We Didn't Call You Behemoths

As promised in this post, here is the translated version of the article I wrote for Nana last week. I've tried to maintain the structure and links used in the Hebrew version, and I've made only one change to the content, in order to include a mention of Lisa Goldman's recent trips to Beirut, which could not be included at the time when the original article was published (who says I can't keep a secret?!).

**********

A rather interesting article was published on Nana's Computers portal recently, whose title was "We are all Behemoths". The article purported to provide an overview of the English-language blogosphere in Israel, with one of the more salient points being that as English-language blogs, the bloggers who write them are, in essence offering a skewed view of Israelis and of life in Israel, given that these bloggers, by virtue of the fact that they are native English speakers, are not at all representative of the average Israeli.

The article's author, Dana Peer, (whose mother, incidentally, is American), opts to focus on the blogs of relatively new immigrants, including "What War Zone?", "Zabaj", and "Ari Lives in Israel". The highlighted posts all have one thing in common – experiences mostly revolving around encounters with native Israelis. Peer then goes on to belittle the bloggers of the Anglo-Israeli blogosphere for choosing to focus on these experiences, and claims that,

"the Israeli image in the global blogosphere is proffered almost solely from the viewpoint of immigrants and tourists - and it's possible to say a great deal about them, except for one thing - that they faithfully represent the image of the average Israeli. Forget representing - most of them don't understand it at all."

One of the issues that Peer addresses is the way that some of these new immigrants poke fun at the way that Israelis have incorporated various English words into the Hebrew language. Peer points out in an ongoing email exchange (which began after the article was published) that it is a "natural phenomenon that words from one language are assimilated into another language, and then adapted to meet the relevant rules of grammar." I am inclined to agree with that statement, though as one whose native language is the one from which these words often originate, I must admit that it does sound amusing at times to hear native Hebrew speakers use words in "English" while speaking Hebrew.

The amusement is not necessarily directed at the speaker, but rather at the concept. For the record, I am similarly amused when I hear Americans in the US say the word "chutzpah" with a totally American accent (or any other random word that has entered the English lexicon from another language) in their daily lives, lest you think it is limited to Americans making fun of Israelis.

The Internet Changes the Rules

One of the suggestions that Peer brought up in her email is that perhaps she should have included a disclaimer at the beginning of her article, noting that it was not intended to be a serious look at the Anglo-Israeli blogosphere, but rather a humorous take on a very specific aspect of this virtual society. Indeed, one of the greatest "pitfalls" facing writers today is that the internet has created a situation where one's words have the potential to go farther than ever before.

As such, the writer essentially loses all control over their own creation. Writers can no longer get by with excuses about intended audiences, and it is something that we as bloggers and journalists must take into consideration, accepting that our words may reach unintended audiences who can twist our thoughts to suit their own needs.

A prime example of this would be an incident that occurred last summer, when Norwegian author Jostein Gaarder published an article about Israel and the Jews in a Norwegian newspaper. The article was intended for Norwegian audiences only, and Garder was reportedly completely shocked by the worldwide condemnation he received after his article was translated into other languages and seen to be rather anti-Semitic, even though Garder claimed that this was not his intention, and that his words were taken out of context.

I also think, perhaps, that Peer did not take into account that there might be immigrants reading her article who would not see it as being a funny, cynical piece at all, but rather a personal attack on "those immigrants". In her email, Peer explains that she has taken care to focus on both sides of the issue – that of the immigrant and that of the native-born Israeli, and has tried to maintain a balance in her criticism of both groups. However, in the same way that comedians can openly mock their own group without anyone raising an eyebrow, but will often be criticized for mocking another group, it should come as no surprise that immigrants would have issues with being criticized by someone who is not "one of their own". An indication of this can be seen in the responses to Peer's original article, which, while obviously quite amusing for the native Hebrew speakers (whose comments reflected a rather alarming trend to bash immigrants who had chosen to make Israel their home, which makes me wonder whether some of them had taken the article as seriously as I had), seemed to lose something when the article crossed cultures.

