Trekkies

Before I say a few words about the new Star Trek film, and you know I must, I need to describe going to the screening, our first 'movie date' in Israel. Israel is a modern country, and that applies to its movie cinemas. The experience was all very familiar, but just different enough to be memorable.

I knew I was going to have to deal with Hebrew subtitles; I didn't expect that everyone in the theatre would be English speaking. I expected to be able to get kosher food; I was surprised to discover that the popcorn was also pareve (as was another patron who deliberately had pizza for dinner assuming the popcorn would be 'dairy.')


I resigned myself to the inevitable commercials before the film; I never anticipated a 5 minute intermission in the middle of the film. Do Israelis have unusually small bladders? I hoped we might run into people we knew; instead, we got a lift with total strangers, and talked about the film all the way home.

Anyway, I was talking about Star trek. I've been watching Star Trek for, um, ever. I actually remember watching the original series with my Dad and recording the Animated series on cassette tapes (pre-VCRs, folks). I also have a scrapbook I started when they first started talking about a new film in the mid-70`s. Those of you who came into the series with TNG can`t imagine how exciting a time it was, going to conventions when they were still run by the fans and not those money-making scum who took them over, meeting other Trekkers, waiting and hoping for a movie or another series, or even just a chance to meet someone associated with the show. It`s easy now to be jaded, after Voyager and Enterprise, but the scene was so different during the 70`s. What a time it was. I`m so grateful to have been a part of it.

So, as one of Trek's 'old fossil' fans, I was admittedly nervous when the news of a reboot was made official. But, I was actually pretty excited, too. It's worth remembering that in many ways, Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979), albeit with the original cast, also felt to many of us like a reboot. There some of the same concerns leading up to the release of the film about the new look of the Enterprise and the Klingons, and the new production team, especially director Robert Wise who knew nothing about Trek. Even Wrath of Khan reinvented much of what we now consider canon. And most of all, this is Science Fiction. What does canon mean in a genre which has already established that events and characters can be altered?

A few months ago, I found myself actually looking through my Star Trek comics and memorabilia from the late 60's/ early 70's. I started to get excited about this one, and enjoyed seeing people hyped up the way I was before the first Trek film came out. I thought: I'm sure there are going to be things about this film I hate but I don't care. As Kirk said: "Young minds, fresh ideas. Be tolerant!"

Well, I've now seen the new one and, frankly, I'm undecided. It looked great. The actors were all very good. I especially liked Karl Urban, although my wife felt he was copying DeForest Kelly rather than just playing the part like the others. The weak one for me was Zoë Saldana as Uhura. She was fine, but lacked the grace and elegance of Nichelle Nichols. I liked the comedy but felt like Scotty was a bit too much comic relief, which is I'm sure why they went with Simon Pegg rather than Paul McGillion, who would have made a great Scotty.

In all honesty, though, my big issue with the reboot has nothing to do with dialogue, plot or even casting, none of which was consistently brilliant in any incarnation of Trek. JJ Abrams, whose work I greatly respect, has said on record that he preferred Star Wars to Star trek, and that he wanted to reboot Trek in that mold for a younger, ostensibly more A.D.D. audience. But, in fact, both film genres originally ran simultaneously, with TMP actually following the first Star Wars film (because, in large part, of the success of that film, Paramount was willing to go ahead with TMP.)

For years, we had both SW and Trek, one franchise fast, fun and FX heavy, the other more thoughtful and character oriented. In a sense, they complimented each other. I have enjoyed both series for different reasons.

In other words, I don't need my Star Trek to feel like Star Wars. It was possible to reboot the series, adding more FX, introducing a new, hip cast, and even adrenalizing the stories without sacrificing the philosophical nature of Star Trek. I'm not convinced they accomplished this even though I enjoyed the film. But, I am willing to cut them a fair bit of slack because this was a first film with a new cast and crew. My hope is that a sequel will put more emphasis on the hopeful future of the Star Trek universe. I really do wish them luck. I'd still like to believe that the world needs Star Trek.

Washington Merry-Go-Round

I want to hate Michael Oren.


He's not only a terrific historian, eloquent and clear, but he's also far too dashing for his own good. Oren, who was born in the US but has called Israel home for decades, is also a fervent Zionist, an army reservist who has served as a government spokesperson during times of war, and a father of a serving soldier. And now, as if I couldn't hate him any more, he's Israel's new Ambassador to the US.

If Benjamin Netanyahu is remembered for anything it may be this brilliant appointment of a most deserving and appropriate candidate. I've never met Michael Oren, unfortunately, but I would welcome the chance to tell him in person what I'm writing here. Mr. Oren, serve us well. Be honest. Be passionate. Be yourself. Make a difference. And good luck.

If you're not familiar with Michael Oren, you deserve it to yourself to read some of his political and historical articles (and get out there and buy his books, too. Oren is the author of Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East and of Power, Faith, and Fantasy: The United States in the Middle East, 1776 to 2006.) He never fails to educate and entertain.

From The TNR Archives: Michael B. Oren

The New Republic has made available a long list of articles, all worth checking out. "Unfriendly Fire: Why Did Israeli Troops Attack The USS Liberty?" from July 23, 2001 is essential reading.

Also, check out, at the Azure Magazine website:

Jews and the Challenge of Sovereignty
Michael B. Oren | Is "Jewish state" a contradiction in terms?

Levi Eshkol, Forgotten Hero
Michael B. Oren | Israel’s third prime minister offers a different model of Jewish leadership.

The Second War of Independence
Michael B. Oren | Fifty years later, the lessons of the Suez War are only now becoming clear.

Did Israel Want the Six Day War?
Michael B. Oren | Newly released documents reveal the government's true motives during the tense weeks leading up to June 5, 1967.

