This is part fourteen of Marc H. Ellis’s “Exile and the Prophetic” feature for Mondoweiss. To read the entire series visit the archive page.
Yes redemption is a difficult one, a huge problem. We search for meaning in life and wonder when it will become evident. This is especially true when we commit ourselves against the grain of history. Despite our commitment, suffering continues. It seems our commitment means little.
Perhaps that’s why there is so much commitment that lacks reflection. If we stop and reflect for a moment we’re afraid everything will come down crashing on our heads. Reflection doesn’t solve the problem. Sometimes it crashes anyway. So talk about redemption is mostly out of place, no matter how much I love Martin Buber. Best to stick to the here and now. Keep plodding along.
Reflection without gazing at the ultimate. Or gazing once in a while. For a moment or two. Then on with life.
Down to the beach after a few days with a back problem. Not debilitating, just a strain. This morning I took an alternative route one street over to avoid the mezuzah on the beach. I didn’t want to pass the ostentatiously displayed (inverted) Jewish symbol. Even the exiled need the morning off once in a while.
Jewish power around every corner, remember, it’s my experience rather than a historically airborne theory. Isn’t it strange how this distinction between experience and theory is often lost on our sophisticated elites? On Jews who, for various reasons, including their own self-advancement, seem bent on proving their authenticity.
A few years ago in Paris, I attended a conference on racism and anti-Semitism. There a Jewish participant in conference, who spoke after me, misquoted me on this topic of Jewish power. In doing so, he implied that I was invoking the Protocols of the Elders of Zion conspiratorial aspect of Jewish power. So I interrupted him and made my point a second time: “I am talking about my experience of Jewish power, not a theory of Jewish power.” He accepted my intervention, apologized for misinterpreting me and then repeated his same point. Whereby I interrupted him again, he apologized and went on with his original claim as if our conversation hadn’t occurred.
How to make sense of this? After numerous interruptions and apologies, I came to the conclusion that he wasn’t being deliberately disingenuous. In fact, he accepted my correction and was apologetic. It seemed that he had no other way to express himself except by distorting my point. Cognitive dissonance perhaps. He couldn’t admit that my experience was right and the theory was wrong – that both could be true. Otherwise he would have to take a bite out of the contemporary Jewish Tree of Knowledge apple. He would be naked before the world. Sans fig leaf.
Have you ever run into folks, Jewish and other wise, whose restricted ability to think reflects their limited world view? Point taken on some levels, but here was an American academic researching in the most sophisticated French libraries while writing a work on a major Jewish European philosopher. I wonder if he understands the difference between mythic anti-Semitism that sees a Jewish world conspiracy and the reality that the Jewish establishment(s) disciplines any dissent on the question of Israel.
We never did straighten it out. He kept apologizing during the final two days of the conference. He also kept distorting what I said.
Which is my way of asking if the difference between the Jewish question and the Israel question is misunderstood simply for political reasons or because our collective Jewish will just can’t wrap our minds around the fact that the Jewish situation in the world has changed radically in the last decades?
Time marches on. Returning to Marx, who couldn’t have anticipated the Israel question, then to Arendt, who did anticipate the Israel question, to we who are living the Israel question – these necessitate huge leaps in communal thought and identity formation. Yet as time marches on, history doesn’t play thought/identity catch-up.
When history arrives, what couldn’t be thought or what was anticipated but not experienced is often worse. At any rate, it is different. That difference demands new thinking, precisely the thinking that lags. What is now being experienced still can’t be thought or anticipated. It’s like a cycle of constantly being behind the eight ball. We can’t get a grip on our history.
The prophetic is the ability and willingness to think (un)thinkable thought because that is where we are. But watch out for the Principal’s paddle, the big wooden one standing there around every corner.
Everyone has their own experience and I was just sharing mine in the Parisian intellectual climes. We shouldn’t kid ourselves either. There isn’t any daylight between that power and the Christian right. Alan Dershowitz and Ken Starr. Coming back to my joint burial plans – bury Arafat and Sharon together – how about a Dershowitz-Starr joint headstone? Star of David intertwined with a Cross? Artist’s rendition welcome.
Fortunately I am not a graphic artist. I have so many ideas that could be visualized it would only deepen my exile and perhaps make it permanent. If it isn’t already. Dusting off one of my favorites in case you haven’t heard of it, when I first heard reports of Israel using helicopter gunships to frighten and sometimes rocket Palestinian towns, villages and refugee camps during the second Palestinian uprising – reports which shocked me though perhaps that was just part of my lingering internal Progressive Jewish mentality – I imagined converting the menacing helicopter gunships into ritual objects. After all, if we are going to live by Star of David helicopter gunships and if, spiritually, we are what we practice and should worship what is most important to us, raising the question of what God we will acknowledge because everyone has some kind of God that we bow to – you see where this is going.
