Hello all (I know you're out there somewhere, you shy devotees of my blog),
In light of some recent news coming from Israel, I must reluctantly return to my favorite topic of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. I really am reluctant, because this news is not good.
To give some background, a UN humanitarian mission accused Israel yesterday of serious human rights violations in the Gaza attacks of last winter. According to the report, a significant number (more than half) of the casualties were civilians, and that the violence was generally disproportional to the need for defense. Israel has ignored the UN's suggestion of having an independant investigation into the events, claiming that they have already looked into the matter and found themselves to be in the clear.
Sigh.
Before I give myself over to sheer depression at the political extension of my religion, I can affirm that Israel takes great pride in the humanitarian nature of its wars. Believe it or not, I know. Politicians and soldiers alike describe calling homes that will be searched and distributing fliers to allow civilians time to get out of war areas, and using techniques that minimize casualties.
They still swear by those old methods, and perhaps they are actually used. What disturbs me is that testimonies from both Israeli soldiers and Palestinians seem to indicate that this recent war in Gaza did not involve such humane measures. Soldiers describe igniting phospherous to attack larger areas, and having been told to kill first and then look at who's being shot.
All's fair in love and war, but this doesn't quite look like a war. I'm not comfortable calling it a genocide, as many do, because I'm still hopeful that the actual purpose of all this violence is theoretically peace, and not to destroy the Palestinian people.
That being said, I'm not sure what I'd call it.
As a Jew, I would love to be able to fully support Israel and all it stands for. As it stands, I may have to start boycotting Ahava products like everyone else. As much as I agree that a country as a right to defend itself, I cannot find a way to justify what seems like utterly useless bullying.
Israel's strategy would make sense, IF it were possible to kill all the terrorists and somehow end the conflict. This simply will not happen. Violence breeds more violence. Today's orphans in Gaza will rise out of poverty and anger to attack Israel tomorrow.
This Friday begins Rosh Hashana, the Jewish new year. We Jews take our new year pretty seriously as a chance to reconsider our lives and reform what can be made better. I can only hope, albeit skeptically as always, that at this time next year I will be proud to stand with Israel again.
Until then, Ma'assalamma (Arabic for peace be with you)
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Friday, September 11, 2009
Hello world,
Now that I have shamelessly begged a few more people to read my blog (hi Manya!), I will hopefully feel motivated by your undying loyalty and devotion to post a bit more often. I may even get off my high horse over the politics that irk me and spend some time talking about college life (hi Manya!) and everyday things that irk me.
But not quite yet.
Having given up free food at another event to watch Obama's speech Wednesday night, I feel it is my duty as an informed citizen to spread the knowledge I gained to the public. After all, quite a bit of people opted for the free food (not that I can blame them).
First off, let's talk red carpet- and by red carpet, I mean the fire-engine red business suits that both Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi were wearing, the reason for which I am still trying to fathom. Was it a feminist statement, that women should be seen while the president's being heard? Was it a cry for attention? Was is an underpaid stylist's revenge? In any case, it was certainly loud.
I'd like to take a moment out to honor Eric Cantor, the poor soul who was caught on his blackberry by national TV networks, during the president's speech. Granted, that's one tweet that would be hard to pass up- "Listening to president now, dinner later, text or page me!" Or, perhaps it was just a very important message that just couldn't wait until the leader of the free world had finished speaking. Time management is so hard these days.
But let's get to the man of the hour: Barack Obama.
For those of you who are not familiar with my political history (hi Manya!), I am an Obama supporter. Before I heard Obama speak, I was pretty convinced that true eloquence was a dead art that would not resurface in the digital age. After hearing his victory speech after the Iowa caucus, I was at once awed by his dignity and saddened that such a brilliant man could never be elected president. I simply did not trust America to make the right choice- not because I believe Americans are ignorant or bigoted as a whole, but because I have watched Fox news and know how hard it is to get anything resembling real information today.
So, it is with great pleasure that I say that Wednesday's speech put aside my recent fears that Mr. Hope may be backing away from real change. Don't get me wrong, I am still quite skeptical as to whether this bill will actually get passed, and I don't underestimate the economic implications that may be far more expensive than his speech made it appear. But I'm hopeful again.
In his speech, Obama outlined the main points of the bill he hopes to pass:
-Preventing insurance companies from placing caps on the amount of coverage a person can receive per year
-Preventing insurance companies from denying coverage based on previous conditions
-Providing a public option of health care, sponsored by the government, ONLY for people who could not purchase or receive health benefits from some other means
-Requiring that all citizens have health insurance, with waivers for those who truly could not afford it at all.
-No coverage for abortions
-No coverage for illegal aliens
-NO DEATH PANELS
-Ensuring that insurance companies pay for preventative care
-Program will cost less than Iraq war
-Program will not be paid for by raising middle-class taxes
-Public option will not be funded through taxes at all, so no one will be paying directly for others' healthcare
Supposedly, this will not increase our deficit "one dime," though I've read analyses that explain that Washington's definition of no deficit may be a bit different than the conventional one. But, as Mr. Obama noted himself, the deficit is already in tens of trillions, so what's another billion or so? (Granted, I'll be paying for it all my life. Thanks.)
Frankly, I learned quite a bit from the speech. I'd known the general outline of his plans, but I did not know that he did not intend to use any tax money at all to fund the public option. I had also not known that abortions were not going to be covered under the plan. Regardless of how I feel about either of them specifically, I do hope that these two provisions will help the bill actually pass. A bill that allowed abortions to be covered, i.e. forced Americans to subsidize abortions, would never be acceptable to many religious parties in the country. Although I am pro-choice, I can't blame them for that. Furthermore, a bill that required the country at large to fund the health care of a few through taxes would be essentially creating a welfare state of healthcare, which would also not go far in Congress. For me, those two points did make a difference from my initial skepticism of whether the plan could even theoretically work.
By now, of course, you've probably gathered that I support universal healthcare. Good job. I don't necessarily think we should model after Canada or France, but I do believe that whenever we do achieve universal coverage we will look back and wonder, how on Earth did we ever let millions of people die every year in one of the wealthiest and medically advanced nations of the world? How did we allow economic issues to get in the way of protecting American children? And we'll have to shrug, and say "It seemed like a good idea at the time."
Now that I have shamelessly begged a few more people to read my blog (hi Manya!), I will hopefully feel motivated by your undying loyalty and devotion to post a bit more often. I may even get off my high horse over the politics that irk me and spend some time talking about college life (hi Manya!) and everyday things that irk me.
But not quite yet.
Having given up free food at another event to watch Obama's speech Wednesday night, I feel it is my duty as an informed citizen to spread the knowledge I gained to the public. After all, quite a bit of people opted for the free food (not that I can blame them).
First off, let's talk red carpet- and by red carpet, I mean the fire-engine red business suits that both Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi were wearing, the reason for which I am still trying to fathom. Was it a feminist statement, that women should be seen while the president's being heard? Was it a cry for attention? Was is an underpaid stylist's revenge? In any case, it was certainly loud.
I'd like to take a moment out to honor Eric Cantor, the poor soul who was caught on his blackberry by national TV networks, during the president's speech. Granted, that's one tweet that would be hard to pass up- "Listening to president now, dinner later, text or page me!" Or, perhaps it was just a very important message that just couldn't wait until the leader of the free world had finished speaking. Time management is so hard these days.
But let's get to the man of the hour: Barack Obama.
