smaller, sweeter-toned version of the European-model accordion. The garmon he plays was specifically made to play Azeri music and is more than 80 years old. Asadollahi began taking private lessons in garmon when he was ten years old. From 1969 to 1985, he composed music and played in and conducted Azerbaijani concerts in Iran, where he became known as a master garmon player. At the age of 18 he was employed by the Iranian Radio and began playing with the Azerbaijani Orchestra in Tehran. Azerbaijani Radio in Tabriz and Ardabil recorded his music, as did Tehran Radio. In 1990, Rahman was invited to Northern Azerbaijan, formerly part of the Soviet Union, to perform over 20 concerts. The Azerbaijan State Music University and the Conservatory of Music of Azerbaijan subsequently awarded Rahman their two highest honorary degrees in music achievement.

Over the years, Asadollahi has become a living legend for the Azerbaijani people and lovers of accordion music throughout the world. Since 1985, he has toured and performed in Turkmenistan, England, France, Denmark, Switzerland, Austria, Canada, and Germany. In 1995, Asadollahi won the first prize among 650 players in the All-European Accordion and Harmonica Championship in Switzerland. Asadollahi emigrated to the United States in 1999.

I have so far failed to find any recorded performance of either of these songs either by Asadollahi or Kronos so I cannot offer them here. If anyone knows how I may find such recordings please let me know.

tags azerbijan, garmon, iran, kronos-quartet, Mugam-Beyati-Shiraz, piazzola, rahman-asadollahi, world-music

It appears that the U.S. is not the only country with a failed defense secretary/minister. Sol Salbe turned me on to Akiva Eldar’s latest Haaretz column: Hammer Blows. In it, Eldar appraises Shaul Mofaz’s abysmal tenure as defense minister (Olmert has just bestowed the ministry on Amir Peretz and Mofaz will be leaving soon). Along the way, the Israeli journalist makes some telling observations about the lack of intelligence of Israeli military intelligence:

Mofaz sowed evil and is bequeathing ruins to the next government, and not only to the new defense minister. He is leaving behind him the serious damage caused by two mistaken strategic theories - theories that were wrong for Israel and for the entire Middle East. Both attributed to Arab leaders with very limited military strength the actual intention of destroying the State of Israel.

Th[e first] theory was that Saddam Hussein would turn his weapons of mass destruction against Israel when he had “his back against the wall.” Gilad and Mofaz assessed that the American invasion of Iraq would improve Israel’s strategic situation - but instead it led to an increasingly close relationship between the Shi’ite regime in Iraq and its Iranian neighbor.

The second theory was that Yasser Arafat entered the Oslo process and began the intifada in order to bring about the establishment of “Greater Palestine,” which would include Israel and Jordan. This conspiracy theory regarding the Palestinians led the security services to adopt a one-dimensional, shortsighted, aggressive approach.

In this [their mistakes], there is no consolation for the tens of thousands of innocent victims of the military conflict, including the 1,200 Israeli dead. The children of the upcoming third intifada will not come into a better world.

Poor Mofaz, after such a scathing attack it’s a wonder he’ll be asked to be dogcatcher by Olmert in the next government.

In the following section, Eldar takes Mofaz and the defense establishment to task for violating two fundamental tenets of Clausewitz’s rules of war:

Carl Maria von Clausewitz…claimed that war is “nothing but the continuation of policy by other means.” The success of a war is measured by the maneuverability that it grants the political echelon no less than by the degree of security it brings to its citizens. This maneuverability allows the military victory to be translated into a political arrangement. The chaos in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and the terror attacks in Iraq and Israel, prove that military superiority is neither a guarantee of political achievement nor a recipe for security. The unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and the unilateral “convergence plan” in the West Bank, the separation fence, Hamas’ victory and the ensuing severance of relations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority - individually and cumulatively - are testimony to the fact that five and a half years of military conflict have reduced the political echelon’s room for maneuver to a nadir not seen since the Yom Kippur War.

The Prussian military man also stated that no sensible person goes to war before clarifying his goals. The great success of chief of staff Mofaz…conducting an all-out war against the Palestinian rival [during the first Intifada]. And what was the goal? To make the “price of losing” clear to the Palestinians. To etch in their awareness that the price of violence is far greater than the benefits. And what would happen after the “victory”? Who would fill the vacuum left by Arafat and his senior Palestinian Authority colleagues after they were eliminated? What political arrangement would replace the disorder in the territories resulting from the destruction of infrastructure? Who would replace a relatively moderate Hamas political leader [Rantisi] who was sent to the heavens in a whirlwind by the air force?

