Democratic 'Palestinians'

Recently US President George W. Bush claimed: "This is a moment of clarity for all Palestinians, and now comes a moment of choice... There is the vision of Hamas, which the world saw in Gaza - with murderers in black masks, and summary executions, and men thrown to their death from rooftops. By following this path, the Palestinian people would guarantee chaos, and suffering, and the endless perpetuation of grievance. … There's another option, and that's a hopeful option. It is the vision of [Fatah] President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad; it's the vision of their government; it's the vision of a peaceful state called Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people. … By following this path, Palestinians can reclaim their dignity and their future -- and establish a state of their own."

Pres. Bush has obscured that fact that party alliances are largely contingent on familial and ethnic loyalties. There are important linguistic, historic, and even physiognomic differences between members of the Hamas clan and the members of the Fatah clan. A 'Palestinian' is hardly more able to choose his party than a Tug Fork resident could choose to be a Hatfield or a McCoy. (So how can the persons referred to as 'Palestinian' be understood as constituting a national group?)

The facts of this rivalry are highly inconvenient for the Imperialists of Democracy.

Hamas and Fatah are called the political parties of the Palestinians; but since a 'Palestinian' is not able to choose his allegiance – or at least not safely, this system lacks the rational decision-making critical for democracy. The West, however, wants to claim that the Palestinians are democratic. And since they are democratic, they must believe that negotiation, compromise, and peaceful turnover of power are possible. And since they believe that negotiation, compromise, and peaceful turnover of power are possible, they must be able to negotiate, compromise, and make peace with Israel. So the reasoning goes. The Arab-Muslim world, however, has not shown itself willing to do this. Hamas, Fatah, and many other Arab-Muslim organizations, in fact, are committed to the destruction of Israel and fascinated by thought of murdering Jews. Maintaining the belief that the 'Palestinians' are democratic legitimates and supports this enemy of Israel.

Why do this?

the after day

1.

Break the coffee mug
shatter the porcelin chinese figurine
up the mountain
we walk the red cow.

The miracle is
we're laughing.


2.

I drank the words
internet cocktail, grafitti, Cairo geniza, ...
Oh to be drunk, infinite, etc.

I distinguished true and false prophets
only at the extremes.
Reality could hardly be swallowed.


3.

Numbers gave us peace,
and what - truth?

Shine the mirror,
look behind the teeth and clean.

Something would not be bought
nor raped.


4.

Take up the burkas.
Collect the fan mail for Jesus.
Nothing will be left out.

Loose ends braided into infinity.
Korah bows and Shimon Peres cheers
for Elijah's fiery chariot motorcade

I,
I will unstick the window.

Anti-Semitism in British Unions

BH

British academic institutions should make headlines for anti-Semitic policies. The University and College Union, 'the largest trade union and professional association for academics, lecturers, trainers, researchers and academic-related staff working in further and higher education throughout the UK' (ucu.org.uk), reports on its website:

'Following a meeting of the UCU's national executive committee on Friday 8 June, the union has confirmed that it is now considering the necessary steps for members to be able to debate the arguments for and against an academic boycott of Israeli universities.' (www.ucu.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=2622)

The decision to boycott will be determined by the majority of votes by union members. That a majority of members could conceivably vote to boycott Israel's universities itself disturbs me. The article posted on the website includes no mention of WHY the union should bother to
consider such a boycott. 'Activists [pressed] delegates of the University and College Union (UCU) to heed calls from Palestinian trade unions for "a comprehensive and consistent boycott of all Israeli institutions"' (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3406485,00.html).

Sally Hunt, general secretary of the union, states: 'Personally I believe that any decision to boycott another country's academic institutions should only be taken if the majority of UCU members support it. This remains my position'. Perhaps I simply do not understand democracy and unions... but why should a majority decision of union members justify a ban on relations with Israeli universities?

University partnerships reach beyond the selfish interests and opinions of academics. (See attached file, Israeli Universities replying to the UCU.) Through international cooperation we gain, for example, cures for diseases and technologies to prevent famine. Perhaps the people suffering from cancer and starvation should participate in the union vote.




Note also:

Jun. 18, 2007
UK's largest trade union begins debate on boycott of Histadrut
By JONNY PAUL, JERUSALEM POST CORRESPONDENT LONDON

A motion to boycott Israel is on the agenda of Britain's public sector trade union at its annual conference that begins on Tuesday in Brighton.

