Gung Ho!

I saw the martial arts film The Grandmaster yesterday and the sage philosophical musings of some of the different schools of Chinese fighting led me to ponder how is it that every time the American government wants to start a war with someone, they waste no time shouting it to the winds. What about the stealth, the element of surprise, the strategy? What about knowing your enemy? (If they did, they would think twice about it).
I do tai chi, which is not, as you may think, a gentle stretch for little old Chinese ladies, but a martial art. My teacher is always saying things like, you gotta have strong legs so the first thing you do when confronted by a possible attack is, run the hell out of there. The first rule of Chinese martial arts seems to be to avoid, deflect, defuse, and discourage confrontation. If that is not possible, however, then that swift, out-of-the-blue, lethal kick will come in handy. But if you let your enemy, (and the enemy of your enemy, which in the case of Syria is also your enemy) know two weeks in advance that you intend to kick his ass, it may not work out as well.
I just came back from France, where the national pastime seems to be to sit in cafés and talk. The French are obsessed with thought and discussion, and having as much paid vacation as possible. The Magnificent Arepa had an epiphany that the reason why there are so many French philosophers is that the French like to sit at cafés, smoke, drink coffee, and think. Like Sartre and Beauvoir at Les Deux Magots.
Americans however, are obsessed with action. No sitting at cafés in the middle of the day for us. We do shit without thinking.
This is the only way I can explain the surreal moment we are having right now about going to war with Syria. First, we don't do anything when it's the time to do it, if ever; we wait until the guy has killed 100,000 people and then, when he steps over "the red line" (which, as Jon Stewart points out, is a dick measuring tape), we bluster and threaten and announce our intentions to attack. Obama whips his dick out, and not to be outdone, many of the putrid vermin that populate Congress follow suit. This is the one issue in which Republicans all of a sudden stand behind a President they have stonewalled every step of the way. They strangle health, education, immigration, economic issues, but war? BRING IT!
Has there been a thoughtful conversation, analysis or debate about this latest hankering for infernal action? Can this President, who promised to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan now say with a straight face that we are going into Syria as well?
The problem with Americans is that ours is a lethal combination of "gotta get things done, but first we need to brag about them". We neither do them when it is advisable, if ever, nor talk or think about them enough, which should be always. So by the time we take action, we do it thoughtlessly, unleashing even bigger messes, more enmity, and more chaos.
There must be an alternate way, a way of reason and brilliance. This takes true brains, and is therefore rarely used, but this constitutes the ideal scenario: people with great strategic thinking come up with smart, complex, unfolding solutions; not gung-ho, easy as a fart, morally abject posturing that is going to get us into a whole world of trouble. Again.

Coming Attractions

Not showing anywhere near you yet, but you should run to see them as soon as they hit the theatres:

The Gatekeepers, or, Shin Bet leaders spill the beans. Best documentary I've seen this year.

A trifecta of extraordinary movies:
Amour, the latest masterpiece from Michael Haneke, with the immortal Jean-Louis Trintignant and Emanuelle Riva, Cristian Mungiu's masterful Beyond The Hills, and the lovely Like Someone in Love by maestro Abbas Kiarostami.

Also worth watching is the impressive debut of orthodox female film director Rama Burshtein, Fill the Void.

On the other hand, these clunkers are better left unseen.

Mexican Memes

Mexicans have always been known for their sense of humor. Mexican culture is awash with jokes, puns, double entendres and what we call ingenio, which is something as funny as wit, but less dry. Yet I don't think anyone foresaw how much mileage Mexican humor was going to get out of new technologies like Photoshop, You Tube and social media, which are starting to make Mexico look like the capital of memes. 

About a week after 9/11, if not sooner, I get an urgent email from my friend Pancho, with the following subject: "They found Osama Bin Laden". I open it, my heart racing, and I see a picture of Osama sitting placidly in a gondola in Xochimilco, a place where Mexican families go to have Sunday picnics on the water. To this day, it's the best thing I ever saw.
Apparently, it's the gift that keeps on giving:

Same when they couldn't find Ghadaffi:

Looks like the taquero from hell to me, even though, true to his Middle Eastern roots, he is hiding behind a spit of shwarma.
Any time a Mexican public figure makes a gigantic blunder, Mexicans and their ingenio take over cyberspace. A meme was created when newsanchor Joaquín López Dóriga attempted to interview Sir Anthony Hopkins and asked him "Juay De Rito" (Why The Rite?).
More recently, the PRI's candidate for president, a pompadoured calamity called Enrique Peña Nieto, was taken to task for not being able to answer correctly what three books have most influenced him, as he made an appearance at the International Book Fair in Guadalajara, the most important event of its kind in the Spanish-speaking world. You would think he'd brush up on his reading, given the nature of the event, but true to the caste of patronizing demagogues of his party, who are used to blathering from above and are completely unable to speak off the cuff, he was taken aback by the question and proceeded to pontificate without saying absolutely anything or remembering correctly the title of at least one book (not counting the Bible, which he said he had read parts of).
The barrage of tweets and doctored photos that invaded the net show no sign of abating.
His daughter then posted a tweet saying "a greeting to the bunch of fuckheads that are part of the prole (tariat) and who only criticize who they envy".
Now all of Mexico is claiming prolehood.
Gandhi, a chain of bookstores, famous for their clever ads, did not waste any time coming up with some funny print ads. Because their ads are easy to copy, Mexicans went to work on dozens of alternate versions:

There are pictures of Peña Nieto conferring with the actual Gandhi, with the Pope, and one of him as the swaddled baby of two of the most notoriously corrupt and sinister members of the PRI, ex-president Carlos Salinas and undying PRI fixture Elba Esther Gordillo.
Among the tweets:

"Let's read something by Martin Burger King #PeñaNietoBookstore"

"What is your favorite Benedetti? The pepperoni one, of course". #PeñaNietoBookstore"

"Three books that marked me for life: 1) Los Reebook, 2) La Notebook, y 3) El Facebook. #PeñaNietoBookstore"

 There are also many hashtags for the "prole" comment.

