"Listen, pal. I spent 22 years in the Navy. My father was in the Navy. My grandfather was in the Navy. We in the military service tend to move a lot. We have to live in all parts of the country, all parts of the world. I wish I could have had the luxury, like you, of growing up and living and spending my entire life in a nice place like the First District of Arizona, but I was doing other things. As a matter of fact, when I think about it now, the place I lived longest in my life was Hanoi."
- John McCain in 1982, addressing a voter who accused him of being a carpetbagger
*
Since many people are justifying Senator Barack Hussein Obama's run for the Oval Office - and sometimes insinuating that the job of President of the United States is his (or should be his) by default - whilst quoting or alluding to the words of a certain, revered, celebrated civil rights leader who had a dream that "one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal'", I believe that honoring the memory of Martin Luther King, Jr. is exactly what we should be doing in this "historic" 2008 presidential race, now that an African-American has the majority of the Democrats' approval to be the Jackass Party's general election presidential nominee.
Thus, I believe it is the case that anyone who votes for Barack Hussein Obama - and I am, undoubtedly, specifically addressing African-Americans here, but "Caucasians" too - based on the Senator's skin color (with an attitude of "It's about time" or some nonsense like that) is effectively abandoning the memory of the late, great Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. in favor of political expediency. After all, was it not during the celebrated "I Have a Dream" speech, given on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. on August 28, 1963, that MLK, Jr. shared his dream that "my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character"?
How, I ask you, would voting for Barack Hussein Obama because he is African-American - regardless of considerations as to whether or not his policies would be good for America (which should be our concern) - be anything but a slap in the face to MLK, Jr.'s legacy, especially taking into consideration that above quote? Such an act would effectively, at the very least symbolically, negate all that Martin Luther King, Jr. stood for, worked for, prayed for and died for.
Is it right to hold a man - truly, a knight of liberty - in such high esteem and at the same time willfully act in total contradiction to the values he espoused, the hopes he shared, the dreams he dreamed? No.
I think it's demeaning. Irresponsible. Hypocritical.
**
Look, I am cognizant of the fact that a great number of Democrats out there, and some Republicans too, support Senator Barack Hussein Obama of Illinois due to the man's ideological stance.
But I am also aware that in their zeal for change, many well-intentioned Americans see Barack Hussein Obama's skin color, much more than his positions, as being just the sort of change - culturally and politically - this (to quote the late, great Winston Churchill) "Great Republic" needs at this point in our history. They're willing to overlook the many factual errors in his speeches, his irresponsible approach to foreign policy and overall, his inexperience, because hey...look...you gotta understand...he's got charisma, and hey, he's an African-American who has a chance of becoming President!
Of The United States of America!
However, as a free-thinking, reasonable and common sense-guided voter, I'm not willing to overlook such "faults" simply because, as did Adolf Hitler, Barack Hussein Obama has style, charisma or personal magnetism. Just because an African-American is for the first time a major political party's choice for President of America doesn't mean he must win the election or else his candidacy won't mean anything. A lot of people will tell you that such is the case, but they're wrong.
While Obama's skin color is irrelevant in the larger scheme of things, his ideological stance is not, especially at this point in our country's history when we have - both Democrats and Republicans, "conservatives" and "liberals" alike - largely abandoned the use of reason and allowed ourselves to be caressed and cajoled by leaders - both elected and self-appointed - who all too eagerly employ demagoguery in their efforts to shape America and Americans in their image.
His ideology leads Senator Obama to advocate positions and policies which would entrench and expand the welfare state rather than scale it down. When it comes to national security, I get the impression Barack Hussein Obama hasn't a clue what is really happening in Iraq (this, while one of John McCain's sons has served in the country, and while Senator McCain and - lest I forget - celebrated action star Chuck Norris have both visited Iraq many more times than Obama).
And tell me, why should I trust a guy who is, for all intents and purposes, an unknown entity? He's asking Americans to give him vast political power to make "change we can believe in" on the basis of promises presently made, not promises previously kept.
