Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Time is Running Out
Last month King Abdullah of Jordan spoke in front of the US Congress. His message was essentially that time is running out for a peaceful settlement of the Israeli – Palestinian conflict. Progress must be made soon on finding a just solution or the situation will begin to go downhill rapidly. Congress in its wisdom promptly ignored him. Perhaps they felt that he should be satisfied with the opportunity to speak in front of this august body of pontificating politicians. In this respect Congress is following in the footsteps of President Bush who completely ignored the Iraq Study Group when they said that the road to peace in the Middle East runs through Jerusalem. As I have wandered around the Middle East for the past week and a half, most of the conversations that I have had would confirm King Abdullah’s opinion - time is running out. As the economic, political and security situation continues to deteriorate under occupation and economic boycott in the West Bank and Gaza, the frustration, loss of hope and anger within the Palestinian population is growing daily. Stories of nine hour trips from Nablus to Jerusalem (an 1 ½ hour trip without check points) in which only westerners get to finish the trip and Palestinians must turn back are frequent. At the King Hussein Jordan/Israel border crossing I met a young doctor from Columbus, Ohio, who was on her way to see her parents in Ramallah. She said that it was entirely possible that she would be denied entry altogether. As I proceeded through the 2 hour labyrinth of Israeli border security, she disappeared. I have no idea what happened to her. A Palestinian shopkeeper who I know in Bethlehem said “2008 will tell. The wall/security fence will be completed. The Palestinian Territory will be divided into Bandustans. Everything will be more difficult. We shall see; I am not optimistic”. My Palestinian driver in Jordan feels that it is already too late. He says “There will be no peace. Both people will continue to suffer”. An Israeli Palestinian said “If something doesn’t change soon Israel/Palestine will become another Iraq”. This scenario is Israel’s worst nightmare. Twenty percent of the Israeli population is Arab Palestinian. To date they have largely confined their protests to the political arena. Should the palpable anger that was in the voice of this young man boil over into violence, he may well be right. When a German journalist who has been here for over 2 years was asked if he saw any hopeful signs, he paused for a long time and then said “Only the patience and hope of the Palestinian people gives me any optimism”. Palestinians continue to use the word “hope”, but there is no longer the light in their eyes. Time is running out!
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Making Lemonade from Lemons
Three years ago during a visit to Al Adiseyah, a small rural village in northern Jordan, the leader of the local social welfare committee described the problem that the area citrus farmers were having in obtaining a good price for their lemon harvest. Working with a Jordan based NGO we have attempted to assist the farmers in resolving the issues. In the process we have had several false s
tarts because we forgot one of the lessons that we should have learned from observing economic development in Central America. The Americans would come into these countries and say you have these problems and we can come and solve them for you. The Communists, on the other hand, would come and sit in the coffee shops and say “you people shouldn’t be living like this.”A better solution was when advisors would try to motivate the local people to identify their problems and take action to solve them. Once we engaged with the local community and not just the leaders we were able to find a solution that works for them. Twelve young single women have formed a group to produce concentrate for lemonade from the lemons that can not be sold at a reasonable price in the fresh market. The young women are able to increase their family’s income by about 10%, but beyond that they feel empowered and as one said “we are not just sitting at home waiting for a 
husband”. In this part of the world there are many cultural barriers to full participation by women in much of community life. These barriers have the effect of marginalizing half of the brain power of the population and they place these countries at an economic disadvantage. It was amazing to see the change in the dynamic within the group once the men left the room. As an American man I was able to be an honorary woman and observe this change. These young women have been encouraged to speak up for what they want and to try to achieve it. By doing this we may have created some problems for their fathers, brothers and future husbands. We in the west tend to define a “better life” in economic terms and we are surprised that in other cultures a “better life” may be defined in other ways. We all define a “better life” and success in our own way and in our own terms. For me success in this project will be when we can call these women and ask them to come and work in a bazaar or farmer’s market to sell their product and they can say yes and come without having to ask permission from their father, brothers or husband.
