Media hyperopia or regional blindness

Many years ago, New York Magazine published its famous map of the world as seen by New Yorkers, with New York and California occupying 3/4 of the map.  This visual distortion may have been caused by cultural prejudices and airplane connections.  In any case, the residents of the east coast knew and still know much more about Los Angeles than Portland, Maine or Raleigh, North Carolina despite the latter’s closer proximity. Recently, I started following the posts of a professional colleague that lives in Lebanon. Keep in mind that I live in Karmiel, some 17 kilometers (10 miles) from the Lebanese border and 48 kilometers (30 miles) from the Syrian border. Reading his posts, I realized that I knew close to nothing about what is going on either country, not mention Jordan, also not far away, about which no I have no idea what is happening.  Yet, I easily follow events in Washington, London, Paris and even Ankara, which are much farther away, through daily reports in Israeli media.

One cause of this news blackout is simply lack of air time.  We in Israel have more than enough to talk about with our multiple elections, clashes with the Palestinians and tension with the Syrians, not to mention Bibi’s legal troubles. Trump, Putin, Nasrallah, and Erdogan. There is no problem filling any empty moment in the news. As a result, there is no media oxygen for Lebanon’s financial problems and Syria’s rebuilding as well as anything about Jordan. Egypt is in another continent for that matter. Yet, events in these countries have a direct influence on stability in the area. The only way to find out is to access the foreign media in Arabic, which most Jews in Israel cannot do even when they speak some Arabic. In terms of media, our neighbors are invisible.

To be fair, part of the problem is the lack of available information.  Israel is the only country in the Middle East with freedom of the press. In other words, official announcements from these countries are less than reliable.  Objective reporting comes from underground sources, who do not have a complete picture. For example, it is impossible to know how many Syrians have been killed in the last year or what the state of the health system is. Any objective fact that does come to light from an official news source may be accurate but partial as these governments tend to censure negative news. So, sometimes the media reports nothing because there is nothing to report.

Still, some would say that the Israeli media has an unspoken policy of neglecting the region.  I strongly doubt it as freedom of the press is still strong enough to prevent government-inspired news blackout over the long term. I don’t buy this conspiracy theory.

To be fair, many countries tend to ignore their closest neighbors. The American press has extremely little to say about Canada and Mexico.  The French hear more about Israel than Belgium, with whom they share a common language, mostly. I wonder how much news Londoners receive on Wales and Scotland, not to mention Northern Ireland. The BBC even ignores the weather in the Republic of Ireland, as a policy in my opinion, even it reports it in Northern Ireland. I don’t know if this regional blindness applies to Asia or South or central America but would be interested in finding out.

So, t New Yorkers are not alone in having their vision affected by culture and media. Physical distance and economic impact have less influence on our media than one would think.  The media worldwide is farsighted, i.e., hyperopic.

Immemorial thoughts

Yesterday, in accordance with Israeli’s unique way of scheduling it right before Independence Day, Memorial Day for Fallen soldiers was marked in Israel. On this day, families visit cemeteries.  As in many countries, the media broadcast stories about fallen heroes and their families while a siren is sounded twice, once on the eve and once in the morning of the day. Stores close early on the eve with “heavy” music broadcast on radio all day long. The names of the fallen in chronical order of their death are read throughout the 24 hours.  Unfortunately, they are sufficient names to recite to fill the entire period.  All in all, it is a heavy, sad day broken at the end by the changing of the guard ceremony at the Knesset, which signals the beginning of Independence Day and time to light up the barbeques.

Yet, to a certain degree, I feel alien to this Memorial Day. I simply have no experience with death by fire in any form.  My father, still alive, survived World War II with no permanent injuries. My brother and I reached 18 after the Vietnam War and mandatory draft in the United States ended. I don’t know any one that was killed or wounded in military service, either in the United States or Israel. My daughter never served in the IDF.  The only deaths I have experienced at all were my grandmothers, who were quite aged, in their 80’s and 90’s.  I am still a virgin to bereavement. 

By contrast, most Israelis know what death is. They have had friends and family killed or wounded during military service or terrorist incidents.  My wife had a brother killed in service when she was a small child. Memorial Day carries significance to most Israelis, except for a few extra ultra-orthodox that do not consider themselves Israeli in any case.