By the way, I also know Obama's supporters don't like it when critics emphasize the Hussein in Barack Hussein Obama; this I find funny, though, when few critics of George W. Bush don't have any problem with derisively calling him "Dubya" or labeling his gaffes "Bushisms" (hey, I admit, many are pretty darn funny). Why, though? It's his middle name. We can say it, emphasize it, if we want to. And, we're allowed to feel however we want about that middle name. Some people with the name Hussein are good (I count the late King Hussein of Jordan in that group), and others not so much (duh - Saddam!). What if we make the judgment based on that?
My feelings about Senator Barack Hussein Obama - hey, if you don't like me doing it too, just call me "Jeremy Sidney Slavin" from now on - have nothing to do with the man's skin color:
* Pardon me for not wanting in the White House a First Lady who was quoted as saying "for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country".
* Pardon me for not wanting as my employee - let's not forget, these candidates are interviewing us for the highest executive job in the Federal Government, as they aren't entitled to anything or any position - a man who knows as much about dealing with the real world as I do about physics.
* Pardon me for not wanting to see The United States of America effectively turned into The United States of Canada (not that I have anything against "America's Hat").
***
Whatever else is said about him, this much can be ascertained about his character: If Barack Hussein Obama was a candidate of principle, who had the interests of the electorate at heart, he would not seek to abandon the people of Illinois - who elected him to a federal office for a specific reason, to do a specific job - and would instead at least serve out his very first term as a U.S. Senator before his ambition - which he's certainly allowed to have - compelled him to seek higher office...
...For as my Dad has attempted to teach me over the years (he's been somewhat successful), you should keep the promises you make, and finish what you start. I don't see Senator Obama doing either. Does "trust" no longer matter in 2008? That Senator Barack Hussein Obama is so darn eager not to do the job he was initially entrusted with, and cares more about power than probity, should be obvious to anyone who not only has a brain, but uses it too (the same could be said of Hillary Clinton).
Yes, it's true that Senator John McCain, if he won the Presidency, would not serve out the remainder of the current term of the federal office that the good people of the State of Arizona re-elected him to in 2004. But then, Sen. McCain has already served not one but three full U.S. Senate terms since January 1987 (and two full terms in the House of Representatives as well - from January '83 to January '87), so I'm willing to give the man a pass on his fourth if he is successful in his bid for the White House.
But then, that's me.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Thursday, May 29, 2008
He's Not Doing Us Any Favors
It should be painfully obvious to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel that his attempt to shift the country's attention from his legal woes to talks with the Syrians has been, while not a complete failure, certainly an abject one. A dishonest man negotiating on behalf of a democratic country with a dishonest, dictatorial regime is not a recipe for peace, but disaster - at least, for the democracy. It is the height of selfishness to drag a country into negotiations with a country that sponsors terrorist activities against you, just because the media's been scrutinizing the legality of your associations and donors as a politician.
I'm not on principle opposed to an eventual peace accord between Jerusalem and Damascus; I simply, reasonably, commonsensically question the ability of Israel to gain an honest peace with Syria, by which I mean a peace under which the Syrians actually end their official support for Hizballah and Hamas, instead of just agreeing to do so without carrying out the terms of the agreement.
And since it is still the case that any non-diplomat attempting to enter Syria is immediately deported if any evidence is found, on his or her person, that he or she has visited Israel, I won't believe the Syrians are earnestly pursuing peace between their Arab Republic and the Jewish state until such discriminatory policies are abandoned...which, given the close relationship between Iran and Syria, and Hizballah and Syria, and Hizballah and Iran, isn't likely to happen any time soon. Does Israel deserve peace from Syria? Absolutely. But does Syria deserve peace with Israel?
This isn't mere Diasporic bluster or frustration on my part; I feel somewhat responsible for current events. As both my conscience and my good friend Avram have frequently reminded me, it was in Israel's March 2006 elections, at my polling place in Jerusalem, that I voted for Kadima and Olmert. What the hell was I doing? Why, making a mistake, of course. (If only most Palestinians, who had voted for Hamas in their January 2006 elections, felt the same sense of democratic responsibility that I do.)
