JUST ENGAGE

When recently asked about Israel’s “brand perception” I found myself glibly answering that Israel will have been successfully branded when an Israeli comedian appears on an American sitcom. But there’s some truth to it. Popular shows were successful in softening otherwise harder images by successfully and humorously raising and asking pointed questions. The question(s) behind Ralph Kramden’s constant search for a get-rich quick scheme were, among others, “what price the American Dream?” And what Jackie Gleason did for softening the “brand” of the working class is what Bill Cosby helped do to refashion the “brand” of African Americans. The mirror Cosby seemed to holding up to his audience was in the form a question we seemed to collectively wonder as late as the 1980s—namely, “black people are actually doctors?”

Translated to the Israel brand, Israel-philes need to help answer many questions. Due to the constant portrayal of the conflict Israel is often seen through a military and/or religious lens. Recent Brand Israel findings suggest that we need to add a human lens and answer inherently moronic but equally persistent questions like “Do Israelis have a sense of humor? Do they cook? Do they eat? In short, do they do anything other than kill innocent Palestinians children? Culture (and often, humor) can be a powerful tool in humanizing and expanding the image of the average Israeli in the eyes of those who will never get to travel there.

I’d love to see an Israeli comedian scheme and fail repeatedly a la Ralph Kramden on the American airwaves (In fact, if you’re a well-connected Hollywood producer type, I happen to have a whole treatment written up for the enterprise) Until then we need to make our friends aware of the humanity and diversity of things Israel.

So enjoy, laugh, and most importantly, send these “branded answers” to these questions your (Jewish and non-Jewish) friends.

“Why do all Israelis take their religion so seriously?” Here’s a recent commercial for Yes TV

“Why don’t Israelis ever laugh at themselves?" Here’s a spoof on an Israeli giving directions. It’s better but not necessary to understand the Hebrew. Just know she’s giving very specific directions.

Do Israelis listen to music? I think the Idan Raichel Project answers that one.

Do Israelis have hope for the future? Some do even enough to dream of a wishing you a very Happy 2008!

Today the whole world has lost.
In a world of extremism we have lost a voice of moderation.
In a world of terrorism we have lost a hope for democracy. 

Benazir Bhutto, only fifty-four, was murdered today by a combined shooting and bombing attack at a rally in Rawalpindi, a city near Islamabad.

Bhutto, the leading candidate for Prime Minister of Pakistan, a position she held twice before, was a symbol of possibilities for Pakistan.  She was outspoken against radicalism, openly supported the global war on terror, and called for the end of Pakistan's relations with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Bhutto had returned in October as leader of the Pakistan People's Party, the largest political opposition party to the rule of Pervez Musharraf.  Musharraf took power eight years ago in a military coup and later declared himself President of Pakistan.  Most recently, right before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was to review the constitutionality of his re-election as President, he declared a state of emergency, suspended the Constitution, jailed several justices and lawyers, ordered the arrest of political opponents and human rights activists, and shut down privately-owned television networks.

In a piece entitled The Extremists Will Not Prevail published in Ha'aretz just three days ago, Benazir Bhutto wrote of past attempts on her life,

"I did not come this far in life to be intimidated by suicide bombers.  There is a battle raging in Pakistan for the hearts and minds of a new generation.  It is a battle for the future of Pakistan as a democratic nation.  The new generation will choose moderation or extremism, it will choose education or illiteracy; it will choose dictatorship or democracy; it will choose tolerance or bigotry; and it will choose peace or war.  I returned to Pakistan this week to lead the fight for democracy.  With the blood of my supporters on the streets and on our clothes, I reaffirm my commitment to these values."

I am struck by Benazir Bhutto's strength and courage.  The daughter of democratic Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, she grew up in politics and became Prime Minister of Pakistan at thirty-five, the first woman elected to lead a Muslim country.  She overcame incredible obstacles including the murder of her father, the deaths of two of her brothers, accusations of corruption, house arrest, and exile.  Despite these hardships and in the face of them, her sheer determination to uphold the values of democracy and create change is an example to other Muslim women, women everywhere, and all of humanity.