I do not mean that I feel no emotion.  As I watch parents, children and siblings talk about their loss, I become very sad. Tear well up. I also sense the heavy atmosphere. Memorial Day is not like any other day. It has its own weight. Yet, to be honest, my sympathy is of the universal type, the feeling we can share for anybody that has lost a loved one, regardless of the circumstances.  Any decent human being can understand lost and empathize with an individual experiencing that loss.  Yet, I cannot imagine the pain of parents that must bury their own children.  It is clearly awful but beyond my comprehension.

Some would say that I should be grateful for being so fortunate as to have never experienced such pain. The fact is that my naivety results from pure luck. I was born after World War II and was too young for the Vietnam War and too old for IDF service. Neither I nor my family has ever been in the wrong place and time during my 28 years in Israel, including the rocket attacks on Karmiel during the Second Lebanese War.  As in all matters of luck, the past does not guarantee the future.  Still, at least for the present, all I can do is respect and empathize with those whose parents, children and siblings have paid the ultimate price for Israeli independence. For better or worse, I cannot identify with them. My hope is that in a generation or two, my experience will become the rule, not the exception, in Israel and the entire Middle East.

Greek Samarian tragedy

Judea and Samaria, the Occupied Territories and the West Bank are three names that describe the complex reality of almost 6,000 square meters of rolling hills punctuated by gentle slopes.  Of all issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is the true Gordian knot, almost irresolvable.

The names reflect the strong emotions attached to this area.  For religious Jews and fervent Zionists, it an integral part of Israel and a homeland, inhabited by Jews as early as there were Jews.  Israel without it is a shadow of itself. For Palestinians, it is their land slowly and unremittingly being usurped by Israeli colonists.  As much as Jerusalem, it is the core of Palestine as they see it. Geographically, it is a beautiful landscape matched by its gentle climate, warm during the day and cool and night. In short, it is a beautiful place prized by conflicting parties.

A naïve person would say that there is plenty of land for everybody.  95% of the population there (and everywhere) simply want to make a living, raise their family and live in peace. With such a preference for pacifism, it would seem obvious that neighbors of different faiths could live in reasonable harmony as they do in the Galilee.

Alas, each side fundamentally wants the other side to disappear, one way or another. This hope for total victory, however improbable, opens the field to extremists among Moslems and Jews to call for hate and violence. The result is absurd: Jewish settlements and Palestinian villages adjoining each other but without relations of any kind due to the heavy distrust of each other. Not only that, a mythical return to the pre-1967 borders is as realistic as a return to pre-Cromwell borders in Ireland.

In my view it is a human tragedy above all. As is generally true in the Middle East, there are no angels and devils in this story, merely two groups of people justifiably insisting on their right to reside in the land of their forefathers. As for the solution, to paraphrase Bob Dylan, the answer is blowing in the wind of those beautiful but contested hills.

Alice Speak – Terminology in the Modern Middle East

Alice, the speaker of the wonderful sentence “Words means what I want them to mean,” would feel at ease today in Israel.  After each and every senseless act of violence, supposedly intelligent people use words to mean exactly what they want them to say, freely ignoring their dictionary meaning.

The first example is the description of act of taking a knife and attacking an Israeli.  The Israeli press refers to such foolhardy individuals as terrorists.  Historically, terrorists, like most criminals, had no intention of being captured or killed, hoping to live another day.  IRA hit men and anarchist troublemakers are classic examples.  In fact, the only groups that have ever been willing to die for their cause on a mass basis are the Japanese and the Arabs. The dictionary terms would be kamikaze pilots and suicide bombers (or knifers, as applicable).  By contrast, when the families of the deceased suicide knifer are interviewed publicly (we don’t know what is said privately), absurd words leave their mouths.  The cable guy from East Jerusalem had no intention of running people over but instead had an accident.  Of course, the family is now a hero in the eyes of many Palestinians. Since when has getting into an accident made you a hero? Another quote from the bereaved families in East Jerusalem is that the son or daughter did it because of the occupation. The word occupation implies a serious lack of economic and political freedom.  Curiously, Arabs living in East Jerusalem have more such rights than anywhere else in the Middle East, including the Palestinian Authority and Gaza.