Just like the “Bury Arafat and Sharon Together” came into my mind during a dream, this one relating to helicopter gunships and worship also just arrived: “Helicopter Gunships in the Ark of the Covenant.” I wondered what that could mean.
Let’s begin at the beginning – Ark etiquette. There’s an Ark of the Covenant in every synagogue. Inside the Ark you find the Torah scrolls and the ornamentation reserved for the Torah. The Ark containing the Torah is the holiest place in the synagogue, thus there are various rituals for opening and shutting the Ark, taking the Torah out the Ark, parading it among congregation, unfurling the Torah scroll, reading from the Torah, then placing the Torah back in the Ark and closing it.
It’s quite involved. At any rate, one day I was invited to a synagogue outside of London where I was to speak at the Shabbat meal after the service. To be honest, I try to avoid religious services whenever I can, preferring as I do hypocrisy served straight up rather than covered over with religious pieties. How about you? Because of the (rare) synagogue invite I couldn’t refuse the service. No way out.
In this particular synagogue, the Rabbi was positioned facing the Ark during the service. Since I was his guest of honor, I sat with him. During the service I became convinced that when the curtain of the Ark opened the Torah scrolls would be missing. In its place, there would be two helicopter gunships. It was a quasi-mystical experience. Or perhaps it was jet-lag.
Whatever the reason, the vision was quite intense. I visualized the helicopter gunships transformed into ritual objects, dressed for worship, their menacing black transformed into finely rendered silver casing. I anticipated the Ark opening, the congregation bowing before the helicopter gunships as we bow before the Torah. After the prayers were chanted, the helicopter gunships would be taken around the synagogue by the Rabbi where, and with our tallit, we would kiss them, again as we kiss the Torah. The helicopter gunships would then be brought back to the Ark and with our prayers chanted, the Ark’s curtain would be closed.
All empires need helicopter gunships. Empire Judaism needs them, too. Why not place them in the Ark of the Covenant? Having had the idea, I visualize its expansion. With the helicopter gunships, perhaps we should place other Jewish realities in ritualized form. Let’s see – also feel free to add your own – I would add, with a ritualized flourish, an Apartheid Wall, a map of Disappearing Palestine (perhaps as the backdrop that the ritual objects are placed in front of), several settlement blocs (perhaps built out of multi-colored Legos) and a facsimile of the Israel’s Dimona nuclear facility.
Of course, there is more to add but remember that when it comes to sacred objects and their display, more isn’t always better. Minimalism has its place. Perhaps my original vision is best: just austere, dignified, silver coated, helicopter gunships. With Star of David decals. That’s essential.
Star of David Helicopter Gunships in the Ark of the Covenant. Honestly. Hannah Arendt’s anticipated Sparta. (By the way, though I am not an expert on the subject, Sparta’s shelf-life as a dominant power didn’t last very long. If memory serves, I think it was more or less fifty years. Another issue but perhaps best saved as a commentary for a sermon with our newly envisioned Ark of the Covenant display.)
Yes, I was sure when the curtains opened the helicopter gunships would be there. The drama was palpable. I must have been in some mystical trance. Of course, it didn’t happen. You can imagine how disappointed I was when the curtains opened and only the Torah scroll was revealed.
Later, when I related this vision and my disappointment to one of my Jewish students, he told me it all could be arranged one day, surreptitiously. His suggested that the night before the services were held, we could get someone to substitute the silver helicopter gunship for the Torah scroll, then, wham, watch as the Rabbi and the congregation recoil in shock and anger. A real service stopper. The last place you’re supposed to see yourself in the collective mirror is synagogue. Blasphemy!
While I’m at it, let’s move to the Christian side of the aisle. Communion wafers/the Lord’s Supper, ritual bread with Conquistadores’ namesakes imprinted on them? Christians could then ponder if naming Christian empire will take away the sins of the world.
Let’s see – the faces of Pissarro, Cortes, and Columbus on communion wafers. Not to leave out Ponce de Leon and his search for the Fountain of Youth. Communion takers might wonder who they are. Forgetting history seems to be one of the tasks of religion. That’s part of the fun. Placing history front and center.
Or towns names – Chappaqua, Croton-on Hudson, Ossining. My old stomping ground, once the stomping ground of Native Americans, hence the Native American town names. Now the location of Disappearing Palestine adverts. Shall they all be added to the Bread of Life?