I am not of the generation that witnessed the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, but I am of the generation that saw the assassination of Prime Minster Yitzhak Rabin.  That awful moment in time has generated repercussions every day for the last thirteen years.  It changed the course of history, determined the fates of so many innocent people, and took away the possibility of what could have been.

In light of such harsh realities, it would be easy for me to declare that all hope of democracy in Pakistan, and perhaps that part of the world, has died today with Ms. Bhutto.  But instead, I think we would be wiser to take a cue from Benazir Bhutto's bravery and find strength in her words,

"All our thoughts, prayers and sympathies are with those who laid down their lives, or were wounded, and to their families.  They made the ultimate sacrifice for the cause of democracy and the fundamental rights of the people.  May God rest their souls in eternal peace.  The greatest memorial to these brave citizens will be a strong, viable and moderate democratic Pakistan."

At a holiday party last weekend, my three-year old was playing baseball. Not a particularly noteworthy afternoon – except that the bat was emblazoned with the American flag. And the ball was an inflatable globe. My husband declared that this was yet one more example of our boy's genius and precocious insight. My son was not merely playing ball – he was commenting on our nation's climate policy. And he hit a homerun.

Earlier this month, more than 10,000 people, including representatives of over 180 countries, met in Bali, Indonesia to formulate an international response to climate change. The conference culminated in the adoption of the Bali roadmap, which provides the first step for an international agreement to go into effect when the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.

True to form, the US challenged global efforts to incorporate firm emission reductions in the final document. The delegates had enough. At one point, as the US insisted on provisions that would've derailed an agreement, a delegate from Papua New Guinea leaned into his microphone and declared that if the US was not willing to lead it should "at least get out of the way." The Papua New Guinea delegate was not alone. The entire room of high-level ministers – otherwise very courteous dignitaries – actually booed US Undersecretary of State (the top US official at the meeting) for nearly a minute.

Thankfully, the US did get out of the way in Bali. Indeed, though the agreement is not as strong as it could be, it nonetheless provides a starting point for future negotiations. The United States eventually relented and agreed to language without specific limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Though the Bali agreement does not include any specific numeric emission reduction targets, it does acknowledge the need for measurable, reportable, and verifiable mitigation “actions" and "commitments." Critically, the final agreement recognizes the importance of mitigation, adaptation, financing, and technology in responding to climate change. These initial agreements can pave the way for a firmer commitment when the delegation reconvenes in Denmark in 2009, after the next election.

Unfortunately, the Bali concession did not mark a sea change in our country's response to climate change. Days after the US agreed to "get out of the way" in Bali, our leaders were at it again. Last Thursday, the US Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency denied California’s petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. California had sought to establish stronger emissions standards for cars and trucks sold in the state. This is not a novel request. The Clean Air Act explicitly allows California to adopt its own standards. And the federal government has granted similar requests fifty times since 1968. The last time it denied a request was in 1975.

California had first requested the waiver in 2005. It is set to take effect for vehicles manufactured in 2009. After two years of silence from Washington, California sued EPA and demanded a response. EPA finally responded last Thursday – justifying its denial of the waiver because it claimed the new Energy Bill (also signed into law last week) was stronger than California's limits. This is simply not true. Admittedly, the Energy Bill makes tremendous strides. It improves our national fuel economy standards for the first time in more than thirty years. However, the California standard was more protective. It demanded reductions to kick in by 2016. It also explicitly addressed carbon dioxide emissions – which are not limited in the Energy Bill. If the California standard was adopted by California – and the sixteen other states that have promised to embrace it – emissions would be reduced by 100 million metric tons in 2020.

Californians aren't prepared to back down. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has already pledged to sue to overturn the EPA decision. In the past three months, federal judges in Vermont and California have already ruled twice against automakers’ attempts to block state tailpipe reductions for greenhouse gases. Even EPA’s own lawyers seem to doubt the Administrator's final decision. In an agency presentation, aides wrote that if Johnson denied the waiver and California sued, EPA is likely to lose in court.