tarts because we forgot one of the lessons that we should have learned from observing economic development in Central America. The Americans would come into these countries and say you have these problems and we can come and solve them for you. The Communists, on the other hand, would come and sit in the coffee shops and say “you people shouldn’t be living like this.”A better solution was when advisors would try to motivate the local people to identify their problems and take action to solve them. Once we engaged with the local community and not just the leaders we were able to find a solution that works for them. Twelve young single women have formed a group to produce concentrate for lemonade from the lemons that can not be sold at a reasonable price in the fresh market. The young women are able to increase their family’s income by about 10%, but beyond that they feel empowered and as one said “we are not just sitting at home waiting for a 
husband”. In this part of the world there are many cultural barriers to full participation by women in much of community life. These barriers have the effect of marginalizing half of the brain power of the population and they place these countries at an economic disadvantage. It was amazing to see the change in the dynamic within the group once the men left the room. As an American man I was able to be an honorary woman and observe this change. These young women have been encouraged to speak up for what they want and to try to achieve it. By doing this we may have created some problems for their fathers, brothers and future husbands. We in the west tend to define a “better life” in economic terms and we are surprised that in other cultures a “better life” may be defined in other ways. We all define a “better life” and success in our own way and in our own terms. For me success in this project will be when we can call these women and ask them to come and work in a bazaar or farmer’s market to sell their product and they can say yes and come without having to ask permission from their father, brothers or husband.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Pushing the Envelope
Yesterday our Iranian citizen’s diplomacy group had a conference call to meet each other and 
discuss pertinent issues before our departure for Iran. During the course of the discussion about appropriate dress for women in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Sanaz, our trip coordinator, pointed out that “Iranian women can push the envelope, but American women need to respect legal and cultural norms.” This might be a good piece of advice for Americans in the political arena as well. It was a lesson that we neglected to heed in our rush to install western democracy in Iraq. We seem to be going down the same path in our call for “regime change” in Iran. Iraq had and Iran still has a large relatively wealthy, 
educated population who would like to see changes in their political and economic situation. While it may be difficult for the poor uneducated populations of authoritarian counties like Zimbabwe to effect change, the people of Iraq probably would have and the people of Iran probably will figure it out without an invasion or a second CIA coup. Many Iranians are working within legal and cultural norms of Iran to effect change and “push the envelope”. You can see this happening in these pictures and by visiting blog sites like “View from Iran”. (To see click here or on the link to the left- I recommend it) As Tom Friedman pointed out in a recent column “Probably the best thing that we can do to effect change in Iran is to issue 50,000 student visas to Iranian students.”
discuss pertinent issues before our departure for Iran. During the course of the discussion about appropriate dress for women in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Sanaz, our trip coordinator, pointed out that “Iranian women can push the envelope, but American women need to respect legal and cultural norms.” This might be a good piece of advice for Americans in the political arena as well. It was a lesson that we neglected to heed in our rush to install western democracy in Iraq. We seem to be going down the same path in our call for “regime change” in Iran. Iraq had and Iran still has a large relatively wealthy, 
educated population who would like to see changes in their political and economic situation. While it may be difficult for the poor uneducated populations of authoritarian counties like Zimbabwe to effect change, the people of Iraq probably would have and the people of Iran probably will figure it out without an invasion or a second CIA coup. Many Iranians are working within legal and cultural norms of Iran to effect change and “push the envelope”. You can see this happening in these pictures and by visiting blog sites like “View from Iran”. (To see click here or on the link to the left- I recommend it) As Tom Friedman pointed out in a recent column “Probably the best thing that we can do to effect change in Iran is to issue 50,000 student visas to Iranian students.” Sunday, April 08, 2007
A War of Narratives
Today NY Times columnist David Brooks wrote this piece about the difference in world view between the Arab Middle East and the western world. Although I agree with some of what he said, I thought that some comments were called for.
A War of Narratives
I just attended a conference that was both illuminating and depressing. It was co-sponsored by the Center for Strategic Studies at the University of Jordan and the American Enterprise Institute, and the idea was to get Americans and moderate Arab reformers together to talk about Iraq, Iran, and any remaining prospects for democracy in the Middle East.
As it happened, though, the Arab speakers mainly wanted to talk about the Israel lobby. One described a book edited in the mid-1990s by the Jewish policy analyst David Wurmser as the secret blueprint for American foreign policy over the past decade. A pollster showed that large majorities in Arab countries believe that the Israel lobby has more influence over American policy than the Bush administration. Speaker after speaker triumphantly cited the work of Stephen Walt, John Mearsheimer and Jimmy Carter as proof that even Americans were coming to admit that the Israel lobby controls their government.