Save the Citizens’ Army
Michael B. Oren, Benjamin Balint

Zohan and the Quest for Jewish Utopia
Michael B. Oren | Adam Sandler's hit comedy reflects a deep divide between Israeli and American Jews.

Orde Wingate: Friend Under Fire
Michael B. Oren | The new historians take aim at the father of the IDF.

The 'USS Liberty': Case Closed
Michael B. Oren | June 8, 1967: Why did the IDF open fire on an American spy ship?

UPDATE: Two more articles, both from Commentary Magazine.

Seven Existential Threats
Michael B. Oren, May 2009

Does the U.S. Finally Understand Israel?
Michael B. Oren, July/August 2002

Law and Disorder

International law is not cut and dry, but there are a number of precedents that have been established in past conflicts. International law defends, as a minimum, the right of a state to act to protect against threats to its political independence or territorial integrity [Brunson MacChesney, "Some Comments on the `Quarantine' of Cuba," The American Journal of International Law, 57 (No. 3, 1963), 595.] and to act when the imminence of attack was of such a high degree that a nonviolent resolution of a dispute was precluded.[McDougal, "The Soviet-Cuban Quarantine and Self-Defense," p. 598]

International law also insists that the recognized purpose of self-defense is to deter aggression and to protect the interests of the state. [James Francis Gravelle, "The Falkland (Malvinas) Islands: An International Law Analysis of the Dispute Between Argentina and Great Britain." Military Law Review, 107 (1985), 56. ]

Its goal is preventive in nature and not retributive. [D. W. Bowett, Self-Defense In International Law (New York: Fredrick A. Praeger, 1958), p. 20]

We can argue until the cows come home if Israel's military and political strategy will achieve this goal; only time will tell. But, Israel is in her right to respond to attacks against her citizens and territory.

The problem is that the nature of warfare is evolving as we speak. International and human rights laws concerning warfare that were written post-Second World War, in the aftermath of the devastation of Europe and America's bombing of Japan fail to address the sort of conflicts Israel now faces; there was little consideration, or even knowledge of the kind of warfare that exists today between state and non-state entities. It is a maddening fact that so-called political groups like Hamas cannot be tried for blatant violations of human rights laws; even the Palestinian Authority could not be held responsible, as they do not as of yet represent a state (and there are many that believe it was Arafat's intent to prevent statehood in order to distance the group from accountability).

To those who suggest Israel does not regard international law, I would say just the opposite is true. In fact, the IDF even has a legal department that considers and advises on all aspects of law and warfare. It would be more correct to say that all modern, western states are aware that international laws concerning both war and human rights are generally ambiguous and can be pushed and stretched as the need demands. In Gaza, however, Israel went above and beyond what any other state would do to protect civilians. This is an interesting interview with a British former military officer on the subject, and a British soldier with the Intelligence Corps in Iraq and Afghanistan comments here.

The IDF is actually one of the few western armies that has a moral code. Here's a relevant article on the subject. I would agree with this quote:

"The Israeli Defence Forces’ ethical standards are different from, and in some ways higher than, the British army’s, says Paul Robinson, but in the end the question is not whether IDF actions are moral, but whether they are wise." This is, of course, a whole other issue.

That said, I think it's generally true that no party in this conflict is seeking 'peace' as such. Israel demands security and recognition; the Palestinians demand justice and compensation; and the Arab world demands a restoration of honour and lost lands. Peace will be the outcome of these demands being met.

Therefore, all parties are equally responsible for achieving peace. The problem with placing the onus on any one party is that it is, in the end, counterproductive. Any unilateral moves made by, for example, Israel, such as the return of Gaza to Palestinian rule, actually sets back peace in that it reduces Israel's sense of security. And as we saw, as soon as rockets and mortars began flying over the border, Israeli lives and well being were also threatened.

There is also a problem with the notion of moral equivalency in these kinds of conflicts. There are acts which must be condemned; blindly criticizing the use of force when it is clearly a response to acts of terror, and then suggesting that both sides are equally responsible is simplistic. And this conflict is anything but simple.

I cannot describe the problem any better than this:

"Sometimes the desire to form a balanced judgement of the conflict, and not to attribute responsibility for the conflict largely to one side, a generally positive aspiration, may prove a pitfall and distort the picture...Symmetries in objectives, modes of action, and interrelationships of two sides in the conflict must be examined carefully. It is sometimes the very desire to adopt the stance of a neutral judge that leads the observer to close his eyes to inconvenient patterns of behaviour on the part of one side or the other in the conflict or at least to regard them benignly. Adopting a neutral stand is liable to intoxicate the observer with a euphoria of self-righteousness; he will derive great satisfaction from his rectitude and from his capacity to transcend issues and view them from lofty heights. His awareness of affinity with one side of the conflict may inculcate in him a tendency towards ostentatious neutrality, leading him to tip the scales and do violence to the facts." (Y. Harkabi: Nuclear War and Nuclear Peace, Israel Program for Scientific Translations, 1966, p. 270).

Making the Cut

It's always around this time, when Israel is a little more in the news than usual, that I notice more discussions of the dangers and cruelty of male circumcision. A blog I follow went so far as to accuse parents of this "evil, ancient practice" of putting their own wants ahead of their child's rights.

No, I would say they do just the opposite. They place his spiritual needs ahead of their personal fears and reservations.

This is called parenting, which involves far more than ensuring a child has food and shelter. Any good babysitter can meet basic human needs; good parents create a human being. My parents confirmed my status in a 3,500-year-old community, and then gave me a basis in Jewish knowledge and family life. How could I make that decision for myself as a child? Thank G-d I didn't have to go through circumcision as an adult. By all accounts, it's a painful and much more risky operation.

