treppenwitz

Committing [National] Suicide

The classic definition of chutzpah is murdering one's parents and then pleading for leniency from the court because your're an orphan. So, what do you call it when someone commits suicide in an attempt to similarly garner sympathy or preferential treatment?

I won't waste time discussing the legitimacy of the Palestinian struggle for self-determination, or which / how many entities actually represent the Palestinians in that struggle.  What baffles me is the methodology the Palestinians are employing in that struggle, which is, at best, chutzpadik, and at worst, suicidal to their national aspirations.

Abba Eban once famously quipped that, "The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."  This has been proven wrong on a couple of notable occasions when Arab leaders opted for peace and progress when opportunities have presented themselves.  I'm referring, of course, to the Egyptians and Jordanians.

But either the Palestinians are incapable seizing any of the multiple opportunities that have been presented to them... or they are actively working towards a different outcome.  I honestly don't know which is correct.

Here is a short list of the opportunities  - clear paths to statehood - which the Palestinians have missed: 

• In 1937, the Peel Commission proposed the partition of Palestine and the creation of an Arab state.
• In 1939, the British White Paper proposed the creation of a unitary Arab state.
• In 1947, the UN would have created an even larger Arab state as part of its partition plan.
• In addition 1948 to 1967, Israel did not control the West Bank. The Palestinians could have demanded an independent state from the Jordanians. On the contrary while Jordan was in control Arafat said there was no longer a claim as it was no longer part of Palestine. Once it was back in Israeli hands it miraculously became disputed land again! This is one of many reasons Israelis remain cynical.
• The 1979 Egypt-Israel peace negotiations offered the Palestinians autonomy, which would almost certainly have led to full independence.
• The Oslo agreements of the 1990s laid out a path for Palestinian independence, but the process was derailed by terrorism.
• In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to create a Palestinian state in all of Gaza and 97 percent of the West Bank. The Palestinian response was not only a resounding 'no' (without a counter-offer), but also the launch of the 2nd Intifada.
• In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered to withdraw from almost the entire West Bank and partition Jerusalem on a demographic basis.
  [source]

During the 2005 'disengagement', Israel withdrew its military and civilian presence from Gaza, leaving extensive agriculture infrastructure to the Palestinians. Yes, Israel continued to maintain control of Gaza's airspace, land borders (with the exception of Gaza's border with Egypt, abandoned by Israel in 2005), and territorial waters.  But that was not a punitive or unilateral decision on Israel's part.  It was part of the Oslo accords which, to date, neither side has formally abandoned. 

Instead of creating a new proto-state on the Mediterranean, the Palestinians destroyed the existing infrastructure and diverted much of the international humanitarian aid they received to terror programs; launching thousands of rockets at Israel and building scores of attack tunnels under the border.

Now Gaza's government (Hamas) has started a novel campaign of directing thousands of their own people to violently breach the fence with Israel, invade and overrun the country and carry out murder and mayhem as they go.

This goes far beyond missing opportunities.  It is committing national suicide!

How can the Palestinians ask for sovereignty for themselves when they don't understand or respect the inviolability of sovereignty?

How can the Palestinians expect to be given a state when the explicitly stated goal of their national project is to destroy / supplant an existing state?

How can the Palestinian leadership reasonably hope to be entrusted with the protection and welfare of their own citizens when they don't understand (or are willfully ignoring), a basic tenet of statehood: that when forced to choose between the safety and welfare of its own citizens and the safety and welfare of demonstrably violent invaders, a state must always choose to protect its own citizens?

Which brings me back to my original question:  What benefit does the Palestinian leadership expect to gain by this suicidal play for international sympathy if it results in the demise of their national aspirations?

... a nation like any other.

There is a quote that is usually attributed to Chaim Nachman Bialik, the great modern Hebrew poet (and great-great-great-grand uncle of actress Mayim Bialik), who said, ''We will be a normal state when we have the first Hebrew prostitute, the first Hebrew thief and the first Hebrew policeman". 

That quote always bothered me.  After all, why set the bar so low?  Aren't we supposed to be 'a light unto the nations'?

