Category: Politics

Step Aside…Both of You

First, let me state that I will vote for whoever the Democratic candidate is for President. If it is Joe Biden, I will vote for him. If it is a sack of potatoes, I will vote for it. In my mind, Trump is not an option; he is dangerous.

Second, the media should subject Donald Trump’s mental health to the same scrutiny given to Joe Biden’s condition. Op-ed pieces in major newspapers should be calling for Trump to step down (as the Philadelphia Inquirer did) for a myriad of reasons, not the least of which is that he is a convicted felon, found guilty by a jury of his peers.

With those two stipulations, I believe the right thing for Joe Biden to do is to step aside. This judgment is not offered because I think it enhances the Democrats chances in the election or consigns us to lose. It is simply the right thing for him to do.

Despite all the pundits’ insights and poll results, we don’t know how it would play out. Biden, as he currently presents, is not a strong candidate. As my brother pointed out to me, those voters who are willing to entertain voting for Trump are not being given a reason to choose Biden. So those who say that changing candidates now is a recipe for disaster, may not be clear eyed about what we are facing if he remains on the ballot.

I believe Joe Biden has been an excellent president. He has navigated unbelievably challenging times, and the country has benefitted from his administration’s policies in many ways. I have admired him throughout his career and believe him to be a good man with a kind heart, but I believe he is in denial about his cognitive abilities. This is not unusual. Unfortunately, in my family we have observed many people go down the path of dementia. Having good days and bad, covering for themselves (and family members covering for them), and not wanting to recognize what is happening are common reactions. Biden’s unwillingness to submit to a cognitive exam is troubling to say the least. Cognition doesn’t get better; they don’t recover. It just gets worse. Explaining his debate performance by saying he was tired, or it was just 90 minutes of him not at his best, does a disservice to him and the country.

When he walked stiffly, I was not alarmed. When he stuttered, I empathized. When he fumferred for words, I made little of it: who over the age of 50 doesn’t struggle to retrieve words? All of that can be understood, some of it has been true his entire public life. The incoherence at the debate, his inability to recall if he had watched the debate in the interview with Stephanopolous, are something else. He looks vacant some of the time. That is a change. This is not a matter of getting enough sleep, though I don’t doubt that is a factor. Being tired takes a toll. Unfortunately, being President of the United States is pretty much a 24/7 job. He can’t afford to have an off 90 minutes at the NATO summit today.

I believe when he made the decision to seek reelection months ago, he was in better condition cognitively. At least better enough so that it seemed reasonable to continue. Something has changed and now it is public. The patriotic thing to do is to step aside. If he doesn’t have the confidence in Kamala Harris to ‘anoint’ her, there are other options. Pundits are dwelling on the lack of an obvious choice as the reason Biden should stay in the race. I think that is short-sighted for so many reasons.

I know how important the question of who takes his place is.  And, almost equally important is the question of through what process. These are essential issues, but they are separate from whether Joe Biden should continue. We need to have confidence in our president. As much as I admire the work he has done, and believe that he has surrounded himself with competent, good people, that is not enough to lead us forward over the next four years. He no longer inspires confidence. We don’t elect a team; we elect one person. Dr. Jill, or any other person in his inner circle, should not be the de facto president.

Democrats have a convention coming up. It offers an opportunity. No, it isn’t the same as having primaries, but there is wide representation at the convention – all 50 states, different wings of the party, many of whom are elected officials in their own right. One could argue that the drawn-out candidate selection process we usually use hasn’t worked well anyway – generally speaking the extremes of the party (this is true for Republicans too) are overrepresented in the primary process. The convention may be messy, and it may be difficult, but it wouldn’t be undemocratic to let it play out that way.

As many know, my husband is a doctor. If he were to show signs of mental impairment (more than just slowing down) such that his judgment was no longer sound, and he was in denial about it, I would feel an obligation to step in. The consequences of his making mistakes are too high, people’s lives are at stake, I would need to discuss it with his colleagues, and of course urge him to retire. It would be painful. I would hate to be in that position, but in good conscience I could not delude myself or him. I would not want him humiliated by not being able to meet the extraordinarily high standards he has met his entire career. I would want to preserve his dignity in the process, but I could not let him put patients at risk. Joe Biden has far more responsibility for far more people. Those around him owe it to the country and owe it to Joe Biden to be honest about what is happening. It doesn’t sound like they are doing that. They may think they are protecting him or the country, but they aren’t.

Finally, for those who look back at history to try to predict how this will go, there are important differences between now and any previous time. Everything goes so much faster now thanks to (or we can blame) the internet and social media. People’s attention spans are shorter. One might argue that having a shorter period of time to campaign in a concentrated way could be more effective. The candidate might not be losing much, if anything at all, by being out front only from August to November. I don’t believe we have faced an analogous situation in our history.

By the way, though this is truly yelling into the void, the Republicans need to cast aside Trump and choose another candidate, too.

“Go Back to Poland!” Really??!!??

Reading that there were chants of “Go back to Poland” at the pro-Palestinian encampments at Columbia University stopped me in my tracks. Weeks later my attempts to ignore it are not working. It is just too painful to try to pretend it didn’t happen.

The stunning ignorance and cruelty that this demonstrates is hard to swallow. Do they not understand what happened to Jews in Poland? This is personal to me. That statement could apply to American Jews, not just Israelis, after all we are hardly indigenous to the Americas. As an American Jew if I was forced to go back to Poland the only remnant of my family would be a monument to the 2500 people murdered in Halbow, Poland in 1942. My paternal grandfather’s parents and sister are buried underneath that monument in a mass grave. Luckily for my family, my grandfather went to America alone in 1921, long before World War II was on the horizon and before the thrall of Nazism. My grandfather was seeking his fortune and Jews were still permitted to immigrate. Millions of Jews in Poland were not so adventurous or prescient.

In addition to my family’s experience, we have the horrors my in-laws endured. They too lived in Poland, though today it is actually Ukraine or Belarus, which introduces another problem with their simplistic chant. Some of the Bakst family did indeed go to Israel after the war. Even if Ukraine or Belarus opened their arms to receive them today, it is not a viable alternative, or is the reason for that not obvious to those protesters?

