Struggling with Israel
It’s complicated.
When the situation with Israel-Hamas-Gaza started, what I heard was “simple.” Hamas had attacked a passage filled with civilians–mostly Israelis. And everyone knows that Israel fights back and fights back hard. And one might think, why shouldn’t they? After all, in this latest event, Israelis were attacked.
And then the media started, and most of the headlines had to do with how awful Israel was, even though my peeps were talking about the terrorists (not Israel) and how they were purposely attacking civilians and purposely keeping civilians around their weaponry/military. That sounded bad, so yay for Israel. And yet, it was hard to cheer on a country just kicking the ass of the other one, but maybe that would bring it to an end more quickly, I thought.
And then the U.N. school was hit. By Israel. And then I learned that after the people in Gaza were told to evacuate, there was nowhere to go. And then I heard that Israel had managed to attack a vehicle bringing aid to the people in Gaza. Did they have some reason to do so that we don’t know about? I don’t know. I do know that I am having a difficult time.
I knew I was a Jew (before I actually was one) when I finally came to understand the history of Israel. Of course, I don’t mean understood it in a thorough way, but when I came to understand it in a timeline/highlights kind of a way. It became my country. As a Jew, I was pro-Israel. I wasn’t even sure why, except that it was the way to be. I’m still pro-Israel. Which is to say that I am pro-Israelis. I am pro-Israeli culture. I have not been there, but all that I hear of the country is of how beautiful and wonderful it is–even with the problems. I know it’s a country worth having.
And yet I’ve been a Jew for just a little while now, and I’m already questioning Israel. Oh, I’ve had glimmers of the questions in my mind, but I always dismissed them because I was a new Jew. I am still a new Jew. I may not fully understand. I get that I don’t know what I don’t know.
But what I do know is that I have been to many former Jewish ghettos across western and eastern Europe. I’ve seen the walls of some of those cities and ghettos. In Freiburg, I once stayed at a family’s home who had several full panels of the Berlin Wall in their yard. These are the things we tore down with victory–the walls! And there’s that wall in Israel, keeping the “other” people–the non-Israelis–inside. We claim never again, but does that only mean we will never again commit a genocide of millions of people, or does it mean we will never again let a group of people become a scapegoat–a group of “other” people who are not us–who are the problem? It does not apparently mean this. And that makes me question whether I can stand with Israel, no matter what its reasons for its wall.
But even earlier, when I heard about the settlements, about the land that should have been returned long ago, about the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts, well I was reminded of the Numbers account of Moses being told by G-d to speak to the rock to get water, and Moses hits the rock–twice–to get water. He does get water for his people, but he is denied the promised land for himself. I can’t help wondering why we should have to fight so hard for a gift. I can’t help wondering if all this hitting means that (according to G-d’s past actions) we don’t deserve the land. Maybe Israel belongs to our ancestors–the ones who speak rather than hit? I don’t know the answer to that, but I do know that I am reminded of this story every time I think of the Israeli-Palestine conflict (or any conflict regarding the state of Israel). We keep hitting and hitting, and yeah, it works. The country was established. The country is still a country. There is a Jewish state.
But I’m not sure it’s the right way to receive or keep a gift. I’m not sure if establishing a country where Jews are safe from persecution means anything if the country persecutes another group of people by putting them behind a wall or insists that because the land has changed ownership, its people have lost all rights to it. Does that not sound familiar? How many Jews yelled as they were dragged from their homes, “But I’m German!?!” And they yelled this not because they were hoping to be spared but because they were genuinely surprised that this meant nothing. The “laws” changed, and these people’s identities were supposed to change? They were Germans–and Jews–but they were Germans. And now, we have people who have lived on this land for generations, and a change of “ownership or government” means they are supposed to go. No wonder the native Americans were confused. No wonder the fight for identities continue.
My struggles with Israel do not really relate so much to the current situation in Gaza. And the ideas of this blog are my own internal dialogue about the issue. I do not have any final thoughts on the conflicts in or around Israel. And yes, I do call it Israel because that is its legal name, but I am referring to the land–to the people. Israel is one way to name these places and people.
