That's All There Is

I'm dying. But so are you.

Déjà vu? It's not an original thought, but I admit I used the same words in Various Thoughts XIII on August 3^rd, 2017. Then it was theoretical and intellectual, but now it's for real. If it hasn't happened already. Consequently this will be my last post. If I have anything to say in the meantime I'll slip it in between essays already scheduled for publication.

First of all, I've been very lucky. (My wife, too. We've shared in our good fortune.) I have cancer. Death is inevitable and isn't worth wasting space on. But we've had (that's me and Phyllis) over fifty-seven years together, and they've been good years. We have three children, thirteen grandchildren, and two great grandchildren so far, and all have been good kids. No drugs or other of the evil signs of the times. All have remained faithful to their faith, and their propects look good. They love our people and they love Israel. I couldn't be more proud.

So what prompts this message? I've been losing weight despite attempts not to do so, and having some pains and discomforts I can't explain. Perhaps it's nothing but I doubt it. I'll report the findings to my doctor and get her take on the situation. And undergo the tests and whatever therapies she proposes.

In the interim, however, I've decided to record some thoughts I have. If you've been reading this blog, none of them will surprise you, but I wanted to jot them down anyway. They're about me rather than the disease and will explain a little more about who I am. As for my style in this essay, it's likely to be erratic. I'll record my ideas as I think of them, and that means they may not be in any logical sequence.

I live in a blue state but I'm purple – disappointed in the “new liberalism” (populism and antisemitism) of the left and attracted by some of the policy positions of the conservatives. I agree with concerns over the needy, in a religious and human way (and based on my upbringing in a liberal household), but I don't think protests and throwing money at them is the answer. On the other hand I support a more conservative view of our economy and national strength, but oppose our thumbing our nose at the rest of the world. I support Israel which has become the convenient target of antisemites and of the left in general – especially out of our country – even if I don't support all of Israel's policies. But I should add that I don't support all of our country's policies either and I consider myself a patriotic American.

Like most conservatives I'm old-fashioned. My clothing is stodgy and square. It's not unusual for me to be one of the few who wears a suit and tie to Shabbat and Yom Tov services. I relate better to the values and customs of my youth (including the music) than what is currently in style. I know the same can be said of every generation that preceded mine, and that this will always be the case, but I cannot help feeling that we're moving too fast – especially in our tendency to declare all dissidents to be right, and those who consider themselves oppressed to be declared protected minorities. I regret our inclination to protest whatever we don't like – and that's a very recent development – rather than to try to work with those we oppose. Ideology has taken precedence over common sense.

I'm Jewish, which you may have deduced from what I've written here, or learned from previous essays where it has been expressed unequivocally. I try to follow the precepts handed down to us by our sages. It's what I do, and I'll continue doing it as long as I can. I'm a creature of habit, and Judaism provides habits which resonate with me – habits I love. But I'm a little troubled that most, if not all, of the laws were written by humans. Even those attributed to G-d have been recorded – if not formulated – by humans. They may have been inspired, brilliant, and wise, but they were human and passed down to us, often with commentary, by people like us. No matter. What they say makes sense and seems fair. Admittedly we judge them using human not divine standards, but that's all we have. They tell us there is a G-d but it's not something we can confirm independently. It still doesn't matter. And, of course, I have no concept of death. The idea of an afterlife seems to have come about as a reaction to Christianity. That doesn't make it wrong but it's hard to ignore the fact that it wasn't mentioned in our early teachings.

I'd like to believe that there is such an afterlife and that it is a continuation of this one, similar to what is taught children. But I suspect that if there is such an existence it would totally unrelated to the one we are living now and we'll have no knowledge of this one or the people we knew. We have no knowledge of what happened before we were born and there is no reason to believe that we'll remember this life after it ends. But who knows. Human thought and logic don't apply. (FOR MY FAMILY: There's a lot more on my views of the subject on the Asus and on my flash drives. See Thoughts.doc. It's in “documents” on the open Office menu for drive C, and in “The Imperious Loudmouth” menus on the flash drives.)

I live (or lived, as the case may be) in Mount Vernon, New York, and in the same house for over forty-seven years (as of the time of this writing). I decided long ago that I'll never move because that would entail cleaning out the attic, and I'm not prepared to do so. It will be my children's problem and give them the chance to find all my old secrets, as well as some items that may have accumulated value over the years. It will also give them the opportunity to bump their heads. But they'll be careful. They were reared in this house and know their way around, so they know where to look and what to look for.

I have an agreement with Phyllis (full disclosure: it's not really an agreement but a demand I've made) that I'll die first. She keeps the books (she's far more organized that I) and I'd never be able to manage our affairs without her. I suspect it will be far easier to live without me than without her, although I know that a period of mourning will delay any immediate consideration of the issue.

Sadly, Phyllis is ill as well. Diagnosed much more recently than I, but ill nonetheless. Hence there will be a race. We both want it to be a marathon rather than a sprint, but that is out of our hands. To the loser belong the problems.

I probably should express some of my wishes for my family and for the world. None will be either original or unexpected, but all of them are deeply felt. For my beloved wife I wish happiness and a long life. I trust her therapy will be helpful in this regard and keep her symptoms and her disease from progressing. She's dedicated herself to working for the community and to the lives of others, and deserves the best for herself as well. I hope that she'll have the companionship that will make her happy. I know she has many friends through her Medicare counseling position and from members of the community. And, of course, the love and concern that she'll receive from our family.