I wrote about what happened to my father-in-law when he did go back to Iwie in 1944, while the war was still on but his town had been liberated by the Soviet army. I hope you will take the time to read my blog post about that here.

For purposes of this essay, I will summarize. David Bakst was granted leave for his heroism in a battle with the German army. At this point David was in the Soviet army who were unaware that he was Jewish. He was given leave to visit what was left of his family, his father and sister, who were in Lida, about 40 kilometers from his hometown. David pined for his home. He had warm memories of family gatherings and the love he felt among his extended family. The house was a relatively modern one, built in 1929. I think, even though it was unrealistic, he hoped in his heart to reclaim it.

They arrived at their home, which withstood bombing by Germany. A Polish family was living there. Though David was allowed to come into the house when he explained his connection to it, the reception was not warm. He was told in no uncertain terms that it wasn’t his anymore. Upon seeing the interior, with his family’s things rearranged, and seeing his parent’s bed, knowing his mother and younger sister had already been murdered, he collapsed in tears. His father and sister comforted him, they told him there was nothing in Iwie for them anymore, they needed to look to the future, and that is what they did.

David spoke fondly of that house for the rest of his life. But, whatever bitterness he may have harbored did not interfere with his making a new life in a new country.

Clearly the protesters at Columbia, at other college campuses and in the Middle East either don’t know this history or don’t care. If they don’t know it, they have a responsibility to learn it. The latter possibility is even worse. To be aware of the pain that is carried by our family and by millions of other Jewish families, and still chant “Go back to Poland,” is beyond cruel. It would be evidence of pernicious antisemitism, not of a liberation movement. It is also extraordinarily, epically ironic given that the basis of their protest is that Palestinians were forcibly evicted from their homes.

Another problem with this situation is that the media coverage of this has been quite limited. I have not seen stories that explain the problem with the suggestion that Jews go back to Poland. Those who are ignorant have not been enlightened by the coverage; they can continue to live in their deluded world. Does the media assume that people understand? If they understand, they should be called out for their inhumanity. While one might argue that the journalist’s role is not to take sides that is not what is called for here. It is a matter of giving context, explain some history and that is the role of a journalist. Giving that context doesn’t even necessarily mean folks would change their mind about the Palestinian cause, but it might help bring some nuance to the discussion. At the very least, hopefully that disgusting chant would be cast aside. I would not hope for apology, that is probably too much to ask, but it would be appropriate.

We can argue until the end of time about who the indigenous people of the Middle East are. Frankly, I don’t care beyond understanding the history of the region as best we can. We can argue who is in diaspora – aren’t both peoples? Not to mention other displaced persons who have been forced to leave their homes whether it is in Africa, Asia, or Central America because of war, gang violence, natural disasters, climate change, power struggles, genocides. Are these encampments for them too? Is there a point to arguing who is a refugee? Where does the argument get us? Yes, it is essential that we understand and acknowledge the generational trauma that Palestinians and Jews carry, but that is a two-way street. Chanting “Go back to Poland” is absurd and suggests that they are not serious about finding a solution.

It’s NOT the Economy, Stupid

Maybe it’s just me, but the political narrative that gets presented in the media makes no sense. I’m listening to a podcast where New York Times columnists are talking about the relatively healthy economy and why people are still not optimistic or confident in it. They are hypothesizing about Covid lag, lingering inflation, negative feelings about Joe Biden. Those things may be relevant, but I don’t think that is what is at play in the poll numbers.

I think the reason the polls show negativity is because, though the survey questions may target the economy, people are pessimistic because the world is going to shit. Everywhere you look, it is scary. I think this view applies to Democrats, Republicans and Independents. Personally, I find the divisiveness in our country, whether it is around Trump’s trials, the war in Gaza, global warming or the issues the panelists were talking about (lingering effects of Covid and inflation), call into question whether we will be able to come together to address the problems. I don’t think I am alone in being pessimistic. We are a country famous, maybe even envied, for our optimism. I’m not sure that still applies.

In fact, just the other day I was at a gathering at my daughter’s house. A friend of hers was talking about his lack of hope generally, that it was hard to find things that inspired confidence in the future. He made the point that one of the few bright spots, something he was grateful for, was the young children of his friends. When he looked at them, their innocence and promise, it made him feel better. The man who was expressing this thought is in his mid-thirties.

Ever since that march in Charlottesville in August of 2017, the Unite the Right Rally where folks were marching with tiki torches, and our President couldn’t condemn it, I have been uneasy. I imagine for some that might not have been as seminal a moment as it was for me, but there have been so many things that have happened since then that make me question whether we live in the same reality. That event hit me hard. I thought I was watching something that happened fifty years ago, not a protest in an enlightened college town. And things have only gotten worse. The chasm has widened.

There is the possibility that we have always been this divided, but we just didn’t know it. People’s ugliest thoughts weren’t broadcast on social media. If someone stood on a soap box in a town square, even Union Square in New York City, and proclaimed that (insert your favorite scapegoats) were the devil, it was likely to fall on deaf ears. Now that person gets support from people across the globe who share a similar warped world view and the idea gets momentum. It also gets overrepresented in the social media narrative because it generates clicks – controversy or outrageousness always does. It is hard to get a handle on how many believers there really are when you have bots and trolls and foreign and domestic agents who benefit from the chaos.

If you ask me that classic question, “Are you better off today than four years ago?” I don’t know how to answer that. My economic situation is about the same, maybe better, but the precariousness of the health of the world, in every sense, affects my response. My feeling has little to do with Joe Biden or his policies. To me it feels like he is working to hold back a tsunami of terrible things – trying to preserve women’s reproductive rights, slowing climate change, bolstering the economy, minimizing inflation, reducing tensions in the Middle East, addressing crime, the list can go on. Some would include the southern border as a crisis. In some ways it is, but in other ways it is a manufactured panic. There are real problems with our immigration system, but some politicians are invested in keeping it a problem rather than making it better. I think Biden is doing a reasonable job against staggering obstacles. He has not created these problems.

