Je suis trente huit and J’accuse

For a Jew or anybody with sense of history, the last year culminating in the events in Paris this month has been traumatic.  From the reported shootings in Marseille, the unreported regular attacks on Jews in Europe and the dramatic events in Paris at the Holocaust Museum, newspaper office and supermarket, the situation looks very dark, with a stark resemblance to those of 1938.

Then, a rogue leader of a large country publicly espoused nationalistic and xenophobic goals and acted to attain them.  While some people opposed them, many people and leaders either ignored the message or, even worse, sympathized with it.  Evil was eventually defeated but at a heavy price for all.

Today, the call is from a more omnipresent force, Islam.  Regardless of their variety and organizational form, Muslim organizations call for the destruction of all non-believers, starting with the Jews. Isis, Hezbollah, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian Authority, Turkey and Syria all agree on one matter: pluralism is not an option.  Many European leaders choose to ignore this call in order to win votes while many people in the street and government, even non-Muslims, sympathize with the goal.  While many if not most Muslims, both in Europe and the Middle East, are not active politically, they are influenced both by this call and the inevitable anti-Arab reaction that terrorism causes. 

Yet, there are differences.  First, Israel exists.  If French Jews have started carrying Israeli flags in the street, it is a sign that that the Diaspora tactics of staying low is being replaced.  While the prime minister of Israel was criticized for pushing himself to the center of the Paris rally, the world had to be reminded that Jews were not going to count only the local leaders and police.  The latter are accountable to another country now.  Also, some European leaders have hopefully learned from 1938.  They are trying to stop this disaster while it is still manageable.  The fact is that Hitler could have been stopped then. While quislings will always exist, there is hope for an early unified reaction.

It is hard not envision a terrible war before use, one that will go beyond national borders.  It could release the butchery of the Middle Ages, where the ends justified the means and everybody pays the price.  It is not quite 1938 but it is too close for anybody’s comfort.  I accuse the world of a hypocrisy that is dangerous both to the Jews and itself. Most of all, I try to maintain the hope that enough people have learned from the events of the not-so-distant purpose.

Of Hearts and Minds

In those rare moments that I have time and choose to watch TV, I am faced with a common problem: despite the countless stations available, there is nothing of interest to watch.  It is hard to imagine but there is a limit to how many house renovation and cake baking shows one can suffer through.  In these moments of despair, I have an admittedly unusual habit (not downloading X rated movies – that is common):  as a comparative study activity, like to watch the religious programming channels. Fortunately, Israeli cable has three Jewish and two Christian channels.  For some reasons, the Moslems spiritual leaders do not broadcast in English here.  In my “studies”, I have noticed an extreme difference in how the Word is preached.

A word of background is required.  I personally am an atheistic Jew. This may sound contradictory since Judaism is a monotheistic religion.  However in practice, as Jean Paul Sartre said after the war, you are a Jew since the world views you as such.  I don’t deny my religious/cultural identity and even embrace it.  I simply believe that all religions are bubbemeisis, grandmothers’ tales, albeit with bits of wisdom here and there.

Watching those Protestant preachers, I first admire their oratory skills.  They expertly move their bodies, voices, and vocabulary to keep the audience’s attention and get the message to the crowd.  In terms of public speaking, they are worthy of imitation.  On a more spiritual level, the message, as delivered by at least 20 such TV preachers, is quite simple and intuitive: accept Jesus and your life will become better.  The emphasis is on the result, not the process.  I have never actually understood from them what special behavior is expected of a born-again Christian aside from listening to God and prayer, admittedly highly subjective bases for action.   The actual rules for living are a bit unclear. In short, for these speakers of the Word, faith is the key.

By contrast, the various rabbis striving to bring us doubters back into the fold appeal to our brains.  They explain the importance of every mitzvah, God-ordained good deed, by logic and demonstration.   Curiously, these rabbis admit that a true Jew is not capable of completely understanding the logic of each desired act of commission and omission, but they still try to persuade us that is for our own good to keep the Sabbath, leave the ground fallow every seven years, and visit a ritual bath, to name just a few. The emphasis is heavily on the rules of being a good Jew, some of which actually make sense in their own right.  By contrast, the biggest act of faith required of a Jew is to believe that Torah, its commentaries, and the Halacha are all written by the hand of God.  For these enthusiastic proselytizers, that fact is obvious and does not require reinforcement.  It should be stated that the oratory skills of the most Jewish TV hosts are seriously in need of improvement in most cases. 

