Extremism Update

JERUSALEM — A Palestinian was caught Wednesday trying to bring six pipe bombs into the city to carry out a terrorist attack. Jewish settlers set fire to a West Bank mosque today.

(Hat tip: Jewlicious)

Chanukah 2009/5770

JERUSALEM — The Jewish holiday of Chanukah begins at sundown today. Here are two past writings of mine on the topic: Is Chanukah a Right-Wing Holiday? and Chanukah and Christopher Hitchens.

I also wanted to post another original writing. This is a short paper I wrote while I was a master’s student in Jewish Studies at Hebrew College in Boston. Enjoy!

When Secular and Religious Sources Conflict: Jewish Assimilation and the Maccabees

The story of Chanukah, detailed in the non-canonical books of Maccabees as well as in the writings of various secular historians, is one example of how different accounts — religious and secular — can cloud the history and memory of what actually occurred. The story related in Maccabees is essentially one of Jewish civil war. One faction wanted to adopt various ancient Greek customs since that culture was the dominant force in the Middle East (particularly when King Antiochus gained control of Judea). The other side viewed those practices as assimilation and heresy.

The writers of 1 Maccabees, when introducing the story, side with the latter group, portraying those who chose to assimilate as “wicked men” (1 Macc. 1:12) who profane the Sabbath and allow Antiochus to defile the Temple. When the Maccabees won, the writers viewed the victory in hindsight as a triumph of the faithful over the wicked. Right at the beginning of this account of the conflict, the pro-assimilation Judeans actively chose to side with Greek culture without any specific prompting or coercion:

In those days certain renegades came out from Israel and misled many, saying, ‘Let us go and make a covenant with the Gentiles around us, for since we separated from them many disasters have come upon us.’ This proposal pleased them, and some of the people eagerly went to the king, who authorized them to observe the ordinances of the Gentiles. So they build a gymnasium in Jerusalem, according to Gentile custom, and removed the marks of circumcision, and abandoned the holy covenant. They joined with the Gentiles and sold themselves to do evil. (1 Macc. 1:11-15)

1 Maccabees paints the conflict in stark, black-and-white, religious terms. The fact that the writers portray the pro-assimilation Judeans as wanting to form a new “covenant” with the Greeks is especially damning since, to the Maccabees, the only covenant Jews should have is the one with God that was formed at Sinai.

The ancient historian Josephus Flavius, however, portrayed the account differently. To him, Antiochus originally treated the Jews well because they sided with him during the king’s war against Ptolemy over who would control Judea. To thank the Jews, Antiochus gave them appropriate animals to sacrifice, along with wine, oil, frankincense, silver, flour, wheat, and salt. More significantly, he wrote to Ptolemy to command that “all of that nation live according to the laws of their own country” (Antiquities, Book XII, Chapter III, Part III).

However, Antiochus eventually decided to invade Jerusalem following a failed effort to take Egypt. Josephus writes that the king, in contrast to his earlier policy of toleration, now wanted to impose Greek culture upon the Jews:

[Antiochus] compelled them to forsake the worship which they paid their own God, and to adore those whom he took to be gods; and made them build temples, and raise idol altars in every city and village, and offer swine upon them every day. He also commanded them not to circumcise their sons, and threatened to punish any that should be found to have transgressed his injunction. He also appointed overseers, who should compel them to do what he commanded. (Antiquities, Book XII, Chapter V, Part IV).

According to Josephus, the punishments for violating Antiochus’ decrees were harsh: “they were whipped with rods, and their bodies were torn to pieces, and were crucified, while they were still alive, and breathed. They also strangled those women and their sons whom they had circumcised, as the king had appointed, hanging their sons about their necks as they were upon the crosses” (ibid).

One of the differences between the accounts in 1 Maccabees and Antiquties is in the motivations they attribute to the Jews who choose to adopt Greek culture. In 1 Maccabees, the Judeans assimilate — for seemingly no other reason than because they were wicked — before Antiochus imposes his harsh rule. In Antiquities, the king forces assimilation onto the Judeans under pain of death, and then some Jews assimilate to save their lives.

This difference is an example of the difficulty in surmising accurate social histories from religious texts. History is written by the victors, and 1 Maccabees is one such case. One of the authors’ purposes was to demonize those Jews who chose to assimilate into Greek culture by adopting some of its practices. Antiochus’ decrees in occupied Jerusalem were of secondary importance. If the writers of 1 Maccabees had stated that the Jews who had adopted Greek customs were coerced, then that statement would have hurt their argument that any Jews who assimilate are inherently wicked.

All writers of history naturally have their personal biases, but authors of religious texts are less interested in communicating objective accounts at all — they want to convince their readers of certain theological points. Persuasion is primary; accuracy is secondary.

On the Jewish-Girl Fetish

Seventh in a series of essays

JERUSALEM — Details magazine looks at Jewish girls as the erotic fascination of the moment:

It seems that America can’t get enough smoking-hot Semitic tush lately.

In a recent poll on the porn blog Fleshbot, “Jewish girls” ranked second among kinks (the winner: “freckles”). Jewesses aren’t just the rage in the triple-X realm, either: They’re seducing goyim on Mad Men and Glee and giving movie geeks conniptions over reports of JILF-on-JILF action between Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis in Darren Aronofsky’s upcoming Black Swan.

That Jewish women have become the ethnic fetish du jour is all the more remarkable given that Jews represent a truly tiny minority (2.2 percent) of the U.S. population. In recent years, God’s chosen menfolk have been objects of affection, too, though they draw their appeal from cuddly schlubbiness, not sexual energy—consider Judd Apatow’s all-Jewish Frat Pack (Seth Rogen, Paul Rudd, Jonah Hill, Jason Segel, et al.). But unlike their funnyman brothers, Jewish girls have had to overcome the old stinging JAP stereotype of frigidity, whininess, and big hair.