For those of you who are not familiar with my political history (hi Manya!), I am an Obama supporter. Before I heard Obama speak, I was pretty convinced that true eloquence was a dead art that would not resurface in the digital age. After hearing his victory speech after the Iowa caucus, I was at once awed by his dignity and saddened that such a brilliant man could never be elected president. I simply did not trust America to make the right choice- not because I believe Americans are ignorant or bigoted as a whole, but because I have watched Fox news and know how hard it is to get anything resembling real information today.
So, it is with great pleasure that I say that Wednesday's speech put aside my recent fears that Mr. Hope may be backing away from real change. Don't get me wrong, I am still quite skeptical as to whether this bill will actually get passed, and I don't underestimate the economic implications that may be far more expensive than his speech made it appear. But I'm hopeful again.
In his speech, Obama outlined the main points of the bill he hopes to pass:
-Preventing insurance companies from placing caps on the amount of coverage a person can receive per year
-Preventing insurance companies from denying coverage based on previous conditions
-Providing a public option of health care, sponsored by the government, ONLY for people who could not purchase or receive health benefits from some other means
-Requiring that all citizens have health insurance, with waivers for those who truly could not afford it at all.
-No coverage for abortions
-No coverage for illegal aliens
-NO DEATH PANELS
-Ensuring that insurance companies pay for preventative care
-Program will cost less than Iraq war
-Program will not be paid for by raising middle-class taxes
-Public option will not be funded through taxes at all, so no one will be paying directly for others' healthcare
Supposedly, this will not increase our deficit "one dime," though I've read analyses that explain that Washington's definition of no deficit may be a bit different than the conventional one. But, as Mr. Obama noted himself, the deficit is already in tens of trillions, so what's another billion or so? (Granted, I'll be paying for it all my life. Thanks.)
Frankly, I learned quite a bit from the speech. I'd known the general outline of his plans, but I did not know that he did not intend to use any tax money at all to fund the public option. I had also not known that abortions were not going to be covered under the plan. Regardless of how I feel about either of them specifically, I do hope that these two provisions will help the bill actually pass. A bill that allowed abortions to be covered, i.e. forced Americans to subsidize abortions, would never be acceptable to many religious parties in the country. Although I am pro-choice, I can't blame them for that. Furthermore, a bill that required the country at large to fund the health care of a few through taxes would be essentially creating a welfare state of healthcare, which would also not go far in Congress. For me, those two points did make a difference from my initial skepticism of whether the plan could even theoretically work.
By now, of course, you've probably gathered that I support universal healthcare. Good job. I don't necessarily think we should model after Canada or France, but I do believe that whenever we do achieve universal coverage we will look back and wonder, how on Earth did we ever let millions of people die every year in one of the wealthiest and medically advanced nations of the world? How did we allow economic issues to get in the way of protecting American children? And we'll have to shrug, and say "It seemed like a good idea at the time."
Monday, September 7, 2009
The Green Stuff
Let's jump right in, shall we.
Adam Smith was a pompous ass.
To be fair, he was right on a few counts. First, it is true that people tend to do what they feel will give them the greatest benefit. And it is true that, using this theory, the market has grown over the last several hundred years to a level of consumption unheard of in Smith's day. Yet this is precisely where Smith's reasoning fails, because his third key assertion is that what's good for the market is good for everyone.
And this is just not always true, as we're starting to see.
Let's fast forward just a bit to my environmental science class last week, where we were given an assignment to calculate the number of worlds it would take if everyone in the world lived according to our lifestyle. We each went to a site that asked various questions about our diets, the amount of driving we normally do, heat and garbage use, etc. (I'll post the link to the site at some point, it's worth checking out.) My personal numbers?
4.9 worlds. As in, it would take the resources of approximately 5 worlds if everyone on the planet lived like me.
And I drive a Prius, for crying out loud.
News flash: There is only one world.
So, you're probably wondering now, how on Earth does Adam Smith play into all this?
A fundamental aspect of economic theory, as it is taught in (ahem) universities and business schools, is that growth is the most important gauge of success in a company. It's not enough to be breaking even, one must make a profit. It's not enough to make a profit, one must make bigger profits next year. If this location does well, more locations must be opened.
This is great until we stop to consider another key point of both economics and, today, environmental reality: The world does not have the resources, the space, or the energy available to support endless growth. In fact, as my (admittedly inexact) online test shows, the world does not have the resources to support current levels of production. In essence, the guiding business philosophy of the Western world for the last three hundred years has justified and exacerbated the devastation of the natural world, and the exploitation of the peoples who failed to comply with said devastation.
Granted, as environmentalists today are now trying to remind us, reforming our ways doesn't at all mean doing away with economic theory. Rather, we must simply change our tax systems and products so that is it economically beneficial to be ecologically friendly, instead of an economic burden on the few who make green practices a priority. Still, I have to admit, it irks me to no end when people act as if going green is optional, or simply a "nice thing to do." Going green, as we so artistically call it, is one small step into taking responsibility for our actions as members of the world, which by and large the Western world has failed miserably to do since Columbus killed the "Indians." Contrary to Adam Smith's rosy ideas, doing what's best for the market has long meant exploiting poorer nations, overusing our share of the world's resources, and literally choosing a million-dollar bonus over cleaner air for all. So, Adam, you win. People really do what's best for themselves economically. Happy now?
Adam Smith was a pompous ass.
To be fair, he was right on a few counts. First, it is true that people tend to do what they feel will give them the greatest benefit. And it is true that, using this theory, the market has grown over the last several hundred years to a level of consumption unheard of in Smith's day. Yet this is precisely where Smith's reasoning fails, because his third key assertion is that what's good for the market is good for everyone.
And this is just not always true, as we're starting to see.
Let's fast forward just a bit to my environmental science class last week, where we were given an assignment to calculate the number of worlds it would take if everyone in the world lived according to our lifestyle. We each went to a site that asked various questions about our diets, the amount of driving we normally do, heat and garbage use, etc. (I'll post the link to the site at some point, it's worth checking out.) My personal numbers?
4.9 worlds. As in, it would take the resources of approximately 5 worlds if everyone on the planet lived like me.
And I drive a Prius, for crying out loud.
News flash: There is only one world.
So, you're probably wondering now, how on Earth does Adam Smith play into all this?
A fundamental aspect of economic theory, as it is taught in (ahem) universities and business schools, is that growth is the most important gauge of success in a company. It's not enough to be breaking even, one must make a profit. It's not enough to make a profit, one must make bigger profits next year. If this location does well, more locations must be opened.
This is great until we stop to consider another key point of both economics and, today, environmental reality: The world does not have the resources, the space, or the energy available to support endless growth. In fact, as my (admittedly inexact) online test shows, the world does not have the resources to support current levels of production. In essence, the guiding business philosophy of the Western world for the last three hundred years has justified and exacerbated the devastation of the natural world, and the exploitation of the peoples who failed to comply with said devastation.
Granted, as environmentalists today are now trying to remind us, reforming our ways doesn't at all mean doing away with economic theory. Rather, we must simply change our tax systems and products so that is it economically beneficial to be ecologically friendly, instead of an economic burden on the few who make green practices a priority. Still, I have to admit, it irks me to no end when people act as if going green is optional, or simply a "nice thing to do." Going green, as we so artistically call it, is one small step into taking responsibility for our actions as members of the world, which by and large the Western world has failed miserably to do since Columbus killed the "Indians." Contrary to Adam Smith's rosy ideas, doing what's best for the market has long meant exploiting poorer nations, overusing our share of the world's resources, and literally choosing a million-dollar bonus over cleaner air for all. So, Adam, you win. People really do what's best for themselves economically. Happy now?
Sunday, September 6, 2009
A Moment Please (For Still It Takes A Moment)
Hello cyberfriends.
This post isn't about economics, or climate change, or even the Palestinia-Israeli conflict (yes, you can all breathe a sign of relief).
