Life Imitating Reruns

I blame AMC.

If they didn't make such good television series, ones where I can hardly wait the period of the hiatus for new episodes to hit the airwaves, where I comb all manner of episode/series reviews and want to dissect every angle of the show and where I re-watch episodes and seasons just to look at plotlines and characters from a different perspective.

So, this is my story with Mad Men (and a few other shows, what can I say I am a TV junky, and no, I don't need a support group, thanks).

I am not going to bend your ears about how great this series is, most people know that already, but lately, in the Christmas/New Years vacation, when I have been home more than I have been working, and there is nothing new or fresh on tv, I have again, in anticipation for the Mad Men's  5th season which will premiere this spring, I have started re-watching Mad Men.

And in light of what is going on in the United States right now, the good folks at Sterling Cooper (or Sterling, Cooper, Draper, Pryce, depending on what episodes you are actually watching) are enlightening.

These folks are decidedly Republicans, the entire first season takes place in the backdrop of the Nixon/Kennedy race and it was (or maybe still is) just not fashionable in the world that Mad Men takes place in to be anything but a Republican.  The few liberal types you see in the series are poor, often intellectual types but on-the-fringes type people, without stability while the advertising and other executives are firmly on the GOP side of the aisle and live in beautiful apartments with spectacular views, eating at Lutesse, wearing the good clothes and hairstyles and driving Cadillacs (no, Mad Men is not about Aluminum siding salesmen or Jews).

There are so many great things about this show but one of the greatest things is how accurately it portrays this era of America.  The pre-Vietnam America of the early-mid 1960's.

The pre-politically correct America.

On Mad Men women still get chased around the desk (pretty regularly), are relegated mostly to being secretaries (and ergo, looking for husbands), the few that do the same work as men, earn decidedly less.  The other women are privileged housewives.  They have to take care of the house and the kids in the suburbs and don't get any help from their husbands, but then again their husbands earn all the money and keep them in country clubs, riding lessons and dresses, oh, the dresses!    



And yes, the nostalgia of the show is very powerful.  Revisiting that era in time stirs me.  Being born in 1965, the America that Mad Men shows takes place largely in the few years before I was born but much of it is my era.  I hail from Washington, PA and it always took a few years for things to reach Washington, PA from Madison Avenue anyway.  My mom spent her days having coffee with her friends, smoking cigarettes and on selected evenings playing cards or mahjong or going out.  Let's face it the era that Mad Men takes place is is pre-Vietnam America (at least so far).  We were a younger and more innocent America then.  Wars were terrible but we were always the good guys, fighting for freedom, ours and the world's.  I enjoy watching that more naive America.


Mad Men in many ways is a chronicle of how much we have really changed as a society in the half century since the early 1960's,  It's shocking to see the amount people actually smoked and drank in that era.  And I have cringed several times when I see pregnant women downing cocktails and puffing on their cigs.  The racial and gender slurs are sometimes downright eye popping.  In the very first episode of the series, one of the first exchanges was about how they don't hire Jews, where the lead character Don Draper, when asked by his boss if he has ever hired a Jew retorted, "not on my watch."   Later in the series one of the executives, looking for ideas to help a client whose sales are flat, suggests to said client to advertise in African American magazines. This client, recognized it was a good idea but very forcefully refused to do it.  One particular scene, less loaded perhaps but really illustrates the point well is a scene where the Draper's are enjoying an idyllic day having a family picnic.  They play checkers and cuddle on a blanket and when it is time to go, they pack their coolers in the car and they pick up their blanket and shake it out and napkins, paper plates and food remnants go flying all over the grass, they grab the blanket and take off, without a care in the world.  You forget that once, that was perfectly normal, no one even thought twice about it.

And one of my favorite scenes ever is when little Sally Draper playing Spaceman with her friends comes running into the kitchen with a dry cleaning bag over her head and her mother yells at her, worried that something happened to the dry cleaning.  


Yes, a lot has changed since the 1960's.


Another thing which I think what is so fascinating about Mad Men and keeps me watching it over and over is how the values shown in it, which are terribly American were portrayed then and how those same values now are looked at in a totally different light now.  Mad Men is certainly focused on acquiring (or maintaining) wealth and privilege.  Money opens doors and doing anything to go after a buck is not only done but heralded in the America of Mad Men.  Now a half century later, with the American and world economy holding on by a thread, those same values of pushing boundaries to turn profits is what is wrong with America.

Sure I am looking at it very simply but I do think there is a lot of truth to that.    So many Americans I know are truly discouraged with where America is and terrified of where it is going (and I am too).  We love to blame the media, Fox News, the economy, Bush, Obama (depending on what side of the proverbial aisle you sit on), the terrorists, global warming, lack of term limits, Congress, campaign financing, lobbyists and a whole host of other things.  And so many people say things were better in decades past, people were better, more moral, more compassionate toward their fellow man.  People and corporations weren't so cutthroat.

Re-watching Mad Men in my disillusionment-with-America-state has helped me to realize that maybe not so much has changed.  Many of the things/institutions Americans hold responsible for our current state of the nation are not new to our current era.  They have been that way since America was born, maybe just a little more technologically savvy and people have more access to the information, but it happened.  It's business as usual.  The difference now is that the economy is in the dumper and the economy, prosperity and upward mobility are America's real measuring sticks for how we are doing as a nation.  In the 1960's world that Mad Men inhabits, corporations were just as despicable as they are now, but there was  more economic prosperity, so people weren't focused on it.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

This just in from the rock and the hardplace

There is no right choice, but freeing Gilad is the rightest choice.

Like much of the world (and many better writers) I am throwing my two cents in on the Gilad Shalit Prisoner swap.  I certainly have nothing unique to add but as Gilad is about to spend his last night as a hostage (hopefully) I can't resist weighing in on the events of the last week.

Since last week's announcement that Shalit would be released in return for the release of more than a thousand Palestinian prisoners, many of whom are terrorists who caused the death of scores of Israelis, Israel and the Jewish world have been swinging from a pendulum, which slowly but rhythmically goes from joy,  relief and elation to anger, fear and despair.

And rightly so.

This flurry of fear has culminated in a lawsuit filed by the families of terror victims opposed to and asking the High Court of Israel to stop the swap.   The media is working overtime publishing Op-Ed after Op-Ed about the swap, hailing both the release of a captive soldier, the tireless effort of this soldiers' family and supporters to keep the plight of Shalit in the minds and hearts of the Israeli government. But the inevitable questions and fear that this deal are raising from within Israel are difficult to put it mildly, releasing these terrorists will mean certain bloodshed for Israel in the form of more terror attacks.  What's more, this formula all but assures Hamas and other terrorists that the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers is a formula that will work.  Many people are saying that it is certain that another soldier will be kidnapped.

