Tikun Olam: Make the world a better place
HOME
ARCHIVES
Richard Silverstein's essay diary about U.S. and Mideast politics, world music and film.
Tikun Olam is a phrase from Jewish mystical tradition (Kabbala) reflecting humanity's need to repair the world through acts of lovingkindness (mitzvot).
Jonah and Dad
View Into the Great Wide Open: Photoblog
COMMENTS
by Richard Silverstein
Medieval Jews & Muslims in Musical Embrace
Memories of Auschwitz: a Holocaust Survivor Remembers
Home Page: Photos of Bali, the Cascades, my wedding and my son
Kate & Anna McGarrigle: Folk & Blues: An Encyclopedia
John Martyn
Lucinda Williams
February 28, 2003
George on Iraq: "There He Goes Again!" 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?
Judaism and Child Abuse 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).
February 27, 2003
Israel's Critics: Friends or Foe? 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.
Gangs of New York Disappoints (film review) First, let me say that even a Scorcese "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 compelling way. In Gangs he set out to make a great epic on the scale of 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 NY, 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. For the full review click here: http://us.imdb.com/CommentsShow?0217505-241
February 26, 2003
Nickel Creek Wins Grammy After several nominations in previous years, the wunderkinds of Nickel Creek finally won this year in the Best Contemporary Folk category. See their site for more info on their award (http://www.nickelcreek.com/news.htm. It's a bit odd they were nominated in this category since they seem to me to be more country than folk. Allison Krause 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!
February 25, 2003
Gangs of New York Disappoints (film review) Even a Scorcese 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 the scale of 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 NY, 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. For the full review click here: http://us.imdb.com/CommentsShow?0217505-241"
Far from Heaven (film review) Far from Heaven 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. The dialogue & plot developments in Todd Haynes' screenplay are not merely a reflection of the 1950s, they are an extreme, slavish parody of the period. In the characters language, you hear the exaggerated civility & stilted bonhommie that characterized the period (at least in our subsequent & reflected observations of it). To read the full review, click here http://us.imdb.com/CommentsShow?0297884-79
The Hours: Oscar Hour Approaches (film review) 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 yr. or any other... For more, click on http://us.imdb.com/CommentsShow?0274558-41
Medieval Spain: Arabs and Jews in Cultural Embrace: The Music of Hesperion XXI In the midst of the horrific bloodshed in the Middle East, I thought it would be instructive to examine pre-20th century Jewish-Muslim interactions in Mediterranean lands with a focus on Sephardic music of the Middle Ages and beyond. What it shows is that there was a period when Jewish & Muslims dwelled together in peace and mutually enriched each other's cultures (& the world's as well). Perhaps such a time might come again in the future once peace reigns. Read the full article at http://www.rootsworld.com/reviews/hesperion.shtml.
February 24, 2003
Israel and the Human Rights Dilemma 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 and murdered in cold blood (for that is the only way shooting an unarmed man can be described). The IDF response was to say essentially: "These types of things happen in wars." Yet, my Israeli friends defend the degradation of such principles on the grounds that their enemy has "no" moral principles of its own. Here is what such a friend wrote to me today in response to my earlier blog: It is very difficult in a war situation (and that is what we are in now) to ensure that every unit and every soldier acts with absolute moral rectitude. I think the IDF does the best it can to educate and on a daily basis to brief soldiers on their responsibilities. I served over many years in the territories in the reserves, and this was always the case. However, we know that it is too easy for soldiers, in the heat of action, to step over the sometimes fine line between legitimate action to protect themselves or others, and illegitimate punitive action--or, G-d forbid, killing--of someone who is no longer actively a threat. We are being so badly bashed today from all quarters, in a way that is simply not fair, when the other side openly glorifies the murder of innocent people. I respect my friend for feeling some moral ambivalence over such an act of murder. But I cannot condone the act as he has done (I'm sure he would not feel comfortable with the word "condone;" then let's say "defend or explain"). I could not think of a better response to my friend than one I read in today's Anthony Lewis op ed piece in the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/24/opinion/24LEWI.html?pagewanted=2) which quotes Aharon Barak, Israel's Supreme Court president: "The real test of [judicial] independence and impartiality comes in situations of war and terrorism. . . . Precisely in these times, we judges must hold fast to fundamental principles and values; we must embrace our supreme responsibility to protect democracy and the constitution." In my reply to my friend I wrote: "Where we diverge is that you make an allowance for such a murder given the context of the event. I too understand that our all too human reactions to stress may be different depending the gravity of the situation. But the whole point of morality & ethics is that it is even more critical to honor them when things go bad or wrong. If we can only honor our ethics in good times, but abandon them in bad times, then what are they worth? If our moral system is sacred to us; if tohar neshek means something to us then these principles especially need to be invoked AND practiced in the breach, when times are worst. The more exceptions you make, the less credible your contention that your values are superior to those of others. And if you say that you must relax your standards because your enemy has none of his own, then you still have diminished your own value system." Physical survival is a principle that our rabbis honored deeply; but they did not honor it at all cost. Survival is not an end; it is a means to an end. Our rabbis who martyred themselves at the hands of Romans centurions knew this. So should we. I am not saying that we are under any obligation to martyr ourselves to those among the Palestinians who are our enemy. But I do question what our survival is worth if we betray our fundamental values in order to maintain our own survival.