Apparently, at the PRI's behest, which is revolting business as usual, Twitter tried to censor the PeñaNietoBookstore# hashtag after it started trending with over 60,000 tweets. There was a huge outcry and they allowed it again. One thing these lamentable politicos do not appreciate is freedom of expression. They are used to despotism, but Mexico is changing. There is no more delicious schadenfreude than to see these corrupt bozos exposed by the citizenry for the frauds they are. It may not be funny to them, but it is seriously funny for us.
Social media can change things. Hopefully this idiot will not become the President of Mexico after this.

Happy New Year

Sunrise

May this New Year 5772 be a year where people become smarter, common sense reigns, people renounce violence, we edge closer to social justice, war ends, evil bankers are prosecuted, the middle class thrives, poverty shrinks, government works, the rich are taxed, our politicians lose the stupid and craven gene, corporations stop being people, all the nasties in the Supreme Court magically retire while all the liberals stay, drugs are legalized, the mayhem in the Middle East is finally put to rest, hatred calls it a day, Republicans implode, Obama grows a pair, reality shows collapse, global warming chills, people find jobs, capital punishment is barred in the US, street fairs are banned, and I get a date with Michael Fassbender.
Not asking for much, are we? 

Eat a lot of apples and honey just in case. It can't hurt.

Don't Do Israel No Favors

There are some self-righteous Jews out there, who, thinking that Israel can't survive without their help, end up causing more harm than good. These are the people who scream when a movie like Miral* is screened at the UN, hereby causing it to gain far more attention not only than it deserves, but that it would have ever gotten if they had not raised a stink in the first place. Or like this guy on the board of CUNY, who decides that playwright Tony Kushner does not deserve a honorary degree because he doesn't happen to agree with Kushner's views on Israel. I'm sure Kushner is no Netanyahu, but he is not Ahmadinejad either. And unless he is cheerleading for the wholesale destruction of Israel, which I'm sure he isn't, what does that have anything to do with his making the list for an honorary degree?  This is, contrary to its intended effect, bad for the Jews. Because it gives ammunition to those idiots who think we indeed control everything.
So use your seichel (brain) before you open your mouth. Also, there is such a thing as freedom of thought and expression. They happen to have it in Israel. You may want to look it up.

*The Jews who are so ashamed of Israel that they make it look worse than it is, also deserve a zets in kop.

I Am A Self-Loving Jew

...not an anti-Semite or a self-hating Jew. Quite the contrary, I believe in the survival of the state of Israel and want to see it thrive in peace and belong to community of nations forever. So that is why I urge everybody who is interested in this tiresome topic to read David Remnick's lucid, cogent, and eloquent comment on the state of affairs between Israel and the US right now. He is not a self-hating Jew nor an antisemite either. It is now possible, and in fact, desirable, to better support Israel by dissenting from the monolithic and sclerotic AIPAC with its "the shtetl is burning" and "everything Israel does is always good" rhetoric. Unfortunately, the Israelis voted for a right wing government that continues to isolate and almost immolate itself instead of working towards a solution to their geopolitical problems. As Jews, we have an obligation to support Israel, but not when it is doing everything in its power to paint itself into an untenable corner.
Nobody's being naive. We are well aware of the hateful agendas of our enemies. But if their societies can revolt for change, then certainly Israel, a democracy, and a first world country, can work to change the terrible paradigm it has locked itself into.  The world is changing. Now there is an alternative Israel lobby in Washington. Now there are other legitimate Pro-Israel voices that have a different idea as to what will ensure the survival of the state. There should be vigorous debate within the Jewish communities, not only in the US but all over the world, as to what is truly best for Israel now.
Just don't tell me I hate Israel because I don't happen to agree with its policies.
That ain't flying anymore.

When it Bahrains it Pours

Wow. The entire Arab world seems to have awakened all at the same time and this is getting hairy. Looks like tyrannosaur governments were asleep at the wheel while their people were looking at the free world through their computer screens and feeling depressed, abused, and left behind.
The internet, for better or for worse, is the single most astounding catalyst for human freedom and democracy the world has ever known. But if you are Mubarak or Gaddafi or a cruel, puny little "king" in the desert, you are so out of touch with the world that you don't know what hit you. Wasn't this the guy who decided to give every Bahraini citizen over $2000 a couple of weeks ago, to buy their acquiescence?
Didn't work. People want dignity.
Now the king has ordered the riot police and the military to shoot at sleeping civilians and mourners and to prevent doctors from tending to the wounded. And these are "our friends". Meanwhile, I'm sure I am not the only one waiting to hear from President Obama, who should be on the phone giving this motherfucker an ass-whooping; not that they give a fuck about what the US has to say in that part of the world. I think those friendly regimes die with laughter every time they hear our song and dance about democratic ideals. They are the worst kind of friend. They laugh at us behind our back. They say they are our friend and encourage their citizens to hate us. We seem to be more naive. We have the Sally Field complex and want everyone to adore us. We also believe our own bullshit. Nobody else does.
Obama should come out and publicly decry this assault against civilians with the strongest language. My heart sinks when I read the following: "The US is in an uncomfortable position"; Hillary Clinton is "very concerned". What kind of milquetoasty language is this? A pebble in your shoe is uncomfortable. This is downright unacceptable, and "concerned" is too mild a word. Pissed off is more like it.
Hell, a true friend is supposed to lay down the law when they see a friend acting in their own worst interest. A friend that stands aside when a friend is doing terrible things is not a friend. He is an accomplice.
Now, what choice do we have? The king quickly blames Iran, the bogeyman de rigeur, because many of the protesters are Shiite and he is a Sunni (as are the Saudi royal family bastards). Is Iran stoking the protests? Perhaps, although I don't get a feeling that the citizens of Bahrain are clamoring for a stone age theocracy. They want justice and respect, equality and laws. Some of them are saying that the Saudis are involved in the repression. And it is a fact that the riot police is imported from somewhere else because the Sunni king does not trust to have a Shia police force. Hence the brutality.
We cannot be so naive as to think that these countries, which have never known democracy, are beset by intractable sectarian conflict and which still adhere to certain codes that look barbaric in the eyes of the West (their treatment of women, to name one), all of a sudden are going to be fountains of freedom and democracy. But we have to stop thinking that we can be "friends" with corrupt, repressive, undemocratic regimes, be they Arab or otherwise. For all the bullshit we like to spew about freedom and democracy and morality, it's time we walk the walk. The entire international community (the US has to stop footing the bill for everyone) needs to pressure them to reform their laws, open their political system and change. If they tilt towards darkness instead of progress, too bad.
By the way, where are the UN resolutions condemning the attacks on civilian protesters in Egypt, Bahrain, Libya and Yemen?
I didn't think so.

