REFLECTIONS
Reaching and keeping nationhood
By Sheila Orysiek
 SAN DIEGO—As Benjamin Franklin left Independence Hall at the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, on Sept. 18, 1787, a woman - Mrs. Powell, asked him “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” His reply resounds through the centuries: “A republic if you can keep it.”
Reaching toward, achieving and keeping a representative form of government is a slow, difficult process - despotism is much easier. Our own journey was precarious until the end of the Civil War, with the reincorporation of the Confederacy back into the Union. The lesson learned from the experience was if one disagrees with an outcome - a decision of the electorate - opting out is not a solution. In a successful representative form of government one just waits until the next election and works toward changing the outcome.
The tests for the success of our representative republic are not entirely in our past, but with us every day. A serious one within easy memory is the election of 2000. With the country divided pretty much in half, only one half would be pleased with the outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court as the result of the presidential election hung in the balance. Whichever way it went - roughly fifty percent of the electorate would be dissatisfied.
But, happily for us, with over two hundred years of experience wrestling with the sausage making tumult of a representative form of government, Americans decided that whatever the decision of the Supreme Court, physical protest - violence - was not an option. Those who were displeased would wait until next time. And, so, because there was no need for soldiers in the streets to influence or enforce the Court’s decision, we were all winners in the long run of passing of power from one administration to the next. No one wanted to dance in the streets and no one wanted to shoot the dancers. We had all passed the test of “keeping” the Republic.
Other countries have had difficulty with representative government. France spent over a century getting it to fit properly. Germany and Japan had it imposed. Russia has fallen backwards. No Arab state has it without accompanying violence such as in Pakistan. Turkey is under assault. It is very fragile - where it exists - in South and Central America and Africa. The most successful countries at this, generally speaking, are those with a history of influence from England - though England itself evolved only slowly toward representative government and to this day has no formal written constitution.
This brings me to the continuing drama of the Palestinians. In every instance when they have had a chance to reach out for peaceful resolution of their problems, they have chosen instead short term gratification - a rocket - a dancing in the streets - a bomb belt. They say they want a state - but only at the expense of another state and they will accept nothing else. Both of these responses indicate political and cultural immaturity.
They cry out how poor they are - yet they’ve been the recipients of billions of dollars for over 60 years from the United Nations, the United States, European Union (individual European countries before the EU), the Arab Gulf States, plus NGO’s. What has happened to that money? What infrastructure and institutions have they built?
What they did buy were guns, bombs, rockets, and musical instruments to accompany the dancing in the streets. Shooting a rocket and dancing afterward is a short term view - erased almost immediately by the Israeli tank or missile that comes over the hill. How many times can a people repeat the mistake of the short term view? As long as their leaders offer no viable realistic long term view and as long as the children are taught that hatred trumps all; even if that hatred is suicidal.
When given a chance to vote for leaders in the Palestinian territories the people voted for a terrorist government - the short term view. These people have the same natural resources that Israel does including the same coast line and climate. But if one has a short term view, the investment goes into bomb belts for children rather than a university, seaport, or a tourist hotel on the beach. When Israeli settlements were turned over to them with some intact infrastructure - what was their response? They tore out the infrastructure; a short term view.
Why haven’t those in refugee camps moved on - left for other countries? I have no doubt those individual families who are truly tired of the status quo and want to live decent lives - probably have. It has also been a policy to purposely keep them in “temporary” refugee camps - which keeps the pot boiling against Israel. But I think there’s another side to this - as a whole - nobody wants them. They have fomented trouble wherever they’ve been.
Some Arab states have tried to help but in each case they found themselves threatened. A Palestinian presence has threatened Egypt, Lebanon, Kuwait, and Jordan. Saudi Arabia watched how the Palestinians sided with Saddam Hussein in his adventure into Kuwait, and learned a lesson - now they only support the Palestinians from a distance. The Palestinians living in Kuwait became a fifth column. For this reason, no country wants to incorporate large numbers of Palestinian refugees into the body politic. They’ll send money, but won’t invite them in.
