A (premature) Jewish guilt trip

"אני מאמין באמונה שלימה בביאת המשיח ואף על פי שיתמהמה עם כל זה אחכה לו בכל יום שיבוא"

“I believe with all my faith in the Coming of the Messiah and even though he may tarry, I’ll await him every day”

Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Maimonides)

There’s hardly anything more typically Jewish than the feeling of guilt that lurks just underneath our otherwise confident shell.  Some have attributed that peculiarity to the overbearing influence of protective but also manipulative Jewish mothers.  There might be some truth in that; but I think it’s more about the inevitable gap between our exacting self-expectations (‘light onto the nations', etc.) and the reality of our all-too-human imperfection.  Whenever something happens that reminds us of that gap, a wave of guilt washes over us; and we reflexively pour a ton of ashes over our lowered heads.

Muhammed Abu Khdair, RIP

That trait was glaringly visible yesterday, as Jews in Israel and around the world learned of the horrible murder of Mohammed Abu Khdair.  The partially-burned body of that Jerusalemite teenager was found in the woodlands on the outskirts of the city.  Apparently, he was last seen being abducted and forced into a car.

In the youngster’s neighbourhood of Shoafat, the rumour that this murder had been perpetrated by vengeful Jews grew like fire in a field of dry grass – and the ‘inevitable’ (?) result was mass rioting.  With their knee-jerk propensity to assume the worst about Israel, most media outlets simply reproduced the rumour, with zero attempts to verify it.  So far, nothing really surprising.

What is interesting, however, is that the pouring of ashes over Israel’s collective head started before the police – busy as it was with controlling the riot – even had a chance to look at the evidence.  Not just the Israeli and Jewish media, not just Israeli and Diaspora leaders (from Netanyahu and Livni to the Board of Deputies of British Jews), but a huge proportion of Israeli and worldwide Jewry began to wallow in a humongous dollop of Jewish guilt.  This stood, of course, in stark contrast to the Palestinian Arab population, the bulk of which still denies that any Israeli teenager had been killed, let alone being murdered by Palestinians.  In the words of Time’s Correspondent Karl Vick (hardly a friend of Israel!):

"Many if not most Palestinians refuse to say that the three Israeli teens were abducted at all. Their disappearance is widely regarded as an excuse to force apart the newly minted unity government supported by both Hamas and Abbas’ secular Fatah party…"

I’m not suggesting for a moment that Jews should adopt the Arabs’ self-harming habit of constantly blaming others for their own shortcomings.  No, not at all; prodding introspection and harsh self-criticism are invaluable tools for self-improvement and progress; let's embrace them.  But should we not give facts a fair chance of surfacing, before we pronounce a ‘guilty’ verdict upon ourselves?

One thing is clear and no reasonable individual will disagree: whoever murdered Muhammed Abu Khdair – whether Jew, Arab or Martian – is an inhuman beast and should spend the rest of his miserable life rotting in jail.

Anti-violence and anti-extremism demonstration in Jerusalem

And there’s a second thing – just as clear, irrespective of whether a Jew has committed the disgusting murder or not: the calls for ‘revenge’ that were heard from some extreme fringes of the Israeli society need to be condemned and shamed into silence by the righteous roar of the sane majority.  And they are.  I am told that some 200 hooligans who mistakenly call themselves Jews ‘demonstrated’ with shouts of ‘Death to the Arabs’.  Some may say that 200 is a small number in a nation of 8 million that had just experienced a traumatic loss; it’s certainly much less than the number of rioters in Shoafat.  But that does not matter: those 200 are 200 too many; it’s good that many of them have been arrested; it’s even better that an anti-violence and anti-extremism demonstration was organised the very next day.

I read somewhere that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has called for "strongest punishment against the murderers" of Muhammed Abu Khdair.  Well, Mr. Abbas, here is something we can agree upon: let us make a pact today – you, the Arab and I, the Jew – that the murderers of Muhammed, whoever they are, should rot in prison, just like the murderers of Eyal, Gil-ad and Naftali; and while we are at it, let us also resolve that neither Arab nor Jew shall ever demand the release of these ‘prisoners’ from their well-deserved captivity!

But let me return to the issue of guilt.  Is it possible that the innocent Arab kid was murdered by Jewish terrorists?  Unfortunately, it's possible.  But it is by no means a certitude, or indeed an obvious likelihood.