The problems between America and the Arab world have nothing to do with religious fundamentalism or ideological extremism, several Arab speakers argued. They have to do with American policies toward Israel, and the forces controlling those policies.
As for problems in the Middle East itself, these speakers added, they have a common source, Israel. One elderly statesman noted that the four most pressing issues in the Middle East are the Arab-Israeli dispute, instability in Lebanon, chaos in Iraq and the confrontation with Iran. They are all interconnected, he said, and Israel is at the root of each of them.
We Americans tried to press our Arab friends to talk more about the Sunni-Shiite split, the Iraqi civil war and the rise of Iran, but they seemed uninterested. They mimicked a speech King Abdullah of Jordan recently delivered before Congress, in which he scarcely mentioned the Iraqi chaos on his border. It was all Israel, all the time.
The Americans, needless to say, had a different narrative. We tended to argue that problems like Muslim fundamentalism, extremism and autocracy could not be blamed on Israel or Paul Wolfowitz but had deeper historical roots. We tended to see the Israeli-Palestinian issue not as the root of all fundamentalism, but as a problem made intractable by fundamentalism.
In other words, they had their narrative and we had ours, and the two passed each other without touching. But the striking thing about this meeting was the emotional tone. There seemed to be a time, after 9/11, when it was generally accepted that terror and extremism were symptoms of a deeper Arab malaise. There seemed to be a general recognition that the Arab world had fallen behind, and that it needed economic, political and religious modernization.
But there was nothing defensive or introspective about the Arab speakers here. In response to Bernard Lewis’s question, “What Went Wrong?” their answer seemed to be: Nothing’s wrong with us. What’s wrong with you?
The events of the past three years have shifted their diagnosis of where the cancer is — from dysfunction in the Arab world to malevolence in Jerusalem and in Aipac. Furthermore, the Walt and Mearsheimer paper on the Israel lobby has had a profound effect on Arab elites. It has encouraged them not to be introspective, not to think about their own problems, but to blame everything on the villainous Israeli network.
And so we enter a more intractable phase in the conflict, which will not be a war over land or oil or even democratic institutions, but a war over narratives. The Arabs will nurture this Zionist-centric mythology, which is as self-flattering as it is self-destructive. They will demand that the U.S. and Israel adopt their narrative and admit historical guilt. Failing politically, militarily and economically, they will fight a battle for moral superiority, the kind of battle that does not allow for compromises or truces.
Americans, meanwhile, will simply want to get out. After 9/11, George Bush called on the U.S. to get deeply involved in the Middle East. But now, most Americans have given up on their ability to transform the Middle East and on Arab willingness to change. Faced with an arc of conspiracy-mongering, most Americans will get sick of the whole cesspool, and will support any energy policy or anything else that will enable them to cut ties with the region.
What we have is not a clash of civilizations, but a gap between civilizations, increasingly without common narratives, common goals or means of communication.
Dear Mr. Brooks:
You are right to say that there is a gap between the views and narratives of western societies and Middle Eastern Arab cultures. However, you neglect to address the larger question of why that gap exists and how it can be closed. Clearly both parties are guilty of “dialogue” by press release which does little to promote understanding. We would be better off, however, to seriously address questions like “Why are proponents of radical political Islam popular in secular states like Lebanon and The Palestinian Territories?” and “Why do authoritarian governments remain in place in this part of the world?” To paraphrase Bill Clinton, the answer is “it’s the policy stupid”. As long as the US/Israel continues to occupy and oppress the Palestinians, the message of resistance promulgated by radical Islam will resonate with the man on the street. As long as the US supports and supplies authoritarian governments in the region, the Saudi supported mosque and its message of radical Islam will continue to be the focus of political resistance. We might listen to our Arab friends when they raise the question “Why would the US have policies that are clearly against its own national interest?”
A War of Narratives
I just attended a conference that was both illuminating and depressing. It was co-sponsored by the Center for Strategic Studies at the University of Jordan and the American Enterprise Institute, and the idea was to get Americans and moderate Arab reformers together to talk about Iraq, Iran, and any remaining prospects for democracy in the Middle East.