As for that family, I wish unity. And mutual love and concern. I love them all. I hope they (and the rest of those who can do so for that matter) make an effort to care for the needy and afflicted wherever they may be. I mentioned earlier that they were all good and we were lucky. I pray that our luck will continue. Our grandchildren, at least some of them, are working out their plans for life and I wish them well. And all of my children and grandchildren have shown their attachment to the Jewish People and to the land of Israel. I couldn't be more pleased.

My wishes for the world are equally grandiose – though I am less sanguine about their accomplishment. I fear that my wish for world peace will never reach fruition. There are always power-seeking and self-absorbed people who will seek to enrich themselves at the expense of others. For them the power they feel while ruling a country and making it victorious over others will always exist, and it will prevent the compromises and accommodations necessary for us all to lay down our swords and join hands.

I am also concerned that prejudices will remain despite every effort to eliminate them. Antisemitism has been around for millennia and is achieving new strength as large nations and brainwashed people search for a convenient scapegoat to which they can point. Nations do it to distract their constituents from the real problems they face. Individuals pass their biases on to their children – biases they were taught by their parents and their leaders.

What I really want will take a miracle. It is that people learn to work together; that they learn to compromise for everyone's good; that they accept the idea that they cannot have everything they want but can contribute to the good of others. I believe in absolutes – at least some absolutes. I believe that in the DNA of all humans are instructions about how to live with our neighbors. After all, rules about human interactions are common to all of us. And they tend to be very similar. It's a human instinct. There are some outliers, with damaged DNA, who don't accept those absolutes, but most of us do. Perhaps evolution will ultimately rid humanity of its morally damaged. That is my hope and my wish.

My consolations are that I believe there is a G-d and that, from time to time, He authors miracles.


PS.  Irrespective of what I've said, check next week to see if there are more posts.

Enjoy!

August 7, 2017

Antisemitism

Perhaps I'm being too parochial, but from what I've read it's hard not to conclude that Jews have long been the targets of anger and bias (and will continue to be so). In ancient times, when they were a nation among nations, and not viewed primarily from the perspective of religion, the Jews were simply another group that had to be defeated in the perennial wars between nations. Haman may have tried to eliminate them as a religious group, but it was primarily his obsession and not typical of the times. From the points of view of others, Jewish practices were of no particular note. There may have been an interest in their land, but not in their beliefs and not in their religion.

Christianity's separation, however, was certainly based on belief, and a difference in the conception of what constituted G-d. And what grew the split that occurred, and the reasons for it, was a belief by the new group that the Jews had “killed G-d” specifically that they had killed Jesus – the “son.” They hadn't, but over time the notion became so ingrained in Christians that it became “fact.” And they believed that they had superseded the Jews as Israel, G-d's chosen people. The Jews were agents of the devil, and they were bound to eliminate them.

Next rose Islam, based on Jewish and Christian teachings. When the Jews rejected the new religion they became its targets. According to the Hadith,

The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.

With the Christian and Islamic teachings – and more than half of the world's population is either Christian or Islamic – it was no longer a military battle but a moral one. It was not only acceptable to hate Jews, it was obligatory.

There were many examples of the hatred. They included the 1929 massacre in Hebron, the Holocaust, the current Middle East conflict with various parties vowing to eliminate Israel, and the background of antisemitism.

It's frightening. The Jewish population of the world is only 0.2% of all. It's likely that the vast majority of people will never meet a Jew. Yet, according to ADL statistics, 26% of the world's population [and virtually all of the United Nations – S. O.] has anti-semitic views. I suspect that the number is significantly higher when you add in the number who view themselves as “anti-Zionist” but don't consider themselves anti-semitic. What is the origin of their hatred?

There are many causes, but the predominant ones are church teachings and the teaching in Islam that all lands in which Muslims have been a predominant group, whenever that was, belongs to them, and the Jews – and especially Israel – threaten this hegemony. The fact that neither of these religions has been able to attract large numbers of Jews contributes to the hatred.

Another contributor is the United Nations. There are numerous Islamic nations with both political and economic power. And that's more important to the other nations than right and wrong. For most it's not a question of military supremacy – although for many it is – but religious hatred. And the media are quick to promote the bias, probably because of their own prejudices and for economic reasons. According to Lord Palmerston, nations don't have friends, only interests.

And, of course, there's word of mouth. People have heard negative things from their friends who heard them from others or social media or whatever. It's hard to ignore or dispel negative stereotypes when they're passed on to you by a friend.

How would such attitudes be changed? It would take the combined efforts of religious and secular leaders, of national and international officials and organizations, to begin to reorient those with negative views. It's not going to happen soon, if at all. Hatred is too deeply ingrained in too may people.

The only reasonable reaction by the Jews and Israel is one of defense, which will, itself, be viewed as a threat from an untrustworthy people. And that makes it, I suspect, an insoluble problem – a “catch-22” – and it would require billions of people to recognize that their views aren't rational. And until such a time the Jews and Israel will have to act like Boy Scouts. More than being ideal citizens of the world, they'll have to be prepared.

June 27, 2017

We Are All Racists

Time to flog a dead horse. According to a Harvard study about a year ago, all whites are racists. All oppose blacks – often unconsciously. They can't help it. It's all around them.

Do you question Affirmative Action? You may justify it by demanding equal ability for equal opportunity but in reality, consciously or not, you really oppose any benefit for blacks. You're a racist. Do you note that there are more violent crimes in black neighborhoods than white? You wouldn't even be thinking about it if you weren't a racist. Do you oppose entitlement programs? The truth is that you oppose any program that helps blacks – especially assisting unemployed ones at the expense of taxpayers. That might never enter your thoughts, but it's there. You're a racist.

