Sometime we stop too soon. Today's Rashi is a case in point.
On Exodus 8:6 Rashi cites an amusing story that is also strong evidence of God's sense of humor. We are told that He, in his wisdom, sent a single frog to afflict the Egyptians. Whenever an Egyptian struck the frog in fear, anger or frustration, the frog broke apart into streams and streams of frogs that soon covered the land.
The story of the Magic Multiplying Frog is in the midrash tanchumah, and you can't swing a cat by its tail on a playground in Boro Park without hitting a little kid who knows it, believes it, and would probably fight you if you raised an eyebrow at it. Unfortunately, the story, likely, has no basis in fact, as Rashi himself suggests in the little-read, much-ignored second half of his comment to Exodus 8:6.
One frog is a "tzefarday-ah." Many frogs are "tzefardah-im." In Exodus 8:6 we're told that the "tzefarday-ah" (ie: one frog) covered the land. The story of the Magic Multiplying Frog explains this anomaly, says Rashi in the first part of his comment.
In the second part of the comment, Rashi says (I'm paraphrasing) "You know what? Maybe the use of the singular isn't so strange. After all, the singular is used to identify the swarm of lice (keenom, not keenim) that overtook Egypt in the very next plague, and the singular is used for the fish (daga, not dagim) who die in the river during the plague of blood. So perhaps the singular in our verse simply refers to one swarm of frogs, Rashi concludes.
So here we have two possible explanations, one involving grammar, the other involving magic. Which, oh which, will the masses embrace? Think. Think.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Double Standards
Updated
Eytan Kobre writes for a blog which urged JIB voters to support Cross Current's ambition to conquer the world and become the universe's premiere Torah blog, yet he has the unbounded nerve to suggest that I tried too hard to win a JIB? Me? I never stooped low enough to beg for votes by claiming it was necessary for the sake of spreading Torah, did I? I mean ye gods. That's almost as disgusting as Cheney's notorious "Vote GOP or Chicago gets nuked"
What I did was this: I wrote a post or two per round on the subject, plus I put up a blogad on my own site. That's about par for the course for JIB contestant, which is all perfectly fine: Self promotion is good. The blogosphere thrives on self-promotion. The JIBs could not exist without self promotion. But pious-sounding objections to the practice of self-promotion, like Eytan's, are deceitful and also counter productive.
And while we're on the subject of double standards, let's turn to GH's post on the subject of JIBs. The post is hysterical, sure, like much of what GH publishes, but also a bit mean especially in the way that he casually dismisses his competitors. If I tried such a thing all the self-rightuous DovBear bashers would line up to pound me into the ground on my comment section. Many of them would also write critical posts on the subject of "Mean Old DovBear and His Lack of Respect for the Blogging Rules that Exist in My Head and Nowhere Else."
In fact, this actually happened last year. I cruely dismissed one of my competitors as "neither funny nor Jewish" (the admitadly poor joke being that my competitor quite obviously was both) and one of the very great men of the blogosphere (with whom I've since reconciled, thank god) wrote a long post about me that would easily win the JIB for "Most Viscious Post of the Year" if such a category existed.
Perhaps, the problem is that people think I take blogging too seriously so let me restate one of the founding principles of this blog: DovBear is 98 percent shtick and 2 percent politics. [A year later it's probably more like 90 percent shtick, 5 percent religion, and 5 percent politics.] Ok? We're just having fun here.
Eytan Kobre writes for a blog which urged JIB voters to support Cross Current's ambition to conquer the world and become the universe's premiere Torah blog, yet he has the unbounded nerve to suggest that I tried too hard to win a JIB? Me? I never stooped low enough to beg for votes by claiming it was necessary for the sake of spreading Torah, did I? I mean ye gods. That's almost as disgusting as Cheney's notorious "Vote GOP or Chicago gets nuked"
What I did was this: I wrote a post or two per round on the subject, plus I put up a blogad on my own site. That's about par for the course for JIB contestant, which is all perfectly fine: Self promotion is good. The blogosphere thrives on self-promotion. The JIBs could not exist without self promotion. But pious-sounding objections to the practice of self-promotion, like Eytan's, are deceitful and also counter productive.