As it happened, though, the Arab speakers mainly wanted to talk about the Israel lobby. One described a book edited in the mid-1990s by the Jewish policy analyst David Wurmser as the secret blueprint for American foreign policy over the past decade. A pollster showed that large majorities in Arab countries believe that the Israel lobby has more influence over American policy than the Bush administration. Speaker after speaker triumphantly cited the work of Stephen Walt, John Mearsheimer and Jimmy Carter as proof that even Americans were coming to admit that the Israel lobby controls their government.
The problems between America and the Arab world have nothing to do with religious fundamentalism or ideological extremism, several Arab speakers argued. They have to do with American policies toward Israel, and the forces controlling those policies.
As for problems in the Middle East itself, these speakers added, they have a common source, Israel. One elderly statesman noted that the four most pressing issues in the Middle East are the Arab-Israeli dispute, instability in Lebanon, chaos in Iraq and the confrontation with Iran. They are all interconnected, he said, and Israel is at the root of each of them.
We Americans tried to press our Arab friends to talk more about the Sunni-Shiite split, the Iraqi civil war and the rise of Iran, but they seemed uninterested. They mimicked a speech King Abdullah of Jordan recently delivered before Congress, in which he scarcely mentioned the Iraqi chaos on his border. It was all Israel, all the time.
The Americans, needless to say, had a different narrative. We tended to argue that problems like Muslim fundamentalism, extremism and autocracy could not be blamed on Israel or Paul Wolfowitz but had deeper historical roots. We tended to see the Israeli-Palestinian issue not as the root of all fundamentalism, but as a problem made intractable by fundamentalism.
In other words, they had their narrative and we had ours, and the two passed each other without touching. But the striking thing about this meeting was the emotional tone. There seemed to be a time, after 9/11, when it was generally accepted that terror and extremism were symptoms of a deeper Arab malaise. There seemed to be a general recognition that the Arab world had fallen behind, and that it needed economic, political and religious modernization.
But there was nothing defensive or introspective about the Arab speakers here. In response to Bernard Lewis’s question, “What Went Wrong?” their answer seemed to be: Nothing’s wrong with us. What’s wrong with you?
The events of the past three years have shifted their diagnosis of where the cancer is — from dysfunction in the Arab world to malevolence in Jerusalem and in Aipac. Furthermore, the Walt and Mearsheimer paper on the Israel lobby has had a profound effect on Arab elites. It has encouraged them not to be introspective, not to think about their own problems, but to blame everything on the villainous Israeli network.
And so we enter a more intractable phase in the conflict, which will not be a war over land or oil or even democratic institutions, but a war over narratives. The Arabs will nurture this Zionist-centric mythology, which is as self-flattering as it is self-destructive. They will demand that the U.S. and Israel adopt their narrative and admit historical guilt. Failing politically, militarily and economically, they will fight a battle for moral superiority, the kind of battle that does not allow for compromises or truces.
Americans, meanwhile, will simply want to get out. After 9/11, George Bush called on the U.S. to get deeply involved in the Middle East. But now, most Americans have given up on their ability to transform the Middle East and on Arab willingness to change. Faced with an arc of conspiracy-mongering, most Americans will get sick of the whole cesspool, and will support any energy policy or anything else that will enable them to cut ties with the region.
What we have is not a clash of civilizations, but a gap between civilizations, increasingly without common narratives, common goals or means of communication.
Dear Mr. Brooks:
You are right to say that there is a gap between the views and narratives of western societies and Middle Eastern Arab cultures. However, you neglect to address the larger question of why that gap exists and how it can be closed. Clearly both parties are guilty of “dialogue” by press release which does little to promote understanding. We would be better off, however, to seriously address questions like “Why are proponents of radical political Islam popular in secular states like Lebanon and The Palestinian Territories?” and “Why do authoritarian governments remain in place in this part of the world?” To paraphrase Bill Clinton, the answer is “it’s the policy stupid”. As long as the US/Israel continues to occupy and oppress the Palestinians, the message of resistance promulgated by radical Islam will resonate with the man on the street. As long as the US supports and supplies authoritarian governments in the region, the Saudi supported mosque and its message of radical Islam will continue to be the focus of political resistance. We might listen to our Arab friends when they raise the question “Why would the US have policies that are clearly against its own national interest?”