Rather than my usual rant, let's call this more of an excercise in imagination.
First, pick a developing nation, say, Thailand. A nice place, Thailand. Or maybe Somalia. Or Guatemala. Your favorite developing nation.
You can probably envision a typical scene in this nation from some picture you saw in National Geographic, or on the news, or even in person if you've been lucky enough to visit your favorite developing nation. Envision it.
Imagine a person. He or she was born on your birthday, at the exact hour of your birth. (You know there's someone out there who was.) By a quirk of fate, you were born here, and they were born in your favorite developing nation. Maybe he or she has electricity, and maybe not. He or she may go to school ("he" having a much greater chance of getting education than "she," according to statistics, but I digress), perhaps in a one-room schoolhouse, perhaps in a madrassah, perhaps with a teacher who only shows up once a week. He or she will grow up to farm the same crops as the ancestors who came before, perhaps even growing the coffee that you drank this morning.
Stop imagining.
Look around you. Chances are, you are in an air-conditioned and well-lit room, unless you're the type to ponder in the dark. What forces of history and politics somehow made your life so different than this person, your counterpart so to speak?
Without being overly melodramatic, it is simply a fact that the Western (European and North American, specifically) economic market system rides on the backs of the exploited masses of the rest of the world.
Surely not, you protest. The market does not exploit, it simply rewards those who take advantage of it. Didn't Adam Smith swear by the Invisible Hand, that doing what was best for oneself in the market would automatically lead one to do the best for society as a whole?
Well, sure. But Adam Smith wrote in the 1700's, when human beings of a different color were not buyers and sellers of goods, but the goods themselves. So clearly, Adam Smith's definition of "society" did not include the greater global community.
I suppose that was fine in the 1700's, where business mostly took place in a market near one's home. In today's global economy, where outsourcing and technology have shrunk the world and these aforesaid developing nations are, indeed, developing rapidly each day, Americans today cannot afford to have this same limited view.
The American way of life is unsustainable. We have forgotten ourselves to be members of the planet Earth, and have taken more of its resources than we deserve. And we take them directly from the hands and mouths of these people, who share our feelings and needs, who may share our birthdays.
More on this in tomorrow's post, which I warn in advance will surely include a political rant or two. For now, as a preview I will leave you with a statement that will hopefully whet your appetite and bring you back for the full justification.
Adam Smith was a pompous ass.
This post isn't about economics, or climate change, or even the Palestinia-Israeli conflict (yes, you can all breathe a sign of relief).
Rather than my usual rant, let's call this more of an excercise in imagination.
First, pick a developing nation, say, Thailand. A nice place, Thailand. Or maybe Somalia. Or Guatemala. Your favorite developing nation.
You can probably envision a typical scene in this nation from some picture you saw in National Geographic, or on the news, or even in person if you've been lucky enough to visit your favorite developing nation. Envision it.
Imagine a person. He or she was born on your birthday, at the exact hour of your birth. (You know there's someone out there who was.) By a quirk of fate, you were born here, and they were born in your favorite developing nation. Maybe he or she has electricity, and maybe not. He or she may go to school ("he" having a much greater chance of getting education than "she," according to statistics, but I digress), perhaps in a one-room schoolhouse, perhaps in a madrassah, perhaps with a teacher who only shows up once a week. He or she will grow up to farm the same crops as the ancestors who came before, perhaps even growing the coffee that you drank this morning.
Stop imagining.
Look around you. Chances are, you are in an air-conditioned and well-lit room, unless you're the type to ponder in the dark. What forces of history and politics somehow made your life so different than this person, your counterpart so to speak?
Without being overly melodramatic, it is simply a fact that the Western (European and North American, specifically) economic market system rides on the backs of the exploited masses of the rest of the world.
Surely not, you protest. The market does not exploit, it simply rewards those who take advantage of it. Didn't Adam Smith swear by the Invisible Hand, that doing what was best for oneself in the market would automatically lead one to do the best for society as a whole?
Well, sure. But Adam Smith wrote in the 1700's, when human beings of a different color were not buyers and sellers of goods, but the goods themselves. So clearly, Adam Smith's definition of "society" did not include the greater global community.
I suppose that was fine in the 1700's, where business mostly took place in a market near one's home. In today's global economy, where outsourcing and technology have shrunk the world and these aforesaid developing nations are, indeed, developing rapidly each day, Americans today cannot afford to have this same limited view.
The American way of life is unsustainable. We have forgotten ourselves to be members of the planet Earth, and have taken more of its resources than we deserve. And we take them directly from the hands and mouths of these people, who share our feelings and needs, who may share our birthdays.
More on this in tomorrow's post, which I warn in advance will surely include a political rant or two. For now, as a preview I will leave you with a statement that will hopefully whet your appetite and bring you back for the full justification.
Adam Smith was a pompous ass.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Hillary's Bookclub
Hello All,
This will be a short and not particularly political post; I am exhausted from wrangling 7- and 8-year olds at a camp for children who play stringed instruments. (My new best friend is a 7-year-old harpist.) More tomorrow on how music may, in the words of Pablo Casals, save the world after all. But meanwhile:
In the past year, I have read a few books that definitely shaped and affected the way I see the world. Some of them were political, some not, but all interesting and (I promise) VERY readable- I'm easily bored, especially when I'm reading on my own time. I sincerely recommend reading as many of these as you can. Whether you agree with them or not, they will make you think and make you more informed. Think of it as your patriotic duty to read at least one! (Plus then we can talk about them, and that will mean more comments on my blog, which is really all I care about. Sorry.)
In no particular order:
The Omnivore's Dilemma: Michael Pollan. Similar to Eric Schlosser's Fast Food Nation, only more interesting, funnier, and more shocking. Be warned: You will never look at a supermarket innocently again.
Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Thomas Friedman. Think of it as a book version of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," but more focused on solutions and less on alarmism. This book shows how economic globalisation, food crises, education, and inovation all tie directly into the issue of climate change and how each can be used to fix, or exaccerbate, problems depending on our choices. If you ever thought that environmentalism was for tree-huggers only, think again.
No God But God: The Origin, Evolution, and Future of Islam: Reza Aslan. The title says it all- in only a few hundred pages, Aslan (a young, Iranian-born journalist for the online zine the Daily Beast,) manages to tell the story of Muhammad's ascent to power, give an overview of the Qur'an and its meaning, explain the different types of Islam, and do so in a remarkably engaging way that makes you actually want to keep reading.
Aslan's second book, How to Win a Cosmic War, deals more directly with the current cultural clash between the East and West, but both are hugely helpful to anyone who wants to understand the news in a deeper way. If you ever asked "why do they hate us," you'll get some very intersting answers in either of these books.
Lipstick Jihad: Azadeh Moaveni. This is an autobiographical memoir of one journalist's journey back to Iran. Moaveni's parents were exiled when the Shah was overthrown, and moved with others to California. Having grown up hearing stories of the idylic paradise of her family's home, Moaveni is shocked by the reality that she faces upon going back to Iran to work. If you want to remotely understand the current Iranian chaos, read this book. It's amusing,
Those are just a few, I'll do a list of fiction soon, because we all need some fantasy in our lives to take the edge off of reality. (Vodka does this well too, although fiction books are better for the liver and one is more likely to remember an evening over books than shots. But whatever floats your boat.)
