Uncle Bernie died on Thanksgiving Day. Uncle Bernie was a great uncle. He was funny, compassionate, committed to human rights and the mass consumption of good food, booze and, of course, the best cigars that could be found around the globe. Bernie was a photographer both for love and for making a living. Every photograph, slide and home movie had the same artist's touch that could be found in his professional work. If you ever see a news reel from WWII of a tank rolling over the cameraman, that was probably Uncle Bernie, lying in a ditch somewhere in Italy. Or the stills from Quo Vadis, shot while Bernie was back in Italy on a Fullbright Fellowship. Once, when walking through the wooden corridors of the Larchmont Beach Club lockers, Bernie stopped and pointed out a certain corner under a certain skylight. "I always liked the light at this spot," he said. "I used to take pictures of Amy [his younger daughter] right here."
To the rest of the world, Uncle Bernie was Bernard Birnbaum, a legendary producer for CBS News. He was compassionate and cared deeply for and about not only his family and the people he worked with but also many of the people whose lives he covered. At the age of 89 his big heart finally gave up. With my cousin Debbie's permission, I missed the funeral in order not to miss my flight to Tel Aviv. This is not so unusual in our family. Uncle Bernie would sometimes miss family gatherings because he would be in Italy, India, Vietnam or a few dozen other places.
Bernie went to work for CBS in 1951 and stayed for over 40 years. He didn't just produce TV news, he was one of the people who invented it. If you're old enough to remember shows like Omnibus and Camera Three or when the CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite went from 15 to 30 minutes, then you remember what I knew as Uncle Bernie's shows. You young folks may have noticed his credits on Sunday Morning. During his career he covered serious topics like political conventions, the civil rights movement, the Eichmann trial, Vatican II, the Kennedy and Oswald assassinations, the Vietnam War and most of the rest of the history of the second half of the last century. But he also produced shows in a lighter vein, like the report on the Bossa Nova craze sweeping up from Brazil to the USA. Or stories about ordinary people living their lives which came to full fruition with the series "On The Road with Charles Kuralt." Bernie was famous for thinking of what would make a story hit home and then getting it on film. Like the mother of a Boston auto rental clerk who lived in fear of the Boston Strangler or a live interview with Marina Oswald just days after the assassination. The latter made Dan Rather into a national star (and a life-long friend).
Bernie never admitted how he got Mrs. Oswald on camera but his usual technique involved a lot of charm and winning someone's trust. Or sometimes it was just reverting back to his Brooklyn roots. Like that time he set up his film crew on a Jerusalem street across the street from the courthouse where the trial of Adolph Eichmann was about to begin. A man who objected to CBS News cluttering up his sidewalk leaned out from a balcony and started yelling at Bernie, first in Hebrew and then in Yiddush. That did it. Bernie says he told the guy a few things, also in Yiddush, using some expletives that we will delete here. Not 15 minutes later, Bernie, now lighter by two cigars and $50US had rented the balcony for his camera crew. Bernie thought the shot would be better from one story up.
One of the stories Uncle Bernie told me starts with Bernie having breakfast in a bar (a number of his stories start this way). This particular breakfast took place in late November, 1963 in Dallas. Bernie was having breakfast with Fred Friendly, then head of CBS News. They were discussing how best to cover the ongoing story of JFK's assassination. The networks' national news crews were packing up to follow the story from Dallas to Washington for the funeral and the start of the Johnson Administration. But Fred and Bernie concluded that the arrest and trial of JFK's alleged assassin was also major news worthy of leaving a national crew in Dallas with the resources to broadcast live. When word got out that CBS was staying, ABC and NBC also decided to stay. And so, Lee Harvey Oswald became the first person to be assassinated on live television. And, thanks to the then-high tech device of kinescope, his was also the first assassination to be shown on instant replay.
Uncle Bernie also had some of the character traits of an absent-minded professor (this amused the children while exasperating my Aunt Ronnie). For example, there was the time Uncle Bernie sat with Liz and I in his Larchmont living room and told us that he once had the opportunity to get a real insider's take on what had really gone on in Vietnem. Bernie having breakfast in a bar in Bangkok with a four-star general. The general said to Bernie, "You know, most people don't understand that Vietnam........" I never heard the rest of the story. Uncle Bernie suddenly remembered something that needed his attention, stood up, walked up the stairs and never came back to the story.
Bernie produced numerous documentaries over the years. But the one that gets referred to most often is "Christmas in Appalachia." With Charles Kuralt in front of the camera, Bernie brought into millions of homes the horrors of crushing poverty and environmental ruin wreaked upon people living in the wake of the coal industry. Christmas in Appalachia didn't just win Bernie his first Emmy award, it also helped stir a public debate that lead to the Johnson Administration declaring a War on Poverty.
Unfortunately, that war and much of its good intentions got lost in the jungles of Vietnam. Today, over 40 years after Uncle Bernie's show was broadcast, not all that much has changed. I got a lesson in poverty and compassion in early November when I went On the Road in Appalchia with Ranya the Shoe Lady.
[To be continued.]
Read more!
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Friday, November 20, 2009
"Health Care Reform" - A Bad Bill Is Not Better Than No Bill
Getting ready for my winter sojourn in the Holy Land, I spent a couple of days counting pills and refilling prescriptions. US law doesn't just forbid me to import identical but cheaper drugs from abroad. It also forbids my mail-order pharmacy from mailing my pills to me in Tel Aviv. So, once a year, I become a traveling pharmacy. If this sounds lame to you, you're right.
Any day now, the e-mails and the robo calls from Obama's Organizing for America (the ongoing campaign to maintain the grassroots support that got him elected in the first place) and the AARP (American Association of Retired Persons), America's largest lobbying group for senior citizens (which they define as anyone over 50) will start flooding in. They're going to ask me, yet again, to support whatever mess Congress finally gags up as "health care reform" because a bad bill that sort of seems to do some of the things we need to get done is better than no bill at all. Sorry, this time I'm not on board for the fantasy express. A bad bill that leaves us at the mercy of insurance companies and Big Pharma will not assure universal coverage at a reasonable cost. I'd rather have no bill and work for a single payer system.
In 2010, my medical insurance will cost more for less coverage. Rather than the 15% or so rate increase that is now metastasizing its way through US medical insurance, I'm getting a 3% bump but my deductibles and co-pays will increase, raising my total cost by some as yet undetermined amount. What can I say. Don't get old and don't get sick. It seems I'm not alone, however, as most small businesses are looking at 15% rate increases. Just before Congress acts on a Bill which the insurance industry fears might actually put a lid on what they can charge. What a coincidence.
Want another coincidence? Big Pharma and the President made a big deal out of how Big Pharma would reduce consumers' costs by $80 billion and support (or at least not oppose) a health care reform bill. At the time, the bills kicking around Congress would have saved about $160 billion in drug costs. Since then drug prices have been going up at a rate of 9% a year for brand name drugs under patent protection (this while the rest of the economy has been deflating). So, by the time Congress passes something, Big Pharma will have taken in more than the $80 billion that they'll then make a big show of giving back by discounting their prices. As a famous business writer likes to say, pretty slick.