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Everybody is right and wrong
As I prepare for my upcoming trip to the Middle East, including Iran, the current kerfuffle over the detention of 15 British soldiers and sailors by Iran has caused a bit of unease in our group. It doesn't take much research to determine that the situation is a lot less clear than the governments involved would have one believe. Shortly after the incident British Royal Navy Commodore Nick Lambert described the situation as follows: " There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that they were in Iraqi territorial waters. Equally the Iranians may claim that they were Iranian territorial waters. The extent and definition of territorial waters in this part of the world is very complicated." Commodore Lambert has not been heard from since. A quick browse of the book with the intimidating title of "Continental Shelf Delimitation and Related Maritime Issues in the Persian Gulf" makes the description "very complicated" seem like an understatement. Controversial former British diplomat Craig Murray added to the flap by posting an article on his web site under the title "Fake Maritime boundaries". (Click here) The 15 soldiers and sailors have become pawns in the game of power politics. The Iranians are trying to send a message of "don't mess with me". As an Iranian blogger pointed out: "We probably could have avoided all this with the application of a little technology, namely a bull horn. Surely a country that can master nuclear technology can handle this technology." In this day of diplomacy by media statements a little quiet diplomacy would help resolve a murky situation where nobody is right. I guess as long as everybody is just yelling at each other and not shooting at each other our trip will still happen. Lets hope so.
Monday, April 02, 2007
Pharaoh: The ruler as an idiot
Recently Yossi Sarid, former Israeli Education Minister, wrote this op ed piece on the Exodus story in Haaretz, the English language Israeli paper.
Pharaoh: The ruler as an idiot
Tonight, when we are all gathered around the table and telling about the Exodus, let us pay attention to Pharaoh, whose story is the story of the folly and shortsightedness of rulers. So much attention has been devoted to the leadership of Moses, who was one of a kind, that the leadership of Pharaoh, who was one of many like him, is shunted aside. Did the scriptures intend to compare two types of leaders so that those who are led would see? We hereby recommend reading the Haggadah this evening as a present-day text. If the leadership of Moses was based on a great vision of saving a nation from its oppressors, the leadership of Pharaoh was based on a petty accounting of how to profit from the enslavement of another nation. The Egyptians embitter the lives of the Israelites with hard work, and force them to build Pithom and Ramses. Imperial history has always built treasure-cities, which immediately surround themselves with a security fence for defending against the fury of the forced and overworked laborers.
Moses opens his national and personal march toward freedom with an attack. He strikes an Egyptian man from the civil administration or the border police who is beating a Hebrew, and inters his body in the sand. Moses flees to the land of Midian, and from that moment he's a wanted man. From the time the uprising erupts, it becomes clear the king is an idiot, and not much time will pass until the slaves go free in spite of him. He conducts a losing battle and trips on every bump on the road. When Moses and Aaron come to him for the first time, urging him to let their people go, he dismisses the two authoritatively: "Get you to your burdens." The king is still certain that if he only makes things hard for the Hebrews, they will prefer survival and a livelihood over sacrifice and redemption. From now on, he won't even give them straw for the bricks. God is familiar with these foolish types who have no idea where they and their subjects are living. The more he hardens their hearts, the blinder they become. The 10 plagues begin to land on Pharaoh one after the other, but he refuses to be impressed. Blood floods the entire land of Egypt, Pharaoh and his magicians swallow frogs, the lice suck the marrow of man and beast, and the king does not give in. He does not agree to allow the Israelites to leave. As soon as the threat of one plague is removed, Pharaoh immediately refuses once again. He still does not understand that the next plague will be more lethal. Only when Egypt fills up with wild animals does Pharaoh begin to sober up, but there is still a long way to go. And before the landing of the locusts, protest demonstrations begin. The citizens of Egypt want the affair to end. "How long?" they ask. "Do you not yet know that Egypt is destroyed?" Like his fellow rulers, Pharaoh knows how to count demonstrators and to read surveys. He offers additional gestures: The men will leave, but without the children. And when the plague of darkness falls he offers another concession: "Let your little ones also go with you," but without the flocks and cattle. When Moses and Aaron reject this offer too, the king gets furious, stops the negotiations and threatens to prevent them from leaving: "See my face no more, for on the day you see my face you shall die." And then the last and terrible plague strikes, the plague of the first born. "And there was a great cry in Egypt, for there was not a house where there was not one dead." And what common sense failed to achieve was achieved by bereavement. Only now, after a fateful delay, does the king agree to a general exodus from Egypt - men, children, flocks and cattle. Up to the bitter end those blind rulers will never understand that anger is not appeased with miserly concessions and stingy gestures, and that national aspirations for independence cannot be destroyed. And even at the last moment, when the tortured nation was already on the way to its independence, the enslavers change their minds and chase the new situation as though the wheel of history could be turned back. Then the sea sweeps over them, and they plummet like lead in the mighty waters. What is left to us when we don't read the story of the Exodus properly? We are left with a belly full of matza balls and with "Pour out thy wrath."