The Palestinians are waiting for a modern day Saladin and based on the clumsy Scud missiles which landed in Israel, they thought they had found him in Saddam. Looking for a Saladin is the stuff of legends, not modern day reality. It is a politically immature view. It is they who must reach out for the statehood that has been offered and then they must make something of it. It is that reaching out for the long term view that is missing. Without that long term view even if they are given a state, they won’t be able to keep it. One has only to observe the self-created chaotic circumstances in the areas they control now.
They would rather not have a true state because they aren’t getting everything they want such as Jerusalem and the “right of return.” To them it’s all or nothing - which is a short term view. It’s a choice for continued chaos - an infantile choice. And that’s what I think when I see them dancing in the streets - how infantile.
People have to reach out for success it can’t be handed to them because then they don’t know what to do with it. And once they’ve reached out for it, they have to work at keeping it - that effort never stops. It takes a certain amount of political sophistication, but people who dance in the street when a rocket hits someone else’s house (even though they know retaliation is on its way) or celebrate putting bomb belts on their children are obviously not politically ready either for a legitimate state or the keeping of it.
However, we need to ask ourselves some questions. Why is Israel accused of violating civil rights when the Palestinians are not? Why is Israel excoriated and asked to be “measured” in its responses to attack? Why is it just fine when Israel’s soldiers are kidnapped? Why is Israel held to a different standard? And why are the Palestinians continuously offered a state by the dreamers of the world when they have demonstrated they are not ready to “keep it?”
Because Israel gives focus to the irrational hatred called anti-Semitism - that’s what it’s really about and why Israel gets blamed for the political course the Palestinians have chosen for themselves. Were they politically and culturally ready for a state - they could vote for respectable leaders, opt to spend money on infrastructure and industry, and would have had a legitimate state years ago. They won’t get everything they want - but few nations have everything they want. There was a time the United States wanted Canada, but decided to go ahead with evolving as a nation without it.
Be a part of our San Diego Jewish World!
Between 2,000 and 3,000 visitors read our online news service every day. With your help, we would like to give them even more to read.
We are looking for more volunteer writers and photographers, and more commissioned advertisting sales personnel.
If you'd like to join our team, please express your interest in an email to Donald H. Harrison, our editor and publisher, at sdheritage@cox.net. It doesn't matter where you live, so long as you have a Jewish story to tell. And, as anyone who reads our masthead knows, there's a Jewish story everywhere!
PETE'S PLACE
An Aussie's take on the U.S. election
By Peter Garas
 CANBERRA, Australiaa—Ralph Nader has announced plans to run again for the US presidency. The anti-establishment consumer advocate made the announcement in a televised interview on Sunday.
He said most Americans were disenchanted with the Democratic and Republican parties - who were not discussing the urgent issues facing American voters. People, he said, felt "locked out, shut out, marginalised and disrespected." He called Washington DC "corporate-occupied territory" that turns the government against the interest of its own people.
Referring to the three main contenders in the race so far, he questioned: "Do they have the moral courage, do they have the fortitude to stand up to corporate powers and get things done for the American people?... We have to shift the power from the few to the many."
I do not seem to be able to glean any sense of who he has consulted about this race or for whom he is advocating - all I can see him doing is railing against 'corporate America' - always a good target especially when it's losing people money - and so trying to win votes for himself almost holding himself out to be 'holier than thou.'
Coincidentally, a site that is normally outside my range of browsing pleasure popped up in response to a query. It was "Ask Moses." On this site I found that Rabbi Naftali Silberberg has written:
"Our sages teach us that when G-d created Man, he was concerned that the angels would be jealous, for Man is the only creation like them who understands right from wrong. So G-d consulted with the angels before creating Man and said, "Let us make Man."
"The lesson from this is that one should always seek advice, even from those who are inferior to you."
Apparently, even when you are the Almighty and can create and/or destroy the universe and all things in it, you stop, pause, think of all those lesser, inferior creatures around you, and seek their advice – before you get on and do what you wanted to do in the first place.
All this emphasised with the moral imperative "should."
The word 'should' is OK from the mouth of the Almighty - after all who has a greater claim to the moral imperative.
When uttered by lesser beings though, it could be a worry!
So here is a tip for all Americans:
Be careful who you vote for in your next election.
You can know with considerable certainty that you will not have the Almighty in power, regardless of who you vote for.
At least make sure that the person you elect consults with the lesser beings around him or her, preferably those whose lives and well being are likely to be put at risk by presidential decisions.