No matter how good a job he does, though, it pales in comparison to the challenges. And it is done in the setting of unprecedented division.

I see footage of what is going on at Columbia University and other college campuses where backers of Palestinians have set up encampments to protest United States support of Israel and the universities’ investment in Israel and/or our defense industry that aids Israel. Separate and apart from the rightness or wrongness of the protesters’ positions (a topic for another essay), there is a way to get your message across effectively. If the idea is to win people over to your side, persuade them of the righteousness of your position, it isn’t by shutting down traffic on the Golden Gate Bridge or harassing Jewish students or impeding folks from getting to their calculus class. In most cities, (perhaps all cities – I am not a lawyer) you need a permit to stage a protest or march. There is good reason for this. It goes back to the balancing of different legitimate interests: the protesters and other citizens going about their lives. It is fine to disrupt the routine, to a degree. But you can’t purposely jeopardize public safety. I’ve attended any number of rallies for causes. I believe in showing up to voice my opinion on public policy, but there is a way to do it. Chanting hateful slogans doesn’t help either.

We live in confusing times. I think the polls reflect people’s general uneasiness, not a judgment of the economy. I wish Biden was more effective at communicating his vision for the future of our country. I do fault him for not showing clarity of purpose and leadership, but I don’t hold him responsible for the sorry state of our union. I believe we are suffering the effects of the cynicism, greed and fear that has become the stock and trade of the Republican party, along with the poisonous influence of social media over the last decade. Add in natural disasters which are increasingly frequent with climate change, seemingly endless wars across the globe and it feels overwhelming. I don’t know what the solution is, but we need to understand and acknowledge what we are dealing with before we can find answers. Polls are not shedding light on the issue. We need to be asking different questions.

Conundrums

I was listening to the local NPR station the other day. First there was a story about NYC suing bus companies which have been ferrying immigrants from Texas to the city. I wondered about the wisdom of that suit. Are the bus companies at fault? Clearly, the city is desperate to get a handle on the immigration “crisis”? Note: I am putting quotes around crisis because I am skeptical about the word in this context. It has been called a crisis for decades.

Following that story there was another report on a bill proposed by two lawmakers in New York State to appoint a commission to study the continued loss of population by the state. The latest census figures showed New York as one of the biggest losers of population in the country. This is a concern on many levels – mostly for the state’s economy and future vibrancy.

Does anyone else see an irony in airing these stories back-to-back?

Maybe immigrants could address the problem of the population loss? Maybe they could invigorate communities that are struggling?

I am not naïve. I understand that uncontrolled immigration is problematic. I believe that there are security concerns posed by folks streaming in through unregulated borders. We need to be able to have an organized process for admitting people into the country – so they are registered and authorized to work, drive, pay taxes, etc. I also understand that some of the people arriving come without resources or education and therefore have real needs. They may not be in a position to the hit the ground running, so to speak, and be immediately contributing members of our society. By the same token, we have many demands as a society: for elder care, child care, agricultural workers, etc., etc., which immigrants may be able to fill. I am not talking about taking advantage of those immigrants – I am talking about meaningful employment that allows them to establish lives and plant roots.

It seems to me that some creative problem-solving could address this challenge if we stripped away the fear-mongering and xenophobia. [And if we demanded that the ultra-rich paid their fair share of taxes.]

That’s just one of many perplexing conundrums I have been noticing.

The resignation of Claudine Gay as president of Harvard is another puzzle. Some folks believe she should have resigned after her miserable performance at the congressional hearing where she was asked about antisemitism on campus. Whether she was over-prepped by lawyers or genuinely unable to acknowledge the need to offer protection to Jewish students due to her own bias, she was certainly tone-deaf. Then the revelations about plagiarism came out. Depending on what you read, those instances are either minor oversights or significant breaches of standards of scholarship.

According to Gay’s statement, it sounds like she believes she has been subjected to a relentless racist campaign that resulted in the need for her to step down. From her perspective, resigning was about putting an end to the harassment and allowing Harvard to move forward, rather than admitting to any substantive wrongdoing.

I am frustrated by this. I want there to be clarity. Her resignation should either be an appropriate result of her academic impropriety or her inability to successfully manage the institution, or both, but not because she was unjustly run out of town. I don’t doubt she has been subjected to racist vitriol – those ugly voices are very loud. But, I want an objective assessment of her scholarship. I want to better understand how she responded to the complaints of Jewish students who felt unsafe. Is it even possible in this day and age to assess these things impartially. Whose judgement can we trust?

I believe that higher ed needs diverse representation. I believe in the goals of DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion). How those programs are implemented is where the challenge lies. I believe there are deserving candidates – persons of color and individuals from historically marginalized communities – who are qualified to be university presidents. It feels like we are in an impossible position. Can someone who is white be appointed without everyone complaining about ‘privilege’? Can someone who is Black be appointed without arousing suspicion about their qualifications? There is no trust – and therein lies the conundrum. How do we rebuild it – if it ever existed to begin with? There are so many voices of cynicism that they can drown out the hope if we let them.

That lack of trust is the common thread between these two scenarios. We don’t trust our institutions and we don’t trust ‘others,’ people not of our tribe. That has to change.

I have written this many times before, here it is again: I will hold on to hope that we can find creative solutions to these conundrums and that we can find a way to trust our institutions (not blindly, but with proper checks and balances). We must find common ground and let go of prejudice. We have to find a way to build a foundation of trust. I will be listening for voices who can lead us in that direction.

Another Perspective

I have woken up at about 1:00 a.m. the last two nights with thoughts about the war in Gaza. As I lay in bed I argue with imaginary Palestinians – or not so imaginary since I listened to an Ezra Klein, a New York Times writer, podcast that featured Amjad Iraqi, a Palestinian citizen of Israel who is a writer and editor there. I think it is important to be as informed as possible by hearing different perspectives so, though it was uncomfortable, I listened to what he had to say.

