On The Other Hand

Is It `Good’ Anti-Semitism?

Taipai, Taiwan
April 30, 2008

Raphael Gamzou leaned forward to share the strange reality of life in Taiwan – and the Far East in general – when it comes to perception of the “powerful Jews.” “They know Einstein was Jewish and that he was smart. They think all Jews are smart and good businessmen. But their society does not have the hangup that Judeo-Christian ones have about wealth. Here they ask for wealth in every blessing and celebration.”

“Rafi,” as he’s known, is the Israel Economic and Cultural representative in Taiwan, an island of 23 million people.

So millions of people in this part of the world – I’m here on a five-day trip highlighting the country’s environmental progress, courtesy Taiwan’s Environmental Protection Agency – walk around believing all Jews are smart and sharp merchants. In the West, we’d call that notion anti-Semitic because of the European historically Christian-based stereotypes it conjures (and the resulting persecutions). I add ironically, trust me when I tell you that I know some Jews who are neither smart nor good at business, and both have certainly been applied to me.

So are such notions still anti-Semitism when said here, or is the offense in the wording situational? One can easily see how such notions said in an international forum such as the United Nations would create an uproar and result in instant Jewish defense agency press releases. Still, is there such a thing as pro-Semitic stereotypes? Should we encourage them?

Those are some of the questions that will be on my mind tomorrow as I meet with a Buddhist master and then on Saturday when I plan to attend Shabbat morning services – the only ones offered on this island with a whopping Jewish community of 100 or so souls.

But Was Carter Right?

April 25, 2007

It was so easy to blast former President Jimmy Carter for the naïve way in which he approached his headline making meeting with Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal last week in Damascus. And I did just that in print: click here.

Carter never understood the nuances, personalities and maddening patient creep of progress in the Middle East – while president or in writing two books on the subject, “The Blood Of Abraham” or “Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid.”

But I have to admit that in writing my piece, I had to wrestle with Carter’s key statement: Hamas is a factor in the Israeli-Palestinian relationship and eventually must be dealt with, so why wait to start talking?

I say that as someone who believes in dialogue with just about anyone. So if that’s the case, what about Hamas? I admit to remaining conflicted on some level, but rely heavily on three factors:

• Hamas couldn’t even suspend rocket attacks on Israeli civilians during Carter’s visit;

• Hamas didn’t have the courtesy to provide additional information on captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit (truly a prisoner of war, meaning Hamas must be pressed to allow observation visits by the International Red Cross);

• and Hamas has NEVER even agreed to Israel’s right to exist – the bar for all negotiations. The PLO did it in 1988 and then 1993. Then there’s the faulty comparisons from other violent liberation movements. But the IRA never tried to vanquish Great Britain, the African National Congress fought for democratic rule in South Africa (despite its Marxists elements) and the Kurdish PKK wants its own country, not all of Turkey.

Hamas, an unrepentant terrorist-sponsoring and inspiring group with not even a half-statesmen at the helm, is a different story. Until that changes, I say hold the line – but keep helping Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas improve living standards on the West Bank, showing Gaza Palestinians what they can gain if they kick Hamas out of office (if the Islamic fundamentalists ever allow another democratic election).

But what about you? Do you think it was worthy for Carter to at least try? Are the rest of us too obsessed with the conflict to see the value in such non-government efforts?