Responsible parents make hard decisions. Why would a parent of any religion assume that their child would likely abandon the faith and not need to be a member? It makes no sense. It would be like a parent saying, "Well, let's not bother setting up a College Trust Fund since we don't know that he's going to go to college. We'll let him decide if he wants to start one himself when he's an adult." Now before you say, but a snipped foreskin isn't the same as a college education, both are investments toward a more fulfilled life. Good parents anticipate and create the foundation for a complete life - physical and spiritual - for their children. To do less would be an abdication of responsibility.

I'm not being sarcastic here; would the world really be a better place if everyone only looked out for themselves? This was the innovation of Judaism thousands of years ago: A covenantal relationship to a higher power, a land, and each other; a community separate and distinct, because we're not all the same, and a set of laws that were unprecedented at the time. It's easy now to dismiss this fact, because these laws have shaped the Western world, but thousands of years ago, the Jewish world was a haven of human rights in a region where child sacrifices were the norm. And every member of this society understood the responsibility to ensure the group's survival; every Jew was gladly willing to make personal sacrifices to ensure the survival of the group because the future of mankind was at stake. This was their perspective. For many, it still is.

Declaring publicly through the brit milah one's allegiance to this covenant is something we take great pride in. The covenental experience is really something difficult to describe, but I can tell you, I've never been to a brit milah where people, men and women, aren't crying. There's a lot of baggage attached to this ritual; we understand this. Through the ages, Jews have certainly died because they could be identified. It's not something that's taken lightly; just the opposite. But I know this: from the first week of my life, I belonged to this community, and it belonged to me. As long as I live, I will never be alone.

War and Peace

Governments - indeed most people - will defer to the simpler, easier solutions whenever possible. There's a good reason why the US hesitated before entering both world wars: they're messy, expensive and cost many, many lives. So, I don't entirely blame those who say, shouldn't Israel have continued to pursue peace before looking at military solutions? But, there's also a point where we say, the pursuit of peace is a stalling tactic to avoid an inevitable conflict, not a sincere goal in itself. Every administration wants to put off expensive, difficult conflicts until the next government.

Look, the truth of the matter is neither Israel nor the Arabs (including the Palestinians) are seeking peace, as such. 'Peace' was attainable many years ago. Jewish Zionists could have recognized the White Paper of 1939, allowed immigration to slow to a trickle, and accepted permanent minority status in Palestine - with whatever reduced privileges that might have entailed, and assuming the Jews already in Palestine weren't expelled. Likewise, the Arabs could have long ago accepted a Partition Plan (which would have given them a much larger state than any negotiations today might produce). And there were certainly other opportunities for peace squandered by both sides.

Today, the reality is that Israel demands first-and-foremost a) security and b) recognition. The Arab world wants a) the restoration of Arab honour (through Israeli acknowledgment of culpability) and b) reasonable compensation for those displaced by the wars of 1948 and 1967. 'Peace' will be the result of these demands being met.

It's also worth noting that many polls over the years, since before 1948, have maintained that most Palestinians are actually more interested in economic and social stability than independence or autonomy. They want normalcy, which is not an unreasonable demand. Yet, there has been a minority element within the Arab world for years which has persisted in making impossible demands to the detriment of their own people. When the international community accedes to the will of Palestinian extremists, they are essentially spitting in the face of moderate Palestinians who want their voices to be heard, too. But, as I said, this is the easy way out: listen to the guys with the guns, because the alternative is to try to understand and maneuver through the complexities of the Arab and Islamic worlds. Frankly, I blame Edward Said, but that's another story.

Eyeless in Gaza

I received an interesting, but disconcerting email the other day. An old friend accused me of - wait for it - changing. He harangued me for my present political position on Gaza and Israel's need to attack Hamas, and suggested the guy he used to know would never have supported the use of force. Apparently, I was much more of a Leftist in my youth. True enough. I like to think of myself now as a pragmatist, that is, I believe governments and people should conduct themselves according to reasoned need and not based on rules in some out-of-date ideological handbook. He changed, too. The guy I knew back then would have done more research before making such uninformed comments. In fact, I still remember him chewing me out for speaking out of my backside on Northern Ireland. But he has been living in the UK for many years, so I suppose he can be forgiven.

However, I felt his comments deserved a response. Gaza, after all, is a very complex situation.

If anything, I wrote, Israel has been far too patient with the Gazan Arabs. Border cities in Israel have been under constant rocket bombardment for 8 years; well over 6,500 rockets have fallen on Sderot alone since Israel withdrew completely from Gaza in 2005. In fact, my wife was there the other week. She had to take shelter TWICE during a 3 HOUR visit. Residents get only 15-seconds' warning before a rocket strike (residents of nearby kibbutzim get 6 seconds warning). One kassam struck close enough that the building she was in trembled.

Residents of Sderot and nearby kibbutzim go through this every day. Despite incessant terror attacks, only a few dozen people have been killed (and many Arabs have been killed in Gaza by rockets falling short - two young girls were killed last week - or blowing up while being built), but this is only because we all have 'safe rooms' lined with metal and concrete. As well, cities like Sderot have bomb shelters everywhere. Most homes and business have shelters, so the argument that not that many Israelis have died (and therefore some will claim the response is disproportionate) is unfair and disingenuous. We have bomb shelters BECAUSE people are trying to kill us with rockets. And while a miraculous few have been killed, hundreds have been injured, many disfigured and paralyzed; a recent study found that 1 in 3 kids are suffering from PTSD.

It's important to talk about "proportionality." This has little to do with how many people have been killed or injured (this would make reprisals nothing but acts of revenge), but are based on assessments of threat. Hamas has been primarily using Kassam rockets, which aren't meant to cause widespread death and destruction, but rather are weapons of TERROR, deliberately filled with metal ball-bearings and shrapnel, with the specific goal of maiming and injuring civilians. How many children need to have legs and hands blown off before a government must act? They're now firing Grad rockets - 3 meters high! - capable of blowing the top off an apartment building, and with much more range than Kassams. IDF Home Command informed us a few days ago to take precautions as we are now in rocket range.