Recently, however, the Fran Drescher rep has given way to a more smoldering image. Think cultural mutts like Rachel Weisz, Emmanuelle Chriqui, and Rachel Bilson—women who have little in common beyond sultriness and Star of David necklaces.

My first trip to Israel was with Taglit-Birthright Israel in 2006. I was twenty-six and on the waiting list, but a spot opened up at the last minute on a trip specifically geared towards college students. I went anyway since I was excited to have a chance to go.

In retrospect, it was quite interesting to see the interaction between the American and Israeli Jews on the trip. Taglit usually brings a dozen or so young, IDF soldiers on the trip as part of a cultural exchange — and the two groups, both just out of high school, are always excited to meet each other. And I mean “excited” in every sense of the word. (Here is an archived article I wrote on the trip while editor-in-chief of Spare Change News in Boston.)

The American girls were smitten with the muscular, tanned, 18-year-old soldiers carrying machine guns. The American guys were awestruck by the bawdy, lively girls in uniform (see a picture of mine below) who also carried the same weapons. The various hotel rooms in which we stayed over the ten-day trip were put to good use.

I was not the only one to notice the fascination that Americans — whether Jewish or not — have with Israeli women in uniform. The Israeli government decided a few years later to brand the country as being full of gorgeous women to attract more tourism and establish associations with something other than war and terrorism (see here and here). Most significantly, one result was a cover page and photo spread in Maxim magazine in July 2007 with current and former soldiers wearing little.

This video — which went viral — also brought the message of Israel’s unique, well, assets to the Western world (note: strong language):

Now, I do not mean to imply that there is some direct connection between the Israeli government’s marketing efforts and the recent interest in Jewish starlets in Hollywood. No matter what some conspiracy theorists might believe, the Jewish world is nowhere near organized enough to pull something like that off. A group of four Jews can argue for hours over what to eat for breakfast — and some really expect them to run the world?

Still, either there seems to be many Jewish stars gaining popularity among Americans or there are enough media outlets choosing to focus on Jewish actresses, thereby making them popular. (Chicken and egg.) But why?

One obvious answer is that mainstream, white America has always had a fetish for ethnic women of various types throughout the years. (See the Details article’s timeline of Jewish actresses throughout the decades — you might be surprised at who makes the list.) People always have an erotic fascination with that which is different. Moreover, humanity’s natural instincts tell people to produce children with those of other ethnicities because the combination of two immune systems consisting of different genes protects better against disease. (This is also the reason that insular breeding within the same, closed community tends to result in more birth defects and other ailments throughout life.)

So, Americans have always celebrated the, um, beauty of diversity — after all, nearly all Americans are descended from immigrants from various countries — but why Jewish girls? Why now?

As with many subjects, the answer lies in politics, current events, and subconscious mindsets. Many Americans feel, rightly or wrongly, that they are under siege by Islamic terrorists, and they subconsciously empathize with female, Israeli soldiers whom they believe are on the frontline of the War on Terror. (I am sorry to deflate their fantasies, but nearly all female, IDF soldiers work desk jobs — the term in Hebrew is “jobnik” — or do guard duty. The machine guns that the soldiers had on the Birthright Israel trip, for example, are sometimes for show to impress the American boys.)

For those Americans who believe that the world is engaged in a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West, Israeli Jews and American Jews are also seen — directly and indirectly, respectively — as allies with the West who have a higher stake in the outcome because of their ethnicity and religion.

Many American men may also be taking a liking to Jewish girls because they are more traditionally oriented towards family and children — and they know how to cook amazing food as well. As the Western world is beginning to experience a backlash against feminism, such an attitude is not surprising.

Another reason is that many Mizhrahi Jews — those whose families come from Arab countries — are a little too close to Arabs. As the Boston Globe’s Brainiac blog observed some time ago on the fact that European fashion shows now feature some Islamic outfits:

I have a psychological, not biological, burqa theory of my own. In the mid-1940s, the psychologist Anna Freud described “identification with the aggressor” as a neurotic attempt to avoid punishment by internalizing the values of one’s oppressor. It seems to me that Americans are so worried about Islamofascist terrorists that we’re slowly turning ourselves into conservative Muslims.

If it is true that Americans can be described as having an increasing “identification with the aggressor,” then taking a liking to Mizrahi Jews — like actress Emmanuelle Chriqui below, who became famous after playing Adam Sandler’s Palestinian love interest in “You Don’t Mess with the Zohan” and whose family are Moroccan Jews — is as close as one could get to Arabs without liking, well, Arabs. (Ashkenazi Jews, in contrast, are those of European descent. A slim majority of Israelis are Mizrahi Jews.)

There is yet another uncomfortable reason why Jewish women are becoming so popular. As I noted in a prior essay, Western society is becoming increasingly superficial and more often viewing women as sex objects partly as a result of the unintended consequences of feminism. Jewish women, in general, tend to be more curvy naturally than many of European descent, so they might become more popular in a culture that focuses more and more on appearance. After all, one of the most popular porn stars today, according to the Details article, is Joanna Angel (below). (She comes from an Orthodox Jewish family, so that explains some of the perverted interest as well.) And, no, I am not going to search for a link to her website.

An often-asked question in Jewish circles is: “Is this good for the Jews?” I am conflicted. Obviously, any good PR for Israel is beneficial. But, as frequent readers of my blog know, I am very uncomfortable with women — Jewish or not — being viewed as sex objects. But as with all fads and fetishes, this, too, shall pass. For better and for worse.

Elsewhere: Jessica Pauline looks at the issue at Jewcy as well.