It's all tough stuff, there is no right answer.  A soldier's return at the cost of murderers going free?  The life of one man balanced at the potential cost of thousands of lives to be lost?  At the cost to many Israelis whose loved ones' murderers are about to go free?  Israel negotiating with Hamas?

Tomorrow should be a joyous day for Israel and yet like everything in it's 63 year existence, joy is never just joy.  Joy is always tinged with bitterness, this time in the form of fear. And I don't mean those ridiculous Department-of-Homeland-Security yellow warnings which blast themselves over the right or left corner of the tv, but real threats.  I mean let's face it, some very dangerous people are being let go and those being expelled are being taken in by the likes of Syria?  I doubt those people are going to go and become Pampered Chef salespeople.

If one of those people killed at Sbarro or on Haifa's Bus 37 were my son, daughter, wife, husband, friend, how joyful would tomorrow be knowing that your loved one's killer is being let go and that justice, as much as anything else is currency?

Hard choices.  That is always what Israel has to make.

After reading article after article, analysis after analysis and prediction after prediction over this past weekend, I can say that like everything else in Israel, this is hard, everyone has a justifiable argument and that there is no easy answer.  There is no good answer.   I am glad I am not among the people that had to make this awful choice.

Israel is paying a very heavy price for freeing Gilad and is probably risking the lives of its citizens by doing it.  Still, despite this I am proud of Israel for choosing the life of one over fear.  We all know that Netanyahu and everyone connected with this had all kinds of ulterior motives-- in games of power, nothing, absolutely nothing is altruistic.  As much as I absolutely sympathize with the families who are fighting for their loved ones too and for justice, there are just no absolutes here.  Each choice has shitty consequences and a potential deadly aftermath.

Perhaps it is because I am American and feel very strongly that the American Dream is dying, that the power elite have capitalized on the poor and working class' fear and that fear is what is very much flowing from sea-to-shining-sea these days.  Israel choosing that Gilad's life is worth making this shitty deal gives me hope.   I am so thankful that Israel is not a nation which will let fear drive the car, that even though this deal erodes justice, that sometimes the life and safety of one person are more important.

I am proud that Israel is still a country that values the one and that they are a country that will make a crazy and potentially dangerous deal like this to save one soldier.

Oh Detroit, We Hardly Knew Ya

When I took Micro and Macro Economics in college, I felt like I was in a foreign country and didn't speak the language.  I sat in those classes totally baffled scribbling furious notes to try and capture every word out of the professor's mouth so that at home I could try to somehow piece it all together and somehow pass these two courses.  Somehow I got a B in micro and a C in macro but I never really got it, although of course that didn't stop me from using the word widget in a sentence every chance I got to pretend I did.

Of course, my whole life up to that point, I always knew the only economics I would ever need.  It went like this:

"What's good for General Motors is good for the country."

When I was growing up these 9 words were, in everyday language, the cornerstone of the American economy, at least where I was from.  If General Motors was turning a profit it meant that the country was fulfilling the all important healthy economic triangle --companies were manufacturing, people were working, consumers were buying.  I cannot tell you how many times this phrase got thrown around during my youth.  In the last 30 years that phrase has gotten passe, a feeling that this type of thinking was old fashioned, it had exhausted it's worthiness, the world was different now.  All true, but lately I have been thinking that perhaps it was right all along.

To be honest, while growing up my own family's livelihood directly depended on General Motors being in the black.  My family owned a furniture business in the Monongahela Valley in Western Pennsylvania.  Although far from Detroit, our customers largely were people who worked in the coal mines all up and down "the Mon" as it is called by locals.  This area of the world supplied much of the coal for the steel industry which of course was critical to the auto industry.  The Mon valley of my youth was was slightly past its prime but it was a haven for blue collar workers.  Kids were born, grew up, finished high school and went on to find good jobs, union jobs with good wages and benefits, jobs which afforded them houses, cars and the ability to raise children, go to the bar and have money for hobbies like boating, fishing, hunting, motorcycles.  Not rich, not yuppies (who are terribly overrated anyway) but a good life.  Although coal mining is a dangerous, risky job as recent mining disasters have put before our eyes much too often in the last years, in the Western Pennsylvania of my youth, there was plenty of work and the pay and benefits were very good.

And it was the people who risked themselves in the coal mines every day who financed mine and my family's lives.  Mine was truly a middle class existence ala 1970s and 80s America--ranch houses, Chevrolet station wagons (complete with faux wood paneled sides), swimming club memberships, vacations to Florida to visit relatives.  We were not rich, but we had everything we needed.  I wore my cousin's hand-me-downs (what kid of my generation didn't), my mom patched my jeans but my mom also had her jewelry and my parents went out on the weekends and my mom bought whatever she wanted.  It was not a designer lifestyle but we certainly didn't want for anything.

My brother, cousins and I all went to college (all financed by our furniture business) and while growing up my dad and my aunt spent years getting their Ph.Ds -- although my dad technically worked in the store while he was getting his doctorate, "work"  consisted of going to the store only on Saturdays so my grandfather could get the day off and also put together our bi-weekly advertising circular.  My dad spent the better part of 4 years getting his Doctorate full time but nothing changed in our lifestyle so as to be able to afford it.  I had the same toughskin jeans as every other kid (the height of fashion then, trust).  Our stores supported us and my aunt's family while she worked on her own Ph.D (although my uncle did work full time in the business).  In fact when you get right down to it, our life was afforded to us through all those coal miners who went down into the pits of the earth every day.  Although our fingernails were clean, we were just as much a part of the auto industry as everyone else.

 Our store sold a lot of very ugly furniture.  Brown plaid and printed couches with lots of orange and rust and wooden arms and legs sold like hotcakes down at Gross Furniture along with formica dining room tables and orange shag carpeting which we sold in our carpet showroom.  To be fair, this stuff was in style, this was the time when wood paneling lent an air of sophistication to a room, so what can you expect?   I remember once going to the furniture market in North Carolina with my grandparents and I was astounded by all the beautiful furniture, miles and miles of it and I couldn't understand why my grandfather insisted on buying that tacky ugly plaid stuff when there was so much more beautiful things available, leather couches as soft as butter and beautiful sectional brocade sofas in muted colors were so much nicer than the "log pile living rooms" that littered our store. He said simply, "this won't sell in our store as this is not the kind of furniture our customers like."