Egypt: Now What?

So Mubarak finally moved over. But not before he gave a clueless and contemptuous speech and made the people angrier. Sorry to rain on everyone's parade, but there is not much cause for celebration yet. The army is in power. The guy in charge has been accused of personally torturing people and is connected to the abhorrent practice of rendition, by which Egypt tortures alleged terrorists for the US, plus, we have a military coup d'etat. Is the army going to ensure a peaceful transition to democracy or to yet another dictatorship?  This is a country that has never known democracy and it should start getting acquainted to it asap, but how?
Mohamed ElBaradei has some excellent ideas.
Let's hope that this will be the beginning of a new era of democracy for Egypt, a country who could well be a role model for other Middle Eastern transitions to better regimes, progress and peace in the region.

Thieveristan

I know everybody is transfixed by Lawrence Wright's article in The New Yorker on the cult of Scientology, because it's science fictiony, Hollywoody, gossipy and bizarre-y (and looong) but let me gently coax you to read a far more flabbergasting one: the absurd, and eye opening Dexter Filkins article about how all the money we are giving to the Karzai government in Afghanistan is going to the Taliban, to drug lords and to Karzai's family and friends who build multimillion dollar villas in Dubai while that benighted country is at war. It is a riot.
You will choke with laughter of the bilious kind. I'm sure it's not even news, but once in a while it helps to shake us out of our TV coma induced torpor to perhaps demand the Obama administration to stop futzing around. We are giving gazillions of dollars to thieves.
Let's stop giving money to these bozos. It seems that everywhere we give money, the money is misused. So no more money. I wonder if the Chinese or the Russians would be so naive or cavalier when giving money to allow the disappearance of billions of their dollars and look the other way, as we are doing in Fuckedupistan. I think they'd make sure their yens and rubles were accounted for in as evil a way as possible. Why can't we make sure that our dollars are used in the best way possible? Alas, we bestow our largesse on dubious regimes under the innocent assumption that they are the best we've got going. Here comes idiot Uncle Sam bearing gifts. Everybody plunder!
Let someone else do it. Even if they are evil, it won't really make a difference. Because we are utterly ineffectual. We naively look at this money as some sort of building block for democracy. As if. These people look at this money as a source for their own personal investment. They could care less if their own citizens don't have a pot to piss on or if their country is going back to the Stone Age. They have mansions in Dubai! Built with our taxpayers money! They could care less if the money that they are giving to the Taliban is the same that is allocated to fighting it. They are laughing all the way to the bank. Or in this case, from the bank. So let them all rot together in that shithole. Enough. And let's get out of dodge.

Memo To An Egyptian Mummy

This is my fantasy, which is what would happen in a rational, commonsensical world.
Someone (preferably Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, and the rest of the international community) would whisper in Mubarak's ear:
"Dude, do you want to be remembered as the hero who liberated Egypt (from yourself, but never mind)? Or do you want to be remembered as a stubborn, dictatorial, murderous kleptocrat? You've been in power for 30 years, it's about time you step down. You want to be remembered as the father of Egyptian democracy! So instead of hunkering down, turning the police and the army against their own and taking away the people's internet (for better or for worse, the single greatest spreader of human freedom ever), why not step down and put Mr. ElBaradei in your place?
What could be cooler than Egypt having a Nobel Prize winner as a leader? Everybody seems to like him! ElBaradei would have the support of the international community and could stabilize the country while it gets ready to transition to a vote in which Egyptians would choose who they want to rule them. We are all hoping that instead of choosing a stone age theocracy, they would choose to bring Egypt into the 21st century, which is what they seem to want. Both of you would ask the army to protect the citizenry instead of seizing power, and allow for a democratic transition, even if this country has never really seen one. Egypt used to have a king, who was a corrupt scoundrel, then General Nasser ousted the king, nationalized the Suez Canal, and started a chain of tyrannical rulers, including yourself. You have kept Egypt, if relatively peaceful, with the help of gazillions of our economic aid (where has all that money gone, by the way?) and a repressive iron hand, mired in social, cultural and economic stagnation. And now you were thinking of imposing one of your sons to continue to rule, as if you people were a monarchy? No way Jose. You are not wanted any more. Don't paint yourself into a corner and make our lives a foreign policy living hell in the process. We have too many messes in our hands already. Be a good sport. Scoot over, Hosni. 
By the same token, someone would be whispering in the US Administration's ear: for the love of God, do not fuck this one up.
One can dream.

El mundo es una cloaca infecta

Translation: The world is an infected sewer. Just read the paper.

This is how I feel about it, hearing about the likes of Carl Paladino and his courting of a repulsive fringe of the fringe attention-seeking giant asshole rabbi. Memo to the both of them: enough with the gay hate. I've fucking had it with all this crap. Why are people so bent out of shape about gays? Most of the time, the most vocal anti-gay people are those who are deathly afraid of being gay themselves. Otherwise, what's it to you? So for fuck's sake, deal with it. Gay people exist, they will continue existing and they are no worse or no better than anyone else. Hence, they deserve exactly the same rights as everyone else. If you can't handle that, go to Iran. Or to Saudi Arabia. There you'll feel right at home.
That asshole Paladino has a gay nephew that all of a sudden didn't show up for work (in his uncle's very own campaign) after his uncle said horrible things about gays. This is the human turd New Yorkers want for a governor? Besides, who the fuck cares about what these ultraorthodox retrogrades think? They don't live in the modern world, They should not count for shit.

I certainly hope that both Rabbi Levin and Paladino choke on their kosher sausages.
Not that I am thrilled by that horrible Cuomo guy, but these are the freaking choices we get in this human sewer we live in. I miss Elliot Spitzer. Who is now pimping himself to CNN. Disgraceful.