Then, there is a matter of age.  Traditionally, modern Western societies have labeled by people by birth date.  Children are under 13 while youth or teenagers are from 13-18.  A person becomes an adult at 18.  This assumes of course that some restraining family structure is present to prevent those not-yet adults from acting on their impulses. Alas, in the current situation, Palestinian culture, including parents and teachers, encourages act of violence against the external enemy (but not against local Arab leadership). So, is a 13 year or 15 year old trying to stab a soldier, unless he had a long sharp knife by accident of course, a youth or a responsible adult? It is impossible to say that s/he is rebelling against society. On the contrary, society approves the act. There is a classic definition of chutzpah: a person that kills his mother and father requests mercy because he is an orphan. Similarly, how can a 13 year old that follows “adult” rules be considered too naïf to be judged? Are the 17 year rock throwers youth or adults?  Even Western law has problems defining that one.  It is all in the eye of the dictionary writer.

Alice would definitely appreciate how everybody is bending words to fit their political agenda.  On my part, I find it disturbing and depressing, almost Orwellian. I somehow prefer the intellectual honesty of a real murderer, shamelessly admitting he killed someone because of jealousy or a debt. Killing is killing regardless of how and why it is done.  Yet, somehow, I have more respect for those who are honest with themselves. Alas, such individuals in the Middle East are rare.

Middle Eastern Languages

National languages seem like inevitable facts. The language of your country is like your dominant hand. You don’t choose it.  However, the modern Middle East shows how that seeming passiveness is an illusion.  Due to the area serving as a corridor between Asia, Europe and Africa, the Middle East has been host to countless empires, each imposing its own language.  To choose to speak a language different from your occupiers is a political statement.

Egypt, for example, was technically part of the Ottoman Empire for several centuries until World War I.  Its administrators were Turkish, often Kurds.  Thus, Turkish was the official language of communication in Egypt.  It was only in the 19^th century that a few intrepid Egyptians starting publishing newspapers in Arabic.  The Turks gave Arabic the same status as the French have given French Creole, a bastard language at best.  As part of the nationalist movement in Egypt, Arabic was used as a way of expressing Egyptian pride. So, the fact that Arabic is the official language of Egypt is an act of will.

That will is even more evident in the status of Hebrew in Israel.  Hebrew was a hibernating language for 2000 years, maintained only as in its written form.  Variants of Yiddish and Ladino were the lingua franca of Diaspora Jews in addition to the official language of the land.  The revival of Hebrew as an active language was an explicitly political act to create a Jewish identity and part of the overall program to create a Jewish state, a wild dream in the 19^th and early 20^th century.  The Turks, followed by the Brits, ruled this area until 1948, imposing their language for administrative purposes.  To learn and speak Hebrew in the 1920 and 1930’s was a statement of identity.  Later, the imposition of Hebrew became part of the plan of creation of the New Israeli (as compared to the Diaspora Jew),  a Jew whose cultural and linguistic past was cut off.  For practical purposes, to be Israeli meant and means that you try to speak Hebrew.  Accent and accuracy are irrelevant – listen how many of the Israeli’s early leaders spoke – as long as a person showed the intention to “fit in.” Still, the reality for the early generations of Israelis was quite different.  To demonstrate, in the Technion, there was a serious proposal to make German the language of instruction as most of the professors were German. Today, even Moslem, Christian and Druze Israeli, who daily language is Arabic, all speak Hebrew to the point that their Arabic has many Hebrew words inserted into it. The choice to make Hebrew the daily language was a conscious use of a language to establish identity, which was successful.

So, as people shape the physical world around them, they also influence their linguistic space.  There is nothing inevitable about it, especially in the Middle East.

National Illusion

The average citizen of the Western world, especially the political leaders, is quite disappointed with the Middle East these days.  The locals are not acting like (Western) civilized people!  True, the Israelis and Palestinians are talking to each other, sort of.  On the other hand, Israel insists on issuing building permits in the “Occupied Territories”; the Egyptian military successfully conducted a putsch and are openly repressing those democratic Muslim brothers; Assad in Syria is routinely bombing, torturing, and starving civilians, not to mention using forbidden chemical weapons; Lebanon is starting to join the fun of ethnic killing.  This is not to mention the [usual ]SNAFU  (situation normal – all fucked up] in Iraq and Afghanistan, but who wants to think of that?