Oh my, I almost forgot, for the Ark of the Covenant, add the mezuzah on the beach now upped to ritualistic status – The Mezuzah on the Beach.
All religion is local.
When you write: “The prophetic is the ability and willingness to think (un)thinkable thought because that is where we are. But watch out for the Principal’s paddle, the big wooden one standing there around every corner”, I assume you are talking about being penalized by an educational institution for speaking out. Out of the US states, about 20 states beat children in school, including highschool. These beating schools are all located in the former US slaves states, besides Idaho, Indiana, and Wyoming. Having students beat students for petty offensive like lateness cannot but affect millions of people’s mentality, and that includes students in Texas where Baylor is located.
Correction, I meant: “having students being beaten cannot but affect millions”. Although there was one instance in a Dallas Middle School where they had the students beat eachother.
When I was young, the Ark of the Covenent in my Synagogue (North Shore Reform) was not closed with embroidered curtains, it had a stained-glass panel which was miraculously opened by a quiet electric motor and pulleys. If the Synagogue was very quiet you could just hear it. It was the voice of God.
Genius. Definitely to go in the anthology.
You asked for artists’ combination renditions when you wrote: “Coming back to my joint burial plans – bury Arafat and Sharon together – how about a Dershowitz-Starr joint headstone? Star of David intertwined with a Cross? Artist’s rendition welcome.”
I would recommend the so-called “Messianic Seal of Jerusalem”, which is frequent in CZ circles, as fitting. It is in fact a kind of combined Christian-Jewish symbol that includes the Star of David: link to homeworship101.com
You see, the story behind this symbol’s discovery sounds doubtful to me, and it seems like it is more likely an invention of the last 70 years or so. According to the story, a monk found the symbol on a clay jar in a basement area in the Holy Land along with similarly-decorated jars. However, the other monks wouldn’t answer questions about it and the I.A.A. authority responded that it was fraudulent. There are a big number of frauds supposedly coming from the Holy Land, like the so-called “Jesus tomb”.
The image’s authenticity seems further doubtful to me because there’s no records of such an image existing in early Christianity, no mention of it in the ancient Christian tradition. Further, the Star of David, found in the symbol, apparently didn’t become seen as the main symbol of Judaism until centuries after Christianity began.
Finally, the apparent meaning of the symbol, places the Christian “fish” symbol below the Menorah and Star of David symbols. Rather than putting the fish on top, which would reflect the fish coming to prominence “out of” Judaism, the fish is pointing downwards, suggesting a negative status. For example, some crosses have a sideways crescent at the bottom reflecting the former’s victory over the latter.
RE: “There a Jewish participant…misquoted me on this topic of Jewish power… So I interrupted him and made my point a second time… He accepted my intervention, apologized for misinterpreting me and then repeated his same point. Whereby I interrupted him again, he apologized and went on with his original claim as if our conversation hadn’t occurred.” ~ Marc Ellis
JOSEPH K’s PREDICAMENT IN KAFKA’s “THE TRIAL”:
After months of trial postponement, Joseph K goes to court painter Titorelli to ask for advice. He is told to hope for little. He might get definite acquittal, ostensible acquittal, or indefinite postponement. No one is ever really acquitted, but sometimes cases can be extended indefinitely.
SOURCE – link to imdb.com
RE: “when I first heard reports of Israel using helicopter gunships to frighten and sometimes rocket Palestinian towns, villages and refugee camps during the second Palestinian uprising… I imagined converting the menacing helicopter gunships into ritual objects.” ~ Marc Ellis
ALSO SEE: “The Dogs of War: The Next Intifada”, By Uri Avnery, Counterpunch, 9/03/11
ENTIRE COMMENTARY – link to counterpunch.org
P.S. A MIDSUMMER NIGHT’S MUSICAL INTERLUDE sponsored by the makers of new Ziocaine Über-Xtreme®: It’s guaran-damn-teed to blow your effing mind!™
• Bruce Cockburn: If I Had A Rocket Launcher [VIDEO, 04:58] – link to youtube.com
• Bruce Cockburn (live perfomance): If I Had a Rocket Launcher [VIDEO, 05:28] – link to youtube.com
P.S. IMPORTANT NOTICE!
Some people report that taking new Ziocaine Über-Xtreme® makes them feel too “wound up”. Should you experience something like this, you might want to try a gramme or so of Soma® to unwind. Take a holiday from reality™ whenever you like, and come back without so much as a headache or a mythology. There is always Soma®, delicious Soma®, half a gramme for a half-holiday, a gramme for a week-end, two grammes for a trip to the gorgeous East, three for an eternity on the Dark Side of the Moon*!
