Obama's flip-flops are growing worrisome

I’m worried about Obama. It’s not the usual right-wing bombast (he’s an anti-Israeli-crypto-Muslim). In fact, my problems are the opposite of theirs. Now that the nomination is surely his, he’s taken some “centrist” positions in a vain hope to win over moderate Republican support.

First it was agreeing with the Supreme Court’s gun decision. That strict constructionalists failed to notice the words referring to the maintaince of a well regulated militia as the raison d’être of the Second Amendment’s very limited acquiescence to individuals bearing arms amazes. In 1973 the Court said, “Let the slaughter intensify, legally” and it did. Now the Justices are saying it again, and it will. And Obama supports them. Narrowly the case was about whether people in Washington, DC had the right to a loaded gun in their house for self defense and a rifle for hunting, but the chuckleheads who constitute the NRA are going to take this as the opening shot to bring home an alleged right for anyone not yet convicted of a crime to pack a rod.

Then it was his advocacy of federal funds going to faith-based groups. That sound you hear is Thomas Jefferson rolling over in his grave, or maybe it’s the wall of separation between church and state cracking. Or both. Have we learned nothing from the Jim Jones fiasco? You remember Jim. He established Jonesville in the jungles of Guyana after first conning such luminaries as Vice President Walter Mondale and First Lady Rosalynn Carter, and then when his frauds were becoming public he had an investigating congressman and his entourage murdered and then ordered the mass suicide of his 900 Kool-Aid-drinking-faith-based-community. And now in his swing to the right Obama wants to give money to people who on the one hand say “We will use it wisely” and on the other object to government scrutiny of how they spend money—based on their constitutional right of separation of church from state.

Not that Obama isn’t getting pilloried from those with whom he is trying to make friends on the right. He is. When he spoke of giving federal funds to religious groups he hedged. “First, if you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help, and you can’t discriminate against them—or against the people you hire—on the basis of their religion.” Bill Donohue (I wrote about him in the December 8, 2006 edition of the Voice & Herald, you may recall) shouted “Fraud!” Donohue, who fronts the “Catholic League,” fulminated: “What Obama wants is to secularize the religious workplace.” He argues that Obama’s position is “a body blow to religious groups that apply for federal funds.”

And in this Donohue may be right (I hate to write that). Obama, who billed himself in this specious speech as “someone who used to teach constitutional law” ought to know better. Part of the reason for the separation of church and state is actually to protect religion from the state. If government can impose a requirement that religious institutions can not insist that people hired share their religious convictions and sensibilities than government would, in effect, be delivering the body blow of which Donohue protests. Oh what a tangled web Obama weaves when first he practices to, to what? To deceive? Maybe.

And has he changed his position on bringing the troops back from Iraq within 16 months of his taking the oath of office? I don’t know. He says “yes” and explains “no.” He challenges those such as me who hold him to our standards. I’ve been saying these things all along, he says; we weren’t listening. Ah, the fault dear reader is not in the man but in ourselves, for we were so desperate for change that we failed to pay attention. Is that what Obama is saying?

Not that John McCain has won my support. He is a Republican. George W. Bush is a Republican. Under Bush, though warned, we were attacked, we’ve fought the wrong enemy, spending trillions of dollars and thousands of lives while the price of fuel has skyrocketed, tens of thousands of jobs have been lost, the stock market is in free fall and the Taliban is on the rise. McCain is trying to put as much distance between himself and Bush as he can, but he’s still a Republican and while someday that emblem may not be a stigma, it is today. Just ask former Senator Lincoln Chaffee.

Morgan the Flying Dog

The Voice & Herald is on vacation. So this is a shabbatshalomagram message I sent out. Enjoy.