It wasn't until I was watching the Eurovision finals last night that something clicked, and I finally understood the context of his quote.

In order to be a ‘normal state… 'a national like any other'… Israel has to not only accept, but also embrace, its normalcy.  More than that, we have to make the rest of the world see and accept us as completely normal.

It's great to have brilliant Israeli Nobel laureates and scientists so we can point and say how erudite we are. 

It's great to have achingly beautiful Israeli models and actors so we can point and say how attractive we are.

It's great to have a healthy, thriving democracy so we can point and say how evolved and civilized we are.

And it's great to have impressive military and intelligence capabilities so we can point and say how powerful and self-reliant we are.

But Bialik understood that a 'normal' state is the average of its people, not its top 1-2%; That the typical citizen - the everyman/everywoman - is not necessarily a scientist, a model, a legislator / jurist, a spy / commando… yet can still excel, impress and astound!

The average citizen of a 'normal’ state is a work-a-day person, struggling valiantly to carve out a life for him/herself and family.  That means an endlessly normal list of normal occupations including bus drivers, bank clerks, secretaries, insurance agents, telephone operators, ad executives, rear-echelon soldiers, entertainers, policemen and yes, thieves and prostitutes.

Israel has been participating in the annual Eurovision Song Contest since 1973. 

Including last night's triumph, we have won a total of four times.  On the face of it, that feat would seem to be fodder for our list of bragging rights along with Nobel laureates, models, military heroes, etc.

But look at the Israelis who have won:

Our first win was in 1978 with Alphabeta, sung by Izhar Cohen the child of Yemenite immigrants (considered at the time to be an underprivileged minority).  We won the following year with Hallelujah, sung by Gali Atari, another child of Yemenite immigrants.  Our third win came in 1998 with 'Diva' sung by Dana International, a transgender individual.  And last night's winning song, 'Toy' was performed by Netta Barzilai. 

While I was watching Netta peform, a few things hit me all at once:

First, although Barzilai is a fairly typical surname among Jews from Morocco and other North African communities, I hadn't seen or heard one person categorize her by ethnicity.  That's huge for us Israelis that Netta's family origin is such a non-ssue that nobody feels compelled to hyphenate her Israeli-ness.

Next, while almost all of the Eurovision performers in last night’s program were talented singers / performers, most looked like they could easily moonlight as runway and print models.  In the back of my mind I couldn't help wondering if some of them might not have been selected if they hadn't first won the genetic lottory.

Netta, like most of us, doesn't come close to conforming to the prevailing - and certainly flawed - modern ideals of beauty as sold to us by the entertainment and fashion industry.  She is a plus-sized woman with a larger-than-life stage presence that is at first a bit shocking... but very quickly quite appealing.  She is so completely at home in her skin that she practically forces the viewer/listener to recalibrate in their head what ‘normal’ is for a star.

And the lyrics of her song reinforce her moral authority to take up the #metoo banner in the name of everyone who has ever been objectified, harassed, victimized or assaulted... deftly and rightly taking it from the manicured hands of Hollywood A-listers who, let's face it, look better the morning after an all-night pub-crawl than most of us looked on our wedding day.

When Christina Aguilera sings, "I am beautiful no matter what they say, Words can't bring me down...", it's honestly a little hard to feel her pain...or reflexively, to believe that she truly understands the self-image issues that the 'normal' woman (or man), wrestles with.

But when Netta sings, "Look at me, I’m a beautiful creature... I’m not your toy. You stupid boy”, you instantly get that she is not talking about some subjective external criteria of beauty... she is talking about the intrinsic beauty & value of every human being, and the right we all have to not be reduced to a kind of object, prize or plaything.

What a powerful yet obvious message!  And it carries extra gravitas because it is delivered by a 'normal' everywoman.

This is the 'normal' that Bialik was talking about.  This is the 'normal' that Israel consistently projects. 

We Israelis are worthy and valuable, not because we have accomplished all these wonderful things through the luck of being born exceptional... but rather in spite of the fact that we were not.