Prior essay: The Upcoming Generational War

Status of Jerusalem

JERUSALEM — The big news of the day — and it is potentially explosive indeed — is the European Union’s reported endorsement of Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state:

The 27 EU foreign ministers are scheduled to decide Tuesday on the final wording of a statement on the Middle East that may very well include European recognition of east Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state.

Efforts in Brussels on Monday to get a consensus on the text among the EU ambassadors failed, meaning the foreign ministers themselves will have to delve into the arguments over the text.

One Israeli official said it was very rare for a text this substantial to reach the foreign ministerial level without prior agreement.

The statement, which has just been allegedly passed, somewhat states the obvious since all outside parties have agreed that a two-state solution — Israel and Palestine as two countries next to each other — is the way to peace and have pressed both the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority towards that end.

But the devil, so to speak, is in the details. Although the Israeli Foreign Ministry is pleased that the statement purportedly recognizes Israel’s claim to east Jerusalem — the territory was annexed following the Six Day War in 1967 –the office also called for the EU to “promote direct negotiations between the parties, while considering Israel’s security needs and understanding that Israel’s Jewish character must be preserved in any future agreement.” This is an important point: The Palestinians have yet to recognize the existence of Israel as a Jewish state.

Moreover, Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat — a secular, former high-tech businessman who leans right politically — bashed the EU proposal:

In response to the Swedish proposal currently being debated by European Union foreign ministers in Belgium that would declare east Jerusalem the capital of a future Palestinian state, Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat on Monday sent an official letter to the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Catherine Ashton, in which he insisted that Jerusalem remain united “as the eternal capital of the State of Israel.”

“Throughout the history of the world, there is not one important city that was divided that functioned successfully,” Barkat wrote. “They either reunited or ceased to function properly. The lesson is too clear. Jerusalem must stay united.”

Barkat added that “division focuses on differences rather than the common denominator that unites people of all faiths,” and identified Jerusalem as “the heart and soul of the Jewish people.”

On a personal note, I can say that the mayor is being consistent. I attended a Q&A with Barkat at a gathering of English-speaking Israelis during the 2008 mayoral campaign, and he said the exact same sentiment. This is also an important point: Can a divided city ever function properly?

It is also hard to imagine the hatred that many Israelis have for Europeans in general, especially following their perceived (rightly or wrongly) support for Hamas during the Gaza conflict late last year:

This [EU statement] is known in the trade as a slap in the face. Since coming to power, Netanyahu’s government eased up on checkpoints and military presence in the West Bank/Judea and Samaria, has supported and protected Mahmoud Abbas and his government, have slowed and now frozen virtually all settlement construction while being far more cautious about construction of Jewish homes in Jerusalem as well as destruction of Palestinian homes. In return, Israel has had to swallow the Goldstone Report, the Swedish “IDF Steals Body Parts” attack with no apology from the government and now this…

Europe should really stay out of it. They have done enough damage with their constant funding for NGOs that oppose Israel, for their blind support of the Palestinians and relative silence over Hamas and Gazan attacks on Israeli civilian targets and the constant pressure presented from their courts over potential arrests of Israeli leaders.

This is also an important point. Both Israel and the Palestinians need to respect those who are trying to mediate the conflict. If even one party does not trust the mediator, then negotiations are useless. Europe — except, perhaps, for France ever since the election of President Nicolas Sarkozy –  is perceived by Israelis as being anti-Israel as much as the United States has been seen as being pro-Israel. Can such outsiders ever implement or even produce a peace agreement, or is it something that Israelis and Palestinians can only reach on their own?

Moreover, if the alleged plans to announce a State of Palestine soon with east Jerusalem as its capital occur — as PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyed might be planning — but produce no real results, will that lead to a third intifada and a return to Square One?

Israeli Settlements

JERUSALEM — Law professor David M. Phillips sets the historical and legal record straight on how Israeli settlements are not a violation of international law:

Though routinely referred to nowadays as “Palestinian” land, at no point in history has Jerusalem or the West Bank been under Palestinian Arab sovereignty in any sense of the term…

The Ottoman Empire contained the area known as Palestine for hundreds of years. The British Empire defeated the Ottomans, took control of the region, gave the land east of the Jordan River to the future kingdom of Jordan, and offered to split the remaining land west of the Jordan between the Jews and Arabs who were living there. The Arabs west of the Jordan rejected the partition, the British withdrew from the area, Israel declared independence, and then the surrounding Arab countries invaded.

By the end of the 1948 war, Jordan had taken control of the West Bank and east Jerusalem. (The so-called “Green Line” has merely been the dividing line between the Israeli and Jordanian armies at the time the cease-fire began.) Most of the Arabs west of the Jordan had moved to the West Bank and Gaza Strip (the latter was held by Egypt). Some of the Arabs had fled for their safety; others had left Israeli territory to make way for the invading armies; and still others had been pushed out by the Israeli army. Many of the Arabs in the West Bank eventually obtained Palestinian passports; Yassir Arafat, of course, was an Egyptian from Gaza. In the 1967 war, the surrounding countries attacked Israel again. In the end, Israel took over the West Bank, west Jerusalem, and Gaza to protect itself against any future attacks by Jordan and Egypt.

So, the only three entities that could possibly have sovereignty over the West Bank are Britain, Israel, and Jordan. England, of course, does not want to retake any possessions in the Middle East. Jordan does not want anything to do with the West Bank anymore because Palestinian terrorists nearly overthrew the monarchy in 1970. This leaves Israel.

The Palestinians, of course, could have a state in the future — but they have never had collective, sovereign authority over the West Bank in the past. As the European Union debates whether to recognize a Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital, it is worth remembering this fact.

