I can't go out there and shoot at young children. I just can't go to Iraq. I don't care what side they are on. I can't do it
--Dying words of Private Jason Chelsea, UK who committed suicide rather than go to Iraq.
Another factor in his suicide was the fact that his fellow soldiers were tormenting him because of his Dyslexia.
You can read about it here:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article1221649.ece
25 August, 2006
24 August, 2006
We could have had Bin Laden...
From the Washington Post....big US Newspaper...
NATO: U.S. Evidence on Bin Laden 'Compelling'
Allies Give Unconditional Support for Retaliatory Strikes
Taliban Official Asks to See Proof
[FINAL Edition]
The Washington Post - Washington, D.C.
Author:
William Drozdiak and Rajiv Chandrasekaran
Date:
Oct 3, 2001
Start Page:
A.11
Section:
A SECTION
Document Types:
News
Text Word Count:
1073
Copyright The Washington Post Company Oct 3, 2001
The United States gave NATO "clear and compelling" evidence today that Osama bin Laden orchestrated last month's suicide airliner attacks in New York and Washington, gaining the unqualified support of its allies for retaliatory military strikes.
NATO Secretary General George Robertson said the alliance's 19 members are now convinced that the attacks were planned abroad by bin Laden's al Qaeda organization. As a result, NATO lifted all conditions from its unprecedented decision to invoke Article 5 of the alliance's founding treaty, which considers an assault against one member as an attack against them all.
"It is clear that all roads lead to al Qaeda and pinpoint Osama bin Laden as having been involved" in the attacks, Robertson said after the ruling council of NATO ambassadors received a classified briefing by Francis X. Taylor, the U.S. government's top counterterrorism expert.
"The facts are clear and compelling," Robertson said.
In Afghanistan, leaders of the ruling Taliban militia, which has been harboring bin Laden, urged the United States to share its evidence with them, saying they hoped for a negotiated settlement instead of a military conflict. The Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, Abdul Salam Zaeef, said his government would be willing to talk to the United States about bin Laden, but "we don't want to surrender without any proof, any evidence."
European diplomats who listened to Taylor's briefing here at NATO headquarters said his presentation offered no "smoking gun" but provided an array of evidence that would be enough to indict bin Laden, his al Qaeda network and the Taliban on complicity to commit terrorism.
Besides satellite reconnaissance photos and wireless intercepts gleaned by U.S. security agencies that were described as "circumstantial at best," these diplomats said much of the classified evidence was already in the public domain, such as bin Laden's personal background, his organization's role in such previous terrorist bombings as the 1998 attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the status of the current investigation. These elements, the sources said, included a catalogue of financial transactions involving intercontinental bank transfers and credit card dealings by suspected hijackers, as well as accounts of such personal ties as the recent marriage of one of bin Laden's daughters to Mohammad Omar, the Taliban's leader.
Robertson said the United States could count on the full support of its allies in the conduct of military operations. But he stressed that it was still unclear what assistance the United States might ask its allies to provide beyond the sharing of intelligence and more vigilant pursuit of money laundering by suspected terrorist networks.
"It will be up to the United States to determine what help it requires," Robertson said. "We don't intend at the moment to discuss how NATO will translate this decision into operational action. The United States is still developing its thinking and they will come back to the alliance in due course when that thinking is crystalized."
NATO military officials said it has been clear since the attacks three weeks ago that while Washington appreciates NATO's political support, there is little doubt that any military retaliation will be conducted with only minor contributions from the alliance.
U.S. officials said Taylor will share some of the classified evidence Wednesday with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who arrived in Brussels to meet Robertson and top European Union officials. But Putin said his country was already convinced of the need to launch military operations against bin Laden, whom Moscow accuses of supporting the insurgency in the southern Russian region of Chechnya.
"Russia's special services do not need any additional proof to participate in the struggle against terrorist acts," Putin told reporters after meeting with Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt. He compared international terrorism to a bacteria "which adapts to the organism bearing it" and exploits Western ideas of freedom to achieve its aims.
Putin criticized Saudi Arabia for its vacillation over whether to allow U.S. forces to launch strikes against terrorist bases from its territory. "I think this is a cardinal error," he said. "It's not a question of soldiers preparing strikes against Muslims but rather of soldiers preparing strikes against terrorists."
Zaeef, the Taliban ambassador in Islamabad, stressed today that such strikes could be avoided if Washington agreed to negotiate with the Taliban over bin Laden's fate. "We are ready for negotiations," Zaeef said. "It is up to the other side to agree or not. Only the way of negotiation will solve our problems. We should discuss this issue and decide."
But President Bush ruled out any discussions with the Taliban and reiterated his demand that bin Laden and members of al Qaeda be surrendered unconditionally.
"I have said that the Taliban must turn over the al Qaeda organization living in Afghanistan and must destroy the terrorist camps," Bush said in Washington. "They must do so, otherwise there will be a consequence. There are no negotiations. There is no calendar."
Taliban leaders appeared to be moving to shore up support and dispel reports of growing splits among their ranks. Several Taliban ministers, including Defense Minister Obaidullah Akhund, began traveling around Afghanistan, the Reuters news agency reported. The Taliban's second in command, Mohammed Hassan, who is regarded as more flexible than Omar, took part in a pro-government rally in the southern Afghanistan city of Gardez, Taliban officials told the Associated Press.
In the southern Afghan city of Kandahar, where the Taliban was formed, 10,000 marchers burned American flags and shouted that Afghanistan would not give up bin Laden, according to the Afghan Islamic Press, an Islamabad-based private news agency close to the Taliban. The protesters also denounced Afghanistan's former king, who in exile in Italy has supported groups seeking to topple the Taliban.
In Pakistan, U.S. Ambassador Wendy Chamberlin briefed Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the country's military ruler, about the status of the investigation into the terrorist attacks. But a senior Pakistani official familiar with the meeting said the 90-minute session this morning did not convey any U.S. evidence of bin Laden's alleged involvement.
"It was nothing more than what you gather from watching CNN and reading The Washington Post," said the official. "There was nothing that added to the information than we already had."
A spokesman for the U.S. Embassy, Mark Wentworth, refused to comment on the meeting other than to say that it included "an oral briefing about the status of the investigation."
Chandrasekaran reported from Islamabad, Pakistan. Special correspondent Kamran Khan in Karachi, Pakistan, contributed to this report.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.
NATO: U.S. Evidence on Bin Laden 'Compelling'
Allies Give Unconditional Support for Retaliatory Strikes
Taliban Official Asks to See Proof
[FINAL Edition]
The Washington Post - Washington, D.C.
Author:
William Drozdiak and Rajiv Chandrasekaran
Date:
Oct 3, 2001
Start Page:
A.11
Section:
A SECTION
Document Types:
News
Text Word Count:
1073
Copyright The Washington Post Company Oct 3, 2001
The United States gave NATO "clear and compelling" evidence today that Osama bin Laden orchestrated last month's suicide airliner attacks in New York and Washington, gaining the unqualified support of its allies for retaliatory military strikes.
NATO Secretary General George Robertson said the alliance's 19 members are now convinced that the attacks were planned abroad by bin Laden's al Qaeda organization. As a result, NATO lifted all conditions from its unprecedented decision to invoke Article 5 of the alliance's founding treaty, which considers an assault against one member as an attack against them all.
"It is clear that all roads lead to al Qaeda and pinpoint Osama bin Laden as having been involved" in the attacks, Robertson said after the ruling council of NATO ambassadors received a classified briefing by Francis X. Taylor, the U.S. government's top counterterrorism expert.
"The facts are clear and compelling," Robertson said.
In Afghanistan, leaders of the ruling Taliban militia, which has been harboring bin Laden, urged the United States to share its evidence with them, saying they hoped for a negotiated settlement instead of a military conflict. The Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, Abdul Salam Zaeef, said his government would be willing to talk to the United States about bin Laden, but "we don't want to surrender without any proof, any evidence."
European diplomats who listened to Taylor's briefing here at NATO headquarters said his presentation offered no "smoking gun" but provided an array of evidence that would be enough to indict bin Laden, his al Qaeda network and the Taliban on complicity to commit terrorism.
Besides satellite reconnaissance photos and wireless intercepts gleaned by U.S. security agencies that were described as "circumstantial at best," these diplomats said much of the classified evidence was already in the public domain, such as bin Laden's personal background, his organization's role in such previous terrorist bombings as the 1998 attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the status of the current investigation. These elements, the sources said, included a catalogue of financial transactions involving intercontinental bank transfers and credit card dealings by suspected hijackers, as well as accounts of such personal ties as the recent marriage of one of bin Laden's daughters to Mohammad Omar, the Taliban's leader.
Robertson said the United States could count on the full support of its allies in the conduct of military operations. But he stressed that it was still unclear what assistance the United States might ask its allies to provide beyond the sharing of intelligence and more vigilant pursuit of money laundering by suspected terrorist networks.
"It will be up to the United States to determine what help it requires," Robertson said. "We don't intend at the moment to discuss how NATO will translate this decision into operational action. The United States is still developing its thinking and they will come back to the alliance in due course when that thinking is crystalized."
NATO military officials said it has been clear since the attacks three weeks ago that while Washington appreciates NATO's political support, there is little doubt that any military retaliation will be conducted with only minor contributions from the alliance.
U.S. officials said Taylor will share some of the classified evidence Wednesday with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who arrived in Brussels to meet Robertson and top European Union officials. But Putin said his country was already convinced of the need to launch military operations against bin Laden, whom Moscow accuses of supporting the insurgency in the southern Russian region of Chechnya.
"Russia's special services do not need any additional proof to participate in the struggle against terrorist acts," Putin told reporters after meeting with Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt. He compared international terrorism to a bacteria "which adapts to the organism bearing it" and exploits Western ideas of freedom to achieve its aims.
Putin criticized Saudi Arabia for its vacillation over whether to allow U.S. forces to launch strikes against terrorist bases from its territory. "I think this is a cardinal error," he said. "It's not a question of soldiers preparing strikes against Muslims but rather of soldiers preparing strikes against terrorists."
Zaeef, the Taliban ambassador in Islamabad, stressed today that such strikes could be avoided if Washington agreed to negotiate with the Taliban over bin Laden's fate. "We are ready for negotiations," Zaeef said. "It is up to the other side to agree or not. Only the way of negotiation will solve our problems. We should discuss this issue and decide."