On the one hand, Peer is accurate in her assessment that the new immigrant bloggers among us often focus on their unique immigrant experiences and encounters, which is certainly not an unusual phenomenon, and indeed, is entirely legitimate. Of course, perhaps we, as immigrant bloggers, must also take into account that just we have chosen to make Israel our home, we must be more accepting and open to the nuances of Israeli culture and the local lexicon. Peer mentions an incident in her email of an immigrant blogger poking fun at native Israelis for not being able to say "Massachusetts". Frankly though, until you can master any Hebrew word or name with the letter "resh" in it, you're really not in a position to make fun of "the natives" (unless, of course, you are trying to emulate MK Michael Eitan).

Putting a Human Face on "The Monster"

Humor aside, though, Peer does a disservice to her readers by limiting her article to these few blogs while ignoring the richness and variety of the Anglo-Israeli blogosphere as a whole, a heterogeneous group of writers whose blog postings cover an incredibly wide range of topics, whether it be politics, current events, local culture, family, and so on.

Our corner of the blogosphere includes both new and veteran immigrants, religious and secular bloggers. We have bloggers in the Territories and bloggers who live in Tel Aviv's trendy Sheinkin neighborhood. To say that we've had a few battles over Israeli political issues would be akin to calling last summer's war a minor border incident.

Residents of our virtual neighborhood include bloggers like Canadian-born Lisa Goldman, a journalist whose blog "On the Face" not only received worldwide attention during the war last summer (and whose clips that touch on her recent trips to Beirut can be found on Nana's news portal), but also won the Best Non-Muslim Blog award in a competition held in the Islamic blogosphere; British expatriate "Anglosaxy", a non-Jewish blogger who writes about his view of life in the Holy Land; Bert de Bruin, a Dutch-born blogger who posts at "Dutchblog Israel" in both English and Dutch, primarily about current events and political issues; "Chayyei Sarah", a blog written by an American freelance journalist and teacher living in Jerusalem; Australian expatriate artist Nominally Challenged writes over at "A Whiff of the Med". And these are only a few examples of what can be found out there.

These Israel-based bloggers who write in languages other than Hebrew are the face of Israel for readers around the world. We are the writers who put a human face on the "monster" known as Israel, and do so on a daily basis. We are the writers who readers turned to during the Second Lebanon War last summer, when people the world over were anxious to dig up any shred of information they could find about the human side of the conflict.

It must be noted that the Hebrew-language blogosphere and the English-language blogosphere (not to mention the Russian and Arabic language blogospheres) serve very different purposes. While the Hebrew-language blogosphere is for domestic consumption, Israeli blogs written in English (or in other foreign languages) are often specifically targeted at the world outside of Israel. These bloggers see their natural role as being that of explaining Israel to the rest of the world.

Willingly and Not by Force

Judging by the article itself as well as the numerous talkbacks it received, Peer and her "Israeli" readers seem to think that these new immigrants, all of whom chose to live in Israel, are not allowed to be critical of their adopted country. A running theme throughout the comments was that if these Americans aren't happy in Israel, then they should just simply pack up and go home. If everyone who lived in Israel was asked to leave if they complained, chances are excellent that within a relatively short period of time, there'd be no one living here (except, perhaps for Ehud Olmert, who clearly lives in a world of his own where everything is good and everyone loves him...).

Western immigrants come to Israel because they want to, not because they have to. Israel is where they want to be, but that certainly doesn't mean that life is perfect here. I have been living here for sixteen years. My life is here, my family is here. Do I believe that daily life would be easier in the US? Yes. Do I believe there's a lot to complain about in Israel? Of course. Am I planning to leave? No.

Israel is my home, just as it is the home of all these new immigrants that people seem so keen to mock and send away.

The Role of the Anglo-Israeli Blogosphere

A rather interesting article (entitled "We are All Behemoths") was published on Israel's Nana internet portal last Friday. The article, written in Hebrew, purported to provide an overview of the English-language blogosphere in Israel, with one of the more salient points being that as English-language blogs, the bloggers who write them are, in essence offering a skewed view of Israelis and life in Israel, given that these bloggers, by virtue of the fact that they are native English speakers, are not at all representative of the average Israeli.

