What's in a name?
I was born with a simple, straightforward name - David Harris. Thankfully, it never generated attention, much less teasing, while growing up. Yet it was actually quite unique in my milieu. I was surrounded by Jewish kids, and Harris was not exactly a common surname. How my peripatetic father ended up with the name is a story for another time. On the other hand, this was an era when assimilating Jewish parents were thinking about first names far from the likes of David. But once I left my little corner of the world, I discovered that my name was anything but unique. I arrived at university. It was the late 1960s and many campuses were in turmoil. Student protests over the Vietnam War, military education programs, and CIA recruiting were widespread. And who emerged as one of the student leaders of this movement? None other than David Harris. But it wasn't me. No, it was a student at Stanford University who achieved national fame and later married the popular folk singer Joan Baez. And suddenly, when I introduced myself, I was often confronted with the question, "Are you the real David Harris?" Of course, in the mind of the questioner, I was anything but, thus triggering my first name-generated identity crisis. Time to be put out to pasture?
When I turned 50, everything was fine, or so I thought, until that first mailing arrived from the American Association of Retired Persons inviting me to join. Was it possible, despite a full-time job, kids at home, and a daily jogging routine, that I was now to be defined as part of America's elderly population? So it seemed. Those mailings just kept on coming, as if the AARP knew that sooner or later I'd overcome my resistance and sign up for their benefits. In fact, I didn't and went right back into my self-delusional, age-resistant bubble. That strategy worked, or so I thought, until a more recent set of events happened to coincide with my 60th birthday. Suddenly, I found myself the target of several broadsides. Now that in itself is nothing new. Not a week passes that I'm not attacked as a warmonger by someone on the Jewish left for daring to defend Israel's right to protect itself against those who would destroy it. Similarly, not a week passes that I'm not attacked as an appeaser by someone on the Jewish right for daring to suggest that a peaceful outcome to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be based on a two-state settlement. But what was different this time is that the attacks were based on age. Voices on the Jewish Left assailed me - and several communal colleagues - for being stuck in the past, paralyzed by "1942," unable to see beyond a self-imposed wall of doom and gloom. In other words, a historical artifact best put out to pasture. Why this tack? In order, I would assume, to underscore their carefully constructed view of a world divided between the voices of the past and future, between the retrogrades and progressives, between the obstacles and vehicles to peace, between the oh-so-blind and oh-so-sighted, between the hip-replacement candidates and just-plain-hip crowd. Dear President Lula, Again
I wrote to you in the spring, deeply concerned about President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's scheduled visit to Brasilia on May 6. Thankfully, that visit did not take place. Sadly, it is now slated to occur next month. Mr. President, please reconsider. You are a widely admired political leader. Brazil, under your guidance, has rapidly emerged on the world stage, to quote you, as a "first-rate citizen" of the international community. Why would you wish to confer your considerable prestige on Ahmadinejad, who craves it but surely does not deserve it? And why would Brazil, today a towering bastion of democratic values, seek closer ties with Iran, your polar opposite? Mr. President, you spoke passionately at the UN a few weeks ago about the kind of world you seek to build. You called for the preservation and expansion of human rights. Under the current regime, however, Iran has trampled on human rights - flagrantly, brutally, repeatedly. You expressed support for disarmament and non-proliferation. Under the current regime, however, Iran is rapidly arming and is violating binding UN Security Council resolutions and International Atomic Energy Agency guidelines on nuclear proliferation. You appealed for a confrontation with terrorism "without stigmatizing ethnic groups and religions." Under the current regime, however, Iran actively promotes and funds terrorism and has targeted specific ethnic groups and religions, including the Jewish community in your own backyard, South America. And you articulated a vision of a two-state solution, a Palestinian state living alongside Israel. Under the current regime, however, Iran seeks a world without Israel, pure and simple. In other words, Mr. President, not only does Iran not share your core views, it actively opposes them. American Jews at the Center of Things
If your only sources of information on American Jews were surveys sponsored by right-wing or left-wing groups, you'd easily believe that the vast majority of America's six million Jews fully share their respective views on the Middle East. Reasons for hope? New Year's thoughts
Amidst the daily dose of depressing news, let's step back in this holiday season and reflect on how far we've come. Looking at the larger historical picture gives perspective, offers hope and provides inspiration. And these days, with all of the gloom and doom, it should be obvious that we need mega-doses of all three. Business as usual with Iran?