I'm very happy about the Chilean miners, but I can't stand how everything becomes a vulgar, mawkish, horrendous circus. How about some dignity? Do people still know the meaning of the word? CNN makes me puke and cringe at the same time. I'm glad I didn't even watch the damn thing. Reading is better. Watching Jon Stewart skewer the whole unseemly carnival of cheese, even better.

And what is the Iranian vantz doing in Lebanon? A missile on his head could help dispel this foul mood of mine.

Then we have his counterpart Avigdor Lieberman, possibly the worst candidate to hold a Foreign Relations post in the history of mankind. A foul, abrasive right-wing asshole.
And don't be surprised if he ends up being prime minister. Israelis, if they continue voting with fear and extremism, are going to end up in even more isolation from the world. The hatred in that region is insurmountable.

No wonder I am in a bad mood.

Aqaba Acabó Conmigo

A little play on words in Spanish between Aqaba and the Spanish verb "acabar" that means "to end or finish". Aqaba finished me.
We went there to avoid the tacky crassness and the expense of Eilat, the Israeli town that is right on the opposite shore of the Red Sea. I have never liked Eilat, which is like Acapulco but without the beautiful bay. Vulgar, overdeveloped, noisy, obnoxious (and full of Israelis). So since there were scuba diving and snorkeling to be attempted, I thought, why not do it in Aqaba, where we were told it would be much cheaper (Israel is super expensive). Actually, the best thing to do would be to get an Egyptian visa for Sinai and go to Dahab or Nuweiba. I remember snorkeling there before Israel gave it back to Egypt and it was a marvel. But we had little time and little strength, so Aqaba it was.
It certainly was cheap. But my heart sank when I realized we had three nights to spend there, already paid for. The town is not beautiful, the beaches are not beautiful.  The place, I'm sorry to say, is a dump. It is evident that they are trying to make it into a tourist diving destination. There are several fancy hotels and restaurants, their main benefit being that foreign women can use their private beaches without feeling ogled or harassed.
I fondly remembered Mr. Ex-Enchilada as we had our first dinner at a restaurant named Ali Baba. Would it turn out to be truth in advertising? Was this a sign to run away and look for a restaurant called Mother Theresa? It was expensive for what it was, but my fish was very good. 
The scene at the public beach (not suitable for foreigners) in downtown Aqaba every evening was fascinating and almost surreal. Vendors sell coffee, rent nargilahs, sell candied apples or children's clothes.

                                  Aqaba. Those lights in the distance are Eilat.

I'm sure Amman is a modern, secular city, but I was surprised by the fact that Aqaba is not so much. Forget about swimsuits. We would walk down the street with pants or bermudas and t-shirts and even a shawl to cover our arms and we were stared at and talked to like crazy, only by men. The first night we went out, a guy followed us. He was middle aged and well dressed. I heard him mutter something in Arabic to me and I shot him a hostile look. I wondered if he was perhaps a plainsclothes government agent, hovering around to protect us (as if), but then we saw him the next day having breakfast at the hotel. To be fair, guys talked to us but no one really bothered us ("Where you from? Welcome, welcome"). It may have helped that we walked around with caras de pedo, fart faces, so as not to give way to too many unwanted conversations. Because you really feel like a lump of meat under their particular gaze. It is exhausting.
I went into the saddest mall ever, a place with fancy restaurants and bars (Chinese, Lebanese, Irish pub), which was totally forlorn, except for a McDonald's. Like many such places in dumpy towns that have dreams of development, it was desperately sad. A very nice man who worked at a candy store asked me where I was from. "Mexico". Then he asked me very sweetly in what hotel I was staying. "Some hotel" I said. My smile had pulverized and he was confused. I tried to understand the reason for the question. I guess it was meant to be friendly, provincial and out of innocent curiosity. But who knows. Same with the spy guy. What does he want? Why is he following us? Who knows. Total culture clash.
However, at one point (after some shmuck hissed the c-word in Arabic at me as I went by) I thought that at least in Jordan the men look at me. No such luck in NY.

The McDonald's was the noisiest McDonald's in the universe, and as is the case with eternally developing countries, a place only the middle class can afford. We were there looking for free wifi, which turned out to be available in most fancy places.
The middle class Jordanians we saw ran the gamut from totally westernized, to wearing the millions of variations of Muslim dress for women. They also tend to go out with their children and dozens of relatives late at night. Like Mexicans, they don't consider it a successful venture if there isn't a deafening racket at all times. And they seem like all upper middle class families in poor countries, bent on making it clear that they are not to be confused with the rest of the rabble. We could have been in Mexico. But the majority of the people we saw on the street and at the public beaches seemed less well-to-do and more pious.

We were ripped off into going to a "beach club" where we could use a pool. The place was a dump, but the use of the pool in 105 degree weather was a true luxury. The murky pool, which could have been overlooking the sea, was blocked by a wall, no doubt so that those outside would not look at women in bathing suits.
We were advised we were going to a public beach. My guidebook did not recommend foreign women going to any public beach over the weekend, but said that on weekdays beaches were mostly empty and it was okay. Sure enough, there were only a few families and pairs of men on the beach, which was strewn with garbage. I went into the sea wearing a one piece, a few kids came by to ask the official question and they left. A man came by to tell me he loved me. Everybody stared.
Three other women in bikinis ventured into the sea as did The Magnificent Arepa, and a swarm of girls surrounded them. T.M.A reported the kids were sweet and fun, although from my vantage point from the shore it looked like she was undergoing a piranha attack. But the same girls threw water and were snarky and hostile at the three bikinied women. The women went to look for a place farther down the beach where no one could pester them.
Look, if this is your culture, fine. Far be it from us to impose our Western ways on your turf. But how are tourists going to come to a beach resort to dive and snorkel if they can't wear a bathing suit in peace?
At the pool in the "beach club", there was a woman wearing a Burkini. This was pants, and a long dress with long sleeves and head cover in shocking pink, with black trim on the sides. Very cute. It was not made of fabric amenable to water, however, so everytime she came out of the pool, the fabric clung to her in a way that revealed her body much more than any normal bathing suit would. I basically could look down the crack of her ass, and other private parts in much more detail than if she'd been wearing lycra. This defeats the purpose, no?
With all due respect to zealots of all religions, including mine, that insist on this puritanical mishegoss, which is nothing but a form of oppression and contempt of women, this is ridiculous.