The article's author, Dana Peer, opts to focus on a few select blog entries from the blogs of relatively new immigrants, including "What War Zone?", "Zabaj" (whose recent blog entry tipped me off about this article), and "Ari Lives in Israel" (a blog which, incidentally, hasn't been updated for quite some time, as the writer is probably too busy freelancing and working as a waiter at one of the hottest cafes in Tel Aviv). The highlighted posts all have one thing in common – each one relays a different immigrant experience, mostly revolving around encounters with native Israelis. Peer then goes on to belittle the bloggers of the Anglo-Israeli blogosphere for choosing to focus on these experiences, and claims that,

"the Israeli image in the global blogosphere is profferred almost solely
from the viewpoint of immigrants and tourists - and it's possible to say a great
deal about them, except for one thing - that they faithfully represent the image
of the average Israeli. Forget representing - most of them don't understand it
at all."

I'm also inclined to question her understanding of some of the posts she mocks, seeing as she seems to have taken Benji Lovitt's (What War Zone?) recent tongue-in-cheek post about the infamous Israeli beach game of "matkot" seriously...

On the one hand, Peer is accurate in her assessment that many of the new immigrant bloggers among us often focus on their unique immigrant experiences and encounters. Just as many of the Hebrew-language bloggers focus on their everyday experiences (an excellent example being this blog written by Amit, the divorced father of a son recently diagnosed with a form of autism), it is entirely legitimate for immigrant bloggers to do the same. However, Peer does a disservice to her readers by limiting her article to these few blogs while ignoring the richness and variety of the Anglo-Israeli blogosphere as a whole, a heterogeneous group of writers whose opinions (political and otherwise) and blog postings cover an incredibly wide range of topics, whether it be politics, current events, local culture, family, and so on.

And, whether Peer likes it or not, Israel-based bloggers who write in languages other than Hebrew, whether it be Dutch, French, Spanish, German, or any other language that I've come across while cruising the local blogosphere, are the face of Israel for readers around the world. We are the writers who put a human face on the "monster" known as Israel, we are the writers who readers turned to during the Second Lebanon War last summer, when people the world over were anxious to dig up any shred of information they could find about the human side of the conflict.

Peer apparently fails to understand that the Hebrew-language blogosphere and the Anglo-Israeli blogosphere serve very different purposes. While the Hebrew-language blogosphere is for domestic consumption, Israeli blogs written in English are often specifically targeted at the world outside of Israel, and these bloggers see their natural role as being that of explaining Israel to outsiders, whether they be Diaspora Jews or anyone else. And, judging by the article itself as well as the numerous talkbacks, Peer and her "Israeli" readers seem to think that these new immigrants, all of whom chose to live in Israel, are not allowed to be critical of their adopted country. A running theme throughout the comments was that if these Americans aren't happy in Israel, then they should just simply pack up and go home. If everyone who lived in Israel was asked to leave if they complained, chances are excellent that within a relatively short period of time, there'd be no one living here (except, perhaps for Ehud Olmert, who clearly lives in a world of his own where everything is good and everyone loves him...). Western immigrants come to Israel because they want to, not because they have to. Israel is where they want to be, but that certainly doesn't mean that life is perfect here. I have been living here for sixteen years. My life is here, my family is here. Do I believe that daily life would be easier in the US? Yes. Do I believe there's a lot to complain about in Israel? Of course. Am I planning to leave? No. Israel is my home, just as it is the home of all these new immigrants that Dana Peer and her ilk seem so keen to mock and send away.

*******************
By the way, after reading the article on Saturday, I sent an email to Dana Peer, outlining a number of the issues that I've mentioned here and asking for a response. I have yet to receive one, but I'll update accordingly if she chooses to comment.

*******************
Update: I've been contacted by Dana. She sent a response, which I'm currently in the process of translating. The extremely short version of what she wrote is that she realizes that the Anglo-Israeli blogosphere has a lot more variety than what she mentioned in her article, and that her piece was meant to be a humorous, tongue-in-cheek commentary, and not a piece to be taken too seriously.

I hope to have the full translation up in a few days.

More Odds & Ends

Every once in a while I feel the need to do an Odds & Ends post. For some reason that I haven't figured out yet, I tend to shy away from writing short blog entries. That being said, I often find myself running across interesting tidbits of information or brief exchanges with the Little One that are quite bloggable, and yet, on their own, they don't provide quite enough fodder for an entire post. I save the tidbits and exchanges for a rainy day (figuratively speaking, of course, given that it's quite sunny and pleasant outside right now), and post them all at once.