There was a word I associated with that party - change - that if left unspoken, seemed in any case in the air. After all, Kadima - formed around Ariel Sharon - had aimed to end the decades-old monopoly on power the Labor and Likud parties had more or less shared, and wished to revolutionize (in its own way) relations with the Palestinian Arabs. Change seemed about as possible then with Kadima as many deluded Americans feel it is today with Obama.
Well, I was wrong then...and they are wrong now. You hear that?
Allow me to "yell" it for you: I was wrong then, and they are wrong now!
The only significant changes were the changing of the guard in Zion from one set of corrupt politicians to another, and a loss of confidence following a disastrous attempt to punish Hizballah and Lebanon over the former's terrorist activities, in a war Hizballah started but which Israel...which Israel did not win. Now, when the pressure is really on, Ehud Olmert - an archetypal, rather than atypical, Israeli politico - is stubbornly clinging to power amidst a crumbled mandate while negotiating with state-sponsors of terrorism.
Ehud Olmert's immediate and future actions will demonstrate whether he cares more about himself or the country. He has the option of humility, resigning in face of the fact that, if nothing else, he is immensely unpopular - to say nothing of the legal accusations against him. Or he could resign, for the benefit of his own party, since even Labor chairman and Defense Minister Ehud Barak has stated he would prefer to keep the ruling coalition in the Knesset intact, rather than go to early elections he suspects are on the way.
Or, Prime Minister Olmert, who is as infatuated now with the power and prestige of political office as he was when he served as Jerusalem mayor, could continue his assault on the safety and sensibilities of Israelis until the bitter end - to their, and his own, detriment.
No, this isn't just Diasporic bluster...but even if it were, something very few Israelis in Israel - or their politicians - seem to take into account must still be remembered. As the self-proclaimed, sovereign, militarily-adept national home of the Jewish people, domestic and international political matters affecting the State of Israel tend to reflect negatively or positively (depending on the situation) on Jews around the world, and affect them the same way...whether they are Israeli or not, whether they associate themselves with Israel or not, and whether they like it or not.
This is Ehud Olmert's - and our own - reality, even if he denies it. It is not just for the benefit of Israelis that he must resign and own up to whatever deeds, legal or illegal, he has done. In addition to their political responsibilities at home, Israeli prime ministers have the added burden - acknowledged or not - of moral responsibility toward a millions-strong Jewish Diaspora that, after thousands of years of disenfranchisement, pogroms, discrimination and genocide, looks to modern Israel with a mixture of hope and fear, for themselves and for the future.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert isn't just harming the State of Israel with his selfishness and duplicity; he's injuring the People of Israel as well. This might not bother him at all...but it bothers me, a Jewish American and an Israeli, a great deal. It is one thing when an ordinary citizen feels a sense of responsibility toward his people, and something completely different when a person entrusted by his people with a position of power and influence doesn't.
I'm not on principle opposed to an eventual peace accord between Jerusalem and Damascus; I simply, reasonably, commonsensically question the ability of Israel to gain an honest peace with Syria, by which I mean a peace under which the Syrians actually end their official support for Hizballah and Hamas, instead of just agreeing to do so without carrying out the terms of the agreement.
And since it is still the case that any non-diplomat attempting to enter Syria is immediately deported if any evidence is found, on his or her person, that he or she has visited Israel, I won't believe the Syrians are earnestly pursuing peace between their Arab Republic and the Jewish state until such discriminatory policies are abandoned...which, given the close relationship between Iran and Syria, and Hizballah and Syria, and Hizballah and Iran, isn't likely to happen any time soon. Does Israel deserve peace from Syria? Absolutely. But does Syria deserve peace with Israel?