* Pink Floyd: Time (VIDEO, 06:39) – link to youtube.com
RE: “I became convinced that when the curtain of the Ark opened the Torah scrolls would be missing. In its place, there would be two helicopter gunships.” ~ Marc Ellis
MY COMMENT: Would it be presumptuous on my part to assume that you are referring to our wonderful, ‘kick ass’ Apache® helicopter gunships (Boeing AH-64 Apache) armed with the aptly named and totally righteous Hellfire® missile (AGM-114 Hellfire)?
How titillating! That is my very favorite death machine combo (excepting nukes, of course… and perhaps cluster bombs… and the now retired BLU-82 “daisy cutter”… and the daisy cutter’s new replacement, the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb… and that baddest of bad boys, the BLU-113 Super Penetrator “bunker buster” bomb… and maybe a few others, now that I come to think of it).
Go “Crazyhorse 1/8″! “Light ‘em up!” Hooah!
FROM WIKIPEDIA [July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike]:
SOURCE – link to en.wikipedia.org
ALSO SEE: “Massacre Caught on Tape: US Military Confirms Authenticity of Their Own Chilling Video Showing Killing of Journalists”, Democracy Now!, 4/06/10
VIDEO AND TRANSCRIPT – link to democracynow.org
It’s interesting that you refer to that video of the ‘crazy horse 1/8′ attack.
I had a long, knock-down, drag out argument on another site about it — and I was finally forced to admit that yes, one of the group was carrying an RPG — and yes, there was a firefight going on down the street.
Even in Iraq, an RPG is not for personal protection. One can argue that we shouldn’t have been in Iraq at all, but given that we were, the attack was entirely justified.
There’s a group of men carrying an RPG — and near US troops who are involved in combat. The helicopter crew carefully checks that first, gets permission to fire, and then fires. That’s what they’re there to do. What do you want? That they should not fire?
If they obviously like their work, well, that goes with the territory too. Reluctant warriors lose. They’re fighting a war, they catch some bad guys out in the open, and they kill them. That’s what people do in wars.
Shooting up the van picking up the wounded was a bit on the total war side of things, but really, the only moral of the story is that war isn’t pretty, and everyone who advocates it should watch tapes like that to understand what it entails. It is indeed horrifying. I was horrified. I spent several hours denouncing the attack myself.
However, it is war. Maybe we shouldn’t be so eager to fight wars.
“Shooting up the van picking up the wounded was a bit on the total war side of things, but really, the only moral of the story is that war isn’t pretty”
Well, I am glad you recognize that the incident had a bad side, but I am doubtful about justifying the attack on the medical-assistance van. Saying that it is “total war” is a pretty slippery slope, because then you can justify all kinds of excesses, even cannibalism, as Total War, meaning basically the only rule is to help your side strategically. Basically someone can descend into very bad self-destructive thinking this way. At first the justifier cannibalizes the enemies, then goes on to cannibalize his weaker co-soldiers if they seem like deserting or cowardly, and then cannibalizes himself because he ends up being collateral damage himself. What goes around sometimes comes around, and if not there can still be PTSD.
Even if ‘Crazy Horse’ hadn’t shot up that van, it would still be a pretty shocking video.
I think my main point is that war is essentially about killing people, and when you see it as you do in the ‘Crazy Horse’ video, you realize that killing people is not something to be done lightly, and maybe we should be more averse to engaging in war. Look at what’s on that fork before we eat it.
The horror of what ‘Crazy Horse’ did is not that it was somehow a deviation, or outside the law, but more or less the opposite: that by and large, this is what is supposed to happen, and if you don’t like it, don’t start wars. At a minimum, at least look at what you’re pushing: watch the film first, then vote for ‘a new sheriff in town’ or whatever.
CW: There’s a group of men carrying an RPG — and near US troops who are involved in combat. The helicopter crew carefully checks that first, gets permission to fire, and then fires. That’s what they’re there to do. What do you want? That they should not fire?
Colin, rather surprised by your comment I watched the (full-length) video again. And it’s quite clear that after identifying about twenty men, initial permission to fire was given only on mention of “weapons” and “five or six individuals with AK-47s”. This was immediately before the camera was misidentified as an RPG – a misidentification one could put down to the fog of war even though it’s blunt nose does not resemble the highly tapered nosecone of a loaded RPG-7.
Later on, maybe because by then it’s realised that a child has been injured, there is some questioning of who had called in the Apache strike on an “eight man team on the top of a roof” which had been firing at American ground forces with AK47s. I would say there is considerable doubt whether this was the same group of men who were attacked along with the photographer as their relaxed manner hardly speaks of withdrawing from a recent firing engagement.