There is virtual scientific consensus that climate change is happening. The evidence is already here. Eleven of the last twelve years rank among the warmest years in global surface temperature since 1850. Scientists caution that greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced by 60 to 80 percent from current levels to avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change.

Perhaps my husband was right and my three-year old was onto something. We're in the bottom of the ninth – and it's time for the United States to "lead, follow, or get out of the way."

This photo essay in the New York Times is a different view of Auschwitz .  It raises some uncomfortable questions.

This slide show illustrates how effective the German propaganda machine was, allowing people to lose their conscience and be business as usual all the while participating in acts of extreme depravity.

The very fact that these pictures portray what seem to be normal everyday people is what makes it so scary. They don't look like monsters. They smile, are cleanly dressed, have kids, have dogs. We could pass them on the street and not shudder or be afraid.

Evil can come in a very nice package, with black hearts wrapped in ribbons and bows. We, and the entire world, need to learn to see beyond the packaging. 

For them it was a job that they probably didn't think that much about when they went home. How much does an exterminator obsess over his job when he's home in the evening? For the Nazis, a Jewish life wasn't worth more - or even as much - as that of a roach. That's why you could have "people" playing with their dogs in a charming garden while a few feet away, others were being starved and tortured to death.

What's so scary is how normal they look. How can anyone know who is evil if Evil can wear such a human face?   

When we hear over and over about Darfur, Rwanda , and other places where human atrocities are taking place even today, these places quickly become background noise for some obscure distant form of evil. These albums, taken within steps of the camps, remind us that these acts are committed, even today, by fellow human beings against other fellow human beings.

*Thanks to my friends at JWN for this material

Last week, I read a refreshing article in the Jerusalem Post written by Palestinian-American comedian Ray Hanania.  It is one of the few times that I’ve heard a truly moderate Palestinian voice – a sincere voice and not what we are typically force-fed to accept as “moderate.”  Yet, at the same time, the article was quite grim.  He talks about the major stumbling block for peace between Israelis and Palestinians.  No, it’s not the settlements, it’s not the occupation, and it’s not necessarily terrorism itself (even though these are all real problems).  It’s simpler than that.  It’s the poison of the desire for revenge.

And that’s because the true opposite of peace is not war, it is revenge.  It is the desire to not move forward, to not think positively about what the future could bring.  Revenge focuses on the past, and by doing so predetermines the future.  Revenge is the opposite of sympathy, and without understanding the suffering of the other side and appreciating their dreams and desires, one cannot really be at peace with oneself, let alone with the other.  Without leaving behind absurd simplifications of the conflict, and without shedding the lies we live by, genuine peace cannot take place.  (For a great list of these lies read Bradley Burston’s “The lie of victory”)

True, desires for revenge exist in both societies, but in Israel’s case it is way less common.  For example, a peace camp like the Israeli one of the 1990s has never developed in Palestinian society.  Moreover, despite all the violence, the majority of Israelis continue to believe in the establishment of a Palestinian state and wish to move on with their lives.  There are radical voices who do not believe in compromise, but thankfully they are a minority.

That is not the case with the Palestinians.  The majority of their leaders and advocates fail to condemn terrorism in any meaningful way.  Also, there is rarely an acknowledgement that they, too, share responsibility for the conflict and their own suffering.  My initial reaction would be to attribute that to the lack of democracy and freedom in the Palestinian territories, since I could sympathize with the explanation that moderate Palestinians are afraid to speak out for fear of persecution.  This would be quite tragic, however, because it would mean that the radicals are the majority (people can only be afraid when they feel outnumbered).

But something doesn’t add up...

One of the most rewarding aspects of my work as part of the Israel Advocacy Initiative is helping to create the IAI Israel Institutes for non-Jewish community leaders.  As an advocate for Israel, the most powerful tool I have is the ability to travel to Israel and experience the reality on the ground.  I have had the privilege of staffing the IAI Fact-Finding Institute in September 2006, right after the war, and the IAI Israel Institute for Labor Leaders in June 2006.  Being able to see Israel through the eyes of non-Jewish community leaders, many first time travelers to the Holy Land, is an incredibly refreshing and inspirational experience. 