He made some important, legitimate observations that need to be acknowledged. The way Israel came into being in 1948, with U.N. Resolution 181 and the subsequent war of independence, was traumatic for the Arabs who lived on that land. The U.N. Resolution which passed in November of 1947 defined two states, one for Israel and one for Palestinian Arabs (Jerusalem was designated as an area to be overseen by the U.N.).  The Arabs believed the resolution was inadequate and rejected it; Jews embraced it and began organizing a state for when the British left. The day after Israel declared its independence on May 14, 1948, five Arab countries (Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt – Saudi Arabia provided troops under Egyptian command) attacked the new state expecting to claim the land on behalf of the Palestinian Arabs. A war ensued during which Arabs either fled or were forcibly evicted from their homes – and in 1949 Israel won. As a result, Palestinians designated May 15th as a day of mourning – they call this sequence of events The Nakba, the catastrophe. It was violent and tragic from their perspective and that trauma, and that narrative, has been passed down generation to generation. We cannot deny that trauma, just as we cannot deny that the trauma of the Holocaust has shaped our (Jews) world view (though in a very different way). Even if we believe that the founding of Israel was a righteous and necessary thing, we can still understand that it wasn’t without consequence. There was a human cost.

With that said, the question becomes: aside from acknowledging the reality of their pain, what do we do with it? What actions or changes should be made when we recognize it?

If you ask Mr. Iraqi the only answer is to give the land back to the Palestinians. And not just any land – the precise land that became Israel. In addition, if you ask Mr. Iraqi, all Palestinians in the diaspora should have a right of return to that land. That answer is impossible to fulfill and maintain a Jewish state (certainly not a concern for Mr. Iraqi). Israel would no longer exist.

In one way, I understand his argument. Something valuable was taken, it should be given back. But that isn’t the way the world works. First and foremost, it denies Israel’s right to exist. When there is a war, the losing side, by definition, loses. At the end of a war a treaty may be signed, and agreements may be reached where some concessions are made, some property may be returned, and reparations may be offered. But, I can’t think of an instance where the people on the losing side were made whole, given all their territory back. I don’t understand why there would be an attitude of entitlement? Why would there be an assumption that they should get the land ‘from river to sea’? We can argue forever who had it first. Jews can argue their ‘entitlement’ from the time of the first temple. There isn’t a nation on this earth whose borders were somehow preordained – bloodshed has defined all of them.

It seems to me that it is more realistic and reasonable to take the position that there is a compromise to be made – a two state solution – the parameters of the respective states are difficult to hammer out (though it makes sense to start with the original U.N. Resolution) and figure out a plan for reparations. I’m not suggesting something new here – there have been negotiations for a Palestinian homeland for decades. But if the Palestinians come to the table with the perspective that Mr. Iraqi offered, there is no room for negotiation. There is no path forward. Mr. Iraqi made a vague suggestion of decentralized entities – not nations. While I am open to other models of governance, you can hardly move forward without a more concrete structure to offer that is ready to be implemented.

Putting aside for the moment his position that the only option is to give all the land back, Mr. Iraqi made the point that Palestinians had tried everything to achieve their goals – diplomacy, civil disobedience and ‘minor’ armed resistance – and that none of that worked, so Hamas launched the attack of October 7th. He didn’t exactly justify the nature of the attack – he said time would tell if Hamas leadership authorized the brutality or whether militants went rogue (Meanwhile, just recently Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank said that Israel conducted the massacre at the music festival! Many pro-Palestinians will be willing to believe that). But, Mr. Iraqi was saying that their desperation left them no choice but to attack. I would argue that they didn’t try everything – it seems clear to me that there was and is another option.

What if in 1948 or at subsequent points when a Palestinian state was offered, not that it encompassed what they believed they were entitled to, but it was land and it would be under their control, they accepted the terms? And, what if, instead of keeping refugee camps, they built cities and towns with the resources they did have? And what if their thinking was, we will make this homeland as strong as possible, with a productive economy and an educated citizenry? They might have achieved their ultimate goal that way – if they shed their idea of themselves as victims and built a nation, who knows what would have happened? Why wasn’t that an option? Why isn’t it still an option?

I can imagine progressives reading this and saying that wasn’t possible – they were oppressed. I would draw an analogy to a child who grows up with abusive parents. At a certain point, if you want to be a productive adult, you need to take steps to heal yourself. It can’t be done alone – support is needed – but the recognition that you need to fix yourself, that first step, needs to be taken by the individual. I think it is no different with an oppressed people. Leadership needs to emerge that empowers people to heal their wounds and celebrate their strengths – not through terrorism, not through rage, but through education and growth. We can understand that a person who grows up with abusive parents might turn violent, but we need to offer another path forward. As a society, we cannot accept violence or murder as a viable response. No one is served by spending their life defining themselves as a victim. The fix for that is not to become a vigilante or a terrorist – that is misguided and only digs the hole deeper.

I live in the real world, so I recognize that this is not simple. We can’t flip a switch and change a national identity. Our national identity as Americans has emphasized rugged individualism and that has a toxic side (i.e., gun culture). Adjusting that, or even recognizing the negative aspects of it, is not easy. I also understand that the current state of conflict in the Middle East benefits certain actors – Iran is served by the role the Palestinians play. There are powerful interests served by the chaos in the Middle East aside from Iran. China and Russia might see opportunities they can exploit. I don’t have answers, but we have to understand the perspectives and accept the need for concessions. One point that Mr. Iraqi and I would agree on is that the status quo, even before October 7th, was unsustainable for both Israelis and Palestinians. Listening to Mr. Iraqi I was not optimistic about the future, but once again, I have to hope that each side can come to their senses and make the necessary compromises so that Israelis and Palestinians can live in dignity and peace – and the further killing of innocent people can be prevented.

King Herrod’s Palace pool on the coast of Israel
one of three sources of the Jordan River – Tal Dan, Israel

Photos taken by me, Linda Bakst, in June 2011

Fighting Despair

It has been a long time since I’ve written a blog post. I wrote my last one over a month ago. It has been a struggle to motivate myself. The things I have been thinking about are not easily translated to the page. I am fighting despair.