And while we're on the subject of double standards, let's turn to GH's post on the subject of JIBs. The post is hysterical, sure, like much of what GH publishes, but also a bit mean especially in the way that he casually dismisses his competitors. If I tried such a thing all the self-rightuous DovBear bashers would line up to pound me into the ground on my comment section. Many of them would also write critical posts on the subject of "Mean Old DovBear and His Lack of Respect for the Blogging Rules that Exist in My Head and Nowhere Else."
In fact, this actually happened last year. I cruely dismissed one of my competitors as "neither funny nor Jewish" (the admitadly poor joke being that my competitor quite obviously was both) and one of the very great men of the blogosphere (with whom I've since reconciled, thank god) wrote a long post about me that would easily win the JIB for "Most Viscious Post of the Year" if such a category existed.
Perhaps, the problem is that people think I take blogging too seriously so let me restate one of the founding principles of this blog: DovBear is 98 percent shtick and 2 percent politics. [A year later it's probably more like 90 percent shtick, 5 percent religion, and 5 percent politics.] Ok? We're just having fun here.
The A Section Ads (Day 2)
Well, the short report on day two of my review of the A-Section ads goes like this: Still no underwear ads.
The ads today pictured plenty of woman, in a variety of alluring poses but no skin. Unfortunately for Eytan Kobre and his claims, all of them were fully dressed.
Today's results
Underwear ads: 0
Other ads picturing women in their skivies: 0
Score
DovBear: 2
Eytan Kobre: 0
The ads today pictured plenty of woman, in a variety of alluring poses but no skin. Unfortunately for Eytan Kobre and his claims, all of them were fully dressed.
Today's results
Underwear ads: 0
Other ads picturing women in their skivies: 0
Score
DovBear: 2
Eytan Kobre: 0
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Thus, I blog.
I can remember when Republicans were tolerable. I can remember when they weren't drunk on God, when they made no practice of demonizing their opposition, when they could be trusted not to lower public discourse, when they didn't divide the public in pursuit of their exclusive ambitions.
I remember good Republicans. Really I do.
In my shul is a man who was told as young boy, 'Vote Republican. They'll let you alone and let keep your money.' And to this day, this boy, now a middle-aged man, like middle-aged Jewish men in every shul, votes Republican. And because he's Jewish, and not very well read, he does not see and he does not know that GWB's Republican party is made up of several distinct elements - at least four, of which three are neither libertarian, nor fiscally conservative. He doesn't see that all we Jews have to keep us safe is liberty, and he doesn't see that this president and his cronies in the other three wings of the GOP have waged a steady war on liberty -in this country, never mind Iraq, where liberty is hardly a forgone conclusion, anyway - a steady war on liberty from the very day they took office.
He doesn't see, and he doesn't care. This middle-aged man, like middle-aged men in every shul, counts his money, and he laughs at the less fortunate, and says his prayers, and perhaps mutters thanks that his neighbors judge him on the size of his hat and the shine on his atarah, rather than the size of his heart.
Thus, I blog.
I remember good Republicans. Really I do.
In my shul is a man who was told as young boy, 'Vote Republican. They'll let you alone and let keep your money.' And to this day, this boy, now a middle-aged man, like middle-aged Jewish men in every shul, votes Republican. And because he's Jewish, and not very well read, he does not see and he does not know that GWB's Republican party is made up of several distinct elements - at least four, of which three are neither libertarian, nor fiscally conservative. He doesn't see that all we Jews have to keep us safe is liberty, and he doesn't see that this president and his cronies in the other three wings of the GOP have waged a steady war on liberty -in this country, never mind Iraq, where liberty is hardly a forgone conclusion, anyway - a steady war on liberty from the very day they took office.