With over 1.3 million members, UNISON is the largest trade union in Britain, representing people who work in public services, the voluntary and private sectors. During the four-day conference, Israel will be the subject of a call for sanctions and is mentioned in four
different motions.

Welcoming the "Boycott, Disinvestment and Sanctions campaign [BDS]," Motion 54 calls for sanctions against Israel.

This includes initiatives already taken by the Irish Services, Industrial, Professional and Technical Union (SIPTU); the Ontario region of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE); the Congress of South African Unions (COSATU), and artists supporting a cultural
boycott -

The motion accuses the Histadrut of failing to condemn the Second Lebanon War last year and actions in Gaza following the kidnapping of Cpl. Gilad Schalit, and reads: "The Histadrut expressed no opposition to the invasions of Lebanon or Gaza, nor to the 'apartheid wall'
throughout 2006 despite its own substantial economic conflicts with the Israeli government."

The motion calls for UNISON to "encourage the Histadrut to condemn the Israeli government's blatant violations of international law" and to "participate fully" in the BDS campaign.

Practical measures to realize this include cooperation with the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign (PSC), an anti-Israel socialist group; identifying companies and UNISON members involved in trading with Israel; highlighting to union members the scope for consumer boycott
of such trade; investigating whether pension funds may have investments in Israel, or in key companies trading with Israel, and seeking disinvestment from any such pension links.

The authors of the motion want discussion of these issues at branch and regional level and to organize regional conferences in cooperation with other Trades Union Congress affiliates and the PSC to discuss the BDS campaign.

Another motion calls for the suspension of the European Union's trade agreement with Israel and a mandatory UN Arms Embargo on Israel "of the kind the Security Council imposed on South Africa in 1977." It also calls to campaign with the PSC and encourage UNISON branches and regions to affiliate with the anti-Israel group.

Histadrut Chairman Ofer Eini said of the proposed sanctions: "This is a dangerous decision, because it could harm numerous workers in Israel and their employers, specifically in organizations that have commercial ties to Britain."

Motion 53 says that a "just" solution to the conflict must be based on international law and that Israel should withdraw to 1967 borders and allow the refugees of 1948 to return home. The motion calls for Israel to "remove all settlements from the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Occupied Syrian Al-Joulan; take down the Apartheid Wall; respect the Palestinian people's right to national self-determination and establish a state in the West Bank and Gaza with its capital in Jerusalem."

The motion galvanizes the union to support a full boycott to pressure Israel to end the occupation and condemns the sanctions placed on Hamas following the 2006 elections "which make worse the appalling economic circumstances of the occupation. It is a unique example of
economic sanctions imposed, not upon an occupier, upon a population struggling against illegal military occupation."

Another motion on the UNISON agenda calls for the release of the two convicted Palestinian nationals charged with the bombing of the Israeli Embassy and a Jewish community center in London in 1994, which wounded 14 people at the embassy and eight at Balfour House.





Again, the very fact that these attacks against Israel are under discussion is cause for concern. I'm not angry at these British individuals. I'm impressed by their irresponsibility and their
commitment to their illusions.

Now is a critical time for Jewish unity and strength.

Holocaust in British Schools

BH

The widely forwarded message about the Shoah (Holocaust) and the British school curriculum may be only partially true. The message reads: 'In Memorial // Recently this week, UK removed The Holocaust from its school curriculum because it "offended" the Moslem population which claims it never occurred. This is a frightening portent of the fear that is gripping the world and how easily each country is giving into it.'

According to snopes.com, a significant urban legends reference page, all British schools have not stopped teaching about the Shoah. That said, one northern UK school (at least in its history department) did remove the Holocaust from its school curriculum -- ostensibly to avoid confronting anti-Semitism and Holocaust-denial among its students (see snopes.com/politics/religion/holocaust.asp).

P.S. If education is not to confront us with ideas that challenge our beliefs, what does it do?

P.P.S Why are Jews so often about the Holocaust? If they don't want to teach about the Holocaust -- fine -- I'll trade you a week of discussion about the Holocaust for a week of discussion about the 3000 years of Jewish life in Israel, or about the endurance of the Jewish people in exile and our commitment to return to Israel, or about the seven mitzvot Bnei Noach, or about the idea of tradition in Jewish practice.

Names & Name-Calling

Unjust use of 'labels', we have sometimes thought, could be remedied by making the 'labels' more exact. For example, we might say that the label 'charedi' is problematic because it's not perfectly clear to whom it applies. Imagine the questions you might ask to demonstrate the label's ambiguity.