And that's the way it's always been. We've always followed the teachings of our society, whether we learned them in school or on the street. Only we never labeled each other based on that learning. We never faulted ourselves for believing – even subconsciously – “common knowledge.” “Givens” earned that position because we all know them to be true. And sometimes they are.

But even if they're not, belief or disbelief in a commonly held view should not, because of our own uncertainty, or our own wish to rise above bigotry, be the cause of labeling – or our refusal to do so. When the media report that a truck was driven into a large crowd, and the driver emerged carrying an automatic weapon with which he shot the survivors while yelling “Allah Akhbar,” it is not Islamophobia to consider it a terrorist attack. And, on the other hand, it makes no sense to label one who challenges a law that violates his conscience as a “religious bigot.” But that is the current practice – a practice selectively (and usually politically) applied.

We're all sexists. Men and women are different. It's true. Perhaps they shouldn't be, but they are. (I'm not quite sure “should” and “shouldn't” enter the picture. DNA and evolution have decreed that males are sexually aggressive while females use other methods to attract the bearers of that aggression.) Over the millennia people, and the societies in which they live, have developed approaches to the situation, and attitudes about it. A line existed between acceptable and unacceptable behavior, and, though that line was often crossed, violations were, in the past, usually viewed as “the way it is.” Not necessarily right, but not always as one-sided as we see them now. Current sensibilities tell us that the man is always wrong and women who accuse them of acts that happened decades earlier are reliable bearers of truth. And acts formerly considered unexceptionable (and often desirable) by the standards of their times are now prima facie evidence of abuse by a more sensitive society – even it they occurred when there was a different view. And those who question current reasoning are sexists. (As are those who don't believe that the same salaries should be given to all who do the same job, irrespective of decades of experience as opposed to a new hire.) So are those who are reluctant to hire pregnant women – women to whom they will almost immediately have to give paid leave.

If we don't make accommodation for a short person to play in the NBA, we discriminate against those who are “differently able,” while we are “ageist” if we have second thoughts about hiring someone close to retirement age for a long term position. And, of course, we're bigots if we require that an immigrant be legal. Nowadays we criticize whatever we don't like. We add an “ism” to it and accuse others of intentional ill-feeling irrespective of the mood of the times. Only a few may be doing the accusing but the label sticks, with media, eager to attract attention, trumpeting whatever a politically correct public will buy. It's society's fault.

Perhaps the reexamination of a question raised earlier will introduce some context.

“Do you question Affirmative Action?”

For whom and for what?

Anti-Semitism has been around for thousands of years but we've never raised this question in relation to the Jews. Obviously there can be no compensation for lives lost. And we bridle at the idea that we may have to make good for the ills of other societies. But there is no debating the fact that here in America it has been practiced since before the country was founded. Are we responsible for the sins of our fathers – sins which continue to this day?

If we know that, among other slights, there were quotas and other methods for keeping Jews from getting the education for which they were fit, should we have an Affirmative Action program for them? Or for other minorities against whom there was prejudice? Do we only feel guilt and responsibility, and do we only recognize those traits, when it is politically correct?

Whatever the virtues of the Harvard study, it is hard not to believe that the investigators hadn't reached their conclusion before starting, and that their “conclusions” won them much praise in the academic world.

December 8, 2017

Not Now

What I wrote yesterday is certain to cause antagonism (even among my friends if I have any left). If anyone reads it. My usual audience is about three people, but I sent it's contents, as a letter, to The Jewish Press. If they print it I'm sure to get the venom of most of its readers. Ah, well. Let me go a little further.

There are likely to be two main criticisms: that Judaism is a single unit and the “normative” Jews are not keeping up with the times, and whatever the accuracy of the assessment, now is the wrong time to raise it. I dealt with the former yesterday (though I have some additional comments on that perspective – see below) and I'll primarily tackle the latter today.

Halloween 1517 was certainly not the time for Luther to post his theses. The Church was in turmoil – the Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon were being rejected. Many believers had doubts about the primacy of church over state while others didn't. Church corruption was rife. It was a time to come together rather than publicize problems.

But for the same reasons it was the perfect time to correct faults. Now, in the twenty-first century, there is more openness in Christianity and a large menu of church services from which to choose. No one questions the divisions which have actually brought more nuance and clarity to the worship service. Adherents appreciate the differences, rather than resent them.

And the quarrels over doctrine in Judaism now dictate the same kind of solution. Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of what is right. It is time we corrected our faults. There is no right time except when things are wrong. And with internecine contention, usually more political than theological, increasing, it's bound to happen at some time in the future. Painful as it may be now, the realignment will be recognized as a necessary step in the development of Judaism and of the Jewish people, for they are not the same. “Jewishness” reflects who you are; Judaism outlines what you believe.

But, many will ask “Why now?” They will argue, that there is so much conflict now and we need unity, not to be ripped apart. That assumes we have unity and aren't being ripped apart already – an idea that is laughable. The world may view all Jews as one, but we know better. Some would like to see “dedeification.” Others would not. Some promote BDS. Others don't. Many desire egalitarianism instead of tradition, but that desire is not universal. And there are many other issues that separate us.

Despite the differences however, most Jews would like to see the state of Israel survive although there are differences concerning both political and theological matters. And even though the world staunchly maintains that “anti-Zionism,” (by which they mean opposition to the State of Israel) is not the same thing as anti-Semitism, it is difficult to take that argument seriously after a couple of millennia. The internal struggles between Jews would seem to favor their argument, even though others only use the terminology to cover their bigotry, internal and international politics, and their thirst for Arab oil.