He doesn't see, and he doesn't care. This middle-aged man, like middle-aged men in every shul, counts his money, and he laughs at the less fortunate, and says his prayers, and perhaps mutters thanks that his neighbors judge him on the size of his hat and the shine on his atarah, rather than the size of his heart.
Thus, I blog.
Avi's Error
Avi Shafran has something predictable to say today about the Supreme Courts recent ruling on assisted suicide. His boring argument boils down to this: If we let doctors assist in the suicide of people who are terminally ill, soon we'll soon be killing healthy old people and infants, too.
This sort of "reasoning" traffics not in facts, but in fear mongering. It is a fallacious argument because there is no reason to believe that Avi's nightmare scenario inevitably follows from the court's ruling.
In fact, with only a bit of effort, I can construct an alternate nightmare scenario which is every bit as reasonable. First some background:
Oregon's "Death With Dignity Act" act permitted doctors to help terminally ill patients end their lives. The Attorney General attempted to subvert the will of Oregon's voters by saying to Oregon's doctors: "If you assist with a suicide, you're prohibited from writing drug prescriptions." In the ruling Shafran disdains, the Court said the AG had over-reached.
Now suppose the Court had gone the other way. Suppose the Court had affirmed the power of the Attorney General to impose his personal values on the voters. Isn't it reasonable (using Avi's "logic") to worry that a different Attorney General with different personal values might one day use his Supreme Court sanctioned power to interfere with mila or kashrus?
Update: Avi's argument is both predictable, and recycled.
Hat Tip: Charles B. Hall
This sort of "reasoning" traffics not in facts, but in fear mongering. It is a fallacious argument because there is no reason to believe that Avi's nightmare scenario inevitably follows from the court's ruling.
In fact, with only a bit of effort, I can construct an alternate nightmare scenario which is every bit as reasonable. First some background:
Oregon's "Death With Dignity Act" act permitted doctors to help terminally ill patients end their lives. The Attorney General attempted to subvert the will of Oregon's voters by saying to Oregon's doctors: "If you assist with a suicide, you're prohibited from writing drug prescriptions." In the ruling Shafran disdains, the Court said the AG had over-reached.
Now suppose the Court had gone the other way. Suppose the Court had affirmed the power of the Attorney General to impose his personal values on the voters. Isn't it reasonable (using Avi's "logic") to worry that a different Attorney General with different personal values might one day use his Supreme Court sanctioned power to interfere with mila or kashrus?
Update: Avi's argument is both predictable, and recycled.
Hat Tip: Charles B. Hall
Bad news for the meshichists
Rabbi Kaduri: Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson is not the Messiah.
How do we know? Simple deduction: The Lubovitcher Rebbe died in 1994, but as Bloghd reports, Rabbi Kaduri says he met the Moshiach in 2003.
But hold off on the celebrating! (No offense to the meshichists. They may be on their third vodka of the day by now, but we know they're not celebrating the news that the leading kabalist of our time just disqualified their candidate.)
That fact that Rabbi Kaduri took a meeting with the long-awaited savior back in 2003 does not mean his arrival is imminent. At the Disputation in Barcelona the Ramban was confronted by the friars with a midrash claiming that Moshiach was alive and had been seen at the gates of Rome. The Ramban shrugged it off, saying both that he's not obligated to accept the literal truth of midrashim, and also that the moshiach is irrelevant until he actually shows up and does something. Moshe did not become Messiah when he was born, the Ramban argues, but when he arrived in the throne room and (chastely averting his eyes from the undressed woman who surrounded Pharoh) bellowed: Hey! Check out what I can do with a stick!
Also, it's not perfectly clear to me why we should trust Rabbi Kaduri on this matter.
How do we know? Simple deduction: The Lubovitcher Rebbe died in 1994, but as Bloghd reports, Rabbi Kaduri says he met the Moshiach in 2003.