In the 1960's and 1970's our business boomed.  My grandfather opened additional stores and things were humming along.  Fridays were particularly busy because it was pay day and we were open late on Fridays, precisely so that people could visit us, a convenient two stores down from the bank on their way home and buy themselves a recliner, a kitchen table, a fridge, a tv or whatever else they had their eye on.  There were always customers in the store and I can remember going there as a kid and always trying to guess what people would buy when they came in and often each time I visited, much of what I had seen on the floor was gone.  I used to love to go through the whole store and count how many red "Sold" tags there were on the furniture which meant that soon it would leave our store and be delivered to someone's house.  I remember once being in the office when a customer came in to pay for some furniture he had bought.  He had came to us on his way home to pay the payment on his La-Z-Boy recliner.  My grandfather happened to be in the office when the man came and he was obviously excited to be paying off his chair and asked my grandfather if the chair could be delivered the next day.  My grandfather quietly asked one of the girls in the office how the deliveries looked for the next day and he assured the man that the chair would be on the truck the next day.  He then turned to walk out of the office, I went with him since it was near the end of the day and I was sleeping over at their house that evening because the next day my grandmother was taking me into Pittsburgh, to Saks and to Kaufmanns to buy me some new clothes.  The customer ran over to my grandfather again and happily shook his hand.  My grandfather, not one for small talk, thanked the customer and muttered something incomprehensible and walked away.  The man's hands and fingernails were dirty and when I looked at his face, it had soot on it too as did the white t-shirt he had on under his plaid flannel.  I followed my grandfather silently to his office where he immediately walked into the kitchen adjacent to it (my grandfather to this day is the only person I know to have an actual kitchen in his office -- to be fair it was a kitchenette, but it did have a daybed in it).  I grabbed a pack of lifesavers out of the kitchen and said to my grandfather, "that man was so dirty, why couldn't he clean himself up before coming in."  My grandfather immediately said in his heavy Yiddish drawl, "eet ees dat man's dirt dat pay for us, it ees a living, Dana."  It was a good lesson (one of many that I learned from him).

In the 1980's, things really started to change.  The steel industry had fallen on hard times as the American auto industry was under pressure from Japanese competitors, who were producing smaller, more fuel efficient cars with less maintenance costs and were cheaper than the American Big 3.  Western Pennsylvania really started to transform from a blue-collar haven to a tired, depressed place as wide scale lays offs set in which created record-high unemployment in our corner of the world.  Families who for 2 or 3 generations provided for their families through the mines and mills became poor overnight as jobs dried up, hours and benefits were cut.  Our stores fell on hard times too, we ended up closing all but our main store and our business was scaled back considerably.  Managing a business is cyclical, you have good years and bad years and luckily my grandfather managed the record profits of the good years to ensure survival in the leaner years that came.  Thanks to my grandfather's prudence somehow we were weathering the storm, although my grandfather was also getting older, in 1980 my grandfather was 75 and although he still worked every day it became harder and harder for him to manage everything.  My dad, was teaching by then at a nearby college and spent more time in the store and talked through a lot of things with him on how to keep going.

In 1985 a big flood came to the Mon Valley and wiped out about a third of our inventory.  This was, for my grandfather the straw that broke the camel's back, he decided to retire and my dad took over the store.  Things were changing a lot in our family too, the details are for another post but let's just say there was a falling out and skip over to  that it ended up that my dad bought out my aunt and my grandfather and became the sole owner of the store.  A few years later, as things became even more depressed in the Mon Valley my dad decided to liquidate the business.

While Pittsburgh has certainly recovered from the loss of the steel industry and has even flourished the Mon Valley, a meer 30 miles south of Pittsburgh has never truly recovered.  When things went south for GM and the American auto industry things with south for much of the industrial north including Western Pennsylvania.

Now a couple of decades on from Gross Furniture, in the midst of first the credit crisis and now the debt crisis I come back to those  9 words.  The entire Internet is analyzing-- it is the Republicans, the Democrats, the Tea Party, the Banks, the Real Estate Bubble, the Bush Tax Cuts, Clinton, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Al Quaeda.

The truth is that there is not any one cause for what is happening in the world economically now, it is lots of things kind of coming together and rushing much the same way that rivers converge on one another, just like how the Monongahela flows north into Pittsburgh and meets the Ohio and Allegheny Rivers to form the Point in downtown Pittsburgh, making one river indistinguishable from the other.  That is how it is, all these causes, great and small just form this economic mess the world finds itself in.

But I come back to the real economic truths ala moi.  A healthy economy is a triangle with three very important points - companies need to be manufacturing, people need to be working (earning money) and consumers need to buy.  This is what is necessary for the economy to stay solid and healthy.  When one of these things is out of balance, it is not good.

The other day I was watching an episode of The Wire and one of the characters said something like:

"...it used to be that America was manufacturing,we were a country that created things, now we are a country with our hands in other people's pockets."

This was probably one of the most profound economic statements I have heard in a long time and it spurned this post.  What do we manufacture now?  Sure we create corporate cultures and fancy accounting and conglomerates and Enrons.  We merge, acquire, buy, sell, trade, sue.  But in the grand scheme of things as a country we create very little.  Manufacturing has been sent to second and third world countries so that profits can benefit from low wages.  We have outsourced and off-shored and consolidated, centralized, de-centralized. We have done this for decades and have slowly but surely eaten away at Middle America.  Corporations grew into conglomerates with resources greater than many countries (and the same rights as people) and a reach so strong that their interests can't do anything but come first.  It is no longer possible for Joe-Six-Pack to get a good paying job out of high school, because we don't manufacture.  Hell, even a lot of MBA's can't get good paying jobs.  When I was a kid a college education was as close to  a guarantee as you could get that you would end up better off than your parents (unless you wanted to be a teacher of course-- then all bets are off).  If you had a college education you had to work really really hard "not" to make it.  Now, a college degree means less than a high school diploma did 30 years ago.  We just keep getting more selective, more exclusive.  I shudder to think what will be required to be successful in 20 years.

I don't have a degree in economics (I chose Political Science and History which means I am by profession cut out to be a contestant on Jeopardy) and I am sure I am missing, omitting or ignoring some important facts.  Or maybe I am just nostalgic for the look of brown plaid sofas and the smell of carpet glue and the view of the Monongahela River from the roof of our store.  But now more than ever I am convinced that the American economy and way of life is in the toilet because we lost sight that America needs to be producing to have a healthy economy.

Or maybe I should stick to autism and chicken soup recipes?

He's Dead, Now What?

Jubilation and Justice, finally!