I asked to see a menu. The prices were super cheap. We ordered lunch.
But when the waiter brought the check, he started reciting random prices, 4 times higher than what was listed on the menu. I don't care if you are in Jordan, in Mexico, in Timbuktu or in Petah Tikva. Nobody likes being taken for an idiot. We may be rich, but that doesn't mean that we are also stupid. Or that there is some unspoken law whereby it is okay to try to divest us of our wealth by cheating. So I showed him the menu. He ignored it. He still was bargaining the prices up with himself, pretending we couldn't do the simplest math. We raised hell, and all of a sudden they were all concerned for our well being and our satisfaction with our beach club experience. I think they were worried about how it was looking to the two Jordanian families who were there as well. They charged more for a can of Pepsi than for a shawarma sandwich with fries.
Arepa found the Jordanians much more polite than the Israelis. Some I found polite, others I found polite and hostile at the same time. Anybody is much more polite than an Israeli, unless you are eating at a fancy Israeli restaurant, where they overdo the politeness, as if they had learned to be polite from a manual. But I'd rather be treated roughly as an equal, than like an idiot or a whore or both.

Come with me to the Casbah

The Souk in Jerusalem's Old City.

 

                                                         Incenses.

Thank God for the profane.

Judt What I Needed

Since it looks highly unlikely that I will be able to go back to writing about pleasant topics like Mexican Japanese Peanuts, here are some thoughts on Tony Judt's mostly balanced op-ed piece in the NY Times about the odious cliches being brandished from both sides in the Middle East tussle.
Indeed, half of my current anxiety comes from some facile, overly simplistic, histrionic and ignorantly hostile cliches coming from the pro-Palestinian side; and the other half, evenly split in the middle, are the facile, histrionic, absurd, defensive, and sometimes downright idiotic cliches that I am hearing from the Pro-Israel side, which I dare not repeat here for fear of hurting our own cause. So thank you Mr. Judt for pointing this out. 
The internet has exponentially increased the rhetorical grotesquerie on both sides. It is exhausting, depressing and appalling. But I have some disagreements with Mr. Judt. Don't be lazy and read his article. I'm only quoting certain parts.

Israel is a state like any other, long-established and internationally recognized. The bad behavior of its governments does not “delegitimize” it, any more than the bad behavior of the rulers of North Korea, Sudan — or, indeed, the United States — “delegitimizes” them. When Israel breaks international law, it should be pressed to desist; but it is precisely because it is a state under international law that we have that leverage. 

So far, so good.

Perhaps the most common defense of Israel outside the country is that it is “the only democracy in the Middle East.” This is largely true: the country has an independent judiciary and free elections, though it also discriminates against non-Jews in ways that distinguish it from most other democracies today. The expression of strong dissent from official policy is increasingly discouraged.
But the point is irrelevant. “Democracy” is no guarantee of good behavior: most countries today are formally democratic — remember Eastern Europe’s “popular democracies.” Israel belies the comfortable American cliché that “democracies don’t make war.” It is a democracy dominated and often governed by former professional soldiers: this alone distinguishes it from other advanced countries.

I have some qualms with the discrimination statement. It's not untrue, but is discrimination of non-Jews living inside Israel's borders any worse than that experienced by non-European minorities in many democratic European countries? I'm asking.
The increasing discouragement of internal dissent is also true, and yet the vigor, the intensity and the openness of debate in Israel is still very much alive. I wish that Jews in the diaspora were as open to debate as the Israelis. There is a strong, free and robust opposition in Israel, which is simply non-existent anywhere else in the region.
Mr. Judt neglects to point out that the Israeli military is unique among the militaries of the world in that it is a civilian military, not a volunteer army. All Israeli men and women have compulsory military service for 3 and 2 years respectively, starting at age 18. Then, all men have to serve in the reserves a month a year until age 55. True, some stay on and become professional soldiers, and true, many of them end up in positions of political power. But this is because the entire country is militarized. Pretty much everybody goes to the Army. The distinction is important because most people think the Israeli Army is like any other. I'm sure that Israelis would be the first to throw their rifles and their uniforms away if they could afford it. 

Israel is not responsible for the fact that many of its near neighbors long denied its right to exist. The sense of siege should not be underestimated when we try to understand the delusional quality of many Israeli pronouncements.
Unsurprisingly, the state has acquired pathological habits. Of these, the most damaging is its habitual resort to force. 

I agree, though I wouldn't call it delusional, I'd call it distorted. Bunker mentality. Tunnel vision; brought about mainly by the extended occupation, a cancerous tumor that grows harder to extirpate with each passing day, if both sides keep refusing to negotiate. As long as it's there, the occupation will continue crippling and weakening Israel morally and politically.

"Terrorism is the weapon of the weak", says Judt. Yes, unless it is financed, supported and encouraged by states whose best interests are to deny Israel a peaceful existence, at the expense and enormous suffering of the very people they claim to protect.

I agree with Judt about the Israel lobby in the US. In my view it's a generational issue. For the most part, the people who run the Lobby still react as if the cossacks are at the door and the pogrom will begin any minute, although there isn't any concrete evidence that our lives as Jews in the diaspora, let alone in the US, are in any kind of danger, yet. Fear is their greatest motivator and their greatest weapon of persuasion.  But fear clouds reason and intelligent thinking and we end up weakening our arguments with our running around like headless chickens and overreacting, as happened last week with Helen Thomas. Fear also discourages dissent, and that is what I most resent about this Lobby. As for Judt's wondering why American congressmen dance so eagerly to the tune of the Israel lobby? Nothing more conspiratorial than votes. If 10 Cubans in Miami can hold an entire country hostage to bad foreign policy for decades, imagine the voting power of the largest concentration of Jews in the world outside of Israel.
The next one is a hairy one:

No. 6: Criticism of Israel is/is not linked to anti-Semitism
Anti-Semitism is hatred of Jews, and Israel is a Jewish state, so of course some criticism of it is malevolently motivated. There have been occasions in the recent past (notably in the Soviet Union and its satellites) when “anti-Zionism” was a convenient surrogate for official anti-Semitism. Understandably, many Jews and Israelis have not forgotten this. 