But hold off on the celebrating! (No offense to the meshichists. They may be on their third vodka of the day by now, but we know they're not celebrating the news that the leading kabalist of our time just disqualified their candidate.)
That fact that Rabbi Kaduri took a meeting with the long-awaited savior back in 2003 does not mean his arrival is imminent. At the Disputation in Barcelona the Ramban was confronted by the friars with a midrash claiming that Moshiach was alive and had been seen at the gates of Rome. The Ramban shrugged it off, saying both that he's not obligated to accept the literal truth of midrashim, and also that the moshiach is irrelevant until he actually shows up and does something. Moshe did not become Messiah when he was born, the Ramban argues, but when he arrived in the throne room and (chastely averting his eyes from the undressed woman who surrounded Pharoh) bellowed: Hey! Check out what I can do with a stick!
Also, it's not perfectly clear to me why we should trust Rabbi Kaduri on this matter.
The A Section Ads (Day 1)
The other day Eytan Kobre littered the august pages of Magen-Dovid-Currents with a bevy of baseless claims. Chief among them was the odd insistance that the New York Times prints too many underwear ads in its front section. Begining today, and until this project bores me, we're going to test that claim. I plan to look at the A section ads, and report my findings here. If Eytan is right, I'll make a nice donation to the charity of his choice. If he's wrong, I expect a retraction.
Today's results
Underwear ads: 0
Other ads picturing women in their skivies: 0
Score
DovBear: 1
Eytan Kobre: 0
Today's results
Underwear ads: 0
Other ads picturing women in their skivies: 0
Score
DovBear: 1
Eytan Kobre: 0
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Dennis Prager on his soapbox again
"Asher" writes:
The soon-to-be divorced Mr. Prager is back doing what he loves to do best: serving as self-appointed spokesman of Judaism and all things Jewish. I can't quite put my finger on it, but there is something in the way that he seeks to ingratiate himself to his largely christian audience that really rubs me the wrong way. He relishes the role of "house Jew" far too much.
The soon-to-be divorced Mr. Prager is back doing what he loves to do best: serving as self-appointed spokesman of Judaism and all things Jewish. I can't quite put my finger on it, but there is something in the way that he seeks to ingratiate himself to his largely christian audience that really rubs me the wrong way. He relishes the role of "house Jew" far too much.
How's that for brass?
That is why the “Blog Awards” contest is so important—not for our egos, but for our goal of becoming an important outlet for Torah thought to the world. --YAAKOV MENKEN
Nope, nothing egotistical about that goal at all.
Look, Yaakov, by all means, encourage your readers to support you in the JIBs. We all do it. Even me. I have no quarrel with a little flag-waving.
But for the love of all that is holy and pure, don't tell them to vote for you because your blog is a "well-articulated Torah perspective" when, in truth, your perspective is little more than GOP-talking points, and your articulation is (at best) long-winded and redundant.
Nope, nothing egotistical about that goal at all.
Look, Yaakov, by all means, encourage your readers to support you in the JIBs. We all do it. Even me. I have no quarrel with a little flag-waving.
But for the love of all that is holy and pure, don't tell them to vote for you because your blog is a "well-articulated Torah perspective" when, in truth, your perspective is little more than GOP-talking points, and your articulation is (at best) long-winded and redundant.
2005 JEWISH & ISRAEL BLOG AWARDS
Go start your voting...now! Okay, how about ...now!
Still here, eh?
Thanks to you and your clicky fingers, DovBear has advanced to the finals in 6 categories:
Best Overall
Best Jewish Culture
Best Series (It was awsome)
Best Post (eh... It was ok)
Best Religion (!)
Best Current Events (duh)
Nice work, clicky fingers, but you aren't done yet: Please go back (using the links, helpfully provided above) and see what you can do about getting me another banner for my sidebar. Thanks in advance.
Our motto: Vote your conscience! (If you have no conscience vote DovBear)
Still here, eh?