This isn't mere Diasporic bluster or frustration on my part; I feel somewhat responsible for current events. As both my conscience and my good friend Avram have frequently reminded me, it was in Israel's March 2006 elections, at my polling place in Jerusalem, that I voted for Kadima and Olmert. What the hell was I doing? Why, making a mistake, of course. (If only most Palestinians, who had voted for Hamas in their January 2006 elections, felt the same sense of democratic responsibility that I do.)
There was a word I associated with that party - change - that if left unspoken, seemed in any case in the air. After all, Kadima - formed around Ariel Sharon - had aimed to end the decades-old monopoly on power the Labor and Likud parties had more or less shared, and wished to revolutionize (in its own way) relations with the Palestinian Arabs. Change seemed about as possible then with Kadima as many deluded Americans feel it is today with Obama.
Well, I was wrong then...and they are wrong now. You hear that?
Allow me to "yell" it for you: I was wrong then, and they are wrong now!
The only significant changes were the changing of the guard in Zion from one set of corrupt politicians to another, and a loss of confidence following a disastrous attempt to punish Hizballah and Lebanon over the former's terrorist activities, in a war Hizballah started but which Israel...which Israel did not win. Now, when the pressure is really on, Ehud Olmert - an archetypal, rather than atypical, Israeli politico - is stubbornly clinging to power amidst a crumbled mandate while negotiating with state-sponsors of terrorism.
Ehud Olmert's immediate and future actions will demonstrate whether he cares more about himself or the country. He has the option of humility, resigning in face of the fact that, if nothing else, he is immensely unpopular - to say nothing of the legal accusations against him. Or he could resign, for the benefit of his own party, since even Labor chairman and Defense Minister Ehud Barak has stated he would prefer to keep the ruling coalition in the Knesset intact, rather than go to early elections he suspects are on the way.
Or, Prime Minister Olmert, who is as infatuated now with the power and prestige of political office as he was when he served as Jerusalem mayor, could continue his assault on the safety and sensibilities of Israelis until the bitter end - to their, and his own, detriment.
No, this isn't just Diasporic bluster...but even if it were, something very few Israelis in Israel - or their politicians - seem to take into account must still be remembered. As the self-proclaimed, sovereign, militarily-adept national home of the Jewish people, domestic and international political matters affecting the State of Israel tend to reflect negatively or positively (depending on the situation) on Jews around the world, and affect them the same way...whether they are Israeli or not, whether they associate themselves with Israel or not, and whether they like it or not.
This is Ehud Olmert's - and our own - reality, even if he denies it. It is not just for the benefit of Israelis that he must resign and own up to whatever deeds, legal or illegal, he has done. In addition to their political responsibilities at home, Israeli prime ministers have the added burden - acknowledged or not - of moral responsibility toward a millions-strong Jewish Diaspora that, after thousands of years of disenfranchisement, pogroms, discrimination and genocide, looks to modern Israel with a mixture of hope and fear, for themselves and for the future.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert isn't just harming the State of Israel with his selfishness and duplicity; he's injuring the People of Israel as well. This might not bother him at all...but it bothers me, a Jewish American and an Israeli, a great deal. It is one thing when an ordinary citizen feels a sense of responsibility toward his people, and something completely different when a person entrusted by his people with a position of power and influence doesn't.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Thoughts About Israel's 60th Birthday
What does Jewish independence mean to me?
Well...
When one considers that what we're talking about now is the 60th year of modern Jewish sovereignty, over a portion of the Land of Israel, after nearly 2,000 years of Jews being denied not only the right to sovereignty, but the right to live, well...such is a question weighted with historical and spiritual importance.
Not only that...we must remember that I am approaching the question not from some abstract perspective, but from the perspective of one who by his own choice became Israeli, who not only lived in the Land which God promised to the patriarch Abraham, but then later, of his own volition left it and our eternal capital...left it physically, if not completely mentally, and never spiritually.
Let us not forget - let's not forget - that how a man feels about the State of Israel, and what its existence means to him 60 years after the reestablishment of Jewish independence in the Land of Israel, is a very personal thing. His thoughts on the matter cannot and should not - in this or any other case - be separated from his close, personal experience with the subject in question.