Whoa there, Mr. Judt: The recent past? The Soviet Union? What about Iran and many Arab countries today who practice a melange of official antisemitism/Anti-Israel policies and who fan the flames of hatred in the people with the most reason to resent Israel? Antisemitism is a very useful tool for tyrannical governments. It diverts attention from more pressing internal problems while it instills a fear of dissent with its virulence, even in populations that barely include Jews.
The next paragraph is the one I think will be giving Jews a zirotsky:

One can acknowledge Israel’s right to exist and still be an anti-Zionist (or “post-Zionist”). Indeed, given the emphasis in Zionism on the need for the Jews to establish a “normal state” for themselves, today’s insistence on Israel’s right to act in “abnormal” ways because it is a Jewish state suggests that Zionism has failed. 

Well, "anti" is not the same as "post". To me Zionism is the belief that Jews need to have a state in the place of their origins.  Now that we have a Jewish state, isn't it beside the point? Hasn't it become a charged word, mostly used derogatorily by the other side? Zionism hasn't failed insofar that there is a Jewish state. Of course, this state should be the best Jewish state it can possibly be, beholden to principles of justice and freedom and respect and tolerance, in accordance with Jewish philosophical tradition, and more importantly with the painful lessons of Jewish history.
Zionism will have failed if Israel ceases to exist or if it becomes a morally and politically untenable state. It will have failed if Israel becomes a theocracy instead of a secular democracy. But mostly, it will have failed if it doesn't offer Jews inside and outside its borders the prospect of a normal life in peace and prosperity. Israel's enemies are pushing for it to fail. It's the responsibility of Israel and the Jews to make sure this doesn't happen. And this will not be achieved, as Judt, Amos Oz, David Grossman and many others point out, through sheer brute force.

We should beware the excessive invocation of “anti-Semitism.” A younger generation in the United States, not to mention worldwide, is growing skeptical. “If criticism of the Israeli blockade of Gaza is potentially ‘anti-Semitic,’ why take seriously other instances of the prejudice?” they ask, and “What if the Holocaust has become just another excuse for Israeli bad behavior?” The risks that Jews run by encouraging this conflation should not be dismissed.

Correct. Israeli Jews criticize Israel all day long. I criticize Israel because I worry about it. Not every Jew that criticizes Israel is a self-hating Jew, as some would have it. Some non-Jews criticize Israel cogently and rationally. Criticism is rational. Prejudices are ancient, visceral and deep seated. There are many people who criticize Israel with a virulence that does not seem commensurate to mere political ideology (some of them Jews). Many times it is very difficult to separate the criticism from the prejudice. Most people who bear prejudices don't even know it, or will not admit it. It behooves us Jews to learn to recognize the difference and to pick our fights well.

Poor Little Helen Thomas

I am amazed that in the comments section in the NYT on the Helen Thomas Affair, in one of the posts, 1222 people agree with her statement that Israel should get the hell out of "Palestine" and that what she was saying is true but no one dares to call it out. This is alarming.
The "get the hell out of Palestine" is pretty bad. The place has not been Palestine since 1948. The place is Israel. And I don't think she was talking about just the occupied territories, but it's hard to tell.

“I deeply regret my comments I made last week regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians. They do not reflect my heart-felt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance. May that day come soon.’’

What is really appalling is her answer that Jews should go "home" back to Poland and Germany or the US, or anywhere that will have them, except Israel. Which in essence means that she does not believe that the Jews should have a state in Israel.
I thought that except for those shining beacons of tolerance and democracy like Hamas and Hezbollah and Iran and most Arab states except Egypt and Jordan, we were long past the stage of not recognizing the right of Israel to exist. For an American journalist of her stature, this is shocking. To say the least.
But then buried in the article I find a possible reason for Thomas' outburst. She is of Lebanese origin. I hope that this is not what explains it, but it looks like it might. That the animosity travels generations and borders like this makes my heart sink.
Poland and Germany are really not the best places to send Israeli Jews packing, I would think. That's where they were running from when Israel was founded.
But the anger against Israel is so huge right now, that people see past the enormous implications of this comment and agree with her and feel sorry for her wrinkled ass because poor Helen, now she has been forced to retire.
You know what? If she really believes what she said, and if she really is as feisty as she has been for the past 90 years, then she should not apologize. Stand by her principles. Show her true colors.
Because the problem, which is what I feared the minute I heard about her resignation and her canceled speaking appointments, and the tearing of garments and wringing of hands, is that then she becomes a martyr to tyrannical Israel and the all powerful Jewish lobby (which I wish would pipe down once in a while. They should be pleased that they have now created a victim in Helen Thomas) and we are in deep doodoo.
This is still a free country. If that's what she thinks, too bad.

If Not Special, Then Why Bother?