Fatah and Hamas

Spengler posits a reason why the unacknowledged Palestinian civil war is so one-sided:

All the training and arms in the world will not persuade the leaders of the Palestine Authority to fight, because they are extremely wealthy men who live in luxury anywhere in the world. Ahmed al-Meghami, then the PA’s attorney general, estimated in 2006 that billions of dollars may have been stolen by Palestinian officials. Men with London townhouses and villas in the south of France don’t risk their lives. Their Hamas counterparts are quite willing to die and in any case have nowhere to go except safe houses in Damascus. That explains why only one side fights.

Western donors to the PA know this perfectly well; they also know that the putative refugee population is inflated by as many as 1.3 million non-existent souls in order to inflate foreign aid requirements, as I reported on August 18 (Palestine problem hopeless, but not serious). But it is easier to keep the charade going than to admit failure. Cupidity and inertia have produced a criminal enterprise in the guise of a proto-state, vulnerable to liquidation by hard men who are willing to die for what they believe. That is why the Palestinian civil war is a one-sided affair; the other side has no reason to fight.

Hamas seems to be working more for a Palestinian state than Fatah. True, the Palestinian state desired by the terrorist group would take over all the land “the sea to the river,” be void of all Jews, and likely be an Islamic theocracy — but it would still be a state. Fatah, on the other hand, seems to be spinning its wheels.

The Israel Lobby

Does it do more harm than good to Israel?

One Year Later

Rabbi Gabi Holtzberg and his wife, Rivka, were murdered a year ago during the terrorist attack in Mumbai, India. Here is Chabad’s tribute to them.

Thomas Friedman

The New York Times columnist writes something I never thought he would say: The United States should, at least for now, give up on trying to create peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

Life Under Rocket Fire

RISHON LEZION, Israel — This is what life is like forty-five minutes south of where I live:

Imagine that you are 18 years old. You have just completed high school and in a few months you will enter the army. In the meantime, you spend your time going out with friends and working to save some money – like any other typical teenager in Israel.

One afternoon, you come home exhausted from work and collapse into bed for a nap. Suddenly, in the middle of your nap you find yourself waking up to the sound of glass shattering – all over your back.

It takes you a moment to realize that the window above your bed has exploded and that shards of glass lie everywhere. Your dad comes racing in, picks you up and carries you outside to safety.

The Sderot Media Center Community Treatment Theater performed Children of Qassam Avenue in Jerusalem this week, and I would have gone if I had known about the play. As the above YouTube clips shows, the performance is a group of teenage girls showing what life is like under a constant rain of rocket fire from Hamas in the Gaza Strip. As the new school year has begun, principals have been repairing and upgrading their bomb shelters and related buildings.

Even though the number of deaths and injuries have been low, a generation of children is growing up with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Related: Letter from Israel: The Gaza Conflict

Hummus Wars

RISHON LEZION, Israel — A group of Lebanese chefs turned an attempt to break a worldwide record in hummus production into a diatribe against Israel. Here is the amusing story. In the Middle East, everything is controversial — even food.

In the meantime, here is a recipe for hummus that I found online. I wish I could remember exactly were.

1 (15 ounce) can garbanzo beans, rinsed and drained
1/2 cup plain yogurt
2 tablespoons fresh lemon juice
3 cloves garlic, minced
2 teaspoons olive oil
1 tablespoon water
1/2 teaspoon salt
1/8 teaspoon ground black pepper
1/2 teaspoon ground cumin

DIRECTIONS
Combine the garbanzo beans, yogurt, lemon juice, garlic, olive oil,
water, salt, pepper, and cumin in a blender or food processor, blend
until smooth.

I’m going to try it soon.

Cultural Nihilism

LONDON and JERUSALEM — The Daily Mail reports on efforts to change British drinking habits (and includes, of course, several tabloid-worthy pictures):

Such scenes are not uncommon, which is why Cardiff – one of the country’s worst cities for binge drinking – has just banned boozing on the streets.

The crackdown is aimed at late night revellers, targeting rowdy hen and stag parties and generally trying to make the streets safer after dark.

Police can use the new powers to confiscate alcohol or arrest anyone who defies them.

The ban has been a success in trials in small areas but will spread across the entire city in time for Christmas and the New Year.

Yesterday it was hailed as a big step towards ‘reclaiming the streets’ from drunken yobs.

Cardiff Central MP Jenny Willott said: ‘Late night alcohol-fuelled crime and anti-social behaviour is a huge problem on the streets.

‘People deserve to have a night out without the fear of intimidation or facing violence as a result of excessive alcohol consumption.

‘This ban should help the law-abiding and responsible majority to reclaim the streets.’

When I lived in London in 2001 and worked as a bartender at the Zetland Arms, I observed that British people drink a lot — a lot more than your average American. But it was still within reasonable limits. Every night, the regulars — a friendly-but-sad bunch — would arrive after work and drink pint after pint while watching sports. Then they would leave for home late at night and return the next evening.

Later in the evening, the young people would arrive. Since pubs had to close at 12:30 a.m., they would drink a lot and then move to a club or hang out on the streets. (It is legal to drink outside in counties including Britain and Israel.) But I rarely saw any problems. The closest I ever got was when I took the drink out of the hand of a drunken Scotsman because I was angry and he refused to leave at closing time. Luckily, the manager came over and calmed him down. (One lesson of bartending in London: If you want to befriend a Scotsman, mention the film “Braveheart” in a positive way.)

But, sadly, it seems that things have become much worse:

…the proportion of women who binge-drink almost doubled between 1998 and 2006 and is now at 15% (men who binge-drink increased by 1% to 23%). However, the proportion of 16- to 24-year-old men binge-drinking decreased by 9% since 2000. Researchers also found that whilst fewer children are drinking, those that do drink are drinking much more than they did in the past.