Today the world is celebrating the news that after nearly a decade-long manhunt, the man most closely associated with terrorism and the 9/11 attacks has been killed by American Forces in Pakistan.  It is certainly a day to celebrate.  It is my hope that this turn of events can bring more healing to the victims of the 9/11 attacks and for all those brave men and women wearing American uniforms who have been fighting and sacrificed, some making the supreme sacrifice to bring justice to our nation for 9/11.
The coming days and weeks will no doubt bring lots of celebration, speculation and yes, criticism.  I have been waiting all day for Fox News to publish a story somehow finding a way to deflect President Obama's role in this achievement.  Perhaps I am a cynic or maybe I am just a realist.  For now we are bathed in joy, justice, and well we should be but pretty soon I am sure Obama detractors will find some way to blame him for something.

As an American citizen I am of course grateful that this evil man can no longer hatch and carry out plans to harm innocent people but I think we have to ask ourselves what is next in terms of the War on Terror.  I am sure the coming days and weeks much will be written about this, but for right now these are my 3 most immediate questions.

1.  What is the future of Pakistan's relationship with the US?  Pakistan has profited greatly through its relationship as a strategic partner in the war on terror.  For one they have received $1 billion in annual aid from the US to fight terror within Pakistan.  Considering that Osama was not hiding in some remote place, in the remotest (and within difficult reach of Pakistani police, armed forces, etc.) but basically in plain site in what has been termed as a mansion (although from the photos I would call it a building) in a Pakistani city.  How serious was or are the Pakistani's in fighting the war on terror?  Are they really an ally of the US?    Within the past few weeks Hillary Clinton asked Pakistan where he was.  Were they just incompetent or were they hiding him?  Whatever it is, Pakistan should be made to answer these questions.

2.  What happens to Al Qaeda now?  Yes, their leader is now dead and no doubt this will have an impact on Al Qaeda but it has never seemed to me that Al Qaeda has been a linear organization.  Terrorist organizations work in cells where one is not aware of the activities of the other and many or most cells remain dormant until it is time for them to carry out their planned mission.  While Osama might be the mastermind behind all of this, it is not a case that the Wicked Witch is dead and now all the flying monkeys will rally behind Dorothy, Scarecrow, the Tin Man and the Lion.  While I believe his death will cause its damage to Al Qaeda I am quite certain that Osama Bin Ladin both had plans in place for what happens should he be killed.  While we have struck a big blow, the cynic in me refuses to believe that we have nothing left to fear from Al Qaeda.

3.  What effect will this turn of events have on Obama's Presidency and his chances at re-election?  On Saturday evening I was just telling my in-laws that I thought Obama had virtually no chance at being reelected in 2012.  He still faces scathing criticism from the right, and the Joe-6-packs of this world, and in our age of all-or-nothing politics, it is hard to win support.  And as far as I am concerned he has alienated a lot of his support by compromising on a lot of things he said he would never compromise on.  I have taken recently to calling his Presidency Bush-Lite (after a Facebook friend coined the term so well) because of his compromises on the budget and sticking it to working class people to keep the richest 2% rich.  Granted he is fighting uphill battles all over the place and has no majority in Congress but he just feels like a sell out.  It seems to me he has sold his ideals out in favor of trying to ensure his political future.  Plus I am less than thrilled with his policies on Israel and the Mid-East Peace Process.  What I have been saying the past months is what we need is Bill Clinton.  I am quite curious in the coming weeks and months how the American press and public are going to spin Obama.  The cynic in me knows that pretty soon Fox News will print some story about how we could have got him a year ago but Obama was too busy bringing socialism to the US or paying homage to his Muslim roots.  Still I am quite curious to see what this turn of events will mean for Obama's Presidency.  Will he gain more supporters?  Or will it be short lived?  My personal view is that he will gain points from this, but it won't be enough if the economy doesn't turn around.  Americans were thrilled when we got Saddam Hussein and Bush enjoyed a lot of good press and numbers because of that, but when the economy started to tank, the majority of the American public turned on him.  Americans vote their wallets, that's just a fact and when the economy is in the shitter, they don't re-elect the incumbent.  That's my prediction, but I am still interested to see how Americans view Obama in the coming days or weeks.

Those are my questions.  What are yours?

They've Already Won

I was just reading and getting extremely pissed off about the new security measures adopted in the USA.


Reading humiliation after humiliation abounding at airport security counters across the USA is making me feel ill.  Now, in the name of national security, American citizens, among others are being subjected to either full body x-rays, or if you opt out of this, because of health concerns, you are treated to some TSA grey box stackers feeling up your private parts.  And if you refuse?  You run a risk of an $11,000 fine and for sure you won't make it to Aunt Tootie's for Thanksgiving on Delta flight 48.


Since when is America a police state?  The TSA's latest regulations constitutes a violation of civil rights and human decency.  Period.


It makes me think that the US is turning into a totalitarian state with the US Department of Homeland Security and the TSA taking on the role of the KGB in this little morality play.  It is the "they are out there" doctrine at its most disgusting, the mentality being that perhaps if we degrade people with crutches, prosthetic breasts as well as ordinary people by denying their civil rights at an airport security desk.  All's fair in the name of love, war and National Security apparently.  John Lyly, the renaissance poet credited with first writing this idea is probably turning in his grave.


Israel, having for decades the tightest and safest airport security in the world doesn't do anything close to this. Their method involves security officers engaging with each passenger, asking certain security questions and trained officers roaming the airport and monitoring passengers from the moment they arrive on airport property.  Although their methods have been in the past a bit shocking for non Israelis who were not used to being interrogated and being asked personal questions pre flight (like whom will you visit in Israel, what are their names, what do they do, where do they live), this seems like a sewing circle compared to the full body scan or body cavity search now present in US airports.


And guess what?  Even after all this violation and humiliation, the TSA is probably no better equipped now to catch a terrorist than it was previously.  When I fly out of Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv I do feel safe, but I think if I were flying out of the US with these ridiculous pat downs I would just feel violated.


It's enough to keep me out of the US frankly.  My autistic daughter is traumatized enough by the chaos, noise and rudness of what passes now for airport security.  When she was 3, I was threatened with not being allowed on my flight if I could not "force" my screaming, scared daughter to walk through the security gate on her own.  When I tried to get her to do it, she was scared of the two officers who were yelling at me and nothing would make her go through there without me.  When I offered first very politely, and then out of frustration to carry her, they told me again that she had to walk through on her own.  They told me to walk through first and when I refused (as I was afraid she would run away), they told me they could arrest me.  Finally, after about 8 minutes of poor Maya screaming bloody murder, they let me carry her through.  I can't imagine putting her through a full body search or x-ray now.  And apparently there is no compassion at all in the TSA, so I am seriously thinking of curbing my visits to the US (sorry family and friends!)