I understand that Jews have been persecuted and need to know it won’t happen again. I understand that G-d has promised the land of Israel to the Jews. It just seems to me that the way to claim these rights is not to persecute others and one doesn’t ordinarily have to fight for G-d’s gifts. After all, they are provided freely at birth, are they not? I am confused. I am not saying that I do not stand by Israel, but I am saying that the country has foundational, fundamental problems. These are not all internal, either. I don’t know enough about non-Israeli people involved in Israeli issues to comment from their perspective. The amount I do know (not enough) about Israeli perspectives suggests to me that I could not begin to understand either perspective. But I struggle with the questions all the same. That is all this is–no final degrees. No gauntlet thrown. Just working things out.
But oh, how I wish everyone would stop and talk to the rock to see if speaking rather than hitting would bring forth the refreshment we all so desperately need.
Comments from any perspective that are based in a desire to enlighten are welcome. None of my “points” above is one I’d argue as irrefutable, so there’s no need to argue below. Please try speaking before hitting here.
An Open Letter to Nic Cage and Christian Slater
Dear Nic and Christian,
Though your situations have recently changed–nice work with the upcoming television show, Christian–both of your careers are suffering from the same problem. I’m not overly concerned because you both probably have plenty of money. But maybe you’re looking for some satisfaction? Perhaps you want us to like you again. Well, here’s some good news: we want to, and we want to in a desperate way.
Christian, you might be okay soon. You’ve picked what looks like a good role on television, and that can do a lot for you. Sometimes, you pick up a little-seen, independent, edgie role. Good. Those of us who are hunting for you on IMDB to see what DVD’s to get can check that out. And you’re keeping up your acting chops. These are all good things in your recent resume.
Nic, you’re often hit or miss, I’m afraid. Fortunately, you generally get about 1/3 of our roles right, and that’s something considering that plenty of others don’t, plus some of your upcoming choices look good. I can be really specific if you want me to, but let’s step back and look at the forest. According to IMDB, you’re filming two movies right now (though one is voicing, so it’s not so crazy). But you’ve just finished up two others, FOUR others are in pre-production, and two more have been announced. This is going to sound a bit insulting, and I’m sorry that this is what it’s going to take: you have become Ryan Seacrest. That’s right, I said it–at least in terms of stretching your ass so thin that you don’t seem to even be evaluating roles. I mean, seriously.
PROBABLY GOOD: Knowing; Bad Lieutenant; The Ghost (but ONLY because you can’t pass up Polanski–it’s still probably not a great role for you) PROBABLY BAD: Scared Straight (will you be saying another great line like “put the bunny down”?); Kick Ass (stay away from comic books, my friend); Amarillo Slim–you’re even producing this. My goodness. Going back to Vegas will not help, Nic. I really don’t think it will unless you do a heck of a good job keeping us away from the tables and in Slim’s life. This seems unlikely.
But here’s the deal boys: WE DON’T WANT YOU TO BE ACTION HEROES. We don’t. We only like you, Nic, as an action hero in National Treasure movies because of everything that ISN’T the action. And since the sequel had more action than the first, this doesn’t bode well for the third. Still, you’ve got a following, so that’s okay, but we DO NOT WANT TO SEE YOU IN ACTION HERO MOVIES. You can have a little action in your dramas. If you insist on the thrillers, there can be some action. But very little.
Christian, ditto for you my friend. We DO NOT WANT TO SEE YOU IN ACTION MOVIES. Be our intellectual hero. Be our drama hero. Be our thinking woman’s hero. Do not try to get the damsel off the train tracks unless you’re thinking your way through to find her. And even then, I think you should send a cop or something. And do I need to bring up Hollow Man II? You are Christian Slater. And you did Hollow Man II. That’s just wrong. That was your Con Air with mullet and bad dialogue (who wrote that shit? Great cast–GREAT CAST–but there was nothing of quality there, Nic. You didn’t have a chance.) You both need to stop lowering yourself to action hero.
There are so many other bad examples of stuff you two have done (one of which is in the theaters now), but here is the thing: DO NOT DO ACTION ROLES. DON’T. We want you two to be leading men in meaty roles. And if you’re not being offered good roles, then chill the fluck out. Just enjoy your personal lives, find a play, do an independent movie if you must, but don’t accept these cheesy acting roles that any himbo off the street can do. Seriously. We are waiting for you two in the good roles. Stop fooling us by accepting this crap.