Violent crime by youths is also an increasing problem. If the reports are credible (I have not been to Britain since 2001), then English cities are dealing with mobs of drunken, violent youths every night.

If you want to see the future of a country, look at its young people. Great Britain, once known as the economic, cultural, and fashion capital of the world, seems to be crumbling. I first realized this when former British Prime Minister Tony Blair started giving speeches several years ago defending the very idea of the country itself.

The still-unanswered question facing Blair in the 1990s was: What does it mean to be “British” as opposed to “English,” “Welsh,” or “Scottish”? The United Kingdom is a political entity created through conquest that has rarely, if ever, had a collective sense of identity. Blair tried, unsuccessfully, to brand the country as “Cool Britannia.”

The British Empire collapsed after World War II, and the British people never quite recovered subconsciously as the United States, a former colony, became the new leader of the free world. Decades leader, the British people viewed Blair as George W. Bush’s lap dog in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. (In geopolitical terms, Blair could do little else.) It was a confirmation of the global humiliation that the British people have been feeling after centuries of power and influence had disappeared.

In recent years, Scotland and Wales formed their regional parliaments and became more autonomous. The current prime minister, Gordon Brown, is a Scot and now deeply unpopular. It is indeed possible that Great Britain will cease to exist in the coming years. As the country devolves, it might also lose sovereignty to the European Union and the euro.

Cultural divisions and economic conditions are also tearing the country apart. Decades of mass immigration have caused many Brits to feel that their country is no longer “British.” The most-popular, national food is now seen as chicken tikka masala rather than fish ‘n’ chips. (One former coworker here in Israel moved here even though he is not a Jew because he said that his country no longer exists.) Radical Muslims in Britain condemn democracy, want to impose Shari’a law, and have plotted terrorist attacks. Anti-Semitism is skyrocketing (see here and here). Young men are becoming more apathetic and willing to live with their parents as well as on the dole.

The most significant example of the negative feelings held by Britons was the recent inclusion of Nick Griffin, the leader of the far-right British National Party, on the political, panel-discussion show “Question Time.” Both journalism and the free-market are perfect bellwethers of cultural trends. Companies, even media ones, must tailor their products, services, and marketing pitches to pre-existing trends in society. Journalists, who ideally have their fingers on the pulses of people, decide which views are relevant to a the discussion of a given topic. When the BBC, the standard-bearer of British journalism, decides that a person like Griffin is suited to a serious political discussion, that is a clear indicator of what a significant segment of society is feeling.

In the theory of Alexander Fraser Tytler, Great Britain may be nearing towards the end of the life-cycle of all nations and empires as a result of all of these trends and feelings. With all of these cultural, political, and social problems in the subconscious minds of young people, is it any wonder that they seem to have lost hope in the future? Without any optimism, they turn to alcohol and violence out of nihilistic despair.

One of my favorite 1970s-era bands is the Moody Blues, and I think their following pop-rock song from 2000 is an apt description of British malaise:

We’re on a runaway train, rolling down the track / And where it’s take us to, who knows where it’s at / But if we hold together, we can make it back / For an English sunset

And I’ve decided I can live with humility / And the sad decay / ‘Cause that’s the English way

We keep the faith alive in every thing we do / And at the end of the line, we still keep coming through / And though it’s sad and sorry, what else can we do / It’s an English sunset

And I’ve decided they can wait for the requiem / And take it day by day / ‘Cause that’s the English way

As someone who has loved British culture since he was a child, I write this post with extreme sadness. Still, I fear that the same attitudes are affecting behavior in Israel, specifically in Jerusalem. As Jerusalem Post editor David Horovitz notes:

Anyone with more than passing knowledge of the atmosphere in central Jerusalem will be aware that the heart of our capital city is rapidly becoming a late night no-go zone.

Clusters of violent youth rule and roam the streets, armed with knives and with the beer and vodka bottles they’ve emptied, picking fights with unsuspecting victims.

Of course, the police are not solely to blame for the deepening climate of intimidation and violence. As [Public Security Minister Yitzhak] Aharonovitch and Israel Police Insp.-Gen. Dudi Cohen have frequently observed, ours is becoming an increasingly violent society, more and more kids are now carrying knives, and the response needs to be found, at least in part, in better parenting and better educational values.

I travel to Jerusalem several times a week, and I will likely be returning to live there soon. I was walking on the way to a pub with my girlfriend, a born-and-raised Jerusalemite, and we were speaking in English. A man on the street walked up and tried to convince us to come to his bar. (There are dozens of such people in the city center’s streets who try to get English-speaking tourists to visit their restaurant or bar.)

I waved him away and said, “We don’t need [your flier]” in Hebrew. His response? “Your accent sucks!” he yelled in English. I was about to walk over and return the favor when my girlfriend stopped me and said, “Do NOT talk like that here!” Unfortunately, people have been assaulted there for less.

As I have written in my Letters from Israel series, the Jewish state is rife with political, religious, and social divisions that many fear will tear the country apart. This has led to increased anti-social behavior and the possible destruction of the civil society that had developed since the refounding of Israel in 1948. Perhaps young Israelis have developed the same pessimism regarding the future that British youths now have.

As a result of the geographic isolation of the United States — it is separated from the world by two, gigantic oceans — the country is usually the last to receive cultural trends from Europe (as well as technological innovations from eastern Asia). Since young people there are increasing angry and frustrated over their economic and social conditions, I wonder whether the same anti-social behavior will occur in America soon.