But President Bush ruled out any discussions with the Taliban and reiterated his demand that bin Laden and members of al Qaeda be surrendered unconditionally.
"I have said that the Taliban must turn over the al Qaeda organization living in Afghanistan and must destroy the terrorist camps," Bush said in Washington. "They must do so, otherwise there will be a consequence. There are no negotiations. There is no calendar."
Taliban leaders appeared to be moving to shore up support and dispel reports of growing splits among their ranks. Several Taliban ministers, including Defense Minister Obaidullah Akhund, began traveling around Afghanistan, the Reuters news agency reported. The Taliban's second in command, Mohammed Hassan, who is regarded as more flexible than Omar, took part in a pro-government rally in the southern Afghanistan city of Gardez, Taliban officials told the Associated Press.
In the southern Afghan city of Kandahar, where the Taliban was formed, 10,000 marchers burned American flags and shouted that Afghanistan would not give up bin Laden, according to the Afghan Islamic Press, an Islamabad-based private news agency close to the Taliban. The protesters also denounced Afghanistan's former king, who in exile in Italy has supported groups seeking to topple the Taliban.
In Pakistan, U.S. Ambassador Wendy Chamberlin briefed Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the country's military ruler, about the status of the investigation into the terrorist attacks. But a senior Pakistani official familiar with the meeting said the 90-minute session this morning did not convey any U.S. evidence of bin Laden's alleged involvement.
"It was nothing more than what you gather from watching CNN and reading The Washington Post," said the official. "There was nothing that added to the information than we already had."
A spokesman for the U.S. Embassy, Mark Wentworth, refused to comment on the meeting other than to say that it included "an oral briefing about the status of the investigation."
Chandrasekaran reported from Islamabad, Pakistan. Special correspondent Kamran Khan in Karachi, Pakistan, contributed to this report.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.
DANCING WITH WOLVES
From the August 24, 2oo6 INDEPENDENT (UK paper)
Michael Ancram: It is time to start dancing with the wolves
As we learned in Northern Ireland, terrorism cannot be defeated by military action
Published: 24 August 2006
The war in Lebanon, with an uneasy and fragile ceasefire in place, is, for the moment, over. The guns of Israel have almost fallen silent, and the wolves of Hamas and Hizbollah have almost stopped howling. It could, however, at any moment reignite. It is therefore astonishing that our government remains so supinely US-obsessed in the face of what could re-emerge as a genuine threat to international peace and is in effect doing nothing. It is time to start dancing with wolves, to start talking to terrorists.
As we learned in Northern Ireland, terrorism can be contained by military action, but it cannot be defeated by it. In the end, you have to start talking, not necessarily with fanatical leaders who are beyond dialogue, but with those who support them and the communities that give them shelter.
It is not easy. For a short time in 1995 I was ostracised by the Ulster Unionists as "contaminated" when I opened discussions with Sinn Fein/IRA. Such dialogue can never be even remotely seen to condone terrorism, but it can begin to explore ways out of it. We talked and so did the IRA, because after 30 years of "troubles" there could be no military winners.
After 50 years, there are no winners in the Middle East. This latest war of losers has achieved nothing for poor Lebanon but virtual destruction. Hizbollah took a pasting but attracted many more recruits to its cause. Israel gained some added security, but at the cost of many vital friendships in the area.
It is time we faced some truths. Terrorism is abhorrent and criminal and must be eliminated with all the means at our disposal. But terrorism does not exist - nor are terrorists raised and radicalised - in a vacuum. Terrorism depends on the communities within which it finds support for shelter. It recruits from within those communities by setting itself out as their defenders; defending their faith, their land or their homes and lives. To do so they must create anger and resentment against those they can portray as the aggressors against them. So for Hamas and Hizbollah, Israel must constantly be seen as a US-backed aggressor, a perception unfortunately aided by the recent war.
Tony Blair rightly talks about the need to win Muslim hearts and minds. Why then does he in the same breath "growing arcs of extremism"? Has he ever asked himself why the "arcs of extremism" are growing? Does he not understand that sanctioning Israel's attrition against Lebanon has hardened, rather than won over, Muslim and Arab hearts?
That is where dancing with wolves, where dialogue with terrorists, comes in. It is, as I know, hard. There will initially be few meetings of minds, but there will be opportunities for resolving misunderstandings and learning to manage differences - and for chances to build bridges rather than blowing them up.
The British have long been refining the process of winning hearts and minds. It must be based on patient confidence building, begun through delicate contacts. It demands the establishing of sufficient mutual trust to be able to meet and to talk. It requires the gradual introduction of a peace dividend, a tangible benefit at each successful step along the peace road. Ultimately, it involves including all those who must be part of the solution but who are currently "off limits".
It may not be possible yet for Israel to speak directly to Hamas, let alone Hizbollah, but there can be no "two state solution" without the eventual involvement of Hamas, and there can be no secure Israel without a permanent cessation of violence by Hizbollah. If they cannot talk yet, then others must pave the way.
And if at the moment these two terrorist groups are unapproachable, then we should be talking to their sponsors in Syria and Iran, whose governments the British know well. The hearts and minds that must be won are those of our enemies as much as of our friends. Their initial intransigence may appear unbreachable, but I learned in Northern Ireland that there are ways of squaring such circles. Talking is not a sign of weakness. You can talk to insurgents and their supporters even when taking military sanction against them.
And instead of macho proclamations about "arcs of extremism", we should be showing the whole Muslim world that we can genuinely and unthreateningly be their friends. That we can be friends of the Palestinians and the Lebanese, and loyal friends of Israel at the same time. It may be hard in the smoke of Haifa and Tyre to envisage this, but if a two-state solution is ever to be achieved, it is essential. The sooner we start dancing with wolves the better.
The writer was minister of state for Northern Ireland (1994-97)
The war in Lebanon, with an uneasy and fragile ceasefire in place, is, for the moment, over. The guns of Israel have almost fallen silent, and the wolves of Hamas and Hizbollah have almost stopped howling. It could, however, at any moment reignite. It is therefore astonishing that our government remains so supinely US-obsessed in the face of what could re-emerge as a genuine threat to international peace and is in effect doing nothing. It is time to start dancing with wolves, to start talking to terrorists.
As we learned in Northern Ireland, terrorism can be contained by military action, but it cannot be defeated by it. In the end, you have to start talking, not necessarily with fanatical leaders who are beyond dialogue, but with those who support them and the communities that give them shelter.
It is not easy. For a short time in 1995 I was ostracised by the Ulster Unionists as "contaminated" when I opened discussions with Sinn Fein/IRA. Such dialogue can never be even remotely seen to condone terrorism, but it can begin to explore ways out of it. We talked and so did the IRA, because after 30 years of "troubles" there could be no military winners.
After 50 years, there are no winners in the Middle East. This latest war of losers has achieved nothing for poor Lebanon but virtual destruction. Hizbollah took a pasting but attracted many more recruits to its cause. Israel gained some added security, but at the cost of many vital friendships in the area.
It is time we faced some truths. Terrorism is abhorrent and criminal and must be eliminated with all the means at our disposal. But terrorism does not exist - nor are terrorists raised and radicalised - in a vacuum. Terrorism depends on the communities within which it finds support for shelter. It recruits from within those communities by setting itself out as their defenders; defending their faith, their land or their homes and lives. To do so they must create anger and resentment against those they can portray as the aggressors against them. So for Hamas and Hizbollah, Israel must constantly be seen as a US-backed aggressor, a perception unfortunately aided by the recent war.
Tony Blair rightly talks about the need to win Muslim hearts and minds. Why then does he in the same breath "growing arcs of extremism"? Has he ever asked himself why the "arcs of extremism" are growing? Does he not understand that sanctioning Israel's attrition against Lebanon has hardened, rather than won over, Muslim and Arab hearts?
That is where dancing with wolves, where dialogue with terrorists, comes in. It is, as I know, hard. There will initially be few meetings of minds, but there will be opportunities for resolving misunderstandings and learning to manage differences - and for chances to build bridges rather than blowing them up.
The British have long been refining the process of winning hearts and minds. It must be based on patient confidence building, begun through delicate contacts. It demands the establishing of sufficient mutual trust to be able to meet
Michael Ancram: It is time to start dancing with the wolves
As we learned in Northern Ireland, terrorism cannot be defeated by military action
Published: 24 August 2006
The war in Lebanon, with an uneasy and fragile ceasefire in place, is, for the moment, over. The guns of Israel have almost fallen silent, and the wolves of Hamas and Hizbollah have almost stopped howling. It could, however, at any moment reignite. It is therefore astonishing that our government remains so supinely US-obsessed in the face of what could re-emerge as a genuine threat to international peace and is in effect doing nothing. It is time to start dancing with wolves, to start talking to terrorists.
As we learned in Northern Ireland, terrorism can be contained by military action, but it cannot be defeated by it. In the end, you have to start talking, not necessarily with fanatical leaders who are beyond dialogue, but with those who support them and the communities that give them shelter.
It is not easy. For a short time in 1995 I was ostracised by the Ulster Unionists as "contaminated" when I opened discussions with Sinn Fein/IRA. Such dialogue can never be even remotely seen to condone terrorism, but it can begin to explore ways out of it. We talked and so did the IRA, because after 30 years of "troubles" there could be no military winners.
After 50 years, there are no winners in the Middle East. This latest war of losers has achieved nothing for poor Lebanon but virtual destruction. Hizbollah took a pasting but attracted many more recruits to its cause. Israel gained some added security, but at the cost of many vital friendships in the area.
It is time we faced some truths. Terrorism is abhorrent and criminal and must be eliminated with all the means at our disposal. But terrorism does not exist - nor are terrorists raised and radicalised - in a vacuum. Terrorism depends on the communities within which it finds support for shelter. It recruits from within those communities by setting itself out as their defenders; defending their faith, their land or their homes and lives. To do so they must create anger and resentment against those they can portray as the aggressors against them. So for Hamas and Hizbollah, Israel must constantly be seen as a US-backed aggressor, a perception unfortunately aided by the recent war.
Tony Blair rightly talks about the need to win Muslim hearts and minds. Why then does he in the same breath "growing arcs of extremism"? Has he ever asked himself why the "arcs of extremism" are growing? Does he not understand that sanctioning Israel's attrition against Lebanon has hardened, rather than won over, Muslim and Arab hearts?