In addition to counting pills, I've been trying to get vaccinated against Swine Flu. No luck. None of my doctors has the vaccine and the town I live in may get some but children, teachers, health care workers and first responders are all in line ahead of me. I don't mind having the lower priority but I do mind being told I need to vaccinate myself against the worst pandemic since the 1919 flu plague and then told that private industry just could not produce and distribute enough vaccine before the season began. But I do have an alternative. I wrote to my cousin in Jerusalem. She is both a Family Doctor and our family's doctor. She can get us the shots when we're in Israel but expressed surprise that I could not get vaccinated in the US. I explained that this is because Israel has a serious national health care system that responds on a national level to things like flu pandemics while the US system is f****d up beyond all recognition.
When Congress came up with the Medicare drug bill, a $450 billion giveaway to Big Pharma, AARP argued that a bad bill was better than no bill. US taxpayers buy some drugs for some seniors but we're not allowed to negotiate the price because that would somehow be unfair to the pharmaceutical companies. We were told by the Bush Administration that drug prices would be controlled by free market competition. Wanna bet? Within 6 months of the drug companies' initially enrolling retirees at low ball rates, the price of prescription drugs began to spike upward and have never looked back. What we got, all dressed up as reform, was the biggest giveaway to private industry since the Feds gave the railroad barons the rights of way west of the Mississippi.
Americans will probably continue to spend more money on health care than any other country but actually be less healthy than citizens of comparable, first world countries. The problem with health care in the US arises mainly from the lousy method of allocation of resources and the uneven methods of payment. Its all driven by profits and all maintained in the name of free market capitalism using the canard of patient "choice" as the "on" button. We are all programmed by constant, mass advertising to demand the latest, most expensive forms of treatment and will sue if we don't get them (or sue if we do get them and they don't work). As anyone willing to really look around them knows, unfettered free market capitalism doesn't really work if your concern is the general welfare of the entire citizenry. Its great for a handful of investment bankers and hedge fund managers but not so wonderful for factory workers or retail store employees. The cure is a single payer system.
First let's get over ourselves and talk about what single payer is not. Its not socialism. Why not? A truly socialist medical system would involved public ownership and control over not just the funding but also the providers of health care and the manufacturers of the drugs and equipment they use. Single payer would leave the actual practice of medicine and all its related goods and services in private hands (except of course for public services like the VA hospitals). Single payer would involve the representatives of the US taxpayers negotiating prices and working on quality assurance.
A doctor friend of mine once said he opposed government-run health care because he did not want medical care rationed based on economics. To which I replied, "What the hell do you think goes on now?" And, if you're out there screaming in terror about "death panels," let me be the first to tell you the truth. We've had death panels for years under euphemisms like "managed care" and "peer review" and "bankruptcy court."
What single payer would be is a way to reduce costs and open the health care field to improvements in quality (like a national computer data base of medical records and drug prescriptions which would cut down on medical errors which would cut down on tort awards and save us all billions) and best practices based on patient care and not on how large a bonus the CEO of the insurance company will get this year. It's no accident that the best health care at the most affordable prices is available from not-for-profit, community-based health care systems.
What would single payer cost compared to what we're spending now? The cost of single payer would involve a tax higher than the current Medicare tax but less than the total employers and employees now spend on Medicare taxes plus the cost of private health care insurance. Do you own a business? If you could get health care coverage for yourself and your employees for less than the current cost of such insurance plus your Medicare taxes, would you take the deal? Damn right you would. You can add. Congress can't.
You see, Congress and the Administration, having taken billions in political contributions from insurers, drug companies and other health care players, did not have the political nerve to dare interfere with our relationship with our health care insurer. They won't do what's right because they are afraid we will be upset over having the government disrupt our wonderful, fulfilling relationship with our health insurers. Ask me if I care about my deep, sensitive relationship with my health care insurer. Funny you should ask, but no. What I do care about is my relationship with my cardiologist and the other doctors who have spent considerable time and effort keeping me alive. And single payer, just like my Medicare, leaves me free to keep the doctors I have and choose new ones and that's what matters. Not how they get paid.
By the way, when you add Medicare taxes, plus state taxes for Medicaid plus the Federal tax advantages given to medical expenses plus the cost of Federal health care programs for the military (both active and veterans), the US income taxpayer currently foots the bill for about 60% of the total cost of health care in the US. That's before our own expenses for private coverage. Bottom line, we're paying most of the cost of health care now and, in return, we live in a country where the infant mortality rate is comparable to that of Bangladesh.
How do we go to single payer? The financing side is easy enough. Start with the Medicare law and take out the age and disability limitations. Just cover everyone. Then we can go to work on improving quality, on negotiating fair reimbursement rates for providers and all the rest. Every individual and employer has to pay into the system or can opt out for private coverage but still pay a tax. This way private insurers can't cherry-pick the young and healthy out of a system meant to insure everyone. Anyone who wants to buy private insurance is always free to do so.
So where do we find enough money to pay for expanding Medicare to cover everyone? Well, let me count the ways for you. First, Medicare delivers a dollar of benefits for about 4 cents in overhead. Private insurers spend up to 30 cents per dollar. Administrative costs alone would represent a saving of about $500 billion dollars over ten years. Make a serious dent in unnecessary procedures by insisting on best practices and setting reimbursement rates to favor keeping patients well and you save another $850 billion. (These are AARP estimates.) Let's see, we need a trillion and single payer saves us at least 1.35 trillion. And there's the cost reduction described above. You do the math. Congress doesn't seem to be up to the task.
Single payer would also take Medicaid and similar programs off the books of state governments. Yes, your Federal taxes will go up but, just this once, your state income and maybe your property taxes will go down. Go find a Governor who wouldn't love to shove Medicaid expenses back up to the Federal level.
But no one, except maybe Bernie Sanders, the only socialist in Congress, is advocating for single payer. Why not? You'd think AARP would follow the logic of its own research. But they seem to be too busy trying to sell me health insurance to get to work on real health care reform. The rest of Congress is too busy accepting campaign contributions and after-office jobs from insurers and Big Pharma to get too worked up over your health.
Finally, I don't know why the CEOs and CFOs of every S&P 500 company (other than the health care insurers) are not raving socialists when it comes to health care expenses. To use an oft-cited example, it costs about $2000 less to build a car in Japan or Canada because those countries have national health insurance. Its the same for most other industries. Its a mystery to me why otherwise cold, calculating business people don't jump at the chance to get this albatross off their bottom lines.