On 9/11 Al Qaeda was not only trying to take American lives but also to attack our very way of life.  To shake America to its foundations so that we would implode upon ourselves.  Our foundation has always been freedom and our country has fought hard for freedom at home and abroad.  The TSA's new measures not only roll the tide and cause of freedom for Americans backwards by declaring that at an airport security line, we no longer have a such thing as civil rights, freedom or dignity but play right into the hands of Al Qaeda's purpose, to destroy the freedoms we treasure by destroying us from within.

Mr. Miyagi was right, it is about balance........

The information age.  It should more correctly be termed the over-information age.  The Internet has turned most of us now into amateur pundits and analysts on a variety of subjects.  Myself included.  I spend a fair amount of time in front of my computer reading.  Basically when I am home relaxing, my lap top is in front of me a lot of the time.  I am emailing, facebooking, blogging, reading my favorite news sites (which range from the New York Times, to Haaretz, Huffington Post to the New Republic, to the National Review and yes, People Magazine, E! and Lainey Gossip (which are all for a different kind of news).  I am always literally astounded by the number of people that comment on these sites.  While many of them I am sure are well informed, there are a lot of blowhards out there spouting their opinions out there, and sometimes being downright cruel and obnoxious about it.  Depending on my mood, I find these opinions entertaining and downright hilarious to frustrating and even sometimes feel that 'what is wrong' in today's society can be found within the annals of these weird halls.  

I come from a family where politics and social issues were always prominently discussed at the dinner table.  We weren't the Kennedy's or anything, but my dad was very well read and in his life went from being a Kennedy  democrat to being a Reagan democrat to being a moderate republican and then finally after realizing that both parties were not a true reflection of his beliefs, he became an independent.  Still, through it all my dad always read press, articles and publications from all sides of the aisle (democrat, republican, conservative, liberal) and my dad's views on different topics spanned the line from all sides.  For instance he was always a firm pro choice supporter, believing that forcing a woman to bring an unwanted child into the world was not good for anyone and probably contributes to higher crime rates in the US.  On the other hand, he was in favor of smaller government, believing that it was big business that creates most of the jobs, therefore it was important for the government to provide incentives so that they would keep creating jobs. I used to love to go to my grandparents' house and listen to my dad and grandfather talk about politics, the economy or social issues.  It was like being at Wimbeldon (or what I imagine that is like, since I am not now and have never been a sports' fan), watching that ball go back and forth over the net.  Sometimes my grandfather served a zinger and sometimes it was my dad who had a powerful backhand.  

My dad and my grandfather both spent a lot of time reading newspapers.  Our houses were always littered with newspapers, in the bathroom, bedroom and near their favorite chairs there was always a stack of newspapers, magazines and political journals.  As a kid I used to sometimes think, 'how much can they read'?  At our house we got 2 newspapers a day, the Sunday New York Times, Time, Newsweek, US News and World Report, the New Republic, and the National Review.  My grandfather subscribed to a lot of these as well plus a lot of historical journals which they traded back and forth like baseball cards.  

When I first became eligible to vote in 1984 (getting a small stomach ache from admitting that I am that old), I pretty much asked my dad who he was voting for and why and followed suit.  Although it does pain me a little that in my first two Presidential Elections, I voted for Republicans (yep, Reagan and Bush 1.0), still when I remember who the Democratic nominees I don't have any real regrets.  I still don't think either Walter Mondale or Michael Dukakis would have been good Presidents.  Somewhere around 1990, when I had gone back to college after a 3 year hiatus and decided to study history and political science, my dad bought me subscriptions to the New Republic, US News and World Report, the National Review and the New York Times and he told me that if I was going to be really well informed  I needed to read news and history from a variety of different sources, that every publication had a message that it was trying to sell to the public and that the only way to be truly informed was to read from every end of the political spectrum and only then form my opinions.  

Now with the Internet and the ready access, 24 hour news cycle, news itself has become entertainment and people have become more polarized.  People seem, from the thousands upon thousands of comments that ordinary citizens make on news sites make every day, to grab onto a 'point of view' as an absolute, whereby anything slightly outside of that is wrong, dangerous and detrimental to American culture.  Is it possible that where information on just about anything is so readily available and where people are reading more news than ever before that we are possibly less informed?  I am sure studies on this have been done at Princeton or University of Southwest Dayton or something but I think it is pretty interesting that in the information age, we are less informed.   

For instance, this morning I read an article which ran in one of the UK Telegraph Blogs which states 10 reasons why the Obama Presidency is in free fall.   To see the article, click here.   The interesting part is that the article quotes declining poll numbers to state that Obama's approval ratings are extremely low for a President who is 18 months in office.  After I read this, I started looking at the net and found another article which is a direct rebuttal to this article which shows that the numbers do not vet this out.  This article from Gallup.com shows by the numbers that it is not the situation.

I am quite sure many people will read this article and assume that every word in it is gospel, and tout it as if it is their own thoughts and opnions your picnics and barbecues tell their friends and family and on and on from there.  

Form your own opinion but please make sure you are reading information from all sides of the aisle before you do. I can respect different opinions, what I find difficult is when people get all their opinions from one source and try to pass that off like it is some kind of informed opinion.  It's one of the most valuable lessons and some of the best advice my dad gave me.

That One Little thing......

I totally admit it, I was swept up in Obama fervor. I was a Hillary supporter but when Obama started to pull ahead in the primaries I was taken in by his charm, his great communication skills, his accomplishments and the idea that change was possible. Like many liberally minded Americans, I was disgusted by what had become of America in the Bush years. I readily admitted that Bush had probably faced the worst challenges in his first term as President since FDR. Unlike FDR he did not take those proverbial lemons and make lemonade, instead he made sour milk. US standing in the world in shambles, anti-American sentiment on the streets, the economy crumbling and promises of more of the same with McCain and it was very easy for me to pitch my tent in Obama's camp. OK, I know this was kind of a fluff review, but you get the idea.


One of my favorite Obama campaign spots was from something called The Great Schlep which was a very funny ad targeted at Jews to vote for Obama in Florida. You can see the spot here.


Like in this ad, the one thing that bothered me about Obama was his stance on Israel in that it was hard to tell whether or not he would support the special relationship between Israel and the United States. His name scared me off and his stance on Israel seemed unclear but as a liberal and a candidate of fighting for what is just and right, I shrugged off my lingering doubts and supported him full steam ahead. Actually I was not so excited for the American future since the Clinton era. So, like many Hillary supporters I gave my vote to Obama.