Either I am not as smart as I think I am, or Michael Chabon's argument against Jewish exceptionalism is confusing and unpersuasive. The title of his piece is Chosen, but not Special. I would say exactly the opposite: Special, but not Chosen.
I agree with Chabon that there are as many stupid Jews as there are smart ones (I have a laundry list; don't get me started). My instinct is that in the world there are far more stupid people than there are smart ones, so this must apply to Jews as well.
But what makes Jews special? Not the idea that we're chosen, which is like an advertising slogan -- catchy but totally spurious.
Is it the Bible? That's a pretty special book. Assyrians, Babylonians, Mesopotamians, Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, Egyptians: amazing cultures that at one point coexisted with us have been gone for centuries; we are still hanging in there. Why is this? Luck hardly seems to be the answer. If what Jews have is luck, I certainly want no part of it. Jews have survived by being exceptional. Perhaps by being tribal instead of imperial. By stubbornly taking our culture with us even when we were displaced. By marrying within the faith, keeping it within the family, and by making sure that the faith and the culture are passed along even in the direst of circumstances. Surely this explains as bizarre an accident of history as is to be born a Mexican Jew, with origins in Eastern Europe and perhaps medieval Spain. So at my family's Passover seder in Mexico I am not wondering who is the smartest or the stupidest person in the room; (in contrast to Chabon, I find stupid people are extremely hard to ignore). Instead, I'm wondering how is it possible that in this place and this day and age we are all singing a song in Aramaic that was written thousands of years ago somewhere in the Middle East.
Jews have seen no end of grief for sticking to our own kind, even if it looks really bad to everybody else. We care about our heritage and we don't want to lose it. And what is this culture that we are passing along? It's not just the tenets of the faith, which the great majority of Jews, in their modern secular incarnation, do not really obey. We eat chazer, desecrate the Sabbath and don't take the Bible as literally as our ultra-orthodox brethren. But we still have a unique culture and a rich philosophical and narrative tradition. A culture that prizes life on earth over paradise in death, and, that at its best, values education, intellectual inquiry and intelligence both in business and in thought. It is also a culture that, at worst, seems to feel more alive when beset by the anxiety of persecution, real or imagined, which I would advocate for turning down a notch or two. In fact, I would suggest that instead of being so fearful, we should use our seichel, which means brains, a little more.
Some cultures place a great deal of value in hard work, others in education, others in their own concepts of honor or piety. Yes, some of us humans are smart and some aren't, but we are not all alike. Are Jews like everybody else? I would say no. Are Tainos or Tasmanians or the French like everybody else? No. Not better or worse. But different. And why should this not be so? What exactly is Chabon advocating for? Is the point we should stop being so arrogant as to think that we know better than anyone else? This could be communicated more clearly and directly. I read the piece three times and still could not gather what exactly is his point.

Let us not, henceforward, judge Israel or seek to have it judged for its intelligence, for its prowess, for its righteousness or for its moral authority, by any standard other than the pathetic, debased and rickety one that we apply, so inconsistently and self-servingly, to ourselves and to everybody else. And let us not forgive ourselves — any more than we forgive Israel, or than Israel can forgive itself — for that terrible inconsistency.

Somebody please explain this paragraph to me. If there is irony in this, I'm not getting it. I certainly hold Israel to a higher standard. I hold the US and Israel to a higher standard than I hold Sudan or North Korea. The better equipped a country is to be better, the better we should expect it to be.
Israeli writer David Grossman has said that he pines for the day when Israel will be a normal country, with the problems of a normal country and not with its apocalyptic and apoplectic daily burden of war and hatred.  Who knows if this is possible, but it is certainly more desirable than asking Jews to stop placing a high value on using our head. 
Just this weekend I had an argument with an Israeli woman who was berating me for asking what she thought were the wrong questions, and daring to tell me what to say to a manager at a gym. I didn't know her, but this did not prevent her from acting as if I was a pathetic moron and only she knew how to deal with the situation. If Jews think that we are smarter than everyone else, wait until you meet an Israeli. They think they are smarter than all the other Jews and everyone else. This comes across as incredibly aggravating arrogance (see: Bibi). This arrogance can on occasion be justified by their hard circumstances and the good they have done with them (but not the bad). So maybe a better idea would be to ask Israelis to stop looking down on an uncomprehending world and stop looking down on the Jews that are worried sick about it, and as Amos Oz said last week:

Hamas is an idea, a desperate and fanatical idea that grew out of the desolation and frustration of many Palestinians*. No idea has ever been defeated by force — not by siege, not by bombardment, not by being flattened with tank treads and not by marine commandos. To defeat an idea, you have to offer a better idea, a more attractive and acceptable one.

Let's use our brains. 

*and I may add, a very concrete organization that is funded and supported by Islamic countries that have no interest whatsoever in the peaceful existence of Israel.

Department of Needless Pain and Anxiety

It is with a heavy, heavy heart that I learn about the newest Israeli miscalculation in Gaza. The Israelis are used to explaining and countering and defending themselves, but it is getting increasingly hard to swallow their explanations.
Obviously, a vessel that deliberately tries to break a military blockade is looking for trouble. The whole exercise is designed not only to bring aid to those who need it, but to make Israel fall into a public relations trap. Which, astoundingly and stupidly, it did. A civilian vessel, with civilians inside, carrying humanitarian aid to civilians, defying a blockade which is mostly punishing the civilian people of Gaza. And what does Israel do? Needlessly storm the ship in international waters. Israel offered to dock the boats in Ashdod and search the aid before sending it to Gaza to ensure no arms smuggling. The flotilla would not have that. They wanted to go directly to Gaza and do it themselves. It is a gutsy provocation and one that should have been dealt with a lot more cunning and a lot less brute force.
Israel needs to start winning the international public relations war, instead of coming up with farkakte military operations that are impossible to justify morally and that set back the hopes for peace in the region. As I write this, Netanyahu is saying that no matter what the world thinks, he's sticking to his guns. This policy of who is mas macho is going to end up hurting Israel and the Jews.
What would happen if aid was permitted, and Israel tried playing the role of good cop, instead of the bad cop? How would Hamas react? This blockade has similar unintended consequences as the Cuban embargo: it helps the enemy, it makes them stronger.
Israeli Army leadership either has extraordinary tunnel vision or they fail to see or care about how this is plays out in the world. But the consequences of such an irresponsible strategy, so badly implemented are dire and global. Gone are the days in which something happened in that crazy part of our planet and the repercussions weren't a threat to the stability of the entire world and to the safety of Jews everywhere. This is not Israel's mission in the world, to make it a more unsafe place for Jews inside and outside its borders. But this is where the occupation is leading.
I am a staunch supporter of Israel and its right to exist in peace in the world. But as Mario Vargas Llosa has said, and I paraphrase, at this stage, the occupation has reached grotesque levels (and he is a friend). 
The Israelis are not only becoming tone deaf. They are squandering the little good will they accrued since 9/11. They are ostracizing themselves once again from the community of nations. I agree with many Israelis and Jews who feel that some actions of the occupation now go way beyond a guarantee for safety. In fact, the occupation creates a climate of feverish hostility to both Israel and the Jews, more of a threat to stability, plus it is morally incompatible not only with a democratic state, but with the core principles of Judaism and with the lessons from our painful history.
The world does not have a long memory. The world does not want to look at the ancient thread of hostility and at who started what. The world looks at hundreds of thousands of suffering people right now, and it is outraged.
And frankly, so am I.
I have been reading the commentary in Israeli newspaper Haaretz and it's a shitstorm in Israel, where there is healthy, vocal dissent. This is a reminder to my Jewish friends that it is possible to love and support Israel without scrambling to justify the indefensible. Here are some links from Israeli newspaper Haaretz that reflect my feelings about this entire mess.