That is where dancing with wolves, where dialogue with terrorists, comes in. It is, as I know, hard. There will initially be few meetings of minds, but there will be opportunities for resolving misunderstandings and learning to manage differences - and for chances to build bridges rather than blowing them up.
The British have long been refining the process of winning hearts and minds. It must be based on patient confidence building, begun through delicate contacts. It demands the establishing of sufficient mutual trust to be able to meet and to talk. It requires the gradual introduction of a peace dividend, a tangible benefit at each successful step along the peace road. Ultimately, it involves including all those who must be part of the solution but who are currently "off limits".
It may not be possible yet for Israel to speak directly to Hamas, let alone Hizbollah, but there can be no "two state solution" without the eventual involvement of Hamas, and there can be no secure Israel without a permanent cessation of violence by Hizbollah. If they cannot talk yet, then others must pave the way.
And if at the moment these two terrorist groups are unapproachable, then we should be talking to their sponsors in Syria and Iran, whose governments the British know well. The hearts and minds that must be won are those of our enemies as much as of our friends. Their initial intransigence may appear unbreachable, but I learned in Northern Ireland that there are ways of squaring such circles. Talking is not a sign of weakness. You can talk to insurgents and their supporters even when taking military sanction against them.
And instead of macho proclamations about "arcs of extremism", we should be showing the whole Muslim world that we can genuinely and unthreateningly be their friends. That we can be friends of the Palestinians and the Lebanese, and loyal friends of Israel at the same time. It may be hard in the smoke of Haifa and Tyre to envisage this, but if a two-state solution is ever to be achieved, it is essential. The sooner we start dancing with wolves the better.
The writer was minister of state for Northern Ireland (1994-97)
The war in Lebanon, with an uneasy and fragile ceasefire in place, is, for the moment, over. The guns of Israel have almost fallen silent, and the wolves of Hamas and Hizbollah have almost stopped howling. It could, however, at any moment reignite. It is therefore astonishing that our government remains so supinely US-obsessed in the face of what could re-emerge as a genuine threat to international peace and is in effect doing nothing. It is time to start dancing with wolves, to start talking to terrorists.
As we learned in Northern Ireland, terrorism can be contained by military action, but it cannot be defeated by it. In the end, you have to start talking, not necessarily with fanatical leaders who are beyond dialogue, but with those who support them and the communities that give them shelter.
It is not easy. For a short time in 1995 I was ostracised by the Ulster Unionists as "contaminated" when I opened discussions with Sinn Fein/IRA. Such dialogue can never be even remotely seen to condone terrorism, but it can begin to explore ways out of it. We talked and so did the IRA, because after 30 years of "troubles" there could be no military winners.
After 50 years, there are no winners in the Middle East. This latest war of losers has achieved nothing for poor Lebanon but virtual destruction. Hizbollah took a pasting but attracted many more recruits to its cause. Israel gained some added security, but at the cost of many vital friendships in the area.
It is time we faced some truths. Terrorism is abhorrent and criminal and must be eliminated with all the means at our disposal. But terrorism does not exist - nor are terrorists raised and radicalised - in a vacuum. Terrorism depends on the communities within which it finds support for shelter. It recruits from within those communities by setting itself out as their defenders; defending their faith, their land or their homes and lives. To do so they must create anger and resentment against those they can portray as the aggressors against them. So for Hamas and Hizbollah, Israel must constantly be seen as a US-backed aggressor, a perception unfortunately aided by the recent war.
Tony Blair rightly talks about the need to win Muslim hearts and minds. Why then does he in the same breath "growing arcs of extremism"? Has he ever asked himself why the "arcs of extremism" are growing? Does he not understand that sanctioning Israel's attrition against Lebanon has hardened, rather than won over, Muslim and Arab hearts?
That is where dancing with wolves, where dialogue with terrorists, comes in. It is, as I know, hard. There will initially be few meetings of minds, but there will be opportunities for resolving misunderstandings and learning to manage differences - and for chances to build bridges rather than blowing them up.
The British have long been refining the process of winning hearts and minds. It must be based on patient confidence building, begun through delicate contacts. It demands the establishing of sufficient mutual trust to be able to meet
23 August, 2006
PEACE = PEACE
Re-printed from Ma'ariv, one of the biggest newspaper in Israel
Peace Against Islamization
by Yariv Oppenheimer Ma’ariv - August 23, 2006
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the Israeli-Syrian conflict, play into the hands of Iran, which seeks to destroy Israel, and serve as fertile ground for expanding the opposition to Israel in the Middle East, in the Arab countries and throughout the entire world.In the internal Arab arena, Hizbullah and the extremist Islamic elements are using the conflict with the Palestinians and with Syria to justify their actions against Israel, and to unite the Arab world on their side. It is very difficult to convince the world in general, and the Arab world in particular, of the justness of our cause, when in recent years Israel has appeared as an occupying state, which controls some 3.5 million Palestinians and constantly battles against them. The continuation of the occupation undermines Israel’s international legitimacy in the world, and portrays it as the aggressor in the Middle East.
Militarily speaking, the war with the Palestinians strengthens the situation of our enemies from the north and the east. Even before the outbreak of the confrontation in the north, large forces were forced to deal with routine security tasks throughout the West Bank, instead of training and preparing for a violent military clash that could break out at any moment. From a budgetary standpoint as well, the IDF has been forced to invest huge sums in guarding settlements and fighting the Palestinians, at the expense of training and buying equipment for confrontations with Arab states and terror organizations.
Instead of training for fighting the enemy, soldiers of the Armored Corps, Engineering Corps and infantry were compelled to stand for hours at roadblocks in the territories and to run around in the Palestinian villages in search of wanted men.
Moreover, the war in the north exposed the fact that in the Intifada years, the Palestinian terror organizations carefully studied the IDF’s modes of operation, and passed on the information to hostile elements such as Iran and Hizbullah. All these things weakened the IDF’s strength and damaged the army’s readiness for the approaching war.
Within Israeli society, the war in the north proved that even if there are differences of opinion on the necessity of the military operation and the tactics by which it was waged, at the end of the day the national consensus is broader than ever.
When there is no question of controlling another people, establishing settlements and occupying land, the IDF and the government are given full backing from the Israeli public to fight an enemy that seeks to destroy the entire state.
At the conclusion of the warfare in the north, Israeli society must accept the immediate need to quickly move towards peace with Syria and the Palestinians, and to establish a Palestinian state that will live as a neighbor alongside Israel. Resolving the conflict with Syria, ending the occupation and establishing a permanent border between Israel and the Palestinians are a strategic need, which will enable Israel to stand firm against the increasing threats on the part of Iran and the extremist Islamic movements, which seek the destruction of the state. Only peace agreements with the Palestinians and Syria will succeed in isolating fundamentalist Islam and leading to final and absolute recognition by the Arab world of the State of Israel’s status and right to exist.
In the new reality, peace is neither a privilege nor a luxury. Peace is a strategic asset of the first order, which will enable Israel to face existential dangers. Conversely, the continuation of the confrontation in the West Bank and Gaza, as well as the conflict with Syria, will continue to weigh down on Israel’s neck like a millstone, and will damage the state’s military, diplomatic and internal fortitude in the face of existential threats from without.
Yariv Oppenheimer is the director of Peace Now.
Peace Against Islamization
by Yariv Oppenheimer Ma’ariv - August 23, 2006
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the Israeli-Syrian conflict, play into the hands of Iran, which seeks to destroy Israel, and serve as fertile ground for expanding the opposition to Israel in the Middle East, in the Arab countries and throughout the entire world.In the internal Arab arena, Hizbullah and the extremist Islamic elements are using the conflict with the Palestinians and with Syria to justify their actions against Israel, and to unite the Arab world on their side. It is very difficult to convince the world in general, and the Arab world in particular, of the justness of our cause, when in recent years Israel has appeared as an occupying state, which controls some 3.5 million Palestinians and constantly battles against them. The continuation of the occupation undermines Israel’s international legitimacy in the world, and portrays it as the aggressor in the Middle East.
Militarily speaking, the war with the Palestinians strengthens the situation of our enemies from the north and the east. Even before the outbreak of the confrontation in the north, large forces were forced to deal with routine security tasks throughout the West Bank, instead of training and preparing for a violent military clash that could break out at any moment. From a budgetary standpoint as well, the IDF has been forced to invest huge sums in guarding settlements and fighting the Palestinians, at the expense of training and buying equipment for confrontations with Arab states and terror organizations.
Instead of training for fighting the enemy, soldiers of the Armored Corps, Engineering Corps and infantry were compelled to stand for hours at roadblocks in the territories and to run around in the Palestinian villages in search of wanted men.
Moreover, the war in the north exposed the fact that in the Intifada years, the Palestinian terror organizations carefully studied the IDF’s modes of operation, and passed on the information to hostile elements such as Iran and Hizbullah. All these things weakened the IDF’s strength and damaged the army’s readiness for the approaching war.
Within Israeli society, the war in the north proved that even if there are differences of opinion on the necessity of the military operation and the tactics by which it was waged, at the end of the day the national consensus is broader than ever.
When there is no question of controlling another people, establishing settlements and occupying land, the IDF and the government are given full backing from the Israeli public to fight an enemy that seeks to destroy the entire state.
At the conclusion of the warfare in the north, Israeli society must accept the immediate need to quickly move towards peace with Syria and the Palestinians, and to establish a Palestinian state that will live as a neighbor alongside Israel. Resolving the conflict with Syria, ending the occupation and establishing a permanent border between Israel and the Palestinians are a strategic need, which will enable Israel to stand firm against the increasing threats on the part of Iran and the extremist Islamic movements, which seek the destruction of the state. Only peace agreements with the Palestinians and Syria will succeed in isolating fundamentalist Islam and leading to final and absolute recognition by the Arab world of the State of Israel’s status and right to exist.
In the new reality, peace is neither a privilege nor a luxury. Peace is a strategic asset of the first order, which will enable Israel to face existential dangers. Conversely, the continuation of the confrontation in the West Bank and Gaza, as well as the conflict with Syria, will continue to weigh down on Israel’s neck like a millstone, and will damage the state’s military, diplomatic and internal fortitude in the face of existential threats from without.