The IAI Israel Institutes are unique in that they encourage Jewish community representatives to share this experience in Israel with their non-Jewish peers, laying the foundation for long-term relationships.  Additionally, I am very proud of these programs because they are balanced.  We work hard to present Israeli society, its diversity and complexity, and foster connections between the participants and their counterparts in Israel.  Participants leave Israel believing that the situation is far more complex than it appears, that there are no "quick fix" solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and that Israel is a vibrant, multi-ethnic democracy striving for security and peace.

Being able to contribute to the IAI Israel Institutes is work that fills my heart.  Whether it has been communicating with the participants before they leave, experiencing the program in Israel together (especially sharing in those special conversations that happen on the bus or over falafel), or hearing from the group when they return, I have met so many incredible people, contributing in their own ways to making the world a better place.  For example, I met Gerard Dhooge on the IAI Labor Leaders Institute.  Gerard is the New England Agent for the Seafarers International Union and the President of the Boston and New England Maritime Trades Council.  I enjoyed learning about Gerard's life experiences.  I liked him so much I could even tolerate his passion for Boston sporting teams!  After the Institute, I really appreciated hearing from him that what impressed him most was, "The incredible history of the entire region; the spirit and resilience of the Israeli people and their absolute desire for peace; how modern/western the entire country is; and how safe and secure I felt during the entire trip...I felt that the Institute was an incredible experience, would do it again at any time, and would encourage anyone I know to visit Israel.  I don't think people can understand my experience, or the country/Middle East, unless they themselves visit the region." 

The next IAI Israel Institute will be for Interfaith leaders, scheduled for April 2008.  I encourage you to check out the IAI programs in more detail on our website.  Happy Holidays!

A few months ago I was asked by a colleague on the Israel on Campus Coalition to speak in a panel after the off-Broadway show Masked. Last Tuesday evening I participated in such a panel called “Urgent Conversations.” These conversations follow select performances of the play Masked and involve activists and community leaders with varied backgrounds. Tuesday night I was joined by Tammy Shapiro, the Executive Director, of the Union of Progressive Zionists, and Ora Wise, co-founder of the Palestine/Israel Education Project. Prior, to the “Urgent Conversation” I saw the play for the first time.

A few details about the play…Masked is an Israeli written play about three Palestinian brothers set during the first Intifada, it shows how one Palestinian family reacts to their situation.

I thought the play was well done in showing different Palestinian perspectives about living in the territories. For a play that bills itself as a play about Palestinians, I think it does a good job in portraying those perspectives. In terms of advocacy I would encourage college student groups to use it to show a Palestinian perspective provided there is context given.

The panel….The first question we were asked was about the role of a 7 year old younger brother, who is not in the play, but seems to be a main topic of discussion as he has become a martyr for the Palestinian cause. Throughout the entire play I couldn’t stop thinking about the seven year old. About a 7 year old brought up in a culture where his siblings put his life in danger. A 7 year old who will never be able to choose for himself- peace or war.  I thought about a generation of young people—Israelis and Palestinians—who are born into this conflict. When the moderator, asked about the Annapolis peace conference the first thing I thought of was hope. Hope for a Jewish Israeli state and a Palestinian state side by side in peace. Yes, of course that sounds great, but we all know this process will be more complex. But, what I have learned from traveling around the country over the past few months speaking with high school and college students that was cemented Tuesday night is that we need to allow students/young people to have their own voice. When the IAI visits communities we give students the tools to advocate for Israel on campus. We talk about history, current events, Israel beyond the conflict, coalition building and building relationships on campus. We don’t tell them what to think; we encourage them to speak with and learn from each other. 

 

 

We just returned from an amazing two week trip to Israel. Every time I check back in with the Motherland I’m always struck by the distance between the perception of Israel and the reality of things on the ground. Those of us who think about and advocate for Israel often fall prey to a sort of tunnel vision and tend to sometimes forget that Israel is a complex nation riddled with contradictions.

