History Repeats Itself

Preface: Three years ago there was a Hezbollah-Israel prisoner swap (of sorts) and, in my flurry of thoughts about the situation, I wrote an opinion article regarding it. It has since sat in my pile of thoughts and documents, growing increasingly out of date.

Now a new prisoner exchange is taking place. Gilad Shalit, who has been held by Hamas militants for five years now, is finally being released…in exchange for 1027 Palestinian prisoners.

It’s difficult to comment on this. On one hand, I want to rejoice along with Israelis that Shalit is finally being released. On the other, the inequality of the exchange speaks distressing volumes, and here is where the old article I wrote from 2008 will serve instead of any further commentary. And: warning. The commentary conveys strong feelings. It is not impartial. It is an opinion piece coming from someone with very strong opinions:

Dead for More Dead

I must write about an exchange.

Prisoners for Prisoners, bodies for bodies…these are natural exchanges between enemies.

Prisoners for bodies is something I cannot stomach.

This is a difficult subject to present. Not because of its controversial nature…to most, the morality of this subject, or lack thereof, is plain. And not because of its complexity. The facts are also plain. No, this is difficult to write because it is a subject about which it is nearly impossible to speak dispassionately. Hopefully the sources and translations will speak for themselves.

The bodies of two Israeli soldiers were returned to Israel, as Hizbullah received five live prisoners in exchange. The bodies of 199 militants were also promised as part of the exchange. The most prominent of the prisoners returned to Hizbullah is Samir Quntar. Quntar is the most infamous of those being released because he shot an Israeli man, Dani Haran, in front of his four-year-old daughter, and then killed the girl by repeatedly striking her in the head. Haran’s wife apparently hid and their second child was killed as the mother tried to smother the child’s cries, so they could both remain hidden. I am trying to use the coldest language possible to describe this information, lest I be accused of “inciting emotions.”

Now, putting aside the “lop-sided exchange,” as it was stated in one paper, I want to focus on the reactions.

Al-Jazeera dutifully reported both sides of the story. (In this case that means both sides of the border):

In Lebanon there was celebration at the return of the five prisoners and a hero’s welcome for Quntar*.

In Israel there was mourning, as the families, and the nation, were finally able to bury their dead.

The Al-Jazeera article about Israel described the funeral and the national mourning, with half the article dedicated to reporting the medical examinations, which were conducted in order to prove who they were, and to determine how they died. The article states that “the examiners found difficulty in examining the bodies because they had not been preserved in freezers and they were in a progressed state of disintegration.”

My automatic reaction when I read any article is to go to the bottom and see what the reading public had to say. Al-Jazeera draws its viewers and its readership from all over the Arab world. Disappointingly, many of the reader’s comments were too hateful to warrant translation, but I will offer a few examples.

“With a quick look at the developments we see that the strategy which Hizbullah employed is sound and effective and simply requires patience and prior knowledge of what is needed. So it is a lesson to us Arabs in how to face against [the enemy]”.

Another says:

“God greet the heroes of Hizbullah who freed those men who are of the Arab people and the Islamic people.”

Some quotes are just religious rhetoric immediately followed by congratulations to Hizbullah and “the resistance” (generally referring to Hamas and such groups). 

Another reader directed his comments towards Israelis: “God willing all your days will be sad, and it brings me great joy when I see you all at a funeral.”*

Another simply says “Death to America and Israel” and describes the judgment that will be brought on them.

Out of nearly 30 commentaries that are currently posted for the article, I only saw one, which stood in sharp contrast to the rest.

“Look you Arabs how the leaders treat just one soldier. If it had been an Egyptian, or a Jordanian, or a Syrian or a Saudi soldier, would their country have launched a war for their sake? Or have conducted a funeral such as Israel did? When will the Arabs learn from their enemy the meaning of respect for a citizen…”

The President of the Republic of Lebanon, Mishal Sulayman was present to greet the released prisoners, as were other representatives of various official political factions in Lebanon. Perhaps this is one of the most troubling results of this situation and yet it will likely be viewed as peripheral information, if it is noticed at all.