Yariv Oppenheimer is the director of Peace Now.
20 August, 2006
WE COULD REALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE!
As is my habit, I've visited the blogs of those who have visited mine, and came across a story on Nutter's Notes blog http://nuttersnotes.blogspot.com/ which both tore my heart and also inspired me. Friends of his have a baby who is about to get a bone marrow transplant for a rare immune disorder. They need assistance with items insurance can't cover -- basic things, like the cost for the mom to stay at a nearby motel near the hospital. Bloggers, they are only looking to raise 5000 dollars! They are more than half way there, already. The baby gets the transplant (hopefully) later this month. I just donated 20 dollars, which is what I can do. It doesn't take a heck of a lot of 20 dollar (or less or more) donations to get to 5000 dollars. These people are asking for help for very simple, tangible things. I don't have kids, but as y'all know, I have two cats who get intensive medical care. If someone helped us with cab fare, for example, that would make a real simple and immediately tangible difference. These people have a baby who is in dire health. We can, at least, make it so they don't have to scrounge for change to get a night's sleep nearby. For once, this is something WE CAN DO. WE CAN MAKE THIS POSSIBLE. This doesn't require Bill Gates. And, we can really do it! In this insane world, let's do one fantastic thing!
Here's the link to read more about the baby.
http://www.freepowerboards.com/maddox/portal.php
Here's the link to read more about the baby.
http://www.freepowerboards.com/maddox/portal.php
19 August, 2006
US Promotes hatred of Gays and Lesbians Around the World
I know that we have several crises in the world, but I just want people to be aware of the fact that the US government prevented two Gay and Lesbian International Organizations from joining the UN. They were supported by their good friends over in Iran. I guess Korea isn't interested in being anti-gay. I've pasted the article from The Free Press below.
Here's the link to the article, as well:
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/7/2006/1806
U.S. Supports Iran in Rejecting Gay Rights Organizations at the UN
by Gene C. Gerard
February 19, 2006
Given the Bush administration’s rhetoric regarding the Iranian government you wouldn’t think the two have much, if anything, in common. In his 2002 State of the Union address President Bush referred to Iran as part of an “axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.” And he criticized the Iranian government’s efforts to “repress the Iranian people’s hope of freedom.” This week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice testified before the Senate regarding the administration’s request for $75 million to help further democracy in Iran, in which she stated that Iran was under the control of a “radical regime.” Yet the Bush administration recently went out of its way to support an Iranian initiative to deny access to gay and lesbian organizations within the United Nations. Both the U.S. and Iranian governments serve on the United Nations Economic and Social Council. Two international gay and lesbian rights organizations recently applied to the council for consultative status. Holding this status is the only way for non-governmental organizations to participate in discussions among member states in the United Nations (UN). Approximately 3,000 non-governmental organizations presently hold this status. Iran’s government moved to have the gay and lesbian organizations’ applications rejected without discussion, which is largely unheard of at the UN. Although France and Germany voted against the rejection, the U.S. government sided with Iran, and was joined by Cameroon and Zimbabwe, in successfully denying UN access to the gay rights organizations. Instead of creating a coalition of the respectful, the U.S. government help create a coalition of the hateful. In doing so, the Bush administration joined forces with some of the most repressive regimes in modern history. Under Iranian law, engaging in homosexual relations is illegal and punishable by death. And merely being gay is a crime punishable by being receiving 100 lashes. According to a report by the French newspaper Le Monde, in 1999 Iran killed ten men for homosexuality by stoning them. In 2000, 16 men were stoned to death. And in 2001, 12 men were stoned for being gay. In July of last year the Iranian regime was the subject of international criticism after it hung two teenage boys who were accused of being gay. According to one study, the Iranian government has executed over 4,000 men for homosexuality since 1979. The African nation of Cameroon has an equally callused history regarding the treatment of homosexuals. Under Cameroon’s harsh legal system being gay is a crime punishable by a prison sentence of six months to five years. In May of last year 11 men were arrested in Yaounde, Cameroon on the suspicion of being gay. They are still in jail today and likely will be for several more years. The Cameroon government also condones a widespread police practice of anally sodomizing men arrested for suspicion of being gay. In Zimbabwe homosexuality is illegal and men convicted of being gay are subject to a ten year prison term. The nation’s president, Robert Mugabe, has long been an outspoken critic of homosexuals and gay rights. In a 1995 speech President Mugabe stated, “I don’t believe they [homosexuals] have any rights at all” and “these people behave worse than dogs and pigs.” Later that year Mr. Mugabe encouraged the public to hunt down homosexuals, and many gay men were beaten and had their homes fire-bombed. In 2002, after rumors circulated that homosexuals were serving in his administration, President Mugabe ordered the state’s intelligence agency to spy on public officials who were alleged to be homosexuals. No doubt this involved eavesdropping on their telephone calls and e-mails. After five years in office most Americans understand that Mr. Bush is not a leader, or a man, who can be taken for his word. Time after time the rhetoric of his administration has only vaguely, at best, resembled the actions of his administration. In 2002 Mr. Bush declared, “There are no second-class citizens in the human race. I carry this commitment in my soul.” But by siding with Iran and preventing gay rights organizations from attending UN meetings and conferences, President Bush sent the clear, distinct message that gay people do not merit the same consideration as everyone else. At the same time, the Bush administration lent credence and support to a loathsome regime. In her testimony before the Senate last week, Secretary of State Rice complained about efforts by Iran’s government to restrict the freedoms of the Iranian people and to deny them their basic human rights. President Bush has previously stated that the Iranian regime “poses a grave and growing danger.” Given the administration’s contempt for the Iranian government, it’s difficult to understand why it chose to side with Iran and prevent gay rights groups from having access to the UN. Perhaps the Bush administration and the Iranian regime are simply birds of a feather.
Here's the link to the article, as well:
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/7/2006/1806
U.S. Supports Iran in Rejecting Gay Rights Organizations at the UN
by Gene C. Gerard
February 19, 2006
Given the Bush administration’s rhetoric regarding the Iranian government you wouldn’t think the two have much, if anything, in common. In his 2002 State of the Union address President Bush referred to Iran as part of an “axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.” And he criticized the Iranian government’s efforts to “repress the Iranian people’s hope of freedom.” This week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice testified before the Senate regarding the administration’s request for $75 million to help further democracy in Iran, in which she stated that Iran was under the control of a “radical regime.” Yet the Bush administration recently went out of its way to support an Iranian initiative to deny access to gay and lesbian organizations within the United Nations. Both the U.S. and Iranian governments serve on the United Nations Economic and Social Council. Two international gay and lesbian rights organizations recently applied to the council for consultative status. Holding this status is the only way for non-governmental organizations to participate in discussions among member states in the United Nations (UN). Approximately 3,000 non-governmental organizations presently hold this status. Iran’s government moved to have the gay and lesbian organizations’ applications rejected without discussion, which is largely unheard of at the UN. Although France and Germany voted against the rejection, the U.S. government sided with Iran, and was joined by Cameroon and Zimbabwe, in successfully denying UN access to the gay rights organizations. Instead of creating a coalition of the respectful, the U.S. government help create a coalition of the hateful. In doing so, the Bush administration joined forces with some of the most repressive regimes in modern history. Under Iranian law, engaging in homosexual relations is illegal and punishable by death. And merely being gay is a crime punishable by being receiving 100 lashes. According to a report by the French newspaper Le Monde, in 1999 Iran killed ten men for homosexuality by stoning them. In 2000, 16 men were stoned to death. And in 2001, 12 men were stoned for being gay. In July of last year the Iranian regime was the subject of international criticism after it hung two teenage boys who were accused of being gay. According to one study, the Iranian government has executed over 4,000 men for homosexuality since 1979. The African nation of Cameroon has an equally callused history regarding the treatment of homosexuals. Under Cameroon’s harsh legal system being gay is a crime punishable by a prison sentence of six months to five years. In May of last year 11 men were arrested in Yaounde, Cameroon on the suspicion of being gay. They are still in jail today and likely will be for several more years. The Cameroon government also condones a widespread police practice of anally sodomizing men arrested for suspicion of being gay. In Zimbabwe homosexuality is illegal and men convicted of being gay are subject to a ten year prison term. The nation’s president, Robert Mugabe, has long been an outspoken critic of homosexuals and gay rights. In a 1995 speech President Mugabe stated, “I don’t believe they [homosexuals] have any rights at all” and “these people behave worse than dogs and pigs.” Later that year Mr. Mugabe encouraged the public to hunt down homosexuals, and many gay men were beaten and had their homes fire-bombed. In 2002, after rumors circulated that homosexuals were serving in his administration, President Mugabe ordered the state’s intelligence agency to spy on public officials who were alleged to be homosexuals. No doubt this involved eavesdropping on their telephone calls and e-mails. After five years in office most Americans understand that Mr. Bush is not a leader, or a man, who can be taken for his word. Time after time the rhetoric of his administration has only vaguely, at best, resembled the actions of his administration. In 2002 Mr. Bush declared, “There are no second-class citizens in the human race. I carry this commitment in my soul.” But by siding with Iran and preventing gay rights organizations from attending UN meetings and conferences, President Bush sent the clear, distinct message that gay people do not merit the same consideration as everyone else. At the same time, the Bush administration lent credence and support to a loathsome regime. In her testimony before the Senate last week, Secretary of State Rice complained about efforts by Iran’s government to restrict the freedoms of the Iranian people and to deny them their basic human rights. President Bush has previously stated that the Iranian regime “poses a grave and growing danger.” Given the administration’s contempt for the Iranian government, it’s difficult to understand why it chose to side with Iran and prevent gay rights groups from having access to the UN. Perhaps the Bush administration and the Iranian regime are simply birds of a feather.
18 August, 2006
Larry and Henry on Happiness
Larry: Henry snuck up behind me.
H: People!
Larry: Hello--I'm Lorenz Frederick Queequeg Kay, but everyone calls me, Larry. I'm orange, Henry's white, same face, same tail, same food allergies. Not same heart problems, though, or same ear problems. Go figure.
H: People!
Larry: I know, Henry. Hello. First, I want to say thatI put the first picture up for mommy Karen, who I used to play, "pet me or I'll scratch you" with and who thought I was so cute---
H: ---Purr...thank you for listening to me...purr...My mommy named me Henry, but she tends to call me, "Henny" or "Hennybunny" or "Hennybee". It's okay. I forgive her. They all sound good and maybe she just can't decide...purr. I love it when people listen to me...