I have written quite a lot on this blog about my identity as a Jew. In fact, my last essay was about Yom Kippur and what it meant to me. Little did I know that just days after I posted that piece a truly horrific outbreak of violence would be perpetrated on the people of Israel.

Like most sentient human beings, I was shocked by the barbarism displayed by Hamas. It was almost too much for the brain to take in. How could people inflict such cruelty on fellow human beings? The stories that emerged – of young people peacefully attending a music festival only to be slaughtered, of Jewish individuals, some of whom dedicated themselves to Palestinian rights, murdered or kidnapped, not to mention the maiming of babies – were too terrible to contemplate.

Many have written that Israel is a small country, and everyone knows someone touched by the violence. Many American Jews are connected with family and friends there. I have a more distant connection. I can’t say the attack hit me as it would if it was my own country. I read many posts from those who were crying and devastated. I didn’t have that immediate reaction, maybe I was numb.

As time has gone by, though, I find my pain deepening. The reaction of the world, the exponential rise in antisemitism, the seeming lack of understanding of the existential threat to Israel, the unwillingness to assign responsibility for this disaster to Hamas, are all beyond my comprehension. I am profoundly disappointed in humanity.

I am not blindly loyal to Israel. I, like many other American Jews and Israelis themselves, have communicated disapproval of the policies pursued by Netanyahu and his administration. Netanyahu, in my view, is as bad as Trump – but smarter. I believe he has done real damage to Israel. Though the lion’s share of the blame for the attack is on Hamas’ leadership, Netanyahu and the positions Israel’s government has taken, has contributed to the rage that Palestinian’s felt and feel. It doesn’t justify the violence, but it likely fueled it.

There is no doubt that the Palestinian people have been oppressed. Where opinions sharply differ is in identifying the oppressor. Most of those who are taking up the Palestinian cause in protests in this country and abroad assign that role to Israel (other than those who subscribe to a broader Jewish conspiracy) and to some degree the United States. I don’t buy that. There are so many examples of failures of Palestinian leadership – going back decades. Time and again compromises have been rejected. And, terrorism has been their weapon of choice for more than fifty years.

While I am not a scholar of the Middle East, I have done some reading. I have paid attention. I am not going to list the litany of times that opportunities were squandered. Similarly, I am not going to detail the errors that the I believe the Israeli government has made. Suffice it to say, I believe both parties bear responsibility for the failure to achieve peace, but in my estimation  Palestinian leadership shoulders more blame for the poverty of its people. Their corruption and their failure to use resources they do have to better the lives of their people, instead choosing to build tunnels and bombs and stockpile munitions, are evidence of their duplicity. And no matter how one parcels out fault, the violence of that attack cannot be excused.

Accusing Israel of genocide in this war is reprehensible and a lie. People throw that term around far too easily. Israel is not engaged in a campaign to exterminate a people. They are trying to destroy Hamas. We know from the tragic wars that have been fought over centuries that civilians die, collateral damage is unavoidable especially in urban combat and guerilla warfare. The United States may well have committed war crimes in Vietnam and Iraq, but we were not carrying out genocide. We may learn that Israel has committed war crimes – I don’t know if they have – but they are not engaged in genocide. Using that term is inflammatory, divisive, and singularly unhelpful in figuring out how we go forward.

Calling for a unilateral ceasefire is also disingenuous. Will Hamas cease fire? Why aren’t those voices loudly calling for a Russian ceasefire? Meanwhile Israel’s defense forces have been conducting humanitarian pauses and creating corridors to allow Gazans to move south. Other countries do far less when engaged in war. Israel is held to a different standard.

We have arrived at a place in our world where we don’t believe newspapers or television reporting. We don’t agree on a common set of facts. Palestinian supporters don’t believe babies were maimed. Maybe they don’t believe there are miles of tunnels under Gaza City – and if they do believe it, they probably don’t attribute them to nefarious purposes. Perhaps they don’t believe that schools and hospitals are being used as shields for military operations. I’m sure there is a narrative that they tell themselves that explains it all away. And, they think I am telling myself a story about terrorists and a constant barrage of rocket fire into Israel to justify my opinions. How do we bridge that divide? It is impossible to have a conversation when you believe fundamentally different things about events unfolding in the world.

I believe there is a truth. I read the Hamas charter – the one written in 1988 (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp) and the newer, revised one written in 2017 (https://irp.fas.org/world/para/docs/hamas-2017.pdf). They are frightening documents. They don’t advocate for democracy or freedom for the Palestinian people (despite defining itself as a liberation movement). It states as its goal the end of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic caliphate. The words are in black and white – no one has to interpret them for you. You need not rely on someone else’s understanding. The first version actually goes so far as to advocate for the murdering of Jews (not just Israelis) by all true Muslims.

After I read those documents – and I read them because I needed to understand if Hamas was antisemitic and if its stated goal was the destruction of Israel – I didn’t want to rely on word of mouth or reporting – I became more outraged by the rhetoric we are hearing. Hamas cannot be given a pass. That charter does not provide an answer to the suffering of the Palestinian people, at least not an answer that most citizens of the world would accept.  It has reinforced my belief that Golda Meir was right when she reportedly said, and I am paraphrasing, there will be peace when they love their children more than they hate us. In her statement the ‘they’ she referred to were Arabs, not Palestinians – that term was not in use then – she was credited with saying this in 1957!

Because there is so much misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda, it can be hard to identify right from wrong. But, it can be done. It must be done. I approach all reports with a critical eye, things are rarely black and white. While there are shades of gray, and the fog of war makes it yet harder, there are facts, there is morality, there are choices to be made. There are sides to be taken. I stand with Israel. I will criticize it when I think it is wrong, just as I will the United States, but Israel is on the right side of this. I hope they prosecute the war as carefully as possible, limiting civilian casualties, but Hamas cannot be permitted to succeed. Both the Palestinian and Israeli people deserve better than current conditions and I pray that leaders from both sides will emerge who will take a more humane, reasonable path.