*********
Dispensing with the serious stuff first... I recently read a brilliantly written post on the dismal state of Israeli PR and how one specific individual in the Government Press Office has significantly impacted the working conditions of both foreign and local journalists here in Israel, consequently lending a hand to the way that Israel is often portrayed in the media. I strongly recommend checking out the article, written by the masterful SnoopyTheGoon over at Simply Jews. Reading the article should give those of you not familiar with what seems to be the pervasive attitude of the Israeli leadership and its working methods will finally be able to understand why some of us are grumbling so much.

*********
I hesitated about whether or not to share this next tidbit with you. On the one hand, the natural inclination is to share that which brings you joy. On the other hand, if I let you in on my secret, does this mean that the secret is ruined? As you may have guessed, I've decided to be the bigger person here, and take my chances by spilling the beans. The comments of gratitude that come rolling in (Ha!) will be more than enough to placate me.

Thanks to a dear friend, I have discovered one of the best music sites ever! With a huge selection of hits from the 1950s through the mid-1980s (with more being added all the time), movie and TV theme songs, genres ranging from Country to Classical to Caribbean, you can't help but become addicted if you find yourselves spending your days in front of a computer like I do. If this all sounds good to you, head on over to Tropical Glen, a website containing all that I've mentioned and much, much more. I promise you won't be sorry. Go on, then. I'll wait. Check it out, poke around. Visit the Featured Artist Archive, be sure not to miss the MTV Era. This site is definitely a winner in my book.

*********
Riding in the car the other morning, Little One and I are talking and laughing. Suddenly, his face gets all serious, and he looks at me and says, "Mommy, tell me a secret." I look him in the eyes and whisper, "I love you, Little One." Then it's my turn. "Little One, tell me a secret." He looks me in the eyes and whispers solemnly, "I want ice cream."

As the dialog turns...

It's been fascinating to watch the exchange that's been going on in the comments section from the piece that I posted last week regarding the conference in Herzliya. The comments are still trickling in - both here and on the cross-post over at Good Neighbours - and it's interesting to see how the threads develop differently on each site. For the most part, it has been a true dialog, and I've been very impressed that most of the commenters have maintained a degree of civility and respect, though of course, that hasn't always been the case (especially in comments on other blogs, where I have been referred to as an idiot, my blog has been renamed as nothing nothing, and one person has referred to some of my blogging colleagues as a "sorority of North American aliyah blogger friends" - not sure where that leaves you, Don). Particularly annoying are those who feel the need to explain the situation to us, as if we don't truly understand what's "really" happening, or those I mentioned above who feel the need to resort to name-calling, simply because we do not agree with their opinions.

While following all of the exchanges and directions that the subject of howIsrael's PR should be handled and the role it plays in forming Israel's reputation has taken, I came across the following article written by Larry Derfner, which appeared in The Jerusalem Post Online edition on December 6th. The piece touches upon many of the points I raised in my post, addressing the need for core-level PR policy changes as opposed to simply continuing to intensify a policy that - in my opinion - just doesn't work.

Rattling the Cage: The hype that failed
Larry Derfner,
THE JERUSALEM POST

Dec. 6, 2006

Nobody and nothing in the world has an army of advocates, defenders, PR people, marketers, spin-meisters and image-polishers like Israel has. This army isn't made up just of the government, but of Jews and Judeophiles all over the world, especially in the US. It includes the entire alphabet soup of American Jewish organizations, right-wing "media watchdogs" like CAMERA and Honest Reporting, hundreds of Jewish newspapers and Web sites, Alan Dershowitz, Binyamin Netanyahu, the Republican Party, the Christian Right, FOX News and an assortment of other forces.

Yet despite this incredible mobilization, Israel's image, its "brand,"
couldn't be in worse shape. The latest evidence comes from a polling
organization called Nation Brands Index, which asked over 25,000 consumers worldwide their impressions of 36 different countries, and found that Israel finished 36th, at the bottom - by a wide margin.

Most Jews, I think, would blame these results on anti-Semitism, on hostile foreign media coverage of Israel, and on Israel's incompetence at making its case to the world. The solution, most Jews would probably say, is to redouble the hasbara effort, to find winning personalities and persuasive voices to carry Israel's banner, to come up with fresh angles and arguments, to speak with "one voice," to stay "on message"; and, at the same time, to "rebrand" Israel as a land not of war, but of beautiful beaches, dazzling nightlife, Nobel scientists and violin virtuosos.

