Heretics' almanac

Should Israelis vote for Bush or Kerry?

It's the old cliché: "but is it good for the Jews?" Jews in the diaspora are used to seeing their situation - as Jews - change when regimes change. Katarina "the Great" was bad for Jews. Maria Theresa was much better.

Since nobody's expecting either Kerry or Bush to institute pogroms or a Pale of Settlement in the next four years, a lot of Jews are instead asking the question "which administration would be better for Israel?"

The reflexive response is "Bush." As the US president of recent memory who has been the most principled in opposing terrorism and least concerned about appearing "even-handed," he has largely left Sharon alone to deal (quite effectively) with terrorism directed at Israel. And it actually helps Bush gain the Jewish vote when so many left-wing anti-Zionists argue that Bush perpetuates terrorism by supporting Israel.

But for the traditionally liberal Jewish community, it's difficult to vote for Bush on this single issue when so much of Bush's other policies - ranging from the war in Iraq to the environment to economic policy, etc., run counter to their convictions. Jews, the saying goes, "live like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans."

So, what to do?

G'mar Chatima Tovah

In the Kol Nidrei (“all promises”) services – which are really the Ma’ariv (evening) services for Yom Kippur, it is the Kol Nidrei part that is the most moving for most of us.

But it is another part that really gets me every time – when a rabbinical court is convened, with the court decreeing that it is acceptable to pray among sinners.

"In the courts above, and the courts on earth, we decree that it is permissible to pray with sinners."

To me, this is the essence of Yamim Noraim (days of awe) and perhaps Judaism itself. At that moment, we invoke our right to make difficult moral decisions by issuing a decree, even as we concede that we all fall way short of the standards we set for ourselves.

It encapsulates the Jewish response to the human condition – we may not be perfect, we may only vaguely understand the purpose of our existence, but we set for ourselves sacred aspirations. We actualize these aspirations to the best of meager abilities in our daily actions and are constantly humbled in these efforts.

Still, we have rights. We have the right to convene a court of three observant, knowledgeable people and make rulings based on our limited understanding. And none could be more profound than the decision that we are allowed to offer the service of prayer, even as that service must seem like blasphemy in light of our actual sinful conduct.

It is chutzpah of the highest order, but it brings me to tears every time.

Reuters intimidated into bias?

As much as I appreciate Honestreporting's mission, some of their letters really annoy me. Today, under the headline: Reuters Admits Appeasing Terrorists, we're told of a remarkable series of events that start with Canwest deciding to edit Reuters's lines to make it clear that Hamas is a terrorist organization involved in a campaign of violence and NOT a militant group involved in a revolt against Israeli occupation.

Reuters asked Canwest to remove "Reuters" from the byline, citing the need to protect reporters' lives against "confusion" about what was reporting.

Honestreporting concludes its little expose by saying:

Reuters admits to regulating their language to appease the terrorists ― and that's an open admission of pro-Palestinian bias.

This is correct, after a fashion, but it overlooks the central point: journalists that work among Palestinians fear for their lives if they don't report in a biased way. The valid conclusion from this isn't that Reuters hates Israel, it's that truth in journalism is another casualty of terrorism. Yes, the result is anti-Israeli bias, but the critical issue is that reporters are intimidated into spinning the news.

What should happen is that someone - an independent news organization or watchdog - should survey reporters in the area and ask them if they choose their words or their news to stay on good terms with terrorist organizations, including Fatah. They should ask what precisely they fear by not playing by the rules, and they should ask what the consequences are.

Reuters, the New York Times, AP, etc., can not do this themselves, as the suggestion there is danger would in and of itself create danger.

Happy New Year, Gideon Levy

We've corresponded briefly before, Gideon. I wrote to alert you that Odd Karsten Tveit, the Norwegian broadcasting reporter who needs a haircut even more than I do, had used your opinion to promote a biased perspective of the security barrier. You responded tersely, and I realized later you were all in favor of the kind of bias Tveit promotes to the Norwegian public.

