The counter French revolution

In the eyes of many historians, the French Revolution of 1789 was the trigger for the most powerful ideological agent of change in recent centuries, nationalism.  It spread from Europe reaching Asia in the mid-20^th century and created massive change throughout the world. Before it, people identified with their region, religion or social class.  After it, people gradually began to identify and be loyal to a nation, which included others of different regions, religions or social classes.  In other words, nationalism at its source was an inclusive force. Traditional nationalism aimed to welcome people to its large fold as much as local tensions and geography allowed.

In the last 20 years, nationalism has not disappeared but seemingly taken on an inverse direction: it defines nations by rejecting others, especially their culture and values. Whether as a reaction to countries becoming ethnically heterogenic or the need of politicians to attain and hold on to power, today’s nationalism is extremely xenophobic, rejecting anybody or any value considering alien. Trump openly espouses “America First” and wants to deport the largest immigrant group in the country, regardless of their contribution to the country.  Putin rejects any Western political values and oppresses and discriminates against minorities. Erdogan promotes a Turkish and religious agenda, openly crushing any laic or European-oriented opposition. These are only the most prominent of the new populist leaders. What is significant is not their existence but their popularity.  While for support these and similar leaders is far from 100%, they have all been elected with respectable majorities.  In other words, their restrictive world view reflects that of their voters.  It is an “us against them” world.

While traditional nationalism also divided the world into friends and enemies, these were geographical distinctions created by borders and history.  The enmity between France and Germany or Viet Nam and China are examples.  Still, any person willing to adopt the nationality and accept loyalty to the nation was welcome.  Today, in too many places, if you don’t fit the exclusive definition of the right citizen, whether in terms of race, philosophy or religion, you are a potential fifth column. That point of view, in my eyes, is an attempt to rewind the clock, generally a violent and ultimately ineffective act. 

I believe that the words of the Marseillaise are still relevant:

Allons enfants de la Patrie,
Le jour de gloire est arrivé!
Contre nous de la tyrannie,
L'étendard sanglant est levé, (bis)

Or in English:

Arise, children of the Country,
The day of glory has arrived!
Against us tyranny's
Bloody banner is raised, (repeat)

Jerusalem of gold, copper and light

Trump’s controversial announcement to move the US embassy to Jerusalem has elicited a larger than usual number of skew comments.  What I mean is that the various reactions do not relate to the same Jerusalem although the name of the city is the same.

To explain, to religious and ideological Jews, Jerusalem is the soul of Judaism, the basis of the faith, and is symbolized by the Wailing Wall and Temple Mount.  Without Jerusalem, Israel has no anchor for existence. While this image is very strong and commonly felt even by non-religious Jews, it ignores many facts. A Jewish state without Jerusalem in ancient times did exist when there was a split between Judah and Israel. Secondly, administratively and population wise, East Jerusalem is more Jordanian/Palestinian than Israeli.  Many of its key institutions are directly or indirectly run by Amman, including the educational system and Waqf. Despite the fact that Jerusalem was united more than 40 years ago, it remains a divided city.

That does not mean that the official Muslim portrayal of Jerusalem is any more accurate. In the eyes of many Muslim, Jerusalem is the city from where Mohamed rose to heaven. Its holiness is symbolized by the Golden Dome Mosque, Al-Aqsa. Jewish control of the area represents a spiritual threat to the religion as a political threat to the Palestinians, who also consider Jerusalem as their religious anchor. This approach ignores the fact that the mosque is build on the ruins of a church, which is built on the ruins of the two ancient Jewish temples, which was built in the area conquered by the Jewish King David from the …….  There is no certainly no clear Muslim or even Arabic title to this land. Moreover, the Koran does not even directly mention Jerusalem, although the city may be referred to indirectly. Thus, to claim that Jews have no title to the city is ridiculous.

The “neutral” international attitude to Jerusalem is muddled. Jerusalem has an important place in Christianity. Yet, Christian access is not threatened either by the former or new US position. More importantly, the world is bewildered by the fervency and lack of rationality in regards to any discussion regarding the city’s status. Thus, it prefers to bury the issue under the carpet and allocate to later discussions between the disputing parties, who so far cannot agree on far simpler matters. On the other hand, like any fundamental dispute, the status of Jerusalem and its holy places will continue to heighten tensions to everybody’s loss. It is a bit of a Gordian knot. It is often forgotten that Jerusalem is not only a symbol but also a real city with people trying to cope with a complicated geographical, architectural, political and social structure.