I'm breaking my silence

Can't take it anymore.
Warning: I am exceedingly cranky.
Broken foot in wonderful Spring weather: not good for the mood.

1. Reporting a smoking car to the police is not heroic. It's what anybody in their right mind should do under the circumstances.  If there is one thing about the American mentality that drives me crazy is this obsession with heroics. Heroism is to step into an oncoming train to save a person's life. Or to speak out against injustice at the risk of losing your freedom or your life. Seeing a suspicious vehicle about to catch fire in the most crowded area in America and calling the police is not heroism. It's common sense. So all the vendors: not heroes. STFU.

2. A trader's error (and Greece) send Wall Street into a tailspin? A simple misguided finger is capable of wreaking havoc on the world's economy? Very scary. Traders, look where your fingers are going, okay?
As for Greece, shut up and put up. You are rife with corruption. Your rich don't pay taxes, and you live beyond your means. Fuck you.

3. Hapless fucking idiot bomber: You are an idiot. All of you people who allow your brains to be manipulated by sick extremist clerics are monumental morons, including those of you who are competent. There should be a circle in hell devoted to abject human stupidity. And it should be the one with the worst torments. Either that or Guantanamo. I'm always against Guantanamo, except when things like these happen, where I should think we should make an exception and hang these people by the balls. Seriously, I do believe that this guy is an American citizen and should be tried in a court of law in the system we know. I'm just ranting.

4. Joe Lieberman is a cunt.

5. Question: Why does the American media pay attention to vantz from hell Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Why do Charlie Rose and George Stephanopolous think that he deserves to be interviewed? What do they expect he is going to say? Something rational? Something worth listening to? They like the public humiliation?  This guy comes to New York, he should be ignored. The pustulent little vantz loves the attention. Stop giving it to him.

Why is Israel the only one expected to solve the problem?

Thanks to my friend Elliot for pointing me towards this interesting piece in the HuffPo.
I was reading in the New Yorker that Abu Dhabi just gave Dubai fuckzillions of dollars to fish it out from the horrible crisis it's in. It paid for the completion of the highest tower in the world, which is now named over one of Abu Dhabi's Emirs.
Imagine if these Arab states gave part of their money to help create a Palestinian infrastructure, jobs and education, and the de facto beginnings of a functioning state, or at least for a feasible, peaceful solution to the problem, instead of funding pointless ecological disasters like Dubai and, what's worse, terrorist groups who sow terror and destabilize not only the region but the entire world. Imagine that.
But everyone's too busy screaming bloody murder about Israel to notice that they are not at all interested in peace.
It is in their interest to help keep the Israeli occupation alive, and the Palestinians violent and oppressed so that their petty dictatorships, their lack of democracy, their shitty governments can be distracted by Israel.
Perhaps all the people who love to scream against Israel want to take a look at what Arab countries are doing to Palestinian citizens, like Jordan and Lebanon, and at what they are not doing for them.
If they were smart, and not hypocritical haters, the Arab states could realize that the best that could happen for all involved (i.e: the world) is to help fund a self-sufficient, peaceful Palestinian state, whether Israel likes it or not. What recourse would Israel have? None (provided they stopped wanting to throw the Jews into the sea). Economic development, potential prosperity, a peaceful coexistence between neighbors. It is entirely possible but is it Israel's sole responsibility? I don't think so.
Certainly, Israel needs to cooperate. It needs to stop expanding settlements. But as long as it remains the convenient scapegoat of these regimes, who also exploit Palestinian suffering for their own ends, it should not carry the entire burden.

Underwear Predictions

This piece by Calvin Trillin in The New Yorker cracked me up much more than the insufferable Woody Allen piece in the same issue (I think Allen's funny bone is irretrievably broken and I think he should call it quits).
Meanwhile, underwear explosives make me ponder: after the latest fiasco, may this not be the coup de grace for Al Qaeda? After this painful humiliation, not to mention the vilification and growing impatience of the entire world, they may just decide (if they know what is good for them) to call it a day. However, knowing how rational they are, they may get even angrier and find even more violent ways to get to date 72 women. 
In any case, my wish is obviously for the former. My instinct tells me that senseless violence cannot possibly be sustainable for organizations on a long term basis. Eventually the young idiots who get recruited to blow themselves up are going to think twice about what may happen to their balls.
Do not underestimate the symbolic significance of the charred ball imagery: it may prove to be more powerful than all our antiterrorist efforts so far.
The same may apply for those who work for the drug cartels. Is there enough money in the world to be able to live with such fear and violence, to put not only yourself but those close to you in harm's way?
What about morale? What about the generalized oprobium of society? What about the heavy personal losses? There has to be a tipping point, no?
As this enlightening piece by Steve Coll suggests (also wishful thinking, such as mine) Al Qaeda really has nothing to recommend it to the Muslim world. It does not provide anything positive to its Muslim brethren, no social programs, no cohesive community building, just aggravation and the anger, resentment and prejudice of the rest of the world. They are eventually going to be exhausted and destroyed by their own nihilism. Hopefully sooner, rather than later.
I heard the Dalai Lama once say that good is practical and evil is impractical. I liked this statement for its lack of hokey spirituality. For its pragmatism.  And I think it is true. Under any circumstance, using fear, intimidation, violence, coercion, torture, etc, does not lead to any sustainable practical results. Look at the Nazis, look at Stalin, at Mao, at terrorist organizations. Their immediate gains are only fear. And the fear of others is not that great a gain. What real purpose can it serve?
The terrorists are winning the battle only insofar as they are making us irrational (you are not allowed to read a book on a plane? Lipstick is a dangerous weapon?).
And that is why they must be stopped.