There can be extraordinary things to be proud of in being ordinary.  But to do so, one has to first be prepared to embrace and celebrate being 'normal'.  Last night’s Eurovision performance /win was all that, and more!

New York Times Report Card: D-

Last night just after midnight, Iranian military forces in Syria launched a missile strike on Israel using between 18 and 20 Fajr-5 rockets. 

For reference, each of these unguided rockets is about 6.5 meters long (a bit over 21 ft), has a range of approximately 75Km (about 50 miles) and can carry a warhead weighing 175 kg (385 lbs) – consisting of either high explosives (HE), fragmentation, submunitions, incendiary, smoke, or chemical payloads.

Here's a glimpse (lest anyone confuse it for a home-made Kassam):

Israel's Iron Dome system intercepted 4 of the incoming Iranian rockets, and the rest reportedly fell short/wide of military bases and civilian areas in the Israeli Golan Heights, causing no damage.

Naturally (and justifiably under international law), within an hour, Israel launched air and missile strikes on a number of military targets in Syria, destroying nearly all Iranian military and strategic facilities in the country.

Equally naturally, The New York Times reported the Israeli aggression... and soft-pedaled the Iranian attack.

Let's check the highlights:

Headline:

"Israel Strikes Iranian Targets in Syria as Tensions Escalate"

Hmmm, to anyone skimming the headlines it sounds like Israel is the aggressor here, no?

First paragraph:

"JERUSALEM — Israeli fighter jets struck dozens of Iranian targets in Syria overnight, Israeli officials said, following soon after what the Israeli military described as an unsuccessful Iranian rocket attack against its forces in the Golan Heights."

Again, the Times leads with "Israel struck...".  Always Israel attacking, never 'allegedly', 'reportedly', etc.... and always 'targets... never 'military targets', and always active verbs. 

Then as a follow up, whatever Iran may or may not have done is not confirmed, it is only what "...the Israel military described"... and even then it is important to point out it was a "failed Iranian rocket attack against forces in the Golan Heights". 

According to the Times, not only did the Iranian attack not hurt anyone or anything, but it was absolutely, certainly an attack on 'Israeli forces'; a good trick for a rocket that has no guidance package, a range of 50 miles, and which was fired at an area dotted with civilian communities!

The article then spends two paragraphs trying to connect the violence to Trump's withdrawing the US from the Iran Nuclear deal.  Then, and only then does the patient reader find out more clearly what happened.  and the Times doesn't disappoint:

Fourth Paragraph:

"Overnight, Iranian forces fired around 20 rockets into the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights, targeting forward positions of the Israeli military, according to an Israeli military spokesman. The rockets were all either intercepted or fell short of their mark, the spokesman said, but were nevertheless a significant escalation in Iran’s maneuvers in the Middle East. Though Israel has hit Iranian forces in Syria with a number of deadly airstrikes, Tehran has been restrained in hitting back, until now."

Yes, Iran fired rockets.  But not approximately 20 rockets... but rather "around 20 rockets".  I hate to split hairs, but the former is the accepted word when the exact number is not known in a  professional setting or a military conflict.  'Around' is more commonly used when discussing how many rocks your son may have thrown at your neighbor's dog.

Again, the certainty on the part of the Times that the Iranian rockets were "targeting forward positions of the Israeli military" despite there being no way to actually aim them with an accuracy of less than a few kilometers (at best).  

And the paragraph ends with a real whopper, even by NYTimes standards, pointing out that even in the face of punishing Israeli airstrikes, "Tehran has been restrained in hitting back, until now".  No context.  No reporting of the constant Iranian threats to wipe Israel off the map.  No mention of Israel's clearly stated red line of moving Iranian advanced weaponry into Syria.  Just 'Iranian restraint'.

I won't continue to parse the article, even though it continues to reinforce Israel as the aggressor and Iran as the mature, patient, statesman-like victim.

Overall Grade for today:  D-

Why not a big red F?  

Well, whether by accident or design, The Times used 'Jerusalem' in the dateline instead of Tel Aviv.  Also, instead of using the usual formula of 'Israeli occupied Golan Heights', they called it "Israeli-controlled Golan Heights'.