This will be a short and not particularly political post; I am exhausted from wrangling 7- and 8-year olds at a camp for children who play stringed instruments. (My new best friend is a 7-year-old harpist.) More tomorrow on how music may, in the words of Pablo Casals, save the world after all. But meanwhile:
In the past year, I have read a few books that definitely shaped and affected the way I see the world. Some of them were political, some not, but all interesting and (I promise) VERY readable- I'm easily bored, especially when I'm reading on my own time. I sincerely recommend reading as many of these as you can. Whether you agree with them or not, they will make you think and make you more informed. Think of it as your patriotic duty to read at least one! (Plus then we can talk about them, and that will mean more comments on my blog, which is really all I care about. Sorry.)
In no particular order:
The Omnivore's Dilemma: Michael Pollan. Similar to Eric Schlosser's Fast Food Nation, only more interesting, funnier, and more shocking. Be warned: You will never look at a supermarket innocently again.
Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Thomas Friedman. Think of it as a book version of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," but more focused on solutions and less on alarmism. This book shows how economic globalisation, food crises, education, and inovation all tie directly into the issue of climate change and how each can be used to fix, or exaccerbate, problems depending on our choices. If you ever thought that environmentalism was for tree-huggers only, think again.
No God But God: The Origin, Evolution, and Future of Islam: Reza Aslan. The title says it all- in only a few hundred pages, Aslan (a young, Iranian-born journalist for the online zine the Daily Beast,) manages to tell the story of Muhammad's ascent to power, give an overview of the Qur'an and its meaning, explain the different types of Islam, and do so in a remarkably engaging way that makes you actually want to keep reading.
Aslan's second book, How to Win a Cosmic War, deals more directly with the current cultural clash between the East and West, but both are hugely helpful to anyone who wants to understand the news in a deeper way. If you ever asked "why do they hate us," you'll get some very intersting answers in either of these books.
Lipstick Jihad: Azadeh Moaveni. This is an autobiographical memoir of one journalist's journey back to Iran. Moaveni's parents were exiled when the Shah was overthrown, and moved with others to California. Having grown up hearing stories of the idylic paradise of her family's home, Moaveni is shocked by the reality that she faces upon going back to Iran to work. If you want to remotely understand the current Iranian chaos, read this book. It's amusing,
Those are just a few, I'll do a list of fiction soon, because we all need some fantasy in our lives to take the edge off of reality. (Vodka does this well too, although fiction books are better for the liver and one is more likely to remember an evening over books than shots. But whatever floats your boat.)
Monday, August 17, 2009
No Taxation Before My Operation: The Healthcare Saga
Seeing as how the Middle East isn’t in any hurry to solve itself soon, I thought I’d let my final (?) analysis of Israel/Palestine sit for another day while I rant about something else that’s been irking me.
Healthcare, anyone?
The Obama healthcare plan has ignited debate across the country, and inspired hope or rage depending on whom you ask. Personally, I don’t think that the Obama plan as it is now is the answer to the country’s healthcare crisis. But I do believe that it is a developing crisis. And it needs to be addressed.
There are several serious problems with the current system, as I understand it. First, high premiums for both patients and doctors drive up the overall costs, making it difficult for doctors to practice in high-risk fields (like gynecology…who needs that, anyway?) and for patients to purchase insurance if it’s not provided by their employer. This is, of course, a strain on businesses and can be detrimental (ever heard of General Motors?). People whose companies do not provide health insurance are then dissuaded from purchasing it on their own because- here is the kicker- many of these workers are temporarily employed, working at minimum-wage jobs, or unemployed and cannot afford the premiums. If they need medical attention, a visit to the emergency room is about $300 just to walk in. (This according to the documentary TV show “30 Days” by Morgan Spurlock- not a foolproof source but it was caught on film, at least.) So, the poorest people are the most likely to be forced to pay the full price of health care. Not to mention, this disproportionally affects people of color and recent immigrants; in 2007, nearly a third of the 46 million uninsured Americans were Hispanic. (http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml)
Of course, there are plenty of people whose above-minimum wage jobs do not provide insurance either. These people are doomed by two fateful words: pre-existing conditions. If you are sick, may become sick, old, have any iffy habits, or were cursed with some kind of genetic condition, it is essentially impossible to get healthcare coverage privately.
Meanwhile, for those that do have coverage, getting the company to actually cover procedures that are “superfluous” (like therapy) or “experimental” (like blood transfusions) is another struggle.
Granted, a good deal of my information on this came from Michael Moore’s “Sicko.” Before you laugh me off as an extremist, however, keep in mind he does have proof and sources for his statistics, and that the people in his documentaries are real. Not to mention, if you go back and watch some of the most extreme parts of his older documentary “Farenheit 9/11,” it’s all old news by now. But I digress.
My problem with the system comes down to this: How, in the wealthiest and most medically advanced country in the world, can we conscionably allow people to die because they can’t afford to be healed? And, according to http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml, an estimated 22,000 people do simply due to lack of coverage. I am also furious when I see people denounce the very idea of a publicly funded coverage option as “un-American” or “socialist.” While I do not think that all people who disagree with universal healthcare are ignorant, these words have no meaning when they are simply hurled in anger. Yes, universal healthcare is a socialist concept- but socialism and the rigid, state-centered communism that seems to for some reason be associated with this idea are two completely different things. No one is suggesting we become like Soviet Russia, yet that is exactly what some protestors seem to believe. Furthermore, what on earth does it mean to be un-American? (I smell a future post on that topic…) Personally, I’d put being healthy as an inalienable right up with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Economic competition is all well and good, but when the greed of private insurance companies starts to harm the health of the American people, it would be negligence of the government not to step in. Is it not, after all, the job of the government to protect the people from tyranny?
To be honest, I do not know what the perfect solution would be. My problem with the Obama plan is that, in its current form, it forces the rich to pay via taxes for healthcare services that they themselves already receive, and thereby essentially creates a citizen-funded welfare program. This, I do think, is actually un-American, because any system where the rich pay for the poor (or vice versa) is practically begging for class warfare. Interestingly enough, though, this is essentially the accepted system for education; the wealthy pay for private schools and full tuition at universities, and also pay taxes that support the local schools that their children do not attend. Of course, with sky-rocketing college tuitions and public schools smothered by standardized tests, maybe education could use some reform as well? (Again, I smell a future post.)
The nature of an ideal (that is to say, thus far non-existent) universal healthcare program is that everyone pays and everyone, eventually, receives. My taxes may be paying for my friend’s kidney operation now, but his pay for my heart transplant later, so it’s all fair and good. It’s only when my friend’s “operation” is an abortion that the waters start to get a little icier. And if I’m lucky enough not to get sick, aren’t I being cheated out of an awful lot of tax money? These issues are just a few of the legitimate reasons why universal healthcare is hard to support and harder to put in place.
But meanwhile, people are dying as we argue. So let’s keep this in perspective, please.
In any case, I do think it’s a huge political mistake for Obama to drop the public option of is healthcare reform, especially so soon into the debate. While I do have some serious qualms with the proposal, these issues ought to have been discussed and modified, with the intent of helping the American people. Apparently, all Congress wants to do is start rumors about “Death Panels” and let out-of-control town hall meetings dictate the fate of the country. By the people, for the people, but who’s informing the people? Come on, Barack. The fight’s just begun, and you’re already calling a draw? I liked you better when you had hope.
Healthcare, anyone?
The Obama healthcare plan has ignited debate across the country, and inspired hope or rage depending on whom you ask. Personally, I don’t think that the Obama plan as it is now is the answer to the country’s healthcare crisis. But I do believe that it is a developing crisis. And it needs to be addressed.
