Oh, Politics

This Regina Spektor song speaks rather bluntly to how I feel about the American Presidential Campaign just now:

 

 

‘Tis the season. The season of politicking, campaigning, debating and opinionating. Also of satirizing, mocking, and tossing one’s hands up in frustration.

I find it all very problematic because I am, by nature, a pessimist and a cynic. And I do not approve of being a cold-eyed cynic, though I often like it and somehow continue to be one in spite of my disapproval. I often find harbor in playing ‘devil’s advocate’ and this can be of concern at times because it is so very easy to mask real opinions and real concerns within the ready ability to speak with the mouth of the opposition.

Here is the trouble with creatures like me that are simultaneously so cynical and so black-and-white; it is not that we can’t change or refine our opinions. It’s that we cannot hover between them. Ambiguity is intolerable. Half-answers are despicable. Vagueness is a harbinger of death. No, really.

The temptation becomes to combine the pessimism with the ambiguity and create an uncompromising stance out of that. (This, I think, is what Black-and-Whites are prone to do, because uncompromising stances are the key). It looks something like this: put confidence in no one, expect no improvement, cast a doubting eye on all reports of progress, deem one option the evil and the other the lesser of two evils, all is entrenched, all is rutted, it’s all the same. Trust no one. Hope for nothing. Believe not a word.

Even though this is how I often feel—and even though these sentiments are frequently valid—I think it is evident that this is a bad road. Not that politicians are deserving of the trust and belief they’re often accorded, but a wholesale reversal of this doesn’t function either. Switching from rose-colored glasses to blackened ones doesn’t make you see better: it makes you see hardly at all. Yes, you will see the genuinely existing flaws, but you will also fail to see any viable truths, however few and far between they may be (see…still a cynic).

We all have to live with the fact that we are biased. We approach from given angles. We possess pre-existing perspectives. No matter how are we try to edge out of them, we just edge into a different angle. It’s still an angle.

So even though I feel like Regina Spektor is on point, and boy do I love shouting those lyrics, I don’t want to close my eyes and throw the whole game. You work for what you get…then you work with what you get, provided you keep your moorings the whole way through.

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 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.

An Angle on Things

‘And now for something completely different!’

And today that thing is Al-Jazeera!

Perhaps I’ll offer a brief explanation of the thing itself and the whys and wherefores of my discussing it. First off, Al-Jazeera has several ‘talk-shows’ (you know the type) which turn into nice, raucous debates. Sometimes you can tell that they invited a certain person to talk on the show just so they can rip them to shreds. That’s the nature of these kinds of news shows, I think.

An example: One of my favorite Iraqi leaders is Rafi Al-Issawi. He’s not a perfect guy—certainly no politician is—but he is a doctor by trade, he’s from Al-Anbar province (of which I am particularly fond) and while there’s precious little to be found about him in English (Here are a few tit-bits), he was interviewed on one of these talk-shows (بلا حدود) and it was CLEAR AS DAY that they had him on the show only to deride him. Because Egyptians know more about Iraq than Iraqis?? Because they wanted him to deride his country, give it up for lost, and let it careen back into turmoil?? It made me livid.

I disagree with Al-Jazeera a lot. But I don’t give up on it. It’s a great resource. And one of my favorite things is to see the huge gaps between media sources.

Another example: Once upon a time, there was a great kerfuffle near the dome of the rock (once upon many times, actually, but this is a specific one). There were riots. There were cops. It was decidedly a thing. I was having a really hard time understanding what had happened. So I tried a little experiment.

I read an article from and English-written “Western” resource. Then I read one from an Israeli newspaper. And a third from Al-Jazeera.

It was as though each article represented a completely different event! Now, I’ll admit, the western article was safely straddling the fence, but that also does not equate to accuracy. I swear, getting the news downright requires triangulating skills. And how many people have the time or desire to effectively triangulate the facts. It ain’t easy. But a couple solid angles give a more accurate reading. Triangulation—the geographical kind—most literally lets you know where you stand in relation to something else. Or where something else stands in relation to you. Both.

(A side note: I find it interesting that triangulation requires “one known side and two known angles” to determine the third, because in ‘news triangulation’, you have at least two angles and ten-to-one you have a known side: the side you actually favor. Don’t lie. Even if it’s 51% vs 49% you have one. Call it an over-the-top metaphor, but I’m sticking with it.)

ALL OF THAT TO SAY: I get some interesting things out of Al-Jazeera (and other Arabic news sources) well beyond the actual news pieces. Which are also important.

Interesting fact # 1: English vs. Arabic

-This both tickles me pink and makes me blazing mad. The English Al-Jazeera is frequented by English speakers and the Arabic Al-Jazeera by Arabic speakers, as makes sense. Different audiences beg different material, apparently. Etiquette changes. What is considered appropriate for one audience is deemed unpalatable for the other. The types of talk shows available are quite different.

My point? Al-Jazeera English is NOT the functional equivalent of Al-Jazeera Arabic. The former is far more diplomatic. And Al-Jazeera is not the only one who falls prey to this method of tempering and tampering based upon audience. I've seen BBC Arabic be all too careful of its wording in the English version of a given article.

Interesting fact # 2: Seems like prescience, but it’s just the fact of being local: (or) Why no one ought to have been shocked when the protests broke out in Egypt (though, yes, they did begin in Tunis).

-I was trying to listen through my old pod-casts and came across an Al-Jazeera episode and began to listen to it, only half paying attention. Suddenly I was ALL EARS. They were describing the Egyptian revolution, but in the oddest way. As though it was a theory, instead of already happening. I looked at the date. Three or four months before the revolution. It wasn’t just brewing. It was a foregone conclusion. (Also interesting was the unusual amount of blame being placed on the Coptic Christians, but that’s another matter.)

Point? Looking at social trends from these angles make “shocking” events about as shocking as rain-clouds producing rain.

Interesting fact # 3: Commentary as the REAL story

-Reading the article? Important. Reading the subscriber/viewer/reader commentary? Whole different ball-game. Here’s where all the emotion, the personal stories, and all the rhetoric comes out. Some of it is thoughtful and poignant…some of it pure vitriol…and some of it simply nonsense (like any commentary board). But at the end of the day, those are the opinions of people who get their news from Al-Jazeera, and those opinions are worth knowing. Some of it is shocking…might scandalize English-reading eyes. Thing is…how people feel about an event or incident can influence its long-term meaning in the public eye--not, mind you, the actual facts--but certainly their broad perception. Sometimes it even overtakes the facts.

Interesting fact # 4: Gaps speak LOUDLY

Al-Jazeera has not broadcasted talk-shows from Egypt since February. I cannot express how disturbing this is. One of their most interesting talk shows (the one that tried it's hardest to riddle Al-Issawi with holes) appears to no longer exist. This is telling and worrisome. It’s not in the news every minute anymore, but Egypt is not well. They’ve gone from a problematic ‘hereditary presidency’-type government, to military junta, now to the realization of the (unsurprising) fact that the only other well-established organization to present itself—now that the other has been swept away—is the Muslim Brotherhood. The protests may have been faintly interfaith, but the results may well not be.

If the most well-known media source in the Arab world is no longer able to broadcast from the most cinema-savvy country in the Arab world we have a problem.

At any rate…this is one triangulating angles. The next post will be about another.