February 23, 2003
Bush to 3-Million World Anti-War Protestors: Drop Dead! 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.
February 19, 2003
Carol Mosely-Braun: What's She Smokin'?! 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??
Bush to Anti War Movement: "Get out of the way and let me lead!" I've got news for the great leader: we ain't a focus group, we're a movement! 2.5 million people in Europe & more than 1 million in the U.S. is something a bit more substantial than a focus group. And as for leadership, well Bush's "leadership" is exactly what we fear most. He says other nations who support him are "courageous." Some kinds of courage lead to folly. The Iraq war may come to exemplify that.
February 17, 2003
Doris Kearns Goodwin: Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney--heed the spirit of Lincoln!!! From The Man in Our Memory, an op-ed piece in today's NY Times (http://nytimes.com/2003/02/17/opinion/17GOOD.html?pagewanted=1): Before Sept. 11, many of us might have felt, as young Lincoln did when he was young, that the "field of glory" had been harvested by previous generations — that the times seemed somehow trivial. But then the wheel of history turned again. With the war against terror, and the anxieties provoked by warnings of future attacks on American soil, our generation has been provided with its own historic challenge. While our worries are great, even greater opportunities exist for leaders and citizens alike to win the lasting glory. Let us hope that we, and those who lead us, will, like Lincoln, be inspired by the noble ambition to accomplish reputable deeds worthy of remembrance. Thank you, Doris Goodwin for these eloquent words of admonition to President Bush and his minions.
February 16, 2003
The New York Post: It Takes a Weasel to Know OneIf you view this image carefully, you'll see that the heads of the French and German UN ambassadors have been removed in favor of weasel heads. Graphic genius, don't you think??? I couldn't believe this image when I first saw it. It is such debased journalism that I literally couldn't believe my eyes. It highlights the serious and important journalism in our right-wing press as we prepare for war. With newspapers like this, do we really need the National Enquirer??
John Ashcroft Seeks Blood & Vengeance That should be the new motto of the Bush Administration as it gears up for war on Iraq...AND our nation's criminals. The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/15/arts/theater/15DEAT.html?pagewanted=2 profiled Mary Jo White, a former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District (New York), whose views of the death penalty have been broadening. She decried John Ashcroft's decision to reject thirty plea agreements worked out by U.S. attorneys with murder suspects; forcing these U.S. Attorneys to prosecute for first degree murder and death. An earlier NYT article theorized that the Bush Administration is purposely targeting New York "as a lesson," where U.S. Attorneys hardly ever seek execution and where juries almost never approve it. Ms. White has followed the controversy surrounding Mr. Ashcroft's decisions to overrule local prosecutors who decided not to seek the death penalty, including a case in which the defendant agreed to testify against others tied to a deadly Colombian drug ring in exchange for a life sentence. She stressed that she had no inside knowledge of the cases, but she did not mince words about Mr. Ashcroft's approach. "It's very, very dangerous on its face, and it's troubling, because it doesn't make sense from a law enforcement perspective," she said.
February 14, 2003
Bush in Decline I am delighted to report that in today's New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Bush-Poll.html) George Bush's approval ratings have fallen to 54%, a 10% drop in the past month ALONE! The survey also indicates that a strong majority of the American people are OPPOSED to war in Iraq unless there is U.N. approval via a 2nd Security Council vote. Only 38% of the U.S. public feels that he is doing a good job on the economy! But when will the remaining 38% wake up to the wrecking ball approach he is taking toward economic issues like taxation? Nearly 60% feel "the country is on the wrong track." With his decline in popularity, it appears that the Bush Administration's tough, go it alone war strategy has taken a toll. My fondest wish is for the Germans, French & Russians to make Bush pay as high a price as possible for this war of his choosing. There is no doubt that he will go to war with or without the U.N.'s support. But if every stop along the way toward war (and the war itself), Bush has to pay a small price (death by a thousand cuts), then by the end of this tragedy his popularity & his Adminstration may be in a shambles. Vive les Francais!