The decisive month has arrived. Or has it? G-8 leaders, meeting in July, declared September the time for reviewing Iran's nuclear status and making tough decisions. Key G-20, G-8, and P-5+1 (the permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany) meetings are being held in the coming weeks. By the way, the sixth anniversary of the failed EU-initiated talks with Iran also falls this month. That dialogue began when Iran was in a much weaker position. Having just witnessed the military might of the United States on display in neighboring Iraq, it had to wonder if it was to be the next target. By employing masterfully well-timed winks, feints and nods, the Iranians kept the Europeans engaged, while expanding the number of their centrifuges and moving ever closer to mastering the nuclear fuel cycle. Meanwhile, the US position in Iraq rapidly changed from towering strength to fear of a drawn-out conflict. In addition, this month also marks one year since the UN Security Council adopted its last resolution, a toothless measure urging Teheran to comply with previous resolutions on its nuclear program. Recognizing that Moscow and Beijing weren't willing to up the ante at the time, other member states couldn't enact a new set of sanctions. All along, the Europeans, joined by the Russians, insisted that the EU and UN tracks weren't going to yield results unless Washington changed course, shifting from a policy of belligerence to engagement with Teheran. Shortly after January 20, that's precisely what the US did, even going so far as to reaffirm that stance within days of the discredited Iranian election in June. Nearly eight months of that new posture haven't done the trick, either. No, things have just gone from bad to worse. Dear Foreign Minister Bildt
Dear Minister Bildt, As you know well, a leading newspaper in your country, Sweden, earlier this month published an article alleging that Israeli soldiers killed Palestinians to harvest their organs. This wasn't just any newspaper. Aftonbladet is the largest-circulation newspaper in Scandinavia. An estimated 15 percent of your fellow Swedes read the paper, which is owned by the Swedish Trade Union Confederation. And this wasn't just another article in the paper. It was given pride of place in the Culture section. Indeed, two pages were devoted to it under the radioactive headline, "They plunder the organs of our sons." Mr. Minister, despite many requests, you have chosen not to comment on the article's unfounded, indeed ludicrous, allegations. In explanation, you wrote, "Freedom of expression and press freedom are very strong in our constitution by tradition. And that strong protection has served our democracy and our country well. If I were engaged in editing all strange debate contributions in different media, I probably wouldn't have time to do much else." And you went further still. When your ambassador in Israel, Elisabet Borsiin Bonnier, laudably condemned the article, rather than stand with her, your ministry distanced itself from her position, stating that it was "designed for an Israeli audience." Mr. Minister, this is not an issue of freedom of expression or freedom of the press. Understanding Israel
Almost every responsible political leader today expresses a desire to contribute to peace in the Middle East. Easier said than done. A real effort to promote peace requires an understanding of what motivates the parties to the conflict. I can't say I quite get what makes the Palestinians tick. Like the late statesman Abba Eban, I haven't grasped why Palestinian leaders never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. But I do believe that anyone who genuinely seeks peace, or who aspires to be a friend of the Israeli people, should consider four key factors that inform the Israeli worldview. First, geography. The throwaway line these days is that geography no longer matters in an era of long-range missiles. Not so fast. As the late Sir Isaiah Berlin famously quipped, "The Jews have enjoyed rather too much history and too little geography." Israel is a small country, about the size of New Jersey or Wales, and barely two-thirds the size of Belgium. To put it into context, Egypt is approximately fifty times larger than Israel, Saudi Arabia a hundred times. And there's more. Until its 1967 war for survival, Israel's borders, which were nothing more than the armistice lines from the 1948 War of Independence, were nine miles at their narrowest point, near the country's midsection and most populous area. When President George W. Bush first saw that narrow width from the vantage point of a helicopter, he was reported to have said, "There are some driveways in Texas longer than Israel is wide." Taking stock of US policy toward Israel
The following is adapted from my remarks to a meeting of the Senate Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee, attended by about 20 Democratic Senators, on Capitol Hill on July 22. Thank you for the privilege of speaking once again before this distinguished group. I represent AJC - the American Jewish Committee. We have been active for decades in supporting Israel and advancing peace. I would describe our outlook in the words of President John F. Kennedy, who said,"I'm an idealist without illusions." We welcome President Obama's groundbreaking speech in Cairo on June 4th. "Nearly Seven Million"?
In his important and much-anticipated Cairo speech, President Obama said that there were "nearly seven million American Muslims." Two days earlier, in an interview in Washington, he noted that "[I]f you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world." Clearly, the president was seeking to narrow the space between his intended audience and the United States. In principle, that's commendable. The problem is that the facts don't bear out his assertions on this particular issue. Why or how the number "nearly seven million" made it into the speech is unknown to me, but the widely accepted figure is actually less than half that. |
 |
 
Combined feed for all JPost.com blogs
Top Rated Posts
Tags:Blogroll |
Comments (28)