Similarly, we have sometimes undermined generalizations and stereotypes by demonstrating exceptions. For example, I might protest, 'So-and-so is "charedi" and he listens to the Rolling Stones'. The exception may be taken to invalidate the 'label' -- 'well, then I guess my concept of "charedi" was incorrect' -- or, it may be discounted -- 'well, if he listens to the Rolling Stones then he can't be charedi'.

Is 'charedi' is too ephemeral? -- One can easily switch his poseq, his clothes, whatever we make it depend on. But we can play the same game with more concrete(?) labels. 'African-Americans are stupid.' 'But Colin Powell is intelligent.' 'Well, I guess my stereotype was wrong.' Or, 'Well, he's an Uncle Tom, a white black, so he doesn't count.' In both responses, the categories are validated: I want to think using the category 'African-American', I want to think using my conception of intelligence, ... .

I heard, Romanian immigrants to the US in the first part of the 20th century were not 'white'. -- 'But that was just prejudice.' Against whom -- the Romanians or the whites? Is this the sort of question that is resolved through more exacting standards?

However we define 'cheredi', 'white', 'black', 'Romanian', 'Rolling Stones', 'Colin Powell' -- the problem is the value judgement attached to the category. 'But that was just prejudice.' 'Against the Romanians or the whites?' 'The Romanians.' 'How?' 'It was considered better to be white.' Or, 'It was better to be considered white.'

Are there real categories? Are there no African-Americans? no Chicanos? no WASPs? no Asians? Surely there are people who live in Asia! Are there no Israelis? no Jews? (But I was certain about the Elders of Zion...)

I believe that many people who lived in Africa were kidnapped and brought to America, that they were enslaved there, etc., that millions of their descendants live in America. The boundaries, whether biological or cultural or linguistic or whatever, of 'African-American' are very blurry. (What about people who came through the Carribean? Who also have Spanish and/or French ancestory? Who claim descendancy from lost tribes -- I mean they might have been in Africa at some point but they're from Israel, right? What about citizens of South Africa -- whatever color you like -- who took up residency in America in June of 2004?) But that's not the problem. Exacting boundaries, as demonstrated by the Nazis(?), do not birth justice. One can approach perfect logic and perfect inhumanity at the same time. This is a feature of paranoia.

Is lashon ha-Qodesh (the language of the Torah, the language of God) the set of 'real' categories? or a set of 'real' categories? (What does 'real' mean here?)

Suppose we did have perfectly exact labels -- names, perhaps, uniquely identifying every individual, even every individual in every particular stage of his existence (etc.) -- we are still able to sneer through them. Many of the nasty things said of groups are also said of individuals. What does it mean to dress up those nasty comments in statistics?

Take 'So-and-so' as a perfectly exact label.
'So-and-so always...', 'So-and-so never' -- as though he has no freedom of will.
'I hate So-and-so!' -- as though I hated him and not what he had done, suppose he had pleased me instead.
'So-and-so did it!' -- as though blaming helped, as though his guilt exonerates me, as though I need not focus on what I can do now.
'So-and-so makes me angry!' -- as though he has power over me.
In each case, even though my label is exact, I am far from truth.

But now, this hardly seems to be a problem in labeling. What is the problem?

How am I thinking? Does such-and-such the category help me think, or hurt me thinking? Am I thinking the way I want to when I think this category? How do I want to think? What is good thinking?

How does good thinking relate to lashon ha-Qodesh?

Some things I say and hear bring me positive feelings, and some - negative feelings. For example, I feel hope, joy, and faith (positive feelings) when I think 'If I have the power to choose egocentrically, I must also have the power to choose to give and respond righteously'. Some things I say and hear that bring me positive feelings may bring another negative feelings, and some that bring me negative feelings may bring another positive feelings. For example, 'Just do it'. And the same thing said in one context might bring me positive feelings, and in another - negative feelings. And I might be able to choose what things mean, to change through my will whether a thing I hear brings me positive feelings or negative feelings.

What is a positive feeling? What is a negative feeling? Suppose I am depressed or angry. Is this negative? bad? wrong? I want to say, what matters is what I choose to do within my situation, not my situation in itself. Is it evil to have stolen? No, it is evil to steal. Once it has already happened, I can choose from within my situation to do good, lashuv (return, repent, respond), or to do evil, deny my error. Is it bad to have become angry? No, it is bad to willfully continue my anger (at least when the anger comes from gaawa - arrogance). Once I am angry, I have sign for how I can do something good in the world: the anger is a sign for me to uproot gaawa from my soul. Are distracting thoughts during prayer or thoughts in which I blame my problems on others bad? Challenging situations. It is bad to choose to persist in them, it is good to confront them. Even having failed to do teshuva is not bad in itself, it is only bad to choose to continue the situation.