Lawn Signs

There is a route I take frequently when I run errands. I drive through a neighborhood in Albany when I go to the bank (more likely the ATM), to our favorite bagel shop or to walk at SUNY. Probably 18 months ago I noticed a house had a for sale sign. The brick house sits on a corner lot; it is possible that it is a multi-family dwelling. Anyway, I wondered how quickly it would sell. The reason I wondered, given that the market was pretty hot, maybe not as hot as some areas of the country, but healthy nonetheless, is because of the house next door. That house has a barrage of signs – including the unforgivable ‘Fuck Biden.’ I’m all for free speech, but that is over the line. The house has lots of other signs – back in the day he (and I believe it is a he because I see him mowing his lawn) had a ‘Lock her up’ sign, among others. Based on the signs he displays, he is deep into conspiracy theories about the deep state.

A photo from a New Jersey newspaper – not the house I drive past obviously, and his are a bit more discreet, but the sentiment is the same

I have driven past the ‘for sale house’ for many, many months and now its lawn is overgrown, and it has one of those orange notices affixed to its front door – I imagine that it is in foreclosure. Do you think it has anything to do with the ‘Trumpy’ neighbor? I would not want to live next door to someone who was willing to put a sign out with an expletive directed at anyone, much less our president (even if I hated him/her – in my most outraged state with Trump it would never occur to me to display such a sign). Or maybe something is actually wrong with the structure? I don’t know, but I have mixed feelings about it. Part of me feels a certain satisfaction that the house is going to seed because the Trumper takes meticulous care of his property and can’t enjoy looking at the mess next door. I don’t wish ill to whoever owned the house that isn’t selling, and it isn’t good for the neighborhood to have an abandoned property, so there is that.

That same route that I drive brings me past a house that this month is festooned with pride symbols – just around the block from the Trumper. I wonder if they know each other. I should note that there are no curse words included in their array, just rainbows and hearts. Further down that same block is a house with flags that I associate with extreme Republicans – Don’t Tread on Me, the American flag and some others that I don’t recognize (not the confederate flag, I’m pleased to report). Is it one big happy neighborhood? Somehow I doubt it.

It is interesting to me that folks choose to advertise their politics in this way – it is not election season. I have put signs on my lawn in support of candidates. In fact, my Kerry for President sign got stolen. But, I don’t choose to put symbols out that represent my politics. I admit I appreciate passing homes that fly a rainbow flag – and I like the signs that say, in one way or another, hate has no place here. I’m not sure if I think those gestures are helpful. I defend anyone’s right to put whatever they want on their lawn, though I would like to think people would exercise good judgment. ‘Fuck Biden’ isn’t good judgment. Isn’t there some ordinance against that? I would not want a six year old, who is learning to read, to see that.

It leads me to ask: will we further segregate ourselves by our politics? Cities have historically been blue, though New York City, that bastion of liberalism, has elected any number of Republican mayors. Rural areas have historically been red, though I’m sure there have been exceptions. Can that still happen? As the parties move further apart, will those anomalies continue?

I wonder what impact the divisiveness in our politics has on the real estate market, especially in suburban areas. It can’t be good for our communities. Will our neighborhoods become echo chambers like our social media? Will we instruct our realtors to find properties with like-minded neighbors?

I wish this era of hateful rhetoric was behind us.

“Woke”

Note: Today is my son’s birthday. Today’s essay has nothing to do with that, so I want to give a shout out to him here. Daniel, you are a treasure and I love you beyond measure. See what I did there – I was channeling your father. Wishing you a wonderful day and an even better year ahead with your fabulous family!

Last week Gary and I were visiting with family and friends in Florida. Several different people made the same comment: ‘I don’t know what ‘woke’ means. I don’t get it. What does it mean?’

It wasn’t entirely clear to me where the folks raising the question were coming from. We were in Florida after all, where, I imagine, the word gets bandied about regularly –  most often by Governor DeSantis who uses it as a punching bag, a politically expedient bogeyman. In those conversations I didn’t want to pursue the topic too far because we were having a relaxed, enjoyable visit – we were on vacation. Now I am back home, and the question lingers, and I feel unsatisfied in not addressing it.

I believe I have something to offer to the discussion. I’d like to suggest an analogy. Let’s say you have a longtime friend, someone you’ve known since childhood, whose nickname was Shorty. You and his family and friends have always called him that. Now, as an adult, this person, whose given name is Joseph, tells you they don’t like the nickname and would prefer to be called Joe. I would hope, as a sentient human being, who respects the years of friendship, you would say, “I didn’t realize it bothered you. I will call you Joe.” To my mind, that is an example of being ‘woke.’ You have heard someone’s concern and you have responded accordingly.

You might be tempted to respond by saying, “We call you Shorty with affection. It’s cute. You aren’t short anymore, what’s the problem?” You may be thinking, ‘it’s no big deal, why is he making a thing of it.’ But, while you may have those thoughts, hopefully you would resist giving voice to them and respect their wishes.

I think a ‘woke’ person responds with an open mind, is willing to hear a person’s concerns and change the words they use in accordance with their wishes. It is really that simple.

Human behavior, though, isn’t that simple. At the risk of stretching the analogy too far, I’d like to take a closer look at the dynamic.

The first step is Joe being willing to say how they feel. It may have taken years of feeling insulted or uncomfortable for him to finally tell people to stop calling him Shorty. I don’t know about you, but I want to be a person that Joe can approach. I want to communicate to my friends and family that I am open to hearing what they need. I don’t want anyone to worry that I would make fun of them or be dismissive. To me that is part of being ‘woke.’

Let’s say some time passes and the next time you see Joe you call them Shorty – old habits die hard. Here’s another opportunity. It is possible that Joe loses it and gets angry. To my mind that would be unfortunate, perhaps understandable, but an extreme reaction. Let’s assume for the moment, he doesn’t react that way, but instead just gives you a look that communicates his displeasure. Hopefully you would apologize, saying that you will try harder to get it right and please be a bit patient. In that situation, if you offer a sincere apology and offer to do better, you are ‘woke.’