There are several serious problems with the current system, as I understand it. First, high premiums for both patients and doctors drive up the overall costs, making it difficult for doctors to practice in high-risk fields (like gynecology…who needs that, anyway?) and for patients to purchase insurance if it’s not provided by their employer. This is, of course, a strain on businesses and can be detrimental (ever heard of General Motors?). People whose companies do not provide health insurance are then dissuaded from purchasing it on their own because- here is the kicker- many of these workers are temporarily employed, working at minimum-wage jobs, or unemployed and cannot afford the premiums. If they need medical attention, a visit to the emergency room is about $300 just to walk in. (This according to the documentary TV show “30 Days” by Morgan Spurlock- not a foolproof source but it was caught on film, at least.) So, the poorest people are the most likely to be forced to pay the full price of health care. Not to mention, this disproportionally affects people of color and recent immigrants; in 2007, nearly a third of the 46 million uninsured Americans were Hispanic. (http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml)
Of course, there are plenty of people whose above-minimum wage jobs do not provide insurance either. These people are doomed by two fateful words: pre-existing conditions. If you are sick, may become sick, old, have any iffy habits, or were cursed with some kind of genetic condition, it is essentially impossible to get healthcare coverage privately.
Meanwhile, for those that do have coverage, getting the company to actually cover procedures that are “superfluous” (like therapy) or “experimental” (like blood transfusions) is another struggle.
Granted, a good deal of my information on this came from Michael Moore’s “Sicko.” Before you laugh me off as an extremist, however, keep in mind he does have proof and sources for his statistics, and that the people in his documentaries are real. Not to mention, if you go back and watch some of the most extreme parts of his older documentary “Farenheit 9/11,” it’s all old news by now. But I digress.
My problem with the system comes down to this: How, in the wealthiest and most medically advanced country in the world, can we conscionably allow people to die because they can’t afford to be healed? And, according to http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml, an estimated 22,000 people do simply due to lack of coverage. I am also furious when I see people denounce the very idea of a publicly funded coverage option as “un-American” or “socialist.” While I do not think that all people who disagree with universal healthcare are ignorant, these words have no meaning when they are simply hurled in anger. Yes, universal healthcare is a socialist concept- but socialism and the rigid, state-centered communism that seems to for some reason be associated with this idea are two completely different things. No one is suggesting we become like Soviet Russia, yet that is exactly what some protestors seem to believe. Furthermore, what on earth does it mean to be un-American? (I smell a future post on that topic…) Personally, I’d put being healthy as an inalienable right up with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Economic competition is all well and good, but when the greed of private insurance companies starts to harm the health of the American people, it would be negligence of the government not to step in. Is it not, after all, the job of the government to protect the people from tyranny?
To be honest, I do not know what the perfect solution would be. My problem with the Obama plan is that, in its current form, it forces the rich to pay via taxes for healthcare services that they themselves already receive, and thereby essentially creates a citizen-funded welfare program. This, I do think, is actually un-American, because any system where the rich pay for the poor (or vice versa) is practically begging for class warfare. Interestingly enough, though, this is essentially the accepted system for education; the wealthy pay for private schools and full tuition at universities, and also pay taxes that support the local schools that their children do not attend. Of course, with sky-rocketing college tuitions and public schools smothered by standardized tests, maybe education could use some reform as well? (Again, I smell a future post.)
The nature of an ideal (that is to say, thus far non-existent) universal healthcare program is that everyone pays and everyone, eventually, receives. My taxes may be paying for my friend’s kidney operation now, but his pay for my heart transplant later, so it’s all fair and good. It’s only when my friend’s “operation” is an abortion that the waters start to get a little icier. And if I’m lucky enough not to get sick, aren’t I being cheated out of an awful lot of tax money? These issues are just a few of the legitimate reasons why universal healthcare is hard to support and harder to put in place.
But meanwhile, people are dying as we argue. So let’s keep this in perspective, please.
In any case, I do think it’s a huge political mistake for Obama to drop the public option of is healthcare reform, especially so soon into the debate. While I do have some serious qualms with the proposal, these issues ought to have been discussed and modified, with the intent of helping the American people. Apparently, all Congress wants to do is start rumors about “Death Panels” and let out-of-control town hall meetings dictate the fate of the country. By the people, for the people, but who’s informing the people? Come on, Barack. The fight’s just begun, and you’re already calling a draw? I liked you better when you had hope.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Zen and the Art of Paper and Plastic
Hello world, (Colbert just has a nation so I WIN!)
I thought I'd take a brief break from politics for the day in honor of my last day working at the Closter A&P, and talk about bags instead.
Yes, bags. Or, more specifically, grocery bags and why we all need to lighten up about them.
As a cashier for the past five months, my feelings towars those awful plastic grocery bags have evolved from casual dislike, to outright loathing, to resentful acceptance. Seriously, think of how many plastic bags your family uses in one shopping trip. (For those of you who don't do shopping, it's probably somewhere betwen five and twelve.) Multiply that by hundreds of customers and multiple registers every hour, and suddenly you've got a minor environmental crisis on you hands.
Am I a little rabid? Probably. It's not as if your personal use of paper instead of plastic, or re-usable bags, would save the world from climate change. And the customers who complain about how their stuff is bagged are just as, if not more, irritating than the use of the bags themselves. But seriously...it's not that hard to buy your own cloth or heavy plastic bags and use those. They hold more and don't break. Success!
On a side note: Hillary Goldstein's Top Ten Most Hated Customers
(Do not be one of these people.)
1) People who pay with checks.
- Have you never heard of a debit card, people?
2) People who buy only heavy things, then complain that their bags are too heavy.
-I can't fight the laws of physics for you, I just scan stuff.
3) People who tell me halfway through the order that they wanted paper AND plastic, and make me re-bag the entire thing.
-nuff said
4) People who buy one bag's worth of stuff, then forget in in the store.
-Yes, this has happened. Multiple times.
5) People who don't know how to use the credit-card swiper
-It's really self-explanitory, folks.
6) People who assume cashiers are stupid
-You can tell who they are
7) People who want everything double-bagged.
-It takes forever and, back to my original point, it's an environmental nightmare. Curse you and your generation for leaving me and mine with a hot world to deal with!
8) People who buy tons of things that they think are on sale, then return all of them when it turns out they're not.
-This also happens at least once a day. Sigh.
9) People who buy whole watermelons
-So. Heavy.
And the big one...
10) The customer who does all his or her shopping two minutes before the store is about to close.
-It never fails. At 9:57 on Sunday night, right as the manager makes the "Two-minute warning announcement" over the speaker, someone comes with about a month's worth of groceries and I am stuck there for an extra 20 minutes.
Over my months at A&P, I have learned to finally think before I speak for the first time in my life. It's suddenly much easier to be civil, even in the face of insane 60-year-old women, when I know that I can get fired for one wrong move.
What is the sound of one hand clapping? I still don't know. But if you want to learn to be really zen, forget meditation and get scanning.
I thought I'd take a brief break from politics for the day in honor of my last day working at the Closter A&P, and talk about bags instead.
Yes, bags. Or, more specifically, grocery bags and why we all need to lighten up about them.
As a cashier for the past five months, my feelings towars those awful plastic grocery bags have evolved from casual dislike, to outright loathing, to resentful acceptance. Seriously, think of how many plastic bags your family uses in one shopping trip. (For those of you who don't do shopping, it's probably somewhere betwen five and twelve.) Multiply that by hundreds of customers and multiple registers every hour, and suddenly you've got a minor environmental crisis on you hands.
Am I a little rabid? Probably. It's not as if your personal use of paper instead of plastic, or re-usable bags, would save the world from climate change. And the customers who complain about how their stuff is bagged are just as, if not more, irritating than the use of the bags themselves. But seriously...it's not that hard to buy your own cloth or heavy plastic bags and use those. They hold more and don't break. Success!