But notwithstanding the anti-Semitic code, all Zionists are not Jewish. Christian evangelicals in the United States, and the Makuya in Japan, are two groups that support Israel. Unfortunately most of the world's nations oppose all efforts to help that tiny country. The underlying anti-Semitism, which has been buried within the psyches of most people, along with the desire to have the support of the large Islamic and Arab communities, guarantee that this attitude will exist for a long time. Morality is not an issue among nations. As Lord Palmerston said,

Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.

Politics and prejudice will continue to rule. Perhaps Palmerston was right. Perhaps the best way to defend itself in addition to military strength is for Israel to recognize, support, and encourage a variety of allies – an increasing number of Jewish religions – even among those who may erroneously believe their heritages to be other than Jewish. It is better that more than one group acts as a light to the nations. The lesson is heard more often. All those who are Jewish have that light within them, whether or not they practice normative Judaism. And if Israel must make concessions to new religious groups, so be it.

The leaders of the nations must, sooner or later, recognize that those lights include knowledge which, to this point, they lack. They must understand that in the long run their citizens will benefit more from association with the “start up” religions than with their opponents. Their future will be more secure when they ally themselves with Israel, since the need for oil will eventually disappear and new ideas, and the ferment of competition – theological, economic, political, and whatever – will take them further than servile allegiance to the ways of the past.

It may take centuries, but it has to start sooner or later.

Brandeis

I'm a graduate of Brandeis University. Class of 1960. I met my wife there and one of our sons also attended and met his wife there. I got a fine education and, overall, had a very good experience there. When I started the school was less than a decade old. It had been founded after the Shoah and one of its important purposes was to take in Jews, who had long faced quotas and additional barriers to admission at other academic institutions. Face it, no one wanted Jews. Some places accepted them without putting obstacles in their way, but that was not because they were enamored of Jews or objected to the practice of other schools. They just wanted the best students they could get, and that often led to a disproportionate number of Jews. More than would be anticipated based on numbers alone. Quality was the deciding criterion, not quantity.

Not Brandeis though. It was founded with the recognition of a mission. It was a setting where Jews were not only welcome, but which specifically made conditions comfortable for them. It was a school which, in addition to being among the best in the country, provided for the gustatorial and spiritual needs of Jewish students – not by exclusivity: its three chapels attested to its openness to non-Jews. It was a superior school that recognized both the historic bias against its people, an a historic future for that people – a future in which it would play a part.

I went because it was Jewish, favoring it over MIT, Johns Hopkins, and Cornell, having been admitted to all of them. I wasn't among the most religious there, but I wanted to be part of a principled effort to bring my people into the world community. I was proud, and I encouraged and welcomed others to a principled and defiant place, where all people and all ideas were appreciated.

But times have changed.

I am no longer proud of my alma mater. I no longer encourage others to send their children there. The school had fostered liberalism, but in recent years liberalism has metamorphosed into fad, fashion, protest, and anti-semitism. It has become the mouthpiece for dissenting minority groups, and has taken the position of providing support for them irrespective of the justification for that support. And it espouses the position that any ideas which don't echo its ideology are wrong.

In the academic world this leads to the substitution of subjectivity for objectivity in classes and discussions, and the indoctrination of students into a political philosophy. Even if the school does not itself promote this behavior, acquiescence to the spreading of such a gospel – the cowardice of a wish to be like the institutions it emulates – is an encouragement to faculty and students who loudly advocate these actions. And the more virulent the protests by individuals and groups, the more likely that the next cohort of impressionable youth will uncritically accept the most popular philosophy.

Brandeis has assimilated. It has assimilated much like the less religious Jews of the last century, and now this one. The school seems to have a wish to emulate the Ivy League schools that it was founded to make up for. It has adopted the fashions and practices of those institutions in an effort to be seen as one of them and earn their reflected prestige. Along the way it has flirted with, and frequently adopted, such practices as (among many others) the silencing of unpopular opinion, support of popular causes even when they contradict the principles on which the school is based, "diversity" and affirmative action – intended to have a student population more reflective of America (or overrepresented by minorities) whatever the academic cost, non-kosher food so that new students can enjoy the foods they are used to, and advocacy for causes like BDS and Palestinian "rights" despite the fact that they and their students have no knowledge of the facts related to these issues, only the propaganda.

It is current practice to demean those with whom you disagree: to rename sites named in their honor or in gratitude for their contributions and to destroy anything favorable to them, like what is written and what is displayed. Monuments are defaced, destroyed, covered, or removed if they affect the "sensitivity" of some viewing the lives they represent out of the context of their times. Most recently that has resulted in demands to remove statues of Christopher Columbus among others from public view. And many of our major academic centers – including some admired by Brandeis – have taken such steps. Louis Brandeis was Zionistic, but there are many, especially liberals, who view Zionism unfavorably. They are sensitive to the plight of those who, even if they arrived and squatted in "Palestine" after Jews resettled the land in which they have lived for thousands of years, claim the land for their own.

But Brandeis was a Zionist. If sensitivity is adequate justification for protests and a denial of history, it would be logical to change the name of the university and remove his statue from the campus. At the current time the students might even celebrate its renaming as Linda Mansour University in view of her courageous denunciation of Zionists.