July 18, 2008

Shabbat Shalom, Haverim:

On Sunday last Penney watered the hanging geraniums we keep in flower boxes outside our bedroom and Sam’s. She filled the watering can, raised the window then the screen in Sam’s room and watered and she lowered the screen and the window. She went and re-loaded the can and came to our room where she raised the window and the screen and watered and lowered the screen and then we drove to Tanglewood (Hayden, Bach, intermission, Mozart, Schubert) where we rendezvous-ed with some friends. (I wonder if any of you were there as well? We saw some other people from Rhode Island; we always do, but I bet at least one other person on this list was there on the vast lawn or in the shed who we missed.)

We chatted, read, picnicked, looked up at the uncertain sky which serially sent forth sun, cloud, drizzle, sun, cloud, sun, drizzle, sun, and enjoyed. We drove home, stopping to eat at a pizzeria we like and arrived here at about 8:00. The odd thing is that the key didn’t open the door directly. The bolt, it turned out, had also been locked. Strange, I’m pretty sure I left the house last; I’m positive I didn’t lock the bolt. Ah, well. Morgan the Wonder Dog greeted us excitedly, complaining about the lack of fresh air, exercise, and toilet facilities, so we leashed her and took her out for a stroll around the block. There are two beagles in the neighborhood who compete for the honor of shrillest howlers as Morgan sachets past their homes. One lives to the West of the public tennis courts we walk around, the other directly opposite on the Eastern side. Sometimes their barking is in stereo. We smile condescendingly—stupid dogs, poor owners—and Morgan often turns her back to one or the other (as they are scrapping against glass windows barking and barking and barking) and squats, sticks her tail out vertically, and poops. “Take that you pesky Beagle,” she seems to be saying. We dutifully scoop and continue on.

As we returned to the house, conversation was on how one of us could have bolted the door and forgotten that he (or she—my choice) had. But as we got home I noticed that the flower basket was resting on the yew bush. It’s not supposed to be there; it’s supposed to be hanging in front of our bedroom window. I looked up and—voila! It wasn’t there. I pointed this out to Penney and realized that our across the street neighbor Rick has a key to the house and that he often turns the bolt when we’ve asked him to come in and feed the dog or whatever. “Rick must have bolted the door,” I said. “But why, she asked?” The window box has something to do with it,” I Sherlocked.

So when we got in, I called Rick. Yes he had been in the house. The dog had been out. “Huh?” I asked in my most unsherlockian tone. “Well, Andy from next door rang my bell this afternoon and he had Morgan by the collar and asked what we should do with her. I said I had the key so I’d bring her back. I did, then I checked to see that all the doors and windows were closed on the first floor; they were, so I left bolting the door behind me,” he reported.

Even though it was only 8:30 at night, the dawn was breaking. Penney went upstairs to our bedroom and invoked the deity. “The screen, it’s gone and there’s the impression of a dog in the bush below!”

It was all clear to us now. Morgan, upstairs (rummaging through the wastebasket, I’m sure—this is how she punishes us) had heard one of her (many) enemies walking in front of the house. She charged towards the window, went through the screen, knocking over the flower box in the process and either flew (in a manner of speaking) or plummeted (same result) onto the bush, apparently unscathed. At some point later one across the street neighbor collared her and the other brought her home, checked the doors and windows and left confused, wondering how she could have gotten out, bolting the door behind him.

That night, as we went to bed, Penney had a thought. “I wonder what the person who was walking by the house thought as he saw first the screen, then the flower box then the dog fly from the second floor window. I imagine that he picked up his dog and ran like hell. I would have.” “Me, too,” I laughed, and so did she.

So that was our Sunday. Nu? What was yours like?

As always I wish you all a week filled with love and joy, peace and prosperity, good health and the wonder of discovery. Be strong and resolute, Haverim.

Again, Shabbat Shalom.