Now instead of this operating on a personal level, expand the idea more broadly. Representatives of a community disavow a term that has long been in use. Why not stop using it? Not every single person in that community might agree, some may not find it insulting. Communities are rarely monolithic. But, when a consensus emerges, why not respect it?

Similarly, when we come to understand more about our history, for example we learn more about treatment of Native Americans at residential schools, we need to acknowledge it. It doesn’t displace everything else we know, it doesn’t necessarily become the focus of the narrative of the story of our country, but it can’t be swept under the rug and ignored either. There is a balance. Our children are capable of understanding that – the good, the bad and the ugly. Again, there may be extremists who want the story of America to be shaped entirely by slavery. I think that would be a distortion. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington should be examined as the complex figures that they were – the great ideas and leadership they provided along with the things they got wrong.

The truth is, we shouldn’t need concepts of ‘woke’ or ‘politically correct.’ If people exercised compassion and empathy, we wouldn’t. If people acknowledged that there is always more to learn about history, about cultures other than our own (and even our own), we wouldn’t need ‘wokeness.’ Sadly, many people are not capable of that without being ‘policed.’

There is no doubt there are people who overreact. There are those who are unwilling to be forgiving of others who slip and use outdated language, or of those who simply haven’t kept up. It takes two to tango. There is nothing gained by being so strident and rigid. Some of that may come from a lack of trust, from not believing in the sincerity of those who profess to be trying. I come back again to a tenet of Anti-Defamation League training – which says that you should start by assuming the best of intentions on the part of the other person. They may prove unworthy of that assumption but start by giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Based on my understanding, I see nothing wrong with being ‘woke,’ or ‘politically correct.’ It is something I work on.

Reverberations Through Time

Note: I have been absent for a month! There are many reasons for that – I will write about it at another time. I am glad to be back! I look forward to continuing our conversation about stories we tell ourselves.

December 15, 2022 would be my father-in-law’s 100th birthday. David Bakst made it to his 98th and for that I am grateful. He passed away a week after achieving that milestone.

As I reflect on his life so many thoughts come to mind. In David’s last years, I would often accompany Gary on his Thursday afternoon visits. Gary doesn’t see patients on Thursday afternoons, so it was a good opportunity to spend time with his Dad. They, including his mom despite her advanced dementia, would go out to lunch to a diner near their apartment in Saugerties. I know Gary treasures that time and the memories they provide.

Many of those lunchtime conversations revolved around David’s memories. We would ask him about his youth and World War II experiences. We heard the same stories multiple times, new details might be offered, but even if not, we never tired of hearing them. One particular comment stayed with me, though I am not sure why. As David described his family life before the war, he said that after Shabbos services, the adults (his parents’ family and friends) would gather at his home and talk (argue) politics. David listened in, beginning a long interest in politics that remained for the rest of his days. He told us that his father was a supporter of Jabotinsky, who he described as more of a right winger. The name vaguely rang a bell, but I didn’t know anything about him or the context. I was curious. I tried to imagine what their political conversations might have been about in the late 1920s and early 1930s in David’s shtetl (village) in Poland (now Belarus).

After that conversation, I googled Jabotinsky and learned a bit but didn’t get very far and I set the subject aside, though it still intrigued me. Oddly enough the other day I came across a podcast entitled Jabotinsky and the Birth of the Israeli Right. I thought this might shed light on the topic, plus I am interested in better understanding the politics of Israel and this sounded like it could offer that.

I am very glad I listened. It accomplished exactly what I had hoped. It reaffirmed my belief that learning about our past illuminates our present; the issues that plagued us more than a century ago still percolate in the lives we live today.

The topic the Bakst family was likely discussing during their Shabbos afternoon visits was Zionism. It is appropriate that I write about this now given the intersection between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, and the appalling rise in antisemitic rhetoric and violence.

So, what is Zionism? It is the movement to create and support a Jewish homeland. Its roots go back centuries as part of Judaism, with the idea that since the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem and the diaspora, Jews prayed to return to the Holy Land. This was largely a religious tenet until the late 19th Century. It evolved into a political movement, in part in response to virulent antisemitism in Central and Eastern Europe when Jews were largely confined to living in an area called the Pale of Settlement (part of Russia and Poland). In the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, as pogroms (violent riots perpetrated against Jews in the Pale of Settlement) became more common and feared, some Jewish thought leaders concluded that the only solution to antisemitism was a Jewish homeland. They believed that there was no future for Jews in Central and Eastern Europe and that ultimately, they needed their own country in their ancestral homeland. The father of this strand of political Zionism is generally considered to be Theodor Herzl, who wrote a pamphlet that was published in 1897 entitled Der Judenstaat (The State of Jews). In it he argued that Jews were a nationality, that it was not a social or religious question, but a national one. In order to escape antisemitism, express their culture freely and practice their religion, they needed a state. This idea became quite popular and was widely discussed in Jewish circles, including David’s hometown of Iwie.

As with most political movements, there were factions. I imagine that David’s family debated the different perspectives. One of the areas of disagreement was what kind of country should it be. Some advocated for a socialist state (David Ben-Gurion emerged as the leader of this wing and in fact became the country’s first prime minister in 1948); others wanted a free market approach. I would imagine David’s father, as a successful businessman before the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1939, would have wanted a capitalist economy for the new state. Jabotinsky, the person David referenced, supported the free market, though he also believed that the citizens of the new state should determine their destiny.

Another thread of discord in Zionism is the role of Judaism, the role of the religion itself, in the creation and running of the state. One of the things that is unique about being Jewish is that it encompasses a number of elements: it is a religion, it is an ethnicity, and it is a culture. Some identify with some aspects of that identity, but not others. The Zionist movement included (and still includes) a range of belief about religion. Some are Orthodox, very observant Jews, for whom the religion and the state are inextricably tied. Others are secular Jews who may even call themselves atheists. Neither Herzl, Ben-Gurion nor Jabotinsky were particularly religious. Though I never had a conversation with David about this subject, I believe he would support maintaining the Jewish character of the state but would not support a theocracy. Defining that balance continues to be a challenge.