Thanks to you and your clicky fingers, DovBear has advanced to the finals in 6 categories:
Best Overall
Best Jewish Culture
Best Series (It was awsome)
Best Post (eh... It was ok)
Best Religion (!)
Best Current Events (duh)
Nice work, clicky fingers, but you aren't done yet: Please go back (using the links, helpfully provided above) and see what you can do about getting me another banner for my sidebar. Thanks in advance.
Our motto: Vote your conscience! (If you have no conscience vote DovBear)
What will the children think?
This, my friends, is a "Terrible Tree." It stands outside the Allegheny County Courthouse in Pittsburgh, festooned in yellow and black, to celebrate the achievments of the local football team.
The ACLU, naturally is silent (they probably financed it, in fact, the commie football-ists) but why haven't we heard from old Bill O'Reilly and the rest of his merry band of Christian Crusaders?
A beloved religious symbol has been secularized! Traditions are eroding! The Lord's flora has been mocked! Progressive football-lovers are on the march, and our morals are under seige! Oh, won't anyone please stand up for Christmas?
Monday, January 23, 2006
Mr Pot? I have a kettle for you on line 2
After a long absence, Eytan Kobre returns to Cross Currents today with an absurd post about newspapers, a post in which he rips the New York Times for everything up to and including sunspots.
The fusillade begins because when Eytan spots an editing error. Then, not content with a legitimate gripe, Eytan goes full throttle: The underwear ads are no good. Their publisher is too sensitive and too much the humanist. Oh, and the Time's corrections column doesn't confess error as boldly as Rabba once did. Yes, he means Rabba from the Talmud. Was he also patron saint of newsmen?
As the column's absurdity intensifies, Kobre carries on as if these "problems" are unique to the Times; yet are they? Sure, the paper runs underwear ads next to articles which describe great human tragedies, but so would any newspaper. Sure, the browbeating in the Times' corrections column is mild next to Rabba's exquisite self-effacement, but does any newspaper make its confessions unambiguously? Every paper makes mistakes as the ample and daily correction column at the WSJ testifies.
His many and elaborate descriptions of the Time's staff as "sensitive humanists" tempts me to dismiss the whole thing as satire or as just another cheap shop. Still, I can't ignore the possibility that Eytan Kobre is too deep in the grips of right-wing propaganda to see that the absurd accusations he's directs at one paper apply equally to them all.
The fusillade begins because when Eytan spots an editing error. Then, not content with a legitimate gripe, Eytan goes full throttle: The underwear ads are no good. Their publisher is too sensitive and too much the humanist. Oh, and the Time's corrections column doesn't confess error as boldly as Rabba once did. Yes, he means Rabba from the Talmud. Was he also patron saint of newsmen?
As the column's absurdity intensifies, Kobre carries on as if these "problems" are unique to the Times; yet are they? Sure, the paper runs underwear ads next to articles which describe great human tragedies, but so would any newspaper. Sure, the browbeating in the Times' corrections column is mild next to Rabba's exquisite self-effacement, but does any newspaper make its confessions unambiguously? Every paper makes mistakes as the ample and daily correction column at the WSJ testifies.
His many and elaborate descriptions of the Time's staff as "sensitive humanists" tempts me to dismiss the whole thing as satire or as just another cheap shop. Still, I can't ignore the possibility that Eytan Kobre is too deep in the grips of right-wing propaganda to see that the absurd accusations he's directs at one paper apply equally to them all.
A sigh of relief
Well, those of you who worried that President Bush might have stumbled by mistake into a screening of Brokeback Mountain ("Lookie Laura! A cowboy movie!") can go back to sleep. He hasn't seen it.
That's a good thing, I think.
Why? Because according to the Fundementalist Agenda Brokeback Mountain is Hollywood's latest attempt to deliver America into the clutches of the Gay Agenda. (Gasp if you wish) A talker on Straight Talk Radio even said that this movie was part of the plan to "homosexualize America."