I send you all my love,

Josh

On things French (and Hasidic)

Ha! And you thought the recent Obama v. Clinton rivalry was hot, that the upcoming Obama v. McCain tussle will be rough and ready. Pshaw! You’ve not been paying attention if you think these political struggles are the most virulent around. Try the recent contest for Chief Rabbi of France. Now there, mon Dieu, is a struggle of epic proportions fought in hit-below-the-belt ferocity. I grant that it doesn’t sink quite to the level of the recent Zimbabwe debacle, but still…

The incumbent was Joseph Sitruk a 63-year-old Sephardic rabbi originally from Tunisia known for his common touch. The challenger was 56-year-old Gilles Bernheim, an Ashkenazi philosopher from Alsace who is the rabbi of Paris’ largest synagogue. As in Israel, Sephardi Jews had felt under appreciated and sought a greater voice in communal affairs. This was achieved in 1987 when Sitruk was elected Chief Rabbi. Bernheim challenged his reelection in 1994 (the post is for seven years) and lost in the usual “Ho-hum-the-communal-leaders-are-choosing-another-figure-head” election. Now, however, the gloves are off. Blame the internet. Martine Cohen, an expert on French Judaism at the National Center for Scientific Research in Paris does. She argues that “This is the first time such an election draws so much attention…The new technology allows many more people to ‘connect’ and to have rumors spread on the Internet.” Fortunately that sort of thing never happens here.

Someone calling himself “an indignant rabbi” posted what was purported to be Bernheim’s candidacy announcement in which he appeared to be making disparaging remarks about Sitruk. But it was a fake, a French swiftboating. Another charge floating around was that Bernheim was spending too much time with Catholics. In France this is hard not to do. But then the accusatory piece went further, seeming to justify the crucifixion of Jesus. Gevalt. Catholics took note and were displeased. The election, which took place on June 22, is not a democratic one. Three hundred rabbis and local communal leaders from around the country meet in conclave. It’s not quite a white smoke affair, but it’s along the same lines. (So that the suspense won’t kill you, Bernheim won the election 184 to 99.)

Rabbinical infighting takes place in America, too, but in a localized fashion. In Brooklyn, amongst the Hassidim there are two on-going disputes. In the Satmir community two brothers vied to succeed their father as grand rabbi and even brought their conflicting claims to the American legal system. The Chabad movement is split over whether the late Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson is or is not the messiah. The group that controls the basement synagogue of the iconic 770 Eastern Parkway headquarters, argues that he is, the group that controls the upper floors vehemently argues that he’s not.

Last week French President Nicolas Sarkozy was in Israel. He was greeted warmly as a friend by all factions. In his speech before the Knesset he said all the right things:

Israel and France share deep friendship that has stood test of time
French ties with the Jewish people has enriched France’s culture
French people will always stand by Israel when it is threatened
France is committed to the struggle against terrorism
France will stop anyone who calls for Israel’s destruction
Israel is not alone in its battle against Iran’s nuclear ambitions
France is ready to aid in efforts to free abducted IDF soldiers

On some other points, there can be disagreement:

Palestinians have a right to a viable state of their own
Peace is not possible without the immediate end to Israeli settlement activity
There can be no peace without a solution to problem of Palestinian refugees
Jerusalem must be recognized as the capital of two states as a condition for peace

Jerusalem as a dual capital is a suggestion whose practicality I question. The Palestinian refugee problem is a thorn. These poor people have been living in a virtual no-man’s land ever since 1948. Is it Israel’s fault that their Arab brethren didn’t absorb them the way Jewish refugees were absorbed into Israel? Whether they left the territory that became Israel voluntarily or by force, it is impossible to repatriate them without Israel losing the essential nature of its mission. Arabs claim a right of return. It’s not going to happen in any but a symbolic way. That Sarkozy chose to bring this issue up is unfortunate, but placed within the context of his overall message, that France stands with Israel, Zionists can be reassured of France’s position.

tribute to a friend

Each morning I wake up and throw a stone. An early first century rabbi suggested this and as his advice was generally humane, I follow it. Being as I am without sin (except possibly of hubris) I keep my record clean by aiming at an inanimate object, often a photo of a politician or a terrorist. Duty done I retrieve the stone, not wanting to be accused of the sin of untidiness and go forth onto the world at large.