This lack of respect for human rights must be quite frustrating and disappointing for right-minded Scandinavians and other Europeans, who so strongly believe in the universality of human rights.  Maybe part of the communication gap is the overuse of the word “country”  A nation  is a place where 95% of the population identifies themselves as residents of that country despite differences in religion, politics, and socio-economic status.  Lebanon is a collection of religious tribes thrown together by the French.  Syria has a history of a separate cultural identity, but politically exists as a reaction to French rule.  Egypt indeed has been an independent country for many centuries.  However, it suffers from a similar dysfunction as Turkey– a large cultural and ideological gap between the urban rich and rural poor, so wide in fact that the country is split into two, if not more, parts.  The urban, relatively liberal population views the Muslim Brotherhood as the enemy.  Therefore, it supports the Army’s oppression of the latter.  Assad knows that what will be his fate and that of his allies if he loses the civil war.  No holds are barred.  Even Israel has around 15% of the population, Israeli-Arabs and ultra-orthodox Jews, who don’t consider themselves Israeli.  Still, Israel is the probably the most deserving of the title “nation”.

So, if you wonder why Middle Eastern countries are so unstable, keep in mind that most, if not all, of them are countries in name only.

P.S. Having survived moving to a new flat, I'll be away on a family visit until mid September. I will then go back to writing once a week.

England, English culture, and the Middle East

The British government and public have had an intimate part of the marking of the modern Middle East.  London was a controlling factor in the establishment of almost all of its current government structure (aside from Saudi Arabia, which did it the old-fashioned way, arranged marriages with all of the tribes).  Being so involved since World War I with such an irrational, uncivilized group of people has often caused the British to feel like Prof. Higgins in Shaw’s Pygmalion, without the happy ending but with more than one Liza. 

The basic problem is that fundamentally the Arabs, with subgroups based on religion, national status such as minority or majority, and national tendencies such as Egyptian and Libyan, simply do not behave like the modern English.  They squabble, threaten each other, fight, and kill. They do not see the virtue of a nice cup of tea and cooperation.  Neither did the Gaelic peoples of the British isles not so long ago, but who remembers that? 

The Jews, excuse me Israelis, are even worse.  As long as they were willing to be helpless victims and politely request help, they were sympathetic.  Once they stopped showing respect to their betters and began forgetting their manners (which they never had very much anyway), they were no better than their Arab cousins. 

British sympathy goes with the party showing the most passive state of misery.  Refugees, Jewish or Arab, in miserable camps waiting for a solution from above, especially the magnanimous British government, touch the heart.  Insolent locals taking matters in their own hands and conducting wars and terror are so lacking class.  Israel would have probably never been created if the local Arabs had not fought the British in the 1920’s and 1930’s.  The British did not appreciate the bombing of the King David hotel either.

Whether the British prefer the Jews/Israelis or the Arabs is a question that has probably has been surveyed many times in the past.  Clearly though, the Arabs are much better at providing what the British so desire: good hospitality and proper respect. Among others, Lawrence of Arabia was truly impressed.  A guest at an Arab residence gets a comfortable chair, good food (no cucumber sandwiches), good coffee, and the feeling of being important.  An Israeli household can provide the good food and comfortable chair, but, well, arguing is an ancient Jewish tradition.  The Bible says that Moses even did it with God.  Israelis do not know how to discuss the weather for more than ten seconds, generally summarized by the sentence It is hot today.

The facts and history of the modern Middle East are apparently irrelevant.  In terms of sympathy, no matter how right or wrong either side may be, the issue seems to be “How British are you?”  Looking at the current mess here, this has turned out to be a rather flimsy basis of policy.  

Middle Eastern Man is a Rational(izing) Creature

Average citizens in the civilized West must be baffled by current and not so current political events in the Middle East.  These include Egypt’s election and post-election chaos, Syria’s non-election chaos, and Israeli’s confusing election results.  They must think that we are either crazy, masochistic, or both.