But believe it or not, I'm also very concerned for civilians in Gaza. They've been seriously short-changed by an evil regime that sees their deaths and suffering as nothing more than fuel in a PR campaign. Nevertheless, Israel has been doing its best to minimize civilian suffering, permitting humanitarian aid to enter Gaza on a daily basis; Israel is providing medical assistance for Gazan civilians (and paying for it since the Palestinian Authority is unwilling to pay for their medical care in Israel because they say Hamas is responsible). Israel is even informing, with phone calls and leaflets, neighbourhoods before IAF attacks. As such, the vast majority of those killed, according to the Palestinians themselves, have been members of Hamas.

Sadly, civilians are still going to be killed and injured as long as Hamas hides its forces and weapons in schools and mosques, and in crowded residential neighbourhoods (all War Crimes, incidentally).

That's the problem with fighting asymmetrical warfare with an enemy that lauds death and loathes weakness. It's almost a no-win scenario, but that doesn't mean Israel shouldn't try. The alternative would be for the government to ignore its responsibility to its own citizens, and permit constant attacks against its sovereignty. This is, obviously, unacceptable.

I'm especially disappointed in the international community that has all but ignored years of rocket attacks on Israelis, but is suddenly concerned about civilians in Gaza. Why, I ask, aren't the Gazans responsible for the government they elected? They knew full well what Hamas represented (the destruction of Israel and death of Jews everywhere - it's actually in their Charter), and voted for them anyway. Why are so many people willing to treat the Gazan Arabs like children? Isn't collective responsibility a basic principle of the democratic process? I'm responsible for the actions of my government; why aren't they? Frankly, coddling the Palestinians and absolving them of responsibility for acts of terror is condescending, if not racist.

It is well past time for Hamas to live up its obligations as a democratically elected government (this is actually arguable as the President of the PA has denounced them as usurpers, and has even blamed them for the current conflict). A democracy, despite what most in the Arab world seem to believe, means far more than simply 'a vote.' As the elected rulers of Gaza, Hamas has responsibilities under international law: first and foremost, is an obligation to respect international treaties and agreements signed by previous governments, such as the Oslo Agreement in which the PA recognized the State of Israel. Hamas has failed to fulfil this obligation. Hamas also has an obligation to secure its borders. Again, Hamas has failed to do so, permitting militants to kidnap an Israeli soldier, and allowing the firing of rockets into Israel.

Hamas had an opportunity to renounce the use of violence and agree to negotiate in good faith with Israel for normalized relations; they failed to do so and are now being brought to task. They're really a gang of well-armed thugs that have managed to elevate themselves (in part, due to Israeli and international mismanagement of terror groups and thanks to the sponsorship of the neighbourhood psycho, Iran) to real power. Think Al Capone, with heavy weapons and clan connections at every level. They're also prepared to sacrifice thousands of civilians for the cause. They truly don't care, as long as they emerge victorious in the end. And anyone who believes that "the end justifies the means" is very dangerous indeed.

The difference between me today and 20 years ago is simple. I'm now much better informed. I hope my friend will still be visiting next month. I'd like to continue this discussion over a beer, like the good old days when the world seemed much simpler.

A Comic Zoom

My latest published article, and my first in Israel, is now available in this week's issue of the Jerusalem Report.

Here's a short extract of the article from Issue 16, November 24, 2008 of The Jerusalem Report.

You won't find caped crusaders or masked superheroes in any of these comic books. Instead, Miriam Libicki's "jobnik!" chronicles her day-to-day life in the Israeli army in frank, often blunt terms. Jobnik is Israeli slang for soldiers in non-combat roles. More of an illustrated diary than a comic, "jobnik!" takes us behind the heroic façade, to where soldiers wash dishes, file reports and fool around.

"I wonder if, as the no-longer-new girl here, I should warn them about Asher," ponders Libicki's comic persona, recalling a foolish fling with a base scoundrel as she escorts new recruits to the women's barracks. "But I can't think of a way to do it that doesn't just make me look bad."

Originally published as individual comics, the first six issues have recently been reworked into a single graphic novel, "jobnik! An American girl's adventures in the Israeli army," distributed by Diamond Comic Distributors, the largest distributor of comic books in North America, available at comic stores in December. Securing a distribution deal for an independently produced comic on this unlikely subject was no easy feat. "The truth is they rejected it at first," admits Libicki. "So I sent them reviews from Publisher's Weekly and, after some discussions, they finally agreed to distribute it."

You can also read an longer excerpt here. But, I think you need to go out and buy a copy.

The article is a review of Jobnik!, an autobiographical comic book by Vancouver-based Miriam Libicki. I met with her at Comics N Vegetables (the coolest comic store in the Middle East) in Tel Aviv in September. Here we are in the middle of the interview. What do you think of my professional interview shorts?

Heroes

Actor, and seriously cool blue-eyed mensch, Paul Newman, has died at the respectable age of 83. I could write for days on his brilliant, decades-long acting career, but instead want to acknowledge Newman the humanitarian, whose Newman's Own label of salad dressings and sauces earned around $250 million for charity. Wow!

For your viewing pleasure, here's the trailer for Exodus, one of Newman's best known roles.



I reviewed Exodus for a distributor of Jewish films.

Exodus
US, 1960, 208 minutes

Based on Leon Uris' sweeping novel, Otto Preminger’s star-studded epic tends to simplify and is arguably too long but as one of the few Hollywood films to tackle the creation of the State of Israel, Exodus is absolutely essential. Told from an admittedly pro-Zionist bias, the film relates the events that preceded the UN vote to approve partition of Palestine in 1948 through the exploits of Ari Ben Canaan, (Paul Newman) a member of the Israeli resistance group, Hagannah. Exodus is first and foremost a Hollywood adventure romance, but no other feature film captures the mainstream Jewish regard for the heroes of Israel’s birth. For more detail of the events of the film, check out the recently released documentary, In Search of Peace: Part One 1948 – 1967.

