“Will Change in America Bring Change to the Middle East? A Conversation on Gaza, Obama, the Israeli elections, and the prospects for peace” was the title. I knew it would be bad, but the masochist that I am I went anyway. Entering the temple and seeing the mass of retirees and hippies that had shown up, not that there is anything inherently wrong with either of these segments of the population, only heightened my sense that this would be a painful experience. And so it was. First up is the Jewish professor with Israeli citizenship for street credit more than anything else who, by his own admission, is a heretic. A good one too, he really knows his stuff. He quotes texts out of context and makes the argument that Israel is not living up to its own expectations and requirements from a spiritual point of view. The audience enjoys this profession and sermon, believing it to be true. Who takes spiritual advice from a heretic, who listens to him quote Torah, or more disturbingly, who believes it? He argues that Israel should dwell with the nations around it, and in whose midst it finds itself, and not arouse their anger; that there should be one state of both Arabs and Jews living harmoniously together… death, albeit slowly at first. Then there is an Arab professor, who enumerates the ways in which Israel was, is, and from what we can tell will always be responsible for the erosion of the peace accords, and for all Palestinian suffering in general. Arab eyes wept with the Palestinians during Cast Lead. But the only sympathy that could be acted upon was the sadness that not enough Israelis died. Send more guns, rockets, that will ease the suffering. Does Schadenfreude by any other name feel as good? Dress it up all you want, bottom line is you cannot expect peace if you point fingers and compare death tolls. But the audience eats it up. Then a professor representing the United States stands, and gives a well thought out talk on how basically, as long as Cast Lead does not become the norm, America has bigger issues. True. And finally, one might think the Israeli view would be heard; someone to stand up and say that no, in fact Israel is defending itself. Is it harsh? Sure. Do we target civilians? No. One might think at a panel discussion such a voice would be represented. But my initial sense of foreboding was not to be disappointed. No, the last speaker talked about how depressed he was that the right, and more importantly the extreme right, won the Israeli elections. Zehu. That’s it. Questions? Comments? Concerns? You bet. To the uninitiated ear this panel was unbiased. To the uneducated and ignorant the Israeli point of view was well heard and well taken. What is it then, that makes me, a Zionist by my own admision, yet a practical, rational and educated person, want to stand and simply wash my hands of this whole mess, while my friend, sitting just a seat to my right, found the whole circus to be intellectually simulating and judiciously arranged? Is it, as I said before, a matter of initation and education? Of being on the “inside” on the Truth? I find that hard to beleive. These are people with PHDs, who study this for a living. Maybe its the opposite then, maybe I am the uninitated and the uneducated member of this audence. Maybe it is I who needs to be taught how the see the light. Also doubtful. Sure, I am a Zionist, but I can read a newspaper or follow the news as well as anyone else. I draw conclusions based on what I see, learn, hear, etc… Am I passionate? You bet. Am I a radical? Maybe. But I do not bring that to the table when I am trying to discuss the prospects for peace. Yet somehow, when I say that what Israel has done may not be perfect, but is defenilty not as demonic as the world is making it out to be, I am branded a radical and pushed to the side. No, no, liten to the professors, they have PHDs, they say Israel should bow its head to the UN and accept the sporatic rocket fire like good Jews, turn the other cheek, anything else is extremeism. After all, these are leaders in their feilds, they got there for a reason. Yes, they did, they are good at what they do for sure. But it does not make them right. Knowledge is amoral. It is neither good nor evil. It is a tool, and like any tool you can do good or evil with it. Now, I would not go so far as to say this panel was “evil,” but it definitly was not good. People believe in the PHD, the professor with the microphone. If he says it, it must be true. Nevermind he is not speaking in facts, but rather interpreting those facts, or just simply stating his opinion. David Duke has a PHD, most higher level Nazis were college educated. Do they or did they have knowledge? Yes, of course. Read Mein Kamph or Marx, they are very well written and have a certian twisted logic and rationalism to them. But that does not mean they are right. I reject the idea that now in our modern or post-modern world we are rational enough not to beleive in dogmas and demigogues. People spurn the religious community for being backwards and close minded, for believeing the Rabbis or ministers or whomever with blind faith. Yet blind faith exists everywere. Those who attended this panel and found it pallitable belive in the PHD just as hard core catholics believe in the Pope. Infallable and all knowing. A legitimate scholar and open-minded individual cannot close their ears to one side while accepting what the other says as fact. If one is a seeker and a questioner, one must approach everythign from the very same perspective. Anything short of that is just as dogmatic and backwards, as close minded and supersitious as the old country religions that they are trying so hard to leave behind.