Seeing the outpouring of grief and anger when Israel learned of the murder of Eyal, Gil-ad and Naftali, it is easy to jump to conclusions and flights of fancy.  Let us remember, however, that this is hardly the first time when innocent Jews were murdered by Palestinian terrorists.  Similar murders – and worse – have been perpetrated many times before.  Indeed, during the wave of terrorism that some misname ‘the Second Intifada’, around 1,000 Israelis were murdered; many of them were children.  In just one horrendous attack (the Dolphinarium Discotheque bombing), 21 Israeli teenagers were killed; no less than 132 were wounded.  Then, too, the nation grieved; there was huge anger, recrimination and some fringe calls for ‘retribution’.  But the Jewish population did not seek revenge on innocent people.  Why would that happen now?

And why in Jerusalem?  The three Israeli teenagers were murdered in the environs of Hebron; they were murdered by Palestinian terrorists from the area, not by Jerusalemite Arabs.  Even if the despicable thought of ‘revenge’ had found shelter in an evil mind, wouldn’t such mind seek a closer geographic connection between crime and ‘retribution’?

According to the Palestinian news agency Ma'an, 15-years-old Umayma Muhammad Abdul-Rahim Jaradat was stabbed in the neck and chest by a Palestinian man on Tuesday, near Hebron.

Finally, isn’t it possible that, either by careful design or opportunistic exploit, a ‘mere’ criminal (rather than a terrorist) took advantage of the situation to commit a ‘perfect crime’ and try to cover his tracks?  It’s not like non-political crimes do not occur and it’s not like youngsters do not fall victim to ‘mere’ criminals.  Indeed, according to the Palestinian news Agency Ma’an, yesterday in Hebron the Palestinian police arrested a man suspected of stabbing to death a 15-years-old girl; today in Gaza, a Palestinian man was killed and two others wounded in what Ma’an describes as a family feud.

I can see my critics raising a harsh brow: ‘You find it difficult to believe that a Jew committed such murder’, they say; ‘yet you wasted no time in pinning the blame for the murder of Jewish boys on Palestinian terrorists.  Why the difference??’

Well, the difference is that Palestinian terrorists have kidnapped Jews many times before – from Olympics athletes to plane passengers, from soldiers to unarmed civilians.  The difference is that Palestinian organisations openly and enthusiastically promote such kidnaps and murder.  And the difference is that those organisations have been voted into power by the Palestinian public.

My fellow Jews, I’m really not against a good, cleansing Jewish guilt trip; but can we wait just a little bit, to give God’s Truth – whatever It is – a chance to emerge into that unforgiving Jerusalem sunlight?  Just a bit of time is all I ask, perhaps a week or too.  I won’t ask you to wait patiently until the time Palestinian Arabs will embark on their own guilt trip; or until the Coming of the Messiah.  Much as I believe with all my faith that both those things will happen – one day.

No horse meat – and no bull shit, either

On Tuesday, April 15, a Palestinian Arab terrorist armed with an AK-47 assault rifle took position near Road 35 and opened fire on Israeli civilian traffic.  Before fleeing the crime scene, he managed to fire dozens of rounds at cars passing mere meters away.  Barukh Mizrahi (47 years old, father of five) was killed by one of those bullets.  His pregnant wife Hadas survived, but with multiple bone fractures and in a state of shock.  One of the couple’s children (Almog Mizrahi, 9 years old, who was travelling in a second car) underwent surgery aimed at extracting the shrapnel embedded in his body.

So far, nothing really uncommon – just another episode of ‘non-violent resistance to occupation’.  So not uncommon, in fact, that the British Broadcasting Corporation – that paragon of impartiality and accuracy – only reported it as an aside, in an article dealing with the failure of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

So did the British weekly ‘The Economist’.  But the latter’s journalist must have felt that reporting about Israeli victims of Palestinian terrorism – even in a ‘by the by’ manner – was simply too accurate, or perhaps too impartial.  Hence, the said journalist – who, incidentally, is so proud of his scribblings that he signs them only with the initials N.P. – decided to add a bit of venomous ‘context’.  So, he wrote that

“a Palestinian gunman fired on cars on a nearby road restricted to settlers, killing one of them.”