February 13, 2003
The Seruvniks: Israeli Heroes These are courageous young Israelis who diametrically oppose a fundamental tenet of Israeli society: the obligation to serve the nation with required military service. Seruvniks refuse to serve when the IDF demands service in the Occupied Territories (though they readily agree to serve anywhere else). Their petition of refusal is very interesting reading at http://www.seruv.org.il/defaulteng.asp Concering Iraq: NPR last week quoted a current poll says that 2/3 of all Americans do not approve of any type of Iraq conflict unless it involves a 2nd UN resolution approving of war. That’s a heartening note in an otherwise bleak world picture.
February 12, 2003
The Oscars: The Road to Perdition Isn't Paved with Good Intentions! As happens every year, the Academy & its members nominate some eminently worthy films for Oscars; and develop amnesia regarding some of the best films for the year; or endorse films that hardly deserve it. First, let's start with the positive: The Hours is wonderful in every way & deserves every nomination it received. Far from Heaven and to a lesser extent, Adaptation were also standouts & deserving. But what about Gangs of New York? This is a film based on an amazing historical incident; yet Martin Scorcese somehow managed to lose track of all the drama in his story & the original event. Except for Daniel Day Lewis' character, the other characterizations were weak & unfocused. This is a film that comes nowhere his great films like Taxi Driver, Raging Bull or Last Temptation. My biggest gripe is: why do Academy members forget films that have come out more than 6 months ago? Do they have no memory for one of the great films of the year, if not the decade: The Road to Perdition. For shame that this film is forgotten. Besides the remarkable performances of Tom Hanks and Paul Newman--this film is a profound meditation on love, corruption and family devotion. It is one for the ages. Yet it is forgotten at Oscar time. For shame! ***
Israel and the Moral Stain: Killing in Cold Blood I am someone who is strongly supportive of Israel. I've lived there while studying at the Hebrew University for two academic years (1972 & 1980) and am fluent in Hebrew. Yet the story below makes me sick to my stomach as I hope it does yours too. "Israeli troops kill Palestinian fugitive in West Bank 2/11/03 By MOHAMMED DARAGHMEH, Associated Press Writer DATELINE: NABLUS, West Bank Israeli troops killed two suspected Palestinian militants, including an unarmed fugitive, in the West Bank and Gaza Strip on Monday. In Monday's violence, a suspected militant jumped from the roof of his home in the al-Ain refugee camp near Nablus to the roof of a nearby building to escape soldiers who called on him to surrender, his cousin said. Imad Mabruk hid on the roof for several hours. At about 5 a.m. gunshots were heard. Shortly after the soldiers left, Mabruk's family found his body, riddled with gunshot wounds, on the roof, his cousin, Yousef, said. Imad Mabruk had been sought by Israeli officials as a senior member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a radical PLO faction. Israeli military officials confirmed that Mabruk was unarmed but said he presented a danger to soldiers because, given his rank within the militant group, he could have been heavily armed. He was shot and killed trying to escape, the officials said." This is nothing less than state sponsored extrajudicial execution. The victim, according to the IDF, "could have been heavily armed." "Could have been?" ANd how hard did they try to find out? I remember years ago there was a Palestinian bus hijacking inside Israel. The IDF stopped the bus with the hijackers inside & alive. Yet, by the time reporters arrived the three hijackers were dead. Later, it was found that the IDF had murdered them in cold blood. This reminds me of the earlier incident with the exception that yesterday's murder was committed on a victim who was unarmed & was not in the process of committing any crime or violent act. For shame!! These types of acts are immoral and do Israel's cause a terrible injustice. Jews & others are rightly concerned about the tone of anti Semitic propaganda coming out now that the Middle East is preparing for war. The anti war movement here has trumpeted some of this vitriol. But can we rightly contradict them when they accuse Israel of "state sponsored terrorism" or "extrajudicial murder?" What the IDF did yesterday constitutes both. And I'm sick to my stomach & soul.