Wordplay

I have a problem. I'm a sucker for internet distractions. I've already shown you what I'd look like as a cartoon. Now (at last) I can reduce my bio to a Wordle, a representational 'word cloud' courtesy of IBM Engineer Jonathon Feinberg. Without further ado, Morey Altman reduced to 50 floating words:

Machssomim*

We live near the Green Line and, because of the placement of Highway 443, pass through a checkpoint every time we go to Jerusalem. Checkpoints aren't all the same. This one controls entry onto a highway restricted to vehicles with Israeli licence plates. There are many who believe that these roads are, in fact, racist. Nothing could be further from the truth, as any of the Arab bus drivers who regularly take us to Jerusalem could tell you. But, these security measures are a necessity. Critics conveniently forget similar restrictions in other countries.

Case in point: the US response to the attack on September 11, 2001.

There were not only roadblocks set up around DC, all air traffic was rerouted away from the US, and even crossing the border by vehicle was temporarily stopped. It was only after many hours that traffic started to move again. I happened to be flying to the US two days later; the trip, which would normally take 4 hours, took 24 hours because of increased security. If the US was being attacked at the rate Israel has sustained shootings and bombings over the years, I would expect entry into America to be damn near impossible.

While real, these restrictions within and out of the territories are the direct result of terrorism. When Israel acquired the West Bank and Gaza, traffic to and from was relatively easy. I crossed the border in 1978 in minutes and there were no checkpoints anywhere. We visited Bethlehem, Jericho and Hebron and were welcomed (they wanted our tourist money, of course.)

And y'know, for all the bitching about the security fence (or whatever you want to call it), 10 years ago both Israelis AND Palestinians wanted more separation. A poll conducted in 1998 found 81 percent of the Israeli respondents and 63 percent of the Palestinians interviewed support(ed) a closed border. More importantly, both Israelis and Palestinians -- 77 percent and 65 percent, respectively -- said relations between the two peoples should be intensified in order to build support for peace. Ironically, one of the loudest opponents of a separation fence was Ariel Sharon, who was set against establishing any line that could be construed as a border.

Although living in Modi'in feels a little like being in the suburbs, we don't ever forget that we're also on the front lines.

*Checkpoint

crossposted to altmanaliyah.blogspot.com

The Summer Exodus

As we approach the end of our annual reading of Deuteronomy, I can't help but be thankful for the relative ease of our exodus to the Promised Land compared to our ancestors: Seriously, Manna from heaven! 40 years in the desert! The Golden Calf!

But did it really happen like that?

I don't mean to sound facetious here. The Exodus, and unfortunate wanderings that followed, are easy to dismiss as brilliant 'storytelling' and nothing more. And within the recorded story, there are certainly elements that demand interpretation. The Torah was meant to be read and re-read by each generation; more importantly, it was meant to be relevant and inspirational. Sometimes, it's not the literal words that accomplish these things but the dynamic between the text and our experiences and ability to comprehend. One of the things I love is the Jewish custom of re-reading Torah portions every year.

It never ceases to amaze me how time and again, a passage I've read dozens of times can suddenly leap out at me with profound meaning and clarity. Did the words change? Did the story change? Not at all. I changed. I grew through study and gained new experiences as I've aged.

Torah interpretation also allows each generation to apply contemporary values and beliefs to the understanding of the texts. A good example of this is the phrase, "An eye for an eye." (Exodus 21) The rabbis of the Babylonian Talmud, recording oral tradition going back at least centuries, could not believe that the phrase was ever meant to be understood literally; the notion was abhorrent then and now. It was
clear that the text referred to monetary compensation because that understanding was consistent with their values.

Perhaps the understanding was different 3,500 years ago. Perhaps it will change in the future. Neither of which is as important as how the words are understood and applied to our lives today. Each generation is obligated to address the fundamental concerns and values of its time and to struggle with the parameters of necessary and permissible change. Deuteronomy itself insists upon this: we must rely on the judges/priests/leaders of our time "even if they say that right is left and left is right" (Sifre on Parashat Shoftim). And as we read in Parashat Nitzavim, "[Torah] is not in the heavens."

Did the Exodus really happen? Perhaps not exactly as described, but then the historicity of the Bible isn't as important as its relevance and meaning. The Bible isn't a history book, nor should it ever be reduced to such a mundane purpose. It's much deeper than that.

(crossposted to altmanaliyah.blogspot.com)

Thou Shalt Remember

In April of 1942, Israel Altman, Freida (Frucht) Altman, Rosa Altman, Yonah and Breina (Altman) Rosenblatt, Yidel Rosenblatt, the parents and siblings of Hersch Weidman, Shaya Gelber, Yosel Gelber and their families were murdered in and around Rohatyn and Berezhany, Galicia. The wife and children of Jack Moraff were murdered in Belarus.

Zichronam l'Vracha. May Their Memories be a Blessing.

The 27th of Nissan is Yom HaShoah (Holocaust Remembrance Day), observed as a day of commemoration for the approximately six million Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust. In Israel, it is a national memorial day.

At 10:00am, air-raid sirens are sounded throughout the country for two minutes. People stand at attention on the streets; cars stop on the roads; for two minutes Israel is practically motionless.

This video is courtesy Jewlicious.

Wrestling with God

I don't even like wrestling but I want this. It's just so davka, y'know?

You can order one for yourself here.

Passover

What's my favourite thing about Passover, you ask?

Watching the Seda Club with Shabot 6000! Enjoy.