My view is that fundamentally Trump’s declaration and eventual implementation changed very little. In any case, the US Embassy would be located in West Jerusalem. This move would not in fact prevent the Palestinians from having their own state and making East Jerusalem their capital if such a solution is ever agreed upon. The facts on the ground should (but do not always) determine the reality.  The two state solution is theoretically possible with Jerusalem as a divided city, albeit not necessarily according to pre-1967 borders on the condition that freedom of religion for all is maintained and the parties can agree.

Yes, I know the John Lennon song Imagine comes to mind, hopefully or cynically. In any case, we need a bit of Naomi Shemer‘s light to enter the Middle East and allow people to live their lives in peace. Let all of us pray to the peace of Jerusalem, whichever city you have in mind.  If we can make that happen, anything is possible.

News blackout

I come from a political family. My parents came from politically active families. At the dinner table, we discussed the Vietnam War and Watergate, not the price of bread. My father at the age of almost 91 still religiously reads two newspapers every day and discusses the articles with my mother.  I myself followed events in the recent US election with close attention and voted in every Israeli election since I have been here.

So, it is with great sadness that I have gradually but almost totally entered a self-imposed news blackout. To explain, I am very upset about policies developments around the world, to put it mildly.  I despise what Putin and Erdogan mean for their countries and the entire world. The elections of Natanyahu and Trump have driven me into despair. Their elections depress me not only because of their policies, which are based on negative visions in my opinion, but also because of the large number of people that share and bought that vision. In short, I am politically depressed.

My reaction, alas, has been to withdraw. I do not want to hear about Trump's appointees or Netanyahu's decisions. I know that they will disturb me very much. Like the old Jew in the Warsaw ghetto that kept on complaining that the new landlords did not want to heat the flat and consciously ignored that the Germans were trying to starve the Jews until they could find a more efficient way to kill them, I choose to ignore (not deny) the current situation. I deep in my heart want to wake up in few years to a better world, where tolerance and peace are the norm, not hatred and violence. Of course, I will do my civic duty and support anybody with those ideals but recognize that this is a waiting time until the tide turns, as it always does eventually.

Of course, my news blackout is not total. I still check the scores of my various teams, who also are not doing very well (Lakers, Bengals, Pirates), but there is hope for next year. I do check the weather report as well as look for any changes in the VAT rate since these items has a direct effect on my life. Yet, I refuse to peer into the bigger picture although I know I will bear its consequences no less. I cannot say that my response is very mature or brave but for now it is all I can do. To destroy Descartes, I don't think so it does not exist.

Politics then and now

One of the advantages of public libraries is the opportunity to read books that you would never could justify buying. Currently, I am reading a book of the speeches of Trotsky (Leon Trotsky Speaks published by Path Finder Press, 1972). On the one hand, it rather dated material, covering the period between the 1905 revolution through the October revolution and Russian Civil War all the way to his exile. Yet, on the other hand, the speeches provide a fascinating contrast to the current US election, more than a century later.

Reading the written text, it is not hard to hear the fervent tone beyond the words. Trotsky honestly, albeit naively, believed that the proletariat would create a better world and that human relations were essentially class relations. His speeches have much less hate and are much more positive than those of Lenin.  He is out to persuade people to do the right thing (in his eyes) and was quite successful in doing so. He believed that, however bad the current situation is, the science of Marx and Engels and good sense of the workers will eventually overcome all problems. The latter cannot be said for later communist leaders, such as Brezhnev and those following him.  Thus, Trotsky’s words leave you with a sense of hope, even more than 100 years later.

In 2016, the world is watching the presidential campaign of the US Democrats and Republicans with fascination. They are providing a variety of visions, each so different from that of Trotsky and reflecting the post 20^th century lack of faith in any ideology.  On the Republican side, you have a modern anarchist. Trump basically says the system should be destroyed and people should be allowed to do what they want to do. On the other extreme, Cruz wants a “return” to world that never existed, based on the Bible as the source of all laws and actions. Like many Islamic visionaries, they are implying that in the absence of a modern vision of a better of the future, we should use implement policy based on an “already proven” model, even if no such state has actually existed. On the Democratic side, Hilary Clinton is the extreme realist, explicitly rejecting radical change and defining politics as the art of the possible. While practical, it does inspire great hope for those less fortunate. On her left, Sanders wants to clean up the villains in America without trying to get rid of the figurative baby. As is the case of many socialists, economics is not his strong side.

Regardless of their differences, none of the candidates offers much hope for today’s working poor, Trotsky’s proletariat. Nobody can create the belief, be that an illusion, that in five, ten or fifteen years their world will be much better. There are many factors for the low voter turnout in the US in recent decades but, in my opinion, one of them is fatalism, the lack of faith that any ideology can fundamentally affect their reality. I would not vote for Trotsky but feel nostalgic for the days when people believed that a man and his ideology could make a major difference. That is the difference between politics then and now.