The chances are that if you choose wisely then perhaps he or she will tend to exercise restraint when tempted to use the 'moral imperative.'
Nader lost twice- he tried and failed in 2000 and again in 2004. Only 2% of Americans voted for him last time and had his votes gone elsewhere, especially in crucial states like Florida, we may not have had to put up with "Dubya" for the last few years.
 SAN DIEGO—Nancy puzzled our four-generation family last night when she lifted her champagne glass in a toast and said “to the next ten years.” I smiled when others around our table asked, “the next ten— why not to the rest of your lives?”
As of yesterday, Nancy and I have been married 40 years—a statistic that means, in the view of some of our friends, that our marriage may indeed “make it.” There’s a good chance it will survive.
I understood that Nancy was just following a maxim that is well known in the public relations business: “Don’t make one story out of two good ones.” If you have two favorable events to publicize, don’t combine them into a single press release. If you do, at least one of the events will be subordinated to the other.
Instead, you should write two separate releases. Once the first press release is picked up by the media, then you can send a second one. That way neither event will be subordinated, and your client can bask in twice the attention.
So, with her toast, Nancy’s was issuing the first “press release”: announcing that we’ve reached 40 years as a married couple and that we are looking forward to the full enjoyment of those years between now and our 50th wedding anniversary.
Within the next decade, we expect to kvell as our grandson, now 6, becomes a bar mitzvah, and his brother, now approaching his first birthday, will reveal more of his thoughts and personality. We hope to see our two children and their spouses, now 30-somethings, find fulfillment in their careers and the personal happiness that comes with self-realization We hope that Nancy’s father, who later this year will be 90, will provide us the privilege of celebrating his centennial birthday.
We’re expecting that we will fill our next decade as a married couple with travel, both as a twosome
and as participants in family vacations. I’m also hoping that these trips will broaden our knowledge of the world generally, and of the Jewish people specifically—and give further proof to the maxim that there is indeed a Jewish story everywhere.
In proposing her toast to the next 10 years, Nancy was looking forward to so many, many things. And she was suggesting that we savor each one of them, as they come, and not be in a rush to get to the big event, our golden anniversary celebration.
But, in fact, we are mulling a “second press release”: one which will announce what we’re planning to
do—God willing—on the day 50 years after we were married. I’ll say this: it will not be an occasion that we plan to observe routinely. We hope to make a very big deal about how much our love has grown over the decades, and how much we anticipate it will grow in our so-called “old age.”
I have a toast, too: “To my beshert, for whom my love has deepened, widened, and intensified each year of our 40 together. Thank you for allowing me to share your life.”
SAN DIEGO JEWISH WORLD THE WEEK IN REVIEW
Shoshana Bryen in Washington, D.C.: Satellite shot proves Reagan's wisdom
Rabbi Baruch Lederman in San Diego: A scream in the dark, a knock on the door
Sheila Orysiek in San Diego: Cousin Barry—Another shimmering soul
Rabbi Leonard Rosenthal in San Diego: Why Moses was angered by Golden Calf
Gary Rotto in San Diego: Free at last, free at last ... to write a column
Ira Sharkansky in Jerusalem: Shas minister blames quakes on gays
Carol Davis in San Diego: S.D. Opera scores with Maria Stuarda
Donald H. Harrison in San Diego: We can make those souls shimmer longer
Dov Burt Levy in Salem, Massachusetts: In Israel, the egg roll wars heat up
Fred Reiss in Winchester, California: A Jewish path to self improvement
Peter Garas in Canberra, Australia: When bunnies and children urge murder
Charly Jaffe in San Diego: Anita Diamant takes women beyond usual feminist mantras ... to the the mikvah
Sheila Orysiek in San Diego: Sharing the Dessert: The Last Grand Jeté
Natasha Josefowitz in La Jolla, California: Grandparents, beware a call like this
Candye Kane in San Diego: Singer lauds Nimoy for photography book giving 'full-bodied' women kind exposure
Ira Sharkansky in Jerusalem: The more Palestinians and Israelis talk,
the more a real peace agreement recedes
Judy Lash Balint in Jerusalem: The separation fence—two views
Natasha Josefowitz in La Jolla, California: Feeling stressed? Write it down!
< BACK TO TOP
|