It’s not that I don’t confess sin; I do that annually. But those confessions are mumbled sotto voce. The problem is that I haven’t actually committed any of them and some I would never think to commit. Nevertheless, based on the theory that someone somewhere did these things I repent of them, beating my breast with the strings of my tallis wrapped around my fingers.

I mention this because of a discussion in my schul last week. My rabbi, Alvan Kaunfer, is retiring from the pulpit (again—he’s done this once before to head up the Schechter School, but this time I fear it’s for real). In his penultimate d’var torah he led a discussion: “When someone commits any wrong toward a fellow, thus breaking faith with the Lord, and that person realizes his guilt, they shall confess the wrong that they have done and shall make restitution” (Numbers 5:6-7).

He then presented three commentaries. Maimonides says this confession must be in words spoken to the offended party accompanied by a promise not to commit such an offense again. A contemporary went one step further explaining that with the oral confession the person “will become careful not to do the same thing again; and as a result, becomes reconciled with his Creator.” In fact, says a still earlier commentary, “If a person is guilty of a transgression, and makes a confession but does not change his behavior…it is to no avail.”

The question Rabbi Kaunfer posed to the assembled was, “How important is confessing/admitting to wrong, in the process of changing one’s behavior? How important is it to do this verbally?” Hands flew up (but under the circumstances not mine, of course). We talked about sins against God and sins against people and debated the different means of obtaining absolution, or even if absolution was possible. One congregant whose professional life puts him in contact with violent criminals, people who have been convicted of rape, murder, armed robbery, etc. said that in such circumstances restitution is impossible; the only way to atone is to show publicly one’s genuine remorse. But I wondered at the relevance of this. I’m pretty sure that most of the people in my congregation do not commit, nor would they think to commit, such heinous sins. We promise something and forget to deliver; or we add a dubious deduction onto our tax return and if challenged will pay up; I know a fellow who took a pen home from the supply cabinet at work; and a pad of paper as well. These are the sins I imagine most people in that room capable of committing. Murder? I think not.

Then someone suggested what I’d been thinking. Maybe we do more harm by confessing than by keeping quiet. If against all odds I sinned against someone and they don’t know about it (which was the premise of the Torah statement) why tell them? A silent vow not to repeat accomplishes the same object without injuring again, though differently, the party sinned against. Back and forth the ideas flew. As they did, I remembered the 2004 presidential election. Mr. Bush was asked if he had made any mistakes in his first term. He essentially responded, “no.” He was asked if he’d ever made a mistake and replied certainly in letting Sammy Sosa get away when he’d owned the Texas Rangers and possibly in some of his sub-cabinet appointments, but he didn’t say whom. Apparently George Bush believes that if he did it there’s nothing to atone for. I’m not so sure.

Last Sunday there was a festive gathering to honor Rabbi Kaunfer, in case this really is his final departure from Temple Emanu-El. By count 613 people came to hear his praises sung and to concur in the encomiums. He will be missed; thought provoking discussions such as we had last Shabbat are but a small reason. If ever someone deserved the honorific “mensch” it’s Alvan Kaunfer, my friend, who never lets an opportunity to do good pass.

Selling our Soul

Yehezkel Dror is the founding president of the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute, a professor emeritus of political science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, a recipient of the Israel Prize and a member of the Winograd commission of inquiry into Israel’s war with Hezbollah in 2006. He’s also the man who ruined my day a week ago. That latter is the least of his sins.

In a Forward column of May 23 he opines that “when the survival of the Jewish people conflicts with the morals of the Jewish people, is existence worthwhile or even possible?” And then he answers his own question: “Physical existence…must come first. No matter how moral a society aspires to be, physical existence must take precedent…realpolitik should be given priority [over morality]…Regrettably, human history refutes the idealistic claim that in order to exist for long, a state, society or people has to be moral…The calculus of realpolitik gives primacy to existence, leaving limited room for ethical considerations.”