Dementia

What is President Carter thinking?

Hamas has failed since their first day in office to act as a responsible government both toward the citizens of Gaza and the international community. The first duty of an elected government is to honour and maintain (or renegotiate) agreements and treaties previously signed. Hamas refused to do so. Their response to a Presidential demand to lay down arms, cease rocket fire on Israel and work with the PA security apparatus was to 'take over' Gaza by ruthless force. Do you trust a 'democratically elected' government that throws political opponents off roofs, shoots enemies in the head in front of their children or coerces by shoving hoses down people throats and running water until their bodies explode? Hamas has long since lost the right to rule as a 'democratically elected' body.

Moreover, there's nothing to negotiate. The following is an excerpt from an interview with Hamas co-founder of Hamas, Mahmoud Al-Zahar:

"We do not and will not recognize a state called Israel. Israel has no right to any inch of Palestinian land. This is an important issue. Our position stems from our religious convictions. This is a holy land. It is not the property of the Palestinians or the Arabs. This land is the property of all Muslims in all parts of the world."

What does he see worth discussing?

Speaking with Hamas is not only an insult to Israel and world Jewry, which Hamas has threatened repeatedly, it is also a terrible disservice to the Palestinians, empowering the most intransigent elements in Palestinian society and implying that their President is impotent and wasting his time in direct negotiations with Israel.

Every time a terrorist organization is treated as anything other than a gang of thugs, which they are, they believe more strongly than ever that violence has earned them respect and international recognition. And they're right! As namby-pambies like Carter kiss their asses, Hamas simply continues its campaign of violence emboldened by the prestige it's achieved, thus only perpetuating the conflict.

And apparently even the PA agrees with me. Not sure if that's a good thing or not?

"Palestinian Authority officials urged visiting former US President Jimmy Carter on Tuesday not to meet with Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal in Damascus later this week. The officials expressed fear that Carter's planned talks with Mashaal would legitimize Hamas's violent takeover of the Gaza Strip and undermine the authority of PA President Mahmoud Abbas."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

And now the news that he wanted to meet with Islamic Jihad, but they turned him down (believing he's an agent of the US/Israel.) At least with Hamas, he had the excuse of saying they were an elected political body. What's his reasoning now? Wow, did I actually say REASONING?

Islamic Jihad: We Refused Carter’s Request for a Meeting

Eric Trager - 04.16.2008 - 3:52 PM Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) has announced that its leadership has refused former U.S. President Jimmy Carter’s request for a meeting. According to PIJ’s QudsNews website, Egyptian authorities contacted PIJ Secretary-General Dr. Ramadan Shallah on Carter’s behalf earlier this week, inviting Shallah to meet with Carter in Cairo. Shallah is listed on the FBI’s list of Most Wanted Terrorists, and the reward for information leading to his apprehension is $5 million. In turning down the request, Shallah declared that Carter is “carrying an American-Israeli agenda,” while PIJ spokesman Daoud Shahab blasted Carter’s criticism of Palestinian rocket attacks during the former president’s visit to Sderot. E-mails and phone calls to the Carter Center press office seeking confirmation of Carter’s outreach to PIJ have not been returned.

Made in America

There's been a lot of discussion lately about the US and to what extent it may be considered a Christian nation. Much of this debate has focused on America's constitution, which is notably lacking in references to God and the Christian church. But, as we more closely examine the issue, it's worth asking: which America are we talking about? The original settlements of the refuge seeking Puritans? The revolutionary America of the deist founding fathers? Traumatized America following the Civil War? The American melting pot of the 21st century?

The original settlers were unquestionably seeking religious freedom in the wake of insufferable repression under the English Church. But, there was much more to the Puritan mission than a desire for freedom: the Puritans saw themselves on a divine mission and they modeled themselves after the Hebrews of the Old Testament. "Come let us declare the word of the Lord in Zion," declared Puritan leader, William Bradford. America was to them the new Zion, and they set out to establish a new holy land under God's guidance. They cited Scripture as authority for many criminal statutes throughout the colonies and endeavoured (and generally failed) to convert the natives to Christianity. Christian writers of the period celebrated at length this "choice above all other lands." Cotton Mather, in his Magnalia Christi Americana extolled, "Christ's Great Deeds in America."

The New Land continued to attract both the persecuted and the rebellious. Within a few decades, the territories held Baptists of many varieties, Presbyterians, Quakers, and Puritans of all stripes, Anglicans, Roman Catholics, a handful of Jewish congregations, and undoubtedly those who described themselves as unaffiliated, many of whom were alienated if not hostile toward organized religion. Religious freedom in such an atmosphere became more than just a catchphrase; it was an absolute necessity in the face of such unique diversity and difference of opinion.

Increasingly many saw themselves as outside the Church. This was, in part, due to diversity of belief, but also the great distances between communities, and of course America's relative isolation from European religious leadership. The result was a religious revival known as the Great Awakening which swept over the American colonies from Maine to Georgia between 1730 and 1745. Theologian (and later President of Princeton) Jonathan Edwards, in 1742 wrote: "Tis not unlikely that this work of God’s Spirit, that is so extraordinary and wonderful, is the dawning, or, at least, a Prelude of that glorious Work of God, so often foretold in Scripture, which in the Progress and Issue of it, shall renew the World of Mankind ... And there are many Things that make it probable that this work will begin in America."

As he and others preached a return to the Church, a new manner of Christianity, neither Biblical nor European, emerged - an American Christianity. Americans bonded in a common understanding of Christian faith and being, and a fresh respect for lesser established denominations. The sentiment of John Wesley sums it up: "Dost thou love and fear God? It is enough! I give thee the right hand of fellowship." (The Complete idiot's Guide to Christianity, pg. 183)

It’s also worth remembering the role of religion in the American Revolution. While the conflict split some denominations, notably the Church of England (more than half of the Anglican priests in America, unable to reconcile their oaths of allegiance to the King with American independence, left their pulpits during the Revolutionary War), other theologians advocated that civil and religious freedom was ordained and therefore rebellion sanctioned by God.