There is no denying the excellence of much of the education provided by Brandeis, but much of the education they receive is tainted by the political stances of some of the faculty and students, and the administration's failure to require the honoring of the principles for which the school was founded. And the failure to reassert their own authority over those on the campus – students, faculty, and visitors. Right now Brandeis is disappearing into the fashionable mass of expensive academic centers that cater to the whims of those who pay the bills, and those who instigate them.

It's not the school it used to be. It's not the school I went to.

Godwin's Law

You won't find this in the law books. But it's an all-purpose rule that is hard to avoid nowadays, in its original form or in one of its variations. The law, which was originated by Mike Godwin, an American author and attorney (although it isn't a real law), states "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches.” “That is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or his deeds.” (Wikipedia – emphasis added by Sir Oracle.)

And it's true. The choice of Hitler is unfortunate, however, because it cheapens memories of Nazi atrocities and the Holocaust, but that's what happens. People become frustrated when others don't accept their views, and they use the worst insult they can imagine. I guess that it's encouraging that their imaginations can devise nothing more horrible than a comparison to Hitler, but that is only a symptom of a far more severe problem.

Too many people, now and in the past, have sought an all-encompassing truth. It is an answer to all questions. It is not simply a “fall back” position, but a sincere – if unconsidered – view that the one they accuse of evil is, in fact, evil. (I wonder if our fellow Americans, in their frustration, aren't now substituting Trump into the law, viewing him as the cause of anything they don't like.)

And, as I mentioned, it's a reaction that has galvanized huge numbers of people to specify the cause of all problems. “Knowing” the cause of your troubles saves a lot of time and rumination. It's far easier than thinking and analyzing. Simplify, simplify, simplify. Reduce to the absurd. Only you don't recognize it as absurd. It's all real and justified.

That's the origin of prejudice – of scapegoats and scapegoating. You remove the need for any thought or doubt if you can designate a single cause for everything that is wrong. And that provides a simple solution to every problem. Eliminate the single cause. (It's an approach that has to be controlled however. The cause can't be totally eliminated because that would leave no explanation for future problems. A remnant of “evil” must remain.)

Godwin identified what people view as evil. Hitler and Nazism were evil, and those who are on line can more easily accuse those they oppose of some kind of similarity to Hitler than they can voice their frustration in the form of logical arguments. Ad hominem arguments are simple – but they are the arguments of the simple-minded – or of those who are, themselves, evil. If you attack your opponent personally you don't have to make a solid case against his point of view, or justify your own. It has become an issue of his personal character and traits rather than a discussion of the merits of a particular view; it is a matter of rhetoric, rather than reason.

America has a history of such prejudices. They exist to this day, but are nothing when compared to the sacapegoating in which the world has participated for millennia – anti-semitism. And that, too, persists. In the middle of the last century the world established the United Nations – largely in reaction to Hitler, Nazism, and the Holocaust. Nations that had remained silent through the war, ignoring the murder of Jews, felt the need to offer a “sop” to them. But they were less interested in giving them a place to live, and the division of their homeland, Palestine, (so designated by the Balfour Declaration) to provide them with their own country was only approved with difficulty, and with the Arab countries vowing to destroy the new nation of Israel. But while the Arab countries were unsuccessful in their efforts, they have, over the years, managed to maintain instability in the region – instability which they, and the UN, blame on Israel. In fact, the nations of the world often accuse Israel and the Jews of acting like Hitler and the Nazis. Or worse. An organization founded in the wake of the Holocaust has managed to blame Israel for the world's problems.

As opposed to Hitler, however, the UN cannot entirely rid the world of Jews because they will need someone to blame afterwards. So their “virtue” will be manifested by their accusations and other words vilifying one of the world's smallest nations – the one causing them all to “suffer” even though its Jewish population is less than one tenth of a percent of theirs. Prejudice and scapegoating don't require rationality – only anger. Additionally they solve so many problems. And the UN has found a way to express their bias.

They've surpassed Godwin's law by finding an evil which exceeds Hitler. The Jews.

And that prompts the question of whether the UN is simple-minded or evil. I have my bias, but I leave that question to you.

May 4, 2017

Silence

It is hard to excuse silence in the face of injustice, but not so hard to understand it.

Silence as a (lack of) response to injustice has three roots: agreement, apathy, and fear. The situation that has brought this to mind at this time originates in the Middle East, but it has spread far beyond that area, and now has world-wide implications. More specifically I am referring to “radical Islam,” and its effects on its moderate coreligionists. We're always left with the questions of whether moderate Muslims actually exist and, if they do, why they don't speak out to condemn the violence their brothers and sisters initiate.

Whenever there is a discussion of terrorism, wherever it may occur, note is made of the fact that the perpetrators are almost invariably Muslims. Very often the victims are as well – especially in Muslim countries – but almost irrespective of the site of the violence, those who support it find a way to attribute the cause to Israel and to the Jews. And they succeed in this strategy because there is widespread belief – by some in virtue of Islamic teachings and by others in any tactics that are focused on the Jews. For thousands of years people have been taught to hate and fear Jews whom they view as representatives of the devil and to whom they attribute all varieties of evil. Killing them is simply fitting, and it's also a method of survival.

For somewhat less time, but still centuries, Muslims have been in agreement with such a philosophy. Their theology included “toleration,” but also taxation and subjugation of “The People of the Book,” a category that included Jews and Christians. However in the last hundred years they have emphasized actions against the Jews, primarily because there were too many Jews in a land they considered part of their demesne. (It is also important to note that the various strains of Islam also harbor ill will against each other because of historical and doctrinal differences – ill will that is often the cause of violent hostility.)