There you have the fatal flaw of Israeli military strategy in a nutshell. They use their military might not to advance a political agenda. Rather, force itself IS the agenda. There is hardly a political agenda behind the use of force.

Eldar notes that Israeli intelligence handed Mofaz an issue of the Hamas magazine, Falastin al-Muslama, which detailed the organization’s strategy of attrition against Israeli forces in the Territories during the Intifada:

Magazine contributors define the next political goal based on the model of Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon. They point out that as in the case of Lebanon, their goal is to convince the Israeli public, by means of the intifada, that “Zionist security” comes with such a unilateral withdrawal…Escalation on Israel’s side could be expected to lead to escalation on the Palestinian side, and thus making it clear to everyone that only Hamas “can deliver a blow to the enemy, establish a balance of terror, exhaust its strength and sow confusion in its political considerations and influence its internal situation.”

Chief of staff and defense minister Mofaz regularly supplied Meshal with proof that Hamas can in fact achieve by military means what the PA did not succeed in getting from Israel by political means. “The high point was the decision to harm [Fatah security chief] Jibril Rajoub,” says Dr. Mati Steinberg, who was at the time a special adviser to the Shin Bet head of Palestinian affairs. “His security establishment did not fire at us [and] did not operate against us…,” says Steinberg…

Steinberg blames Mofaz for the grave outcome of the policy that did not differentiate between the Palestinian forces [Hamas and Fatah] and punished the population indiscriminately. “The policy of ‘the price of losing’ was what gave legitimacy to the suicide attacks…This is the unavoidable price of the only choice the aggressive [Israeli] policy left them [Palestinians] - the choice between unconditional surrender and an uprising until death.”

The Haaretz columnist notes that former foreign minister (under Barak), Shlomo ben-Ami describes in his new book how the military echelon did all in its power to undermine the stated policy of the civilian government:

Shlomo Ben-Ami was…a member of the security cabinet at the start of the intifada. In his book Scars of War, Wounds of Peace, Ben-Ami wrote that minister Amnon Lipkin-Shahak, who coordinated the efforts to achieve calm, expressed to him his anger and frustration at the behavior of Mofaz and at the spirit with which he inspired the forces in the field. “Goods that were supposed to reach the population were stuck at checkpoints - bulldozers uprooted hothouses, nurseries and other crops, ostensibly for security reasons, in a manner that raised the level of Palestinian fury to unprecedented heights. The policy of collective punishment and inflicting economic hardship, which clearly did not serve the intentions of the political leadership to try to achieve calm, was an agenda led by the military leadership, which turned its back on the instructions and intentions of the political leadership and ignored them.”

The vision of Mofaz…never exceeded that expected of a mediocre brigade commander (Mofaz failed the officers’ tests three times). In the IDF, they customarily call that the “shoemaker’s syndrome” - every problem can be solved with a hammer. If a half-ton hammer does not solve it, use a one-ton hammer. At the end of 2000, when the Barak government wanted to adopt Clinton’s proposals in the hope of returning to a channel of rapprochement, chief of staff Mofaz claimed that the political leadership was endangering the country’s security.

Ben-Ami writes that Mofaz ignored the fact that the alternative to an agreement, even an agreement that did not fulfill all of Israel’s security wishes, was a rebellious Palestinian nation, raging terror, a return to occupation, international ostracism and a conflagration in the Arab and Muslim world. He did not know how right he was. Hamas control of the territories has acted as a bridge between the Iranian Shi’ites and the Sunnis of the Muslim Brotherhood, bringing the conflict to a more fundamentalist and global level.

The suit and tie [of the defense minister] did not change Mofaz’s way of thinking…This time as well, the only alternative he has proposed is more assassinations, closures and checkpoints. Since the withdrawal, he has done everything in his power to prevent the PA under the leadership of chairman Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) from presenting the disengagement as part of a bilateral political step.