That of necessity being said, speculation abounds these days over what Israel's greatest accomplishment in its 60 years has been.
To me, that's a no-brainer: Israel's birth, and survival - and flourishing - against incredible odds, is the State of Israel's greatest accomplishment in my view.
We're talking, remember, about a country which was invaded by the armies of five Arab states on the day of its birth in May 1948; a country which faced imminent and utter destruction in June 1967 yet turned the tables on its scheming enemies with a surprise attack decimating the air forces of its greatest enemy; a country which - with the help of arms from the United States - held off the armies of Egypt and Syria following a cowardly surprise attack on Yom Kippur, 1973.
There is no other country on Earth possessing as sound a claim to existence and perpetuation as the State of Israel so possesses; no other nation, anywhere, has as solid a Biblical, historical, archaeological, and moral right to exist as does the State of Israel.
I'm speaking, mind you, as an unabashedly patriotic American.
Governments which raised their fingers not an inch or centimeter to assist the Jews being persecuted and murdered by the Nazis - or governments whose forebears collaborated with Nazi Berlin - haven't any right to criticize or condemn any but the most extreme, disproportionate method of self-defense the modern Jewish commonwealth employs...and even then, I'm not inclined to give such critics - and their sympathy for a genocidal Palestinian cause - the benefit of the doubt. Especially when Israel's existence, and the lives of Israelis, are threatened.
***
I find it particularly poignant that this year, Israel's 60th birthday falls according to the Hebrew calendar on May 7 (evening) & 8 (day), 2008.
May 8th, as you may or may not be aware, is V-E Day - Victory in Europe Day. In 2008, this marks the 63rd anniversary of the day Nazi Germany surrendered to the Allies and brought an official end to the Second World War's ravages of Europe. Fighting, of course, would go on for several months more in the Pacific theater against the Japanese, and not so long after the victory would former allies of convenience - the USA and the USSR - square off against one another, with the fate of a Free Europe hanging in the balance.
When came V-E Day in 1945, the United States and their allies in "the United Nations" were still processing the horrors they'd witnessed in the multiple concentration camps they'd come across as they pushed across Germany and former Nazi-occupied territories. Three years and seven days later, the State of Israel was born as a legacy both of the Holocaust and the world's indifference to the plight of European Jewry.
Meant to be both a national home and a haven for a long-displaced faith-nation, Israel was born in a baptism of fire: Five Arab armies pushed across the nascent frontiers of the newly reconstituted Jewish commonwealth the day of its Declaration of Independence, their goal - in their own words, which you can look up for yourself - being to finish what the Nazis had started. They failed then, and have been failing ever since in their efforts to destroy the State of Israel...and my feelings about Jewish independence cannot fail to be influenced by such facts of history.
How do I feel about Jewish independence, in the Land of Israel, 60 years after its reestablishment?
I'm proud.
***
Am I proud of Israel merely due to the Jewish state's military accomplishments? Hardly. It is Israel's tenacity, it's pluck, demonstrated by the Jewish state's flourishing as a country in spite of the many existential threats faced by it, that makes me proud. It is Israel's democracy - as imperfect as any other system of government determined by competitive elections - that makes me proud of the State of Israel, as a Jew and an American by birth, and as an Israeli by choice (thank you, Law of Return).
If the Jews could do what they have done in Israel, after 2,000 years lacking the experience of sovereignty and faced with the threats they face, surely any disadvantaged people or faith-nation could do the same. There is much to be fixed, much to dislike, much to criticize about the State of Israel - but to do so, and act as if other countries are perfect or more virtuous in comparison, is disingenuous.
Israel at 60 isn't so much a miracle, as it is a fulfillment of a divine promise and the perpetual realization of a human dream. After all, what is so miraculous about God saying something will happen and then, well...it happens? Seems pretty cut and dry normal to me. Israel would be a miracle if God had said the people Israel wouldn't return to their Land, and then did anyway. So, too, it goes with human work and sacrifice which has gone into making Israel the success story it is.