Again, to make it very clear: The President of Lebanon was present to greet the return of the prisoners, one of whom killed a father in front of his daughter, and then brutally killed the girl. This criminal was treated honorably, warmly and as a hero. The attendance of President Mishal Sulayman is equivalent to Lebanese government support of this man’s actions.

The article about the celebration on the Lebanese side of the fence was followed by pages of congratulatory letters directed towards Nasrallah, (Leader of Hizbullah), and the “resistance”

Another stated “By God, Oh Arabs, what a victory…2 in exchange for more than 200…we congratulate you on this accomplishment, oh Arabs.”

One reader seemed suspicious of the absurdity of Israel’s concessions and speculated that there was some other strategy afoot.

Whether there is some grand plan or idea, I don’t know. But the whole thing boils down to this: One country gave up more than it perhaps ought to have in order to return the bodies of loved ones to their families and to show them that their country had not forgotten them. The other country received, in return, 199 bodies and five prisoners, at least one of whom was not imprisoned on any overlookable charge: killing a child. Not with a bomb, and she happened to be nearby...but in brutal close-hand fashion. This is a quote from Samir Quntar himself:

“I did not come to Lebanon except to return to Palestine.” He expresses that the greatest wish of all for himself, and Hizbullah and the “resistance” is to become a martyr and that he will go on fighting.

So will Israel put bullets in the hands of their enemies in order to do right by their own dead?

I think this was perhaps an honorable-minded concession, but likewise a horrible one. I’m torn. The newspapers and the commentary sections are burning up with passages about how this was a “fantastic victory” for Hizbullah. Those who would see Israel destroyed have now concluded that Israel will give up anything and everything in exchange for ‘nothing’. That is because, to those and sadly even to many non-militants, two men is nothing…nothing but cannon fodder and food for propaganda. To Israel, however, two men are indeed something. They are citizens, soldiers, brothers, husbands, sons…they are countrymen.

The disparity in the numbers of the exchange equals the disparity in mindset of the two sides of this exchange.

As Israelis mourn and finally have a chance to pay respects to their lost loved ones, Eldad Regev and Udi Goldwasser, Hizbullah, and any who look to them for their opinions, rejoice and swear on it as a victory on the battlefield.

*Quntar was later given an award by the Syrian President. I hope that most Lebanese and Syrians don’t actually concur with the honors accorded this man. I strongly hope that they do not. But those vocal on the Al-Jazeera Arabic commentary boards were in fierce support.

*I am aware that this is an exceedingly negative portrayal of the general Arab reaction. It bothers me too. Indeed, I am not trying to generalize. When I attended the commentary boards I expected a healthy debate and contradicting views. I must admit myself disheartened and surprised by the lack thereof.

Afterword: The points made here about a rather different situation still stand. I think the disparity in numbers is quite relevant. There are all manner of peripheral connotations which could be discussed (social pressure, symbolism, proper concessions, political machinations) but when we talk straight numbers we’re looking at a very unusual situation. I don’t know how to end this except to pose questions: Why are these exchanges so dramatically lop-sided? What does it say about how life is viewed and valued by both sides of the exchange? Why does this leave me feeling so disconcerted?

I speak Arabic and Hebrew and have worked with and enjoyed the camaraderie of Israelis, Egyptians, Jordanians and Iraqis, and I’m not convinced as to whether or not exchanges like this represent progress. Part of me want to praise it--the willingness to give up a lot for what seems like very little (but surely it isn't little)--but I am still troubled by what is signified in the huge numerical gaps. It bespeaks other, more troublesome gaps.