Suppose I am happy. Is this good? positive? right? correct? This is harder for me to answer. I am inclined to say yes; 'mitzva gedola l'hiot b'simcha tamid - God obligates us big time to be joyful constantly'. See also Deuteronomy 28:47.

What's the difference between negative and positive? Why choose one rather than the other? 'Today I place before you blessing and curse... Choose life.'

Some of the things that can be said or heard are names (or labels). A name may bring positive or negative feelings. 'Charedi', 'Ultra-Orthodox', and 'Reform', for example, usually bring me negative feelings. 'Sefardi', 'Jew', and 'goy' however, do not tear me up in the same way.

When I hear some labels, I fill up with thoughts that they oppose or prevent what I want, that I can't because of them. My specific feelings vary: 'charedi' -- I feel dragged down or alienated, 'Reform' -- I feel deceived, 'Christian' -- I feel endangered, 'Muslim' -- I feel anger and hate, 'capitalist' -- I feel weak, deceived, and jealous.

When I hear other labels, I am not thrown off balance, or at least, not as much. When a person is labeled 'charedi', I've already written him off; but when the same person is 'Jewish', I think about how we have work to do, what I want to impress upon him, what I may learn from him, etc. When another person is a 'goy', he is not in my group, and he is not supposed to be, he should be a great goy.

It seems to me that names, with which I feel balanced, permit me my sense of individuality, my sense of other's independence, and my sense of our harmony. When names throw me off, I lose one and then all of these.

But is it the names that throw me off? The things I can say and hear that cause negative feelings, do they themselves cause those feelings? Why should they cause negative feelings, what gives them power?

The what that gives them power, that's what I want to work on.

What do my language-emotions reveal? Perhaps, my will to connect with others? This can be my focus, instead of speaking in a politically or statistically correct way.

Are there 'labels', names, or utterances of any kind that are in themselves bad? Maybe 'A-mal-eq' and 'Ham-an'. Whether there are is interesting but not more than that. Why focus only on the the end results of a deep process?

It might be good to try to speak using only language in which I maintain my balance. For example, I can hardly refer to a Jew as 'Reform' without becoming subtly angry; until I accept with love the instance of providence to which this name refers, I will refrain from using it. I seem mostly already able to speak about 'Jews'. (Can I speak any single word fully balanced before I can speak all words with my whole-heart?)

I can choose destructive relationships to people and to the world (and to God (?)), and those relationships will be evidenced in language. At the same time, I believe, I can choose life-affirming relationships, and that those too are evidenced in language. A wonderful thing is that even the negative is revealed in language. If I listen, then I'll learn what to do.

Rabbi Aqiba: Every detail of the Torah may be expounded.
Rabbi Yishma'el: 'God speaks in the language of man.'
Chassidic Interpretation: Man is the language of God.

What Divides Us

'Once skipping kiddush would have been a sacrilege for almost everyone around the table. These days, making the choice is its own blessing. The men and women sitting at the table are all former haredim who broke out of their dogmatic, strict confines, on pain of excommunication, poverty and loneliness, to live in a world in which they can choose how to live.' (Jerusalem Post, 8 March 2007, from the beginning of the article 'God Forbid?')

A dichotomy: 'haredi' against 'a world in which they can choose'. That world is later described as 'secular', 'more beautiful', 'mainstream', and 'Israeli'.
What makes 'secular' more 'Israeli' than 'haredi'?
What makes 'secular' particularly 'mainstream'?
What makes 'mainstream' more 'beautiful' than not-'mainstream' alternatives?
What is outside of the 'mainstream'?
The associations may not be wrong, but they are tenuous enough to ask explanation and examination. Too often, as in the article, we do not investigate the validity of these associations, we accept them, without question, as givens, absolutes.

Broken relationships between children and parents, marital strife, adolescent rebellion against parents and their values, poverty, educational deficits—these are cited as problems among 'haredim' and 'former haredim'. We could recite them as problems throughout our whole community. Why focus on 'haredim'? Rather than divide us, these difficulties davka unite us.