Palestinian Society

The Jerusalem Report, a biweekly, English-language magazine on the Middle East and Judaism, has an interesting article with poll results from Palestinian society. The article is not online, so I’ll just present the interesting numbers taken by Palestinian pollsters:

• 51% do not trust their political leaders in general
• The percentage of people who trust Hamas has declined from 41% in January 2006 to 11% in June 2009
• 58%  disapprove of Hamas, and 38% approve
• Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has a job-approval rating of 55% while Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh has a 64% disapproval rating
• If a parliamentary election were held today, the Fatah party would beat Hamas by a margin of 4 to 1
• If a presidential election were held today, Abbas would beat Haniyeh by 35% to 12% in a multi-party contest
• Palestinians are most concerned about internal fighting and the economy. In a second poll, the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip ranked fourth out of the top-five concerns
• 70% favor the disarmament of political factions and the consolidation of weapons with official security forces
• 68% think Hamas should stop advocating the destruction of Israel
• Slightly more than half said that all rocket fire into Israel should cease
• 55% favor a two-state solution while 11% want a single, bi-national state
• 77% believe that Israel is not really a partner for peace
• 61% identify themselves as religious
• 49% want Palestinian law to be based on Islamic law
• 75% want a future State of Palestine to be a democracy
• 23% believe that their best ally is Egypt; the second-highest answer was “no one”

The margin of error was 6 percent.

Freedom of Religion

RISHON LEZION, Israel — Over the past several days of the Succot holiday, Palestinian and Israeli Arabs have been rioting in the Old City of Jerusalem because they heard that some Jews wanted to pray on the Temple Mount.

Maybe I am missing a detail, but why cannot both Jews and Muslims pray on the Temple Mount? Why are Jews banned from doing so?

On a related subject, why do most two-state solutions call for the expulsion of all or most Jewish settlers from the West Bank? Why would Jews be banned from there? If Israel wanted to expel all Arabs from Israel, there would be numerous international condemnations.

What happened to freedom of religion? Why cannot both Jews and Muslims pray on the Temple Mount? Why cannot all residents of a future State of Palestine practice whatever religion they wish? As I have written, Jews should be allowed to stay in the West Bank — but they and their settlements would, as is fair, fall under the jurisdiction of the State of Palestine.

Gilad Shalit

RISHON LEZION, Israel — Hamas kidnapped an 18-year-old Israeli soldier three years ago and has been holding him in the Gaza Strip ever since. Israel released twenty Palestinian prisoners today in exchange for proof that he is alive. This is a video made by Hamas and released an hour ago. The soldier talks to his family and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Here is an English translation of his remarks.

Modern Germany

Richard Cohen writes that Germany is regaining its self-confidence after decades of living in the shadow of World War II and the Holocaust: “This Germany is more nationalistic, more evenly poised between Washington and Moscow, cool to the point of disinterest about the European Union, self-absorbed and self-satisfied, dutiful but unenthused about the NATO alliance.”

Israel at the UN

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gives a logical, accurate, and passionate defense of Israel during a United Nations speech. One of the reasons I voted for him was that he speaks English fluently. This is one of the best speeches I have ever heard. If you are going to comment on this post, I ask that you watch all three clips first (they are short).

Israel and Gaza

RISHON LEZION, Israel — Forget the political controversy resulting from recent, international legal opinions on Israel’s actions in the Gaza Strip earlier this year. David Landau highlights the true issue:

Judge Goldstone’s real mandate was, or should have been, to bring Israel to confront this fundamental question, a question inherent in the waging of war by all civilized societies against irregular armed groups. Are widespread civilian casualties inevitable when a modern army pounds terrorist targets in a heavily populated area with purportedly smart ordnance? Are they acceptable? Does the enemy’s deployment in the heart of the civilian area shift the line between right and wrong, in morality and in law? These were precisely the questions that Israeli politicians and generals wrestled with in Gaza, as others do today in Afghanistan.

My two shekels: As I wrote in a prior post, the intention of an action, not the result, determines whether a person is acting ethically. Hamas intends to kill Israeli civilians while firing missiles from population centers. Israel intends to kill the Hamas members launching rockets, and all civilian casualties are unintentional tragedies. Who is morally culpable?

Earlier: “Israel Must Die!”

Rosh Hashanah 2009/5770

RISHON LEZION, Israel — Benji Lovitt of the humorous blog “What War Zone?” takes a trip through the streets of Tel Aviv to interview Israelis on what they think of the Jewish New Year.

But do not be misled by the lightness of Lovitt’s video. As Israelis and Jews move into the year 5770, they are increasingly frustrated and anxious over recent events. Here are some headlines from just this past weekend:

• Iran reportedly has the ability to produce a nuclear bomb and is on the way to making a missile system that could deliver it.
• The Israeli government urgently warned Israelis in India that Islamic extremists are planning additional attacks there soon.
• Britain’s Trade Union Congress is calling for a boycott of Israeli goods.
• Iran is increasing its control over Hizbollah, the Islamist group in southern Lebanon.
• The Jerusalem Post remembers Capt. Assaf Ramon, who died recently in a military plane crash. His father was the first Israeli astronaut, and he died in the Columbia space shuttle explosion.
• IDF Brigadier General Avichai Mandelblit talks to the Post about defending Israel from international, legal criticism of the military’s conduct during the recent war in Gaza. The United States has said that a UN report on the issue was “unbalanced.”
• A United Nations conference condemned Israel’s atomic program.
• Jewish celebrities including Natalie Portman, Sacha Baron Cohen, Lisa Kudrow and Jerry Seinfeld are defending the Toronto Film Festival’s decision to spotlight Tel Aviv.
• There is still rioting in Jerusalem over the opening of a parking lot on the Sabbath.

But not all of the news is bad. (Besides, many Jews at Rosh Hashanah dinners over the holiday likely told the centuries-old joke with a shrug: “They tried to kill us, we won, let’s eat!”) Here is a collection of optimistic, inspiring, or light-hearted tidbits from the weekend papers.