L: HE LOVES EVERYTHING...That's why I worry. It's not that I don't love everything. It's just, Henry tends to purr first, ask questions later. Like the time he got stuck under the refrigerator and I had to spend forty minutes with my nose pointed at his little rear end, until mommy figured out where he was. You see, I can't control Henry or my mommy. What if she hadn't figured it out? Anyway, I'm always thankful that she did and that Henry is here with me.
You see, he and I used to live on the street. One day, this nice lady, Laila, captured me--I let her because she had been feeding us for months. That's why I trusted her, but Henry was still out looking for food when she came to get me. (I told him she was coming, but back then he was always afraid to be hungry, so...) She PROMISED me she would go get Henry and I knew she would because she always came to feed us practically every day and she fought off people who tried to hurt us. So, I knew she would get Henry and she did, of course. She captured Henry a week later. That was a hard week for me. I was so worried that Henry was by himself. He hates to be alone.
H: purr.
L: That's what he says, now. He cried every night for three weeks when he got here. I told him we were safe, but he wouldn't listen. Sometimes Henry is like one big panic attack.
H: (walking away) I don't know what you are talking about....
L: That's what he does anytime someone brings up his first few weeks in our new home with the hairless cat we call, "mommy". She feeds us every day, cleans up after us, plays with us and is always petting and kissing us. I learned that kissing is like when I wash Henry. It means that we are her little babies. Henry is actually my older brother by a minute. We were born to the same mother and we both have the same face and striped tails to prove it. Henry was the biggest kitten of the litter and just after he was born, I snuck out. As soon as I saw him, I knew, "This is my brother Henry and he will need me for the rest of his life." Henry has a very strange heartbeat and, before we moved in with The Hairless Mommy, he used to collapse after running. I had to watch him for a long time and make sure he was okay. Now Henry takes medicine every night and he doesn't collapse like that. We get our medicine at "the big hospital we drive to".
H: It's not a hospital. It's a SPA. And it was created just for me. When I go there, everybody greets me, and tons of young doctors pet me and cuddle me while they run this little massager over my chest.
L: It's an echocardiogram, Henry.
H: It was invented to massage me.
L: Ok....
H: If it wasn't, then how come every time they use it, I get a massage?
L: I'm glad you like it. (Aside) He thinks life is one big party.
H: It IS a big party. We get food every day brought to us and new water and toys and I even get a pill that makes my chest feel so good.
L: Purr. I love watching you be so happy...
H: What are we going to do about Mommy?
L: What we always do: We'll keep double-teaming her until she smiles.
H: But the smiles go away...Sometimes I almost worry, but then I look at my food dish.
L: Don't worry, Henry. I got it covered.
H: Purr.
L: We lost mommy Karen almost a year ago. She made our mommy very happy and less worried, most of the time. So, Henry and I double-team mommy with purrs and snuggles. It helps while we do it.
H: That's why I like to do it all day.
L: I have the night shift, see. The trouble is, like me, mommy always worries.
H: purr. Look at me: I'm watching the world upside down on the windowsill!
L: We try to keep our mommy busy. For her sake...and for ours. Especially mine because I have a tendency to worry...
H: (coming over and tackling Larry) Larry, larry, larry. You are so ticklish!
L: purr...okay...purr...stop...purr, purr, purr...
15 August, 2006
Am I the only person who is frightened?
No, I'm not afraid of terrorism. As Randi Rhodes pointed out, and John Kerry before her, fighting terror is a matter of good intelligence working with a good police force. I think we are wasting our NYPD having them do random bag searches in subways. They know that anyone with a serious interest in causing harm would be much more devious because they have seen much worse. They see much worse breaking up fights in some of our worst high schools. One local school is so chaotic that the neighborhood stores shut down at 3pm and don't open until the students have left.
I'm more frightened of what makes our students behave like terrorists. And selfishly, even more frightened of the fact that I bought into the American dream that hard work and an education would help me to advance, and they haven't. In fact, my education has begun to work against me, as I am much more in need of training in psychology, counseling -- I need some hard strategies for how to teach a student body which grows more and more inflexible and desperate every year. And no one will pay for this training, so I am about to get myself into debt. I have accomplished the bare minimum I set out to do. I have moved away from home and have privacy. I grew up without my own room and without any level of personal space, so this has been a tremendous relief. Perhaps it is all there is for me.
As a person with Asperger's Syndrome, I am often stumped by the simplest things. This makes it hard for me to work with traditional students because I don't know how to blend in -- I'm clueless about the unspoken codes of dress, behavior and attitude which exist even in the neighborhood in which I was raised. All of my life, I have been an outsider. An observer at worst, an amateur sociologist at best. I don't respond at all to popular music or trends, and in fact, I often can't understand or follow them, literally. By the time I have caught on, the next items have become popular. Perhaps I could present myself as a "scholarly nerd" but more is wrong with me than this: when I get depressed, I lose the little bit of ability I have to "pose". Since I don't respond to the peer pressure to dress up, etc., it is a tremendous effort for me to put on the various costumes of work and play. I'd live my life in cotton t-shirts, sweaters and jeans if I could, both because these are easy to manage and because, one result of A.S. is having sensitivities to fabric, light, smell and food. Putting on lipstick actually makes my lips feel awful.
I have to take it off or I can't talk. Cotton never bothers me.
In the world of the at-risk student, my oddnesses are signals that I might be sympathetic. While none of my students would want to be me -- or any teacher, for reasons I better explain below -- they look at me and they can see what I feel and think right on my face. I can hide nothing because I simply can't. Honesty is a big asset when you are working with students who don't trust anybody.
The problem for me is that the world I live in is collapsing and I am unprepared. A product of gifted and talented programs and selective schools, I've always been rewarded for my academic work, especially my use of language. Even at work, a great deal of tolerance has been accorded me because of my ability to speak and to sometimes clarify difficult ideas gracefully. However, as teachers become, as Kamsin put it, "disposable commodities" principals are inclined to find fault as much as possible, on the theory that, in a failing system, one mediocrity is exchangeable for another. (Kamsin's comment is to the post which precedes this one on my blog. Her blog can be found at http://thefarsideofthesea.blogspot.com/) That there may be aspects of my work which have helped me to survive and my students to succeed beyond expectations is unimportant. In a system designed to burn out young enthusiasm, sparks of love and admiration are also replaceable. Besides, at 28, though I was sloppy in classroom management and graded more with sentiment than sense, I lacked the bitterness I have now and also the ability to fight back when pushed. So, a school system flooded with energetic workers too new to resist their bosses is rapidly coming into being.
Granted that many of these young teachers are being trained more thoroughly through incentive programs. However, they are being trained to work with the problems which currently exist in the system, and they will need to develop their own methodologies and adapt as their students and their respective problems continue to transform. This adaptability is hard to maintain without further training, and also, in an environment which is unappreciative and unwelcoming. Not to mention, at a pay scale that barely keeps up with inflation.
So, selfishly, I am very frightened. I have enough "grit" to face the prospect of terrorists. What I have a hard time facing is the system which creates them.
I'm more frightened of what makes our students behave like terrorists. And selfishly, even more frightened of the fact that I bought into the American dream that hard work and an education would help me to advance, and they haven't. In fact, my education has begun to work against me, as I am much more in need of training in psychology, counseling -- I need some hard strategies for how to teach a student body which grows more and more inflexible and desperate every year. And no one will pay for this training, so I am about to get myself into debt. I have accomplished the bare minimum I set out to do. I have moved away from home and have privacy. I grew up without my own room and without any level of personal space, so this has been a tremendous relief. Perhaps it is all there is for me.
As a person with Asperger's Syndrome, I am often stumped by the simplest things. This makes it hard for me to work with traditional students because I don't know how to blend in -- I'm clueless about the unspoken codes of dress, behavior and attitude which exist even in the neighborhood in which I was raised. All of my life, I have been an outsider. An observer at worst, an amateur sociologist at best. I don't respond at all to popular music or trends, and in fact, I often can't understand or follow them, literally. By the time I have caught on, the next items have become popular. Perhaps I could present myself as a "scholarly nerd" but more is wrong with me than this: when I get depressed, I lose the little bit of ability I have to "pose". Since I don't respond to the peer pressure to dress up, etc., it is a tremendous effort for me to put on the various costumes of work and play. I'd live my life in cotton t-shirts, sweaters and jeans if I could, both because these are easy to manage and because, one result of A.S. is having sensitivities to fabric, light, smell and food. Putting on lipstick actually makes my lips feel awful.
I have to take it off or I can't talk. Cotton never bothers me.
In the world of the at-risk student, my oddnesses are signals that I might be sympathetic. While none of my students would want to be me -- or any teacher, for reasons I better explain below -- they look at me and they can see what I feel and think right on my face. I can hide nothing because I simply can't. Honesty is a big asset when you are working with students who don't trust anybody.
The problem for me is that the world I live in is collapsing and I am unprepared. A product of gifted and talented programs and selective schools, I've always been rewarded for my academic work, especially my use of language. Even at work, a great deal of tolerance has been accorded me because of my ability to speak and to sometimes clarify difficult ideas gracefully. However, as teachers become, as Kamsin put it, "disposable commodities" principals are inclined to find fault as much as possible, on the theory that, in a failing system, one mediocrity is exchangeable for another. (Kamsin's comment is to the post which precedes this one on my blog. Her blog can be found at http://thefarsideofthesea.blogspot.com/) That there may be aspects of my work which have helped me to survive and my students to succeed beyond expectations is unimportant. In a system designed to burn out young enthusiasm, sparks of love and admiration are also replaceable. Besides, at 28, though I was sloppy in classroom management and graded more with sentiment than sense, I lacked the bitterness I have now and also the ability to fight back when pushed. So, a school system flooded with energetic workers too new to resist their bosses is rapidly coming into being.
Granted that many of these young teachers are being trained more thoroughly through incentive programs. However, they are being trained to work with the problems which currently exist in the system, and they will need to develop their own methodologies and adapt as their students and their respective problems continue to transform. This adaptability is hard to maintain without further training, and also, in an environment which is unappreciative and unwelcoming. Not to mention, at a pay scale that barely keeps up with inflation.