About twenty minutes after arriving at Ben-Gurion, my cell phone rang. I was expecting a cousin a friend. It was Hatem, a Bedouin Arab who had served in the army with a close friend of mine. When the two visited the States a year ago they slept at my house for a week. When Hatem found out we’d be in the north he was insistent on returning the favor and would be hurt if I didn’t have at least one meal at his house. When I told him that one of the days would be my daughter Lea’s 8^th birthday, he insisted that he make a birthday party for her. In fact, he called me back to find out how to spell her name in Hebrew so his wife could write it on the cake.

We arrived at Bir Al-Maksur and were greeted by Hatem, his wife, five children, and a crowd of neighbors, cousins, and friends. The village is made up 9,000 inhabitants all of whom are from the same Bedouin tribe. Hatem quickly lit up the indoor wood-burning taboun, and in no time we treated to an amazing feast of spiced hamburgers, steak, couscous, vegetables and more. At no time did Hatem or any member of his family sit down. Their honor is to serve guests.

After dinner Hatem’s wife brought out a delicious home made chocolate came replete with Lea’s name in Hebrew. Post-cake the dozens of kids, including my three, adjourned into the other room or took a walk around the village and in their mixture of Hebrew, Arabic, English and sign language were becoming fast friends.

I'm tired of the presidential race. I know, that's a cliché thing to say...everybody's tired of the presidential race already. The people in Iowa probably want to kill themselves right about now. It's not that I'm tired of hearing the candidates' opinions on the serious issues of the day. Problem is, what little I'm hearing about that is drowned out by so much other noise that I can't hear myself think, let alone what they think. This morning in the New York Times Maureen Dowd wrote a column about the fact that we judge candidates so much by their looks and how that could turn out to be such a disadvantage for Hillary because we're not used to watching women age on television.

There are a lot of things I don't care about in this election. I don't care whether the candidate is religious or not. If the candidate is religious, I don't care what the religion is, as long as he or she has no plan for imposing it on me. I think there are candidates who want to impose their religion on me, not necessarily by missionary tactics but by their policy priorities. So I won't be voting for them.

I also don't care a lot about what the candidates say about each other. It's not the way to learn about them. I know, negative campaigning works. That doesn't make it less irritating. And why do we believe what they say about each other? They'll all bash each other in the primary, and then whoever's elected will put some of his or her former opponents in the cabinet because their good qualities have suddenly been rediscovered and all the bad stuff was just good-natured campaigning.

Mostly what I don't care about is what they look like. If I did, I'd send all of my meager savings to Colin Farrell, harass him to join the race, and be arrested as a psycho stalker. Or I'd just vote for my two year old nephew, cuz although he doesn't talk much yet, he's awfully cute. No, I don't care that some people think that George Bush looks like Alfred E. Neumann (sorry, he does), or what Hillary's hair looks like from one day to the next.

Here are a few of the things I do care about:

Supreme Court Justices - I'm into judges who believe the Constitution exists to protect me.

Health Care - Everyone deserves it. And it costs taxpayers a lot more to support a system for people who don't have insurance than to provide the health care coverage in the first place. Yes, it's a complicated problem. Let's solve it.

Education - Where to begin. Here's the latest brilliant idea, let's close schools when kids don't do well on standardized tests. Then we'll have fewer bad schools. Until we have to put those kids in the schools that are performing well, making them overcrowded and underfunded, so then they can become bad schools too. Here's a thought, let's put some resources into making the bad schools good schools. Also, I'm starting a pool on whether my nephew, who lives in Kansas, will be learning evolution in school. Guess I better brush up on my biology knowledge.

Immigration - There are serious issues to be discussed about immigration. Let's quit equating poor Mexicans with ideologue terrorists.

Foreign Policy - I want the U.S. to be a factor in making the world a better, safer place. I want the mess in Iraq cleaned up. I want to know whether Iran is working on nuclear weapons, and if they are, I want them to stop. I want peace in the Middle East. I want an end to genocide and starvation in Africa.

Environment - Maybe we can avoid all the issues if we just let the planet burn up.

Mostly, I want people to care about these issues - whether they agree with me on them or not. I want people to be engaged. I want people to understand that what the president thinks matters. And that whether or not he has hair plugs doesn't.