I have recently read two books, a biography of Nasser, the Egyptian leader, and an analysis of (Arab) Palestinian history in the 1920’s and 1930’s.  My conclusion from these books is that this apparent insanity is neither new nor accidental.  In the words, it is perfectly rational, if not rather tragic and destructive.

My view is as follows:  Towards the end of the 19^th century, the spirit of nationalism created and sponsored by the French revolution and physically propagated by Napoleon reached the Jews and the Arabs.  This desire for independence, both political and cultural, was translated into an ideology, a somewhat far-fetched ideal.  In the case of the Jews, it was Herzel and dream of a national homeland in Israel while the Arabs aspired to the glory of the independence and dominance of Islam centuries before.  Each of these long term goals ignored several aspects of inconvenient reality, not the least of which were the European interest and the annoying existence of each other.  Nevertheless, the target populations were receptive to the idea and eventually bought it hook, line, and sinker.

It took a while, but the French and British eventually left the Middle East (tail between the legs and all), but the annoying fact that Jews and Arabs shared the same territory would not go away.  The options were simple: change the ideologies and preach tolerance and multiculturalism or maintain it and behave schizophrenically by alternating between denial (i.e. Arab distinction between “Jews” as compared to” Israelis” and Golda Meir's “there are no Palestinians”) and violence (let us count the wars).  For many reasons, changing an ideology is quite difficult (ask the U.S. Republican Party).  It is also dangerous to political and physical life, i.e. Rabin and Sadat.  So, the more convenient and popular option was to fight reality and each other. 

The results are quite tragic: death, poverty, anger, refugees, and misery.  Still, for most politicians of all stripes in the area, the greatest disaster would be peace.   It would render their ideology and raison d’être irrelevant.  As a final note, in England,  Cromwell was not despised because he was a dictator, but because he was tolerant.  The fact that, as Pascal said, man is thinking reed does not make leadership any easier.  Leaders cannot go too far from the conceptions of their people.

Victory, Defeat and the Middle East

The Middle East is truly difficult for the Western World to understand.  It seems familiar and similar,  but peculiar and annoying differences keep on popping up.  For example, there are two words existing in all languages (to the best of my knowledge) with clear meanings: victory and defeat.   In regards to war, if your armed forces can or do take over the enemy’s territory, you win.  If you have to ask for mercy, you lose.  Every kid who ever had a fight in the schoolyard understands that.

However, in the Middle East, the words have become confused.  In 1948, 1956, and 1967, both Israelis and Arabs agree that the former won and the latter lost. Since then, Lewis Caroll has taken over, i.e. a word means what I intend it to mean.  In 1973, Egypt and Syria had to run to Russia and the UN and ask for a ceasefire because Israel had wide open roads to Cairo and Damascus.   Curiously enough, Israelis view the Yom Kippur War as a great defeat while the Egyptians regularly celebrate the anniversary of the great victory.  In the first and second Lebanese wars (the former officially known as Peace in the Galilee Campaign), the Palestinians and Hezbollah were forced to retreat, to the sea in the former case, granted while causing quite a few casualties for the Israelis.   Again, the sides seem to view the matter inversely, with the Israelis very uncomfortable with the memory of the conflict and the former two groups proud of their resistance. 

The latest of chapter of  this Go reversal game is the most recent tit-for-tat exchange in Gaza, otherwise known as the Pillar of Cloud operation, which ended some two weeks ago.  The Palestinians objectively were extremely unsuccessful in their goal of killing civilians while the Israeli air force destroyed most of their planned targets with minimum collateral damage, as civilian casualties are euphemistically called.  Predictably, Israelis are uneasy with the result while the Palestinians are celebrating their phantom victory, i.e. the vague promise to talk about opening borders.

Clausewitz wrote that war is another means of diplomacy.  I suppose that the claimed victories and defeats are actual if you taken into account the political goals of the parties.  Still, as Orwell suggested, the complete misuse of words eventually strips them of all of their meaning, especially in the Middle East.

Well-Grounded Coffee

The Middle East is a crossroad of cultures, ancient and modern, East and West.  Countless travelers, languages, foods and styles have passed through this gate between Europe, Africa, and Asia.  This blending of tastes is also expressed in coffee, more specifically in the types of coffee drunk by people here.