So, he's elected in a sweeping victory and the first year I think he has done fairly well and is obviously not afraid to tackle tough domestic issues like health care. Yes! Economic stimulus package; Yes! Closing Guantanamo Bay; Yes! Health care reform. Despite the blogosphere and Fox news going nuts, I was feeling good about my choice.




Now after nearly a year and a half in office that one little thing is starting to chirp and make noise and it's getting louder. Obama's policies toward Israel are coming at me like a prophecy and as much as I am trying to take a balanced view and not go off the deep end, because I want to love this guy. I want this guy to be the best thing since FDR and sliced bread but it's getting harder and harder.


Obama spent most of the first year of his Presidency focused on domestic issues, which no matter if you agree with him on his policies or not was the right thing to do. The economy was in shambles, and although the President cannot control this directly I do think he took good measures. Then he decided to tackle health care. I have a lot of friends and readers of my blog who are against Obama's health care policies and I am not going to discuss that here.


Meanwhile in the Israeli press, AIPAC, Jewish groups the world over started noticing that the Obama administration was not really backing up its campaign promises toward Israel and not really doing much to get direct negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis started again. This started to become more of an issue in the press as time went on. Hillary Clinton had been to the region a few times but nothing concrete or substantial came out of those visits. President Clinton had been a huge friend to Israel and tried throughout his two terms in office to hammer out a final agreement, but ultimately those talks failed when Yasser Arafat rejected a 1997 proposal by then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak to declare a Palestinian State (leaving the issues of refugees and the final status of Jerusalem (the two openly most contentious issues)) open for a 2-3 year period and then to be finally negotiated. When Obama asked Hillary Clinton to be his Secretary of State I thought, okay, I am not sure about Obama's stance on Israel but Hillary is definitely pro-Israel, therefore the peace process is in good hands. So, I put aside my misgivings. Still not much happened in Obama's first year and while the press and Jewish groups were railing about it I was not overly concerned, feeling rightly that Obama needed to focus on the home front.


I am a firm believer that the US is needed for real progress to be made toward a final agreement The US needs to be involved in talks and sponsor them in order for the parties to get to the table and actually start talking. Every bit of progress which has been made has followed this formula and it is necessary. It requires the actions and involvement of the President and not just the Secretary of State and Special Envoys. Israel and the US have shared a special relationship among nations and the US is probably the only nation that has stood behind Israel in it's 60 some odd years of statehood. I truly believe that the US is the only nation which truly believes in Israel's right to exist. Other countries are either neutral or tolerant. Even the EU which openly supports Israel's right to exist policy wise, still they quickly condemn Israel when it suits them. I am not an authority on this, but many Europeans I have come in contact with are anti-Israel, they voice that they are Pro-Palestinian, but they see Israel as the aggressor always and believe that what is primary is that the "Occupation" ends and Israel's need for security is secondary. I sometimes wonder if being Pro-Palestinian is now a politically acceptable form of being anti-semitic. OK, not going to descend into that, maybe a post for another time.


Let me be clear in saying that I am absolutely for a Palestinian State. I have lived in Israel and belong to the political party Meretz, which is a little left of my own politics but is the party in Israel that appealed to me the most on many issues. The Palestinians deserve their own state. They have a justifiable claim to the land and have the right to control their own destinies. Although the giving up of land in exchange for peace is never easy for Israel, still it is a necessary step and one which needs to happen. Israel grieved when they had to pull out of Sinai to make peace with Egypt and will grieve one day when they need to pull out of the West Bank too in order to give the Palestinians their state.Difficult for Israel, but without a doubt, absolutely necessary.


Still, all this giving up of land must require something on the Palestinian side When Israel pulled out of Sinai in order to make peace with Egypt, Egypt agreed not to attack and to maintain a peaceful border with Israel. In 33 years there has never been one incident.  That is not to say that the Israelis and Egyptians share a great love for one another, they have a difficult history and have been enemies in war, killing one another for many decades.  This leaves it's marks.  Like a surgical scar, which will stop hurting, the redness will go away, it will fade somewhat  Still when you see it or touch it, you remember the pain you were in.  This is how it is with Israel and Egypt.  Many Israelis love to vacation in Sinai, with it's unspoiled beaches, cheap Bedouin way of life and gorgeous reefs of the Red Sea.  Every time I crossed into Sinai from Israel, there was no great love for me at the border, but still in 33 years there has not been a single incident between Israel and Egypt.  One of my Israeli friends once said to me on the topic "it is not love, but it is peace."


Israel will not accept less from the Palestinians (and in my mind shouldn't).  If they can guarantee peace to Israel, Israel will withdraw, although not without some protests of the religious right (who by the way include an overwhelming amount of  American Jews, many of whom were not raised as religious but became religious and in many cases fundamentalist).  It will sting, but Israel would suck it up.  But Israel needs assurances from the Palestinans that if Israel leaves the West Bank that Gaza will stop shooting rockets into southern Israel and that terrorists will stop taping explosives to their vests, hop a ride into Israel and blow up innocent people while they sit on the street and have cappucinos.  This means also that the Palestinians need to seek out and punish terrorist cells in it's midst and publicly condemn terrorism against Israel.  Not an easy order for them with Hamas at the helm and a population who for decades is feeling oppressed by the Occupation of the enemy that they feel stole their land.  I am simplfying things for the sake of argument, but to me, that is the actual crux of what needs to happen.  You may disagree, but hell, it is my blog.  You want to argue, get your own blog.


I totally agree in the land for peace formula but I do find it interesting that most of the world sees Israel as illegally occupying this land.  Although to be honest, this was land which was won in war and which land Israel did not invade (actually it was Israel that was invaded).  I try to not let my mind descend into this but I sometimes wonder if the West Bank was Texas if the world would be screaming about illegally occupied land.  After all Texas was won and annexed to the US after the Mexican American war.  If this were not about Israel, the Jewish state would the world be screaming and is this yet again anti-semitism rearing it's head?


What Obama is doing now that he has chosen to finally do something is not anywhere in the neighborhood of achieving what needs to be achieved.  He is trying to get the Palestinians to the table by giving them lots of assurances on Israel's back.  He has guaranteed them a state within two years, although after those articles appeared Obama started pulling back on this and now is reiterating (probably after pressure from Jewish groups and negative press) his support for Israeli security.  He has also supported making the middle east a nuclear free zone, all the while refusing to impose sanctions on Iran and now  without saying it head on, threatening to put pressure on Israel's own nuclear program, which let's face it is the primary reason why Israel has not been attacked by its neighbors.  He is even making promises to the Palestinians that the US will negotiate a settlement on their behalf.  Of course the Palestinians would be hugely in favor of that, because they would not even be required to sit at the  table and would not have to concede to anything.  A total Palestian win-win.