And just what are we getting instead of single payer? We seem to be on the verge of getting some modest rule changes so some people can't lose coverage just because they lose their health or their jobs. Plus some, but not all, of the uninsured (most of whom have jobs and pay taxes) get coverage through a "health care exchange." That's why AARP and Obama will tell me soon that a bad bill is better than no bill. But given that the exchange, which may or may not have a public option along with 5 or 6 private options, may not be allowed to seriously negotiate prices, its not clear how "reform" will control costs or improve the quality of care.What we do know is that the exchange, which may or may not be open to a wide group of employers and individuals, is based on some flow charts which, in turn, are based on work done by Jacob Hacker, a Yale University professor of political science. They look like this:
That's right. These flow charts were given to 535 US legislators and they were asked to come up with major health care legislation. When I first saw these charts I had one of those moments of clarity in which it become clear that the world has really gone insane this time around. I believe I can sum up my take on the pending legislation in two words, "We're f****d." (And that's not even taking into account the Stupak Amendment which will send women's health care back into the middle ages.)
But don't take my word for it. Here's a message from a Canadian health care consultant using a form of communication that Americans are sure to understand -- a beer advertisement:
Read more!
Any day now, the e-mails and the robo calls from Obama's Organizing for America (the ongoing campaign to maintain the grassroots support that got him elected in the first place) and the AARP (American Association of Retired Persons), America's largest lobbying group for senior citizens (which they define as anyone over 50) will start flooding in. They're going to ask me, yet again, to support whatever mess Congress finally gags up as "health care reform" because a bad bill that sort of seems to do some of the things we need to get done is better than no bill at all. Sorry, this time I'm not on board for the fantasy express. A bad bill that leaves us at the mercy of insurance companies and Big Pharma will not assure universal coverage at a reasonable cost. I'd rather have no bill and work for a single payer system.
In 2010, my medical insurance will cost more for less coverage. Rather than the 15% or so rate increase that is now metastasizing its way through US medical insurance, I'm getting a 3% bump but my deductibles and co-pays will increase, raising my total cost by some as yet undetermined amount. What can I say. Don't get old and don't get sick. It seems I'm not alone, however, as most small businesses are looking at 15% rate increases. Just before Congress acts on a Bill which the insurance industry fears might actually put a lid on what they can charge. What a coincidence.
Want another coincidence? Big Pharma and the President made a big deal out of how Big Pharma would reduce consumers' costs by $80 billion and support (or at least not oppose) a health care reform bill. At the time, the bills kicking around Congress would have saved about $160 billion in drug costs. Since then drug prices have been going up at a rate of 9% a year for brand name drugs under patent protection (this while the rest of the economy has been deflating). So, by the time Congress passes something, Big Pharma will have taken in more than the $80 billion that they'll then make a big show of giving back by discounting their prices. As a famous business writer likes to say, pretty slick.
In addition to counting pills, I've been trying to get vaccinated against Swine Flu. No luck. None of my doctors has the vaccine and the town I live in may get some but children, teachers, health care workers and first responders are all in line ahead of me. I don't mind having the lower priority but I do mind being told I need to vaccinate myself against the worst pandemic since the 1919 flu plague and then told that private industry just could not produce and distribute enough vaccine before the season began. But I do have an alternative. I wrote to my cousin in Jerusalem. She is both a Family Doctor and our family's doctor. She can get us the shots when we're in Israel but expressed surprise that I could not get vaccinated in the US. I explained that this is because Israel has a serious national health care system that responds on a national level to things like flu pandemics while the US system is f****d up beyond all recognition.
When Congress came up with the Medicare drug bill, a $450 billion giveaway to Big Pharma, AARP argued that a bad bill was better than no bill. US taxpayers buy some drugs for some seniors but we're not allowed to negotiate the price because that would somehow be unfair to the pharmaceutical companies. We were told by the Bush Administration that drug prices would be controlled by free market competition. Wanna bet? Within 6 months of the drug companies' initially enrolling retirees at low ball rates, the price of prescription drugs began to spike upward and have never looked back. What we got, all dressed up as reform, was the biggest giveaway to private industry since the Feds gave the railroad barons the rights of way west of the Mississippi.
Americans will probably continue to spend more money on health care than any other country but actually be less healthy than citizens of comparable, first world countries. The problem with health care in the US arises mainly from the lousy method of allocation of resources and the uneven methods of payment. Its all driven by profits and all maintained in the name of free market capitalism using the canard of patient "choice" as the "on" button. We are all programmed by constant, mass advertising to demand the latest, most expensive forms of treatment and will sue if we don't get them (or sue if we do get them and they don't work). As anyone willing to really look around them knows, unfettered free market capitalism doesn't really work if your concern is the general welfare of the entire citizenry. Its great for a handful of investment bankers and hedge fund managers but not so wonderful for factory workers or retail store employees. The cure is a single payer system.
First let's get over ourselves and talk about what single payer is not. Its not socialism. Why not? A truly socialist medical system would involved public ownership and control over not just the funding but also the providers of health care and the manufacturers of the drugs and equipment they use. Single payer would leave the actual practice of medicine and all its related goods and services in private hands (except of course for public services like the VA hospitals). Single payer would involve the representatives of the US taxpayers negotiating prices and working on quality assurance.
A doctor friend of mine once said he opposed government-run health care because he did not want medical care rationed based on economics. To which I replied, "What the hell do you think goes on now?" And, if you're out there screaming in terror about "death panels," let me be the first to tell you the truth. We've had death panels for years under euphemisms like "managed care" and "peer review" and "bankruptcy court."
What single payer would be is a way to reduce costs and open the health care field to improvements in quality (like a national computer data base of medical records and drug prescriptions which would cut down on medical errors which would cut down on tort awards and save us all billions) and best practices based on patient care and not on how large a bonus the CEO of the insurance company will get this year. It's no accident that the best health care at the most affordable prices is available from not-for-profit, community-based health care systems.
What would single payer cost compared to what we're spending now? The cost of single payer would involve a tax higher than the current Medicare tax but less than the total employers and employees now spend on Medicare taxes plus the cost of private health care insurance. Do you own a business? If you could get health care coverage for yourself and your employees for less than the current cost of such insurance plus your Medicare taxes, would you take the deal? Damn right you would. You can add. Congress can't.
You see, Congress and the Administration, having taken billions in political contributions from insurers, drug companies and other health care players, did not have the political nerve to dare interfere with our relationship with our health care insurer. They won't do what's right because they are afraid we will be upset over having the government disrupt our wonderful, fulfilling relationship with our health insurers. Ask me if I care about my deep, sensitive relationship with my health care insurer. Funny you should ask, but no. What I do care about is my relationship with my cardiologist and the other doctors who have spent considerable time and effort keeping me alive. And single payer, just like my Medicare, leaves me free to keep the doctors I have and choose new ones and that's what matters. Not how they get paid.
By the way, when you add Medicare taxes, plus state taxes for Medicaid plus the Federal tax advantages given to medical expenses plus the cost of Federal health care programs for the military (both active and veterans), the US income taxpayer currently foots the bill for about 60% of the total cost of health care in the US. That's before our own expenses for private coverage. Bottom line, we're paying most of the cost of health care now and, in return, we live in a country where the infant mortality rate is comparable to that of Bangladesh.