Jabotinsky also advocated for a strong military capability. He believed that the new state would be fought over, that the Arabs in the area would not relinquish land or power without a fight. Ben-Gurion believed that in return for economic and political considerations, the Arabs could be appeased. In furtherance of Jabotinsky’s belief in the need for military capability, he created a youth group in Poland, Betar, that would instill nationalist fervor in young people for Israel and train them to respond to attacks on Jews wherever they occurred. David Bakst was a member of Betar.

David’s Betar membership card, David in his Betar uniform (far left)

I wonder if any of the training he received, or the faith and support built as part of that group, helped him in his war experience.

There is great poignancy to these issues. Imagine if there had been a Jewish State in the mid 1930’s. Millions of lives might have been saved. Instead of ships being turned away from ports, instead of country after country rejecting Jewish refugees, people would have had a place to go. We will never know what might have been.

The controversies that plagued the founding of Israel are still playing out today. The tensions between its socialist origins and the demands of a free-market economy are still difficult to sort out. The balancing of the different attitudes regarding the role of Judaism in the state creates conflict. The fundamental disagreements between Israel and its Arab neighbors, not to mention its Arab citizens, are as troubling as ever.

And, in an even larger sense, we are still grappling with what to do about antisemitism. It is a pernicious and stubborn prejudice. It is disheartening that over a century after Herzl wrote his pamphlet, and even with the establishment of the state of Israel, lies, misconceptions and hate are still rife. After all he went through, I wonder if David would be surprised by this latest resurgence. In that one sense, I am glad he isn’t here to see it.

More Observations

The midterms are over – or almost over. All the races haven’t been called yet. I am relieved that it wasn’t a red wave, and that Kathy Hochul will be our Governor. It certainly was not a complete victory. I am left wondering how Marjorie Taylor Greene was re-elected and why did Herschel Walker get enough votes to force a runoff? These two people are, as Dave Chappelle said about Walker on Saturday Night Live, “observably stupid.” If I think too long about people voting for such incompetent candidates, I get depressed. So I won’t. I will focus on the more reasonable results and breathe a sigh of relief that the Senate will not be led by Mitch McConnell.

I’ve been thinking about some other things related to the election. For example, why are polls reported on as if they are news? Polls aren’t actions and they are subject to misinterpretation, given that few people understand statistics. How do polls further the mission of the New York Times (‘all the news that’s fit to print’) or the Washington Post (‘democracy dies in darkness’)? Polls should not be considered news! And, I could make a strong case that hyping the polls the way that they do, is detrimental to democracy. It certainly doesn’t shed light on it. The actual election is the engine of democracy.

I understand the utility of polling for candidates and their campaigns. The polls can help them target audiences or messages (whether that is a good thing is another subject I would be happy to argue, but I’ll leave that alone). But, what purpose do they serve to the general public? Why are they covered as if something happened, as if there were new developments? They may or may not be accurate and until the actual vote is counted, they mean nothing. All they do is add to the anxiety, they create an artificial energy (whether you are on the ‘losing’ or ‘winning’ side) that fuels more spending. When you look at how much our political races cost, it is mind-blowing. Think of all the good that could be done with that money.

When I mentioned this idea at a family gathering, my niece pointed out that the media report it because people find it interesting – they respond to the horse race aspect of it – and the media is driven by interest/ratings. I believe she is correct. But does it have to be that way? Isn’t it a vicious cycle? What would happen if mainstream media just stopped reporting on it? It is possible that they could make that choice.

My son-in-law commented that he wished we followed the model of some European countries where campaigns are limited to two months. We had a short debate about whether that would lead to more focus on substantive issues, or whether the candidates wouldn’t bother and would just get right to the bullshit allegations and smear campaigns. It is hard to say how it might play out, but either way we wouldn’t be subjected to the onslaught of ads for months – and it would cost far less. After watching a program where each political ad was worse than the one before it, my husband said, “It makes me miss the drug company ads.” I had to laugh. That says something. Gary, the doctor, would rather be inundated by ads that promise relief from eczema.

* * * *

We have had some extraordinary weather. Two weeks ago, I lamented that with November beginning, we were entering the dreary part of fall. I was premature in my proclamation. We were given a lovely reprieve. It was great timing for my family in that we hosted several gatherings over the course of the weekend. Our newest granddaughter, just over 5 months old, came for her first visit to our home and we invited aunts, uncles and cousins to meet her.

As the weekend approached, we kept checking the weather forecast. I was hopeful we could gather outside to minimize the possibility of spreading Covid/flu or even a cold. I couldn’t believe that it was going to be that warm and it promised to be dry, too! The forecast held. We had a brief drizzle that wasn’t enough for anyone to move inside, so we were able to eat, drink and visit in our backyard. What a delight!

Then to top it off, we had the most amazing sunset. The sky was pastel pink – the air itself appeared to be pink. I have never seen light like that before. Though we didn’t have many leaves on our trees, we still had some lingering yellow ones. We also have a carpet of pine needles – in bright light they look brown, but in this sunset they were orange. This phenomenon of the light was brief, and I couldn’t capture it on camera. I hope I can keep the image in my mind’s eye – it was spectacular. What gift!

Another gift – a tree in our backyard

* * * *

Speaking of gifts, we are coming into the holiday season where we do a great deal of gift-giving. We don’t want to overdo it with our grandchildren. If there are items we know they need, we are happy to get them, but the truth is there isn’t much they need. We are very fortunate. With our older granddaughter, we are starting to focus on experiences, getting tickets to a show or performance we think she will enjoy. And we can contribute to their college funds – who knows how crazy expensive tuition, and such will be by the time they enroll.

They have enough stuff. The only problem is that it can be fun to pick out stuff – cute outfits, colorful toys, squishy stuffed animals can be irresistible. They can never have enough books, in my estimation, either. But, I will restrain myself. In the interest of our budget, and not contributing to needless clutter, I won’t overdo it. At least I will try not to. Plus I can channel some of that desire to give to others who are in need.