Much as I might dislike the president, I can't deny that he seems the sugestible type. He's just the sort of person who might go into Brokeback Mountain and come out dressed in fetish gear or mincing about the fake ranch. Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.
That's a good thing, I think.
Why? Because according to the Fundementalist Agenda Brokeback Mountain is Hollywood's latest attempt to deliver America into the clutches of the Gay Agenda. (Gasp if you wish) A talker on Straight Talk Radio even said that this movie was part of the plan to "homosexualize America."
Much as I might dislike the president, I can't deny that he seems the sugestible type. He's just the sort of person who might go into Brokeback Mountain and come out dressed in fetish gear or mincing about the fake ranch. Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.
What does it mean to be an American?
Mail Call:Newsweek: "As an orthodox Jewish rabbi with a beard and payos (earlocks) whose grandparents came to America more than a century ago, I absolutely do not want a European, African or Asian immigrant as my president.
Why not? Yes, I know that the Constitution says the President can't be an immigrant, but what's the reason for this requirement? Is it rooted in more than nativism, or fear of the other? Do you support the constitution on this point out of a simple respect for the law of the land, or because it speaks to your particular bias?
It takes at least one generation to not only be a legal American, but to feel and think like an American.
Says who? The Founders banned new arrivals from the nation's highest office because they were afraid some European might seize control and turn the young country into an adjunct of Europe. They weren't concerned with the quality of "feeling or thinking like an American" because no such thing existed in 1789. And, so long as we're on the subject, what does it mean to "feel or think like an American?" Is there really any one quality some 295,734,134 people share? If so, what do you propose we do with the American's who might lack it? Strip them of their citizenship? Ban them from public office?
My daughter went to law school at St. John's in her wig and long dresses, and is one of the youngest graduates in its history. Only in America could a third-generation Orthodox Jewess successfully attend a Roman Catholic school that is run by real democratic Americans who truly understand freedom of religion and make allowances for her.
Yes, I agree it would be strange, indeed, if she found herself in an Italian or British school run by "real democratic Americans." However, Americans aren't the only ones who understand freedom of religion. Europe has many schools like the nominaly Roman Catholic St John's, schools where your daughter might have thrived without compromising her values.
I am a proud American, and my involvement with 'new' Americans demonstrates to me that they need the time to fully become Americanized so that they feel and think like Americans."
I am also a "proud American." One of the things that makes me most proud is that the quality of being an American is not fixed, but dynamic. It changes to reflect the will and the action of each generation of Americans. Those there customs and ideas commonly identified with this country, none are intrinsic to being American. The country, and our identity as citizens, it whatever we make of it.
Why not? Yes, I know that the Constitution says the President can't be an immigrant, but what's the reason for this requirement? Is it rooted in more than nativism, or fear of the other? Do you support the constitution on this point out of a simple respect for the law of the land, or because it speaks to your particular bias?
It takes at least one generation to not only be a legal American, but to feel and think like an American.
Says who? The Founders banned new arrivals from the nation's highest office because they were afraid some European might seize control and turn the young country into an adjunct of Europe. They weren't concerned with the quality of "feeling or thinking like an American" because no such thing existed in 1789. And, so long as we're on the subject, what does it mean to "feel or think like an American?" Is there really any one quality some 295,734,134 people share? If so, what do you propose we do with the American's who might lack it? Strip them of their citizenship? Ban them from public office?
My daughter went to law school at St. John's in her wig and long dresses, and is one of the youngest graduates in its history. Only in America could a third-generation Orthodox Jewess successfully attend a Roman Catholic school that is run by real democratic Americans who truly understand freedom of religion and make allowances for her.
Yes, I agree it would be strange, indeed, if she found herself in an Italian or British school run by "real democratic Americans." However, Americans aren't the only ones who understand freedom of religion. Europe has many schools like the nominaly Roman Catholic St John's, schools where your daughter might have thrived without compromising her values.
I am a proud American, and my involvement with 'new' Americans demonstrates to me that they need the time to fully become Americanized so that they feel and think like Americans."