Again, on the face of it there’s nothing extraordinary here.  Political activists masquerading as journalists often engage in this type of disgraceful ‘story manipulation’.  Under their glib pens, the characters involved undergo strange metamorphoses: terrorists who deliberately and indiscriminately murder civilians turn into ‘gunmen’ or ‘militants’; and once apprehended – into ‘prisoners’ whose release is mandated in the name of ‘peace’ and ‘human rights’; as for the innocent victims of those ‘militants’ – they (and their women and children) become nameless ‘settlers’ guilty of driving on segregated roads.  Nothing new in all this.

The only problem is – in this case N.P. was caught violating not just such trifles as journalistic honesty, common decency and good ol’ human compassion, but also that absolute entity that some might call ‘God’s Undeniable Truth’.  Because Barukh Mizrahi was no settler – he lived well within those armistice lines that people like N.P. deceitfully call ‘the 1967 borders’.  As for Road 35, it’s actually not ‘restricted’ to settlers or to anyone else – but rather open to all, Jews and Arabs.  (At least – for the time being; it will take a few more attacks by Palestinian ‘militants’, before Israelis finally decide that the safety of their own children is worth more than somebody else’s convenience.  And since they are accused of ‘apartheid’ anyway…)

Needless to say, both facts – the one about the man and the one about the road – were very easy to check.  All that was needed was for N.P. to actually move his lazy behind from the environs of Orient House – where such 'journalists' tend to spend so much of their sorry lives, waiting to be fed 'news' by their Palestinian contacts – and actually do some research.

But research is about uncovering facts; and this brand of 'journalism' is not about facts, but about activism.  So, in his keen desire to find fault with the Israeli victim and somehow justify the Palestinian ‘gunman’, N.P. got it completely, undeniably, horribly wrong.  And the fact has been pointed out to ‘The Economist’.  Which, after pondering for a whole week (!), deigned to delete the blatant untruths from the web article (which, by that time, nobody was reading anyway...)  The editors even added a remark at the bottom of the article, stating that

“An earlier version of this article mistakingly said that the road in Hebron was restricted to settlers and that the victim of the attack was a settler.”

That’s it; no apology; no embarrassed admission of sloppiness, let alone bias and ill-will.  Well, let me point out to The Economist’s learned editors (LOL!) that an article does not ‘say’ anything on its own – either ‘mistakingly’ or indeed mistakenly; that it was their ‘journalist’ that said (or, rather, wrote) the calumny.  And that it’s rather obvious that he did so neither ‘mistakingly’ nor mistakenly, but as a result of knee-jerk assumptions fed by a combination of anti-Israel bias and plain ol’ laziness. 

This is no honest mistake; but even if it were, The Economist’s reaction is remarkable in its lack of professionalism.  We all make mistakes, granted; but if you are – say – an engineer, a teacher, a doctor or an economist (as opposed to a 'journalist' at ‘The Economist’), you’ll analyse the cause of the mistake; you’ll learn from it and you’ll make damn sure it won’t happen again.  In any ‘normal’ business, such processes are mandated by run-of-the-mill professional and management systems.

Well, not at The Economist, apparently.  But why??  Isn’t journalism a ‘normal’ business?  Don’t journalists expect customers to pay – directly or indirectly – for their services?  So why does The Economist dare deliver those services – repeatedly – with such blatant lack of professionalism?

British consumers were outraged when they found that food products sold as ‘beef’ actually contained small amounts of horse meat.  They demanded an inquiry; they asked the entire supply chain to analyse their processes afresh and required them to report how they’ll avoid a repetition of the mishap.  Horse meat may not be harmful; but it’s not beef.

We raise hell when we are fed – through suppliers’ negligence – the wrong kind of meat, even when it does not harm our bodies; so should we let our minds be poisoned by drivel delivered as ‘news’ by dishonest and lazy ‘journalists’?

Of course we shouldn’t, and in fact… we don’t.  Most people are equipped with common sense; and faced with N.P.’s type of ‘journalism’, they simply vote with their feet.  Circulation and audience numbers are dwindling; so is advertising.  Numerous media outlets – from newspapers to television stations – struggle to survive.  In 2013, the US newspaper industry lost more than $1 billion of its 2012 revenue.  Worse, thanks to ‘journalists’ like N.P., the entire profession is falling into disrepute: three out of four Americans believe that journalists ‘try to cover up their mistakes, rather than admit them’; only one in five Britons trusts journalists to tell the truth.