I find this to be a self-righteous attitude, typical of the staunchly "pro-Israel" community, and also pathetic because it has led, and will continue to lead, to nothing but failure.

So long as Israel is seen in the media beating the crap out of Arabs,
especially Arab civilians, it will be judged a bully, and nobody likes a bully. So long as Israel inflicts many, many times more damage on its enemy than it suffers at the enemy's hands - as was the case in Lebanon - Israel will come out looking bad. As long as Israel fights by the principle of dozens upon dozens of eyes for an eye - as it has been doing in Gaza - Israel will remind the world not of David, but of Goliath.

I'm afraid that anyone who absorbed the news from Lebanon and Gaza, and who does not believe in the principle of myriad eyes for an eye, has to say that Israel has pretty well earned that image of late.

THIS IS not to say, however, that the world sees the Palestinians or
Hizbullah and its followers as a bunch of little Davids, or innocents. The Nation Brands Index didn't measure the popularity of the Palestinian Authority, or south Lebanon, or Syria, or Iran; if it had, Israel might not have finished last on the list. The world's consumers don't want anything to do with terrorists and Islamic fanatics, either. They're sick and tired of Israel and its enemies. They think we're all crazy, and they're basically right (even though I would say Israel is still less crazy than its enemies, and a lot less crazy than the worst of them).

So the standard hasbara approach of insisting that Israel is 100% right
while the Arabs are 0% right, that Arab violence is strictly aggression while Israeli violence is strictly self-defense, and that Israel's hand is perpetually outstretched in peace but the Arabs only want to exterminate us - that approach is doomed. It only works on the home crowd - those who love nothing more than cheering Israel and booing the Arabs - and they, obviously, don't need convincing. To any disinterested, balanced observer of the friction between Israel and its neighbors, the standard hasbara approach is ridiculously one-sided, propagandistic, not to be taken seriously at all.

AS FOR "rebranding" - which means changing the subject from "the conflict" to all the cool and groovy things about Israel - this is insipid. This is an insult to people's intelligence. It's an attempt to airbrush certain little details - specifically, endless war and hatred - out of the Israeli picture in the belief that people are too dumb to notice, and that they will begin associating Israel not with war and hatred, but with dancing in Tel Aviv and hi-tech in Herzliya Pituah.

And in the face of continuous, utter failure, the hasbara army marches on. In her story on the Nation Brands Index, The Jerusalem Post's Tovah Lazaroff reported: "The Foreign Ministry's Director of Public Affairs Amir Gissin said the survey underscored for him the importance of the new nation-branding drive Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni launched this fall."

However, Simon Anholt, head of Nation Brands Index, drew the opposite conclusion, reported Lazaroff: "The most persuasive and memorable facts, unfortunately for Israel, were about the conflict, so the image of Israel as a bully was more likely to stick in people's minds rather than the idea of Israel as an expert in solar energy, Anholt said. These images are 'so negative and powerful that they contaminated everything else in the index,' Anholt said."

PERSONALLY, I don't care that much about Israel's image. I know that
Muslims, on the whole, and hard-line leftists turn everything against Israel no matter what its enemies do, but I find that the Western world, in general, takes a fair view of Israel's role in the conflict. I have no problem, for instance, with the coverage in CNN or The New York Times. And again, regarding those 25,000 consumers in the survey, my strong hunch is that they are at least as put off by Israel's enemies as they are by Israel.

So I am not a soldier in the hasbara army. But if I was, and if I had
sufficient rank to influence that army's battle plan, I'd suggest abandoning the children of light vs children of darkness theme and forget about the rebranding gimmick. Instead, I think the best way to win friends for Israel among the undecided out there is to lay off the propaganda and bullshit and talk like one reasonable, balanced, intelligent adult to another.

In other words, to say to people that Israel isn't as good as its press
releases, nor as bad as its enemies say. To concede that Israel is sometimes in the wrong, sometimes too eager to fight, sometimes steps on its neighbors' toes - but to remind people that the neighbors here include the likes of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hizbullah, so it's not as if Israel's fractious behavior comes out of nowhere; there have been, and continue to be, provocations. In all, we should admit frankly that while the Arabs owe us plenty of apologies, we owe the Arabs, certainly the Palestinians, some apologies of our own.