How do we go to single payer? The financing side is easy enough. Start with the Medicare law and take out the age and disability limitations. Just cover everyone. Then we can go to work on improving quality, on negotiating fair reimbursement rates for providers and all the rest. Every individual and employer has to pay into the system or can opt out for private coverage but still pay a tax. This way private insurers can't cherry-pick the young and healthy out of a system meant to insure everyone. Anyone who wants to buy private insurance is always free to do so.
So where do we find enough money to pay for expanding Medicare to cover everyone? Well, let me count the ways for you. First, Medicare delivers a dollar of benefits for about 4 cents in overhead. Private insurers spend up to 30 cents per dollar. Administrative costs alone would represent a saving of about $500 billion dollars over ten years. Make a serious dent in unnecessary procedures by insisting on best practices and setting reimbursement rates to favor keeping patients well and you save another $850 billion. (These are AARP estimates.) Let's see, we need a trillion and single payer saves us at least 1.35 trillion. And there's the cost reduction described above. You do the math. Congress doesn't seem to be up to the task.
Single payer would also take Medicaid and similar programs off the books of state governments. Yes, your Federal taxes will go up but, just this once, your state income and maybe your property taxes will go down. Go find a Governor who wouldn't love to shove Medicaid expenses back up to the Federal level.
But no one, except maybe Bernie Sanders, the only socialist in Congress, is advocating for single payer. Why not? You'd think AARP would follow the logic of its own research. But they seem to be too busy trying to sell me health insurance to get to work on real health care reform. The rest of Congress is too busy accepting campaign contributions and after-office jobs from insurers and Big Pharma to get too worked up over your health.
Finally, I don't know why the CEOs and CFOs of every S&P 500 company (other than the health care insurers) are not raving socialists when it comes to health care expenses. To use an oft-cited example, it costs about $2000 less to build a car in Japan or Canada because those countries have national health insurance. Its the same for most other industries. Its a mystery to me why otherwise cold, calculating business people don't jump at the chance to get this albatross off their bottom lines.
And just what are we getting instead of single payer? We seem to be on the verge of getting some modest rule changes so some people can't lose coverage just because they lose their health or their jobs. Plus some, but not all, of the uninsured (most of whom have jobs and pay taxes) get coverage through a "health care exchange." That's why AARP and Obama will tell me soon that a bad bill is better than no bill. But given that the exchange, which may or may not have a public option along with 5 or 6 private options, may not be allowed to seriously negotiate prices, its not clear how "reform" will control costs or improve the quality of care.What we do know is that the exchange, which may or may not be open to a wide group of employers and individuals, is based on some flow charts which, in turn, are based on work done by Jacob Hacker, a Yale University professor of political science. They look like this:
That's right. These flow charts were given to 535 US legislators and they were asked to come up with major health care legislation. When I first saw these charts I had one of those moments of clarity in which it become clear that the world has really gone insane this time around. I believe I can sum up my take on the pending legislation in two words, "We're f****d." (And that's not even taking into account the Stupak Amendment which will send women's health care back into the middle ages.)But don't take my word for it. Here's a message from a Canadian health care consultant using a form of communication that Americans are sure to understand -- a beer advertisement:
Read more!
Thursday, October 29, 2009
The Recession Is Over
Millburn, New Jersey
29 October 2009
Today, the 80th anniversary of the Stock Market Crash of 1929, the US Government announced that the recession of 2008-2009 is officially over.
So, if you or anyone you know is still unemployed and about to lose benefits, owns a small business that is about to go under, has a home heading into foreclosure or can no longer afford to maintain health insurance, stop whining. or tell your friend to stop whining. Haven't you heard? The recession is over. Read more!
29 October 2009
Today, the 80th anniversary of the Stock Market Crash of 1929, the US Government announced that the recession of 2008-2009 is officially over.
So, if you or anyone you know is still unemployed and about to lose benefits, owns a small business that is about to go under, has a home heading into foreclosure or can no longer afford to maintain health insurance, stop whining. or tell your friend to stop whining. Haven't you heard? The recession is over. Read more!
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Artists, Architects and Plumbers - Part 4
Tel Aviv
18 March 2009
Ein Hod
21 March 2009
A tap on my shoulder interrupted my reverie. I had been gazing at the small details in the centers of a series of large-sized photographs. Each photograph appeared to have been shot from inside a rectangular tunnel or storm sewer, looking out at a still sea under a bright but hazy sky. In each picture, a seemingly random group of bathers were standing or walking in the shallow water. And, of course, each picture had the always informative title Untitled. To get a better view of what was going on in the center of each photograph, I put on my reading glasses and got my nose very close to each picture. Do this to a Renoir and a museum guard will chastise you. I turned around expecting to be asked not to drool on the art but instead met Elon Ganor, the photographer, who wanted to congratulate me.
Elon was pleased that I, out of the hundreds, if not thousands, of people who had walked by his work, was the only one to stop and focus on the details. He was so nice (and I was so flattered) that I didn't have the heart to tell him I had mainly been staring at a group of good looking young women in string bikinis. In a rare moment of discretion, I chose not to accuse the artist of some sort of high-brow voyeurism. I would have liked to have made a profound observation about his use of light, the randomness of life passing by or, that old reliable, the meaning of art, as inspired by his photographs, but nothing of the kind was floating around in my head.
So, instead, I took the opportunity to ask Elon how he got the shots. He told me that he had constructed a rectangular box out of cardboard. Holding the box in one hand and his camera in the other, Elon shot through the box at a still sea. The people in the center are random bathers. Emboldened I pushed on and asked what he meant to convey. Elon told me that he doesn't like to talk about his art. "Wait, you started this," I said in an accusatory tone of voice. "But I was paying you a compliment," he complained.
A significant feature of contemporary art is the absence of emotion, the triumph of mechanical mass production over human craftsmanship, and the end of defining art as somehow separate from daily life. The great paradox of contemporary art is that it purports to break down all the old barriers between the viewer and the art but often leaves the viewer more distant from the art. We, the viewers, need to either know the context of the art's creation (what you see is merely the end point of a process and it's the process that matters) or we have to create meaning for ourselves (if meaning is what you're after). In other words, the art is the interaction between the viewer and the object. Think about that while you're wondering whether the Richard Serra rising over your head will fall and crush you like a bug.
Tel Aviv is a mecca for Israeli artists and a flourishing part of the international art scene. The city features a major art museum, dozens of galleries, artists, art students and a myriad of cafes in which they hang out, contemplate their art, and try to get laid. I encountered Elon and several other artists at the opening night of Fresh Paint, a Contemporary Art Fair. Omanut Achshaveet, which the Fair's PR people translated as contemporary art, translates literally as Now Art. Someone who actually knows about this stuff told me that Omanut Achshaveet is art produced in the most recent 2 or 3 years by younger, up and coming artists. True to its name, Fresh Paint filled several buildings of a restored railroad station with recent works by mostly younger Israeli artists. With major corporate sponsorship, numerous galleries showing off their Now Art artists, and the large crowd of people who came to see and be seen, Fresh Paint, in its second year, is well on its way to becoming a regular feature of the Tel Aviv art scene.