I hate to say it or even think it, but Obama may just end up being the best friend of the Palestinians. 


Now I am not going to argue the validity or invalidity of any of these actions on the part of the Obama administration, but it does seem to my way of thinking that Obama is expecting to pressure the Israelis while requiring the Palestinians to do next to nothing to achieve their state. I hate to tell him that is not going to work.  The majority of Israelis want peace and are in favor of creating a Palestinian state and are even willing to make some hard sacrifices in order to do it.  What Israel is not going to do is roll over and play dead while the Palestinians have to offer no assurances while at the same time Obama Israel under his thumb.  Israel needs the US and the special relationship they have without a doubt, but they never have and never will sacrifice their own security interests for that.  I think that is a lesson Obama has yet to learn.  A blog which I follow pretty regularly and who has a great article on this is called Obama:  Waging War Against Israel on all Fronts. Now I don't always agree with this guy on everything but his articles are always interesting and thought provoking.


I do think Obama's current method is to try and do anything to get the Palestinians to the table and he is making grand gestures and assurances without considering Israel's needs in this.   I do believe this will backfire. Not only will he not achieve anything substantial in the way of peace talks but eventually he will lose the trust of the Palestinians after he shows them his promises are empty.  I am of course most curious why he is choosing to handle things this way.  Is it his inexperience in foreign affairs?  Maybe he is approaching this academically and thinks if he can just get the Palestinians to the table, he can deal with the rest and then allay the fears of Israel.  Does he really think that Israel will just lay down and make peace at any price?  I find it hard to believe that someone as intelligent as he is could not understand this.  Or is it because accomodating the Palestinians and pressuring the Israelis might be a way to help him realize his own interests.  If he gets the Israelis to lay down, he might get somewhere with Iran.  If he gets them to roll over and play dead, he might be able to help things in Iraq and Afghanistan and put American soldiers at less risk.  There is a school of thought out there that Al Qaeda and its brothers in arms target America because (at least in part) of its support of Israel and if Obama turns into the BFF of the Palestinians, this might help in the war against terror.  I am not even going to get started on how the rest of the Arab world treats the Palestinians like the poor stepsister of the Arab World.  I think they honestly do not care about the Palestinian situation except that it helps them to keep Israel as an enemy because what is at the heart of this, is not land or peace, but good old fashioned hatred.


If Obama's logic is really to put the pressure on Israel which will in some twisted logic serve American interests by making America less of a target of Islamic fundamentalists, thereby lessening the threat of terrorists against America or American interests, then I think this is the most scary logic of all because it pits American interests against Israeli interests.  Israel cannot make peace without American support and brokerage. If American interests are to ultimately force Israel to accept peace at any price, then Israel cannot afford to pay the tab.


I really hope with everything that I am that Obama is showing his inexperience because I really want to love this guy.  As time goes on though I wonder what is ultimately behind Obama's policies in the middle east.  Please let it be naivete.  I hope so, because naivete I can excuse, viewing the situation simply I can also excuse.  Is it policy or was that nagging feeling that I, and many Obama supporting Jews have wondered about these last couple of years and have tried to bury as paranoia.  Is it policy or anti-semitism disguised as policy.  What I hate the most about that thought is not the anti-semitism part, but the part of Obama that turns me into one of those paranoid Jews who sees anti-semitism around every corner. I don't think I will be able to excuse that.


Does anyone else need a drink?

I should be cleaning.......

Maybe it is because we are in the rhythm of the Jewish holiday cycle, Purim has just passed and we are now in the run off to Passover, the grandaddy-of-them-all of Jewish holidays as far as I am concerned, particularly if you can get past the idea of having to give up bread for 8 days.  Like some sort of tidal clock, my head is  full of Seder details.  I always do the Seder in our family, partially because the Dutch version (or at least the one I attended at my mil's) of the Seder doesn't seem to have the pageantry and grandeur that I love.  Not that I am saying that the Seder I grew up with was by-the-book, but Passover definitely was something out of the ordinary in our house and my husband's family do not enjoy breaking with their routines very much to embrace the essence of Passover (although secretly I do see them enjoying themselves a little bit during the Seder).


So, anyhow, every year I try to channel my mother and grandmother and try to outdo myself in preparing a festive holiday for whomever is around our table.  Our Jewish holiday tables are always an interesting hodge-podge of people.  While growing up our Seder table consisted of the same people every year, but ours is always a sort of grab-bag on who might be there.  Sometimes it is just us and my inlaws and sometimes we have 15 people around the table, so it is always a surprise, some years my brother in law and his family or my sister in law and her family come from Israel, somtimes not.  This year we are looking at my inlaws, probably one of their friends, a third cousin of mine who is studying in Amsterdam and a friend of mine from work.  So probably for the next two weeks at least I will be playing meal choices in my head (well my main courses do not change, only my vegetables, salads and other side dishes) and I will again curse myself for not being able to make a good sweet potato recipe (and I don't mean those Thanksgiving varieties with marshmallows, gummy bears and chocolate chips in a strudel) but a good basic roasted sweet potato, for some reason I cannot perfect this (standing rib roast, yes, cheese souflle, yes, sweet potato, no).


Passover is followed in short order by Israel's memorial day (Yom ha Zicharon) and Israel's Independence Day (Yom Ha'atzmaut).  Together I call these the holiday trifecta and they always put me in a wistful mood.  I like this time of year, because it recalls stories of Jewish heroism, yet doesn't forget the struggles and ordeals of the past.  The Jewish memory is long and it is very much part of Jewish life to take the bitter with the sweet.  That's what I love about a lot Jewish holidays, they are largely filled with both.  That's why we eat bitter herbs at Passover, but then eat also sweet charoses, right?  I'm generalizing I know, so please don't beat me with your haggadahs, or hurl a matzoh ball my way.


Anyway as usual I am getting off point.  What was the point?  Oh yeah, preparing for Passover.  Anyway, all these thoughts about table settings, what to prepare, etc. always gets me thinking a lot about Israel, which was my home for 5+ years.  I loved the seders I spent in Israel, largely just because of the sheer variety of experiences I had which were on the one hand so different from mine, but yet had some common threads to my Western Pennsylvania Passovers from home.  I've spent Passover on kibbutz, with a Sephardic family (where they actually ritually slaughtered a sheep) and with my neighbors, who had seder for about 40 people using two apartment sized kitchens, where the singing and festivities lasted until 3 AM.  Good memories all.