Those who traverse the dichotomy from 'haredi' to 'secular' are named in several ways. They are called 'former haredim', implying they have re-formed themselves and somehow advanced.
Have these 'former haredim' re-formed their identities?
What is it to re-form oneself?
What counts as change and personal growth?
The article discusses clothes, manners, language-skills, mitzvah-observance, educational aspirations, and television-watching. Are these good measures of a person's form, re-form, advancement?
The same people are also called 'yotzim -- exiters, going-outers', using -- and arguably turning inside-out -- the images of Avraham's journey and the exodus from Egypt. Egypt is Mitzrayim is, literally, a place of 'strict confines'. 'Strict confines', in the first quote, is identified with 'haredi'. 'Haredi', therefore, is Egypt and exile. Perhaps this explains the appearence of the article at this time, just before Pesach. 'Strict confines' (and Egypt and exile) apply especially to 'haredi' and not to 'secular', but then the 'yotzim', says the article, must learn new behaviors in order to fit into 'secular' society. Apparently secular society also has strictures and confines. What is the difference between those identified as 'haredi' and those identified as 'secular'?
The 'former haredim' and 'yotzim' (also 'yotzim b'she'ela -- those who go out with questions' -- as though 'haredim' did not have questions!) are also named 'defectors'. The name conjures images of political violence and regime conspiracy behind a 'haredi' iron curtain, and on the 'secular' side, liberation and prosperity. Will we question the implications of violence and conspiracy or accept them as givens, absolutes? There is no evidence presented, so perhaps we are supposed to already know something about the haredi world, or to believe rumors we have heard, or to suppose that the truth of the implications is self-evident. Does the 'haredi' distinguish itself in violence and conspiracy? That would be an important topic for a newspaper article!
Perhaps there are problems with violence and conspiracy in the 'haredi welt'. Perhaps there are as well in the 'secular world'. Whether there is violence, however, is a separate issue from the usage of this implication to divide Jews into these categories and to exalt one group above the other.
Furthermore, despite the implication of prosperity in the 'secular', the 'defectors', by the article's own account, experience 'poverty'. Reality is more complicated than the article's words imply.

Another example of complication: the 'defectors' are sitting together for a Shabbat meal, so are they not still 'religious'? The article tells how kiddush was cut off and left unfinished. So then am I to think that they are not 'religious' and are instead 'secular'?
Jews often make mistakes in their observance, even in matters more severe than blessings, yet they are still called 'observant', 'religious', 'haredi', etc. So what does the story mean? Kiddush, Ha-Motzi, Birkat Ha-Mazon, gratitude, 'divrei Torah', words from the heart, a personally meaningful story, all these make a Shabbat meal special, and none are exclusive property of 'haredim'. Presence and absence of ritual observance and service of the heart cannot divide us.

The Jerusalem Post on its website enables readers to 'talkback', and many of us choose to do so.
The term 'talk-back' evokes 'back-talk', a child's raving against his parent. Those who choose to add their opinion, implies the title, are disobedient, immature, and anti-authority. We who talk-back, how are we perceived, by The Jerusalem Post, by ourselves, by others?
The talk-back forum is open only for some articles, so the discourse is limited to topics chosen by the newspaper's authorities; and the forum is open only the day following the article's publication, so meditated and thorough criticism is hardly possible. What are the effects of these limitations on our news, on our understanding of the news, on our relationship to media and authority, on our relationships Jew-to-Jew?
Many comment on this particular article and object to the dichotomy between 'haredi' and 'world'. A theme repeats: it is possible to 'be in the world' and also be 'shomer mitzvoth' (the term hardly translates, alternatively we sometimes say, 'religious'). This idea is meant to resolve a dichotomy, but instead two more dichotomies crop up: 'haredim' against 'plenty of people [who] live in the real world and have proper Torah values' (in the words of one talk-backer), and the 'plenty of people [who] live in the real world and have proper Torah values' against 'secular', i.e., those who, by implication, do not 'have proper Torah values'.
Do 'haredim' not live in the real world? (If not, where do they live?)
How does one 'live in the real world'?
And furthermore, do the 'secular' not have 'proper Torah values'?
Who is 'secular'?
What are proper Torah values? Justice and patience, for example? Is there a group of Jews that specifically shuns these values?
We proliferate division in the talk-back.

We can stop back-talking at each other and begin talking with each other. If we want solidarity and strength for our people, we must put away the habit of undermining each other -- ourselves -- with our words. If we aspire to the mitzvah and great princple 'v-ahavta l-re'akha komokha - you shall love your neighbor as yourself', we must think and speak among ourselves with trust and the will to learn.
If I am not for myself, who is for me? And when I am for myself, what am I?
If not now, when?