This has generated a lot of comment regarding exactly what he is talking about and who is playing which role in modern times. ( To see the comments, click here) My reaction is that, probably, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck.
Pharaoh: The ruler as an idiot
Tonight, when we are all gathered around the table and telling about the Exodus, let us pay attention to Pharaoh, whose story is the story of the folly and shortsightedness of rulers. So much attention has been devoted to the leadership of Moses, who was one of a kind, that the leadership of Pharaoh, who was one of many like him, is shunted aside. Did the scriptures intend to compare two types of leaders so that those who are led would see? We hereby recommend reading the Haggadah this evening as a present-day text. If the leadership of Moses was based on a great vision of saving a nation from its oppressors, the leadership of Pharaoh was based on a petty accounting of how to profit from the enslavement of another nation. The Egyptians embitter the lives of the Israelites with hard work, and force them to build Pithom and Ramses. Imperial history has always built treasure-cities, which immediately surround themselves with a security fence for defending against the fury of the forced and overworked laborers.
Moses opens his national and personal march toward freedom with an attack. He strikes an Egyptian man from the civil administration or the border police who is beating a Hebrew, and inters his body in the sand. Moses flees to the land of Midian, and from that moment he's a wanted man. From the time the uprising erupts, it becomes clear the king is an idiot, and not much time will pass until the slaves go free in spite of him. He conducts a losing battle and trips on every bump on the road. When Moses and Aaron come to him for the first time, urging him to let their people go, he dismisses the two authoritatively: "Get you to your burdens." The king is still certain that if he only makes things hard for the Hebrews, they will prefer survival and a livelihood over sacrifice and redemption. From now on, he won't even give them straw for the bricks. God is familiar with these foolish types who have no idea where they and their subjects are living. The more he hardens their hearts, the blinder they become. The 10 plagues begin to land on Pharaoh one after the other, but he refuses to be impressed. Blood floods the entire land of Egypt, Pharaoh and his magicians swallow frogs, the lice suck the marrow of man and beast, and the king does not give in. He does not agree to allow the Israelites to leave. As soon as the threat of one plague is removed, Pharaoh immediately refuses once again. He still does not understand that the next plague will be more lethal. Only when Egypt fills up with wild animals does Pharaoh begin to sober up, but there is still a long way to go. And before the landing of the locusts, protest demonstrations begin. The citizens of Egypt want the affair to end. "How long?" they ask. "Do you not yet know that Egypt is destroyed?" Like his fellow rulers, Pharaoh knows how to count demonstrators and to read surveys. He offers additional gestures: The men will leave, but without the children. And when the plague of darkness falls he offers another concession: "Let your little ones also go with you," but without the flocks and cattle. When Moses and Aaron reject this offer too, the king gets furious, stops the negotiations and threatens to prevent them from leaving: "See my face no more, for on the day you see my face you shall die." And then the last and terrible plague strikes, the plague of the first born. "And there was a great cry in Egypt, for there was not a house where there was not one dead." And what common sense failed to achieve was achieved by bereavement. Only now, after a fateful delay, does the king agree to a general exodus from Egypt - men, children, flocks and cattle. Up to the bitter end those blind rulers will never understand that anger is not appeased with miserly concessions and stingy gestures, and that national aspirations for independence cannot be destroyed. And even at the last moment, when the tortured nation was already on the way to its independence, the enslavers change their minds and chase the new situation as though the wheel of history could be turned back. Then the sea sweeps over them, and they plummet like lead in the mighty waters. What is left to us when we don't read the story of the Exodus properly? We are left with a belly full of matza balls and with "Pour out thy wrath."
This has generated a lot of comment regarding exactly what he is talking about and who is playing which role in modern times. ( To see the comments, click here) My reaction is that, probably, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)