A Review: Jephte's Daughter, by Naomi Ragen

Naomi Ragen’s novel, Jephte’s daughter, is about a young Hassidic (Jewish ultra-orthodox) girl who is raised in the United States, and is arranged to marry a young Hassidic scholar in Jerusalem. She must leave everything she knows and loves to marry a man she has only just met. It sounds like a traditional set-up for—I don’t know—a romance novel or some such. (It’s an arranged marriage!!! But will it become true love?!? No.)

But this is not a romance novel (though there are some slightly extraneous romantic elements towards the end) and I suspect this isn’t the best way to introduce this novel, at any rate.

The title of this novel is derived from a story in the book of Judges. Jephte (Spelled Jephthah in my translation) makes a horrifying vow to God, that he will sacrifice the first thing that comes out of his house if he is granted victory in battle. He is granted victory. His daughter is the first sight for his eyes as he approaches home. And he is duty bound to sacrifice her. She accepts her fate and asks only for time to mourn that she will die a virgin.

The parallels between the story of Jephte’s daughter and the protagonist of this novel—Batsheva Ha-Levi—are pretty explicitly drawn so I don’t think I’ll be ruining anything for potential readers by expounding upon that parallel.

Batsheva has been raised in wealth and relative isolation, for there are not many Hassidic Jews in the area of California where she lives and where her father is a very successful businessman. Batsheva is her parents’ only child and as such, she is cherished and spoiled. She has an outside tutor (a young gentile college student by the name of Elizabeth) who has introduced her to the sorts of literature that the average Hassidic girl would never see from a mile off (Women in Love and Lady Chatterly’s Lover have the most frequent mention.)

Batsheva is beautiful. She is happy. She is “ill-acquainted with the ways of the world”. She is full of life and she loves God.  She does not lament much the confines of her religious life—firstly because she knows nothing else, and secondly because her confines are few by comparison to others of her sect. She has a yearning and passionate and artistic mind. She struggles, she questions, but she always comes back to her center of faith in God.

        “She loved those instances in the Bible where people took flying leaps of faith headlong into the fearsome unknown and God was always there, like a good father.” (Pg 23)

          “…the more she learned to admire the skilled hand, the wise eye of the artists and photographers she loved, the more she began to perceive the world as a giant canvas and God as the greatest artist of all. So that later, when she finally learned about Darwin, the idea was as absurd and incomprehensible to her as the suggestion that the Mona Lisa had come about because a few cans of paint had accidentally tipped over and dripped their colors onto a chance canvas” (Pg 28)

She is also very much only 18 years old at the beginning of the novel, and becoming increasingly curious about things such as sex, intimacy and romantic love.

       “But God had looked at all of this, His ideas, His wonderful sense of color and design put into action and had said merely that it was good. Not great. Not fantastic. Just good. But when he had looked at man and woman together, He had said it was “very good.” So you could just imagine.” (Pg 35)

But Batsheva’s father, Abraham Ha-Levi, feels guilty. He is the direct descendant of a famous line of Hassidic Rabbis, but instead of devoting himself to the Talmud and a life of poverty, he thinks he has been too perfunctory about his Hassidism and has made an awful lot of money.

Herein lies the sacrifice. In order to devote to God what he feels he must, Batsheva’s father seeks out a husband—the aforementioned Hassidic scholar in Jerusalem—who will reestablish with Batsheva the famous Ha-Levi line. He figures Batsheva will marry this man, they will have great scholars for children, and Batsheva’s father will compensate for his youthful rebellion and his lack of study. He sacrifices her to a very different life than she has known—and to a man she does not know—to ease his guilt.

I should mention that Naomi Ragen’s inspiration for this novel was the instance of a real life Hassidic woman who committed a homicide-suicide (she took her small child with her). Ragen wished to investigate the experiences and emotional state of someone who would do such a horrible thing.

So, be warned. Her marriage is not a good one. And this brings me to one of the most well-executed aspects of this story: Isaac Harshen. He is the husband and, without giving away too much, he is the cause of Batsheva’s emotional and psychological distress. He is essentially the villain of the piece.