On a side note: Hillary Goldstein's Top Ten Most Hated Customers
(Do not be one of these people.)
1) People who pay with checks.
- Have you never heard of a debit card, people?
2) People who buy only heavy things, then complain that their bags are too heavy.
-I can't fight the laws of physics for you, I just scan stuff.
3) People who tell me halfway through the order that they wanted paper AND plastic, and make me re-bag the entire thing.
-nuff said
4) People who buy one bag's worth of stuff, then forget in in the store.
-Yes, this has happened. Multiple times.
5) People who don't know how to use the credit-card swiper
-It's really self-explanitory, folks.
6) People who assume cashiers are stupid
-You can tell who they are
7) People who want everything double-bagged.
-It takes forever and, back to my original point, it's an environmental nightmare. Curse you and your generation for leaving me and mine with a hot world to deal with!
8) People who buy tons of things that they think are on sale, then return all of them when it turns out they're not.
-This also happens at least once a day. Sigh.
9) People who buy whole watermelons
-So. Heavy.
And the big one...
10) The customer who does all his or her shopping two minutes before the store is about to close.
-It never fails. At 9:57 on Sunday night, right as the manager makes the "Two-minute warning announcement" over the speaker, someone comes with about a month's worth of groceries and I am stuck there for an extra 20 minutes.
Over my months at A&P, I have learned to finally think before I speak for the first time in my life. It's suddenly much easier to be civil, even in the face of insane 60-year-old women, when I know that I can get fired for one wrong move.
What is the sound of one hand clapping? I still don't know. But if you want to learn to be really zen, forget meditation and get scanning.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Smart Genes
It has come to my attention that I am not alone in cyberspace- my loyal brother has joined me in the great endeavor of blogging brilliance to the world!
http://adventuresinhill.blogspot.com/
Actually, I joined him since he's been at this for a few months now. And "brilliance" is in the eye of the beholder...But who's afraid of a little thought-provoking cyberchat?
He has also mastered the art of the actually amusing blog, while I'm still stuck in the overbearing rant mode, but I am learning. Slowly.
In any case, I totally encourage people to read his blog, and to tell him your thoughts!
Over and out.
http://adventuresinhill.blogspot.com/
Actually, I joined him since he's been at this for a few months now. And "brilliance" is in the eye of the beholder...But who's afraid of a little thought-provoking cyberchat?
He has also mastered the art of the actually amusing blog, while I'm still stuck in the overbearing rant mode, but I am learning. Slowly.
In any case, I totally encourage people to read his blog, and to tell him your thoughts!
Over and out.
To Continue My Offensive Arguement
So, where the hell did I even get the inspiration to write about Zionism and Nazism? The post developed as the result of an out-of-control brainstorm about my feelings on the current Palestinian-Israeli situation.
I should say, right off the bat, that my views on this subject are fairly complicated and are the result of years of reading editorials, message board comments, Hebrew School propaganda (or, more accurately, my rejection of it), and occasionally thinking for myself. And that is the issue- it is extraordinarily difficult to think for oneself on one of the most religiously and politically explosive (no pun intended) issues since Muhammad flew.
I would also like to make it clear that I support Israel- not in that I approve of everything it does, or see it to be some sort of messianic state, but in that I want what’s best for its people and I want there to be peace. Ironically, this often leads me to oppose my Hebrew school teachers and Jewish friends when discussing Israeli politics.
The arguments that I hear usually boil down to:
Israel is our homeland, promised to us by God and, if you don’t buy that, England in 1948. We have the right to defend her. The Palestinians should not be there anyway; they rejected the state they were promised. Instead of using American money to improve their condition, the Palestinians have made bombs. If the Arab countries cared so much about the Palestinians, they would use land from one of the many Arab countries to give them a state. They say that Zionism is Nazism, and they must be stopped.
All of these arguments are at least partially valid, and partially true. However, they all also have the same basic flaw: The Palestinians don’t care about any of those facts. And they are willing to blow themselves up until Israelis start to understand that.
These arguments also reveal the fundamental flaw in how Israelis perceive the Palestinians- as an annoyance, as intruders, as people to deal with, and not really as people at all.
As I said, there is certainly at least some validity to these feelings. Israel was, after all, partitioned to the Jews, and Jordan to the Palestinians, in 1948. The Palestinians rejected this and fought against Israel in the War of Independence (which was, by the way, essentially an attack by Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq against Israel on the day after its birth). Israel’s history also is filled with injustices and sudden Arab attacks (such as the Yom Kippur War in 1973, in Egypt and Syria attacked Israel on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar), which make any threat far more urgent and believable that they may seem to us in America. Furthermore, Israel unequivocally does have the right to defend itself against Palestinian suicide bombers- if Mexican terrorists fired rockets into Texas, we’d all expect some serious action to be taken against them.
That being said, the Palestinians still don’t care.
Granted, there is huge evidence that the Palestinians have been trained not to care- textbooks without Israel pictured on the map, schools that teach only how Israel expelled the Palestinians in 1948 (somewhat true), lead children to very easily accept Hamas’ assertions that Israel is evil and its mission to “Push the Jews into the Sea.” (Direct quote from the Hamas charter). Interviews with Palestinian students who do come to the states reveal that they often aren’t even aware that Judaism as a religion, having seen Jews only as soldiers at checkpoints.
So, even if the Palestinians do want peace (which I sincerely believe that the majority of them do), they are hardly equipped to act accordingly for it.
But do we really do any better?
I will never forget when, in 2003 during the worst of the second intifada, my nine-year-old brother objected to something I said about “Palestinians wanting peace.”
“The Palestinians don’t want peace,” he said, “They’re all terrorists.”
“Why do you think that?”
“Well, isn’t like Al-Qaida? They only join it if they want to attack Israel.”
Hebrew School explanations had led my brother to believe that the Palestinians were, by definition, a terrorist group. And, when the arguments that I mentioned in the beginning are repeated constantly with rage, it’s not so difficult to see why.
Furthermore, so far I’ve completely neglected to mention the conditions in which the Palestinians currently live. Gaza is essentially dependant on Israeli and American donations of food and medical supplies. Road in Israel are build to connect the Jewish settlements to the highway, but leave the Palestinian neighborhoods isolated. The Palestinians are forced to go through security checkpoints due to (valid) security concerns, which often cause hours of delay. This makes it difficult for Palestinians to hold jobs in Israel, because they are fired for constant lateness, yet it is impossible to make a living in Gaza’s limited economy. (The West Bank, to my understanding, faces all these problems but has a more viable economy and somewhat less dire poverty.) As Israelis love to point out, these conditions are greatly the result of Fatah and Hamas’s mismanagement of funds and, yes, using that money to make weapons.
This is, essentially, the crux of the issue. Regardless of the validity of all the Israeli justifications and arguements, this unworkable poverty renders everything else null and void. It gives power to Hamas and terrorist groups, and it makes the Israelis indeed seem like monsters.
This situation cannot continue. Peace is not possible under these conditions. So what do we do?
Tune in next week (ok, tomorrow) for my latest installment of intellectual madness!
I should say, right off the bat, that my views on this subject are fairly complicated and are the result of years of reading editorials, message board comments, Hebrew School propaganda (or, more accurately, my rejection of it), and occasionally thinking for myself. And that is the issue- it is extraordinarily difficult to think for oneself on one of the most religiously and politically explosive (no pun intended) issues since Muhammad flew.
I would also like to make it clear that I support Israel- not in that I approve of everything it does, or see it to be some sort of messianic state, but in that I want what’s best for its people and I want there to be peace. Ironically, this often leads me to oppose my Hebrew school teachers and Jewish friends when discussing Israeli politics.