Baby steps.  If they can include a couple of accuracies in each article - even accidentally - I'm willing to give them a barely passing grade.

 

Seeding Winds of Change

Over the past few weeks Palestinians in Gaza have begun using low-tech incendiary devices  suspended from kites and helium balloons to set fire to crops, trees and infrastructure on the Israeli side of the border.  So far the fires cause by these improvised flying devices have caused millions of Shekels in damage to the Israeli agricultural communities along the Gaza border.

I'll leave it to others to waste their breath trying to explain to an uninterested world why every sovereign country has the right to protect its borders (not to mention the responsibility to protect its citizens), from demonstrably hostile invaders.  

I've gotten to the point where I just don't have the patience or headspace to explain what should be obvious to a hostile audience that is actively rooting for the people carrying out the mayhem.

So as I read yet another article about Gazan helium balloons lofting flaming payloads into Israeli wheat fields, I was struck by a thought:

These oversized balloons, and the Helium to fill them, are relatively cheap, widely available and can carry a modest payload.  And they go wherever the wind takes them.

What if Israel were to set up assembly and launching points along the Gaza periphery for our own helium balloons, and wait for a  favorable change in the winds? 

But instead of carrying fire and destruction into Gaza, the Israeli balloons would carry small humanitarian payloads; first aid kits, asperin/tylonol, candy, toys, flashlights, toiletries, cosmetics, batteries, spices, etc..

The Hamas military government would almost certainly try to foil such grass-roots gestures by forbidding Gazans from touching things flown over the border by 'the Zionist enemy'.  In fact, they would probably claim the items were booby-trapped with explosives or poison (perhaps planting a bit of both to frighten their population into compliance). 

But if enough balloons were launched... and enough Gazans received a glimpse of humanity from the people they've been indoctrinated to believe are completely lacking in that quality... it can't help but influence the winds of public opinion, at least in a small way.

Just floating an idea...

Feel free to take this idea and run (fly) with it!

Imitation is the sincerest form of... colonialism?

Taking offence seems to have been raised to an art form these days. 

Don't believe me?  Just take a peek at the Sturm und Drang over a young woman in Utah who committed the unforgivable sin of 'cultural appropriation' by wearing a prom frock modelled after a traditional Chinese dress known as cheongsam or qipao.

Kindly also note that in the previous sentence I have brazenly committed an act of cultural appropriation by using the German 'Sturm und Drang' rather than a less objectionable (but also less descriptive), English equivalent.

So what was the fuss about?

Like pretty much every prom attendee since the dawn of social media, the young woman in the article shared pictures of herself online wearing the Asian-inspired dress... and was immediately crucified by the cultural sensitivity police.

"My culture is not your prom dress.." wrote an outraged gentleman; presumably of Chinese ancestry.  He continued his tirade in a follow-up post, “For it to simply be subject to American consumerism and cater to a white audience, is parallel to colonial ideology.”

Wow, a Utah high schooler furthering colonial ideology with her sartorial choices!  Who knew?

Another guardian of cultural purity named 'Jeannie' wrote: “This isn’t ok.  I wouldn’t wear traditional Korean, Japanese or any other traditional dress and I’m Asian. I wouldn’t wear traditional Irish or Swedish or Greek dress either. There’s a lot of history behind these clothes. Sad.”

Note that this upright, sensitive person is Asian and says she wouldn't even wear traditional Asian clothing!  GIve me strength!  And as if there isn't enough to hate about her already, ending a post with 'Sad' makes me want to Photoshop Trump hair onto all her online pictures!

Also, I'm a little offended that her presumably Asian parents appropriated American culture by naming their hyper-sensitive little angel, 'Jeannie'.  But let's stick a pin in that for the moment (assuming that isn't somehow appropriating Haitian Voodoo culture).

One would think that in today's shrinking world, multiculturalism (also known as ethnic pluralism) would be a welcome change from the old days where minority cultures were expected to shed their cultural identities by diving (or being thrown) into of the great melting pot.  And to a certain extent, it is.  But at the cost of taking those cultural touchstones - particularly clothing - and turning them into quaisi-sacred vestments that can be wielded/worn only by authentic members of the source culture.