Why is the Israeli - the Jewish - ability to outwit and outlast our enemies thought of as strange? Because so many other peoples, faith-nations and whatnot, haven't had the success we have? I mean, think about it - ancient Egypt, Babylon, Haman in Persia, the Greeks, the Roman Empire, the Arab League, the Islamic Republic of Iran...they've all tried, and all failed - though at times, they've come close - to wiping us, our culture and traditions, off the map and mind of human history.
***
The only miracle with regards to the people of Israel in this day in age might be this: That the State of Israel has held together in spite of all the differences between the Jewish population, in spite of all the life-and-death issues affecting the country which would long ago have caused other countries to be torn apart in civil war.
Maybe it's a miracle, or maybe its the anti-Semitism of Arab state neighbors, the bombs and rockets of terrorists that don't discriminate between ultra-Orthodox and secular Jew, and a shared religious, moral, geographical, cultural and historical heritage rising above petty, arbitrary differences between imperfect human beings. I don't know; it's probably a combination of all those things, with a little help from Divine Providence mixed in.
Whatever the reasons, I feel there is much to be proud of - as a Jew, an American, and as an Israeli - about 60 years of Jewish independence. There's something for everyone to be proud of, really, about Israel, whether you are Jewish or not.
And everyone - Jew and Gentile alike - should be able to take comfort in the fact that at its most basic, the State of Israel is evidence that God hasn't forgotten about us. Modern Israel stands today as proof that when God makes a promise to us, He keeps it.
I don't know about you, but I take comfort in that.
Well...
When one considers that what we're talking about now is the 60th year of modern Jewish sovereignty, over a portion of the Land of Israel, after nearly 2,000 years of Jews being denied not only the right to sovereignty, but the right to live, well...such is a question weighted with historical and spiritual importance.
Not only that...we must remember that I am approaching the question not from some abstract perspective, but from the perspective of one who by his own choice became Israeli, who not only lived in the Land which God promised to the patriarch Abraham, but then later, of his own volition left it and our eternal capital...left it physically, if not completely mentally, and never spiritually.
Let us not forget - let's not forget - that how a man feels about the State of Israel, and what its existence means to him 60 years after the reestablishment of Jewish independence in the Land of Israel, is a very personal thing. His thoughts on the matter cannot and should not - in this or any other case - be separated from his close, personal experience with the subject in question.
That of necessity being said, speculation abounds these days over what Israel's greatest accomplishment in its 60 years has been.
To me, that's a no-brainer: Israel's birth, and survival - and flourishing - against incredible odds, is the State of Israel's greatest accomplishment in my view.
We're talking, remember, about a country which was invaded by the armies of five Arab states on the day of its birth in May 1948; a country which faced imminent and utter destruction in June 1967 yet turned the tables on its scheming enemies with a surprise attack decimating the air forces of its greatest enemy; a country which - with the help of arms from the United States - held off the armies of Egypt and Syria following a cowardly surprise attack on Yom Kippur, 1973.
There is no other country on Earth possessing as sound a claim to existence and perpetuation as the State of Israel so possesses; no other nation, anywhere, has as solid a Biblical, historical, archaeological, and moral right to exist as does the State of Israel.
I'm speaking, mind you, as an unabashedly patriotic American.
Governments which raised their fingers not an inch or centimeter to assist the Jews being persecuted and murdered by the Nazis - or governments whose forebears collaborated with Nazi Berlin - haven't any right to criticize or condemn any but the most extreme, disproportionate method of self-defense the modern Jewish commonwealth employs...and even then, I'm not inclined to give such critics - and their sympathy for a genocidal Palestinian cause - the benefit of the doubt. Especially when Israel's existence, and the lives of Israelis, are threatened.
***
I find it particularly poignant that this year, Israel's 60th birthday falls according to the Hebrew calendar on May 7 (evening) & 8 (day), 2008.