Realpolitik is a term coined by Otto von Bismarck. It is best exemplified in a speech he made to the Prussian Landtag (parliament) in September 1862, shortly after his appointment as Chancellor. The king wanted to make Prussia a military state; the Landtag objected. Bismarck, soon to be known as the Iron Chancellor (he spoke metaphorically of his iron fist inside a velvet glove) told a parliamentary committee that “The position of Prussia in Germany will not be determined by its liberalism but by its power … Not through speeches and majority decisions will the great questions of the day be decided…but by blood and iron.” And Bismarck was true to his word. He fabricated a war against Denmark, and another against Austria and a third against France and the blood flowed and the iron ripped into bellies and Germany was united under Prussian militarism. And then it brought about the First World War and then the Second World War. The Germans have finally learned that when you abandon morality for realpolitik you get neither.

Dror continues: “Let us leave aside reliance on transcendental arguments, biblical commands and sayings of the sages…” To which I ask, “And still be Jews?” Is such possible? Without morality, we, the weakest people on the planet would be doomed to wander, eking our way through history without contributing anything to world culture. Israel surviving without morality as its life’s blood would be a Jewish Golem, an artificial body without a soul; it would be as a hollow tree, surviving until the axe-man comes for firewood. This is what we want?

Dror continues by offering what philosophers call a reduction ad absurdum; a false choice that we must chose morality or survival. I don’t know if the Jewish people are unique in this, but one thing that’s maintained our status as a lamp unto the nations is that historically (maybe because there’s been so little choice) Jews have opted for the moral high ground that Dror so facilely would have us surrender.

One more point: “But at the end of the day,” Dror tells us, “there is no way around the tough and painful practical implications of prioritizing existence as an overriding moral norm over being moral in other respects. When important for existence, violating the rights of others should be accepted, with regret but with determination.” I imagine that these very words are the ones muttered by Ahmed as he straps the plastique onto the torso of Abdul whose assignment is to go to the local pizzeria in Tel Aviv.

Enough of Dror. The same issue of the Forward has an article by Gideon Levy of Haaretz. He wants Americans to stay out of Israel’s politics. He especially wants rich Americans such as Morris Talansky not to bribe Israeli politicians such as Ehud Olmert. “Leave us alone. Take your hands off Israel. Stop using your money to buy influence in Israel. Stop contributing to advance your interests and views, some of which are at times delusionary and extremely dangerous to the future of the country you’re supposedly trying to protect.” In other words, Israel is capable of taking the high ground; the realpolitik of the politician who contaminates the morality of the State and his foreign investor is, or will be, the ruin of the nation. Good for Levy.

Is there a local angle here? You bet there is. Our Jewish Federation, the organization that publishes this newspaper, has made a grievous error. We have squandered the high moral ground for $30,000. We have taken the advice of Dror and rejected the wisdom of Levy. I refer, of course, to our recent participation with the Reverend John Hagee, the selfsame who declared that the Holocaust was God’s way of removing the Jews from Europe and resettling the survivors in Palestine. The same Reverend John Hagee who calls the Catholic Church the Great Whore which has thirsted for Jewish blood throughout history. The same Reverend Hagee who announced that he knew that Katrina struck New Orleans when it did with such devastating force because there was a scheduled gay pride march which the hurricane prevented. When John McCain learned of the God works through Hitler blasphemy he renounced Hagee’s endorsement and in the process stood to lose 2,000,000 potential votes, for thus is the impact of Mr. Hagee. We went to an event in Seekonk where at an Evangelical church (I know nothing of the politics of this church or its minister) we received a check for $30,000 made out to a hospital in Jerusalem which we immediately gave to Rabbi Jonathan Hausman of Stoughton, Massachusetts who will forward it to Alyn Hospital. What were we doing there? Didn’t we know the money was tainted by Hagee’s presence? For $30,000 we gave the man credibility at the cost of our own? As Gideon Levy would say, “Leave us alone. Take your hands off Israel. Stop using your money to buy influence in Israel. Stop contributing to advance your interests and views, some of which are at times delusionary and extremely dangerous to the future of the country you’re supposedly trying to protect.” To which I say, Amen.