The arguments that I hear usually boil down to:
Israel is our homeland, promised to us by God and, if you don’t buy that, England in 1948. We have the right to defend her. The Palestinians should not be there anyway; they rejected the state they were promised. Instead of using American money to improve their condition, the Palestinians have made bombs. If the Arab countries cared so much about the Palestinians, they would use land from one of the many Arab countries to give them a state. They say that Zionism is Nazism, and they must be stopped.
All of these arguments are at least partially valid, and partially true. However, they all also have the same basic flaw: The Palestinians don’t care about any of those facts. And they are willing to blow themselves up until Israelis start to understand that.
These arguments also reveal the fundamental flaw in how Israelis perceive the Palestinians- as an annoyance, as intruders, as people to deal with, and not really as people at all.
As I said, there is certainly at least some validity to these feelings. Israel was, after all, partitioned to the Jews, and Jordan to the Palestinians, in 1948. The Palestinians rejected this and fought against Israel in the War of Independence (which was, by the way, essentially an attack by Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq against Israel on the day after its birth). Israel’s history also is filled with injustices and sudden Arab attacks (such as the Yom Kippur War in 1973, in Egypt and Syria attacked Israel on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar), which make any threat far more urgent and believable that they may seem to us in America. Furthermore, Israel unequivocally does have the right to defend itself against Palestinian suicide bombers- if Mexican terrorists fired rockets into Texas, we’d all expect some serious action to be taken against them.
That being said, the Palestinians still don’t care.
Granted, there is huge evidence that the Palestinians have been trained not to care- textbooks without Israel pictured on the map, schools that teach only how Israel expelled the Palestinians in 1948 (somewhat true), lead children to very easily accept Hamas’ assertions that Israel is evil and its mission to “Push the Jews into the Sea.” (Direct quote from the Hamas charter). Interviews with Palestinian students who do come to the states reveal that they often aren’t even aware that Judaism as a religion, having seen Jews only as soldiers at checkpoints.
So, even if the Palestinians do want peace (which I sincerely believe that the majority of them do), they are hardly equipped to act accordingly for it.
But do we really do any better?
I will never forget when, in 2003 during the worst of the second intifada, my nine-year-old brother objected to something I said about “Palestinians wanting peace.”
“The Palestinians don’t want peace,” he said, “They’re all terrorists.”
“Why do you think that?”
“Well, isn’t like Al-Qaida? They only join it if they want to attack Israel.”
Hebrew School explanations had led my brother to believe that the Palestinians were, by definition, a terrorist group. And, when the arguments that I mentioned in the beginning are repeated constantly with rage, it’s not so difficult to see why.
Furthermore, so far I’ve completely neglected to mention the conditions in which the Palestinians currently live. Gaza is essentially dependant on Israeli and American donations of food and medical supplies. Road in Israel are build to connect the Jewish settlements to the highway, but leave the Palestinian neighborhoods isolated. The Palestinians are forced to go through security checkpoints due to (valid) security concerns, which often cause hours of delay. This makes it difficult for Palestinians to hold jobs in Israel, because they are fired for constant lateness, yet it is impossible to make a living in Gaza’s limited economy. (The West Bank, to my understanding, faces all these problems but has a more viable economy and somewhat less dire poverty.) As Israelis love to point out, these conditions are greatly the result of Fatah and Hamas’s mismanagement of funds and, yes, using that money to make weapons.
This is, essentially, the crux of the issue. Regardless of the validity of all the Israeli justifications and arguements, this unworkable poverty renders everything else null and void. It gives power to Hamas and terrorist groups, and it makes the Israelis indeed seem like monsters.
This situation cannot continue. Peace is not possible under these conditions. So what do we do?
Tune in next week (ok, tomorrow) for my latest installment of intellectual madness!
So, where the hell did I even get the inspiration to write about Zionism and Nazism? The post developed as the result of an out-of-control brainstorm about my feelings on the current Palestinian-Israeli situation.
I should say, right off the bat, that my views on this subject are fairly complicated and are the result of years of reading editorials, message board comments, Hebrew School propaganda (or, more accurately, my rejection of it), and occasionally thinking for myself. And that is the issue- it is extraordinarily difficult to think for oneself on one of the most religiously and politically explosive (no pun intended) issues since Muhammad flew.
I would also like to make it clear that I support Israel- not in that I approve of everything it does, or see it to be some sort of messianic state, but in that I want what’s best for its people and I want there to be peace. Ironically, this often leads me to oppose my Hebrew school teachers and Jewish friends when discussing Israeli politics.
The arguments that I hear usually boil down to:
Israel is our homeland, promised to us by God and, if you don’t buy that, England in 1948. We have the right to defend her. The Palestinians should not be there anyway; they rejected the state they were promised. Instead of using American money to improve their condition, the Palestinians have made bombs. If the Arab countries cared so much about the Palestinians, they would use land from one of the many Arab countries to give them a state. They say that Zionism is Nazism, and they must be stopped.
All of these arguments are at least partially valid, and partially true. However, they all also have the same basic flaw: The Palestinians don’t care about any of those facts. And they are willing to blow themselves up until Israelis start to understand that.
These arguments also reveal the fundamental flaw in how Israelis perceive the Palestinians- as an annoyance, as intruders, as people to deal with, and not really as people at all.
As I said, there is certainly at least some validity to these feelings. Israel was, after all, partitioned to the Jews, and Jordan to the Palestinians, in 1948. The Palestinians rejected this and fought against Israel in the War of Independence (which was, by the way, essentially an attack by Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq against Israel on the day after its birth). Israel’s history also is filled with injustices and sudden Arab attacks (such as the Yom Kippur War in 1973, in Egypt and Syria attacked Israel on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar), which make any threat far more urgent and believable that they may seem to us in America. Furthermore, Israel unequivocally does have the right to defend itself against Palestinian suicide bombers- if Mexican terrorists fired rockets into Texas, we’d all expect some serious action to be taken against them.
That being said, the Palestinians still don’t care.
Granted, there is huge evidence that the Palestinians have been trained not to care- textbooks without Israel pictured on the map, schools that teach only how Israel expelled the Palestinians in 1948 (somewhat true), lead children to very easily accept Hamas’ assertions that Israel is evil and its mission to “Push the Jews into the Sea.” (Direct quote from the Hamas charter). Interviews with Palestinian students who do come to the states reveal that they often aren’t even aware that Judaism as a religion, having seen Jews only as soldiers at checkpoints.
So, even if the Palestinians do want peace (which I sincerely believe that the majority of them do), they are hardly equipped to act accordingly for it.
But do we really do any better?
I will never forget when, in 2003 during the worst of the second intifada, my nine-year-old brother objected to something I said about “Palestinians wanting peace.”
“The Palestinians don’t want peace,” he said, “They’re all terrorists.”
“Why do you think that?”
“Well, isn’t like Al-Qaida? They only join it if they want to attack Israel.”
Hebrew School explanations had led my brother to believe that the Palestinians were, by definition, a terrorist group. And, when the arguments that I mentioned in the beginning are repeated constantly with rage, it’s not so difficult to see why.
Furthermore, so far I’ve completely neglected to mention the conditions in which the Palestinians currently live. Gaza is essentially dependant on Israeli and American donations of food and medical supplies. Road in Israel are build to connect the Jewish settlements to the highway, but leave the Palestinian neighborhoods isolated. The Palestinians are forced to go through security checkpoints due to (valid) security concerns, which often cause hours of delay. This makes it difficult for Palestinians to hold jobs in Israel, because they are fired for constant lateness, yet it is impossible to make a living in Gaza’s limited economy. (The West Bank, to my understanding, faces all these problems but has a more viable economy and somewhat less dire poverty.) As Israelis love to point out, these conditions are greatly the result of Fatah and Hamas’s mismanagement of funds and, yes, using that money to make weapons.