But here is where I must truly commend Ragen. Even though I knew that Isaac would be the source of trouble at the out-set of the novel, I still hoped he would mend, hoped he would grow, saw chances for redemption and even understood (did not agree with, but could comprehend) many of his reactions. He starts out as a young, intelligent, handsome man who also knows very little of the world.

But he knows much of his world. In his community in Jerusalem he is well-thought-of and pious and shrewd. He knows, ultimately, how to wield his world against Batsheva.

Ragen does not make Isaac sympathetic in the strictest sense—he grows blatantly cruel—but she makes solid sense of the progression of his thoughts and behaviors. He’s not just unkind because the story needed him to be. You can see exactly how he got that way and why he chooses as he does. You can see it happening with chilling realism right before your eyes. When she describes the “hardening of his heart,” so to speak, towards Batsheva you can (or at least I can) recognize that same mode of thought in some past instance in my life. You know, that time you had both remorse and contempt as options and you saw some faint justification for the contempt and you chose it. Or the decision to capitalize on a miscommunication or on semantics to your own benefit. I’ve known myself to sometimes do the things the Isaac does, and that is scary…and an important truth to recognize—that we have that in ourselves.

From the point of Batsheva’s marriage, the story takes many a twist and turn (and indeed does some things I did not anticipate) and it consists of both good prose and a compelling story. I had to remind myself to look up at the subway stops to make sure I didn’t miss mine while I was reading this, I was so engrossed.

The book has rotating perspectives, giving liberty to drop into postitively anyone’s mind at any time, which I enjoyed. I don’t always like being restricted to one mind for hundreds of pages. It’s a personal preference. I have my own mind to deal with, don’t I? Plus it makes the characters more real, rather than just passing shadows viewed through a young girl’s eyes.

Therefore I would also like to mention a few of the other significant characters, some of whose roles in the story are best left undiscussed if you intend to read this.

Elizabeth:

The aforementioned gentile tutor. She is not much older than Batsheva, but wiser in the ways of the world—at least, in theory. Sadly she makes all the mistakes a girl in her position (young, smart, beautiful, passionate) ought not to make. There is a sub-plot of her involvement with a professor, but it is not superfluous. It is present to show-case the fact that, for all her freedom by comparison to Batsheva and other Hassids, she is still suffering and the choices she makes do not necessarily bring her happiness. She becomes disgusted with herself, and disillusioned with her lover.

Ultimately Elizabeth is a sweetheart, but never as riveting a character as Batsheva because she doesn’t seem to believe in anything. She’s just ‘awful nice.’ She is treated well by the narrative, but in a novel that acknowledges the centrality of God, that just doesn’t cut it. She’s an aimless sweetheart.

Professor MacLeish:

Pretty much a suave, pretentious jerk. His characterization is not as deep as Isaac Harshen’s, but it doesn’t need to be. He’s pretty peripheral. His primary purpose in the story is to provide a parallel to Isaac. To show that, just as Isaac adheres to the rituals and rules of his faith yet truly has no faith, Professor MacLeish adheres to the rhetoric and philosophies of his field of study, but has grown completely disillusioned with it. He carries on with the tune having lost the beat and any semblance of purpose.

David:

My absolute favorite section of the story consists of David’s struggle with God. David is preparing for priesthood in the Catholic church (a priest? What? I thought we were doing this story in a Hassidic neighborhood in Jerusalem! How did we get to a British Priest-in-training? Don’t worry about it.) He is struggling for his faith, struggling against God and ends up going on a trip to Israel to study the Bible and figure things out.

His struggle culminates in, perhaps, the most compelling passage in the whole book.
Note: Jacob is my favorite character in the Bible. The one with whom I can most relate. The passage shows David hiking out to the Desert and having it out with God—wrestling for His blessing. Even though I don’t agree with every single one of this character’s conclusions at the culmination of this scene, it is still very powerful and his story and struggles resonated with me in a way I cannot quite describe.