So, selfishly, I am very frightened. I have enough "grit" to face the prospect of terrorists. What I have a hard time facing is the system which creates them.
13 August, 2006
Some Israeli pilots deliberately miss targets to save civilians
Read about it here. There are good people everywhere, even in the middle of the madness.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1838437,00.html
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1838437,00.html
12 August, 2006
Who else I might be?
Please note: As you read this, please consider not just my situation, but generally how my story might reflect the way teachers are treated in the US. Your advice to me personally is welcome, but it is far more important to me that you take in how the teaching profession can destroy its teachers. It should be noted that I've been awarded at both the high school and college level for my work and nevertheless, I am LEAVING the profession.
Every ten years or so, I run into my friend Anthony and we pick up wherever we were when we last left off. One question that Anthony always asks me is, "Why don't you just stick to one thing?" Anthony, who is a radio/theater guru more or less does just that all over the world. On the other hand, I am always doing too many things at once, working a "day job," working on theatrical projects, and sometimes on scholarly research, opera or radio projects as well. Most of the time I am only being paid for the day job.
As I have gotten older, Anthony's question has re-surfaced in my consciousness with almost terrifying irony. Sometimes, when I consider the money I might have, had I put all of my energy into money-making ventures only, I become embittered. Perpetually on the verge of having to borrow money, I no longer have the energy I did ten years ago. Not only is it difficult for me to work at so many things, but the fact that my income is pretty static only adds insult to injury. I can't take cabs home from rehearsal anymore so that I am not so tired when I get home. People know of my work and I can generally work on theatrical projects, at least, when I want to -- but the relevance of my art to my own life as well as to the decaying society around me has become a point of contention within my soul. Plus, opportunities for people to commune at intense theatrical events -- like the recent production of Blair Fell's Burning Habits (now closed) -- are few and far between. Those few events are very healing and necessary, however.
The question of "Who I Might Be?" is one I now confront on a regular basis, both because of my inability to work on my art as much as I used to and because of the economy and the tenor of discussions around my day job -- I've been working as a teacher for nearly fifteen years.
In that time, discussions of the end of teacher tenure have become more vociferous and, oddly, commonplace. Even individuals who still might believe that Saddam had WMD, are up-to-date on the "evils" of teacher tenure, the "unfairness" of teacher schedules, and the general failure of teachers currently in schools to be effective. Sadly, none of these convictions are supported by statistics, but by a widespread rage against the classroom. Thus, not only are teachers vilified at work, but they are prohibited by this same sentiment from becoming agents of change within the system in which they work. In NY, the trend is now to bring individuals from business into the position of Chancellor of Schools.
Of course, I understand the feelings of workers from other professions: why should I have job assurances they don't have? No one, however, ever thinks through the realities that treating schools like businesses bring with them: for example, if you keep removing teachers' abilities to be secure in their positions and grow within them, you find yourself with schools that are continually changing staff.
For me this has meant that my "day job" provides me with, among other things:
1) no incentives or financial support for taking classes to develop my skills as a teacher
2) a fear of taking risks -- I do "what works" to gain high scores on state exams, and I don't stray from the program.
3) a student body which is driven to study for exams and NOTHING ELSE.
4) EXHAUSTION and DEPRESSION. Most teachers I know spend their summers recovering from the school year. Not a few spend most of their time in bed. I am among them -- and, oddly, I wasn't five years ago even when I carried responsibilities outside the classroom.
Despite the fact that I have maintained a good record of effectiveness, if I am to follow my friend Anthony's advice, I cannot make teaching the "one thing" I do. The following is a list of professions I have considered:
1) Lawyer. Would love to do it, but the market is glutted. Besides, my chief interests are Criminal and Constitutional law: Can we say, "Legal Aid Slave".
2) Veterinarian. Means: Two years of pre-med courses and seven years or so of Med School/training, etc. I'd do it if it could be done part-time. I have to work full-time to support myself and the twin cats. Unlikely prospect, even if a school would accept a 40 year old applicant -- that's how old I'll be when the pre-med work is done.
3) Accountant: I'm above average at Math. Again, needs to be done part-time. Possible.
4) Nurse: What all of my female students say they want to do because you can make 50,000 or more to start and it is only two years and change of training. Probably what I will do, as well, for the same mercenary reasons. Just accept that it is a given that I do want to help people, which I have been sort of doing as a teacher, I think. I say, "sort of" because I think I barely do enough and that our schools are hideously insufficient. And, of course, after 15 years of teaching, I have achieved STATUS CLOSER AND CLOSER TO THE AT-RISK POPULATION I SERVE. And you wonder why my students don't want to become teachers?
5) Veterinary Technician. I'd do it in a heartbeat, but it is very low paying. Unless I got a job at the teaching hospital where my cats are patients, I won't be able to afford their care, should I take on this job. Bitterly ironic.
6) Psychologist. Do it in a heartbeat. About five years of part-time study, should I be admitted to a program and the loans will be enormous. If I can build up my Spanish, NY has an incentive program which will pay for my training. Possible.
7) Social Worker. Same incentive program pays for bilingual social workers and it will take less time than psychology. More likely.
8) Principal. No can do. You have to get a special license to do it and then you have to have poltical savvy to maintain the position. Do I sound like I have political savvy? Sure, I have ideas about how to run a school, but no one cares about that. In fact, one of my colleagues, who founded our college program at the school and wrote our school's "constitution," was given an unsatisfactory rating because she was late and absent DUE TO ILLNESS. And our UNION says that she won't be able to fight it. While the quality of teaching you do is a matter of debate, even if you are stellar, you CAN'T be satisfactory if you are late or absent. EVEN if your classes don't start at the beginning of the day (meaning that you are late during a time in which no students are around) and YOU STAY late (meaning you are PRESENT when the students are around).
Oh...and what was my colleague doing which made her late? Work for the principal and assistant principal! Meanwhile, my COLLEAGUES IN BUSINESS are allowed to WORK AT HOME all the time. Heck, my friend manages a group in a major corporation in which one of her direct reports works from HIS HOME IN TEXAS while she is in NY. Again, my friend was IN when the students were there and stayed late to keep working with them. She was penalized because she needed to stay home to finish work she was assigned and her illness made it especially difficult for her to just lug herself in early to do this work --all of which was written work requiring no more than her computer to do! But, she wasn't on time...Indeed, even on days when she was VERY SICK she came in and was MARKED ABSENT because she was so late. She did the work anyway. You see, teachers are not credited for work they do outside the classroom and, as far as our principal and superintendent are concerned, teachers CANNOT work outside the classroom...So, I work at a job in which I must do work at home (grade papers, write exams) especially if I do work beyond my classroom (can you write a final, a grant proposal for equipment, college recommendations, and, perhaps, school constitution during your lunch periods, only?) and which DENIES the fact that I do this very work. In fact, should I stay an extra ten minutes at home while my document prints because the printer at work doesn't work, I will be DOCKED FOR LOST TIME....Oh yeah. Observant students want THIS JOB....Ask me why I want tenure in such a job -- it might be insane to want to be secure in such a job. But, if I am going to make daily sacrifices, I'd like to know, at least, that I can keep the job for which I am suffering.
and NOT wanting tenure is exactly what the current government would like...make teaching a profession people work so intensively in with little gratification that they BURN OUT and move on, so that they can keep hiring new and cheap teachers. This is not to say that some great teachers don't come from other professions -- they do. The problem is, hardly anyone, including ME, wants to stay....
9) Freelance Artist. I don't know how much longer I can do this, but I probably will always do some, but less and less. Incidentally, Arts Administrators make less than first year teachers and have no security at all, so again, though I have experience, at least, in the arts, it's not a practical choice.
10) Computer technician. One word: Outsourcing. This is too bad as I could get the training relatively cheaply on-line while I work.
So, my life could go many ways, even if it is ONE way, Anthony. If you're out there, feel free to drop me a line. All readers are invited as well.
Every ten years or so, I run into my friend Anthony and we pick up wherever we were when we last left off. One question that Anthony always asks me is, "Why don't you just stick to one thing?" Anthony, who is a radio/theater guru more or less does just that all over the world. On the other hand, I am always doing too many things at once, working a "day job," working on theatrical projects, and sometimes on scholarly research, opera or radio projects as well. Most of the time I am only being paid for the day job.
As I have gotten older, Anthony's question has re-surfaced in my consciousness with almost terrifying irony. Sometimes, when I consider the money I might have, had I put all of my energy into money-making ventures only, I become embittered. Perpetually on the verge of having to borrow money, I no longer have the energy I did ten years ago. Not only is it difficult for me to work at so many things, but the fact that my income is pretty static only adds insult to injury. I can't take cabs home from rehearsal anymore so that I am not so tired when I get home. People know of my work and I can generally work on theatrical projects, at least, when I want to -- but the relevance of my art to my own life as well as to the decaying society around me has become a point of contention within my soul. Plus, opportunities for people to commune at intense theatrical events -- like the recent production of Blair Fell's Burning Habits (now closed) -- are few and far between. Those few events are very healing and necessary, however.
The question of "Who I Might Be?" is one I now confront on a regular basis, both because of my inability to work on my art as much as I used to and because of the economy and the tenor of discussions around my day job -- I've been working as a teacher for nearly fifteen years.
In that time, discussions of the end of teacher tenure have become more vociferous and, oddly, commonplace. Even individuals who still might believe that Saddam had WMD, are up-to-date on the "evils" of teacher tenure, the "unfairness" of teacher schedules, and the general failure of teachers currently in schools to be effective. Sadly, none of these convictions are supported by statistics, but by a widespread rage against the classroom. Thus, not only are teachers vilified at work, but they are prohibited by this same sentiment from becoming agents of change within the system in which they work. In NY, the trend is now to bring individuals from business into the position of Chancellor of Schools.
Of course, I understand the feelings of workers from other professions: why should I have job assurances they don't have? No one, however, ever thinks through the realities that treating schools like businesses bring with them: for example, if you keep removing teachers' abilities to be secure in their positions and grow within them, you find yourself with schools that are continually changing staff.
For me this has meant that my "day job" provides me with, among other things:
1) no incentives or financial support for taking classes to develop my skills as a teacher
2) a fear of taking risks -- I do "what works" to gain high scores on state exams, and I don't stray from the program.