Incoming defense minister Amir Peretz is being warned by dissident intelligence analysts that the IDF and Shin Bet make the same mistake as the CIA during the Cold War: they deliberately overestimate the power and strength of the enemy. The effect of such a mistake is to raise the level of fear among the general populace and thereby causing it to resort to ever greater escalations of the conflict in order to vanquish the allegedly powerful enemy:

A former senior member of MI suggests to Peretz that he beware of the habit that has become common at MI in recent years - overestimating the rival’s strength. He says that in light of the general staff’s damaging dominance in national-level decision making, this tendency has become one of the great obstacles to that process. It is also liable to lead to another escalation in the Palestinian arena, and perhaps even to wars in other sectors, he says. Among the intelligence community there are those who warn of a conceptual freeze and are recommending that the new defense minister conduct a thorough investigation of the mistaken theory that dictated policy toward the Palestinians under Mofaz…

“Since we enjoy absolute military superiority,” says Steinberg, illustrating the general’s words, “the new minister must be careful not to be tempted into thinking that we also have the power to conquer the minds of the Palestinians in expecting them to accept our interpretation of the road map or the Clinton proposals.

Steinberg says the Iranian threat, the increased power of the Muslim Brotherhood and the global jihad movement provide convenient circumstances for consolidating a pragmatic axis in the region. “Our conflict has become a black hole in the core of the Islamic world. Only a political agreement, even a partial one, and a proper balance between security considerations and broader needs, can rescue the Palestinians from Hamas and us from a war of religions.”

Shaul Mofaz has taken Israeli policy into a dead end of escalating violence and bloodshed. Amir Peretz has an opportunity (to the extent that Olmert allows him to do so) to break out of this cycle and breathe some fresh air into Israeli relations with the Palestinians. Let us see if he can succeed.

tags amir-peretz, idf, israeli-defense-minister, israeli-military-intelligence, israeli-palestinian-conflict, rules-of-war, shaul-mofaz, von-Clausewitz

Just read about Neil Young’s Living With War (hear it) in the NY Times today. I’ve got to say that while Jon Pareles showed some appreciation for the significance of the project there was also much he didn’t “get” about it. First, this is a musical project quite unlike any ever attempted. Young recorded the music less than four weeks ago for God’s sake and it’s already being widely distributed. And distribution is happening (at least initially) entirely outside normal commercial channels. The record is currently available in a free audio stream. In another break with even online music distribution, Young insists that everyone who does listen has to listen to the ENTIRE album in one continuous loop. No surfing through tracks looking for the one you like most. You’ve got to sit through the entire thing if you want to hear it. The message is: “I’ve got something big here, something important to say. Listen on my terms if you listen at all.” I think people will respect that. It will resonate with them.

I think that all of this will create exponentially greater interest in the album when it does become available via more conventional outlets. If I’m right, then this should blow entirely out of the water the standard record industry whining about how making music available free (via filesharing) destroys the value of the commodity and renders it less attractive to those who would otherwise buy it. And if the music honchos are right, then Young’s previewing the album online as he’s done will spoil its sales momentum by deflating the balloon of expectation. I know that they’ll be wrong. But let’s see who’s right.

A lot’s been written about this album already. So there’s little I can bring to the conversation that isn’t new. But the most salient comment I can make is that this is a red hot burning album, full of rage against the established political order. Naturally, George Bush and his minions come in for the most savage treatment. But this is not a one note album. Young is too powerful a lyricist and social observer for that. His blazing eye roves the entire American landscape and finds rich fodder for his outrage.

To find like-minded literary efforts one thinks of Dylan Thomas’ line: “Rage, rage against the dying of the light.” But in this case, Young rages against the needless dying of our boys in Iraq. I also think of Jeremiah raging against the people of Israel for turning their backs on the poor, hungry and destitute. There is the same pure prophetic fury in both Young’s lyrics and vocals.

The haste with which Young recorded Living With War allowed him to preserve the mood of simmering rage while he was in the studio. This is no “emotion recollected in tranquility.” No, old Wordsworth would definitely not approve of this album. It’s too raw, too visceral, too ‘of the moment.’

I don’t know that we’ll be listening to this album much in twenty years (but I could be wrong about that). But we’re sure gonna be hearing a helluva lot of it over the last few years of the Bush reign. And we’ll hear it everywhere: on the radio, the internet, at anti-war demonstrations, in our friends’ homes.