And The Rest:

There are some interesting arguments presented throughout the latter portion of the book, particularly interesting for someone familiar with both Judaism and Christianity. For instance, many Christians struggle with God’s wrath and the harshness in the Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament) while finding Jesus’ message of love and faith a little easier to grasp (if not easy to live). A lot of people see the Old Testament and the New as the "wounding then healing" aspects of God, respectively.

Yet in this novel the opposite perspective is introduced, which I found interesting and ironic in light of the aforementioned:

       “Even “Love they neighbor as thyself,” that which he had always believed the most Christian of ideas, that, too, was written plainly in the Hebrew texts given to Moses. In many ways, its words seemed to bring him closer to the goodness and holiness he had always searched for than the harsh words of the new..., “Think not I have come to bring peace. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Pg 375)

Curiously, though Christian myself, I have always had an easier time breathing in the Old Testament than the new, for various reasons. I believe both are the word of God, but the latter is sometimes much harder for me to grasp. I just think it interesting to note, that some things that are ‘the easy part’ for some, are ‘the hard part’ for others. I’m also glad that the text pointed out some important things that Christians often forget:

        “He had been taught, had he not, that Jesus said, “I come not to change the Law, but to strengthen and verify it.” But it had never occurred to him, never seemed important to him, that Jesus himself came of Jewish parents, and the law he spoke of was the same law of the Jews.” (Pg. 375)

Vital information, if you ask me.

Anyhow, the conclusion of the story actually appeals to my affinity for blood-ties, although an opposite experience than that of a certain converting character can be found in real life in the form of Lauren Winner who wrote about her conversion from Orthodox Judaism (to which she originally converted from Reform Synagogue-going childhood.) to Christianity.  Her book, "Girl Meets God" is also highly recommended.

Conclusion:

I like that this is written about religion from the perspective of one who actually understands it, yet not for the religious shelves. Ragen intends a critique of many aspects of the Hassidic lifestyle, but she does not explicate hatefully. Nor does she give up on it all. Batsheva loves God. She believes in Him. She’s not written as a caricature of a religious person, which is rare when encountering a character found on, say, a shelf marked something other than religious fiction. That love and belief drips off the pages in a way that speaks to those who understand the language of faith. Since I don’t generally read stuff from the “Religious/Christian fiction” shelf I’ve been pretty hard up to find fiction that portray people of faith as anything but caricatures, nut-jobs or plot-devices. I intend to read many more Naomi Ragen books.

A Wry Angle

Here’s that second angle I promised. I’m tempted to say it’s a lighter-hearted one, but I don’t think that would be entirely honest. The angle I’m referring to is that of Israeli humor.

Israeli humor is biting, vicious, self-deprecating stuff. It’s jaw-droppingly mean to whomever it wishes to sting—stuff the “oh no you didn’t!” variety. Now I know a lot of humor is that way, but the Israeli humor of popular culture is thus to such an extreme that it puts in mind the lyrics from Mumford & Sons’ song “Little Lion Man.”

“...you’ll spend your days biting your own neck”

There were two videos I wanted to post, but one was unavailable, so I’ll save you some time and give a rough description.

The first bit of humor I wanted to show you is a skit from the (very popular) Israeli TV show “Eretz Nehederet”, a political-humor-skit-comedy show. Nine-skits-out-of-ten, this show is an exercise in merciless self-effacement and it says a lot about media opinion and what sort of entertainment thrives in Israel.

This particular skit opens with a pair of IDF (Israel Defense Forces) soldiers putting in a video they’ve received from the captors of a kidnapped soldier. The soldier looks tired and worn. He says he’s been given food and water—more or less—and he shows a newspaper with the date to prove he’s alive. Then, as he begins to read the demands of his kidnappers, the camera slowly pans out to show that his kidnappers are NOT Hezbollah…they are NOT Hamas.