Work less, deliver more.
Thank you. I miss you both.
Concerned Movie-not-goer
Another Olympic Ass
From Reuters:
Swedish wrestler Ara Abrahamian threw down his Olympic bronze medal in protest on Thursday after his bid for greco-roman gold was ended by a decision denounced by the Swedish coach as “politics”.
Abrahamian took the bronze from around his neck during the medal ceremony, stepped from the podium and dropped it in the middle of the wrestling mat then walked off.
“I don’t care about this medal. I wanted gold,” he said.
A bitter Abrahamian, silver medallist at Athens 2004 who had high hopes of top honours in the 84kg competition in Beijing, announced he was quitting the sport.
“This will be my last match. I wanted to take gold, so I consider this Olympics a failure,” the 33-year-old said.
The gold medal winner, Andrea Minguzzi, said, “Certainly one can always question decisions made in the course of refereeing, but in sports it is appropriate to show sportsmanship and accept the results.” Minguzzi also added that the situation “did in a way spoil the victory ceremony for me.”
I think Minguzzi pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter. I don’t understand the poor sportsmanships these Olympians are displaying. I mean, has the focus on physical achievement completely clouded ethical achievement, which seems to me a far more valuable quality. One would hope that the focus on achieving greatness would carry over to one’s moral achievements or goals.
A commentator on my previous Olympic Ass post points out there is always the hope for redemption. I can only hope that this Swedish ass recognizes the value in his achievement–bronze is not failure.
This reminds me of all those stupid headlines about film stars who are “snubbed” for various awards, dismissing the idea that those who HAVE been nominated didn’t deserve it. We need to honor the winners, acknowledge fine work by those who don’t win the top accollades, and strive to be people we recognize as winners when we look in the mirror.
Mark Spitz is an Ass
From an article by Polly Hui:
HONG KONG (AFP) – US swim legend Mark Spitz won’t be on hand in Beijing if Michael Phelps breaks his record of seven gold medals at a single Olympics—because, he says, no one bothered to invite him.
Spitz said the International Olympic Committee, a US television network or FINA—the international body that governs world swimming—should have brought him to the Games this year, with Phelps making a go at his record.
“I never got invited. You don’t go to the Olympics just to say, I am going to go. Especially because of who I am,” Spitz told AFP in Hong Kong.
“I am going to sit there and watch Michael Phelps break my record anonymously? That’s almost demeaning to me. It is not almost—it is.”
Spitz became one of the most famous athletes in the world at the 1972 Munich Olympics, winning seven gold medals—with seven world records—in what many consider to be one of the greatest achievements in all of sport.
Now, I’m not a big fan of calling most people heroes. People who do heroic things do so because it’s in their nature. And even those people aren’t perfect. I certainly wouldn’t consider most Olympians to be heroes. Yes, they’re good at their sports. And yeah, I root for the Americans, but do I do think an Olympian’s performance has anything to do with patriotism? Nope.
Mark Spitz is an Olympian with an impressive performance record. I know a lot of people who train and work hard in non-sporting events who are just as (or more) heroic or amazing.
But let’s say you think Olympians are heroes or even worthy of respect just for being an Olympian. I give them respect for their hard work, but I don’t think they deserve any more respect for their athletic ability than a person who performs to his or her mental ability with years of training for whatever mental task they achieve. But I digress. Suppose you consider Olympians or major sports figures to be heroes. Don’t we include modesty, the ability to win and lose with class, and graciousness in the criteria for being a hero? I mean, seriously.
“Because of who I am” he says. He balks at going anonymously. If seeing the sport was important to Mark Spitz, he’d go. If “supporting” Michael Phelps was important to Spitz he’d go. And if he did pay his own way, support Phelps with no accolades for himself, well then maybe that’d be kind of heroic. It would at least be gracious. It would at least be a sign that Spitz is more about the Olympics, the sport, and sportsmanship than he is about his big swimmer’s head. What an ass. No wonder he wasn’t invited. He wanted to go for Spitz–not for Phelps, which is the dude people should be paying attention to if they’re into that sort of thing. Personally, I am embracing patriotism and my right to not care about the sports that don’t intrigue me. But I can’t help rooting for Phelps and hoping he takes Spitz’s place. It wouldn’t take much to do it with it a bit more modesty and grace, that’s for sure.