It was incumbent upon the Founding Statesmen to recognize and acknowledge the vast range of religious opinion at the time. Still, this diversity was all seen within a Christian framework. "All the sects of the United States are comprised within the great unity of Christianity, and Christian morality is everywhere the same...Christianity, therefore, reigns without obstacle, by universal consent." (de Tocqueville, Alexis. Democracy in America, Vol. 1, Ch. 17.)True, they were all profoundly inspired by the lofty goals of Enlightenment. While several spoke against the more superstitious and incredulous aspects of Christian belief, there remained for most an essential faith. "I am a real Christian," wrote Thomas Jefferson, "that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." George Washington was an Episcopal vestryman; John Adams called himself "a church going animal." James Madison was a Hebrew major at Princeton. Most American statesmen seemed to share the convictions of their constituents that religion was, in the words of Alexis de Tocqueville, "indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions."

It may well be that some were simply paying lip service to a religious constituency. Even so, they never failed to recognize the Christian nature of the land. If they held personal religious misgivings they felt no compunction against encouraging religious practice in others. Despite the absence of God in the Constitution, Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible , recommended that all members of the armed forces “attend divine services”, and facilitated the promotion of Christianity to the natives. As well, National days of thanksgiving were established on which the American people could “express the grateful feelings of their hearts and consecrate themselves to the service of their divine benefactor" and on which they may” join the penitent confession of their manifold sins . . . that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of remembrance."

Over the years, Christian religiosity has continued to intrude itself into the American system despite the separation of Church and State. Following the American Civil War, for example, the words "In God We Trust" were added to US coins. And in 1870 Congress proclaimed Christmas a federal holiday.

I believe America is a Christian nation, even if most Americans today do not believe that Christianity should play a central role in governance, or that the United States itself should ever be regarded as a visible 'Kingdom of Christ on earth.' Surprisingly, I don’t have a problem with this. America has, through its Puritan antecedents and resolute founders, developed its own take on the divine mission, one that has sought to shake off the constraints of dogma and superstition in favour of Judeo-Christian practice, based on the rule of charity and respect of one's fellow. America is by no means perfect; the country has certainly experienced its share of anti-Semitism, although very rarely has it resulted in violence. Still, Americans continue to soul-search on these and other problems. Overall I think the Puritans would be pretty impressed with the freedoms their descendants and others now enjoy.

B'Yerushalaim

During the 1948 war, Jordan captured approximately 2,000 sq. miles of Judea and Samaria west of the Jordan river, and the "Old City" of Jerusalem; 1,300 Jewish residents were expelled or taken to Jordan as prisoners. Jews living in West Bank and Gaza Strip were forced to flee the invading Arab armies. Kfar Etzion and other villages in the Jerusalem-Bethlehem corridor fell to Arab forces in May 1948 and those captured were massacred. For 19 years, Jews were denied access to the Wailing Wall.

The Israelis had been ordered to use small arms wherever possible to avoid damaging Holy places in the Old City. They were up against Jordan's Arab Legion, which had been formed and trained by the British under Glubb Pasha. The fighting was fierce, often hand-to-hand, and house to house. Jordanian mortars and shells continued to be fired into Jewish Jerusalem; snipers positioned in minarets, and behind churches rained bullets down on the Israelis as they made their way through the narrow, cobbled streets.

Slowly but surely, they pushed the Jordanians back until at last the Old City was back in Jewish hands. The destruction had been terrible; during the Jordanian occupation, the Arabs destroyed 58 Jerusalem Synagogues and systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives. Soon, the repairs would begin; in a few weeks, Israel would remove the barbed wire and minesfields erected by the Jordanians that had divided the city since 1948; both Arabs and Jews would finally have free access to the city. Soon enough the city would be whole again. But, for a moment, time stood still.

Listen to CBS reporter, Michael Elkins report on the battle for Jerusalem here.

Listen to Israel Defense Forces entering the Old City of Jerusalem and reclaiming the Western Wall on June 7, 1967 (in Hebrew) here.

A transcript is available here. (bottom of the page)

The historic radio broadcast of the liberation of the Temple Mount and the Western Wall
was researched, transcribed and translated by Yitschak Horneman / Quality Translations, Jerusalem

Strike Zion!

Flying in fast and low to evade Egyptian radar, the Israeli Mirage III and Super-Mystère fighters struck at dawn. All but 12 Israeli jets, kept back to defend the home front, were utilized in the operation. Almost simultaneously, 11 Egyptian airfileds were attacked, destroying over 200 planes. Several hours later, after refueling, Israel struck again destroying another 100 planes. Enjoying near complete air superiority, Israel's tank battalions and infantry began to move across the Sinai and into the Golan Heights.

Upon the outbreak of hostilities on June 5, 1967, Israel had issued strict orders to her soldiers that there was to be no firing against the Jordanians. The Israeli government had secretly pleaded with King Hussein of Jordan, to keep out of the war; but, the plea was rebuffed by the Jordanian monarch. Fearful of losing his throne and perhaps even his life, he aligned himself with the Arab coalition and put his forces under Egyptian command. Even the Jordanian attack, Israel's PM, Levi Eshkol sent a message, through an intermediary: “If you don’t intervene, you will suffer no consequences.” When two hours passed without a reply, Israeli forces struck back at Jordanian positions.

After many hours of intense fighting against Jordan's well-trained Arab Legion, Israeli troops succeeded in taking control of the roads into Jerusalem. As the long day closed, they moved into the city. The Battle for Jerusalem had now begun.