Perhaps one of the Apache crew realised this as he responds “I just also wanted to make sure you knew that we had a guy with an RPG cropping around the corner getting ready to fire on your location. That why we requested permission to fire.” This statement is clearly untrue if you watch the video but I would say it forms the basis of the subsequent military postmortem and is clearly the story they wanted to put out.
But the RPG – even though one or two can be seen if the video is studied carefully and were later found at the scene – is a red-herring, a deliberate diversion from rules of engagement which allowed permission to fire to be granted merely on the basis of carrying a “weapon”. And carrying an AK47 in public was at that time not uncommon amongst Iraqi men.
“Colin, rather surprised by your comment I watched the (full-length) video again. And it’s quite clear that after identifying about twenty men, initial permission to fire was given only on mention of “weapons” and “five or six individuals with AK-47s”. This was immediately before the camera was misidentified as an RPG – a misidentification one could put down to the fog of war even though it’s blunt nose does not resemble the highly tapered nosecone of a loaded RPG-7.”
No — I went through this in too much detail to be unsure. In the camera footage, the RPG is obscure — and I spent some time denying it was there.
But it is. There’s a shot where you can see it (it’s not the camera). Moreover, the helicopter crew saw it, and that’s when they jump for the radio. Bear in mind that they weren’t looking at the grainy video feed we’ve got — they were looking right at it.
I myself started out with the ‘AK’ argument you employ. I ran off a good two pages of self-righteous posts on that theme. Indeed, every well-dressed young man about town in Iraq should always take his AK with him when he goes out — but the AK’s weren’t the casus belli. The RPG was. I promise. I didn’t want to see it myself, but it is there.
No Colin, there was no mention of the RPG to the mission controller for the initial permission to fire. The point is that there was a chain of command and the mission controller was not aware of an RPG when he first gave permission to fire.
The first time the RPG is mentioned was when he mistook the camera for an RPG. What is more, I think it’s likely the gunner was viewing and aiming through the same electro-optic sensor this video is taken from. The helicopter is probably circling at about 1 km distance (the rounds took around a second to make it to target) and every so often you see the video zoom out. If the gunner had much better vision on the scene then he really had no excuse not to recognise the camera. But I stress again, the mission controller gave permission to fire based on “weapon” and “five or six individuals with AK47s”, there is no need to second guess what the crew did or did not know at that point.
You really need to look at the whole thing again, not rely on memory. For instance, I had forgotten or missed the first time how the crew try to change the story later on. There is a whole lot that could be said about the wider aspects of this incident but I’m just focussing on these technicalities because I think your initial instincts were correct.
Bear in mind that these people were not trying to prepare a court case.
Go to around 0:55 on the Wikipedia footage. The helicopter is studying the group. They’ve seen the guy with the camera — which they have identified as a ‘weapon.’
They then start focusing on another guy. ‘Yeah, he’s got a weapon too.’ That’s the guy with the RPG. Keep watching him over the next few seconds. It swings around. You should be able to identify it.
The helicopter then requests permission to engage. They only identify the group as ‘five to six guys with AK-47′s’ — but bear in mind they’re not trying to convince a jury here. Just get permission to open fire.
They then see the cameraman taking a shot — which they mistakenly think is him shooting an RPG. They come around, get a clear shot, and take it.
Now, there was an RPG. They correctly identified it — and at that point asked for permission to open fire. They opened fire. That they mistakenly identified the camera as a ‘weapon’ as well doesn’t alter these facts. There was a group with an RPG, the identification of that RPG as a ‘weapon’ entered into the decision to open fire, and they opened fire.
One has to wonder: suppose ‘Crazy Horse 1/8′ hadn’t opened fire. Just what was that guy with the RPG going to do with it? The helicopter’s supposed to wait and find out? There are not a whole lot of innocent uses for an RPG — and there are American troops around.
This is war. This is what it’s like. As I say, if you don’t want this happening, don’t have wars.
Here we go. A post I made at the time (elsewhere) sez: “If you look around 3:49-3:50 — before the helicopter has clearance to fire but after they’ve been watching for a bit — there’s a guy in the middle of the group with something that looks much too long to be an AK…”
Go back and forth. You’ve got an RPG there — and the helicopter has asked for and is waiting for clearance to fire. What’s more, when cameraman goes to take his picture, you can see an American Hum Vee in the distance. Man with RPG, American units in range — what do you think the helicopter should do?
If anything, that the helicopter both has to ask for and get clearance to fire — and have gun camera footage to show what they fired at — suggests that we really were trying to do this the right way. The problem is more ‘this’ — war — rather than how we went about it.