This year's Fair featured tattoo artists creating wall murals, live music from alternative bands and a fund raising postcard sale. For 45 shekels you could buy a postcard painted by one of the participating artists. The artists painted whatever they wanted but did not sign the cards. Buyers were not told who had done the work until after they paid their 45 shekels ($10.70 at the then-current exchange rate). Some of the artists are well-established and their cards are worth far more than what was paid. Other cards were by artists for whom this sale may be the high point of their careers. Still others were by artists whose work could become valuable years from now. (You know the story, the one person shows that get rave reviews, followed by the feature story in the weekend magazine, followed by the motorcycle crash, followed by the post-death run up in market value.) It was the Fair's version of a midway game - test your eye for art.
My own review of the Fair is that, while it was fun, there wasn't all that much "new" about most of the paintings, sculptures, installations, photographs and videos. While no work appeared to break new ground, many works were compelling, many were political, others very clever, even funny (though I didn't get the puns, another reason to learn Hebrew). I was pleased that, after some years in the minimalist desert, art continues to head back to looking like something and sending messages that I may be able to grasp. Like the painting of soldiers standing in a circle around a drain, war, or perhaps peace, is circling the drain. But the upside down bathtubs with doll-like figures coming out of the drains needed an explanation that these were part of a series describing different aspects of a wedding (don't ask).
My favorite works at the Fair turned out to be the photography. (The Fair's panel of expert judges preferred an installation of miniature white chairs lined up as if waiting for Ken and Barby to get married -- what do art professors, curators and gallery owners know?) In addition to Elon's work, I particularly liked photographs by Aviv Naveh and Ron Amir. Aviv's photograph of a single-file line of soldiers walking through the desert past a Bedouin tent with migrating birds in formation overhead makes a statement about the imposition of the modern, often violent world, on traditional, more pastoral life. Aviv also had great landscapes of the Sinai and Central Park. You have to love a kid who thinks the two greatest cities are Tel Aviv and New York.
Ron was showing a series of photographs taken in and around Arab villages situated near Caesarea. Caesarea has become a very upscale residential town with multimillion dollar villas and the country's only golf course. The Arab villages are everything Caesarea is not - unpaved roads, stripped cars in tall grasses, buildings you wouldn't really want to live in and villagers who have that aura of poverty about them. This is the underside of life in Israel – the classic subject matter for photographers. Think Jacob Riis in the NYC slums or Margaret Bourke-White at a bread line. Moved, angered and wondering what can be done, I went off to check out the tattoo artists.
A few days later we were on the road to Ein Hod, Israel's artists' village tucked into the Carmel Mountains just north of Zichron Yaakov, founded in 1953 by a group of artists led by Marcel Danco, a Romanian-born Dada artist who was prominent in the Zurich branch of the movement. There's a museum at Ein Hod with his and other Dada works that runs education programs, many for children, about Dada. Ein Hod is the opposite end of the art world from Fresh Paint. Its 66 resident artists and a revolving group of about 32 guest artists are in the upper half of the age spectrum. I've heard Ein Hod be accused of becoming "too commercial." This may just be the price of success. The village's painters, sculptors, craftspeople, musicians and film makers include 10 Israel prize winners. Living as a community, these artists have shared their lives and artistic spirits, resulting in art that has spread out not only over Israel but around the world. The village itself is worth the trip. Spilling down from a hilltop, Ein Hod preserved the classic architectural features of the Arab buildings while adding homes, galleries and studios that combine classic Arab and modern architecture (think Frank Lloyd Wright working in Jerusalem stone).
Our host and tour guide led us through the village to some specific galleries he likes to shop in. There were antiques (in Israel, '50s kitsch passes for objects from the olden days), paintings and ceramic sculpture (in a house with Arabic archways looking out over the valley between Ein Hod and the next mountain to the south). The village is decorated with outdoor sculpture by the residents, including a couple of bus stops that were echoes of Paris Metro entrances.
In the center of Ein Hod, next to its main galleries, Dada museum and concert hall, is Dona Rosa, a fabulous Argentine grill restaurant whose owners claim to have replicated their Mother's kitchen in Argentina. I don't know if this is architecturally true and I don't care because this place proves once again, to my delight, that Argentines know what to do with large hunks of dead animal and a very hot grill. The veal ribs were immense and melt-in-your-mouth delicious. Same for the steaks. I make no apology to the vegetarians in the audience. This is how G-d meant for people to eat. And so, stuffed again, we waddled, downhill, back to the car, and returned to the big city. Read more!
18 March 2009
Ein Hod
21 March 2009
A tap on my shoulder interrupted my reverie. I had been gazing at the small details in the centers of a series of large-sized photographs. Each photograph appeared to have been shot from inside a rectangular tunnel or storm sewer, looking out at a still sea under a bright but hazy sky. In each picture, a seemingly random group of bathers were standing or walking in the shallow water. And, of course, each picture had the always informative title Untitled. To get a better view of what was going on in the center of each photograph, I put on my reading glasses and got my nose very close to each picture. Do this to a Renoir and a museum guard will chastise you. I turned around expecting to be asked not to drool on the art but instead met Elon Ganor, the photographer, who wanted to congratulate me.
Elon was pleased that I, out of the hundreds, if not thousands, of people who had walked by his work, was the only one to stop and focus on the details. He was so nice (and I was so flattered) that I didn't have the heart to tell him I had mainly been staring at a group of good looking young women in string bikinis. In a rare moment of discretion, I chose not to accuse the artist of some sort of high-brow voyeurism. I would have liked to have made a profound observation about his use of light, the randomness of life passing by or, that old reliable, the meaning of art, as inspired by his photographs, but nothing of the kind was floating around in my head.
So, instead, I took the opportunity to ask Elon how he got the shots. He told me that he had constructed a rectangular box out of cardboard. Holding the box in one hand and his camera in the other, Elon shot through the box at a still sea. The people in the center are random bathers. Emboldened I pushed on and asked what he meant to convey. Elon told me that he doesn't like to talk about his art. "Wait, you started this," I said in an accusatory tone of voice. "But I was paying you a compliment," he complained.
A significant feature of contemporary art is the absence of emotion, the triumph of mechanical mass production over human craftsmanship, and the end of defining art as somehow separate from daily life. The great paradox of contemporary art is that it purports to break down all the old barriers between the viewer and the art but often leaves the viewer more distant from the art. We, the viewers, need to either know the context of the art's creation (what you see is merely the end point of a process and it's the process that matters) or we have to create meaning for ourselves (if meaning is what you're after). In other words, the art is the interaction between the viewer and the object. Think about that while you're wondering whether the Richard Serra rising over your head will fall and crush you like a bug.