They are religious Israeli settlers, presumably from the West Bank. One doesn’t need to be able to speak Hebrew to see the shock value in this, so here’s a link to the clip just in case you want to see the entire original.

After the list of demands is read, one of the Settler-kidnappers comments that “Hey, but they’ve already given in to all those demands.”

So they come up with some new demand and stare at the camera manically while the poor kidnapped soldier looks put-upon.

The skit returns to the two IDF soldiers in their office. They look serious and determined. They are going to go rescue their fellow soldier from the clutches of their fellow citizens! Then the clock strikes 5:00 p.m. They glance at the clock. Glance at each other. Then decide that they can deal with that whole soldier-thing tomorrow, and they whisk away, out of the office—on a little push-scooter—to go have their off-hours and do some yoga.

The clip is very short. But for all that it says a lot. It may even say things it didn’t mean to. I do not agree with everything it says, but here goes:

1.      It shows that the notion of a kidnapped soldier is instantaneously recognizable in the Israeli psyche. Everyone knows what this looks like and what this means. It’s recognizable to the point of being—apparently—ripe for jest. It’s much like an archetype. Only needs one second on screen and everybody knows the whole story.

2.      The gap between settlers and the remainder of Israeli society is portrayed to the extreme. There HAS been conflict between the settlers and the IDF. Some particularly jarring images were produced during the disengagement in Gaza, when IDF soldiers had to drag some settlers out of their homes. This video speaks to the feelings of certain segments of Israeli society who believe that the settlers are detrimental to Israel—the segments that feel they are a strain on resources. The settlers are portrayed as slightly bonkers, and as enemies of the state.

3.      The fact that the ‘skit-settler’ claims all the demands have already been met is a jibe at the government by those who feel the government caters to the settlers. The ultimate implication is that giving in to settlers is the same as giving in to terrorists and that the settlers get whatever they want at everyone else’s expense.

4.      It portrays the IDF as uncaring and unprofessional; they are portrayed as posing clock-punchers. Perhaps this is meant to be a jab at the IDF as a whole. Or an indictment against the draft, bringing in soldiers who don’t really want to be there and don’t care about their job. Mostly, however, it’s a lament regarding the fact that Gilad Shalit is still held captive.

Biting your own neck indeed. Not that I’m against self-criticism.  I'm for it, in general. It follows from living in a democracy and having freedom of speech—little is sacred—but the teeth are really bared towards all possible inward targets here.

So as to alleviate a bit of the humorous sting, the following clip is the one-out-of-ten in which Israeli humor actually makes fun of someone other than self. It ribs BBC’s coverage of the Israeli operations in Gaza, portraying it as unabashedly biased. Most of it’s in English, but for the parts that aren’t: Whenever the “Arab” woman is talking (she is actually speaking Hebrew, but never mind) she says such things as “Our electricity is out, we have no running water, and the sound of explosions keeps us up all night. It’s horrible!”

Which the “BBC anchor” translates to something completely different, which you’ll hear. And when the IDF officer is talking, he is describing their operations and progress; Again the BBC anchor decides to put his own words in the officer’s mouth to portray the Israelis as he sees them--and so Eretz Nehederet can point out that many Western European media sources have a set-in-their-ways bias against Israel.

My final example of Israeli humor is in a category all its own: A mere description of the author tells an awful lot of tales about Israeli society. Below are snippets from an article by Sayed Kashua. Sayed Kashua is an interesting person, and a seeming anomaly. He is a columnist for an Israeli newspaper that leans to the left, and he’s written three novels in Hebrew, two of which are available in English. He is an Israeli Arab. He has intriguing perspectives on Israel, Israeli identity, Israeli Arabs and Arab identity.

"Being neither here nor there" is his very platform.