Religious World Thhrough an Athesitic Prism

I’ve just finished reading Christopher Hitchens’ god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. His thesis is two-fold—religion is the work of man, not of divine origin (and it’s used to exploit the fearful) and, as the subtitle suggests, it has no redeeming value; in fact it’s poison. Nu? So what do I think? The first part of the thesis is obviously true on the face of things. Of course religion is the work of man (which should not be read as a denial of the existence of God). People have known this since time immemorial or at least since the Greeks began to think about things. Xenophanes of Colophon (570-480 BCE) noticed that the gods of the “Ethiopians are black and snub-nosed, those of the Thracians have blue eyes and red hair.” The second part of the thesis is more problematic. “Everything” includes a lot of things. Can religion really poison them all? Well, Pope Alexander VI is a well known example of someone who did, in fact, use poison, but Hitchens doesn’t even bother to mention him, though he does include in his rogues’ gallery of examples such icons as Mother Teresa and Mohandas Gandhi.

What are we, the religious people of the world, to make of this? The simple answer is to point out all the errors of fact that mar Hitchens’ work. At some point I started to take account. My dozen examples may be his only gaffs, or the tip of the iceberg; in any event his credibility is undermined. (Examples: William Jennings Bryan was three times—not twice the Democratic candidate for president; scholars believe Jesus was born in 4 BCE, not 4 CE.) We could point to the ethics religions (whether man-made or divine in origin) provide to help guide lives honestly and productively. But he has an answer to that, two in fact. One is the obvious rejoinder that you don’t need religion to have ethics. Atheists and agnostics are potentially as ethical as religious people (and have never burned the religious at the stake). They believe in a natural law perhaps, not a revealed one. And secondly, he asks, are religious people all that ethical? Some are, but remember Alexander VI, and the recent Catholic priests’ sexual abuse scandal, and the Orthodox rabbi who cheated old people in his nursing home. Need I go on?

David Klinghoffer in his valedictory column in the Forward defends religion, Judaism specifically. (I really hate to see him go; Noam Neusner, like his famous father, a former Providentian, is the new conservative voice on the op-ed page, but I’d gotten used to Klinghoffer. Who else could be so wrong so often? Young Mr. Neusner has big shoes to fill.) In this final column Klinghoffer manages to equate liberalism with Hitlerism, a form of journalistic legerdemain unmatched since Goebbles defended Germany’s invasion of Yugoslavia with his famous three lie sentence: “Peace loving Germany was viciously attacked by war mongering Yugoslavia.” To Klinghoffer, while Hitler didn’t believe humans could overcome their nature, real Jews do, but Libels don’t, so liberals are like Hitler. I’m really sorry to see him go. Doesn’t he know that liberals are really Commie Pinkos who are secretly trying to undermine the country? Every Rush Limbaugh Conservative knows that. Klinghoffer argues that liberals believe in gay marriage and handing out condoms in schools since gays and students are simply acting according to their nature and their hormones. Ah, but the Jewish sages have for a thousand years taught that to overcome our nature is why God put us on earth. To this Hitchens would ask: The Great Intelligent Designer gave us hormones and instincts only so that we could suppress them? I add—And give untold business to Freud and his?

In a recent New York Times op-ed piece Edward Luttwak discusses apostasy as viewed by Islam. Those who think that as the son of an African Muslim Obama will be in a better position to negotiate with Muslims are sadly mistaken. Because his father was a Muslim, Islam considers him to be a Muslim despite his father’s having renounced the religion, and despite his own conscious decision to become a Christian. The punishment for this backsliding is beheading by a cleric. It’s worse than murder as the victim’s family can forgive the murderer, but God and Islam can never forgive the apostate. Hitchens would ask where, exactly, in this scenario is the benefit of religion to society? I wonder myself.