Based on an opinion poll by Pew Research, 2011

The myth is that all this should be attributed to the internet, which allows people to quickly access free information.  Well, sure, it is hard – nay, it’s impossible – to compete with information that is available free-of-charge online.  But that’s not where true journalists should compete.  There will always be people willing to pay for honest, reliable, trustworthy information; but there won’t be a market for the type of sloppy and tainted hokum peddled by the N.P.’s of this world.  As for the old-fashioned outfits that employ them, they’ll soon disappear – however few peanuts they pay their pseudo-journalists.

Because we, John Public, will be fed no horse meat by Tesco; and no bull shit by The Economist.

Who is a hero?

"Who is a hero?  He who conquers temptation."

Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Maimonides)

Nelson Mandela died, and the mainstream media is once again indulging in one of its boring rituals, bestowing on him the secular equivalent of a Catholic sanctification.  In time, as it always happens, less conformist minds will begin to chip away at the myth, revealing the man behind the statue – a man made of patches of light and shadow, like all men.  Yet despite that, I believe that the legend of ‘Madiba’ will endure through decades and centuries, up there with the likes of Churchill, Ben Gurion and Gandhi, in the secular pantheon of leaders who almost single-handedly shaped the course of human history.

Mandela led his people to emancipation.  Had he done just that, he would have done enough to earn a place in history books.  But I believe that that was not his greatest achievement.  Emancipation, I believe, would have come anyway, with Mandela or with a lesser man.  Call it Apartheid, Nazism or slavery, a system that places human beings in hierarchies based on ‘racial’ characteristics is an aberration that so offends our sense of justice that it simply cannot endure.  The only question is – what toll in blood and suffering will it demand before it’s sent to history’s rubbish bin.

It was in that that Mandela showed his true greatness – and it’s for that, I’m convinced, that he will be remembered.  He managed to dismantle the Apartheid regime (or, rather, cause it to dismantle itself) without drenching the country in blood.  If we remember today the massacres in Congo, Rwanda and Darfur, but not in South Africa, that is Mandela’s real legacy.  It would have been so easy!  Black-skinned people were faced in South Africa with a system that questioned their very humanity; that assigned them by ‘law’ not just to an inferior status, but to a sub-human one.  What can be more humiliating?  What can be more revolting, more hurtful to the very essence of the human soul?  It would have been so easy to react to that humongous affront with righteous rage and to channel that rage into unstoppable butchery; it would have been so easy to decide, faced with that colossal injury, that the life of every white or – at the very least – that of every supporter of Apartheid was forfeit; it would have been so easy to find release to the pressure felt in millions of souls by opening the flood gates of violence.  And even after Apartheid was finally defeated, even after it wrapped itself up in shame, it would have been so easy to succumb to the 'natural' wish for retribution, to seek ‘justice’ and find revenge, to slacken in blood the thirst for dignity.

I am not – as you surely have picked up by now – given to sanctifying mere human beings.  But by rising above all that, by finding the strength of soul to conquer justified indignation, by finding the incredible generosity of seeing humanity even in those who questioned his, Mandela showed himself to be above the vast majority of mortals.

And there is something else that’s remarkable about Mandela: his unflinching, almost super-human loyalty to democracy.  Sure, while faced with the mind-numbing atrocity of Apartheid, he seemed to flirt with Communism.  But his soul knew right from wrong.  Again, it would have been so easy to become 'president for life'.  So many other ‘revolutionary leaders’ succumbed to that temptation!  Didn’t he dedicate decades of his life to his country?  Didn’t he risk everything?  Did he not succeed overwhelmingly?  Did he not know best what was good for the country?  But Mandela conquered that temptation – if his righteous soul even allowed him to contemplate it.  He stepped down.  But that was not the end of his trials.  Revered as father of the nation, his every word carried the significance of a decree.  How did he find the strength of keeping silent while lesser men seemed to squander his legacy?  It would have been so easy to succumb to that temptation; a public word of criticism from Mandela would have resounded louder than a slap in the face.  Privately, he expressed such criticism in bitter, unforgiving terms; but publicly, he abstained – understanding that democracy required him to hold his piece even in the face of outrage.  What a man!