But anti-Semitism has existed away from Muslim lands for a long time and it persists even today. Perhaps it reached a peak during the Holocaust, but the underlying antipathy can be found in many lands, often disguised as “anti-Zionism” so as to make it more acceptable and give it a patina of social acceptability – even virtue. People living in safety have no difficulty in faulting those they hate, especially when that group may be in peril. They can afford to be arrogant, condescending, and “holier than thou” without facing any personal hazard. (BDS is an example of such bias disguised as an act of justice. Proof of prejudice – which, of course, they deny – is the fact that their policy is only applied to one country.)

For the most part, however, people just don't care. As the Charlie Hebdo incident is now demonstrating, with increased numbers of accusations of intolerance against the cartoonists who worked there, it is easier and (a lot) safer to blame the victim than to face the criminal. After all, the violence doesn't affect them and it's none of their business. It was admitted by Reverend Martin Niemöller: “First they [the Nazis] came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist. ...” That was the first line of a “confession” that ended, “Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.” The apathetic, those who have their own problems and don't want to get involved, may themselves wind up as victims of the injustices they ignore.

But fear is the main reason people don't speak up. When you see unchecked injustice all around you it takes immeasurable courage to draw attention to yourself. Members of the press fear for their lives. If moderate Muslims don't condemn violence, it is because they fear becoming victims of it. I believe that the vast majority of Muslims are “moderates” (though current Muslim teachings may place a greater emphasis on low tolerance for difference than is found in other religions), however they are moderates who, like the victims of their coreligionists, live in fear. In a way they are like the American Jews who, during the Second World War, often hid their religion rather than speaking out for the victims of Hitler. They were afraid. There was much anti-Semitism in the United States and they feared feeding it.  I understand their anxiety, although it had catastrophic consequences.

There is a fourth cause of silence, economics, but that can usually be subsumed under the rubric of fear. It can be exemplified by two cases (though there are doubtless many others): the media's willingness to report stories in a manner favorable to the government of the country in which they work, lest they be exiled from that country, and a government's support for the existing regime in a land providing them with goods and resources that they cannot get elsewhere, or it would be prohibitively expensive to do so.

I have mentioned the Holocaust, Nazis, Hitler, and anti-Semitism. There are many who believe that invoking those images cheapens them. I understand their concerns. But it is remembrance of the Holocaust and its outcome that gives me hope at a time when the Middle East appears to be in a death spiral. The German people were complicit in the Shoah, but most of them today seem interested in going the way of tolerance. During the war the vast majority were silent about the injustice all around them. It took a thorough licking to rid them of their rulers and get them the freedom to cast off their tolerance of intolerance, but their more recent actions suggest that they have done so. The intolerance has long existed in them and others, but the tragedy of the last century may help them, and others, learn to control it. It will never be gone completely because our parents, teachers, friends, and clergy will continue to teach us this evil lesson, but it is more out in the open and subject to discussion and condemnation. The answer to the abuse of free speech is more free speech, and the answer to abuse of justice is justice, aided by free speech.

Perhaps it will take a licking of radical Islamists to restore justice to the region. And it will certainly take a reeducation of those who teach hatred – especially the clergy. But the Holocaust showed us it can be done. It was at great cost, but it was done. And silence is not the answer.

The Trouble With Israel

The trouble with Israel is that it's a democracy.

That's a little flat-footed and limiting. In fact there are a lot of troubles with Israel (though not as many as with its neighbors), rather than just one, but I'll emphasize democracy both because it's a problem itself, and because it causes other problems. (I'll add some other ideas in a few months.)

Israel has gotten a lot of admiration and support, especially in the United States, from the fact that it is an island of democracy in a sea of monarchies, tyrannies, and theocracies. At least until recently it has. Under the current administration – one that views dialogue with our enemies and distancing ourselves from our friends as the best foreign policy – some of our identification with it is gone, but that does not change Israel's political structure. Like the United States it is an imperfect democracy, but because of the path we have taken we now find it advantageous to emphasize Israel's faults, real and imagined, while ignoring our own, and to trumpet them to whoever will listen.

And Israel's enemies do likewise. Those in the United Nations have institutionalized the condemnation of Israel. The starting point among the nations are the surrounding countries, which call for an end of Israel's “oppressive” policies. Nations that kill their own citizens, promote terrorist organizations, and make war on their neighbors, call for the destruction of the democracy on which they blame their own problems, and whose elimination they claim would solve the region's difficulties. That is the only message they permit to emanate from their borders. Reporters who state otherwise are subject to penalties, and journalists from outside those countries are openly discouraged. Consequently the only negative stories that originate there are those that cannot be suppressed. And, lacking on-site coverage, little negative information is provided the rest of the world. So the world hears little about honor killings, female genital mutilation, internecine violence, and the oppression of women and members of the LGBT community, among other horrors.

But Israel is a democracy. Freedom of the press is one of its hallmarks. And life there is much more salutary than in the adjacent countries. So members of the press, including those barred from Islamic nations, congregate there, with more reporters than in most of the rest of the world. There is a competition for headlines, and what is negative sells best. Thus, from the comfort of their hotels, foreign correspondents compete to tell the world how bad things are in Israel. It's a story that the world – even the democracies – wants to hear. With little information from other Middle-Eastern nations it is easy to construct the evil straw man that the world seeks. If Israel weren't a democracy – if it didn't allow the transmission of negative information – there would be far less for the world to discuss, although they would probably denounce the country for some press limitations, even if they don't follow that policy for those countries that practice censorship now. (But Israel should act like its neighbors. It should be undemocratic. Tyranny. No LGBT tolerance. It should exclude or limit journalists. It should lower the world's expectations. Were Israel a closed society like its neighbors, with no press freedom, it would be of far less interest to some of those who now fault it.)