I think people in the world would be relieved to hear an Israeli message
like that - and they do hear it from Israelis like Amos Oz and David Grossman, who, I'm convinced, are much better, much more effective "spokesmen" for Israel than, say, Netanyahu or Dershowitz. They're more believable. Their portrayal of Israel as a country that does wrong as well as right rings truer. It makes Israel seem a recognizable nation of human beings, instead of an impossible nation of coloring-book good guys.

But finally, the only thing that's going to radically change the world's
opinion of Israel is a return to a peace process worth the name, such as the one that went on between Israel and Egypt, and, for a few years, between Israel and the Palestinians. All the rest is hasbara, which, we should know by now, is a losing strategy.

Stop Being Verbal Vegetarians!

Over the past two days, I've been attending various sessions of a conference disturbingly entitled, "The Media as a Theater of War, the Blogosphere, and the Global Battle for Civil Society". When I arrived yesterday after work, I joined a group of bloggers sitting in the back including Lisa, Yael, Rinat, and Allison. Having communicated with Lisa several times during the course of the day, I had a general idea of what to expect. Nevertheless, I was still shocked – shocked by the bleak outlook being forecasted by the speakers and the negative attitudes they projected. Journalists were described by one speaker as being craven creatures, and Israel was consistently portrayed as the innocent victim. It was all deeply unsettling, but nothing compared to the session I attended before lunch today, entitled "Paradigm Shifts: Radical Reorientations". The whole "Israel as the innocent victim" theme continued to play a large role, but what really made me bang my head repeatedly on the table (not literally, obviously, as my table mate Martin Solomon (that's Mr. Solomonia, for those of you in the know) would surely have developed an instantaneous negative opinion of me, as opposed to those whose negative opinions of me have been allowed to form over time) were the words of panelist Manfred Gerstenfeld, the chairman of the steering committee for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Dr. Gerstenfeld kept referring to the Palestinians as "the enemy", and made statements such as "incitement to murder is an integral part of Palestinian society" and "…fighting a society permeated with genocidal intentions". He suggested that we must "turn the accusers into the accused", and that we should "stop being verbal vegetarians".

It was a truly horrifying experience, and between the waves of nausea I was feeling, all I kept thinking was that thank god Charles was not in the room to hear this racist rant. I was angry enough, and would have been morbidly embarrassed had this utterly charming Lebanese-American blogger and conference participant heard what this man was saying. I was also thinking about Jostein Gaarder, who claimed in his defense last summer that he had only intended for Norwegians to read his article, and had not expected that it would be translated into English and sent around the world. Perhaps Dr. Gerstenfeld didn't think that his words would be transmitted around the world as well, or perhaps he just doesn't care. All I know is that it's words and ideas like his that have contributed to the overwhelmingly negative world opinion vis a vis Israel, and presentations like his that damage our credibility when we are forced to hem and haw our way out of yet another debacle, while at the same time attempting to claim moral superiority.

I came away from this conference feeling rather frustrated. Perhaps the sessions that I missed were more balanced (though my sources tell me that they weren't), but I was given the impression that these speakers essentially felt that there is no hope for peace, and that we would be repeatedly locked in conflict with our "enemies" until the end of time. As I mentioned earlier, a recurring theme was that of Israel as the victim. No one seemed to think that a shift in Israel's policies regarding its neighbors was required, and instead focused on the need to somehow put a positive spin on these policies and try to convince the world that we are the party in the right. I found this concept to be utterly maddening and ignorant. It means that there is no hope for the future, and that our attempts to break down barriers and try to achieve a state of normalcy and mutual respect are futile, which is something that I simply refuse to accept.

The one shining light in the conference was the session entitled "Cyberspace as a Media Revolution: Implications for Israeli Public Diplomacy", which featured presentations given by a number of prominent local and foreign bloggers. Lisa and Charles spoke of friendships forged across borders and the importance of these special, fragile connections, and Michael Totten touched on this subject as well. Charles challenged the audience to start taking a look around the Arab blogosphere, leaving comments and starting dialogs, and part of me hopes that he made these people uncomfortable enough to start thinking outside of their narrow little boxes.