I am also a "proud American." One of the things that makes me most proud is that the quality of being an American is not fixed, but dynamic. It changes to reflect the will and the action of each generation of Americans. Those there customs and ideas commonly identified with this country, none are intrinsic to being American. The country, and our identity as citizens, it whatever we make of it.
What's new* in the New Republic?
The New Republic's Jan 23 edition cements it's already iron-clad reputation as the most-Jewish of the political magazines. Three articles (out of 15) are about Shraon and his legacy, and for good measure, the issue's movie review trashes Munich. Not quite what the rest of the blogosphere might lead you to expect from the media, right?
We begin with Leon Wieseltier's Unsettled, which has in it moments of eulogy and moments of argument:
*I'm a week behind. My New Republic arrives on Friday, but a new issue is published on Monday.
We begin with Leon Wieseltier's Unsettled, which has in it moments of eulogy and moments of argument:
The only peace that is available to Israel is a premature peace, and the Israeli center, the mixture of prudence and decency that Sharon (Arik melekh yisrael!) [sic] represented, is wagering that a premature peace may not be a counterfeit peace. There are good reasons for such a wager. Israel is spectacularly strong; and the peace with Egypt and Jordan has withstood two intifadas and an American war in Iraq; and the Soviet Union is still dead; and the requirements of Israeli safety have nothing to do with the requirements of Jewish eschatology... But the best reason for the wager, of course, is that the demographic inevitabilities between the river and the sea are now incontrovertible. No, that's not right: they were incontrovertible decades ago. But at last they have been acknowledged by Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert and other figures on the right who have more important things to be than right. I overcame my skepticism about Sharon's change of heart on April 14, 2004, when he came to Washington to tell President Bush that Israel will insist upon retaining five settlement blocs on the West Bank. Five! The press exploded that an American president had for the first time acceded to Israeli settlements. They missed the scoop, which was that the foreign policy of Israel had been emancipated from the fantasies and the stratagems of the settlers by the man who was once their god. Of all the people to establish a political basis for a practicable peace! But that is precisely what this grand and brutish man has done.Yossi Klein Halevi's Past Perfect is dedicated to Ehud Olmert, the man who will be asked to implement Sharon's vision. The article which discusses Olmert's journey from right to center tells us that the man who was once a local Betar commander and committed Revisionist rethought his lifelong political commitments during his tenure as Jerusalem's mayor:
Miki Cohen, one of Olmert's mayoral aides, suggests that Olmert was transformed by his repeated exposure to terrorist attacks. "He went to every terror site as soon as the attack happened and saw the most terrible things," says Cohen. "He also went to most of the funerals, and then visited the families. Over the years, I often heard Revisionist ideas from him. But my sense is that those experiences convinced him that we had to try a different way.And where does this "different way" leave the Palestenians? On the outside. As the third article, Isabel Kershner's Disengaged tells it, a spirit of fatalism has overtaken Palestine
Having been "disengaged" from Israel, the Palestinians are focusing on themselves. "Palestinians think Israel and the United States will do what they want anyway. They don't see any solution, so this is not a priority in casting their vote for parliament," says Bashar Hamayel, the owner of a hardware store in El Bireh. Shikaki concurs. As he explained to me, at the moment, economics, corruption, and law and order rank as top priorities. Then comes the issue of how to deal with the occupation, through violence or not. The peace process--namely the consideration of who can best deliver or reach agreements--comes last.This, finally, is why Ariel Sharon is entitled to the admiration of all Israel. His habit for unilateralism may have upset the right (as it once infuritated the left) but who can object to the result? Thanks to Ariel, Israel has clear, defined borders. It has a Jewish majority, without relying on the immoral and unpalatable approach of denying votes and a voice to a conquered majority. And the Palestenians, at last, seem ready (however resignedly) to turn inward and to focus on their own problems and on building their own state.
*I'm a week behind. My New Republic arrives on Friday, but a new issue is published on Monday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)