In summary, if someone is looking for salvation and relief, it appears much easier to become a Christian because all you have is faith.  By contrast, being Jewish and happy takes intellectual effort and study.  Fortunately, those poor souls lacking sufficient hearts and minds can attain euphoria through the cooking channels and Adam eats America. Variety is the spice of life.

Gunning for it

Guns are worldwide and universal.  Their meaning is not.  When people see a person with a gun, its impact often depends on its national context.

For example, guns of all kinds are quietly omnipresent in Israel.  Armed soldiers, male and female, are highly visible in all public areas generally because they are on their way to somewhere else.  To Israelis, this is banal while to foreigners, this is exotic.  People of all ages involved in security services freely circulate at all times, including at celebrations.  My father was rather shocked to see my father-in-law’s colleagues walking around with pistols at my wedding.  I did not even notice it.  Since guns are linked with military service and security duty, gun safety is taken seriously.  There are relatively few shooting accidents in Israel.  The truth is that after having to carrying around an M-16, even shortened, or a local made assault rifle for 3 or more years, very few people actually want to walk around armed and loaded.  

In France, gun control is strict.  Gun possession is mainly limited to police officers, soldiers, and hunters.  Therefore, seeing a gun makes an impression.  In the Jewish quarter of Paris near the synagogues, elite soldiers patrol the area.  Aside from wearing black uniforms and looking very serious (like they know how to actually aim the weapon), they carry submachine guns or machine pistols.  Their purpose is to intimidate potential terrorists. In the context of France, it works.

By contrast, in the United States, owning a gun is a protected, historical tradition.  The love of guns has been around for at least 400 years in the United States.  Many people in the United States in both urban and rural areas love to collect, shoot, and talk about guns.  It is a popular hobby.  Hunting is the main reason for existence for millions of Americans.  That means being around guns from a young age.  So, unlike Israel, guns are more entrenched part of everyday American life, for better or worse.  Therefore, the reaction of many people to guns is not shock, but curious as to what kind it is and how far it can shoot.

In summary, while guns are the same everywhere, people’s reactions differ from country to country.  I would be interested in hearing what reaction the sight of gun causes in your country.

All Men Are Created Equal (or at least in Language)

Language use changes.  When those words were written in 1776, the term “men” included women for some purposes at least. 

In modern English, it is politically correct to adjust words and grammar to avoid any hint of sexism.  There is nothing wrong in doing so as long as it is done properly.

One way is to exchange the man in a word with person or a more general word.  For example, a meeting is run by a chairperson while the firefighters and police officers deal with the riot outside.  In none of these cases is the structure of the sentence changed or rendered clumsy. 

For pronoun reference to general groups of people, using the plural noun avoids the gender issue.  For example, students that fail their test will have a second opportunity.  That is far more natural than a student that fails his/her test.  Sometimes, the context does not allow that option.  In that case, my personal preference is to write s/he.  In legal language, there is an additional trick: define the individual as a party of some kind.  Then, the writer can use the term it and dispense with the various forms of he and she.

Other languages handle the issue differently.  Russian has the pronoun свой which refers to the subject, whether that is first, second, or third person.  So, at least in the sentence, after using a noun or pronoun as the subject, the writer can avoid the his/her construction.  Another advantage of this pronoun is that avoid a classic problem in English with two male or female persons in a sentence and one possessive pronoun: My father and uncle argued about who had taken his wallet.  Whose wallet are we talking about, the former’s or the latter’s?  French places grammatical gender as the main criterion: Madame Le Juge.  Note that Madame is clearly feminine but le is masculine because the noun juge is masculine.  Hebrew, coming from the Middle East, simplifies the matter:  if there is one male in the group, a male pronoun is used, period.  After all, all men are created equal!