I've written in the past about my unfulfilled kilt-envy, and how I've adopted wearing a lungi in extremes of hot-humid weather.  In the former case where I don't think I could get away with it; and the latter where, at least in semi-privacy, I can, I see no problem whatsoever.  

Truth be told, the couple of times that Indians have seen me wearing a Lungi (in my hotel room or out by the pool), the reactions were unanimously positive.  And considering that Queen Victoria, a British monarch, was largely responsible for popularizing traditional Scottish culture and costume, you'd have to take a lot of upper-crust Brits to task over alleged cultural appropriation before attacking me for lusting after a Utilikilt.

So why is it that people are so uptight about Caucasians adopting the fashions of Asia and Africa?

When Zahava and I hosted an African visitor several years back, he gifted me a beautiful Dashiki which I have been, frankly, terrified to wear outside the house because of exactly the sort of foaming-at-the-mouth-PC nonsense mentioned above.  I'm white.  So what?!  I didn't colonize Africa.  I work and travel extensively in Africa and am friendly with many wonderful people there.  Why is wearing a bit of their cultural kit considered insulting; particularly to non-African people who have never set foot in Africa and are likely projecting their white guilt onto me?

My wife and daughter enjoy the style and comfort of wearing Indian Shalwar Kameez here in Israel; especially in the summer.  And Ariella has even worn a Sari I bought her.  In neither case were the garments worn ironically or in any way meant to be insulting or demeaning to the people of India.    

Of course, one could argue that it is possible to go too far when trying to 'go native', making it seem a little, um, forced (as Canada's Prime Minister and his family found out):

So getting back to the article that sparked this little rant, why, if a caucasian woman decides to wear a dress in the Chinese style should it be considered cultural appropriation and culturally insensitive?   We enjoy so many other aspects of Chinese culture - cuisine, games, frgrance - in our day-to-day lives.  Why not clothing?

We're not talking about black-face minstrel shows or lawn jockeys! 

We're not talking about native American buckskin and feathered head-dresses!

We're not talking about dressing up like a 19th century coolie with clogs, buck teeth and a long queue (braid)!  

And we're certainly not talking about dressing up in religious garb (although, I find it ironic that none of the PC police seem to be bothered by religious garb being forced upon non-native visitors by certain countries):

So, yeah... I'm honestly curious what harm can come from someone wearing clothing or accessories that come from (or were inspired by), other cultures.  How is it insulting to the source culture?!

Call me old fashioned, but to my way of thinking, imitation is still the sincerest form of flattery.  

Have We Learned Nothing?!

Did we really learn nothing from the tragic death of ten precious teenagers last week?!

There were clear weather warnings and strongly worded recommendations from various government agencies that, if followed, would have saved those precious lives.

Yet here we are a week later and I am seeing the same “yihye beseder” (It'll be okay) attitude among decision-makers who should really know better.

Tonight is L'ag B'Omer (the 33rd day of the counting of the Omer period between Passover and Shavuot), and it is a well-loved tradition to light Medurot (bonfires).  Among Israel's youth, it is arguably the highlight of the social year.  After all, what kid doesn't like staying up all night with his/her friends at a bonfire?!

Only one problem.  There is a strong storm warning for much of the country, with unseasonably warm temperatures (read dry everything) and high winds.  Exactly the things you don't want when people are lighting bonfires.

The fire departments and many civil administrations are strongly recommending limiting or even cancelling bonfires due to the weather.  The mayor of our town is among these sensible voices.

Yet there are those who are saying that since bonfires haven't been outlawed outright, that it should be okay to go ahead and have them.

What the hell, people?!  Do we need to burn down the entire country (and maim or kill a bunch of kids in the process), before we learn that not being forbidden from doing something doesn't mean it is a good idea!

I'm not one of those people who screams every year about air polution and poor supervision.  I think the annual bonfires are a wonderful tradition.  But not at the risk of lives and property!