• Israel and the United States are working together to prepare for “every possible scenario.”
• Amotz Asa-El commends Bank of Israeli Governor Stanley Fischer for saving Israeli from the worst of the worldwide recession and making the country one of the first to bounce back.

• The Jerusalem Post profiles twelve young Israelis for their contributions in areas ranging from the arts to sports to government to music.

• Herb Keinon interviews soldiers like Isabella Fhima, a 21-year-old, Moroccan Jew, who came to Israel by herself to join the army because she believes in the country. I know many lone soliders from all over the world, and each one deserves a feature in a national newspaper.

As for me, I’ve been listening to a recent pop song by the Israeli artist Sarit Hadad (in English) to get away from the headlines:

Although I generally hate pop music, I have to admit that this song is infectious and sunny. As non-Hebrew speakers can probably understand the video, the words are about running away from life’s stress for a short while and running to the beach. The summer is on its way out here, so we only have a few weeks left to do that.

Eight Years Later

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, occurred eight years ago. Here are my two posts on the causes and significance of the event. I was a senior in college in Boston at the time, but these reflections were written several years later.

Weekend News Roundup

Eli Kavon revisits the assertation that 9/11 occurred, at least in part, as a result of American support for Israel. Reuven Hammer says Judaism must return the musar, ethical movement following the recent misdeeds of so many rabbis and Jews themselves. Caroline Glick highlights the economic contribution that Israeli gives to the Western world — and could give to the Middle East if Arab countries would recognize the Jewish state. Hamas is looking to rebrand itself following its poor performance against Israel in the recent war. Israel and the United States is partnering on anti-missile defense systems. A Jewish man shoots and wounds two Arabs in east Jerusalem. Two rockets were fired from southern Lebanon into northern Israel. The Jewish state might be moving closer to attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities. Israel’s military chief of staff wants mandatory national service instead for citizens who do not enlist in the army after high school. One in three Holocaust survivors reportedly live in poverty.

God Squad

I don’t know whether this article is funny, depressing, or scary. Maybe all three.

Bonus question: What would liberals say if this were occurring in evangelical churches, and what would conservatives say if it were Muslim mosques?

Bonus thought: As a former newspaper editor, I have to admit that I love the Page 1 photo and the wonderful — if obvious — puns in the headlines and article. Sensational art and breezy writing are two of the few things had tabloids have always done better than serious broadsheets.

Weekend News Roundup

The Jerusalem Post has an interesting feature on the effect that ultra-Orthodox Jews have on neighborhoods when they move into them. In an effort to combat assimilation among American Jews, the Israeli government and Jewish Agency are airing television commercials encouraging Israelis to convice friends and family there to take extended trips to Israel. Caroline Glick argues that Iran is months away from having nuclear weapons. Madonna ends her world tour in Tel Aviv, meets Israeli politicians, is nice to a Jerusalem waitress, wraps an Israeli flag around herself on stage, and faces criticism from Palestinians. Bradley Burston hopes that the Jewish New Year will bring an end to extremist, unrealistic idealism on the far left and right. Sarah Honig argues that the main conflict in the peace process is not Israeli settlements but the refusal of Arabs and Palestinians to recognize the right of the Jewish state to exist. Amotz Asa-El wonders whether the United States is truly in decline. The White House criticized Israel for building additional settlements before a negotiated freeze begins.

Don’t Buy Into Apartheid?

RISHON LEZION, Israel — For the record, I hate extremists of any kind. For every scare-mongering conservative like Glenn Beck, there is a group of useful idiots like the left-wingers in this video.

It seems that June 20 was National Don’t Buy Into Apartheid Day. (Do they make Hallmark cards for that?) A group of aging hippies and a few young wannabees walked into a Trader Joe’s store in San Francisco, started removing all Israeli-made products from the shelves, labeled them with stickers, asked the manager to stop selling them, and tried to convince customers not to purchase them.

My favorite part is the look on the manager’s face when they talk to him. You can just tell that he wants to laugh and say: “Are you f—— crazy?” But to his credit, he kept his composure and did his best not to anger a few crazy customers. I would have done something that would have resulted in a quick firing.

Just a couple of points that are probably obvious:

• Many people who work in low-paid, blue-collar jobs like food-packing in Israel are Arab Israelis and Palestinians. If activist groups decrease demand for these products, they will hurt the people they are supposedly trying to help. But don’t let the facts get in the way of a feel-good act of symbolism that actually does nothing.
• Thriving economies create peace. Countries and peoples that are economically intertwined are far less likely to wage war against each other. One of the best ways to help the Palestinians — whether they will have a state or not — is to help business in the Gaza Strip, Israel proper, and the West Bank. These activists specifically want to target products from the West Bank despite the fact that food produced there, even on settlements, most likely involved capital or labor from Palestinians. Buy more of it! Give them jobs.
• Focus on things that matter. If you want to help the Palestinians, volunteer with or contribute to groups that address abuse by the Israeli Defense Forces (sadly, some individual soldiers do reprehensible things in isolated cases but not as a result of official, military policy); fight in the Israeli Supreme Court for the rule of law in the Occupied Territories rather than the rule of force by settlers; or do other similar actions. Don’t do meaningless, token gestures that just make you look stupid.

On a related note, similar incidents have occurred in France — but with more-sinister results:

One Saturday afternoon a few weeks ago, a group wearing “BOYCOTT ISRAEL” T-shirts entered a French branch of Carrefour, the world’s largest supermarket chain, and announced themselves. They then systematically advanced down every aisle examining every product, seizing all the items made in Israel and piling them into carts to take away and destroy. Judging from the video they made, the protesters were mostly Muslim immigrants and a few French leftists. But more relevant was the passivity of everyone else in the store, both staff and shoppers, all of whom stood idly by as private property was ransacked and smashed, and many of whom when invited to comment expressed support for the destruction. “South Africa started to shake once all countries started to boycott their products,” one elderly lady customer said. “So what you’re doing, I find it good.”