Tel Aviv is a mecca for Israeli artists and a flourishing part of the international art scene. The city features a major art museum, dozens of galleries, artists, art students and a myriad of cafes in which they hang out, contemplate their art, and try to get laid. I encountered Elon and several other artists at the opening night of Fresh Paint, a Contemporary Art Fair. Omanut Achshaveet, which the Fair's PR people translated as contemporary art, translates literally as Now Art. Someone who actually knows about this stuff told me that Omanut Achshaveet is art produced in the most recent 2 or 3 years by younger, up and coming artists. True to its name, Fresh Paint filled several buildings of a restored railroad station with recent works by mostly younger Israeli artists. With major corporate sponsorship, numerous galleries showing off their Now Art artists, and the large crowd of people who came to see and be seen, Fresh Paint, in its second year, is well on its way to becoming a regular feature of the Tel Aviv art scene.
This year's Fair featured tattoo artists creating wall murals, live music from alternative bands and a fund raising postcard sale. For 45 shekels you could buy a postcard painted by one of the participating artists. The artists painted whatever they wanted but did not sign the cards. Buyers were not told who had done the work until after they paid their 45 shekels ($10.70 at the then-current exchange rate). Some of the artists are well-established and their cards are worth far more than what was paid. Other cards were by artists for whom this sale may be the high point of their careers. Still others were by artists whose work could become valuable years from now. (You know the story, the one person shows that get rave reviews, followed by the feature story in the weekend magazine, followed by the motorcycle crash, followed by the post-death run up in market value.) It was the Fair's version of a midway game - test your eye for art.
My own review of the Fair is that, while it was fun, there wasn't all that much "new" about most of the paintings, sculptures, installations, photographs and videos. While no work appeared to break new ground, many works were compelling, many were political, others very clever, even funny (though I didn't get the puns, another reason to learn Hebrew). I was pleased that, after some years in the minimalist desert, art continues to head back to looking like something and sending messages that I may be able to grasp. Like the painting of soldiers standing in a circle around a drain, war, or perhaps peace, is circling the drain. But the upside down bathtubs with doll-like figures coming out of the drains needed an explanation that these were part of a series describing different aspects of a wedding (don't ask).
My favorite works at the Fair turned out to be the photography. (The Fair's panel of expert judges preferred an installation of miniature white chairs lined up as if waiting for Ken and Barby to get married -- what do art professors, curators and gallery owners know?) In addition to Elon's work, I particularly liked photographs by Aviv Naveh and Ron Amir. Aviv's photograph of a single-file line of soldiers walking through the desert past a Bedouin tent with migrating birds in formation overhead makes a statement about the imposition of the modern, often violent world, on traditional, more pastoral life. Aviv also had great landscapes of the Sinai and Central Park. You have to love a kid who thinks the two greatest cities are Tel Aviv and New York.
Ron was showing a series of photographs taken in and around Arab villages situated near Caesarea. Caesarea has become a very upscale residential town with multimillion dollar villas and the country's only golf course. The Arab villages are everything Caesarea is not - unpaved roads, stripped cars in tall grasses, buildings you wouldn't really want to live in and villagers who have that aura of poverty about them. This is the underside of life in Israel – the classic subject matter for photographers. Think Jacob Riis in the NYC slums or Margaret Bourke-White at a bread line. Moved, angered and wondering what can be done, I went off to check out the tattoo artists.
A few days later we were on the road to Ein Hod, Israel's artists' village tucked into the Carmel Mountains just north of Zichron Yaakov, founded in 1953 by a group of artists led by Marcel Danco, a Romanian-born Dada artist who was prominent in the Zurich branch of the movement. There's a museum at Ein Hod with his and other Dada works that runs education programs, many for children, about Dada. Ein Hod is the opposite end of the art world from Fresh Paint. Its 66 resident artists and a revolving group of about 32 guest artists are in the upper half of the age spectrum. I've heard Ein Hod be accused of becoming "too commercial." This may just be the price of success. The village's painters, sculptors, craftspeople, musicians and film makers include 10 Israel prize winners. Living as a community, these artists have shared their lives and artistic spirits, resulting in art that has spread out not only over Israel but around the world. The village itself is worth the trip. Spilling down from a hilltop, Ein Hod preserved the classic architectural features of the Arab buildings while adding homes, galleries and studios that combine classic Arab and modern architecture (think Frank Lloyd Wright working in Jerusalem stone).
Our host and tour guide led us through the village to some specific galleries he likes to shop in. There were antiques (in Israel, '50s kitsch passes for objects from the olden days), paintings and ceramic sculpture (in a house with Arabic archways looking out over the valley between Ein Hod and the next mountain to the south). The village is decorated with outdoor sculpture by the residents, including a couple of bus stops that were echoes of Paris Metro entrances.
In the center of Ein Hod, next to its main galleries, Dada museum and concert hall, is Dona Rosa, a fabulous Argentine grill restaurant whose owners claim to have replicated their Mother's kitchen in Argentina. I don't know if this is architecturally true and I don't care because this place proves once again, to my delight, that Argentines know what to do with large hunks of dead animal and a very hot grill. The veal ribs were immense and melt-in-your-mouth delicious. Same for the steaks. I make no apology to the vegetarians in the audience. This is how G-d meant for people to eat. And so, stuffed again, we waddled, downhill, back to the car, and returned to the big city. Read more!
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Preparing for Passover
Back in the Western Hemisphere, Liz and I are preparing for Passover. This means getting the house and cars cleaned, intensive shopping and cooking (by Liz) and the participation in a series of bizarre, irrational rituals (by me), all leading up to the two Seders of the Diaspora (one for her family and one for mine). This year, in addition to being a fasting first born, I am expected to get myself up on a local hilltop to join the Rabbi and a small, hardy band of co-congregants in blessing the rising sun. Jewish tradition has it that once every 28 years you have to get up before dawn on the same day you are expected to attend, if not lead, a Seder until close to midnight. Why? Well, every 28 years, on the 14th day of the Hebrew month of Nissan the sun rises in the same position it was in on the fourth day of creation. That's the day on which G-d created the sun, moon, stars and time as we experience it. After the sun blessing I will wrap myself in leather straps and study a sufficient amount of medieval text to be allowed to break my fast. We will then adjourn to the synagogue parking lot to make a bonfire out of uneaten bread, crackers and the like while contemplating the fact that some people are starving.How the Rabbi knows the position of the sun on the fourth day of creation, a day that began before there was a sun, moon and stars by which we measure time, was not included in the synagogue bulletin. Nor can anyone really explain the bit about the leather straps. But, after all, its a religion (tradition if you're a secular MOT) and some things have to be taken on faith. Its like believing that a microscopic bit of leavened bread, left for months on the heating element of a stove, can eat its way through over a quarter inch of solid aluminum and contaminate a gallon of chicken soup with hometz (the evil stuff of leavened bread). Which brings me to the lovely picture above.
This year marked a real breakthrough in our lives in Israel. Liz finally dared to buy meat in the Hatikvah shuk. Not just any meat and not, to my disappointment, red meat. Nostalgic for her Grandmother's soup, Liz needed not only a chicken but also chicken feet and unborn eggs.