The press also ignore anything positive that happens in Israeli society – at least anything that reflects favorably on Jews. But they are quick to focus on the negative. There are no beheadings in Israel, so while playing down violence against Jews, reporters emphasize occasional acts against Muslims. They ignore, however, the condemnation of such acts by the government and people of Israel. Not only is that not done in the surrounding countries, but the killing of Israelis is cause for celebration, and the killers are praised as heroes for whom streets are to be named and rewards given. Were that to happen in Israel it would be justifiably condemned, yet it is considered understandable and praiseworthy among Muslims.

There is a double standard. Israel is held to a higher standard than any other nation. Even the United States seeks unilateral concessions from Israel, ones it would never accept for itself in similar circumstances. And countries that would never “turn the other cheek” if attacked demand that those who consider themselves the chosen people do so, even though that is not a Jewish teaching and it is certainly not their approach. If Israel were just another tyranny like its neighbors and forbade democratic institutions, less would be expected.

No. That is giving too much credit to haters of Western institutions. The claim that the cause of all the problems in the Middle East is Israel – that Zionism is racism – results from the long-standing hatred of Jews by others. And Zionism is a code word for Jews. In 1929 – long before there was an Israel – Arabs slaughtered large numbers of Jews in Palestine. Between sixty-five and seventy Jews were murdered in Hebron, most of them students and their teachers, with scores of others injured or maimed. The response of British authorities, who controlled the area at the time, was to remove the Jews, ostensibly for their own safety. Jewish victims were exiled from their homes. More recently the world has demanded that the Jews be removed from their homes – and this happened in Sinai and Gaza – for the benefit of the Arabs. There is always a reason to punish Jews.

Antisemitism. The world denies it and accuses the Jew of crying antisemitism whenever Israel or Jews are attacked or criticized. But seeing antisemitism in such criticisms is usually justified. It has flourished through the ages. In the past the accusations were of various types, including the spreading of disease, deicide, and the murder of Gentile children for their blood. In 2001, Daniel Bernard, as French Ambassador to the United Kingdom, was quoted as saying: "All the current troubles in the world are because of that shitty little country Israel." He added, "Why should the world be in danger of World War III because of those people?" The French Foreign Ministry defended Bernard and dismissed the charges of antisemitism.

And in 2015, a few days after others attacked the French newspaper Charlie Hebdo, a Muslim terrorist fired on and killed shoppers in a kosher delicatessen. President Obama attacked the [Muslim, though he didn't say so] assassins at the newspaper and the one in the delicatessen as “vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.” The killing of Jews by a Muslim was a random act. They shouldn't have patronized a kosher delicatessen. Jews are belittled, and Islamophobia is to be condemned.

The trouble with Israel is that it is a Jewish state. And the world does not like Jews.

Next episode: “Insanity” – Maybe not.

The Murder Of Leon Klinghoffer

“To be good, and to do good, is all we have to do.” Those were the words of John Adams.

President John Adams.

The modern composer who bears his name seems to have a different perspective. Or, at the very least, a perverse view of what is “good.”

Much has been written about his opera, “The Death of Klinghoffer,” and I am reluctant to rehearse all of it here, but there are a few aspects on which I want to comment. The first relates to the concept of the opera – which, we are told, is to present both sides of the controversy regarding the incident. Since I missed Adams's opera based on the virtues of Charles Manson, I cannot comment on any pattern, but from what I have learned about his latest work I know that much of it is devoted to the expression, by Palestinians, about the injustices done to their people and the justification of the murder they committed. The producers make clear that there is no anti-semitism involved. It is interesting, but only coincidental, that the librettist converted from Judaism while working on the opera.

The Metropolitan Opera's General Manager states, in yesterday's New York Post, “The libretto attempts to explore the motives of the criminals who perpetrated the Klinghoffer crime, something we should all strive to understand.” It is his view that the opera is a work of art and that people should see it and decide for themselves (though it is not clear what they should decide and what they should be judging).

It appears that his goal – having no choice but to defend himself and the Met – is to tell the audience that their responsibility is to judge the artistic nature of the work. Perhaps they should also evaluate the arguments on both sides and decide on those for themselves as well, but first and foremost they should attend. Both the Met's economic interests and the General Manager's reputation depend on good attendance; cancelation of the opera would result in both a loss of face and of money. And possibly the General Manager's job.

The idea that the audience should decide for themselves, however, totally (perhaps intentionally) misses the point. The opera should not be on stage for people to make such a decision. Any attempt to defend the act it depicts represents support of evil and does not merit a hearing. The Met should not be an accessory after the fact.

Much is made about the First Amendment and the idea that not presenting the opera would be a violation of the composer's rights. But we must not overlook the fact that before there were amendments to the Constitution, there was a Constitution. And in that document it states clearly “No person shall…be deprived of life ... without due process of law.” Defending a violation of the Constitution as “art” cannot be justified. Calling such an act a “right” is an insult to all of us.

In addition, the First Amendment may give the composer the right to spew whatever comes to mind, but it places no obligation of anyone to publish or produce it. In this case that was a decision of the Met, and they are accountable for it.