It's the kind of bias that makes it dangerous to be openly Jewish in Norway, but never mind. I'm writing to wish you a new year full of peace and progress, and to share with you my hopes more specifically.

I hope that there's a lot fewer deaths in 5765. I hope that the barrier makes further military incursions necessary. I hope that the Palestinians get the leaders they deserve and find ways to improve their lives. I hope that the settlements no longer feel like frontier outposts. I hope that there is plenty of rain, or that desalination plants go on line.

I hope I'm wrong in my pessimism about Arab leaders' interest in peace. I hope that Europeans stop using Israel as an excuse for hurting Jews.

I hope that morality is victorious, so that Israel doesn't have to keep making these awful choices. I hope that Sahron can have more of an ability to do what's right and not just what's politically implementable.

But there are things I fear, too.

I fear that terrorists breach the security barrier and kill lots of people. I fear Gaza may completely collapse when Israel withdraws, leading to civil war. I fear that Hizballah gets nuclear weapons from Iran and threatens Israel or one of the Arab neighbors. I fear that European antisemtism will get even more traction. I fear that this era follows not the exception but the rule in Jewish history.

Sent from my Blackberry

In Norway and Sweden: no such thing as antisemitism

Norway and Sweden have a pretty decent record of not killing people who are different from the vast, homogenous majority who are Lutheran, white, ethnically Norwegian, and politically just a little left of center. Sure, there is a tendency to differentiate between "Norwegians" and, say, "Muslims," and the Sami people were treated like crap for too long; and gypsies are still ostracized. But very little killing, and even the discrimination has its bounds, if the person being discriminated against can earn his or her right to be different.

Not only that, but these are countries that have made racism illegal. Politicians will tell you with a straight face that it is punishable by law to be a racist in Norway. Pressed on the issue, they'll concede they're not talking about mind control but rather restrictions on speech.

And that takes care of that. There may be a few residual racists in Norway and Sweden, but they're all part of the (right wing) lunatic fringe.

So when Norwegian journalists, politicians, and other local experts are confronted with charges of antisemitism, they 1) are offended by the mere suggestion (victims of bigotry have no business making the charge); and 2) make the following argument:

Madonna in Israel

Madonna, aka Esther, is in Israel. (Don't get me started on the irony of someone named Madonna taking the name Esther.)

I happen to like Madonna. I think she's a good performer and a great example of someone who made the best of her abilities. Even if I find some of her material objectionable, I have to admire her courage for putting it out there, so to speak. So I have no axe to grind with her. In fact I think she smiled at me once during a movie shoot - on location for "Who's that Girl" on 105th Street between Riverside and West End Avenue. Remember, Esther?

But she's not the ideal exponent of Kabbalah. (And to be fair, she may not intend to be).

Kabbalah is not flamboyant - quite the opposite. You'd have a hard time finding serious practitioners of Kabbalah at all, and forget getting them to talk about it. All the rabbis place observance above mysticism, and they even warn of the dangers of Kabbalah for the unprepared. Chabad and birthright may have mass excursions to the Kotel; kabbalists go there in groups of 3-4, make as little out of themselves as possible, and go home.

I wish other, more mainstream aspects of Judaism got more attention. The imperative of tzedakah; mourning practices; the aesthetics of kashrut; the essence of Yamin Noraim; the profound nature of Shabbat; etc. If Madonna/Esther has picked up kashrut, lights candles for Shabbat, or even practices family purity - that would be something to make publicity about.

New Orleans headed for a deluge?

So far, Hurricane Ivan has managed to snake its way through the Caribbean without hitting any major population center head on, except for the island of Grenada, where it damaged something like 90% of all buildings. Right now, the eye of the storm neatly squeezed between Cuba and the Yucatan Peninsula, making things unpleasant for people in both places, but not causing the kind of catastrophe a Category 5 hurricane otherwise would.