So I have been thinking a lot the last few days about the time I spent living in Israel (I think what I am really doing is avoiding doing my pre-Passover cleaning).  I must say that those 5 years were in many ways the most adventurous, fulfilling and satisfying years of my life. I found my independence in Israel, I struggled there in the beginning but found my way all on my own.  I learned a new language.  I made wonderful friends and everything I accomplished there was due to no one but me.  Everything I cherish now (Leo and Maya) come from that one decision to leave everything that was familiar to me and everyone who represented security to me to go to a place which had always been in my mind, thanks to my Zionist father and grandparents, my magna-cum-Jewish youth group background, complete with Zionist summer camps, a lighthouse, a place that represented the pinnacle of struggle, freedom and heroism.


My 5 years there made me face the real Israel, which was not quite the Israel of my dreams inspired by summer camp singalongs, eating hamentaschen and going to Shabbat Services, but nonetheless, still special, magnificient and beautiful in their own right. Amos Oz says it much better than I.  The following is a quote from the very end of one of his books, which I only truly understood after I re-read this book for about the 10th time after I had been living in Israel a few years. This ias the Israel I came to know, and love just the same (or maybe even more) than my idyllic Zionist fantasy.

...Not the land of our forefathers glory and not days of yore but simply the State of Israel.....Not "the land of the hart (sic)" and not "the divine city reunited" as the cliches would have it but simply the State of Israel.  Not the "Maccabeans reborn" that Herzl talked of, but a warm hearted, hot-tempered Mediterranean people that is gradually learning through great suffering and in a tumult of sound and fury, to find release both from the bloodcurdling nightmares of the past and from delusions of grandeur, both ancient and modern; gradually learning to cling to what it has managed to build here over the course of one hundred difficult years, despite the "sand and the enemies", as the man from Ashdod put it.  Gradually learning to hold on by its fingernails to what there is.  Are we gradually learning, or perhaps not?  But we should learn.  And what is, at best, is the city of Ashdod.  A pretty city and to my mind a good one, this Ashdod.  And she is all that we have that is our own.  Even in culture and in literature:  Ashdod.  All those who secretly long for the charms of Paris or Vienna, for the Jewish shtetl or for heavenly Jerusalem:  do not cut loose from those longings-for what are we without our longings?-but let's remember that Ashdod is what there is.  And she is not quite the grandiose fulfillment of the vision of the Prophets and of the dream of generations; not quite a world premiere, but simply a city on a human scale.  If only we try to look her with a calm eye, we will surely not be shamed or disappointed.

-Amos Oz, In the Land of Israel

I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to gain as better underastasnding of Israel and the Israeli psyche.


Many friends and relatives ask me my views on the Middle East, mostly because I have the experience of living in Israel and they want to have more of an intimate view than what they read in Time Magazine.  Honestly, since I left Israel 8 years ago, I make it a habit not to follow things too closely anymore.  Mostly because a lot of what I read or see pisses me off because, whichever way it leans (both pro and anti Israel) cannot truly capture the multi-layered, extremely complex nature of the situation.  Also I think because reading stuff on Israel always inevitably leads me to look for subliminal anti-semitic messages in everything and I don't enjoy that kind of paranoia (particularly because I am suceptible to it).  Particularly in Europe where Pro-Palestinian sentiment runs much higher than in the US and where Israel is seen largely as an occupier, a violator of human rights.  Thias view is diametrically opposed to the mainstream American view which is quite the opposite.  Most Americans are pro-Israel, Israel is seen as the only democracy in an otherwise autocratic Arab world which subjugates its people and whose most fervent and fanatical believers are an enemy.  One example to illustrate my avoidance/paranoia.  My office which has no collective political opinion on the conflict, has a cafeteria in the basement.  The window blinds which have been chosen by my office are the kind which are sort of a sliding door type of blind which have maps of various cities and countries on them.  One of the maps is of Europe and the Middle East, and the map which has been illustrated on this panel is one which is from shows Jerusalem as part of Palestine and not Israel.  Now do I think my office was trying to make some sweeping statement with this?  Not at all. They (or their interior designers) picked out window coverings which would be appropriate for this room).  Were the people who made these blinds anti-semites, did they purposely choose this map of Israel?  I don't know for sure, but I can tell you this.  That map and that thought has occupied me while I am eating lunch more times than I would like to admit.  See?  Easy, therefore I try to avoid reading too much, or reading too much into things because it is a spiral or maybe a merry-go-round, anyway, it is ride I don't wish to go on.


I don't think my years living in Israel fundamentally changed my point of view on the Middle East conflict but it did open my eyes to a greater understanding of the complexities of the situation. Although traditionally left-winged (in a Labor-Meretz kind of way) All sides have legitimate claims to the land which can be argued to kingdom come.  Religious claims to Jerusalem at least become more difficult I think for the Muslim world to claim (even though they are claimed and I am not even going to go there with my opinion on that as many other people out there in cyberspace have cornered this market and argue more effectively on both sides better than I).  Now, I admit that while fundamentally my opinion as to what the solution is to this conflict never really changes, although depending on the happenings of the moment I can lean more to the left or slightly more to the right (particularly at times when Israel is being vilified in the press for defending itself from attack).  By slightly, I mean slightly, I will never be a fan of Bibi Netanyahu or Arik Sharon, however, I do recognise that Israel has the right to defend itself and to ensure its security and I do feel that if they did not take the preventive or even reactive measures that they do, Israel would be the recipient of many more catastrophic attacks from its neighbors.  It is only because Israel is pre-emptive that the peace with Egypt and Jordan holds.  I truly believe that.


So, what do I believe?  It comes down to three basic principles for me:


1.  I believe in a two state solution.  The Palestinians should have their own state and the chance to fulfil their own destiny (although I am not comfortable at all with Hamas being at the head of that State).  I am also okay with abandoning the settlements on the West Bank, although I understand how painful it is to do that, but to bring this about, it is an absolute necessary step.  It was necessary to bring about the peace with Egypt and is necessary to bring peace with the Palestinians. 


2.  Israel has to live in true peace and security from its neighbors. 


3.  Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel, and I would be okay with dividing Jerusalem and giving East Jerusalem to the Palestinians as the capital of their state (although I truly believe their reasons for this are political and not religious), provided that the Palestinians, and other Arab states respect and recognize Israel's right to exist and stop funding terrorist organisations that promote the destruction of Israel.


Do I think these three principles will ever come to pass?  I don't know.  My thoughts on the matter is that there are special moments in time in which peace has a chance to flourish, sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't.  One of these moments in time brought about the Camp David Accords.  Another moment in time culminated in the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin.  


Who's to say when that next moment will be and what will become of it?