In this article Sayed Kashua describes a visit to a “religious leftist Jewish family” on Shabbat. The family assumes that, being leftist, they are politically aligned with the journalistic Arab Kashua and will have much in common. Kashua assumes that they will not—and that they are a little over-the-top, essentially implying them to be ye old average bleeding hearts. He’s not entirely mean about it—but he is a little. And it’s very funny.

Here is how he describes the family he is visiting:

They are very leftist. Very. Going to protests every day. They belong to some movement called “Rabbis without borders” though I’m not actually certain about the name. They have a lovely house in one of the most Anglo-Saxon neighborhoods in the city. The have books by leftists, leftist pictures and completely non-threatening Shabbat candles.

While having dinner, Kashua begins to muse on the incongruities of his family’s Arab-Israeli life (translation mine and necessary definitions preceding):

('Eid Al-Adha: Muslim holiday, translates to: “feast of sacrifice.”

Sufganiyot: basically donuts, eaten on Chanukah

Latkes: grated potato pancakes)

Here Kashua talks about his son's identity struggles as a completely nominal 'muslim':

“My young son, whose highest ambition is to be “Father of Shabbat” on Fridays, attacked me again with a look of disappointment regarding his religious and national affiliation. He is in an emotional stage, my son—ever since Christmas, Chanukah and ‘Eid Al-Adha he’s been in a deep depression.

“The kids who do Chanukah dispel the darkness, they have sufganiyot, latkes,’ good, good, good dreidel’---stuff about the signs and wonders and they get presents,” he threw at me some weeks ago. “The kids who do Christmas have Santa, they have Jingle Bells and a lovely tree. And what do we have? Sheep?” he shouted. “and teacher tells me that we bring and knife and…” he started to cry.

“Don’t worry,” I had to hug him and comfort him and he did not relax until I promised him that next ‘Eid Al-Adha I would decorate the sheep as if he were a pine tree, with flashing lights and bells and gleaming stars which I’ll pin onto his snow white wool. And if it’s one that has antlers, I’ll accompany it with a Menorah as well.”

Later in the article (and the evening) the conversation tries to recover from Kashua trying to convince his children that their favorite tv show ditties are, somehow, special religious songs. So they turn to a new subject.

“Do you all participate in protests?” The mother of the family asked with a warm smile, while I struggled to separate the skin from the chicken (and, in my life, never have I seen such a leftist chicken).

“No,” my wife answered without feeling any guilt. I scrambled quickly to improve our geo-political position.

“Sometimes,” I blurted, and my wife raised her head, surprised by my inaccurate answer. “But mostly I am in favor of different kinds of protests”

“Ah, really?” admired the host, “Like what, for instance?”

“Ummm…,” I wrinkled my forehead and arched my eyebrows, trying to get my wife to stifle her grin and focus on her ‘polka.’ “All different kinds of protests, more to do with PR, I would say,”—in my head rose images of me, drunk at the bar on Ben Sira street, accusing everyone present of racism and of hating Arabs.

“Ah,” the hostess said admiringly. “That’s lovely. Where do you do all this?”

“Usually in public places,” I answered. “I just go up on the stage—sometimes just a table or a chair—and I speak my mind so as to open their eyes—mainly it’s young men and women”

“Wonderful,” responded the head of the house. “Interesting. And what are the responses of these listeners of yours?”

Good, since most of them are drunker than I am, I thought to myself. “Sometimes it’s hard,” I answered out loud.

This is already a really long post, so, after one last thing, I’m just going to let that simmer for a while. Sayed Kashua, non-protesting, non-religious, “both and neither” Israeli Arab.

The end of the article is as follows, taking place as Kashua and his family leave the house of their hosts.

“And us?” [my daughter] continued. “Are we communists?”

“We’re post, honey, we’re post”

And I think Post-(anything) is a common place to put yourself...when you have a hard time placing yourself anywhere. Because it isn’t really a place at all.