Friday, December 15, 2006

Back on the Blog


Z in the R is B on the B. Let's talk about Jimmy Carter. The former President is getting skewered in the press for his new book, Palestine: Peace not Apartheid, comparing Israel's treatment of the Palestinians with South Africa' apartheid era government. Carter has been slammed as a bigot and worse.

Carter's wise enough to have expected a shitstorm. Taking a position that no U.S. President could take while in office, Carter is challenging journalists and the pro-Israel lobby to take him on. Carter's ready for them. One of the most controversial statements Carter makes is that the media and powerful lobby do not offer a diversity of opinion on Israel's actions.

As a Jew, I once took for granted that Israel can do no wrong. In the late 1990's I made my only trip to Israel, which sparked my interest on the conflict with the Palestinians. I no longer take Israel's bona fides for granted. And I cannot accept that Fatah and Hamas are the incarnation of evil, as I was taught to believe. Carter, to his credit, says that we need to examine the case with a fresh view on the merits. The attempt to silence a critic is proof of the fact that the subject is censored.

Carter put his enormous good will and reputation in play to spur a new view of the Middle East crisis. He thinks he's earned the benefit of the doubt through his own peace-making, humanitarian works. He deserves fair consideration, and we should join him by making our own evaluations, rather than dismissing him out of hand. The peace process will not suffer from a candid appraisal of both sides.

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Closing Time

This blog is being closed for repair. We hope to reopen soon.

Thursday, December 07, 2006

What Do We Have for Our Contestants?

Even though it ranks #4 on Amazon's sales list, don't count me among the buyers of the Iraq Study Group Report. Not that I wouldn't like to read it but the reviews have stopped me cold. The report recommendations read like a fairy tale. The ISG Study Group Report states 79 recommendations for changing U.S. position in the Iraq War. A central tenet of the report is the need for a "diplomatic offensive" with Iran and Syria foremost. The correct term is "peace talks." Iran and to a lesser extent Syria are the two winners thus far in the Iraq War. A diplomatic offensive really means getting them to the table and seeking terms for a truce, by which the U.S. can withdraw.

Bush rejected the idea. In one sense, he's right. He cannot win the war by negotiating with Iran. He will come home empty-handed or worse. Iran, willing to meet, would tie the nuclear enrichment program to any negotiation. The result will be capitulation or stalemate in Iraq, and reactors in Teheran. However, there is no alternative to negotiation, especially when other, meaningful issues exist. The US really has no better option in the broader picture than to negotiate until there is agreement or impasse. But that is not about ending the war. That's about realigning the globe, which is what the Report really seems to be saying.

Bush therefore is wrong in rejecting negotiation out of hand. His uncompromising policies
have isolated this country; his view is that any change of position is an admission of defeat or failure, and he doesn't do admissions. The headline coverage out of Egypt is that the report marks the end of Iraq policy and effectively the end of the Bush administration. "The next two years will be a vacuum," the moderate paper states.

Now, that's the kind of negotiation the Iranians would love: keep that border porous for another two years. While the White House vacuums, Iran will annex Shiite Iraq, the Kurds will split off and war with Turkey, and the Sunni minority will either retreat into Jordan and Syria or remain and be slaughtered. As the number of US troop casualties rises, Congress, charged out of its inertia, will cut off funding or otherwise force redeployment. Compared to that scenario, even bad negotiations seem good.

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

The Gibson Effect

A few weeks back, I wrote about the travails of Kramer. He has gone on national TV, met with black leadership and veritably prostrated himself, begging for forgiveness. So far, no sale. The test will come if Michael Richards emerges with a hit performance in anything, if even given the chance.

But we don't have to wait. The test is here for us and Mel Gibson. His new film, which I shall not name, has begun to receive glowing reviews from a number of critics. The movie is said to be a fascinating look at an extinct civilization with several innovations. He brings the viewer deeply into the first-person experience of a small pre-Columbian tribe of hunter-gatherers being conquered by a larger and far more sophisticated civilization. Like all of Gibson's films, this one is violent.
The violence, one can argue, is in service of the story. Let's let it go at that, because I'm not concerned with violence in film at the moment.

The test is put to us who vowed never to patronize Gibson's films due to his statements and positions. Here's the opportunity to step up to the plate. The opportunity for non-violent protest ranges from not seeing the film or naming it to advocating against it, openly boycotting it, or condemning the movie and its director.

For many years, Richard Wagner's was not played in Israel, due to the influence of his ideas in the philosophical underpinning of the Third Reich and his Anti-Semitism. Hitler endorsed Wagner for his solid Aryan credentials and values, and that was enough to demonize him for others. I don't profess to know the story about Wagner, but I do know that the political ban was lifted in Israel some years ago and among a number of musicians due to the beauty of the music. Wagner is not entirely to my liking, and there still is something about the legend that puts me off. But I have experienced the wonder of his music, its spirituality, expressiveness and universality.

A more recent and controversial case involves German maestro Wilhelm Furtwangler. During World War II, he continued to work in the Third Reich. There have been books and a play, examining whether he collaborated with the Nazis or sought to protect the many Jewish musicians he once led in the Berlin Philharmonic. There are many who would not listen to or purchase anything by Furtwangler but I cannot count myself among them. Apart from inconclusiveness about his position, his music-making was extraordinary. He had a unique ability to make music breathe with an elasticity of tempi and dynamics. His performances of Beethoven and Schubert are not interpretations. They are living things. I have sought out his music because it is special. I know little else like it.

Ezra Pound, brilliant and original American poet, turned virulent fascist, was spurned for his views. Eventually, he was found to be insane, a perfect out for those who want to embrace the poetry and reject the man. The list goes on - writers, painters, musicians, dancers, film-makers, whose political views are detestable but whose artistic views are brilliant, if not sublime.

Do we make exceptions for genius or great craft? Maybe when it happens in our own time, without distance to ameliorate an artist's corrosive behaviors or views. Can we maintain the discipline and rigor to throw the scamp out, great work or not?

I won't see the Gibson movie, for fee or free, and I encourage others to do the same. Gibson shouldn't get a pass because he is a more gifted artist than Michael Richards. Whatever he has to say can be retold to me by someone else, even if it is less fresh, distinct and original. It's the least - and I mean the very least - that I can do.