3) a student body which is driven to study for exams and NOTHING ELSE.
4) EXHAUSTION and DEPRESSION. Most teachers I know spend their summers recovering from the school year. Not a few spend most of their time in bed. I am among them -- and, oddly, I wasn't five years ago even when I carried responsibilities outside the classroom.
Despite the fact that I have maintained a good record of effectiveness, if I am to follow my friend Anthony's advice, I cannot make teaching the "one thing" I do. The following is a list of professions I have considered:
1) Lawyer. Would love to do it, but the market is glutted. Besides, my chief interests are Criminal and Constitutional law: Can we say, "Legal Aid Slave".
2) Veterinarian. Means: Two years of pre-med courses and seven years or so of Med School/training, etc. I'd do it if it could be done part-time. I have to work full-time to support myself and the twin cats. Unlikely prospect, even if a school would accept a 40 year old applicant -- that's how old I'll be when the pre-med work is done.
3) Accountant: I'm above average at Math. Again, needs to be done part-time. Possible.
4) Nurse: What all of my female students say they want to do because you can make 50,000 or more to start and it is only two years and change of training. Probably what I will do, as well, for the same mercenary reasons. Just accept that it is a given that I do want to help people, which I have been sort of doing as a teacher, I think. I say, "sort of" because I think I barely do enough and that our schools are hideously insufficient. And, of course, after 15 years of teaching, I have achieved STATUS CLOSER AND CLOSER TO THE AT-RISK POPULATION I SERVE. And you wonder why my students don't want to become teachers?
5) Veterinary Technician. I'd do it in a heartbeat, but it is very low paying. Unless I got a job at the teaching hospital where my cats are patients, I won't be able to afford their care, should I take on this job. Bitterly ironic.
6) Psychologist. Do it in a heartbeat. About five years of part-time study, should I be admitted to a program and the loans will be enormous. If I can build up my Spanish, NY has an incentive program which will pay for my training. Possible.
7) Social Worker. Same incentive program pays for bilingual social workers and it will take less time than psychology. More likely.
8) Principal. No can do. You have to get a special license to do it and then you have to have poltical savvy to maintain the position. Do I sound like I have political savvy? Sure, I have ideas about how to run a school, but no one cares about that. In fact, one of my colleagues, who founded our college program at the school and wrote our school's "constitution," was given an unsatisfactory rating because she was late and absent DUE TO ILLNESS. And our UNION says that she won't be able to fight it. While the quality of teaching you do is a matter of debate, even if you are stellar, you CAN'T be satisfactory if you are late or absent. EVEN if your classes don't start at the beginning of the day (meaning that you are late during a time in which no students are around) and YOU STAY late (meaning you are PRESENT when the students are around).
Oh...and what was my colleague doing which made her late? Work for the principal and assistant principal! Meanwhile, my COLLEAGUES IN BUSINESS are allowed to WORK AT HOME all the time. Heck, my friend manages a group in a major corporation in which one of her direct reports works from HIS HOME IN TEXAS while she is in NY. Again, my friend was IN when the students were there and stayed late to keep working with them. She was penalized because she needed to stay home to finish work she was assigned and her illness made it especially difficult for her to just lug herself in early to do this work --all of which was written work requiring no more than her computer to do! But, she wasn't on time...Indeed, even on days when she was VERY SICK she came in and was MARKED ABSENT because she was so late. She did the work anyway. You see, teachers are not credited for work they do outside the classroom and, as far as our principal and superintendent are concerned, teachers CANNOT work outside the classroom...So, I work at a job in which I must do work at home (grade papers, write exams) especially if I do work beyond my classroom (can you write a final, a grant proposal for equipment, college recommendations, and, perhaps, school constitution during your lunch periods, only?) and which DENIES the fact that I do this very work. In fact, should I stay an extra ten minutes at home while my document prints because the printer at work doesn't work, I will be DOCKED FOR LOST TIME....Oh yeah. Observant students want THIS JOB....Ask me why I want tenure in such a job -- it might be insane to want to be secure in such a job. But, if I am going to make daily sacrifices, I'd like to know, at least, that I can keep the job for which I am suffering.
and NOT wanting tenure is exactly what the current government would like...make teaching a profession people work so intensively in with little gratification that they BURN OUT and move on, so that they can keep hiring new and cheap teachers. This is not to say that some great teachers don't come from other professions -- they do. The problem is, hardly anyone, including ME, wants to stay....
9) Freelance Artist. I don't know how much longer I can do this, but I probably will always do some, but less and less. Incidentally, Arts Administrators make less than first year teachers and have no security at all, so again, though I have experience, at least, in the arts, it's not a practical choice.
10) Computer technician. One word: Outsourcing. This is too bad as I could get the training relatively cheaply on-line while I work.
So, my life could go many ways, even if it is ONE way, Anthony. If you're out there, feel free to drop me a line. All readers are invited as well.
09 August, 2006
Photos of Protesters in Israel
See photos of women protesting against the war in Israel.http://coalitionofwomen.org/home/english/galleries/jerusalem_haifa_300706
04 August, 2006
Who I might have been?
In response to this week's prompt on Sunday Scribblings
http://sundayscribblings.blogspot.com/
We took a plane at about six in the morning. It was huge and it felt like a big, plastic toy. The windowglass felt like plastic, as well and I made fingerprints and big oval splotches with my breath all over it, while I stood on my knees. A bell clanked softly and my mother tugged on the belt of my outfit. I sat quietly and straight up and then the plane lifted. Everything on the ground looked like dots. I swore I could pick out my Uncle Marty from among them, but I could not. I just thought I should've been able to.
My parents divorce had just finally ended, and no sooner had it done so than we packed our bags and got on a plane to Israel. Israel, 1973. Israel before there was a Jerusalem Plaza, a Tel-Aviv Hilton. When we arrived in Tel-Aviv, it felt much like Brooklyn, except the public pool was much bigger. My great-aunt lived in an attached house on a street of similar houses. Like my grandmother, who had just moved from a similar house, she spent her day in one of several housedresses, and the one she greeted us in was purple with beautiful white, violet and red flowers printed all over it. Unlike my grandmother, she did not use a cane and every morning, she went swimming either in the ocean or in a public pool. Fortunately for me, the public pool sold floaties so that we could go with her sometimes. At five, I was a slip of rubbery joints, with a periscope for a head and almost no voice, always in some sort of polyester jumpsuit. My mother was fond of these, and I owned several of the same ones in different colors. I felt like candy in a wrapper and preferred a shirt I could tear from my shorts and stain liberally. Like my outfits, my bathing suits were always one piece, usually with a skirt. Since I felt and believed I was, at least, part boy, this was especially disturbing. I learned, after a while, that if I didn't look at what I was wearing, then I didn't know what I was wearing. It didn't matter either that I didn't talk much (although I had learned some Hebrew in Kindergarten). Every kid I met did perfectly well to communicate through water-splashes, or in the case of my cousin, an exchange of Pez toys.
It was June when we took that flight and late September when we returned, missing the Yom Kippur War by a few days. In three months, we stayed with six different relatives, all of them in different parts of the country. At Kibbutz Yotvatah, which was founded by my mother's cousin (and son of the great aunt we stayed with) I ran from the "Children's House" where all of the kids slept, ate and grew up together, raised in part by the entire community. I couldn't handle sleeping in a room with so many other kids. Or, the fact that I couldn't choose what and when I wanted to eat. Nor could my mother do well in a world without access to hair dye.
At the end of our stay, however, my mother was offered a job as a reservation clerk at El Al, handling reservations in French --- indeed, we met many French tourists in our time in Israel as my mother is fluent and speaks very little Hebrew. It was a French immigrant named Rachel who helped her to get the job at El Al. Like my mother, she had come to Israel after a bad divorce to start a new life. And like my mother, she found the hardness of the place difficult -- both had come to depend on a circle of friends and on the familiarity of their neighborhoods as comforts. A developing country with a culture that prides itself on independence, it wasn't an especially welcoming place to someone who felt at a loss without subways. In time, she learned the bus schedules, and learnd the Hebrew word for cab, "Sharut," but she felt constantly on edge. In NY, she had been a civil servant on her way to a pension, whose mother lived downstairs. Forgetting the issue of war and terrorism, the country didn't offer the kind of security she was looking for, and we were both sometimes astonished by the poverty. At one time, we saw an entire family begging in Jerusalem. You'd think I'd be used to it coming from NY, but it disturbed me to see someone my own age begging for food. We went home not out of fear of terrorists, but because we didn't then have the guts to stake our claims in what felt like something very new.
Those of you who have been to Israel, say, in the 1990's, know, of course, that Tel-Aviv has more theaters than NYC, Jerusalem has several major hotels and that the economy is still a roller coaster. Given what I know, here's a guess at what I might have been, had we stayed.
Most likely, we would have moved in with my great uncle, Aaron, whose children were college age and who had a spare room. Aaron, who still lives in a suburb of Tel-Aviv, was the foreman of a construction crew which included Arabs and Jews. He came to Israel in his early teens after surviving Auschwitz. He was one of five of eleven siblings to survive the holocaust. Lucky for him, he had an early growth spurt and was nearly six feet tall at twelve years old, so the Nazi's didn't realize how young he was. Aaron has immense patience and he was able to get me to stop being afraid of the giant and beautiful butterflies who frequented his terrace. I was really quite small, and the butterflies seemed almost to be the size of my face. Their purples and oranges shocked me. Aaron's crew members had given him a set of wooden musical instruments as a welcoming present for me, and I tried hard to play the pan pipes, but never could. The flute and small drum, however, were close friends, and I played them softly before I went to bed every night.
Once my mother had saved enough money, we would've moved back to Tel-Aviv. My mother would've learned Hebrew at the local Ulpan school for immigrants. A staunch zionist, she'd've volunteered for the army. At thirty-three, she was in good physical condition and could climb large hills in sandals with five-inch heels. If that's not testimony to leg strength, then I don't know what is. Since she is good at learning languages, she might've been assigned to some kind of intelligence unit, or like my cousin, to working in a radar station -- she has excellent skills in navigation and very fast reflexes. As for the hair dye, she'd've let it go, I think. As it was, a blonde in Israel almost felt unnatural. In her natural shade, she might've appeared to be Arab or the half-Sephardic, half-Eastern European Jew that she is. She is dark, with Cher-like cheekbones.