Hot Enough for June

The war was, in many ways, inevitable. Neither Israel nor her Arab neighbours were satisfied with the outcome of the 1948 conflict. Israel had been left with borders that were difficult to defend, her citizens vulnerable to attacks from all sides. The Arabs had never supported the Partition Plan, and having failed to abort Israel at the outset, began planning for the day when they could eradicate the Jewish state.

Relations between Israel and Syria had been dismal for years. The two countries has sparred over control of water from the Jordan River, and Israel held the Ba’ath regime responsible for terrorist attacks perpetrated by militants operating from Syria.

Syria, anticipating an Israeli response to the border violations, signed a defence agreement with Egypt. According to the agreement, signed on 4 November 1966, an armed attack against either of the two signatories would be considered an armed attack against both. And, once war erupted, the Syrian and Egyptian armies were to operate jointly under the command of the Egyptian chief of staff.

In 1967, Egypt began to turn up the heat. On May 16, Egypt ordered UNEF troops to evacuate the Sinai region (U Thant agreed, without consulting either the UN General Assembly or Security Council, and much to Nasser's delight, also pulled troops out of Gaza). Thousands of Egyptian troops, 80,000 men and 600 tanks in less than three days, poured into the area and began to entrench themselves. Israel turned to both the US and the United Nations for assistance. Both suggested 'patience'; the Security Council was all but deadlocked by the Soviets and France. Fearing they were becoming politically isolated, Israel’s response was to begin to call up reserves--18,000 men on May 17, and an additional 17,000 the following day.

But it was Nasser's decision to close the Straits of Tiran that was the defining moment. Most countries, including the US, considered the closure to be a casus belli, an action tantamount to an Act of War. Israel required the Strait to reach Eilat, at the time it's most important port. And the Arabs also increased the vitriol of their rhetoric: Syria's Foreign Minister Ibrahim Makhous declared that “the withdrawal of the UN forces means ‘make way, our forces are on their way to battle.’” According to then-Defense Minister Hafez el-Assad, the Syrian army had “its finger on the trigger and demand[ed] that the battle be expedited.” 1.

Again, Israel pleaded with the US to intercede, but America was unwilling to challenge the Soviets, which were sponsoring the Arab states (and according to recent historical documents, had been lying to the Arabs telling them that Israel was preparing for war). 2.

Nevertheless, Nasser knew full well that closing the Straits would force Israel into war. After only a few weeks, Israel was running low on oil and food. Then France refused to honour previously signed agreements for planes and parts. Egypt continued the provocation: We are now’, Nasser declared, ‘on the verge of a confrontation with Israel’....‘If’, he added ominously, ‘the Jews threaten us war? I say to them “Welcome”, we are ready for war!'

With everyone still suggesting patience, time was running out. Both Egypt and Syria continued to amass troops and build defences. Israeli hospitals began to collect blood. Emergency morgues were prepared. Israel's military leaders now advised a preemptive strike: “Whoever waits for the Egyptians to start the war has got to know that we’ll lose the land of Israel!” Moshe Dayan declared, “It’s lunacy to wait!” The final straw was an intelligence report that Egypt was moving its army from a defensive to an offensive position, apparently with the intention of occupying Eilat.

After weeks of exhaustive efforts to forestall war, the Cabinet voted in favour of a preemptive strike. The attack would begin early the next morning, Monday, June 5.


1. Theodore Draper, Israel and World Politics: Roots of the Third Arab-Israeli War, p. 60.

2. http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2003/issue3/ginor.pdf

In the Days of War

In a few days, the world will mark the 40th anniversary of the 'Six-Day War.' To say that the Middle East is still dealing with the consequences of this conflict would be an understatement of Biblical proportions. Over the next few days I'm going to be (finally) updating my blog with thoughts and links on the war and its lasting effects.

It goes without saying, a number of groups around Vancouver will be marking the occasion in various ways. On Friday, June 1, Jews for a Just Peace screened BC filmmaker Jack Silberman's documentary, Raised to be a Hero.

Silberman's film may reflect a genuine opinion within Israel that the continued military presence in the disputed territories has been detrimental to both Jews and Arabs, but to suggest that the 'Refuseniks' represent a growing revolution, as some have done, is misleading at best. It may be true that 1,600 reservists have refused duty in Judea and Samaria (also known as the "West Bank" since Jordan's illegal annexation of the territory in the late '40's) and Gaza, but this number is a mere fraction of Israel's army. Almost all Israeli men do three years of mandatory military service. A mere 1,600 out of a standing army of around 445,000 - less than 1/3 of 1 percent - isn't much of a revolution. Contrast this with Russia, where an estimated 15 percent of those called up for military service illegally dodge the draft. If there's an ideological revolution worth mentioning, it's the realization that last year's disengagement from Gaza was a strategic and political mistake. In fact, far more 'refuseniks' refused to remove Jews from Gaza than have ever refused service in the territories. In an attempt (which failed) to forestall the evacuation of Gaza's Jewish residents, 10,000 soldiers signed a petition that declared "Jews don't deport Jews." The West Bank is even more complicated. There had been a perpetual Jewish presence there since Biblical times until the Jordanian occupation in 1948. Jordan expelled Jews from the West Bank and prohibited them from visiting religious sites. Since 1967, Jews have been able to return to the area. The settlements, regardless of their legal status, are problematic; but it has been Palestinian violence, since Yassir Arafat rejected peace negotiations and initiated the second intifada, that has demanded checkpoints, targeted killings and nighttime arrests. Indeed, as rockets continue to fly out of Gaza, one must wonder if disengagement from the West Bank, ostensibly the political demand of the 'refuseniks,' would really further the peace process. But, as I said, it's a complex issue. With any luck, the film will initiate dialogue but without due respect to the facts, constructive debate will be drowned by the rhetoric that tends to prevail.