Liz' hesitation to buy unidentifiable slabs of dead animal with patches of fur still on them is not totally unreasonable. However, most of the butchers have identifiable chickens, chicken parts, and cuts of meat that just scream "Grill Me." OK, the cow heads complete with teeth in their mouths are a bit gross but the fillets looks wonderful. From my perspective, the Hativah Shuk's butchers all keep clean stalls, have adequate refrigeration, the meat generally looks appetizing (except the stuff with the fur and the cow heads), its all certified as kosher and a neighborhood of Yemenite, Russian and Ethiopian immigrants does not appear to be suffering from an e-coli epidemic. But to me, the winning argument is that this is the source of meat for Busi, our favorite grill restaurant. Shows you what I know.
Liz remains unimpressed by any of this seemingly flawless logic. Liz remarked that the meat in Busi is already cooked when placed in front of her. For those of you reading this who are not professional married men, pointing out to your wife that the meat she would buy from the same source as her favorite grill restaurant would also be cooked, under her strict supervision, before being placed in front of her for consumption is right up there with suggesting that she join you in a beer while watching the game. Such silliness only gets you the look that says you have permission not to be an idiot. So let's move on.
To me, chicken feet are what crazy old ladies in Brooklyn feed to stray cats. To my wife, its the magic ingredient that makes ordinary chicken soup into her Grandmother's chicken soup. For those of you who have never prepared chicken feet to go into soup, get someone else to do it for you if you can. You have to soak them in warm water, chop off the end of the toes (you really don't want toe nails in your soup no matter what that guy on Food Channel's Bizarre Foods tries to tell you) and then carefully remove the outer leathery surface with a sharp knife, without cutting into the thin flesh or delicate bones beneath. Liz seems to be able to do this with ease. I destroyed two feet and was assigned other kitchen duties.
Unborn eggs are just that. Unfertilized egg yolks, covered by a membrane instead of a shell. They're found inside a slaughtered chicken and are one of those peasant delicacies guaranteed to increase your cholesterol to dangerous levels. Unlike fertilized eggs, which for purposes of kashrut, are pareve (neutral foods that can be eaten with anything), unborn eggs are meat. This is probably because they were not become sufficiently separated from the chicken to suit certain medieval Rabbis. Of course, the chickens they are part of do not fit the Biblical definition of meat (no split hooves, no chewed cud) are nevertheless classified as meat. Chickens are meat because the same medieval Rabbis concluded, after a long debate and a vote, that they know meat when they see it and chickens are meat. Many years later, US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart would apply this same reasoning to define pornography. Unfortunately for generations of Jewish housekeepers, Justice Stewart added "and this isn't it," whereas the Rabbis decided just the opposite. Clearly, no woman who shopped or cooked for these guys was in the room. They were all probably at home getting ready for Passover.
And so, as we approach the evening on which occurs the Seder, a tradition that attracts participation by more Jews than any other event on our calendar, I wish you and yours a Hag Sameach Pesach (a Happy Passover Holiday) or, if you, like me, were raised by members of the Arbeiter's Ring (Workmen's Circle), a zisn pesach (a sweet Passover - though what's sweet about nondairy desserts made from matzah meal escapes me at this moment). As my gift to you, here's a recipe for Liz' Grandmother's chicken soup as dictated to me while I cut. chopped and brought it all to a simmering boil:
1/2 large, fresh chicken, cut the long way
16 chicken feet (about 1/2 kilogram)
unborn eggs (enough)
1 medium sized onion with the outermost skin peeled off
Carrots - cut thick (about 3/4 inch) - enough
Parsnip = 2 or 3 (optional and apparently not grown in Israel during the winter)
Fresh Dill - about half a bunch (or dry, chopped to taste)
Salt - none if your husband is a chronic heart patient, otherwise, to taste.
Place chicken and chicken feet into the largest pot left by the owners of the apartment you are renting. Cover them with water (this is a bit tricky as the feet float but 2/3 to 3/4 of the pot will do). Cook on high heat until you get scum on the water. Skim off the scum and turn the heat down to a simmer. After one hour add the veggies. After another hour, add the dill and unborn eggs and let it all cook for another 20 minutes. During cooking, if the soup starts to boil, turn down the heat. If you get more scum or more fat than you care for, skim it off the surface.
Serve with sea or kosher salt for those who want to salt up something made with double salted kosher meat. And don't forget the Israeli soup nuts or, if its Passover, the matzah farfel.
Again, a zisn pesach to you all. Read more!
Monday, April 6, 2009
The Right is Wrong - An Open Letter to Daniel Gordis
Rabbi Daniel Gordis of the Shalem Institute is an eloquent and passionate proponent of Israel and a leading voice in the discussion over Israel's future. That's why there's a link to his blog site on this blog site. But in an interview that appeared in the March 25, 2009 edition of The Jerusalem Post, his suggestion that we turn away from peace efforts was, IMHO, just plain wrong. So I wrote him the letter that forms the remainder of this blog.
Dear Rabbi Gordis:
As an avid reader of your essays, I don't always agree with every point you make but have always been impressed by your thoughtful analysis and passion for your subjects. However, in your interview, Rehab for an all-consuming peace addiction, The Jerusalem Post, 25 March 2009, among all the excellent suggestions for building Israeli society as something much more than a Hebrew-speaking version of America and Europe, you are very wrong to suggest that Israel should simply withdraw from peace efforts and ignore the Palestinians until they change in an acceptable way.
Obsessing on the peace process to the exclusion of all the critical issues facing Israel (education, environment, energy, the nature of Israeli democracy, to name a few obvious ones) is, of course, a dangerous path. However, the same can be said of the ludicrous amount of resources Israel and the diaspora pumps into the expansion and protection of West Bank settlements. Setting aside serious peace efforts in favor of simply managing "the situation", which will inevitably be accompanied by continued West Bank settlement expansion, will only allow an infection to fester and eventually burst into the next Intifada. Given that every generation of Arab Israelis feels more isolated and more hostile to Jewish Israel, the next Intifada is very likely to include their participation and make the Triangle and the areas immediately around it look like Watts, Detroit and Newark in 1968.
The Right is wrong, especially when it comes to Gaza. Sharon never intended to encourage the establishment of a Palestinian state in Gaza. He made a tactical move to make it easier to keep control of the West Bank and expand the settlements there. In pulling out of Gaza, Israel failed to take two steps, assuring that the disengagement would be remembered as a mistake. First, Sharon ignored the pleas from Abu Mazen to negotiate an orderly transfer of power. As has been successfully done in and around Jenin, PA forces needed to be put in place and the rejectionist front (Hamas, Islamic Jihad, et al) subdued before the pull out took place. Instead, Israel simply pulled out and Gaza immediately slipped into the chaos of clan vendettas that ended only when Hamas took control. Second, the Israeli government promised the Gaza settlers that their communities would be kept together and provided with good homes, jobs or opportunities to re-establish their businesses. The failure to deliver on this promise is not just a disgraceful way to treat people but has given the Right a ready-made argument against any withdrawals from any settlements, ever.