As befits an immigrant country, to drink coffee has different meanings to different people.  The ancient Arab way of drinking coffee is brewing strong black coffee, often several times, until it become quite concentrated and serving it sweetened in small porcelain or glass cups.  This tradition is alive and well and can be experienced in even the simplest of Arab restaurants, where the meal is capped with a cup of coffee and piece of Baklava.  I worked at a Druze school where there was an employee whose only job, as far I could ever see, was to prepare Druze coffee, granted extremely good, for the staff.  Imagine that in any Western school.

The modern, Israeli equivalent is a black coffee served in a normal cup prepared simply by pouring boiling water over the ground coffee and adding sugar, often called Mud for obvious reasons.  Traditional Arabs probably don’t consider this coffee, but it does have the virtue of containing caffeine, being easy to prepare, and not containing milk, which allows it to be drunk after a meat meal by those who keep Koshrut.

The Zionist contribution to coffee, if you choose to view it as a contribution, is Elite Instant Coffee or that of one of its competitors.  Elite is supposedly a pioneer in coffee processing technology and a world leader in coffee sales.  It is usually drunk with milk, similar to a café au lait.  As the French say, chacun á son gout, in English – to each his own, but it is not my cup of tea. However, to be fair, in terms of numbers, it is probably the most popular coffee in Israel.

The European influence is reflected in the omnipresent and quite good expresso bars in Israel. The smallest kiosk seems to offer expresso (as written in French) or cappuccino, even gas station convenience stores. Surprisingly, the quality is generally quite good. 

To set matters straight, I have a limited tolerance for coffee, but enjoy both its taste and its effects.  I drink either expresso (Nespresso machine at home) or an excellent French expresso instant made by Café Noire, for which I can’t seem to find any supplier that will ship to Israel.  I also can enjoy a good Arab coffee or Israeli black coffee, especially when traveling or hiking in the field.

So, if you want to visit Israel and are, for some reason, concerned about the available of good coffee, you have nothing to worry about.  Israel has adopted all the world has to offer in terms of coffee.

Religion and Identity – (Middle) East and West

As an American who has lived some 23 years in Israel, I have learned to appreciate a certain reality which escapes people who have never been here, some of which who have to make vital policy decisions.

Religion in the West, meaning the United States and Europe, is a biographical fact.   Being born Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, or anything else influences your values, your way of dressing, your ideal mate as far as your parents are concerned, and possibly your political view.  To be clear, I am not referring to actually practicing the religion or attending a house of worship.  The mere fact of having parents of a certain religion creates a part of your culture (with a small c).  In terms of understanding people, it is easier to relate to someone with same culture.  That being said, the parents’ background does not determine the children’s future in the United States. Since these countries view religion as a private matter separate from public identity, children can change or adapt their religion while still maintaining their status as an American, Italian, or Brit.  Thus, in the West, I am who I am and also have a religious culture.

By contrast, in the Middle East, religion is an identity, private and official, affecting all aspects of life.  ID cards list the religion of the carrier.  In Israel, a person’s faith, whether Jewish, Muslim, Christian, or Druze, determines that person’s social circle and public status in society.  In the Arab world, the situation is no different.  The Ottomans recognized and used this to administer the Middle East, letting each community run its own affairs as long as it paid taxes of course. Outside your faith, it is hard to be part of a community.

This understanding is vital for average citizens and decision makers.  Attempts to westernize the Middle East and make it religious in the Western way are doomed to fail.  People hold on strongly to their faith, even more today.  The zealots here may be crazy, but most honestly believe that they are right.   (See that ancient book Future Shock by Alvin Toffler for a potential explanation.)  More importantly, leaders and people in the street in the Middle East do not think like their counterparts in the West.  There is a wonderful story about John Dulles, the US Foreign Minister during the 1956 Middle Eastern crisis, who complained to reporters that he was shocked that Nasser lied to him.  This demonstrates the critical lack of understanding then and maybe now of Middle Eastern thinking.  Ignoring the power of religion just feeds that misinterpretation

The next time you hear about some “irrational act” in the Middle East or by someone from here, keep in mind that faith here defines both identity and ethics.