As a supporter of Israel, free markets, and civil liberties, I find this story to be absolutely repugnant. These activists stole and destroyed private property. They had the gumption to decide for themselves what consumers should be allowed to purchase. They were misguided enough to focus only on Israel rather than countries — like, say, China and Iran — whose records of human-rights abuses are among the worst in the world. (Then again, if a group removed everything made in China in many stores, I think nothing would be left.)

The fact that the customers in the store did nothing — and a few even supported the action — is downright scary. It may be a cliche, but it is true: Evil (or a useful idiot) triumphs when good men do nothing. If I had been in the French store, I would have grabbed the nearest blunt object I could find and smashed their video camera. Et ce serait fini.

And that reminds me of a final question: Did the San Francisco activists do what the French ones did? The video does not say. Did they steal the products from the store, pay for and take them, or leave the items on the shelves with the stickers? This inquiring mind wants to know. If it is the first or last, they should be arrested and charged with theft or vandalism; if it is the second, then they are extremely stupid because any purchase, no matter from whom, helps the Israeli companies.

(Hat tip: Jewlicious)

Whose Land is Whose?

RISHON LEZION, Israel — Haim Watzman looks at the philosophical assumptions that underpin anti-Zionism and how they relate to the philosophy of land-ownership:

[Phillips] Brooks argues that the land on which the state of Israel was created belonged to the Palestinians. Therefore, it is stolen. Therefore, Israel is founded on a crime. Therefore there is no difference between the land Israel took in 1948 and in 1967; it’s all stolen and held illegitimately and the Jews should return whence they came.

Now, that might sound like a voice of conscience to the unthinking. But if you think it through, it’s based on a concept of originalism that makes no sense in the real world. In other words, for Brooks’ logic to work, there has to be some particular point in history in which the world’s territory was divided up fairly between different nations. Then bad nations started conquering peaceful ones to gain territory. Peace and justice can be regained if everyone goes back to where they came from.

But of course there was no such point in history. Brooks’ position also leads to logical absurdities. Where is the average Englishman, with his hopeless amalgamation of Celtic, Roman Saxon, Danish, and Norman French languages and gene pools, supposed to go? Should all the Arabs return to Arabia? Should India’s Aryan stock return to central Asia? What nation rightfully owns Malta? Istanbul? Honolulu?

Watzman is correct. The first mistake that anti-Zionists make is to claim that a country named Palestine and inhabited by an Arab people collectively named Palestinians existed prior to Israel’s statehood in 1948 — or even before the post-First World War mandate held by Great Britain after it gained control of the region from the crumbling Ottoman Empire. (This fallacy is frequently taught in countries in the Middle East and elsewhere in which school cirriculums are decided by depostic governments.)

In reality, the region known as Palestine was controlled by the Ottomans prior to 1918; various pieces of land were owned by people including Arab, absentee landlords; Jews who had either emigrated or lived there for centuries; Arab farmers and nomads; and various Christian and Islamic communities. Significant portions of land were vacant, arid desert. It was a mix of communities. Moreover, the Arabs who lived there — whether Muslim or Christian — were not known as Palestinians until many, many decades later. A man in Gaza City had little in common with someone in Ramallah; they were surely not united by any sense of a common, national identity beyond their Arab ethnicity and perhaps their religion.

The main mistake, however, is when anti-Zionists insist that all land — wherever it may be — should go back to their “original owners.” As Watzman notes, this is incredibly naive. Those anti-Semites on the American left probably feel that the United States was responsible for the massacre of native Americans and the settling of their land. Of course, they are correct — but I do not see anyone volunteering to return to Europe. Many racists on the American right who despise minorities likely come from Ireland and southern Europe countries — but their ancestors, when they first came to the United States, were denigrated by the Anglo-Saxons who forebearers had originally populated America.

My point is that no one has an inherent right to be anywhere. Humanity left Africa for the Middle East. From there, people spread to India, central Asia, and eastern Europe. Then China, southeast Asia, Australia, Russia, and western Europe. Then northeastern Asia and later North and South America. All of human history is filled with people settling, invading, and defending land.

The only things that separate the modern, Western world from barbarianism with respect to land-ownership are 1.) civil society; 2.) the rule of law; and 3.) the idea of national sovereignty. The only reasons that a person “owns” the ground inside a white, picket fence  is the fact that he has a piece of paper saying so — along with a collective agreement within society to respect the document and a system of courts that will uphold its validity. Moreover, the idea stemming from the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 that newly-defined nation-states have sovereign borders and the right of jurisdiction in all internal affairs somewhat lessened primitive and medieval disputes over land.

However, these three points are only common agreements based in philosophy and pragmatism; they are not inherent in existence itself. In places where a civil society, the rule of law, and national sovereignty are either absent or in need of a firmer foundation — such as in both Israel and any forthcoming State of Palestine — then the Law of the Jungle rules.

Israel is ridden with political, social, and religious divisions (see here, here, and here) that have prevented any formation of a civil society for decades. The sovereignty of both Israel and any future Palestine are still up in the air as a result of disputed borders and occasional violence. Both the Israeli and Palestinian governments are rife with corruption.

What both ancient, world history and the modern, Middle East show is that the modern idea of land ownership rests on a shaky foundation that can be easily overtaken by current events. At the most basic level, the rightful owner of a piece of land might just be the answer to one question: Who can obtain and defend it the best?