May 8th, as you may or may not be aware, is V-E Day - Victory in Europe Day. In 2008, this marks the 63rd anniversary of the day Nazi Germany surrendered to the Allies and brought an official end to the Second World War's ravages of Europe. Fighting, of course, would go on for several months more in the Pacific theater against the Japanese, and not so long after the victory would former allies of convenience - the USA and the USSR - square off against one another, with the fate of a Free Europe hanging in the balance.
When came V-E Day in 1945, the United States and their allies in "the United Nations" were still processing the horrors they'd witnessed in the multiple concentration camps they'd come across as they pushed across Germany and former Nazi-occupied territories. Three years and seven days later, the State of Israel was born as a legacy both of the Holocaust and the world's indifference to the plight of European Jewry.
Meant to be both a national home and a haven for a long-displaced faith-nation, Israel was born in a baptism of fire: Five Arab armies pushed across the nascent frontiers of the newly reconstituted Jewish commonwealth the day of its Declaration of Independence, their goal - in their own words, which you can look up for yourself - being to finish what the Nazis had started. They failed then, and have been failing ever since in their efforts to destroy the State of Israel...and my feelings about Jewish independence cannot fail to be influenced by such facts of history.
How do I feel about Jewish independence, in the Land of Israel, 60 years after its reestablishment?
I'm proud.
***
Am I proud of Israel merely due to the Jewish state's military accomplishments? Hardly. It is Israel's tenacity, it's pluck, demonstrated by the Jewish state's flourishing as a country in spite of the many existential threats faced by it, that makes me proud. It is Israel's democracy - as imperfect as any other system of government determined by competitive elections - that makes me proud of the State of Israel, as a Jew and an American by birth, and as an Israeli by choice (thank you, Law of Return).
If the Jews could do what they have done in Israel, after 2,000 years lacking the experience of sovereignty and faced with the threats they face, surely any disadvantaged people or faith-nation could do the same. There is much to be fixed, much to dislike, much to criticize about the State of Israel - but to do so, and act as if other countries are perfect or more virtuous in comparison, is disingenuous.
Israel at 60 isn't so much a miracle, as it is a fulfillment of a divine promise and the perpetual realization of a human dream. After all, what is so miraculous about God saying something will happen and then, well...it happens? Seems pretty cut and dry normal to me. Israel would be a miracle if God had said the people Israel wouldn't return to their Land, and then did anyway. So, too, it goes with human work and sacrifice which has gone into making Israel the success story it is.
Why is the Israeli - the Jewish - ability to outwit and outlast our enemies thought of as strange? Because so many other peoples, faith-nations and whatnot, haven't had the success we have? I mean, think about it - ancient Egypt, Babylon, Haman in Persia, the Greeks, the Roman Empire, the Arab League, the Islamic Republic of Iran...they've all tried, and all failed - though at times, they've come close - to wiping us, our culture and traditions, off the map and mind of human history.
***
The only miracle with regards to the people of Israel in this day in age might be this: That the State of Israel has held together in spite of all the differences between the Jewish population, in spite of all the life-and-death issues affecting the country which would long ago have caused other countries to be torn apart in civil war.
Maybe it's a miracle, or maybe its the anti-Semitism of Arab state neighbors, the bombs and rockets of terrorists that don't discriminate between ultra-Orthodox and secular Jew, and a shared religious, moral, geographical, cultural and historical heritage rising above petty, arbitrary differences between imperfect human beings. I don't know; it's probably a combination of all those things, with a little help from Divine Providence mixed in.
Whatever the reasons, I feel there is much to be proud of - as a Jew, an American, and as an Israeli - about 60 years of Jewish independence. There's something for everyone to be proud of, really, about Israel, whether you are Jewish or not.
And everyone - Jew and Gentile alike - should be able to take comfort in the fact that at its most basic, the State of Israel is evidence that God hasn't forgotten about us. Modern Israel stands today as proof that when God makes a promise to us, He keeps it.
I don't know about you, but I take comfort in that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