This situation cannot continue. Peace is not possible under these conditions. So what do we do?
Tune in next week (ok, tomorrow) for my latest installment of intellectual madness!
A Note on the Title
Hello all,
Now that I’ve subtly asked (ok, shamelessly begged) a bunch of my lovely friends to check out my blog once in a while, hopefully there is actually someone reading things. Yaaaay legitimacy!
A few of you have inquired as to the meaning behind the title, “The Field.” I realize that without any explanation, it does seem random or even sinister, so an explanation is indeed in order.
Rumi is one of my favorite poets, which is to say, one of the only poets whose books I have actually bought (and then actually read). One of his poems goes,
Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing,
There is a field.
I’ll meet you there.
It seems a fitting title for what I’m hoping this blog will turn out to be- after all, cyberspace is beyond the world in strange and subtle ways, allowing people on opposite continents to meet and exchange ideas.
So, I look forward to meeting you all here again soon.
Now that I’ve subtly asked (ok, shamelessly begged) a bunch of my lovely friends to check out my blog once in a while, hopefully there is actually someone reading things. Yaaaay legitimacy!
A few of you have inquired as to the meaning behind the title, “The Field.” I realize that without any explanation, it does seem random or even sinister, so an explanation is indeed in order.
Rumi is one of my favorite poets, which is to say, one of the only poets whose books I have actually bought (and then actually read). One of his poems goes,
Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing,
There is a field.
I’ll meet you there.
It seems a fitting title for what I’m hoping this blog will turn out to be- after all, cyberspace is beyond the world in strange and subtle ways, allowing people on opposite continents to meet and exchange ideas.
So, I look forward to meeting you all here again soon.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
An Intellectually Insulting Analysis
“Zionism is Nazism!”
It is the rallying cry of protesters at the Israel Day Parade every spring, it is the insult that unites Jews from all backgrounds and degrees of faith in support of Israeli politics, it crosses the line. It is wholly and unequivocally false, but it hints at an unpleasant truth.
Wait a sec.
Did a Jew actually just suggest some connection between the Nazis and present-day (or previous, for that matter) Zionist activities?
Before you dismiss me as a self-hating lunatic, let me set down two important points. First, the Holocaust was a terrible and unpardonable crime against humanity, but it is not the only example of human atrocity in this world. Nor is it, arguably, the worst example of such a travesty. The decimation of the Native American tribes by Europeans in the New World was no less intentional, calculated, and ultimately resulted in the deaths of over twelve million natives. (This, by the way, is the most conservative estimation of the death toll, some historians suggest numbers as high as one hundred million.) What does this mean? It leads to my second important point: The Nazis were human beings.
It is only natural for self-respecting people to want to distance themselves from anything to do with the Nazis; we want to believe that no one we know is capable of face-to-face murder, and we certainly want to believe ourselves to be immune to any such sadism. This is, unfortunately, simply not true. A fair amount of historical, social, and scientific research has in fact been devoted to corroborating that many of the most brutal acts were committed by reserves- men who were called up to fight from their careers and their families, many of whom were well into their forties at the time. Annhiliations of entire towns of Jews, entire days of shooting people point-blank, looting of dead Jew’s possessions and homes- all committed by disconcertingly ordinary people. There are some historians, notably Daniel Goldhagen, who do assert that the Nazis were somehow “different” than other men; in my opinion, their arguments fail to make logical sense. The fact stands, terrible in its truth: The Nazis were just like us.
When it comes down to it, of course, all this has little to do with Zionism specifically. (And of course, what exactly is meant by “Zionism” can be all manner of groups and ideas depending on who’s talking) It does mean, though, that whenever any group chooses to pursue the “greater good” at the expense of another’s oppression, they are indeed acting as the Nazis did. One of the most chilling aspects of Nazi Germany was that they truly believed they were creating a utopia by their actions. I do not believe that Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, or the “occupation” (a term that requires an entry unto itself) resembles the genocide that was the Holocaust, and those who imply so are dangerously exaggerating. But there’s a humbling lesson in remembering the slippery slope of Nazi Germany. The moment one race begins to view another as a nuisance, or expendable, therein lies the beginnings of the same innate racism that ensnared Germany.
The Short Answer: No, Zionism is not Nazism and to say so is an insult. However, the dark side of human nature revealed by the Nazis has not disappeared, and is not to be forgotten.
It is the rallying cry of protesters at the Israel Day Parade every spring, it is the insult that unites Jews from all backgrounds and degrees of faith in support of Israeli politics, it crosses the line. It is wholly and unequivocally false, but it hints at an unpleasant truth.
Wait a sec.
Did a Jew actually just suggest some connection between the Nazis and present-day (or previous, for that matter) Zionist activities?
Before you dismiss me as a self-hating lunatic, let me set down two important points. First, the Holocaust was a terrible and unpardonable crime against humanity, but it is not the only example of human atrocity in this world. Nor is it, arguably, the worst example of such a travesty. The decimation of the Native American tribes by Europeans in the New World was no less intentional, calculated, and ultimately resulted in the deaths of over twelve million natives. (This, by the way, is the most conservative estimation of the death toll, some historians suggest numbers as high as one hundred million.) What does this mean? It leads to my second important point: The Nazis were human beings.
It is only natural for self-respecting people to want to distance themselves from anything to do with the Nazis; we want to believe that no one we know is capable of face-to-face murder, and we certainly want to believe ourselves to be immune to any such sadism. This is, unfortunately, simply not true. A fair amount of historical, social, and scientific research has in fact been devoted to corroborating that many of the most brutal acts were committed by reserves- men who were called up to fight from their careers and their families, many of whom were well into their forties at the time. Annhiliations of entire towns of Jews, entire days of shooting people point-blank, looting of dead Jew’s possessions and homes- all committed by disconcertingly ordinary people. There are some historians, notably Daniel Goldhagen, who do assert that the Nazis were somehow “different” than other men; in my opinion, their arguments fail to make logical sense. The fact stands, terrible in its truth: The Nazis were just like us.
When it comes down to it, of course, all this has little to do with Zionism specifically. (And of course, what exactly is meant by “Zionism” can be all manner of groups and ideas depending on who’s talking) It does mean, though, that whenever any group chooses to pursue the “greater good” at the expense of another’s oppression, they are indeed acting as the Nazis did. One of the most chilling aspects of Nazi Germany was that they truly believed they were creating a utopia by their actions. I do not believe that Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, or the “occupation” (a term that requires an entry unto itself) resembles the genocide that was the Holocaust, and those who imply so are dangerously exaggerating. But there’s a humbling lesson in remembering the slippery slope of Nazi Germany. The moment one race begins to view another as a nuisance, or expendable, therein lies the beginnings of the same innate racism that ensnared Germany.
The Short Answer: No, Zionism is not Nazism and to say so is an insult. However, the dark side of human nature revealed by the Nazis has not disappeared, and is not to be forgotten.
Hi Everyone
To all you folks out there in cyberspace (which should be no one but internet stalkers and teens with no life at this point, since no one I know is aware that I've made this blog yet), welcome to my shiny new blog! I'm planning to use this as a space to talk about my thoughts on things- Politics, Jon and Kate, anything that I think the rest of the world just needs to hear about.
Think of it as the Colbert Report, with not quite as much balls.
Okay, maybe not as funny as Colbert. But I'll do my best.
Think of it as the Colbert Report, with not quite as much balls.
Okay, maybe not as funny as Colbert. But I'll do my best.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