When Hamas took over Gaza in 2006, the Olmert government, instead of giving Hamas a chance to act like a government before lowering the boom, immediately went to the blockade. As a result Hamas was free to continue the "resistance." After Operation Cast Lead we have a lot of bodies on both sides and not much to show for it. Hamas is more popular than ever, Gaza looks like the set from Escape from New York, missiles continue to hit southern Israel and Gilad Shalit is no closer to going home. Making no effort at all to pursue peace only guarantees that more Israeli children will grow up to fight in places like Gaza. I simply do not believe that that is what you want.
Continuous expansion of the settlements and a refusal to seriously pursue openings such as the Saudi peace proposal only lead Israel down a path where its soul is truly threatened. The day will come when Palestinians generally give up on a separate state (consider, for example, that Hamas has no interest in a state but would win an election if one were to be held). By then the Right may have the votes in Knesset to annex the West Bank. At that point, to maintain a Jewish state, Israel will have to seriously consider engaging in ethnic cleansing or apartheid. And that's when Israel loses the international recognition essential to the fulfillment of the Zionist project (I've read Arthur Hertzberg's The Zionist Idea) and finds itself on the wrong end of international economic sanctions. Israel will also risk losing its majority support among diaspora Jews. (How many Americans will send their kids to summer programs in an apartheid state?)
The Knesset now has at least 23 members (Shas, UTJ, National Union and Habayit Hayehudi) who, like Hamas, use the democratic process as a means to an end but who do not believe in democracy as a worthy goal in its own right. And I think the jury is out on Israel Beiteinu and some members of the Likud list. The chance that such a government would respond favorably to a serious peace overture from any Arab group is slim to nil. The chance that such a government might seek a "final solution" to the Arab problem is growing all the time. Bibi's idea of building a Palestinian economy to buy off their nation ambitions is a chimera. If he was right, no American Jew would make aliyah since, as you well know, Jews can and do have far more economically and physically secure lives in America. And yet, American Jews still make aliyah for reasons that you have so eloquently expressed. Why should we think that the same would not be true for Palestinians?
Your vision for education of all Israelis in our traditions, the end of the strangle hold of the Rabbinate on Israelis' lives and a serious debate over the very nature of Israel are all noble causes in which we should all enlist. But turning your back on peace efforts is not the way to get there. The Right is wrong. Please do not join them.
Respectfully,
David Stolow
Read more!
Dear Rabbi Gordis:
As an avid reader of your essays, I don't always agree with every point you make but have always been impressed by your thoughtful analysis and passion for your subjects. However, in your interview, Rehab for an all-consuming peace addiction, The Jerusalem Post, 25 March 2009, among all the excellent suggestions for building Israeli society as something much more than a Hebrew-speaking version of America and Europe, you are very wrong to suggest that Israel should simply withdraw from peace efforts and ignore the Palestinians until they change in an acceptable way.
Obsessing on the peace process to the exclusion of all the critical issues facing Israel (education, environment, energy, the nature of Israeli democracy, to name a few obvious ones) is, of course, a dangerous path. However, the same can be said of the ludicrous amount of resources Israel and the diaspora pumps into the expansion and protection of West Bank settlements. Setting aside serious peace efforts in favor of simply managing "the situation", which will inevitably be accompanied by continued West Bank settlement expansion, will only allow an infection to fester and eventually burst into the next Intifada. Given that every generation of Arab Israelis feels more isolated and more hostile to Jewish Israel, the next Intifada is very likely to include their participation and make the Triangle and the areas immediately around it look like Watts, Detroit and Newark in 1968.
The Right is wrong, especially when it comes to Gaza. Sharon never intended to encourage the establishment of a Palestinian state in Gaza. He made a tactical move to make it easier to keep control of the West Bank and expand the settlements there. In pulling out of Gaza, Israel failed to take two steps, assuring that the disengagement would be remembered as a mistake. First, Sharon ignored the pleas from Abu Mazen to negotiate an orderly transfer of power. As has been successfully done in and around Jenin, PA forces needed to be put in place and the rejectionist front (Hamas, Islamic Jihad, et al) subdued before the pull out took place. Instead, Israel simply pulled out and Gaza immediately slipped into the chaos of clan vendettas that ended only when Hamas took control. Second, the Israeli government promised the Gaza settlers that their communities would be kept together and provided with good homes, jobs or opportunities to re-establish their businesses. The failure to deliver on this promise is not just a disgraceful way to treat people but has given the Right a ready-made argument against any withdrawals from any settlements, ever.
When Hamas took over Gaza in 2006, the Olmert government, instead of giving Hamas a chance to act like a government before lowering the boom, immediately went to the blockade. As a result Hamas was free to continue the "resistance." After Operation Cast Lead we have a lot of bodies on both sides and not much to show for it. Hamas is more popular than ever, Gaza looks like the set from Escape from New York, missiles continue to hit southern Israel and Gilad Shalit is no closer to going home. Making no effort at all to pursue peace only guarantees that more Israeli children will grow up to fight in places like Gaza. I simply do not believe that that is what you want.
Continuous expansion of the settlements and a refusal to seriously pursue openings such as the Saudi peace proposal only lead Israel down a path where its soul is truly threatened. The day will come when Palestinians generally give up on a separate state (consider, for example, that Hamas has no interest in a state but would win an election if one were to be held). By then the Right may have the votes in Knesset to annex the West Bank. At that point, to maintain a Jewish state, Israel will have to seriously consider engaging in ethnic cleansing or apartheid. And that's when Israel loses the international recognition essential to the fulfillment of the Zionist project (I've read Arthur Hertzberg's The Zionist Idea) and finds itself on the wrong end of international economic sanctions. Israel will also risk losing its majority support among diaspora Jews. (How many Americans will send their kids to summer programs in an apartheid state?)
The Knesset now has at least 23 members (Shas, UTJ, National Union and Habayit Hayehudi) who, like Hamas, use the democratic process as a means to an end but who do not believe in democracy as a worthy goal in its own right. And I think the jury is out on Israel Beiteinu and some members of the Likud list. The chance that such a government would respond favorably to a serious peace overture from any Arab group is slim to nil. The chance that such a government might seek a "final solution" to the Arab problem is growing all the time. Bibi's idea of building a Palestinian economy to buy off their nation ambitions is a chimera. If he was right, no American Jew would make aliyah since, as you well know, Jews can and do have far more economically and physically secure lives in America. And yet, American Jews still make aliyah for reasons that you have so eloquently expressed. Why should we think that the same would not be true for Palestinians?
Your vision for education of all Israelis in our traditions, the end of the strangle hold of the Rabbinate on Israelis' lives and a serious debate over the very nature of Israel are all noble causes in which we should all enlist. But turning your back on peace efforts is not the way to get there. The Right is wrong. Please do not join them.
Respectfully,
David Stolow
Read more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