In the early 70's, a single mother was an anomaly in NY. She found it hard to make friends. In Israel, perhaps she and Rachel would've gotten close, at least. In her late thirties, my mother developed mental illness which might have been alleviated, somewhat, by having a close friend and perhaps, a community of fellow immigrants.
The continued fighting, however, would've embittered her somewhat. At the same time, my family in Israel is largely socialist. They are eager for peace and two-state recognition. One thing, however: my mother's favorite cousin, a Ph.D. in Horticulture working on Kibbutz Yotvatah, was blown up as he turned on his car. He survived as a quadraplegic for a few years, but that broke my mother's heart. I don't know if being in the army and living through combat would've made her more bloodthirsty. It should be noted that his two brothers were also killed in battle. My great aunt outlived all her sons, dying only recently, in her early 100's. She was very interested in peace treaties.
What would've happened to me:
As a kid, no one knew I had Asperger's Syndrome. My fine motor skills were poor, but I was very academically strong. As my mother became ill, I began to act out. In NY, I was given a lot of liberty, first by a progressive Hebrew school, then a specialized high school. I don't know if I would've found an academic program in which to hide.
Like my cousin, I think I also would've been assigned to a radar station. I'm good at puzzles and codes so that might've also come in handy. Hopefully, I would've been lucky enough to grow up with both Arabs and Jews and would've been active in the peace movement.
Given the opportunity to enter into an immediate structure away from home, at an early age, I probably would've stayed in the army and never have gone on to study theater. Right now, I might be in jail, protesting the war in Lebanon, or I might be drawing the plans for the bombing.
If I were doing the latter, it would be as much out of the same fear for my survival that kept us from moving to Israel -- and having done so, I would have overcome that fear, hopefully. My mother and I came back from Israel, she went back to the Civil Service, and, despite much aggravation, neither of us has ever taken a major risk in our lives. Ironically, having risked something, I might be more inclined to speak my mind and take action than I am now.
http://sundayscribblings.blogspot.com/
We took a plane at about six in the morning. It was huge and it felt like a big, plastic toy. The windowglass felt like plastic, as well and I made fingerprints and big oval splotches with my breath all over it, while I stood on my knees. A bell clanked softly and my mother tugged on the belt of my outfit. I sat quietly and straight up and then the plane lifted. Everything on the ground looked like dots. I swore I could pick out my Uncle Marty from among them, but I could not. I just thought I should've been able to.
My parents divorce had just finally ended, and no sooner had it done so than we packed our bags and got on a plane to Israel. Israel, 1973. Israel before there was a Jerusalem Plaza, a Tel-Aviv Hilton. When we arrived in Tel-Aviv, it felt much like Brooklyn, except the public pool was much bigger. My great-aunt lived in an attached house on a street of similar houses. Like my grandmother, who had just moved from a similar house, she spent her day in one of several housedresses, and the one she greeted us in was purple with beautiful white, violet and red flowers printed all over it. Unlike my grandmother, she did not use a cane and every morning, she went swimming either in the ocean or in a public pool. Fortunately for me, the public pool sold floaties so that we could go with her sometimes. At five, I was a slip of rubbery joints, with a periscope for a head and almost no voice, always in some sort of polyester jumpsuit. My mother was fond of these, and I owned several of the same ones in different colors. I felt like candy in a wrapper and preferred a shirt I could tear from my shorts and stain liberally. Like my outfits, my bathing suits were always one piece, usually with a skirt. Since I felt and believed I was, at least, part boy, this was especially disturbing. I learned, after a while, that if I didn't look at what I was wearing, then I didn't know what I was wearing. It didn't matter either that I didn't talk much (although I had learned some Hebrew in Kindergarten). Every kid I met did perfectly well to communicate through water-splashes, or in the case of my cousin, an exchange of Pez toys.
It was June when we took that flight and late September when we returned, missing the Yom Kippur War by a few days. In three months, we stayed with six different relatives, all of them in different parts of the country. At Kibbutz Yotvatah, which was founded by my mother's cousin (and son of the great aunt we stayed with) I ran from the "Children's House" where all of the kids slept, ate and grew up together, raised in part by the entire community. I couldn't handle sleeping in a room with so many other kids. Or, the fact that I couldn't choose what and when I wanted to eat. Nor could my mother do well in a world without access to hair dye.
At the end of our stay, however, my mother was offered a job as a reservation clerk at El Al, handling reservations in French --- indeed, we met many French tourists in our time in Israel as my mother is fluent and speaks very little Hebrew. It was a French immigrant named Rachel who helped her to get the job at El Al. Like my mother, she had come to Israel after a bad divorce to start a new life. And like my mother, she found the hardness of the place difficult -- both had come to depend on a circle of friends and on the familiarity of their neighborhoods as comforts. A developing country with a culture that prides itself on independence, it wasn't an especially welcoming place to someone who felt at a loss without subways. In time, she learned the bus schedules, and learnd the Hebrew word for cab, "Sharut," but she felt constantly on edge. In NY, she had been a civil servant on her way to a pension, whose mother lived downstairs. Forgetting the issue of war and terrorism, the country didn't offer the kind of security she was looking for, and we were both sometimes astonished by the poverty. At one time, we saw an entire family begging in Jerusalem. You'd think I'd be used to it coming from NY, but it disturbed me to see someone my own age begging for food. We went home not out of fear of terrorists, but because we didn't then have the guts to stake our claims in what felt like something very new.
Those of you who have been to Israel, say, in the 1990's, know, of course, that Tel-Aviv has more theaters than NYC, Jerusalem has several major hotels and that the economy is still a roller coaster. Given what I know, here's a guess at what I might have been, had we stayed.
Most likely, we would have moved in with my great uncle, Aaron, whose children were college age and who had a spare room. Aaron, who still lives in a suburb of Tel-Aviv, was the foreman of a construction crew which included Arabs and Jews. He came to Israel in his early teens after surviving Auschwitz. He was one of five of eleven siblings to survive the holocaust. Lucky for him, he had an early growth spurt and was nearly six feet tall at twelve years old, so the Nazi's didn't realize how young he was. Aaron has immense patience and he was able to get me to stop being afraid of the giant and beautiful butterflies who frequented his terrace. I was really quite small, and the butterflies seemed almost to be the size of my face. Their purples and oranges shocked me. Aaron's crew members had given him a set of wooden musical instruments as a welcoming present for me, and I tried hard to play the pan pipes, but never could. The flute and small drum, however, were close friends, and I played them softly before I went to bed every night.
Once my mother had saved enough money, we would've moved back to Tel-Aviv. My mother would've learned Hebrew at the local Ulpan school for immigrants. A staunch zionist, she'd've volunteered for the army. At thirty-three, she was in good physical condition and could climb large hills in sandals with five-inch heels. If that's not testimony to leg strength, then I don't know what is. Since she is good at learning languages, she might've been assigned to some kind of intelligence unit, or like my cousin, to working in a radar station -- she has excellent skills in navigation and very fast reflexes. As for the hair dye, she'd've let it go, I think. As it was, a blonde in Israel almost felt unnatural. In her natural shade, she might've appeared to be Arab or the half-Sephardic, half-Eastern European Jew that she is. She is dark, with Cher-like cheekbones.
In the early 70's, a single mother was an anomaly in NY. She found it hard to make friends. In Israel, perhaps she and Rachel would've gotten close, at least. In her late thirties, my mother developed mental illness which might have been alleviated, somewhat, by having a close friend and perhaps, a community of fellow immigrants.
The continued fighting, however, would've embittered her somewhat. At the same time, my family in Israel is largely socialist. They are eager for peace and two-state recognition. One thing, however: my mother's favorite cousin, a Ph.D. in Horticulture working on Kibbutz Yotvatah, was blown up as he turned on his car. He survived as a quadraplegic for a few years, but that broke my mother's heart. I don't know if being in the army and living through combat would've made her more bloodthirsty. It should be noted that his two brothers were also killed in battle. My great aunt outlived all her sons, dying only recently, in her early 100's. She was very interested in peace treaties.
What would've happened to me:
As a kid, no one knew I had Asperger's Syndrome. My fine motor skills were poor, but I was very academically strong. As my mother became ill, I began to act out. In NY, I was given a lot of liberty, first by a progressive Hebrew school, then a specialized high school. I don't know if I would've found an academic program in which to hide.
Like my cousin, I think I also would've been assigned to a radar station. I'm good at puzzles and codes so that might've also come in handy. Hopefully, I would've been lucky enough to grow up with both Arabs and Jews and would've been active in the peace movement.
Given the opportunity to enter into an immediate structure away from home, at an early age, I probably would've stayed in the army and never have gone on to study theater. Right now, I might be in jail, protesting the war in Lebanon, or I might be drawing the plans for the bombing.
If I were doing the latter, it would be as much out of the same fear for my survival that kept us from moving to Israel -- and having done so, I would have overcome that fear, hopefully. My mother and I came back from Israel, she went back to the Civil Service, and, despite much aggravation, neither of us has ever taken a major risk in our lives. Ironically, having risked something, I might be more inclined to speak my mind and take action than I am now.
The subtitle of this blog
Ideally, I envisioned that people would come to read this blog and share their thoughts. I realized, however, that the more I wrote on this blog, the more I would need to tell about it's narrator. And there is no way for me to be able to fully explain my perspective without raising the issue of Asperger's Syndrome and that of Autism in general. I also suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, so I suppose I will discuss that, too. Inasmuch as I have been affected by any issues of social class, my ability to move and respond to these has been compounded by my individual neural wiring. Not to sound like Donald Rumsfeld, all I mean is, there's no escaping the fact that I don't think like everybody else. I'm literally not wired for parties, body language and to a lesser extent, subtext. A lifetime in the theater helped with the last one.
I'll explain more of what having Asperger's means, but two places which are important to go to for all things related to it are
www.grasp.org -- the legendary "by and for" people with A.S. organization
and
http://www.udel.edu/bkirby/asperger/ -- a veritable clearinghouse of info.
More to come...
I'll explain more of what having Asperger's means, but two places which are important to go to for all things related to it are
www.grasp.org -- the legendary "by and for" people with A.S. organization
and
http://www.udel.edu/bkirby/asperger/ -- a veritable clearinghouse of info.
More to come...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)