The Times reviewer rightly compares Living With War to Ohio as a companion work of protest created in a white-hot fury. But the difference here is that Young has created an entire album, not just one song. And it’s not just available on radio as Ohio was when it was first released. Anyone can go to Young’s website and hear it. Millions are no doubt doing so as I write this. In the digital age, the means of distribution are democratized. Would that our political processes could be similarly democratized.

One of the album’s best songs is Living With War. Here are the lyrics:

I’m living with war everyday
I’m living with war in my heart everyday
I’m living with war right now

And when the dawn breaks I see my fellow man
And on the flat-screen we kill and we’re killed again
And when the night falls, I pray for peace
Try to remember peace (visualize)

I join the multitudes
I raise my hand in peace
I never bow to the laws of the thought police
I take a holy vow
To never kill again
To never kill again

I’m living with war in my heart
I’m living with war in my heart in my mind
I’m living with war right now

Don’t take no tidal wave
Don’t take no mass grave
Don’t take no smokin’ gun
To show how the west was won
But when the curtain falls, I pray for peace
Try to remember peace (visualize)

In the crowded streets
In the big hotels
In the mosques and the doors of the old museum
I take a holy vow
To never kill again
Try to remember peace

The rocket’s red glare
Bombs bursting in air
Give proof through the night,
That our flag is still there

I’m living with war everyday
I’m living with war in my heart everyday
I’m living with war right now

What resonates especially powerfully is the quotation from the Star Spangled Banner (sung here with a gospel choir): “The rocket’s red glare/ Bombs bursting in air/ Give proof through the night/ That our flag is still there.” Yet, Young takes the meaning of the original lyrics referencing a real military battle and transforms them into an anthem for peace. Those bombs bursting in air confirm not war, but the true American patriot who waves the flag of peace.

tags living-with-war, neil-young, ohio, protest-music, star-spangled-banner

This is a recent image of Miriam, my 18 month-old twin. I'm not gonna go all daddy sloppy about how damn beautiful she is. But you get my drift. She gets the hang of the camera and poses for it. Adin, the other twin, marches right up to the camera and tries to grab it from me. I took both kids out for a walk to Madrona Beach on Lake Washington yesterday. They both appear to have discovered the water for the first time. When they saw me throwing sticks into the lake for our dog, Gede, Miriam spent the next 40 minutes doing little else but throwing her own sticks into the ...

Thomas R. Pickering, former number 3 in the State Department and U.S. ambassador to Israel (1985-1988) spoke some interesting truths in a speech last week covered by the Daily Star's Rami Khouri. Pickering, who was once in the running to become Secretary of State (but lost out to Madeleine Albright), is attempting to inject some hardheaded realism into the discussion of what should be reasonably be expected of Israel for final status talks: Thomas R. Pickering (photo: Boeing) [Pickering] argued that a two-state solution required a return of Palestinian land occupied in 1967, "approaching 100 percent, with negotiated tradeoffs," giving Palestinians control over their own internal security and foreign ...

Brad Burston has written yet another lucid, compelling and compassionate essay in Haaretz on the common threads in the Israeli and Palestinian collective psyche. If only both sides could retain in their minds their shared values and experiences, then solving this bone-crushing conflict might actually be possible. His piece was written for Passover, but its subject is relevant year-round: Nobody likes to talk about it. In fact, there is nothing enemies hate more than to be told that they are alike. ...Since it's Pesach on our side, it might be the right time to bring up the central obsession of both Jewish tradition and Palestinian culture: exile, and the hope for return. ...The experience of exile...forged...Jews and...Palestinians both. We are ...

This blog post began as an effort to showcase my son Jonah's "genius" (you'll forgive a dad trying shep a little nachas from his boychik). Part of that story involves the book my son and I are currently reading at bedtime: Spirit of the Cedar People. But the more research I did on the book's author, Chief Lelooska (Don Smith) the more amazed I became at the depth and breadth of his artistic accomplishment. Let's ...

My oldest son, Jonah now 5, attends the Secret Garden preschool in Seattle's Capitol Hill. This will be his last year there as he begins kindergarten next year at TOPS. Back around the time Jonah first started at Secret Garden, I wrote a post about one of my favorite Seattle restaurants, Vios. I mentioned that a fellow Secret Garden parent had "turned me on" to the place. More on the significance of this post a bit later. My wife, son and I love Secret Garden. He's thrived on the stimulation it provides. The teachers are loving, patient and among the most creative I know. ...