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.)
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
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)