Spitz: congratulations on your achievements, but it must be pretty sad to have more honor in even one of your medals than in your own heart, what with your ego filling up the place.
People Mailbag 7/28/2008
#1–I don’t think People magazine should put dead folks on their cover unless the death is particularly surprising (the person is young, the death is violent, the death was wholly unexpected, etc.) or the person is REALLY famous, and I’m talking Princess Di level famous, though that would qualify in the “surprising” category anyway. People should highlight the living not the dead. People isn’t a magazine designed to honor lives. Those are called tributes, and they aren’t People’s mission.
#2 Kathy Rolita wrote:
I am a 52 year old, heterosexual, happily married (for 26 years) motehr of two, and I am also a Christian. Personally, I think a same-sex couple who are devoted to one another should have the legal right to get married and enjoy all the benefits that come with marriage. God bless all of you out there who just want what I have and so many others take for granted.
Kathy, you said it! I hope more people stand up for these universal rights. Personally, I support civil unions for ALL, followed by a “marriage” from religious/spiritual folks. That way, the only marriage a person who believes that only a man and woman should have can fight for that way of life within their own church or church-governing body. If a person thinks that it’s an indignity to marriage then make sure one’s own clergy person doesn’t perform such marriages! That’s the only way that homosexual marriage would affect you. It makes sense to me that everyone should get the same legal, healthcare, insurance, inheritance and employment rights via civil unions, and if someone wants their marriage sanctified by a church or other religious organization then great. It would then be up to religious figures and their congregants to guide who can be married.
If anyone reading this believes marriage only belongs to a man and a woman, then great, fight for that in the religious community on the basis of religion. That’s where such decisions belong.
Vindication for Marathoners Everywhere!
In the latest 12/31 issue of People, a “box” on the MailBag page reads:
KUDOS FOR KATIE[headline]. Rory Gilfillan’s letter in the Dec. 10 Mailbag criticizing Katie Holmes’s 5.5 hour time in the New York City marathon provoked 77 readers to weigh in and defend Holmes’s effort. Most agreed with Rachel Fier of Southborough, Mass., who writes that “every single runner, celebrity or not, deserves credit for their accomplishment, regardless of their finish time. If Katie encouraged one person to get off their couch and start exercising, then the publicity was worth it.” Gail Arnoff of Shaker Heights, Ohio, says she “began running marathons at 57 to raise money for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, and I’m proud that I can complete them, even if it does take me more than six hours. Every runner can make a difference by running for a cause.” Walk it off, Rory.
Golden Globe “Snubs”
I’m sorry this is so long. But it’s been eating at me since the last “awards season.”
Every year, or so it seems to me, there’s some article or articles about how various actors have been “snubbed” by one awards show or another. The implication of the word “snub” goes beyond saying, “Hey, these folks did great work, and are just as good as the folks who were nominated. No, such a word suggests that these actors were left out even though they deserve to be nominated MORE than the folks who were nominated.
A snub is a deliberate act of insult–it’s passive aggressive.
Now, I’m not saying always agree with the nominations, but to the best of my knowledge, a large group of people come up with the nominations, and so there is some sense of democracy in it. Perhaps it might be a snub if Britney Spears had done something incredible in a nominated category and they were left out of the nominations. If we could look at some majorly impressive acting work by Britney Spears (just picture it for the example, okay?) in one of the categories and she wasn’t nominated, well then we might say she was snubbed because the nominating folks didn’t like all the personal crap she’s in the press for these days, or they didn’t like that someone known for her singing was going to “snake” an award, or something like that. If they’d ignored what was obvious to everyone in the freakin’ world as a major acting accomplishment, well, then that would be like she was black-balled or intentionally given the shaft.
But when Eva Longoria or the Sopranos doesn’t get nominated? I’m sorry, but to suggest it’s a snub is not only incorrect, but it’s an insult to the fine performances that were undoubtedly nominated. I’m not saying that actor or that show aren’t on the same level, but an intentional stab at either? Hardly.