Sessions aside, though, I'd have to say that my favorite part of the conference was having the opportunity to meet so many wonderful bloggers face-to-face, people whose blogs I'd been reading, people I was keen to meet. I finally had the chance to meet the fabulous Savtadotty, whose granddaughter will be marrying my son; Allison, one of the very first Israeli bloggers, and certainly one of the first bloggers to make it onto my blogroll; Idan and Tif of Pixane; Rinat; Don Radlauer, who is as charming and funny as he is intelligent; the lovely Ola Hadasha, whose blog I only recently discovered, though she will surely become one of my regular reads; Charles – who receives the same compliments as Don; and Michael Totten, whose blog I turn to whenever I want to find out about the latest events in Lebanon.

Initially, I wasn't sure that I was going to attend any of this conference, but I'm glad I did. Despite the direction taken by many of the panelists, I feel like I've recharged my batteries, reawakened a long dormant excitement for social causes, taking me back to my student days. I'm sure that must sound terribly cliché, and I'm also relatively certain that I'll come back down to earth with tomorrow morning's battle of the train commuters, but for now, I'm feeling good. I attended an interesting, controversial conference with interesting, controversial people, and I did it just for me. And for the free sushi they served at the blogger reception… ;-)

* This post cross-posted to Good Neighbours.

A few more words on the subject, because I just couldn't help myself

Not surprisingly, I am still getting flack for my previous posts. I know He was hoping that we'd take break from politics (sorry, He), but I just felt that I had a bit more to say on the subject. What follows is a paraphrasing of a response that I just sent to a reader who was particularly upset by what I wrote. I won't give away the reader, as the identity is between the reader and myself, but I will add, in case said reader is miffed that I'm using the response as the basis for a blog entry, that I had been considering an entry of this nature even prior to reading the email that I received, and took this as a sign that something needed to be written here.

I believe that I mentioned in one of my earlier posts that I want to believe that the majority of people supporting anti-disengagement do not perpetrate these acts, and I'm sure that it's not everyone. However, I still stand by my comments though, in that I am disgusted by the acts perpetrated in the name of the anti-disengagement movement. Perhaps I could have used different phrasing to more carefully emphasize the distinction between people. What is interesting, however, is that people who are in favor of the disengagement (or at least not distinctly anti-disengagement), read what I wrote in precisely the way that I intended it - not as an attack against everyone in orange, but against those who perpetrate the acts in the name of "orange", so to speak.

What the regular "oranges" don't seem to realize, is that most of the "blues" believe that all of the oranges support these activities, because it is what we are shown on television and what we read in the newspapers. Everyone knows someone whose car antenna has been vandalized, and we see what the right-wing politicians are saying, how they are planning to tie up the security forces, etc. If you read some of the other left-wing blogs, like Dutchblog Israel, for instance, you will see that he expresses similar sentiments, though not as strongly as I do. Clearly, there is a problem here, and it's not just with me. Admittedly, I was a little shaken up by the overwhelming responses that I've received, and I've begun discussing the issue with friends and colleagues, taking a more neutral stand than usual, and what I've discovered is that most people do not distinguish between the "different shades of orange", because they haven't been convinced that it's necessary to do so. Sad but true.

Perhaps there are a majority of oranges who don't support these activities, but if so, they are a silent majority. In the same way that people don't believe that there are many Palestinians who want peace because they don't talk about it publicly, the blues are believing the worst of the oranges, because we don't hear anything else. And, when I so much as made a peep (ok, a very loud peep) in condemnation of what's been happening, all the oranges read that I was attacking their entire camp, and began to attack me back, often getting quite personal. With the exception of one or two people, hardly anyone on the right actually wrote that they condemned the actions as well, or tried to distance themselves from these actions. Again, sad but true.

Anyone who knows me, knows what my sense of humor is like, and knows that I can be quite sarcastic and cynical. I can accept that people have clearly misunderstood some of the things that I said in a tongue-in-cheek manner, not knowing me or the way I am, and for that, I am sorry. However, I also think that the more sane folks on the right have to be more vocal in their condemnation of acts being perpetrated in their name. I think it's wonderful that there are activities in at least one yishuv where they do just that, but it seems to me that this has to be shown to the "outside world". We are the ones who need convincing that there are voices of reason among you, and that the hooligans among you do not represent you. Patting yourselves on the back behind closed doors will not help your cause if people don't know that it's taking place. In the truest of Israeli traditions, it would seem that the majority of oranges are victims of their own poor hasbara, because the word just isn't getting out there. If you don't believe me, ask anyone who is even marginally pro-disengagement (and not some serious lefty like me), just like I did.