This pretty much leaves an open path through the Gulf of Mexico. Right now, the meteorologists are guessing it'll make landfall in the Mobile/Pensacola area. So far the experts have consistently put the hurricane further east than where it ended up - if there's a bias in their models that has caused this, the hurricane may hit New Orleans or Houston. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is hoping that the eye of the storm will weaken and a Northwesterly shear will weaken it to a Category 4 or 3 hurricane by the time it hits the US, but apparently the hurricane has resisted that kind of influence so far. The nice weather here in New Jersey today may be really bad news for New Orleans.

New Orleans would be really bad news. There is are between 48 and 72 hours until it hits, and that's about as long as it'll take to evacuate New Orleans. People should be getting very nervous there.

L'Shana Tovah!

In a few days, it'll be 5765 years since the universe was created - at least according to Jewish tradition. Some scientists may claim that this estimate is off by non-trivial orders of magnitude, and I'd be inclined to agree. But since the right number is well outside of our short life spans, one day is as good as any other to mark the singularity that got it all started.

In the spirit of Yamin Noraim ("Days of Awe," more descriptive than "High Holidays," don't you think?), I'd like to offer my readers my apologies if I unwittingly or wittingly hurt, offended, or otherwise harmed them in the past year. And if anyone believes you have done anything to hurt or harm me, please be assured that you should be held guiltless on my account.

September 12th, 2004

For reasons that aren't entirely clear to me, the strongest emotion I had on this September 11th was ANGER.

I am angry at the intellectuals, editors, and journalists who persist in thinking of terror as an abstract and morally ambigious phenomena, as a reflexive reaction among oppressed people. I am angry at them for being apologists for actions that are reprehensible in any moral system in today's world, for ducking the responsibility of making essential moral distinctions.

I am also angry at the Bush administration for screwing things up so badly. I have no confidence that the gains made against terrorism in the last three years are in any proportion to the sacrifices made by the American people. I can forgive the strategic missteps, but I am angry about the unwillingness to admit them. I am angry that New York was first neglected and then exposed to further danger and inconvenience during the convention.

I am angry at Kerry and the Bush critics for not having the courage to articulate a clear alternative strategy to the Bush approach.

I am angry at the world community for not calling Arafat on being a lying, stealing terrorist and instead pretending that Sharon - as infuriating as he can be - is the criminal in the mix.

I am angry at the European press for failing to understand and appreciate the earnestness and courage of the American people in confronting terrorism. I am angry at European politicians for wanting to appease terrorists while secretly being glad the US and Israel are confronting them.

As far as I'm concerned, we've wasted two of the last three years, way too many lives, and uncounted billions of dollars not being serious about eradicating terrorism. And it pisses me off.

Is there such a thing as religious "essence?"

The oft-mentioned Bjørn Stærk has attracted the irritation of the folks at Secular Islam, who believe his piece on criticizing religion is part of "a ludicrous pseudo-debate."

Bjørn's piece is straightforward enough, and I don't have much to add to it.

But Irfan Khawaja lumps Bjørn in with Edward Said (of all people), complaining about fallacies involved in Said's arguments and then accuses Bjørn of "bravado, arrogance, ignorance, and illogic." (Don't get me started on the irony that these guys use exactly the same devices as Said used to dismiss Bjørn's opinions).

Khawaja is upset because Bjørn thinks that a discussion on the essence of Islam is useless - anyone who participates can prove whatever they already believe by selecting texts, behaviors, etc. that suit their convictions. Better, says Bjørn, to discuss Islam (or any other religion) as a system of sociology.

Khawaja rejects this premise because Muslims themselves believe Islam has an essence, and also because the behaviors of Muslims would be too varied, and too confusing to begin with:

How on earth can it be easier to generalize across the actions of billions upon billions of people—most of them dead—than it is to grasp the essential claims of the Qur’an, Sunnah, and fiqh? No sociologist or demographer would even pretend to aspire to the first task, but every Muslim on earth is obliged to aspire to the second.