In a recent Yahoo TV article/slide show (http://tv.yahoo.com/slideshow/192/photos/1) entitled “Fuzzy Math,” the writer(s) comment on Katherine Heigl’s nomination, but add, “Patrick Dempsey (“McDreamy”) and Ellen Pompeo were big-name snubs by the Globes, however.” No one is snubbing Dempsey or Pompeo. The body of nominators is rewarding several people who were nominated. I doubt that Dempsey or Pompeo were intentionally left out.
When I applied to a Ph.D. program in English, the process was that all of the candidates were ranked in order, and as people declined offers, the next folks received offers. A member of the committee who didn’t respect me tried to convince the committee to bypass me for the next person. Fortunately, I had folks to argue that the candidates had been ranked, and I was damn well next in line. Had I not been accepted, that would have been a snub–I would have been ranked by a committee as higher than someone who did get in, and that would have sucked. Personally, I feel honored that I was worth arguing over. Go me.
But back to my point–perhaps viewers would have placed Dempsey or Pompeo “above” who actually got nominated. That’s simply a difference of opinion, and it is not an indication that the nominating folks got together and said, “Well, we all agreed that we all like Dempsey better than so-and-so, but are we really gonna let a guy who already has great hair win?” If we say Dempsey got snubbed, we are saying this unlikely scenario or something like it occurred.
Yahoo comments on the fact that the much-queried (i.e. Yahoo searched) shows Heroes, The Sopranos, Smallville, The Office, and Prison Break, as if being the focus of a search is proof of greatness–proof that a show who “earned it” was passed over for something less worthwhile. I’ve heard great things about these shows. I’ve never watched any of them. I’m sure they’re good, but if the nominating folks aren’t regular viewers (which I prove is a possibility) then they’re unlikely to be persuaded by any kind of a nomination tape. Now, maybe that’s unfair–except that the folks who nominate are a large group of folks. If enough of them felt the pull to one of these actors or shows, I’m sure we’d see them listed.
In the end, it is unfair to say someone has been snubbed unless there is an argument for who or what should NOT have been nominated. If none of the shows I mentioned were nominated, then which one is so “obviously” NOT the one that should should have been nominated? Articles about snubbing rarely say things like “Heroes so obviously got passed over in favor of House that one wonders if the in-common letters got the voters confused.” Until these articles start calling out the folks who were nominated and didn’t deserve it, it’s insulting to the nominees to say that someone or something not on the list was snubbed. I’ve got my own “wish list” for nominees, but I’m not in a position to say the folks who were nominated deserved it less than my favorites. I don’t think any of my favorites were “snubbed.” My favorites were apparently bested, and I give my congratulations to the nominees on what must be fine work to beat out the folks I wish were among them.
If Susan Lucci can wait for an award after 18 nominations, or something like that, and I doubt she was being snubbed, then other folks need to put out their own best work for that many years, and someday, they just might best someone who else, who will undoubtedly be hailed as the latest victim of a snub.
People MailBag 12/3/2007
Kathie Rementer writes: Could someone please point out to Kate Hudson that her son Ryder is in dire need of a haircut? I’m sure he would be absolutely adorable if he looked like a little boy instead of a little girl.
Kathie, this is 2007. Isn’t it about time we stopped defining what it means to be a boy, a girl, or even adorable by a haircut? I mean, if a haircut alone will make Ryder adorable, then the haircut really isn’t that important. Heck, I bet you wish you’d saved your letter for Celine Dion’s son the following week–that’s right, Kathie. Two weeks in a row, two young boys with long, pretty hair. Two adorable young boys. These days, girls don’t have to play with dolls, men can have long hair, chicks can run for President, and men are even donning the occasional skirt. Oh, we may have to do a few double-takes for awhile, but eventually, Kathie, we’re going to have to re-define our ideas of what boys, girls, and adorable look like. Join with us, Kathie.
Oh, and if that’s not winning you over, how’s this: Ryder three years old. I don’t know about Ryder’s dad, but his mother is Jewish, and Jewish boys get their first haircut at age three. So, there’s still hope, Kathie. Maybe Ryder will receive his traditional cut, you can pop your valium, and life will be okay again.
E.D. Hill’s Cheap Thrill: Racism
The first imaginary name E.D. Hill thinks of for a cat is Whitey. That’s the first one. I’m not all over-P.C.-ing when I say that racist terms, even from people of the same race, shouldn’t be allowed to continue in the public vernacular.