Although there is much more to be said on the subject, let me conclude with the following. As a sop to the Jewish community, and after negotiations with the Anti-Defamation League, the Met agreed not to air the opera world wide, even though they would not cancel the New York production. The ADL may have considered it a major victory, but it is an example of the truth that the lesser of two evils is evil. President Adams was speaking of politics in his letter to Horatio Gates, but the same is true of the current situation, “... the middle way is none at all.”

The presentation of “The Death [the composer's sanitized version of 'murder'] of Klinghoffer [first name omitted in order to dehumanize the victim]” is indefensible. I don't have to see it to decide for myself.

Now You Know Everything

 

In the highly unlikely event that you've been reading my maunderings for the past two years, you know a little about how I think. You're also aware that I know everything. At least you should be. I've told you so. But while I know everything, I don't tell it all. And there are several reasons for this.

The first is that there isn't enough space. Look up anything using a search engine and you'll find uncountable references, irrespective of the unimportance of the subject. However inane it is,ⁱ many people have written about it. Many of those references are wrong. I know they're wrong because they disagree with me. It's obvious, though, that the plethora of writings on various subjects is unmanageable. Once the Library at Alexandria could house much of the world's knowledge. More recently the Library of Congress has managed to contain a small amount of this knowledge, and now the internet tries, but totally fails, in the same quest. Only I know everything -- but as you can guess, there isn't enough room to reveal it all, so I dole it out in small amounts.

Another important reason is that the reader simply won't understand all I have to say. He'll be depressed. And the last thing I want to do is to make the ignorant feel inadequate. He knows it already and I don't want to rub it in.

Much of what I know isn't relevant to current society and mores. American culture nowadays is undisciplined and ruled by the media, old wives's tales, technology, and other fads, and there is little appreciation of the past and its contributions. Any society that can condemn fat and salt while lionizing exercise and iPads is corrupt and has been badly misled. Any country that gives away money and permits cigarettes is just looking for approval by voters. But that's not all of my message 2 U.ⁱⁱ

Rather, I'd like to go over one subject that's important to me but, assuming it would hold less interest for you, I've underplayed. The subject is religion -- specifically mine, Judaism. This morning, though, as I was looking at my tzitzit,ⁱⁱⁱ it struck me that my view of Judaism was of sufficient interest to me that even if you can't relate to it there are some things I want to say. Because even if I know everything, I don't have to like everything the way it is.

Don't misunderstand. My intent is not to fault Judaism, but I can't ignore the faults of some of its adherents. Because so many have been assimilating and intermarrying – especially in the context of a free American society – the overall number of Jews has been decreasing, and there has been fear that our community would die out, and with that, among other tragedies – especially spiritual – we would lose whatever political influence we have. Since we have long supported Israel,^iv and America has joined in this stance, there has been fear that American assistance might be jeopardized. Fortunately the non-Jewish community, especially the Christian right, favors our country's support of Israel. And fortunately as well, the Orthodox population is increasing both absolutely and, even moreso, proportionately, so that, at least in the New York area,^v the number of Jews is increasing, along with the observance of biblical injunctions.

But we're like all other people, and there are numerous problems among the Orthodox as well. The difficulties of adapting to modern society, and the close watching by modern society, have led both to scandals resulting from unacceptable behavior by some who fashion themselves as “good” Jews, and to increasing pressure on Israel both by non-Jews and some Jews as well. It has also led to greater pressure on Israel, since many view this as a politically correct way to express anti-Semitism, a bias that has existed in countless different forms for millennia.

To a degree, the anti-Semitism has helped us to survive. Jews were kept separate from non-Jewish communities and were united in the will to survive. With an inclination toward knowledge – especially of their religion – and the exclusion from the outside world, the Jewish community developed a large number of Rabbis and scholars^vi who interpreted the holy books far beyond what was sensible^vii or true, and that, even if inapplicable to our times, is what we have to follow. It has become tradition, even if we might prefer a different view of the material.

But I recognize that much of this came about because of the insularity forced by anti-Semitism, and I recognize that the activities of those scholars, and the traditions that arose from their debates, are what have helped us to survive, and that modern fashions and trends are destructive. And the loyalty of so many Jews provides the glue that will continue to keep our community together, notwithstanding the pressure from so many of our own people to adapt to the society in which we live.

So I can live with the traditions. And I can live with the knowledge that some of what I know – which is everything – is wrong. My view of life, even if it's a view anchored in the past – no, because it's a view anchored in the past – is true. As I said, I know everything. And I don't have to tell you (I said also that I don't intend to tell you everything) there is nothing new under the sun. Just trust me.

Next episode: “Forethought” – Full frontal capacity.

i       And I know inane.

ii      Did this all start with Francis Gary Powers and the Pentagon in the 1950s?

iii    The fringes or threads mentioned in Bamidbar (Numbers) 15:38 and D'varim (Deuteronomy) 22:12 that are worn “on the corners of your garments.”

iv    Although more and more liberal and unaffiliated Jews now question that support. The greater the temporal separation from the Holocaust and the founding of Israel, and the more detachment from Judaism as a religion, the less interest Jews have in Israel.

v     The numbers come from a UJA-Federation report and include the facts that 40 percent of the city's Jews consider themselves Orthodox – it was 33 percent in 2002 – and 74 percent of all Jewish children in the city are Orthodox.

vi    A cadre of padres?

vii   In fact, some of the scenarios suggested in the Talmud are bizarre or laughable, and some of the science and history is clearly fallacious. We often view what we don't like as metaphorical, and look for a more acceptable interpretation.