Uzis at the Ready?

The questions of the day are two. Here’s the first: Who would like to see a viable peace in the Middle East with Arabs and Jews living harmoniously in nations side-by-side? Raise your hands. Let’s see, there’s one, two, ten, a thousand, one hundred million, two hundred million.

Now the second question: How many think this will occur in your lifetime? One, two, three, ten, fifteen, sixteen...seventeen......that’s it? I grant, this is not the most scientific of polls, but is there any evidence at all that Arab leaders really want peace with Israel? Hamas leaders? Hezbollah leaders? Syrian leaders? Has peace been possible since 1948? Yes. Has peace been achieved? No. (Well, “yes” if one counts Jordan and Egypt but “no” once those governments are toppled by Islamic fundamentalists.)

So, Happy Birthday Israel. Keep your Uzis close at hand.

In recent days former president Carter has visited leaders of Hamas and declared that they seek peace. This was immediately contradicted by leaders of Hamas. Love or loathe him, Carter is not stupid. So if he said “yes” and they said “no,” it’s obvious that Hamas set him up for a fall. They betrayed their own advocate. Can we expect them to honor their (former) foe?

Last week there was complaint from Palestinians about President Bush’s up-coming trip to Israel to celebrate its sixtieth birthday. He’s already met with Mahmoud Abbas, president of... (well, I’m not sure what. “The Palestinian Authority” is his official title, but he seems to have only a little authority over Palestinians in the West Bank and none at all in Gaza.) Bush said after the meetings that he “remained confident that talks could produce parameters for a Palestinian state.” (OK, another poll: Raise your hands if you know what that means? Seeing none, we’ll proceed.) The president of the United States went on to say, “I assured the president that a Palestinian state’s a high priority for me and my administration: a viable state, a state that doesn’t look like Swiss cheese, a state that provides hope. I’m confident we can achieve the definition of a state.” Achieve the definition of a state? Can a man whose goals are so nebulous be expected to accomplish anything? Does he even have the vaguest idea of what he hopes to accomplish? And was it necessary to insult Helvetians in the bargain? Abbas (who, as a former top aide of Yassir Arafat must be used to double-talk) responded graciously, praising Mr. Bush for “seeking a true, genuine and lasting peace in the Middle East.”

The two presidents are scheduled to meet again in Sharm el Sheik, Egypt, not in Ramallah, the temporary capital of Greater Palestine (until all of Jerusalem can be liberated). My guess is that this is less an overt insult to the Palestinians than an imperative imposed by the Secret Service. “It’s a slap in the face,” said Dianna Buttu, a former negotiator for Abbas. Bush is “saying to the Palestinians ‘You have no history, and your past does not matter.’ He’s not visiting a refugee camp, he’s not meeting survivors of the forced expulsion.” Mustafa Barghouti, a former Palestinian information minister chimed in: “The lack of sensitivity to this matter is very prominent. Forty-eight was, of course, the date when Israel was created but it’s also a very sad date for Palestinians who were dispossessed from their lands. It’s a very deep scar in Palestinian life.”

Does anybody out there see any hope for peace in any of this? Deep scars of the political and emotional kind do not heal. They get infected when palliative measures are not sought, when those who bear the scars prefer to let them fester to prove a point rather than take steps to heal the wounds. Those refugee camps are still in place because Israel wants them? Bush should go to Israel to honor its
60th birthday and also commiserate with the Palestinians? This makes sense to someone?

How many times could there have been peace in the Middle East? Let me count the ways. After 1948, after 1956, after 1967, after 1973, after Oslo, after Madrid, after Camp David, during the Clinton initiative. Is there anything now, other than a one state solution that would return all of Palestine (from the River to the Sea) to the Palestinians that can bring about peace? A peace devoutly to be wished by anti-Zionists everywhere.

Happy Birthday, Israel. Keep your Uzis at the ready.